Lord Carey takes on the BNP

Lord Carey has come out to denounce the BNP and to pronounce an unsettled view of the Pope's invitation to Catholic Anglicans. The two topics are not related, but have been scrambled together as a soundbite piece. The former Archbishop came onto the Today programme yesterday to say he didn't say this and he didn't say that about the Pope's announcement.

So what did he say about the BNP. Apparently that their views are 'irredeemably evil'. I'm glad he said views and not the people themselves, because the Christian gospel tells us that nobody is beyond redemption. The archbishop should have clarified this point. In the heat of the moment all kinds of things can be misinterpreted.

Lord Carey spoke of views, plural. I have an overriding problem with the BNP's policy on promoting racially based policies likely to cause favouritism for white people (DNA tested, no doubt!) above others. However, on paper, this is the only detestable policy. All their other policies seem fairly anodine and stand up to scrutiny. I have an issue with the emphasis on "command and control" but that's about it.

What we have now is not a debate, because that would allow the BNP to become "equals". No, we have a crazed demonisation which allows Nick Griffin to sell himself as a political martyr. If all the media has in their arsenal is likening Griffin to Hitler and telling us what a bigot he is, then that won't change a thing. Tell us something we don't know.

So, my question is this. Can the mainstream politicians debate the policies of the BNP other than turning Griffin's personal bigotry into the main discussion topic? If they can't, then the BNP gets to go under the political radar and into pastures new!

'gay marriages' - minor tremors or major Quakers?

The Society of Friends, better known as the Quakers, are all geared up to "allow gay marriages" if the vote goes accordingly at their annual gathering in York on Friday. They will also formally ask the government to change the law to allow gay people to marry.

They may ask, but I doubt it will get very far. Not because of the government. They are quite keen to advance secular society's norms within the church establishment. No, it will be because they just won't have the parliamentary time to do it (unless they tack it on to some convenient bill, of course). The Church of England need not be too concerned.

I don't wish to be difficult, but I would have thought the Quakers would be better off leaving things as they are. They may take a view on same-sex relationships. That is perfectly OK. But they do not represent the traditional Church teaching as upheld by the main denominations. It would appear that some Friends are of the view that their minor tremor could turn into a major quake. I think it would not.