Rowan William's Regensburg?

[macgamer]

The Archbishop of Canterbury seems to have precipitated a media storm to rival His Holiness' lecture of 2005.

The Pope's lecture was whipped up by the media, however Archbishop William's comment: http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/blogs/pm/ext/_a ... SHYE7354YA
was in itself rather objectionable.

It is rather bizarre for the leader of the Anglican Communion to advocate Sharia Law.

However I think he was making the point that religious people often have conscientious objections to aspects of the laws in the UK. Noting the abortion law, gay adoption and the Human Embryology and Fertilisation bill which is to reach the Commons soon, as examples of where Anglicans and Catholics have raised objections.

However I do not think that Sharia Law is a good example of this. The Archbishop stated that its use in Britain will help social cohesion, but surely it will achieve the exact opposite, perpetuating the lack of assimilation seen amongst various communities in Britain?

[David Bean]

It seems to me that the Archbishop was making a fundamentally sound point, but his characteristically vague, overly intellectual style obfuscated his meaning almost entirely. The fact is that under English civil law two parties in dispute can agree to decide the matter in just about any way they choose: this is why there are already, for example, Jewish and cultural courts operating in parallel to the established legal system. Provided such courts don't act objectionably - in which case the right of appeal to a higher court stands - their decisions become binding on the participants (although I'm not certain of how the issue of enforcement would be handled).

Dr Williams seems to be suggesting that Sharia courts could come to operate in this way as the existing alternative court venues do, and I see nothing objectionable about that idea. However, his stunningly poor presentational skills have led the point to be lost, to the extent where the casual observer couldn't tell what kinds of law and under what circumstances he was talking about, so, for example, he might just as well have been advocating the establishment of Sharia courts for criminal cases, or that divorces could take place in Sharia courts regardless of what the parties felt about the matter - either of which scenarios would, of course, be absurd and wrong.

I don't see any real challenge to community cohesion through letting people decide on their affairs how they like - actually I think the opposite. But the fact that the position I've outlined seems to be that of both the Archbishop and the Muslim Council of Britain, yet the latter still opposed his speech, shows what a monumental cock-up he has made of this. If he should resign as a result of this fiasco, it's not because his opinions are objectionable, but just because he is incompetent.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Psi]

Quoting David Bean from 18:52, 8th Feb 2008
Jewish and cultural courts operating in parallel to the established legal system. Provided such courts don't act objectionably - in which case the right of appeal to a higher court stands - their decisions become binding on the participants (although I'm not certain of how the issue of enforcement would be handled).

Dr Williams seems to be suggesting that Sharia courts could come to operate in this way[hr]

Psalm 91:7

I’m not sure that he was saying that David. As this system of Sharia voluntary settlement already operates there surely would be no need for Dr Williams to argue for this, as it already exists.

On the issue of enforcement, there is none (excluding potential Devine punishments of course). Each party has to hope that the other is willing to stick to the agreement and abide by the ruling.

[harmless loony]

Civil aspects of sharia are not recognised in civil law hence why its recognition in the same way the Jewish settlements are recognised is encouraged. To encorporate Sharia law would just recognise that there are people who are using Sharia courts at the moment for advice, support etc but if it were to become part of the law then it would be an open process and far easier to regulate. At the moment marriage, divorce and adoption in the Muslim sense are not recognised by civil law which means that Muslims are having to live in parallel worlds when trying to be British and Muslim.

Agreed with David - there was little wrong with what Rowan Williams said but he had such a poor way of saying that the whole point was lost in his waffle and the media (who were clearly anticipating a slow news morning) seized on it.

Apologies if the above makes little sense....I've spent all damn day at work defending my faith and hearing people tell me to f*** off back home....charming...And it hacks me off that a comment made by a Christian has caused Muslims to have to bear the brunt of the nastiness today. We speak we get mauled by the media...we do not utter anything and we still get mauled by the media.....

By the way....can anyone explain to me what these "British Values" are that GB refered to? Are these different to the values of other countries, religions or moral codes? I keep being told that we should all live by British values but I really would love to know what people mean by this....any guesses?

[exnihilo]

This notion that Jewish courts already operate in tandem with the civil courts has been touted a lot in the media today and it comes from a position of fundamental ignorance.

Jewish "courts", the battei din deal with purely jewish issues; they certify kosher slaughterhouses, licence mohelim, provide gettin or "divorces" which will permit Jews to remarry in synagogues (but which DO NOT divorce people in the eyes of the law, so you can drop that right now), decide on conversions, that sort of thing. They are not legal institutions in any real sense. If that's what the archbishop means, then Sharia law is already operating. If, as it seems, he meant they should have actual jurisdiction in certain cases then he's completely nuts.

[David Bean]

Well, either way, according to BBC News he's been holed up all day in Lambeth palace in 'a state of shock' about the hostile reaction to what he said, and made no further statements.

Well, that's it, as far as I'm concerned. He is, I'm sure, a good man, but he's also a shambles. He's got to go, now.

[hr]

Psalm 91:7

[Super Jock]

This whole thing is a little confusing. What I seem to pick up from what he is saying, is that the law should influenced by the fact we have more Muslims within our society. I don't think this is wrong. Our laws are made from a blend of what the different cultures in our societies believe. It's part of democracy.

Although I think it's good if a countries government's are as secular as possible, but the idea government can be completely secular isn't possible in my opinion, given that most of our idea's of right and wrong derive from our general belief in good and evil.

The worst thing about what he said, was the pale, wishy washy way he said it, it allowed the media to make it into a big deal. I don't see how it is. If I'm wrong please inform me, because I'm genuinely curious why people are making such a big deal over someone of authority being open minded.

