Friday, 30 December 2005

civil partnerships: AM and some statistics

Updated 9 January
“Anglican Mainstream” has issued a press release. The text of it is not currently on at last posted to the AM website but meanwhile it can be found here. It says in part (emphasis added):

Following the passing of the Act, the House of Bishops of the Church of England released a pastoral statement on July 25 2005. Anglican Mainstream, the Church of England Evangelical Council, and Reform all issued responses to the Bishops’ statement between July and September. Between them they represent people in over 1000 churches and 2000 clergy throughout England. The Anglican Mainstream letter… has since been personally signed by over 1700 people, including 290 clergy and two Bishops from 260 churches in 38 dioceses. It has today been presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury as evidence of the deep disquiet within the Church about the pastoral situation which the Civil Partnership Act has created.

The statistics included in this press release are rather interesting. (Of course, any AM-originated statistics warrant caution in interpretation.)

Anglican Mainstream UK (which covers Wales, Scotland, and Ireland as well) has a Steering Committee which includes representatives from: Reform, CEEC, Church Society, and New Wine. It is curious that the latter two organisations are not mentioned in the press release.

If this coalition represents only 1000 churches and 2000 clergy in the Church of England then it would seem to be very far indeed from representing “mainstream” evangelical opinion within the Church of England.

What is even more significant is how few signatures AM has managed to obtain, even after several months of active solicitation.

According to the CofE official website, there are:

“… more than 9,000 paid clergy; more than 2,000 non-stipendiary ministers;… around 5,000 active retired clergy; and 1,100 chaplains in colleges, universities, hospitals, schools, prisons and the armed forces.”

and from here:

“The Church of England has some 16,000 church buildings, in 13,000 parishes covering the whole of England…”

And AM obtained less than 300 clergy signatures from only 260 churches.

Posted by Simon Sarmiento on Friday, 30 December 2005 at 10:12pm GMT
You can make a Permalink to this if you like
Categorised as: Church of England
Comments

So, consistent with the principle of consensus or majority rule (despite any ongoing injustices, persecution, diminishing/diluting of the Gospel, and cheerful ignoring of the broad and well established consensus in the psychological, biological and sociological sciences that would lead any rational and compassionate creature to different conclusions than those held by 'reasserters') that has been exposed and clarified by the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent Q&A session at the Egyptian 'encounter', this means they should be completely and forever ignored.

Completely ignored, apart from being tutted over and then patronised with some loving smiles and prayer - then ignored.

Hey, maybe they should be actively persecuted too; maybe telling them they should not be allowed to have sex or they will be excommunicated and/or go to hell. Yes, that makes sense. And why not prevent any of their number from becoming bishops, too? Maybe we should let our witness to the world be that they and their practices (I don't know what those sorts do in private) are gravely disordered and evil or something. It doesn't matter if it results in 'reasserter'-bashing or murder or other civil cruelties and injustice, because they are in the minority.

Oh, I'm liking this; life is so much simpler with a consensus/majority rule mentality.

Oops, I forgot, it doesn't quite follow, because reassertuality is a LIFESTYLE CHOICE, and not an innate, predominantly unchangeable condition like homosexuality or being a woman.

So, it wouldn't be fair.

Posted by: Augustus Meriwether on Saturday, 31 December 2005 at 2:30am GMT

I made a lovely little chart of your figures at

http://frontparlour.blogspot.com/2005/12/anglican-fringe-dribble.html

Posted by: Augustus Meriwether on Saturday, 31 December 2005 at 5:29am GMT

Augustus Merriwether wrote: "Hey, maybe they should be actively persecuted too; maybe telling them they should not be allowed to have sex or they will be excommunicated and/or go to hell. Yes, that makes sense. And why not prevent any of their number from becoming bishops, too? Maybe we should let our witness to the world be that they and their practices (I don't know what those sorts do in private) are gravely disordered and evil or something. It doesn't matter if it results in 'reasserter'-bashing or murder or other civil cruelties and injustice, because they are in the minority."

Dear Augustus, (Happy New Year!)

That may be how you would treat people you consider to be sinners, but it is NOT what I do, or any conservative Christian I know.

Dave.

ps Many people find that their sexuality changes over the years (or at least the balance of their sexual preferences changes). So I think that "predominantly unchangeable" is too simplistic... And since when has being a woman been "predominantly unchangeable condition" !!

