Bishop of Durham on law and faith

The Bishop of Durham, Dr Tom Wright, gave me a brief interview before he went off to the London School of Economics last night to deliver a lecture on law and faith titled: 'God in public? Reflections on Faith and Society.' His reflections on Rowan Williams are worth listening to, and have been picked up already by Covenant Communion among others.

You can read the full lecture if you download this document Here are a couple of extracts:

'Certainly the way in which western democracies currently operate – one need only look at the enormous time, attention and money devoted to an entire year’s worth of electioneering in the USA, not to mention the fact that, though the new President of the USA will have effective power over the whole world, it’s only Americans who get to vote – calls into sharp question the normal western assumption of recent years, that if only we could export more western-style democracy to more parts of the world all problems would be solved. I believe, on the contrary, that as the Archbishop said about law, human dignity and shared goods and priorities, so it is with democracy. Democracies, like all other rulers, need to be called to account, as Kofi Annan said in his retirement speech, both in what they actually do and in what they actually are.'

'This stand-off between secularism and fundamentalism takes many forms. There is, for example, the well-known fresh attack on religious belief of all sorts launched in the name of empirical science by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris and others. I say ‘in the name of’, but actually the rhetoric used by those three goes way beyond empirical science itself and into the realm of good old-fashioned mud-slinging. Just as the media refused last week to engage with what the Archbishop actually said, so Dawkins and others refuse to engage with real theologians, not to mention real communities of faith that are making a real difference at places where the world is in deep pain, a pain which the great advances of science have if anything exacerbated (through weapons technology and the like) rather than alleviated. Just as European science in the nineteenth century was anything but politically neutral, but must be understood within the Enlightenment-based projects of imperial and technological expansion, leading inexorably to the First World War, so the present anti-religious scientific protests must be understood within the multivalent culture of late modernity.'

'I now have a threefold proposal. (i) The confusions we have observed are indications of an increasing instability which has generated the present stand-off between secularism and fundamentalism, as the two sides in the Deist divide now perceive themselves as fighting for their lives against a suddenly awakened foe. (ii) The chilly winds of postmodernity, blowing their deconstructive gales through the entire eighteenth-century settlement, are threatening the Enlightenment systems themselves and the secularism and fundamentalism to which they often seem reduced. (iii) Out of this postmodern moment there might yet emerge, as the Archbishop has been suggesting, new paths towards a wise and civil society in which the genuine values for which the Enlightenment was striving can be preserved and enhanced while the excesses to which it has given rise can be avoided.'

‘Establishment’ is a way of recognising that we are still essentially a Christian country, both in the sense that our history and culture have been decisively shaped by the Christian faith and life and in the sense that at the last census over 70% called themselves ‘Christian’. As the Archbishop said last Monday, this means that the ‘established’ church has a special responsibility to take thought for, and speak up for, the small minorities, and to ensure that they are not squashed between an unthinking church and an uncaring secular state. Hence his perfectly proper concern for the particular sensitivities of Muslims, as indeed of Jews and others. And most Church of England leaders would insist today that if some way could be found to share our ‘Established’ status with our great sister churches, we would be delighted. But let’s not fool ourselves. To give up ‘Establishment’ now would be to collude with that secularism which postmodernity has cheerfully and rightly deconstructed. Rather, the challenge ought to be to make it work for the benefit of the whole society. To aim at that would be to work with the grain both of the Christian gospel itself and of the deep roots of our own society and traditions.'

Comments

[andrew holden]

"I like the timing of the story posted on the comments->faith area about the UN guy and his report about this subject. Ironic, especially as he talks about the 2001 census."

Gal actually. It doesn't look like a very serious report and certainly not difficult to discredit coming from someone who clearly understands little about British history and tradition. Have a look at Cranmer's blog...

http://www.archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/

[DJ]

I like the timing of the story posted on the comments->faith area about the UN guy and his report about this subject. Ironic, especially as he talks about the 2001 census.

