The Bishop orders his tomb

The Archbishop embraces Dhimmitude for England:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has today said that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is “unavoidable” and that it would help maintain social cohesion.Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4′s World At One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.       

On the contrary, having divided sovereignty does NOT help maintain social cohesion, but rather the reverse. And those who “do not relate” to the legal system still must obey it.And yet, it appears that the Archbishop’s capitulation to Islam may be waking up the Brits:  His remarks have caused an uproar and calls for his resignation.       

 UPDATE:   Anthony Sacaramone answers some of the defenders of what the Archbishop said, including in the comments here.  And so does  Mollie Hemingway.

Jihadists sink even lower

It was bad enough that the jihadists in Iraq are turning mentally-handicapped women into suicide bombers.  Al-Qaida is also using  children as young as 10.  

The jihadists sink still lower

Insurgents in Iraq made use of mentally handicapped women as suicide bombers. Indeed, they loaded up two women with Down’s Syndrome, those sweet-tempered children, and blew them up, killing nearly 80 other people.

How much more monstrous than the jihadists get? Can moral relativists rationalize THIS?

The insensitivity of the Three Little Pigs

An updated version of the Three Little Pigs was turned down for a government prize in England because “the use of pigs raises cultural issues.” The Brits felt the story might be offensive to Muslims, who consider pigs to be unclean. But no Muslims even complained!

Note the progression from stifling oneself because of external fears to stifling oneself voluntarily for no good reason. Notice too how an earnest multiculturalism is destroying actual culture.

Terrorism as “Anti-Islamic Activity”

The Politically-Correct contortionist award goes to the British government for its Orwellian scheme of relabling Islamic terrorism “anti-Islamic activity.” Let’s let Canadian hate-speech defendant Mark Steyn tell about it:

My favorite headline of the year so far comes from The Daily Mail in Britain: “Government Renames Islamic Terrorism As ‘Anti-Islamic Activity’ To Woo Muslims.”

Her Majesty’s government is not alone in feeling it’s not always helpful to link Islam and the, ah, various unpleasantnesses with suicide bombers and whatnot. Even in his cowboy Crusader heyday, President Bush liked to cool down the crowd with a lot of religion-of-peace stuff. But the British have now decided that kind of mealy-mouthed “respect” is no longer sufficient. So, henceforth, any terrorism perpetrated by persons of an Islamic persuasion will be designated “anti-Islamic activity” Britain’s home secretary, Jacqui Smith, unveiled the new brand name in a speech a few days ago. “There is nothing Islamic about the wish to terrorize, nothing Islamic about plotting murder, pain and grief,” she told her audience. “Indeed, if anything, these actions are anti-Islamic.”

Steyn observes that during the Blitz no one called the Luftwaffe airstrikes “anti-German activity.” So will England label the surge in Iraq “pro-Islamic activity” or “anti-American activity”?

Are we complicit in imposing Islamic law?

A 23-year-old Afghan journalist wrote an article jocularly wondering why, if men are allowed four wives under Islam, women aren’t allowed four husbands. For writing these words, he was convicted of insulting Islam and sentenced to death.

Diana West points out that the journalist was convicted by a government and under a constitution that the United States put into place. Afghanistan’s constitution provides for Western-style freedoms, including the freedom of speech and of the press, but goes on to say that the Shari’a law of the Koran trumps all, as the ultimate law of the land. This is also what the U.S.-imposed constitution of Iraq says. So, in the course of our wars against jihadist terrorism and despite our constitution’s religious neutrality, are we responsible for imposing Islamic law?