Anybody wishing to come to the UK should be prepared to abide by our laws. Indeed many of those who have come here have done so for that very reason. Muslims have been here since trading began as you can see by visiting all our old ports, yet they have never presented us with any desire for ‘accommodation’. The present furore is especially due to the claims by many vocal muslims that the UK will be a muslim country in the future. Coming on top of the terrorist threats this is more divisive than anything I have heard in my lifetime.

Our present laws provide protection for all levels and ethnic groups in our society. To introduce new law for one minority group is to set them apart and establish a clear division. There was a time when religion had a large influence on how the country was run as it did in many other countries. Every secular state faces the occasional interference from one or other of the religions, and mostly this is resisted simply because it is divisive. Once any government starts pandering to a minority, whether or not that is religiously driven, then democracy is under threat.

It’s similar with the ABoC last controversy about gay Bishops. He raised awareness in the Church and got a debate started but then backed down a bit when it looked like the Communion might be damaged by it. I think that is the right appoach if you want to be progressive; rock the boat but don’t rock it so much that it sinks.

I am not in favour of ‘parrallel law systems’.
At issue is the freedom of the individual.

Many laws have ‘positives’ aswell as ‘negatives’[eg drug legislation/taxation rules/speed limits]. The impostion of a rule it is about assessing that balance. If the make-up of society changes and it affects that balance, a case for change can to be made, but for everyone.

I can accept Scottish solution to the Catholic adoption issue [to a point!] on the basis that gay couples can go elsewhere. If Catholic adoption agencies form such a large part of the system that the exercise of religious choice seriously interferes with the right of others, then the balance changes, and so should the level of accommodation. Then the adoption agencies verdict on an individual would be society’s verdict and that cannot/should not stand.

A parrallel system therefore [ie where 'the law' effectively to 'moves aside' for certain groups] can mean the mainstream effectively endorses the outliner .

The House of Lords have spent much time deliberating the problem of Jewish women being unable to obtain a divorce without the consent of their husbands. It is not the restrictions on divorce that are at issue but the fact that they apply unevenly between the sexes; if the wives rights were the same, it wouldn’t be a problem.

‘The system’ is fundamentally at odds with our approach to life and cannot be reconciled. Any endorsement of that system is an endorsement of THAT verdict on that individual.

The problem with some aspects of Sharia law is that there is a similar inherant imbalance between the sexes. To legitamise ‘I divorce thee’ x 3 is accept its inescapable verdict and consequences on the individual woman.

One aspect that could be looked at is inheritance. Estates can be passed on pretty much any way a person wants in a will. The problem lies in the tax implications. For instance, entailed estates are tax dear. This is because the entailing of estates was considered bad social policy.
If the Sharia Muslims wish to argue that their presence in our community has changed of the balance of the arguement, then they could make the arguement and if a change is made, it applies to all.

As far as I can understand, from a first reading of the A of C’s closely reasoned words, this was one of the very points that he was trying to address. And as far as I can see he was not advocating anything that cannot be discussed reasonably. The deluge of criticism seems to be more a knee-jerk reaction to the mere occurrence of the words “sharia law”, than to what he actually said.

I admit it is not an exact parallel – but even in the most crucial phases of the second world war, there was at least some attempt to accommodate those who had a conscientious objection to active service. It must be possible to have a rational debate about such matters and, even if we disagree with what he said, it seems to me that the media have a greater need to question their words, actions (and motives) than does the Archbishop.

A better example than Councils would probably be Christian charities which do a great deal of good work and receive government support in doing so, but which won’t get involved in projects that deal with birth control.

Do you accept that they do good work but not that and keep funding them because you know that others are doing it and you can fund them, or do you withdraw funding from them unless they start to do it and risk losing there good work?

For me it’s ends and means. If the objective is to get children in care or at risk adopted in to safe better homes then the various adoption agencies are the means and as long as you fund a range that means no group is disadvantaged it’s fine.

I personally wouldn’t be against the state supporting a charity that offered to place black children with black families, as long as none black children and potential parents could freely get help elsewhere.

As long as no one is disadvantaged then we can have a variety of options that allows people free choice rather than one size fits all. It’s the same with church schools, as long as no one is forced in to one or discriminated against then I don’t have a problem with them, as long as they provide good education.

Peter.

Just to pick up the point you made about Catholic adoption agencies a while ago (sorry I’ve been away the weekend). I see that that the compromise you’ve outlined in Scotland is sensible in practical terms because noone is seriously disadvantaged by it but I think the principle is much more serious than your analogy with the Council Office not doing income tax.

It’s the same for everyone that council offices can’t sort out income tax but if the council did offer that service it would be pretty outrageous if some council offices said they could only do it for white people and black people would have to find a different one. Why should the situation be different for gay people and adoption?

I know that’s a bit off topic, but the tension between what seems right in principle, and what is right in practice, is very similar to the situation that the ABoC mentioned about the reported case of a muslim women in a bookstore not being willing to handle Bibles or the situation Wolf mentioned earlier about Sikhs and crash helmets in the 70’s. All of these involve a compromise between the two and I don’t think it’s at all obvious what that compromise should be.

