Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?

Forgive the stark clarity of my headline, but sometimes when writing about the Archbishop of Canterbury, clarity is what is needed. I ask this of readers here, because this is the question put to me time after time this afternoon by incredulous commentators of every variety, stunned into blunt expression by the Archbishop of Canterbury's uncharacteristically clear comments on Sharia in Britain. The Archbishop believes adopting aspects of sharia law into British law would help maintain social cohesion. But who exactly is asking for this? No Muslim organisation in Britain has requested it, I could not find any who even wanted it. Instead, Muslims I spoke to this afternoon seem fearful of the effects the Archbishop's latest remarks will have on those already prejudiced against their community. As well they might be. His speech was delivered this evening at the Royal Courts of Justice in Strand, London. (Update: do read this interesting analaysis from Propaganda Box.)

The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, responded:  'English law is rooted in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and, in particular, our notions of human freedoms derive from that tradition. In my view, it would be simply impossible to introduce a tradition, like sharia into this corpus without fundamentally affecting its integrity.' Read his full comments here. Also see here for a legal opinion from barrister Dr James Behrens.

Sheikh Michael Mumisa, an Islamic scholar at Cambridge University and who is affiliated to Centre for the Study of Muslim-Jewish Relations at the Woolf Institute, said:  'I do understand that by sharia law here he means only the personal status laws of Islam such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and not its penal code.”  Mumisa, author of the book Islamic Law: Theory and Interpretation, continued: 'I disagree and believe that the introduction of such laws within the UK will undermine the rights of Muslim women. Moreover, some senior Muslim clerics in the UK want more than just the personal status laws and would prefer that the penal laws were introduced as well.'

A few days ago, the Archbishop argued also for the abolition of the blasphemy law - as long as it was replaced by something even more severe. People should be punished for daring to voice thoughts that were hurtful to others, he said, even when that hurt was unintentional. Now it seems he wants women, children, all of us in fact, to have to kow-tow to some of the strictest, harshest and most draconian laws dreamed up by any religious system, ever, anywhere in the world.

There might not be no-go areas for non-Muslims in Britain, as he recently argued against the Bishop of Rochester. But this is certainly the way to go about creating them.

Is the Archbishop of Canterbury unaware of the history of the Church he has been chosen to lead? Coming from Wales is no excuse, as until the early years of the last century, Wales was part of the Church of England as well. The Church of England was born out of an express desire to rid Britain of a foreign, ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Article 37 of the 39 says: 'The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.' Queen Elizabeth I early in her reign decreed that the Crown had restored to it 'the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual, abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same'.

And now Queen Elizabeth II's very own Archbishop - and let's not forget she is his Church's Supreme Governor - wants to introduce a new 'jurisdiction into this realm of England.' And an Islamic one at that!

It is one thing for judges to take Sharia into account, as has happened in Germany. It is quite another to follow the line  the Archbishop is suggesting. It led to near disaster in Ontario, Canada two years ago and would created untold and unnecessary distress here were it to be implemented here.

The Archbishop has staked everything on trying to maintain unity in his own Anglican Communion. At the same time, he is advocating a policy that could only fragment the society around him.

If you doubt me, watch this, above.

Or this, below.

A few weeks ago, I was chatting to a woman who works in an advocacy role for Muslim women in an area that, quite independently of the Bishop of Rochester, she described as a 'no-go area' for non-Muslims. Her clients were women in the process of being sectioned into mental health units in the NHS. This woman, who for obvious reasons begged not to be identified, told me: 'The men get tired of their wives. Or bored. Or maybe the wife objects to her daughter being forced into a marriage she doesn't want. Or maybe she starts wearing western clothes.There can be many reasons. The women are sent for asssessment to a hospital. The GP referring them is Muslim. The psychiatrist assessing them is Muslim and male. I have sat in these assessments where the psychiatrist will not look the woman patient in the eye because she is a woman. Can you imagine! A psychiatrist refusing to look his patient in the eye? The woman speaks little or no English. She is sectioned. She is divorced. There are lots of these women in there, locked up in these hospitals. Why don't you people write about this?'

My interlocuter went very red and almost started to cry. Instead, she began shouting at me. I was a member of the press. 'You must write about this,' she begged.

'I can't,' I said. 'Not unless you become a whistle-blower. Or give me some evidence. Or something.'

She shook her head. 'I can't be identified,' she said. 'I would be killed. And so would the women.'

So there you have it. After weeks of wondering what to do, inspired by the Archbishop, I've taken her word that she is telling the truth, respected her anonymity, and written it anyway.

And this, I imagine, is what the Archbishop wants for the whole of England. As they used to say in my father's country parish: 'Heaven preserve us!' I wonder what they're saying there today. Expressions somewhat shorter and sweeter, I fear.

Comments

[Rick Beekman]

Tom Jackson;

I Really enjoyed Reading your Post to David Smith. Like You I Came To Jesus At Age 44. I Was Raised Catholic. As A Catholic We Were Not Taught To Read The Bible Daily Just The Catechism.
When I Studied The Word I Discovered Religion Will Not Save Anyone. Just Rituals Pomp And Ceremony Mostly Just "Religious Show Buisness".

People who do not have a real relationship with Jesus cannot even begin to Fathom How Wonderful He Is. I deem it an Honor and a Priveledge to be in his Ministry and Service. I Don't Care Who Persecutes Me Jesus Went Through All That As Well And When The Religious Politicians Could'nt Silence Him They Then Crucified Him. His Apostles Also Were Murdered Some By The Roman Empire. All This So Rebellious Sinful Mankind Could Be Saved By Listning To The Truth.

Anyway Tom Remember To Stand Up For Jesus And He Will Bless You....Rick

[Tom Jackson]

David, thank you for your thoughtful contribution in reply to my earlier comment. Needless to say, there is much that we both agree on.

Personally, I cannot accept having once presented yourself before God with sincere contrition and earnestly sought a relationship with Him, that you can then "fatally lose touch " with Him, to be lost forever. I would argue that once it is recognised that you have committed yourself to Him, you become the focus for attention and pressure that you will not have experienced before.

And I would go so far as to say, it is those whose commitment is the greater on whom the forces of evil concentrate their most vehement attack. That is why I cannot accept the image of Mother Theresa that you offer.

All said and done, we are mere human beings. Fighting the periods of doubt and darkness comes with the territory and the periods of overwhelming joy in the confident awareness of God's presence, all the more sweeter for the forces you have overcome.

The degree to which God takes account of "the quality and courage of our walk here on earth" must remain a mystery. I have already accepted that if there is a scale of judgement once you have been accepted into His presence, then I will be somewhere near the bottom. I am just happy that by accepting Christ as my Saviour and believing in Him, I will be in His presence at some time.

As for your understanding of "belief", I also accept what you detail in terms of the employment of Greek translations where the Bible is concerned. Much of my earlier endeavours, many years ago, was through Biblical scholars and Christian writers such as William Barclay who also placed a great deal of emphasis on understanding the Bible through knowledge of the original Aramaic and Greek used.

But I question any mortal's use of descriptions such as "authentic" where Christianity is concerned. Coming to Christ so late in life - 21 years ago, at 40 years old - I started a series of experiences with Churches and Christians which taught me that it is impossible to identify a definitive "true" or "authentic" Christian. I am, in fact, suspicious of anyone who claims such knowledge.

Christ reaches out to people in childhood, in middle-age and as you near the end of your life. He is recognised by those of wealth and those in poverty, those who are sick and those in robust health, in prisons and in palaces. On entering a personal relationship with Him, each of these people experience variations on how they respond to the extent that it is impossible to classify or grade their "Christianity".

I respect and value Christians of all types and degree of devotion, even if, in some situations, I do not understand or would do something different in certain situations. Christ is the focus and eternal life with Him, in Heaven, the reward for any of us who keep our eyes on Him and our hearts open to His Love.

[David Smith]

Tom Jackson:
‘David, when I see a fellow Christian under attack for his beliefs, or the characterisation of his beliefs, from non-believers or even from other Christians, it is interesting to see how they respond, how defensive they are or how brittle their retorts.

You see, someone who is secure in their faith has nothing to worry about. This is not an arrogant attitude but simply a realisation of the power and majesty of Jesus Christ. The battles have already been won, the outcome is already determined; there was never any doubt that God would triumph.

But even with that knowledge, even when you enter a debate confident in your faith, it is not a licence to be overbearing or arrogant with those who either doubt what you are saying or have simply not been faced with the opportunity or circumstances to accept Christ into their lives. And Christ wants those people to enter the Kingdom of Heaven side by side with those of us who have already humbled ourselves before him.’

Thank you for this, Tom. I wholeheartedly agree with it all.

I would just say, though, that you shouldn’t confuse a passion for truth with brittleness or insecurity in one’s faith. As I see it, as well as trusting absolutely in who God is, and in the power of His finished work at calvary, Christians are also called to actively fight a fight. This is why God’s word contains passages like Ephesians 6:10-24. There is this paradox and mystery in Christianity: the battle is won, and yet somehow still needs to be fought.

‘David, let me give you my simplistic perspective on my faith, on Christianity.’

I appreciate your having done this - and, as usual, in a way that is quietly laden with thoughtfulness and life-experience. I hope you will allow me to give you mine, and to add some comments on some of the things you say.

‘You start by identifying Christ to be your Saviour and to humble yourself by asking Him to come into your life, recognising that you are far from perfect, that you have faults and that He is the only one who can help you.’

Yes. The way I would put this is to say that you recognize that your life is, if you don’t take advantage of what Jesus did for us all on the cross, to its very depths totally unacceptable to a perfect God – both in terms of trying to please Him on earth, and in terms of getting you ultimately to heaven. You admit this to Him; ask that he forgive you for the things about yourself you know would not be acceptable to Him as they are; and ask Him to send His Spirit inside you both to assure you that you are forgiven, and to bring Him right inside you - and so to make Him absolutely real to you, and to begin to change you.

‘Now, you may go no further than that. Given the nature of the world we live in, you may not be strong enough or possess the character to turn yourself inside out and become a complete new person. You might start out with all the good intentions but struggle to maintain the determination to become exactly as God would have us become.’

Again, yes. This is a good way of putting the inner struggle Paul talks about all of us facing in Romans 7.

‘But you still have that faith in Christ. The invitation you have made to Him has been fulfilled. He is in your heart and your soul and will always be with you, knowing that you believe in Him.’

This is true if God has adjudged your approach to Him and your contrition as sincere (truly ‘of the heart’); has responded by forgiving you and coming inside you by means of His Spirit; and has thus made Himself real to you, and so someone you believe in in the sense of now actually knowing Him in your spirit. (John 17:3)

But even if this is so, I believe that Jesus taught, and that it is a sad fact too, that some can then fatally lose touch with God. (David Pawson’s ‘Once Saved Always Saved?’ is very good on this, I think.)

