February 08, 2008... Church chatter.

When it is announced by the United States that Europe should now be considered the new platform of terror, Europeans feel aggrieved at such a suggestion, especially when it also means that information they would prefer to keep private must be relinquished to US immigration. On the other hand, whenever Americans are confronted by statements by the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr. Rowan Williams to the effect that Shariah law should be considered as a parallel law to UK state law, one becomes sympathetic to the American point-of-view.

What the Archbishop is suggesting is that Muslims have special rights simply because they are Muslims. But how about Mormons, Scientologists, Hindus and certain Christian factions, for example, who can also legitimately contend that they, too, must have comparative treatment. However, within the context of a democratic state governed by the subsequent government which is charged with upholding the law deemed fit for application to everyone, a myriad of laws which are in conflict with government policy is a recipe for conflict on a massive scale.

One such example is where Muslims are demanding that inherited wealth is exempt from inheritance tax so as to comply with the specific circumstances of Muslim life under the Shariah. However, the same Muslims would also demand social services paid from non-Muslims' inheritance tax. Furthermore, polygamy a practice not unique to Muslims, could, under European Human Rights legislation, mean that many social service claims would be applicable on the basis of special family circumstances.

In a situation where there was no democracy, central government, and all law and justice was a voluntary and private arrangement, there would be no objection to a plurality of law for a given geographical area. However, it is only Muslims who are seeking a special arrangement, and support from the Archbishop is being suggested because certain Muslims are prepared to kill and intimidate in the face of the probable likelihood that the government charged with securing our right to life and property will, over time, capitulate, for the sake of political expediency.