All Comments (42)

Brain McLaren always has been a man that has actively and earnestly sought the will of God.

My opinion is based on personal interaction with Brian almost 25 years ago and my analysis of his recent writings and commentariries.

Sadly, his committment and obvious sincerity cannot insolate his positions from the fact, that in my opinion, they are sincerely wrong.

After no contact with Mr. McLaren for an extended period of time, I became intrigued when I discovered his prominence among leading Christian thinkers in the United States.

My curiosity demanded that I investigate his progressive views and I started a process of defining, primarily, the "emmergent church" movement of which Brian is certainly considered one of its most prominent voices.

I can honestly say I have never found a process of applying some type of definition more challenging: at first blush this robust movements seems to be fundametally a radical rework of the constructs of the traditional elements that make up Christian life in America; a movement focused on the young, encompassing new ways of worship, of narritive, of liturgy and
experience.

But as the process of defining continues you begin to see that this movement, at its very core, is inexorably fixed to a progressive political ideology; in fact I've seen no evidence that the emmergent church movement could be seprated from progressive political positions and still be left with an intact identity.

Brian will talk often about the marriage of practical Christian theology with the pursuit of "social justice". Two points should be made: 1. I view Brian's discourse regarding this topic as completely sincere. 2. Conversely, all of my evangelical friends are all for gains in social justice.

Next, Brian, as he does in this piece, consistenly emphasizes the need to for social tolerance as "a great opportunity to live out the way of Jesus". Before we, as the body, collectively employ this philosophy I beleive we should honestly and without bias evaluate the possible end results.

Among Muslims, I beleive, like Brian, that are many decent people who would properly recieve more tolerance and accomodation in the way we Christians intended it and, moving forward, we as two communities would greatly benefit from the resultant increases in understanding, communicaiton and harmony. In his recent talk at the National Cathedral, Mr. McLaren stated how, after exposure to his progressive theology, he was approached by several Muslim listeners who said something along the lines of "If there were more Christians like you, I would consider converting." Surely, Mr. McLaren is not indicating that this type of discourse is emblematic of most Muslims. He should stop to consider that there are many countries where, for simply making this statement, they would be summarily executed. We commit a grave error if we do not account for the adherents of Islam that would only view this "tolerance" as a sign of weakness; an advantage to be properly exploited with the end result of advanced curtailment of basic human liberties, propigation of their world view to the absolute exclusion of all others, and, most critically, large quantities of slaughtered westerners.

Another central element of this philosphy seems to be the focus on the West, and particularly the Christian West as somehow most responsible for the situation we now find ourselves in. Here is where I and many of my Evangelical friends draw the starkest contrast with this movement and prgressive political thought in general: I repudiate this notion in totem. Basically, to accept this premise you must accept the two prime precepts of Muslim greviance against the West: 1. We are entitled to retaliation from Muslims as payment, in kind, for the crusades and 2. Only with the other abdication of our support of the nation of Israel will Islam halt it's plan of destruction of the west.

I find either of these arguments to be without merit and I'll simply leave it at that.

At the end of day, this is what acceptance and practice of this philosphy seems to require: subjigation by our avowed enemies, the decline of democracy and the advancement of socialism (an incredibly supportive system, historically, for religious freedom and belief!)a collapse of market economies and the complete distruction of our unique and wonderful "American" (and I believe God-given) identity.

It's refreshing to read this. I am in my mid 20s and have been driven out of the church in the last 5 years because I do not believe in the "us vs. them" attitude that I have seen. It is a relief to see someone finally putting the peices together, and asking the tough questions. We, as americans, have the privledge of looking down from "the top." It's very common for us to think of ourselves as correct in any matter. We are taught in school how our government is the best way to go, so, we end up looking down our noses at other countries who do things differently. I see the archbishops stance as completely in line with that of Jesus. I've never seen a passage where Christ told the disciples to cast out those who do not follow. Instead He always insisted that they reach out to them, and for them to be tolerant of their laws while in thier presence.
Like I said, it's a welcomed reflief. I think I might just have to check out some of the books and see what else there is to see here.

