Facebook this week is full of "likes," and less full of comments. Some stories, however, drew a larger number of comments, including a thread evolving from Robinson's retirement announcement that included one suggestion that he retire immediately. You can't please everyone, it seems.
Comparing Covenant opponents to the British National Party, as we wrote about Thursday, brings us to Godwin's Law, which Susannah Clark was kind enough to remind us of in the Facebook thread discussing Cameron's metaphor. If you're not familiar with Godwin's Law, which evolved out of USENET newsgroup discussions, here's some information from Wikipedia on it:
Godwin's law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies or Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies) is a humorous observation made by Mike Godwin in 1989 which has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1." In other words, Godwin put forth the sarcastic observation that, given enough time, all discussions—regardless of topic or scope—inevitably end up being about Hitler and the Nazis.
Godwin's law is often cited in online discussions as a deterrent against the use of arguments in the widespread reductio ad Hitlerem form. The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases as the discussion progresses. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact.
It's probably safe to say that an analogy to the BNP carries the same rhetorical impact, and as such, Cameron probably lost the argument the second he invoked it.
With regard to Christ Church Philadelphia and "ecclesiastical disobedience", several Facebook commenters noted that even if they admired the "why" of the church's action, they disagreed with the action itself. The reason? It smacks of the logic conservative churches use when withholding support for the diocese for being too liberal or too attached to the national church.