It is probably going to be rather difficult for our non-UK readers to believe this but there was a time when the Church of England was known to campaigners on the old left as ‘the Tory Party at prayer’. It was not meant as a compliment but then neither was it entirely unjustified. As the official Church of the State its function was to bolster the moral underpinnings of the old ruling class. In its ethos and operation it was every bit as conservative as the political party that represented the secular interests of the same old order.
But not any more:
The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, yesterday urged America to recognise that terrorists can “have serious moral goals”.
Dr.Williams omits to tell us precisely what those ‘goals’ are and why they are ‘moral’. A mere oversight, I’m sure.
He said that while terrorism must always be condemned, it was wrong to assume its perpetrators were devoid of political rationality.
‘Of course, I condemn terrorism BUT…..’
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.”
Excuse me but isn’t that the precisely the wrong way around?
If this was a one-off, a weak moment or an aberration that would be grounds enough for criticism. But it isn’t. Ever since his inauguration as the Head of the Established Church of England, Rowan Williams has been busily establishing his own profile as a political campaigner. From his regular public denouncements of ‘consumerism’ and ‘greed’ to his ringing endorsements of bigger government and more state spending, Dr.Williams has mapped out his unimpeachable credentials as a shill for just about every green/marxoid canard in existence.
Under his stewardship the, the Church of England has finally completed its transformation into the Church of Post-Modernist Pieties, ever-ready to provide spiritual edification for the new ruling class. It is inaccurate to label this as an about-face because in many respects it reflects the traditional function of that institution. Like most other branches of the British state, it has been co-opted by the Gramschian project and set to work as impeccable disseminator of a new governing ethos.
The best we can hope for is disestablishment.
The best I hope for is that the Queen declares this meddlesome priest apostate.
Better for the Church that the titular head of the same should push those pseudo-priests into schism, than that the real Anglicans in Blue America and the Third World break away first.
“Losing their religion” is a clever title — but I prefer “Another blow against antidisestablishmentarianism”.
Yes, it is vacuously true that terrorism as a means does not discredit its ends. There’s nothing inherently wrong with environmentalism, as much as the ELF type deserved to be strapped to the hood of an SUV and driven off a cliff. There’s nothing inherently wrong with Islam or (theoretically) opposition to Israel.
But .. so? The ends don’t justify the means.
Incidentally, Rowan went on to criticize the US invasion of Iraq because, well, so far as I can tell, because he completely lost touch with reason.
Maybe the Church of England should remember this advice the next time the IRA gets out of hand. It never ceases to amaze me that every idiot on the planet thinks he/she is in a position to give Americans lectures in morality.
TO: All
RE: Welcome….
….welcome to the Great Apostacy.
Today the Anglicans. Tomorrow the Romans.
Enjoy,
Chuck(le)
Hmmm, how much sympathy will be displayed to terrorists if US nongovernmental citizens started conducting “militant” operations against what they regard as proIslamicanti-US organizations such as the various UK and European green, left,religious,news media, and Islamic groups.
Less Rowan Williams, more Rowan Atkinson.
Seems to me he’s preaching forgiveness and compassion. Isn’t that his job?
So you’re saying that “terrorists” have never accomplished anything, ever, which was later considered to actually be a good thing?
Look, we’re talking about a guy whose authority is based on the following propositions:
–There’s an invisible, omnipotent being in the sky whose existence cannot be proved, but must be taken on faith in defiance of all logic and observation;
–The being loves us, and to prove it, created smallpox, polio, AIDS, Alzheimer’s and death, followed by eternal torture for most of the human race;
–The being magically impregnated a human female in a obscure village 2,000 years ago, yielding an offspring with powers to defy the laws of physics;
–Despite his powers, the offspring was easily killed, but returned to life and flew into the sky to become part of the omnipotent being;
–His tiny band of followers were therefore blessed with holy powers that could be bequeathed in turn to anyone, including some of the nastier Borgias;
–Until the descendant of a minor Welsh bandit rightfully claimed the holy powers for his own, thereby enabling him to dump his wife in favor of his girlfriend;
–Whence cometh the majestic moral authority of the Church of England.
If you can believe any of this, you should have no trouble swallowing anything Rowan Williams says.
