All Comments (14)

LOCO_MOCO,

Very intelligent posting reflective of the 'generosity of the heart' of a true spiritualist.

Dear Bish, as a fellow Episcopalian, for starters I think your speculation about the Archbish's statements as reflecting the state of the Anglican Communion is a huge stretch. I don't like how they're trying to push PECUSA around either, but think about this: Maybe the better connection to make is the one about how they're trying so diligently to constrain their American cousins from practicing OUR beliefs -- and how that maybe ought to give us just a bit of sympathy for the situation of our British Muslim brethren.

And perhaps the Archbish didn't express himself particularly articulately, but he did make some valid points.

First and most significantly, the question of allowing some degree of Sharia law in England is merely an instance of the much broader issue of comfortably integrating groups that espouse different religious affiliations/beliefs (or anti-religious beliefs!) into the larger society. There's a legitimate dynamic tension between the rights of religious groups to practice their tenets without secular interference, and society's right to be the ultimate arbiter of what sorts of practices are tolerable in its midst. (Sharia law, having such a generally dismal reputation in the Western / Christian world, will certainly be a rigorous test case of this dynamic process.)

Second, there's already precedent (certainly in kind, if perhaps not in degree) for a "parallel" justice process -- namely, the existing Orthodox Jewish courts to which the Archbish refers. So it's not as if Muslims are asking for special treatment that has never been accorded to others.

Third, that any implementation of Sharia or any other "parallel" justice process must still satisfy an enlightened society's requirements that individual human rights are not abrogated:

"I think it would be quite wrong to say that we could ever licence, so to speak, a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them ... not signing away anything for good and all." -- The Archbish

Nothing mealymouthed or inarticulate about that!

Now if we allow this ebullient teapot tempest to boil itself down to some concentrated common sense, perhaps we discover that this concept of a partial and voluntary implementation of a "parallel" justice process need not seem so odious or threatening (except to bigoted outsiders who wouldn't be subject to its provisions in any event).

If a religious community wants its own members to be able to resolve civil disputes amongst its own members, internally according to its own dictates -- society should permit it, if participation is voluntary and if the sanctions do not involve loss of life, limb or liberty.

In fact, perhaps society should actively encourage it. The Circuit Court in my jurisdiction already strongly advises potential civil litigants to enter a secular mediation process in lieu of further clogging of the courts. Allowing co-religionists to voluntarily elect a similar, but belief-based, process would reap even more benefit in this area.

Criminal matters, as well as the specific sanctions mentioned above, much more appropriately belong under the control of the larger society.

I offer this as a straightforward initial starting point for a rational discussion of this hot-button issue.

A Cyber Friend & Volunteer For "HILLARY FOR PREZ"

VOTE: Abolish ALL "iMPORTED" [Not-Made or Prophecied in Sweet Sweet U.S.A.) Pre-Apocalyptic 'Cottage-Religions" and competing religilousous in U.S. of A., not non-religio Industry's NOW!!

Deport ALL of the VATICAN Catholic Roman Empire "PEDAPHILE/HOMOSEXUAL-PRIESTS/BISHOPS/CARDINALS" back overseas from whence they illegally Imported their 'CURSE & SIN(s)' into older U.S.A., but no longer into the "New APOCALYPTIC-AMERICA-NATiON" U.S.A of 100 States!!!!

Note: This is the E*C*L*A*T*i-ON Prophecy! Please do not be in denial to self nor others! Tonks!

VOTE: DEPORT ALL, Not-Made-IN-A*M*E*R*i*C*A, iMPORTED Religions, Not MEXICANS!

INstead Unite MEXICO w/U.S.A for an Additional 10 States!!! As a Matter of fact, VOTE to Merge & Absorb All AMERICA upto & No Further than PANAMMA, ironically John McCAINS "Birth Place! "Imagine" (john Lennon; pbuh) 100 U.S. States?

Then We can Say Good bye Middle East & Good Ridence!!!

Important: The Chinese Zionist {MAO's et al} are in Mexico too & populated Mexico 10-fold in last 10 Years! Remember, the Chinese want to POISON Americano's Minds via their Dangerous/un-Healthy Products!!! So They [Chinese Atheistic/Zionists] must be kicked-out of there ASAP! Ya Ya!

Trivia: Did ye knowth that Senator , wanabe Prez John McCain is a 'Dual Citizen of Panama & USA?

PS: Did you also know that John McCain & His Wife , are ALCOHOL Pushers & have lots of Blood on their hand for many Highway Car Crashes due to their Alchol Monopoly Biz in ARIZONA!?????

Please see these linko's on Cindy Lou Hensley the daughter of James W. Hensley, a wealthy Anheuser-Busch distributor from Phoenix, Arizona. McCain filed for and obtained an uncontested divorce from his wife in Florida on April 2, 1980 and promptly married Cindy on May 17, 1980.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/mcaindiv.htm

Shame Shame John & Cindy McCAIN!! Kennedy's too!

Ya Ya Yo Yo!

