The Archbishop of Canterbury has lost his mind...

[JSLTIGER]

LONDON - The archbishop of Canterbury on Thursday called for a limited application of Islamic law in Britain. Muslims praised the proposal but the government rejected it.
The unusual suggestion from Britain's highest ranking Christian leader would, if adopted, allow British Muslims to choose to resolve marital and financial disputes under Islamic law, known as Shariah, rather than through British courts.
Archbishop Rowan Williams said in a radio interview with British Broadcasting Corp. that incorporating Islamic law could help improve Britain's flagging social cohesion.
"Certain provisions of Shariah are already recognized in our society and under our law, so it's not as if we're bringing in an alien and rival system," said Williams, who gave a speech on the topic Thursday night.
Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman immediately rejected Williams' proposal.
"The prime minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values," said Michael Ellam.
The idea was also rejected by Sayeed Warsi, an opposition spokeswoman for social affairs. She said all British citizens had to be subject to the same laws developed by Parliament.
Williams said he was not advocating that Britain allow extreme aspects of Shariah, which has been associated with harsh punishments meted out by Islamic courts in Saudi Arabia and some other countries and has been used to undermine the rights of women.
"Nobody in their right mind" would want to see that, he said. He called for "a clear eye" when discussing Islamic law.
Mohammed Shafiq, director of the Ramadhan Foundation, said the use of Shariah would help lower tensions in British society.
"It would make Muslims more proud of being British," he said. "It would give Muslims the sense that the British respect our faith."
Shafiq said it was important that non-Muslims in Britain understand that Williams is not suggesting Shariah be adopted for resolving criminal charges, but only civil disputes.
Shafiq and Williams noted that Britain already allows Orthodox Jews to resolve disputes under traditional Jewish law.
Rodney Barker, a political science professor at the London School of Economics, said Williams' decision to address such a controversial issue was not surprising.
"He's not a cautious, conservative priest," Barker said. "He recognizes we live in a society where there is not one dominant religion. He doesn't say, 'I have the truth and the rest of you are wicked and deluded.'"
But there are dangers involved in letting one community apply one type of justice while another uses a different system, said Fawaz Gerges, a professor of Middle East studies at Sarah Lawrence College in Bronxville, New York, who has written extensively about militant Islam.
"It's a minefield," he said. "Britain is a nation of laws, once you say to a community that they can apply their own laws, you are establishing a dangerous precedent."


:o:huh::nope::huh::o

[Skybird]

Don't get me started. Had to bite my lips not to post it myself this morning.

"Fall back!" he says. And that is all he says - and not for the first time. Since almost 50 years, European nations do sign up to one prior concession to Islam after another. On the Islamic side: no answer, just more demands. Not a hint of reciprocity, just intimidation, and threatening. In no way the Western concessions have ever been answered by Islam and Islamic countries on euqal terms, nowhere, which at least is in full correspondence with Quran'S teaching and demands. Islam spreads in the West. Foreign cultures and religions in islamic countries over the past years and decades have systemtically been driven back, discirminated, hindred, banned.

Europe has seen two totalitarian ideologies hurting the continent in the past 90 years, there was fascism, and there was soviet communism. Have we learned nothing from that - that now we allow Islam to become the third catastrophe in a row?

http://www.welt.de/politik/article1190814/Der_Islam_hat_ein_Doppelgesicht.html

Hiltrud Schröter is one of the two only german academic Islam experts that I would agree to be in full and objective knowledge of Muhammedan scripture and history. The other if H.P. Raddatz. She says to feel guilty because it was her generation opening the gates for Islam in the West, and Germany. - Oh, and the one as well as the other are threatened to get assassinated. But that must not explicitly been pointed out anymore these days.

Bah. If europeans do not wish to defend themselevs against this, and do not act against leaders that sell them into slavery - then they have not deserved any better than to see their sons and sons of sons living in Islamic supression and medival primitiveness of mind. Or in short: serves you right, Europe. Bad enough if somebody is too weak and cannot defend himself. But even worse if he even does not wish to defend himself although he could, and prefers submission to conflict just for the sake of dceiving himself about how superior peaceful and civilised he is. that bis no civilised superiority - civilisation gets lost that way. And maybe it even is not deserved any longer.

[baggygreen]

But coming from a bloody archbishop...

maybe the caliphate wont be arcoss the rim of the Indian Ocean, but in europe instead:know:

[Onkel Neal]

Unleash the hounds.

[Tchocky]

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/paul-vallely-williams-is-snared-in-a-trap-of-his-own-making-779799.html

The error is assuming that the leader of a major church has the same intellectual freedom that he had when he was merely an eminent theologian. The cold fact is that the semiotics are entirely different. An academic may call for a nuanced renegotiation of society's attitudes to the internal laws of religious communities. But when the Archbishop of Canterbury does that the headline follows, as night follows day: "Sharia law in UK is unavoidable, says Archbishop."

[Skybird]

Unleash the hounds.

http://img404.imageshack.us/img404/4350/nosquirrel1rb0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)
http://www.smileygarden.de/smilie/Frech/smileymania.at_02706.gif (http://www.smileygarden.de)

[jumpy]

I understand (in some small way) comments that support implimentation of such an idea - "The Jews are allowed to practice their religious laws, so are the Hindu's and Sikh's, so why not the Muslems?" - no link I'm afraid, I heard it last night on the radio.

However, I'm fairly sure that these others have little or no conflict when it comes to their religious laws being superseded by British Law. I don't see Shariah being quite so compliant somehow.
I think it's fair to allow Islamic law regarding marriage/divorce and similar civil disputes to have its place alongside UK civil law. As said, others do it, and so do the Islamic community here today.
In reality, what is being asked for is to have Shariah develop above the influence of UK law. Perhaps if certain elements from the Islamic community here in the UK were a little less fanatical and some aspects of the proposed Islamic law were a little more progressive in their thinking, the backlash against such a request might be less absolute.

I still think that it's the proverbial 'thin end of the wedge' for those who would be prepared to exploit it.

[Ishmael]

Living as I do in Indian country, I'll offer the native perspective that it is just two factions of wasitchu fighting over the same false god. So I offer some comments from that different perspective by John Trudell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHS6392MzEs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmKoZqB2nM4

What both systems share is the divorcing of humanity's spirit from both their ancestors and their descendants.

[Skybird]

Sharia cannot be picked apart into pieces that one does like, and others one does not like. It is ONE whole thing, like is the Quran. Things are sometimes said to be "monolithic" in Islam, and that is correct, both on a theological level (what is allowed by Muslim teachings), and on a historic level (what Islam has already shown to behave like over past centuries.)

Last but not least it all is not so much a traditional religion, but it is power-politics and personality cult. Since Muhammedanism is a totalitarian ideology and a leadership cult, it will not accept self-restraint and stop at what it already got, but will press until everything has submitted to Sharia, and Quranic teaching. This is the grim fact, proven by history, that the brainless bishop comfortably is missing.

He also ignores that foreigners coming to Britain should have a rightful obigation -l ike they would have in all of europe, theoretically at least - to adapt to existing cultural rules they find. Today, migration is a weapon in a non-militaric war of conquest, and various Islamic politicians, leaders and clerics have said it into our faces very bluntly and frankly and openly and directly - but we still ignore the truth being spit into our face. In no way immigrants should have any right to colonize the place they went to and demand - although Islam claims to have that right to demand it from all the world - that their new national hosting societies have to adapt to their home standards of their countries they were coming from. If you are not willing to adapt to that new society you want to live in, you better don'T go there - period. If that soceity is not in correspondence with your relgion, stay away. but Islam uses it'S migrants like stormtroops today, and the goal of this strategy is to erode our legislation, to weaken our sense of self-preservance, and deceive us over the true nature of Islam and it'S intolerant, discriminating intentions. We are under attack, and we are the prey.

