Terry Sanderson: If Rowan Williams hasn't come out in favour of disestablishment, it's because he knows it would kill his church

my highlights in blockquotes, as usual

Dec 18, 2008 16:30:00 GMT Share

The Archbishop of Canterbury has once again raised the issue of disestablishment, but isn't very enthusiastic about the idea. Why would he be? His church is already in a precarious position, with numbers of worshippers dropping like a stone. Without the support of the state and left to its own devices, the Church of England would be dead and gone within decades, ripped apart by its own internal rivalries and left penniless by the indifference of the population.

Williams says that his hesitancy over disestablishment is caused by the rise of non-belief and the desire of secularists to see religion pushed from the public square.

The Archbishop misunderstands secularism. What he describes is certainly not the kind of secularism promoted by the National Secular Society, of which I am president.

Although a secular state would mean that religion would have to take its place with the vast array of other interest groups that lobby our democratically elected government, it does not mean that religious people would be disenfranchised or discriminated against. No, it would simply mean that the growing minority religions and the vast majority of people in this country who have no interest in religion would achieve equality.

Of course, if you have long-standing privileges taken away from you, it will feel as though you are being discriminated against. The Church of England should realise that it has had its day. According to the latest edition of Religious Trends, from Christian Research, less than a million people now attend its services regularly (and this is predicted to drop to 100,000 by 2050) and so it has no business being part of the state and purporting to speak for us all. It does not.

The bishops' usual response to this is that they are the voice of all religion in government. The foot in the door for faith, as Rowan Williams put it on the Today programme. This is, of course, nonsense. Minority religions may be even smaller than the Church of England, but they can speak for themselves and their own interests, and they increasingly do.

Another idea that the Church of England constantly pushes (and is reiterated by Giles Fraser on Cif today) is that the Church is somehow the "centre of all local communities". But this isn't borne out by the reality.

Although the domineering presence of church buildings can hardly be overlooked, and they are familiar landmarks in every town and village, they cannot by any stretch of the imagination be called "the centre of the community". Few people go anywhere near them – unless there is some kind of secular event like a concert or evening class going on.

The number of church weddings is dropping, the number of secular funerals is rising and there is widespread unease about "faith schools". The Church may well have influence in communities, but it wouldn't be greatly missed it if weren't there.

And if you ask most people in this country who "their" bishop is, I guess the answer from about 99% of them would be a blank stare and an uncomprehending "Eh?"

Disestablishment would be a mammoth legislative task that would stretch over decades. This government doesn't have the stomach for it and nor will the next. Disestablishment will only come if the church sees that it would have a better chance of survival as an independent entity rather than an arm of the state. And for the church to set in train the process of disestablishment would be rather like asking for assisted suicide.

If, as Rowan Williams implies, he's scared of the competition from secularism and atheism, then his hurch has conceded that it has no legitimate claim to special treatment.

So though Williams has once again waded into the debate, he hasn't faced the real issue: his own Church's demise.

My Christmas message? There's probably no God by Polly Toynbee (President of Brit. Humanist Assoc.)

It is neither emotionally nor spiritually deficient to reject religions that seek to infantilise us with impossible beliefs

Comments (801)

• 
• • Polly Toynbee
  • The Guardian, Tuesday 23 December 2008
  • Article history

Antidisestablishmentarianism is on the march. Which is odd, considering there is only the faintest whiff of disestablishmentarianism to fight. The Archbishop of Canterbury set this hare running with his usual confused mumbling into his beard. To disestablish the church would be "by no means the end of the world", he said bravely. He hastened to add that he did not want the church sundered from the state right now. And he would oppose "secularists [boo, hiss] trying to push religion into the private sphere". This sent the Telegraph and Mail into a spin, claiming a devilish distestablishment plot on the Labour backbenches - though they could find only three usual suspects. These MPs say the likely move to end the 1701 Act of Settlement that bars Catholics from the throne will make an established church impossible.

more ....

Ricky Gervais and The Archbishop Of Canterbury

RickyGervais.com

Ricky Gervais, the multi award-winning writer, director and star of The Office and Extras is a well-known atheist and was recently made an honorary associate of the National Secular Society following a friendly but frank exchange of views with Rowan Williams on the radio.

Lots more clips at www.rickygervais.com

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=QZGO4Y6WTUM

Ricky and The Archbishop on The Simon Mayo Radio Show on BBC Radio 5 Live -19th December 2007 - You can download the entire Ricky Gervais interview here: http://www.mediafire.com/?admjfmy0zqz

http://rapidshare.com/files/77676739/Ricky_On_Simon_Mayo_Radio_5_Live_19th_December_2007.mp3.html

Reason stands against values and morals by Rowan Williams in New Scientist

Reason stands against values and morals

• 23 July 2008
• From New Scientist Print Edition. Subscribe and get 4 free issues.
• Rowan Williams

1: Reason stands against values and morals

Shaping a moral and humane world requires more than reason, says Archbishop Rowan Williams

TODAY reason has come to be seen as something exercised by an individual, but it wasn't always so. Until the early Middle Ages, being "reasonable" was primarily a matter of being aware of where you belonged in the cosmos. As a human being you were capable, unlike other creatures, of knowing who you were. You knew that you were given the task of using your freedom of choice to act coherently, in accordance with the whole flow of the universe or, more simply, the creative will of God.

To have the ability to shape your life in a certain way, rather than being governed by a system of instinct - impulse and reaction, in other words - was to have a share in the "rationale" of reality itself. Being reasonable was like singing in tune (an analogy the Stoic philosophers of ancient Greece and Rome loved to use) with who you were and what the universe was like.

It was as early as the 12th century that this view was challenged by people such as the philosopher Peter Abelard, who wanted to be clearer about reason's function in telling you what was or was not a good argument. This instrumental view of reason, as the ability to draw sensible conclusions from what was in front of your eyes instead of just reacting blindly, had been a smallish area of its meaning. As enquiry progressed, it steadily colonised the whole territory.

From the 16th century, reason came to be seen as opposed to tradition and authority. Faced with the expectation of believing something just because a particular sort of person said so, the reasonable person was now the one who asked: "What are the arguments for this?" Reason became a tool for protesting against the violence of arbitrary authority, and the great minds of the Enlightenment were confident that they were on the side of equality and universality: being reasonable was the heritage of each human person. Inherited habit and belief would always, they were sure, stand in the way of people growing into this universal heritage.

And thus in the early days of the French Revolution, the new regime tried to replace the traditional days of the week and months of the year with a new, "rational" calendar - an extreme of opposition between reason and tradition. In assuming that the essence of being human was to be found in the capacity to argue your way to the truth, independently of any legacy from history or community, this reason created a highly artificial model of humanity, more or less at odds with how most human beings actually lived.

The result was not an age of unprecedented equality and universal communication, but a different sort of violence: by "real" human beings against the unreasonable remainder. There was a constant risk of slipping into the conclusion - plausible on the grounds of some sorts of Enlightenment thinking - that the unreasonable human being didn't count.

Revolutionary America and France lost no sleep over slavery. Humanity had to wait for another, more traditional sort of rationality, based on a vision of what human beings were in the eyes of God and in the frame of the cosmos, to see the slaves finally emancipated.

As defined by the Enlightenment, rationality could be a tool, not for protest, but for conformity to the agenda of those who saw themselves as fully qualified rational human beings, at the expense of the rest. Even gentle, wise Darwin could use language suggesting that some humans were less "developed", nearer their primate cousins, than others. That language was gleefully exploited by ideologues of empire and racial domination.

These are not grounds for overturning the entire legacy of the Enlightenment, but for pausing before we assume that instrumental reason will answer all the questions about how to shape a moral and humane world. Absolute convictions about human worth, those which prescribe unconditional opposition to experiments on non-consenting subjects, or to racial discrimination, are not simply generated by instrumental reason. They have more in common with the pre-modern "rationality" of recognising oneself and one's fellow humans as standing together in a common relation with a certain kind of "order", a way things "just are" in the universe.

