I would argue that the dilemma that Dr Williams thought he was addressing was a genuine one and that it goes to the heart of this matter.
What he was suggesting was that, for the genuine believer who takes adherence to his faith seriously, the concept of the secular law whose authority must take precedence over all other authorities is a problem. And that is true. It is also true that the law - secular though it is - makes allowances for the sensibilities of religious believers.
Although this notion can be overplayed: the obvious example is Roman Catholic doctors not being forced to perform abortions, but in a life-threatening crisis I doubt that religious scruple would constitute legal protection to a medical practitioner who refused to intervene.
In a contest between the principles of modern democracy and doctrines of faith, democracy and the rule of secular law must always win.
But that is exactly the assumption that Dr Williams was challenging