Most important is to finally realise the most elemental separation of relgion and poltics - that is unknown and unaccepted in Islam, and the practice of taqyia which allows Islam to lie about it'S intentions and deceive western people on the surface that it would adapt to Western standards, by that undermining any willingness to defend ourselves. That is not true - it just is an effective way of buying time to sink into our societies until it has gained enough critical mass to enforce its ways and no longer just asking for them. Like Mrs Schröter in that German article correctly lined out, historically mosques are no temples and holy houses of prayer, they do not compare to churches and synagogues, but to town houses and administrative centres, they are political places of communal administration, and social communication centres of a given community. Politics is religion, religion is powerpoltics, and totalitarian control of the individual as well as the community. A dedicated "only religious" place like a church for example was meant to be, Islam does not know, which only is consistent in itself, then. In these political communal centers that mosques are, they also do their religious practice, yes. Take it as another illustration that islam does not really differ between religion and politics, like this bishop seem to believe. the political demonstration, proclamations and heated calls for action you see on Friday evenings, is another hint for how very much one and the same thing politics and religion in Islam is.

It is of the most urgent essence for the West to finally realise this characteristic of islam: totalitarian politics and religion not being separated in Islam. It leaves our constitutional orders most vulnerable to Islam's intolerant demand that all others have to accept the dominance of Islam and must submit to it's leading role in the world. That way, politics can be pushed forward and making them unquestionable and unavailable for criticism and attacks - by labelling them "religion". That is what muhammad has formed it up for, and that is how he used it all his life! Criticism of your ambitions for power = religious heresy, religious heresy = your life in danger. Practically all major attempts to move beyond Muhammad's dogmatism and to critically analyse and question Islam'S self-revolving egocentrism saw the autgors getting jailed and/or murdered, and the backbone of such movements being broken. That'S why there never was soemthing that compares to the age of enlightement, or the reformation. Islam is stuck where christianity was before these events and phases took place - in the medival.

Regarding Sharia, it forbids by death penalty to question the Quran and to seek answers outside the Quran's teaching, and it is of the same unforgiveness regarding trying to choose parts of the Sharia only, and ignore others one does not like. From an Islamic point of view, this is not possible. The Sharia was made for exactly this purpose: hindering and preventing and supressing every attempt of splitting Islam into two, and weakening it and it'S poltical power and the motivation of its followers by making it an object of democratic consenus and partial "reformation". In this function, it compares to the inquisition. That is what the brainless bishop also is missing. He wants islam to be no longer Islam that way, and thinks it is just another religion like Judaism and christianity, and it could be comopared to these. Islam is all that - NOT, does not seek agreement, does not tolerate what is not itself, does not want understanding by others. It wants to rule, and whatever acting is needed to acchieve that, is allowed and is acceptable: intimidation, lying, war, infiltration, deception, bullying.

As long as western-declared "moderate muslims" do not tell us clear and loudly what parts of the Quran they want to delete unconditionally, irreversibly, in order to adapt to the standards of the foreign culture they have settled in, and in order to overcome it's brutality and intolerance and mercyless intellectual crippeling of human mind, people like this blind wellmeaning bishop are a threat to their own home and culture and to their own people, and must be stopped. And if theoretically they would delete and reform the Quran indeed (what will not happen), the result would be something that no longer is Islam, of course. In other words: you are either muslim with all consequences, or you are not and violate Islam. That is true for infindels, and that is true for people who on the one hand claim to be democrats and enlightened intellects and liberals following Western ethics and freedoms, but still refuse to turn their back on the grim face of Islam, instead just ignore them and remain silent about the unwelcomed aspects of Islam and that way help to spread it nevertheless - by doing nothing about it. I do not care wether someobdy calls himself a etsern or modeate muslim now, or is a true Muslim in Quranic understanding - the one is as big a problem and a threat like the other.

What it all means? Anger and conflict at the end of the day. We never should have let Islam in, never.

[Skybird]

Living as I do in Indian country, I'll offer the native perspective that it is just two factions of wasitchu fighting over the same false god. So I offer some comments from that different perspective by John Trudell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHS6392MzEs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmKoZqB2nM4

What both systems share is the divorcing of humanity's spirit from both their ancestors and their descendants.

Words of wisdom. Or just healthy reason, however one wants to call. Not being Indian, I do not follow the mythology of Indians, and it'S symbols and rites. But what is expressed by it and lies behind the level of symbols and rites, I always felt instinctive sympathy for. I also feel that it does not matter if thse things and things that I do follow are really completely in correspondence. It's more important that no matter where we are, we all look at the same direction to see the sun rising, or setting.

P.S. Very interesting myspace profile of yours. Looks like a very interesting life to me! :)

[Ishmael]

Living as I do in Indian country, I'll offer the native perspective that it is just two factions of wasitchu fighting over the same false god. So I offer some comments from that different perspective by John Trudell:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHS6392MzEs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CmKoZqB2nM4

What both systems share is the divorcing of humanity's spirit from both their ancestors and their descendants.

Words of wisdom. Or just healthy reason, however one wants to call. Not being Indian, I do not follow the mythology of Indians, and it'S symbols and rites. But what is expressed by it and lies behind the level of symbols and rites, I always felt instinctive sympathy for. I also feel that it does not matter if thse things and things that I do follow are really completely in correspondence. It's more important that no matter where we are, we all look at the same direction to see the sun rising, or setting.

P.S. Very interesting myspace profile of yours. Looks like a very interesting life to me! :)

I put one of John Trudell's songs up on my publishing website at:

http://www.sandybeachpublishing.com/

From "Tribal Voice" it's called "Living In Reality"


It took the times we didn't care about living,
To learn survivors survive whether they want or not.
It took the pain, the grief and the dying to remember,
What gets forgotten in the living.
It took the lessons of a thousand generations,
To get through the time of yesterday.
It took the joyful songs of laughter,
To last beyond today into tomorrow.
It took the fragrence of a woman's touch,
To realize brothers and sisters are never alone.
It took the joining of earth and sky,
To create, centering the universe.

Many times it takes the poet to see the larger truth.
http://www.johntrudell.com/

Regarding my myspace page, My background wallpaper is a painting of Hotei Ushu, the Zen sack-and-stick priest embodiment of Zan fullness painted by Miyamoto Musashi.

[STEED]

Archbishop of Canterbury is so liberal must be puffing on a good spliff. I rest my case. ;)


PS: We all know he shot his bolt years ago.

PPS: He is a out of touch twit just like our government.

[Oberon]

The guy's a bloody nutter, someone needs to Becket him. I have no doubt that one of the Muslims he seems to like so much will gladly do the job...

[STEED]

While I'm in the mood for a rant I like to add the church of england is liberal as well and should be bought to book.

[STEED]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/dmpolls/results.html?in_poll_id=20568&in_page_id=711&in_question_id=20196&in_exists=N&in_answer1=61228

Hey hook hands your out of a job. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Have your say
Which of these men poses the bigger threat to Britain's way of life?
1 Abu Hamza
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/polls/bar.gif 35%
2 Archbishop of Canterbury
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/polls/bar.gif 65%



As of 7pm today.

[Skybird]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/dmpolls/results.html?in_poll_id=20568&in_page_id=711&in_question_id=20196&in_exists=N&in_answer1=61228

Hey hook hands your out of a job. :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:


Have your say
Which of these men poses the bigger threat to Britain's way of life?
1 Abu Hamza
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/polls/bar.gif 35%
2 Archbishop of Canterbury
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/polls/bar.gif 65%


As of 7pm today.
Poll from the same source, one week ago:

Is Rowan Williams fit to be archbishop of Canterbury?

