If it was not for the media, no-one would have heard of the remarks on the Islamic Sharia law, made to a learned Oxford audience by Rowan Williams, archbishop of Canterbury. But, for the gutter press, this was an ideal opportunity to whip up the xenophobic and racist prejudices on which it thrives, and it sure did. Hence the furore.

Williams' remarks were about giving a legal value to some aspects of Sharia law and a degree of legal recognition to the Sharia courts which are operating on British soil. This, in Williams' view, would bring both "communities" under a single system.

Why should anyone be surprised by the head of the Church of England making such a proposal? Isn't it in the interest of the Church of England to reinforce the role of religion in the state? The Anglican church is bound to seek reinforcement from other religions, if only to justify its own continuing position in the British state.

Because this is where the real scandal lies, a scandal the media keep quiet about. 21st century Britain still lives under a state religion. As to the British legal system, it is still impregnated with its religious past, up to and including its ceremonial trappings.

Of course, the Church of England has had to adapt to new circumstances. Since the rulers of the land no longer owe their power to "God", but to wealth, the Church has become an economic power in its own right, in fact the country's largest landowner, with a whole business empire. So, while church audiences are shrinking, dividends, income from subcontracted public services (thanks to Blair) and state-backed legitimacy keep the Church of England going.

What is significant is not the content of Williams' remarks, but the fact that he made them at all. Because they merely echo a general trend among political rulers in today's world, who try to bring back religion to legitimise their criminal policies in front of the public. Bush is a case in point and so was Blair. But it is also the policy of this Labour government which is always so quick at identifying so-called "communities" with one religion or another. Williams is only adapting to the same trend, with the aim of strengthening the state role of religion.

But should the Church of England be allowed to retain its parasitic role in the state and in society? Should our children have to opt-out of religion classes in state schools, as is the case today, rather than opt-in? Should bishops be allowed, by right, into the House of Lords (in fact should this House and all its parasitic appointees exist at all)? In short, should there be a state religion in this country?

The long and short answer is a definite "no". Religion - all religions - should be a private matter and nothing more than that.

Last year 27,100 households were evicted and their homes repossessed, that is 74 per day. Lenders have the nerve to rejoice about this figure, because, as they say, it is "only" 23% higher than in 2006 and lower than they expected. But the fact is that it is the highest repossession figure since 1999.

Behind this figure, there are even more damning facts. The number of households which are more than 3 months in arrears reached 130,000 in late 2007. And this figure includes only some of the 700,000 who repay their mortgages using credit cards and other forms of credit.

House prices may have gone through the roof, but mortgage lenders have become even more greedy, especially now that the so-called "credit crunch" is a pretext to step up interest rates, even if the Bank of England has cut its own rate twice, over the past three months. As a result, the average payment on a new mortgage has increased by 18% over 2007 alone, far more than house prices and, of course, far more than house buyers' incomes.

The financial regulator, the FSA, estimates that due to this frantic greed, 2 million out of the 5.7 million households which took a mortgage over the past three years, will find themselves in trouble. Those most at risk will be found among the 1.4m house buyers whose discounted fixed rate is due to end over the next 12 months, because they will face a much steeper increase than they expected.

Among those in trouble, many will probably opt to become tenants of their mortgage lenders, to remain in their homes, but without any ownership rights and, eventually, paying an extortionate rent, all of their lives, for nothing in return.

Of course, there are ways of challenging all these shark lenders, by opposing repossessions collectively, for instance. But ultimately the real problem remains the fact that a whole layer of parasites make a living out of our need for a roof over our heads - in other words, the problem is the profit system itself.