Soccer Mom: Unplugged

raves, rants, reviews and recounts of life in middle America

2008/2/8

Cohesion for cohesion's sake

@ 04:31 PM (5 months, 16 days ago)

According to the Evening Standard, "The archbishop of Canterbury has today [02/07/08] said that the adoption of Islamic sharia law in the UK is 'unavoidable' and that it would help maintain social cohesion." 

In an effort to help maintain social cohesion... where have I heard something similar?  Oh yeah, here.  And here. And here.  Sacrifice principle for cohesion - okay.  Catch you later I'm running out to vote for John McCain and to buy a prayer rug.

Comment(s) »

  1. Guess you'll need your yamulke too.

    You'll note in reading this article this key passage:

    Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.

    "The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.

    People may legally 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.

    The country's main Beth Din at Finchley in north London oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/08 @ 06:55 PM — (Reply)

  2. Some of the assessments of the bishop's comments are that he is 'crazy like a fox' and measured his words carefully. Perhaps the reaction to his words is overblown because he was taken out of context.

    However, I just don't think it is reasonable or responsible to allow people to choose their legal system. Did you read about the boys who knifed another teen and then were freed by a sharia court after paying a fine? How does that protect other potential victims - society at large? This goes well beyond divorce disputes and civil cases.

    This is a slippery slope - can two cannibals decide to eat/be eaten (that happened in Germany, if memory serves) and then waive criminal prosecution by going to their own court? Can polygamists decide their own marriage laws? Who decided which religious/cultural courts are valid and which (satanists, wiccans, transgendered folks, etc...) aren't? You could argue that "battered wives" are a cultural group - should they arbitrate their own homicide cases when a wife kills her abusive husband?

    Mediation is great but it should be subject to the law of the land in a way that protects not just the interest of those directly involved but the interest of society at large.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/02/09 @ 11:21 AM — (Reply)

  3. Two legal systems can't work. Not in one country. Imagine? It's like gay marriage. I have never understood how a couple can marry in a state that accepts it and then move to a state which does not. THEN what? Am I missing something?
    You can't have a civil society in which one guy can kill his daughter for dating a man of a different faith and get away with it because of one law while the father next door kills his daughter in a drunken rage and goes to the gallows. It doesn't work!
    The only thing positive about this English mess is that the English MIGHT sit up and finally take REAL notice of these nut jobs like the Archibishop. WHEN is Europe going to stand up and say "we're DONE...you follow OUR rules, dress like WE do, speak like WE DO (at least at business, etc.) or you go home". WHEN?

    Comment by Z— 2008/02/12 @ 07:08 PM — (Reply)

  4. Keep wishin', Z. The Brits, indeed all of Western Europe, have had ample opportunity to get this derailed train back on the tracks and haven't done so. Now, watching the wreck in progress, I don't hold out hope - I only pray we aren't next.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/02/14 @ 03:12 PM — (Reply)

  5. I agree Cate...there were some Muslim brothers who raped young girls (one a 13 yr old) in Australia, videotaped it ...were caught and their father demanded they be tried by a Sharia Court ....he believed they would be freed

    it can't and shouldn't happen


    BTW - what do you think of Romney's endorsement of McCain tomorrow?

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/14 @ 10:41 AM — (Reply)

  6. I think Romney is trying to help bring together a fractured party by making a "greater good" move. He was very specific in his endorsement - referencing the war on terror as a point of agreement - which I thought was telling. He clearly has very different ideas than McCain and the endorsement was all about the good of the party - so I felt that he did what he thought was best for the GOP while trying to stand true to his principles. Won't make me vote for McCain, though.

    I also thought it was very pathetic that within minutes, FoxNewsChannel interviewed Huckabee who spent the entire time blasting Romney, who is no longer in the race. The Huckster has a personality disorder.

    Should Juan get some sense and appoint a strong conservative as his running mate, then I'll reconsider because he looked like a doddering old fool next to Romney on screen and he may not survive his term in office.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/02/14 @ 03:09 PM — (Reply)

  7. alas I missed the speech but Romney's selflessness I'm sure was evident

    Comment by Elmers Brother— 2008/02/14 @ 03:20 PM — (Reply)

  8. Actually, I thought he was trying hard to sell party unity but his body language indicated he'll be a "hold your nose and vote" guy.

    Comment by Cate— 2008/02/15 @ 02:07 PM — (Reply)

  9. probably less selfless and more like earning his blood wings in the party - the ultimate initiation into the fraternity is endorsing that upperclassman that you loathe :lol:

    Comment by Cate— 2008/02/15 @ 02:09 PM — (Reply)

  10. Cate....I never want to hear you mention buying a PRAYER RUG again. PLEEEEEEASE!!!???
    Makes my stomach hurt..literally!

    check out the piece 'a friend' wrote on my blog...about Turkish (non)assimilation into Germany.

    Comment by z— 2008/02/18 @ 10:00 AM — (Reply)

» Leave a comment


:mrgreen: :neutral: :twisted: :arrow: :shock: :smile: :???: :cool: :evil: :grin: :idea: :oops: :razz: :roll: :wink: :cry: :eek: :lol: :mad: :sad: :!: :?:

Preview:

You say:

To prevent spam, please type in the exact word you see in this image: CAPTCHA
To refresh the image, click here. Otherwise, contact us.

  • Your E-mail address is never displayed. If you enter it, it will only be visible to the blog author
  • Since there already are comments to this post, your eventual comment might trigger a notification e-mail to the persons that commented before you.
  • The line and paragraph breaks automatically