Graham Dow: UK Government a 'Revelation 13' Govt

The Bishop of Carlisle has the 'number' of Gordon Brown's government, it seems. At the General Synod launch today of God, Gays and the Church, which we previewed on our front page a few days ago, he was told that many church members feel helpless in the face of the gay rights agenda and was asked what they could do to counter the trend. Bishop Graham Dow responded: 'The challenge is to be brave and bolder than we have been, keeping the issue in the public domain, not falling into the trap of being aggressive. We will be called homophobic consantly.'

He went on to say: 'I happen to believe that our Government is moving into the realm of imposing its morality and it has therefore become a Revelation 13 Government rather than a Romans 13 Government.
In the view of the Book of Revelation, the Roman Empire had become a demonic beast and was imposing its morality.'

Readers of this blog will of course be familiar with Revelation 13, its seven headed beast, mouth speaking blasphemies, the number of the beast, bar codes and so forth.

Not many bishops have yet met Riazat Butt, the Guardian's new religious affairs correspondent, so the Bishop can perhaps be forgiven, when she went up to him afterwards to find out if he really meant that Gordon Brown's Government was demonic, for asking 'Are the press here?'

Martha Linden of the Press Association, who was with Riazat, asked him if he really meant what he had just said. He asked her not to report his quotes, although it was a public meeting to which the press were invited. But he told Martha: 'I didn't mean to say theGovernment was demonic. The point I want to make is the change from a positive evaluation in Romans 13 to a negative one in Revelation.'

Talking of the Numbe of the Beast, I recommend to readers this interesting post.

Comments

[andrew holden]

"the law permits the CofE to manifestly destroy a perfectly law-abiding couples financial stability"

Does it? I'm not sure this has been tested yet. J John didn't choose to take his case to court and as yet I've not heard of any Bishop trying to take disciplinary action against clergy in CPs. I doubt it would stand up in human rights legislation. In the recent case involving a youth worker the Bishop lost and had to pay compensation for discrination.

[J Pearce]

Tom, your definition of abnormal is essentially "not the majority". Does this apply to downs syndrome people then? Do they need to be excluded from full legal recognition under the laws of this land? Or do we need to "protect" them but not treat them as "normal" either? And what about left handers? And the myriad other exceptions to the TJ "norm"?

To illustrate how farcical the agument is, lets take Turbots. Do we classify them as "abnormal" fish because they are flat and have eyes on one side of the body?! No - we don't! We marvel instead at the diversity of nature and treat them much the same as other fish. As in fishing, so it should be with secular law.

You seem to base your whole thesis on the "tyranny of the majority" outlook, yet surely you are painfully aware of what happens when minority groups are excluded from mainstream society, especially through legal discrimination? How you can justify this position when it is wholly predicated on the interpretations of iron age collection of myths, biased recordings and plain fantasy, is beyond me.

The plain fact is, there is no rational or logical justification for your prejudice. Your arguments infer that the majority need "protecting" from homosexuals and their alleged "agenda". For a start, this is borderline paranoia. It also doesn't address what you consider is the quantifiable "threat" gay people pose to society…you seem to be straying dangerously close to the much-lamented Jill's territory, whereby gays are enitrely responsible for all sexual health problems on the planet, not to mention global warming, natural disasters and the collapse of the economy. Do you see where this utterly deranged "Bish of Carlisle"-type thinking can lead?

By simple deduction and observation, your prejudice is irrational. Whether you like it or not, it sails perilously close to the definition of "homophobia"…

Alan - the law permits the CofE to manifestly destroy a perfectly law-abiding couples financial stability, based on the interpretation of religiously biased, arcane legal adjudications made in the Dark Ages. Is this moral? Only in the eyes of those religious who happen to benefit, apparently.

