Roger Kimball: Who will Rid Us of this Troublesome Priest?

As I say, for the moment there is nothing at all “unavoidable” about the institution of Sharia law in Britain. All that is necessary to countermand it is a little self-assertion on the part of the British people. Surely the instinct for self-preservation has not been totally eradicated in Britain by the enervating imperatives of political correctness””do I end that sentence with a period or a question mark? It is a mark of how serious things have become come that I am no longer certain. The triumph of Islam in Britain is eminently avoidable. But the triumph of civilizational Quislings like Rowan Williams might just change that.

Read the whole piece.

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, * International News & Commentary, * Religion News & Commentary, Archbishop of Canterbury, England / UK, Islam, Other Faiths, Religion & Culture

16 comments on “Roger Kimball: Who will Rid Us of this Troublesome Priest?

  1. magnolia says:

    excellent editorial! it is about time somebody stood up for us anglo’s. what is happening to us as a race? we are so shamed about abuses of the past that we diminish all the good things that we have ever done. thanks much for posting.

  2. Lumen Christie says:

    Gosh. The ABC selling out Christendom.

    How unusual.

  3. justinmartyr says:

    Christians INSIST on injecting their morality into the secular legal system in the form of prayer in public schools, marriage by biblical definition, etc. And yet we recoil in horror when the archbishop shows a little intellectual honesty. Either you have to limit government to the defense of life, liberty, and property (and leave the moral issues to Churches to adjudicate), or, if you insist on funding morality issues (e.g., gay marriage) with the taxpayers’ money, then expect those taxpayers (muslims, atheists, gays, etc.) to start to try and ram their ideas down our throats. We see this starting to happen with the new generations of virulent atheists and western muslims.

    Archbishop Rowan is being a little more intellectually honest than most Christians. I cringe at the horror of Western Sharia. And yet we insist on having government regulate holy matrimony–simply so that we can stick it to others.

    Go ahead, chew me apart now. Ignore the log in our eyes.

  4. Ouroboros says:

    No. 1 — Don’t forget those of us who are not “Anglos” by definition but who realize that when our ancestors came here, they had an obligation to assimilate. So whether we are Eastern European, Asian, African or Latino in origin, we became “Anglos” by assimilation and adoption.

    No. 3 — I’m not going to chew you out, as a Libertarian, I agree with you. But I would caution that the “minimalistic” influence of Christianity in Western secular gov’t (I mean, please, when was the last time you heard a prayer in a public school, and as for marriage, there is a secular interest in preserving the institution in which children are made) is a far cry from the adoption of sharia law.

  5. RoyIII says:

    Li’l Abner said he obeyed all the laws, good and bad. Why are muslims any different?

  6. Chris Molter says:

    I think the libertarian ideal of a “neutral” government who can exist at some fulcrum point between religions, morals, ethics, etc is an impossibility. I think +Rowan is showing us this. There is no “neutral” state or form of secular governance. The American “secular” state is itself a product of and strongly influenced by Judeo-Christian morality, law, and ethics. To try to force another system of underlying presuppositions into that pre-existing system would cause serious repercussions and quite possibly the collapse of that system entirely.

  7. Alli B says:

    Christians don’t “insist” on injecting their morality into the secular legal system. That’s absurd. The systems you’re surely referring to were founded on Christianity. Also, to the liberals, intellectual honesty is a supreme virtue, it seems, above all else. That seems to me to elevate our sinful predispositions above that which we aspire to.

  8. chips says:

    Western Law is based upon Western Morality which is for the most part based upon Christian values. There is nothing wrong with favoring our own values – the moral relativism suggested by Justinmatr would destroy Western civilization without a shot ever having been fired. Cutural diversity is madness – if you cannot have a common culture then you will fall into tribalism/balkanism and cease to be a functional society.

  9. Choir Stall says:

    Let’s not forget that Anglos were enslaved generations ago by the Romans. After having been enslaved, the Anglos adapted and overcame and later forged a civilazation worth having and preserving, many aspects of which have become the envy of the world. All this without leaning on the worn-out crutches of helpless victimization and entitlement. I, for one, have no intention of seeking reparations from the Italian government for abuses of their ancestors in the Rome. I think that slavery – as reprehensible as it was – advanced earlier inhabitants of Britain beyond their own capacity. There is no amount of money that could advance me further than the struggles and accomplishments of my ancestors as they forged themselves into a self-sustaining people.

  10. Marion R. says:

    [blockquote]As I say, for the moment there is nothing at all “unavoidable” about the institution of Sharia law in Britain.[/blockquote]

    Thank you! I have been struggling for the past day or two on how to write a post which would invite a much closer look at this whole business of ‘inevitability’ that reared up in Abp William’s comments. How many things now are we being told are ‘inevitable’? Sharia. Eugenics. Institutionalized homosexuality. The demise of marriage. The abandonment of Christ by the West. Television.

    Why are some things ‘inevitable’ while others require conversion and action: global warming? Racism? Social Justice? The eradication of AIDS?

  11. justinmartyr says:

    For all the naysayers out there:
    I’m sorry to say that your non-christian neighbors are not abstaining from wild, adulterous monkey-sex because some bimbo-bonking “western” politician is saying a prayer in congress or banning gays from marrying. The reason your neighbors are living relatively tame, even god-fearing lives is because of the Holy Spirit, at work in their lives through your example. You are the salt of the earth, not Caesar. You’re the bad example held out for all the world to see; and Christ in you is their greatest hope. When we divorce in record numbers and then use their tax money to enforce petty little laws meant to curb their vices, surprisingly, these actions don’t bring them any closer to our Savior. It kinda ticks them off and turns them away.

    Ouroboros: I fully agree.

  12. justinmartyr says:

    Ouroboros: does your pseudonym come from the “Worm” trilogy? If so, is it worth a read?

  13. drummie says:

    I don’t know who the Archbishop (and I use the term begrudgingly) is trying to make the maddest, the US in general, orthodox Christians in general or anyone who is not a “hairy leftie” blasphemor. He has done everything but take God’s name in vain and spit on the cross. The man has no integrity, character, bravery, or common sense. He is an overeducated idiot that needs to be removed from office, deposed and removed from ministy in God’s church that he hates so much that he has made a mockery of it.

  14. stevenanderson says:

    Don’t miss the central point all you anglos and others. The office of ABC is the head of the Church of England (that’s CHRISTIAN) AND the center of the worldwide Anglican (that’s CHRISTIAN) Communion. The person who sits in that chair is assumed to be not only CHRISTIAN but also one of the most notable Christian leaders and defenders. Williams must either exercise those two roles with dignity and personal Christian faith or step down now in order to take his own road to whatever extreme liberal unitarian universalist or pantheistic goal he prefers over the church he was appointed to lead. That he is “shocked” at the responses to his outlandish statements proves once again that he has no clue as to the nature of the position he holds (for now).

  15. John Wilkins says:

    I just wish Kimball had read the interview.

  16. Wilfred says:

    I just wish HRH the Queen would read the interview, and sack him.