‘That is one end of the scale (for want of a better description). At the other end is someone like Mother Theresa whose life was lived 24/7 with Christ at the forefront of everything she said or did, in every thought and every atom of her being.’

I know what you are saying here, and trying to illustrate, but I wouldn’t myself chose mother Teresa to do this. She seems to have been a very caring person, and to have done a lot of good things. But at the same time what she wrote in her own diary really makes me ask questions about whether she ever actually went through the kind of process described above, and so knew God personally.

She apparently had what has been described as ‘a 50-year faith crisis’. And over this period she wrote things like this:
“I call, I cling, I want, and there is no one to answer, no, no one. Alone. Where is my faith? Even deep down there is nothing. I have no faith…I am told God loves me, and yet the reality of the darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?”

And this:
“The smile is a mask or a cloak that covers everything. I spoke as if my heart was in love with God, a tender personal love. If you were there you would have said, ‘What hypocrisy.’ “

I cannot in the end ‘judge and sentence’ her as a person, because of course I am not God and it is not my job. But given that she made statements like these over such a long period of time, and that this does not appear to have ever changed for the better, these sound to me very much like the words of someone who never actually knew God for herself as a reality.

If Mother Teresa only followed Roman Catholic teaching that you automatically become born-again, and are thus a Christian, just by being sprinkled with water as a baby (christening or ‘baptism’), then she would not have known God. And, though this is not the place to go into this in detail, the Sacred Heart is a Roman Catholic fictitious ‘god’. In following a supposed ‘call’ from this, she certainly wasn’t following any call from the God that the likes of you and I know.

‘And in-between? That's where you find the rest of us, the majority, all at different stages of our life, able to commit to varying degrees. Some go to church, others say their prayers quietly at night. Some debate earnestly on blogs such as this while others - like my wife of 35 years - have a faith so deep, they don't need to theologise about every twist and turn, every nuance. Some are Bishops and some, bus drivers.

But whether you are Mother Theresa or someone like me, clinging to their faith, at times with panicky desperation; maybe a Christian all your life or born again in the last few months; it makes no difference. If you have accepted Christ's promise of eternal life with Him by recognising Him as your Saviour and that acceptance was made with a true and honest devotion, then you are on your way to Heaven.

Christ does not demand that we go to church a certain number of times each month or that we spend every available hour walking the streets, evangelising in His name. He does not demand that we learn the New Testament by heart, go to Bible classes or deepen our understanding of Him through the fellowship and wisdom of other Christians.

Of course, He is pleased and supportive if we can translate our faith in such ways but that does not buy a ticket into His Kingdom. For many people, the recognition and acceptance of Christ in their lives does bring great change for the good but not everyone. We all still remain sinners. All Christ asks is that we believe in Him.’

I agree with the bulk of this – Christians do come in all shapes and sizes, and in Christ we are absolutely loved and accepted as we are. But I would want to say two things about it: first, as well as the possible loss of salvation that I have already mentioned, the Bible tells us that even after we have become Christians we still need to ‘work out our salvation with fear and trembling’, and it also talks about rewards in heaven being linked to the quality and courage of our walk here on earth.

As someone has, I think, aptly said: God loves us as we are. But He loves us far too much to let us stay that way!

Second, ‘believe’ means different things to different people. You can believe in God, and yet not know Him as a result of Him coming inside you and REVEALING HIS TRUE SELF to you. For example, I once believed in Father Christmas (I was ‘sure' he was real) because I had been told this in such a convincing way from such a young age. (For much the same reason, Roman Catholics believe that the bread and the wine actually turn into Christ’s body and blood.) But for me what Jesus meant by believe is best understood by looking at the meaning of the Greek word ‘pisteuo’ that the Bible uses when Jesus talks about believing. It means: to ahhere to, cleave to; to trust, to have faith in; to rely on, to depend on. For me anyway, seeing ‘belief‘ this way brings out the certainty of the reality of God’s existence and reliability that exists in authentic Christianity, as well as the ‘real personal relationship’ aspect of it.

‘How else can you interpret our Lord's parable in Mathew 19:30? "But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first". A friend of mine in the church came to Christ when he was over 80 years old and when he died soon after, so late in his life, all he had to show for his commitment was a simple statement of belief. I am sure that he is in God's presence now.’

At the end of the day, God is the arbiter. And I’m sure some of His decisions as to who gets in, and who gets what rewards, will be a great surprise when we come to see for ourselves what they have been.

‘I don't know what a "true" Christian is but then, I am not God.’

Nor are any of us. But we can all read the Bible, where this is set out, and where, for example, Jesus tells us that being a true Christian includes things like actually being ‘born-again from above’ - rather than taking it that we have been just because the church or someone else in authority tells us we have, although, as it seemingly was with Mother Teresa, no real revelation of the reality of God and of Who He is, or of His love for us, has ever taken place within us.

[Tom Jackson]

Mary, the primary danger from Islam is not to be found in converts to Al-Q.

Anyone who studies Islamic teaching to any depth soon realises just what an ambiguous belief system it is - and a powerfully dangerous one at that.

The ambiguity derives from the Koran and from the various interpretations by Islamic scholars over the centuries. Feed that into communities where the majority of the people are unable to learn from source material and rely upon what is taught to them through the religious establishments, and you have the basis for the terrorism we see around the world today.

And such is the nature of Islamic teaching and beliefs, even the most moderate and westernised Muslim will be faced with a difficult choice if ever challenged to live up to his faith as determined by The Prophet and his interpreters. Either that moderate Muslim renounces his faith or he translates it into action demanded by his faith - and that could be violence.

The issues you highlight - 3% of the population and the importance of good intelligence and policing - do not really provide any valid argument for sitting on our hands.

First, with unchecked immigration and an overwhelming birth rate, the Muslim minority in this country is growing fast. And as the profile of that minority changes and the older, more conservative members become less influential, the maturing youth - who are already showing significant signs of disassociating themselves from the indigenous culture - are likely to become more active, both in violent terms and also politically.

As for the intelligence community, the police and also the justice system, it is almost as if there is a conspiracy to nullify or subdue the effect they have. We are being warned today that planned job cuts could undermine the UK's intelligence performance and effectiveness.

As for the justice system, the release of five Muslim youths who won their appeal against conviction on the basis that they were convicted for "thought crime" is a dangerous precedent. People who download child pornography but cannot be convicted of any actual paedophilic acts can still justifiably face prosecution and incarceration, although now, there is no difference with what was classified by the Appeal Court as a "thought crime" in the case of the Muslim youths!

All my life, I have lived within the law and trusted in those we elect to govern us and those appointed to keep us safe and secure. We have been let down, and badly. The situation may be irretrievable.

The only hope we have is to limit and contain the influence of those with Islamic beliefs within our society, to get rid of human rights legislation that was designed with a great deal of foreign (ie European) input and which does not integrate well with our culture and our needs and to rediscover a national identity and to value that identity.

[Stephen Marsden]

'Prominent Christian ministers are actively converting people to Islam from within churches throughout the world.'

Now who's bonkers?

Ruth, how many more nutters have to post before you close this discussion?

[MaryCunningham]

Tom, I don't see how one can "hide one's head in the same" about the Islamic threat. More like we can't get away from it!

I certainly came right up against it--Islamist thugs waving their fists at me and holding signs threatening to behead the Pope. (Come to think of it folks like Jan Pearse, Emmanuel Appel and David Smith would probably agree.) It made me angry and it prompted me to think hard about Islamism.

I found out the UK is home to native Islamists because many of its Muslim migrants originate in the Northwest Pakistan...where many of Al-Q's training camps are located. Keeping close surveillance on these Muslims is paramount. Not converting the remainder to an Al-Q outlook is just as important.

Look--they're only 3% of the population! A small minority--manageable. The UK is the country that invented the concentration camp. The UK is the country that defeated the Irish terrorist threat, IMO much more dangerous.

A combination of good intelligence and good policing will defeat the Islamists, I'm convinced. In the meantime it is important to keep our nerve...and not give way to the urgings of the Appels of the world.

[Campbell]

I point out something that even the most vigilant on Islam seem rarely to understand. It is that many Christian ministers have already converted to Islam, but do not reveal this to everyone. Prominent Christian ministers are actively converting people to Islam from within churches throughout the world. To understand this properly it is necessary to consider how Islam has deliberatly been adapted for adoption by people of western culture. They are converted through so-called interfaith dialogue which is nothing more than an extremely pernicious proselytisation.
They can do this legitimately under the principle of "taqiyya". It allows Muslims to conceal their faith if circumstances justify it. Within the woolly theology of the modernised western Islam, anyone can fool themselves that they are doing right by discreetly working within strategic institutions to push their objectives.
And having "dual citizenship" spiritually is never a problem. As long as they obey sharia law, which is easy to do. Sharia law has two most outstanding principles. 1. It is forbidden to say anything against Mahommed or the Koran. 2. It is forbidden to leave the Islamic faith. (Both incur death in some Muslm countries.)
Many Muslims working both secretly and openly within strategic institutions have fought for years to create policies and laws that comply with Sharia's blasphemy requirement. Religious vilification laws that have been introduced throughout the world, even in U.N. determinations, are motivated by the need to create a quasi Sharia blasphemy law.
The next step in implementing sharia is to prevent Muslims from converting. Ruth Gledhill's account of the women "sectioned" to hospital demonstrates that Muslims wanting to escape from Islam are "held" within the folds of this darkness. Sharia law for "Muslims only" would allow the casting of this net beyond their no-go mini-states, right across the UK.
Do not be naive and think that the Archbishop is just a lefty, bonkers, or kow-towing to terrorism. Do not struggle to understand why people like that "don't seem to understand". Because, friends, they understand better than you, and me. It is their strategy to appear as naive, fuzzy leftists who want to reduce prejudice and create harmony.
They will keep pushing the UK down not just till it is not on its knees, but till its head is below water. The question is, can the British bring themselves to love once again, with such willing-to-die fervour, that which the purveyors of evil seem so willing to die in order to destroy?

[Tom Jackson]

"How does 'appeasing' Hitler have any connection with combating internal plotters?"

The answer, Mary, is that, of course, there is no direct connection.

But there is still a valid parallel in that there were plenty of people willing to bury their heads in the sand when faced with the threat of the Nazis rather than face up to the inevitable consequence of the power that was building in Germany at the time - something that people such as Winston Churchill and Hugh Dowding were thankfully prepared to do (and so saved the nation).

There is plenty of evidence now of threats building from those who follow Islamic teaching. The obvious examples are the Islamic States themselves, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc. But it is simply impossible to ignore the Muslim presence here in the UK where a burgeoning expansion of their community through immigration and explosive birth rates is already swamping the social and economic structure of our country.

