All Comments (18)

bsjvginlt zshcievm rmufxnbq nsjr zyobqwnve ovcrnh ahgo

Anonymous,

You wrote:

'Norrie Hoyt: "This is contrary to the American and British concept that society is a single, unitary community with one law governing every individual."

'Except when it isn't. See the Archbish's mention of "parallel" Orthodox Jewish religious courts as a precedent that's already been established.

'"Different religious communties' courts can each claim that an individual is a member of their community, leading to disagreeing conclusions in a particular case."

'But since the proposed system would only be allowed if the parties entered into it voluntarily, your citing of Ottoman law has no relevance in this context.'

Refutation:

1. Catholic and Jewish religious courts' decisions on matrimonial matters only affect a marriage's status in the eyes of the religious authorities.

Their decisions have zero effect on the status of a civil marriage in the eyes of the civil law. If the religious and civil court decisions are in conflict, the civil law decision prevails.

2. Where did you get the idea that "...the proposed system would only be allowed if the parties entered into it voluntarily..."?

I don't recall Archbishop Rowan's saying that, and that's not the way it works in practice where the Ottoman system prevails, such as in Israel.

"Jihadist" is a thoughtful, well-educated Muslim woman who lives in Malaysia and frequently posts on these threads.

Some time ago she recounted how a Buddhist court and a Muslim court in Malaysia disagreed in a marriage dispute as to whether the man involved was a Buddhist or a Muslim, and therefore disagreed as to which community's law applied to the marriage and the case.

Adopting Archbishop Rowan's ignorant proposal would be a disaster for any country with an Anglo-American legal system.

"P R O F i T S" Very Inttteersssssting. Ya yA YO!

Anon, Anon, Anon, whoever you are,

The facts about Christianity (and Islam, Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism) are repeated because these facts need repetition to offset the over 6000 years of religious mumbo jumbo and brainwashing. Write again in 6000 years.

And you are correct, I did give Bishop Sisk a promotion. In reality, he should along with all priests, rabbis, imams, clerics and "profits" be given pink slips for the lies, myths and embellishments they spout 24/7.

For only Archbishop Sisk,

When you address the flaws in Christianity, then and only then will your commentary have some meaning.

A synopsis:

1. Abraham founder/father of three major religions was either the embellishment of the lives of three different men or a mythical character as was Moses, the "Tablet-Man" who talked to burning bushes and made much magic in Egypt.

1.5 million Conservative Jews and their rabbis have relegated Abraham to the myth pile along with most if not all the OT. http://www.simpletoremember.com/vitals/ConservativeTorah.htm

2. Jesus, the illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter possibly suffering from hallucinations, has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons 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".

3. Luther, Calvin, Joe Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingy talking flying fictional thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions

The Right Rev. Mark Sean Sisk sez, "American laws and American courts should treat the faith of Islam, and the sharia law to which it gives rise, with exactly the same respect—no more and no less—as they afford to the beliefs and practices of any of our many religious communities."

Let's work on, expand on "with exactly the same respect—no more and no less—as they afford to the beliefs and practices of any of our many religious communities."

OK, how much respect can the courts constitutionally "afford to the beliefs and practices of any of our many religious communities" if they honor the 1st amendment? The answer is zero, zipo, none, nada, not one iota for to do so establishes religions.

So far the 1st amendment has been interpreted to mean the singular of religion may not be established thus making it OK to establish the plural, religions. That point is made in spades by the exclusion of religions like Scientology, just for tax and other legal purposes of course. If the government has not established religions then how can it exclude religions from the establishment?

Devil is behind the trashing of the constitution of course. The big unaccounted, tax free, tax deductible money collected at the tax exempt gold mines known as a churches, temples, synagogues and mosques comes to those leading the multitudes to hell.

