He means well. Of all the damning statements made about the Archbishop that's the worst, David. The road to hell is paved...... I'm sure you can finish the sentence.

Ann Keith, Cambridge, uk

The Muslims have enough people of their own to advocate for their rights. Should not the archbishop focus on his PRIMARY responsibility of championing and speaking about and for the Christian faith, Anglican Church and the Christians suffering in Islamic countries?

Matt, Amsterdam, Netherlands

You don't need to be a Muslim woman to see that Sharia is unfair, just as you didn't need to be black to see that apartheid in South Africa was unfair. It's as plain as day. None so blind though...

Lizzy, Sydney, Australia

Not for the first time, David Aaronovitch just doesn't seem to get it.

Bill,sf,ca suggests that this is the thin end of a very large wedge - too true.

And as Richard Dell points out, David's simplistic dismissal of his fellow pundit Melanie Philips as conservative and Jewish
doesn't cut the mustard either.

Matthew Thomas, bristol,

The worst thing you can say about anyone is that they meant well. The inevitable corollary is that it - whatever it was they did - didn't turn out well.

SA, Leeds,

'the state is not God and doesn't have the right to impose its own morality on others'.
God is not the state and doesn t have the right to impose its own morality on others.
The bearded ones of all belief systemns want to do just that.

dhrowlands, cardiff,

Picking up on Rosemary's comments,even were Sharia to apply to non-criminal issues, the question is what Sharia? I understand that in some Sharia jurisdictions the testimony of a man carries more weight than that of a woman and that of a Muslim more than that of a non-Muslim. Can we be so multi-cultural as to think even for a nano-second of allowing such rules to apply anywhere on this island?

Dave, london,

"No sharia court anywhere should have any power even over those who "accept" its findings, for the simple reason that in an Islamic family the women (except, perhaps, the lucky few who have neither husband nor father nor brothers nor sons) do not have the right to make any important decisions. They do as they are told, vote as they are told and decide as they are told."
Rosemary

When you're a Muslim woman, you may speak for all of us. Otherwise, don't dare to represent what you aren't.

For the record, I've done all the things you pointed out and simply didn't like most of it either. Does that count, or do I also have to like it in order for you to be convinced of my 'free will'?
Such arrogance...

MC, London,

It's hard to understand why so many of the commentators don't seem to understand the implications of Sharia.
The full expression of Sharia means the forced subjugation of all other religions , and the confiscation of all religious literature, like Bibles. Once you let that camel's hoof in the door, with "Just a Little Sharia", you are giving Moslems the initiative in slowly demanding more and more of the provisions of Sharia. It is that which makes it so frightening. It isn't hysteria. It isn't prejudice, It isn't racism. It is an understanding of what has happened in every Islamic country - that is, NO freedom of Speech. NO Freedom of Religion. And, the forced subjugation or death of all non believers. You think this is a minor matter, or "Hysteria"? If you want your freedom, don't allow Sharia!

bill, sf, ca

David will probably have read Melanie Phillips' observation on his noting that she was "conservative" and "jewish". I have to agree that this is a cheap and irrelevant ad hominem, unworthy of such a heavyweight as he. How should we prefix you in public discourse, David? Perhaps as Greg Dyke referred to the BBC?

Richard Dell, Preston, UK

"So the Archbishop was trying to argue that the state should keep out and not go around fining the Bishop of Hereford £50,000 for doing what Bishops have always done."

But the case here was brought by another Christian, who clearly felt that the secular system was fairer and more just than any religiously-based decision. As a British citizen he had the right to justice

Are you saying the plaintiff should have been denied access to British law because the Bishop's decision under some religiously-inspired law should have been final?

Alistar, Edinburgh,

Lucid? His speech was lucid? That's the last thing I would call it. It was (surely deliberately?) highly opaque.

Ophelia Benson, Seattle, US

Your article was interesting and quite informative, but left me unsatisfied.

Is he a twat or not?

Mr Davies, London, UK

It's all part of the 'shoot first and ask questions later' mentality of the moronic British media.
The BBC has no scruples whatsoever.
Today's agenda: invite Bishop to talk on a complex theme and then misrepresent him on every BBC News program until you stir up enough animosity to put his job in jeopardey.
Your example of the 10 O' Clock news is only too typical. The problem is that people misguidedly believe that the BBC is an impartial and reliable source of news. All too often their coverage falls below the standards of the basist tabloids.

John O'Reilly, london, England

Vaguely recollecting there is something naughty about 'Priapus', I googled it: Ooo, you are awful - but I loved the article!

Harry, Bognor Regis,

At least he didn't kow-tow to tabloid-inspired morons and apologise.

His speech was too lucid and intelligent for those more interested in Britney Spears' latest outing....

John, London,

Let there be light, and most of all clear thinking and understanding. The archbishop should have given greater thought and reflection before he spoke with befuddling tongue. It is a shame his defence is that you did'nt understand me clearly. He must understand that his flock, feel unsafe in a dangerous world, they are no longer respected and often derided for their christian beliefs.

