Why the Arch Bishop is particularly dangerous.

Firstly I would like to compliment the Arch Bishop of Canterbury on some of his rather more intelligent observations, regarding Sharia law. He recognised the fact that Sharia law is derived from Islamic scriptures through interpretations by Islamic clergy, or indeed anyone who may find themselves in a position, requiring such views. The fact is that Sharia law varies from interpreter to interpreter, whether people recognise an interpretation as valid is a different matter. All too often people assume that Sharia law is one single set of rules that are harsh, intolerant and misogynistic. There might be a case to argue that, but again this is a different matter and greatly subjective. The key thing to note is that, even trying to define Sharia law is very very difficult, if not impossible to arrive at a set of universally agreed upon rules.

I do, however, have a few issues regarding his other comments. Primarily, his idea that there should be an adoption of Sharia law into the British legal systems. It is my opinion that our legal systems should demonstrate sensitivity and intelligent understanding of religions. However, as much as is possible, the legal system should be secular and not lean in favour of any one religion. Clearly, the adoption of Sharia law goes completely against this concept. Agreed, there are key concepts shared regarding murder and theft but after that, the rest of the law should be as secular as can be managed. This is key to ensuring that the law does not discriminate or treat people unequally. It is a simple concept, if you live in Britain, you live under secular British laws.

Some argue that Muslims should be allowed to live under their own laws. I do not think this is a possibility. You cannot have one rule for one group and other rules for other groups. The 'group' we belong to is the British group and by definition one is not exempt from the rules. This may upset alot of people, that is unfortunate but a problem for them to deal with. They could go to another country where they prefer the laws. Although, I would suggest that those who are dissatisfied with the current system change it through the open and democratic processes available. Even now, people can use arbitration via religious courts, as a way of settling lesser civil or commercial matters. To me, this should be about the legal limit of differentiation allowed within the law. Any further attempts to extend religion into our legal system would be a dangerous move indeed. These semi-courts should be a satisfactory way of dealing with day to day matters. The more serious disputes must enter the secular courts regardless of the choice by participants, that way, the truly important cases can be dealt with fairly.

I cannot help but feel, that the Arch Bishop might be trying to give religions, including his own, far more involvement in the law by describing it as an inevitable necessity that aspects of them should be adopted into legal systems. It has taken our country a long time to remove the powerful and sometimes controlling influence of religious institutions over the law. We still have a long way to go. I think it is time that people explain to men such as the Arch Bishop, that religion has no business interfering with the state or the legal systems.

We must make clear, that people's culture and religious institutions are afforded protections under a democracy, as long as they are not harmful to the rest of society. But the days are long gone when Church and State were intertwined. Civil harmony is only possible under secular laws. Within limits, we must accommodate religion within the context of the law but instigating religious law is to be avoided at all costs.