The Church of England was a product of the Protestant Reformation, elements of which established the separateness of the secular and religious magisteria. This in turn generated a counter-reformation in the Roman Catholic Church. The creative tension between the two led to an unprecedented eruption of intellectual advances in science, art and humanism culminating in the Renaissance. Secular law had its place in society, with an increasingly liberal social contract developing between the citizen and the state. Religious law more and more became a matter of individual conscience.
Taken together, these influences set the West on a path towards individual rights, democracy and accelerating civilizational progress. We have all profited thereby, not least those who emigrated to the West from more benighted climes.
Well:
The Archbishop of Canterbury says the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK “seems unavoidable”.
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4’s World at One that the UK has to “face up to the fact” that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.
Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.
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”.
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”.
With due respect, I can think of things more dangerous still in the course of submission action the Primate contemplates.
Update: Related?
Update 2: A less generously titled take – “The Archbishop of Canterbury is an Ass“
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”.
Wow. So much for the “rule of law,” hunh?
OMG!?!
This ain’t a slippery-slopizm — it’s serious.
What part of UK isn’t being impacted now that they admitted millions of “North Africans” etc. to do their Nanny work.
Such transition is worth fighting, but UK has lost its fire in the belly to fight. As you stated: Hearts of Oak.
When I was young I could have never thought of the Pope praying in a mosque.
When I heard about that, I couldn’t help but thinking of the snobbish attitude the roman-catholic clergy shows towards the church of England, somehow along the lines of “heretic adventure of the adulterous king”, “not to be taken seriously”, …
Would visiting a greek-orthodox mess be less then a change of believe, more of church only?
I, for one, don’t think the head of the church will stand for this.
(Can you imagine a slap-down from Her Majesty?)
Unbelievable.
Hajo, What’s your point?
Yes hajo-hi…please elucidate…Best
I must respectfully disagree with your assesssment of the CoE’s role in the reformation and the reformation’s role in bringing about the Renaissance. First, Henry broke off from the Church in Rome because the Holy See would not grant him a divorce from a woman who would/could not bear him a son. Prior to that, in 1521, he’d been given the title “Defender of the Faith” by the Pope for his attacks on Martin Luther.
Second, there is no division between the Church and the State in England as the head of the Church is the Monarch who is also, at least titularly, the head of the State. The beginning of the Enlightenment at the beginning of the 18th Century began discussion about a separation of secular and religious law. However, I know of no formal recognition of such a split until first recognized as a stark division in 1789 with the adoption of the United States Constituion and the Bill of Rights. Spain fought for years to establish itself as the Most Catholic of Monarchies. Remember, “No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.”
That being said and although I disagree with the place from which you start, I agree with the conclusion that there can never be two civil authorities. There must be only one. If the civil authority is not unified and equal, it is inherently unequal. For His Grace to accept, for even a second, separate legal systems based on religious preference is to allow athiests, may be even Baptists and Methodists, to have separate legal systems because of disagreement over the role of religion in personal life.
Maybe he should go back to arguing about Church law and the ordination of women.
Besides, a Brit can say it better than I.
Regards
Somehow I get the sense that Snake is coiling…perhaps for yours truly…
OAM,
in re: First, Henry broke off from the Church in Rome because the Holy See would not grant him a divorce from a woman who would/could not bear him a son.
With respect, that was the entire point. Who the European royals married (or divorced) was of intimate political concern to all heads of state, and to Rome as well. This is why Elizabeth I never married – when she was young, she balanced all the continental powers against each other by not committing to any of them. By the time she was older, she had built up sufficient economic and military strength to hold in her island fastness.
Henry’s point was not merely to plunder the ladies in waiting, but to deliver up an heir for the state – who was the Pope to tell him how to run his kingdom, or who should be at its head?
The Pope in turn was politically constrained against annulling Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon since her nephew (Emperor Charles V) was holding the Pope prisoner. In any case, Rome would have preferred the eventual ascension of the devoutly Catholic Mary I to the throne than any issue from the Protestant Ann Boleyn.
It was a clear line from John Wycliffe at Oxford, to Martin Luther in Germany, to the breach between the Roman Catholic Church and the C of E. Placing the C of E under the protection of the monarchy simultaneously served to separate the magesteria while protecting the state from pro-papal revanchism.
In my view, the Enlightenment was a child of the Renaissance, just as the Renaissance in turn was a synthesis of both the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. It took longer in some places than others, certainly.
I was pointing out that the heads of both the Church of England and the Roman-Catholic Church changed attitudes towards Islam in a way unimaginable in my childhood.
