The Last Ditch

Adopt sharia law in Britain, says the Archbishop

Link: Adopt sharia law in Britain, says the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams - Telegraph.

The responses to the Archbishop of Canterbury's speech are more troubling than his words. Emotion has been exceeded only by ignorance. Khalid Mahmood, the Muslim Labour MP for Birmingham Perry Barr, outrageously said:

This is very misguided. There is no half-way house with this... What part of sharia law does he want?  The sort that is practised in Saudi Arabia, which they are struggling to get away from?

Given the gentle tenor of the Archbishop's actual comments, this is demagoguery. The Prime Minister also appears on this matter (as many others) a complete idiot:

The Prime Minister believes British law should apply in this country, based on British values

said his official spokesman. This, despite the fact that there is no such thing as "British Law"( I leave, for the moment, the more difficult question of whether there is any such thing as a "British value.")

I am a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of England & Wales, qualified to advise only on the laws of that jurisdiction. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own, entirely different, legal systems. They are just as alien to me, as a lawyer, as is Russia where I live and work.

There are three families of legal system in the world; Common Law, Civil Law and Islamic Law. England & Wales is (I know it sounds wrong, but "is" is right in this context) a common law jurisdiction. Indeed England is the mother of all common law jurisdictions. Scotland is a civil law state. The most important common law jurisdiction in the world today, the United States of America, has a civil law state operating efficiently within it.

Yet philosophically, the division between the Common Law and the Civil Law may be more profound than that between Christianity and Islam. All of which is interesting (at least to me) but as irrelevant to what the Archbishop said as is the existence (angrily condemned by bloggers unaware they had operated quietly for centuries) of the Beth Din Jewish Courts. As the website of the London Beth Din explains:

In Jewish Law, Jewish parties are forbidden to take their civil disputes to a secular court and are required to have those disputes adjudicated by a Beth Din. The LBD sits as an arbitral tribunal in respect of civil disputes and the parties to any such dispute are required to sign an Arbitration Agreement prior to a Hearing taking place. The effect of this is that the award given by the Beth Din has the full force of an Arbitration Award and may be enforced (with prior permission of the Beth Din) by the civil courts.

That Jews, between themselves, submit disputes to such courts, is no more a threat to our legal order than the secular arbitation courts designed for speedy settlement of commercial disputes. Parties who submit to such courts agree, as a matter of contract, to accept their decisions. The public courts enforce their awards just as they would enforce other agreements. There is no harm in it; no threat to any unique "British values." Indeed, a more sophisticated Brit might think allowing people to order their own affairs was at the core of "British values." No such private arrangement can supplant or override our laws. Any attempt to do so would be overruled on appeal to the public courts.

None of these arrangements, of course, apply to criminal law. The Crown (our quaint personification of the British state) is a party to all criminal cases. When I am eventually prosecuted (as must happen to us all if our authoritarian government continues to make one new crime per day) Her Majesty will prosecute me in her own courts.

The Archbishop has raised a firestorm, but he advocated nothing more than an Islamic Beth Din. Since (a) this already exists (without the sky falling), (b) the laws of our lands cannot be overridden by it, and (c) it has nothing to do with criminal law, the current Sharia "hand-chopping" hysteria is misplaced. As Dr Williams said in the radio interview, "choice" is important. As long as Muslims can choose to go to the public courts, there is simply no story. Move along now. Nothing to see.

The full text of the unkempt Welsh God-botherer's speech (and a recording of the radio interview which set the blogosphere "off on one") is here. I challenge my more heated blogging colleagues to read it and retract their inflammatory remarks.

Regular readers know that I hate multiculturalism. My culture is entitled to prevail in its native land. Newcomers should respect as I have learned to respect and admire the cultures of the other countries in which I have lived and worked Nor I am any friend of Islamism. I applauded this week in Paris as a French philosopher described it as "the third fascism" (for such it is). But if we criticise Muslims wildly and without justification, we may lose the most important argument of our lives. This is an argument on which the future of our civilisation may depend. We must be honest and true if our criticisms are to prevail.

I have to admit that Dr Williams' naievety is troubling. He is the leader of an evangelistic religion which believes there is only "one way" to God, through Jesus. Why, rather than evangelise the Muslims amongst us, does he pander to them so? How can such an intelligent man so often fail to anticipate the effect of his words? Is he completely out of touch with his confused flock, so badly in need of his leadership?

