Idiot Bishop: Sharia Law unavoidable

And the Muslims will outlaw movies, so I can't see my favorite actress
......Dhimmi Moore.

But we will have more time to contemplate the sound of
"one hand clapping...and eating...and washing....etc. etc."

Except for five minutes every morning on Thought for the Day.

Williams is a twat. And, I suspect, rather jealous of the average Muslim cleric - who is, after all, taken rather more seriously by his congregation than Williams ever has been.

But let's get a few things straight: there are certain aspects of Sharia law that have to be allowed here - and in every other western country - simply to allow Muslims to lead normal lives.
Specifically, the only way a woman can divorce her husband completely is through a religious court. She might get a civil divorce, but until a court agrees, she can't marry again. And there's no difference between that and a Jewish woman obtaining a Get, something that's been allowed here and in the US for centuries.

And I strongly suspect that settling such disputes is all we're talking about, so I'm not going to start screaming 'the sky is falling'.

[?=Danny boy, I've found your new avatar:][/?]

Well, a sane person would frame that as allowing a religious court to act in the same fashion as any other arbitrator. Calling this "Sharia" rather than "arbitration" is a sign of the crazy.

The bishop has no authority, he's just expressing his silly opinions. Not like what he says will ever become law. If Muslims want to have religious marriages/divorces then fine, but no way should a religious ruling be accepted by civil law.

Wow, Dan...

Marx said that when the Revolution came, the capitalist would be hanged with the rope he sold the proletariat.

When Islam comes, the radically tolerant will be the first victims of the intolerance they've invited.

By "we," I think you mean white, nominally Christian Brits.

Don't look now, but there is an increasing number of Brits who don't fit that description and who do listen to their religious leaders. You may not; they do.

This bishop isn't making this statement in a vacuum. He's saying it because it's a matter of public debate at some level; it's significant enough to comment on publically. And he's sending a message to a lot of people who may indeed take what he has to say seriously.

Not being funny, but their numbers over here aren't growing nearly as fast as they are in your backyard.
And he doesn't mean 'white, nominally christian'. He means white, black, and brown. He means christian, sikh, hindu, jewish, and even, in a lot of places, muslim.
The fastest growing religion in the UK ATM is Catholicism, fuelled by the influx of Eastern Europeans. Now that still bothers me - in my perfect world, all religion would wither on the vine - but it's slightly surprising how off base the perception of others is.

Oh, as I understand it, rastafarianism isn't doing too badly, either. But most of them are too stoned to get violent.

Let me know when Rastafarians start bombing train stations.

Or when Atheists start engaging in mass murder.

Oh, wait.

They already have.

That's the second time you mentioned Marx in as many days. Been reading or something?

Good catch, although I had chalked it up to coincidence.

I read a book last month called Comrades, a history of world communism by Oxford professor Robert Service, so I may very well have Marx on the brain at the moment.

Did these "atheists" claim they were committing mass murder in the name of atheism?

Every proposal I have seen about this type of thing seems to say that prior to proceedings beginning both participants would have to agree that they wanted it.

Much the same as over in America people can choose to settle their legal disputes on a show like Judge Judy.

If two people choose to settle their disputes using their religious beliefs as the guidelines I see no problem, with the caveat that if one of the parties decides they don't want the religious rules then the standard laws apply, so no-ones rights can be violated.

It seems many of the same people complaining about this are the ones who are most vocal about government intrusion. Isn't it then best for the government to try and let people sort out their problems themselves without imposing itself?

Why is there no such hysteria over the fact British Jews have exactly the same thing (Beth Din) the Bishop is suggesting Muslims have?

Because Jews keep their religious laws to their own kind?
Muslims would force their laws upon all the whole world through force if given half a chance.

Most people believe a world takeover by Muslims is more likely than a world takeover by Jews.

We're talking about issues concerning Muslims only, e.g. marriage, wills etc. If the Jews have the same system for their personal affairs that are upheld by civil courts, then how can we deny the same for other faiths?

Do you honestly believe that if Muslims started successfully establishing Shariaw Law in private matters that it wouldn't start spilling over into public (for all citizens) domain? Are you willing to take that chance?

I for one wouldn't want the West resembling Saudie Arabia. Bad enough we do business with them, but at least most of their bullshit (other than terrorism) is confined to their own country.

You do know that Muslims number just around 5% of the UK population don't you? I doubt we'll reach the stage where Saudi-style laws will govern the UK.

Maybe not in the near future anyway.

There are no aspects of Sharia law that should be allowed at all. The same applies to any other religion as well. Religious law, civil or criminal, has no place in any society anymore. It helped provide the foundation of our society but we no longer need it to keep functioning as a society.

Look how easily you are willing to tell another woman who she can and can't marry. Needs the permission of a court? A religious court?

Muslims in the UK can follow UK law. If they want Sharia law they need to move to countries that still use religious law to oppress their peoples.

If you are willing to say, "there are certain aspects of Sharia law that have to be allowed here - and in every other western country - simply to allow Muslims to lead normal lives," will you apply that to other religions? Catholics not allowing Catholic women to get abortions. Christians (in general) not allowing evolution to be taught to their kids? After all denying them those rights would cause them to not be able to lead normal lives.

One can only hope they continue posting here up to the last day so we can mock and laugh at them incessantly. Especially Dan Leach and Henryhill.

Dan Leach and henryhill don't seem particularly tolerant to me. They seem as disgusted by sharia law as everyone else does.

How are they more accomodating than anyone else?

Wow!

After 14 posts you know everything about Dan Leach and Henryhill! Amazing!

Huh?

So what if i can't spell?

He's right. I don't recall ever being tolerant of Islamic extremism.