1 Yes
9%

2 No
91%

[STEED]

Case closed. :smug:


I am spot on again. :D


Let me look in to my..................................:shifty:

[Dan D]

In England you can observe the development of an “angrezi shariat” (English Sharia)
(source: David Pearl/Werner Menski, Muslim Family Law, 3. ed. London 1998, pp. 3-81.)
That is law influenced by Islam and which is existing within the scope of the English legal system.
The application of Islamic law opens within the framework of the so-called optional civil law (public law and penal law are not optional). Muslims in England are maintaining Islamic family law provisions, e.g. make Islamic matrimonial contracts, also Islamic commercial law.
The Establishment of an Islamic theocratic parallel state that way is legally not possible.
If the application of Islamic rules would lead to results that are not compatible with the principles of the English public order, the English public order excludes the application of Islamic rules.
You would have void contracts, e,g,which sucks, so you better make sure that your contracts that don't get sacked.

[QUOTE=

Prime Minister Gordon Brown's spokesman immediately rejected Williams' proposal.
"The prime minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values," said Michael Ellam.
[/QUOTE]

"believes, that should apply", what a pussy!

He could have said: “I want to make clear in advance that the English standards of human rights, democracy and the rule of law are untouchable without any exception. That said, we accept/do not accept Islamic rules within the Islamic community, as long as compatible with English legal thinking, because it helps/hinders immigration”.
And so on, immigration debate follows.

[Skybird]

Typical Western nonsens self-deception that does not want to see the real nature of it and thinks it is more clever than it.

Many people call themselves Muslim, but in reality already have abandoned it, and stick to it by labels only for reasons of habit - don't think I do not know that. what do you tell them if they have left their originoa countries and came to euripe - just for the reaosn of avoiding sharia laws and it's inlfuence - and now must realöise that the West without need and without reason becomes more and more accepting of it, too...? This makes mockery of all those who left their countries fpr just this: ro eascape and flee from Islam. A large ethnic group doing like this for example are Iranian "burgoise" going to america and Germany - if you think all Iranians are just hysteric maniacs, then you better think twice. And now you want to give them what at least some of them saw as a reason to leave their former homes?

I can only recommend everybody to trule learn and understand what the Shria is. Embedded in the hadith (not the quran), it is a tool that is meant to protect the unity of faith by lectuzring and sanctioning people accordingly, so that they do not look outside of it and of the Quran. It is a totalitarian educational system, amongst others. It is anti-humanistic, anti-democratic, and basing on an order of values from many, many centuries ago. Why should any sane Westerner feel the wish to tolerate the implementation of such a bad thing inside it's own community into which foreigners are expected to integrate themselves into, instead of isolating themselves, forming a "Little Iran" in america or a "Little Turkey" in Germany, or a "Pakistantown" in England? To allow that is no effort towards integration , it is the total and complete opposite: it helps segragation.

From perspective of "orthodox" Islam, it addtionally is an invitation to press on, and a sign of wekaness and willingness to surrender soon.

If you want to strengthen and raise segragated islamic subcultures in the West that sooner or later will collide with new Western constitutional orders of nations - go ahead, allow Sharia. You have been warned, and if you voluntarily choose it, you do not derseve anything better.

To sell away so headlessly and for cheap your freedom and liberties and our definition and understanding of the dignity of man (the very first paragraph in the german consitution says that dignity of man is untouchable), is only possible because so many people do not know and have no experience what it is to live without liberty, unfree, and being violated in one's own dignity . - In other words: it needs unknowing idiots and fools to act so idiotic and foolishly. not before Westerners have lost it all thy will start to realise what it was that they have given so away so follishly. But then it will be too late.

The Quran black on white demands Muslims to systematically discriminate Christzian and Jewish infidels, and tolerate them in that inferior status of slavery only if they submit and accept that and pay protection money and are kept away from the rights of equal men and citizenship- else they, like members of other religoons as well, must be killed. How could any sane man in the west wish to support the sharia then, and to tolerate such an ideology and it's demands to be the leader of the world, to wipe out all that is impure (=not Islamic), and to take advantage of all what itself has not done one act to create and to built?

To me, all this political correct tolerance for what under no circumstances should be tolerated, is pure masochism. Shame on the West.

[Reece]

Well I haven't read the whole thread but I'm going to have my say:
"It would make Muslims more proud of being British," he said. "It would give Muslims the sense that the British respect our faith."
Suggesting that the British government should change it's laws to suit the Muslims is a load of crap, & for a Christian to make this statement is ludacris!:nope: The Pope should give the Archbishop a swift kick in the backside!:yep:

[elite_hunter_sh3]

there would be no islamic problem if we never allowed them to come to europe in the first place.. kick em all out :down::down::nope: before they turn it into a european Iran.. :down:

"get rid of the problem ,you go straight to the source"

[JSLTIGER]

Disregard. Deleted by poster.

[Stealth Hunter]

there would be no islamic problem if we never allowed them to come to europe in the first place.. kick em all out :down::down::nope: before they turn it into a european Iran.. :down:

"get rid of the problem ,you go straight to the source"

Piss off. Iran has it's problems, but that's in the government. You'll find that the majority of the citizens don't favor the tactics the government uses, nor are they for the structure by which they're run (Islamic Republic sort of deal; most were happier when the Shah, rest his soul, was in place). If there was ever a revolt/second revolution executed by the people against their government for opposition of the current set up by which they're managed, then I think you'd find the country would be a very different place...

That makes a ton of sense. Kick them all out at once. Yeah, then you'll just piss them off EVEN MORE than you would if you just let them have one or two things that they demand. You go swinging a bat at their religious beliefs and their heritage in general, and you invite a huge invasion of angry Muslims, some of which will go Jihad on your continent and then you'll have terrorist attacks and, as Ferris Bueller's economics teacher, as played by Ben Stein, once said: "Death, destruction, total annihilation.":huh:

It's a very delicate situation. One wrong move, and it could all blow up in Europe's face in a couple of years. It would be wise to tread lightly and play it cool and not cause outrage in the Muslim/Islamic communities. Otherwise, you face a huge catastrophe.

And not all Muslims/Islamics are bad. My father wasn't a bad person. He was a very kind, intelligent, and practical person who never had a day of hatred enter his life (except when the Shah was removed, then he was furious). The same can be said about my mother and my brothers (except for Muhammed; he can really go wild when he loses his temper). Although I was technically written down as a Shi'ite Muslim, I prefer to think of myself as an Atheist.

[Skybird]

Just curious, Stealth Hunter, no attack intended, you said you prefer to see yourself as an atheist. Technically, you are Muslim since your father was Muslim, and rejecting your faith by rules of Islam means death penalty for your "apostasy". What made you turn your back on it? It seems by your posting above you do not belong to those Muslims in the West that have abandoned major principles of islam and indeed prefer western ethics and rights and freedoms to it, nevertheless insist on being seen as truly Muslim, a constellation that is a constant source of self-contradiction!?

[Stealth Hunter]

The reason why I've turned my back on the Muslim religion and all other religions is because they all cause more problems than they solve. Jews can't get along with Muslims, Muslims can't get along with Christians and Catholics, the ring goes round and round. Also, there's so much suffering that I've seen in my life that I have difficulty believing that God is watching out for us, as all major religions claim.

So to answer your question, I don't want to deny my heritage. You can't change who you are, you can only choose to admit and accept it or not. I technically was born a Muslim, and that sticks with you for the rest of your life. I was born one, and I choose to admit it, but not to follow it. I choose to make my own decisions because I have a right to that freedom. A man I admire very much once said, "You do not know what it is to have freedom until you have that privilege and all others removed from you."