This recognition of commonality is at the simplest level what makes language possible. Instead of indulging in a pointless stand-off between reason and conviction, perhaps we should ask how the meaning of reason can recover some resonance with those skills of self-knowledge and coherent or consistent choice which once belonged to the word.

Read about all the problems with reason in our special issue

Rowan Williams, Archbishop of Canterbury

From issue 2666 of New Scientist magazine, 23 July 2008, page 44-45

Thought for the World - Julian Baggini - Secularism

Julian Baggini

from Think Humanist by Humanist Society of Scotland

Thought for the day - Monday

Original audio source

Transcript of Thought For the World's thought for the day

Julian Baggini

18th February 2008

How strange it must feel to be Rowan Williams right now. On the one hand, almost everyone has come down like a ton of bricks on the Archbishop of Canterbury for saying that the introduction of some aspects of sharia law in Britain was unavoidable. But on the other, almost everyone has prefaced their condemnation with remarks to the effect that they greatly respect his humanity and intelligence.

Bishop-baiting may be in, but special respect for religion is not yet out. As it happens, I have rather less respect for Dr Williams, but I also think that, on this issue, he so nearly said something both true and important.

The question he was addressing was how to accommodate deep and real plurality in society without threatening its essential unity. The wrong answer to this is that there should be different laws for people who hold different beliefs. This is a clear non-starter. For one thing, who is to decide to whom such laws would apply? We can't bind people by the religion, or lack of it, of their parents. So the only alternative would be for people to choose themselves which legal code to opt into. This is just absurd. Spirituality has already become something of a pick-and-mix supermarket: law cannot go the same way.

But Williams doesn't want this. For all the stones hastily cast in this debate, the right to throw literal ones was not on his agenda. As has become clearer in recent days, all he meant was that people should have the option of settling some civil disputes through voluntary means of arbitration, and agree to be bound by its conclusion.

There is, and should be, room outside the law for some diversity in how we choose to relate morally to one another. The key distinction here is between laws we all must obey, and practices that can be legally recognised but do not need to be followed by everyone.

A good example of this is gay marriage: the law could recognise this, but that wouldn't, of course, mean there was one law for gays and another for heterosexuals; or that gay marriage was being forced upon the straight community.

Williams's mistake was failing to make clear that the principle of one law for all is sacrosanct.

Secularism requires a neutral public space in which people of all faiths and none can come together to debate and legislate as equals. As long as we maintain this, there is plenty of room in private and community life for people to live by their very different, deeply held beliefs.

The archbishop adapts to survive by Andrew Copson, BHA

Post your comments here
TODAY 14th Feb (NB. Guardian posts only accept comments for 3 days).

It's no surprise that Rowan Williams wants other religions to be accorded the same sense of privilege as the Church of England

Andrew Copson

Profile

All Andrew Copson articles

February 12, 2008 6:30 PM

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 cost

but 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

AntwnPowell

Comment No. 1123932

February 12 18:44

FRA

Excellent article. Lets have a secular state enshrined by a written constitution.

MaidMarian

Comment No. 1123965

February 12 18:58

GBR

The best article I have seen on this issue by a country mile.

freepoland

Comment No. 1124039

February 12 19:35

GBR

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.

dionysusreborn

Comment No. 1124133

February 12 20:24

GBR

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.

BobChurchill

Comment No. 1124540

February 13 0:29

GBR

This has got to be one of the highest positive to negative responses ratios I've ever seen on CiF!

Paulchina

Comment No. 1124583

February 13 1:16

CHN

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.

bromleyboy

Comment No. 1124854

February 13 7:41

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.

DavidPollock

Comment No. 1125188

February 13 10:48

GBR

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

Freemind

Comment No. 1125885

February 13 15:03

GBR

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.

marcdraco

Comment No. 1126103

February 13 16:16

GBR

"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.