The secular amongst feel threatened that there is an increasing weakening of freedom, from a religion where there can be no unbeliever, where no one can leave the faith at the risk of death. The sharia system, as pointed out above in article can be victim of wild interpretations by extremists with little or no appeal to a higher court.

Gold finger, Gloucester, Uk

To think , such an intelligent man believes a higher being created everything that is percieved as real to us and we aren't all a happy coincidence of matter and chemical reaction ,quite bizarre .
When will the good people of this planet realise religion was a device created by control freaks to control their fellow man but usually their fellow woman.
Every religous law is about reducing civil liberty which makes me wonder just how weird this current government is , as they seem to be following that exact same path .
It wouldn't surprise me if Gordon Brown thought he was Jesus born again or was that mantle the sole property of his predecessor, the outrageously controlling Tony Blair.

Nick Dixon, Sutton Coldfield, A place next to the North Sea

'He meant well'. If he was a parish priest or a local councillor or a minor civil servant that might be acceptable. But he is the Archbishop of Canterbury - the spiritual leader of millions of Anglicans around the world. In this case 'he meant well' is no answer at all - Williams has demonstrated every single quality which proves that he is unfit to hold his current office.

And for what it is worth - the preservation of a wholly secular system of justice will be the best guarantee of individual freedom to practice one's own faith. It is, further, the 'glue' that will bind an increasingly diverse society. Opting out or this fashionable voluntary apartheid that is modern multiculturalism will simpy fragment society even further.

Finally, for the record, I am a practising Anglican.

Hugh, Berkhamsted,

It seems to me that Dr Williams has inadvertently lifted the lid on a development in British society which has crept up on us. We have become and are becoming amazingly intolerant of Christianity and its representatives. This whole episode is reminiscent of a pack of hounds gathering for the kill. For example, read the comments of James Fowler of Doncaster on this page. A less intelligent mouthful of bile it's hard to imagine.

JohnT, Birmingham, UK

Considering his life reloves around being the high priest of a load of superticious twaddle why should we be bothered about anything he says?

James Fowler, Doncaster, UK

Every now and then a Pop or Archbishops spreads this kind of lame "propaganda" against Islam to ignite "islamophobia".

Read my lips "Muslims" don't want Sharia on any other law.

Law in England, or in my case, in Canada is far superior and civilized and "closer to Islam".

Churches are using this as weapon against Islam. This kind of law is tailor made for Saudia or Afghanistan (guess what, both of these states are under American rule right now).

Mazhar, Ottawa, Canada

No sharia court anywhere should have any power even over those who "accept" its findings, for the simple reason that in an Islamic family the women (except, perhaps, the lucky few who have neither husband nor father nor brothers nor sons) do not have the right to make any important decisions. They do as they are told, vote as they are told and decide as they are told. Britain must not become yet another arm of this monstrous injustice.
I know many of them fondly believe they are free. Let them prove it by going to a restaurant on their own, sharing a taxi with a male friend, dating and marrying outside their faith. When Islamic menfolk accept that women's behaviour is none of their business, then I will believe it to.

Rosemary, Liverpool,

Did the press over-react to William's statements? Or, since Mr. Williams seems to be too busy playing his violin to notice the deep fractures in his own flock, perhaps, the press was reminding him that his attention might be directed to his priority - leaving the Anglican Church stronger than he found it. Debating the merits of Sharia Law is about the last thing he need turn his mind to.........as a world leader in matters Anglican, Williams has a responsibility to ensure that he protects the fabric of a democratic society within which his flock is allowed to peacefully practice our beliefs. Show me a democratic state which practices Sharia Law in a manner where the rights of the individual prevail.

Tom Goldspink, Toronto, Canada

Mr Aaronovitch:
Thank You!

I'm a Born Again Heretic, and I say 'foo on all religions'...I'm a secular kinda guy...but what scared me more than the *misperceived* thoughts ascribed to Williams, was the absolutely hysterical reaction the UK Press ignited. It is *sdtill* being grossly misreported!

Your colleague Simon Jenkins, in this very paper, some days back, was expounding how today's UK Press is as good as it has ever been.

God forbid! (And that's from a Heretic)

That particular issue, and the totally absurd one of the 'marrying cousins' (completely debunked by the UK Genetics Commission have been fed completely knee-jerk by this very paper.

Britain (and I'm an expat) is scaring the hell out of me. You will note claims of "experts" in the Woolas genetics claim...and yet absolutely none are referenced or quoted.

Such headlines in the broadsheets of this nation would result in an immediate inquiry by the Press Council.

No wonder the UK has race problems. Get the facts straight!

steve saines, toronto, canada

The main point Williams was making is that religious communities have organised themselves for hundreds of years with their own rules etc. Many of these Christian rules were incorporated into English law. Since the 60s they have systematically been repealed. Furthermore the secular state has started to impose its own politically correct values on religious communities in ways that force them to change and thereby infringes their religious liberty. So the Archbishop was trying to argue that the state should keep out and not go around fining the Bishop of Hereford £50 000 for doing what Bishops have always done. The state is not God and doesn't have the right to impose its own morality on others. Of course the nanny state is doing so but religious people whose institutions pre-date the state don't like to be infantilsed.

william Haines, northwood,