God and the Prime Ministers - every PM since the 60s has been a professing Christian

Fascinating piece in the Guardian about Prime Ministers and faith.  They argue that 'Far from not doing God, every Prime Minister since the 1960s has been a professing Christian'.

In a desperately short hand summary Antonio Weiss cites the following examples:

In his official biography, long after any need to pay "lip-service" to belief would seem necessary, Harold Macmillan claimed that: "I go to Communion as long as I can ... I reach for the Bible whenever I can." Wilson was brought up as a Baptist, at university joined the evangelical Oxford Group, and in 1963 declared: "I have religious beliefs and they very much affected my political views." According to Douglas-Home's biographer, his "Christianity was of the heart ... a matter of personal." Heath claimed in his autobiography that: "My Christian faith provided foundations for my political beliefs", and Callaghan was a former Sunday school teacher. Major appeared rather hesitant when discussing his faith on Radio 4, but still declared: "I do believe. I don't pretend to understand all the complex parts of Christian theology, but I simply accept it."

What is most interesting for Mouse is why the Blair era made religion an issue for political leaders.  Brown has been rather more discrete in discussing his faith, reserving comment to statements about how his religious upbringing have given him a 'moral compass' and shaped his political views.

Cameron seems more comfortable discussing his faith, and hopes this normalises the subject somewhat.  It seems to Mouse rather bigoted to suggest that religious belief makes a politician either inherently better or worse as a potential leader.  Mouse would much rather they were simply open and honest about their beliefs than feeling the need to either pay lip service to 'faith communities' and play up their faith when it is not really there, or equally to hide their beliefs away.

No threats please, we're Anglican

Could everyone with an opinion on women bishops please pause, take a deep breath and calm down.  Right, now lets just think about this sensibly.

Last month, David Keen rightly predicted that yesterday's headlines would be all about Women Bishops.  What David didn't know at that time was that the debate on women bishops scheduled to take place at yesterday's General Synod would not happen, due to a delay from the Revision Committee, which was due to present the legislation required yesterday.  Instead, all we heard was what we already knew - that the process would go ahead and would be debated at the next session of Synod.

So why on earth do we hear about a "New split on women bishops in the Church of England" from the Guardian?  Well the reason is the statement issued by Reform with the signatures of 50 vicars attached.  In the letter, and worse in the attached press statement, they threaten the church with dire consequences if they fail to make 'adequate' provision for those who oppose women bishops.

Mouse does not approve.

The only possible effect of this letter is to make everyone outside the church think that it is a deeply divided an outdated institution.  These arguments have been heard before, and the correct place for them now is with the Revision Committee.

However, Mouse was most stuck by the hollowness of the threats made.  There was no threat to leave, as this letter is from evangelicals who could not contemplate taking up the Pope's offer of a new home.  Instead the threat is that evangelical parishes would stop encouraging ordinations in the good old CofE, set up their own trust funds to fund their own ministries and potentially even stop paying the parish share.

To back up these threats they claim to have 'encouraged' 180 ordinands in the past 10 years, and paid £22m to Diocesan funds.  Big numbers.  But wait a minute.  Over 10 years, that's just 18 ordinands per year out of 50 parishes.  How they came to this number is not explained, and since the wording talks of 'encouraged' for ordination, rather than 'sponsored' we can only assume that each of the 50 has been asked to dredge their memories for the past 10 years about who they have 'encouraged'.  It is a fair guess that many of these people would have heard God's call to ordained ministry without the intervention of these 50 vicars, and a reasonable assumption that many will continue to do so in future.  And £22m across 50 parishes over 10 years is just £44,000 per parish per year (assuming Reform have brought forward their figures to a present value - after the effects of inflation).  After training, stipend, pension contributions and other costs, that probably means that these 50 parishes contributed less than they cost over this period.  What a hollow threat.

We really would be better off without this type of intervention.

