Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and self-described "hairy leftie," endorses sharia law (death penalty for homosexuals if taken literally) as a dual legal system for Britain. Last year he called for suspending the consecration of openly gay priests and blessings of same-sex unions in order to placate African-Anglican bishops who support making "any public expression of homosexual identity a crime punishable by five years in prison."
Cry for Britain, and pray that the U.S. Episcopal Church breaks free.
More. Yes, he's backtracked somewhat given the flood of angry reactions. But as Bruce Bawer has noted so well, there's a clear trend-especially in Britain and Europe-for the left to sacrifice gays upon the pyre of multiculturalism.
Here's a well-reasoned argument against taxpayer-funded sharia arbitration courts in the U.K.
Still more. From the Wall Street Journal: "Mr. Williams appears to be suggesting some form of "Shariah lite," as if one could pick the bits of Islamic jurisprudence that might be acceptable in Western democracies and reject the rest. That's an awfully slippery slope."
And from a related WSJ op-ed: "One thing is certain. A constitutional and legal system that does define rights based upon community identification, rather than individual citizenship, will not be democracy as we have known it."
46 Comments for “Blind Guide”
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Once again religion poisons everything.
posted by Richard J. Rosendall on
At least Archbishop Williams is an equal opportunity appeaser. Can’t Her Majesty fire him or something?
posted by Brian Miller on
These are the people that the US Episcopalians want to remain “in communion” with?!?
posted by James Clark on
The Archdhimmi of Canterbury doesn’t give a rat’s ass about gay people. He was actually more upset about the African churches wanting to leave his big happy family than he was about them persecuting gay Christians.
And let’s not forget what Sharia law means for women, while we’re about it. Saudi Arabia recently considered making the great leap forward of allowing females to drive cars…
To answer Richard’s question…. Not really. Not unless it’s on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, and/or important people in the Anglican Church.
posted by Daniel on
On the other hand, sirs, we must note that the Church of England has reforming homophobes (see here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/gayrights/story/0,,2254394,00.html); and further, that Rowan Williams’ suggestion was shot down completely by government ministers and is wholly contradictory with Brown’s current approach (see here: http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,2254565,00.html). In the end, to say “Cry for Britain” as you do is premature and taking a shortsighted view of the the real situation here, which for homosexuals is rather brighter – civil unions with almost total equivalence to marriage across the nation, gay adoption legal, and so on. To decry Britain for the actions of a largely irrelevant traditional institution… well, I’ll let you draw your own conclusions on the fairness of that.
posted by Richard on
The man has since backtracked on his earlier statements and was widely condemed.
Also, Islamic law does not fully explain why adult women cannot drive in Saudi Arabia. I think it is the only “Muslim nation” where that rule applies.
We should — from a human rights perspective — always been leery of religious and state mixing.
Yet, we should also be leery of simplified exlanations for what religious law ‘really means’.
posted by James Clark on
It would not be my intention to criticize Britain. Indeed, I am rather set at ease by the massive wave of opposition the Archbishop faced in response to his ridiculous statements.
But I would disagree with the assessment that the Anglican Communion is an “outdated” institution. It represents the third-largest Christian denomination in the world, and by far the largest in the United Kingdom. It also represents the largest and most influential body of mainstream Christians who are generally accepting of homosexuality – at least its Western branches are. The leader of this huge, highly influential body capitulating to Muslim demands can be seen as a betrayal of liberal and Western values – considering his historical symbolic role.
posted by grendel on
once again Mr. Miller wastes no opportunity to smear liberals. What then to make of this line from the article he himself links to: “Liberal and feminist critics have been appalled by the thought of sharia law while evangelical opponents believe Dr Williams has failed to defend Christianity”?
It hardly sounds like the archbishop’s opinion expresses any kind of liberal consensus on the issue, in Britain or elsewhere …
posted by bls on
The (fairly simple) point being made by Rowan Williams is that since other religious groups are permitted to settle certain minor disputes in their own courts, that Muslims will probably be allowed to as well. Even if this is a wrong idea, it’s at least a reasonable observation. He also said that this would be by choice, that “I think it would be quite wrong to say that we could ever licence so to speak a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general….”
