麻豆官网首页入口

Would it be possible to re-visit the topic of 'cousin marriage' and give it a slightly more forensic analysis than the insipid treatment given to it by Woman's Hour today ? This is a serious topic, which I know you have covered before - but which has been raised again by Phil Woolas and Ann Cryer.

would it be possible to stop discussing ways to unwind british development by 500 years?

The law of the land should be free of all formal religious laws (for example, with reference to religious text). If you believe in God, then you must believe that God has given us the choice to choose Him or not as individuals. God never forces us to believe in Him / to follow Him. So why should we impose our religious beliefs on others through the law, whether it be Christian, Jewish or Islamic (the only time we impose our will on others is to protect innocent parties)? This is something I fail to understand about the archbishop. As a (Christian) religious leader he should be arguing for the practice of free will, not the formal imposition of religious law on others.

To those who are Christian, Jesus gave two very clear laws for us all to follow and which all the gospels are based on: Love God and neighbour. An absurd point, but true: you cannot lock people up for not loving others. You cannot impose Christian laws on others (again, you can only impose your own will in order to protect innocent parties 鈥� a will that is scrutinized and formalized by the rule of law).

However, the best we can do in preventing chaos from breaking out, and which is the standard for all human practise is democracy and the rule of law (there is something about democracy and the rule of law which is akin to the Hippocratic oath that doctors take: democracy is about fairness, and the rule of law about justice, just as the Hippocratic oath is ultimately about the preservation of life).

If you are a Christian or a Muslim that doesn't mean you are not allowed to persuade others why a certain law shouldn't be introduced or removed (even if that law happens be part of your faith). It's just that you cannot say: 'I impose this law on you / I impose this law on you because it is part of my faith ' or something along those lines.

So we have democracy (nothing fairer, from a secular point-of-view) and the rule of law . But let's not forget that democracy isn't something entirely secular (nor should it have to be). I mean, take an obvious example. Someone who doesn't believe in God or someone who does believe in God will agree on a lot of things, for example, that people who commit acts of violence on the street should be brought to court, and depending on the seriousness of the crime, be locked up. We all have an idea of right or wrong (religious people would say that it derives from God) and non-religious people that it derives from one's own personal sense of morals (or any number of other philosophical / sociological reasons).

So, anyway, as somone who turns to Christ / The Trinity on a daily basis / as the bedrock of life, religion and following the laws of Jesus / The Trinity are very crucial to me. Yet, at the same time, I believe that people must be free to choose God. If you were to introduce (or introduce more of) Sharia Law in the way the Archbishop suggested, then who do you introduce it to / how can you be sure that those who you impose the law over are actually true believers / or what happens if a non-believer is, in anyway involved.

I accept that many have exaggerated what the Arch Bishop what saying but still, his approach, in my view goes against:

CHRISTIANITY (not because he supports something of another religion but because Christianity is not about imposing religious laws on others in any sense, and Sharia Law, would, to one degree or another, be imposing religious laws on others).

DEMOCRACY / RULE OF LAW. Democracy / rule of law aren't perfect (we haven't reached Utopia yet) but they are the most fair and just ways of doing things.
COMMON SENSE. How on earth would you introduce Sharia law (in the way he suggests). How would you introduce any religious law without a backlash / disruption to society.

So from a religious, philosophical, and practical point of view, I think he is in error.

If the Archbishop wants to really help Muslims then he should be supporting, more, the Muslims of Palestine. And, in regards to helping Christianity, make hard-hitting speeches about the loss of faith in this country. He should do this instead of undermining democracy and the rule of law.

So our unelected and unrepresentative Archbishop, once again and as Polly Toynbee once pointed out dithers and 鈥渕uddles into the moral maze and gets himself hopelessly lost.鈥�

No one seems to have noticed that this is only the latest of a series of high-minded moral lectures that Rowan Williams has been making on matters social and legal over the last couple of weeks. Let鈥檚 put aside his unhelpful contribution to the abortion debate, last year, which he dithered into and provoked Polly鈥檚 unusually perceptive assessment. He also started shooting his mouth off over the 24 hour drinking laws and, whether you agree with them or not, you have to ask who voted for this person to lecture the government on changing its laws?

