Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Archbishop sorry for 'unclarity' but insists Sharia debate right

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 12 February 2008
A HUMBLED Archbishop of Canterbury was yesterday forced to clarify his remarks on Sharia law after admitting they had caused "distress" – but insisted he was right to raise the controversial subject.
Dr Rowan Williams told the General Synod that some of the points he had tried to make about Sharia law being recognised in English law had been "distorted" as the debate raged for a fifth day.

But he stressed that the Church had a "burden and privilege" to speak up for all faith communities, adding: "I hope we can use it well – however clumsily it may have been deployed in this instance."

The Anglican leader triggered a furore last week after he suggested in an interview – given ahead of a more comprehensive lecture on Thursday – that it was inevitable that elements of Sharia law would be recognised by the state.

He faced calls to quit from at least two synod members, while his predecessor, Lord (George) Carey also challenged his comments on Sharia law.

However, addressing the Church of England's ruling body yesterday, Dr Williams insisted: "It is not inappropriate to address issues around perceived concerns of other religious communities and bringing them to better public focus.

"I must take responsibility for any unclarity and for any misleading choice of words that has helped to cause distress or misunderstanding among the public at large, and especially among my fellow Christians."

Dr Williams said he had not been suggesting a "parallel jurisdiction", with Sharia law running alongside the UK legal system.

He added: "I tried to make clear there could be no 'blank cheques' in this regard, in particular as regards some of the sensitive questions about the status and liberties of women.

"The law of the land still guarantees for all the basic components of human dignity."

He said questions remained about whether there could be "additional choices" under the law for "resolving disputes and regulating transactions".

Meanwhile, Gordon Brown yesterday gave his backing to the beleaguered Archbishop, despite instantly dismissing his suggestions last week.

The Prime Minister phoned Dr Williams over the weekend to tell him that, while he disagreed with him over Sharia law, he had always respected him.

Mr Brown's spokesman said: "The Prime Minister believes the Archbishop is a man of great integrity and dedication to public and community service and understands the difficulty he is facing."

One of Mr Brown's first acts on taking over as Prime Minister was to relinquish the duty of choosing the Church of England's bishops.

Terry Sanderson, president of the National Secular Society, said: "The Archbishop has dug himself in deeper with his call for special legal privileges for all religions. (He] seems insensitive to where 'religious conscience' ends and discrimination begins."

But Canon Chris Sugden, of the Anglican Mainstream organisation, said a full apology was the only response Dr Williams should give. He added that the row had caused great difficulties for Anglicans in countries such as Nigeria, where there was significant "Muslim pressure" for Sharia law to come into force.

BIRTHS ROW
DOWNING Street has tried to distance itself from a row over the potential birth defects caused by first-cousin marriages in parts of the Pakistani community.

Gordon Brown's spokesman said: "The government's position is we believe these matters are best addressed locally, by local members of the community, as well as by professional healthcare advisers."

Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 12 February 2008 12:09 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Sharia Law
 
1

Silence of the Yams,

12/02/2008 00:20:46
That beard is distinctly Meccaish. I think he should invest in a infidel mat and matching knee pads.
2

Scullion,

Canada 12/02/2008 00:56:06
Ontario allowed Jewish and Catholic based law to be used in certain family matters up until 2005 when the Sharia law request forced the government to take the matter in hand and ban all religious interference with civil law in our province. Thank God for that.
3

Roberta Burns,

12/02/2008 01:12:49
'unclarity' - perhaps the Arch should master the language before he speaks out.

2# I hope that's what happens here. Religious practice should be a private matter with absolutely no involvement with government or law.

There is nothing creepier than those Jewish Fundamentalists in their long black beards and big hats. Ugh.
4

!Ya basta!,

12/02/2008 03:00:38
I support Williams.

First, he is a breath of fresh air compared to all previous and current church leaders i know/can remember.

Second, he is right. Multiculturalism is the ONLY way forward nowadays and we have to find ways to live together in mutual respect, which means accomodating some of each other views.

I find it typical but still disappointing that those that wail loudest are religious absolutists of the judeo-christian axis.

Isn't the idea of heaven that we all live together in harmony? Isn't the religious ideal to create heaven/harmony on earth?
5

overton,

Balmedie 12/02/2008 06:28:23
7 !Ya basta!,

Your ideals are to be commended but unfortunately Islam cannot accommodate other faiths and the basis of their religion is that Islam must dominate.
In countries where they are in minority they will work with the majority as their religion advises them that it is expedient to do so, but if they gain any semblance of power they will organise, usually violently, to dominate.
It is noticable that 99% of the trouble in the world relates to Muslims and their attempts to dominate the area they live in or is to do with perceived slights against their religion.
6

an interested party,

12/02/2008 06:42:35
the idea of basing modern laws on the delusional beliefs of those that pretend their fantasy sky god is the best is frankly absurd.

to even suggest that religious standards, originally concocted by power hungry ignorant control freaks, should be implemented in any way opens the door for the next set of inquisitions / witch hunts / crusades

thought i can't say i am surprised that the apparent leader of one of these cults wishes to give credence to another cult. in some way furthering his own control freakish cause .
7