[andrew holden]

George, thanks for the link. Fascinating stuff but I'm still not sure what it proves. Many of the questions are false alternatives (particularly Q1 & Q2) and really needed a 'both of these' response. Some lack accuracy (Q3) because some religious people believe in a non-personal afterlife and some religious people don't believe in any sort of real afterlife at all. In many the allegedly 'humanist' answer is also the (or at least one possible) 'religious' answer (eg Q4). The final question is to me irrelevant to the real question of what influence various groups actually have. Perception is a problem only of image.

In the end the real problem is the assumption here that 'humanist' and 'religious' tendencies are poles apart. I don't believe they are and I'd be very interested to see a good poll of values and ethics in the two groups to tease out what the real differencies are.

[George Parr]

Andrew, should you be interested to decide whether your 'Clapham omnibus' parallels are valid in any way and to see precisely how the questions were asked please visit -

http://www.ipsos-mori/polls/2006/humanism.shtml

- a link I clearly should have provided in the first place.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Well, Carl Waring, do provide some substantial arguments and I will debate these with you. It is impossible to take seriously the kind of assertions you make about what Christians believe, or believe about each other.

Reference to a Canadian web page written by five people consisting of an "Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Wiccan and Zen Buddhist" is neither evidence nor an argument for anything.

[andrew holden]

"A 2006 Ipsos Mori Poll found that 36% of the population shared humanist values - 62% said that human nature alone is sufficient to determine right from wrong - and 42% decided that the government pays too much attention to the notions of religious leaders - 41% believed that this is our only life."

This is all a bit 'vox pop', man on the proverbial Clapham Omnibus stuff - the usual kind of precise careful questions we get from the pollsters! I also share humanist values and believe that human nature is sufficient to determine right from wrong - and I'm a Christian.

As for the Government paying too much attention to religious leaders I think that its quite demonstrable from relatively recent events where religious concerns have actually been ignored that this is not the case - so it's erroneous perception in fact, probably the way the question was asked!

And the last question - well it depends what was meant by it. Quite a few believers would say that this is our only life on earth and although we don't know what any kind of afterlife might be like it's not likely we'll be sitting on a cloud playing a harp.

[MaryCunningham]

Well, George, I would say that "God is very important to me" *combined* with regular attendance at religious services gives us an excellent indication of devout Christians in Europe's post-Christian society.

So, it is at least 20%, probably more, but no more than 49%. That seems about right.

Further, usually in a democractic society the gross number is less important than the depth and sincerity of conviction. On this I would say although the religious should predominate but,at least in Britain, they have less influence than the numbers suggest...

I would hazard that the cause of this is flacid nature of Anglican leadership. But as that cannot be documented by surveys, I'll stop. (Incidentally--to all, could you kindly provide a link to any surveys you might cite?

Here is the UK 2001 census:
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293)

Note that religious affiliation was a voluntary question.

%

Christian:71.6
Hindu: 1
Muslim: 2.7
Buddhist:0.3
Jewish: 0.5

No religion 15.5
not stated 7.5.

[Carl Waring]

"Mike, you are still trying to define other people's beliefs for them - a tactic you no doubt learned in some student union somewhere. But it doesn't wash. You live in a society which doesn't share your prejudiced and rather passe notions about religion. You will have to get over it."

That's it Alan, you just do what you always do: rather than address an argument or provide any kind of logical or evidential basis for your own assertions, just fall back on ad hominem and name-calling. Just like you did here http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/02/bishop-of-durha.html#comment-102758836 here http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/02/oremus-et-pro-i.html#comment-102667088 and here http://timescolumns.typepad.com/gledhill/2008/02/oremus-et-pro-i.html#comment-102759604

[observer]

Mike Homfray....sounds like you think you speak for Britain or something....but even in this country, let alone the CofE, it is a just a small minority which wants what you want.

