Pages

Sunday, February 10, 2008

Rowan Williams and Sharia Law

Once again, the media's inability (whether deliberate or otherwise) to report religion stories accurately, and the Archbishop's apparent inability to see how people will misunderstand what he says have hit the news.

There's decent analysis of it here.

As far as I can tell, only Islamists want Sharia Law in England. Rowan Williams is using "Sharia" in a technical sense rather than the common one.

9 comments:

  1. IMHO Dr. Williams is insane and/or evil. He should be put out to pasture ASAP. He is a traitor to England and to all Christians and freedom-loving people everywhere; and he deserves to be vilified for the rest of his life and beyond.

    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe says
    the Archbishop is correct

    little by little allow
    mad mullahs to call the shots


    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe says
    freedom is bollocks

    dismantle your human rights
    earned over centuries


    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe says
    never dethrone leaders

    religious ones are special
    give them lifetime positions


    absurdthoughtsaboutgod.blogspot.com
    .

    ReplyDelete
  2. Why do you foolishly assume that Dr Williams said what he is reported to have said?

    The media pretty much only do what they do for the money. As long as they don't lose much reputation, it's in their interests to twist and sensationalise stories.

    ReplyDelete
  3. i deplore the use of the word 'bollocks' on this blog. please remove it.

    fowler

    ReplyDelete
  4. If people want to say something, my reaction is to let them say it. 5 year olds routinely hear and use much worse language than that. So did Paul. So I'm sure you can cope...

    ReplyDelete
  5. you misunderstand me. 'bollocks' is an illiterate term, losing touch with the meaning of the word. the correct term is 'ballocks'. please remove the offending solecism and replace it with the correct usage. i thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  6. A serious question. You sugest that the Archbishop fails to understand how his words may be misunderstood. I don't agree with you but let's say you're right. Almost everytime I speak or write I run the risk that people may misunderstand. There is a duty on me to be as clear as I know how. Nevertheless it is my experience that things I say (and not just me) are regularly misunderstood in ways I couldn't posibly have envisaged. Should we remain silent because of our inability to ever guarantee crystal clear communication? Or should we launch in, as the Archbishop did, and demonstrate a willingness, again as he did, to clarify if required.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Sorry, leaving a second comment because I forgot to check the email box.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's noteworthy that Rowan has apologised for saying something that could be misunderstood in the way that it was.

    I think it's our responsibility to be as clear as we can be. If we want to be understood, that is...

    ReplyDelete
  9. anon - do you think of language as something that is static or dynamic? Why?

    ReplyDelete