Saudi police arrested and strip-searched an American businesswoman for the crime of visiting a Starbucks with a male colleague.
"Some men came up to us with very long beards and white dresses. They asked 'Why are you here together?' I explained about the power being out in our office. They got very angry and told me what I was doing was a great sin," she told the Times.
It could be worse. In Iraq, women who violate "Islamic teachings" are tortured and murdered. The "Islamic teachings" that are so important that violators must be tortured and beheaded involve wearing a headscarf.
You can imagine the reaction, then, when the Archbishop of Canterbury suggests that England ought to legally recognize Sharia law. It's foolishness with well-meaning intent — let's help the waves of Islamic immigrants acclimate — but it's also a perfect example of why even moderate religions are dangerous. What he proposes is outrageous appeasement, an accommodation to a primitive religious tradition, when what ought to be said is that the uniform application of secular law is what a civilized society demands, not a patchwork of piecemeal laws which apply differently to different people, and especially not the corrupting insanity of irrational, hateful, vile nonsense like Islam.
Perhaps the Archbishop was concerned that if he didn't support the Islamic version of irrational insanity, people might notice that the Anglican church is also a bastion of irrational insanity. Let's hope that instead this will help open people's eyes and get them to wonder, "why the hell do we even pay attention to old fools whose only claim to authority is their position in an antiquated ecclesiastical hierarchy?" Go away, archbishops and imams — you harm our culture.
- Log in to post comments
On the one hand it seems hard to believe that the Archbishop would say that if he really understood what Sharia law was all about. On the other hand it's hard to believe that he doesn't understand what Sharia law is all about. I just can't understand it.
You can read what the Archbishop of Canterbury actually said here. I wouldn't trust the British newspapers to get anything about Islam correct at the moment, not even the Guardian.
The Archbishop, a bleating sheep in shepherd's clothing, is like those faded pop tarts who keep the revolving rehab doors spinning. "Look at me! I'm not wearing panties! I'm still RELEVANT!"
And the rest of us look away, vaguely discomfited, and go on about our business.
its crap like that that reminds me why i am so completely godless, its great, its like knowing theres a weight out there that could sit on my shoulder but i simply dont allow it, it doesnt even brush past me. you read the comments condoning the police actions and its difficult to not feel a little smug. one poster suggests that looking after the kids at home is better than working at walmart (i suppose shes a US muslim), i'll agree with her totally, but how that releates to the arrest in saudi i have no idea.
Couldn't agree more with PZ's post. The situation in Saudi is as repressive and mysoginistic as we all fear.
As for the woolly Archbish, erm ... erm ... well what do we expect from him if not this kind of deluded nonsense. The best comment I've seen so far is by the excellent Matthew Parris in the Times; http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/arti…
On the other hand, if one reads what he actually said, it seems fairly sensible to me. He is entirely right to point out that society needs to find ways of dealing with religious imperatives in a secular state, and resolving the tensions between the two. Don't turn it into a generalised and stereotyped attack on Christianity - Williams is not remotely fundamentalist, and it seems as if most of his attackers over this come from the 'Biblical Christianity', evangelical camp within the English church.
"Perhaps the Archbishop was concerned that if he didn't support the Islamic version of irrational insanity, people might notice that the Anglican church is also a bastion of irrational insanity."
I guess that, in a nutshell, is the reason for the notion that all beliefs are automatically respect worhty. Rationally, how can any belief be worthy of respect just because some idiot somewhere just so happened to fall for it.
After Eugene Volokh, at Volokh Conspiracy, read it, he believes the Archbishop's proposal is similar to contracts that specify an alternative dispute resolution process, such as arbitration. It is voluntary, only for those who chose to use it. Similar processes for other people would have the same legal status. He notes that US courts have already recognized similar clauses in various contracts. It would not allow punishments that are against actual law. It would not be general law.
PZ and many people in the UK don't seem to understand what the Archbishop actually said. Though, as usual, his estimation of the amount of irrational insanity sounds about right.
Tristram Brelstaff wrote:
You can read what the Archbishop of Canterbury actually said here. I wouldn't trust the British newspapers to get anything about Islam correct at the moment, not even the Guardian.
The following two quotes taken directly from Mr Williams himself are enough to make me seriously worried about his wishes and his intensions.
He is directly requesting privilege under the law for believers and that, for me, is in a free democratic society totally unacceptable.
Go away, archbishops and imams -- you harm our culture.
Now how can you write that, when some bold bishops are stepping up to tell us what life after death is really like? I mean, as opposed to all those clearly ridiculous notions of life after death that the hoi polloi have.
I mean, what can be more helpful for our earthly culture than clearing things like that up?
DaleP writes:
What in British law prevents that now? The Catholic Church has its own law that declares when a couple may marry in the church, or when a marriage is annulled. It forbids divorce. Catholics may adhere to that law. Or they may ignore it, and earn the wrath of their priests, with the potential consequence of being refused a variety of church rites. I presume that is also the case for Catholics in Britain. Or for Orthodox Jews. Or for Muslims. Is that not the case?
But that just can't be right, because the Saudis are our friends, and they had nothing to do with 9/11, and we just gave them a shitload of money...
Sometimes I think the only thing more screwed up than religious belief is the foreign policy of the US...
I've heard random strip-searches are business-as-usual at US airports.
Over my dead body. The last thing we need in England religious law. Of the christian or islamic variety...
