Religion

In a corner of the Sistine Chapel, below Michelangelo’s hell, is a door to the little chamber they call ‘the room of tears’. Some painter-decorators are in there, frantically doing the place up. That’s because, in a matter of days, a new Pope will be led into the room. According to tradition, at that moment, as he first contemplates the magnitude of his role, he will weep. A myth, you might think. But we can be sure that the next Supreme Pontiff — whoever he is — will have plenty to sob about. Since Benedict XVI’s resignation two weeks ago, each day seems to have brought yet more bad news. Scandal is swarming around the upcoming papal conclave like a Biblical plague.

As the late Christopher Hitchens used to say of the most vociferous, gay-obsessed clergy: ‘I have a rule of thumb for such clerics and have never known it to fail: Set your watch and sit back, and pretty soon they will be found sprawling lustily on the floor of the men's room.’ In Cardinal Keith O’Brien’s case it was not on the floor of the men’s room but – if the stories of several former young novices are true – in late-night prayer sessions that His Eminence brought himself low. This is allegedly the same Keith O’Brien who was the author of last year’s tumescent comparison of civil marriage equality for gays with the introduction of slavery.

I thought that readers might be interested in this new piece from me on Islam, the Koran and Richard Dawkins's survival instinct.

That's that then. Marriage will change, one way or another. Progress has won. Cue lots of right-on politicians talking about how proud they are to have ushered in such a historic reform. But what about the losing side? What should those Christians who believe that marriage must by definition be a union of man and woman do now? Accept and move on, I suppose. The best response is surely not to bleat on about a sinister 'Orwellian' state. But there's another way. Since the politicians have changed the meaning of a word for political gain, perhaps Christian leaders should play the same game. They could move the definitional posts again, ditch the word marriage and talk only about 'Holy Matrimony' instead? Sounds ludicrously old-fashioned, I know. But read me out.

Welcome Rt Rev Justin Welby, who became the 105th Archbishop of Canterbury this morning at St Pauls. The Church of England’s first tweeting ABC has been a bit quiet online of late, but that hasn’t stopped us nosy parkers getting a glimpse into life behind the scenes of this most holy transition. If Welby’s twenty-something daughter Katherine is anything to go by the flaws in process have not gone unnoticed: ‘Off to St Paul’s today for the confirmation of election. Anywhere else in the world an ‘election’ that had only 1 candidate it was illegal to vote against would be called corruption.’ Well quite, but it’s not all self-flagellation.

I spent Thursday evening at the Cambridge Union debating the motion 'This House believes religion has no place in the 21st century.' I spoke against the motion. My opponents on the opposite side included Richard Dawkins. My opponents on my own side were Rowan Williams and Tariq Ramadan. Anyhow - there has been a certain amount of press coverage and a number of readers have got in touch. This is just to say that I hope to post the video of the debate here as soon as it becomes available. UPDATE: Video of the debate is available here.

Personally, I don't wear a cross, on the basis that I'm not much of an advertisement for Christianity and I'd risk diminishing the brand. But for Eric Pickles, Communities Secretary, and Nadia Eweida, the former British Airways employee who has just won her appeal about cross-wearing at work at the European Court of Human Rights, it's a basic freedom. It's hard to gainsay the judges' view that manifesting your faith is a 'fundamental right'. Any organisation that doesn't have a problem about Muslim women wearing scarves and Sikh men wearing turbans but which gets uppity about a small cross, really does have a problem with consistency.

'I’m spiritual, not religious' is something people say to make themselves sound interesting. It doesn’t work. What is intriguing, though, is that, according to this new survey, those who see themselves as spiritual but don’t follow conventional religion are far more likely to be mentally ill. Now, before you trolly atheists out there in webland start typing 'What a lot of crap. ... anyone who believes in God is nuts. LMFAO!!', read me out. Yes, we might have a case of chicken-and-egg here -- the chicken being mental illness and the egg being the thirst for existential understanding. Or vice-versa.  But the survey might also go to prove the value of that least trendy thing: organised religion.