Thursday, February 07, 2008
Rowan Williams’ Law
Prize for apparently barmiest idea of the day must go to the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Rowan Williams for suggesting that some Sharia law in the UK is unavoidable and seeming fairly in favour of the idea (full pdf text of speech here). It seems that the media reaction describing amputation, flogging and stoning is not what Williams meant. He seems to have been talking about things like divorce and property law. However, this still seems completely contrary to the idea of all being equal under the law. Certainly the politicians have slapped the idea down pretty firmly. Whatever Dr. Williams thought he was trying to do and no matter how sensible he feels he is being; it still seems a pretty daft idea.
Turgon @ 08:53 PM
Appalling. I wonder did he see the recent Channel Four documentary about the application of Sharia law to marital disputes in a British Muslim community. For Sharia law substitute ‘hatred of women’.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 10:04 PMAny democrat should be completely and totally opposed to the application of Sharia Law, Canon Law, the Torah, or any other kind of law which is not debated and set in parliament. We live in a democracy, not a theocracy.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 10:08 PMSharia law , it’s not all bad….The idea that interest charged on funds is usury and against the Koran appeals to me.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 10:15 PMTime to disestablish the Church of England, and give us our tythes back too.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 10:21 PM‘We live in a democracy, not a theocracy.’
Eh? and your First Minister is not a cleric :(
‘Any democrat should be completely and totally opposed to the application of Sharia Law, Canon Law, the Torah, or any other kind of law which is not debated and set in parliament.’We agree :)
‘We live in a democracy, not a theocracy.’
Even though our First Minister is a minister of religion, and head (former ) of his own church:(
????
‘The idea that interest charged on funds is usury and against the Koran appeals to me.’This is one of the main reasons that one billion people in Islamic countries live in poverty and ignorance . I suppose you find that appealing also ?
Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 10:24 PMHe is expressing very dangerous views. These must be curbed.
All men are answerable to the SAME law without exception and that law is passed by Parliament and not some Religion no matter how well intentioned it may be.Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 10:40 PMGreenflag: Even though our First Minister is a minister of religion, and head (former ) of his own church
But he’s there because he was elected by the voters. I don’t much like it either, but we aren’t in a Theocracy. And it would be ridiculous to ban every Priest, Pastor, Mullah, lay preacher and medium from politics. There would be enough of them to start their own civil rights movement.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 10:49 PMThis is a symtom of how out of touch many of us are with what actually goes on in society. The police can’t be everywhere and can’t police everything. Whether the middle class accept it or not the legal system is set up to suit their prejudices and their view of society, and particularly their view of the primacy of private property.
In communities like the Short Strand in Belfast, Tallagh in Dublin, Poleglass or huge stretches of North London the same rules don’t apply, particularly in family situations where culture and custom may have deep roots which won’t disappear in one generation. From the local ‘hard man’ to the family patriarch these people aren’ going to give up power easily.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 11:06 PMget rid of weird beard and replace him with the fabulous John Sentamu ASAP.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 11:07 PMCrackers!!!
Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 11:19 PMlib,
Three words: can of worms. There are places like the northern states of Nigeria where Sharia is an improvement on a Federal law that simply is not applied.
I’m not going to comment on what the Archbishop said until I see the text of his lecture, but unless it is entirely subsidiary to state law it should be treated with extreme caution.
In your last paragraph, I think you are confusing social conventions (‘rules’) with the basic rights (‘law’) that modern states are obliged to extend to their citizens. (You also seem to confuse Sharia with ‘gun law’.)
Mess with those, and we are all on a very slippery slope.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 11:29 PMTurgon, IIRC Anna Lo empathised with the points Williams raises. She did so on Sunday Sequence past with William Crawley. William raised the matter of polygamy and IIRC Anna was quite relaxed about polygamy being practised here by those who’s cultural norms were so inclined. Would you be prepared to change your faith in order to have a few more women about the bedroom?
Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 11:32 PMSharia law , it’s not all bad….The idea that interest charged on funds is usury and against the Koran appeals to me.
I always thought that part of the law was a bit daft.
William raised the matter of polygamy and IIRC Anna was quite relaxed about polygamy being practised here by those who’s cultural norms were so inclined. Would you be prepared to change your faith in order to have a few more women about the bedroom?
