Archbishop Rowan Williams wants sharia law

[Varaj]

Calls for Sharia law here (http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?c=JPArticle&cid=1202246347570&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull)

Church of England says GTFO. Here (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3335026.ece)


Interesting.

[Eliezer]

David Blunkett says that the UK adopting sharia law would be "catastrophic" (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_2719815.html?menu=)

Basic reasoning: affiliation with a particular group does not change your status under UK law.

Notable Quote:
We have affiliations to football clubs, to cricket teams, to all sorts of things that aren't central to our citizenship and the acceptance of that in terms of a common society.

"We don't have affiliations when it comes to the question of the law. And when it comes to equality under the law, we have to be rigorous in terms of making sure people do not find themselves excluded from it because of cultural or faith reasons."

Formalising sharia law "would be wrong democratically and philosophically but it would be catastrophic in terms of social cohesion", he warned.

I must say that I agree with this reasoning. Having a different set of laws for a particular religious group under a secular government presents moral problems.

[Hatter]

It presents legal problems too, I don't see how it could possibly work.

[FeatsofClay]

um...

[The Winslow]

Sharia should be constitutionalised because it is "unavoidable"? It should be accepted because it is "unavoidable"? It should be embraced because it is "unavoidable"?

That's the logic of a collabo.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Oh no he fucking didn't (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581)

[Varaj]

Oh no he fucking didn't (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581)

Based on your links yes he does, he just defends it more in your link. "Oh it isn't as bad as everybody says, and there is more to it that what you see in Saudi Arabia, and as long as people get to choose it is ok."

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Based on your links yes he does, he just defends it more in your link. "Oh it isn't as bad as everybody says, and there is more to it that what you see in Saudi Arabia, and as long as people get to choose it is ok."

"The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law."

[Varaj]

On a side note, isn't what Williams wants very similar to what has been discussed in Canada?

[Eliezer]

Oh no he fucking didn't (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581)

Yes, he fucking did:
"now that principle that there's one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a Western liberal democracy, but I think it's a misunderstanding to suppose that that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and the law needs to take some account of that, so an approach to law which simply said, 'There is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or your allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts'. I think that's a bit of a danger."

Somehow the idea that the law doesn't apply equally to all people in the state is the danger. I don't know what it's like in the UK, but in the US the civil war was pretty much fought over that principle. The Southern states seceded from the union (and they initiated it) because they did not like the idea of having to follow the laws that they felt the northerners would write.

As far as the Archbishop's assertion that we recognize under the law religious sensitivities in the right to refuse to participate in the conscientious objectors of war or abortion performance: that is all well and true. However, it should be noted that the right to avoid a professional or civic duty only applies in avoiding actively doing something and even in those circumstances other duties apply: for instance a doctor may not refuse to perform an abortion if immediate and imminent threat to a women's life exists an the doctor is the only one available to perform the life saving abortion.

It is not the same thing as saying "my wife should not have visitation rights to our 12 year old daughter because under sharia the mother has custodial rights until the age of 12 and then they go to the rights fully transfer to the father."

As much as you may want to justify this man, the idea that you achieve a cohesive society by saying that the laws apply differently to different individuals based upon affiliation with a sub group within the society is both fallacious and dangerous in my mind.

I might be willing to give him more of a benefit of the doubt if he could have provided a single example of how sharia could be effectively and fairly implemented under British law.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Yes, he fucking did:
"now that principle that there's one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a Western liberal democracy, but I think it's a misunderstanding to suppose that that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and the law needs to take some account of that, so an approach to law which simply said, 'There is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or your allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts'. I think that's a bit of a danger."

What did you think he meant by that statement? Because I suspect we're reading totally opposite things into it

[Varaj]

"The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law."

Do you mean a formal legal proposal to be voted on? That would be correct he did not.
But he certainly said it is a bad idea not having it and that the UK should have it. The lecture seems to me to be a starter for offering a proposal for introducing sharia law into the UK.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

But he certainly said it is a bad idea not having it and that the UK should have it.

Really? Where?

The lecture seems to me to be a starter for offering a proposal for introducing sharia law into the UK.

Even though he says it wasn't? Look the Jews already decide what counts as kosher and the CofE has the right to decide who does and who doesn't get married in a CofE church. Are you saying that these are bad things?

[Eliezer]

now that principle that there's one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a Western liberal democracy, but I think it's a misunderstanding to suppose that that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and the law needs to take some account of that, so an approach to law which simply said, 'There is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or your allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts'. I think that's a bit of a danger."


What did you think he meant by that statement? Because I suspect we're reading totally opposite things into it

I thought it was clear before, but I'll try to restate. It appears that the Archbishop is saying that the courts ought to consider a persons affiliations in applying the law. I don't know exactly what "processes of the court" would mean besides that.

I'm saying that is total crap. The law ought to be applied to people equally irrespective of affiliation. I don't even agree with his assessment that it already changes. The only "considerations" the archbishop cites are more considerations of declared moral stance, as opposed to affiliation. To avoid abortion performance you don't have to declare yourself a member of a state recognized organization that opposes religion do you? You just have to declare a moral stance n the subject. As far as the Jewish arbitration courts, it is a matter that the subjects volunteer to agree to and it would never come to the courts unless someone felt there was a legal remedy there. The same applies to non-religious extra-judicial arbitration that the BBB in the US suggests people use. The courts actively encourage people to resolve conflict and other issues without the courts. To be honest, a Muslim couple can divorce under sharia circumstances if they so desire in the US. It's called an "uncontested" divorce and they can set the terms of the division of property and child custody on their own. The only time the courts have to get involved is to approve the plan (signature by judge) or to arbitrate when people can't agree amicably.

What the archbishop appears to be advocating either already exists or flies in the face of accepted understandings of how the law applies to people.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I thought it was clear before, but I'll try to restate. It appears that the Archbishop is saying that the courts ought to consider a persons affiliations in applying the law. I don't know exactly what "processes of the court" would mean besides that.

I'm saying that is total crap. The law ought to be applied to people equally irrespective of affiliation.

Should a gynecologist be forced to make a choice to carry out an abortion or lose their job?

[Eliezer]

Should a gynecologist be forced to make a choice to carry out an abortion or lose their job?

Did you not read the rest of my post, Hastur?

I think I addressed that subject pretty thoroughly.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Did you not read the rest of my post, Hastur?

I think I addressed that subject pretty thoroughly.

You did and you were wrong. At least according to UK law (and I believe US law)

[Varaj]

Really? Where?



CL: To begin with you've given this vision of if as a nation Britain wants to achieve social cohesion, that challenge is how to accommodate those of religious faith in relation to the law; and you're words are that the application of Sharia in certain circumstances if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion seems unavoidable?

ABC: It seem unavoidable and indeed as a matter of fact certain provision of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law; so it's not as if we're bringing in an alien and rival system; we already have in this country a number of situations in which the law the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justified conscientious objections in certain circumstances in providing certain kinds of social relations, so I think we need to look at this with a clearer eye and not imagine either we know exactly what we mean by Sharia and not just associate it with what we read about Saudi Arabia or wherever.

He is directly talking about bringing in Sharia law.





Even though he says it wasn't?

Really? Where?

Look the Jews already decide what counts as kosher and the CofE has the right to decide who does and who doesn't get married in a CofE church. Are you saying that these are bad things?

You are comparing apples to bunnies. Not even the same kingdom.

[Eliezer]

You did and you were wrong. At least according to UK law (and I believe US law)

Well, please fucking illuminate me

Because it looks like I'm spot on with UK law (http://www.bma.org.uk/ap.nsf/Content/abortion~objection) in this regard:


The Abortion Act 1967 has a conscientious objection clause which permits doctors to refuse to participate in terminations but which obliges them to provide necessary treatment in an emergency when the woman's life may be jeopardised. The BMA supports the right of doctors to have a conscientious objection to termination of pregnancy and believes that such doctors should not be marginalised.


The only question is how do you become a conscientious objector... Do you have a affiliate or declare a moral stance?

[Varaj]

Richard I know you really respect Williams but I've got to back the several of the senior leaders of the Church of England that see it much the same way I do. Me thinks you might be letting your personal bias towards Williams color your view here.

[Varaj]

When the question was put to him that: "the application of sharia in certain circumstances - if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion - seems unavoidable?", he indicated his assent.

Seems to me he is saying if you want to take Muslims seriously you have to apply sharia law, at least in certain circumstances.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

He is directly talking about bringing in Sharia law.

Really? What do you mean by "Sharia law"? Notice he doesn't use the phrase

You are comparing apples to bunnies. Not even the same kingdom.

No that's exactly what he's talking about. He's not talking about stonings or cutting peoples hands off

Well, please fucking illuminate me

My apologies, I was wrong. If an abortion is the most appropriate treatment and the doctor is unable to refer to another doctor in time then the RCOG guidelines (but note, guidelines - not the law) say that they should perform the abortion

It is not the same thing as saying "my wife should not have visitation rights to our 12 year old daughter because under sharia the mother has custodial rights until the age of 12 and then they go to the rights fully transfer to the father."

Of course it isn't. But would you have a problem with (e.g.) a divorce court taking the contract that is part of a Muslim marriage into account during a divorce settlement, treating it as a pre-nup?

[Varaj]

Really? What do you mean by "Sharia law"? Notice he doesn't use the phrase
He does multiple times. So yes it is what he is talking about.



No that's exactly what he's talking about. He's not talking about stonings or cutting peoples hands off

Just because he isn't talking about stonings doesn't mean he is talking about who gets to be married in a muslim temple. They already get that. They already get to decide if food meets the guidlines of the Koran.
He is talking about a choice to use sharia instead of UK law.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Seems to me he is saying if you want to take Muslims seriously you have to apply sharia law, at least in certain circumstances.

What I believe he's saying is that if you want to take Muslims seriously, you have to recognise that they will be using the principles of sharia

In the same way, if you want to take Christians seriously you have to recognise that we'll be using stuff like the Golden Rule and the Beatitudes

[Varaj]

What I believe he's saying is that if you want to take Muslims seriously, you have to recognise that they will be using the principles of sharia

In the same way, if you want to take Christians seriously you have to recognise that we'll be using stuff like the Golden Rule and the Beatitudes

There is a difference between recognizing and applying. He wants to apply.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

He does multiple times. So yes it is what he is talking about.

Not in the bit you quoted

Just because he isn't talking about stonings doesn't mean he is talking about who gets to be married in a muslim temple. They already get that. They already get to decide if food meets the guidlines of the Koran.
He is talking about a choice to use sharia in addition to UK law.

FIFY

[Varaj]

Not in the bit you quoted



Very true they use Sharia, same thing.


FIFY

Nope he wants people to be able to choose between the two.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Very true they use Sharia, same thing.

And Rowan wants to distinguish between the principles of Sharia and particular implementations (e.g. in Saudi Arabia)

Nope he wants people to be able to choose between the two.

No he didn't. Do you seriously think that Rowan would allow something on his website that he didn't agree with:

"The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law."

Incidentally "a senior member of General Synod" is the ecclesiastical equivalent of "an establishment source" and I'd want to see +Southwark's remarks in context and find out if he got to read the full transcript rather than the reporter's edited highlights before seeing if the Times twisted his words as well

[Varaj]

And Rowan wants to distinguish between the principles of Sharia and particular implementations (e.g. in Saudi Arabia)


Yes he does he wants a nicer UK version but still wants Sharia.


