THE SPINE FEBRUARY 10, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Yes, I do believe that the moral achievements of Western culture are under siege. And that they are under siege from the extremists of contemporary Islam who are helped by the cowardly moderates of contemporary Islam. In northern and western Europe, for example, once bastions of intolerance, there have emerged patterns of social inclusion of once historically marginal groups. These people are now so integrated into the community that many of them had actually achieved leadership positions in them, and the community itself has the distinctive character of openness and non-doctrinaire liberalism. This is what threatens the extremist Muslims who came to these societies knowing what they were and who are now embarked on a shrill and violent effort to turn them to millennial outposts of an embattled faith. I'd make a deal with them, if you could possibly make a deal with them at all, and it would be: you stay in your orbit of the world and we'll stay in ours.The fact is that the rights of majorities to sustain their values and culture in their own societies have been ignored in contemporary politics and even in political theory. You raise the topic in polite company and you're likely to be dismissed as a Le Penist. It is very fashionable to worry about the disappearance of hundreds, maybe thousands of waning languages and cultures all over the world. The U.N. has many projects trying to rescue them, and other NGOs, too. But raise your voice in behalf of Christian Europe and you are look at as a kook.Still, it's not so surprising that the archbishop of Canterbury, the Most Reverend Rowan Williams, the head of the Anglican Church or the Church of England (which is mired in internal conflict and in ideological wars in America and Africa), should be in the lead of a movement to undermine both secular values and Christian morality in Britain. The Anglicans have for years lacked the confidence of their historical convictions. Already in the thirties, the Church put forward as leaders even apologists for Stalin like the Reverend Hewlett Johnson, the "Red" dean of Canterbury Cathedral, its headquarters, so to speak, as the Vatican is the seat of Catholicism.British history since the middle of the nineteenth century has been a compromise between tolerant Protestantism and John Stuart Mill. Now, Williams and his ilk have no confidence in a secular politics that is bolstered by Christianity (and, in a small way, by Judaism.) They know that migrant Islam in England (and in other countries of Europe) has neither interest in nor sympathy for the compact between church and society. So the archbishop has proclaimed that English law should make room for Shariah law for British Muslims. Read about this in the New York Times and, for example, in the Telegraph, Times of London, and the Guardian.I imagine that Williams would exclude the cruel bodily punishments prescribed in Shariah. But what about multiple marriages, treatment of women and children, loyalty to the British state? Imagine--not so hard to imagine!--the National Council of Churches on Riverside Drive issuing its own protocol to sanction Muslim religious law in American society. Then what about Mormon tradition?The Anglican Church is a mischievous church. Its mischief has now gone too far.
23 comments
You know, if you read the ORIGINAL text of Williams class, you will find that his argument makes more sense than the digests. First, a problem of definitions, in that we all have this impression of what Shari'a law is, and Williams spends some time disabusing us of that. Second, secular law undergirds all law, meaning it guarantees certain rights even in the face of other law, and third that in the cases WHERE PEOPLE CHOOSE to be ruled by Shari'a, that traditional law will consult jurists to help inform their outcome in a fashion that comports with the religion and tradition of the people being judged.
I think this make sense for instance in family law. Would a divorce ruled upon by a secular judge without any relevance placed on a Islamic (or Jewish, or Chirstian) tradition be as effective as one informed by jurists from these backgrounds?
Before slamming this as disenfranchising women, beheading apostates, etc, please read the original.
www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575
- dbhuff
February 10, 2008 at 12:05pm
I agree that Williams' words were lamentable even if he has now tried to correct them, leaving us with the feelling that no one understands what he meant, not even himself.
And I agree that the West should understand that the civilization that needs to be defended by the West these days is Western civilization.
But the question should not be puten in terms of majority rights vs. minority rights or in terms of your side of the world vs. one's side of the world.
The main problem is that those "majorities" that live in "our side of the world" are completely unaware of the true nature and roots of the civilization in which they live, of the historical process that led them to be what they are today, etc. So we have today, in a supposed enlightened age, ignorance spread in a degree never before seen in history. Contemporary political theory is, in a great deal, responsible for this.
I stress this because the knowledge of the moral roots of what the West is today would probably be the best way both for the West to understand itself and to give an appropriate answer to some multiculturalist absurdities. Simultaneously promoting integration as it has not been promoted in Europe.
The speech cannot never be one of us vs. them. And the first step is intensive homework of the West on the West.
