What is Digg?41 Comments
- computershack, on 02/07/2008, -2/+32Archbishop of Canterbury says adoption of Sharia Law is unaviodable to maintain social cohesion and that some of the citizens in the UK don't relate to the UK legal system and that we should allow them to resolve some disputes such as marital ones in a Sharia court.
Why? Cos we don't ***** stone people cos they dare to show their faces or travel in a car with a bloke who they're not related to?
Here's a hint, Rowan Williams. There's 2 million of them and 63 million of us in this country. They can either put up with the status quo or ***** off. After all, I can't have a beer in Saudi Arabia nor would I demand to. When in Rome and all that. - MattBlackCat, on 02/07/2008, -2/+17There goes the country!
- paganpete, on 02/07/2008, -1/+14You must be joking! I am not a racist (my company name is Blackdogsquare for god's sake) but this makes my blood boil! If they want to integrate into the british way of life then live and let live - if they do not want to integrate then they can sod off to another country - tolerance goes only so far!
- TThenT, on 02/07/2008, -1/+12Seesh.
Islam is supremely well-devised to propagate itself, without hand-wringing idiots like Rowan Williams rolling out a proverbial red carpet to greet it. - winston80, on 02/07/2008, -0/+11The guy is a nutcase...
- BingoPower, on 02/07/2008, -2/+13If this was any other country, there'd be an uprising when (and if) they tried to implement this.
Being the UK though, no offense, but they'll probably just lay down and take it. I'm an ex-pat myself, but got the ***** out. - analystix, on 02/07/2008, -0/+9I'm a reasonable, tolerant and empathetic person who tries to understand the plights and wishes of all of my fellow countrymen.
However, there is absolutely no frickin way that the UK will capitulate and allow the thin edge of the Sharia wedge in here!
Forget for a second that there would be nation-wide rioting if that was to occur. Forget for a minute that a significant proportion of moderate Muslims would be strongly against the idea too. But first and foremost Sharia is in direct competition with our existing judicial system - it would be like communist China allowing capitalism to start... Sorry? What? - inactive, on 02/07/2008, -1/+10People must realise that this is a form of Colonising, the next time a Liberal tells you how bad "Imperialism" and "Colonisation" and "making them like us" was bad. (and it was) ask them about the procedure of Islam colonising Europe!
- diggeddugg, on 02/07/2008, -1/+9England lost it's cultural identity years ago. While Wales, and to some degree, Scotland have maintained an identity (see the National museums in Swansea and Cardiff), the English have nothing to identify with apart from lager louts, youth violence and segregation hiding under the banner of multiculturalism.
I am all for a melting pot of cultures, but where the cultures don't mix this results in an undercurrent of hatred that is exposed in homegrown terrorist actions.
Man up England. The law is the law. Stop being so politically correct. Oh and be proud to be English, somehow. - analystix, on 02/07/2008, -0/+8Hang on everyone the comment was made by Archbishop Robin Williams! He's always so funny (now that he's off the coke)! Nanoo nanoo! Shazzbut!
- Raerth, on 02/07/2008, -2/+10I cannot take seriously comments from someone with Spock's eyebrows.
- Evari, on 02/07/2008, -0/+8Exactly. There is a difference between tolerance and acceptance. Someone needs to tell the Archbishop that.
- MattBlackCat, on 02/07/2008, -2/+9Here! here! Well spoken Bruce !
- mcmlxxii, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6There goes the last shred of respect I had for that supposedly learned man. I don't think he's really thought this through. Perhaps he can now concentrate on doing what the Church of England does best - being totally ineffectual.
- LokitheComplex, on 02/08/2008, -0/+6Are you saying gay men are in favour of Sharia Law?
- MattBlackCat, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5Mork calling Ors-ama Mork Calling Ors-ama
- Kent4jmj, on 02/07/2008, -1/+6The Church of England believes itself to be about "accomodation" in reality it is about compromising at the expense of Truth.
- LokitheComplex, on 02/07/2008, -0/+5I can't see how this would be implemented. What if one of the parties renounces their Islamic faith or if a non believer becomes a believer how would the law deal with that. There are obvious reasons why no country tries two run to legal systems at the same time. Any chance I can vote Rowan out?
- Taquoshi, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4Uhm, to my fellow Christians in Britian, ....would someone please go and check to see if anybody been spiking the water in Lambeth Palace or messing with the incense???
- jambox, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4He's lost it. Even if this idea had some potential benefit, which I doubt, it can never, ever happen because of the constitutional and legal problems it would create:
1You cannot have 2 systems of law in one country - full stop.
2 You cannot mix law with religion in this country. If this happened you'd have holy men making laws, which would never fit into our legislature.
3 What if a Muslim woman wants a divorce from her Muslim husband and she wants the case heard in a regular British court (I'd suspect this would happen a lot) but her husband wants Sharia?
It's not that Sharia is necessarily so terrible, it's fairness and effectiveness depends on the specific implementation (see Malaysia vs Saudi Arabia), but as a practical suggestion, this is laughable and will just make people frightened and angry for no reason. - SQLDigger, on 02/07/2008, -0/+4It sounds a little bit like the Roman system of government to me. Render unto Ceasar thy cash, then let the local governments deal with the loonies.
