Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

[daviejones]

If you outlaw relegion, then what have you achieved? You would just find a load of pis-heads on the streets abusing everyone and causing havoc after a "good" night out. Drug addicts, thieves, no control at all. When was the last time you saw a muslim on "Booze Britain"?? Islam is not just a faith/relegion, it's a way of life. God has to exist - there has to be some entity controlling this world we live in. It looks like you were taught about the "big bang" and how man evolved from an Ape! No wonder you do not believe in relegion or faith, its because of your ignorance towards it. The Bible, the Qur'an, the Jewish scriptures are not just made up, they are very similar, as these are seen to be very alike. If you study them, you would know the trurh...but I can just imagine the reply i'm going to receive after this post!

Interesting, when was the last time you saw a video of 6 white men beheading an innocent Muslim?

[PAH]

Interesting, when was the last time you saw a video of 6 white men beheading an innocent Muslim?

Not since they stopped supporting IE on the KKK website after sponsoring Apple (hence why all the products are white!). Bleedin Firefox, it spoils all the fun.

[Churchill]

Interesting, when was the last time you saw a video of 6 white men beheading an innocent Muslim?

Now, now, you're just not playing "fair"!

[daviejones]

Now, now, you're just not playing "fair"!

I thought it was fair? And justified...which is more than I can say for the behaviour I was talking about earlier...

[PAH]

God has to exist - there has to be some entity controlling this world we live in.

There is a god but it's not a sentient being in the form of a man with a beard.

Science will one day reveal how life is created from a bunch of cells and how evolution works from that level via cells interacting with each other, therefore having some form of intelligence. Just the opposite of what many believe god to be.

Whether we get the answer to what god really is before we get the answer to Lost remains to be seen.

I think in the Star Wars universe, 'the force' is explained as coming from within the cells of the jedi, so maybe they've stumbled upon a close approximation to god.

For the hard of thinking, it's easier to think that mother nature is god. That doesn't mean we should start worshiping trees again.

Then again I like the idea it's all a dream, because at the end of the day that is all the weight life really has. One day everything (including the universe) will be gone. Nothing is forever.

[Churchill]

There is a god but it's not a sentient being in the form of a man with a beard.

Science will one day reveal how life is created from a bunch of cells and how evolution works from that level via cells interacting with each other, therefore having some form of intelligence. Just the opposite of what many believe god to be.

Whether we get the answer to what god really is before we get the answer to Lost remains to be seen.

I think in the Star Wars universe, 'the force' is explained as coming from within the cells of the jedi, so maybe they've stumbled upon a close approximation to god.

For the hard of thinking, it's easier to think that mother nature is god. That doesn't mean we should start worshiping trees again.

Then again I like the idea it's all a dream, because at the end of the day that is all the weight life really has. One day everything (including the universe) will be gone. Nothing is forever.

21 grams...

[daviejones]

God has to exist - there has to be some entity controlling this world we live in.

Oh dear..enter the bible bashing god squad!!! Well now that we have disproven the whole theory of evolution before lunch, what shall we do this afternoon?

[Churchill]

OK, what he really said was...

What did the Archbishop actually say?
Friday 08 February 2008

There has been a strong reaction in the media and elsewhere to the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks of yesterday on civil and religious law.

The full text of the Archbishop's lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice 'Civil and Religious Law in England: a religious perspective', can be viewed on the Archbishop's website, here:

Archbishop's Lecture - Civil and Religious Law in England: a Religious Perspective

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575
The transcript of his interview on yesterday's World at One programme can also be viewed online, here:

BBC Interview - Radio 4 World at One.
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573

The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.

Instead, in the interview, rather than proposing a parallel system of law, he observed that "as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law" . When the question was put to him that: "the application of sharia in certain circumstances - if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion - seems unavoidable?", he indicated his assent.
The Archbishop opened his lecture by noting importantly that the very term sharia is not only misunderstood, but is the focus of much fear and anxiety deriving from its 'primitivist' application in some contexts. As such he said that sharia is a method of law rather than a single complete and final system ready to be applied wholesale to every situation, and noted that there was room, even within Islamic states which apply sharia, for some level of 'dual identity', where the state is not in fact religiously homogenous.

In his lecture, the Archbishop sought carefully to explore the limits of a unitary and secular legal system in the presence of an increasingly plural (including religiously plural) society and to see how such a unitary system might be able to accommodate religious claims. Behind this is the underlying principle that Christians cannot claim exceptions from a secular unitary system on religious grounds (for instance in situations where Christian doctors might not be compelled to perform abortions), if they are not willing to consider how a unitary system can accommodate other religious consciences. In doing so the Archbishop was not suggesting the introduction of parallel legal jurisdictions, but exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience.

He explained that his core aim was to: "to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state" and was using sharia as an example. These include:

- How when the law does not take seriously religious motivation, it fails to engage with the community in question and opens up real issues of power by the majority over the minority, with potentially harmful effects for community cohesion.
- How the distinction between cultural practices and those arising from genuine religious belief might be managed.
- How to deal with the possibility that a 'supplementary jurisdiction "could have the effect of reinforcing in minority communities some of the most repressive or retrograde elements in them, with particularly serious consequences for the role and liberties of women".


At the end of the lecture the Archbishop referred to a suggestion by a Jewish jurist that there might be room for 'overlapping jurisdictions' in which "individuals might choose in certain limited areas whether to seek justice under one system or another". This is what currently happens both within the Jewish arrangements and increasingly in current alternative dispute resolution and mediation practice.

He concludes his lecture with the comment:

"if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law, we need a fair amount of 'deconstruction' of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment"

The lecture, which was given before an audience of about 1000 people and which was chaired by the Lord Chief Justice, was the first in a series of six lectures and discussions which are being given by senior Muslim and other lawyers and theologians at the Temple Church on the general theme of 'Islam in English Law'.
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581

[AlfredJPruffock]

Then again I like the idea it's all a dream, because at the end of the day that is all the weight life really has. One day everything (including the universe) will be gone. Nothing is forever.

Aye PAH

Your vision is close to Dante's - in Paradise the World ends - not with a bang - not with a wimper - but the sound of cosmic laughter .

And why not - I know it dismays some to think of all that hard work struggle etc just ends up as being dissolved in Cosmic laughter - but thats all part of the joke.

Get it - or not ?

Out Out Brief candle - life is a tale told by an Idiot , full of sound and fury - signifying - nothing.

Ho Ho - Said the Clown !

[BankingContractor]

That's a good point. So what would you do if it was proved irrefutably that God (and Jesus) existed?

Would you embrace the religion, go to Sunday school, church, observe lent, become a good christian, giving up on partying, the booze and gambling culture, stop doing the lottery, no living in sin, no greedy capitalist ventures, etc ?

Is it a case of proving God is not easy, therefore I won't ever have to observe the above, or do you genuinely want the proof before you commit to the new lifestyle?

I challenge God to prove he exists.

All religion should be put on hold until any one of them can provide irrefutable evidence there is a god. It would be a very long wait.

And God, if you're reading, if you want to convince us you're communicating to us via a 3rd party, why not choose a different animal to the human. It would probably be a tad more convincing. Oh I know why not, because only humans have a 'god'. FOAD, you're useless.