Name five significant political figures on a national scale in the US, or the UK, or Europe who have ever expressed these concerns publically in a major speech in these terms.
Even Pope Francis
EVEN Pope Francis - this just illustrates just how scared of discussing this issue people in the west are. When it is surprising that the leader of the largest Christian body in the world has mentioned the oppression of Christians in the Middle East, you know it's a cause that people would prefer is not discussed. The Prince, constrained as he is by convention is one of the few significant figures who has done so, because he does take it seriously.
What does authority have to do with influence?
In this type of case he doesn't have any real influence either, and the only thing that could give him any would be if he had a position of authority. The Prince cannot speak out against who is chosen as the Archbishop of Canterbury. He can't make a statement saying that the Prime Minister was wrong to present that name on a shortlist because that would involve speaking in opposition to Her Majesty's Government, and he can't make a statement suggesting that the Queen was wrong to appoint him. It's a matter of British constitutional convention - a senior member of the Royal Family cannot significantly oppose British government policy. Privately it's another matter, and I have no idea if the Prince raised concerns about this appointment privately - but he may well have done. It wouldn't have had much effect - this is not a matter he has any real influence over.
Nobody twisted HRH’s arm to endorse an openly gay clergyman, and nothing was said about Rowan Williams’ status as a druid.
First of all, the Prince could not say anything about Rowan Williams' 'status as a druid' which really is mostly a matter of media misinformation as well. Before he was elevated to Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams was not a member of the Church of England (he was part of the Church in Wales, which separated from the Church of England in 1920, although it remained part of the Anglican Communion, which is why he could become Archbishop of Cnterbury). He's Welsh by birth and culture and as part of his connection to Welsh culture, he was a member of the Gorsedd Beirdd Ynys Prydain, which draws on ancient Welsh culture as part of its ceremonial, which means it has some druidic elements to its ceremonies, but the Gorsedd is not a religious group. It's one devoted to Welsh art and culture, and the preservation of the Welsh language. Do you think the Prince of Wales could speak out against somebody being involved in that?
One can’t be openly gay and celibate at the same time, sorry; that’s a copout.
That's the way Harry Williams lead his life as a devout Christian. He realised he found himself sexually attracted to men and that he could not act on that without committing a sin, so he chose a celibate life and he encouraged other Christians with similar urges to do the same. He became 'openly gay' because he wrote about his spiritual struggles between what he wanted from life in a physical sense, and what he wanted from life spiritually.
It seems to me you've swallowed a large part of what I really do believe is deliberate propaganda spread about by the left wing press in order to smear the Prince of Wales - and they do that because he is a conservative, and that's what they do to conservative public figures. Tell people he supports a homosexual clergymen without mentioning the fact that the man was celibate the entire time the Prince knew him and for at least twenty years before that. Publicise anything he says that might sound left wing, or odd, but ignore anything that is conservative... and they've also done the same to Rowan Williams - what better way to undermine Christianity in England than to label the Archbishop of Canterbury as pagan because he's a member of a cultural group, although in Rowan Williams case, he's definitely a genuine left winger, and has a very socialist view of Christianity - and he's a large part of the reason I'm no longer part of the Anglican Church myself. I don't like him, nor what he and his type have done to the Church of England, but calling him a Druid in any religious sense is really odd. The Gorsedd just happens to use that term, and were using it before the nutters who gather at places like Stonehenge.
Yes, it’s a shame the silly ‘Druid’ business keeps getting dragged out in any discussion of Rowan Williams. His only error in accepting the award (incidentally given for his published Welsh-language poetry, which I understand is impressive) was naivete in failing to anticipate that it would be grossly misinterpreted in the way it was. Or else he knew perfectly well, but didn’t care, which also would have been a misjudgement. It’s interesting, by the way, to look at the roll-call of previous recipients of this award. Through the late 19th and early 20th century it’s dominated by a succession of Baptist, Congregationalist and other noncomformist clergymen, illustrating the dominant position of the Chapel in Welsh culture for so long. All upright Christian gentlemen, no doubt, who would doubtless have been startled, and probably amused, at any suggestion that either their poetry or the award had anything to do with paganism.
That said, I agree that Rowan Williams turned out to be a poor choice as Primate. Not so much because of his politics, but because he proved unable or unwilling to act in any other way than as an academic theologian conducting a seminar, which for so long he had been. (One reason, incidentally, why he got on so well with Pope Benedict - they were two of a kind.)