“Archbishop” of Canturbury Calls for Sharia Law in Britain
February 9th, 2008 at 02:15am Mark Noonan
Some people doubt those of us who say that Europe is dead - some people, also, are rather blind:
LONDON–The Archbishop of Canterbury, spiritual leader of the world’s Anglicans, said yesterday the introduction in Britain of some aspects of Islamic law, known as sharia, is unavoidable.
Archbishop Rowan Williams’s unexpected comments were welcomed by some Muslim groups, but the government distanced itself from them, saying it was out of the question that principles of sharia could be used in British civil courts.
Williams, speaking to the BBC, said other religions enjoyed tolerance of their laws in Britain and he called for a “constructive accommodation” with Muslim practice in areas such as marital disputes.
In response, Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s office said: “There are instances where the government has made changes in regulations, for example to include sharia-compliant mortgage products, but in general terms, sharia law cannot be used as a justification for committing breaches of English law, nor can the principle of sharia law be used in a civilian court.”
“The prime minister is clear that, in Britain, British laws based on British values will apply,” a spokesperson said.
A man of Christian faith simply would not be able to say such a thing - so, just what William’s belief system is, it can’t be Christian. Sharia law is a horrific perversion of all sense of justice and mercy and to say that we must respect such barbarities as punishing a rape victim more than her rapists (which has happened under Sharia law, and not just once) is the acme of cowardice, and a negation of the teachings of Jesus Christ.
But this is the future of Europe - a continuing “Munich” where concession after concession is to be granted to the enemies of European civilization in the stupid hope that there will come a point when the enemy is satisfied short of the complete destruction of Europe. And the fundamental weakness of Europe - the reason they grovel before Islamo-fascists and won’t even have enough children to replace themselves - is because they have cut themselves off from the wellspring of European civilization, Christianity. Europe is Christian, or it is nothing - and by forcing Christianity out of the public square, Europe is rapidly becoming nothing…nothing but a collection of yellow-bellied welfare addicts, doomed to destruction.
The only saving grace here is that there is a remnant of Christianity in Europe - a remnant, that is, of European civilizaiton buried beneath the slag of post-Christian civilization. These people - whom I approximate at about 50 million of Europe’s population - are the seed, perhaps, of an eventual European revival. These people, who still believe and thus still build for the future, can inherit the ruins and revitalise a dead civilization, much as when Christianity originally inherited a dead Greco-Roman civilization and by Christianising it, turned it into a new and vibrant civilization. There is a problem with this scenario - the Moslem population in Europe is nearly as large as the Christian population, and we’ll have to see which group will prove capable of taking power from a dying secular ruling class.
Entry Filed under: Foreign Affairs, Life Issues
23 Comments
1. LiberalMind | February 9th, 2008 at 2:35 am
This is case in point of maintaining a strict separation of church/religion and state.
This separation of course is another invaluable contribution of liberal policy.
2. pelirrojo | February 9th, 2008 at 2:44 am
Mark, you’ve written thread after thread on how Europe is dying, all because it “abandoned” the Christian faith. You also admit their Muslim population is growing, but i don’t recall you ever saying that they could reverse the trend by accepting the Muslim faith.
Are you saying that only a country based on Christian values can be strong, free, and rich?
If so, how on earth is the middle east going to be any of those things? do you think the world should send missionaries to the middle east and attempt to rid the world of Islam?
I’m really looking forward to your answer (thats not sarcasm)
3. congressive | February 9th, 2008 at 4:56 am
Outlaw all religion from all legal structures. Period.
There is no place for superstition in the legal affairs of men. There is no place for fanatical, or even subtle unreason in the governance of humankind. Faith, by definition, is unreason.
Countries based on Christian values brought the world the Inquisition. There may be a God, but he’s not the bulbous, bearded brute on the Sistine Chapel ceiling nor is his prophet the flying-horse-riding turbaned illiterate author of the Koran.
BTW, many of the world’s greatest minds, like Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Albert Einstein, etc., were NEVER in peril of becoming “nothing…nothing but a collection of yellow-bellied welfare addicts, doomed to destruction.” They did just fine without Jesus or Mohammad in the mix.
4. neocon | February 9th, 2008 at 9:29 am
>>This separation of course is another invaluable contribution of liberal policy<<
And the protection thereof is another invaluable contribution of conservative policy.
Congressive,
Our founding fathers all were Christians with a strong faith in God. Their efforts to keep government away from religion was intended to protect religious practices, not to protect the government. There most certainly is a Higher Power and He would never condone the actions of those men that led the Inquisition nor does he condone the current practice of extreme Islam. He is a benevolent power and those that adhere to the purity of His word, understand that and are most often the kindest people you will ever meet.