Did I forget to mention the ritual cannibalism?
“There’s nothing inherently wrong with environmentalism”
No?! THAT kind of environmentalism?
“There’s nothing inherently wrong with Islam or (theoretically) opposition to Israel.”
Of course not, calling them pigs and apes it’s just good will…
“Seems to me he’s preaching forgiveness and compassion. Isn’t that his job?”
Remind me Keith …terrorists called for forgiveness and compassion for their sins? so he must forgive someone that doesnt want to be forgiven?
Hey Mike,
Wow, I’m sorry man – I didn’t see the sign that says ‘check your brain at the door’ – I guess the thousands of other Christians who have studied the world and the scriptures carefully and have found extremely logical, reasoned and thoughtful positions on Jesus must have missed it as well…. I’ll be more careful next time…
Rowan Williams, the Poodle that barked….
Is it just me or does this ‘hairy lefty’ (middle-aged hippy) Archbishop of Canterbury look like a poodle to you too?
Rowan Williams = poodle head.
Says it all really, doesn’t it.
N.B
There is at least one sensible silver lining to the “liberal” Archbishop of Canterbury when in regards to the threat posed by terrorism, he expressed support for holding asylum seekers in secure accommodation until it is clear they pose no danger.
“Woe to they who call what is evil, good, and what is good, evil…put light for dark, and dark for light, call what is bitter, sweet, and sweet, bitter.” Isaiah 5:20.
This one’s for you, CofE.
The terrorists aim is to convert everybody to Islam. If Dr. Williams thinks this is a just and moral cause, justifying mass murder, perhaps he’ll set the rest of us an example and convert himself.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with environmentalism
I think depends on what you mean by “environmentalism.”
Hard green variety – much is “inherently wrong”.
Regulatory state variety – ditto.
Old-fashioned conservation, new-fangled wildland resource management – we can talk.
Look, we’re listening to Mike who’s authority is based on a first grade understanding of an amalgam of different types of Christianity.
Nonetheless, I agree with Mike’s conclusion that Rowan’s views of the world are faulty.
PATHETIC!
Schism is unavoidable at this point.
The cynic in me sees a lot of church politics here — Dr. Williams may be trying to build up his bonafieds with the liberal wing of the Anglican Church, in the face of the bracing fight that’s about to come down over the ordination of gay bishops.
I expect him to side with the conservative wing of the church on this one, not only because of the warning last week by the Vatican that to not do so would create an insurmountable breech between the two churchs, but due to the schism that it would create with the more conservative Anglican churches in Third World countries, particularly Africa, let alone the threat of a split in the Episcopalian Church in the United States.
Many of those who pushed for ordination of the first gay bishop in the U.S., and those who support the action outside the country, are more likely to be predisposed towards seeing U.S. power as a net negative in the world. Williams no doubt believes in what he’s saying, based on past comments, but the timing of the statement here may be designed to make the church’s liberal wing happy for now in order to offset what will happen when he sides against them on the ordination issue in the near future.
Didn’t Williams say fairly recently that married couples who choose not to have children are “selfish”? Doesn’t sound like him, judging by his ideology, but I do recall those words coming from a prominent UK theologian. Ugh.
My “theology,” such as it is (I’m an agnostic Jew), is probably closer to Mike’s than to anyone else’s on this thread. Although I’ll admit that if I were a conservative Christian, a practicing druid would not be my prime choice to head up my church.
David Ross wrote:
The best I hope for is that the Queen declares this meddlesome priest apostate.
Oohhh, this would be fun. California just had recall from the bottom, now the Church of England can have recall from the top. Go QUEENIE!
(Thee absolute first time, I cheered for the monarch)
The American Anglicans are in the process of splitting, due to the naming Bishop of a man, who abandoned his wife for a male lover. Oh, so progressive, yeah.
Mr William’s only bible was written by that demon of a man named Karl Marx.
HM the Queen’s eternal soul could very well be in grave peril for appointing this apostate as Primate of All England.
They’re all nutters in the southern province anyway. No one should bother listening to them.
I especially enjoyed Toad’s comments. Indeed, let’s see the ordnance start detonating at the offices of the Guardian, the Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc. and see how long it takes Mr. Williams to get to a microphone to denounce the “viscious terrorists in our midst.”
