Williams is dangerous he must be resisted

#1
Stirring stuff. Could it be that Williams has no choice but resign after his stupidity?

Mathew Parris article.

You say,” said Lord Napier (confronted as Commander-in-Chief of the British Army in India by locals protesting against the suppression of suttee) “that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article3337984.ece
 
#2
Excellent quote, Nige!

Should we not take a similar stand today?
 
#3
to add my intelligent input. he is a total nob.
 
#5
Last time I was a little vague when I posed the question, I will try to do better when asking this time.

What is the difference between Sharia and Beth Din or roman catholic Canon Law? Especially taking into account that the Archbishop expressly spoke of allowing some - not all - tenets of Sharia.
 
#7
Sven said:
Last time I was a little vague when I posed the question, I will try to do better when asking this time.

What is the difference between Sharia and Beth Din or roman catholic Canon Law? Especially taking into account that the Archbishop expressly spoke of allowing some - not all - tenets of Sharia.
There is little difference, they are all the products of madmen and fantasists.
 
#8
Scabster_Mooch said:
Sven said:
Last time I was a little vague when I posed the question, I will try to do better when asking this time.

What is the difference between Sharia and Beth Din or roman catholic Canon Law? Especially taking into account that the Archbishop expressly spoke of allowing some - not all - tenets of Sharia.
There is little difference, they are all the products of madmen and fantasists.
So why are they not condemned as much as the moderate parts of Sharia is.
 
#9
some muslims want to extend sharia to cover criminal and or non muslims in "there area" :twisted:
thats why. Orthodox Jews main impact on the rest of society was the request to string wire around an area in London so they could work on a sabbath or something. Barking but fairly harmless as said holy wire would go from telegraph pole to telegraph pole so not very visible.
its an attempt to seem reasonable when religion is unreasonable and sharia very barking :twisted:
 
#10
Presumably, as the Queen appoints Bishops (albeit on the recommendation of the Prime Minister), she can revoke his 'licence'. I vote for either Bishop Nazir Ali or Bishop Sentamu, both of whom appear to be Christians. It is funny that only those countries to which we have exported the foundations of British culture appear to have retained the integrity to be able to perpetuate these characteristics. Some of the finest educational establishments exist outside this country - as demonstrated by second generation Caribbean immigrants sending their children back to their ancestral island in order to obtain a decent education!

We have entered a period of post-colonial decay, where the woolly-minded liberals, wracked with an extreme form of post-colonial guilt, seem to be intent on wrecking British Culture as a way of exorcising their own personal demons. Well, a message to Williams and his ilk - retire from public life and metaphorically flagellate yourselves in private, don't try to bring the rest of us down with you. We are proud of what Britain has done in the world; some aspects don't look great in hindsight, but you cannot view those practices through the lens of modern liberalism - you must view it in the context of the time.

As an aside, Sharia Law and Islamic Government (notwithstanding the regularly trotted-out explanations of the cradle of astronomy, mathematics etc) appear to have turned every country in their grip into dust-bowls of economic stagnation, repression and poverty. This is why immigrants have been attracted to the economic success, standard of living (accepting that New Labour are trying to put us all into poverty) and freedom from repression afforded by our society. Why then are they intent on replicating all the conditions that will destroy everything that attracted them to this Country in the first place and create a stagnated, repressive society without even the benefit of good weather?
 
#11
Sven said:
Scabster_Mooch said:
Sven said:
Last time I was a little vague when I posed the question, I will try to do better when asking this time.

What is the difference between Sharia and Beth Din or roman catholic Canon Law? Especially taking into account that the Archbishop expressly spoke of allowing some - not all - tenets of Sharia.
There is little difference, they are all the products of madmen and fantasists.
So why are they not condemned as much as the moderate parts of Sharia is.
I do not know. Islamophobia? As far as I am concerned, they are all nuts.

Still I do not agree with thrust of your argument; that just because one tolerates craziness in one area, one must accept craziness in all areas.

That is a tenuous argument.
 
#12
brighton hippy said:
some muslims want to extend sharia to cover criminal and or non muslims in "there area" :twisted:
thats why. Orthodox Jews main impact on the rest of society was the request to string wire around an area in London so they could work on a sabbath or something. Barking but fairly harmless as said holy wire would go from telegraph pole to telegraph pole so not very visible.
its an attempt to seem reasonable when religion is unreasonable and sharia very barking :twisted:
The salient word in Your post is SOME.

Some born again loon . . . . . christians wanted the Heresy Law to be used on the theatre manager showing the Jerry Springer opera as well as the actors. were we of the faith right behind them screaming and shouting?
 
#13
nigegilb said:
Another well meaning socialist without a clue?...maybe he should be drafted into the Cabinet forthwith..........Chancellor?
Wouldn't a socialist look rather out of place in this cabinet? What with Tony Blair mentioning the word 'socialist/ism' about three and a half times in 10 years as PM.

