Here's an article I submitted to the Epigram, where I tried to say as much as possible while saying as little as possible. I wonder why it didn't get printed, sarcasm off:
Introducing religion into a debate on politics or society is always a bad idea. It runs the nearly sure-fire risk of turning an honest and contemplative debate into a slew of visceral reactions for the hot-headed and bemused head scratching for the sceptical. Such was the predictable result from Archbishop of Cantebury Rowan Williams’ controversial request to introduce some aspects of Sharia into the English law code.
Though Williams made clear that he only meant certain aspects of Sharia, the backlash was swift and severe: denunciation of Britain’s ‘lax’ attitude towards social integration (read: assimilation) of immigrants, as well as calls for Williams’ resignation were popular responses. As well, many utterly repudiated any introduction of Sharia, echoing the European Court of Human Rights’ declaration that ‘sharia is incompatible with the fundamental principles of democracy.’ But more to our point, the apparent double-standard through which Williams favoured those ‘ornery’ Muslims, was lambasted: why not talk about including Hindu law, or Sikh law?
However, visceral reactions aside, as well as to benefit those poor bemused head scratchers, it would be keen to clarify what Williams actually meant. Since English Sharia courts already operate for many matters, the Archbishop’s comment seem either redundant, or indeed like a breech on equality before the law. But those who bothered to pause from their busy daily routine to actually listen to what Williams’ said may have noticed something peculiar: the aim of his comments were not to further fragment society, but rather ‘to achieve social cohesion.’
The underlying message of Williams’ interview was a call for the introduction of a civic republicanism to English society, a call started by Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks. Sacks’ astute observation that technological innovation makes previously relied upon methods of social integration obsolete, is the foundation of his latest book, A Home We Build Together. This proposed home is based on a strong sense of community underlying the basis of society.
Such societies already exist. The United States, though thoroughly an immigrant country, is bound, however abstractly, by the America dream, and a history of that much maligned patriotism. France is bound by ardent secularism as well as a robust national character. But England is neither America nor France, and should not adopt their models. Rugged individualism, a sense of earnest pride in queen and country and possibly repressive measures against freedom of conscience are anathematic to England.
English society can no longer be bound by a half-hearted disbelief in the Church of England, nor nostalgic musings on the glorious days of the British Empire. As immigration increases, the national spirit must necessarily be divorced from an unshared past. What then will bind English society together?
Within this context the Archbishop’s comments are explicable. His first suggestion is to break down that initial barrier between society at large and any segment therein. By actively respecting the latent culture of newcomers, England can hope to avoid their ghettoisation. Being fully Muslim should not be an impediment to being fully English. However, if the only space that society grants for religious expression is the private sphere, then a retreat into that sphere by the religious would be wholly unsurprising.
Williams’ suggestion is hardly limited to Sharia: he calls for English law to countenance the Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality vis a vi the adoption controversy. His call is for that already ensconced right of conscientious objection to be uniformly respected by the law. Far from calling for multiple sets of law, Williams is calling for the law to be sympathetic to multiple sets of people.
By being able to fully realize one’s self as a Muslim, a Hindu or a Catholic, resistance to being British will break down. All one can do is hope that we will determine what that is.