Sure, the Labour party has delivered civil partnerships etc and we have a situation in which two old brothers, if they share a house, may have to pay inheritance tax when one dies but certain others do not.... really great justice! But if you think most people in Britain would be happy with any of their children being adopted by people in a "civil partnership", I think maybe you should think again....and then, using your words, maybe you will "have something informed to say, then your contribution would be most welcome"

(maybe best not to be too patronising to others....being quoted in The Daily Mail really does not mean you are more than you have actually achieved.....)

Having said that, Dr Marsh - it is a bit of a stretch to claim the census responses mean much or anything.....but I can see you are just picking holes in weak arguments.....

[Mike Homfray]

No, Alan, I'm afraid its you who can't be bothered to do any research. Please remedy this and when you have something informed to say, then your contribution would be most welcome.

In terms of church attendance, we are above France, but well below the Catholic countries. Figures are difficult to determine since it depends how one defined 'regular' churchgoing ( and in the CofE there is certainly a lot more attending once a month or fortnight than there used to be) but weekly attendance probably works out at about 5%. Take away migrants and its a lot less. Add to that the fact that people are dying off and the church is not recruiting enough to replicate itself, and the well-established 'throughput' of evangelical churches meaning their growth promises always stop at a level short of their expectations, and you see a society where fewer people attend church year on year.

[George Parr]

Few would argue that Christians and other faith driven souls are free to believe exactly what they wish. But the fact that their beliefs might make absolutely no sense to others should not surprise them.

Alan Marsh glows with the customary pompous madder but, as usual, overstates the case for religious faith and reverses society's assessment of its importance to suit his argument. His attempt at 'boot on other foot' politics, in which he regards open-minded challenges as passe, leaves religion precisely where it has always been - defending itself against charges of archaic rigidity and, for many, social irrelevance.

A 2006 Ipsos Mori Poll found that 36% of the population shared humanist values - 62% said that human nature alone is sufficient to determine right from wrong - and 42% decided that the government pays too much attention to the notions of religious leaders - 41% believed that this is our only life.

Qualitative assessment of those ticking the C of E box starts precisely where? The Gallup survey quoted above doesn't even come near to defining 'committed Christians' but does explode the 72% myth.

[MaryCunningham]

Well, let’s try some numbers. These are eight years old, but since they are pre 2001 I would say that they represent 2008 more accurately than numbers surveyed in 2002-2003, when anti Muslim (pro Christian) feelings ran high in Western Europe. I would say the UK approximates western Europe fairly well. France is the most secular state (according to Pew Attitude Surveys).

Attend Religious Services regularly: ((More than once a week+Once a week)

Western Europe: 20%
Eastern Europe: 14%
West Africa: 82%
Latin America: 35%

“God is very important to me”

Western Europe: 49%
Eastern Europe: 49%
West Africa: 97%
Latin America: 87%

http://www.gallup-international.com/ContentFiles/millennium15.asp

So 7% is much too low, and 70% or so way too high.

[Tom Jackson]

“Its a shame when you have to dragoon others into your cause - you must feel a great lack of confidence.”

Careful, Mike; to start commenting on the level of confidence of fellow contributors suggests a degree of insight that, I suspect, you are not qualified to possess and which you certainly have not displayed in the past?

[Dr Alan Marsh]

Mike, you are still trying to define other people's beliefs for them - a tactic you no doubt learned in some student union somewhere. But it doesn't wash. You live in a society which doesn't share your prejudiced and rather passe notions about religion. You will have to get over it.

Carl Waring is presumably one of your junior adherents?

[andrew holden]

So maybe only 7% of people in the UK are committed Christians. Compare that to how many people go to football matches or how many people are members of the various political parties. 7% of the population being active and committed in the pursuit of any interest(to say nothing of the massive numbers of less committed sympathisers) is still massively significant and their right to campaign on religious issues and objectives is properly guaranteed in a free society - especially when they can co-operate with other religious groups and bodies.

What they should no longer have in a modern democratic society is reserved and privilaged access to the wheels of power - but I'll say again that the Church is not the only institution in that position and in fact is generally in favour of reform. So when someone can come up with a better solution for a reforming chamber it will have my vote. In fact it is the two main Political Parties which currently enjoy the most privilage from the present system and generally resist real change.