Rowan is the guy TR had in mind when he said "I could carve a better man out of a banana"
He sees his role as appeasing everyone - the Neville Chamberlain of the clergy
i liked the news footage that accompanied the story on the Archbishop - it featured a surreal montage of him going about his business, dressed like a wizard, banging ceremonially on a door with a staff, kissing a massive book (presumably the bible), standing on an ornately-carved stone pulpit and other such useful doings.
at one point the news reporter said something like "Dr Williams has been accused of pandering to religious extremists" and that was the point at which i thought "fuck it, that's his job isn't it?"
The press and political comment on the Archbishop's opinion have been almost universally hostile over here in the UK, with many calls for him to resign. This is heartening, even if some of these calls come from within his own church. He himself has clearly been very startled at this reaction to what he clearly thought was a modest proposal.
AnthonyK
Here is another example of religious law, as expressed
in their "religious literature" that will direct and
control the behavior and lives of it's adherents. This is
what it is: Institutional terror as directed by the
written religious literature.
PZ: I left a comment at # 73 on "Loyal Rue vs (?)
PZ Myers"
I have a certain amount of respect for the Archbishop, but I can't agree with his overall point that we need to make allowances in the law for people's religious conciences. It may not always be in the right, but the law is the law, and I don't see why religious belief should excuse you of it any more than any other kind of belief. If someone said it was part of their religion to kill homosexuals, should we tolerate that and allow him to? If not, why should we make allowances for the Catholic Church not wanting homosexuals to adopt children because it's part of their religion?
Take a right turn before the Enlightenment, and you'll find our lovely Dark Ages exhibit, children.
Lassi Hippeläinen said:
"I've heard random strip-searches are business-as-usual at US airports."
Actually, strip-teases are business-as-usual at US airports, but that's only if you are a republican senator.
i liked the news footage that accompanied the story on the Archbishop - it featured a surreal montage of him going about his business, dressed like a wizard, banging ceremonially on a door with a staff, kissing a massive book (presumably the bible), standing on an ornately-carved stone pulpit and other such useful doings
Careful or you'll get a visit from The Bishop!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2etGhVewsvQ
Here is the actual text of the archbishop's speech:
http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575
According to the dittoheads, Saudi Arabia is our partner in the war on Islamofascism.
"On the other hand, if one reads what he actually said, it seems fairly sensible to me. He is entirely right to point out that society needs to find ways of dealing with religious imperatives in a secular state, and resolving the tensions between the two. Don't turn it into a generalised and stereotyped attack on Christianity - Williams is not remotely fundamentalist, and it seems as if most of his attackers over this come from the 'Biblical Christianity', evangelical camp within the English church."
Well if you think reasonable means that one can cite one's religious views to avoid having to comply with the law of the land, then yes, it is reasonable. If, like me, you do not think allowing that is reasonable then he is talking total bollocks.
The sh@t has really hit the fan over here in the UK. As AnthonyK said the reaction is "almost universally hostile" and as a result the Archbishop is said to be 'in shock'. Shows you how out of touch he is with the real world.
In 'Question Time', a TV prog on which questions on issues of the day are raised by members of the audience and answered by a panel of politicians / journalists / dignitaries, the matter of the archbishop's lecture was raised. Again, more condemnation, particularly by the invited audience. I was disappointed by the reaction of some members of the panel who, goodness knows why, decided to show a little too much deference; (the archbish is so learn'ed). I think he's learn'ed a lot these past couple of days. The lesson is - the folks in Britland will not tolerate the imposition of sharia law, (no not even a coutdown version thereof - not even a little bit).
BigBob
It's absolutely disgusting that we support Saudi Arabia as our "allies" when they pull this kind of nonsense with our citizens, but Iran, which is much more closely aligned with our cultural mores, gets the cold shoulder. And just look what we've done to the women in Iraq.
I don't think we can survive another Republican presidency anytime soon.
If not, why should we make allowances for the Catholic Church not wanting homosexuals to adopt children because it's part of their religion?
The Church tried that here in MA, and got shot down. The issue was that they were serving as a proxy for the state and placing children in social services. They'd place something like 4 kids in gay households (out of several hundred) and the Bishops went ape-shit. Catholic Charities' board voted unanimously to abide by state non-discrimination law, but the Bishops wanted an exemption. Romney tried to get 'em one, but it went nowhere. The Bishops pulled out of the adoption business rather than place a couple kids in a gay home.
If what's involved is conflict resolution issues, I can see a place--there are plenty of conflict resolution programs in place all over. However, I wouldn't trust a system with as much institutionalized woman-hatred as sharia.
The Archbishop is a kindly and decent man. I'm sure he intended his comments to be a gesture of reconciliation towards Muslims in the UK that would help lower the barriers between them and the remainder of the population.
I just don't think it will work, though.
Like faith schools, it will assist a minority group to remain isolated within its own community and shielded from pressure to integrate.
I'm also tempted to say that Muslims in the UK should be allowed their own courts when British residents in Arab states are allowed their own system of common law and trial by jury of their peers.
C'mon, PZ. Going off on something you get secondhand, from the Guardian of all places, is Rush Limbaugh territory. I'm sure that you'll still disagree with the Archbishop but what he is saying is much more nuanced, and much less revolutionary, than you portrayed it. Here is the "meat" of his point:
He made no proposal to use the British legal system to enforce sharia other than as we do here in America already (more commonly with Orthodox Jewish law than sharia). In essence, he is recommending some limited role for arbitration and/or mediation by religious leaders among people who agree to the procedure. That's fully recognized in America and enforced within the limits of American constitutional and procedural law.
"If not, why should we make allowances for the Catholic Church not wanting homosexuals to adopt children because it's part of their religion?"
