Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Go  |
New |
Find |
Notify |
|
Reply |
|
Admin |
New PM! |
|
quote: Originally posted by thenegus: quote: Originally posted by Ms Stoosh:
I don't care how big the muslim population grows Anon, this is Britain and there is no place for Sharia.
Jeez they'll (those who do want it and not "muslims" per se) want a state within a state next
Jews have Beth Din courts for voluntary arbitration. You want those abolished too now that you know about them that is  ?
Why does an example from the Jewish community have to be brought in everytime? They have one so we want one too. Well, there is a big difference, Jews have been here a thousand years. Whereas Muslims are relatively new arrivals. Just because their numbers are large doesn't mean they should always get their own way. |
| |
|
|
quote: Why does an example from the Jewish community have to be brought in everytime? They have one so we want one too. Well, there is a big difference, Jews have been here a thousand years. Whereas Muslims are relatively new arrivals. Just because their numbers are large doesn't mean they should always get their own way.
But you must admit, it's a precedent. If one religious group have arbitration in a separate court, on what reasonable grounds are we to refuse another? Assuming the courts are of the same nature, of course. You can have it because errr you have already been doing it and that's all right then! But you can't because....because we say so! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by seeker: quote: Why does an example from the Jewish community have to be brought in everytime? They have one so we want one too. Well, there is a big difference, Jews have been here a thousand years. Whereas Muslims are relatively new arrivals. Just because their numbers are large doesn't mean they should always get their own way.
But you must admit, it's a precedent. If one religious group have arbitration in a separate court, on what reasonable grounds are we to refuse another? Assuming the courts are of the same nature, of course. You can have it because errr you have already been doing it and that's all right then! But you can't because....because we say so!
 |
| |
|
|
Yes, he should. The archidiot is a 5th columinst, a neville chambalain appeaser and an old naive fool. I recommend that we give his job to the Bishop of york, Nazir Ali. Now there's a man who knows what time ii is and ain'#t afraid to tell it like it is  |
| |
|
|
No he shouldn't resign, best laugh I've had in ages, he's certainly great entertainment.
I expected this sort of madness from some nutty mullah, but not from him, quite amazing.
|
| |
|
|
maybe hes just been mis-understood and he's just ahead of of time.  |
| |
|
|
Isn't the point being missed?
It's not about accommodating the growing Muslim population, it's about rejecting something quite oppressive and backward, ie Sharia Law.
William's position may well be to pontificate about things spiritual etc.
So, in this case, he should publicly condemn Sharia Law.
He has failed to do so.
Therefore, sack him.
Not fulfilling the purposes of his ridiculous job.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by seeker:
But you must admit, it's a precedent. If one religious group have arbitration in a separate court, on what reasonable grounds are we to refuse another? Assuming the courts are of the same nature, of course.
Err no. It's perfectly reasonable to refuse another group. Reason: if it's granted, where does it stop? Religious laws for Buddhists, Hindu, Sikhs, Bahais, Scientology, Rasta etc etc. Our society cannot accomodate everyone. Out of practicality and humanity, it's OK to refuse! quote:
You can have it because errr you have already been doing it and that's all right then! But you can't because....because we say so!
Absolutely, what do they think this country is? Just because immigration and birth rates have suddenly made one group the dominant in numbers doesn't mean automatic rights. It depends on contribution a group makes to this great nation of ours. But at the moment, it seems to be more taking out of the system than actually putting in. |
| |
|
|
I give up.
The whole world and everyone in it is absolutely crazy, except me. I must be in a mad dream, please wake me up.
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by heujas: quote: Originally posted by thenegus: quote: Originally posted by Ms Stoosh:
I don't care how big the muslim population grows Anon, this is Britain and there is no place for Sharia.
Jeez they'll (those who do want it and not "muslims" per se) want a state within a state next
Jews have Beth Din courts for voluntary arbitration. You want those abolished too now that you know about them that is ?
Why does an example from the Jewish community have to be brought in everytime? They have one so we want one too. Well, there is a big difference, Jews have been here a thousand years. Whereas Muslims are relatively new arrivals. Just because their numbers are large doesn't mean they should always get their own way.
I think its relevant as the jewish community are also a minority regardless of how long they've been in the UK. Muslims have been here a tad longer than ten years. Having said that Beth Din is voluntary so I wouldn't worry about islam in the UK mirroring it. I think Williams has suggested something quite different. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by heujas: quote: Originally posted by thenegus: quote: Originally posted by Ms Stoosh:
I don't care how big the muslim population grows Anon, this is Britain and there is no place for Sharia.