What I will say is be careful what you wish for. Great liberal principles will count for nothing when the democratic system delivers results that we dislike - BNP or councellors who really do wish to see major parts of Sharia Law enshrined in legislation....

[Mike Homfray]

The thought of me being a sub-Marxist is unintentionally hilarious....Alan, the census declaration means precisely nothing, because your assumption of what that act means is not borne out by the many studies which have examined the actual beliefs of those who call themselves christian. Its largely something which signifies 'Englishness' and is associated with vague ideas of something more than the material.

You are clearly unaware of this research and seem to think that this figure means the same number agree with your religious views. Its a shame when you have to dragoon others into your cause - you must feel a great lack of confidence.

[DJ]

I think only about a third of the country is affiliated with a religious institution if I recall correctly. I'm one of them as I was christened CofE ... and I've been an atheist since becoming an adult.

[Carl Waring]

"The evidence, so far as the Census is concerned, is overwhelmingly against you and your fellow travellers."

Except, of course, when it comes to who is a 'true' christian (by your or any other Xtains POV). How much would anyone bet that, should your average 'consensus christian' come under the spotlight tomorrow, they would actually go to church? Or pray in their homes? Or even make any reference to religion aside from an exasperated "Jesus Christ" when they were frustrated or desperate plea to a deity should their lives be in direct danger?

How much would a pious Christer like yourself want to be associated with such painfully lapsed sinners? Not a bit!

"Christians outnumber sub-Marxist activists by a very large percentage."

Perhaps, but what on earth has Marxism (or "sub-Marxism") got to do with atheism in this country? Anyone that confuses Marxism and atheism really shouldn't be let out in public without some sort of chaperone, let alone allowed online!

"Again I remind you: twice as many Christians self-declared at the Census as voted for Blair at the last election. You face an enormous democratic credibility gap."

By what definition is someone a 'christian'? The group they self-identify with? The cultural heritage? The amount of times they participate in said religions ceremonies?

How many of these christians observe Lent? How may shun commercialism at Christmas, or chocolate at easter? How many give all they have to the poor?

Or, rather more pertinently, how many self-identify with the religion they were brought up in?

Give it a rest Alan, you're kidding no-one, least of all chrisitans: http://www.religioustolerance.org/uk_rel.htm

[DJ]

Good grief, surely that census claim has been thoroughly debunked by now? There have been numerous studies showing the extent of Christian belief in the UK and it's pretty small when more searching questions are asked. Indeed, about half seem to confuse a vague belief in a god with being Christian.

[andrew holden]

"If you wish to pretend that Christian dogmas have wider support, then lets have a bit of genuine evidence. A cross against 'Christian' on the census really won't do. In other situations, evangelicals would certainly agree that this is no sign of genuine redeeemed faith"

Let's be honest about this - both sides in the debate like to have things both ways. Secular humanists have been known to underline the small number of religious people in the country when arguing how unimportant religion really is and then complaining that the ills of society are down to the undue influence of the 72% of Christians.

The clear truth is that there is still a very large number of people who admit to having some religious aspect to their lives, however vague, but that the number of highly committed religious people is very much smaller.

The CofE accepts that it has varying degrees of allegiance from those with a very, very, vague attachment which may get them through the threshhold of a church only three times in their lives, to baptised, confirmed and giving members who come along several times a week. I think it's a strength that we have such an open and flexible membership - but then I would say that as an Anglican.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

I don't think you are really qualified, Mike, to demand the right to define what Christians believe!

The evidence, so far as the Census is concerned, is overwhelmingly against you and your fellow travellers.

Evidently Derek Hatton and Ken Livingstone still have cells of supporters, thriving in Old Labour town halls and their client agencies, and even in the Cabinet, but ask the general population and you will find that Christians outnumber sub-Marxist activists by a very large percentage.