Posted by: Dave on Saturday, 31 December 2005 at 1:07pm GMT

Dear Simon

You omitted Fulcrum's statement which you can find here: http://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/news/2005/20050917cpa.cfm?doc=6&CFID=3808646&CFTOKEN=9c8488b1c36901b3-2945E802-00BB-E1E4-21696478E9ABD6C7

And Forward in Faith here: http://www.forwardinfaith.com/artman/publish/article_248.shtml

I think that covers the whole of the non-liberal end of the Church of England! (For non-UK readers, you might like to know that CEEC is the main umbrella organisation for all Evangelicals in the CofE)

Anglican Mainstream is the organisation set up in the face of the recent "innovations" to represent the views of all Anglicans (Evangelical, Anglo-Catholic or other) who wish to uphold scriptural/apostolic/traditional teachings of Christianity.

Posted by: Dave on Saturday, 31 December 2005 at 1:28pm GMT

And while we're at it, the liberal "Inclusive Church" petition is rather dishonest in that it doesn't actually say anything that most people would disagree with - it even goes so far as to reaffirm obedience to Holy Scripture!! I guess for this reason there was, until recently, a section on their website for people who signed up and then realised they didn't agree (with what IC was really saying)! See for yourself:

"INCLUSIVE CHURCH"'S DECLARATION OF BELIEF

We affirm that the Church's mission, in obedience to Holy Scripture, is to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ in every generation.

We acknowledge that this is Good News for people regardless of their sex, race or sexual orientation.

We believe that, in order to strengthen the Gospel's proclamation of justice to the world, and for the greater glory of God, the Church's own common life must be justly ordered.

To that end, we call on our Church to live out the promise of the Gospel; to celebrate the diverse gifts of all members of the body of Christ; and in the ordering of our common life to open the ministries of deacon, priest and bishop to those so called to serve by God, regardless of their sex, race or sexual orientation.

Posted by: Dave on Saturday, 31 December 2005 at 1:49pm GMT

I think that Anglican Mainstream represent a particular hard-line minority, evidenced by their wish to prevent gay lay persons in partnerships from being communicants within the Church of England.

I certainly don't think they represent 'mainstream' opinion in the UK, but then, I have always seen them as an organisation set up to gather people together for departure from Anglicanism should the split take place.

Posted by: Merseymike on Sunday, 1 January 2006 at 11:08am GMT

Is it just me, or do the asides and 'spin' on these posts always 'spin' in one direction - this post being a good example, with the asides on stats? If so,that is not what one expects from unbiased reporting, nor from this otherwise excellent blog.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Sunday, 1 January 2006 at 12:54pm GMT

Don't be surprised Christopher, the information on this site is informative and of value to all members of the christian church. But it is not value neutral - its purpose is clearly presented here: http://www.thinkinganglicans.org.uk/archives/000065.html

Notice that it presents information from a "liberal christian perpective" which is a blessing "In a world where the voices of fundamentalism and conservatism are frequently heard"

Now to hear conservative spin you can visit http://www.anglican-mainstream.net or http://titusonenine.classicalanglican.net
and I think I know what to expect at your own http://www.kt.org/

By contrast I value this place because I value "tolerant, progressive and compassionate Christian spirituality".

Posted by: Ray on Sunday, 1 January 2006 at 6:41pm GMT

Kensington Temple?

That well-known Anglican church?

Posted by: Merseymike on Monday, 2 January 2006 at 10:26am GMT

So all members of a given body think in the same way? About every conceivable topic? And to think that I respected MPs who defied their whips....

There is manifestly such a thing as being less biased rather than more biased: to prove it, we all know people who are more biased, so by definition we know people who are less.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Tuesday, 3 January 2006 at 6:17pm GMT

Simon's research into the figures seems pretty accurate - his comments simply and gently point out the relevance of these for the claim that the "Anglican Mainstream" response to the bishops' pastoral statement represents the mainstream of the Church of England.

I too respect MPs who are willing to buck the party line - but hey, perhaps in saying this you are subtly telling us that you don't go with the KT party line on loving faithful homosexual relationships, if so - well done, Christopher but such a stance can be costly, I don't think that Colin Dye values those who don't follow the party line :
http://www.willnapier.com/LosingMyReligion.html

Posted by: Ray on Tuesday, 3 January 2006 at 10:07pm GMT

Dear Ray, As I said before, I think that all the non-liberal groupings in the CofE have made similar responses to AM's.

