Archbishop of Canterbury playing politics AGAIN
Discussion
ClaphamGT3 said:
His stipend is about £70k a year, which isn't a huge amount when you think he's the spiritual head of the 3rd largest organised religious group in the world.
It is a huge amount when you think that he's basically completely useless.1) C of E is a kind of care in the community for old ladies, even they themselves don't believe in God. I actually have a little bit more respect for fire and brimstone baptists who are mad enough to believe the nonsense in their book and attempt to live by it.
2) He talks utter rot about everything, and I don't really know anyone who agrees with what he says. They are literally just the confused ramblings of an old man with pretensions of great intelligence and little to back it up.
3) His church is in terminal decline because the old ladies have a habit of dying or forgetting to go and no-one who can operate a television has any interests in the inane ramblings of their local
4) He supports Sharia law. Which disqualifies anyone from having their opinion taken seriously, but when he's the supposed leader of a Christian church, in a Christian country it really beggars belief.
5) He looks like a goat.
AJS- said:
It is a huge amount when you think that he's basically completely useless.
1) C of E is a kind of care in the community for old ladies, even they themselves don't believe in God. I actually have a little bit more respect for fire and brimstone baptists who are mad enough to believe the nonsense in their book and attempt to live by it.
2) He talks utter rot about everything, and I don't really know anyone who agrees with what he says. They are literally just the confused ramblings of an old man with pretensions of great intelligence and little to back it up.
3) His church is in terminal decline because the old ladies have a habit of dying or forgetting to go and no-one who can operate a television has any interests in the inane ramblings of their localchild molester spiritual leaders.
4) He supports Sharia law. Which disqualifies anyone from having their opinion taken seriously, but when he's the supposed leader of a Christian church, in a Christian country it really beggars belief.
5) He looks like a goat.
As an Anglican, I don't think that anyone will be sorry to see him go - his time in office has widely been seen as pretty disastrous. But the problem is that if the Church prefers a theologian, you get a wibbling loon like Williams. If you appoint a leader capable of acting as an effective head of a global organisation with hundreds of millions of members, you get a canting politico like Runcie. Look at the current front-runners - Chartres or Sementu - (literally) God help us.1) C of E is a kind of care in the community for old ladies, even they themselves don't believe in God. I actually have a little bit more respect for fire and brimstone baptists who are mad enough to believe the nonsense in their book and attempt to live by it.
2) He talks utter rot about everything, and I don't really know anyone who agrees with what he says. They are literally just the confused ramblings of an old man with pretensions of great intelligence and little to back it up.
3) His church is in terminal decline because the old ladies have a habit of dying or forgetting to go and no-one who can operate a television has any interests in the inane ramblings of their local
4) He supports Sharia law. Which disqualifies anyone from having their opinion taken seriously, but when he's the supposed leader of a Christian church, in a Christian country it really beggars belief.
5) He looks like a goat.
TwigtheWonderkid said:
Eric Mc said:
Is he not allowed state his opinion?
He is, and I'm allowed to state mine. And that is he should keep his trap shut. Big children with imaginary friends should be commenting on complicated adult stuff. 
ks about some thing that do's not exits whynutcase said:
so why have previous Archbishops who held this position not 'seemed' to be so outspoken? It just seems like this dick wants to be more than 'just' a religious figurehead. Next, he'll be putting his name forward for the the big brother house...
I think you will find that they did. I can remember spats between political parties and anglicans. The difference now is that the media doesn't doff its hat to the church. They are an easy target (because of the weird things they say) and it is easier than actual news.Also there was a sea change in the Thatcher era. It was the start of the underclass that we have now. 3m unemployed and an elite flashing the cash. Since then most political parties have presided over a widening of the gap between rich and poor and the church leaders are talkinga about it. The papers highlight it. They criticise this bloke for being too airy fairy and theological and criticised Runcie for being just the opposite.
It is easy targets and as the population moves away from the christian church so the risk of alienating readers recedes. Religions have always been political and made political statements. With the CoE, they have always been less worried about religious matters so didn't upset anyone. Now we have an archbishop of Canterbury who beleives (seemingly) the theology of the CoE. This is new and somewhat startling. Not to mention unexpected.
I knew the names of Carey, Runcie, but had to look up who was ABoC before him. I bet very few people at the time knew his name. That's not something one can say about Williams.
nutcase said:
so why have previous Archbishops who held this position not 'seemed' to be so outspoken? It just seems like this dick wants to be more than 'just' a religious figurehead. Next, he'll be putting his name forward for the the big brother house...
In fairness, many primates habve had a reputation for political pronouncements. Cosmo Laing was highly political throughout the 30s and Runcie regularly fell foul of Mrs T during his Primacy, the furore over his remarks at the Falklands thanksgiving service being the best example. George Carey was also quite politicalfluffnik said:
ClaphamGT3 said:
As an Anglican
Why?I'm genuinely intrigued as to how anyone can consider the CofE credible.
Caulkhead said:
Because it's that rare thing in this world - a religion that doesn't concern itself overly with nonsense like God. It's great at providing pretty churches to get married and christened in, it fits in with our constitutional needs and it avoids anyone having to give a stuff about the pope. It really could've been designed for us!
Nicely put. But then, of course, Islam never gets involved in politics either.... ClaphamGT3 said:
odyssey2200 said:
As someone who gets paid a huge amount of money to live in the lap of luxury he should STFU
His stipend is about £70k a year, which isn't a huge amount when you think he's the spiritual head of the 3rd largest organised religious group in the world.ClaphamGT3 said:
As an Anglican, I don't think that anyone will be sorry to see him go - his time in office has widely been seen as pretty disastrous. But the problem is that if the Church prefers a theologian, you get a wibbling loon like Williams. If you appoint a leader capable of acting as an effective head of a global organisation with hundreds of millions of members, you get a canting politico like Runcie. Look at the current front-runners - Chartres or Sementu - (literally) God help us.
But God isn't helping you. I don't really care a jot what some guy in a dress says, what annoys me is that he is listened to and reported by some people as being the spiritual voice of the country.
It will be the black one.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff