For some reason, this issue, which was rather explosive in the UK, seemed not to be covered at all by the American media. In very short form: Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and (thus) head of the Church of England, gave a speech in which he predicted that the adoption of some parts of sharia (Islamic religious law) within the UK were "inevitable", and suggested exploring a "constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law as we already do with aspects of other kinds of religious law."

Two excellent pieces on why this is an atrocious idea can be found in the Independent. One is by Yasmin Alibhai-Brown: What He Wishes on Us is an Abomination, in which she writes, "Many women, gay men and dissidents came to Britain to escape Islamic tyrants and their laws. Dr Williams supports those laws and, by default, makes the refugees victims again." Another is a leading article which has to point out the blindingly obvious: "In a liberal and open society all citizens must be equal before the laws of the nation."

Here was my intemperate response, on the day – when a friend wrote, excited about Williams' ideas.

■■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■ wrote:
> I am agog to know what you think about what
> I consider to be one of the braver, though
> politically fraught, interventions of a
> Christian cleric into national life that I
> can remember.

Two words: For shame.


> I suppose that if all religious tradition is merely
> heteronomy, i.e., the wholesale and unambiguous
> abdication of responsible humanity, then any space made
> for religious tradition (in fact, any human tradition at
> all) will seem akin to some kind of demonic "theocracy".

That's bullshit, though. Theocracy is a word with a
definition, which I suggest you reference. It needn't
have a scary modifier to be scary. And, much more to the
point, there's an enormous space made for religion -
it's called the private sphere. Hugely ironically,
this space is protected (for religion) by a tradition
which you egregiously assault by trying to inject
religion into the public sphere. Reference that, too:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

Then again, this is your country, and I can always
retreat to what may end up being the last refuge of
liberalism and Enlightenment values. And, speaking of
values, it sadly seems that at a certain point they
actually become irreducible - and inarguable. Either you
believe in things like equal justice under the law and
secular government, or you believe in some other things.


> In defence of the archbishop, he went out of his way in
> the interview (and no doubt the lecture) to stress he
> was not suggesting abandoning or even weakening the
> overarching universality of British law, and related
> traditions of human rights, for all British citizens.

In defence of the archbishop - whose essay evidently
only one of us has read - he wasn't being evil, merely
horrendously, clownishly wooly-headed. And I for one
don't give a damn if he steps down or rides it out until
he's the last congregant of the state church (which I
probably needn't underscore was set up for the connubial
convenience of tyrants). But whether or not Britons
repudiate his suggestions will tell a lot of the tale
for the future of this country.

mf

Addendum: Britons – in the form of the media, politicians, the person on the street, and even other church leaders – have seemed to move overwhelmingly to confront and repudiate Williams' ideas. The net effect seems to me to be positive: increased understanding that 7th-century religious dictates have no place in the laws of a free society.

Additional Addendum: As usual, it was worth waiting for the Great Polemicist to weigh in. In To Hell with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Christopher Hitchens argues,