Town Hall ^ | February 14, 2008 | Emmett Tyrrell
Posted on 02/14/2008 7:53:20 AM PST
In his wonderfully wooly-headed interview, derived from a public lecture
delivered by him at the Royal Courts of Justice, Williams called on his countrymen to arrive at
"constructive accommodation" with Shariah,
which is Islamic law. According to his calculations, the inclusion of Shariah into the British code of law is
"unavoidable." Thus if you are visiting
In some countries where this legal code -- first formulated sometime in the seventh century -- is followed, it enjoins, among other atrocities, the stoning of adulterers, the amputation of body parts, and a kind of female subjugation unimaginable to even the most ardent Western male chauvinist pig. By the way, Shariah law even takes into consideration pigs, as well as mortgages, couture and the care of household pets, which are discouraged. As for pigs, they are considered "unclean." In most countries where Shariah law rules, a ham on rye is malum prohibitum -- pardon my Latin. As I say, Shariah law can be pretty demanding.
This brings me to a matter that Islam's most recent celebrity convert seems not to understand. Shariah law is socially, politically and legally all-embracing. It is not simply a religious faith, as various forms of Christianity are. It is a polity. As Peter G. Riddell, a theologian at the Kairos Journal, wrote in response to Williams on the Web site of The American Spectator, Shariah law "is a system that insists on society's compliance in every sector of human activity: legal, religious, economic, political, and social. Although Muslims may disagree on how to implement Islam as the total package, they do not disagree that Islam is much more than just a private expression of religious belief." So, Dr. Williams, you have had your last ham sandwich, and forget the pigs' knuckles. They are completely off the menu.
At the outset of this column, I mentioned that I am not surprised by the spiritual capitulation of the leader of the Church of England. Since the 1930s, many in the church's leadership have been classic appeasers. They appeased the fascists. Why would we not expect them to appease religious fascists? It is true that as World War II recedes into the mists of time, almost all big-hearted progressives or liberals (or whatever self-congratulatory term they apply to themselves) denounce Nazism and fascism with the utmost ardor. Yet when these odious movements were on the rise, many among the British elite cautioned prudence in dealing with them; and some actually admired them, including members of the royal family and, of course, clerics in the Anglican Church.
inclination of people such as Williams to appease anti-democratic
concoctions such as Shariah law might move the real
defenders of democracy among us to contemplate what causes this appeasement. It
is not tolerance. Williams would not tolerate most forms of bigotry, yet he
tolerates the religious bigotry and authoritarianism of Shariah.
is because he is, as were his antecedents who appeased Hitler, a coward. He is
afraid of rousing himself from the comforts of his
All the offerings and gifts given to others so as to abrogate and short circuit individual responsibility will not excuse one’s individual inaction, and one’s individual disobedience to the word and commandments of Jesus Christ when you stand alone before the Judgment Seat of Christ.
The "bien pensant"
of Williams' variety have lived in a self-contained society for the morally superior for several generations. They do not like
their fellow countrymen who are not a part of that society. In a word, they do
not like conservatives and others who, like conservatives, resist threats to