So, no-one has anything to say about the Archbishop of Canterbury?

it's like he's been set up by the government to secure them an easy win or something? mindboggling.

His eyebrows need a trim

i'm all for it if i get the 72 virgins

I'm slightly confused about what he's actually saying tbh. This often happens when I listen to senior clergy though. They are of another world.

Sometimes I think Rowan Williams is just trolling the Daily Mail as much as he possibly can.

Also he's usually pretty sane for a leading cleric so this was kind of a surprise.

This is the Daily Mail poll to-day...

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/02_01/HamzaWilliams_108x76.jpg
Which of these men poses the bigger threat to Britain's way of life?

i think Williams is sane but the media is mad

So far the answer is this...

Abu Hamza 34%
Archbishop of Canterbury 66%

Hanging's too good for them

hamza's gitmo-bound so yeah i gotta go williams there.

Which of these men poses the bigger threat to Britain's way of life?

The bearded terrorist who advocates Sharia law, or Abu Hamza?

I'm trying to think what he was trying to acheive. Maybe he wants his own courts? Like in olden times.

Isn't hook-handed cleric Abu Hamza about to get deported and banged up overseas? That gives RW a bit of an unfair advantage IMO

xpost

If he's talking about people being allowed to have certain kinds of civil cases, like divorce or some areas of contract law, treated under Sharia law then I don't think he's being mad controversial at all.

I do wonder why he keeps going on about them Muslims tho.

because everyone else does, every day, forever

http://www.somethingcreative.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/envy.jpg

If he's talking about people being allowed to have certain kinds of civil cases, like divorce or some areas of contract law, treated under Sharia law then I don't think he's being mad controversial at all.

hmm, i do!

This is right though isn't it?

Dr Rowan Williams said the UK had to "face up to the fact" some citizens did not relate to the British legal system.

Nothing new there. *I* don't relate to some parts of the British legal system. And his proposal seems to be a modest one along the lines of what happens at the Beth Din. Or is it something more? Does he want these things enshrined in law? I presume that the Beth Din has no actual legal standing?

relgious courts already in use shock horror

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7233040.stm

"sharia law" is a great term for whipping up frenzy though - as though he was advocating stoning women to death in the streets of leicester.

xp

quite.

tory guy on the today programme was all "maybe he's not being that controversial but you think the dude would be better at pr"

relgious courts already in use shock horror

this is a good argument for it how?

bad PR = entitlement to voice opinions people don't necessarily want to hear

the streets of leicester

I resent this but I'm not sure why yet.

it is kind of a pisser that sharia law has a bad reputation, but the notion of self-policing religious communities is pretty shitty.

relgious courts already in use shock horror

this is a good argument for it how?

Quite.

hey i wonder what the bbc have your say crowd have to say about this?

But it's not criminal law, it's civil law. And both parties agree to this adjudication so if you take the "religious" bit out it's only the same as two parties agreeing to arbritration.

hmm HYS appears to have crashed

this is a good argument for it how?

yes, but... i'm as anti-religious as the next fulminating athiest but these are only non-legally binding courts dealing with civil matters. (or what nv said)

i dunno i'm just trying to get over the daily mail reaction i had when i heard "archbish calls for sharia law" this morning.

According to the beeb the Beth Din are legally recognised in English law as a means for warring parties to agree to arbitration. The law sees this as a practical way of helping people to resolve their differences in their own way, without clogging up the local courts.

I did not know that.

Yeah I'm ultra-atheist too but I don't think he's calling for people to be handed over to the local mosque for a good stoning.

HYS thinks he hasn't gone far enough. If we must have sharia law leave out the namby-pamby family court stuff and go straight for the removal of limbs and public exections.

hmm HYS appears to have crashed

I thought you were joking but it is very very slow!

Total comments:14771
Published comments:5089
Rejected comments:223
Moderation queue:9458

The Archbishop HAS united the country after all...

Or, at least, united the type of people who post on HYS.

But it's not criminal law, it's civil law. And both parties agree to this adjudication so if you take the "religious" bit out it's only the same as two parties agreeing to arbritration.

-- Noodle Vague, Friday, February 8, 2008 1:41 PM (37 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

yeeeeah, it's the bit i bolded that people are 'ech' about, because they see muslim communities as patriarchal. semi-rightly or wrongly. it's quite a difficult discussion to have. i don't know how to get past that really; i'm also against forced marriages, religious schools, etc.

these are only non-legally binding courts dealing with civil matters

things like access to children, alimony payments...?

I'm opposed to religious schools. I kinda guessed that you were thinking of the potential for coercion. Of course that's a problem, but I don't know that it would be a much bigger problem than it is under existing laws. There are criminal laws that are supposed to protect people from this, after all. I don't think I would want to say that allowing people to express their own cultural values was bad because of stuff that some people might do.

Dude is obviously being paid by some Fabians or something to move the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overton_window

move it away from the thing's he advocating? don't think the fabians are too keen on separate laws for religious types.

Maybe he wants his own courts? Like in olden times

of course dude wants his own courts, same way the police want to detain all suspected criminals without charge forever, so they can sit in the stay-shun and play crib all day long.

would you be able to switch between religions to get better deals in court?

religious schools may seem bad but can't see how you could integrate e.g. hasidic children into any other setup

lol

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7235550.stm
The BBC understands from sources who work on Christian-Muslim interfaith issues that Dr Williams has faced a barrage of criticism from within the Church and has been genuinely taken aback by how his words were received.

i guess if they're gonna exist they're gonna exist, but shouldn't receive state funding.

all this stuff about sharia courts not being 'binding' is confusing me -- what they mean is, their decisions are not conventionally enforceable.

xpost

lol englande

someone explain to me what he actually wants. is it his own courts? such a surprising thing to say.

he saw the lulz that gordon brown got for his arctic monkeys gag and wanted his own

IS ROWAN WILLIAMS ANOTHER MUSLIM MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE LIKE BARACK HUSSIEN OBAMA?

- Big Jim Swells

sock puppets vs manchurian candidates

lol englande

-- max, Friday, 8 February 2008 18:39

"Yah right on broooo, jus' throw all these islam doods in gitmo or some shit, LOL."

Reasons why the state might decide it's in its interest to have religious/community courts:

1. They save time and expense, and spare real courts the trickiness and headache of awkward interventions into communities with different standards

2. They help ensure that the "enforcement" of religious laws isn't being carried out vigilante-style and in criminal form, and instead put it in the form of an accountable, record-keeping organization, with religious leaders who (a) should have a vested interest and organized plan for keeping their decisions reasonably square with national law, and (b) act as a specific tools for the state to engage with the community in question

3. They're still completely circumscribed by national law, because you can only agree to binding arbitration in terms of things you're legally allowed to agree to! Which is to say that you can make voluntary agreements about dealing with property, custody of children, terms of divorce, etc. -- but you can't make any kind of voluntary agreement about punishment, so nobody but the state can imprison you, or mete out any kind of physical penalty

So they can't do much beyond enforcing community standards about ... business and marriage, more or less, and they have to do it in an organized, coherent-with-national-law way that can help keep people from meting out vigilante punishments on their own!

He's way smarter than all the journalists who have tried to put his - brilliant and timely - speech into short articles put together. So it's pretty obvious that whoever reads those articles is going to understand what he said even less.

The really saddening thing is this, that his own community doesn't even bother to try and understand.

big jim im really shocked by your racism! i thought you were a quite tolerant guy

don't worry he's not a real person

The worshiping of multiculturalism by the west is yet another nail in our sociocultural coffin!
Lawrence Cline, Ft. Lauderdale, Fl.

hey i was saying just the other day that fort lauderdale was a hotbed of islamism

you take that back, blueski

none of this is real suckas

I can't see how this story has any relation to this story at all, no way:

The government's attempt to reform the system for choosing judges to create a more diverse judiciary is failing to break the stranglehold of privately-educated white males over the high court bench.

Although the new rules were designed to promote more women and ethnic minority candidates, all the judges appointed since they were introduced have been white male barristers and most were educated at independent schools.

like most of the english establishment, the judiciary is dominated by white public-school-and-oxbridge dudes. i can see the 'white' and 'dudes' bit changing; but not the other bit anytime soon.

i don't think the two stories have much to do with each other unless you think judges should adjudicate based on their own sex and ethnicity? that sounds pretty fucked up.

So they can't do much beyond enforcing community standards about ... business and marriage, more or less, and they have to do it in an organized, coherent-with-national-law way that can help keep people from meting out vigilante punishments on their own!

-- nabisco, Friday, February 8, 2008 7:18 PM (49 minutes ago) Bookmark Link

what are "community standards", and who tells whom what they are? what about individuals opting out of their community's standards? the legal position sounds pretty fucked up to me. and why bias religious "community standards" over other possible communities and their "standards"? the point is they aren't "standards" in any meaningful sense.

They're still completely circumscribed by national law, because you can only agree to binding arbitration in terms of things you're legally allowed to agree to! Which is to say that you can make voluntary agreements about dealing with property, custody of children, terms of divorce, etc. -- but you can't make any kind of voluntary agreement about punishment, so nobody but the state can imprison you, or mete out any kind of physical penalty

so sharia law courts are "completely circumscribed" by UK law except insofar as they deal with custody of children? taking the divorce process out of the system in this way also removes it by a further step from social services, alimony enforcement (never exactly on top of their game here), etc.

divorce is the case that makes me very leery about this kind of thing, yeah. also that it just seems like a bad precedent to set.

What about individuals opting out of their community's standards? Religious courts are a form of voluntary arbitration, and can only bind you to thinks you agree to; you're perfectly free to opt out of them.

Aha but what about social pressures, you say, and yes, I understand -- but part of my point is that it's silly to pretend courts like these somehow exert some social pressure that would be absent without the court around! Part of my point is that they may, in certain circumstances, help with that problem, because now those social pressures are institutionalized in an entity that's public and moderately responsible, instead of left in the hands of your violent uncles or whatever.

I mean, let's not act like the absence of such a court makes it any easier for a person within a closed, insular community to "opt out" of its rules! Having the court doesn't help with un-closing the community, but it at least exposes those rules to some kind of attempt at coherent, public interpretation.

P.S. You're absolutely right about custody and divorce, but that wasn't what I was getting at -- the point was the difference between obligations a person can legally contract (like involving property and custody) and things you can't make voluntary contracts regarding (like imprisonment, physical punishment, etc.)

Man, is this a tempest in a teapot.

Wait, sorry, I feel like I'm not explaining myself well -- haha maybe because I don't personally like the thought of these things, and I'm defending them more on a practical level:

Say you're a person within an insular religious or ethnic community -- there's a good chance you're completely dependent on this community for your livelihood and all of your social connections. If you want to handle something like a divorce in a way that's outside the insular standards of that community, the laws of the nation don't make you any less subject to the judgment and standards of your social group. Whether there's a religious court or not, you're still going to have to "opt out" of that community, and you're still going to face potential pressure and reprisals.

I'm saying the religious court might help, sometimes, because it can take the community judgment (which exists either way) and put it in the hands of people who have a vested interest in making things work; it gives you people to appeal to within that community, and those people are likely to want to solve problems in a way that's more judicious than systems of gossip, ostracism, shunning, family reprisals, etc. Insular communities do this whether it's under the rubric of a "court" or not -- they appeal to religious leaders to broker solutions to disputes, they appeal to the judgment of community patriarchs/matriarchs, etc. So I think there's a level on which codifying it can make it manageable, in a way that can be helpful?

(Plus the state can engage with and put pressure on the organized religious group in a way they can't engage with or pressure random collections of individuals trying to enforce the same standards on their communities through violence or family control or whatever)

If they're voluntary agreements to the parameters of arbitrations, essentially, and they can't contravene English or E.U. law, this whole freak-out is just bullshit; racist, publicity seeking demagoguery, tabloid sales fodder, bullshit.

no, and fuck you for calling me racist. sharia courts don't "contravene" law; they... "supervene" it. the law doesn't get involved, because what ought to be its province has been abandoned to a religious court! it's naive to assume these are "voluntary agreements"; no doubt some of them are, but should religious groups be regulating this stuff? are you kidding? fuck that. as for this freak-out being "demagoguery": it was raised by the archbishop of canterbury; again, is it out of respect to religious exceptionalism that you'd have people stfu?

no Shakira law joeks? :(

Thank God for Muslim women.