5. GOP4ME | February 9th, 2008 at 9:50 am
If “there is not place for superstition in the legal affairs of men”, then I expect congressive to immediately urge Al Gore to cease his diatribes on
global warming, er um I mean climate change.Congressive, who is so outraged by superstition, will then immediately oppose Michael Moore’s fictitious tales about how Cuba enjoys better health care than the US.
Or congressive will just be a hypocrite. Hmmmm, wonder how this will turn out….
6. anarchist | February 9th, 2008 at 9:59 am
This is for civil, not criminal law. If both arbitrating parties want to settle in a sharia court, why wouldn’t you let them? Why does the governmet need to forcefully interject it’s opinion in a voluntary arangement involving people private property or marriage or whatever? Why must the government be societies master decision maker for everything even when it’s not wanted?
7. plainjane | February 9th, 2008 at 10:18 am
Mark, I am not sure where you are trying to go with this. We have been warning the Republican party of its coziness with religious elements. The Republican Party is a political party and sooner or later the religious elements will want something in return for their support. They are now finding this out in Europe. It has been the Thatcher’s and Bush’s of the world that have allowed these breeches in the separation between church and state. Now that Muslims are making in roads it is a bad thing, but it is ok when Pat Roberts, Santorum, and Haggard are injecting religion into policy.
I was listening to Limbaugh and he was making the same case that this was some kind of Liberal conspiracy. He just came off as the comedian that he is. Those on the left want to be left alone to worship as we please. We don’t need any politicians or right wing radio host to provide us with the answers to the universe
8. FmeMarine | February 9th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
Mark;
you have hit the NUTCASE beehive with this one.
The HATE Christian, atheist crowd will be out in full force on this one.
islam is a VERY dangerous CULT which needs to be restrained at all costs.
We will hear all the ya de ya B#!! S#!T about the inquisition, crusades, etc, BLAH BLAH BLAH of CENTURIES ago.
Lets talk about today in todays world, yesterdays news is old.
Hate to tell you congressive, but atheist’s = marxist have MURDERED more than 300,000,000. people in the 20 th century alone.
9. David/California | February 9th, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Wretchard at The Belmont Club does an analysis of the logic underlying the Archbishop’s position. His conclusion? The Archbishop is proposing a significant deconstruction of the rule of law. It amazes me the ‘liberals’ (above) seem unable to understand that removing those unlawful activities required by Sharia from the governance of the law, as the Archbishop proposes, will destroy civilized society.
See: http://fallbackbelmont.blogspot.com/2008/02/rebel-without-clause.html
10. phnx | February 9th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
“Why does the governmet need to forcefully interject it’s opinion in a voluntary arangement involving people private property or marriage or whatever?” Anarchist
Either you are completely ignorant of Sharia Law or you are a complete moron.
The operative word here is voluntary. Since when is any arrangement under Sharia law voluntary, especially when it concerns a woman.
11. Dan Reily | February 9th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
This Williams is off his high chair. Ask any of the thousands Brits that worked expate in any Muslin countryand they can all tell tales that would make your hair stand up! Been there done that! Can’t believe those poor buggers would put up with such crap. and here is Rowan Williams (and Clueless)wants to legitemize this in the UK, Blimy he’s off his rocker !!
12. Mortimer | February 9th, 2008 at 6:09 pm
I am sure there are many secularists and Jews who don’t want Sharia law too, yet you are such a theocon bigot, you completely ignore them. All people like you are good at doing is alienating potential allies who don’t meet your plastic standards. Van Gogh, Wilder in Holland are (were) not theocons.
13. Dan Reily | February 9th, 2008 at 6:19 pm
MotiimerYou don’t make sense , What I’m saying if you have lived and worked in those countries like many of us have you too would want no part of there crazy laws. You’d have more luck talking logic to your cat !
14. Mortimer | February 9th, 2008 at 6:22 pm
Dan, what exactly are you saying, that Jews and secularists want shariah laws?
15. Dan Reily | February 9th, 2008 at 6:40 pm
Mort how old are you16 ? You seem to be a bit soft between the ears, Goodnigt !
16. Freedom1 | February 9th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Mark,
I couldn’t have said it any better. The only slight difference I would make to your brilliant analysis is that those remaining European Christians, will need to be rescued by the US and taken to the safety and freedom of America.
God bless and protect the United States of America!
17. Dan Reily | February 9th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
Mark This Flimsy bunch heading the pack in the USA elections will lead us all down the road to disaster. We have basic laws on immigration and drug laws those in authority appear to shrirk away from and refuse to strongly enforce, while the marjority of it’s citirzens appear to want just that! But the politicians are all running scared ! Go to most any Flea market in this country and you could be in a third world country ! The underground economy in the US is bigger than the Gov. will ever admit. I suggest you seek another country for your Utopia !
18. Mortimer | February 9th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
Hey Dan, Do you have a problem with what I said or are you such a tiny little man that you must insult and disparage those you don’t agree with or understand? Rather be soft between the ears than fossilized rock!
19. Canuckguy | February 9th, 2008 at 11:33 pm
The bishop is a politically correct left wing gutless idiot.
Winston must be spinning in his grave.
BTW, Mark’s dream of an European Christian revival to out muscle the Muslims is just that, a dream, a pipe dream.
(PS: conservative enough for you, Phnx?)
20. Mark Noonan | February 10th, 2008 at 1:59 am
pelirrojo,
While Islam grew out of a Christian heresy, it developed into a separate religion and thus has founded its own, distinct civilizaiton. The universal values are just that, but Moslem civilization is partially cut off from the universal truth. Because they are not Judeo-Christian in belief, they will have a different set of priorities and different emphasis on things - I can’t imagine any civilizaiton remaining Moslem and not, for instance, having an element of fatalism in it. If Moslems ever become a majority of the European population then Europe will cease to be European and start to become Islamic. It might have within it many elements of European worldview - just as Islam has in it many elements of Judeo-Christianity - but it wouldn’t be the same civilizaiton.
What I’m saying is that if you want to keep this civilization you presumptively prefer, then you must defend the Judeo-Christian roots of the civilization. You don’t have to be Jewish or Christian, but you must defend the basic worldview of Jewish and Christian thought and morality. The fact of an individual being absolutely valuable is a Christian concept. The fact that there are separate secular and religious spheres is a Christian concept. The fact that governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed is a Christian concept. The fact that there must be a broad tolerance of dissent is a Christian concept. The fact that religion must be defended with reason (and, congressive, your statement about faith and reason is monumentally stupid - I know, that is a rude way to put it, but I can’t put it any other way. Go read the Summa and then come back and tell me that faith and reason are mutually exclusive) is a Christian concept. Free will is a Christian concept. On and on it goes - our whole civilizaiton is inexplicable without reference to Christianity, and if you take the Christianity out of it, it dies because it lacks any justification for continuing (as an example - it is a Christian concept that each life is valuable; take away the Christianity, and each life has mere subjective value…and thus, no life is of any intrinsic value at all…and you get GULAG, Auschwitz and “assisted suicide”, etc).
An, Canuck, you don’t understand - the secular powers-that-be in Europe are DYING. They aren’t having children - they’ll only remain in power just as long as there is a bulk of population in agreement with them, and that won’t be for much longer…eventually, more than half the electorate will be believers of one sort or another, and they will procede to change the laws to match their worldview.
21. congressive | February 10th, 2008 at 5:54 am
“Congressive, who is so outraged by superstition, will then immediately oppose Michael Moore’s fictitious tales about how Cuba enjoys better health care than the US.”
Moore is a proud Irish Catholic. How does that apply to keeping superstition out of government?
Funny, though. The kneejerk reaction to Moore by Republicans is that he’s a typical Democrat. Moore fights rich vs. poor battles, not liberal vs. conservative battles. He ROASTED Bill Clinton in Bowling for Columbine, and continues to express a deep hatred for Hillary and her big-pharma backers.
And it’s bizarre, just bizarre, that you make summary claims about Moore and Cuba. Did you see the film? I don’t appreciate Moore’s guerrilla journalism, but you wouldn’t know what I’m talking about, unless you actually saw the film. If you had, you wouldn’t have issued such a bizarrely puerile pejorative as “fictitious tales,” as if Moore was narrating sock puppets for an hour and a half.
Monumentally stupid, Mark? At least I’m in good company, then. American Heritage Dictionary describes faith as “Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence.”
Even your Summa Theologica states “It seems that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated. For it is an article of faith that God exists. But what is of faith cannot be demonstrated, because a demonstration produces scientific knowledge; whereas faith is of the unseen” Or as Mr. T would say: “holy moly jibber jabber.” And we know what the Catholic church has done over the millenia to scientists…
22. phnx | February 10th, 2008 at 8:50 am
What has happened to the UK? First the Archbishop of Canterberry expressess the inevitability of Sharia law and now their Olympic Athletes are being forced to sign a pledge not to criticize China for human rights abuses during the olympics.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=513362&in_page_id=1770&ct=5
23. keefer | February 10th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Not “either,” phnx–both apply to this twit.