--
...

http://www .astronomy2009.org/////
USA! USA! USA! USA! USA USA!!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
STOP THE WAR STOP THE WAR
VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE !!
Better a CLINTON than a McCAIN!
VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE VOTE !!
PEACE,PAZ,SALAAM,SHOLOM.....__________________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:

..
--

Nope.

The freedom of your fist (i.e. your liberty to throw your fist around) stops where my nose starts.

The NON-PREDATORY pursuit of happiness -- you cannot fabricate a casus belli (and ask "What reality?" and rhetorically answer "We are an empire now; we make our own reality") and invade another country just to grab its oil because yours has run out.

That is, you cannot do that without the wiser members of your own group poiting their fingers at you.

Just like many who generally follow a certain religion have demonstrated with vigour against thoughtless demands to accommodate the Sharia in Western legal systems.

But, thinking through even a mistake is a possible way to gain experience and knowledge.

…
---
!
>))))2)0)0)8))))) "NO-SHARIA!"
!
!
!
{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}
[ ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
[][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}{}}{}{}{}{}
[ ?: +) http:///\ VOTE http://\Hillary )
[][][][][]][][]][]][]]][]][][][][][][][][][][][][][]
PEACE, PAZ, SALAAM, SHOLOM:........_______________
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton МИР,평화, 和平:

VOTE:
NO' Sharia!
NO Hallakha!
NO Caste System(s)!
NO Rule By BiBLE, GiTA, QURAN!
NO Putting Down Woman Anywhere!

THANK YOU!

All of which proves that the American founding fathers got it right. Men are endowed by their Creator (whomever - God, whatever - nature) with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Congress shall make no law respecting or establishing religion.

After centuries of religious wars in Europe, you'd think the good Archbishop would know to leave well enough alone.

If I were of bad faith, I would enjoy the bitterness of the reactions against the Archbishop as much as many posters on other On Faith comments enjoy bitter disagreements among Muslims.

I prefer to admire, and be thankful for, the Archbishop's trying to reach out to others, even if his comments may have lacked clarity.

In any case, belabouring the point about the term 'unclarity' certainly shows a desire to hurt feelings.

Who?

It's said that the Archbishop of Canterbury has a bully pulpit.

Yes, his lecture took full advantage of that pulpit, to bully intelligence, logic, understanding of Britain's legal system, comprehensibility, and common sense into nonexistence in his beatific bishopric.

BGONE,

I have encountered you countless times on these fora (On Faith and PostGlobal). I don't think you deserve an answer.

E.PONSONBY-SMALLPIECE,

I have read and re-read Bertrand Russell's books
('Why I am not a Christian','My Philosophical Development', etc) more than once, because they are reference books rather than light reading. They were written around 1921 or so, if I recall well (I don't feel like going to my basement to check), and, since then, developments in science, philosophy, epistemology, and theology have been phenomenal. The deity that God attacks in "Why I Am Not a Chritian" is (I am sorry to say, because of the superbly brilliant analysis characteristic of Russell), anthropomorphic or at least anthropic, whereas the God that most people, even the most illiterate believe in, is transcendental, beyond the senses.

Moreover, the 'dragons' referred to in your quote are caricatural constructs that those who want to ridicule religion set up as easy targets to attack. The quote from Werner Heisenberg that I always refer my interlocutors on this subject to is the following, which came up in 1971 during a discussion of the subject by five of the 20th Century's most eminent scientists, Werner Heisenberg himself, Paul Dirac, Wolfgang Pauli, Max Planck and Niels Bohr:

"The fact that religions through the ages have spoken in images, parables, and paradoxes means simply that there are no other ways of grasping the reality to which they refer. But that does not mean that it is not a genuine reality. And splitting this reality into an objective and a subjective side won't get us very far."

Russell himself speaks the language of parables when he refers to 'dragons' -- what he means is imaginary creatures that are to be feared. Keynes spoke of 'animal spirits'. The many-splendored forces and motivations and faculties that God -- the God of the Bible, The Quran, The Torah, etc.--has breathed into his 'creation' might very validly be construed by evolutionary biologists as the result of the inexorable laws precisely of evolution from unicellular bacteria which themselves may, like the Universe itself, have evolved from Absolute Nothing or from what physicists call, somewhat pompously a 'singularity (as if that is a more 'scientific' 'dragon' than God). But, again as other eminent but also thoughtful scientists have pointed out, our brain did not evolve with science in mind. Therefore, we cannot conceive of Absolute Nothing; we cannot conceive of the idea that scientists term a 'singularity', the 'singularity' that lay at the origin of the Big Bang. We cannot conceive it because our minds did not evolve with the aim of making such a conception.

So, whether you equate that 'singularity' with God -- the Alpha as theologians say, which some scientists believe in fact merge with the Omega, the 'Everything' of science -- or you equate God, as I do, with the whole process of the Cosmic forces revealing themselves to emergent, ever-more-complex 'consciousness agents', the fact remains that an idea of the All-knowing, Almighty, or Ultimate consciousness is inescapable, whether you want to be an uncompromising 'rationalist' or a good scientist who knows the tremendous possibilities but also the limitations of rationality and the additional wisdom that conceptualisation of the transcendental (i.e. spirituality) can bring to our understanding of Cosmic realities.

Final point, this was a general discussion about religion in general. Now Sharia. That is a body of teachings or pratices that some of our compatriots value. To the same extent that, long decades ago, we decided that Martin Luther's Reformation ideas had several improvements to bring to Catholic religious practice but also contained many pitfalls, the wisest among us may wish to decide that, at some point, if the present legal immigration dynamic is maintained, a critical mass of Muslim citizens might be attained which would warant consideration of incorporation, in the American body of Common Law, certain aspects of Sharia. Whether anybody likes it or not, the god of the market has already forced bankers to study Sharia approaches to financing and investment, and these are being incorporated in banking laws. Thence my point: even if Rowan Willimas has made a mistake, it moght have been a good opportunity to learn from the mistake, even if the learning had been limited to taking note that certain aspects of Sharia law are already being incorporated in our commercial laws.

Good scientists have spel

A religious man with an open mind is a contradiction in terms.

The mind of a religious man is closed by religion which, in most cases,he acquires before his reasoning faculties have developed enough to resist such nonsense.

I believe Russell had it right when he wrote;
Mohamed Malleck;

"Religion prevents our children from having a rational education; religion
prevents us from teaching the ethic of scientific co-operation in place of
the old fierce doctrines of sin and punishment.It is possible that mankind
is on the threshold of a golden age;but if so,it will be necessary first to
slay the dragon that guards the door,and this dragon is religion".

Bertrand Russell. "Why I Am Not A Christian" pp47

Now if the wisdom of ignore could only be applied here in the colonies. Like say, ignore Huckabee, Pat Robertson, R Shuller, the lot that insist on writing their religious law in the law of the land down to and including insisting that it already is. And they kick and scream and hold their breath until they turn blue when they don't get their way.

As long as ministries are allowed to accumulate vast sums of money and use it for political purposes with all the tax/accounting exemptions they will not be ignored. In the end they will destroy religion for as deep as the dagger of the threat of hell is it is much shallower than the pride in our freedom. Need I notice that implementing religious dogma into law ends freedom.

Mohamed MALLECK, Swift Current, Canada:

You suffer from a mental ailment best described as failing to understand that all men are created equal. Maybe better, a big man or important man complex.

There are no unimportant people therefore there are no important ones -the president of the United States is a servant. Being "born again" has lowered our present one to the status of stupid -cannot learn from his own mistakes. We don't need no stupid servants.

Archbishop William is an ordinary human being with all the shortcomings suffered by all -cut him and he bleeds, infect him and he becomes ill, ignore him and maybe he'll go away. Isn't that what Islamic terrorists say? Well all but the ignore part. And they refuse to be ignored which makes them important. Important and dead seem to have a lot in common -suicide is a great crowd pleasing trick but you can only do it once.

I swear if I were still a Christian I'd be an Episcopalian.

Thanks for the excellent post, Reverend Anderson.

I am so grateful and proud of the majority of the posts from our On Faith panel, which correctly recognize the freedoms for religious expression that are provided by a separation of church and state, and how sacred is our secular constitution.

My worry for our current and next generation is the extent to which the religious right has encroached into OUR government, with our Congress' pandering with Resolutions recognizing the "importance of Christmas" and trying to establish a "religious appreciation week," to name a couple (in a world full of needful, hurting citizens that could be helped with a fraction of the money going to our efforts in the war.)

The "faith-based initiatives" that are generally unregulated, not evaluated for efficiency, and not thought about are alive-and-well, with nothing to be done regarding challenging this legislation in the Supreme Court, because they have decided not to hear cases against it.

We live in an interesting time, with interesting pressures. Passivity, indifference, distrust of the processes of government, lack of interest in the scientific method, and the formidible certainties that come at us from religious leaders the world over--If I were still a praying man, now would be the time.

I read yesterday a piece of timehonoured wisdom : "An idiot never learns from his own mistakes; a fool learns from his own mistakes; a wise man learns from the mistakes of others".

As Mona El Tahawy and countless others have pointed out there is in Archbishop Rowan William's pronouncement much commendable benevolence but also a disturbing dose of 'lack of clarity/unclarity. That, contrary to would-be cognoscenti who beleive they have detected in the Archbishop's prononcement a ploy to get the 'Muslim extremists' at their own game.

Father Anderson's comments fall in neither of these categories but certainly is not kind either towards the Archbishop or towards those who are inclined to meet the multiculturalists part of the way. More specifically, to decide that the episode is best ignored os to pass up an opportunity to learn from the Archbishop's 'unclarity'.

A religious man with an open mind could have noticed that real congnoscenti have wisely asked: " Which school of Sharia?" Others have asked: "Which aspects of Sharia? -- Family law, including marriage, divorce, inheritance? Trade and banking law, which so many commercial banks are finding attractive and a niche to be ignored at the banks' own detriment? Criminal law -- whose deterrence/redemption/social reinsertion and other pro-social values can vary according as to which Hadith-compiling authority one follows?"

For a religious man to close his mind to such questions is like an American jurist who says Judge Scalia is the authority, whatever Judge Sandra Day O'Connor has to say is best ignored.