New Archbishop of Canterbury
Posted by: Calum F on 09 November 2012
A simple question/observation, does it matter to anyone who the new AoC is unless you are a churchgoer, in the clergy or live in Canterbury ? The BBC on-line were leading on who the new guy may be but with everything else going on in the country....
Doesn't the AoC live in London?
Doesn't the AoC live in London?
Yes he does. In Lambeth Palace, just round the corner from Waterloo.
A simple question/observation, does it matter to anyone who the new AoC is unless you are a churchgoer, in the clergy or live in Canterbury ? The BBC on-line were leading on who the new guy may be but with everything else going on in the country....
The AoC is the leader of all the world's Anglicans, not just the ones who live in the UK. He's the Anglican version of the Pope. In principle the AoC wields power and influence over millions of people in North America, Africa and Asia.
He's also at the heart of the UK establishment.
So yes it does matter, and the BBC was right to lead on it (although it's now leading on the SRM allegations).
He's also at the heart of the UK establishment.
And this needs correcting.
Anybody whe opposes the right for two people to get married regardless of gendre is the wrong person for the job imo.
He's also at the heart of the UK establishment.
And this needs correcting.
Yep.
That will certainly be useful for the planet then, if he truly is a reformed big oil executive.
Anybody whe opposes the right for two people to get married regardless of gendre is the wrong person for the job imo.
I disagree.
Like me, he has no problem with same-sex civil partnerships, but does not agree with the use of the word "marriage" (and its associated trappings) other than for man-woman marriage.
Cheers
Don
That will certainly be useful for the planet then, if he truly is a reformed big oil executive.
The top Muslin in Nigeria thinks the new AoC will help bring better understanding between two major religions in Nigeria.
Bearing in mind the large proportion of the world's population who hold religious beliefs, (religion isn't going to go away anytime soon, despite Richard Dawkins) and the choice af any leader of a major religion or denomination is important to all of us.
Cheers
Don
Cheers
Don
I know. Tragic, sad, destructive and terrifying isn't it?
I would agree that the announcement is worthy of media coverage as I'm sure it is of interest to many many thousands of practicing anglians. It might of be of interest to those of other religions, too. Each to there own. And if people want to listen and follow his views, that's fine by me. However the bit that grates with me is that because the AoC is a member of the House of Lords his views influences the legislation that affects my life. I didn't vote for this chap, nor of course for any of the members of the House of Lords. I'm actually supportive of a second tier which can act as a check on the House of Commons and I can see that many members of the HoL have experience that makes them suitable for task. I can see both sides of the argument about whether members to the upper tier should be elected. But regardless of any of that I find it really quite uncomfortable that people can be appointed to the HoL on the basis of their religion. That custom seems to me to be a relic of ancient history that should have been left there. Or, if not, and on the basis of equality, shouldn't we also be admitting to the HoL representatives of Scientology, Mormons, Buddhists etc etc, and just to ensure the 'non-believers' are not excluded perhaps the aforementioned Richard Dawkins could get an invite. No, of course not, that would be silly wouldn't it? Hmm.
That will certainly be useful for the planet then, if he truly is a reformed big oil executive.
The top Muslin in Nigeria thinks the new AoC will help bring better understanding between two major religions in Nigeria.
I've been searching everywhere for a source of top quality thin cotton. Thanks Don 
Bearing in mind the large proportion of the world's population who hold religious beliefs, (religion isn't going to go away anytime soon, despite Richard Dawkins) and the choice af any leader of a major religion or denomination is important to all of us.
Precisely. But my concern (in my post that you quoted) was whether he has truly seen the light and risen above his oil industry interests or (my cynical side here) is an oil-industry plant in one of the world's major religions ?
Jan
He's just another non-elected right wing bigot bloke in a pointy hat to poke his religious nose into political affairs.
A world with truth, liberty, and equality requires a separation of Church and State.
Debs
It seems he has had a very interesting upbringing and an even more prolific adult life so far.
Although I respect Rowan Williams intellect, I always felt a lack of excitment in his speeches.
Not a religious person but I always enjoy different points of view from either side of a good debate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20251972
KR
Tony
I would agree that the announcement is worthy of media coverage as I'm sure it is of interest to many many thousands of practicing anglians. It might of be of interest to those of other religions, too. Each to there own. And if people want to listen and follow his views, that's fine by me. However the bit that grates with me is that because the AoC is a member of the House of Lords his views influences the legislation that affects my life. I didn't vote for this chap, nor of course for any of the members of the House of Lords. I'm actually supportive of a second tier which can act as a check on the House of Commons and I can see that many members of the HoL have experience that makes them suitable for task. I can see both sides of the argument about whether members to the upper tier should be elected. But regardless of any of that I find it really quite uncomfortable that people can be appointed to the HoL on the basis of their religion. That custom seems to me to be a relic of ancient history that should have been left there. Or, if not, and on the basis of equality, shouldn't we also be admitting to the HoL representatives of Scientology, Mormons, Buddhists etc etc, and just to ensure the 'non-believers' are not excluded perhaps the aforementioned Richard Dawkins could get an invite. No, of course not, that would be silly wouldn't it? Hmm.
If the HoL were elected, given the number of Catholcas, Methodists, and CoEs in the UK, you might have to put up with more than the current share of clergy.
In principle I think an elected HoL would be a "good thing"
Cheers
Don
the HoL were elected, given the number of Catholcas, Methodists, and CoEs in the UK, you might have to put up with more than the current share of clergy.
In principle I think an elected HoL would be a "good thing"
Cheers
Don
I agree Don. I'm not against an elected HoL but in elections you usually have to stand for something eg party, issue and so on and people then make a judgement on that. Even the Monster Raving Looney Party stood for something. What I have difficulty with in modern-day UK is anyone being placed into a position of power, through tradition or by election, solely because of their religion. I'm not having a pop at the Anglian church, Christianity, or indeed religion in general but the principle. If someone stood for election and said 'vote for me because I'm head of this particular religion' I sure they would attract quite a few votes from the believers of their particular region. But I think this very act would strip away the current veneer of respectability and reveal to the masses the nonsense of allowing any religious leader into the legislature of a modern, multi-cultural democracy. At risk of being labelled a heretic I just don't think religion is a good basis for government.