Posted on 02/10/2008 10:53:59 AM PST by mojito
My text for today is “Hold fast that which is good”: 1 Thessalonians 5:21. These are words I heard so regularly in prayers at my Anglican girls’ school that I have been unable to forget them. I draw them to the attention of the Archbishop of Canterbury, who seems to have forgotten them. At least, he seems to be losing his grip on what is good in this country and, indeed, to be throwing it away with both hands in his curious suggestion that aspects of sharia should be recognised in English law.
In an interview on Radio 4 last Thursday, Rowan Williams said that the introduction of parts of Islamic law here would help to maintain social cohesion and seems unavoidable. Sharia courts exist already, he pointed out. We should “face up to the fact” that some British citizens do not relate to the British legal system, he said, and that Muslims should not have to choose between “the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty”.
What he went on to say was more astonishing. He explained to the interviewer, in his gentle, wordy way, that a lot of what is written on this confusing subject suggests “the ideal situation is one in which there is one law and only one law for everybody”. He went on: “That principle is an important pillar of our social identity as a western liberal democracy.” How true.
However, he continued: “It’s a misunderstanding to suppose that that means people don’t have other affiliations, other loyalties, which shape and dictate how they behave in society, and the law needs to take some account of that.”
Stuff like this is bad for the blood pressure, but I listened on. “An approach to law which simply said there is one law for everybody and that is all there is to be said . . . I think that’s a bit of a danger.”
What danger? And to whom? The danger, surely, is rather the archbishop and those who think like him, who seem unwilling to hold fast that which is good. What is good and best and essential about our society � it isn’t merely a matter of “social identity” � is the principle of equality before the law. That principle and its practice have made this country the outstandingly just and tolerant state it is; it is one of the last remaining forces for unity as well.
What is also good and essential to this country is the law itself. It has evolved over centuries from medieval barbarities into something, for all its faults, that is civilised. Our law expresses and maintains the best virtues of our society. Anybody who does not accept it does not belong here.
When other legal systems or other customs clash with ours, we prefer ours, to put it mildly. At least we should; what has troubled me for years is the way that exceptions and excuses tend to be made, in the name of multiculturalism, for practices of which we do not approve. Victoria Climbié’s terrible bruises were ignored because of assumptions about the cultural norms of African discipline. Last week it emerged that someone in government has sold the moral pass on polygamy: husbands with multiple wives in this country are now to get benefit payments for each wife.
In the midst of all this moral confusion and relativism, is the premier prelate in the land holding fast that which is good? Far from it. He is recommending multiculti legal cherry-picking, in which individuals would be free to choose the jurisdiction they preferred for certain matters. He even admits that his proposal introduces, “uncomfortably”, the idea of a market in the law, “a competition for loyalty”.
One encouraging sign is the almost universal fury that our foolish archbishop has aroused: he has miraculously united the irreconcilable in opposition to himself, from Christian extremists to mainstream Muslims, from Anglican vicars to godless Hampstead liberals, from Gordon Brown to backwoods Tories.
The archbishop and his few supporters insist that the media have misrepresented him and not many people have actually read the learned speech that he gave to a learned audience after his inflammatory radio interview. They are wrong. I haven’t seen any serious misrepresentation in the media, and reading his speech several times doesn’t exonerate him. Nor does it increase respect for his judgment, his command of English or his powers of ratiocination; he is woolly of face and woolly of mind.
In any case, you do not need to follow anybody’s argument to understand that legally recognising aspects of sharia is either unnecessary or undesirable. If the aspects in question accord with English law (the Anglican archbishop is speaking of England, presumably), there is no need to offer any extra provision or recognition for religious courts. They are of no interest to the law. If they don’t accord with English law, they are unacceptable and should be repudiated, or even prosecuted.
All this has nothing particularly to do with it being Islamic law at issue. The same would apply to any other religious law: Hindu, Mormon or wiccan. However, there is a lot to be said against sharia and the desire of a reported 40% of British Muslims to live under it. That explains, in part, the present outrage. Sharia is rightly feared here: it is disputed, sometimes primitive, grievously in need of reform and wholly unacceptable in Britain.
So what possessed this troublesome priest to stir up this predictable fury with his divisive and unnecessary suggestions? Why did he choose to speak not just in a quiet academic meeting but also in the public glare of The World at One? And cui bono? It has most certainly not been good for ordinary British Muslims, as they well understand. It has, however, given comfort to Muslim extremists, who will see this as the thin end of their Islamist wedge.
Williams’s behaviour looks like vainglorious attention-seeking, but it is also something much worse. To seek to undermine our legal system and the values on which it rests, in a spirit of unnecessary appeasement to an alien set of values, is a kind of treason. It is a betrayal of all those who struggled and died here, over the centuries, for freedom and equality under the rule of law and of their courage in the face of injustice and unreason. Theirs is the good that we should hold fast and so of all people should the Archbishop of Canterbury. Otherwise, what is he for?
