It's no surprise that Rowan Williams wants other religions to be accorded the same sense of privilege as the Church of England
Imagine that you are sitting in Lambeth Palace as Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the established church in England. It may not seem an enviable position (even without the fracas of recent days).
Although your church is nominally the national church, most people don't even get married (pdf) in it any more, hardly anyone comes to your services, most people don't believe in the doctrines that your church promotes, they're not religious and a lot of them don't even believe in god(s) at all.
Still, it's not all bad.
You and 25 bishops of your church sit as of right in the nation's parliament, something no other religious group can claim; your church controls a third of all the state schools in the country at almost no expense to itself and the government actually wants you to take on the provision of more public services at no costbut with potentially positive consequences for your claim to national significance.
But it must nag at you that there is a bit of a mismatch between the power and privilege your organisation holds and the public support it has; you may find it hard to justify the position of a national church when it doesn't any longer represent the nation.
With an eye to the future, you really do need to find another way to shore up your church's position. (The alternative - the creation of a society where no one religion is privileged but all citizens, whatever their beliefs, are treated with impartiality by a state that favours no one religion or non-religious philosophy and is neutral between all of them - is presumably too horrible to contemplate.)
So, if the Catholic church wants exemption from laws to protect gay people from discrimination, you give them your support and even when you have to accept the case for abolishing the legal protection you own religion has from "blasphemy", you can still salvage something by raising the spectre of offence caused to other religions (as the archbishop says, "The grounds for legal restraint in respect of language and behaviour offensive to religious believers are pretty clear"). And
if you want to protect the special status of the church and Christianity in law, then you speak up for the rights of those of other religions to have their religious law recognised(to quote the archbishop again, "Christians cannot claim exceptions from a secular unitary system on religious grounds (for instance in situations where Christian doctors might not be compelled to perform abortions), if they are not willing to consider how a unitary system can accommodate other religious consciences"). Replacing "Church of England" with "faith" makes any defence of special treatment seem a whole lot more reasonable.
Judging by the outraged reaction of so many at Rowan Williams' comments on sharia law, there was considerable surprise that he said what he said. In fact, nothing could be less surprising.Of course
Williams wishes to argue for the extension of at least some of the privileges enjoyed by his own church to other religions. Such an argument, coupled with the sustained critique (some might say assault) on secularism and other Enlightenment values by a number of bishops in the Church of England, is the best defence the church today has for its own privileged position.
What would have been genuinely surprising would be for an archbishop to come out in favour of universal human rights and state neutrality in its dealings with each citizen, whatever their religious or non-religious convictions; for an end to the archaic privileges of the seats in the Lords, the schools, the state-funded public services, the legally enforceable protection from insult. For as long as we allow the anachronism of an established church, however, we can pretty much guarantee that no Archbishop of Canterbury will ever do so.
For more on the debate on Islamic law, click here
Comments ex: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_copson/2008/02/the_archbishop_adapts_to_survive.html
Excellent article. Lets have a secular state enshrined by a written constitution.
The best article I have seen on this issue by a country mile.
Good article. The issue is about public and private spheres. Members of private clubs can have their own rules of behaviour and are entitled to agree what to do with their subscriptions and who to include and exclude. But the law of the land demands that your club members should not break the common rules of the state.
Problem with the C of E is that its schools, its churches and graveyards, its parishes and festivals are part of the civic superstructure. The C of E is not a private club, and the atheists or secularists or humanists among us have a legitimate interest in what it does. When its leader tells us that some of the rules of that and other religious institutions (please let's stop calling them 'faiths') would be a useful adornment to the civil laws, or that they can be considered as parallel (even if not superior) jurisdictions,
we know he feels his Church is in deep trouble.
The one separation needed even more than that between Church and State is that between Belief and Morality. Islamic, Catholic, Jewish and Anglican moralities are wildly different, and have changed wildly over time. They should be ignored, even if we can cheerfully put up with their beliefs. It's hard enough for the law to keep up with all the other moralities on offer.
