GayPatriot

The Internet home for American gay conservatives.

Will Britain Surrender To Islamic Rule?

by

I have to admit that even as a long-time forecaster of the perils of the global Islamist movement these developments in Britain completely shocked me.

Archbishop of Canterbury Calls for Sharia Law in UK – Evening Standard (London)

The Archbishop of Canterbury caused consternation yesterday by calling for Islamic law to be recognised in Britain.

He declared that sharia and Parliamentary law should be given equal legal status so the people could choose which governs their lives.

This raised the prospect of Islamic courts in Britain with full legal powers to approve polygamous marriages, grant easy divorce for men and prevent finance firms from charging interest.

Sharia Law in UK is “unavoidable” – BBC

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”.

From the ARCHIBISHOP OF CANTERBURY?  The head of the Church of England?!?   What strange kind of hell is this?  Is he willing to accept that British gays will be hanged in the shadows of Westminster Abbey under Sharia law?

I guess I shouldn’t be shocked since 20% of British teens polled think Winston Churchill was a mythological figure.  PM Churchill would never have surrendered this easily to any form of fascism that threatened British sovereignty.

Nevertheless, I am simply stunned by this news… at the same time US troops are fighting back Islamic extremism and dying for freedom around the world.

-Bruce (GayPatriot)

Comments

  2. Nah, he’d be a dhimmi, an infidel who accepts his inferiority, pays extra taxes not to be killed, and has no civil rights, as opposed to a moslem woman who has 1/2 the rights of a man. If you roll over and pay, they spare you. Just don’t expect rights or justice because you are literally equal to a dog.

    He won’t be able to wear his shiny cross either, or speak out like this, and services would be somewhere other the Canterbury Mosque.

    The Brits should box him up and ship him to Saudi for a couple of years for a taste.

  3. Careful Bruce. You might hurt somebody’s feelings. That’s not very “progressive” of you.

    Reminds me of the yankees who come down here and do all they can to make the South more like (ie. just as miserable as) home erasing Southern history and heritage along the way.

  6. The problem is that the stark choice he wants to avoid is one that needs to be faced in a pluralist society. There must be some morality that trumps all others. Whatever a person’s private religious beliefs are, they cannot become a ruling ethos that trumps the state and its laws.

  8. When a person or family moves to another country, they de facto submit to that country’s existing laws and customs. For example, business executives accepting positions in China know they will be living and working under China’s laws and that they will be expected to conform to China’s cultural mores. None of the immigrant groups arriving in the United States prior to the First World War sought to change our laws to conform to their native country’s laws. Some attempted to preserve languages and some aspects of their native culture, and that is fine. But to assume that a nation’s entire legal system will be changed to accomodate a relatively small minority is unacceptable.

    It’s not just the United Kingdom either. All of Europe is in danger of becoming subsumed under the wave of Islamic barbarism.