David Cameron: my belief in Israel is ‘very deep and inside of me’ and ‘indestructible’

It is a bold politician these days who talks of his support for Israel as being ‘indestructible’. For David Cameron, it is not simply a matter of intellectual assent or political expedience, but something he feels ‘very deep inside’ of him.

Against increasing anti-Israel sentiment and expressions of anti-Semitism, one may well ask what is the source of Mr Cameron’s feeling, and why is he giving this feeling any credence at all? For this feeling which is ‘very deep inside’ of him is love.

He just did not call it so.

He spoke of being an ‘unswerving friend’ to Israel, and not only an unswerving friend, but also a ‘true friend’. This is not so much the phileo love of friendship – even though it doubtless be that – or the storge of kinship, but the agape which endures for better or worse. In promising to be ‘a critical friend’, he assures Israel that, although her actions may at times be repellent or offensive, she shall be supported by a Cameron-led government because unconditional love demands precisely that: it is an unbreakable bond.

But if this love does not have its origins in ‘the tragedies of history’ or ‘the realities of today’ or even the Conservative Party’s ‘unstinting support for Israel through the decades’, whence comes it?

When something is spoken of as being ‘very deep inside’ of one, it is effectively written on one’s heart. David Cameron has previously spoken of himself as being a Zionist – again, fearless in his use of a religio-political construct which has, wrongly and unjustifiably, acquired all manner of offensive connotations.

By expressing his love for Israel, Mr Cameron is giving his imprimatur to the Conservative Friends of Israel, to the accomplishments of Lord Balfour, and to the Christian Zionist movement. When he speaks of ‘the right of Israel to exist, to defend itself and to live in peace and security’, he affirms not only the Jewish national homeland but also the unique contribution that Judaism has made to the culture and history of all mankind.

Israel is fallible, sometimes cruel, harsh, unjust and infuriating. But so are all family members, and, although such behaviour may cause us occasionally to dislike them, the love endures; indeed, it is strengthened, for it shown not to be based on the superficial and seeming. And Israel is family, not merely by the historic virtue of Lord Balfour’s patronage, but because we are united in the fraternity of democracy and by the good and noble pursuit of liberty and justice.

The roots of Zionism are deep in history and theology. It is acutely political because it is concerned with the outworking of the religion of a people living in a land surrounded by those who seek to ‘cleanse’ them, purge them, eradicate them from that which they were legitimately bequeathed in perpetuity.

The source of David Cameron’s love for Israel is God, for he is the source of all love. And this love is not a defensive reaction to Jewish victimhood and martyrdom, or to the abhorrent denigration of Judaism, but an expression of unbreakable Christian solidarity in a world of aggressive secularism, hostile atheism and enlightened liberalism.

Gay Gordon, Camp David and Gay Shame

It has been handbags at dawn in the pursuit of the ‘gay vote’. In the pink corner are the acolytes of Gordon Brown (Ben Bradshaw and Chris Bryant), and in the pink corner are the aides-de-camp of David Cameron (Iain Dale and Alan Duncan). The fact that both corners are pink is simply to make then indistinguishable in their expression of ‘Gay Pride’ – they are united by their sexual orientation, but divided in their politics. In just about every other walk of life, homosexuals are united in overcoming social segregation: their sexuality is fundamental and underpins their group polarisation. And, as with all tribal separations, it informs their economic decisions, their evaluations of their neighbours, even decisions about what to eat, what to drink, what to wear and where to live. The separation is both physical and psychological, especially as suspicion surrounds non-members of the group.

But when it comes to politics, there are deeper tribal loyalties.

And so we witness the unseemly posturing of ‘Gay Gordon and Camp David’ – one of the best sound-bite headlines of recent years: it encapsulates perfectly the absurdity of the obsession as each bends over backwards to embrace the pink wings and fluffy hats, fighting like cats to lead the gay procession from Neverland to Sodom. There are accusations of hypocrisy, inconsistency, 'homophobia', lying and deception. Not to mention the ignoring of tradition, authority, science and nature.

But the battle in the political realm is really a consequence of that in the spiritual.

The Fellowship of Confessing Anglicans will be launched on Monday. The group had its genesis in Jerusalem and campaigns against active homosexuality in the Anglican Communion – both the ordination of practising homosexuals and the liturgical blessing of same-sex relationships. Their faith is based on the teachings of Scripture and is consonant with Church tradition and history. Its most prominent supporter is the Bishop of Rochester, the Right Reverend Michael Nazir-Ali, who is of the view that homosexuals should ‘repent and be changed’: Gay Pride should be supplanted by Gay Shame. They are traditionalists who are closer to the Vatican than they are to Lambeth Palace on this matter. And, pace the ‘Gay Catholics’ and Tony Blair, Rome has more adherents who accord with the views of Pope Benedict on homosexuality – that the practice is 'an intrinsic moral evil; the inclination 'an objective disorder' - than the Church of England has communicants who could be inspired to follow Archbishop Rowan Williams on just about any matter.

The Anglican Communion in the United States has already divided on this issue, and it seems inevitable that the Church of England will do the same. Protestantism was never supposed to dispense with authority and truth: it was never intended that it would fracture ad infinitum over minutiae.

And, dear readers and communicants, homosexuality is not an issue worthy of schism: it is simply not of the order of the sort of debate that used to divide the Church: the divinity of Christ, for example, or the nature of his humanity – the great controversy at the Council of Nicea in AD325 – or even over liturgy or the transforming nature of infant baptism. The issue of homosexuality affects only a tiny minority of its adherents: it is of distinctly secondary, even peripheral, scriptural importance.

The role of the Bible in addressing the modern question of the place of the homosexual in the church is complex, not least because where it is mentioned in Scripture, the authors give little sustained consideration of the issue as it manifests in the modern world. The nature of a biblical perspective will invariably be affected by the questions posed of the Bible, by the particular hermeneutic employed, and by the unavoidable perspective which each scholar brings to his or her reading of the Bible. While some may have an instant negative reaction, others seek to understand the debate in the different and changing circumstances in which we now live. Still others, who may identify themselves as homosexual Christians, struggle to express either their feelings or their thoughts on the issue. They are themselves divided into those who acknowledge that homosexuality is a sin and therefore a call to celibacy, and those who assert that they also are made in God’s image and therefore seek to express their sexual desires in an intimate, monogamous relationship.

That God established an objective, moral order in creation, and continues a work of re-creation through Jesus, is a source and standard of all that it beautiful, good and true. If such a moral order means anything, there may be no via media on the issue of homosexuality. Accepting theological diversity is not the same as tolerating all beliefs and practices, because ultimately the Church is called to be holy because God is holy (Lev. 19:2; Mt. 5:48). We cannot as Christians just give way to ‘you believe this, I believe that’ approach to being together, or moving apart, in the Church. Nor even can we be content with the rather cheap model of ‘reconciled diversity’, meaning benign tolerance, which many Christians find an easier option to the costlier pursuit of real, ‘visible’ unity. We need to continue to struggle together for the truth, to find the right and godly balance between the call to solidarity and the recognition of difference. Presently, nowhere is this more important – especially in the Anglican Communion – than in the area of sexuality.

But Cranmer is persuaded that the whole issue may really be a non-issue because the wrong question is being asked. His Grace posited a few days ago that the modern era is sex-obsessed: we live in a consumer society, and there is little that is marketed without a glance, a wink, a flirt, a breast, or allusions to sexual intercourse, because ‘sex sells’. If one were to judge by the media (which is more frequently a mirror to society than a catalyst for change), the fascination with people’s sex lives is now more important than politics, religion, philosophy or even Mammon. Jesus may have had to address the latter as the dominating idol of his era; his judgement was that one may not serve both God and Mammon (Mt. 6:24). But he did not enter into discussion on the fiscal minutiae of cash, credit, bonds, shares, loans or interest; a macro-warning not to be obsessed with Mammon was sufficient. If one were to apply the same principle to the modern idol – ‘Eros’ – it is doubtful that Jesus would address its sub-divisions (gay, bi, straight, oral, anal, tantric); he would most likely directly challenge society’s obsessive fixation with Eros, and by so doing confront both those who prioritise issues of sexuality and those in the church who presume to judge them.

By devoting so much time and effort to the ‘gay issue’, instead of challenging society by deconstructing the question or focusing on poverty and wealth (for example), the church is simply showing itself to share the same obsessions as the world. Paul allowed no compromise on the restriction of sexual activity to heterosexual, monogamous marriage. But such an ethic seems almost utopian to our sex-besotted age, in which it appears at times that one’s identity is made to reside in one’s sexual organs and their untrammeled exercise. The issue for the Church of England is that this debate has been blown out of all proportion; it is neither a battle for the soul of the church, nor an issue worthy of schism. It is a question utterly peculiar to this era, and those on both sides of the divide – both politicians and theologians – might consider toning down the rhetoric and the apologetics, and instead preaching a message that, contrary to society’s thinking, sexual expression is neither a necessary line of inquiry in every human interaction, nor an essential component in human fulfilment.

Conservative plans to strengthen the family

Cranmer believes the family to be the irreducible fundamental building block of a stable society, not merely another ‘lifestyle choice’.

