Unfair bearding of the holy man from Canterbury
The trouble with the Archbishop of Canterbury is that he is too much of a Christian. He just can't help himself. Instead of contenting himself with a role as boss of the Church of England (a non-religious organisation which is part of England's heritage industry) or, alternatively, as a spokesman for something called "British values", Rowan Williams has this weird
conviction that what he says and does should be connected to the
life, teachings and spirit of that strange and subversive figure,
Jesus of Nazareth. Well, we can't have that, can we?
Dr Williams used to be criticised for saying very little about public issues. Now, after an unexpected bout of talkativeness, he is being urged to take a vow of silence.
It's rumoured that he may even get a visit from the men in the grey cassocks. I hope he tells them to go to, er, hell. Williams's public musings about sharia law have enraged both the religious (including his predecessor, the weasly Dr George Carey) and the secularists, triggering the kind of public vitriol and ridicule which is normally reserved for English football managers.
One of the milder website
comments on the man who was appointed Professor of Divinity at Oxford at the extraordinarily young age of 36 was: "Get lost, beardie." Well, yes, the Archbishop does have a beard. He also has a brain. He tends not to speak unless he has something to say, and in this age of rent-a-quote politicians and clerics, I rather admire him for it.
He lacks neither intellectual strength nor courage. (Mind you,
he shouldn't be allowed out alone: this somewhat otherworldly and, indeed, holy man has trespassed
into a minefield with a beatific smile on his face. Some would argue that this particular beardie has already got lost.)
Williams's crime has been to say out loud that the application of some aspects of sharia law might be appropriate in this country, and that it would be worth thinking through the possible implications of such a move. The public perception of sharia is tied to barbaric images of public floggings and hand-chopping. Pity to spoil a good story, but the tabloids' Lambeth Lunatic did not suggest that people should be beheaded for shoplifting in Marks & Spencer; in fact, he stated unequivocally that "nobody in their right mind" would want to see this kind of inhumanity in Britain, nor the attitudes to women expressed in some Muslim quarters.
| Dr Williams triggered the vitriol reserved for football managers | |
|
In mainstream Islam, sharia is much more than a law code; it is a codification of ways of living one's faith in day-to-day situations. Williams, in fact, was not calling for the introduction of sharia law as a parallel jurisdiction to the civil law, but was "exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience".
This has actually been happening for years without frightening the horses. British Jews frequently turn to their own religious courts to resolve civil disputes, with the blessing of the law of the land.
These are voluntary understandings conducted with the agreement of participants. Provision is also made for, say, Christian doctors who have a conscientious issue about performing abortions. This is part of what it means to be a civilised society.
Many people will be in a fury as they read this. They will argue with passion that too much attention is paid to the scruples of minorities, and that if people don't like any part of Britain's legal arrangements they should move elsewhere. In this they will be joined by the likes of Stephen Green, national director of Christian Voice, who said: "If Muslims want to live under sharia law, then they are free to emigrate to a country where sharia law is already in operation." Take it or leave it, mate.
I don't want to live either in a
flat-earth secular state or under a Christian (or Muslim) Taliban.
What underlies a lot of the excessive reaction to Williams's intervention is an assumption about the superiority of "British values". Muslims, who make an important contribution to life in this
country, might be puzzled by this hubristic, xenophobic righteousness as they look at our city centres at weekends, the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, the sheer crassness of much private and public life, and the extensive damage caused by family break-up.
An accommodation that
allowed people within a particular tradition to choose to work out certain disputes in ways which respect their time-honoured wisdom - all within a framework approved by parliament - would not be a sign of weakness but a sign of a mature, confident and generous society. I would even say there would be something Christian about it.
In the midst of the torrent of
bile, the still, small voice of the Bearded One of Canterbury makes a lot of sense.
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 12:24am Mon 11 Feb 08
[quote]What underlies a lot of the excessive reaction to Williams's intervention is an assumption about the superiority of "British values...[/quote] Really? Is it not the case that Islam regards half the human race (the distaff side) as being half as human as the other half - whereas Christianity does not? (See the Epistle to the Galatians).
If Sharia law is to be brought into force in this country, will it not reduce the rights of women to those of a lesser breed? Do you want two tier civil rights in this country? Or will you fight for the equality of all as Paul the Apostle did when he opposed Peter (the first Pope?) to his face over the attempted introduction of a two tier Christianity in Jerusalem and Antioch - and, by extension, throughout the world?
What underlies a lot of the excessive reaction to Williams's intervention is an assumption about the superiority of "British values...
Really? Is it not the case that Islam regards half the human race (the distaff side) as being half as human as the other half - whereas Christianity does not? (See the Epistle to the Galatians).
If Sharia law is to be brought into force in this country, will it not reduce the rights of women to those of a lesser breed? Do you want two tier civil rights in this country? Or will you fight for the equality of all as Paul the Apostle did when he opposed Peter (the first Pope?) to his face over the attempted introduction of a two tier Christianity in Jerusalem and Antioch - and, by extension, throughout the world?
Posted by: Neil, Aberdeenshire on 12:25am Mon 11 Feb 08
I think it was the use of the word "inevitable" which has got so many people's backs up, not, as suggested, some belief in the superiority of "British values", whatever they are.
I think it was the use of the word "inevitable" which has got so many people's backs up, not, as suggested, some belief in the superiority of "British values", whatever they are.
Posted by: Supershug, Eaglesham on 1:21am Mon 11 Feb 08
[quote]What underlies a lot of the excessive reaction to Williams's intervention is an assumption about the superiority of "British values". Muslims, who make an important contribution to life in this country, might be puzzled by this hubristic, xenophobic righteousness as they look at our city centres at weekends, the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, the sheer crassness of much private and public life, and the extensive damage caused by family break-up.[/quote]
As someone who wasn't fiercely critical of Archbishop Williams, I have to take issue with this. Firstly, "British values", whatever they are, are logically intrinsic to life in Britain. (It is not at all clear that the drunken, drug -popping, debauchery and thuggery in British cities have anything much to do with values - rather, I would suggest, an abandonment of values.) You might as well say that Muslims should not favour the superiority of Muslim values when interpreting Sharia law.
However, Ron Ferguson's statement also implies that British values and Muslim values are somehow mutually exclusive, something that many Muslims would find offensive. I also suspect this is the sort of choice that Trevor Philips would prefer we do not have to make.
What underlies a lot of the excessive reaction to Williams's intervention is an assumption about the superiority of "British values". Muslims, who make an important contribution to life in this country, might be puzzled by this hubristic, xenophobic righteousness as they look at our city centres at weekends, the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, the sheer crassness of much private and public life, and the extensive damage caused by family break-up.
As someone who wasn't fiercely critical of Archbishop Williams, I have to take issue with this. Firstly, "British values", whatever they are, are logically intrinsic to life in Britain. (It is not at all clear that the drunken, drug -popping, debauchery and thuggery in British cities have anything much to do with values - rather, I would suggest, an abandonment of values.) You might as well say that Muslims should not favour the superiority of Muslim values when interpreting Sharia law.
However, Ron Ferguson's statement also implies that British values and Muslim values are somehow mutually exclusive, something that many Muslims would find offensive. I also suspect this is the sort of choice that Trevor Philips would prefer we do not have to make.
