http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article...bury/article.do

Why isn't this in the mainstream media?

This is all over UK mainstream media! It is a very big story and a lot of people are calling for the him to step down. Its all very depressing.

Has he gone completely mad, or is he just cleverly trying to make a point???
Why in the world would an Xtian Priest (or whatever the Anglicans call them) support instituting MUSLIM law???

Because like so many senior figures in British politics he is very left-wing and believes in promoting multiculturalism and the belief that Sharia is benign and misunderstood

As Orwell said in Animal Farm; "We are all equal but some are more equal than others..."

yes and no. it is very islamophobic I think because no one ever screams about the horrible Jews and their batei din...

as I see it, if Jewish batei din are OK (and their decisions are considered legally binding arbitration) then sharia courts have to be as well. As long as it's only a voluntary alternative. If people want to settle their disputes using halacha, sharia, or Tic-Tac-Toe that's their own lookout.

I think (I may be mistaken) that islamic courts' arbitration is already allowed and legally binding.

I'm not sure--there was some confusion in the reports I read. One said that the UK Batei Din were set up by statute 100 years ago; another that their decisions are recognised under th binding-arbitration laws. If it's the latter than sharia courts are too, and as a practical matter this is a tempest in a teapot.

The sharia courts are relatively ad-hoc though.

But by "OK" I also meant socially acceptable, not just legally.

There is nothing 'Islamophobic' about the ho-ha. People are naturally more scared of Sharia law because the punishments are much more severe in their extreme form - chopping off of hands, stoning etc. What has been misconstrued in the media is the idea that "because the Jews are allowed to use their own courts, Muslims are somehow being discriminated against". However, the Beth Din is used voluntarily and it does not supercede British law, it is also only being used for civil disputes and as far as I am aware does not carry punishments such as stoning, hand-chopping etc.

Naturally there is more 'Islamophobia' in the UK because there have been suicide bombers and some followers of Islam seem to be constantly demanding or threatening the rest of the population if respect is not given to their beliefs. I am sure if Jewish suicide bombers or Hindu suicide bombers had killed, threatened and demanded in this country to the extent that we see Islamists, then there would be more Judaeophobia or Hinduphobia (although there seems to be a lot of the former already).

A phobia is an 'irrational fear'. Some would argue that there is nothing irrational in fearing Islam.

Yes, but the fear is irrational because no one (other than Islamic extremists) is suggesting that sharia would supplant criminal law. What the archbishop was talking about has nothing to do with that. Everyone immediately jumped to the criminal side of sharia without thinking things through.

Don't forget that halacha technically calls for severe punishments too--they're just very difficult to carry out.

According to this article it is not just 'extremists' that want Sharia law;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...9/nsharia19.xml

40% is quite a large amount. Who knows how they would interpret Sharia...

the problem with that poll is that the question is poorly defined. It just says 'sharia', which leaves the interpretation open. Some people might think that means "implementing sharia in all respects" and others as "implementing parts of it".