Multicultural creep

Peter Turner

The fact that you are Jewish matters not one jot. The fact that you are both intelligent and articulate does. Your analysise of a subject or situation is always worth reading.

Hereford

Thank goodness for giants like David. Of course us thickies couldn't possibly draw our own conclusions. "I've read it so you don't have to." What arrogance. And of course everyone else's opinions are naturally biased by some hidden, or not so hidden agenda.

dsquared

I think the clue is in Aaronovitch's parenthetical "next week the Vicar of Dibley gives her choice of Chief Rabbi"; in other words, you can say what you like (and even publish it if the Spectator is willing - you just shouldn't expect anyone else to necessarily care, or particularly for the Church of England to take particularly seriously the views of a non-member of that Church who has spent the last five years excoriating it.

phil

Keep writing Melanie. Does David A think his own Jewish background gives him a better right to criticise you for commenting on AOB-Thank goodness both of you are allowed to comment .I have no doubt AOB means well -he just doesnt get it

szeni

I am surprised anyone intelligent would waste time reading that opinionated windbag David Aaronovitch

Harry Templeton

Melanie Keep it up! You are obviously marking a telling mark on this sordid debate. The credibility of the ABC will never be the same even though it was pretty well questionable before this debacle.

Lisa

The introduction of Sharia would affect everybody, I think that gives everybody a right to comment.

As for you "dsquared", Melanie articulates the view of many within the church (me included) and in particular for those further up the church hierarchy who dare not be more frank with those at the very top for fear of being sidelined. The ABofC's church is in the unique and very unfortunate postion of being eaten away from the Marxist acid within it. I know of no other faith that is behaving in this way. What times we live in.

EyeSee

I think the point that Aa is making is that as a Jew your view on another religion is less valid and so you should criticise Rowan's comments about Islam.

Ray Daniels

There is a substantial difference between criticising a speech, which you have every right to do, and calling for "dethronement" which is none of your goddamn business.

Ethan

When did the act of expressing opinion become an exercise of extra-jurisdictional powers? It is a perfect illustration of the psychology of the left/liberal elite. The one thing they hate above all else is dissent from their orthodoxy. But, and this is the strangest aspect of their psychopathology, only when that dissent is voiced by Jews and Christians, conservative or otherwise.

epaminondas

As both an Englishman and the leader of the Church of England I would have thought that 'all equal before one law' would be a given. That is it not for such a leader not only disqualifies such a person for leadership, but should cause great concern about what Williams was taught, and by who ... This is like complaining that noticing the sky is blue causes comment by commenters on others right to say so.

Ted Bloke

Let us pray. Rowand Williams, Rowand Williams; the Lord deliver me from Rowan Williams.

Tara T

It is none of the Archtraitor's business to lecture me about accepting Sharia law. Sharia has got nothing to do with the values of my country.

If that old fool wants to go way beyond the realms of his usual remit, it's hardly surprising if commentators stray way beyond what they would normally see fit to pass comment on.

This was not a speech about administering Christian values to Christians like me, it was a speech calling for a fundamental change to the rule of law for everyone. There would be one system for some and another for others. That this happens already with unofficial Sharia courts is grotesue enough, to have it officially sanctioned would be disastrous.

Dr Williams's words matter more than most because they are listened to by politicians (God help us) and policymakers.

We are in the topsy turvy world now of Melanie propping up the church while the Archtraitor takes a sledgehammer to the foundations of our very society and thus by implication his own church. Who's going to protect us from Islamism if not our own church? Day after day Christians are treated like dirt in Islamic states and somehow Dr Williams thinks this won't happen here with his dhimmwit plans. What madness is this?