Why the need to be sensational about this? Does every tool look like a hammer to beat the “left” with?
And no, most US Episcopalians don’t care about being “in Communion” with Rowan Williams, although we would very much like to be “in Communion” with other gay-friendly churches in the Anglican Communion, of which there are not a few. And many of us would like to stay in contact with some of the less gay-friendly churches in the Communion, too, for the sake of gay people in those countries and the hope of having some positive influence on their behalf. Rowan Williams is only the Archbishop of Canterbury and has no powers outside that Diocese; he’s a figurehead only, and his term will come to an end at some point.
BTW, I totally agree with whoever talked above about cozying up to the fascist Akinola in Nigeria; he should have been censured years ago – but the whole Anglican Communion is at fault for that (except for the – gasp! – liberal Anglican Church of Canada, who did disassociate from Nigeria). I’m sure you’ll be glad to learn that that crowd – Nigeria, Uganda, and Rwanda, the most bigoted and frenzied of the anti-gay groups – is about to split off into their own Communion, along with the right-wing homophobic contingent in this country.
What good is that for the gay people in those countries, though? The nations that stick with the US and Canterbury are far more likely to be influenced away from the extreme homophobia that this new Nigerian right-wing Communion will glory in.
A gay person who spends time beating up the Episcopal Church because it’s “liberal” is sticking a finger into his own eye. The right wing is the group with the anti-gay problem, not TEC.
posted by Avee on
grendel, Miller catigated “the left,” not “liberals.” But I see that you consider the two to be one and the same.
bls, your “fairly simple” interpretation is at odds with what Williams actually said. He called for Islamic law to be brought into the British legal system.
posted by bls on
Here’s the actual interviewM/a>, Avee, that straightforwardly lays out “what the Archbishop actually said.”
Here’s the first paragraph:
“It seem unavoidable and indeed as a matter of fact certain provision of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law; so it’s not as if we’re bringing in an alien and rival system; we already have in this country a number of situations in which the law the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justified conscientious objections in certain circumstances in providing certain kinds of social relations, so I think we need to look at this with a clearer eye and not imagine either we know exactly what we mean by Sharia and not just associate it with what we read about Saudi Arabia or wherever.”
Here’s a later paragraph:
“We have orthodox Jewish courts operating in this country legally and in a regulated way because there are modes of dispute resolution and customary provisions which apply there in the light of Talmud.”
You could argue that this is wrong, too, of course – but of course you aren’t. How come?
And of course I’ve already posted the part about “choice” – that individuals should be able to decide where to have cases tried, and would have the right to appeal. And that all citizens are guaranteed all the rights of British Law.
Yes there is the possibility of abuse; that’s where the part about “courts operating in this country legally and in a regulated way” comes in.
IOW, much ado about very little. Once again.
posted by bls on
(Sorry for the HTML error above. Here’s the fixed post:
Here’s the actual interview, Avee, that straightforwardly lays out “what the Archbishop actually said.”
Here’s the first paragraph:
“It seem unavoidable and indeed as a matter of fact certain provision of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law; so it’s not as if we’re bringing in an alien and rival system; we already have in this country a number of situations in which the law the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justified conscientious objections in certain circumstances in providing certain kinds of social relations, so I think we need to look at this with a clearer eye and not imagine either we know exactly what we mean by Sharia and not just associate it with what we read about Saudi Arabia or wherever.”
Here’s a later paragraph:
“We have orthodox Jewish courts operating in this country legally and in a regulated way because there are modes of dispute resolution and customary provisions which apply there in the light of Talmud.”
You could argue that this is wrong, too, of course – but of course you aren’t. How come?
And of course I’ve already posted the part about “choice” – that individuals should be able to decide where to have cases tried, and would have the right to appeal. And that all citizens are guaranteed all the rights of British Law.
Yes, there is the possibility of abuse; that’s where the part about “courts operating in this country legally and in a regulated way” comes in.
IOW, much ado about very little. Once again.
posted by grendel on
hmm, seems I am not familiar with the distinction in contemporary US parlance between “liberal” and “left” Perhaps you could enlighten me.