Outstanding editorial and right on point. “It has given comfort to Muslim extremists, who will see this as the thin end of their Islamist wedge.” Precisely!
They aren't the first to do that. Prior to the Reformation and ultimately the Constitution of the United States, most religions were essentially political. Or were eventually used as such.
And from this reality we in the West have to make this judgement: Islam has no place in either our historic lands and especially our political systems, which are secular.
Adherence to Islam in the West is Treason because by its very nature it seeks to overthrow the existing order, built up over the last 1000 years in the wars of Europe and eventually the Revolution of the Colonies.
Those who adhere to this barbarian, revanchist political system should enjoy no "religious" protections, and should be regarded as an enemy force within the boundaries of Western countries.
Very well articulated. Thanks.
bump!
One day the British will all bow 5 times a day to a foreign power.
The intolerant supremacists will stamp out all competing faiths.
And Marxists will cheer.
The Aryans should ask to be able to establish their own Nazi courts and do Lord Haw Haw proud.
What we see today in the use of multiculturalist rhetoric is an inversion of common sense understanding of competing nations: it is now discriminatory to resist invasion and overthrow. To resist is racist. To even criticise is "hate speech".
We see the same in this country. Just a few days ago, the head of a racist organization - its very name is "The Race" -- was running around trying to label those who oppose their agenda as "hate speech". In many cases, the so-called hate speech was merely repetition of their own propaganda -- but when spoken by others, it becomes "hate speech".
According to them, at least.
And so the politics of "civil rights" and "non-discrimination" becomes a tool in the hands of aggressive nations -- but not neccessarily Nation-States -- to crack open the borders of the West and to eliminate resistance to their territorial aims. How to takeover the West? Simple. Get the legal systems of the West to prosecute all who would resist.
In other words, they claim Invasion as a civil right.
LOL!
Hopelessly naive, if not anachronistic it seems almost predictable that Rowan Williams, a pagan druid, completely devoid of any moral compass would seem to revere the austere primitive purity of Rousseau's "noble savage". But William's 'conflict of conscience' is more founded in what Ratzinger referred to as a "pathological self-hatred" rather than his own misguided philosophical beliefs.
continued....
The intolerant supremacists will stamp out all competing faiths
This article, and the many similar reactions in the last two days from all quarters of British society, are among the many indicators of the improbability of your assertion.
He isn't.
“One day the British will all bow 5 times a day to a foreign power.”
And all of scotch-distilling industry will move to the US before it too is subdued by Muslims. Cheers!
British Archbishop Urges Government to Adopt Sharia Law [semi-satire]
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, says that the quicker his country adjusts to Islam’s Sharia law, the sooner there will be peace.
“Look, its inevitable anyway,” Williams insisted. “They’re coming here in droves. They’re breeding like rabbits. It’s just a matter of time before we’re overwhelmed by the Muslims. Why fight it?”
Williams called the British nation a “spent force.” “We’ve had our ‘finest hour,’” Williams said. “We’re now just an effete shadow of our former selves. It’s time we learn new ways. If we can get ahead-of-the-curve on this we can avoid a lot of bloodshed.”
The Archbishop rebuffed critics who felt that his disdainful use of a Churchill quote was disrespectful of the achievements of his country in staving off the Nazis. “Churchill had great rhetoric, but in the long run, did it really matter?” Williams asked. “I mean, it looks like we’re going to be overrun by Muslims anyway. Besides, do we really have the right to resist? After all, didn’t Jesus bid us to ‘turn the other cheek?”
A “bright side” according to Williams is a likely decline in the divorce rate. “Women will be less eager to stray from their husbands under Sharia law because the risks and costs are too great,” he pointed out. “Families will stay together. I think that is a plus that many of we Westerners overlook.”
In related news, the British government announced that persons with multiple wives will now be entitled to increased welfare benefits. The new guidelines on income support from the Department for Work and Pensions were adopted “as a precaution” according to Deputy Minister, Ron Codwiner. “It’s a virtual hostage situation,” Codwiner explained, saying the funding is expected to “reduce the incidence of so-called ‘honor killings’ of wives and ‘street rage’ like we’ve seen in Paris. We’re hoping that with a little extra money, they’ll stay home and watch television instead of making trouble.”
read more...
http://www.azconservative.org/Semmens1.htm
Williams might want to check out the precepts of Shari'a, because that is precisely its proponents' point of view. Should Shari'a become the British code of law, does anyone imagine that they would tolerate Anglican "alternate" courts?
This is the bland, enervating stupidity of multiculturalism brought to its final form - a stolid refusal to defend one's own culture lest one be accused of intolerance by the intolerant. Thomas Becket must be turning over in his grave.
It would help if people re-learned how to say, quite simply, “Ours is better.”
Why are so many folks leaving the church?
Bozo, fags and stupids putting themselves up as our moral cumpuses.
Doesn't this Archbishop realize that to Muslims there is no such thing as implementing part of Sharia law? It's all or nothing with these people. Sharia law is what Muslims want, not only in England, but all of Europe and indeed all over the world.
Yes he is.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.