Friday round up

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

1. Heresy Corner on the latest Christian discrimination case

2. Theo Hobson thinks Nick Clegg should assert secular liberalism

3. David Keen has some interesting opinion polls (well worth following on David's Twitter feed for some light election relief)

4. Vic the Vicar has a Biblical view of Bigotgate

5. Bishop Nick Baines on Tom Right's 'retirement'

6. Faith Central on why a Christian should vote Conservative and why Jesus might vote Labour (sorry Lib Dems - looks like they'll get round to you next week)

7. Ruth Gledhill on the 'condom memo' (with a report which actually has the whole memo)

8. Church Times blog on Streetbank

9. FaithWorld on Obama's meeting with Billy Graham

10. Clayboy on his swine flu anniversary

Judge slams Lord Carey on Christian discrimination case

Well, don't say Mouse didn't warn you.  Mouse's view was that Lord Carey's intervention in Gary McFarlane's discrimination case was misjudged.  Mouse said that it seemed to have virtually no legal basis, and now Lord Justice Laws has confirmed that in quite a spectacular way.

Gary McFarlane was sacked from his job as a therapist for refusing to give sex therapy to gay couples.  He claimed it was on religious grounds, and so his sacking consdituted religious discrimination.  The case has been very high profile, helped by former Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Carey, who provided a witness statement on Mr McFarlane's behalf.  This witness statement proved highly controversial as it appeared to argue that the case required a specially constituted court, made up of appeal court judges who had demonstrated an understanding of Christian issues.  It looked for all the world like he was arguing for special courts for Christians.

Lord Justice Laws has refused Mr McFarlane's appeal, but has gone out of his way to point out why he disagrees with Lord Carey and why his argument has no basis in law.

Lord Carey is not happy about the ruling, and others are not happy either.  Mouse's view is that religious freedom is not enhanced by measures which appear manifestly unfair to non-Christians, and Mouse has no doubt that the correct legal judgement has been made in this case.

Church Commissioners make some money - but are still taking big risks chasing high returns

The Church Commissioners have announced that they have finally returned to the money making business.    After losing over 20% of their assets when property values and share prices slumped.  This year they are jubilant as they announce a 15.6% return on their investments during 2009.

Now we haven't seen the full annual report yet, so Mouse will speculate here a little.

The first bit of speculation is that they are still very heavily into high risk shares and property investments.  This seems very likely, as there is no other way to make that kind of return.  The press release shows that over £3bn of the £4.8bn fund is invested in 'fixed income, UK and overseas equities', which means we can't see just yet exactly how much of that is in the high risk equities, but Mouse would guess a fair wedge.  The FTSE has bounced right back, and property prices are on the up again, so that would explain the high return for the year.  However, this is still a high risk strategy as the outlook for asset values is still highly uncertain.

What really worries Mouse is that the tone of the press release is still all about how much better the fund has performed compared with other similar funds.  That is great in one sense, but as we all know returns are directly linked to risk.  To achieve higher returns is easy - you just take more risk.  That means that most years you will out-perform others, then every now and then you'll lose more than them when the crash comes.  This has happened to the Church Commissioners twice.  Once in the 1990s and again in the past two years.  Lets not forget that the Church Commissioners fund is still almost £1bn short of where it was two years ago, even after a bumper year in 2009.

The counter argument to all this is that higher returns allows the Commissioners to provide more funds to support mission and other important Church work.  This is absolutely true.  However, Mouse would rather the Church learned to live within its means with a bit less, than took big risks with its historic fund.

Demonic activity highest for 25 years - will this become an election issue?

So we hear that demonic activity is at its highest for 25 years, according to a new report from Lionel Fanthorpe. Whether this is due to the recession or broken Britain is not yet clear.  Gordon Brown will probably claim that this demonic activity originated in America, whilst David Cameron will argue that we need a 'big society' reduce levels of ghouling.

In the mean time, Mouse offers up the top 10 locations for spotting demons, ghosts, ghouls and assorted demons, according to the number of sighting identified by Mr Fanthorpe in the past 25 years:

1 Yorkshire 74
2 Devonshire 57
3 Somerset 51
4 Wiltshire 46
5 Inverness 39
6 Dorset 37
7 = Norfolk 32
7 = Lancashire 32
8 = Sussex 30
8 = Derbyshire 30
9 = Essex 29
9 = Suffolk 29
10 Lincolnshire 24

H/T BRIN

Vatican-backed ethical share index launched

Ethical share indices have become common place, providing listings of companies who operate various degrees of ethical business for investors who don't want to invest in companies with who's activities they disagree.  The latest such index, the Stoxx Europe Christian Index, is made up of 533 European companies who's revenue comes from sources approved 'according tot eh values and principles of the Christian religion'.

Some will nevertheless be pretty surprised to hear that the list includes companies like BP, Royal Dutch Shell and Nestle.  The criteria seems to be simply that the companies are not involved in pornography, arms, tobacco, contraception and gambling.

Stoxx say that the committee which vets companies to appear in the index includes representatives of the Vatican.

Icelandic volcano was a sign to politicians in the British election

It was only a matter of time before some loon came out with this one.  And so it seems to have come to pass - at least according to the BBC - that Christian Peoples Alliance candidate John Manwell has declared the Icelandic volcano a supernatural intervention by God into the 2010 British general election.

Now, if you read the carefully selected quotes really closely you'll see, of course, that this isn't quite what Mr Manwell has said.  He actually said that Ash 'is a clear Biblical sign of repentance' and that the volcano was a reminder that 'the human race is powerless compared to God'.  Both of these things are of course true , and do not imply in any way that God has sent this volcano as a sign to British people.

The addition of the line 'as a sign from God, it was gracious; no-one was killed' is the closest we have to an indication that Mr Manwell reads this event as a divine mega-email.

So it seems to Mouse that the BBC and others will have to keep looking for that loon to provide them with the crazy Christian quote they're looking for.

H/T eChurch Christian blog

+++ N.T. Wright to step down as Bishop of Durham +++

From the Church Times blog:


From Bishop of Durham to leave Diocese:

The Bishop of Durham, Dr N. T. Wright, has announced that he will be retiring from the See of Durham on August 31.
Dr Wright, who will be 62 this autumn, is returning to the academic world, in which he spent the first twenty years of his career, and will take up a new appointment as Research Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of St Andrews in Scotland.

Read it all here.

Rowan Williams: Dialogue is a means of 'God given discovery'

When Mouse first saw the headline he assumed that the Archbishop of Canterbury was referring to the warring factions within the Anglican Communion.  The Archbishop's mail box has been rather full lately with other Anglican Archbishops writing to him to complain about the actions of The Episcopal Church in the US and the Anglican Church of Canada in ordaining partnered gay bishops.  This week, the 'Global South' meeting issued another 'communique' saying that something must be done.

I want to suggest that, understood as a means of God-given discovery, dialogue actually brings us up against a greater and fuller awareness of the sheer mystery of the God with whom we all have to do. It instills in us a deeper gratitude that the mysterious, infinite God who surrounds and pervades everything that is has nonetheless spoken a word to us which changes us. Now, the change that was wrought in us by the gift and revelation of the infinite God is what we begin from in gratitude and acknowledgement. And in recognizing that gift, that mystery, we find our appetite kindled, our taste for truth awakened; and so we turn to one another, looking, listening and confidently praying that in that encounter we grow.

