More Canterbury 'Tails'

I'm still reeling from the Arch Bishop of Canterbury's unbelievably stupid statement last week, concerning Sharia law.

From BBC.co.uk
Dr Rowan Williams told Radio 4's World at One that the UK has to "face up to the fact" that some of its citizens do not relate to the British legal system.

Dr Williams argues that adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law would help maintain social cohesion.

For example, Muslims could choose to have marital disputes or financial matters dealt with in a Sharia court.

He says Muslims should not have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

Gosh, I know some American Christians, who don't relate to court system either. Let's just let them work it out in church, shall we? What kind of moron makes these statements?!?

I grew up Episcopalian, and while I no longer consdier myself religious, I've always appreciated its dedication to rationalism (a few fringe charismatic Episcopal churches not included). It can be a little short on profound mysticism, but I've always been eternally grateful to my parents that they didn't inflict their hardcore Southern Baptist upbringing on their offspring, so I have a soft spot for the church's use of logic and metaphor, plus I believe its relative lack of deviation from the Anglican Church helps me get more of the jokes on The Vicar of Dibley.

Unfortunately, there is no logic or rationality whatsoever in the Archbishop of C's recent statement, but all hail Iowahawk for his use of metaphor in his rendition of Chaucer on the subject. It's pure genius.

From Iowahawk's post: Heere Bigynneth the Tale of the Asse-Hatte

61 Then bespake the Po-Mo artist,

62 "My last skulptyure was hailed as smartest

63 Bye sondry criticks at the Tate

64 Whom called it genius, brillyant, greate

65 A Jesus skulpted out of dunge

66 Earned four starres in the Guardian;

67 But now the same schtick withe Mo-ha-med

68 Has earned a bountye on my hed."

69 Sayed the Bishop, "that's quyte impressyve

70 To crafte a Jesus so transgressyve

71 But to do so with the Muslim Prophet

72 Doomed thy neck to lose whats off it.

73 Thou should have showen mor chivalrie

74 In committynge such a blasphemie."

Don't let the seemingly Middle English fool you. Just sound out the words, and laugh at the brilliant irony then go read the the whole thing.

We all know the fallacy of multi-culturalism is that it can't tolerate its own intolerance: All views and beliefs are ok except the belief that this belief isn't ok. But how about the grand irony of it all? They'll put up with, inlcude, and smash as conservative those who don't agree with anything that promotes patricarchy because, folks, it's all about control.

Adherents to multi-culturalism only balk when the traditions of a culture hit them viscerally such as the knife carving of young girls' vulvas and vaginas. Those, who do not practice such traditions, have such a knee jerk reaction to the pain and horror of it that even the men instictively cross their legs at the idea, and denounce it.

New practices based on old traditions and beliefs are up for grabs as well. The raping of babies to cure AIDS in South Africa is generally frowned upon by the multi-culturalists, and so they will denounce the practice and talk of educating these unfortunates in the hope of erasing this practice, but how far back can one go to erase a "new" practice? What is the statute of limitations? Can we go back and erase the extreme patriarchal practices of Islam that took firm hold during British and French colonialism? Can we start with their relatively moderate pre-Crusades traditions that inspired chivalry? Instead of that heinous WWJD (What would Jesus do?) acronym flaunted by the conservative (not all that) Christian groups, perhaps enlightened 21st Century thinkers are supposed to ask WWMCS (What would multiculturalists say?) and acti accordingly.

I remember getting chain emails from other women beginning in 1997 about the injustices of the Taliban. They were desperately trying to bring about awareness of the plight of women in Afghanistan and begging governments and activists' groups to force change. How might the world have changed if we had done something then? (I always find it ironic that Mohammed's sister, Fatma, was a hair exposing, hell raising, horseback riding warrior, but we're not supposed to follow her example too literally. ) Instead women under the Taliban received from the West a tisk tisk, Muslims are just mysoginists, not our problem. Why? Because a) there was no money in it for us, and b) way deep down multi-culturalists are as elitist as conservative patriarchs.

They are all too happy to be the few in control of the many, and so they unconsciously side with those, who know how to exert power, and none do it better than conservative Muslim men. After all, where does the Archbishop find compassion and justice for the women or children subjugated by Sharia law? (I wonder if his ancestors had issue with Roman law.) He seems more than willing to cast aside compassion for all in favor of control disguised as cooperation.