Can we have a new one, please?

Heeeeeeeeeeeeeeee's back! Yes, the Bearded Wonder has struck again. Fresh from vexing me last month, the Archbishop has branched out and vexed everybody:

But Dr Williams said an approach to law which simply said "there's one law for everybody and that's all there is to be said, and anything else that commands your loyalty or allegiance is completely irrelevant in the processes of the courts - I think that's a bit of a danger".

"There's a place for finding what would be a constructive accommodation with some aspects of Muslim law, as we already do with some other aspects of religious law."

Dr Williams added: "What we don't want either, is I think, a stand-off, where the law squares up to people's religious consciences."

"We don't either want a situation where, because there's no way of legally monitoring what communities do... people do what they like in private in such a way that that becomes another way of intensifying oppression inside a community."

Funnily enough, this is just what he said last month:

This should be done by “stigmatising and punishing extreme behaviours” that have the effect of silencing argument.

His solution: to silence argument directly.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

Wrong in so many ways:

1. To whom would a Sharia court apply? Could it's decisions be challenged in a higher court? If a Moslem and a Christian have a commercial dispute, to which court would you go? If a Moslem apostasies, would the judgment apply to him/her? Would this be retrospective? Could agreement be revoked? Would the whole arrangement not be subject to challenge in accordance with the Refah Partisi v. Turkey (2003) ,either at the ECHR itself or through a lower court in the UK ( under the Human Rights Act (1998))? The whole matter is legal nonsence, and muddying the waters with idiotic reference to the Beth Din arbitration process shows a serious lack of acquaintance with Jewish law as well as British law.
   
2. It is not "unavoidable". Few things are unavoidable if one is serious about avoiding them. To say something is unavoidable is the argument of a lazy man.
   
3. Speaking of lazy arguments, it is a gift to the "when you've seen one Abrahamic religion, you've seen them all" lobby.
   
4. It is an example of "vicarious offense" [hah- see what I did there?] Once again, someone who is not a Moslem is pleased to share with us what Moslems do or do not want. They are quite capable of speaking for themselves, and do not require ventriloquists, however well-intentioned.
5. It has just made the lot of "moderate" Moslems much harder. Why should they speak up against extremism when no-one else will? Extremists seem to trade as being a more "authentic" version of their faith - why play into their hands?
   

In any case, let's have the next Archbishop democratically chosen by the Laity. That way, when (s)he screws up, and everyone has a moan, we'll have no-one to blame but ourselves. In that regard, I like York and Rochester, with a preference for York: Go Sentamu! I think Lent is going to last a long time this year if this is what we have to put up with.

What I've found interesting is the groundswell of rage that this has generated: the bloke on BBC Radio 4's "PM" program said "it would be impossible to understate the strength of feeling on this issue". Britons are angry.

Archbishop Cranmer thinks it's time for Rowan to consider his position.
Superb post by the political umpire, who ends by calling for disestablishment of the Church. I'm inclined to agree, but want to think about it properly when I'm less cross.

Certainly the Church requires further Reform. That is "unavoidable".

Final, random, thought: "Sharia" would be a lovely name for a girl.