All Comments (16)

JIHADIST:
You made your argument well, and I apologize. I was in a temporary snit about the Muslims who killed Theo Van Gogh in Denmark and threatened the cartoonists.

I have lived in several countries and I always abide by the culture and mores of the particular country I am in. I expect no less from Muslims. Some are making themselves persona non grata by moving to western countries then killing or threatening native residents for offending their religion. They should know something about the country they're immigrating to and stay home if they don't like the ostensible destination.

Incidentally, on other threads I have repeatedly said that the problem is first and foremost with western powers (US) being in the Middle East killing Muslims by the thousands. I get equally agitated by that.

Johnny B Goode : "I would favor restricting Muslim immigration to the United States and immediately deporting any who are found guilty of terrorist activity to the most draconian Muslim countries, like Egypt."

Am I imagining Johnny B Goode's posts, or are they um, nuanced and sophisticated racism and drastic solution that largely have nothing to do with American Muslims and American values?

Ah well....perhaps I need to down a six-pack too. With plenty of chips and dips to help it down.

So, you are all in favour of, er, "rendition". Just send them to Egypt to be tortured so you don't have to.

Whatever happened to rule of law and administration of justice? To be charged in court?

And murder is murder if committed by individuals not members of terrorist organisations.

Are all those who rampaged and kill in American schools and colleges murderers or terrorists?

And while we are at it, just deport all Muslims in the US. Who knows those Iranian and Iraqi Muslims who did not agree with the regimes of Iraq and Iran are looking forward to go home.

Who knows all those Muslim dissidents in repressive Muslim states may need to migrate to be free from detention without trial and torture by their own governments.

Better to stop them from migrating to the US, the land where the oppressed seek refuge from oppressive regimes for centuries and let them be further oppressed as those holding minority views and beliefs and persecuted for it.

After all, seeking freedom and a better life in the US is now brayed to be restricted against Muslims.

Well then, did the American Indians insist on Europeans migrating to the Americas to respect them and their values? And if not, to be deported back to Europe? Or to be given an ultimatum to adopt the American Indian ways or leave America?

ANONYMOUS:

I failed to mention the fact that I consider the killing of Theo Van Gogh, threatening cartoonists in Denmark, issuing fatwas against anyone like Salman Rushdie, or similar inanity to be terrorist acts.

ANONYMOUS:

Point taken. I should have said Muslims rather than Arabs. I know what Ms. Dixon was talking about, but my understanding is that readers are encouraged to engage one another as well as address the issue. It's a forum for debate.

I'm not a big fan of internment camps. As I have stated before and elsewhere, I believe the first step is for the western powers to get out of the Middle East and stop waging illegal wars against Muslims. What we are suffering now is blowback from previous meddling.

The United States has been involved in one way or another in the Middle East since the 1700's. We usually manage to make a mess of it. Bush says we're now there to spread democracy (the latest reason). The Iranians had a democracy before we assassinated their president and installed the Shah of Iran. We armed Sodamn Insane and virtually put him in power. We armed both camps during the Iran-Iraq War. We armed the Taliban and Osama bin Laden to run the Russians out of Afghanistan. We shore up the brutal Saud Tribe in Arabia, as well as many despots in the region. There are numerous other ways that the United States imposes its will on Arabs, but basically the reason comes down to oil.

I would favor restricting Muslim immigration to the United States and immediately deporting any who are found guilty of terrorist activity to the most draconian Muslim countries, like Egypt.

There seems to be a recurring concept, expressed in a number of these posts, that I think is erroneous. Even Bishop Dixon veers close to it when she says:

"But if the legal system should protect individuals on grounds of their corporate religious identity, perhaps in some manner of delegating certain legal functions to the religious court of a community a number of queries or objections arise."

(She quickly veers away from it though.)

It is not a question of "protecting" any particular religious group.

Rather, it's a matter of "allowing" any given religious group the option to arbitrate certain civil matters internally, as long as intrinsic individual human rights are not abrogated.

I see no inherent reason why this would weaken the greater society's legal system in the slightest. In fact, it's common here for civil courts to strongly encourage potential litigants to sidestream their issues to a "parallel" secular arbitration process.

Why then shouldn't co-religionists be able to voluntarily submit their own civil disputes to mediation within their own faith communities?

At bottom, this is all the Archbish was suggesting. All the rest is kneejerk hyperanalysis courtesy of the media.

VOTE:

NO Sharia!
NO Hallakha!
NO Monarchi!
NO Nepotism!
NO Theocracy!
NO Caste System(s)!
MORE Protection For Kids!
NO Putting Down Woman Anywhere!
NO Rule By BiBLES, GiTA, KANGYUR, QURAN et al!
MODERN MORALiTY iS SUPERIOR to Biblical MORALITY!

