The American Spectator

Reader Mail

(Page 5 of 13)

br> Pike Road, Alabama /p>

The conclusion that the Archbishop of Canterbury has serious thinking to do misses the point. If the Archbishop were capable of serious thinking, he would never have made a fool of himself in the first place. He said he wasn't an expert, and then went ahead and gave his opinion anyway! Talking about something that you don't know about is the very definition of stupidity -- how on earth did this idiot get a Ph.D? And what is he doing in a church where he spends his time defending those who regularly attack his own faith and his own congregation? The Archbishop of Canterbury is the first person I have ever heard of who is a member of a church that he clearly thinks is morally and spiritually inferior.

p>All this is sad enough, but the real kicker is that when the Archbishop attended the Anglican Church Synod, he was given a standing ovation! Not only is the Archbishop incapable of serious thought, his own church leadership congratulates him for it. No wonder Christians are despised and attacked around the world when this is the quality of their leadership. br> -- Christopher Holland br> Canberra, Australia /p>

The Archbishop's use of Beth Din to justify Sharia demonstrates his complete lack of understanding of Jewish Orthodoxy, and is, ultimately, an insult, to Judaism. Jews have always submitted to the law of the land where ever they migrated. The Orthodox take only religious matters to the Beth Din. If a mutilations, beatings or "honor crimes" were reported to this community, the rabbis would be obligated to report these crimes to the proper legal authorities. Even an ardent anti-religionist as Mr. Hitchens acknowledges, Jews, in general, do follow British law. Contrary to the Jewish way, many Muslims' disregard human rights and national laws by protecting criminal British citizens in their own courts. The Archbishops is either being willfully ignorant or duplicitous in citing the Jewish courts to justify Muslim human rights abuse.

Certainly not all Muslims have trouble accommodating national laws; mostly Wahabite courts, purveyors of a fundamentalist and convoluted version of sharia, are the ones who most often run afoul of the law of the land. Under Wahabi understanding, women are often treated as no more than chattel. As Abraham Lincoln stated almost 150 years ago, a house divided cannot stand. British law must be for all citizens or none. The same holds true for the United States of America.

p>As for religionist coming to America, Muslims are welcome here to practice freely; but freedom is not license. All who join our community, our nation, are compelled to follow the laws of this nation. No exceptions to state of federal laws allow Mormons to practice polygamy. No special rules allow followers of Santeria to practice ritual slaughter and sacrifice of animals. No public good is achieved when a nation makes exceptions for religious practices that are, in any way, intolerant of basic human rights. The laws are to protect all people, from the strongest to the weakest, especially the weakest. br> -- Ira M. Kessel br> Rochester, New York /p>

topics:
Taxes, Transportation, Education, Trade, Health Care, John McCain, Hillary Clinton, Economics, Business, Social Security, Religion, Islam, Environment, Global Warming, Hollywood, Constitution, Law, Supreme Court, Iraq, Iran, Israel, NATO, Energy, Unions, Medicare