What a disappointment that man is...
A nice chap- but simply not up to the job.
But maybe he was the best they could find. A career in the Church of England no longer attracts people of talent.
2008-02-12 07:01 pm (UTC)
And then they're kicking out the ones who are good (Sorry, I'm a bit sore at the shabby way they are treating my retiring father who doesn't actually WANT to retire...)
In my day priests over retirement age were given a roving commission to help out here, there and anywhere- as needed. Is that option open to him.
2008-02-14 01:48 pm (UTC)
Many retired clergy are kept on the books to help out but it really wouldn't be more than pocket money.
The conspiricy theorist in me thinks they are obliging older priests to retire but keep going to save money - goodness knows the church isn't attracting any young blood
Money was tight 20 years ago. I should imagine it's a whole lot tighter now.
There is too much tolerance for insanity preached under the banner of cultural sensitivity.
Western support for Saudi Arabia makes a mockery of all our talk about wanting to spread democracy.
I believe the rights and laws and values we enjoy in Britain today represent a high-water mark of human cultural achievement (thus far) and we shouldn't back down on them.
Yep. Multiculturalism should not be ever used as an excuse for allowing intolerance.
Multiculturalism by all means- but also equality under the law.
I will never understand those who would sacrifice their culture in the name of cultural sensitivity.
The West went through its period of religious barbarism and emerged on the other side bloody and battered. We don't need to offer other cultures a stage in which to hash out theirs. Yes, that's intolerant. But there are times when intolerance is a good, progressive thing.
Our freedoms, values, rights have all had to be fought for. And if we don't guard them they'll be taken from us.
I was rendered speechless by the man's thoughts on the matter.
There is something...backwards...about incorporating sharia into western law.
It's taken me days to get my head round what he was saying and formulate a response.
Hmmm. For me it's not about Anglicanism v. Islam. Like you, I have a sentimental attachment to the bookishness and bells and smells and eccentricities of Anglicanism, but I think that's cultural nostalgia, rather than a reasoned difference between Anglicanism and Islam - as we can see with a horrible man like Akinole. I think you're dead right when you say it's about the rights of authoritarian men with beards. I'm a secularist, I shudder at the thought of any revealed truth being taken as law over and above that which is tested in the common law courts and constitutionally. I am terrified by the intrusion of "faith" into public life, public space and civil rights.
But then, I don't understand the British polity, either. How does it work when you have an established church? How can you have a secular society when the prime minister appoints the chief druid? &c.
The Anglican church as I knew it is disappearing fast- and the horrible evangelicals are taking over. I'm glad I got out when I did.
There have been times- especially under Thatcher- when the bishops of the C of E spoke as the conscience of the nation, in opposition to government policy - and we were thankful for them. Men like Archbishop Runcie and Bishop Shepherd of Liverpool and the mischievous fundie-teasing Bishop of Durham added something valuable to the national conversation- but there's no-one of that calibre around today.
It's moderately funny when the evangelicals take over in Barchester Towers, because it's fiction and you know they'll get theirs in the end. (Especially Mr. Slope.) Not so funny in real life, though.
I read the Barchester novels in my teens- and really didn't understand the ecclesiastical politics. Maybe I should give them another go.
I'd recommend it. You have to have patience with ticket names and some of the other slightly over-the-top elements of Trollope's style, but Barchester Towers is rather fun. Full of ecclesiastical in-jokes. I've never liked The Warden as well (possibly because the romantic lead is a stuffed shirt who I'd like to slap), and haven't read the others.
Maybe it's time for the old boy to resign, since he seems to have entered his dotage.
The following came to me in an email today - I have cut out the parts that sling mud at one of our presidential candidates, even though I do not personally support that candidate. I have also cut out any allegations about Muslims that seem to be from the lunatic fringe.
Here's what's left:
"Can a good Muslim be a good American?
Theologically - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to Allah.
Religiously - no. . . . Because no other religion is accepted by good Muslims except Islam.
Scripturally - no. . . . Because his allegiance is to the five Pillars of Islam and the Quran.
??Socially - no. . . . Because his allegiance to Islam forbids him to make friends with Christians or Jews. (I questioned this one)
Politically - no. . . . Because he must submit to the mullahs, who teach annihilation of Israel and label America the great Satan.
Domestically - no. . . Because husbands are permitted to beat their wives for any reason whatsoever. Also, women are expected to keep their bodies completely covered head to toe whenever outside of the family circle, and to keep their mouths shut and their opinions to themselves.
Intellectually - no. . . . Because he cannot accept a democratic Constitution since these have doctrines that are contrary to the Quran.
Philosophically - no. . . . Because Islam does not allow freedom of religion and expression. Democracy and Islam cannot co-exist. Every Muslim government is either dictatorial or autocratic, a theocracy with a state religion.
They obviously cannot be both "good" Muslims and good Americans."
I'd question most of these statements.
1. Allah is the Arabic word for God. Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all Abrahamic religions and acknowledge the same God. Allah isn't some pagan deity but the God of the Bible under another name. If the Muslim cannot be a good American because of his alliegance to Allah/God, then the Christian and the Jew are similarly disabled and the only good Americans are pagans and atheists.
2. Is religious tolerance the defining mark of a good American? If so a lot of Christians fail the test.
3. What's scripture got to do with it? A Muslim can accept the Constitution of the USA as readily as a Christian can- and that's the only "scripture" that counts towards citizenship. The person who drew up this list seems to think (without explicitly saying so) that the Christian Bible is a foundation document of the USA. He/she is quite simply wrong.
And so on...
I'm disappointed in Williams. I realize he believes he has a mission to speak out, but he needs to pay more attention to the impact his words have on the world around him and on his church.
I suppose it sounds jingoistic of me, but I don't believe any country ought to abandon its own laws and cultures at the instigation of an emigrant group or a cultural minority --- nor do I believe people, any people, should be able to have special courts and laws based on their religions, or should have the capacity to turn their religious beliefs into law. History has shown repeatedly that we've got to keep the two separate.
Williams is- in his gentlemanly, ever-so-fuzzy way- a theocrat. I suppose it would be odd if he wasn't. He wants religious leaders like himself to have more power and influence than they currently do.
I agree, and that's precisely why I'm disappointed in him.
Of course I know I'm being unrealistic to think that a major religious leader could have the capacity to rise above the whole "God must be at the helm of the ship of state" schtick, but in this day and age you would think that ought to be possible.
Williams was sold to us as a subtle, modern intellectual but the way he's handled the issues that have come up on his watch suggest he's nothing of the sort. He's a theocrat. And is it possible for a subtle, modern intellectual to be a theocrat? Probably not.