The Bishop orders his tomb

The Archbishop embraces Dhimmitude for England:

The Archbishop of Canterbury has today said that the adoption of Islamic Sharia law in the UK is “unavoidable” and that it would help maintain social cohesion.Rowan Williams told BBC Radio 4′s World At One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.       

On the contrary, having divided sovereignty does NOT help maintain social cohesion, but rather the reverse. And those who “do not relate” to the legal system still must obey it.And yet, it appears that the Archbishop’s capitulation to Islam may be waking up the Brits:  His remarks have caused an uproar and calls for his resignation.       

 UPDATE:   Anthony Sacaramone answers some of the defenders of what the Archbishop said, including in the comments here.  And so does  Mollie Hemingway.

About Gene Veith

Professor of Literature at Patrick Henry College, the Director of the Cranach Institute at Concordia Theological Seminary, a columnist for World Magazine and TableTalk, and the author of 18 books on different facets of Christianity & Culture.

  • Bror Erickson

    If I were anglican I probably would have “called” for his resignation along time ago. but if rowan lived in Prague, I think he would have been thrown out a window for this. And that might have been more appropriate.

  • Bror Erickson

    If I were anglican I probably would have “called” for his resignation along time ago. but if rowan lived in Prague, I think he would have been thrown out a window for this. And that might have been more appropriate.

  • CRB

    The only reaction that makes any sense to this nonsense is this: “This is the law of the land. If you refuse to obey the law, then leave this country!” Perhaps that should have been the law of the land long ago before the influx of “immigrants” to our mother country!!

  • CRB

    The only reaction that makes any sense to this nonsense is this: “This is the law of the land. If you refuse to obey the law, then leave this country!” Perhaps that should have been the law of the land long ago before the influx of “immigrants” to our mother country!!

  • http://viz.tumblr.com Tickletext

    I believe the Archbishop’s remarks as reported in the media may inadequately reflect the complexity of his views.

    Consider the following analysis:
    http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=275

  • http://viz.tumblr.com Tickletext

    I believe the Archbishop’s remarks as reported in the media may inadequately reflect the complexity of his views.

    Consider the following analysis:
    http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/page.cfm?ID=275

  • fw

    i just read tickletext´s link. this is actually a very complex lecture and it does raise some valid questions as to what the basis of law needs to be.

    I am sure the soundbites do not do it justice at all.

  • fw

    i just read tickletext´s link. this is actually a very complex lecture and it does raise some valid questions as to what the basis of law needs to be.

    I am sure the soundbites do not do it justice at all.

  • http://viz.tumblr.com Tickletext

    Rowan Williams has made some clarifications here:

    The lecture was written as an opening contribution to a series on Islam and English Law mounted by the Temple Church and London University. As such, it posed the question to the legal establishment of whether attempts to accommodate aspects of Islamic law would create an area where the law of the land doesn’t run. This, I said, would certainly be the case if any practice under Islamic law had the effect of removing from any individual the rights they were entitled to enjoy as a citizen of the UK; and I concluded that nothing should be recognised which had that effect. We are not talking about parallel jurisdictions; and I tried to make clear that there could be no ‘blank cheques’ in this regard, in particular as regards some of the sensitive questions about the status and liberties of women. The law of the land still guarantees for all the basic components of human dignity.
    http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1583

    (and kudos to Dr. Veith for the allusion to Robert Browning)

  • http://viz.tumblr.com Tickletext

    Rowan Williams has made some clarifications here:

    The lecture was written as an opening contribution to a series on Islam and English Law mounted by the Temple Church and London University. As such, it posed the question to the legal establishment of whether attempts to accommodate aspects of Islamic law would create an area where the law of the land doesn’t run. This, I said, would certainly be the case if any practice under Islamic law had the effect of removing from any individual the rights they were entitled to enjoy as a citizen of the UK; and I concluded that nothing should be recognised which had that effect. We are not talking about parallel jurisdictions; and I tried to make clear that there could be no ‘blank cheques’ in this regard, in particular as regards some of the sensitive questions about the status and liberties of women. The law of the land still guarantees for all the basic components of human dignity.
    http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1583

    (and kudos to Dr. Veith for the allusion to Robert Browning)

  • Kirk

    After several days, here is Rowan’s response to the controversy:
    “Certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law; … we already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justified conscientious objections in certain circumstances in providing certain kinds of social relations” and that “we have Orthodox Jewish courts operating in this country legally and in a regulated way because there are modes of dispute resolution and customary provisions which apply there in the light of Talmud.”

    As an Anglican, I see Bishop Rowan as an interesting character. There’s no doubt of his brilliance, the man speaks several languages, is a renowned poet, and undeniably eloquent. His record on spiritual matters, however, is mixed. On the one hand, he preaches and affirms a literal understanding of scripture. On the other hand, he has said publicly that the more conservative members of the church over-value the very thing that he affirms.

    Similarly, the Bishop seems personally in favor of homosexuals in the church, but discourages it in his capacity as a leader.

    His liberal, at times radical, political leanings are also a point of contention. He is anti-war, anti-globalization, and anti-capitalist. At the same time, he appears to be a dedicated Christian devoted to pursuing right action. I am inclined merely to pass this off as a differing of opinion between Williams and the church at large.

    It seems that his personal opinions are always at odds with his leadership. On the one hand, I admire his willingness and ability to place the needs and solidarity of the denomination above his own beliefs. On the other, his opinions lead me to inevitably conclude that he is not the right man to be in leadership. He is essentially torn.

  • Kirk

    After several days, here is Rowan’s response to the controversy:
    “Certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law; … we already have in this country a number of situations in which the internal law of religious communities is recognised by the law of the land as justified conscientious objections in certain circumstances in providing certain kinds of social relations” and that “we have Orthodox Jewish courts operating in this country legally and in a regulated way because there are modes of dispute resolution and customary provisions which apply there in the light of Talmud.”

    As an Anglican, I see Bishop Rowan as an interesting character. There’s no doubt of his brilliance, the man speaks several languages, is a renowned poet, and undeniably eloquent. His record on spiritual matters, however, is mixed. On the one hand, he preaches and affirms a literal understanding of scripture. On the other hand, he has said publicly that the more conservative members of the church over-value the very thing that he affirms.

    Similarly, the Bishop seems personally in favor of homosexuals in the church, but discourages it in his capacity as a leader.

    His liberal, at times radical, political leanings are also a point of contention. He is anti-war, anti-globalization, and anti-capitalist. At the same time, he appears to be a dedicated Christian devoted to pursuing right action. I am inclined merely to pass this off as a differing of opinion between Williams and the church at large.

    It seems that his personal opinions are always at odds with his leadership. On the one hand, I admire his willingness and ability to place the needs and solidarity of the denomination above his own beliefs. On the other, his opinions lead me to inevitably conclude that he is not the right man to be in leadership. He is essentially torn.

  • http://www.geneveith.com Veith

    Tickletext, you won the virtual prize for the hidden contest: Catching my allusion to the poem by the great Robert Browning in the title to my post!

  • http://www.geneveith.com Veith

    Tickletext, you won the virtual prize for the hidden contest: Catching my allusion to the poem by the great Robert Browning in the title to my post!

  • http://link Gangster14

    On the whole I found it an unpleasant experience. ,

  • http://link Gangster14

    On the whole I found it an unpleasant experience. ,


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X