Was Archbishop of Canterbury right to raise Sharia debate?

Published on Sunday 10 February 2008 19:55

BURNING ISSUE

NO

Alistair McBay, spokesman for the National Secular Society

There are few British citizens who will not be both baffled and dismayed by the reports that the Archbishop of Canterbury believes the adoption of certain aspects of Sharia law in the UK "seems unavoidable" and might actually help social integration.

It is difficult to imagine a less helpful contribution to the debate on cohesion and social integration than this. The cornerstone of our pluralistic liberal democracy is the equality of all citizens under the law, yet Dr Williams says the idea of one law for everybody is "a bit of a danger". He is directly undermining what Britain stands for. Can the archbishop really be saying that some people in Britain should be allowed to have their own laws if they don't approve of the ones we have? Apparently, yes he is.

All religious groups preach that they are inclusive and work towards social integration in Britain, yet what they practise is exactly the opposite. They want, and get, segregated schools, segregated scout groups, even segregated toilets and now, apparently, social cohesion and integration are to be further achieved by separate laws for separate religious groups. This is truly bizarre. The Church of England's recent contributions to the great multiculturalism debate are curious, to say the least. The Bishop of Rochester told us in January that there were Muslim "no-go" areas in Britain, all the fault of multiculturalism and the demise of the Christian religion, and he was seeking a Christian revival to counter this. Now his boss is telling us that Muslims should have their own laws. Neither contribution, contradictory as they apparently are, has been helpful.

YES

Rt Rev Sheilagh Kesting, Moderator of the Church of Scotland General Assembly

I have been deeply concerned at the widespread reaction to the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent lecture. The personal attacks on him are unacceptable in a civilised society and I have been appalled at the attacks on his integrity and the calls for his resignation. As a fellow faith leader, he is entitled to bring issues like this into public debate and explore the way in which different people and religions can live together. What he has been calling for is discussion and I believe that is only right.

Since he made his lecture, the responses have become nothing more than a personal witchWhunt demanding he step down. I believe it is commendable that we have a faith leader such as the archbishop who is prepared to initiate deep and thoughtful consideration of sensitive issues and it is alarming the way in which his intention to do so can be willfully misconstrued.

I believe that by speaking about the subject he chose to address, there will always be criticism, but it is sad that someone can be attacked for starting a sensible discussion. Faith leaders have a common goal to look at what is best for the whole of society. My colleagues in the Church of Scotland have tried to have a measured response recorded in the media, but with limited success. They acknowledged the need for responsible public debate on this sensitive issue and they would want to address any situation in which a religious or ethnic group feels itself in some measure excluded or alienated from our society. To this end, the Church of Scotland wants to take some time to give the issues the archbishop has raised our more considered reflection.