Sacred dissension and profane accord

Amusing as the Church of England brawl is to those of us who are largely indifferent to the points at issue, it is depressing to see how easily the professional faithful, some of whom are probably men of goodwill, have temporarily given up lives devoted to meditation and prayer in order to spend time tearing into each other like ferrets in a sack.

It is heartwarming, therefore, to note that on another matter of national unimportance there is near-unanimity, at least among Guardian readers, and I suspect among many other people who know what's what, about the proposal to grant Margaret Thatcher a state funeral; published comments have been along the lines of: "...only if the contract is put out to compulsory competitive tender and awarded to the lowest bidder", "...if there is a shortage of armed forces to line the route, plenty of ex-miners will be happy to do the job, just to make sure she has gone", "...suggest it takes place at Port Stanley, where presumably her popularity remains undiminished", " ...much that is wrong with 21st-century Britain in social terms can be traced back to the selfishness strongly promoted during her time as prime minister", "Does that include the grave/dancefloor combo? When is it booked for?" and similar tasteless and appropriate remarks.

Clearly, Maggie unites much of the nation in a way that the Primate of All England, or for that matter his boss, is quite unable to do.