Now Mouse will undoubtedly be accused of not understanding the level of feeling amongst those whose reading of the Bible does not allow them to submit to the leadership of women in good conscience.  But that is not true.  Mouse simply feels that threatening to bring the whole ship down is not a sensible way to express those feelings, particularly when timing these announcements to get maximum publicity, and do maximum damage.

David Keen's predictions for today - pensions.  Keep your eyes peeled.

The Anglican Church in Zimbabwe

Mouse has commented before on the situation with the Anglican Church in Zimbabwe, and challenged the Church of England to be more visibly supportive.  Today the Archbishops of Canterbury and York reflect on the contribution of the Church there in a joint article for the Guardian, marking a year since they launched their appeal for Zimbabwe.

The Archbishop's appeal has raised over half a million pounds, which is great.  More importantly the good old CofE has been supporting the Anglican Church in Zimbabwe which has been under terrible strain.  Please do read the Archbishop's article.

Also marking the anniversary is a photographic exhibition in Southwark Cathedral.  Mouse hopes to pop along at some point soon.

Cameron tells Church of England to modernise and back equality and gay rights

Ruth Gledhill reports on David Cameron's interview with Attitude magazine.  She quotes the following from the interview:

'Do you think that the right of gay children to have a safe education trumps the right of faith schools to teach that homosexuality is a sin?'

He answered: 'Basically yes - that's the short answer to that, without getting into a long religious exegesis. I mean, I think, yes. I think..... [long pause] ..... I don't want to get into an enormous row with the Archbishop here. But I think the Church has to do some of the things that the Conservative Party has been through - sorting this issue out and recognising that full equality is a bottom line full essential.'

David Cameron is an Anglican who worships at a liberal High Anglican church in Kensington.

Now, the obvious comparison is with Tony Blair's comments made in an interview for the same magazine where he challenged the Catholic Church to do exactly the same things.  There a few differences with the two situations, not least the fact that Tony Blair has only been a Catholic for 15 minutes or so, and it makes you wonder why he converted.

As far as Cameron's interview goes, Mouse doubts it will have much impact - either on the Church's policies on equality or on David Cameron's standing with Anglican voters and the Church leadership.  It is hardly a surprise that a politician being interviewed in a gay magazine will come out for equality.  What's more, the process that Cameron describes in the Conservative Party was a much broader modernisation than simply changing policy on equality.  Whilst a few in the Church of England wish it to remain exactly as it was in the 16th century, most recognise that it is in desperate need of modernisation if it is to pull out of the slow but steady decline it has been in for decades.

Wordpress designers - chance to win an iPad

The good folk over at Voxbiblia have asked Mouse to draw their latest competition to your attention, and he is happy to do so.

They are hoping to build up a good stack of free blog templates available for download by churches and Christian organiations, so have launched a competition to design them.  First prize is an iPad, and second prize and iPod Touch.

Here's the blurb:


Aim:

Voxbiblia has been hunting for ways to equip churches and Christian bloggers with tools to spread the Word. The 2010 Voxbiblia WordPress Theme Design Competition aims to do just that – To generate free templates for churches/bloggers to build up a nifty website easily.

There are THREE categories where you can compete in:

Category 1: The Pro

In this category, we’re looking for entries with professional/mature looking Christian themes that are suitable for church websites and church member blogs.


Category 2: Funky Designer

Here we’re looking for funky and cool themes that youth and young adults alike are proud to show off! Use your imagination, just keep it clean!


Category 3: Kids for Christ

Prizes go to the best design for little tots! Make it cute, cheery and full of love

Prizes up for grabs!

To encourage everyone to get started on this competition, Voxbiblia is sponsoring TWO prizes for EACH category! There’s no limit to the number of entries you can send in, but you can only win one prize per category – if you’re that good!

1st prize for each category: 16 GB Wi-Fi iPad

2nd prize for each category: 8 GB iPod Touch

Voxbiblia will also be sponsoring one free audio Bible (download) for every entry submitted! This is our way of expressing our thanks for the hard work that you have put in! All this, as well as the webfame from getting your designs viewed, posted and downloaded for use in websites all around the digital world!

