Archbishop: Sharia law in UK 'seems unavoidable'

[SpoiledPrincess]

They're no better or worse than we, and we treat them like shit./quote]

Muslims in this country are not treated like shit, they're given a voice they don't have in their own country and how they misuse that voice.

I believe I'm better than someone who would belong to a religion that condones execution for adultery.

 

[DC_DEEP]

"Occupation" and "Immigration" are they that different if you really think about it?

I agreed with your post up to this point. In fact, occupation and immigration are almost polar opposites.

 

[playainda336]

Muslims in this country are not treated like shit, they're given a voice they don't have in their own country and how they misuse that voice.

I believe I'm better than someone who would belong to a religion that condones execution for adultery.

I was referring to "we" in the United States, there. I guess I should've clarified.

And check the post right above yours. Like I said, I do not agree with Sharia law. I do find it barbaric, by all means. Then again, I find the death penalty barbaric in general. You'd think that people would understand there is worst torment than death.

But hey, if I say that, I'll hear people screaming down my back about how the death penalty is fair...and if you think about it, that's the same barbaric law as Sharia. Eye for an eye...tooth for a tooth. You're no better because you pick and choose when you want to utilize it.

I agreed with your post up to this point. In fact, occupation and immigration are almost polar opposites.

Connotatively or denotatively?

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

I think when past occupations are referred to they're not a valid parallel, we occupied India for instance but along with our imperialism we also contributed to Indian society, as far as I can see Islam offers me nothing that I want.

 

[Rugbypup]

There's the Hijab. Come on, some folks would look better covered up, lol.

 

[playainda336]

For argument's sake, I'll agree and say that when Europeans occupy (see "invade") other people's countries the progress made was a combination of factors that included both the resources of foreigners and the natives.

However, without being able to change history, one cannot accurately discern whether or not the advancement would have happened naturally or not.

 

[Cobalt Blue]

... Veils should be banned, they're divisive and used as a way of remaining separate apart from the legal implications. If you come here be prepared to fit in here.

Absolutely, Princess. The veil should indeed be banned, it is not a part of traditional Muslim dress, but is worn here, by choice, as a way of giving the finger to the indigenous population. However, we have a government only too willing to accomodate these millions of Fifth Columnists amongst us, Islamists who publicly and illegally demonstrate their hatred of our people and culture yet go unpunished; who refuse to condemn heartily the terrorist outrages against us committed by their offspring born in this country; who tacitly support these attacks, and openly express their desire for the imposition of Sharia Law.

If they don'tlike British law and the British way of doing things - don't come here (or do they like our free health service and the handouts they automatically get?). I do not remember past immigrants such as the Ugandan Asians demanding changes to the law etc. It seems that the British establishment is always falling over backwards to accommodate and be PC, ...

drainman, I remember an excellent interview by the television journalist Jon Snow, who asked an Islamist student born in this country and full of hatred towards any non-Muslim, if he did not feel in any way hypocritical since he had enjoyed the fruits of a free health service throughout his life and an expensive university education at the British taxpayer's expense. This ungrateful piece of s**t simply kept repeating the phrase 'Allah provides' over and over until the honourable Mr Snow gave up. Regrettably, this seems to be the salient attitude of Muslims living here, and the reason why their presence is so resented.

I may be giving the chap too much credit here, but a part of me suspects he made that statement because he knew it would touch a nerve and create a backlash against the idea of sharia law.

Rob, I don't think you are giving him too much credit: Rowan Williams is a prodiguously intelligent man, I too suspect that he said this to spark a debate that he knew would ensue. I don't believe for one moment that he has any more time for Sharia law than you or me.

People might say, to be politically correct, that we welcome Muslims, but there's a lot of unrest about it here, I'll probably get shouted down, but anyone who talks with friends, with people on the street, with anyone in an unguarded moment is bloody sick of the way they come over here then want us to kowtow to their 'needs', we're not allowed to comment on Islam in any way negatively without them kicking up a fuss, whilst they think they're entitled to preach hatred and destruction towards whoever they want. ...