Dr. Williams is more talented than that. He’s not only driving the C of E into irrelevance, he’s a major contributor to the rapid deterioration of the Episcopal Church here in America.
The difference is that in America people rebel against this sort of crap.
In England they just go on (moaning but still) paying for it.
Just watch. Neither the Queen nor anyone else will do anything about this.
Guess which direction I emigrated?
TO: David Ross
RE: Can She Do That?
“The best I hope for is that the Queen declares this meddlesome priest apostate.” — David Ross
That would be VERY interesting to see, indeed. Sort of like the California Recall, in its effect, if not in its method.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
Yep. Moral terrorists. If we listen to him, before long he or his successors would join us in begging the mullahs for mercy under sh’aria. Well, maybe in the deepest recesses of his conscience he thinks he and his church and we deserve no better; but he surely doesn’t speak for me. Moral indeed.
If democracy is good enough for Iraq, it’s good enough for the C of E. Enough of this appointment crap – have a recall election! I’ll even offer to throw my own hat into the ring – if there’s a chance that an unordained American Southern Baptist can win.
My guess: Rowan Williams came out with this now because he figures the American Episcopal church and the American government share the same moral defect: a certain maverickness (to the cynically minded, a wielding of imperial power) which leads them to act ignoring what the rest of the world thinks. I agree.
Williams never said the terrorists were right. He never said their actions were moral. He said their *goals* could be moral. I.e., they may have a legitimate beef which they seek to resolve through illegitimate means. Why is this an important point? Because it means that one strategy for combating terror is to listen to the beefs of terrorists, and seek to find good resolution to their legitimate concerns. The basic posture of the US has been that of attack, never concerned with what past US actions might have brought the terrorists’ anger to the boiling point. To address these concerns is not to justify terrorism, but it is a much better strategy for long-term combating of terrorism than is retaliation.
Retaliation escalates conflict. The terrorists’ basic beef is that the US wields its power imperially. Will they see the US response as anything but a justification for further terror? (It may be that security measures can be found that are sufficient to prevent future attacks – I doubt it. But if so, we are entering a world in which security will be bought at the price of our freedom.)
By attacking Iraq without UN backing, the US plays a dangerous game, ignoring international procedure as well as international sentiment. It also made it that much easier for would-be terrorists to think of the US as an irresponsible wielder of imperial power.
The American Episcopate has acted much the same way, neglecting the decisions of the world-wide Anglican Communion, which had decided to adopt a wait-and-see posture on the issue of gay ordination. The odd thing is that on this latter Williams *agrees* with the Americans. But they have acted arrogantly here; he recognizes that the church will need time to warm up to gay ordination. It is their blatant ignorance of and apathy towards the will of the world-wide communion that threatens to tear the church apart. Might not a similar spirit threaten to tear the world politically apart, with perhaps more drastic consequence?
Interesting, from a Texan viewpoint. The appointment of Gene Robinson was a HUGE wreck in this country. And the gay part was for the most part secondary to the true outrage of Episcopalians and non-Episcopalians alike. This man left his WIFE and KID for a new lifestyle. And he preaches the BIBLE? Friggin’ insane. And with the increasinghly detached and politically charged commentary from the Bishop of Canteburry, there’s quite a bit of consternation in the States.
Te sh*t has hit the fan at the convention in Texas. This is the test for the future fate of the Episcopalian/Anglican faith in this country, and perhaps the world as well.
My wife’s family is quite the devout Episcopalian family. There debating Catholic or Protestant. They’re gone.
Cheers,
Mark
Nathan: if you try to deal with terrorists by resolving their “legitimate beef”, what’s to stop anyone with any kind of beef – legitimate or not – using terrorism? The point about terrorism is that it doesn’t seek any kind of compromise or discussion, just complete surrender to its will, under threat of more terrorism.
Not to say that your Archbishop isn’t something of a nutter, but I believe it was Israel’s Moshe Dayan which said that, if he had no other tactics at his disposal, he would resort to terrorism as well.
ilana,
Its a real problem, but if the goal is legimate – oh, I don’t know, ending apartheid, for example. You still need a strategy which ends up with the correct goal being achieved.