Jeez they'll (those who do want it and not
"muslims" per se) want a state within a state next
Jews have Beth Din courts for voluntary arbitration. You want those abolished too now that you know about them that is ?
Why does an example from the Jewish community have to be brought in everytime? They have one so we want one too. Well, there is a big difference, Jews have been here a thousand years. Whereas Muslims are relatively new arrivals. Just because their numbers are large doesn't mean they should always get their own way.
That's your argument? That the Jews can have religiously based arbitration because they've been in the UK for much longer . Listen to yourself! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by frankiespice: quote: Originally posted by heujas: quote: Originally posted by thenegus: quote: Originally posted by Ms Stoosh:
I don't care how big the muslim population grows Anon, this is Britain and there is no place for Sharia.
Jeez they'll (those who do want it and not "muslims" per se) want a state within a state next
Jews have Beth Din courts for voluntary arbitration. You want those abolished too now that you know about them that is ?
Why does an example from the Jewish community have to be brought in everytime? They have one so we want one too. Well, there is a big difference, Jews have been here a thousand years. Whereas Muslims are relatively new arrivals. Just because their numbers are large doesn't mean they should always get their own way.
I think its relevant as the jewish community are also a minority regardless of how long they've been in the UK. Muslims have been here a tad longer than ten years. Having said that Beth Din is voluntary so I wouldn't worry about islam in the UK mirroring it. I think Williams has suggested something quite different.
Have you actually read what he said? |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by thenegus: quote: Originally posted by frankiespice: quote: Originally posted by heujas: quote: Originally posted by thenegus: quote: Originally posted by Ms Stoosh:
I don't care how big the muslim population grows Anon, this is Britain and there is no place for Sharia.
Jeez they'll (those who do want it and not "muslims" per se) want a state within a state next
Jews have Beth Din courts for voluntary arbitration. You want those abolished too now that you know about them that is ?
Why does an example from the Jewish community have to be brought in everytime? They have one so we want one too. Well, there is a big difference, Jews have been here a thousand years. Whereas Muslims are relatively new arrivals. Just because their numbers are large doesn't mean they should always get their own way.
I think its relevant as the jewish community are also a minority regardless of how long they've been in the UK. Muslims have been here a tad longer than ten years. Having said that Beth Din is voluntary so I wouldn't worry about islam in the UK mirroring it. I think Williams has suggested something quite different.
Have you actually read what he said?
What sort of question's that? Explain please! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Chairman Al:
I give up.
The whole world and everyone in it is absolutely crazy, except me. I must be in a mad dream, please wake me up.
WAKE UP! WAKE UP! Wake up...your grace! Where were you last night? What did you say? Oh what a calamity!! |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by thenegus: That's your argument? That the Jews can have religiously based arbitration because they've been in the UK for much longer . Listen to yourself!
Essentially that's part of it. How fair can it be if a process that an interest group has enjoyed for generations had to be suddenly been taken away just because other special interest groups recently arrived demand rights that cannot be accomodated. Surely there must more to it than keeping things on even keel. For example, I think it's bad practice for employers to cut salary of a worker that has been there a lifetime just because the new batch he hired are starting on a lower salary. |
| |
|
|
The Archbishop of Canterbury is said to be overwhelmed by the "hostility of the response" after his call for parts of Sharia law to be recognised in the UK.
Friends of Dr Rowan Williams say he is in a state of shock and cannot believe the criticism from his own Church.
Looks like he has had a wake up call.
|
| |
|
|
Williams 'shocked' at Sharia row 'We are all equal in the eyes of the law' and this concept has kept our shores peaceful, I believe he should resign as he is out of touch, his remarks, he has just told the BBC, that the adoption of certain parts of Sharia law is "unavoidable" demonstrates that his understanding of that concept maybe becoming difficult for him, and he should go! Sharia law
|
| |
|
New Member
|
Maybe the Archbishop should watch the programme Unreported World on the Christian minority in Egypt who are persecuted for their beliefs by the moslem majority authorities and speak to refugees from moslem countries with Sharia law I know who converted to christianity and as a result have been persecuted for it. What is this man thinking of? Why don't these stupid liberals wake up and open their eyes? Live in Bradford or Keighley and maybe that will change yourmind!
|
| |
|
|
Bishop condemns 'shameful' sharia outcryseems he was looking for a stage quote: A leading bishop today condemned the furore caused by the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments on the formalisation of sharia law in Britain as a "shame on our nation"
quote: The bishop said Williams had raised a vital issue for a society facing many multicultural challenges.
