People people, what a palaver. My bone of contention with this whole episode has not been his opinions - I'm not likely to respect the opinions of a grown man who still believes in a sky fairy, whatever they be - my objection is that his opinions are respected and even sought in the first place (look at the state of the man).Rowan Williams expressed his opinions in an interview with the BBC and at the Royal Courts of Justice. Why? What the fuck has it got to do with him? The issue here is wider than the Islamic community having their own legal processes, which wasn't what the boy Williams was suggesting anyway, the issue here is why religious 'clerics' are afforded such exaggerated levels of respect that their opinions are sought on matters which have very little or nothing to do with their faith.
What does a Bishop know about settling legal disputes? What does a Bishop know about Abortion? Iraq? Binge drinking? Teenage pregnancy? The answer is no more than the next man whose profession is not directly concerned with these areas. Therefore in reality, his opinions are no more valid than my window cleaner's or mine for that matter, but I wasn't asked for my opinion and I'm unlikely to be given the opportunity to voice them anywhere else but here, but an Archbishop will often find himself on a panel somewhere debating these issues and his opinions will be respected.
The general public's hysterics over this issue are not objections to religious ring-fencing, which they should be, they're born out of a distrust and hatred of Islam. Instead of focusing specifically on this one issue with the Daily Mail as the eye of their rage, they really ought to be considering why they allow religion and religious people as a whole to be considered separately from any other demographic in any area of daily life.
You can't soil yourself with rage at the thought of the Muslim community's immunity from due process on the basis that there are no legitimate grounds for their exemption, without pointing out the Archbishop of Canterbury who recommended the idea, has no qualifications from which to base his recommendations and ought not to have been given the platform to voice them. That's what I always say.
What does a Bishop know about settling legal disputes? What does a Bishop know about Abortion? Iraq? Binge drinking? Teenage pregnancy? The answer is no more than the next man whose profession is not directly concerned with these areas. Therefore in reality, his opinions are no more valid than my window cleaner's or mine for that matter, but I wasn't asked for my opinion and I'm unlikely to be given the opportunity to voice them anywhere else but here, but an Archbishop will often find himself on a panel somewhere debating these issues and his opinions will be respected.
The general public's hysterics over this issue are not objections to religious ring-fencing, which they should be, they're born out of a distrust and hatred of Islam. Instead of focusing specifically on this one issue with the Daily Mail as the eye of their rage, they really ought to be considering why they allow religion and religious people as a whole to be considered separately from any other demographic in any area of daily life.
You can't soil yourself with rage at the thought of the Muslim community's immunity from due process on the basis that there are no legitimate grounds for their exemption, without pointing out the Archbishop of Canterbury who recommended the idea, has no qualifications from which to base his recommendations and ought not to have been given the platform to voice them. That's what I always say.
0 comments:
Post a Comment