Good to have an Archbishop with teeth

So far, so good.

Yes how refreshing. I thought that was the message of Christianity was to help those less well off than yourself. Let's hope the conclave remember this and choose a good man to be pope.

Fore some reason people think the Church should keep out of politics. Surely that is what it's all about!!

When we lived in Jamaica the church leaders always had something to say about what was going on in the country.

We just need some women Bishops and things may get going.

I see no reason why Bishops, who represent a small section of the population ,should be privileged to interfere in the running of the country.

The 'message of christianity' appears to be whatever a given speaker wants it to be. For Yeshua it was mostly 'people should be better Jews'.

It is a very difficult problem, how to target those people who are abusing the system without hurting those who genuinely need the help. I only wish I had the answers.

My late MiL could spot a fraud from 20 paces! Perhaps thats what is needed, men and women who have had experience of hardships who could recognise those in need from those who just wanted to abuse the system.

feetle people should be better people, surely?

I too thought Christianity was primarily linked to the teachings of Jesus - who stood up against corruption, injustice and discrimination - but it seems that others have different interpretations.

My husband has been involved in a local NHS campaign, and when he asked a gentleman in our road (who we know because he often calls with Jehovah's Witness material) to sign a petition he answered that as a Jehovah's Witness he wasn't allowed to get involved in political matters. Presumably they believe that earthly matters are of no consequence and it is only spreading the belief in God (and thus ensuring a place in heaven) that is worth spending time on.

In some ways I admire people who spend a lot of their free time trying to "save" others (particularly as people are often quite rude to them and they are the subject of much derision) but I find this attitude of non-involvement very difficult to accept.

On the other hand, as a non-religious person, I can also see feetlebaum 's point that members of any religion should not be in a privileged position to have their views considered more seriously than the views of others.

While I consider it wrong that bishops of the Anglican Church should be given a powerful political voice simply because they are bishops, I can still be glad that the new Archbish is using his privileged position for a worthwhile cause rather than interfering in other people's sex lives which seems to be virtually every church's favourite preoccupation.

When I was young and an active member of the Church of Scotland, many ministers were vociferous on social and political matters. Some, whom I very much admired, were Christian Socialists. Our minister, who had previously been minister of the Scots Church in Nairobi, had been instrumental in drawing to the attention of the British government of the time, the degrading treatment being meted out to suspected Mau Mau detainees, for which he was greatly revered in Kenya. The fact that I am now a Humanist in no way detracts from my admiration of men and women of faith who have spread the social gospel of Christianity.

Didn't John Knox start it with his diatribe against the 'monstrous regiment of women?'

Galen When my son graduated from Edinburgh Uni' he [and other graduates] were tapped on the head with a cap made from the breeches of John Knox.

I think that was just misogynism Galen, aimed at Mary Q of S and her mum and, I think, Elizabeth.
soop did they 'cap' the women graduates with the same thing?

anno Yes!

Soop

The new archbishop was helping at the food bank in Sunderland before he left for the soft underbelly. Glad he helped.

Knox is usually misquoted as saying "regiment" but what he was agin was the "monstrous regimen" or rule, of the queen. He would not have approved allowing a firstborn woman to rule in precedence over her younger brothers, dear me, no.

Why shouldnt bishops express a view on the governance of the country? The main groups representing atheists feel no compunction about doing so.

Quite, Elegran - I didn't notice the misquote in Galen's post.

mea culpa!

Absolutely Flickety. Every single person, every group has a perfect right to express their views. And wise people will listen carefully, evaluate what they hear and then make their minds up.

Agree with FlicketyB. Freedom of speech for all!

(We've got two threads on this now! )

Of course the clergy in general, not just bishops, have every right to express their views. However, extra weight is given to what bishops say by politicians – even Maggie Thatcher was quite scared of the then archbish of Canterbury – and I see no reason why 26 bishops of the Church of England should get an automatic right to sit in the House of Lords. If members of the House of Lords were elected I would, of course, have no objection to an elected bishop sitting.

I would hate to see all ties with history cut. But it is a difficult one.

soop I hope John Knox's breeches had been washed.