Marriage is a union observed in all cultures, and seems to exist by nature. In the Bible it is portrayed as essential for societal functioning – throughout Scripture, family units, or ‘houses’ are seen as part of the basic building blocks of society. Marriage is an institution that provides stability for a clan and a nation, and is the model used to explain the mystery of Christ’s relationship to the church (Eph 5:25-32). The Church of England ‘affirms, according to our Lord’s teaching, that marriage is in its nature a union permanent and lifelong, for better or worse, till death do them part, of one man with one woman’.

It is heterosexual and monogamous.

Perhaps more than at any point in its history, the institution of marriage is being challenged on so many fronts that it is in danger of being perceived simply as part of an old world order. There are concerted attempts to redefine it through government legislation, and challenges to its foundations from movements like female liberation in an era of the declining influence of patriarchy. Many questions still have not been settled on the issues of divorce and remarriage, homosexual marriage, or cohabitation, and these beg further questions about the meaning and value of marriage itself.

After decades of diminution of the status of the family with the consequent increase in family breakdown, an inquiry led by Iain Duncan Smith has concluded that it is indeed the role of the state to support the institution.

The Family Law Review is a product of Mr Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice – which Cranmer believes merits its own government department when the Conservative Party wins power. To make Iain Duncan Smith the Secretary of State for Social Justice may not be consonant with Conservative philosophy, but, like so much is the disjunctive postmodern context, it somehow feels right.

It is certainly right that Iain Duncan Smith - one of the most genuine, hard-working, considerate and compassionate MPs in the House - should be on the Government front bench.

At the heart of the report are tax breaks for married couples and an end of the invidious benefits penalty by which couples are financially better off if they live apart. It presents empirical evidence that marriage is beneficial not only to couples, but also their children, their extended families and also to nation as a whole. Confronting the zeitgeist, the report highlights research suggesting that adults and children in married families are happier and healthier.

Well, of course they are.

It is not good for man to be alone.

But such evidence dare not be presented, for fear of excluding single parents, alienating ‘middle England’ or offending the gay lobby. On marriage and the family, Parliament and political parties have been so afraid of doing the wrong thing that they have ceased to do what is so plainly right.

But the emphasis in the report is not making separation and divorce more difficult, but on a new legal framework designed to promote stable relationships. It is positive and progressive. And so there will be ‘family relationship centres’ to offer advice and support. And Fathers for Justice will be relieved that they have, at last, been heard: they will be granted improved access rights to their children.

And all of this will cost billions – £3bn per annum for the transferrable married couples’ tax allowance alone.

But the report puts the cost of family breakdown at up to £24billion per annum – a colossal £820 for the average taxpayer. There are not only the direct costs of supporting single-parent families or placing children in care, but also indirect impacts on employment, education, health, crime, police and prisons. The moral case for supporting marriage over other less stable units of relationship is unequivocal.

The report concludes that ‘marriage is good for society’.

And the Conservative Party alone has recognised that it is therefore incumbent upon society to value it.

Cardinal John Henry Newman to be beatified

About blessed time.

There has been so much excitement abroad about St Paul’s bones that Mary’s Dowry was in need of a bit of a spiritual uplift nearer to home. Until 2007, when Tony Blair crossed the Tiber, the case of the Cardinal had been the most famous conversion from the Church of England to Rome. As Mr Blair continues his delusional quest to change the immutable, there is now a degree of doubt of which conversion was more significant.

Cardinal John Newman, one of the founders of the high church Oxford Movement (known as the Tractarians), converted in 1845 and the Newman Society became his cult. He became ‘Venerable’ in 1991, in recognition of his scholarship and virtuous life. He has now rather cleverly worked a miracle of healing, and, if another ensues, he will be canonised. Significantly, he would be the first non-martyr saint in England since the Reformation.

The Blessed John Henry Newman will now be the subject of the greatest Roman Catholic celebration in the UK since the visit of Pope John Paul II in 1982. He already has a new tomb in the Birmingham Oratory in expectation of waves of new pilgrims. It is likely that Pope Benedict XVI may choose to preside over the ceremony, though he may prefer to delegate it to Archbishop Vincent Nichols who has taken a close interest in the cause. His Holiness might prefer not to visit England at this time - to be sullied by association with Gordon Brown and New Labour - and instead journey here under the premiership of David Cameron for the inevitable canonisation, which would be a far more elaborate and historically significant affair.

And Cranmer would like to suggest 2012 as a suitable year: Olympic euphoria and the patriotic fervour induced by the Queen’s Diamond Jubilee could only be surpassed by the spiritual ecstasy of a papal visit.

The Divine Right of Politicians

Cranmer has received a few requests to comment upon the Government’s plans for a super-parliamentary quango – IPSA (the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority); a body to which our elected representatives would be accountable, possessing the power to dismiss them regardless of the will of their constituents. When it speaks, it’s word shall be the law to which Parliament will submit.

It was Harold Macmillan who asserted: ‘We have not overthrown the divine right of kings to fall down for the divine right of experts.’

But that is precisely what Gordon Brown is now doing.

There are legitimate areas of concern with regard to the Bill of Rights 1689, which is the property of the people. Article IX specifically protects parliamentary proceedings from legal assault, which Clause 10 of the Parliamentary Standards Bill specifically overrides. Notwithstanding that the Government lost a vote this week on the admission of parliamentary speeches as evidence in criminal proceedings, the centuries-old concept of parliamentary privilege and the accountability of parliamentarians to their constituents instead of to an executive power is gravely undermined by this proposed Bill.

Thomas Paine observed ‘Government has no right to make itself a party in any debate respecting the principles or modes of forming, or of changing, constitutions. It is not for the benefit of those who exercise the powers of government, that constitutions, and the governments issuing from them, are established. In all those matters, then rights of judging and acting are in those who pay, and not those who receive.’

Our ‘professional’ political class, having rightly removed absolute power from the monarch, has schemed to remove the checks upon its own power. We have exchanged the arbitrary power of the Stuart king for the arbitrary power of the House of Commons. What benefit has come of this exchange?

Swine Flu ‘can no longer be contained’, but was it a man-made bio-weapon?

'Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap' (Gal 6:7). With the threat of 100,000 new cases every day, the pandemic of fear sweeps the nation and containment is no longer an option.

Cranmer is pleased to introduce this thought-provoking guest post on the matter from Michael Shrimpton, a barrister who specialises in strategic studies, international affairs, counter-terrorism and counter-intelligence:

Once again the media have missed the point. Swine Flu, like Avian Flu a variant of Spanish Flu, is artificially-developed, ie a bio-weapon. To the author’s knowledge the British and American governments are aware of this, further to tests at Porton Down and CDC in Atlanta, Georgia. It is no surprise that the British Government was well prepared, given the introduction of Avian Flu to this country after Gordon Brown, who was opposed by Germany, became Prime Minister. Whilst the Cabinet Office denied privately to the author that it was artificial their denial was not convincing. Alerted by Avian Flu it does not seem that either Porton Down or CDC wasted any time before testing the latest virus. As usual the legacy media have not sought to place the latest outbreak in its strategic context. In the months leading up to the outbreak the Mexican Government had been cracking down on the principal German-backed drugs cartel in Mexico.

It is not possible to make an intelligent assessment of Swine Flu unless one understands (1) Mexico (2) Germany (3) narcotics trafficking and (4) bio-weapons.

Mexico was a French client-state in the 19th century but became a German client state in 1917 – had the Royal Navy been defeated at Jutland and the Germans won in the West their preferred route to the USA lay across the Rio Grande. They were also interested in Mexico’s oil deposits, development of which was largely held back until Germany took charge – covertly of course. CISEN (the main Mexican agency), understood and resented German influence, which turned Mexico into a banana republic and haven for drug traffickers.

It was typical of Germany to fight back brutally. Germany is an intelligence state, not unlike the USSR, whose intelligence services she set up and controlled for most of the Soviet period (Beria, eg reported to Admiral Canaris). The official organs of the German State, including the BND and BfV intelligence agencies, are essentially a front, real control being exerted from Dachau by the Deutcshe Verteidigungs Dienst, by assassination if necessary (they made effective use of Bader-Meinhof and have always loved using Marxists and other assorted nutters). The DVD exerts significant influence in other countries, usually through fronts like the Trilateral Commission, the Bilderberg Group and the Skull and Bones society at Yale (they also recruit at Harvard, Oxford and Cambridge).

The DVD controls most of the world’s narcotics trafficking, not just in Mexico. In retrospect it was a little naïve of the Mexicans to take on the cartels without preparing for retaliation. The Mexican Government have since been briefed in and further deliberate distribution is unlikely.

Spanish Flu was a bio-weapon, co-ordinated with Ludendorff’s Spring Offensive. Lloyd-George, who reported to Germany, may have been aware, and possibly German assets inside MI6, but military intelligence were not. Since it mostly affected young males of military age, was targeted at the British and American armies on the Western Front and appeared about the same time as the German Spring Offensive, somebody might have had asked questions, but we lagged years behind Germany in the development of bio-weapons and they are un-British in any event. Whilst there have always been good German doctors, German medicine, sadly, is often about finding new ways to make people ill, not better. The breakthrough seems to have been made by German scientists around 1898, when they discovered ways to trigger an over-reaction from the human immune system, the human subjects apparently coming from Germany’s African colonies. Previous bio-weapons, such as the Black Death (the old nostrum about the disease being spread by people who had come down with a touch of Black Death deciding to have a holiday and take their pet rats with them no longer explains the distribution of the disease) suffered from the drawback, if you were the maniac distributing them, that they attacked the weak. By turning the human body against itself the Germans discovered a method of striking the strongest, by coincidence (or not) fit young men of military age. The good news is that the Germans have still not managed to get the distribution right. They murdered 25-30 million people between 1918 and 1921, but to no useful strategic purpose. Allied civilian populations recovered, thankfully. The release of later variants, such as Hong Kong Flu, can always be related to covert German strategic aims – HKF, eg, was launched just ahead of the Tet Offensive. With better counter-intelligence a major North Vietnamese offensive could have been predicted.

Given covert German influence over the UN and its agencies (the UN Charter was, after all, largely drafted by the German spy John Foster Dulles – Kurt Waldheim did not become UN Secretary-General despite being a DVD intelligence officer and a former Waffen SS war criminal, he made Secretary-General because he was a German intelligence officer and retired war criminal) it should come as no surprise that the WHO has taken the lead in talking up Swine Flu as a threat. Happily it appears to have been largely wishful thinking.

There is no point readers waiting to see this in the legacy media, or hearing about it from Western governments. Exposure of Swine Flu as a WMD would lead to exposure of the largest crime in history (the Spanish Flu pandemic), the fact that German Intelligence was permitted to re-organise in 1945 and was not shut down, and German involvement in narcotics-trafficking. The truth will be covered up, except on the Internet, where the strategy of the DVD’s Propaganda Section (which took over the smarter people in the Propaganda Ministry) has been to undermine the integrity of the Internet by feeding false intelligence to selected web-sites (not this one) and funding rubbish sites.

At some point, however, the truth will emerge. Until then we will continue to lose people needlessly. The notion, which seems to have gained currency in Whitehall and the Obama Administration, that mostly ‘only’ poor Mexicans were murdered and they are expendable, is not only morally repugnant, it is strategically short-sighted.

Michael Shrimpton
2nd July

Over to His Grace's communicants for a reasoned Socratic treatment...

++Cranmer
3rd July

Facebook is two-faced, hypocritical, inconsistent and anti-Anglican

Readers and Communicants may recall that back in February His Grace reported that he had had his Facebook account disabled because he ‘was not a real person’.

It appears that a new policy was instituted which forbade religious titles, and so he was expunged without notice.

His Grace appealed, and obliged the Facebook gods with a change of name, becoming plain old Thomas Cranmer.

And they left him alone.

But His Grace, being of an inquisitive disposition, decided to pursue the matter, and politely asked why they permitted Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy, not to mention King Henry VIII and Cardinal Wolsey.

Surely, if Archbishop Cranmer is disallowed then a fortiori must Cardinal Wolsey be.

As a result of the dialogue, merely for confronting Facebook with their inconsistency and hypocrisy, His Grace has now had his account disabled permanently. This was a most unacceptable birthday present.

The dialogue went as follows:

Dear Sir/Madam,
Name change request: could you please change ‘Thomas Cranmer’ to ‘Archbishop Cranmer’?

Hi,
Thanks for contacting Facebook. Before we respond personally, please review these common questions and answers regarding name change requests, which may be able to help you more quickly. If your question isn't answered here, please follow the instructions at the bottom of this email to contact us.

1. How do I change my name to a nickname?
2. How do I add a former or maiden name so I can easily be found in Search?
3. How do I change my full name to just my initial or remove my last name due to privacy reasons?
4. How do I add a title to my name?
5. How do I change the name on my profile to the name of my business?

Dear Sir/Madam,

Thank you for that, but it does not assist.

Being an archbishop, I simply wish to revert to ‘Archbishop Cranmer’.

Yours faithfully,
Thomas Cranmer

Hi Thomas,

Unfortunately, we cannot process this request as the use of religious or professional titles is not permitted within personal profiles. We apologize for any inconvenience this may pose.

Also note that if you would like to represent yourself as a reverend on the site, you can create a Facebook Page. A Facebook Page is a distinct presence, separate from a user profile, that allows public figures to represent themselves on Facebook. Facebook Pages are optimized so that you can communicate messages, distribute content, engage other users and capture new audiences through recommendations to their friends. You can create your Page by visiting the following link:

http://www.facebook.com/pages/create.php.

Let us know if you have any further questions regarding setting up your Facebook Page

Thanks,

Giorgio
User Operations
Facebook

Dear Georgio,

Thank you for that, but is there not a slight inconsistency in the application of your terms and condition?

You say you don't permit religious titles - Reverend, Bishop, Archbishop, etc.

Yet you manifestly do allow some to call themselves King Henry VIII, Governess Kat Ashley, Lady Eleanor Courtey etc., etc., (not to mention numerous historic personages which really are not their real names - Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour etc).

If you do not allow religious titles, why do you allow royal ones?

Yours sincerely,
Thomas Cranmer

Hi Thomas,

Unfortunately, we cannot process this request as the use of religious or professional titles is not permitted within personal profiles. We apologize for any inconvenience this may pose.

It is possible that these users had signed up for a Facebook account with their title before the policy was put into place. However, we are unable to process any future requests to change a user's name to anything but their full name. Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause. Feel free to take a look at the privacy page where you can adjust who can find you in search or who can view your profile. Let me know if you have any additional questions.

Let us know if you have any further questions regarding setting up your Facebook Page

Thanks for contacting Facebook,

Giorgio
User Operations
Facebook

Dear Giorgio,

Archbishop Cranmer was registered before your change of policy, but was forced to amend the name afterwards when you sent an email demanding the change. Please check this in your records.

Why would you send such an email to Archbishop Cranmer but not to others?

If you allow 'Cardinal Wolsey' (and you do, please check) but not 'Archbishop Cranmer', you are actually guilty of religious discrimination, which is illegal under the EU Charter of Fundamental Human Rights, incorporated into UK law in the Human Rights Act 1998.

Please would you seek advice on this, or the matter will be pursued at a higher level.

Thank you.

Thomas Cranmer

Hi Thomas,

Unfortunately, we cannot process this request as the use of religious or professional titles is not permitted within personal profiles. We apologize for any inconvenience this may pose.

It is possible that these users had signed up for a Facebook account with their title before the policy was put into place. However, we are unable to process any future requests to change a user's name to anything but their full name. Sorry for any inconvenience this may cause. Feel free to take a look at the privacy page where you can adjust who can find you in search or who can view your profile. Let me know if you have any additional questions.

Let us know if you have any further questions regarding setting up your Facebook Page

Thanks for contacting Facebook,

Giorgio
User Operations
Facebook

Dear Giorgio,

Thank you for this, but you appear to be cutting and pasting to avoid the issue:

1) You DO permit some religious titles:

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=508576710#/profile.php?sid=5b8dc1328b46dae2d42798c6a21ab469&id=100000004830541&hiq=cardinal%2Cwolsey&ref=search

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=508576710#/profile.php?sid=5b8dc1328b46dae2d42798c6a21ab469&id=1783086719&hiq=cardinal%2Cwolsey&ref=search

etc., etc.

2) If these pre-dated your 'new' policy, they have been permitted to stand. Archbishop Cranmer was not. For some reason you singled out this account and demanded a change. This was apparently discriminatory.

3) By permitting 'Cardinal' but prohibiting 'Archbishop', you may actually be guilty of religious discrimination, insofar as the Anglican Communion does not admit cardinals, whether or not your policy is new.

You appear to have three options:

a) End the discrimination and permit the requested name change
b) Apply your policy equally and ban all religious titles on all accounts, no matter how old.
c) Let us take the case to court, which you will certainly lose under the equality provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998.

Could you please advise your preferred course of action.

Many thanks,
Thomas Cranmer

Hi,

Fake accounts are a violation of our Terms of Use. Facebook requires users to provide their real first and last names. Impersonating anyone or anything is prohibited. Unfortunately, we will not be able to reactivate this account for any reason. This decision is final.

Thanks for your understanding,

Zoe
User Operations Analyst
Facebook

Dear Zoe,

What happened to Giorgio?

‘Fake’ accounts?

Would you please explain why you permit Cardinal Wolsey and King Henry VIII, both of whom have been dead since the 16th century, and Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy, both of whom, at the last inspection, were puppets.

All of these accounts are manifestly 'fake' and violate your terms of use, yet you permit them.

With great respect, this enquiry is simply to ascertain why you apply your criteria strictly in some cases and not at all in others.

The question has been asked a number of times, but no-one seems inclined to respond. Why is this?

Thomas Cranmer

Hi,

Thanks for providing this information. At this time, we cannot verify the ownership of the account. Please reply to this email with a scanned image of a government-issued photo ID (e.g., driver's license) in order to confirm your ownership of the account. Please black out any personal information that is not needed to verify your identity (e.g., social security number). Rest assured that we will permanently delete your ID from our servers once we have used it to verify the authenticity of your account.

Additionally, please include all of our previous correspondence so that we can refer to your original email. Once we have received this information, we will reevaluate the status of the account. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause.

Thanks for contacting Facebook,

Zoe
User Operations Analyst
Facebook

Dear Zoe,

No-one in the UK is obliged to possess a 'government-issued photo-ID'.

