Justin time

The chair of St Augustine of Canterbury is soon to be occupied by the Rt Rev Justin Welby following the confirmation of his election in St Paul's Cathedral on Monday, 4th February. I say occupied because the retired 104th Archbishop demonstrated in his valedictory 'Goodbye to Canterbury' TV programme, that the chair is too big to be filled by one man, or woman as he implied in a typical gender neutral comment, perhaps alluding to an earlier comment that the job was too big for one man.

There is a touch of irony in the opening paragraphs of a letter to another St Augustine published by the Ship of Fools when Rowan 'wrote' as the then newly elected Archbishop of Wales: What everyone remembers, of course, is the things you got wrong – or the things we're quite sure you got wrong. [...] And we blame you for messing up Christian attitudes to sex, because for you it was an area of humiliation and tragedy – forgetting, again, that you truly thought sex between husband and wife had something of heaven in it. We look for a scapegoat to explain why Western Christianity and Western civilization are so much of a mess. You wrote such a lot and so powerfully that I'm afraid you're a very good candidate for the position. But I think you would have turned around and challenged us: why the passion for a scapegoat? What are you refusing to look at in yourself?

It is too easy to look for a scapegoat. The sorry spectacle of Dr Philip Giddings being hounded for fulfilling his Christian duty as he saw it was the culmination of the fury of the  movement for the ordination of women when they should have been asking themselves how they landed themselves in that mess when their goal was so easily within reach. The verdict of the majority who voted at the special meeting of the House of Laity was that the Christian virtues of love and charity exemplified by Dr Giddings had been replaced by greed with one excuse after another being advanced to reject any compromise other than that deemed acceptable to WATCH and their allies. I fully accept that women would not want to be placed in what they regard as an inferior position but that is something of a red herring when in reality the Archbishops of Canterbury and York had explained why it would not be so. Indeed how could it be for anyone sent as a servant? 

The new Archbishop has a difficult job on his hands. The stumbling block of 'second class' women bishops cannot be overcome by going over the same ground which has been deemed totally unacceptable to the women's movement. Much to the chagrin of some in the women's lobby the recognition by the C of E of Free Church of England orders presents the opportunity to be more outward looking. As the Right Revd Christopher Hill, Chair of the Church of England's Council for Christian Unity, said:  'I hope there will be good relations between us and especially in those places where there is a Free Church of England congregation.' Charity begins at home! 

No doubt when St Augustine of Canterbury was installed as Archbishop he could not have imagined the prospect of a woman sitting on his chair although we can be fairly confident of what St Augustine of Hippo would have thought about it. However, we can be certain that if three of the greatest theologians of our day, Pope Benedict, Metropolitan Hilarion and Archbishop Rowan had to decide on the ordination of women they would have voted two to one against Archbishop Rowan as would the majority of Anglicans. But now is the time for reconciliation. We have a new Archbishop who has that gift giving us the opportunity for a re-appraisal in the knowledge that we are all members of the One body. 

Rowan: at home

I had not expected to blog again on Archbishop Rowan, at least not so soon after my previous entry, but having watched Goodbye to Canterbury my wife and I were entranced seeing the Rowan of old. Here was the man whom his students adored, plainly in his element, at home in teaching others without the political contortions we have come to expect over the last ten years. But there were some puzzling moments. Rowan referred to the stability that Canterbury epitomised amidst the chaos that surrounds us but here was the man who helped create chaos in the church by his slavish adherence to the feminist cause almost implying a sort of 'Jekyll and Hyde' character forcing change on an institution while cherishing its essential heart. 

Speaking of St Thomas Becket towards the end of the programme, Abp Rowan comments: "What is it that makes it possible to take a stand for the Kingdom of God? What is it that is going to make that possible for me?" - For many of us it is the ordination of women. How is it that this eludes him?

He concludes: "The more diverse we get the more we need Canterbury". Precisely! Recommended viewing.

If only...

If only Rowan had not sided with the women's lib movement he may have stepped down as Archbishop of Canterbury having made significant steps towards unity with the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Instead he leaves office with utter disappointment etched on his face. He has had a difficult task in difficult times exacerbated by the ravaging of The Episcopal Church of the United States where the Presiding Bishop has thumbed her nose to Rowan as she pursues her campaign to turn the church into a secular-orientated institution with reverberations in the UK and commensurate falls in attendance. If, on reflection, he has a change of heart putting unity before politics there is still much for him to do building on his relations with church leaders. That must be our prayer while wishing him well as he continues on life's pilgrimage.

