The Church of England's going t'dogs...

Thought I'd offer a quick update on the Church of England's ongoing crisis – it turns out the Vatican's not very happy about it's decision to allow female bishops to be ordained, as it "signifies a breaking away from the apostolic tradition maintained by all of the churches since the first millennium, and is a further obstacle for reconciliation between the Catholic church and the Church of England."

My first thought was "didn't they split up almost 500 years ago" but apparently the Vatican says attempts at reconciliation had "up until now born fruit", that is up until the Church of England made moves to stop being explicitly sexist and homophobic.

Meanwhile, I learnt from the same article that there is such a thing as a "Catholic wing of the Church of England" and one of their number, the Rev Prebendary David Houlding, isn't very happy with the Archbishop of Canterbury:

"Rowan Williams is going to Lambeth with his own church in chaos. First gay weddings, and now women bishops. They [the archbishops of Canterbury and York] showed a lack of leadership. They made two very clear pleas to synod, to have some safeguards for us, and nobody listened. Williams will have no authority. The last thing he wanted was an ecclesiological row. I feel very sorry for him."

"First gay weddings, and now women bishops" – the Church of England's going t'dogs I tell you. Whatever next? Stay tuned for more news of this gripping saga...

Women bishops, super bishops and regular bishops

It's usually pretty hard to follow the internal wranglings of religious organisations, as if you don't believe any of the stuff they do or have any experience attending their ceremonies and rituals the whole thing seems fairly confusing. But thankfully for all concerned I think I've managed to get a grip on the Church of England's female bishops saga, which I will now summarise for your consumption:

Some people in the Church thought, it being the 21st century and all, that it would be a good idea to allow women into the upper echelons of their administration. So, the Church of England's General Synod (that's the fairly liberal lot, not the all-new homophobic lot) had a very long debate which, according to the BBC, "saw one bishop in tears", and voted to allow members of half the human race to become bishops. Some people were really not very keen on this idea and had appealed for a new category of bishop – the "super bishop" – to be created for those who would not be able to face dealing with a woman when seeking, at the risk of coining a new word, bishoply services. However, the Synod rejected this idea and now the ball's in the court of the 1,300 Church of England clergy who have threatened to leave.

So there you have it – a victory of sorts for feminism, but in my view a real shame that there wont be people out there known as "super bishops".

Lots of female members of the Church of England were opposed to members of their sex becoming bishops. Our associate editor Sally Feldman has a term for such people – Gender Traitors – and conveniently you can read what she has to say about them in our new issue, which is online now.

Bishop uses unfortunate analogy to criticise climate change deniers

I'm not saying the Bishop of Stafford's heart wasn't in the right place when he wrote a letter for parish magazines in his diocese, but he certainly chose an unfortunate analogy when he compared those who do nothing about climate change to Josef Fritzl.

Saying that people who make no efforts to prevent global warming are "as guilty as" the Austrian child imprisoner and rapist, Bishop Gordon Mursell sought to justify the comparison:

"Josef Fritzl represents merely the most extreme form of a very common philosophy of life: I will do what makes me happy, and if that causes others to suffer, hard luck. In fact you could argue that, by our refusal to face the truth about climate change, we are as guilty as he is - we are in effect locking our children and grandchildren into a world with no future and throwing away the key."

Unsurprisingly the bishop has found himself in a bit of hot water and was on this morning's Today programme to defend his words, helpfully pointing out that he wasn't "trying to imply that people who ignore climate change are child abusers":

"I am simply trying to use an analogy to get people to wake up to the consequences of what we are failing to do, because if we don't there won't be a future for our children either."

Personally I think it's good to see bishops speaking up on issues like climate change. There are plenty of people out there who will listen to what they have to say, but for future reference it's probably worth remembering that the general public don't take kindly to being compared to incestuous rapists.

Christians feels misrepresented by media over Embryology Bill

I've been off for a couple of weeks and I was pleased to see that while I was away religious attempts to restrict scientific progress and abortion rights failed as the controversial elements of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill made it safely through the Commons.

