Archbishop And The Law

The Archbishop Of Canterbury created quite a storm by suggesting that religious groups should be given the right to conduct their own courts to judge members of their own community. Whilst he appeared to be suggesting that other groups such as Muslims would be the main beneficiaries I can’t help but wonder if there isn’t a long term game plan here and that he is looking to a time when the Church Of England might be in conflict with the general publics view and want to be able to have their own rules.
The idea of a community policing itself does not seem like a bad idea. It should work well and we could all benefit from it but that is community in the sense that everybody lives in the same area. The idea that a community within a greater community should be able to have their own courts is rather more disconcerting.
How do you decide who should be sitting on such courts and how are they selected? How do you define a group or community who can be allowed such responsibility?
This cannot just be allowed for religious groups so Would you allow a local gang of street thugs to set up their own courts? Why not allow a few local residents to become vigilantes? In theory it could work well but what happens when the vigilantes develop a different agenda from the one the local residents have.
The British Justice system seems to work reasonably well and has done over a long time. The biggest blunders seem to come when there is public or political pressure on the police to get results. There have been far too many cases overturned after years of imprisionment for what turns out to be an innocent party. History tells us that religion is one of the worst offenders when it comes to manipulating justice to achieve their own aims.
The idea that religion is a special case should be killed off before it ever gets a hold. The important values of Britain are our freedom of expression and acceptance of other alternative views. We may not agree with them but we accept they are as valid as any other view. Argument and discussion should be used to resolve them if possible but agreeing to disagree is acceptable too and that is perhaps what makes the United Kingdom a country that many people want to live in.
Were religion to be made a special case when it comes to the law it would effectively reduce the rights of the non-religious and that is not acceptable in an open and free society. Whatever religion you choose you must still abide by the laws of the country. Have your own ‘club’ rules by all means but they must be within the normal legal system and all members must abide by the rule of law.
People of faith are entitled to have that faith but only if that remains within the laws of the land. We saw an unacceptable face of religion when some people were calling for the death of those involved in the Danish cartoon debacle though the majority disagreed. There will always be different opinions and interpretations of beliefs. The law must protect all the people not just certain groups.
Those at the head of religious groups have an important part to play in the world. People follow them, sometimes blindly and sometimes ignorantly. Any guidance given to them should always be within the law of the land. There may be conflicts of interest sometimes but ways must be found to resolve those conflicts rather than allowing special interest groups to have their own different rules.
Just because a group people have a view does not make them right, or wrong, or allow that they should be able to ignore the law of the land.