quote:

Originally posted by rothgar:

quote:

Originally posted by frankiespice:

quote:

Originally posted by rothgar:

quote:

Originally posted by TheWitch:
Are there 80 million people in England and Wales?

The CoE has no relevance in Scotland, but not sure of its the position in Ireland.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is head of the World wide Anglican (not Anglian, they do double-glazing) Communion.
The Church of Ireland is part of this community.
So, the Archbishop is their boss.

Does that mean he is head of all anglicans? If so why can't we get some democracy injected - a bit like the vatican.. I mean at least the pope can be from any RC church world wide.

I would not be so presumptuous as to tell the Anglicans how they should organize themselves.
It's entirely up to the members.
And many bishops start off as parish clergy.
Cyril Garbett, an outstanding Archbishop of York, was a parish priest in a poor part of Portsmouth, for example.

I don't believe its a presumption a term which actually suggests to me that this particular heirarchy is beyond the reach of those abroad who follow it. I was asking a question and you've answered, the anglican church should not be followed by any other faithful because it is not by the extent of his faith or the ... of his heart that he is deemed fit to lead it.. merely by the location of his birth.... not democratic and certainly not in my opinion how one should select the leader of 80 mil people around the world. Lesson to foreigners noted.

quote:

Originally posted by frankiespice:

quote:

Originally posted by rothgar:

quote:

Originally posted by TheWitch:
Are there 80 million people in England and Wales?

The CoE has no relevance in Scotland, but not sure of its the position in Ireland.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is head of the World wide Anglican (not Anglian, they do double-glazing) Communion.
The Church of Ireland is part of this community.
So, the Archbishop is their boss.

Does that mean he is head of all anglicans? If so why can't we get some democracy injected - a bit like the vatican.. I mean at least the pope can be from any RC church world wide.

From what I understand, Anglicanism is basically a hierarchical system modeled on the Roman Catholic system. Its a council of synod style of democratic voting.

The obvious difference is that the Anglican system is more like the origonal system of a Roman Catholic synod and head. The current Catholic system treats the pope as infallible on all matters of doctirne, Gods voice on earth basically.

Anglicanism on this issue does not treat the archbishop at this ridiculous level of authority.

The Archbishop is a spineless insipid chap whose nice. The Pope at least represents the canons of the catholic Church, annoying but honest at least.

The archbishop on the other hand, he should become a Muslim, which would be fine, it would be his "democratic" choice. I don't think he realizes the Gender aphartied of Sharia Law.

Hes intellectual and well meaning, but foolish.

quote:

Originally posted by gt:

quote:

Originally posted by frankiespice:

quote:

Originally posted by rothgar:

quote:

Originally posted by TheWitch:
Are there 80 million people in England and Wales?

The CoE has no relevance in Scotland, but not sure of its the position in Ireland.

The Archbishop of Canterbury is head of the World wide Anglican (not Anglian, they do double-glazing) Communion.
The Church of Ireland is part of this community.
So, the Archbishop is their boss.

Does that mean he is head of all anglicans? If so why can't we get some democracy injected - a bit like the vatican.. I mean at least the pope can be from any RC church world wide.

From what I understand, Anglicanism is basically a hierarchical system modeled on the Roman Catholic system. Its a council of synod style of democratic voting.

The obvious difference is that the Anglican system is more like the origonal system of a Roman Catholic synod and head. The current Catholic system treats the pope as infallible on all matters of doctirne, Gods voice on earth basically.

Anglicanism on this issue does not treat the archbishop at this ridiculous level of authority.

The Archbishop is a spineless insipid chap whose nice. The Pope at least represents the canons of the catholic Church, annoying but honest at least.

The archbishop on the other hand, he should become a Muslim, which would be fine, it would be his "democratic" choice. I don't think he realizes the Gender aphartied of Sharia Law.

Hes intellectual and well meaning, but foolish.