[Super Jock]

Quoting harmless loony from 20:29, 8th Feb 2008

By the way....can anyone explain to me what these "British Values" are that GB refered to? Are these different to the values of other countries, religions or moral codes? I keep being told that we should all live by British values but I really would love to know what people mean by this....any guesses?

I always thought british values meant, supporting the under dog, eat biscuits when drinking tea, and always have a stiff upper lip. no?? Sorry to hear people are giving you are hard time, i hope times change soon with regards to western view of the middle east, and the same back.

[Frank]

British Values make me laugh. I hadn't yet encountered anyone who was forthcoming in an explanation of just what they were.

I often have a similar argument with a friend from home. The whole 'shebang' of being proud in one set of values or another is exceedingly divisive. I rarely push the fact that I'm Scottish anymore because I have come to see little ultimate difference in what defines me as Scottish as much as what defines me as British...except having pride in particular things.

The Telegraph/YouGov's list/poll thing (first result of 'British Values' in Google) is as follows:

[img]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2005/07/27/britlongbig.gif[/img]

A few things on it make little sense. "British people's right to say what they think". I find this loosely applies across the Western World. Certainly it strikes me that most of Europe and North America have a fine way with pride in free speech. I'm quite aware that there's plenty of places out there which have extreme difficulty with 'free speech' as such, but I find it difficult for me to identify free speech with being British.

Similarly: The achievements of Britain's scientists and engineers. Cool, but I'm equally impressed with american/french/whoever's scientists and engineers.

That is: When looking at the values I find it difficult to see them as unique. And because of that, I don't think there's much integrity as promoting them as British values. Promoting value and virtue in life, sure...just make 'em reasonable! They don't need to be defined British.

In that respect on of the few things on the list I 'agree' with is the defiance of Nazi Germany in 1940. The Battle of Britain is, IMO, a very compelling nugget of history, and one which I suspect emphasised 'British Values' quite well. (At least as we'd have squadron leader banter etc).

But even then, it's hardly really a defining point on value. Rather, as the poll says, it's 'definitive' of Britain. So, in spite of everything I said, the parts of the definition don't really correspond to 'British Values'.

In that sense I'd think a discrete list of British Values would be a silly thing in itself. What of those who have more/less values than those prescribed. To what degree ought a British Citizen value certain things? With life?

Anyhow

This speech by the Archbishop seems to have resulted in a stir, but I don't see the problem. Perhaps Mr Bean has a point on him being unfit to handle this...but I don't see why he should be handling this...it's silly. I might not agree with the chap or the church-position on this thing, but the adoption of Sharia law within the 'guidance' system, or even within the criminal law, needn't be a major issue.

I cannot think of any examples, but I can't think of counterexamples either and thus I think it's possible that introduction of some Sharia law may well lead to a more cohesive society. Alternatively, it might not. I still don't see the major issue with what was said.



[hr]

"There is only ever one truth. Things are always black or white, there's no such thing as a shade of grey. If you think that something is a shade of grey it simply means that you don't fully understand the situation. The truth is narrow and the path of the pursuit of truth is similarly narrow."
Also, some years later:
"here we are arguing about a few uppity troublemakers with a bee in their bonnet and a conspiracy theory."

[Colin]

"British people's right to say what they think"

This of course doesn't apply if you are the Archbishop of Canterbury. You have to resign if you say what you think in that job.

[Humphrey]

Quoting harmless loony from 20:29, 8th Feb 2008

Apologies if the above makes little sense....I've spent all damn day at work defending my faith and hearing people tell me to f*** off back home....charming...And it hacks me off that a comment made by a Christian has caused Muslims to have to bear the brunt of the nastiness today. We speak we get mauled by the media...we do not utter anything and we still get mauled by the media.....

I am sorry you received such barbaric intolerance; it goes without saying that this kind of behaviour is completely unacceptable. It is fine for us to have a debate on the primacy of English law Vs Shariah law but we can surely do so without crossing the line into racial and religious discrimination.

[hr]

http://humphreyclarke.blogspot.com/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/humphrey_clarke/

[munchingfoo]

I think when people use the term, "British Values", the usually mean, "British Culture".


British Culture is different from other cultures.

A few things which define British culture could be (some from your list)

Politness and consideration. An example could be appologising to everyone (and sometimes everthing - lamposts anyone?)

Being a small island nation.

Christianity. Yes we are still a Christian nation. (7/10th of 3/4 who stated a religion at the last concencus)

The way we dress.

The places we go on holiday.

Our reaction to sports.

and many more...

Whilst none of these things identify us uniquely, together I think they do.


Currently I think we are playing right into the BNPs hands with our positive discrimination and multi-cultural planning.

I've been doing a little experiment recently. I have asked many people what percentage of UK residents are white and British. The average figure I recieved was around 75%. One person even gave me a figure closer to 50%!

The actual ethinic make up of the UK is around 93% white British people.

This figure doesn't even include the hundreds of thousands of third/fourth/fifth generation blacks,asians, Eastern Europeans, and far eastern people who have taken on the British culture and see themselves as 100% British.

Why are we spending so much time and money pandering to the needs of such a tiny minority of the population? The current political powers are too afraid to be seen to offend any one minority, and have ended up giving the minorities a disproportionate amount of power.

I never want the BNP to come to power, but I can see why the current state of affairs might gain them more support. I want the UK to allow anyone from any culture to be able to live with their culture here, but not at the expense of the culture that already exists here.

To that end, I would suggest that Sharia law be allowed where English (or Scottish) law allows any parties involved to resolve a conflict amoungst themselves (and only if all parties agree), but never when any other person from a different area would not have the choice and ceratinly never when one party disgarees.





[hr]

[s]Warning : The sinner is a plateau, with moral high ground manifesting itself as an optical illusion in the the bearers mind.[/s]

[Haunted]

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 80186.html

[hr]

Now with 100% more corn