Login |
New User
Books
Read the 1st Chapter!
The Greatest Show On Earth: The Evidence For Evolution
The God Delusion
Over 1.5 million copies sold
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'
by BBC News
Thanks to Star Spangled Eagle for the link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm
Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
'Sensational reporting'
In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood.
At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.
He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".
"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."
'Other loyalties'
Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."
We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."
The issue of whether Catholic adoption agencies would be forced to accept gay parents under equality laws showed the potential for legal confusion, he said.
"That principle that there is only one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a western democracy," he said.
"But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that."
'Custom and community'
Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.
"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.
People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.
Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.
The country's main Beth Din at Finchley in north London oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.
Dr Williams' comments are likely to fuel the debate over multiculturalism in the UK.
Last month, the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said some places in the UK were no-go areas for non-Muslims.
Dr Williams said it was "not at all the case that we have absolute social exclusion".
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7232661.stm
Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable".
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".
'Sensational reporting'
In an exclusive interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, ahead of a lecture to lawyers in London on Monday, Dr Williams argues this relies on Sharia law being better understood.
At the moment, he says "sensational reporting of opinion polls" clouds the issue.
He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".
"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."
'Other loyalties'
Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."
We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."
The issue of whether Catholic adoption agencies would be forced to accept gay parents under equality laws showed the potential for legal confusion, he said.
"That principle that there is only one law for everybody is an important pillar of our social identity as a western democracy," he said.
"But I think it is a misunderstanding to suppose that means people don't have other affiliations, other loyalties which shape and dictate how they behave in society and that the law needs to take some account of that."
'Custom and community'
Dr Williams noted that Orthodox Jewish courts already operated, and that the law accommodated the anti-abortion views of some Christians.
"The whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways the law of the land pays respect to custom and community, that's already there," he said.
People may legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.
Muslim Sharia courts and the Jewish Beth Din which already exist in the UK come into this category.
The country's main Beth Din at Finchley in north London oversees a wide range of cases including divorce settlements, contractual rows between traders and tenancy disputes.
Dr Williams' comments are likely to fuel the debate over multiculturalism in the UK.
Last month, the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, said some places in the UK were no-go areas for non-Muslims.
Dr Williams said it was "not at all the case that we have absolute social exclusion".
Comments 1 - 50 of 263 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #123550 by Verylee on February 7, 2008 at 10:40 am
This should fill the pews!! Salesman of the year award material! Other Comments by Verylee
3. Comment #123553 by Quetzalcoatl on February 7, 2008 at 10:42 am
Yet another demonstration of how far out of touch Rowan Williams truly is. I find it interesting that he seems to believe that bringing in separate laws for separate groups is supposed to foster social cohesion. The opposite would seem to be the logical consequence.
I'm slightly reassured that the reaction so far seems to be one of all-round condemnation.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
4. Comment #123555 by Sally Luxmoore on February 7, 2008 at 10:44 am
Proof that there is such a thing as being so open-minded that your brains drop out !
... And to think that he sits in the House of Lords.
Maybe this will help towards the eventual disestablishment of the Church of England. We can but hope.
Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore
5. Comment #123556 by agn on February 7, 2008 at 10:46 am
"Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system."
We already know that, archbishop.
We even have a name for such people: Criminals.
Other Comments by agn
6. Comment #123558 by Szymanowski on February 7, 2008 at 10:48 am
It seems such a monumentally stupid thing to say that I suspect RW isn't being sincere. Might this be a cunning plan by the Archbishop to stir up some extra anti-Muslim sentiment? Other Comments by Szymanowski
7. Comment #123559 by Diacanu on February 7, 2008 at 10:50 am
This shows me "moderate", Christianity is indeed jealous of the control fundamentalist Islam has on people. Other Comments by Diacanu
8. Comment #123560 by Sally Luxmoore on February 7, 2008 at 10:52 am
Szymanowski.
It seems such a monumentally stupid thing to say that I suspect RW isn't being sincere.
No, just monumentally stupid.
He has a record of coming out with daft comments like this.
Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore
9. Comment #123561 by jimbob on February 7, 2008 at 10:53 am
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.
Yeah right! Under this scenario muslim men would choose the sharia option even if the women were against it.
Wonder if the archaicbishop will get invites to the public stonings?
