 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
wilber
Banned
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 581
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 4:17 am Post subject: Archbishop of Canterbury and sharia law in Britain |
 |
|
The Archbishop of Canterbury drew criticism from across the political spectrum last night after he backed the introduction of sharia law in Britain and argued that adopting some aspects of it seemed "unavoidable". Rowan Williams, the most senior figure in the Church of England, said that giving Islamic law official status in the UK would help to achieve social cohesion because some Muslims did not relate to the British legal system.
Is he right?
Should we have different laws for different groups?
Muslim, christian, pagan, secular??
wilber |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 6:58 am Post subject: Re: Archbishop of Canterbury and sharia law in Britain |
|
|
| wilber wrote: | The Archbishop of Canterbury drew criticism from across the political spectrum last night after he backed the introduction of sharia law in Britain and argued that adopting some aspects of it seemed "unavoidable". Rowan Williams, the most senior figure in the Church of England, said that giving Islamic law official status in the UK would help to achieve social cohesion because some Muslims did not relate to the British legal system.
Is he right?
Should we have different laws for different groups?
Muslim, christian, pagan, secular??
|
No, he's ABSOLUTELY wrong. First of all, Sharia law is objectively evil and is used throughout the world to subjugate women into roles as second-class citizens. It has no place in any civilized country.
Secondly, the whole point of the 'rule of law' and 'equality under the law' (which by the way are some of the best ideas humans have ever had) is that there is ONE set of laws for everyone, and they apply equally to everyone.
We had this same debate in Canada, where a bunch of crazy Muslim groups wanted to establish Sharia courts. They argued that Jews have their own courts, so Muslims should have their own courts as well. The government responded by denying the Muslim's request AND by disbanding the Jewish courts. It was totally the right call.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:35 am Post subject: Re: Archbishop of Canterbury and sharia law in Britain |
|
|
| wilber wrote: | The Archbishop of Canterbury drew criticism from across the political spectrum last night after he backed the introduction of sharia law in Britain and argued that adopting some aspects of it seemed "unavoidable". Rowan Williams, the most senior figure in the Church of England, said that giving Islamic law official status in the UK would help to achieve social cohesion because some Muslims did not relate to the British legal system.
Is he right?
Should we have different laws for different groups?
Muslim, christian, pagan, secular??
wilber |
Hi Wilber,
Great topic!
In the one same Law of Love for all,
all other different laws work:
The Mosaic laws, Sharia laws, no laws!, Puritanical laws, No alcohol laws, et omnia.
Matthew 22:
36Master, which is the great commandment in the law?
37Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38This is the first and great commandment.
39And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40On these two commandments [OF THE LAW OF LOVE]
hang
all the law
[OF MOSES, OF SHARIA, OF PLYMOUTH BRETHREN, OF KING JOHN'S MAGNA CARTA AND ETC]and
the prophets.
Hope that helps.
Of course, it is NOT being implemented with that kind of comprehensive Love&Respect,
and so the Hate IN its introduction MUST cause social chaos and incohesion, the blame for which confsusion will be put on the Intro and its backers.
But I can see that God is in it since we have an Xtian backing MUSLIM laws!
hmmmmmmmmmm
with the Justice of the Law of Love and R
which confers justice on all legal systems
and
which makes all legal systems just,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 8:46 am Post subject: Re: Archbishop of Canterbury and sharia law in Britain |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
....
No, he's ABSOLUTELY wrong.
First of all, Sharia law is objectively evil and is used throughout the world to subjugate women into roles as second-class citizens. It has no place in any civilized country.
Secondly, the whole point of the 'rule of law' and 'equality under the law' (which by the way are some of the best ideas humans have ever had) is that there is ONE set of laws for everyone, and they apply equally to everyone.
We had this same debate in Canada, where a bunch of crazy Muslim groups wanted to establish Sharia courts. They argued that Jews have their own courts, so Muslims should have their own courts as well. The government responded by denying the Muslim's request AND by disbanding the Jewish courts. It was totally the right call. |
Good example of another RIGHT decision, P123!
But with the WRONG Hate left in place, that decision also can not and will not work.
Is why there was this thing in the brit colonies in north america called the War of Independence, then that thing called Civil war a la Montreal and the Quebecois!
sigh
with Love and R,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 9:24 am Post subject: Re: Archbishop of Canterbury and sharia law in Britain |
|
|
| atoz wrote: |
Good example of another RIGHT decision, P123!
