We can trust the media after all… they don’t lie to us ever.

But does this indicate that the matter, as well as the manner of his pronouncements last week, are thereby excused from criticism? Mark Russell’s reflections seem to focus on an ad hominem defence of RW against the personal attacks in the media, rather than on the wisdom and merits of the ideas he raised. I’ve said something already about the negative impact of his pronouncements outside the Anglican church, but questions about the reactionary nature of his thinking are still left hanging for those within. First, the concern that RW is entrenching himself in an establishment mentality, seeking exemptions from the law for the many rather than the few. Simon Barrow wrote a fascinating piece on this at the weekend,
and has a new redaction here. A second concern is over RW’s wisdom in developing such an opposition between secularity and religious freedom as he did in the lecture. By attacking a secularity that demands the subordination of religious law, RW’s remarks betrayed one of the greatest achievements of modern Christianity: the survival of religion by relinquishing government rather than the exertion of it.

It is funny to see though how journalists like to use what they think are synonyms for quotes. I saw that the BBC had +Carlisle saying that the government was like a ‘demonic beast’; I’m fairly certain those weren’t the exact words he used, but it makes for a much tastier headline!