Tony Blair.

The Prime Minister of England appoints people in the Church of England... so to be Prime Minister... and be Catholic.  That would provide a lot of controversy.

 So him resigning had nothing to do with the huge public pressure, and the fact that he said he would during the last general election because of the Iraq war?

Blair was no avoider of controversy, the Iraq War and Cash-for-Honours proves that.

What study was that?  From what i've seen it's the exact opposite research wise.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html

The religious just give more.  These aren't studies about what charities... it's about the people themselves.

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i04/04001101.htm

"His initial research for Who Really Cares revealed that religion played a far more significant role in giving than he had previously believed. In 2000, religious people gave about three and a half times as much as secular people — $2,210 versus $642. And even when religious giving is excluded from the numbers, Mr. Brooks found, religious people still give $88 more per year to nonreligious charities.

He writes that religious people are more likely than the nonreligious to volunteer for secular charitable activities, give blood, and return money when they are accidentally given too much change."

This one has another "test" outside of that book.

http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnStossel/2006/12/06/who_gives_to_charity

"And what happened in our little test? Well, even though people in Sioux Falls make, on average, half as much money as people in San Francisco, and even though the San Francisco location was much busier -- three times as many people were within reach of the bucket -- by the end of the second day, the Sioux Falls bucket held twice as much money."

Of course this isnt' to say Atheists don't give a crap or anything.  It's just statistically shown that religion does seem to make people donate more to charity.  I'd guess because people think god is keeping a score card that has a bigger divide then an icecream sundae vs a punch in the face.

Actually, it's the Queen who appoints the senior members, though it's on advice from the prime minister. I do not believe the prime minister has to give advice, and I even believe a law was passed saying that if the prime minister is not a protestant, the queen doesn't need to take the advice.

Or something like that.

From what i've read the Prime Minister is given names and then picks one... who the queen then has to appoint.  I haven't read anything about that other law.

Though Gordon Brown did want to pass a law to where the Prime Minister is given one name... which is then given to the queen.

Making it really a pointless exercise.