Williams is a well-meaning academic who spoke first and didn't foresee the vitriolic reaction that's only to be expected from a low brow news-hungry media.
 
#14
Sven said:
Scabster_Mooch said:
Sven said:
Last time I was a little vague when I posed the question, I will try to do better when asking this time.

What is the difference between Sharia and Beth Din or roman catholic Canon Law? Especially taking into account that the Archbishop expressly spoke of allowing some - not all - tenets of Sharia.
There is little difference, they are all the products of madmen and fantasists.
So why are they not condemned as much as the moderate parts of Sharia is.
Sven,
If both parties agree to go to a sharia tribunal on civil matters they are already allowed to do so. This should not be a problem.

Sharia is not a just system though and right now we have a very small % of people living here that want it as law. Any movement/idea/suggestion that links sharia with UK law needs to be fought. If only because a minority of muslims will see this as coercive rather than elective.

The whole idea that religious POV should matter in a UK court is offensive and devisive.

The more I learn about it, the more I hate islamic law (you can apply that to every religion's laws to a somewhat lesser extent). The whole idea that laws eminate from God disgusts me. This leaves no room for(rational) argument at all.
 
#15
Sven said:
brighton hippy said:
some muslims want to extend sharia to cover criminal and or non muslims in "there area" :twisted:
thats why. Orthodox Jews main impact on the rest of society was the request to string wire around an area in London so they could work on a sabbath or something. Barking but fairly harmless as said holy wire would go from telegraph pole to telegraph pole so not very visible.
its an attempt to seem reasonable when religion is unreasonable and sharia very barking :twisted:
The salient word in Your post is SOME.

Some born again loon . . . . . christians wanted the Heresy Law to be used on the theatre manager showing the Jerry Springer opera as well as the actors. were we of the faith right behind them screaming and shouting?
No, and the majority of Muslims were not on the streets blowing themselves - and real people - to pieces after 7/7. However, the fact remains that, in this country at least, there is little recent history of Christian Terrorism. Northern Ireland not withstanding.

The same cannot be said for Islam. I fear they have a higher proportion of nutters than Christianity or Judiesm(again I add the caveat: in THIS country). And anything that even looks like appeasment will strengthen the Islamofacists.
 
#16
thats the problem a tiny but extremely dangerous minority.
plus a culture of backwards fuckheadness that produces forced marriages and honor killings :evil:
if that was'nt happening crack on but it does so no sharia for you till you can behave like grown ups
 
#17
Sven said:
Last time I was a little vague when I posed the question, I will try to do better when asking this time.

What is the difference between Sharia and Beth Din or roman catholic Canon Law? Especially taking into account that the Archbishop expressly spoke of allowing some - not all - tenets of Sharia.
A little vague? Hmmmm!

Is YOUR question, bold above, a real question or a rhetorical one? If it's a real question, my simple answer is, I don't know but I suspect all three are rather quite different. And suspect it is somewhat disingenuous to conflate them all together without actually making an effort to compare and contrast.

On the otherhand, if this was a rhetorical question, and YOU have already completed a reasonable exercise in comparing the three, maybe YOU would like to share it with us.
 
#18
Werewolf said:
No, and the majority of Muslims were not on the streets blowing themselves - and real people - to pieces after 7/7. However, the fact remains that, in this country at least, there is little recent history of Christian Terrorism. Northern Ireland not withstanding.

The same cannot be said for Islam. I fear they have a higher proportion of nutters than Christianity or Judiesm(again I add the caveat: in THIS country). And anything that even looks like appeasment will strengthen the Islamofacists.
Did you feel smug when you wrote that? I mean, being able to dismiss decades of political violence, terrorism and continued criminality, the murder and injury of thousands of innocent civilians, with a simple: not withstanding. How convenient!

:x
 
#19
Stirring stuff. Could it be that Williams has no choice but resign after his stupidity?

Mathew Parris article.

You say,” said Lord Napier (confronted as Commander-in-Chief of the British Army in India by locals protesting against the suppression of suttee) “that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours.”

www.timesonline.co.uk/...337984.ece
-We also have a custom of wearing helmets on a motorbike, except of course if you're a Sikh....by law.
-We have a custom of religious tolerance, except if you're Catholic and are next in line for the throne...by law.
-We have laws on the slaughter of meat, of course unless you're Jewish or Muslim...by law.

So yet another boring rant focused on Muslims. Your arguement would be more valid if you were calling for secularism. I agree, any religious taintng of the law must be resisted....but on a level playing field.
 
#20
Williams is a very poor communicator and is, I suspect being taken out of the context he thought he was in. Notice I didn't say quoted out of context -he said what he said.

However the law of the land is the law of the land. If people can agree out of Court on some subjects and the local preacher/imam/rabbi/wotchdoctor etc can help resolve disputes which the law does not demand should go to Court - fine. If it means lawyers get less money in their pockets - even better.

However that does not mean that this setup has to be legalised by way of Statute.

Why should we change our system?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads