Williams a 'humanist mole'?

An um, ‘interesting thesis by Andrew Brown in The Guardian to explain the ‘liberal’ Rowan William’s betrayal of lesbian and gay Christians.

One is reminded of Conquest's law, that all organisations are headed by the secret agents of their opponents. Perhaps the archbishop is actually taking his orders from Richard Dawkins, and acting to discredit the notion that a decent Christian can ever say clearly what he means, or mean honestly what he says. But even that, if it were true, would demand an explanation. Before he took this office, Dr Williams had a considerable, and deserved, reputation for straightforward eloquence and direct symbolic action. He had a great many gay friends, not all of whom were celibate or pretended to be. Now that he has turned against them, we have to ask: was he a sleeper for the British Humanist Association all along?

Still, who knows why Anglicans want to remain “in communion” with each other when their views are evidently mutually loathsome!

My thesis is that Williams was chosen as Archbishop of Canterbury precisely because his years as an armchair academic left him with a weakened backbone.