Bashing the Bishop - What a Burhka!

[Sen Yai]

The head of the Church of England, Rowan Williams, has stated that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system and that the introduction of Sharia Law in the UK is now "unavoidable".

He says that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion. For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court. He also says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

This has caused a major fuss and in an attempt to dodge calls for his resignation the Right Rev. has now put out a message on his website stating he "certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law". In a further mealy mouthed statement he said he was simply "exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience".

What a Burhka!

The Sun

[Aunty]

Once was Great Britian.

Unfortunately Rowan Williams is prone to make such ill-judged statements. I am afraid he lives in a cloistered world which is is totally out of touch with modern reality. During his tenure as Archbishop of Canterbury the Anglican church has fallen both into disrepute and turmoil (and is also in danger of splitting forever as a result of his mealy-mouthed lead on the subject of gay clergy). Church attendances have also fallen quite sharply since he became head of the Anglican Church.

In the Archbishop's defence he did not actually say that Britain MUST introduce shariah courts in the UK - he was merely stating that already in the UK the Jewish community can go to the Beth Din religious courts to resolve civil disputes in areas of business and marriage, and as a society maybe we need to listen and explore calls for similar arrangements for those of other religious faiths. Furthermore, if we look at the pressing problem of community cohesion in Britain's cities, here was a man who has all his adult life been seen more as a brilliant academic theologian rather than a mere pastoral priest, who was really trying to explore options that may go some way to move the community cohesion debate further. He is not a man to grab headlines - but he is an academic who maybe naively felt that the United Kingdom was mature enough to have a rational, thorough and properly considered debate with ALL the issues openly discussed.

The key problem here as always is the press latch on to one part of what was a very thoughtful speech and we see headlines claiming the Archbishop of Canterbury wants Shariah Law Courts set up tomorrow. For me this is the sad part of the story - it seems nowadays we are not able to have thoughtful debate about issues that will by their very nature be controversial - instead we see sub-editors writing disingenuous headlines selectively picking out small parts of what someone said and really missing the central thrust of the issues in question - namely community cohesion and the rights of all religious groups in a secular society. Add to that the very fractious nature of the Anglican (Episcopalian) Church and we see both the liberal wing (who fear Shariah courts could be detrimental to women and indeed gays), and the evangelical wing who basically see anything Islamic as almost of the devil, and we have a clear scenario for an Archbishop who is going to be attacked from many corners.

For me, it is simply sad that grown up debate is no longer possible in the UK on any subject without the rabid idiots grasping onto 1 particular controversial suggestion and missing the central issues. We seem to prefer to find a fall guy to beat rather than face up to the serious problems affecting communities in cities across the length and breadth of the kingdom.

Furthermore, if we look at the pressing problem of community cohesion in Britain's cities, here was a man who has all his adult life been seen more as a brilliant academic theologian rather than a mere pastoral priest, ----------(who fear Shariah courts could be detrimental to women and indeed gays)

Rowan Williams has a list of theology degrees, doctorates and professorships longer than his Bishop's crook and is probably the most intellectual archbishop in centuries.

He spent 24 years in the rarefied air of Oxbridge academia before being appointed Bishop in 1992. His relative lack of experience as a parish clergyman is seen as a major weakness. He has no real understanding of the modern world or the lives of people who live in it. He is extremely highly educated and qualified but he can also be fairly described as a 'highly educated idiot'.

Shariah courts ARE detrimental to both women and gays. The Archbishop has done more with his statement to ensure a break in 'social cohesion' than maintain or enhance it.

It is not being racial or anti-Islamic to point out that proponents of Islam and Sharia law are NOT prepared to even consider, yet alone entertain, any deviation from the teachings of the Koran (especially in the twisted interpretation of it that the more radical Islamists preach). They want it all their own way and consider that everyone else should submit to it and if they disagree are even condemned to death for that disagreement.

It is also not racist to express the view that those who wish to live and abide by Shariah law should move to (or return) to any Islamist country where Sharia law is the law of the land. They are certainly not welcome or wanted in Great Britain.

