Comments: CEN defends its publication of 'Gaystapo' article

Disgraceful.

Posted by JCF at Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 5:36am GMT

That should read
'… and is read by SOME of its clergy'

Posted by Wilf at Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 7:26am GMT

This is pretty typical of the CEN, is it not? It's one small step above the stuff of the New Oxford Review (a rare example of a periodical of which it can be said that even its title contains only lies).

Posted by rjb at Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 7:53am GMT

Is Wallace Benn the new Winston Churchill? 'Cometh the hour, cometh the man'. He will be looking for something to keep him occupied after August next year.

Posted by Richard Ashby at Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 8:55am GMT

I'm a great supporter of the 'Church Times', which is generally much more progressive in the sort of journalism it features than the rigidly conservative 'C.of E. Newspaper'.

The fact that this latter organ of the disaffected is still alive and kicking is a sad thing for the Church of England. One can only rejoice at the sometime incompetence of its reporters on specific certain issues: Like, for instance, the recent reporting of a Split between ACNA and certain other schismatic Churches in the USA and Canada, which, apparently, according to their African sponsoring Primates had actually not occurred. That must be the sort of blunder that does no good for the dissenters.

However, on the other hand, did George Conger have information that GAFCON would not have liked to be broadcast to the rest of the Anglican Communion?

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 10:03am GMT

I find the article sad.

The whole 'pitch' is alarmist, fear-driven, obsessed by sex, crass, offensive to the memory of people who really suffered under the Nazis, self-pitying with a kind of martyr complex, a classic example of a majority (heterosexual men and women in this case) being persecuted by a minority (gay, bi or lesbian men/women/whoever) when actually it's the minority who continue to have their lives curtailed, and really... the whole article is so sadly out of touch and crude that it is an embarrassment for many Christians who are just trying to accept and love the diversity and goodness of their neighbours.

Of course, it is the gay population who are responsible for heterosexual marital breakdown, for heterosexual divorce, for heterosexual single parents struggling to cope, for the heterosexual sexualisation of women in worldwide porn, and for heterosexual rape. Everything is the fault of 'teh gayz'.

Posted by Susannah at Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 10:14am GMT

(contd...)

There is no threat to heterosexual marriage except heterosexual infidelity, and I don't say that triumphantly but with immense sadness.

Honestly, I found this article pathetic and I am sad for the author because he thinks he is being clever and witty, but I fear it is a kind of paranoia that will make some people - understandably - deride the very faith he seeks to 'defend'. The gays are causing the end of civilisation... what? Heterosexual marriage will end if gay marriage is introduced... really? What, all heterosexual people would stop getting married? They would say: "Oh well, if the gays are getting married, we're not going to, or we're going to have (even more) divorce"???

There's no logic to this argument that a loving gay couple getting married is going to somehow effect a heterosexual couple's marriage and relationship.

Posted by Susannah at Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 10:17am GMT

There's no logic. There's just fear-mongering, the glossing over far graver issues of corporate greed, inequality between our own wealth and the poor of the world, our own selfishness, our own sin.

But hey! It's far easier to identify a group of people and project all the blame on them... for the end of marriage, the end of Englishness, the end of civilisation.

The word is - homophobia.

It's also pretty much recognised as the tool of the person with a defeated argument, when they resort to 'Godwin's Law'.

Do we really have to equate every pet hate with Hitler, the appalling slaughter of Jews, the death of scores of millions? And compare people's tender relationships and committed love to those terrible realities?

Posted by Susannah at Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 10:24am GMT

The term 'gaystapo' was in fact coined by Johann Hari in his article about fascism:

“The twisted truth is that gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist movement that ever was - including the gay-gassing, homo-cidal Third Reich. With the exception of Jean-Marie Le Pen, all the most high-profile fascists in Europe in the past thirty years have been gay.

Fascism isn't something that happens out there, a nasty habit acquired by the straight boys. It is - in part, at least - a gay thing, and it's time for non-fascist gay people to wake up and face the marching music.” - Johann Hari

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/johann-hari/the-strange-strange-story_b_136697.html

Posted by Jill at Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 11:00am GMT

However you look at this, it is offensive and homophobic and the Church of England says, officially, that it condemns homophobia.

