Skip to main content

View Diary: Canterbury Archbishop Wants Sharia for UK Muslims (146 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  What part of (0+ / 0-)

    'there are a substantial number of British born Muslims' did you misread?

    They didn't all 'move to' the country that they are  citizens of.

    Here's a practical question: should an adolescent girl who wants to keep their head and legs covered at school be allowed to, even if that conflicts with a law that says head teachers can determine school uniform policies?

    If they aren't allowed to - should they be allowed to argue their case for separate schooling? Or should they just move immediately to Saudi Arabia? If so, why exactly?

    •  Accepting Reality (0+ / 0-)

      Just because their parents failed to instruct them to obey the laws of their native country doesn't mean the country should change its laws to accommodate them.

      Hey, some guy who hears the same voices in his head as I do says that I have to carry a loaded gun in my hand wherever I go. Who are the people of New York City to insist that I don't? I hear the voices telling me that women and men must not sit mixed together in a dark movie theater - so we must separate on either side of the aisle. And when my wife refuses, I should beat the crap out of her, with the cops holding her down.

      I didn't say they should move. You're the one inventing a strawman argument about it. If they can't accept the law of the land they're living in, then they can change it to be universal, as democracy permits. But if those changes are incompatible with the rest of the system, like revenge killings, or burkas, then they have to accept the secular law. Or, yes, they can move somewhere that has the laws they prefer. Even if they were not born there, or if their parents weren't.

      There is no legitimate reason that people's personal superstitions should affect the law, when that law affects everyone. They can believe what they want. But they can't carve out exceptions to universal laws on their personal preference. Or else everyone has to get exceptions on the same arbitrary basis. That's what the rule of law means.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:52:10 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Strawman? (0+ / 0-)

        Who forced them to come to Europe? (2+ / 0-)

        Looks like you're suggesting that there aren't any European born Muslims to me.

        You may keep your religion and choose to immerse yourself in an expatriate community, but you respect your new home. Or leave.

        Looks like you're saying they should move. Or is there a fine distinction between 'moving' and 'leaving' that I'm missing.

        No-one - certainly not Rowan Williams - is suggesting that people shouldn't have to obey the law. They are disagreeing about what the law should be.

        •  Strawman (0+ / 0-)

          You are quoting someone else. I did not ask who forced them to come to Europe.

          If you're not going to even pay attention to which person you're arguing with, you're not going to win any points.

          Williams is most certainly suggesting that people whose religion conflicts with the law shouldn't have to obey the law. At the very least his example of Catholic adoptions by gay people proves that he is. The rest is completely consistent with that.

          And I have now invoked that indisputable example several times, including in the diary. Just because you're ignoring it doesn't mean that it doesn't prove you wrong.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Fri Feb 08, 2008 at 11:44:48 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Where I come from (0+ / 0-)

            attacking a strawman means attacking a position no-one holds. In this subthread there are people who are saying that Muslims should go back where they came from, asking who asked them to come here etc. That's not a position no-one holds, as the quotations illustrate. So the view that I'm attacking is not a strawman.  

            I'm glad to hear it's not your view. But it does seem to be your view that these people, who are British citizens should not be allowed to advocate for their views, or to have members of other communities advocate for them.

            I've addressed the Catholic adoption issue at length elsewhere in the thread. I'm not going to repeat myslef here.

            I've also made a number of other points which you have ignored. So I'm wondering whether the accusation of ignoring indisputable arguments is being made in good faith.

            But let's go back to the point where I entered this discussion - the suggestion that Rowan Williams has a dominionist agenda.

            At the end of the day,I'm not really worried about the Church of England enforcing its views on me or other British citizens. One reason for that is that it is a church which is notorious for having almost no firm views about anything. (To give just one example - it caused a major heartache within the church when an avowed atheist, Anthony Freeman, was asked to leave the priesthood)

            I think that at this point, the gracious thing to do might be for you to go and try to find out a bit more about Rowan Williams, and the Church of England. But for anyone else who has followed this far down the thread and is still sympathising with homogenius point above, I have to ask: just how far did European immigrants to the new world follow your advice to adapt to the prevailing culture? When you can answer that question in a way that doesn't make you look foolish, I'll be prepared to listen to your views about how the British should deal with their Muslim communities.