Paulchina

Comment No. 1126390

February 13 17:48

CHN

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 +++++++++++++

cathpal

Comment No. 1124108

February 12 20:12

GBR

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.

greymatter

Comment No. 1124599

February 13 1:30

GBR

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.

cathpal

Comment No. 1126294

February 13 17:19

GBR

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.

Kharin

Comment No. 1126785

February 13 20:12

GBR

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.

bicker

Comment No. 1127030

February 13 22:37

CAN

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.

Defending the privilege of religion

Sir, The attempts to defend the Archbishop of Canterbury’s views are doomed before they start (report, Feb 11).

The debate about whether religion should be privileged with special treatment under the law has been raging for decades. In the context of Islamic values in a British context, it has raged since the Ayatollah’s fatwa against Salman Rushdie in 1989, when we saw some British citizens parading in the streets demanding the death of another British citizen because he wrote a book they didn’t like. To suggest Dr Williams is now bravely kicking off the great debate of our times is fatuous in the extreme.

There is, sadly, no “wriggle room” for the Archbishop. We already know through his arguments for taxpayer-funded faith schools and for exemptions under equality laws that he wants belief in God (any one will do apparently) to be privileged. I have a duty to my fellow citizens as prescribed by British law as laid down by Parliament, while Dr Williams clearly argues that there must be times when he is allowed to vary his duty to me in accordance with his religious dogma, and he has 26 seats in the House of Lords at his disposal with which to achieve it.

That is no longer acceptable.

Alistair McBay
National Secular Society

Removing the state from Dr Rowan Williams

By Janet Daley, Daily Telegraph

Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 11/02/2008

The Archbishop of Canterbury said something stupid. What is to be done about it? There is now a fusillade of demands for his resignation rather as if he were a Chancellor of the Exchequer whose fatally bad judgment had undermined the economy.

Synod turns on Rowan Williams in sharia row

Brassneck: Another reason for Dr Williams to resign

In almost any other country in the world, this would seem bizarre but here, the parallel is apt.

	Dr Williams has discredited the position of the established Church

The head of the Church of England is a political figure. Founded as a conscious bulwark against the Roman outfit to which the nation's enemies owed allegiance, the Anglican Church must play out its uncomfortable, anomalous role.

Dr Rowan Williams's latest pronouncements are, in a sense (or should I say, "in a very real sense"?) a peculiarly frank expression of the messy overlap between matters of state and of faith that is its remit. And, as so often happens with well-intentioned attempts at appeasement and compromise with the unacceptable, Dr Williams's intervention has made it clear how untenable all this now is.

The archbishop has discredited not just himself, and the über-tolerant multicultural lobby that he sought to support, but the position of the established Church.

Why say this, when so many other members of the Anglican hierarchy - including his immediate predecessor - have countered his remarks with eminent good sense?

Indeed, you may think, if the former archbishop Lord Carey can enunciate so neatly and forcibly, as he did at the weekend, everything that was wrong with Dr Williams's stated view, then surely the problem is just with the man who currently heads it and not with the institution itself?

Perhaps, perversely, I would argue that

the dilemma that Dr Williams thought he was addressing was a genuine one and that it goes to the heart of this matter.

Being an unworldly scholar, he was profoundly wrong in his understanding of the political implications of what he was saying,

but actually quite right (from the point of view of a spiritual leader) in his concern about the place of religious belief in a modern democratic society.

What he was suggesting was that, for the genuine believer who takes adherence to his faith seriously, the concept of the secular law whose authority must take precedence over all other authorities is a problem. And that is true. It is also true that the law - secular though it is - makes allowances for the sensibilities of religious believers.

Although this notion can be overplayed: the obvious example is Roman Catholic doctors not being forced to perform abortions, but in a life-threatening crisis I doubt that religious scruple would constitute legal protection to a medical practitioner who refused to intervene.

The law generally takes the view that an individual's religion should be respected wherever possible, but that it should not be permitted to over-ride other people's basic human rights to life and liberty.

