Erm, you should really re-read that job description
The United Kingdom is not the United States of America. In the UK, and in England in particular, there is no separation between church and state. The state church is the Church of England. The monarch is the symbolic head of the church. It's why so many folks left the country a couple of centuries ago. They didn't want their faith practices dictated by the 'state.' Hence the call for a separation between church and state. They wanted to worship however they felt best, which wasn't necessarily the C of E way.
So with the Christian Church of England being the 'state church' you can pretty much say that the country is a Christian country. Okay, so not everyone there is Christian. That's acceptable. Not everyone in communist China is a communist either I'm willing to bet.
But if you're the Archbishop of the state church you should probably be defending your state and your state faith.
Stating that you think having Sharia law in your state is unavoidable is, well, not a good thing. If the Christian church is the state church, then the Christian law should be the only basis of the state laws, without the law of Islam or any other religion.
Okay, so parts of Sharia might be acceptable, so long as it conformed with UK law. For example, looking at two different parts of Sharia, British law forbids both polygamy and the death penalty. I think banning alcohol could be a good thing, but many women would be horrified by some of the restrictive codes Muslim women are supposed to live by if they follow Sharia. (Although I'd love to see an enforcement of skirts that go below the highest part of the thigh!)
But what we have to go back to is the concept of the connection between the church and the state in the UK. Other countries might have secular law and religious law working together, but I don't know that they have a state-run church system such as the UK. If Islamic law were made acceptable in the country, then it begins to undermine the concept that Britain is a Christian country with a state church. Since the time of Henry VIII, the monarch has been head of the state church. Would that position have to be eliminated from the monarch's duties? After all, how can you be the representative head of one faith in the state if you do not take on the mantle of being the representative head of the faith of the other law that exists in your country? Would the senior clerics rise in elevation to be almost on a par with royalty? To me, that's a scary thought, especially when I look towards Iran where the Ayatollah is more powerful than the President. (Even when the President IS Amadinajad.)
Above all, the Archbishop needs to remember he is a representative of the state church, and not an archbishop in a secular country where there is no state church. As such, he should not be undermining his own faith's position in that country. Let him say what he likes when he is not in that position. Let him seek peace and harmony with other faiths. But he would also do well to remember that Muslim countries such as Arabia do not treat Christianity with such notions.
So with the Christian Church of England being the 'state church' you can pretty much say that the country is a Christian country. Okay, so not everyone there is Christian. That's acceptable. Not everyone in communist China is a communist either I'm willing to bet.
But if you're the Archbishop of the state church you should probably be defending your state and your state faith.
Stating that you think having Sharia law in your state is unavoidable is, well, not a good thing. If the Christian church is the state church, then the Christian law should be the only basis of the state laws, without the law of Islam or any other religion.
Okay, so parts of Sharia might be acceptable, so long as it conformed with UK law. For example, looking at two different parts of Sharia, British law forbids both polygamy and the death penalty. I think banning alcohol could be a good thing, but many women would be horrified by some of the restrictive codes Muslim women are supposed to live by if they follow Sharia. (Although I'd love to see an enforcement of skirts that go below the highest part of the thigh!)
But what we have to go back to is the concept of the connection between the church and the state in the UK. Other countries might have secular law and religious law working together, but I don't know that they have a state-run church system such as the UK. If Islamic law were made acceptable in the country, then it begins to undermine the concept that Britain is a Christian country with a state church. Since the time of Henry VIII, the monarch has been head of the state church. Would that position have to be eliminated from the monarch's duties? After all, how can you be the representative head of one faith in the state if you do not take on the mantle of being the representative head of the faith of the other law that exists in your country? Would the senior clerics rise in elevation to be almost on a par with royalty? To me, that's a scary thought, especially when I look towards Iran where the Ayatollah is more powerful than the President. (Even when the President IS Amadinajad.)
Above all, the Archbishop needs to remember he is a representative of the state church, and not an archbishop in a secular country where there is no state church. As such, he should not be undermining his own faith's position in that country. Let him say what he likes when he is not in that position. Let him seek peace and harmony with other faiths. But he would also do well to remember that Muslim countries such as Arabia do not treat Christianity with such notions.