ABC's Shari'a Row

The Archbishop of Canterbury has clearly overstepped the mark, once again, with his latest misunderstanding of the nature of Islam. However, Conservative MP Mark Pritchard is surely equally mistaken to suggest that the church should not get involved in politics.

The Bible is full of political guidance with contemporary significance on issues as diverse as education and economics, criminal justice and land reform, welfare and international relations — and, indeed, immigration and social cohesion. Rowan Williams' mistake was not his getting involved in politics, but his apparent confusion over some fundamentals of religion.

Iran Has The Last Word

Is there not a degree of irony that, while the Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams has now welcomed last week's "Common Word" claims by 138 of the world's top Muslims that Islam is a religion of "peace", Iran's top cleric, the Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has urged Muslim countries to boycott a US-sponsored international peace conference on Palestinian statehood next month?

Humanism Vs Religion

Last week we had Lord Harrison of the British Humanist Association launch a debate in the House of Lords on "the position in British society of those who profess no religion," in which he criticised the Archbishop of York, called on the non-religious to stand up against what he claims is a "newly aggressive" religious lobby, and all but accused the leaders of monotheistic religions of an unholy alliance.

Now we have the Archbishop of Canterbury urging politicians to rediscover the "moral energy and vision" that inspired the anti-slave trade campaigners. He maintains that "Wilberforce – not to mention Equiano and the others – confronts us now with the question, 'If Christians, committed to personal responsibility and social justice, cannot keep before the eyes of the state and its legislators the greater issues beyond security and profit, who can?'"

It seems to me that this apparent stand-off between secularists and religionists is in fact another false dichotomy, not unlike the supposed clash of civilisations. We could all adopt intransigent positions and even burn effigies of those with whom we disagree on matters of truth and reality. Alternatively, we could recognise that everyone – be they Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, humanist, secularist, atheist, or agnostic – has a belief system that informs their decisions and influences the role that they choose to play in society.

The trouble, I suspect, is that for all too long the Church of England has taken a backseat when it comes to political debate in this country. It is only now that independent evidence is increasingly pointing to the loss of traditional, faith-inspired morality as a principal factor fuelling family breakdown and societal collapse that believers are waking up to the need for them to re-engage in the debate. This may upset certain vested interests who have grown accustomed to having their own way; however, if this means we see genuine debate over policies in this country once again, rather than the present perception that "all parties are the same," then this must be a healthy development for democracy. So long as we can avoid letting the extremists from polarising every issue...

Stonewall Vs Church of England

Less than two weeks after Parliament passed the new Sexual Orientation Regulations, the conflict between religious beliefs and human rights legislation is to be tested once again this week. The Bishop of Hereford faces claims that he has breached employment practice by unlawfully blocking the application of a homosexual to work in his diocese on grounds of sexual orientation.

The case reopens the controversy facing the Archbishop of Canterbury, who just last week challenged the Anglican Church to become "a safe place for gay and lesbian people to speak about their lives openly."

The charges are being brought by John Reaney, backed by the gay equality organisation Stonewall, who claims he was initially offered a job as a youth worker but was then turned down following a meeting with the bishop in which he was asked "humiliating" personal questions about his private life. A spokesman for the Diocese of Hereford maintains that Mr Reaney "did not get the job he applied for in the diocese. He was not offered the job and therefore an offer cannot have been withdrawn. We expect the same sexual standards of behaviour from support ministers, or lay ministers, as we do of clergy."

Lords Reform Implications For Church

George Carey, former Archbishop of Canterbury, speculates in today's Times on possible implications of Labour's confused attempts to reform the House of Lords:

"Any substantial reduction or abolition of the role of bishops in the House of Lords will result in the unravelling of the Establishment of the Church of England... I don’t believe that the Prime Minister intends to damage the Church-State link but he is playing into the hands of intolerant secularists whose aim seems to be division, not unity."