Skip to main content

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

Comment Preferences

  •  Sharia Says (0+ / 0-)

    Sharia says to mistreat those people. Though of course it calls that treatment "justice".

    Williams says UK law, that is based on steadily increasing protection of human rights, should step aside in favor of sharia. Also in favor of Catholic homophobia, if that lets Williams' church have whatever it wants that's prohibited by UK law. Like probably tax exemptions/subsidies.

    Of course carving out those exceptions are the way to steadily increase the erosion. When Muslims produce women who say they "voluntarily accept" a little stoning for visiting men not their husband unescorted, that will just be an "evolution"

    We're not talking about UK born Muslims who don't want sharia. We're talking about the ones who do, the ones Williams is riding to increased religious power in the UK for him to share.. We're not talking about people who abuse others without claiming sharia exceptions, either. Though I'm sure three will be some seeking a sharia court when they get caught doing it: an "indictment conversion".

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

    by DocGonzo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 03:07:47 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  OK, let's deal with this one point at a time (0+ / 0-)
      1. do you actually know what Williams was talking about when he referred to the issue about Catholic adoptions?

      I suspect not.

      The issue was this: are charities run by Catholics required by (currently existing) laws to treat applications from gay parents on a par with other applications.

      There was some concern as to whether the Human Rights Act when introduced would have this consequence, and it was used as a reason to oppose this - mostly fairly progressive legislation. This concern turned out to be  based on a misunderstanding of the proposed legislation, which was to apply to public bodies, not private charities.

      No-one changed the law to 'pander to' Catholics. No-one altered the content of proposed legislation to fit in with what Catholics wanted. No-one did this at the behest of the Archbishop of Canterbury, or the Pope, or the grand mufti.

      Williams used the example to show how easily even fairly well-established religious groups can feel under attack because they misunderstand what the lkaw actually is. I think there's a genuine concern here: why alienate citizens when there's no need to

      1. The Church of England is an 'established church.'In other words it currently has a somewhat privileged position under law. There has been no attempt on the part of people in the Church of England to exploit that privileged position directly, and quite a lot of effort to make that position less privileged. That's rather surprising if, as you say, they are a bunch of stealth theocrats.
      1. How much do you actually know about sharia law, or what aspects of it Williams thinks we  (that's we British citizens, not we, you and I unless you are a British citizen.) Not much, I suspect.

      Its fairly clear from the article that you actually quote that Williams is not, for example, saying that we should allow adulterers to be stoned. I doubt he's in favour of polygamy either. And if he thinks that the testimony of women should be allowed to count for half that of a man, I'd be quite surprised.  

      But surely, you may be thinking there's nothing more to sharia than instructions to tolerance and persecution. But there is. For example, there's a fairly strong prohibition on usury - lending money at interest. Given the way the housing market works, that can pose a problem to some pious Moslems. The problem isn't entirely insoluble - in fact there are quite a lot of specialists in Islamic banking in the UK. But it would require some changes in the law. (Funnily enough, none of these changes would automatically entail stoning any women or cutting off the hands of thieves)

      Its not entirely obvious to me that when the head of a Christian denomination suggests that it might be a good idea for law-makers to have some idea of what is and isn't part of sharia law, the most enlightened response is to say either 'Muslims go home' or 'closet dominionist'. And you aren't doing much to persuade me that it is.

      1. With all due respect to ct, its at time like this that I feel some sympathy for Harry Hutton.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site