,

12/02/2008 07:20:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

Drum Major,

12/02/2008 07:36:15
The idea that we should assist people of other cultures is good. The concept that they should settle in western societies is not such a good idea. This is not racism. Racism is about the colour of peoples skin or the shape of their nose. It is not the colour of the skin that creates the problem, it is the failure to assimilate into a community and accept the laws and customs of that land. It would be like a Non-Muslim moving to Saudi Arabia and demanding that Non-Muslims should have equal rights to enter Mecca. Ensure your last will & testament are up to date.
9

,

12/02/2008 07:49:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

Charles Crosby,

UK 12/02/2008 07:49:38
#9 Interested Party's view is the typical secular view, but unfortunately for this person and others of his/her ilk, their views and opinions are no match for fanatical demonic religion.

The only force that can combat and destroy Islam is Christianity and I do not mean physical force, but rather, Spiritual Force which the British people have lost and/or have given up on.

As for the Archbishop, well he's just a political puppet dancing to the Power Elite's tune. If you think he is a Christian then you are very much mistaken.

His outburst is a distraction from the massive debate going on at Westminster where five or six MPs are currently rubber stamping out transition from free independent national status into enslavement in the Soviet/Fascist EU.

11

Gilmartin,

Philippines 12/02/2008 07:54:31
The silly old goat should go and live in Saudi. Let him be caught preaching Christianity there and he can sing the praises of Shariah Law before his head gets chopped off in public.
12

conservative,

12/02/2008 07:56:13
I thouyght that this primate was supposed to be a Christian? In the first place he should be above secular matters. In the second he should be opposed to Islam.
13

Royster,

12/02/2008 08:00:24
First prove that God exists. Then think about religious laws. If there is no proof then how can religious law be used under any circumstances?
14

Theo,

Richmond 12/02/2008 08:06:13
Let us remember a few things. First Jesus was and will always remain a Jew. He never protested his religion only certain practices and according to Judaic law since Mary was a Jew Jesus had to be a Jew. Mary whom the Catholics venerate are venerating a Jew and when we as Christians pray to Jesus we are praying to a Jew. Do not defame the Jew else you defame the Holy Mother and Child!
Secondly Islam recognizes Jesus as a respected prophet. Islam though has never said (as far as I know) how to look upon one who venerates one of their prophets. For the same reasoning they have never said why they and the Jew are so far apart. They both are the children of Abraham, they both have almost if not identical dietary laws and I am sure there are many other common relationships between our three great religions.

Keep in mind one thing:
The Christian is awaiting the Second Coming
The Jew is awaiting the coming of the Messiah
The Muslim is awaiting the return of their beloved Prophet
When he does show all 3 great Religions will finally be united.


15

Nell,

The Preservation Hall 12/02/2008 08:06:17
At least we now know what Santa Claus does for the rest of the year.
16

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 08:09:32
#8 Islam is no better or worse than Christianity when it comes to tolerance of other belief systems. That is to say, there is a large, peaceful majority of Muslims who are happy to live and let live, just as the large, peaceful majority of Christians are. And in both faiths (and in all faiths) there is a minority who have decided that their holy book is an absolute, and anyone who disagrees needs to be punished according to it.

It is rank hypocrisy to suggest that violent fundamentalism is an Islamic-only trait.
17

conservative,

12/02/2008 08:11:19
#18 Theo - your history is fair but your reasoning is laughable.
18

Jonboy,

12/02/2008 08:15:06
Why is there no mention in this "news" paper of Rose Gentle demanding a public inquiry into Tony Blair's illegal war on Iraq, at the House of Lords..?
19

paulr,

edinburgh 12/02/2008 08:17:52
#14 you are living in the same dream world as the other religious nutters.
#9 i agree with some of your points.
We are currently seeing the flip side of the historical behaviour from our own past, christian nutters spent years forcing their beleifs on other nations under the umbrella of the Empire, now we are seeing the muslims trying to force their religion on the rest of the world, both are equally evil, muslim extremists are just a bit more open in their aims, destroy any who do not adhere to their beleifs.
20

voltaire's janny,

12/02/2008 08:39:24
All Religions
All bad
All of the time

Take your delusions and shove 'em.

From silly head gear to circumcision to no booze on a Sunday before noon, the irrational has no place whatsoever in lawmaking.

If only we could protect children from this form of mental abuse by their parents the world could move on to reject all faiths and exalt altruism, compassion, fairness and opportunity.


21

Kenny A,

12/02/2008 08:42:23
The UK is not an Islamic country. There is no place for Sharia law. The Arch Bishop with his out of place speach has just stirred it up.

A wise man can often behave like a fool, and this is what he has done.
22

,

12/02/2008 08:46:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

Kenny A,

12/02/2008 09:05:59
28 I listened to it and still do not agree.

There are justice systems already in place in the UK, if you open these to different parties on religious grounds you will land up in a mess.

