Ayala, a former monk, believes there is no contradiction between science and religion. He says, “…I hope the recognition [the prize] bestows will help propagate the notion that science and religion are not in opposition and that, in fact, they may often be complementary. …I have been arguing for years, and I continue to argue in all possible ways that are accessible to me, that there need not be contradiction between science and religion. Properly they cannot be in contradiction because they deal in different subjects. They are like two windows through which we look at the world; the world is one and the same, but what we see is different.”

Ayala was born in Madrid in 1934, and in 1960 was ordained as a Dominican priest but left the order the same year and moved to the US. His discoveries have led to research into various diseases including Chagas disease and malaria. He has publicly criticised US restrictions on federal funding of embryonic stem cell research. He is also critical of creationism and intelligent design theories, and argues that belief in evolution does not rule out belief in God.

Sad to say, my experience over the last sixteen years includes arriving at theological college to find a piece of paper under my door with extremely unpleasant and unprintable comments about how women were not welcome “here”; being treated as invisible by some male priests at nearly every large Church festival I’ve attended since being ordained; and offering consecrated wafers to people at Communion rail only to have them stand up and walk away instead of receiving communion from me. I survived one co-ordinated campaign to remove me from office, and another incident when a male priest spread malicious lies about me in an attempt to discredit me. Nasty, and undeserved, but true.

So it rang plenty of bells in my head when I read this quote this morning, written by another priest:

“We are actually hated within our own family, who have no real desire to help us, but will seek to hurt us if we stay and hurt us if we go. Pray God that this fear is entirely unfounded.”

These words, though, were not written by a woman priest, but by Fr Ed, an Anglo Catholic priest writing in response to the news that another male priest who is contemplating taking up a Catholic Ordinariate hs had the very unpleasant experience of a threatening phone call and some graffiti posted on his church notice board.

I think Fr Ed’s comments put the spotlight neatly on the most important issue: that regardless of which wing of the Church you live in, or which strand of Christian belief you subscribe to, this is reprehensible behaviour, every bit as bad as the bullying that women priests have had to encounter. The point isn’t really whether this or that opinion is right or wrong. There are some Anglo Catholics who cannot accept women bishops under any circumstances; there are many more Anglicans (including catholic Anglicans) who feel that refusing women bishops undermines their integrity. It’s easy enough for everyone to think that their understanding of orthodoxy is more orthodox than someone else’s. But it’s a foundation of Christian theology that Christians should love their friends and their enemies.  Treating people as if they are invisible, spreading lies, threatening phone calls – these are not the actions of love, and whatever the provocation, they are unacceptable.

Here’s a clip from the latest one, by Rev’d Canon Jackson:

“Can we stand back a moment and remember: What is the fundamental question? The Church is trying to resolve one of the most fundamental questions of all – What is the nature of a human being? and, more specifically:

(a)Which human-beings can be regarded as normative, or representative, of humanity as a whole and thereby are capable of receiving the grace of ordination, for sacramental ministry?
(b)Which human beings, in God’s determined order of creation, may be assigned authority to lead human society and human institutions and thereby are capable of fulfilling a role of headship?
(c) In relation to both of these, can women do so, or not? i.e. has God assigned these roles in the created order differentially among human beings according to their gender, or not?These are fundamental ‘first order’ issues, because neither women nor men can control what gender is assigned to them at birth, nor can they in any sense be held responsible for it.  As Maude Royden summed it up, “I was born a woman and I can’t get over it”.

Read the rest here

She lists the current regular contributors to Thought for the day, which break down something like this:

Anglican – 9,   Christian (non specific denomination) 6,  Jewish 3,  Roman Catholic 3,  Christian Evangelical 3,  Methodist 2,  Muslim 2,  hindu    1,  Church of Scotland 1,  Baptist 1,  Sikh 1,  Buddhist 1

Or, you could read the figures as Christian – 25, other religions 8

Obviously this doesn’t include one-off presentations such as the one by the Atheist Bus promoter.

Among the under-represented groups, one of the smartest Baptists in the country is Dr Simon Perry. He should get an invitation.

My own thought is this: whenever I hear thought for the day (which isn’t every day by any means)  I am less interested in what religion the person represents, and more interested in whether their thought is interesting. My favourites are Lionel Blue, Jonathan Sacks, David Wilkinson and John Bell (two of whom have a different religion to mine, and the other two a different Christian denomination).  They consistently come up with something that I remember several hours later – or even the next day.

What do you think,  readers? Is it reasonable to have more Anglicans on the basis that more people who claim to be religious are Anglicans? Should speakers simply be chosen on the basis of how interesting they are to listen to, or on a representation of the prominence of their religion? SHould Thought for the Day remain religious/theistic, or should it branch out to include non-religious thought systems such as Atheism or secular humanism?

Meantime, Crumb’s book is well worth adding to your collection of Bible versions. It’s on my Christmas wish list.

Legal expert Mr Mooney, who is head of consultancy at Employment Law
Advisory Services, said: “The ramifications of Tim Nicholson winning
this test case are massive. In essence victory will put employees who
hold strong environmental beliefs in the same category – and with the
same protection – as workers who hold strong religious beliefs.

“Consequently he could be in line for unlimited damages. This would
open the floodgates for others who believe their employers have
victimised them simply because of their views on the environment and
how business deals with pressing environmental issues such as climate
change and reducing our carbon emissions.

“The government would then be forced to re-look at employment
legislation and close the legal loopholes to prevent such a potentially
disastrous situation happening.

“This will be an extremely interesting case to follow.”

I’m glad for Mr Nicholson, and I’m certainly happy to know that ethical and ideological positions still can sway a court. But my impression is that cases where the religion at issue is the long-established English Christianity – with all its nervy connections with old-fashionedness and imperialism, and under constant attack from the New Atheists – religion is actually not so well treated. A nurse came very close to losing her job merely for offering to pray for a patient; those who have wanted to wear small crosses to signify their beliefs have been treated with considerable disdain – at least by the press. So I’m not sure it’s exactly true to say that TN’s green beliefs have been given the same status as a religion. It sounds as if it’s been given rathyer more credibility. Maybe next time a CHristian is up in court for mentioning their beliefs, they should request the same status as that of someone with Green beliefs.

Paula Gooder

THe BBC has a piece on how to "cope" with Christmas and not get into debt. "Make a budget and stick to it," it says, which is of course a smart idea.

But here's an even more radical idea: cut down your idea of what's required. The expectations we place on ourselves for Christmas, weddings and all sorts of other celebrations are completely out of hand: sure, if you are minted, enjoy it, but you do not have to spend seventeen grand on a wedding, or two grand on Christmas.

If you're on a tight budget, call your family and friends and tell them you're not doing presents this year, or only doing £5 presents, or whatever you can afford and invite them to do the same. (I just did that). They might even be very glad someoone else takes the initiative. And think realistically about what people really can eat in two or three days. Most families chuck out half a turkey a few days after Christmas (or they freeze it and then chuck it out six months later). Try buying an ordinary chicken instead, or two if there's a houseful. Four pounds buys enough carrots, parsnips and potatoes (especially if you shop at Aldi) to have roast veg for a week.

What do you really need to celebrate? Some warmth. Some friends. Enough to eat. Goodwill to all.

Lower expectations, cut out the stress, and raise the enjoyment factor.