The Archbishop of Cantebury...

Is off his bonce: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article778163.ece

Mmm, according to no less an authority than The Sun? I'd prefer to reserve judgment on that...

He even made that Sun page crash on my firefox browser! Dam him!

...

"Mmm, according to no less an authority than The Sun? I'd prefer to reserve judgment on that..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2254591,00.html

Vinz "Mmm, according to no less an authority than The Sun? I'd prefer to reserve judgment on that..."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,2254591,00.html

"We already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land ... There is a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some kinds of aspects of other religious law."

He did not endorse, however, the "kind of inhumanity" that was associated with sharia law in some Islamic states."

Thanks for that - clearly not off his bonce then....

I dunno, it makes sense to me.

Pagans have marriage rituals outside of English law, and their own communities manage the separation too.

Jews tend to manage community finances and collective mortgages via synagogue bursaries outside of banking regulation and laws.

Many religions have methods for managing certain aspects of daily life outside of the legal framework of the country in which they are in, and those legal frameworks may not be sensitive to the religious wishes of the people involved.

The key to this isn't to sanction religious law (which is the outcry), but to say that so long as it is not in breach of the federal (English) law the religious authority can take control of the affair. But that is simply a legal assertion and willingness of the participants to grant that authority (as it would not be legal) to the religious institution to administer.

The question is what happens when the individuals involved in an incident disagree with the religious view and wants to escalate to the national law, would the religious institution attempt to prevent it (pervert the course of justice).

Anyhow, the fundamental question of whether the affairs of a person could be managed by religous law, no. But they could allow themselves to be managed by a religious framework and attempt to avoid instigating a need for the federal law. So in that respect, yes it could be done and already is being done by some communities (not I say communities and not religions, as it requires consent of the community members to allow the religious institution to have that power).

The entire speech if you want to read it (I have not) rather than sensationalists sound bites. Better to judge something in it's entirety rather than take it out of context.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_02_08_islam.pdf

Religion and politics. Oh great.

adoubletap Religion and politics. Oh great.

Helmets and RLJ....

Forget about not endorsing inhumanity, think however why is the idea that Sharia Law should be introudcued into our legal system even being entertained?

Old Enoch will be turning in his grave

church and state, we're as bad as the US. in my world religion would have no place in law or politics. it wouldn't have a place at all actually. ha! he's suggesting we take steps in the wrong direction in my mind, we should be moving away from the whole 'one law for them, another for them...', we need a modern secular society.

If the case is that the law of your religious belief is the law you should be tried by (regardless of the law of the land put in place with a view to make it fair for the majority (how dare we protect the majority we're such fucking racists)) then I'm going to be a satanist, as I'm sure pretty much anything goes with those guys (sorry to any satanist who my comments may offend)...

I'm with vb on this one. 'British law' is anachronistic, and exists in its current state to reinforce class divisions: the 1% of the population with 99% of the wealth scenario.

I'd like to see British law being a far more organic entity, regularly and thoroughly updated to reflect the social/cultural/economic needs of all British citizens. This would mean absorbing aspects of Sharia law and any other moral framework that governs the belief system of the individuals who make up the population.

I think. Something like that anyway. I haven't had any coffee yet today :S

"I'd like to see British law being a far more organic entity, regularly and thoroughly updated to reflect the social/cultural/economic needs of all British citizens. This would mean absorbing aspects of Sharia law and any other moral framework that governs the belief system of the individuals who make up the population."
I AGREE!

BringMeMyFix I'm with vb on this one. 'British law' is anachronistic, and exists in its current state to reinforce class divisions: the 1% of the population with 99% of the wealth scenario.

I'd like to see British law being a far more organic entity, regularly and thoroughly updated to reflect the social/cultural/economic needs of all British citizens. This would mean absorbing aspects of Sharia law and any other moral framework that governs the belief system of the individuals who make up the population.

I think. Something like that anyway. I haven't had any coffee yet today :S

+1. Well put.

TheBrick(Tommy) The entire speech if you want to read it (I have not) rather than sensationalists sound bites. Better to judge something in it's entirety rather than take it out of context.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_02_08_islam.pdf

I have just had a quick read through the entire speech. It is quite heavy going and really requires several reads to full grasp. However it does raise many interesting facts. Two odd ones I have pulled out and quoted below. The points of which he is suggesting the idea of sharia law and the way in which he suggests an poly-legal system are not unreasonable nor are they simple.

Theology and theoretical politics is not an area in which I am well versed but many of the ideas and areas to which they would be applied seem reasonable. Due to my lack of knowledge of this area however I would like to here similarly well structured and referenced arguments to the contrary.

The Archbishop of Cantebury
sharia designates primarily – to quote Ramadan again – ‘the expression of the universal principles of Islam [and] the framework and the thinking that makes for their actualization in human history’ (32). Universal principles: as any Muslim commentator will insist, what is in view is the eternal and absolute will of God for the universe and for its human inhabitants in particular; but also something that has to be ‘actualized’, not a ready-made system. If shar’ designates the essence of the revealed Law, sharia is the practice of actualizing and applying it; while certain elements of the sharia are specified fairly exactly in the Qur’an and Sunna and in the hadith recognised as authoritative in this respect, there is no single code that can be identified as ‘the’ sharia. And when certain states
impose what they refer to as sharia or when certain Muslim activists demand its recognition alongside secular jurisdictions, they are usually referring not to a universal and fixed code established once for all but to some particular concretisation of it at the hands of a tradition of jurists.

The Archbishop of Cantebury
clearly the refusal of a religious believer to act upon the legal recognition of a right is not, given the plural character of society, a denial to anyone inside or outside the community of access to that right.

That was a response to aidan, not to Tommy's post above...

Just makes me genuinely laugh to see the Archbishop of Canterbury quoted like anyone else on the forum.

Disagree slightly with you though BringMeMyFix - although I agree the law should be more organic and less harsh to the poorer 99%, I don't think religion should have ANY bearing upon it. People's right to believe in Allah/God/fairies should be enshrined within it, but that's it.

Also i think the AB of C was stupid to bring this up - his press office should be fired - he's given lots of juicy ammunition to the Daily Shite reading middle england brigade which really isn't going to help race relations.

mongrel Also i think the AB of C was stupid to bring this up - his press office should be fired - he's given lots of juicy ammunition to the Daily Shite reading middle england brigade which really isn't going to help race relations.

It'll take the heat off cyclists for a bit though. Unless they're muslim.

mongrel Just makes me genuinely laugh to see the Archbishop of Canterbury quoted like anyone else on the forum.

Disagree slightly with you though BringMeMyFix - although I agree the law should be more organic and less harsh to the poorer 99%, I don't think religion should have ANY bearing upon it. People's right to believe in Allah/God/fairies should be enshrined within it, but that's it.

Fair point, but can you honestly say your moral/ethical perspective has not been influenced by Christian doctrine?

I'm not religious in any 'conventional' sense, but I'm aware that my sense of what is right and wrong wasn't formed in a vacuum.

Platini
the who car booty??!?

he has funkier eyebrows than hippy?!?