Chief Sky-Pilot Writes Own P45

Discussion in 'Current Affairs' started by Not_a_boffin, Feb 7, 2008.

Welcome to the Navy Net aka Rum Ration

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial RN website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Is it just me or has the Chief Sky Pilot just confirmed he is an irrelevance?

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7232661.stm

    Now I'm all for a bit of sharia when it comes to dealing with chavscum on their umpteenth offence, but one law for "Britons" and another for the Ummah (or whatever they want to call themselves) is taking the p1ss......
     
  2. wet_blobby

    wet_blobby War Hero Moderator

    It's no wonder he believes in fairy stories, has imaginary friends and talks to the fcuking clouds is it... :shakefist: :roll:
     
  3. FFS - that's all we need !!!
     
  4. Can we have the good bits of Sharia law please? Like the cutting off hands for thieves and killing murderers. However we don't want the stoning bit for shagging out of watch.
     
  5. Interesting how none of the "Wimins Rights" groups of the 80's are up in arms over this crap.
     
  6. Excellent. Another leading CofE figurehead showing how completely inept and short-sighted they are.
     
  7. sgtpepperband

    sgtpepperband War Hero Moderator Book Reviewer

    A rational and sensible point of view from Andrew Brown on the Guardian website:

    Dr Rowan Williams' interview with the BBC's World at One, in which he called for greater public recognition of some aspects of sharia law, is entirely characteristic. It is the product of deep thought; reasonable, thought-provoking, and in parts quite astonishingly silly.

    Let's start with the good bits, which will almost certainly be ignored in a general howl of execration. He wants no part of the crimes and follies which represent sharia law in the public imagination: no stonings, no amputations; in his own words: "Nobody in their right mind I think would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity [nor] the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women ... that sometimes appears to be associated with the practice of the law."

    What he means by sharia is something altogether more benign, and closer to the kind of arrangements already made for talmudic law in Britain. He wants disputes between believers to be regulated, where both agree, by religious laws. It is hard to construct a principled reason why this privilege should be denied to Muslims when it is extended to Orthodox Jews, whose networks of religious courts are perfectly compatible with English law and generally recognised.

    His vision of the accommodation of religious law within a secular framework can sound like something no more threatening than Anglican primary schools: a sort of game that the players are free at any time to leave: "I think it would be quite wrong to say that we could ever license, 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," he said on the World at One.

    And there is a common-sense argument which says that in matters like marriage and divorce, which can't simply be seen as private arrangements involving only the adults concerned, then it is important that the communities involved should incorporate their own rituals. After all, the modern British wedding, even when it is blessed by the church, incorporates a lot of secular elements. Why shouldn't the secular law incorporate gracefully religious sensibilities?

    In the archbishop's vision of a kinder, more feminist, sharia - a vision shared by some reforming Muslims - Islamic law would become an instrument of the liberation of women from their cultural shackles, and the British state would ease the process along. Feminism would become some kind of Islamo-British hybrid, with roots in both systems. Nor is he alone in hoping for this outcome. Something similar lies behind some of the government's recent encouragement of Sufism as a counterbalance to more violent and politicised forms of Islam. If it is true, as the archbishop and his allies argue, that many of the most obnoxious practices in modern Islamic societies are much more cultural than essential to Islam, then sharia courts might just become powerful allies in the struggle against forced marriages, female circumcision, and other evils.

    None the less, the recognition of sharia law isn't just the same as extending the privileges already extended to the Church of England, and it isn't in a way which makes his colleague, the Bishop of Rochester, look more sensible than he is. That, perhaps, is something that only a very clever man could do. The law of the Church of England, because it is an established church, is enforceable, ultimately, by the state. I once very nearly had a photographer friend sent to prison because I encouraged him to take a picture of some Anglican dignitaries in a church who were considering whether the hideous murals around its interior, which had been painted by a previous vicar's boyfriend, could properly be removed. It turned out that to photograph these deliberations was to commit contempt of court, just as much as if my friend had whipped out his Leica at the Old Bailey and he had to make a very grovelling apology to stay on the streets (or, as he drove, the pavements).

    No one would be sent to jail for photographing a sharia court, or even the Orthodox Jewish Beth Din. But in this apparently trivial difference lies the really important point about the relationship between faith and the state. A country can have at most one established religion, whose judgments the state will enforce. Dr Williams, characteristically, is interested in the arguments over what sharia law actually says. The rest of the country is more interested in whether and how it might be enforced. Only if Islamic law can be reduced to a game played between consenting adults can it be acceptably enforced in this country; and that's not, I think, how it can understand itself. Let's hope I'm wrong.
     
  8. I've just created a Poll on this topic. Sorry chaps, I forgot that Sky Pilot = Man of God (alias MOG).

    POLL: Is MOG right?
     
  9. He's only the CSP for the CofE, which only exists because Henry Vlll wanted to shag out of watch, for which, under Sharia law, his wives would have been stoned to death. Oh Henry, what a mong you were!

    Anyone with religion should, necessarily, be excluded from all public office, especially any that requires wearing skirts and interfering with young boys.
     
  10. I'm shocked by this man's stupidity. Basically he is saying that it's inevitable and even actually acceptable to allow British citizens to be terrorised. The callous attitude on the part of the authorities towards the rights of (mainly but not solely) women in the Asian community horrifies me. Man of God my ARRSE! He is a dam ned disgrace and should be ashamed of himself.
     
  11. All this crap about the "you know whats" bores me to death, wish they would just all go on and drop off the end of the earth personally. We can keep the good ones. Like the fit lady "you know whats"
     
  12. Did England ever have religious courts? I seem to remember a thing called Canon Law for the clergy, it may still exist. There are also Jewish courts for settling such things a religious divorce by Jews.
     
  13. Most religions have their own internal process for dealing withinternal matters, but you are right Canon Law did cover a considerable part of ordinary life in the past and was run by the church. Yes the Jew already have a formal process for dealing with various civil matter according to their own religious laws and traditions, and this was what the top bish was suggesting should be allowed for Muslims, though he seemed to have missed the point that it already exists informaly particularly for regulating Islamic divorce. At least the Muslims unlike the Catholics do allow divorce. Equally there are non religious and non court based dispute resolution services regularly used by Joe public as they are cheap and tend not to line lawyers pockets quite as much as the court system does.
     
  14. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    Can the mods merge the two threads pse?
     
  15. That would make life easier.
     
  16. I think that's what they used as punishment during the Indian Mutiny against wheel those guilty bastards in.
     
  17. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    Was not the exemption of Sikhs from wearing crash helmets the start of a slide down a slippery slope?

    1. The Sikh on my BRNC entry never wore his turban for hockey (at which he was so formidable that I used to sign up for his team, knowing he could keep the opposite 11 busy while I spent the afternoon leaning on my stick), he just tied his hair up with a small white ribbon.

    2. Numerous photos of Sikhs in WW2 wearing steel helmets.

    3. I've never seen anyone on a motorbike wearing a turban.
     
  18. Seaweed

    Seaweed War Hero Book Reviewer

    Canon Law still exists and is used for the internal governance of the C of E, quite recently to kick a parson out of his living for adultery.
     

Share This Page