Frank Pulley

Aaronovitch: self hating Jew and son of an erstwhile leader of the English Communist Party. Also a journalist and writer who is prone to the bitchy jealously that inflicts the more insecure members of that unhappy breed. As a confidant apostate Melanie your Teflon coating is perfectly able to withstand his weak jibes - maids water off a duck's back. The overwhelming approval of your analysis as opposed to the overwhelming condemnation of Archie's blether is proof enough that your long and tireless campaign is having the desired effect. Bravo! What has been plain throughout it all is that you have been a staunch supporter of the English Judeo-Christian cultural ethic; indeed as staunch as in your defence, as a Jew, of Israel as our ally on the front line in resistance against Jihad. I know exactly where you are coming from and it is both philospically necessary and pragmatic. I'm buggered if I know where Son of Sam is coming from these days. He's all over the shop! I suppose that's what the YCL does for you on a messpent youth, particularly as a contemporary of that other member and switch-hitter, Peter Mandelson.

Ted Bloke

Let us pray. Rowan Williams, Rowan Williams; the Lord deliver me from Rowan Williams!

JJS

Ray Daniels, when you say "...which is none of your goddamn business" is this because Melanie is a 'conservative' or a Jew? Anyway, whose "business" is it?

field

I've no objection to you commenting on the leadership of the Anglican Communion Melanie. Equally I hope you don't support the style of debating that says anyone who criticises the Chief Rabbi must be an anti-semite. The Chief Rabbi projects an image as a tolerant religious leader and so I think I and anyone else who feels like it is perfectly entitled to query that stance given that he writes in secret to condemn as a "destroyer of Judaism" a Rabbi (a Holocaust survivor) he has publicly mourned. We need to hold all religious leaders to high standards, and I see no difficulty with that operating across boundaries as long as we apply equal standards. I have frequently battled with critics of Israel who it is quite clear don't apply the same standards to all states or political movements. The equal standards are the important element in this.

John S

Dear Melanie As ever a lucid analysis but why oh why are you lumping us poor Catholics with "other non-Christians?

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

Filed, you seem obsessed with the Chief Rabbi having privately referred to a reform Jewish leader (during that leader's life time, I would venture) as a destroyer of Judaism, yet having said kind things about the man after the man's death. The fact is that reform Judaism was founded with the expressly announced goal of destroying and superseding Orthodox Judaism. The Chief Rabbi's criticism is therefore consistent with Orthodox Jewish belief (not that the Chief Rabbi needs my defense or endorsement), and appear to have been aimed at the beliefs and actions of the reform leader, and not aimed at the man personally. That the remarks were made privately is also consistent with Orthodx Jewish belief. And finally, Orthodox Jewish belief encourages speaking well of our dead and not comforting their survivors. Your supposed evidence of hypocrisy on the Chief Rabbi's part shows nothing of the sort (and certainly does not prove your thesis that there is a Jewish precept to lie to non-Jews about the teachings of the Torah); it merely shows your ignorance of our beliefs. Your view that the Chief Rabbi violated some moral standard is irrelevant; according to Jewish moral standards, I can't see that he did anything wrong. On the other hand, it is difficult to reconcile with Jewish law the actions of whoever leaked the criticism. Finally, the posts that suspected you of anti-semitism made it very clear that they were not based on your criticism of the Chief Rabbi, and in fact appeared before your criticism did. The suspiscions were based on your repeated and groundless charge that Judaism must have some equivalent of Taqquiya, and that any statement from a Jew about Jewish beliefs must therefore be viewed with suspicion at best, and for accordingly discounting out of hand the easily verifiable statements about "law of the land is the law" (I.e. there is a religious obligation not to disobey the secular law.

Stanley Jerusalem Israel

'field' The Chief Rabbi was asked to write an obituary on a leader of Reform Jewry who despite his roots chose to take a path loathsome to the Chief Rabbi who as titular head of Orthodox British and Commonwealth Jewry stood against everything Jewish that Rabbi Gryn preached. This was just an in-house matter now scraped up by you as a justification for besmirching Jewish opinion and rights and has no bearing on other religions. On the other hand the AoC has meddled in territory beyond his remit and in the face of horrific intolerance on the part of the coreligionists and system of law that he is promoting for the UK. The manner of his presentation was high-handed and his subsequent ersatz apology without retraction was pathetic and umbecoming to a Prince of the Church. Please don't fight your personal battles while a Religious War threatens to break out - no-one cares about your hang-ups, so please stop airing them by attempting to disguise them as informed [ which it isn't] comment. Aaronovitch is just what Frank Pulley describes - a bitter neo-communist replaying his father's scenes of triumph - once more unsuccessfully. Perhaps the Daily Worker will give him a column - if it still exists.

