The group challenges common "myths" about circumcision here.

According to the World Health Organisation, 30 per cent of the global male population are circumcised, and 68 per cent of those circumcised are Muslim. Globally, the majority of circumcisions appear to be carried out in adolescence, rather than in early childhood, as a religious or cultural rite of passage. Jewish law prescribes that newborn boys are to be circumcised eight days after birth in a religious ceremony honouring the Abrahamic covenant. In the book of Genesis (17:1-14), circumcision is given to Abram as "a token of the covenant" made between him and God. In the same covenant ritual, Abram's name is changed to Abraham.

Notwithstanding the long religious tradition associated with circumcision, the practice remains extremely controversial. Some campaigners regard male circumcision as a form of abuse similar to female genital mutilation.

Calvin continues to divide people. Some say he was an austere man of ideas, others that he was an engaged man of the people. Some say he was an early democrat, others say he was a theocrat to the core. Some say he was a defender of liberty of conscience, others say he defended the liberty of others to agree with him. Then there's Calvin's influence on economics. He challenged the church's traditional opposition to usury and developed ideas that changed economic life in Reformed countries, but was he really, as some say, a key figure in the development of modern capitalism?

Some later theologians in the Reformed tradition developed the idea of choice (or "election") in other directions. Karl Barth, widely regarded as the greatest theologian of the 20th century, spoke of God electing Jesus Christ to be the saviour of the world. Followers of Christ are, then, saved not because they were elected to salvation before the foundation of the world, but because Christ was elected to be their saviour before the foundation of the world. That idea leaves open another possibility, which Barth resisted to some extent -- since Christ was elected "to save the world", everyone is saved.

Contemporary evangelical thinkers, such as Elaine Storkey, regard the idea of double predestination as morally and theologically questionable. Storkey claims that Calvin taught predestination but not "double" predestination. Though within the Calvinist tradition (or, perhaps, the term "Calvinian" is a more accurate), Storkey says she would think less of the Reformer if he believed in double predestination.

While people pick over these and other controversies on this anniversary, I hope they also do justice to the european humanist context of Calvin's writings. Calvin was not only open to the riches of classical philosophy, he was also convinced that we approach those and all ideas from our human perspective. In the opening sentence of his Institutes, he signals his commitment to anthropology as much as theology: "Nearly all the wisdom we possess, that is to say, true and sound wisdom, consists of two parts: the knowledge of God and of ourselves. But while joined by many bonds, which one precedes and brings forth the other is not easy to discern."

This sentence deserves some examination and its implications are rarely considered in today's debates about Calvin. Human beings when doing theology are unavoidably still human, and that means our ideas about God reflect also our ideas about ourselves.

I'll add a final comment, in response to the claim that John Calvin was a "murderer" This allegation is sometimes made in respect of the Michael Servetus case. Servetus was, in many ways, an extraordinary person: a doctor, a philosopher-theologian, an inventor, a polymath. He was executed by the Geneva Council after being tried for denying the doctrine of the Trinity.

Servetus has been expelled from many Reformed and Catholic cities. In fact, he was already facing a Catholic death sentence when, for reasons no-one can explain, he turned up in Calvin's church while Calvin was preaching on August 13, 1553. Some historians think Servetus had a death-wish: already a fugitive, why would he challenge the Geneva authorities by entering their jurisdiction? Geneva was a young republic and nervous about its reputation in both the Reformed world and in the minds of Catholic authorities. Not to act in such a notorious case would bring condemnation from Protestant and Catholic jurisdictions alike.

It is clear that Calvin's role in the case was morally questionable by our modern lights. But by the standards of his own day, his role was to report the presence of a known lawbreaker. We would not consider heresy a crime; but it was in the 16th century, and not only in Geneva. The city council held a trial and Calvin played no part in the trial; he gave no evidence, and -- contrary to a common myth -- he did not act as the judge. When the council found Servetus guilty and condemned him to death by burning, Calvin intervened to request that Servetus be executed by a more humane method. The Council ignored the request. It is difficult to claim that Calvin is a "murderer" on the basis of this involvement. That said, no-one today (except in some religious theocracies) would defend the kind of "justice" meted out to Michael Servetus. His treatment under the law of Geneva was a disgrace by our standards today, and Calvin's participation in Genevan civic society implicates him in that judgement. The Servetus affair undoubtedly presents the dark side of John Calvin. Servetus has mocked Calvin's ideas both publicly and in private correspondence, and Calvin passionately resented it. He hated Servetus and vowed, in advance of Servetus's arrival in Geneva, that the Spaniard would regret ever falling into his hands. These are not words one associates with the tender mercies of Christ. They reveal a theologian and pastor who was willing to act out of vindictiveness in defence of his own ideas.