Here is the logical result of McLaren's idiocy:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2008/02/heere-bigynneth.html

Brian,

When Jesus said, "He who is not with Me is against Me, and He who does not gather with Me scatters," what do you think He meant? If we, as Christians in the 21st Century, tolerate every kind of religion we are inevitably denying our Lord Jesus Christ, who is King of Kings and Lord of Lord--even over Muslim countries. The role of Christians is to love and proclaim the saving work of Jesus Christ to everyone. We are to call people to repentance and faith, and to explain that the only way of salvation is through the blood and righteousness of Jesus Christ. If the church of England wishes to compromise--which is always at stake when there is church and state relations--let them do so. But we should not be among those who "call good evil and evil good."

Mr. McLaren,

Some added "food for thought":

With the "ptfft" (pretty, wingie, flying, fictional thingie) i.e Moroni and Joe Smith as the "spiritual" guides/founders, what does one conclude about Mormonism???

A cult based on hallucinations which has bought respectability with a $30 billion business empire, the BYU "mission matured" football team and a great choir.

With the "pwfft" i.e. Gabriel and the "warmongering, womanizing, "stenchifying", hallucinator" aka Mohammed what does one conclude about Islam?

A cult based on the oil profits, terror, fear of the sword, stoning, hand chopping and suicide bombers.

With the "pwfft" i.e. Gabriel and the illiterate peasant, possible mamzer, hallucinating and embellished Jesus what does one conclude about Catholicism/Christianity?

A cult based on the fear of hell, guilt trips, myths, limbo, and the false promises of sin atonement, "miracles", purification by water, indulgences and the only key to the spirit state of Heaven.

With "avenging pwtfft"s, and the mostly mythical OT and its "fortune tellers" what does one conclude about Judaism?

A cult based on the support of its rich members, the fear of Hell, the promise of a messiah and the return to the mythical promised land conquered previously by mythical OT characters.

A remarkably well written exposition, Mr. McLaren, but while it's always good to make nice with fluffy sentiments, the reality of the situation is harsh.

Western powers are at war with Muslims in their homelands, which is why Muslims are at war with western powers in their homelands.

It is all very good to argue that this is not a religious war for us, but that has nothing to do with Arab sentiment. They consider their lands sacred, and kill themselves for Allah.

Why don't the western powers extricate themselves from the Middle East and stop slaughtering Muslims so we can then have a polite dialogue about being good neighbors? That's a beginning.

Furthermore, as a man professing to be Christian, I question how you ignore the monstrous concept of persons professing to be Christian waging war. Jesus never killed anyone, neither did he advocate killing anyone, nor did he sanction killing anyone. Even though he had the power to annihilate mankind, he meekly submitted himself to the will of God and laid down his life as an atonement for the sins of mankind. He also commanded his disciples to follow his example. If all so-called Christians did that, it would transform America.

I have about had my fill of Brian McLaren and his arrogant "I know and understand things better" attitude. Enough.

Brian D. McLaren

Something for your next meeting of the Red Letter Christians:

1. There were no physical Resurrection, Ascension, and Assumption since Heaven is a spirit state, i.e. no physical bodies plus the stories fail historic attestation and stratum reviews. e.g. http://wiki.faithfutures.org/index.php/017_Resurrection_of_Jesus

2. Angels/devils do not exist. These are the mythical creations of ancient civilizations, e.g. Hittites, to explain/define natural events, contacts with their gods, big birds, sudden winds, protectors during the dark nights, etc. No "pretty/ugly wingy thingies" ever visited or talked to Mohammed, Jesus, Mary or Joseph or Joe Smith. Today we would classify angels as fairies and "tinker bells". Modern devils are classified as the demons of the demented.

3. Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons/parts and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider.

4. The Holy Eucharist/Communion is a nice spirit symbol of our thanksgiving but body and blood do not exist there. This 24/7 blood sacrifice is simply more theological mumbo jumbo to keep the "pew sitters" agape in atonement.

5. There is no evidence, scriptural or otherwise that Jesus is the son of god. He was made into this offspring to compete with the Roman and Greek gods. e.g.

