12 blog reactions to http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/andrew_brown/2008/02/we_need_the_church_of_england.html

form, as is customary, does not imply any religious observance or beliefs whatsoever – not even a belief in the existence of God” (Fox, op. cit., pp353-4). Which brings us on to the blogosphere’s response, starting off with Andrew Brown’s We need the Church of England, which echoes the pragmatic, “let’s not get carried away by the thunder from the pulpit” version of religion favoured by the English: “The defenders of a place for religion in public life do not have to suppose that religious belief is true,

Face to Faith Getting Men in Church vs. Gay Bashing Thou Shalt Not Steal? Tragedy: A Time of God's Absence or Presence? We Need the Church of England Stopping the Fight Against God's Name Defining God: Yours and Mine Of God and Men Meditation: A Key To Spiritual Growth Spiritual Nuggets

for his office or the institution that he heads. This particular Archbishop seems to think it beneath his dignity to say anything plain and short and he cannot tell the difference between a sentence that is deathless and one that was stillborn. Read it all. Filed under: * Anglican - Episcopal • Anglican Provinces • Church of England (CoE)

When I asked Ayaan Hirsi Ali yesterday for her opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, she laughed, saying she almost felt sorry for the poor guy. Here's a pretty brutal British postmortem on Rowan Williams' influence,, one written by a Guardian columnist who appears to be a secularist (he'd pretty much have to be to write for the Guardian) who laments the mess Dr. Williams made of the sharia speech. Why? Because it is not possible to eliminate religion from public

When I asked Ayaan Hirsi Ali yesterday for her opinion of the Archbishop of Canterbury, she laughed, saying she almost felt sorry for the poor guy. Here's a pretty brutal British postmortem on Rowan Williams' influence,, one written by a Guardian columnist who appears to be a secularist (he'd pretty much have to be to write for the Guardian) who laments the mess Dr. Williams made of the sharia speech. Why? Because it is not possible to eliminate religion from public

for his office or the institution that he heads. This particular Archbishop seems to think it beneath his dignity to say anything plain and short and he cannot tell the difference between a sentence that is deathless and one that was stillborn. Read it all.

and you will set free the evangelicals and their deeply conservative philosophy. That is the last thing I wish to see. If you doubt this, look at the USA. It has no established church, but the religion has a far greater role in national life. Or as Andrew Brown puts it in the Guardian today: we need an established church, precisely because it dampens zeal down. The undemocratic privileges of the Church of England are much better for everyone than democratically won privilege would be. Bishops in the Lords

English Paisleys competing against each other for the nationalist Christian congregations, and their money, and at last their votes? Because that is the spectre that rose from the debacle caused by Williams' speech and interview Read the full essay here.

English Paisleys competing against each other for the nationalist Christian congregations, and their money, and at last their votes? Because that is the spectre that rose from the debacle caused by Williams' speech and interview Read the full essay here

Guardian’s blathercorner