Wilful blindness

PA Photos

This must be one of the saddest images in the history of the Church. A man who is loved by many, admired for his spirituality and respected for his intellect: 'a scholar, a historian, a theologian, a linguist fluent in ancient and modern Greek, and even Syriac, and a poet and a translator' but also a man apparently held captive by a political movement in a kind of Stockholm Syndrome situation. From an earlier blog entry in March this year: "In 'Rowan's Rule' [page 95] his 'change of heart' over women priests is recorded as: 'I had to change after looking around at my own side, and seeing the company I was keeping.' If only he had kept different company! He may have led us to unity but, with the benefit of hindsight, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that ++Rowan has simply been used by many of those he has supported. Clearly he had the best of intentions but failed to realize that his integrity is not necessarily shared by others, even at the highest levels. He was ignored when he sought an honourable compromise for those who do not support the ordination of women and he has seen his authority rejected on the controversial issue of the Anglican Covenant."

The great mystery is in Abp Rowan's reaction to the vote that was intended to clear the way for women bishops and his subsequent reference to wilful blindness after its failure. He correctly identified the problem but missed the target. Those most guilty of wilful blindness are the bishops who ignore the example of the Good Shepherd and hold their office in the church because of their willingness to marginalise swathes of cradle Anglicans for a political correctness which has allowed secularism to override faith. Are the bishops so blind that they cannot see what their actions are doing to the Church of England? In his valedictory Advent letter to Anglican Primates, Abp Rowan wrote: "Our Communion has endured much suffering and confusion, and still lives with this in many ways; yet we are still privileged to see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ in different ways within our common life, and so are reminded by God’s grace that it is still Christ who lives secretly at the heart of our fellowship, and renews it day by day."

It should be blindingly obvious to the House of Bishops that the suffering and confusion to which Abp Rowan refers comes as a direct result of liberal bishops implementing their secular values in many parts of the Anglican Communion in defiance of warnings from other parts of the Communion and from other members of the Holy Catholic Church about the consequences for unity. Their slavish obedience to the demands of Women and the Church (WATCH) now has the prospect of leaving many Anglicans without the pastoral care and sacramental assurance they were promised and in so doing, denying them what Abp Rowan claimed in his Advent letter: "yet we are still privileged to see the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ in different ways within our common life". If WATCH are allowed to have their own way, there is to be no common life in the Church of England for the beleaguered minority, only suffering and confusion.

If ever there were a need for a Damascus moment it is now.

Is this really what we want for the Church of England?

"The way Finns feel about the Church is changing faster than ever, as is the Church’s position in the community. A generation ago, 90 percent of the Finnish population held membership in the Evangelical Lutheran Church, whereas now the number has shrunk to about 78 percent and is falling by about one percentage point annually. Ties between Church and State have also decreased....While the role of the Church as an institution has weakened, its social role has grown. This becomes apparent in the reinforcement and expansion of diaconical work. For instance, the Church represents one of the most important providers of family counselling, and plays a central role in professional crisis work." - The 'down-to-earth' Finnish Church.

 It may be Finnish but is it British? Their 'diaconical work' is most laudable but it is neither necessary nor desirable to turn the Holy Priesthood into an organisation for social workers in vestments. Surely the highest calling of every woman is superior to that of man in motherhood and the nurture of our children but in the women's movement Mary's role in the incarnation is made to appear insignificant compared to the weight given to the example of  Mary Magdalene who is constantly extolled as 'the Apostle to the Apostles' because of her messengerial role having witnessed the Resurrection before conveying the message to the Apostles who were specifically appointed by Christ rather than inferred to bolster a case for lack of evidence.

There is nothing motherly about the campaign for women bishops. The vindictive statement by WATCH in their call for a single clause measure for women bishops totally misrepresents the position of orthodox Anglicans: "Women clergy and supporters of their ministry have had enough of the wasteful wrangling over women bishops. Years have been spent in trying to make legal provision that would satisfy those opposed...." I would be the first to apologise if I misinterpret their allegations but it is difficult to see how the oppressed could be satisfied with the terms of the oppressor simply on the oppressors' say so. I wasn't present at any of the discussions but the Bishop of Ebbsfleet was. His more credible account of 'The General Synod Vote on Women Bishops' is given on the See of Ebbsfleet web site here.  

