THE MCJ

Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible. - Søren Kierkegaard

AND NOW...IDIOTS

Pointless man offers stupid opinion:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, has called for new laws to protect religious sensibilities that would punish “thoughtless and cruel” styles of speaking.

Dr Williams, who has seen his own Anglican Communion riven by fierce invective over homosexuality, said the current blasphemy law was “unworkable” and he had no objection to its repeal.

But whatever replaces it should “send a signal” about what was acceptable.

This should be done by “stigmatising and punishing extreme behaviours” that have the effect of silencing argument.

The Archbishop, delivering the James Callaghan Memorial Lecture in London this afternoon, said it should not just be a few forms of extreme behaviour that were deemed unacceptable, leaving everything else as fair game.

“The legal provision should keep before our eyes the general risks of debasing public controversy by thoughtless and, even if unintentionally, cruel styles of speaking and acting,” he said.

Lovely.  Pass a law against offending people, "even if unintentionally."  Can't see how that idea could possibly go wrong.

UPDATE: Welcome, Instapundit readers!

UPDATE: Pass laws like this and you end up here.

Posted on 1/29/2008 8:38:32 PM , 47 comments

Submitted by Jeffersonian at 1/29/2008 4:11:12 PM
A modern Rip Van Winkle who fell asleep in, say, 1942 could be forgiven for reading this and assuming that the other side won the conflict in which the world was embroiled at that time. At the risk of seeming crass, the ABoC needs a big steaming cup of STFU right about now.
Submitted by dwstroudmd at 1/29/2008 4:42:29 PM
This sort of rambling is precisely what one should expect from Mr. Windsor subversion. But if you look at his version of employment of the concept in actual practice, you'll be looking for a long time for any sign of activity. In short, he cannot imagine it doing any harm because he cannot imagine "doing".
Submitted by Allen Lewis at 1/29/2008 5:09:13 PM
For someone who is supposed to have such a great intellect, my gracious Lord of Canterbury surely does act and think like a typical post-modern totalitarian! All he can think to do is pass another "Hate Speech" bill?

Methinks, ++Rowan needs to get out more by himself and away from his handlers. He might want to look at what has resulted from Canada's experiment in such folly.

Truly, truly pathetic!

Submitted by Matthew at 1/29/2008 5:28:51 PM
It's funny, but any time anyone mentions restricting freedom of speech, I immediately think of Illinois nazis. I hope I didn't just trigger Godwin's law.
Submitted by Peter C. at 1/29/2008 6:26:54 PM

Britons already have allowed their right of self-defense to be taken from them; freedom of speech is always the next to go. If --Rowan had showed the slightest bit of common sense or intelligence in the past, I might surmise that he was angling for the position of High Chancellor.

Submitted by Clown Celebrant at 1/29/2008 6:40:18 PM
Williams is shooting blanks with this proposal. His allies will nod in agreement, but it's such a ridiculous idea it will never gain traction. If the ABC doesn't know this, he's a fool. If he does, he's a poser. Oh, I'm sorry, did I offend? Who cares.
Submitted by Tood at 1/29/2008 6:41:33 PM
This is good news for America - they will see the scary effects of creeping fascism/Sharia in Britain, and thus the 40% of Americans who still have common sense will react to prevent this for going to far in the US. Sane Brits will move to the US or Australia. The rest will become Dhimmis.
Submitted by Peter at 1/29/2008 6:57:24 PM
Swampy has turned out to be the most foolish Archbishop in living memory.Try as I might, I can find nothing Christian in his vicious idea.
Submitted by Sinner at 1/29/2008 7:06:23 PM
The most disguisting proposal here is that this is the legalisation of blasphemy.

Now in the secular-pagan US, this idea may be par for the course - but in the still nominally Anglican UK, this idea is tantamount to disestablishment and the end of the CoE.

Submitted by Bill (not IB) at 1/29/2008 7:19:49 PM
Given how much repression has been taking place in Britain in order to minimize offending a certain religious group that worships *llah, this isn't really a surprise. There's a mindset that believes it is possible to make a law which will be interpreted only in the way a given persons intends - never mind that someone else will be doing the interpreting, or that precedents have a way of leading to subsequent actions which weren't originally considered.