The French Resistence were certainly terrorists from one rather warped perspective.
Nathan,
It’s one thing when you say that terrorists might have a legitimate aim which they are pursuing via illegitimate ends. It’s another when Rowan Williams says it, because he hasn’t thought it out in the way you have. He means Al Q, who have been good enough to let us know what their aim is i.e. the resoration of the Islamic Caliphate in its entirety, including most of Spain and parts of France. This is not a legitimate aim. Williams is just being anti-American.
Rowan Williams’ so-called liberal views are called into question by his cowardly treatment of the man who was once my excellent priest, Jeffrey John. Combine that, his bizarre views on economics, and his uninformed attitudes towards Al Q and Iraq and you get nothing more than a canting glove puppet who can paraphrase Guardian op-ed pieces no better than you or I.
You get more of what you reward, and less of what you punish.
If you start rewarding terrorists by granting any of their demands, no matter how legitimate those demands might be seen in a vacuum, then you will get more terrorism.
The American strategy is based on the notion that if we punish terrorists, we will eventually get less of them.
If you hook up with terrorists or become one, you deligitimise your demands. I don’t give a rat’s ass anymore about the Palestinian claims in the Mideast, for example. I have a vague idea that they were probably screwed by the Brits and the UN back in the day, but frankly I don’t care because the Palestinians, with precious few exceptions that I can see, have thrown in their lot with anti-Jewish mass murdering scum.
Let us recall that nearly every mass murdering scum can point to some justification for what they do. No question the Germans got screwed at Versailles, for example. Rationalizations are cheap, and I don’t care. You blow up pizza parlors and wedding parties, and you are going down. Period.
I have an M. Div degree from an Episcopal seminary and was a candidate for ordination. Withdrew after careful thought because of the currents that Rowan represents and which found their expression in the recent decision to consecrate a man to the espicopacy who is unreprentant about ditching wife and kid — serious, church blessed and sanctioned responsibilities he threw off as if they were last year’s clothing that weren’t sufficiently fresh and stylish for him.
Rowan is a disaster as Archbiship of Canterbury, most explicitly because he really is representative of a wing of diluted and dilusionary Anglicans.
Those denominations which most closely aligned with political power in the past, e.g. Anglicans, Roman Catholics in Italy … now are bending way too far backwards to denounce political power structures, clear moral and theological teaching and shared liturgy and ritual in worship. C. S. Lewis rightly pointed out the comfortable trap of denouncing the errors of the last generation rather than assuming responsibility for one’s own characteristic failings today.
R C Dean, “If you hook up with terrorists or become one, you deligitimise your demands.”
so, as Dave pointed out above, you’d consider the French Resistance to have had no legitimate demands…. nor the American revolutionaries for that matter… go on, denounce them, please.
Otherwise, reconsider your simplistic position.
The arsehole Archbishop is an affront to Christians and to Druids (he has supposedly been made a Druid). This wanker is an apologist for terrorists, the man is scum. No more, no less. And we thought that idiot Carey was bad.
I can’t wait to see him make an arse of himself over Palestine.
Yorkshireman, I don’t think he’s a poodle. Rather he’s the separated at birth from his evil twin, the medicine man now languishing in prison at HM’s pleasure who sent numerous unfortunates to their early reward. Check out side by side photos if you doubt it,
We’re having a definition-of-terms problem here. Unconventional or guerilla tactics are not the same thing as terrorism.
What acts of the American revolutionaries or the French resistance would anyone here regard as terrorism, and why?
And if South Africa is an example of the happy consequences which flow from terrorism, why is the quality of life so much grimmer now than it was under apartheid? (I certainly don’t know the answer to this thorny one, but I think it’s remiss of SA boosters not, at least, to ask the question).
And if South Africa is an example of the happy consequences which flow from terrorism, why is the quality of life so much grimmer now than it was under apartheid? (I certainly don’t know the answer to this thorny one, but I think it’s remiss of SA boosters not, at least, to ask the question).
I think you need to think about the question a little bit more and consider what percentage of the population enjoyed the better quality of life, and just how they managed it.
My quality of life would be much better with access to the kind of home help my wife’s family had when growing up at a frankly unbelievable cost. The minority population, even those who weren’t quite “white” lived in a way that is hard to explain now.