[Skybird]

The reason why I've turned my back on the Muslim religion and all other religions is because they all cause more problems than they solve. Jews can't get along with Muslims, Muslims can't get along with Christians and Catholics, the ring goes round and round. Also, there's so much suffering that I've seen in my life that I have difficulty believing that God is watching out for us, as all major religions claim.

So to answer your question, I don't want to deny my heritage. You can't change who you are, you can only choose to admit and accept it or not. I technically was born a Muslim, and that sticks with you for the rest of your life. I was born one, and I choose to admit it, but not to follow it. I choose to make my own decisions because I have a right to that freedom. A man I admire very much once said, "You do not know what it is to have freedom until you have that privilege and all others removed from you."
Very well. While from an islamic point of view you are a "possession" of Islam for all your lifetime, I - like you - believe that man has the freedom of choice and thus cannot be the possessed by somebody else just by birth - that would be slavery. In my view, you are Persian by your cultural background. But from what you say I would not say you are Muslim, even if at certain sopcial situation I could imagine that you maybe pro forma may follow some of their rules, to make it easier for other people to deal with you. The form is not the important thing, but the essence. I have spend some months in your country (assuming you are currently sitting in Iran), and in no other muslim country I saw so diverse a spectrum: the religious fanatics on the one side, a very educated, reasonable and influenced by the West (from colonial times) burgeoisie on the other side. Although I once was in the middle of one of these hysteric mass demonstrations in Teheran in, i think, 1996, all in all I had more good memories of people's hospitality and non-hostility towards my identity in iran, than in any other Muslim country I was. The worst it was in Turkey, nowhere else we were so often confronted with arrogance and disadin, than there, and the habits of hospitality were often only followed in icy atmosphere (talking of the rural Turks, and places offside the big metropoles, it was different - and better - with the kurds, and in the greater cities). My determined position on nulcear weapons and iran is as well-known here as is my unforgiving rejection of Islamic ideology, but I consider people like the current hardliners to be a great trategdy for your country, and would not feel like shouting horray if there ever would be a war with Iran, while eventually maybe supporting the cause. I really hope that there will be no nuclear weapons in Iran, and I am fully aware that paradoxically Iran even needs nuclear energy to make it's poil trades more profitable, but I am pessimistic. Best thing would be if Iranians prevent the religious camp fro any power all by themselves, but obviously that needs social and communal preconditions fulfilled that currently and in the forseeable future will not bet met.

Peoplo like you should make themselves heared more often, if I may say that so undiplomatically, it would help to fight against the demonisation of your culture that leads so long time back before muhammad appeared on the scene, and demonisation never is good and hinders one's sight. I absolutely have a determined stand on certain questions regarding Islam, and islam in the West and nukes and Iran, yes - but I also know that that country and it's people has another face, too. It's just that this is not to be seen often. Beside Lybia, it seems to be the most educated nation in the Muslim world. Only sometimes I got engaged in philosophical or religious talks with Iranians there, and one time even with a cleric from southen Teheran. Back at that time i used to refer to myself as buiddhist, if not only for reasons of simplicity and not needing to make long explanations. Iranians for the most tended to simply accept that, and curiosuly asking querstions, they really wanted to know. In all other countries I was, it was a reason to errect walls against me immediately. Not believing in a god = no offspring of Abraham = worthless foreigner: that often was the formula I heared ticking in the background of their minds. Not just to believe in something translated into my personal arroganace - a phenomenon i know from dealing with Christian fundamentalists - if only they would know how much they have in common with the true Islam they claim to fight against - they would blush immediately! :lol:

[Stealth Hunter]

Thankfully, I'm NOT in Iran at the moment given the iffy situation... although I must confess I have been tempted to return to Tehran and I have said so many times. I've been living in Texas a little over a decade now. I like it here. Not the best state in the US, but I like it nonetheless. Colorado is where I want to live. The Rocky Mountains are titanic compared to the Alborz (Pike's Peak was quite a fun undertaking), and the forests there are nothing short of amazing.

I must say that all too often are the governmental officials of a nation are accepted as the general stereotype for the people which they represent, which is just wrong all the way around so far as I'm concerned (this is in regards to your statement about talking with the Iranian citizens that you met about your Buddhist beliefs). A prime example is Ahmadinejad's proposal that the Holocaust never happened. People think this also is the same with the people that live under his rule, when in fact, it's quite the opposite. To add to that, one of the highest rated shows in their country is about an Iranian man who is studying in Europe during Hitler's reign who goes from an innocent onlooker to a sympathizer for the Jews (and he helps them escape the Germans towards the end; rather good; several European countries pitched in to help with the production of it).

I sometimes ponder, and I've done this many a night, what the world would be like if we all actually took the time to sit down and got to know one another. I sometimes think we'd live in a better international society, but you'll always have a bad apple in the basket. I feel that many of the world's problems come from people misunderstanding one another, but I don't know. I could just as likely be wrong. Maybe someday we'll see a world like that, perhaps not in our lifetimes, but maybe it will exist someday.

[Tchocky]

Colorado is where I want to live.

If only waste_gate was still around :cry::cry:

[Stealth Hunter]

Oh my god. They KEELHAULED him?! WTF? Why?!:down:

[Takeda Shingen]

there would be no islamic problem if we never allowed them to come to europe in the first place.. kick em all out :down::down::nope: before they turn it into a european Iran.. :down:

"get rid of the problem ,you go straight to the source"

And a guy who yesterday sported a signature urging us to Google 'Palestinian Genocide' now advocates a 'trail of tears' approach for European Muslims. Silly.

[CCIP]

Oh my god. They KEELHAULED him?! WTF? Why?!:down:

For ignoring repeated warnings and not learning from his temporary bans. Normally Neal goes by the three strikes and you're out rule on these things, but waste gate actually had 4 or 5 before he finally got kicked.

Anyway, that's not what this thread is about.


I like how he's (the archbishop that is) all shocked and defensive now. He could at least stay quiet and let it blow over now, but I guess he's intent on letting this gaffe roll on into something that'll probably do him and others no good.

[JSLTIGER]

Oh my god. They KEELHAULED him?! WTF? Why?!:down:
For ignoring repeated warnings and not learning from his temporary bans. Normally Neal goes by the three strikes and you're out rule on these things, but waste gate actually had 4 or 5 before he finally got kicked.

Anyway, that's not what this thread is about.


I like how he's (the archbishop that is) all shocked and defensive now. He could at least stay quiet and let it blow over now, but I guess he's intent on letting this gaffe roll on into something that'll probably do him and others no good.
I wouldn't be surprised if someone keelhauls the bishop after this one...

[Skybird]

I sometimes ponder, and I've done this many a night, what the world would be like if we all actually took the time to sit down and got to know one another. I sometimes think we'd live in a better international society, but you'll always have a bad apple in the basket. I feel that many of the world's problems come from people misunderstanding one another, but I don't know. I could just as likely be wrong. Maybe someday we'll see a world like that, perhaps not in our lifetimes, but maybe it will exist someday.
Maybe Neal could keelhaul all politicians and clerics and scribes of all religions - then maybe we would win the freedom to have it your way! :up: Neal - if you please...?

From what I heared, Colorado would be one of my picks, too. Before some huge bushfires some years ago that killed a lot of forest, Minnesota (I think, some state with an M at the beginning :D ) also would have been on my list to see: I like huge forests. and of course Alaska. I have this theory that every man's character or soul matches one type of landscape more than any other, like a totem, and for me, that has always been Northern forests. :) Huge cities is what I am less interested in. NY and LA I probably would ignore completely if ever doing a trip across the states :p

[STEED]

Colorado is where I want to live.

If only waste_gate was still around :cry::cry:

He is, that is to say not here but over on.............