Anyway, the discussion is not about majority opinion but theological truth... these are not always the same!

Posted by: Dave on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 at 12:08am GMT

So, when it's about the Anglican Communion accepting gay bishops and gay blessings, it IS about majority opinion and consensus because that somehow indicates a theological truth or even the mind of God (woooooh).

But, when it's about an extreme, puritanical, hard-line traditionalist faction - who at 1.7% of the English Church clergy, are very much a minority - it is NOT about majority opinion and consensus because that somehow indicates that the teeny puritanical reasserter faction are sole possessors of theological truth or even knowers of the mind of God.

I see.

Thank you for that; it must indeed be 'classic' Anglicanism.

Posted by: Augustus Meriwether on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 at 12:18pm GMT

Yes Dave, in your previous response you added FiF and Fulcrum to the statements noted by Simon. And I note in checking the list of signatories expressing agreement with the Anglican Mainstream statement from my diocese (Chelmsford)that a number of these come from parishes linked with Reform (some of these parishes seem to have prompted a number of their members and the church cat to sign) This discussion seems to show that despite such concerted efforts the number of parishes represented is only a very small proportion of the Church of England.

But numbers don't settle matters - even if millions had signed that would not condone continuing to fail to recognise the work of grace manifest in so many loving faithful homosexual relationships.

Posted by: Ray on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 at 2:09pm GMT

Dear Augustus and Ray, No, the numbers of people who hold particular views is always a secondary issue. The fact that grace can be manifested in all sorts of relationships is a property of grace - it doesn't depend on our obedience!

Posted by: Dave on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 at 6:06pm GMT

I think that Augustus Meriwether has (finally) got it ;=)

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Wednesday, 4 January 2006 at 7:35pm GMT

Hi Ray-
Actually, on the contrary, my views are strongly anti active homosexuality. But this is not based on the Bible, which was merely reporting and commenting on what was already apparent. In any case arguments from the Bible can be circular. It is based on the available statistics on things like life-expectancy levels; promiscuity levels; abuse levels; and of course the way that heterosexuality is so obviously natural and fruitful (it 'fits') in a way that homosexuality is not. Other factors are the association of the rise of gay rights with the rise of promiscuity and the overall highly damaging 1960s ideology, with the former of which it so clearly overlaps. And then there is also the consideration that most people will go along with what happens to be fashionable in (a) their own country and (b) their own time in history, no matter what the statistics tell them. People have only a certain amount of social-deviance tolerance; they want to be accepted and seem relatively normal, and don't want to seem eccentric or fuddyduddy in their views. For many people this is a big fear.

I saw the website you mentioned, & obviously it's hard to comment if one has only one side of the story. Even if every word of it is true, I have behaved just as badly myself under stress, & alas I suppose we all do things we regret.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Thursday, 5 January 2006 at 6:02pm GMT

Addendum:
I missed out the most important statistical point: namely (proportional) STD levels. Smoking is an example of a lifestyle which inevitably has negative effects/fruits because it is intrinsically negative. Or one could see it the other way round: the fact that it is intrinsically negative is demonstrated by its negative effects/fruits. And the same goes for any other lifestyle or practice: by its fruits we shall know it.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Thursday, 5 January 2006 at 7:23pm GMT

Re the statistics, the proportions you give would only be valid if every single Cof E clergyman/woman had been asked their views, or had responded in one way or the other. Clearly, only a small minority gave any kind of response,either positive or negative.

We are always being told that statistically (a) the largest and (b) fastest growing group in the C of E is the evangelicals. I don't know precisely how true the statistics are (though there is a limit to how untrue they can be);nor do I deny the need to differentiate between numerous different types of evangelicals, and indeed numerous different individuals. Nor do I know what the result would be if everyone were asked their opinion. What I do know - and everyone else also knows - is that the statistics now in hand are no basis for finding the proportions of opinion within C of E, or C of E clergy, as a whole.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Thursday, 5 January 2006 at 7:47pm GMT

"Actually, on the contrary, my views are strongly anti active homosexuality . . . It is based on the available statistics on things like life-expectancy levels; promiscuity levels; abuse levels; and of course the way that heterosexuality is so obviously natural and fruitful (it 'fits') in a way that homosexuality is not. Other factors are the association of the rise of gay rights with the rise of promiscuity and the overall highly damaging 1960s ideology, with the former of which it so clearly overlaps."

