There is nothing woolly-liberal about communitarianism
Matthew Parris considers the archbishop dangerous.
It is not useful, it is not even interesting, to begin an argument on whether Sharia should be given some kind of status within British law, unless you think there are otherwise potential conflicts…Unless, therefore, Dr Williams is proposing that elements of Sharia should be tolerated even though they appear to conflict with the general law, he is saying nothing interesting. They do conflict. And what happens when they do? The moment a private law appears to defy the general law, one question, and one alone, becomes central. It is the question of consent…Of group members, of course – and first – we must ask: is consent real, unanimous, complete? Is there duress? Is there undue influence? How about children? Who truly speaks for the group? What opportunities are offered to opt out?
And boy did the archbishop skate gracefully over that.
A religion, properly understood, makes profound claims on an individual and community, quite unlike the demands of a golf club. It involves the…subordination of the individual’s will; and may demand that he subordinate his spouse’s and children’s wills too. Hence our unease about duress, and the completeness of “consent”. Dr Williams, in a welter of words, makes no serious attempt to resolve this. Those who read his speech properly will see that his entire argument turns upon the freedom of the group member to “opt out” of the “supplementary jurisdiction” and choose British law instead. But repressive faith groups make it culturally difficult – sometimes well-nigh impossible – for a member to opt out.
Pre-cisely. He pretended he was taking consent into account without actually doing so. He simply waved at it as he skated past, he didn’t engage with it.
As Parris points out, this is not progressive or pc gone mad, it’s profoundly conservative.
Dr Williams’s ideas really represent the wilder fringes of a bigger idea: communitarianism. Communitarianism can come in a surplice, a yarmulka or from a minaret and is all the more dangerous because armed with a divine rather than a local loyalty. It almost always proves a repressive and reactionary force, fearful of competitors, often anti-science, sometimes sceptical of knowledge itself, and grudging towards the State. There is absolutely nothing “left-wing” or woolly-liberal about empowering it. A Britain in which Muslim communities policed themselves would be more ruthlessly policed, and probably more law-abiding than today. But it would be a Britain in which the individual Muslim – maybe female, maybe ambitious, maybe gay, maybe a religious doubter – would lose their chances of rescue from his or her family or community by the State.
A hell on earth, in short.
OB: Well said, and I could not agree with Parris more. The communitarianism he talks about gives people a sense of belonging and being part of a wider mutual support group, Hence its attraction for some; but it comes at the price of intellectual submission and acceptance of groupthink and doctrine. For me, a complete blind alley.
Williams seems to be trying to find an easy way out of the two-cultures bind of the Islamic/non-Islamic divide, by the typical and well-tried course: appeasement. Unfortunately it is well-tried but not well-proven.
And especially – the sense of belonging can and does come at the price of submission for other people. X gets a sense of belonging at the price of imposing submission on X’s spouse and children, and their children and their children and their children, in perpetuity until Islam really does give up the idea of apostasy.
There were comments, I recall, on one of these articles burbling about how peaceful and free of crime Saudi Arabia is. Thank you for smacking that down. (Of course, I consider religious police beating down a woman seen “with” another male as or more criminal than a mugger, but that’s just me).
If you see those shouting “down Rowan, down!” one feels ashamed to be in that same company. It is much better for my peace of mind to look at it as a civil war between conservatives. On one side the outright xenofobe “judeo-christian tradition is supreme”-wing, on another “at least we’re all spirituals, as opposed to those unhappy materialist pigs”- wing.
Avoiding absolutes, one has to have at least a little bit of sympathy for the Rowan. His conservativism refers to an older tradition & when you really feel the need to be conservative you might as well go for prehistoric times in an explicit manner. But more importantly: his conservativism respects us godless creatures for what we are: the atheist heathens that don’t fit at all in any of the traditional religious frames ;-)
If truth would be a matter of tradition one would have to opt for the original.
Hmmm . . . a very large cult. But I think the extreme left and the anarchist / activist groups (in Australia at least) are EXACTLY like that. Groupthink, fear of ostracism, hatred of the state and an “at least we’re all spirituals, as opposed to those unhappy materialist pigs” mentality as JoB put it. The self-righteousness of the co-deluded is impregnable.
Another blogger on a different site referred to the ABC as Rowan Atkinson. A wonderful and deeply meaningful typo. This means that both our Prime Minister and the leader of our State church have turned into Mr Bean.
That’s it: “Mr. Bean goes mental!”
The book, the movie, the computer game & a lot of bearded merchandising – one could easily recycle some as yet unsold Tolkien gadgets.
Frankly, the whole episode fills me with a deep, deep, sadness. It reinforces the gloomiest of my sentiments that we, in the UK, are tragically far from even beginning to understand, as a culture, the disciplines required to run a secular liberal democracy. Drunken scum kick people to death on the streets, and families conspire to butcher teenage girls who only want to be free. And over it all gurning loons preach dark-age nostrums. O tempora. O mores.
“Drunken scum kick people to death on the streets, and families conspire to butcher teenage girls who only want to be free. And over it all gurning loons preach dark-age nostrums. O tempora. O mores.”
Now that sounds exactly like eighteenth century London. Except that more members of the educated classes would have been able to translate O tempora O mores.
“How about children? Who truly speaks for the group? What opportunities are offered to opt out?”
Religious faiths members, to date, have spent too much time sexually abusing children/covering up child sexual abuse, whom they consider by ‘their’ religious standards (like women) to be mere nonentities. Speaking up for them – in their holy circles, well, why should they, after-all. They are only there to serve/be subservient to the holy ones.
