We should really celebrate some of the magnificent examples that surround us at the moment. Perhaps a sludge grey ribbon lapel button or a badge with an upside down principle, or even better, one of those mobile ‘game’ badges, where you can manoeuvre the principle into one of a number of positions; certainly a day off school for all the children.

First up in the ‘anybody-mind-if-I-scream-at-the-television’ stakes was the Archbishop of Canterbury. Forgetting for a moment that he is supposed to be non-political, and thus his stint at the coal face of the New Statesman prevented someone eminently qualified from taking the Editors seat, we have the spectacle of an unelected archbishop, on behalf of a never seen leader (who demands unstinting obedience to set-in-stone rules that were apparently carted down a mountain 2,000 years ago) complaining that David Cameron’s actions as leader of the coalition government were ‘undemocratic’! Yes, well, David does have the odd vote stashed away in his pocket, certainly one or two more than you, flower.

Continuing with the Editorship theme for a moment, we have Jemima Khan taking over editorship at the Independent. Remind me again, what was it that separated us socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed young blogger’s from the qualified, only-truth-telling, impartial main stream media? Wasn’t it the years of training and the years of apprenticeship?

Surely if socially inadequate, slightly balding, grey haired and bearded old men who believe the voices in their head and young gals around town with nothing more to offer than a one time marriage to a Pakistani cricketer and years of expensive spa treatment can just set up shop with a lap top and desktop publishing and call themselves editors, then the main stream media have just lost the high ground; proved conclusively that any socially inadequate, pimpled, single, slightly seedy, bald, cauliflower-nosed moron can do their job?

My favourite hypocrisy of the day has to be this one.

Brothers-for-life.org. Never heard of it? What a salacious, promiscuous life you lead! They are an organisation dedicated to campaigning for men to remain with one partner for life.

This campaign which targets mainly men aged 30 and over seeks to address the risks associated with having multiple and concurrent partnerships, sex and alcohol…

No more shagging around. ‘Do the right thing’ screeches their web site!

They appoint Life Ambassadors to promote their beliefs around the world. Men with power, money, spotless reputations.

Good for them!

“Lending their names to the Brothers for Life campaign is ‘simply the right thing to do’, say some of South Africa’s leading sports stars who have signed up as Brothers for Life.”

Not just South African leading sports stars either – look at the International footballers who have followed them.

South African footballers Teko Modise and Matthew Booth, South African rugby captain John Smit, South African cricket captain Graeme Smith, Bulls rugby player Tiger Mangweni, and….er….um…whoops-a-daisy….international football superstars Ryan Giggs (Manchester United), Patrice Evra (Manchester United), Mame Biram Diof (Manchester United), Lionel Messi (FC Barcelona), Yaya Toure (FC Barcelona), Thierry Henri (FC Barcelona) andKeita (FC Barcelona), have all stood up in support of Brothers for Life and taken to heart its slogan, “yenza kahle” (do the right thing).

Would that be the same Ryan Giggs who offered his ‘brother-for-life’ £250,000 today to keep his mouth shut?

Shurly we should be told?

Spiral Architect
June 14, 2011 at 01:26

Dear Dr. Williams,

I have read the article you have written for the ‘New Statesman’. I assume
your comments were intended to provoke debate – so I will oblige. I hope you
may find time to consider my views.

Firstly though, I wonder if you have read this piece by Graeme Archer – http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8569267/What-the-people-on-the-254-would-say-to-the-Archbishop.html

Secondly, I do not reproach you for entering the political arena, your
position certainly entitles you to make comment if you see it as your duty to
draw attention to perceived injustices. However, in your piece you implied
that democratic values must be respected, and so I assume that you will modify
your views – and even retract them – should they be met with popular
disapproval. I should point out that whilst your views correspond with those
of the ‘metropolitan elite’ of London’s left-of-centre media commentariat, I
do not believe they reflect the views of most Britons. Moreover, currently,
socialist parties are being rejected by voters all over Europe.

Some commentators are likening your stance to that made by Lord Runcie in
1983-84. I can’t concur, but concede with hindsight that whilst Lady Thatcher
achieved much, perhaps she might have shown more compassion to the families of
striking miners. Although it must also be acknowledged that the stakes were
very high in that period for it is likely that the miners’ leaders were doing
the bidding of the Soviet government – but that is a different story.
Nevertheless, I do not see the material poverty that existed amongst mining
families in those dark times in today’s Britain.

