Anybody wishing to come to the UK should be prepared to abide by our laws. Indeed many of those who have come here have done so for that very reason. Muslims have been here since trading began as you can see by visiting all our old ports, yet they have never presented us with any desire for ‘accommodation’. The present furore is especially due to the claims by many vocal muslims that the UK will be a muslim country in the future. Coming on top of the terrorist threats this is more divisive than anything I have heard in my lifetime.

Our present laws provide protection for all levels and ethnic groups in our society. To introduce new law for one minority group is to set them apart and establish a clear division. There was a time when religion had a large influence on how the country was run as it did in many other countries. Every secular state faces the occasional interference from one or other of the religions, and mostly this is resisted simply because it is divisive. Once any government starts pandering to a minority, whether or not that is religiously driven, then democracy is under threat.

It’s similar with the ABoC last controversy about gay Bishops. He raised awareness in the Church and got a debate started but then backed down a bit when it looked like the Communion might be damaged by it. I think that is the right appoach if you want to be progressive; rock the boat but don’t rock it so much that it sinks.

I am not in favour of ‘parrallel law systems’.
At issue is the freedom of the individual.

Many laws have ‘positives’ aswell as ‘negatives’[eg drug legislation/taxation rules/speed limits]. The impostion of a rule it is about assessing that balance. If the make-up of society changes and it affects that balance, a case for change can to be made, but for everyone.

I can accept Scottish solution to the Catholic adoption issue [to a point!] on the basis that gay couples can go elsewhere. If Catholic adoption agencies form such a large part of the system that the exercise of religious choice seriously interferes with the right of others, then the balance changes, and so should the level of accommodation. Then the adoption agencies verdict on an individual would be society’s verdict and that cannot/should not stand.

A parrallel system therefore [ie where 'the law' effectively to 'moves aside' for certain groups] can mean the mainstream effectively endorses the outliner .

The House of Lords have spent much time deliberating the problem of Jewish women being unable to obtain a divorce without the consent of their husbands. It is not the restrictions on divorce that are at issue but the fact that they apply unevenly between the sexes; if the wives rights were the same, it wouldn’t be a problem.

‘The system’ is fundamentally at odds with our approach to life and cannot be reconciled. Any endorsement of that system is an endorsement of THAT verdict on that individual.

The problem with some aspects of Sharia law is that there is a similar inherant imbalance between the sexes. To legitamise ‘I divorce thee’ x 3 is accept its inescapable verdict and consequences on the individual woman.

One aspect that could be looked at is inheritance. Estates can be passed on pretty much any way a person wants in a will. The problem lies in the tax implications. For instance, entailed estates are tax dear. This is because the entailing of estates was considered bad social policy.
If the Sharia Muslims wish to argue that their presence in our community has changed of the balance of the arguement, then they could make the arguement and if a change is made, it applies to all.

As far as I can understand, from a first reading of the A of C’s closely reasoned words, this was one of the very points that he was trying to address. And as far as I can see he was not advocating anything that cannot be discussed reasonably. The deluge of criticism seems to be more a knee-jerk reaction to the mere occurrence of the words “sharia law”, than to what he actually said.

I admit it is not an exact parallel – but even in the most crucial phases of the second world war, there was at least some attempt to accommodate those who had a conscientious objection to active service. It must be possible to have a rational debate about such matters and, even if we disagree with what he said, it seems to me that the media have a greater need to question their words, actions (and motives) than does the Archbishop.

A better example than Councils would probably be Christian charities which do a great deal of good work and receive government support in doing so, but which won’t get involved in projects that deal with birth control.

Do you accept that they do good work but not that and keep funding them because you know that others are doing it and you can fund them, or do you withdraw funding from them unless they start to do it and risk losing there good work?

For me it’s ends and means. If the objective is to get children in care or at risk adopted in to safe better homes then the various adoption agencies are the means and as long as you fund a range that means no group is disadvantaged it’s fine.

I personally wouldn’t be against the state supporting a charity that offered to place black children with black families, as long as none black children and potential parents could freely get help elsewhere.

As long as no one is disadvantaged then we can have a variety of options that allows people free choice rather than one size fits all. It’s the same with church schools, as long as no one is forced in to one or discriminated against then I don’t have a problem with them, as long as they provide good education.

Peter.