Jerry Levin

Is not the Church of England a State Church and is not Ms. Phillips a British subject? Since Williams' comments were about British law, Ms. Phillips has a perfect right to object to the opinions of this state official. Recently in the US election, Mitt Romney said it was none of his business what Roman Catholic Bishops would say or do regarding any Catholic candidate’s opinions on abortion, etc. Religious officials are not government employees in the United States. I am a US citizen. I hope separation of religion and state is maintained in America, so that windbags like Williams can in no way claim to be speaking for me.

JJS

Ahad Ha'amoratzim -- yes, 'field' does seem to be obsessed with the Chief Rabbi -- but only in that it offers him a perceived way to denigrate him (Chief Rabbi) and all things Jewish. I have already commented openly in these forums that 'field' is rabidly anti-semitic (go back over his many comments and you will see what I mean) and that his views should be taken as nothing more than lunatic ravings fuelled by hate-induced psychosis. It would be best if none of us would respond to him (I use the masculine simply for convenience -- we do not know if he is male or female; only that he prefers anonymity and spews his ugliness in the guise of intelligent discourse -- not that he fools anyone!) simply because he has no capacity to listen but keeps banging the same old beat on his same old drum.

Beaman

As a British atheist (Catholic background) I feel, like Melanie, that I have every right to call for the Archbishop of Canterbury to resign. I've no idea why Aaronovitch had to bring her religion into this and was equally stunned by his labelling.

Neil Saunders

One of the more depressing aspects of this is the "news management" of the story by the BBC, who delightedly showed the Blairesque General Synod Claque (with a few principled dissentients) applauding this loose-tongued Archbishop. This is the same BBC whose Religious Affairs commenator remarked (in the early coverage of Rowan Williams's bizarre and disturbing pronouncement) upon how well Sharia law functions in Nigeria. Those of us with slightly longer memories - all the way back to July 2006 - will remember the 16-year-old girl who had been raped but was - to a worldwide outcry - sentenced to death by a Sharia court in Nigeria.

Andrew

Frank: Um, Aaronovitch isn't Jewish. So, I guess that stops him being a 'self-hating Jew'. If anyone else were being a tad sensitive, as Mel and you are now, (say, if someone complained about you calling a gay politician a 'switch-hitter') you'd probably mutter something about 'PC gone mad'.

kate b

I think it is everyone's business to want, or even want dethroning, a church head who doesn't bring his people back to the scriptures. A BBC former religious editor calls the ABofC a Fool for Christ, no, Williams is a fool for Islam in that he fails to bring people back to the Bible and its unchanging moral values. Knowing that Islam's politics IS their religion. Knowing that schools are killing our children, spiritually with PC versions of "faith" and teaching that there are no moral absolutes, this event, dreadful as it is will have many positives come from it, let's use it.

Robert (Kettering)

Personally, I think you have the perfect right, Melanie, to point out and say what you have already. Indeed, you have reflected perfectly the mood of the whole nation. If it were left up to the C of E this whole debacle would have been quietly brushed under the pews and forgotten about! Thank goodness for commentators like Melanie I say!

Mike Huggins

I thought Aaronovitch's column was asinine. In America, we sometimes speak of 9/10 and 9/11 Americans. I think of Melanie as "10 May" and Aaronowitch as "9 May" English. Melanie is a lion.

YA

field - to deal with your "equal standards", one needs armor-piercing logics (moderators please don't stop me this time). You are FORMALLY correct when talking about Jews and Muslims, Beth-Din and Sharia. But look - two stones are FORMALLY both stones, but if a stone falls on your head IT DOES MATTER if it is 30 gramm stone or 30 tons stone. Jews are right when they demand PROPER treatment not equal treatment. Equality and discrimination are COMPLEMENTARY, and the balance always depends on context.

