Arch idiot of canterbury

Somewhat after the Lord mayor's Show, this is my take on the ArchBishop of Canterbury and his view that some form of Sharia law is inevitable in Great Britain, despite it leading, in effect, to a parallel justice system.
First of all, let's dispel any idea that this was the kind of vacuous theorising beloved of certain kinds of unworldly, intellectual academic. To papraphrase C.J from the Rise and Fall of Reginal Perrin, Rowan Williams didn't get where he is today by being an unwordly naif. Even in an increasingly secular British society, the position he occupies is important, visible and highly political . For God's sake ( literally) he is not only the leader of the Church of England but the spiritual head of the Anglican church globally. to whom millions of people around the world look for spiritual sustenance and leadership. Nobody gets appointed to this position without a finely-tuned political radar.
So, if he isn't naive and unworldly, what was his motive for saying what he did? Could he really believe that there is a case for certain parts of Britain to adopt Sharia law? If he does, he obviously doesn't have Kensington and Chelsea in mind.
But, should the citizens of Bradford, Burnley, Tower Hamlets and other points east really be encouraged to adopt a legal system that is so at odds with the British one? Does he really think that this would encourage integration, that itwould stop at informal courts dealing solely with matters of marriage, divorce and family? All the evidence point in the opposite direction. Experience over the last decade indicates that, once one elementt of Moslem practice is accepted as the norm ( such as women being allowed to wear the equivalent of a pillar box while giving vidence in court) then it is rapidly used as the thin end of a very large wedge.
Dr. Williams' intervention at this juncture has been timed, I believe, to give that wedge another shove into the gap first created by the Burkha- clad women. He has often spoken of his admiration for certain aspects of Sharia law and the Moslem religion generally. Now, he is simply expressing that admiration in a more practical way. Because, with his lecture he has lit a bonfire that will never die down. The germ of an idea will , by constant repetition and rehearsal of the argument, mutate into something altogether stronger.
Given the alchohol-fuelled assault currently being carried out on our society by gangs of youths with no education, no family background, no respect and absolutely zero prospects, some people find the kind of direct action encapsulated in Sharia very appealing. There are some young scrotes living in my neck of the woods that would probably benefit from the removal of a hand or two ( only joking!). But, if we as a society decide we need is stronger policing and more robust treatment of offenders, it's up to us to demand that we get them; either by badgering our current crop of politicians or, if that fails, by voting them out of office at the next oportunity.
What we do not need is the introduction, even on a limited scale, of an alien system of law and philosophy that treats women as chattels to be bartered in marriage or bondage;that demands the death penalty for anyone who decides that he or she no longer believes in God or the Prophet and that regards all members of other faiths as inferior and treats them accordingly. Were we to allow it, even on a limited basis, the day would one day arrive when the ArchBishop of Canterbury - either the present incumbent or a successor - would become a second-class citizen in his own country. If you don't belive me, look at Egypt and similar middle Eastern countries where Christianity has been established for almost 2000 years and where Christians are now systematically violated in the holy name of Allah and Sharia law.