Archbishop meets Pope

Rowan Williams and the Pope met for lengthy private talks, prayers and lunch on the day when the British and Italian press were full of stories of the new document on condoms that has been presented to the Congregation of the Faith. Regular readers of this blog might recall that some of us predicted this back in April.

In London, Damian Thompson, editor-in-chief of the Catholic Herald and also leader writer and commentator for the Telegraph, has penned a characteristically pointed piece about Dr Williams, speculating that he will step down after Lambeth and that the "baton" of archiepiscopal leadership is eluding him, being passed over his head from Lord Carey to John Sentamu. Jonathan Petre's own piece also focuses on the continuing serious obstacles to unity. The Guardian's piece is a better reflection of the mood in Rome this week. (More on Thinking Anglicans.)

The ecumenical winter, brought on by women priests and bishops and other difficulties in the Anglican church, is perhaps becoming an ecumenical spring. Not that the difficulties have gone away, far from it. But the two churches' leaders are focusing instead on what they can do together, in combating poverty, Aids, materialism and secularism and in fighting terrorism.

The Catholics have traditionally seen the Church of England at least as an unofficial catholic church. One of their current concerns is not so much the debate over gays. It is the swing to a more Protestant and evangelical form of Anglicanism in some parts of the Communion. There is a little confusion around at the moment about which form of Anglicanism the  Catholics would rather do business with, a liberal catholic TEC-style Anglicanism, or a conservative orthodox Akinola-style Anglicanism. The gift that Rowan Williams brings to the table is that he is a bridge between both these extremes. Formerly a liberal catholic (possibly still one in his spiritual heart) and a founder of Affirming Catholicism, he has upset many of his one-time liberal allies by picking up the conservative baton. Yet it is surely his ability to stand with a foot in both camps, as it were, that makes him uniquely placed to keep the Communion together.

A few months ago, The Times picked up a rumour that Dr Williams was planning to retire 10 years early, after Lambeth 2008, and return to academia. It was so robustly denied by Lambeth Palace, and the threats against made against us so strong, that we pulled the story, even though one of our well-informed sources continus to this day to insist it was true. The rumours haven't gone away and Damian resurrects this speculation in the piece linked to above.

It would be a shame though if the Archbishop did go early. In Rome, the special gifts that he can bring to his primacy were particularly apparent. The atmosphere of studied holiness at his lecture in the Vatican last night was tangible. This world, and the Anglican and Catholic churches, need more of people like Rowan Williams. Unity might not come about in the obvious, visible sense but it is already happening, in ways not always easy to understand. In his person and in his speaking, Rowan Williams epitomises one of those uneasy ways.  Let's hope he has the spirit to stick it out.

Comments

[mensah kanyi]

please,i want you to send me some bibles.my address below.
mensah kanyi
oforikrom m/a 'b' j.s.s
p.o.box 3076
kumasi-Ghana
(west Africa)
thankyou

[Tim Cooper]

Keith: This has been a good exchange of views; at least it demonstrates that dialogue is a positive medium! We still disagree over the vagaries of the system. You seem to think it is failing overall and appear to have no faith in those responsible for its governance. I know that the National Curriculum applies to most schools (including faith schools) and I agree that standards are high. But I also believe that to rely on religious-based education, provides a poor, divisive framework; one that does not represent the reality of current educational needs. Neither of us are alone in our views. It is of course inconceivable that you are right!

[Keith Downer]

"Speaking generally" ... "Generally, faith schools " ... "To take one example - and once again, speaking generally "

Tim, I would have thought that my indicating that I was commenting "generally" was recognition that "There are strengths and weaknesses in any schools system". My point is that taking the state system as a whole, and treating faith schools as a separate stream for the purposes of this statement, the system is failing and those responsible for the system show absolutely no sign of improving the situation.

[Tim Cooper]

Jill: If the Christian ethos is in danger of fading out, then it cannot pertain overmuch in our society. You must be interested in winning arguments because you are standing up to be counted as one who believes in Christianity. And since doubt is an integral part of having faith a degree of internal strife must also apply, in which faith must win.

I do not believe in the struggle that good has with evil. There are just issues that need to be solved or compartmentalised in order for human beings to endure in peace. Presumably, killing each other, wholesale theft or exploitation does not facilitate this - so don't do it. Good and evil do not exist within their own right. They are only interpretations.

Christianity is certainly within our psyche. It has permeated our lives for centuries. Because it's traditional does not make it wholly beneficent or true.
I agree that charity plays a part in Christianity. Just because people choose to be Christian does not make them all bad!

I am also increasingly irritated by overt homosexuals, but I can do nothing about them and I am not sure that it is my business to. If some Christians are homophobic, then don't we normally feel sorry for those with irrational fears?
Make divorces harder? What busines is it of yours? Do you really want couples who cannot stand each other to remain together in misery, while their children suffer and try to cope? Is this not a good example of the Christian ethos spilling over into the lives of people who can make their own minds up?

In all Jill, Christians may consider some sort of revival beneficial, but you must accept the boundaries of your own position. But where we differ is in asking everyone to accept your version of events and to live in a country where the state is synthesized with a worldview not everyone accepts.

[Tim Cooper]

Keith: A quick response. Your comments are too general, albeit I take your point over bonafide parents backing up the efforts of teachers because they have opted for their children to attend faith schools. But you can't suggest that across the board state schools have a renegade approach to discipline. It simply is not true. There are strengths and weaknesses in any schools system and many children attending faith schools are from families with absolutely no religious convictions.
You seem increasingly to presume that vast areas of our society are either dysfunctional or useless. I'm afraid I have a more positive attitude. 'Those responsible for administering a state educational system' are not from another planet. They are perfectly responsible well-motivated people, some of them Christians, who clearly are having a terrible job pleasing all faiths, races and cultures, against a backdrop of constant criticism and measurement, whilst trying to cater for varying levels of accomplishment and managing the funding. You seem conveniently to forget that currently faith schools are part of the state system. My root and branch reforms are concerned with giving parents a real choice to build upon the already successful accomplishments of teachers, by providing a better framework. Religion-obsessed parents could then put their money where their mouths are and fund the (I suspect) drastically fewer faith-based schools, either themselves or in conjunction with church communities.
Not only are non-religious families forced to pretend in order to secure a place in this hijacked system, teachers are also masquerading as Christians in order to gain employment in the 7000 schools. Can't go on like this can it?

[Keith Downer]

"There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why root and branch reforms cannot create a schools system that concentrates firstly on its educational agenda whilst ensuring that communities are united not separated."

Unfortunately, Tim, there are several reasons (which many teachers in the state school system might be willing to give to you). The one that I will concentrate on is funding.
In recent times, I have had three children go through the state education system, from nursery, through primary and secondary schools. I was able to experience first hand the deterioration of school buildings and facilities, the gradual decline in the standard and motivation of teaching and administrative staff, the erosion of disciplinary policies which provide a stable foundation for the learning process and the continual changing of policy regarding what and how subjects should be taught and examined. In most cases, the lack of adequate funding was a root cause.
Speaking generally - and we can all point to specific instances where children have achieved spectacular success despite the shortcomings of the system - our educational system is failing. As someone who over the past 35 years has been occasionally involved in interviewing and assessing young people for various positions in companies, I can support those business people who claim to have witnessed deterioration in the basic skills such as reading, writing and mathematics.
Generally, faith schools have managed to maintain standards and I have little doubt that were similar methods and approaches adopted by the state schools, standards would be raised. You see the point you seem to be missing is that it isn't a basic question of a religious approach; it is the elements of that approach which come from a religious ethos.
To take one example - and once again, speaking generally - if state schools adopted the approach to respect and discipline that faith schools have, it would be a start. But faith schools can do this because by parents selecting a faith school for the education of their children, the school can count on the involvement and support of those parents where their children's behaviour and attitude is concerned. The exact opposite is usually true of state schools where - and I have actually witnessed this - a parent can storm into a classroom and actually threaten a teacher with violence!
So, to achieve the "root and branch reforms" that you appear to recognise are necessary for the state school system to be "fit for purpose", requires the state educational authorities to design and implement changes which, given past experience, they are either unable or reluctant to introduce.
That is a pity and in a perfect world of sensible and responsible parents who will do anything necessary to achieve the highest educational opportunities for their children, there would be the funding for resources and teachers of the highest ability and the motivation to ensure the system was "fit for purpose".
Now, Tim, do you believe our government and those responsibility for administering the state educational system have the skill and determination to turn a failing system into an effective one? Will they provide the funding to bring our schools up to the standard required and to encourage the level of teaching to achieve that objective? Or will they simply adopt dubious schemes such as City Academies so they can "spin" us into believing first, they care and second, they know what they are doing.
I am not commenting on this issue because I am a Christian, "frightened of meaningful change". Forget religion; on the basis of the information currently available, I value faith schools because they generally are effective and I do not value the present approach to the state school system because, generally, it is not effective.