field

I'm not obsessed with the Chief Rabbi or Judaism. You might as well say Melanie is obsessed with the Archbishop and the C of E. Which I certainly don't think she is despite the several posts here. My thoughts rarely travel to Chief Rabbi unless it is when I hear his rather sepulchral tones first thing of a morning on BBC Radio. I'm not a great fan of his, but then I'm not a great fan of any of the Thought for the Day contributors. I did used to quite like Rabbi Lionel Blue but he was hardly a religious spokesperson. Regarding some of the points made: 1. Contrary to what Ahad says, my understanding is the Chief Rabbi's letter was written after the man's death by way of apology for the public mourning. 2. Regarding the point about Taqiyyah, it is my view that all religions employ the equivalent of Taqiyyah to varying degrees. To accuse me of anti-semitism on that basis is ridiculous. In my time I've criticised every religion. You can call me anti-religious if you want, although that is not strictly true. 3. It's not an "in house" matter if someone comes on the radio of a morning and offers up various pieties to the public at large. That person's conduct then becomes an issue for all of us. I should add - more pertinent to this topic - that in all the speeches I have heard him make the Chief Rabbi has spoken of Islam as a religion of peace on a par with the other major religions of the world. This, he must know, is misleading. No doubt - just as with the ABC - he makes these statements out of the best of intentions, but my feeling is that such statements confuse both Muslims and non-Muslims and have a negative effect overall. 4. I don't think it's tolerant to accuse Reforms Jews of wanting to destroy Judaism. That is being intolerant. Reform Jews will probably tell you they want to develop Judaism, like a gardener tends his garden I guess. It's just a different approach. Anyway there's hardly one Orthodox sect that agrees with another, so it's not as if there is any consensus outside the realm of Reform Judaism. 5. I've seen Aaronovitch on TV many times. Generally he comes across as an intelligent and insightful observer most times. But he's clearly wide of the mark here by the sound of it.

Robin Davies

What a dull day it would be without Melanie's apposite comments to pierce the gloom of life in Britain today. As somebody said yesterday at our weekly Mens' Bible Study - "I like Melanie Phillips". And so do I.

YA

Mike Huggins - "Melanie is a lion". Let us face it. Melanie is a lioness. Love you both, anyway.

Dr. Irene Lancaster

The Muslim community were asked their opinion in the choice between the Bishop of Rochester and Rowan Williams. They objected to the former and opted for the latter. The powers-that-be went along with it. David Aaronovitch doesn't appear to understand the role of the Church of England in English society. The Queen is the supreme governor and the ABC is the most important person in the realm apart from the monarch.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

JJS, you are certainly right that Field does not listen. For one thing, I never said that Field was obsessed with the Chief Rabbi, but rather obsessed with one particular incident involving the Chief Rabbi. Apparently Field did not read to the end of the sentence before posting a reply. I reserve judgement whether Field is anti-semitic. I'm sure he doesen't consider himself such, but many anti-semites do not consider themselves such. Certainly many of Field's assumptions about Judaism are both ignorant and insulting, and much of the sage counsel that Field offers to Israel is ignorant, ahistoric, and unrealistic to the point of urging suicide. Whether any of this results from anti-Semitic animus I am not prepared to say. Field appears to take a similar approach to other topics as well -- for instance, he thinks that everyone (or at least all non-Christians -- I do not know whether Field makes an exception for them) must be suspected of shameless and blatant lying when explaining their beliefs to others. But his pathetic obsession with the eulogy delivered by the Chief Rabbi talking as "proof" of this thesis simply shows the weakness of his ability to reason and engenders as much pity as disgust. Despite Field's shortcomings as an interlocutor, I oftern respond not so much for Field's benefit as for the benefit of readers who do not have the background to realize the factual inaccuracies that Field leaves behind.

Ahad Ha'amoratzim

JJS, having read Field's latest to the end, he is surely ignorant of both reform and Orthodox judaism, and particularly the history of the early reform movement and its roots in Napoleon's Sanhedrin with its goal of forcible assimilation. He also has no concept of the importance that Orthodox Judaism puts on the privacy of private communications. As to the details of the eulogy and the letter, I do not know when the letter in question was written or under what cicrumstances. But all in all the post reinforces my skepticism whether Field is truly anti-semitic or merely as ignorant about Judaism as he is about so many other topics.