And drivers' licences are two types - an EU one (with photo) and a UK one (without photo). Is Facebook presuming that all UK nationals must possess an EU drivers’ licence?

Is the request for photo identification to ensure that the picture on the account is really Thomas Cranmer? Because it was taken after many years of meticulous beard culture and after a few very bad months, hence the somewhat haggard and distraught appearance.

Are all other Facebook users obliged to provide photo ID? Is the addition of a photograph not simply an option, and if so why are you making it compulsory for this account only?

Why is Thomas Cranmer being singled out for this discriminatory treatment when you have fictional accounts from Cardinal Wolsey, Henry VIII, Ann Boleyn and Miss Piggy?

Has Miss Piggy provided you with photo ID? Which government issued her with it?

All the necessary emails are already in your possession.

Regards,
Thomas Cranmer

Hi,

Thank you for reporting this potential abuse on our site. We will review the reported material and remove anything that violates our Terms of Use. If warranted, we will either warn or disable the user responsible.

In the future, please feel free to use the "Report" links located near most pieces of content on the site to report offensive material to Facebook. We will then review the material and take appropriate action based on our Terms of Use. Rest assured that these reports will be kept confidential.

Thanks for contacting Facebook,

Zoe
User Operations Analyst
Facebook

Dear Zoe,

Abuse of your site?

You have now suspended the Thomas Cranmer account altogether. Is it now ‘Thomas’ which offends as well as ‘Archbishop’?

Is this an act of spite?

Thomas Cranmer violates none of your terms of service, unlike King Henry VIII, Cardinal Wolsey and Miss Piggy.

Could you please explain why this account has been deleted?

Regards,
Thomas Cranmer

Hi,

Fake accounts are a violation of our Terms of Use. Facebook requires users to provide their real first and last names. Impersonating anyone or anything is prohibited. Unfortunately, we will not be able to reactivate this account for any reason. This decision is final.

Thanks for your understanding,

Landon
User Operations
Facebook

Dear Landon,

What happened to Zoe? And Georgio?

And thank you for thanking me for my understanding, but there is none.

Could you please reinstate Thomas Cranmer, for ‘Thomas’ is not a religious title (though it ought to be).

Regards,
Thomas Cranmer

Hi,

Fake accounts are a violation of our Terms of Use. Facebook requires users to provide their real first and last names. Impersonating anyone or anything is prohibited. Unfortunately, we will not be able to reactivate this account for any reason. This decision is final.

Thanks for your understanding,

Faisal
User Operations
Facebook

Ahhhhhhhh.... Faisal...

His Grace's Readers and Communicants may be pleased to know that Facebook have permitted the account 'Ayatollah Cranmer’ (not a joke).

If you were previously a friend, and can be bothered, please re-register with His Grace's Islamic incarnation.

Archbishop Cranmer’s birthday statistics and celebratory pulpit

Today His Grace is 520 years old.

And he has been given two gifts – one quite magnificent, and another quite unacceptable.

He is delighted to announce that his statistics for the month of June broke all records. According to eXTReMe Tracking, he received 68,383 unique visitors (Google Analytics 39,238 absolute unique visitors; 88,410 page views from 175 countries), including his best day ever on Monday 29th with 6,503, and this week (ending 5th July) will undoubtedly be his highest ever week.

All thanks to Michael Jackson fans who are enquiring about the singer’s funeral, and instead reading that salvation is by faith through grace. That article has become the highest viewed landing page, presently with 6,343 visits. But even without that phenomenon, June would still have been a new record month.

His Grace's Top 10 referring sites were:

1 Iain Dale’s Diary 6,885
2 ConservativeHome 2,440
3 PoliticsHome 976
4 Obnoxio the Clown 893
5 Telegraph Blogs (Daniel Hannan) 585
6 Douglas Carswell 558
7 Political Betting 534
8 John Redwood’s Diary 475
9 Anglican Mainstream 391
10 Times Online (Ruth Gledhill) 279

In celebration of this record month, and in perpetual commemoration of the spiritual liberation afforded by his own pulpit experience with the Provost of Eton, Dr Henry Cole, His Grace is pleased to offer this ‘Cranmer’s Pulpit’ to his communicants for the raising of whatever religio-political or politico-religious concerns they do so wish (intelligently and eruditely, of course).

His Grace shall post again later to explain his quite unacceptable gift.

Sex, sex, sex - priests and nuns used to sell ice cream

This advertisement is clearly designed to shock and offend, and so the media hype surrounding it is worth millions of pounds of free advertising. Sometimes one wonders if the Advertising Standards Authority is not bribed to ban an advertisement knowing full well that the furore surrounding the ban will give the advertisement and the product far more media coverage than it would ever have achieved otherwise.

Apparently, 10 complaints were received: 'a kiss between a priest and a nun was offensive because it demeaned people who had chosen to follow a religious vocation.

The response of Antonio Federici (the ice cream manufacturers) was that 'the ad was intended as a light-hearted, tongue in cheek portrayal celebrating forbidden Italian temptations which their Gelato Italiano ice cream represented. They considered that, in an age where religion was frequently used in a humorous way in the media, the image would not offend the vast majority of readers. They felt this was borne out by the small number of complaints received. They considered the ad was unlikely to offend deeply a minority of people. In their view, there was nothing in the ad that was likely to cause either serious or widespread offence.

Antonio Federici said it was significant that the image did not show the nun and priest touching, or kissing and the reader was therefore left pondering their dilemma - would they or would they not succumb to temptation and kiss? They considered the complaints were therefore concerned with the implication of the ad, not the ad itself, and pointed out that each individuals reaction to it would be shaped by their own values and experiences.

Seven Squared Publishing, who published Delicious and Sainsburys Magazines, explained that both publications were targeted at an adult audience aged between 25 and 55 years. They felt the ad was tongue in cheek and unlikely to offend their readers. They received two complaints from Delicious Magazine readers and five complaints from Sainsburys Magazine readers. They apologised for any offence caused and advised they had no plans to publish the ad again in future issues.'

The ASA Assessment:

Upheld

The ASA noted the ad played on the theme of giving into temptation but stopped short of showing the nun and priest kissing. The ad stated "KISS TEMPTATION" and the two were portrayed in a seductive pose, as if they were about to kiss passionately.

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 ad breached CAP Code clause 5.1 (Decency).

Action

The ad must not appear again in its current form.

One must be grateful that the campaign was not concerned with forbidden Irish temptations.

That the modern era is sex-obsessed is not in dispute: we live in a consumer society, and there is little that is marketed now without a glance, a wink, a flirt, a breast, or allusions to sexual intercourse because ‘sex sells’. If one were to judge by the media (which is more frequently a mirror to society than a catalyst for change), the fascination with sex is now more important than politics, religion, philosophy or even Mammon. Jesus may have had to address the latter as the dominating idol of his era: his judgement was that one may not serve both God and Mammon (Mt. 6:24). If one were to apply the same principle to the modern idol – ‘Eros’ – it is likely that Jesus would directly challenge society’s fixation with it, and by so doing confront those who obsess about sex and prioritise issues of sexuality, including those in the Church.

Björn Ulvaeus: Faith-based schools should be banned

Abba, forgive him, for he knows not what he says. Just as the pop world loses its king, it discovers its Björn-again Richard Dawkins.

Generations have been indoctrinated by ABBA – morphed into dancing queens with incantations of ‘I dooooo, I do, I do, I do, I do, I dooooooo’; hypnotised as they gaze into their angeleyes. But the group’s Björn Ulvaeus has been seduced by money money money as he proves that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle as the winner takes it all – except the Kingdom of Heaven. Cranmer would never have had Mr Ulvaeus down as an evangelical atheist, but it appears that he is persuaded that any ‘thank you for the music’ is not owed to God.

In Sweden, as in England, there is no separation of Church and State. But ABBA didn’t think to write a song about it when they existed.

Björn Ulvaeus is a member of Humanisterna (the Swedish Humanist Association) which, just like its counterpart in the UK, propagates its atheistic creed aggressively and seeks to undermine the Church-State settlement. In particular, they object to schools with a religious ethos and to any notion of ‘religious indoctrination’ in the education system. Mr Ulvaeus is of the opinion that ‘schools should provide a safe haven from all ideologies, with the obvious codicil that children should learn as much about as many of them as possible from an objective point of view’.

And this objective point of view is, of course, the secular humanist perspective – the ‘neutral’ filter through which the eyes of the child might behold the light. But not too early, for only those who are ‘old enough to think for themselves... should be free to choose their own ideology’.

He does not specify at what age this occurs, and neither does he explain how children will weigh up the arguments on subjectivity and devotion if all they have been taught are the objective facts objectively. But he is adamant that ‘children should be kept away from anything that bears even the slightest whiff of indoctrination. In fact, freedom from indoctrination ought to be a basic human right for all children’.

And Mr Ulvaeus then explains his humanist reasoning for this. He says, objectively and dispassionately, of course, that ‘religious education makes it more difficult for children to form their own views on the world. It puts obstacles in their way that not all are capable of overcoming’.

Secular humanism does not so hinder, for it is an enlightened creed which may easily be overcome.

He adds that any prominent figures who have made remarkable contributions to society did so because they became free thinkers, and this ‘despite, not because of, their Christian schooling’.

