<< MOCK OF THE BAY ~ MAIN ~ MESOZOIC, CENOZOIC ... HAPPY CRAYS >>
OWLBROWS HITS BACK
The Archmullah of Canterstan claims he was merely exploring and teasing:
Dr Rowan Williams hit back on Friday night over criticism of his comments amid growing calls for his resignation.
He made no proposals for sharia, and “certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law”, a statement on his website said.
He was “exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience” and his core aim was “to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state”.
So that’s all he was trying to do! With these revisionist skills, ol’ Owly really should be writing about cricket. Speaking of which, it’s as though Peter Roebuck never wrote a certain column last month:
The time has ... come to thank Hayden and Gilchrist for their services.
Get lost, losers. Yet here’s Roebuck today:
Matthew Hayden and Adam Gilchrist reminded spectators at the SCG of their value to the Australian team.
Not only spectators, apparently.
‘the rights of religious groups within a secular state’ seems to depend on which wheel squeaks the most. The sharia-ites do not seem to know when to shut up. But of course it is all our faults for living.
Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 02 09 at 05:46 AM • permalink#6
The Hindu community in the UK has said exactly that lately. The RSPCA has destroyed several of their sacred bulls lately due to an outbreak of bovine tuberculosis. Quite rightly they’ve pointed out that, if they had made veiled threats of violence, like the Islamic community regularly does, the bulls would still be alive.
CofE seems to be now a very gay group with the Lambeth walk.
How would the stone group handle them?Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 02 09 at 05:51 AM • permalink#8 The Hindu community in the UK seem a nice group. Pity about the needs of society.
Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 02 09 at 05:54 AM • permalink11 ‘whilst consideration of Muslim sensitivities are #1 on people’s agendas.’
Not on mine. If sharia is on the agenda.Posted by stackja1945 on 2008 02 09 at 05:57 AM • permalinkMurph, as the Hindu community realises, the Hindus are hardly likely to blow stuff up because they feel slighted. The Muslims however, actually would. Even when there’s no slight imaginable actually present.
Muslims have been able to manipulate society enough to allow for their way of life to be able to considered more important than others, even though all it brings is destruction, poverty and hatred.
I was shocked to read the report as per a few subject blogs ago.
I wouldn’t normally swear out loud about someone so senior in the church in which I and most of my family were christened/married and buried . But I did this morning when I read it in an earlier blog.
When the leaders of the Christian faith churches weaken, we need to seriously consider that Islamic infiltration is making inroads.
In my opinion the only response to Islam is hard line. Acceptance/ “tolerance” is an option for people who are willing to say we were wrong at their peril down the track. I am by the day more convinced that the Western world and the freedoms we take for granted is under threat by this scourge. If we take a soft line now the apologists will find that bloodshed in the form of full scale warfare is the result of their “kindliness”. It’s take a tough line now or go war later… -and ironically it will probably not be in the lifetime of this 48 year old but in the days of my grandchildren. Top legacy from those worried about their grandkids who are tied up with worrying about the fact that the climate is doing what climates do. -changeing. Worrying about a degree C higher /lower or a full on war ...so what is it to be ? Some of our lovey brothers and sisters are already making the choice. We are setting ourself up to be the real “sorry” generation.
Let me see if I understand this correctly. In spite of the fact that relations with the Islamic community is troubled and very sensitive, the Archbishop decided “to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state”?
This man should be removed and installed in some harmless capacity that would not cause any further crises.
Posted by wronwright on 2008 02 09 at 06:16 AM • permalinkOT: A Not Sorry petition from a poster at Bolta’s.
Sounds to me like Bishop Wierdbeard is getting ready to convert.
Posted by mr creosote on 2008 02 09 at 06:33 AM • permalinkHalf of his article was buttressed by using considerations in English laws for Jews as an example. As Melanie Phillips points out in her reply (Its on Tims link bar) NO Jewish law is binding on the state bar 1 small detail of the divorce proceedings.
He quoted the Jewish precedent over a dozen times in his article but in his “teasing out” declined to detail just how inconsequential that was.He a fool and should be removed. If the highest church authority in the land (for his branch anyway) cant summon the guts to defend his faith then what is left??
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 02 09 at 06:35 AM • permalink#16, Wron,
“This man should be removed and installed in some harmless capacity that would not cause any further crises.”
Hear hear. Arch Bishop of Pluto perhaps?
Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2008 02 09 at 06:35 AM • permalink#23, Pogs, that bloke has never gotten his hands dirty in his whole life, what are the chances he’d start with human blood?
Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2008 02 09 at 06:49 AM • permalinkWhat a malicious man. Accommodation? With those who have sworn to either kill you or make you a slave? And he is so thoroughly collectivist that he is concerned about the group-rights of the religious in a secular society. You know, he might want to check his history. Americans worked that out years ago. It is called individual rights: An individual owns his own life, his liberty, and his property; no individual, or group of individuals, has the right to step on any rights of another individual or group of individuals. There is no other way to be equal before the law. It is a principle we ought to rediscover, as well. That is the starting place if anyone is actually interested in the relief of suffering in this world. Hell, America has relieved enough suffering within its population that it no longer remembers what actual suffering is—I mean the soul draining, life shortening kind of misery experienced by the most people in the world, throughout all of human history.
Sham piety. And a good argument against a politically overt religious role, with the subsequent power that entails, in government. Ask yourself rather what role he sees himself playing in a secular government, and to what end.
Roebuck called the Australian team “wild dogs” in January.
If I were the Australian team I would have shirts made up emblazoned with the term Wild Dogs and wear them with pride.
There is a precedent for this. Over 60 years ago another expatriate Englishman with a radio program called the Aussies at Tobruk “Rats”. They’ve been the Rats ever since.
Posted by The Mongrel on 2008 02 09 at 07:03 AM • permalink“This lecture will not attempt a detailed discussion of the nature of sharia, which would be far beyond my competence; my aim is only, as I have said, to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state, with a few thought about what might be entailed in crafting a just and constructive relationship between Islamic law and the statutory law of the United Kingdom.”—Mullah Williams
“He made no proposals for sharia”—Submullah
Shouldn’t tell lies. People who tell lies go the Bad Place when they die.
Posted by Dave Surls on 2008 02 09 at 07:04 AM • permalinkSomeone said that Rowan Williams belongs in academe rather than a position where “defending the faith” might be required. He never looked like the real deal. This article in The Independent by Yasmin-(I got an)Alibhai-Brown puts the boot into the recycled hippie rather well.
Meanwhile, theTurks turn the clock back to pre-1923. EU take note.#17 25
Does the Federal Parliament accept E-Petitions?
Qld Government has acceptedE-Petitions since 2003.
The petition is not correct in it’s format and I’m not sure that it will be accepted.
Petitions must be signed by real people with their real names.
There are a whole lot of regulations to do with petitions, you just can’t write one out and get people to sign it. It must be worded correctly, like a statutory declaration must be worded in a particular way.
#28 Saltydog,
A just statement.
We have the same problems of “understanding” who, actually is having their individual rights stamped upon.
In Australia, we have laws, rights, inquiries and commissions to explore all our perceived injustices.
The ones who really need the help of all of the above, (aboriginal children and babies), don’t even register on the radar of rights.
The so-called “spiritual and cultural” suffering of these children at the hands of non-indigenous carers, is purported to be far more injurious than their “right” to live a healthy and risk free childhood.
The parents, grandparents and assorted relatives of these children are only interested in extorting a hollow apology, in conjunction with compensation commensurate with their fabricated woes.
The true sufferers of individual abuse will be sacrificed on the mound of collective greed.
“Suffer little children”, was NOT meant to be taken literally.
Owlbrows undoubtedly has an ally in Prince Charles, who’s on record saying that when (or, MTTP, if) he becomes King, he doesn’t want to be Defender of THE Faith (as per the title Fidei defensor given to Henry VIII by Pope Leo X) but as Defender of Faith. Any “faith”, that is - Christianity, Islam, global warmism etc.
As I noted yesterday, the Archbishop of Westminster - Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor - will soon be replaced by whoever is chosen by the capo di tutti capi. Now there are calls galore for Williams to be shuffled off the stage - to Stone Henge or wherever. This could be an opportunity for efficacious, muscular renewal at the upper echelons of English Christianity. Likely, though?
Williams has after numerous attempts, dug his own hole for good. I just hope that those who appointed him see what a pathetic, grovelling piece of human excremant he is.
Instead of at least standing up and defending his views; twisted as they are, when called to account, he just cowers in his hole as the ‘lower than a snake’s stomach’ this prick is.
O/T brilliant article by Keith Windschuttle in today’s Australian. Already got the lefty ‘histerical’ wankers such as Macintyre and Manne screaming
C.L.
Heres the Shuttler.Bits like this tend to give KRudd and co apoplexy
“...The Aboriginal population today numbers almost 500,000, living in about 100,000 families. Those who are serious about an apology should back it with a lump sum payment of $500,000 to each family, a total of $50 billion. Only an amount on this scale can legitimately compensate for such a crime and satisfy the grievances of activists such as Lowitja O’Donohue and Michael Mansell.