Posted by: Brizerwatt, Singapore on 5:41am Mon 11 Feb 08
[quote]Muslims, who make an important contribution to life in this country, might be puzzled by this hubristic, xenophobic righteousness as they look at our city centres at weekends, the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, the sheer crassness of much private and public life, and the extensive damage caused by family break-up.[/quote]
I would like to know what Sharia type laws Ron would suggest being implemented that would help decrease the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and public drunkeness? Is he really suggesting that no muslim ever got a sexually transmitted disease or got drunk , beat his wife, took drugs, raped or murdered someone? Please spare us the righteousness of the religous myth, that bubble has been burst a long time ago. Social problems in this country are mainly due to poverty and lack of education, those problems affect people of all religions and no religion equally. They should be dealt with by education and intergration , not further gettoisation of minorities. It's no accident that the statue of Justice is blinfolded and she should remain so.
Muslims, who make an important contribution to life in this country, might be puzzled by this hubristic, xenophobic righteousness as they look at our city centres at weekends, the epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases, the sheer crassness of much private and public life, and the extensive damage caused by family break-up.
I would like to know what Sharia type laws Ron would suggest being implemented that would help decrease the spread of sexually transmitted diseases and public drunkeness? Is he really suggesting that no muslim ever got a sexually transmitted disease or got drunk , beat his wife, took drugs, raped or murdered someone? Please spare us the righteousness of the religous myth, that bubble has been burst a long time ago. Social problems in this country are mainly due to poverty and lack of education, those problems affect people of all religions and no religion equally. They should be dealt with by education and intergration , not further gettoisation of minorities. It's no accident that the statue of Justice is blinfolded and she should remain so.
Posted by: Duncan Brown, Ipswich, Suffolk on 7:39am Mon 11 Feb 08
"English football managers" So vitriol's not good enough for Scottosh or Italian managers. Is there a subtext.
"English football managers" So vitriol's not good enough for Scottosh or Italian managers. Is there a subtext.
Posted by: Stuart, West Lothian Scotland on 8:28am Mon 11 Feb 08
I have come to see that Ron, would like to be known as the universal figure of love & grace to all his readers. All things to all men & woman.
The problem is that when we try to please everybody, we end up pleasing nobody. The one whom he mentioned, Jesus, The Christ: tells us that; "no one comes to the Father except by me". In another place he says:"I am the way, the truth & the light". Not what the man from Canterbury is saying.
Time Ron, to state where you really belong, angering your brothers & sisters is not the way of grace.
The article which seems to go out of its way to worship the intellegent power of the youngest professors at University, does not show him with much "Wisdom". Supporting the actions & words of one who is so wrapped in ivory towers of academia, he does not understand what the furore is all about. Not the actions of a man who thought it all through.
Yes he has the right to his opinions, but your ugly words to his predecessor, Dr. Carey, shows you for what you are, a bigot to his opinion.
Your liberalism shows no bounds, but your respect for others who are not, have no place here.
I have come to see that Ron, would like to be known as the universal figure of love & grace to all his readers. All things to all men & woman.
The problem is that when we try to please everybody, we end up pleasing nobody. The one whom he mentioned, Jesus, The Christ: tells us that; "no one comes to the Father except by me". In another place he says:"I am the way, the truth & the light". Not what the man from Canterbury is saying.
Time Ron, to state where you really belong, angering your brothers & sisters is not the way of grace.
The article which seems to go out of its way to worship the intellegent power of the youngest professors at University, does not show him with much "Wisdom". Supporting the actions & words of one who is so wrapped in ivory towers of academia, he does not understand what the furore is all about. Not the actions of a man who thought it all through.
Yes he has the right to his opinions, but your ugly words to his predecessor, Dr. Carey, shows you for what you are, a bigot to his opinion.
Your liberalism shows no bounds, but your respect for others who are not, have no place here.
Posted by: T.McLaughlin, Glasgow on 2:30pm Mon 11 Feb 08
[quote]Paul the Apostle ......opposed Peter (the first Pope?) to his face over the attempted introduction of a two tier Christianity in Jerusalem and Antioch - and, by extension, throughout the world.[/quote] -Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 12:24am today
Let us leave on one side whether Peter was the first "pope". The church historian, Eusebius, writing about c. 330, traces back antecedents of the Bishop of Rome to "Peter and Paul" but those of Antioch and Jerusalem to a single apostle, respectively Peter (again) and James, the (half-, step-?) brother of Jesus.
Was he, then, accepting "a two tier Christianity" in Rome itself? Only if one accepts Mr Finch's terminology. Just before the incident at Antioch described by Mr Finch, Paul relates how, after his conversion, he persuaded James and the other "pillars" that obedience to the Mosaic Law (including circumcision) was unnecessary for his Gentile converts. "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as{the gospel} of the circumcision unto Peter;"(Gal. 2.7, KJV).
The term "tier" is a loaded one. "Two category" would be more accurate. In the later Epistle to the Romans(the Gentile ones-Peter was missionary to the Jewish Christians) Paul himself reminds them that the root (Judaism/Jewish Christianity) supports the branches not the other way about (Rom. 11:18). Arguably, he contradicts his own conduct in Galatians when Peter's withdrawal to the company of James's emissaries displays a mark of respect for the "root" over the "branches", that which supports rather than is supported by Paul's (eventually triumphant) brand of Christianity.
Paul the Apostle ......opposed Peter (the first Pope?) to his face over the attempted introduction of a two tier Christianity in Jerusalem and Antioch - and, by extension, throughout the world.
-Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 12:24am today
Let us leave on one side whether Peter was the first "pope". The church historian, Eusebius, writing about c. 330, traces back antecedents of the Bishop of Rome to "Peter and Paul" but those of Antioch and Jerusalem to a single apostle, respectively Peter (again) and James, the (half-, step-?) brother of Jesus.
Was he, then, accepting "a two tier Christianity" in Rome itself? Only if one accepts Mr Finch's terminology. Just before the incident at Antioch described by Mr Finch, Paul relates how, after his conversion, he persuaded James and the other "pillars" that obedience to the Mosaic Law (including circumcision) was unnecessary for his Gentile converts. "But contrariwise, when they saw that the gospel of the uncircumcision was committed unto me, as{the gospel} of the circumcision unto Peter;"(Gal. 2.7, KJV).
The term "tier" is a loaded one. "Two category" would be more accurate. In the later Epistle to the Romans(the Gentile ones-Peter was missionary to the Jewish Christians) Paul himself reminds them that the root (Judaism/Jewish Christianity) supports the branches not the other way about (Rom. 11:18). Arguably, he contradicts his own conduct in Galatians when Peter's withdrawal to the company of James's emissaries displays a mark of respect for the "root" over the "branches", that which supports rather than is supported by Paul's (eventually triumphant) brand of Christianity.
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 6:08pm Mon 11 Feb 08
Wot you on about, T McLaughlin? The Pope reference (being in parenthesis) was a parenthetical reference - not part of the main thrust of my argument at all.
The trouble at Antioch rose when Peter broke table fellowship with the Gentile Christians - under the influence of those who came from James in Jerusalem. If Jewish followers of Jesus (himself a Jew) would not share table with Gentile followers of Jesus because they were less...what? Worthy? Christian? Pure?