And for what it’s worth bis has a far more accurate explanation of the archbishops actual position than your simple statement. Not that I agree with his position though. The same thing was suggested here in Canada. Even though participation in sharia courts would have been voluntary (as is participation in any other alternative dispute resolution process) given the position of women (for example) in traditional islamic culture, I think there is too great a danger that women will feel coerced into participating in the system. Unless we can guarantee that all who participate in religious courts do so on an entirely voluntary basis, I can’t support their official sanction.
posted by Bobby on
“We have orthodox Jewish courts operating in this country legally and in a regulated way because there are modes of dispute resolution and customary provisions which apply there in the light of Talmud.”
—Bad example, orthodox jewish courts don’t sentence people to death. They merely decide divorces, and internal matters among the faith. They are the step you take before deal wtih civil authorities. No different than going to arbitration before going to trial.
I don’t mind Sharia courts with limits. They can decide matters of religion, not life and death.
The government does not have to get their dirty hands involved in every issue. As for Saudi Arabia, that has nothing to do with Sharia law but Wahabism, and extreme version of Islam. Ironically, in most arab countries women can drive, including Iran.
posted by Daniel on
Since the country abolished capital punishment over 40 years ago, and since any killing outside self defence is therefore murder or manslaughter (a punishment killing could be argued as either, on the basis of provocation but also premeditated), the sharia law would have strict limits. In fact, Talmudic courts operate only in civil cases – the same would, presumably, apply to Sharia courts; meaning, it would only apply to disputes between individuals and never to thinks that are crimes against the state, such as murder.
posted by Ray Eckhart on
Some good news from the Dutch for Bawer.
posted by Richard on
I hardly believe that is ‘good news’. Their are plently of Judeo-Christian religious text out their that has been used to justify human rights violations.
Yet, few people would call either faith ‘fascist’.
Such behavior is less about defending human rights and everything to do with a rather sick urge to accuse an antire faith and ethnic group as being fascist.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Richard, any philosophy that says humans are secondary to an imaginary character is facist.
posted by grendel on
so President Bush, as a subscriber to such a philosophy, is a fascist, then?
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Yes.
posted by ILoveCapitalism on
I have an idea. Why don’t we just define the word “fascist” out of all recognition, and indeed out of all meaning? Because it’s not like we’d ever need it to identify or fight, you know, real fascists. /sarc
Of course, if we wanted a more workable definition, this from Wiki might serve in everyday use: “Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the state, party or society as a whole.” And fascist, a proponent of same.
Note that Islam an authoritarian political ideology (generally tied to a mass movement) that considers the individual subordinate to the interests of the Islamic combined religion-state. Its founder founded it to be just that. It is somewhat different than the other religions. The very name means “submission”. Its founder personally killed people to spread and enforce it, while Christianity’s founder let himself be executed, rather than do such things. So even if God is fictional, the belief in him/her/it is not characteristically fascist; killing people as part of a demand for total submission to a total ideology, is. Geert Wilders might be making a lousy film as we speak, but I’d have to see it before I necessarily condemned it, because tying Islam to fascism is less of a stretch than you might think (or, let’s say, not as much of a stretch as tying some other religion to fascism).
posted by Vaughn Roney on
Sure let the Fucking Muslims in and run the country and we all be dead. Sorry, but there views are so outdated. As, for multi culturalism, as for that keep your religion when you come to our country, but adept to our laws or get out. I don’t care what country we are talking about. Also become a citizen the legal way. And here is the view on the rag head on the rest of the world:
The following are direct quotes from the Quran and the Hadith:
Quran 4:89: “They (infidels) desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them friends until they fly (their homes) in Allah’s way; but if they turn back, then seize them and kill them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper.”
Quran 8:12: “Instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers;”
Quran 2:191: “… kill the disbelievers wherever we find them ?”
Quran 22:19-22: “? for them (the unbelievers) garments of fire shall be cut and there shall be poured over their heads boiling water whereby whatever is in their bowels and skin shall be dissolved and they will be punished with hooked iron rods.”
Quran 8:12: “Your Lord inspired the angels with the message: ‘I will terrorize the unbelievers. Therefore smite them on their necks and every joint and incapacitate them. Strike off their heads and cut off each of their fingers and toes.'”
Quran 8:7: “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.'”