Click my sig Subsimulations and join up we need you and more.

[joea]

Well I haven't read the whole thread but I'm going to have my say:
"It would make Muslims more proud of being British," he said. "It would give Muslims the sense that the British respect our faith." Suggesting that the British government should change it's laws to suit the Muslims is a load of crap, & for a Christian to make this statement is ludacris!:nope: The Pope should give the Archbishop a swift kick in the backside!:yep:

Agreed, but the Pope has no influence ovr the Archbishop. Bah, just get rid of the state church. I mean disestablish it, no need for state religion in the 21st century. :yep:

[Skybird]

Sharia fiasco:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM2dC1iWzww

Loudest and most possible applaus to this.

[bookworm_020]

He's a nutter! This guy has done more harm to the church than anything else in years. He dosen't represent the vast majority of people in the Anglican church. I like to see him try and get some changes for christians in muslim countries and see how far he gets!:-?

[STEED]

It's alright for the rest of the world we have to put up with this wet liberal. http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/images/icons/icon13.gif

[silentrunner]

If there was some strange religion that called for a member to kill 12 people a month, it would still be illegall, there is a difference in religion and government. If you break a law no matter if it is part of your religion or not you must pay the price.

Damn I just got promoted, I'm bald now

[Sea Demon]

What an idiot. The Archbishop that is. :down:

[Happy Times]

Who's afraid of the big bad Mo?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vi2RcI7LKCc

[XXi]

Generally, it reminds me somehow of barbarians invading the Roman Empire.
The Empire has not fallen just because of military purposes, but once the Romans accepted the incursion of the barbarians the case was lost and just the matter of time before they became minority in their own land. And the barbarians didn`t take accept much of the civilization - most of it got lost very soon :(

And the very guy, well, I`m not British so I won`t comment his statements.

[Tchocky]

An idiot to say it is inevitable, yes.

Remember that there are Jewish courts in use every day in Britain.

Just to give another dimension to this British-law-above-all attitude that seems rather common.

[STEED]

And what action is there to be taken? None. :roll:

[Tchocky]

And what action is there to be taken? None. :roll:

I don't see that there's a need for action quite yet. Religious courts are there for non-criminal disputes for subsections of society. Whether there is a need for these is a different argument than this.
I suspect this mess is about the gaffe-prone Williams mentioning the S-word rather than any substantive disagreement.

Sharia law? Oh that's all about stoning rape victims, isn't it?

[Konovalov]

You know, when I look at what the Archbishop did and the whole furore and reaction that resulted from it I don't find it too dissimilar to the overblown controversy of the Pope's academic essay on Islam months back.

[STEED]

And what action is there to be taken? None. :roll:

I don't see that there's a need for action quite yet. Religious courts are there for non-criminal disputes for subsections of society. Whether there is a need for these is a different argument than this.
I suspect this mess is about the gaffe-prone Williams mentioning the S-word rather than any substantive disagreement.

Sharia law? Oh that's all about stoning rape victims, isn't it?

The general synod is wet behind the ears as this man has made a few gaffs in his time, I was referring in removing him from his post not locking him up.

[Tchocky]

The general synod is wet behind the ears as this man has made a few gaffs in his time, I was referring in removing him from his post not locking him up.
Ah right right.

The synod is deeply split between liberals and conservatives. Remember the row over homosexuality a couple of years back? The international Anglicans are even more divided.
I think some of this mess is constructed from that divide in the church.

[STEED]

The general synod is wet behind the ears as this man has made a few gaffs in his time, I was referring in removing him from his post not locking him up.
Ah right right.

The synod is deeply split between liberals and conservatives. Remember the row over homosexuality a couple of years back? The international Anglicans are even more divided.
I think some of this mess is constructed from that divide in the church.

I may have strong views on law and order but even I would not push for a prison sentence, he hasn't broken the law. :lol:

Good point you made. :up:

And now a Question for the man in question, what would he make of this.


Saudis clamp down on valentines

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7239005.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7239005.stm)



I hope the PC thugs don't see this. ;)

[Skybird]

An idiot to say it is inevitable, yes.

Remember that there are Jewish courts in use every day in Britain.

Just to give another dimension to this British-law-above-all attitude that seems rather common.

Beth Dins are almost unnown to non-Jews. Many do not evenknow they exist, inclduing me. Now that I know, I say they have to go as well. However, Judaism in Western nations never was missionizing and aggresively expanding, in fact severlly conttributed to the hosting nations, regarding arts, philosophy, science, education, cultural creation, and beeing Jewish in Germany and being German at the same time is on no way a contradiction. Beth Dins are mostly dealing with questions of divorce, and conversion, I meanwhile learned, and do not try to expand themselves onto others, non-Jews. - sharia on the other side holds a totalitarian all-pervading power that demands that all others miust act in a way so that Sharia and Islam is not offended, and rights are only accepted as far as sharia accepts such rifghts, and the freedom of speech is only valid so far as long as it is not beign sued to talk against Islam and Sharia, in which Islam again is offended once again. also, Sharia law cannot be picked apart and thus being granted valdity only in so0cmke of it's rules, in other snot, like it is done with Beth Dins. To think so means not to realsitically know what Sharia is. It is a non-modular, monolithic system designed to prevent any splitting, reformation, choosy picking, in order to safe Islam from being "perverted" this way. All or nothing at all, that is the motto.

Also, Sharia and islam stands for the slavery of females, supression of infidels, barbarism, inhumanity, medieaval blindness, stands for religious fascism, intolerance, draconic penalties, crippling of reason and intellect.

I can't see Jews in our nations and communities bullying the non-Jewish population, making trouble, aggressively demanding more and more concessions to Islam, soecial rights, and wanrting special procedures for themselves that even the european churches does not enjoy anymore today. Judging by it'S followers, Judaism and it's Jewish courts does little to nothing to missionize their social communities that host them. But Islam knows no self-restraints in all this.

So why again putting it into relation? Why again trying to raise a picture that it is not so bad, by relativising it? Sharia laws implemented in the West would be many, many times worse than the existing Beth Din (which also does injustice for example regarding certain implications of women trying to get divocres from their husbands, as i learned) . In Western societies there can and should and must only be one law, that is the law of the state and legislation. any other law of private corporations, private parties, relgious clubs, the Church, the Jews or Sharia is totally and completely unacceptable, and must be broken and replaced with the enforcement of the only law there can be in a society like ours where politics and religion are strictly kept separate.

Currently, Turkey Erdogan is visiting Germany. He used the opportunity to first demand school lessons being held in Turkish language, turkish schools and turkish universities bing established, teachers from turkey being send to Germany en masse, such schools and universities not as a symbolic institution of cultural exchnage like you often can see with an american university here, or even a planned german university in Turkey - he wants it to be a system covering all germany and becoming a second pillar of German education system alltogether. Next he realised that he worried the Germans by that, nicetalked it by superficially encouraging Turks (after 40 years) to finally learn German - and one setence later fired a whole broadside that they should not accept to become part of German society, but should remain Turkish, and should remain a Tiurkish community different from german society, and that it is a crijme against humanity to expect Turks coming and wanting to live in Germany to adapt to German standards "too much". Integration for him is only a worthless word. for him it means: getting a german passport, but staying turkish - in full. It means to have a german passport, but to vote in the lelections for turkish parliament (for the AKP, of course). urope shall not be left any chance of avoiding that, and that there shall not be an alternative for Turkey than just this. The crowds totally were enlightened with enthusiamsm.

Rememeber this is the same Erdogan who just months agaoi angrily wanrs the West to stop taling of moderate Islam and fundamental Islam - that would be an offence to every muslim, becasue there is only one islam, and the West should give up it's arrogant lecturing and manipulation of trying to play Muslims versus Muslims.