Max Kaye

David who?

korova

You sure as hell may have seen it delivered and read it several times, but you certainly do not understand it. Your rhetoric over this proves how desperately out of your depth you really are when intellectual debate takes place. Still, keep writing, you certainly keep me entertained with your laughable attempts at 'analysis'. And don't even get me started on the establishment sheep that comment here.

Lynda Stack

Go Melanie! - you are brilliant. Thank goodness we have clear articulate writers like yourself. If the Pope was like the Archbishop of Canterbury I would find it extremely hard,I feel so sorry for evangelical Anglicans - what a challenge.

LydiaPynke

Lisa is correct that Canterbury's public, and even pulpit, pronouncements affect all the English, churched or not, so comment is fair due. People of one political persuasion or another call for the resignation of "other" parties' principals all the time so it is my goddamned business, as far as it relates to my domicile in England. What we see is the logical consequence of all the blue anoraks infesting the Church in the 60's and 70's. If Canterbury closed all the palaces, repaired all the rooves in Christendom and lived in a verger's hutch, IN Canterbury, I'd listen a little harder. I know of an archbishop, now retired, who wears plain clothes and a collar, jumped out at D Day with chrism instead of a rifle, can be seen making doddering house calls well-past 80 yrs old and reminds everyone to be nice to one another. The Church doesn't need any more policy wonks.

Keeley O'Lomb

Mike Huugins: I thought Aaronovitch's column was asinine. In America, we sometimes speak of 9/10 and 9/11 Americans. I think of Melanie as "10 May" and Aaronowitch as "9 May" English. Melanie is a lion. ----------- I applaud your sentiments, and apologies if I'm a bit slow, but what is the significance of those dates? Thanks

Paul rowlands

Melanie keep going with it! Aaaranovitch is a former President of the National Union of Students - I don't think he's done a day's work in his life. You are clearly aggravating the assumptions of the 'liberal' elite. It is high time we reclaimed the high ground. If Kant were alive today, whose side would he be on?

Adam B.

Korova, you use the word "laughable" a lot - i.e. about anyone who isn't a Marxist. You are also always telling us what a towering intellect you are, and how no-one else matches up to you. Must be nice to live like that.

Ravi

I believe I am correct that Melanie (as well as many Jews) would like the UK to re-establish its Christian credentials and are as sad as Christians when traditional cultural Christian festivals are watered-down by PC councils. This is a criticism of ABC that in his intellectualisation he loses sight that people who are the 'misunderstanders' require simple but strong leadership of the Christian Church. I believe many Jews would rail against the idea that the UK is a secular country because Jews are able to maintain their traditions across the boundaries of many countries so we ask why can't the UK.

Drew

I enjoy what you have to say on many issues regarding home-grown Islamic radicalism in Britain, but this is clearly a ripe example of foolish journalism.

It is quite obvious that you have not read the actual speech of the Archbishop of Canterbury. I have read the manuscript, and do I believe it was a foolish thing for him to say in terms of the wording? Possibly, but the media, including yourself, has blown this controversy well out of proportion. The Archbishop was ASKED to give a speech regarding this subject matter to a speech at a university - and it was supposed to be a formal lecture discussing an issue at hand, not a prescriptive analysis on what the British government SHOULD do.

First of all, the Archbishop DID NOT say that Britian should adopt Sharia Law - his analysis was not as prescriptive as it was descriptive. He is stating a reality that with the influx of Muslim immigrants into Western Europe, elements of Sharia (as a moral code rather than legal jurisprudence) will be inevitable, and the truth is he's correct. Western Europe has become deeply secularized and has initiated multiculturalism to the point that if one does not stand for something, someone else will come and do so. The Archbishop was stating a reality, but many have completely distorted it.

In addition, he is stating that there are areas of religion that the government cannot deal with some moral matters of a religious community. Sharia Law as a moral code and way of life (as with the Orthodox Jews in Britain although they do not have a problem with home-grown radicalism) will be used by the Muslim community on matters of divorce, inheritance, and endownment - he is not stating that we should have stonings and beheadings in Trafalgar Square. However, if the Sharia is used for matters of spiritual sustenance that are respectable according to the laws of Britian, then it should be tolerated, but if not then it should be dropped.

