Catholicism Christianity English Ethics Religion Sociology UK

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, or How Much Can the Media Distort Opinions

So what is Roman Catholic Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor’s opinion on the “Sharia Law” brouhaha around the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Who knows? Because from a look around the internet, it’s hard to tell…

(a) BBC News
(a1) Carey weighs into Sharia law row
Last Updated: Sunday, 10 February 2008, 08:11 GMT

Catholic leader Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor said he was “saddened” by the way the archbishop’s comments had been misunderstood. “I think he did raise a point of considerable interest and concern at the moment, namely, the rights of a religious groups within secular state. “Everyone in Britain must obey the law and therefore the question of how one can be a loyal British citizen and a faithful member of a religious group is a very pertinent question,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Sunday programme.

(a2) Sharia row persists for Williams
Last Updated: Sunday, 10 February 2008, 18:53 GMT

Catholic leader Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor is one of the many to come out in defence of Dr Williams. “I feel he may fear that people with a Christian conscience will be put to the sidelines and not allowed to say what they believe to be true for the common good,” he told the BBC.

(b) AFP
Anglican leader ‘horrified’ by Sharia law row: predecessor
6AM Sunday

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, the leader of the 4.5 million Catholics in England and Wales, weighed into the debate, saying there were aspects of sharia that were not wanted in Britain. “I don’t believe in a multi-cultural society,” he told The Sunday Telegraph. “When people come to this country, they have to obey the laws of the land,” said the son of Irish immigrants.

(c) The Independent (Ireland)
Sharia law comments leave bishop in hot water

In an interview, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, the leader of the Catholic Church in England and Wales, said that government promotion of multiculturalism has destroyed the unity that used to hold British society together. Immigrants must “obey the laws of this country”, he said

(d) Sunday Telegraph
(d1) ENGLAND: Sharia law may result in ‘legal apartheid’
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent

In an interview with The Sunday Telegraph, Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, said that the Government’s promotion of multiculturalism had destroyed the unity that used to hold society together. Immigrants must “obey the laws of this country“.

(d2) People here ‘must obey the laws of the land’
Last Updated: 1:16am GMT 10/02/2008

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor, leader of the 4.5 million Catholics in England and Wales, begs to differ. He is adamant that such a move would only make segregation even more entrenched. “I don’t believe in a multicultural society,” he says firmly. “When people come into this country they have to obey the laws of the land.” He has a mellifluous voice and an affable manner, but the cardinal becomes steely when discussing the problems facing British society, and the issue of sharia law.

(e) Evening Standard
Two of the most powerful clergy in Britain launch stinging attack on Archbishop over sharia row
Last updated at 20:37pm on 10.02.08

Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor added his criticisms and went on to urge Muslims to do more to integrate. “The extent to which multiculturalism has been encouraged recently has meant a lessening of the kind of unity that a country needs.
“There are common values which are part of the heritage of this country which should be embraced by everybody.
“I don’t believe in a multi-cultural society. When people come into this country they have to obey the laws of the land.”


Notably (alas, I haven’t kept any evidence…) the BBC (a1) article mentioned the Cardinal’s criticisms at first this morning, then around 9AM switched to a more supportive note (Radio 4’s Sunday Programme was broadcast today between 7.10 and 7.55AM).

So what can we be sure of?

(1) Cardinal Murphy-O’Connor has expressed complex thoughts, and felt the need to clarify them

(2) Those thoughts were anyway too difficult to translate into a soundbite

(3) Every media source opted to pick-and-choose whatever pleased them

(4) Even after the Cardinal’s change of tones between the Telegraph’s interview and the Sunday Programme’s appearance, most if not all stuck to their first choice

(5) Only the BBC made any significant change, but more or less “under duress”: to avoid ridicule, that is

The end result is that whatever the Cardinal’s opinions, his words were and still are just fodder for the Media animals. And whatever is read via one source or another, is very very unlikely to communicate the nuances of the Cardinal’s actual opinions.


The question then becomes, given the above, how should one relate to the British media to avoid continuous distortions of one’s thoughts?

AGW Omniclimate Science Skepticism

On Climate Debate and Debate Climate

Some comments of mine from a very recent exchange with a person genuinely convinced AGW is a settled argument:

(on the usage of the term “denier”)
Words have meanings, and “denier” appears un-necessarily harsh, especially if you really believe AGW is obvious

(on how to engage across the pro- and anti-AGW divide)
It would be wiser to analyse their points of view, rather than simply engage in a debate to prove them wrong.

There exist points of absolute no contention at all, like the fact the H2O vapor is a better GHG than CO2, and that CO2 effects grow logarithmically with concentration (so that the first 20ppmv are more important than the following 320ppmv or so, more or less).

If you go against those, you put yourself well outside of the consensus.

What I mean is, you destroy your own argument if it is only made of the opposite of whatever your counterparts say.

(on the difficulty of speaking with people with a closed mind and that keep changing their argument never to admit they are wrong)
I could say the same of some pro-AGW people. Now, I know Penn Jillette is not “authoritative” but for some reason we share some feeling about this.

(on the likelihood that Solar wind and other electromagnetic effects do not affect the Earth’s climate)
If somebody figured out how could the solar wind strongly affect some parts of the atmosphere but not others, that would be a very important discovery in its own right…

Berlusconi democrazia Elezioni2008 Italia Italiano Politica Radicali Veltroni

Radicali: La Scelta Innominabile

Adesso che ci sono di nuovo le elezioni del Parlamento, uno deve decidere: o fuori, o dentro il sistema politico.

Se uno sta fuori, o rinuncia a tutto e torna al quieto vivere, oppure trova un modo per cambiare le cose “da fuori” (eg, tramite una o mille “rivoluzioni nonviolente“) .

Se preferisce invece stare dentro, e vuole almeno tentare di cambiare le cose, o va con Berlusconi o va con Veltroni; oppure, si costruisce una “Cosa” per se’; oppure, rischia con il primo che passa.

Avendo gia’ vissuto le conseguenze della quarta esperienza (una colossale perdita di tempo), noto che prima ancora che fare lo schizzinoso sui diritti civili o le scelte economiche resta da vedere se uno e’ accettato da Silvio o Walter.

Dubito che Capezzone o Dini fossero nei disegni del secondo. Cinismo o ironia quindi (e le lamentazioni di tante vergini offese dell’ultima ora) non reggono: anzi, il loro ingresso nel PdL e’ una scelta perfettamente logica e (mettendosi dal loro punto di vista) assolutamente condivisibile.

Da rilevare inoltre che i Radicali e Pannella, che adesso (giustamente, se me lo chiedete) mettono i puntini sulle i dei “forcaioli di sinistra” di Di Pietro, sono un fastidio palesemente da dimenticare per il Sindaco di Roma.

A meno di un miracolo, ci sara’ da festeggiare se ad Aprile ci sara’ un deputato di Radicali Italiani, chiamato Emma naturalmente.

E quindi mi chiedo quale alternativa ci sia a quella attualmente “innominabile” .

A meno che non si stia davvero lavorando a una “Cosa Radicale” con la Bonino come candidato Presidente del Consiglio: ma se cosi’ fosse, che stiamo aspettando? E’ gia’ molto tardi per annunciare un’iniziativa del genere.

Oppure, come gia’ detto, si dica: “noi restiamo fuori“. Nella speranza naturalmente, di non dire anche “rinunciamo a tutto, torniamo al quieto vivere“.