[...] find more intelligences more subtle and profound than I writing about the same issue at Cranmer and Our Kingdom, while Stumbling and Mumbling emphasises that “civil society” has a place in this [...]

' There needs to be access to recognised authority acting for a religious group: there is already, of course, an Islamic Shari'a Council, much in demand for rulings on marital questions in the UK; and if we were to see more latitude given in law to rights and scruples rooted in religious identity, we should need a much enhanced and quite sophisticated version of such a body, with increased resource and a high degree of community recognition, so that 'vexatious' claims could be summarily dealt with…. '

….But to return to our main theme: I have been arguing that a defence of an unqualified secular legal monopoly in terms of the need for a universalist doctrine of human right or dignity is to misunderstand the circumstances in which that doctrine emerged, and that the essential liberating (and religiously informed) vision it represents is not imperilled by a loosening of the monopolistic framework….

…But if one approaches it along the lines sketched by Shachar in the monograph quoted earlier, it might be possible to think in terms of what she calls 'transformative accommodation': a scheme in which individuals retain the liberty to choose the jurisdiction under which they will seek to resolve certain carefully specified matters, so that 'power-holders are forced to compete for the loyalty of their shared constituents' ….

These remarks from Rowan Williams in his lecture may not be exactly advocating a parallel system of law, but they undoubtedly support the extension of the religious conscience within secular law, and the increased resourcing and social promotion of bodies particular to specific religions within the legal system. This is advocacy of religious micro-systems within the law and therefore its partial desecularisation.

Agree with Simon Barrow. Disestablishment of the Church of England might be helpful so that there is a clear distinction between religious conscience and civil law. Conscience is costly and maybe the sacrifice of having male Anglican bishops in the House of Lords would clarify where people stand if they want to live in a particular religious way which does not agree with the Civil Law. The present system does not provide adequate representation in the House of Lords for many sincere Christians who are women or homosexual.

Last week the government was pushing through the new EU treaty in the House of Commons with hardly a murmur in the media at this breach of trust. As it happens I am totally supportive of the new treaty and against a referendum: parliament is responsible.

The newpapers and the BBC has spent so much time on this week's drama, misrepresenting what the Archbishop had to say in his almost incomprehensible lecture on a topic which is of little importance in terms of the British Constitution.

I am profoundly worried by the various media who choose to ignore important constitutional matters and prefer a scandal of such insignificance.

Why must the Islamic law given preference? What of the Hindus, and others? Can't the British Law protect all religious groups without preverence to one? I am afraid that the Church has lost her vision and she is medling with unimportant issues. Those who are bold to talk about inclusivisim in everything has nothing to exclude even the devil or sin. There is nothing to repent of in the postmodern christianity where everything is relative and never concrete or absolute. In the theology of universalism there is no mission ground and there is no remnant called the believers for all are qualified. Except there is another great reformation the Anglican church and its seat is gone.

I have read it through.Thanks.

[...] for some thoughtful comment on this subject). Or this one if you want to be sworn at. Or a good Sharia Series at over at Our Kingdom - I don’t agree with all of it, but they comprehensively beat [...]