The Cherie Blair kerfuffle

The National Secular Society have whipped up a storm, accusing Cherie Blair of practicing Cheria Law.  The accusation is that she treated a convict leniently in his sentence because he was religious. 

Articles in the Daily Mail (inevitably), Independent and pretty much everywhere else followed, all quoting the same paragraphs used by the NSS in their complaint to show how Cherie had let a man off lightly because he was 'religious'.

But hold on a minute.

Here's what the NSS actually said:

We are concerned that Mrs Blair’s remarks indicate that she might have applied a different sentence if the defendant had not been a religious person. We think it appropriate that the matter be looked into and, if necessary, guidance issued to judges to tell them that making sentencing decisions on the basis of a person’s piety or lack of it, is not acceptable.

Now call Mouse an old pedant if you want to, but they don't actually say that they think the man got the wrong sentence.  For Mouse this is the crucial issue.  What they seem to be saying is that if the man had not been religious he might not have got the same treatment.  That is not quite the same as saying that because this man was religious he got the wrong treatment.  The difference obviously being that the former is an accusation that discrimination may occur in the future, whilst the latter is an accusation that discrimination has taken place in this instance.  The distinction is subtle, I'll grant you, but crucial.

As far as Mouse can tell, Mrs Blair applied the sentencing guidelines correctly, and the man in question received the right sentence for a first offense, and as such no discrimination can possibly be shown to have taken place.  Her words are certainly odd, possibly wrong, but we're not given any context to work with so this conclusion is difficult to draw.  However, to accuse her of abusing her position of a judge and applying overly-lenient sentences on the basis of her personal biases is a tremendously serious allegation to be throwing about.  The key thing would not be the words used in the summing up, but the actual sentence given for the offense committed.

Mouse would also point out that he has not been able to find any first hand reports of the case.  The court records are not publicly available.  The earliest source is a local newspaper report, which does not carry the quote which forms the basis of the NSS complaint to the Office for Judicial Complaints.  It seems rather unlikely that the NSS were sat in the courtroom waiting for some words of religious discrimination to come out of the judge's mouth.  Furthermore, we've not had any public statements from any of the protagonists in this mini-drama, so where do these words come from?  And how reliable are they?

What's more, we know virtually nothing of the details of the case.  Every case has unique factors which form part of the sentencing decision made by the judge.  To pick out a single sentence from the judge's summing up and then accuse them of misusing their position seems pretty reckless stuff to Mouse.

Mouse hopes that the NSS have done their homework on this one.  If they have not received official court transcripts and taken independent legal advice on the appropriateness of the sentence applied, then this is a terribly misjudged complaint.

Mouse fears that this has all the hallmarks of a publicity stunt.  And it has worked.  For now.

General Synod preview Part II, from Synod member Justin Brett

Second part of Church of England Synod member Justin Brett's preview of next week's General Synod. The first part focused on the more headline-grabbing items on the agenda.  The second installment looks at the rest of agenda.

Justin is a Latin teacher and a Lay Member of General Synod for the Diocese of Oxford. You can find more posts by him on the General Synod Blog and also on his own blog The Dodgy Liberal. The title of the latter might tell you something about his church-related views.

The views below are Justin's own views, and may not represent the views of the Mouse.



I have sometimes heard it said that in the Gospels, while Our Lord has very little to say on the subject of sex, he has a surprisingly large amount to say on the subject of money. Although you won't guess it from the media coverage, a similar thing could be said about Synod - especially this time around. The sexuality issues I have written about already are prompted by Private Member's Motions, but the money talk is mostly prompted by the Church secretariat. The Church of England has a hole in its pension fund, and it doesn't know how to fill it. Part of the trouble, though, is that the hole is currently not real, but projected.

