![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ajvaWhat?
What? What? WHAT?
Let's see:
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
What?
But Dr Williams says the argument that "there's one law for everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger".
SPLUTTER!!!!!! WTF? One law for all is a danger? A DANGER? What sort of idiocy is this? One law for all is the only way to do it. One law for all - as an ideological aim - defines the better traditions of this country: not one law for the rich, one law for the poor; not one law for men, one law for women etc. It is an ideal not always reached in practice, but held dear as an ideal. And three cheers for that.
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."
Nonsense. The law of the land should not be subject to influence by religious forces, directly or indirectly. If there be a stand-off in the mind of a religious person, then it is up to that person to live according to their own conscience, and to accept the legal consequences should there be any. It is not acceptable to alter the law to accommodate their religious prejudices.
"We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."
Exceptionally muddle-headed thinking, tantamount to advocating fundamentalist appeasement in my view. We should not officially accommodate separate religious law in this country. Both philosophically and practically it would be very dangerous indeed.
I have thought for some time that Dr. Williams might be a little cowardly in some respects, but I'd given him the benefit of the doubt over the homosexuality in the C of E issue, since I could see that he is in a difficult position politically if he wishes to prevent schism. However, this is the last straw. The man is totally undeserving of the respect of the secular community in this country IMV.
What? What? WHAT?
Let's see:
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
What?
But Dr Williams says the argument that "there's one law for everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger".
SPLUTTER!!!!!! WTF? One law for all is a danger? A DANGER? What sort of idiocy is this? One law for all is the only way to do it. One law for all - as an ideological aim - defines the better traditions of this country: not one law for the rich, one law for the poor; not one law for men, one law for women etc. It is an ideal not always reached in practice, but held dear as an ideal. And three cheers for that.
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."
Nonsense. The law of the land should not be subject to influence by religious forces, directly or indirectly. If there be a stand-off in the mind of a religious person, then it is up to that person to live according to their own conscience, and to accept the legal consequences should there be any. It is not acceptable to alter the law to accommodate their religious prejudices.
"We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."
Exceptionally muddle-headed thinking, tantamount to advocating fundamentalist appeasement in my view. We should not officially accommodate separate religious law in this country. Both philosophically and practically it would be very dangerous indeed.
I have thought for some time that Dr. Williams might be a little cowardly in some respects, but I'd given him the benefit of the doubt over the homosexuality in the C of E issue, since I could see that he is in a difficult position politically if he wishes to prevent schism. However, this is the last straw. The man is totally undeserving of the respect of the secular community in this country IMV.
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 04:57 pm (UTC)There should be one law for everybody and that should be all there is to be said.
And gods, can you imagine the slippery slope? We reach a constructive accommodation on this thing, and then that thing, and then we're in this horrible grey area where there are no absolutes and some people want to carry things to their logical conclusions! Just don't start!
no subject
Date: 2008-02-07 05:11 pm (UTC)"Under English law, people may devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process."
"Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category."
To my mind, that's still 'one law for everybody', because everybody has that option.