Good article, and there is something of a difference: where the trouble in America can be is that the government is expected to both allow people to live in accordance with the religious ways they choose, but also recognize the rights of the individual to have recourse to secular law, and in fact, to disagree with the religious laws they may by birth or even choice be subjected to.

Frankly, I think this simple fact gets muddy for authoritarian religions because the distinctions always *have* been blurred.

To be honest, I think that's because such religions as Epicopalianism and various forms of Christianity and Islam have always had laws which once represented state or tribal law, originally intended to be enforced as are secular laws.

Kind of representing as I do a religious faith-group that is pretty much designed and evolved in its latest forms to *exist* in a place where other religions hold the secular power but must do it in secular ways, I think that sometimes these things look a little clearer to me. The law permits things I would find unconscionable, doesn't 'recognize' much of anything I hold sacred except in secular and neoclassical metaphor terms...

And it works OK for us, ....at least as long as we maintain a semblance of secular law, such as our faith groups have learned to live with.

In the case of mine, where we've grown *into* the secular West in our current forms, we don't have quite the same conflicts or muddy areas as some otherse seem to be confused by.

I think it's actually pretty clear that America is *meant* to allow people to live in the religious ways they choose, and provide civil recourse for any individual to *continue* to act according to their consciences: ie, Muslims are free to live by Sharia law in many ways if *they* do it, but they are also free to *leave* Sharia law whenever they choose, (Or Christian law, for that matter: people are married till death in Christian churches, knowing that they can civilly-dissolve the civil contract when someone starts beating on em or something. )

So, no, America shouldn't or wouldn't recognize Sharia law any more than it should allow Christian churches to start enlisting the state to enforce its unique religious dictates.

I think it's clearer than even a lot of Christians think: they've just gotten relaly complacent about being able to vote their tabooes and restrictions into office, whether they can be justified by reason or not: they freak out about what they see in Saudi Arabia and forget how recently a girl might have no legal recourse if she got raped while wearing the wrong color of or too short a skirt.

Got kind of dangerous to be a bit New Wave back there while religious demagogues were screaming about 'harlotry' and it just so happened that's how the judges and juries and cops were educated, too.

Certain religions are usually the ones compromising *justice* based on their dislike of changes in fashion or politics or meaning.

America's secular law is meant to not only keep me safe from you lot, but also to keep *you* safer from becoming Taliban.

As Pagan clergy, I find that it's a lot easier to speak of spiritual things when I'm *not* trying to represent government or enforce law.

And I think people who cringe in terror about a Muslim law, while trying to enforce what they think is 'Christian Law,' ......lack this luxury.

I highly-commend accepting that, though.

Think it's what our Founding Fathers had in mind, really. Not this stuff.

(My apologies if the writing on this is poor; it's not a great day for my concentration, physically.)

Johnny B. Goode:

Don't you think it would be a good idea to intern all Muslims until the war on terror is over like was done to Japanese Americans, WW2? It's only for their safety and those camps are going to waste with no occupants.

When it's impossible to tell the good ones from the bad ones what's to be done?

The Right Reverend Jane Holmes Dixon advocates, "Law Must Uphold Rights, not Theology." Yep. Now when is the law going to stop upholding theology?

Should the supreme court decide if the supernatural being in the burning bush was God or Devil? Makes sense to me. Since we're headed at light speed to hell here and now maybe we could get an official opinion on who or what is driving us.

See http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul for the other side of the story -making deals with Devil and not just some little devil but the big guy, Lord of hell, Lucifer.

What do you think the chances are the next terrorist attack is being planned at a government operated facility known as a mosque? Yes, the government, we the people with our taxes support all churches, temple, synagogues and mosques by allowing them to be tax exempt. Only religions actually own real estate. All others only rent from the government -real property taxes. By paying the taxes for mosques we are aiding and abetting terrorists.

What courageous religion leader will step forward and demand the 1st amendment be honored? Giving tax breaks of any kind to religions clearly establishes them.

I think the answer is none. Guess we'll have to enforce the truth in advertising laws as well as the anti terrorist ones.

That was Devil in the burning bush and therefore it is Devil and not God all 'official' religions worship. Claiming it's God is false advertising. Now name a terror greater than hell. What kind of person threatens children with the greatest terror possible? What kind make a threat of sever harm and then demand money to avoid it -render to Caesar that which is Caesars and to God the same thing, money.

