Archbishop's Q & A on Sharia

I've obtained a transcript of the Q&A the Archbishop of Canterbury did after last Thursday's lecture. The text throws a little more light on what precisely he was trying to get at. One thing leaped out at me. Although he emphasised again was not talking about 'parallel jurisdictions', he did say he wanted  'to look for parallel situations'.  And he did also advocate 'supplementary jurisdiction' to the law of the state. As Melanie Phillips said on last night's Question Time, there really is not that great a distinction between a parallel and a supplementary jurisdiction. I draw your attention once again to Mary Ann Sieghart's article, which gets to the heart of why so many have been so offended by Dr Rowan Williams' remarks. Lapido Media in its blog believes the Archbishop has done the world a favour by 'dropping a bomb' on multiculturalism.

One of the answers he gave was about usury, both sinful and illegal in Islam, as it was once considered by many in Judaism and Christianity but is no longer. Except, it appears, by the Archbishop of Canterbury. Judging from what he says here, he really would like the whole of our banking system converted to a Sharia-compliant one as 'a way of addressing serious poverty.' Interesting, then, that  some of the most serious poverty in the world subsists among the Sharia-compliant Muslim communities in this and other countries.

You can  download for yourself the entire transcript of the post-lecture questions and the Archbishop's answers.

Here are some extracts that I found of interest.

The Lord Chief Justice, Lord Phillips of Worth Matravers (LP) read out questions to the Archbishop (RW) that been submitted in advance or which had been written on slips of paper by the audience during the lecture.

LP: Thank you. Another, another fairly down to earth. "Our existing world order is based upon usury with control by manipulation of rates of interest. In Islam this is not just illegal but sinful. How can this be reconciled with Christianity? And this Christianity also condemns the existing order as the law of Mammon."

RW: I've often been rather surprised by the ease with which the Christian church changed its mind about usury in the sixteenth century, without any very great public fuss. Martin Luther strongly disapproved of it; he was a good medieval Catholic in ail sorts of ways, and he disapproved of it like his medieval predecessors on the basis of the Bible, tradition and the authority of Aristotle. But within about fifty years of the beginning of the Reformation, virtually everybody had mysteriously and imperceptibly decided that there wasn't a problem.

Now, without going into details of the history of that fascinating issue, I think that in all seriousness what theologians and moralists have said about lending at interest in the modern economy, is simply to raise the question "Is this what is prohibited in Jewish scripture?" And they've answered on the whole, "No". And yet I have to say there remains, or should remain for the Christian moralist, a level of discomfort around this. Taking absolutely for granted the manipulation of rates of interest as the engine of an economy, ought to leave us with some unfinished moral business, let's say, and I believe that rather than, so to speak, address that head on, we need to look - and this has been said by many people - at what are the alternative protocols and ethical frameworks for banking that are around. And that is one reason why ! am personally go very interested in the ethics and practice of micro-credit as a way of addressing serious poverty.

LP; "I would have no difficulty with people being able by agreement, to opt into private religious legal systems, if it suited their purposes - it seems to work with Beth Din - but how do you ensure that the consent to jurisdiction is genuine?" I think that's another way of saying "what is the nature of the scheme you are postulating?"

RW: Well, I think I must come clean and say I'm not postulating a detailed scheme, but raising a question about what the most fruitful kinds of relationship might be between the law of the state and what I have been calling "supplementary jurisdiction". But I think were there to be - and I regard this as an open question - were there to be further forms of accommodation, then there would need to be I think, some element of transparency of monitoring which expressed a cooperative relationship rather than just parallel tracks. I noticed that one of the questions that was posted in advance was the very simple one, "did I think that sharia could ever exist as a parallel legal system in Britain?" And I would want to say very firmly that I am not talking about parallel systems, but about how the law of the land most fruitfully, least conflictually, accommodates practice, and that will I think involve a degree of transparency on the part of communal practice, which might help to answer that question.