Perhaps, though, all this is consistent with his faith. After all, Christians, unlike Muslims, follow a naïf.

Clarity at Christmas?

Link: seasons_greetings.swf (application/x-shockwave-flash Object).

I guess this London law firm (follow link above) is simply making a seasonal joke about its marketing tagline - Clarity Matters - but this sort of thing still mildly gets my goat. Had they wished me "Happy Hannukah" or "Happy Eid" (as some very politically correct business contacts have done) I would not have been at all offended.

I am happy these days to have a happy anything. Happily, I can't see how someone wishing me to be happy could make me any more unhappy than I might otherwise happen to be. I cheerfully wished a Muslim friend in Russia "Happy Christmas" when we parted and he did not seem remotely bothered.  Why should he be? I was merely being pleasant and surely intention counts for something? Yes, in my moment of bonhomie, I had forgotten what religion he is, but it's hardly a topic of conversation with us. Indeed, I am only assuming he's a Muslim because 99.99% of his countrymen are. Maybe I am wrong? Either way, no sane person cares.

Few of us may be practising Christians in England now, but Christianity and its festivals are part of national life. Generations of Christians worked to make it that way, so - while modern Christians could take offence at the (from their point of view) insincerity of our casual references to their Saviour - they are not in a position to complain. If people of other faiths are offended by expressions of goodwill couched in superficially religious terminology, it is hardly in the best spirit of the inter-faith dialogue religious leaders are always promoting.

Blogging is going to be light here for the next few days as my family and I will be travelling. It's my youngest's 18th (she shares her birthday with Jesus Christ) and we plan to celebrate in style. I hope that you all enjoy your holiday celebrations with family and friends. As an atheist, perhaps I have no right to say so but - with the very best of kind intentions -  I wish you all a very merry Christmas (click card to enlarge).

An atheist, grateful for God

Years ago, I visited the monastery at Czestochowa in Poland - the home of the famous Black Madonna. Be-camera'd and in full tourist fig, I sauntered unthinkingly through a door and found myself among the faithful at prayer. I have never forgotten the moment. Coming from secular Britain, religious fervour was new to me - and scary. To be fair, if I could believe in something so extraordinary as a loving, omnipotent Deity, I would be fervent too. When faith is, rarely, encountered in Britain, it is polite and tepid. That makes no sense. How can one be lukewarm about God? If He exists, nothing else matters.

During Communist times in Poland the Catholic Church offered the only alternative world view. It  eventually played a vital role in the fall of Communism. Poles credit Pope John Paul II for that (plus President Reagan and Baroness Thatcher) more than their under-appreciated hero, Lech Walesa.

The Catholic Church in Poland never submitted to the Communist State in quite the same way as the Russian Orthodox Church. In Russia the Church had always been subordinate to the secular power of the Tsar. Not that the Tsars weren't devout. Ivan the Terrible spent so much time in daily prayer that there was scarcely the time for all his murder and mayhem. However, there was no doubt who was boss. In the cathedrals, the Tsar's throne was closer to the most sacred part than that of the Patriarch.

The church in Russia was ruthlessly suppressed by Lenin and Stalin. Churches were demolished; priests exiled to Siberia or sent to their God. Sometimes, even under Communism, old people would return to the open practice of religion. The Party's power over them as individuals waned as death approached. In a State where all resources and opportunities were allocated by the Party, no younger person could afford such risk. Yet, every morning as my car waits at traffic lights by a church, I see people crossing themselves as they pass by. Their actions seem natural, casual, even unthinking. Were they furtively doing that during Communism?

Yesterday, at one of the holiest sites of the Russian Orthodox Church I relived my Czestochowa experience. The monastery was business-like enough. Tours were permitted only under paid guidance. The ticket office sold camera permits (a real bargain at £2, with a free CD of church music thrown in). The official guide was devout. She bowed, made the sign of the Cross, kissed reliquaries with a peculiar motion I noticed among the worshippers (wiping the kiss away with a downward stroke of the forehead). However she gave us her talk as worshippers were at their devotions around us. We attracted some irritated glances.

I was embarrassed and my wife even more so. Expecting more of a museum than a functioning monastery, she had brought no headscarf. She was the only uncovered woman. Around us, Russians of all ages were at prayer. We stood awkwardly in the communion line for a while, before leaving abruptly. It just felt wrong to be an unbelieving tourist in the midst of such ardent faith.

