Has the Archbishop gone bonkers?

Forgive the stark clarity of my headline, but sometimes when writing about the Archbishop of Canterbury, clarity is what is needed. I ask this of readers here, because this is the question put to me time after time this afternoon by incredulous commentators of every variety, stunned into blunt expression by the Archbishop of Canterbury's uncharacteristically clear comments on Sharia in Britain. The Archbishop believes adopting aspects of sharia law into British law would help maintain social cohesion. But who exactly is asking for this? No Muslim organisation in Britain has requested it, I could not find any who even wanted it. Instead, Muslims I spoke to this afternoon seem fearful of the effects the Archbishop's latest remarks will have on those already prejudiced against their community. As well they might be. His speech was delivered this evening at the Royal Courts of Justice in Strand, London. (Update: do read this interesting analaysis from Propaganda Box.)

The Bishop of Rochester, Dr Michael Nazir-Ali, responded:  'English law is rooted in the Judaeo-Christian tradition and, in particular, our notions of human freedoms derive from that tradition. In my view, it would be simply impossible to introduce a tradition, like sharia into this corpus without fundamentally affecting its integrity.' Read his full comments here. Also see here for a legal opinion from barrister Dr James Behrens.

Sheikh Michael Mumisa, an Islamic scholar at Cambridge University and who is affiliated to Centre for the Study of Muslim-Jewish Relations at the Woolf Institute, said:  'I do understand that by sharia law here he means only the personal status laws of Islam such as marriage, divorce, inheritance, and not its penal code.”  Mumisa, author of the book Islamic Law: Theory and Interpretation, continued: 'I disagree and believe that the introduction of such laws within the UK will undermine the rights of Muslim women. Moreover, some senior Muslim clerics in the UK want more than just the personal status laws and would prefer that the penal laws were introduced as well.'

A few days ago, the Archbishop argued also for the abolition of the blasphemy law - as long as it was replaced by something even more severe. People should be punished for daring to voice thoughts that were hurtful to others, he said, even when that hurt was unintentional. Now it seems he wants women, children, all of us in fact, to have to kow-tow to some of the strictest, harshest and most draconian laws dreamed up by any religious system, ever, anywhere in the world.

There might not be no-go areas for non-Muslims in Britain, as he recently argued against the Bishop of Rochester. But this is certainly the way to go about creating them.

Is the Archbishop of Canterbury unaware of the history of the Church he has been chosen to lead? Coming from Wales is no excuse, as until the early years of the last century, Wales was part of the Church of England as well. The Church of England was born out of an express desire to rid Britain of a foreign, ecclesiastical jurisdiction. Article 37 of the 39 says: 'The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this realm of England.' Queen Elizabeth I early in her reign decreed that the Crown had restored to it 'the ancient jurisdiction over the state ecclesiastical and spiritual, abolishing all foreign power repugnant to the same'.

And now Queen Elizabeth II's very own Archbishop - and let's not forget she is his Church's Supreme Governor - wants to introduce a new 'jurisdiction into this realm of England.' And an Islamic one at that!

It is one thing for judges to take Sharia into account, as has happened in Germany. It is quite another to follow the line  the Archbishop is suggesting. It led to near disaster in Ontario, Canada two years ago and would created untold and unnecessary distress here were it to be implemented here.

The Archbishop has staked everything on trying to maintain unity in his own Anglican Communion. At the same time, he is advocating a policy that could only fragment the society around him.

If you doubt me, watch this, above.

Or this, below.

A few weeks ago, I was chatting to a woman who works in an advocacy role for Muslim women in an area that, quite independently of the Bishop of Rochester, she described as a 'no-go area' for non-Muslims. Her clients were women in the process of being sectioned into mental health units in the NHS. This woman, who for obvious reasons begged not to be identified, told me: 'The men get tired of their wives. Or bored. Or maybe the wife objects to her daughter being forced into a marriage she doesn't want. Or maybe she starts wearing western clothes.There can be many reasons. The women are sent for asssessment to a hospital. The GP referring them is Muslim. The psychiatrist assessing them is Muslim and male. I have sat in these assessments where the psychiatrist will not look the woman patient in the eye because she is a woman. Can you imagine! A psychiatrist refusing to look his patient in the eye? The woman speaks little or no English. She is sectioned. She is divorced. There are lots of these women in there, locked up in these hospitals. Why don't you people write about this?'

My interlocuter went very red and almost started to cry. Instead, she began shouting at me. I was a member of the press. 'You must write about this,' she begged.

'I can't,' I said. 'Not unless you become a whistle-blower. Or give me some evidence. Or something.'

She shook her head. 'I can't be identified,' she said. 'I would be killed. And so would the women.'

So there you have it. After weeks of wondering what to do, inspired by the Archbishop, I've taken her word that she is telling the truth, respected her anonymity, and written it anyway.

And this, I imagine, is what the Archbishop wants for the whole of England. As they used to say in my father's country parish: 'Heaven preserve us!' I wonder what they're saying there today. Expressions somewhat shorter and sweeter, I fear.

Comments

[Rick Beekman]

Tom Jackson;

I Really enjoyed Reading your Post to David Smith. Like You I Came To Jesus At Age 44. I Was Raised Catholic. As A Catholic We Were Not Taught To Read The Bible Daily Just The Catechism.
When I Studied The Word I Discovered Religion Will Not Save Anyone. Just Rituals Pomp And Ceremony Mostly Just "Religious Show Buisness".

People who do not have a real relationship with Jesus cannot even begin to Fathom How Wonderful He Is. I deem it an Honor and a Priveledge to be in his Ministry and Service. I Don't Care Who Persecutes Me Jesus Went Through All That As Well And When The Religious Politicians Could'nt Silence Him They Then Crucified Him. His Apostles Also Were Murdered Some By The Roman Empire. All This So Rebellious Sinful Mankind Could Be Saved By Listning To The Truth.

Anyway Tom Remember To Stand Up For Jesus And He Will Bless You....Rick

[Tom Jackson]

David, thank you for your thoughtful contribution in reply to my earlier comment. Needless to say, there is much that we both agree on.

Personally, I cannot accept having once presented yourself before God with sincere contrition and earnestly sought a relationship with Him, that you can then "fatally lose touch " with Him, to be lost forever. I would argue that once it is recognised that you have committed yourself to Him, you become the focus for attention and pressure that you will not have experienced before.

And I would go so far as to say, it is those whose commitment is the greater on whom the forces of evil concentrate their most vehement attack. That is why I cannot accept the image of Mother Theresa that you offer.

All said and done, we are mere human beings. Fighting the periods of doubt and darkness comes with the territory and the periods of overwhelming joy in the confident awareness of God's presence, all the more sweeter for the forces you have overcome.