“In fact it is the mark of a confident society if (without damaging our basic rights) it seeks to accommodate differences wherever possible.”

Your parentheses are the crux of the problem here. To what extent does allowing any form of parallel law damage basic rights ? That depends to the extent of conflict between the “parallel” law and underlying law.

One example is the recent reports that muslim men with more than one wife may claim benefits in respect of those wives. Not sure how accurate the reports are, but it is dangerous to make an allowance for one cultural group for something which has long been considered against the law in this country. Should we henceforth allow bigamy as an acceptable practice under English law ?

There is a world of difference between the state allowing for matters to which the individual may object on principle (whether indivudally or as part of a community) and “something the state wishes to impose (on good democratic grounds)”.

I cannot see how there can be justification for the State to impose anything. The state acts by the consent of its citizenry – or do you not accept this as a definition of democracy ? When the “state” seeks to impose its will against the wishes of its citizens it runs the risk of revolt.

One must not confuse acquiescence with agreement. There may be laws with which we as individuals might disagree, but we abide by those laws as part of a compact, since there are more laws with which we do agree.

If however, the state seeks to impose laws in conflict with the “values” of its citizens, there is a danger of tilting the balance between what is accepted and what is tolerated – and that way lies the potential for anarchy from widespread civil disobedience.

The political classes need to heed the under-currents of discontent among the natives. Yes it is a mark of strength to be able to say “I acknolwledge and respect your culture which differs from my own”. However, it is not strength but weakness that says “I dare not challenge your values and so concede my own”.

In effect, what I refer to here is the entire concept of “political correctness”. This is a creed which seeks to impose its will rather than engage with difference. The State can pass as many laws as it wants, and limit or control what we may say, but it cannot change how we think or feel. Ultimately, if enough people feel oppressed by the law, then they will collectively reject it – and if they cannot do so by peaceful means, will resort to violence.

It is possible that we have already allowed that balance to tip too far in favour of the state. It is incumbent on politicians to be alert to this and respond. If some choose to do so, while others seek to entrench state control, then history has many examples – ancient and recent – to teach us what may happen.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/yasmin-alibhai-brown/yasmin-alibhaibrown-what-he-wishes-on-us-is-an-abomination-780186.html

I think it would be good if all of us non-muslims stopped pontificating about something we understand only vaguely, and which does not touch our lives-and leave it to those who understand it to speak for-or against.

We might learn something that way.

That, I think, was what RW was saying. And even though it is a difficult area for rational debate, especially in view of our current fears about Islamist extremists, it is a debate we will always need to have.

Rowan Williams has opened up a debate which may be on arguments other than those he intended. Perhaps it is a debate that is overdue – and who knows where it may eventually lead.

At root there are several different philosophical issues to consider:

Firstly:- which should take precedence: one’s faith or one’s country ? This could be couched as a conflict between society (or the state) vs the individual.

Secondly:- do we as a nation have a “common” heritage and values ? If so, to what extent should those values be adjusted – or even put aside – for the benefit of immigrant communities or cultures ? This is dangerous territory since it arouses fierce emotional (indeed irrational) passions, but it should be possible to have a reasoned debate. The problem for the UK is that after 10 years of NuLab’s careless mucking about with our constitution, much damage has been done without any debate.

Thirdly, there is the specific issue as to how one can integrate into our society a different cultural strand, which unlike most previous immigrant communities, does not necessarily share – or indeed is inimical to – certin core principles on which our society is founded.

Historically, European legal traditions have all been based on a shared judaeo-christian religious culture with a greco-roman civil law foundation.

That there may be conflicts between civil law and religious belief has always been accepted, but this has been accommodated in differentiating the temporal from the spiritual. For believers, one should abide by the secular law, but then canon law also. This principle was enunciated by Christ himself when challenged over the legality of paying taxes: “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and unto God what is God’s”.

Historically, civil law has evolved to reflect secular needs, and has sometimes come into conflict with canon law. In general these conflicts have been rare and/or minor, mainly because the majority of legislators were themselves imbued with the same cultural / philosophical background.

What we now face however, is a government which seems determined to renounce the cultural heritage of our country, while allowing to develop within our country enclaves which explicitly reject the values on which our country and its legal system are founded.

We need as a nation to reassert that our country is founded on Christian values and associated legal principles. This does not mean that we must impose Christianity on all citizens – indeed, one cannot impose any faith, since faith is a matter of personal belief. But it does mean that anyone wishing to live in our country must abide by our laws, and in so doing, accepts that those laws are based on certain historic values.

“When in Rome….”

Much of the vilification poured on the ABoC has come from those unwilling to confront the real danger that our nation is gradually being undermined for want of a proper debate as to what we as a country wish to be.

That debate needs to be held. It is not a “party” political issue – though it will undoubtedly have political influences and impacts. It is not just a debate as to whether or not Britain remains a Christian country, it also touches on key issues as to the role of the individual, the family and the state within society – and on where moral and legal authority actually do, or ought to, lie.

It is a difficult issue, and will take real courage and leadership to initiate. Poliical parties are not well placed to lead or control it, but must allow it to evolve.