Here's a religious figure I can get behind!

I'm actually impressed by how much crap this guy is willing to drop himself in.

He's obviously a terribly clever man.

you can tell by the beard.

gadian: Here's a religious figure I can get behind!

If memory serves, he winds up in the news a lot for saying things most other well known religious leaders refuse to acknowledge.

Glasgowsfinest: I'm actually impressed by how much crap this guy is willing to drop himself in.

Didn't he stir up a massive shiatstorm with his support of the Harry Potter series at some point?

Murkanen: Didn't he stir up a massive shiatstorm with his support of the Harry Potter series at some point?

And he seems very tolerant towards gays too. I saw his Christmas Speech (I think it was) where he talked about Sharia Law in a way that infuriated the Daily Mail.

He is also intelligent enough to know that Creationism isn't compatible with Science.

And I think he speaks about six languages.

Way too intelligent for most of his followers, they will probably throw him out soon.

Glasgowsfinest: Way too intelligent for most of his followers, they will probably throw him out soon.

It will be a sad day when that happens. I'm not a religious follower by any stretch of the imagination, but religions need guys like him capable of living in the here and now to act as moderators to the stodgy old guard who still seem to think the world is as simple as it was in 1566.

Murkanen: It will be a sad day when that happens.

There's a schism going on at the moment I believe, as parts of the "Anglican Communion" are deeply upset that he refuses to openly condemn homosexuals. And possibly his attitude towards woman priests too, I'm not sure.

The spiritual leader of the world's 77 million-member Anglican Communion said in a lecture at England's York Minster on Wednesday that the world faces "a whole range of doomsday prospects," ranging from global warming to threats from what he called "bio-terror" weapons


God went to great lengths to prepare the earth as a home for man. its creation moved the angels to shout 'in applause' (Job 38:7) After studying the wonders of this planet, we too have reason to applaud. There are many intricate ecosystems that enable life to thrive on earth. In one of the best-known systems, green vegetation uses sunlight, carbon dioxide from the air, and water to make food. A by-product of this process is the release into the atmosphere of oxygen - vital to our existence.

The Bible shows that God entrusted man with the stewardship of earth (Genesis 1:28, 2:15) For earth's ecology to remain in balance however, man needed to have the right attitude. In fact, he needed to love his earthly home. He had to want to maintain it in a beautiful state. But man was endowed with free will that he might choose to exploit the earth and mismanage it. And that is exactly what he as done. The results of mans' carelessness and greed have been devastating.

Faced with an increase of natural disasters, some might say that the earth is fighting back, causing misery for an. God gave us the earth without charge. Man was, in effect, given free tenancy. (Genesis 1:26-29). However, current world events show that many people have no desire to maintain their beautiful earthly home. Instead, man is occupied with his own selfish desires and activities. He has, in fact, proved to be a bad tenant - "ruining the earth" as foretold at Revelation 11:18.

Bible prophecy shows that Almighty God, Jehovah, the Creator of earth's life-sustaining ecosystems, has decreed that the time has come to "evict" the bad tenants. (Zephaniah 1:14, Revelation 19:11-15) Before man can damage the earth irretrievably, God will act - sooner than we may expect (Matthew 24:44) Truly, only God can save the earth.

Shamelessly plagiarized from a Watchtower rag.

I'll bet that Arch Bishop doesn't even diddle alter boys....

/maybe just wishful thinking
/he is catholic after all

mike965: /he is catholic after all

Anglican actually.

Glasgowsfinest: they will probably throw him out soon.

Given that the Archbishop of Canterbury is approved by the Queen, they can try but it won't work. And anyways, he'll retire soon. Unlike the Pope who keeps the job for life, the Archbishop of Canterbury usually retires well before dying.

The "Stop being so damned stupid!" message I applaud. Earth will only be a Hell if we humans allow it (by apathy or design) to degress that far. Earth will only be a Heaven if we get off our excuses and concentrate on a common goal of Christian kindness (in place of obstinate pushiness).

The "Bend over for the Muslim Fascists" message, I think deserves a good kick in the crotch for the Archbishop.

Humans cannot stop being stupid, are you expecting miracles holy man?

A man who's devoted his life to the worship of a nonexistent deity telling us to stop being morans? Oh that's rich...

