"Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'"??????????

[Senjojutsu]

Well, now we have proof positive that the old Upper Class British tradition of sending the family dimwit into the clergy is still alive and well.

Firstly no one actually takes any notice of the Archbishop of Canterbury lol not even the Chirch of England

Sharia law row: Archbishop is in shock as he faces demands to quit

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...ry+calls+for+Sharia+law+in+Britain/article.do

Well some people have taken notice, it appears there has been a backlash against this pabulum-puking liberal cleric.

Maybe this is still hope for "The Britons".

...or maybe it is just a small respite as the appeasing tide will be too strong both in that country... and ours.

 

[Tez3]

Sharia law row: Archbishop is in shock as he faces demands to quit

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/...ry+calls+for+Sharia+law+in+Britain/article.do

Well some people have taken notice, it appears there has been a backlash against this pabulum-puking liberal cleric.

Maybe this is still hope for "The Britons".

...or maybe it is just a small respite as the appeasing tide will be too strong both in that country... and ours.

Firstly as far as the 'Britons' part of it goes, English law is different from Scottish and Irish laws so we would only have been talking about English law. The Church of England again only pertains to those who are members of it, which while many put their faith down as Protestant doesn't mean to say they are Church of England so we aren't talking about a whole load of people here. The Archbishop is basically an academic with little 'real world' experience, it wouldn't have occured to him that voicing this opinion would upset people. They may have taken notice of what he said in this case but no one will have actually thought anything he called for would ever happen. I think too that calling him names is uncalled for just because you disagree with his opinion nor should you assume things about our country such as calling us appeasers.

Edit - you can read for yourself what he said and reply to him if you wish.
www.archbishopofcanterbury.org

 

[Senjojutsu]

I think too that calling him names is uncalled for just because you disagree with his opinion nor should you assume things about our country such as calling us appeasers.

Tez3,

Actually you have a lovely country, and I for one would like to see it survive and prosper. I travel to your country to do training as often as I can. I have been known even to go into Scotland - even though I’m still irritated with the English about the Battle of the Boyne and its aftermath (That's Irish genetics).

FYI, "The Britons" was a little tongue-in-cheek typing since I saw the Monty Python inspired play "Spamalot" last week.

However "political correctness" has run amok in both your country, the USA and in the rest of Western World, especially among the academics and "ruling elite". Many subject threads on this board highlight it. I have read many stories illustrating it on online UK newspapers, or in print in person. Last year while in your country I read one story where NOT ONE classic British author (like the ones I was required to read in my college days) was to be included in a proposed recommended literature readings within a local English school curriculum program. Yes I will call ideas like that names.

For what is national sovereignty if you do not maintain your borders, language, customs, common laws and historical identities? Oh, and teach them to your children and not sacrifice them on the altar of diversity.

 

[Sukerkin]

It's an interesting point Senjo.

It's a perilous line to try to walk, however, for where is the demarcation between not allowing your own traditions to be supplanted by the immigration tide and suppressing the cultures that come in?

We 'Britons' (Peasant: "'Who're the Britons?") have done rather well historically out of absorbing and adapting other ways with our own, after all.

What's going wrong now is the Over-PC enforcement that you mention and an over sensitivity to the 'rights' of those who want to live here who don't actually want to be British.

An example of this I read just yesterday was of a Catholic schoolgirl (no low-humour please ) forbidden to wear a badge of a saint, who was the patron of her school, because it was religiously provocative! Now I'm darned near atheist and even I think that's ridiculous.

 

[Tez3]

It's an interesting point Senjo.

It's a perilous line to try to walk, however, for where is the demarcation between not allowing your own traditions to be supplanted by the immigration tide and suppressing the cultures that come in?

We 'Britons' (Peasant: "'Who're the Britons?") have done rather well historically out of absorbing and adapting other ways with our own, after all.

What's going wrong now is the Over-PC enforcement that you mention and an over sensitivity to the 'rights' of those who want to live here who don't actually want to be British.

An example of this I read just yesterday was of a Catholic schoolgirl (no low-humour please ) forbidden to wear a badge of a saint, who was the patron of her school, because it was religiously provocative! Now I'm darned near atheist and even I think that's ridiculous.

Where was this Sukerkin? If it's anywhere other than NI it's ridiculous. In NI though it could be very provocative and start a riot!

 

[Doc_Jude]

An example of this I read just yesterday was of a Catholic schoolgirl (no low-humour please ) forbidden to wear a badge of a saint, who was the patron of her school, because it was religiously provocative! Now I'm darned near atheist and even I think that's ridiculous.

Wow. Sounds like some UK folks need to get their heads screwed on straight. Ridiculous.

 

[Sukerkin]

It was on the BBC web-site, Tez so I don't know if it's still 'viewable' or not given how transient the topics can be there. I can't recall where the school was located off the top of my head ... I was too busy going "Whaaa ...?!" to commit that factlet to memory .

 

[Archangel M]

The original idea of "America" [if it ever lived up to its advertizing may be up for debate but nevertheless] was that you could come here and practice whatever religion you desired, celebrate whatever traditions you desired, reside where you wanted and pretty much live life any way you wanted as long as it was legal. All you had to do was live by our laws, speak our language [as in not expect everybody else to accomodate your language of choice. Show an effort to learn it.] and desire to be an American rather than an "X"-American. Somewhere along the line [I suspect the 1960's]. We lost sight of that.

X= your ethnicity of choice.

 

[Tez3]

Wow. Sounds like some UK folks need to get their heads screwed on straight. Ridiculous.

