Archbishop of Canterbury Calls For Use of Sharia Law in UK

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Pearl

Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Joined
Dec 1, 2003
Messages
5,741
Location
NYC
The Archbishop of Canterbury caused consternation yesterday by calling for Islamic law to be recognised in Britain.

He declared that sharia and Parliamentary law should be given equal legal status so the people could choose which governs their lives.

This raised the prospect of Islamic courts in Britain with full legal powers to approve polygamous marriages, grant easy divorce for men and prevent finance firms from charging interest.

His comments in a BBC interview and a lecture to lawyers were condemned at a time when government ministers are striving to encourage integration and stop the nation from "sleepwalking to segregation".

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/li...tml?in_article_id=512876&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

:huh: So, I guess he's OK with adulterous women and homosexuals being stoned to death?

And is this really the way to handle an increasingly diverse nation? I think it wouldn't put a stop to segregation, but create more of it. There wouldn't be a single Britain, but a Muslim Britain, and a non-Muslim Britain.
 
It seems that many and even most religions do not lead to sound, rational thinking.

The Buddhist belief system seems fairly benign and healthy.
 
Are you criticizing Islam? If so, why?
 
I've been questioning his sense of judgment for a while now, and this makes me question it further.
 
Pearl said:
Are you criticizing Islam? If so, why?

I think most religions
are not based on good sound thinking,

That would include Islam and many forms of what people are calling Christianity, today.

I did not want to imply that I believe this about all religions.

That is why I mentioned Buddhism.

The Buddhist traditions i.e., meditations, finding inner peace, and accepting that suffering is part of the human condition seem to have some good benefit and do not harm other people.


As for this article, I have heard it in the news cycles today.

And I do not agree with the Archbishop.

I do not believe governments should respect religious laws. (period)

People that choose to practice, follow or be subject to Religious decrees?, that is fine for them.
After all it is a life style choice.
 
Last edited:
Buddhism has definitely been spread by the sword on occasion historically, and in Sri Lanka Buddhist monks have often been leaders of Sinhalese militant groups. Many Westerners would certainly find certain cultural standards concerning women and marriage (since the above excerpt touches on those) prevalent in some traditionally Buddhist regions disagreeable. Now I don't personally think for a minute that Buddhism innately "causes" people to hold such beliefs or perform such actions, but then I also don't buy the idea that you can predict what sort of behavior to expect from adherents of any religion simply by looking at its scriptures and core forms of observance. Especially when its adherents happen to be the politically, socially, economically and/or culturally dominant group in a given area.
melon said:
I've been questioning his sense of judgment for a while now, and this makes me question it further.
No kidding...
 
Last edited:
yolland said:
Buddhism has definitely been spread by the sword on occasion historically, and in Sri Lanka Buddhist monks have often been leaders of Sinhalese militant groups. Many Westerners would certainly find certain cultural standards concerning women and marriage (since the above excerpt touches on those) prevalent in some traditionally Buddhist regions disagreeable. Now I don't personally think for a minute that Buddhism innately "causes" people to hold such beliefs or perform such actions, but then I also don't buy the idea that you can predict what sort of behavior to expect from adherents of any religion simply by looking at its scriptures and core forms of observance. Especially when its adherents happen to be the politically, socially, economically and/or culturally dominant group in a given area.




Yolland,

Do you support the Archbishop's statements?


My opinions are based on observations of how religions are practiced here in the United States, and in particular with my interactions with adherents of said religions.


Am I surprised that "in groups" will oppress "out groups", in some parts of the world? Even when they are Buddhist?
No.
 
deep said:
Yolland,

Do you support the Archbishop's statements?
melon said:
I've been questioning his sense of judgment for a while now, and this makes me question it further.
yolland said:
No kidding...
My opinions are based on observations of how religions are practiced here in the United States, and in particular with my interactions with adherents of said religions.
OK. That wasn't clear to me at all from the way your earlier posts were worded.
 
I have been over-occupied with a huge project (for a few weeks) that will be over tomorrow night


I do take responsibility, for my less than clear postings of late,

I have not had the time to follow up with the information to support my writings

I owe it to the members of this forum to do better
 
I can relate...I've been dealing with an unwelcome family crisis for about a week now myself.

We all have our ups and downs whether in terms of thoroughness or just having a shorter fuse than usual...it's to be expected. :)
 
The sainted bearded wonder has completely lost the plot.

I'm not precisely sure on what the purpose of the Church of England is at this point in time, but it is a church that started off by giving approval to the King of England to cut his wife's head off, so giving approval to Islamist mysogynist bigots is probably fairly consistent.
 