Fr Paul Finnerty, a spokesman for the diocese of Limerick, says: "The Church's response to phenomena of this type is one of great scepticism. While we do not wish in any way to detract from devotion to Our Lady, we would also wish to avoid anything which might lead to superstition."

That comment will fell a few rhetorical trees. Where does "superstition" start and where does it end?

Update: Watch Mark Simpson's report on the tree stump.

I've a personal connection with Vatican Radio: I was vox-popped on the station while on a student trip to Rome, and that was the first time my voice was heard on radio. Read the official history of Vatican Radio here, which ends, "We invite you to Listen for Heaven's Sake!" I wonder if the Vatican will be taking ads fromAntonio Federici's ice cream.

Pope Benedict has been thinking a lot about the credit crunch in the past few months. We now have the full text of Caritas in veritate (Charity in truth), his encyclical letter dealing with ethics and the economy. (Incidentally, the Vatican runs a very useful website featuring significant church documents, including this encyclical.) We'll be examining Caritas in veritate in some detail on Sunday morning. See below the fold for a summary of the key ideas in the document.

"Striving to meet the deepest moral needs of the person also has important and beneficial repercussions at the level of economics. The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly -- not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which is people-centred." (chapter 4, 45)

"Finance, therefore -- through the renewed structures and operating methods that have to be designed after its misuse, which wreaked such havoc on the real economy -- now needs to go back to being an instrument directed towards improved wealth creation and development." (chapter 5, 65)

The document offer a predictably strongly-worded statement on the ethics of sustainable development:

"The international community has an urgent duty to find institutional means of regulating the exploitation of non-renewable resources, involving poor countries in the process, in order to plan together for the future." (chapter 4, 49)

Sustainability is not only an environmental concept. The encyclical also calls on wealthy countries to increase international aid to under-developed economies:

"In the search for solutions to the current economic crisis, development aid for poor countries must be considered a valid means of creating wealth for all. What aid programme is there that can hold out such significant growth prospects -- even from the point of view of the world economy -- as the support of populations that are still in the initial or early phases of economic development? From this perspective, more economically developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to development aid, thus respecting the obligations that the international community has undertaken in this regard." (chapter 5, 60)

Intriguingly, the Pope also wishes to encourage cultural tourism -- the kind of traveling and exploring that helps break down cultural barriers and enables people to relate to others as brothers and sisters in a single human family. (See chapter 5, 61). He contrasts this kind of tourism with sex tourism and other forms of exploitative traveling.

The letter also mentions the importance of the family at the centre of many of the key issues in our world today. An example of that:

"It is thus becoming a social and even economic necessity once more to hold up to future generations the beauty of marriage and the family, and the fact that these institutions correspond to the deepest needs and dignity of the person. In view of this, States are called to enact policies promoting the centrality and the integrity of the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman, the primary vital cell of society, and to assume responsibility for its economic and fiscal needs, while respecting its essentially relational character." (from chapter 4, 44).

Pope Benedict's comments on financial regulation are likely to get most attention in press coverage:

"Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the interests of savers. Right intention, transparency, and the search for positive results are mutually compatible and must never be detached from one another. If love is wise, it can find ways of working in accordance with provident and just expediency, as is illustrated in a significant way by much of the experience of credit unions." (chapter 5, 65)

The Pope calls for a more inclusive role for investors, savers, and consumers more generally, and wants to see reforms in global financial institutions:

"In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real teeth." (chapter 5, 67)

The Pope also has something to say about social networking technologies and other new media, which is transforming human communication. Humans are fascinated by those developments, but the Pope recommends caution in the way we embrace new technologies:

"Just because social communications increase the possibilities of interconnection and the dissemination of ideas, it does not follow that they promote freedom or internationalize development and democracy for all. To achieve goals of this kind, they need to focus on promoting the dignity of persons and peoples, they need to be clearly inspired by charity and placed at the service of truth, of the good, and of natural and supernatural fraternity. In fact, human freedom is intrinsically linked with these higher values. The media can make an important contribution towards the growth in communion of the human family and the ethos of society when they are used to promote universal participation in the common search for what is just." (chapter 6, 73)

Perhaps the most strongly-worded section of this encyclical has to do with new bio-technologies:

"To the tragic and widespread scourge of abortion we may well have to add in the future -- indeed it is already surreptiously present -- the systematic eugenic programming of births. At the other end of the spectrum, a pro-euthanasia mindset is making inroads as an equally damaging assertion of control over life that under certain circumstances is deemed no longer worth living. Underlying these scenarios are cultural viewpoints that deny human dignity. These practices in turn foster a materialistic and mechanistic understanding of human life. Who could measure the negative effects of this kind of mentality for development? How can we be surprised by the indifference shown towards situations of human degradation, when such indifference extends even to our attitude towards what is and is not human? What is astonishing is the arbitrary and selective determination of what to put forward today as worthy of respect. Insignificant matters are considered shocking, yet unprecedented injustices seem to be widely tolerated. While the poor of the world continue knocking on the doors of the rich, the world of affluence runs the risk of no longer hearing those knocks, on account of a conscience that can no longer distinguish what is human. God reveals man to himself; reason and faith work hand in hand to demonstrate to us what is good, provided we want to see it; the natural law, in which creative Reason shines forth, reveals our greatness, but also our wretchedness insofar as we fail to recognize the call to moral truth." (chapter 6, 75)

Pope Benedict also fears a growing sense of alienation amongst the human population in the highly developed world. People are so focused on work and wealth and growing their material stores that they are losing touch with themselves. They are turning to pharmaceuticals to help. Drugs can only do so much, he says; the solution to that alienation and profound unhappiness lies much deeper:

"The human being develops when he grows in the spirit, when his soul comes to know itself and the truths that God has implanted deep within, when he enters into dialogue with himself and his Creator. When he is far away from God, man is unsettled and ill at ease. Social and psychological alienation and the many neuroses that afflict affluent societies are attributable in part to spiritual factors. A prosperous society, highly developed in material terms but weighing heavily on the soul, is not of itself conducive to authentic development. The new forms of slavery to drugs and the lack of hope into which so many people fall can be explained not only in sociological and psychological terms but also in essentially spiritual terms. The emptiness in which the soul feels abandoned, despite the availability of countless therapies for body and psyche, leads to suffering. There cannot be holistic development and universal common good unless people's spiritual and moral welfare is taken into account, considered in their totality as body and soul." (chapter 6, 76)

Near the end of the letter, there is an appeal for "Christian humanism". The pope clearly sees the rise of modern atheistic humanism, but he's unimpressed:

"[M]an cannot bring about his own progress unaided, because by himself he cannot establish an authentic humanism. Only if we are aware of our calling, as individuals and as a community, to be part of God's family as his sons and daughters, will we be able to generate a new vision and muster new energy in the service of a truly integral humanism. The greatest service to development, then, is a Christian humanism that enkindles charity and takes its lead from truth, accepting both as a lasting gift from God. Openness to God makes us open towards our brothers and sisters and towards an understanding of life as a joyful task to be accomplished in a spirit of solidarity. On the other hand, ideological rejection of God and an atheism of indifference, oblivious to the Creator and at risk of becoming equally oblivious to human values, constitute some of the chief obstacles to development today. A humanism which excludes God is an inhuman humanism. Only a humanism open to the Absolute can guide us in the promotion and building of forms of social and civic life -- structures, institutions, culture and ethos -- without exposing us to the risk of becoming ensnared by the fashions of the moment." (Conclusion, 78)

Ahead of that, Radio 4's Law in Action, which goes out on Radio 4 at 4pm today, explores some of the legal issues around the limitations of the Residential Institutions Redress Scheme. In particular it hears from campaigners and lawyers in the UK who argue that the scheme should be reopened to allow claims from victims who now live in the UK and were only made aware of the scheme after the publication of the Ryan report in May.

Producer Helen Grady writes about the programme here.

The Law in Action podcast is available here.

Here's some background history on this extraordinary document.

Use the search engine here.

That's what Alain de Botton (pictured) wrote in reply to a New York Times review of his new book by Caleb Crain. His full comment, published on the critic's personal blog, reads:

"Caleb, you make it sound on your blog that your review is somehow a sane and fair assessment. In my eyes, and all those who have read it with anything like impartiality, it is a review driven by an almost manic desire to bad-mouth and perversely depreciate anything of value. The accusations you level at me are simply extraordinary. I genuinely hope that you will find yourself on the receiving end of such a daft review some time very soon - so that you can grow up and start to take some responsibility for your work as a reviewer. You have now killed my book in the United States, nothing short of that. So that's two years of work down the drain in one miserable 900 word review. You present yourself as 'nice' in this blog (so much talk about your boyfriend, the dog etc). It's only fair for your readers (nice people like Joe Linker and trusting souls like PAB) to get a whiff that the truth may be more complex. I will hate you till the day I die and wish you nothing but ill will in every career move you make. I will be watching with interest and schadenfreude."

I interviewed Alain de Botton about The Pleasures and Sorrows of Work for the most recent series of The Book Programme and he lived up to his reputation for intelligence and charm. So, I was surprised to find him wishing a lifetime of ill-will upon a reviewer and expressing his objections to a bad review in such malevolent terms.

One can certainly understand why a writer would feel so protective of a book that represents two years of his life and work. Personally, I wouldn't allow a reviewer to dictate the merits of any book, but critics can be helpful conversation partners for discerning readers. If critics are free, as they should be, to tell us precisely what they think about a book, authors, and other critics, should be free to respond in kind.

What Caleb Crain takes to be mockery and condescension in de Botton's book, I took to be insightful observation, within the genre of philosophical journalism, laced with wit and, at times, self-deprecation. All observations are made from a point of view, of course; but that's true of both the author's observations and the critic's. De Botton's book is not, I think, a good example of a writer patronising the subjects he's writing about. Caleb Crain is entitled to read the book differently, but, equally, I am entitled to wonder if we've been reading the same book.

That said, the Crain review isn't the worse review in the history of publishing. Remember what Terry Eagleton wrote about Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion? "Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the Book of British Birds, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology." Can you think of better examples of worse reviews?

Today, Stonewall is often described as the birthplace of the modern gay rights movement. This was the moment when gay people in New York said no to police harassment, and chose to stand against official oppression. Peter Tatchell, now the UK's most famous gay rights campaigner, heard news reports of the riots while living in Australia and was radicalized by what he heard. How the riots inspired liberationist responses within the gay community in Britain is more difficult to say.

A sign of changed times, perhaps, is the fact that Prime Minister Gordon Brown hosted a reception for organisers ahead of today's annual gay Pride march through central London. Sarah Brown is expected to take part in the march. But Pride founder Peter Tatchell, who was controversially excluded from the reception, says Labour's legislation of civil partnerships is a form of "sexual apartheid". He is concerned that today's gay campaigners are settling for something less than full liberation. Earlier this week, David Cameron apologised on behalf of the Conservatives for his party's introduction of the Section 28 ban, which outlawed "the promotion of homosexuality". Labour's deputy Leader, Harriet Harman, said the apology was "25 years too late." Britain's major political parties are now in a battle for the gay vote.

See here for Columbia University's archive on the Stonewall riots.

Listen again on the iPlayer to Tom Robinson's Radio 2 documentary: Stonewall: The Riots That Triggered the Gay Revolution,which includes first-person accounts of the night in June that changed gay cultural politics.

Pope Benedict has announced that he accepts that an American deacon, Jack Sullivan, was miraculously cured of a spinal disorder, after praying for John Henry Newman's intercession. This means that a ceremony of beatification is imminent. Given the changes to the liturgy of beatification already introduced by Pope Benedict, Cardinal Newman's ceremony could be held at Westminster, rather than in Rome. Some suggest that Pope Benedict might officiate in person at a London ceremony as part of a papal visit to the UK.

