My Photo
Mobilise this Blog





New Zealand Conservative


AmCam News Tips

  • Have you got mobile camera pix of breaking news, or a first-hand account you've written?
    email Investigate now on publicity [at] and we'll get you online
Blog powered by Typepad

« Mad Muslim involved in Mid-Air hijack? | Main | What the teacher told me »


John Boy

Picking good bits out of other cultures and adding them to your own over time is not without benefit and that should see the Muslim bits remain rather small.

I suspect that's not what the politicians have in mind though - it will be a one way road.

England doesn't have to return to Rome, its been there in some form or other for many years. The Roman age, the influence of which is increasingly obvious in our onerous legislation, will end when Christ returns.


ABC's comments are reminiscient to me of those made when the NZ Communion voiced acceptance of the Maori multi-theism perspective in the name of unity.

In my view, the only nation in the world that has shown itself willing to submit to God's power and glory is Iran. Like it or not. If you care to respond, please understand that my observation is not fixated on its current President but upon Iran's theological positions. Look at those and you see things expressed nowhere else.

If we behaved with the same Godly submission, perhaps we too could obtain His grace.



Your post here is a brilliant piece of tongue-in-cheek commentary.

And referring to your serious point - yes a lot of individual belief is not based around critical thinking - but around unity, otherwise known as group-think.

Take the thread on the hi-jack for example. Fundamentalists striving for unity by agreeing with the most preposterous and prejudiced lead from the usual culprit.


The ABC has lost his way. Once again he makes a statement that is diametrically (diabolically?) opposed to his own Islamic specialists (Nazir-Ali and Sookhdeo) in the defiant belief all too typical among Liberals that basically all violence comes from people who are just like us not being treated fairly.

For a Christian he has an appallingly unrealistic, un-Biblical view of human nature.

He states:

"But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger"."

He links sharia courts to the Jewish Beth Din court operating in London, but fails to see the competing political worldview behind the Muslim initiative. Unlike the Jews, Muslims can in no way integrate sharia with English law and if a choice is offerred an increasing number of Muslims will submit to sharia rather than English law.

Furthermore, Williams doesn't believe in any of that tedious religious stuff about a literal resurrection, miracles and historic Christian morality. The upcoming 10-yearly Lambeth conference for Bishops being an excellent case in point.

He and his team have decided that the first 2 days of Lambeth will be dedicated to Bible study and after that the Bishops will discuss issues in small groups rather than thrash things through in a large group as they have always previously done.

These are classic symptoms of a toxic and cultish church - AMHIK.

The mindset needed for Bible study is very different from the mindset one needs to thrash through the difficult issue of authority - and the subsequent one of sexuality. This is merely a ploy to detune the majority of Bishops who know this issue needs to be grappled with or the Communion will fly to bits.

Again, dividing them up into small groups afterwards is classic divide and conquer which will serve on the one hand to make some of the Bishops feel they are being heard, while on the other hand cocooning their comments from general discussion and burying anything they have to say in subsequent committees where they will be watered down and released after a very long time.

The Anglican Communion is now IMHO a very sick church and a split between the dying, worldly, mostly western church and the growing evangelistic mostly Southern church is inevitable unless someone grasps this nettle of authority. It ain't gonna happen under this guy.

I say this as an Anglican. The church that has lost its salt is fit only to be thrown out and trampled under foot. We are watching a dying Church in a dying Western culture.

Acid Comments

Dr Williams said it "seems inevitable" that elements of Islamic law, such as divorce proceedings, would be incorporated into British law.

"Dr Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" that some citizens do not relate to the British legal system, and argued that officially sanctioning Sharia law would improve community relations."

More pathetic liberal pandering.

If some citizens do not relate to UK Civil law, then they should leave the country and go back to their country of origin.


usabikes, the Anglican Church like almost all others is indeed "dying" in the west but the Anglican church at least is rising spectactularly in the African and Asian/SE Asian nations, where tremendous numbers are being baptised and confirmed. Perhaps we in the west need to learn something from what's happening over there. As those nations become more wealthy it will be interesting to see if their faith continues or if they turn, like us, to secular distractions so artfully placed before them.

