http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13706710

Personally I don't believe that Church leaders should interfere with politics. They should concentrate on serving God and the people who worship him (or her).

Why not, he has a voice as well and the same liberties.

Quite frankly I think it's a good thing people speak up, regardless of the sector of public life they are in..

Ok, I'll go and tell him that he's praying to God the wrong way then shall I ??

I personally believe God made politics!

I also think he shouldn't stick his nose in. He's a man of the Church and has huge influence and shouldn't be mixing politics and religion together.

What he is staying is based on his political beliefs, nothing more.

I'm not sure what the fuss is about. Indeed, his comments I think are probably of greater value to many than his (I presume) belief in the relationship between God, Christ, and Man. So long as he is fair; it seems (New) Labour didn't get of scot-free either.

as long as he is happy for politicians to attack his dogma.

So long as it's on a lead they should leave his poor little dogma alone !

Think he is between a rock and a hard place.

If he speaks out the church shouldn't interfer in politics. If he keeps quiet and ignores the impact of politics on the wellbeing of his parishioners and those who look to him for guidance and comfort, he is then condemned for being out of touch, unconcerned with the issues troubling his community and labelled as an ineffectual irrelevance within a modern (increasingly secular) society.

Don't wish to offend but my personal view is thats he's a lefty God Botherer who should stick to what he's qualified to do. my personal opinion you understand.

You create a false dichotomy. Rowan Williams was speaking out on social issues, just as the church always has. It's worth asking why the opposition hasn't done the same.

Was this from his palace in Lambeth or his single bedroom flat he rents from the local housing association?

Perhaps people would pay more attention to the church if they followed the example of a certain carpenter from Galilee.

I understand as a landlord, the Church are particularly 'unchristian'!

Don't get prophets and profits mixed up will you ?

I have been told by a person that deals with them , that they certainly don't.

Supporting the systematic rape of children put something of a dint in the standing of the church, and any organisation predicated on an entirely bogus premise in order to operate an after-life protection racket has a shaky moral foundation, and yet for over a thousand years the church has been at the centre of the nation's political life. It's true that sectarianism has been at the bottom of national strife for half of that time, that social reform has more often than not been lead by non-conformists in outright opposition to the established church, and that the established church has blessed, and often actively participated in the nation's most heinous offences against morality, but yet the church still has standing. Whatever the basis of his belief, I'd rather Rowan Williams influenced the debate with a considered and intelligent observation because, much as I'd prefer to disestablish the church and live in a humanist state, we don't yet have much in the way of humanist moral authority, and while I'd vote for Alain de Botton to be Archbishop, it's the likes of Wayne Rooney and Jordan that have more influence.

Is he not Jewish?, that might present a small problem.

Wasn't Jesus?

Anyroad, I was thinking about the role as a moral-guardian-in-chief in a humanist state, not as a religious role.

Archbishop is not a religious role?

Fair enough.