Take a look at Northern Nigeria for example or Aceh in Indonesia. While well meaning the Arch Bishop is blinkered if he does not realise the fundamentalists will take advantage of this and I do not just mean Islamic ones. Everyone will land up demanding justice as per there own religion. What happens when different religions have to sort out "crimes", committed one against another.

One law for all, end of story.
24

Prof,

12/02/2008 09:06:19
The Archbishop is missing the point. His duty as a Christian leader is to spread Christ's message. Like many church leaders he has lost sight of that.
25

Mirrorman,

12/02/2008 09:08:36
Even after yesterday he still hasn't told us what he meant....just more 'unclarity.'

Maybe the poor confused old Bish could do a cameo appearance at Glastonbury this year with the Manic Street Preachers.The worrying thing is that he's in the job until he's 70! Just imagine the havoc he could cause over the next few years.Even more worrying is the thought of an unholy Brown/Williams 'integrity' alliance.I sincerely hope she's more attractive than 'Prudence.'

26

An Beal Bacht,

12/02/2008 09:13:31
7 - !Ya basta!, 12/02/2008 03:00:38 writes:

"I find it typical but still disappointing that those that wail loudest are religious absolutists of the judeo-christian axis."

I have no religion - now BOOGER AFF! Is that loud enough for ye?

27

An Beal Bacht,

12/02/2008 09:20:48
"10 - Rulesbutnotrulers, Federation, not separation 12/02/2008 07:11:00
#7 !YB. Williams is wrong.

Multiculturalism is a failed policy. Nowhere does it work. Successful societies march united and to the same drum. Any one living here must be British. If they want to practise other rules and laws then this is not the place to do so.

Uniculturalism only, please."

How very anarchic of you. Not that I am disagreeing with you - except on your use of the term "British" -I would substitute Scottish.
28

An Beal Bacht,

12/02/2008 09:27:43
20 - Duncan in Edinburgh, 12/02/2008 08:09:32

You are just a balloon.
29

Gordon Mackenzie,

Roskilde, Denmark 12/02/2008 09:30:55
It's reassuring to note that 'the Church had a "burden and privilege" to speak up for all faith communities,'.... Great. But who speaks up for the, not insignificant bunch of us with no faith? Well, I guess we don't need old men with or without white beards. We are alone in this wonderful universe and we speak up for ourselves.
30

Gusto,

12/02/2008 09:33:03
"The moon is made of green cheese" said the Archbishop. When asked to explain he said "My apologies for the unclarity - I should have said the moon is made of green cheese"
He is talking about English Law, not Scottish Law, (I think) when in fact both are Roman Law based. Set up another QUANGO, we'll know in 12 years.
31

carrottop,

Dumfries 12/02/2008 09:36:15
37# Rubbish, you have just got to look at it to see its yellow cheese.
32

Gothic Rose,

12/02/2008 09:36:55
There is always, a lot of dust stirred up,when you Spring Clean.
33

Nemo,

Sunny Fife 12/02/2008 09:36:58

The use of the word 'unclarity' highlights the root cause of this nonsense all too precisely.
34

An Beal Bacht,

12/02/2008 09:38:49
28 - Vincent-W, 12/02/2008 08:46:05 write:

"First up - sack the headline writers".

What's for seconds - amputations, stonings, and beheadings?

tinyurl.com/2jyge7

tinyurl.com/8gc6l

tinyurl.com/33thzl

'tinyurl.com/adrun

I could go on - but you get the picture?
35

Fabius Maximus,

12/02/2008 09:41:02
Either Rowan Williams is very skilful at saying exactly what he means and does so with finely judged calculation, or he needs to have communication skills training. If the former, he believes that Sharia law will inevitably predominate over British Law in some parts of the UK. And he does not believe that his words alone have caused the "distress" which now besets his church - the wording of his partial apology avoids any suggestion of taking full responsibility.

He's an archbishop, a leader of leaders. Whether he's a cerebrating serpent of sophistry or someone who hasn't quite mastered the art of saying what he means in words which ordinary people can understand, he's not currently the great communicator his church desperately needs.
36

Gordon Mackenzie,

Roskilde 12/02/2008 09:41:22
Oops. Correction to #36. There is one old man with a white beard worth paying attention to, and it's his birthday today. Happy Darwin day folks.
37

an interested party,

12/02/2008 09:43:00
#38 is right
http://www.google.com/moon/

now zoom in to max
38

AJ Fife,

12/02/2008 09:44:27
The Archbishop is 100% correct. He's only preaching about tolerance, but the 'white' rightwing establishment don't like it!

Personally, I believe all religion to be complete b*llocks. However, since we can't ignore it, surely it's best to assimilate all faiths into broader society, and on an equal footing?

Even Charlie Big Lugs recognises that!
39

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 09:49:08
#35 Lovely, thanks. Are you going to progress on to any form of argument or discussion, or are you sticking with childish insults?
40

J.M.,

Cupar 12/02/2008 09:50:58
The church has neither "a burden nor a privilege to speak up for other faith communities". I would challenge Dr Williams and any who support him to justify this ridiculous statement by substantiating it from the Word of God.