Now a story from a Christian news source tells me that the Christian Broadcasting Council is concerned that the Christian viewpoint was misrepresented in the media during the debate over the matter.

Chairman Olave Snelling feels "Christians and pro-life campaigners are portrayed in the media as people who do not care about the cure of diseases, research and the plight of unwanted pregnancy" and that "the public and MPs were not adequately informed about the issues and the consequences of certain parts of the Bill, despite the best efforts of many Christian and pro-life groups who worked tirelessly with MPs."

Which isn't how I remember this debate. Think back to Easter weekend, when clergy from across the Christian spectrum were given ample (excessive) column inches and airtime when they chose to use their most holy day to "inform" the public on the perceived dangers of the bill. They were using their top guys (bishops, cardinals etc), so presumably this amounted to their "best efforts". Anyone seeking the news had little choice but to hear and read these views, but unfortunately for them their "best efforts" comprised some of the most stunningly ill-informed and ignorant opinions heard in recent public debate. If this sounds strong, let us recap for a moment:

Cardinal Keith O'Brien (Scotland's top Catholic): "This bill represents a monstrous attack on human rights, human dignity and human life." Other descriptions of the bill included "monstrous", "grotesque", "hideous" and of "Frankenstein proportions".

Dr Tom Wright, Bishop of Durham (Anglican): "Gender-bending was so last century; we now do species bending".

Add to this failed attempts at debate by representatives of anti-abortion groups (see the BHA's Andrew Copson's demolition of Paul Tulley from the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children live on BBC News) and it's difficult to argue that Christians weren't given a fair chance to make their points. They even had a free vote in Parliament play with. But ultimately they were wrong, and fortunately reason won the day.

Royal girlfriend converts from Catholicism to marry a royal

Yesterday I wrote about the debate at the RSA held to mark the launch of a new group, British Muslims for Secular Democracy. During this debate the journalist Yasmin Alibhai Brown made the point that Britain is not yet a proper, religiously neutral secular state.

And what better way to illustrate the absurd, established state we live in than by turning to our distinguished royal family? You see, according to the Sun (yes I'm linking to the Sun) the girlfriend of someone from the royal family has made, in their words, a "dramatic" 11th hour conversion from Catholicism to the Church of England in order to ensure that her beau doesn't lose his vital position as 11th in line to the throne.

As any self-respecting secularist should know, the 1701 Act of Settlement declared that any royals who married Catholics would have their names stricken from the line of succession, and that piece of legislation still stands to this day.

However, anyone concerned that the girlfriend may have received an unfriendly nudge in the right direction from senior royals shouldn't worry too much – Buckingham Palace insists it was all her own decision and that "She was welcomed into the Church of England some time ago."

[Names withheld from this article due to irrelevance]

Church of England tells young people to listen to God for careers advice

Anyone concerned about a perceived lack of direction in the youth of today can rest assured that this problem will be solved by the end of this week, when churches across the UK hold Vocations Sunday 2008.

The Church of England has come up with a five-session course entitled 'Get a Life!', aimed at encouraging 13-18 year-olds to think about their future career paths. Youngsters will be urged to listen to God's voice in choosing their careers, and the course will employ "fun activities, meaningful exercises, biblical parallels and specially written prayers to give young people a stronger understanding of their gifts and passions."

With all this in mind, I'm putting my neck on the line and predicting that unemployment in Britain will have disappeared by 2018.

Get your shoes shined by a bishop this Easter

With the exception of the bank holidays, for us heathens there's very little that's appealing about the Easter period. But if you live in the Midlands you can take advantage of Christian observances by having your shoes shined by a Church of England clergyman.

Clergy will be working as shoe shiners on the streets of Birmingham, Coventry, Leicester and Northampton for the next three days in what the Bishop of Birmingham described as "a small demonstration that people who follow Jesus are prepared to roll up their sleeves and serve their communities."

It's supposed to be inspired to be inspired by Jesus washing the disciples' feet at the Last Supper, but if that's the case surely the shining vicars should be encouraging people to whip of their socks and settle down for a proper foot cleansing session?

