Skepticism

Skepchick Quickies, 2.11

  • Why We Kiss – Apropos of Valentine’s Day: “Researchers are revealing hidden complexities behind the simple act of kissing, which relays powerful messages to your brain, body and partner.”
  • Scientist Valentines – Hey, I think Ironic Sans is inadvertently participating in our Darwin Valentine’s Day contest.
  • Phelps Vs. Huckabee – Wow, Fred Phelps AND Mike Huckabee in one post? That’s a lot of religious crazy. Even crazier is the fact that Phelps is now picketing Huckabee. Did he run out of funerals to picket already?
  • Homeopathic Remedies as a Catalyst? – Respectful Insolence has some thoughts about that.
  • Sharia Law in UK “Unavoidable” – Writerdd forwarded me this with the commentary, “Holy shit, I even can’t believe I’m reading this.” I think that sums it up nicely.

Jen

Jen is a writer and web designer/developer in Columbus, Ohio. She spends too much time on Twitter at @antiheroine.

Related Articles

11 Comments

  1. My wife has been ranting about the Archbishop of Canterbury's ill-chosen remarks since they first made it to the airwaves.

    I knew I married her for a reason. :D

    The Archbishop of Canterbury (or as I like to call him, "Bishy") is being dangerously deluded here. His assertion that "the law needs to take some account" of the other loyalties and affiliations people have is especially naive. By that logic, national law needs to recognise the exit procedures in the by-laws of my World of Warcraft guild.

    It's really simple: a group of people live together in a democracy, and vote on the people they want to represent them, and on specific issues about which they have a vote. If enough Muslims voted that way in British elections, eventually we could see Sharia law enacted in the UK. mind you, it would take a HELL of a lot of Muslims, voting in a hell of a lot of elections, and the world would have to step aside and not get those pesky human rights people in Strasbourg involved…

    But to say that the law "must" bend to accommodate a minority with an extreme viewpoint is just… dumb.

  2. I follow UK politics at least somewhat. Unfortunately, to someone who follows such as this, this sort of statement from a Church of England official is not really all that surprising. Shocking, yes, but not surprising. The CoE really is in many ways a textbook case of the dangers of established religion.

    With government in the religion business, it is very hard for that same government to say no to other religious pressure groups. After all, if it is good for the CoE, why shouldn't other groups be able to get in on the action?

    Thus we get the present state of affairs where religions in the U.K. all wolf down government funds and enjoy religious schools run and paid for by the government. The idea that "communities" should be able to apply their own values to local laws is really just the next logical step. It is truly ironic when you consider how religious the average citizen isn't in that country.

    Of especial cluelessness is the idea of Muslim couples "choosing" sharia family law. Gee, I wonder which half of the couple is likely to do the choosing.

    The bottom line is that this is really just more of the same and that this crap is never going to stop unless they disestablish the CoE.

  3. "But to say that the law 'must' bend to accommodate a minority with an extreme viewpoint is just… dumb."

    Unfortunately, empty-headed, self-appointed guardians of "multiculturalism" advocate plenty of this in both our countries.

  4. If you haven't already seen it, PZ posted a YouTube video from Pat Condell about this:



    It's almost as though the Archbishop was becoming jealous of all the attention Ratzinger was getting for his loony remarks and wanted in on the action.

Leave a Reply

You May Also Enjoy

Close
Close