ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY SUPPORTS MASK OF ISLAM...

Can't say that I am that surprised to read that Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury and part-time Druid, has intervened in the ongoing debate about Islamic dress on British streets by saying that politicians must not interfere with a Muslim woman’s right to wear the veil in public. In a dramatic intervention Dr Rowan Williams, who is backed by other senior church leaders, said that the Government must not become a “licensing authority” that decides which religious symbols are acceptable.

So, the most senior cleric in the Anglican Church sees no problem with Muslim women being imprisoned behind the Burqa and Niqab. He sees nothing wrong with militant Islamists expressing their utter separation from British society through the garb worn by Islamoc women. He sees no harm in a section of those who reside in this country being permitted to continue their drive towards Shar'ia law, as a prominent member of the Muslim Council of Britain announced on the radio this morning. He sees nothing. Rowan Williams is a useful fool.

Comments

[joc]

Hes a lot more than a useful fool I think.....

Wasn't a bit surprised by his stupid comment.

[Fanny]

Rowan Williams is heading up a fast-failing Church.

He'll do anything to halt its demise, bending over backwards to show what a jolly good chap he is (and by extension all Anglicans).

I have a feeling that at heart he doesn't actually believe half of what he says. But yes, he's dangerous for all that.

[Alan McDonald]

David,

My favorite part of the story is Williams' comment that:

“This is a ‘secular’ system in the sense that it does not impose legal and civil disabilities on any one religious body; but it is not secular in the sense of giving some kind of privilege to a non-religious or anti-religious set of commitments or policies.

“Moving towards the latter would change our political culture more radically than we imagine.”

This dovetails nicely with the Cox & Forkum cartoon which correctly points out the centrality of the US Constitution in cementing secularity here in the States.

The follow on to Williams' comment is also informative:

But secularists said that the Archbishop was misguided. Terry Sanderson, of the National Secular Society, said: “The way we are going in this country with the rise of Islam, the churches should look at secularism as their best friend.

“Otherwise we are in danger of going down the same road as Northern Ireland or Iraq. Secularism is one of the best things that can happen to protect religions from being persecuted or persecuting each other.”

Fair warning, I say.

[David Vance]

I might add that the folly of appeasing those who seek the destruction of our way of life is another lesson to learn from going down the road of Northern Ireland....shall we have an ROP PEACE PROCESS next..????

[Peter]

This comes on the day of the government climb-down on faith schools in the UK. The new muslim faith schools will be allowed to be 100% muslim, which will mean thet they will be de-facto places of sharia law. Just what we need.

[David Vance]

Peter,

Exactly right. This Government is SO useless it is almost beyond belief. My fear is that a Brown or Cameron led alternative will be little better. Maybe people power is the only way forward....perhaps the sleeping giant stirs....

[mahons]

David: Why should Islam have all the nutty clerics? Aren't we Christians entitled to our share?

[Colm]

The Archbishop has simply said the government shouldn't interfere with peoples clothing choices or the wearing of religious symbols. Quite rightly it is none of their business. He is absolutely correct and demonstrates an understanding of freedom and the rights of the individual.

[Alison]

How is opening the debate by politely requesting a woman remove her veil..along with concern about protecting the rights of children to be taught properly in any way interference in this issue Colm? On the one hand you advocate 'no ban lets discuss' but then seem to imply no debate can be had because its interference. Baffling.

[Colm]

Alison

Please explain where I suggested there should be no debate. My understanding is that the Archbishop is opposing governments getting involved in policy making decisions that would restrict personal freedoms. By all means every individual including govt. ministers should be free to express an opinion and make requests as Jack Straw has done or for workplaces , like schools to have dress codes, but government laws dicating these matters in public , NO.

[Alison]

What policy making decisions though? What ban is he referring to? The PM has already made it quite clear they will not legislate in this area. Quite rightly it is their business to speak up when the rights of children to enjoy a full education are concerned. I dont understand how you can view that as none of their business? The reality is all they have done is what you then go on to support - express an opinion. The Archbishop is making a dubious political statement here because he has an agenda, infering that a debate and opinions are in some way a plot to move towards a ban when they are not. Id be reluctant to show any support for that if we want the debate to continue.

[Allan@Aberdeen]

Just bear in mind who appointed Williams as Achbishop of Canterbury. Now we are seeing why.

[MrSmith]

And this is why 'religion' can't be judged by a universal standard.