The scheme that is causing all the problems has only been in operation since 1998 - all pensions earned prior to that date are paid by the Church Commissioners. Obviously, this new scheme at the moment is not paying out much money at all - it isn't having to pay many pensions yet - so its income greatly exceeds its expenditure and it is building up capital. The trouble is that the surplus it is currently generating is very much less than the surplus that the actuaries say it needs if it is to meet all its future obligations. Gone are the days when most people only drew their pensions for a few years and obligingly dropped dead - even retiring at 68 or 70, a large number of the scheme's current members will be expecting to draw pensions for twenty years or so after retirement. That puts a heavy burden on a scheme which has to guarantee a certain level of pay out, and the net result is that dioceses are currently being asked to make payments to the pension fund equivalent to almost half a priest's annual stipend. The Church is not alone in facing this sort of problem, which is why almost all similar defined benefit schemes - or final salary schemes - are closing.

(A short diversion about pension schemes at this point. Essentially they fall into two types. Either the amount you put into the pot is defined, the money is invested over time, and you get whatever you get at the end of it - defined contribution, uncertain level of pension at the end - or the amount you get at the end is defined, usually in terms of a fraction of your final salary, which means that the amount you have to pay in varies according to hugely complicated and rather pessimistic actuarial calculations - defined benefit, uncertain (and high) level of contributions. The Church's scheme is the second type.)

So why keep the Church of England's scheme open? And for that matter, how can we afford it? A number of debates in the coming week will touch on this subject. There is some tinkering at the edges to be done - some has already been decided upon, other changes may be made next week. None is particularly major, all will leave future pensioners slightly worse off or bearing more risk. It has been left to an ordinary member of synod to put in an amendment to encourage us to think the unthinkable and close the current scheme, replacing it with a defined contribution model.

This whole situation causes me personally a great deal of doubt and difficulty. We ask our priests to dedicate their lives to the Church, and in return we pay them virtually nothing. Nevertheless they do at least have the prospect of a guaranteed level of income - up to 2/3 of the virtually nothing we pay them - when they retire. What does it say about the way we value their sacrifice if we take away even that certainty? And yet some dioceses are currently having severe trouble meeting the bills for stipends and pension costs, and if the contributions increase as forecast they will have to reduce the numbers of priests they employ in order to meet the cost of the pensions of the remainder. Which is frankly mad. I don't have a solution to this one, but I do know that we badly need your prayers on this dilemma.

So what else are we going to be doing at Synod? Quite a lot of legislative business - none of it particularly earth-shattering, but necessary none the less. There does seem to be a lot of it, but in comparison to the obscene quantity of lawyer fodder generated by Parliament on a daily basis it is really quite restrained. However, there are also some more obviously religious items. There are some additions to the Lectionary to be debated, and one member has already submitted amendments to the effect that there is too much from the Apocrypha there and not enough from the canonical books of the Bible. A Diocesan Synod motion will invite us to consider the importance of the Bible in the light of the forthcoming 400th birthday of the Authorised Version, and there will be a debate about the compatibility of Science and Christian belief. I am rather looking forward to that last motion. Given the huge amount of free publicity for Christianity provided by Richard Dawkins recently, it seems a sensible time to be thinking about these issues. If the debate goes well, it should provide not only intellectual stimulation but also theological stimulation and questioning, and that can only be a good thing.

Without a doubt this is going to be a busy and diverse Synod. We are going to come head to head with a number of difficult issues, and there is the possibility that some of what we do could have considerable significance not only for the Church of England but for the Communion as a whole, so this rather long ramble ends with a simple plea. Please keep us in your prayers over the next few days, and pray particularly that all of us listen with an open mind to each other, and seek for God's direction in all that we do.

Once again, thank you to the Church Mouse for his invitation (which I fear I may have overstayed) and thank you to all of you in advance for your prayers.

Controversy over plans to convert cinema into a church

When Mouse read this story in the Evening Standard he thought it was an interesting role reversal.  Normally we read of local protests to stop churches being converted into flats, health spas and the like.  Good on them, thought the Mouse.

Then he started using Google to find out more.

The building concerned is Waltham Forest's Grade II* listed EMD Cinema.  There appear to be some conflicting reports on the history of this one, but  it seems that it has stood empty for many years and was purchased by the pentecostal Universal Church of the Kingdom of God with the hope of converting it into a place of worship and community centre.