[Jill]

Tim, I am not interested in ‘winning arguments’, which is just as well, because I would undoubtedly lose. Some people can argue that black is white, or more importantly argue that right is wrong; well, let them, that is not for me. I have no pretensions to a fine intellect; I am just a mother and a Christian, and I am concerned for the future of my children and my little grandchildren.

Christianity has shaped this country and made us what we are, and has influenced every sphere of our lives and is deep in our psyche. It is Christians who were the great social reformers and defenders of human rights. As well as establishing education for the poor, it was Christians who abolished the slave trade, ended child prostitution, reformed factory conditions, established the nursing profession, established orphanages, and generally fought poverty and deprivation in the UK and in countries like Africa, India and China where they set up missions to provide clean water and lead the fight against diseases and social injustices. There are over 22,000 Christian charities. If you don’t want to be part of it, fine, that’s your right, but it is simply wrong to put forward the case that Christianity is some sort of malign influence on today’s society.

It is during the period of weakened Christianity that politics have changed to include issues that previously Christians would have campaigned against before they lost confidence, such as legalisation of abortion, homosexual acts between consenting adults, easier divorce and weaker constraints on pornographic material - all things, in short, which have contributed to the weakening of the structure of our society. This has led to fragmentation and the shift of focus from the concept of the ‘common good’ to the clamour for individual rights, as with the proposed SORs. Individual rights can only compete with one another, as is currently being seen.

What is needed is a Christian revival, not a phasing out, before the Christian ethos is lost altogether.

[Keith Downer]

Robin, it's good that we share a sense of wonder at the beauty and complexity of our world and the creatures who inhabit it. You are right; you don't have to believe in God to experience the emotions that come from observing Nature in all it's glory. It's enough that we recognise what we have and accept the responsibility of passing it on to those who come after us in good condition.

[Tim Cooper]

Jill: My church primary school was part of the 1950s post-war formulaic religious cosiness that has now disappeared and which the C. of E. has been desperate to recreate ever since. Your argument cannot stand, because if it did, it would be impossible and churlish to reform or improve institutions like the National Health Service which have served us equally as well in the past. It also applies to any changeover in ownership or variations in the scope or values of any other previously-cherished anchronism. No doubt steam train enthusiasts mourned the passing of the Golden Arrow, but common sense says they are unable to cite being eternally grateful for it as an argument against high speed rail links.

Your reasoning ensures that unresolved issues will stay so, because they are written off as 'old ground'. Other people's viewpoints are ignored, because you don't happen to like what they are saying. In your world nothing can ever change. The Christian position seemingly is one of selfish inactivity. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why root and branch reforms cannot create a schools system that concentrates firstly on its educational agenda whilst ensuring that communities are united not separated. The issue of educating the faithful should now be regarded as a special needs issue and the responsibility of church communities. If this is 'old ground' and has been 'discussed at length' then I'm sorry. It will continue to be vigorously discussed by the people it unfairly affects, who will challenge its legitimacy until something is done about it; not swept away by Christians who are frightened of meaningful change.

You asked me why I am interested in the blog. I told you. You are then dismissive and selective over what you choose to comment on. But then that's the message that comes across clearly in so many other areas of religious debate isn't it Jill - the widespread use of selective absolutism - when cogent evidence is either missing or too sparse to support Christian arguments. I may have coined a new term - prejudiced Christian 'selectivists' (Not to be confused with open-minded, free-thinking secularists!)

[Jill]

Tim, I think we are going over old ground here. I will not answer for Islam. It is true that terrible deeds have been done in the name of Christianity, but it means that the deeds were wrong, there is nothing in Christianity that is wrong.

As for schools, that has been discussed at length in other threads, mainly this one I think: http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2006/10/faith_in_educat.html#comments

I do think you are looking at Church Schools the wrong way round. The Church of England has been providing education for the poor for 200 years, and founded 17,000 schools. So, unless you are the son of a rich man, Tim, it is possible that even today you would not have had the education to be able to blog here if it were not for the Church. It would seem a bit churlish to boot them out now.

We must not saw off the branch on which we are all sitting.

[Robin Bather]

I liked your posting Keith and was relieved that you didn't bring up the old arguement of finding a watch and believing it just happened by evolution.
I have also watched tropical fish and been amazed, in fact my wife and I have just returned from a trip to modern day Sodom & Gommora (aka Las Vegas)where we celebrated our 15th Anniversary.
We stayed at a fine hotel and behind the huge front desk there is a very long, floor to ceiling, fish tank where the most amazing tropical fish swim lazily by......you almost don't mind waiting in the queue to register or check out. It's an almost mystical experience to watch them with all their marvellous colours, shapes and forms.
However I don't think it has been the work of God.
What I'm trying to say Keith, is that the deep spiritual wonderment that believers seem to have is not just restricted to them. Non believers too, can gaze and wonder, marvel at a beautiful flower or a fine tree, admire a sunset and think about Life and Death, Love and Birth. We can also sit and contemplate our ancestors (remember my hobby of reseaching my family tree).
All of us have a deeper inner self that can motivate us, amaze us and drive us to greater heights of knowledge and feeling.
These feelings are in no way restricted to religion.

[Tim Cooper]

Jill: It is impossible to live in isolation in a country, indeed a world in which religion has such a profound effect. 'Monitor' as a word choice was probably not a good one, as it does rather suggest some form of espionage - a 'keeping tabs' on somebody or other.

I have concerns over the sometimes deleterious effect religion has on society and in particular world peace. And I do not believe that the arcane views of a section of the community should impact upon the rest. As just one example, where I live there are two Catholic secondary schools currently holding parents to ransom. They both have rules regarding the intake of other faiths. Since they form part of a finite number of secondary schools, without them the local system would collapse. There are many people like me who do not think that inculcating children with their parent's choice of religion from an early age is a good idea; many have no particular religious perspective and prefer to allow children to make up their own minds when they are of an age to adopt a broader view. I do not believe that the Christian religion underpins society other than in a recent nostalic sense.

I am definitely not suggesting that those with faith should not be anythbing other than entirely free to pursue it. Neither am I deriding the personally held views of others. But in this case I would argue for a schools system that was world class, non-aligned and open to all. I also believe that people who seriously wish to deny their children the right to choose, by bringing them up in a religion-based environment should send them to schools outside of the national system of education, either privately or funded by churches.

In all, my argument is with the part other people's religion plays in the lives of those who are absolutely entitled to live without it which, for a thinking person, requires expressing an interest in how it is developing. You are surely not suggesting that as a person with no faith, I should have no say whatsoever in how I live my life - by choosing to blindly accept all that the various faith-groups impose on behalf of us all? All that needs to change to reconcile both positions, is for those with religion, to accept that their faiths should not affect others and that a relatively small amount of modification
is necessary.

[Keith Downer]

"The more we discover the universe we live in and understand its processes the further religion and its gods retreat into the gaps".

My experience, Christopher, was entirely the opposite. My father had an hobby mending watches. I remember standing beside in as he sat crouched over a table, a watchmaker's magnifying glass gripped in the muscles around his eye, his fingers manipulating the minute internal workings of a wrist or pocket watch. Even as a young, inexperienced boy, I knew that what my father was holding in his hand, had to have been created by a process that involved intelligence.
I get the same feeling now when if I visit a tropical fish shop and stare at the complexity and colours of the myriad of tiny creatures swimming around the tanks. Or watching one of David Attenborough's Planet Earth programmes or Michael Palin's journeys around our planet.
I am fully aware of the Darwinian concepts of evolution through natural selection and also of the number of scientists, philosophers and their kind who after lifetimes of study have also reached the conclusion that there is conscious intelligence involved in the design and nature of our world and it's inhabitants.
I would go so far as to state that the more we discover the universe we live in and understand its processes, the more likely it appears that there is a Supreme Being, a Creator, a God.

[David Smith]

Jill - thank you for your very kind response to my story of how I came to know God for myself.

J Pearce - thank you, too. As I see it, you have every right to put the continuing questionings that you have, especially when you do it with such sensitivity.

As to the idea that my own healing and subsequent unshakeable belief in, and continuing experience of, a real and powerful God somehow came from within me, I cannot do more than ask you to take my word that in my condition I had nothing left of myself to draw on or release. I was almost literally a dead-man-walking. There is not the shadow of a doubt in my mind that the forces that came to my aid came to me from outside myself, just as I have seen them come to many, many others in the years since... with no 'help' from the recipients.

