Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Forumsdwarf]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=512876&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

What I find most interesting about this situation is speculating on the nature of the Archbishop's personality.

Surely for him to have suggested something so outrageous then be completely shocked by the resultant storm of outrage he would have to have been conditioned to a certain mentality, a certain way of seeing things which has worked up to this point.

Consider: he has risen to the top post of his profession; there is no higher office for him than leader of the C of E.  You don't rise to that level by accident, but by acting a certain way better than all others who act that way.

Then comes this trainwreck -- how?  Most people rise to power by leveraging their core competence with Machiavellian calculation, good people skills, and a certain forcefulness of will.  So how did this guy make such a terrible miscalculation?

My theory is that getting promoted at the Anglican Church isn't like rising through the ranks of General Motors or Microsoft.  I think this guy became top dog not by being shrewd and calculating but by being pliable and accommodating.

People who accommodate generally try to avoid any kind of conflict whatsoever regardless of any potential consequences.  They're also completely blindsided when people become angry at them.
I've known people like this personally and found them paradoxically untrustworthy: to even their closest friends they'll tell any lie and break any promise in order to avoid conflict.  If you're friends with an accommodationist he or she simply hasn't been asked to betray you yet.  They can't keep a date, a secret, a promise, sobriety, chastity, or your car keys if anyone else wills it otherwise.
Such a person can seem to be tolerant, patient, and forgiving due to great wisdom, perfect attributes for a church leader.  Accommodationists are very easy to get along with and will promise you almost anything -- promises that vanish at the first sign of trouble.  Accomodationists are loyal to no one but whomever is standing in front of them with a demand; they follow no moral code nor have any principles or point of honor that a choice to acquiesce will not override.

When finally faced with a situation where conflict is unavoidable, where every choice leads to the unthinkable, an accommodationist's circuits fry like the cliche' science fiction computer that handles Godel exceptions by exploding.  The accommodationist will now and only now show anger, frightened confused anger, and you'll get questions like, "Why is everybody so mad at me?  What did I do?"
Hence the surprise of the waylaid Archbishop, who heretofore had accommodated flawlessly.  Lacking any serious moral code the accommodationist has no frame of reference to judge the magnitude and justness of the outrage of others.  It simply appears, a sudden storm, a curse inexplicably visited on the hapless innocent by mean, unreasonable, angry people, and all he can think to do is wonder how it all went wrong.

I almost pity the poor Archbishop.  He found a job that from all appearances was perfect for a pathological accommodationist.  But like most who share his coping strategy he eventually stumbled upon a problem for which accommodation was a catastrophically poor solution.  And he never saw it coming.

[Forumsdwarf]

LOL, I may have interpreted the phrase "General Discussion" just a wee bit too broadly.  Sorry if this seems out of place.

But not too sorry -- wouldn't want to look too accommodating, would I?  

[McDoomhammer]

I don't know.  Having skimmed the article (shamefully, despite being English, I'm not up on the situation), it seems like fitting in and going along with what's expected of him is exactly what he isn't doing.  I like how the the Daily mail only quotes people who object, and that the main objection quoted is "It would be difficult!"- of course his proposal's actual merit or lack thereof isn't touched upon.  Those unfamiliar with the English papers should be aware that the Mail is noted for its conservative tabloid fearmongering.

[Forumsdwarf]

I assumed his unwise choice of political pronouncements was self-evident, but I'll elaborate.

There is almost no political faction for whom Sharia is a good idea.  Anyone with a political interest in consumer credit, women's rights, equality before the law, secularism, democracy, constitutionalism, Christianity, and freedom of conscience have a stake in keeping Sharia out of British law.  Take away all those constituents and who's left?

This guy's only natural allies on the issue are multicultural absolutists, pacifists, and those who would actually want to live under Sharia.  That's not a very large pool of supporters.

quote:fitting in and going along with what's expected of him is exactly what he isn't doing

There's no evidence of that.
There is, however, strong evidence that you're wrong: the Archbishop's surprise when he suddenly became the focal point of controversy.
Were he a maverick well practiced in not doing what's expected of him he would be accustomed to controversy, not surprised and shocked by it.
Furthermore, you're suggesting the Anglican church is in the habit of promoting mavericks with whom it disagrees.  Remember that this guy is at the top, the highest official in the entire organization.  He didn't get that way by preaching Sharia from the mailroom.  He got there by preaching to the choir.
I remain convinced this guy was doing what he has always done, try to get along with everyone, and that's why he was completely blindsided when it all went wrong.

[McDoomhammer]

Well, there are worse things to be doing than trying to get along.