LP: This is a slightly aggressive question. "Contrary to the Archbishop's suggestion, the State does not delegate legal authority to Jewish religious courts, and Jewish law is not recognised by, or incorporated into English law. Why then does he think Islam should be given unique status in challenging majority cultural and legal norms?" I think there are about three premises there which are perhaps false. (laughter)

RW: I don't think I said, or at least I hope I didn't say that Jewish law was incorporated in any way into the law of the land; I am well aware that it's not. What I mean is that there is an established, recognised practice in Orthodox Jewish communities, particularly with regard to marital practice, which the law of the land does not seek to override or replace, as I understand it. Now I'm open to correction on this because I'm not a lawyer, but I used the analogy not to try and claim a privileged place for Islam -which I'm not seeking to claim - simply to look for parallel situations where a highly developed, well resourced and sophisticated system of communal law was de facto at least, embedded in our social practice.

LP: This a question that I was discussing with you before this lecture and I thought you might decline to answer it as it rather seems to be a question for me, but you seem to be prepared to do so, so I will ask it. "How could the court obtain a full understanding of a female defendant or witness if that person is covered entirely, or only has the eyes visible?"

RW: Yes, there is in fact a long question submitted in advance about the use of the full veil in a legal setting. My views about the veil, as an outsider, are these. First of all, the routine reminder that we are here dealing with cultural, customary reading of legal prescription, rather than a detailed order provision. But second, a degree of cultural sensitivity is part of the ordinary good manners of a pluralist state and there are plenty of contexts where it seems to me unproblematic to grant that freedom. And there are some contexts where - back to my earlier point - there are some contexts in which the wearing of a full facial veil actively disadvantages others. The school-teaching setting has been mentioned; the legal setting can be another one. And that's where is becomes problematic and I would not see it as self evidently right. But in saying that, whether in the school or in the law court, again one needs to explore what the cultural sensitivities are
that would make it difficult and make the appropriate provision; for example in certain cases for a woman wishing to wear the veil to be interviewed in some circumstances by another woman, that kind of thing. Ordinary cultural good manners in a plural society.

Comments

[Mike Homfray]

I agree. But that means no parallels for conservative Christians or Jews either. no exemptions from anti-discrimination law, for example - but people like Phillips are quite unable to see the logic of their stance. They still wish to buck the law if they disagree with it, but wish to deny the same right to others.

[John]

Although he is back-pedalling at a furious rate, the Archbishop does seem precisely to be saying that he wants a privileged position in English law for islamic courts.

He says that he recognises that the Beth Din (the Jewish tribunal) has no such legal standing, so why press the point on behalf of islam unless he wants more - to give islamic courts the force of law in their own right - an original jurisdiction of their own which can be enforced in the high court?

Surely he recognises that sharia is so wholly patriarchal that it is in effect a legal system for male muslims, interpreted by male muslims, to protect the "property" rights of male muslims? Property which includes women and children?

Even in the present informal application of sharia by islamic councils, women are being denied justice because they are forced to accept the judgements of the sharia councils, by their husbands, fathers and community.

How does the Archbishop possibly imagine that justice would be dispensed if women who fail to comply with the islamic judgement are forced by English law to do so?

[saint]

Apologies if this is double posted but "Islamic" finance may be a bit of a myth.

[John Omani]

Shar'ia banking is nothing more than an attempt to fleece vulnerable people by another means. I don't think there is any hard evidence that it has alleviated poverty anywhere.
Tarek Fatah of the Canadian Muslim Congress has been calling the bluff of the proponents of Islamic finance in North America for some time, receiving for his trouble a number of death threats.

The Archbishop's naivity (do we have to keep calling it that?) seems to know no bounds.

[Yim]

"Interesting, then, that some of the most serious poverty in the world subsists among the Sharia-compliant Muslim communities in this and other countries."

Except for when sharia oil money is needed to prop up the world's biggest bank, London's premier building project (The Shard) or any other financial problem, eh Ruth?

Of the world's poorest countries there are just as many Christian ones as there are Muslim ones -- they have some other things in common though: colonial past, bad geographic luck, persistent war, being based in Africa.

The countries in the world with the best standard of life are repeatedly shown to be Scandinavian -- perhaps Ruth advocates the conversion of our monarchs to Lutheranism (would need to abandon Calvinism) and creating a social democracy in Britain?

(rg writes: you know, that is not such a bad idea!)

[andrew holden]

There should be a very great difference between a parallel jurisdiction and a supplementary one - a distinction being wilfully ignored by the AoC's enemies in the media and elsewhere.

A parallel jurisdiction would be independent and equal - never the twain shall meet, so to speak. There's no coming together and only minimal accountablity. The best that you can say is that they need to be going in the same direction.