Anyway, to my main point; I feel your implied allegation that the poor are
being abandoned by the Coalition is incorrect. The Bible is full of wisdom
i.e. common sense, it outlines how best a man may live as an individual and in
his community, so that all may live in harmony and contentment. The actions of
those who choose to exist – note the word is ‘exist’ not ‘subsist’ – on the
public purse are not endorsed by the Bible, “Let him that stole steal no more:
but rather let him labour, working with his hands the thing which is good,
that he may have to give to him that needeth.” (Ephesians 4:28). It is
entirely to this government’s credit that they wish to make employment more
profitable than indolence, “For even when we were with you we gave you this
rule’ ‘If a man will not work, he will not eat’.” (2 Thessalonians 3:8).
Surely, then these texts support the position of Iain Duncan Smith on the
matter of welfare reform. For the Bible also tells us that it is a man’s
fundamental duty not to be idle, he must work and be productive, “The Lord God
took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it”
(Genesis 2:15), and “The sluggard’s craving will be the death of him because
his hands refuse to work” (Proverbs 21:25).

Of course it is also true that society must take care of the weak and
infirm, “In everything I did, I showed you that by this kind of hard work we
must help the weak, remembering the words the Lord Jesus himself said: ‘It is
more blessed to give than to receive.’” (Acts 20:35). As I think you probably
know, records show Britons donate their time and money in copious quantities
to all kinds of charities and causes. Clearly then, most Britons are indeed
kind, generous and Christian in their outlook, and are happy for their taxes
to be used to help those less fortunate than themselves. Britons are wholly
content to, “Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own
business and to work with your hands just as we told you”, (1 Thessalonians
4:11), and live by the rule, “…not to eat anyone’s food without paying for it.
On the contrary we worked hard day and night, labouring and toiling so that we
would not be a burden to any of you.” (2 Thessalonians 3:8).

In short, whether or not they take communion, British citizens are
by-and-large good, generous Christian people; whilst I would also wager that
most British Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims also follow the teachings of their
creeds espousing the importance of kindness, charity and honest labour.

Without doubt, in by-gone times, socialism was a very necessary ideology –
common people had always been exploited, denied suffrage and often basic
justice too. Socialism achieved much for the common man and most Britons alive
today owe a great debt to the likes of John Lilburne, Robert Owen, Robert
Blatchford and later others of the Victorian and Edwardian periods. However at
some point in the last century socialism was usurped and bastardised by wicked
people for personal aggrandisement and the attaining and keeping political
power. Their wickedness lay initially in the destruction of the grammar school
system which common people relied upon to improve themselves. Latterly,
socialist politicians have bribed and ruthlessly exploited common people by
duping them into believing that it is acceptable, and indeed preferable, for
them to hand control over their lives to the state, by relying on charity as a
first resort instead of attempting to use their capacities as individuals.

To me it is very obvious that modern socialism, in Britain anyway, is a
sham and that the prospects of common people have been and continue to be
sacrificed for political expediency. The ‘progressive’ beliefs you seem to
share with the over-confident, privileged and fundamentally dishonest
‘metropolitan elite’, have resulted in wasted lives, and have actually
contributed to the regression of British society and to the disintegration of
the values of family, church and community.

The three key Christian virtues are ‘faith, hope and charity’. A more
worldly interpretation might suggest that after sustenance, shelter and
material necessities, the foundations of human existence are built on; love,
kinship, charity, religion, laws and labour. Surely, without the latter the
others are distorted, for without completing a good day’s work a man will not
be able appreciate his position and will be incapable of relating to anything
– or anyone – else in a balanced and positive manner. Such men have little or
no faith in themselves and thus will have no true sense of self-worth. Such
men cannot be fulfilled, can be of no use to either their families or
communities, and are unlikely to be charitable to others. Such men are thus
condemned to empty, nihilistic existence, and frustrated by the negativity of
their lives, they begin to interfere in the lives of others. As a consequence,
those in employment, those contributing to society, come to resent them, and
may indeed lose their own faith in the need to be charitable and productive
themselves.

I remember in the 1980s, the Thatcher government was criticised for
procuring 3m unemployed and thus depriving the common man of ‘the dignity of
labour’, with the Tories standing condemned for ‘throwing a generation onto
the scrap heap’. I must ask you this, does not institutionalised welfarism
achieve the exactly same results?

For another reason it is also dangerous for individuals to rely on
governments; for as the last Labour administration demonstrated, sooner or
later in addition to material support individuals are also provided with their
opinions and ‘told how to vote’. I get feeling though that that might have
been part of the modern socialist plan.

