I had the feeling this day would come….
The BBC reported this today and had the interview (above) with Rowan Atkinson. Well, he might as well be a comic, because no-one is going to take him seriously any more. There is so much comment around already – nearly 10,000 comments on the BBCs “Have Your Say” board as well as a busy blog.UPDATE! At last, Pat Condell has a video response…
Update 2: I see the Sun used the headline “Bash the Bishop” two days after I did. Not that I read The Sun, and not that it isn’t an obvious headline, but I was pleased to get there first!
There’s already a busy Facebook group too, so I think I’ll let the other blogs fill the gap.However, I can some it up perfectly by stealing a comment on the BBC site:
‘Who will rid us of this turbulent priest’…
To which someone else amusingly added
Will no one rid me of this sibilant priest?
Either way, I’m pretty sure that’s the end of his career. I think what upsets me most is that some blogs seem to suggest that unless we agree with this man, then we clearly don’t understand his brilliant words. Apparently, this is a tabloid storm in a teacup – odd, seeing as the tabloids haven’t gone to press yet.
Is it possible that I might just have taken the time to listen to the full interview, and still be of the opinion that the Archbishop has said something incredibly divisive and foolish? There’s another tactic too – play the “you’re Islamophobic” card. It’s like playing the “you’re racist” card – it’s the lowest trick dealt by a desperate hand.
Religion plays far too great a part in law as it stands. However, our laws have been built over hundreds of years, and this is the thin end of a very divisive wedge. I don’t really care what faiths live where, but it is absolutely essential that we avoid a “one law for them, one for us” mentality.
Is that the way to a sound multicultural society?
If you feel that it’s not, there are things you can do. You can send a letter to The Archbishop at
Lambeth Palace
London
SE1 7JU
Or you can join the British Humanist Association or the National Secular Society .
Or read a book
UPDATE: I wrote a letter on the 8th February:
Dr Rowan Williams
Archbishop of Canterbury
Lambeth Palace
London
SE1 7JU8th February 2008
Your excellency*;
I am very disappointed by your comments regarding sharia law in the UK.
There’s nothing I can write that you won’t have read already, so I’ll keep this short.I have no doubt you are a very educated man, and you speak eloquently, passionately and lucidly. However, you appear to be wildly out of touch with reality.
I took the time to listen to the whole interview, and I am sorry but my opinion remains that your comments are divisive and ill-judged.
An indication of how vexed I am by this could be that this is the first such letter I have written on any matter in over 10 years.
Although I am sure it was never intended, I just hope your remarks haven’t divided an already tense nation further.
And I got a reply on the 6th of March – they must have been snowed under!
Mr Andrew Nunn
Correspondence Secretary to The Archbishop of CanterburyThank you for your letter to the Archbishop. I am sure you will understand that he is not able to respond personally to all the letters that he receives and has therefore asked me to respond on his behalf.
Archbishop Rowan appreciates the concerns you have expressed in your letter and I enclose the text of what he said to General Synod recently which I hope will be helpful both in providing context and in distinguishing what he said from what he has been alleged to have said.
It is important at the outset to say that quite contrary to much comment in the media, the Archbishop in his lecture (http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575), made no proposals for the introduction of sharia law, and certainly did not call for a move away from the principle of a single common legislative authority
The lecture, which was given in the Royal Courts of Justice 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 lawyers, theologians and senior Muslims at the Temple Church on the general theme of’Islam in English Law’.
In his lecture, he sought carefully to set out what would be the issues for a society such as ours with a single system of law, in continuing to make provision for people’s religious consciences. There have been a number of examples in recent years where the principle of a single approach to law has raised questions of conscientious objection – in relation to abortion for example for Christians, divorce issues for orthodox Jews, interest payment for practicing Muslims or the protection of animal life for Hindus. (In fact of course only very recently the government made exceptional provision for new financial instruments which take account of the Islamic prohibition on interest payments.)
The Archbishop was not suggesting the introduction of parallel legal systems, and certainly not the introduction of sharia. He was exploring the issues that arise if reasonable allowance is to be made for religious conscience and in particular questions about which religious practices might be accommodated; how vulnerable individuals should be protected; and how to retain full freedom of choice. A society which does not provide for such considerations may risk losing the wholehearted support of one or other part of the wider community.
These are questions which have been at the forefront of much recent public debate, and it is right that the Archbishop should encourage discussion about them. The Church of England, as the established Church, must take a lead in raising these issues which are of the greatest importance to the health of our society.Yours sincerely
