Carey's comments show scant regard for modernity

George, now Lord Carey, was criticised in some quarters for being a bit soft, and a bit unwilling to speak out, while he was Archbishop of Canterbury. Now speaking as a 'free' man, and a sitting peer, he's happier, it seems, to give free rein to his mouth.

He's spoken out in an interview with the Telegraph about what he sees as an erosion of Christian values and rights in an increasingly secularising society, complaining about a legal ruling in favour of the removal of prayers from the start of council meetings, and leaping to the defence of the guest house owners I've already written about in these pages. He's also complained about the treatment of a Relate counsellor who lost his job for refusing to counsel same-sex couples.

His comments on these cases basically amount to a call for Christians to be able to be free to exercise discrimination, while at the same time complaining about the fact that they themselves are being discriminated against. This apparent contradiction does not seem to occur to him. "This inability to find a way to accommodate the sincerely held beliefs of someone like Gary McFarlane creates a tyranny," he claims. So, if Mr McFarlane, the Relate counsellor in question, believed through his religion that he couldn't counsel mixed-race couples, or couples comprising a Christian and a Jew for example, would that be OK too? And of the B&B owners, he says: “I want to protect their freedom to take that line.” The same question must be asked there - can they refuse admission to mixed-race or mixed-religion couples too, if their religion demands it? Where is the line drawn?

A religious belief is not a licence to discriminate against people because they don't fit some ideal lifted from a several-thousand-year-old holy book, however genuinely held. He goes on to talk about his grandson Simon, who died of a suspected drug overdose. I don't know if the Telegraph article is trying to tell us that Carey is implying that securlarist culture is to blame for this poor lad's death, but he seems to forget as he laments the 'slippery slope' that 'led to his death' that his God is supposed to be the one who makes all these decisions, and takes us when it pleases Him. God calls us to Him in ways we are not meant to understand, but his grandson's death was all about a secular society giving him easy access to drugs? I can't personally reconcile the two concepts.

Whatever drives his 'call to arms', whether it's the very real and human grief he must be feeling or merely the freedom of expression he's now got since his retirement from the Archbishopric, he simply has to accept the way our society is going. This is a dam which is being asked to hold back more and more pressure, and if it isn't modified, it's going to fail. Work with modern society, and the Church still has a place. Fight against it and the marginalisation of faith will only continue, and possibly even accelerate.

Praise be

It's not often you'll read praise for the Church in these pages, or for individual members within it, but one member of it I do have a bit of time for is the Archbishop of Canterbury, and his comments, shortly to be published in the New Statesman, are an indication as to why. As a supposed moral guardian, or whatever you want to call him, for our society, I of course have a fundamental problem with him being strongly guided by his faith. But that doesn't, of course, make him always wrong. Some issues are plain to anybody with a functioning moral compass, regardless of the source of the 'magnetism' to which it points.

He's never been afraid to speak out, which is important for a man in his position, but never before has he made such a scathing and wide-ranging attack on government, at least never that I can remember. He's pointed particularly to the coalition's peculiar notion of what constitutes a democracy, given that the government is introducing sweeping changes which, in his words, people did not vote for. I've already, in this blog, had a pop at the government's plans for NHS reform, a direct contravention of a Conservative manifesto promise, and this is one of the plans attracting his ire. But he's also had a pop at plans for education, at the cuts, at their seeming lack of empathy with the public, pretty much everything.

Though I don't expect them to, they would do well to listen to him, or at least pay heed to the fact that he's felt the need to speak out. He may not be my idea of a moral compass, but he is a decent barometer (sorry about all the meteorological devices) of society's thinking insofar as, if he's pointing at 'stormy', they would do well to pay attention. The next general election is already only four years away maximum, and could be sooner if they're not careful. They may not like what he's saying, but they should in fact be very grateful that he's said it. Check out the New Statesman website for the whole thing - they're already on there.