Stories circulated to the effect that Alexander of Macedonia was not only the son of Philip II, but also of the god Zeus-Ammon (Plutarch, Parallel Lives, "Alexander" 2.1-3.2); Plato was the son of Ariston and the god Apollo (Diogenes Laertius, Lives of Eminent Philosophers 3.1-2), and Augustus was the son of Octavius as well as the god Apollo (Suetonius, Lives o f the Caesars 2.4.1-7). The extraordinary character of these elites reputedly stemmed from both their divine origins and their kingroups. Their kin-groups provided one form of legitimation-political right to the throne and/or social status (thus the importance of Joseph in Matthew's genealogy). Their divine procreation provided another: their honor was divinely ascribed, and their greatness as leaders derived from divine paternity."

From: K.C. Hanson and D. E. Oakman, Palestine in the Time of Jesus, Fortress Press, 1998. p.55

To All Muslims,

Your problems go beyond the Bin Ladens, the Shiite Iranian crazies and the Sunni "Wannabees" of Saudi Arabia.

The problems are in the basic foundations of Islam itself as one can see from the following:

1. Belief in "pretty/ugly wingie thingies"

2. Belief that an hallucinating, illiterate Arab did actually talk to the "pretty Gabriel" in the hot "Gabe" cave and therein received the warmongering and anti-female words and resultant laws now listed in the koran.

3. That Sunnis are superior to Shiites in all aspects of life. And Shiites think the same way about Sunnis.

4. That Islam is perfect and the koran inherently condones no sin even though the 24/7, 800 year-old blood feud between Sunnis and Shiites gives significant credence that greed, hate, suicides, assassinations, maiming, and murder are condoned by the koran. Having multiple wives also gives significant credence to the sins of rape, adultery, lust and polygamy. The condoned treatment of these wives gives credence that the koran allows the sins of hatred, anger and greed.

These are tough issues. Address them, correct them then ask again to be allowed into the civil world!!!!!

And accusing someone of spreading hate and lies does not work when these "someones" are simply listing the facts. If you have counter points about your beliefs then list them. Hiding behind imams and clerics blinded by 1400 years of brainwashing serves no purpose other than to secure a good living for said imams and clerics.

"Thanks to your Democratic laws, we will invade you, thanks to our religious laws, we will dominate you."

"It has been given me to fight the infidels until all say, 'None has the right to be worshipped other than Allah."

Islam is not merely a religion but as most Muslims will say, "A complete way of life." Islam is more than a religion, it is also a full blown legal code and an ideology. And a totalitarian one at that. Thus Islam to Nazism or Communism is a better correlation than would be Islam to Christianity or Buddhism. Allowing Muslims the right to practice polygamy today leads to allowing the death penalty for apostates tomorrow. It is the Christian and loving thing to do to allow Muslims to practice Shariah law? Tell that to the poor woman who is now scheduled for execution by public beheading in Saudi Arabia for "bewitching" two men (so as to make them impotent - yeah right, just blame that "witch".) Mclaren is a perfect example of well-meaning but highly ignorant leftists who are only paving the way for their own demise. Mclaren is the face of the death of reason.

Kerusso,

Of all the things to post you chose an essay from the bible thumping idiot Canyon Shearer????

Or are you that bible thumping idiot Canyon Shearer????

the option of archbishop williaims to have the agreed position of law in the west on certain aspects of "sharaih" needs to be looked into with seriouse perspective.it should never mean that some political accommodation of muslim laws are required to granted in the west. but on the other hand it{if i could understand it} means to develop a common thread of values duly supported by religions accross to help and evovle a better and crime free society. definitely; there are commonalities already existing between christianity and islam in many respects.for instance the concept of moral values and importance of regularised marraige are the rudimentary factors which are to be followed in both religions strictly in terms of religious injuctions.we find a major drift from such moral values as made by the followers of the both religions.nevertheless; it is enormousely visible in western societies where under the mistaken concept of human freedom the religion had become a casual affair. by now europe had crossed all limits and is worried how to establish and encourge the family patterns.thus; the daily ads for parents to watch their childern to see that they are not involved in drug and immature sex abuses. the western society also strreses for establishing parent relationships which relations are exceptionaly either found or volantarily existing.the islamic laws together with christian laws could help to evolve a better and moraly sound society.it needs consideration away from political considerations. thanks

As this topic so clearly shows, religion is capable of the finest insight and compassion, and the most execrable bigotry. ++Rowan exemplifies the former. some of the replies in this column exemplify the latter.

and when there are more neighbors, what then?