As to what you say about the types of people who are more or less likely to look for God, I hear this, but I have known many people also who, having made a success of their lives from a difficult start, were living happily enough already, but nonetheless still chose to opt for the incalculably great additional benefits of a relationship with God.

Finally, as to some moving away from belief, yes, this does happen, too. Jesus Himself acknowledged this possibility, and gave some reasons why it can happen. One observation of my own is that often people have a humanly-taught and therefore second-hand 'belief' in God, as opposed to one genuinely, and directly, received and sustained 'from above' and bringing real living relationship with Him. It is often this that seems strong for a time, just because it has always been there, and yet, when really tested, fails.

Alistair - life with a king who is enduringly experienced to be perfect love towards His subjects can never be a nightmare. You are no fool, so I can only assume that what you rejected was not what I have found, or rather has found me.

The truce you suggest has some merit, though I can't see you keeping it for long!

To All - I have to take a break just now from blogging, but look forward to re-joining before too long.

[Jill]

Christopher, when I feel the need to take lessons in morality from John Prescott, I will let you know! As this thread has been superseded by the Stir Up thread I will not make any further comments on sex here, you will be relieved to learn.

Tim, I wonder about your comment about monitoring people of faith. I know many unbelievers, but they are not remotely interested in Christianity or any other religion, and would certainly not haunt a religion blog. Of course they are entitled to, but why would they want to? There are a lot of things I am not interested in, upon which I have no comment at all.

J Pearce, statistically speaking the poorest countries in the world contain the most religious people. Nearly half of Africans are Christian. It is rich countries like the US and UK where Christianity is not growing. A third of the world's population is Christian.

Only 2.5% (and shrinking) of the world's population is atheist, according to http://www.geocities.com/richleebruce/churchstat.html. How very disappointing for the National Secular Society. They try so hard, as well!

[Tim Cooper]

Keith: I am fairly confident that if I look around me and I will see the same world that you do. I am not suggesting that we are all striving for some sort of Utopia; human nature precludes it.
But when I look around it is with some degree of optimism. In your last posting you seem to be saying that the world has changed for the worst, there is little hope and that religion is a remedy; one without which nothing can be achieved.

I genuinely think that you have missed the point. You are looking for a cohesive structure or schema with which to tackle the appalling wrongs of the world. You fear a dearth of morally upright people, believing that too few are sound and upright enough to share my views, which then become discrete from the mainstream. It is therefore impossible to achieve excellence.

This is a classic case of the glass being half empty isn't it? What a depressed view of the world. Add your name to the list of people like David Smith who have found religion following personal suffering. The world is absolutely fine! It is brimmed full of kind, talented people making the best of what they have. There are many anomalies and not a small amount of suffering. But if you actually look past the choking fog of religion, you will see the great majority of people, from all races and backgrounds, who are displaying pride in themselves and a positivity that supports the notion of personal integrity 100%. Jacob and Isaac may sound comforting, but if you believe that without their god we are all doomed, then it's worse than I thought! It has however been an interesting exchange of views.

[Jill]

David, thank you for your moving and humbling post, which highlights the pitiful inadequacy of humanism. It is sometimes difficult to make these testimonies to unbelievers because we don't like having ridicule and scorn poured upon ourselves (I have long worked in a secular world, so I know!) but over the years I have seen many such testimonies where people's lives really have been transformed when they made the decision to put their trust in God.

[Christopher]

"...this seems to be the week when Christian folk, among others, are waking up to the spectre of the Sexual Orientation Regulations"

What spectre, Jill? Really you do enjoy your paranoia! The 'Christian folk' you mention (the ones behind yesterday's advertisment in the Times signing themselves 'the Coherent and Cohesive Voice'?) may have kicked an own-goal when they intended to kick gay people. The rest of the country may just be waking up to see that some christians are moralising, homophobic bullies, bigots (not to mention self-serving opportunists). Even John Prescott said in Parliament yesterday: "I am not a religious man, but I always understood that religion was about tolerance. It is a pity that we do not show more tolerance..."

And Michael Cashman MEP has said : “I find it unbelievable and totally unchristian that they want to discriminate on the grounds of someone being gay or lesbian. Any discrimination diminishes the persons who are targeted. The government must stand firm. Labour has a proud record on equality which must not be sullied by these sordid attempts at 'blackmail'“

So let's hope for the sake of decent christians that the advertisement backfires on the religious reich, showing them up in their true colours as an extremist and unwanted faction to both the government and the majority of British people. The over-reaction to the regulations which have not yet been published except for Northern Ireland shows just how much they are needed in the face of the rent-a-mob letter-writing campaign Jill is hoping to drum up.

Can christians wonder that they are now generally loathed by the majority of gay people in this country? I think decent christians will be saddened to hear that they are being tarred with the same brush as those who glory in 'doing down' gay people at every opportunity.

[J Pearce]

David,

That's a very powerful story and I'm glad it had a happy ending for you. It probably seems churlish to challenge what you've said, but there are some things that I would like to offer a counterpoint to.

Firstly, not everyone has been as lucky as you to be "delivered" from their own personal nightmares. There have been many contributors to this blog who travelled in preceisely the opposite direction - from a "true belief" to a sceptical, questioning attitude - or indeed, complete atheism. The fact that this journey can be two ways, is enough to make me stop and and ask questions.

Secondly, although I may have got this wrong, it appears to me that you have been what I would call 'fotunate' in your upbringing - "privileged" is the term you use. This is just a personal observation, but I have found that those people who have most of their needs early on in life catered for - the rich, the well off, the well connected - seem to head off into a case of deep soul searching later on in life, especially if they are intelligent, sensitive people (either that, or they drown themselves in a miasma of drugs). Without wishing to sound patronising, I don't see this kind of soul searching in people who have had to fight their way through life. Those people who have always had the odds stacked against them, when they make a success of their life, they don't appear to fall into some sort of spiritual malaise. Rather, they appear much more contented with the position they have achieved and the person they have become, without recourse to God or religion to offer spritual nourishment. Although this is a personal observation, I attribute it to the fact that they have developed an inner strength which lifts them beyond the need to adopt a belief in God to see them through life.

Its obvious from your description that you achieved some kind of personal revelation at a crucial point in your life, David - and I would never denigrate that in anyway. But I wonder how much of it was to do with, perhaps, a repressed need on your part that "God" and religion fulfilled, rather than the divine revelation you want to believe it to be? Whatever, at least you have reached a better place in your life, which can only be a good thing.

[Christopher]

"Perhaps the reason why so many atheists post regularly on a religion blog is that they are searching for something?"

Now there's a nice comforting thought, Jill.

"If not actually searching, then perhaps recognising that there is something which cannot be explained by science and logic..."

I agree. It isn't explainable by science or logic. The more we discover the universe we live in and understand its processes the further religion and its gods retreat into the gaps. Is it really such a profound mystery that many want to believe that there is a 'meaning' behind their existence, selecting supernatural beliefs that concur with the kind of worldview their mentality demands - harsh, judgmental, forgiving, gentle, and so on. I held your beliefs once, Jill, but I've come to realise it was, in the end, wishful thinking, no more, no less.

[Tim Cooper]

Jill:
Poor David Smith. What a nightmare he endured before he found religion to focus on. His story left me asking the question why it is that, so often, people with abnormal experiences of either loneliness, mental illness, deprivation, criminal tendencies, trauma, instability or personality disorders generally, go down this road? No doubt Christians would say that this is the proof of their god's love effectively taking care of the unfortunates in society. This would of course be seen to be a selective approach. Why for example do gods allow a good pinch of suffering before intervening? Why do countless millions of people suffer and never find god? Or why do countless millions who have found god suffer? Or why on earth do gods not manifest themselves to those who question their validity. What are they running - some sort of bizarre lottery, revealing themselves to some but not others? The Christian god is one of love - but only if you believe? Then you can suffer knowing you are loved?

I contribute to this blog because I am interested to monitor the progress and the intelligent arguments of people with faith. My view is that people with no faith, including strong atheists who actively preach against the concept of gods, are absolutely entitled to comment upon the deleterious effects of religion in the society they are part of. An honest account of the ways in which warmongering clerics, holy dictators and corrupt religious practitioners have specifically participated in unbridled slaughter, creating mayhem and instability in the world for generations cannot simply be explained away by saying that man is mortal, not divine and makes mistakes. Human nature comprises all of these things and since there has been no let up in violence during the known stream of time, it seems most unlikely that sporadic piety is having any effect.