I'm afraid this is far from ridiculous and is far more serious than perhaps you'd first think. As I suspected this is in Northern Ireland where as you may know sectarian violence is always brewing just under the surface.
The Orangemen will certainly see the wearing of a badge depicting a Catholic saint as provocative. Despite the 'Peace' procss there things are actually very little changed other than the overt violence is less, there are still as many murders, kneecappings and beatings up as ever.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7234414.stm

 

[jks9199]

Finally took the time to read this thread.

The part that bothers me the most -- and it's something I keep running into in what they label "cultural diversity" classes -- is that if someone doesn't relate to the laws of the place they live, those who live there have to adapt to the newcomer. Something's wrong there... If I choose to live somewhere, I have to accept the laws that bind that society, not continue to live by the rules of where I came from. I can work through the appropriate legal process if I wish to change the laws... but I can't simply state "I don't relate to that..."

I'm Roman Catholic. There are courts of Canon Law, that decide CHURCH issues. But they aren't a substitute or replacement for the government's court. If I obtain an annulment, but don't obtain a civil divorce -- I'm still married in the eyes of the law. And, the converse is true; if I get a civil divorce, but not an annulment -- I'm still married in the eyes of the Church. They aren't equal -- they're different. My priest may forgive me of a sin, and I may complete my penance... but if that sin was also a crime, it's not a substitute for a prison sentence or fine.

Let me return to the idea of "cultural diversity" and adapting to the newcomer. Something is very wrong in my opinion when I'm expected to change my culture to fit someone who has chosen to come into my place and refuses to learn, or if they learn, to comply with the laws here. I can understand making reasonable allowances for cultural differences -- but when they cross the line into the commission of crimes, we've passed "cultural diversity." An example cited in one of the mandatory training classes I recently had to attend was someone who stole bicycles because, in his culture, if something wasn't secured (locked up or tied down), then they didn't want it anymore and it was free for the taking! Supposedly, this person wasn't charged... (I only know of one culture like that -- and the Gypsies have been active and somewhat integrated into the US for many, many years... and they know it's stealing to anyone else.) That's ********. Or, to use an example that I've personally encountered, in many Latin American cultures, it's not unusual for a man in his late twenties or thirties to be dating or even marry a girl in her mid to late teens. There are a lot of reasons for this... but it's not okay here in the US. If a guy is just talking to or asking out a girl, yeah, you can educate him. But, if he's crossed the line into what Piers Anthony calls "the adult conspiracy"... Nope. Charge his ***. Convict him.

 

[Big Don]

Perhaps there is a lesson for all nations in this speech by President Theodore Roosevelt, that is perhaps there is no room in the UK for hyphenated Britons either, nor, in France for hyphenated Frenchmen.

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all.
This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance.
But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.
The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English- Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian- Americans, or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality than with the other citizens of the American Republic.
The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American.
12 October 1915

 

[Archangel M]

Amen.

I welcome all good "Americans".

Regardless of where they come from.

 

[tellner]

The problem is reciprocity. I'll introduce Sharia into my country's law about the same time that Saudi Arabia institutes the Sanhedrin or the Catholic Church bows to secular law in secular matters. In other words, "When rocks fly, and winos don't get high, when James Brown ain't funky and King Kong ain't a monkey, When snow is hot and fire is not".

 

[SageGhost83]

You see, this is what happens when liberalism runs amok and hippies have their way. Anything that offends someone, usually a minority, is automatically deemed evil, politically incorrect and struck down by threat of litigation or worse. Yet, everything that said minority does, even if it is deeply offensive to the majority and/or inhumane, is respected and held up as being 'diversity' or 'multi-culturalism'. No matter what happens, there is going to be someone who is not pleased. That is just how the world works. You can't please everybody. so why then should we disenfranchise the majority in the vain attempt of actually being able to please a smaller segment of the country? The last time I checked, Democracy was MAJORITY rule. If those who are in disagreement with the majority don't like it, then that's tough - leave. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to stay here, you are free to go anytime that you like. This isn't 'progress', this is stupidity. There is a such thing as too much liberalism. You must draw the line somewhere. However, if the treehuggers did that and found out that all of the 'diversity' that they encouraged was actually detrimental to the nation as a whole, then they would be forced to admit they were wrong and we all know that they would never do that, especially after all of 'the love and peace' songs and counterculture and whatnot. By the way, I am a minority. However, anybody with common sense and a willingness to be brutally honest with themselves can see that there is something seriously F'ed up going on here when the smaller segment of society is dictating the fundamental laws within a *Democracy*.

 

[Carol]

How many Khaledas are out there?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=513757&in_page_id=1879

These days Khaleda Begum, 25, hardly leaves the confines of her one-bedroom flat.


And when she does, her heart thumps and she looks over her shoulder in terror. For, in the eyes of her Muslim family, Khaleda has done the unthinkable.


Disgusted by her arranged marriage to a cousin - a suitor found for her by her father - she has fled her family home and now, fearful of reprisals, lives under police protection.

 

[Sukerkin]

I do concur that these things happen all the time ... and not just for girls either. A chap I work with has had to have an arranged marriage and altho' he doesn't speak of it, from the marked change in his demeanour I don't think it's something he would have chosen to do.

It's not our custom anymore, so we react to it badly as it smacks oh-so-faintly of slavery. I would normally take the stand that it's not our culture so we shouldn't judge too quickly but, as these young people are essentially British subjects who have lived a different life to that of their parents, I can see why we should perhaps see some changes in the law.