Had this been recognised earlier, had we not suffocated any realistic analysis under the weight of political correctness and fear of being branded racist, bigoted or devoid of any tolerance, then we would have had more time for "steady nerves and cool headed thinking".

The ICM opinion poll in 2006, for example, indicated that in addition to 20% of British Muslims having sympathy with those who carried out the London bombings, 40% said they backed the introduction of Sharia Law in certain parts of Britain! 50% recognised a deterioration of the Muslim relationship with the indigenous population.

To suggest that raising these concerns is "fear mongering" is exactly what those who wanted to ignore Hitler did in the 1930's. To blame everything on media coverage suggesting that the general public is unable to think for themselves was probably a tactic were used by the appeasers at that time.

I, like you, am a Londoner and have been all my 61 years. I have experienced fear and trepidation when I sit on a Tube train or walk past Canary Wharf but I am not going to let that fear allow those, whose beliefs and actions are totally alien to everything I value and hold dear, influence the way I live my life in this, the country of my birth.

[MaryCunningham]

Emmanuel Appel,

Charging anti-semitism, eh? Why am I not surprised? But Brian is Greek Orthodox and was born in England although he left decades ago...of course he could be Jewish too I guess, people have multiple layers of loyalty. Well, some people anyway.

I don't mind if *you* see everything through Hitler-tinged glasses but insofar as Britain is concerned our fight is against internal Islamists. The threat is more like that posed by guerrillas than by an external sovereign state. It's--oh--fourth generation warfare not second. And in fourth generation warfare not alienating the host community--the pool in which these poisonous fish swim--is key. Otherwise for every one you destroy you create two more.

Anyway--like I said--I really resent your admonitions etc. But I repeat myself--however, I will only do so once whereas YOU! (forever Mr Appel and always the same prescription: fight! fight! fight!--easy when someone else is doing it, eh?)

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Mary Cunningham

First, clean up your language. Why do you use " American neos" when you really mean "You Jews".

You ask why we're so fixated on the Nazis? Are you twelve?

We are fixated on the Nazis, because, like the Bishop of Rome, they were fixated on killing us or making us disappear from history.
Of course, that is a small matter for your type.

[MaryCunningham]

Dear Brian,

I do wish you and other American neos would choose a different historical analogy. Why are you, Appel &tc so fixated on the Nazis? The historical situation is simply not the same.

And why do Americans, probably living in some safe rural area, presume to offer advice to Londoners? Have your harsh actions in the ME brought you a lot of kudos? If so, I haven't noticed.

Gledhill et al's 'coverage' was classic yellow journalism, fear mongering at its worst. I would wager none of said journos actually even bothered to read the speech, let alone discuss it rationally. The goal of assimilating Muslims (in 2001 3.2% of the British population, less so now due to the large numbers of European migrants) into British society, while at the same time fighting the Islamists who are waging the terror, plotting to blow up the rest of us, calls for steady nerves and cool headed thinking.

Demonising *all* Muslims is extremely counterproductive, since we depend upon the Muslim community itself for leads against the terrorists. How does 'appeasing' Hitler have any connection with combating internal plotters? If there is any historical situation with some parallels it is the fight against *Irish* terrorists operating on the mainland during the 1974-1998 period.

I consider myself on the front line. I take the tube. I shop in crowded places. I use London airports, even Heathrow (a hell on earth even without the terror threats). After the Pope's Regenburg's speech I was one of those Catholics that faced an angry mob of Islamists after Sunday Mass in Westminster Cathedral. So I know who I am up against. Angry young men.

Thus I resent fear mongering because it leads to the wrong response. I am more at risk than you, hence I also very much resist inappropriate analogies and unasked for advice.

Regards,
Mary Cunningham
London

PS If I had to emigrate I could go to anyplace in Europe, I'd probably choose Spain or Ireland. But I hope not to have to go.

[Stephen Marsden]

Ah, the 'Common-Market-was-a-Papist-Plot' line! I suppose that, next, Mr Smith will remind us all that the Common Market came into being as a result of the Treaty of ROME! Proof positive, if ever it was needed.

Which it isn't.

[A voice from downunder]

David Smith, as you've directly asked me questions I will respond to you. It was not my intention to "blacken" your name and I am sorry if I have caused you hurt. I wouldn't want to do that to anyone, no matter how much we might disagree. I should not have "named names" but as an excuse I guess I didn't quite know how to make my point without doing so. Think of me as stupid and thoughtless rather than malicious. (It is very hot here and my brain is taxed after so many days and nights of relentlessly high temperatures). However I make no apology for exercising my right to anonymity, nor for making my point (which I do not retract). Also, I choose not to answer the questions you put to me. That is my right also. Having said all this, I won't enter into any further dialogue with you as I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. It really is too hot to argue with a stranger.

[Elle]

it's a creazy!!! We will go back 1400 years ???

[Tom Jackson]

"But, after I had calmed down, I was then in the position to ask them what they meant, and to learn that they were actually right.. and then to make a real, informed choice about whether I wanted to be one or not."

"What do you think 'a true Christian' is?"

David, when I see a fellow Christian under attack for his beliefs, or the characterisation of his beliefs, from non-believers or even from other Christians, it is interesting to see how they respond, how defensive they are or how brittle their retorts.

You see, someone who is secure in their faith has nothing to worry about. This is not an arrogant attitude but simply a realisation of the power and majesty of Jesus Christ. The battles have already been won, the outcome is already determined; there was never any doubt that God would triumph.

But even with that knowledge, even when you enter a debate confident in your faith, it is not a licence to be overbearing or arrogant with those who either doubt what you are saying or have simply not been faced with the opportunity or circumstances to accept Christ into their lives. And Christ wants those people to enter the Kingdom of Heaven side by side with those of us who have already humbled ourselves before him.

David, let me give you my simplistic perspective on my faith, on Christianity.

You start by identifying Christ to be your Saviour and to humble yourself by asking Him to come into your life, recognising that you are far from perfect, that you have faults and that He is the only one who can help you.

Now, you may go no further than that. Given the nature of the world we live in, you may not be strong enough or possess the character to turn yourself inside out and become a complete new person. You might start out with all the good intentions but struggle to maintain the determination to become exactly as God would have us become.

But you still have that faith in Christ. The invitation you have made to Him has been fulfilled. He is in your heart and your soul and will always be with you, knowing that you believe in Him.

That is one end of the scale (for want of a better description). At the other end is someone like Mother Theresa whose life was lived 24/7 with Christ at the forefront of everything she said or did, in every thought and every atom of her being.

And in-between? That's where you find the rest of us, the majority, all at different stages of our life, able to commit to varying degrees. Some go to church, others say their prayers quietly at night. Some debate earnestly on blogs such as this while others - like my wife of 35 years - have a faith so deep, they don't need to theologise about every twist and turn, every nuance. Some are Bishops and some, bus drivers.

But whether you are Mother Theresa or someone like me, clinging to their faith, at times with panicky desperation; maybe a Christian all your life or born again in the last few months; it makes no difference. If you have accepted Christ's promise of eternal life with Him by recognising Him as your Saviour and that acceptance was made with a true and honest devotion, then you are on your way to Heaven.

Christ does not demand that we go to church a certain number of times each month or that we spend every available hour walking the streets, evangelising in His name. He does not demand that we learn the New Testament by heart, go to Bible classes or deepen our understanding of Him through the fellowship and wisdom of other Christians.

Of course, He is pleased and supportive if we can translate our faith in such ways but that does not buy a ticket into His Kingdom. For many people, the recognition and accepance of Christ in their lives does bring great change for the good but not everyone. We all still remain sinners. All Christ asks is that we believe in Him.

How else can you interpret our Lord's parable in Mathew 19:30? "But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first". A friend of mine in the church came to Christ when he was over 80 years old and when he died soon after, so late in his life, all he had to show for his commitment was a simple statement of belief. I am sure that he is in God's presence now.

I don't know what a "true" Christian is but then, I am not God.

[Mark]

I have encountered many asinine ideas during my long life but never one so utterly sobering and bereft of logic, civility, liberty, and Christian morality.

Might HRM commit the Church's Archidiot to the Royal Physician for mental evaluation and action?

[David Smith]

Chris Gillebrand:
'The European Union - The Vatican's Influence' !!

I don't want to be a killjoy but I live 400 yards from the European Parliament, so I write this from under the Babylonian tower, but in six years in Brussels, I have yet to detect any Vatican influence on the EU institutions.'

And I truly have no wish to be rude, Chris, but where exactly do you live - in a bunker fifty feet underground??!!

The whole concept of the EU is Roman Catholic inspired.. and has been Vatican-backed, throughout its development. Ever heard of people like Claude Monnet - one of its founders and up for 'Sainthood'?

Since you seem to be so 'in the dark' about this, let me refer you to a small booklet on the subject, for a start: 'Papal Rome and the European Union' by Richard Bennett and Michael de Semlyen. You can obtain a copy by sending the princely sum of £1.00 to Dorchester House Publications, PO Box 67, Rickmansworth, Herts WD3 5SJ.

This is small and succint but packed with facts, including the Vatican's own pronouncements (verbatim) on the subject.

Here's a titbit from its pages - itself a quote from The (Roman Catholic) Sunday Telegraph of 7th July 2003:
"The Vatican notoriously thinks in centuries. In Pope John Paul II we have the most political pope of modern times. It is in the movement towards federalism of the Common Market, with the coming membership of Eastern European countries, as well as in the turmoil of the Soviet Union, that the Pope may see the greatest possibility for an increase in Catholic political power since the fall of Napoleon or since the Counter-Reformation. The common market itself started under the inspiration of Catholic politicians - such as Adenauer of Germany, Paul Henri Spaak, Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman...The EC Social Charter and the socialism of Jacques Delors (President of the European Commission) are imbued with Catholic social doctrine. If European federalism triumphs, the EC will indeed be an empire. It will lack and emperor: but it will have the Pope."

Another place to look to see the full extent of the Vatican's pitch for power in the EU is the Papal encyclical: Ecclesia in Europa, which can still, I think, be viewed for free on the Vatican's own website - vatican.va

[David Smith]

Tony B:
"Sean Emerson said: 'I am praying for a British leader to stand up and say "Islam is not welcome here. You lot, out! Go back to the cesspool from whence you came!" '

Wouldn't that make us as bad as the Arab nations that are so reviled?"

Yes, Tony, I think it would. There are many other ways we could make the point that this is Britain and that we value our Christian heritage and our Christian inspired values and laws, and don't wish to take on theirs 'thank you', without resorting to language of the gutter and personal abuse.

[David Smith]

'Tom, I salute you. You are a true Christian and a glimmer of light on this sometimes very dark blog. After the David Smiths and the Rick Beekmans of this world (I'm sorry to have to name names to make my point), you've raised my spirits considerably!'