The parliament cannot take those bits of Bringing Them Home it finds congenial and ignore the rest…”
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 02 09 at 07:40 AM • permalinkFunnily enough Id just emailed it to a lefty mate of mine to give him the shits.
He a copper who spent Australia day being told “this is my land, you cant do nothing”....
I love pointing out its HIS side of politics uncorking the racial genie from its bottle, more so than a dozen Hansons ever did.Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 02 09 at 07:52 AM • permalink“...The Aboriginal population today numbers almost 500,000, living in about 100,000 families. Those who are serious about an apology should back it with a lump sum payment of $500,000 to each family, a total of $50 billion.
Stock market tip - buy liquorland shares, sadly they are going to be red hot stocks.
Posted by surfmaster on 2008 02 09 at 08:06 AM • permalinkFrollicking,
after reading Keith Windschuttle’s article, It was pointed out to me that, if the Kruddernment were going to pay compensation to all the aboriginal families that were “wronged” because of the “stolen” children myth,there was basis for a case for compensation for the families of all the servicemen, killed or returned, that saved this country from invasion and subjugation by the Japanese and the Germans.
If these servicemen had not been “stolen” by the War Machine, run by the Australian Government of the time, to keep Australia in Australian hands, there would be no course for compensation for the Aborigines, as they would all have been wiped out by the “Purity of Race” doctrines implemented by the Japs and Krauts.
I reckon they owe us, big time.
#51 - Pogria, the last thing the aboriginal people need is access to rivers of money, it will be a disaster for everyone and will take generations to fix the problems it will bring. I can just see labor politicians in 50 years time wanting to compensate the “swollen generation”.
Posted by surfmaster on 2008 02 09 at 08:18 AM • permalinkPogs that wouldn’t work as the servicemen and women were adults and (apart from the draftees) mainly volunteers.
Going to war is usually on the cards for those who enter the Forces, so there can’t be any claims of ignorance.
I’ve been thinking of complaining to the ICC at the Hague, however, since my great great great (or thereabouts) grandfather was sent here for the piddling crime of stealing some clothes.
I could have been English or Irish, you know! As a white-skinned aussie, I’ve been deprived of my British heritage, just as my ancestor was deprived of his freedom and his family and the life and culture he knew forever.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2008 02 09 at 08:21 AM • permalink#52 Surfie,
if the compensation is allowed to go ahead, it will not stop there.
There is a complete generation of children that will be represented by ambulance chasing solicitors who will accuse the Government of the time, of NOT stealing the children for their own safety.
If the “Sorry” windfall is allowed to go ahead, it will be doomed into a cycle of perpetuity.
#55 Nilk, you have a good case there but it’s not quite as good as the case for the white kids stolen from UK after WWII.
I have a friend who was one of those kids and his time in “care” has left him badly scarred.
But his story has a happy ending and he doesn’t need compensation. He has had a successful life in Oz and topped it off when he was reunited with his granny in UK, just in time to be the only legatee to her fortune.The problem, also, is the definition of “Aboriginal”.
My favourite example is the child born in WA to a Polish mother and Mauritian father.
The nurses ticked yes in the box for Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander.
I guess her dad looked Aboriginal, so that’s okay.
(Her mother is a mate of mine and thought this was all quite amusing.)
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2008 02 09 at 08:37 AM • permalinkFrom east and south the holy clan
Of christians listened to a man;
Archbishop of the Anglicans,
In mocking crowds they came.
to jeer this fool Archbishop, who
Had lately been resign-ed to
The balmy law of Sha-ree -ah,
And Rowan was his name.Posted by eeniemeenie on 2008 02 09 at 08:38 AM • permalink#58 Now that’s a good ending, Skeets :)
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2008 02 09 at 08:38 AM • permalink#53 Skeeter,
Have you read The Fatal Shore?
Forget the garbage you’ve heard about Robert Hughes. The research he did for this book would put all the “stolen generation” apologists, and their academic advisors to shame.
It tells of the convicts that were transported here. Their history, what they actually went through. Their lives in this new hell they had come to.
It isn’t a sentimental account of the convict era. There is no whitewashing or laundering.
It is brilliantly told by an experienced voice.
I have always been fond of Robert Hughes.
#55 Nilk,
to you, I also recommend reading The Fatal Shore.
You do have something there about lodging a complaint with The Hague.
Let’s not forget the thousands of British children that WERE transported to Australia in the forties and fifties under gross pretences.
Where is their right to an apology and reparation for everything they went through?
