A number of posts mention the fact that when the British go to live (or indeed travel) abroad they have to respect the laws/rules/culture of the "host nation". Do you honestly believe that the British got their huge empire (which could start a whole new debate) by respecting the laws/rules/customs of the nations that they took over ?
jamesk - I liked your post (although i may not agree with everything you've said) and i sure as hell like your style 😎
1. A number of posts mention the fact that when the British go to live (or indeed travel) abroad they have to respect the laws/rules/culture of the "host nation". Do you honestly believe that the British got their huge empire (which could start a whole new debate) by respecting the laws/rules/customs of the nations that they took over ?
2. jamesk - I liked your post (although i may not agree with everything you've said) and i sure as hell like your style 😎
Hi happygirl.
Greetings.
I hope everything is fine with you. You seem to think I have something against you personally. I assure you that I have not. On the contrary, I wish you well.
I have no reason to believe that you are anything other than a fine person. But that does not mean I shall not challenge your arguments.
I would like to mention two points.
1. Why is that relevant to this particular thread?
Why is the past history of the British Empire relevant to this discussion?
Are you implying that the British Muslims see themselves as empire-builders in this country?
2. You don't say!;)
Regards.
Prashna
Wow! What an interesting debate... I've resisted the temptation to get stuck in until now, but I just thought I'd mention one point that hasn't been raised so far, in among the hysterics and the red herrings (I'm not just talking about hp - the day after Williams's speech, the Sun had a headline saying something like "The terrorists have won"!).
Clearly the archbishop wasn't suggesting we should stone women to death or start killing cows in a different way. Nor was he advocating a parallel system of justice for one section of society.
What you have to remember is that he is a religious leader and he was speaking from the point of view of someone who believes that organised religions have a part to play in society. Some of us would disagree with him there. But it's hardly a surprising view in someone whose living depends on the continued role of religion in Britain. But if you accept that religion does have a role - for example, that marriages should be allowed in church buildings - then what he is suggesting and envisaging is really not that extraordinary.
And while most of us would agree that everyone in Britain should be subject to British law, that law is not set in stone. It has evolved over the centuries. If it hadn't, we would still be carrying out some of the practices that many people have condemned for their continuing existence in some of the more oppressive Islamic states. The law will continue to evolve. And as far as I'm concerned (and I was recently accused on another thread of not making clear what I believe) it would be for the best if religion - whether Christian, Islamic, Jewish or anything more bonkers - has as little influence as possible in the development of our legal system.
Oh... that's two points. Sorry.
Wow! What an interesting debate... I've resisted the temptation to get stuck in until now,
1. What you have to remember is that he is a religious leader and he was speaking from the point of view of someone who believes that organised religions have a part to play in society.
2. it would be for the best if religion - whether Christian, Islamic, Jewish or anything more bonkers - has as little influence as possible in the development of our legal system.Oh... that's two points. Sorry.
Why sorry, supersub,
I for one enjoyed your post and I am sure that I am not alone.
I have numbered your 2 points for accuracy in response, I hope you don't mind.
Preamble : a little of what you fancy does you good.
1. Indeed. Dr. Rowan Williams is a UK citizen too, unless, of course, you know different!
2. Absolutely.
In a secular democracy there should be absolute separation between religion and state.
Simple as that.
That was the precise point I was making. Equality in Law, believer or non-believer, sex, colour, creed, sexual orientation etc. are irrelevant.
A critical principle that must not be crossed.
Regards.
Prashna
Yes, indeed, Rowan Williams is a British citizen (I think Welsh people still count as British citizens!), but he made his speech in his capacity as leader of the Church of England - which is the established church, but only one of several major religions actually practised in this country.
What does 'British' really mean?
Yes, indeed, Rowan Williams is a British citizen (I think Welsh people still count as British citizens!), but he made his speech in his capacity as leader of the Church of England
The Welsh are descended from the original ancient Britons, the Brythonic people, who were the indigenous, pre-Roman inhabitants of most of the island of Great Britain. The Brythonic language was an ancient form of Welsh, and it was the national language (still spoken in parts of Scotland up to the 14th century) prior to the Anglo Saxon invasions.