Go ask a Fijian.

You must be jocking.loosing your othentic identity for a group of terrorist and run behind phrases that has no connection to truth.If you wish to perish,don't force all of us to follow you or brutal minority with vishes intents.

You must be jocking.loosing your othentic identity for a group of terrorist and run behind phrases that has no connection to truth.If you wish to perish,don't force all of us to follow you or brutal minority with vishes intents.

Our Founding Fathers were presciently sage as usual. Separating church and state saves us from the horrors of any religion, all of which should be on an equal secular footing — like Hollywood or baseball.

Mr. Mclaren,

I'm glad my article offended you enough to be removed. Perhaps this one will really offend you:

C. Shearer (c) July 21, 2007
The Gospel According to Mohammed

Islam means “Submission to God”, as God has told us, “The Lord lifts up the humble; he casts the wicked to the ground. Humble yourselves in the sight of the Lord, and he shall lift you up.”

So the submissive will indeed go to Heaven, as long as they submit to God’s will.

One verse that jumps instantly to mind is, “God is not willing that any should perish,” God’s will includes demonstrating His righteousness, having upright followers, and that justice be done; but the most important from our earthly standpoint is that wrongdoers are rectified to Him, “that all should come to repentance."

Islam is in majority alignment with the Biblical understanding of Heaven and Hell; I think this is illustrated nicely in Surah 43 (Adornments), verses 70-77. Heaven is nice, and Hell is hot and eternal.

Where Christianity and Islam divide is how to get to Heaven; but how to get to Hell is the same in both religions.

Surah 43:74 tells us that “Sinners will be in the punishment of Hell, to dwell there forever.”

Surah 83 speaks of our conscience, the Sijjin, a register fully inscribed that will be open on the Day of Judgment; woe to the sinner, his conscience records his wrongdoings.

God knows the secret thought life, and has appointed a Judgment Day for all mankind. The Koran accepts Moses as a prophet and the Law of the 10 Commandments which were given to him. “God gave Moses the Scripture and the Criteria between right and wrong.” – Al-Baqara 2:53

If all sinners will have their punishment in Hell, it’s in our best interest to find out if we’re sinners.

Answer these questions truthfully and you’ll know:

Have you ever told a lie? What does that make you?
If I rape one girl, I’m a rapist, if I murder one person, I’m a murderer. A single lie makes me a liar. The Koran says to, “Invoke the curse of God on those who lie!”
– Al-Imran 3:61
The Bible promises that all liars will have their place in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone.

Have you ever stolen anything? What does that make you?
Both the Koran and Bible have very strict punishments for thieves. Maida 5:38 tells us, “As to the thief, cut off his or her hand(s).”

Have you always kept the Sabbath?
The Koran demands that you remember God on Friday, leaving off business and travel.
– Assembly 62:9
Whosoever does any work on the Sabbath, he will surely be put to death. This is in order to make sure you worship the Creator above creation.

Have you ever worshipped money, power, science, or possessions above God?
“Let not your riches or your children divert you from the remembrance of God. If any act thus, the loss is their own.”
– Hypocrites 63:9
This you know, no idolater will see the kingdom of God.

Have you committed adultery?
The prophet Jesus said, “Whosoever looks upon a woman to lust after her has committed adultery already with her in his heart.”
The Koran is clear, “Do not come near to adultery: for it is a shameful deed and an evil, opening the road to other evils.”
– Israelites 17:32
Clearly “coming near to adultery” is the same as Jesus taught, that a lust-filled glance is seen by God as shameful. Take note that the word for adultery in Arabic is sometimes translated as “Fornication”, sex outside of marriage.

Have you ever used the name of God in Vain?
“Those before them also devised many a blasphemy, but God took their structures from their foundations, and the wrath befell them without them perceiving from whence it came.”
– Bee 16:26
God will not hold him guiltless that takes His name in vain.

