The Archbishop Speaks
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has stirred up a hornets’ nest this week by suggesting that some aspects of Sharia (Islamic law) are bound to be applied in Britain. Much of the commentary has been wildly inaccurate, so as a public information service here is a link to what he actually said. Congratulations to anyone who reads it all the way through. I certainly haven’t. But of course he is not suggesting that Sharia should be applied to non-Muslims, or that it should override the law of the land in criminal matters. How far it should be recognised by the Courts in civil cases (such as matrimonial disputes) is a complex matter which I will leave to others to discuss. I would however mention that in a wide range of commercial practice it is common for the parties to agree to arbitration instead of legal action, and the findings of arbitration are not only accepted but enforced by the ordinary courts, both nationally and internationally under the New York Convention. Arbitration is commonly based on the ‘custom and practice’ of particular trades or professions, so the idea that that there is only one ‘law of the land’ is oversimplified.
Labels: Islam
Two points worth mentioning. One, just how fair would arbitration be between a male member of a patriarchal dogmatic religion and a female seen as very much a second class citizen by that religion. Two, if one ever wishes wider adoption of sharia in the West, this is the necessary first step. Some of us believe it would be a step too far.
Bleh. Anything but a categorical rejection of a law derived from foreign dogma should result in an official religious leader surrendering his post.
In the old Christian nations, relatively few people take the doctrines of the faith very seriously.
The Archbishop of Canterbury is well-known for being extraordinarily open-minded on questions of doctrine. To the point of being a crypto-atheist, in fact.
When your religion has become a mere series of social interactions, rejecting the religious beliefs of others ceases to be important.
There are three interesting things about this:
0. The greater trend is to try to reduce the amount of conflicting law in the EU, not increase it.
1. Should citizens in general be empowered to create private jurisdictions? For instance, a “limited atheist sharia” might be useful to some for marriages, or a “bin laden-level” tax jurisdiction.
2. Should citizens be able to shop for jurisdictions by other means than geography? If so, to what extent?
In short, this seems like an ad hoc anarcho-capitalistic move by the archbishop. Just generalize it outside of religious groups — and there is no good reason for religions having a privileged position when it comes to law.
To back up Tom’s comment: To argue that this is a natural example or extension of arbitration is a serious categorical mistake about the place of law in a well ordered society. Arbitration agreements, based on custom or other private notions are acceptable within a society precisely because they do not, by so doing, appeal to another system of codified law. Inserting anything other than informal appeals to common sense and fairness in private arbitration agreements is allow for the possibility of another sovereignty into a country. This is unacceptable in a well ordered society governed by the rule of law. The people of England, with their keen understanding of the rule of law, are absolutely right to be up in arms about this.
“I have been commanded to fight against people so long as they do not declare that there is no god but Allah, and he who professed it was guaranteed the protection of his property and life on my behalf except for the right affairs rest with Allah.”
— Muhammad — Sahih Muslim, book 1, Chapter 9
When your religion has become a mere series of social interactions, rejecting the religious beliefs of others ceases to be important.
aside from a few core assertions, islam is to a large extent a regularization of a series of social interactions. as is rabbinical judaism, or even traditional hinduism.* the protestant focus on confession distorts anglo-saxon, and especially american, perceptions of religion (the anglicans have accepted breadth of faith for several centuries). that is why trying to figure out “what they say” is stupid. take a close look at the christian bible and you’d wonder if the religion is filled with genocidal judaizers or pussyish pacifists.
* reform judaism and arya samaj can to some extent be thought of ‘protestanized’ forms of these religions which emphasize a set of beliefs as primary as opposed to the centrality of communal ritual.
to be clear, quotations from scripture illustrates effects, not causes (the sample space is large so the nature of the passage is contingent upon the “point” the individual is trying to make).
It’s also customary for certain substantive agreements, even private ones governed by arbitration, to be disallowed by public policy. Thus I can’t agree to usurious interest or to waive my right to sue for gross negligence. Sharis seems to me largely to be a foreign import, anti-Western in all of its particulars, and something that should be treated contemptuously in the Western World.