[andrew holden]

You can read an opinon on the vile homophobic publication that the Bishop of Carlisle was endorsing here:

http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2008/02/new-book-reveals-depth-of-anglican-mainstreams-homophobia/

This bigotted propoganda is from those nice 'Anglican mainstream' people who are trying to turn the Church into a Taleban sect run by Akinola, Jenson and Sugden..........

[Mike Homfray]

So is conservative Christianity but the law permits that too....

[George Parr]

That's it then Alan, no grey areas, no extenuating circumstances, no 'early release' for those living hellish lives due to a multiplicity of factors, and no forgiveness presumably. Those choosing to live their lives in their own way are simply 'immoral'.

What an offensive mind-numbing, judgmental interpretation.

[Dr Alan Marsh]

The law permits adultery but it is still immoral.

[Mike Homfray]

No, Tom, because the law does not distinguish between whether an act is carried out by two men or a man and a woman.

Thus, legally, there is no such thing as a homosexual act....just sexual acts, some of which are legal, others which are not.

[Tom Jackson]

"Have you read the latest Sexual offences Legislation? Did you realise that the law had changed?"

Mike, out of respect for your contribution here - and since it appears so important to you - within the limits of my legal understanding, I have investigated further the current legislation as it relates specifically to homosexuality.

As far as I now understand, the Sexual Offences Act 2003 sought to remove any legal distinction between heterosexual and homosexual activity. Where buggery is concerned, for example, the age of consent for both boys and girls was reduced to 16 in 2001 but the 2003 Act stated that all sexual activity involving under 16's of any sex was covered by the same laws.

If, from this, you decide that there is no such animal as an homosexual act, I guess you are free to do so but as far as many people are concerned, if one man performs buggery with another man, that is an act of homosexuality. Buggery between a man and a woman is obviously not an act of homosexuality.

I am a simple man, Mike, and this debate is pointless.

[DJ]

Tom Jackson: "If you were familiar with my contributions to this blog, you would be aware that there is nothing remotely 'unconscious' about this statement."

*shudders*

[Mike Homfray]

Ton: you really must try to stay up to date. The NEW sexual offences legislation says nothing about specific acts at all. But even that legislation does not acknowledge a specifically 'homosexual' sexual act! Acts carried out by two people of the same sex, yes.

Have you read the latest Sexual offences Legislation? Did you realise that the law had changed?

[DJ]

"You might think this is all ethereal nonsense but do things like love and justice have any reality or are they merely arbitrary notions we can choose to subscribe to or not?"

Yes they do. Love is a universal human emotion with an apparently useful evolutionary purpose. Justice is driven, I expect, by aspects of human nature, such as empathy and self-wareness, and fostered and defined by human society.

[Tom Jackson]

"Oh dear. Where to start on something as loaded, and probably unconsciously so, as this?"

If you were familiar with my contributions to this blog, you would be aware that there is nothing remotely "unconscious" about this statement.

[andrew holden]

"I don't share any morals with a Christian, for example, yet we share lots of ethics. A Christian's morals involves god as the source of right and wrong, mine most certainly do not."

I'm not convinced. Why does a Christian think that God is the source of right and wrong and should be obeyed?

Anwer, because it seems right to him/her that this should be the case.

Not much different from anyone else's reason for subscribing to a system of morality and making it a source for an ethical code.

And furthermore much Christian theology is Platonist and thinks that God is not merely the source of moral absolutes but the one who principally shows us what they are. In other words God doesn't just arbitrarily decide that 'Love is (a) good.' , as if he could on some whim change his mind, but is love itself. To put it another way God's highest principles include things like love and justice because they describe something of his very essence ('property') that he can't just decide to change.

You might think this is all ethereal nonsense but do things like love and justice have any reality or are they merely arbitrary notions we can choose to subscribe to or not?

[Dj]

Malcolm+: "I'm always astounded by people who are aghast that governments 'legislate morality.'"

Strictly speaking, they legislate ethics not morality as it is behaviour not reasoning they are legislating over.