- luispc
February 10, 2008 at 12:25pm
"I think this make sense for instance in family law. Would a divorce ruled upon by a secular judge without any relevance placed on a Islamic (or Jewish, or Chirstian) tradition be as effective as one informed by jurists from these backgrounds? "
I really cannot understand this. All I know is that a judge must know what law to apply and what principles to stand for. No society has ever survived with multiple conceptions of justice playing simultaneously and with law a la carte.
- luispc
February 10, 2008 at 12:27pm
“WHERE PEOPLE CHOOSE to be ruled by Shari'a,” dbhuff
That is the crux of the issue, isn’t it, dbhuff? “Where people choose” but how can anyone guarantee the safety of those Muslims, especially women, who don’t choose to be ruled by Sharia law?
“I think this make sense for instance in family law.” It may make sense only if the rights of women are protected which is to say that they won’t be harmed if they do not want to live under Sharia law. The Bishop’s declaration, if enacted, will make it more difficult to protect those in the Muslim community who do not want to live under Sharia.
“Would a divorce ruled upon by a secular judge without any relevance placed on a Islamic (or Jewish, or Chirstian (sic)) tradition be as effective as one informed by jurists from these backgrounds?”
This is a red herring: Jewish courts are strictly voluntary and Jewish women are not subject to honor killings.
“Before slamming this as disenfranchising women, beheading apostates, etc, please read.”
The fine points of the Bishop’s speech don’t matter. He needs to elaborate on how he will defends British Muslims who do not want to live under Sharia and would be under threat of punishment by members of their community.
Btw: Luis is of course right when he says that:
“All I know is that a judge must know what law to apply and what principles to stand for. No society has ever survived with multiple conceptions of justice playing simultaneously and with law a la carte.”
- jacksondyer
February 10, 2008 at 1:14pm
At the most, people get to choose the nation they live in. Then they get the laws that come with that nation.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is a fool, plain and simple. I don't care how nuanced the full text is. Any sublimation of a secular Western democracy to religious laws would be a disaster pure.
I'd love to see the hue and cry if a Catholic Bishop had suggested Catholics in England be given the option to substitute the laws of the Vatican for those of Great Britain. Starting with a ban on abortion.
The Archbishop's surrender is a symptom of the beginning of the surrender of Europe to the Islamic hordes in their midst. At the present rate of relative reproduction, Europe will be subsumed by Islam within this century.
North America is becoming the ark of Western Civilization. If it does not survive here, it will survive nowhere.
- ChanRobt
February 10, 2008 at 2:50pm
Another absurd display of British tolerance for other "cultures":
"British athletes selected for this year's Olympic Games in Beijing will be asked to sign a contract that forbids them from criticizing China's human rights record."
It's really funny. They are very respectful of China and of Islam and they take every opportunity they have to bash the EU and other European countries. Go figure.
- luispc
February 10, 2008 at 3:41pm
It is barely surviving here. If our next administration doesn't reinstate constitutional law (habeas corpus and other civil rights) our culture will rapidly devolve. Those believing in Shari'a aren't the only ones trying to rid women of the right to an abortion, by the way.
- asnevitt
February 10, 2008 at 3:47pm
asnevitt abortion rights are not being threatened by the detention of jjihadists at guantanmo.
- jacksondyer
February 10, 2008 at 4:15pm
Jackson: What does your last statement mean?
Also, re: Jewish divorce. Isn't it true that in the orthodox community women who are not given a get are ostracized and isolated from their families? This is not the same as stoning, but is a case in which religious values do deprive a woman of her rights. Sure she can live without the threat of being stoned. But it still ain't exactly a life. It is institutionalized sexism. So how much of a choice do these women really have?
I write this knowing full well that following Jewish law in a secular society is quite different from incorporating its laws into our constitution.
- MOLLYSIMON
February 10, 2008 at 5:39pm
Rowan Williams is an utter asshole. Let's see, first as archbishop he supported Anglican divestiture of anybody connected with Israel, then he ranted about the United States as the worst imperialists in history, then, in the spirit of Christmas, he delcare the Nativity story a myth. (Yes, we all KNOW that, so what's his point other than to be a churlish smartass?)
Martin Amis once described militant Islam as "an abattoire inside a madhouse." Now, this Archbishop of Canterbury, who condones the Muslim madhouse that has insinuated itself inside the UK, wishes to provide it with its abattoire.
