No exceptions
The archbishop issued a clarification on Friday. He
sought carefully to explore the limits of a unitary and secular legal system in the presence of an increasingly plural (including religiously plural) society and to see how such a unitary system might be able to accommodate religious claims. Behind this is the underlying principle that Christians cannot claim exceptions from a secular unitary system on religious grounds (for instance in situations where Christian doctors might not be compelled to perform abortions), if they are not willing to consider how a unitary system can accommodate other religious consciences.
Fair enough. So here’s how to deal with that: Christians cannot claim exceptions from a secular unitary system on religious grounds. Problem solved. Nobody can claim exceptions from a secular unitary system on religious grounds. See how simple that is?
You do realize what the archbish means by ‘a secular unitary system,’ right? He means the law. He must not have wanted to say what he said quite that baldly. He must not have wanted to say ‘Christians cannot claim exceptions from the law on religious grounds’ – no, one can see why he wouldn’t want to say that. But that’s what he means, and it’s a brazenly terrible idea. Helpful of him to (apart from the crucial euphemism) spell it out.
Johann Hari’s latest on this is worth reading at http://www.johannhari.com/index.php
He contrasts multiculturalism not with monoculturalism but with liberalism, and thanks the Arch. of Cant. for his contribution to sorting the whole business out once and for all, concluding:
‘The job of a liberal state is not to stamp The True National Essence on its citizens, nor to promote “difference” for its own sake. It is to uphold the equal rights of every individual – whether they are white men or Muslim women. It has one liberal culture, with freedoms used differently by different people.
‘So as well as scorning the Archbishop, we should thank him. He has helped to deliver the funeral rites for multiculturalism. With his matted beard and tortured hand-wringing to a desert-God, the Archbishop has unwittingly pointed us towards a vision of a better Britain – one that chooses proudly to be liberal.’
There is an amusing discussion of this on Crooked Timber. Their views are based on the fact that many bigoted racist idiots disagree with the Archbishop. It there fore follows logically that anyone who disagrees with the Archbishop must be a bigoted racist idiot. Gotta love ’em.
Yeah, that seems to be the consensus on the forums I visit too. People are actually praising the archbish for sticking up for unjust and illiberal laws.
Somebody went to far as to call him “brave”.
My very favorite comments, though, are the ones along the line of “well, Sharia is just an alternative arbitration and secular law prevails, so if a woman isn’t happy with her treatment under Sharia, she can just sue in a secular court.”
I’ve got a better idea–how about everyone gets equal protection under the law without having to jump through hoops to do it?
To be fair [why? No really, why?] the CT crowd are pulling back against that initial mindless knee-jerk… It is very telling, though, how far being a fascist with a brown skin will still get you with some guilt-drenched lefties. But it was ever thus…
All nastiness aside – if the “correct” counterposition to Rowan Bean is to be that we need to take “the law” as what is sacred beyond challenge, I start to sympathize with what he said.
Like “justice”, “the law” is too big a container for comfort. It is “the law” in most of the world that gays are not allowed to marry. Although this is one of the more clear-cut cases of the law being quite wrong – not coincidentally because it’s largely religion-inspired law – one cannot claim that there is a straight absolute path from secularism to gay marriage. Let alone that one is rationally able to claim that we’re to legislate that no group in society can defensibly restrict one of their rites to non-gays.
I don’t think he claimed that somebody could opt out of “the law” – let alone that somebody should be able to decide on behalf of somebody else that latter somebody is to be treated according to an opt-out version of the law. I think he argued that “the law” was always to some extent Judeo-Christian inspired – in the UK – and that there should be a latitude for a non-Judeo-Christian not to have to undergo this.
Obviously that’s bollocks because even if “the law” is in our countries quite imperfect (being inspired here & there by religious tradition) it’s obviously not a solution to make it imperfect in a multi-faceted way. The only solution is to gradually make it more perfect – a.o. less inspired by religion.
One can never go so far as to disallow social groups to maintain own rites on own rules, as long as the repercussion of it does not interfere with “regular law” & as long as movement in/out of a group is not sectarian. After all it’s a basic tenet of secular law, I think, that people are free to associate even if that association is nonsensical but otherwise – legally – unharmful.