I accept that not all wars have been religious. But what double standards we see pertain. Our Catholic Prime Minister, praying for the war dead on Rememberance Day, presides over a government content to allow Great Britain to be the world's 4th largest arms supplier in the world; the evangelical Bush administration has caused more misery and suffering than it is ever likely to eradicate and I haven't even started...

Who are you speaking for when you assert that an aching restlessness permeates mankind? Many people have achieved inner peace through anything but drugs, alcohol and materialism; philanthropy, art, music love, living in peace in this beautiful world, rejecting the struggle over religion; the list is endless. What gives you as a Christian the right to define sexual morality? Sexuality can be a significant part of inner peace, not to mention love. Trust religion to try to introduce rules over its dispensation. We often regard our distant ancestors as limited, inept, and uncivilised - even finding their understanding of the world humorous in the light of our own experience. However, when it comes to their pronouncements, for some world religions this antique interpretation of the universe is indelible, unchangeable and a fundamental model upon which to base our own codes of behaviour?

Overall, I have more faith in the beneficence of humanity than adhering to policies made by people who continually search for hidden superbeings. And the way that religion impacts on the wider society is certainly my business. I do not, for example, believe that Christians should make social policy affecting people other than Christians and that to do so is presumptious.

[alistair mcbay]

"The contrast between the two worlds of the endless, subtle nightmare of a life without Him, and the light and love and hope and direction that He can bring, and the inner heaven on earth that we move into once He is there, were just so stark for me, and remain so all these years later."

If you think you 'opened your heart' to a 'Holy Spirit' and it works for you, David, then that's fine. But for me the complete opposite is true. I just stopped kidding myself about the faith proposition and saw it for the utter nonsense and drivel it was, and still is, by opening my eyes and my mind. I was freed from "the endless, subtle nightmare of a life with Him" and continue now to find life, love, light and hope, as you put it, in knowing that I am free from the oppression, subjugation and mental abuse of belief in ancient man's ignorant supersititions and the supernatural.

Tim Cooper put it so aptly in an earlier post: "a whole humanist rationale resting on treating as normal the desire for mutual care and social cohesion in society, without the need for crusades involving ghosts."

As Dawkins says, show me proof that your god exists and I will happily believe it too. But there is no proof, and the emperor has no clothes. I suppose we have to leave it that we each think the other is deluded!

[Keith Downer]

" I use the term 'humanist' loosely in that, since I have no faith, my own identity is defined by a belief in the integrity of the dignity of man. It is more an attitude than a movement. It promotes freedom and rationality, tempered by the limits of fallibility, from which tolerance and responsibility result."

One of the reasons, Tim, that I found it so difficult to respond to your comments was because for most my sixty years on this planet, I have wanted to maintain "a belief in the integrity of the dignity of man". You may have insight on a level that I have not reached in those sixty years but after stripping away your references to the weaknesses and ambiguity of religious belief and then re-examining the perspective I have of the world and Mankind against what remained, there isn't anything substantial enough to support your idealistic views except - as Alistair would say - "wishful thinking".
Because if there are not enough people in this world with enough "wholeness, soundness, uprightness and honesty" who share your views to the extent that they can draw out from Mankind the fundamental true worth and excellence that you believe exists in each individual without resorting to any religious or belief-systems, then humanity is in big trouble. And it is not sufficient to visualise such integrity and dignity in Mankind as a concept; it has to exist in the individuals, like you and me, and display itself in practical, everyday life.
Look around you, Tim; it is not going to happen. I remember and admired the hippie communes of the 1960's, the self-sufficiency and "make love not war" movements. I grew up in those times, an idealist, a romantic. At one time, my favourite reading was Sc-Fi novels where Utopia was explored in every direction. We may have avoided "1984" to some extent but it hasn't been replaced by a world where we all look out for one another, where we subjugate our selfish desires for more of this and more of that, better this and better that!
None of this has to do with religion; it has to do with human nature and the flaws contained therein which have been exposed more and more as this "dog eat dog" philosophy gains increasing momentum. Of course you can identify occasional instances which suggest your views have substance but unless you can find an island somewhere remote in order to insulate yourself from the dominant and persistent characteristics of virulent consumerism and all the other major pressures on our society, your idealism can never survive.
I certainly don't believe that piety is a route back to discovering Man's dignity and integrity because I believe we went past the point of Man finding any route back on his own. I believe the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob exists but if He doesn't, then we are in big trouble because as a Christian, I believe He is the only one who can restore us to what we are intended to be.
I realise that this is a bleak view of our world. In many ways, this realisation of Mankind's failure to find the strength and dignity to build a world governed by the sort of principles that you, Tim, believe in, contributed to my acceptance of God as my Creator. We are meant to look out for each other, to treat one another fairly and humanely, to get rid of poverty, hunger, preventable illness and death, to provide for the young and the old and to feel proud of our society and the way we live our lives.
But something else has taken over and you cannot blame it on religion.

[Jill]

Aficionados (like me) of the 1662 Book of Common Prayer will know that last Sunday, the ‘Sunday Next before Advent’, was what used to be known as ‘Stir-up Sunday’. This has traditionally been associated with the making of the Christmas pudding, of which everybody has a stir. It properly refers, though, to the Collect, which starts ‘Stir up, we beseech thee, O Lord, the wills of thy faithful people’.

How very appropriate that this seems to be the week when Christian folk, among others, are waking up to the spectre of the Sexual Orientation Regulations, and are busy writing letters of protest to their MPs.

[David Smith]

Alistair - “..faith....there is no evidence to support it, other than you believe it is true. What you.. call evidence is in fact just wishful thinking.”

Tim – “I have absolutely no faith in the assertion that human nature can be radically changed.”

J Pearce – “sounds like wishful thinking to me.”

Keith – “Twenty years ago, it was a long process of investigation and evaluation which took me to the point at which I allowed my mind and my heart to accept the possibility that God exists and only then, through His Spirit, did I start to believe in Him.”

Keith, I know just what you mean.

I am 54 and came to know God for myself when I was twenty-five. From fourteen onwards I had suffered continuously from mental and emotional difficulties, accompanied by mild depression. At times I needed medication to control this. As I now know, all this was the result of a sequence of traumatic experiences – at 14, for example, I had a shock eye injury - and of trying to run my life my own way. In particular, I gave literally my all, but on ever-depleting inner resources, to trying to earn the approval of very demanding authority figures. I had a jet-set lifestyle that many regarded as glamorous: more money coming in than I could spend... cover model girlfriend... competitive sport etc. But it wasn’t working for me inside.

In the months leading up to my opening up to God, new pressures made the depression dramatically worse. I took on to myself the misery of the children of a hugely wealthy, hedonistic, and world-renowned family, for whom I worked, and whose children were into drugs to try to escape their pain. (One of these sadly subsequently committed suicide.) I had nothing effective to offer them, and realised that in many ways I was like them. Legitimately looking for many of the present and eternal inner solutions God wants us all to have, but also selfish myself in my own ways. The process of conviction had begun.

I was a privileged, ‘decent’ young Englishman. I had been authoritatively told by that ultimate English spiritual authority, the Church of England, that I became a Christian and was on my way to heaven at the moment, as a baby, some water was sprinkled on my forehead. But now I began to see my own faults and failures in life in a real way – from God’s perspective. The depression became dramatically worse, and I began to experience breakdown as well. These forces took hold of me in such an overpowering way that I was soon brought to a complete emotional and physical standstill, and had to stop working.

In desperation I turned to a doctor, and asked if the ‘psychological’ guys could maybe help me. I will never forget him telling me - almost like a death sentence to the real person with huge positive potential that I knew I was somewhere inside myself - that I “could be in and out of psychiatrists’ rooms for the next ten years and still see no improvement”. Faced with this prospect, I felt any remaining enthusiasm for living begin to drain away. From then on, I was in a losing battle to find either the mental clarity and motivation, or the physical energy and strength to accomplish even the most basic daily routines.

Although it seemed to stretch the medical and psychological professions to their limits, my condition proved to be well within God’s power to heal. A concerned Christian was quick to befriend me, and to tell me about Him and the quality of life that He offers. I still had a lot of questions and was often a trying person to try to talk to. (I was furious when a now dear friend told me straight that I was not a Christian in God’s terms.) I have a legal family background and a law degree myself, and I examined His case set out in the Bible for my letting Him be God in my life a bit like a barrister examining a witness in a court of law. But this man really did have the patience and humility of a saint – and the love of God - and finally what he and one or two other Christians said was consistent, added up, and had no flaws. A God who is Truth and whose case against (and for) us never has any flaws was in the background orchestrating what was said to me. I well remember the moment that I was asked if there was any reason left why I should not ask Him to come into my life by His Spirit. I opened my mouth to ask just one more question… because I always had more questions… and then closed it, because everything had been covered! ‘No,’ I then said quietly, almost in defeat! It was the most positive defeat I have ever suffered!!!!... I at last decided to agree with Him that running my life my way had not worked and decided to let Him come in and take gentle charge instead.