Other Comments by jimbob
10. Comment #123562 by liberalartist on February 7, 2008 at 10:55 am
The best thing for society is to do away with all religious laws and have only secular laws like in the US. I assure you, there is no one here trying to establish sharia and we don't have muslims on the street protesting about it. I expect that it can be a struggle to adjust to a new culture and legal system, but when people migrate to a new country that is what they should be expected to do. The only way to have one cohesive society is that all participants share in the same system and all are treated equally. If there are laws that muslims disagree with then they should participate in the national legal system and democratically make changes, not create their own, independent system. How do you define where one system of laws start and another stops?? ridiculous. Other Comments by liberalartist
11. Comment #123563 by Phoenix42 on February 7, 2008 at 10:58 am
I think he is being deliberately provocative here. He is either doing it:a) To show us where we’re headed and get us to explicitly and visibly object
b) As a classic con trick... ask for something outrageous (Sharia law) and then ask for something smaller (e.g. new blasphemy law and exemptions from human rights laws for religious organisations)
c) He has gone completely bonkers and has decided to give up being a bish and audition for the part of Dumbledore in the next Harry Potter movie!
Other Comments by Phoenix42
12. Comment #123565 by clunkclickeverytrip on February 7, 2008 at 10:59 am
The a.o.c. proposes the validation of a form of lawmaking that makes a mockery of democracy, rather than siding with reason.When push comes to shove, the above merely confirms that Christianity has more in common with Islam than it does with a secular social structure. These religions need each others support more than they need democracy. Certainly democracy does not need Christianity or Islam.
Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip
13. Comment #123570 by Fenriswolf on February 7, 2008 at 11:04 am
On the plus side, the leaders of the main political parties have all distanced themselves from Bish's comments.http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233335.stm
Other Comments by Fenriswolf
14. Comment #123571 by Nighttripper on February 7, 2008 at 11:04 am
Comment #123558 by Szymanowski on February 7, 2008 at 10:48 am
It seems such a monumentally stupid thing to say that I suspect RW isn't being sincere. Might this be a cunning plan by the Archbishop to stir up some extra anti-Muslim sentiment?
My thought exactly. And how naive it is to allow muslims (or any group for that matter) to legally devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party "as long as both sides agree to the process".
Do you really think that the woman will be allowed to make a different choice then "judgement by Sharia law" when she finally has accumulated the courage to declare her desire to divorce (with a big chance at being ostracised by her familly and community for the rest of her life).
Other Comments by Nighttripper
15. Comment #123572 by Geoff on February 7, 2008 at 11:07 am
If I go to another country, I expect to have to follow their laws; if it's a country whose laws I don't like or agree with, I don't go. Similarly, I don't expect them to speak English (or provide translators) for my benefit; I learn their language.
If that sounds racist, then fair enough, but I'm not suggesting any different treatment for them than I would expect for myself in any foreign country.
What the Archbishop is suggesting is not integration but disintegration.
Other Comments by Geoff
16. Comment #123573 by Mr DArcy on February 7, 2008 at 11:08 am
"An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth". Perhaps? Rowan Williams must know his own religion's view of justice.
As to whether Islamic thieves in Britain will ever be entirely armless is another question.
Other Comments by Mr DArcy
17. Comment #123574 by 82abhilash on February 7, 2008 at 11:09 am
Dr Rowan Williams is being idiotic. This move will only create two parallel societies which are highly polarized.And the problem with Sharia law is that once it is introduced, no Muslim can refuse to follow it, even if it is only optional. They risk being labeled apostates and even killed.
Besides this will open the door to all sorts of claims from people of all sorts of religious backgrounds - Hindus, Sikhs, Catholics, etc.,
Given that this man is the Archbishop of Canterbury, we now have one more reason now to dismantle the antiquated theocratic institutions of Great Britain.
Other Comments by 82abhilash
18. Comment #123575 by Ragnar0kk on February 7, 2008 at 11:09 am
I would rather fight to the death than bow before Sharia law, fuck this guyOther Comments by Ragnar0kk
19. Comment #123579 by Verylee on February 7, 2008 at 11:15 am
It also reinforces how confused religion is and how even the religious leaders have lost the plot and do not know how to address all their various mythologies coherently...and on top of all that they have to deal with those pesky Atheists. Other Comments by Verylee
20. Comment #123584 by Diacanu on February 7, 2008 at 11:20 am
Look, limeys, I'll say it again, read some Thomas Paine, get into a revolutionary froth, and revolt.You've put it off far too long.
