=
×

Julian Cope presents Head Heritage

Head To Head
Log In
Register
U-Know! Forum »
Stupid old fart
Log In to post a reply
75 messages
Topic View: Flat | Threaded
grufty jim
grufty jim
1978 posts

Re: Stupid old fart
Feb 09, 2008, 14:06
shanshee_allures wrote:
Yeah, well, what he's calling for is 'Sharia-lite' basically. **We'll tolerate that but not that**. Well good luck to him, think as many Muslims (fundie loons or not) might just resent someone from a rival faith more or less dictating which parts of their 'moraltiy code' we accept and don't (practically, that's what would have to happen!).

No it isn't shansee. Sorry, but I don't see where you're coming from here. Nobody from "a rival faith" would be dictating anything. Williams isn't saying "only the parts of Sharia *I* agree with". He's saying "only the parts of Sharia that are compatible with the local laws of this mostly secular nation".

That's a very different proposition, and your statement is either deliberately or accidentally misrepresenting it.

shanshee_allures wrote:
For that alone, he is completely out of touch and like most church seniors who've reserved their cloud up in hevvin, merely posturing.
**Go take a look at some graffitti man FFS, anything to give you some 'real insight'** (am sepaking of the bish' here of course;-))

I don't believe Williams is any more "out of touch" with society than any churchman or politician or high-level businessman you can mention. And I think he's more thoughtful than almost all of them. For that reason I give him more time than most.

Sorry, but I just don't think any more "real insight" can be gained from the "writing on tenement walls" as from the writing of the intellectuals that Williams is more familiar with. Point me towards a graffitti artist who reveals more about the human condition than Friederich Nietzsche, or Sigmund Freud, or even Albert Einstein.

The world we live in has become powerfuly anti-intellectual and is worse for it.

shanshee_allures wrote:
EDIT: Dunno, but I assume that the Jewish courts you keep referring to do not have such contentious issues as stake.

They have exactly the same issues at stake as would be at stake in their British Islamic equivalent. How could they not have, and still be compatible with British law.

shanshee_allures wrote:
Oh, and please don't overlook that slap upbanquet Britain put on for the Saudi royals (not ver nice people AT ALL) not so long ago, should we always go back to 'Americans' here!

I don't overlook it. Last time around I was at the protest, as I was for the previous Chinese state visit (not this time, as I don't live in London anymore). Saudi Arabia is a nightmarish totalitarian state based upon an extreme and compassionless version of Islam. The question we need to ask ourselves here, however, is whether or not it would be that way if the United States hadn't agreed in the late 1950s to Saudi Arabia becoming a protected, client state?

The Saudi regime is actively propped up by us in the west in order to maintain "stability" in the largest oil producer on earth. It is our consumption of oil that prevents the Saudis from ever having a chance at moving their society forward.
In reply to:
Re: Stupid old fart (shanshee_allures)		 Replies:
Re: Stupid old fart (shanshee_allures)
Re: Stupid old fart (ron)
Topic Outline:
U-Know! Forum Index