In a contest between the principles of modern democracy and doctrines of faith, democracy and the rule of secular law must always win. And that is the solution to the problem with which all of the great faiths that survive in freedom have made their peace.

But that is exactly the assumption that Dr Williams was challenging because, I presume, it seemed to him that it relegated religion to a private sphere - a matter of personal taste or preference - which somehow trivialised it.

What Dr Williams presented was a clear-cut distinction between what he called "a universal Enlightenment system" with its concept of "one law for everybody" and what he described as "plural jurisdiction" in which different communities within one country are permitted to follow their own codes of justice.

He was, in effect, casting doubt on the most fundamental premise of modern political life: that freedom and equality under a universal rule of law is the most advanced and just system of government in which human beings may live.

This doctrine is now considered so utterly irrefutable that it is paid lip service even by the tin-pot dictators who attempt to crush its exponents: to be explicitly opposed to it is to rule oneself - either as an individual or a party - out of consideration on the world stage.

Yet this is what the archbishop chose to dispute. Not only did he exacerbate ethnic tensions in our society and do almost immeasurable damage to the cause of moderate Islam but his disservice to his own Church was immense.

He has laid bare the question that should never have been asked if the prevailing fuzzy compromise between established church and state was to remain tenable: how can a revealed religion officially accept that its position is subservient to secular law? Answer: it can't - not without surrendering its understanding of absolute truth.

By definition, the rules of a democracy are subject to majority opinion. They are negotiable, amendable and retractable - providing that they accept the basic principle of liberty and equality.

So religious beliefs and doctrines will always be in potential conflict with forms of law that evolve with social attitudes, and what Dr Williams saw was that Islamic doctrine had a particular problem because it had no history of adapting its theology to being a minority religion within a liberal society. It has no official doctrine for coming to terms with diaspora (as the Jewish religion has).

So the archbishop turns this into a virtue: faced with people who take their religion very seriously, he seems embarrassed by what has been the historical readiness of his own Church to compromise and hints that maybe we could all learn something from the commitment of Muslims to a higher truth.

Being the head of a national church, he is determined to defend the value of faith in general, not just Islam, against the encroachments of the profane concerns of political life. Just because he is a political figure, and because he takes philosophical dilemmas seriously, he cannot evade the question.

So he feels he must repudiate the Enlightenment altogether: the problem becomes secularism itself and the belief that there is one universal system of law which must apply to everyone equally.

In fact, as is being proved once again in the United States where Christianity of a very muscular kind indeed is a formidable political force in the presidential race, religion - far from being threatened by the secular state - can flourish in it.

It is not the primacy of secular law that threatens the survival of religious faith but the unedifying equivocations that a church feels obliged to make when it is a branch of the state.

Williams in synod Sharia address

Williams in synod Sharia address

Dr Williams said law and religion needed to be debated Williams speaks

Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams says he does not regret speaking about Sharia law, as it is right to air other religious communities' concerns.

He told the Church of England's general synod he felt some remarks had been taken out of context, but he accepted he may have created misunderstanding.

He has faced calls to apologise for his comments, in which he implied adopting aspects of Sharia law was unavoidable.

Earlier PM Gordon Brown praised Dr Williams's "great integrity".

I believe quite strongly that it is not inappropriate for a pastor of the Church of England to address issues about the perceived concerns of other religious communities Dr Rowan Williams Send your comments

Dr Williams told clergy and lay people at the synod - the Church's governing body - he believed "some of what has been heard is a very long way indeed from what was actually said".

"But I must of course take responsibility for any unclarity in either that text or in the radio interview and for any misleading choice of words that's helped to cause distress or misunderstanding among the public at large, and especially among my fellow Christians,'' he added.

He said: "I believe quite strongly that it is not inappropriate for a pastor of the Church of England to address issues about the perceived concerns of other religious communities, and to try and bring them into better public focus."

Liberties and consciences

Part of the "burden and the privilege of being the Church" in the UK meant, Dr Williams said, the clergy needed "some coherent voice on behalf of all the faith communities living here".

