Friday, February 08, 2008

Arch Idiot of Canterbury

What a monstrous idiot this Dr. Williams is? He reminds me so much of Seyyed Hossein Nasr type advisers during the Shah's reign and how they constantly tried to appease the Islamists.
An example to let you know what I am talking about was when more than 400 innocent people, women, children and whole families were charred to death, when the Islamists set the cinema Rex on fire in Abadan.

Rather than bringing the culprits to a public trial and ceasing the opportunity to show the country the indiscriminate savagery and cruelty of the Islamists, the Shah's imperial advisers were more keen on not rocking the boat in case they upset the Islamists and the regime lost the chance of negotiation with them!

Dr. Williams's remarks resonates the same recollections in me of posturing gestures by spineless officials who inch by inch gave more grounds to the radical Islamists.
In their naive innocent goody goody minds they think they are "avoiding conflict in the interest of harmony", but in fact what they are doing is giving ammunition to the extremists who then say to the faithful, look how much we have achieved, look at how much they are conceding, its our strength that is making them retreat and thus making the extremists even more popular.

22 comments:

City boy said...

It seems to me that the Christian clerics here in UK are always making all the wrong headlines these days.

Last time it was about boycotting amnesty international since they support the womens right for choice in abortion!

Can they really afford to become any more unpopular? or are they only focusing on pleasing Muslims too?

barmakid said...

It is truly unfortunate that you react to such news in an egregiously uninformed and emotional fashion. Due respect, but
it doesn't really matter what or who he reminds you of, but what his actual message was.

The fact that you would call someone - especially a Christian leader - who has tolerance for and is attempting to reconcile the divisions between civilizations an idiot only emphasizes - I hate to say it - your own idiocy.

Are you even aware of what he said, or did you just observe the headlines from Sky News? Because I can't understand how one could respond so ignorantly to such a benign message; even if you somehow see the religion of 1.5 million Brits and how they practice it to be tantamount to the inhumane practices of the IRI mullahs.

Here is an excerpt from a New York Times article for the uninformed chauvinists that seem to plague this blog:

"The archbishop, Rev. Rowan Williams, spiritual leader of the world's Anglicans said in his speech that...introduction of Shariah in family law was 'unavoidable.' But he said such 'constructive accommodation' should NOT deprive Muslims of their right to take their cases to the EXISTING court system.

The archbishop compared allowing Muslims to take carefully defined issues to their own religious courts to the established practice among orthodox Jews here of referring religious disputes to rabbinical courts.

Roman Catholics might also benefit from what he called 'plural jurisdiction' in matters affecting religious conscience, he said. He noted that the Church of England, formally headed by the monarch, also has its own ecclesiastical courts.

'Nobody in their right mind,' the archbishop told the BBC, 'would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that sometimes appears to be associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states - the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well.'

But equally, he said, 'I don’t think we should instantly spring to the conclusion that the whole of that world of jurisprudence and practice is somehow monstrously incompatible with human rights simply because it doesn’t immediately fit with how we understand it.'

The archbishop’s speech was made at the Royal Courts of Justice, before an audience of leading judges and lawyers. Typically, it was steeped in historical and philosophical nuances that risked being lost in the headlines.

He argued, for example, that the principle enshrined during the 18th-century Enlightenment, that all citizens should be under the uniform law of a sovereign state, was a reaction to despotism. He said that a modern democratic society should 'acknowledge the liberty of conscientious opting-out from collaboration with procedures or practices that are in tension with demands of particular religious groups.'

This, the archbishop said, could be extended to create new legal rights for all faiths, not only Muslims. He cited Catholic adoption agencies that have resisted accepting gay couples as adoptive parents, a stand that has brought them into conflict with the law in Britain, and other religious groups that have resisted stem cell research."

So please explain to me how this is an attempt to please "radical" Muslims, and not to establish equality, when Jews and the Church of England operate in a similar fashion.

Is your solution to further alienate British Muslims by ostracizing them in the country they and their families reside - many of whom are natives of the very island you immigrated to?

Get real good sir. You have lived in the West for quite sometime now, but you have yet to realize the western values that have accorded you the life you live today and the life you wish your countrymen in Iran to live.

Maybe that's why you have the audacity to oppose the freedom of religion and the right to practice it accordingly.

Cheers,
Barmakid

p.s. "A threat to justice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere."

- Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

Plateau said...

Good post. The points you make are often overlooked and/or dismissed.

Religion is the Opium of the Masses

ella said...

Barmakid

Catholic courts do not hold sway over the secular courts, neither do the jewish ones nor Hindu ones. Introduction of sharia as equal with secular courts does not make sense in Western Country because majority of sharia family rules clash with the secular law present in England.

Introducing sharia also means pressure on muslim men and women to conform to the rules of Islam and geting further from democratic laws, secular institutions and secular principles prevailing in the land.

Introducing sharia means the first step into Islamisation of English jurisdiction.

Catholic adoption agencies are not the part of the government however sharia jurisdiction will be part of the law for English subjects.
There is a large difference between private adoption agencies and the legal courts. One is not equal to the other.

