Miring One's Foot Deeply In Offal
Why is it that ecclesiastics of high standing and repute simply cannot resist impulsive oratory taking them well beyond their sphere of responsibility to their flock? Everyone has opinions, of course, and those with the position of one such as the Archbishop of Canterbury succumb to the belief that their mode of reasoning and of introspection and of observation is impeccable and beyond doubt.It may well be so, when they reserve their comments to that which they know best.
But perhaps, in the case of Dr. Williams' recent musings on the place of Islamic sharia law eventually receiving recognized legal status in some areas of marriage and inheritance, his confidence in his ability to synthesize experience and observation was a trifle misplaced. Had the subject been of such fascination to him, a wiser, more prudent man might have seen the value of seeking more directly expert opinion.
Say, for example, Muslim women happy to live in England where their legal rights are assured in equality under Britain's laws. He might have sought to interview women who, although living in Great Britain where universal suffrage and equality under the law is assured its citizens, still are exposed to living miserably in community-imposed versions of shariah.
But Britain is a peculiar place, truth to tell. While bigamous relations are clearly seen as belonging to the criminally social sphere under its laws, officialdom is capable of overlooking its presence when it presents as polygamy, permitted by Islam. So much so that additional welfare, council housing permissiveness and tax benefits may be claimed.
Speak, Dr. Williams, to the multiple-extra wives, entitled under that little relaxation of laws through efforts at accommodation, where the funds go ... directly into their "husband's" bank account. "Some sort of" recognition of shariah law for Muslims living in Britain will effectively ensure that Muslim women continue to be chattel.
Is this the essence of accommodation, to accept the presence of an alien culture unwilling to surrender traditions of long standing however inimical in their practise to 50% of that signal demographic, ensuring they may not, through this special provision, be assured of equal status under Britain's parliamentary laws of long and honoured tradition?
Archbishop Williams will not apologize to those among his congregation, much less his wider audience in Great Britain, over his musings on the reflection of accommodation of a religion's laws, some of which run counter to the prevailing culture, social mores and laws of the land. "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."
The country's prime minister begs to differ. According to Gordon Brown, it is not "inevitable" that elements of sharia law should become part of the British legal system. Of course, in the due course of time, it may very well come to pass that certain elements of sharia law would become part of the British legal system - but, on studious reflection - it should not. Unless Britain also may choose in the not-too-distant future to submit to Islam, itself.
Archbishop Williams' predecessor was not amused, considering such a thought, much less the likelihood of it ever coming to pass, to represent a situation which would be "disastrous for the nation". Dr. Williams' idly-conscientious comments have had the unfortunate effect of stirring up potentially more social conflict between Muslims and non-Muslims.
Interestingly enough, Labour MP Khalid Mahmood has urged Dr. Williams to step down: "It was incredibly crass and naive for the Archbishop to say what he did. If he doesn't go then, at the very least, his advisers should." This is a British MP whom British Muslims love to hate, one whose integration into British mores and acceptance of British law and customs has brought censure upon him.
An on-line petition to force his resignation was undertaken by his Muslim detractors, outraged by his commitment to the country as a Brit, not as a Muslim. He is faulted for not having voted against the Iraq war, for voting for the terrorism bill, for not supporting wearing the hajib by schoolgirls, for criticizing Muslim groups who would not attend Holocaust Memorial Day.
He has earned the contempt of Muslims for not representing Muslim "feeling and opinion". Along with some other Muslim MPs and peers, he stands accused of supporting the country's political parties and the government.
But Dr. Williams feels "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".
Does that include surrendering the autonomous and indigenous laws of the land?
Labels: Political Realities, Religion
posted by Pieface @ Monday, February 11, 2008
<< Home