As C of E attendances have fallen below one million a week, the Archbishop obviously needs to gain allies amongst other faiths if he is to maintain the influence of his church. He's looking for marriage of convenience that is more concerned with the power of religion than its spirituality.
This has got to be one of the highest positive to negative responses ratios I've ever seen on CiF!
Spot on.
As I think many of us had already noted, this plea for respect for another religion is a not-even-thinly-disguised plea to save his own church. And, it is indeed an attack on secularism - A blatant and shameless and totally obvious ploy.
What people like Copson want is to end all the so-called privileges accorded to religious bodies, including their charitable work, while keeping those privileges for all non-religious bodies. Hardly an unbiassed approach.This is all part of the secularist myth that religion is, or should be, a purely private activity which individuals should be permitted to practice on the quiet. But the word "religion" means "to bind together", so its nature is ESSENTIALLY communal, not individual. It was the churches which originated nearly all the great charitable work in this country.
Excellent article as usual, Andrew.
Of course the ABC has to defend - and try to extend -religious privilege, religious influence on government and religious exemptions from equality and non-discrimination laws, if for no other reason than to keep up with the European churches who are steadily getting their tentacles into the European Union.
What, did you think we saw off the idea of Christian values being written into the European constitution? But that was only ever cover for the real battle - the one we lost.
The Lisbon Treaty now requires the EU to maintain a regular dialogue with the churches.
Already there are regular joint meetings of religious hierarchies with the Presidents of the Commission, Council and Parliament, one-to-one meetings with the governments holding the Council presidency and frequent EU-financed seminars.
Now they are planning what more to demand (see http://www.comece.org/comece.taf?_function=news&_sub=&id=4&language=en - "These talks are indeed necessary but they alone are in our view not enough to satisfy the offer of an open, transparent and regular dialogue").
What they - the Catholic, Protestant and Orthodox bishops of Europe - want was revealed in their 1993 contribution to the discussion of the abortive Constitution. They want a special "pre-legislative consultation procedure", regular "dialogue seminars" with the closest advisors to the Commission president, and a "liaison office ... in the [EU Commission] Secretariat General" that would be informed about all "legislative and political initiatives" the churches might wish to have a say on.
What the bishops want in Europe the C of E already has in entirely informal ways in Britain: it has little formal power but (as I have seen myself) huge informal influence over even non-religious Ministers. Now the ABC wants to formalise and entrench that influence before it becomes so blatantly anomalous that it is swept away.
Similarly, as his numbers decline towards extinction, he is trying with strong Government backing via religious corporations and charities to take over central public services - Jobcentres, probation, you name it - so as to build an alternative power base for the church (see http://tinyurl.com/3a4497 and http://tinyurl.com/25w2hb).
The politics is plain to those with eyes to see.
(Incidentally, bromleyboy at comment 1124854 is right that "What people like Copson want is to end all the so-called privileges accorded to religious bodies" - why should there be any privilege for individuals on the basis of their private beliefs, let alone for undemocratic institutions that are largely unrepresentative of their claimed followers? - but entirely wrong that we want to "keep those privileges for all non-religious bodies" - not sure actually what privileges non-religious bodies have, but it is directly against Humanist and secularist policy to accept any such privilege: we want an open soc
The subject of the Archbishop's speech cannot in itself have been responsible for the overwhelming upsurge of public protest that resulted. A few years ago it might well have passed unnoticed. No, what he said acted as a catalyst to open the floodgates of public concern over the perspective of Islam in the UK as often presented by the media and fueled all too readily by the pronouncements and antics of some Muslims themselves. We may recall the recent Islamic marches in London where the purveyors of hate brandished placards that, in their advocacy of criminal acts towards the liberal, Democratic West, demonstrated a freedom of expression denied, at least in public perception, to the rest of us. I will here quote five of theses messages: 'Europe you will pay - extermination is on its way,' 'Europe you will pay - 9/11 is on its way,' 'Butcher those who mock Islam,' 'Freedom go to hell' and 'Islam will dominate the world.'
Perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury was not aware of the messages conveyed by this march but he ought to be since according to BBC and Chanel 4 interviews, the opinions of this rabble are far from being those of a fringe minority. The Archbishop of Rochester is at least aware of no-go areas in a number of British towns, as I am, even though some of our politicians claim they are not.
Its adherents claim that Islam is a way of life but those of us who take a broader view of things might instead regard them as besotted by religion in the way Christians were centuries ago. And therein lies the problem: we have a backward looking culture at odds with a largely free-minded, secular society whose material advantages they are eager to accept but not its philosophies. From their threats and propositions are cast the shadow of a new Dark Age.
Now, before anyone shouts 'racist,' I'll remind you that Muslims are not a race any more than Jews and Christians are a race - or people from Yorkshire, if you like. Islam is a culture; so as a freethinking supporter of the Western Democratic system, perhaps I stand as being a 'culturalist,' since that is not, as far as I know, yet been made illegal.
I have gained over the years Jewish, Christian and Muslim friends, something we Atheists can do with more comfort and ease than is apparently the case amongst those who hold differing and strong religious convictions. One thing I will mention: My Muslim friend once pointed out to me that many in the UK holding her religious opinions, albeit to a more extreme degree, regard Usama bin Laden as a hero. Well, I suppose if being a wealthy man in hiding who directs others to waste their own lives in murdering others is seen as such then we need to redefine the word itself. But then she doubtless referred to those in this country and elsewhere who would advocate Sharia law.
"What people like Copson want is to end all the so-called privileges accorded to religious bodies, including their charitable work, while keeping those privileges for all non-religious bodies." - Bromleyboy
Utter tosh.
You really should engage a bit more with the BHA before you post reactionary comments like that.
An end to priviledges like the Bishops having an automatic seat in the House of Lords is hardly the same as stopping their charitable work, now is it?
And of this charitable work, how much of what is raised do you think goes to admin costs? How much gets swallowed into the coffers of the great churches?
You only get the facts when you look at the whole picture.
Dear Peitha,
It is the very fact that you cannot see your special priviledge to take our taxes and spend them indoctrinating British children in your religion that is the reason that priviledge should be taken from you. Yes you do pay taxes, so if you want them spent indoctrinating children, spend them yourself. Just your own money. Don't take money from everyone else.
You refer to over-subscription to faith schools. Precisely the argument. The government should spend money on all schools equally, concentrate on giving them all a decent 'ethos' and have them all oversubscribed. Who says that ethos must be christian or muslim or any other weird belief.
And I repeat the argument. Children do not have a religion, because they are children. How can you take your over-subscription list to your nice christian school and weed out the non-christians? Colour of their skin? Test them or test their parents?
There should be no religion (beyond the personal) in the functions of the state, and that means in schools.
And yes, if it is an irrational belief system, then arguments for it I will call propaganda. When I have an irrational belief system, complete with fairies and virgins and walking on water, I will be sure to send you one of my own propaganda leaflets (at my own expense).
++++++++++++ Andrew Copsons' Reply +++++++++++++
Rowan is recognizing that there are some menacing signs for faith holders being presented in the public domain recently.Things that have been taken for granted as red by faith holders are suddenly under scrutiny, faith schools for instance.Catholic doctors never before under questioning by others, for their right to opt out of abortions, now under some dialogical pressure with the why should you when in the NHS? Abortion is after all an absolute human right in most secularist atheist perceptions, so the right not to perform one is under pressure if these norms are to be enforced. One example of the development of this growing pressure is to be found in the universities.Two Christian unions have had to fight for their right to be supported by their university guilds.There has been a protacted tug-of-war between CUs at Birmingham and Exeter universities and their respective student guilds.These groups have existed unnoticed for years, now they are under attack. There is a militancy asserting itself in the secularist agenda, which those with faith are on the receiving end of, Rowan is attempting to articulate a workable way through.