It is, perhaps, an indication of how the government is so utterly compromised by the issue of faith that Gordon Brown said that he wanted to "consult" with the Church of England in relation to scrapping the out-dated, unjustifiable, blasphemy laws. Again, you have to ask, why the Chuch of England? Why not all of the respective constituents that their supposed to represent?

Rowan鈥檚 response to this was absolutely stunning. He actually advocated that the blasphemy laws are abolished in favour of something even more severe and draconian, that prohibited 鈥渃ruel鈥� and 鈥渢houghtless鈥� forms of speaking. Even then there were useful idiots rallying to support him.

Now, Rowan Williams claims that he has been misrepresented and that his carefully worded and nuanced speech had never called for a parallel jurisdiction of Sharia for Muslims. It is probably because he used so many caveats that he, himself, doesn鈥檛 actually realise that this is generally the notion he was trying to gently put forward.

On reading the full text of the speech, It appears, that it is no more than special pleading and consideration of the law making special legal provision for practicing religious groups. The Archbishop鈥檚 intention and agenda, really seems to be, one law for those of religious faith and another for the rest of us. He was merely using the example of Sharia to promote a notion of exceptionalism from the law so that the idea can be extended to all religious faiths including Christianity. This idea that he defended today by referring to the "moral objection clause" and it is, of course, utterly repugnant to anyone that believes that we should all be equal under the same law. This is why he said in the 麻豆官网首页入口 interview that the one law was 鈥渁 bit dangerous.鈥�

Rowan Williams hasn鈥檛 been misunderstood. Unfortunately for him, what he actually meant was only far too clear and we all know various examples for what he means. Cast your minds back to the crash helmet debacle. The law of the land was then seriously compromised when Sikhs were not compelled to wear crash helmets, an exception being made on religious grounds. We鈥檙e all aware of GPs who refuse to do their job and public duty by refusing to refer women for abortions because of 鈥減ersonal convictions.鈥�

More recently, we鈥檝e had Hindus who object to disease-riddened cattle being humanely destroyed, hotel owners who refuse to accommodate gay people and Catholic adoption agencies that are threatening to close rather than allow a child to be adopted by gay parents because they refuse to acknowledge a change in the law.

It is in the light of this that Rowan Williams wouldn鈥檛 just like to see a continuation of religious exceptionalism but to also see it extended. This surely proves the point that Professor Richard Dawkins made in his fine book, The God Delusion, where he identifies the one of the threats to democratic values and the rule of law comes from the so-called religious moderates rather than extremists. This is because extremists are easily dismissed as crackpots and being completely out-of-touch with the everyday world. Moderates, as epitomised by the Archbishop, are dangerous because they鈥檒l strain every intellectual muscle and every rhetorical sinew to defend the indefensible, excuse the inexcusable and, in case of Sharia law, perform mental acrobatics to justify the unjustifiable and have a far greater chance of being taken seriously by their peers.

I hope that we can now all see where this is ultimately heading and recognise that there now has to be an absolute separation of religion and state. We can only co-exist in secular state no matter how uncomfortable that may be for some.

We can start by getting rid of all unelected peers, including the Archbishop, from the House of Lords. Doctors who refuse to give abortions or pharmacists who refuse to administer contraception out of 鈥減ersonal conscience鈥� should be systematically struck-off or sacked. Hotel owners who refuse to accommodate gay people should be closed down and so should Catholic adoption agencies that refuse to obey the law. All religious involvement in family courts also has to end.

Only then will we have something approaching a sane, rational society that isn鈥檛 held to ransom by faith-based pressure groups, muddle-headed medievalists and the bigoted believers in Bronze or dark-age fairy tales.

Discuss.

Please discuss, there are lots of people like me who have been closely following the debate and wondering if our view is ever going to be represented at all.

I must raise a new complaint against the beleagured Archbishop of Canterbury. His speech explaining his views was very ambiguous, so as an elderly scholar of English and Religious Studies, I was puzzled by his use of the word 'unclarity'. I cannot recall the use or existence of this word, and am left even more confused by the kind gentleman's explanation.

Trust Rowan Williams to jump on the Islamic Bandwagon. If he hadn't uttered his controversial statement would anybody know he and his Bishops were having a General Synod? Furthermore would anybody care? I Think not. The sooner he and his 26 Lords Spiritual are removed from parliament the better.