1. Comment #138597 by notsobad on March 4, 2008 at 3:38 pm

money

Other Comments by notsobad

2. Comment #138619 by Clive on March 4, 2008 at 4:02 pm

None! Just another misguided fool in an outdated establishment.

Let mankind leave its adolescence now please.

Other Comments by Clive

3. Comment #138624 by Lucas on March 4, 2008 at 4:07 pm

power

Other Comments by Lucas

4. Comment #138634 by 4horsefins on March 4, 2008 at 4:23 pm

Boetheius said we have 5 false goods...

1.power
2.honor
3.riches
4.fame
5.pleasure

Other Comments by 4horsefins

5. Comment #138685 by Gymnopedie on March 4, 2008 at 5:28 pm

Hell, what's the point of religion? Eh, nevermind...

Other Comments by Gymnopedie

6. Comment #138692 by Enlightenme.. on March 4, 2008 at 5:37 pm

Maggie: "It wouldn't be spring, without the sound of the odd cuckoo" *
Letts: "Mh-aah, the blessed Margaret"
I also felt a great twinge of nostalgia hearing her in her pomp.
(RD was of course central to Maggie's success - having written her manifesto, and the screenplay for Wall street)

'Collaborating for a better society' [A of C being a 'spokesman for all faiths'] - I think this has become the general concensus on what the arch-bish was about hasn't it?
After all, that's just following the example set by the pope when he showed what side the vatican was on in the Muhammad cartoons row - ie protection of Islam against 'blasphemy' should trump western secularist values.

Anyway - What's the point of the AoC? - I'm beginning to warm to antidisestablishmentarianism, because of the fact that this at least holds them in check, though it all started out as an unspoken faustian bargain, it seems to have worked out well in the long run, and I'm beginning to wonder if that has been a central difference between European and American statecraft.

*Cuckoo - parasite in the nest - purpose? - keep your enemies closer.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

7. Comment #138735 by Styrer- on March 4, 2008 at 6:34 pm

Because of the bold and satisfyingly irreverent title, I expected a similarly bold and irreverent treatment of the issue. Sadly, no.

This strikes more as a good old tongue-in-cheek, 'it's all a bit of a laugh, really', self-satisfied smug-fest of an old members' reunion, with about as much real critical analysis as you'd find at one.

Almost a waste of nearly 28 minutes, but for the long-overdue and pathetically marginalised wisdom of Susan Blackmore, granted a full 30 or so seconds towards the end.

Best,
Styrer

Other Comments by Styrer-

8. Comment #138739 by black wolf on March 4, 2008 at 6:36 pm

I don't actually think they're about money. They are afraid of death and punishment, it's all about guilt and sin, and they just can't shake it. They believe that they need authority and power to save humanity from an imaginary concept. They've implanted the meme that 'spiritual persons' need to be generally respected and listended to into society, that they have some mysterious access to truth and wisdom beyond the material, that children need to continue completely unsupported ideas generation by generation.
These people need to be confronted much more often and much more inquisitevely. Whenever a society runs into actual or perceived problems, it turns to these priests, bishops, reverends or whatever. And still nobody asks them why they should be the ones to communicate values or morality. I want to see them being asked, every single time they publicly make some statement, where do you get this wisdom from. Why are we supposed to accept that as wisdom at all if you can't give any evidence towards its truth value. Define spiritual knowledge. Do you hear a god speaking to you. Why do you hold titles and privileged positions when you're not more than any educated philosopher.
No matter of the answer (I expect those to be the usual nebulous obfuscation), these questions will sink in, and people will start thinking.

Other Comments by black wolf

9. Comment #138753 by dragonfirematrix on March 4, 2008 at 6:55 pm

So... What is the point of religion besides distorting minds and holding back the progress of humanity?

We do not need to accept the rigid laws of religion (like Sharia). What was Williams thinking? Power, money, control...

We need to strive for something greater than religion. Perhaps we should start by admitting this basic truth: Like Santa Claus and like The Easter Bunny and like the Tooth Fairy, god is imaginary.

Other Comments by dragonfirematrix

10. Comment #138770 by robotaholic on March 4, 2008 at 7:14 pm

The point of the Archbishop of Canterbury is to wear this yellow funky garb: http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/9/9a/350px-Eames2.jpg

lol how funny

Other Comments by robotaholic

11. Comment #138825 by Saerain on March 4, 2008 at 8:12 pm

As Letts was saying around 22:40, it seems the Archbishop feels a duty to protect all time-worn superstition from the cold-hearted secularists of his 'spiritually weakened' country. I have encountered a startling number of people with this mindset. With them in mind, I would not be surprised to see religion at some point reverse its tendency to fracture, instead coming together against the likes of us as their common enemy.

Here's to the Church of Abrahamadharmatao.

Other Comments by Saerain

12. Comment #138843 by MaxD on March 4, 2008 at 9:33 pm

i think the ArchbishofCant Mr. Rowan Williams was trying to defend his own institution by suggesting that Muslims get invited into the fold of special treatment under the law. It will be the Siks next then the Hindus, but clearly the easy way out of all this special pleading for exemptions, inclusions and sensitivity is to seperate religion and government. That will be an end to the special treatment that the Anglican Church recieves from the British government.
I suspect such cynicsim from the clerical mind.

Other Comments by MaxD

13. Comment #138847 by kintaro_crab on March 4, 2008 at 10:06 pm

I think another important question to ask is; "What is the point of the British Monarchy?"

Waving?
"Queen Elizabeth II Will Leave Behind Long Legacy Of Waving" The onion.com
http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=24219050

Other Comments by kintaro_crab

14. Comment #138942 by gcdavis on March 5, 2008 at 1:12 am

If you are an Anglican then yes he is defender of your faith, if you are of another faith he may still be useful as a general advocate in defence of faith based issues, if you are a secularist, then he is an old fart in a dress!

Other Comments by gcdavis

15. Comment #138943 by suffolkthinker on March 5, 2008 at 1:12 am

To quote the Boomtown Rats:

"They can see no reasons
Cos there are no reasons
What reasons do you need to be shown?"

Other Comments by suffolkthinker

16. Comment #138958 by Dinah on March 5, 2008 at 1:44 am

Beware the Man in Frock my son!
The jaws that cite, the laws that catch!
Beware the Bearded Face and shun
The numinous Wafflehatch!

(with apologies to Lewis Carroll)

Other Comments by Dinah

17. Comment #138966 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 1:58 am

I wish they'd showed his photo to someone other than a bunch of Mancs. If it's not on Coronation St. or in a bag of chips, it's unlikely they're going to know anything about it.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

18. Comment #138976 by Mitchell Gilks on March 5, 2008 at 2:10 am

I think when the question "what the hell do you do anyway?" can be honestly, and not facetiously raised, then that alone should raise some red flags.

To be clear though, I've read a lot of crap about him, but that picture that was linked by Robotaholic was the first time I've ever seen him. So I wouldn't have been able to say who he was either. In fact many people that I know a lot about, and love to read the work of, or watch the anime of, I wouldn't know them if I saw them.

Other Comments by Mitchell Gilks

19. Comment #138989 by hungarianelephant on March 5, 2008 at 2:29 am

fides - Have you ever actually been to Manchester?

Other Comments by hungarianelephant

20. Comment #138991 by JanChan on March 5, 2008 at 2:31 am

Lol, one of them thought the archbishop was an astrologer.

Other Comments by JanChan

21. Comment #138993 by AshtonBlack on March 5, 2008 at 2:34 am

I wish they'd showed his photo to someone other than a bunch of Mancs. If it's not on Coronation St. or in a bag of chips, it's unlikely they're going to know anything about it.

Of course if it was a bunch of Londoner's then it would have to be a bag of chips (with a pickled egg) or Eastenders...

:p

Point of the Arch Bish : Sod all.

Other Comments by AshtonBlack

22. Comment #139010 by DamnDirtyApe on March 5, 2008 at 2:58 am

Bwahahahaha 'He Put something into space and it crashed...'

