Latest Shouts In The Shoutbox -- View The Shoutbox
The shoutbox is currently offline!

[ Smilies | BBCodes ]

Click Here and visit PuPPs FREE StuFF

This website contains controversial information that may be disturbing to some viewers.
The theories, conclusions and commentaries are presented in an attempt to reveal the hidden truths.
It is up to the viewer to determine what they choose to believe after evaluating all available sources of information.


Does your government represent your best interests?

"Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter."
~ Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.



There is no law preventing the U.S. news media from intentionally lying to the public. Whistle blowers and honest reporters are fired for telling the truth.

Read the Poison Warning label on your toothpaste, then call the 800# and ask;
"Why do you put poison in my toothpaste?"

by Dr. Joseph Mercola

Also: Conspiracy of Silence Video

Equal, Nutra-Sweet and over 6000 food and beverage products contain Aspartame

6. On September 10, 2001, Donald Rumsfeld held a press conference to disclose that over $2,000,000,000,000 (2 Trillion) in Pentagon funds could not be accounted for.
Such a disclosure normally would have sparked a huge scandal. However, the commencement of the [9/11] attack on the World Trade Center and The Pentagon the following morning would assure that the story remained buried.
Serving the greater Los Angeles area,
Los Angeles Drinking Water is proud to offer Reverse Osmosis filtration systems
that remove trace elements such as arsenic, mercury, lead and fluoride
which are known to be in Los Angeles tap water according to
the 2013 DWP Water Quality report.

"If our nation is ever taken over, it will be taken over from within."
~ James Madison, President of the United States

  Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll

> The Archbishop's Speech, Sharia Law

Truth Seeker
Group: Members
Posts: 163
Member No.: 166

Posted: Feb 13 2008, 06:08 PM
Quote Post
friend of mine sent this thought id post it..

The Archbishop's Speech

By Melanie Philips

Spectator, Friday, 8th February 2008

The most bizarre aspect of the Archbishop of Canterbury's extraordinary declaration today of abject religious and cultural surrender to Islam was the extreme lengths to which he went to avoid precisely the furore which has now erupted - and then proceeded dramatically to depart from his own strategy.

In a major lecture this evening, which I attended, he argued for an accommodation between English law and Islamic sharia law: an end to the 'legal monopoly' of English law, in order to allow people to choose between Islamic and English law for the resolution of disputes and the administration of marriage, divorce, inheritance and other matters.

This incendiary proposition was nevertheless expressed in the lecture in language so convoluted and ambiguous - 'nuanced' is, I think, the current expression of choice - that many in the audience admitted they didn't have a clue what on earth he was actually saying.

So nervous was Lambeth Palace, however, that the press would sensationalise his remarks, it tried to control the reaction by restricting embargoed copies of the text so that few papers would be able to report the lecture - and instead giving an exclusive interview with Dr Williams to BBC Radio Four's World at One.

Boy, was that ever a mistake. For in that interview, Dr Williams for some reason abandoned nuance altogether and left no room for doubt about what he
was saying. Which was, in short, that although the sensational reporting of opinion polls recording large numbers of British Muslims who want to live in the UK under Islamic sharia law clouds the issue, the adoption of sharia law in the UK seems unavoidable and indeed desirable, since Muslims should not have to choose between the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty.

So although 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, Muslims should be able to choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a sharia court. Such courts should therefore be incorporated into the British legal system as a constructive accommodation with Islam.

The result of this pre-emptive interview was that, hours before he stood up to deliver his lecture to a packed audience of more than 1000 people in the
Royal Courts of Justice, he had achieved the remarkable feat of uniting the leadership of the entire political class and more - even the leader of the
LibDems! - in a firestorm of condemnation of his astonishing abandonment of the fundamental doctrine of a democratic nation state: equality before the

His argument was quite extraordinarily muddled, absurd and wrong. The European Court of Human Rights has said that sharia law is not compatible
with democracy. Dr Williams himself accepts its principles are pre-modern and oppressive. Yet, arguing disingenuously that There is no single code that can be identified as 'the' sharia but ignoring what inevitably follows - that one cannot therefore tell whether one will end up with the death-to-apostates code or one that is relatively benign (whatever that might mean in this context) - he nevertheless argued that the British state should recognise sharia law as of equal status to English law.

On World at One, he said: An approach to law which simply said - there's one law for everybody - I think that's a bit of a danger.

The implications of this are simply staggering. One law for all is the very basis of legal and social justice and is the glue that binds a society
together. Law is the expression of a society's cultural identity. If there is no one law, there is no one national identity and therefore no society
but instead a set of warring fiefdoms with their own separate jurisdictions.

To enable people to chop and choose between two jurisdictions would destroy the unitary nature of British society and fragment the country. But does Dr
Williams even understand what he himself has said? For after his lecture, he insisted that he was not talking about parallel systems but how the law accommodates Muslim practice. Yet he had specifically said people should be able to choose which system they wanted. Hello? Maybe Dr Williams himself gets lost in the impenetrable thicket of his own verbiage.

Either way, his proposal would also mean that Britain would simply abandon its female Muslim citizens whose parlous position in respect of forced
marriages, honour killings and all the other horrors that follow from their second-class religious status would be institutionalised by giving sharia law official recognition. Dr Williams says such women should still retain the right of appeal to the English courts if their human rights were breached under sharia. What absurdity is this? It is the cultural assumptions which flow from sharia which lead to the oppression of Muslim women. How is the right of appeal to human rights law going to help women who are beaten and killed by men who do it in the name of religion? In order to protect our female Muslim citizens, we need to remove from them the yoke of sharia law, not institutionalise it with the seal of official approval.

Dr Williams appears to believe that English law would somehow absorb sharia. In fact, it would be absorbed by it for the simple reason that sharia brooks
no alternative authority. But the yet more fundamental question is why he thinks we need to find any accommodation with sharia at all. He said there remains a great deal of uncertainty about what degree of accommodation the law of the land can and should give to minority communities with their own strongly entrenched legal and moral codes.

Well no, actually there isn't any uncertainty at all. The rules of our
society have always been entirely clear: one law for all. The only challenge
to that has come from those Muslims who want to destroy that foundational
precept and along with it British culture and western society. And now the
head of the Anglican church has joined them in wanting to tear up the rules
governing the position of minorities which have been perfectly clear ever
since the Enlightenment. These rules hold that religious minorities can
practise their faith and religious precepts but under the over-arching
umbrella of the law of the land. That means where there is a conflict
between minority precepts and the law, the minority gives way. While
minorities should be given the freedom to practise their religion, they must
not seek to impose their own laws and customs on the majority. That is how
overlapping identities can be accommodated; it is how a majority culture can
acknowledge the value of other cultures without destroying itself and a
nation's identity; it is the very essence of a tolerant, decent, liberal
pluralist society.

Every minority until now has lived perfectly happily under that formulation.
What we are now facing is a push by certain British Muslims, backed up by
Islamist violence and intimidation, to change the rules of the national
cultural game. There is only one proper response to that: to say that not
one inch of leeway will be given to sharia law, that British society will
not dilute the legal principles which govern all its citizens, and that
Muslims must observe the same rules that govern every other minority in this

But then, Dr Williams purports not to understand that this indeed the case.
For he used Britain's Jewish community to underpin his claim that there was
nothing particularly untoward about multiple jurisdictions - but in the
process significantly misrepresented Jewish practice to imply, entirely
falsely, that British Jews aren't bound by the law of the land but get an
exemption. He drew an analogy between Islamic sharia courts and Jewish
religious courts. But there is an absolutely crucial difference between

Yes, Jewish religious courts, like sharia courts, deal with such issues as
dispute arbitration, family issues, marriage and divorce. But the Jewish
courts have never sought official recognition of their rulings, and these
are not recognised under English law. Their dispute resolution is informal
and voluntary. Their religious marriage and divorce rituals have no status
in English law (with the exception of one tiny wrinkle designed to help
resolve an anomaly in Jewish divorce law which causes otherwise unavoidable
distress); for the state to recognise their marriages or divorces, Jews have
to marry or be divorced according to English law just like everyone else. If
sharia courts were to operate in this way, there would be no problem. Why
should anyone care, after all, what minorities are doing in the private
sphere as long as it doesn't break the law?