As for "ostracization" of British Muslims - where that statement come from? British Muslims will not be ostracized if they do not get sharia courts in equal standing with secular courts.

Islam is different from other faiths in that it professes no difference between sacrum and profanum, other faiths acknowledge that difference. And that is the main reason why Archbishop talks about introduction of shari'a makes him a "useful idiot" for Islamic fundamentalists.

Bahramerad said...

Bar-MAN-kid
In answer to your long-winded rubbish, mainly quoted from the New York times. I shall be brief.
The English law and society after the reformation is based on the Judo - Christian principles.
That means ALL the people wanting to live in this country have to abide by the rules of this country which incidentally, does not have a constitution but is run under a parliamentary system of government with the king/queen as the head of the country as well as the head of its religion (a kind of Velayat E Fagheh).
Now just because some people in this country have a different faith or religion does not grant them any particulars rights or privileges.
Yes, the Jews can have their own arrangements (through their Jewish council) regarding how their own society wants to observe their religion or traditions internally, but that has nothing to do with the tort or any laws of the land. The same with the arrangement that the Catholic faith has regarding their own behaviours in this society (mainly to do with education and worship in the churches).
In the case of other minorities of different faiths, be it Muslim, Buddhist, Rastafarian or others (for example the atheists), NO formal arrangement is considered under the British law for them, so they have to abide by the rules and the laws that have been set for the general society through the parliament and which applies to everyone living in England uniformly. (There are variations now for those living in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.)
This Archbishop, who is supposed to be representing ALL the Anglican community world-wide, is talking of a hypothetical situation whereby some minor aspects of family laws of Sharia to do with family law and laws regarding interest and banking might be incorporated in a formal arrangement, viz a viz the communities where there are a lot of Pakistani / Indian of Islamic faith. (let's put aside for the moment that they cannot even agree among themselves what is Sharia law).
This idea has already been dismissed by the British government as a divisive, unworkable, and nonsensical.
No amount of cajoling by the likes of this idiot and his friend, Prince Charles who talks to trees and worships the tampons of his mistress — and who thinks and talks above his station for wanting to be the head of ALL faiths in England - will change the basic fact of life in Great Britain that the laws of this country will be made in the parliament and under the tenets of Judea-Christian religion.
Those people who do not like it can always pack up and go back to their own countries where some kind of Sharia law is enforced and get whipped, stoned to death and beheaded by the will and whim of their current AMIR / Soltan.

barmakid said...

Wow, did my ideas just get complemented!? That is a first on this blog...Thank you Plateau :)

Cheers,
barmakid

Amir said...

Zeit der Barmekiden

Winston said...

See, I told you...

Bahramerad said...

Bar-MAN-kid
In answer to your long-winded rubbish, mainly quoted from the New York times. I shall be brief.
The English law and society after the reformation is based on the Judo - Christian principles.
That means ALL the people wanting to live in this country have to abide by the rules of this country which incidentally, does not have a constitution but is run under a parliamentary system of government with the king/queen as the head of the country as well as the head of its religion (a kind of Velayat E Fagheh).
Now just because some people in this country have a different faith or religion does not grant them any particulars rights or privileges.
Yes, the Jews can have their own arrangements (through their Jewish council) regarding how their own society wants to observe their religion or traditions internally, but that has nothing to do with the tort or any laws of the land. The same with the arrangement that the Catholic faith has regarding their own behaviours in this society (mainly to do with education and worship in the churches).
In the case of other minorities of different faiths, be it Muslim, Buddhist, Rastafarian or others (for example the atheists), NO formal arrangement is considered under the British law for them, so they have to abide by the rules and the laws that have been set for the general society through the parliament and which applies to everyone living in England uniformly. (There are variations now for those living in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales.)
This Archbishop, who is supposed to be representing ALL the Anglican community world-wide, is talking of a hypothetical situation whereby some minor aspects of family laws of Sharia to do with family law and laws regarding interest and banking might be incorporated in a formal arrangement, viz a viz the communities where there are a lot of Pakistani / Indian of Islamic faith. (let's put aside for the moment that they cannot even agree among themselves what is Sharia law).
This idea has already been dismissed by the British government as a divisive, unworkable, and nonsensical.
No amount of cajoling by the likes of this idiot and his friend, Prince Charles who talks to trees and worships the tampons of his mistress — and who thinks and talks above his station for wanting to be the head of ALL faiths in England - will change the basic fact of life in Great Britain that the laws of this country will be made in the parliament and under the tenets of Judea-Christian religion.
Those people who do not like it can always pack up and go back to their own countries where some kind of Sharia law is enforced and get whipped, stoned to death and beheaded by the will and whim of their current AMIR / Soltan.

saggezard said...

With all due respect,

"Let no man pull you low enough to hate him" Dr. Martin Luther King

With all due respect. With all due respect. With all due respect.

my jekyl doesn't hyde said...

Iranians are aryan? Whahahahahaa keep on dreaming hairy monkey.

Peter Risdon said...

Barmakid, please do not have the bad taste to quote Dr King at the end of a comment arguing for inequality before the law.

