That was a truly stupid-sounding suggestion and unless he had a nefarious ulterior motive it was truly stupid.
This article leaves a lot out. Here’s a more complete one from the BBC. Apparently he intended to only apply parts such as divorce and inheritance.
But it still seems stupid to me, and as that article indicates only a minority of Muslims in England would want it. I’d think the women especially wouldn’t want it.
Sometimes people are ahead of their times but sometimes they are just a hand short of a clock.

Just another clear reason why religious leaders should stay out of government politics. The old adage, “give them a yard and they’ll take a mile”, would likely prove out here if they were foolish enough to try just picking several Sharia laws; for marriage, divorce, and money matters. They chose to move to Britain, new laws shouldn’t be enacted for immigrants pleasure.

Here’s another article that puts a different slant on things. Maybe the press ran away with this.

Why would any country in their right mind change the laws of an entire country to accommodate any religious group?
Henrietta, totally agree with your statement that this proves that religious leaders should stay out of government.
When a person just visits a country, they have to follow the laws of that country…so if you move to a different country, you live by those laws!

I agree, if you dont like the laws emigrate to another one. A Christian country should remain a christian country. I dont care one ounce about being intolerant. I am intolerant of every sniviling person wanting thier own way and the idiots in power that give it to em. Pick a side and stay on it.

I don’t really understand exactly what “introducing Sharia law” alongside English common law means, from a legal perspective. In the article Nnmns links to, Archbishop Williams compares it to a Christian abstaining from abortions out of faith. And if he’s talking about something like that—Muslims asking for the right to have some exceptions to some laws, based on religious issues—that’s fine. And if a Muslim couple want to write a pre-nup that outlines Islamic regulations for divorce, or two Muslim businessmen want to write a contract where there’s no interest involved in their transaction, then whatever, who cares.
But obviously, this cannot be taken too far, regardless if we’re talking about Christianity or Islam or whatever. A Muslim (or Christian) could not argue, for example, that it is okay to beat his wife because Sharia (or the Bible) says so, or something like that. And certainly the U.K. should not just set up a Sharia courthouse beside their English one, one for the Muslims and one for the rest. That does not unify; that splits, and the last thing England needs right now is to split its Muslim and non-Muslim populations even farther apart.
God bless.

You know, I read this site just to see what you guys are saying now. I can not believe your conservative language on this issue! Maybe God has heard my prayers for you!

At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite, the Good Book says, “one law for native and foreign born.” Give me the law made by a body of elected officals over that claimed to be revealed to some illiterate any day. Biblical law — no. Sharia — no. Spaghetti Monster law –no. The rule of the people through their elected officials, tempered by the courts, has served the progress of humankind far better than any holy writ. The Archbishop of Canterbury should turn in his miter and crosier.

I strongly encourage everyone to read the entire lecture ( http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575 ) before overreacting. Williams is usually regarded as one of the most brilliant academics in Britain, and the news media are not particularly good at capturing nuance and complexity in arguments–and nuanced reflections don’t sell as well as strawmen, either.
There is certainly much to be questioned in his thought, but unless one is getting one’s information straight from the source, chances one isn’t reacting to what Williams was actually talking about.

And how would this be different from keeping Kosher or observing the Amish Life – or any other closed or cloistered society. I am sure that the rules he was considering would be appropriate, but if a person wanted to step out of that community, then British Laws would apply.
This deep and abiding fear (without respect) for all things Moslem will be our undoing. My first suggestion is for people to actually read the Quran (odd, this comes up as a misspelling. Culturally sad). Of course, most of the complainers have not actually read the Bible either, so I suppose this suggestion will not happen. I guess my best suggestion is for people to follow the advice of the angels speaking to the shepherds in the fields of Bethlehem (most folks have heard of them). They said, “FEAR NOT”, or as the surfer apparel company says it, “No Fear”.

Thanks for the click on article nnmns. It changes things. Williams is considered an intelligent man, but, it was unwise of him to bring the hot button word “Sharia” into the subject of how it could be used in England the way he presented it. Especially since headlines this week told of women who were being killed in Iraq in front of their children, because they sinned using blush, and not covering their hair. If anyones religion carries the reputation of inhumane, and killing treatment on others in that religion they should expect reactions from others, press and readers of news included. If you are going to talk of something this serious then spell it out in entirety so the news understands what they are reporting on.