Nothing dogmatic about that at all: a teacher could quite happily impart such neutrality to his or her disciples in the sure knowledge that when they are ‘old enough to think for themselves’ they might change their minds about Christian schooling without ever having learnt anything more about it.

Mr Ulvaeus is awfully muddled and confused, and Cranmer rather wishes he had stuck to song-writing. Having made the case against religion in school, he argues that ‘religion has a natural place in their homes and their children grow up with it. And that's fine’.

Why is it?

Surely religious indoctrination in the home may be as corrosive, if not moreso, than that which might be manifest in a school. What if that domestic religion precludes state education? What if it prohibits children meeting and getting to know their peers ‘on neutral ground’? How does he guarantee that the ‘us against them’ divide he ascribes to schools is not inculcated by parents and grandparents?

The belief in the superiority of one religion over another is far more likely to originate in the home than it ever would in a school.

But even if it be taught in a school, let that school be judged by its academic results and the calibre of student it produces – their social maturity, personal morality, the quality of their parenting, their attitudes towards their elders, to institutions of government, and their whole contribution to society.

It shall be seen time and again that church schools consistently out-perform their ‘secular’ counterparts in all of these areas. Education is not about indoctrination: it should be, as Plato advocated, concerned with pointing the eyes of the child to the light in order that he or she might see for him or herself. But the Humanists would negate even that as a pursuit of the darkness.

Just because there is no ABBA does not mean that there is no God.

British Government imposes Christian constitution on the Cayman Islands

The Cayman Islands are a British overseas territory and have been since they were ceded to England in 1670 under the Treaty of Madrid. They are one of the last non-self governing territories: the island’s government is headed by the Governor who is appointed by the British Government to represent the Her Majesty the Queen. The Governor is able to exercise complete executive authority through the prerogative powers reserved to him in the constitution: in fact, the Governor bestows Royal Assent to all legislation on behalf of the Queen.

The islands have a population of around 52,000 representing in excess of 100 nationalities, 60 per cent of which are mixed race: only 20 per cent are of European descent.

In this context, it is interesting to read that the British Government has imposed a constitution upon the islands by statutory instrument with the following preamble:

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE CAYMAN ISLANDS

The people of the Cayman Islands, recalling the events that have shaped their history and made them what they are, and acknowledging their distinct history, culture and Christian heritage and its enduring influence and contribution in shaping the spiritual, moral and social values that have guided their development and brought peace, prosperity and stability to those islands, through the vision, forbearance, and leadership of their people, who are loyal to Her Majesty the Queen;

Affirm their intention to be -

• A God-fearing country based on traditional Christian values, tolerant of other religions and beliefs.
• A country with open, responsible and accountable government, that includes a working partnership with the private sector and continuing beneficial ties with the United Kingdom.
• A country in which religion finds its expression in moral living and social justice.
• A caring community based on mutual respect for all individuals and their basic human rights.
• A country committed to the democratic values of human dignity, equality and freedom.
• A community that practises honest and open dialogue to ensure mutual understanding and social harmony.
• A safe, secure and law-abiding community.
• A country that is free from crime and drug abuse.
• A country with an education system that identifies and develops on a continuing basis the abilities of each person, allowing them to reach their full potential and productivity.
• A community that encourages and prepares young people to assume leadership roles.
• A country that provides a comprehensive healthcare system.
• A community protective of traditional Caymanian heritage and the family unit.
• A country that honours the sacrifice of its seafaring men who left the shores of the Islands to enhance the quality of life of their people, and in doing so established themselves amongst the finest within the global maritime community of that time and through their remittances, endeavours and experiences built the foundations of the Cayman Islands’ modern economy.
• A country that honours and acknowledges the important contribution of Caymanian women who during the absence of the seafaring men of the Islands managed the affairs of their homes, businesses and communities and passed on the values and traditions of the Islands’ people.
• A country with a vibrant diversified economy, which provides full employment.
• A country that makes optimal use of modern technology.
• A country that manages growth and maintains prosperity, while protecting its social and natural environment.
• A country that respects, protects and defends its environment and natural resources as the basis of its existence.
• A country that fosters the highest standards of integrity in the dealings of the private and public sectors.
• A country with an immigration system that protects Caymanians, gives security to long-term residents and welcomes legitimate visitors and workers.
• A country that plays its full part in the region and in the international community.
Now, therefore, the following provisions shall have effect as the Constitution of the Cayman Islands...

It is noteworthy that Paragraph 14, ‘in the interests of public morality’, defines marriage as a union between a man and a woman, with the specific stipulation that a man and a woman should be free ‘to marry a person of the opposite sex and found a family’.

And Paragraph 10 enshrines in law freedom of conscience and religion, including the right ‘either alone or in community with others, both in public and in private, to manifest and propagate his or her religion or belief in worship, teaching, practice, observance and day of worship’.

Is it not ironic, at a time when the Government of the Motherland is renouncing and undermining the very faith which ‘shaped our history and made us what we are’, and which has had an ‘enduring influence’ and made an irrefutable contribution ‘in shaping the spiritual, moral and social values that have guided our development and brought peace, prosperity and stability to those islands’, that this very same Government sees fit to bequeath to one of the last British colonies a God-fearing preamble to its constitution?

And they do so whilst recognising the ‘the vision, forbearance, and leadership of their people, who are loyal to Her Majesty the Queen’.

Loyal, in fact, to her Coronation Oath to ‘maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel’.

One is left wondering why such an overtly Christian constitution is deemed beneficial to Her Majesty’s Overseas Territories, while that which is being imposed upon the United Kingdom by this profoundly anti-Christian Labour government is rabidly ‘secular’ and increasingly intolerant of any expression of Christianity in the public realm. If it is not quite a house divided, it is certainly religio-political schizophrenia.

MPs’ second jobs are a categorical imperative

If a man will not work, he shall not eat.

A logical corollary of which is that if he works part-time, he shall eat only snacks. Or at list go without dinner.

Unless, of course, dinner be on expenses.

There is little that has been more corrosive for politics than the rise of the ‘professional’ politician: those who went to university to read politics, became a political ‘adviser’ or ‘researcher’, made the right contacts to be awarded a ‘safe seat’, and then became a politician. Such people have never held a real job and have never attained a status in the world by which the mettle of their life might be tested. These are not rounded people: they are party apparatchiks – automatons programmed for nothing but being ‘on message’. They are political poodles.

For all David Cameron’s talk of wanting to cut the number of MPs in Westminster, Cranmer would prefer a focus on quality rather than quantity.

Being an MP is manifestly part-time: if it were not, they would have no time to be ministers of state. Yet Labour is ordaining that we now need full-time MPs: moonlighting is to be frowned upon. And so they are rushing through a law which will do for quality MPs what the Dangerous Dogs Act did for innocent bull terriers: place them under suspicion, subject them to investigation and dedicate them for termination.

Only the poodles, or anything that looks like a poodle, will survive.

But why do we need full-time MPs for a part-time Parliament?

The House rises more than leavened dough, and its kneading troughs have been given over to the pigs. An entire quarter of the working year is dedicated to the summer recess: from July to October there is no debate, no legislative scrutiny and the Executive cannot be held to account. Add in Christmas, Easter, February half-term and Whitsun, and it transpires that MPs get 17 weeks holiday a year. Add to this the fact that Mondays do not start until mid-afternoon, Thursdays are dedicated to Business when most MPs are on their way to their constituencies, the average MP works a three-day week.

That is a three-day week for 35 weeks a year.

Since they do not work weekends, this amounts to a salary of £64,766 for 105 days’ work a year, or £617 per diem (before ‘expenses’).

Of course, there are letters and emails to write, schools and hospitals to visit, children to kiss, speeches to make, dinners to eat and association officers to tolerate and placate. But the reality is that being an MP can involve as little as 29 per cent of a year.

What efficient, cost-effective and streamlined business would demand so little of its employees?

And the devil makes work for idle hands.

Unless MPs seek to meddle in the affairs of local councillors or supplant the delicate functioning of social services, it stands to reason that MPs must be permitted to work at a second job. And a third and a fourth if they so desire. Since they may be out of a job at any time, it is only fair that they should be permitted to keep fingers in pies, toes in the water and have other strings to their bow. And if their commitment to their constituents or their parliamentary duties suffer as a result, it is for the electorate – their ultimate employer – to dismiss them.

An MP without a second job is one step closer to irrelevance. Anything that seeks to diminish the life experience of the legislature diminishes Parliament, and a diminished Parliament diminishes the people.

Michael Jackson’s funeral – which religion will prevail?

Was Michael Jackson a Muslim?

Allah knows.

And we are about to find out.

In his will, Michael Jackson expressed a wish for his body to be cremated and sprinkled over the surface of the moon. But cremation is forbidden in Islam, and the parlous state of the singer’s finances now rather precludes the possibility of lunar sprinkling. Star trekking across the universe is the domain of those for whom it is difficult to enter the Kingdom of Heaven.

The arrangements for what will undoubtedly be the biggest funeral spectacular since the death of Diana Princess of Wales are actually a political decision of not inconsiderable global importance. While millions of Muslims try to claim Michael Jackson for the greater glory of Allah, the witnesses of Jehovah are having none of it. And music is haraam in any case. The demons which plagued Michael Jackson during his life are as nothing to those which are doing battle over his soul, and this present turmoil in the heavenlies is mirrored on earth in the conflict over the singer’s estate and the custody battle over his children.