There was a recent change in the law in the UK that made it illegal for anyone offering goods or services to the public to discriminate on the grounds on a person's sexuality. Thus it became illegal for hotels and restaurants to refuse a room or a table to a gay couple. The Catholic church decided it did not like this idea very much, especially with regards the adoption agencies it runs so it campaigned to have an exemption from the law. I am glad to say that they did not get their way. I am sorry to have to say that the Church of England supported the Catholic position, as did Tony Blair and another cabinet member*
A.C.Grayling summed it up best when he said that if your job involved offering goods or services to the public and your religious beliefs would not allow you offer those to gays then tough, get out of the that line of business.
* The other cabinet member was Ruth Kelly who at one time was in charge of ensuring government policy did not discriminate against minorities, including gays, despite not being able to say homosexuality was not a sin.
"the uniform application of secular law is what a civilized society demands, not a patchwork of piecemeal laws which apply differently to different people"
I don't know if that would be so bad, I like the idea of letting only people who voted for republicans be forced to abide by republican laws, and leave the rest of us alone.
"He made no proposal to use the British legal system to enforce sharia other than as we do here in America already (more commonly with Orthodox Jewish law than sharia). In essence, he is recommending some limited role for arbitration and/or mediation by religious leaders among people who agree to the procedure. That's fully recognized in America and enforced within the limits of American constitutional and procedural law."
One of the main issues that has been raised in opposition to what the Archbishop has said is that certain elements within the Muslim community within the UK do not have very liberal views on the role of women with society. Thus there is a strong likelihood that both parties, in say a divorce, are not actually willing to use Sharia law.
And the Archbishop acknowledged that and stated that it would have to be addressed. He wasn't presenting his position as a completed plan, just as a proposal to be worked on. Of course, if the agrieved party is so religiously intimidated as to not seek out the available civil courts, the civil courts are unlikely to be any better at protecting that person. Probably less.
Ian H Spedding FCD said:
Exactly! I think that isolationism and segregation are some of the greatest evils of religion.
"he is recommending some limited role for arbitration and/or mediation by religious leaders among people who agree to the procedure..."
The term "people" is very broad, and doesn't reflect the fact that not everyone in the communities in question necessarily wants to have their cases adjudicated by a separate body. They are just compelled to do so by custom, and by the social pressure of relatives or co-religionists. This would especially be true of women. Equality before the law is an important precept in the UK (as elsewhere). Allowing a large part of civil law to be handed over to religious groups who do not hold by that same principle is a very bad idea, in my view. And I don't care which religion we happen to be talking about...
The Sharia thing is weird. If The archbish had said that he thought people should be allowed, by mutual consent, to enter into binding arbitration with whoever they agree as arbiter, it would have implied everything he did say but barely registered in the press. Also rabbinical courts are already treated like this.
He was trying to privilege "faith" and I'd have concerns about societal pressure to enter into the arbitration but it's been top story on the news for 2 days. That's a bit disproportionate, especially since nobody actually goes to Dr. Rowan's churches
"And the Archbishop acknowledged that and stated that it would have to be addressed. He wasn't presenting his position as a completed plan, just as a proposal to be worked on. Of course, if the agrieved party is so religiously intimidated as to not seek out the available civil courts, the civil courts are unlikely to be any better at protecting that person. Probably less."
He may have said it is an issue that would need to be addressed. The problem is that he then failed to address it.
I would like you to support your contention that the English and Scottish courts would fail to protect the rights of a Muslim woman in a divorce hearing. If you have evidence that they have failed to do so, present it.
I'm not sure how "certain carefully specified matters" became "a large part of civil law" but my point really isn't about whether it is a good or bad idea in detail, it that the outcry that the Archbishop wants to impose sharia on and within the British legal system is hysterical nonsense fully worthy of right wing talk radio.
Honestly I think it's much ado about nothing and I thank Tristram Brelstaff in post #2 for linking up the talk.
It was a long read. And it was a typical exercise in theory talk that some people took totally the wrong way.
You know what, it reminds me of the incident between Slimy Sal and Skatje. Where Skatje's theoretical exercise, with its disclaimers, was made into something much more ominous.
You've got the wrong end of the stick. People have to assert rights in court in order for them to be protected. Say the court issues an order distributing marital property. If the woman does not try to enforce it because she thinks sharia is more important than English or Scottish law, the courts can't help her (or not as much as they could otherwise). The same person who is too intimidated to refuse arbitration by an imam is unlikely to stand up for her/himself in a strange court where they have different customs and languages. An imam might actually know better what is going on "behind the scenes," than an overworked judge who knows little or nothing of the muslim community, and be in a better position to help that person.
Thanks for the link. The good news is that British politicians are having none of this... once again demonstrating the irrelevance of the Archbishop.
"I'm not sure how "certain carefully specified matters" became "a large part of civil law" but my point really isn't about whether it is a good or bad idea in detail, it that the outcry that the Archbishop wants to impose sharia on and within the British legal system is hysterical nonsense fully worthy of right wing talk radio."
This is just silly.
UK law already allows for both parties in a dispute to agree to enter binding arbitration. If both parties agreed to have that dispute settled by the principles of Sharia law then that would be allowed, just the same as both parties could also agree to have the case settled by the principles of Jewish law, or indeed anyone of a number of arbitration schemes that exist. It is unlikely that this is what the Archbishop was calling for. If it was then his speech really was a total waste of time.
If we conclude that the Archbishop intended to call for something more than binding arbitration between two parties then the response becomes much more understandable. There is a strong distrust in the UK of special pleading for religious sensibilities. People do not like those with religious beliefs being exempted from various aspects of the law because of those religious beliefs.
