Friday, February 08, 2008


Yes. Awake, again. After a long sleep. Only to find what? The Archbishop of Canterbury saying that some form of Sharia Law is "inevitable". Only, being a nice liberal, he doesn't mean those bits about stoning women to death. No. He just wants , apparently, some nice arbitrtation panels. So, what's the point? The current laws don't stop people from asking others for advice. Or, indeed, arbitration, if that's what they want. Where's the need for a legal change? Such a thing would only enable people whose moral code comes from their imaginary friend to ignore laws that the rest of us have to obey. I, for instance, don't feel comfortable with the law that states I can't chin the Archbishop of Canterbury, for being a lying fuckwit who convinces the gullible to part with their money and reasoning powers. But I'm not allowed to. And no one's suggesting the law is changed for rationalists - why should it be for superstitious idiots?


Blogger Tolstoy said...

There were various claims that it would be very difficult to impose sharia law because of the difficulty in interpreting it. Of course, the difficulty is that, being based on superstitious nonsense, it's perfectly ok for people to just make it up as they go along.

Anyway, if we should recognize some parts of sharia law, presumably that's because it is legitimate because it is a religious law. So what distinguishes, say, recognizing muslim marriage and "marrying" 9 year old girls. They're both condoned by sharia law and so should have equal standing.

4:47 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home