To be honest I think he sees it "..the Gender aphartied of Sharia Law" etc. But I have noticed something about the CofEs their heirarchy can be very superior whilst blocking out the faithful abroad. I think that he believes that he can make a change within the UK muslim world by this 'brotherhood' stance he has made, even get more converts. It really hails back to 16 century bible bashing abroad for me. Especially when you consider the reply I received from rothgar. Noone can lead the Anglican church but a pure English - I paraphrase sorry. And this is to do with the fundimental worship of god and jesus christ something that cannot be measured in terms of where you were born and what family your were born into. At least with the puritanical RCs they recognise being christ like, born of poverty, raised out of hell on earth etc. Most of humanity can and do respect that devoutness.

quote:

Originally posted by frankiespice:
To be honest I think he sees it "..the Gender aphartied of Sharia Law" etc. But I have noticed something about the CofEs their heirarchy can be very superior whilst blocking out the faithful abroad. I think that he believes that he can make a change within the UK muslim world by this 'brotherhood' stance he has made, even get more converts. It really hails back to 16 century bible bashing abroad for me. Especially when you consider the reply I received from rothgar. Noone can lead the Anglican church but a pure English - I paraphrase sorry. And this is to do with the fundimental worship of god and jesus christ something that cannot be measured in terms of where you were born and what family your were born into. At least with the puritanical RCs they recognise being christ like, born of poverty, raised out of hell on earth etc. Most of humanity can and do respect that devoutness.

Thanks for the considered articulate response.

I'm not sure thats the intend of the C of E, one of its Bishops is a Pakistani of origin. Surely they would have barred him from that position if they didn't like foreigners defiling its ranks.

The Arcbishop of Canterbury is only the symbolic head of the World-wide Anglican community and acnowledged as such by the rest of the World.
It is their free choice to do so or not.
He has no formal authority over them. They, the rest of the World parts, are free to ignore the Archbishop, it is all a rather loose affiliation.
I should not have used the word boss above.

Furthermore I would hardly call Roman Catholics 'puritanical'.

quote:

Originally posted by gt:

quote:

Originally posted by frankiespice:
To be honest I think he sees it "..the Gender aphartied of Sharia Law" etc. But I have noticed something about the CofEs their heirarchy can be very superior whilst blocking out the faithful abroad. I think that he believes that he can make a change within the UK muslim world by this 'brotherhood' stance he has made, even get more converts. It really hails back to 16 century bible bashing abroad for me. Especially when you consider the reply I received from rothgar. Noone can lead the Anglican church but a pure English - I paraphrase sorry. And this is to do with the fundimental worship of god and jesus christ something that cannot be measured in terms of where you were born and what family your were born into. At least with the puritanical RCs they recognise being christ like, born of poverty, raised out of hell on earth etc. Most of humanity can and do respect that devoutness.

Thanks for the considered articulate response.

I'm not sure thats the intend of the C of E, one of its Bishops is a Pakistani of origin. Surely they would have barred him from that position if they didn't like foreigners defiling its ranks.

In no way am I suggesting that they are racist - that would not be cricket christian. I asked a question and it was answered. If you have a different slant to that of rothgar then please interject.

quote:

Originally posted by frankiespice:
In no way am I suggesting that they are racist - that would not be cricket christian. I asked a question and it was answered. If you have a different slant to that of rothgar then please interject.

OK I wanted to be sure of your angle.

I'm looking for to reading rothgar's response.

quote:

Originally posted by bjm:
Furthermore I would hardly call Roman Catholics 'puritanical'.

Thats a funny ironic statement, its an oxymoron.

Puritans would be considered lost Brethern under Vatican II. No longer heretics.

quote:

Originally posted by bjm:
Furthermore I would hardly call Roman Catholics 'puritanical'.

Puritans in the 21C sense then. Controlling how many kids you have (even by suggestion) based on family wealth or weather one can get on a train to good old blighty for an abortion is not I would suggest in line with most RC thinking. ie 'God will provide' in this era is all but done surely?

Where has everyone gone?

I haven't really got a slant, I'm just retailing fact.
Personally, I think the Archbishop was, initially, foolish and now, like so many public figures, weak and "dishonest" in not acknowledging what he said.
A lesser man as far as I'm concerned.

Sinking even further into the abyss o f depravity and sadism, the Sharia in the UK seems inevitable.

The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".

Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
Of course.... Why should Muslims living in the West have to comply with the laws of their chosen country? Let's just have one set of laws for Muslims, and a different set for non-Muslims. What the hell, while we're at it, let's just designate non-Muslims to an inferior status. Muslims will reap all benefits society has to offer, while filthy unbelievers will be at the mercy for which Islamists are so well known.

Under the Sharia, when a non-Muslim kills a Muslim, for whatever reason - even in self-defense, that non-Muslim is publically humiliated, tortured and cruelly executed. If a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, even for personal amusement, the worse punishment he'd face is a monetary fine.

And the women! We can have public stonings for women who dare to allow themselves to be raped. Little girls as young as 6 can be married off to old men to fulfill sexual pleasures. Any woman who so much as looks at an unrelated male should be immediately beaten, raped, and strangled by male family members to protect the family honor.

Sound good, UK? I hope you think it does, because that's where we are heading.

quote:

Originally posted by apollonius:
Under the Sharia, when a non-Muslim kills a Muslim, for whatever reason - even in self-defense, that non-Muslim is publically humiliated, tortured and cruelly executed. If a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, even for personal amusement, the worse punishment he'd face is a monetary fine.

And the women! We can have public stonings for women who dare to allow themselves to be raped. Little girls as young as 6 can be married off to old men to fulfill sexual pleasures. Any woman who so much as looks at an unrelated male should be immediately beaten, raped, and strangled by male family members to protect the family honor.

Sound good, UK? I hope you think it does, because that's where we are heading.

I don't remember him saying any of that. Do you really think that that is where we are heading?

I don't think that's where we are heading at all. Personally, I don't think any accomodation should be made under British law for faith-based laws. There is already provision for dispute settlement under the law in cases involving issues of conscience. But maybe the "accomodation" could be that the Law recognises them, but will not comment on them or make any decisions made on their basis binding.

The problem arises when religious conscience goes against British law, such as the killing of sacred animals because of public-health issues for Hindus (take the monks and Shambo in Carmarthen, for example).

I think that this issue has arisen because British law looks as if is starting to dictate how we should behave (bans on demonstrations outside Parliament, for example), which many believe should remain an issue of conscience, and not be an issue of law.

That is why I think the Archbishop was right to raise the debate, even if we don't necessarily agree with the details of his stance on it. It swings both ways...

I just hope we don't go down the road that Turkey has taken in seemingly banning articles of religious expression. That is far more likely to cause problems of cohesion. Issues of self-expression, such as dressing modestly, wearing headscarfs etc, should be personal and not enshrined in law (either one way or the other).

I'm looking forward to the day when some clever fashion designer re-invents the headscarf and turns it into a Western fashion must have. That would really confuse the issue!!!

Good on the Archbishop for using unbias rationale thoughts. A very intelligent and a good man. In in my view a true priest

quote:

Originally posted by Liz***:

quote:

Originally posted by apollonius:
Under the Sharia, when a non-Muslim kills a Muslim, for whatever reason - even in self-defense, that non-Muslim is publically humiliated, tortured and cruelly executed. If a Muslim kills a non-Muslim, even for personal amusement, the worse punishment he'd face is a monetary fine.

And the women! We can have public stonings for women who dare to allow themselves to be raped. Little girls as young as 6 can be married off to old men to fulfill sexual pleasures. Any woman who so much as looks at an unrelated male should be immediately beaten, raped, and strangled by male family members to protect the family honor.

Sound good, UK? I hope you think it does, because that's where we are heading.

I don't remember him saying any of that. Do you really think that that is where we are heading?

Liz where have you got ur information from? Or did you dream it up the night before?

quote:

Originally posted by Priceless:
Liz where have you got ur information from? Or did you dream it up the night before?

I was taking the p!ss and trying to be sarcastic.

Priceless, why did you bring this thread up again? There are enough up to date ones.

quote:

Originally posted by netnut:
Sorry that should have read - Laws in the UK should not include those based on violent homophobic and misogynist ritual myths and superstitions.

I agree and I will always say that

he is truly naive and taken in by fake dressed nicety

quote:

Originally posted by Liz**:
Priceless, why did you bring this thread up again? There are enough up to date ones.

Ruffled feathers, insatiable ego, not letting it go etc