We need a SC decision for, http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul so we can know for sure IT was God and not Devil Moses made the deal with. You know, deal like Bush made with evangelical ministers...not wait for suckers to gift them the money in an effort to avoid hell...direct tax dollars into their coffers...payback for political support.

Devil is behind Islam too. All the Muslims need do is become a significant political force. What with the real possibility the next terrorist attack will be planned at an RE tax exempt mosque, be carried out with unaccounted dollars that are also tax free and tax deductible, none of that should stop us form establishing religions. Devil wills it. Hallelujah! I believe! If you don't believe there's something bad wrong with you.

Did you know that only established religions actually own real estate? Yeah sucker. Everybody else only rents theirs from the government -a little thing called real property taxes. Mosques are real estate tax exempt. Suckers!!

A 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" and competing religilousous in U.S. of A., not non-religio Industry's NOW!!

Deport ALL of the VATICAN Catholic Roman Empire "PEDAPHILE/HOMOSEXUAL-PRIESTS/BISHOPS/CARDINALS" back overseas from whence they illegally Imported their 'CURSE & SIN(s)' into older U.S.A., but no longer into the "New APOCALYPTIC-AMERICA-NATiON" U.S.A of 100 States!!!!

Note: This is the E*C*L*A*T*i-ON Prophecy! Please do not be in denial to self nor others! Tonks!

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! "Imagine" (john Lennon; pbuh) 100 U.S. States?

Then We can Say Good bye Middle East & Good Ridence!!!

Important: The Chinese Zionist {MAO's et al} are in Mexico too & populated Mexico 10-fold in last 10 Years! Remember, the Chinese want to POISON Americano's Minds via their Dangerous/un-Healthy Products!!! So They [Chinese Atheistic/Zionists] must be kicked-out of there ASAP! Ya Ya!

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:

..
--

…
---
!
>))))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:

I will disagree with your views. The Shareah laws ask you to cut, in public, the hand of the thieves. Can you tell us where are we going to do that? Which city center would allow that? In addition, we should arrange a budget o by whips; we will be using them to flog the backs of the adopters.

How about the enforcement of AlGeziah (the Muslim special fees) on the non-muslims? Who will be collecting that, the congress?

Before going out and making such ridicules statements, we should read what the Islam says about the killing of non-Muslims. By the way, killing others it is part of the shareha laws too. Start by reading

Be well my friend

I will disagree with your views. The Shareah laws ask you to cut, in public, the hand of the thieves. Can you tell us where are we going to do that? Which city center would allow that? In addition, we should arrange a budget o by whips; we will be using them to flog the backs of the adopters.

How about the enforcement of AlGeziah (the Muslim special fees) on the non-muslims? Who will be collecting that, the congress?

Before going out and making such ridicules statements, we should read what the Islam says about the killing of non-Muslims. By the way, killing others it is part of the shareha laws too.

Be well my friend

I will disagree with your views. The Shareah laws ask you to cut, in public, the hand of the thieves. Can you tell us where are we going to do that? Which city center would allow that? In addition, we should arrange a budget o by whips; we will be using them to flog the backs of the adopters.

How about the enforcement of AlGeziah (the Muslim special fees) on the non-muslims? Who will be collecting that, the congress?

Before going out and making such ridicules statements, we should read what the Islam says about the killing of non-Muslims. By the way, killing others it is part of the shareha laws too.

Be well my friend

I will disagree with your views. The Shareah laws ask you to cut, in public, the hand of the thieves. Can you tell us where are we going to do that? Which city center would allow that? In addition, we should arrange a budget o by whips; we will be using them to flog the backs of the adopters.

How about the enforcement of AlGeziah (the Muslim special fees) on the non-muslims? Who will be collecting that, the congress?

Before going out and making such ridicules statements, we should read what the Islam says about the killing of non-Muslims. By the way, killing others it is part of the shareha laws too.

Be well my friend

I will disagree with your views. The Shareah laws ask you to cut, in public, the hand of the thieves. Can you tell us where are we going to do that? Which city center would allow that? In addition, we should arrange a budget o by whips; we will be using them to flog the backs of the adopters.