Again I remind you: twice as many Christians self-declared at the Census as voted for Blair at the last election. You face an enormous democratic credibility gap.

[Mike Homfray]

Perhaps you could try and engage with the question, Alan, but the truth is that you have no answer.

The 72% that you and other religionists trot out to support your cause do not hold the sort of opinions of orthodox Christianity. Most would say they believe in God. And that its a good thing to be christian, as it is associated with being good to other people and its also the default English position.

If you wish to pretend that Christian dogmas have wider support, then lets have a bit of genuine evidence. A cross against 'Christian' on the census really won't do. In other situations, evangelicals would certainly agree that this is no sign of genuine redeeemed faith

[andrew holden]

"Those of us who are heartily sick of the outdated social assumptions, rancorous posturing, violence and instability arising from either entrenched religious positions or the 'inalienable rights' of lunatics, do indeed need to speak for ourselves."

George your faith in human nature is rather touching. Neverthless I still believe that if religion fell into universal decline tomorrow we'd still have all those same problems postulated from some other philosophy or political viewpoint. It's not religion, per se, that's at fault (although there is undoubtedly much bad religion about) but human beings. Now that would be a very realist conclusion for a secular humanist to come to.

[andrew holden]

"....until the time comes when they have their own representation, a reform which would be warmly welcomed by the Church of England."

Reform is indeed inevitable but if religious establishment is going to survive (not guaranteed) it will have to be shared beyond Christian denominations to include representatives of other major faiths as well.

Unless we wish to have yet another directly elected chamber of self-serving politicians we need to push for a reform of the house of Lords which brings together a reforming and revising group of capable people who are genuinely there to serve the whole country and not just some smaller interest group. A meritocracy of people who have proved their worth in many different avenues of society (not just by donating to political parties!) is the kind of thing we need. To keep it democratic perhaps we could have nominations from a group of citizens and then elections from this nominated group.

I do think religious leaders should continue to have a place in the Lords - but it must be as representatives of a wide and diverse society which includes the religious and the non-religious.

I think that the AoC's contribution to the debate about law is really to do with ensuring that conscience (and not just religious conscience) continues to be respected in our society (with choices and opt-outs where appropriate) within the Law of the Land. I think if more people had understood this he'd have gotten in less trouble.

[George Parr]

And so 'taxpayer' what Mr Marsh is suggesting is that there is nothing your can do about it. 'Accidents of history' cannot be changed or challenged and the only way forward is to install more unremoveable, unelected appointees within our undemocratic upper house.

He makes the mistake of implying that this is the sort of reform that the electorate is calling for. He probably believes it.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Taxpayer,

Did you happen to eat a slice of the Moslem cake by any chance?

[George Parr]

Alan Marsh: Since he is the elected leader, Rowan Williams is certainly entitled to speak on matters concerning the Anglican Church. The Anglican Church however is not representative of British society, no matter how many times Christianity is cited as an evocation of Britishness or the highly contestable figure of 72% is quoted. Even if it was in any way correct, it demonstrates that roughly one third of the country does not align itself with the Church of England.

And why should people who choose not to be bound by the straightjacket of religious faith allow themselves to be be defined in theistic terms - as atheists? There is no battle here. In the unlikely event of the pious renouncing their varying religions en masse, the position of non-believers remains precisely the same.

All the while privileged Anglican clerics pronounce politically - and there seems to have been a rash of unwise statements recently - the social and political fabric of this country is most certainly affected. This is best left to elected representatives, with all their faults. They at least have a popular mandate and are removable.

Those of us who are heartily sick of the outdated social assumptions, rancorous posturing, violence and instability arising from either entrenched religious positions or the 'inalienable rights' of lunatics, do indeed need to speak for ourselves. The alternative is to live in a society in which the entitlement to moral peace and mutuality is dictated by the crazy ideologies of others, via their partially-sighted, and in some cases, highly criticized leaders.