No sooner had I done this than He became dramatically real to me. This changed everything. He was, quite simply, powerful, unconditional love personified. Broken, unresisting, and humbled as I was, He was able to access deep places within me. The severe depression and breakdown and their debilitating side-effects left me instantly – never to return. I did not set foot in any psychiatrist’s consulting room, nor have I needed any medication since that day. I moved quite literally into a different world, with God the central reality. A whole new vista and way of thinking opened up inside me. With the strength and the guidance He gave me as I dialogued with Him in prayer I quickly rebuilt my working life. I rose within ten years from the bottom to the top of my chosen speciality in big business in the City of London, until in 1990 I was called out of all that and the world of the comfortable monthly paycheque, annual bonus, and company car, into the work that I now do, helping others to experience the same kind of healing in their lives that I have. I have no human employer and no other source of income, and do not 'charge' for what I do, but all my financial needs over 16 years have been well met by a God who knows them all and prompts others to give what is needed.

The contrast between the two worlds of the endless, subtle nightmare of a life without Him, and the light and love and hope and direction that He can bring, and the inner heaven on earth that we move into once He is there, were just so stark for me, and remain so all these years later.

The true Christian God is no ‘skygod’, but one who is absolutely real. He cannot be finally found or 'proved' to exist with the mind alone. But He comes quietly but powerfully into our spirits when we really need Him enough, and are convinced enough that He might exist, to risk taking a leap into the darkness of the possibility that He may not be there at all.

[Jill]

Nice post, Keith. Faith IS a difficult concept, and sometimes I think until you actually have it you don’t understand it. It is after all a leap in the dark. Once you have it, though, all becomes clear. I do think atheists would benefit from reading C S Lewis’s ‘Mere Christianity’ which charts his journey from atheism to Christianity.

In 397 St Augustine wrote in ‘Confessions’ ‘O God, you have made us for yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find their rest in you.’ This was written Roman Empire was beginning to collapse, and people were anxious about what would happen. Augustine, like C S Lewis, had found his Christian faith from a very worldly background when his restlessness was not satisfied by worldly things. I think today, like Augustine, we find this aching restlessness and lack of inner peace which cannot be entirely satisfied by career, home and family, and certainly not by alcohol, drugs, cult religions and sexual immorality. That is like trying to assuage our hunger by eating sawdust; it will not nourish us.

Perhaps the reason why so many atheists post regularly on a religion blog is that they are searching for something? If not actually searching, then perhaps recognising that there is something which cannot be explained by science and logic, and wondering if someone can tell them what it is? We are often angry about what we don’t understand, and some people rail furiously against religious belief. No-one hated Christians more than St Paul, and look what happened to him. Jesus said ‘Come to me all who labour and are heavy laden and I will give you rest.’ Trust is the first step.

I know people of faith have taken wrong turns, I know Christians have made bad mistakes, sometimes very bad mistakes, (even I make bad mistakes!) but this is because we are just people, wilful people, who have not trusted God enough. If we trusted God enough, we would follow the path set for us by Jesus, which, for anyone who studies the New Testament, turns out to be the one which is right.

[Keith Downer]

Tim, thanks for the thought-provoking reply, so much so that I need to give to more thought.

J Pearce, you have obviously worked for similar organisations and in similar situations as I have over the years. You note, I didn't claim to have delivered perfect computer systems every time but when faced with insufficient resources or changing deadlines, I have always made certain that my backside was covered by a caveat - in writing!
Also, I have yet to discover anything that has all "the answers to life's travails" and which I can base all of life's decisions on. There is a moral framework which Christianity provides and which can be applied to issues such as homosexuality and the role of women in the church. But Christianity is a living faith and it involves ordinary men and women who seek to interpret and understand where God is leading us in this modern world.
That is why faith is such a difficult concept for people with no belief to understand. If God erected signposts everywhere then it would be so easy but He wants us to trust in Him, not because He makes it easy but because it is difficult and mistakes are made and still we hold on to our belief.

[J Pearce]

"When you write a complicated computer programme, everything has to add up, it has to be complete and all possible paths of direction have to be catered for in a logical design. Technical computer professionals tend to be introspective and analytical with thought processes that adopt logical solutions rather than emotional ones. "Wishful thinking" doesn't come into it or you guarantee system failure."

Well….lets be honest, Keith, this is not strictly true (and I should know)! Most programmers will tell you that all that logical design and full code path coverage goes right out the window when faced with a deadline, or a sudden lack of funds! And then, wishful thinking (AKA "in my professional opinion", or "I'm almost 100% certain") becomes the modus operandi!

Which is analogous to religious belief, is it not? Religion thinks it has the answers to lifes travails - the moral framework on which to base all your decisions - but give it a moral conundrum (say, homosexuality, or an alternative belief system) - and suddenly, it all goes a bit pear shaped. Suddenly, everyone starts saying "I'm right, because I have faith that I'm right, even though I can't justify that on any rational grounds".

Which sounds like wishful thinking to me.

[Tim Cooper]

Keith: I do recognise that your view, regarding the political problems and internal difficulties of any large organisation, is a balanced one. But we differ over what society is relying upon for cohesion, the value of our Christian past and what form humanism takes.

A common misapprehension, usually made by those who need to experience a sense of identity is that we, as human beings, need to club together to fight something or other. Over specifics, this sometimes applies. No finer example than the divergence of opinions amongst religious groups. I use the term 'humanist' loosely in that, since I have no faith, my own identity is defined by a belief in the integrity of the dignity of man. It is more an attitude than a movement. It promotes freedom and rationality, tempered by the limits of fallibility, from which tolerance and responsibility result.
This is one way in which human beings have related themselves to the world since the Enlightenment, albeit Marx reduced imagined human freedom by relating it to economic need, and Freud drew attention to the irrational bases of human nature.

I believe that society, defined by human nature is basically sound, built upon an historical framework of shared experience - one in which religion is clearly seen to have no overall altruistic effect, in fact quite the reverse. Christians are particularly selective when choosing which aspects of their long history are to be included in the moral framework they claim underpins modern society; not much mention of murdering popes, inquisitions, religious wars etc.etc. Happily, modern society shows little evidence of endorsing the strict, particular, hellfire and brimstone brigade of the 19thC or the closed communities that flogged and abused their own members until the 1930s. I do not accept the rose-tinted view expressed by nolstalgic references to post-war cosiness. In short, the great framework of morality is a recent construction.

Subsequently I have absolutely no faith in the assertion that human nature can be radically changed. To say it can, surely interferes with your own interpretation of your god's infallibility doesn't it? The best we can do is to encourage responsible citizenship in our children and seek to unite rather than divide society. We do not need battalions of humanists or other armies of 'right thinking' people to be mobilised. But where we differ significantly is that I am sure that religion in all its forms, is actively working against any form of stability - a position demonstrated historically.It is precisely the issue of confrontation, separatism and taking sides that divides communities and promotes obscurant thinking. To say that 'you cannot rely on common human nature where the majority of people are concerned', implying that piety is the only route is elitist and appalling! It is far more likely that evidence-based science will finally convince us all that global warming may be imminent and we need to elect politicians who work for us not themselves - not clerics spouting interminable esoteric nonsense Keith, elected representatives. The assumption that we live in a world created by gods who, having left us all to get on with it, are now not responsible for the mess it's in, is a fantastic recipe for guilt and fear, promoting the theory that we are not worthy. Well, I think we are worthy. There may be gods, but to make policy based on constant thin air, and to divide the world over it, seems to me to border upon allowing the lunatics to run the asylum. In this I mean the rationale, not the participants. Faith remains a personal matter, but like other sources of controversy it should not be superimposed on everybody.

[Keith Downer]

Another of your great misconceptions, Alistair, is that becoming a Christian removes all doubt from your mind. Now I know there are believers who express their faith with an undeniable certainty but there are a significant number like myself who are always questioning, searching for insights or signs in our lives or in the world to either substantiate or cast doubt on the beliefs we have.
As human beings, we are very limited and if we are faced with a Creator - a possibility that you don't even allow, Alistair - then the power and intellect of that Being is way beyond our understanding or imagination. I am not a superstitious person but I do have fears in my life, great fears at times and I admit, one of those fears has always been concerned with the "nothingness" that might exist when I die.
I suppose it depends on the sort of person your are but I could never justify a belief in God because I want something to exist when I die. When you write a complicated computer programme, everything has to add up, it has to be complete and all possible paths of direction have to be catered for in a logical design. Technical computer professionals tend to be introspective and analytical with thought processes that adopt logical solutions rather than emotional ones. "Wishful thinking" doesn't come into it or you guarantee system failure.
If it make you comfortable, you may continue to try and shoehorn me into the type of person that fits the only description of a Christian your mind will accept, Alistair, but you are way off the mark. Twenty years ago, it was a long process of investigation and evaluation which took me to the point at which I allowed my mind and my heart to accept the possibility that God exists and only then, through His Spirit, did I start to believe in Him.

[alistair mcbay]

"What are you saying exactly – that the Archbishop did not say those things? That the Daily Mail made it all up?"

Jill, how do you arrive at that ridiculous conclusion? I think you are losing it. And the 72% statistic is discredited now even by the government department that produced it. You really do make yourself look quite desperate by repeating it.

"I think the Archbishop was referring to God"

Maybe Jill, but whose God? His, I guess. But what about morality from the Hindu God, or jewish God, or Muslim God, or the Sikh god? Do those gods get a look-in too, Jill, or just Nicholls' version? Get a reality check, Jill - Nicholls was talking about morality as he and his ilk interpret what their imaginary sky-friend says he wants. This is no different to any Muslim imam saying he is the one who can interpret what Allah wants of us moral beings. Are you going to trust self-appointed emissaries from god in the vatican who placed the reputation of their Church - and keeping their asses out of jail - above the physical and mental safety of children entrusted to their care?

And Keith, you say "Be sure to give us the benefit of your wisdom once you have arrived at a description for those of us who haven't closed our minds or our intellect to the possibility that we don't know or understand all there is to know or understand about our existence."

Well, now. Have you opened your mind Keith, and your intellect, to the possibility that your faith is nothing more than superstition and fear that this life is the only one you have? What about the Christians trying to teach creationism in our schools with the PM's blessing? Are they opening their minds and those of our children to explaining and discovering the universe, or are they effectively closing down that search because "God did it" and no more needs to be said?

My mind is very open to finding out and understanding all there is to know and understand about our existence - through reason, rationality and scientific investigation. I have looked deeply at what you call faith, and as you yourself have conceded there is no evidence to support it, other than you believe it is true. What you and Jill call evidence is in fact just wishful thinking. So my mind is open to all possibilities, but is also capable of evaluating and rejecting the myth, legend and superstition of primitive tent-dwellers as a source of knowledge about the universe for what it is - namely myth, legend and primitive man's superstitions and ignorance. I guess your mind isn't up to rejecting magic.

Take heart, though, Keith, you are getting close. I daresay you do not believe that Thor exists, or Horus, Zeus, Aphrodite, Neptune, Mithras, Ra and countless others. You only have one more skygod left to reject - if you open your mind to the possibility, of course.

[Keith Downer]

Tim, from my earlier post, I should think my frustration and disillusionment with the leadership and administration of our churches is pretty clear. So I will willingly concede that first, it is not only faith groups who are "energy driven and humane" and second, that a great deal of time and effort is spent on issues such as internal relationships and policy.
I can do this quite happily yet still retain my faith and allegiance to the Christian church because, unlike many non-believers and as I also made clear in my earlier post, I accept that any organisation is fallible. As an independent IT consultant, I have seem many organisations in operation, observed all aspects of the way they function, from the top to the bottom, and it is no surprise to me that the church has similar problems.
As in any business, in the church there are both good and poor managers, skilled communicators and those who struggle. Becoming a church leader or administrator doesn't suddenly endower you with skills and abilities that you didn't have before, in the same way that becoming a Christian doesn't make you squeaky clean, devoid of all undesirable human characteristics. In fact, it probably makes your life more difficult and someone like Dr Williams is continually walking a tightrope between diplomacy and the expression of his strong faith.
So I can criticise the church and believe in it because for all it's faults (and some of them like the cases of paedophilia are shockingly unacceptable), it continues to provide the foundation and structure upon which any community depends if, for example, many of those principles that you believe in as a humanist, are to stand any chance at all of being fulfilled.
And where humanism is concerned, this is my main point. For the humanist movement to have any significant effect upon our way-of-life is impossible in the absence of any framework or structure within which huge numbers of similarly motivated people can project their principles onto our society.
I accept that there are a large number of people who have a devotion to human interests, to the human race and who see Man as a responsible and progressively intellectual being with a great emphasis on the importance of common human needs; I like to think that describes myself to some extent. But unless there is a means of translating this into a force within our society, it is just an intellectual exercise, well-meaning by thinking, caring people but still pie-in-the-sky.
If you need further convincing, think about environmental issues, such as global warming. Any intelligent individual knows that we cannot continue upsetting the delicate balance of our environment without disastrous effects in the future - and maybe a not too distant future at that! Even though there has been significant, organised efforts to prevent the situation deteriorating further, human nature being what it is, what has really been done?
Humanism falls down because you cannot rely on human nature where the majority of people are concerned. As a Christian, I believe that human nature can be changed, not by scientific evidence that the ice-caps will melt and life will become unsustainable, but by an awareness of our Creator who expects more of us. Who through Jesus Christ has provided those who believe in Him with a voice and an organisation, the church, through which for all it's imperfections, our lives today and those of our children tomorrow can be secured in the world He created.

[Christopher]

Now we have AB Nichols saying (IF we can believe the Daily Mail) "Archbishop Nichols: Threat to withdraw Catholic co-operation with the Government if the new sexual orientation regulations go ahead".

Talk about jumping on a bandwaggon! Isn't this what the MCB did before they got the order of the boot? Pick up their bat and ball and refuse to play?

Now that he is in line for the No 1 job at Westminster when Murphy O'connor gives up, Nichols is keen for his hard-line credentials to be seen by Ratzinger. The only problem is that Ratzinger himself has proved to be less 'hardline' as pope than he was as a cardinal - witness his change of opinion on 'what Mohammed brought that was new....things only evil and inhuman' or the volte face on the Turksh accession to the EU. After meeting Rowan Williams he may prefer someone more in the 'anglican' mould of equivocation for Westminster.

[Tim Cooper]

Keith: How can you possibly make the general assertion that humanists, are either a group, or are apathetic and selfish, or less capable of contributing to society than anyone else? It's nonsense isn't it? It is precisely because they are not trying desperately to hang their hats on invisible hooks that there is no need for teams, hierarchies, rules or self-government in order to maintain the belief that humanism is a beneficent attitude to life. The trick of seeing life from a secular perspective is in rejecting what there isn't, achieving a civil interpretation of what there is and avoiding protracted interference over life choices by those practised in the use of smoke and an assortment of mirrors. Subsequently, to extend your metaphor, it can be seen that faith groups have no team to play against; the whole humanist rationale resting on treating as normal the desire for mutual care and social cohesion in society, without the need for crusades involving ghosts.

So presumably you have invented some sort of imaginary secularist stereotype to fit the assumption that only the pious are energy driven and humane? I should have thought, and you must concede, that much of their time is spent, within their own comfort zone, participating in destructive internal wrangling, fundamentalist posturing or mutually re-inforcing their own beliefs - rather than 'stepping outside'.

[Christopher]

"Anyone who would rejoice in Nicholls' stand should hang their head in shame."

Indeed it shows how urgently these regulations are needed, Alistair.

I think the Haggard affair teaches us to be just a little bit more wary of the most shrill and strident voices calling for gay people to be denied equal treatment. In the case of Haggard, we saw that he who preached the loudest had skeletons a-plenty in his own cupboard - indeed Jesus said 'let him who is without sin caste the first stone'. There are ample precedents - PM John Major calling for a back-to-basics campaign while engaged in extra-maritals with Edwina Currie, and Two Jags Prescott laughing out loud at the sexual antics of Stephen Norris and the generally sleazy Tories while getting up to all sorts of sleaze himself in Government offices and Government flats. But we expect that degree of hypocrisy from our politicians, not our clergymen.

The bishops of the catholic church have lost all authority to speak on sexual morality and they are the ones who should hang their heads in shame.

[Tim Cooper]

Keith: How can you possibly make the general assertion that humanists, albeit a 'nice group of guys' are, apathetic and selfish, or less capable of contributing to society than anyone else? It's nonsense isn't it? It is precisely because they are not trying desperately to hang their hats on invisible hooks that there is no need for teams hierarchy, rules or self-government in order to maintain the belief that humanism is a beneficent attitude to life. The trick of seeing life from a secular perspective is in rejecting what there isn't and avoiding protracted arguments over smoke and an assortment of mirrors. Subsequently, it can be seen that faith groups have no team to play against; the whole humanist rationale resting on normality without the need for crusades involving ghosts.