No he didn't. Do you seriously think that Rowan would allow something on his website that he didn't agree with:

"The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law."


Yes he did, himself.

CL: So for example one of the examples you give where Sharia might be applied is in relation to marriage; what would that look like; what would that mean for example a British Muslim woman suddenly given the choice to settle a dispute via a Sharia route as opposed to the existing British legal system?

ABC: It's very important hat you mention there the word 'choice'; I think it would be quite wrong to say that we could ever licence so to speak a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general, so that a woman in such circumstances would have to know that she was not signing away for good and all; now this is a matter of detail that I don't know enough about the detail of the law in the Islamic law in this context; I'm simply saying that there are ways of looking at marital dispute for example within discussions that go on among some contemporary scholars which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them. In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate.

He specifically is saying a choice to use an alternate court system.


Incidentally "a senior member of General Synod" is the ecclesiastical equivalent of "an establishment source" and I'd want to see +Southwark's remarks in context and find out if he got to read the full transcript rather than the reporter's edited highlights before seeing if the Times twisted his words as well

The times haven't twisted his words. The report is accurate. Williams is calling for Sharia in the UK.

I'm honestly confused on how you can read what he has said as anything different. It is the same thing that some people are asking for in Canada.

[The Winslow]

Look the Jews already decide what counts as kosher and
... and the Muslims already decide what counts as halal. Now that everyone has equal privileges, everyone is happy and can stop reclaiming extra goodies, right?
the CofE has the right to decide who does and who doesn't get married in a CofE church.
Seems pretty normal that people get to decide who performs this or that ceremonies on their own grounds. Does the British law really allow people to get married in a mosque against the wishes of whoever owns and operate that mosque?

(Plus, the Church of England is a special case anyway. It's the Church of England. Not the Quakers or Levellers or the Roman Catholic Church or the Cult of the Cosmic Dubitchoo. It does have a special status in England, what with the Bishops having a seat in the House of Lords and all that stuff dating back from Henry VIII. Using the CoE as precedent for granting new status to other religions would be asinine, the only reasonable logic would be to use these other religions as precedent to remove the special status of the CoE.)

Richard I know you really respect Williams but I've got to back the several of the senior leaders of the Church of England that see it much the same way I do. Me thinks you might be letting your personal bias towards Williams color your view here.

It's the eyebrows. They are antennas that relay mind-controlling waves. They have Rich enthralled.

[Bagpuss]

which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them

He specifically is saying a choice to use an alternate court system.

You do realise there is already an alternative to the divorce courts in the UK, introduced mainly for religious reasons.

Also Jewish and Islamic courts already decide some civil matters in the UK. Under English law two parties can agree to have their matter settled by a third party. So Jews and Muslims will use this method to settle civil disputes via their own courts. Once settled it is legally binding under English law.

[Varaj]

You do realise there is already an alternative to the divorce courts in the UK, introduced mainly for religious reasons.

Also Jewish and Islamic courts already decide some civil matters in the UK. Under English law two parties can agree to have their matter settled by a third party. So Jews and Muslims will use this method to settle civil disputes via their own courts. Once settled it is legally binding under English law.

As it is in Canada, but Williams wants to move past that. Reference post 18 in this thread.

[Bagpuss]

As it is in Canada, but Williams wants to move past that. Reference post 18 in this thread.

How did you interpret him saying...

"it's not as if we're bringing in an alien and rival system"

into we are bringing in a rival system?

[Varaj]

How did you interpret him saying...

"it's not as if we're bringing in an alien and rival system"

into we are bringing in a rival system?

Who said anything about rival, unless you consider alternative as rival.
The agreed upon third party arbitrators still follow UK law, Williams is talking about expanding that and providing a true alternate court system as opposed to allowed third party arbitration. Look at what Canada is looking at doing, very similar.

[Bregh]

.

[Varaj]

I find it interesting that both Muslim and non/anti-Muslim groups interpreted Williams statements in the same way. Either Williams is completely incompetent or he said what he wanted to.
My guess is he will continue to backpedal, err.. "clarify", leaving himself clean but opening the subject for further debate.

[Varaj]

As an aside, this situation is extant in certain provinces, not dominion-wide.

Provincial laws do allow arbitration of civil matters by a third party agreed to by the principles. It in no way applies to matters of the Criminal Code of Canada, and the instances to which third-party aribitration can be applied vary from province to province.

The current Ontario gov't looked at implementing something similar to this a few years ago, but it didn't garner enough steam to become formally implemented--it is worth noting that there was notable opposition from within the province's Muslim community. There is nothing specifically stopping parties for asking an imam or other Muslim reglious official from arbitrating certain civil law issues as a third-party arbitrator, but the role of Sharia itself is not specifically recognised in this capacity by the Crown in Right of Ontario.

That is my understanding as how it is now and as it is now in the UK. I was under the impression that discussion was occurring about extending that role. My apologies if I made it sound like it was already extended. I didn't mean to give that impression.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

... and the Muslims already decide what counts as halal. Now that everyone has equal privileges, everyone is happy and can stop reclaiming extra goodies, right?

Not quite. As I understand it there isn't a formal system for deciding who gets to decide what is and isn't halal as the Jews have with kosher. Maybe there should be. Maybe an advanced food hygiene qualification should be part of their training thereby improving food hygiene standards in minority communities. Wouldn't that be a good thing? Worth talking about?

Seems pretty normal that people get to decide who performs this or that ceremonies on their own grounds. Does the British law really allow people to get married in a mosque against the wishes of whoever owns and operate that mosque?

Sorry, posting too fast. In this country, if you a Church of England priest, an Orthodox rabbi or (I think) a Methodist minister, you can perform a marriage in your place of worship and it counts a marriage under the British legal system. If you are a minister of another denomination or religion, it doesn't - you have to undergo a separate civil marriage ceremony. Whether this counts as a "parallel legal system" is a matter of semantics, but should Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs be brought under this system? I think it needs talking about - so does the Archbishop. If people keep on describing it as "bringing in sharia law" it won't be talked about and this injustice will continue to fester


(Plus, the Church of England is a special case anyway. It's the Church of England. Not the Quakers or Levellers or the Roman Catholic Church or the Cult of the Cosmic Dubitchoo. It does have a special status in England, what with the Bishops having a seat in the House of Lords and all that stuff dating back from Henry VIII. Using the CoE as precedent for granting new status to other religions would be asinine, the only reasonable logic would be to use these other religions as precedent to remove the special status of the CoE.)

Helga has put her finger on the nub of the problem. The Church of England is in a position of unjustified privilege in this country and this is unlikely to change short of a full-blown revolution. The British media hate unjustified privilege (an exception is generally made for the Queen, (gawd bless 'er)) so they do use every opportunity to undermine the CofE (c.f. the hounding of David Jenkins and the Telegraph's reporting of that Radio 2 interview we discussed a couple of months back). Any reporting of the Archbishop's words has to be viewed through this filter. I'm serious - you can't trust any major British newspaper to accurately report news about the CofE. I get all my god-bothering updates from Ekklesia (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/) (incidentally, here's (http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/6710) how they're reporting this. A rather different spin, don't you think?)

(this isn't simply paranoia, the only newspaper whose science reporting I'd trust is the Grauniad)

So the CofE is in a privileged position, but what should be done about it? For example, the government just won't cut the budget of some of the best state schools in the country by 10% (or more) so the church schools will remain (and I believe the buildings also belong the the church). What the government should have done was stop building any more and gradually phase out the church schools over the next forty or fifty years as the buildings wear out. There is now a state education system so the church schools are no longer necessary. Instead they've allowed other faiths to start schools that receive state funding - political cowardice. They should have allowed the Dobson amendment (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/1803226.stm) to pass. Incidentally, the CofE are implementing the Dobson amendment in all new CofE schools

Yes he does he wants a nicer UK version but still wants Sharia.

1) What would you say are the principles of sharia?
2) Would you be against a Muslim being appointed as a judge because of the danger that his basic morality and ethics would be based on the principles of sharia?
3) Would (could) this (not so hypothetical) judge's legal opinions be classified as sharia law because they derive from a mind whose ethics and morality are based on the principles of sharia?
4) Would you say the the current system in the UK constitutes Christian law? English common law (and therefore the common law of large chunks of the planet) was derived by men (and yes they were men) using morality and ethics derived from Christian principles
5) If we're describing law based on the principles of sharia as sharia law, could English common law be described as Christian law?
6) In that case, doesn't that exclude people who aren't Christians from full participation in Western society (arguably this is the case in both the UK and in the United States - neither of us have had an head of state or top level politician who wasn't a Christian). Is this a bad thing?

All interesting and complex questions. There not really being talked about at the moment. That's what I believe that Rowan was talking about in these articles

He specifically is saying a choice to use an alternate court system.

And this choice exists at the moment - it's just not being talked at the moment. Would this a parallel legal system or a subordinate one? If there is a right to appeal then it's a subordinate one

This (http://www.ambrose.appelbe.co.uk/MuslimDivorce.htm) is an interesting article on the current clashes between cultures (their words) in the English Divorce Courts

[Darkfire]

What I'm finding amusing about this is the various reactions based on what people think the UK is :) Especially the resurgent 'the UK is a christian country and should be based on christian values crowd'.

The whole idea holds some appeal to me, like I would've liked my marriage to my wife in the mosque to have been officially recognised by the state, but this quote basically somes it up for me

'There are so many different sects in Islam, which version of Sharia Law are we going to have?' ;)

[Darkfire]

Had a skim through the morning papers and they really have taken this too far, you'd think he called for compulsory head scarves and the like from the way the papers are reacting :rolleyes:

Guess some of the locals are feeling a little sensitive over the concept of 'British' values.

[Varaj]

1) What would you say are the principles of sharia? Koran, Hadith and tradition
2) Would you be against a Muslim being appointed as a judge because of the danger that his basic morality and ethics would be based on the principles of sharia? Not if he still follows UK law
3) Would (could) this (not so hypothetical) judge's legal opinions be classified as sharia law because they derive from a mind whose ethics and morality are based on the principles of sharia? Nope
4) Would you say the the current system in the UK constitutes Christian law? English common law (and therefore the common law of large chunks of the planet) was derived by men (and yes they were men) using morality and ethics derived from Christian principles No I would not.
5) If we're describing law based on the principles of sharia as sharia law, could English common law be described as Christian law? Nope, Sharia and sharia law are the same thing. In truth you shouldn't say sharia law because it is like saying HIV virus or NIC card.
6) In that case, doesn't that exclude people who aren't Christians from full participation in Western society (arguably this is the case in both the UK and in the United States - neither of us have had an head of state or top level politician who wasn't a Christian). Is this a bad thing? Does not apply based on answer above

All interesting and complex questions. There not really being talked about at the moment. That's what I believe that Rowan was talking about in these articles




And this choice exists at the moment - it's just not being talked at the moment. Would this a parallel legal system or a subordinate one? If there is a right to appeal then it's a subordinate one

This (http://www.ambrose.appelbe.co.uk/MuslimDivorce.htm) is an interesting article on the current clashes between cultures (their words) in the English Divorce Courts

Third party arbitration isn't the same thing as a different court system. Williams is clearly talking about moving past third party arbitration. If he didn't want to move past what is already around he wouldn't have needed to give the speech.