Others here have encouraged varying forms of Christian response to the dangers of Islam. I am filled with horror at the prospect. An influx of one-dimensional red-hot religion, as emblematic of the society it claims to represent, is quite unlikely to be able to heal, or even begin to address, the divisions it creates.

[Merrimac]

The Bishop of Durham is, as an Englishman, a Citizen of the European Union, and I am,therefore, puzzled as to why he is not concerned over the blatant lack of accountability of the European Union, the accounts of which have not been signed off by its accountants for the past 13 years and which represents, therefore, billions of unaccounted Euros taxed from its "citizens". There is also the fact that the European Union does not allow itself or its proposed treaties and constitutions to be accountable to the votes (referenda) of its "citizens." There is also the tendency of this European Union to appoint "ministers', "presidents" and other functionaries, without any recourse to elections by its "citizenry." Since the Bishop of Durham is so vexed at the time and effort Americans put into their national, state and local elections, I suggest he recall that Britain lost her American colonies because "Taxation Without Representation Is Tyranny."

[Dr Alan Marsh]

"Taxpayer" - wherever you live in England you are resident in a parish of the Church of England, which has been the established church since at least the Norman Conquest, and in parts of England since the seventh century.

Even though there are those who choose to worship separately as Christians, the accidents of history mean that the Archbishop of Canterbury remains the leading spokesman for the Christian faith in England, and he works closely with ecumenical colleagues, not least in relation to representing Christian views in the House of Lords, until the time comes when they have their own representation, a reform which would be warmly welcomed by the Church of England.

[Alistair]

"How many of those 'Christians' will happily buy as new age book or toddle off to a Mind, Body and Spirit festival?"

What, Mike, like Cherie Blair, for example? A devout Catholic whose witness to her faith includes inviting a feng-shui expert to rearrange the furniture at 10 Downing Street, and wearing a "magic pendant" known as the BioElectric Shield, which has "a matrix of specially cut quartz crystals" that surround the wearer with "a cocoon of energy" to ward off evil forces? Both Cherie and Tony (I don't do God but I do do God really) Blair underwent a Mayan rebirthing experience while on holidays in Mexico in 2001. All reported in Francis Wheen's excellent book "How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered the World".

Having read the material from Wright that Ruth has posted, and that incredible interview with him in Time, I can only conclude he is as dazed and confused as his boss. Must be the air in Durham that does for its bishops.

[Taxpayer]

"The leader of the Church of England is equally entitled to speak for the Church's place in society, in which 72% declared themselves to be Christians, and in which an even higher percentage attend a church service in the course of a year."

In my village, Alan, is a Wesleyan Chapel, not a C of E church, so why should the C of E's speak for them? Or the RCs, Methodists, Baptists, Salvation Army etc.?

Emmanual Appel, you are rapidly developing into a troll. Deal with your own primitive, childish impulsive before labelling others.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

I'm afraid that your crystal ball is not working very well, Mike. You had better take it back to Argos.

You have not read my mind, and I very much doubt if your crystals enable you to read the minds of the other 72% of the population.

If you could, I suspect that you would be at the least uncomfortable with much of what you saw there. Certainly they would be rather more inclined to view Dr Williams as their leader than who? Mike Homfray? Who he?

[Mike Homfray]

You can't have it both ways, Alan.

On the one hand, the vast majority of the population are Christian because they ticked a box on a census form - though that means, I would suggest, little more than a cultural affiliation. Of course, we are Christian - we are British!

On the other, the conservative argument suggests that only those born again and redeemed are Christians.

You can't claim the benefits of Christendom whilst preaching the need for personal salvation. they are not compatible.

And do you really think that b72% of the population believe in even the most basic Christian dogmas? Or more that 'there's probably something more out there' and 'we should be nice to people'?

How many of those 'Christians' will happily buy as new age book or toddle off to a Mind, Body and Spirit festival - they queue out of the doors at our local one!

Get real!

[Mike Homfray]

Interesting, George.

