The Reinterpretation Game
After all the misrepresentation, wilful and otherwise, of Rowan William’s remarks in the last few days, I’d thought I’d have a crack at it myself. Here’s what he actually said in his speech to the Church of England’s general synod this afternoon:
I must of course take responsibility for any unclarity in either that text or in the radio interview and for any misleading choice of words that’s helped to cause distress or misunderstanding among the public at large.
Here’s what I think he actually meant:
What are you supposed to do when some people are liars or lazy or wilfully ignorant or racist or just plain dickheads, eh? What’s this country come to when you can’t float an idea in plain English without being howled down by a mob? I notice Martin Amis didn’t get a fiftieth of the same stick when he talked about Muslims. But I forget, Amis was talking about his ‘definite urge’ to ’see Muslims suffer’, not putting forward some mild argument about helping Britain rub along with itself.
I think that about sums up what he meant, yes? I have to say, I could get used the reinterprating business. Think of the fun you could have. I might be cut out to be a gutter journalist or leading blogger after all.
Posted on February 11th, 2008 at 6:47 pm
| See also • Twitter thingy daily digest for 2007-06-02 • Taking the Michael • Just pickle my bones in alcohol |
Permalink • Trackback • Subscribe By Email • Print This Post • • • |
|
Filed under Theology |
If he had said that I would have reconsidered my atheism, on the grounds of awesome. Especially if the forum had been Thought for the Day.
Amis pretty much defended Williams against the press on Andrew Marr; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/andrew_marr_show/default.stm when he reviewed the papers with Amanda Platell.
I read the speech (I followed your link to it last week) and I don’t think the Archbish did himself any favours with double negatives and lots of wittering. He seemed to be saying “there’s a nasty Sharia law, which no one would support, and a nice sharia law, which we should think about, because they seem to take otherwise useless tools in beards and dresses seriously in these Muslim countries and I want me some of that.”
I particularly liked the ‘mind of god’ bit of his argument. Sharia apparently deals with it directly. We could go back to dunking witches. If they float, they’re guilty and we burn them. If they drown, the old man in the sky has gathered in another sheep or something. I think that was the last time we dealt with the author of the universe by telepathy instead of rational inquiry.
He doesn’t seem to realise that the divorce bit (which he does mention) doesn’t go down well because a religion which insists that women cover themselves while making no such demands on men isn’t likely to be altogether fair when it comes to marriage is it? I’m enjoying his pillorying hugely.
“a religion which insists that women cover themselves while making no such demands on men”
Err, what the hell? Islam insists that both men and women dress modestly. That’s why strictly Muslim gentlemen are rather more likely to wear pyjamas, a robe and a hat than, say, backless chaps and a thong…
John, I don’t want to get into a silly argument about Islam, but I see quite a lot of women in veils etc and very few men in ‘traditional dress’ - that is some kind of headgear or beards or whatever. I should have said ‘cover their faces’ rather than ‘cover themselves’ and been clearer about the demands on men. I still detect hypocrisy though.
Fair play - where I am the numbers seem about equal (obviously wearing a burkha is more of an imposition than wearing pyjamas and a hat, but most of the women I see are wearing headscarves rather than burkhas).
Just be careful who you reinterpret. The label ‘Sock puppet’ is a heavy burden to carry.
I particularly loved the bit where a member of the General Synod was widely quoted as saying “the man belongs in a university or something” as if prison were too good for the likes of him!
I wish he had reinteroreted your way Justin. It’s what the media needed to hear.
I gather the Daily Mail had a survey iun which the Archbishop was voted more dangerous than Abu Hamza so perhaps some really think that [rison is too good for him - only a university will make him suffer adequately!
Am I alone in thinking that the way this has been blown up is like a premature “Silly season?”
One of the many differences between Martin Amis and the AB of C is that Martin is not the head of an established church and leader of the Lords Spiritual in the House of Lords. This should not be news. It would be great if Williams could use some of his famously ample brain to get hold of this simple but important point: he is not a private individual but a public figure. Of course, if he resigns from the Archbishopric people like me will defend his right to demand public stoning for adultery or whatever it is he actually wants, as much as he likes. It’s just he should be stupid on his own time, not ours.
people like me will defend his right to demand public stoning for adultery or whatever it is he actually wants
Presumably this constitutes you being stupid on your own time?