I grew up in an “orthodox”, almost bigot catholicism, probably unimaginable to Americans and Anglo-Saxons. In this milieu it was literally believed that e.g. the Pope was god’s governor on Earth, that Muhammed was one of the heretics sent by the devil to mislead true believers as foreseen in the Act of the Apostles, etc. … At first communion I was given a book with tales of the Martyrs, of those who refused to sacrify to the emperor, or to even get social with pagans. To “orthodox” European Catholics, Muslims were just the same as heathen, a distant danger from the Ottoman and earlier conquests, but still remembered as a gruesome danger. Forget about this enlightened attitude of “all praying to the same god” for a moment.
The Pope praying in a mosque in Istanbul just doesn’t fit in (if you don’t remember that was at his Turkey visit after some ill-thought out university lecture). It is the same kind of “unimaginable act” or even “betrayal” as having an archbishop, even if only an Anglican one, justifying sharia one way or the other.
As for “only an Anglican one”, the catholic clergy in the States does probably not dare to speak about the Church of England the way the clergy I knew in my childhood did. The Anglicans were just people who betrayed the true church in order to please an adulterous and murderous king. You might find it hard to swallow. I will add to it: while in primary school, in some part of rural Germany in the Fifties, the village priest told the class of my Father: “Don’t play with the protestant children, the protestant children are the devil’s children”. Sure!
Because of this kind of attitude I immediately connected the physical knee-fall of Bendict and virtual one of the Archbishop of Canterbury in a way that is probably weird to you … and wondered if the only main apostolic Church that kept the once decivise refusal of Islam as heresy was the Greek-Orthodox one.
hajo-hi, Thanks for the elucidation..I too grew up in the same conservative Catholic milieu ( Catholic School…kindergarden to 4 th grade) right here in the USA…I know exactly where you’re comming from…there was us, members of the true Church of Rome and there were… the… ” OTHERS”… we knew who they were . Fortunately we moved … I went to public school mixed with the “OTHERS” the ultimate result… ole ecumenical me… Pactum Serva…Best
“What part of UK isn’t being impacted now that they admitted millions of “North Africans” etc. to do their Nanny work.”
Actually far and away the largest immigrant group arriving in the UK now are Christian Eastern Europeans from Poland (in HUGE numbers), Czech Rep, Slovakia and Hungary. They are for the most part skilled, have pretty good English, go straight into jobs, integrate rapidly (almost everyone I know has an Eastern European bf/gf/spouse, including me) and they are a case study of how the right sort of immigration is a very good thing indeed.
Yes, Islam is a problem, no doubt about it (I am a well know baiter of intolerant Islam myself), but the sky is not falling and they are weak culturally and economically. The UK is very secular (which is fine by me) but the fastest growing religion here is not Islam, it is Catholicism.
hajo- Don’t confuse doctrinal/Dogmatic othodoxy with the sinful behavior of individuals, an all too common attitude. U2 Snake.
What have the core values of the Anglican church come to? Judging by the leadership it sounds to me like Unitarianism in a robe…
As one that has just been elected to the Vestry of my church, me thunk my first meeting next week will be interesting! I’ll keep everyone posted.
Snake: Securus judicat orbis terrarum…
hajo-hi: Hic abtera.
Both: Read.
So glad I left the Episcopal Church for the Anglican Province in America.
Folks,
Midst our discussion of early Church history, I think the real issue is the possible imposition (at some time, perhaps not too far in the future) of Sharia law on some segment of British society. I know that this is already a hot topic in parts of Canada (help me Michelle). If imposition of Sharia law is already being talked about in Canada and England, you can bet that serious discussion can’t be far off for the US. BTW, I really don’t believe that this is a tinfoil hat issue. It’s the real deal. Unfortunately, there are way too many chowder heads (and I don’t confine this number to just Moslems) in our great land that would love nothing better that to see Sharia law become a reality.
Lex,
What were the three things we were not supposed to discuss in the wardroom? Now I remember; Religion, Politics, and Sex. How the times have changed, and certainly not for the better.
Guy, I can’t help you very much right now because I really have to get this work done [note to self: then why the heck am I here?!] but as I was reading through this thread I was thinking it was a good opening to either comment or blog about a recent SCC (Supreme Court of Canada) case with a more or less opposite result.
“Man’s religious freedom bows to ex-wife’s equality rights” says the headline in Lawyer’s Weekly.