"If we can attempt to speak for the liberties and consciences of others in this country - as well as our own - we shall, I believe, be doing something we as a church are called to do in Christ's name: witnessing to his Lordship, not compromising it."

DR WILLIAMS'S FULL TEXT Islam in English law [54KB] Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader Download the reader here In full: Radio 4 interview In full: The synod speech

The relationship between law and religion was a subject on which "Christians and people of other faiths ought to be doing some reflecting together", he added.

Dr Williams sparked a major row after saying, in a BBC Radio 4 interview last week, the adoption of parts of Sharia law was "unavoidable" in Britain.

He has insisted he was not advocating a parallel set of laws, but has faced calls for his resignation.

Conservative MP Robert Key, a synod member, said Dr Williams's speech had been well received.

He said: "The archbishop had overwhelming support, not only for having opened up this very important discussion, which is part of the fabric of our national life - we simply cannot avoid it - but he also clearly had the majority of the synod right behind him.

"I suspect he will always have a tiny minority, and I think it is tiny, who are opposed to him, but it was quite clear synod wants to move on."

Community service

Dr Williams had been facing pressure from some Church of England traditionalists who wanted him to apologise for his original comments.

Two synod members also called for Dr Williams to stand down following his remarks.

His predecessor as the Church of England's leader, Lord Carey, said on Sunday the acceptance of some Muslim laws would be "disastrous" for Britain.

But, writing in the News of the World, Lord Carey said his successor should not be forced to quit.

Earlier the prime minister's spokesman said Mr Brown understood "the difficulties" the archbishop was facing and paid tribute to Dr Williams's "dedication to public and community service".

Mr Brown believed religious law should be subservient to UK law, he added.

Church of England is in decline

The Church of England is in decline. Based on church attendance surveys its attendance has fallen from 1.7 million in 1979, through 1.3 million in 1989 to 980,000 in in 1998.

The church is heading for extinction but over a very long time scale.

Extrapolating the model into the 21st century show the attendance down to half a million by 2022, and a mere 80,00 by 2100 (figure 5).

Another reason for Dr Williams to resign

People have been calling for the Dr William's resignation after his misguided comments about Sharia Law. But it seems to me that if he were to resign, it should be for a more important reason. In the private sector, CEOs routinely get pushed out because of falling customer numbers caused by their failure to market services that appeal to the public.

As CEO, Dr Williams has failed to market services

Looking at results might seem vulgar in the leisurely world of full-time Christianity, but the truth is that Dr Williams has failed to deliver. Figures published here and here for his first three years in office show declining Sunday church attendances each year, from 1,017,000 in 2003 to 983,000 in 2006.

While the Church of England's decline is, of course, good news for atheists, Anglicans should be asking this question: do they want their CEO to be a wooly-headed, media-unsavvy lefty, or a dynamic Stuart Rose-style executive who will reinvigorate the organisation?

Brassneck
Posted by Alex Singleton on 10 Feb 2008

Archbishop’s Comments On Sharia Law Make Mockery Of Social Cohesion

The National Secular Society said today that there would be few British citizens who will not be both baffled and dismayed by BBC reports that the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, believes the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable" and might actually help social integration.

Dr Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK had to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens did not relate to the British legal system.

NSS spokesman Alistair McBay condemned the comments, saying it was difficult to imagine a less helpful contribution to the debate on cohesion and social integration than this.

“The cornerstone of our pluralistic liberal democracy is the equality of all citizens under the law, yet Dr Williams says the idea of one law for everybody is 'a bit of a danger'.

He is directly undermining what Britain stands for,” said McBay. “Can the Archbishop really be saying that some people in Britain should be allowed to have their own laws if they don’t approve of the ones we have? Apparently, yes he is!”

McBay continued:

“All religious groups preach that they are inclusive and work towards social integration in Britain, yet what they practise is exactly the opposite. They want, and get, segregated schools, segregated scout groups, even segregated toilets, and now apparently, social cohesion and integration are to be further achieved by separate laws for separate religious groups. This is truly bizarre.”