Strictly speaking, it’s none of the state’s business how many partners you have or what contractual arrangements you enter into with them. And given that more and more people just don’t bother with marriage anymore, it all seems a bit irrelevant.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 11:35 PMNevin
I heard her on the Nolan show advocating law breaking where ones’ religious teachings were in conflict with the law. The logic of this lunacy goes well beyond bigamy via FGM to full-on medievalism.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 11:41 PMulsterfan:“All men are answerable to the SAME law without exception and that law is passed by Parliament and not some Religion no matter how well intentioned it may be.”
all men?
where is this global parliament?Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 11:44 PMActually the prize is for poor journalism, not a barmy idea from Canterbury. Williams very, very clearly said that the rule of law applies to all citizens - and that this secures human dignity. But, in a pluralist society, individuals will be free to opt in to the traditions and discipline of faith communities. He reiterated that faith communities cannot “claim finality” for their traditions if they offend human dignity.
His lecture was a thoughtful reflection on pluralism. The headline writers, needless to say, decided to skip reading the lecture.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 11:52 PMBrian Crowe
if the Archbishop had stayed on script then your point would have been well made. However his remarks on Radio 4 went far beyond a thoughtful reflection on pluralism.
Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 11:59 PMBrian, was Williams providing an opt-out clause for those community members who perhaps didn’t fancy being bound by the demands of their community leaders eg arranged marriages?
Posted by on Feb 07, 2008 @ 11:59 PMTotally agree Turgon when I read it, because it had taken prime spot on the BBC website, I thought such ideas fly in the face of democratic wishes of a governing body and its processes of law making.
Even the mention of private life and expression of other wishes in that sphere was as much as an admission that only so much can be done in terms of adherence to law; but people will not want to see any such proposals coming to fruition, like those Rowan is babbling about, especially if they have to be enforced via state services and public money for them to become any way effective.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 12:05 AMNevin - Williams explicitly addresses this issue. He states that cultural/religious traditions cannot have the “power to deny access to the rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights”. He goes on to say that we must “not collude with unexamined systems that have oppressive effect or allow shared public liberties to be decisively taken away”.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 12:09 AMBonar Law - accept your comments re: Radio 4. Williams has an unhappy history when it comes to media interviews. I didn’t hear this interview and accept your description.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 12:11 AM‘But he’s there because he was elected by the voters.
So was the Ayatollah Khomeini and the latest shower of mullahs
‘And it would be ridiculous to ban every Priest, Pastor, Mullah, from politics.’
Not at all . I’m all in favour of freedom of religion and that means keeping ‘religion’ away from politics . Politics is dirty enough as it is ! I mean just look at the uproar this idiot Williams causes when he opens his mouth ?
‘All men are answerable to the SAME law without exception and that law is passed by Parliament and not some Religion no matter how well intentioned it may be.’
Precisely . If immigrants need Sharia Law they need to become emigrants would be my view ! I can accept an intermediary role for imams /clerics /rabbis/priests/pastors /ministers within their own community but any ‘decisions’ or ‘agreements’ they make cannot be outside the common state law be it in the UK or Ireland etc .
Williams should be fired by the Head of his Church !! Come on Queenie earn your pay !
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 12:15 AMHe is expressing very dangerous views. These must be curbed.
All men are answerable to the SAME law without exception…..-ulsterfanwow, first sentence, very orwellian, so peoples views are to be curbed. I hope to Allah you never get a foothold in any government ulsterfan.
second part applies fine, so long as your not a member of one of Kitson’s psuedo gangs/state agencies.
it seems like the ‘daily mail’ mindset prevails in this instance and immediately people think Dr Williams advocates all aspects of Sharia. it is possible at the minute to hold sharia bank accounts, so is this creeping islamisation or just multiculturialism???? the latter methinks.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 12:21 AMBrian Crowe,
I deliberately included the a link to the whole text of Williams’s speech as it is not quite as odd as the headlines make out. I still have grave concerns, however, that he fails to fully understand the extent to which especially young women might be forced into a position of marrying within Sharia law and thereby being in a much poorer legal position both within the marriage and should a marriage fail.
I still cannot fully understand what Willimas was at other than possibly as a tangential attempt to appeal for special allowances for Christians as well.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 12:25 AMI am a leftie liberal till I die so don’t mistake me for a right wing knuckle dragging racist when I say this. This is not an islamic country and Sharia Law isn’t what I want to see. If you come to live in the Western world be it the UK, Ireland or any other part of Europe you have to accept the law as they have decided it should be or don’t bother coming to live there.
Can you imagine a European moving to somewhere like Suddan and expecting European Law to be incorporated just for them, of wait I forgot about the Teddy Bear called Mohammad and those nice Islamic people with their “religion of peace” demanding a school teachers execution.
Posted by on Feb 08, 2008 @ 12:36 AM