I'm sorry, Christopher: if these comments were designed as an intentional PARODY (see, for example, "This Week in God" or "Gay Watch!" on Comedy Central's "The Daily Show"), they simply could not be more *ludicrous*.

Humor us w/ Flat Earth Society "available statistics" (which are also "obviously natural")? :-0

This load may fly at "Kensington Temple": among *thinking Anglicans*, not so much... :-/

[JCF, back from Christmas celebrations on the ol' home sod: Christ is with us, alleluia! :-D]

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Thursday, 5 January 2006 at 10:59pm GMT

JCF-
As my old teacher used to say: ATQ -or 'answer the question'.

Here in England we enjoy Willans & Searle's Molesworth books. Molesworth answers exam questions with answers like 'larfably easy'. What he doesn't do is answer the question.

Now - which sort of people avoid answering questions? Those who don't want to face up to them?

Statistics are the only relatively objective way of making a decision on most topics. Zeitgeist and social trends, because they are so changeable, are one of the less good ways.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Friday, 6 January 2006 at 9:56am GMT

Incidentally, JCF's answer is of a common type in modern debate: namely, changing the subject from 'is it true?' to 'is it funny?'. The former is the essential matter in hand, whereas the latter is irrelevant.
People will always find things funny that would be taboo in their own circles. Whereas people concerned for truth don't mind in the least being laughed at. Funniness and truth are -as everyone knows- two separate questions. So it beats me why people treat them as the same question.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Friday, 6 January 2006 at 12:59pm GMT

Hi Christopher,

Thanks for your comments but I'm with JCF on this; your statements do read rather like attempted spoof. But for fun let's pretend that they're intended to be taken seriously.

Christopher, having wisely abandoned any attempt at providing a Biblical basis for your anti-homosexual stance recognising that "arguments from the Bible can be circular" you now tell us that you subscribe to what appears to be approaching statistical foundationalism . But this begs so many questions, what are the statistics and how are they to be interpreted? You have concluded that whatever statistics you have in mind tell us that homosexual practice is wrong, is this all homosexual practice or just certain types? Are there any kinds of homosexual practice that you recognise as neither being promiscuous nor reducing life-expectancy?

As this thread relates to responses to the UKs provision for registering Civil Partnerships, couldn't statistics that purport to show lower life-expectacy and higher promiscuity levels among homosexuals be interpreted to show the adverse effects of homosexality being marginalised and demonised by society. This interpretation would prompt us as a compassionate society to provide societal recognition and approbation of faithful homosexual relationships as this could be seen as reducing the pressures towards promiscuity and fostering a climate in which faithful homosexuals are affirmed in the same way as loving heterosexual couples.

No neither biblical foundationalism, statistical foundationalism nor the kind of Natural Law arguments that you gesture towards, help us in deciding the "homosexual question"

The Church of England has historically recognised that such complex questions need to be approached carefully and sensitively valuing the witness of Scripture, the traditions of the Church, the best findings of human scientific and philosphical endeavours and also the experiences of christians seeking to live for Christ in a way that affirms the riches of God's creation. Now all of these inform the debate in the Church and in the Church different believers may come to different conclusions and these differences may only be resolved, if at all, over some time. Sadly the Church, therefore, sometimes lags behind the world in moving toward the just and loving treatment of excluded minorities.

Theres' a lot more that could be said about the difficult and sensitive task of making moral decisions in a complex world but I can't say it now (and I'm sure that others are more qualified to do so) cos I'm off to Gatwick to fly over Hamburg for a romantic weekend :)

Posted by: Ray on Friday, 6 January 2006 at 1:11pm GMT

Hi Ray-
Once again: the issue is (as I'm sure you're aware...?) not whether it's funny, but whether it's true.

Of course, we are talking averages/large-scale trends. All responsible government decisions are made on the basis of averages / large-scale trends.

There are of course smokers who live to a ripe old age in rude health. But they are not the norm, and the same applies to other averagely-unhealthy lifestyles.

