h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<>

In fact, 'different from','different than' and 'different to' are all considered grammatically correct these days, though it is still possible to find certain grammar books that say only 'different from' is 'acceptable English'. However, languages are living things and are constantly changing. Not unlike some people's belief systems which can also grow and change with the times.



az

*wonders. . .on what other levels can a preposition be wrong?*

1 Disinterested observer

2 I would say that on the whole, the Anglican Church is showing itself to be progressive, albeit that they have only just progressed to the latter part 20th Century, c.1970. Whereas the Catholic Church is consistently trapped in a web of its own values, accrued and never discarded over the last 1,000 years.

But however progressive it may be, the Anglican church is also in decline. It is only a matter of time before they recognise that it is their poor uncoordinated attempt at progression that is leading to their ruin.

For Anglicans to continue to be a "broad" church, representative of Britain is no longer possible. Indeed, it seems no longer appropriate or practical for the Anglican Church to play even a marginal role in government, particularly when practising Anglicans are out numbered by practising Muslims.

Curse me for instigating topic drift, but...

Would the latter point suggest to you that we should have mullahs in the House of Lords, or that religion should be taken out of government altogether?

You can't have true separation of church and state without insisting that politicians become Atheists, so don't bother.

It makes sense to invite the heads of any faith to sit in the Lords, but it makes as much sense to disband the Lords entirely.

Why does it make sense?

I know many people who follow sports *religiously* infact we as a nation are more interested and concerned with sports so why dont we have Bert Millichip or Jackie Stewart in the house of lords. Why are'nt Malcolm Mclaren, Cliff Richard or Lee Perry in the house of Lords for that matter, well it isnt because they are not popular and influential. Maybe its because they dont deserve to be there but neither do the bishops, but kings used to rely on bishops spreading the fear of god to control the people and the deal is still in place even if its not in use so much anymore.

one love

If being able to put the fear of god into people is the criterion for entry, then can I propose a representative subset of the nation's mothers-in-law, elderly hat-wearing drivers, rap "musicians" and spiders be put in the House of Lords, because they all put the fear of god into ME.

Here, we have only one House, and believe me, however it is constituted, you're better off having two - take it from one who knows!

Bishops in the house of Lords -

no, it's not because they keep the population in line with religion. The one thing the members of the House of Lords used to have in common was the ownership of vast tracts of land. The Lords were the people who owned the country, and the Church was, and still is, a major landowner. That is why there are Bishops in the House of Lords.

It may also have something to do with Her Majesty being Defender of the Faith, head of the C of E and all that, but way back in the day it was all about land.

In which case the House of Lords should now, surely, be mainly full of Arabs and rock stars.

Hi Gradient that is true to an extent but when Henry VIII was destroying the catholic machinery he knew he had to have something in its place. The fact that the church was allowed to keep all the land it has is because Monarchs have traditionaly need the church to support their rule. Different kings always moved their own people into Dukedoms etc... as and when needed but they never could do away with the support of the church.