So the first controversy is amongst those who think it would be a shame to lose the Grade II* listed cinema and hope it can be returned to its original purpose.  Iain Duncan Smith is the latest to join the campaign.

But hold on a minute.  Is this the same Universal Church of the Kingdom of God which was named in the Victoria Climbie inquiry?  This is the church which had organised a service to cast out her demons, tragically timed for the very day she died as a result of dreadful abuse.  In the inquiry into her death, Pastor Alvaro Lima said that he suspected abuse, but took no action.  In fact the UCKG has been accusing of being a cult, and is 'controversial' to say the least.

Campaigners argue that the only reason the cinema closed is because UCKG bought the site for above the market rate then closed it down.  So this doesn't seem to be the good news story of 'church rescues derelict building' after all.  Mouse will keep looking.

At last! CofE ditches shares in mining company for ethical reasons

Campaigners will be jubilant.  At last some evidence that there is substance to the good old CofE's claim to have an ethical investment policy.

The CofE had been under pressure for some time for its holdings in Vedanta, a controversial mining company.  Ekklesia have plenty of details on their activities.  Mouse is really pleased with the statement from the CofE, not only because they have acted, but because they have essentially done exactly what they always claimed they would do.  They tried to change the company's ways, using their position as shareholder to influence management, and when that failed they binned the shares.

Here's the statement from the good old CofE.

The Church Commissioners and the Church of England Pensions Board have sold their shares in Vedanta Resources plc on the advice of the Church’s Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG). As a result, none of the three national investing bodies of the Church of England hold shares in the company.

The EIAG advised disinvestment because its engagement with the company had produced no substantive results and the EIAG believed that it would be inconsistent with the Church investing bodies’ joint ethical investment policy to remain invested given the EIAG’s concerns about the company’s approach to relations with the communities where it operates.

Allegations about Vedanta’s alumina refinery in Lanjigarh, Orissa, and planned bauxite mine in the nearby Niyamgiri hills came to the EIAG’s attention in June 2009. The EIAG has been examining the issues carefully since and has discussed them in a process of engagement with the company. The EIAG Secretary paid a visit to India in November 2009 to see the refinery and mine site at first hand.

EIAG Chairman, John Reynolds, said: “I am a passionate advocate for engagement with companies when we have ethical concerns. We have an excellent track record of getting our concerns heard and acted upon by the companies in which the Church investing bodies hold shares.

“We are grateful to Vedanta’s senior management for making themselves available to meet us on a number of occasions. However, after six months of engagement, we are not satisfied that Vedanta has shown, or is likely in future to show, the level of respect for human rights and local communities that we expect of companies in whom the Church investing bodies hold shares.

“In these circumstances the Ethical Investment Advisory Group advised that it would be inconsistent with the Church investing bodies’ joint ethical investment policy for the investing bodies to remain invested.”

The EIAG understands that the Indian government is still considering whether to give final approval for the mine project.

John Reynolds stressed: “We respect the Indian democratic system. Our concern is that a company registered and listed in the UK should conform to the established environmental, social and governance norms expected in the London market – or at least reassure its shareholders that it is committed to the journey.”

The EIAG will maintain contact with Vedanta. John Reynolds said: “We will be pleased to review our recommendation to the Church investing bodies if the company addresses the concerns we have raised.”

General Synod preview Part I, from Synod member Justin Brett

Ahead of the General Synod of the Church of England, Mouse invited Synod member Justin Brett to share his views on what lies ahead.  Mouse suspects there will be some headlines generated by this Synod (see David Keen's headline predictor for details), so thought a preview would be helpful.  This first post focuses on the issues which are most likely to generate the headlines.  More will follow.

Justin is a Latin teacher and a Lay Member of General Synod for the Diocese of Oxford. You can find more posts by him on the General Synod Blog and also on his own blog The Dodgy Liberal. The title of the latter might tell you something about his church-related views.

The views below are Justin's own views, and may not represent the views of the Mouse.


