This is a response to Johann Hari's article (http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-get-bishops-out-of-our-lawmaking-2218130.html), which the Independant published on the 18th February. I doubt it will get printed - it is too detailed - so thought I'd post it here in case the information might prove useful in countering the false historical information which is all to often used to support exclusionary points of view. The Church Mouse Blog has an excellent posting responding to Hari's mischaracterisation of the Bishops' voting records which is also worth reading in connection with this (http://churchmousepublishing.blogspot.com/2011/02/fact-check-johann-haris-attack-on-lords.html).

Dear Sir
Johann Hari’s opinion piece, ‘Get Bishops out of the House of Lords’ is riven with historical inaccuracies which undermine any claim Mr Hari might have to represent himself as an intelligent commentator. The inaccuracies in his article are so obvious and widespread that it is hard to avoid the conclusion that he has engaged in a conscious falsification of historical fact in order to support his own point of view.
This is indefensible, and it is irresponsible for any editor to publish such a deficient piece of writing.

Mr Hari claims that Bishops owe their presence in the House of Lords to Henry VIII’s rapacity, where they were admitted to give their licence to the divorce or murder of his wives. This is a ludicrous suggestion, since the pre-reformation parliaments included Bishops and Abbots as a matter of course. They were considered, along with
the Lords and the Commons, to be an estate of the realm which took responsibility for its good government. Further, parliament did not authorise Henry’s divorces or the execution of his wives, though it did pass the statute in restraint of appeals which allowed the Archbishop of Canterbury (rather than the Pope) to pronounce an
annulment. There is also substantial evidence that Henry attempted to exclude many Bishops and Abbots from Parliament because they opposed his breach with Rome and the annulment of his marriage.

Mr Hari then claims that in 1965 the then Archbishop of Canterbury, Michael Ramsay said that “a nuclear war would involve nothing more than the transition of many millions of people into the love of God, only a few years before they were going to find it anyway”. I can find no source for this quotation prior to 2007, when Christopher Hitchens attributed it to “the Archbishop of Canterbury, in about 1965” during ‘An Evening with Christopher Hitchens’ at the Union League Club in New York. Perhaps Mr Hitchens can tell us where he found the quotation. It seems incredibly unlikely that Ramsey said this in all seriousness, since Owen Chadwick’s biography of Ramsey makes it very clear that he was strongly in favour of nuclear
disarmament.

Mr Hari also misrepresents the current Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams. Williams did not argue for the integration of shariah into the family courts. Instead, he pointed out that “as a matter of fact certain provisions of sharia are already recognised in our society and under our law" and that the legal system is developing ways to
recognise the pluralistic nature of British society by allowing shariah to form the basis of alternative dispute resolution and mediation.

Mr Hari’s article chooses to criticise the Church of England’s current position on the rights of the state to interfere with the appointment of clergy (the equalities bill) and its defence of the rights of the dying (the euthanasia debate). He characterises these as conservative and insensitive positions, linking them to discrimination against
homosexuals and women which British society has moved away from. While the Church has undoubtedly acted to re-enforce discriminatory practices and should be castigated for this, Hari has chosen to ignore the occasions when the Church of England has acted in a progressive and prophetic sense. It was ahead of its time in drawing public attention to the issue of slavery, apartheid, gay rights, employment disputes, the rights of women, the plight of the poor, the deprivation of immigrants, disability discrimination and end of life issues. To exclude religions from the public sphere, and dismiss multiculturalism at the same time, would be to practice the kind of hegemonic bigotry which Mr Hari accuses the Church of England of having enforced, and which I hope this letter has shown to be a bogus fiction.

I am shocked that supporters of Tim Pillinger, the son of the Methodist circuit chair Pete Pillinger and self-confessed wife-beater, have sunk so low as to libel his victim, suggesting that he feared she would become violent toward him, and acted to defend himself in a kind of long-term pre-emptive strike.

I think any normal person would have been tempted to violence when subjected to a sustained campaign of brutal assaults that resulted in long-term injuries. Among other things too gruesome to mention, Tim threw Ellie down the stairs, hit her repeatedly, punched her in the face and broke her cheekbone, and held her under-water in the bath for so long that she feared she would drown. However, she behaved with amazing forebearance, forgiveness and self-sacrifice throughout the assaults and her only concern was for Tim's safety and mental wellbeing. She did not try to hurt him, even failing to defend herself and placing herself in considerable danger in continuing to try and make their marriage work despite his obvious lack or respect for his marital vows. Indeed, after one assault on her, Tim, while still in a fit of rage, tried to drive away from their home; she was scared that he might hurt himself by driving dangerously, or try to harm himself in other ways, so pleaded with him not to go. That's when he hit her with his car.

To try to sully the reputation of the victim of these assaults is inexcusably evil, all the more so when the case is such a clear-cut one.

More details at
http://lavendersparkle.livejournal.com/164572.html?view=563420#t563420