            •  Fool's Golden Rule (0+ / 0-)

              "Some people say" that Anglicans eat babies. Oh, I know you didn't say that, but I'm going to argue against it with you anyway, countering your point that Anglicans kiss babies. Maybe in your world that's not a strawman", but in the real world, it is. Though maybe under some personal alternative to the laws of logic you'd like to carve out, across the street from "the Queen's sharia", it's not. Except maybe in some fool's paradise.

              European immigrants to the New World who broke the laws of the tribes they met here destroyed the landscape and genocided the people. The laws they adopted as their own, like from the Iroquois and the Huron, were the basis of democracy and a federal republic, which are those immigrants' only saving grace. Unless you're such a fool as to believe Europeans made their world a better place apart from increased productivity. Or maybe you're the kind of fool who thinks bringing Christian laws to the Americas was OK as a "personal alternative", which didn't just take over when it had the chance.

              People who immigrate to other countries have to adopt their laws. Britain's democracy includes the right of the people to change its laws to suit them as times change. But changing the fundamental basis of law as equal for everyone is such an extreme option that it can be considered along with, say, slavery (which sharia authorizes) as anathema, antithetical to the rule of law the law permits modifying. So lawyering the principle of using the law to change the law to one that isn't a universal law is a travesty. It's replacing the law, not changing it.  Foolish.

              Sure, you're not worried about furry old Williams. That's what they count on. I expect the Romans weren't too worried about the Germans they installed inside the Empire to defend from the German invaders, either. By then there were plenty of Christians in the Senate offering fallacies and complacent assurances, too. There were probably plenty of pagans who thought adding Christianity to the mix with the incoming Romans would be a good way to keep the social order. Plenty of tribal American weren't worried about those furry Christians cutting down trees to make churches and carve out "New Jerusalems" under "god's law". After all, they'd keep it to themselves, and laws are just arbitrary inventions, after all. How far could it go, when the tribes had thousands of years of their own way, which was clearly superior to the endless conflict between those new churches? Though surely plenty of fools ignored whatever they'd heard about the history.

              And if you'd like to guess that I'm implying that some Muslims (the most radical) won't be satisfied with just a little sharia for themselves, then you're absolutely right. But I'm not going to argue that with you, since you've disqualified yourself to argue even merely documented facts already established, let alone educated speculation about the future. But I remind you of the stakes, which Williams clearly sees for himself and believes he has an advantage in the power vacuum, which will leave his Church better positioned than it could be if it had to count on its own dwindling membership - which Williams probably believes a healthy old Crusade or local jihad would surely boost. Because he's a fool.

              You have no place instructing me about "grace". You tried to beat a strawman, and now try to deny that it's a strawman. You tried ignoring the essential points of the argument. You're willing to type out lots of paragraphs, even dragging others' arguments into ours as a strawman, but claim that I should find somewhere your supposed arguments against the evidence that Williams wants Catholics exempt from laws protecting adoptive gays from bigotry - where, with your track record, I expect to find some fallacy aimed at some other argument entirely. And now you're trying to invoke (again) an appeal to authority fallacy, that Williams is nice enough, so he couldn't possibly actually mean what he clearly said. Or maybe he's just an old fool - though not the only one, which is how foolish changes get started in a democracy.

              The gracious thing for you to do would be to admit that Williams, however nice and harmless an old man he might be, is abusing his seat in the House of Lords and the head of the official state Church to try to carve out exceptions to the universal law that governs all Britons. By fooling people with examples of exceptions for every other sect but his own.

              Which the facts clearly show. History clearly shows. Logic clearly shows. Fool yourself, but don't try to fool me.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 07:14:23 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Spot the strawman (0+ / 0-)

                Some (utterly unspecified, and probably mythical) people think that Anglicans kill babies.

                Some people in the thread I was replying to - whose comments I quoted - asked who told Muslims to come here, and suggested that those who disagreed with the law should leave.

                See the difference? If not, there's probably no point continuing this.

                •  You're It (0+ / 0-)

                  Yeah, the difference is that one doesn't help your "argument", the other does.

                  But they're both straw men. When you invoke someone else's argument in place of the one you're countering, that's a strawman. As I documented for your edification. But you've got none of the graces of someone worth arguing with.

                  So there is clearly no point continuing this argument. However, your willful ignorance of any of the terms of this debate, especially the underlying argument Williams is sticking with, that you're defending with all manner of fallacy, will thereby continue with your sanction. And of course you're not the only Briton swayed by his holy majesty. So you "win", by default, a Pyhrric victory. So you lose. Goodbye.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Sat Feb 09, 2008 at 12:29:46 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site