Heh, Google is almost my friend. If you go to this page and scroll to the bottom, then click on Bruker v. Marcovitz . I can’t seem to make the direct link work. Anyway, the paper copy of the summary I have is a fair bit more extensive than what’s on the link but I think you can also ultimately link to the full text of the decision from there. Just in case anyone is feeling particularly
scholarlylawyerly. And yes, that case involved a Jewish couple, on the off chance that anyone wants to make any hay out of that.Really though, the idea of anyone seriously imposing Sharia law in Canada is news to me. Don’t get me wrong, I have no doubt that there are some who would seriously like to see that happen but I don’t give them much more than a snowball’s chance in hell … or perhaps a more apt analogy would be a Sandy Eggian’s chance to survive a Canadian winter?
Okay, ’nuff silliness. Must. Work.
“Henry’s point was not merely to plunder the ladies in waiting, but to deliver up an heir for the state – who was the Pope to tell him how to run his kingdom, or who should be at its head?”
Lex,
Not sure if you were just stating Henry’s position or editorializing here but anyway… . OAM’s point is correct. The issue was divorce and the Church’s position on divorce as far as the Papacy was concerned. (They remain unchanged BTW.) Henry didn’t declare himself the Grand Poohbah of the Church of England until his petition for annulment to Pope Leo X worked/delivered by Cardinal Wolsey was rejected. Subsequent to that event there were some very Godly Englishmen (and women) who were martyred when Henry (and his later his daughter) had them divorce their heads for refusing to acknowledge and accept The Act of Supremcy (1534). Among them were Sir Thomas More and John Cardinal Fisher as well as many other monks and clergy after Henry’s lackeys in Parlement passed the Treasons Act of 1534. Wolsey went to his grave regretting putting his loyalty to the King over his obligations to the Church and Church teaching. Remaining faithful to the Magisterium was a dangerous choice until almost 1700 in Britain.
Tom G., I may be lost but I still consider myself a catholic sheep.
The Magna Carta gave England much of her laws. (and the U.S. by extension) The Koran has given England what?
So the proposal is for England to surrender her sovreignity under LAW to co-exist and eventually be consumed by Sharia Law.
Sharia Law is EVIL. It is outmoded and prehistoric. It is a true step backwards for Europe and the world.
England wake up, the wolf is no longer at the door, he is in your home.
England is going to surrender her life for the whims of the uneducated minority (read ISLAM)
In the United States, I hope our Freedom FROM Religion will give us a buffer.
teachers, religious leaders – even friends, or so called friends – take over where parents leave off. They demand that we feel only the feelings they want and expect from us. They demand all the time that we perform feelings for them. We’re like actors – turned loose in this world to wander in search of a phantom…endlessly searching for a half-forgotten shadow of our lost reality. When others demand that we become the people they want us to be, they force us to destroy the person we really are. It’s a subtle kind of murder….the most loving parents and relatives commit this murder with smiles on their faces.
We’re safe, I think. I don’t believe the British have anything equivalent to the establishment clause and free exercise clause. Having an officially sanctioned state church or religion can lead to some idiocy.
Hit sarcasm enable switch;
All the Archbishop of Canterbury has to do to keep his high rank in that society is to turn towards Mecca, repeat three times that he believes in Allah, and that Muhammed is the only prophet.
Everything will be just fine.
Sarcasm switch off.
Seriously, are these religious leaders going to simply forget their so-called belief in the Gospel, in the hopes of making Muslims like them/us?
Did they ever really believe?
James D- You live in a dark world. Glad it ain’t the same one I live in. Lighten up.
Yeah, I’m reminded of Pooh’s friend Eeyore.
Or Sweeney Todd…
And the Brits believe they have much to teach America about history:
OK your royal Princeness, we’ll listen and learn from these new experiences you plan to foist upon your own people – and do otherwise (I hope, gots lots of pie in the sky apple pie hopes going on today…).
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the – Web Reconnaissance for 02/08/2008 A short recon of what’s out there that might draw your attention, updated throughout the day…so check back often.
“Surely the instinct for self-preservation has not been totally eradicated in Britain by the enervating imperatives of political correctness—do I end that sentence with a period or a question mark?”
http://pajamasmedia.com/xpress/rogerkimball/2008/02/07/who_will_rid_us_of_this_troubl.php
Roger Kimball states the obvious and grasps the nub.
Survival is a given. There is no commandment “though shalt survive” like there is no commandment “though shalt wake up in the morning and get out of bed”, or “though shalt eat”. These are givens.
With all due respect to those wiser and keener with the one – up (‘Securus judicat orbis terrarum’ I got but ‘Hic abtera’ somehow is missing from Google. Maybe a conflicting customer outbid the Catholics. Islam? who knows? Google is always for sale to the highest bidder) allow me to formulate the nature of sin.
