Correct me if I am wrong Steve, but didn't Martin and the Libs want to impose real time monitoring of things like yahoo and msm messenger. This all at the ISPs expense of course,or they pay $50,000 fine. Just like Trudooooh and his "you will go metric, you will pay or you will be jailed". I haven't heard what happened to the idea maybe you can update us. This was of course before blogs became so favourite. We all know what they will try to do if they get re-elected. The party of freedoms is so much against the freedom of speech.

Posted by: Pissedoff at November 26, 2006 09:17 AM

Another interesting question to ask is,"Why the egregious confusion amongst our leaders?"

There's still a long way to go on both sides. In the case of the orthodox churches, very few leaders have been able to articulate or defend some very old principles such as the rejection of gay marriage or the rejection of women priests. The left can't explain why they want these things, and the right can't explain why it's wrong. This should be a slam-dunk for the conservatives. New believers seek clarity and leadership. But as usual, we're paying with our wallets for our leaders to learn on the job like apprentices when they should be on top of these subjects already. We can be forgiven for expecting better of our leaders.

Posted by: Layon de Lumber at November 26, 2006 04:41 PM

Here we go again!
While I initially found myself taking Carey's side on the issue, the total absurdity of the situation hit home when I read that Carey's camp calls "allies of Rowan Williams the real fundamentalists".
There is so much confusion in that organization, that no one seems to know what is "fundamental" anyway. I don't expect any resolution for these people as long as they are carried away on whatever wind of doctrine seems politically correct this month or next.

Steve, I love your sense of irony concerning the "incorporeal universe". I also agree with your observation that conservatives are making better use of blogs to support their views, but not due to any lack of effort by web-savvy liberals.
It is simply that blogs strip away the things that liberals rely upon to win their battles.
The winning stroke in any debate, religious, political, or otherwise, is a debillitating ad hominem attack that plants doubts in the public minds, and causes the opponent to wilt in the face of off-topic, un-defendable accusations. It has worked for generations in all walks of life, regardless of the issue, and regardless of the forum.
That is until now.
Why? Because the inherent worth of an argument cannot be squashed on a blog as easily as it can on TV and other media outlets that practise selective reporting; omitting any tidbit that might refute the position their editorial board has decided to endorse, and repeatedly broadcasting the ad hominem debillitation of the day.
No, the power of a public forum like this blog is that each argument is unhindered by any adversary, and is available to be read by all, just the way the writer intended; pure and unadulterated.
Every argument is presented on it's own merit, and we can all read a multiplicity of views, agree or disagree, and perhaps even be persuaded to adjust our own opinions.
The reason that blogs appear to be more effective for conservatives is a combination of two factors.
Firstly, the ad hominem attacks that are rendered impotent in this forum, are primarily used by opponents of conservative ideas.
Secondly, proponents of conservative ideas usually have valid and principled reasons for believing what they say, and the strength of their arguments is generally sufficient to defeat shallow liberal platitudes.
Proponents of liberal ideas generally base their arguments on the poll of the day, and winning at all costs, not on priciples that can withstand the tests of time. Liberal thought rarely runs any deeper than "down with the conservatives". If it did, then we would see more of it in the forum of ideas, and liberal victories would be founded on well-won debate, rather than slander and ridicule.
Unfortunately, we haven't seen many examples of the former, but are deluged with examples of the latter.

And so, while bishops Carey and Williams exchange ad hominems, trying to establish who is the least "fundamentalist", we can just shake our heads and wonder how the Anglican Church, ostensibly representing the conservative side of the political spectrum, descended from heights of sacred significance to the crumbling facade we witness today.
Could it be simply that liberals have taken over.

Posted by: Scott Merrithew at November 27, 2006 05:16 AM

Scott Merrithew re the confusion and chaos in the Anglican Church vis a vis the gay issue: "we can just shake our heads and wonder how the Anglican Church, ostensibly representing the conservative side of the political spectrum, descended from heights of sacred significance to the crumbling facade we witness today.

"Could it be simply that liberals have taken over?"

As a cradle Anglican and one who has had intimate ties with the Anglican Church all of my life--until a year and a half ago, when I left the Anglican Church to become a Roman Catholic--I can answer Scott's question in a word:

Yes.

Posted by: 'been around the block at November 27, 2006 06:33 PM

Oh, and another thing:

All of this wrangling going on between Archbishops, Bishops, clergy, and laity, all because of the gay agenda and the very small percentage of the population that fall into the gay category--not all of whom are in favour of the activist agenda, BTW--has created a scorch and burn policy in the Anglican and Episcopal Churches.

Gay activists and their apologists are forcing their agenda on the people in the pew who, if they were individually polled, would probably say a resounding "NO!" to the apostasy that has resulted. Activities which, for millennia, have been forbidden in Scripture--for the health and well-being of men and women--are now not only allowed but are championed. Never mind that same-sex sexual activity has led to an unprecedented epidemic of sickness and death in the gay community, the Church seems to think that it must, in the name of a false "equality," "openness," and "tolerance," defend these sexual preferences.

"Without a vision, the people perish," is exactly where the Anglican/Episcopalian Churches find themselves today. I'm giving them about 10 years before there is a total collapse. When the over-sixty generation, who tend to generously finance the church, are gone, that'll pretty much be it. The hierarchies may be able to limp along for a few more years on endowments, which are far more numerous and generous in the Episcopalian Church than in the Anglican Church of Canada, but the individual churches will be closing down in unprecedented numbers.

"For Wales, Richie? For Wales?" (From "A Man for All Seasons," when Sir Thomas More discovers that Richie Rich has sold him down the river for a place of honour in Wales, then a backwater of the Kingdom.)

Posted by: at November 29, 2006 08:45 AM

Above post is mine: posted at 8:45 a.m.

Posted by: 'been around the block at November 29, 2006 08:47 AM

The democratic process works well for nation states, allowing the population to guide the hand of a representative government. However, it undermines the authority of any organization that is based on an established set of foundational precepts, like a Church, or school, or club.
Majority rule does not mean that the majority is right; it only ensures that the fewest number of people are discriminated against.
In any church, synagogue, or mosque, the leadership is responsible for guiding the people.
Traditionally, churches, synagogues, mosques, schools and clubs had well-defined standards of operation, any divergence from which was identified and addressed in some fashion.
One pertinent effect of that was to discourage people from attending regularly if they did not endorse the standard.
Why is that acceptable in such an organization and not society as a whole? Because membership in these organizations is purely voluntary, with no legitimate repurcussions if a person chooses not to attend anymore. (I say legitimate because apparently a person who decides to quit a mosque is targeted for elimination by their family)

The tendency to relax any traditional standards in the church as an intentional strategy to increase church attendance in the midst of an increasingly non-christian society, has had the predictable result of empowering those who have no interest in foundational precepts, and diluting the relevance of the church in society.
This tactic is probably due to the misguided notion that the most important measure of a church's success is the number of members, so any effort to increase that number is warranted, even if it means sacrificing a foundational precept or ten.

An example of this carried to it's natural conclusion is something that happened in Thornhill, suburb of Toronto.
An old church with a very small number in attendance, had their Annual General Meeting and a motion was made by a relatively new member, to change the denomination of the church. There were not enough members in the quorum to prevent it, and now it is a completely different congregation. (I don't know enough of the details to state it as fact, but my memory tells me it was from a protestant denomination to an Islam mosque.)
That is an extreme example, but the same thing is happening to varying degrees in the Anglican Church and others.

Posted by: Scott Merrithew at November 30, 2006 02:26 PM