I have lost all respect for Dr. Rowan Williams

[ajva]

What?

What? What? WHAT?

Let's see:

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

What?

But Dr Williams says the argument that "there's one law for everybody... I think that's a bit of a danger".

SPLUTTER!!!!!! WTF? One law for all is a danger? A DANGER? What sort of idiocy is this? One law for all is the only way to do it. One law for all - as an ideological aim - defines the better traditions of this country: not one law for the rich, one law for the poor; not one law for men, one law for women etc. It is an ideal not always reached in practice, but held dear as an ideal. And three cheers for that.

Dr Williams adds: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."

Nonsense. The law of the land should not be subject to influence by religious forces, directly or indirectly. If there be a stand-off in the mind of a religious person, then it is up to that person to live according to their own conscience, and to accept the legal consequences should there be any. It is not acceptable to alter the law to accommodate their religious prejudices.

"We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."

Exceptionally muddle-headed thinking, tantamount to advocating fundamentalist appeasement in my view. We should not officially accommodate separate religious law in this country. Both philosophically and practically it would be very dangerous indeed.

I have thought for some time that Dr. Williams might be a little cowardly in some respects, but I'd given him the benefit of the doubt over the homosexuality in the C of E issue, since I could see that he is in a difficult position politically if he wishes to prevent schism. However, this is the last straw. The man is totally undeserving of the respect of the secular community in this country IMV.

Comments

Re: sharia

[sashajwolf.livejournal.com]

Having read the full text of his lecture, which is on the BBC news site, I think that's exactly the sort of thing he's talking about. He suggests that people should be able to opt into Sharia or Jewish law for issues of personal status, financial transactions, mediation and dispute resolution. Unfortunately, he doesn't seem to be aware that all of these things are already available via the Beth Din and Sharia Council and various forms of trusts and other financial instruments that already exist and are enforced by English law. He expressly says that nothing should be allowed that denies members of the relevant communities access to their rights under secular law if they want to exercise them. He also says that religious motivations should be taken seriously by the courts when people are explaining their behaviour - not to exempt them from the law, but when the courts have to make judgments as to whether someone was acting in good faith, which can be relevant to sentencing and to offences/civil wrongs where one of the ingredients that has to be proved is malice. Apart from the odd ignorance about the Beth Din and Sharia, I actually think it's a very good lecture. A lot of it is about preventing the state from becoming too powerful, which is a good liberal principle. It doesn't say anything new, though - just pulls together some of the existing arguments into one place, like your typical undergraduate lecture, even if it is a very good one. We really need to disestablish the Church of England as quickly as possible so that people stop paying quite so much attention to what Archbishops say. I can't imagine it causing quite such a furore if this lecture had been given by, say, the President of the Methodist Conference.

Re: sharia

[ajva.livejournal.com]

I can't imagine it causing quite such a furore if this lecture had been given by, say, the President of the Methodist Conference.

*laughs* Quite so; well said. :o)

I admit my initial vitriolic reaction was based on the media reports rather than a reading of the original speech. However, I still disagree strongly with the idea - that I *think* he seems to be putting forward - that formalising a deeper accommodation with some Sharia law would help towards greater social cohesion. I also think there is a certain naivety in his belief that resorting to secular law will be an option in practice for all; it seems to me that, for example, women who receive what we might consider to be less just divorce judgements from a Sharia court will often never have the option, in practice, to resort to a secular process of English/Scottish law instead. Greater formal accommodation within the British legal systems of such a thing would surely reduce the existing opportunities for justice rather than increase them.