Queen anxious
The controversy stirred up by the Archbishop of Canterbury - in his remark that Islamic law has a place - shows no signs of abating. The Telegraph is reporting this has the Queen worried:
The Queen is distressed by the row over Islamic law which she fears threatens to undermine the authority of the Archbishop of Canterbury and damage the Church of England.Meanwhile, Simon Barrow has something very interesting to say:According to a royal source, the Queen has not expressed any view on whether Dr Rowan Williams was unwise to say it was "unavoidable" that aspects of the sharia legal system could be incorporated into English law.
But as Supreme Governor of the Church of England she has been dismayed by the controversy that the remarks have generated at such a difficult period in the history of the Established Church, which faces possible schism over the issue of homosexual clergy.
The Queen, who approved the appointment of Dr Williams on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, takes her role as Supreme Governor very seriously.
One royal source said: "I have no idea what her view is on what the Archbishop said about sharia law. But the Queen is worried, coming at such a difficult time in the Church's history, that the fallout may sap the authority of the Church."
...
According to a royal source, the Queen has not expressed any view on whether Dr Rowan Williams was unwise to say it was "unavoidable" that aspects of the sharia legal system could be incorporated into English law.But as Supreme Governor of the Church of England she has been dismayed by the controversy that the remarks have generated at such a difficult period in the history of the Established Church, which faces possible schism over the issue of homosexual clergy.
The Queen, who approved the appointment of Dr Williams on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, takes her role as Supreme Governor very seriously.
One royal source said: "I have no idea what her view is on what the Archbishop said about sharia law. But the Queen is worried, coming at such a difficult time in the Church's history, that the fallout may sap the authority of the Church."
What he is saying is that the UK is becoming a ‘unitary secular state’, that this poses problems for communities of religious conviction in certain areas, that historic Anglican privilege which has afforded wider protection for religion per se can no longer be justified on its own terms, and that the solution is therefore a broader set of exemptions within the law for all faith groups.Emphasis added. Read it all.The example he cites is conscience opt-outs within the medical service over abortion, but what lies behind this is the desire of Catholic agencies to refuse gay adoptions, and a raft of exemptions from equalities legislation in employment and public service provision.
Personally, I find it rather offensive that the head of my Church is telling me that to be a Christian is to require opt-outs from fairness and justice, when the message of the Gospel would seem to many of us to point in exactly the opposite direction. But that objection, and the feelings of anger that the non-religious may equally feel, miss the point. The Archbishop is contending, as a matter of liberality and pluralism, that special treatment is required for religion.
Where does this argument come from? The backdrop is that an Anglican settlement (rooted in the authorisation and subjection of an Established Church to the Crown) is beginning to give way to a more diverse ‘multi-faith’ one in the minds of those who wish to defend their position, but who are running out of excuses in a plural society.

Andrew Pierce has his own perspective on this debate which is in the public domain:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/01/27/do2706.xml
even if it isn't quite as well known as that of the Daily Telegraph!
Simon's points however are well taken: how might the ABC's advocacy of "transformative jurisdiction in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters" work within the legal system of the land?
Posted by Deirdre Good
|
February 13, 2008 8:41 AM
From Jefferson's Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom:
"that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry"
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_vsrf.html
Posted by John B. Chilton
|
February 13, 2008 10:23 AM
Hmmm, does that quote from Jefferson mean that we are forbidden to waive our rights when our religious opinion leads us to wish to waive specific rights in specific circumstances? If it does it would seem to disrespect religious conviction as such. It could also be a violation of the free exercise clause from the Bill of Rights (not that that matters in England.)
Jon
Posted by Jonathan Galliher
|
February 13, 2008 12:15 PM
Don't we have a hint of transformative jurisdiction in civil law related to conscientious objection? A citizen of draft age (or in the military) can apply for conscientious objection on religious grounds IF his/her church demands it (the 'peace churches') or allows that it's a legitimate expression of conscience (the Episcopal Church's stand).
And don't some of the U.S. court fights over property with breakaway parishes and dioceses hinge on state courts acknowledgment (or not) of national church canons authority over state corporations (parishes and dioceses)?
Posted by Donald Schell
|
February 13, 2008 12:40 PM