Orthodox Anglicans have endured many false charges of misogyny, even when the vote in the House of Laity was lost with a large tally of women's votes. As an example of the many women in the church who simply suffer in silence, my wife was deeply hurt and bitterly disappointed on being abandoned by Abp Rowan when he gave his response to the vote. It is difficult to understand why he recognised hurt only in the strident women of WATCH. On reading Bp Jonathan Baker's account Mrs Briton's comment was, "Why couldn't Rowan have said that?" before adding "+Jonathan has been far too charitable to the women of WATCH." - Apparently one has to be a woman to understand women.

Theoretically there is a danger in the strategy of WATCH but no doubt they have either made the necessary calculations or are confident in their ability to manipulate the authority of the church. If the current injustice to a significant minority is made worse, more people may be encouraged to vote against the new measure but like a second-rate trade union, having failed to stuff Synod with sufficient support to assure victory, the call now is to change the rules to give them that assurance. There has already been a no confidence vote in the Diocese of Bristol and a hypocritical call by the Chair of the House of Clergy to oust the Chair of the House of Laity. 

The final absurdity in this process is the claim that we have to be responsive to the priorities of secular society. As if he had become WATCH's trumpet Abp Rowan commented after the vote: The Church of England has "a lot of explaining to do" to the church and to wider society after its rejection of legislation ... In a strongly worded speech to the General Synod [he] warned that the failure of the vote in the house of laity on Tuesday had made the church's governing body appear "wilfully blind" to the priorities of secular society. "We have – to put it very bluntly – a lot of explaining to do," he said. "Whatever the motivations for voting yesterday … the fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society. Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society."

It would have been understandable if these comments had come from WATCH but coming from a world-renowned theologian they are incredible. If the early church had been guided by the trends and priorities of wider society at the time there would be no church for them to meddle with.

Blind guides

Members of two Houses, Bishops and Commons, have been singing to the same tune over what they see as the wrong vote in an agreed democratic process of Synod. The lyrics hark to a narrow world of their own making but these are the very people who should have a sense of proportion, impartiality and care for all. None of these has been in evidence. Just a one sided chant based on misguided concepts of making mother church 'intelligible to our wider society'. Rowan Williams was correct when he said 'it seems as if we are wilfully blind' but mistakenly he was referring to the 'trends and priorities of society', not to the House of Bishops or to Parliament. 

It is disgraceful that there should have been such wilful misrepresentation of the orthodox position but it is time to move on. There has to be a solution that first of all is consonant with the faith of the Apostolic church however quaint that appears to modern society. Secondly we recognize that the Church of England has taken a different view from the Universal Church and that the majority of Anglicans in England are content to see women at the Altar and, therefore, for them to be bishops. If Women and the Church (WATCH) had not erected so many barriers to agreement they would have already achieved that objective but we must start afresh. 

WATCH must give ground. Talk of removing 'concessions' is ludicrous. Also, talk of a 'divided church' and a 'Church within a Church' must be forgotten. That is where we are. The Anglican Church is divided throughout the Communion and, more importantly we are divided from the rest of the Catholic church. The creation of a Third Province covering both England and Wales would enable us all to live together in a spirit of unity and Godly love, to prosper or to fail according to conscience, giving greater hope for the survival of the Anglican Church in England and Wales in one form or another if not both without any grounds for regarding some bishops as 'second-class' bishops, something that Parliament says it will not tolerate. This solution would give the Holy Spirit a chance to work God's grace without wilful impediment. If a solution on these lines is not acceptable it will confirm that both Houses representing the Establishment are hellbent on turning the Church of England into a form of secularism.

Postscript
A compromise suggested here.

 

Sorry Rowan but you are wrong this time

I have long been an admirer of Rowan Williams and never thought I would have to write this but I have to admit to being gravely disappointed by his Enough Waiting campaign which is designed to achieve a 'Yes' vote for women bishops regardless of the ramifications. It smacks of getting the issue out of the way to progress other things. I could understand that if it meant advancing the Gospel of Jesus Christ having made satisfactory provision for those who remain loyal to the tradition of the Apostolic Church but sadly it is not. Anyone who doubts this who hasn't already seen it should watch this heart-wrenching video to experience the devastating effect in South Carolina where the ruling liberal elite in The Episcopal Church (TEC) is destroying traditional Anglicanism. 