So it would be no surprise if the Archbishop were to be reiterating his view that if everyone keeps talking, things will somehow work themselves out.

But no, that's entirely the wrong story here.  Well sort of.  This time, Rowan Williams was speaking to the Christian Muslim Forum Conference of Scholars at Lambeth Palace.

A lot of the engagement between Christians and Muslims across the centuries has certainly been engagement—sometimes conciliatory, sometimes confrontational—but it's not all that often moved towards dialogue. Sometimes it's been polemic: that is, a dialogue which is set up in order to show you that someone else is wrong. In our traditions, there are pieces of 'dialogue' between a Christian and a Muslim which are in fact set up to move towards a particular conclusion. Dialogue isn't even a matter of simple debate: that is, propositions advanced, contested, argued for and against. It's in awareness of this that I use the term dialogue in connection with the notion of discovery.

Mouse suggests that this speech has wider application, however, in his message to the Global South the word 'dialogue' does not appear.  Mouse prays that he hasn't give up.

Who checks the fact-checkers, and the need to let politicians lie for the good of democracy

Interesting piece at BRIN, spotting a couple of errors in the Guardian's 'Factfile UK' supplement.  You can read their piece for yourself if you're interested in how many Christians there are in the UK.  Mouse has commented on the impossibility of calculating this before.

The BRIN piece sparked a wider thought, however.  In the current information age it is increasingly hard to rely on the accuracy of much of the information provided.  This has led to an increasing number of sites which are there specifically to assess the accuracy of other people's claims, such as the Channel 4 Fact Check blog for politics.  Often we rely on the impartiality of sources such as the BBC to imply accuracy, but this is not always the case.

The really troubling aspect for Mouse during the current election campaign has been the accuracy (read into that what you will) of election posters.  We've seen endless posters claiming that another party is secretly planning to do something terrible, defended on the basis that they will have to do something like that in order to make the rest of their plans hang together.  The Lib Dem poster accusing the Tories of planning a VAT rise is perhaps the best example, but there are many.  This VAT claim is speculative at best, and made on the basis that the Lib Dems think they will have to raise some other taxes to fulfil their election promises, so this seems a reasonable supposition.

Most adverts are covered by the Advertising Standards Agency rules, which essentially mean that unless its obviously a joke, you have to be able to back up your advertising claims.  These rules do not apply, however, to election advertising, which is excluded under the Human Rights Act on the basis that action against political parties for their election material could be seen as interfering with the democratic process.

Whilst Mouse can see a case for that line of argument, it is hard to argue that politicians having free reign to lie as much as they like aids the democratic process.  So do we have to rely on endless fact-checker websites to work out what is accurate information?  And if so, who is going to check that they've got their facts right?

Latest news from the Taliban, and why it should matter to you

How much do you know about the Taliban?  Mouse does not know very much at all, and yet we seem as a nation to be forming our opinions on the war in Afghanistan and opinion is coalescing around a view that our troops should come home sooner rather than later.

Reuters' excellent FaithWorld blog has posted a highly informative piece about the Taliban, summarising some of the key findings from perhaps the most detailed study of the organisation to date.  It makes fascinating reading, and challenges some of the ideas that Mouse had based on impressions gleaned from mainstream media reports.

The report, from Anne Stenersen of the Norwegian Defence Research Establishment, sets out how the Taliban is a centralised organisation with a clear leadership, structure, goals and strategy, and even has an official 'code of conduct' for members.  Most worryingly it is growing.

Mouse was reminded when he read this of a great piece in Heresy Corner that he never managed to link to, which sets out the argument that local corruption in Afghanistan results in aid money being cyphoned off by the Taliban in protection rackets.

So why is this important for us?  Mouse reckons that the next government will make some very important decisions about Afghanistan, and at the moment they could probably get away with anything as the general awareness of the situation is so low.  This needs to get out so that politicians can be held accountable for their decisions.

Juvenile prank or sick anti-Catholic prejudice - the 'condom memo' in perspective

Was the now infamous 'condom' memo from the Foreign Office a harmless, if rather childish, prank that went a bit too far.  Or does it reveal a deep seated anti-religious heart to our government?  To some extent, you pay your money and take your choice.

Just in case you have managed to miss this story, it is news that civil servants circulated a memo which set out 'the ideal' itinerary for the Papal visit to the UK, and included a range of rather insulting items, such as launching Benedict branded condoms.

Some have reacted with fierce criticism, arguing that it reveals just how anti-religious the heart of government is.  Others have sought to rise above it.  For Mouse's part the latter approach seems best.

You may have expected Mouse to come out fighting on this one, particularly given his last post which expressed shock that Sky would allow the question about the Papal visit during the last Leaders Debate.  However, there is a big difference.

This latest incident did not come about as a result of a considered process, where anyone with any authority made a clear decision to allow this memo to be circulated.  It was not a public process, and was never intended to be.  No government minister or senior civil servant was involved.

Ruth Gledhill reports that Vatican advisers are starting to regret the decision to visit Britain.  There is a real danger that blowing this sort of incident out of proportion allows the visit to be overshadowed by trivia.  Far better to accept the line that this was a childish prank by junior civil servants which went too far, then move on.

Am I the only one who thought the Leaders Debate question about the Pope was a disgrace?

Mouse didn't see the Leaders Debate last night.  He was out having a very nice dinner with Mrs Mouse.  So when he heard that there had been a question about the Papal visit to the UK he was intrigued.  When he saw the piece in question, he was shocked.

The following question was put:

Good evening. The Pope has accepted an invitation to make an official state visit to Britain in September at a cost of millions of pounds to tax-payers. If you win the election, will you disassociate your party from the Pope's protection over many years of Catholic priests who were ultimately tried and convicted of child abuse, and from his fierce opposition to all contraception, embryonic stem cell research, treatment for childless couples, gay equality and the routine use of condoms when HIV is at an all-time high?

Is it just me who is shocked that Sky allowed this to be asked in the Leaders Debate?  There are so many reasons why this was a terrible question to be asked, Mouse really doesn't know where to begin.

It is an incredibly loaded question which did not allow the leaders to say anything of interest in return, so Mouse can't see why Sky allowed it to be asked at all.  What did they expect the party leaders to say?  This portion of the debate was a total waste of time.  If they wanted to know the leaders views on religion they should have asked that.  If they wanted to know about contraception, stem cell research, gay equality or any other other issues, they should have asked that.  Attacking the Pope was a bad move.

But perhaps more importantly, the question is a dreadful insult to the Pope, and was designed to be such an insult and not to illicit any useful information from the election candidates.  Lets just take a couple of examples of the allegations which had been dressed up as a question:

The Pope has protected over many years Catholic priests who were ultimately tried and convicted of child abuse.  Really?  Mouse knows that this is the received wisdom amongst some in Britain, but it is far from proven, and is in fact hotly contested by many who argue that the Pope has done more than anyone else to deal with the abuse crisis.  Why would Sky allow this to be stated as fact in such a high profile programme?  Isn't making damaging unproven allegations against an individual in public considered slander any more?

The Pope is against the routine use of condoms when HIV is at an all time high.  Yes, but you didn't mention that he's against sex outside of marriage, and against adultery, which put the issue in a rather different light.