The world held its breath last week, as that reliable news source WorldNet Daily reported that the Patriarch Abune Paulos of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church was preparing to unveil to an expectant world the greatest treasure of ancient times. It has been missing for millennia - some even doubt that it ever existed. Said to contain the power to vanquish any opposing foe, a single disrespectful touch was enough to kill a man instantly. A fabulous casket, made of acacia wood, smothered in gleaming gold leaf, surmounted by winged creatures and the Mercy Seat of God Himself, and containing the very tablets that Moses took down from Sinai. The holiest relic of ancient Israel: The Ark of the Covenant.

Yes, yes, I know: Indiana Jones found the Ark in the lost Egyptian city of Tanis, and rescued it from the clutches of the Nazis, whereupon it was stashed in a vast warehouse in Area 51 - but that's fiction, OK? This is the real deal. The location of Tanis has been known for centuries, and it has been described as the largest open-air museum in the Ancient World. After the decline of the New Kingdom at around the start of the first millennium BCE, the Tanite Pharaohs developed their new capital in the Delta, decorating it with statuary and treasures "rescued" from elsewhere in Egypt, and now scattered around the site in splendid exposure. But no Ark. The Egyptian Pharaoh Shishak (identified with Shoshenq I, c.945-924 BCE) campaigned in Palestine, and laid seige to Jerusalem, as recorded in II Kings. He received a massive bribe from King Rehoboam of Judah in order to spare the city, but it seems very unlikely that part of that bribe would have been the precious holy Ark. Besides, many of the references we have to the Ark date from well after Rehoboam's reign, so whatever souvenirs Shishak went home with, the Ark wasn't one of them.

Our latest sighting of the Ark in the canonical Hebrew scriptures is during the reign of King Josiah of Judah. This was a time when Egypt and Assyria were wreaking jolly havoc in the Levant, culminating in the death of Josiah in a spectacularly ill-advised battle against the forces of the Pharaoh Necho II at Megiddo (there's Armageddon again) in 609 BCE. However, in the Second Book of Maccabees (part of the apocrypha, so not the "official party line") we hear of Jeremiah the Prophet cheerily removing the Ark and much of the Temple booty to a cave on Mount Nebo in modern Jordan, to protect it from the advancing Babylonian army of Nebuchadnezzar. This latter would raze Jerusalem to the ground in 587BCE, and send its population into exile, and you know the rest. The Ark vanishes from scripture and history.

If that is the case, and it hasn't been found yet, surely the best place to look for the Ark would be Mount Nebo itself? Well, people have tried, and nothing has been found. Could it instead be in Ethiopia? The Ethiopians feel that the Ark was taken long before Jeremiah's time, by Menelik, son of Solomon and the Queen of Sheba, back to his ancestral home. The location of Sheba has been disputed, but is usually placed by scholars in southern Arabia, not Africa. So that sounds a bit implausible. And, of course, if that were the case, Jeremiah and Josiah must have been dealing with a fake.

And then what? A damp squib - we are all let down. It was all a rumour based on a mistranslation that had got out of control. A meme with legs. No, said the Patriarch, the Ark is indeed safe in Ethiopia, but there are no plans for an unveiling. Reuters also report that there are over 50,000 churches in Ethiopia, each one with a replica of the Ark. So if it's knocked-off Arks you're after, Ethiopia seems to be the place to go. It is not at all clear how we pick out the One True Ark from among such a crowd of pretenders (although the Patriarch seems pretty sure he knows which one is which). And if there are 50,000 arks, and n are fake, where n is an integer between 49,999 and 50,000 it's hard to have much confidence that n is not indeed equal to 50,000. And no Ark in Ethiopia.

So it looks like we may have to wait a while longer for Armageddon. Drat!

The ASA says, "We considered that the portrayal of the priest and nun in a sexualised manner - and the implication that they were considering whether or not to give in to temptation - was likely to cause serious offence to some readers." The watchdog has banned the ads, which include images of the model playing the priest with his clerical clothing torn from his body.

The publisher has apologised for any offence caused, though they maintain that their target audience, aged between 25 and 55, would not be offended by the campaign. They say their campaign's original ambition was to create a "tongue-in-cheek" portrayal of Antonio Federici ice cream as "forbidden Italian temptation".