This article is an excellent summary of the cowardly depths to which the West, particularly Britain, has sunk.

The 'war against terrorism' means nothing when Western religions and their sopping wet leaders signal that they have lost the will to defend their faith and democratic way of life against creeping, insidious Islam.

The situation in the UK and Europe is very difficult to say the least.But rants like this by Ariel do absolutely nothing to promote any kind of understanding.

It just inflames, or ratchets up, the collective insanity quotient.

Meanwhile what exactly is christian?

There is a USA Trident nuclear submarine with the name USS (City) of Corpus Christie----that is the body of christ---christ the potential killer of tens of millions of humans.

Many right wing "christians" in the USA are actively working to inflame the volatile politics in the Middle East, even via their "missionary" activities in the various branches of the US military---kill a towel-head for "jesus".

And/or praying (preying) for "armageddon" to occur--"jesus" is coming to establish his one thousand year REICH.

Ariel and his ilk will never ever address this issue.

And wasnt it the "christian" west that gave the entire world, World War's One and Two. The "west" was still very much "christian" then.
How many millions of corpses did that produce?

And the "west" still very much marches to the beat of the "christian" war drum---bringing "christ" to everyone---onward "christian" soldiers, quite literally preparing and going into war.

And both of these wars were effectively key events in the dis-integration of Civilization altogether. A quote:

"The Civilizing principles that allow human functioning to demonstrate the disposition of prior unity have already been destroyed---especially as a result of the terrible course of the twentieth century, and beginning with World War I in particular. World War I and World War II were, effectively the self-destruction of global civilization.....Now nothing but "Narcissistic" ego-culture remains, and the consequent human devastation."

FROM 1. http://www.ispeace723.org/realityhumanity2.html

This article is noteworthy for its vagueness about what the Archbishop actually said.

It does admit, though, that

"The Archbishop of Canterbury holds that Muslims "only" want this little concession, and no more"

Presumably we may infer that he has not given his support to anything more than "this little concession". But the article doesn't tell us precisely what he has supported.

Probably a good place to share this...

MINNEAPOLIS/ST PAUL (Muslim) TAXI DRIVERS REFUSE SERVICE TO PASSENGERS CARRYING ALCHOLOL.

Full background report here: http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/679

Below link is here: http://www.startribune.com/local/11586646.html

"Our stance is first come, first served," said airport director Steve Wareham. "The message is if you want to drive a taxicab at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport, you will serve all customers."

Many cabbies disagreed, saying that the proposal denies them the right to freely practice their religion.

"This is discrimination," proclaimed Ahmed Shine, a taxi driver for seven years.

Abdifatah Abdi, who said he was speaking for an association of cabdrivers, said the commissioners "will be judged on your decision."You are deciding the livelihood of 600 drivers and their families," Abdi said. "Say no to discrimination. Say yes to justice for the weak."

Does everyone see it?

I surely hope so...

CLAIM. "If.. muslims are allowed to dominate any industry or area, they WILL without question seek to impose Sharia law on the community, even if that goes against the law of the land."

-Call to Prayer from Mosques:
UK http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/14/nchurch214.xml
USA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iPOwnsMIz5k
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0430/p01s03-ussc.html

DISCRIMINATION? Note also.. that the 'Muslim' perpsective is "If we cannot behave contrary to YOUR LAWS.. we consider this "Discrimination"

Never mind the fact that they KNOW that to migrate to a place MEANS abiding by its laws.

SO... does this have implications for our IMMIGRATION policy and our PRE-VISA information provision for would be migrants?

YOU BET IT DOES!
They must be not just TOLD'...but required to sign a statement.. with a heavy FINE attached... that they will not act in any way which is contrary to the law of the land, even IF this means their religous sensibilities are offended.

'It seems that the Archbishop of Canterbury and leader of the world’s 80 million member strong Anglican Communion, has endorsed introducing sharia law into Great Britain. If true, then he was appallingly foolish.'

The only thing scandalous here is that author feels free to pour invective on the Archbishop when he confesses in the first paragraph to not having actually read what he said. This article is a rambling tirade against the usual Eurabia strawman, and offers nothing of substance about the supposed topic in question. I mean, what kind of fool would have the temerity to speak definitively of an attempted back-peddle when they haven't provided a shred of concrete evidence as to the stated position from which he Williams is supposedly retreating.

Honestly, I knew Jonathan was an intellectual light-weight, who spends a lot of time raking muck and carrying water for Likud party political narratives, but this is flabby, lazy journalism even by his standards. My next post will deal explicitly with what the issue is really about.

Ok, here goes for the actual issue. The notion that Dr Rowan Williams advocated incorporating Sharia Law into the UK, represents a nadir in both misdirected citizen outrage and irresponsible journalism.

As was the case with some of the Pope's recent speeches, we seem to have no shortage of commentators, but apparently nobody who actually bothers to read the primary material. Fact is, there is no reasonable way of inferring any such thing from Dr William's words. What was discussed was not a parallel civil or criminal jurisdiction, or any other nasty punitive measure that might be associated with 'Sharia Law'. Instead, the Archbishop was talking about the future of faith-based voluntary dispute mechanisms, which are based on ordinary principles of contractual arbitration, for people of Muslim faith in the UK. Such arrangements already exist in the West, and have centuries of precedent with other faiths such as the Jewish Beth Din rabbinical councils for marital disputes. Considering that Jonathan is a well-known militant defender of conservative Jewish orthodoxy, it is a complete disgrace that he is either unaware of this, or does not have the personal integrity to acknowledge that consistency requires him to repudiate both, or none at all.

Of course, there are legitimate arguments one can make about all religious arbitration, their fairness and the genuineness of any consent for women, but such a nuanced criticism is a far cry from the scorn and hyperbole being poured on the poor Archbishop here. Not a single intelligent or redeemable comment is to be found in this poor excuse for an article. For shame.