Other Comments by DamnDirtyApe

23. Comment #139013 by Tyler Durden on March 5, 2008 at 3:05 am

4:11

Douglus Hurd thinks the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury is more important than the Prime Minister?

Fucktard™

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

24. Comment #139016 by Prankster on March 5, 2008 at 3:11 am

The point?

A single man holding on to a fast-fading outmoded form of dog-worship which has no place in modern 21st Britain-that's his function

It's a position and privilege that's no longer required

Other Comments by Prankster

25. Comment #139021 by LorienRyan on March 5, 2008 at 3:15 am

What's the point of the Archbish o Cantebury?

So we can ask the question? Nah, f**k it, no point:P

Other Comments by LorienRyan

26. Comment #139022 by irate_atheist on March 5, 2008 at 3:16 am

What's the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

That would be an ecumenical matter.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

27. Comment #139024 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 3:25 am

Interesting that the two clashes with PM's highlighted were with Mrs. T over the inner cities and with Blair over Iraq. I say fair play to the Archbishop in both cases. I was a great fan of Thatch but still see the value in a prominant apolitical figure raising relevant points in the media. I don't think our country would be a better place if politicians were free to wield their power free from such sobering voices as this and past Archbishops. If it's his office which enables him to challenge that power, then thank God for his office.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

28. Comment #139025 by Tyler Durden on March 5, 2008 at 3:30 am

then thank God for his office

Which God?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

29. Comment #139028 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 3:43 am

The God

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

30. Comment #139029 by irate_atheist on March 5, 2008 at 3:43 am

27. Comment #139024 by fides_et_ratio -

Yes. They were successful in getting Thatcher to regenerate deprived inner city areas and Blair decided against invading Iraq [/sarcasm]

His position also allows him to lobby against equal rights for gays.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

31. Comment #139030 by Philip1978 on March 5, 2008 at 3:46 am

The God

Yes, Praise Quetz indeed! :)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

32. Comment #139033 by Tyler Durden on March 5, 2008 at 3:55 am

Comment #139024 by fides_et_ratio

I was a great fan of Thatch but still see the value in a prominant apolitical figure raising relevant points in the media

Richard Branson?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

33. Comment #139035 by irate_atheist on March 5, 2008 at 3:57 am

32. Comment #139033 by Tyler Durden -

Please, no. Not more bearded messiahs.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

34. Comment #139038 by Thor'Ungal on March 5, 2008 at 4:03 am

Tyler Durden:

clearly it's the Anglican God, neither the Catholic nor the pentecostal Gods would give him the time of day (although they may have briefly joined forces on the anti-gay rights thing)

Prankster:

I'm all for dog-worship. The daily services, the sacrament of the walk, scratching behind the ears, the barking at the door as you come back from work, the 15,000 year traditions... oh thats a euphemism for god, well in that case yes no place in a modern world.

=P
Thor

Other Comments by Thor'Ungal

35. Comment #139040 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 4:09 am

Depends if there's any banks going on the cheap.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

36. Comment #139041 by Prankster on March 5, 2008 at 4:13 am

Off changing my avatar-now realised it's scaring the fuck out of me and probably a few others....

Back on topic-the whole question of what is the point of the bish is? simple-money, religious power and acting as some committee appointed middleman telling you his version of what he thinks "GOD" is saying to us via his book of fairy-stories-like I said previously no need for this position of authority or power in this day and age

Someone posted a cracking quote on this forum ages ago along the lines of "when the last king is strangled by the entrails of the last priest, only then will man be free"-simply put the day religion dies will be the happiest day ever for mankind

Other Comments by Prankster

37. Comment #139042 by Tyler Durden on March 5, 2008 at 4:20 am

Comment #139024 by fides_et_ratio

I don't think our country would be a better place if politicians were free to wield their power free from such sobering voices as this and past Archbishops

What a shockingly stupid, ignorant, and mindless thing to say! You, Sir, have outdone yourself with this.