Would you let a bishop shine your shoes? Let us know by voting in the poll at the top right of this page. There are 5 options to choose from:

• Yes, you've got to take advantage. I'll bring along every pair I own
• Yes, I admire their commitment and will happily allow them to demonstrate it on my shoes
• No, I'm not a Christian so it would be wrong to take advantage of their faith to get my shoes cleaned
• No, as an atheist I find the very idea of taking part in something related to Easter deeply offensive. In fact, I'm working on the bank holidays purely as a protest.
• No, I wear trainers.
  

Even the Church of England knows establishment is indefensible

There's a good piece by Theo Hobson on Comment is Free, who expands on the idea that the Church of England is only putting up some vague opposition to the repeal of the blasphemy law out of fear of losing what little power it still enjoys.

Hobson takes this idea further. Given that the Church has hardly tried to use the blasphemy law in the past century, what opponents of the repeal are really worried about is a loss of symbolic power. And the real key to this symbolic power is the Church's established status, something its hierarchy would be even more reluctant to give up, despite the fact that "most of the church knows that its establishment is indefensible. But there is an institutional refusal to admit it. There is a fear of looking foolish. A senior bishop who advocated disestablishment would open himself to the embarrassing question: then why are you presently enjoying a status that you think is wrong?"

He even points out that Rowan Williams was leaning towards pro-disestablishment in his pre-Archbishop days – something he quickly let go once he got the top job. Hobson says: "I think this has been his real weakness, the thing that opens him to the charge of cowardice (even more than the gay issue). Instead of trying to start a debate about the old church-state arrangement, which I think is an urgent question, affecting all of us; he fell into line with the evasive spirit of the institution."

This is the second time I've blogged about one of Hobson's Comment is Free articles, and I like what he has to say. His biography describes him as a "post-anglican", a campaigner for disestablishment and says that "for a few years now Theo has been trying to ‘come out’ as a post-ecclesial Christian theologian". Now, I'm not 100% sure what this means, but in a way it seems he's broadly in agreement with us humanists. Minus the God bit, of course.

Faith schools favour middle class parents

A story in yesterday's Observer confirmed suspicions that faith schools favour admitting children from wealthier backgrounds.

Rebecca Allen of London's Institute of Education has found that English faith schools "admit 10 per cent fewer poor pupils than is representative of the local area. Local authority schools, meanwhile, take in 30 per cent more and have a disproportionately deprived intake."

The statistics suggest that church schools are deliberately selecting children from middle class families, which helps to maintain their superior performance in league tables. Barry Sheerman MP, chair of the Children, Schools and Families select committee, said "It astonishes me that faith schools are so good at making sure they have fewer children."

Rowan Williams: Adapting to survive

Our friend Andrew Copson at the British Humanist Association has a piece on the Archbishop of Canterbury on the Guardian's Comment is Free site. It was published on Darwin Day yesterday, so the Guardian's web editors gave it an evolutionary slant – fearing the irrelevancy of his own Church in modern Britain, Rowan Williams has adapted to speak up for the rights of all religions, in order to protect the special status of the Church of England in British law.

Archbishop's Sharia comments are a blow to the established church

Writing in today's Daily Telegraph, Janet Daley offers an interesting take on the ongoing row over Rowan Williams' comments on the potential use of Sharia law in the UK. In Daley's view "the messy overlap between matters of state and of faith" caused by the established status of the Church of England has been highlighted by Williams' comments:

"He has laid bare the question that should never have been asked if the prevailing fuzzy compromise between established church and state was to remain tenable: how can a revealed religion officially accept that its position is subservient to secular law? Answer: it can't - not without surrendering its understanding of absolute truth."

Time for disestablishment then?

Archbishop of Canterbury advocates Sharia law for UK

For reasons known only unto himself, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, today decided to state live on Radio 4 that he would support the introduction of Sharia law into the UK for issues such as divorce and financial affairs.

He believes that giving British Muslims the option to use Sharia law to settle such matters is "unavoidable" and would help social cohesion, meaning Muslims no longer have to choose between "the stark alternatives of cultural loyalty or state loyalty".

Williams wasn't advocating the wholesale introduction of Sharia into Britain, but rather expressing his view that it could prove beneficial to Muslims in certain legal areas: "It would be quite wrong to say that we could ever license a system of law for some community which gave people no right of appeal, no way of exercising the rights that are guaranteed to them as citizens in general. But there are ways of looking at marital disputes, for example, which provide an alternative to the divorce courts as we understand them. In some cultural and religious settings they would seem more appropriate."

The government and other political parties moved quickly to distance themselves from Williams' comments, with Gordon Brown's spokesman saying the prime minister "believes that British laws should be based on British values".

Humanists and secularists have also responded critically to the comments. Hanne Stinson, chief executive of the British Humanist Association, said: "Fundamental to the principle of equality before the law that the same rights and processes of law be available to all and this automatically rules out any possibility of delegating the rights of some citizens to unaccountable religious authorities. Singling out certain groups for separate treatment will also surely undermine work towards good relations and social cohesion rather than assist it."

While it's obvious Williams isn't suggesting that Britain suddenly drops its centuries-old legal tradition in favour of Sharia, it seems he really should have thought twice before coming out with this live on national radio. Quite why he decided to make these comments, with all the backlash and far-right cries "told you so" he must have known they would provoke is anybody's guess. Just another example of why bishops should stay out of politics really...

Thoughts people?

Anglican gay campaigner steps down, admits defeat

In an interview with the New Statesman, the head of the Anglican Lesbian and Gay Christian Movement (LGCM) discusses why he is stepping down after nearly 30 years in the job.

Reverend Richard Kirker believes the Anglican community has actually moved backwards in its attitude toward gay clergy: "The situation is appalling. Life for gay priests is immeasurably worse than when I started doing this job ... It is now official policy to ensure that gay people who don't give a commitment to celibacy are not selected for ordination."

In many ways, Kirker blames liberal Anglicans for allowing the vociferous anti-gay elements the the communion to step up their campaign, saying "Robert Runcie and Rowan Williams both betrayed their ideals in exactly the same way – by being supportive in private but not saying so in public. Our enemies, those who hate us, scent this weakness and they exploit it."

He also admits to the New Statesman that he is unconvinced by the government's continued handover of public services to religious institutions: "Questions need to be asked about what these faiths projects are actually preaching, and there is an urgent need for research on the amount of public money being ploughed into homophobia via indiscriminate support for faith institutions."

Wise words.

Will repeal of the blasphemy law lead to dissestablishment?

Writing on Comment is Free, "post-Anglican" reformist Theo Hobson suggests that the possible repeal of Britain's archaic blasphemy law could eventually lead to the abolition of the equally archaic established Church of England.

Hobson says that since "the blasphemy law exists to defend this official church in particular, not Christianity in general", removal of the law could be seen as "another belated chapter in the demise of our established church".

He goes on to state that "the Church of England was instrumental to the emergence of our liberal political tradition", which is something many humanists may not agree with (AC Grayling, for one), but adds that 9/11 made him realise that it "was suddenly necessary to affirm secular liberalism, and to end the old narrative of Anglican privilege, to affirm the basic principle of liberalism, that all must be treated equally, irrespective of religious belief. The established church was suddenly standing in the way of the renewal of our national identity. It was no longer a pretty relic, but an ugly hindrance."

Let's just hope Hobson's right. Though it must be noted that circumstances have changed slightly from yesterday. The Government is whipping Labour MPs to oppose Evan Harris's amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill as, surprise surprise, they want to discuss it with the Church of England first. However, fearing a backbench rebellion, the Government has promised to bring forward its own plans to abolish the law (after it's consulted with the Bishops, obviously).

So, if today's Commons proceedings do mark the beginning of the end for the blasphemy law, maybe next we can move on to dumping the Bishops out of the House of Lords. And then who knows? It could be next stop disestablishment.

At least we can dream...