First of all, my thanks to the Mouse for his invitation to provide another guest post on General Synod. The brief for this one is a sort of a preview - and I should state the obvious at this point: all bias expressed herein is my own, and in no way reflects upon the objectivity of the Church Mouse or his Blog.

So, as everybody knows, General Synod only really debates two things these days - whether you need a Y chromosome to be a bishop, and what to to about those difficult gay people. The first of those topics will not, as it turns out, be on the agenda this Synod. The group revising the legislation to allow the consecration of women as bishops have not been able to complete their work in time, and there will be no new draft to debate until July. No doubt the howls that greeted that particular piece of news over the last couple of months will be repeated when the brave and long-suffering Bishop of Manchester makes his report, but essentially that's it for the issue of Women Bishops until July. Turning from gender to sexuality, though, there are tense times on the horizon.

The first concerns ACNA - The Anglican Church in North America. Despite its name, this is a very recent organisation that has swept up a number of groups who have, at various times, left The Episcopal Church in the United States and the Anglican Church of Canada. The Episcopal Church is part of the Anglican Communion - indeed it was the first Anglican Province outside the British Isles. The Anglican Church in Canada is also part of the Anglican Communion - indeed it only became fully separate from the Church of England in the 1890s. ACNA is not part of the Anglican Communion. Although about a quarter of ACNA is made up from a group that split from The Episcopal Church in the 1870s, most of the rest have split in the last couple of decades, either because of the ordination of women or the changing attitude of The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada to homosexuality, and its establishment has generated quite a lot of heat and noise. The narratives of ACNA and the Episcopalian mainstream are predictable enough. ACNA members declare themselves to have been excluded from The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church of Canada because of innovations on the part of those churches - particularly to do with sexuality - that are contrary to scripture. The mainstream Episcopalian line is that these people chose to leave, are welcome back any time they want as long as they are prepared to declare obedience to the Canons. This sort of thing has been going on for more than a hundred years in North America - one of the constituent groups of ACNA split from The Episcopal Church in the 1870s - but the scale this time is a little different. Compared to most continuing churches in North America - such as the Anglican Catholic Church or the Anglican Province of America - ACNA is relatively large, boasting about 750 parishes in the US and Canada combined. That sounds a lot, but when you consider that the Diocese of Exeter has 506 parishes, and the Diocese of Oxford over 600, it's not really such a major player as it would wish to make out. Still, it has attracted public attention, and next Wednesday will see a Private Member's Motion asking Synod to declare itself "in communion with" ACNA.

The member moving the motion says she has done so as a result of her own convictions, and not at the instigation of any other person or organisation. I see no reason to disbelieve her, but her band-wagon has been well and truly jumped on, and I have no doubt that the debate will display once more a whole set of well and publicly aired dirty laundry. You see what underlies ACNA is not really sexuality, but a fundamental difference between two possible ways of dealing with the relationship between Church and Society. Does the Church itself need to change and adapt to continue to minister to the society in which it finds itself, or should the Church instead proclaim more firmly what it understands to be its historic orthodoxies and attempt to refute the errors it finds in society. Both alternatives have their problems: the former runs the risk of becoming post-Christian, of losing the uniqueness of the Christian message in a fog of moral relativism; the latter has to struggle with the question of what orthodoxy actually is in an institution like the Anglican Communion. Quite why the line got drawn in the sand over sexuality, as opposed to marriage after divorce or the ordination of women, for example, I have no idea, but this is the situation in which we find ourselves, and it is why we will inevitably end up talking about homosexuality on Wednesday...

The motion has attracted the inevitable amendment from the House of Bishops that manages to prevaricate its way out of most sorts of trouble, and I expect that there won't be any extreme results in the end, but it's going to be a difficult debate. If Synod doesn't pass the motion, then it's a kick in the teeth to ACNA and an implicit pat on the head for The Episcopal Church and the Anglican Church in Canada. If it passes it unamended then the same applies in reverse. The response that makes political sense is to pass the motion as amended by the bishops, but that is going to need some skilful playing in the Chamber if it is to come off. The Twitter stream on Wednesday might be interesting...