Minor hole in your argument: the Archbishop is chosen by the Prime Minister.  His relationship with the rest of the anglican church could only get him to the top two.

[Forumsdwarf]

It's a minor hole, but I'll grant you that with direct political appointments all bets are off.  To assume he got where he did on "merit" (or by being well-adapted to the job) is no longer valid without some kind of evidence relating to how and why he got his appointment and how far he rose before being appointed.

He may well be a doddering incompetent selected for the post as a favor to a politically connected friend or relative.  That would explain why so many bishops jumped ship and tried to distance themselves from him, not that a whopping doozy like invoking Sharia wouldn't lead even trusted allies to go into damage control mode, but a patronage assignment wouldn't endear him to his subordinates.

[thirqual]

A part of the argument was skipped in the press reports : in some (very) limited cases, part of the jewish community was authorized to use its peculiar customs for settling problems (around family matters and the like) in England. Once again : in VERY limited cases. Utterly stupid IMHO. Moreover 40% (ouch) of the english muslims asked told they were for the use of the sharia. It is, therefore, a logical consequence that sharia will be used in England.

As both a laic and an agnostic, nonwishtanding the incompatibility on a moral point of vue, I can't understand how one country could choose to submit itself to  communautarism.

[beorn080]

Alright my two cents. From what I understand its not merely for private matters that sharia law would be introduced. Sharia law would become a PARALLEL law to English law. Muslim law has zero redeeming features. Also if it is true that 40% of English Muslims were for sharia law then 60% SIXTY PERCENT of English Muslims are against it. I can't fathom anyone considering that sharia law is a good thing. To see why just look at the countries that use a Muslim based law code. Despite vast natural resources they are almost all under developed and lacking in basic necessities for its people. Its one thing for disputes to be handled out of court. Its a completely different thing for those non-courts to be given legal standing.

[Earthquake Damage]

While their current governments may aggravate the problem (or not, hell if I know), I doubt fundamentalist Islamic countries are underdeveloped because of sharia law.

quote:60% SIXTY PERCENT of English Muslims are against it

Not to mention an overwhelming majority of the non-Muslim population...

[Forumsdwarf]

quote:I doubt fundamentalist Islamic countries are underdeveloped because of sharia law.

Fundamentalism seems an unlikely promulgator of good government, although I suppose it depends on the specific religion's commandments.

"Taxeth Not Capital Gains Which Ariseth from Inflation"
Oh, yeah, the faithful will be shouting that one from the pews.

Sharia specifically does lead to under-development, or at least Muslim theocracy has done that to Iran compared to their standard of living under the Shah.

[thirqual]

Mmm, forumdwarf, one might argue that fighting your neighbour with tactics and losses only comparable with ww1 for half the 80s could have played a part. With, compared to ww1, the added viciousness (on both sides) of child soldiers.

Another problem is that the sharia is not a unique body of laws with a single interpretation (even if the most progressive interpretations are still below shit level). The harshest application of sharia takes place in countries which are traditionnaly allies of the west. Mainly Saudy Arabia. Its hush hush about that in our newspapers.

[Balynevil]

While I am going to refrain from commenting on the pitfalls and merits of Sharia law (or any other law based on religious dogma for that matter) I will say that I am impressed by the level of this discussion. I am glad to see that there are people out there that actually look at this issues outside of the government and other interested parties. I will say that Sharia Law however is not the source of the problem. There are countries which follow Sharia (their interpretation of it) and are doing just fine (Turkey comes to mind). Imagine what life would be like in western nations if the laws practiced at the rise of Christianity or the old cannonical Hebrew laws were implemented. Additionally, many of the most restrictive and supressive ideals of most religions are based primarilly in the customs of the people who practice that religion and not necessarily part of the religious teachings. This is aggrivated in the case of Islam due to the Hadith (study of the Prophet Mohammed sayings, teachings and most importantly his actions, which are an intregral part in the practice of Islam).

Many of the conflicts that we witness today in Islamic ideology (moderates vs. Islamist militants) arise from attempting to reconcile the most liberal teachings in the Koran with the actions of Muhammed, specially during the military expansion of Islam and what was done in response to the crusades. So both the Koran's peaceful teachings and the Hadith violent accounts during Muslim military expansion and defense from Christian crusaders are taken into account in the interpretation of Sharia. Not to mention that basing Sharia on Mohammed's actions (at least in part) brings in a lot of the culture at the time (when women were seen as property, something true for most civilizations at the time). Anyways, I've gone too far into this but the bottom line is that I would not blame any religion but the people who attempt to abuse it for their own selfish ends.