The degree to which God takes account of "the quality and courage of our walk here on earth" must remain a mystery. I have already accepted that if there is a scale of judgement once you have been accepted into His presence, then I will be somewhere near the bottom. I am just happy that by accepting Christ as my Saviour and believing in Him, I will be in His presence at some time.

As for your understanding of "belief", I also accept what you detail in terms of the employment of Greek translations where the Bible is concerned. Much of my earlier endeavours, many years ago, was through Biblical scholars and Christian writers such as William Barclay who also placed a great deal of emphasis on understanding the Bible through knowledge of the original Aramaic and Greek used.

But I question any mortal's use of descriptions such as "authentic" where Christianity is concerned. Coming to Christ so late in life - 21 years ago, at 40 years old - I started a series of experiences with Churches and Christians which taught me that it is impossible to identify a definitive "true" or "authentic" Christian. I am, in fact, suspicious of anyone who claims such knowledge.

Christ reaches out to people in childhood, in middle-age and as you near the end of your life. He is recognised by those of wealth and those in poverty, those who are sick and those in robust health, in prisons and in palaces. On entering a personal relationship with Him, each of these people experience variations on how they respond to the extent that it is impossible to classify or grade their "Christianity".

I respect and value Christians of all types and degree of devotion, even if, in some situations, I do not understand or would do something different in certain situations. Christ is the focus and eternal life with Him, in Heaven, the reward for any of us who keep our eyes on Him and our hearts open to His Love.

[David Smith]

Tom Jackson:
‘David, when I see a fellow Christian under attack for his beliefs, or the characterisation of his beliefs, from non-believers or even from other Christians, it is interesting to see how they respond, how defensive they are or how brittle their retorts.

You see, someone who is secure in their faith has nothing to worry about. This is not an arrogant attitude but simply a realisation of the power and majesty of Jesus Christ. The battles have already been won, the outcome is already determined; there was never any doubt that God would triumph.

But even with that knowledge, even when you enter a debate confident in your faith, it is not a licence to be overbearing or arrogant with those who either doubt what you are saying or have simply not been faced with the opportunity or circumstances to accept Christ into their lives. And Christ wants those people to enter the Kingdom of Heaven side by side with those of us who have already humbled ourselves before him.’

Thank you for this, Tom. I wholeheartedly agree with it all.

I would just say, though, that you shouldn’t confuse a passion for truth with brittleness or insecurity in one’s faith. As I see it, as well as trusting absolutely in who God is, and in the power of His finished work at calvary, Christians are also called to actively fight a fight. This is why God’s word contains passages like Ephesians 6:10-24. There is this paradox and mystery in Christianity: the battle is won, and yet somehow still needs to be fought.

‘David, let me give you my simplistic perspective on my faith, on Christianity.’

I appreciate your having done this - and, as usual, in a way that is quietly laden with thoughtfulness and life-experience. I hope you will allow me to give you mine, and to add some comments on some of the things you say.

‘You start by identifying Christ to be your Saviour and to humble yourself by asking Him to come into your life, recognising that you are far from perfect, that you have faults and that He is the only one who can help you.’

Yes. The way I would put this is to say that you recognize that your life is, if you don’t take advantage of what Jesus did for us all on the cross, to its very depths totally unacceptable to a perfect God – both in terms of trying to please Him on earth, and in terms of getting you ultimately to heaven. You admit this to Him; ask that he forgive you for the things about yourself you know would not be acceptable to Him as they are; and ask Him to send His Spirit inside you both to assure you that you are forgiven, and to bring Him right inside you - and so to make Him absolutely real to you, and to begin to change you.

‘Now, you may go no further than that. Given the nature of the world we live in, you may not be strong enough or possess the character to turn yourself inside out and become a complete new person. You might start out with all the good intentions but struggle to maintain the determination to become exactly as God would have us become.’

Again, yes. This is a good way of putting the inner struggle Paul talks about all of us facing in Romans 7.

‘But you still have that faith in Christ. The invitation you have made to Him has been fulfilled. He is in your heart and your soul and will always be with you, knowing that you believe in Him.’

This is true if God has adjudged your approach to Him and your contrition as sincere (truly ‘of the heart’); has responded by forgiving you and coming inside you by means of His Spirit; and has thus made Himself real to you, and so someone you believe in in the sense of now actually knowing Him in your spirit. (John 17:3)

But even if this is so, I believe that Jesus taught, and that it is a sad fact too, that some can then fatally lose touch with God. (David Pawson’s ‘Once Saved Always Saved?’ is very good on this, I think.)

‘That is one end of the scale (for want of a better description). At the other end is someone like Mother Theresa whose life was lived 24/7 with Christ at the forefront of everything she said or did, in every thought and every atom of her being.’

I know what you are saying here, and trying to illustrate, but I wouldn’t myself chose mother Teresa to do this. She seems to have been a very caring person, and to have done a lot of good things. But at the same time what she wrote in her own diary really makes me ask questions about whether she ever actually went through the kind of process described above, and so knew God personally.

She apparently had what has been described as ‘a 50-year faith crisis’. And over this period she wrote things like this:
“I call, I cling, I want, and there is no one to answer, no, no one. Alone. Where is my faith? Even deep down there is nothing. I have no faith…I am told God loves me, and yet the reality of the darkness and coldness and emptiness is so great that nothing touches my soul. Did I make a mistake in surrendering blindly to the Call of the Sacred Heart?”

And this:
“The smile is a mask or a cloak that covers everything. I spoke as if my heart was in love with God, a tender personal love. If you were there you would have said, ‘What hypocrisy.’ “

I cannot in the end ‘judge and sentence’ her as a person, because of course I am not God and it is not my job. But given that she made statements like these over such a long period of time, and that this does not appear to have ever changed for the better, these sound to me very much like the words of someone who never actually knew God for herself as a reality.

If Mother Teresa only followed Roman Catholic teaching that you automatically become born-again, and are thus a Christian, just by being sprinkled with water as a baby (christening or ‘baptism’), then she would not have known God. And, though this is not the place to go into this in detail, the Sacred Heart is a Roman Catholic fictitious ‘god’. In following a supposed ‘call’ from this, she certainly wasn’t following any call from the God that the likes of you and I know.

‘And in-between? That's where you find the rest of us, the majority, all at different stages of our life, able to commit to varying degrees. Some go to church, others say their prayers quietly at night. Some debate earnestly on blogs such as this while others - like my wife of 35 years - have a faith so deep, they don't need to theologise about every twist and turn, every nuance. Some are Bishops and some, bus drivers.