We are also going to end up talking about sexuality on Thursday, as a result of another Private Member's Motion, this time concerning parity of pension provision for surviving Civil Partners. This is difficult for a number of reasons. First, and most practical, is the fact that pension provision in the Church of England is currently shot to hell, and nobody can even work out what we need for a field dressing, let alone reconstructive surgery. There isn't any money. Secondly, the Church is currently abiding by the law of the land with respect to this sort of pension provision. Some defined benefit pension schemes have changed their rules so that surviving spouses and civil partners are treated equally, but none has been abliged to do so. Of course, the message that an organisation sends out by taking such a step is a very clear one - it is treating civil partners and spoused equally - and there's the rub for the Church of England.

At the moment, clergy are allowed to enter into a civil partnership. They are supposed to assure their bishop that the relationship is celibate, but in practice there is quite a lot of 'don't ask don't tell' - it depends very much upon the attitude of the diocesan bishop. However, there is a big jump from recognising that civil partnerships are part of the law of the land - and confer most of the same benefits and obligations as civil marriage - and considering them to be the equivalent of marriage in the eyes of the church. Whether or not this was the intention of the proposer of the motion, and I strongly suspect that it wasn't, this is the ground on which I think the battle will be fought. At some point, and some point soon, we have to have a sensible, grown up conversation as a church about how we view human sexuality and relationships. A major part of this has to be how we now view the institution of marriage in society as a whole, and what implications this has for the church's theology of marriage. Without intending to, this motion hits at the very heart of those tangled questions about relationships that we have not even yet begun to resolve, and that is why I am certain it will not be passed. I can only hope that in the process people do not say things that they are likely later to regret.

Looking back at what I have just written, it occurs to me that all I have covered is two Private Member's motions, and there is a whole other agenda there to be debated. Some of it is actually relevant and interesting, and deserves more publicity. So, in the hope that Mouse will be generous and allow me another space in the next day or so, I will draw this chapter to a close in the hope that I will be able to explore the sexuality-free parts of the agenda in a second post.

My thanks to Mouse for the space, and to you for reading this far.

Friday round up

Here's my round up from the blogosphere.  Ten of the best from the blogs this week:


1. The Christian History Blog has a religious history of Haiti

2. Cranmer has a spat with Richard Dawkins

3. Eurobishop on preparing for St Valentine's day

4. Evangelist Changing on the ten-pin church

5. Andrew Brown on the Cherie Blair stuff and nonsense (George Pitcher finds himself sticking up for Cherie, and Heresy Corner has a typically considered assessment)

6. The Beaker Folk of Husborne Crawley have a useful Worship Group Classification Index

7. David Keen reckons the BBC have an agenda on 'assisted dying'

8. Phil Ritchie on spiritual fitness

9. Star Led Seers with a brilliant guide to the missional church

10. Church Times blog on church websites, and the lack of them

This blog might be considered illegal if it were in South Australia

Dizzy posts news that a new law in Australia bans anonymous political commentary during an election campaign.

If compulsory voting with a fine wasn't enough the South Australians have now passed a law that bans anonymous political commentary on the Internet during election campaigns, the law states,

A person must not during an election period, publish material consisting of, or containing a commentary on, any candidate or political party, or the issues being submitted to electors, in written form, in a journal published in electronic form on the internet or by radio or television or broadcast on the internet, unless the material or the program in which the material is presented contains a statement of the name and address (not being a post office box) of a person who takes responsibility for the publication of that material.

Feels good to be a bit edgy.  Mouse will certainly be posting his thoughts on the election in due course.  So in order to make sure he is not deported to South Australia to stand trial for this offense, here are his details:

Name: The Church Mouse
Address: Hole in the skirting board house, The Vestry, Church

Mouse has already gone one further than this, however, in the interest of transparency.  Last year he completed the political compass test and published his result.  He has just done it again, and his results are shown below, so you can all see the Mouse's political biases.  Surely that's more important than a name and address?