Whatever the reason, the result if this state of affairs had been allowed to continue can only have been a [quote]de facto[/quote] two tier Christianity, with the Gentiles, being not as 'Christian' as the Jewish Christians,. occupying the lesser, lower tier.. Paul opposed this root and branch. Why? Because, in his own words: 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus' (Galatians 3:28). This is perhaps the fundamental text underlying western notions of equality and democracy - on which Paine, Rousseau and Wilberforce [italic]et al[/italic]'s notions of freedom were built.
It stands in complete contrast to Koranically-based Sharia law which (while not distinguishing between 'races' of men) most certainly does not regard women as it values men. In short, sharia law provides for their oppression.
Wot you on about, T McLaughlin? The Pope reference (being in parenthesis) was a parenthetical reference - not part of the main thrust of my argument at all.
The trouble at Antioch rose when Peter broke table fellowship with the Gentile Christians - under the influence of those who came from James in Jerusalem. If Jewish followers of Jesus (himself a Jew) would not share table with Gentile followers of Jesus because they were less...what? Worthy? Christian? Pure?
Whatever the reason, the result if this state of affairs had been allowed to continue can only have been a
de facto
two tier Christianity, with the Gentiles, being not as 'Christian' as the Jewish Christians,. occupying the lesser, lower tier.. Paul opposed this root and branch. Why? Because, in his own words: 'There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus' (Galatians 3:28). This is perhaps the fundamental text underlying western notions of equality and democracy - on which Paine, Rousseau and Wilberforce
et al's notions of freedom were built.
It stands in complete contrast to Koranically-based Sharia law which (while not distinguishing between 'races' of men) most certainly does not regard women as it values men. In short, sharia law provides for their oppression.
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 6:18pm Mon 11 Feb 08
PS: [quote]Was he, then, accepting "a two tier Christianity" in Rome itself?[/quote] No, he wasn't. The issue was long before decided at the council of Jerusalem (though some recalcitrants continued to make trouble - hence Paul's outburst in Galatians).
To those who are interested, my aside was intended to humorously draw attention to the fact tha,t for an infallible Pope (as current RC dogma would have us believe), Peter had an unfortunate habit of getting important things wrong.
PS:
Was he, then, accepting "a two tier Christianity" in Rome itself?
No, he wasn't. The issue was long before decided at the council of Jerusalem (though some recalcitrants continued to make trouble - hence Paul's outburst in Galatians).
To those who are interested, my aside was intended to humorously draw attention to the fact tha,t for an infallible Pope (as current RC dogma would have us believe), Peter had an unfortunate habit of getting important things wrong.
Posted by: Tom McCall, Bearsden on 7:34pm Mon 11 Feb 08
Brian Finch got it right when he stays on point. For example, when he started by talking about women being less that second class members of the human race when they are unfortunate enough to be born in countries like Saudi Arabia, or even in the UK when Muslim women are forced into marriage with their first cousins, and the negative health effects such "marriages" have on any offspring.
I am also not sure if our secularist and Anglican friends, members of a denomination that , to paraphrase James V , "cam in with adulterous sex and appears (at least in the< "sophisticated" and increasingly immoral West> to be going out as a moral force with its embrace of homosexuality ), are aware of what would happen to them if Muslims came to dominate their societies.
At the end, after an enlightening presentation of his Biblical knowledge, however, Mr. Finch goes off the rails when he wanders into the thicket of papal infallibilty by saying: "for an infallible Pope (as current RC dogma would have us believe), Peter had an unfortunate habit of getting important things wrong." Ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals?
Brian Finch got it right when he stays on point. For example, when he started by talking about women being less that second class members of the human race when they are unfortunate enough to be born in countries like Saudi Arabia, or even in the UK when Muslim women are forced into marriage with their first cousins, and the negative health effects such "marriages" have on any offspring.
I am also not sure if our secularist and Anglican friends, members of a denomination that , to paraphrase James V , "cam in with adulterous sex and appears (at least in the< "sophisticated" and increasingly immoral West> to be going out as a moral force with its embrace of homosexuality ), are aware of what would happen to them if Muslims came to dominate their societies.
At the end, after an enlightening presentation of his Biblical knowledge, however, Mr. Finch goes off the rails when he wanders into the thicket of papal infallibilty by saying: "for an infallible Pope (as current RC dogma would have us believe), Peter had an unfortunate habit of getting important things wrong." Ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals?
Posted by: Tom McCall, Bearsden on 7:38pm Mon 11 Feb 08
Brian Finch got it right when he stays on point. For example, when he started by talking about women being less that second class members of the human race when they are unfortunate enough to be born in countries like Saudi Arabia, or even in the UK when Muslim women are forced into marriage with their first cousins, and the negative health effects such "marriages" have on any offspring.
I am also not sure if our secularist and Anglican friends, members of a denomination that , to paraphrase James V , "cam in with adulterous sex and appears (at least in the< "sophisticated" and increasingly immoral West> to be going out as a moral force with its embrace of homosexuality ), are aware of what would happen to them if Muslims came to dominate their societies.
At the end, after an enlightening presentation of his Biblical knowledge, however, Mr. Finch goes off the rails when he wanders into the thicket of papal infallibilty by saying: "for an infallible Pope (as current RC dogma would have us believe), Peter had an unfortunate habit of getting important things wrong." Ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals?
Brian Finch got it right when he stays on point. For example, when he started by talking about women being less that second class members of the human race when they are unfortunate enough to be born in countries like Saudi Arabia, or even in the UK when Muslim women are forced into marriage with their first cousins, and the negative health effects such "marriages" have on any offspring.
I am also not sure if our secularist and Anglican friends, members of a denomination that , to paraphrase James V , "cam in with adulterous sex and appears (at least in the< "sophisticated" and increasingly immoral West> to be going out as a moral force with its embrace of homosexuality ), are aware of what would happen to them if Muslims came to dominate their societies.
At the end, after an enlightening presentation of his Biblical knowledge, however, Mr. Finch goes off the rails when he wanders into the thicket of papal infallibilty by saying: "for an infallible Pope (as current RC dogma would have us believe), Peter had an unfortunate habit of getting important things wrong." Ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals?
Posted by: Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 7:51pm Mon 11 Feb 08
[quote]An accommodation that allowed people within a particular tradition to choose to work out certain disputes in ways which respect their time-honoured wisdom - all within a framework approved by parliament - would not be a sign of weakness but a sign of a mature, confident and generous society. I would even say there would be something Christian about it.[/quote]
There's a gigantic problem with this, even if it sounds eminently humane and fair: it would be discriminatory to permit one religious tradition (or two/more versions of the same tradition) to have its own "local rules" unless you aimed to roll out this concept to absolutely any and every religion which expressed a preference. Other than Christianity, Islam and Judaism we never hear about any other religions: "the rest" may not be so numerous, but they are surely significant. How many Sikhs are there in Britain, for example? When did you last hear of a British Sikh making a fuss about anything? Their community appears perfectly content to observe the same legal system as everybody else.
The bottom line is that we have to be governed by a single law, one in which religion should have no part to play, apart from allowing those who wish to to "swear by Almighty God". We are a secular society - move here and you implicitly accept the laws of the land. This isn't xenophobia, just what every other country does. It's fair and it doesn't condemn half of the population to abitrary justice at the hands of a system devised by and exclusively for men. The Archbishop is right to appeal for a moral dimension to lawmaking, but he oversteps the mark in attempting to introduce any religious element to its deliberations (ie, of whichever religion). Get lost, in the nicest possible way, beardie.