It’s also customary for certain substantive agreements, even private ones governed by arbitration, to be disallowed by public policy. Thus I can’t agree to usurious interest or to waive my right to sue for gross negligence. Sharis seems to me largely to be a foreign import, anti-Western in all of its particulars, and something that should be treated contemptuously in the Western World.
right, these are arguments about the boundaries of public norms. the problem today is that the cultural elites (that is, the leftists) in most countries simultaneously promote multiculturalism (different norms) and universal rights (as a way to supersede customary constraints in western society). the first fissures showed up in the 1980s when some feminists began to dispute multiculturalism; but it doesn’t seem like that picked up momentum….
a minor prefiguration of this can be seen in those invalidated state laws where governmental bodies sanctioned the validity of kashrut standards. speaking of which, a ‘good’ resolution of this debate from my perspective would be to force upon muslims what america forced upon jews, a renunciation of the necessary connection between adherence to religious law and identity as a religious jew (ergo, the emergence of reform as a “third way” between orthodoxy and secularism). a sort of petrine revolution which emphasis the importance of the spirit of the law as opposed to the letter of the law.
here is what volokh has to say about it
html#1202446904
http://volokh.com/archives/archive_2008_02_03-2008_02_09.s
I’ve seen it suggested that sharia family law be recognized by Western courts, but the problem is that family law is possibly the most objectionable part of sharia law. The excessive authority of the father over his unmarried daughters is possibly even more objectionable than Muslim husband-wife law.
Young American women are automatically emancipated at age 18, and can petition for emancipation before then. American children can also ask to be removed from the home because of child abuse (not only sexual abuse). And at age 18, a young American woman can marry or date anyone she wants. All these things are abhorrent to followers of sharia law.
I’m usually not hard-core at all about immigration questions compared to most people here, but this is one place where I think we should decide that our customs must override Muslim customs. Immigrant Muslims should be informed of this so that they can figure out how to make whatever adjustments they need to make to their practices.
I’m pretty sure that there are conservative Christians who are sympathetic to sharia law for the same reason that I am completely unsympathetic.
I didn’t intend to stir up a hornets’ nest of my own. My main purpose was just to link to an authoritative source for what the Archbishop really said.
My own opinion is that very little, if anything, of Sharia would be compatible with a western legal system, but I don’t know enough about it to be sure. E.g. commercial disputes between Muslim traders, arising from Islamic teachings on interest and credit, might in principle be suitable for arbitration by Islamic courts.
But I would be concerned that this would be the thin end of the wedge. The problem is that the wedge has already been inserted by the acceptance (in Britain) of orthodox Jewish courts for some purposes.
Kip Esquire defends Rowan Williams while amusingly calling his church “hyper-bigoted” (I wonder which churches he considers mildly bigoted?) here.
Sharia has no hope of remaining confined to the voluntary arbitration of civil disputes. Islamic culture is a medium for repression and backwardness. There can be no compromise with it. Rather than attempting to accommodate them, they should be attempting to expel them and increase native birth rates. Quite frankly, it’s going to come to that one way or the other but I’m afraid things will have to become much more stark before multiculturalism is finally stabbed in the heart.
Razib, until someone can actually counter the bin ladens with traditional reference, what hope is there for dealing with a large portion of muslims? I know you try to be (overly) reasonable about things, but it’s insane to compare the figure of Muhammad to any other religious leader and draw any similar comparison. His model and example are hideous and they are for all time!
Because some self IDing muslims don’t do what his example was, and rather incorporate the self evident truths that contradict what the teachings of islam are, doesn’t mean that the tradition and example of this “prophet” don’t lead to backwardness … and will continue to do so for a large majority. Herego the problem.
Razib, until someone can actually counter the bin ladens with traditional reference, what hope is there for dealing with a large portion of muslims? I know you try to be (overly) reasonable about things, but it’s insane to compare the figure of Muhammad to any other religious leader and draw any similar comparison. His model and example are hideous and they are for all time!
no it isn’t. the majority of muslims are semi-literate, they don’t know the hideous aspects of his model. that’s why it’s dumb to harp on the passages from the koran; you’re dealing with people who barely have any literary comprehension. the literature is just a consequence of a host of structural problems with backward muslim societies; not a cause. the boers didn’t dominate the blacks they encountered during their trek into the interior because of their knowledge of old testament passages where the jews subjugated the peoples of canaan, they emphasized those passages because they served as appropriate templates for their relations with the local which were obviously going to go in a certain direction anyway. the divergence between dutch reformed religion in the netherlands and that in south africa among white afrikaners had nothing to do with different translations of the bible, it had to do with selective interpretations based on their local circumstances.
quoting passages from the koran adds zero substantive value to the discussion. it does acknowledge that islam is a rather primitive religion in terms of the practice and outlooking of the typical muslim: but we already knew that, right? if you want to harp on that (which, i actually enjoy doing in other circumstances and on other blogs), you can always go to LGF.