And, Matthew - citing Jake and Elwood *cannnot* be considered an instance of Godwin's law. Remember, they were on a mission from God. ;-)
Submitted by Assistant Village Idiot at 1/29/2008 7:42:10 PM
Whenever I read the words "sending a signal" my Well-Meaning-Fool alarm goes off.
Submitted by jake at 1/29/2008 8:31:49 PM
Actually Bill (not IB, it was the police officer, not the bros. who said "... the f***ing Illinois Nazis.."
Submitted by sbw at 1/29/2008 8:53:26 PM
Your assignment for tomorrow: Plan an essay explaining why the freedom to offend is a core principle of society. Hint: 1) Start with a reflection on your own past when you thought you were correct and were mistaken. 2) Then, in humility, consider how you depend on others to help you recognize those mistakes. 3) Finally, explain how you depend on an accurate mental map of reality to plan your best future. Deduce from this mind-experiment why it is that the freedom to offend, and to be offended is essential to an individual. Then project this insight to where groups of individuals interact. We call this society. Interesting, isn't it, that democracy codifies the humility that any one person can think of a better way to do something, and to try to convince others of it. This, my friend, is the freedom to offend -- to tell someone something they may not care to hear. Now that you have planned the essay, instead of writing that one, write an essay on why this insight is not taught in schools. Assignment number two is to consider why the freedom to offend does not imply the necessity to do so. Hint: respect for others who share humility. These two insights are the cornerstones of civilization.
Submitted by Ken at 1/29/2008 9:21:37 PM
Wonder what Archbishop Williams would make of this.
Submitted by Jeffersonian at 1/29/2008 9:38:06 PM
Congrats on the Instalanche, Chris.
Submitted by tim in TX at 1/29/2008 9:39:38 PM
"This should be done by “stigmatising and punishing extreme behaviours” that have the effect of silencing argument. " And where is the outcry about demolishing the distinctions between speech and action? Somewhere Orwell is laughing.
Submitted by ForNow at 1/29/2008 9:53:40 PM
It wasn't the anti-theistic books of Dawkins or Hitchens or the works of Andres Serrano, etc. that led Rowan Williams to seek this speech repression law. It was fear of islamofascist revenge, nothing more and nothing less. There's been plenty of talk of "liberal fascism" lately, and some sort of fascist presumptions are clearly involved in Rowan Williams's proposal, but when a liberal advocates a speech-repressive law motivated by terror about the terrorists, the terrorists correctly perceive it as exhibitionistic pants-wetting. Now, that's not to say that, on the other hand, talking tough would stop terrorists. Nothing stops terrorists except destroying them.
Submitted by obituary at 1/29/2008 10:05:12 PM
Rowan Williams is fast approaching being put on the same infamous list of failures as Chamberlain. The trouble is I don't see a united British nation ready to follow a Churchill into battle to save themselves. In fact Dr Rowan Williams may not even be in the "new" history books the victors write.
Submitted by Sodbuster at 1/29/2008 10:23:33 PM
Kanzler or False Prophet? Let's see, so you can blaspheme the Father Son and Holy Spirit, but you'd better not "offend" sodomites, those who approve of them, or the Antichrist religion of Mohammedanism. Don't think it can't happen here. It happens on blogs, it happens in colleges and high schools.
Submitted by ic at 1/29/2008 10:25:08 PM
As always, tyranny falls on America and lands some place else.
Submitted by jimmy at 1/29/2008 10:28:42 PM
Actually, placing terrorists in a construct where their basis for complaint seems absurd accomplishes much the same thing. For example: The nearly inarguable defense to be offered up to a muslim upset about a blasphemous depiction of the prophet in a danish magazine is to point to "Piss Christ" and say "someone's always trying to pull somebody's chain". When he counters that all such "hate speech" should be banned, ask him how he'd feel if we passed out bibles in front of the local mosque, maybe wearing revealing clothing, eating pork rinds. The situation readily permutes to the point at which it becomes clear that if we are to accomodate multiple sets of beliefs under a single rubric, "carve-outs" for particularly egregious transgressions will result in the whole system spiraling out of control and someone will tell you that behavior which some may feel is not only appropriate, but mandated by a given belief system, is prohibited because it might offend another. Harrison Bergeron anyone?
Submitted by ForNow at 1/29/2008 11:30:23 PM
Terrorists have an effective method for dealing with Gordian Knots made of words. Pointing to "Piss Christ" as a comparison to Mohammed cartoons is strictly apples and oranges to islamofascists. For an islamofascist, there's a big difference between offensiveness to Christianity and offensiveness to Islam. Islamofascists don't buy into moral equivalence and such. The only twisty arabesques of thought which they accept are those which don't transgress the absolute boundaries of the given brand of Islam.
Submitted by Katherine at 1/29/2008 11:39:05 PM
Free speech is essential to free societies. Canada's repressive regime is familiar to any follower of Anglican blogs. In Europe, it has long been a criminal offense to claim the Holocaust did not happen. That opinion is both false and stupid, but making it illegal is leading Europe in the direction which Williams is taking. If you can't say anything that offends some minority group, soon the majority will be the minority, and from that position, its rights will be indefensible. Slander, libel, and criminal incitement laws should be sufficient to punish speech which actually causes or intends to cause direct harm.
Submitted by Michael D at 1/29/2008 11:44:29 PM
A strange sentence:

"This should be done by “stigmatising and punishing extreme behaviours” that have the effect of silencing argument."