Some recent research suggested that actually, the level of genuine 'belief' in key Christian ideas about sin, salvation, and so on, was actually very, very low indeed. belief doesn't really extend to very much more than 'there's probably something out there' and 'we should try and be decent people and care for others'

I would say that is what most people think of as Christian - and of course, its also something we are simply because we are British!

How the conservatives within the church have the nerve to try and impose some of their exclusionary views on those outside based on a bogus claim that there is widespread christianity is beyond me.

Particularly as in the next breath they will be pointing out that most of us are actually requiring salvation because we aren't 'born-again' and aren't proper. committed, evangelicals!

They want it both ways. On the one hand, they want their world view of saved/unsaved - yet they also want to utilise the benefits of 'Christendom' to enforce their view in the public sphere.

Well, this little episode has found them out - and they will have a much tougher time doing so in future.

At least RW recognises that other religions should also be included if we believe in this sort of religious space , and that those views cannot be enforced on everyone, but he makes the mistake of thinking that exemptions from the one law will be seen as acceptable.

They won't

[saint]

Sounds as if the horse bolted decades ago and the Brits (Europeans?) are trying to build a fence around the paddock now. Just a very inclusive paddock mind. Kumbaya.

The interview gave some interesting insights into Wright's politics for those of us on the other side of teh globe:

(1) on one hand he implies a U.S. hegemony (and a desire that Americans should be doing certain things, yes if it wasn't for the Americans, the world would be a very different place, not necessarily better) and on the other talks of a global village (lets not mention that I wouldn't be taking advice on democracy from Kofi Anan, the most depressingly ineffective leader of one of the most corrupt, ineffective and bloated - not to mention undemocratic and unchristian - institutions in the world. I'm amazed he didn't pronounce peace and blessings on the MDGs ;-)).

(2) Not to mention the implication that British imperialism/colonialism can be equated with American foreign policy. No doubt his obtuse yet mandatory reference to Iraq. WMDs or not, preemptive strikes or not, the Bishop has yet to understand that the GOAL of radical Islam is to get the 'Christian' West to withdraw from Iraq, international affairs etc; it is NOT the cause for radical Islam.

There is much about Williams and Wright to admire but the last week has illuminated much that is to deride.

[Tom Jackson]

If you don't accept that the UK is a Christian country, Mike, I guess your comment has some validity. But to those of us who identify and recognise the Christian heritage, there is every reason for Christianity to have an influence and a status in our community, it's structure and day-to-day life.

After all, as you have highlighted elsewhere, it is only the failure of Church leadership which has allowed Christianity to become less influential and important in many people's lives. Once that failure is addressed - as it undoubtedly will be in time - 5% will be a distant memory.

[John Omani]

There is a very disturbing form of historical determinism pervading Durham's comments.

Imperialism didn't begin with the enlightenment, and neither does technological expansion lead inexorably to global catastrophe - the stalemate of the First World War was as much an outcome of technological limitations as advances.

Secularity and religion are very far from being in polarity as he claims - the enlightenment polity of the US should be example enough that religion flourishes even where it has relinquished its claims for temporal power.

The broadsheet media most certainly did engage with RW's lecture, and quite properly did not like what it found. Clerical arrogence of the first order. Durham's remarks have only convinced me further as an Anglican that we need to disestablish this band of clerics, and fast.

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Tom Jackson and other UK aborigines,

The above is just a bit of noblesse oblige.

The mechanisms for an orderly UK society are already in place - equality before the law. It is the failure of nerve at "London Center" that is the cause of your fear and unease.

Re your alien problem - I was amused to read an item in the Daily Mail re a pair of Mohammedans running a pizza joint in Wales ( how multicultural can you get?) who were selling slices of a cake covered in human excrement. That is good symbol of what you are dealing with and what they think of you.

You're not dealing with skilled German or Russian technicians. You're dealing with primitives who operate on a childish, visceral level of hatred and have no sense of what the West calls "chivalry". No, it's more like Vikings on the prowl.