I see. You haven't read the speech but it becomes more understandable if you continue not to read it and draw conclusions from your ignorance of it.
Goodbye.
"You've got the wrong end of the stick. People have to assert rights in court in order for them to be protected. Say the court issues an order distributing marital property. If the woman does not try to enforce it because she thinks sharia is more important than English or Scottish law, the courts can't help her (or not as much as they could otherwise). The same person who is too intimidated to refuse arbitration by an imam is unlikely to stand up for her/himself in a strange court where they have different customs and languages. An imam might actually know better what is going on "behind the scenes," than an overworked judge who knows little or nothing of the muslim community, and be in a better position to help that person."
I think that you lack understanding of the Muslim communities within the UK. Muslims within UK form a number of distinct communities with the attitudes towards UK laws and women varying between them. There is an educated Muslim community, the one that Benazir Bhutto belonged to when she was in exile that has liberal social attitudes. However the largest Muslim community come from rural villages in Pakistan where social attitudes are nowhere near as liberal. The Imams who serve those communities come from the same background, and often speak little English. The Imans who you think will uphold the rights of woman are likely to hold views that make that very unlikely indeed.
"I see. You haven't read the speech but it becomes more understandable if you continue not to read it and draw conclusions from your ignorance of it."
Do you often lie ?
You, as far as I know, are not British and would seem to know nothing about Muslim communities within the UK, yet that does not seem to stop you pulling an opinion out of your backside.
Oh noes! The Muslims are coming, the Muslims are coming! Everyone panic.
Bush is in the business of liberating countries from dictators and establishing 'democracy' wherever he can, right?
i would think saudi arabia is the perfect candidate for his next liberation. people of america, egg your leader on to war. even the democracy that bush will establish would be better than what saudi's citizens, particularly their women, have to deal with at present.
That's one thing I do like about living in the UK. A politician who espouses the virtues of God and publicly uses it to influence his policies is treated like the ignorant fool he is. Tony Blair waited until after he'd left office to come out about his bible-bashery and we still felt let down in retrospect. Considering how church and state are 'officially' entwined here, it's quite refreshing really.
I'm hoping that secularisation and separation of church and state (and while we're at it, the influences of the House of Lords and royalty) will come gradually, quietly and with little in the way of fanfare. Change that comes with a bang seems to have a short shelf-life.
The most perspicacious commentary on the Archbishop's lecture can be read in today's Times. Matthew Parris as usual is spot on in his analysis:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/arti…
There has been a discussion in the UK over the last few years over the role of Imams within the Muslim community, with concern being expressed over the lack of understanding many show about British culture.
At present many of the Imams come from the Indian sub-continent, the rural areas of Pakistan especially and have no special training specific to working in the UK and often having poor English. As you might expect these Imams reflect the communities they come from. These communities are heavily patriarchal, with women having a subservient role within the home.
A number of Islamic academics within the UK have criticised these Imans for failing to understand that the UK does not work like rural Pakistan and have called upon the Government to stop giving visas to them. The academics consider that a number of the conflicts between the Muslim community and the British community is down to a lack of understanding with the Muslim community about the role of women in British society and other issues regarding tolerance.
The likes of John Pieret seem to think that these Imams are likely to be supportive of a women trying to divorce her husband. He fails to understand that these Imams are more likely to be part of the problem, teaching that women are meant to be subservient to men, than part of any solution.
It is these communities, dominated by men who hold backwards looking views on the role of women, who would implement decisions based on Sharia law. I consider it unlikely that a women would be treated fairly.
[A parting shot would have been ignored but coming back for seconds ... ]
How did you get that out of what I said? Probably by mind reading like you tried to do with the Archbishop.
What I said was that the people who presently are too religiously intimidated to seek out the civil courts are not being served by those courts. That is a simple fact of how courts work under both the British and American system.
There would be some chance that some imam somewhere does not fit the caricature you want to peddle. I'm sorry that you can't understand the concept of marginal results.
None of this addresses the hysteria around what the Archbishop didn't say.
Now, leave it at one parting shot so I can get back to serious stuff, eh?
I think we should have that law here, at least at the state level. In Minnesota, you visit a Starbucks, you get strip searched. No exceptions. Zero tolerance.
You should get mildly harassed for visiting a Caribou.
Independent coffee shops unite!
I listened on BCC yesterday to one of the promoter of these Sharia courts. He refused to condemn the fatwa against Rushdie.
These folks are seriously challenged when it comes to freedom of expression.
The Archbishop is nuts. No concessions should be made to a court system that is based on a system of laws that has so much obvious discrimination built into it.
One law for everyone. One government, one language, one currency. A chimeric amalgam of all the best, most progressive laws, governments, langugaes, currencies etc that have evolved. One religion, if you insist on it...
"That's one thing I do like about living in the UK. A politician who espouses the virtues of God and publicly uses it to influence his policies is treated like the ignorant fool he is. Tony Blair waited until after he'd left office to come out about his bible-bashery and we still felt let down in retrospect. Considering how church and state are 'officially' entwined here, it's quite refreshing really."
This is true. I can count the number of overtly religious MPs on the fingers of one hand. Anne Widecombe (who may just be insane instead), Ruth Kelly (a member of Opus Dei) , and Ann Winterton (who thinks that it is ok to tell racist jokes as long as it is behind closed doors). Actually they just might all be insane. Widecombe really is something. She became a Catholic when the C of E allowed women to become priests and thinks that a woman can get out of prostitution by being told to get a job.
