Revolt: Senior Anglicans want useful idiot out over shari’a remarks?
posted at 12:35 pm on February 8, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | regular view
As Hitchens once observed in a different context, he’s an odd choice for a leadership position. One would think a basic prerequisite for heading a state church should be a certain amount of, shall we say, caution about multiculturalism. Not this guy; such is his love for “accommodation” that he has people crawling out of the woodwork in the Labour Party to call him a tool.
And not just there, if certain anonymous but well placed sources are to be believed.
In an astonishing attack, one senior Church of England clergyman demanded Dr Rowan Williams step down immediately and branded him “gullible”.
The figure, identified only as a long-standing member of the Church’s governing body the General Synod, told The Times that many people had now lost confidence in the Archbishop.
“I am just so shocked, and cannot believe a man of his intelligence could be so gullible,” he said.
“I can only assume that all the Muslims he meets are senior leaders of the community who tell him what a wonderful book the Koran is.
“There have been a lot of calls today for him to resign. I don’t suppose he will take any notice, but yes, he should resign.”
A spokesman for Gordon Brown had to put out a statement yesterday reminding the public that the prime minister still believes British law should apply in Britain. Yes, really.
Exit question: Isn’t there some classically liberal western institution shari’a fans can coopt as a workaround to advance their agenda? Exit answer: There always is.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
GOOD.
Take this sucker and chuck him out the door. Or better yet, reassign him to a mission in Saudi Arabia and let him experience how much a Religion Of Peace it is.
MadisonConservative on February 8, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Regarding the Texas case, it looks like a private arbitration agreement. The court can step in and choose not to enforce it if it’s against public policy (or, of course, against the law,) and while based on Sharia, it’s a private agreement; if they wanted to arbitrate in the Klingon tradition, the court would have (should have) found similarly.
Vizzini on February 8, 2008 at 12:40 PM
It took that to want to get him out? What about everything else he’s said? What about stuff he said before he was made captain that should have kept him out of there in the first place?
RightWinged on February 8, 2008 at 12:40 PM
Hmmm. Texas Court of appeals, eh? I missed the correct answer. I thought it was the DNC.
a capella on February 8, 2008 at 12:41 PM
For any Brits out there…isn’t the Queen the technical head of the Anglican church? Couldn’t she fire Williams if she so chose to do so? Seems to me like this would qualify.
Tim on February 8, 2008 at 12:41 PM
Oh, that exit answer is just scary! What is wrong with this country?
TX Mom on February 8, 2008 at 12:43 PM
At least in Texas, all our judges are elected. We can vote them out of office if they are too stupid to stay on the bench! No lifetime appointments in the Lone Star State.
TX Mom on February 8, 2008 at 12:45 PM
I would cheer the day this loathsome representative of the Church of England is tossed out. I wish we could do the same with his American comrades, like Elizabeth Schori.
Buy Danish on February 8, 2008 at 12:46 PM
Forget getting him to resign just throw him out of the country and let’s see how long he lasts in oh say Iran.
The amount of stupidity by some people doesn’t suprise me anymore, it just makes me *%@$ mad.
limowilliam on February 8, 2008 at 12:47 PM
What is surprising about this? The way Europeans have been the deniers of Muslim Islamo-facism for the past several years.The way they capitulate to PC, and multiculturalism the whole of Europe will be under Shari’a law in 50 years.
pueblo1032 on February 8, 2008 at 12:48 PM
He was born in 1950, which makes him only 58. He looks 78.
Blake on February 8, 2008 at 12:49 PM
“Texas Islamic Court”
Funny how that happens huh?
Just a little sharia in family law and the next thing you know a bearded muttawa’s looking up your rectum.
Beagle on February 8, 2008 at 12:50 PM
Hey, did they every find that ahole who shot his two beautiful daughters?
Blake on February 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM
What’s shocking about this is that they have to ’say’ this. If British law doesn’t apply in Britain then what the parliament and the prime minister do is irrelevant. The only thing that they do is make ‘British law’.