Other Comments by Diacanu
21. Comment #123585 by emmet on February 7, 2008 at 11:21 am
Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."
Exactly backwards, Dr. Williams. In fact, that's exactly what we want: where "religious conscience" is at odds with law, it must be "squared up to"; the alternative is capitulation of civil society to the capricious religious whims of every denomination.
Equality of all persons before the law is a cornerstone of secular democracy.
The only way to respect all religions equally is to respect none of them at all.
Other Comments by emmet
22. Comment #123586 by WSteG on February 7, 2008 at 11:22 am
I rather suspect that Rowan Williams is fundamentally a decent and caring man (and far from stupid) but he doesn't appear to comprehend the aspiration of Islam to control the whole planet. Here's a refinement of his proposal that would leave him with less egg in his beard and, at the same time, would demonstrate vividly where Islam stands. Let Williams propose that all Islamic nations reciprocate and allow non-Muslims and (especially perhaps) apostates to bend to arrangements other than those prescribed by Sharia. I have no expectation that any Islamic nation would subscribe to such an arrangement but, if I were wrong, it would constitute a major breakthrough. Other Comments by WSteG
23. Comment #123589 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 7, 2008 at 11:26 am
No..No F'ing WAY! If they want to follow Sharia law so bad, they can move to Iran. I really don't see how a repressive set of laws can maintain any sort of social cohesion. If you don't like it move someplace where you do. Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
24. Comment #123590 by al-rawandi on February 7, 2008 at 11:26 am
Diacanu,
Tell them to dust off the muskets and red coats...
No more queen.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
25. Comment #123592 by Ragnar0kk on February 7, 2008 at 11:28 am
Comment #123585 by emmet
The only way to respect all religions equally is to respect none of them at all.
I agree with your logic 100% my friend
Other Comments by Ragnar0kk
26. Comment #123593 by Sally Luxmoore on February 7, 2008 at 11:29 am
I rather suspect that Rowan Williams is fundamentally a decent and caring man (and far from stupid)
There is a kind of intelligence (think absent-minded professor stereotypes) that is quite incapable of common sense.
This appears to be the brand that Dr Williams is endowed with.
He is a bit of an innocent and frequently makes comments that backfire because of his inability to imagine their practical consequences.
Has anyone checked to see whether he's managed to put on a matching pair of socks?
He's just unsuitable for this post.
Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore
27. Comment #123594 by AshtonBlack on February 7, 2008 at 11:31 am
Strange one this...On one hand I can't believe he's even thought about this for more that 3 secs. On the other I can't help thinking there's a lot more of an ulterior motive at work...
Anyway, Sharia Law, over my dead cold body. (Well... maybe not, but this would be a deal breaker for me. I'd up sticks and move to fecking Sweden!)
British Common Law, has been, over the last 500 years the basis of most (yes that includes you US!) Legal systems.
Trail by Jury, Appeal Courts, Innocent till proven guilty etc etc.
I can assure you, the day this is past in Parliament will be my very last day in the UK.
Other Comments by AshtonBlack
28. Comment #123595 by scoobie on February 7, 2008 at 11:31 am
He stresses that "nobody in their right mind..."
Who's wearing the pearly dress and pointy hat?
Other Comments by scoobie
29. Comment #123596 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 7, 2008 at 11:34 am
He stresses that "nobody in their right mind would want to see in this country the kind of inhumanity that's sometimes been associated with the practice of the law in some Islamic states; the extreme punishments, the attitudes to women as well".
Hmm...then WHAT, pray tell, about Sharia law is reasonable, as WELL as not already on the books. If all that's on the books is what's reasonable in Sharia law, WHY BLOODY BOTHER CHANGING IT to appease one subgroup?! What makes them so much more "speshul" than the rest of us?