I don't share any morals with a Christian, for example, yet we share lots of ethics. A Christian's morals involves god as the source of right and wrong, mine most certainly do not.

[DJ]

"Given the information currently available, homosexuality is abnormal and as such, should not be recognised as normal in our community."

Oh dear. Where to start on something as loaded, and probably unconsciously so, as this?

[Tom Jackson]

I am not quite sure why you labouring this point here, Mike, but unfortunately it appears for you, it is clear from the wording of the legislation, the Law does view sexual activity between people of the same sex as an "homosexual act". Therefore, the mere mortals amongst us are allowed to refer to it as such, an homosexual act, and we all know what we mean.

[andrew holden]

"As far as gay clergy are concerned, the church is allowed to discriminate..."

Actually I don't believe that the church generally discriminates against gays in its ministry and, as you say, there are homosexual and lesbian clergy, even Bishops. It does mandate certain behaviours for all its clergy and any clergyperson who indulges regularly and openly in sex outside of marriage would quickly face the sack.

The sole discrimination is that the Church does not recognise CPs but even that is difficult to enforce and most bishops are not prepared to start enquires about what clergy get up to discretly in private.

You are certainly right about one thing, changing the rules in the CofE to recognise CPs for its clergy, just as they are already recognised for laity, would not bring about the end of the world - although we'd be finally rid of the Taleban faction led by Akinola!

[Mike Homfray]

Tom: you make my point for me.

The legislation refers to sex carried out by two people of the same sex.

There is no specifically 'homosexual act' but sexual acts carried out by people. Some of who will be of the same sex.

[Mike Homfray]

Tom: I welcome your contributions because they were exactly the sort of thing said in parliament as your side of the argument was decisively outvoted each time. The outcome was not the sort of collapse of civilisation predicted and the issues have become far less controversial - particularly as Islam is now a much more focused 'fear' and they are on your side with regard to gays!

You see, civil partnerships, changes in the adoption laws, the goods and services legislation, protection from unfair dismissal or discrimination in employment - none of these matters have caused the sort of reaction which you hoped for. Indeed, if it were not for people like yourself and the Church being unable to accept the se social changes, they would receive far less attention.

Religion is important to those who are religious, but that is very clearly not anything more than a small minority of the British population. And there is a very clear opposition to any separate law based on religious ideas. One law for everyone. The message couldn't have been clearer.

I would also point out that no-one is obliged to have a civil partnership, or agree with gay adoption - but they are issues which are legally applicable to the whole population and so are not part of any sort of exemption. You can still oppose those things - but you cannot enforce your view via active discrimination. And neither should you be able to. As far as gay clergy are concerned, the church is allowed to discriminate in that area, even though there are goodness knows how many of them! Not that the Church has the integrity to admit it.

[Tom Jackson]

"What makes them 'homosexual ' or not is the people involved, not the act. Surely you realise this?"

This is too 'fine' a point for me, Mike. I would refer you to the legal wording of legislation related to homosexuality, in particular, the 1967 Sexual Offences Act. If you are interested, the link is below and I've also reproduced a sub-section to illustrate a similar use of the definition "homosexual act" as I used and intended.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/en/00en44-a.htm

Extracts from the Sexual Offences Act 1967 showing words changed by the Act

s. 1

Amendment of the law relating to homosexual acts in private.
(1) Notwithstanding any statutory or common law provision,

(a) a homosexual act in private shall not be an offence provided that the parties consent thereto and have attained the age of (eighteen) sixteen years and
(b) a homosexual act by any person shall not be an offence if he is under the age of sixteen years and the other party has attained that age.

Subsections (2) to (5) are unaffected.

(6) It is hereby declared that where in any proceedings it is charged that a homosexual act is an offence the prosecutor shall have the burden of proving that the act was done otherwise than in private or otherwise than with the consent of the parties or that any of the parties had not attained the age of (eighteen) sixteen years.