Unless the CEN distances itself from this, indeed 'repents' and publishes an apology, I hope dioceses and other national church institutions will withdraw advertising from the newspaper.

Posted by Grumpy High Church Woman at Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 1:46pm GMT

Jill, what ever the merits of Johan Hari's article you could write exactly the same thing about Jews and communism. And indeed some have, including fascists. The original article by Alan Craig (look him up on Google and see what causes he espouses and the the company he keeps) is a disgusting smear. The report in the Guardian, that the editor of the CEN was on holiday, but would have asked Craig to tone down the writing a bit, is rather like Rebecca Wade denying responsibilty for the Murdoch press phone hacking scandal. Disgraceful.

Posted by Richard Ashby at Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 2:29pm GMT

Also see this in Guardian 'Comment is http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/nov/09/gaystapo-alan-craig-gay-rights

Posted by Richard Ashby at Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 3:42pm GMT

Having done a little further digging this is also relevant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pink_Swastika

Follow the link to Scott Lively. It seems to me that the article by Johan Hari is a rehash of an item by an ex-gay fantasist and thus as reliable as anything else by Johann Hari published in the last few years.

Posted by Richard Ashby at Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 3:55pm GMT

"gay men have been at the heart of every major fascist movement that ever was "

Music to your ears then Jill? The logic though is that they must also be at the heart of organisations like Anglican Mainstream which many deem not a little fascistic.

Posted by Tom at Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 6:19pm GMT

Sometimes I despair. Truly. But there is more breadth of opinion found in the CEN than you might think, and also among its readers. I've freely aired my pro-gay views for about 13 years and I haven't been sacked (or even censored) yet. My response to this story is in this week's edition.

Posted by Catherine Fox at Wednesday, 9 November 2011 at 6:31pm GMT

Yet the CEN is not " Pravda" they allow greater expression in their letters page than the tightly controlled Church Times..and they have published no end of my letters exposing the duplicity of Reform as regards marriage and divorce.

Posted by Robert ian Williams at Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 7:13am GMT

'Music to my ears', Tom? That was a spiteful little remark, wasn't it? Nobody is rejoicing here. My point is that Hari's article doesn't seem to have raised too much ire. Why is that? If, say, Melanie Phillips had written it, she would have been hung out to dry.

The vile abuse which Alan Craig's piece has attracted seems to prove his point. Anybody who has actually read it can see that he is not saying what some people would like to think he has said. He would have been far wiser to have chosen a different analogy, but the actual points he raises are valid.

Posted by Jill at Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 8:10am GMT

What 'valid' points are those Jill? That there is a gay conspiracy to undermine civilisation as we know it, and that it is so strong and powerful that society wil inevitable crumble and anarchy will be let loose upon the earth. And that only a certain sort of fundamentalist 'Christian' has the divine right to oppose it because all the others are tainted with 'liberalism'. And that these 'Christians',who of course are in a tiny minority in the population at large, are charged by God to save everyone else from sodomy. A coherent and sane world view or more fantasy?

Posted by Richard Ashby at Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 11:18am GMT

Spiteful little remarks.

You know, I wonder - being gay and all - what it must be like for you poor, oppressed heterosexuals. Can't imagine. I mean, denied service, marriage, heaven, if people like Craig and his lot had their way, but . . . you have to put up with spiteful. little. remarks. And poor St. Alan Craig - such vile abuse; actually being held to account for pulling out an analogy that was bound to cause just this reaction!

My heart bleeds for you.

No. You're not rejoicing, just enjoying your imagined martyrdom, as usual.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 11:45am GMT

The neologism 'gaystapo' is brilliant. I am only sorry that it was coined by a journalist as discredited as Johann Hari. Militant 'gays' are indeed fascist in their methods and mentality. Like militant feminists, nothing is ever enough. All their activity comes from profound and entirely understandable self-loathing. No sane person can take them seriously.

Posted by John Bowles at Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 6:38pm GMT

@ Simon S. Does your publication of "John Bowles at Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 6:38pm GMT" confirm that the writer is, indeed, a satirist?

[If still in questionable taste. Perhaps "John Bowles" would do better w/ his/her own "Christwire"-type site, and leave Thinking Anglicans for a *degree* of sincerity!]

