Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org

mairead · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:37 pm Post subject: Anither Churchman.

Alhough this time it is an English Churchman, we have yet another example of the clergy sticking their nose into politics. This time the Archbishop of Westminster.

_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life

Holebender · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 4:47 pm Post subject:

A reference would have been nice.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

mairead · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:07 am Post subject:

Sorry Holebender,
I was referring to his comments about Sharia law and this country's law.
_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life

Rinty · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 10:15 am Post subject:

The reaction To his comments are outrageous.

We already have separate ways of dealing with things, for police, armed forces, schools (they dont always go to police to sort out illegal matters). We have unofficial jewish settlement courts.

All of our marriage and divorce laws are based on christian concepts.

He merely suggested that, like the jewish arbritation courts, sharia courts could settle some petty claims and family matters and if both parties are happy with it, what's the problem?

I also think he was lobbying for religion in general as he sees the grip of religion on laws slipping away with civil partnerships etc.

Holebender · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:04 pm Post subject:

I think the problem is with his use of the word "inevitable", as well as with his lobbying for a religious influence on the law.

mairead, he's the Archbish of Canterbury.
_________________
"My instinct is to agree with your opinion of his verse, but I've never so much as glanced at it." - agentmancuso

Cymro · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:04 pm Post subject:

The only stupid thing Rowan Williams did here was trust the trash Tabloids would actually report what he said as opposed to a version of what he said which makes a better story. This later snowballs when people read whas the Tabloids say as opposed to what the Archbish said and take that as being the truth.

He didn't say, "Sharia Law should be a part of UK law", or "Sharia Law could run side by side with English Law". He merely pointed out that elements of what is regarded as Sharia Law are already in place in the UK, mostly on a voluntary basis. Not one mention of it therefore being legal to stone women, torture etc though that hasn't stopped the press from reporting it like that.

If I see that daft old woman from the synod on the tv telling me how he should resign one more time I'm going to scream (not much else I can do).

Aventinian · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:56 pm Post subject:

It's quite disgraceful how he is being treated.

Moreover, what he has said is true. If the state wants to keep things like marriage within its grip (which personally I see no point in) then it will need to accommodate other religious understandings of such concepts.
_________________
The resident pantomime villain.
'Socialists cry "Power to the people", and raise the clenched fist as they say it. We all know what they really mean—power over people, power to the State.'

mairead · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:21 pm Post subject:

Thanks holebender. I always seem to make some daft mistake don't I : Embarassed

Put it down to auld age. Very Happy

_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life

RFM · Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:53 am Post subject:

Don't blame yourself,mairead. The discussion forum on Scotsman newspaper is unbelievably outrageous

Aventinian has put his finger right on the issue though. When groups of people do not find the solutions they need in the existing legal framework of a country they create their own and agree by common consensus to be bound by their adopted system. The result is the government quickly learns it has no power or control or even any knowledge of what is going on. Consider the Mormons in western America who still practice polygamy although it is against state and federal law. Religious jews still consent to the jurisdiction of rabbinical courts although their decrees can not be enforced in most instances in the common law courts.

Canada in 1997 adopted an Arbitration Act which specifically included family matters, such as divorce, adoption, custody etc. Under Shaira law, a woman has almost no rights at all in comparison to the divorce laws of the western nations. The Canadian muslim organisations took up the cause for muslim women and after a lot of publicity, all of it negative, the Province of Ontario was forced to amend the Arbitration Act to exclude family matters. Many Canadians wrongfully believed that it was Sharia that was outlawed, but no not at all. Sharia also includes civil and commercial disputes, dietary issues, religious questions, probate and inheritance, etc. Those matters can be and I imagine still are being rsolved under the Act.

mairead · Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 5:39 pm Post subject:

Thanks RFM.
I don't know enough about Sharia law to be able to comment on it, but what incenses me is when churchmen, of any denomination, get involved in politics. If they all stuck to preaching and religion maybe the churches and chapels of this country wouold not be so empty.
I just feel that these churchmen would like a return to the days when the churches rules the country, (And got rich doing it).
_________________
I fear not hell, nor English strife,
For Scotland, I will give my life

RFM · Posted: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:54 pm Post subject:

Hi mairead,

Given the long historical involvement of the Church of Scotland in affairs normally reserved to government, I can certainly understand why Scots would be wary of church in politics.

Actually, to his great credit, the Archbishop of Canterbury is raising an issue politicians are too cowardly or to dumb to raise on their own. As Archbishop he has a moral duty to raise exactly those kinds of questions.