Sin is merely the antithesis of survival. To the extent that you sin, you compromise your survival. This is a wonderful insight that delights me and explains many things, like why homosexuality is a ’sin’, divorce is a ’sin’, etc. How clever I am.
But I digress. The good Dr. Williams has placed himself in one of two places. Either he believes Islam is superior or equal to Christianity when it comes to survival, or he fails to understand the nature of sin. Now the latter is OK for atheists and such, they will most likely, individually, not survive, which is a shame as who knows what great deeds and ideas will be lost. But for a purported leader of my (shall we say former) church, that won’t work, at least for me. I kinda think we gotta grow and prosper and have a space program for when the planet gets f*cked up (you cannot grow forever and remain confined on the planet) and learn and discover all we can, etc. Kinda what we are doing now. Why?, to survive.
About all the I can see in Islam is iron rule by 7th Century – grounded theocrats/autocrats, and that is my definition of fascism, which, as a political and economic philosophy, has a very low survival rate – whatever the theological implications. You’ve got to give some credit to the subjugation of women part though. All that equality has not helped our overall Western survival rate one bit yet, IMHO.
“Hic abtera” seems to be a misspelling of “Hic Abdera” meaning “this is the city of folly”.
When I first read it, I thought it meant something like “Now repent”, thus my intial answer to Tom G. … so I read my Latin books again …
No worries, people.
When the Sharia enforcers come for the Archbishop’s wife for to cane her for having tea and crumpets with a man not her husband, he’ll realize the error of his ways.
But, of course, by then it will be too late, won’t it?
Cottus & Hajo-hi – hehe, really not trying to be difficult here, but “googling” lingua latina (and much else besides) really limits our reach. I was trying to point out earlier that employing grade school/childhood lessons as motives of credibility leaves us exposed.
Oops..and no spelling errors in my earlier…you’re close to the idiom, Hajo-hi.
Now I am puzzled. If there is no spelling error in “hic abtera”, then what Latin root/flexion is “abtera”? The nearest roots I can find is “Abdera” (city-name) or “abstentus” res. “abstineo”. Is it some form of medieval/church Latin?
Here we go again in here. Disparage the CoE or Anglican/Episcopals and it’s idiot leader (truly an Ass we all agree) and we start the Catholic bashing. This is the same man that let the Cathedral in London (formerly Catholic- before Henry) to film that very un-Christian film. His pronouncement on Sharia is just more of the same “off the planet thinking” that has come to symbolize he and his flock- though not all. Certainly not Lex.
Snake- I find it hard to believe you went to Catholic school ‘kindergarten’ in the early 50’s…just saying. But I reckon dem Catlicks taught you to read., eh? That comes in hand as a lawyer, don’t it? I went in the late 50’s/60’s and we used to lovingly call those lucky Protestant suckers in our ‘hood “pagans”, with envy, because they didn’t have to go to Catechism on Sat morning. Beyond that..we were all American kids, even though in my neighborhood we outnumbered them 10-1.
Now I’ll tell you, on the other hand, when I went south the first time in the military I run into some o’dem evangelical types who are sorta inflexible and think the earth is 6000 years old (not that there’s anything wrong with that)..I even had to bust a few noses, when, without thinking, they said some derogatory things that offended me Cat-lick sensabilities….I hate rude behavior in a mil officer.
My position- simply stated.
b2
Hmph. As an Anglican myself, I certainly hope Her Majesty the Queen slaps him upside down. He is a fool. And I say that in direct reference to calling my ‘brother’ Raca. Because I am not so sure he even is my brother.
I am in Malaysia, where Shariah law *over Muslims* takes precedence over civil, secular law. Which means, if two thieves get caught, and one is a Muslim, he might get his hands chopped off while the other thief gets a couple months jail time.
Which might not be so bad, of course, (well who asked you to be a Muslim, after all?) but the problem is that the Shariah court gets to decide the meta-question of whether a person is Muslim or not (guess what – once you were, you always are). Which is pretty stupid. To say the very least of what I want to say. Words fail me. I am damming up a whole torrent of vile verbal diarrhoea here. They use this Shariah system to steal assets too, which is definitely beyond the pale.
For the Archbishop, with the full responsibility of his leadership role, to say such an asinine thing… Well. I think his getting sacked would be the LEAST adverse reaction from this mess. Even better, someone should invite him to live in a real Shariah-governed society and rub his face in the dung real nice.
A moron and a bloody fool. Of the First Order. May the Lord have mercy on us all.