McBay also queried the position the Church of England holds on the subject of social cohesion. “The Church of England’s recent contributions to the great multiculturalism debate are curious, to say the least. The Bishop of Rochester told us in January that there were Muslim “no-go” areas in Britain, all the fault of multiculturalism and the demise of the Christian religion, and he was seeking a Christian revival to counter this. Now his boss is telling us that Muslims should have their own laws. Neither contribution, contradictory as they apparently are, has been helpful.”

McBay also pointed out that

Trevor Phillips, head of the CEHR, said last year that Britain was ‘sleepwalking into segregation’. “I bet not even he imagined that it would be the Church of England leading the somnambulists!”

McBay said.

February 7 2008

What did the Archbishop actually say? by archbishopofcanterbury.org

Friday 08 February 2008

There has been a strong reaction in the media and elsewhere to the Archbishop of Canterbury's remarks of yesterday on civil and religious law.

The full text of the Archbishop's lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice 'Civil and Religious Law in England: a religious perspective', can be viewed on the Archbishop's website, here:

Archbishop's Lecture - Civil and Religious Law in England: a Religious Perspective

The transcript of his interview on yesterday's World at One programme can also be viewed online, here:

BBC Interview - Radio 4 World at One.

The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.

Instead, in the interview, rather than proposing a parallel system of law, he observed that "as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law" . When the question was put to him that: "the application of sharia in certain circumstances - if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion - seems unavoidable?", he indicated his assent.

The Archbishop opened his lecture by noting importantly that the very term sharia is not only misunderstood, but is the focus of much fear and anxiety deriving from its 'primitivist' application in some contexts. As such he said that sharia is a method of law rather than a single complete and final system ready to be applied wholesale to every situation, and noted that there was room, even within Islamic states which apply sharia, for some level of 'dual identity', where the state is not in fact religiously homogenous.

In his lecture, the Archbishop sought carefully to explore the limits of a unitary and secular legal system in the presence of an increasingly plural (including religiously plural) society and

to see how such a unitary system might be able to accommodate religious claims. Behind this is the underlying principle that 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.

does that mean enshrining religious priveleges in law??

In doing so

the Archbishop was not suggesting the introduction of parallel legal jurisdictions, but exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience.

ditto!

He explained that

his core aim was to: "to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state" and was using sharia as an example.

These include:

-

How when the law does not take seriously religious motivation, it fails to engage with the community in question

and opens up real issues of power by the majority over the minority, with potentially harmful effects for community cohesion.
-

How the distinction between cultural practices and those arising from genuine religious belief might be managed.

- How to deal with the possibility that a 'supplementary jurisdiction "could have the effect of reinforcing in minority communities some of the most repressive or retrograde elements in them, with particularly serious consequences for the role and liberties of women".

At the end of the lecture the Archbishop referred to a suggestion by a Jewish jurist that there might be room for 'overlapping jurisdictions' in which "individuals might choose in certain limited areas whether to seek justice under one system or another". This is what currently happens both within the Jewish arrangements and increasingly in current alternative dispute resolution and mediation practice.

He concludes his lecture with the comment:

"if we are to think intelligently about the relations between Islam and British law,

we need a fair amount of 'deconstruction' of crude oppositions and mythologies, whether of the nature of sharia or the nature of the Enlightenment"

what does that mean??

The lecture, which was given before an audience of about 1000 people and which was chaired by the Lord Chief Justice, was the first in a series of six lectures and discussions which are being given by senior Muslim and other lawyers and theologians at the Temple Church on the general theme of 'Islam in English Law'.

Williams 'shocked' at Sharia row

The Sun discussion here.
Story from BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7235550.stm
Williams 'shocked' at Sharia row

Dr Williams has been taken aback by the response to his comments

The Archbishop of Canterbury is said to be overwhelmed by the "hostility of the response" after his call for parts of Sharia law to be recognised in the UK.