But with the WRONG Hate left in place, that decision also can not and will not work.
|
Actually, it's been working just fine. What, now you're in favor of Sharia law courts being established in Canada?!?
Do you believe even a quarter of the things that you say, or are you just outrageously contrarian?
| atoz wrote: |
Is why there was this thing in the brit colonies in north america called the War of Independence, then that thing called Civil war a la Montreal and the Quebecois!
sigh |
There was a civil war in Quebec? This is news to me. I must not have been paying attention in history class.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wilber
Banned
Joined: 20 Dec 2007
Posts: 581
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 10:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
atoz wrote:
| Quote: | But I can see that God is in it since we have an Xtian backing MUSLIM laws!
hmmmmmmmmmm
|
I think many would debate whether he is a christian. He is an ordained druid priest. He cannot be a follower of Mohammed and at the same time be a follower of Christ. He should preach the love of christ - a love which does not tolerate evil.
Love is not the same thing as tolerance or appeasement.
P12 wrote:
| Quote: | No, he's ABSOLUTELY wrong. First of all, Sharia law is objectively evil and is used throughout the world to subjugate women into roles as second-class citizens. It has no place in any civilized country.
Secondly, the whole point of the 'rule of law' and 'equality under the law' (which by the way are some of the best ideas humans have ever had) is that there is ONE set of laws for everyone, and they apply equally to everyone.
|
Amen.
wilber |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
atoz
Emperor of the Solar System
Joined: 28 Jun 2007
Posts: 4189
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2008 11:44 am Post subject: Re: Archbishop of Canterbury and sharia law in Britain |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
....
Actually, it's been working just fine.
|
atoz: Just like the Titanic was working just fine ------- just before it hit that iceberg.
Always think about what you can't see.
Always use your imagination, in other words.
In other words, also use the eyes of your heart, not just the eyes of your head.
In other words, follow Einstein!smile
In one other word: Love!
| P1234567890 wrote: |
What, now you're in favor of Sharia law courts being established in Canada?!?
|
atoz: I am always only in favor of only Love and Respect for
either or
AND
both and!smile
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Do you believe even a quarter of the things that you say, |
atoz: How about ALL 100%?smile
Is ok: it's only simply beyond your 2-25% ken---for now!
When you kick your brain into its normal working mode, you'd be right here with me!smile
| P1234567890 wrote: |
... or are you just outrageously contrarian?
|
atoz: ah! The Sun of perceptibility is just dawning on the dark recesses of your imagination.
Contrarianism has to be outrageous to hates who hates opposites or the contras or your enemies.
Contrairies are simply extremely moderate and moderately extreme to me who loves his wheaties, er, ah, opposites.smile
Hark!
"Without contraries is no progression.
Attraction & repulsion,
reason & energy,
Love & Hate,
are necessary to human existence."
William Blake
"He who would do good to another must do it in Minute Particulars:
general Good is the plea of the scoundrel, hypocrite, and flatterer,
for Art and Science cannot exist but in minutely organized Particulars."
William Blake
We must pay Love and attention or Love and inattention to the big and minute, --- Einstein again, or Blake or both!smile
| atoz wrote: |
Is why there was this thing in the brit colonies in north america called the War of Independence, then that thing called Civil war a la Montreal and the Quebecois!
sigh |
There was a civil war in Quebec? This is news to me. I must not have been paying attention in history class.[/quote]
atoz: Self-examination and admission of inattention to detail in Love of self as inattentive is always so good and most good.smile
NB: ThOnk about, imagine civil war in the heart---once again, imagine what you can't see with your regular eye--- and Rene Leveque will all come back to you and what's under K/T levels will come to you!smile
Remember yet?smile
"A fool sees not the same tree that a wise man sees."
William Blake
Joke for you:
Do you know why people below sea-level can't see?
They are below SEE level.
Of course! lol
Now Substitute 'Love' for 'Sea,'
and you'll also see why much truth is also said in jest!
sigh
In Love & Respect of myself as all fools, scoundrels, hypocrites, and flatterers and the inattentive, and their opposites or conradictions,
atoz |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2raeder
Newbie Alert
Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Posts: 4
Location: CO
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm new here and I have to say I'm somewhat shocked that anyone would accuse the leader of one of the largest groups of Christians in the world of "not being Christian." I find it disturbing that someone here would assign someone else a religious status.
I would also hesitate to deem Sharia as "evil." If there are elements of Sharia law in your own code of ethics then the two are not exclusive, not independent, and you cannot logically believe one while calling the other wrong. If you consider the diverging points of Sharia to be "evil" then it would require an encyclopedic understanding of Sharia to identify these points.