I think you’ll find the German Reich found “unconventional” attacks on German administration and military to be terrorism, even if we don’t.
We’re Michael Collin’s activities in the early 20th century in Ireland “unconventional guerilla tactics” or, as they were labelled, “terrorism”? I don’t think anybody argues that Ireland didn’t have a right to self government.
What about Tim McVeigh and company, blowing up the building in Oklahoma City? Terrorism. Against Americans. In the name of a ‘justifiable political cause’ (going against the infringement of the fed government on individual rights)
But I don’t hear a whole lot of people apologizing for that action or detracting at all from the heinousness of the crime. Perhaps because he was a white American?
No. no. That can’t be right. The DC snipers haven’t been pled for by this joker and his ilk either. And they’re not white, though they are terrorists.
I guess it’s just Americans who are bad. If we do bad things we deserve to be punished. But if bad things are done to us, we most likely deserve them.
mea culpa mea culpa.
now I have an excuse to skip church on sunday. I *used* to go to an episcopal church.
Quality of life has deteriorated for whites and blacks in contemporary South Africa. You’ll find discussion of it in SA newspapers, even if the rest of the world’s chattering classes have patted themselves on the back and moved on to the next fashionable cause de jour.
I can’t work out what the rest of your post was getting at.
S. Weasal,
Quality of life has deteriorated for whites and blacks in contemporary South Africa. You’ll find discussion of it in SA newspapers
For the middle and upper classes this is certainly true. I’m not sure you coudl say quite the same for the majority of the population, as effectively the majority of the population were completely discounted from any participation.
Comparing my first visit in 1999 to more recent ones, and my wife’s perpective, comparing what you see now to when she left in 1994, a great deal has changed in and around Durban. The huge shanty towns which used to line the roads between Durban and Pietermaritzburg have all but gone, and while the ANC is a long way from Mandela’s goal of giving everybody at least a basic home, the standard of accomodation has certainly improved.
If you were a middle class or higher home owner prior to this, however, the crime rate has soared -however, that is highly misleading in this context.
The alternative is that the Blacks were, in fact, better off under apartheid. There was certainly less crime. But I could tell you some pretty scary stories my in-laws in the police have told me about what you used to be allowed to get away with.
As for the rest; was Michael Collins a terrorist or an “unconventional” freedom fighter?
I don’t know where adequate housing versus not getting murdered in your bed come in Maslow’s Hierarchy, but I suspect lawlessness trumps social concerns. They’ve managed to pull the violent crime from truly appalling to merely awful in the last few years, but it’s still an armpit of a place to be. For everybody.
Whether this continues to drive away business and jobs, and what effect this will ultimately have on the people at the very bottom (if the lives of the people at the bottom are taken as the ultimate measure of the success of a society), remains to be seen. Whether it will succeed or fail, and how much the nature of its genesis will have contributed to the outcome, we’ll only know in retrospect. So far, as a shining example of the success of…anything at all, it leaves everything to be desired.
Defining terrorism by examining the lives of individuals is probably not the best approach (and I don’t know enough about Collins to make that a useful exercise, anyway).
If the target is military or governmental and the intended result supports a broader strategy, I wouldn’t call it terrorism. By this definition, then, Iraqis ambushing American soldiers isn’t terrorism.
Deliberately targeting civilians to create a climate of fear is terrorism. The bombing of Dresden is often brought up in this context as Western terrorism (I’m not sure I agree, but WWII issues are a bit vast for this little comment block).
Occupations can get very gray indeed.
Of course, just because you aren’t a terrorist doesn’t mean you’re right. But I’m pretty comfy with the idea that being one makes you unequivocally wrong.
I don’t know where adequate housing versus not getting murdered in your bed come in Maslow’s Hierarchy, but I suspect lawlessness trumps social concerns.
Well the adequate housing was a side issue to demonstrate a point.
Where does having basic civil rights in your own country come against not getting murdered in your bed? I recall a quote often used here which runs something like, “give me liberty or give me death”?
Would you rather live in virtual slavery whre the government dictates where you live and doesn’t allow you to travel without paperwork and permission and where the police can kill you and nothing happen? Or would you rather have higher crime but liberty? I’m surprised that in the context of a Libertarian board the question would need to be brought up.