Good for him.

I'm not worried about the shiat in Revelations coming true.
I'm worried about people trying to make the shiat in Revelations come true.

The Easter Bunny is dictating policy now?

Glasgowsfinest: Way too intelligent for most of his followers, they will probably throw him out soon.

Aside from a bunch of conservitards in Africa and the US South, Anglicans/Episcopals are a pretty sane bunch.

/head of the Episcopal Church in the US used to be an oceanographer (new window)
//former Catholic, now much happier

ftfa: But "to suggest that God might intervene to protect us from the corporate folly of our practices is as un-Christian and un-biblical as to suggest that he protects us from the results of our individual folly or sin."


So cryptically he's saying humans can't cause the rapture, so don't think god will save you from anything you cause.

I like Rowan Williams, the problem is, no matter how much sanity he espouses he still claims authority via an immutable supernatural force. None the less, Gridlock I don't think he ever advocated Muslim to Christian anal violation.

The Archbishop is a goddamned fool.

He has frequently come out in favor of Sharia law in Britain.

Dirty Hot Linker: So cryptically he's saying humans can't cause the rapture, so don't think god will save you from anything you cause.

This article is 'right' for the wrong reasons.
It doesn't deserve the hero tag.

WhyteRaven74: Glasgowsfinest: they will probably throw him out soon.

Given that the Archbishop of Canterbury is approved by the Queen, they can try but it won't work. And anyways, he'll retire soon. Unlike the Pope who keeps the job for life, the Archbishop of Canterbury usually retires well before dying.

Although history has given us a few examples of Archbishops dying before retiring.

ninjakirby: The spiritual leader of the world's 77 million-member Anglican Communion said in a lecture at England's York Minster on Wednesday that the world faces "a whole range of doomsday prospects," ranging from global warming to threats from what he called "bio-terror" weapons


God went to great lengths to prepare the earth as a home for man. its creation moved the angels to shout 'in applause' (Job 38:7) After studying the wonders of this planet, we too have reason to applaud. There are many intricate ecosystems that enable life to thrive on earth. In one of the best-known systems, green vegetation uses sunlight, carbon dioxide from the air, and water to make food. A by-product of this process is the release into the atmosphere of oxygen - vital to our existence.

The Bible shows that God entrusted man with the stewardship of earth (Genesis 1:28, 2:15) For earth's ecology to remain in balance however, man needed to have the right attitude. In fact, he needed to love his earthly home. He had to want to maintain it in a beautiful state. But man was endowed with free will that he might choose to exploit the earth and mismanage it. And that is exactly what he as done. The results of mans' carelessness and greed have been devastating.

Faced with an increase of natural disasters, some might say that the earth is fighting back, causing misery for an. God gave us the earth without charge. Man was, in effect, given free tenancy. (Genesis 1:26-29). However, current world events show that many people have no desire to maintain their beautiful earthly home. Instead, man is occupied with his own selfish desires and activities. He has, in fact, proved to be a bad tenant - "ruining the earth" as foretold at Revelation 11:18.

Bible prophecy shows that Almighty God, Jehovah, the Creator of earth's life-sustaining ecosystems, has decreed that the time has come to "evict" the bad tenants. (Zephaniah 1:14, Revelation 19:11-15) Before man can damage the earth irretrievably, God will act - sooner than we may expect (Matthew 24:44) Truly, only God can save the earth.

Shamelessly plagiarized from a Watchtower rag.

The earth is God. When man realizes that mother nature is the god they so desire, only then will they learn to love her like she should be loved.

Swampthing in Korea So the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican church, has advocated Muslim legal dominance in the UK?

This is the problem Williams faces, he attempts to be nuanced in his comments and.... well.... eejits say he's talking about the implementation of Sharia, which is in itself a contentious legal code. But, I understand your need for goddies and baddies, carry on.

Swampthing in Korea: The Archbishop is a goddamned fool.

He has frequently come out in favor of Sharia law in Britain.

You lie.

The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.

Instead, in the interview, rather than proposing a parallel system of law, he observed that "as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law" . When the question was put to him that: "the application of sharia in certain circumstances - if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion - seems unavoidable?", he indicated his assent.