Complete hysteria incited by a media with an axe to grind. If only there had been this much energy in calling for Tony Blair's resignation.

No. Whatever the archbishop is saying in his clarification this morning, it's another attempt to put us all in different boxes on the basis of religion, ethnicity or whatever. Because you can already decide your private disputes in any way you like - going to court, paying a settlement, tossing a coin, etc - so why single muslims and sharia out in this way, unless for some form of compulsion?

Like the article up there ^^ says, I'm sure it is educated muslims who are most horrified. They basically want the same from the law as the rest of us, i.e. equality before it. But the ethos that the archbishop is pushing is designed to pigeonhole them (again) under the control of uneducated, unrepresentative, reactionary loudmouths, the same guys as are presumed to speak for them in the media.

The hysteria you refer to, despite the largely irrelevant references to stoning and women driving and all that, is really about societal division. People don't want certain parts of the population hived off into their own rival communities (controlled inevitably by the most aggressive elements who set the agenda, see any further education campus where kids are turned into sheep who imagine that whether to make a public statement over the headscarf or traditional dress or whatever is a really pressing issue in their lives). Bollocks to that. It deserves hysteria.

^^^ this.

also, there's a big inequality between men and women in obtaining a divorce under sharia law. why make british society more unequal and divided than it already is? there's a danger of sounding prejudiced against muslims here, but the idea of institutionalizing elements of a religious code into law seems to me a lot more dangerous. it'd be hypocritical to say otherwise.

also, it'd be bogus to assume that all muslims (and i really mean muslim women, who aren't well represented in public life, or in this debate) even want this. williams has suggested this, utterly irresponsibly.

notions of voluntary opt-outs open a massive can of worms. (natch these opt-outs happen anyway, without what williams proposes. this isn't a good thing.)

i'm not the guy to deliver a male feminist verdict. if ever a thread needed tuomas...

don't understand the emphasis that 'he only means civil, not criminal' law from the save-a-archbishops. surely the tabs wouldn't have that much of a problem with sharia law for paedos and muggers? civil law is kind of a big deal too. deals with divorce ffs.

williams has suggested this, utterly irresponsibly.

he actually suggested all muslims would want this?

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1573

xpost

effectively, yeah. what he "actually says" is virtually impenetrable because it's covered in ass-covering provisos (although these vitiate what he really is trying to say -- i.e. when he says "sharia is interpreted in so many ways and of course..." -- how do you integrate something this ambiguous into law?). but in context, ie the media/political landscape he floated this into, yes he is.

if he is made to feel naive, out of touch, whatever...fine. presumably he under-estimated the rampant islamophobia here (things like the press and HYS distort but not too severely - perpetual cycle). i'm sure there will be some 'archbishop apologises' article soon if not already.

it's easy to call it rampant islamophobia; just as easy as it is to say islam's positions on apostasy, homosexuality, and the place of women in society is reactionary. maybe the guardian leader has a point that people cannot deal with complexity, but he ought to be able to explain clearly what he means. that's one of the concessions you have to make in a democracy in which not everyone is an expert in judisprudence and/or theology. i have no idea why he floated it really; it was bound to ignite a shitstorm.

i don't know, it's shit like this that pushes me closer to the hitchens-dawkins mob, ie from tolerant atheism to strident atheism.

but he ought to be able to explain clearly what he means. that's one of the concessions you have to make in a democracy in which not everyone is an expert in judisprudence and/or theology. i have no idea why he floated it really; it was bound to ignite a shitstorm.

don't think this matters really. ultimately who is really offended or troubled by this issue who wasn't already (or isn't outraged by the slightest mention of certain keywords) - and for how long? williams bigger problem is dealing with archaic curmudgeons like armistead in his own group who seem as terrified by progress as they are by controversy and jump on situations like this to call for his resignation.

i don't think it's progress letting more religion into public life, is all.

You're a bunch of followers.