Friends of Dr Rowan Williams say he is in a state of shock and cannot believe the criticism from his own Church.

All the main political parties, secular groups and some senior Muslims have expressed dismay at his comments.

However, the Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev Stephen Lowe, criticised the "disgraceful" treatment of Dr Williams.

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.

Resignation call

Islamic Sharia law is a legal and social code designed to help Muslims live their daily lives, but it has proved controversial in the West for the extreme nature of some of its punishments.

Culture Secretary Andy Burnham said moves such as those suggested by the archbishop would create "social chaos".

The Reverend Rod Thomas, chairman of evangelical Church group Reform, said the archbishop's comments were unhelpful.

"The Church at the moment, and the country, needs a clear lead. The country is itself in a debate about its own sense of identity," he said.

It would be most helpful for the leader of the Church to be able to explain to people how the values we cherish stem from our Christian tradition The Reverend Rod Thomas Reform Reaction in quotes: Sharia law Profile: Rowan Williams

"The moral values that we pursue are ones that we need to know are clearly grounded, and it would be most helpful for the leader of the Church to be able to explain to people how the values we cherish stem from our Christian tradition."

UKIP MEP Gerard Batten said it would be the "thin end of the wedge" and

called on the archbishop to resign.

He said: "I think he's shown he is totally unfit for the role he undertakes. He's not fit to be Archbishop of Canterbury, he doesn't seem to know what his own business is, and he's not fit to sit in the House of Lords. I think he should go."

'Hysterical misrepresentations'

However, the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) said it was grateful for the archbishop's "thoughtful intervention".

The organisation added that it was saddened by the "hysterical misrepresentations" of his speech, which would only "drive a wedge between British people".

SHARIA LAW Sharia law is Islam's legal system It is derived from the Koran and the life of the prophet Mohammed Sharia rulings help Muslims understand how they should lead their lives A formal legal ruling is called a fatwa In the West, Sharia courts deal mainly with family and business issues English law recognises religious courts as a means of arbitration Q and A: Sharia law explained

Muhammed Abdul Bari, Secretary-General of the MCB, said:

"The archbishop is not advocating implementation of the Islamic penal system in Britain.

"His recommendation is confined to the civil system of Sharia law, and only in accordance with English law and agreeable to established notions of human rights."

Bishop Lowe said

the archbishop had been "ridiculed" and "lampooned" by some people.

"We have probably one of the greatest and the brightest Archbishops of Canterbury we have had for many a long day," he said.

Catherine Heseltine, from the Muslim Public Affairs Committee, said some people might be getting the wrong end of the stick.

"I'm concerned this debate is getting out of control because people hear the word Sharia and instantly scary images of beheadings," she said.

"But this is not what British Muslims want and it's not what British Muslims are asking for in any way."

'British values'

She added:

"Sharia in our everyday lives means things like certification of halal meat, in the same way as Jewish religious bodies will certify kosher meat. No-one's forced to eat it but it's a choice if consumers want to buy it."

HAVE YOUR SAY

There is, and should only be, one law which covers all people and to suggest it can be otherwise is to seriously damage our rights

Patricia London, UK

Send us your comments

Dr Williams told BBC Radio 4 on Thursday that he believed the adoption of some Sharia law in the UK seemed "unavoidable".

In an interview with BBC correspondent Christopher Landau, Dr

Williams said Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

Gordon Brown's spokesman said

the prime minister "believes that British laws should be based on British values", but that the archbishop was perfectly entitled to express his views.

Home Office Minister Tony McNulty said to fundamentally change the rule of law and adopt Sharia law would be "fundamentally wrong."

Shaista Gohir, a government advisor on Muslim women, said the majority of British Muslims did not want Sharia courts.

READ THE FULL TEXT Islam in English law [54KB] Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader Download the reader here

Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg said he did not agree with the archbishop him on the issue.

Under English law, people may devise their own way to settle a dispute in front of an agreed third party as long as both sides agree to the process.

Muslim Sharia courts and Orthodox Jewish courts which already exist in the UK come into this category.