Now just to be clear, Mouse doesn't agree with the Pope on any of these issues either, and is not here to defend him.  However, he does understand where he's coming from and has great respect for him.  It is the way Sky allowed someone to throw ill-informed and potentially slanderous allegations around in the way that happened last night that Mouse objects to.

And then we come to the answers - almost as bad as the question.

Some of the answers were actually quite cringeworthy.  Browns 'rightly complained about the abuse they were subject to when young' really curled Mouse's toes.  Clegg's 'you can't keep a lid on sin' had a similar effect.

All three leaders looked visibly caught off-guard, probably shocked that a question like that had been allowed at all.  They all busked an answer along the lines that the welcomed the Papal visit, but didn't agree with all his views.  Was that really the best they could do?  All three of the leaders had tried to court the Christian vote in the past few weeks, yet neither Brown nor Cameron could bring themselves to admit that they are Christians, although Brown did say he was 'from the Presbyterian religion', whatever that means.  Catholic viewers must have been deeply disappointed.

Mouse's conclusion.  All must do better.

St. George's round-up

Mouse didn't expect much to appear about St. George today, partly as it is not generally observed in any way and partly because there is plenty of other news.  However, there is quite a lot on the blogs.  Here's a round up of some Mouse has spotted.

1. Christine Odone - annoy Nick Clegg and fly a St. George's flag

2. The Benedictine Nuns - valuing our heritage

3. Vic the Vicar - God for Harry, England and St. George

4. Guido Fawkes - Happy St. George's Day

5. David Keen - St. George? Here Be Dragons, I'm with Aidan

6. Cranmer - A Parliament for England

7. Bishop David Thomson - George, Patron Saint of England

8. echurch - St George’s Day, Christians, Patriotism and Nationalism

9. Mike Peatman - Not now, George?

Mouse also notes that Archbishop John Sentamu has been encouraging people to celebrate St. George's day.

As for Mouse, he rather likes David Keen's line, but does think that we should celebrate our patron saint's day.

Friday round up

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

1. David Keen and The Church Times Blog wonder whether you should invite the BNP to hustings in your church

2. Cranmer joins the Clegg attack on his decision to 'do God' at election time

3. Ruth Gledhill on the Catholic Bishops' apology for the abuse scandal

4. Phil Ritchie on Spring Harvest

5. BRIN on St George

6. John Martin on Mission Aviation

7. Bishop Alan Wilson on true leadership

8. George Pitcher on how the BNP have screwed up St George's day

9. David Keen prefers St Aiden to St George (with some good reasons)

10. Cranmer celebrates St George's day with a call for an English Parliament

Clegg-mania and modern evangelism

OK, this one's a bit of a stretch, but Mouse does think there is a serious point in here if you just stick with it.

First up a couple of definitions:

Clegg-mania - the irrational bounce in the polls which followed the first leaders poll for the Liberal Democrats.  The size of the size of the swing in the polls and the size of the leaders debate viewing figures indicated that millions must have switched their voting intention following the leaders debate, even though they didn't see it.

Modern Evangelism - approaches to evangelism which recognise different approaches which are required in the current age, with a post-Christian audience in an information age which demands instant gratification and results.  Classic example is the Alpha course.

Mouse's contention is that post-evangelists, and in fact any church leaders, should try to learn something from Clegg-mania.  And here's why:

1. Clegg-mania shows how eager people are to believe in something.  Cleggs appeal on the Leaders Debate was not that he would offer a bright hope for the future of the world, simply that he was a normal honest chap, who was not tainted by the sins of the past.

2. Clegg-mania shows that people are willing to change their views pretty quickly when they see something they like.  Admittedly switching voting intention is not quite the same as becoming a Christian, but evangelism is very often not about radical changes in views.  It is more often about moving along on the journey of faith in small steps.  If Christians can demonstrate that they are offering something attractive, why would we think that people wouldn't change their views?

3. Clegg-mania shows that seemingly significant opinions can be very shallow.  Polling indicates that many of those who appear to have switched their voting intention are quite ready to switch it back.  This seems quite likely to Mouse, as Clegg is about to face a barrage of hostile examination on every issue from his personal expenses (which make quite an interesting read) to his party's funding, to a whole host of policy issues.  Whilst the initial spark for change could come from a brief experience, it must be based on something firmer for it to stick.

Is there anything new in this.  Well no, not really.  Mouse is convinced that Clegg-mania this is the continuation of a trend which brought us over-night global stardom for Susan Boyle, based on barely three minutes on TV.  Christians must be aware of this, but not intimidated by it.  There are just as many opportunities are threats.

Dispose of prejudices now - extreme sports and the over 70s

Just in case you had any lingering preconceptions about the elderly people in your congregation, the Telegraph break a story about the increase in over 70s taking part (and getting hurt) in extreme sports.  The headline is rather attention grabbing, with "Extreme sports killing the elderly", but it refers to statistics released on the proportion of people hurt or killed in extreme sports who are over 70.  This number is rising rapidly.

Mouse doesn't really have a reason for posting this story, as its really nothing to do with religion or the good old CofE, except that the church is also aging, just as the rest of the population is.  So if we assume everyone over the age of 70 just wants to join the crochet circle or the flower arranging rota we may well need to challenge our prejudices.

H/T eChurchwebsites

Bring back national prayer days - Global Day of Prayer call to prayer

Earlier this month, Mouse offered up some idle speculation as to whether it would be a good idea to bring back national days of prayer.  It sounds like a thoroughly good idea to Mouse, although he does recognise that there would be opponents.

Today Mouse read the the organisers of the Global Day of Prayer have issued a call to prayer for Britain.  This year's Global Day of Prayer is on June 13th, with the main event in the UK being held in Upton Park, the home of West Ham football club.  Leading up to that local prayer meetings will be held on Pentecost Sunday, on 23 May.

So Mouse's next piece of idle speculation is what a wonderful gesture it would be for a new incoming Prime Minister to recognise one of these events somehow.  Or perhaps even attend.

Top 20 twittering bishops and clergy in the CofE

Time for this month's rankings from the Twurch of England bishops and clergy twitter stream.  As usual, rankings have been determined using Grader, which calculates your twitter authority.

This month Twurch co-creator Peter Ould will do doubt be delighted to make it into the top 10.  Congrats to Joanna Jepson for making it into the top 20 for the first time.  Not surprising, since she's a super-cool vicar and chaplain at the London College of Fashion.

In other Twurch news, this month we welcome a new Bishop to the Twurch.  Bishop Paul Butler, Bishop of Southwell and Nottingham, is shooting up the list, but isn't quite in the top 20 yet.  Mouse would also like to welcome Graham Tomlin to the Twurch.  Graham was very close to the top 20, and will no doubt make it there soon, as he has armies of fans (???) from his fantastic podcast, Godpod.  Mouse is a regular listener, and highly recommends (not that he's after a mention at all, Graham).

