The S.A.F.F. (Sub-culture Alternatives Freedom Foundation) is a not-for-profit organisation which was inaugurated in 1988 to protect minority religions and alternative beliefs from victimisation and suppression. We have successfuly achieved sterling work in protecting the interests of individuals and unorthodox philosophies in the U.K. and worked with similar organisations overseas. Our work is completed entirely by volunteers dedicated to keeping open the freedom of belief and right to free-speech of individuals worldwide. If you think you might be able to assist in this, or want to join us as a member then please first review the content of website and then contact Tony Rhodes or add your email address to our mailings file (see below)
 |
 |
RE: Mullah Rowan and his Holier Than Though Laws
|
posted by Footman
|
|
How far are we from regaining a Dark Age – type theocracy, that is willing to pass the matches and straw to a secular government when heresy is located? The Australian PM’s recent jingoism springs to mind wherein he bleated on about his “Christian Country” and the right for anyone, who disagreed with his biased worldview, to leave.
|
|
RE: Mullah Rowan and his Holier Than Though Laws
|
posted by Puretongue
|
One unplanned consequence, were this strategy to be successful, would perhaps be hordes of nominal Christians (the type who, when pushed, claim C. of E. to get the questioner off their backs) deserting this allegiance leaving a tiny minority subject to the new "courts". The first census after such a move would be interesting, with its compulsory religious affiliation questions.
I wonder if they've factored this exodus into their planning?
Of course, timescale is everything, and I wholeheatedly agree with the points made in the previous post.
|
|
Mullah Rowan and his Holier Than Though Laws
|
posted by Auntie Virus
|
Now that the media hullabaloo over Rowan Williams' speech about the government adopting Sharia Law has calmed down it would be interesting to get some insight from people in this forum about what The Archbishop-prick really said. This controversy was a very successful double think on behalf of the CofE which in the outrage nobody seems to have spotted. The original objective was of course to use the political leverage wielded by Moslem clerics to establish the idea of the necessity for the
courts to take into account ALL religious tenets - not just Moslem ones. The CofE probably hoped that they could piggy-back this idea and get government to allow THEM more input as well as the Moslems on the basis that if the government made allowances for Sharia law they would also have to do so with Mosaic law etc. and this would once again bring power to the state religion just as it did in the middle-ages when both secular and sectarian courts existed side by side. Remember that during the Inquisition the law was split into secular and sectarian aspects. The inquisitors would try a person for heresy, torture them, find them guilty and then hand them over to the state court for summary execution and disposal
of their assets!
Williams' strategy seems to have been missed by most commentators. What has happened in both education and euthenasia and abortion is that successive governments have refused to go
head-to-head with the Church for fear of losing votes and by default allowed the churches to develop their own parallel systems to deal with these things. Thus Catholic adoption agencies refuse
to foster children with Gays, offer alternative 'schooling' on Creationism, (downgrading Darwinism as an 'unproven' theory) etc. and by and large promote their own take on reality to the exclusion of rationality. Now that these sectarian social structures have been established as kinds of Christian ghettos where dissenters can live a separate reality the next step is the for the churches to demanded recognition of them on equal measure with the secular
provisions of the state so that no Christian can take action which conflicts with Holy Writ without first having to run the gamut of the Christian Councils and tribunals of the synod etc. If the CofE were open and honest about this strategy it would be doomed to failure AT THE MOMENT - and so they try to get it in through the back door by allying themselves with the theocratic sub-state which many hard-line Imams also desire.
Of course the Anglicans will be smiling to themselves about the massive uproar over the way the media reported Williams's speech because the backlash has markedly reinforced the
governments perception of the CofE's influence anyway and the WASP moral outrage has cowed the uppity Moslems into the bargain! What was all that about Interfaith?
Byee
|
|
