American Renaissance
Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Post a Comment       Send This Page       Date Archives       Category Archives

Suicide Anonymous: Church of Scotland Backs Shariah Law

More news stories on Britain

BNP News, October 10, 2008

Imagine the leading mosque in Saudi Arabia issuing a statement welcoming the establishment of medieval-style Christian law courts in that country. Wouldn’t happen, would it?

But this is precisely what is happening in Britain. The Church of Scotland has welcomed the possibility of introducing shariah law courts in Scotland—ignoring the fact that Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam, does not even allow Christian churches to be built or Christian church services to be held.

Rev Ian Galloway, convener of the Church and Society Council, said “What is being brought to us is not some kind of parallel jurisdiction that replaces our legal system; rather it is a space, within a given community, for disputes to be resolved.”

He added that shariah courts had been “unfairly portrayed” but in the same breath said that shariah courts must “not break fundamental tenets of the Human Rights Act and the rights of women must be respected.”

His comments follow revelations that the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT), based in Nuneaton, Warwickshire, was holding secret talks with lawyers and community groups about setting up shariah courts north of the Border.

The group is believed to be aiming to set up courts in Edinburgh and Glasgow.

In September it emerged that five shariah courts, ruling on civil cases from divorce to domestic violence and financial disputes, had been operating for more than a year in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and at MAT headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire.

The courts have legal powers, with their decisions enforceable through the county courts or high courts.

Original article

(Posted on October 10, 2008)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments

This is unbelievable. I thought the Scottish were a proud people who cared about their culture and traditions. How can you seek autonomy from England and then allow Arabs to set up shop in your homeland? As a person of Scottish ancestry, I’ve just lost all respect for Scots (at least the ones who would allow Shariah law).

Posted by at 6:40 PM on October 10


Aren’t 2 muslim doctors on trial right now for attempting to car bomb Glasgow airport? And I might add, those doctors were house doctors, aka resident doctors in America, doctors in clinical training for a speciality.

And those terrorist doctors were not British residents. They had recently arrived from Pakistan to take up their training.

That same year, 33,000 native born newly graduated MDs were denied residency training in British hospitals because the programs were filled with Pakistani, African, middle eastern applicants who were favored over the native born British.

Posted by at 8:01 PM on October 10


“In September it emerged that five shariah courts, ruling on civil cases from divorce to domestic violence and financial disputes, had been operating for more than a year in London, Birmingham, Bradford, Manchester and at MAT headquarters in Nuneaton, Warwickshire.”

As Abraham Lincoln said-“a house divided cannot stand.” This is precisely what is happening in western countries that recognize Sharia law. You can’t have both.

Posted by at 8:43 PM on October 10


Sharia was rejected in Canada, and firmly shown the door for all time.

It may seem strange that Sharia would get a warmer reception in the U.K., which has been bombed by jihadists.

I believe that it is because the devout Britons are acting out Jesus’s sacrifice by turning the other cheek, and the secular Marxist Britons just want to offend nationalist BNP supporters.

Posted by at 11:02 PM on October 10


What agenda is driving this insanity? And where is it coming from? KEEP ASKING YOURSELF THIS QUESTION. Why would powerful, rich and presumably snooty proud British upper classmen want to put themselves (seemingly) in such a precarious position? Why would they risk 1500 years of culture and tradition? Keep asking yourself this question. Why? Look deeper than the surface. Follow the money. Follow the money.

Posted by JH at 7:20 AM on October 11


Robert Bruce and William Wallace fought the British, so that Scotland can have sharia law set up? The problem is, Scotland has no written constitution, since it is a part of the United Kingdom.

Of course, Scotland will never secede from the United Kingdom, so whatever London says, goes. If they can’t fight sharia law, then they deserve it.

Posted by Soprno Fan at 4:45 PM on October 12


Scotland’s clergy have been selling out their constituents since the time of the Scottish Clearances. When that country’s ‘nobility’ evicted their own tribal kinsmen from commonly-held lands, leveling whole villages, and banishing their populations, Scotland’s preachers told their suddenly homeless flocks that their dispossession was due to their own sinfulness.

The Clearances virtually populated America and Australia. Scotsmen of all classes were seized and sold as ‘indentured servants’, to be shipped off to the colonies. Others, destitute, voluntarily became indentured to escape Scotland and sure starvation. A lucky few, including my ancestors, financed their own passage to the New World, and were given land grants as ‘Poor Protestants’.

