- This topic has 33 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 4 months ago by
.
- Posts
I note that the Archbishop of Canterbury is advocating the introduction of Sharia Law into the UK, in order to help ‘social cohesion’.
In what way would one set of laws for some, and another set of laws for the rest, help ‘social cohesion’? Personally, I think the Archbishop must have been on the Supernova Woodbines to come up with such an ill-thought, and sectarian, statement. In fact, I’d consider going as far as suggesting he was an out-of-touch, slavering, ar*sehole, if it wasn’t for fear that it might upset someone.
The UK has a set of laws, developed over centuries, some good, some shocking, but they are there for everyone. Anyone who doesn’t want to live under the laws of the UK, can pi*ss right off and live somewhere else. If a Muslim wants to live under Sharia Law, then there are at least a dozen states where he or she will be accomodated.
If Sharia Law is ever introduced here in the UK, rest assured I’ll be quickly campaigning to live under the laws laid down by my own religion, rather than those passed by Parliament.
Yours sincerely
Grasshopper
Elder of the Latter-Day Church of Full Bongs and Free Blow-Jobs.A number of financial institutions in the UK operate Sharia investments which allow people of the muslim faith to make investments which are not in conflict with their religious principles.
KCC
That’s just ethical investment, and not ‘The Law’. It’s no different from any other ethical investment funds, of which there are plenty outside the Muslim faith.
Rob
Grasshopper, do you not think you are guilty of tarring Sharia Law with the same brush as the extreme Muslim Fundamentalists Groups, most famously Al Qaeda?
No I don’t.
I don’t pretend to know the intricacies of Sharia – and I don’t need to – which is my point really.
I live in a country that has a set of laws applicable to every man and woman, regardless of their race, colour, faith or creed. The equanimity our law delivers, is all that is required, as far as I am concerned (though I’ll concede that the application is sometimes a bit dodge).
It seems to me that Muslims, for it is indeed they who I’m talking about, have a choice – one that is very straightforward.
They either abide by the laws of this land, and thereby implicitly accept they are the same as everyone else and thereby implicitly increase ‘social cohesion’.
Or they determine that Allah comes first, everything else is immaterial, and they move to a land where they can observe their religion in the most profound way, under the laws mandated by their God.
Anything else is a dilution of what the UK stands for (in law), and will lead to even greater division amongst the people of this sceptred isle – no matter their religious persuasion.
Couldnt agree more Grasshopper…(which is rare)
We have a large muslim population which in recent years, particularly in the post "7/7" era have felt more and more marginalised in our society
Walking down the Edgware road just this lunchtime i saw plenty of those all black Burkas and examples of the lady being made to walk behind the man. That is self appointed "marginalisation" as far as im concerned
But it goes without saying that many elements of Sharia law are an affront to civilised society
I also agree with Grasshopper
I sometimes think that there must be a mysterious virus spreading around this country which causes a human to lose their common sense. Our Politicians and Council leaders and Govt officials have all caught it and it seems that the Archbishop of Canterbury has got it now. One set of laws for muslims and another for others
This country is more divided now than it has ever been in my lifetime with it’s mish mash of citizens and cultures and the Archbishop wants to make things even worse.
Pete
This country is more divided now than it has ever been in my lifetime with it’s mish mash of citizens and cultures and the Archbishop wants to make things even worse.
I think this country benefits from immigration and new cultures and most cultures and citizens strongly respect our values. Even most muslims do but….
…a significant number (most polls would suggest its around 20-30%) dont
Garbage of the first order. I suspect it was only said to balance the nonsense spouted by the Bishop of somewhereorother about ‘no-go’ areas for non-Muslims. Just about the only common ground we can have in a widely diverse society is the law of the land, built up over centuries. If enough people feel strongly that Sharia law should be incorporated into British law, then they should stand for Parliament, form a party and get elected.
Grasshopper, if you fill in the right forms, you might get a lottery grant for that new religion.
This is a non-starter, and I’m slightly surprised at the Archbishop who is usually very astute and politically aware.
Can you imagine the legal arguments in court around whether the ‘offender’ is actually a Muslim or not?
Certainly, I have no problem with legislation being periodically reviewed to ensure it is relevant and applicable to as many likely citizens, scenarios and situations as possible, but…
Laws must be common to all and applied with equal fairness to every citizen. This is a fundamental principal for any just judiciary system, and for me is non-negotiable. The idea that this could be varied as suggested is (essentially) ridiculous.
The Orthodox Jewish Beth Din in force in the UK.
“In Jewish Law, Jewish parties are forbidden to take their civil disputes to a secular court and are required to have those disputes adjudicated by a Beth Din. The London Beth Din sits as an arbitral tribunal in respect of civil disputes and the parties to any such dispute are required to sign an Arbitration Agreement prior to a hearing taking place. The effect of this is that the award given by the Beth Din has the full force of an Arbitration Award and may be enforced (with prior permission of the Beth Din) by the civil courts”.
“The activities of the London Beth Din encompass all aspects of London Beth Din work including Dinei Torah (court cases), Gittin (divorces), Geirut (conversions), Shechita (Jewish slaughter), Kashrut, personal status, and all the trials and tribulations of major community life”.
…from the London Beth Din website.
http://www.theus.org.uk/the_united_synagogue/the_london_beth_din/about_us/…for what is proposed, is there a difference?
I think a clear distinction can be drawn between criminal laws and civil laws pertaining to births, deaths, marriages, divorces, and so on.
With sufficient security and welfare checks in place, I have no issue with events such as weddings taking place under particular religious processes. Providing this can be ‘translated’ into equivalent UK rules and legal requirements where necessary, it is just common sense and respectful to other’s beliefs.
But, for example, if a group of people decided to stone someone to death and then claimed that it wasn’t murder, I’d say "Oi! Stonespeople! No!!!"…
If people wish to live by some obscure religious law that is their perogative and their lifestyle and as long as it doesn’t interfere with others or frighten the horses then fine.
However, if the religious law in in contradiction with the law of the land, then the law of the land must have precedence. If these religious adherants don’t like it – tough!!!
Indeed, I would like to go one step further and move to a completely secular society with the church being disestablished. I fail to see why some guys in fancy dress should be given automatic seats in the House of Lords just because they are Bishops.Or why "the church" should be so intertwined with the state.
No
This is what he said
Dr Williams says the argument that "there’s one law for everybody… I think that’s a bit of a danger".
If there are elements in Sharia or Jewish law which are not in conflct with Uk law then no one would complain. Investments and contracts are an example…maybe
But hes stating that there should not be a requirement to observe the UK legal system and our bvalues
So honor killings will be just fine so long as they are defended on "religous grounds"
Clivex the Archbishop said quite the opposite, and that any "inhumane" aspects of Sharia law such as public flogging should never be condoned anywhere.
In which case I refer you to Post #1 on the thread.
Sharia – as Gods Law – cannot be introduced in parts. It is all or nothing.
Fk me pink – if I can understand this, and the fecking Archbishop of Canterbury can’t, I’m glad I converted to the the Church of Full Bongs and Free Blow-Jobs.
The top man in the C of E is clearly a bufoon.
Anyway, the issue I tried to bring forward is the suggestion that we should have different laws for different sections of society, and that this would somehow, by some form of make-believe, wan*kfest, socially-inclusive, religious osmosis, lead to more ‘social cohesion’.
Such an argument is fundamentally (if you’ll pardon the pun) wrong, and would produce the exact opposite to the desired social effect…….imo.
robnorth, you’re wrong actually.
Ethical investment is a completely separate subject.
KCC
I disagree with you. In gernal terms I don’t think it is.
Rob
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.