This is true. I can count the number of overtly religious MPs on the fingers of one hand. Anne Widecombe (who may just be insane instead), Ruth Kelly (a member of Opus Dei) , and Ann Winterton (who thinks that it is ok to tell racist jokes as long as it is behind closed doors). Actually they just might all be insane. Widecombe really is something. She became a Catholic when the C of E allowed women to become priests and thinks that a woman can get out of prostitution by being told to get a job.
Apparently misogynist conservative women isn't limited to the United States. Nice to know we're not alone, I guess?
"How did you get that out of what I said? Probably by mind reading like you tried to do with the Archbishop."
Maybe because you said it.
"An imam might actually know better what is going on "behind the scenes," than an overworked judge who knows little or nothing of the muslim community, and be in a better position to help that person."
This showed your total lack of understanding of the Muslim communities within the UK. There are support groups in the UK to help Muslim women who live in oppressive communities access the courts. Whilst there may be some Imams who would be supportive of such women they probably will not, and instead will be part of the oppression of women. In many Mosques women are not allowed to have any say in how the Mosque is run, or in the appointment of Imams. It is also these communities that want to be able to implement Sharia law. In other words it is those communities who most want Sharia law who are least suitable to have it. This seems to be something you remain ignorant of, I suspect because your knowledge of the UK is limited.
I know you will come back and say the Archbishop said the oppression of women is something that would need to be taken into consideration. The problem is he failed to do so, and has rightly been criticised for that failure. I know the Archbishop has also said he was not calling for a parallel legal system. The problem with that is most people who heard him interviewed on the BBC on the day he made the speech did not come away with that impression. Part of that may well be because he is not a very direct speaker and it can be hard sometimes to work out just what he is on about. I suspect that is because he would rather people were not entirely sure just what his beliefs are, lest the evangelicals criticise him for being to soft and the liberals in his church accuse him of being too dogmatic.
I think you also need to look at who has spoken out against what the Archbishop said. It is not just the "usual suspects". Those who can be relied upon to give more thoughtful responses, and who actually listened to what the said, have also come out in opposition. I suggest you try reading what Matthew Parris had to say. (If you do not know who Parris is then you really should not be commenting on events in a country you know nothing about).
"Apparently misogynist conservative women isn't limited to the United States. Nice to know we're not alone, I guess?"
I wish you were alone, sort of :)Actually I would rather we both were free of them, but given the chance I would ship Widecombe over to you!
Most people though do consider Widecombe to be somewhat barmy. She has some sympathisers, such as the Anglican priest I once saw being interview. He was dressed in a long black cassock that had buttons down the front and was frothing at the mouth about how women priests donning vestments to celebrate communion would be transvestites.
Brief summary of a lecture I saw on Islamic Law and Women here
The woman giving it was extremely apologetic to Islam, mainly talking about how tolerant and compassionate it once was (hundreds of years ago). Scary how well that was received, although there were many critical questions from the audience.
Wow. Well that one is at least sure to earn him the ire of the religious nuts here, who think their own brand of nuttery (which is really just the same brand by another name) is so much better, so much more pure, so much less oppressive than that of the Muslims'.
Stupid, thy form is many.
On the other hand, the woman was crazy for going out with men in Saudi. Apparently, she had not been properly instructed in how to behave when in that socially primitive country. I was working there in 1985. I was very uncomfortable for two months worrying about unknowingly doing something wrong and I am big, strapping male.
On the other hand, the woman was crazy for going out with men in Saudi.
I've often wondered if there's anything that could happen to a woman that's so bad, someone won't try to find a way to blame her for it.
As always, the answer continues to be "apparently not."
The BBC has already done a fairly good documentary on this subject.
Here is the YouTube Link: http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=CED24A22840EDCC1
And here is the description:
It's worth watching. It seems the biggest reason people opted for Shaia in the dual-legal system in Nigeria was speed: the Sharia court could hear a case within a few days, and render a decision on the spot, whereas the secular system seems to people there to be remote, expensive, and unbearably slow.
Even the defendant in one case opted for Sharia law, because as a petty thief he could get off with a lashing (!) which we see carried out, and it's a joke. You see the guy laughing it off afterward and going back to his life of a crime with a clean conscience, having been absolved of his crime by both the legal system and by God.
Some people choose Sharia because it's better for them.
It seems women may be attracted to Sharia justice even though those judgements may be more damaging than secular ones, because they "fear the wrath of God" more than they fear the secular legal system. In this case, women become the willing agents of their own discrimination.
And in that situation, don't we have some responsibility to intervene?
When I first heard of this, I thought it had to be a parody by Rowen Atkinson, not Rowen Williams. Incidently, Rowen Atkinson does an excellent imitation of an Anglican Prelate, gaiters and all!
Many folks here, especially John Pieret, have already pointed out the media overreaction to Williams' statements. Thank you! For those who don't want to wade through the florid prose of an academic theologian, however, there's a concise summary and analysis by Geoff Pullum on Language Log (Google it), where I first heard about it. They've always done an excellent job on issues of language and hyperbole in the media.
A point that is perhaps being missed here is the Williams speaks as a government appointee for an institution protected by criminal law. The office of Archbishop of the Church of England is appointed by the British government. And much more significantly, it is a crime (such as blasphemy) to criticise the church or its teachings.
In an option column published in the physical The Guardian on February 8th, Sharia law must not be reduced to a game, Andrew Brown gives one example of how the Church of England is protected by criminal law. The quote below, from Laws of the land, is a slightly extended version of that published in the International Edition:
To the extent anything should be done, it is to abolish the government ministry quaintly called the "Church of England", and to repel the laws that put it and its minions above th law applied to most other people. Williams may be right there is an issue. But he has it completely backwards. There is an entire body of law, criminal law at that, which should be removed.