Posted by: A voice from downunder | 12 Feb 2008 23:58:19

This is no comment on Tom Jackson, the details of whose inner belief system I do not know, but who seems from his contributions to this blog to be a very nice, sensible, pleasant, and 'thinking' man. But what, I wonder, is your basis for saying that he is 'a true Christian'? What do you think 'a true Christian' is? And do you think that you are one?

I don't know what you believe personally, Mr., Mrs., Master, or Miss 'Voicefromdownunder'. But I wonder how your belief system squares blackening others by name whilst protecting your own name through anonymity?!

Mine brings words like double-standard, inequity, and cowardice
to mind.

[David Smith]

Tom Jackson:
'David, I won't broker any dispute between those who place their faith in Jesus, be they Catholic, Anglican, Methodist or whoever.

We are all on the same path...to think you have found the one true way to Christ while everyone else is going in the wrong direction is foolish.'

Yes, this would indeed be foolish! But I don't think that 'everyone else' is on the wrong path... just some.

I haven't looked into 'Methodism or whatever', Tom. And I believe that there are most definately real Christians in the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches.

But the 'gospels' contained in official Roman Catholic and Anglican teaching are not the same as the Gospel of the Bible, and do not save. So if anyone in those organisations is looking to and adherring to that teaching alone to save them (or to 'make them a Christian') then I believe that they are deceived and in great danger eternally.

To say this is to make a judgment on the teaching of those organisations, and not on any individual member of them.

I am more than happy to discuss the details of what I see as the divergences between these 'gospels' with anyone with a serious interest in doing so. Further, if you (or anyone else in this category) wants to give Ruth permission to transmit their name and e-mail address to me, I would be more than happy to talk to them 'off site' as well.

Suffice it to say here that I am a born-again Christian - according to Jesus there is no other kind. And that at 25 I had the shock (I now see it as a privilege) of someone telling me that just because I was a member of the C of E, and had been since I was 'christened' as a baby, that did not make me a Christian and saved in the Bible's terms. I was initially very angry to hear this. But, after I had calmed down, I was then in the position to ask them what they meant, and to learn that they were actually right.. and then to make a real, informed choice about whether I wanted to be one or not. The end product of this was my actually coming into a true, living relationship of my own with God.

In so far as this is in my power, I want to make sure that anyone who is in the position that I formerly was, and who still needs to make a similarly informed decision, gets that chance too. That's all.

[Becky]

With regards to the report of muslim women being sectioned because their husbands are tired of them etc - I'm sure the Mental Health Act Commission would be very interested to hear about this and investigate it (if they knew the details). I'd be surprised if the existing safeguards in the mental health system (MHAC, Mental Health Review Tribunal, the fact that 2 doctors and an approved social worker are needed to section someone in the first place, who would all have to be complicit - as would all the ward staff, the rest of the clinical team, the Hospital Managers etc etc ...) had all failed to spot that something like this was going on though.

[Tom Jackson]

"Do you suggest that, this time, we just 'turn the other cheek'?"

The challenge we face from the incursion of Islam into our nation, a belief system that is demonstrably alien to the indigenous population (whether you accept we are a Christian community or not), should give us the opportunity to consider what turning the other cheek really entails.

Because, logically, if faced with an implacable foe, a threat about which there is no compromise, negotiation or accommodation, if our faith charges us to turn aside and offer no resistance, that is the end of Christianity!

Does anyone with a faith in Christ believe that is what is asked of us? To allow ourselves and our faith to be wiped out or assimilated into a belief system that is alien and opposed to everything we believe in?

Actually, a reasonable and accepted analysis of what Jesus was saying can be found here: http://www.new-life.net/faq001.htm.

Part of the analysis is; "Christians are permitted to defend themselves and their families (Exodus 22:2; Numbers 1:2-3; Ecclesiastes 4:12; Luke 22:36; Acts 22:1; 25:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:16) and to use God-ordained authority to keep evil from harming them or others (Proverbs 28:8; Acts 16:37-39; 22:23-29)."

[Brian]

Mary Cunningham,

If you substitute the word "Churchill" for "Gledhill" and "Nazi" for "Islamic terrorists" you end up like your intellectual forefathers...the great appeasers.

Are you aware that the BBC Radio would not allow Churchill to speak in the mid thirties because he was "fanning" the flames of hatred with Germany?

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

The only problem that in this case, the enemy has already landed in Blighty and is rapidly multiplying.

Where do you think your grandchildren will flee to? Canada, Australia, or heaven forbid, the US?

[Chris Gillibrand]

'The European Union - The Vatican's Influence' !!

I don't want to be a killjoy but I live 400 yards from the European Parliament, so I write this from under the Babylonian tower, but in six years in Brussels, I have yet to detect any Vatican influence on the EU institutions.

[A voice from downunder]

Tom Jackson said: "We are all on the same path; some are going faster than others; some lose their way occasionally; Some sing while they walk and others keep their silence. But we all have our eyes fixed on the end of the road where our Saviour waits.

And such is the complexity and confusion of the world we live in, such is the willingness of some individuals to succumb to a desire for control and power, status and adulation, that to think you have found the one true way to Christ while everyone else is going in the wrong direction is foolish".

Tom, I salute you. You are a true Christian and a glimmer of light on this sometimes very dark blog. After the David Smiths and the Rick Beekmans of this world (I'm sorry to have to name names to make my point), you've raised my spirits considerably!

[Kate]

Tony B: Wouldn't that make us as bad as the Arab nations that are so reviled?

Actually NO. It would just make us pragmatists and people with a bit of self-respect. I know that's not terribly pc. But, I'm rather fed-up with the injunction to bow the head and pretend that multiculturalism is 'lovely'. I reject fascistic diktats in whatever guise they appear.

Those who seek martyrdom or subjugation are welcome to it. Our Lord did not hesitate to chastise those who fouled the Temple. Britain faced the evil and scourge of Fascism and Nazism. All totalitarian ideologies are essentially fascist. Do you suggest that, this time, we just 'turn the other cheek'?

[Tony B]

Sean Emerson said >I am praying for a British leader to stand up and say "Islam is not welcome here. You lot, out! Go back to the cesspool from whence you came!"

Wouldn't that make us as bad as the Arab nations that are so reviled?

[Alice C. Linsley]

Why, indeed, is England committing suicide?

[Diarmuid McKeown]

I cannot express how relieved I am to read to rad the comments on this page. People won't stand for such naive rubbish. And so a country lives on.

[Sean Emerson]

As an American who spent several years in England twenty years ago in the forces, I am shaking my head and wondering what happened to the men of England?

Would the men who fought at Agincourt and the Somme, the men of Waterloo and those who stood up to Hitler in the Blitz have tolerated this nonsense?

England is no stranger to religious civil war. I am praying for a British leader to stand up and say "Islam is not welcome here. You lot, out! Go back to the cesspool from whence you came!"

You make life miserable enough for Muslims, and they will go, or convert. Just like they do to Christians in their countries.

On second thought, don't. They might come here instead.

[Tom Jackson]

David, I won't broker any dispute between those who place their faith in Jesus, be they Catholic, Anglican, Methodist or whoever.

We are all on the same path; some are going faster than others; some lose their way occasionally; Some sing while they walk and others keep their silence. But we all have our eyes fixed on the end of the road where our Saviour waits.

And such is the complexity and confusion of the world we live in, such is the willingness of some individuals to succumb to a desire for control and power, status and adulation, that to think you have found the one true way to Christ while everyone else is going in the wrong direction is foolish.

[Rod]

Thank you Broadway Atinga, I would second
Ruth Gledhill, the Times Newspaper, the rest of you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.

[David Smith]

Tom Jackson:
'Given the choice, David, between living either under the Catholics or the Muslims, I know which I would choose.'

I understand why you might say this, Tom. But the fact that the RC 'Church' has held back from or concealed its excesses for long enough and widely enough world-wide for many to forget what it is capable of when in a position of unfettered power, is not a good enough reason in my book to 'choose' it in any sense.

Professor Arthur Noble of the European Institute of Protestant Studies in his work 'The European Union - The Vatican's Influence' rightly, I think, describes The Vatican as 'the greatest mass-murderer in history'.

The bottom line for me is that Roman Catholicism and its Head Office are not, at root, 'of God' at all.

The choice you present is in reality actually far from being the only choice available. Why not just present and advocate the choosing of the true, 'invisible' 'kingdom' and hierarchy of God established on earth by Jesus, instead?

[MaryCunningham]

I unreservedly agree with Joe. And made a similar protest earlier but I'll go further here.

My experience on AoF show that rather than assisting harmony, religious blogs mostly serve to spread hate. Shame on Finkelstein and Gledhill for instigating such coverage (manufacture?) of this affair and shame on the editor of the Times for allowing it. The pit--absolute nadir!--was Minette Martin's accusation of treason. Treason, such inflammatory words! Will these gentle folk be advocating hanging, drawing and quartering next?

Cool heads are needed to deal with Islamic radicals in Britain but the Times' journos only want to fan the flames.

Shame on the lot of them. Shame. Shame. Shame.

[joe]

Ruth - you have a typo in your post at the end of the first paragraph.

We already have a jurisdiction in the UK which allows violence against people without recourse to the civil law. It is called the British Boxing Board of Control, which regulates and allows GBH outwith of the civil and criminal courts.

I don't see many people arguing that the BBFBC should be banned because it is be the thin end of the wedge and they could attempting to reintroduce gladiatorial fights-to-the-death. People don't argue that because it is nonsense.

The truth is that there are various non-judicial courts which regulate activities which otherwise would be unlawful. There are various bodies which mediate to establish consensus without needing to go to court, such as ACAS, Relate etc.

And before another American comes in here being all self-righteous, you have a non-judicial parallel court system called Judge Judy where parties air and then receive judgements on their petty complaints on national television.

Sections of our society regularly make important decisions before bodies that are not judicial. This isn't news.

The heat generated from this debate goes far beyond the facts at hand, and many of you people have simply exhibited your own xenophobia and ignorance by posting here.

Ruth Gledhill, the Times Newspaper, the rest of you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.

[Broadway Atinga]

It is very clear that again the Ar chbishop is wrong.

[Julian Pedley]

perhaps the Archbishop and indeed Sharia law supporting Moslems in this country would get a more reasonable consideration if they sought publically and explicitly to uphold the law in Darfur. Not a single Moslem organisation in the UK will stand against the murder, rape and pillage that this Sharia loving country of Sudan is perpetrating on other Moslems in Darfur everyday,and has done for years and years. Even Moslem members of the House of Lords did not have the courage to do so when in Sudan. Is not rape, pillage, theft and murder an insult to Allah/Mohammed and worth a mention along with teddy bears and cartoons. Not one Islamic government will raise their voice in critism of Sudan in the UN.They think it unislamic to do so, never mind justice or truth or decency or honesty or compassion.If this is the outworking of this wonderful Sharia law,then God help us all. Let rowan Williams address a group of Sharia Legal Scholars in Mecca and plead for 'space for Christians' or Hindus to publickly worship and preach their faiths leave alone ask for Judeo_Christian democratic law to be allowed to have space in their lives in Saudia Arabia ( or any Islamic country)and see if he gets out alive!

