Comments

Choosing words — 6 Comments

  1. Ian, it does not really matter what group the Archbishop of Canterbury was speaking to yesterday. Was he off duty and there in civvies? I am sure he was wearing his badges of Office a cross and a ring. Being well educated he must know, that when he opens his mouth in public, he will be quoted, misquoted and his words taken out of context.

    From a totally non religious point of view my blood boiled. Why? His idea might, and I say might, have a bearing in certain circumstances, but if the laws are changed or new ones introduced, then any good lawyer can use the changes to their own purposes and to suit a client. Remember a lawyer does not need to believe his client is not guilty; he only needs to prove that the person did not commit the crime.

    I was not born in the country where I reside but I DO live by the laws here. I stand for the National Anthem and sing along with everyone else. In my early days a friend from the south was with me on one occasion where the National Anthem was played. She was horrified at me singing it. I turned to and said “I am prepared to accept the Children’s Allowance and free NHS so singing the National Anthem is part of the deal!â€?

    If I go to a Moslem country I expect to live their laws and not expect that they change them for me.

  2. Hear Hear Grannymar We are British and every-one coming to my country to live will abide by our laws. I am from the West-country where perhaps our views are slightly narrower than the masses. I think the Archbishop does need someone to proof read his thoughts.

  3. I assume you’re talking about the suggestion that the legal system adopt some edicts of the Sharia law? I was flabbergasted. Whilst I applaud retaining cultural identity when one emigrates to another country, they have to adopt the laws of that country. Would the Iranians for instance not cut off the hands of a European thief if they were resident? I also remember a couple of Australian boys being flogged for flauting Sharia law a few years back. It’s a preposterous suggestion to my mind. I applaud some cultural leeway such as letting Australian moslems wear their hijab to school (there were suggestions this should be disallowed because a full burkha could hide weapons for goodness sakes but sense prevailed) but to change the law to suit an ethnic minority – sheer madness. This is why Church and State must remain separate.

  4. I don’t think the law is divisible. Williams seemed to envisage that things like divorce might be handled in Moslem courts, but there are many dimensions to such cases. If what is proposed is fully compliant with British law, then why the need for different courts? If it is not compliant, then it is not acceptable.

    I agree with separation of Church and State.

  5. It is a pity that Williams does not recognise that there is a separation between the Church and State, or has he, as some seem to think, been misrepresented by the media. Maybe I am mistaken but I think that his remarks as head of the Anglican church have done much to alienate the church

  6. But that’s the problem, England does not have separation of Church and State. Williams speaks as leader of the Established Church, as a bishop and as a politician who has a seat by right in the House of Lords. If there were to be the disestablishment of the Church of England, half of the furore would not have arisen because he would be of no more significance than the president of the Methodist Church and his remarks, misrepresented or not, would not be of much interest to anyone except his own church members.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *