The Archbishop of Canterbury thinks it is . . .

It's bad enough when a snarky corporation engages in sophomoric name-calling, but it's another thing entirely when one of our own weighs in.

My previous post explored the notion of Christians as hatemongers because of their desire to adhere to biblical statements prohibiting homosexual conduct.

Now we hear from the Church of England's own Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams that Christian doctrine is offensive to MUSLIMS.

Let's start a list, shall we? My guess is that by the end of the year it will be quite long.

We'll title it, "Who Can Christians Piss Off Next?"

1. Homosexuals

2. Muslims

3. Meat-eaters (because the Bible says we ought to be kind to animals)

4. Vegetarians (because the Bible also includes numerous descriptions of animal consumption)

5. Married people (because the Bible says there will come a time when we don't need to be married or given in marriage)

6. Children (because the Bible says children should take time to honor their parents)

7. Parents (because the Bible says parents should not provoke their children and, let's face it, aren't there times when even the most loving parent struggles against the temptation to provoke their kids?)

8. The wealthy (because the Bible says the meek will get everything eventually)

9. Women (because the Bible says there will be travail in childbirth and makes snide remarks about unvirtuous women)

10. Sculptors (because the Bible speaks against worshipping statues in favor of worshipping God instead)


Whew. I'm up to 10 and that took all of about five minutes to compile. No wonder Christians are taking a hit everytime we turn around, eh?

Anyway, back to Archbishop Williams, he's quoted as saying that the Trinity -- the idea of God as Three in One, i.e. Father, Son, Holy Spirit -- is "difficult, sometimes offensive, to Muslims" because it conflicts with Islamic teaching that there is only one all-powerful God.

So . . . would he have us change that up to suit our detractors? Maybe we should edit future editions of the Bible to leave that part out? (Cutting out uncomfortable passages would make some other folks -- see No. 1 on the above list -- very happy, too.)

Williams doesn't really say. He does issue a call for people of all faiths to come together to help and defend one another and those less fortunate. I'm hip to that.

Williams also notes that faith has no connection with political power or force yet some Christians in the past have acted as if it does.

This last comment naturally strikes a chord with conservatives in the Anglican Church who believe that Judeo-Christian teaching is foundational to British laws and society. Reminds me of the folks who say America was not founded according to Christian principles though they never do manage to explain away that pesky last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence in which the name of "Providence" is invoked.

Anyway, I guess I'm tired of being told to walk around in a perpetual state of contriteness and apology because of my religion. The good archbishop may want to don sackcloth and ashes to atone for, say, the Crusades, but I'm inclined to let bygones be bygones and to instead focus wholeheartedly on the Golden Rule put forth by The Good Book.

If I'm treating my fellow citizens -- regardless of their heritage or faith -- as kindly as I want to be treated, that oughta put me in good enough stead with my Christian brethren. If my adherence to the teachings of Christ causes any of those fellow citizens to blow a gasket, well, then, that's really their problem -- as long as they ignite only themselves.