The church has a duty to be faithful to her Head in heaven, the Lord Jesus Christ and to defend and promote the principles of God's kingdom in which we can participate through grace and by faith alone. The Archbishop's conduct and teaching should be based on God's Word, not on his own ideas. He has discredited his office, brought the Christian faith into disrepute and called into question the very basis of his own hope for eternal salvation.
41

Doh,

12/02/2008 09:57:53


Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Actually I think we should have a debate about incoporating some aspects of the Inquisition into British Law.
42

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 10:05:41
#48 I think we should have a debate about enforcing British law on religions. You can dress up a lot of harmful things in the cloak of religious freedom, and they get away with too much of it.
43

,

12/02/2008 10:15:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

Fabius Maximus,

12/02/2008 10:20:55
For my part, I think we really neeed to separate church from state. Everything in society which is funded from taxes paid by us all should be secular. Controversial, but I think we have to start with Faith based schools, and with so-called religious education. We shouldn't have Muslim, Jewish, Catholic or Presbyterian schools funded by the state. If any faith based or political, or cultural group wants to provide education, it should be permitted to do so, but should pay for its own schools. It is deplorable that any employer should licensed to discriminate against any employee on the grounds of religion or gender, and when such an employer is state funded the license is plainly outrageous.
45

Black & White Triumph,

Greenhill Road.....soon 12/02/2008 10:52:24
Yellow or green I do hope its yellow as green cheese usually is a bit whiffy
46

Doh,

12/02/2008 10:54:04
#50 HT

A little picky - By British law take it I and many others interpret as Scottish Law and English law.

#49 Duncan
I suspect we agree on this issue.

#39 GR
In the Spring there will be growth.
47

,

12/02/2008 11:06:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
48

Urban Guerrilla,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 11:12:11
The Archbishop is an appeaser who sucks up to the religious right at the expense of his former liberal principles. First he betrayed gay people within the Anglican Communion by siding with the persecutors of gays in the Global South, and now he flirts with Sharia law.

The man is a disgrace.
49

Geraldine Firequeen,

12/02/2008 11:22:51
is he really a druid? I thought he was a druid. Anyway, he got everyone going and got some things aired that needed to be said. Not that it will change the course of history, being already predetermined, as any good druid knows.
50

Clive Hamblin,

Hove, Sussex 12/02/2008 11:23:29
Questions:

Why are athiests so rude? Did no one ever explain that debate is never won by rudeness?

Why do people who stir up a hornet's nest(deliberately, or otherwise) always claim to have been either 'misrepresented,' or that their comments were 'taken out of context?'

Why didn't Rowan Williams think about the effect of what he was saying before he said it?



51

The Former Mr. Angry,

Perth 12/02/2008 11:25:11
Some apology! He apologises for the "unclarity" of his previous statements (not of course that he was wrong) and then appears to backtrack in a mealy-mouthed, intellectual-correct kind of way. If he can't put the subject forward in words the rest of us can understand with little room for doubt he really has no place at the helm of the CofE. He appears to exhibit a touching naivety about the propensity of extreme Islamicists to be offered an inch and take a mile.

Sharia law is (ahem) the holy grail for those wishing to establish a Caliphate in the UK and Dr Williams has unintentionally perhaps, just tried to help this process along a bit whilst being a bit muddled about how he conveyed himself to the public.
52

Iain's,

12/02/2008 11:31:19
Jews and Muslims in the UK already have religious courts in operation.
The courts deal mainly with divorce but also act as arbitration courts on other matters.

The ignorance on this matter is just par for the course in to-day's pc England.
53

,

12/02/2008 11:49:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
54

Pinkie,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 11:54:05
IF you are Christian - Jesus said "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's - and to God that which is God's". Q>E>D> The ArchBISH (and other clerics) should stick to that! Appreciate that the synergy between secularism and religion is problematic and the dividing line is not clear - which has caused untoward events - not least of which are wars.

In fact the real issue and problems we have had with "loosening" of ethics and British values by our Christian and Political Leaders in their attempts to gain popularity (retain or enlarge congregations and get votes!) has made the population (permutate !) confused, ill-at-ease, angry, indignant, divided, rudderless, insecure, voilent, etc......and so very weary.

Regarding the Schooling Debate: My "penny piece" is that I went to a Catholic School (Nuns) : When we had Religious Knowledge (One Hour a Week) - it was drummed into us that we should respect and value PEOPLE of EVERY RACE< COLOUR< AND RELIGION (this was in the 1960s!). The "non-catholic" girls studied the Bible - in a separate class taken by a "non-catholic" teacher. My school had Christians of mixed faiths despite being a "Roman Catholic" School.

The "Issue" - in my opinion - is that State Schools of every Country should teach the Religion which is the State Religion (in the UK it is Christianity) - and where possible allow those during that allocated time period to study their religion. If this is not practical where many religions abound - parents should arrange and pay for religious training outwith schools.