You stated that the nation ‘was in fear’ of the government’s policies – I’m
not; but I am in fear of living in a society where sections of it are reduced
to uneducated, aggressive, amoral shadows who deal in baseness, disorder and
violence, and inflict the same on their children with no thought for what
might become of their offspring’s lives. This is why I feel you are
unequivocally wrong to attack the government’s policies on education, health
and social welfare. For the greater good of society, those who are able to
must work, those who have difficulties working must be encouraged and assisted
to work and those who absolutely cannot should be supported – just as the
original creators of the welfare state intended. Surely William Beveridge
would be appalled by today’s system of social protection – one that pays a man
to be torpid and allows his muscles and brain and soul to putrefy whilst he
lives. It is a system that enslaves him and forces him to drink daily from the
rivers of Hades. It is simply not Christian to allow any man to live like
this. It is also downright foolish too for sooner or later the indolent will
come to outnumber the productive.

I believe that you have a perfect right to speak out and offer guidance,
but also a duty to be balanced and considerate of everyone’s views.
Regrettably you have chosen to align yourself firmly with one particular
political party, one that is utterly discredited, (as underlined by the latest
disclosures on the execrable conduct of Gordon Brown and Ed Balls). Whilst
there is no divinity in the Anglican creed, episcopalian utterances carry much
weight, and once a preference for the soap box over the pulpit is apparent, a
prelate’s judgment can be called into question, damage may be done to the
dignity of office and many ordinary parishioners may become alienated and
disillusioned. Do you really prefer a pat on the back from socialist
politicians to the more humble but less obvious gratitude of your
congregation?

Lastly, I regret to state that you seem to forget that you are ‘Primate of
all England. Why do you rarely demonstrate that you understand the lives and
values of British people who do go out to work, do obey the laws of the land,
do contribute to society and do put time and effort into raising their
children? Please read Graeme Archer’s article.

Livewire June 11, 2011 at 06:32

I would imagine his political polemic goes down like a lead balloon with
his flock.
“Damn vicar’s getting above himself, stick to the loaves and
fishes old chap, we always vote for the double-barrelled chappy with the
collection of vintage Bentleys”.
Withdraw any state-funding from him, let
the Royals go unbaptised, get hitched in a registry office, and provide heat
for the municipal swimming pool when they snuff it.
Give him a sandwich
board to trudge the streets with an “End of the world is nigh” message, with
some ads on the back “Eat at Joe’s Cafe” to support himself financially.

UnRegenerate
June 10, 2011 at 22:29

Nasty …..

but accurate.

John B June 10, 2011 at 21:58

It seems Williams has lost awareness of the Man he is supposed to represent
and instead has opted to work instead for a lesser god.
As for that person
he is supposed to represent, to the best of my understanding, He actually asks
for honesty and mercy rather than sacrifice.

Engineer June 10, 2011 at 21:09

” I should tell you that I have principles. And if you don’t like them, I
can get others.”

Marx.

(Groucho of that ilk, I think.)

Span
Ows June 10, 2011 at 20:49

Would that be the same Ryan Giggs who offered his ‘brother-for-life’
£250,000 today to keep his mouth shut?

cheapskate! either that or his brother is…what’s that for RG, a month’s
wages?

The good AB of C is as…

…easy as one to free.

Michael June 10, 2011 at 20:11

Not sure about this. The good AB of C is as, I’ll grant you, as mad as a
box of frogs, but he quite certainly should be political (albeit with a
small “p”). As far as the visibility of his leader goes, well, true, but there
again I’ve never actually seen Croatia, but I’m reasonably sure it
exists.

I don’t really read the Indie, and the only Jemima I know was a rag doll on
Playschool (but not the one on which the cameraman drew pubes in marker pen
just prior to a feature on bathing; that was Hamble). Nevertheless, let’s not
be churlish and wish her the very best. After all, where would the rabbit
hutch be without a good supply of quality broadsheets?

The whole brothers-for-life thing is intruiging, and I suppose if you are
prepared to vow before assembled family and friends and (optionally) God
himself that you’ll remain faithful to your wife then it’s probably a good
idea that you do.

But there we go. People screw up. Your heroes will always let you down.
What’s worse. Not having standards at all, or believing in something then
falling short?

It’s a good job the Archbish’s boss provided a path to redemption.

Peace.
Michael

Daz Pearce June 10, 2011 at 20:04

I have no idea why the Archbishop is ‘political’ and given he is neither
elected nor an expert, why his personal opinion carries the sway that it
does.

Ryan Giggs and ‘brothers for life’ can be easily substituted for ‘back to
basics’ – the hilarious consequences of flawed adults moralising to each other
never cease to amaze.

http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/2011/06/who-is-archbishop-to-talk-about.html

JuliaM June 10,
2011 at 19:58

“Men with power, money, spotless reputations.”

Ah. In other words, men they haven’t caught at it. Yet.

Livewire June 10, 2011 at 18:23

Brothers-for-life should use a polygraph on their members (anyone spotting
the pun has a dirty mind).

Demetrius June 10,
2011 at 16:41

Re the Archbish’, Sir Reginald Fitz Urse, where are you when we need
you?