Is the Right Reverend Jane Holmes Dixon courageous? Will she insist the 1st amendment be upheld or be like all the others? Reading her essay I must say she will need to make a significant mind-change first.

Cyber Friend & Volunteer For "HILLARY FOR PREZ"

VOTE: Abolish ALL "iMPORTED" [Not-Made or Prophecied in Sweet Sweet U.S.A.) Pre-Apocalyptic 'Cottage-Religions" in U.S. of A., not Industry's!!

VOTE: DEPORT ALL, Not-Made-IN-A*M*E*R*i*C*A, iMPORTED Religions, Not MEXICANS!

INstead Unite MEXICO w/U.S.A for an Additional 10 States!!! As a Matter of fact, VOTE to Merge & Absorb All AMERICA upto & No Further than PANAMMA, ironically John McCAINS "Birth Place!

Trivia: Did ye knowth that Senator , wanabe Prez John McCain is a 'Dual Citizen of Panama & USA?

PS: Did you also know that John McCain & His Wife , are ALCOHOL Pushers & have lots of Blood on their hand for many Highway Car Crashes due to their Alchol Monopoly Biz in ARIZONA!?????

Please see these linko's on Cindy Lou Hensley the daughter of James W. Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch distributor from Phoenix, Arizona. McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife in Florida on April 2, 1980 and promptly married Cindy on May 17, 1980.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcaindiv.htm

Shame Shame John & Cindy McCAIN!! Kennedy's too!

Ya Ya Yo Yo!

--
...

http://www .astronomy2009.org/////
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA USA!!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
STOP THE WAR STOP THE WAR
VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE !!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE !!
PEACE,PAZ,SALAAM,SHOLOM.....__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:

..
--

Goode

the topic is about the Archpishop point of view on sharia.

by the way, not all muslims are arabs and not all arabs are muslim

STUPID:

Smart.

It still galls me to consider that some brain dead individual moved to Amsterdam then killed Theo Van Gogh because the twit thought his religion was defiled. Well, it isn't defiled in Morocco, so why didn't he stay home?

Then, more brain dead individuals moved to Denmark and made death threats against cartoonists because they felt offended.

Are they ultimately going to move into every country on the planet and kill everyone who doesn't agree with them? Is that the true focus of Islam? I don't hear many Muslims making public outcries against such lunatics, certainly not the clerics. This is totally nuts, as though I might move to the Middle East and start killing everyone who offends me by disallowing the free and open worship of Jesus.

I'm basically peaceful, but these nitwits bring nukes to mind. Maybe if their points of origin were swept clean by fire hotter than the sun...you know, nip it in the bud, stop it at the source before it spreads.

If the Arabs want to establish a 17th Century Caliphate in the Middle East and be left the hell alone to enjoy it and worship Allah, I'm all for that. The United States and other western powers have no business being there anyway. Perhaps nothing substantial will happen until the American Empire exits the Middle East, but once we do the Arabs should either stay in their countries or respect the peoples and values of the countries to which they immigrate.

!
>))))2)0)0)8))))) "NO-SHARIA!"
!
!
!
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
[ ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
[ ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........______________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:

VOTE:
NO' Sharia!
NO Hallakha!
NO Caste System(s)!
NO Rule By BiBLE, GiTA, QURAN!
NO Putting Down Woman Anywhere!

THANK YOU!

I think the Archbishop is talking as a citizen. Benjamin, how do you know that he did not ask the sauedi to have a church built in mecca or medina?
Character assassination is immoral.

Uh, lets try this, if you CHOOSE to live in a county that is differnet from your own...how about...respect their culture and RULE of LAW. If you find you cannot, you are always free to leave.

Of course, indeed, the Archbishop does not understand the Islamic sharia law. It's different thing to talk about sharia law, and different issue to practice it. I think that England's twin evil policies of liberalism and multiculturalism would kill the essence of Western religious tolerance in that country. It's beyond any human being's mind to legalize sharia law, which is a very "divisive" and "dangerous" in any forms. I think the Archbishop should look at the Sudan where sharia law is now destroying and tearing apart that country.

This is the third time I've heard of a high ranking British liberal official talking good stuff about sharia law. People such as Prince Charles, David Livingston (Mayor of London), and the Archbishop of Canterbury are Islamic sympathizers. They would do anything to wave white flag in the front of matching Islamists. What kind of a Christian leader is he actually? Why doesn't he demand the Saudi and other die hard Islamists to build one Christian Church in Mecca or Medina? I think the Archbishop must be out of his mind. He needs psychologists to examine his reasoning. This man is indeed sick to reason well. I dare him not to be my spiritual leader anymore. He is not a true Christian leader in any ways.