So, because Williams, and past Archbishops, believes in some imaginary sky-daddy his opinion is worth something? And this "sobering" opinion should affect policy for an entire country - based on nothing but anecdotal findings, and wishful thinking.

Politicians are elected precisely to "wield their power", the Archbishop of Canterbury is not - or didn't you listen to the article?

Is it really too much to ask that you think for yourself? Seriously, how old are you? Grow up! Live your life. Enjoy it. You're free to do whatever you like. Your celestial dictator does not care one iota about you, your morals or your penis!

There was a time before all this religious superstitious mumbo-jumbo existed - and we survived just fine, thank you very much!!

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

38. Comment #139048 by BaronOchs on March 5, 2008 at 4:42 am

Poor Colin Pillinger. First his Beagle crashes then he gets mistaken for an Archbishop!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Pillinger

Other Comments by BaronOchs

39. Comment #139055 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 4:56 am

37. Comment #139042 by Tyler Durden on March 5, 2008 at 4:20 am

In an effective democracy power shouldn't be concentrated in the hands of a political elite to the extent that it excludes any other voice. Business leaders, Academic leaders, leaders from all fields including faith should be able to add to the debate. What makes their voice authoritative is often the office they hold. I think this is a good thing. Not that politicians should have to bow and do what they're told by these people, but that they can raise issues which otherwise would not gain publicity. When Robert Runcie raised the issue of the inner cities, Thatcher had to engage with it. When His Holiness the Pope spoke against war in Iraq, politicians around the world had to engage with it. Religious leaders are also representative, perhaps not of you, but of someone, this further justifies their role on public life. It's worth remembering that membership of faith groups is far larger than membership of political parties.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

40. Comment #139065 by irate_atheist on March 5, 2008 at 5:12 am

39. Comment #139055 by fides_et_ratio -

Their voices should only be 'authoritative' if their view is informed, unbiased and subject to peer review. An even then, it's just another opinion.

Cult leaders pass none of the above tests, no matter how old the cult is.

And besides which, to quote Clint Eastwood in The Dead Pool: "Opinions are like assholes. Everybody has one."

Other Comments by irate_atheist

41. Comment #139067 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 5:15 am

Comment #139055 by fides_et_ratio

In an effective democracy power shouldn't be concentrated in the hands of a political elite to the extent that it excludes any other voice.

You are confusing two issues here:

1. The UK is a representative democracy. Those who make the decisions should be the people we have elected.
2. There should be no restrictions on any one voicing their views, whether they are Christian, atheist, businessman or union leader. However, none of these people should be granted any automatic deference purely because of their position.

Personally, I have fairly strong views about the role of the House of Lords and undue influence on the legislative process by particular groups of people but I don't these are appropriate for me to voice here.

Other Comments by epeeist

42. Comment #139075 by Tyler Durden on March 5, 2008 at 5:22 am

Oh boy!

Comment #139055 by fides_et_ratio

In an effective democracy power shouldn't be concentrated in the hands of a political elite to the extent that it excludes any other voice. Business leaders, Academic leaders, leaders from all fields including faith should be able to add to the debate.

Then, by all means, let them get elected to Parliament. (What about the leaders of the BNP, leaders of Neo-Nazi groups, leaders of the local women's sewing circle??)

When His Holiness the Pope spoke against war in Iraq, politicians around the world had to engage with it.

But when he speaks about not allowing condoms in Africa to combat HIV/AIDS due to his anitquated "beliefs" we have to listen to him then also? No thanks!

Religious leaders are also representative, perhaps not of you, but of someone, this further justifies their role on public life

You use the word "further" like you've already shown how these charlatans are justified giving their specious opinions in the first place. Not so.

What makes their voice authoritative is often the office they hold. I think this is a good thing.

No. It's exactly because of the office they hold that they should remain silent and out of the running of the country. Go practice your "faith" in private.

It's worth remembering that membership of faith groups is far larger than membership of political parties.

This is a complete non-sequitur. Try again.