[Leif Barbré Knudsen]

Why does the Queen not dispose of this Archbishop madman?

She would serve the most basic purpose a monarch can do: preserve Her country

... and be loved by most in doing so.

[Robin Bather]

The term "useful idiot" springs to mind after reading Rowan's latest ideas.
Apart from the English language, the greatest single thing that the English have given to the world is the English system of law.
It may have its defects but it is far far better than the alternatives.
Rowan put his foot in his mouth and harmed the C of E--the religion he is supposed to promote and protect.
He should resign.

[andrew holden]

"accommodation may be acceptable in many circumstances"

What we have to decide is how much accommodation is appropriate and for whom? This country and it's political and legal system was built on the notion of Christendom (which may or may not have always been a convenient fiction). Hence there is already a great deal of accommodation already for the Christian faith (actually strictly for Anglicanism). This has been further extended to other Protestant denominations and to Roman Catholicism and, more recently included other faiths and secularism.

I think you have to ask how much further this is possible in a plural society (and I do think this is behind much of what the Archbishop has said) and where it will end. I'm sure that we are heading towards a radical restructuring of our society beyond its religious roots. The major question is whether this can be towards some sort of tolerant and inclusive pluralism or towards the kind of humanistic secularism which is essentially intolerant of any religious belief in the public space.

I think the time for the establishment of state religion (whether Anglican, Islamic or even multi-faith) has gone and I'm in favour of a tolerant pluralism (for all who are tolerant enough to accept it). Of course many Islamicists want to live in Islamic states (and there are plenty they can choose to go and live in if that's the case) but there are at least some who see the need for the secularisation of public life in a way which still remains sympathetic to the needs of religious citizens.

[Robert Atkins]

Is it possible for people to talk about this without resorting to insults, particularly about Rowan William's appearance? I think that his motivation was not so much to do with Sharia Law and more to do with making a stir, and in the process he has shown how the Anglican Church can take a place in radical discussion in the contemporary world. Isn't this is what he found so 'overwhelming'? - the attention he received, like being showered with gifts?

[Rich]

When Muslims come here from the M.E. they should be told at the airport, "You are now entering a secular society with secular laws. Obey them. If you don't like it please get on the next plane home."

All of us as citizens need to stand up for our secular society which has its roots in Judeo/Christian principles and not feel the need to apologize for it. Be proud of your heritage for it has created a society with more freedoms than any time in history. Don't let it be taken back to the 7th century.

[Tom Jackson]

"I'm getting heartily sick of self-seeking, pompous Anglican apologists rushing to the ABC's defense, pretending the issue - albeit misconstrued - is some sort of academic debate."

As an Anglican, J Pearce, so am I, so am I.

There is a problem, however, with lumping together all manifestations of "religious incursion into secular British law" since our law in the UK, by and large, reflects the Christian heritage of our country as it has developed over many centuries.

And, Andrew, accommodation may be acceptable in many circumstances (like when your mother-in-law comes to stay) but when it represents the tip of an iceberg, an object so unstable in these times of global warming that it might flip over at any time, now that is a different matter!

For want of a better analogy, that is exactly what Islam is. Because allowing a minority community to lawfully operate in a different way to that of the majority (and you have the recent example of a polygamous marriage catered for by the benefit system) is a recipe for disharmony and a weakening of our community.

But more than that, 'accommodation' of even what might be relatively innocuous aspects of Sharia Law will then be followed by demands for more and more 'accommodation' (the iceberg flipping over to display the bulk of it's composition hidden underneath!) Can you guarantee that is not going to happen? Can you even make a reasonable argument, given the evidence available as far as Islam is concerned, that this will not happen?

I think not, especially, as we are all aware, the Muslim population in this country is going to grow and grow to the point that we, as members of the indigenous population, have very little say in the matter!

And a final point for Marika Footring; maybe you could define the criteria by which you would accept that some of us have not just relied upon Ruth's usual excellent report and have the intelligence and motivation to investigate the matter ourselves! Or is it that we have to agree with you and the other apologists in order to be deemed worthwhile to make our comment and contribution?

[Rose]

Are these protesters in prison yet? They are seriously inciting racial hatred! I love that, due to 6 Danis mens' decision to draw Mohammed, their entire country gets bombed! Is this the wonder of sharia law that we can expect from the fantastic muslim way of life? So if i commit a crime, as a brown haired, blue-eyed person, will all people witht hese features also be punished? Which would be better, public flogging or maybe even stoning us all to death.

And what have france, germany and spain got to do with this?

I especially love the modern and wonderful punishment of taking all the danish women. So far sighted, so just...

GET THESE ANIMALS OUT OF MY COUNTRY.

[andrew holden]

To Mr J Pearce.

There's plenty of room for more hypocrisy round here!

In fact I stated quite clearly that the AoC should not have delivered his lecture - because of his position.

That, in public at least, he should have kept his mouth firmly shut on this issue doesn't excuse the wilful and hysterical misrepresentations from people who can't be bothered to read (or understand) what he actually said.

However, there is a debate to be had about the secularisation of our political and legal systems and the best that can be said about the Archbishops's comments is that he has encouraged that debate in a direction that I guess he doesn't actually want. Having said that I think the Christian tradition is much more sympathetic to plural secularism than, say, the Islamic.

For the record, I'm on the side of disestablishment on this rather than seeking some sort of multi-faith extablishment as I think the AoC would be arguing for. Neverthless a proper plural civil society still has to accomodate the various cultural and ethical positions of the communities which contribute to it. That's the minefield that the AoC has got himself trapped in - but then it is one that has got to be crossed if we are to get through the diversity to some sort of unity.

Hypocritical? I don't think so. Realistic more like.

[George Parr]

Well said Jason Mead. It might appear wholly incredible to some of the self-serving, pious members posting here, but their agendas do not actually reflect the interests of society as a whole. Consequently, legislation should be based on the needs of all of the people and not on a variety of varying beliefs. Any political debate should involve those who have been elected by all of the people in our society, with clerics addressing the internecine issues of their faiths. In short, their views should not impact on or influence policy, much in the same way that our schools system should certainly not be underpinned by selective notions of religious guidance.

[George Parr]

Well, Charlayne in Texas, there are a fair number of people here who afford our current monarch as much credibility as unelected clerics. She is emblematic of a elitist system of privilege and undeserving regard, almost as much as our undemocratic house of Lords, in which sit 26 members of the Anglican clergy. Whilst no-one in their right mind would wish to see a system which provides such arrogant and warmongering dynastic leaders such as George Bush and his evangelist coterie, we might strive towards a healthy, prosperous republic, which embraces equality, liberalism and human rights, not through a system of shady cohorts and wealthy, grovelling appointees, but through mutual respect and the recognition and reward of human endeavour.

[George Parr]

Tom, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I still think that you overstate the cogency, effectiveness and historical aptness of the Christian faith in this country. This latest utterance from an Anglican cleric, chosen to lead an Angican community by the members of his faith only serves to show that these one-track political statements stir up a hornet's nest. I accept that there are calls for his resignation, but in order to create a balance, issues of such social and political importance should be addressed by elected governments serving all of the people.

If we really are to experience a one-way ticket to Islam, poorly countered by a fragmented and attenuated Christian faith which is clearly turning in on itself, how do these early attempts at liberal posturing protect the right to live in peace of those of us who have no religion? Are we really expected to put up with a problem created exclusively for us all by those pursuing an assortment of beliefs and crazy notions, either barbaric or fundamentalist, and made worse by leading figures such as Mr Williams, who appear to be living in a world of dreams?

[Richard]

Religion is made up by bearded, middle-aged males, whether they are Muslim or Christian or anything else, and ultimately enforced by younger, violent males.

Williams enjoys whatever power he has through something that is ultimately based only in violence, but fortunately he is held in check by a secular tradition that has been developed in this country, sometimes at great risk to the people who dared to think about it. If we allow that secularism to be eroded, we put everyone's liberty at risk.

[andrew holden]

" 'The immigrant, Islamic minority who would seek to impose their beliefs and culture upon UK society.'....The immigrant, Islamic minority who would seek to impose their beliefs and culture upon UK society have been dealt a severe blow by the Archbishop's comments."

Tom, accommodation is not the same as imposition. Such an assumption actually plays right into the hands of the secular humanists - and you are probably right that it is that approach which is the focus of the Archbishop's lecture. See the comment in his last paragraph about the prevailing importance of theology to this debate!

[Frank from Ontario]

Does the Archbishop realise that he will, by virtue of his position, be beheaded if Sharia law is enacted? He might want to actually read the Koran before he opens his mouth.

[J Pearce]

To Mr Holden and others who have rushed to the defence of the "innocent" ABC and his comments:

Exactly HOW hypocritial do you want to be?!

When the ABC makes statements about matters closer to Christian/Anglican prejudices (CP's, homosexuality, the usual suspects), we get the inevitable whinging about not getting the "proper" representation from the UK media and how there is some sort of "secular conspiracy" to suppress Christian viewpoints.

But when the ABC makes a statement that invites widespread media interest, suddenly all we hear is how "poor old Rowan" has got the sh*tty end of the media stick!!!

Just how sad and self-interested are you people?! What do you want, exactly? A free pass in the media? Are you all closet Catholics?!

Get in the real world and deal with it. The ABC has, probably unwittingly (which is the most damning thing that can be said about him, especially given the fey and flimsy press releases from Lambeth Palace), touched upon one of the greatest social/cultural faultlines of our times. The whole Sharia/Islam thing is going to define this country for years to come.

I'm getting heartily sick of self-seeking, pompous Anglican apologists rushing to the ABC's defense, pretending the issue - albeit misconstrued - is some sort of academic debate.

It isn't. And its about time Christians took their collective heads out of their a**es, woke up and realised that its NOT 1826 anymore and that for a majority of UK people, religious incursion into secular British law IS a matter of great import.

That being, we don't want arrogant religious nutjobs anywhere near our legal system. Whatever their putrid hue.

[David]

"Read the lecture..." I did (may I have 20 minutes of my life back please)

But none the less the man cannot disown responsibility for his interview. He said that too, and had caused this fuss.

And lectures is as others have said rely a turgid mess. And the outrage should not be about Sharia but about the bishops opposition to equality before the law, trade, liberty etc.