Currently, the turkish religion minstry already heavily interferes with placeholding associations in germany with german inner politics, finances the building of more and more and even more mosques, invests into segration and Turkish clture centres, provide aid to Turkish parallel societies, and directly undermines the demand for integration by the german state and the German population. They provide all imams that practically do not speak a word of German and do all service and preaching in mosques in Turkish, and rotate them in and out. Turkey makes lip-confession of training Imams in Germany under the German state's survaillance, it wants it'S own ministry providing these imams - outside the survaillance of the german authorities.

I giggled and laaughed when seeing it on TV, and felt a grim, gloomy satisfaction when thinking about Greens and SPD-people sitting ion front of their TVs: and seeng Erdogan getting all the cheers and applause you would expect "immigrants" (seeking to integrate into there new nation of choice) investing into their new "home". It was a worst case scenario of integration efforts needing to declare total and complete bankrupcty. Erdogan is an extremeol nationalistic and most fundamentalistic guy for whom Europe is islam's prey, he is very arrogant and self-convinced, and wants Turkey being in the lead to press it's claws deeper into europe, but I must admit he is clever and ruthless in his powerpolitics. For him it has economical benefits (at the cost of the EU), political power, but the main motive behind him is religion (the unwelcomed truth the EU does ignore with all determination it can bring up). He has estimated the weakness of the German politics totally correct, and used our own dmeocracy and free elections agaisnt us by making them the prferred choice of Islam to gain legitimation.

If somebody cannot see in how far this example has to do with the suggestion of implementing Sharia in Britain, I can't help such a mind anymore.

Just btw, due to a house fire in which 9 Turks got killed, turkey and its government immediately comparted chancellor Merkel with Hitler again, and that she is dscriminating the turks for not wnating them in the EU, and complained on racist arson, and all Germans being Nazis, and the imperial gestures and language once again gained such heights that I would give it a thought why we really must exchange ambassadors with that country any longer - we could happily do without turkey, that is for sure. It got leaked from police reports meanwhile that the wires were in bad shape, that it was tried to illegally draw off electric power from the town's electricity grid, and that the small girls that said they saw strangers putting up the fire got themselves trapped in so many contradictions and even descriptions of which they even did not know what they meant, that nobody believes them anymore anything. Most likely it is becasue those turkish families living in that house illegally played around with the electric wires that already were in bad shape, and thus caused the fiore themselves. I doubt that politicians will find it easy to talk that out in public if it turns into the truth being proven. the temptation to avoid conflict with turks again by just making the bad wires responsible, must at least be very high.

[VipertheSniper]

The general synod is wet behind the ears as this man has made a few gaffs in his time, I was referring in removing him from his post not locking him up. Ah right right.

The synod is deeply split between liberals and conservatives. Remember the row over homosexuality a couple of years back? The international Anglicans are even more divided.
I think some of this mess is constructed from that divide in the church.
I may have strong views on law and order but even I would not push for a prison sentence, he hasn't broken the law. :lol:

Good point you made. :up:

And now a Question for the man in question, what would he make of this.


Saudis clamp down on valentines

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.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7239005.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/7239005.stm)


I hope the PC thugs don't see this. ;)

Well Valentine's day is un-Islamic... after all it's a reminder of the christian martyrs, can't have that in an Islamic country...

Sure the way it's celebrated today is purely commercial, I guess most people don't even know why the Valentine's day is named Valentine's day, but the origins are christian and I guess that's what ticks off them Saudis.

Maybe they could call it Suicide Bombers day in Saudi Arabia and worship their "martyrs".

[Skybird]

Sure the way it's celebrated today is purely commercial, I guess most people don't even know why the Valentine's day is named Valentine's day, but the origins are christian and I guess that's what ticks off them Saudis.

Maybe they could call it Suicide Bombers day in Saudi Arabia and worship their "martyrs".
Or they could worship me - Valentine's day is my birthday, and i am certainly not suspicious of being a representative Christian. :cool: :lol:

[Tchocky]

So why again putting it into relation? Why again trying to raise a picture that it is not so bad, by relativising it?
I'm not trying to make any relativist point, nor any comment on specific religions.
Just that there are already religious courts in the UK, so this is not a new thing.

[Skybird]

[quote]The archbishop of Canterbury has proposed a partial introduction of Islamic Shariah law in Great Britain. This is yet another step on the part of the Western world to subjugate itself to a Muslim immigrant minority unwilling to integrate.

In the autumn of 2006, the Dutch were dismayed over a book that had been published by the country's then justice minister, in which he speculated over the introduction of Shariah law in the Netherlands.



"How can this (the introduction of Shariah) be prevented legally?" the minister wrote. "Simply calling it 'impossible' would be scandalous. The majority counts. This happens to be the essence of democracy."

If two-thirds of the Dutch public favored Shariah, the minister argued, its introduction would be unavoidable. Forced onto the defensive, the minister explained that his comment had merely been a reference "to the democratic principle" that a two-thirds majority is all it takes to amend the country's constitution.

At the same time, of course, he criticized the ongoing immigration and integration debate. "I don't like the tone of the political debate," he said. "To say: 'You must conform and accept our norms and values as your own; be reasonable, do as we do,' doesn't conform to the way I think things should be handled.'"

But the minister neglected to explain exactly how he thought things should be handled. His omission only reinforced the impression among many in the Netherlands that what he really meant was that it is not the immigrants who should "conform and accept our norms and values," but the Dutch who should conform to the norms and values of immigrants.


In the summer of 2007, Tiny Muskens, a liberal Catholic and the former bishop of the Dutch city of Breda, proposed replacing the word "God" with the word "Allah." Allah, he said, is a nice name for God and, for this reason, we shouldn't feel uncomfortable about referring to God as Allah.


A short time later, the Social Democratic mayor of Brussels, Freddy Thielemans, banned a rally -- scheduled to take place on the sixth anniversary of 9/11 -- to protest the gradual Islamicization of Europe. He also instructed Brussels police officers not to smoke or eat in public during the month-long Ramadan fast, so as not to offend Muslims. A bit farther south, in Zurich, police officers were asked to acquaint themselves with Islamic culture by voluntarily refraining from eating or drinking for an entire day during Ramadan.


How "Islamic Extremism" Disappeared

Meanwhile, the BBC announced a new policy on its Web site's "Section on Islam": Any mention of the Prophet Muhammad was to be followed by the phrase "Peace be upon him." The move, a BBC spokesman explained, was intended to ensure a "fair and balanced" portrayal of Islam.

It didn't take long before the British Home Office announced a new rule applicable to all official government statements: Phrases like "war on terror" and "Islamic extremism"" were no longer to be used. Home Secretary Jacqueline Jill Smith explained the reasoning behind the rule: Extremists, she said, act, not in the name of Islam, but in opposition to their faith. For this reason, she argued, their activities ought to be referred to as "anti-Islamic activities." Ms. Smith was essentially using a rhetorical trick to wipe terrorism off the table.

As is common in England, the minister's directive was accepted without much opposition. Only a handful of critical Britons were astute enough to ask why, in the days of IRA terrorism, the organization's activities were not referred to as "anti-Irish activities."

And now a British cleric wants to introduce Shariah in England (http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,534579,00.html). Mind you, this is not just any pastor from some tiny village in Wales, but rather the spiritual leader of the Anglican Church, Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury. According to Williams, Britain must consider the fact that some citizens cannot identify with British law. Accepting some aspects of Shariah, he argued, could help to avoid social tension. Under Williams' proposal, people involved in marital conflicts and financial disputes would be able to choose between British law and Shariah.
The archbishop could actually be right -- on a purely factual level, at least. It would indeed help to avoid social tensions if Muslims were not required to observe the aspects of British law governing marriage and divorce. Even a few non-Muslims might find this option rather appealing. A "temporary marriage," as is possible under Shariah, could certainly have many advantages, especially if "temporary" means only a few hours or days.


