Yes, I can!
In the politically correct socialist utopia that these fools dream of. Where it takes a village to monitor all of your ungarded comments and muttered to yourself out loud thoughts. Just like in Mao's China during the height of the cultural revolutionary frenzy.

Heaven forbid you disagree with them. Should you be that sick. You can wind up in places just like the Soviet psych wards for dissidents.
Yea, I CAN imagine it, all too clearly.

Yes, the www is very unlike the Fleet Street tabloids. Good of him to notice.

Yes, I too can imagine it. This kind of elitist crap (and that's effectively what it is -- all of us r-u-b-e-s have become a veritable electronic lynch mob, dontchaknow) infests the "mainline" churches. I attended one of their seminaries...I've seen it first hand, leftists and "peace" lovers all.

(Hey, Stephen, your comment filters wouldn't let "r-u-b-e-s" through! Ha!)

I am so very happy that I left the Episcopal Church three weeks ago. It was that same liberal political tripe all the time.

The Times appears to have significantly distorted the Archbishop's words.

See http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2005/06/16/online_disorder.php

The undowdified paragraph reads:

"Unwelcome truth and necessary and prompt rebuttal are characteristic of the web-based media. So are paranoid fantasy, self-indulgent nonsense and dangerous bigotry. The atmosphere is close to that of unpoliced conversation - which tends to suggest that the very idea of an appropriate professionalism for journalists begins to dissolve. Many traditional newspapers and broadcasters now offer online versions of their product and many have allowed interactive elements to come into their regular material, for example by printing debates conducted on the web. But they have not thereby abandoned the claims of professional privilege."

Check this out. See what happens when socialism and pacifism are carried to their natural conclusions.

Sorry. Scroll down to the post on the Swedish jihad.

Not that Williams knows bupkiss about kashrut, either.

After reading the article, I think the Archbishop is more on our side with his concerns about the mainstream media. His jab at bloggers could be more aimed at an ideological camp that he isnt particularly found of at this moment.
As an Anglican, I can tell you that the Church is going through some serious issues and its American Communion (Branch) could easily split up over the appointment of Eugene Robinson (the openly gay bishop). And of course, the Church of England did formally ask the Episcopal church here to essentially either get right or get out, so viewing it within that context, couldnt it be reasonable that the Rowan is trying to
If you guys who are not familiar with all the drama that the Church (Episcopal and Catholic) have been going through in the past decade or so, you should try to look it up. I find that Archbishop Rowan speaking out against what I think as media sensationalism and impracticality is suprisingly familiar to a speach Pope Benedict gave not but a few months ago condeming the same thing. And if one would stop and think a moment, these are both prominent heads of the European bases of Churches that have been dragged through the mud here in the US due to scandals. Therefore they are set against the MSM because that has exacerbated their woes and thus they are suspicious of it, blogging being the newest and most alien to them bears the brunt of their assualt I suppose.
I'm not trying to defend the scandals or any wrongdoing at all, but can we not see the same thing occuring here especially in this instance of the war in Iraq? Newsweek and others being so hungry for stories of prisoner abuse and anything else detrimental to the Bush adminstration and the lives of Iraqis that they go off to press without a thought to the ramifications, i.e. the riots in Afghanistan? Even recently on this site I heard someone gripe about how every single "expose" on security lapses at power plants and airports is "telling the terrorists how to do their job" and not fixing or aiding the problem in a constructive way (i.e. turning the tapes over the proper authorities instead of broadcasting it to the known world, sitting on laurels and awaiting a Pulitzer Prize).

So with my meandering logic, I just want to summate that both Pope Benedict and Archbishop Rowan might be critical of the media mainly because major scandals have embarrassed and comprimised them and the institutions they represent, but it doesnt mean that they are wrong in doing so. The media does tend to speculate unnecesarily. For example, the article in Der Spiegel theorizing that Bush somehow planned the mass revelations of Catholic priest child abuse in order to punish the former Pope John Paul for not endorsing the war in Iraq. And not too long ago this time last year, I remember and ABC Nightline interview with Eugene Robinson in which they asked him no hard questions and basically gave him a podium to voice the progay and anti-orthodox agenda of the rebellious half of the Episcopal Church. Leaders definitely notice these things...

Anyway, I've said my piece, just wanted to provide a little more context if at all possible.

I don't know who is the most unfortunate:
Rowan Williams for never having had a haircut, shave or bath.
or
Pope B16 for never having had a working dick.

It's thier death knoll. They have to fight hard.

Yours truly has just about had enough of the ABC. Here's my latest on Air Cantaur.

2 mistakes:

1. The comparison between the Pope and the archbiship based on the familiar content of their speeches should be vetted a little. Unlike the liberal Rowan, the conservative Benedict did not specifically target bloggers but waved his finger at the collective MSM for not considerign the implications of their reporting.

2. Rowan is politically flipflopping between the conservative and liberal sides of the Anglican Church. A liberal at heart it seems this event serves more as a rally and attack than admonition. In any case it isolates people of a certain ideology adn characterizes them unfavorably. When this Eugene Robinson thing "came out," Rowan wouldve probably rolled on us and joined the liberal side of the ECUSA save for the opposition we in the US put up with organizing and networking~ thus attacking bloggers.

my apologies, the Pope is still cool.

Cryptofascist abound in the U.S. Now you know why the Nazis had no trouble recruiting camp guards.

(blinks)

*close* to that of unpoliced conversaion?

Did I miss the Internet monitoring police?

voxdilecti said it right. Who was the other twit that muttered something about 'pacifism'? What to try that one with the Brits in Basra?
I have my own gripe with the US media as well. Brits are invisible.

I wonder what kinda porn's on his hard drive.

Well, this particular Anglican wound up writing two posts on his own blog: the first, based on what I would say if the Times article were accurate, and the second after I had actually read the whole lecture, thanks to the link very helpfully posted by am. Thanks, am.

I'm no fan of the Archbishop, but I'd say that his lecture (as opposed to the highly perverted version given to us by Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent) is generally thoughtful, reasonable, and mostly expressed in uncharacteristly (for the Archbishop) concise and clear English. So I had to post a correction on the ol' blog: it's a Times problem, not an Archbishop problem.

Hooray for the blogosphere, where you can so rapidly get to the truth behind the spin. And to Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent: I think most religions take a rather dim view of lying...

Expat, It does seem the British are relatively invisible in the US media until something happens with the royal family or Tony Blair collaborates with Bush. Despite being from a former british colony (Nigeria, not America) I am a bit of anglophile but I find that *generally* Americans arent very knowlegable about foreign nations or even their own country and the media does little to alleviate that.
But more to the point of this post, The liberal elitist Anglican Clergy abroad and here have said things that would appear sensational yet they recieve little or no press in papers in this country. Most of them dont even believe in God, or at least dont believe in any of the offices, the divinity of Christ, the trinity, communion, or anything central to the faith that they would derizively sneer as "orthodoxy." One British bishop said things so heretical that even when a local paper chaled him he sarcastically replied he didnt expect God to strike him down with lightining because he doubted God could even find the Church.
What has truly happened to the Clergy in some respects is that they have stopped being Church officials and have instead become leftist intellectuals with collars.
There is no difference between them and the Noam Chomskys and Ward Churchhills of this world. They are just in an even more insulated niche than universities and no one has called them out until now.
I dont mind someone having different views from me politically, but when that begins to compromise the church and sound theological teaching then it must be addressed and the Archbishop and his ilk should stop being so suprised that they dont get the same coddling on the blogoshpere as they do in the MSM.

sorry I didnt read your blog first Ken, it was very insightful. I am still somewhat wearly of Rowan but I'll give the Church of England the benefit of the doubt for now, but I dont see them holding up orthodoxy for too much longer unless they have to.

One suspects he pines for the Dark Ages--this time with his church in charge?

Jamie - No. One suspects wrongly. You obviously know zilch about the Archbishop. He is very thoughtful, but some of the things he says are quite elliptical and require one to put one's brain in gear.

Maybe what Jamie was getting at isn't so off.

Dark Ages ~ An intellectual autocracy in which the common man didnt have bibles and therefore the inability to check and ascertain the teachings of the church. Hurrah Martin Luther and others making the Pope blink with suprise at this upstart monk his ilk telling him that his interpretation of the bible and execution upon it is wrong.

Post Modern Ages ~ An intellectual autocrocacy in which leftist/marxist/intellectual elitist thought dominate(d). Think of it in terms of that Columbia Journalism School professor being pissed at bloggers. Confer that to the Anglican church here with some bishops blinking with suprise as laity and other congregations have the gall to dare oppose their beliefs expressed through their policies and appointments.

My father is in seminary right now and his professors are so used to indoctrinating their students with ease that they are genuinely suprised when he challenges their notions that the bible was written by conspiratorial women-haters, that the "full expression of sexuality" should be blessed by the church, and that contrary to they will eventually have to state in the Nicene Creed, Christ was more of a nice guy than the son of God, and more ridiculous things that would make the heads of even nominal christians spin.

These people have had no one raise a hand against them intellectually or otherwise and thus could be suspicious of this new medium providing dissent. But...

*Like I said, I am willing to give the Archbishop himself the benefit of the doubt, but Jamie is accurate in describing the institution of thought that pervades the hierarchy of the Church now.

*and yes, I know Martin Luther came much later after the dark ages...

TO: Stephen Green
RE: As a Matter of Fact...

""Unpoliced conversation." Can you in your wildest dreams imagine such a thing?" -- Stephen Green about the Archbishop of Canterbury

...to echo the first voice in this thread...

"Yes I can...."

Hitler was that sort of goy.

I'm not surprised that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the head of the Anglican Church of England...echoed in the Episcopalian Church [of America] would say such a thing.

The 'politcially correct' despise the truth. And, as I've stated here and elsewhere, "Whereas Good can abide the existance of Evil, Evil cannot abide the existance of Good."

Some people think there are no such things as 'absolutes', however, everyday, we see absolutes played out to their fullest.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Hitler was "Politically Correct", in his venue.]

P.P.S. The Chicoms have enlisted Bill Gates to help them with "policed conversation".

Thinks about it.

What are you Windoz bozos supporting?

P.P.P.S. Wasn't it Stalin, the mass murderer of the Soviet Union, or one of his affiliates, who said, "We will hang the capitalists with a rope they will sell us."

Based on the last week's reports, Bill Gates is selling them that kind of rope.

TO: Voxdilectic
RE: Yeah?

" I find that Archbishop Rowan speaking out against what I think as media sensationalism and impracticality is suprisingly familiar to a speach Pope Benedict gave not but a few months ago condeming the same thing." -- voxdilecti

Tell me where Benedict said that web-based conversations where not 'policed' [enough].

Seriously...we all know the MSM is sinking fast, and in their fitful flounderings are almost drowning anyone who attempts to rescue them.

But that doesn't have anything to do with "policing" conversations.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[The first amendment [of the Constitution of the United States] protects the right of people to say what they think, if if they don't think.]

Oops....

...that should read "....EVEN if they don't think."

voxdilecti:

I think the Church of England will stay in the fold as long as Dr. Williams is Archbishop, despite the fact that he privately holds the same opinions that are getting the North American progressives kicked out of the Archbishop's Communion. The Archbishop is certainly not orthodox, but as far as I can tell he has two qualities...I don't know that you would call them "redeeming," but they're at least restraining.

1. He really wants to stay head of the Anglican Communion and not be the Archbishop of Canterbury who goes down in history as the man who did to the Archbishopric of Canterbury what Jacques Chirac bids fair to do to the French nation -- that is, make it something to which nobody else in the world pays the slightest attention. And if the Church of England openly adopts the same positions that North American has, the Primates of the Global South will get together and find a way to redefine Anglicanism in such a way that the Church of England is unnecessary...as Dr. Williams knows perfectly well.

2. I think Dr. Williams is that rarity, a genuinely, sincerely tolerant liberal. His ideal church would, 24/7/365.25, engage in "dialogue" (his most favoritest of words, I verily believe). And that ideal church would never get around to resolving a single issue, since resolution would inevitably mean that some people would have to be told, "Sorry, you're wrong." Whereas most people talk about issues in hopes of resolving them, he dialogues about issues in hopes of eternally postponing resolution, in order to achieve universal inclusion. When he says (as he has about, e.g., homosexuality) that he personally is in favor of Position X but doesn't believe that the Church should adopt that position, it's because he genuinely cares more about the unity of the Church than he cares about his own theological positions. I think his priorities are misguided, but they are endearingly and refreshingly sincere. At least so far as I can tell.

Thanks yet again Ken, I concurr but rather hesitantly. I'm in a good church right now (locally) and not too worried seeing as how I've only started caring about the Episcopal Church last year when I went and saw what some other people were really preaching.

And to Chuck, like I said before, yes, I did not hear the Pope refer specifically to bloggers or policing conversation. I just know he seemed still pissed about the sex scandals and their coverage here, and in some cases with good reason:
I have a friend who is Catholic and went to the parochial high school where a priest was shot in his home by a former student. The story that was nationally hyped as a former sexually abused student taking revenge on the priest was in my friends words nothing more than a robbery committed by a scumbag who wanted more money for drugs and alcohol. Despite the complete lack of evidence for a history of sexual abuse, my friend was pissed that it was displayed in that context because of everything else that was going on at the time. I'm not forgiving pedophilia, I'm just saying that the Pope has a point in the excesses that occur when media sharks smell blood...

"Fifty-three front page articles on Abu Ghraib in the New York Times sir!" - Bill O'Reilly.

* one of the few times the man makes a compelling arguement. I think it can apply here...

TO: voxdilecti
RE: Okay

"...like I said before, yes, I did not hear the Pope refer specifically to bloggers or policing conversation." -- voxdilecti

Missed that which had been stated 'before'.

Regards,

Chuck(le)

"I think Dr. Williams is that rarity, a genuinely, sincerely tolerant liberal."

There's more than you think. The problem is they made a pact with the left to defeat the right, and now the left mercilessly bullies them, at least in institutions where that alliance (forged in the 60's) still holds sway - academia, the media, government bureaucracies.

Liberals are lovers not fighters, however, so they need some help from conservatives to even the odds. In our most democratic institutions, this is already happening (elective office, the blogosphere, the marketplace).