The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams has deplored attempts by governments in Europe to prohibit Muslim women from publicly wearing the burqa, a garment that covers the entire body.
“Governments should have better things to do than ban the burqa,” Williams, the leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, told an interfaith meeting organized by the National Council of Churches in India at its headquarters in Nagpur, during a visit to India.
France’s constitutional court on 7 October approved a law banning full-face veils in public, which would prevent women wearing garments such as the burqa.
Opinions on all subjects, except those within his competance. Interference in everybody’s affairs, except those with which he is charged. Advice for others, which he does not take himself. All mouth and no trousers.
Agreed, Pageantmaster. Also, there is a large difference between the Sikh turban, which he also supports in this speech, and the burqa. The latter garment dehumanizes women. It is a symbol of discrimination and second-class treatment, and a symbol of the radical form of Islam. The Archbishop appears to be oblivious to what is going on in his own native island as well as in continental Europe.
That this blathering idiot could compare a burqa with wearing a Christian cross or a Sikh turban, shows just how out of touch with reality he is. It sure is easy to criticize things the “stupid” masses do when you live in a government provided palace.
Come to think of it, he sounds just like our president, who is now complaining that U.S. citizens are ” not thinking clearly” because they are stressed and afraid. I’m sure if they got to live in a government provided mansion and be jetted around by the military, it would do a lot to lower their stress levels.
I am simply astonished at the arrogance and patronizing attitudes of Western leaders, both religious and secular, these days.
Remember the ABC’s support for sharia courts in Britain? Perhaps he should consider that sharia is sharia, after all, and not some other that he pretends/intends/imagines.
“Rape within marriage has been illegal in Britain since 1991. But according to Sheikh Sayeed, rape is defined in Islamic law as adultery by force. Therefore, if a husband forces himself upon his wife the attack cannot be termed “rapeâ€, he said.”
.
.
.
“Dave Whatton, Chief Constable of Cheshire and spokesman on rape for the Association of Chief Police Officers, said most rapes were committed by someone known to or in a relationship with the victim.
“It is a fundamental principle that sharia law should not replace the laws of the UK,†he said. “Putting out views that rape can be dealt with in another way fundamentally undermines everything we are trying to do.â€
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/religion/8064571/Rape-within-marriage-is-impossible-claims-Muslim-cleric.html
Is it possible that this man is actually as insulated from reality as he seems?
Wearing a burkha is also an excellent way of concealing an explosive belt or an AK-47.
dwstroudmd quotes Sheik Sayeed giving a legal opinion on rape within marriage.
As is acknowledged this opinion was shared by our legal system until very recently and that traditional view had been supported for a millennium and more by the Judaeo/Christian understanding that our judges say underpinned our laws. Indeed when the law was under review twenty years ago some Christian groups were against the idea of such a crime and many today still argue that the “sin” is on both sides – the man for not waiting and the woman for refusing. In fact the statements from some Christians and this Moslem Cleric are identical.
The last time I recall the Chief Constable of Cheshire speaking on a similar matter was when he announced an investigation into the Bishop of Chester’s view that gay people were mentally ill and needed medical help. In both cases the Chief Constable issued a rebuke.
Significantly, Martin, there were strong voices within Christian groups that opposed the standing assertions you note. See here, for instance: http://crisiscentrebahamas.wordpress.com/2009/09/07/marital-rape-ban-tragically-wrong-says-the-christian-council/
While such voices might exist within Islam, I should like to see evidence of that. Thus far, I have no knowledge of such opposition.
My point remains unchallenged. Sharia is sharia. It has not changed and is not the benignity that the ABC illusions it to be nor the multiculturalists wish-fulfillment it to be. Sharia is sharia. The whole world is to be brought under its sway per the Koran. That is the real world status of sharia. Your imagination may differ. The result is dhimmitude.
Actually, i doubt that the burkha dehumanizes women. I suspect the reverse is true. That her body is hidden, allows the imagination free rein for a man, and this actually humanizes a woman. She becomes real. Consider how dehumanizing it is to look at to look a naked centerfold women. They all look alike; they are made out of plastic.
But I can understand outlawing it nevertheless. The suicide bomber is too real for the burkha to be allowed. its anonimity is perfect for a terrorist. Larry