The Archbish is a huge fan of the Incredible String Band... even going so far as writing the foreward to a book about them..

http://www.makingtime.co.uk/beglad/begladbook.htm

So he'll be bigging up Scientologists next then?

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's article convinced me I was mostly wrong about this, btw.

You're a bunch of followers.

-- Rib Dinner, Saturday, 9 February 2008 17:34 (Yesterday) Link

good choice of words there skippy.

i don't think it's progress letting more religion into public life, is all.

-- That one guy that hit it and quit it

i totally agree with this.

Why does this "deserve hysteria"? It's not even remotely on the agenda, all political parties have gone "so not gonna happen". Not a single person with any power to implement Sharia law has gone "oh hang on that seems like a good idea". IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

It amazes me that anyone who has viewed the utterly disproportional response to this could think it was anything other than hysterical Islamophobia.

it sounds to me like everyone's a bit hysterial. objecting to religious courts presiding over divorce proceedings -- which is on the agenda insofar as a) it's already happening, out of sight and b) a prominent member of the establishment* has said it ought to be legitimized -- is not 'hysterical islamophobia'.

*i think this is mental too, but he is.

I can't see how this story has any relation to this story at all, no way:

The government's attempt to reform the system for choosing judges to create a more diverse judiciary is failing to break the stranglehold of privately-educated white males over the high court bench.

Although the new rules were designed to promote more women and ethnic minority candidates, all the judges appointed since they were introduced have been white male barristers and most were educated at independent schools.

-- James Mitchell, Friday, February 8, 2008 8:04 PM (2 days ago) Bookmark Link

now i get it; you were talking about the famously diverse make-up of sharia court judges. excellent zing, sir.

i would say the degree to which the knives are out is a tad hysterical

Yeah. Calling for the dude's resignation etc.

Williams is at least trying to do good, however wrongheadedly. Tabloid journalists not so noted for their commitment to sensible discussion about religious divisions.

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/uploads/images/synod027%231%23.jpg

^^^ been on the telly all morning saying this like "He is a disaster for the Church of England. He vacillates, he is a weak leader and he does not stand up for the Church." who'd have thought he has such dedicated enemies?

i haven't read the tabs or the mail because i don't usually; but the guardian and indie have both shown a range of opinions. as does the bbc's news site. perhaps it's 'hysterical', perhaps it's 'robust'. has anything "happened" other than angry blog posts and yelping front pages? the sky has not fallen in.

this government has supported faith schools and generally believes in "separate and equal" as a cultural policy, so what the archbishop proposed was not completely off the cards at all.

i'm not a christian so couldn't care less if he resigns, gets sacked, whatever. amusingly his speech contained reference to 'deconstruction' of the enlightenment project -- an intruiging match-up of fundamentalist and nihilist there.

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown's article convinced me I was mostly wrong about this, btw.

this one?

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-what-he-wishes-on-us-is-an-abomination-780186.html

I see she brings her usual helpful clarity :)

Two Iranian friends chose to die rather than live under the demeaning religious orders. Go to Afghanistan if you fancy a 12-year-old bride – a practice approved by the mullahs. That's sharia for you. 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.

OT - but something about her writing style really winds me in every column I've ever seen. For example, this recent one "How did the BBC fall into the hands of right-wingerss?":

Unlike me, my husband is not given to hissy fits or surges of flaming outrage. But last week he threw down his towel (literally) and finally gave up on the BBC. He thinks it has turned dilettante, is contemptuous of facts, of progressive politics and of its own responsibility to uphold decent values – its raison d'etre surely. I can completely understand my Englishman's disillusionment, but I cling still to the noble idea of the BBC, to the breaking branch of a dying tree, though winds shake my faith every day.

Get over yourself, love.

What he maybe should have said, IMHO: "Western law is based in judeo-christian tradition, but more and more people who are now living in the west are not. So um, yeah."

Yasmin Alibhai-Brown, don't believe a word that Assasin woman says

- Jim

The Archbish is a huge fan of the Incredible String Band... even going so far as writing the foreward to a book about them..

Never trust a hippy

He's responsible for the greatest headline ever from The Sun Bash The Bishop

http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00433/news-index-splash1_433507a.jpg

oh snap

wtf 'join our campaign'. bomb canary wharf!