It seems like John Pieret has the right of it: I don't actually see how this is much different from what we had in Ontario, up until the point where the Premier realised that he could either set up an Islamic family law/arbitration system or else he could abolish the current Catholic and Jewish systems to avoid giving preferential treatment to any particular religion that had asked for the privilege. Needless to say, in the current political climate, there was no way the bigoted class was going to allow the rules to be applied fairly, so religious groups that had been operating alternate legal resolution systems in some cases for centuries had to shut down.
The deal with such systems is that they must operate within the secular law, at least in Canada. That is, no Sharia court could sentence someone to death, or practice anything that was contrary to Canadian law in that way. (As far as I know, the rabbinical courts never had a problem with that, "The law of the land is the law," and all that.)
I personally have no problem with such a thing. You want to have your case heard by your priest instead of some yotz in a different kind of black robe? Okay, fine. Operate it within the law, give the privilege to everyone who asks for it (that is, no playing favourites by religion), and train the arbitrators so they know how to operate within the law, and as far as I'm concerned, that's ok.
"Many folks here, especially John Pieret, have already pointed out the media overreaction to Williams' statements. Thank you! For those who don't want to wade through the florid prose of an academic theologian, however, there's a concise summary and analysis by Geoff Pullum on Language Log (Google it), where I first heard about it. They've always done an excellent job on issues of language and hyperbole in the media."
I read that piece on Language Log. If anything it makes what the Archbishop said even worse. His whole argument is based on the idea that religion has something to bring to the law. It is this that many are objecting to.
For example:
"He's saying something like this: (1) Defending an unqualified secular legal monopoly on universalist human rights grounds betrays a misunderstanding of where human rights doctrines came from. (2) It would actually be no threat to human rights or dignity if the monopoly of secular law were loosened a little."
Well the modern concept of human rights does not really come from religion, it comes from the secular Englightenment, and the idea that religious dogma is not a threat to secularism is not something I think can be supported by the evidence. For example nearly all religions, at least those who think they should have a voice in legal matters, are intolerant of homosexuality, condemning it as a sin. There are exceptions, Williams being example, but he hardly represents the views of most Anglicans when it comes to homosexuality. "Secular" UK law is not clear on the matter of sexuality. Gays may marry, can adopt, can join the military and being out, and cannot be discriminated against in the provision of goods or services. Gays won these rights not because the faiths supported them having those rights but in spite of the faiths opposing them having those rights. If you were a gay person how happy would you be that having religion take a part in framing and administrating the law would result in those hard won rights being upheld and maintained ?
It is the rise of secularism that has allowed the rights of gays, non-whites and women to be protected in law in the UK, and it is for this reason that anyone who calls for a loosening of ties of secularism on the law is going be opposed by many who consider that advanced in human rights are something that should not be put in peril in order to accommodate the religious beliefs of others.
"The deal with such systems is that they must operate within the secular law, at least in Canada. That is, no Sharia court could sentence someone to death, or practice anything that was contrary to Canadian law in that way. (As far as I know, the rabbinical courts never had a problem with that, "The law of the land is the law," and all that.)"
I think the problem with what the Archbishop said is that he called for an loosening of the monopoly of the secular law. Pieret seems to be ignoring the fact that many of the commentators here, and in the British media, picked up on that and have criticised it.
Mr Williams is the Ecclesiatical head of an Established Church-Many Bishops are lawmakers by right and sit in The House of Lords. The Governor of all this is the Queen. I would encourage you to think that he has not said what he did lightly. The intent of all the discourse is to free the religious from criticism by using the law to "protect" them against criticism.
I think a lot of people taking the man in the fancy dress's side in this, miss the point. The idea of a "voluntary agreements" sounds good but it is a crock of shit. People get pressured into these things and loose their rights.
#63 :
Well, thank you, Matt Penfold, for pulling John Pieret's pants down and thrashing his silly ass. The fact that the media did not tease out the fine details of the ABC's woolly-headed bullshit is irrelevant. What is relevant is that the bbc website was hit with over 17,000 comments within hours of this story breaking. Christians, athieists, muslims. And all saying the same thing: WTF!?
It doesn't matter what fancy words you use, how you twist and dodge and hedge the issue. This is Sharia law, folks, and it's poison. There are times when you just swing with a blunt club. And you beat the snake till it's dead. And you do it loudly and nastily enough that no other snake even thinks about slithering here again.
No, that sort of criticism is irrelevant to my point, which was that reactions such as linking the Archbishop to strip searches at Starbucks is the kind of hyperbolic hysteria we see with the right wing talk radio, and exactly the kind of thing that Matthew Parris' Times piece (since you brought it up) explicitly eschewed. Criticize the man for what he said, not for what you imagine he meant or, worse, some strawman worthy of Rush Limbaugh.
Strangely, my silly ass feels quite fine.
"No, that sort of criticism is irrelevant to my point, which was that reactions such as linking the Archbishop to strip searches at Starbucks is the kind of hyperbolic hysteria we see with the right wing talk radio, and exactly the kind of thing that Matthew Parris' Times piece (since you brought it up) explicitly eschewed. Criticize the man for what he said, not for what you imagine he meant or, worse, some strawman worthy of Rush Limbaugh.
Strangely, my silly ass feels quite fine."
John, let me quote the man directly.
"I have been arguing that a defence of an unqualified secular legal monopoly in terms of the need for a universalist doctrine of human right or dignity is to misunderstand the circumstances in which that doctrine emerged, and that the essential liberating (and religiously informed) vision it represents is not imperilled by a loosening of the monopolistic framework."
