Toadfish Monastery

Open Water => Serious Discussion => Current Events => Topic started by: Griffin NoName on February 07, 2008, 10:08:02 PM

Title: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Griffin NoName on February 07, 2008, 10:08:02 PM
Canterbury (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233335.stm) off his head?
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Opsa on February 07, 2008, 10:17:52 PM
I give up.

Why don't religions just up and say they won't abide by the laws of the state and get it over with?

Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Pachyderm on February 07, 2008, 11:21:17 PM
For all that he holds a Doctorate, and is one of the senior figures in his chosen profession, the man is a clown.

Live in the UK, live by the UK laws.

Don't want to, no problem, live where you feel happiest about living by the laws governing that country, be that Sharia, Beth Din, Rule of the Purple Spotted Mongoose....
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: pieces o nine on February 07, 2008, 11:27:53 PM
Via Media in all things, but only to a median degree.

I think he's trying to be open-minded, but he's ignoring what happens when two different sets of laws, from two different cultures, based on two different ways of looking at people, are set on a collision course. The Archbishop's own guidebook says, "No man can obey two masters."

If you move to a country, you obey the laws of that country. You don't get to bring along your own -- from a situation you are leaving -- and follow them when convenient instead.
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Griffin NoName on February 07, 2008, 11:31:46 PM
It seems that his remarks may have been sparked off by a recent Works and Pensions decision.

Quote from: Telegraph
Husbands with multiple wives have been given the go-ahead to claim extra welfare benefits following a year-long Government review, The Sunday Telegraph can reveal.

Even though bigamy is a crime in Britain, the decision by ministers means that polygamous marriages can now be recognised formally by the state, so long as the weddings took place in countries where the arrangement is legal.

The outcome will chiefly benefit Muslim men with more than one wife, as is permitted under Islamic law. Ministers estimate that up to a thousand polygamous partnerships exist in Britain, although they admit there is no exact record.

:rulez: :desperate:
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Pachyderm on February 07, 2008, 11:34:24 PM
Everybody already knows DWP are clowns.... ::)
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: beagle on February 08, 2008, 07:58:10 AM
Quote from: Griffin NoName on February 07, 2008, 10:08:02 PM
Canterbury (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7233335.stm) off his head?

Yep. But if it gets Griffin reading the Telegraph it can't be all bad.

Suspect the archbish will go off the idea when they start beheading adulterous women in Kent.
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Swatopluk on February 08, 2008, 10:11:25 AM
Maybe it is just the stalking horse to get all the old church laws back again too (but the beheading would probably be restricted to the royal and prime minister families as far as adultery is concerned ;))
England kept anti-witchcraft laws longer than most other nations while abandoning the actual persecution before most others. The laws were kept because it showed that the state was prepared and citizens could sleep undisturbed. Hm, some parallels to the terrorist threats (with the difference of course that there are real terrorists around while there is doubt about true witches)?
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Darlica on February 08, 2008, 10:34:44 AM
Or digging holes in the middle of town square so they can half bury the woman so she can't run away when they throw stones at her...

QuoteMuslims could choose to have marital disputes//dealt with in a Sharia court

Talk about undermining woman's position in the society as a whole...
Thinking about it why should Sharia laws only be for Muslims??? Every one is equal before the law, right?

Why don't plainly tell us that rape is no longer a crime unless the woman can bring three independent witnesses. And that woman belongs to her husband or if unmarried to her father or if she is unmarried and her father is dead she should obey her oldest bothers every whim (even if he is much younger than her).

:headbang: :snark: :headbang:

I have nothing against Islam, or Muslims in general, but I have have great issues with how Sharia laws are practised especially regarding women's rights. I do find the mutilation punishments disgusting but I feel the same about torture or death penalty no matter what country or religion that endorse it.     
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Griffin NoName on February 08, 2008, 11:28:21 AM
Another bit of the same ruccus relates to divorce; calls for divorce to according to Sharia Law.

SIDE NOTE Can't fathom that one. I am divorced according to the Royal Courts of Justice.... but I never bothered to get a "Get", a Jewish divorce, so according to Jewish Law I am still married. I suppose if I did bother, the rabbis may refuse me, but since my ex broke every law in the bible (ok I exagerate slightly) I bet I'd get it easy peasy. In any case it didn't stop him celebrating his 2nd marriage to a Ukraine Orthodox with a massive Jewish blessing drama, it's all a bit silly. I am prohbited from marrying in an orthodox synagogue but having found perfect Jewish men aren't why would I want to?

Jewish Law is pretty strict. But has managed to adapt to whatever country it lands in. Makes me wonder why Sharia law cannot similarly adapt. Until I remember the stuff Darlica and Beagle write of.

Re. Telegraph, if that's the sort of twaddle they report, it encourageth me notteth to read it. ;)  Where was the headline: Works and Pensions Review (sic.) called for?
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Pachyderm on February 08, 2008, 03:51:28 PM
Suspect the archbish will go off the idea when they start beheading adulterous women in Kent.