Multi-cuturalist demagogues seek to parade their virtue -- moral sloth disguised as tolerance -- by reciting platitudes which pander to the sentiments of certain constituencies, some merely feckless and credulous, others truly malign. That the Church of England, in their wisdom, have appointed such a demagogue to head them is their misfortune. As a church leader, Williams is a travesty and a disgrace and should be unceremoniously thrown out of his cushy office and onto the street, where he can return to the mission proper to a priest, which he has no doubt forgot, along with his humility.
- jm_rice
February 10, 2008 at 7:20pm
Wow, Jim, when you're you're good, you're good.
- MOLLYSIMON
February 10, 2008 at 8:11pm
From Daily Telegraph:
"In the most comprehensive survey of the General Synod to be carried out since the storm broke over Dr Williams's speech, only 3 per cent agreed that aspects of Islamic law should be adopted in this country.
However, barely a handful of grassroots Synod members - 4 per cent - said he should resign over his comments, while two thirds rejected claims that he had lost credibility as a result.
...
The archbishop, whose friends said he felt "completely overwhelmed" and in a "state of shock" at the hostility of the response to his speech, may be able to draw some comfort from our findings."
So, what else would Williams have to say to "lose credibility" with the two thirds of the Synod members? How 'bout something really controversial, like acknowledging Israel's right of self-defense -- that would surely do him in in the UK.
And that he's in a "state of shock at the hostility of the response to his speech" -- my, my, who would've thought that the Brits aren't quite ready yet for the nuanced discussion of the benefits of the sharia law as a means to further muli-culturalism in their country?
- sabaka
February 10, 2008 at 8:12pm
Jackson, interesting about "choosing" sharia...
Once one professes Islam, he professes submission or surrender. He has totally abnegated himself before the will of Allah, as revealed by the Prophet, codified by sharia, interpreted by the mullahs or ayatollahs and enforced by street thugs with clubs and whips...or worse.
It seems the only choice for the Muslim is the choice he makes at the beginning, which is indeed to eschew choice. It recalls the German election of 1933 -- in effect, an election to have no more elections. Which is why Islam is fundamentally irreconcilable with civilized society, Western or Eastern. Which is why I play the broken record, that to the degree to which a Muslim adapts to civil society is the degree to which he ceases to be an authentic Muslim.
Another thing that repells me about Williams is his pressuming to lecture others about what Sharia is or is not, implying that his reading is superior to theirs. (Though I wonder if it's his reading at all, but rather talking points he gets from his Muslim consigleres.)
- jm_rice
February 10, 2008 at 8:27pm
Thanks, Molly. About certain issues, like Israel, we're quite close, and it's always fun to be with you in the trenches.
Soory to butt in, but about divorce without a get... I've always thought the Jews had a most severe yet humane punishment -- anathematization. No stoning, no burning at the stake, just the cold shoulder. So, if a Jew does anything really, really bad, and doesn't repent, it's, like, he's frozen out of the family, the congregation or the entire community. I'm thinking of the most famous example, of Spinoza's cherem. Which might obtain in this discussion.
From everything I know, Spinoza was miserable, but he was unrepentant and stll had friends amongst the goyim and maybe even furtively amongst some Jews. Not many details are known -- even the offense is obscure. The point is, here's a religious court within a civil jurisidiction meting out punishment.
So, in a way there is a Jewish equivalent to Sharia -- Halakha -- and its enforcement. As far as I know the ultimate sanction of a beit din is cherem, and as far as I know there's no secular law that prohibits a group from ostracizing someone (for other than the usual civil rights reasons). If that were the extent of Sharia sanctions, then maybe there wouldn't be a problem. The problem is that Sharia sanctions don't end there, not by a longshot.
- jm_rice
February 10, 2008 at 9:16pm
mollysimon said: “Jackson: What does your last statement mean?”
It means that it’s not wise conflate issues.
“Also, re: Jewish divorce. Isn't it true that in the orthodox community women who are not given a get are ostracized and isolated from their families?”
I am no fan of Orthodox Jewish law either which is why I want a wall of separation separation of religious law from secular law.
“This is not the same as stoning, but is a case in which religious values do deprive a woman of her rights.”
Not even close, and yes orthodox religious practices are not women friendly.
“Sure she can live without the threat of being stoned. But it still ain't exactly a life.”
That’s up to the woman, Molly. When you are stoned you are stoned, when you are ostracized you can ostracize back. The comparison doesn’t hold much water.
“It is institutionalized sexism.”