[Tom Jackson]

My entry into this debate, Mike, was only prompted by your gloating over what you perceived as a defeat for the heterosexual majority in this country because church leaders are "inept and stupid".

Now, while I might concede a certain degree of accuracy in your analysis, try as you might, homosexuals are not a protected species and as the shackles of political correctness are gradually shaken off, I would expect to see more questioning and debate on the acceptance of homosexual behaviour as normal.

As with most behaviour that steps outside of what is considered normal in a community, there is usually a degree of acceptance and tolerance, provided the cohesion and stability of the community is not affected. In a sense, this is illustrated by Christopher's questioning, why should I care about "what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?"

I really don't care what they do in private. When kept behind closed doors, there are far too many other issues to be dealt with in our society to worry about something that, in such circumstances, has relatively little or no impact on the way we live our lives. With only infrequent and minor exceptions, homosexual behaviour existed for a considerable time in our society under those conditions.

Now, that has changed. Homosexuals don't just want to come out of the closet, they want to parade in the streets, metaphorically speaking. The emergence of overtly aggressive tactics to force our community to confront homosexual behaviour in areas such as the church, marriage, child adoption and civil liberties is seen by many people - such as myself - as a threat to the identity and cohesion of our nation.

Of course, if you believe that religion is unimportant and relationships based on a mother and a father are unnecessary in the majority of cases to provide a child with a healthy and safe upbringing, then this perceived threat is meaningless to you. I have also known many people who are not religious or who live together without being married and who live extremely stable and secure lives but that is the exception rather than the rule.

I could almost paraphrase your last paragraph; "And you are quite at liberty to follow your" sexual orientation, "as long as you then don't attempt to enforce its peculiar and nasty aspects upon those of us who have decided not to" endorse it. For the issues I mentioned, that would mean no homosexual clergy, no homosexual "marriages" and no adoption of children by those in homosexual relationships.

[Mike Homfray]

Tom: there is no such thing as 'the homosexual act'

There are sexual acts which people do together.

What makes them 'homosexual ' or not is the people involved, not the act. Surely you realise this?

[George Parr]

Spot on Andrew Holden! For me a sensitive and accurately determined post.

[Rick Beekman]

George Parr;

Thank You Again For Your Thoughts And Worldly Wisdom. Most People Who Do Not Want To Accept God's Word Are Really Just Making Excuses. However Your Not Alone George..Most Peopoe Liie That Believe We Will All "Live Happily Ever after" If We Just Elect This Smoorh Talker Or That Rich Man Who Has All The Answers To Our Problems...Poppycock George. The World stays on this "Merry Go Round" Everyday. Be Honest George Are things really Better? After Trillions Of Dollars/Pounds have been spent to fix this problem or that problem do we still have the same problems. Do You Think Alo we Have to do is Get Some Genius To Solve The World's Problems Ans There Will Be Love And Peace Ever After Like That Worod War Two Song.."The White Cliffs Of Dover" (One Of My Favorites Sung By The Righteous Brothers.) Good Luck On Your Thinking George!!

[Mike Homfray]

Well, Tom, for me, as a gay man, being gay is perfectly normal. It wouldn't be if I was straight, though.

Homosexuality is perfectly normal, but it is clearly not normative - there is a difference. But labelling all minority variants as 'not normal' belies a mind unable to contemplate the reality of diversity.

And you are quite at liberty to follow your religion, as long as you then don't attempt to enforce its peculiar and nasty aspects upon those of us who have decided not to believe it.

[andrew holden]

"Unfortunately as convincing rational argument he might just as well cite Tarot Card readings for those of us who think his bible is a human creation, no better (and sometimes worse) than any other of the world's scriptures."

There are not many Christians who don't believe that the Bible is a human book written by normal fallible human beings. Rick's presentation and interpretation of his proof texts is completely debatable and certainly not shared by the majority.