His apologists always say he is terribly bright, but despite searching quite hard I have yet to find speeches and writing of him that are not basically woolly, meretricious and ignorant.

It is stunning for example to see the lack of basic legal background in his speech

[sam]

re Tom Jackson:

Indeed, you are right. Ironically, the Achbishop has made a loud noise and awakened some of the sleepy populace to the dangers they are facing. But the cultural rot is so ingrained now that I'm afraid this will be just a blip in the inevitable processes at work and the civilizational suicide of the English people.

Most are likely to just turn over after a bit and reenter dreamland.

I'm an American and I wish my British cousins the best of luck but I will be waiting for the best to come to America if they have clear minds free of the socialist rot that led to their native land's downfall and welcome them warmly.

Perhaps their tales will serve as a warning in their newly adopted country and prevent the same happening.

[william j]

Rowan Williams, with a freshly hennaed beard, today welcomed the opportunity for interfaith dialogue with the unveiling of a minaret adjacent to St Paul's cathedral. "This fine domed building should, in a multi-faith society, have multiple uses - promoting community cohesion" said Williams.

[Nichevo]

(I am an American so feel free to discount everything I say in advance. This is merely a cri de coeur.)

Excuse me...forget the fogey archbishop (or save him for later):

You have, according to the writer, countless Muslim dissidents locked away in your mental institutions under the ambit of the NHS, for the crime of wearing lipstick or whatever, by a conspiracy of British Islamic male supremacy...presumably all female, but maybe male Islamic apostates or gays or whatever they would lock up a Muslim man for...

this is far worse than anything else in the article. Bedlam may be in the past but the horrors I can imagine, that would be greater than the fate of being locked up in an asylum till I get right with the Prophet, are few in number.

Not to mention this is all on the NHS' shilling, for you ratepayers waiting six months to be seen for bone cancer or whatever.

Don't you think you had better queue up some soccer hooligans and crack those places open?

It would be simplistic and unfair to draw a metaphor or equivalence to portray these women being beaten and raped every day for the rest of their sorry lives, but I don't mind sharing my opinion that involuntary commitment in your system, or any system, for such reasons, must be a fate either slightly better or slightly worse than death.

Of course they're all Asians so perhaps you don't care? No, that is unfair too. But, I mean, this is terrible! You boycotted Israel for less.

No doubt there are some women who are best kept institutionalized. Maybe you have to re-vet them all, ensuring that there are free people in the room this time. Far better to do so than to accept one lettre de cachet - today written not by a king, but an imam or a shrink with an imam's hand up his tailpipe.

Get them the hell out of there! Impeach the Archbishop later! What are you waiting for???

[Jason Mead]

So our unelected and unrepresentative Archbishop, once again and as Polly Toynbee once pointed out “dithers into the moral maze and gets himself hopelessly lost.”

No one seems to have noticed that this is only the latest of a series of dodgy suggestions that Rowan Williams has been making on matters social and legal over the last couple of weeks. Let’s put aside his unhelpful contribution to the abortion debate, last year, which he dithered into and provoked Polly’s unusually perceptive assessment. He also started shooting his mouth off over the 24 hour drinking laws and, whether you agree with them or not, you have to ask who voted for this person to lecture the government on changing its laws?

It is, perhaps, an indication of how the government is so utterly compromised by faith-based pressure groups when Gordon Brown said that he wanted to consult with the C of E in relation to scrapping the out-dated, unjustifiable, blasphemy laws. Again, you have to ask, why the C of E? Why not all their constituents?

Rowan’s response to this was absolutely stunning. He actually advocated that the blasphemy laws are abolished in favour of something even more severe and draconian, that prohibited “cruel“ and “thoughtless“ forms of speaking. Even then there were useful idiots rallying to support him.

Now, Rowan Williams claims that he has been misrepresented and that his carefully worded and nuanced speech had never called for a parallel jurisdiction of Sharia for Muslims. It is probably because he used so many caveats that he, himself, doesn’t actually realise that this is generally the notion he was trying to gently put forward.

On reading the full text of the speech, It appears, that it is no more than special pleading and consideration of the law making special legal provision for practicing religious groups. The Archbishop’s intention and agenda, really seems to be, one law for those of religious faith and another for the rest of us. He was merely using the example of Sharia to promote a notion of exceptionalism from the law so that the idea can be extended to all religious faiths including Christianity. This idea is, of course, utterly repugnant to anyone that believes that we should all be equal under the same law. This is why he said in the BBC interview that the one law was “a bit dangerous.”

Rowan Williams hasn’t been misunderstood. Unfortunately for him, what he actually meant was only far too clear and we all know various examples for what he means. Cast your minds back to the crash helmet debacle. The law of the land was then seriously compromised when Sikhs were not compelled to wear crash helmets, an exception being made on religious grounds. We’re all aware of GPs who refuse to do their job and public duty by refusing to refer women for abortions because of “personal convictions.”

More recently, we’ve had hotel owners who refuse to accommodate gay people and Catholic adoption agencies that are threatening to close rather than allow a child to be adopted by gay parents because they refuse to acknowledge a change in the law.

It is in the light of this that Rowan Williams would'nt just like to see a continuation of religious exceptionalism but also to see it extended. This surely proves the point that Professor Richard Dawkins made in his fine book, The God Delusion, where he identifies the biggest threat to democratic values and the rule of law comes from the so-called religious moderates rather than extremists. This is because extremists are easily dismissed as crackpots and being completely out-of-touch. Moderates, as epitomised by the Archbishop, are dangerous because they’ll strain every intellectual muscle and every rhetorical sinew to defend the indefensible, excuse the inexcusable and have a far greater chance of being taken seriously by their peers.

I hope that we can now all see where this is ultimately heading and recognise that there now has to be an absolute separation of religion and state. We can only co-exist in secular state no matter how uncomfortable that may be for some.

We can start by getting rid of all unelected peers, including the Archbishop, from the House of Lords. Doctors who refuse to give abortions or pharmacists who refuse to administer contraception out of “personal conscience” should be sacked. Hotel owners who refuse to accommodate gay people should be closed down and so should Catholic adoption agencies that refuse to obey the law. All religious involvement in family courts also has to end.

Only then will we have something approaching a sane, rational society that isn’t held to ransom by faith-based pressure groups, muddle-headed medievalists and the bigoted believers in Bronze or dark-age fairy tales.

[Hans Thunström]

There are a lot of PC people. Sooner or later some of them run amuck, in Sweden it happens all the time. Cheer up, it could be worse!

[Marika Footring]

(Sigh) one day and 200+ comments later and STILL no evidence that the latest contributors have bothered reading the archbishop's speech (or understood it). Don't adopt Ruth Gledhill's view of it , make up your own mind - you might find something surprisingly different from what you've been led to believe by this correspondent's report.

[Huw Thornton]

Going back to Ruth Gledhill's comments -

I did not agree with all of the Archbishop's comments either, and he certainly did not let sleeping dogs lie (but he should be admired for his courage).

BUT

Sharia law is already here, in the way in which some Muslims are seeking regulation of their financial and family lives. The position of the unfortunate Muslim women mentioned in the article may actually be worse if there is no connection between English law and the way in which Sharia is being practised.

Has the Archbishop gone bonkers? Absolutely not. He may certainly not have all the answers, but he was brave in stating his position in what he must have known was a minefield. He recognises that Sharia law is already being practised, and is proposing ways - right or wrong - in which this can be recognised without social conflict.

Anything is better than the usual British policy of "let's sweep it under the carpet, and pretend it's not happening".

[Justin]

The use of completely unrelated photos to accompany this article is #irresponsible, sensationalist and pointlessly incendiary. I would not expect The Times to lower its standards to such an extent. I disagree with the Archbishop both as a matter of principle and from a practical perspective (I write about it briefly here: www.law-research.blogspot.com), but the Archbishop was not making the case for beheading opponents of Islam as the photos accompanying this piece would seem to suggest.

[Joe]

I'm not "weak minded" G Johns, you are. Fun this, innit, little ad hominem swipes?

The fact is, those videos are an accurate portrayal of the problem. People need to see that stuff, to understand the problem and indeed the context in which issues like Sharia have to be considered. There's plenty more stuff like that on the internet, plenty, from all over the world.

What's "weak" is failing to say No to this tribal, intolerant, backward, misogynistic and totalitarian religion that causes problems wherever it goes.

UK Muslims came here one generation ago fleeing places like Kashmir after a little "religion of peace" fighting with Hindus. One generation later they repeat the same hostilities here, against the host society that's generously accommodated them and given them the benefits of a country where freedom and tolerance is a way of life, unlike the Islamic Middle East.

Sharia, as with other aspects of this backward religion, needs challenging not endorsing.

[Tom Jackson]

"The amendment of our Common Law system to accommodate Sharia "is inevitable".

Tam Earl-Aine, you may think me "stupid" but you have a lot to learn about this country and it's indigenous, Christian population.

The immigrant, Islamic minority who would seek to impose their beliefs and culture upon UK society have been dealt a severe blow by the Archbishop's comments. He has awoken the otherwise dormant individuals who value our way of life in our community, to the realisation that they are really under threat.

There have been instances in the past where our natural tolerant and welcoming nature, our desire to lead peaceful and productive lives has been threatened and it has taken some time before that threat was realised.

But once the community was shaken out of it's complacency, something that started here in the UK with first the 9/11 terrorist attrocity and then the London bombings and subsequent foiled attempts by Islamic terrorists, we were all put on our guard.

And even if were to happen, by the time there are enough Muslim votes to influence our democratic form of government in the way you suggest, both you and I will long have turned to dust.

[Charlayne in Texas]

Am I correct to think that Her Majesty Elizabeth is the head of the Anglican Church? That's what we're taught in school here across the pond anyway.

She should stand for England and the English Law that has ruled for more years than Sharia Law has. She should summarily dismiss the Archbishop of Canterbury and appoint someone who knows the history of Britain as well as the history and word of the Church.

[Cassandra]

Let's not forget the barbarity of the 'Judeo-Christian tradition,' even in fairly recent history: it's support for slavery and imperialism, misogyny, homophobia, hatred of other religions, its chauvinism and hostility to rationality and science. Even as recently as the 1980's Christians campaigned actively against the outlawing of rape in marriage.

The Church of England is bad joke: reactionary, ossified, irrelevant. An uncritical supporter of power and privilege (witness their grovelling stance towards 'royalty), and a ruthless opponent of social justice.

[podgyhodgy]

why did you not ask the anonymous woman which hospital it was, or what doctor or psychiatrist. where were you and what hospitals are about? there cannot be that many candidates. you have spread this story with no evidence but it seems it would be quite easy to investigate if such things are happening. it may be true but surely it is your job to try and prove it.

