You know that old saying, “There will always be an England?” There won’t, if dhimmis like the Archbishop of Canterbury persist in undermining the legal foundations of Western civilization:
Certainly, no-one is likely to suppose that a scheme allowing for supplementary jurisdiction will be simple, and the history of experiments in this direction amply illustrates the problems. But if one approaches it along the lines sketched by Shachar in the monograph quoted earlier, it might be possible to think in terms of what she calls ‘transformative accommodation’: a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters, so that ‘power-holders are forced to compete for the loyalty of their shared constituents’ (122). This may include aspects of marital law, the regulation of financial transactions and authorised structures of mediation and conflict resolution
But if what we want socially is a pattern of relations in which a plurality of divers and overlapping affiliations work for a common good, and in which groups of serious and profound conviction are not systematically faced with the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty, it seems unavoidable.
In other words, if Britain’s Muslim colonizers aren’t loyal to British laws and institutions, we must institute Muslim laws and institutions in piecemeal fashion. Jolly good.
UPDATE: Lest readers think I’m being a Chicken Little regarding the decline and fall of the world’s greatest empire:
A fifth of British teenagers believe Sir Winston Churchill was a fictional character, while many think Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur and Eleanor Rigby were real, a survey shows.
The canvass of 3,000 under-twenties uncovered an extraordinary paucity of basic historical knowledge that older generations take for granted.
Despite his celebrated military reputation, 47 per cent of respondents dismissed the 12th-century crusading English king Richard the Lionheart as fictional.
Filed Under Faith, Front Page, National ·
Comments
40 Responses to “Archbishop of Canterbury: Sharia ‘unavoidable’”Search
Our Sponsors
Poll
Loading ...LST Book Club
-
Defending Identity: Its Indispensable Role in Protecting Democracy
by Natan Sharansky -
Fear No Evil
by Natan Sharansky -
The Case For Democracy: The Power of Freedom to Overcome Tyranny and Terror
by Anatoly Shcharansky -
The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel's Soul
by Yoram Hazony -
Bobos in Paradise: The New Upper Class and How They Got There
by David Brooks -
Snobbery: The American Version
by Joseph Epstein -
A Conflict of Visions: Idealogical Origins of Political Struggles
by Thomas Sowell
The question is, will the Muslims have better teeth?
On the serious side, visit Europe before it ceases to exsist.
The good Archbishop has lost his marbles.
/sound of a toilet flushing
Bye, bye England
The flush toilet was invented in England… or was that a myth?
But Mo’s children in the London Madrasas are learning all about Saladin and his conquests, and that they were not myth……
Fight the wot and become a muslim nation?
Nice.
Englishmen - buy yourself a prayer rug.
BTW
Is that a joke to my right? Muslims singles advertising on LST. singlemuslim.com?
Hey, man, you might want to check out some of them single muslim women… oh, sure.
Mohammad is the second most popular baby name in England now.
Get it? It’s over for them and once we elect a socialist muslim we too will practically be a muslim country.
Have a nice day.
T-Hawk, how many times does the claim about Obama being muslim have to be disproved before you stop calling him a muslim?
9, Moose
If the sheet fits……
Simple
The Arch is a loon. Savage tore this topic up yesterday.
The good archbishop has spoken with greater clarity here than on any of his pronouncements on Anglican ecclesiology. Perhaps he has already bowed the knee to Allah.
#12 Bill
You’ve forgotten the Episcopal priest in Seattle who has converted to Islam. However, she intends to continue serving in the Church as well as attending her mosque on Fridays. Nobody in the Anglican hierarchy said a word to the contrary as far as I know. Williams is just following in her footsteps.
12
Yes. Archbishop Williams sits on the fence, picking his teeth, making bizarre pronouncements while the entire Anglican Communion realigns itself. He has a remarkable lack of courage.
12
Here’s a lengthy treatise on Archbishop William’s three decade long march of denying/ignoring Scriptural Authority.
Link for #15:
http://www.virtueonline.org/portal/content/Williamsandscripture.pdf
The chaos the Episcopal/Anglican Church finds itself in is distressing to fellow Christian observers but must be unbearable to members who are trying to restore order and theology.
The Queen of England should call for the removal Rowan Williams as Archbishop. I think she has the authority to force a court of Bishops.
The Church of England has been in free fall for the last 25 years. It has abandoned the traditons and doctrines that kept it cohesive and dignified.
Europe has fallen into secularism and marxism because of it’s apathy and selfishness. The US is headed that way.
Sounds similar to this former Archbishop of Canterbury that Colin Powell was talking to.
The occasion was an address to the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland on January 26, 2003, wherein Powell defended the U.S. government’s position that the use of military force against Saddam Hussein, unilateral or otherwise, was not only justified but necessary if the complete disarmament of Iraq could not be achieved by other means.
In a question-and-answer session afterwards, the secretary of state was asked by former Archbishop of Canterbury George Carey if he felt the U.S and its allies had given due consideration to the use of “soft power” — promulgating moral and democratic values as a means of achieving progress towards international peace and stability, basically — versus the “hard power” of military force.
Powell responded, “Far from being the Great Satan, I would say that we are the Great Protector. We have sent men and women from the armed forces of the United States to other parts of the world throughout the past century to put down oppression. We defeated Fascism. We defeated Communism. We saved Europe in World War I and World War II. We were willing to do it, glad to do it. We went to Korea. We went to Vietnam. All in the interest of preserving the rights of people.
And when all those conflicts were over, what did we do? Did we stay and conquer? Did we say, “Okay, we defeated Germany. Now Germany belongs to us? We defeated Japan, so Japan belongs to us”? No. What did we do? We built them up. We gave them democratic systems which they have embraced totally to their soul. And did we ask for any land? No, the only land we ever asked for was enough land to bury our dead. And that is the kind of nation we are.”
