Simon Barrow (London, Ekklesia): What on earth is Rowan Williams on about? The Archbishop of Canterbury is being widely interpreted as saying, in a BBC World at One interview and in his Temple Festival foundation lecture on ‘Civil and religious law in England: a religious perspective’, that aspects of Sharia should be incorporated in or alongside the English legal system recognised by world jurisprudence. What he’s actually arguing is something rather more modest: that in the restricted areas of marriage, divorce, inheritance and custody, voluntarily entered Muslim communal judgements might be recognised within what would remain a common framework of law, in the same way as now applies to some Jewish family law customs.
He adds that “no 'supplementary' jurisdiction [should] have the power to deny access to the [universal] rights granted to other citizens or to punish its members for claiming those rights”, but he clearly thinks some kind of accommodation would create a greater sense of recognition of Muslim communities while not fundamentally undermining either the civil or the criminal law of the land.
It’s not quite such an outlandish suggestion as the headlines and knee-jerk reactions of politicians who haven’t read his nuanced speech might make you think, but I still think it’s heading in precisely the wrong direction – though thankfully, without a prayer. At present the law of the Established Church and the law of the land, in the case of marriage, are conjoined. If they were separated, so that the ritual and covenantal understandings of faith communities were one thing, and the kind of civil partnerships offered by the state were something else, both the voluntary practice of religiously grounded duty and the integrity of a common legal framework would be preserved. The same would apply to Jewish, Muslim or any other customs and practices.
Likewise, blasphemy is not an issue the state should be involved in. Nor is the power of the state something religious groups should use to enforce their own codes of speech and behaviour. Public order should protect all citizens from harm, threat and harassment. Offence and insult are things people have to work through in civil society and through mediation.
The position I am advocating is based on the distinction between civil society and the state, voluntary association and statutory provision or protection. But the head of the Church of England, who favoured disestablishment when he was in Wales, seems to have got caught up with a mentality that says the only way to grant proper recognition to voluntary communities (religious ones, especially) is for them somehow to be incorporated in the jurisdictions of universal governance. Bad idea.
In an odd way, the Archbishop seems to be recognising that particular privileges for the Church of England are not on. But he is also being leant on to preserve them by seeking to construct a multi-faith establishment instead. That is no more credible or justifiable, it seems to me. His loss of a clear nonconformist conscience is unhelpful. Nonetheless, the issues ought to be discussable, and the anti-Muslim hysteria that seems to have conditioned some reactions to what Rowan Williams did (or didn’t say) is disturbing. We have a problem of cohesion and recognition, to be sure. But the way to solve it is by voluntary cooperation and civic action, not the collusion of religion with governance and vice versa. That is the Christendom era from which we are, rightly, retreating.
Simon Barrow is director of the religion and society think-tank, Ekklesia.
Comments
[...] find more intelligences more subtle and profound than I writing about the same issue at Cranmer and Our Kingdom, while Stumbling and Mumbling emphasises that “civil society” has a place in this [...]
' There needs to be access to recognised authority acting for a religious group: there is already, of course, an Islamic Shari'a Council, much in demand for rulings on marital questions in the UK; and if we were to see more latitude given in law to rights and scruples rooted in religious identity, we should need a much enhanced and quite sophisticated version of such a body, with increased resource and a high degree of community recognition, so that 'vexatious' claims could be summarily dealt with…. '
….But to return to our main theme: I have been arguing that a defence of an unqualified secular legal monopoly in terms of the need for a universalist doctrine of human right or dignity is to misunderstand the circumstances in which that doctrine emerged, and that the essential liberating (and religiously informed) vision it represents is not imperilled by a loosening of the monopolistic framework….
…But if one approaches it along the lines sketched by Shachar in the monograph quoted earlier, it might be possible to think in terms of what she calls 'transformative accommodation': a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters, so that 'power-holders are forced to compete for the loyalty of their shared constituents' ….
These remarks from Rowan Williams in his lecture may not be exactly advocating a parallel system of law, but they undoubtedly support the extension of the religious conscience within secular law, and the increased resourcing and social promotion of bodies particular to specific religions within the legal system. This is advocacy of religious micro-systems within the law and therefore its partial desecularisation.
Agree with Simon Barrow. Disestablishment of the Church of England might be helpful so that there is a clear distinction between religious conscience and civil law. Conscience is costly and maybe the sacrifice of having male Anglican bishops in the House of Lords would clarify where people stand if they want to live in a particular religious way which does not agree with the Civil Law. The present system does not provide adequate representation in the House of Lords for many sincere Christians who are women or homosexual.
Last week the government was pushing through the new EU treaty in the House of Commons with hardly a murmur in the media at this breach of trust. As it happens I am totally supportive of the new treaty and against a referendum: parliament is responsible.
The newpapers and the BBC has spent so much time on this week's drama, misrepresenting what the Archbishop had to say in his almost incomprehensible lecture on a topic which is of little importance in terms of the British Constitution.
I am profoundly worried by the various media who choose to ignore important constitutional matters and prefer a scandal of such insignificance.
Why must the Islamic law given preference? What of the Hindus, and others? Can't the British Law protect all religious groups without preverence to one? I am afraid that the Church has lost her vision and she is medling with unimportant issues. Those who are bold to talk about inclusivisim in everything has nothing to exclude even the devil or sin. There is nothing to repent of in the postmodern christianity where everything is relative and never concrete or absolute. In the theology of universalism there is no mission ground and there is no remnant called the believers for all are qualified. Except there is another great reformation the Anglican church and its seat is gone.
I have read it through.Thanks.
[...] for some thoughtful comment on this subject). Or this one if you want to be sworn at. Or a good Sharia Series at over at Our Kingdom - I don’t agree with all of it, but they comprehensively beat [...]
Post new comment