Britney Spear's Speculum: I'm not worried about the shiat in Revelations coming true.
I'm worried about people trying to make the shiat in Revelations come true.

It's Revelation. The Book of Revelation.

/pet peave


chipspastic: The Archbishop made no proposals for sharia in either the lecture or the interview, and certainly did not call for its introduction as some kind of parallel jurisdiction to the civil law.

Instead, in the interview, rather than proposing a parallel system of law, he observed that "as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law" . When the question was put to him that: "the application of sharia in certain circumstances - if we want to achieve this cohesion and take seriously peoples' religion - seems unavoidable?", he indicated his assent.

So, you're defending him on the grounds that he didn't actively call for sharia law, he merely accepts the fact that sharia law may be the only way to keep Muslims happy? What's the difference again?

McManus_brothers: So, you're defending him on the grounds that he didn't actively call for sharia law, he merely accepts the fact that sharia law may be the only way to keep Muslims happy? What's the difference again?

Given that certain aspects of sharia law already match our own, and he's only talking about it in certain circumstances, quite probably those same circumstances in which it is already the same as our laws, what's your problem? And he doesn't ever say it's the only way to keep Muslims happy. The question was hypothetical and qualified to the point where he felt his assent was warranted.

McManus_brothers: So, you're defending him on the grounds that he didn't actively call for sharia law, he merely accepts the fact that sharia law may be the only way to keep Muslims happy? What's the difference again?

One is true and the other is false.

chipspastic: McManus_brothers: So, you're defending him on the grounds that he didn't actively call for sharia law, he merely accepts the fact that sharia law may be the only way to keep Muslims happy? What's the difference again?

Given that certain aspects of sharia law already match our own, and he's only talking about it in certain circumstances, quite probably those same circumstances in which it is already the same as our laws, what's your problem? And he doesn't ever say it's the only way to keep Muslims happy. The question was hypothetical and qualified to the point where he felt his assent was warranted.


There were aspects of the old Soviet constitution that were similar to our own. That did not make it a good document. England has been colonized by Muslims and the Arch Bishop is an appeaser who, as many appeasers do, lacks the moral courage to defend his country's laws and traditions.

lhinds: There were aspects of the old Soviet constitution that were similar to our own. That did not make it a good document. England has been colonized by Muslims and the Arch Bishop is an appeaser who, as many appeasers do, lacks the moral courage to defend his country's laws and traditions.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you have no idea what Sharia Law actually is. You have simply ingrained the words as some evil Muslim terrorist thing. A lot like "Jihad" or "Fatwa".

lhinds: Bishop is an appeaser

[Citation needed]

ITT I predict a tsunami of stupid

But "to suggest that God might intervene to protect us from the corporate folly of our practices is as un-Christian and un-biblical as to suggest that he protects us from the results of our individual folly or sin."

This.

chipspastic: McManus_brothers: So, you're defending him on the grounds that he didn't actively call for sharia law, he merely accepts the fact that sharia law may be the only way to keep Muslims happy? What's the difference again?

Given that certain aspects of sharia law already match our own, and he's only talking about it in certain circumstances, quite probably those same circumstances in which it is already the same as our laws, what's your problem? And he doesn't ever say it's the only way to keep Muslims happy. The question was hypothetical and qualified to the point where he felt his assent was warranted.

I'm a Catholic, and I'm sure there are aspects of canon law that might match federal and state laws. However, I don't think that canon law should be able to take the place of secular laws in places where the population is heavily Catholic. How is the preference of religious laws over secular laws supposed to be a good thing, even if they do match up? The Anglicans or Hindus or Catholics don't get special preferences, why should Muslims?

chipspastic: lhinds: Bishop is an appeaser

[Citation needed]

RTA and
Link (short but useful)

McManus_brothers: chipspastic: McManus_brothers: So, you're defending him on the grounds that he didn't actively call for sharia law, he merely accepts the fact that sharia law may be the only way to keep Muslims happy? What's the difference again?

Given that certain aspects of sharia law already match our own, and he's only talking about it in certain circumstances, quite probably those same circumstances in which it is already the same as our laws, what's your problem? And he doesn't ever say it's the only way to keep Muslims happy. The question was hypothetical and qualified to the point where he felt his assent was warranted.