You're not very good at this, are you?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

43. Comment #139079 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 5:28 am

41. Comment #139067 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 5:15 am

I think you've misread my post.

I disagree with you on your second point as I think the figures you've mentioned have a valuable part to play. It's unrealistic of you to think that the media shouldn't pay more attention to the union leader than the ordinary union member (automatic deference isn't a phrase I've used nor one I agree with), or the head of the CBI rather than the cornershop owner, or the Archbishop rather than myself. In fact, given that I didn't use the phrase mentioned, what specifically do you think I'm confused about in my post, and what do you disagree with?

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

44. Comment #139087 by irate_atheist on March 5, 2008 at 5:38 am

43. Comment #139079 by fides_et_ratio -

You said: Academic leaders, leaders from all fields including faith should be able to add to the debate. What makes their voice authoritative is often the office they hold.

Epeeist said: There should be no restrictions on any one voicing their views, whether they are Christian, atheist, businessman or union leader. However, none of these people should be granted any automatic deference purely because of their position.

If you regard their opinions as authoritative because of the office they hold, you are, in effect, asking for automatic deference purely because of their position

Epeeist is currently ahead on points.

Seconds away, round two.

Ding ding.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

45. Comment #139090 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 5:42 am

Comment #139079 by fides_et_ratio

I think you've misread my post.

I don't believe I have.

I disagree with you on your second point as I think the figures you've mentioned have a valuable part to play.

I didn't say they hadn't, what I did intimate was that they should not be able to decide on policy, this should be down to elected representatives.

(automatic deference isn't a phrase I've used nor one I agree with)

Agreed you didn't use it.

But what you are committing is the democratic fallacy. The opinions of the Archbishop or Chief Rabbi are no more valuable than the head of the CBI when it comes to talking about AIDS for example and both sets of opinions would be of significantly less value than that of the Chief Medical Officer. The same is true of virtually every other topic on which a church official opines apart from the rituals of their particular faith.

Other Comments by epeeist

46. Comment #139096 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 5:52 am

44. Comment #139087 by irate_atheist on March 5, 2008 at 5:38 am

I said their voice not their opinions were authoritative.

I agree that their voice should be listened to because they represent poeple. I don't agree that the media or others should treat them with automatic deference as that implies that their views should go unchalleneged. I see the value of their views being debated.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

47. Comment #139098 by fides_et_ratio on March 5, 2008 at 5:56 am

45. Comment #139090 by epeeist on March 5, 2008 at 5:42 am

'The opinions of the Archbishop or Chief Rabbi are no more valuable than the head of the CBI when it comes to talking about AIDS for example and both sets of opinions would be of significantly less value than that of the Chief Medical Officer.'

I didn't suggest they were. Specifically what do you disagree with about my original post? It seems to me that most of what you've said is echoing my own sentiments. Except of course for the stuff you've made up to fuel the angry one's point-totalling ire.

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio

48. Comment #139107 by irate_atheist on March 5, 2008 at 6:27 am

46. Comment #139096 by fides_et_ratio -

I said their voice not their opinions were authoritative.

Hmm. Most convincing bullshitter gets the job, eh? No real knowledge required.

Sorry - teasing, I know. But perhaps not...

Some times I agree with his opinion, sometimes I don't. But he regards his opinion as more than a personal opinion. He regards it - and often presents it as - god's opinion. Whoopsie.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

49. Comment #139108 by Tyler Durden on March 5, 2008 at 6:30 am

But he regards his opinion as more than a personal opinion. He regards it - and often presents it as - god's opinion.

Argument from Authority.

No thanks!

irate,

Why are the religious hard-wired to be so accepting to being told what to do?

Other Comments by Tyler Durden

50. Comment #139111 by al-rawandi on March 5, 2008 at 6:37 am

irate_atheist,



This idea of "Shadow of God on earth" is always interesting to me.


The point of these religious officials is to authoritatively forward us emails from God (essentially).

I don't know why God can't email me himself. Why the kiddie fiddling intermediary?

Other Comments by al-rawandi