Fair enough, I disagree, and I’ll keep it short: How do you propose to stamp out these justifications? With religion people are trying to find out WHAT’S TRUE (God) about the world. It seems to me that a large portion (isn’t there? at least one that affects worldly problems?) of muslims are seeking what’s true and they find that the examples given are exactly within the directives of this religion. You hoping that muslims can’t, don’t or won’t read does nothing to help any bad/constant actions from going away. Furthermore, the direct correlation with education and suicide bombing goes directly against your points! Someone is “getting it”. Your points scream naivete to me.
With religion people are trying to find out WHAT’S TRUE (God) about the world.
no, i believe you have a wrong model of religion. don’t confuse what people say with what they do or with how their mind really operates (this applies in the generality, not just with religion).
of muslims are seeking what’s true and they find that the examples given are exactly within the directives of this religion.
as an empirical matter very few religious people become extremely religious through individualized exegetical sojourns (the ones who do are prone to write books and become famous “inspirations”). it has to do with sociological dynamics more often (i.e., network effects on the microscale, the dislocation of local traditions and customs on the macroscale).
Furthermore, the direct correlation with education and suicide bombing goes directly against your points!
no it doesn’t. the anthropology of suicide bombing strongly suggests that textual justification is added on as a gloss (not to mention the strong association with technical educational backgrounds which would preclude formal study of religious texts in any case). that explains how most of the suicide bombers in lebanon in the early 80s weren’t even particularly religious, and at least one was a christian female teacher. of course you know that the tamil tigers are to a large extent a marxist organization (personal communication from sri lankan tamils tells me that a disproportionate number of core activists are actually from catholic tamil backgrounds as opposed to hindu tamil backgrounds, but i don’t know if this is true). people may use justifications from their religious zeitgeist, but that is neither necessary nor sufficient (consider the strong analogy between the behavior of the kharijites during the early caliphal period and anarchists through eastern europe. the justification for the behaviors differ a great deal, but there are strong structural similarities which channeled their motives and responses).
How do you propose to stamp out these justifications?
in the west it has to be a kulturkampf. no compromise on issues like sharia. human psychology is flexible. muslims want to remain muslim, so they just need to be forced to realize that the “true islam” is actually a relatively protestantized confessional religion with a weaker communal and ritual aspect. you can already see it when lay professionals in the united states make arminian arguments about free will without realizing that they contradict the mainline of sunni orthodoxy. the ‘americanist’ movement in catholicism and ‘reform’ judaism are good models. both these groups sincerely believe they are ‘true’ and ‘real’ manifestations of their religious tradition. from the outside it doesn’t really matter so long as the cultural forms map onto to the dominant societal norms (though rejected in the early 20th century by the vatican, one can make the argument that vatican ii was in part a victory for the americanists).
disassociation from the muslim world and reduced immigration is also part of the project. i doubt that there is anything the west can do to “shock” the muslim world out of its current metastable consensus.
“I’m pretty sure that there are conservative Christians who are sympathetic to sharia law for the same reason that I am completely unsympathetic.”
John, although the Archbishop of Canterbury is probably not classed as a conservative Christian, I think that the only reason he said this is because he is secretly (not so secretly?) favora of anything that privileges some form of religion. Since his religious expression is so etiolated, and he has no guts or balls or courage to speak up directly on his own religion’s behalf, he hides behinds Islam’s skirts. (Double entendre fully entendred.) I think he hopes that in privileging some aspects of Islam, C of E will follow.
Needless to say, I think that any establishment of Islamic religion in Britain will either hasten Britain’s decline as a European nation, or stir up group hate. Bad idea either way.
Really. All I have to add is, “what the hell.”