- jambox, on 02/08/2008, -0/+4"they'll probably just lay down and take it"
No chance! The reaction to this has been, to put it mildly, quite angry. - loudribs, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3I'm really at a loss on this one. Despite being a dyed in the wool atheist, I've usually got quite a bit of time for Williams and he has made some gutsy stands on things like the war in the past. However, it appears that he just totally went off the map with this one. Like many of the commentators in this thread, I don't consider myself to be in anyway racist/anti-immigrant (in fact my politics lean pretty far to the left) but the state of affairs he envisages is just beyond rationality. If nations want to adopt Sharia law, fine...go ahead. I don't agree with many of it's harsher aspects, but if a nation state decides that's what they want then great....go nuts. However, to imply that two separate rules of law can be applied to a single nation is just the craziest thing I've heard in my life and it is very much the thin end of the wedge. If we do allow Sharia to be legally recognised, what's to stop me applying 'Loudribs Law' to how I conduct myself or for people to adopt 'Nick Griffins Crazy ***** Racist Laws' to themselves? I have no problem with laws being made slightly more sensitive to Muslims through the democratic process (like they have done with mortgage law) or for Sharia to be used as a mediator in divorce cases if both parties agree (which is currently acceptable). That's fine because it is done within the framework of the law of the land and has been through the democratic process. But to say, 'hold up...I'm not going to obey the law of the land because I follow a different set of rules is pure fallacy. Sorry Rowan, your wheel may be turning, but your hampster's dead.
- inactive, on 02/08/2008, -0/+3Why not take them at their own words, remember the Cartoons, Rhushdie???
- LokitheComplex, on 02/07/2008, -1/+4So where did you go?
- jambox, on 02/08/2008, -1/+4The US is more of a 3rd world ***** hole than the UK! Look at the state of New Orleans, how many years ago was that totalled?
- inactive, on 02/07/2008, -4/+6WOW!
They'll give to muslims what they wont give to Catholics!
Amazing.
English goats.
M~ - loudribs, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2Hold on there...no-ones given anything to anyone....this is just an unelected cleric with very little real power stating an opinion. I agree that it's a crazy opinion, but lets not go too nuts with the whole 'the Muslims are taking over' thing.
- inactive, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3You have to bear one thing in mind... Rowan Williams is about as 'Christ-ian' as Karl Marx. He doesn't believe the Bible, He doesn't preach the Bible, he believes it is all anecdotal, he is obsessed with multi-faith tolerance and ecumenism, and he can't even get Biblical about homosexual priests and ordained women. No wonder believers are leaving the Anglican Church in droves and seeking small, evangelical fellowships which actually do at least teach the Bible. The man is a druid, for goodness sake, with an obsession for the 'nature' religions. He's a prime example of how to intellectualise and politicise a homogenised and pasteurised 'revision' of generic 'Christian love' messages, and says not one word of sin, or the consequences of sin, which means that he ignores Jesus' emphasis in Biblical teaching altogether.
But put two and two together... He and Tony "I Won The Evangelical Vote And Then Bowed To The Bishop Of Rome" Blair are desperate for global ecumenism, the New World Order religion of 'accepted' tolerance, and you can't have that while the last word that the CofE had on Islam was from Michael Nasir-Ali, who was less than complimentary and didn't mince his words... This was inevitable, it's Williams typically political-correctness... You can't have Muslims thinking that Christians don't owe them some compromise, so you have to appease them in some way and use buzz terms like 'open dialogue.'
I've got an open dialogue... Islam asserts that there is One God, Allah, who was the Arabian moon god, and that He has no Son and Mohammed is His prophet. That alone as a statement of faith is a blasphemy to Christians, which does not bother muslims at all. Draw a depiction of the psychotic pedophile butcher and you'll lose your head, but Islam can tolerate Christianity while ever Christianity accepts that Islam has the authority on ruling Jesus nothing more than the 'good prophet Isa.' (a proof that Mohammed took his doctrine from campfire stories told by travellers who convoluted Biblical notions in a Chinese whispers style... He couldn't even distinguish 'Jesus' and 'Isaiah.' ;-) ) - thotpoizn, on 02/08/2008, -1/+3But they do enjoy the rights the majority has, you disingenuous lout; the point is, that's apparently not good enough. They want a completely different set of rights, some that not even the "majority" (i.e. those content to abide by the laws of their land) have. Like the right to beat a woman, sometimes to death, for the crime of having been raped. Trying to frame this ***** as some sort of a class struggle by the poor, downtrodden minority is a seriously deceptive stretch, even for a low-down sneaky twit like you.
- askmewhy, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2When people say stuff like this it just makes a whole lot of open minded people think racist thoughts. Maybe that's his point!
- hrhdtr, on 02/08/2008, -0/+2There was a time when I really didn't mind migrants or Islam. Sadly it's people like Rowan Williams, po-faced lefties who ruin it all for everyone.
- jambox, on 02/08/2008, -1/+2Yes but I don't think multiculturalism has much to do with teenage drinking - that's something you can't accuse Muslims of, at least!
- rapincandy, on 02/08/2008, -2/+3Muslims are taking over Europe. Its true.
- rhodydog, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1If Sharia law reaches the UK, it's time for civil war.
- colonelbuckshot, on 02/08/2008, -1/+1"When in Rome"? This is multiculturalism, baby.
- dirtydingus, on 02/09/2008, -1/+0http://www.di2.nu/200802/09.htm
- vanzan, on 02/08/2008, -4/+1wow, All of a sudden Diggers became analyst of laws they never read about.
- inactive, on 02/07/2008, -9/+3Yeah!
Why shouldn't the majority be able to deny the minority the rights the majority have?
Hmm.
TRY to think about it.
Try really hard.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is