Religion does form the basis of society - whatever that religion is - along with a coda of morals, ethics and alues - but not all religins teach and respect for people of every race, colour, and religion. Unfortunately, for the world, fundamentalism or extremeism in every relgion (or tribe) is usually divisive and deplorable.

55

overton,

Balmedie 12/02/2008 11:55:33
53 Doh,

Good to see that you are still policing the bloggs D12.
56

John S,

12/02/2008 12:06:10
Saudis clamp down on valentines

BBC - Monday, 11 February 2008- Religious police in Saudi Arabia are banning the sale of Valentine's Day gifts including red roses, a local newspaper has reported.

The Saudi Gazette quoted shop workers as saying that officials had warned them to remove all red items including flowers and wrapping paper. Black market prices for roses were already rising, the paper said.

Saudi authorities consider Valentine's Day, along with a host of other annual celebrations, as un-Islamic.

57

,

12/02/2008 12:11:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
58

Doh,

12/02/2008 12:22:04
#64

Our three weapons are ....
59

Proximaking,

Dundee 12/02/2008 12:25:20
Let's look for a nice way to end this, a fantasy way. Feel free to nick the plot JK. I find it truly bizarre that again here we see the nonsense being perpetrated of "invisible imaginary friends" being impossible to believe in etc etc etc but modern Physics has recently (last few months) come to the conclusion that we live in a field based reality, a conceptual reality if we are to get round the nonsense of "real" things arising from nothing in a "Big Bang". Now say what you like, believe or don't believe but isn't the idea of just such a lifting of the blinkers to show a true underlying conceptual reality what a certain book has been harping on about for around 4,000 years if we include the Judaic bits? I personally believe in the Dr Who version of how it was written, we popped back and put it in place, and all the other books of course including the Koran, ...... now wouldn't that be a good way out of this mess? We dress a Physics theory up as religion and stick it in an old book to make it obvious it is correct and we use all the other old books exactly as written and place them too. I wonder who could be bright enough to plan that simple way out for all of us bigots? The only question of course would be who wrote those books in the first place and what are we supposed to learn when we pop back and find they aren't there and we have to place them? I remember Einstein once saying we admire the tool of the intellect but the real gift has always been intuition, we worship the tool and we ignore the gift. I see no passion in this “Archbishop” so how can he possibly represent a man of total passion. A new heaven and a new earth may as well start here and now and JK may as well write it. Or does Rowan Williams really think he knows best? And Roberta was quite right, those beardies are scary, and I support Palestinians (Semites) so am I an anti-Semite too? How does that work then? PS Someone in the States has already built a particle “Tardis” so is this really all fanta
60

John S,

12/02/2008 12:52:03
#66 - Vincent-W - I disagree, Rowan Williams should be asking why is the no love towards Christians in Saudi Arabia when we all believe in the same God.
Religious tolerance should be a two way street so lets see some from Islam particularly from Saudi Arabia.
Saudis clamp down on valentines-is this also part of Sharia law ?



61

Hunky Dorey,

Glasgow belongs to ALL OF US 12/02/2008 12:55:55
# 2 Scullion...... The Queen of England is still the constitutional head of state of your country,and she is head of state based on a sectarian law known as "the British act of settlement 1701. This sorry piece of anti- Catholic bigotry is an affront to decency,and has no place in a modern society. I say all of this as a Scottish Presbyterian.
62

JT,

12/02/2008 13:04:04
When certain elements of the Islamic community start respecting the laws of the land, then perhaps we can look at the real issue here - intergration and tolerance. Its simple you dont like the way you are governed in this country go somewhere else. Im fed up at all the pandering to other religions and traditions without getting some respect back. I dont care if a non christian celebrates one of their gods/saints just let me celebrate mine in peace.
63

Hunky Dorey,

12/02/2008 13:04:31
# 51 Fabious....... I absolutely agree with you. The complete separation of church and state in Britain would sound the death knell for the sectarian act of settlement 1701. This in turn would be a recognition that all British citizens would be held to be equal in the eyes of the state.
64

janela,

New York, NY 12/02/2008 13:13:39
Muslim cleric calls for Protestant Ethic in Saudi Arabia.
65

Mack1,

Carlisle 12/02/2008 13:32:55
Dr. Williams is a classic example of what Lenin dubbed "a useful fool". We specialize in producing leaders who wish to undermine all the tenets upon which our society was founded in the hope of appeasing the multiculturalists in our midst.

