Canterbury Tales

Austin Barry

Without overstating it, the almost atavistic howl of outrage which greeted the Archbishop's remarks has almost nothing to do with arcane theology but rather more to do with the huge disconnect between the people, seething and dismayed, and the ruling "elite", clueless, self-interested and weak. What to do? I suspect that, personally, adopting a position of ironic and amused detachment may best safeguard the blood-pressure as we descend further into the abyss.

RW

He assented on television to the proposition that "the incorporation of elements of sharia law into the British legal system seems unavoidable." Not even an individual as mentally bearded, to borrow Charles Moore’s splendid phrase, as Dr Williams can have been unaware of the consequences of such an assertion. It was a gross and deliberate provocation aimed at the 97 per cent majority of the population who do not call themselves Muslim, and incidentally the cause of concern for many who do, particularly women. But some good has come of it; the huge outcry has kicked this outrageous suggestion far into the long grass. Politicians of whatever ilk should think long and hard before ever trying to resurrect it. Entirely without meaning to, he has given the quiet majority a chance to assert themselves. Meanwhile his moral and spiritual authority has been fatally damaged. It seems there is no feasible way of removing him and he can dodder on until he’s 70, a looser and looser cannon. But he should go now. We need an Archbishop of Canterbury, not a woolly-headed incomprehensible appeaser.

Wilks

Two thoughts, first, it’s a shame that Dr Williams had not had the opportunity to read the excellent article in today’s FT Magazine, where John Thornhill has lunch with Theodore Zeldin. Zeldin may have been talking about Sarkozy’s France when he said, “You have to accept that traditions exist, that people don’t change their minds very quickly, that people are scared”, but it holds as true this side of the Channel as it does over there. According to Thornhill, Zeldin argues that ‘it is vital to avoid, rather than provoke, confrontation. It is better to allow old problems to wither while encouraging new possibilities to emerge alongside’. And secondly, for a reasoned view on the row, and why Rowan Williams is wrong, read the FT leader, Muddled response to multiculturalism. This makes it clear that the real battle for Williams is to change the way in which the post-Christian West treats religion,so that it ceases to be locked into ‘the private realm of individual choice’. He is just the latest in a long line to try to fight this, but whether he is going about it the right way I doubt.

Perry

Blair (politico), Blair (policio), and now Williams (religio) : what a pathetic trio of spineless, wrong-headed, simpering apologists. One gone, two to go. Oh to dismiss them as irrelevant – had they not such commanding posts.

paul hil

At last a journalist who has actually read what the Archbishop wrote.

Nicholas Millman

Actually the precise nature of what Williams said or did not say doesn't matter. The apologists are of course blaming the "tabloid press" for whipping up hysteria without understanding that Williams touched the raw nerve of a people fed up with having their majority status attacked and marginalised by chumps intent on imposing socially engineered "solutions" rather than allowing change and integration to occur naturally as it always has in the past. Moreover he did so in a role that should be seen as being a champion of the Christian church at a time when it needs as many champions as it can get. Appointing this character to such a critical role in modern England was a terrible mistake and I hope he realises it and goes. The pendulum seems to have swung too far towards do-good artificially constructed accommodations, PC, appeasement, positive discrimination, etc., and perhaps it is about time that ethnic and religious minorities and especially their political loudhailers adopted a lower profile.

Tiberius

I think, Matt that your final paragraph does actually betray the fact that Williams was naive. If he is was as calculating as you suggest over the content of what he said, it is extremely unlikely that he would then be so seriously erroneous about the expected response. And in view of the furore that this issue has caused, may I ask what will we all say when Charles is crowned as Defender of Faiths?

anne allan

Do we ask who appointed Williams to the See of Canterbury? Wasn't the then Prime Minister involved? 'Nuff said.

anne allan

Do we ask who appointed Williams to the See of Canterbury? Wasn't the then Prime Minister involved? 'Nuff said.

Fergus Pickering

Williams IS a bit of a fool, isn't he? But you do have to say that he's done the anti-Islam cause no end of good. I'd like to think it was a deep laid machiavellian plot but is anybody with a really silly beard like that capable of deep cunning?

Roy

These days one is in constant wonderment at the sanity of people in high places. The so called intellectuals without any discussion with other mortals on the subject, decide to burn Rome. I'm beginning to think more sense could be found in the lunatic asylums rather than under the broad archways of Canterbury and Westminster.