But whether you are Mother Theresa or someone like me, clinging to their faith, at times with panicky desperation; maybe a Christian all your life or born again in the last few months; it makes no difference. If you have accepted Christ's promise of eternal life with Him by recognising Him as your Saviour and that acceptance was made with a true and honest devotion, then you are on your way to Heaven.

Christ does not demand that we go to church a certain number of times each month or that we spend every available hour walking the streets, evangelising in His name. He does not demand that we learn the New Testament by heart, go to Bible classes or deepen our understanding of Him through the fellowship and wisdom of other Christians.

Of course, He is pleased and supportive if we can translate our faith in such ways but that does not buy a ticket into His Kingdom. For many people, the recognition and acceptance of Christ in their lives does bring great change for the good but not everyone. We all still remain sinners. All Christ asks is that we believe in Him.’

I agree with the bulk of this – Christians do come in all shapes and sizes, and in Christ we are absolutely loved and accepted as we are. But I would want to say two things about it: first, as well as the possible loss of salvation that I have already mentioned, the Bible tells us that even after we have become Christians we still need to ‘work out our salvation with fear and trembling’, and it also talks about rewards in heaven being linked to the quality and courage of our walk here on earth.

As someone has, I think, aptly said: God loves us as we are. But He loves us far too much to let us stay that way!

Second, ‘believe’ means different things to different people. You can believe in God, and yet not know Him as a result of Him coming inside you and REVEALING HIS TRUE SELF to you. For example, I once believed in Father Christmas (I was ‘sure' he was real) because I had been told this in such a convincing way from such a young age. (For much the same reason, Roman Catholics believe that the bread and the wine actually turn into Christ’s body and blood.) But for me what Jesus meant by believe is best understood by looking at the meaning of the Greek word ‘pisteuo’ that the Bible uses when Jesus talks about believing. It means: to ahhere to, cleave to; to trust, to have faith in; to rely on, to depend on. For me anyway, seeing ‘belief‘ this way brings out the certainty of the reality of God’s existence and reliability that exists in authentic Christianity, as well as the ‘real personal relationship’ aspect of it.

‘How else can you interpret our Lord's parable in Mathew 19:30? "But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first". A friend of mine in the church came to Christ when he was over 80 years old and when he died soon after, so late in his life, all he had to show for his commitment was a simple statement of belief. I am sure that he is in God's presence now.’

At the end of the day, God is the arbiter. And I’m sure some of His decisions as to who gets in, and who gets what rewards, will be a great surprise when we come to see for ourselves what they have been.

‘I don't know what a "true" Christian is but then, I am not God.’

Nor are any of us. But we can all read the Bible, where this is set out, and where, for example, Jesus tells us that being a true Christian includes things like actually being ‘born-again from above’ - rather than taking it that we have been just because the church or someone else in authority tells us we have, although, as it seemingly was with Mother Teresa, no real revelation of the reality of God and of Who He is, or of His love for us, has ever taken place within us.

[Tom Jackson]

Mary, the primary danger from Islam is not to be found in converts to Al-Q.

Anyone who studies Islamic teaching to any depth soon realises just what an ambiguous belief system it is - and a powerfully dangerous one at that.

The ambiguity derives from the Koran and from the various interpretations by Islamic scholars over the centuries. Feed that into communities where the majority of the people are unable to learn from source material and rely upon what is taught to them through the religious establishments, and you have the basis for the terrorism we see around the world today.

And such is the nature of Islamic teaching and beliefs, even the most moderate and westernised Muslim will be faced with a difficult choice if ever challenged to live up to his faith as determined by The Prophet and his interpreters. Either that moderate Muslim renounces his faith or he translates it into action demanded by his faith - and that could be violence.

The issues you highlight - 3% of the population and the importance of good intelligence and policing - do not really provide any valid argument for sitting on our hands.

First, with unchecked immigration and an overwhelming birth rate, the Muslim minority in this country is growing fast. And as the profile of that minority changes and the older, more conservative members become less influential, the maturing youth - who are already showing significant signs of disassociating themselves from the indigenous culture - are likely to become more active, both in violent terms and also politically.

As for the intelligence community, the police and also the justice system, it is almost as if there is a conspiracy to nullify or subdue the effect they have. We are being warned today that planned job cuts could undermine the UK's intelligence performance and effectiveness.

As for the justice system, the release of five Muslim youths who won their appeal against conviction on the basis that they were convicted for "thought crime" is a dangerous precedent. People who download child pornography but cannot be convicted of any actual paedophilic acts can still justifiably face prosecution and incarceration, although now, there is no difference with what was classified by the Appeal Court as a "thought crime" in the case of the Muslim youths!

All my life, I have lived within the law and trusted in those we elect to govern us and those appointed to keep us safe and secure. We have been let down, and badly. The situation may be irretrievable.

The only hope we have is to limit and contain the influence of those with Islamic beliefs within our society, to get rid of human rights legislation that was designed with a great deal of foreign (ie European) input and which does not integrate well with our culture and our needs and to rediscover a national identity and to value that identity.

[Stephen Marsden]

'Prominent Christian ministers are actively converting people to Islam from within churches throughout the world.'

Now who's bonkers?

Ruth, how many more nutters have to post before you close this discussion?

[MaryCunningham]

Tom, I don't see how one can "hide one's head in the same" about the Islamic threat. More like we can't get away from it!

I certainly came right up against it--Islamist thugs waving their fists at me and holding signs threatening to behead the Pope. (Come to think of it folks like Jan Pearse, Emmanuel Appel and David Smith would probably agree.) It made me angry and it prompted me to think hard about Islamism.

I found out the UK is home to native Islamists because many of its Muslim migrants originate in the Northwest Pakistan...where many of Al-Q's training camps are located. Keeping close surveillance on these Muslims is paramount. Not converting the remainder to an Al-Q outlook is just as important.

Look--they're only 3% of the population! A small minority--manageable. The UK is the country that invented the concentration camp. The UK is the country that defeated the Irish terrorist threat, IMO much more dangerous.

A combination of good intelligence and good policing will defeat the Islamists, I'm convinced. In the meantime it is important to keep our nerve...and not give way to the urgings of the Appels of the world.

