Sharia "Inevitable" in Britain
Hot on the heels of Britain’s Department for Work and Pensions allowing extra benefits for polygamists comes this pronouncement from the Archbishop of Canterbury:
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4’s World at One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.
…
Dr Williams says the argument that “there’s one law for everybody… I think that’s a bit of a danger”.
I disagree. The idea that there is one law for everyone, regardless of race, creed, or color IS, in real and practical sense, the essence of social cohesion – much more so than an ethereal concept like patriotism or Britishness.
More:
“There’s a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law.”
Dr Williams adds: “What we don’t want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people’s religious consciences.”
Ideally that would not happen. Hindsight clearly shows us that western nations would have been better off having thought of this little truism before allowing millions of Muslims to emigrate in.
The law of the land should adapt to the changing face of the society it governs. However, there is a rather distinct line between modifying the law and destroying it simply to accommodate newcomers’ preferences.
This is a line that should not be crossed. Indeed, the DWP should not have crossed it. As it is, the danger comes more from that and other seemingly unimportant precedents as from Rowan Williams’ artless statement.
This is an archbishop? Wow, I’m an atheist and I think maybe a little more umph in his defense of his Christian values is in order. He’s going to need a napkin for his chin from groveling so low.
All Western societies hold certain rights to be sacred without the need of a religion. The biggest right is the right to equality amongst all citizens. Sharia law is not about equality, not by any length of the imagination. How utterly hypocritical, in the very unconvincing guise of cultural diversity you say "Well, maybe if we allow them to make mini-theocracies within our land they might not kill us" I mean, who really cares if their women and girls are being brutalized and denied the most basic human rights.
Ugh.
I’m all for cultural diversity, but I also see absolutely nothing wrong or bigoted with us asserting that we think OUR cultural values are BETTER, they are SUPERIOR to that of fundamentalist Islam, and it’s these superior values that make us successful, that make us the sort of countries they migrate to, since their sharia-ruled lands are hell holes.
how does sharia law deal with marital disputes and financial matters
He’s not just an archbishop, he’s The Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the worldwide Anglican Communion. Pretty influential guy. Also a pretty thoughtful one, typically. I’m going to have to see if I can find out more about his thoughts before I sucumb to my gut instict to condemn it.
The phrase "cultural chamberlain" immediately springs to mind.
Makes me glad to be a Catholic- the Bishop of Rome uses plenty of umph, as we recall from his Regensburg speech last fall.
From Spain comes this:
Nihat, the PP is going to lose those elections and they know it. They can make those sorts of promises, safe in the knowledge that they won’t actually have to follow through on them. Lately they’ve been saying things that are actually true, for the first time acknowledging that our current immigration phenomenon isn’t all peaches and cream, in an attempt to get more votes. Unfortunately for them it’s too little, too late, at least for this election cycle.
Claudia, thanks for info re: the PP. I wouldn’t know their chances of winning.
"Cultural Chamberlain" is an excellent term for the Archbishop of Canterbury. He is walking proof that George Orwell was onto something when he remarked that some ideas were so stupid only an intellectual would believe them. Dr. Williams is clueless about the duties of the ABC, and he should resign so that he can return to the ivory tower, where he and like-minded people can ruminate on the question of compatibility of sharia and English common law, not to mention the question of the propriety of the head of the Church of England subordinating his followers rights to a foreign religious faith. The man is, to put it charitably, clueless.
I am grateful for the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod, which has not fallen prey to this self-destructive nihilism that has overcome much of US ‘main line’ Protestantism.