Quran 8:59: “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”
Quran 8:60: “Prepare against them whatever arms and cavalry you can muster that you may strike terror in the enemies of Allah, and others besides them not known to you.”
Quran 9.29″ “Fight those who do not believe in Allah, nor in the latter day, nor do they prohibit what Allah and His Apostle have prohibited, nor follow the religion of truth, out of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the tax in acknowledgment of superiority and they are in a state of subjection.”
Quran 47:4: “Strike off the heads of the disbelievers” and, after making a “wide slaughter among them, carefully tie up the remaining captives.”
Hadith Sahih Muslim (41:6985): “Abu Huraira reported Allah’s Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: ‘The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.'”
Quran 9:5: “When the sacred forbidden months for fighting are past, fight and kill the disbelievers wherever you find them, take them captive, torture them, and lie in wait and ambush them using every stratagem of war.”
Sura 3:151: “Soon shall We cast terror into the hearts of the unbelievers for that they joined companions with Allah for which He had sent no authority: their abode will be the fire; and evil is the home of the wrong-doers!”
Sura 8:60: “Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power including steeds of war to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies of Allah and your enemies and others besides whom ye may not know but whom Allah doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of Allah shall be repaid unto you and ye shall not be treated unjustly.”
Tabari IX:113: “Allah permits you to shut them (women) in separate rooms and to beat them, but not severely. If they abstain, they have the right to food and clothing. Treat women well for they are like domestic animals and they possess nothing themselves. Allah has made the enjoyment of their bodies lawful in his Quran.”
Tabari I:280: “Allah said, ‘It is My obligation to make Eve bleed once every month as she made this tree bleed. I must also make Eve stupid, although I created her intelligent.’ Because Allah afflicted Eve, all of the women of this world menstruate and are stupid.”
Ishaq:327: “Allah said, ‘A prophet must slaughter before collecting captives. A slaughtered enemy is driven from the land. Muhammad, you craved the desires of this world, its goods and the ransom captives would bring. But Allah desires killing them to manifest the religion.'”
posted by Richard on
Anyone with half a brain, assuming that VR has that much, can copy and past quotes from just about any religion and use it to justify all sorts of evil.
Yet, responding to gay-bashing with Muslim or Arab-bashing is incredibly hypocritical.
Again, it would seem that some people chose to mislead people in an effort to attack “The Left”.
Within a particular religion, it is not uncommon for the ‘church’ (or other such institution) to be allowed to settle certain disputes.
These are typically minor personal disputes, and exist as little more then opinions then laws.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Richard, its not Muslim bashing to point out what their revered holy words actually say. Muslim bashing would be to lie about such things.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
And Richard, if the Muslims and and the Christians don’t like what the evil passages in their holy books say about them then its time they purged their holy books of that evil.
posted by Richard on
It is shameful Muslim-bashing to promote sterotypes and fears about Arab or Muslim people.
People who are engaging in such bigotry are not just pointing out what certain Muslims say, they are trying to create a hateful and vicisious mentality that all Arab or Muslim people are dangerous.
posted by Randi Schimnosky on
Richard, they all claim to follow and hold dear these books that make these horrible statments. If they don’t want to be associated with such hate they need to purge their holy books of that evil or disassociate themselves with them altogether. You can’t claim to be a good and decent person on one hand and then on the other point to a book that calls for the torture and murder of non-blievers and say “this is all that’s good and holy”.
posted by Tonio on
Yet, responding to gay-bashing with Muslim or Arab-bashing is incredibly hypocritical.
Nobody is actually bashing anyone here. You’re conflating speech with violence. One chooses one’s belief system, current research indicates that sexual orientation is not a choice.
Again, it would seem that some people chose to mislead people in an effort to attack “The Left”.
Who? Where? How? Is The Left(tm) somehow immune from critical comment? Are other groups similarly privilieged?
Within a particular religion, it is not uncommon for the ‘church’ (or other such institution) to be allowed to settle certain disputes.
Hard to argue, per se, against such a broad generalization. However, the actual question should be: Is it detrimental to a secular society to cede jurisprudence over certain matters to religous organizations?
These are typically minor personal disputes, and exist as little more then opinions then laws.