Yesterday I realised that - while I cannot myself - I am glad that others can believe in God. I am glad for them because it is a comfort in life's troubles. I am also glad for the rest of us. The believers' faith is a fortress no  State power can ever conquer. If you want a religion to die, ignore it. The most powerful repression, however, will only make it stronger.

There are signs in Britain that our leftist Establishment is girding itself up for an attack on religion. The row over gay adoption gave rise to hostile, even contemptuous, statements from our secular leaders. Attacks from the intellectual Establishment are more and more aggressive. With all respect to our believers, I hope these intemperate attacks continue. They can only strengthen religious belief. A free society needs many groups and individuals prepared to stand up for their beliefs. It does not need a homogenous mass of people who submit to force or fashion.

I do not share their belief, but when I encounter people who stand firm in the face of repression, how can I fail to be impressed? As Britain continues on her path to a police state, we need a wide range of people who are variously motivated to resist. Every Church, synagogue, temple or mosque can be a source of intolerance and reaction. It can also help balance secular power. There is, objectively, no more totalitarian vision than that of the monotheistic religions. Fortunately, their all-powerful leader is not of this world. He need not trouble the rest of us much as he goes about inspiring His people to stand firm against earthly powers.

Dr. Arif Ahmed

Link: Faculty of Philosophy: Dr Arif Ahmed.

...is my person of the month. Here's why. Well said, that man although - to quibble slightly - I don't think we should feel free to mock the over-sensitive only when their beliefs are "...a tissue of superstition and prejudice..."

In a free society, one should sometimes mock beliefs just for fun, if only to test them, or to harden the believers up for life as free men. They will thank us for it one day, when they are no longer mullah-struck victims clinging to the apron strings of the Nanny State.

Boris and the other Turkey

Link: Telegraph newspaper online.

I so rarely disagree with Boris Johnson that I hesitate to do so now, fearing I may be wrong. I would like to think I am. His vision of reconciliation is fine in its Christian idealism. His line on Turkey and the EU is seductive. I fear that both are misguided.

There is certainly an attraction to integrating a leading Muslim nation into a Western club for democracies. But Turkey will never be a beacon of hope for the Muslim world, or for anyone, while those who tell the truth about its history are imprisoned at best and murdered at worst. The legacy of Ataturk may be crumbling. "Militant Islam," aka "Islamism" seems to be growing in strength there. Pace Boris, we should see where that story leads before leaping into bed with his family's former homeland.

My RE teacher would be pleased

You know the Bible 80%!

 

Wow! You are truly a student of the Bible! Some of the questions were difficult, but they didn't slow you down! You know the books, the characters, the events . . . Very impressive!

Ultimate Bible Quiz
Create MySpace Quizzes

h/t Westminster Wisdom

Which religion?

Given my view as stated in my previous post on religious belief (my second most popular item), i.e. that my values are derived from my Christian heritage, the results of this "pop quiz" are surprising. I can understand that it doesn't score me as an atheist. For it to do that, I would have to have faith in my own ability to know everything. If I had that amount of faith, I could have the false comforts of religion. The doubts it detects are so vanishingly small that "atheist" is still a more honest description.

But it makes no sense that it assesses me as being further from Christianity than Buddhism or Islam. Maybe I have firmer views against the doctrines with which I am familiar? Or maybe the quiz-setter is a Christian and is better at identifying his own brand of unbeliever? Please give the quiz a try and let me know what you think.

I still maintain that I am an atheist, but that the "theism" I am "a" is Christianity. H/T The Blogpower Headmaster

You are an agnostic. Though it is generally taken that agnostics neither believe nor disbelieve in God, it is possible to be a theist or atheist in addition to an agnostic. Agnostics don't believe it is possible to prove the existence of God (nor lack thereof). Agnosticism is a philosophy that God's existence cannot be proven. Some say it is possible to be agnostic and follow a religion; however, one cannot be a devout believer if he or she does not truly believe. agnosticism 75% atheism 63% Satanism 58% Buddhism 50% Judaism 42% Paganism 29% Islam 25% Hinduism 13% Christianity 8% Which religion is the right one for you? (new version) created with QuizFarm.com

Questions of conscience

The left of the Labour Party is right, to precisely this extent. The Government would be wrong to make an exception to the Sexual Orientation Regulations, which come into force in April, for the Catholic (or any other) Church. If a law is necessary and correct, it must apply to all. But the intensity of the debate on this subject brings into question if this law is necessary or correct. I suggest it is neither.