If you’re like me, you’ve broken every one of these, and these are only six of the 10 Commandments. The Bible says that we have stored up wrath for ourselves on the Day of Judgment. The Koran is nearly identical, “On the day when heat will be produced out of the fire of Hell, and it will brand your forehead, your flanks, and your back, “This is the treasure which you stored for yourselves: you then taste the treasure you amassed!” – Immunity 9:35

There is a minor difference in the Hell of the Bible and the Hell of the Koran. In the Bible it says that we will beg for a drop of water, but none will come. The Koran says that we will have an overabundance of water, albeit it will be superheated past boiling and we will be forced to drink it, and it will wreak havoc on our insides. Either way, Hell is not somewhere I want to go, nor do I want you to go there.

There is a way to be saved from this punishment we have earned, it is the Injeel which according to the Koran was given to the prophet Jesus. Injeel means, “Good News”, and avoiding such a terrible place as Hell is definitely good news.

Some think that the good news is that we can work our way out of Hell. Both the Koran and the Bible refer to God as a just judge, so lets see how an earthly judge might relate. Imagine you stand before a judge, there are six clear evidences of your guilt, and the judge puts on you a fine that you cannot possibly pay. You offer the judge your good works, you’ve given to charity, you pray unceasingly, you are nice to people, you ask for forgiveness daily, you help little old ladies across the street, and to top it all off, you washed the judges car on the way in to court. The judge tells you, you should do good things, but you've broken the law; he cannot let you go, because despite all of the good you’ve done, justice is due. You cry out in repentance and sorrow, and the judge tells you it’s good that you’re sorry, but there is a fine to be paid, and if you can’t pay it, you will be thrown into prison.

This is the earthly judge, how much more Holy and Just is the Judge of the Universe? Payment is due for your transgression, and the Bible and the Koran clearly state that the fine is the eternal fire of Hell.

But here is the good news, God gave us the gift of a holy son (Maryam 19:19), born of the virgin Maryam, this son’s name was Jesus, and because he was holy, He lived a perfect unblemished life, he was tempted but didn’t sin; in the writing of Moses about the Passover Lamb, the lamb must be without blemish, a male, taken from amongst its brethren (Exodus 12:5). Another name for Jesus is the Lamb of God (Revelation 5:12). Jesus was offered as the sinless sacrifice to take away the sins of the world (Johannes 1:29). Jesus was hung on the cross outside of Jerusalem on Calvary hill, a hill not two miles from where Ibrahim offered his son as a sacrifice 1700 years prior. Jesus died in our stead, he paid our fine in his own life’s blood. The wrath of God was poured out upon him and it pleased God to do it. Jesus went through Hell so we wouldn’t have to, in an infinite showing of love God sacrificed Jesus so that we can be forgiven, he was the propitiation for our sins.

The Koran says that our sins are a stain on the heart, (Al-Mutaffifin 83:14) and Maryam 19:60 says that if you’ll repent and believe, then you will see Heaven. Mohammed was quoting the prophet Jesus when he said, "Repent and believe the Gospel", in other words, repent and believe that Jesus is the Messiah, the Christ, the propitiation for your sins. Once you have done this, your sins will be forgiven, your stained heart will be replaced with a new heart (Ezekiel 11:19), and you will be born again into the family of God.

If any man does this, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new. – 2 Corinthians 5:17

The only reason that Great Britain has an established religion is because, by and large, they are a secular nation. America, on the other hand, has no state church because we are, by and large, a religious nation. In other words, it's usually best to keep people of the cloth interested in prescribing specific religiously-based (as opposed to ethically-based) laws as far from the halls of power as possible. This is nothing against religion; I am a man of faith myself and am opposed to certain procedures, such as abortion, to which many religious people subscribe, but I wouldn't expect any less from the nearest atheist. The point is that I can understand why a secular nation would allow religion to handle certain civic manners if it could be controlled (although I don't agree with this approach), but I don't understand why anyone would want to give power over to people of the cloth because they couldn't be controlled. Religious people who couldn't be controlled took over nations like Iran--look what happened.