As far as under developedment in Sharia ruled nations. Well, I think most of it has to do with the fact that prior to the discovery of oil in many of these nations there was little development to begin with and were largely ingnored by the rest of the world (kind of like most of Africa nowadays).  Meanwhile Western nations were quickly mondernizing, specially after WW1 and WW2. Although Middle Eastern nations have attempted to modernize, at their core their culture works against them. Most are tribal based societies, only the richest within the ruling families or top circles in the government achieve any significant amount of wealth. There is hope, for places like Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey, Egypt, etc.. which have a developing middle class and have potential for significant development, both social and economic. Globalization I think will be the key to unlocking the human potential in these countries but change is not easy and many times very painfull (may take couple of revolutions and international intervention)...

Regarding the Archbishop. Christian religious leaders in the past few years have not had the best track record with inter-religion relationships. Something about challenging what most people use as the basis for the way they live their lives (religion in general) that puts people on edge...

[Forumsdwarf]

quote:Imagine what life would be like in western nations if the laws practiced at the rise of Christianity or the old cannonical Hebrew laws were implemented.

No need to imagine, just read the history of Britain under Lord Protector Cromwell.  The economy suffered, religious violence abounded, corruption was reduced, and life sucked.  Violent conflict between Catholic and Protestant has only just recently ended in Britain, and Cromwell was a major reason it lasted as long as it did.
But corruption was reduced.  Whoopie.  Same thing happened in Iran.
Fortunately for anyone who lives in the modern world the late-Renaissance British had no taste for fundamentalism and scrapped it when Cromwell died.
"Supremacy of Parliament" was the other thing Cromwell brought to Britain and the reason most modern British subjects do not view him as a villian.  His contemporaries held a less charitable view: they exhumed his body and cut off his head.

quote:I think most of it has to do with the fact that prior to the discovery of oil in many of these nations there was little development to begin with

You actually need to re-think your entire premise.  The Arab world was, along with China, one of the two most advanced civilizations on Earth up until around the 15th century.  The Arabs invented algebra and made important discoveries in optics, chemistry, architecture, and civil engineering before the Europeans even understood the concept of plumbing.  They even managed to build a couple of crude bronze siege cannons, quite possibly the world's greatest technological achievement in the field of metallurgy before Europe rose to prominence.

Then they got religious and Western Civ got secular.  You pretty much know the story from there.

quote:Turkey ... Sharia

Thanks to its first President, secular reformer Kemal Ataturk, Turkey is modeled on the Swiss Civil Code, not Sharia.  Being secular, Turkey's relative prosperity only supports my contention that fundamentalism is a poor form of government.

[Balynevil]

It's amazing the kewl things that the Arabs and chinese were able to envision during the time when Europe was still trying to figure how to get thier heads out of the mud. I am not sure that You can apply religion as the reason for the breaks being put on development. Most Arab nations had a great place in the world. they literally sat at the center of it. All trade that was done by ground (which was most trade until Navies developed) passed through their lands. The resulting free exchange of ideas is what really allowed for their advancement. The shift to naval routes (and largely away from ground transportation (until mass ground transport, trains and trucks) could also account for the lack of development. This would be in line with China's own lack of development for 500 years prior to the arival of Western interests. Isolation. In the case of the Arabs it was market forces, while the Chinese was self imposed (Great Wall and all). Religious fundamentalism, in any shape, way or form is bad. Unless you worship the FSM.

[Forumsdwarf]

If Arab Civilization declined because they ceased to control the trade routes, is that not a symptom of invisible rot and collapse which had already taken place?  If all roads lead through you yet never TO you isn't that a sign you're no longer producing anything of value?  The drop in traffic only exposed the rot, it didn't cause it.  Something else did.

Was the rise of religious fervor in proportion to the fall of their civilization a coincidence?  Given what has happened to other nations which have given themselves over to fundamentalism, the case for cause-and-effect in this case seems convincing.

Those navies that sailed around the world to engage in trade were just portable roads.  They didn't create the wealth they carried -- the nations that built them did.  Europe was in the throes of an economic, intellectual, and technological expansion that the Arab world did not participate in, because as Europe was chaining religion to the Sunday sermon and unleashing science, education, technology, and the economy Arab Civilization was doing the reverse.

The lesson useful to us from that chapter in history revolves around current debates such as stem cell research, genetic engineering, and nuclear power.  If we succumb to superstition we'll be left behind.

[ February 13, 2008: Message edited by: Forumsdwarf ]