There was a Dublin court case this morning, which involved Cardinal Desmond Connell. He had directly refused to hand over documents to the Irish Commission to Inquire into “Clerical Child Sexual Abuse.” He was that fiercely adamant about not so doing that he went to the extent of initiating court proceedings. Like Archbishop Rowan Williams, he was all his life an academic (Professor of Metaphysics). He had to fix matters, persuadably, in a similar fashion to that of which one would, metaphysics. At retirement age, he was by the pope placed into the very prestigious position of Archbishop of Dublin. He had, whatsoever, no training in people’s skills. When parishioners/others went to see him vis-à-vis peadophilia performances of his priests in the parish/elsewhere – he was, by all accounts, too full of activity to entertain them. They were practically at every hands turn given by this seemingly clueless uncaring individual the cold shoulder. He also shunned the media when asked by it very very, very serious questions – leading it to believe that there were far important things to deal within the church. To him, by all accounts, all these sexual abuse allegations were just a storm in a teacup. He purportedly gave money to a priest to pay off an alleged sexual abuse victim. When asked about it by the media he ascertained that it was a loan, only, that was by him given to the priest.
Archbishop Rowan Williams said “he made it clear that a line must be drawn”. However, he failed to say why or how. “it is that failure that marks what I hope is just the incoherence – but fear may be the disingenuousness – of the Archbishop’s argument.
These religious leaders spend their time hiding behind their academic religious surplices – and are so completely out of touch with the human race. They are patently not in the right jobs. It was exactly the same with Cardinal Basil Hume – whom I remember from way back when, who constantly said that he had never wanted to be Cardinal. He was by nature a contemplative.
The queen/Pope Benedict have a lot to answer for placing these academics in these very unsuitable positions.
I also believe, universities, colleges, and schools should vet its staff members on a regular basis. As there are clearly teachers of learning in these establishments who are not fit to be placed in charge of dogs, let alone vulnerable young students. They too have no opportunity to opt out.
Oh, btw victims/survivors of Clerical sexual abuse came out in force to stand up for their rights. So be it that Cardinal Desmond Connell has caved in to their demands. He finally saw the light of day and withdrew his case at the high court. Praise be to Betsy! I also wonder will Archbishop Rowan Williams see what it is the British public is trying to (painfully) tell him! Or will he continue to go on feeling that he was by it religiously so dreadfully, callously misunderstood.
“How about children? Who truly speaks for the group? What opportunities are offered to opt out?”
I think in most Western countries persons under 18 years old cannot legally sign binding contracts. I think persons over 18 years old only can opt for a Sharia-settlement.
Such settlements, under any circumstances, cannot violate the rights of persons under 18 years old.
They should keep their Kangaroo courts out of Great Britain.
Pat Condell’s video!
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=mM2dC1iWzww
@KB Player. Indeed. And 250 years after deciding that society ought to ‘progress’, we haven’t…
Thank-you G. Tingey!
I have been too close to various cults of the deluded many times in my life. I know what it’s like firsthand in many different forms. The Holocaust deniers from last week were another notch in that dubious belt, except thankfully they were only virtual encounters.
I get scared for the future of humanity a LOT.
>”paedophilia”< correction. Re: “Commission of Investigation into Clerical Sex Abuse.” (Taken from B&W News) Not once have I heard/read in the media the words > Clerical “Child” Sex Abuse.
< Which is accurately what this commission is all about. It is just classically characteristic of the Irish media etc. It is so unreservedly ashamed of the realism of the sexual abuse that was by the Roman Catholic Churches, so called loyal trusted Clerical members, inflicted onto little guiltless children - which it cannot bear to call it by its apposite name. PAEDOPHILIA must be by everyone shoved under the commission's carpet, with the aid of the media. It predominantly works hand in hand with the government/religious. It is a three-pronged fork. Never (unnecessarily so) to ever rear its ugly head if it can get away with it. So nauseating. It pretends, pretends, & pretends that it is dealing inclusively with sordid debacle. It is all just a PR exercise. However, when the report (like the Commission to Inquire into Institutional Child Abuse) comes out (very strategically so, you will find, when all politicians are still on holidays) in September 2008. The government/Roman Catholic Church will after one week's hype, then stack away the report, (like the CICA Report) in some hidden place, where it will over the years gather dust. The report, suffice it to say, will be history.
Well, I have just read some articles on ultimatedisposal.com relating to the above issue – and give them their proper due – the majority of the Irish papers on the site did in fact refer to “Child Sex Abuse.” I noted that the most of them were the ones who are very sympathetic to child sexual abuse issues in Ireland. Mary Raftery & Jonn Cooney are two journalists, who, by all accounts, should be hugely congratulated by all for all their input in this very delicate, ongoing & controversial subject.
Last week, the Catholic Church criticised the Government for the lowering of value added tax from 21pc to 13.5pc on packets of condoms.
Humanae Vitae, (1968) lives on
Re: Stolen Generation
Australian PM Kevin Rudd Apologises To Aborigine ‘Stolen children who were taken from their families to be brought up in white households, were a stain on the nation’s soul.”
Paste: “Australian PM Kevin Rudd Apologises To Aborigine ‘Stolen” into google, for full story.
See also:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation
I was listening to the radio this morning and it said that the Australian government will be providing housing and other benefits to the future children of the Stolen Generations as opposed to helping the ones who suffered in the past. That, to me, is terribly unfair.
Oh boo hoo. You dip into a topic as fraught and sad as the Stolen Generations and your commentary consists of a little whinge about fairness?
Amazing.