I think it's quite cunning, I mean the CoE has been faithless for a long time, probably good for the Church to embrace people who actually believe in God.

At this pace when the crypto-Muslim Prince Charles gets to the throne the church can match his views :wink:
 
financeguy said:
I'm not precisely sure on what the purpose of the Church of England is at this point in time,

It seems to be little more than a cultural artifact to me. Much like the monarchy itself, actually.
 
Give enlightenment values a boost by pushing for disestablishment.

Love this quote "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences." This from a man who feels religious conciences can stand over free speech.
 
Last edited:
This is a law that doesent recognise women as equals.
It accepts public stonings for women who have been raped.
It allows limbs to be cut off as punishment.

Sharia law belongs in the middle ages and has no place ANYWHERE in todays world.
If muslims dont want to accept British Law, they should feel free to leave the UK!
 
Last edited:
vaz02 said:
Religion should have no place in politics.

This should be the answer, rather than appealing to selectively histrionic images of women being beaten and limbs being cut off.

Christianity should have no place in politics, just as Islam should have no place in politics. That's because, as this thread colorfully illustrates, religion is not guided by reason, logic, or tolerance, but by inflexible ideology that often comes before individual freedoms. Neither has a place in 21st century law.
 
deep said:
It seems that many and even most religions do not lead to sound, rational thinking.

melon said:
That's because, as this thread colorfully illustrates, religion is not guided by reason, logic, or tolerance, but by inflexible ideology that often comes before individual freedoms.



deep said:
As for this article, I have heard it in the news cycles today.
And I do not agree with the Archbishop. I do not believe governments should respect religious laws. (period)



melon said:
vaz02 said:
Religion should have no place in politics.
This should be the answer, rather than appealing to selectively histrionic images of women being beaten and limbs being cut off.

Christianity should have no place in politics, just as Islam should have no place in politics. … Neither has a place in 21st century law.

should I question your judgement? :wink:
 
Last edited:
deep said:
should I question your judgement? :wink:

Maybe it wasn't too clear, but when I said that I was questioning "his" judgment, I was referring to the Archbishop of Canterbury, not you.

Hope I didn't create any misunderstandings.
 
Dalton said:
If it weren't for the copious amounts of history that point to the exact opposite conclusion, I might agree with you.

Shortsightedness FTW.

Such a statement requires examples to support it.

I'd be interested in reading them.
 
You mean the easy ones like Kant and Kierkegaard?

Or I actually just read a book by the guy who was the head of the human genome project. I can't think of his name off the top of my head, but he was a Christian.

Look, I think that the rigidity of Fundamentalists of all sorts (even secular philosophies) is batshit crazy. But only someone with a VERY limited knowledge of history could say that religion has excluded reasonable discussion. The fact of the matter is that many of history's most important thinkers were men and women of faith.

If you dig but a little into history of faith (be it Islam or Christianity) you will find that we are in a particularly disturbing cycle of fundamentalism that is unfortunate, but no where near representative of the whole movement.
 
But isn't there a difference between men and women of faith thinking well, and men and women of faith using their faith as an argument?

I think that's where the difference is.
 
Dalton said:
You mean the easy ones like Kant and Kierkegaard?

They were philosophers, who just happened to be Christians. The same goes for Averroës.

The key difference here is that none of these ideas were stuck in the realm of "mythic speech," whereupon all questioning and criticism is henceforth forbidden. Religion, in contrast, demands adherence to ideas or beliefs that are either nonsensical, from a reason or logic POV, or requires supernatural explanations that cannot be empirically tested.

Or I actually just read a book by the guy who was the head of the human genome project. I can't think of his name off the top of my head, but he was a Christian.

The Human Genome Project is a clear example of science, not religion. Again, the personal religious affiliation of the head of the project is irrelevant.

Look, I think that the rigidity of Fundamentalists of all sorts (even secular philosophies) is batshit crazy. But only someone with a VERY limited knowledge of history could say that religion has excluded reasonable discussion. The fact of the matter is that many of history's most important thinkers were men and women of faith.

If you dig but a little into history of faith (be it Islam or Christianity) you will find that we are in a particularly disturbing cycle of fundamentalism that is unfortunate, but no where near representative of the whole movement.

I am completely and 100% okay with religion in the personal sphere, as long as no one is forced to partake and everyone is free to leave, if they fundamentally disagree.

But when it comes to the theoretical application of Mosaic or Sharia law in government? Hell no.
 
Dalton said:
What do you mean by 'using their faith as an argument'?

What I'm trying to say is that I think these people being faithful had nothing to do with the logic they brought. I think their religion didn't play a part in their influence.
 
Back
Top Bottom