A supplementary jurisdiction, however, is what it says, supplementary to the main body of law which is the chief guarantor of human freedoms, the rights of women, the defence against extreme punishments and so on. A supplementary jurisdiction is therefore subservient to the main body of law, holds 'no blank cheques' and is dependent upon the good will of the lawmakers.

Of course the fundamentalist supporters of Sharia Law would never accept such a limited licence from a secular state - but it's not the Islamists the state should be trying to keep onside but the liberal and westernised majority of good law-abiding muslims.

[Babbling Brook]

Why would any legal system need a 'supplementary jurisdiction' if the jurisprudence on which that supplementary jurisdiction is based is predicated upon basic inequalities which the national legal system has long since eradicated? Sharia Law is predicated upon three basic and openly stated inequalities in Islam (in the Koran, the Hadiths and the Sira): inequality between Moslem and non-Moslem, between man and woman, and between free man and slave.

[Tony Francis]

No legal system can operate without utilizing the policing power of the state to enforce its judgments and rulings. Just how is this to be accomplished with Sharia Courts? RC Courts in the US rule on the validity of marriages. If the participants don't like the result, they just get married or divorced somewhere else. There really is no policing power, except the conscience of those involved. Is Sharia going to be applied as a moral suggestion? If that is the case, there is no need for a parallel or supplemental system. If not, who is going to do the policing? Concerning usury: this question was settled in the West centuries ago. It is generally held to be beneficial for both those who borrow and lend.

[Dr. Irene Lancaster FRSA]

The Bet Din is not run in the same way as the sharia court, whatever people think. I have been asked by experts in Israel to point this out.

[MaryCunningham]

Andrew Holden

I mentioned concentration camps. But you need the context. I was making the point to Tom Jackson that Britain was not the soft little multicultural pussycat folks like Emmanuel Appel were charging.

If there was a huge outrage--say on the scale of 9/11--Britain was more than capable of defending itself and had done so in the recent past. What was 'internment' but a concentration camp by another name? And that was 30 years ago, not so very long in the historical sense.

But in the meantime--and in the absense of any outrage--we should keep our nerve. The main goals remain two:
1)to defeat Islamist terror and
2)to prevent the alienation of indigenous Muslims.

Fear-mongering and other neocon propaganda a la Appel (and unfortunately the yellow-journalism outburst over the Archbishop) thwart both of them. Good intelligence and policing could bring them about. I am least convinced about good policing because, frankly, the police do not seem up to the job.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Mary Cunningham

Previously, you brought up the term "anti-semitism" regarding my criticism of your thinking, both in form and substance. The icing on the cake was when you rhetorically asked what we Jews have against the Nazis. Actually, we have 6 million reasons to dislike them, the poor misunderstood dears.

Do not refer to me using the usual snide term of "neo con" when you mean Jew. I'm a Jew and a son of Israel. I don't need your sly labels.

Britain as multicultural pussycats is wrong? Prove me wrong. So far, people like you who want the inept or handcuffed police to deal with international Moslem terror prove me right.

[andrew holden]

"Britain as multicultural pussycats is wrong? Prove me wrong. So far, people like you who want the inept or handcuffed police to deal with international Moslem terror prove me right."

Assumption and stereotyping not backed up by any facts and verging on the abusive - "people like you" indeed!

Actually Britain has some of the strictest legal responses to terrorist activities in the free world - and our troops are fighting alongside yours in both Afghanistan and Iraq.

It's perfectly possible, indeed I think its absolutely necessary to be robust, indeed agressive, against the terrorist threat and at the same time to recognise that most muslims are entirely reasonable, peace loving and wish to play their part in a diverse society. In fact if you forget the second part all you do is send out a recruiting sergeant for terrorist organisations and it all becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We learnt this sort of lesson in Northern Ireland facing a terrorist threat partly financed from American sources.

[Kate]

"What was 'internment' but a concentration camp by another name?"

Cunningham, Tudor or Shelley! Same old, same old, paranoia, patronising inaccuracies, inane victimisation and self-referential (i.e. persecuted Catholic) mythology; all posted as 'fact'.

I wonder WHICH 'internment' camps you are referencing - 30 years ago?

Sounds like ... typical but outworn Provisional IRA hyperbole. BUT again, perhaps YOU can produce evidence of numbers: those beaten to death, worked to death, frozen to death, murdered, hanged, shot or herded into gas ovens?