Up until now Rowan has always been even-handed while being clear in his support for the ordination of women, even when he was slapped in the face by them. No doubt in his heart he has reconciled himself to the notion of 'respect' believing that everything will be resolved after the vote but other people do not think like him. The truth is summed up in this report. Anyone and everyone is invited to join the bandwagon by contacting 'their' synod representative to press for a Yes vote. The Dean of Salisbury told The Independent on Sunday, "There's no sense at all – not theological, not rational – in making women priests if you are not going to make them bishops." Quite so. It was neither theological nor rational to make women priests because that is their only 'justification' for being made bishops. 

Today The Independent publishes an open letter signed by over one thousand clergy: 'The Biblical case for women bishops'. But there is none. The reasons given for their belief have nothing whatsoever to do with the appointment of bishops yet these people stand at the Altar In Persona Christi, the One who did no sin, neither was guile found in His mouth.

Is there no shame in the Yes campaign?

Rowan buckles under feminist pressure

Photograph: Paul Hackett/Reuters

No price is too high it seems to satisfy Rowan's longing to see women bishops in the Church of England. His 'unfinished business' of making satisfactory provision for all has been gradually whittled down in the House of Bishops to one word, respect. ‘With all due respect’ to Archbishop Rowan I think he deludes himself. The word 'respect' may have legal content in the Archbishop's book but Oxford Dictionaries has "a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements".
  
There is no evidence whatsoever that women lobbyists in WATCH, GRAS or DARC have respect for the views, let alone the abilities, qualities or achievements, of anyone but themselves in the advancement of their feminist cause. If there were, how is it that opponents are left with nothing but a vague notion based on a word that will be ignored in the same way that the pleas of opponents have been ignored thus far? To date every suggestion of a concession has been met with howls of anger and resentment claiming that the proposals are insulting to women and would make them second-class bishops. Rowan's grovelling apology [position 6.25] illustrates how successful their tactics have been while more traditional views of women in the church have been overlooked.

Archbishop Rowan said at the July 2012 General Synod in York: “I also long for there to be the kind of provision for those who continue to have theological reservations on this subject, for their position to be secured in such a way that they can feel grateful for the outcome. That is the essence of what I believe Synod at large still thinks despite the unfinished business of sorting out what that means in practice.” His statement gave some hope that reason might prevail but that hope proved to be unfounded in the face of the petition organised by WATCH for the withdrawal of Clause 5(1)(c) on the grounds that it would “entrench permanent division in the Church” and “feed a deeply damaging ambivalence towards women as made in the image of God.” Many more women in the church are also 'made in the image of God' and they profoundly disagree with the claims of WATCH but their views have been ignored in a campaign which has been based on false accusations of discrimination and misogyny showing a complete lack of respect for opponents.

The campaign launched by Archbishop Rowan to persuade General Synod members to back the new women-bishops legislation next month makes sorry reading. It would be presumptuous of me to argue against Rowan on theological grounds but however skillfully he weaves his justification for the ordination of women on the basis of their 'baptismal relationship with Jesus Christ', what he presents as an anomaly is anomalous only because the Church of England has departed unilaterally from the faith and tradition of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. With all due respect, the majority of Christians, East and West do not believe that women should have been ordained into the priesthood. If Synod had first considered whether or not women should be ordained as bishops in the Church of England there could be no anomaly.

It cannot be right to vote in favour of the proposal simply to avoid public embarrassment or internal conflict. That would be the worst possible reason for supporting the legislation. What the church needs to do is to take a step back and think about what Synod is being asked to do in the name of every member of the Church of England. It is no coincidence that Synod is being asked to correct an 'anomaly' now that the 'equality' argument has been turned on its head since the true effects of the feminisation of the church are becoming apparent. If this legislation is allowed to go through there will be a seismic shift in the church resulting in her domination by women clergy. The ordination of women has not halted the decline in church attendance and voting in favour of women bishops will result in the inequality proponents of women's ordination complained about. That is the true anomaly.