Posted by JCF at Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 7:29pm GMT

Dearie me yes, to be taken seriously, to be treated as an equal, to be judged for what one has done and can do and not to be dismissed because of one's gender or orientation - how outrageous. How unacceptable. No wonder with demands like those that women and gays hate themselves.

Posted by Rosemary Hannah at Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 8:50pm GMT

John Bowles,
"No sane person can take them seriously."

I think your psychology is wrong here. People take gay people very seriously indeed and they are deeply scared. God knows what of, but this hyperbolic reaction can only be explained by fear. Otherwise, why bother? People don't complain of harmless things.

Fortunately, you do have nothing to fear and your fears will not be proved right. As soon as society and the church treats gay people no different from anyone else the debate will stop and we can all get on with living in peace.

Stop fretting. Most people know by now that your anger and suspcition are misplaced, that gay people aren't a threat. This whole sorry battle will be over soon and in 20 years' time we'll all look back wondering what on earth we were fighting about.

Posted by Erika Baker at Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 9:53pm GMT

"Militant 'gays' are indeed fascist in their methods and mentality."

Let's run down the list of homophobic Evangelicals and Catholics murdered or bullied into suicide by gays ...

0

The only thing that makes us seem "fascist" is that bitter sting of mea culpa on your conscience.

Matthew Shepard, Fanny Ann Eddy, David Kato, and legions of others who died at the hands of the unjust bear witness not only against their killers, but against those whose arrogance, fanaticism, and bigotry enabled their murderers.


Posted by Counterlight at Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 10:04pm GMT

Hang on a minute, John Bowles. If it wasn't for some people having dared to be militant, wouldn't British society still be sweeping youknowwhatuality under the carpet in a mist of illegality, blackmailing and suicides, as obtained until mouthy 1960/70s militancy came along?

Posted by Fr Mark at Thursday, 10 November 2011 at 10:35pm GMT

It has to be satire, given:

"No sane person can take them seriously."

when combined with:

"Militant 'gays' are indeed fascist in their methods and mentality."

Which means the writer takes them seriously.

If it isn't satire, then I think I can only respond with a bit of Southern advice for Mr. Bowles:

I don't think I'd've told on myself like that.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Friday, 11 November 2011 at 4:47am GMT

The trouble with this 'search and destroy' mission by gay activists is that they fail to see the bigger picture. Councillor Craig is at the forefront of the campaign opposing the proposed East London Megamosque, which is a far, far bigger threat to gay people than he will ever be.

http://www.megamosquenothanks.com/node/20

Posted by Jill at Friday, 11 November 2011 at 6:51am GMT

Yes, it's telling that the same people who are so afraid of gays are also afraid of Muslims and about anyone else who isn't quite like they are.

The bigger picture, Jill, is that we're supposed to love those we consider to be our enemies, not demonise them and not build them up to the enormous threats they simply aren't.

You can live in Daily Mail country if you want to, but it's really a personal choice.
You could just as easily live as a well adjusted person getting on with those around you without seeing terrors round every corner.

Posted by Erika Baker at Friday, 11 November 2011 at 8:01am GMT

News flash - Islamaphobia is a far far bigger threat to society. If we drive all the supporters of a noble religion into a corner, by pretending they all support the objectionable views of a minority of them, and then stigmatising them and making it hard for them to practise their religion then we WILL damage society and we WILL create extremists. The more we are seen to be hostile to Islam, the more we damage society.

Posted by Rosemary Hannah at Friday, 11 November 2011 at 8:11am GMT

I recently heard the American cultural theorist Judith Butler speak in the UK. She addressed the issue of the appeal that the far-right is making to gay people in Europe - to align themselves with anti-immigration (and specifically anti-Muslim) parties under the pretence that they are defending liberalism: making Islamophobia the only alternative to homophobia. "Not in my name!" she said. It is an intriguing and important point. I think this may be the sole strand of truth behind the article by Johann Hari (or possibly cribbed by JH from someone else). European ultra-nationalists have been quite successful in depicting themselves as the defenders of liberty by libelling Islamic communities as a violent threat to gay people. The many historical ironies of this position are lost on them, as they no doubt are on Jill - who tries to make the same insulting claim.