The speculation over the religion of the former King of Pop (to whom does that title now pass?) is natural, and competing sides are attempting to claim him as their own. For Michael Jackson, of course, the question is now of absolutely no consequence: he is either with God in heaven, in purgatory, in hell, or his atman has surrendered to the karmic samsara and he lives on as a cockroach.

Or, of course, he has simply ceased to be.

It is a matter of historical record that Michael Jackson was born to parents who were devout Jehovah’s Witnesses, and he was raised strictly in accordance with the tenets of that faith: always canvassing and never Christmas. But this was too puritanical for his showbiz spirit, and he quite obviously outgrew its confines, both theological and sociological.

It is rumoured that he converted to Islam last year and changed his name to Mikaeel – the name of one of Allah’s angels.

This being the case, he should have been buried intact within two sunsets as Muslims believe that demons ravage and torture the body if this is not adhered to. But the necessary post mortem examination took precedence, and toxicology tests had to be conclusive in order to dispel (or confirm) rumours of foul play. After all, we are talking about the King of Pop, and something as mundane as vicodin can no more claim his life than a simple car crash could end that of the Princess of Wales. Even now, the Jackson family has ordered a second autopsy, thereby fanning the flames of conspiracy.

Since Michael Jackson had a sudden heart attack, he did not have time to say ‘La Ilaha Illa Allah’, and so has not gone straight to paradise. Unluckily for him, according to the Hadith of Abu Hurairah, ‘a believer's soul will remain in suspense until all his debts are paid off’.

Since these are estimated to be $500,000,000, that is an awfully long time in limbo.

Perhaps the Jackson ummah (for at least Jermaine is a professing Muslim) will auction the TV rights to the funeral, or sell them to anyone and everyone in order to maximise the prophet profit. Demand for a mass public service is going to be high, and hordes of fans will make pilgrimage from the four corners of the earth to kiss his shrine. It is even possible that the funeral could eclipse that of Diana as billions tune in to cyber-mourn.

There is something of a tension between the sparse simplicity of a Jehovah’s Witness funeral and that of a prominent Muslim. While both eschew weeping and wailing (and alcoholic toasts), they are both fond of gnashing teeth: their funerals are a time to focus on God, his greatness and the proclamation of salvation.

If Michael Jackson died a Muslim, expect to hear of the proclamation of the Salat al-Janazah and news that he will be buried with his head pointing towards Mecca. These are imperatives for all Muslims and the only guard against Shaytaan.

Cranmer has only one thought on Michael Jackson’s spirituality: he was consistent. He simply exchanged one religion which offers absolutely no assurance of salvation for another. Both Jehovah’s Witnesses and Muslims have to earn their places in paradise: salvation is by works; the spirit is redeemed by the obedience of the flesh and the burden of submission to law.

Cranmer thanks God that he justified by faith through grace, and that God provided the ransom for us - the most precious body and blood of his own most dear and best beloved Son Jesus Christ. Justification is free to us, but not to God. Faith, of course, does not stand in isolation: It ‘doth not exclude repentance, hope, love, dread, and the fear of God’. After all, faith which does not produce good works ‘is not a right, pure and lively faith, but a dead, devilish counterfeit, and feigned faith'. The justified are bound to serve God in doing good deeds, but these works are imperfect and not able to deserve our justification, which comes freely by the mercy of God. Authentic faith is ‘a pure trust and confidence in God’s merciful promises’.

And this is the only source of peace, not as the world gives.

President Obama 'does God' liberally

Cranmer is a little pressed for time today, and so he will leave his readers and communicants with this interesting snippet about President Obama.

It appears that the President 'does God' rather more than George W Bush ever did, but, being a Democrat, he is not subject to the scorn and derision of the media for doing so:

He’s done it while talking about abortion and the Middle East, even the economy. The references serve at once as an affirmation of his faith and a rebuke against a rumor that persists for some to this day.

As president, Barack Obama has mentioned Jesus Christ in a number of high-profile public speeches — something his predecessor George W. Bush rarely did in such settings, even though Bush’s Christian faith was at the core of his political identity.

In his speech Thursday in Cairo, Obama told the crowd that he is a Christian and mentioned the Islamic story of Isra, in which Moses, Jesus and Mohammed joined in prayer.

At the University of Notre Dame on May 17, Obama talked about the good works he’d seen done by Christian community groups in Chicago. “I found myself drawn — not just to work with the church but to be in the church,” Obama said. “It was through this service that I was brought to Christ.”

And a month before that, Obama mentioned Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount at Georgetown University to make the case for his economic policies. Obama retold the story of two men, one who built his house on a pile of sand and the other who built his on a rock: “We cannot rebuild this economy on the same pile of sand,” Obama said. “We must build our house upon a rock.”

More than four months into the Obama presidency, a picture is emerging of a chief executive who is comfortable with public displays of his religion — although he has also paid tribute to other faiths and those he called “nonbelievers” during his inaugural address.

Obama’s invocation of the Christian Messiah is more overt than Americans heard in the public rhetoric of Bush in his time in the White House — even though Bush’s victories were powered in part by evangelical voters.

“I don’t recall a single example of Bush as president ever saying, ‘Jesus’ or ‘Christ,’” said Tony Perkins, president of the conservative Christian group Family Research Council. “This is different.”

To Perkins, Obama’s overtly Christian rhetoric is a welcome development from an administration that he largely disagrees with on the issues, though Perkins sees a political motive behind it, as well.

Why is it that when politicians of the Right 'do God', they are 'religious nutters', hypocritical or 'extreme', but when those of the Left talk about their faith, they are considered enlightened, sincere and devout?

Michael Jackson is dead

Oh what a circus! Oh what a show!

It was TS Eliot who said that the Lord who created must wish us to create, and employ our creation again in his service which is already his service in creating. The passing of an artist, any artist, leaves a void in creation. And the passing of one so globally significant becomes both political and religious at once. Like the deaths of Elvis Presley, John Lennon and Diana Princess of Wales, it is not so much their passing as the manner of it. To die is natural. To die at just 50, to pre-decease one’s parents, feels so profoundly unnatural that it becomes an offence against God.

In the political realm, this is indeed a day ‘to bury bad news’. In the religious realm, one observes again the cult of celebrity: another christ has been crucified, and the shrines to this god of the age will spring up everywhere spontaneously. Like all true greats – those whose creation is genius and grace – he will live on: the ‘King of Pop’ will live on in his music and video footage – a million daily resurrections to satisfy the spiritual longings of his disciples and those who came from the four corners of the earth to worship him. And they are legion.

It is believed he suffered a heart attack. If one tries to live like Peter Pan, there will come a time when the reality supplants the fantasy. He preferred the company of children; his best friend was a chimp; he reportedly slept in an oxygen chamber and endured numerous plastic surgeries. Since the accusations of child molestation, he has been a virtual recluse.

It is axiomatic that genius and madness are a hair’s breadth apart.

Notwithstanding his ever-lightening skin, Michael Jackson was the embodiment of the dream of Martin Luther King. His talent was such that he forced America to accept the inalterable equality of black people, and so paved the way for Oprah Winfrey, Tiger Woods and Barack Obama. Michael Jackson did for music and movement what they have done for television, sport and politics. In that sense, his achievement is historic and he is iconic. The word ‘legend’, rather like ‘great’, is much debased in this superficial world, but Michael Jackson was a legend in his lifetime who never really belonged in this world. His search for a face was a quest to discover his identity.

But now he sees face to face, and knows even as he is fully known.

Requiem aeternam.
Absolve, Domine,
animas omnium fidelium defunctorum
ab omni vinculo delictorum
et gratia tua illis
succurente mereantur
evadere iudicium ultionis,
et lucis æterne beatitudine perfrui.

Ann and Alan Keen and the state confiscation of private property

According to the BBC, married Labour MPs Ann and Alan Keen ‘have been given a month to stop their local council repossessing their home’.

Hounslow Council said that the Keens' house in Brentford, West London, appeared to have been empty since last November, and so the Keens have been given notice of the council’s intention to issue an ‘Empty Dwelling Management Order’, allowing it to ‘repossess’ a property if it remains unoccupied and dilapidated for a period of six months. The council is permitted to carry out works on the property house and use it to accommodate other people without the permission of the owner.

Cranmer is disturbed to hear of this, and not because of the further abuse of expenses which this highlights.

Hounslow Council cannot repossess that which they have not previously possessed. This is not a council house, and neither has the council provided the Keens with a mortgage on the property. This is not, therefore, a ‘repossession’.

What it is, however, is something both sinister and grave in a liberal democracy.

This is the lawful expropriation of private property; seizure by the state. The Housing Act 2004 was amended by the Housing (Management Orders and Empty Dwelling Management Orders) Regulations in 2006, and it is a murky piece of New Labour legislation. When an EDMO is in force, the local council assumes most of the rights and responsibilities of the owner and may exercise them as if it were the owner even though it does not become the legal owner. Yet the legal owner is not entitled to receive any rent or other payments from anyone occupying the dwelling and may not exercise any rights to manage the dwelling whilst an EDMO is in force.

Conservative housing spokesman Grant Shapps said it would be ‘deeply ironic’ if the Labour government's powers to allow the state confiscation of private property were used against ‘absentee Labour members of Parliament’.

Actually, the greater irony is that a Conservative controlled council should be applying this Marxist legislation at all.

It is fundamental to Conservative philosophy that the state should guard the rights of individuals in respect of their private property. The rules of property defining rights of owners are both moral and legal. Inherent to capitalism is the owners’ rights to use what they own in any way they choose so long as they respect the moral or natural rights of others. This appropriation, whether by gift, bequest or exchange, permits the owner to profit by it in whatever way they see fit.

The concept of communal property is associated with Marxism and socialism, and assigns rights to the community as a whole rather than to the individual. Decisions concerning the use of property are made collectively and profits realised are distributed to that community.

Grant Shapps should be less concerned with the ‘irony’ of the plight of Mr and Mrs Keen, and thoroughly keen to repeal this odious statutory instrument. It is an unjust redistribution of private property, an infringement of the freedom of owners, and a thoroughly un-Conservative piece of legislation.

The Conservative Party must follow the Church of England in confronting the BBC

Cranmer was going to omit the final four words of the title, but the exhortation would then have sounded so absurdly outrageous as to cause people to question His Grace’s sanity (for those who do not already) and even damage his reputation (even if he has none worth speaking of). It is not that David Cameron must emulate Rowan Williams by growing a beard and prancing around on the Summer Solstice at Stonehenge, but Mark Thompson, the BBC's director-general, must be made aware that the corporation’s pathological anti-Christian liberal-leftist bias must end.

It is reported that the Prime Minister is to ‘reconnect with the people’ through an episode of Songs of Praise to be broadcast next month. Cranmer does not recommend that David Cameron follow Gordon Brown down this path, for participation on Songs of Praise is manifest evidence of a disconnect with the people. The Prime Minister will be given a pulpit from which he can do penance and preach to the nation ‘about courage and the people who have inspired him’. Chosen hymns will include Be Still My Soul, Fight the Good Fight and The Lord is My Shepherd.

This is likely to do more harm than good.

People are not stupid, and viewers of Songs of Praise will discern the hypocrisy. Gordon Brown is not so much concerned with his ‘moral compass’ as he is with courting the Christian vote. This appearance has nothing to do with his ‘Presbyterian conscience’, his father’s legacy or his Church of Scotland roots: it is a brazen attempt to win back the three million viewers who tune in every Sunday; to persuade them that he is a courageous, devout and honest politician.

Cranmer hopes they will remember that New Labour has been the most rabidly anti-Christian government in living memory, and the most religiously regressive in centuries.

The time is right for the Conservative Party to follow the Church of England in confronting the BBC about the quality (indeed, almost total absence) of its Conservative broadcasting: it is not impartial and neither is it professional. The BBC’s coverage of the EU’s new Conservative and Reformist group was as non-existent as its reflections on Good Friday.

With Muslim Aaqil Ahmed now heading the corporation’s Religion and Ethics output, the Church of England finds this a ‘worrying’ development. But it can be no more worrying than the plethora of Socialists who provide the corporation's political output. When a Sikh began to produce Songs of Praise, it seemed bizarre. Until one realises (if one has not already done so) that the BBC has a Leftist multi-faith agenda, centred on the global-warming cult of Gaia. Anglican orthodoxy was ditched for ecumenism decades ago. The Church of England accuses the corporation of treating religion like ‘a freak show’ (as it does the politics of the Right) and of marginalising Christian broadcasting even during the major Christian festivals.

Indeed, according to former employee Don Maclean, the BBC is ‘keen on Islam (and) keen on programmes that attack the Christian church’. He astutely observes:

'I know there are things that need to be brought forward, but you don't see any programmes on Anglicanism that don't talk about homosexual clergy and you don't see anything on Roman Catholicism that don't talk about paedophiles. They seem to take the negative angle every time. They don't do that if they're doing programmes on Islam. Programmes on Islam are always supportive.’

The Sikhs and Hindus have already noted this.

The Archbishop of Canterbury met with Mark Thompson in March to challenge him on the issue. The response came by way of two fingers when the corporation appointed Aaqil Ahmed who had something of a reputation for anti-Christian bias while in charge of commissioning at Channel 4. Last summer, Channel 4 screened a week of special programmes on Islam including a feature-length documentary on the Qur’an and a series of interviews with Muslims around the world talking about their beliefs. Their main Christian documentary broadcast for Easter, called The Secrets of the 12 Disciples, only sought to cast doubt on the legitimacy of the Pope's leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.

It is noteworthy that broadcasting around both Christianity and Conservatism tends to be concerned with fringe issues and with bringing them into disrepute. The BBC is constitutionally bound to provide adequate time and fair representation to both the Conservative Party and the Christian faith, if only because Conservative and Christian issues are the concerns of the majority of the nation.

Speaker Bercow – the Commons chose the Lord’s chosen

It was a curious congratulatory line from the Leader of the Opposition.

David Cameron remarked on the fact that John Bercow is the first Speaker to have been born into the Jewish faith, and he referred to it as a milestone.

And he made it a point of religion, not of ethnicity, which is curious because John Bercow’s Semitism – his biological DNA – has been the only immutable constant in a political life which has been built on sand. YHWH was placed conveniently on the shelf decades ago along with the menorah. It would have made more sense had Mr Cameron left religion out of it altogether and simply congratulated Mr Bercow for being the first of 157 Speakers to be a Jew. For, although Speaker Bercow may have been born into the Jewish faith, it got lost somewhere in the wilderness, or was purposely discarded along with the rest of his religio-political heritage.

Just as Conservatives are recognisable by the way they vote, those of the Jewish faith are recognisable by their faithful adherence, their honouring of God, their obedience to his commands. But there is very little that makes John Bercow either a convicted Conservative or a practising Jew: his mind does not seek to conserve that which is good and his heart is not circumcised. The only thing he has in common with Conservatives is a sizeable majority in the home counties; the only thing he has in common with the Lord’s chosen people is that he has himself now been chosen.

Democracy is a curious thing – it tends to deliver precisely what the people deserve. And maybe the electorate of the House of Commons deserves John Bercow. He tries so hard to be all things to all people, yet he is everything and nothing. He is convicted of nothing strongly, except perhaps the righteousness of his own conviction, the uprightness of his amorality and the universal salvation which is to be found in his gospel. At one time or another he has held the whole spectrum of political thought in his hands, and yet it has all slipped through.

Speaker Bercow is not for all seasons and certainly not to all tastes. But he is thoroughly postmodern and a child of postmodernity. He is a shifting, complex and confusing object of study, representing both the continuation of modernity and its transcendence. His election is an anti-establishment reaction and yet the fulfilment of the wishes of that establishment. He encompasses the broadest scope because his own journey has been a panoramic sweep. He holds to no particular truth, no coherent philosophy, and no doctrine of God. For him, all knowledge is subjective; foundationalism must be undermined; communitarianism transcends individualism; and political truth must be encountered emotionally and intuitively as well as rationally. Speaker Bercow is the embodiment of postmodernism. He evidences a willingness to combine symbols from disparate codes or frameworks of meaning, even at the cost of disjunctions and eclecticism. He will not wear 18th-century tights or don the Speaker's wig, and yet, curiously, he has the precise affected Restoration foppish manner which would sport them perfectly, for he preens and minces like Mr Sparkish.

He celebrates spontaneity, fragmentation, superficiality, irony and playfulness. He has been variously described as maverick, mercurial, vain, self-promoting, partisan, pompous, divisive, careerist and pretentious. He has been disloyal – sometimes outrageously so – to three successive Conservative leaders, and his voting record is capricious. He supported Ken Clarke to be leader of the Conservative Party and opposes a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. Suffice to say, he will not be remotely concerned with the sovereignty of Parliament or that of the people.

But it is time to set aside the acrimony, hatred, loathing and resentment. Speaker Bercow now bears the heavy burden of a great office of state and presides of the legislature with the authority which the Lord has bestowed upon him.

And we are commanded to pray for him.

And let us not forget those who now have to work with him and under him.

David Cameron’s new EU group is Catholic and Reformed Conservative and Reformist

David Cameron has just secured his place in the history books, and he is not even yet Prime Minister. But this sort of decisive and bold leadership establishes that he has the precise qualities required to be so. He is not quite a Martin Luther, but the Leader of the Conservative Party has initiated a reformation in Europe which has the potential to change the course of EU history just as seismically as Luther changed the course of Western civilisation. When the obscure monk nailed his 95 Theses to the door of Wittenberg University in 1517, there was universal religio-political condemnation which resulted in excommunication and (they assured) eternal damnation. Instead, they got the Reformation of reformations, and the theology and name of Martin Luther have eclipsed that of a hundred popes.

And so, in 2009, a courageous and untried politician has posted his 10 theses to the cyber-door of the European Parliament, and there is much wailing and gnashing of teeth from those who are the self-appointed guardians of EU orthodoxy. As he is excommunicated by President Sarkozy of France and Chancellor Merkel of Germany, he is besieged by those same cries of ‘schism’ and ‘traitor’ which tend to herald isolation and promise eternal damnation.

David Cameron has fulfilled the solemn promise he made during his 2005 campaign to become Leader of the Conservative Party, and a new protestant movement has begun. He is ditching more than 20 years of Conservative co-operation with the mainstream ‘centre-right’ Christian Democrats in the Parliament, the European People's Party, on the grounds that it is dominated by those whose ultimate aim is a United States of Europe with a single government and a single currency.

