Has anyone actually read Rowan Williams' speech? It's actually a long, thoughtful and rather difficult academic lecture; I've not really got to grips with his argument myself and I don't think it's been accurately represented by the more provocative quotes that have appeared in the media. Here's just one sentence: I doubt if any Mail or Sun journalist could actually get to the end of it:
no no, the person to whom the "keep it simple" is being addressed is being called Stupid. did i make that clear?
i think we'll just keep mumbling around in this thread until someone shows up who can explain WTH that guy is talking about. i've tried reading it three times, and i'm still drawing a blank. we'll be like the class awaiting the arrival of the professor.
Yeah..I've tried to read it a few times as well. But my head started hurting ( it happens when I think too much ). I wonder who's the professor gonna be....
the man is a high order of fuckwit , hes a dhimmi or a traitor , I dont think he has the sense of a flea . he seem to think encouraging other religious legal systems is the way to have a happy country what he would get is the oppersite , men like this have made this country the balkans sooner or later we will have civil war
lithium makes me feel inadequate. i don't want him lecturing. peace phoenix and luke are just authoritarian or authoritative. can't recall which.
i used to tutor quite a bit. i don't have the patience for people who don't get it the first couple times through. so i was a very poor tutor.
I suck at it too. I've helped tutor chemistry and latin, but I am not a good tutor. And it is frustrating when they are not getting it.
i'm going to try to descontruct a run-on sentence here, maybe that'll help. please forgive the editting and occaisional blatant rewording: The rule of law is not the enshrining of priority for the universal/abstract dimension of social existence, rather it is the establishing of a space accessible to everyone, in which it is possible to affirm and defend a commitment to human dignity. So that when specific communities or traditions are in danger of claiming finality for their own boundaries of practice and understanding, they are reminded that they have to come to terms with the actuality of human diversity. The only way of doing this is to acknowledge the category of ‘human dignity' as such: a non-negotiable assumption that each agent (with his or her historical and social affiliations) could be expected to have a voice in the shaping of some common project for the well-being and order of a human group.