Princess, you will not get shouted down, certainly not by anyone who lives here and cherishes the British way of life which we have fought for and died for over countless centuries. You may get shouted down by liberal, politically-correct Americans who have no concept of what this country is turning into by dint of inaction by weak and cowardly politicians. To those liberals may I say this, it may be unpalatable, but speak to any Mr or Mrs average in the street, [or John Doe as I believe you call him] and you will be shocked at his strength of feeling regarding the Muslim issue.

 

[playainda336]

Saying "Allah provides" is different from saying "God provides"?

Truth be told, I'd feel the exact same way towards the person that said either. One day you have to step outside of your box and at least acknowledge that people have to do things sometimes.

But the more I read into the situation it seems like we're dealing with some religious extremists on both sides of the spectrum. It makes the whole "shindig" distasteful to me and I lose interest. lol

 

[Guy-jin]

Ban Muslims from immigrating to your country and remove those who cause trouble.

Countries have done such things before to great success.

History of Japan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Freedom is one thing. But people do not have the freedom to immigrate to your country at will or force their will on you once they do immigrate to your country.

Kick it old school: Kick them out if they won't play by your rules. It's your country, after all.

 

[SpoiledPrincess]

If we had some politicians with balls thats what would happen.

 

[playainda336]

One thing I do agree about is thus...if you move to another country, then you move with full knowledge that you must adapt to their country. That is how it should be.

...Not so much how it was performed in the past, but definitely how it should be.

That's why the United States has regulations on people immigrating to the country. Recently, however, we've had quite the influx from Mexico to the point where we almost NEED to be a bilingual country...not to accommodate them, but to accommodate ourselves from being outcasts in our own country. Fortunately, most of them are Christians, so it's not too difficult...for us.

I don't think that Sharia law should be implemented into UK culture and I do feel that it is a step back to quite the barbaric of law systems. People should not be stoned to death for cheating or have their hands chopped off for stealing. While, I'm pretty sure less people would cheat and/or steal, it's just not proper. People change and deserve the chance to change over time. The law is quite outdated as are many others in many other countries, but Sharia is quite antiquated in comparison.

At the same time, I cannot condone the negative talk about Muslims (in general). Especially the comment about "Allah provide" and the response "ZOMG! HE SED ALLAH INSTEAD OF JEEBUS!"

I tend to attempt to focus on issues that can be universalized...and I cannot find the means to universalize such statements.

 

[titan1968]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I don't hold a personal grudge against Muslims (some of my friends are), but when I see a woman in a veil, I see red.

The accomodation of Non-Christians (e.g. Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus) is also a controversial topic in Canada. There have been too many slip-ups already. For example, in the 1990s, an RCMP officer, who happened to be a (religious) Sikh felt that he had the right to wear his ''turban'' with his uniform-- and our Supreme Court sided with him. It's sickening. If I were a Mountie and went to work in sandals, I would be disciplined, would I not? A uniform is a uniform, and the same rules should apply to all groups.

As far as I'm concerned, the religious laws of those groups (e.g Sharia) are incompatible with our national laws and must be banned. Furthermore, if those groups wish to live as they did in their home countries, then they must return to them.

People might say, to be politically correct, that we welcome Muslims, but there's a lot of unrest about it here, I'll probably get shouted down, but anyone who talks with friends, with people on the street, with anyone in an unguarded moment is bloody sick of the way they come over here then want us to kowtow to their 'needs', we're not allowed to comment on Islam in any way negatively without them kicking up a fuss, whilst they think they're entitled to preach hatred and destruction towards whoever they want. Veils should be banned, they're divisive and used as a way of remaining separate apart from the legal implications. If you come here be prepared to fit in here.

 

[DC_DEEP]

I think when past occupations are referred to they're not a valid parallel, we occupied India for instance but along with our imperialism we also contributed to Indian society, as far as I can see Islam offers me nothing that I want.

Perhaps. But those contributions may not have been wanted, certainly not at the expense the Indians had to pay.