WTF?
posted by Bobby on
“Their are plently of Judeo-Christian religious text out their that has been used to justify human rights violations.”
—Perhaps, but the believers of those texts don’t commit violence for the most part. Also, remember that for most of history muslims stayed in their own territories. Hindus don’t eat meat, but if they started going to England and killing butchers and bombing meat stores, there would be an inquiry into their faith and practices. It’s just like the green movement, people didn’t care about PETA until the Animal Liberation League started engaging in acts of terrorism (PETA has donated to ALF, so they’re just as guilty as the terrorist itself). Islam has a loud radical element, they intimidate moderate muslims, they will kill their own people to keep anyone from trying to modernize them. That is why making films against radical Islam is so important. Our politically correct societies are too afraid to question minorities. And with european countries suffering from colonization guilt, they forget that there’s a big gap between being tolerant of other cultures and bending over backwards for them.
posted by Richard to Rani on
People can use — misuse — a faith in an attempt to justify various acts of cruelty, violence, etc. That does not mean that the religion or its followers should be treated as terrorists or criminals.
Many people — within the religious institutions — have been critical of religious extremists, but such criticism is rarely deemed to be newsworthy.
posted by Richard to T on
“You’re conflating speech with violence.”
No, I am saying that it is hypocritical to oppose anti-gay verbal or physical harassment while engaging in similar harassment or bullying of Arab or Muslim people.
The fact that a person may ‘chose’ their religion (or politics) does not make it any less of a human rights issues then sexual orientation.
The reality is that most people are born into a family (and society) with a particular set of religious and political values. To simply call this a ‘choice’ would oversimplify the reality.
From my examination of this particular message board, I see that certain individuals seem to enjoy playing loose with the facts in order to say something to the effect of, “liberals are bad” or to define “the left” in such a sterotipical manner.
In the USA, Catholics (for example) are free to seek a marriage or divorce under secular-civil law.
However, their are certainly a set of church based laws and polices that Catholics may subscribe to.
Likewise Orthodox Jewish woman cannot religiously divorce without the permission of their husband.
A similar principle could apply to Islam, and probably would have to within the United States.
These Christian and Jewish ‘religious courts’ have existed for some time. Absent of a valid legal contract, they have little power over the individual, except to threaten banishment or excommunication.
WTF?
posted by Richard on
Bobby;
I said: Their are plently of Judeo-Christian religious text out their that has been used to justify human rights violations.”
Your reply: but the believers of those texts don’t commit violence for the most part.
Yes and most Muslims do not commit acts of violence.
You said: Remember that for most of history muslims stayed in their own territories.
No, not really no. Firstly, their was no small bit of conflict as to where “their” territory began and ended and who would run it.
Second off all, Muslim exploration and immigration are not new. Heck, some of the African persons who ‘migrated’ to the U.S. were Muslim.
You said: Hindus don’t eat meat,
A great many are vegetarians. However, that does not mean that most Hindus are going to commit acts of violence.
The fact that a few extremists might, kill butchers and bomb meat stores, would not be cause to treat all Hindus as terrorists or criminals.
Likewise, the fact that a few Christian extremists might engage in gay-bashing or bomb a gay bar or an abortion clinic does not mean that all Christians are terrorists or criminals.
You said: Islam has a loud radical element,
As does just about every other major religious or political movement. In fact, the media often helps make them seem more powerful then they are.
posted by ILoveCapitalism on
“Islam has a loud radical element, As does just about every other major religious or political movement. In fact, the media often helps make them seem more powerful then they are.”
Sorry, but radical Christians don’t target civilian unbelievers (especially gays) for outright murder. Radical Jews don’t target unbelievers & gays for murder. Radical Wiccans don’t target unbelievers & gays for murder. Excepting some Communist regimes such as Fidel Castro’s in Cuba, radical Atheists generally don’t target unbelievers & gays for murder. Radical Taoists, Buddhists, Confucians and Shintoists don’t target unbelievers or gays for murder. In the world today, there is one, and only one, major religion that targets unbelievers for murder – and gays, for that matter. What is it? ISLAM. Face the truth.
posted by Cedric on
Thanks to communist George Galloway for allowing this perversion of civilisation
Europe has lost its way and this time scarily so. Last week a spokesman for England?s Anglican faith community unabashedly pronounced the UK should consider implementing barbaric Sharia law into the UK?s legal system. Shocking. I knew the Faustian affair that is the European Left?s relationship with the Muslim community was gaining frightening proportions but this left me with an eerie feeling.
