af81161eaac2c5ca8c33…

I’m afraid I’m blissfully ignorant of the meaning of ‘Mofo’, but I’m sure whatever it is it’s lovely.

Anyway, no he wasn’t trying to do that. I suggest you read the following: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581 .

The point is Williams was not saying it should be the law of the land.

No, the point is that Mofo was trying to conflate Muslim Sharia with what limited Jewish law-courts in Britain must mean, and failed. Funny how fast the canard of “Well, the Jooos have the same thing!” sentiment came boiling up from Mofo, huh, passingtramp? As if Mofo had no other point to make…

As for Williams, someone should make a pointed reference to what the Tower of London was used for, and “urge” him to submit his resignation. He does not embody the CoE in any good way, only the expanding dhimmitudinal disease that is overtaking Europe and the West.

In an [interview on Radio 4's *World at One*](http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediaselector/check/player/nol/newsid_7230000/newsid_7233200?redirect=7233254.stm…

The Queen may technically have the call to replace the Archbishop, but only ceremonially (like how she technically has the power to replace the PM, but that hasn’t happened in 300 years). The Synod is responsible for Church governance.

brak on February 8, 2008 at 1:54 PM

Yes a lot of people on this website seem to be of the impression Britain is still some kind of absolute monarchy. To clarify: the Queen does NOT in practice choose who should or should not be the Archibishop of Canterbury. The minute she tried to anything like that there’d be a constitutional crisis and the monarchy would most likely be dissolved. The same goes for knighthoods, etc (I remember back when Rushdie got his knighthood there were people on this site who seemed to think it was down to her).

think the main difference between the two situations is that I don’t see anybody saying Jewish Law should be the law of the land in Great Britain, but I do see a whole lot of folks saying that Sharia Law should be the Law of the Land

The point is Williams was not saying it should be the law of the land.

And he has a fine beard for tugging.

Ratha! What?

If Rowan wants homosexuals living with their boyfriends as bishops, is it any wonder he’s willing to bend way over for Mo-Ham?

“Dr Williams is a nice enough man, very intellectual, but he has clearly lost the plot gone off his toot.”

Naw, on second thought he’s merely a gutless fool.

So either there is one set of laws and courts or there isn’t. And it seems that in England there isn’t:

I think the main difference between the two situations is that I don’t see anybody saying Jewish Law should be the law of the land in Great Britain, but I do see a whole lot of folks saying that Sharia Law should be the Law of the Land, everywhere for everybody in the world. I also don’t any Anglican Bishop being threatened with death because he said there are No-Go areas in Britain for Non-Jews, but I do see an Anglican Bishop (the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali) being threatened with death because he said there are No-Go areas in Britain for Non-Muslims.

Try googling “Sharia should be the law of the land” and see how many hits you get. Detroit, Dallas, Britain, Nigeria, The Netherlands, and others. Real “non-issue” cause you seem to have taken up, Mofo! Tell me, how you think the fathers that recently “honor-killed” their daughters in Dallas and Toronto would fare under Sharia Law?

The Queen may technically have the call to replace the Archbishop, but only ceremonially (like how she technically has the power to replace the PM, but that hasn’t happened in 300 years). The Synod is responsible for Church governance.

All will be forgiven.