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
30. Comment #123597 by Verylee on February 7, 2008 at 11:37 am
A cunning plan?...Maybe it's an (dis) ingenious method to get the moderate moslems to start jumping up and down if they feel that sharia may be coming their way after all they have done to get away from it? Other Comments by Verylee
31. Comment #123598 by AshtonBlack on February 7, 2008 at 11:38 am
Look, limeys, I'll say it again, read some Thomas Paine, get into a revolutionary froth, and revolt.
You've put it off far too long.
Some of us already have. A great man. (and, of course, himself a Limey)
Other Comments by AshtonBlack
32. Comment #123599 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 7, 2008 at 11:39 am
The best thing for society is to do away with all religious laws and have only secular laws like in the US.
Contention: Most states still have so called "blue laws" which prohibit the sale of certain "vice" items such as alcohol and, in my state, Pennsylvania, automobiles. (I think that has something to do with the whole "day of rest" thing) So, if I get into a car accident Saturday night, and I need to buy a new ride to get to work, I'm screwed because it apparently "offends" religious sentiments. They're outdated, IMHO. In addition, it's STILL ILLEGAL in many states for a non-believer to hold ANY kind of state office. SRSLY, LITERALLY illegal, which, of course, I needn't really point out: is unconstitutional.
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
33. Comment #123601 by Ragnar0kk on February 7, 2008 at 11:42 am
Comment #123599 by Colwyn Abernathy
Contention: Most states still have so called "blue laws" which prohibits the sale of certain "vice" items such as alcohol and, in my state, Pennsylvania, automobiles.
You should move to Oregon we don't have any of those religious laws (or very few) and we just legalized same sex unions a couple days ago!
Other Comments by Ragnar0kk
34. Comment #123602 by Noodly on February 7, 2008 at 11:47 am
The Archbishop is worried about losing the priviledges granted to Christianity in the UK.
He knows that defiantly placing his deckchair in the sand will be useless against the tide of reason, therefore he is trying to engineer a multi-faith pile of deckchairs in order to create a little breakwater that he can shelter behind.
Other Comments by Noodly
35. Comment #123603 by Sally Luxmoore on February 7, 2008 at 11:48 am
Noodly.
Doesn't he know what happened to King Canute ?
Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore
36. Comment #123604 by Stew282 on February 7, 2008 at 11:50 am
OK, religious law as an alternative to secular law...
Does the Gospel of the FSM have any rules about not paying tax? - or shooting idiot bishops for that matter?
This really is the thin end of the wedge.
Other Comments by Stew282
37. Comment #123605 by Sally Luxmoore on February 7, 2008 at 11:50 am
Noodly.
I should have mentioned... Great name.
(I too have been touched by the Noodly appendage.)
Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore
38. Comment #123607 by Quetzalcoatl on February 7, 2008 at 11:52 am
Sally Luxmoore-
Doesn't he know what happened to King Canute ?
Yes, and he respects the King for holding onto his beliefs in the face of adversity and a mountain of overwhelming evidence against them.
Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl
39. Comment #123608 by Sally Luxmoore on February 7, 2008 at 11:56 am
Quetzalcoatl. (took me an age to spell that...)
Oh dear. Methinks you're correct.
I keep forgetting that these religious types just KNOW that they're right...
Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore
40. Comment #123610 by al-rawandi on February 7, 2008 at 12:00 pm
Rowan Williams just looks like an ass clown...
Is it forbidden to trim your damn eye brows?
His nose looks like a majestic phoenix in mid flight...
Other Comments by al-rawandi
41. Comment #123612 by issue99 on February 7, 2008 at 12:02 pm
Seperate schooling and seperate legal systems with the goal of increasing social cohesion? I don't see how he can be serious. We're going to end up in some sort of fractured multi-faith theocracy. Face facts Williams:A) We need to move away from religious influence in state institutions.
B) You look like an owl.
Other Comments by issue99
42. Comment #123613 by Mr DArcy on February 7, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Thomas Paine:
"The world is my country!"
A sentiment I heartily agree with.
Other Comments by Mr DArcy
43. Comment #123614 by Goldy on February 7, 2008 at 12:04 pm
Made me smile when I heard this on the BBC this morning :-) Aaaah, I am glad I moved to one of Her Maj's Antipodean colonies...
Mind you, give the Bish his due..