[Varaj]

The whole idea holds some appeal to me, like I would've liked my marriage to my wife in the mosque to have been officially recognised by the state, but this quote basically somes it up for me


That is a totally reasonable request. Not an issue in the US because you have to get a state license no matter where you get married. A muslim cleric can sign your certificate just the same as a christian priest. Hell I could sign your certificate, in fact married two couples. :)

[Scarbonac]

A muslim cleric can sign your certificate just the same as a christian priest.


What about a Muslim Paladin?

[Varaj]

What about a Muslim Paladin?

Paladins can't sign in the US no matter what their patron deity. :(

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Had a skim through the morning papers and they really have taken this too far, you'd think he called for compulsory head scarves and the like from the way the papers are reacting :rolleyes:

Agreed, this has been blown up out of all proportion. If a senior police officer suggests that there is a case for legalising or decriminalising certain drugs is he or she really advocating taking heroin?

Varaj: Great. To confirm, (and unless Darkfire says we've got it all wrong) shall we take sharia as being any legal system that uses the Qu'ran, the Hadith and derived traditions as it's precedents? Do you believe that any legal instrument derived from sharia is in compatible with Western society and is a Bad Thing?

Given the existence of the Beth Din (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/London_Beth_Din) in this country and the increasing use of private arbitration in civil cases (including divorce), shouldn't the possibility of officially recognising something similar for Muslims be discussed? Or is it only Muslims that can't use private arbitration?

Personally, I think UK divorce courts should take more recognition of pre-nups and that the Muslim marriage contract should be seen for what it is - a pre-nuptial agreement.

But this needs to be discussed, and that's all that Rowan wants - a discussion

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I need to make an apology for what I said about British newspapers and the CofE. The coverage in yesterday's Guardian was good and even-handed, particularly Madeleine Bunting's article (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/feb/09/religion.politics).

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Need I point out that the legal recognition of the Beth Din in the UK is not an argument for the recognition of Sharia law; rather the Archbishop's Chamberlain-esque comments on Sharia law are an argument against the legal recognition of the Beth Din.

The argument for the incompatibility of Islam with Western Liberal Democracy Democracy is rather simple:
1. The Koran and Hadith require Miuslims to try to convert non-Mulsims to Islam.
2. The Koran and Hadith require countries with a majority (or, on some versions, a substantial minority) of Muslim citizens to be governed by Sharia law and require Muslims to do what they can to ensure this is the case (because they believe Shari is the only sure way to a just society).
3. Most orthodox schools of Sharia law requires that apostates from Islam be put to death.
4. Apostasy is an inalienable human right.

In other words, just on the basis of the apostasy ban, Islam is an ideology that is as incompatible with liberal democracy as Communism ever was. And there are sever other principles of orthodox Shari that are almost as inimical to liberal democracy as its attitude to apostates.

True, that puts it in an entirely different (and far worse) category that rabbinical law. But there's a a slippery slope here, and the Archbishop of Canterbury is (probably unwittingly) sliding down it.

Here's my test for when Islam and Sharia will be counted as compatible with liberal democracy: the day Salmun Rushdie and Ayaan Hirsi Ali can walk hand-in-hand without bodyguards down a street in a country ruled by Sharia law and fear nothing more dangerous than a few disapproving looks and the odd harsh word.

I won't hold my breath. Indeed, there are parts of London and New York (and, as much as it pains me to admit it, Sydney) where neither of them could do that today.

[cnath.rm]

Paladins can't sign in the US no matter what their patron deity. :(It is a sad truth of our times, we who live and vote in the US should seriously consider hanging our heads in shame over this continuing injustice.. :(

[Atticus_of_Amber]

From The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-what-he-wishes-on-us-is-an-abomination-780186.html):

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: What he wishes on us is an abomination

'Sharia is nothing but a human concoction of medieval religious opinion

Saturday, 9 February 2008

What Rowan Williams wishes upon us is an abomination and I write here as a modern Muslim woman. He lectures the nation on the benefits of sharia law – made by bearded men, for men – and wants the alternative legal system to be accommodated within our democracy in the spirit of inclusion and cohesion.

Pray tell me sir, how do separate and impenetrable courts and schools and extreme female segregation promote commonalities and deep bonds between citizens of these small isles?

What he did on Thursday was to convince other Britons, white, black and brown, that Muslims want not equality but exceptionalism and their own domains. Enlightened British Muslims quail. Friends like this churchman do us more harm than our many enemies. He passes round what he believes to be the benign libation of tolerance. It is laced with arsenic.

He would not want his own girls and women, I am sure, to "choose" to be governed by these laws he breezily endorses. And he is naive to the point of folly if he imagines it is possible to pick and choose the bits that are relatively nice to the girls or ones that seem to dictate honourable financial transactions.

Look around the Islamic world where sharia rules and, in every single country, these ordinances reduce our human value to less than half that is accorded a male; homosexuals are imprisoned or killed, children have no free voice or autonomy, authoritarianism rules and infantilises populations.

What's more, different Muslim nations claim to have their own allegedly god-given sharia. In Saudi Arabia, women cannot drive (What in Allah's name could the Koran have warned about cars?). In Bangladesh and Pakistan, they have no such bar to driving, although increasingly Saudi Wahabi Islam is taking over and we see Saudi sharia taking hold.

It is growing in influence here, too. Ten years ago, the only fully shrouded Muslim women around were from the Arab fiefdoms, the many wives of sheikhs often drawn by cartoonists to convey the absurdity and inhumanity of such cloaks. Now all of Europe has these girls and women rendering themselves invisible in public spaces. It is their elected sharia, so they claim without credibility. There is no agreed body of sharia, it is all drafted by males and the most cruel is now claiming absolute authority.

In Pakistan, on the statutes are strictures on adultery introduced by the military dictator Zia ul-Haq. Women activists in that country have given their lives protesting against the injustice of those laws where women suspected of adultery, or rape victims, are punished in hideous ways and the man goes free.

The Iranian theocracy changes its regulations from year to year, capriciously playing with the lives of females. The morality police hound women and girls, beat them up, imprison them for showing an ankle, walking too provocatively or singing in the streets. They fight back but are ground down eventually.

Two Iranian friends chose to die rather than live under the demeaning religious orders. Go to Afghanistan if you fancy a 12-year-old bride – a practice approved by the mullahs. That's sharia for you. Many women, gay men and dissidents came to Britain to escape Islamic tyrants and their laws. Dr Williams supports those laws and, by default, makes the refugees victims again.

Four years ago, a Saudi woman in her fifties came to my home. She was divorced from a Saudi prince who had sent her away and kept her children. What she said about sharia cannot be repeated. She had money, this princess, but no parental rights and she howled like a child in excruciating pain in my living room.

Yet, family disputes, says Dr Williams, would be easier, within sharia. For whom exactly? The polygamous men who live in this country, yes, certainly. Not for their wives who will be told that God intends them to lower their eyes and accept unjust verdicts.

Many will be sent back to bastard husbands or flinty-eyed mullahs will take their children away. In Bradford and Halifax, they may be forbidden to drive or work where men are employed. Adultery will be punished. I don't think we will have public stonings but violence of some sort will be meted out (it already is) with lawmakers' backing.

Sensing the drift in their direction, British sharia "experts" today shamelessly direct female medical students not to wash their forearms, essential to prevent the spread of infections, because that exposes their flesh.

Does the Archbishop even know that sharia comes in many guises and that several schools of jurisprudence have their own versions? The list is long – Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi, Hanbali, Jafari, Salafi and on and on. Ayatollah Khomeini preferred his DIY set of crimes and punishments when he came to power.

No women are allowed to be imams or serious jurists, so cannot help make their own fair and free set of female-friendly sharia. All the systems insist on ultimate truths, hard certainties. Sharia cannot provide solutions to the complex challenges of modern life and many violate fundamental human rights as established by the United Nations.

Taj Hargey, a historian and Islamic theologian, runs the Muslim Education Centre in Oxford. He, with me, is a trustee of British Muslims For Secular Democracy which is attempting to educate Muslims out of authorised obscurantism and non-Muslims into a better understanding of the progressive and evolutionary nature of the practice of Islam.

He is incandescent that Dr Williams backs a perilous Islamic conservatism, already too powerful in Britain: "Sharia is nothing but a human concoction of medieval religious opinion, largely archaic and outmoded and irrelevant to life today. Most sharia contradicts the letter and spirit of the Koran, distorts the transcendental text."

During his sermons Dr Hargey explains to congregations that, for example there is no blasphemy in the Koran, that the Prophet himself allowed a man to mock the divine revelations. Apostasy, says the holy text, will be dealt with by Allah in the afterlife. Sharia policemen insist apostates should be tortured and killed.

Dr Williams says Muslims want the choice to opt for sharia. What he believes to be choice is, in truth, inner compulsion, the result of brainwashing which begins in the madrassas when girls and boys are young enough to mould.

I have often admired the Archbishop's lofty thoughts, his intellectualism, the passion for human rights, his guts when the Government needs to be chastised. But this time his kind indulgences betray his own invaluable principles and deliver Muslim women, girls and dissidents into the hands of religious persecutors – an unforgivable intervention, which I hope he now sincerely regrets.

While I don't agree with all of the above, such incandescent rage from a Muslim woman is good to see. We need more Muslim women to get this angry and do something about it.

[Bagpuss]

The argument for the incompatibility of Islam with Western Liberal Democracy Democracy is rather simple:
1. The Koran and Hadith require Muslims to try to convert non-Mulsims to Islam.

Christianity asks calls people witness, and attempt to convert people to Christianity.

2. The Koran and Hadith require countries with a majority (or, on some versions, a substantial minority) of Muslim citizens to be governed by Sharia law and require Muslims to do what they can to ensure this is the case (because they believe Shari is the only sure way to a just society).

I thought Muslims were governed by Sharia law (to some extent at least), even in non-Muslim countries. For example a Muslim could consult Sharia law to see if it is okay to except an invitation to go to the pub after work.

3. Most orthodox schools of Sharia law requires that apostates from Islam be put to death.

While other Sharia scholars say that penalty should be left to Allah, and Islam itself has nothing to fear from apostates. (It is a fast growing religion after all).

Thing is since Sharia is not clearly codified in many areas and depends on interpretation of the Koran and other religious and legal texts, parts of it are compatible with Western legal frameworks. Particularly civil and financial laws.

[Eliezer]

But would you have a problem with (e.g.) a divorce court taking the contract that is part of a Muslim marriage into account during a divorce settlement, treating it as a pre-nup?

No, I have no inherent difficulty with that as long as the law is applied universally. That pretty much means that it should be just as binding as any other marriage contract. So every "religious" marriage would have to produce a document legally outlining the pre-nup style agreements that a person agrees to when getting married under their tradition. In fact there is nothing in British law preventing this from taking place. I think the only fair way to enforce this is if you outline exactly what pre-nuptial type agreements you wish to abide by and sign them as you normally would in any other circumstance. Otherwise you run the risk of having clerics coming along with an interpretation of the marriage contract that is different than what a party understood it to mean.

Basically, I see absolutely no reason to go beyond the methodology I outline above except to deliberately jeopardize a person's rights under the law. If all parties are in agreement with it they can conclude the marriage (divorce) with whatever terms they feel equitable under Sharia (or whatever religious) law. If someone disagrees with the terms of Sharia law then they should not be beholden to it unless they signed a legally binding prenuptial ahead of time.