It is about time we look at the UK with as much suspicion as we do Pakistan. They aren’t our friends, they aren’t as powerful as we are, but they will insist that we should do things the way that they do.
The Islamization of the UK should serve as a warning to ALL western nations. So goes the UK will go the US unless we learn from it. We need to reconsider a moratorium on immigration until we get this sorted out. How’s that for ‘immigration reform’.
ThackerAgency on February 8, 2008 at 12:53 PM
I don’t even know how to address that, besides saying: What a sad state of affairs.
amerpundit on February 8, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Read Melanie Phillips blog here
She has been sounding the alarm for some time now.
d1carter on February 8, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Submission.
Kid from Brooklyn on February 8, 2008 at 12:58 PM
Why don’t I ever hear any outrage over the Religious Left?
terryannonline on February 8, 2008 at 12:59 PM
Does that mean that England is getting rid of the Jewish Courts? http://www.theus.org.uk/the_united_synagogue/the_london_beth_din/about_us/
mofo on February 8, 2008 at 1:02 PM
I stand by my previous post in another thread about Texas dysfunctional religious partitioning. Church of England included.
I can see agreements as poster Vizzini pointed out, but this seems to cross the boundary of allowing special treatment for some and capitulation of special entitlements for all to abide by law.
Kini on February 8, 2008 at 1:04 PM
The “Jewish Courts” diversion suggests Jewish law is something like sharia, which it isn’t.
Ignorant or deceptive mofo?
Beagle on February 8, 2008 at 1:05 PM
There is no religion in the left. Ann Colter wrote about it in her book
“Godless”
Kini on February 8, 2008 at 1:07 PM
Good lord, everything in sharia is “against public policy.” They allow men to physically intimdate women. Nothing a woman signs is worth the paper it’s printed on.
Duress, google it.
Equality before the law? Not so much.
Due process? No, but blood money.
Beagle on February 8, 2008 at 1:09 PM
Just now in Great Britain, the sale of serrated edge knifes just went on sale.
Kini on February 8, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Neither.
Gordon’s statement means that there is one set of laws without special treament for minority groups.
There was no “except Jews and others, but not Muslims” clause.
So either there is one set of laws and courts or there isn’t. And it seems that in England there isn’t:
mofo on February 8, 2008 at 1:16 PM
Who appoints him, the Queen?
TheBigOldDog on February 8, 2008 at 1:17 PM
The Beth Din arbitration agreements have no standing in British law. Simply agreements between parties. If the agreements violate British law then they can be and are tried in British courts.
d1carter on February 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Heavens. What a farcical church.
Jaibones on February 8, 2008 at 1:24 PM
Maybe the Church of England should reconsider going back to Rome. It’s only been 474 years since King Henry VIII separated England from the real church.
All will be forgiven.
Kini on February 8, 2008 at 1:32 PM
I’m glad some spines still exist across the pond. Hopefully they won’t get axed, no pun intended.
NTWR on February 8, 2008 at 1:42 PM
Williams should resign, then be tried as a heretic and apostate, excommunicated from the Church, and perhaps exiled to Sudan as punishment for his many, many crimes against civilization.
Vote Sauron 08 on February 8, 2008 at 1:44 PM
Odd when you think that the Anglican church only formed so a guy could hump a girl.
BL@KBIRD on February 8, 2008 at 1:50 PM
This guy’s views are not representative of the millions of members of the Church. About time someone wakes up and says so. Wake up and be proud of your culture/heritage/religion or slip towards irrelevance.
The Queen may technically have the call to replace the Archbishop, but only ceremonially (like how she technically has the power to replace the PM, but that hasn’t happened in 300 years). The Synod is responsible for Church governance.
brak on February 8, 2008 at 1:54 PM
I think the main difference between the two situations is that I don’t see anybody saying Jewish Law should be the law of the land in Great Britain, but I do see a whole lot of folks saying that Sharia Law should be the Law of the Land, everywhere for everybody in the world. I also don’t any Anglican Bishop being threatened with death because he said there are No-Go areas in Britain for Non-Jews, but I do see an Anglican Bishop (the Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali) being threatened with death because he said there are No-Go areas in Britain for Non-Muslims.