John, although the Archbishop of Canterbury is probably not classed as a conservative Christian, I think that the only reason he said this is because he is secretly (not so secretly?) favora of anything that privileges some form of religion. Since his religious expression is so etiolated, and he has no guts or balls or courage to speak up directly on his own religion’s behalf, he hides behinds Islam’s skirts. (Double entendre fully entendred.) I think he hopes that in privileging some aspects of Islam, C of E will follow.
there is a secondary tendency among some european religionists, who are a weak social force, to look to islam as a way to shore up the numbers & status of religion as a whole as a force in society. honestly, i would not be surprised if evangelical flavors of christianity start to become more popular in areas where there are many muslims in europe. i believe there is already some social science data on this (see god’s continent by phil jenkins).
I know you try to be (overly) reasonable about things
two points
1) i don’t like to shit in my own swimming pool. i don’t hold back from baiting & taunting muslims and religionists in other contexts when i feel it is appropriate.
2) i try to be informed about things. most commentary on islam isn’t very informed. i find repetition of uninformed commentary tiresome because when i want get a “feel good” dose of anti-islam it’s just one click away. most opinions from anti-muslims, pro-muslims (who aren’t muslim) and muslims isn’t informed by the full range of psychological, anthropological and historical research. for muslims i don’t think one can expect objectivity, they view their religion as True. but for non-muslims i think it gets tiresome to repeat contentless mantras about islam being a religion of peace or a religion of war in the totality. it’s just phenomena, like anything else, and it can be understood, more or less, with some effort.
“there is a secondary tendency among some european religionists, who are a weak social force, to look to islam as a way to shore up the numbers & status of religion as a whole as a force in society.”
Yes indeed, and this is exactly what is going on with respect to the arch bishop’s championing of Sharia.
What’s outrageous, nutty and and downright upside down bizarre about this exercise is that we are at a point where the [BOLD] Archbishop of Canterbury [/BOLD] isn’t even a religionist if that term implies an honest, vigorous and vehement belief system.
He’s just thought of as a joke, someone lower than the level of a social worker, or a kindegarten teacher. His status is like some sort of domestic worker – a nanny, without the authority. He pleads. He is the leader of a shell of a church, in a country that’s nominally Christian to the extent that they are frightened of the alternatives.
I have read about the Archbishop’s statements on a bunch of different websites and its no surprise that GNXP has the most sane post and mostly sane comments.Volokh has done a good job as well.
A few points:
(1)If there is ever an implementation of Sharia in the West, we can get a rough idea on how it might play out by looking at the system used in India, where Indian Muslims settle matters of personal law in accordance to the Sharia. It excludes matters of Criminal law and Commerical transactions and only covers issues of divorce, alimony, child custody and inheritance. The adjudication is actually done on Common Law principles by secular Courts and by mostly Hindu judges.
(2) In the US, some of the devout and high SES Muslims already follow the Sharia in matters of inheritance via trusts and wills and on divorce via pre-nups. In fact in some of the more savvy mosques, the standard Islamic marriage contract is laid out in the form of a pre-nup which meet the requirements of a pre-nup for that state.
(3) There will be a serious First Amendment problem if the ‘Indian’ model is ever implemented in the US.
there is a secondary tendency among some european religionists, who are a weak social force, to look to islam as a way to shore up the numbers & status of religion as a whole as a force in society.
Secondary? Some? Uh, the vast majority of those people wish for Muslim (and Christian third world) immigration exactly for that reason and, despite the fantasies of some anti-Muslims, the infatuation is mutual. We get those imams demanding that Muslims vote for the Christian parties, complaining about Muslims who vote for the handouts instead of the moral values. (And hey, we have an upcoming Islamic party and the leader was just on the news promising close co-operation with the Christian party. They would get it, should they ever get a candidate through.)
I have a hard time understanding American atheists who have a hard time grasping this. Most religious people in Europe from the Pope to some average peasant favour Muslims over secular leftists or nationalists. For any political movement that wants more sensible immigration, the Christians are the most solid enemies. Secular leftists support vast Muslim immigration, because they’re wrong about most Muslims, thus, they can be converted. Pious Christians support vast Muslim immigration, because they’re right about most Muslims, thus they can’t be reasoned with.
jaakeli, i don’t deny the tendency…but it seems that many center-right parties (e.g., CDU/CSU) are more immigration-hawkish than the socialist parties. are you saying that the real anti-immigrant parties are not religious at all? i’m to understand that vlams belaang and what not have a strong catholic tinge.
Now you’re talking about some of the big parties which are really coalitions (like the two American parties). They’re no more “Christian” than the Social Democrat parties are “socialist”. I’m talking about the smaller truly “religionist” parties where everything starts from basic religious premises, parties that really are built on a solid basis instead of a coalition of bases (where the Christians always lose to the immigration restrictionists, which is usually the majority of all people). Not every country has a Christian one and Germany and strongly German-influenced countries are special: they have rules designed to keep small parties from forming, because they believe that a reason for the Weimar catastrophe was the chaos with a huge number of small & nutty parties.
Eg. Finland has a Christian party like that with about 5 % of the vote, which guarantees parliamentary seats and occasional representation in government. They’re small because their base is in the really religious people, so it exposes the actual Christian perspectives. Because they don’t have to be in a coalition with the anti-welfare right, the strong defense right, the tough-on-crime right or the immigration right etc, they’re usually exactly what you’d expect Christians to be: above all else welfarist and lenient on actual problems and threats while still eager to promote all sorts of absurd rules on irrelevant “immoral” behaviour. They’re easily fooled by immigrants who look pious and concerned about immorality: what those immigrants actually do is irrelevant (which, of course, is completely consistent with their evaluation of locals, so it’s not like they’re hypocritically hypocritical…). A lot of their supporters are enchanted by the idea of reverse missionarism coming with immigration.
And I haven’t even mentioned the church (the *state church*!), which has often been caught sheltering illegal immigrants (sometimes people who are getting deported for serious crimes, but hey, Christians forgive and of course once the Christians have forgiven something it means the rest of us have no right to jugde those people).
Oh and of course you can also look at all the various small anti-immigrant parties. This is a bit problematic, since if a party makes immigration their main issue, they’re really vulnerable to accusations of racism and they tend to end up utterly marginal (and full of nutty racists…), but those parties that do so are generally not religious (unless you count the neo-paganish nationalists that you’ll find in some countries).
Vlaams Belang won’t work for many reasons (the most obvious one is that it’s a nationalist party for a group that defines separate nationhood from the neighbours who speak the same language through religion). Finland does have a traditionalist party (another about 5 % party) that generally opposes immigration and has an explicit goal of “Christian values”, but that’s because they’re the anti-everything-new/foreign party instead of a real nationalist or immigration reform party (only mildly mockingly, they think trading with the foreigners is dangerously corrupting) – and a bunch of very strongly anti-immigration microparties which are full of nutty racists (but still, they really aren’t religious…).
Pim Fortuyn was probably the purest anti-Muslim-immigration star in all of Europe, and, well, duh. (But then, he wouldn’t have been able to speak about immigration so freely if he hadn’t been a hallowed member of a minority, so there’s a reason why a sudden anti-immigration star couldn’t be aligned with religious conservatives.)
i wonder if there is a ‘general social survey’ for europe?
“there is a secondary tendency among some european religionists, who are a weak social force, to look to islam as a way to shore up the numbers & status of religion as a whole as a force in society.”
I would emphasize “secondary”. The Archbishop isn’t terribly christian. Rather, his comments are just a sign that new categories of people (“mystical-minded women” being the most prominent one) are taking over in the churches of Europe.
Their faith is not hardcore by any means, but is very milquetoast – adapted to new sociopolitical realities. Their pro-Islamic activism is merely an outgrowth of their general “progressive” activism. PC in short.
If some of them crow about “the growing power of religion”, etc. in connection with Islam, it’s most likely just an attempt at dressing up their slow retreat and cowed status in society as something slightly more glorious.
“This is a bit problematic, since if a party makes immigration their main issue, they’re really vulnerable to accusations of racism and they tend to end up utterly marginal.”
Aye – any such party must run a strict anti-nut policy if they want to succeed more than temporarily. The best example is probably the Danish People’s Party, that’s now achieved bipartisan recognition and wide influence.
Rather, his comments are just a sign that new categories of people (“mystical-minded women” being the most prominent one) are taking over in the churches of Europe.
what are the sex ratios for various churches? do you know? almost all religions tend to have higher proportions of female believers, but there is variation in sex ratio.
Razib:
artikel=1859093
Haven’t done any extensive European data collection, but here is a summary of the Swedish situation:
Church visitors: 38 percent of women, 30 percent of men.
Note that this is a non-precise measure of church activity, and that the actual disparity is likely to be even larger among more active members. That in turn leads us to factoid number two:
“Two out of three priests in training are middle-aged women
A middle-aged, single woman with children. That is the typical priest fresh from training (in sweden) today.”
The actual figures for trained priests in the last decade (1998-2008):
591 women
336 men
Sources: (For those versed in swedish)
http://www.dagen.se/dagen/Article.aspx?ID=131714
http://www.tidningenspira.com/nyhet.php?archive=1&id=214
http://www.sr.se/dalarna/nyheter/artikel.asp?
The politico-religious doctrines of these single, middle-aged spiritually searching women aren’t very difficult to figure out, it should be added.
ok, yeah. mainline churches in the USA also have a lot of female clergy.
The politico-religious doctrines of these single, middle-aged spiritually searching women aren’t very difficult to figure out, it should be added.
the key is spiritual searching. non-searching middle aged women have been the bedrock for center-right conservative parties across much of the world (especially catholic countries).
“the key is spiritual searching. non-searching middle aged women have been the bedrock for center-right conservative parties across much of the world (especially catholic countries).”
Women outnumbering men 2-1 among new priests does seem to be a very significant shift. (In Sweden the priesthood is still majority-male, or in parity at least, but not for very much longer.)
The “searching” part is very easy to glean from actual church policy and theology. Old-school chrisianity is is certainly not.
Readability update:
“Old-school christianity it is certainly not”
Dobeln, that may be the new mainstream, but there are still lots of real Christians and those I’ve known are just in love with Muslims. People like the Christians in my home town who would close their eyes, visibly shaken, if I tried to show them an open page of The Origin of Species.
For women the main reason for belonging to the church is their need for conventionality – you can get mysticism anywhere. For men, the main reason for belonging to the church is that first their girlfriends tell them that they’ll be dumped if there’s no chance of a big wedding in a church, then their wives tell them that they’re not getting any if there’s not going to be a baptism ceremony, then their wives tell them that they’re not getting any if there’s not going to be a confirmation ceremony and finally once their kids are adults they’re old enough to worry about where they’ll be buried and too old to care about leaving the church.
Back when I was still interested in “proselytizing”, the most effective way to get guys to consider dumping the church was to tell them that they can still get all that if their girl belongs to the church – they should be, well, men and tell their girlfriends that if they want that shit, they’re going to have to take the responsibility for it. (My parents pulled this one on me, too – dad’s not in, but mom insisted on the church “because you’re supposed to”, making me take religion classes and all that traumatically moronic stuff until I was 15. Argh.)
the netherlands has a conservative calvinist “bible belt.” anyone know about them? test case….
Just a few more reflections:
- It’s pretty certain that these new female priests are not flooding into more conservative independent congregations. (Where conservative women do have much more sway)
- The general observed pattern is Sweden is roughly: The more liberal the congregation, the more friendly it is to Islam.
- A litmus test here is the stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. While, for instance, the CoS has taken a strongly pro-palestinian stance, the independent churches are generally more pro-Israeli.
Be serious. If the Archbishop has his way, in 30 years all of the UK will be under Shariah. In criminal law too. That he hasn’t suggested bringing the UK under Shariah is because he’s just biding his time. The UK should begin deporting those who advocate Shariah.
This was a helpful exchange of views – and the link to Volockh was useful too.
But my sense of things is that the burst of criticism against Rowan William was really about the framing of the AB of C’s discussion, rather than its (highly deconstructionist) content.
It is a visceral reaction against the general trend of what RW is proposing, rather than against the elaborately-qualified specific proposals.
In the UK there is emerging evidence of (possibly, indeed probably) hundreds of ‘honour killings’ of young British women in relation to their sexual behaviour and choice of partners (and the terrorization, no doubt, of thousands more young women as a result); and of (probably) a widespread practice of forced-marriages.
It is in this stark and violent context that Rowan Williams is subtly-discussing the pros and cons of increased ‘compromises’ or accomodation-with sharia law in relation to marriage.
In the UK there is emerging evidence of (possibly, indeed probably) hundreds of ‘honour killings’ of young British women in relation to their sexual behaviour and choice of partners
Could you link to the evidence please. Hundred seems like a lot. Is it over a year or decades?
check this:theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/sharia_comes _for_the_archbisho.php
http://rossdouthat.
The Netherlands has a conservative calvinist “bible belt.”
Probably where my Dutch ancestors came from. The Dutch who came to the US in the XIXc (Michigan and Iowa) were hyper-religious (Abgescheidenists = Separatists, oddly mimicking the Separatist Puritans who passed through Holland on the way to the US.)
I am skeptical of the claims of forced psychiatric imprisonment. The US (eventually) adopted some rudimentary protections for psychiatric patients. It is in fact quite difficult for someone to be forcibly incarcerated for an extended period of time, most especially so if you don’t have all of the physicians involved in the process conspiring together. How much weaker could the laws be in the UK?
The general observed pattern is Sweden is roughly: The more liberal the congregation, the more friendly it is to Islam.
Those who leave the Lutheran church are already non-orthodox, so they’re likely to be liberal or simply converts to another religion. Conservative Lutherans will refuse to leave the church, because they view themselves as the true ones resisting heresy. In Finland, this has been going on for decades, with the same results (female priests are the new idea, so why would their opponents leave the church instead of demanding that the liberals start up a new church with their new rules? and so on). Really conservative Lutherans will not leave the church, so you can’t figure out their feelings by examining various congregations.
A litmus test here is the stance on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. While, for instance, the CoS has taken a strongly pro-palestinian stance, the independent churches are generally more pro-Israeli.
Being pro-Israel/pro-Arab is a very bad indicator of attitudes towards Muslims, since basically the only reasons people in northern Europe ever get interested in the issue is either religion or left activism/buying Muslim votes. As much as I love to mock Christians, in this issue they’re usually an actually informed group, since they’re genuinely interested in Israel (often traveling in the region, beyond just the beaches and the pyramids) and thus unlikely to be reflexively pro/anti-anything (which, of course, means getting called “pro-Israel”, if you live in Sweden…).
Re: ‘Honour killings’ in the UK.
for_debauchery
in response to Pagal_Aadmi_
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/honour-killings-father-uncle-brother-killer-453432.html
or google honour.killings UK and police.
The assumption is that since the UK police are investigating 122 possible honour killings from its past cases; this is likely to represent an underestimate.
Recent reports suggest 1 ‘honour killing’ per month in the UK –
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/lancashire/7191983.stm
This is in the context of an estimate of 17 000 incidents of ‘honour violence’ against women per year:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/a-question-of-honour-police-say-17000-women-are-victims-every-year-780522.html
This would be expected, since actual murder is likely to be only the tip of an iceberg of violence, and intimidation based-on the (plausible) threat of violence.
“Those who leave the Lutheran church are already non-orthodox, so they’re likely to be liberal or simply converts to another religion.”
I would dispute this – at least in the case of Sweden. The state church is now actively liberal on virtually all controversial theological and political issues. From Israel to gay marriage to the existence of hell, to issue of women ministers, the CoS is decidedly liberal.
And the primary recourse of conservatives is to get the hell out of Dodge, into the various independent congregations.
“Why would their opponents leave the church instead of demanding that the liberals start up a new church with their new rules?”
Because the liberals have seized control of all the important institutions of power within the church. Meaning conservatives are not really in a position to demand anything.
“Being pro-Israel/pro-Arab is a very bad indicator of attitudes towards Muslims, since basically the only reasons people in northern Europe ever get interested in the issue is either religion or left activism/buying Muslim votes.”
Well, the CoS is very much into left activism these days, standing up for “the oppressed”, etc. And groups that consider Palestinians to be oppressed generally see Muslims in general as “oppressed” too.
And yes, the more religious congregations such as Pingstkyrkan, etc. are indeed into Israel in part due to their religion (in part due to more conservative politics). But how does that contradict my model?
Razib, again, your elitism and intelligence doesn’t counteract the reality of what people see in the word, much less the information that you can get one click away (like ahadith and salafi/wahhabi arguments). We aren’t isolated. You refer to fringe groups that ultimately are past occurences and that continue no more (tamil tigers and one female “christian bomber” from lebanon. I don’t see that as real, practical or relevant. The reason that we are talking about this is that IS a big problem. Not just a passing situation in the night like all of your historical examples. Islam is reinventing its self in its own image due exactly to the now easy spread of its texts and traditions to the whole world. Plenty of countries citizens just within the last 5-10 years can account to this (Indonesia, Maldives, etc.). Without censorship how can we stop the appeal to obvious, mainline, orthodox texts that by all measures are indispensable to understanding a text that no muslim group has ever said ISN’T literally true? Do you think it’s a small problem?