Europe is drowning in a culture of pseudo-intellectual leftish guilt and unhealthy victim ideology gone berserk. If you put out a movie critical of Islamic traditions as an Arab woman formerly adhering to the way of Mohammed, the European intellectual community will guarantee you a green light in no time. Yet, when Geert Wilders, a Dutch politician from the right (and not the extreme right, as the European biased media would want you to believe), announces a similar documentary, Harry Potter (Dutch prime minister Balkenende) has an acute panic attack.
This is how far Europe has come. We are the first to criticize the foreign policies of the US and Israel (which I definitely do not consider to be a bad thing), but in the meantime, the leftist Euromob who proudly presented us feminism, welfare and the in their opinion ever successful multicultural European society, fails to unanimously oppose religious zealots in their own country.
posted by Richard on
“but radical Christians don’t target civilian unbelievers…”
Um, yes they do. Historically they certainly have and they continue to do so in modern history.
A great many of the hate crimes committed against LGBT Americans, have come from religious justifications.
“Radical Jews don’t target unbelievers & gays for murder”.
Judaism is not an evangelical faith, as is both Christanity and Islam. Also, Jewish people tend to be in a rather very small minority (genocide and all of that)
“Radical Wiccans don’t target unbelievers & gays for murder.”
Historically they did. In more modern days, the Wiccan faith is mostly the interest of new age hippies.
Radical Atheists are certainly capaable of committing acts of evil. As are Buddhists and Hindus. To suggest otherwise is simply dishonest.
You need to face the truth. Although, given the level of racism and historical ignorence you have displayed here, I doubt that you will.
posted by Avee on
It’s interesting that Rowan Williams’ defenders argue that: (1) He never said what he is reported to have said — it’s distortion by conservative bigots, and (2) He was right to say it because multiculturalism requires such legal accommodations by the state — and if you disagree, that proves you’re a bigot.
posted by Bobby on
It’s hard to argue with you, Richard. If I say, “radical Islam is dangerous,” you’ll reply “radical Christianity is equally dangerous.”
And yet, radical Christianity is vilified without fear of being called a bigot.
So very well, the same must be done against radical Islam
This is how they’re going to do it in Denmark.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3355938.ece
posted by ILoveCapitalism on
I said: “but radical Christians don’t target civilian unbelievers (ESPECIALLY GAYS) FOR OUTRIGHT MURDER.”
Richard, leaving off the capitalized portion (perhaps because it is inconvenient to what he wants to spread?), claims “Um, yes they do. Historically they certainly have and they continue to do so in modern history.”
No they don’t, Richard. Or, if you know any today who are, kindly name the that leading Christian terrorist group whose systematic, intentional policy is to murder unbelievers the world over. Oops, there isn’t one? I didn’t think so.
If you would rather debate history instead, I find that stupid, but let’s go there: The fact is that Islam’s founder personally killed people to spread and enforce his religion, while Christianity’s founder let himself be executed, rather than do such things.
You can dig up killings in the history of Christianity as in any religion – even Buddhism, whose Zen masters played a part in “inspiring” Japanese fascism – but it really reaches a different level with Islam. It’s a much more basic tendency in that religion, than the others. Learn your Islamic history.
posted by ILoveCapitalism on
And my own point: Whether we realize it or not… whether we admit it to ourselves, or not… we are only in a modern phase of a long, very old war: Islam’s 1400-year old war on us (as unbelievers). Islam’s systematic, 1400-year old war to be dominant over unbelievers, and to kill any who won’t be dominated.
posted by Richard on
I am not ‘defending’ or ‘attacking’ Rowan Williams. I do not belong to his Church and I probably do not agree with all of his political values.
Basic notions of equal rights mean that a government should treat the Muslim faith, and its followers, equally. It is a simple concept.
As I have pointed out, ‘religious courts’ are not unheard of within developed democracies.