Also lost on Alan Craig, Jill, and John Bowles is the fact that there don't seem to be any "militant gay activists" these days, at least in this country. I look for them in vain! The gay rights movement has become most tediously complacent and middle-class: less Peter Tatchell than Peter Mandelson. Gay rights has become part of the political consensus; the militarism of the 1970s and 1980s is a thing of the past. I admit to being a little nostalgic for it myself (though of course that was all long before I was born), and I can't blame the few maladjusted reactionaries, like Craig, who feel alienated by the realities of life in the 21st century.

Posted by rjb at Friday, 11 November 2011 at 8:34am GMT

I am fascinated by the predictable reactions to my comment about the 'gaystapo'. I was not writing tongue in cheek, nor am I frightened of homosexuals. I find them, quite simply, infuriating for being so demanding when all their demands were met in the late-Sixties. Some of the latter-day generation sound as if they long for the pre-1967 situation to return.

We live in a God-ordained heterosexual world. Inversion is an aberration from the norm and mercifully represents a minority. For that minority to demand a travesty of heterosexual parity is nonsense, especially as far as 'marriage' is concerned. The only point of marrying is to beget children, to increase and multiply. This is physically impossible for homosexuals unless they engage in what is to them aberrant heterosexual activity on a mechanical basis in order to achieve a spurious end.

I am interested in GMT's point about the absence of gay militancy in Britain and the absorption of homosexual life within middle-class culture.
This is demonstrably true but relics of passive militancy lurk within the fringes of the national Church, as the many comments demonstrate on this website. Even to infer that homosexuality might be an aberration elicits Guardianesque reactions galore, or should I say 'gaylore'?

Posted by John Bowles at Friday, 11 November 2011 at 10:37am GMT

Jill "The trouble with... gay activists is that they fail to see the bigger picture. Councillor Craig is at the forefront of the campaign opposing the proposed East London Megamosque"

I do see a bigger picture, Jill. The bigger picture I see here is that a certain strand of Conservative Evangelical operates in the penumbra of British society where the BNP and UKIP pick up their voters.

It is the mindset of the mad and frankly nasty Religious Right which so blights the USA, and I don't think we want it in the UK, where we have hitherto kept extremist religious nutters well away from political control, do we?

Posted by Fr Mark at Friday, 11 November 2011 at 12:21pm GMT

'The only point of marrying is to beget children, to increase and multiply.'
The only point - eh by gum, it's a bad do when even the 1662 Prayer book is more liberal than one - go read it and figure John Bowles.

Posted by Rosemary Hannah at Friday, 11 November 2011 at 5:39pm GMT

John Bowles,
you'd better get used to it, because society and eventually the church will most certainly grant gay people 100% equality in all aspects of law and that includes marriage.
The only question is when, not if.

Posted by Erika Baker at Friday, 11 November 2011 at 6:17pm GMT

John Bowles: "I find them, quite simply, infuriating for being so demanding when all their demands were met in the late-Sixties."

No, that's not true, John. I grew up in a Britain where homosexuality was still totally taboo in middle-class churchy South East England; where the age of consent for gay people was still 21 when I was at university, meaning large numbers of undergraduates habitually broke the law; where gay people could not serve in the armed forces - and this was growing up in the 70s and 80s.

Still today, if one reads the press reports, people regularly get beaten up and worse merely on account of their sexual orientation in the UK: it is not yet an equal or entirely safe society for gay people.

Oddly, where I currently live, in Scandinavia, there appears to be absolutely not the slightest sign of anyone you would describe as "militantly" gay - the straight men tend to look pretty much like the gay ones elsewhere, and there is no need for militancy when there has been, for a long time, greater equality under the law, and is now, in most of Scandinavia, same-sex marriage legislation too.

Posted by Fr Mark at Friday, 11 November 2011 at 8:32pm GMT

John Bowles, who I assume is straight, is willfully ignorant. I was 22 when the 1967 act became law. I well remember what it was like both before and afterwards. The decriminalisation was very limited. Homosexual acts weren't legalised, they were decriminalised, as was made clear in various prosecutions afterwards. Homosexual acts were only permitted between consenting adults over 21 in private. And that meant that they could not take plce in hotel rooms or even when staying with friends. Chatting up another man could be prosecuted as 'soliciting' and any sort of public affection was 'indecent behaviour'.