[Campbell]

I point out something that even the most vigilant on Islam seem rarely to understand. It is that many Christian ministers have already converted to Islam, but do not reveal this to everyone. Prominent Christian ministers are actively converting people to Islam from within churches throughout the world. To understand this properly it is necessary to consider how Islam has deliberatly been adapted for adoption by people of western culture. They are converted through so-called interfaith dialogue which is nothing more than an extremely pernicious proselytisation.
They can do this legitimately under the principle of "taqiyya". It allows Muslims to conceal their faith if circumstances justify it. Within the woolly theology of the modernised western Islam, anyone can fool themselves that they are doing right by discreetly working within strategic institutions to push their objectives.
And having "dual citizenship" spiritually is never a problem. As long as they obey sharia law, which is easy to do. Sharia law has two most outstanding principles. 1. It is forbidden to say anything against Mahommed or the Koran. 2. It is forbidden to leave the Islamic faith. (Both incur death in some Muslm countries.)
Many Muslims working both secretly and openly within strategic institutions have fought for years to create policies and laws that comply with Sharia's blasphemy requirement. Religious vilification laws that have been introduced throughout the world, even in U.N. determinations, are motivated by the need to create a quasi Sharia blasphemy law.
The next step in implementing sharia is to prevent Muslims from converting. Ruth Gledhill's account of the women "sectioned" to hospital demonstrates that Muslims wanting to escape from Islam are "held" within the folds of this darkness. Sharia law for "Muslims only" would allow the casting of this net beyond their no-go mini-states, right across the UK.
Do not be naive and think that the Archbishop is just a lefty, bonkers, or kow-towing to terrorism. Do not struggle to understand why people like that "don't seem to understand". Because, friends, they understand better than you, and me. It is their strategy to appear as naive, fuzzy leftists who want to reduce prejudice and create harmony.
They will keep pushing the UK down not just till it is not on its knees, but till its head is below water. The question is, can the British bring themselves to love once again, with such willing-to-die fervour, that which the purveyors of evil seem so willing to die in order to destroy?

[Tom Jackson]

"How does 'appeasing' Hitler have any connection with combating internal plotters?"

The answer, Mary, is that, of course, there is no direct connection.

But there is still a valid parallel in that there were plenty of people willing to bury their heads in the sand when faced with the threat of the Nazis rather than face up to the inevitable consequence of the power that was building in Germany at the time - something that people such as Winston Churchill and Hugh Dowding were thankfully prepared to do (and so saved the nation).

There is plenty of evidence now of threats building from those who follow Islamic teaching. The obvious examples are the Islamic States themselves, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan etc. But it is simply impossible to ignore the Muslim presence here in the UK where a burgeoning expansion of their community through immigration and explosive birth rates is already swamping the social and economic structure of our country.

Had this been recognised earlier, had we not suffocated any realistic analysis under the weight of political correctness and fear of being branded racist, bigoted or devoid of any tolerance, then we would have had more time for "steady nerves and cool headed thinking".

The ICM opinion poll in 2006, for example, indicated that in addition to 20% of British Muslims having sympathy with those who carried out the London bombings, 40% said they backed the introduction of Sharia Law in certain parts of Britain! 50% recognised a deterioration of the Muslim relationship with the indigenous population.

To suggest that raising these concerns is "fear mongering" is exactly what those who wanted to ignore Hitler did in the 1930's. To blame everything on media coverage suggesting that the general public is unable to think for themselves was probably a tactic were used by the appeasers at that time.

I, like you, am a Londoner and have been all my 61 years. I have experienced fear and trepidation when I sit on a Tube train or walk past Canary Wharf but I am not going to let that fear allow those, whose beliefs and actions are totally alien to everything I value and hold dear, influence the way I live my life in this, the country of my birth.

[MaryCunningham]

Emmanuel Appel,

Charging anti-semitism, eh? Why am I not surprised? But Brian is Greek Orthodox and was born in England although he left decades ago...of course he could be Jewish too I guess, people have multiple layers of loyalty. Well, some people anyway.

I don't mind if *you* see everything through Hitler-tinged glasses but insofar as Britain is concerned our fight is against internal Islamists. The threat is more like that posed by guerrillas than by an external sovereign state. It's--oh--fourth generation warfare not second. And in fourth generation warfare not alienating the host community--the pool in which these poisonous fish swim--is key. Otherwise for every one you destroy you create two more.

Anyway--like I said--I really resent your admonitions etc. But I repeat myself--however, I will only do so once whereas YOU! (forever Mr Appel and always the same prescription: fight! fight! fight!--easy when someone else is doing it, eh?)

[emanuel appel]

a letter from America

Dear Mary Cunningham

First, clean up your language. Why do you use " American neos" when you really mean "You Jews".

You ask why we're so fixated on the Nazis? Are you twelve?

We are fixated on the Nazis, because, like the Bishop of Rome, they were fixated on killing us or making us disappear from history.
Of course, that is a small matter for your type.

[MaryCunningham]

Dear Brian,

I do wish you and other American neos would choose a different historical analogy. Why are you, Appel &tc so fixated on the Nazis? The historical situation is simply not the same.

And why do Americans, probably living in some safe rural area, presume to offer advice to Londoners? Have your harsh actions in the ME brought you a lot of kudos? If so, I haven't noticed.

Gledhill et al's 'coverage' was classic yellow journalism, fear mongering at its worst. I would wager none of said journos actually even bothered to read the speech, let alone discuss it rationally. The goal of assimilating Muslims (in 2001 3.2% of the British population, less so now due to the large numbers of European migrants) into British society, while at the same time fighting the Islamists who are waging the terror, plotting to blow up the rest of us, calls for steady nerves and cool headed thinking.

Demonising *all* Muslims is extremely counterproductive, since we depend upon the Muslim community itself for leads against the terrorists. How does 'appeasing' Hitler have any connection with combating internal plotters? If there is any historical situation with some parallels it is the fight against *Irish* terrorists operating on the mainland during the 1974-1998 period.

I consider myself on the front line. I take the tube. I shop in crowded places. I use London airports, even Heathrow (a hell on earth even without the terror threats). After the Pope's Regenburg's speech I was one of those Catholics that faced an angry mob of Islamists after Sunday Mass in Westminster Cathedral. So I know who I am up against. Angry young men.

Thus I resent fear mongering because it leads to the wrong response. I am more at risk than you, hence I also very much resist inappropriate analogies and unasked for advice.

Regards,
Mary Cunningham
London

PS If I had to emigrate I could go to anyplace in Europe, I'd probably choose Spain or Ireland. But I hope not to have to go.

[Stephen Marsden]

Ah, the 'Common-Market-was-a-Papist-Plot' line! I suppose that, next, Mr Smith will remind us all that the Common Market came into being as a result of the Treaty of ROME! Proof positive, if ever it was needed.

Which it isn't.

