The United Kingdom v.s.The Ummah Khalifate - British PM asserts : Fundamentals of law -derive from Judeo -Christian tradition
"Ultimate issue not defeating terror but saving Western civilisation "
MIM: Dr.Daniel Pipes commented on the significance of this statement, and ,points out that "the ultimate issue is not defeating terror but saving Western civilisation".
Comment: While on one level banal – this editorial restates some obvious features of British life – its implications are profound indeed. The publication of this affirmation of legal fundamentals a week after the London terror wave implies that the Telegraph editors understand the ultimate issue is not defeating terror but saving Western civilization, starting with its British variant.
Nor are those editors alone in coming to this conclusion. Home Secretary Charles Clarke noted that there had been "a very strong response" to the London bombings from the whole of British society,
The fundamentals of law in this country...
The Prime Minister's statement to the House of Commons yesterday was worthy and welcome, and we deal with some of his points in more detail below. However, we feel that before analysing the security and foreign policy imperatives thrown up by last week's attack, it is necessary to state some fundamentals.
Though Britain has no written constitution or pledge of allegiance, we have values which are immanent in our culture, and which every citizen should be expected to agree with. The following four principles might accompany Mr Blair's four policy announcements, and help inform the "consultation" with Muslims that he has promised.
First, we believe in the rule of law, meaning the successive judgments of the common law and the statutory declarations of Parliament. Those who wish to establish Sharia law in Britain are irreconcilables.
Second, we believe in the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament. Political legitimacy flows upwards, from the will of the people and the traditions of the constitution, not downwards, from the interpretation of the will of God. Moreover, the state has a monopoly of coercion. The use of violence by other individuals or groups, in whatever cause, is illegitimate; those who espouse insurrection or jihad are irreconcilables.
Third, we believe that the nation is the ultimate object of political loyalty. Just as we resent the pretensions of the European Union to supersede the nation state, so we resist the idea that British citizens owe a greater allegiance to the global ambitions of a religious sect; those who say so are irreconcilables.
Fourth, we believe in a secular state, which allows the free expression of a plurality of religious beliefs. One of the most difficult aspects of this debate is the fact that many Muslims do not acknowledge the difference, or accept a separation, between the secular and the spiritual spheres. Mohammed, after all, was both a religious and a temporal leader, a prophet and a politician. This is a considerable stumbling block to the assimilation of Muslims in the West. Yet many devout Muslims manage it; those who wish Britain to be an Islamic theocracy are irreconcilables.
Though these principles derive from what is often called the Judaeo-Christian tradition, no one expects all Britons to subscribe to the creed of Moses and Jesus. We simply point out that the institutions we inhabit are dedicated to the separation of the things of Caesar and the things of God. These institutions can embrace citizens of any faith or none: but all citizens must accept that they demand obedience.