yup I know that happens with orthodox jews but I dont think orthodox jews are the same, please name me a list of countrys with orthodox jewish law , I can name you a number with shariah . in fact I can name countrys where most of the people are technically muslim where they have had civil wars over bringing in sharia , even on the rumour it may come in . jews do not try to get converts or try to get orthodox jewish law as the national law over the world
yeah. anyway, i think what is a major problem with sharia law is that it applies to people within the group whether they want to be in that group or not. should a daughter decide she no longer wants to maintain that lifestyle, sharia law dictates that it doesn't matter and she will be dealt with within the confines of sharia. the same thing goes for those men who feel the same way. though i don't see why they wouldn't, they seem to thave a pretty sweet deal.
Turkey for one I should imagine. Camel Attaturk or someoneorother hahahaha you can imagine jews wanting to submit to Shariah law
oh, no, here's a fun new bit to add to the mix, inbreeding muslims. : http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3342040.ece
I just realised maybe if they sold it to us like an advert. ya know jazz it up a bit. They could have two women in Bikini's on the beach explaining to us how by accepting shariah law itr will make men more attractive to women, and how their nipples tingle at the thought of a good stoning down at the local village green where some old whore of 18 would be stoned to death for accepting a lift off a man who wasnt her relative - even tho the man was a bus driver and the bus was crammed with people
Interpretations of this have got down to the essentials and they are not that Williams wants to see Shari'ah law in Britain, but that we should not see the legal system simply as an exercise in the application of universal principles - and it does have to be based on universal principles and rights - but that it should also provide for community fora in which elements of religiously derived laws can complement the existing legal process. There is very little in his argument that is as highly controversial as it is being portrayed. Personally, despite being an atheist, I have a lot of respect for Williams and his opinions on many issues. I would, however, disagree with him in this instance. Whilst the substance of what he's saying is fairly benign, I am opposed to the application of any religious law in what is, for all practical purposes, a secular society. Secularity should ensure the freedom to worship for all, however the universals that should be applied must be areligious ones. For example, Catholic adoption agencies should not be permitted to opt out of allowing homosexual couples to adopt. This is a universal right that must, as such, be applied universally regardless of religious sensibilities....
I would go further and say that the muslim religion should either be given legitimacy in law and have the extent to which that religion can foist its values on us written in the statute books, or it should be given no legitimacy whatsoever and the law should shore up any legal debate surrounding what any religion may say or preach. If the queen can be so confined and restricted so can other religious leaders but somewhere along the line the law must be stated to people who want religion to be our politics - we must dispell and destroy any hope of a britain with shariah law
There are already laws against hate speech. It is illegal to incite others to violence. The preaching of Islam as a religion or with political goals, barring incitement to violent activity as covered by existing laws, should not be curtailed in free society. I disagree strongly with political Islam - in many ways I approach it as I would fascism - however the consequence of both in power has often been the oppression of the right to offer a different opinion. It must remain a central tenet of liberal democracy that anyone can offer a different, and controversial opinion, and have it challenged or overcome by the force of reason. The very fact that we, as a nation, are having this debate is testament to that....
I am saying that debate must end in action. People dont want shariah law and to protect britain the idea of a competing legislative body must be forever obliterated by making it illegal for religious ministers to propose it
P-P is right to say that Dr Williams's argument is much milder and more tentative than it has been portrayed in the media or on internet fora. Sadly as I suggested in my initial post, people have been leaping to condemn him without taking the trouble to read his speech - and that seems to include Gordon Brown. For the record, I am also opposed to any kind of religious insititutions getting involved in the regulation of community life: I'd like to see the complete abolition of blasphemy laws and "faith schools" for instance, including Anglican and Catholic schools. But I don't think Williams is either wicked or stupid and he deserves to have his arguments treated with respect.
Thankyou Peace for this very clear analysis of Williams' argument; you said what I was struggling to articulate to myself. To me the speech is tedious casuistry, but I have yet to encounter any academic theology at this level which is not this kind of hair-splitting big-end-or-little-endianism. When reading his speech I repeatedly found myself thinking that, in legal terms, all these issues are already dealt with without the need for any recourse to religious tradition to enter the picture at all. Secularism and church-state separation are the hallmark of a free and liberal democracy - we have that in practice if not in law, and bringing in elements of religious law would be contrary to this principle. I'm not sure exactly to what extent Williams is suggesting that we do that, I'm not sure even he is. In cultural terms, Williams may well be right that there is a serious problem about immigrant communities feeling entirely disaffected and excluded from social and legal processes and that this disaffection cements division, separateness and does not help with longer term integration. I don't think a formal recognition of elements of sharia as a cultural tradition will help either; like faith schools they are a step in the wrong direction in terms of integration, they would reinforce the sense of separateness we are trying to overcome. What we want is for sharia tradition to be as alien to UK-born offspring of new immigrants as the culture of Pakistan and Jamaica are today to the second and third generation offspring of those immigrants from half a century ago. This slow process of integration is inevitable, just as is the fact that there will be tensions caused by the first generations of immigrant families who never fully 'arrive' or 'belong' in the way that those born here naturally do. The danger is that in trying to ameliorate the immediate problems of tension and conflict we ignore - in fact discourage - the inevitable gradual dissipation of these cultural affiliations. Within a generation or two these problems will dissappear, just as they always have done.
Sharia Law is inevitable. These are the words of Rowan Williams. His statement came after mine. What with the rise of muslims in the Uk and the growing population of immigrants. It is just common sense that such a reality will one day take affect. As devastating as it may be, but so is New labour When society can't face the truth, everyone starts harping on about resignations.
kissy kiss kiss, coochie Tigger! he loves you too ! Words which, as a leading exponent of the church and a sitting representative of the house of lords, he had no right to utter. He spoke those words in his capacity as a lord as a defender of the christian faith and a lord of the british parliament. That is what is offensive. They are not words the British population recognise as representative of their political and religious viewpoint Sharia Law will not be tollerated here, not now, not 10 years from now, not a century down the line. People will engage in open hostility toward Islam rather than accept such stoneage barbarity and frankly illiterate viewpoints
oh YEAH. you guys have LORDS. jeez, i totally forgot about that. what a fucking TRIP. so, they have more voting power than regular citizens or something?