They are different then religious courts in other nations because they have limited power over members and no power over non-members.
posted by Richard on
Bobby;
Mixing of Church (Mosque, Temple, Synagogue) and State is almost always a bad thing for liberal democracy.
Religious fundamentalist of any stripe are almost always militantly intolerant, violence and extreamist.
Capitalist;
Radical Christians do and have targeted gays for outright murder. Are you unaware of international, modern groups?
Then you do need to get out more.
Perhaps you can do some research on the KKK, Ayran Nation, Christian Identity and Reconstructive movements.
posted by Bobby on
“Mixing of Church (Mosque, Temple, Synagogue) and State is almost always a bad thing for liberal democracy.”
—I agree, that means religious people do what they want without taxpayer support. That means they can have their religious courts, they can perform religious weddings, they can do anything they want with very few limitations.
“Religious fundamentalist of any stripe are almost always militantly intolerant, violence and extreamist.”
—Secularists are equally as violent. Ask Joseph Stalin, Fidel Castro, Pol Pot, Che Guevara, Mao Tse Tung, etc. Remember when the chinese atheists invaded Tibet? They raped the nuns and commited many attrocities.
“Perhaps you can do some research on the KKK, Ayran Nation, Christian Identity and Reconstructive movements.”
—I have, their religion is invented. They either think that they are the true israelites or that the Virgin Mary was an aryan syrian and Jesus wasn’t jewish. Some racist movements don’t even believe in the New Testament and see Christianity as a jewish conspiracy. Some believe in pagan viking gods, such as Thor and Odin.
White supremacists aren’t really about religion in the end, they are about race. They may invent religions that justify their beliefs, but under them, you can either be a slave or a corpse if you aren’t an aryan.
Some of those groups have been sued out of existance, Aryan Nations lost property for example. But thanks to the Internet, they can have a web presence and recruit.
It’s the price we pay to live in a free society.
posted by Richard on
Bobby;
You said: It means religious people do what they want without taxpayer support.
Agreed. However, if a government is going to make these kinds of semi-religious courts legal, it cannot discriminate against a class of citizens.
Secularists can be equally as violent, although the “secular” leaders who mentioned often catered to religious fundamentalism.
Xenophobic/Nativist/White supremacist political organizations are very much about race and religion. To suggest otherwise is ignoring the history.
posted by Pat on
Basic notions of equal rights mean that a government should treat the Muslim faith, and its followers, equally. It is a simple concept.
Agreed. But it shouldn’t excuse Muslims from breaking the law because they believe as Muslims they were “allowed” by Islam or the Koran to break laws.
As I have pointed out, ‘religious courts’ are not unheard of within developed democracies.
I don’t have a problem with “religious courts” if they are limited to things like persons caught eating non-kosher (or halal) foods, or caught not praying the requisite number of times, etc. And the worst punishment should be excommunication. I have a problem when a father puts a fatwa (or whatever) on his daughter because SHE was raped, and this garbage is tolerated.
Religious fundamentalist of any stripe are almost always militantly intolerant, violence and extreamist.
If this was the 1490s, I would agree that the Christians were as bad as the Muslims. Today, Muslim extremism is much worse than Christian extremism, and much more a danger to our civilization today.
posted by Craig2 on
Excuse me. It’s not only elements of the left that have myopia about religious extremism.
Nor is multiculturalism limited to them alone. For example, much of the UK and Canadian Christian Rights are perfectly okay working
with social conservatives from other faith traditions, and then there’s the World Congress of Families, a transnational group of interfaith social conservatives.
But yes, I find Williams’ silliness about sharia law indicative of his lack of awareness about the significance of feminism and LGBT rights in Muslim-dominated societies.
One wonders what forthright liberal Muslim critics of sharia law like Irshad Manji have to say on the matter…?
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by Frank C on
For England to allow “a dual system of laws” is ridiculous. They are pandering to Moslems. Why don’t they continue to divide laws for Sikhs, Hindus, Jews etc etc. If I am in England as a US citizen–I am required to follow THEIR laws–not the laws of the US. If I am in Saudi Arabia–I am required to follow THEIR laws (Sharia or otherwise)–it is just common sense and not pandering to.