[J Pearce]

Emanuel,

Please realize that certain religious acolytes are slavering at the possibility of legal exemptions for religious “jurisdiction” in this country. The religious have bastardized the liberal ideal of “multiculturalism” as to mean freedom to practice inhumanity, disguised under the precept of “freedom of conscience”.

Not least the Roman Catholics, who obviously see the chink of light in the armour of secular legal process, and who – given any exemptions granted to Muslim Sharia law – would then use the precedent to drive a further wedge into the legal process to allow them carte blanche to behave anyway they see fit, regardless of what exists in the current statutes.

I have no doubt that Roman Catholics especially – who take great delight at chafing at the laws of this land – see this as the thin end of a very useful wedge. Lets face it – abortion, civil partnerships, medical research, adoptions – there is plenty on the Vatican sh*t list that they’d love to see reversed or sabotaged. Individual liberty and freedom means nothing to the stormtroopers of Rome.

The usual anti-papist tirades aside though, it is incorrect to label the UK as “multicultural”, in sole terms of multi-racialism. People judge the UK by its urban hubs and suburbs – but there is a strong, thriving culture that exists outside of that. This is where you’ll find the best of “British” – a wary, cautious, conservative but ultimately accepting people that I think embodies the best of British values - as opposed to pseudo-Leninist rights culture that has infested the body politic.

[alistair]

Getting back to the Archbishop.....

He seems to be digging himself deeper into the mire. I am still waiting for him or indeed anyone at al to explain precisely the diference between

1) a "constructive accommodation"
2) a "supplementray jurisdiction" 3) a "parallel situation"

and the paralell system that Lord carey spoke about.

as each would relate to other aspects of his musings, to wit "the fact" that some people in Britain "do not relate" to the laws we have, and have "other affiliations or loyalties" that shape their "social identity and personal motivation," and in the context that having one law for all is "a bit of a danger", and that some people in Britain (but not all people, note) should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

I would also like him to explain the difference between what he said, and what the Bishop of Rochester said in January about britain's Muslim no-go areas, the necessity of a Chritian revival to counter Islamic extremism, and how a "supplementary jurisdiction" etc etc would fit into Nazir-Ali's view of the future.

[Tom Jackson]

"Not least the Roman Catholics, who obviously see the chink of light in the armour of secular legal process .... "

This issue does not just have religious overtones, J Pearce.

The manipulation of our system of justice to take account of the specific behaviour or practices of minority communities has a knock-on effect into other areas.

It is difficult to accept that the decision by the Appeal Court to overturn the conviction of five young Muslims who downloaded and passed around terrorist material from the Internet was not influenced, at least to some degree, by the ethnicity of the defendants.

The BBC reported that the Islamic Human Rights Commission said it hoped the judgement by the Appeal Judges would stop the "criminalisation of Muslim youth for downloading and reading material that is widely available to everyone". There was a great deal of discussion about so-called "thought crime" not being sufficient to bring a prosecution under the law.

Someone raised a point on the BBC's Question Time programme asking what the difference was between downloading illegal terrorist material and downloading illegal child pornography when in both situations it could not be proved that the downloading and possession of the downloaded material led to a criminal act?

Our system of Law in this country has evolved over many centuries and, as such, is rather like a building where any deliberate disturbance to the structural integrity must be considered very carefully for fear of cracks appearing or even, a collapse of the structure.

In this example, how disastrous it would be if, in accommodating the specific and alien requirements of an immigrant culture into our system of justice, loopholes were unavoidably created and potential paedophiles were allowed to satisfy their voyeuristic inclinations, possibly as a prelude to more serious activity.

[Mike Homfray]

Only in contemporary society, Tom, your version of Christianity no longer dominates and you should be given no more right to get away without observing the law as the Muslim population.

Funny how you never talk about that but prefer to scaremonger about Islam! Even though you have much more in common with many of their social attitudes than I would.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear J Pearce, Tom Jackson, et all

Regarding real "British Culture" and where it can be found - that's what I'm looking for.

The qualities that J Pearce listed is what America is really about except that the elite elements in "London Center" have always magnified superficial differences between the two nations for their own purposes. The real Britain has been made powerless by the elite's intellectual hobbyhorses.