Perhaps the good bishop should concern himself more with trying to understand why C of E congregations continue to fall under his stewardship. I suppose the concept of getting "bums on seats" would be considered too plebeian a concept for him to turn his finely tuned mind toward; instead the Church he leads continues to self-destruct as it attempts to square the teachings of the Bible with gay rights.
66

an interested party,

12/02/2008 13:43:39
yay my first comment removal

and no reason given, nice

why bother with a reason section if you wont use it

ok so the link was a bit large, at a guess
it certainly wasnt offensive

please do enlighten me oh great moderator in the sky
67

Rita,

Warren 12/02/2008 13:54:00
take care Britain, ENOCH POWELL warned us about the reprucusions of relaxing the immigration laws-- it turns out he was very right, this is a Christian country, leave it as it is,
68

treacleswamp,

12/02/2008 14:01:32
His comments were unwise. Yes, there is a common sense approach when Islams legal fiction of a mortgage is taxed as a normal mortgage, avoiding double stamp duty - but this is not recognising Sharia, just recognising legal fictions as such.
69

Duncan in Edinburgh,

12/02/2008 14:15:17
#76 A country cannot hold a set of irrational beliefs. Even if lots of people who live there do, a country doesn't.
70

,

12/02/2008 14:31:58
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
71

AJ Fife,

12/02/2008 14:38:20
William Cumberland#79,

Whatever your belief, your colour or your race, we are all Mother Natures children.

Can't you find it in your heart to have some compassion for those who aren't white, unionist protestant and so-called British?
72

Norma,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 14:47:07
Remember the expression "When in Rome, do as the Romans do," which is used to advise people to adapt to the culture of places that they visit.

73

Joanna,

Cambs, England 12/02/2008 15:24:56
I agree with those on here who say that church and state should be separate entities. Leaders of religion, such as the Archbishop, should sort out the problems within their own church/mosque/synagogue or whatever. They should find ways of building bridges with other faiths that do not interfere with the state.

I, for one, do not answer to any church and I see no reason why they should have any say in the law of the land. As for Sharia law it is something that many moderate Muslims do not agree with and many of them do not want it in this country.

Keep all religions out of law and politics, they have no place there.
74

voltaire's janny,

12/02/2008 16:29:55
I used from my atheist, moral and intellectual high ground, and being Scots, rant long about the C of E's unwanted and unwarranted excursions into law and its sinister vested interest pursuits as unelected lords spiritual.

Now however, I have bcome an ardent antidisestablishmentarianist (don't get to use that one much in a sentence!)

The reasons are that I now see religious faith as a mental illness made especially virulent when strains are evolving and adapting and invited into our minds by unthinking ecumenical good intentions. In this context the established C of E may be seen as an innoculation - a little bit of bad for immunity from fanaticism.

We're all white, just like Jesus; catholics are idol worshippers but we'll keep the episcopalian hierarchy thanks. Oh and the robes are cool and if only we could get just a wee bit of buggery now and then.

As long as we all believed in God with a white beard - a man whose willie must exist since we are in His image - who liked good, punished bad, promised everlasting life and strongly promoted jumble sales, and the values of the middle class then everything was fine.

Gosh now we have wimmin, pooves and fuzzy wuzzies all expressing spirituality of a different sort...

If we subject the ridiculous views of Johnny Foreigner's religion to public debate, rational discourse, historical evidence etc then we have to expose the preposterous views of Christians to the same kind of analysis. Ooops.

This is why his archness the bish has conceded some ground to sharia law. He must believe that, were he not to do so, his own dubious moral authority might be cast aside by an ever more secular public, an eventuality surely that is worth a few stoned adulterers and amputees among our swarthy fellow citizens to prevent?

Besides doesn't their culture have a wee bit of an obsession with beardless boys too? With such things in common we can surely divvy up the flocks to oppress.

75

Disputer,

12/02/2008 16:38:25
Prince Charles said he wants to be a defender of all faiths - not defender of the faith.

It's only PART of Sharia law he's talking about - not the stoning to death or amputations for thieves.

If you live abroad, and make a will, you may opt (in certain countries) to have your disposable assets passed on using English or Scots law. In other words, if Brits abroad are allowed to use certain UK laws, why can't "certain" sharia laws be used in the UK?
76

Disputer,

12/02/2008 16:39:55
Who cares anyway? It's all mince.
77

Canning,

12/02/2008 16:45:31
#84 I too have athiest views about matters religious. However I do still feel that your views are rather on the warpped side of the scale. Too much is made of Sharia law in terms of its capital and corpral punishment. It would be like analysing WEstern law by focusing on the electric chair, hangings and the birch which have all been recently outlawed here but remain in many places in the west.

Even as an athiest living in the West it is impossible to live outside the influence of religious scripture as it has provided the moral, social and legal structure of our societies therefore why is it ridiculace to debate the posibility of divesifying our political system to match the diversification of our citizenship?? Surly this is a positive and progressive attitude
78

voltaire's janny,

12/02/2008 16:51:21
#87 - first I am taking the p**s so arguing my points is a tad warped itself.

- second, no it is not progressive to diversify to include all delusional creeds when the morality, social cohesion and need for evolving law and jurisprudence may easily be seen as human altruistic endeavours quite apart from which numpty prophet or surplus deity you talk to in your head.
79

voltaire's janny,

12/02/2008 16:59:52
Oh God
Who art so utterly big.
Oooh we're all impressed down here,
I can tell you...