He wants to silence arguments on the basis of whether or not they silence arguments.

These recent extremist statements by Williams are inconsistent with his early years in office. We should probably conclude that he is tired of pretending to be even-handed.

Submitted by jimmy at 1/29/2008 11:49:02 PM
ForNow, that is precisely the point. For the present, WE make the rules. What we need to do is make it clear that in order for anyone to avail himself of a tolerant society, there is an expectation of reciprocal tolerance. Should any group enjoy special treatment, the construct fails and everyone can demand special treatment at the expense of everyone else.
Submitted by ForNow at 1/30/2008 12:02:49 AM
It's annoying when the vulgarity of "liberals" and leftists infects discussion, but I don't know how to describe Rowan Williams's proposal except as typical "Piss Free Speech." That's exactly what it is. I will try to make this amusing in terms of "two nations divided by the same language" -- Rowan degenerates to a (traditional Brit lingo) ninny or (contemporary American lingo) flake trying to throw open the gates to (traditional Brit lingo) beasts or (contemporary American lingo) barbarians. Rowan is among the first whose participle (body) would be dangling (swinging) from a crane in the Caliphate which the students of Sayyid Qutb lustily wish to establish -- Sayyid Qutb, the soft-spoken, scholarly Hitler-Marx of the Muslim Brotherhood and jihadist terrorism, who was hanged by the cutthroat windbag Nasser and who sings forever the joy of grinding islamocratic tyranny into the ears of Muslims world-wide including Pakistani engineers who know well how to build nuclear weapons. Williams is a fool to think that there is any placating of jihadist terrorists, they are expert at making every option a losing one for their opponents. Williams tried to buy time for the Anglican Communion, he tries to buy time from the jihadis, he is simply a time-buyer.
Submitted by ForNow at 1/30/2008 12:09:03 AM
For the present, we are decreasingly making the rules, and there is no construct which we can make but will be turned into the scaffolding of dhimmmihood as long as relativism and generalism become layers blocking the singling out of jihadism -- both active and passively aggressive -- as an enemy to be crushed.
Submitted by jimmy at 1/30/2008 12:24:12 AM
ForNow,I can't imagine that you're suggesting that I'm taking a "liberal" position in this discussion. If anything, I'm arguing from a purely liberatarian stance which, judging from the "islamofascist" descriptor which you earlier employed, should jibe well with the afternoon talk radio philosophy ("kill em all") that you seemed to be espousing. Really now, sir, that is the sort of thing up with which we should not put...
Submitted by Clown Celebrant at 1/30/2008 12:30:11 AM
sbw you are my hero.
Submitted by Sasha at 1/30/2008 12:40:34 AM
That truly exposes Mr. Rowan Williams as the Nazi/Commie that he really is!! If his country passes such a law, goodbye forever to Britain's constitution, Bill of Rights, habeas corpus and ALL the things it fought for over an entire MILLENIUM (1.000 years)!!!!

SBW otherwise has put into words what I feel far better than I could - it would be the absolute end of all Western civilisation.
Submitted by ForNow at 1/30/2008 12:47:53 AM
My post "it's annoying when liberals..." appearing after your earlier one was written before it; it was not in reply to you. My subsequent shorter post beginning "For the present, we are decreasingly making the rules" was written in reply.

My point is simply that islamofascists don't care in what a bad spot an argument, libertarian or otherwise, places them. Direct, brute-forceful, indexical connections come first with them; only secondarily, symbolic and logical relations; and, as for semblances, they are iconoclasts, though I do wonder how they reconcile that with the schlepping around of big placard photos of their heroes.
Submitted by jimmy at 1/30/2008 12:57:58 AM
I couldn't agree more. We need to enforce free speech with an equivalent direct brute force. On a different tangent, in light of Sasha's reply, I think these last two posts are in direct violation of the previously discussed Godwin's law. Please don't ban me Chris.
Submitted by ForNow at 1/30/2008 1:17:14 AM
We're on the same page, jimmy. I don't think that we're instantiating Godwin's Law. I hope Chris doesn't ban us! My rhetoric about Qutb as a "Hitler-Marx" was addressed to an imaginary figure of Rowan Williams in my mind, and so I ratcheted it up. As a one-time "liberal," I'm well aware that "liberals" won't take you seriously unless you get passionate at some point -- then it's a matter of how and why, and a touch of Lovecraftian horror at an authentic horrorist like Qutb is just the thing to overwhelm the ninnies. It's what they should be addressing, rather than veiling.
Submitted by Ed the Roman at 1/30/2008 8:30:38 AM
I am quite dismayed that Salvador Vali did not have the sense of style to precede that with a post using another username reading "and now for something completely different."

