Archiepiscopal reflections

It is interesting to oberve the reactions to Rowan Williams' carefully qualified, though still unspecific comments on the introduction of some aspects of Sharia law. The thing that stands out is how the political parties feel they have no choice but to reject his comments by quite deliberately misrepresenting him and insisting on what he would not have denied, that we cannot have one law for Muslims and one law for the rest of us, etc. So, deliberate misrepresentation must be seen sometimes as a political necessity, he muses naively. And this because the political parties are themselves terrified of being misrepresented, as endorsing stoning or whatever. Enormous fearfulness, really, and it is hardly true that any of them exhibit political finesse, and they will certainly override public opinion if the stakes are high enough ... I suppose they don't want to give comfort to the enemy.

The headliness too seem to misrepresent him quite casually, as wanting to introduce Sharia law as an absolute alternative. The more intelligent newspapers don't misrepresent him (except in their headlines) but accuse him of political ineptness: this is not the time to speak publically about such matters because it looks like appeasement of the extremists.

And yet, as the media and the parties seek to stroke and placate the populace, Williams can surely be said to be showing the virtue of parrhesia, speaking truth to power (here the tyrannous power of the majority), and is accused for his pains of the foolishness mentioned by St Paul, not comfortable, but part of the Christian package.