An accommodation that allowed people within a particular tradition to choose to work out certain disputes in ways which respect their time-honoured wisdom - all within a framework approved by parliament - would not be a sign of weakness but a sign of a mature, confident and generous society. I would even say there would be something Christian about it.
There's a gigantic problem with this, even if it sounds eminently humane and fair: it would be discriminatory to permit one religious tradition (or two/more versions of the same tradition) to have its own "local rules" unless you aimed to roll out this concept to absolutely any and every religion which expressed a preference. Other than Christianity, Islam and Judaism we never hear about any other religions: "the rest" may not be so numerous, but they are surely significant. How many Sikhs are there in Britain, for example? When did you last hear of a British Sikh making a fuss about anything? Their community appears perfectly content to observe the same legal system as everybody else.
The bottom line is that we have to be governed by a single law, one in which religion should have no part to play, apart from allowing those who wish to to "swear by Almighty God". We are a secular society - move here and you implicitly accept the laws of the land. This isn't xenophobia, just what every other country does. It's fair and it doesn't condemn half of the population to abitrary justice at the hands of a system devised by and exclusively for men. The Archbishop is right to appeal for a moral dimension to lawmaking, but he oversteps the mark in attempting to introduce any religious element to its deliberations (ie, of whichever religion). Get lost, in the nicest possible way, beardie.
Posted by: T.McLaughlin, Glasgow on 9:11pm Mon 11 Feb 08
Why is Mr Finch reluctant to shed [italic]tiers[/italic] in favour of the more neutral term, [italic]categories[/italic] ? It is difficult to escape the thought that his conclusions require "tiers" in order to be sustained. Does he dispute there were two categories of Christian in the early church, Jewish and gentile?
He asks what he thinks is a rhetorical question: " If Jewish followers of Jesus (himself a Jew) would not share table with Gentile followers of Jesus because they were less...what? Worthy? Christian? Pure?" The answer is "because they were not Jewish." Observant Jews, loyal to the authority of the ultra-orthodox James the Just, could not just sit at table with anyone. Anymore than did Jesus (himself a Jew). These were people for whom the Torah was a way of life into which they had yet to fully integrate the phenomenon of Jesus whom they took, primarily, as God's gift to Israel. Peter was showing more sympathy for their position than the primitive (Jewish) church's early persecutor who reacted to Peter with the proverbial zeal of the reformed reprobate. This is an alternative take to the "good for Paul" consensus (even in the RC church) of his robust behaviour towards "the Rock" of the church in Galatians 2. And remember this: we only have Paul's, not Peter's, account of that encounter.
Ironically, we have again, 2000 years later, a faith-based system (sharia) pitted against "the law." Perhaps Dr Williams has the the right combination of intellect, scholarship, pastoral concern and ecumenical outreach to grasp the nuances. For him "sharia" is more than a word spontaneously associated with beheadings, stoning adulterers or unfairness to women. This is as unfair as would be a Muslim associating the term western jurisprudence with witch-burnings, the hanging of sheep stealers and the electric chair. The British media, not only the tabloids, have disgraced themselves by their hysterical reaction to a lecture most of the commentators have not read. Having said that, Dr Williams made a serious error in his live radio interview with his remarks about sharia being "unavoidable." A charitable view would see this as the equivalent of a typo or at worst, malapropism, by someone posting here in real-time debate. For the real substance of his argument, read the lecture.
Why is Mr Finch reluctant to shed
tiers in favour of the more neutral term,
categories ? It is difficult to escape the thought that his conclusions require "tiers" in order to be sustained. Does he dispute there were two categories of Christian in the early church, Jewish and gentile?
He asks what he thinks is a rhetorical question: " If Jewish followers of Jesus (himself a Jew) would not share table with Gentile followers of Jesus because they were less...what? Worthy? Christian? Pure?" The answer is "because they were not Jewish." Observant Jews, loyal to the authority of the ultra-orthodox James the Just, could not just sit at table with anyone. Anymore than did Jesus (himself a Jew). These were people for whom the Torah was a way of life into which they had yet to fully integrate the phenomenon of Jesus whom they took, primarily, as God's gift to Israel. Peter was showing more sympathy for their position than the primitive (Jewish) church's early persecutor who reacted to Peter with the proverbial zeal of the reformed reprobate. This is an alternative take to the "good for Paul" consensus (even in the RC church) of his robust behaviour towards "the Rock" of the church in Galatians 2. And remember this: we only have Paul's, not Peter's, account of that encounter.
Ironically, we have again, 2000 years later, a faith-based system (sharia) pitted against "the law." Perhaps Dr Williams has the the right combination of intellect, scholarship, pastoral concern and ecumenical outreach to grasp the nuances. For him "sharia" is more than a word spontaneously associated with beheadings, stoning adulterers or unfairness to women. This is as unfair as would be a Muslim associating the term western jurisprudence with witch-burnings, the hanging of sheep stealers and the electric chair. The British media, not only the tabloids, have disgraced themselves by their hysterical reaction to a lecture most of the commentators have not read. Having said that, Dr Williams made a serious error in his live radio interview with his remarks about sharia being "unavoidable." A charitable view would see this as the equivalent of a typo or at worst, malapropism, by someone posting here in real-time debate. For the real substance of his argument, read the lecture.
Posted by: BM, Glasgow on 9:34pm Mon 11 Feb 08
[quote][bold]Brian D Finch[/bold] wrote:
PS: [quote]Was he, then, accepting "a two tier Christianity" in Rome itself?[/quote] No, he wasn't. The issue was long before decided at the council of Jerusalem (though some recalcitrants continued to make trouble - hence Paul's outburst in Galatians).
To those who are interested, my aside was intended to humorously draw attention to the fact tha,t for an infallible Pope (as current RC dogma would have us believe), Peter had an unfortunate habit of getting important things wrong.[/quote] But that was 1800 years before Papal infallibility was invented in 1870. Popes managed to survive fallibly for nearly two thousand years!
Brian D Finch wrote:
PS: Was he, then, accepting "a two tier Christianity" in Rome itself?
No, he wasn't. The issue was long before decided at the council of Jerusalem (though some recalcitrants continued to make trouble - hence Paul's outburst in Galatians).
To those who are interested, my aside was intended to humorously draw attention to the fact tha,t for an infallible Pope (as current RC dogma would have us believe), Peter had an unfortunate habit of getting important things wrong.
But that was 1800 years before Papal infallibility was invented in 1870. Popes managed to survive fallibly for nearly two thousand years!
Posted by: T.McLaughlin, Glasgow on 10:08pm Mon 11 Feb 08
[quote]When did you last hear of a British Sikh making a fuss about anything?[/quote] -Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 7:51pm today
Just over 3 years ago in Birmingham. In December 2004 a violent protest by 400 Sikhs resulted in the Repertory Theatre's play [italic]Behzti[/italic] , which depicts sex abuse and murder in a temple, being cancelled. (See http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/england/west_
midlands/4112105.stm
)
In case Christians are feeling morally superior, several doctors have been murdered in the US and many clinical staff assaulted since 1993. The motive was that they were performing, legally, abortions which their killers regarded as murder despite the sanction of law in a country whose very constitution insists on the separation of church and state..
When did you last hear of a British Sikh making a fuss about anything?
-Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 7:51pm today
Just over 3 years ago in Birmingham. In December 2004 a violent protest by 400 Sikhs resulted in the Repertory Theatre's play
Behzti , which depicts sex abuse and murder in a temple, being cancelled. (See http://news.bbc.co.u
k/1/hi/england/west_
midlands/4112105.stm
)
In case Christians are feeling morally superior, several doctors have been murdered in the US and many clinical staff assaulted since 1993. The motive was that they were performing, legally, abortions which their killers regarded as murder despite the sanction of law in a country whose very constitution insists on the separation of church and state..
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 12:01am Tue 12 Feb 08
BM: [quote]But that was 1800 years before Papal infallibility was invented in 1870.[/quote] Which is precisely my point.
BM:
But that was 1800 years before Papal infallibility was invented in 1870.
Which is precisely my point.
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 12:05am Tue 12 Feb 08
Tom McCall: [quote]At the end, after an enlightening presentation of his Biblical knowledge, however, Mr. Finch goes off the rails when he wanders into the thicket of papal infallibilty by saying: "for an infallible Pope (as current RC dogma would have us believe), Peter had an unfortunate habit of getting important things wrong." Ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals?[/quote] Matters of faith...?
Paul the Apostle:[quote] There is neither Jew nor Greek...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus[/quote] (Galatians, 3:28). No warrant there for two tiers of racially based Christianity.
Tom McCall:
At the end, after an enlightening presentation of his Biblical knowledge, however, Mr. Finch goes off the rails when he wanders into the thicket of papal infallibilty by saying: "for an infallible Pope (as current RC dogma would have us believe), Peter had an unfortunate habit of getting important things wrong." Ex cathedra in matters of faith and morals?
Matters of faith...?
Paul the Apostle:
There is neither Jew nor Greek...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus
(Galatians, 3:28). No warrant there for two tiers of racially based Christianity.
Posted by: T.McLaughlin, Glasgow on 12:20am Tue 12 Feb 08
Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 12:05am today[quote]Paul the Apostle:
There is neither Jew nor Greek...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus
(Galatians, 3:28). No warrant there for two tiers of racially based Christianity.[/quote]
But Paul was sermonising and delivering a theological staement, not giving a factual analysis of the demography of the contemporary church. The fact is there[italic] was[/italic] both Jew and Greek-and they kept themselves pretty much apart for reasons given in my post of 9:11pm Mon 11 Feb 08.
Does Mr Finch' have an alternative [italic]historical[/italic] , as opposed to [italic]theological[/italic] picture, preferably one stripped of his value-laden, conclusion-driven[italic] tiers[/italic] ?
Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 12:05am today
Paul the Apostle:
There is neither Jew nor Greek...there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus
(Galatians, 3:28). No warrant there for two tiers of racially based Christianity.
But Paul was sermonising and delivering a theological staement, not giving a factual analysis of the demography of the contemporary church. The fact is there
was both Jew and Greek-and they kept themselves pretty much apart for reasons given in my post of 9:11pm Mon 11 Feb 08.
Does Mr Finch' have an alternative
historical , as opposed to
theological picture, preferably one stripped of his value-laden, conclusion-driven
tiers ?
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 12:24am Tue 12 Feb 08
T. McLaughlin: [quote]Observant Jews, loyal to the authority of the ultra-orthodox James the Just, could not just sit at table with anyone.[/quote] Precisely my point. Gentile Christians qualified as just 'anyone', whereas Jewish Christians qualified as 'someone' in the sectarian views of James the Just and his supporters (thereby creating two [bold[italic]]tiers[/italic] [/bold] of Christians). Yes, 'tiers' is not a neutral term. It is not meant to be. However, it is both more informative and more accurate than the supposedly neutral weasel term 'categories' which you use to pretend to an academic detachment from the subject. As a Christian, I am not detached from the subject.
T. McLaughlin: [quote]And remember this: we only have Paul's, not Peter's, account of that encounter.[/quote] Indeed. Perhaps Peter never wrote his account. Perhaps he did, but had it rejected by the Church. Who knows? I don't. What I do know, however, is that Paul's account is accepted by the Church as canonical - which is why it is in the New Testament and T McLaughlin's is not.
Finally, the issue was thrashed out at the Council of Jerusalem (presided over by James. although Peter was present) in which Paul prevailed - fortunately for Christianity which, by remaining a Jewish sect, might not otherwise have survived the sack of Jerusalem by Titus in AD 70.
T. McLaughlin:
Observant Jews, loyal to the authority of the ultra-orthodox James the Just, could not just sit at table with anyone.
Precisely my point. Gentile Christians qualified as just 'anyone', whereas Jewish Christians qualified as 'someone' in the sectarian views of James the Just and his supporters (thereby creating two tiers of Christians). Yes, 'tiers' is not a neutral term. It is not meant to be. However, it is both more informative and more accurate than the supposedly neutral weasel term 'categories' which you use to pretend to an academic detachment from the subject. As a Christian, I am not detached from the subject.
T. McLaughlin:
And remember this: we only have Paul's, not Peter's, account of that encounter.
Indeed. Perhaps Peter never wrote his account. Perhaps he did, but had it rejected by the Church. Who knows? I don't. What I do know, however, is that Paul's account is accepted by the Church as canonical - which is why it is in the New Testament and T McLaughlin's is not.
Finally, the issue was thrashed out at the Council of Jerusalem (presided over by James. although Peter was present) in which Paul prevailed - fortunately for Christianity which, by remaining a Jewish sect, might not otherwise have survived the sack of Jerusalem by Titus in AD 70.
Posted by: Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 12:49am Tue 12 Feb 08
T McLaughlin - (my quote): [italic]How many Sikhs are there in Britain, for example? When did you last hear of a British Sikh making a fuss about anything? Their community appears perfectly content to observe the same legal system as everybody else.[/italic] I confess my use of the word "anything" was a bit elastic - I am talking in the full context and in the broad sense: there is no great Sikh clamour that I am aware of for a change in the law - and it wouldn't be the first time an "event" involving only white people, particularly in Glasgow, had been cancelled because of the threat of violent protest. I don't think this is really the same thing (though doubtless many Sikhs wanted that particular play legally banned). I repeat there is no evidence I am aware of of this significant and culturally and religiously distinct people pressing (or showing any overt interest in) special provisions in the law to cater exclusively for aspects of their religious beliefs, along the lines which appear to have been suggested for Islam. Nor does it alter my basic point that to invent special provisions for one special interest group is to automatically concede them to [quote]all[/quote] of the others - Seventh Day Adventists, Scientologists and all the rest. Therefore there can be but one - secular - system of law for all. I cannot see any logical argument against this.
T McLaughlin - (my quote):
How many Sikhs are there in Britain, for example? When did you last hear of a British Sikh making a fuss about anything? Their community appears perfectly content to observe the same legal system as everybody else. I confess my use of the word "anything" was a bit elastic - I am talking in the full context and in the broad sense: there is no great Sikh clamour that I am aware of for a change in the law - and it wouldn't be the first time an "event" involving only white people, particularly in Glasgow, had been cancelled because of the threat of violent protest. I don't think this is really the same thing (though doubtless many Sikhs wanted that particular play legally banned). I repeat there is no evidence I am aware of of this significant and culturally and religiously distinct people pressing (or showing any overt interest in) special provisions in the law to cater exclusively for aspects of their religious beliefs, along the lines which appear to have been suggested for Islam. Nor does it alter my basic point that to invent special provisions for one special interest group is to automatically concede them to
all
of the others - Seventh Day Adventists, Scientologists and all the rest. Therefore there can be but one - secular - system of law for all. I cannot see any logical argument against this.
