Why there should be a secular state...

[WaldoMcFroog]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233335 .stm

Rowan Williams = Twunt.

One rule for all, thank you, or else I'm going to start demanding separate atheist-friendly laws.

[brionon]

And why ? because like his friend tony Blair he believes that ANY religion is better than none. And what the Muslims can do today --the C of E; can do tomorrow.

[naomi24]

Nooooooooooo! This is absolute madness!!! I can't think of anything less likely to help social cohesion. What planet is he on?

[Lonnie]

I just put this on Thelands thread, but my opinion, is that if this does come to pass, it's just the beginnining of the end.

It hasn't happened yet, but i'm sure it will, and Sharia Law practicioners, more than any other, are the ones to be scared of

[WaldoMcFroog]

It's not Sharia law per se that I think is the objection (though I do absolutely object to it), it's the halfwitted undermining of the fundamental principle that all are equal before the law.

[naomi24]

Absolutely!

[WaldoMcFroog]

Still, I see that politicians of all flavours have basically told him to bugga off...

[Gromit]

Rowan Williams is wrong and I totally agree with your secular state.

When the Upper chamber is properly reformed then the 27 bishops and rabbis and what not should be given the boot.

The fact that these self serving, out of touch old men still have so much influence over what laws are passed is a scandal. Can't be long before the chief Imam joins their ranks.

[jno]

According to the story, parties are already able to choose the arena for disagreements to be heard (this wouldn't involve criminal cases, I imagine) and Sharia and Orthodox Jewish courts are already used. The archbishop is characteristically obscure in what he says; but it may be that there's less to all this than meets the eye. His claim that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well" seems unarguable. He's not calling for thieves to have their hands detached in public.

[123everton]

One country one rule of law for all.
I do not accept the Sharia in any way.
"He offended the prophet" should not constitute a defence in law.
Even though the talk (for now at least) is about marital disputes (mission creep may change that) if they want a religious blessing as well then good luck to them, if they want to arbitrate their problems through the Mosque then fine. Then apply it to yourselves and keep the state legislature out of it.
I actually agree with you on secular governance.
Although I don't see how you can have atheist friendly laws when as you so often say, atheism does not have a doctrine... ;-)

[WaldoMcFroog]

Nor do I really, and it's a fair thing to say!

I just meant to point out that if you make these concessions to one, where does it end?

[naomi24]

The law of the land must apply to everyone - without exception. If people want to live here, then they must live by the law, as they would be expected to do if they went to live in any other country. No ifs and buts. Where the law is concerned, no one section of society should be separated from the rest in any way whatsoever. A system like this would result in even greater segregation and even greater resentment.

[Theland]

Am I right in saying that English common law is defined as, "Everything is permitted, except that which is specifically prohibited?"
That sounds good enough for me, and it has served us reasonably well for hundreds of years.
Now there appears the very thin end of a very long thin wedge, that will undermine this principle. And why not? The establishment has bent over backwards to accommodate ever increasing demands from muslims for preferential treatment, and R.W. is the epitome of establishment figures, along with Sir Ian Blair, who said that the words muslim and terrorist do not go together.
They do in our street!
Oh yes I've said it before and will say it again, Melanie Philips' book, "Londonistan" virtually predicts the course we are on.

[WaldoMcFroog]

No, I don't think it does. This is Rowan Williams making a very stupid statement without apparently thinking it through.
Condemnation has been from all political sides and has included muslims.

P.S. Is this the same Londonistan whose author's baised credentials and support for ideas on the basis of no evidence I pointed out on a different thread and you ignored?

[jno]

goodness, have you really got Muslim terrorists on your street, Theland? You should report them. Contrary to your obvious belief that they are all hand-in-hand with the establishment and under the personal control of New Labour, I think you will find the authorities quite interested.

[keyplus90]

The fact is that the Sharia law is not fully in force even in any muslim countries. But having said that it is a law given by the one who created us all. many would not like this here but truth is usually disliked by many when they want to fulfil their desires. Most of the man made laws have shown their flawes over the history. And yes if few punishments are seems "barbaric" they are to scare people so they should learn a lesson and think ten times before comitting a crime which can plague the society. Go to Saudi Arabia where ther are only few Sharia laws are in force but you would see the difference. Gold shops are wide open and they do not need time locks and gun men guarding them.

[WaldoMcFroog]

If it were true that sharia law worked, then there wouldn't be any criminals to get their hands cut off to provide an incentive to others to stay on the straight and narrow. That there are indicates God's law doesn't work very well.

[keyplus90]

That really did work. That is what I am saying go and have a look compare the theft crimes, drug abuse and unlawful murder crimes in Saudi Arabia to ANY OTHER country in the world. Do a proper research yourself.

[jno]

you could say the same about British law, Waldo; I don't know if there are any countries where laws have succeeded in abolishing crime. A better test of efficacy might be comparative crime rates: are there more Saudi thieves (per severed head of population) than British ones? (I don't know the answer to this.) But the real objection to Saudi justice is the barbarity, not the supposed ineffectiveness.

[WaldoMcFroog]

I'm not disputing that, Jno; the point was that Keyplus seems to think that divinely imparted law is not flawed, when clearly it is. The deity seems to have suggested a crap law that doesn't work properly when, being omnipotent, he clearly could.

[keyplus90]

Waldo- Divine law does work. As jno said that question is the barbarity of the law. What would you rather have a law which seems barbaric but serves its purpose or the law which so called gives HUMAN RIGHTS to the criminal and where he knows that even after murdering someone or raping, he would be sitting in a five star jail with all the possible facilities. I am sure he would do it again. and would not be forced to think again before commiting the same crime again. Anyone answer this question. That what punishment would you suggest to someone who murders or rapes your loved ones. Would you rather have him barbaricaly made a symbol so the others should avoid doing it, or would you say that it is fine he murdered my Son or he raped my daughter but It is ok if he stays behind bars with all the luxuries and come out and do it again?