“And how would this be different from keeping Kosher or observing the Amish Life – or any other closed or cloistered society.”
My assumption was, it would be enforced by law. I presumed one would have to record a choice upon entering a marriage or perhaps writing a will about which court it would be under. How else would say a marriage work? If the husband wanted it under Sharia and the wife under British law how else would you determine which applied? But that leads to all sorts of problems, like foolish brides anxious to get married agreeing to be bound by Sharia law.
No doubt there are a lot of decisions made in say Amish country by village elders or such that are never reported, but at least a wife can get help from the law in theory.
And can keeping Kosher be a legal issue? I’m asking.

Archbishop Rowan is a loon–a fitting head for 1st world Anglicanism. All one needs to do is to see this video to see what he is defending. He is a traitor to his church and his country.
Click Here

Of course there should be consideration and understanding if you are going to extend invitations to people to become a part of your country then try to understand them. When it comes to religion some considerations should offered as long as these considerations do not harm others.

I was earlier accused of over-reaction. But I did’nt over-react enough. Williams believes post-Enlightenment law to be inadequate to deal with the myriad of ways in which we now indentify “self.” Therefore, it would behoove us to take into consideration sharia, which he freely admits, and in fact, celebrates as, not a legal code, but as a method of jurisprudence which is depedent on circumstance and the jurist’s particular legal training and cultural upbringing. This has chaos written all over it. I had thought William’s proposal strange, because, being an Anglican prelate, I’d assumed he was an atheist. But this is an argument made by a true believer, for the benefit of true believers–whatever their stripe. He deserves all the oprobium heaped upon him; and more.

Kosher can be a legal question – in regards to state “hospitality”. In other words, can a prisoner or a soldier demand kosher meals? Can any other prisoner or military personnel demand meals, religious participation, or an other extra consideration based on their faith and tradition?
There are cases where Amish women have been abused – badly – and not realized they have legal recourse. But it means leaving their community – and family.
Though I am not likely to abide by “sharia” (to add “law” is redundant”) I believe it is appropriate for some people. The same is true for any religous gorup. And some effort should be made for the members to know there are other legal protections and concerns.

+Williams is a true leader.
After reading the links above and a variety of other stories, I have to think that +Williams would have known that his suggestion would not be popular. However, that is what a true leader does. Hesh leads even when those that might follow may not see the whole picture and/or agree with the direction.
In the USA, we accomodate the laws of many religions. Why could Great Britain not do the same it this case. (I believe they do in many other cases)
One can respect others beliefs/laws without agreeing with them.
Peace!

This article suggests Williams wants a strong anti-blasphemy law. In the first post here I mentioned he might have a nefarious ulterior motive, and if this article is correct, he does. He wants to “protect” religions from being challenged. Hate speech against religions is one thing, and is apparently covered by a law there in England already, but to prevent religions from being challenged is to mean people, including his bunch, can be “protected” from the marketplace of ideas, which is the vital force by which all our ideas evolve.
Williams may have some very dangerous ideas.

I would not support a law against blasphemy unless here was an equally strong law against stupidity. You will never be aboe to standardize or codify one without the other.

Nate, I read the article you linked to well above. I’m not sure that is one that brought this kerfuffle about, but I suppose it shows his thinking on some of the issues and if so they seem mighty convoluted to me.
One of his themes is akin to one of my claims in posts to various previous articles: most Muslims are not radical. He claims not all sharias are equal, which is no doubt true, and some are moderate. I couldn’t speak to that but I know I wouldn’t want to live under any of them or any other religious law. And apparently a lot of Muslims don’t, either.
And if you start with a moderate version of a religion that has the same old, flawed, holy books it’s all too easy to slide into a strict version. Islam, Christianity, Judaism and probably so on.
He also seems to want civil law to recognize relationships one has because of groups they belong to. I see that, even if everyone had the best of intentions which never happens, as a real can of worms.
Ultimately if people come into a country and find they can’t live with the laws that are generally supported by those already there those people would be better served to go find a country with laws more to their liking. Admittedly it’s more complicated if it’s their children who are dissatisfied or, say, a husband but not a wife, but in any case there are way too many cans of worms setting about open already.

If you outlaw blasphemy you must also outlaw proselytization; not gonna happen.

I was alerted by a friend to an article by Christopher Hitchens in Slate which seems to me to make sense.
Interesting how some more conservative Christians and atheists here are making common cause against some more liberal Christians.

The perfect quote was at the end of that article, nnmns:
“This modern disgrace is deepened and extended by a fatuous cleric who, presiding over an increasingly emaciated and schismatic and irrelevant church, nonetheless maintains that any faith is better than none at all.”