Posted by: T.McLaughlin, Glasgow on 11:24am Tue 12 Feb 08
[quote]Therefore there can be but one - secular - system of law for all. I cannot see any logical argument against this.[/quote]- Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 12:49am today.
Nor can I. Nor can the Archbishop of Canterbury if you actually read his lecture.
Therefore there can be but one - secular - system of law for all. I cannot see any logical argument against this.
- Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 12:49am today.
Nor can I. Nor can the Archbishop of Canterbury if you actually read his lecture.
Posted by: T.McLaughlin, Glasgow on 11:29am Tue 12 Feb 08
[quote]As a Christian, I am not detached from the subject.[/quote] -Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 12:24am today
Fine. But being a Christian does not excuse perverting the truth of the Archbishop of Canterbury's views on [italic]sharia[/italic] , in the manner of an incestuously opinionated press commentariat.
As a Christian, I am not detached from the subject.
-Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 12:24am today
Fine. But being a Christian does not excuse perverting the truth of the Archbishop of Canterbury's views on
sharia , in the manner of an incestuously opinionated press commentariat.
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 12:13pm Tue 12 Feb 08
T. Mclaughlin: [quote]...being a Christian does not excuse perverting the truth of the Archbishop of Canterbury's views on sharia , in the manner of an incestuously opinionated press commentariat.[/quote] Nowhere in the above have I mentioned the Archbishop of Canterbury's views on sharia, the immaculate conception or the price of chips. I took issue with Ron Ferguson. T. McLaughlin appears to be setting up a sdtraw man to attack while under the delusion he is refuting an utterance which I have not (yet atb any rate) made.
Anyway, as for Williams' views, here is what Baroness Kishwer Falkner (the first Lib Dem [italic][bold]Muslim[/bold][/italic] peer and Chancellor of the University of Northampton said on this very issue: [quote]Sharia will, however voluntary, only pressure women to line up at the back of the equality queue again, not just in divorce and custody but also in the critical area of inheritance, all of which favour males.
So any attempt to accommodate different cultural and religious practices, as part of legal dispensation, is moral relativism at its most confused.[/quote] I agree with Kishwer Falkner. Williams' views are hopelessly confused - as is T. McLaughlin.
T. Mclaughlin:
...being a Christian does not excuse perverting the truth of the Archbishop of Canterbury's views on sharia , in the manner of an incestuously opinionated press commentariat.
Nowhere in the above have I mentioned the Archbishop of Canterbury's views on sharia, the immaculate conception or the price of chips. I took issue with Ron Ferguson. T. McLaughlin appears to be setting up a sdtraw man to attack while under the delusion he is refuting an utterance which I have not (yet atb any rate) made.
Anyway, as for Williams' views, here is what Baroness Kishwer Falkner (the first Lib Dem
Muslim peer and Chancellor of the University of Northampton said on this very issue:
Sharia will, however voluntary, only pressure women to line up at the back of the equality queue again, not just in divorce and custody but also in the critical area of inheritance, all of which favour males.
So any attempt to accommodate different cultural and religious practices, as part of legal dispensation, is moral relativism at its most confused.
I agree with Kishwer Falkner. Williams' views are hopelessly confused - as is T. McLaughlin.
Posted by: T.McLaughlin, Glasgow on 4:16pm Tue 12 Feb 08
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 12:13pm today:
[quote]
T. Mclaughlin: [quote]...being a Christian does not excuse perverting the truth of the Archbishop of Canterbury's views on sharia , in the manner of an incestuously opinionated press commentariat.[/quote] Nowhere in the above have I mentioned the Archbishop of Canterbury's views on sharia, the immaculate conception or the price of chips. I took issue with Ron Ferguson[/quote] .
This elevates disingenuousness to a new level. And what, pray, is Ron Feguson writing about for Mr Finch "to take issue with"
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 12:13pm today:
T. Mclaughlin: ...being a Christian does not excuse perverting the truth of the Archbishop of Canterbury's views on sharia , in the manner of an incestuously opinionated press commentariat.
Nowhere in the above have I mentioned the Archbishop of Canterbury's views on sharia, the immaculate conception or the price of chips. I took issue with Ron Ferguson
.
This elevates disingenuousness to a new level. And what, pray, is Ron Feguson writing about for Mr Finch "to take issue with"
Posted by: Myrmillo, Batavadorum on 8:40pm Tue 12 Feb 08
[italic]Finally, the issue was thrashed out at the Council of Jerusalem (presided over by James. although Peter was present) in which Paul prevailed - fortunately for Christianity which, by remaining a Jewish sect, might not otherwise have survived the sack of Jerusalem by Titus in AD 70.[/italic] An intriguing possibility. If that had happened, what would have taken its place as the monotheistic system needed to control Rome? The cult of god-Emperor wouldn't ultimately be enough. Mithraism contains many of the same elements as elementary Christian tradition, and was popular with the army - but possibly not high society. Had Christianity not survived, would something remarkably like it need to have been invented?
Finally, the issue was thrashed out at the Council of Jerusalem (presided over by James. although Peter was present) in which Paul prevailed - fortunately for Christianity which, by remaining a Jewish sect, might not otherwise have survived the sack of Jerusalem by Titus in AD 70. An intriguing possibility. If that had happened, what would have taken its place as the monotheistic system needed to control Rome? The cult of god-Emperor wouldn't ultimately be enough. Mithraism contains many of the same elements as elementary Christian tradition, and was popular with the army - but possibly not high society. Had Christianity not survived, would something remarkably like it need to have been invented?
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 12:35am Wed 13 Feb 08
T. McLaughlin,
To you (an atheist) this is an intellectual game. To me it is not. Under Sharia law, the penalty for apostasy from Islam is death. Under Sharia law there is [bold][italic]NO[/italic] [/bold] equality between all citizens under the law. Rowan Williams wishes this to become part of the civil law. I do not. It seems you do, given your defence of [quote]the truth of the Archbishop of Canterbury's views on sharia[/quote] As Williams is a fraud, so are you. The only difference between you is that his drivel is driven by whatever religious ends he is aiming at, whereas yours is motivated by nothing more than a partisan desire to oppose me in whatever I say, regardless of whether or not my views make sense or not - and you lost handsomely above. In short, Mr. McLaughlin, you are a troll of the worst kind.
Worse, I have friends whose very lives may hang upon this disgusting Sharia [bold][italic]NOT[/italic] [/bold] becoming part of British (Scottish, English, etc) law.
You are a fraud. This is the last time I address you upon this subject.
T. McLaughlin,
To you (an atheist) this is an intellectual game. To me it is not. Under Sharia law, the penalty for apostasy from Islam is death. Under Sharia law there is
NO equality between all citizens under the law. Rowan Williams wishes this to become part of the civil law. I do not. It seems you do, given your defence of
the truth of the Archbishop of Canterbury's views on sharia
As Williams is a fraud, so are you. The only difference between you is that his drivel is driven by whatever religious ends he is aiming at, whereas yours is motivated by nothing more than a partisan desire to oppose me in whatever I say, regardless of whether or not my views make sense or not - and you lost handsomely above. In short, Mr. McLaughlin, you are a troll of the worst kind.