This issue does not concern freedom of religion in any way. It is a question of whether or not we have a secular society. We do, and we're bloody well going to keep it. That means everyone is equal before the law.

Barmakid said...

Hello All,

Touchy subject huh? :)

Well, I just thought it was unusually tolerant for the archbishop to make such an empathetical speech (we really don't see that in a post 9/11 and 7/7 world). Muslims are people too, and their religion has unfairly been tarnished; in my perspective at least.

I also appreciated the archbishop's historical explanation of how uniformity under the law was a concept derived from the consequences of despotism. I don't see how this qualifies him as an idiot, or a "useful idiot" for that matter.

And to make clear, I don't believe any religion is better than its counterparts. They all play a divisive, and therefore destructive role in the interplay of our species.

But anyways, if I may ask you Ella and Peter - as you two seem to be the most level-headed posters: If the one poster who mentions that British law is fundamentally based on judeo-Christian principles, then how can we claim that British society is secularly governed?


Cheers,
Barmakid

p.s.

Peter,

I did not intend to use Dr. King's words to promote inequality. I have great respect for the man and his legacy. And I think saggezard used another profound quote from Dr. King's corpus that many other on this blog should take into account.

Bahramerad said...

Church backs Williams over Sharia storm ( English version of TAGHIEH )-Feb 11 2008 19:55
Anglican representatives rallied round the archbishop of Canterbury after he repented for the 'distress and misunderstanding' caused by his stance on Islamic law Read more »
http://tinyurl.com/2vtrzg

Bahramerad said...

Here you go again showing your ignorance of the British system. NO ONE EVER SAID or 'claim that British society is secularly governed?'.
The church is woven into all aspects of this society and Government. They have their own Parliament and send their representatives to the House of Lords that is the ultimate LAW giver to the Government to act upon.
NO Church =No State.
No King/Queen = No religion.
And - 'uniformity under the law was a concept IN OPPOSITION TO the consequences of despotism. and not because of it-
You - useful IDIOTS!

Peter Risdon said...

Barmakid, you're quite right to say that there are vestiges of Christian influence in the governance of this country, including the Lords Spiritual. They should go. The history of the development of Europe is one, broadly, of religion being pushed back from the centre of government to the fringes and to the private sphere and this process is not yet complete. Williams is seeking to reverse it.

In my sometimes private correspondence with Egyptian and Iranian democracy activists I often sense a feeling of humiliation. These were ancient and sophisticated cultures when my northern European ancestors were still banging rocks together, and now look at the relative achievements of these societies.

When Europe was more priest-ridden than it is now, it was very like much of the modern Islamic world. It is a deep tragedy that we have not all moved forward together. The only way this can be achieved is through secularism - the first plank of which is the absolute protection of the right to faith, and the second is the insistence that faith remain excluded from the public sphere - legislation and the law should not have a religious test ever, not for those involved in it and not for its precepts.

Williams was advocating the institution of a genuinely nightmarish society in which the jurisdiction someone is subject to is decided not by the fact of their humanity but by the religion of their parents.

I take it you are either Muslim or of a Muslim background. I would be proud to stand with you in the advocacy of secularism. I will oppose you if you stand with Williams, who is a Christian, allegedly. This has nothing to do with anti-Muslim sentiment, though of course that isn't true of much of the comment that has followed Williams' comment. I feel much more strongly against Williams than the MCB, for example, in this argument.

barmakid said...

Hello Peter,

We are definitely on the same page; secularism is indeed the most fruitful path for humanity. If we continue to allow religion and faith to permeate our reality then we quite possibly will never rid our species of these artificial divisions.

But I do understand that such an accomplishment will not be achieved by our generation - but hopefully by our progeny. So although I wholeheartedly agree with you, I also empathize with the downtrodden faiths and thus categorically reject any emotional reaction (like calling one an idiot) simply because they are attempting to promote tolerance. (It was fairly obvious that the archbishop's policy suggestions would not be adopted; Gordon Brown's government immediately rejected it)

So, by being "agents of intolerance," as John McCain would term it, we only further encourage the entrenchment of our steep divisions.

Cheers,
barmakid

barmakid said...

Can someone tell me what zeit der barmekiden means? Probably something bad:)

Azarmehr said...

Barmakid,

Re: the comment you asked me not to publish:

Just really busy at the moment to take part in the comments. Had to go to a work symposioum in Nice and since my return been up to my neck with stuff, but others are doing a good job answering your nonsense ;) and thanks for the compliments.

saggezard said...

Just my observation: Barmakid has become the poster child for a Troll on this message board.

Plateau said...

"Wow, did my ideas just get complemented!? That is a first on this blog...Thank you Plateau :)
"


Barmakid:

I neither complemented nor complimented your ideas.

Unless I specifically mention a commentator's name, my comments are for the owner of this blog and his posts.

Sohrab said...

It's good to have Barmakid around!

He serves as a sounding board for our ideas. If WE -- secularists/regime change advocates -- can overcome him in debates or make him concede points or at least have him point out flaws in our arguments, then that will only help us articulate our message more clearly and correctly.