Wouldn't be around to see it.As a major religious figure, he'd have been executed for preaching Christianity.....
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Scriblerus the Philosophe on February 08, 2008, 05:01:16 PM
Hm, so he's suggesting that two sets of laws will help social cohesion, is he?
So Muslims can pick and choose which set they follow?

Yeah, that'll help.  ::)
I tend to believe that certain aspects of the host culture need to be assimilated into the minority culture--respect for the national law is one of them.
If they can't, well, then they don't really belong there, do they?

I looooathe Sharia law. It scares me, particularly its view of women. How can any self-respecting Western country even think about adopting a set of laws that reduces half its population to mere brood mares and house elves?
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Sibling Chatty on February 08, 2008, 05:29:49 PM
Quote from: Scriblerus the Philosophe on February 08, 2008, 05:01:16 PM
How can any self-respecting Western country even think about adopting a set of laws that reduces half its population to mere brood mares and house elves?

That's the Far Right Wing Republican's Dream...

Scary, huh? 
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: beagle on February 08, 2008, 05:47:37 PM
Quote from: Swatopluk on February 08, 2008, 10:11:25 AM
England kept anti-witchcraft laws longer than most other nations while abandoning the actual persecution before most others. The laws were kept because it showed that the state was prepared and citizens could sleep undisturbed.

And to keep them out of the approaches to Heathrow.
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Scriblerus the Philosophe on February 08, 2008, 06:24:27 PM
Chatty--True. I don't think I'd make for a very good kitchen wench. I may just try to find a way to disguise the taste of Draino at that point.

And we wimmin can always gang up on the men, should they try. Well, we wimmin and our smart men, anyway.
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: beagle on February 08, 2008, 08:31:10 PM
Apparently the archbish isn't a few seraphim short of an heavenly host after all, it's just a case of remarks being taken out of context. The correct context being the Middle Ages, presumably.

Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Griffin NoName on February 08, 2008, 08:35:55 PM
He seems to have ruined his own debate before it started.

Were women stoned in medieval britain?
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: beagle on February 08, 2008, 08:38:19 PM
Probably only at Glastonbury.
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Darlica on February 10, 2008, 12:56:30 PM
Here in Scandinavia a common punishment for women caught red-handed with adultery was to be stripped naked, in public, get her head shaved, get a short chain with stones about the size of a badgers head attached to each end of it around her neck.
Then she was chased out of the city, forced to run through the city streets, while any one who wanted to was allowed to hit her with sticks, throw small stones, or just spit on her. 
I couldn't find a proper translation of the word but this punishment is called Gatlopp in Swedish.
I have no idea about how common it was though.

Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: beagle on February 11, 2008, 07:36:16 AM
Before celebrity TV shows were invented I suspect our nearest standardised equivalent was the ducking stool. Also good (in a Monty-Pythonish sort of way) for detecting witches.

Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Swatopluk on February 11, 2008, 09:02:15 AM
aka bath on public expenses  ::)
But do not forget British public schools. (mutual) torture there must have been standardized enough to gain a nomenclature of its own* (the key, the ag-ag etc., not to forget the invitation to toast)
(voluntary) torture on TV is probably just around the corner. There are some shows that come pretty close (even if we leave out Japanese sitting-on-a-heated-stove contests)

*if Kipling is a trustworthy source
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Griffin NoName on February 11, 2008, 03:25:46 PM
Ah the ducking upside down in the bog !  Happy schooldays.

But I suspect we are drifting off topic. Let's see what the General Synod think - must catch the news later.
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Pachyderm on February 11, 2008, 04:55:54 PM
But do not forget British public schools. (mutual) torture there must have been standardized enough to gain a nomenclature of its own* (the key, the ag-ag etc., not to forget the invitation to toast)


*if Kipling is a trustworthy source


Don't know about Kipling, but we did have specific names for the various "games". Well, one guy did, but he was a bit weird. It's just a pity he was older than me. I went to boarding school a year late, so there was a whole year of Fresh Meat below me. He did try, but me chasing him round the boarding house with a golf club seemed to put him off. My younger brother shouting "He'll do it, he beats me up regularly!" helped a bit as well....
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Darlica on February 11, 2008, 07:09:56 PM
Quote from: Swatopluk on February 11, 2008, 09:02:15 AM
aka bath on public expenses  ::)
But do not forget British public schools. (mutual) torture there must have been standardized enough to gain a nomenclature of its own* (the key, the ag-ag etc., not to forget the invitation to toast)
(voluntary) torture on TV is probably just around the corner. There are some shows that come pretty close (even if we leave out Japanese sitting-on-a-heated-stove contests)

*if Kipling is a trustworthy source

We already have Fear Factor, Survivor and Big Brother.
Battle Royal anyone?
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: pieces o nine on February 11, 2008, 11:15:31 PM
I don't watch "reality" tv, and I don't really understand people who cannot wait to rush home and tune in to new episodes. (But then, I don't really like "stupidity" movies or programming, either. It is wearing enough to deal with such people in real life! :P How can it be fun or relaxing or even cathartic to clot one's leisure hours with focus on more of the same?)

