Inevitable and Unavoidable

5 Responses to “Inevitable and Unavoidable”

1. Peter Kirk says:
   

   Do you think there is a difference in meaning between “inevitable” and “unavoidable”?

   February 14th, 2008 at 1:31 pm
2. Aaron Orear says:
   

   Unavoidable seems to indicate a judgment – we’d avoid it if we could, but we can’t. Inevitable is more neutral – it’ll happen no matter what.

   February 14th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
3. John O says:
   

   But even if the word ‘unavoidable’ had been fed by the interviewer, RW had an opportunity to challenge and correct the summary of his argument that was given; he didn’t, and what’s more he repeated that formulation that it ’seems unavoidable’. In the lecture ‘unavoidable’ refers to the introduction of a market element in law if we are to have a system of religions working together for the common good; this itself referring back to the system of supplementary juristicitions proposed in the previous paragraph (one of which was shar’ia). I’m not sure this is so very far removed from the interviewer’s formulation.

   It is funny to see though how journalists like to use what they think are synonyms for quotes. I saw that the BBC had +Carlisle saying that the government was like a ‘demonic beast’; I’m fairly certain those weren’t the exact words he used, but it makes for a much tastier headline!

   February 14th, 2008 at 9:01 pm
4. John O says:
   

   It does seem that Synod has pulled round RW, and at the Synodal level I think this was welcome, in that it both prevented any further damaging media coverage to the Church of England, and allowed discussion of the issues to move into a more measured and considered space. In addition, it helped to act as a riposte to the distasteful personal lampooning that had taken place in the tabloid press.

   But does this indicate that the matter, as well as the manner of his pronouncements last week, are thereby excused from criticism? Mark Russell’s reflections seem to focus on an ad hominem defence of RW against the personal attacks in the media, rather than on the wisdom and merits of the ideas he raised. I’ve said something already about the negative impact of his pronouncements outside the Anglican church, but questions about the reactionary nature of his thinking are still left hanging for those within. First, the concern that RW is entrenching himself in an establishment mentality, seeking exemptions from the law for the many rather than the few. Simon Barrow wrote a fascinating piece on this at the weekend,
   and has a new redaction here. A second concern is over RW’s wisdom in developing such an opposition between secularity and religious freedom as he did in the lecture. By attacking a secularity that demands the subordination of religious law, RW’s remarks betrayed one of the greatest achievements of modern Christianity: the survival of religion by relinquishing government rather than the exertion of it.

   February 14th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
5. Bimble says:
   

   I am sure that when the papers found the two who weren’t being supportive of good ol’ RW I’m sure that they were the first two that those in the media made contact with and in no way did they call round till they found someone who said what they wanted to hear.

   We can trust the media after all… they don’t lie to us ever.

   February 14th, 2008 at 9:27 pm