[A voice from downunder]

David Smith, as you've directly asked me questions I will respond to you. It was not my intention to "blacken" your name and I am sorry if I have caused you hurt. I wouldn't want to do that to anyone, no matter how much we might disagree. I should not have "named names" but as an excuse I guess I didn't quite know how to make my point without doing so. Think of me as stupid and thoughtless rather than malicious. (It is very hot here and my brain is taxed after so many days and nights of relentlessly high temperatures). However I make no apology for exercising my right to anonymity, nor for making my point (which I do not retract). Also, I choose not to answer the questions you put to me. That is my right also. Having said all this, I won't enter into any further dialogue with you as I have neither the time nor the inclination to do so. It really is too hot to argue with a stranger.

[Elle]

it's a creazy!!! We will go back 1400 years ???

[Tom Jackson]

"But, after I had calmed down, I was then in the position to ask them what they meant, and to learn that they were actually right.. and then to make a real, informed choice about whether I wanted to be one or not."

"What do you think 'a true Christian' is?"

David, when I see a fellow Christian under attack for his beliefs, or the characterisation of his beliefs, from non-believers or even from other Christians, it is interesting to see how they respond, how defensive they are or how brittle their retorts.

You see, someone who is secure in their faith has nothing to worry about. This is not an arrogant attitude but simply a realisation of the power and majesty of Jesus Christ. The battles have already been won, the outcome is already determined; there was never any doubt that God would triumph.

But even with that knowledge, even when you enter a debate confident in your faith, it is not a licence to be overbearing or arrogant with those who either doubt what you are saying or have simply not been faced with the opportunity or circumstances to accept Christ into their lives. And Christ wants those people to enter the Kingdom of Heaven side by side with those of us who have already humbled ourselves before him.

David, let me give you my simplistic perspective on my faith, on Christianity.

You start by identifying Christ to be your Saviour and to humble yourself by asking Him to come into your life, recognising that you are far from perfect, that you have faults and that He is the only one who can help you.

Now, you may go no further than that. Given the nature of the world we live in, you may not be strong enough or possess the character to turn yourself inside out and become a complete new person. You might start out with all the good intentions but struggle to maintain the determination to become exactly as God would have us become.

But you still have that faith in Christ. The invitation you have made to Him has been fulfilled. He is in your heart and your soul and will always be with you, knowing that you believe in Him.

That is one end of the scale (for want of a better description). At the other end is someone like Mother Theresa whose life was lived 24/7 with Christ at the forefront of everything she said or did, in every thought and every atom of her being.

And in-between? That's where you find the rest of us, the majority, all at different stages of our life, able to commit to varying degrees. Some go to church, others say their prayers quietly at night. Some debate earnestly on blogs such as this while others - like my wife of 35 years - have a faith so deep, they don't need to theologise about every twist and turn, every nuance. Some are Bishops and some, bus drivers.

But whether you are Mother Theresa or someone like me, clinging to their faith, at times with panicky desperation; maybe a Christian all your life or born again in the last few months; it makes no difference. If you have accepted Christ's promise of eternal life with Him by recognising Him as your Saviour and that acceptance was made with a true and honest devotion, then you are on your way to Heaven.

Christ does not demand that we go to church a certain number of times each month or that we spend every available hour walking the streets, evangelising in His name. He does not demand that we learn the New Testament by heart, go to Bible classes or deepen our understanding of Him through the fellowship and wisdom of other Christians.

Of course, He is pleased and supportive if we can translate our faith in such ways but that does not buy a ticket into His Kingdom. For many people, the recognition and accepance of Christ in their lives does bring great change for the good but not everyone. We all still remain sinners. All Christ asks is that we believe in Him.

How else can you interpret our Lord's parable in Mathew 19:30? "But many that are first shall be last; and the last shall be first". A friend of mine in the church came to Christ when he was over 80 years old and when he died soon after, so late in his life, all he had to show for his commitment was a simple statement of belief. I am sure that he is in God's presence now.

I don't know what a "true" Christian is but then, I am not God.

[Mark]

I have encountered many asinine ideas during my long life but never one so utterly sobering and bereft of logic, civility, liberty, and Christian morality.

Might HRM commit the Church's Archidiot to the Royal Physician for mental evaluation and action?

[David Smith]

Chris Gillebrand:
'The European Union - The Vatican's Influence' !!

I don't want to be a killjoy but I live 400 yards from the European Parliament, so I write this from under the Babylonian tower, but in six years in Brussels, I have yet to detect any Vatican influence on the EU institutions.'

And I truly have no wish to be rude, Chris, but where exactly do you live - in a bunker fifty feet underground??!!

The whole concept of the EU is Roman Catholic inspired.. and has been Vatican-backed, throughout its development. Ever heard of people like Claude Monnet - one of its founders and up for 'Sainthood'?

Since you seem to be so 'in the dark' about this, let me refer you to a small booklet on the subject, for a start: 'Papal Rome and the European Union' by Richard Bennett and Michael de Semlyen. You can obtain a copy by sending the princely sum of £1.00 to Dorchester House Publications, PO Box 67, Rickmansworth, Herts WD3 5SJ.

This is small and succint but packed with facts, including the Vatican's own pronouncements (verbatim) on the subject.

Here's a titbit from its pages - itself a quote from The (Roman Catholic) Sunday Telegraph of 7th July 2003:
"The Vatican notoriously thinks in centuries. In Pope John Paul II we have the most political pope of modern times. It is in the movement towards federalism of the Common Market, with the coming membership of Eastern European countries, as well as in the turmoil of the Soviet Union, that the Pope may see the greatest possibility for an increase in Catholic political power since the fall of Napoleon or since the Counter-Reformation. The common market itself started under the inspiration of Catholic politicians - such as Adenauer of Germany, Paul Henri Spaak, Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman...The EC Social Charter and the socialism of Jacques Delors (President of the European Commission) are imbued with Catholic social doctrine. If European federalism triumphs, the EC will indeed be an empire. It will lack and emperor: but it will have the Pope."

Another place to look to see the full extent of the Vatican's pitch for power in the EU is the Papal encyclical: Ecclesia in Europa, which can still, I think, be viewed for free on the Vatican's own website - vatican.va

[David Smith]

Tony B:
"Sean Emerson said: 'I am praying for a British leader to stand up and say "Islam is not welcome here. You lot, out! Go back to the cesspool from whence you came!" '

Wouldn't that make us as bad as the Arab nations that are so reviled?"

Yes, Tony, I think it would. There are many other ways we could make the point that this is Britain and that we value our Christian heritage and our Christian inspired values and laws, and don't wish to take on theirs 'thank you', without resorting to language of the gutter and personal abuse.

[David Smith]

'Tom, I salute you. You are a true Christian and a glimmer of light on this sometimes very dark blog. After the David Smiths and the Rick Beekmans of this world (I'm sorry to have to name names to make my point), you've raised my spirits considerably!'