But the philosophical reality is that true Conservatives are always reformist: they simply have to discern between that which merits conserving and that which needs reform. And the EU, an institution stubbornly squatting in the same post-war mentality with which it was conceived, is in desperate need of reform. Just as Luther in 1517 dared to challenge the immutable doctrine of papal supremacy which heralded the end of Christendom, so David Cameron has issued a declaration which rides roughshod over the infallible doctrine of ‘ever closer union’, thereby proclaiming the demise of its successor empire. The abuse and corruption of 16th-century religion has found conducive accommodation in 21st-century politics. By issuing his declaration, Mr Cameron manifests the very Protestant instinct for liberty, equality and accountability which yielded the ethics of Western democracy and sowed the seeds of its capitalist economic success.

On this, the Feast Day of Sir Thomas More, the Patron Saint of Politicians, it is apposite to consider the observations of Lord Shore of Stepney on the EU:

"…no one who has been engaged seriously in the business of examining draft EC laws and treaties can have any doubt about their quite extraordinary – and deliberate - complexity. Every new article or treaty clause is, with reference to articles in earlier treaties - generally to be located in a separate treaty volume. Indeed part of the whole mystique of Community Law is its textual incomprehensibility, its physical dispersal, its ambivalence and its dependence upon ultimate clarification by the European Court of Justice: and the Brussels Commission and their long-serving, often expert officials are, in interpreting and manipulating all this, like a priestly caste - similar to what it must have been in pre-Reformation days, when the Bible was in Latin, not English; the Pope, his cardinals and bishops decided the content of canon law and the message came down to the laymen, only when the Latin text was translated into the vernacular by the dutiful parish priest.”

It is when one reads such an account that one begins to grasp the importance of David Cameron's initiative in forming a group capable of protestation against that which hitherto has been universal. One must hope that they communicate incisively in the vernacular. For all the EU’s supposed transparency, accessibility and long-promised comprehensibility, the Lisbon Treaty might as well be in Latin: it is Greek even to the Greeks. To counter such purposeful obfuscation, The Prague Declaration (for that is what it is to be termed), sets out the 10 aims and values of the new parliamentary grouping which seek to challenge the EU's otiose settlement:

"CONSCIOUS OF THE URGENT NEED TO REFORM THE EU ON THE BASIS OF EUROREALISM, OPENNESS, ACCOUNTABILITY AND DEMOCRACY, IN A WAY THAT RESPECTS THE SOVEREIGNTY OF OUR NATIONS AND CONCENTRATES ON ECONOMIC RECOVERY, GROWTH AND COMPETITIVENESS, THE EUROPEAN CONSERVATIVES AND REFORMISTS GROUP SHARES THE FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES:

1. Free enterprise, free and fair trade and competition, minimal regulation, lower taxation, and small government as the ultimate catalysts for individual freedom and personal and national prosperity.
2. Freedom of the individual, more personal responsibility and greater democratic accountability.
3. Sustainable, clean energy supply with an emphasis on energy security.
4. The importance of the family as the bedrock of society.
5. The sovereign integrity of the nation state, opposition to EU federalism and a renewed respect for true subsidiarity.
6. The overriding value of the transatlantic security relationship in a revitalised NATO, and support for young democracies across Europe.
7. Effectively controlled immigration and an end to abuse of asylum procedures.
8. Efficient and modern public services and sensitivity to the needs of both rural and urban communities.
9. An end to waste and excessive bureaucracy and a commitment to greater transparency and probity in the EU institutions and use of EU funds.
10. Respect and equitable treatment for all EU countries, new and old, large and small."

The new group consists presently of 55 MEPs:

• 26 British Conservative MEPs
• 15 Polish MEPs from the Law and Justice Party
• 9 Czech MEPs from the Civic Democratic Party
• 1 MEP from Belgium's Lijst Dedecker - Derk Jan Eppink, a Dutchman who is a former senior European Commission official
• 1 MEP from Finland's Centre Party, Keskusta - Hannu Takkula (who has left the Liberal Group where the rest of his party sits)
• 1 MEP from the Hungarian Democratic Forum - Lajos Bokros, a former finance minister
• 1 MEP from the Latvian National Independence Movement - Roberts Zile, a former finance and transport minister
• 1 MEP from the Dutch Christian Union - Peter van Dalen

It is a fragile collaboration, hanging, as it does, by a number of slender threads. Since the group needs a minimum of 25 MEPs from seven countries in order to fulfil EU criteria, the single members may exert disproportionate influence. But that is the case in any coalition in the system of proportional representation. And it may similarly be observed that the Conservative and Reformist Party may also exert disproportionate influence on the EPP with which it will rightly cooperate on legislation which is deemed to be in the Conservative interest.

One now awaits the spitting and scorn of the Left.

The Guardian has already referred to David Cameron’s ‘militant Roman Catholic’ EU partners who believe ‘global warming is a lie, homosexuality is a "pathology" and Europe is becoming a "neo-totalitarian" regime’. The paper talks of the ‘ingrained prejudice’ of ‘fundamentalist Roman Catholicism’ which is intent on ‘peddling a daily diet of bigotry and paranoia’.

And the National Secular Society decries the order from the Roman Catholic Church in Poland to ‘Pack the EU Parliament with obedient Catholics’ who ‘will help the Church impose its teachings on European law’.

It appears that any political group which seeks to conserve Christian ethical principles, protect the unborn, sustain the institution of marriage and uphold the family as the foundational building block of society, is ‘neo-fascist’.

As Daniel Hannan MEP has already observed, Labour MEPs are already ‘sitting with Polish homophobes, Stalinist nostalgics, an old IRA man and a 9/11 conspiracy theorist who travels the Muslim world arguing that the twin towers were brought down by Israel. And the EPP includes ‘a Spanish party whose leader refuses to disown Francoism, a German party that campaigned against immigration under the slogan "Children, not Indians!", the partners of an Austrian party nostalgic for the Third Reich, an Italian neo-fascist movement and several anti-gay and anti-gipsy parties’.

The accusations of phobia and bigotry must be, as they invariably are, simply manifestations of Freudian projection.

Richard Shepherd for Speaker

This man is Cranmer’s choice to be the next Speaker of the House of Commons.

It is unacceptable that there should be a third consecutive Labour Speaker, and objectionable that anyone embroiled in the expenses fiasco or who opposed Freedom of Information legislation should be elevated to the role. It is equally inconceivable that anyone should be proclaimed the First Commoner in the Land with the whipped support mainly of one party. Having forced out Speaker Martin because of his inept partisan behaviour, his own financial scandal and his own attempts to block the disclosure of MPs’ expenses, it would be scandal upon scandal to elevate someone who is guilty of the same sins, vices and crimes. With the reputation and standing of Parliament at an all-time low, today’s choice is constitutionally too important and politically too sensitive to play partisan politics with the process. The next Speaker must not only carry the confidence of the House but restore the trust of the people; he or she must possess integrity, be scrupulously moral and beyond reproach.

Richard Shepherd is not a favourite; indeed, he is completely beneath most people’s radar. But he is independently-minded, understands the meaning and importance of sovereignty, and loves Parliament. He was selected as 'Backbencher of the Year' in 1985 and was The Spectator’s 'Parliamentarian of the Year' in 1995. In 1989, he was identified by his peers to be one of the ten most effective MPs in Parliament. He is untouched by scandal, has consistently supported openness and accountability, and has not fleeced the taxpayer. His radiates humility, and expresses a genuine warmth and respect for his fellow man.

Today’s choice of Speaker is quite possibly the most significant in the entire history of the office. And it is an opportunity for Parliamentarians to break with the past. The ‘old faces’ are not going to persuade anyone that anything will change; indeed, pace Ann Widecombe, they are most likely to represent the continuance of patronage and the perpetuation of the dominance of the Executive. The next Speaker must not only promise change but must be symbolic of it. This requires the sort of manifestation of transformation which can only be attained by a discontinuous incarnation.

Cranmer is not alone in this choice.

Douglas Carswell MP is also of the opinion that Speaker Shepherd is the right man to clean up Parliament:

Firstly, his own expense claims have been very modest. Secondly, he campaigned for Freedom of Information law years before it became fashionable. Together that gives him the moral authority to force transparency on an unwilling tribe in SW1.

Better than anyone else I’ve met in four years in the Commons, Richard understands that sovereignty of Parliament is shorthand for sovereignty of the people.

Too many in Westminster see the Speaker’s contest through the prism of self-interest. They seem to want to elect a shop steward for politicians, rather than a Speaker able to restore public faith in the political process.

Richard grasps that change must also mean making those we elect effective at holding government to account. Parliament needs back its purpose. He’s ideas on how it is to be done.

Speaker Shepherd would be no apologist for indolent politicians blinded by a sense of entitlement – but he would make them answer properly to you.

Guido Fawkes observes:

It is a shame that Richard Shepherd is not in the running. A thoroughly decent man with a longstanding record of support for freedom of information who is also among the lowest expense claiming MPs. So he won’t win of course…

While Speaker Shepherd is not a likely outcome of today’s vote, it is certainly not one which should be written off. Parliament could, and probably will, do a whole lot worse.