It's one thing to be vulgar and immature, but without even being funny it just loses the whole point.

Submitted by Dr. Alice at 1/30/2008 9:30:36 AM
Old Salvador did us a favor. His post makes just as much sense and is just as coprophilic as anything the revisionists have ever posted.
Submitted by jimmy at 1/30/2008 9:34:58 AM
And it's actually spelled "Stoep" unless of course you are hanging around in the narthex in which case it should be "stoup". In any event, this is getting stupid. I'm concerned we're stooping to new lows...
Submitted by Bill (not IB) at 1/30/2008 11:09:20 AM
Now, if Salvador was a true artistic genius, he'd cut off a part of his body like Van Gogh. I'd like to offer a suggestion........... ;-)
















now, don't tell me you didn't think I meant something "south of the waistline". C'mon, get your minds out of the gutter, people. My suggestion is his head. Lightweight, compact, and non-essential.....
Submitted by David Fischler at 1/30/2008 3:21:15 PM

I'm late to this discussion, and have my own post on it, and all the usual suspects have said everything I would have anyway. But I have got to say...

Instapundit! You have hit the big time, my friend. I'll bet you didn't even think Glenn Reynolds knew you existed.

;-)
Submitted by Christopher Johnson at 1/30/2008 3:47:45 PM
David,

I've been doing this a long time and I've had a few Instantlanches before. Back before I understood the concept of bandwidth[As if you understand it now - Ed.  Shush - Me] and hosted this thing at a free web host, an Instantlanche would shut me down a good chunk of the day.

Submitted by ForNow at 1/30/2008 4:39:28 PM
Chris was blogging away when the world was young and the blogosphere much less populous. MCJ was originally at mcj.blogspot.com/, and back in those days there were no comments. Yes, things were primitive. There were few blogs, Instapundit, MCJ, #2 Pencil, Tim Blair, Winds of Change, Den Beste's U.S.S. Clueless, a few others, and some future successful bloggers posting at L.com (Iowahawk, the Anchoress, the Brainster, and some of the folks at Power Line and the American Thinker); in those days blog voices called from peak to peak across dizzying, primeval emptiness. Those Ancient Ones are among us still, and they don't forget one another, at least not usually, I think. Anyway what's with this Salvador Vali stuff? I fall asleep and miss some action, hmph.
Submitted by The Littel Myrmidon at 1/30/2008 5:09:48 PM
Who decides when something is offensive? Who decides who has to be silenced? This is very scary.
Submitted by Robin Munn at 1/30/2008 5:44:14 PM

ForNow -

Check out the previous post - Saldavor Vali's "oeuvre d'art" is still there, seventh comment from the top.

As for me, I think he should have called himself "Awdy Narhol". But what do I know about art -- I'm a computer programmer. </sarcasm>

Submitted by Sodbuster at 1/30/2008 6:01:11 PM
Myrmidon, Whomever has the power decides. The group-will-to-power triumphs. Yes, it is very scary.
Submitted by David Fischler at 1/30/2008 6:32:00 PM
Wow, I had no idea you were so...ancient (in your blogging pedigree, that is). I guess associating with the blogosphere's elite is one of the perks of getting in on the ground floor, huh? (Desperately...trying...to hold..jealousy...in check) :-)
Submitted by ForNow at 1/30/2008 8:42:15 PM
I just remembered, a comment that I made at Tim Blair's got an Instalanche some years ago, though I can't find the link at Instapundit. So even a commenter who mouths off long enough gets his little scrap of glory. Of course, ten years from now, all of us here will be considered "The Ancient Ones." Thanks for pointing me to the Salvador Vali post. It has the rhythm of somebody rocking back and forth on a hard seat. It's so flowing, yet so constipated. Well, enough of that.
Submitted by JM at 1/30/2008 9:43:23 PM
You are being rather hard on the ABC. By shedding the burden of consistency, and the fetters of logic, he has shown himself to be an intellectually advanced socialist. In the name of tolerance, he can ruthlessly silence all who annoy him.

Isn't life so much easier in Britain, not having to bother with a Bill of Rights?

Submitted by Sodbuster at 1/31/2008 10:57:30 PM
tut,tut, I was blogging before Sir Tim Berners-Lee invented html and the hypertext replacement for Gopher - on Fido. Britain has a Bill of Rights (two actually, if you count the Magna Carta), the Bill of Rights of 1688, including the right to keep and bear arms, of all things. "What say the reeds of Runnymead?"
Name: Url:
Confirm: