Skip to main content

View Diary: Canterbury Archbishop Wants Sharia for UK Muslims (146 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  The Church of England (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    MBNYC, Jbearlaw

    is regulated by secular law. And the gay adoption scenario related to the Catholic church.

    I don't agree with the views that Rowan Williams appears to be advocating, but I think your inferences asto his agenda are based on projecting elements of an American political context that simply don't exist in the UK.

    •  Williams' Desired Exception (0+ / 0-)

      Except that Williams is expressly asking for British law to step aside. Sure he's using other churches' power as examples so as to avoid charges of his own self-interest. But that is exactly what his proposals would serve. So I'm calling him out on it. Because if he walks like a Dominionist, talks like a Dominionist, and advocates for conversion of British law to accommodate Dominionist politics, then of course I'm going to oppose him the same as I oppose Dominionists here at home.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 12:09:46 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Walking and talking like a dominionist? (0+ / 0-)

        When  I hear dominionists saying that we should make sure that our legal system doesn't alienate non-Christian believers, I'll start looking for recipes for hat souffle.

        Here's what I think is the key line in the article (and notice that much of the rest is the reporters interpretation of what seems like a very vague speech):

        there's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law

        'as we already do with some othe aspects of religious law': he asking for Muslims to receive a form of accommodation that other groups already receive.

        Here's a concrete example: in the UK, you can be prosecuted for blasphemy. But the Christian religion os the only religion protected in  that way. So eg Salman Rushdie couldn't be prosecuted for writing the Satanic verses, but Monty Python could be and was for the Life of Brian. Some people think - and Williams would apparently sympathise with them - that Islam should be protected in the same way.

        I don't agree with Williams. But its a far cry from Dominionism. And he isn't 'serving dominionist interests' because there simply isn't a dominionist movement to serve in the UK.

        •  Where It Counts (0+ / 0-)

          I don't see Williams arguing that Islam should be protected by the archaic laws that protect Williams' sense of blasphemy.

          Williams has to creep from further behind than US Dominionists, too. I'm not saying they're identical. I'm saying they're of a kind: Christian theocrats. Forcing their way into the similar legal republics of the US and the UK. US Dominionists go for laws applying to everyone based on their bible, and official declarations that all laws are based on their bible. UK theocrats like Williams don't have the same playing field to run on, so their plays are different. but not entirely. Williams is looking for some strategic leverage in carving out religious exceptions to laws - which is the same argument Dominionists use to deny abortions and stemcell research.

          I didn't see Williams saying anything about nondenominational blasphemy protection as part of his position, so you're probably just making that up from your own personal agenda. But it's irrelevant. What we're talking about isn't universal protection under law. It's precisely the opposite: Williams says Muslims and Catholics shouldn't have to be bound by laws that their personal churches disagree with. And of course, by extension, Williams' own Church of England should have that power vacuum to move into, also.

          Williams' policy is an attempt to carve out a foundation for a UK theocratic movement paralleling that in the US, but with a British accent. The thin edge of the wedge. The Dominionist's favorite sacrament.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Thu Feb 07, 2008 at 01:41:55 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, you're badly mistaken (0+ / 0-)

            Britain and the US are not 'similar legal republics'.

            Britain isn't a republic at all. More significantly, the legal and political landscape is different in all sorts of ways. For example, there is no constitutional separation of church and state. Despite that - no, arguably because of that - organised religion is an immeasurably weaker force in the UK. If you were a dominionist, you would indeed have a long way to come from behind.

            But Williams isn't a dominionist. His agenda isn't about 'carving out religious exceptions to laws'. Exceptions already exist. For example, you can't sue the Catholic church for sex discrimination in employment; Sikhs are not required to wear motor-cycle helmets, though everyone else is. And so on.

            If you want to argue to Williams 'intent', as you do when you talk about what he is 'attempting to do', you need to base what you are saying on much more than one article.

            And if you are arguing about the likely effects of advocating this - you need to bear in mind that, frankly, the political pull of the archbishop of Canterbury is just negligible.

            As for having an agenda of my own: I'm a secularist, and a republican (small 'r' - meaning I think the UK should be a republic). And I live in Turkey. The blasphemy example was, as you say, not Williams' own: I brought it in to illustrate the point. One the other hand, this issue is fairly well-known and is a significant part of the context Willimas is arguing in.

            On the other hand, there is a personal element to this. I've heard Williams preach on a number of occasions, and I think you've simply got him wrong.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site