What about the Irish children that were brutalised by the Nuns in the orphanages? Their cases have been documented and the surviving children, who are now adults, are fighting, not for compensation, because no amount of money could make up for what they went through, but for recognition of the brutality they were forced to endure for the simple fact of being orphans, or bastards.
#59 Nilk,
I’ve known a few full-blood Fijians who had some Abo mates that gave them the “yes, he’s an Abo because the elders say so”, routine.
They’ve been receiving full Aboriginal benefits of housing and interest free loans, not to mention jumping the queues as far as elective surgery and dental go, for years.
Abos, for years, have refused to submit to DNA or blood testing to establish legitimacy to their claims.
The sit down money industry is a disgrace.
I’ve still not read The Fatal Shore, Pogs - I got The Rage and The Pride, and the Tom Cruise bio delivered the other day, so they are first cabs off the rank.
I’ll add the Hughes tome to the list.
Posted by Nilknarf Arbed on 2008 02 09 at 08:50 AM • permalinkUmm… guys…
Good luck with that The Hague thing. We’ve actually convinced the UN to have The Hague declared war criminal due to it being part of those who did not stand up early enough to the nazis in europe to keep us Americans from having to go over there and mess with it.
Now, since y’all are nice furrin devil type people, and not the icky sort, I’ll be straight up with you.
We really don’t blame The Hague for the nazi nonsense. But, the UN wants money, we got money and we’re way PO’d at europe right now. So, you do the math. Someone’s gotta fall and we can spell The Hague and are pretty sure we know where it’s at.
#62 Pogs, agree with you entirely on “The Fatal Shore”.
And so does Steven Hill in his review:This is a history that Australian’s repressed as much as was possible for over one hundred and fifty years. They obviously were not able to find and analyse the facts as well as Robert Hughes in this great work. An important work and essential reading for all Australian’s in my view. It is an unembellished and factual account giving well researched and all-important background information on the influences and causes of events that led to the establishment of the Port Jackson colony and ultimately to the creation of our great nation.’
It’s a pity Robert Hughes had those problems in later years. It must turn people away from his earlier, excellent writing.
Another happy ending story which I may have mentioned before:
An aboriginal man was telling me about growing up as as aborigine in a white community. He was brought up to be proud of his aboriginality but his mum taught him to fit in with the whites.
In his late teens he was told about some of the benefits that were available to him because he was an aborigine. He went home and told his mum about all these wonderful things like cheap housing and so on. He planned to take full advantage of it. His mum said that’s OK, go ahead, but never set foot in this house again if you accept one penny of welfare money.
He took her advice and made it on his own.
As his client, I was writing him a very large cheque while he was telling me the story. He now employs about a dozen white men in a very successful business. One of his white workers has a drinking problem, but the boss is getting him straightened out and reckons he will be OK.UPDATE: Crows flogging Collingwood in Dubai
Posted by Whale Spinor on 2008 02 09 at 11:37 AM • permalinkHey, England’s looking for a new motto; maybe we can help them out.
The concept of the bridal dowry seems to have changed a bit in recent years.
#80: Lest I be accused of being too hard on England, let me say that I am second to no one in my admiration for the many noble contributions that that nation has made to Western civilization, not least of which has been its status as a laboratory for the creation of those doctrines of individual liberty and the rule of law that have formed the basis of America’s own Great Experiment. If I chide Her, it is from love, and from the sadness that attends Her well-wishers as they watch this once great nation sink under the weight of moral relativism, the loss of historical memory and the death wish that is leftism.
The Anglican Bishop of Northern Nigeria, a place where they actually have to deal with sharia, explains the difference between Dr. Williams’ breezy theorizing and real life:
Posted by Christopher Johnson on 2008 02 09 at 08:19 PM • permalinkRoebuck’s latest story is lamentable. To consider the point. Let’s send a brief to a cross section of Australian secondary school english students to write a few hundred words about Haydon and Gilchrist’s opening stand against the Lankans.
And then put this latest Roebuck ‘I’d better catch up with public sentiment’ waffle among them and offer an attractive prize to whoever can identify the Roebuck piece.
You just couldn’t do that with most other professional sports writers.
But you could with Roebuck.
#82 Sharia in Britain: Unease in Oxford.
In the shadow of the Central Oxford mosque, David Wood-Robinson, an Anglican clergyman for 50 years, sits in the conservatory of his rambling Edwardian house and talks about sharia law.
Says it all, right there.
Wood-Robinson led the protest against the call to Islamic “prayer” being amplified throughout the streets of Oxford.
And there I was, initially sceptical about this:
Catholics Converted England once - and must do so again.