What I am criticising him for IS what he said. There is no other way of taking that statement other than as the Archbishop claiming that religion helped bring about advances in human rights and that those advances are not imperilled by religion getting involved in both setting and administering the law. The first point is at best debatable, and at worst just plain wrong. There are plenty of examples of religion seeking to deny people human rights rather than support them, as can be seen by the Church of England supporting the Catholic Church's attempts to be exempted from legislation protecting gays from discrimination. The second point has even more evidence against it. Sharia law is religious law of Islam, which is not a religion noted for its tolerance and support for humans rights.
I am not sure why you are insisting on making such an idiot of yourself here. I know that you you reputation is for being something of an idiot when it comes to religion, but please, once you have proven you are one, stop. You gain nothing more by providing us with further examples of how little comprehension you have.
I think this maybe a situation where you simply do not understand Britain. That of course remains your problem, and does not excuse your ignorance.
Two days ago while crossing the Tay the radio had a moslem representative who pointed out that there are approximately 73 different forms of Islam practised in Britain today, all with their own interpretations of Islamic Jurisprudence. He asked the perfectly reasonable question as to exactly which form of Sharia would Williams think should be introduced?
A wonderful argument from a moslem against Williams's argument. This moslem also pointed out that many British moslems moved here to get away from such things as sharia law and in fact value our principles of freedom of religion. I strongly suspect that Williams was trying some special pleading on 'behalf' of moslems so that he could make some special pleading on behalf of his own fracturing flock.
"A wonderful argument from a moslem against Williams's argument. This moslem also pointed out that many British moslems moved here to get away from such things as sharia law and in fact value our principles of freedom of religion. I strongly suspect that Williams was trying some special pleading on 'behalf' of moslems so that he could make some special pleading on behalf of his own fracturing flock."
This is an excellent point. Some of the most vocal people speaking out against the Archbishop are Muslims, who probably have a good handle on what Sharia law is. Muslims in the UK are not a monolithic community. Although the majority come from the Indian sub-continent, a result of British colonial history, there are distinct groupings within that larger group. It would be reasonable to generalise that the popularity of Sharia law would be in inverse proportion to average education level of the community. The call from UK Muslims for Sharia law tends to come from the Muslim communities which first arrived in the UK in the 1950s and 60s to work in the textile industries on Northern England. These communities tend to be poor, in run down areas of former industrial cities and have poor academic achievement. Their Imams tend to come from Pakistan, from the same rural villages that the original immigrants came from, have a poor grasp of English and knowledge of British culture, and to have only a simplistic grasp of Islamic theology. There tends to be great importance placed on where in Pakistan a person's family came from, and the standing of their family in Pakistan will have a big influence on their position within their British Muslim community.
There is also a more affluent Muslim community within the UK, who tend to be professionals, working as doctors or running their own business. This community is more geographically dispersed and more integrated in British society. Opposition to any form of Sharia law is likely to be strong in this community.
I agree with John Pieret that the attacks on Dr Williams are based on a misunderstanding of what he wrote. Having read his lecture, he is not recommending that Sharia law be allowed to completely replace British law within Muslim communities and argues that, where the application of Sharia law is permitted, it should no in any way deprive British Muslims of those rights guaranteed by the wider community:
This is clearly not the craven appeasement of rabid Islamic fundamentalism that has been attributed to the Archbishop in some of the commentary.
Having said that, I still believe that he is naive if he fails to recognize the risk of widening rather than narrowing the cultural divide that may follow from allowing British Muslim communities greater freedom to 'opt-out' on the grounds of religious belief. I believe we have evidence from other conflicts which show that extremists perceive the tolerance and accommodation of more moderate communities both as weakness and as a favorable environment in which their own peculiar brand of hatred can flourish.
Well, John, re; comment #73.
Having read the Matthew Parris article do you accept his point? You agree that he has analysed the Archbishops thoughts in a calm manner and avoided any hyperbole. However he distills the point down to one of seeking special privilege for religious beliefs before the established law of the land (exactly as PZ set out in this post).
Do you find this acceptable?
In defence of my nation, I would like to point out that the resounding response from the British political establishment and the media (and from myself and my peers) has been to reject utterly the risible comments of an Archibishop of Canterbury who - far from being the moderniser of the Church of England that observers felt sure he would be - continues to spew irrelevant and inflammatory drivel on every one of the increasingly few occasions on which he can grab the media limelight. No-one of intelligence or influence would seriously consider that the bifurcation of the law in England, Wales and Northern Ireland (bearing in mind that we already have a separate, parallel legal system in Scotland) into separate secular and Islamic branches would foster any sort of societal cohesion. The fact that the Archibishop would claim the that it would is testimony to the sad fact that one does not require intellect to obtain a PhD.
Under Sharia, when a man divorces a woman, he keeps her dowry. When a woman divorces a man, she is left with nothing ("Allah will provide").
Equality under the law is a bedrock of British law today. Recognition of Sharia (and I watched the Archbishop's comments) would drive a wedge between men's and women's rights. For shame, Archbishop! You should step down.