Worse, I have friends whose very lives may hang upon this disgusting Sharia
NOT becoming part of British (Scottish, English, etc) law.
You are a fraud. This is the last time I address you upon this subject.
Posted by: dt, glasgow on 7:52am Wed 13 Feb 08
Who is B Finch; who is B McLaughlin? Why are there no Church of Scotland ministers giving the few remaining members a lead on this? Is there no CofS view or is it that the Cof S has no leadership within it?
Who is B Finch; who is B McLaughlin? Why are there no Church of Scotland ministers giving the few remaining members a lead on this? Is there no CofS view or is it that the Cof S has no leadership within it?
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 9:16am Wed 13 Feb 08
dt: [quote]Is there no CofS view or is it that the Cof S has no leadership within it?[/quote] See below from Monday's [italic]Hootsmon[/italic] ...
Rt Rev Sheilagh Kesting, Moderator of the Church of Scotland General Assembly: [quote]I have been deeply concerned at the widespread reaction to the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent lecture. The personal attacks on him are unacceptable in a civilised society and I have been appalled at the attacks on his integrity and the calls for his resignation. As a fellow faith leader, he is entitled to bring issues like this into public debate and explore the way in which different people and religions can live together. What he has been calling for is discussion and I believe that is only right.
Since he made his lecture, the responses have become nothing more than a personal witchhunt demanding he step down. I believe it is commendable that we have a faith leader such as the archbishop who is prepared to initiate deep and
thoughtful consideration of sensitive issues and it is alarming the way in which his intention to do so can be willfully misconstrued.
I believe that by speaking about the subject he chose to address, there will always be criticism, but it is sad that someone can be attacked for starting a sensible discussion. Faith leaders have a common goal to look at what is best for the whole of society. My colleagues in the Church of Scotland have tried to have a measured response recorded in the media, but with limited success. They acknowledged the need for responsible public debate on this sensitive issue and they would want to address any situation in which a religious or ethnic group feels itself in some measure excluded or alienated from our society. To this end, the Church of Scotland wants to take some time to give the issues the archbishop has raised our more considered reflection.[/quote] Not much there in defence of equality before the law, I fear.
dt:
Is there no CofS view or is it that the Cof S has no leadership within it?
See below from Monday's
Hootsmon ...
Rt Rev Sheilagh Kesting, Moderator of the Church of Scotland General Assembly:
I have been deeply concerned at the widespread reaction to the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent lecture. The personal attacks on him are unacceptable in a civilised society and I have been appalled at the attacks on his integrity and the calls for his resignation. As a fellow faith leader, he is entitled to bring issues like this into public debate and explore the way in which different people and religions can live together. What he has been calling for is discussion and I believe that is only right.
Since he made his lecture, the responses have become nothing more than a personal witchhunt demanding he step down. I believe it is commendable that we have a faith leader such as the archbishop who is prepared to initiate deep and
thoughtful consideration of sensitive issues and it is alarming the way in which his intention to do so can be willfully misconstrued.
I believe that by speaking about the subject he chose to address, there will always be criticism, but it is sad that someone can be attacked for starting a sensible discussion. Faith leaders have a common goal to look at what is best for the whole of society. My colleagues in the Church of Scotland have tried to have a measured response recorded in the media, but with limited success. They acknowledged the need for responsible public debate on this sensitive issue and they would want to address any situation in which a religious or ethnic group feels itself in some measure excluded or alienated from our society. To this end, the Church of Scotland wants to take some time to give the issues the archbishop has raised our more considered reflection.
Not much there in defence of equality before the law, I fear.
Posted by: Alistair, Edinburgh on 9:24am Wed 13 Feb 08
I may have missed something, but it seemed to me that the Archbishop said in his Synod address that he took the blame for a lack of clarity in what he said, for which he apologised. But he remains adamant that he was right to raise the subject and stands by his speech.
Plese correct me if I'm wrong. It's just that I am still trying to understand (even more so after the Synod address) what the difference is between
1) "a supplementary jurisdiction" with Sharia
2) a "constructive accommodation" with Sharia
3) the law recognising "other affiliations and loyalties that shape and dictate how people behave in society"
4) Muslims not having "to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty"
and the 'parallel' system that both Lord Carey and Cardinal O'Connor seemed to think he was speaking about and which they slapped down at the weekend, notably in the Sunday Telegraph and the News of the World.
I don't think the media can be entirely blamed for misinterpeting the Archbishop when Messrs Carey and O'Connor were gifted significant opportunites in their newspaper articles to set any misinterpretation straight, and didn't.
Perhaps it's just that Carey and O'Connor, also described in the past as great thinkers, are just too thick like the rest of us to understand the musings and "nuances" of Oxford trained theologians?
I may have missed something, but it seemed to me that the Archbishop said in his Synod address that he took the blame for a lack of clarity in what he said, for which he apologised. But he remains adamant that he was right to raise the subject and stands by his speech.
Plese correct me if I'm wrong. It's just that I am still trying to understand (even more so after the Synod address) what the difference is between
1) "a supplementary jurisdiction" with Sharia
2) a "constructive accommodation" with Sharia
3) the law recognising "other affiliations and loyalties that shape and dictate how people behave in society"
4) Muslims not having "to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty"
and the 'parallel' system that both Lord Carey and Cardinal O'Connor seemed to think he was speaking about and which they slapped down at the weekend, notably in the Sunday Telegraph and the News of the World.
I don't think the media can be entirely blamed for misinterpeting the Archbishop when Messrs Carey and O'Connor were gifted significant opportunites in their newspaper articles to set any misinterpretation straight, and didn't.
Perhaps it's just that Carey and O'Connor, also described in the past as great thinkers, are just too thick like the rest of us to understand the musings and "nuances" of Oxford trained theologians?
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 10:23am Wed 13 Feb 08
Alistair,
1)[italic] "a supplementary jurisdiction" with Sharia[/italic]
This would be something like Jewish Beth Din courts which are creatures of the legal system in so far as their sole legal standing is due to the law of the land choosing to accept them as a lesser tribunal of arbitration - and their rules and judgements not being contrary to the laws of the land. However, sharia does not give equal status before the law to all who come before it - hence it cannot be recognised without destroying said principle of equality before the law.
2) [italic]a "constructive accommodation" with Sharia[/italic]
Whatever this drivel means, it would also destroy the principle of equality before the law.
3) [italic]the law recognising "other affiliations and loyalties that shape and dictate how people behave in society"[/italic] This is a proposal for the balkanisation of society with a pic 'n' mix choice of legal systems to provide a 'get out of jail free' card for those that don't like the principle of equality before the law.
Perhaps Williams would like an Anglican Sharia.
I don't know what his game is.
However, whatever it is, it is repugnant to me.
Alistair,
1)
"a supplementary jurisdiction" with Sharia
This would be something like Jewish Beth Din courts which are creatures of the legal system in so far as their sole legal standing is due to the law of the land choosing to accept them as a lesser tribunal of arbitration - and their rules and judgements not being contrary to the laws of the land. However, sharia does not give equal status before the law to all who come before it - hence it cannot be recognised without destroying said principle of equality before the law.
2)
a "constructive accommodation" with Sharia
Whatever this drivel means, it would also destroy the principle of equality before the law.
