Because it will remove all social ills at a stroke.

Essentially, it's that simplistic.

My father does it occasionally – the "what we need is a revival!" speech. Although, depending on the state of his sanity, he does then sometimes add a rather more consideredthey[/i (it rarely ever applies to the individual positing this) would go to church regularly again.

Dally doesn't realise if you go even further CoE wasn't invented.

If we'd had removed religion from that element of society in the beginning the lope holes that all religions have and can enjoyed wouldn't have plagued our way of life for so long.

Ah, but the great mythical rosy period only came into being after the arrival of Christianity to these previously benighted islands. And then the Reformation. Well, at least our version of it – not yer actual theological Reformation, just one about divorce.

I don't think you can, I honestly there will always be the desire in some people's minds to believe in something mystical to explain what they can't understand (rather than the more logical answer "I don't know ... yet"icon_wink.gif.
The best we can hope for, I think, is a secular state where people have the freedom to believe what they like, where they have a voice, where they are not persecuted, but ...most importantly... cannot impose their wackiness upon others.

Were you born stupid or have you just perfected the art over the years? What about your sexuality were you born with that?

Excellent retort.

Nonsense and nothing to do with the subject but still one of your better ones.

rlChurch of England to tackle homophobic bullyingrl

No, I'm not making it up, and it's not the 1st of April. Unbelievable.

...although what he is saying, and you have to believe that those are his personal feelings, is correct and would be a good thing if it brings them to recognise that their policies are wrong and are not corroborated in the real world, indeed are opposed by the majority.

There's nothing to suggest that one isn't.

There's certainly nothing to remotely suggest that you chose to be heterosexual.

He states that he's not advocating a change of policy though. It smacks very much of paying lip service to the whole thing without actually doing anything to change it.

"We're against homophobic bullying, but we don't believe gay people should have the same rights as heterosexuals."

What next, bears to tackle the problem of defecation in wooded areas whilst continuing to take a dump behind the nearest tree?

Baby steps.

At least this one acknowledges that their attitudes are not in tune with the rest of society to the point where they are turning people off their line of business.

You'll have to excuse my cynicism, but it looks very much like a PR exercise to me. When the Church is next accused of homophobia, they'll be able to point to this initiative in a bid to show that they're not. However, in real terms, nothing will have changed.

Bit like society as a whole then.

I caught a bit of the [iToday[/i programme on R4 yesterday.
Humphries was talking to two women, one who was in favour of women bishops and one who seemed to be saying that, whilst she personally wasn't against the idea, she was going to vote against it until there was some accommodation for those in the church who were sincerely against it.
Quite what accommodation she wanted wasn't made clear but I guess it would have to be a sort of "Yes you can have women bishops but not if even as few as one person says no" ... then she'd vote yes ... maybe.

Goodness knows how she manages to cast a vote in a general election.

Much the same was going on in the Lords last night with the latest stage of the equal marriage debate.

Calls for some public servants to be exempted from doing part of their job, along with a discussion about whether some taxpayer-funded public services should be allowed for all taxpayers.

Logic is not their strong point.

My favourite tweet from last night, though, from Ben Summerskill: " Spare a thought for some bishops today. Attend Synod to oppose women's equality? Or attend the Lords to oppose gay equality?"