The women in question was a Saudi- American with a poor grasp of Arabic. Against Saudi law, she was put into a taxi with a muttawa(religious police ) with out an actual police escort. These troglodytes have gotten in to so much trouble here recently because they work without any codefied rules. They just decide what is forbidden andwhat is allowed. And these are freakin' government employees! Imagine if you had 10% of college students in the US attending bible college and the working for the government to inforce biblical law. Which law(s) would they choose to enforce? Eat shrimp? Throw you in jail. Yell at your father? Stone you to death. Watch out America, you too could become a bastion of theocracy.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
Institionalized misogyny - which is very disgusting in saudia arabia and that area of the world. I refuse to capitalize the country cited. But I have to say that no where as near as brutal in the US but it does exist. My neice was brutally raped and almost killed by a pig and he only received 4 years. He terrorized her even after because he had her drivers license (we have terrorists?) and knew she had a son. He came to her house and thankfully my sister was in the front yard so he of course booked.
Then when we went to court we were in traffic court (we never found out why we were there?) and the door was continuously being opened and closed we could hardly hear the proceeding. I had to stand up and keep my arm there to catch the door. It was awful and no one could care less in our court systems. Misogyny is alive and well still to this day in america. It sucks!
You know, if he really cared about immigrants, he could use his positiona nd influence to advocate better public social policies that affect them. He could also try to make a point to denounce racist prejudices and other obstacles to integration. He could do so much if he really cared, and wasn't interested in pushing religious authority.
You know, if he really cared about immigrants, he could use his positiona nd influence to advocate better public social policies that affect them. He could also try to make a point to denounce racist prejudices and other obstacles to integration. He could do so much if he really cared, and wasn't interested in pushing religious authority.
According to CNN today, Williams has been asked to resign as Archbishop.
Hey, I'm an American and strong supporter of the 1st Amendment. As noted, some limited role for something nominally referred to as a "religious court" acting as arbitrators/mediators has not damaged chuch/state separation here. And I can't help but find it fairly ironic for there to be a brouhaha over "special privilege for religious beliefs before the established law of the land" arising out of a statement by an officially appointed, government-paid priest.
But to directly answer your question, if it was proposed here in America that religious law was, in fact, to be given special privilege within the civil law, I'd be against it strongly. The devil, as always, is in the details.
Re; comment #88
Appreciate the answer and its honesty. For me the devil is in the principle to start with, not the details. Once you accept the premise Williams made you are ONLY negotiating the details thereafter. I don't accept the premise; I think the reaction from all quarters that the comments received is an indication that the premise is not accepted; I'm glad about that.
The irony you mention about the establishment of the Church of England is indeed so. But look at the practical effects; we have been a massively secular society for a few hundred years despite this formal structure; in practice religion has played little or no part in our society until recently when the stirrings of evangelical religion (of all flavours) has threatened the status quo.
My reading of the situation is that the growing frustration felt by the vast majority of the populace in the last twenty years at this threat to secular life has been plastered over by the false bandaid of multiculturalism wrapped in a flavour of post-modern rhetoric. My hope is that these comments and the stark reactions to them will flush-out the underlying secular cohesion and actually diminish what gains the evangelicals have made recently and provide a platform of genuine concensus in the future.
Pat Condell has finally chimed in on the issue.
It seems to me, and please correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it a couple hundred years ago when a bunch of assholes got together and tried to start a country where everyone just had to follow a few secular laws, and could practice whatever religious bullshit they wanted to?
That actually seemed like not such a bad idea to me.
Re;l comment #91
'That actually seemed like not such a bad idea to me.'
Me too but what state is it in now?
I'm against extending the privileges of religions into 'arbitration services', mostly because I suspect there will not be the transparency, checks, and balances of the 'proper' law.
If your husband is best mates with the priest/rabbi/imam are you sure that your divorce procedings will be arbitrated fairly? Yet you will still be pressured by the other co-religionists to keep the arbitration within the faith.
In addition I am concerned that when the general society is seen to be extending the authority of the faith leaders there will be 'authority creep' into areas outside the arbitration scheme. I seem to recall certain pedophile priests being 'dealt with' inside their faith rather than going throught the regular courts...
Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?
LOL! I think the Cof E is trying it's best already, the man's a joke even by their standards.
Seriously though, considering that Sharia and other religious courts can already be used in cases of binding arbitration here in the UK how exactly can the Arhbishop's call be anything other than a demand for special privileges for religious laws? This is simply unacceptable no matter whichever flavour of religious law is being discussed and the Archbishop thoroughly deserves the derision he is receiving from all sides.
Having said that I am distinctly worried about the commets about Muslims (not Islam) that seem to be creepign in to the comments about this matter - how is it Islam's fault that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a blithering idiot?
I wonder where those here, and most specifically the blog author, envision Western Europe to be in 50 years or so. I submit that Sharia Law will either be actual law, or de facto law in large portions of the continent.
Demography is destiny and,simply put, secular, progressive Europe is not having babies and Muslim immigrant Europe is.
Secular progressive Europe will have to aggressively defend and promote its values to a growing, embittered and aggressive sub-culture. I see no evidence of that happening.
IMO, the bit about "oh, it isn't really law, it is binding arbitration" is sort of missing the point. If the UK (or anywhere) wants to set up a legally sanctioned arbitration acreditation mechanism, that might work. It would require legal training on the part of the mediators, etc and monitoring to make sure it stays within the law and that those who use it consent, etc. However, this has nothing to do with Sharia, although there might be "Islam inspired" centers accredited in this program.
I've heard random strip-searches are business-as-usual at US airports.
It can reduce your offline commercializing tolls too if you get it cooked properly. Finding someone who not only does SEO but does the content conception and distribution for you as well as keyword search, updating content on your site and blog, having professionaly written press releases at under prices as observed previous is what suits many small job owners and yet there are numerous who try to do it themselves, they get confounded as they dont have the cognition or the technical sciences to do it quickly and they abandon. Thank you for this article! I've just recovered a easily awesome news archive about how to get rich Taste it!