This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

What's the Point of the Archbishop of Canterbury? - Comments

notsobad's Avatar Comment 1 by notsobad

money

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:38:00 UTC | #131488

Clive's Avatar Comment 2 by Clive

None! Just another misguided fool in an outdated establishment.

Let mankind leave its adolescence now please.

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:02:00 UTC | #131505

Dr. Strangegod's Avatar Comment 3 by Dr. Strangegod

power

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:07:00 UTC | #131509

LetMeBeClear's Avatar Comment 4 by LetMeBeClear

Boetheius said we have 5 false goods...

1.power
2.honor
3.riches
4.fame
5.pleasure

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 16:23:00 UTC | #131517

Gymnopedie's Avatar Comment 5 by Gymnopedie

Hell, what's the point of religion? Eh, nevermind...

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:28:00 UTC | #131557

Enlightenme..'s Avatar Comment 6 by Enlightenme..

Maggie: "It wouldn't be spring, without the sound of the odd cuckoo" *
Letts: "Mh-aah, the blessed Margaret"
I also felt a great twinge of nostalgia hearing her in her pomp.
(RD was of course central to Maggie's success - having written her manifesto, and the screenplay for Wall street)

'Collaborating for a better society' [A of C being a 'spokesman for all faiths'] - I think this has become the general concensus on what the arch-bish was about hasn't it?
After all, that's just following the example set by the pope when he showed what side the vatican was on in the Muhammad cartoons row - ie protection of Islam against 'blasphemy' should trump western secularist values.

Anyway - What's the point of the AoC? - I'm beginning to warm to antidisestablishmentarianism, because of the fact that this at least holds them in check, though it all started out as an unspoken faustian bargain, it seems to have worked out well in the long run, and I'm beginning to wonder if that has been a central difference between European and American statecraft.

*Cuckoo - parasite in the nest - purpose? - keep your enemies closer.

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 17:37:00 UTC | #131562

Styrer-'s Avatar Comment 7 by Styrer-

Because of the bold and satisfyingly irreverent title, I expected a similarly bold and irreverent treatment of the issue. Sadly, no.

This strikes more as a good old tongue-in-cheek, 'it's all a bit of a laugh, really', self-satisfied smug-fest of an old members' reunion, with about as much real critical analysis as you'd find at one.

Almost a waste of nearly 28 minutes, but for the long-overdue and pathetically marginalised wisdom of Susan Blackmore, granted a full 30 or so seconds towards the end.

Best,
Styrer

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:34:00 UTC | #131595

black wolf's Avatar Comment 8 by black wolf

I don't actually think they're about money. They are afraid of death and punishment, it's all about guilt and sin, and they just can't shake it. They believe that they need authority and power to save humanity from an imaginary concept. They've implanted the meme that 'spiritual persons' need to be generally respected and listended to into society, that they have some mysterious access to truth and wisdom beyond the material, that children need to continue completely unsupported ideas generation by generation.
These people need to be confronted much more often and much more inquisitevely. Whenever a society runs into actual or perceived problems, it turns to these priests, bishops, reverends or whatever. And still nobody asks them why they should be the ones to communicate values or morality. I want to see them being asked, every single time they publicly make some statement, where do you get this wisdom from. Why are we supposed to accept that as wisdom at all if you can't give any evidence towards its truth value. Define spiritual knowledge. Do you hear a god speaking to you. Why do you hold titles and privileged positions when you're not more than any educated philosopher.
No matter of the answer (I expect those to be the usual nebulous obfuscation), these questions will sink in, and people will start thinking.

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:36:00 UTC | #131598

dragonfirematrix's Avatar Comment 9 by dragonfirematrix

So... What is the point of religion besides distorting minds and holding back the progress of humanity?

We do not need to accept the rigid laws of religion (like Sharia). What was Williams thinking? Power, money, control...

We need to strive for something greater than religion. Perhaps we should start by admitting this basic truth: Like Santa Claus and like The Easter Bunny and like the Tooth Fairy, god is imaginary.

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 18:55:00 UTC | #131607

robotaholic's Avatar Comment 10 by robotaholic

The point of the Archbishop of Canterbury is to wear this yellow funky garb: http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/9/9a/350px-Eames2.jpg

lol how funny

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 19:14:00 UTC | #131620

Saerain's Avatar Comment 11 by Saerain

As Letts was saying around 22:40, it seems the Archbishop feels a duty to protect all time-worn superstition from the cold-hearted secularists of his 'spiritually weakened' country. I have encountered a startling number of people with this mindset. With them in mind, I would not be surprised to see religion at some point reverse its tendency to fracture, instead coming together against the likes of us as their common enemy.

Here's to the Church of Abrahamadharmatao.