[DaveP]

Why is everyone castigating the Archbishop? He is only stating the obvious, and should be thanked for raising the issue. Shari'a is inevitable in the UK, given the rapid increase of Muslim population, as a consequence of a high birth rate and immigration. In less then 50 years, a Muslim party will be the majority in parliament. It is governments, and Labour in particular, that has sown the seeds of the end of Britain as a nation.
Before that fateful extinction of the UK, we will see a gruesome civil war, followed by partition at best. The only humane solution is to honestly and humbly admit that Islam and democracy are incompatible, and the rise of Muslim population in the UK, is a deadly threat to the well being and continued existence of the historic cultural identity of these isles. Consequently, and with great sadness at the only choice we have been left, Islam and Muslims have to be removed from Britain. I know it is hard to admit certain issues, given the years of PC indoctrination, but we are facing a catastrophe - the complete end of Britain as a historic cultural identity. In defence of the realm, as well as the interests of humanity, we need to avoid bloodshed. Most people still do not recognise the existential danger we face, and will turn away from the messenger. I really feel sad that we have been left with such choices, but the fault lies with our ignorant politicians, who have left the next generation with this mess.

[Danielle Donovan]

If the Archbishop could produce the name of single nation on earth where the influence of Sharia law has improved the statistics on the welfare of women, increased the level of education for citizens, led to improved civil law or practice, improved health and welfare or led to advances in science, medicine or technology of any kind, then he would have a right to use his position to advance this notion. Otherwise, it is utterly unreasonable and fully repugnant for him to even utter such misbegotten and terrible words.

He may be holy, but he is not rational. Let us just be grateful that he is also not a pope. God Bless the Brits for inventing sending a religious poseur down the road.

[G Johns]

It is Ruth Gledhill that should resign.

She states that:
“Muslims I spoke to this afternoon seem fearful of the effects the Archbishop’s latest remarks will have on those already prejudiced against their community.”

Yet she seems oblivious to the fact that her selected posting of images and video seem specifically chosen to stir up fear and hatred of Islam in the weaker minded.

Has she not read/understood the Archbishop's words? Or is she twisting them to her own nefarious ends?

She should be ashamed of herself for mis-representing and attacking the Archbishop's pretty benign philosophical musings.

[andrew holden]

Go read the lecture for yourself and you'll discover that the Archbishop did not argue for the implimentation of Sharia law in anything like the extreme form that much of the media and many contributors here have suggested.

Unfortunately for the Archbishop many people just don't have the time or inclination (or perhaps even the intelligence) to engage with what he actually did say. Can't let the facts get in the way of yet another opportunity to bash the CofE and its leader can we now?

The only criticism I have is that the Archbish should have seen this one coming and kept quiet. He's no longer just an Oxford Don adressing a polite academic audience able and willing to enter into a proper debate about what he actually said but the Archbishop of Canterbury whose evey word and action will get wilfully misrepresented by the sharks in the media and the opportunists in politics!

[Art Vandalay]

''But who exactly is asking for this? No Muslim organisation in Britain has requested it, I could not find any who even wanted it. Instead, Muslims I spoke to this afternoon seem fearful of the effects the Archbishop's latest remarks will have on those already prejudiced against their community''...

I know you mean well, but I am surprised you haven't heard of this story on the UK Telegraph titled ''We want to Offer Sharia Law''

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/01/20/nsharia_120.xml&page=1
''In a documentary to be screened on Channel 4 next month, entitled Divorce: Sharia Style, Dr Hasan of the Muslim Council of Britain goes further, advocating a sharia system for Britain. "If sharia law is implemented, then you can turn this country into a haven of peace because once a thief's hand is cut off nobody is going to steal," he says.

"Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going to commit this crime at all.

"We want to offer it to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don't accept it they'll need more and more prisons."

These sentiments, and the vast cultural gulf they expose, alarm many in the West and go to the heart of the debate about the level of integration among Muslims living in Britain and their acceptance of British values.

Dr Hasan's cause is not helped by the fact that, last December, he was named by the Policy Exchange think tank as being linked to a mosque, the Al-Tawhid in Leyton, east London, which was accused of propagating extremist literature - although the evidence for this has since been challenged.''

[Joe]

Thanks Peter.

I know all that stuff already, but I'm grateful for the time required to compile it and post it.

Islam at its heart is a vile, supremacist, racist, totalitarian and misogynistic religion - exmplified in the documented life of Mohammed himself, and his murderous campaign against the Infidel seeking a global empire for a master race not dissimilar to the ideas of Hitler.

Let me add, Peter, two especially important facts:

1) 4,000 Muslims are under terrorist surveillance.

2) 2,000, according to MI5, are a direct terrorist threat.

This foolish Archibishop seems so brainwashed by his own superstitions that it makes him blind to the same thing in other religions when they have heinous social implications.

[Peter Mullins]

So Rowan Williams wants Sharia Law in Britain - is this guy barking, or just certifiable? And the BBC thinks that this is a good idea - and not something to be challenged or ridiculed??

These are extracts of Sharia Law from the Koran. Is this what Rowan Williams wants for Britain??

a.
This would dispose of Tony Blair (and the Labour Party) for a start.

[5.33] The punishment of those who wage war against Allah and His apostle and strive to make mischief in the land is only this, that they should be murdered or crucified or their hands and their feet should be cut off on opposite sides

b.
Are we to bring back hanging?

[5.45] And We prescribed to them in it that life is for life, and eye for eye, and nose for nose, and ear for ear, and tooth for tooth, and (that there is) reprisal in wounds;

c.
Actually, there may be something to this Sharia stuff, can the guy who stole my car get a Sharia retrial?

[5:38] Cut off the hands of thieves, whether they are male or female, as punishment for what they have done—this is a deterrent from God, for God is almighty and wise.

(The Islamic god is generally racist, cruel, genocidal or all three simultaneously)

d.
This will stop women from working.

[2.222] And they ask you about menstruation. Say: It is a discomfort; therefore keep aloof from the women during the menstrual discharge and do not go near them until they have become clean.

e.
This will clear the beaches of Spain and France.

[4.15] And as for those who are guilty of an indecency from among your women, call to witnesses against them four (witnesses) from among you; then if they bear witness confine them to the houses until death takes them away.

f.
Ah, yes the equality that feminists have fought for for so long.

[4.34] Men have authority over women because Allah has made one superior over the other … and (as to) those women on whose part you fear disobedience, admonish them, and send them to their beds and beat them.

(Perhaps there is something to this Sharia business after all — sorry m’lud, I am not guilty of assault, I am just an ignorant Muslim…).

g.
This is more like it - can I have a few slave-girls?

[23:1] Blessed are Muslims who … restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls).

h.
This will put women in their place.

[2:228] Women shall have rights similar to those excercised against them. But men are superior to women. God is mighty and wise.

i.
This would teach my ex a lesson or two - can I administer the punishment?

[24:2] The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, it is a punishment prescribed by Allah.

j.
The following are from the Hadith. This would close Stonewall and most of the BBC down for good. You know - I’m warming to this creed.

[Abu Dawud 4447] If you find anyone doing as Lot’s people did, kill the one who does it, and the one to whom it is done.

(Lot’s people, if you did not know, were indulging in buggery)

k.
Ah, yes, this is what the Liberals want. Can we do this outside Canterbury Cathedral, so Rowan can see the fruits of his great intellect in action?

And when he had given command over her and she was put in a hole up to her breast, he ordered the people to stone her. Khalid Walid came forward with a stone which he threw at her head, and when the blood spurted on his face he cursed her. [Muslim no. 4206]

l.
And this is how the entire structure of Islam and Sharia is maintained - threats of death.

The Muslim deserves death for doing any of the following.
(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger
(2) being sarcastic about Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threats
(3) denying any verse of the Quran
(4) holding that any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent
(5) reviling the religion of Islam
(6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law (Reliance of the Traveler pp. 597—98, o8.7):

And this selection is but a small fraction of the barbarity of Sharia, this is what Rowan Williams wants in Britain. Plus - how can you have one rule for one and another rule for another. Can I become Christio-Muslim and get the best of both worlds?

Sharia Law.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html

This is a list of Islamic attacks in 2006.
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2006.htm

This is the list for 2005:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2005.htm

And for 2004:
http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks-2004.htm

[cem]

this must function as a wake up call to the "west" and to all advocates of rationality and free thought; and by free thought I do not mean this multiculturalist, laissez faire understanding of democracy (with no limits). the simple fact is that ideologies and "beliefs" which are inherently opposed to the basic principles of human rights&democracy cannot, and must not be allowed to "use/abuse" the freedom granted through these principles. THIS is exactly what is happening in Turkey today; a political party elected by the people is effectively trying to abolish/reshape laws which (although on the service may seem anti-democratizing) safeguard the perpatuation of the "secular" state. namely the law which prohibits the wearing of headscarfs in universities. the issue is not a simple one of a written law, its a thin red line between allowing the prevalence of unreason or taking a firm stand against it. this should give you an idea of what you are up against; if you give an inch...

[Alfred of Wessex]

“The road to hell is paved with the skulls of erring priests, with bishops as their signposts.”

- St. John Chrysostom

http://countryparson.wordpress.com/2008/01/15/quote-for-today-3/

[Shaun]

++Rowan's biggest failing here is not so much what he said, but that it clearly never occured to him how it would be (mis-)understood - and that is a major failing for a contemporary archbishop. Along with his running of the Anglican Communion I fear his appointment has been a disaster.

However, for those asking for him to be sacked, I think the reply is he can't be sacked, not least because his post, like most in the Church of England, isn't a job. Any canon lawyers out there able to comment on what procedures, if any, exist for removing an Archbishop? Well, I know there is one that has been used in the past... Come to think of it, wasn't Thomas Beckett bumped off for his views on the relative positions of civil and church law?

[Ada Ndukwe]

Well well. I thought only a couple of months ago all you liberals said Archbishop Akinola of Nigeria was the nemesis of the Anglican Communion, now you know who. Dr Williams sould please resign honourably. He really has gone bunkers. What would he say next- polygammy, bigammy ok. Please my Lord Archbishop derobe yourself and let good old England be or may be translate to Iran and begin staqrt some evangelim programme.

[Joe]

What this does is inflame and polarise. In one respect, it's been excellent: see the videos posted by Ruth and her account of how Muslims treat women IN THIS COUNTRY to see how us tolerant, mild Brits will inevitably react. Excellent! - prompting people to reject, oppose, and express their disgust for this vile troublesome religion. And to remind everyone: 4,000 Muslims are under terroritst sureillance, and 2,000 are a direct threat.

The downside is, the stupid remarks of this Archbishop will also encourage Muslims to pursue their tribal hostilities even more.

What the hell has happened that such pernicious Middle East ignorance has never evolved like the rest of the world, and has now infitrated and damaged the entire planet? What the hell has happened, that this is a particular problem in Britain?