The author, Dominican Fr Aidan Nichols, is considered one of the great theologians of our time, is admired by Benedict XVI, and is touted by some as a fitting replacement for the soon-to-retire Archbishop of Westminster.
Anyone else for a refreshing wallow in the cesspits of antisemitism today?
Try this from the Guardians comments section, it hasn’t even been moderated out yet and was the first comment posted.
“...GenrikhYagoda
Comment No. 1117185
February 9 17:52
GBR The Archbishop made a pretty bland common sense comment -this has been delieberately blown out of the water by the zionist press who have got their Kippahs in a major twist. They dont seem to have understood what he said - perhaps the mohel sucked too much blood from their pen*ses when he was circumcising them- or may being inbred asheNAZIS has duled their minds.And of course they have thier own Beth Din courts.
Britain moves closer and closer to ziofascism - a CHRISTIAN Archbishop says something and Muslims get blamed…”
And more from the same diseased mind.
“.. GenrikhYagoda
Comment No. 1117318
February 9 19:15
GBR “Boy is Mr. Davies an ignorant one. Since when has fundamentalist Islam given a damn about treaties or human rights.”Coming from an Israeli that is rich - 60 broken UN resolutions mean anything to you? The starvation of Gaza-Aushwitz? Torture, house demolitions, murder of Palestinian civilians, water and land theft,
“While Israel attempts to maintain a democratic approach and protect human rights, the Hamas use the Palestinian people as human shields,”
No the IsraeliNazis use Palestinians as human shelds-why not theyre just goyim
Israel accused of using Palestinian children as human shields
(got rid of links, to long)
BTW the Archbishop was merely suggesting Muslims in the UK get the same priveleges that Jews already have - so if by that we are Dar al islam and dhimmis then we have certainly been shabbas goys part of Eretz Israel for a long time…”Anyone seeking just how low the left has gone shouls check out this article and the most stupid arguement of the year.
There is a word for ignorance this profound in Eskimo, it translates to “don’t eat yellow snow”
Posted by thefrollickingmole on 2008 02 09 at 09:05 PM • permalinkRowan Williams is not a Christian. Instead of ministering to his flock, preparing the faithful for eternal life, and proselytizing he is pandering to unbelievers. If he forebears had been of the same mindset the Anglican Church would have ceased to exist centuries ago. He is not Christian; he is just an overpaid social worker.
Posted by walterplinge on 2008 02 09 at 10:15 PM • permalinkOne of the most astute commentators on this is Melanie Philips (listed in Tim’s blogroll), and you can read Williams’ speech here to make up your own mind.
Willams wants a “transformative accommodation” between British law and Islam. In reality, this means British law would need to change so so judges could hand down rulings that took into account - on the basis of law - the beliefs of Islam.
The question Britons (including muslims) need to ask is where the line will be drawn between killing girls for being raped and jailing those who commit it. Williams unbelievably believes a “transformative accommodation” would be like a love-in from the 60s with like peace man and love all around us…
The man is not fit to lead a dog let alone a Church.
#90, Hanyu, “The man is not fit to lead a dog let alone a Church.” Amen to that.
Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2008 02 09 at 11:42 PM • permalink#87 Mole,
Note the clown’s nom de cyber: Genrikh Yagoda. That was the name of one of Stalin’s Secret Police chiefs. Shows you what kind of people the commenter admires.As for the Archdruid, doesn’t he know that lying is a sin?
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2008 02 10 at 12:20 AM • permalinkexploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience
You can tell he’s stepped in it when the excuse is made to sound as incomprehensible as possible.
He can collect his notion that any group, Muslim, Christian, religious or otherwise, can operate under a different set of laws to the rest of the country, and take it back to the Dark Ages where it belongs. I care not if he was only thinking it might govern some minor matters; the principle, in any form, has no place in rational society.
#95, Personally I’m in favor of imparting upon him an extra-orbital velocity.
Fire the testicle into space…
Posted by The_Wizard_of_WOZ on 2008 02 10 at 07:42 AM • permalinkYou know, it’s not like there isn’t a precedent: Time was when all a monarch with archbishop issues had to do was drop an offhand, “Will no one rid me of this meddling priest?” and the barons were out the door riding hot trod for Canterbury. Granted, Her Majesty might want to consider that that didn’t work out all that well for Henry II, plus the undeniable fact that barons today aren’t what they used to be, but heck, it might be worth a try.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
So, after 36 hours locked up in Lambeth Palace, surrounded by his best advisors, the best excuse they could come up with is the old “out-of-context” chestnut.
He’s just played a classic “cheat-and-retreat”.