cathpal
Comment No. 1124108
February 12 20:12
"..Rowan is recognizing that there are some menacing signs for faith holders being presented in the public domain recently.Things that have been taken for granted as red by faith holders are suddenly under scrutiny, faith schools for instance.Catholic doctors never before under questioning by others, for their right to opt out of abortions, now under some dialogical pressure with the why should you when in the NHS? Abortion is after all an absolute human right in most secularist atheist perceptions, so the right not to perform one is under pressure if these norms are to be enforced."
==
Yes indeed. This is also becoming a growing problem with some muslim (sigh!) medical students, where there have been cases of refusing by 'religious' objection to engaging with issues of alcohol-relate disease, or STDs, and even of male students refusing to attend female patients. The solution is simple - kick them out of the profession.
greymatter
"Yes indeed.....The solution is simple - kick them out of the profession."
So from your comment you don't seem to think then Catholic/Muslim/Jewish/other doctors should be able to assert their consciences in issues of abortion (you agree with the pressure)? Basically you think the secularist moral norms laid down in the law should be enforceable on all workers in the public sphere as being carried out in a pro-active way?
Andrew Copson says:
Kharin: The presence of bishops in the Lords is not the only privilege for the Church of England; there is also the state funding of schools, chaplaincy and other aspects of their 'mission'. Apart from legal privileges, there is the informal influence that comes from a generalised feeling that 'faith' is important; this is certainly something that the Church seeks to take advantage of and it can only be bolstered if religions other than the Church of England are apparently brought into the mix.
I think there's a lot to this theory and it certainly mirrors a lot of my own thinking on it. However, there is one flaw, namely that Anglicanism doesn't have any special privilege with respect to the current law structures. The only respect it does have any privilege there is in terms of seats in the House of Lords and it could have addressed that by advocating Imams to be allowed to sit there as well (as Rabbis already have).
Andrew Copson says:
Kharin: The presence of bishops in the Lords is not the only privilege for the Church of England; there is also the state funding of schools, chaplaincy and other aspects of their 'mission'. Apart from legal privileges, there is the informal influence that comes from a generalised feeling that 'faith' is important; this is certainly something that the Church seeks to take advantage of and it can only be bolstered if religions other than the Church of England are apparently brought into the mix.
I disagree with Mr Copsons analysis.
The is no vast conspiracy here to enhance the CofE's social standing or influence.
Nothing of the sort.
The ugly truth is Rowan Williams actualy IS so misinformed about Islam that he would advocate shari law.
The ABC gleaned his info on Islam from none other than *progressive* Tariq Ramadan, radical Islam's point man in Europe and a purveyor of lies, deceptions and half-truths about the true nature of the religion.
*Beardy* isn't making ANY powerplay. The frightening truth is that he is sorely misinformed about Islam, like so many others in positions of responsability.
I mean, you'd have to be utterly clueless to invite T. Ramadan to lecture at Oxford, wouldn't you?
Rowan Williams awkward foray into the fray is yet another example of what a systemic and systematic campaign of misinformation about Islam's threat can achieve.
The bishop is just a symptom of the absolute stupidity of our times.
Sadly, he has no ulterior motives!
Andrew Copson says:
Bicker: I'm not saying there's a 'vast conspiracy' and it may well be that Rowan Williams' advocacy of sharia is the result of misinformation received by him. But there still has to be an explanation of why he is willing to advocate for other religions in the first place. Part of the explanation, I think, is that the bringing together of other religions under the general banner of 'faith' in general serves to increase the apparent significance of religion in the lives of people in Britain and so apparently justify the continuing privileging of the churches.
Comment No. 1123932
February 12 18:44
FRA