Transformative Accommodation

Wow, that’s a mouthful. If confused language in nine total syllables leaves you mystified then you must really be ready to fall for the latest from the academy or the clergy. The phrase came up in an address to a group of lawyers in England. This classic mumbo-jumbo was mouthed by no less than the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. His eminence (?) offered this in defense of sharing the jurisprudence of the British courts with the emerging population of immigrants in deference to their particular beliefs. What it boils down to is best stated by legal theorist Ayelet Shachar saying: “Power holders are forced to compete for the loyalty of their shared constituents.”

The Archbishop was actually asserting that people should be able to choose those laws under which they live. That’s fine, but only until ones nation is overladen with recent immigrants who hold to an entirely different set of concepts from those of the indigenous peoples. In this case the newly arrived are largely Pakistani Muslims who assign no consideration of women and exert complete control over their lives ignoring any vestige of equal, much less, human rights. This package comes complete with honor killings, polygamy, arranged marriages, dress codes and a general demeaning and undue supervision of the fairer sex. How one accommodates these otherwise felonious activities into existing British law, I am not entirely certain. The Archbishop really didn’t explain that since he obviously thinks it a minor barrier.

One commenter remarked that Williams was a sterling example of “moral cowardice.” I could not agree more. His much lauded ability to speak eight separate languages apparently doesn’t guarantee him the right or the wit to understand any of them. I have known women who could “kill” you with a larger variety of looks, smirks, glances and leers than that and not utter a word. We are told he deserves deference for his erudite status as an academic theologian. Why? How could anyone with a scintilla of sense countenance restructuring a venerable and ancient legal code to mesh with the desires of a minority group of newcomers? Apparently all one needs to be is an “academic theologian” to deserve respect and to couch each ridiculous argument in unpronounceable words and meaningless phrases.

As a staunch proponent of liberty even I recognize that a certain number of rules are necessary for public order. Over the life of our republic, and certainly England as well, the representatives of the people have decided on many laws to insure tranquility. Some may seem unfair but they are still the law. To separate certain individuals as not subject to the law is not only unfair, it is unconscionable. If the populace, through representative governance, determines that aspects of Sharia Law should be the rule; then so be it. If not, then, learn to live with the laws as they stand.

I used to call upon a gnarly old coot in Lincoln, Nebraska who operated a furniture store and funeral parlor. In preliminary discussions of his customers needs he shared his appraisal of the world at large. Said he, “Son, there are only three kinds of people in this world: ignorant God d***** fools, educated God d***** fools, and religious God d***** fools.” It is my belief that the Archbishop of Canterbury has established that Mr. E.C. Korst of Lincoln is closest to the truth.

In His abiding love,

Cecil Moon