Subscribe to RSS @
I must apologise for the photo – all askew, bad angles, cold fingers.
So – not being a churchgoer and, according to my family, not being that observant, I initially found it odd that a church would have a flagpole at all. Yet alone a flagpole flying the national colours. I have now promised myself that I will look at a few more churches in passing to see if the flagpole is a common component of decorating a cemetery! For all I know it’s a fashion accessory no churchyard should be without.
Although.. I suppose the local vicar might have just been looking for any flag with a cross on it.
The church has probably sold some land off nearby to fund the flagpole and flag ……
Actually I believe the Church of England normally flies the flag of England – quite unique in that respect!
Church of England churches generally fly the Cross of St George although if the Archdhimmi of Canterbury has anything to do with it, it’ll probably be replaced with something Islamic or multi-faith because he has a duty to promote other religions you know?
Man i am so sick and tired of all the bullshit with the archbishop. Shut Up already, seriously. If anything, he suggested that muslims get use the mediation procedures through a muslim authority rather then burdening the legal system with their queries, which, coincidently, what is allowed to Jews already. I don’t mean to hate, but seriously, shut the fuck up already. You guys are simply being cry-babies.
That being said, come down towards Oxford, you’ll see a lot more of the St. George around these parts actually. Had one outside our house but decided to remove it since we feared the weather.
Peace.
Morning Stabani
I don’t think you should put this in the context of hatred, religious intolerance, political intolerance or anything else bar the current feeling in England that we have lost our country and our way of life. Immigration and the growing voice of Islam is just one component of that and to many just a small component.
England has been remarkably adept at assimilating other cultures for a couple of thousand years but the key word there was ‘assimilating’. There are those that walk amongst us who prefer the notion of ‘forcing’ and that’s when the English typically dig in their heels.
I have to agree with Stabani, maybe not the strength of the opinion, but I think the Archbishop of Canterbury made only one mistake – he should have thought a lot longer about how he phrased what he said, it is my understanding that English Law permits and has always permitted ‘Religious Groups’ some options for using their law in only Civil matters, and I think the current media hype about what he said is born from the ’sound byte’ mentality of the media, they don’t report any more, they just print headlines, often with insufficient information to allow people to make a decision, but enough info to react.
Whilst I 1oo% agree that the current media – having been now almost totally ‘Murdoch’ed’ – is no longer a reliable source of information – it can, surely, not be denied that there are aspects of Sharia as practiced in some parts of the world that quite rightly send a shiver down the spine. Whilst the limp-wristed and PC prone Williams was obviously not talking about the extremes and was limiting it to minor, civil and family matters it is quite understandable that there is the fear that once started it is a wheel that can not be slowed.
Speaking totally personally, I am 100% against any form of Sharia being introduced into this country for whatever minor matters as attitudes towards women and children in particular are so far removed from our own.
1992 – the year the Church of England ‘lowered it’s standards’ and allowed women’s ordination.
I think Religion has no part at all in a modern society, no religious schools,no Religious Education, no religious symbols at work, marriage should be a completely civil creation.
So I agree with Andy as regards to adding new laws based on Sharia on any other religious law.
Malc said: I think Religion has no part at all in a modern society, no religious schools,no Religious Education, no religious symbols at work, marriage should be a completely civil creation.
And to this I add my voice 100%. It’s hold may be waning (at the moment) but after a few thousand years of one religion or another having people by the balls and calling the shots it’s way past time to put it aside, grow up and admit that it has been, on the whole, a corrupt and evil failure from start to finish.
Erm… Amen to that !!
@Andy, though I agree with the notion that religion has no place in government and laws (Heck, i’m a big supporter of that notion), the truth is the current laws (don’t quiz me, I’ve read them, studied them, and all) as well as current politicians (here and abroad in the States where I used to live) seem to always bring christianity into play when dealing with laws and issues.
For example, simply look at Mike Huckabee. Need not look far, The Daily Show will possibly provide all of his God-Loving speeches to you.
The Truth of the matter is, no matter what you think, the laws of England have been shaped by Christianity. Denying that is completely stupid.
Secondly, I hate to say it, but most opinions of Shariah have been made through media assumptions. Ever talk to a shariah expert? Ever seen them on TV (From a non-fundamentalist country?). The truth of the matter is, Islam has bestowed many fundamental rights upon children, women, and such. Please, Don’t bombard me with links. Most Sites have only further spread the misinformation. The fact that the so-called "shariah experts" dont seem to follow those is another whole argument for another date. I have met many people in the states and use shariah for solving of some business and personal issues, and they haven’t failed me once, nor have they with the many case studies I did with my group (Disclaimer: I am not a religious person, believe it or not)
As much as I agree upon your way of life theory, the truth is that this has nothing to do with your way of life. It’s an alternative way of mediation for whoever so chooses to follow it. It’s just like arbitration works today, and to be honest, some form of what the Archbishop (gasp!) says actually does exist in todays laws, and already has the provisions for it.
Let me put this clear: I don’t support LAWS based on Shariah. Nope, don’t want it here, not in the United States, and not even in the Islamic Republics. Not because I don’t like what it says, but because I believe religion gives you moral principles and the government is not responsible for your personal upkeep, aka, pretty much libertarian views.
@ Stabani,
I think point most people don’t make when talking about religion – me included – that you have made is ‘fundamentalist’ – people who are fundamentalist, whether Muslim, Christian, Jewish or whatever, seem to elevate their faith beyond the value of human life, and that is wrong, but they get the headlines.
When all’s said and done, the ten commandments tell us to honour your parents, not to lie, cheat, steal, not to work all hours or commit murder.
I just struggle with the concept that people are so stupid that ‘they’ need a ‘religious text’ to define basic humanity and simple honest rules. Do people really need a ‘god’ to tell them things like that !
Aren’t the Ten Commandments the word of God itself?
I really don’t want to get into a debate about religion, as I put in my comment above I’m really not all that religious. I strive and fight for the separation of church and state at all levels including the proper taxation of such "religions" which claim to be a religion though truly are a corporation.
But as I said, the views on religion would be better served by possibly religious persons. I believe in God, but that’s my own personal belief. I don’t believe the government should have anything to do with that.
Sorry, I wasn’t clear, the point I was trying to make, with the 10 commandments, was simply, if you believe in God, then follow the commandments and you don’t need all the leaders, books, sermons etc the churches seem to invent.
Totally agree with the rest of your post.
@Malc,
as long as they don’t conflict with local laws, in which case, local laws prevail