crackerjack
Well-known member
Gettin somewhere closer to the original topic, I'm curious to know - is there anyone here who doesn't think the Archbish of Canterbury is several burgers short of a barbecue?
Double bluffing. What he means is "No Sharia law here, plz." But he can't just say that. So he comes out with this ridiculous alarmist shite about it being "inevitable" to get people to "disagree" with the opposite of what he is actually saying.
I wish you were right."Double bluffing. What he means is "No Sharia law here, plz." But he can't just say that. So he comes out with this ridiculous alarmist shite about it being "inevitable" to get people to "disagree" with the opposite of what he is actually saying."
Also, this is not true. I'm not saying that horrible events don't happen for a reason (of course they do), or that you should deliberately avoid trying to understand them or explain them, but that some acts of violence are irrational in that the reasons behind them are spurious or transient: ethnic cleansing is only rational if you think murdeing lots of your ethnic rivals is a reasonable response to having to see their scabby faces everywhere.
EDIT: Having a reason for acting does not mean that any given action is a justified, reasonable or rational response to that reason.
I wish you were right.
I feel sorry for the mad old fool, I think his brain has been rotted by all the twists and turns and double-think involved in maintaining the Church of England's stance on homosexuality (whatever it is) without pissing off the African congregrations.
Hmm...I would say you can have rational responses (which often tend to be violent) to unreasonable motivations. Is this a useful distinction: actions as ir/responsible, motives as un/reasonable?
I wish you were right.
I feel sorry for the mad old fool, I think his brain has been rotted by all the twists and turns and double-think involved in maintaining the Church of England's stance on homosexuality (whatever it is) without pissing off the African congregrations.
He maintained it was WRONG for followers of Islam to be forced to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.
Instead he said the country must “face the fact” that some Muslims do not relate to the law in Britain.
Pure idiocy from every conceivable angle. Rowan Williams is a good and thoughtful man, I think, but he does talk some terrible rubbish at times. One more person suffering under the false idea that every "Muslim" is an adherent to a monolithic "Muslim" culture.
hmm im not convinced that he is suffering under this idea. the detail of his speech in fact goes to considerable lengths to make it clear that he is well aware of the multi-faceted nature of Sharia law and Muslim faith
my (speculative!) reckoning is that it is motivated by a desire to see rights to religious (as a whole, given that to make any such attempt specific to CoE would be ridiculous in the UK today) belief and identity more greatly entrenched and respected in law, in the face of the CoE's belief system's increasing irrelevance to its development
Gettin somewhere closer to the original topic, I'm curious to know - is there anyone here who doesn't think the Archbish of Canterbury is several burgers short of a barbecue?
I guess there are pitfalls which I'm sure you'll all be happy to point out....
From what i understand, his proposal is that sharia law should be available to those wishing to abide by it as a form of community/family/personal arbitration. Something similar apparently has existed for a long time for those of the Jewish community who wish to use it. He was at pains to stress that: (1) British law would always take precedent over it; and (2) that its judgements would only be binding where both sides accepted the ruling - any dispute over the outcome would always result in the matter being considered under British law.
It's hardly going to decrease ghettoisation."Mr BoShambles: Would this not further entrench the errors of multiculturalism?"
Mr BoShambles: Would this not further entrench the errors of multiculturalism?