Vikings on the prowl are dealt with, not with "welfare" ( dole payments and dialogue), but with the sword. And don't take prisoners - that's just another mouth to feed at the people's expense.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

George,

Faith groups are not speaking for you, you seem perfectly at ease in doing that for yourself.

The leader of the Church of England is equally entitled to speak for the Church's place in society, in which 72% declared themselves to be Christians, and in which an even higher percentage attend a church service in the course of a year.

(How many described themselves as "atheists" on the census form?)

That said, I doubt the wisdom of an Archbishop attempting to speak for islam, which appears to have more opinions than adherents, and I doubt whether the Bishop of Durham is qualified to comment either.

Theologically speaking islam is wholly at odds with the Jewish-Christian tradition, and legally it is fundamentally opposed to the very concept of human rights, and has been condemned as such in European law.

It needs to do some explaining of its own, without the assistance of anglican bishops.

[George Parr]

One improvement would be a sensibly worded census, which actually defined the extent of Christian belief. Social policy might then be addressed from a position which arises from anything other than thoughtless box-ticking.

To make 'Establishment... work for the benefit of the whole society' implies a large degree of imposition and the assumption that Anglican clerics have a widely- accepted political role.

Sorry, but I do not want self-serving faith groups speaking for me, on the basis that I am being graciously included.

[Mike Homfray]

Sorry, but no. He wants to enforce the superiority of religion over those of us who think it rather less than truth - not appropriate in a liberal democracy.

And, Ton, that must mean ALL religions - you can't advocate just allowing Christianity to have that superiority unless you also advocate a theocracy - ion a country where about 5% of the population attend church regularly.

So, lets stick to one secular law for all in the public sphere, and religionism for the religious in their private space.

[observer]

Very cogent and clear.

Wish he was ABC.....maybe we would not have had the last 5 years tied up in endless committees with no meaningful decisions ever being made....while the AC disintegrates.

[Tom Jackson]

What is most disappointing about the Bishop of Durham's attitude is that he first fails to identify that this is not just a standoff between the religious and the secular communities but that a great many Christians are disturbed and unsettled following Rowan William's ill-advised lecture.

And second, and most important of all, I want my Christian leaders to hold Christ high in the community not become apologists and social workers where their main objective appears to be adopting the most benign - and unrealistic - view of Islam at the cost of subduing and dampening down the message of Christ!

By all means, in the name of Christian charity, we should look upon all people of the world with a view to peace and harmony but that doesn't mean toning down or pushing aside our Christian beliefs and teaching to accommodate those people who either believe something else or believe nothing at all!

Just show me one Christian leader who actually says and acts in a manner which makes it clear to everyone that he is a representative of Christ, that he has passion and faith erupting from his being in the certain and confident knowledge that the teaching and example of his Saviour is the singular, most important factor in issues such as this!

[alistair]

More arrogance from the clergy.

He sees no problem with religious communities being able to do some things in their own way if they do not like secular law, but argues that secularists wanting euthanasia, for example, is dangerous and must be stopped.

So the religious can have laws of their own, but secularists can’t. Exactly the problem – religion must be privileged, but not the beliefs of anybody else, be they secularists, Satanists, humanists(presumably), Man Utd supporters, ecowarriors etc (actually I'm not sure about Man Utd supporters anyway)

Why should religious belief be so privileged? As David Aaronovitch said in his column this week on Rowan Williams' little talk:

"Acting as the effective general secretary of the National Union of Priests, Rabbis, Imams and Allied Pontiffs (or PRIAPus), he privileges religion over all other kinds of identities, but fails to point out why his proffered leeway should not also be taken up by Scientologists, Mormons, football clubs, political parties and any other community that offers “social identity and personal motivation”. Why should certain doctors not refuse to see women patients? Or deny blood transfusions? Why should Spurs- supporting cab drivers not dump Arsenal passengers in South London?”

Is this the same Tom Wright featured in Time magazine last week talking utter tosh about Heaven? He sunds like the next ++C to me!

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1710844,00.html