Oh gawd – that’s exactly why I don’t read Crooked Timber any more. Haven’t for several years.
Davies had a characteristically smug, glib, flippant, dismissive piece on the subject on Comment is Free the other day.
“if the “correct” counterposition to Rowan Bean is to be that we need to take “the law” as what is sacred beyond challenge”
Well of course it isn’t – that’s the whole point! Secular law is not sacred and beyond challenge; secular law can evolve; divine law cannot.
Smug, glib, certainly, but still reasonably sound in areas that he knows something about, and overestimating the breadth of our knowledge is a trap we’ve all fallen into from time to time.
I didn’t say it wasn’t sound – but it remains flip and dismissive. In other words his claim may be accurate but it’s unhelpful and beside the point. (If the solution is for Muslim women who are unhappy with a sharia ruling to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights, then wouldn’t it be simpler and better just to stick with the more egalitarian secular law in the first place?) And it’s deeply, profoundly smug. Sharia rulings aren’t going to take away any of his rights – and he just ignores the many Muslim women who are not happy about the archbishop’s fun idea.
Man, that discussion at CT is a trip – ‘liberals’ defending sharia. They are told Yasmin Alibhai-Brown sees it differently – oh well she hasn’t read the archbishop’s speech then. There are nice versions of sharia, and of course those are the ones that will be institutionalized. How does Davies know that? He just does, that’s all.
For another flippant, but amusingly written take on this, here is a “libertarian” perspective:
http://whoisioz.blogspot.com/2008/02/my-own-court-in-my-own-castle.html#links
Job I have no problem with the concept of gay marriage but your statement that the reason gays cant marry in most nations is because of religion is ludicrous, there is no real logic to suport gay marriage other than a feel good factor? on the other hand by blessing marriage between men and women the state is showing an intrest in future tax paying citizens, there is a differance!
Richard, can’t make out whether you are cross because I didn’t support 100% gay marriage or because I came out somewhat in support of it.
Whatever: the reason gays cannot marry, is a religious thing. So is most of the opposition to legalizing gay marriage.
I’m not saying one cannot possibly come up with a non-religious argument contra but these arguments are, for the moment maybe, few & far between. Unless you’re having me on you cannot conceivably dig your “difference” argument except as in digging a hole.
Job I didnt mean to seem angry (I have no strong feelings on gay marriage either way)I just dont understand how you can say that there is no non religious argument against it? I cant think of one reason other than the feel good one I cited in favor of a state supporting it, all the isues of fairness can be dealt with by civil unions or other legal partnership agreements? unless you acept that there is a difference between the forms of marriage you invite the silly (well I want to marry my tractor) argument that the right wing often make? Maybe the state has no buisness endorsing marriage of any description?
“on the other hand by blessing marriage between men and women the state is showing an intrest in future tax paying citizens, there is a differance!”
I hear in some enlightened countries gay folks can even adopt. And don’t you think a properly run government should have an interest in promoting the happiness of its citizens and the stability of all family units, not just merely increasing its own coffers?
dzd The U.K has both civil unions and alows gay adoption( and the world hasnt come to an end) as for happiness I want the goverment to stay out of the happiness buisness!Job it has nothing to do with yuks there is as I pointed out at least some logic to states sponsoring of hetro marriage although even that is pretty tenuous.can you give me a good reason why a state should endorse gay marriage?
Richard, because they apparently want it & there are no reasons against it?
There are no good reasons against it. Just the bleating of religionists and the barely repackaged pseudo-secular versions of the religious arguments.
Also, re: happiness–if the purpose of govenrment is not to create an environment where its citizens can lead better, happier lives, what is it? (Note: This is not the same thing as shoving soma down people’s throats, which is what I presume the “happiness business” crap is referring to.)
Job That is the only reason I could think of but dosnt it beg the i want to marry my tractor responce? dzd it depends on what you mean by create an enviroment? goverment should set the framework for citizens to create. O.B the missing comment was a joke not a very good one.
Nope it doesn’t: a tractor isn’t human and if you go “marry my mother”, there are some very pertinent non-religious arguments against that, so …
O.K the England football team then.