Does the homophobic archbishop Justin Welby oppose individual Human Rights?

Only those at the top of the hierarchy and directly connected to "god", are free, according to the British archbishop

Archbishop Justin's speech for the Queen's coronation 60th anniversary referred to the words "knelt" and "slave". But in a democracy based on Human Rights (not Sharia) no one should have to kneel or be a slave.



Here are some picks from the speech:

Liberty is only real when it exists under authority. Liberty under authority  begins, as the Book of Common Prayer puts it, with our duty to God, "whose service is perfect freedom".

We live in a hierarchy of liberty under authority that ascends to God

The nature of power is found in radical commitment, single-minded devotion and servant leadership.

The very nature of being British follows this simple logic. It is founded on liberty under authority. It imitates the example of Jesus who did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but humbled Himself and took the form of a slave.

“Her Majesty knelt at the beginning of a path of demanding devotion and utter self-sacrifice, a path she did not choose, yet to which she was called by God.

"Liberty is only real when it exists under authority. Liberty under authority  begins, as the Book of Common Prayer puts it, with our duty to God, "whose service is perfect freedom".

“We live in a hierarchy of liberty under authority that ascends to God's limitless love. As we see in the life of Jesus, with God justice and mercy are perfectly joined, wisdom is unlimited, generosity is unstinting, and love pours out to the whole world in an overwhelming embrace that is offered universally and abundantly.

Klevius: The wording reflects medieval backwardness and may be seen as "interfaith dialogue".


Andrew Brown (The Guardian): The new archbishop of Canterbury spoke in favour of hierarchy and obedience.

If your duty is to God, rather than to society, or, failing God, to some large abstract or apparently timeless principle, then you have a yardstick against which to measure society, and indeed to measure your own progress: something or someone to whom you are responsible.

Obviously, this can go horribly wrong. But so can the alternative. The idea of being responsible only to your own idealised self is a kind of hell.


Klevius: Why should the alternative be an "idealised self"? The very core of the (negative) Human Rights concept is a restraint against this. Moreover, how can your duty ever be to a God who is unreachable? You will always end up with "God's" assistant who always happens to be a human with the right to interpret "God's" will.