Hitchens hates religion. He clearly hates it more when a Christian tries to take Islam seriously rather than join in a crusade. Hitchens is doing a good job at being a provocateur, but I don't think he understood the archbishop.

First, his one extended quote follows a fairly detailed exploration into how laws are actually created in cultural contexts. They were rarely made by philosophers. Williams then explores a fairly post-modern way of how law happens. It's a controversial view, perhaps, but one that is taken seriously in the academy.

The archbishop is also clear that Sharia would follow British Law: "There are no blank checks." I don't know how Hitchens missed it. I also don't know how he missed Williams stating very clearly that the extreme aspects of Sharia would be trumped by British law.

Then he drops the bombshell - that lots of people didn't get. He said aspects of sharia are culturally conditioned. Anyone who is a part of the religious wars should have understood that this simple statement undermines fundamentalists in all camps, making moderates the powerbrokers in the British Muslim community. Few Muslims would agree with Rowan about the Culturally conditioned part. As well as atheists.

Hitches then does what he's good at: name calling. I remember when he sneered at Rowan's honest reply to him when he asked about the schism during a lunch. He expected more leadership from the archbishop (in his perpetually righteous search for hypocrites). And now when the Archbishop says something controversial, he wants him to shut up.

It's a childish article, one that misinterpreted Rowan Williams, and continues the general pack of lies said about the archbishop. Alas. Too bad the subject was relevant enough for Hitchens to stone the Archbishop. Next time I suggest he read the entire interview, lecture and address. He might learn something.

Okay okay, so you don't like Hitchens, and you don't like athiests. That much is clear.

But what do you say about introducing/allowing another legal system for a community within a country? Do you honestly believe this is a good idea?

One quote that sticks out is that "Sharia would follow British Law... extreme aspects of Sharia would be trumped by British law". What does this mean? Some sort of watered down Sharia? What would be the point in that?

I would oppose it. But that's not what the Archbishop of saying.

And yes - it would mean, most certainly, a different sharia (watered down) than is practiced in other parts of the western world. The point? A multicultural society where different sorts of religions live in peace rather than at war.

That a Christian Archbishop is suggesting such might be noted. It does inconvenience the perpetual claim that all religionists are war-mongers.

Where do you get I don't like atheists? Lots of my friends are atheists. My father was an atheist. I grew up in an agnostic family. But ad hominem, incomplete attacks ....

Well, my mistake. I incorrectly picked that up between the lines. Sorry for that.

But well, yeah, it seems we both want the same thing, which is to say a world in which everyone can live together peacefully. I guess this is a good step in that direction, in a way. But ultimately, in another thousand years or so we can look back at this time and say to ourselves, "man, religion sure was a major roadblock for our quest to live together peacefully. Thank god (irony intended) all that squabling is behind us."

Hi Loren - I think Hitchens doesn't have an accurate understanding of religion. Personally, I think abundance, rather than a lack of religion, is what makes societies peaceful.

More closely, I think that if we abandon rivalry, envy and competition we might live together peacefully. the question is: does religion harness or oppose these very human emotions? I suggest both. Some religions harness resentment. Others suppress it. It is rarely absolute.

Religion makes societies peaceful? The holy books of the Jews, Christians, and Muslims promote slavery.

Is this your idea of a peaceful society?