And just wait until they start lining the ladies up in the local soccer stadium.
Posted on 02/07/2008 6:03:54 AM PST by Sub-Driver
Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable' The Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is "unavoidable".
Dr Williams told BBC Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting some aspects of Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London later on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood. At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.
He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
But Dr Williams says the argument that "there's one law for everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger".
"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."
Dr Williams adds: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.bbc.co.uk ...
Over a decade ago back in the Dark Ages of Clinton a small group of conservatives were warning about Islam. They were derided as “racists and bigots” by the same folks who now warn us of “Islamofacism.” Problem is few take Freudian clown polemics seriously, its like putting the Seinfeld clown show in charge of national policy, a disaster.
Yep. I was one of them.
On the other hand, we (and our present and potential enemies) have weapons which can target whole societies as such, with ghastly consequences which would be both geographically and intergenerationally indiscriminate (I'm thinking, for instance, of genotoxins.)
I suspect we are more likely to use the former, and jihadi nihilists more likely to use the latter. This is because our aims are different: our aim (I hope) is to stop aggressors and render them unable to carry out further aggression. Their aim is to either totally dominate, or totally destroy the "infidels," even if it involves their own certain death (which they would regard as glorious.)
There had better be a distinction between their strategic aims, and ours. If there were not, it would make little difference which side won.
And BTW, Sherman was, beyond debate, a man who used the crushing of helpless American civilians as an instrument of state policy. Lincoln should have sacked him --- or hung him.
Lincoln put him up to it and approved of everything he did.
Had Sherman Not marched through Georgia and the Carolinas, the war could have gone on until 1867 or 68. And that war being the type of war it was, how many more hundreds of thousands of young men on both sides might have died had the war been prolonged? Or worse, what if the administration following Lincoln’s had decided they’d had enough and made peace with the Confederacy, thereby creating two nations instead of the one strong one that came out of the Civil War poised to grow into the most powerful nation the world had ever seen?
“In war, there’s no substitute for absolute victory.”
-Douglas Mac Arthur
So much the worse for St. Abraham.
"Had Sherman Not marched through Georgia and the Carolinas, the war could have gone on until 1867 or 68. "
That is pure speculation., A counter-case can be made that the South fought on, ragged and hungry, for season after season against overwhelming odds, precisely because they were fighting, not for "the Conferacy" and not for "slavery" --- surely not here in East Tennessee --- but for their farms and families who faced catastrophic ruin and death by starvation.
In any case, this kind of consequentialism is no moral justification, since the method --- intentionally maximizing the suffering of the civilian population --- is not the method of the warrior, but of the terrorist.
Intentional systematic destruction of resources crucial for civilian survival (crops, livestock, food storage, drinking water) is prohibited by the UCMJ, which lays out the responsibilities for conduct of all US servicemen while in service and the penalties for transgression.
Targeting civilians is unreservedly condemned by the laws of your God, your faith, your country, and your humanity.
It's hard to believe that you actually think you can defeat Islamofascists by imitating their madcap, makeshift, miniscule morality. Defeat them? If you've already adopted their mindset, they've already won.
I believe it is marxist in origin.
May I borrow that for a tagline?
It’s yours.
Really, Emp, where is your usual reasoned self-restraint?
It kind of went out the window under a combination of absolute flabbergastedness over the Archbishop’s lunacy and possibly one two many Manhattans.
Forgive such intemperance.
;-)
Tell you what, with the disintegration of the British nationhood it is not too far-fetched to expect that the British juriprudence should follow suit and disintegrate.
Blackstone is spinning in his grave.
There are no women’s right’s activists in Britain?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.