You have commented 274 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Britain
Rowan Williams: Terrorists can have serious moral goals
2003-10-14
Some people actually think that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a serious thinker and theologian:
Rowan was much funnier when he was teamed with Martin on Laugh-InThe Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, yesterday urged America to recognise that terrorists can "have serious moral goals". He said that while terrorism must always be condemned, it was wrong to assume its perpetrators were devoid of political rationality. "It is possible to use unspeakably wicked means to pursue an aim that is shared by those who would not dream of acting in the same way, an aim that is intelligible or desirable." He said that in ignoring this, in its criticism of al-Qa’eda, America "loses the power of self-criticism and becomes trapped in a self-referential morality."
Translation: the United States shouldn’t fight against Al-Qaeda. It should realized that while terrorism, "must always be condemned," nevertheless Al-Qaeda and other groups like them can "have serious moral goals" as well as "an aim that is intelligible or desirable." If the US doesn’t do that it "loses the power of self-criticism and becomes trapped in a self-referential morality" which presumably means that Americans will be "trapped" by the idea that killing innocent American men, women and children is a bad thing. Then there’s this:
I'm really tired of the self-criticism thing. I'm ready to see piles of beturbanned corpses, and it won't bother me if they're hideously mutilated.
Dr Williams said that no government should act as its own judge on whether to launch military action against a rogue state. "Violence is not to be undertaken by private persons," he said. "If a state or administration acts without due and visible attention to agreed international process, it acts in a way analogous to a private person. It purports to be judge of its own interest."
Translation: on September 12, 2001, George W. Bush should have called for an emergency session of the UN Security Council and asked that body what it would permit the United States to do about the murder of 3,000 of its citizens. Which presumably means that we’d still be waiting for the sanctions on Afghanistan to take effect.
The USA, last I looked, was a sovreign state, not a "private person." As a sovreign state, to "provide for the common defense," it has a responsibility to judge its interests — most especially when it comes to protecting its citizens.
Posted by:Christopher Johnson

#10  Unfortunately, he does. A self-described "hairy lefty," he represents the classic pattern of left-of-centre infection and corruption of a once-respected institution. Once they establish control of their host, there is often no stopping until their host's credibility resources are consumed, and/or it is destroyed. Other examples besides the CoE include AI, the BBC, the NYT (and many other newspapers), the UN...

If the CoE wants to retain some respect, it needs to put the brakes on the sort of melt-down morality espoused by Williams. He has no concept of leadership, just reactionism.
Posted by: Bulldog   2003-10-15 4:16:10 AM  

#9  Is he representative of what passes for religion in Great Britain? Oh, poor old England!
Posted by: Uncle Joe   2003-10-14 11:45:02 PM  

#8  The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, yesterday urged America to recognise that terrorists can "have serious moral goals".

So do we, Doc. The question is: would you rather that the U.S. attain its goals in Iraq and the Middle East, or the Islamofascists attaining their goals worldwide?

(Hint: If they do, Doc, you'll be out of a job)
Posted by: Bomb-a-rama   2003-10-14 10:30:58 PM  

#7  Hello, boys! Everybody say "fatwa"!
Posted by: tu3031   2003-10-14 10:17:07 PM  

#6  Sounds like *someone* needs to visit WTC 'ground zero' and then the mass graves of Iraq. Then the mass graves of Germany where another 'rogue state' was appeased back in the 30's.

Dammit sometimes you just have to go in and open a large canister of whup-ass to get your message across. We have tried it this 'international' way for what? 10, 20 years? And all it got us is 3,000 innocent victims dead.
Posted by: CrazyFool   2003-10-14 9:54:46 PM  

#5  "It is possible to use unspeakably wicked means to pursue an aim that is shared by those who would not dream of acting in the same way, an aim that is intelligible or desirable." He said that in ignoring this, in its criticism of al-Qa’eda, America "loses the power of self-criticism and becomes trapped in a self-referential morality."

Oh, no! We would never want to be trapped in a self referential morality. I would rather be killed. So this band of merry men in white would rather we dabble in moral relativism instead of protecting ourselves and wiping out scum that have vowed to destroy us.

I am glad that we broke away from the Church of England. I hope that the UK does too, if the church leadership does not reform themselves and get rid of these white-robed nutcases.
Posted by: Alaska Paul   2003-10-14 9:15:59 PM  

#4  You're quite welcome.
Posted by: Christopher Johnson   2003-10-14 9:12:08 PM  

#3  Christopher Johnson, just wanted to note I enjoy reading your blog. Thanks!
Posted by: Seafarious   2003-10-14 9:10:01 PM  

#2  Will no one rid us of this meddlesome priest?
Posted by: Robert Crawford   2003-10-14 8:57:44 PM  

#1  It's comforting to know that a high-level official in a moral authority such as the Church of England feels so strongly about this issue. I expect he'll announce soon that Satan is not evil, but merely misunderstood.
Posted by: Dar   2003-10-14 8:45:56 PM  

00:00