Church of England Ltd: Independent financial and spiritual advice

Ever conscious of its waning influence in the religious sphere, the Church of England has turned its attention to more worldly matters, launching a campaign to advise people on how to handle spiralling debt.

The campaign document "A Matter of Life and Debt" (see what they've done there) includes a ten-point check list aimed at alerting people to signs that they may be spending more than they can afford. The BBC describes the document as "a combination of practical tips with some reassuring prayers and biblical guidance".

So, while Catholics pray to rid their religion of paedophile priests (see below), it seems Anglicans will set about praying to get themselves out of the red. Not that they're stopping there – the document also contains a prayer "for a just and lasting solution" to international debt.

Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

After months of nominations, the time has finally come to decide who walks away with the coveted 2007 New Humanist Bad Faith Award.

To help you decide who will be crowned 2007's most scurrilous enemy of reason we've pulled together a shortlist of 10 runners and riders. Have a read, follow the links for more information on the nonsense they've been spouting, then place your vote in the poll at the top right of this page:

• Chuck Norris: These days the martial arts legend seems to spend less time cracking skulls and more time lamenting the moral decline of Western civilisation. His weekly column on conservative Christian website WorldNetDaily is a goldmine of evangelical rantings, and his Bad Faith nomination comes by way of his declaration that if he was US President he would "tattoo an American flag with the words 'In God we trust' on the forehead of every atheist".

• The Bishop of Carlisle: This Cumbrian prelate shot to fame when he suggested this summer's floods were God's punishment for Britain's liberal attitude to homosexuality.

• Dr Joyce Pratt: Appropriately named doctor who recommended an exorcism to a woman complaining of stomach pains.

• Richard Dawkins: One heretic New Humanist reader even put forward rationalism's very own Dawkins, for turning "the 19th century's doubting of religious dogma into another kind of dogma". The cheek...

• Cardinal Keith O'Brien: Scottish cardinal who tastefully compared the abortion rate in Scotland to "two Dunblane massacres a day".

• Westboro Baptist Church: That delightful bunch who picket the funerals of US soldiers killed in Iraq, displaying such tactful signs as "God hates fags" and "God blew up the troops".

• Archbishop Francisco Chimoio: Head of the Catholic Church in Mozambique who claims some European-made condoms are deliberately infected with HIV in order to quickly finish off the African people.

• Dinesh D'Souza: Conservative author who said the following about the Virginia Tech massacre: "Notice something interesting about the aftermath of the Virginia Tech shootings? Atheists are nowhere to be found".

• General Sir Richard Dannatt: Chief of the General Staff, and self professed evangelical, who said: "In my business, asking people to risk their lives is part of the job, but doing so without giving them the chance to understand that there is a life after death is something of a betrayal".

• Pope Benedict XVI: Clearly the bookies' favourite. Perhaps he should be excluded to give the rest a chance?

So there we have it. The poll is open until 16 December, and the winner will be announced in the January/February issue of New Humanist.

Bad Faith Awards: last chance to nominate

As many of you will know, since July we've been inviting nominations for our inaugural Bad Faith Awards, encouraging readers to put forward the men and women they feel have made the most outstanding contributions to talking nonsense about religion.

Nominations for the 2007 awards are set to close on 8 December, after which we'll run a poll on here to determine the overall winner. With this in mind, now's the time to put forward your nominees to join the existing field of bigots, charlatans and proselytisers. To do so, simply add a comment to this blog post, preferably with a web reference that backs up your choice.

As things stand, here's the current list of runners and riders:

• Chuck Norris: These days the martial arts legend seems to spend less time cracking skulls and more time lamenting the moral decline of Western civilisation. His weekly column on conservative Christian website WorldNetDaily is a goldmine of evangelical rantings, and his Bad Faith nomination comes by way of his declaration that if he was US President he would "tattoo an American flag with the words 'In God we trust' on the forehead of every atheist".

• The Bishop of Carlisle: This Cumbrian prelate shot to fame when he suggested this summer's floods were God's punishment for Britain's liberal attitude to homosexuality.

• Dr Joyce Pratt: Appropriately named doctor who recommended an exorcism to a woman complaining of stomach pains.

