Ever heard of Pat Condell? This just in ... " Sharia fiasco" video - blog.myspace.com/index.cfm

I think that it would be fairer if you said "some Moslems" rather than "all Moslems"

Most modern Moslems integrated into western culture for a generation or two interpret their faith differently from those who are in live under states where islamic law prevails. They may still consider themselves Moslems but are as different from those who'd demand a Sharia law as a mild presbyterian would differ from a foaming at the mouth calvinist.

In fact, even in Moslem countries are a few rather brave men and women who oppose sharia laws and other measures which are meant to preserve the gender roles of the 16th century to the present day and beyond. There are activist feminists (for instance) who consider themselves sincere in their faith of Islam but want to see it interpreted in a completely progressive way.

I would say however that I'd agree with you about having an accomodationist attitude, not to Islam, but to the extremes of Islam which refuses to progress. Law should be only secular anyway and make no concessions either to minority religions like Islam in Europe or the US but also no concessions to majority religions like christianity in its many forms either. It is not the place of civic institutions to allow any relgious law any acknowledgement for superceeding civic law as a matter of policy.

The extreme moslem or extreme christian who demands their faith trump government law somehow is demanding a power of authority that is not theirs to have. It would be like if the few extreme breakaway mormon sects which practice multiple marriages with women as young as 14 were given a special permission to violate the laws of statutory rape and polygamy because their religion says it is okay.

If these accomodations are made, it will only serve to make it possible for extremists in the islamic community to assert with full legal authority their laws in a way which will discourage assimilation and the modernizing of the Islamic faith into something completely benign. Anyway, seperate but equal didn't work for public schools, restrooms, etc. so why should it work for there being seperate but equal laws over differing ethnic communities?

These are slippery rocks, and though I respect the intent of the anglican leader to try to smooth relations with the Islamic community, the problem is NOT that violence is being provoked by extremists because they aren't getting respect or equal treatment under the law. The conflict is being provoked by the fact that the Moslem community is modernizing, becoming more rational, and not listening to these extremist leaders who for not being in charge like they'd want decide to attack at the heart of the culture their fellows are embracing. If so, then they will not be satisfied with sharia laws which would respect human rights, however watered down, they'll still want to attack and attack until their are laws which force their community not to modernize and adopt the same perspective and interpretation of Islam they have.

So this accomodation will do nothing.