A Cafeteria-Style Society?

But the bishop is mistaken if he believes that one can structure a society like a cafeteria, where diners can choose between meat and vegetarian menus. A little bit of Shariah is just as unrealistic as a little bit of pregnancy. Shariah regulates all aspects of life, and anyone who proposes assuming only parts of Shariah fails to comprehend its inherent inevitability. Imagine if we were to allow nudity in public swimming pools, but only under the condition that each visitor be allowed to decide which article of clothing he or she wishes to remove.
The proposal by the archbishop of Canterbury is evidence of more than just an unbelievable naiveté. It also reveals how far the idea of preventive capitulation in the face of an unsolvable problem has advanced.

Proponents of preventive capitulation would argue that because some immigrants are unwilling or unable to accept the rules of society, society should assume the immigrants' rules. For them, "integration" could also be defined as the need for the majority to conform to a minority.


Voting under the Burqa

When the day comes when coeducation has been eliminated in schools and the burqa becomes mandatory for all women, when pubs no longer serve ale and female passengers have their own separate compartments on buses and trains, where they can feel safely protected against the lustful eyes of men, that will be the day when even the last opponents of Shariah will have to admit that social tensions have in fact declined. Those who live in windowless basements need not live in fear of getting sunburned.


What's next? Will women have the right to vote without having to show their faces? What a wonderful idea! Women being allowed to show up at polling places and cast their votes while veiled from head to toe -- provided, of course, they bring along two forms of identification and a witness who can vouch for their identity.


Not in England -- not yet, at least. But precisely that is possible in liberal Canada, a member of the Commonwealth of Nations, whose titular head is the British monarch.

Henryk Broder
from: http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,druck-534772,00.html

[Skybird]

So why again putting it into relation? Why again trying to raise a picture that it is not so bad, by relativising it?
I'm not trying to make any relativist point, nor any comment on specific religions.
Just that there are already religious courts in the UK, so this is not a new thing.It is a different thing, and thus, it is new. sharia does not compare to Beth Tins as practiced currently. It's threat potential ranks uncomparably higher.

[Konovalov]

Skybird, Did you read the entire transcript of the Archbishops speech/essay?

[Skybird]

Skybird, Did you read the entire transcript of the Archbishops speech/essay?
What are you aiming at? It was a long speech text that I had (in german translation) - if it was the complete speech I cannot say, they did not mark a proper start, and end of it. The essence of it was that he thought it to be impossible to avoid that parts of sharia would be implemented and made available for those choosing it - and exactly that is the misconception of shria, which canot be divided withiut violating islam most basic princiapl rules of not being avauilable for democratic, choosy picking of some, and some not, and he did not show a realsitic assessement of what integratioin means, and how such an act would be perceived from the side of Islam: a declaration of weakness, preventive obedience, and an invitation to push for more. Segragation, not integration.

[STEED]

And now for something completely different...................

The Bishop
http://youtube.com/watch?v=UieDo4GoRPE (http://youtube.com/watch?v=UieDo4GoRPE)

[Konovalov]

Skybird, Did you read the entire transcript of the Archbishops speech/essay?
What are you aiming at?
I simply wanted to know if you had either watched and listened to the speech or alternatively read the entire transcipt. Nothing more, nothing less. No aiming, no hidden this and that.

For those that haven't then this columnist piece from the UK Times may be handy: "I've read it so you don't have to". (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article3353088.ece)

EDIT: Forgot to add the full cream milk version in addition to the skimmed one. So here they follow below. :oops:

Full essay as given by the Archbishop of Canterbury which was the foundation lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice to lawyers can be found here. (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575)

Full transcript of interview given by the Archbishop of Canterbury on BBC Radio 4 World at One which was earlier that day before the lecture can be read here (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573).

Finally the official press release by the Archbishop of Canterbury the following day in response to the furore that errupted can be viewed here (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581).

[Skybird]

This is the part that raised rang my alarm bells firts in the german translation:

"The rule of law is thus not the enshrining of priority for the universal/abstract dimension of social existence but the establishing of a space accessible to everyone in which it is possible to affirm and defend a commitment to human dignity as such, independent of membership in any specific human community or tradition, so that when specific communities or traditions are in danger of claiming finality for their own boundaries of practice and understanding, they are reminded that they have to come to terms with the actuality of human diversity - and that the only way of doing this is to acknowledge the category of 'human dignity as such' – a non-negotiable assumption that each agent (with his or her historical and social affiliations) could be expected to have a voice in the shaping of some common project for the well-being and order of a human group."

And then I started thinking about what this would mean if terms like "dignity" and "freedom" and "diversity" would be used by two groups in totally different meanung, thus using the same word for different things, as I see it being the case with western culture, and islam. And as I already said, and other critics in the media made clear in ,much better verbal expression than I can, Sharia law is not of the lkind that accepts to be split into pieces, some of which you follow, and others you refuse. It's either all (you are Islamic, fully), or you are nothing at all (then you are a heretic to Muhammad's teachings and policies, or are an infidel, and both must be overcome). The Bishop makes a lot of intellectual gymnastics - but he lives in an isolated bubble indeed, having lost contact to reality and the object of his anaylsis., thus he is analysing his own fnaatsy of what it should be - but unfortunately is not. He wa nts to remain in control - by bending it to such degree that his tools and means and thoughts can manage the task, while in reality, it is beyond his abilities, and by far so. a typical example of ignoring the venomous snake in your house - and concluding that this is enough to ban the danger.

Nuts, completely. And nhow it coincides with the Erdogan visit and the furor it caused. Erdogan also demanded Germany to see the diversity of mankind, and aplying different rules to different people, instead of German rules for all people who wanrt to live in Germany. Summarizing it, Williams said: "We may all have the same passport, but we shall not fall under the same law." Erdogan said to the Turks in Germany whom he warned against adapting and assimilating, and whom he recommended to learn German only for their own opportunistic advantage, but to stay Turkish indeed: "You may live in Germany, but the Turkish nationality must be your guiding principle you must try to anchor in Gemran society." Or as a german newspaper put it: "You may live in gemrany, but I, erdogan, are your true prime minister." One good consequence erdogan'S arrogance has had: the rejection of a EU membership for turkey has grown significantly, while always having seen a majority of Germans being against it. He also has dmaaged the interest of Turks living in germany - that is why several different Turkish-german spokesmen rejected his proposals alltogether.

I must refuse your subtle intention to calm it all and declare it harmless, Konovalov. It isn't at all. Naturally, your sympathies towards Islamic interests are different than mine. that you rate it differently then, is natural. But that does make the bishop'S clever thinking not less divorced from reality.

[bookworm_020]

Isn't his job to speak for the Anglican church??? He dosen't need to speek for the opposition!:nope:

[Tchocky]

Isn't his job to speak for the Anglican church??? He dosen't need to speek for the opposition!:nope:
Well, the Anglican church is the established church of England, which may or may not give the Archbishop a role to play in national religious issues.
Speaking for the opposition?
I'll run a mile from that.

[Kapitan_Phillips]

Brief summary of my views on this:


Another case of the public saying "We told you so" regarding the Archbishop
Another case of how this country is going down the ****ter
Another missed opportunity for people to grow a spine and stop bending over backwards for these people
Simple as that. :shifty:

[Happy Times]

Remember this?



http://eaglespearlsofwisdom.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/islam-marchers.jpg



They do.





