I’m waiting
Updated Friday 8 Feb, 10.45
The Internet seems to produce a rush to judgement, and blogging is it’s apotheosis. Today’s reaction to Rowan Williams’ rather academic (and therefore both obscure and nuanced) reflections on Sharia and UK law seem to typify that. See here, here and here (especially the comments on the latter two which exhibit most forms of prejudice known to humanity).
What seems to have been missed are some of the comparisons, I quote from the interview:
It’s not a new problem, not to mention the issues as I mentioned earlier the questions about how the consciences of Catholics Anglicans and others who have difficulty over issues like abortion are accommodated within the Law; so the whole idea that there are perfectly proper ways in which the law of the land pays respect to custom and community; that’s already there.
I think at the moment there’s a great deal of confusion about this; a lot of what’s been written whether it was about the Catholic church adoptions agencies last year, sometimes what’s written about Jewish or Muslim communities; a lot of what’s written suggests that the ideal situation is one in which there is one law and only one law for everybody;
I think those are interesting comparisons: a religiously inspired exemption of conscience (from some 40 years ago) for doctors and nurses not to perform abortions; no religious exemption from last year’s law on adoptions. Looking at the comments on the various stories and postings I can’t help but think that most of those commenting would oppose one law for all in both these instances.
I am, myself, very dubious about the Archbishop’s musings here, although I do think he has identified an “unspeakable about” issue in current thinking that needs to be thought about coherently and consistently. He does sometimes seem oblivious to the impact of his position on his more academic reflections, and badly advised on their media spin. Were it not for people like Peter Akinola of Nigeria and Peter Jensen of Sydney (to say nothing of the Bishop of Rochester) he could appear his own worst enemy.
I shall wait for the full transcript of his remarks, and suggest that others should also.
Update: There is an excellent and helpfully moderate post on this over at Bishop Alan’s Blog. Also well worth reading is Paul Vallely’s reflection on, effectively, why the archbishop’s media officer isn’t up to the job.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:03 am
Doug, I think he actually is his own worst enemy. He could quite easily make Akinola, Jensen etc his friends, agreeing to disagree but all attending Lambeth, if he played his cards right. But he seems to insist on putting his foot in his mouth.
Isn’t the page you linked to a full transcript of the interview?
February 8th, 2008 at 12:15 am
Sorry, Peter, yes, it’s a full transcript of the interview. I was referring to a full transcript of the lecture that gave rise to the interview. But I think what you say about Akinola and Jensen is rubbish.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:50 am
Doug,
That post saves me an e-mail. I noticed some pretty inflammatory headlines (The Telegraph again; I’m noticing a trend), but the actual content of what the Archbishop said doesn’t seem to me to be as outrageous as it may appear. If two parties willingly concede to accept the mediation or arbitration of a third party, I don’t see how the law can justifiably tell them that such is illegal. I don’t know much of anything about UK contract law, but this argument seems pretty reasonable to me.
I’m also not a Sharia scholar, so I can’t speak to the composition of actual Muslim judiciaries and the actual content of their rulings. The problems of Sharia would be 1.) its enforcement on segments of the society that do not willingly accept it, 2.) its requirement to do something which is otherwise illegal (e.g. kill the infidel), and 3.) its requirement to abstain from doing something that is legally required (e.g. don’t pay taxes.) And, yes, Dr. Williams is right, that Sharia is inevitable, because individual Muslims will accept it as a rule of law in UK society, regardless of what Downing Street says.
-JAK
February 8th, 2008 at 3:38 pm
[...] that are more useful than anything you’ll find here see Bishop Alan, Kester Brewin, Doug at MetaCatholic Richard Peat and Matt [...]
February 8th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Apparently this is the full transcript of the lecture. I am reading it now.
February 8th, 2008 at 7:59 pm
[...] Alan’s comments are sensible: we should avoid hysteria on this issue. Doug Chaplin is right that The Internet seems to produce a rush to [...]
February 8th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Peter, thanks for the link. I shall try to get round to it soon.
February 8th, 2008 at 10:59 pm
[...] some of the questions Rowan Williams was trying to open up in his now notorious lecture. (See my previous post) I have sometimes been inclined towards some related notions, but for different reasons. In [...]