Name	Twitter name	Grade
1. Mst Rev John Sentamu	johnsentamu	99.4
2. Rt Rev Alan Wilson	alantlwilson	99
3. Rev Maggi Dawn	maggidawn	97.4
4. Rev Alastair McCollum	revdal	96.4
5. Rt Rev Pete Broadbent	pete173	95.9
6. Rt Rev Nick Baines	nickbaines	95.4
6. Rev Paul Walker	paulwalker71	95.4
8. Rev Peter Ould	pould	95
9. Rev David Alexander	stopsleyvicar	94
9. Rev David Keen	davidmkeen	94
9. Rev Evan Cockshaw	pastorev	94
9. Rev James Ogley	riggwelter	94
13. Rev Arun Arora	revarun	93
13. Rev Kathryn Fleming	goodinparts	93
13. Rev Simon Rundell	frsimon	93
13. Rev Phillip Ritchie	philritchie	93
13. Rev Robb Sutherland	changingworship	93
18. Rev Michele Barzey	Afrobehn	91
18. Rt Rev David Thomson	bpdt	91
18. Rev Richard Johnson	richjohnson	91
18. Rev Joanna Jepson	joeyjep	91

When declarations collide - Westminster 2010 and Faithworks 2010

Mouse has noted these two declarations before.  Westminster 2010 is the so called 'orthodox' manifesto designed to echo the Manhattan Declaration produced in the US last year.  Organisers hope to influence the election primarily on issues such as abortion, marriage and religious freedom.  The Faithworks declaration is more focused on a call for politicians to help Christians engaged in social action, not oppose them.

Mouse considered it a highly unexpected turn of events when Faithworks 2010 spoke out against Westminster 2010.  In many ways this should not be a surprise, as Steve Chalke, the man behind Faithworks, has already said that he won't be signing Westminster 2010 on BBC's Sunday Programme (no longer available on iPlayer but is on the podcast iTunes).

All credit to Westminster 2010 for coming back with a very gracious response, which fully endorses the Faithworks declaration.  However, Mouse would point out to them that Steve Chalke and Faithworks are not the only ones who have criticised Westminster 2010, but their explanation may go some way to convincing some sceptics about the purpose and range of the declaration.  Mouse is still not there, however.

The shoe throwing story unravels?

Ben White has a post over at Liberal Conspiracy about the shoe throwing story that Mouse discussed earlier in the week in which the Sunday Times reported a concession by the police not to prosecute Muslim demonstrators who had thrown their shoes.

It seems that not everything is quite how it was reported in the Sunday Times.  Ben has done some digging and has managed to get the Crown Prosecution Service to state that there is no special provision for shoe throwing, whether by Muslims or anyone else.  This story may well run further than Mouse expected.  The organisers of the protest in which the shoe throwing incidents took place have taken exception to the Sunday Times story and are going to the Press Complaints Commission, whilst talking to their lawyers.

Mouse can only add that if they are really that unhappy with the Sunday Times there is surely only one appropriate way to show their contempt over this.  But perhaps that would just get them into even more trouble.

Lord Carey's witness statement

Earlier in the week Mouse warned people not to judge Lord Carey's comments before they had been made.  Well they have now been duly stated in black and white, and it is pretty much open season.  So far I haven't found a single comment, other from those directly involved, which supports Lord Carey's statement.

So just to re-cap.  This statement is part of a legal case involving Gary McFarlane, who recently lost an employment tribunal case involving his refusal to give sex therapy advice to gay couples on the basis of his religious convictions.  Having lost the tribunal, Mr McFarlane is appealing, but is requesting that the appeal be heard by a specially constituted court of appeal, on the basis that he doesn't think he'll get a fair hearing from the judges who have previously ruled on these matters.

Clayboy has a thorough dissection of the witness statement, and whilst I don't agree with every word, his overall critique is accurate.  Mouse will just add a couple of observations:

1. Why on earth is Lord Carey appearing as a witness in this case?  Witnesses usually either have particular specialist knowledge (e.g. expert medical witnesses) or have direct first hand experience of the events in question.  Whilst Lord Carey does have expertise in the field of being the Archbishop of Canterbury, his witness statement had nothing to do with that or with questions of faith which which he is uniquely placed to answer.  So why on earth is he involved?

2. The statement is strangely worded, vague in some areas whilst pulling in random details in others.  It appears to be very badly put together.  Mouse has had to read the statement at least four times just to understand what point Lord Carey is trying to make.  This, in part, has led to some dodgy reporting of what it is about.

3. The secular lobby and press are now having a field day with this.  It pushes so many buttons for them.  Christians claiming persecution (which they're not, by the way), Bishops in the Lords, homophobia (which Mr McFarlane is undoubtedly guilty of in their eyes) and claims for special privilege for religion. Whilst many of their claims are inaccurate, its hard to avoid the conclusion that they have a point in some respects, and Christians in Britain would have been better off without this.  The result is that even those who would naturally support Mr McFarlane are now feeling that they don't want to be associated with Lord Carey's demands for special treatment.

Mouse suspects Lord Carey's intervention has done nothing to bolster Mr McFarlane's legal position.  If there is a legal argument to be made for the appeal to be held by a specially constituted appeal court, Lord Carey is not the man to make that case, and he provided no legal backing for that argument.  The fact that he disagrees with prior decisions, no matter how strongly, does not make him a witness in this case.

What this media frenzy has done, however, is to foster the feeling that there is a group of Christians who feel that they are being persecuted if they don't get special treatment, which includes the right to be homophobic.  That is not helpful for anyone.

Friday round up

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

1. Bishop Nick Baines has election woes - in Britain and Zimbabwe

2. Bishop Alan Wilson seems a bit more excited about the election

3. Clayboy takes apart Lord Carey's latest intervention in the Christian discrimination debate (Mouse will be looking at it later)

4. Ekklesia think the Tory Manifesto has a God shaped hole

7. Cranmer does not like Ekklesia and thinks the Tory manifesto is 'the most Christian in inspiration for a generation

6. David Keen thinks all Manifestos have a God shaped hole, and this is a good thing

7. Eddie Arthur on the Kouya Chronicle has the latest must have Bible

8. Jack of Kent on the bid to arrest the Pope

9. Heresy Corner wants to know what's wrong with promoting marriage

10. The Blue Fish has seven ways for students to be a missionary at university

Religious and non-religious approaches to the election

At election time, many things get over-taken by politics.  In the Christian blogosphere, there is plenty of it.  In fact, there is so much that many blogs have just taken to pointing to other blogs and resources.

We've had YouTube videos from the party leaders from Christians in Politics and Faithworks, and most recently Mark Meynell points out a bunch of good resources.  Cranmer is always very political, as is Ekklesia in rather the opposite direction.  Ekklesia has almost become a full time election blog at the moment, although Mouse is rather tiring of their lop-sided coverage.  Soul Politics has returned with some interesting coverage of the election, and pretty much every other religious blogger is at least posting occasional views, such as David Keen's observations on the three manifestos and how the 'do God' or otherwise.

And so to the humanists and atheists.  Well, they don't quite seem to keen.  Neither the British Humanist Association nor the National Secular Society are covering the election.  The New Humanist blog and The Freethinker have barely mentioned the election.  Heresy Corner has posted a few observations, but is pretty restrained.

So why would religious bloggers be more interested in the election than atheist bloggers?  Mouse's honest answer is that he has no idea.  But here are a few possibilities:

1. Mouse is not so familiar with the atheist / humanist blogosphere, so it could just be that Mouse's sample is biased and there is just as much election coverage on other atheist / humanist blogs that Mouse is not aware of.

2. Humanist and atheist bloggers seem more disciplined about concentrating on their core purpose, which is not the election.  Perhaps they're just a bit more professional.

