First a small step .... then a bigger one ... finally—well, not a shot fired.

Remember this is how women priests/pastors and homsexual ordination started, small steps at a time.

Agreed. For a sneak preview, all of the politicians advocating this idiocy ought to be given history lessons and a guided tour in Nigeria to see what’s ahead.

And what about equality and individual rights under “the law”? This lunacy would doom some people to government-enforced enslavement to a religious system (and the minds that run it). A return to the Dark Ages.

w.w.

There goes the ball game.

Speaking technically, how is this possible? Surely Britain cannot admit that Sharia is, even in the smallest sense, the law of the land? And what of the separation of church and state?  I cannot understand or follow what has come over Britain -and I am thinking as well of the laws they have just passed regarding genetic manipulation and the like. There is something mad about this, something utterly disconnected from reality.  Larry

There is not one muslim country in the world that would accept British immigrants to be responsible only to the rule of British law.  Come to think of it, there are many Muslim countries that do not permit, or actively discourage, British or other nationalities to visit their countries, let alone settle there.
British politics becomes more bizarre every day from town councils to the national level.

Folks, I am a Catholic priest writing from Britain and to all of the above I have to say that the situation is rather more complex.  For example ponder these actual situations under present law in the UK:
1)  The case against sharia law was undermined when it was discovered that Jewish courts, Beth Din were already operating as part of the legal system.  What happens is this:  (a)  Both parties agree to binding arbitration;  (b) they agree to a Jewish court as the arbitrator;  and (c) the ruling that the religious court gives is enforceable in law.
2)  The law in Britain already makes provision for religious conscience eg a pharmacist can decline to provide the abortion pill to a customer;  similarly, health care staff (doctors and nurses) can decline to take part in abortions, although they have to refer the patient to another staff member who will.  (And clinicians will tell you their careers are not helped by refusing.)

My point is that secular and religious are already, to a degree, intertwined.  Like the vast majority of the population I was outraged when Archbishop Rowan Williams made his notorious sharia law speech.  Now I see that really, he was rather shrewd:  he was inviting us to ask what kind of society we want to become, and where such provisions fit within that picture.  However, I think he was wrong in calling for sharia to be accommodated.  The answer would seem to be US-style separation of Church and State.  Which means that the Church of England would have to be disestablished.  There is not much head of steam for that at the moment.

The headline should properly read “Tent sees room for minimal camel nose”.

The Muslims have a game plan. It seems the Christians and their descendants don’t even know what the game is.

However, folks, what about the state of Western (at least U.S.) law now: abortion is legal, and we have no-fault divorce.  The worm is already in this apple.