A lot of talk of ignorance in the comments to this piece. The real ignorance I see associated with the situation Great Britian (GB) and so many other western countries finds themselves today with respect to Islamic barbarians was the ignorant decisions that allowed these barbarians in western countries in the first place. Why they thought a culture so foreign to our advanced societies with liberties, respect for wormen, and individual rights could easily assimilate I do not know. Now they are here. What to do about it? Who knows! Edward Gibbon, the eminent English historian, postulates in his book the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" that one of the significant reasons that Rome was eventually vanquished by the barbarians was the effect of an effeminate form of Christianity on the martial Roman culture. He says it was the Christian doctrines of pacifism and pusillanimity that changed the Roman culture from a martial to a wimpy (my word) culture. I do not believe authentic Christianity ascribes to these degenerate doctrines. Well, by the Archbishops statements of proposed compromises to the muslims we see these liberal Christian doctrines are still alive and well in post modern Europe today. Are we headed the way of Rome?

Thank you for writing an very intelligent and thoughtful article.

I think it is important to recognize that the Archbishop's ideas do not suggest that English civil law ceases to be the 'supreme law of the land.' His proposal is not a mindless adherence to all aspects of sharia, but an accommodation only to those who wish to follow it. If a Muslim Briton does not agree with the outcome of a 'sharia' court, in his example, she/he can still appeal in secular civil courts.

Christians need not be afraid of Islam, but accept its existence, and welcome its followers as friends and neighbors. We must lead by example, not react to the unfortunate actions of extremists.

Mr. Mclaren:

Thank you for reminding us of the kind of conduct expected of Chistians, if they are to follow the teachings of Christ.

Your sense of justice is exemplary.

as a person born to a muslim background, i would have no problem converting to christianity as you describe it.

Please educate westerners about fundamentals of Islam including how they view Christ.

Mr. McLaren

Thank you for showing the way Jesus wanted us to conduct ourselves.

As a muslim your conduct makes me contemplate conversion to christianity.

Bronson Kaye:

That was probably worth saying three times. I usually tell people one time is enough but I'll make an exception in your case.

Sorry but if you move much beyond thou shalt not steal and thou shalt not murder you are also moving into the realm of ham stringing other peoples religious choices.

Frankly, from my perspective you are quite free to hold what ever beliefs however absurd I may find them to be and to change them at whim if you so choose. Sharia things that those who decide to opt out of Islam for some other belief system are worthy of death.

There is an old Bedouin saying that I think is quite applicable here "Never let a camel get his nose under the edge of the tent."

Mr. McLaren has hit the nail on the head with this article. It's not the idea of Sharia that's the problem - it's separation of church and state. If we dissolve the wall between them and turn this into a "Christian" country, what do we do with all of the non-Christians? Do we force them to hide their Korans, Torahs, Books of Shadows, etc. like some Islamic countries make Christians do with their Bibles?

Actually, there is already a precident in America for Sharia - the Rabbinical Courts for Orthodox Jews. There are some times when their rulings are contrary to that of U.S. laws. What happens then?

Are you kidding.
If you want to live in a country, at least honor their way of life and their laws.
I think England should only "consider" Islamic law when Islamic countries recognize and honor other religious laws in their country.

Are you kidding.
If you want to live in a country, at least honor their way of life and their laws.
I think England should only "consider" Islamic law when Islamic countries recognize and honor other religious laws in their country.

Are you kidding.
If you want to live in a country, at least honor their way of life and their laws.
I think England should only "consider" Islamic law when Islamic countries recognize and honor other religious laws in their country.

Are you kidding.
If you want to live in a country, at least honor their way of life and their laws.
I think England should only "consider" Islamic law when Islamic countries recognize and honor other religious laws in their country.

I do not believe that the application of Muslim Sharia law to all or a portion of the citizens of a Western nation is truly defensible. It would damage the legal foundation of our society, and encourage a balkanization of the nation's laws based upon numerous religious beliefs and would constitute a violation of the desirable concept of the separation of church and state. No religion should be given a special set of rules for its adherents much less those of different beliefs. All citizens should adhere to the same civil laws of that nation.
I marvel that such a concept would be entertained by our Western intelligensia.

I do not believe that the application of Muslim Sharia law to all or a portion of the citizens of a Western nation is truly defensible. It would damage the legal foundation of our society, and encourage a balkanization of the nation's laws based upon numerous religious beliefs and would constitute a violation of the desirable concept of the separation of church and state. No religion should be given a special set of rules for its adherents much less those of different beliefs. All citizens should adhere to the same civil laws of that nation.
I marvel that such a concept would be entertained by our Western intelligensia.