I'm a Catholic, and I'm sure there are aspects of canon law that might match federal and state laws. However, I don't think that canon law should be able to take the place of secular laws in places where the population is heavily Catholic. How is the preference of religious laws over secular laws supposed to be a good thing, even if they do match up? The Anglicans or Hindus or Catholics don't get special preferences, why should Muslims?

You are putting words into his mouth. Tell me where the Archbishop suggested
1) replacing secular law with canon law, or
2) giving special preference to Muslims over people of other religions.

Lost Thought 00: lhinds: There were aspects of the old Soviet constitution that were similar to our own. That did not make it a good document. England has been colonized by Muslims and the Arch Bishop is an appeaser who, as many appeasers do, lacks the moral courage to defend his country's laws and traditions.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that you have no idea what Sharia Law actually is. You have simply ingrained the words as some evil Muslim terrorist thing. A lot like "Jihad" or "Fatwa".

Then you would be wrong. How many recognized codes of law should a country have? I'll go out on a limb too and assume that you are an apologist for the left.

lhinds: chipspastic: lhinds: Bishop is an appeaser

[Citation needed]

RTA and
Link (short but useful)

I did RTFA and your link. Nothing like appeasement in either except the douchy headline by the douchy conservative author.

Try again?

lhinds reality really needs to be in bullet points for you, doesn't it?

God won't protect the world from stupidity? His appointment at the top of the C of E is proof of that.

Then he told a funny story about farting.

McManus_brothers: chipspastic: McManus_brothers: So, you're defending him on the grounds that he didn't actively call for sharia law, he merely accepts the fact that sharia law may be the only way to keep Muslims happy? What's the difference again?

Given that certain aspects of sharia law already match our own, and he's only talking about it in certain circumstances, quite probably those same circumstances in which it is already the same as our laws, what's your problem? And he doesn't ever say it's the only way to keep Muslims happy. The question was hypothetical and qualified to the point where he felt his assent was warranted.

I'm a Catholic, and I'm sure there are aspects of canon law that might match federal and state laws. However, I don't think that canon law should be able to take the place of secular laws in places where the population is heavily Catholic. How is the preference of religious laws over secular laws supposed to be a good thing, even if they do match up? The Anglicans or Hindus or Catholics don't get special preferences, why should Muslims?

The impression that I was under is that the Archbishop suggested that Muslims ought to have the option to consent to the use of Islamic jurisprudence in a form of alternate dispute resolution in civil cases. In the United States, for instance, Anglo-American common law (as recognized in the jurisdiction of the court) is generally applied in the courts to decide contract disputes; however, parties can, by consent, adopt a different set of contract principles and submit a dispute to private arbitration rather than the court system.

And so it's possible that two traditional Hasidic Jews, rather than take a contract dispute to the Supreme Court of New York, can agree to have the contract decided before a Bet Din (a rabbinical tribunal), where Jewish law will be applied in what is technically a form of binding arbitration. If it makes them happy, who is the State to argue?

Part of the problem is that British news, like the Daily Fail, used the term "Sharia law," which, while technically correct, carry all sorts of connotations of dismemberment of thieves, stoning of "loose women," lashes for blasphemy, etc. etc. I've seen no indication that Rowan Williams advocates for Sharia authority in criminal matters in Britain, even when applied only to Muslims, and even with their consent. What he appears to be advocating for is the option of Muslims to conduct their business and personal affairs according to their own religious law, rather than merely the default rules in Britain.

chipspastic: You are putting words into his mouth. Tell me where the Archbishop suggested
1) replacing secular law with canon law, or
2) giving special preference to Muslims over people of other religions.


From a Times article (pops)

"It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system."

It seems to me that he's saying since parts of sharia law are already compliant with Brtish laws, that makes it acceptable. My point is, where do you draw the line? What's to stop Muslims from saying, "You said we could use this part of sharia, but this other part has connections to the first part, so we should be able to use it, too." It's not like the police would actually try and stop the Muslim courts from enforcing sharia. And this leads into your second point; if Muslims are able to choose sharia law and sharia courts, whereas everyone else is held accountable to British civil and criminal laws, how is that not special preference?

chipspastic: I did RTFA and your link. Nothing like appeasement in either except the douchy headline by the douchy conservative author.

