Christianity, as I understand it, holds that human beings have free will, and that bad things can be changed or prevented through human agency.

Rowan Williams is yet another self-hating phoney “liberal” grovelling to a bunch of crazed religious zealots who want to take the world back to the Dark Ages.

There is a story in the press today about the Islamic custom of forcing young people to marry first cousins, and how this is putting the children of such unions at risk of genetic defects. And what do the Rowan Williamses have to say about it? After a very heavy dose of grovelling, tell the mullahs in a very soft voice that consanguinous marriages might not be a terribly good idea (but only once one’s tongue is heavily charged with boot polish).

The notion that arranged marriages are evil (a form of rape, in point of fact), and that Islam itself is evil. No, no. Facing up to the truth. That wouldn’t do at all. At least not in the world Archbishop Williams inhabits.

Not really. Because they do.

Nick Clegg’s comments are ignorant

Ah yes, they’ve got lots of money, haven’t they? And there was me thinking their kingdom was not of this world. Doh!

We do already have varying degrees of accommodation in law for various religions. Ironically the establishment of the Church of England being the most obvious.

No irony at all. Losing the established church is precisely what the Archbishop is desperate to avoid with this cynical ploy of entrenching the role of faith in society, never mind if they happen to be faiths which he no more believes in than I do.

I think all he was really talking about was a Muslim equivalent of the Beth Din’s.

Yes, and wasn’t it sickening to hear Inayat Bunglawala on Any Questions making favourable comparisons with Beth Din’s, when the MCB can’t even bring itself to acknowledge Holocaust memorial day?

He’s one of the most intelligent and decent folk in public life and I think we should cut him some slack.

Totally agree. Let’s cut the bearded idiot some slack. Preferably some time when he’s dangling over the edge of a precipice.

1. He has been hideously misquoted. Even by tabloid standards

2. We do already have varying degrees of accomodation in law for various religions. Ironically the establishment of the Church of England being the most obvious.

3. I think all he was really talking about was a muslim equivalent of the Beth Din’s

4. he’s one of the most intelligent and decent folk in public life and i think we should cut him some slack.

Isn’t that like saying ‘I take full responsibility, and furthermore, it’s not my fault’? As consistent as his argument last week was on careful scrutiny, then. As his speech argued several different ways at once, and must have done so quite deliberately if he’s remotely as intelligent as his spin doctors insist, this ‘apology’ is just more self-serving spin. And, as before, he’s refused to engage with anyone who’s argued with what he said, merely whined that he’s been misunderstood, as if no right-thinking person could disagree with him. Such arrogance. Why does he get a free ticket to make laws over the rest of us, again?

I’m just going by the Muslims who have been popping up all over the media to give him their full support. Then there’s Ibrahim as well . . .

Rise above the fray, stand back and guage the public opinion. When the initial storm has cleared, stir it up again with a decisive intervention and ride the wave of public relief all the way up the polls.

If you want to start a controversy choose your players wisely for the relevance of their constituency, for no substitutes will be allowed even at the end of turns.

Hijacking the platform is allowed, but be careful to remember that the audience is the final judge.

A rancid sore within society has been cast open in the form of an intellectual debate.
Williams is so closely associated with the anti-conservative wing of the CofE that it creates an open goal for the enemies of liberalism to castigate him, and all liberals by association.

This has political machinations writ large all over it – it is a put-up job by those with ultimate political power in this country (ie Gordon Brown) to cast him between uber-rationality and reaction in the light of the ‘voice of reason’.

All you aspiring politicians out there, take notes and learn, learn how to profit from pulling the levers of power, and learn how to avoid being divided by the axe of public opinion.

That’s a given. That’s what tabloids do. This morning, senior figures from the CofE were calling his words naive and foolish. Needless to say, I think his remarks are a disgrace. Looks like the only people who are actually pleased with him are Muslims. Doubtless the bearded idiot will be expecting the favour to be returned at some point.

That’s a “When did you stop beating your wife?” type of question.

He didn’t say that the adoption of Sharia law is unavoidable. He used the word “unavoidable” once in his lecture at the end of a huge sentence which was talking about a “market” element in the approach to law – the sentence you generously quoted.

In his World at One interview he answered a question about whether he saw “the application of Sharia in certain circumstances” as unavoidable and he said “it seems unavoidable”. That is not the same as “the adoption of Sharia law”.

Indeed, Sharia law is working in the country in certain circumstances, as Robin Young has pointed out, so not only is it “unavoidable”, it actually exists.

See link to the lecture and make your own mind up

http://www.archbishopofcanterbury.org/1575