Postscript

Two appeals supporting Archbishop Rowan's plea have appeared on The Archbishop of Canterbury website. The Bishop of Chelmsford, the Rt Revd Stephen Cottrell, urges those who cannot support the legislation for conscientious reasons to abstain because we are all ‘one person in Jesus Christ’ while Rebecca Swinson provides a gender reversal justification based on Give me a child until he is seven and I'll give you the man having spent her formative years under predominately female influences.

Like the Archbishop of Wales before him the Bishop of Chelmsford picks out what he regards as a scriptural justification for choosing a pattern of ministry contrary to Christ's example. He quotes Galatians 3:28* as one of the ‘climatic’ passages in the Bible – ‘the one through which we then interpret many others’. Although the church interpreted the reference to Jew and Gentile within 20 years, we have had to wait 2,000 years for the Bishop of Chelmsford to decode the reference to male and female. If he had read John 14:6 instead - “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me" - he would have had the key passage without the need to re-interpret what has been understood by most Christians for two millennia. Bishop Cottrell says: “…I hope that we in the Church of England will say yes to women bishops at our General Synod in November. I even dare to hope that those who disagree may choose to abstain. That those who aren’t sure will see that if we don’t pass this it would look terrible in the eyes of the world, would hold back our mission, and would also plunge us into years more debate on this issue. But, most of all, I’m going to be voting yes because I believe this is of the Gospel. It is the Holy Spirit leading us into the truth of that text whereby in Christ we are one humanity.” - Ah yes, the Holy Spirit, but only if it is a yes vote of course; otherwise, try again later!

Bishop Cottrell also says: "I know that there are some people who conscientiously disagree with this, and I respect them and I want them to be part of the Church along with everyone else. But I believe the Measure, as we have it, gives people that provision." - That word respect again. He 'respects' them but not with "a feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements", just, I'll decide what provision is adequate so accept it. Does he understand what he is asking? Vote for the legislation to avoid losing face and if you can't agree, then abstain with all the consequences of inadequate provision. This is not about saving face. There is no question of abstaining; those who do not agree with the legislation must vote against it or risk losing everything they believe in.

Adding her message in the Archbishop’s campaign, Rebecca Swinson - the youngest-ever member of Archbishops’ Council – outlines why she wants to see the legislation for women bishops passed at this November’s Synod. Basically Rebecca thinks we have waited long enough and the danger is that too much time will be spent in the coming years discussing the issue when there are much more important things to debate such as the healthcare system and benefits. - Not if the decision is accepted as the work of the Holy Spirit. If the church had not embarked on this divisive scheme which has resulted in churches emptying in the UK and is seeing the ruin of TEC in the United States there would have been ample time to talk about things that 'really matter to people'. Rebecca claims that it is really important for the mission of the Church of England that we are able to show that women are an accepted and valued part of our ministry. Women already are an accepted and valued part of ministry. Ask the women who are indispensable in the work of Church. They don't feel the need to be ordained to prove it.

* Read a full explanation here. 

Stuffed!

  "This stinking fish has been a long time on the slab. Back in 1992, the church voted to admit women to the priesthood, but this was only agreed upon the intervention of the then Archbishop of York, Dr John Habgood, who insisted that there were “two integrities” within the church: the one that could accept women priests and the other that could not. Room must be made for both. If Dr Habgood’s agreeable compromise had not been accepted then there would not have been a majority in favour of the ordination of women".- The Rev Peter Mullin, The Telegraph, 06 Feb 2012 

Living with two integrities is now unacceptable to the cause of Women and the Church. According to most reports, being seen to be on the wrong side of the fence has been a clear impediment to the chances of the Bishop of London's name appearing on the Crown Nominations Committee list of two possible candidates to succeed Rowan Williams as Archbishop of Canterbury. Brief profiles of the 16 people selecting Rowan's successor indicate that all but two members are in favour of women bishops. It is not clear what protection for opponents would be favoured by some but of the 'Canterbury six' only one conservative amongst the modernisers wants concessions for traditionalists. Of the two 'Canterbury' women, one wants 'only minimal protection for opponents' while the other is 'opposed to measures which would make them inferior to male counterparts', ie, no concessions. 