The Left in both countries sees the Third World as natural allies in the quest for power. Therefore, the turning a blind eye to any outrage. I believe we're at war and should behave as if we were. The normal civil liberties prevalent in 1955 or 1905 are used by this civilization's enemies as a weapon.

Believe in whatever God you want or none at all. However, there are two classic problems with Religion married to Politics - Control and Corruption.

From Israel's history, High Priests were Royal appointments. When then incumbent realized how much dough was involved, the first thing was to figure out how to make it hereditary. Then, rivals began to form their own communities in the desert, like the Essenes, when they realized they had no hope of getting into Israel's version of Lambeth Palace.

Control - sincere fervor by the religious leadership degenerates many times into tyranny. Love of God becomes an intricate how-to manual as to how to eat and approved love-making practices.

Any successful society has to protect the God loving and the Godless. The problem with not having a clear set of rules is that this struggle goes form one generation to another.

[andrew holden]

"Someone raised a point on the BBC's Question Time programme asking what the difference was between downloading illegal terrorist material and downloading illegal child pornography when in both situations it could not be proved that the downloading and possession of the downloaded material led to a criminal act?"

A very clear difference. Pornagraphic images of children usually involve the abuse of children - a crime in and of itself. One at least supposes that if people didn't go and view the images then at least some of the abuse (that done merely for the taking of obscene photos) would not take place. The downloader is therefore to some extent involved in the abuse.

An erstwhile bomber, downloading details of how he might make a bomb, is not directly involved in a terrorist bombing until he chooses to make his own.

I don't entirely accept this because there is a voyeuristic element involved in looking at internet videos of terrorist bombings (played on a loop and set to music no less!) which suggests that the bombers at least have half an eye on the fame and notoriety their criminal acts may get them.

All in all though I think we've got the balance right. We don't yet punish crimes which have not actually been committed - as in Minority Report.

If I was to go into non-liberal mode for once I'd sensor the websites and put both the purveyors of obscene images and the authors of obscene encouragements to commit acts of terrorism out of business by shutting down their sites and locking them up.

[andrew holden]

"Only in contemporary society, Tom, your version of Christianity no longer dominates and you should be given no more right to get away without observing the law as the Muslim population."

Neverthless, in some matters the law chooses to preserve the rights of individual conscience (whether religious or not) and that to me is one of the marks of a free society.

Anyway, if conscience is respected WITHIN the law then the law IS observed on both sides. Personally I don't think this should be overused but it should not be abandoned. It protects, for example, the right of a religious doctor not to adminsiter an abortion whilst protecting the rights of women to choose to access such services.

A society which does not, where possible, respect conscience rapidly becomes totalitarian.

[Tom Jackson]

Just to put the record straight, Mike. You obviously have your own perspective on the nature of Islamic belief and that will determine if there is any scaremongering involved in my comments. As for a Christian observing the law of the land, once something is on the statute books, it should be obeyed. But that doesn't prevent any attempt to change the law in line with Christian teaching and belief in a nation where the majority of the indigenous population subscribe to exactly the principles and values embodied in that teaching.

[Mike Homfray]

You can attempt, Tom, as can Muslims or anyone else - but I think you will find that most prefer the secular law to be free of religious bias.

[Mike Homfray]

Andrew: I think that this should be the exception not the rule - and if , for example, there was a threat no doctors willing to carry out a termination at a hospital, I think it would be quote fair to ensure that this was not allowed to happen, using recruitment of a pro-choice doctor. Or the right to termination would be affected.

I also do not believe that conscience should be used to justify discrimination in the public sphere.

[Tom Jackson]

"A very clear difference. Pornagraphic images of children usually involve the abuse of children - a crime in and of itself."

The difference is still questionable. Who is to say that a crime has not been involved in creating the terrorist material on the net?

[J Pearce]

”This issue does not just have religious overtones, J Pearce.”

Possibly. But, using your examples, there is no organized group of paedophiles claiming exemptions from the current legal system, based on a belief in ‘unprovable entities of the mind’ and ancient fantasy texts. If there were, they would be crucified in the media and rightly so. Why exempt the religious from such treatment?

Only the religious appear to be actively seeking legal loopholes for their peculiar fulfillments of worship, based on their spurious and utterly unprovable “beliefs”. And lets face facts, it is NOT Muslims who are organizing themselves into political factions to lobby parliament, in order to try and get the law changed to suit their belief system.