Oh great so which aspects of Sharia law shall we adopt? Can we pick and choose? We will have the floggings, but nothing more vile. I dont think so. Its all or nothing. How can a Nation come together if we are all following different Laws. Sharia law is already practiced in this country by defult. What happened to equality, for all women in this Country? What happened to LENT and PANCAKE DAY. It is never mentioned in the media. All we here about is the Chinese New Year.sue, uckfield

Deport defult!

What happened to LENT and PANCAKE DAY.

Sue of Uckfield needs to get on ilx.

This is the Sun headline the rest of them still have to beat:

http://z.about.com/d/golondon/1/0/A/4/-/-/02-PaddyPantsdown.jpg

williams out

"I would like the successor that God would like," he said.

"I think that it is a job of immense demands and I would hope that my successor has the constitution of an ox and the skin of a rhinoceros, really.

what sort of god would create such a creature?

also surely rhinoceroses constitutions are pretty strong too?

i vote the next Archbishop of Canterbury is a rhinoceros

Yes.

So, to obtain a new Archbishop of Canterury, yell "Kovonia!"

Just as long as he doesn't also have the horn of the rhino

http://nationalzoo.si.edu/scbi/migratorybirds/featured_photo/images/bigpic/leow7.jpg

Will miss this guy tbh

i for one welcome our new rhinocerine overlord

Careful though, thin end of the wedge in my opinion:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0070605/

(excellent film, would have voted for it in the 'comedy' poll, but.. um.. forgot)

"In his company I have drunk deeply from the wells of God's mercy and love and it has all been joyful.

He has been my besht mate and I have fucking loved him.

The homophobe is dead, long live the homophobe.

Could be worse could be a Pope

i dunno, at least the popes actually die.

Actually, it would be a dedgood if one day the AofC was a person with surname of "Pope"...

(xp) But then another Pope pops up

but at least you don't wind up with the George Carey problem.

Don't think Williams a homophobe. Get the feeling he's done as much as he can without causing schism, world maybe better without formation of The Real Anglican No Gay Communion.

No Ecce Homo

Or maybe not, why pander to the bigots? History will judge and opposing gay marriage for whatever reason is setting your stall firmly on the wrong side of the line. Maybe I'll give him the benefit of at least waiting for a public pronouncement though. xp.

I don't think it's pandering - it looks like very reluctant compromise (and ongoing dialogue) to try and preserve an institution that he must believe in.

I'm not an Anglican or a believer but find his dilemma fascinating in an odd way - he's like the tragic protagonist of a solid but dull novel or play from the middle of the 20th century – torn between deeply held personal belief and demands of his role, tradition, institution etc.

I wouldn't watch that play but he seems like a better-than-decent man in a miserable role.

'I wouldn't watch that play but'

Soft but strong zing

And another Old Etonian to boot, what year is this, 1853?

classless society, we're all Old Etonians now

in a very real way, Jesus is a bit like an Old Etonian

remember, He taught us to have compassion even for the least of etonians.

I think yr probably otm, woof. (er in your earlier comment.) I was thinking about parallels with slavery & racism, initially to promote my lol homophobe angle. At first that seemed overblown because the gay marriage issue isn't a threat to life and liberty. But in Nigeria it is, and though I have no idea what internal wranglings are going on in the C of E, it's probably better to try and keep the church over their on our side as much as possible, instead of completely casting them adrift to set sail for the merry land of rampant murderous homophobia.

God I hate having to have nuanced opinions sometimes.

Right - it was on my mind, but I was a bit hesitant about invoking Anglicanism in Africa (because I don't know anything about it); I imagine Williams-type CofE would think it imperative that tolerant/progressive christianity should have some voice there.

Vote went against women bishops.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/20/women-bishops-church-england-vote-live

He's a bastard.

Interesting story. The man who who thought was his father had a full life: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9700919/The-Archbishops-father-his-secret-wife-an-affair-with-a-Kennedy-and-defaming-a-Labour-Cabinet-Minister.html

In his own Christian theology we're all bastards, as we are sons and daughters of God by adoption and grace, not by nature, since God has only one son.