There is a more balanced representation between conservatives and modernisers among the remainder of the panel, all but two are in favour of women bishops. Again it is not clear how some of them feel about opponents but one who is completely out-of-step with the Anglican Communion while supposedly representing them has already withdrawn provision for opponents in the Church in Wales. Also highlighted is the fact that the chair of the London branch of Women and the Church is said to be 'frustrated at the Bishop of London’s opposition to the ordination of women'. No surprise there given the record of WATCH but is it acceptable that a commanding figure such as the Rt Rev Richard Chartres is considered beyond the pail because of his opposition to women priests regardless of his ability or suitability when the church has “two integrities”, or was their acceptance simply a cynical act of duplicity for political ends?

But does it really matter? Not if these estimates are correct because the Church of England will be dead in 20 years time. Killed by politically correct, self-interested groups who have tinkered with other people's faith to such an extent that many have already given up attending formal worship - other than in the Diocese of London, that is where the church is still growing!

The stench is overwhelming.

Hope for England!

Splendid news for traditionalists with the announcement from the Diocese of Chichester that the Right Reverend Dr Martin Warner is to be the next Bishop of Chichester. 

In the statement Dr Warner is described as "a traditionalist who has worked resolutely in recent years to encourage provision in which people of all integrities can remain together". Surely that is how it should be, echoing the sentiments of the former Archbishop of York Dr David Hope. Archbishop Rowan Williams has shown the same integrity. Only in Wales has this been lost.

As the Church of England considers the next stage in the Women Bishops saga let us pray that even at this late hour, a way can be found for people of all integrities to remain together and follow Christ in good conscience. 


Postscript
Clearly generosity of the Spirit is too much for Women and the Church (WATCH) to stomach. In response to the appointment of Dr Warner, their Chair the Rev'd Rachel Weir is reported to have said: "The decision to appoint another diocesan bishop to Chichester who will not ordain women will cause widespread disappointment throughout the diocese and across the rest of the Church of England". If as Dr Hope remarked, there is "no place for discourtesy, aggression, and even abuse" towards women who have been ordained, should not the same courtesy apply in the opposite direction?

Second Class or Second Rate?

I am becoming increasingly tired of pressure groups complaining about being 'second class' if they don't have exactly what they want, when they want it and as they want it.

This claim grew ever louder in the campaign for the ordination of women to the episcopate. As soon as there was a whiff of compromise to allow defeated Anglicans to worship as they wish, the feminist lobby denied that any promises had been given and cried foul: if women bishops were not to be absolute rulers they would be seen as second class bishops, an argument swallowed by ineffectual clergy and MPs who are charged with looking after the interests of us all.

It is no coincidence that the lesbian and gay movement have come up with the same strategy complaining that if they are not allowed to be 'married', their unions will be regarded as second class. But their campaign has gone further than that. They refer to interfering 'religious' people condemning them as homophobic if they fail to support gay marriage, somewhat odd since every Tom, Dick and Sally felt it their right to decide on the ordination of women even if they had never crossed the threshold of a church. The Rev Dr Giles Fraser, a former Canon Chancellor of St Paul's Cathedral, went further. On a BBC Newsnight programme he accused people of using opposition to gay marriage as a cover for their homophobia, ignoring the fact that the vast majority of people are opposed to re-defining marriage whether they are 'religious' or not.

One wonders how the retiring Archbishop of Canterbury now feels after championing many of the causes that today threaten society. In 'Rowan's Rule' [page 95] his 'change of heart' over women priests is recorded as: 'I had to change after looking around at my own side, and seeing the company I was keeping.'  If only he had kept different company! He may have led us to unity but, with the benefit of hindsight, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that ++Rowan has simply been used by many of those he has supported. Clearly he had the best of intentions but failed to realize that his integrity is not necessarily shared by others, even at the highest levels. He was ignored when he sought an honourable compromise for those who do not support the ordination of women and he has seen his authority rejected on the controversial issue of the Anglican Covenant .

And so it goes on with one minority group or another constantly chipping away at society, trading on traditional British values of fair play until only minorities rule. The British Sunday is now barely recognisable from any other day of the week. Soon there will be no difference after the Sunday Trading Laws are relaxed for the Olympic Games leaving only the Friday Muslim day of prayer as having any religious significance and appearing to be the British norm. It is the silent majority of British citizens who are being rendered second class by those airing their second rate views, unable to see further than the confines of their own narrow self interest to the detriment of the rest of us.