| Submit your comments on this article |
| Britain |
| Archbishop could be forced to quit over sharia law uproar as synod meets today |
| 2008-02-11 |
| The Archbishop of Canterbury is expected to face calls for his resignation when the Church of England's general synod meets today. Senior colleagues, MPs, bishops and the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England have all poured scorn on Rowan Williams's views on Islamic sharia law. In a lecture last week, he said the establishment of sharia in Britain "seems unavoidable" and it would be better if Muslims could settle marital disputes or financial matters in a sharia court. The archbishop spent yesterday with his advisers working on what could prove to be a crucial address to the synod today. He was to have focused on the oppression in Zimbabwe but will now have to try to defuse the sharia row as well. Dr Williams's supporters fear that a synod member may call for an emergency vote on his resignation. The issue became even more damaging for him yesterday with the disclosure of a Church of England document warning its followers of the dangers of sharia law. It says that Islam does not allow Muslim women to marry non-Muslims, that the wife of a Muslim is required to uphold Islam, and that women must be careful because "Islam allows Muslim men to marry more than one wife". Christina Rees, a member of the Archbishop's Council, said that Dr Williams had been right to speak out but added: "The archbishop's aides should have prepared clear and specific examples of the types of things the archbishop had in mind. |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #11 I think Ptah has it down cold. His claim of being surprised by the reaction to his comments either means he is clueless about the feelings of his congregation writ large, and that he has no intention to be held accountable for his public statements. He will play the mis-understanding, lamb of God role and try to weather the storm. After all, what would he do if he had to actually work instead of "lead" like Chamberlain. |
| Posted by: NoMoreBS 2008-02-11 15:51 |
| #10 I think he will attempt to hang on, effectively forcing them to try and fire him. He's more of a lefty liberal than a christian, and so values power more than "unity" or "peace" (those virtues being good only so long as Christian principles are sacrificed in the name of Political Correctness). |
| Posted by: Ptah 2008-02-11 11:56 |
| #9 Let's find out if he is wearing a hairshirt. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2008-02-11 09:44 |
| #8 Resignation is the least he deserves. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2008-02-11 09:39 |
| #7 Yeah Moose. Certainly was. And the Tower is still there. Let the frivolities begin. |
| Posted by: Woozle Elmeter 2907 2008-02-11 09:29 |
| #6 I think the process for removing the Archbishop of Canterbury was developed by Henry II. |
| Posted by: Anonymoose 2008-02-11 09:16 |
| #5 Timing is everything. |
| Posted by: Nimble Spemble 2008-02-11 08:41 |
| #4 "The archbishop's aides should have prepared clear and specific examples of the types of things the archbishop had in mind." Here in the States, that's called 'throwing the aides under the bus'... |
| Posted by: Raj 2008-02-11 08:27 |
| #3 I've read there is a means of removing the Archbishop of Canterbury, but the details weren't given. |
| Posted by: eLarson 2008-02-11 07:58 |
| #2 They use to burn heretics at the stake. |
| Posted by: BrerRabbit 2008-02-11 07:56 |
| #1 Resigning's too good for him - he should get the sack! |
| Posted by: Gladys 2008-02-11 04:14 |