3. They are too busy filling their boots with attacks on the Pope to spend much time on the election.

4. Perhaps there is simply not as much of a political angle in humanism and atheism as there is in Christianity.  Mouse doesn't quite understand why this would be, as humanism and atheism tend to focus on issues of equality and rights, amongst other things, which you would think they would want to champion through the election.

Answers on a postcard please.

Another climate-gate report

Just in case you had any lingering belief that the climate scientists at the University of East Anglia were part of a global conspiracy to con the world on climate change, another independent report has found that there was no malpractice at the Climate Research Unit.

This time it was an independent panel chaired by Lord Oxburgh, which was set up to investigate the dodgy sounding emails which formed the central plank of accusations by climate change deniers of a conspiracy in the scientific community.  Earlier, a Committee of MPs had already cleared the scientists of any wrong-doing.

Mouse doesn't have time to dig out the details, but the BBC and others are covering the report.

Latest news on shoe throwing & its implications for equality

Mouse has covered the incredible growth in shoe throwing in Britain in the past.  Since Mouse picked up on the trend, a number of other shoe throwing incidents have taken place, and it has become such a problem that the Metropolitan Police have had to come up with an approach to dealing with the phenomena.

According to the Times report, the issue has been brought to a head by a series of trials of more than 70 mostly Muslim demonstrators.  They were charged with violent disorder during a protest outside the Israeli embassy in London in support of Gaza, which involved quite a lot of shoe throwing.

Once case in particular involved Aquib Salim, up on shoe throwing charges, who argued that the act is not violent disorder, but a symbolic political gesture.  The court accepted that this is the case, as shoes (and their soles in particular) are considered ritually unclean in much of the Muslim world.

So here's an interesting one for those equality wonks out there.  Suppose a Christian and a Muslim both throw a shoe at a policeman, and are both in court on the same charge.  Would they both receive the same judgement in court, and if not is that right?

Good old CofE seeks 'those with a big heart' to stand in General Synod elections

The good old CofE have pointed out that there is more than one election taking place this year.  Elections for general synod are coming round again, with the July meeting being the last of the five-year cycle of Synods.

A new website has been launched to support those considering standing for general synod, including a smart YouTube video.

Mouse suggests that the qualifying criteria are more than just a big heart.  Candidates should also have a thick skin and a strong stomach.

Is Lord Carey crazy with his demands for Christians to be tried by different judges?

Items in the news are often discussing things that haven't happened.  This week we have heard of what reporters expect will be in party manifestos before they have been launched.  News is often the business of speculation.
Every now and then, however, the speculation is taken to a new level, and whole narratives are created by events which have not yet taken place, with judgements about individuals being thrown into the bargain.

And so to the story of Lord Carey and his demand that appeal court judges stand down if they are not sympathetic to religious belief.

Lord Carey is reported to believe that only Judges with a good understanding of religious sensibilities should hear appeal cases involving religious discrimination.  The reports say that he is calling for other judges to 'stand down'.  This story is pretty much everywhere, with the Telegraph, Mail and Times all carrying pieces on it, and it appears in many blogs.  Naturally the BHA and the NSS are outraged at the suggestion.

The commentary goes along the lines of - is Carey out of his mind?  Judges are admirably independent, so what is his beef?  He must just be asking for sympathetic judges to hear cases of religious discrimination because he didn't like the decisions made in the past.

But Mouse will simply point to one fact that has been disgracefully overlooked in all this reporting.

Lord Carey has not said a word on this subject.

The source of this story is the Telegraph story, which refers to statements which they believe Lord Carey will make on Thursday this week.  In other words, this is entirely guess work.

On Thursday the case of Gary McFarlane will reach the Court of Appeal, where they will decide which judges will hear the appeal.  Mr McFarlane is a sex therapist who has refused to give sex advice to homosexual couples for religious reasons, and is being represented (no surprises) by The Christian Legal Centre, the sister organisation of Christian Concern for our Nation.

Now its quite hard to get the facts behind this case, but it seems to Mouse that Carey is being lined up to support an application from the CLC to have the case heard by judges with experience of religious issues.  Is this a case of Christians asking for special treatment, or the normal course of events in these circumstances when trying to decide which judges should hear the case?

Mouse doesn't know the details of this case, and has no idea what Lord Carey will say in his statement, assuming he makes one, on Thursday.  However, he will wait to see that before he decides that Lord Carey is an idiot or a bigot, as many have already suggested in relation to comments that he has not yet made.

Steve Chalke interviews all three main party leaders

Steve Chalke has interviewed all three main party leaders on the role of churches in building society.  This follows from a period when faith organisations have often found it hard to get support for their work from central and local government.

Once again, Mouse will be surprised if this changes your view of the three men, but there are a few interesting nuances.  All three leaders 'talk the talk', but Cameron argues for a 'huge growth' in faith based provision of services, so came across to Mouse as the most enthusiastic about the role of churches in society.

Chalke's organisation, Faithworks, has launched its own election campaign with the Faithworks Declaration, which seeks to gain support from candidates around the idea of government recognising, acknowledging and encouraging community work from faith organisations.

Dawkins wants to arrest the Pope - but he must think of a crime first

It seems that Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens want to arrest the Pope when he comes to Britian.  You certainly can't say that they are lacking in zeal.

The Guardian reports that they are exploring legal options.  The first aspect is to establish whether the Pope is immune from prosecution as a Head of State, and they seem to believe that they can get round this.

However, the much bigger problem would seem to be finding a crime that the Pope can stand accused of.  The suggestions in the Guardian look beyond flimsy to Mouse.

One is that we apply for a warrant to the international criminal court. Alternatively, criminal proceedings could be brought here, either a public prosecution brought by the Crown Prosecution Service or a private prosecution. That would require at least one victim to come forward who is either from this jurisdiction or was abused here. The third option is for individuals to lodge civil claims.

Well those would appear to be options of a kind.  However, lets just think about them.

The International Criminal Court looks like a non starter to me.  Firstly, it has no retrospective jurisdiction prior to its creation in 2002, which rules out the vast majority of the period when abuse claims have been made.  Secondly, it exists to try "persons accused of the most serious crimes of international concern, namely genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes."  Whilst the abuse itself is a terrible crime, it is impossible that the ICC will put the Pope's personal role in the case as anything approaching genocide or war crimes.

So how about a public or private prosecution in the UK?  Well the first of those would require the CPS to believe that there is a case to answer that has a reasonable chance of success.  If someone did come forward in the UK to claim abuse by a Catholic priest, they would also have to demonstrate that the Pope was somehow responsible, which seems pretty inconceivable.  As for a private prosecution, the same principle applies that someone wishing to initiate a private prosecution must demonstrate to a suitable local court that there is a case to answer with a reasonable chance of succeeding.  Same problem.

So we're left with civil claims.  Nice try, but you can't arrest someone on a civil claim - you can just sue them.

The inspiration of this is probably Peter Tatchell's attempted citizen's arrest of Robert Mugabe when he was in the UK.  The difference is that Tatchell went armed with a dossier from Amnesty International and the Zimbabwe High Court.  Dawkins and Hitchens have virtually nothing linking the Pope to the cover-up of abuse, and certainly nothing which would stand up to the ICC or CPS definition of evidence.