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 20:12:00 UTC | #131665

MaxD's Avatar Comment 12 by MaxD

i think the ArchbishofCant Mr. Rowan Williams was trying to defend his own institution by suggesting that Muslims get invited into the fold of special treatment under the law. It will be the Siks next then the Hindus, but clearly the easy way out of all this special pleading for exemptions, inclusions and sensitivity is to seperate religion and government. That will be an end to the special treatment that the Anglican Church recieves from the British government.
I suspect such cynicsim from the clerical mind.

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 21:33:00 UTC | #131683

kintaro_crab's Avatar Comment 13 by kintaro_crab

I think another important question to ask is; "What is the point of the British Monarchy?"

Waving?
"Queen Elizabeth II Will Leave Behind Long Legacy Of Waving" The onion.com
http://www.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&VideoID=24219050

Tue, 04 Mar 2008 22:06:00 UTC | #131687

suffolkthinker's Avatar Comment 15 by suffolkthinker

To quote the Boomtown Rats:

"They can see no reasons
Cos there are no reasons
What reasons do you need to be shown?"

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 01:12:00 UTC | #131783

gcdavis's Avatar Comment 14 by gcdavis

If you are an Anglican then yes he is defender of your faith, if you are of another faith he may still be useful as a general advocate in defence of faith based issues, if you are a secularist, then he is an old fart in a dress!

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 01:12:00 UTC | #131782

Dinah's Avatar Comment 16 by Dinah

Beware the Man in Frock my son!
The jaws that cite, the laws that catch!
Beware the Bearded Face and shun
The numinous Wafflehatch!

(with apologies to Lewis Carroll)

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 01:44:00 UTC | #131798

fides_et_ratio's Avatar Comment 17 by fides_et_ratio

I wish they'd showed his photo to someone other than a bunch of Mancs. If it's not on Coronation St. or in a bag of chips, it's unlikely they're going to know anything about it.

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 01:58:00 UTC | #131806

Wosret's Avatar Comment 18 by Wosret

I think when the question "what the hell do you do anyway?" can be honestly, and not facetiously raised, then that alone should raise some red flags.

To be clear though, I've read a lot of crap about him, but that picture that was linked by Robotaholic was the first time I've ever seen him. So I wouldn't have been able to say who he was either. In fact many people that I know a lot about, and love to read the work of, or watch the anime of, I wouldn't know them if I saw them.

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 02:10:00 UTC | #131816

hungarianelephant's Avatar Comment 19 by hungarianelephant

fides - Have you ever actually been to Manchester?

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 02:29:00 UTC | #131829

JanChan's Avatar Comment 20 by JanChan

Lol, one of them thought the archbishop was an astrologer.

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 02:31:00 UTC | #131831

AshtonBlack's Avatar Comment 21 by AshtonBlack

I wish they'd showed his photo to someone other than a bunch of Mancs. If it's not on Coronation St. or in a bag of chips, it's unlikely they're going to know anything about it.


Of course if it was a bunch of Londoner's then it would have to be a bag of chips (with a pickled egg) or Eastenders...

:p

Point of the Arch Bish : Sod all.

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 02:34:00 UTC | #131833

DamnDirtyApe's Avatar Comment 22 by DamnDirtyApe

Bwahahahaha 'He Put something into space and it crashed...'

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 02:58:00 UTC | #131850

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 23 by Tyler Durden

4:11

Douglus Hurd thinks the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury is more important than the Prime Minister?

Fucktard™

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:05:00 UTC | #131853

Prankster's Avatar Comment 24 by Prankster

The point?

A single man holding on to a fast-fading outmoded form of dog-worship which has no place in modern 21st Britain-that's his function

It's a position and privilege that's no longer required

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:11:00 UTC | #131856

LorienRyan's Avatar Comment 25 by LorienRyan

What's the point of the Archbish o Cantebury?

So we can ask the question? Nah, f**k it, no point:P

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:15:00 UTC | #131861

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 26 by irate_atheist

What's the point of the Archbishop of Canterbury?

That would be an ecumenical matter.

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:16:00 UTC | #131862

fides_et_ratio's Avatar Comment 27 by fides_et_ratio

Interesting that the two clashes with PM's highlighted were with Mrs. T over the inner cities and with Blair over Iraq. I say fair play to the Archbishop in both cases. I was a great fan of Thatch but still see the value in a prominant apolitical figure raising relevant points in the media. I don't think our country would be a better place if politicians were free to wield their power free from such sobering voices as this and past Archbishops. If it's his office which enables him to challenge that power, then thank God for his office.

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:25:00 UTC | #131864

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 28 by Tyler Durden

then thank God for his office
Which God?

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:30:00 UTC | #131865

irate_atheist's Avatar Comment 30 by irate_atheist

27. Comment #139024 by fides_et_ratio -

Yes. They were successful in getting Thatcher to regenerate deprived inner city areas and Blair decided against invading Iraq [/sarcasm]

His position also allows him to lobby against equal rights for gays.

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:43:00 UTC | #131869

fides_et_ratio's Avatar Comment 29 by fides_et_ratio

The God

Wed, 05 Mar 2008 03:43:00 UTC | #131868