When this happens, won’t the Arch Bishop be beheaded for not being one of them? Has he thought this thing thru?
Which one of you will rid me of this preist?
Time for the Archbishop to resign.
#9 About a million more times.
With this statement…
A fifth of British teenagers believe Sir Winston Churchill was a fictional character, while many think Sherlock Holmes, King Arthur and Eleanor Rigby were real, a survey shows.
It sounds like their public school system is much like ours.
Good point DJ, lets keep tossing more money at ours.
Other than Obama saying he would go into Pakistan after Osama, what is Obama’s plan to defeat global Islamic terrorism.
Duhmoose, you know I have always respected your commentary. However, I don’t trust this guy’s loyalty to this country. I am not saying he’s a Muslim, and I’m not saying he attended a radical madrassah as a child. I know those are not true.
However, he distances himself from anything patriotic. He has attended, and until recently supported, a church which espouses racial intolerance of people who are not black, and in fact embrace racists like Farrakhan. The guy simply doesn’t have a clue about anything involving the use of the military, diplomatic relations, and free enterprise economics. He does appear adept at media manipulation though. More than him, I fear the nature of the people he might actually appoint to cabinet positions and court justices.
25: Amen BIG
HAL has two of mine; one here & one on the OC–this one was from CNSNews:
“Has the archbishop gone bonkers?” asked Ruth Gledhill, religion correspondent at the London Times, saying that “incredulous commentators of every variety” had been stunned by Williams’ remarks.
“Is the Archbishop of Canterbury unaware of the history of the church he has been chosen to lead?” she asked. “The Church of England was born out of an express desire to rid Britain of a foreign, ecclesiastical jurisdiction [the Roman Catholic Church].”
And now, she said, Williams wants to introduce a new outside jurisdiction — “and an Islamic one at that!”
Guess it was the link that did it.
Sent email Bigs re: Bonkers
The deranged statements of the Archbishop are the result of the head of the Anglical Church not being a Christian.
But, we can push Hillary into the democrat lead, and defeat her. Then we can vote in McCain……. yes I know I have been violently ( not eloquently) opposed to him. But, I love this country and my vote will go to a republican. Even if the republican only wears his republican suit once a week. I just can’t let Hillary have this, and I am not sure we can beat Obama.
AW: OMG, be still ny heart and thank you Lord–she done seen the light! Hallelujah! Welcome to the grown-ups, Sal
Oh Hush Kent, My bark is always worse than my bite lol
Barry,
While it may appear that HRH Queen Elizabeth II selected the Archbishop, the selection was actually made by Tony Blair. As figurehead, she got to present the selection to Parliament and pretend it was her own. We’ll never know what she really thinks about the moron - she could give a clam lessons in being close-mouthed.
The American Episcopal church and the Anglican church in England are going to heck in a handbasket. Only the African branch is sticking to the Church’s core beliefs.
The few US church who are adhering to old, core beliefs are being threatened with the loss of their property and expulsion from the national church. What must God think? It’s enough to make me consider becoming Catholic.
Does any know what Sharia Law is? Other than hearing horror news from different media channels about the medieval laws followed in Saudi Arabia?
Has anyone bothered to read archbishop’s entire lecture regarding the application of Sharia law in UK (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581)?
Please put your biases aside, be fair and seek the truth. Otherwise there will be no difference between you and the narrow minded, bigoted and extremist folks who carried out 9/11 or 7/7.
Peace!
Yeah, I do. No thanks…I like beer and charging interest.
Yes. The defense of Western Civilization was digustingly absent.
Except for the fact that I’m a peaceful, tolerant member of an open society, while they were bloodthirsty zealots who murdered thousands.
Other than that, yeah, we’re just the same.
“Yeah, I do. No thanks…I like beer and charging interest.”
Good for you. Go get drunk and charge interest. I am sure good thing things will follow you.
“Yes. The defense of Western Civilization was digustingly absent.”
My friend you still don’t get it. There is a thing called “humanity”, which is not bound to any specific region or civilization.
“Except for the fact that I’m a peaceful, tolerant member of an open society, while they were bloodthirsty zealots who murdered thousands. Other than that, yeah, we’re just the same.”
You are peaceful, tolerant member of an open society….really? The same society which can’t tell the difference between flying a plane into a building or dropping mother of all bomb on innocent civilians? You definitely got this one right….”yeah, we’re just the same.”
Peace!
I’m reasonably certain that my head will remain in its factory-preset attached-to-my-body position.
Yes.
So, the terrorists we kill in Iraq and Afghanistan are “innocent civilians,” but the victims of 9/11 are “a building?”
It’s plain to me that you’re wrapping your animosity in a Kumbaya cloak.
“So, the terrorists we kill in Iraq and Afghanistan are “innocent civilians,” but the victims of 9/11 are “a building?””
According to John Hopkins independent study (http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2006/burnham_iraq_2006.html) the estimated Iraqi fatalities up to year 2006 are 654,965 (easily above million now). Are all Iraqi’s terrorists? What about half a million Iraqi children who died from lack of nutrition or medication due to sanctions?….where these children terrorist too? Did the 911 commission found any pre-war link between Iraq and the terrorists?
Sorry for my bad choice of words. The life of all innocent people killed on 911 (inside the building, on plane or anywhere) was equally precious than life of any innocent person in the world.
Peace!
The Hopkins study has been roundly discredited. Responsible people don’t use a poll to determine facts, and that’s what the Hopkins researchers did.
No, their government was. You’ll note that members of the Republican Guard had plenty of food, weaponry, medical attention and supplies during that time period.