So presumably only faith groups are energy driven and humane? I should have thought, and you must concede, that much of their time is taken up with internal, internecine wrangling.

[David Smith]

Alistair - your critique of the Roman Catholic and Anglican 'Churches' is devastating and largely right. But, when he says he wants to see the church restored as a moral force, perhaps Keith is referring to the true Christian church defined in the pages of the New Testament, rather than these two counterfeit institutions clothed in a thin covering of christian-looking material.

I have no doubt that that church would more than meet your criteria of integrity, compassion, and indeed genuine power to heal the sick.

[Jill]

‘Ah the Daily Mail, that bastion of balance, fairness and equal treatment for all. ‘

Oh, sorry, Alistair, I forgot – this blog is a platform for you to demonstrate your intellectual superiority. What are you saying exactly – that the Archbishop did not say those things? That the Daily Mail made it all up?

No, evidently not, (so that cheap little jibe didn’t get you anywhere, did it?) as you go on to say ‘But what's this? "Those who are elected to fashion our laws are not elected to be our moral tutors. They have no mandate or competence to be so" says Nicholls. So who has that mandate and competence, Jill - the Catholic Church? Ho ho!’

I think the Archbishop was referring to God, actually, Alistair. But it is no use talking to you of God, as it only sets you off into overdrive, so I will not bother. My beef is with the Church of England hierarchy, who yet again have let this corrupt Government run rings round them. Archbishop Nicholls would indeed have to hang his head in shame if he took the same course of action, or rather inaction, as some of our Bishops and clergy, of continuing to draw their stipends while failing to do their job by upholding standards of morality.
.
Oh, and I see that you are still casting ‘straw men’ around the Catholic Church over the actions of some Catholic priests. There is nothing in the Church dogma, as far as I am aware, that says it is right for priests to abuse children. (And you may recall my pointing out some time ago that nearly 90% of the priests involved in that particular scandal abused post-pubescent boys, which makes it a ‘homosexual’ issue rather than a ‘paedophilic’ one, so another ‘straw man’).

36% describe themselves as humanists? When 72% describe themselves as Christians? It doesn’t add up! Oh no, sorry, I forgot, the ones who call themselves Christians are lying, it must be the humanists who are telling the truth.

And still ranting about privileges, too, I see. Well, the Scots do know a thing or two about them, don’t they? There are the university fees and the nursing home fees which you guys don’t have to pay, but we do, while subsidising you, not to mention availability of free life-saving medicines not available to the rest of us. Yet your MPs are allowed to vote on purely English matters while our MPs have no such rights North of the Border. How mean of you to begrudge a few perks to others, especially when you are not paying for them.

Keith and Julia, I entirely agree with you. The whole of this country’s ‘ethos’ is based on Christianity. Once the Sexual Orientation Regs are upon us the downward spiral will gather pace (I have posted at length on these and CPs on the ‘Haggard’ thread so will not derail this one). Our former generous liberal tolerance was not plucked from thin air, as the secularists seem to imagine. I feel only despair about what is happening, both in this country and in the Church of my baptism.

[Keith Downer]

"If you believe he created everything, then he must have created evil too. How infallible can you get? Man created God in his own image, and so God must be infallible. QED"

Alistair, even though you have quoted one of my great sporting heroes, you still don't seem to understand that if you ask questions about God, which by the very nature require an understanding and acceptance of the existence of God, there is no debate possible with someone who doesn't allow for the possibility that God may exist and therefore will reject any reply from a perspective where God does exist.
Secularism is like a very nice group of guys who want to play in a football team but don't have a manager, no kit, nowhere to play, no understanding of the rules and who are not too sure what the game is about anyway. But they are still a bunch of nice guys (probably some are humanists as well).
17 million adults may well be humanist in their basic outlook but when it comes to stepping outside their comfort zone to do something fundamentally humanist, many will be apathetic, another large number will consider the effect upon themselves and their family, then decide to watch television. Which leaves a very small minority of well-meaning people who actually put into practice what they basically believe. I wish it was different but human nature being what it is these days, that's the truth of it.
Be sure to give us the benefit of your wisdom, Alistair, once you have arrived at a description for those of us who haven't closed our minds or our intellect to the possibility that we don't know or understand all there is to know or understand about our existence.

[Tim Cooper]

Keith:
"Like humanism,[secularism] might work amongst a group of intelligent, thoughtful well-balanced and reasonable people"

I can of course see what you are saying. I disagree but at least I have not been tempted to post 'Christianity is for thickos who cannot make up their own minds - you heard it first from Keith!' But I think you have the figures wrong. Humanists represent, 37% of people I believe (a recent poll) among many others with a secular view.

And I refuse to believe that a cohesive settled society can only be achieved through invoking dubious deities. It's tantamount to saying that mutual support and brotherly love can only be achieved through the bizarre rituals of Freemasonry - itself undemocratic, discriminatory and separatist. The ideal golden age you are imagining actually refers to a past, heavy-handed system of control in which dark, threatening gods were needed to instill fear of retribution in order to preserve power and weld it all together. It's true that some of the principles in society have been built upon a structure based on the formulaic codes of Christianity. Here your analogy of the intelligent and the uneducated applies - the historical foundations you mention include centuries when education was not available to all, serfdom proliferated; the power was in the hands of landowners and the mysticism necessary to separate the great from the grateful unwashed was achieved by providing bibles only in Latin. Wall paintings for the illiterate depicting the last supper and other significant events were provided to enlighten. The slave trade, the abuse of children, the wholly illegitimate and repressive British Empire, illegal wars, widespread theft and the vast exploitation of other races were also responsible for founding our exemplary Christian communities. So not much self-interest there then.

To say that there is a subconscious adherence to former beliefs and principles may be true, in part, but we also have a long history of mutual respect, based on human civility and a desire to treat other as we would wish to be treated. I cannot imagine that an increased reliance on steering the rational even further towards the irrational will, in any way, promote societal cohesion. It seems to me that religion separates communities and divides society, across its spectrum in a multitude of ways, rather than creating harmony.

[alistair mcbay]

"Show me someone who is infallible and I will show you God."

Aw come on, Keith! To paraphrase the John McEnroe, "you CANNOT be serious!"

If you believe he created everything, then he must have created evil too. How infallible can you get? Man created God in his own image, and so God must be infallible. QED

"Secularism does not engender any organisation, cohesion, sense of common purpose or freely accepted governing principles."

Utterly wrong! It does indeed do this, not least because it does not start by segregating citizens into righteous and unrighteous, saints and siners, saved and damned, chosen people and infidels". You do not create common purpose by dividing people up like this, the way Christianity and Islam do.

"Like humanism, it might work amongst a group of intelligent, thoughtful, well-balanced and reasonable people who think and care about life, fairness and the importance of common human needs but that defines a very small minority in our society."

Thanks Keith, how frightfully condescending of you. But an Ipsos MORI poll has shown that 36% of people – equivalent to around 17 million adults – are in fact humanists in their basic outlook. That's a big minority of people who are 'intelligent, thoughtful, well-balanced and reasonable people who think and care about life, fairness and the importance of common human needs'

But how would I describe the Christians, Muslims etc who adhere to a greater or lesser degree to the myths, legends, superstitions and prejudices of primitive tent-dwellers for their moral code and principles of 'intelligence, thought, balance and reason', uncontaminated as thier belief system is by the existence of any evidence for its alleged Creator(s)?

I'll think about it and get back to you.

[Tim Cooper]

Julia: I am disappointed that you continually assert that as a humanist I seek to mock religious belief. What a bizarre interpretation. For my part, you can proclaim what you like. You may hold whatever view of sexual morality you like. If some countries are discriminating against same sex marriages I personally am indifferent - its a matter for them to sort out. Get involved if you want to.

Freedom of speech should apply to all. Those with a secular view are disagreeing with the extent religion affects all members of society. In my view it is impolite and serves no purpose to eschew religion or to mock those with faith. But those without faith cannot be something they are not and their view in society has a value, whether you like it or not. 'Religion' however does not happen in isolation; it certainly affects others and to avoid it is difficult. Your post shouts out that you regard yourself as a victim. Unfortunately its not all about you.

[alistair mcbay]

Ah the Daily Mail, that bastion of balance, fairness and equal treatment for all.