Personally, I have no problem with gay couples adopting children. If they are suitable, responsible individuals, it is far better for a child to be cared for in a family home than in any kind of institution. Yes, the child will be teased about its unusual parents, but that itself will be a lesson in life. Every child is teased for something. However, I don't think the opportunities for suitable gay couples to adopt will be helped by this law.

No sensible gay couple would approach Catholic, Muslim or other religious agencies to arrange an adoption. A gay couple that did would be acting either mischievously or very, very stupidly. The Catholic Church has anyway said that if one of its agencies was approached, it would simply refer the couple to a secular agency. That is a reasonable, tolerant, approach.

Families offering children up for adoption via religious agencies are effectively expressing a preference that their children should be placed with a family from that religion. They are certainly placing their trust in the relevant Church. Have they no right to do that? If not, why not? What has the State to do with that choice?

Laws are not for the purpose of reeducating the masses. Attempts to use the blunt instrument of law for such purposes are very likely to backfire. The only sensible use of law is for the prevention of carefully-defined, substantive harms which cannot otherwise be avoided. Laws are not magic. They need widespread support and willing enforcement. They are certainly not useful for the avoidance of hurt feelings. Indeed the best way to avoid hurt feelings is (like the teased children adopted by homosexual couples) to develop a thick skin. Far too many in our country are far too ready to take offence. They want to be victims, because victimhood is now - pathetically - the highest state of grace.

There are more than 150 adoption agencies that are happy to place children with gay couples. There are about 30 Catholic agencies (and presumably various other agencies organised by religious bodies) which are not. Why would rational people want to compel that minority? Especially when those people are supposedly acting in the interests of a once-repressed minority?

When homosexuality was legalised (very sensibly) we accepted that, as a matter of law, what consenting adults do in private is their own business. As a libertarian, I could not agree more. But we did not compel people who considered homosexuality to be sinful, unpleasant or just gross to change their opinion. Laws can't do that. People are entitled to their views.

To their credit, the religious people who do not want to be compelled to place children for adoption with "unrepentant sinners" are not seeking to impose their views on anyone else. They are just asking to live by their own consciences and by what they believe to be God's laws. Unless they can be shown to be doing demonstrable harm, they should be left to do so.

The way in which this debate is being presented in the media is most unfair. The intolerant people here are not the Catholics or other religious people (for once). The intolerant ones are those who insist that it is so offensive for anyone to consider them unsuited to adopt, that they must be compelled by law to change that view (or at least pretend to do so).

That is a moral outrage and a very poor basis for law.

Suspect Paki » United KKKingdom

Link: Suspect Paki » Blog Archive » United KKKingdom.

A lot of bloggers have referenced this splendid rant by a blogger new to me, known as "Suspect Paki." We read a fair few rants about British Muslims. It's refreshing to read a rant by a British Muslim, especially as he is arguing, interestingly, that lack of integration is the fault of the white British. He is quite persuasive, except when he goes right over the top by saying he doesn't believe the 7/7 bombers were Muslims. This, despite their "martyrdom tapes?"

I am genuinely interested in where we have gone wrong with our Muslim fellow-citizens and I have tried once again to engage a Muslim blogger and his co-religionist commenters in a discussion. Judge for yourself to what effect.

Credo

I regret that I have no religious faith. As a young man I was an evangelistic atheist, mocking people with religious views and encouraging them away from their gods. Not any more. Life is hard. Death is ever-present. A belief in a higher power and the prospect of divine justice is valuable.

Humans are both blessed and cursed with self-awareness. We are the only beings on this planet who know that we must die. It makes perfect sense for us to develop systems of belief to deal with that painful knowledge. As Voltaire said, “If God did not exist, it would be necessary to invent Him.”

Until recently, I did not understand how much my life as an atheist in Britain depended on the Christian beliefs of others. Their belief in “turning the other cheek” led them to meet my youthful scorn calmly, tolerantly and even lovingly. Various attempts to win me back to the faith of my fathers failed, but at least I learned from those attempts that I should respect their beliefs. I stopped evangelising against them and came rather to envy their faith. Every death in my circle has hurt me more than it has hurt the believers around me. As my parents advance into their seventies and I face the prospect of losing them, I sincerely wish the rational voice in my brain would just shut up.

Our society was shaped by Christian thought. It was not rationalism that caused us to abolish slavery, well before France or America, it was William Wilberforce’s Christian belief. Public health, education, social welfare and other reforms were driven not by socialist ideas but by the desire of Christians in public life to serve God by serving their fellow men.