Now, I realize why my Grandparents regarded preachers as the lowest form of human life: collective memory of the Scottish Diaspora. We were big churchgoers, and contributed our share of stained glass windows, but my Grandparents would absolutely bristle when a preacher (or bishop) approached. And whenever the Methodist hierarchy tried some new incursion (usually integration) against our congregation, my Grandmother would mutter “Yeah. Bite the hand that feeds you!”

Why do modern clergy so actively work against the best interests of those they ‘lead’? Maybe they grew up as ugly, misfit losers, eager for revenge against the rest. Scotland has a horrendous problem with bullying in schools. Then, there’s narcissism. A narcissist tends to see himself as a defender of some noble cause. After generations of brainwashing, in a largely socialist country, most Scottish ‘narcies’ would see the ‘noble cause’ as defense of the Liberal Orthodoxy. A position as a ‘spiritual leader’ would tend to promote Acquired Situational Narcissism. Finally, emigration of Scotland’s best and brightest has lowered the average IQ considerably. The Church’s flock is maybe a bit short of critical thinking ability.

I would recommend reading about The Scottish Clearances and Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The ‘National IQ Tables’ in the must-read book, IQ and the Wealth of Nations, will reveal the debilitating effect of Scotland’s ‘brain drain’.

Posted by Ashamed Scot at 1:53 PM on October 13


The stupidity of leftists (religious or irreligious) will never cease to amaze me! Idiots like Ian Galloway (I refuse to call him “Reverend”) either can’t or won’t see the forest through the trees. It’s bad enough you let these people into your country in the first place, but by making allowances for their obviously backward practices you virtually guarantee that down the road they will become the overdog.

History has taught us time and again that whenever an aggressive culture comes into contact with a passive one, unless something drastic happens, the aggressive one invariably wins out.

I read recently (elsewhere) there is a genetic basis for a person’s outlook on life (conservative vs. liberal). I’m convinced leftism is a genetic disorder that has as one of its main symptoms an inability to ponder the future consequences of one’s actions.

Posted by at 3:11 PM on October 13


I was thinking about this today and I can’t help but conclude that this is part of the game…the Church is fed-up with the secular agenda that is at war with Christianity so they figured that they can pull a fast one……the enemy of my enemy is my friend. It is in my opinion a act of cowardice nothing more!

Posted by Lisette at 7:56 PM on October 13


May I gently correct Soprno Fan [sic]. Robert the Bruce and William Wallace did NOT fight the British, they fought the ENGLISH. Britishness as a political as distinct from a geographical concept did not exist until the Act of Union of 1707 between England and Scotland.

The vile, Anglophobic film “Braveheart” has a lot to answer for in promoting ignorance of history! Of couse this general ignorance of British history has been promoted for the last four decades or so by cultural Marxists in order to weaken the sense of attachment to nation, and thereby to facilitate invasion by third-world trash.

Posted by Johnny English at 6:11 AM on October 14


The inbred leftist traitors are the glue that is holding the Islamic invasion together. Eliminate them all, eliminate or deport the Muslims, and the UK will quickly recover. This is not rocket science folks…

Posted by at 2:46 PM on October 14


To Johnny English:

OK, so Bruce and Wallace fought against the English. My point is, their deaths were in vain, if Scotland is going to be overrun by sharia law.

Posted by Soprano Fan at 12:23 AM on October 15


OK, so Bruce and Wallace fought against the English. My point is, their deaths were in vain, if Scotland is going to be overrun by sharia law.

I suspect the reality of the Emerald Isles becoming Islamic, is no longer in doubt.

Posted by Skip at 9:34 PM on October 15


I’m confident that biological science will someday discover a suicide gene in most white people that turns on when they have it so well with a beautiful land & culture. The gene makes them feel deeply guilty about their good fortune and so makes them seek to bring in those races who have always tended to hate them out of envy in order to slowly destroy their way of life. Those white people who don’t seem to have this gene are always called “racists”.

Posted by Say It at 8:51 AM on October 21



Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search

Post a Comment

Commenting guidelines: We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. Statements of fact and well-considered opinion are welcome, but we will not post comments that include obscenities or insults, whether of groups or individuals. We reserve the right to hold our critics to lower standards.




Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)