Posted by: A voice from downunder | 12 Feb 2008 23:58:19

This is no comment on Tom Jackson, the details of whose inner belief system I do not know, but who seems from his contributions to this blog to be a very nice, sensible, pleasant, and 'thinking' man. But what, I wonder, is your basis for saying that he is 'a true Christian'? What do you think 'a true Christian' is? And do you think that you are one?

I don't know what you believe personally, Mr., Mrs., Master, or Miss 'Voicefromdownunder'. But I wonder how your belief system squares blackening others by name whilst protecting your own name through anonymity?!

Mine brings words like double-standard, inequity, and cowardice
to mind.

[David Smith]

Tom Jackson:
'David, I won't broker any dispute between those who place their faith in Jesus, be they Catholic, Anglican, Methodist or whoever.

We are all on the same path...to think you have found the one true way to Christ while everyone else is going in the wrong direction is foolish.'

Yes, this would indeed be foolish! But I don't think that 'everyone else' is on the wrong path... just some.

I haven't looked into 'Methodism or whatever', Tom. And I believe that there are most definately real Christians in the Roman Catholic and Anglican Churches.

But the 'gospels' contained in official Roman Catholic and Anglican teaching are not the same as the Gospel of the Bible, and do not save. So if anyone in those organisations is looking to and adherring to that teaching alone to save them (or to 'make them a Christian') then I believe that they are deceived and in great danger eternally.

To say this is to make a judgment on the teaching of those organisations, and not on any individual member of them.

I am more than happy to discuss the details of what I see as the divergences between these 'gospels' with anyone with a serious interest in doing so. Further, if you (or anyone else in this category) wants to give Ruth permission to transmit their name and e-mail address to me, I would be more than happy to talk to them 'off site' as well.

Suffice it to say here that I am a born-again Christian - according to Jesus there is no other kind. And that at 25 I had the shock (I now see it as a privilege) of someone telling me that just because I was a member of the C of E, and had been since I was 'christened' as a baby, that did not make me a Christian and saved in the Bible's terms. I was initially very angry to hear this. But, after I had calmed down, I was then in the position to ask them what they meant, and to learn that they were actually right.. and then to make a real, informed choice about whether I wanted to be one or not. The end product of this was my actually coming into a true, living relationship of my own with God.

In so far as this is in my power, I want to make sure that anyone who is in the position that I formerly was, and who still needs to make a similarly informed decision, gets that chance too. That's all.

[Becky]

With regards to the report of muslim women being sectioned because their husbands are tired of them etc - I'm sure the Mental Health Act Commission would be very interested to hear about this and investigate it (if they knew the details). I'd be surprised if the existing safeguards in the mental health system (MHAC, Mental Health Review Tribunal, the fact that 2 doctors and an approved social worker are needed to section someone in the first place, who would all have to be complicit - as would all the ward staff, the rest of the clinical team, the Hospital Managers etc etc ...) had all failed to spot that something like this was going on though.

[Tom Jackson]

"Do you suggest that, this time, we just 'turn the other cheek'?"

The challenge we face from the incursion of Islam into our nation, a belief system that is demonstrably alien to the indigenous population (whether you accept we are a Christian community or not), should give us the opportunity to consider what turning the other cheek really entails.

Because, logically, if faced with an implacable foe, a threat about which there is no compromise, negotiation or accommodation, if our faith charges us to turn aside and offer no resistance, that is the end of Christianity!

Does anyone with a faith in Christ believe that is what is asked of us? To allow ourselves and our faith to be wiped out or assimilated into a belief system that is alien and opposed to everything we believe in?

Actually, a reasonable and accepted analysis of what Jesus was saying can be found here: http://www.new-life.net/faq001.htm.

Part of the analysis is; "Christians are permitted to defend themselves and their families (Exodus 22:2; Numbers 1:2-3; Ecclesiastes 4:12; Luke 22:36; Acts 22:1; 25:10-11; 2 Timothy 4:16) and to use God-ordained authority to keep evil from harming them or others (Proverbs 28:8; Acts 16:37-39; 22:23-29)."

[Brian]

Mary Cunningham,

If you substitute the word "Churchill" for "Gledhill" and "Nazi" for "Islamic terrorists" you end up like your intellectual forefathers...the great appeasers.

Are you aware that the BBC Radio would not allow Churchill to speak in the mid thirties because he was "fanning" the flames of hatred with Germany?

Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat its mistakes.

The only problem that in this case, the enemy has already landed in Blighty and is rapidly multiplying.

Where do you think your grandchildren will flee to? Canada, Australia, or heaven forbid, the US?

[Chris Gillibrand]

'The European Union - The Vatican's Influence' !!

I don't want to be a killjoy but I live 400 yards from the European Parliament, so I write this from under the Babylonian tower, but in six years in Brussels, I have yet to detect any Vatican influence on the EU institutions.

[A voice from downunder]

Tom Jackson said: "We are all on the same path; some are going faster than others; some lose their way occasionally; Some sing while they walk and others keep their silence. But we all have our eyes fixed on the end of the road where our Saviour waits.

And such is the complexity and confusion of the world we live in, such is the willingness of some individuals to succumb to a desire for control and power, status and adulation, that to think you have found the one true way to Christ while everyone else is going in the wrong direction is foolish".

Tom, I salute you. You are a true Christian and a glimmer of light on this sometimes very dark blog. After the David Smiths and the Rick Beekmans of this world (I'm sorry to have to name names to make my point), you've raised my spirits considerably!

[Kate]

Tony B: Wouldn't that make us as bad as the Arab nations that are so reviled?

Actually NO. It would just make us pragmatists and people with a bit of self-respect. I know that's not terribly pc. But, I'm rather fed-up with the injunction to bow the head and pretend that multiculturalism is 'lovely'. I reject fascistic diktats in whatever guise they appear.

Those who seek martyrdom or subjugation are welcome to it. Our Lord did not hesitate to chastise those who fouled the Temple. Britain faced the evil and scourge of Fascism and Nazism. All totalitarian ideologies are essentially fascist. Do you suggest that, this time, we just 'turn the other cheek'?

[Tony B]

Sean Emerson said >I am praying for a British leader to stand up and say "Islam is not welcome here. You lot, out! Go back to the cesspool from whence you came!"

Wouldn't that make us as bad as the Arab nations that are so reviled?

[Alice C. Linsley]

Why, indeed, is England committing suicide?

[Diarmuid McKeown]

I cannot express how relieved I am to read to rad the comments on this page. People won't stand for such naive rubbish. And so a country lives on.

[Sean Emerson]

As an American who spent several years in England twenty years ago in the forces, I am shaking my head and wondering what happened to the men of England?

Would the men who fought at Agincourt and the Somme, the men of Waterloo and those who stood up to Hitler in the Blitz have tolerated this nonsense?

England is no stranger to religious civil war. I am praying for a British leader to stand up and say "Islam is not welcome here. You lot, out! Go back to the cesspool from whence you came!"

You make life miserable enough for Muslims, and they will go, or convert. Just like they do to Christians in their countries.

On second thought, don't. They might come here instead.

[Tom Jackson]

David, I won't broker any dispute between those who place their faith in Jesus, be they Catholic, Anglican, Methodist or whoever.

We are all on the same path; some are going faster than others; some lose their way occasionally; Some sing while they walk and others keep their silence. But we all have our eyes fixed on the end of the road where our Saviour waits.

And such is the complexity and confusion of the world we live in, such is the willingness of some individuals to succumb to a desire for control and power, status and adulation, that to think you have found the one true way to Christ while everyone else is going in the wrong direction is foolish.

[Rod]

Thank you Broadway Atinga, I would second
Ruth Gledhill, the Times Newspaper, the rest of you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.

[David Smith]

Tom Jackson:
'Given the choice, David, between living either under the Catholics or the Muslims, I know which I would choose.'

I understand why you might say this, Tom. But the fact that the RC 'Church' has held back from or concealed its excesses for long enough and widely enough world-wide for many to forget what it is capable of when in a position of unfettered power, is not a good enough reason in my book to 'choose' it in any sense.

Professor Arthur Noble of the European Institute of Protestant Studies in his work 'The European Union - The Vatican's Influence' rightly, I think, describes The Vatican as 'the greatest mass-murderer in history'.

The bottom line for me is that Roman Catholicism and its Head Office are not, at root, 'of God' at all.

The choice you present is in reality actually far from being the only choice available. Why not just present and advocate the choosing of the true, 'invisible' 'kingdom' and hierarchy of God established on earth by Jesus, instead?

[MaryCunningham]

I unreservedly agree with Joe. And made a similar protest earlier but I'll go further here.

My experience on AoF show that rather than assisting harmony, religious blogs mostly serve to spread hate. Shame on Finkelstein and Gledhill for instigating such coverage (manufacture?) of this affair and shame on the editor of the Times for allowing it. The pit--absolute nadir!--was Minette Martin's accusation of treason. Treason, such inflammatory words! Will these gentle folk be advocating hanging, drawing and quartering next?

Cool heads are needed to deal with Islamic radicals in Britain but the Times' journos only want to fan the flames.

Shame on the lot of them. Shame. Shame. Shame.

[joe]

Ruth - you have a typo in your post at the end of the first paragraph.

We already have a jurisdiction in the UK which allows violence against people without recourse to the civil law. It is called the British Boxing Board of Control, which regulates and allows GBH outwith of the civil and criminal courts.

I don't see many people arguing that the BBFBC should be banned because it is be the thin end of the wedge and they could attempting to reintroduce gladiatorial fights-to-the-death. People don't argue that because it is nonsense.

The truth is that there are various non-judicial courts which regulate activities which otherwise would be unlawful. There are various bodies which mediate to establish consensus without needing to go to court, such as ACAS, Relate etc.

And before another American comes in here being all self-righteous, you have a non-judicial parallel court system called Judge Judy where parties air and then receive judgements on their petty complaints on national television.

Sections of our society regularly make important decisions before bodies that are not judicial. This isn't news.

The heat generated from this debate goes far beyond the facts at hand, and many of you people have simply exhibited your own xenophobia and ignorance by posting here.

Ruth Gledhill, the Times Newspaper, the rest of you should be thoroughly ashamed of yourselves.

[Broadway Atinga]

It is very clear that again the Ar chbishop is wrong.

[Julian Pedley]

perhaps the Archbishop and indeed Sharia law supporting Moslems in this country would get a more reasonable consideration if they sought publically and explicitly to uphold the law in Darfur. Not a single Moslem organisation in the UK will stand against the murder, rape and pillage that this Sharia loving country of Sudan is perpetrating on other Moslems in Darfur everyday,and has done for years and years. Even Moslem members of the House of Lords did not have the courage to do so when in Sudan. Is not rape, pillage, theft and murder an insult to Allah/Mohammed and worth a mention along with teddy bears and cartoons. Not one Islamic government will raise their voice in critism of Sudan in the UN.They think it unislamic to do so, never mind justice or truth or decency or honesty or compassion.If this is the outworking of this wonderful Sharia law,then God help us all. Let rowan Williams address a group of Sharia Legal Scholars in Mecca and plead for 'space for Christians' or Hindus to publickly worship and preach their faiths leave alone ask for Judeo_Christian democratic law to be allowed to have space in their lives in Saudia Arabia ( or any Islamic country)and see if he gets out alive!

[Leif Barbré Knudsen]

Why does the Queen not dispose of this Archbishop madman?

She would serve the most basic purpose a monarch can do: preserve Her country

... and be loved by most in doing so.

[Robin Bather]

The term "useful idiot" springs to mind after reading Rowan's latest ideas.
Apart from the English language, the greatest single thing that the English have given to the world is the English system of law.
It may have its defects but it is far far better than the alternatives.
Rowan put his foot in his mouth and harmed the C of E--the religion he is supposed to promote and protect.
He should resign.

[andrew holden]

"accommodation may be acceptable in many circumstances"

What we have to decide is how much accommodation is appropriate and for whom? This country and it's political and legal system was built on the notion of Christendom (which may or may not have always been a convenient fiction). Hence there is already a great deal of accommodation already for the Christian faith (actually strictly for Anglicanism). This has been further extended to other Protestant denominations and to Roman Catholicism and, more recently included other faiths and secularism.

I think you have to ask how much further this is possible in a plural society (and I do think this is behind much of what the Archbishop has said) and where it will end. I'm sure that we are heading towards a radical restructuring of our society beyond its religious roots. The major question is whether this can be towards some sort of tolerant and inclusive pluralism or towards the kind of humanistic secularism which is essentially intolerant of any religious belief in the public space.

I think the time for the establishment of state religion (whether Anglican, Islamic or even multi-faith) has gone and I'm in favour of a tolerant pluralism (for all who are tolerant enough to accept it). Of course many Islamicists want to live in Islamic states (and there are plenty they can choose to go and live in if that's the case) but there are at least some who see the need for the secularisation of public life in a way which still remains sympathetic to the needs of religious citizens.

[Robert Atkins]

Is it possible for people to talk about this without resorting to insults, particularly about Rowan William's appearance? I think that his motivation was not so much to do with Sharia Law and more to do with making a stir, and in the process he has shown how the Anglican Church can take a place in radical discussion in the contemporary world. Isn't this is what he found so 'overwhelming'? - the attention he received, like being showered with gifts?

