Muslims and gaysNazir-Ali not attending the Lambeth Conference.
well there's a surprise. we didn't see that coming, eh?
yes sticking up for his beliefs and within the framework of what he believes he is, of course, in the right, technically *. but come on, you cannot deny me this. Nazir-Ali chats out of his backside about Islam with both fierce stupidity and awful cunning, and now, this, is, well, not a shock.. ...you remember, David Goodhart, in a recent Prospect with the Mai 68'ers feature, rightly excoriated Christopher Hitchens for his intellectual absolutism and lack of interest in progressive incrementalism that makes a genuine difference to people (there again, of course when not writing good science, the function of Dawkins clearly is to write bad atheism, and that's not going to change anytime soon, so Hitch's failings can be balanced against his pugnacious prose which at least remains enjoyable - which is more than can be said for David Goodhart's immigration essay)* or is he? he could always go, argue his corner, and yes a very blatant point this, but it must be one he's thought of and discounted, his 'red line', which incidentally, is a concept (a term devalued by frequent usage from the likes of Tony Blair or, oh i don't know, Ben Bradshaw, as, say, Robin Carmody might remind us) that has been missing - in some commentary - from certain of the entirely accurate accounts about some of David Davis' regrettable views, no?
also socially liberal people of faith that know about theology, i am sure, could debate with Nazir-Ali until the cows come home and ferociously be able to impress upon him that they are in the right and his views are in fact wrong. though what i know about Christian theology is nothing.
but the fact remains that for all the above window-dressing, Nazir-Ali, in siding with the other conservatives, is getting a theological fig-leaf for bigotry
(or, at the very least, opposition to progress), and what makes him so different from the folk across the pond who are also in his church and did go against him with their bold moves.
so give over Nazir-Ali, and your mate in the Telegraph, that bloke whose name escapes me who sometimes writes the most shabby, insulting, witless guff about Islam in some Sunday editions. (though i have not seen one of his bylines for a long time, well over a year IIRC.)
speaking of Hitch, the lovely J-Clo had a little piece up recently on Hitch's far-from-world-beating, tossed-off (Morley writing in the London Telegraph his short gig reviews, as one would say to SR) Slate article about wine in a restaurant. and whilst there are very amusing points put forth (and usage of "margrave") in the piece
here, i remain at a loss. (there again, jane is busy engaging with SFJ at a high level, and the merit of sugarhigh! is always everything isn't it, the essays and the asides, all of it.)
simply put, if the cod-psychology (or whatever i should call it) is meant unironically and plainly and, just so as at face-value, then, well..