I have little truck for terrorists myself, but I do have a problem with automatically ignoring genuine human rights violations because to solve them is perceived as giving into terrorists.
These are 2 separate issues but they are often used incorrectly.
Well, actually the "best we can hope for" is the abolition of the Church of England and the seizure of its assets. An auction to reduce the national debt (billions of pounds worth of real estate for starters). The abolition of “religious instruction” in schools. The restoration of the stolen Catholic cathedrals to Rome… I’d vote for it.
Would you rather live in virtual slavery whre the government dictates where you live and doesn’t allow you to travel without paperwork and permission and where the police can kill you and nothing happen? Or would you rather have higher crime but liberty?
I would like neither of those things, thank you. Particularly if the “higher crime” is appallingly higher crime.
Mike,
Uh, actually theological liberals like Williams tend to be the kind of folks not to believe in the things you mention. So if his muddled political thought, as you imply, is derived from or disproves his theology, then your argument inadverantly cuts the exact other way.
Whoops.
Sorry.
S Weasel,
I would like neither of those things, thank you. Particularly if the “higher crime” is appallingly higher crime.
Then I assume you have an alternative which would deal with the “effective slavery” aspect of life in RSA during apartheid?
“Will no one rid me of this troublesome priest?”
Then I assume you have an alternative which would deal with the “effective slavery” aspect of life in RSA during apartheid?
Of course not. I said as much in my first post on the thread.
That doesn’t make what actually happened the optimum solution. It sucked before, it sucks now. That it now sucks in a less unfashionable way isn’t much of an endorsement. There’s still plenty of time for improvement, of course, but in its current condition, SA hardly stands as an example of the good that terrorism can accomplish.
so, as Dave pointed out above, you’d consider the French Resistance to have had no legitimate demands.
Were the French Resistance (such as it was, and it wasn’t much) primarily targeting civilians, or soldiers? The vast majority of resistance activities involved intelligence gathering, which isn’t terrorism. Give me some examples of French Resistance atrocities, and we can talk.
What about Tim McVeigh and company, blowing up the building in Oklahoma City? Terrorism. Against Americans. In the name of a ‘justifiable political cause’ (going against the infringement of the fed government on individual rights)
I would refine or clarify my statement that “If you hook up with terrorists or become one, you delegitimise your demands” as follows:
Demands, organizations, and tactics are all distinct. If you adopt terrorist tactics, then you delegitimize your organization and any other organization that supports you.
You do not necessarily delegitimize other organizations with the same demands or goals, so long as they do not support you, but you do make it harder for them to achieve their goals because they will begin to suffer guilt by association. They will need to prove that they are not in bed with you via affirmative acts (dumping your corpse on the steps of the police station, for example). (Political) guilt by association may not be fair, but given the record of groups like Hamas it is understandable, and to the extent it provides a disincentive for terrorism it is even justifiable.
I enter warily here, but am enjoying the discussion. I wonder if there is any relationship between the level of crime and violence in a free, democratic society that has won its freedom in part through the use of terror and violence, and one, like Poland and the Czech Republic, which became free largely without violence?
What is so depressing about Williams’ babblings is their utter predictability. The satirical columnist, Michael Wharton, who writes the Peter Simple column in the Daily Telegraph, created a fictitious character, Dr Spacely-Trellis, who came out with the same bullshit about how “we are all guilty” etc.
Williams’ particular views are in this sense, unremarkable. Because the Church of England no longer preaches a strong faith, it increasingly turns to the secular idols of Big Government and the socialist world society as a sort of default option.
It was remarked on this blog at the time of his appoointment that Williams was a berk. So he has proved.
As a convert to atheism, I still harbour a lot of affection for the Church of England. For better and for worse it has played a key role in shaping the character of England, and I feel intense sadness that it is now run by such clowns.
Some old wag once said ” a camel was a horse designed by a committee.”
I would invite some creative chap(s) to paraphrase and apply some wisdom or at least cleverness to the C. of E., Rowan Williams or New Hampshire’s bishop-elect affectionately referred to by some as “Queen Gene.”
Denis