But the crucial difference is that such Muslims want their rulings to be accepted by the state as having
the same legal authority as English law - and Dr Williams is endorsing this.
But it breaks the fundamental precept that Jews have always acknowledged -
that as a minority they live under the law of the land and do not seek to
change it to accommodate them.

After the lecture, I challenged Dr Williams on this point, and said he was
wrong to claim that the state had delegated legal authority to Jewish
religious courts. Jewish religious law was not recognised by or incorporated
into English law, and so I wondered why he thought that Islam alone should
be able to gain special status in opposition to the legal and cultural norms
of this country. He replied:

"I didn't say that Jewish law had been incorporated; I know very well that it
is not. But it has established recognised practices with regard to marriage
and divorce which the law doesn't seek to override or displace. I used the
analogy not to claim privileged access for Islam but to show where a
parallel system of religious law was embedded in our social practice."

But in his lecture he had in fact spoken of whether there should be
.a delegation [from the law of the land] of certain functions to the
religious courts of a community; and this latter question, it should be
remembered, is relevant not only to Islamic law but also to areas of
Orthodox Jewish practice'.

On the contrary: it is not relevant to orthodox Jewish practice, because the
state does not delegate any legal functions to Jewish law at all.

What Dr Williams has effectively said is that a majority culture has no
right to exist and hold the ring for equal citizenship among inhabitants
from different cultures:

The danger is in acting as if the authority that managed the abstract level
of equal citizenship represented a sovereign order which then allowed other
levels to exist. But if the reality of society is plural - as many political
theorists have pointed out - this is a damagingly inadequate account of
common life, in which certain kinds of affiliation are marginalised or
privatised to the extent that what is produced is a ghettoised pattern of
social life, in which particular sorts of interest and of reasoning are
tolerated as private matters but never granted legitimacy in public as part
of a continuing debate about shared goods and priorities.

If therefore we really don't have the right to uphold the primacy of our own
western liberal and Christian laws and traditions, the way is open for
fragmentation and eventual rule by the religious culture which exercises the
strongest muscle. Which is Islam.

People often say the church is now irrelevant. On the contrary - without a
strong religious core providing the moral, ethical and cultural ballast, the
society it has been instrumental in forming becomes intensely vulnerable to
collapse and colonization. The defense mounted by politicians becomes an
empty shell - particularly when we can see they are already running scared
and selling the cultural pass with measures such as sharia finance or
welfare benefits for polygamous wives.

Is this really the way the history of a nation, which has for the last
thousand years fought off invasion and defended its independence and the
liberty it created for the world, finally ends - with the head of its
established church on his knees before terror?

Truth is stranger than fiction
PMEmail PosterYahooMSN

Truth Seeker
Group: Members
Posts: 163
Member No.: 166

Posted: Feb 13 2008, 07:03 PM
Quote Post
Since Dr Williams pronouncements about introducing Sharia law into the UK, this debate has just become a whole lot more relevant with the Anglican Archbishop of WA saying he agrees 'in principle' with these views despite worldwide condmnation. I would be inclined to say that anyone who agrees with such views has in fact lost sight of the Principle upon which Democratic Western societies have been built, that is Judeo-Christian beliefs. The following article by Melanie Philips who I believe is a secular UK writer, shows great insight by building upon her assumption of this as the foundation of the Westminister System of Law and Western Democracy.
Why do these Church leaders get it so wrong when our Carpenter King said it so simply - 'a house divided against itself cannot stand' and Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation. He should know - He is the Chief Cornerstone built upon the foundation of 'the Apostles and prophets, not Sharia law. And as Ps 11 warns us 'If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do? '
We need to be aware of what and who we are dealing with and remember the admonition 'can two walk together unless they be agreed?'
In a future email I would like to cite the experiences and advice of a former Muslim activist turned Christian whose ministry is to educate Christians and others about the true nature of Islam.
Until then - every blessing and hope you find the article informative and challenging

Truth is stranger than fiction
PMEmail PosterYahooMSN

Topic Options Reply to this topicStart new topicStart Poll


[ Script Execution time: 0.0479 ]   [ 17 queries used ]   [ GZIP Enabled ]

"Whoever controls the volume of money in any country is absolute master of all industry and commerce."
~ James A. Garfield, President of the United States


"Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation, and I care not who makes its laws."
~ Amschel Mayer Rothschild