Now, should elements of the Sharia Law or any religion be incorporated into British law? Absolutely not. Sharia Courts would be a disaster for many Muslim women due to the cultural implications throughout its code with many countries that use it to justify oppression onto others. But that is not the overall message of the Archbishop. He is stating a reality in Britain of how religious communities will use a moral code on many matters. For example, in the Catholic Church, although one may obtain a divorce from the state, it will not be recognized in the religious sphere. It's good that this controversy has happened so Britian can know where it stands on its country's values without swaying into cultural relativism.

Now I admit that when I saw the articles on the BBC, I was very much alarmed as you were, but upon reading the actual manuscript, I realized that the media has blown this entire issue out of proportion. Before going on a rampage and calling for the dethronement of the Archbishop, I would advise you to read the manuscript of the Archbishop's speech more carefully and then draw a conclusion and analysis.

jfrancis

I am but a lowly Baptist in a small Texas town, however I noted when Dr. Williams was appointed Archbishop what a colossal mistake the church had made and knew readily they had lost their way.

d1carter

Melanie, would it be extra-jurisdictional of me to call for the dethroning of David Aaronovitch? So be it. Keep up the good work. Your obviously making some headway.

Mike Huggins

To Keeley O'Lomb: 1940: Chamberlain was in disgrace over the military fiasco in Norway, MPs were "asking for his head" and then the German blitzkrieg was unleashed on France and the Low Countries on May 10, causing Chamberlain to resign that day and recommend to the King that Churchill replace him. On May 7, MP Leo Amery spoke of Chamberlain (in words some might say to the ABC) "You have sat too long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, I say, and let us have done with you. In the name of God, go!"

J. Isaacs

Perhaps David Aaronovitch is envious at Melanie Phillips having been voted the fifth most influential person in Jewish life in Britain for 2007 by Jewish Chronicle readers. (The Chief Rabbi was number one.)

Stanley Jerusalem Israel

The head of the world's Anglican Church stands up and gives his answer to a question Drew, are you being naieve? Do you know the story of the British CEO of an international corporation who attended a meeting of one of his satellite companies in Western Europe with a view to initiating a new process. At the beginning of the meeting he said "I suggest we use this method". After he left the room a long discusiion between other local senior board members ensued until at the end of the session the CEO returned to find no progress had been made on the matter. When he enquired as to why this was so he was informed that the meeting had discussed his suggestion at length to discover its merits and demerits. At this point the CEO's assistant pointed out that in England a CEO's "suggestions" are in fact orders.

Jon_Boy

This highlights a problem that blights most of Europe and Israel too. It is that these societies aren't really democratic. They are in the main run by self elected elites that make up the political class, the judiciary and the journalistic classes. This has led to societies where these elites despise and round on anyone that dosn't agree with them and has led to a populace that feels politically disenfranchised and in the main no longer even bother to vote. People like David Aaronovitch typify these self elected elites that run Western European democracies. The only crime Melanie Phillips has committed was to disagree with him and the rest of his friends in the Chelsea and Islington politbeureau.

GNO

Drew, you are one of the very few who seem to have understood what His Grace was saying or implying – a remarkable feat. Why do you think that the vast majority of us got the “wrong” message or, as you seem to imply, I might add rather condescendingly, that (we and) Melanie has not read speech? She has in fact said that she has not only read it many times but was there when ABC delivered it. Has it occurred to you that maybe it is you who has misunderstood his dangerous words? Read the speech again. I am neither of Jewish persuasion nor a COE affiliate. But as a British citizen, I have every right to get riled when someone of the Archbishop’s stature and influence stands up and sells everything that I admire of the country down the pan. Similarly, Vicar of Dibley has every right to call for the head of the Chief Rabbi if the Rabbi so much as utters the words “Sharia” and “inevitable” in the same sentence. Go Melanie!