Moreover, men could be and were dismissed from their jobs just for being gay. Discrimination was rife, blackmail still a threat, prosecutions of gay men actually rose to new hights after 1967.

Perhaps Mr Bowles would like to remember the pulpit poofs campaign of the Sun newspaper, the infamous Clause 28 (red meat thrown to the conservative backbenches said an MP), the way a man could be and often was denied access to a sick or dying partner, evicted from his home on the say so of the relatives. Perhaps he approves of those 'Christians' who said that HIV/aids was God's judgement and wanted us eliminated?

I lived through all that and much more so I know what I am talking about. I have no intention of going back into such a world and neither do many thousands of others. Mr Bowles had better get used to us.

Perhaps, as a straight man, Mr Bowles would like to consider living like that and perhaps, as a contributor to a blog called 'Thinking Anglicans', he might like to think a little more before parading his ignorance in public.

Posted by Richard Ashby at Friday, 11 November 2011 at 9:46pm GMT

I think laying out evidence and testimony before Mr. Bowles is a waste of time and energy. He's made up his mind and there's no shifting it. He'll cling to that supremacist view long after the whole world has left him behind in some self-isolating ghetto.

That world view is ultimately dying. That certain churches with some governments in Africa and in the Muslim world cling to homophobic convictions, and try to enforce them with legislation and violence is not evidence of the health and vitality of those views, but of their morbidity.

Posted by Counterlight at Friday, 11 November 2011 at 11:33pm GMT

" The only point of marrying is to beget children, to increase and multiply." - John Bowles -

Come on, John Bowles. Where are you hiding? Come out from under that rock - and just drop that blunt instrument for a moment, and THINK before you pat your I-pad.

What you need is a good ... sermonising from the Scriptural 'Song of Songs' - if only to acquaint you with (even) the Old testament understanding of God's gift of sexuality.

I suspect you might be an afficionado of the 1662 P.B. and the 39 Thingies, but even the Old Prayer Book speaks about the mutual joy that spouses can find in one another. and it's not all about the exercise of joyless procreation! Wake up, John.

Posted by Father Ron Smith at Friday, 11 November 2011 at 11:56pm GMT

An advertiser reacted negatively to this article, see
http://www.sheffield.ac.uk/mediacentre/2011/church-of-england-advert-statement.html

Posted by Simon Sarmiento at Saturday, 12 November 2011 at 1:53pm GMT

These reactions to the primary function of marriage to beget children are characteristic of the crypto-liberal-secularist conformism of most of Thinking Anglicans' readeriship and I dare say of lazy parts of the Church of England but I don't believe that they represent thought so much as contemporary convention. I would suggest that the peaons of praise for physical love illustrated in the Song of Songs and its recognition in the Prayer Book proceed from a post-pill attitude to recreational sex rather than the delight in opening sexual activity to the possibility of creating life which is indeed its reward.

Post-pill hedonism sees the creation of life as a nuisance hence the horrifying abortion industry which I suggest that some of the commentators would endorse. I understand from medical friends that nurses and doctors who do abortions are treating the women who seek them with progressively less respect and increasing contempt. They see things mercifully denied to most of us.

As for homosexuality, with the exception of those who would like to be part of the chattering class, it continues to inspire instictive revulsion among many hence the appalling violence still manifested against it by the uneducated. I deplore this as much as anybody else but recognise its inevitability. When that stops homosexual tolerance will have been achieved, but I doubt if it will come soon, if ever.

Posted by John Bowles at Saturday, 12 November 2011 at 4:59pm GMT

John Bowles is welcome to share his unpleasant thoughts here, but if Mr Bowles is a Christian he might share with me in a passion for truth - and a respect for accuracy and honest reporting.

As others show above some of his statements are far from factually or historically accurate and that ought to cause him to pause.

His invective against families founded on a same sex partnership is also deeply faulty and amounts to a painful, unnecessarily cutting taunt that reminds me of the playground bully chanting a mantra intended to wound.