3)
the law recognising "other affiliations and loyalties that shape and dictate how people behave in society" This is a proposal for the balkanisation of society with a pic 'n' mix choice of legal systems to provide a 'get out of jail free' card for those that don't like the principle of equality before the law.
Perhaps Williams would like an Anglican Sharia.
I don't know what his game is.
However, whatever it is, it is repugnant to me.
Posted by: BM, Glasgow on 11:59am Wed 13 Feb 08
If a Catholic couple separate and get divorced, neither of them can re-marry [italic]in a Catholic church[/italic] unless the Church has granted an annulment. Catholics are forbidden by their Church from marrying cousins. These are instances of Catholics being bound by Canon law, the law of the Church. The Church of England has similar religious laws, for instance it does not allow divorced Anglicans to re-marry in an Anglican Church at all. The Free Church has strict Church rules about keeping the Sabbath. No doubt the Church of Scotland still has at least some rules applying to its members.
Are these examples of "parallel laws" any different from Muslims obeying their own spiritual rules in matters of religion? If Sharia tells them to fast during daylight hours in Ramadan, what business is that of us non Muslims? Anyone who actually read and thought about what the Archbishop said would not criticise him.
If a Catholic couple separate and get divorced, neither of them can re-marry
in a Catholic church unless the Church has granted an annulment. Catholics are forbidden by their Church from marrying cousins. These are instances of Catholics being bound by Canon law, the law of the Church. The Church of England has similar religious laws, for instance it does not allow divorced Anglicans to re-marry in an Anglican Church at all. The Free Church has strict Church rules about keeping the Sabbath. No doubt the Church of Scotland still has at least some rules applying to its members.
Are these examples of "parallel laws" any different from Muslims obeying their own spiritual rules in matters of religion? If Sharia tells them to fast during daylight hours in Ramadan, what business is that of us non Muslims? Anyone who actually read and thought about what the Archbishop said would not criticise him.
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 1:51pm Wed 13 Feb 08
BM: [quote]Anyone who actually read and thought about what the Archbishop said would not criticise him.[/quote] Really?
In sharia law, the testimony of one man equates to that of two women as a matter of principle. This is not so in Scots or English law. This is not equal treatment before the law.
In sharia law a man may divorce a wife at will. Women may not so divorce men. This is not equal treatment before the law.
In sharia law, the penalty for apostasy from Islam (ie: resigning from the religion, whether to become an atheist, or Christian or Jew or whatever is irrelevant) is death. This is an evil doctrine.
In fact, anyone who actually read and thought about what sharia law entails could not [italic][bold]fail[/bold][/italic] to criticise the Archbishop - unless that person disagreed with the notion that all must be equal before the law .
In Rowan Williams case, the question has to be raised whether or not he agrees with Paul the Apostle that: [quote]There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus[/quote] (Galatians 3:28)
BM:
Anyone who actually read and thought about what the Archbishop said would not criticise him.
Really?
In sharia law, the testimony of one man equates to that of two women as a matter of principle. This is not so in Scots or English law. This is not equal treatment before the law.
In sharia law a man may divorce a wife at will. Women may not so divorce men. This is not equal treatment before the law.
In sharia law, the penalty for apostasy from Islam (ie: resigning from the religion, whether to become an atheist, or Christian or Jew or whatever is irrelevant) is death. This is an evil doctrine.
In fact, anyone who actually read and thought about what sharia law entails could not
fail to criticise the Archbishop - unless that person disagreed with the notion that all must be equal before the law .
In Rowan Williams case, the question has to be raised whether or not he agrees with Paul the Apostle that:
There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus
(Galatians 3:28)
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 2:00pm Wed 13 Feb 08
On reflection, reconsidering my remarks above that: [quote]Perhaps Williams would like an Anglican Sharia.
I don't know what his game is.
However, whatever it is, it is repugnant to me.[/quote]...the thought occurs to me that the Archbishop might perhaps have deliberately stirred up this hornet's nest to distract attention from the Anglican Communion's difficulties with the ordination of gay bishops etc, so that the Church of England Synod would close ranks behind him before the upcoming Lambeth conference.
Should this prove to be so, the Church if England would prove dafter than even I thought possible, should they let him continue in office.
On reflection, reconsidering my remarks above that:
Perhaps Williams would like an Anglican Sharia.
I don't know what his game is.
However, whatever it is, it is repugnant to me.
...the thought occurs to me that the Archbishop might perhaps have deliberately stirred up this hornet's nest to distract attention from the Anglican Communion's difficulties with the ordination of gay bishops etc, so that the Church of England Synod would close ranks behind him before the upcoming Lambeth conference.
Should this prove to be so, the Church if England would prove dafter than even I thought possible, should they let him continue in office.
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 2:22pm Wed 13 Feb 08
BM: [quote]Anyone who actually read and thought about what the Archbishop said would not criticise him.[/quote]
Really? Since you appear to have missed it, I will requote what Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the first Lib Dem [italic][bold]Muslim[/bold] [/italic] peer, Chancellor of the University of Northampton (and a [italic][bold]WOMAN[/bold] [/italic] to boot) said on this very issue: [quote] Sharia will, however voluntary, only pressure women to line up at the back of the equality queue again, not just in divorce and custody but also in the critical area of inheritance, all of which favour males.
So any attempt to accommodate different cultural and religious practices, as part of legal dispensation, is moral relativism at its most confused.[/quote] There is more sense and principle and knowledge in the Muslim lady peer's contribution than in the combined efforts of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
BM:
Anyone who actually read and thought about what the Archbishop said would not criticise him.
Really? Since you appear to have missed it, I will requote what Baroness Kishwer Falkner, the first Lib Dem
Muslim peer, Chancellor of the University of Northampton (and a
WOMAN to boot) said on this very issue:
Sharia will, however voluntary, only pressure women to line up at the back of the equality queue again, not just in divorce and custody but also in the critical area of inheritance, all of which favour males.
So any attempt to accommodate different cultural and religious practices, as part of legal dispensation, is moral relativism at its most confused.
There is more sense and principle and knowledge in the Muslim lady peer's contribution than in the combined efforts of the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Moderator of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland.
Posted by: BM, Glasgow on 4:43pm Fri 15 Feb 08
Brian,
as I said you should really read what the Archbishop said. He did no advocate the wholesale adoption of all aspects of Sharia law. You well know this , but prefer to distort his words for whatever agenda you are pursuing. You are good a quoting the Bible when it suits, but you conveniently leave out the more bloodthirsty bits which make Sharia law look like a model of enlightenment and liberalism!
Brian,
as I said you should really read what the Archbishop said. He did no advocate the wholesale adoption of all aspects of Sharia law. You well know this , but prefer to distort his words for whatever agenda you are pursuing. You are good a quoting the Bible when it suits, but you conveniently leave out the more bloodthirsty bits which make Sharia law look like a model of enlightenment and liberalism!
Posted by: Brian D Finch, Brigadoon on 12:40am Sat 16 Feb 08
BM,
Read what Kishwer Falkner wrote. As for 'bloodthirsty bits which make Sharia law look like a model of enlightenment and liberalism...', where in the New Testament do you find them?
BM,
Read what Kishwer Falkner wrote. As for 'bloodthirsty bits which make Sharia law look like a model of enlightenment and liberalism...', where in the New Testament do you find them?
Search This Site
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (36)