[Tam Earl-Aine]

The Archbishop is taking the flak for his speech yet he is absolutely right in a very important respect. The amendment of our Common Law system to accommodate Sharia "is inevitable". Anyone who does not believe this is stupid, not least because it has already happened. And is there anybody out there who really believes that British governments will resist Moslem pressure for changes to the law if there are votes in it? In my opinion, the Archbishop is the only one who can see the writing on the wall and he is trying to find a way to deal with what is certain to happen.

[Tom Jackson]

"But I hope that all you Anglicans - nominal or active, who are busy rounding on Rowan Williams so overtly and almost joyously, realise that Vatican Inc. is just loving what your doing. "

Given the choice, David, between living either under the Catholics or the Muslims, I know which I would choose.

And if you think about it sensibly, as an Anglican, the best way of ensuring the survival of our Church is to request the removal of Rowan Williams - and there is very little joy in admitting it was a terrible mistake to have this gentle but foolish and out-of-touch man elected in the first place!

Even with the best will in the world, it is impossible to understand or excuse such a terrible blunder which has aggravated just about every section of our society, religious or otherwise. Rowan Williams as Archbishop was always a liability; he is now a serious danger to Anglicanism being taken seriously.

[Laban Tall]

I'm just wondering if Rasputin will be campaigning for more acceptance and understanding of those mullahs who find themselves in a loving same-sex relationship.

I'm sure he will. He's mad enough to try it.

[Keith Budden]

Most of this problem stems from the New Labour obsession with empowering Religions,one effect of which is the proliferation of Sectarian schools. Certainly many people believe in a Supreme Being but this is not consent to religious doctrine, much of which has questionable moral standards and no historical provenance.Since Doctrine appears to override ethics; are Religions really the right organisations to have charge of young children?

[MaryCunningham]

David Smith is worried that we are forgetting to be vigilant against that demonic institution, the Catholic Church:

**"Have you so quickly forgotten that the Vatican, which famously 'thinks in centuries' and whose motto is 'semper eadem'...[more stuff like that] when its forces are in positions of unfettered power, also resorts to torturing and killing 'heretics' or 'unbelievers'.
Be careful you don't fight off Sharia Law, only to find that Rome's Laws have filled the vacuum..."**

Don't worry, David Smith. I know you're frustrated, just as the Catholics-are-anti-semitic comments were beginning to wax the stupid ABC goes and does this!

But The Times hasn't forgotten you. Catholics can be just as stupid as the ABC (no confession has a monopoly on stupidity--look at your ministry busy trying to change the sexuality of homosexuals) and I'm sure the Times will find something. maybe publish some paedophile priest story next we'll see the AoF No-Popery Protestants, Jews and atheists up again and running in no time!

[David Smith]

Ruth writes:
Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?

John Lynch replies:
'Yes, he has. The man is stark, staring bonkers.'

and John Hall replies:
'Yes, he always was.'

It's so heartening to see people like this, and you Ruth, recognising the true threat from hardcore Islam with its handmaiden Sharia Law.

But I hope that all you Anglicans - nominal or active, who are busy rounding on Rowan Williams so overtly and almost joyously, realise that Vatican Inc. is just loving what your doing.

You are being so, so helpful to both it and its agents in press circles (like the Daily Telegraph) in their concerted effort to discredit and dismantle the C of E; take it over; and become this countries leading politico-religious organisation.

Have you so quickly forgotten that the Vatican, which famously 'thinks in centuries' and whose motto is 'semper eadem' - 'always the same', when its forces are in positions of unfettered power, also resorts to torturing and killing 'heretics' or 'unbelievers'.

Be careful you don't fight off Sharia Law, only to find that Rome's Laws have filled the vacuum left by the C of E's concurrent demise.

[Manolo - Manchester]

So the rumour is correct and proven beyond a doubt - there is a madman in charge of the assylum called Lambeth. Please don't ever let him out again.

[John F. McIlray]

A gay Bishop seems relatively mild after this.:-)

[Ronald Grünebaum]

Thanks for the clip with the Muslim clown claiming that the world should run on Islam fuel.

The guy has never heard about enlightenment. Puts him squarely in the 16th century. Maybe he should have the life expectancy that goes with it.

[Frank Archer]

The archbishop announcement regarding recognising some aspect of islamc sharia law in UK juidiciary system is very sad and unfortunate act against UN´s human rights in civilised countries like UK!

It is behind perception. The very absolute fact about Islam in the sense of punishment and terrorism "Jihad" speaks its own de facto clear language.

One word of a man like the archbishop just abolish 100 years of human sacrifice for better "conditions" for women´s right in the dark-aged of Islamic world.

Islam has no humanity and compassion in itself. If of other opinion just cast an eye, The current situation in the Islamic world is a well proof of what Islam has offer for the people daily living standards across middle east and north africa.

May The light of Jesus shine upon the dark-age of Islamic world and enlighten the heart of people with love, trust, hope and peace.

[John]

Hey! I thought Neville Chamberlain was dead!

My opinion is that civilization is trying to decide which civilization they want to be or live under.

Do you want to be a Muslim civilization? Gee, that's a tough one.

Do you want to be an atheist civilization? Hmm. What other civilizations in the past century were atheist? No thanks.

Secular Humanist? I think this is where most people are headed these days and it won't last long. In my mind, it is a shadow of atheism with its focus centered upon man. You can claim to be religious, but just don't claim that you have the truth, because that will offend someone. Nobody is right, nobody is wrong and everything eventually degrades to the least common denominator when it comes to ethics. If you think about this one a little deeper, it just doesn't make sense.

Perhaps you would like to be a Christian civilization? Yes. I want to live in a town that has those Church bells ringing over it again. A place tolerant of others, but largely based upon Christian ideals of ethics, justice and the natural law. Of course, we have made mistakes, but I think those ideals are what is eternal.

[Jeanette]

The Archbishop of Canterbury has really lost it! This man is an embarrassment not only to Anglicans, but to all civilized religions as well. The statements made yesterday regarding the U.K. acceptance of sharia law are both ludicrous and frightening. To make matters worse, he states this law would be beneficial regarding marriage and divorce, and would placate the Muslems. Does he not realize that along with this law comes:
The persecution of all other religions-
The obliteration of all other religions-
The persecution of women-
The denial of rights to women and girls-
The promotion of violent punishment and death for those who stand up against their core beliefs-
The promotion of violent punishment and death to all those who voice an opinion different from thoses imposed under this law-
Condoning beatings, amputations, stonings, hangings and beheadings to anyone who violates their laws-
I can not see the great nation of the United Kingdom would allow this to happen.
I can not see their parlimentary proceedures buckling under this form of radical governmnet.
I can not see the good people of this nation not standing up against this perverse, twisted law.
And I can not see the good people of this nation so willing to give up the freedoms they have enjoyed for centuries and the freedoms of generations to come.
As people of all civilized nations, we must stand up against these radical, inhumane belief and prevent them from ever being enacted.

[Neil]

How far away from rational debate we are. Have these people actually stopped to ask ”What was he actually saying? He has certainly touched a nerve. How close to each other are ignorance, fear and hatred. And I don’t think ABC will be rushing to thank Ruth for the pictures in the blog.

[Tom Jackson]

"Enoch was right and the beginning of the rot started when Heath sacked him disliking anything controversial which might lead to a diminution of power and it's been downhill ever since."

I also have a great deal of admiration for Enoch Powell, Alan, and I believe his early attempts to highlight the problems of immigration in 1968 were misunderstood and misrepresented. This one issue overshadowed the sheer intellect of the man, one of the great thinkers who, as an active politician, demonstrated an insight into many issues such as the Health Service, the Economy and Housing that has largely been forgotten.

But black immigration, such as from the West Indies in the 1950's, or Jewish immigration over several hundred years, did not bring with it demands from those minority communities for social and religious changes in the same way as we now have from the Islamic communities. Certainly where West Indians were concerned, there was a common Christian culture and belief system which avoided this.

Admittedly, black youth today present examples of cultural disassociation from our way of life, our standards and values in much the same way as Asian youth. Black on black crime fuelled by the drug trade and other criminal activities is a growing problem and recognised as such.

However, today there is support, both practical and financial from oil-rich Islamic nations, for the incursion of Islamic culture into our Western world, something that even Enoch Powell could not have foreseen. Saudi Arabia alone finances many of the Islamic activities - such as the building and maintenance of mosques - here in the UK. They provide assistance and personnel, many of whom adhere to the Salafi movement associated with Muhammad ibn al Wahhab, after whom the extreme interpretation of Islam, Wahhabism, is named.

So, while Enoch Powell foresaw many of the dangers to our way of life that mass immigration posed, what we face now is far more dangerous. Those critics of any religious belief system will recognise that once initiated, faith of any complexion is deeply rooted in an individual and - as has been demonstrated by terrorist atrocities by Islamic suicide bombers - if the belief system is ambiguous, it can motivate that individual to act well outside the boundaries of acceptable, civilised behaviour.

Allowing even a smidgeon of change in the Law of our land to accommodate the cultural or religious differences of an immigrant minority would be something that Enoch Powell would have resisted with all his might. And we should do likewise.

[Jarrad Wilkes]

How much did Brown pay him to take over as the country's biggest buffoon for a while?

[bill]

Is 'sharia' Arabic for 'Kangaroo'? just wondered....
Archbishop is certainly ecclesiastical speak for loony.

[glen]

There is a massive disconnect in the UK between the elites such as the Arch Daffy and their policies, and the common folks who must live with those effects. I don't see a pretty picture 10-20 years from now, when the regular citizens are going to want their country back.

[A Royal Marines Mother]

Sharia law? Where you could be condemned to death for downloading information on (lack)of womens right in the Koran or in Islamic societies- the Archbishop seems to be unaware of various news reports including the case of Pervez Kambaksh,in Afghanistan, and to have forgotten about a young mother condemned to be stoned to death in nigeria 2 or 3 years ago..

[Benjamin]

I studied part of my Theology degree under the now Archbishop when at Bristol University. He was barking then and clearly still is. How on earth he was elevated we'll never know.

What does Sentamu saY?

[Brian Haddleton]

It would be more helpfull if the Archbishop suggested that those immigrants who feel unable to relate to the laws and customs of this country might prefer to take up residence elshere. This mans absurd utterings only serve to make the Church of England even less relevant to people in general.

[Brigid Elson]

What do you expect when the future head of the C of E says he wants to be the "defender of all the faiths?" Williams' comments are the tip of the spear- or is it the camel's nose under the tent?

[Losticini]

People are missing the point about the archbishop’s comments. He wants people to come up before religious courts and be told what to do. In that way, the authoritarians who run them will feel that their own insecure need to submit to authority has been validated because they have – in the name of God – caused someone else to submit.