Please, don’t get academic on us. ‘Institutionalized sexism’ my foot. We are talking about a small institution and the women are free to leave. Millions have.
“So how much of a choice do these women really have?”
The amount of choice here is determined by the individuals ability to stand up for herself and move on. We are not going to change the ultra-Orthodox community, Molly.
“I write this knowing full well that following Jewish law in a secular society is quite different from incorporating its laws into our constitution.”
Thank you, I knew you’d say something I would agree with at some point.
- jacksondyer
February 10, 2008 at 10:14pm
mollysimon said: “Jackson: What does your last statement mean?”
It means that it’s not wise conflate issues.
“Also, re: Jewish divorce. Isn't it true that in the orthodox community women who are not given a get are ostracized and isolated from their families?”
I am no fan of Orthodox Jewish law either which is why I want a wall of separation separation of religious law from secular law.
“This is not the same as stoning, but is a case in which religious values do deprive a woman of her rights.”
Not even close, and yes orthodox religious practices are not women friendly.
“Sure she can live without the threat of being stoned. But it still ain't exactly a life.”
That’s up to the woman, Molly. When you are stoned you are stoned, when you are ostracized you can ostracize back. The comparison doesn’t hold much water.
“It is institutionalized sexism.”
Please, don’t get academic on us. ‘Institutionalized sexism’ my foot. We are talking about a small institution and the women are free to leave. Millions have.
“So how much of a choice do these women really have?”
The amount of choice here is determined by the individuals ability to stand up for herself and move on. We are not going to change the ultra-Orthodox community, Molly.
“I write this knowing full well that following Jewish law in a secular society is quite different from incorporating its laws into our constitution.”
Thank you, I knew you’d say something I would agree with at some point.
www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp
"From everything I know, Spinoza was miserable, but he was unrepentant and stll had friends amongst the goyim and maybe even furtively amongst some Jews. Not many details are known -- even the offense is obscure. The point is, here's a religious court within a civil jurisidiction meting out punishment." jm_rice
Good example, jm. The more I read about Spinoza the more I think that what we know of his offense and his punishment is very little.
He is supposed to have denies the immortality of the soul, but that has never been dogma in Judaism. Maimonides argued for it but his point of view was often challenged:
www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp
What is interesting about Spinoza’s case was that the Jewish community he lived in was composed of Iberian Jews who had been Marranos (Jews forcefully converted to Catholicism who continued to practice some aspect of the Jewish religion without knowing much about it.) and had taken up Judaism again when they left the Iberian Peninsula. Spinoza was apparently fluid in Spanish and read the literature of the period.
It has been argued plausible in my opinion that the Jews who condemned Spinoza confused certain Catholic beliefs and practices with those of Judaism and that the notion of the “immortality of the soul” was among them.
In any case, ostracism at the time of Spinoza was a much harsher punishment than it would be today since there were no alternate Jewish communities for him to join.
Today, it is said that every Jew is a member of two Shuls (Synagogues) the one he goes to and the one he doesn’t go to.
- jacksondyer
February 10, 2008 at 10:37pm
Sorry I seem to have screwed up the previous post, or was it the dreaded TNR web site who did it?
In any case, here it is again:
"From everything I know, Spinoza was miserable, but he was unrepentant and stll had friends amongst the goyim and maybe even furtively amongst some Jews. Not many details are known -- even the offense is obscure. The point is, here's a religious court within a civil jurisidiction meting out punishment." jm_rice
Good example, jm. The more I read about Spinoza the more I think that what we know of his offense and his punishment is very little.
He is supposed to have denies the immortality of the soul, but that has never been dogma in Judaism. Maimonides argued for it but his point of view was often challenged:
www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp
What is interesting about Spinoza’s case was that the Jewish community he lived in was composed of Iberian Jews who had been Marranos (Jews forcefully converted to Catholicism who continued to practice some aspect of the Jewish religion without knowing much about it.) and had taken up Judaism again when they left the Iberian Peninsula. Spinoza was apparently fluid in Spanish and read the literature of the period.
It has been argued plausible in my opinion that the Jews who condemned Spinoza confused certain Catholic beliefs and practices with those of Judaism and that the notion of the “immortality of the soul” was among them.
In any case, ostracism at the time of Spinoza was a much harsher punishment than it would be today since there were no alternate Jewish communities for him to join.
Today, it is said that every Jew is a member of two Shuls (Synagogues) the one he goes to and the one he doesn’t go to.
