Bashing the Bishop

Criticism for Rowan Williams and praise for John McCain

By Owen Walker Published 08 February 2008 15:41

The best way to unify the blogosphere against you, it would seem, is to come out in favour of shariah laws in Britain, as Rowan Williams did this week.

In a thoughtful piece on the subject, Cranmer concludes: “God forbid that Britain should ever return to the days when religious leaders should determine guilt or innocence, or legislate on matters of crime and punishment. For some of us, those memories are all too acute and dreadfully painful.”

The news brought a swathe of imaginative post titles. Iain Dale comes up with “Who will rid us of this idiotic priest?” Chris Paul responds: “Archbishop: who will rid us of this ID-iotic blogger?”, while Obsolete’s contribution is titled “Opening your mind so much that your brain falls out”.

In one of the few posts that supports Williams’s position, Brian Sloan writes: “It is an issue that calls for informed debate if we are to have a genuinely pluralistic society, and I admire the Archbishop for raising it. Given the ill-informed and immature reactions of some, such a debate seems a long way off.”

Apparently there have been some elections over the pond. At Harry’s Place, Gene serves up some Super Tuesday afterthoughts, including praise of John McCain: “Although I can't help liking McCain (if it wasn't such an insult in certain circles, I'd call him a decent man), I'm quite aware that on many of the social and economic issues I care about, he's far to the right of me. I actually was moved last night when he referred, non-sarcastically, to ‘our friends’ on the Democratic side.”

Danny Finkelstein calls the caucus voting system “ludicrously undemocratic”, highlighting some of the winning margins (e.g. Mitt Romney winning 25 seats in Montana on the back of 625 votes, while Mike Huckerbee needed 120,776 votes in order to win just 26 Arkansas delegates).

While acknowledging it may appear hypocritical judging American democracy as a Brit, Finkelstein states: “Romney, Huckabee and Obama all gained delegates as a result of this system that they otherwise might not have won. Caucuses (and state conventions) clearly favour the choice and enthusiasm of activists over those of ordinary voters.”

And finally, on the 90th anniversary of women winning the right to vote, Jon Bright at Our Kingdom assesses how far we have come in terms of equality of political power between both sexes. He concludes: “I hope that in another 90 years we are able to celebrate the equal access of men and women to positions of power, whilst also celebrating the anniversary of when change first began. Sadly, even today, this is a hope rather than a certainty.”

 
 

2 comments

Mr Fnortner's picture

Mon, 2008-03-17 16:14 — Mr Fnortner

To some religions, tolerance itself is a sin.

Maybe one day we will look back on this era when religions were in vogue among men and react with stunned amazement when someone else writes about, say, entertaining a delusional belief in a deity, “It is an issue that calls for informed debate if we are to have a genuinely pluralistic society."

rivocytqimu502's picture

Sun, 2008-02-17 22:07 — rivocytqimu502

Muslim response to Danish cartoons of Mohammed, attacks on Christians in Turkey and Pakistan and big hoo haa created by the mutterings of Dr Rowan Williams are linked.

First of all, West has developed a democratic system of government over the centuries that have made it possible for people of all faiths /cultural backgrounds to come and live here and enjoy the benefits what such a system provides.

I am a Sikh from India, I have chosen to live here for very same reasons, and have in return accepted the rules and law of the country. This system also allows me criticise the system openly without any fear or threat to my life. I consider joining the debate as my contribution to make this system even better.

The democratic system allow me to practice my religion/faith and have my own thoughts expressed openly, but if I start to dream of establishing a Khalistan/ exclusive Sikh homeland in this country, or expect that every citizen of this country to accept/follow my religious beliefs, I shall be abusing my welcome to this country.

I shall apply the same principle for any other faith/community, including Muslims to accept wholeheartedly the rule of law of their host country, may it be Britain, Denmark, France or any other where they have chosen to live. A democratic system allows its citizens to criticize, comment or even ridicule person/idea/religious thoughts openly without any one threatening the life of the commentator. If Muslims in the West are so unhappy the way the democratic system works, I would recommend them to go and live in Muslim country, where they might feel more comfortable. There is no one keeping them in the West by force.

I think Dr Rowan Williams’ hint of any inclusion of Sharia law into the British law is misguided thought. if his concerns are genuine, why doesn't he consider some aspects of Hindu, Sikh, Jewish, Bahá'í Faith to be also included . Then where do you stop?
Britain has already shown a great tolerance and openness. The people of such a small island have welcomed people of all faiths and cultural backgrounds for centuries. If British public is ready to open its hearts and minds further then there should be an open forum where ideas from all other faiths are equally considered and possibly included into British law. That will certainly set an example of the openness of a society. On New Stateman's website, Boby Dhillon, a do gooder has already shown us, how a percentage of one's income can change the world.

In return this may also inspire Muslims in Pakistan, Turkey and others to be more tolerant of other religions, faiths and ideas. This desire to open up to the new ideas must come from the people of the country itself, it can’t be imposed upon by the barrel of the gun, as George Bush has chosen to do in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Avtarjeet Dhanjal www.haraf.com

Latest tweets