Melmoth

As a popular bumper-sticker in America puts it: Jesus, Deliver Me From Your Followers. What disturbs me about this whole AofC business is the apparent fact that Christians feel more solidarity with Muslims than with non-believers.

maurice d

Interestingly, the opinion column in 'Der Speigel' (12 Feb.) discusses the problems of creeping islamicisation in Europe and is critical of the attitude of 'the estalishment' as has been Ms Phillips in her varios articles etc. To all those defenders of the ABofC and, indeed, Aaronovitch himself (may his name be blessed): has 'Der Speigel'also missed the point?

Andy Gill

The Archbishop's remarks on sharia seem of a piece with his opposition to Israel's security fence, his support for disinvestment in companies trading with Israel, and his failure to protest against Islamic intimidation of Christians in Gaza. Happily, a substantial proportion of Anglicans, including his predecessor, have distanced themselves from each of these positions. He should now retire to a monastery; a silent order would be preferable.

Louise

Dr Williams claims that his unique position as head of the Established Church obligates him to speak for minority religions. I think that Jews are therefore more than entitled to comment when the fruits of his foolishness would impact adversely against ourselves and indeed the society of which we are part. I'm a conservative and a Jew and I have participated in online discussion forums, in which it is crystal clear that most of the (non-Jewish) people who are rightwingers are pro-Israel and most of those who read the Guardian side with Israel's enemies (strange indeed, that syndrome, given that so many of Israel's enemies would drag us all back into the Dark Ages and deny women basic rights). To punish me for my pro-Israel stance one of the leftwing anti-Zionists (they are never antisemitic, are they?) went so far as to track me down and subject me to a campaign of hateful intimidation which resulted in police intervention. What topsy turvy times we lives in. What times will our children and grandchildren live in if the Archbishop and his apologists have their way?

maurice d

And another thing: In the light of the renewed discussion following the ABofC's lecture it may be relevant to be aware of the allegations made against Mark Steyn by the Canadian Islamic Congress of 'subjecting muslims to hate and contempt' in his book "America Alone". Worryingly the suggestion is that any public criticism of the 'islamic way' will be supressed by legal means (lawfare) to intimidate and even bankrupt those who dare to publish such views. These legal means support the more violent reactions that reach the headlines.

Eddie

I believe that sharia law is now official, anyway. Polygamy is permitted and wives can get income support/unemployment benefits or whatever from the State.

ignotum per ignotius

I see that korova has made a subtle, thoughtful contribution: "You sure as hell may have seen it delivered and read it several times, but you certainly do not understand it. Your rhetoric over this proves how desperately out of your depth you really are when intellectual debate takes place. Still, keep writing, you certainly keep me entertained with your laughable attempts at 'analysis'." ...And may I add how nice it is for once to see so penetrative an analysis from korova's luminous intellect --- when many would simply spit out a series of shrill insults, making no attempt to address Melanie's argument. Thank goodness for the korovas of this world! There was one thing which did confuse me, though: "And don't even get me started on the establishment sheep that comment here. Now, since the Establishment consists of the political classes, the civil service, the judiciary, academe, the BBC, the upper echelons of the Church and so forth, all of which are very predominantly of the liberal-Left persuasion, do I take it that it is the liberal contributors to this blog which exasperate you so? I'm sure you'll find much sympathy here.

Keeley O'Lomb

Mike Huggins - many thanks for that: Amory's intervention is one of my favourite Parliamentary moments, and I'm ashamed I forgot the date.

JJS

Do you think "korova" was educated beyond high school? Or not even that far???

Barrie in Adelaide

The 'ABC' had me fooled for a while. In Australia the ABC is the equivalent of the BBC, not yet so anti-Israel, but similarly corrupted and implacably leftist.. So an appropriate soubriquet for the Archmullah of cant.

STan

I think does matter that you're Jewish because Christianity in itself is offensive to many Jews.

field

Ahad - You don't seem to read very closely. This is what JJS said: "-- yes, 'field' does seem to be obsessed with the Chief Rabbi -" So he drew the same inference that I did: that you were claiming I was obsessed with the Chief Rabbi rather than, as you claim, that you were merely saying I was obsessed with the particular incident I had mentioned. So you can hardly "agree" with JJS on that point can you and mock me for allegedly drawing the wrong inference, when JJS inferred as I did? Of no consequence except to show I can split hairs as finely as you.