Try googling “Sharia should be the law of the land” and see how many hits you get. Detroit, Dallas, Britain, Nigeria, The Netherlands, and others. Real “non-issue” cause you seem to have taken up, Mofo! Tell me, how you think the fathers that recently “honor-killed” their daughters in Dallas and Toronto would fare under Sharia Law?
dmh0667 on February 8, 2008 at 1:55 PM
Bring back George Carey!
Gerard on February 8, 2008 at 2:00 PM
One of his bishops caught hell for saying parts of the UK were already “no go” areas for non-moslems. Death threats were promptly issued against him by adherents of that aimiable religion. Possibly, the Archbishop has found a slyer and certainly less dangerous way to say the same thing.
Naw, on second thought he’s merely a gutless fool.
dhimwit on February 8, 2008 at 2:16 PM
MB4 on February 8, 2008 at 2:30 PM
Doesn’t the Prime Minister appoint Bishops in the Church of England? Blair recently converted to Catholicism and he explicitly waited until after his term was completed because the Prime Minister technically also leads the Church of England.
gabriel sutherland on February 8, 2008 at 2:31 PM
What a dumb, stupid, effing idiotic comment to make.
A stooge for the Taliban.
byteshredder on February 8, 2008 at 2:34 PM
I say, why don’t we just get dressed up like women and have on a musical about it?
Ratha! What?
If Rowan wants homosexuals living with their boyfriends as bishops, is it any wonder he’s willing to bend way over for Mo-Ham?
Hening on February 8, 2008 at 2:41 PM
Intelligence as we’ve known it has been redefined
Kini on February 8, 2008 at 2:48 PM
Dr. Williams has seen the future of Britian, and has chosen dhimmitude for himself. Just remember, Rowan, you are to deliver your Jizya payment with back bent and head bowed.
Kid from Brooklyn on February 8, 2008 at 3:13 PM
KfB
And he has a fine beard for tugging.
BL@KBIRD on February 8, 2008 at 3:35 PM
The point is Williams was not saying it should be the law of the land.
passingtramp on February 8, 2008 at 4:07 PM
Yes a lot of people on this website seem to be of the impression Britain is still some kind of absolute monarchy. To clarify: the Queen does NOT in practice choose who should or should not be the Archibishop of Canterbury. The minute she tried to anything like that there’d be a constitutional crisis and the monarchy would most likely be dissolved. The same goes for knighthoods, etc (I remember back when Rushdie got his knighthood there were people on this site who seemed to think it was down to her).
passingtramp on February 8, 2008 at 4:14 PM
Though obviously the fact that the PM is involved is ridiculous enough anyway.
passingtramp on February 8, 2008 at 4:15 PM
No, the point is that Mofo was trying to conflate Muslim Sharia with what limited Jewish law-courts in Britain must mean, and failed. Funny how fast the canard of “Well, the Jooos have the same thing!” sentiment came boiling up from Mofo, huh, passingtramp? As if Mofo had no other point to make…
As for Williams, someone should make a pointed reference to what the Tower of London was used for, and “urge” him to submit his resignation. He does not embody the CoE in any good way, only the expanding dhimmitudinal disease that is overtaking Europe and the West.
dmh0667 on February 8, 2008 at 6:08 PM
dmh0667 on February 8, 2008 at 6:08 PM
I’m afraid I’m blissfully ignorant of the meaning of ‘Mofo’, but I’m sure whatever it is it’s lovely.
Anyway, no he wasn’t trying to do that. I suggest you read the following: http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1581 .
passingtramp on February 8, 2008 at 6:55 PM
Sorry, sorry, just realised mofo is another commenter. I thought it was some name you were using for Williams. Apologies.
passingtramp on February 8, 2008 at 6:57 PM
Comment pages: