Further to my first post on this thread, Andrew Anthony has an excellent piece in to-day's Guardian. I had suspected that Rowan Williams is really trying to bolster his own religion by bolstering all other religions as he wants to avoid the fully secular state that so many of us desire. (can't find a link so am quoting the article)
'' The job of the public intellectual - and the Archbishop of Canterbury must inevitably deal with the public - is to take complex issues and make them accessible. Rowan Williams seems to specialise in doing the reverse: making the simple incomprehensible. And when misunderstanding follows, he and his supporters duly blame the media.
It does seem odd that the archbishop has taken such an unblinkingly pragmatic approach to sharia courts - they're here, so let's accommodate them - while managing to maintain a virginal shock at the existence of the 24-hour news media. But leaving aside the over-reaction, the media ought to be congratulated for speedily unpicking the two key points from Dr Williams's tightly knotted argument: 1) that the adoption of some aspect of sharia law seemed "unavoidable"; and 2) that the idea of one law for everybody was a "bit of a danger".
All the subclauses in the world can't disguise the intention that underpins these positions. In seeking to incorporate a disputed deity's authority (which, by the way, it is blasphemous to question) into the common law, and by challenging the principle of equality under the law, Dr Williams launched a strategic attack on secularism.
He and his supporters argue that we should cherry-pick the nice parts of sharia that "converge" with British law. But if we're only talking about the civil aspects of sharia that are supposedly compatible - and here we have to ignore such inconveniences as gender inequality, forced marriages and polygamy - why does the law have to change?
The answer is that the law, as it stands, is merely the creation of a democratic parliament, and judicial case law. It is not God's law. And that is the crux of the matter. It has nothing to do with realism or inclusivity or tolerance.
If Dr Williams was seriously concerned about constitutional law and religious justice, he would look at the dwindling number of his followers in this country and call for the disestablishment of the Church of England.
Much of the grievance members of other religions and denominations currently feel stems from the privilege - state endorsement, parliamentary representation - that Dr Williams's church conspicuously enjoys. Who can deny that the church's special treatment looks increasingly absurd in our multicultural society? Even Dr Williams himself has acknowledged that Britain is not a Christian country in terms of "active churchgoers". Therefore the choice on offer is either to downgrade the Church of England, or upgrade other religions. Dr Williams has made his preference obvious.
He should think again. If he really wants the hateful media off his back, he ought to separate his church from the British state. Then his pronouncements would more properly be a matter only for him and his vanishing congregation.''