(CNN) -- Danish authorities said Tuesday they have arrested three people who allegedly were plotting a "terror-related assassination" of a cartoonist whose drawing of the Prophet Mohammed sparked rage in the Muslim world two years ago.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/02/12/denmark.cartoon/index.html?iref=mpstoryview

[JSLTIGER]

That's nothing. Remember this:
Palestinians Celebrate Attacks with Gunfire

By Joseph Logan
BEIRUT (Reuters) - Palestinians in Lebanon met news of devastating attacks on American targets Tuesday with jubilant gunfire, dancing and cheering, saying Israel's chief backer deserved such a punishment.
"This is the result of American policy. America and Israel are one," one Palestinian gunman said.
"This is the reaction required to confront the American and Israeli arrogance," said Mohamad Hallak, a 40-year-old Palestinian refugee from the southern Rashidiyeh camp in Tyre.
Firing rattled across Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon and the West Bank as soon as television stations broke the news, carrying live footage of buildings on fire and collapsing and terrified Americans fleeing the stricken areas.
Jubilant Palestinians took to the streets of refugee camps of Lebanon and the West Bank, waving Palestinian flags and distributing sweets to celebrate the attacks on major U.S. landmarks and government offices.
Some Lebanese shared the joy.
"We're ecstatic. Let America have a taste of what we've tasted," said Ali Mareh, a Lebanese resident of Beirut.
"People are happy. America has always supported terrorism. They see how the innocent Palestinian children are killed and they back the Zionist army that does it. America has never been on the side of justice," said Samir, a Lebanese.
"This is the language that the United States understands and this is the way to stop America from helping the Zionist terrorists who are killing our children, men and women everyday," said Mohamed Rasheed, a Palestinian.
Lebanon is home to some to 360,000 Palestinian refugees. After four generations of exile, many Palestinians feel embittered against the United States for its support of Israel -- a feeling which has grown during the present uprising in the occupied territories of the West Bank and Gaza.
"Today is a feast for the Palestinians. We do not differentiate between America and Israel. America is our prime enemy," added another Palestinian.
Palestinian President Yasser Arafat condemned the attacks which leveled the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City and struck the Pentagon in Washington.
Palestinians who have often burned U.S. flags in protests during their 11-month-old uprising against Israeli occupation also celebrated in the streets of Arab East Jerusalem.
"I feel I am in a dream. I never believed that one day the United States would come to pay a price for its support to Israel," said Mustafa, a 24-year-old Palestinian gunman.
Several dozen Palestinian youths gathered in Arab East Jerusalem to celebrate as well, honking out wedding tunes on their car horns. "We are so happy that America was hit. America is against us in supporting Israel," Suleiman, one of the demonstrators, said.
In Nablus, motorists honked their horns and gunmen fired into the air from assault rifles to cheer on the attacks which unfolded in the space of a few hours and stunned people around the globe.

Or this:


"Bullseye," say Egyptians as they celebrate anti-US attacks

CAIRO, Sept 11 (AFP) -
Egyptian students, taxi drivers and shopkeepers crowded round television sets stacked up in electrical store windows in downtown Cairo Tuesday evening, celebrating a string of elaborate attacks on New York and Washington.
"Bullseye," commented two taxi drivers as they watched footage of the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York shrouded in plumes of smoke after two presumably hijacked planes slammed into them earlier in the day.
Another Egyptian man, Gawish Abdel Karim, told AFP he was pleased with the wave of violence in which another plane crashed into the Pentagon in Washington, the heart of the US defence establishment.
"Nice work," said Abdel Karim, who drives a car for an Asian embassy.
"The Americans have forgotten that God exists. They have us by the throat and now they find themselves in a science fiction film scenario, but this time Rambo's not there to save the White House."
Anti-US sentiment has mushroomed on the streets of Egypt and other Arab countries over its widely-perceived support for Israel over the Palestinians in the past 11 months of violence in the Middle East.
As with other US facilities around the world, workers at US government offices and Egyptian citizens were taking security precautions, with only "non-essential" operations set to be covered on Wednesday.
However, US officials said there had been no credible or specific threat against US citizens or interests here.
Abdel Karim hailed the attacks as "the best thing that's happened since the October War," referring to the October 1973 Arab-Israeli war when Egyptian forces made a surprise attack on the Israeli army across the Suez Canal.
"Mabruk! Mabruk! (congratulations)", shouted a crowd of people huddled round the shop window.
Egypt, considered one of the "moderate" countries in the Middle East, is one of the United States' strongest allies in the region, being the first Arab country to sign a peace treaty with Israel in 1979.
But people on the streets do not necessarily see themselves as US allies.
"The Americans are cowards. They use other countries to hit us. They don't have the courage to meet us face to face," said Khalil Matar, 43, who works in a state-run soap factory. "The myth of the indestructible United States has gone up in smoke."
Polytechnic student Amira Ryad also vented her anger.
"We saw the tower crash down," she said, referring to one of the two towers of the World Trade Center, both of which were razed by the attack.
"I only wish (US President) George Bush and his dear little baby (Israeli Prime Minister Ariel) Sharon had been buried in there too," she added.
Fellow student Murad went as far as speculating that the United States was behind the attacks, "to find an excuse for the National Missile Defence system" that Bush wants to deploy to protect the United States from so-called rogue states, despite widespread global opposition.
"Those people are capable of killing their own people to prove they're right," he said.
Egyptian President Hosni "Mubarak should know that the people can no longer be humiliated, but of course he'll never declare war" on Israel, the student said.
Another taxi driver said he was going to make special prayers to thank him for the attacks against the US.


Most of this was kept quietly under wraps by the media, mentioned once and then never again.

[AkbarGulag]

If you read what some muslims around the world, from Great Britian to the US to Australia and even from New Zealand, have to say about it, you will realise the only goal is to assimilate everyone else, while not being assimilated themsleves.

Even the Turkish Prime Minister just urged Turks in Germany to resist assimilation and to maintain and increase their own schools and Courts. Yes, the same Prime minister who had the headscarf ban removed in Turkey. He now tells them that speaking Turkish in Germany is more important than speaking German.

It is comment like the Arch-Bishops that embolden this type of confrontational attitude. Unfortunately, people who just want a normal life free of all religious sentiment are the main losers. The whole debate erodes civil liberties and forces a 'Us or Them' mentality.

This is why people would rather follow tyrants who have no religious affiliation.

[jumpy]

Pat Condell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM2dC1iWzww) has something to say about this and despite my thinking that certain 'traditions' ought to be a part of diverse communities out of fairness (though ultimately subject to UK civil/criminal law), I find I never fail to chuckle and agree with Pat on many things, more so given his obvious humorous slant on his opinions.

[Skybird]

Pat Condell (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM2dC1iWzww) has something to say about this and despite my thinking that certain 'traditions' ought to be a part of diverse communities out of fairness (though ultimately subject to UK civil/criminal law), I find I never fail to chuckle and agree with Pat on many things, more so given his obvious humorous slant on his opinions.

Posting #36 in this thread! ;) :D

Chuckle myself often about his videos, yes, but let'S not be mistaken: he is bitterly determined. And two or three videos there are that are not funny at all, but just grim.

I wonder why he still can afford to walk around instead of hiding in a bunker - people got killed for less.

[jumpy]

damn my thread skimming skills! lol

Yer, Pat can be a bit harsh at times, but at least there's no chicanery in his point of view - something refreshingly direct that is often lacking in many speakers today. He says what he thinks and thinks about what he says and because of how we live he can say it with humour and without fear; long may it remain so.

Having watched most of his videos it seems he has a small problem with the idea of organised religion....:lol: :roll:

[Skybird]

Having watched most of his videos
All 36 on my USB stick...

it seems he has a small problem with the idea of organised religion....
Öööööhhhm - who has not...? :know: :lol: