Senior religious leaders attack multiculturalism and sharia law today, warning that they are “disastrous”, socially divisive and are destroying Britain’s culture and values.
Lord Carey and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor rebut the call of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, for Islamic law to be recognised in Britain.
Lord Carey, the former archbishop of Canterbury, said: “His acceptance of some Muslim laws within British law would be disastrous for the nation. He has overstated the case for accommodating Islamic legal codes.
“His conclusion that Britain will eventually have to concede some place in law for aspects of sharia is a view I cannot share.
“There can be no exceptions to the laws of our land which have been so painfully honed by the struggle for democracy and human rights.”
Read it all and follow all the links and read them also.
While I am going to post some stories on the Rowan Williams-Sharia Law flap, I am seeking to avoid letting it become the entire focus of the blog. A news search right now turns up over 1000 stories, for example, and a look at the givesover 3200 entires.
Kendall writes,
[blockquote]While I am going to post some stories on the Rowan Williams-Sharia Law flap, I am seeking to avoid letting it become the entire focus of the blog. A news search right now turns up over 1000 stories, for example, and a look at the givesover 3200 entires. [/blockquote]
There is also an important lead op-ed piece over at the Times, [url=http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article3341738.ece ]Archbishop, you’ve committed treason[/url]. Sue Martinez over at SF (who I think is the cat’s meow, really swell and other superlative positive attributes) objected to the over-the-top headline to the Times piece. I agreed. But, the sheer number of news stories that Kendall poinst out and their severity are, in of themselves, a news story.
If this had been an isolated event, it probably would have blown over. However, it is only the last of a series of gaffes which relegates Rowan Williams to being better suited to some dusty Oxford professor’s office rather than the leader of the Anglican Communion. Thousands of news articles…one can’t help but question whether Rowan Williams isn’t hopelessly compromised. Well, he can look at the bright side: Being so compromised, he won’t be able to get anything done which is what he does best!
The liberals, like Jake and Mark Harris, as well as the institutionalists like Dale Rye and Craig Uffman are rushing to Rowan’s defense. (It would be a sad day for me if I was ever allied to Father Jake in any matter.) I, on the other hand, look forward ensuing conflagration.
[blockquote]When through fiery trials thy pathway shall lie,
my grace, all sufficient, shall be thy supply;
the flame shall not hurt thee; I only design
thy dross to consume, and thy gold to refine.[/blockquote]
I’m not an institutionalist– at least as far as I can tell. But there are two things I would note about the whole flap.
First, the thing is founded in lying. Early on, I could note with some dismay that people weren’t bothering to read what he said. It’s too late to use that as a defense. I am particularly concerned by the pattern of misrepresentation that seems to plague any discussion of Rowan Williams. He is hardly perfect, and in retrospect he would have been better off keeping his opinions to himself. But it seems that he hardly needs to express any views, for there is a great multitude standing ready to create opinions for him.
Second, I cannot imagine what possesses any conservative who thinks matters are going to be improved by replacing him. No Labour government is going to elevate Wright, nor Nazir-Ali. Indeed, this would be their big chance to appoint someone safely and aggressively liberal, as all too many incorrectly assumed that Williams would be. Failing that, I would guess that they would appoint someone ineffectual and colorless; but they aren’t going to make the mistake of picking someone who is clearly going to push the church and the communion back in a conservative direction. A new Cantuar will make things worse, not better, so unless your aim is to destroy the C of E and the communion, you ought to think again about demanding WIlliams’s resignation.
It is interesting that already in Wikipedia, we already have this in the introductory remarks in the article about Rowan Williams:
[blockquote]There have been calls for his resignation over comments he made February 7, 2008 in which he suggested that it seemed unavoidable that some aspects of sharia would have to be incorporated into English law, with British prime minister Gordon Brown ruling out the idea.[/blockquote]
C. Wingate, you certainly may be correct about any replacement to Rowan Williams. People like Chris Seitz certainly know much more about the politics of the CoE than I do. But I do know that Rowan Williams has been very effective at doing nothing for the past five years, resisting all calls for any motion in any direction. This certainly benefits the revisionists cause the most. They have used the upper echelon paralysis quite effectively. Hence, people like Jake and Mark Harris are concerned. On the other hand, the paralysis causes despair in the orthodox. Despair is toxic and intolerable. Hence, they flee in droves.
I certainly do not want the destruction of the Anglican communion. But it seems to me that the institutionalists are seeking to avoid the fiery trials where our pathway doth lie. The AC has a lot of dross to consume and a lot of gold needing refining.
Well, God bless Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor for saying he does not believe in a multi-cultural society. (I intended to comment here that it would be interesting to know how supportive of Williams the ECUSA head is; would she agree that some aspects of shari’a law may need to be accommodated in a Western society?) Interesting that #1 notes some liberal male people have come to Williams’ defense – how many liberal females have done so? It looks clearer than ever who the faithful shepherds of Christ’s flock are – thank you, Cardinal, and Bp. Nazir Ali! How could any self-respecting Western female for an instant consider any accommodation of shari’a law in a positive light?
I’m getting thoroughly fed up with the coverage and comments on the topic. I know the Archbishop can be obtuse, but most commentators, journalists and politicians aren’t even trying to read what he said, let alone comprehend it. The overwhelming bulk of the “discussion” is vapid posturing, political maneuvering, and the opportunity to safely let off some nasty anti-Muslim steam in righteous indignation.
Which is not to say that I necessarily agree with what the good Archbishop said. But the way he is being covered is ridiculous (with the odd exception, such as the Economist).
#5 You have said it well.
[blockquote]Second, I cannot imagine what possesses any conservative who thinks matters are going to be improved by replacing him. No Labour government is going to elevate Wright, nor Nazir-Ali. Indeed, this would be their big chance to appoint someone safely and aggressively liberal, as all too many incorrectly assumed that Williams would be. Failing that, I would guess that they would appoint someone ineffectual and colorless; but they aren’t going to make the mistake of picking someone who is clearly going to push the church and the communion back in a conservative direction. A new Cantuar will make things worse, not better, so unless your aim is to destroy the C of E and the communion, you ought to think again about demanding WIlliams’s resignation.[/blockquote]
C Wingate — absolutely correct.
People are incredibly naive if they think that Rowan Williams’s resignation would do one speck of good.
And for the record, I disagree with Williams’s comments about sharia completely and don’t think at all that the outrage concerning those comments has to do with “people not understanding” them. People [i]do not wish[/i] the government to find “what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of sharia law” — full stop.
Sarah, I wrote about the possibility of Sentamu [url=http://www.standfirminfaith.com/index.php/site/article/9943/#183047 ]here[/url]. My take is that even if they appointed Jeffrey John, it would be better than Williams who has shown, in the past five years, an impressive ability in doing nothing, much better than any other “leader.”
At the risk of creating some confusion, I suggest we refer to the coming Lambeth Conference as [i] Gaffe-con. [/i]