Anyway, why shouldn't the Bible at least be valued as a human book irrespective of any Divine element it may or may not have? Or is it only non-religious human creativity that has any merit?

[Tom Jackson]

"Have you a gay grandson or some other reason to get sooooo hot under the collar about what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms?"

Two points here, Christopher.

First, my grandson is 13 months old so his sexual orientation is still a mystery to us. But, should he turn out to be homosexual, I will love him as I do now, with all my being. I will support him to the best of my ability and do everything I can to protect him and be there for him.

But all that has nothing to do with homosexuality being abnormal. You see, I don't get "hot under the collar" about the issue. That is one thing that you would find soooooo difficult to accept; that a calm, rational and balanced person can come to such a conclusion about homosexuality without any hang-ups, repressed homosexual tenancies or any of the other explanations that you might have tucked away.

The only way in which you can come to terms with people who are full of love for you as people but still believe the homosexual act is abnormal is through sarcasm and insult. That is were the strength of Christianity is so uplifting; you can love the person but disapprove of the act.

Just a final point; there is no scientific evidence available which is accepted anywhere outside the homosexual community which supports any argument for the homosexual act to be classed as anything but abnormal.

[Christopher]

At least Rick Beekman proves one thing, George. He can be relied upon to supply a text from his book of words for any occasion, like a motto in condolence card.

Unfortunately as convincing rational argument he might just as well cite Tarot Card readings for those of us who think his bible is a human creation, no better (and sometimes worse) than any other of the world's scriptures.

[George Parr]

Rick, again, how lovely! What a sensitive, loving book of instructions you possess; one in which the pastoral, understanding nature of God can be truly measured. Love God or else you burn - at a stroke eradicating 2000 years of philosophical and scientific enlightenment.

I feel very sad that you are walking about with all this uncompromising violence in your head. I take some solace in the very great possibility that you are not typical and that most Christians are capable of rationally interpreting the scriptures they read.

[Christopher]

Tom

I think you are the one with your knickers in a twist. You think by reiterating something like "Given the information currently available, homosexuality is abnormal and as such, should not be recognised as normal in our community" over and over again that makes it true. It doesn't. There is not a shred of evidence to support you whereas the scientific evidence that is accruing shows homosexuality is a universal and timeless phenomenon across species and particularly strong amongst humans.

Why are you so exercised? Have you a gay grandson or some other reason to get sooooo hot under the collar about what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? No one is asking you to participate. And before you mention the flamboyance of Gay Pride, when you complain about seeing two men showing each other affection your rationale is no better than one of those little Englanders who doesn't like seeing Urdu on shop fronts in the land of Alfred the Great.

Failure to see love wherever it is expressed is where the bishop of Winchester has gone wrong and missed the mark whilst bishop Jones of Liverpool has seen that love is the thing that matters. Please have a look at an excellent article by Mark Vernon in Ekklesia 'Evangelical bishops differ on sexuality'
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/6752

[Christopher]

Tom

I think you are the one with your knickers in a twist. You think by reiterating something like "Given the information currently available, homosexuality is abnormal and as such, should not be recognised as normal in our community" over and over again that makes it true. It doesn't. There is not a shred of evidence to support you whereas the scientific evidence that is accruing shows homosexuality is a universal and timeless phenomenon across species and particularly strong amongst humans.

Why are you so exercised? Have you a gay grandson or some other reason to get sooooo hot under the collar about what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms? No one is asking you to participate. And before you mention the flamboyance of Gay Pride, when you complain about seeing two men showing each other affection your rationale is no better than one of those little Englanders who doesn't like seeing Urdu on shop fronts in the land of Alfred the Great.

Failure to see love wherever it is expressed is where the bishop of Winchester has gone wrong and missed the mark whilst bishop Jones of Liverpool has seen that love is the thing that matters. Please have a look at an excellent article by Mark Vernon in Ekklesia 'Evangelical bishops differ on sexuality'
http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/node/6752

[Tom Jackson]

Since I have, in previous debates, exhausted all the whys and wherefores related to homosexual behaviour and it's acceptability or otherwise in our community, my foray into this debate was simply to demonstrate how those who support such behaviour feel perfectly justified when indulging in ridiculing and insulting those of us in the Christian church but scream like little girls when they suspect an homophobe is at large!