Personally I don't fear for the future of the church, for it is as we know built and driven by God and if it's declining somewhere that's a reflection of our own incorrect attitudes. However any decline does provide fertile ground for those of us with understanding to deliver the Holy Spirit to those without. It is a challenge however, Satan the Slanderer and Deceiver is very good, but what are here for if not to respond to such things?

Sam Finnemore

I'm not seeing any specifics here about what aspects of Sharia law might be incorporated, through what bodies and to what extent, so it's pretty hard to arrive at a fair judgement.

They'd have to look very carefully at how to work the provisions into the legal system without violating existing UK laws. As long as that's done, I don't see what would be troubling about this.


The expansion of the Anglican Church, literally the Church of England, into Africa and Asia - it is unlikely to be sustainable if the Church of England in England withers. It is also unlikely to persevere as a genuine outpost. In fact I have heard that these churches tend to charge off in their own directions, thereby not looking very Anglican at all.

In England, the Church of England is entwined with British Royalty, class structure and colonisation. Much of this is now obsolete, with Prince Charles making this as clear as anyone.

These days Catholics and other former dissidents in England are no longer banned from public office - hell they are not even buried in dissenters' graveyards any more.

Conclusion - why stick around?


I've heard some talk that the ABC may have made this Sharia statement before the imminent Lambeth Conference as a deliberate provocation to the Global South Bishops in order to hasten a split in the Anglican Communion.

Maybe a litle far-fetched but I have seen this before where a leader with no answers and who wishes to preserve their mana in their own context - which after all is white and liberal and therefore the only one that really counts - has provoked others to make an unpleasant initiative or split and therefore publically retain the "good guy" image.

Sadly its not beyond the realms of possibility.

Nigerian Archbishop Ben Kwashi has stated that there are 11 or more states in Nigeria with Sharia and that to allow Sharia in at the slightest level will mean the eventual implementation of its worst aspects. He should know.


USA bikey says:

"Furthermore, Williams doesn't believe in any of that tedious religious stuff about a literal resurrection, miracles and historic Christian morality."

That seems reasonable to me. The Anglican Church needs to position itself as a liberal alternative. Staying as they are, they will only lose members anyway.

If churches such as Anglican and Methodist are not offering liberal Christian agendas, who else will?

And bear in mind that religions are completely human inventions - nearly everyone understands that nowadays. Religion is full of myths, rituals, imagery, and traditions.

There need be no holy cows! Ha Ha Ha!!!!


Holy cow Peter is snorting angel dust again.

Danger Mouse

Did Peter Burns just fart again?


Isn't that the mating call of a faggot?


I found today this spirited defence of the Archbishop of Canterbury:

Part of Dave Cole's rationale resembles mine when I said in this thread on 9 February:

"In England, the Church of England is entwined with British Royalty, class structure and colonisation. Much of this is now obsolete, with Prince Charles making this as clear as anyone."

The key passage from the link is this:

"Dr Williams can probably cast his eye towards Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, declining attendances and growing secularism and realise that, one day, the Church of England will be disestablished. He is, in essence, preparing the groundwork for the Church of England to retain some of its privilege and position when that occurs. Within that framework, I think that sharia is being used a shorthand for the principle of providing a statutory framework for the implementation of religious law, within bounds set by civil law, where all parties concerned consent."

Dr Rowan Williams has made up some lost ground here.


"I find it deeply worrying; people who set themselves up as defenders of liberty are, in fact, falling on half-understood interpretations of religious texts from some centuries past in what is, in effect, the result of the fear of the unknown."

Oh. Good. Grief. What depressing reading. He is dismissive of contrary opinions of his own fellow Bishops - with fine academic credentials - who either live in Muslim majority contexts or are ex-Muslims .

He neither understands the mindsets involved nor the nature of Sharia and its incompatibility with the Judeo-Christian West.

Overall I'd say a pretty ingratiating and obsequious response from one of the West's mainline religious leaders who has quite a good understanding of the politics of the issue but very little of the religious background - which is the one area people might reasonably expect him to know something.

That says a lot really.

The comments to this entry are closed.