Python, Monty et al
80

Lanna,

12/02/2008 17:07:48
#83 Joanna,
definitely separation of church and state; that doesn't mean the state can't be positively influenced by the church so long as human rights and fair treatment are seen as the end product. Somehow I have trouble getting around some of these points I've found regarding sharia:
...unmarried fornicators to be whipped and adulterers to be stoned to death.
...commands that highway robbers should be crucified or mutilated.
...commands that a male and female thief must have a hand cut off.
...allows an injured plaintiff to exact legal revenge—physical eye for physical eye.
...allows husbands to hit their wives even if the husbands merely fear highhandedness in their wives.
...drinkers and gamblers should be whipped.
81

Keith Lagden,

12/02/2008 17:10:42
#27 Kenny A.

Right on the money, well said
82

Itchy,

12/02/2008 17:16:54
#14 "The only force that can combat and destroy Islam is Christianity and I do not mean physical force, but rather, Spiritual Force which the British people have lost and/or have given up on."

Wrong!

The answer to all religious mumbo-jumbo is REASON! This is something that your post denies.

Dr Williams is taking his money under false pretenses. He never praises Christianity or Christians and always sucks up to radical Islam.
83

IainA,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 17:30:36

http://www.jesusandmo.net/

I'm on the barmaids side
84

IainA,

Edinburgh 12/02/2008 17:32:08
sorry, missed a bit off the url referring to the actual pages I meant to reference.

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/05/speak/

http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/08/wise/
85

SILVANA,

glasgow 12/02/2008 18:07:21
There is only one thing that the "Druid" has done that is possibly correct and that is bring the discussion out into the open. He should stick to church matters ie his own church matters and leave the law of the land to the Law Lords (We pay them enough). As Posted earlier but apparently was not PC enough, a member of an extreme Islamic group stated, "You cannot take parts that you like and leave out the parts that you do not". "Sharia law is divine and it is divine law that we obey". So, the Archbishop has done us all a favour by stirring this "hornets nest"and perhaps the debate may come out into the open. I for one am sick to the back teeth of this PC, political and now religious
pandering. We live under the British Flag thus we live under British Law and its the same rule for all! (Let's see if this gets posted)
86

RFM,

Chicago 12/02/2008 19:39:54
#54 Vincent W.

Actually the Archbishop is not talking about multiculturalism at all; I am surprised so many interpret his speech to mean that.

The real point he is making is that groups of people in all societies with strong beliefs and rules for the members of that group will continue to follow their own rules not withstanding an existing legal structure in that country. Economist magazine some years ago ran a series of articles on the time required and the difficulty in simply purchasing real property in a number of different countries. The article also pointed out that the countries with legal systems which imposed the most difficulties and obstacles were just ignored by a majority of people in that country. They simply operated within a clandistine legal system of their own, in order to get things done. That had the result of the government in that country not only losing substantial revenues, but also left with no clue as to who really owned what where.
Roman Catholics for instance, who wish to divorce and remarry, seek recourse to their church's legal machinery. Jews have long favored arbitration as inexpensive, private and speedy in dispute resolution. Muslim's actually have a very sophisticated legal system often regarded as superior in trade and commercial disputes. That is not multiculturalism, that is people using what works for them, and as the Archbishop was at pains to point out without offending Christian sensibilities, they will continue to do so, within or without the culture now in place.
87

Milton101,

San Francisco, CA 12/02/2008 20:19:40
LISTEN UP PEOPLE: Ontario Canada does NOT permit Sharia Law. OK? Google it. It was outlawed in 2005. Soquit with this..Oh Canada does it.

Here's a headline:

McGuinty rules out use of sharia law in Ontario
Updated Mon. Sep. 12 2005 11:31 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty says there will be no sharia law in his province and that he will
move to ban all faith-based arbitrations.

Thank You.
88

RFM,

Chicago 12/02/2008 21:38:41
To #99

I don't think you quite know what you are talking about Milton 101.
Try reading this:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0810/p01s03-woam.html
89

Roberta Burns,

12/02/2008 21:52:41
97# "Sharia law is divine and it is divine law that we obey". Is that the hooker show sha**ed Hugh Grant?


18 Theo,Richmond "The Christian is awaiting the Second Coming The Jew is awaiting the coming of the Messiah
The Muslim is awaiting the return of their beloved Prophet"
Can't they wait somewhere in the Middle East where all this chaos began and let the rest of us live in peace?
90

An Beal Bacht,

12/02/2008 21:58:44
100 - RFM, Chicago 12/02/2008 21:38:41

You're use of an article dated 2004 to refute a headline dated 2005 leads me to wonder if you've heard of the word history?

"The moving finger writes and having writ moves on

Nor all thy piety Nor wit

Shall unwrite half a line

Nor all thy tears wash out a word of it."
91

Roberta Burns,

12/02/2008 22:01:42

Law is the rational enactment of social rules.
Religion is the irrational belief in a supernatural power.
And never the twain should meet
92

An Beal Bacht,

12/02/2008 22:01:44
101 - Roberta Burns, 12/02/2008 21:52:41 writes:

"The Christian is awaiting the Second Coming
The Jew is awaiting the coming of the Messiah
The Muslim is awaiting the return of their beloved Prophet"

Ah'm just waitin tae see thon emails Wendy and Jackie wur talkin aboot.
93

,

12/02/2008 22:02:03
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
94

An Beal Bacht,

12/02/2008 22:10:04
I think Scots should adopt the "Code of Hammurabi".