My categorisation of homosexual behaviour as abnormal, as I have explained before, is perfectly justified given that heterosexuality is the norm. If you are really interested in further justification and clarification - which I can't for a second imagine you would be - the archives of this blog should enlighten you further.

It is worth repeating, however, that if, for example, it was demonstrated that there was a genetic element that played a part - with or without corresponding social or familial circumstances and influences - those of us looking for an explanation would be hard pressed not to pray very hard about what we believe as Christians. But, let's not go over all that again.

From a personal point of view, I consider my experience and attitude to sexual behaviour - what is acceptable between consenting adults and what is not - to be quite liberal, far more so that your average Christian, I guess. Homosexuality is clearly something which is unacceptable within a Christian environment, but I have absolutely no problem with the existence of homosexual behaviour given the circumstances at the present time in our society.

What concerns me at the present time, as I have repeated in many debates, are the attempts to identify such behaviour as normal, on a par with heterosexuality coupled with the actions of over-active, aggressively vocal advocates from the homosexual community who insist of getting in our face at every opportunity, suggesting that normal, decent and concerned individuals who do not agree with them are in some way, bigots with a phobia.

[Tony B]

So we have a government that kow tows to big business, cancels criminal investigations at the behest of those being investigated, launches illegal wars, restricts human rights, condones and cooperates in torture and murder..and Bishop Dow is just worried about gays? Perhaps he needs to get a sense of perspective.

[andrew holden]

"Given the information currently available, homosexuality is abnormal and as such, should not be recognised as normal in our community."

Tom, what on earth do you mean by normal - and why does normality matter anyway?

Does normal mean 'same as the rest'? Actually I'm glad for the things about me that are not normal - they tend to make me me! Does it mean average? Likewise I'm glad I'm more that average in at least some things! Does it mean just naturally occuring? Well it seems that it is something that occurs quite naturally in many animals as well as in humans.

Perhaps by normal you simply mean 'something I disapprove of morally' but that raises the bigger question of what to do about the many different moralities we hold and how much morality can be enshrined in law.

A certain percentage of our society are homosexual. We could argue about the percentage but that's irrelevant. For at least most of those people it's as much a part of them as many other things about them. The anecdotal evidence, as well as the scientific, suggests that most cannot change their sexual orientation so it's a given that they, and we, have to live with.

Even from an evangelical point of view it surely could be argued that homosexuals have to do their best with the cards they have (by nature, providence or upbringing) been dealt.

Doing their best, from a Christian point of view, means living loving and caring lives, loving God and their neighbour. I see no reason, scripture or tradition that would not offer them the same opportunities to do these things as everyone else - and that includes, where appropriate, forming loving relationships and family units.

[Rick Beekman]

George Parr;

Revelation 21 Verse 8; "But the fearful and UNBELEIVING and the abominable and murderers and whoremongers and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone; which is the second death"

Well George at least you won't be alone! "Professing themselves to be wise they became fools"
(Romans 1 V 22).

Once again enjoy your Holiday!!

[George Parr]

Tom, whilst robustly supporting human rights and sometimes disagreeing with your position, I hope I have stopped short of insulting either you or your faith.

Since homosexuality has been with us since the dawn of time, even de rigeur, by some accounts of the Roman Empire, I was wondering at what point it qualifies for being abnormal. Moreover, should more information become available identifying precisely why it occurs within human beings, that is wholly different from taking action that might modify, eradicate or change other people's attitudes to it.