In other words the Welsh are 'native' Britons. If some of these 'us and them' arguments are taken to their extreme any laws not created by a Welshman (or woman) should be struck from the statute books (not a bad idea actually :)).
It could further be argued that Dr. Rowan Williams is our modern day arch-druid, and in that capacity I think he probably has the power to make laws and banish newspaper editors.
Barafundle said:
The problem with this whole topic is the mindset that only wants to see 'them' and 'us'.
The bit I don't get, remembering that I began this thread to learn so I can make my own mind up about Sharia is, if there is no 'us' and 'them' and we are all Bristish Citizens (which I agree we are) then why do they want a seperate and different law?
While they are wanting something different from what we have, stemming from their own culture and beliefs people will always believe and think it is 'us' and 'them'.
I remember the gay pride marches in Manchester in the late 80's they were marching to be viewed as just like everyone else, no better, no worse but equal and all the same (which I fully agree with) a few weeks later they were having a protest in the hope of gaining a 'gay only' afternoon at a community swimming baths (which they got) but everyone was up in arms saying "ok so you are just the same, equal and whatnot, so if your so equal and like everyone else what do you need a 'gay afternoon swim" for?
Love and Angel Hugs
Rebecca xx
huraah some one has got it ,well done becky
Barafundle said:
The problem with this whole topic is the mindset that only wants to see 'them' and 'us'.
The bit I don't get, remembering that I began this thread to learn so I can make my own mind up about Sharia is, if there is no 'us' and 'them' and we are all Bristish Citizens (which I agree we are) then why do they want a seperate and different law?
While they are wanting something different from what we have, stemming from their own culture and beliefs people will always believe and think it is 'us' and 'them'.
Exactly.
You can take social groupings to any level of granularity you like, from as small as your own beliefs through the beliefs of your family group, to your local community, your religious group, your county, your country and beyond.
The problem is when people look at one group e.g. British Muslims and believe that that group is a "them" that doesn't belong with the "us" because that group is not part of t'other.
Firstly we have to recognise that whilst everyone who is British is an "us" we also have the smaller "them" groups that make up the "us". So there will always be a "them and us" recognition.
Socialogical groups always want to change things with an aim to improving things for their own group and this is why conflict occurs. The larger group of "us" in the UK has set down laws and there will always be smaller "them" groups that don't like those laws and want change. We see this on a fairly high level with the political parties wanting to get into power so that they can change things their way, but likewise you also get the smaller groups having their say, which is only effective if there is enough belief behind that group to get it to a position where it can change things. In this case we have the a group that has it's ideas of law (whether those ideas come from a religion or another country is irrelevant) and they are calling to have some "right" to be able to use those laws within the bounds of the current UK laws.
As someone else mentioned above, if there is enough call for it then there is no reason that such things cannot go through the official channels (local MP's, elections etc.), be taken into parliament and then implemented. If the group is too small to gather such backing then there is no logical reason for such things to be implemented into the larger group of UK law. If one small group is allowed to implement it's own local laws then what is to prevent other small groups from demanding the same. If this were to happen then the larger criminal justice system becomes chaos, let alone a nightmare to administer.
Love and Reiki Hugs
So long as we’re individuals (and thank God we are all individuals not some awful bland homogenous group) then we’ll always have various groups having different requuirements. After all – most of us probably have British passports and/or live in Britain but we’re all different in terms of gender, race/grouping, age, religion, sexual orientation etc. As an example - I’m Welsh so I perhaps feel very different from others who are Scottish – yet we’re both British but equally are probably both proud of our separate cultures, languages and ancestry etc. Many "rights" we have now have been hard fought by various groups in the past e.g. if it wasn't for peeps fighting for the Welsh language in the past and not kowtowing to the status quo - it would be dead now, if it wasn't for women fighting hard for their rights - they'd still be second class citizens. So in reality, groups of people do have to stand up for themselves.
