Comments

9 responses to “Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?”

1. 2008/02/08

   Dave Walker

   I don’t think he’s “gone bonkers”, as this implies there was a time before the point at which he “went bonkers” when he wasn’t bonkers…

   Reply
2. 2008/02/08

   Darren J Moffat

   I think a lot of media hype of this has completely missed the point. In fact it is already legal to use Sharia Law just like it is Jewish Beth-Din for civil law matters where both parties agree to it. Use of anything other than English law in England for criminal matters is a complete non starter. For me the area that needs careful consideration is use of anything other than English law in England when dealing with divorce and inheritance, mainly because there could be tax and fairness implications that could otherwise be avoided (not that I think the English system is actually fair but it is what we have).

   An no being a Scot I don’t expect that Scottish Law should apply to me as a Scot living in England – though sometimes it might be nice! IMO Scottish law is just better and England should have adopted it 🙂

   Reply
3. 2008/02/09

   Melanie Rimmer

   I agree with Darren, I think William’s points have been minsunderstood and misrepresented. He’s saying you should be able to get married in a mosque, and things like that. I didn’t even realise that you couldn’t, but apparently not.

   He quite specifically said he did not think Sharia laws should apply to everybody in this country. But for those who choose to hold themselves to those laws, we could try to arrange things so they are protected and recognised under British law as well.

   It seemed very sensible and moderate to me. He has usually struck me as a thoughful and moderate person. Unfortunately the sound bite is terrible: “Williams Says UK Should Have Sharia Law”. Daily Mail readers immediately have mental images of British women being required to wear niqabs, and cutting the hands off thieves (actually I think Daily Mail readers might be in favour of that last one).

   Reply
4. 2008/02/11

   Nick Palmer

   H was actually there when Williams was speaking, and yes, he’s been absolutely misrepresented, and I’d argue deliberately so, by the mainstream media. Even the “Have Your Say”s on the subject have skewed the debate by being couched in terms that are completely at odds with what Williams said.

   Williams didn’t just pull this subject out of the air; he was specifically asked to speak on it. He didn’t suggest a parallel system of laws or anything that would result in people having fewer rights, or in having any aspect of Sharia-derived law imposed on them. I’d suggest that anyone interested in what he ACTUALLY said, as opposed to what the more hysterical media commentators appear intent on conning people into believing he said, should probably read it: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/07_02_08_islam.pdf
   It’s quite deep, but the intended audience was eminent legal professionals and scholars. In reality it’s concerned with a lot of different questions that affect many groups in society, not just Muslims, and he is most certainly NOT advocating any sort of parallel system or indeed anything that we don’t already have for other faiths.

   Reply
5. 2008/02/11

   alecm

   Speaking as an Athiest – to be clear, I am of the “no god, no higher power, you die, you rot, enjoy this life it’s the only one you’ve got” variety – I don’t see any reason for the law to bend in the direction of respecting anyone’s belief.

   For certain, in lacking belief, nobody’s going to bend in my direction.

   All I am armoured with is rationality.

   Reply
6. 2008/02/11

   alecm

   ps: if he really is the most intellectual ABofC that we’ve ever had, it does demonstrate that just because you’re clever does not mean you’re smart…

   Reply
7. 2008/02/11

   Nick Palmer

   I’d argue that it actually proves that you can neither clever nor smart and still get just about anywhere in journalism… 😉 Unfortunately, complex ideas don’t condense into tabloid headlines very well.

   Presumably, you’d also outlaw binding arbitration in secular matters, since that would be a group of people making up private laws for themselves; and of course the Beth Din would have to go as well?

   Your beliefs are secular; or rather you might say that “belief” is an inappropriate term. Fine, no problem; nothing that’s been even suggested by RW would impact upon you in the slightest. All that he suggested was the possibility that the same accommodation reached with other faiths, that’s to say the ability to form agreements or settle disputes by mutual consent according to their faith, and within and subject to the existing law, might be extended to Muslims. No-one’s asking the law to “bend” at all.

   Reply
8. 2008/02/12

   Melanie Rimmer

   I think the example of marriage is one we can all understand. As a Christian I believe marriage is a holy vow taken before God and the church. In British law, marriage is more or less a contract between two people. If I got married just in church without also signing the register I wouldn’t be married in the eyes of the law and would miss out on inheritance, tax benefits and so on. If I got married just in a registry office and not in church, I wouldn’t feel myself to be “really” married at all. Fortunately British law accomodates me in this respect and I can have a legal marriage in a church without having to go through the whole rigmarole twice. The law isn’t bending around my faith. It’s just accomodating to my traditional cultural practices.

   Reply
9. 2008/02/14

   Robin Wilton

   I think the Archbishop’s speech and the subsequent discussion principally illustrate that a classic British compromise-by-default has got us into a very confused position. We haven’t quite managed separation of church and state, we haven’t quite enshrined conscientious objection across the board, and we can’t quite agree whether a clergyman has any business commenting on the intersection between legal, moral and religious imperatives.

   I think I find that last one the oddest, in the context of a discussion in which it is absolutely taken for granted that an imam’s ‘remit’ is as much social as ecclesiastical. Personally, I entirely take issue with the idea that there’s no such thing as an entirely secular/atheistic morality, but neither do I think it’s satisfactory for society as a whole to behave as though there’s no-one who thinks that the best basis for personal ethics is some kind of religious belief.

   The massive irony of it occurred to me yesterday evening: at its most basic, you don’t have to have any belief in the supremacy of some third party (imaginary or otherwise) to recognise whether a given action is ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’. All you need is the ability to imagine yourself in the other person’s position. And that’s exactly what the “New Covenant” says… ‘love thy neighbour as thyself’, ‘do unto others as you would be done by’. In other words, Jesus neatly appropriated the core of an ethical system which requires no belief in anything remotely godlike. ;^)

   Reply