The other case study is the arrest of Augusto Pinochet when he came to Britain in 1998.  Again, the difference here is that official reports from Chile amply demonstrated that crimes of politically inspired murder (of 2,279 people) and torture were readily available.  Pinochet had not been prosecuted in Chile due to an immunity deal, although there was never any doubt of his guilt.

It would be interesting to see how much Dawkins and Hitchens are paying for this legal advice.  If they want a cheaper option, Mouse offers the analysis above, and the conclusion that they have absolutely no hope of succeeding so should think of another publicity stunt.

A message to Christians from the three main party leaders

Christians in Politics have managed to get a short video message from each of the three main party leaders, plus an intro from John Sentamu, Archbishop of York.  Mouse would be very surprised if this changed your views of any of them.

The only one who Mouse thinks didn't do himself justice is Nick Clegg, who appears to be speaking from a corridor in the House of Commons, and had nothing particular to say.  Mouse wonders whether he was caught a little short and didn't have time to prepare his piece properly.

If you're not familiar with Christians in Politics, the website is well worth a visit.  It is an initiative from the Christian groups from the three main parties, and the website contains a resources section with lots of useful stuff for churches to use in engaging in politics.

Christian reaction to Philip Pullman's latest novel is surprisingly positive

When Mouse heard about Philip Pullman's latest book, he feared the potential reaction from Christians.  He feared the kind of reaction that we got to Harry Potter or the Da Vinci Code, where Christians took great offence to a work of fiction.

So Mouse was brought up a little short to see the way The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ has been received.  Rowan Williams, Bishop Alan Wilson and Phil Ritchie have all reviewed the book and take a positive view of it.  Naturally they are a little cautious in their reading of a book which tells a story about Mary's twin sons, one of whom was the decent Jesus and the other was a weaker self-richeous man.

The conclusion of both Rowan and Alan's reviews is that it is great to be reading and debating Jesus through this fictional work, and there are real challenges to institutionalised religion raised in the book which need to be taken seriously.

Now it is true that Rowan Williams, Alan Wilson and Phil Ritchie are hardly the kind of people to fly off the handle at this sort of thing, but Mouse has not picked up significant negative responses to the book anywhere else, so perhaps their early contributions have set the tone, and the Christian right have just decided this is not one to get worked up about.  Whatever the reason, this is undoubtedly good news.

Update: Phil Ritchie has added a fuller reflection on the book on his blog, and its well worth a read.

Bring back national prayer days

Interesting stuff over at the Times's Faith Central blog, with a list of 10 occasions where national days of prayer have been held when 'Britain prayed for its survival'.  I've reproduced the list below, but it was the closing question which fired the Mouse's little imagination.  Should we bring back national prayer days?

Mouse's instinctive response is 'yes absolutely'.  It would give a big boost to those who are struggling to respond to the arguments that faith should be removed from the public sphere, but it is not 'privileging' faith - faith groups will gain nothing from it, other than the opportunity to pray together with our national leaders.  If we found a format that included inter-faith prayers it could be a very positive and inclusive move.

Interestingly, Mouse is finding it hard to think of a good reason why we shouldn't have national prayer days.  I can imagine that some secularist groups would be against the idea, but I can hardly see any grounds for that.  A national prayer day would do nothing to harm those who don't believe, and would give no material benefit or privilege to those who do.

Now, I wonder if there is an opportunity to speak to a politician about the idea ...


10 moments when Britain prayed for its survival

1. In November 1554, prayers were requested to ensure safe childbirth for Mary Tudor, but the Catholic Queen's pregnancy, by her husband Philip II of Spain, proved ectopic.

2. In July, 1597 the public had the chance to buy a prayer book containing special prayers for the success of the Earl of Essex's raid on the Spanish navy at el Ferrol, Galicia. Initial copies included the personal prayer of Elizabeth 1st. Discovering this, she withdrew the prayer.

3. Charles II ordered a day of "humiliation and public fasting" on October 10 1666 following the Great Fire of London, an event for which authorities were keen to blame the sins of the nation, rather than merely those of the capital.

4. National fasts were again required on March 20, 1700 and 24 April 1701 after two disastrous attempts to found a Scottish colony at Darien on the isthmus of Panama.

5. In 1776 prayers were repeatedly requested while England fought in the American War of Independence.

6. It wasn’t all special pleading. On 23 April 1789, prayers of thanksgiving were offered, at George III's request, for his recovery from illness. Although he wanted minimum fuss, the day eventually included a Royal procession to St Paul's, gun salutes, music and fireworks. The Royal Collection contains this fan, decorated by his daughter Princess Elizabeth with the words "health restored to one and happiness to millions."

7. Fewer sided in 1820 with the King's son, George IV. On November 29 that year, supporters of his estranged wife Queen Caroline, printed a spoof thanksgiving prayer including Psalm 140, after the collapse of her trial for adultery. The psalm includes the words “Deliver me O Lord, from the evil man”, a reference to George IV.

8. Outbreaks of cholera in March and June 1832 were popularly perceived as signalling divine displeasure with Catholic Emancipation, legalised in the 1829 Catholic Relief act. The Evangelical MP Spencer Perceval wanted the House of Commons to “express its own errors and humiliation” before God.

9. Numerous national prayer days were said during the Irish famine (1845 - 1852) a period that saw a million die, and a further two million emigrate. A fast day for the whole of the United Kingdom was held on March 24, 1847.

10. January 3, 1915 marked the first of the annual New Year national days of prayer organised in Protestant and Roman Catholic churches across the British Empire, as well as in Catholic churches in France and Belgium.

You know you're really nasty when ... the KKK distance itself from you

Not good publicity for Fred Phelps or his rabidly gay-hating Westboro Baptist Church.  The white supremacist Ku Klux Klan felt the need to add a note to their website saying, "The Ku Klux Klan, LLC. has not or EVER will have ANY connection with The "Westboro Baptist Church". We absolutely repudiate their activities."

Mouse really doesn't know what to make of that one.

H/T Dizzy

Friday round up

Here's my roundup from the blogosphere.  Ten of the best from the blogs this week:
1. The Beaker Folk of Husborne Crawley bid farewell to Archdruid Eileen and close the tea-light shop

2. Tall Skinny Kiwi remembers the Internet Monk

3. Bishop Alan Wilson on how we got from Jesus to the Church

4. Bishop Nick Baines on a bunch of other things Bishop Alan Wilson wrote

5. More from Tall Skinny Kiwi on emerging Muslim followers of Jesus

6. Heresy Corner on whether gay hotel owners should be allowed to ban Christians

7. David Keen has video and photos from the Trafalgar Square passion

8. Paul Walker on how to get visitors to return to your church

9. Faith Central on ten times the nation prayed for its survival

10. Ruth Gledhill (soon to be behind a paywall) on the general election faithwar

Controversy over Church Mouse's budget plans

I wonder if anyone can help me.  The Church Mouse has put forward proposals to his PCC for the coming year budget which are causing a great deal of argument, and I'd like someone to help clarify.

It has been a difficult time for the church finances over the past few years, and we've been living off our reserves for the past few years.  It looks like they will run out shortly, however, so the original proposals were to make the budget balance by targeting an increase in church income of £500 this year, clearing out the reserves for the final £200 and cutting back the office costs by £200 next year.  As the increase in income feeds through that should mean that we come out of the red next year.