And, for the record, Sharia law is particularly egregious by western standards of women's rights under marriage. It may have been very liberal at one time, but it is horribly lopsided by western standards today. Men can in many Sharia practicing countries divorce a woman on a whim, the rights of mothers over their children are absolutely cut after the children reach a certain age and Sharia law makes no recognition of the contribution of the woman in a familial unit economically and thus does not recognize alimony, at least not as we have the tradition in western law.

Again, Hastur, it comes down to applying the law universally, not having a subset law. In principle I disagree vehemently with what the archbishop has proposed, but I am willing to entertain specifics and see what can be done.

In principle I have no problem with individuals coming together and agreeing to any contract under informed terms that they agree to ahead of time. There are mechanisms within the law to allow for that. There are already recognized mechanism to allow 3rd party binding arbitration whether they are religious arbiters or secular arbiters. The reason these mechanisms break down is if someone disagrees with what the clerics in arbitration declare. So either the discontent isn't over these types of civil issues or there are a bunch of male muslims in Britain pissed off that the women are getting too many rights in the British divorce courts and are thus getting clerics to raise a fuss. I suspect it is the latter explanation.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

While I don't agree with all of the above, such incandescent rage from a Muslim woman is good to see. We need more Muslim women to get this angry and do something about it.

Interesting. I think we have an example of an entirely new media trope: the "self-hating Muslim". Either she hasn't read the lecture and the interview or she believes that any attempt to include people from an Islamic background within mainstream society is a bad idea because too many Muslims are too brainwashed to wisely use the freedoms granted to them by Western civilisation. Or both

No, I have no inherent difficulty with that as long as the law is applied universally. That pretty much means that it should be just as binding as any other marriage contract. So every "religious" marriage would have to produce a document legally outlining the pre-nup style agreements that a person agrees to when getting married under their tradition. In fact there is nothing in British law preventing this from taking place.

I think we're in agreement. As I see it, the problem is twofold:

1) At the moment, the law in the UK gives privileged status to certain religions. This needs to be changed and there needs to be a public debate over the nature and character of that change

2) Because certain religions in the UK have a privileged position, certain other religions have set up parallel mechanisms in an attempt to gain the same rights and freedoms as the privileged religions. These mechanisms need to be brought into the mainstream and there needs to be a public debate over how we do this

[Bregh]

.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Interesting. I think we have an example of an entirely new media trope: the "self-hating Muslim". Either she hasn't read the lecture and the interview or she believes that any attempt to include people from an Islamic background within mainstream society is a bad idea because too many Muslims are too brainwashed to wisely use the freedoms granted to them by Western civilisation. Or both

"Self-hating muslims"? Give. Me. A. Break.

Is Ayaan Hirsi Ali a "self-hating muslim"? Is Salmum Rsuhdie? Is Asif Manji? Is Ibn Warriq?

I'm sorry, but not since I saw moderate Anglicans condemn Salmun Rushdie for writing a blaspemous books have I seen an Andlgican write something so craven.

This is ridiculous. A brutal ideology needs to be stopped. If it reforms from the inside then good. But that's it's business. Our business is to stand up to it. Now.

And yet, people who have seen it from teh inside and are calling it by its propper name are "self hating muslims"???

As I see it, the problem is twofold:

1) At the moment, the law in the UK gives privileged status to certain religions. This needs to be changed and there needs to be a public debate over the nature and character of that change

And the way to change it is to take privileges waway from the religions that have them, not to gie compensating privileges to new religions.

2) Because certain religions in the UK have a privileged position, certain other religions have set up parallel mechanisms in an attempt to gain the same rights and freedoms as the privileged religions. These mechanisms need to be brought into the mainstream and there needs to be a public debate over how we do this

No. We need to stop recognising any such institutions.

If people want to submit to private arbitration of personal contractual disputes, then fine. But those disputes should still be subject to judicial review in the civil courts. Moreover, the submission to the "jurisdicion" of the private arbitrator has to be truly voluntary and the judge of whether this was so has to be the civil courts.

Furthermore, while I have no problem with marriage disputes between childless couples being decided by agreed upon private arbitration, there is no way in hell I'm letting the fate of children be decided by such private arbitrators. Once you have kids, the upbringing of those kids and, if necessary, the disposition of your property needed to support those kids, is a matter that must be decided in the best interests of the children in the civil courts. Private arbitrators can jsut fuck off at the at point.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Christianity asks calls people witness, and attempt to convert people to Christianity.

Yep. So what? They don't fit the other premisies.

I thought Muslims were governed by Sharia law (to some extent at least), even in non-Muslim countries. For example a Muslim could consult Sharia law to see if it is okay to except an invitation to go to the pub after work.

Yep. But I'm talking about Sharia law for everyone in a country and Sharia law backed up by the power of the state. Go back and re-read what I wrote.

While other Sharia scholars say that penalty should be left to Allah, and Islam itself has nothing to fear from apostates. (It is a fast growing religion after all).

Who? Which scholars? Are they in any way part of the mainstream of Sharia scholarship? No. It's not only the extreamists Sharia scholars who believe that the penalty for apostasy is death. It's every major school of Sharia law. The only people who don't are ultra-liberal schoalrs - the John Shelby Spongs of Islam, if you like.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Ok, who is Johann Hari and wehen can I hae his manbabies?

From The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-rowan-williams-has-shown-us-one-thing-ndash-why-multiculturalism-must-be-abandoned-780710.html):


Johann Hari: Rowan Williams has shown us one thing – why multiculturalism must be abandoned

The Archbishop has unwittingly pointed us towards a vision of a better Britain

If you really believe that Britain is comprised of a smorgasbord of "cultures" that need to be preserved, promoted and respected as an end in itself, then this proposal is perfectly logical. Different cultures should have different courts, and rules, and schools.

We don't need to speculate about what these British sharia courts would look like. They already exist in some mosques across Britain, as voluntary enterprises. Last month, a plain, unsensationalist documentary called Divorce: Sharia Style looked at the judgements they hand down.

If a man wants a divorce, he simply has to say to his wife, "I divorce you" three times over three months. The wife has no right of appeal, and no right to ask for a reason. If a woman wants a divorce, by contrast, she has to humbly ask her husband. If he refuses, she must turn to a sharia court, and convince three Mullahs that her husband has behaved "unreasonably" – according to the rules laid out in a pre-modern text that recommends domestic violence if your wife gets uppity.

Irum Shazad, a 26-year-old British woman, travels from her battered women's refuge to a sharia court in East London. She explains that her husband was so abusive she slashed her wrists with a carving knife. The court tells her this was a sin, making her as bad as him. They tell her to go back to her husband. (They grant a divorce half a year later, after a dozen more "last chances" for him to abuse her.)

Then we meet Nasirin Iqbal, a 27-year-old Pakistani woman who was shipped to Britain five years ago to marry. Her husband, Imran, has kept her isolated, and she does not speak a word of English. "I came here thinking he'd treat me well," she says. "But he keeps hurting me. He brought me here to use me. I'm not an object.... Do I not have a heart?... He tells me I'm stuck with him, and under Islam he can treat me however he wants. 'I am a man, I can treat you how I want'."

We see how Imran torments her, announcing, "You are a reject. I didn't want to marry you." He takes a second wife in Pakistan, and texts her all day in front of Nasirin declaring his love. The sharia court issues a fatwa saying the marriage stands. She doesn't seem to know this isn't a court of law. "I can't ignore what they say," she cries. "You have to go with what they say."

These are the courts that Rowan Williams would give the stamp of British law. In his lecture, he worries that this could harm women – before serving up a theological gloop, saying that sharia could be reinterpreted in a way compatible with the rights of women. But if that happens, why would you need different courts? What would be the point?

The argument that women will only have to enter these courts if they freely choose to shows a near-total disconnection from the reality of Muslim women's lives. Most of the women who will be drawn into "consenting" are, like Nasirin, recent immigrants with little idea of their legal options. Then there are the threats of excommunication – or violence – from some families. As the Muslim feminist Irshad Manji puts it: "When it comes to contemporary sharia, choice is theory; intimidation is the reality."

These courts highlight in their purest form the problem with multiculturalism. It has become a feel-good doctrine mindlessly celebrating "difference", without looking at what that difference actually means.

Yet many people feel instinctively uncomfortable when we talk about ditching multiculturalism – for a good reason. The only alternative they are aware of is the old whiter-than-white monoculturalism. This view, voiced most clearly by Enoch Powell and Norman Tebbit, believes that if people are going to live together, they need to look and feel similar, and have a tightly prescribed shared identity. They argue that the number of newcomers should be small, and need to be pressured to assimilate to the 1950s norm of a suburban white family, fast.

Multiculturalism was formed with good intentions as a counter-reaction. But it has become a mirror-image of this old racism, treating Muslim women – and others – as so different that they do not deserve the same rights as the rest of us. As the European-Iranian feminist Azar Majedi puts it: "By creating different laws and judicial systems for each ethnic group, we are not fighting racism. In fact, we are institutionalising it."

When people talk about defending Muslim culture, ask them – which culture? The culture of Irum and Nasireen, or the culture of their abusive husbands? Multiculturalism patronisingly treats immigrants as homogenous blocks – when in fact they are as diffuse and dissenting as the rest of us. Would anybody lump me in with Richard Littlejohn and Nick Griffin as part of a "white community"?

There is a better way for the state to understand and regulate human differences, beyond the old oppositions of Tebbittry and multiculturalism. It is called liberalism. A liberal society allows an individual to do whatever he or she wants, provided it doesn't harm other people. You can choose to wear PVC hotpants or a veil. You can choose to spend all day praying, or all day mocking people who pray.

Where a multiculturalist prizes the rights of religious groups, a liberal favours the rights of the individual. So if you want to preach that the Archangel Gabriel revealed the word of God to an illiterate nomad two millennia ago, you can do it as much as you like. You can write books and hold rallies and make your case. What you cannot do is argue that since this angel supposedly said women are worth half of a man when it comes to inheritance, and that gay people should be killed, you can ditch the rules of liberalism and act on it.

The job of a liberal state is not to stamp The True National Essence on its citizens, nor to promote "difference" for its own sake. It is to uphold the equal rights of every individual – whether they are white men or Muslim women. It has one liberal culture, with freedoms used differently by different people.

So as well as scorning the Archbishop, we should thank him. He has helped to deliver the funeral rites for multiculturalism. With his matted beard and tortured hand-wringing to a desert-God, the Archbishop has unwittingly pointed us towards a vision of a better Britain – one that chooses proudly to be liberal.

j.hari@independent.co.uk

[Scarbonac]

If a man wants a divorce, he simply has to say to his wife, "I divorce you" three times over three months. The wife has no right of appeal, and no right to ask for a reason. If a woman wants a divorce, by contrast, she has to humbly ask her husband. If he refuses, she must turn to a sharia court, and convince three Mullahs that her husband has behaved "unreasonably" – according to the rules laid out in a pre-modern text that recommends domestic violence if your wife gets uppity.





"You say 'I break with thee, I break with thee, I break with thee,' and then you throw dog poop on her shoes."