But what's this? "Those who are elected to fashion our laws are not elected to be our moral tutors. They have no mandate or competence to be so" says Nicholls. So who has that mandate and competence, Jill - the Catholic Church? Ho ho!

Anyone who would rejoice in Nicholls' stand should hang their head in shame. The suggestion that Nicholls and his imaginary friend in the sky have that exclusive moral authority is as repugnant as it is hilarious. As the Indian atheist Gora said, "morality is a social obligation but not a passport to heaven and salvation. The theistic belief in divine retribution has sidetracked moral behaviour". How right he was.

[Jill]

I was delighted to read this in today's online newspapers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=419067&in_page_id=1770&ico=Homepage&icl=TabModule&icc=NEWS&ct=5

Shame on the Church of England Bishops who should be at the forefront here. Unfortunately they have forfeited their moral authority by tamely acquiescing to the Civil Partnership Bill when they had the chance to stand up and be counted.

[Keith Downer]

"I also think it presumptuous to assume that the Christian ethic is the only one capable of defining moral values; a presiding dimension that all must take notice of."

I think, Tim, that your statement, in many ways, is at the heart of any debate which involves the State and organised religion. Alistair has once again highlighted the failings of the Christian churches, many of which I have already acknowledged, cannot be easily defended. But, administratively, operating in the real world, a church can get it wrong just like those companies that run railways or supermarkets. In all these cases, the organisations make a certain claim to infallibility - indeed, they probably couldn't function at all if they admitted all their mistakes - but we know that realistically, people like managing directors, bishops and check-out assistants are far from infallible. Show me someone who is infallible and I will show you God.
Even so, in all these organisations - and this applies to communities as well - there has to be a foundation on which a framework and structure can be constructed, maintained and developed. This requires, amongst other things, organisation, cohesion, a sense of common purpose and a set of governing principles. And that is where your statement comes in.
Looking around the world today or taking a glance back at history, reveals that Christianity is not the only one capable of defining moral values. But in relatively stable communities , there is always some form of morality in practice. Even in Iraq under Saddam Hussein, an "organisation, cohesion, a sense of common purpose and a set of governing principles" was in existence. Admittedly, in his case, it was the security forces who implemented their own methods of regulating people's behaviour and way-of-life but nevertheless, a widely diverse society was held together through these factors and was reasonably settled.
I guess that this is where we will differ because secularism does not engender any organisation, cohesion, sense of common purpose or freely accepted governing principles. Like humanism, it might work amongst a group of intelligent, thoughtful, well-balanced and reasonable people who think and care about life, fairness and the importance of common human needs but that defines a very small minority in our society.
Despite other people's denial, our community in the UK does has a foundation in Christian beliefs and principles. And on this foundation has been built the framework and structure of a way-of-life that embodies all the elements needed for a stable, settled society. Consciously or otherwise, the majority of people adhere to these, not through some recognition of common human needs but because this structure defines them and their life. Take it away and selfish interests and individual survivalist instincts take over and you have chaos - which is why many of us have great fears of an increasingly secular society.
I would also argue that Christianity resolves a deep spiritual need in all of us but then I have no wish to enter into that debate with Alistair again!

[alistair mcbay]

"Secular society accommodates -- and is increasingly dictated -- by you."

Eh? Does that apply to the teaching of creationism or ID in schools? Or to the increase in faith schools? Or the exclusion of teachers and administrators not of the faith from faith schools? Or faith-based welfare programmes? Or exemptions to religious organisations granted on cruelty to animals? Or tax concessions and pension concessions to religious organisations and groups? Or exemptions for Christians from programmes designed to treat all people equally and without discrimination on spurious grounds, something you all allege your Jesus was all about?

Look more closely, Julia.

Freedom of speech is being abused by Christians who seek to use it to demonise and vilify an entire group of people - pewaceful, law-abiding British citizens - in the process. The Christian president of Edinburgh University Students Union put it rather well in the Scotland on Sunday newspaper at the weekend:

"What I do object to is individuals cherrypicking sections of the Bible to promote and reflect their own morals and political objectives, while conveniently ignoring other aspects, particularly in the Old Testament, which are harder to justify in a modern context.

What's really at stake here, however, is that homophobia has become the last acceptable discrimination. Recent politicking has left homosexuality out of the hate crimes bill and popular opinion seems to be in favour of allowing a group a metaphorical megaphone through which homosexuality can be denounced. If a similar course, but with racist implications, was being proposed, I imagine people would be queuing up round the block to denounce it, and quite rightly so."

A practising Christian saying this, Julia, not a secularist!

[Julia Langdon]

"A fundamental standpoint for most humanists is not to suggest faith groups should behave in any way other than they are comfortable with..."

What an ideal! If only it were reality. Christians are NOT permitted to proclaim their beliefs, particularly regarding sexual morality. In some countries, it's classified as "hate speech" and can be prosecuted. C of E vicars are concerned they may be prosecuted if they refuse to marry same-sex couples. At university, orthodox Christians are not permitted to meet on campus.

It is no matter to me if folks such as yourself entirely eschew religious belief, and I don't care if you mock said belief, either. But freedom of speech and religion should extend to Christians, as well. No one is forcing you to listen or practice. Secular society accommodates -- and is increasingly dictated -- by you.

[alistair mcbay]

"I want to see the Church restored as a moral force in this country"

Which church would that be then, Keith?

The Catholic one whose 'moral force' put keeping the Church's image intact over many decades and in many countries before the safety and well-being of children sexually abused by its employees? The one that has managed to keep all its hierarchy out of jail for aiding and abetting these abusers? The one that makes up doctrine like Limbo as it goes along, and then changes it with no regard for the unnecessary mental tortures inflicted on its followers over hundreds of years? The one that finds it necessary to introduce "miracle-lite" at Lourdes because science just gets better and better at curing disease?

Or the Anglican one whose 'moral force' sees the Archbishop of York engage in a shameless self-publicity exercise living in a tent for a week inside his church (featured on his diocese web site) in the same week that Lambeth announced a seven-figure spend on his official residence (not mentioned on the diocese web site - odd, that!) The Anglican church that says it can't afford to maintain churches and needs state handouts while spening millions buying or doing up two magnificent residences for its hierarchy in Oxford and York? The one that rants about the evils of consumerism but trousers healthy returns on its investments in shopping centres? The one that wants exemptions from anti-discrimination and equality legislation so it can legally practise dsicrimination and prejudice against peaceful and law-abiding sections of our community?

Moral backbone? Don't make me laugh!

[Tim Cooper]

Keith: Thank you for your considered reply to my posting. I have long since thought that the majority of the contributors to these discussions are concerned enough to try to speak their own truths and that overall the quality of the discussion is high. I can feel the immense frustration among Anglicans over the splits and disagreements within their faith, which they quite correctly see as damaging the structure and credibility of the composite. Unlike some, I do not presume to criticize people for having faith, albeit I am at a loss to understand their conviction; mysterious, absent deities may exist, but I cannot accept that meaningful policies are made and entrenched positions are taken up on the unlikely whim of a possible maybe.

You correctly identify where we differ. As someone who leans towards an optimistic view of humanity as opposed to relying on imagination - a humanist for want of a title, I see no earthly point in trying to superimpose a religious perspective overall. I disagree that the Anglican hierarchy has no effect in the political or social process and I regard the 26 unelected bishops within the legislature as wholly undemocratic.

The 'breakdown in society' means many things to many people. There are those who would argue that no breakdown has occurred, others who would despair at the loss of an imaginary golden age. The truth is somewhere between the two I suspect. Education, I agree, is the answer to the problem - along with empowering young people to take control of their lives. Aside from the debacle over faith schools, urgent changes are needed to construct a framework of excellent schools available to all. Those parents who wish to impose their own religious beliefs on their children, separating them from other faiths and denying them freedom of choice could always subscribe to private church-owned schools. Overall, I do not believe that the 'religious interference' that you propose is the answer. I also think it presumptuous to assume that the Christian ethic is the only one capable of defining moral values; a presiding dimension that all must take notice of. Society is pluralistic and comprises all cultures and faiths. What is morally acceptable differs. We are never going to put the problems you identify right, by seeking to extend religious perspectives on behalf of others.

[Christopher]

Fabio

The penny does not drop because the Vatican receives anglican bishops with respect, as you say, and so they think it must mean that the Bull of Leo XIII issued 15 September 1896 declaring that anglican orders 'have been and are absolutely null and void' has somehow been forgotten or put aside. When pope John Paul II walked arm in arm down the aisle of Canterbury Cathedral with AB Robert Runcie I wondered what was going through the two men's heads. Runcie must have thought "I've got the pope of Rome on my arm". But what was the pope thinking? I think we know....