However, Mouse pointed out that we could simply cut the office costs this year, and we wouldn't need to dip into the reserves.  This has caused great controversy amongst those who argue that this would cripple the office at the very time it is working hardest on the stewardship campaign to generate the £500 extra income.

Mouse thought the case was pretty much signed and sealed when a number of prominent members of the congregation agreed with his plan.  We have a number of accountants in our congregation and they all agreed that Mouse's plan was much more sensible, however, it is becoming quite a nasty argument in the Church, with the current treasurer accusing Mouse of deceiving the PCC with his plans for savings.  This has baffled Mouse, as I thought it was he who proposed the savings in the first place, and I'm just suggesting we implement them this year.

Can anyone help explain why this has become such a bitter argument?  I can only assume it is because PCC elections are coming up in a couple of weeks.

Archbishop of York - pub is the new mission ground

Mouse was a big fan of the Archbishop of York before he read this, but now.  Well, its hard to find enough words of admiration.

We've got now in the Church of England... where instead of simply advising people to come to our buildings and our churches, people are doing it in a new way and going to many places. I've actually gone and had endless debates when I was in Birmingham in pubs with a lot of people and they used to draw quite a lot of people. I think we've got to find a way of getting our message across.

That's right folks.  John Sentamu is a pub evangelist.  He is absolutely spot on in his analysis too.  The Church of England will not grow just by telling people to come to church on a Sunday morning, and hoping that they won't be totally bemused by what they find when they get there.

For a limited time you can hear John Sentamu's interview with Radio York on Easter Sunday.  Its another cracker.

The Church Mouse general election survival guide

Whether you look at the general election campaign with dread or gleeful excitement, The Church Mouse general election survival guide will help take the pain out of this year's campaign in five easy steps.

Step 1: Decide who you're going to vote for now, and save valuable time over the next four weeks

Invest however much time you need now to decide who to vote for, then you can save hours in reading lengthy newpaper columns, watching political broadcasts, reading party leaflets and so on.  There are plenty of resources which can help (David Keen provides a starter for 10), so use them then put your feet up guilt free for the next four weeks.

Step 2: Email your local Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties and tell them all you support another party

This may seem like extra effort, but now that you've decided who to vote for, you don't need them wasting your time with phone calls, leaflets and canvassing.  Tell them you support another party and they will leave you alone.

Step 3: Pick the issues you want to get involved with

Its pretty late in the day to try to affect candidate's pledges, so if you want to get involved in any of the initiatives which target candidates on specific issues, you'd better get your skates on.  Like the other tips, its best to do what you can now, then take it easy as we get nearer to polling day, and Mouse suggests focusing on the issues you care most about - you won't get the parties to re-write their manifestos at this point, so focus your efforts.  If you're not sure how to get involved, the Evangelical Alliance and Care have put together some materials in their 'Make the cross count' website, which naturally includes a twitter campaign.

Step 4: Plan your TV to avoid politics taking over all your personal time

There will be an awful lot of politics on our TVs between now and May 6, so Mouse suggests investing in Sky+, BT Vision or another system which allows you to record significant amounts of TV.  Mouse's plan is to go out tonight whilst recording his usual Wednesday viewing, then tomorrow he'll just pick up where he left off but 24 hours behind.  That way you can avoid any unnecessary political programming.

Step 5: Develop strategies for dealing with awkward political conversations with family, friends and colleagues

One challenge at this time of year is handling political conversations with people who firmly hold political opinions which are diametrically opposed to your own.  Of course, we would all like to think that we can handle this in a mature manner, but too often people end up arguing and friendships can be affected.  So Mouse suggests developing strategies to stop the conversation if it reaches that point.  Effective measures include starting hysterical coughing, 'accidentally' dropping your coffee into your own lap then running away screaming "its burning, its burning", or asking if they can hear the voices too.

So with this five easy steps you can be effective in political campaigning, without having to spend the next four weeks with the general election forced on you from every angle.

All the best.

April (=March) Wikio religious blog rankings

The latest Wikio blog rankings are up. David Keen usually covers the religious blogs which feature in the top 200 or so in his excellent St Aiden to Abbey Manor blog. But since he took a blog holiday for Lent he's suggested that Mouse do the honours, and it looks like the transfer might be permanent.

So here they are, the blogs which cover religion either wholly or in part:

24. Archbishop Cranmer
87. Heresy Corner
140. The Hermeneutic of Continuity
142. Bartholomew's Notes on Religion
144. St. Aidan to Abbey Manor
147. What Does The Prayer Really Say
151. Thinking Anglicans
158. The Church Mouse
165. Islam in Europe
172. Clayboy
192. The Ugley Vicar
205. Of Course, I Could Be Wrong
207. John Smeaton, SPUC Director
237. The Cartoon Blog (from Dave Walker's Cartoon Church)
243. An Exercise in the Fundamental's of Orthodoxy

If you're a blogger and are not listed, Mouse recommends you register yourself, as it will help people find your blog.

History Maker makes No.4 in the Easter Chart

Just a quickie to let you know how Delerious? got on in the Easter charts.  They made it to a creditable No.4 in the charts.  The campaign website has a thank you from Martin Smith, lead singer of Delerious?, and reflects on the successes and failures of the campaign.

From Mouse's perspective its hard to avoid the bottom line that the aim was to get a No.1 and that failed.  However, there were many positives, not least the money that went to CompassionArt from the proceeds of the single sales.  I don't think anyone involved thought this initiative would change the world.  But Mouse is pleased that it has happened.

Westminster 2010

Regular readers may remember Mouse's post on the Manhattan Declaration.  This was a statement signed by a number of prominent Christians in the US.  It was intended as a statement of intent to make a clear stand on issues of sanctity of life, support for marriage and religious freedom.  Mouse's view was that it was too narrow, and too intertwined in US politics:

Mouse starts from the point of asking what are the biggest issues facing the world, and Christians in particular, today. Mouse's answer would start with the need to spread the good news of the Gospel to those who not heard of believed it before. After that, he would go on to global poverty, hunger, injustice, war and climate change. These are all things that the Bible is concerned with and tells us to fight against. Unfortunately, none of these things are mentioned in the Declaration. Many who wonder where the US church are on climate change, for example, will be dismayed that they have managed to get together on these issues, but not to tell Obama to Seal the Deal in Copenhagen.

Now, many would say that it is simply not the point of the declaration, and rather than talk about what it is not concerned with, we should discuss what it is concerned with. The problem with this is that it is concerned with an extremely narrow range of issues, which will divide many faithful Christians in some areas.

This declaration has now been signed by over 435,000 people, and that has clearly impressed some in the UK, as they have now created a carbon copy declaration, the Westminster Declaration.

The issues covered are pretty much the same, and the timing is designed to bring issues to the fore ahead of the upcoming general election.  It hasn't quite had the same impact on launch, however, as at the time of writing just 921 people have signed it, despite having the backing of some very prominent Christians (listed below).

Mouse's view on this declaration is pretty much the same as the last, except for the fact that it seems to have been copied from an American context, but not really translated to the British context.  Mouse still feels its too narrow, and can't see it having any meaningful impact on this general election, being launched far too late for it to register in the public conscience.

