Think about this reasoning: Since people are going to do drugs, lets legalize it. Since people are going to commit abortions, let’s sanction it. Since people are going to divorce, let’s endorse it. What is wrong with this type of argument? Do they realize that government cannot have “TWO” sets of laws that contradict each other, for two sets of people. That would no longer be a “just” system and logistically applicable.

What kind of punishment would you apply in the courts? Who would you apply them towards? Muslims that are liberal, moderate, or conservative? What if someone claims to have converted a day before their British court trail? What it the interpreters of the Koran disagree about legislation and execution? Who would legislate the legislators? Who would be sanctioned to judge? Koran declares Imams are to be the appliers of religious and civil laws. In Islam church and state are one. The list of problematic questions goes on and on.

The real problem in this story is not the Muslims who hold to such a theocratic view, but the logic of the Anglican Archbishop. There seems to be a disdain for “universal truth” amongst liberal Christian leaders. There is no way for them that any theoretical or moral truth could be universally binding for all humans on the planet. As a missiologist I believe in contextualization and moral relativity on secondary issues of non-relevance for the wider society and the church (Romans 14, 15). But, when it comes to essential matters of salvation or holiness there is no room for a double standard or application. The same can apply for legislative leaders when it comes to human rights.

It was the ability of civil rights leaders to appeal to the “US Constitution” that enabled them to fight for their rights boldly. They argued for a consistent application of the manuscript. They argued that the constitution was binding for all people, and it ensures their protection and right to pursue certain ambitions as citizens. There was no dual laws or interpretation of what is a human being as morbid leaders of the past had emphasized. There was “ONE” law of freedom, for all citizens of America that should be applied in a uniform manner!

Parents and teachers in small communities are enabled to be flexible with rules and punishment, based on their children’s personalities and behavioral issues. But, for general society such a therapeutic, “everyone has personal rights”, sensitive approach would be confusing. Oh yeah! What ever happened to the separation of church and state that many Brits content for in their country? We don’t see the Anglican Church wielding power with their huge religious sword. Why should Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, or any religious people have the right to establish their particular civil laws under their own jurisdiction? We need just laws that protect and enable all to live free of ill treatment as human beings (including people of different sexual orientations).

But, some claim we need to be tolerant and hold all ideologies equal in merit and application. That is absurd and unrealistic in a real world! For example: “if your friend gets raped and killed should the perpetrator be punished”? If you said yes, you are making a moral judgment about a certain thought and practice. What’s wrong with rape and murder? Who determines that it is wrong? It is survival of the fittest! Again in the real world not all laws are equally good! We should seek laws that enable people of all faiths, sexes and ethnicity’s to live without having to worry who is going to hurt them. We need laws that are equally good and enforced for everyone!

< Prev		Next >