[Eliezer]

I think we're in agreement. As I see it, the problem is twofold:

1) At the moment, the law in the UK gives privileged status to certain religions. This needs to be changed and there needs to be a public debate over the nature and character of that change

2) Because certain religions in the UK have a privileged position, certain other religions have set up parallel mechanisms in an attempt to gain the same rights and freedoms as the privileged religions. These mechanisms need to be brought into the mainstream and there needs to be a public debate over how we do this

In the US we institutionalized pretty hard the idea of separation of church and state and I forget that it was a primarily a reaction to the abuses/problems of a state sponsored religion in the UK. Sounds like the UK needs to remove the privileged position of the state religion.

I don't know that doing this will address the problems Islamic men are having with British law. Again, I suspect the real reason for this "sharia push" is men not liking their women to have rights. Outside of some traditions with respect to women's rights, British law and Sharia are largely compatible and you'd have to work pretty hard to find British courts that arbitrate in a way contradictory to what Sharia allows.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Standing ovation from the General Synod :) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/12/religion.islam)

In the US we institutionalized pretty hard the idea of separation of church and state and I forget that it was a primarily a reaction to the abuses/problems of a state sponsored religion in the UK. Sounds like the UK needs to remove the privileged position of the state religion.

I'd love to see the CofE disestablished. I'd also like world peace, a full-time career as a writer and a pony, but I think only one of those things is likely to happen in my lifetime.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I'm sorry, but not since I saw moderate Anglicans condemn Salmun Rushdie for writing a blaspemous books have I seen an Andlgican write something so craven.

I really doubt that ever happened (at least not as reported)

Not craven - confident. Radical Islamism is about as much as a threat to civilisation as Communism was - in other words no threat at all. Historical inevitably is on our side, Atticus. We will bury it.

This is ridiculous. A brutal ideology needs to be stopped. If it reforms from the inside then good. But that's it's business. Our business is to stand up to it. Now.

If you really believed that you'd be calling for the internment of anyone more swarthy than George Micheal. Seriously Atticus, there are approximately 1 billion Muslims in the world - you can't shoot all of them. We should be hunting for the alligator of extremism by draining the swamp of injustice.

...

I'm sorry, that metaphor got away from me. But do you get my point? Do you really want to make an enemy of <Dr. Evil>one billion people</Dr. Evil>? There's a lot more of them than there is of you

"Know your enemy and know yourself - a thousand battles, a thousand victories." And if in learning about your enemy you realise he's not your enemy after all then you've saved yourself a lot of trouble

[Varaj]

Standing ovation from the General Synod :) (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/feb/12/religion.islam)


Didn't I say he would backpedal..err "clarify". :lol:

[Hastur T. Fannon]

"Self-hating muslims"? Give. Me. A. Break.

Incidentally, I only said it was a possible explanation. Others include incompetence and dishonesty

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I really doubt that ever happened (at least not as reported)

I'm yet to see a rebuttal of that charge. I'd be relieved to hear one. Indeed, that charge and the absence of any denial is one of the things that changed my views.

Not craven - confident. Radical Islamism is about as much as a threat to civilisation as Communism was - in other words no threat at all. Historical inevitably is on our side, Atticus. We will bury it.

You're kidding, right? "Historical inevitability"? Communism could have won if the West had not stood firm. At the very least, action by the liberal west could have stopped Communism sooner (or later) than it was actually stopped, resulting in less (or more) suffering.

Islam, is the same sort of threat. Like Communism, some of its ideas are good and beneficial. Most Muslims are good but misled people - just as most Communists were good but misled people. A massively watered-down version of Islam would probably be acceptable, just as a massively watered-down version of Communism is an acceptable part of politics in many European countries today. But we don't see a lot of such a version of Islam and many of the intellectuals who advocate it are in hiding as heretics and apostates.

If you really believed that you'd be calling for the internment of anyone more swarthy than George Micheal.

What. The. Fuck???

What on earth does Islam have to do with "swarthiness"? Islam is an ideology, like Communism. And like Communism, you can believe in Islam regardless of whether you're black, brown, white or albino. David Hicks ain't no Arab. John Walker Lind ain't no Pakistani.

Seriously Atticus, there are approximately 1 billion Muslims in the world - you can't shoot all of them. We should be hunting for the alligator of extremism by draining the swamp of injustice. I'm sorry, that metaphor got away from me. But do you get my point? Do you really want to make an enemy of <Dr. Evil>one billion people</Dr. Evil>? There's a lot more of them than there is of you.

We can walk and chew gum at the same time. Yes, you're right that one of our strategies must be to combat poverty. Just as Communism was defeated by a combination of a war of ideas and the demonstration factor of Western capitalist prosperity and Communist poverty, so too must the fight against Islam be a two pronged attack. But since Islam itself is a cause of poverty, one of those prongs is going to be problematic...

But it must have both prongs. We needed the Marshall Plan AND resolute disputation of Communist ideas to stop Communism.

"Know your enemy and know yourself - a thousand battles, a thousand victories." And if in learning about your enemy you realise he's not your enemy after all then you've saved yourself a lot of trouble

To quote Christopher Hitchens: "Love your own fucking enemies, don't be loving mine."

Of course convincing people to be either hyper-moderate Muslims or secularists is the most realistic winning scenario. But you don't do that by being a pussy. The forces of the Enlightenment didn't turn Christianity from a dictatorial authority of Iranian-level tyranny into it's current (relatively) mild form of incoherent negative theology mush by being "nice". Christianity was BATTERED into that mush by the relentlessly repeated hammer blows of science and reason and logic and empiricism and critical thinking and liberalism and democracy. The same hammer blows that turned Communism from a real threat into the mush of modern EuroCommunism. The same hammer blows that must now be turned on Islam.

Incidentally, I only said it was a possible explanation. Others include incompetence and dishonesty

Oh I think all three are part of the explanation - for the Archbishop.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I'm yet to see a rebuttal of that charge. I'd be relieved to hear one. Indeed, that charge and the absence of any denial is one of the things that changed my views.

To be honest, I've never heard the charge. Sounds like something the Daily Mail (or possibly the Torygraph) made up

You're kidding, right? "Historical inevitability"? Communism could have won if the West had not stood firm. At the very least, action by the liberal west could have stopped Communism sooner (or later) than it was actually stopped, resulting in less (or more) suffering.

Deadly serious. Communism collapsed under the weight of it's own contradictions; our actions only prolonged it. It's only when we started treating the Soviet Block as something other than an enemy to be destroyed that relations improved (or even could improve). Who in their right mind would want to live in something other than a developed liberal democracy if they are given the choice? Why do you think people are literally dying to get into America, Europe and Australia? They don't hate our freedoms, Atticus, they love them

A massively watered-down version of Islam would probably be acceptable, just as a massively watered-down version of Communism is an acceptable part of politics in many European countries today. But we don't see a lot of such a version of Islam and many of the intellectuals who advocate it are in hiding as heretics and apostates.

And why don't we see a lot of it? Why are these guys in hiding? Because people like you are presenting all forms of "belief without sufficient evidence", even the moderate ones, as something that should be undermined at every opportunity. If you (the New Atheists, collectively) set yourself up as the enemy of the vast majority of humanity, don't be surprised if nutjobs start shooting at you

What on earth does Islam have to do with "swarthiness"? Sarcasm, Motherfucker - Do You Speak It?

If you genuinely believe Islam to be the threat you say it is, coming over here stealing our women and sapping our precious bodily fluids, don't just sit there ranting impotently do something about it. Firebomb a mosque. Stick a cucumber through an Iman's letterbox and shout "The Martian's are coming!"

To quote Christopher Hitchens: "Love your own fucking enemies, don't be loving mine."

Sorry mate, but I don't know if I can do anything else. Certainly not without stopping being me

[The Winslow]

Stick a cucumber through an Iman's letterbox and shout "The Martian's are coming!"
I approve of this plan. Atticus, please do this.

[Eliezer]

I'd love to see the CofE disestablished. I'd also like world peace, a full-time career as a writer and a pony, but I think only one of those things is likely to happen in my lifetime.

Well, I hope you pick a nice pony! :D

[Eliezer]

Deadly serious. Communism collapsed under the weight of it's own contradictions; our actions only prolonged it. It's only when we started treating the Soviet Block as something other than an enemy to be destroyed that relations improved (or even could improve). Who in their right mind would want to live in something other than a developed liberal democracy if they are given the choice? Why do you think people are literally dying to get into America, Europe and Australia? They don't hate our freedoms, Atticus, they love them


Collapsed on it's own? Yeah, right. I think my understanding of the economics of the collapse and your differ greatly. It was an inherently inferior system of economics from a psychological perspective when it came to encouragement of innovation and development of new technologies.

The collapse was pretty complex, and the economic and military competition with the West did not prolong the existence of the USSR, it shortened it.

It collapsed primarily because it could not maintain itself in military equilibrium with what it believed to be a hostile west. The fact that the "cowboy" Ronald Reagan was in the minds of the Soviet leadership willing to start a nuclear exchange and the fact that their military analysts believed that the US first strike capabilities would be so devastating that NATO would be the clear winner in such a conflict contributed to push the leadership into believing they were in an inferior position economically and militarily. This belief on the part of the Soviet leadership combined with the economic realities did more to collapse the Soviet Union than anything else. The problem was that decades had apparently shown the ideology to be less successful. Without the military aspect of the comparison they still could have maintained the facade that "we are stronger" even though they did not have the luxuries of the "decadent, morally weak" west.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

To be honest, I've never heard the charge. Sounds like something the Daily Mail (or possibly the Torygraph) made up

I've seen it mentioned in several sources, including the New York Times. As far as I know, the then AoC condemned Rushdie for writing a blasphemous book, expressed sympathy at the Muslim reaction but "of course" condemned the calls for violence against Rushdie. Little mention was made d the actual murder of one of his translators. Disgusting.

Deadly serious. Communism collapsed under the weight of it's own contradictions; our actions only prolonged it. It's only when we started treating the Soviet Block as something other than an enemy to be destroyed that relations improved (or even could improve). Who in their right mind would want to live in something other than a developed liberal democracy if they are given the choice? Why do you think people are literally dying to get into America, Europe and Australia? They don't hate our freedoms, Atticus, they love them

Your naïve claims re the collapse of communism have been well dealt wit upthread.

As for them loving our freedoms, read Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the fundamentally ambivalent and hypocritical attitude of her fellow Muslim immigrants to the freedom of Holland. It's an eye-opener.

And why don't we see a lot of it? Why are these guys in hiding? Because people like you are presenting all forms of "belief without sufficient evidence", even the moderate ones, as something that should be undermined at every opportunity. If you (the New Atheists, collectively) set yourself up as the enemy of the vast majority of humanity, don't be surprised if nutjobs start shooting at you

Now who's being paranoid? The "new atheists" are a tiny (but growing) and reviled minority. We hardly have that kind of influence. Moreover, moderate Muslims were being driven into hiding long before Sam Harris launched the new atheist movement when he wrote The End Of Faith in a cold fury in the days after 9/11.

If you genuinely believe Islam to be the threat you say it is, coming over here stealing our women and sapping our precious bodily fluids, don't just sit there ranting impotently do something about it. Firebomb a mosque. Stick a cucumber through an Iman's letterbox and shout "The Martian's are coming!"