This one may be of interest to the Electoral Commission

5
If a judge try a case, reach a decision, and present his judgment in writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judge's bench, and never again shall he sit there to render judgement.
95

Roberta Burns,

12/02/2008 22:13:43
104# I think you'll be waiting as long as the jews, christians and muslims. Just don't hold your breath.
96

Roberta Burns,

12/02/2008 22:15:26
5# Just make sure the judge is not 'severely punished' or they'll be making errors all the time.
97

An Beal Bacht,

12/02/2008 22:15:58
107 - Aye - but god works in mysterious ways his wonders to perform.
98

An Beal Bacht,

12/02/2008 22:20:40
Whit ur they mormons gone oan aboot Cherie's law? Ah ken Mrs. Blair wiz a lawer bit did she actually write ony laws? And if so, whit his that tae dae wae mormons?
99

Moder8,

EDINBURGH 12/02/2008 22:28:14
Great to see that Dr Rowan Williams is leading the world with his thinking. We will soon see Iran , Saudi Arabia and other and other countries of their ilk advocating a change in their law systems to accommodate people of other beliefs who live or work there.
100

Roberta Burns,

12/02/2008 22:28:44
100# By gum, you've got it. That was the 'unclarity' that the bish was talking about.
101

Roberta Burns,

12/02/2008 22:30:31
That was for 110
102

An Beal Bacht,

12/02/2008 22:36:28
113 - If Ah could hiv a fiver fur every time Ah'v heard that yin.
103

Roberta Burns,

12/02/2008 23:15:42
114# Well said. Laws address social facts, and rightly or wrongly, are a major part of a society's social organisation. The Archibishop attacked the very nature of our society, hence the uproar.

He is asking a secular society to adopt and legitimise religious laws. I still believe the Arch had his own misguided agenda, and tested the water with Sharia.
104

Mike Giggler,

12/02/2008 23:46:26
#104,

That cracked me up! lol

Google directs searches on you nomdeplume firstly to an Irish coffee house. Can I buy a clue to a translation I can understand?
105

An Beal Bacht,

13/02/2008 00:00:30
117 - It means "The Poor Mouth" from a novel by Flann O"Brian. The term means a person who exaggerates the poverty of their position. I chose it when I was posting some satirical stuff from "John Smith House". You know - all the dire warnings about how poor wee Scotland couldn't go it alone.
106

Charles1234,

13/02/2008 00:11:26
"The Prime Minister phoned Dr Williams over the weekend to tell him that, while he disagreed with him over Sharia law, he had always respected him."

Even the morning after?
107

Mike Giggler,

13/02/2008 00:22:14
#118,

Thank you. A straight answer to an honest question.

I'm a tory unionist, by the way, but I enjoy honest debate (call me stupid if you like!).

Tomorrow, I will seek out "The Poor Mouth" and Flann O'Brien to broaden my knowledge.

Sincere thanks, once again.

108

Hickory,

US 13/02/2008 15:21:42
Maybe the good bishop is looking to re-install the practice of his benefactor, Henry the 8th. You can be sure, lopping off of heads would be common if Sharia Law was allowed. This old bird is revealing his true hippie roots.
109

RFM,

Chicago 13/02/2008 21:49:41
To An Beal,#101

Nope, not at all, you too might try reading. The Arbitration Act was enacted to move civil disputes out of the legal system. It was subsequently amended in 2004 to remove "family matters" from its authority; spelled out that means that religious matters can still be arbitrated under the act, including Sharia, except "family matters" ie. divorce, custody, adoption, separation etc.
To say that Sharia is not allowed in Ontario is a clear misstatement. Sharia includes a lot more than "family matters".
110

usblueflyer,

USA 15/02/2008 01:15:52
Sorry, but this man is misguided and dangerous! The UK is NOT the middle east! If Sharia law is so wanted, let those who want it go to a country where it is the norm!
111

RFM,

Chicago 15/02/2008 18:17:04
To #123 Blueflyer

Considering the religious history of what we call the UK, England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, I think it is amazing that people fail to realize what the results of intolerance can mean. It was only a few years ago that car bombs were going off in downtown London in the last religious conflict, I guess some people never learn.
112

Dougie Welsh,

Halifax 17/02/2008 17:57:46
I've never seen so many comments removed for a single story!

His Grace of Canterbury has frequently spoken as an expert and then found himself forced to retract his statements, or "explain" them, on being put on notice that he was wrong, or occasionally "bloody wrong!" I suspect this mess with the comments on Sharia Law will prove to be one more such occasion.

Allowing religious interference in secular issues is morally reprehensible in this modern era.

Allowing secular interference in religious issues is similarly reprehensible.

I somehow doubt that "God" would approve of either.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.