Posted on 11/25/2007 5:05:03 PM PST by Gengis Khan
LONDON: The spiritual head of the Church of England has launched an extraordinary defence of the British Raj, saying it was benign to India compared with cack-handed American neo-imperialism in Iraq.
Dr Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, who officially leads nearly 80 million Anglicans worldwide, told a British Muslim lifestyle magazine that the British experiment in India was an example of caring colonialism.
On Sunday, the comments were criticised by observers as a patronising justification of imperial Britain's grip on India.
Sources said it was surprising that Williams, a long-term critic of the Anglo-American 2003 invasion of Iraq, was getting into dangerous historical territory such as the British Raj.
Williams, who is known as a free-thinking churchman, said, "It is one thing to take over a territory and then pour energy and resources into administering it and normalising it. Rightly or wrongly, that's what the British Empire did, in India for example".
He added that "it is another thing to go in on the assumption that a quick burst of violent action will somehow clear the decks and that you can move on and other people will put it back together – Iraq, for example".
The Archbishop's interview was conducted by Sarah Joseph, a white English convert to Islam who edits Emel. Joseph, a hijab-wearing Muslim who has, in the past, criticised European attitudes to its large and growing Muslim community, described Williams' job as "the most political of religious roles".
Williams said, using words that would be music to the ears of disaffected British Muslims, that the US, as the only "global hegemonic power", was trying to accumulate influence and control, rather than territory. But he said "That is not working" and the result was "the worst of all worlds".
He said the US had lost the moral high ground since 9/11 and made a further controversial attack on Western modernity as a whole, saying it "really does eat away at the soul."
Williams' most pessimistic comments yet on the state of western civilisation have provoked anger within sections of the British establishment, even as his pat on the back to the Raj has gone almost unnoticed.
Dang! And all the time I thought the Brits sucked all the resources while they could ......and had to cut and run leaving the subcontinent impoverished and in a historic mess, the effects of which we are still facing today.
Thank God for the enlightenment from the Church of England......
Well, "leads" is kind of an odd way to put it, but I guess the author doesn't understand the setup.
One might add the ArchDruid may well preside over the breakup of the worldwide Anglican Communion — with him “leading” (sic) the smallest piece.
Not to mention the Anglicans already walking apart from TEC, CofE and their ilk.
Sorry, but even religious leaders can be complete hypocritical idiots. Human failings and all that.
Wow! It's frightening to behold. They've lost their minds -- thrown them overboard!
For explanation, the Anglican churches are traditionally national churches whose boundaries are, well, national and otherwise independent. The Archbishop of Canterbury was considered "foremost among equals" simply due to his position with "Mother Church" (CofE). Some time ago it was decided to have a regular "tea" among the leaders, with the AoC issuing the invites, and thus was the decennial "Lambeth Conference" born. One was deemed to be in the world-wide Anglican Communion (wwAC) if one was invited, and not if one wasn't. There was no more power than that.
In the last century Mother Church went dotty and her American offspring (The Episcopal Church) went off the deep end, taking Canada and NZ with her. All those churches are in decline, but there are traditional(ly orthodox) Anglican churches in those realms, not affiliated with the wwAC is today, due (in part) to its slow disaffiliation -- though Anglicans tend to be Entishly slow to act. However, those churches number likely no more than 2 million out of the almost 80 million Anglicans today.
You are correct. I think he's still trying to hold it all together.
A few years ago we spent Christmas in England and went to the Canterbury Cathedral for Christmas mass (don’t recommend this). It was an interesting experience but what was bizarre to me is that Jesus name hardly came up in the service. Here it was Jesus’ birthday we were supposed to be celebrating and all I can recall this man talking about was world peace and things related to mankind and one-world nonsense. I listened and Jesus’ name might have come up once or twice. I was astounded.
It's usually a quality associated with impertinent children.
Whats their association with Muslims? Why the appeasement attempt?
A British fellow saying we are the worst imperialists, am I the only one finding this a bit ironic, seeing as his nation expanded her commerce and empire for hundreds of years at the tip of a bayonet?
Williams is off his rocker.
No idea, unless it's concern for the Anglican churches in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East, which are today generally headed by liberals. Possible exception is Egypt where there is a greater attempt at outreach despite repression from the authorities.
(But in the latter there are some lively pan-African Anglican communities, as my wife observed two weeks ago in the Anglican cathedral in Egypt.)
No idea, unless it's concern for the Anglican churches in Iran and elsewhere in the Middle East, which are today generally headed by liberals. Possible exception is Egypt where there is a greater attempt at outreach despite repression from the authorities.
(But in the latter there are some lively pan-African Anglican communities, as my wife observed two weeks ago in the Anglican cathedral in Cairo.)
“Sorry, but even religious leaders can be complete hypocritical idiots. Human failings and all that.”
Wherever there is tolerance of homosexuality, there Satan is.
“Dr Rowan Williams”=a$$hole
There must be about 11 people in the whole UK who still take this buffoon seriously as any kind of spiritual leader. He can still get an audience, though, by pandering to the far left media and their Muslim allies.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,”
The very first words of the Bill of Rights. The Founding Fathers certainly knew what they were about.
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.