Personally I can see why some gays may want their own sessions in a swimming pool – after all there are loads of other groups (women, men, children, various religious groups) having their own swimming sessions in my local pool - so why not gays ??
There also seems to be a muddling of equality and people being treated equally. If you want everyone to be treated equally then you can’t favour one group over another – everyone has to be treated exactly the same. Sounds great - except then things like disabled parking bays would then be illegal as they “favour” the disabled over the non-disabled. So in order to give equality to disadvantaged groups (e.g the disabled) you can’t treat everyone the same – it’s not possible. So yes some groups do have to be treated more favourably than the rest in order to achieve equality.
Barafundle said:
The problem with this whole topic is the mindset that only wants to see 'them' and 'us'.
The bit I don't get, remembering that I began this thread to learn so I can make my own mind up about Sharia is, if there is no 'us' and 'them' and we are all Bristish Citizens (which I agree we are) then why do they want a seperate and different law?
While they are wanting something different from what we have, stemming from their own culture and beliefs people will always believe and think it is 'us' and 'them'.Rebecca xx
Thank you Becky,
for a most sensible post.
It's time some common sense prevailed.
Well done.
The fact is that Britain has had many many groups of immigrants over the last century or two even. The Chinese, for example.
You never hear too much about them
Why? Because they blend in, try to respect the local culture, integrate as much as possible.
Doesn't mean they give up their culture, or food or dress. You only have to look at the popularity of the Chinese take-aways and restaurants, their colourful New year parades to realise that. But they do integrate, because they actually try to.
The Muslim immigration has occurred largely in the last 2-3 decades. Hardly a day goes by without yet another Muslim demand or plea for special treatment. A Mosque here, a Madrassa there, an Islamic school elsewhere. Then there are the long drawn law suits about Islamic dress and compensation claims. The list just goes on and on.
If there is a sense of them and us as far as Muslims are concerned, I believe they are largely responsible themselves for creating that sense of unease.
I myself am an immigrant and in my experience, the British and the Irish are among the most tolerant and hospitable people on Earth.
Yet I have often heard ordinary British men and women, who are by no means xenophobic express their utter exasperation with the seemingly continuous demand from the Muslim minority for special treatment.
And some of them are highly educated professional people that I have known, respected and worked with for over 3 decades!
Regards.
Prashna
The Muslim immigration has occurred largely in the last 2-3 decades. Hardly a day goes by without yet another Muslim demand or plea for special treatment. A Mosque here, a Madrassa there, an Islamic school elsewhere.
Eh? This whole story began because a religious leader suggested that religious groups might be allowed to organise their own affairs. As I made clear above, I'm not generally in favour of organised religion, but I do respect other people's views.
But you seem to be making out that being Muslim is a nationality, like being Chinese. It's not, it's a religion. And Muslims come from all over the world. Yes, some of them are even white Britons.
So what's this about special demands for mosques? They don't demand mosques. They build them. In the same way that Christians build churches. Why is that special treatment? I don't believe in faith schools, but given this Government's enthusiasm for them, it doesn't seem unreasonable for Muslims to want their own. That's not special treatment - that's equal treatment.
Many "rights" we have now have been hard fought by various groups in the past e.g. if it wasn't for peeps fighting for the Welsh language in the past and not kowtowing to the status quo - it would be dead now, if it wasn't for women fighting hard for their rights - they'd still be second class citizens. So in reality, groups of people do have to stand up for themselves.
Sounds great - except then things like disabled parking bays would then be illegal as they favour the disabled over the non-disabled. So in order to give equality to disadvantaged groups (e.g the disabled) you cant treat everyone the same its not possible. So yes some groups do have to be treated more favourably than the rest in order to achieve equality.
Well said. It wasn't so very long ago Welsh speaking children were punished for speaking their own language in the classroom, and a little while before that clergymen were burned for preaching in Welsh. Being a minority in itself doesn't make you wrong.