Surely the multiple-angles approach which you advocate, and which I agree with, includes the statistical approach. Indeed, the statistical approach has in its favour that it is less open to imposed ideologies: more objective without ever being completely objective.

Re civil partnerships: Does one encourage smokers to continue their former lifestyle, while formalising it and giving it a seal of approval? No - because everyone knows that only one thing is good for them,and for anyone else in an intrinsically unhealthy lifestyle: namely, giving up altogether. And millions all over the world testify to Christ's transforming power in all different areas of life. I've always felt that those who deny this transforming power can only be denying something they haven't yet experienced, which is understandable if logically suspect.

Have a good w/e.

Cheers

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Friday, 6 January 2006 at 3:31pm GMT

Ever heard of "lies, damned lies and statistics" ;=)

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Friday, 6 January 2006 at 4:01pm GMT

Ray wrote: "Sadly the Church, therefore, sometimes lags behind the world in moving toward the just and loving treatment of excluded minorities."

Dear Ray, That's very loose language! It is "just and loving treatment" to lock up paedophiles, who could be said to be an "excluded minority"! You need to spell out how you decide what are acceptable "orientations", how justice and love should be applied, and why!

Blanket assertions might sound virtuous, but don't engage with the issues - and are open to abuse and ridicule!

Posted by: Dave on Friday, 6 January 2006 at 6:15pm GMT

"JCF-
As my old teacher used to say: ATQ -or 'answer the question'."

Christopher: *you* ain't my teacher (I doubt you have credentials I would trust---anymore than I do your "statistics"). Answering your questions would just waste my time (and are unlikely to change your faulty presumptions in asking them).

In the long run of ecumenical relations, Anglicans and "Kensington Templars" need to have that basis of trust for full-communion (presuming you're Christian). As it is now, it's just not my priority (though, as always, "Thy will be done": God may have other plans?).

Adios!

Posted by: J. C. Fisher on Saturday, 7 January 2006 at 12:06am GMT

Dave, in response to your question about acceptable 'orientations':

A very simple criteria that most people use now-a-days in distinguishing whether an act is 'wrong' or not, is CONSENT.

I have not, btw, consented to being associated with paedophilia or disease as you and Mr Shell have just done.

Posted by: augustus meriwether on Saturday, 7 January 2006 at 12:26pm GMT

Dear Augustus Merriwether, If you use Consent as the sole grounds for determining right and wrong sexual behaviour, that means that you must believe that adultery, promiscuity and group sex are all ok.

Is that what you believe ? If so you are further away from biblical Christianity than the standard position espoused by liberal Anglicans (at the moment) - that they just want the blessing of the church for monogamous life-long sexual relationships between any two people who love each other.

Posted by: Dave on Sunday, 8 January 2006 at 1:15am GMT

ps I was not associating you with paedophilia. And I would be pleased if you would stop associating people with conservative moral values with violence against gays.

Posted by: Dave on Sunday, 8 January 2006 at 1:29am GMT

Either people debate on the basis of maximally hard facts (of which statistics,however imperfect, are the obvious example) or they don't debate at all. Discourse on the basis of opinion and ideology is not debate, and it has a foregone conclusion. That is why Simon was right to make the points he did based on statistics rather than on anything more nebulous.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Sunday, 8 January 2006 at 12:07pm GMT

Hi Augustus

You wrote above: 'A very simple criteria that people use now-a-days in distinguishing whether an act is wrong or not is consent.'

(1) Whether people use a criterion nowadays is irrelevant - unless one believes that whatever happens nowadays is good. Which no-one believes. The question is, rather, whether people are justified in using this criterion.

(2) Consent between whom? All affected parties? So someone's family (wife, husband, children, parents), and loved ones, and all (Christians etc) who have concern for their welfare are not affected? In fact all of these are affected, and not all of them consent. Society itself is affected,since society is the sum of everyone's behaviour. Plenty of society does not consent. It is only an individualistic (ie more-or-less selfish) society that can imagine that 'private' does not affect 'public' and individual action has no outside ramifications.
No man is an island. Everything affects everything else (cf. the butterfly effect).

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Sunday, 8 January 2006 at 12:26pm GMT

I said 'a' criterion, not 'the sole' criteria.