Prominent Signatories
Lord Carey - Former Archbishop of Canterbury
Cardinal O'Brien - Catholic Church in Scotland
Michael Nazir-Ali - Former Bishop of Rochester
Steve Clifford - General Director, Evangelical Alliance
Lyndon Bowring - Executive Director, CARE
Paul Ashton - CEO, Prospects for People with Learning Disabilities
Steve Brady - Principal, Moorlands College
Julie Anderson - Founder, Prayer for the Nation
Anita Cleverly - UK/European Director of ASK Prayer Network
Gerald Coates - Founder of Pioneer, Speaker, Author, Broadcaster
Chris Cole - Founder of Cross Rhythms
Baroness Cox - House of Lords
Philip Giddings - Chairman, Mission and Public Affairs Council, Church of England
John Glass - General Superintendent, Elim Churches
Martin Goldsmith - Associate Lecturer, All Nations Christian College, Author, International Conference Speaker
Lynn Green - International Chairman, Youth With A Mission
Archbishop Hackman - Transatlantic and Pacific Association of Churches (TAPAC)
Clifford and Monica Hill - Projects Director and Executive Director, Contemporary Christianity
Tony Horswood - Director, Connections
Kate and Paul Jinadu - Overseers, New Covenant Church Network
Matilda McAtthram - Black Mental Health UK
Peter Maiden - International Director, Operation Mobilisation
Julie Littler Manners - Fountain House Ministries
Yaqub Masih - Chairman, Pakistan Christian Concern
David Montgomery - District Superintendent of England and Wales, Church of the Nazarene
Jonathan Oloyede - Convener, Global Day of Prayer London
Hugh Palmer - Rector, All Souls Church
Peter Saunders - CEO, Christian Medical Fellowship
David Shosanya - London Baptist Association
Olave Snelling - CEO, Christian Broadcasting Council
Simon Steer - Principal, London School of Theology
Chris Sugden - Executive Secretary, Anglican Mainstream
Mike Wall - Executive Director, All Nations Christian College
Andrea Williams - Director, CCFON
Dennis Wrigley - Leader, Maranatha Community

Rowan's busy Easter - an ambush and an escape

The Archbishop of Canterbury must have expected a busy Easter period.  The high point of the Christian calendar has a series of set pieces for an Archbishop, as well as the opportunity for a wide range of media and public appearances.

For Rowan this year, that included an excellent YouTube Easter message, a sermon at Canterbury Cathedral, and an Easter Sunday interview with Aled Jones.  All pretty standard stuff in many ways.  But this is no ordinary year.

Religion was in the news this year, more than ever before.  And sadly, it is all about the Church, rather than Jesus.  This year, the troubles of the Catholic Church were centre stage, with almost every news report over the Easter period featuring the child abuse scandal.

So Mouse was rather surprised that Rowan was ambushed so brazenly this year.  Clearly the media was after a 'Rowan Williams has a go at the Catholic Church' headline, and was determined to get one by any means necessary.  Rowan only just tip-toed into the bear trap, with the line that the Catholic Church in Ireland had 'lost all credibility'.  A storm ensued.

Mouse will make just two observations.  First, is that anyone who listened to the interview would know that Rowan was not having a go at the Catholic Church at all.  He was making a point about how tragic it is that this is happening in a country where the Catholic Church is so intertwined with society.  Yes he did say it had lost all credibility, but in context it had a very different impact.

The second point is that it is a credit to the man that he immediately apologised and explained what he meant.  There was no complaining that he had been taken out of context, which he had, or that this was the product of a media hungry for a headline.  He simply accepted that he'd said the wrong thing.

A lesson for many others, Mouse thinks.

Climategate - MPs report clears scientists

The climategate scandal was the biggest challenge to the broadening consensus in Britain about the urgent need to limit carbon emissions to control the effects of climate change.  The story broke that emails had been leaked between scientists at the heart of climate change research, in which they apparently stated that they were using a 'trick' to make the trends fit their theories.  The conspiracy theories went wider, however, and claims were made that the emails showed that there was a conspiracy to subvert the whole scientific process on this issue.

It was a major international story.  So presumably it is an equally big story that the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee has now investigated the affair and concluded that there is no cover-up and no conspiracy.  Well, no.  But it should be.

The crucial pieces of the conclusion are:

We are content that the phrases such as “trick” or “hiding the decline” were colloquial terms used in private e-mails and the balance of evidence is that they were not part of a systematic attempt to mislead. Likewise the evidence that we have seen does not suggest that Professor Jones was trying to subvert the peer review process. Academics should not be criticised for making informal comments on academic papers.

and also:

In the context of the sharing of data and methodologies, we consider that Professor Jones’s actions were in line with common practice in the climate science community. It is not standard practice in climate science to publish the raw data and the computer code in academic papers.

Mouse predicted that this was a storm in a tea-cup and said, "Mouse's view is that we don't take guff about these emails any more seriously than we take those loonies who think the US government organised 9/11."  Mouse is delighted to have got this one right.

However, the conspiracy theories won't take let this one die.  Permanent damage has been done by this, even though it was a fuss about nothing.  That means we'll have to work even harder to make the case in future.

Easter Monday round up

Here's my round up from the blogosphere.  Ten of the best from the blogs this week, with a special Easter edition.

1. Bishop Nick Baines on the end of the world

2. Clayboy on the empty tomb

3. Gavin Drake on Easter in Jerusalem

4. The Church Times blog on the arrest of Palm Sunday protestors in Bethlehem

5. Bartholomew's Notes on Nick Griffin's Easter Message

6. The Spamhead blog on the Westminster 2010 declaration

7. David Keen on facing Easter (good to have him blogging again)

8. Ben Dawn posts on his mum, Maggi's, blog on world autism awareness day

9. Graham Tomlin on Christian freedom

10. Pete Phillips on Easter opinion surveys

April fools fun

Well done to those who spotted that this morning's story about the EU wanting to regulate Bibles was my little April fool.  Here are a few others, which are all rather good.

1. Clayboy has a great story about the arrest of Michael Nazir-Ali in Germany

2. Ekklesia has some good fun with a potential re-branding of the good old CofE

3. The Guardian on Labour's new election strategy

4. Iain Dale set some hares racing with his story on a strike threat from election returning officers

EU to begin regulating Bibles

The European Union has announced that it is to regulate which books can and cannot be called 'The Bible'.  The regulation falls under the consumer protection arm of European legislation, and will allow only versions of the Bible which have been authorised by EU officials to be sold as 'The Bible'.

European Commissioner for Health and Consumer Policy, John Dalli, said, "All consumers are entitled to know that the product they are buying is the genuine article.  This applies to the Bible as much as any other product, perhaps more so as it is such a big seller across Europe.  I think Christians will be glad to know that the version of the Bible they see in the shops has been certified as an authentic translation".

This news is sure to trigger speculation about which versions of the Bible will be allowed under this legislation.  It is likely that The Message version will not be allowed to call itself the Bible, but fears will be raised about other translations, such as the Good News Bible and even the King James Bible, which are known to have looser translations in terms of literal accuracy.

This move is sure to fire up traditionalists, who will no doubt accuse the European Union of interfering where it is not wanted, and it does appear to be a bit of a 'straight banana law' for the church.

The proposal has been issued as a consultation, so it will be a long time before it makes it into European law and eventually implemented by member countries, and no doubt a fierce campaign will be waged to stop this regulation.