Ravi

" think does matter that you're Jewish because Christianity in itself is offensive to many Jews." Really!!!! How does this manifaest itself? Are Jews going around suicide bombing 'infidel Christians"? Given the rampant Antisemitism across Europe and Russia wouldn't it be more accurate to say that MANY Christians hate Jews. There are 13m Jews and maybe 4bn Christians.

field

4 billion Christians? Where are they all hiding? I'd say 2 billion max. - about 700 million in Europe/Russia; 900 million in the Americas. 400 million in Africa and elsewhere.

field

Dimbleby really got to the point on Question Time tonight and I think Melanie was somewhat discomfited. She claimed that the 2002 Act involved an "informal" arrangement in terms of religious law. I don't see how more formal you can get than having a religious court recognised by the UK law courts by virtue of a statute and having the decisions of the religious court given official recognition by virtue of such an Act. Once again we see how Melanie's case is fatally weakened by her desire to preserve the position of the Beth Din courts. Clive James was far more credible and consistent. He wanted religion out of the law and he wanted one law, not a pick and mix affair. He rightly identified that the Archbishop of Canterbury chief failure was the failure to understand the meaning of three words: thin, end and wedge. That's what is objectionable about the idea of Shariah courts being afforded the same recognition as Beth Din courts - because we know it won't stop there. Melanie was obliged by contrast to try and argue rather unconvincingly that the Archbishop really had meant he wanted to bring in an entirely parallel system of law but that the Beth Din courts were "informal" and had no official status.

phil

Field can you not make one posting that is understandable?once more you write gibberish on your obsessive subject-you take up so much space and make not one word of sense -,you certainly don't do any good on this site -Read your stuff before you post it then maybe you would not bother- maybe you would even state which religion you represent (I suspect none),just this obsession to be known,then we could attempt to work out your bias-I for one are mystified .And by the way Melanie was once again brilliant last night as usual ,clear and concise unlike you .Get a life man and let those who really care ,whatever their opinions,state their case without your nonsensical distractions.

field

I'm obsessed? If you saw the programme you'll see the issue of the Beth Din courts was raised by the Chairman and mentioned by other panellists. So my so called obsession is clearly shared by some of the pre-eminent commentators and politicians in the country. It is not enough in debate to say "you aren't making sense". YOu have to point out where people are contradicting themselves or uttering nonsense. Nothing could be more relevant to the operation of religious courts than the officially sanctioned operation of a religious court. So why don't you give up YOUR life that you got somewhere along the line and read a book on elementary logic - since you tell me insolently to "get a life". People who come on this site are clearly interested in the subjects that Melanie discusses.

phil

FIELD this is just for you -please let me know which is your book on logic and I will get it, meanwhile let me assure you I had an excellent education ,was I believe a highly regarded person in my profession ,share my time with Christians Jews and Muslims and looked after people from all those religions ,and debated our problems without rancour ,so please no lessons from you - You continue to ignore countless explanations of the role of the Beth Din and what you refer to as the Jewish courts ,you refuse to accept or cannot understand that they have no jurisdiction in UK law -it seems that you are determined to cause problems where none should exist with your foolish comments -I am sure I am not alone in being utterly fed up with your stubborn refusal to desist. So I ask you as politely as possible stop making your comments on this subject until you have educated yourself on it -All you achieve is confusing others whose knowledge on this subject is necessarily limited,which may well cause rifts between peoples who otherwise would get on together -That surely cannot be your purpose.

Mike Homfray

Nope, its just that your conservative Judaism is no better than their conservative Islam. Both should be confined to the private sphere in a liberal secular state. Both have far more in common with each other than with secular liberalism.

Ann

So said that great friend of the Jews, MH. May I ask just how many years you have spent studying conservative Judaism and Islam, that you should know this with such certainty?

Fabio P.Barbieri

I would be interested to see whether David Aaronovitch has ever commented upon statements by the Pope or by the Catholic Church. Or, for that matter, by any head of state or politician from stae of which he is not a citizen.