Ban Muslims from immigrating to your country and remove those who cause trouble.
<...>
Freedom is one thing. But people do not have the freedom to immigrate to your country at will or force their will on you once they do immigrate to your country.

Kick it old school: Kick them out if they won't play by your rules. It's your country, after all.

I would agree, except I wouldn't say "ban Muslims". I would say "don't permit immigrants who do not agree to abide by the rules."

Connotatively or denotatively?

I referred to "occupation" as a government, by force, invading a country and subjugating that country's population, and immigration as individuals moving to a different country with the intent of becoming a citizen.

 

[playainda336]

I agree with you wholeheartedly. I don't hold a personal grudge against Muslims (some of my friends are), but when I see a woman in a veil, I see red.

The accomodation of Non-Christians (e.g. Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus) is also a controversial topic in Canada. There have been too many slip-ups already. For example, in the 1990s, an RCMP officer, who happened to be a (religious) Sikh felt that he had the right to wear his ''turban'' with his uniform-- and our Supreme Court sided with him. It's sickening. If I were a Mountie and went to work in sandals, I would be disciplined, would I not? A uniform is a uniform, and the same rules should apply to all groups.

As far as I'm concerned, the religious laws of those groups (e.g Sharia) are incompatible with our national laws and must be banned. Furthermore, if those groups wish to live as they did in their home countries, then they must return to them.

If you enlist in a job, you should know what the job requires and act accordingly. If you're supposed to wear a Mountie hat, then yes...you shouldn't wear a turban.

However, where I draw a line from your statement is that what you do in your home is ok in your home. I wouldn't say they can't live as they want to live. As long as they can live abiding our laws and still retain their own culture, what is the problem?

 

[SteveHd]

To those of you who advocate banning the veil, would you allow the one which leaves the face exposed? Put another way: allow the scarf [I don't know the name] that covers the top of the head?

 

[Rugbypup]

Respectfully, Muslims born in England should show their patriotism to England and English law.

Islam in not a nationality, it does not provide their education or health care, England does.

Your English 1st, Muslim 2nd.

We are for ever being told how as a nation we need to be more tolorent and accpeting of multicultralism, that we are one diverse people.

Then why the fuck do practioners of the islamic faith in the UK try so hard to segrigate themselve. Schools, language, laws, communities...

In some schools in the UK English is a second language to Urdu. The mayor of Slough cant even fucking speak English.

It's fucking wrong.

 

[2322]

The veil thing is where the US and UK diverge completely. In our system, people are allowed to wear whatever they want. Merchants may refuse to serve anyone they wish as employers may refuse to hire anyone they wish so long as it does not violate Equal Opportunity Employment (EOE) laws, but otherwise, if you want to walk around in a chicken suit in public then you're free to do so. Obscenity laws excepted, we do not believe the government has a right to legislate what someone wears in their private life.

 

[Drifterwood]

The thing is RP, that many immigrant groups realise that their culture will be absorbed and that by the third generation, their grand children will be as British as you or I. So they try extra hard to remain true to what their culture is or was ironically (ex pats are always a bit out of date). If there is a religion involved, then this is another barrier that is kept up against integration. Greeks, Italians etc do it as much as Muslims.

 

[playainda336]

Respectfully, Muslims born in England should show their patriotism to England and English law.

I despise that word.

Patriotism.

Why not just they should abide by the laws. Patriotism, IMHO, implies a blind following in which one would perform the inane all in the service duty to one's government, whether corrupt or not.

 

[Drifterwood]

The veil thing is where the US and UK diverge completely. In our system, people are allowed to wear whatever they want. Merchants may refuse to serve anyone they wish as employers may refuse to hire anyone they wish so long as it does not violate Equal Opportunity Employment (EOE) laws, but otherwise, if you want to walk around in a chicken suit in public then you're free to do so. Obscenity laws excepted, we do not believe the government has a right to legislate what someone wears in their private life.

Same in the UK actually Jason. Are you thinking of France?