[Rich]

When Muslims come here from the M.E. they should be told at the airport, "You are now entering a secular society with secular laws. Obey them. If you don't like it please get on the next plane home."

All of us as citizens need to stand up for our secular society which has its roots in Judeo/Christian principles and not feel the need to apologize for it. Be proud of your heritage for it has created a society with more freedoms than any time in history. Don't let it be taken back to the 7th century.

[Tom Jackson]

"I'm getting heartily sick of self-seeking, pompous Anglican apologists rushing to the ABC's defense, pretending the issue - albeit misconstrued - is some sort of academic debate."

As an Anglican, J Pearce, so am I, so am I.

There is a problem, however, with lumping together all manifestations of "religious incursion into secular British law" since our law in the UK, by and large, reflects the Christian heritage of our country as it has developed over many centuries.

And, Andrew, accommodation may be acceptable in many circumstances (like when your mother-in-law comes to stay) but when it represents the tip of an iceberg, an object so unstable in these times of global warming that it might flip over at any time, now that is a different matter!

For want of a better analogy, that is exactly what Islam is. Because allowing a minority community to lawfully operate in a different way to that of the majority (and you have the recent example of a polygamous marriage catered for by the benefit system) is a recipe for disharmony and a weakening of our community.

But more than that, 'accommodation' of even what might be relatively innocuous aspects of Sharia Law will then be followed by demands for more and more 'accommodation' (the iceberg flipping over to display the bulk of it's composition hidden underneath!) Can you guarantee that is not going to happen? Can you even make a reasonable argument, given the evidence available as far as Islam is concerned, that this will not happen?

I think not, especially, as we are all aware, the Muslim population in this country is going to grow and grow to the point that we, as members of the indigenous population, have very little say in the matter!

And a final point for Marika Footring; maybe you could define the criteria by which you would accept that some of us have not just relied upon Ruth's usual excellent report and have the intelligence and motivation to investigate the matter ourselves! Or is it that we have to agree with you and the other apologists in order to be deemed worthwhile to make our comment and contribution?

[Rose]

Are these protesters in prison yet? They are seriously inciting racial hatred! I love that, due to 6 Danis mens' decision to draw Mohammed, their entire country gets bombed! Is this the wonder of sharia law that we can expect from the fantastic muslim way of life? So if i commit a crime, as a brown haired, blue-eyed person, will all people witht hese features also be punished? Which would be better, public flogging or maybe even stoning us all to death.

And what have france, germany and spain got to do with this?

I especially love the modern and wonderful punishment of taking all the danish women. So far sighted, so just...

GET THESE ANIMALS OUT OF MY COUNTRY.

[andrew holden]

To Mr J Pearce.

There's plenty of room for more hypocrisy round here!

In fact I stated quite clearly that the AoC should not have delivered his lecture - because of his position.

That, in public at least, he should have kept his mouth firmly shut on this issue doesn't excuse the wilful and hysterical misrepresentations from people who can't be bothered to read (or understand) what he actually said.

However, there is a debate to be had about the secularisation of our political and legal systems and the best that can be said about the Archbishops's comments is that he has encouraged that debate in a direction that I guess he doesn't actually want. Having said that I think the Christian tradition is much more sympathetic to plural secularism than, say, the Islamic.

For the record, I'm on the side of disestablishment on this rather than seeking some sort of multi-faith extablishment as I think the AoC would be arguing for. Neverthless a proper plural civil society still has to accomodate the various cultural and ethical positions of the communities which contribute to it. That's the minefield that the AoC has got himself trapped in - but then it is one that has got to be crossed if we are to get through the diversity to some sort of unity.

Hypocritical? I don't think so. Realistic more like.

[George Parr]

Well said Jason Mead. It might appear wholly incredible to some of the self-serving, pious members posting here, but their agendas do not actually reflect the interests of society as a whole. Consequently, legislation should be based on the needs of all of the people and not on a variety of varying beliefs. Any political debate should involve those who have been elected by all of the people in our society, with clerics addressing the internecine issues of their faiths. In short, their views should not impact on or influence policy, much in the same way that our schools system should certainly not be underpinned by selective notions of religious guidance.

[George Parr]

Well, Charlayne in Texas, there are a fair number of people here who afford our current monarch as much credibility as unelected clerics. She is emblematic of a elitist system of privilege and undeserving regard, almost as much as our undemocratic house of Lords, in which sit 26 members of the Anglican clergy. Whilst no-one in their right mind would wish to see a system which provides such arrogant and warmongering dynastic leaders such as George Bush and his evangelist coterie, we might strive towards a healthy, prosperous republic, which embraces equality, liberalism and human rights, not through a system of shady cohorts and wealthy, grovelling appointees, but through mutual respect and the recognition and reward of human endeavour.

[George Parr]

Tom, I agree with a lot of what you say, but I still think that you overstate the cogency, effectiveness and historical aptness of the Christian faith in this country. This latest utterance from an Anglican cleric, chosen to lead an Angican community by the members of his faith only serves to show that these one-track political statements stir up a hornet's nest. I accept that there are calls for his resignation, but in order to create a balance, issues of such social and political importance should be addressed by elected governments serving all of the people.

If we really are to experience a one-way ticket to Islam, poorly countered by a fragmented and attenuated Christian faith which is clearly turning in on itself, how do these early attempts at liberal posturing protect the right to live in peace of those of us who have no religion? Are we really expected to put up with a problem created exclusively for us all by those pursuing an assortment of beliefs and crazy notions, either barbaric or fundamentalist, and made worse by leading figures such as Mr Williams, who appear to be living in a world of dreams?

[Richard]

Religion is made up by bearded, middle-aged males, whether they are Muslim or Christian or anything else, and ultimately enforced by younger, violent males.

Williams enjoys whatever power he has through something that is ultimately based only in violence, but fortunately he is held in check by a secular tradition that has been developed in this country, sometimes at great risk to the people who dared to think about it. If we allow that secularism to be eroded, we put everyone's liberty at risk.

[andrew holden]

" 'The immigrant, Islamic minority who would seek to impose their beliefs and culture upon UK society.'....The immigrant, Islamic minority who would seek to impose their beliefs and culture upon UK society have been dealt a severe blow by the Archbishop's comments."

Tom, accommodation is not the same as imposition. Such an assumption actually plays right into the hands of the secular humanists - and you are probably right that it is that approach which is the focus of the Archbishop's lecture. See the comment in his last paragraph about the prevailing importance of theology to this debate!