I worked in a company that was downsizing, and frankly, doing it badly. All day long people moaned and whined and raged about the loss of trust, the loss of respect, the loss of civility, and the loss of the implied social contract. Understandable, to a degree. However, after work they rushed home to tune in programs featuring potty-mouthed contestants gleefully planning subterfuge and betrayal, willing to undergo any humiliation or threat for the chance to be on tv and win money. (A perfect dramatization of corporate culture, I think!) Few perceived the hypocrisy of eagerly cheering on weasels on tv, then crying to me about a weasel in their department -- or organizing mutiny when the same said weasels were disciplined for their conduct.

Sometimes it feels as though life were one big Milgram experiment.

-pieces
who is not interested in blind obedience to the man holding the clipboard...
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Scriblerus the Philosophe on February 11, 2008, 11:27:47 PM
Seriously! I never got into the who reality TV thing, either. But then, I suppose, it's the same thing that drives some to watch soaps. More of the same.
I'd rather watch Pushing Daisies, myself.
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Swatopluk on February 12, 2008, 09:05:04 AM
Quote from: Darlica on February 11, 2008, 07:09:56 PM
Quote from: Swatopluk on February 11, 2008, 09:02:15 AM
aka bath on public expenses  ::)
But do not forget British public schools. (mutual) torture there must have been standardized enough to gain a nomenclature of its own* (the key, the ag-ag etc., not to forget the invitation to toast)
(voluntary) torture on TV is probably just around the corner. There are some shows that come pretty close (even if we leave out Japanese sitting-on-a-heated-stove contests)

*if Kipling is a trustworthy source

We already have Fear Factor, Survivor and Big Brother.
Battle Royal anyone?

Hey, a real torture show would be without an easy get-out option :mua:
Jokes aside, there have been demands to show executions on TV regularly (in the US; Saudi Arabia & Co may already do it).
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Griffin NoName on February 12, 2008, 12:40:46 PM
Quote from: Scriblerus the Philosophe on February 11, 2008, 11:27:47 PM
Seriously! I never got into the who reality TV thing, either. But then, I suppose, it's the same thing that drives some to watch soaps. More of the same.

Not the same - can't stand reality - adore certain soaps which seem to me to be an escape from reality, the plots are so far fetched. I especially like the hospital ones where the patients and their relatives get endless attention from the medics, fires break out every other week, and the medics mistakes are always found out. ;)
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: pieces o nine on February 13, 2008, 06:05:20 AM
Quote from: Griffin NoNameNot the same - can't stand reality - adore certain soaps which seem to me to be an escape from reality, the plots are so far fetched. I especially like the hospital ones where the patients and their relatives get endless attention from the medics, fires break out every other week, and the medics mistakes are always found out. ;)
Have you watched the dvd of 28 Days, just to see the "lost" episodes of the Santa Cruz, the soap they watch? Tiny seizure clusters!
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Griffin NoName on February 13, 2008, 12:59:43 PM
Quote from: pieces o nine on February 13, 2008, 06:05:20 AM
Quote from: Griffin NoNameNot the same - can't stand reality - adore certain soaps which seem to me to be an escape from reality, the plots are so far fetched. I especially like the hospital ones where the patients and their relatives get endless attention from the medics, fires break out every other week, and the medics mistakes are always found out. ;)
Have you watched the dvd of 28 Days, just to see the "lost" episodes of the Santa Cruz, the soap they watch? Tiny seizure clusters!

No I haven't. I could barely cope with 24 hours.
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Bruder Cuzzen on February 15, 2008, 03:35:11 PM
OY ! "Reality TV" , how low will tellie programmers go to chase the almighty coin purse . I still grieve over what TV can and should be ,that is, a teaching and communication tool to enlighten  humanity . But Nooooooo we have drivel that creates unworthy(IMO) " idols and celebrities " . ARRRGH ! I want more Nova ,The Passionate Eye , The Nature of Things , Wild Kingdom , 60 minutes and the like .
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: beagle on April 02, 2008, 10:02:32 PM
Quote from: Swatopluk on February 08, 2008, 10:11:25 AM
England kept anti-witchcraft laws longer than most other nations while abandoning the actual persecution before most others. The laws were kept because it showed that the state was prepared and citizens could sleep undisturbed.

You might be amused by this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/01/14/nwit14.xml) . It's still rumbling on 7 years later. How they must be laughing on the other side...
Title: Re: Should we listen to Archbishops?
Post by: Griffin NoName on April 02, 2008, 10:14:19 PM
Quote from: beagle on April 02, 2008, 10:02:32 PM
Quote from: Swatopluk on February 08, 2008, 10:11:25 AM
England kept anti-witchcraft laws longer than most other nations while abandoning the actual persecution before most others. The laws were kept because it showed that the state was prepared and citizens could sleep undisturbed.

You might be amused by this (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2001/01/14/nwit14.xml) . It's still rumbling on 7 years later. How they must be laughing on the other side...

I think I can hear them laughing........   ;)