Where would the humanity be in Dickens’ novels, if not for that flawed sinner’s Christianity? Would Shakespeare’s amazingly modern vision of his fellow-men have been as perceptive if not informed by Christian thought? His portrayal of Shylock is now sometimes seen by witless moderns as anti-semitic, but could anyone but a Christian have written

"Hath not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same diseases, healed by the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will resemble you in that."

In an Elizabethan context, this was phenomenally tolerant.

British Christianity was always fairly “soft.” Consider how the Church reacted to the writings of Darwin. They were seen as a huge threat to Christianity and, had the Church been of the same spirit as some modern faiths, he could have been expected to be killed for his heresy. He delayed publication to spare his wife the social discomfort of being married to an heretic. But he never feared for his, or her, life. When he realised that his ideas were about to be published by another, he went ahead without fear of anything more than derision. I don’t think he was subjected to anything like the hostility that someone like Ray Honeyford experienced, for example.

I am not alone in losing my faith. Christianity, certainly of the Anglican variety, has declined steeply during my lifetime. The polite fiction of belief on the part of Prime Ministers has become almost unsustainable. A church-going PM is as out of step with the British people as he could possibly be. Tony Blair has brilliantly side-stepped the issue by exploiting his wife’s religious faith and appearing to be a polite passenger in her heavenly chariot.

I have come to accept that my values and beliefs (apart from the critical belief in God) are very much those of my Christian forefathers. I do believe in doing unto others as I would have them do unto me. I am no good at turning the other cheek, but I do try to understand hostile opinions and not to be dismissive of those who hold them. There several things I do that I do not care to write about that don’t make sense if I were acting merely from self-interest.

Nature abhors a vacuum. I think our nation is missing its faith. The underclass is godless in every sense. Legal restraint is no substitute for moral restraint. Policing by brute force will never be as effective as policing with the consent of a community that shares some key values. Many a young hoodlum will swagger in the face of the law whose grandfather was no better a man, but behaved better to retain the respect of his community. Now that his community knows no law but that of the jungle, he had best be the most vicious animal around. We know what the word “respect” means in such communities. It has the same meaning as in the Mafia phrase “a man of respect.” It means fear, which is not at all the same thing, unless you think that for Jane Austen, a respectable man was a man to be feared.

This vacuum of faith will be filled with something. New Age mumbo-jumbo is noticeably religious in tone. It provides substitutes for the soothing ceremonies of religion, echoing the rituals and even the annointings. Peoples’ hobbles are more intense and obsessive than ever, as they search for meaning in their lives. The ferocity of the beliefs of Greens and animal rights activists often seem to me like misdirected religious fervour. Greenery is really the worship of the goddess Gaia; an effective deifying of the Earth itself. People need to believe something. What it is and how right it is seems to be almost irrelevant. Observe the factionalism of the British Left and you will find many echoes of religious schism.

All of this has been a worry for some time. A worry, but not a clear and present danger. Now however Britain’s vacuum of faith has sucked in a new terror. Ask yourself this question. Would the primitive, bloody, backward and reactionary religion of Islam prosper as it does in our towns and cities if there was a more plausible alternative? When a young man from a working-class Muslim family sees the brutal drunken behaviour of the white chavs who may be his only contact with the native community, is it surprising he draws closer to the faith of his fathers? When a young Muslim woman sees the brutal sexual marketplace of the British underclass; when she sees them sexualise even their pre-pubescent daughters by dressing them like their pathetic “celebrity” god-substitutes, is it surprising that she retreats into safe certainties?

I understand the attraction of religious faith. I understand the human need for a light in life’s darkness, for some certainties in its chaos. In this respect, as in so many others, our immigrants have the capacity to do us good. They are reacting to what they find. If we provide government information in their languages and translators for their children in our schools, then they don’t see any urgent need to learn English. Is that their fault or ours? I say it’s ours. If they see no moral imperatives in our society but tolerance, and if our tolerance leads us, in so many ways, to accept what they find unacceptable, they will inevitably cling to the moral certainties of their faith. Is that their fault, or ours? I say its ours. I doubt if we can now recover our religious faith, but we have to rediscover - somehow - a moral code.

If we open our minds to what is going on around us, we can see that - for all our justified fears about Islamic extremism - many of our current problems are not a question of what is wrong with them, but what is wrong with us.