A bit of a danger
I got a record number of email messages alerting me to the Archbishop’s fun new ideas on the subject of law and religion, which seems to hint that they may not be as sound as they are exciting.
Dr Rowan Williams told 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.
Quite so. UK murderers, rapists, extortionists, batterers – they do not relate to the British legal system. Good idea to face up to that fact, if one hasn’t already. But is it a good idea to actually adopt ‘certain aspects’ of murderers’, rapists’, extortionists’, batterers’ law? I would say no.
He says Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.
Really? Why not? Everyone has to choose between those alternatives. Why make exceptions? Because the cultural loyalty of Muslims is somehow special? Well, how, then?
Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said “there’s one law for everybody and that’s all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts – I think that’s a bit of a danger”.
Uh…do you really, Dr Williams? That’s a little scary. You think it’s a danger to say there is one law for everybody? You think it’s safer to say there are multiple laws for different people or you probably mean ‘communities’? Have you thought this through?
Dr Williams added: “What we don’t want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people’s religious consciences.”
Ah yes – so that’s what it’s all about. Religious consciences. The ones that make people want to treat gay people unequally, for instance – those religious consciences. Well my atheist and secular conscience tells me that laws should be universal. So how are you going to resolve that conflict?
Oh well, Doc W is in quite a lot of hot water already, I probably shouldn’t tease a fallen giant, even if he did trip his own self.
Their respective superiors to SA should instantaneously ship off both the Archbishop, along with Cardinal Desmond Connell. The former can bask in the Sharia law to his religious heart’s content – whilst the latter, (who recently said he would rather go to jail than hand over documents (some pertaining to child sexual abuse matters) to the Irish court) can mull over the religious reasons for not handing over the said documents. I am sure the holy Imams will make themseves available to give them sound advice.
So THAT’s the plan, is it? Doc Williams intends to counter us naughty secularists being all horribly liberal by promoting the desires of his fellow supernaturalists, however antithetical their beliefs may be to his own…
Just watched a channel 4 news report on this, and who cares if he’s “only” talking about marriage, etc…it’s clearly time for that written constitution we’ve been putting-off for all these centuries…
Who was it a while back saying that we shouldn’t be concerned about the dear old CoE? (ChrisPer, perhaps?) Wonder if they’d still support that viewpoint now..?
Scottish independence might help for those of us fortunate to be north of the border…except our glorious leader has proclaimed his support for publically-funded faith schools of all flavours.
Great.
Obviously it wouldn’t just be Muslim law that would run alongside secular law. Other religions would have to have their own optional laws, else that’d be religious discrimination. As a Yen Buddhist I’m forbidden from paying taxes. It’s also offensive to play Michael Bolton tracks within earshot, though I haven’t decided if that’s an artistic or a religious statement yet.
I love this idea that marriage is ‘only’ – as if marriage laws didn’t have much effect on people’s actual lives! Oh is that all Doc, oh well then, say no more.
> Who was it a while back saying that we shouldn’t be concerned about the dear old CoE? (ChrisPer, perhaps?) Wonder if they’d still support that viewpoint now..?< Since just about every politician from all the main parties who has spoken on this has rapidly stamped on the idea (including the PM), and there’s been an overwhelmingly general negative reaction, e.g. from BBC listeners (Radio 5 and Radio 4), I reckon ChrisPer (perhaps?) got it just about right.
Allen,
maybe, but remember, this is just the beginning…
cue creepy (church, of course) organ music, and Archbishop laughing maniacally as he scribbles away on his masterplan…
:-)
I’ve just done a count of the comments appended to the Times online article on the Archbishop’s statement (9.30 p.m.)
In favour 0
Against 53
46 from British citizens, including a couple of Muslims)
Yeah, and even the BBC page (is that unfair, that ‘even’? probably) could manage only two in favour.
The news media have been calling Gina Khan to comment. At last, they are talking to some Muslim women!
I heard one Faisal Aqtab Siddiqi, head of the Hijaz College Islamic University in Warwickshire, say on BBC radio this evening that among other historical benefits: “Sharia Law has brought about the emancipation of women.” He also compared Sharia favourably with other systems of law that had continually changed over time: “If you look at Sharia, it has been consistent and constant over 1400 years.” Impressive, eh?
On the other hand, in contrast to other Muslim spokesmen on the Archbishop’s ideas: “Even the Muslim Council of Britain insisted that most Muslims in Britain did not want Sharia and emphasised that the organisation had not discussed the issue.”
“The Archbishop of Canterbury came under fierce attack last night from the Government, his own Church and other religions after he advocated the adoption of parts of Sharia, or Islamic law, in Britain.”
http://tinyurl.com/357chv
I’m glad to see Trevor Phillips, head of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, come in quickly, calling the ideas “muddled and unhelpful”. (Rowan Williams’ ideas “muddled”? Surely not.) But top prize should surely go to the Times religious correspondent, Ruth Redhill:
“Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?
“Forgive the stark clarity of my headline, but sometimes when writing about the Archbishop of Canterbury, clarity is what is needed. I ask this of readers here, because this is the question put to me time after time this afternoon by incredulous commentators of every variety, stunned into blunt expression by the Archbishop of Canterbury’s uncharacteristically clear comments on Sharia in Britain…”
I love the bit about the Archbish being “uncharacteristically clear”.
http://tinyurl.com/27fwe5
I only managed to listen to the first five minutes of the Bish’s speech before brain-cramp set in but I noticed that in that time he quoted Tariq Ramadan three times.
’nuff said.
>The news media have been calling Gina Khan to comment. At last, they are talking to some Muslim women!< A Muslim woman from the West Midlands sent an email that was read out on a Radio 5 phone-in programme this morning: “As a Muslim from the West Midlands who was born and brought up in this country I say absolutely under no circumstances should Sharia Law be allowed in Britain… Sharia Law is a law in which women are treated like third class citizens, where a woman who is married to an abusive husband cannot divorce him unless three Imams of the Sharia Court agree…