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
He's is right, you know. Some of them do put religion first, above all else. Of course, they do it in the freedom that they can, which is why they do not move away when they can (and some of them have quite palatial places in Pakistan and India, so I have heard). They prefer to go to an unofficial sharia court instead of the police and the British courts (guess that's why they can say Islam means less petty criminals - they don't feature on the statistics - but this is conjecture on my part). The Orthodox Jews have their courts too and people are allowed to tweak the Hippocratic Oath and bleed to death on the NHS. Why not openly allow sharia? Banks are doing it too, after all. It just that, well, as he said..
"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."
Have any modern Muslims been this accommodating? The ones in power, I mean - obviously the ordinary people don't give a toss on the whole. But the ones with an agenda, the ones that want a Caliphate to encompass pretty much everything they missed from AD700 onwards - will they be accommodating? I'll not hold my breath...
Still, the British press will have a field day over this. I look forward to seeing it in the Daily Telegraph :-) The Mail will be even better, methinks!
Other Comments by Goldy
44. Comment #123615 by phil rimmer on February 7, 2008 at 12:06 pm
He knows that defiantly placing his deckchair in the sand will be useless against the tide of reason, therefore he is trying to engineer a multi-faith pile of deckchairs in order to create a little breakwater that he can shelter behind.
Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."
Like with the homophobia of Roman Catholic adoption agencies, perhaps?? I think the Dismal Doctor, given his recent disgrace in failing to condemn his own churches homophobic faction, needs to sell us the "morality" of "live and let live" as a screen for his own moral cowardice.
Other Comments by phil rimmer
45. Comment #123618 by Szkeptik on February 7, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Ok, so can I have a unique set of laws for myself? I'm not a Christian, nor a muslim nor a jew. I want personal laws!I'm interrested what would he suggest when a non-muslim woman on the street offends a muslim man with her inappropriate clothing (by muslim standards)? Which law would apply for that?
Other Comments by Szkeptik
46. Comment #123619 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 7, 2008 at 12:08 pm
You should move to Oregon we don't have any of those religious laws (or very few) and we just legalized same sex unions a couple days ago!
Really? Pity it isn't actual "marriage," but it's a step in the right direction. I've yet to hear a rational explanation why homosexual marriage is still "wrong". The natural argument falls flat, as well as the so-called "dissolving" of the "family unit." Um...doesn't marriage mean BEGINNING a family? It still boggles my mind how people STILL use these faulty arguments.
EDIT: When, in truth, their "feelings" on the issue break down into the Argument From Nausea: "Ew, that's gross. They can't do that!" I, of course, can make the same argument against mustard. Can't stand the stuff, even the smell, therefore, you can't have any either. It's ridiculous.
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
47. Comment #123622 by al-rawandi on February 7, 2008 at 12:09 pm
issue99,
Owl?
Noe looks like a Phoenix in flight.
Bird Man...
Other Comments by al-rawandi
48. Comment #123625 by Richard Morgan on February 7, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Perhaps we should hold fire here until he tells us precisely which aspects of Sharia law he is referring to.And has adequately answered the question : "Unavoidable? Otherwise.....what?"
Is this some sort of containment strategy?
You know, "let them fight it out amongst themselves" sort of approach.
RW is not stupid.
Even PZ Myers said, "It's not idiotic to be religious." (This in the context of an explanation of how the brain works.)
Scoobie :
Who's wearing the pearly dress and pointy hat?This kind of silly remark does not strengthen your credibility.
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
49. Comment #123627 by PrimeNumbers on February 7, 2008 at 12:14 pm
The ABC once again shows he doesn't know what he's talking about and manages to annoy both his flock and us by his ill chosen, ill thought, treacherous and traitorous words. Other Comments by PrimeNumbers
50. Comment #123631 by Colwyn Abernathy on February 7, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Bird Man...
HARVEY Birdman, Attorney at Law!
I'LL TAKE THE CASE!!
Get ready to feel the power....OF ATTORNEY!!
Other Comments by Colwyn Abernathy
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
DVDs
'The Genius of Charles Darwin: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'The Genius of Charles Darwin' DVD
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #123548 by PJG on February 7, 2008 at 10:38 am
There have been many comments on this website about how the UK may "sleepwalk" into a dangerous situation regarding religion and the state. This may be what was needed to make a lot of complacent people sit up and realise where kow-towing to religious dogma may lead.
Other Comments by PJG