How about the enforcement of AlGeziah (the Muslim special fees) on the non-muslims? Who will be collecting that, the congress?

Before going out and making such ridicules statements, we should read what the Islam says about the killing of non-Muslims. By the way, killing others it is part of the shareha laws too.

Be well my friend

Hi Paganplace:

"...religious conservatives tend to be for 'states' rights' when it suits them, and want to federally-legislate their religious laws when the blue states aren't doing what they want."

I couldn't agree more with you on that. You have put your finger on a major defect of our debates today. Richard Dawkins for example calls teaching religion "child abuse", and Mike Huckabee wants to amend the Constitution to reflect Baptist religiosity. Neither wants to be treated as they want to treat others.

The Archbishop suffers from intellectual arrogance, something inflicting numerous leaders. In the BBC interview following his lecture, he stated more than once that he was no expert on shariah law. describing himself as no expert should have perhaps made him realize he was stretching himself a bit thin by speaking on the topic. I thought the Archbishop's plate was plenty full with the problems within his Anglican communion. Maybe he is playing the old politicians trick of distracting people by causing an uproar over something else. But somehow I think while the Archbishop is sophisticated in his use of the English language, his PR skills might need some work.

Norrie Hoyt writes:

"If it is not necessary to speak, it is necessary not to speak".

These are wonderful words. Thank you.

Bishop Sisk,

I agree that Bishop Rowan's lecture is opaque to the point of incomprehensibility.

But I'm not sure that your account of his lecture is correct.

Here's my interpretation, which I posted to your fellow Bishop Wright's essay here in On Faith:

**********

Archbishop Rowan seems to be plumping for the introduction into Anglo-American law of the Ottoman Empire's concept that society is comprised of religious communities, and that matters of personal status (such as marriage and divorce) are governed in any particular case by the laws of the individual's religious community.

This is contrary to the American and British concept that society is a single, unitary community with one law governing every individual.

The Ottoman concept is mischievous, frequently leads to unjust results, and clearly would violate the First Amendment in the U.S. as being an establishment of religion.

The Ottoman concept of religious community law was carried forward into the Israeli legal system, and there have been many press reports over the years of the disastrous outcomes in particular cases.

Consider that a person's membership in a religious community, and the law he will be subject to, is not determined by the individual himself, but by the religious courts.

Different religious communties' courts can each claim that an individual is a member of their community, leading to disagreeing conclusions in a particular case.

There are many other arguments against implanting the Ottoman concept into Anglo-American law, which I won't go into.

It suffices to say that that the Ottoman concept in Britain and America would be unworkable in practice, unjust, extremely socially divisive, and unconstitutional.

I concluded long ago that Bishops and Archbishops, (including the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Rome) would best serve their religion, their parishoners, and the world in general, if they heeded the maxim:

"If it is not necessary to speak, it is necessary not to speak".

Sadly, they don't.

********

"The freedom of religion which we enjoy in the United States is a basic right. It is not, however, an absolute right: the Constitution also gives rights to the states, as representative of the community, which may at times take precedence."

Specifically, all powers not explicitly in the law are presumed to go to the states, and further on down to the individual: certainly, in America, it'd be improper for the state to enforce Sharia law on individual citizens, even if they're of a particular religion.

Which distinction gets rather blurred when it comes to trying to 'legislate morality,' admittedly: religious conservatives tend to be for 'states' rights' when it suits them, and want to federally-legislate their religious laws when the blue states aren't doing what they want.

As for the media portrayals, well, for what it's worth, a lot of Episcopal clergy have done a great deal to earn some benefit of the doubt in my mind, when they're portrayed as saying something extreme.

This particular matter does seem to have something to do with that archbishop's own agenda for more religious influence in UK government, but that's from someone only half-paying attention. :)