It also seems unlikely that those approaching it from a narrow biblical perspective could ever accept it, no matter what further investigations into its cause were carried out. So they would remain in thrall to a set of beliefs rather than demonstrating any conciliatory form of humanity - which might equally be regarded by some as 'abnormal'.

If, as it appears, for you it really is a matter of personal interpretation, and relies heavily on a subjective notion of what is 'normal', why restrict it to homosexuals? Why not extend it to all manner of sexual preferences or other aspects or nuances of human behaviour. You could list everything that you are personally unhappy about and then subtly seek to marginalise those people you believe to be participants. In doing so you would appear rigid, authoritarian and superior surely. Would justifying it through religious beliefs ever really be acceptable?

[George Parr]

Dear Rick,

You are trying to advise someone how to fix a Ford, by consulting a Chevrolet manual; hence few of the parts fit.

Regards. Have a rational weekend.

[Rick Beekman]

George Parr;
First George Thank You For Your Input To My Post.

Next I Take Note You Think The Proverbial "Roof Caving In" Is More A Religious Myth The An Actual Future Event.

Let's see what The Word of God Says Shall we?

I Thessalonians 5 V 3&4; "For When They Shall Say Peace And Safety; then sudden destruction cometh upon them as travail upon a woman with child; and they shall not escape. But Ye Brethren are not in darkness that THAT DAY should overtake you as a thief."

Here Is Another To Ponder George; II Peter 3 Verses 3 To 6; "Knowing this first that there shall come in the LAST DAYS Scoffers walking after their own lusts and saying Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of that by the WOrd of God the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of the water and in the water; whereby the world that then was being overflowed with water perished."

There You Have It George Straight From The Bible. Anyone Can Escape The Proverbial "Roof caving in" Physically And Spiritually If They Submit Themselves To Jesus Christ...R They Can Continue On The World's Merry Go Round....Have A Great Weekend Sir.

[Tom Jackson]

"Tom: you show yourself in your true colursw. repressive and homophobic."

A simple question, and what a response!

There is no need to get your knickers in a twist, Christopher, Mike and George. But how excited you have all got, how defensive and up in arms because you think you have identified a homophobic comment.

Pathetic! Christians can be labelled inept, stupid and any other derogatory characterisation when it suits you but the slightest suggestion that your sexuality is being similarly commented upon and you raise your hackles!

No wonder you meet such opposition in our community. I have said nothing that I haven't said before. Given the information currently available, homosexuality is abnormal and as such, should not be recognised as normal in our community.

While homosexuals should not be persecuted or prosecuted for their sexual orientation, until such time as more information is available as to why some people prefer to have sexual relations with those of the same sex, the laws of our country should protect but not treat as normal either.

So, in answer to the simple question I raised, Christopher, Mike and George, I guess you would admit that while it is perfectly acceptable and appropriate for you to insult my faith and beliefs, it is not acceptable or appropriate for someone like me to be insulting to someone for their sexual orientation.

[George Parr]

So there we have it then Tom, from the horse's mouth. Christians like you are seeking to restrict the recognition of homosexual behaviour in society and our justice system - and showing clear signs of being rattled because someone thinks the policy is ineffective and doomed to failure. It would appear that you have 'come out' as homophobic after all?

Surely you cannot, on the one hand, imply that gay people are worthy members of society, whilst on the other promote policies which seek to stigmatize and marginalize, by changing society's attitudes towards them. What gives you the right?

[Mike Homfray]

Observer: and you think that the furore over RW and Islam is going to make that a cogent argument in future? Your exemptions will be well gone in a few years - give it time.

The church remains the one area where discrimination and homophobia is codified. Thankfully, it becomes ever more marginalised and irrelevant - and a good thing too if it is unable or unwilling to change.

[Mike Homfray]

Tom: you show yourself in your true colursw. repressive and homophobic.

I could repeat my original post all over again - you lot will never, ever learn what the rest of us think of you and your religionism. You are ineffective because your beliefs are distasteful and discriminatory.