I focussed on consent to address your categorizing (and so associating) paedophilia along with homosexuality (referenced by Ray, to whom you were responding) as identifying characteristics of two 'excluded minorities' whose exclusion is to be justified by your interpretation of the Bible. Your implication is that they are both aberrations from the heterosexual norm that is held up as an ideal by puritanical Christians and so barely distinguishable from each other in their wrongness. The frequent use of paedophilia in debate around homosexuality helps to create a climate of scapegoating homosexuality for the societal phenomenon of child sex abuse - witness the recent ban on gay seminarians by the RC church. You demanded to know how people differentiate between these two things in terms of being acceptable orientations.

Consent is obviously important in that comparison. The age of consent is the legal term used to define when paedophilia is paedophilia and not something else.

The theme of this topic is statistics. Most paedophilia is carried out by heterosexual men in the family home. That is why I take exception at the regular slurs of being associated with paedophilia simply by virtue of the fact that I am a man having a sexual relationship with another consenting adult male.

The association serves no purpose in terms of debate around the subject of adult homosexual relationships and Christianity. It serves only to further prejudice.

Down the line, prejudice ends in violence.

Posted by: Augustus Meriwether on Sunday, 8 January 2006 at 12:48pm GMT

Dear AM, It is quite possible to think something is wrong and still respect people who do/believe it! Otherwise, given that we are all sinners, we would all disrespect everyone ! - including ourselves!!

Morals are not prejudice...

Posted by: Dave on Sunday, 8 January 2006 at 4:58pm GMT

My previous comment was directed at Dave, btw.

This to Mr Shell: I very much believe in consent applying to the wider picture. I do not believe that is reason to persecute and oppress a minority because of society's prejudices or another minority's misinterpretation of corrupt statistics.

Can I just remind people that Anglican MAINSTREAM'S own statistics reveal that they represent only 1.7 % of all Church of England clergy? Thank you. I love saying that: 1.7 % = mainstream. mainstream = 1.7 %

What's a minority, Daddy?

Posted by: Augustus Meriwether on Monday, 9 January 2006 at 1:27am GMT

Dave wrote: "Morals are not prejudice... "

Now, I very much wonder how you distinguish the one from the other.

And, by the way, you need explain how you "apply" "justice and love".

"and why!"

And why not?

And how you decide which is which.

"Blanket assertions might sound virtuous, but don't engage with the issues - and are open to abuse and ridicule"

Posted by: Göran Koch-Swahne on Monday, 9 January 2006 at 12:19pm GMT

I'm reminded of the line about using statistics the way a drunk person uses a light pole. More for support than for illumination.

Posted by: FriarJohn on Monday, 9 January 2006 at 2:47pm GMT

Interesting that people so often cite "statistics" in defense of their arguments without actually offering any....

Posted by: bls on Monday, 9 January 2006 at 10:37pm GMT

Maybe there is no such thing as an Anglican Mainstream, given that Anglicanism is intrinsically diverse.

Out of the available candidates, the evangelicals, being (a) most numerous and (b) most in tune with Anglican (and, more importantly, foundational Christian) tradition have a better claim than any other. But let's remember that people frequently use the term 'mainstream' in their own propaganda.

Posted by: Christopher Shell on Tuesday, 10 January 2006 at 2:33pm GMT

Göran wrote: "Morals are nor Prejudice. Now, I very much wonder how you distinguish the one from the other."

Dear Göran, Sometimes I wonder whether many people with a liberal world-view have in fact liost the ability to distinguish morals and prejudice due to such concepts relative (situation) ethics. The danger is of course that you begin to think that because you are "right" (ie liberal) you are not prejudiced!

To understand the subtle difference between them I'd suggest we start with some definitions. How about:

Morals: "the principles that determine the quality of human behaviour"

Prejudice: "an adverse judgment or opinion formed beforehand or without knowledge or examination of the facts."

Posted by: Dave on Thursday, 12 January 2006 at 11:31pm GMT
Post a comment









Remember personal info?

Please note that comments are limited to 400 words. Comments that are longer than 400 words will not be approved.

Cookies are used to remember your personal information between visits to the site. This information is stored on your computer and used to refill the text boxes on your next visit. Any cookie is deleted if you select 'No'. By ticking 'Yes' you agree to this use of a cookie by this site. No third-party cookies are used, and cookies are not used for analytical, advertising, or other purposes.