There are many, many same sex partnerships raising children (and nurturing the elderly) - by far the largest proportion of these children are from previous marriages of one or both of the partners.

The next largest group (like us) is through fostering/adoption.

These are our children ...... you do yourself no honour demeaning our families.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Saturday, 12 November 2011 at 7:58pm GMT

John B: "Post-pill hedonism sees the creation of life as a nuisance hence the horrifying abortion industry..."

Don't let me get in the way of your simplistic world-view here, but isn't it the case that the European countries which are the most liberal on the gay issue tend also to be the countries with lower abortion rates?

This study http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html
gives liberal Western Europe as having the lowest abortion rates of any region in the world, with hyper-liberal Belgium and the Netherlands having the lowest rates of all... but, as I said, don't let such facts get in the way of your "liberal views are the source of all evil" narrative.

Posted by Fr Mark at Saturday, 12 November 2011 at 11:16pm GMT

'homosexuality...it continues to inspire instictive revulsion among many...'

Really? I would suggest that Mr Bowles stops projecting his own phobias onto others.

Posted by Richard Ashby at Sunday, 13 November 2011 at 8:34am GMT

In the early 1970's I was on a mission in Peckham - my team leader was the manager of a Southwark Self help Housing Association and married to a Ugandan. She was indefatigable - with her eight-month old baby strapped into the pushchair we tramped the half demolished streets spreading good news and finding people homes.

Not a single day passed without a passerby spitting at her or shouting abuse at her and her mixed race child. One woman (just walking by) kicked her viciously in the shins while on one occasion a man who had pulled up to shout abuse at her took exception to her ignoring him, got out of the car and pushed her to the ground and toppled the pushchair.

But this should not be considered as unusual or limited to Peckham and its inhabitants. At a famous west London catholic shrine where the parish priest entertained a crowd to a lavish dinner I discovered that "relics of passive militancy lurk within the fringes of the national Church" - when I recounted this story the priest on my right rather than be horrified gave a speech that would have made Hendrik Verwoerd seem liberal.

I am sure that still - possibly in the same places Peter Bowles knows of - her marriage and children "continues to inspire instictive revulsion among many".

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Sunday, 13 November 2011 at 5:11pm GMT

The fact that you're here making such impassioned arguments, Mr. Bowles, indicates fear - pure fear and nothing else, and, as you point out, no sane person would take them seriously.

Your words obfuscate, but bring no opacity. We see through it because we've had to struggle through a world filled - thankfully less and less so - with people who say all the same things, trying to pretend those things they say are rational.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Tuesday, 15 November 2011 at 5:24am GMT

Martin Reynolds,

Do you mean *John Bowles*?

I'd hate to think the actor I enjoyed so much in "To the Manor Born" was so unpleasant.

Posted by MarkBrunson at Tuesday, 15 November 2011 at 5:26am GMT

Well we were supposed to be talking about the Gaystapo ...

"Watch out, chaps," says John Bowles, there's a pooftah spandau up ahead!" "God, these queers make me sick," he goes on, "but don't worry fellows. They'll never be accepted!"

The villagers gaze at him admiringly. If anyone can save them it will be this dapper British heterosexual. No playing fields of Eton, for him!

Back at Gaystapo HQ, the Standartenführer preens himself in the mirror: "How I love this black," he purrs, "and the silver bling! Just look at the detail on the death's head!"

What devilish schemes is he concocting for the straight lads on Missionary Position?

Posted by William at Tuesday, 15 November 2011 at 6:01am GMT

Sorry Mark. Slip of the diamond encrusted black leather gloved fingers.

Posted by Martin Reynolds at Wednesday, 16 November 2011 at 8:25am GMT

Love it, William!
Only, in reality the assembled villagers look on with bemusement, yawn and go home to their families.

Posted by Erika Baker at Wednesday, 16 November 2011 at 8:51am GMT

The Church of England should withdraw the newspaper's right to use its name, based on the newspaper's reckless discriminatory and inflammatory article.

Period.

Posted by Catherine Uffen at Wednesday, 30 November 2011 at 9:06am 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.