The Archbishop And Islam

[poliphilo]

The Archbishop of Canterbury is a beardy, religious guy. When he speaks about sharia law becoming "unavoidable" in Britain and "clarifies" this remark by looking forward to "a helpful interaction between the courts and the practice of Muslim legal scholars in this country"  he's standing up for beardy religious guys everywhere.

His defenders go on about him being a deep thinker (he's certainly not a clear one) but his instinct that beardy religious guys should stick together (or to use his own language, that "it is not inappropriate for a pastor of the Church of England to address issues around the perceived concerns of other religious communities") is shallow.

Anglicanism and Islam belong to different worlds.   An Anglican theologian- like the Archbishop himself- is a product of the Reformation and the Enlightenment and  has been required by his training to question and test his faith;  the Muslim theologian isn't and hasn't.   The similarities- beards, robes, bookisness- are all on the surface; the differences- core beliefs and intellectual methods- are- or should be-  fundamental. 

But the archbishop makes a habit of siding with closed minds against open minds.  He's also done it in the argument in his own communion over gay priests. His speech to synod- which I've quoted above- goes on to criticise the Episcopal Church of America as "patronising... manipulative (and) insensitive" for appointing a gay bishop but has nothing to say against the gay-bashing clergy of West Africa. 

There's a name for this atavism- when an intellectual chooses to side with the enemies of his own high culture.  It's this- trahison des clercs.

Comments

[upasaka.livejournal.com]

What a disappointment that man is...

[veronica-milvus.livejournal.com]

Amen brother.
There is too much tolerance for insanity preached under the banner of cultural sensitivity.

[ingenious76.livejournal.com]

Yep. Multiculturalism should not be ever used as an excuse for allowing intolerance.

[solar-diablo.livejournal.com]

I will never understand those who would sacrifice their culture in the name of cultural sensitivity.

The West went through its period of religious barbarism and emerged on the other side bloody and battered. We don't need to offer other cultures a stage in which to hash out theirs. Yes, that's intolerant. But there are times when intolerance is a good, progressive thing.

[pondhopper.livejournal.com]

I was rendered speechless by the man's thoughts on the matter.
There is something...backwards...about incorporating sharia into western law.

[glitzfrau.livejournal.com]

Hmmm. For me it's not about Anglicanism v. Islam. Like you, I have a sentimental attachment to the bookishness and bells and smells and eccentricities of Anglicanism, but I think that's cultural nostalgia, rather than a reasoned difference between Anglicanism and Islam - as we can see with a horrible man like Akinole. I think you're dead right when you say it's about the rights of authoritarian men with beards. I'm a secularist, I shudder at the thought of any revealed truth being taken as law over and above that which is tested in the common law courts and constitutionally. I am terrified by the intrusion of "faith" into public life, public space and civil rights.

But then, I don't understand the British polity, either. How does it work when you have an established church? How can you have a secular society when the prime minister appoints the chief druid? &c.

[msjann65.livejournal.com]

Maybe it's time for the old boy to resign, since he seems to have entered his dotage.

The following came to me in an email today - I have cut out the parts that sling mud at one of our presidential candidates, even though I do not personally support that candidate. I have also cut out any allegations about Muslims that seem to be from the lunatic fringe.
Here's what's left:

"Can a good Muslim be a good American?
Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah.
Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by good Muslims except Islam.
Scripturally - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
??Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews. (I questioned this one)
Politically - no. . . . Because he must submit to the mullahs, who teach annihilation of Israel and label America the great Satan.
Domestically - no. . . Because husbands are permitted to beat their wives for any reason whatsoever. Also, women are expected to keep their bodies completely covered head to toe whenever outside of the family circle, and to keep their mouths shut and their opinions to themselves.
Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept a democratic Constitution since these have doctrines that are contrary to the Quran.
Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic, a theocracy with a state religion.
They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans."

[oakmouse]

I'm disappointed in Williams. I realize he believes he has a mission to speak out, but he needs to pay more attention to the impact his words have on the world around him and on his church.

I suppose it sounds jingoistic of me, but I don't believe any country ought to abandon its own laws and cultures at the instigation of an emigrant group or a cultural minority --- nor do I believe people, any people, should be able to have special courts and laws based on their religions, or should have the capacity to turn their religious beliefs into law. History has shown repeatedly that we've got to keep the two separate.