The Imam ... er ... Archbishop of Canterbury speaks
Posted 2 years 6 weeks ago byDon't say you haven't been warned, especially if you've read "America Alone." But I don't think even the gloomy futurist Mark Steyn could have predicted that as soon as 2008 the Archbishop of Canterbury would prostrate himself before shariah law.
The Archbishop of Canterbury caused consternation yesterday by calling for Islamic law to be recognised in Britain.
He declared that sharia and Parliamentary law should be given equal legal status so the people could choose which governs their lives.
This raised the prospect of Islamic courts in Britain with full legal powers to approve polygamous marriages, grant easy divorce for men and prevent finance firms from charging interest.
I know that the uber-liberal Anglican Church considers multiculturalism and permissiveness akin to Godliness. But I see little grace in succumbing to an oppressive, sexist, homophobic regime enforced by swift and mindless violence. But then again, I'm a classic liberal. What does my unenlightened mind know?
We are encouraged not to worry about these troubling developments in Western Civilization, however, because "The Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values."
Yes. But the question is how hard will the Prime Minister and traditional British society will fight for the freedom and Western values paid for in blood. "Honor killings" among the Muslim population of Britain traces back to at least 2004, but seems to have not sufficiently stirred the necessary outrage in the United Kingdom.
So I'm afraid the story's note that "government ministers are striving to encourage [Muslim] integration and stop the nation from 'sleepwalking to segregation'" comes as little comfort. Britain appears to be in a cultural coma.
Thoughts
Re: Jim's a liberal?
Submitted on February 8th, 2008 by Jim LakelyWow. Being called a liberal. Can't say it's a first, but it is a rather rare occurence. Feel free, musicwriter, to put such thoughts to rest by clicking my name and reviewing my bio.
My wife, who alerted me to this story last night, is as worried as you are, musicwriter. I like to think that we are a far way off from the mess Britain now finds itself in. But I sometimes question how far away we really are on this side of the Atlantic considering the recent Islamic honor killings in Texas and Canada that have largely faded from memory after a one-day news cycle.
And, yes, Joel. Your post is related to my post, and I'm glad Rosen's arguments left you unconvinced. We obviously both agree that honor killings, genital mutilation, and even the overtly sexist aspects of many Muslim traditions are incompatable with America's concepts of liberty. Yet, we still have people like Rosen, whose first inclination is try to understand and accept such cultural backwardness -- and then perhaps enshrine them in our laws. I find it one of the curiosities of our age that liberals' adherence to the doctrine of multi-culturalism now trumps feminism -- at least when it comes to Islam's treatment of women.
Yes, liberals and conservatives alike have condemned the Archbishop's statements. Some are even calling for the Archbishop to resign. That is good to see. Yet where was this level of broad, full-throated defense of Western Civilization and liberty when just last week the British government took the extraordinary step of officially recognizing polygamy -- for Muslim men only, of course?
Jim's a liberal?
Submitted on February 8th, 2008 by JoelNM
I agree!!
Submitted on February 8th, 2008 by musicwriter48Jim, you may be a liberal, but on this issue we see eye to eye. It scares me to think that the Archbishop would condone a way of life that is so entrenched in violence.
What worries me is that some church leader here in the U.S. might follow suit! I'm no longer confident that our western values are going to survive beyond the next decade. Please tell me I'm wrong!
As it happens...
Submitted on February 8th, 2008 by JoelOne of the pleasures of living in a university town is the university. And I was thinking about this very issue Thursday afternoon when I went up to the University of Kansas campus to hear Larry Rosen, a lawyer-anthropologist at Princeton, speak.
The word "sharia" never came up, but Rosen was making the case, essentially, that cultural considerations ought to be enshrined in our laws, reeling off a list of stories about people charged with crimes here for doing things that weren't necessarily crimes where they were from.
I came away unconvinced:
* Rosen himself said that the "every dog gets one bite" theory has worked out pretty well through our history -- that one court case has generally served to let a new community know that what was good in the old country isn't necessarily good here. If that *has* worked well (and served the cause of acculturating new people to their new country) then perhaps it's best to leave the informal system undisturbed.
* Writing it into law that judges and juries must take culture into account, it seems to me, crosses a line where equal protection of the law is concerned.
* Despite Rosen's impressive list of anecdotes, I'm not sure there's really a huge problem with our courts dealing with such issues. We shouldn't let the outliers determine our course of law, as I've said before.
This is somewhat related to your post, Jim, isn't it?
In any case, I think it's important to note that the archbishop was roundly condemned across the political spectrum -- liberals and conservatives (though the distinctions look different over there) alike.