That wasn't the way we neutered Christianity or Communism and it isn't the way we'll domesticate Islam. Fight the ideas with argument and art. Firebombing and violence are their tools, not ours.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

And the Hitch weighs in (http://www.slate.com/id/2184186/):

To Hell With the Archbishop of Canterbury
Rowan Williams' dangerous claptrap about "plural jurisdiction."
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, Feb. 11, 2008, at 12:27 PM ET

In December 1931, George Orwell got himself arrested in the slums of East London in order to find out about conditions "inside," and then he wrote an essay about the people he met while in detention. One of them was a buyer for a kosher butcher who had embezzled some of his boss's money. To Orwell's surprise, the man told him that "his employer would probably get into trouble at the synagogue for prosecuting him. It appears that the Jews have arbitration courts of their own, and a Jew is not supposed to prosecute another Jew, at least in a breach-of-trust case like this, without first submitting it to the arbitration court."

You might think that such relics of the medieval ghetto, and of the rabbinical control that was part of ghetto life, had more or less disappeared in England in the 21st century. And you would largely be right. There exists a "Beth Din," or religious court, in the prosperous North London suburb of Finchley to which the ultra-Orthodox submit some of their more arcane disputes. (This little world is very amusingly described by Naomi Alderman in her lovely novel Disobedience.) But to speak in general, Jews in Britain consider themselves, and are considered, to be answerable to the same laws as everybody else. Should I mention any of the numerous reasons why it would be extremely nerve-racking if this were not true?

But now the archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, has cited the Beth Din as one of his reasons for believing that sharia, or Islamic law, can and should become a part of what he called "plural jurisdiction" in Britain. His reasoning, if one may call it that, is clear: Other faiths already have their own legal authorities, so why not the Muslims, too? What could be more tolerant and diverse? This same argument has been used already, and will be used again, to demand that laws governing "blasphemy," originally written to protect only Christians from being upset, should now, in a nondiscriminatory way, be amended to cover Muslims as well. The alternative—don't have any blasphemy laws and let religious people's feelings be hurt, just as the feelings of the secular are regularly offended by religion—doesn't occur to the archbishop and people who think like him.

A BBC interview with Williams had him saying that the opening to sharia would "help maintain social cohesion." If that phrase is even intended to mean anything, it can only imply that a concession of this kind would lessen the propensity to violence among Muslims. But such abjectness is not the only definition of social cohesion that we have. By a nice coincidence, a London think tank called the Center for Social Cohesion issued a report just days before the leader of the world's Anglicans and Episcopalians capitulated to Islamic demands. Titled "Crimes of the Community: Honour-Based Violence in the UK," and written by James Brandon and Salam Hafez, it set out a shocking account of the rapid spread of theocratic crime. The main headings were murder and beating of women, genital mutilation, forced marriage, and vigilante methods employed against those who complained. It could well be—since we are becoming every day more familiar with the first three—that the fourth is the one that should concern us most.

Picture the life of a young Urdu-speaking woman brought to Yorkshire from Pakistan to marry a man—quite possibly a close cousin—whom she has never met. He takes her dowry, beats her, and abuses the children he forces her to bear. She is not allowed to leave the house unless in the company of a male relative and unless she is submissively covered from head to toe. Suppose that she is able to contact one of the few support groups that now exist for the many women in Britain who share her plight. What she ought to be able to say is, "I need the police, and I need the law to be enforced." But what she will often be told is, "Your problem is better handled within the community." And those words, almost a death sentence, have now been endorsed and underwritten—and even advocated—by the country's official spiritual authority.

You might argue that I am describing an extreme case (though, alas, now not an uncommon one), but it is the principle of equality before the law that really counts. And just look at how casually this sheep-faced English cleric throws away the work of centuries of civilization:

[A]n approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts"—I think that's a bit of a danger.

In the midst of this dismal verbiage and euphemism, the plain statement—"There's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said"—still stands out like a diamond in a dunghill. It stands out precisely because it is said simply, and because its essential grandeur is intelligible to everybody. Its principles ought to be just as intelligible and accessible to those who don't yet speak English, in just the same way as the great Lord Mansfield once ruled that, wherever someone might have been born, and whatever he had been through, he could not be subject to slavery once he had set foot on English soil. Simple enough? For the women who are the principal prey of the sharia system, it is often only when they are shipped or flown to Britain that their true miseries begin. This modern disgrace is deepened and extended by a fatuous cleric who, presiding over an increasingly emaciated and schismatic and irrelevant church, nonetheless maintains that any faith is better than none at all.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

I think I was unnecessarily obscure up-thread, particularly as I mangled the quote: sorry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/We_will_bury_you)

Collapsed on it's own?That's not what I said

Yeah, right. I think my understanding of the economics of the collapse and your differ greatly. It was an inherently inferior system of economics from a psychological perspective when it came to encouragement of innovation and development of new technologies.

We're in agreement so far

The collapse was pretty complex, and the economic and military competition with the West did not prolong the existence of the USSR, it shortened it.

And we're in agreement here.

This belief on the part of the Soviet leadership combined with the economic realities did more to collapse the Soviet Union than anything else.

This is where we part company. North Korea is an inferior position, economically, militarily and psychologically - much more so than the Soviet Union. By your logic it should have collapsed years ago. As I see it, the reason it hasn't is that its masses are only vaguely aware that an alternative exists

China is in a superior position, economically, to the United States and is in the early stages of political collapse (give it a few years, and it's a different situation, but we're already seeing the first, scattered protests that were a precursor to the collapse of the Soviet Union). Its citizens can see a better alternative

I've seen it mentioned in several sources, including the New York Times.

Sorry, but I'd need to see a primary source that includes context. Remember bishops are like diplomats and lawyers - they don't do soundbites

As for them loving our freedoms, read Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the fundamentally ambivalent and hypocritical attitude of her fellow Muslim immigrants to the freedom of Holland. It's an eye-opener.

Ayaan Hirsi Ali is funded by a right-wing think tank that denies global warming and if I remember correctly is calling for a preemptive strike on Iran. I'd suggest that at least the English edition of "Infidel" should be read with that in mind

Now who's being paranoid? The "new atheists" are a tiny (but growing) and reviled minority. We hardly have that kind of influence.

I think that you only give a name to an pre-existing movement. One of the themes of Rowan's recent lecture is that secularism becomes dangerous when it denies the legitimacy of any viewpoint that isn't secular

Moreover, moderate Muslims were being driven into hiding long before Sam Harris launched the new atheist movement when he wrote The End Of Faith in a cold fury in the days after 9/11.

Bollocks. Complete and utter tripe. If you think moderate Muslims are being "driven into hiding" you're obviously not looking very hard for them

Great article in Third Way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_Magazine) this month by Mona Siddiqui. It's not up on their website yet, but here's a sample:

I think the Muslim world needs to understand that its own theology is that if somebody converts they have the right to do so. I'm not being 'liberal' when I say that, because the law against apostasy that developed in Islam did not really prohibit apostasy as we understand it. Apostasy laws in Islamic classical law are very much like laws on treason or sedition, which were punished by death even in this country not so long ago. It was very much: If you turned away from Islam, you turned away from the state religion. But these laws have been interpreted as denying anyone the religious liberty to change their faith. People's minds are still entrenched in that historical context when Islam was the dominant global force.

There's no justification for this, but you have to take a step back and ask: Why is this happening, and how do you change people's minds? And the way you can change people's minds is to constantly challenge them, not appease them - to say that every time a person who converts from Islam to Christianity is then abused, it defames the whole Islamic faith in people's perceptions, because all they see is people who are very happy to accept the liberties that others give them, but won't allow anyone else any liberty.

Is she in hiding?

And this is nothing new. Look at this interview (http://www.thirdway.org.uk/past/showpage.asp?page=3923) with Zaki Badawi from nearly ten years ago

That wasn't the way we neutered Christianity or Communism and it isn't the way we'll domesticate Islam.

Christianity neutered? :lol: Come back when there's a atheist in the White House or the Archbishop of Canterbury can give an academic lecture and no-one cares

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Little time to post this week, but I read this on the train and though it was pretty good:

Sunday, February 17, 2008

Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!
by Azar Majedi

Azar Majedi was born in Iran, and is a leading opponent of the regime. She chairs 'OWL', the Organisation for Women's Liberation – Iran. She is the Editor of the feminist journal Medusa, and the author of Women's Rights vs Political Islam. www.azarmajedi.com

Perhaps Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury thought his statement about Sharia Law would be received enthusiastically as a well-intended effort to reduce racism and tension in society. However, his proposal got him into trouble. He was attacked from right and left. Those who saw their "white Christian culture" under threat asked for his resignation. Women's rights activists and secularists attacked him for the negative effects of Sharia Law on human rights, particularly the disastrous effects of such a practice on women in so-called Muslim communities. In response to harsh criticism he tried to qualify his proposal by stating that he did not mean the whole Sharia Law, but only family matters. He has just missed the point.

The status and rights of women in Islam is the Achilles heel of this religion, and I must add, ideology. Misogyny is the trade mark of Islam. The veil is its banner, and gender apartheid its main pillar. Moreover, today a very active reactionary political movement has based its ideology on Islam, namely political Islam. Anywhere they gain power the first thing they do is victimize women, strip them of all their rights, force them under the veil and segregate them in society. The same movement that laments lack of tolerance for Sharia law in western societies is terrorizing the population in societies under its rule to obey Sharia Law, observe the veil and gender apartheid and punishes the defiant by flogging, cutting their limbs and execution.

So, one main reason to oppose Sharia law is the way it treats women. Rowan Williams' promise that he only means the family code of Sharia law is no comfort to any woman living under the threat of losing her rights, nor to any girl who is frightened by "honor violence," forced marriage and veiling. In fact it only exposes his ignorance.

It may be argued that the Archbishop's intention is to combat racism. Let us examine whether his proposal is anti-racist. One might argue that he has taken Muslim's demands and culture into consideration, particularly when Muslims are increasingly being stigmatized. This assumption is false. Historically, the fight against racism has meant fighting for equality, not for differentiating; equality before the law and in social, economic and political sphere. Anti-racism has been about integration not segregation. The civil rights movement in America was not about creating a set of different laws for blacks, but treating blacks and whites equally. The essence of the long battle against racial apartheid in South Africa was to create one system and one law for all citizens, which treated them equally.

However, it is not only the Archbishop who espouses this upside-down approach to racial equality. This is a political trend. For this trend the meaning of anti-racism has changed from equality to differentiation, from integration to segregation. We owe this falsification to post modernism, which gave rise to cultural relativism and a high socio-political status to the concept of multi culturalism in this deformed interpretation of it.

Some misled section of the "intelligentsia," academia and political institutions have played a significant role in defending these concepts as progressive, libertarian, egalitarian and anti-racist. Reactionary political forces, such as political Islam have been the only beneficiaries of this trend. For decades gross violations of human rights in societies under Islam were neglected and even justified by these mal-formulated theories. Only when these brutal practices made an inroad into western societies in the form of terrorism, particularly after September 11, some outcries began to be heard.

Multiculturalism is racism; cultural relativism is racism; this should be recognized once and for all. By defining different laws for different citizens on the basis of such arbitrary concepts such as culture or religion, we leave the lot of the weakest sections of that so-called "cultural community" to the mercy of the self-imposed leaders of that community. We deprive these weakest sections of the protection of the law and society. Women under Islam are downtrodden and deprived of any rights. Leaving them under Sharia law will only victimize them further.