- jacksondyer
February 10, 2008 at 11:42pm
Spinoza's theories (his family was an Iberian one from Vidigueira, Portugal, expelled by the Inquisition) were condemned by every cult of his time, both Jewish and Christian.
But he was simultaneously deeply religious. He never denied the truth of revelation. He proposed himself to uncodify that truth understanding that through that "decodifying" process he would reach the idea of the perfect man, of moral perfection.
Of course that meant simultaneously to attack every dogmas on which cults live by, both Jewish and Christian.
In his greatness he has taken the greatest lessons from his predecessors. He was of course familiar with the ideas of Maimonides of Cordoba, of Thomas Aquinas and of the theologians of the Peninsula that were attacking the most orthodox beliefs and against which, in a great deal, the Inquisition was established.
And what's more interesting is that through Spinoza's decodification we can today understand why the judeo-christian tradition was able to generate what we call today Western civilization and why this same civilization is very different from the islamic one.
This cannot be explained in a post. But the main idea is that in the judeo-christian tradition, "access to God" is reached through moral perfectability, through man reaching his true moral humanity, simultaneously understanding all the "thou shalts" and "thou shalt nots" as his own, as projections of his identity. God does not empower man, being the way to moral perfection.
In the islamic tradition quite the opposite happens. Access to God is understood as access to power. Belief in God gives you "advantage" and allows you to use your sword.
By opposing Christ to Mohamed one can understand very well the difference. Christ when attacked did not fight back, was crucified and gave his blood in order for his followers to understand the idea of moral perfection. Mohammed, on the contrary, understood his access to God as an empowering one, making it legitimate to spread his "faith" through the use of his sword against his "enemies". This is also why, islamic culture still gives the proud male advantage both over his enemies and over women and children that are objectified.
If we do not understand that this simple difference is the most important dividing difference between Christian and Islamic cultures (not denying that Christian message was many times perverted and understood as an empowering one: that still happens today with Bushies), we are left without the resources both to understand the West and to give an appropriate answer to those that find it acceptable to apply muslim law in western societies.
The problem is not one of secularism vs. religious. It is one of comparison between two religious traditions and the forgetfulness of the West about itself.
- luispc
February 11, 2008 at 2:52am
"The problem is not one of secularism vs. religious. It is one of comparison between two religious traditions and the forgetfulness of the West about itself."
Maybe so, but if you have a religion that is happy to kill for its faith and one that willing to die for it but not to defend itself then it doesn't take a genius to see which one will survive in the long run.
Let's call it Darwin's law of religious evolution (or is it devolution) or survival of the most bitter belief system.
- jacksondyer
February 11, 2008 at 9:55am
Biological laws of evolution do not apply here Jackson. If they did we would all live in marxist societies today or something of the sort...
And they don't apply because man, even if an animal, is a self-interpreted animal. Which means that actions must be justified from his inescapably moral point of view. The work to be done in order to undermine islamism is a deligitimation work. One must understand and make understand that the belief system that is spread by Islam is deeply flawed and also profoundly contradictory.
This is a work that, these days, only Ratzinger is making, only he is revealing the intelectual ability to do it. In Regensburg he took a shot at the heart of the islamic belief system. Very subtely and with extraordinary intelligence... Liberals and neo-kantians, on their side, live on the illusion that all beliefs to be equally dismissed as irrational, not understanding that they themselves live within a belief system that is profoundly ignorant and incredibly intolerant....
This battle is a religious battle that must be fought at the religious level (at the theological level). And the first step for it to be won is for the West to do some self-searching. Because a West unaware of it's true roots and living within liberal fictions (that are being kept at the expence of an intellectual deshonesty that is only comparable with the one of the priests of the holy inquisition) is completely vulnerable.
- luispc
February 11, 2008 at 10:56am
I was being sardonic when I mentioned evolution, Luis.
In any case, even if you are right about the West needing to go back to its roots at the end of the day they will still have to confront Islamicism and I doubt it will be a strictly intellectual confrontation.
- jacksondyer
February 11, 2008 at 11:01am
"and I doubt it will be a strictly intellectual confrontation"
"All the actual is rational, all the rational is actual"
The point is Jackson that until now you haven't got an articulation of those roots and on how they explain ourselves and our political systems. I'll send you my modest efforts as soon as they get published. Which, I hope, will happen late this year.
- luispc
February 11, 2008 at 11:53am
Will be glad to read it, Luis.
- jacksondyer
February 11, 2008 at 12:48pm