Eh? This whole story began because a religious leader suggested that religious groups might be allowed to organise their own affairs. As I made clear above, I'm not generally in favour of organised religion, but I do respect other people's views.
But you seem to be making out that being Muslim is a nationality, like being Chinese. It's not, it's a religion. And Muslims come from all over the world. Yes, some of them are even white Britons.
So what's this about special demands for mosques? They don't demand mosques. They build them. In the same way that Christians build churches. Why is that special treatment? I don't believe in faith schools, but given this Government's enthusiasm for them, it doesn't seem unreasonable for Muslims to want their own. That's not special treatment - that's equal treatment.
Spot on!
I myself am an immigrant and in my experience, the British and the Irish are among the most tolerant and hospitable people on Earth.
Funny you should say that Prashna because that's not the way I remember it when Asian (ie Hindu) immigration started with the expulsion of Asians who had the right of abode in Britain from Kenya and Uganda and Zanzibar, although I understand that Asians also came to Britain post World War II. (Presumably, as many came from Pakistan and the Punjab, some of these Asians were Muslim.) But my point is that I remember the racism and hatred that these immigrants had to face. I seem to remember in one of your earlier posts (not on this thread) you yourself said you had faced racism in Britain. As far as I recall, with the ignorance typical of the British yob 'Paki go home' didn't discriminate between Muslim and Hindu.
Yet I have often heard ordinary British men and women, who are by no means xenophobic express their utter exasperation with the seemingly continuous demand from the Muslim minority for special treatment.
You know, I think this is a myth. OK, here and there a devout Muslim schoolgirl goes to court for the right to be veiled in school. Sometimes the court rules in her favour. In the case of the schoolteacher who wished to cover her face, didn't she lose? I don't hear the Muslim Council of Great Britain demanding that they be allowed to implement full sharia law, and even if they did, I don't believe it would ever be allowed. But the head of the Church of England, who was applauded in the General Synod only yesterday, has suggested that some disputes might be mediated by a tribunal similar to that which operates with regard to Orthodox Judaism.
The confusion surely arises through calling it 'Sharia Law' - many people, including a lot of people on this thread think that this is going to replace the large body of laws which make up our justice system. It's not. Nor did the Archbishop suggest that it should. NO ONE IS GOING TO START STONING PEOPLE TO DEATH IN THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN, NORTHERN IRELAND, CHANNEL ISLANDS, ISLE OF MAN, ORKNEY ISLANDS, SHETLANDS OR THE ISLE OF WIGHT.
So what's the problem?
xx
1 Funny you should say that Prashna
2.NO ONE IS GOING TO START STONING PEOPLE TO DEATH IN THE UNITED KINGDOM OF GREAT BRITAIN, NORTHERN IRELAND, CHANNEL ISLANDS, ISLE OF MAN, ORKNEY ISLANDS, SHETLANDS OR THE ISLE OF WIGHT.
So what's the problem?xx
Hi Sunanda,
Nice of you to drop by.
I shall respond to the only 2 points I can find in your post.
1. Yes, I did. And I still stand by every word I have written, before and now.
I have experienced discrimination or the lack of it in more than one country and continent. Therefore, I can compare them directly from my personal experience.
Yes, I have experienced some discrimination in Britain, but not often.
I have experienced far more in other countries, even in India.
I still say Britain is one of the most tolerant countries on Earth.
2. I have had it stated to me, even by a Moderator, that caps in posts amount to shouting and therefore is poor etiquette.
I hope you will take note of that. I can read your post without caps, for your information.
The problem is simple and staring you in the face.
I have never claimed that the Muslims are asking for "stoning people to death". I would have liked to have quoted you exactly, but could not because of your liberal use of caps.
I hope you will forgive me.
And could you please find the particular post and thread where I have claimed that the Muslims are asking for "stoning people to death"?
I would be so much obliged.
Thanks.
Prashna