There are many fallacies involved in such an approach. One which is seemingly very liberal is the assumption that members of the "Muslim communities" will voluntarily resort to Sharia law. If Muslim women or children had any choice or voice, they would tell the Archbishop to keep these proposals to himself. The question of choice is non-existent in a hierarchical and deeply male chauvinist community. Allowing Sharia Law to be practiced will cut off the poor voiceless women from any protection and make life much more difficult for the young women who struggle with backward traditions at home.

Giving the Archbishop's intention the benefit of the doubt is the best case scenario. The other, to my opinion most probable scenario is that he is cunningly trying to strengthen the grip of religion and religious institutions on the society as a whole. By assigning a stronger position to Islam in "Muslim Communities" he is trying to foster the position of the church and Christianity in the wider society. If one accepts the role of Islam and Islamic laws in one community, by the same token, they should accept the role of Christianity and the Church of England in the larger community. His defence of Sharia Law is a clever step towards revitalizing the role of Church in the wider society.

And finally, as a veteran women's rights activist and one who has suffered first hand under a brutal Islamic state; as an activist who has fought hard against Islam and political Islam for liberty and equality, I am very indignant by Rowan Williams' proposal. We do not need to establish Sharia law in any form or shape. We need a secular, free society, free from racism, misogynism and inequality. We need to rid the society from religion and religious establishment, be it Muslim, Christian, Judaism or anything else.

14 February, 2008

[The Winslow]

However, it is not only the Archbishop who espouses this upside-down approach to racial equality. This is a political trend. For this trend the meaning of anti-racism has changed from equality to differentiation, from integration to segregation. We owe this falsification to post modernism, which gave rise to cultural relativism and a high socio-political status to the concept of multi culturalism in this deformed interpretation of it.

Some misled section of the "intelligentsia," academia and political institutions have played a significant role in defending these concepts as progressive, libertarian, egalitarian and anti-racist. Reactionary political forces, such as political Islam have been the only beneficiaries of this trend. For decades gross violations of human rights in societies under Islam were neglected and even justified by these mal-formulated theories. Only when these brutal practices made an inroad into western societies in the form of terrorism, particularly after September 11, some outcries began to be heard.

Multiculturalism is racism; cultural relativism is racism; this should be recognized once and for all. By defining different laws for different citizens on the basis of such arbitrary concepts such as culture or religion, we leave the lot of the weakest sections of that so-called "cultural community" to the mercy of the self-imposed leaders of that community. We deprive these weakest sections of the protection of the law and society. Women under Islam are downtrodden and deprived of any rights. Leaving them under Sharia law will only victimize them further.

This is the most compelling part of her argument. The communautarismes (notion (http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=23308) that doesn't (http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=69492) really (http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=172261) exist (http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=812759) in English, apparently) are the death of a nation's cohesion and a source of segregation and discrimination. It's a way for the minorities to imprison themselves in their own ghettos, and for this reason people claiming to have good intentions say it's a good thing. "Look, it's not the Whites forcing the Blacks to go in separate train cars, it's the Blacks wanting to have their own train cars without Whites inside to disturb their community and pollute their culture."

Laws, in an Enlightened democracy, should be the same for all. Either it applies to everyone, or it applies to nobody. If sharia becomes officially recognized in Merry Olde England, then it should be available to everyone, not just Muslims... And if you don't want to see Christians, Jews, or atheists submitted to Sharia, then Muslims shouldn't, either.

The Law is the same for everybody, or it's no longer the Law. People who want sharia in the United Kingdom are putting their Muslim communautarisme before their British nationality, and therefore are a threat to the very fundamentals of Western Democracy.

Sure, they can talk all they want about it, just like the Neo-Nazis or the Trotskyites, but they should never get satisfaction.

[Eliezer]

This is where we part company. North Korea is an inferior position, economically, militarily and psychologically - much more so than the Soviet Union. By your logic it should have collapsed years ago. As I see it, the reason it hasn't is that its masses are only vaguely aware that an alternative exists

China is in a superior position, economically, to the United States and is in the early stages of political collapse (give it a few years, and it's a different situation, but we're already seeing the first, scattered protests that were a precursor to the collapse of the Soviet Union). Its citizens can see a better alternative



Naturally, this forum would not allow for elucidating all of the causes. My references were directly to the change in direction of the Soviet leadership. The influence of the people and a willingness to dismantle a system instead of holding onto power until full fledged revolution comes to fruition is probably something that the Soviet leadership grappled with.

North Korea is an interesting case because you're dealing with people who appear for all intents and purposes to be a lunatic crackpots. The North Korean leadership has recognized their inferiority and decided to prevent revolution from within by controlling what their people see. Same forces, opposite decision.

China is a totally different in that the leadership there recognizes that "communism" is just a name and nothing more. The Chinese people and way of life are what is important. Culturally, identity as Chinese is more important than any other political identification. They still believe themselves superior to all other races/peoples of the world. The cultural view is that despite all the minor changes and set backs that last a few decades or even a century or two the Chinese have consistently risen to the top due to a superior culture. They see not reason to not pursue their course of controlled economic development to allow the Chinese to assume the dominate power position of the world as (in their minds) they should. US dominance is just a minor historical anomaly, as was the Mongol dominance. The Mongols eventually assimilated into Chinese culture.

To be honest, the closes analogue we have historically to China is the Ancient Egyptian culture. It assimilated and dominated culturally all invaders for thousands of years. It wasn't until the Hellenization and the Greek culture came to Egypt that it changed.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

People who want sharia in the United Kingdom are putting their Muslim communautarisme before their British nationality, and therefore are a threat to the very fundamentals of Western Democracy.

If I get what that word means, then Christians are just as much a threat. In fact many governments, from Ancient Rome to present-day China have used it as a reason to exclude Christians from full participation within society

Our starting point is stuff like Acts 5:29 - "We must obey God rather than men!" I am a Christian before I am British, before I am a husband, before I am male - and if you take some of CS Lewis' speculations seriously - even before I am human. Christianity existed before this system of government did and, God-willing, will exist after it falls. Because my faith has had so much input into this system of government, it's a very supportive environment to be a Christian and I thank God that I live in a country that has so much freedom. But things can change - even in less than a generation

Scary - isn't it?

[The Winslow]

If I get what that word means, then Christians are just as much a threat.

Except that there's no such thing as a majority communautarism. They're always about a minority deciding to segregate itself from the mainstream. And it goes beyond the system of government, by the way.

It's the dark side of multiculturalism, when you have several different cultures in a melting pot society, except some of them just refuse to melt.

But where you an Anglican Iranian, yes, I suppose you could play that card.

Basically, it depends on whether you think of yourself as a British man who happens to have Christian (and more specifically Anglican) beliefs; or as an Anglican who has the misfortune of being British out of some accident of fate, but who can't stand up other British people who aren't Anglicans and wants nothing to do with them.

[Name Lips]

It's the dark side of multiculturalism, when you have several different cultures in a melting pot society, except some of them just refuse to melt.


Actually, the "Melting Pot" and "Multiculturalism" are competing and mutually exclusive theories. The Melting Pot states that cultures can - and should - adopt the practices of their new country, even as it adopts some of the practices of the culture. Both change each other until there is a single homogeneous whole, with no significant cultural differentiation between people. "Multiculturalism" teaches us that though we might have some things in common (like being an "American") it is our differences that are our true strength - that by holding onto our cultural differences and trying hard to differentiate ourselves from other people in our culture, we each become more special, and the country as a whole is more diverse and adaptable to different situations.

You can see it clearly in the changing of the American school system. At the end of the 19th century, it was assumed that schools were a place to "Americanize" people of different cultures, from Irish and German to Native American and Chinese, completely stripping them of their cultural heritage and replacing it with generic "American Values." At the end of the 20th century, we had changed to "honoring and respecting" people of different cultures, teaching about them, being inclusive, and eliminating all American-centric language from our curricula.

Which theory is superior? Which leads to a stronger America? It's hard to say, and people debate it to this day.

Clearly the penultimate end-result of multiculturalism is utter insanity - where each cultural group within a country has its own set of laws, which is what we're seeing here. But the end result of the melting pot might not be much better, with a bland society with no real cultural history.

[The Winslow]

Both change each other until there is a single homogeneous whole, with no significant cultural differentiation between people.
Yep. So:
You can see it clearly in the changing of the American school system. At the end of the 19th century, it was assumed that schools were a place to "Americanize" people of different cultures, from Irish and German to Native American and Chinese, completely stripping them of their cultural heritage and replacing it with generic "American Values." At the end of the 20th century, we had changed to "honoring and respecting" people of different cultures, teaching about them, being inclusive, and eliminating all American-centric language from our curricula.
What you're saying here is that America was never a melting pot. It went from a model which refuses to incorporate the new in the old, to a model which refuses to incorporate the old in the new. In neither case does the two cultures, native and immigrant, melt together.

[Name Lips]

Yep. So:

What you're saying here is that America was never a melting pot. It went from a model which refuses to incorporate the new in the old, to a model which refuses to incorporate the old in the new. In neither case does the two cultures, native and immigrant, melt together.

That's true. Even when the "melting pot" was considered the ideal by political philosophers, actual political policy didn't implement it. Instead there were active campaigns to eliminate other cultures and to minimize their impact on American culture.


There has been a lot of melting pot going on in America, but it's been going on in spite of official policies, not because of them.

But what would official, endorsed "melting pot"ism look like? No legal promotions of American culture, no legal protections for new culture? In that scenario, all minority cultures will feel like they're embattled and being destroyed by the dominant culture. They won't see what influence - if any - they're having on American culture as a whole. All they'll see is their kids abandoning their ways and doing "American stuff." That is to say, in its most pure and ideal form, the "melting pot" would look like pure assimilation from the point of view of minority cultures, and they're going to instinctively fight back.

[The Winslow]

But what would official, endorsed "melting pot"ism look like?
I'm not sure it can exist. However, if it does, then:
No legal promotions of American culture, no legal protections for new culture?
The contrary. Both promotion of native culture, and protection of immigrant cultures. Don't try to remove, but to add.

[Eliezer]

Both promotion of native culture, and protection of immigrant cultures. Don't try to remove, but to add.

The cultural reaction to change is part of the melting pot phenomena. We've actually had some really good melting pot experiences in the US although the transition has never been entirely smooth.

The best policy in my mind is no legal protections for either the existent culture nor legal protection nor recognition of the incoming culture. The assimilation is going to occur one way or another because you can't interact closely with another culture without some change. I think the worst thing you can do is legislate protection of a language or culture.

A potential problem with some Muslims in Britain appears (at least to my outsider eye) that the cultural response of some of the Muslim community has been to reject British culture as decadent/evil/whatever bad and as a reaction to try to insulate themselves from British influence. This phenomena in and of itself is changing the culture of British Muslims.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

A potential problem with some Muslims in Britain appears (at least to my outsider eye) that the cultural response of some of the Muslim community has been to reject British culture as decadent/evil/whatever bad and as a reaction to try to insulate themselves from British influence. This phenomena in and of itself is changing the culture of British Muslims.