Understanding what Williams said requires understanding the typical Anglican mindset. The Anglican church was formed by a simple break from the Roman Catholic church. It was not reformed, as Lutherans, Calvinists, Anabaptists, etc. were. The biggest difference came as a result of the structure of power being essentially turned upside down. This created a situation in which church members had to work with each other, discuss issues, and come to resolutions rather than having issues resolved by the clergy or ultimately the Pope. I think that it is a very Anglican mindset to try to be inclusive (with respect to Muslims this is culturally) and try to understand others.
Williams simply applied this mindset to the issue of migration and integration in the UK. In my experience Muslim immigrants in Europe are kind of like Hispanic immigrants in the United States in terms of how they are viewed and treated. Williams never advocated that any laws be changed, but rather recognized that many existing laws were compatible with Islamic law and that there needs to be social cohesion. I think this would contrast with recent events in France in which head scarves were banned, for example.
Rowan Williams is frequently in the news, unfortunately. I believe he is a brilliant man but not a politician by any stretch of the imagination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
First of all, welcome to the forum! But let's jump right in:
| 2raeder wrote: |
I would also hesitate to deem Sharia as "evil."
|
No, it's pretty evil! Do you know what Sharia law is all about?
| 2raeder wrote: |
If there are elements of Sharia law in your own code of ethics then the two are not exclusive, not independent, and you cannot logically believe one while calling the other wrong. |
This does not follow. Hitler breathed air and thought that eating food was a good idea. I breathe air and think that eating food is a good idea. And yet I stand on pretty solid moral and logical ground when I condemn many of Hitler's other ideas.
The same reasoning applies to Sharia. Even if it overlaps slightly with Western morals and laws, we can still criticize it.
| 2raeder wrote: |
If you consider the diverging points of Sharia to be "evil" then it would require an encyclopedic understanding of Sharia to identify these points. |
Not really. A pretty superficial understanding of Sharia highlights these points well enough. For example, it has no room for a separation between church and state, and it doesn't grant women many rights. Those things alone should be enough for any right-thinking individual to condemn Sharia.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2raeder
Newbie Alert
Joined: 15 Feb 2008
Posts: 4
Location: CO
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
No, it's pretty evil! Do you know what Sharia law is all about? |
Yes, I've given college lectures on Islam.
| P1234567890 wrote: | This does not follow. Hitler breathed air and thought that eating food was a good idea. I breathe air and think that eating food is a good idea. And yet I stand on pretty solid moral and logical ground when I condemn many of Hitler's other ideas.
The same reasoning applies to Sharia. Even if it overlaps slightly with Western morals and laws, we can still criticize it. |
Criticism is different than a black and white label. When you criticize specific elements you've identified areas of divergence.
The Hitler example is a straw man type exaggeration. We're talking about two specific codes of ethics here, not a code of ethics and pizzas.
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Not really. A pretty superficial understanding of Sharia highlights these points well enough. For example, it has no room for a separation between church and state, and it doesn't grant women many rights. Those things alone should be enough for any right-thinking individual to condemn Sharia. |
I disagree with you about your interpretation of Sharia here, but you've highlighted specific elements and specific interpretations here - not the code in its entirety. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 8324
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 1:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| 2raeder wrote: |
Yes, I've given college lectures on Islam.
|
Do you have a graduate degree law or comparative religions or some other related area?
| 2raeder wrote: |
The Hitler example is a straw man type exaggeration. We're talking about two specific codes of ethics here, not a code of ethics and pizzas.
|
I think that the analogy was applicable, but if you want a different one which is more centered on a code of ethics and law, then no problem:
There are countries in which female genital mutilation is legal. In these countries, murder is illegal. You said,
| 2raeder wrote: | | If there are elements of Sharia law in your own code of ethics then the two are not exclusive, not independent, and you cannot logically believe one while calling the other wrong. |
Well, in my society murder is also illegal, so by your reasoning I cannot condemn the laws in those countries which permit female genital mutilation... But clearly I can, and not only is it moral for me to do so, but it would be immoral for me NOT to do so.
| 2raeder wrote: |
I disagree with you about your interpretation of Sharia here, but you've highlighted specific elements and specific interpretations here - not the code in its entirety. |
Can you give me a single example of a Muslim country ruled by Sharia law in which people (and especially women) have comparable rights to those afforded by the laws of any first world Western country?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