Absolutley brilliant. By defining it so nicley you have shown us Muslims the best of OUR Christ (Christians are not the only ones who love Christ)and Christianity.

Muslims love Christ in our own way. Some may not like the way we love him, but we do!

We are one human civilization. Knowledge was transferred back and forth. British common law did not grow on the leaves of Sherwood Forest. Socrates could not have been an intelelctual without Egyptian knowledge. Thomas Acquinas would have been nothing without the research of Ibn Rushd and the Arab translations of Plato.

Imam Faisal says that "America is the most shariah compliant country in the world". We agree!

The Magna carta has Islamic origins. See research of John Maksudi. Trial by jury, "Qanoon" (cannon), judges, and many aspects of common law is based on the Quran. Many aspects of common law is based on the ten commandments of the Bible and hence also on the Quran.
http://www.Rupeenews.com
God Bless you!

Readers please

CHECK OUT:

Rowan Williams in his own words:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4Wm_hSpCVI

And hear what Muslims in Britain are saying about "secularism- a western point of view" (a screed against separation of church and state):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLHdmaAoHjI

CHECK OUT:

Secularism is "sheer absurdity" 4:37

What is the enemy of the Muslim world? It not necessarily the person with white skin.. the enemy are people who are driven by this idea (secularism) 5:05

Shorter McLaren: I love you so much as a Christian I will accept your religious law, allow you make women and others second class citizens, disregard our highly evolved system of English law, and otherwise change my society to meet your pre-modern ethical code.

What a wonderful idea you've got there. I suggest your apologia for usurping English civil law with a religious code is, well, stupid and dangerous.

So now is the time to abandon the 21st century and enter an era of fundamentalism?

I think not.

Note to J48. The evidence that "the archbishop is one of the greatest minds in the UK" is thin at best. In fact, based on the current episode, the opposite seems more truthful. The man is an idiot. And then he claims he doesn't understand why people are upset? That is just disingenuous.

Several people living under sharia were contacted for their reactions to this article but they were unable to respond. Their heads could not be located.

Wow. You really don't know anything, do you?
Wow, wow, wow.

J48,

Canterbury Cathedral is a museum, not a church.
The Anglican Church is a money-worshipping entity, not a follower of Christ.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t00PAko1KBU

Rev Brian D. McLaren:

While the Brits contemplate 'officially' recognizing Islam in the law shouldn't they add all faiths at the same time? How about Devil worshipers?

Oops! http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul exposes the already 'official' religion as just that, Devil worship.

I applaud you Mr McClaren and I agree.

To those who disagree, fine, but ignorance is not an excuse.

The Archbishop is one of the greatest minds in the UK and a sincere follower of Jesus. Lets just imagine for a moment that he might in fact have some idea of what he is talking about, and perhaps take the time to fully understand what he has said before we jump to conclusions.

Mr. McLaren has laid a wonderful foundation for a sincere and honest discussion about handling litigious issues in a secular state. . . This issue is not a new one and civilizations have been dealing with it either successfully or unsuccessfully for thousands of years. . .

But apparently for some, religion and history are in the eye of the beholder. . . It is a shame that the people who have since commented have made statements that are ignorant of history and one looks like it was born of pure hate. . . .

There is no room for this type of unearned moral superiority in intelligent progressive discussions. . . and it is rather disgraceful and annoying behavior that must be endured by the peace wanting inhabitants of this neighborhood we call Earth and ever patient diplomats (both locally and globally) of our species. . .

Mr. McClaren, I look forward to your next article . . .

Mr. McLaren has laid a wonderful foundation for a sincere and honest discussion about handling litigious issues in a secular state. . . This issue is not a new one and civilizations have been dealing with it either successfully or unsuccessfully for thousands of years. . .

But apparently for some, religion and history are in the eye of the beholder. . . It is a shame that the people who have since commented have made statements that are ignorant of history and one looks like it was born of pure hate. . . .

I look forward to a follow up article

There is no room for this type of unearned moral superiority in intelligent progressive discussions. . . and it is rather disgraceful and annoying behavior that must be endured by the peace wanting inhabitants of this neighborhood we call Earth and ever patient diplomats (both locally and globally) of our species. . .

Mr. McClaren, I look forward to your next article . . .