jaketherat: ShaWhatWhoNowEh?

Roll on Deroderant (

jaketherat) wrote,
@ 2008-02-07 12:29:00

Entry tags:

fear! fire! foes!, god bothering scrotum snufflers, going to hell in a bonham-carter, jeebus, politricks, rantyrant

ShaWhatWhoNowEh?
Just heard on the radio:

"This morning the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, told Radio 4's Today programme that 'sharia law seems inevitable in some parts of Britain'"

Will you fucking God-botherers of all stripes please fuck off.

Leave aside the bizarre irony that the head of the Church of England appears to be advocating the introduction of an absolutist legal system drawn from Islamic teachings, has he lost the plot completely? Perhaps God got on the old blower and told him "Listen, I don't like these brown fellas any more than you, except my mate Allah from the corner shop, he's alright. Anyway, fing to do to keep em quiet is to set up a completely separate society for em within the UK. Bish bash bosh - everyone's happy. Well, apart from a few slags and bummers that is, and who gives a toss about them. Right? Am I right?".

Rowan Willams - mad as an eyebrow

I'm not making any crashing revelations by stating that I'm in favour of a multicultural society and mutual respect between different cultures blah blah etc, but a five year old child could see that you don't achieve that by saying 'one set of rules for you, another for me'. All you're doing in that scenario is creating totally separate societies that happen to live in the same place.

In any case, what possible relevance does the opinion of a fucking bishop, arch or otherwise have to the nature of the rule of law; what is this, 1708? Tell your magic bearded sky-mate to get back in His celestial white cloud van and sling His holy hook. Fucker.

(Post a new comment)

	queen_moonshine 2008-02-07 01:30 pm UTC (link)
	I still would though... (Reply to this)(Thread)

	queen_moonshine 2008-02-07 01:32 pm UTC (link)
	Then I'd film it and send it to the muslims. What do they do to adulterers again? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

jaketherat
2008-02-07 01:39 pm UTC (link)

Many, including the European Court of Human Rights, consider the punishments prescribed by Sharia as being barbaric and cruel. Islamic scholars argue that, if implemented properly, the punishments serve as a deterrent to crime.[10] In international media, practices by countries applying Islamic law have fallen under considerable criticism at times. This is particularly the case when the sentence carried out is seen to greatly tilt away from established standards of international human rights. This is true for the application of the death penalty for the crime of adultery, and other such punishments such as amputations for the crime of theft and flogging for fornication or public intoxication.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

jaketherat
2008-02-07 01:49 pm UTC (link)

There again my objections aren't really to do with the nature of Sharia, there are liberal and conservative interpretations and applications of it as with any legal code. It just seems ludicrous that any sort of different legal standard should be applied based on religion. He actually made the point that it would create a 'marketplace' within the legal system, as if this were a good thing. By what possible logic is the law an appropriate venue for a marketplace?

Oh, and you're a deeply strange woman :P

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	queen_moonshine 2008-02-07 01:56 pm UTC (link)
	Surely the punshiments laid down by Sharia law directly contradict good ol' English law? (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

jaketherat
2008-02-07 02:33 pm UTC (link)

Well, at the top the page I've linked there's the following:

"There is no strictly static codified set of laws of sharia. Sharia is more of a system of how law ought to serve humanity, a consensus of the unified spirit. Based on the Qur'an (the religious text of Islam), hadith (sayings and doings of Muhammad), (sayings and doings of the early followers of Muhammad), ijma (consensus), qiyas (analogy) and centuries of debate, interpretation and precedent."

So I guess the answer is not necessarily, but if Sharia is to be interpreted in line with British law then what's the point in a separate legal system to begin with, other than to emphasise cultural divisions?

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	queen_moonshine 2008-02-07 03:11 pm UTC (link)
	Well, if in the interests of racial equality, all religious groups can administer their own laws willy nilly… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_and_punishment_in_the_Bible#Examples_of_the_death_penalty http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_capital_crimes_in_the_bible What fun. I think I’ll go hug a judge now, y’know to show appreciation and that. (Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

	jaketherat 2008-02-07 03:33 pm UTC (link)
	Judges need love too! (Reply to this)(Parent)

hubert_huzzah
2008-02-09 09:00 pm UTC (link)

In my favourite place, the House of Lords, there are two kinds of Lords. The Lords Temporal (lovable old buffers whose only qualification is being the gentry) and the Lords Spiritual.

The Lords Spiritual are all Anglican/Church of England Bishops. So There has always been a theocratic element to the House of Lords. The House of Lords is also one of the highest courts in the land. So, for Sharia to be practiced would simply be the appointment of a Few Mullahs to the Lords (rather than Secular Muslims).

Then of Course there is the Synod of the Church of England. That is an Ecclesiastical Court of a lower order than the Lords. There really is nothing to fuss about. The whole affair is a bunch of insular, ill informed nonsense.

Unless, of course, the whole country has determined to be anti-ecclesiastical on any count and robustly secular. Now, excuse me, I have some chickens to sacrifice.

(Reply to this)

Mini Sitemap:

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…