[Christopher]

Tom
"Given any decent opposition, you wouldn't be in a position to gloat so much!"
I am really shocked if you are suggesting what this appears to mean - a fascistic or stalinistic clamp down as in some Eastern European states like Russia or Poland all in the name of christian values.

[Tom Jackson]

"Oh dear - no wonder we in the gay rights movement have so comprehensively won all of our recent campaigns. We couldn't have more inept and stupid enemies as those in the Church! You really couldn't make it up...."

Mike's comment above, the gloating over Christians such as myself not being able to improve our effectiveness in restricting the recognition of homosexual behaviour in our society and our justice system in particular, could be deemed - to someone more sensitive than myself - as somewhat inappropriate and offensive.

Just out of interest, if I made the following observation;

Yes, Mike, you should thank your lucky stars! Given any decent opposition, you wouldn't be in a position to gloat so much! But then, I guess there is always something you can dress up for.

Could that be taken as inappropriate and offensive?

[George Parr]

Isn't a pattern beginning to emerge here, judging by the reported remarks of Rowan Williams, Graham Dow and the Bishop of Rochester, to name but three? When addressing wider social issues other than those concerning Anglicanism, and also sensitive political concerns, these unelected clerics are found partial in their view, controversial and unwise.

For those of us who have been seeking to separate the church from the state, lessening the deleterious social effect of various faith-based beliefs, it signals an ever-increasing urgency.

Anglican prelates do not speak for all and they should not represent their congregations politically. Theirs is not a stance widely recognised or sanctioned by an electorate. Their congregations, whilst no doubt fervent in their religious beliefs, have the same access to the system of politics as non-Anglicans, but can be regarded as privileged all the while these senior figures have access to parliament.

It should be recognised that in this pluralist society of diluted faith, clinging to the remnants of a once authoritarian quasi-religious system does not accurately reflect that society.

Let human rights concerns fall within the ambit of elected, removable governments, with priests ministering to those with faith on the litugical or other matters that concern them. We should stand strongly against Islamicists, or other self-reverential lunatics possessing medieval concepts of death or domination, dealing with them as a matter of law. We should not try to pretend that the state has a symbiotic relationship with particular faith groups, on the fallacious grounds that they are or have historically been successful in politics, probity or moral guidance.

It might be fair, arguably, to assert that a large proportion of people in society preferring to live their lives without faith are sick to death of feeling under threat from the divisive, negative ideologies and actions that religious groups participate in and maintain.

[observer]

Mike Homfray....note that even the Hereford decision upheld the right of the church not to appoint people who break the teaching of the church....not sure why you think you are winning on all fronts.

Maybe you are happy at the success some are having in splitting the Anglican Communion....but maybe you should not count your chickens....and I notice Gene Robinson is not invited to Lambeth.......why might that be given all your VICTORIES???

[jimB]

I had no idea anyone doubted that the bishop is a few croutons short of a salad. This guy was announcing last year that floods in England were God's punishment of the liberals. Of course, floods in conservative places, droughts in Texas, and the like are another matter. ;;sigh;;

Now he wants his public comments not reported! So he knows he sounds like a fool, but is OK with that if he is preaching to fools? How opportunistic and cynical is that?

Homophobia is the least of the problems here. How in the world do some people get consecrated?

FWIW
jimB

[Mike Homfray]

Oh dear - no wonder we in the gay rights movement have so comprehensively won all of our recent campaigns.

We couldn't have more inept and stupid enemies as those in the Church!

You really couldn't make it up....

[George Parr]

Your post is hardly news Rick!

But how perfectly lovely! Believe in God - the roof is going to cave in  anyway!
PS. 'A' normally precedes 'B'

[Stephen Marsden]

'Is the Bishop of Carlisle Bonkers?'

Now there's a question that no one has ever asked before!

And as for 'going with modernity'! You're old enough to know better, Ruth!

(And I bet you look for a Grammar School for Arthur . . .)