Another Voice

Matthew Parris

Wednesday, 13th February 2008

If the Archbishop were really an intellectual, he'd answer the questions he wordily posed

You could insert this passage seamlessly into almost any section of the Archbishop’s speech, perhaps about here ...

I would relish, but you might not, going through every sentence of the Archbishop’s massive lecture; trying to extract his meaning and logic; and then, having laid out what (if we could find it) might be the philosophical skeleton of his argument, testing it for completeness and consistency. But that would require the whole magazine. Instead, then, may I summarise what I think we might conclude?

The whole lecture could have been expressed in about one twentieth of the length the Archbishop took. But had an intelligent précis been attempted, the gaps, muddles and inconsistencies in the argument would have been exposed much more clearly.

Williams seems to be trying to say that the wellsprings of any national legal system are to be found in human communities and the spiritual, ethical and cultural values they share. Sometimes these may conflict, between one community and another. National law needs to hold the ring and must in that sense trump all ‘subsidiary’ community systems of rules. But it should not forget where its wellsprings lie, nor disregard nor needlessly affront the communities whence respect for law ultimately comes. There is precedent for national law paying deference to communities who wish to use their own rules within tightly defined circumstances.

Particular attention now needs to be paid (he seems to be arguing) to the Muslim community, and sharia. A case may be made for giving it greater scope for jurisdiction, though of a supplementary kind. Sharia, however, is neither clear nor undisputed within Islam; and outside Islam it has a brutal and misogynistic reputation. It may or may not be inherently aggressive towards competing faiths or agnosticisms. Arguably, it may be able to respect external, ‘secular’ jurisdictions. All these questions deserve discussion. Most importantly, we would have to discuss how individuals could opt in or opt out of sharia, establishing a sort of ‘marketplace’ of jurisdictions.

And that’s it. Honestly. That’s basically all the Archbishop was saying. No great intellect is required for this. What would require the capacities of an intellectual would be to answer — if they can be answered — the questions and difficulties Williams has set out. The Archbishop has performed what in international summit meetings is called the role of the ‘sherpa’, setting out the options and arguments. But he has not proved a good sherpa because his paper is overlong, badly drafted and logically confused, and at times lurches into ambitious claims that the argument and evidence do not support. ‘Painstaking but sloppy’ would be my marginal note, were I a don marking this as an undergraduate paper in philosophy: ‘has this candidate considered theology?’

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3

More articles from: Matthew Parris | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (7)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

David Moss, http://dematerialisedid.com/BCSL/ABC.htm

February 15th, 2008 12:49pm Report this comment

The Archbishop claims to have made a counter-intuitive and paradoxical discovery -- that we can only have personal lives because we live in a state where the law applies. That's not paradoxical, it's not counter-intuitive and it's not a discovery -- everyone already knows it.

David Moss, http://dematerialisedid.com/BCSL/ABC.htm

February 15th, 2008 1:31pm Report this comment

The Archbishop has the advantage over Mr Casaubon that there are now business schools to generate meaningless phrases for the right-on cleric to incorporate into his sermons. He quotes with approval the work of one Ayelet Shachar, an academic with a cute turn of phrase, who talks about legal jurisdictions as nothing more than "franchises" and who characterises the conflict between the law of the land and sharia as "your culture or your rights". Having fallen for that, the Archbishop agrees that it is possible to think of a "transformative accommodation" between the law of the land -- a market in which they compete -- and then, without so much as taking a breath, moves on to saying that it is unavoidable. How something which was only possible in one paragraph becomes unavoidable in the next is not explained. As to the market in which the law of the land should compete with sharia, he has already explained earlier in his paper that he thinks the law of the land derives ultimately from Abrahamic tradition. Which implies that it has nothing to do with discounted cashflows and choices based on utility, it's not a market, neither a possible market, nor an unavoidable market.

Robert H. Boyer

February 15th, 2008 4:17pm Report this comment

You have analyzed Dr. Williams Treatis as an intellectual exercise. Do you not realize the import of allow sharia law to intrude on the Great British body of law that has been the main stay of and basis of law in the English speaking world. Sharia law may have been great for maintaining order in the Muslim world of the 14th century but it has no acceptable place in Western Democracies.

Alan Rogers

March 7th, 2008 4:44pm Report this comment

Thank you Mr. Parris for putting this over-rated man in his place. I wrote to him on another issue and my letter was intercepted by a minion whose job was to protect the great man from contact with the real world. In this way empires, kingdoms and, no doubt, the C of E will decline and fall.

Neil Hoskins

March 7th, 2008 5:26pm Report this comment

@ Robert Boyer: Mr Parris wasn't expressing a view on the Archbishop's arguments, merely trying to figure out what they were and how well - or badly - put. @Matthew Parris: a marvellously entertaining essay, if I may say so. That final sentence alone could summarise not only the Archbishop, but religion in general.

Dan Allen

March 7th, 2008 7:23pm Report this comment

I admire Matthew Parris and read him regularly in the times. I don't always but usually do agree with him. He has hit the nail squarely on the head. We have a case of the emporers new cassocks. People think Williams is good because a) they've been told he's good and b) His writings are so interminable that few can get the the end let alone show the stamina to understand them. Confusing people with nonsense is not good intellect but it is definitely good theology

Bill Flavell

March 8th, 2008 6:55pm Report this comment

I am genuinely surprised that Matthew should put effort into looking for signs of intellect in the Archbishop. Why would you expect to find it in a man who believes in magic, virgin births, resurrection of the dead and, quite possibly, talking serpents? Why would you expect to find intellect in one who advocates holding the most extraordinary beliefs using the test of faith? With the briefest enquiry one can see that faith as a basis for believe suffers the unpardonable sin of being unable, totally and utterly unable, to distinguish truth from falsity. Faith, a failed epistemological method that puts no limits whatsoever on what one may take to be the truth. Let us not forget that faith warrants it permissible, no mandated if you are so minded, to fly ‘planes into buildings. Faith allows you to believe anything you wish to believe and never mind the evidence. It really is time for the world to understand that men who advocate faith as a way of knowing things are intellectually dishonest, no matter what their measured IQ. When such a substantial cover-up is required, gaps, muddles and inconsistencies are pretty much unavoidable. Really Matthew, don’t let the beard fool you. Argenta

Post comment