Well no surprises there then. Just the sort of drivel we have come to expect from Rowan Williams. He is right about one thing though - he correct when he says that "the nature and extent of religious representation in the upper house ... is not a marginal question".
It is an issue that demands serious attention. However it will be no surprise that I disagree, as do the majority of people in this country, with Mr Williams on the answer to the problem. The only proper course now is the disestablishment of the COE, and the removal of the Lords Spiritual. Mr Williams and all his fellow religionists should of course be as free as anyone else to put themselves forward for a place in the upper chamber, but they should not be granted one to go along with their job.

Mark Allen, Nottingham,

So which of our government are you calling godless? Tony Blair is a regular church goer commited Christian and seems likely to convert to Catholisism on standing down as PM, Gordon Brown is a son of the manse and Ruth Kelly, well. Opus Dei should say it all. Haven't they done a good job spreading peace and contentment through the world?

It is very easy to go back through a history where social convention mean't that most people were actually, or nominally Christian and cherry pick example to prove how good Christians are (ie Wilberforce), doubtless the multitudes of wrong doers who similarly proffessed faith are to be discounted as 'not real Christians' since the symetry of the great circular argument 'Christians are good because anyone who is not good cannot be a real Christian' never loses it's appeal.

PJ, Chinnor, UK

Interesting to see the contributions from the USA whose constitution attempted to end 'Christendom', pushing religion from the 'secular' state: did the failure to abolish slavery in the US till so late have anything to do with this cutting adrift from Christian social ethics? The Archbishop is right, but our liberal elite is very secularist indeed. The irony in the UK is the steady integration of religious law, Sharia - we hear today of Treasury Bonds being issued that are 'Sharia compliant', plus Halal law busting open our animal cruelty law. And no debate on this move to apartheid systems whatsoever.

BigIb, Haggerston, UK

Britain needs to re-visit the Magna Carta and adjust (as the US Constitution did) to a set of values which are more fitting in a modern society but recognizing basic moral and enlightened religious tenents.

The COE should also recognize the absurdity of its differences with the Vatican and vice-versa.

Francis Rogan, Portland, USA/Oregon

To respond to Mr. Peter in London

I ask sir you to recall your history. Christianity was scorned early on for placing abnormal respect upon slaves (c.f. Celsus). One of Paul's epistles, Philemon, deals exclusively with the freeing of a runaway slave. Past that, Christianity-based Western societies are the only ones in all of history to ever recognize slavery as wrong. But you are sadly right about Wilberforce's opposition. Yet, thankfully, they did not have the last word.

David Marsh, Fairfax, VA, U.S.A.

Slavery under a benevolent master is preferable but not terribly different from the life of a third world manual labourer tied to making shoes for a European or US corporate. Anyone who must work in order to pay bills is a wage slave these days. Not all slaves worked under the lash and the point of it all is that God judges relationships, firstly towards Him (Ye shall love the Lord thy God with all thy heart etc....) and then towards others (and your neighbor as yourself).

Peter , Sturminster Newton, Dorset

Without being a Christian - indeed being an atheist - I know that slavery is wrong. Murder, theft and lying too. How come, I wonder?

alan, cologne,

Iran is a theocracy. Go figure. And what gives a minority religion that right?

Ben, York,

So people of faith should have greater representation in our government purely because of their faith?

Although Britain is historically a Christian country, to claim this as justification for a continued role for the church in government is ridiculous. We're becoming an increasingly secular country with (according to Tearfund) a 2/3 majority of people who do not attend church and only a narrow majority of 53% that call themselves Christian (and only 59% who are religious at all). Hardly a sweeping mandate for the continued integration of faith into government.

I'll accept the argument for a moral aspect to government but it's incredibly cynical to say politicians aren't capable of the role and incredibly arrogant (not to mention insulting) to say we need religious people to do it for us. The idea that morality comes from religion is really something the church needs needs to grow out of.

Alex, Purley, Surrey

Usual self serving rubbish from the theocrats. Generations of Christians were happy to support slavery and St Paul, amongst others, explicitly condones it in the Bible. Religious conviction is a private matter, however weird it may increasingly be. It is a world view like any other, including atheism or agnosticism. It should not be penalised or in or of itself considered virtuous- nor should it be accorded special privileges in awl or, especially, the legislature.

J Whittingham, Cambridge, England

But is it not true that Christianity tolerated slavery for 1,700 years? And that much of the opposition that Wilberforce faced came from Christians who claimed the authority both of the Bible and of the traditional teachings of the church?

Of course, Christians have the same rights as everyone else to try to influence politics. But they have no greater rights. And - since they formed themselves into what is effectively a single issue pressure group whose sole aim is to deny human rights to gay people - they will increasingly struggle to have their voices heard.

Peter, London,

Rowan, seriously, if you were starting with a blank slate, you wouldn't choose a theocracy as the best form of government? Surely Democracy is better?

paul newbold, sheffield, england

So what Williams actually means is "down with an immoral government"? I think most right-minded people can get behind this. But to suggest that the only possible avenue to a societal morality is by having an unaccountable embedded theocratic element in government is, frankly, repugnant and offensive.

In answer to Williams' question, without an established state religion, society would still be made up of individuals - the same individuals that currently comprise that society. Does he mean to suggest that, should his particular sect no longer have the special privileges is has enjoyed for centuries, all of these people would somehow lose their moral centres? The arrogance of this presumption should not go unnoticed.

The sooner that people like Williams are dissuaded from perpetuating the melodramatic canard that only the religious are moral, the better for us all.

MB, Edinburgh, UK

Does Dr Williams believe that Wilberforce would have had any effect - would even have been an activist - if he had lived a hundred years _before_ the Industrial Revolution, when slavery was seen as an economic necessity?

Our notion of what it is to be moral changes according to the society we live in, from generation to generation. This is why it has to be orthogonal to any religious framework, which in order to have any meaning, must be unchanging. It is precisely when churches say that slavery is acceptable one year, even quoting scripture to justify it, and unacceptable the next, that they squander their credibility.

A church may wish to provide an ultimate, unchanging moral target to shoot at, but as Prince Nekhloudov sombrely reflects in Tolstoy's "Resurrection" such a target is all but impossible to live up to for anyone, cleric or not.

Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK

Why do I feel that the same subject matter would have been less hesitant and more inspiring if penned by Pope Benedict XVI. As an Anglican I find the poverty of leadership and clarity from the upper reaches of The Church of England indicative of a fog of confusion and obfuscation of a kind pleasing to both Pilate and the Sanhedrin, but totally at odds with The Word

Voyager, Oxford, England

An Anglican might name Wilberforce as the most influential; I suppose he wouldn't name Thomas More (a more striking choice, as he actually died for his conscience), as this might undermine the already shaky foundations of the CofE. However, suffering for one's conscience is certainly coming back into fashion, given the godless times we live in.

Herbert G., Leeds,