The thing is, this isn't the first time we've been though this process. As I say in "Stiff Upper Lip" (still available from RPGNow.com (http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=54172&filters=0_0_0&manufacturers_id=386) :) )

Immigration has come in cycles and there has always been a moral panic about that latest wave failing to integrate (currently it’s Muslims, fifty years ago the immigrants were black, fifty years before that they were Irish and fifty years before that I believe they were Jewish). Each group has been successfully absorbed into the wider culture, adding their own fast food and other cultural influences to Britishness.

On the other hand, since around the 1970s, the rate of immigration has been increasing. This, coupled with a general population move south towards London, has led to a shortage of housing in some areas. The potential for Islamic terrorism is another source of tension. There has only been a single successful Islamist terrorist incident (the “7/7” London bombings on the 7th July 2007), but there have also been a number of failed plots and false accusations.

Theoretically, the British should be able to absorb these problems (frankly, this current batch of terrorists aren’t a patch on “the Provos”), but various (usually right-wing) newspapers and bodies such as the BNP are presenting Muslim immigration as a threat to the British way of life.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I'm a simpleton, but I believe in a strict separation of church and state when it comes to giving religious (or in Sharia's case, prseudo-religious) laws and customs a legal foothold in any government, especially in a western democracy. Sharia law is not only poor justice, it's a mirror into a degenerate religion and culture, and a tether that keeps Muslims living with one foot in their third-world shitholes when they should be fully integrating themselves into their host nation. Williams' comments may have been blown out of proportion, but it does not pay to be namby-pamby with regards to Sharia, for I assure you that Sharia's adherants will not be namby-pamby in it's application.

[Name Lips]

There is a certain problem with separation of church and state when a religion's holy book mandates how the state should behave and what rules it should follow. Of course, you'd think members of that religion wouldn't move to a place where the state didn't follow those rules unless they were willing to abandon that part of their religion...

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

There is a certain problem with separation of church and state when a religion's holy book mandates how the state should behave and what rules it should follow. Of course, you'd think members of that religion wouldn't move to a place where the state didn't follow those rules unless they were willing to abandon that part of their religion...

Islam is a religion motivated by conquest, not assimilation. They are the Pizzaro's and Cortez's of the 21st century.

[The Winslow]

I'm a simpleton, but I believe in a strict separation of church and state

Of course, this doesn't really apply in Great Britain for historical reasons.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Of course, this doesn't really apply in Great Britain for historical reasons.

Yeah, I know.

[Eliezer]

Immigration has come in cycles and there has always been a moral panic about that latest wave failing to integrate (currently it’s Muslims, fifty years ago the immigrants were black, fifty years before that they were Irish and fifty years before that I believe they were Jewish). Each group has been successfully absorbed into the wider culture, adding their own fast food and other cultural influences to Britishness.

On the other hand, since around the 1970s, the rate of immigration has been increasing. This, coupled with a general population move south towards London, has led to a shortage of housing in some areas. The potential for Islamic terrorism is another source of tension. There has only been a single successful Islamist terrorist incident (the “7/7” London bombings on the 7th July 2007), but there have also been a number of failed plots and false accusations.

Theoretically, the British should be able to absorb these problems (frankly, this current batch of terrorists aren’t a patch on “the Provos”), but various (usually right-wing) newspapers and bodies such as the BNP are presenting Muslim immigration as a threat to the British way of life.

Well, that about sums up my perception of things. There's always a few folks on both sides (newcomers and oldsters) that complain, claim the sky is falling and spout asshatery.

Funny thing is, I find that to be part of integration process. It's part of a process that England does exceptionally well. I've said this before, but the best melting pot nations of the world are England her former colonies. Canada, the US, Australia all have records for assimilation/melting pot of cultures that is largely unparalleled anywhere else in the world. Great Britain does better assimilating immigrants than any other European nation and is less bigoted and more tolerant than any other European nation despite the squawking by a few.

I think it's one of the great things that the US got from her mother country.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

Yeah, I know.

To be honest, I'll believe that the US truly has separation of Church and State when you take the word "God" back out of the Pledge and off your currency and when you have an atheist for a President. Look at the crap that got thrown at your current candidates for (e.g.) being the wrong sort of Christian or having a Muslim parent

Funny thing is, I find that to be part of integration process. It's part of a process that England does exceptionally well.

You find out some fascinating things when you get deep your own culture. I think we all know about that relic of Empire, the Great British Curry, but did you know that that most British of fast foods, fish and chips, was originally Jewish?

If you want to find out about what what it means to be British and you don't mind a lot of creative swearing and gratuitous abuse of the French (which, frankly, are essential components of Britishness) then Warren Ellis's Crecy is a great place to start

But my country, my England, it has a way of making people its own. Angles, Saxons, Danes, even some of the bloody French; they all end up English

(clarification: this quote is said by 12th century archer in the service of King Edward. As we hadn't conquered, sorry, assimilated Scotland or Ireland, Britain didn't really exist as a concept yet)

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

To be honest, I'll believe that the US truly has separation of Church and State when you take the word "God" back out of the Pledge and off your currency and when you have an atheist for a President. Look at the crap that got thrown at your current candidates for (e.g.) being the wrong sort of Christian or having a Muslim parent


At least we don't have prominant religious leaders calling for acceptance of Sharia. I'm sure the Christians, women and homosexuals of England are overjoyed.

[Scarbonac]

At least we don't have prominant religious leaders calling for acceptance of Sharia. I'm sure the Christians, women and homosexuals of England are overjoyed.

No, we had prominent religious mouthpieces stating that Hurricane Katrina was God's wrath on New Orleans (and America in general) cos of its sinful nature.

I'm sure the survivors were overjoyed.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

I think there is an important difference between the separation of church and State (a constitutional issue) and the separation of church and politics (a cultural issue).

In the US, theistic beliefs have far too much influence on public debate for my liking. But that has nothing to do with the separation of Church and State. There, the US does pretty well (though prayers in Congress and the Supreme Court, "in God we trust" on the currency" and the recent insertion of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance are things that need to be changed).

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

No, we had prominent religious mouthpieces stating that Hurricane Katrina was God's wrath on New Orleans (and America in general) cos of its sinful nature.

I'm sure the survivors were overjoyed.

I don't really think you can compare a blowhard like Falwell or Robertson to a figure like Williams, but then again, maybe the shoe does fit.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

I think there is an important difference between the separation of church and State (a constitutional issue) and the separation of church and politics (a cultural issue).

In the US, theistic beliefs have far too much influence on public debate for my liking. But that has nothing to do with the separation of Church and State. There, the US does pretty well (though prayers in Congress and the Supreme Court, "in God we trust" on the currency" and the recent insertion of "under God" in the pledge of allegiance are things that need to be changed).

Yes, but as this thread is about Williams and Sharia I'd hate to see it turn into yet another indictment about the US.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

At least we don't have prominant religious leaders calling for acceptance of Sharia. I'm sure the Christians, women and homosexuals of England are overjoyed.

Have you read the thread? Or are you just jumping in at the end?

[Darkfire]

Islam is a religion motivated by conquest, not assimilation. They are the Pizzaro's and Cortez's of the 21st century.

Sure....thats why we have all those missionary schools dedicated to producin people to spread the faith to the heathens :rolleyes:

Also a lot of us come to the UK because its more Islamic than most Islamic countries :D

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Have you read the thread? Or are you just jumping in at the end?

Oh, I've read it. I just don't listen to you. You're as slimy as Williams, like an eel contortionist.

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

Sure....thats why we have all those missionary schools dedicated to producin people to spread the faith to the heathens :rolleyes:

Also a lot of us come to the UK because its more Islamic than most Islamic countries :D

I have no doubt you folks take every opportunity to spread your demonic faith to anyone who will listen, especially if they are young, ignorant children. I guess the only consolation is that, for the most part, the pedophilia stopped with Mohammed.

[Darkfire]

I have no doubt you folks take every opportunity to spread your demonic faith to anyone who will listen, especially if they are young, ignorant children. I guess the only consolation is that, for the most part, the pedophilia stopped with Mohammed.

:static:

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

:static:

http://media.mein-parteibuch.de/gaeste/20060202/mohammed_karikatur_7.jpg

[Darkfire]

OMG so very offended. How can I possibly deal with it? Woe is me :rolleyes:

[Scutisorex Shrewlord]

OMG so very offended. How can I possibly deal with it? Woe is me :rolleyes:

Just please don't do anything to Mr. Rushdie!

[Atticus_of_Amber]

OMG so very offended. How can I possibly deal with it? Woe is me :rolleyes:

Amusing - given the way you play the 'I'm offended" card when pressed on the more embarrassing aspects of your morally corrosive ideology.

[Darkfire]

Just please don't do anything to Mr. Rushdie!

Alas I'm only 6359210 in the cue composed of all the muslims in the world who are trying to kill Mr Rushdie.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Alas I'm only 6359210 in the cue composed of all the muslims in the world who are trying to kill Mr Rushdie.

Haven't you all moved on to the lipsmacking prospect of gang-raping Ayaan Hirsi Ali? She's an adulteress *and* an apostate so surely Allah and his paedophile prophet say you should put her to death through a kind of deadly bukake?

And yes, there are a lot of you. Is that supposed to be a threat? Because I can't see how else numbers could be relevant.

Or maybe you're trying to say that most Muslims are sane people who wouldn't touch Rushdie or Hirsi Ali if they had the chance. I wonder if we could test that by having Salmund and Ayaan walk hand-in-hard down the streets of a Muslim neighbourhood in London with no visible bodyguards? I wonder how that would turn out?

[Freedom Canadian]

Or maybe you're trying to say that most Muslims are sane people who wouldn't touch Rushdie or Hirsi Ali if they had the chance. I wonder if we could test that by having Salmund and Ayaan walk hand-in-hard down the streets of a Muslim neighbourhood in London with no visible bodyguards? I wonder how that would turn out?

Even if harm came to them, it would hardly disprove the thesis that "most Muslims are sane people who wouldn't touch Rushdie or Hirsi Ali if they had the chance" since all it takes to kill them is one crazy with a tire iron.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

Even if harm came to them, it would hardly disprove the thesis that "most Muslims are sane people who wouldn't touch Rushdie or Hirsi Ali if they had the chance" since all it takes to kill them is one crazy with a tire iron.

Fair enough, I should have said "vast majority" of rather than "most".

And an important comparison is this: What would happen to Cyrano (the artist behind "Piss Christ") if he were to walk through a devout Christian neighbourhood?

[Scarbonac]

Fair enough, I should have said "vast majority" of rather than "most".

And important comparison is this. What would happen to Cyrano (the artist behind "Piss Christ") were to walk through a devout Christian neighbourhood?


That's "Serrano", you illiterate bigot.

[Atticus_of_Amber]

That's "Serrano", you illiterate bigot.

Huh? I'm being dissed for not bothering to check the spelling on a messageboard??? You have got to be joking.

[Merganser]

Or maybe you're trying to say that most Muslims are sane people who wouldn't touch Rushdie or Hirsi Ali if they had the chance. I wonder if we could test that by having Salmund and Ayaan walk hand-in-hard down the streets of a Muslim neighbourhood in London with no visible bodyguards? I wonder how that would turn out?

So you're saying people would have any idea who these people are by sight? Or do they have to carry great big signs, too?

[Atticus_of_Amber]

So you're saying people would have any idea who these people are by sight? Or do they have to carry great big signs, too?

I'm pretty sure there are more than enough Muslims who would know Rushdie or Hirsi Ali by sight.