Try again?

Apparently you didn't RTFA, because Rod Dreher actually raises some good points. I read his blog on a regular basis and he's a pretty smart writer. But you got to use the word "douchy", so congrats.

indylaw no, no you're doing it wrong, your post actually look at the arguement in a dispassionate and rational manner. Look at McManus, he has the "hell in a hand basket" shtick down to a delusional tee.

McManus_brothers: chipspastic: You are putting words into his mouth. Tell me where the Archbishop suggested
1) replacing secular law with canon law, or
2) giving special preference to Muslims over people of other religions.


From a Times article (pops)

"It seems unavoidable and, as a matter of fact, certain conditions of Sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system."

It seems to me that he's saying since parts of sharia law are already compliant with Brtish laws, that makes it acceptable. My point is, where do you draw the line? What's to stop Muslims from saying, "You said we could use this part of sharia, but this other part has connections to the first part, so we should be able to use it, too." It's not like the police would actually try and stop the Muslim courts from enforcing sharia. And this leads into your second point; if Muslims are able to choose sharia law and sharia courts, whereas everyone else is held accountable to British civil and criminal laws, how is that not special preference?

That's your interpretation, not mine. There is no line to be drawn. Muslims in England have to obey English law - whether or not it conforms to sharia. Nobody, including the Archbishop, is giving people a choice, or suggesting that they be given a choice. Again, you are putting words into peoples' mouths based on your interpretations. I disagree with your interpretation, and your conclusions.

Your article is based on a whole three members of the church criticizing the Archbishop (two of them anonymously), not a lot of support for any position. And virtually zero quotes from the Archbishop himself, making the article even more suspect.

indylaw: The impression that I was under is that the Archbishop suggested that Muslims ought to have the option to consent to the use of Islamic jurisprudence in a form of alternate dispute resolution in civil cases. In the United States, for instance, Anglo-American common law (as recognized in the jurisdiction of the court) is generally applied in the courts to decide contract disputes; however, parties can, by consent, adopt a different set of contract principles and submit a dispute to private arbitration rather than the court system.

And so it's possible that two traditional Hasidic Jews, rather than take a contract dispute to the Supreme Court of New York, can agree to have the contract decided before a Bet Din (a rabbinical tribunal), where Jewish law will be applied in what is technically a form of binding arbitration. If it makes them happy, who is the State to argue?

Part of the problem is that British news, like the Daily Fail, used the term "Sharia law," which, while technically correct, carry all sorts of connotations of dismemberment of thieves, stoning of "loose women," lashes for blasphemy, etc. etc. I've seen no indication that Rowan Williams advocates for Sharia authority in criminal matters in Britain, even when applied only to Muslims, and even with their consent. What he appears to be advocating for is the option of Muslims to conduct their business and personal affairs according to their own religious law, rather than merely the default rules in Britain.

I certainly see your point, and if sharia law were applied only to civil and business matters, I'd be tempted to agree with it, because, as you say, Hasidic Jews have similar options; but the Bet Din is only considered binding arbitration, not necessarily separate law, as I think British Muslims would like theirs to be. There are already areas in Britain, heavily Muslim-populated, that are considered no-go zones for police. What's to stop hard-line Muslims from enforcing extreme sharia criminal law (ie, stonings, lashings)?

McManus_brothers: chipspastic: I did RTFA and your link. Nothing like appeasement in either except the douchy headline by the douchy conservative author.

Try again?

Apparently you didn't RTFA, because Rod Dreher actually raises some good points. I read his blog on a regular basis and he's a pretty smart writer. But you got to use the word "douchy", so congrats.

He does raise some good points, just not ones that support your position:

...it's clear that Dr. Williams, however ill-judged his sharia-is-unavoidable comments were, is raising a perfectly legitimate set of issues about how we manage our common life under the law in pluralistic society.

And if you don't think using the word "appeasement" in the headline was douchy, then you don't understand what that term means.

McManus "British Muslims"? hmmmmm... have you met any of them? I suppose you'd have to have met *all* of them to support your assertion. And yeh, "appeasement" was pretty farking douchey.