Another Clerical Apology

Do Church of England bishops do anything other than apologise the whole time?

I ask because, following on from the apology of the entire church for slavery, from the personal apologies of Williams and Sentamu for slavery, from Williams' apology for the work of Christian missionaries in Africa, and from Williams' apology for criticising freemasonry, we are privileged to witness yet another Anglican Bishop coming out and grovelling. This time, it's once again over slavery:

The Rt Rev John Packer, Anglican Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, has made a public apology for the way in which Christians misused their scripture 200 years ago to justify, defend and perpetuate human slavery.

The comments, which also raise questions about the dogmatic use of the Bible in current arguments about issues like sexuality, came in a debate on the legacy of the slave trade in the House of Lords on Thursday 10 May 2007.

Does the House of Lords have nothing better to talk about? Apparently not. I'd also like to hear more about "the dogmatic use of the Bible in current arguments about issues like sexuality". What, precisely, did the Right Reverend gentleman say about this?

Bishop Packer has been active in his support for social justice, fair treatment for migrants and asylum seekers, and the development of a positive vision for Christian mission in a plural society.

"Fair treatment for migrants" (I assume he doesn't mean deporting them, which is what I'd call "fair treatment"), "social justice", a "plural society". Doesn't he sound just dreadful?

The parliamentary session on Britain's role and responsibility in relation to slavery was introduced by Baroness Howells. She expressed her own regret over the slavery, racism and colonial domination, together with and its “modern debris” of inequality.

The examples of human degradation cited included sub-standard housing for black people, their over-representation in the prison population and the mental health service, underachievement in education and disproportionate exclusions from schools.

Okay, let's get one thing straight. Blacks are not disproportionately poor, or disproportionately criminal, because of slavery. White liberals, and whiny players of racial politics, need to learn that not everything bad that happens to a black person is the fault of the wicked white people. Rather, the problems within the black community, and caused by that community (notably the predilection of a disproportionately high number of its members for shooting and stabbing one another, and the culture from which that predilection is derived), are to blame. No amount of apologising is going to change that simple fact.

Meanwhile, the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds urged people not to consider slavery a "past matter", as something that had been removed and resolved by the abolition of the nineteenth century trade.

He said that an expression of gratitude for the abolitionist measures taken 200 years ago needed to be matched by actions today to reverse consequent cycles of injustice and oppression.

Christians, in particular, had much to repent of, including the use of the Bible to legitimate actions and structures which contradicted the message of the Gospel and of Jesus.

Why are white Christians expected to grovel and apologise for events that happened 200 years ago (and which Christian groups worked the hardest towards ending, although the Bishop doesn't seem to mention this), while Muslims must be shielded from any blame whatsoever for what they are doing today? Double standards, anyone?