Verity

Fergus Pickering - Funny! Can't Her Maj dump Williams and name the outstanding Dr Sentamu of York the new Canterbury? If Williams clings on, the CofE is going to drop like a stone. Under Dr Sentamu, it would revivify and prosper. overseas.

David Howell

As a Los Angeles resident, I wonder why His Grace does not mediate, or otherwise offer his vast intellectual talents, in the crisis of dissolution that is convulsing Southern California. Isn't there enough work to do in running the shop? It seems pointless to advise Bush on running a war or Brown on uncommon law when H.G.'s house is a bigger flop than Blackrock. Tony Blair did this. As a then crypto-catholic, this was his revenge for the English Reformation. If you can't get rid of H.G., go around him. H.M. the Queen is the Governor-General of the Anglican Communion. If every parish became a royal peculiar, that would be the end of Lambeth Palace.

Fergus Pickering

Verity. I back Dr Sentamu for what it's worth. And I am a confirmed member of the C of E though a bit in abeyance of late. A black Archbishop now and a woman Archbishop later. That would be good, don't you think?

RW

Roy, I wonder if part of the lack-of-sanity problem may lie with the group of advisers surrounding Dr Williams, having just just seen this extraordinary comment by one of them quoted in the Observer: "Is there a household that has not been talking about sharia for the past few years?"

Verity

Fergus Pickering writes: "A black Archbishop now and a woman Archbishop later. That would be good, don't you think?" No. I don't. I don't think of Dr Sentamu as black. I just think of him as immensely intelligent man, grounded in his strong faith and possessing a clarity of vision few in the CofE have possessed for the last 50 years. I believe the CofE would prosper, and its membership worldwide would swell, under the leadership of this outstanding intellect grounded in his humanity and his faith in God. If they don't give Williams the chop and replace him with Dr Sentamu, the CofE will now sink like a stone. A woman archbishop? Oh, please, no! Perhaps political correctness (aka 'thought fascism') will be down the tubes by then. My understanding is, most people cannot even abide women Anglican priests. They're too cosy and mumsy.

Fergus Pickering

I like Woman vicars. And aren't they supposed to be cosy. And as for not thinking of Dr Sentamu as black, that's rather like not thinking of the late Pope as Polish. Anyway, if you don't think of Archbishop Sentamu as black then why would you think of Archbishop Joan as female?

Verity

I'm opposed to quotas. I won't be commenting further on this thread. I just hope Williams gets the old heave ho, and they have the sense to enthrone Dr Sentamu.

Chuck Unsworth

Dr Sentamu is not black. Brown maybe, but not as black as - say - Desmond Tutu. Anyway, what the hell has that got to do with things? At least he's talking sense. Possibly that's down to him thinking about things before opening his mouth. Unlike Williams who seems to open his mouth and then be forced by public outcry to start thinking. Sadly, Williams - reportedly clever - is no Leader. I suspect that Sentamu actually is. And that is the principal difference. An Archbishop of Canterbury is required to lead, not to 'think'. Any damn fool can ponder, but it takes a certain courage and conviction to lead.

David Lindsay

No, Fergus Pickering. The Church of England’s ordination of more women than men to its presbyterate last year, and doubtless in every subsequent year, bodes most ill for witness within our national life to the classical Christianity that is, as much as anything else, the basis of all three political traditions. Independent research has found very large proportions of the women among the Church of England’s clergy to be doubters of or disbelievers in absolutely key points of doctrine, with two thirds denying “that Jesus Christ was born of a Virgin”, and, astonishingly, fully one quarter denying the existence “of God the Father Who created the world”. The radical feminist Establishment not only wants women to become bishops, but also wants to require that the episcopal “team” in each diocese include both sexes. So, of those with privileged access to the media and other organs of national life as the voice of the Christianity professed by seventy-two per cent of Britons at the last census, at least one eighth will be agnostics or atheists. Furthermore, the presence of bishops in the House of Lords is specifically cited as a reason why women must become bishops, as they doubtless will. It is difficult to imagine a better case for abolishing that House, precisely in order to preserve and restore witness within our national life to the classical, historic, mainstream Christianity both underpinning that life and professed by the overwhelming majority of the population.

Ian H

I do admire the affrontary of the Home Counties set. Just because your Archbishop turns out to be a chump, you think you can come and steal our excellent Archbishop of York. Those of us fortunate enough to live in Dr Sentamu's Archdiocese do not accept that Canterbury has any primacy over York. So hands off, please.