I was just trying to say that we need an open and honest debate about these issues. If the Jewish community is allowed to operate their own legal system within our own civil law, then the issue of whether those of other faiths should too, has to be discussed. I am no expert in shariah law but I do think we should be allowed an honest debate before we start jumping on the Archbishop or indeed Muslims. Jewish Beth Din Courts operate within the UK, yet we do not see people calling for Jews to go and live in Israel. That is a preposterous suggestion. The legal precedent is there, and as such we as a nation have the obligation to discuss it calmly and in great depth.

I am optimistic though, as certain (less hysterical sections), of the press are giving the issue deep thought - look at the articles in today's The Guardian, The Times, even The Financial Times - however, sadly the circulation figures for the tabloids with their quickness to see 1 narrow aspect, are higher in the UK, and so we do get these ridiculous responses that do not help the debate or further it, merely enhance this negative view of British Muslims.

He is wrong in both time and place. The British Police are only just getting round to wondering why thousands of young British Born girls leave the country every year never to return. They are only just beginning to look closely at disappearances of female Moslems with the suspicion that there may have been "honour" killings.

The AB of C is the leader of a group, the Anglican Bishops, who have a right to sit in our second chamber. It is disturbing that our laws are vetted by someone with such faulty judgment and his idiotic action must raise the question of the validity of those seats in the Lords. One might expect that he would represent the concerns of the flock he leads, which is a pillar of British culture. Instead we see an appeasement to an incoming group some of who are determined to supplant the host culture. He must go.

final attempt - all I read here are position statements and opinions. I am merely stating that the archbishop is simply calling for an in-indepth discussion about the rights of those of religious faiths within a secular society and if some religious groups have their own legal court system which operates within the wider umbrella of British Law, then why do others not? I am not saying what he said is right nor do i say what he said is wrong. I just wish calm and reasoned debate was possible without diversifying the issue.

We do have serious problems in Britain's inner cities - has multiculturalism worked? how do we dismantle the ethnic ghettos earlier government policies have created? how do we deal with the growing radicalisation of some sections of Muslim youth? How do we deal with the fact that some areas of our cities are no-go areas for people of different ethnic groups? And yes indeed, how do we reform the Paliamentary system that has an established Church with some of its senior Bishops sitting in the upper Chamber? We also need to look quite rightly at the genuine human rights enshrined for all in the UK, and compare this with the rights of minorities in for example muslim states (eg in Britain mosques can be opened anywhere quite easily, yet i do not think any of us could even think of opening a church in any Muslim country). So please don't think I am defending Sharia Courts, I am merely saying once and for all wouldn't it be radical and positive move forward if ALL the issues were placed on the table and discussed in a less hysterical way, with ALL the evidence laid before us.

I am merely saying once and for all wouldn't it be radical and positive move forward if ALL the issues were placed on the table and discussed in a less hysterical way, with ALL the evidence laid before us.

If you wish to have a discussion on the wider issue of Nu-Labour's disastrous love affair with multiculturalism in Britain fine but I for one see it as a slippery slope to the swamping and eventual destruction of British culture and identity as it has been developed over centuries.

The issues regarding the particular subject of introducing some parts of Sharia law into Britain are already there and plain to see for those who wish to study them and there is no hysteria involved in saying that the Archbishop is totally wrong on this particular subject. QED

In the Archbishop's defence he did not actually say that Britain MUST introduce shariah courts in the UK - he was merely stating that already in the UK the Jewish community can go to the Beth Din religious courts to resolve civil disputes in areas of business and marriage, and as a society maybe we need to listen and explore calls for similar arrangements for those of other religious faiths.

Poor dear Rowan. My gay bishop cousin (on my mother's side - no relative of Aunty) says Dr Atkinson simply didn't understand how beastly the Murdoch press could be. I agree with everything YardenUK has written. But one can expect no more from the Great British Public, whose knee-jerk reaction must be everything Rupert and his minions desired. Mind you, I'm on record as stating that I believe the burqua should be mandatory for all women, but that's another issue altogether