For all the media hysteria surrounding the ABC’s utterances, the truth is, there is NO major, influential Muslim political lobby, seeking accomodation of religious law in the statutes. That, however, cannot be said of Roman Catholics and Christians in general, who appear particularly adept at distorting issues and mobilizing what appears to be political “support” (i.e. photogenic ranters on the street) in order to “justify” their warped socio-political philosophies.

Whilst our cultural and ideological values may well be presented with a long term threat by the growing presence of Islam, the fact is that there is a much more divisive short term challenge presented by fruit loopy Christians, who are as equally demented as Muslims when it comes to their belief system. The fact that Christians claim to be some sort of wellspring of “natural justice” in this country is testament to the devious, dangerous, divisive power-oriented goals of organized Christian pressure groups.

If we are a “multiu-cultural” society, tolerating immigrants and absorbing them, it is nothing to do with Christianity, which actively seeks to divide, partition and ultimately annihilate any threat it comes across. To a secular-ish observer like myself, I see little political difference between the goals of organized Christianity and organized Islam. Both seek to subjugate freedom of the individual. It is only the means which differ.

Therefore, God Bless the Jews.

[Tony Francis]

The issue of "thought crimes" has always been controversial. It is difficult to know what one might be thinking, much less, write a criminal code to cover the thought. "Intent" can often be implied. A person who enters a store with a pistol and says he wants to rob the cashier is presumed by the act to have "intended" to commit the crime. It isn't much of a defense to claim, "I was just joking, I didn't really mean it." Closely related are so-called inchoate crime (incomplete crimes). In the US these traditionally have been of three kinds: conspiracy, solicitation, or attempt; (also, sometimes accessory or accomplice to a crime). The specific intent (mens rea, or guilty mind) must be proved. In the last ten years, the US Federal Code has been expanded to include a host of anti-terrorist activities. Planning or soliciting a terrorist act can be prosecuted as a crime. Down-loading terrorist information could, theoretically fall into this category. The relevant US Code is reviewed at:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/terror/RS21021.pdf
or by googling "anti-terrorism laws".
Somewhat related are US Federal prosecutions for purchase of illicit drugs. The old rule was that a person could not be convicted for a drug purchase, if they bought a substance which was not an illegal drug, but was something harmless such as powdered sugar or baking soda. It made no difference whether the defendant thought they were buying an illegal drug. So-called thought crimes are controversial. It is not illegal to plan a crime. Otherwise, no one could write a novel about a bank robbery or a murder. Neither could reporters speculate about the commission of crimes they are reporting.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear J Pearce,

Your position and concerns understood. However, one must have a sense of historical proportion when insulting the various sects. For example, equating Christianity with Islam is like equating Joan Collins with Kate Moss. Both are party girls in principle but one is nearing her dotage while the other is still high energy.

It's tyranny to make believing Protestants, Catholics ( henceforth referrred to as members of The Firm),even Mohammedans bend, in their private institutions, to what is fashionable. In the public yard, the majority is the master.

You claim that members of The Firm chafe under secular rules. They probably have fewer religious rights in Ireland, Spain, and Italy than in Britain. Why? Because there's a sense of historical grievance living in a Protestant country but not in historically Catholic societies.

I remember as a boy growing up in a Latin Catholic society that no man I ever saw went to Mass on Sunday. Mass was considered the business of women, children and , ironically, gay men.

[Simon Icke]

This is not the first time Dr Rowan Williams has made a mockery of his so called leadership of one of the main stream Christian churches in England & Wales. During his five years of office he has proven himself to be completely out of touch with the feelings of the vast majority British people let alone British Christians or even the majority of Anglicans.

His muddled academic views reflect no one else's except his own and his merry band of academic liberals who live in their own little world but sadly have a disproportionate amount of power in the running of the Anglican Church. This latest faux par by the Archbishop should be the final straw and he should be encouraged to resign forthwith before he makes any more embarrassing or as this time; dangerous remarks in public. However, the woolly liberal clerics and other similar hangers on that run the Anglican Church will make sure Dr Rowan Williams clings to power, no matter how inept he is as a Christian leader not only because they have a vested interest in the Church being led by such a weak Christian but they also couldn't bere the thought of an Evangelical Christian leading the Anglican Church, God forbid!

[Mike Homfray]

How can an evangelical lead the CofE with any conscience given its national status which defies evangelical theology?

And what was Carey if not an evangelical??