The state church is now actively liberal on virtually all controversial theological and political issues.
i thought it was disestablished? so it still gets tax money though?
Razib, again, your elitism and intelligence doesn’t counteract the reality of what people see in the word
reading and studying anthropology will tell you what people see in the word. your confidence about what you believe doesn’t make it reality. i know how and what muslim fundamentalists in the third world say through first hand experience and i know how textually grounded they are. again, not so much. but you’re pretty strong in your faith about what you believe, so what’s the point? i will remind readers too stupid to remember this that most of the original works of islam are in an archaic and unintelligible form of arabic. IOW, they need to be translated, and some people might intuit that translation requires some creativity and selectivity. those of you who believe in universal translators will dismiss this parameter though ;-)
(p.s., just so the oh-so intelligent GNXP readers know, most people are dumb, and they don’t read books)
“i thought it was disestablished? so it still gets tax money though?”
True, since 2000. There is some state influence still, though. (A small tax still goes to the church even if you are not a member, to cover burial costs, etc.)
Actually, writing “state church” was an old reflex – the term “statskyrkan” dies hard. Rolls off the tounge nicely, etc. ;)
well, germany has that weird system of voluntary church taxes, so i thought you guys might have gone hybrid….
Razib, again, yes, I’m aware of guys like Luxenbourg and studies of these texts. The problem with this is that there is already a 1400 year mainstream precedent for what these things say. And if you go back to the “source” which is what all religious people do and have most faith and trust in (remember Mo saying “Those who come after me are the next best, and so on, and so on generation by generation” — you know your ahadith) then you’ll find that it doesn’t matter what ACTUALLY happened (like sex with Aisha at age 9) but rather what is believed. These people think this book is literal. The ahadith confirm it with even more sensical stories. The first biographers ARE ALWAYS going to be more touted or trusted than you or me.
Please, Razib, reinvent it! I wish you could, but you’ll be killed by even suggesting a new interp? How can you just write off all these points. Beacuse you are a smart western person who knows how crooked it is, having been born in a place of freedom and self criticism? It’s hysterical, really
And if you go back to the “source” which is what all religious people do and have most faith and trust in
no. your understanding of religion as a psychological or anthropological phenomenon is simply wrong, at least modally. that’s the root of our disagreement.
Rather than attempting to accommodate them, they should be attempting to expel them and increase native birth rates.
This worked so well in Serbia, didn’t it?
With Kosovo? Westerners are completely unaware of the history, but they do know that, say, the English were in England before any Muslim groups. Russians are better aware of the history of Serbia and I’m guessing you know their opinion – why would you assume that Westerners would not react like them? Besides, intimidation and violence work very well as long as the immigrant group is a minority in the area, as it has worked eg. for Russians just miles from Finland (and some places in Finland have come pretty close to boiling over, too).
Randy, you’re Canadian, so you probably don’t have any clue how far into looneyland immigration policy has gone in much of Europe. In fact, we just heard that our Minister of Migration refuses to even comment suggestions about copying Canada’s immigration policy. No mention why, but it’s hardly surprising, considering that Canadian policy is a favourite “racist” target regularily attacked by the ideological multiculturalists. You’re giving “points” to people for having useful skills! That’s DISCRIMINATING based on required skills. Not only that, but you also believe that you can *measure human value* based on how much people are needed in the capitalist economy! You racist bigots!
This is the orthodoxy championed by the left and the right-wing but multiculturalist Swedish party. The normal right is so intimidated by charges of racism that they can barely suggest even anything as innocent as copying Canadian policy. The only people who dare to speak against the madness publically are far-right crackpots. Of course, third world immigration so far has been a spectacular disaster even with the tiny numbers we have and the future is so utterly predictable that it gives me a headache (we’ll let the far-left crackpots lead us to disaster and then we’ll vote for the far-right crackpots in an attempt to cancel things out with another disaster).