I didn't know Willesden had a Bishop.
The Bishop of Willesden has issued a grovelling apology for "deeply offensive" Facebook comments about the forthcoming nuptials of Wills and Kate. The Rt Rev Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willesden, went right into one last Wednesday, apparently suffering from an overdose of royal wedding press euphoria which brought out a dark, …
Or does he have some clever way of explaining why a republican should be a high-up member of a church separated from Rome by a monarch who wanted to move on to another receptacle for the royal sperm on the off chance a male child would be born?
Aside from that, I tend to agree with him about the nonsense surrounding the engagement -- and I'm not even a republican.
is apologise for the perpetual brainwashing of the masses during Sunday Sermons and announce that
"It was unwise for me to continue recounting this tripe to so many, I accept that this was a major error of judgement on my part"
and he should then be good to go :D
/mines the one made from the shroud of turin
Well, I'm not mornarchist, but I'm no religious believe either.
Now, I know the Palace suggest the cost of the royals is only about 60p each, which might well be higher if we also factor in policing, security etc, but at least the royals do, actually, genuinely and undoubtedly exist, so we know we get something for the money.
Churches in the country get a lot of subsidies from the state, and discounts on services as they get charity status. Also, we have a lot of bishops etc. in the House or Lords, who presumably don't come for free, and presumably have expense claims etc.
I would be interested to know the cost to the UK taxpayer of subsidising houses of worship, bishops expenses and other sky-fairy supporting paraphernalia etc. and comparing it with the cost of the royals.
That said, his comment about avoiding "the last disaster in slow motion between Big Ears and the Porcelain Doll" was priceless.
"If you buy a house in a village that happens to have a local church .."
I had such a house once, with a "parish tithe" covenant. It was a few pounds a year. The solicitor suggested that in the unlikely event that anyone came round to collect it, I should just pay it. Nobody ever did.
In France there is only one region (Alsace) and one department (Moselle) that subsidize churches and their pastors. This are is called Alsace-Moselle, and it is a well-known exception to many rules that govern the rest of the territory.
Of course, it also happens to be the land closest to Germany and most often overrun and occupied by German forces.
There might be a link there, who knows ?
"History: more broken marriages and philanderers among these people than not. Count them up, back through the ages. They cost us an arm and a leg."
Well, better a few broken marriages, than to be part of a way of life responsible for more deaths than anything else over the centuries.
To be honest, all this wedding bollocks is a bit nauseating, and I'm a royalist!
True, it is responsible for more deaths overall, I was thinking more of human on human related deaths. For which religion IS responsible I believe, nothwithstanding your unproved assertion it's the WW's (which have, at least in some areas, a religious aspect. I'm thinking the Holocaust here as one example)
Not a bigot BTW, just don't think religion is a very good idea, but I am more than happy for people of whatever religion to practice as they see fit. (barring the murdering and torture of course).
...both had to be removed from cold dead hands!
I jest of course, Di hadn't worn her ring for years!
Yes, giving a future wife jewellery from your dead, divorced mother is...
1. a sweet gesture that the queen of hearts would have approved of
2. in poor taste
3. a bad omen
4. the kind of creepy thing Norman Bates would do
5. the kind of tacky move a publicist would advise
(delete according to your tabloid royalist tenancies).
As one of the people on last weeks question time replied.
So the rumour mill has put the cost of their wedding at £50M (because the government will invite all their mates from all over the world to come). The tourism industry is saying that the wedding will bring in at least £1B.
So that looks like a profit to the country of £950M.
Personally I'm happy for the couple, at least he seems to be being allowed to marry who he wants. But I'd I'm not looking forward to the next 6>> months of news coverage will be largely filled with wedding trivia.
There are two compelling reasons for having a monarchy. 1 by a long way is tourist income. If we were not so silly and anachronistic we would have far fewer tourist. 2 No president. Presidents are expensive and have an annoying habit of trying to do stuff. Long live the (delete as appropriate)
And as for all of you with a penchant for the easy scapegoat, by all means give 'religion' the stick it deserves, but I think you'll find, on sober reflection (or unsober if you must), that it's people that are actually the problem. The fact that 'religion' happens to make a handy justification for all sorts of bad behaviour doesn't remove the underlying problem. Take religion away and I think people would find, and do find, plenty of other justifications for being extremely, or just a little bit, unkind to each other. Religious faith at its best, however, has the power to bring out the best in plenty of people.
Pete Broadbent, and I have to confess to knowing him personally (some time ago, when he was but a lowly curate), was always forthright about what he thought. In this case he probably does seem to owe the happy couple an apology---at least for some of what he said; but I rather like the idea of him telling certain others to 'get stuffed', as a previous poster has suggested. As I remember him that's certainly more Pete's style.
...go off on one about the Supreme Governor's family (especially the Next-Supreme Governor) on the occasion of the Next-but-one-Supreme Governor getting engaged. Especially when you're an assistant bishop about due for a promotion to a diocese of your own. Truly beautiful career limiting move. Hence the grovelling apology.
In other (completely unrelated) news he lists "Real Ale" as one of his interests.
I'm in France and I wish everybody would STFU. They've been dating for an eternity. They've become engaged. They're going to get married. I fail to see why this is hugely important in the world. Or, actually, at all.
What's up in New Zealand? Will Ireland crash&burn? WTF happened in Cambodia? Why does Cantona want to bring down the banks (isn't the world screwed up enough already)? Will China and Japan ever settle their differences? What am I going to go eat after clicking Submit?
All of those are questions that I feel are worthy of my attention. Kate'n'Wills doesn't factor into it, neither does "Queen Cammie" (sounds like a drag act).
Well done the Bishop for standing up and saying something sensible. Shame he bowed to pressure afterwards...
That's not the case in my bit of Hong Kong (admittedly I live in the Outlying Islands): CE of HKSAR - chosen by Beijing and rubber-stamped by the 800 member election committee of the great and the good; President of the PRC (the real head of state) - unelected Communist Party functionary.
your irony detector has failed.
To be accurate, I did vote in my Functional Constituency for some people who had the chance to use their mighty rubber stamp in the Election Committee. Even better, in 2012 we get a 50% increase in democracy: 1200 Election Committee members!
To lower the tone completely: China or Britain, it's all a matter of who gets f**ked!
Kate looks vaguely female and doesn't seem to get all her physical pleasure from riding horses. Wills could have done an awful lot worse -- the girl has potential.
What's more, while we're on the subject of "royalty," even a republican like myself can readily admit that Will's father's not daft in the way that the press make out -- in the flesh he's a genuinely-interesting conversationalist.
Regardless of what anyone personally thinks of the royal family, a bishop is a special animal who has special rules, responsibilities AND PRIVILEGES that go along with his office. This particular bishop has shown that he does not respect the rules and principles of his office, but his groveling apology shows that he very much wants to maintain his privileges.
He should not be permitted to do so.
Would you want someone who had shown his inner nature in this manner to perform your marriage? To baptize your child? To consecrate a burial site for your mother? Or to ordain the priest who will perform any of these activities?
Without its heritage passed on from hand to head, for millennia, the church is a mere "concept." For it to have actual substance, one must pay attention to the details. One of the details here is that there is an episcopacy in the Anglican church, and in that system, the Monarch is the head of the church.
The Bishop of Willesden, in light of his utter personal disregard for the principles that the office he occupies implies and indeed requires, should become the former Bishop of Willesden, sooner rather than later.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019