"He has a responsibility as leader of the established church in making sure the spiritual life of this nation is as healthy as possible. I believe he was doing that yesterday.
"I believe he was standing up for the different faith communities and the ways in which they are treated and was raising questions for people to debate in our society about the way in which Islam is treated alongside Judaism, Christianity and other faiths."
quote: The comments drew criticism from across the political spectrum as well as from religious groups. Gordon Brown's spokesman insisted British law would be based on British values, and sharia law would be no justification for acting against national law.
Blunkett said Williams' views were "very dangerous" and said people must not be excluded from the law because of their culture or faith.
"I think this is very dangerous because the archbishop used the term 'affiliations'," Blunkett told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "We have affiliations to football clubs, to cricket teams, to all sorts of things that aren't central to our citizenship and the acceptance of that in terms of a common society.
"We don't have affiliations when it comes to the question of the law. And when it comes to equality under the law, we have to be rigorous in terms of making sure people do not find themselves excluded from it because of cultural or faith reasons."
Formalising sharia law "would be wrong democratically and philosophically, but it would be catastrophic in terms of social cohesion," he warned
|
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Louboutin: Bishop condemns 'shameful' sharia outcryseems he was looking for a stage quote: A leading bishop today condemned the furore caused by the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments on the formalisation of sharia law in Britain as a "shame on our nation"
quote: The bishop said Williams had raised a vital issue for a society facing many multicultural challenges.
"He has a responsibility as leader of the established church in making sure the spiritual life of this nation is as healthy as possible. I believe he was doing that yesterday.
"I believe he was standing up for the different faith communities and the ways in which they are treated and was raising questions for people to debate in our society about the way in which Islam is treated alongside Judaism, Christianity and other faiths."
quote: The comments drew criticism from across the political spectrum as well as from religious groups. Gordon Brown's spokesman insisted British law would be based on British values, and sharia law would be no justification for acting against national law.
Blunkett said Williams' views were "very dangerous" and said people must not be excluded from the law because of their culture or faith.
"I think this is very dangerous because the archbishop used the term 'affiliations'," Blunkett told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "We have affiliations to football clubs, to cricket teams, to all sorts of things that aren't central to our citizenship and the acceptance of that in terms of a common society.
"We don't have affiliations when it comes to the question of the law. And when it comes to equality under the law, we have to be rigorous in terms of making sure people do not find themselves excluded from it because of cultural or faith reasons."
Formalising sharia law "would be wrong democratically and philosophically, but it would be catastrophic in terms of social cohesion," he warned
Why was he looking for a stage  I dont think thats it at all. |
| |
|
|
quote: Originally posted by MRTIBBS.: quote: Originally posted by Louboutin: Bishop condemns 'shameful' sharia outcryseems he was looking for a stage quote: A leading bishop today condemned the furore caused by the Archbishop of Canterbury's comments on the formalisation of sharia law in Britain as a "shame on our nation"
quote: The bishop said Williams had raised a vital issue for a society facing many multicultural challenges.
"He has a responsibility as leader of the established church in making sure the spiritual life of this nation is as healthy as possible. I believe he was doing that yesterday.
"I believe he was standing up for the different faith communities and the ways in which they are treated and was raising questions for people to debate in our society about the way in which Islam is treated alongside Judaism, Christianity and other faiths."
quote: The comments drew criticism from across the political spectrum as well as from religious groups. Gordon Brown's spokesman insisted British law would be based on British values, and sharia law would be no justification for acting against national law.
Blunkett said Williams' views were "very dangerous" and said people must not be excluded from the law because of their culture or faith.
"I think this is very dangerous because the archbishop used the term 'affiliations'," Blunkett told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. "We have affiliations to football clubs, to cricket teams, to all sorts of things that aren't central to our citizenship and the acceptance of that in terms of a common society.
"We don't have affiliations when it comes to the question of the law. And when it comes to equality under the law, we have to be rigorous in terms of making sure people do not find themselves excluded from it because of cultural or faith reasons."
Formalising sharia law "would be wrong democratically and philosophically, but it would be catastrophic in terms of social cohesion," he warned
Why was he looking for a stage I dont think thats it at all.
I was being glib with that remark, and him being shocked just shows how out of touch he is I 'm fully with behind the statements made by Gordon Brown's spokesperson and Blunkett on this "people must not be excluded from the law because of their culture or faith." |
| |
|
|
Was the archbishop saying anyone should be excluded?
|
| |
| |