• Fake witches: A woman in Harrogate was driven to suicide when she was unable to keep up payments to witches providing "astral protection" for £23.95 a month. Newspaper reports labelled them "fake witches", which suggests those real witches are out there somewhere.

• Richard Dawkins: One heretic New Humanist reader even put forward rationalism's very own Dawkins, for turning "the 19th century's doubting of religious dogma into another kind of dogma". The cheek...

• Cardinal Keith O'Brien: Scottish cardinal who tastefully compared the abortion rate in Scotland to "two Dunblane massacres a day".

• Westboro Baptist Church: That delightful bunch who picket the funerals of US soldiers killed in Iraq, displaying such tactful signs as "God hates fags" and "God blew up the troops".

• Archbishop Francisco Chimoio: Head of the Catholic Church in Mozambique who claims some European-made condoms are deliberately infected with HIV in order to quickly finish off the African people.

• Omer Butt: Dentist who told a female patient he wouldn't treat her unless she wore a headscarf.

• Pope Benedict XVI: Clearly the bookies' favourite. Perhaps he should be excluded to give the rest a chance?

So, it's a long field but someone's got to win. Keep the nominations coming by commenting on this post.

Church of England pleased with religious postage stamps

It seems it doesn't take much to please the powers that be at the Church of England, who have today congratulated the Royal Mail for giving their Christmas postage stamp range a religious theme. Apparently they were unhappy that last year's set featured secular winter wonderland images, as Christian-themed stamps help "remind people of the true meaning of Christmas".

Now, I won't go on about this, given that ultimately it's a news story about postage stamps, but surely it's the job of the Church to "remind people of the true meaning of Christmas"? They must be getting a bit desperate if they're relying on stamps to do it for them.

Anyway, if you want to know what Christmas is really all about read comedian Carrie Quinlan's diary from the new issue of New Humanist.

US Anglicans will stop gay ordinations

Bishops from the US Episcopal Church have agreed to maintain a moratorium on the ordination of gay clergy, raising hopes among Anglicans that their worldwide communion can avoid a devastating split. The agreement came at a six-day crisis meeting of US bishops in New Orleans, the early stages of which was attended by the Archbishop of Canterbury.

However, the Guardian's religion correspondent Stephen Bates reports that the decision may not be enough to prevent a split. The Bishops have only agreed to continue a moratorium and this does not amount to a permanent commitment. Conservative Anglicans, particularly from African churches, have been calling for the 2.2 million strong US church to be expelled from the communion, and traditionalists in the US are already making plans to set up their own church.

Rowan Williams: Charles should only be defender of the Anglican faith

In a major interview with the Daily Telegraph this weekend, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams insisted that, on becoming king, Prince Charles should continue the monarch's role as "Defender of the Faith", i.e. the Anglican faith, rather than taking on the title "Defender of the Faiths".

Charles first expressed a wish to represent the multitude of faiths in 1994, and has since suggested that his coronation should be a "multi-faith" ceremony. Williams dismissed this idea, saying: "The acts of worship we perform have their integrity. I don't want to see amateurish messing around compromising what's going on".

Dr Evan Harris, MP for Oxford West and Abingdon and a prominent secularist, condemned the archbishop's comments: "When Rowan Williams defends the role of the monarch of Defender of the Faith, he is not defending religious freedom in general, but instead trying to cling on to vestiges of an intolerant, anti-Catholic, Protestant fundamentalist and rather savage era of British history."

Of course Harris is correct to condemn the current status of the monarch as the "defender" of one faith, but do we really want Charles taking on the enhanced title of "Defender of the Faiths"? Surely we've already got enough clerics and self-appointed faith leaders speaking up on matters of religion and the state without King Charles wading in as well? From the humanist/secular perspective, perhaps the real issue here is that it's time the monarch ceased to have any involvement in matters of religion? It ties in with the argument for why we shouldn't have bishops, or any other religious figures, automatically represented in the House of Lords. I refer you back to Jake Bromberg's excellent discussion of this from the May/June issue of New Humanist.