Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Kelly condemns religious isolationism

As Scotland Yard raids the Jameah Islameah School near Crowborough in East Sussex, the Secretary of State for Communities, Ruth Kelly, has threatened to close down Muslim schools that promote ‘isolationism’ or ‘extremism’. Apparently she wants to ‘stamp out’ Muslim schools which try to change British society to fit Islamic values. She says: ‘Different institutions are open to abuse and where we find abuse we have got to stamp it out and prevent that happening.’ But Ofsted had previously found this school wanting: 'Jameah Islamiyah School does not provide a satisfactory education for its pupils… It has not made sufficient progress towards fulfilling its aims since it was established… The curriculum is not broad and balanced.'

But under EU anti-discrimination laws, Muslim schools are entitled to the same state funding as Anglicans, Catholics, and Jewish groups, which all have well-established faith schools in the UK. Essentially, the British Government is constrained to fund all faith-based education equally, or to cease funding them altogether. The dilemma for any political party is that the Church-based schools have traditionally yielded among the best exam results, and they are very popular with parents. The withdrawal of state funding from these would be politically unacceptable.

But to insist that all faith schools are somehow ‘equal’ is to ignore history. Most of the state-funded Church of England schools are not ‘religious’ in the sense of proselytising. For many years, these were the only means by which poorer children could obtain any education at all, and the ‘religious’ dimension is little more than nominal. It is important to distinguish between schools with historical religious affiliation, and those that actively seek state funding to promote a particular religious worldview.

But isn’t this agenda a little hypocritical coming from the Opus Dei representative to HM Government? One Scottish bishop has stated that Catholic education is ‘divisive’ and contributes to the problem of sectarianism. There has been evidence of abuse (many kinds) in Roman Catholic schools for decades, yet they have not been threatened with closure. Apart from the Church itself, the Catholic school system represents the only significant social institution of civil society over which the Catholic community, through the Church, exercises a degree of control. Some of them might even be deemed guilty of ‘glorifying terrorism’ through their tacit support of the IRA or projects on the ‘Bloody Sunday massacre’. Is not Catholic education ‘isolationist’? What about ‘stamping out’ Catholic schools that are trying to change British society to fit Catholic values?

While Christians, Jews, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus all now benefit from state funding, what would happen if the Church of Scientology or the Unification Church (’Moonies’) wanted to open a school? Would these be deemed a respectable religion or a sinister cult? And if the latter, why should Dan Brown be dismissed when he talks of the sinister indoctrination of the Opus Dei cult? The creed of Roman Catholicism may be as distasteful to some as that of Islam, and it also has a quest for power and influence, even placing ’sleepers’ in positions of influence. These deadly agents pretend to be loyal to Her Majesty and to representative democracy, but are really accountable to a foreign puppet-master known as ’The Pope’, or ‘King of the Vatican’, whom some contend to be a former disciple of Adolf Hitler. Should schools with such a leader, pursuing such an agenda, be ‘stamped out’?


Anonymous Rick said...

Much to the chagrin of Tom Cruise Scienbtology in Britain is specifically denied religious status and in Germany is watched by the BfV equivalent to MI5 for its sinister activities in property purchases and "homework clubs".

The fact about Catholic Schools is interesting in that the Leeds Diocese has just combined 4 Catholic secondaries into one co-educational comprehensive and closed a large number of churches owing to a shortage of Catholics.

What is burgeoning is Muslims and the opening of new schools in Bradford and their domination of C of E Schools like St Barnabas, St Philips etc has led to non-integration simply because white women appear to be significantly less fecund.

As for Muslim Schools - the curriculum and inspection remain in the hands of Ofsted and it is the govt which has caused this problem.

Anyone who thinks that State Schools are in any way superior has clearly not observed how standards have collapsed since the 1950s as mad ideological experimentation has been as harmful to society at large as any divisive religion.

In fact the Religion of Secularism has proven as disastrous to social cohesion as the Religion of Sectarianism - I do not believe the bombers of 7/7 went to any Muslim school but were products of the Comprehensive system and lessons in multiculturalism, diversity, and comparative religion.

What British Society is today is the result of Comprehensive Education.............The Church created the Grammar School and The State created the Comprehensive School...............

Perhaps the Comprehensive has led to confused identities - the pupils know longer know the nation's history or religion, but the immigrant population are reinforced in their own heritage as giving them an identity as outsiders

5 September 2006 at 06:02  
Anonymous Lena Mouse said...

This is interesting. My children went to a CofE school, it was excellent. Good standards, moral teaching, excellent results. But it was open to all faiths, and they sent their children there for all of the above reasons. Not one ever complained about any 'Christian' bias, because they respected the moral dimension and agreed with it. But how many Sikhs or Christians would want to send their children to a Muslim school?

5 September 2006 at 07:13  
Blogger Serf said...

In the absence of leaving the EU (the best solution), why not just close down the bad schools. As indoctrination gets in the way of a good education, that would mean most of the dangerous schools being closed.

5 September 2006 at 08:37  
Anonymous Rick said...

I didn't know the Eu had anything to do with this - Germany has very few private schools at all, and I don't think there are any religious ones apart from Muslim Schools like the King Fahd School in Bonn funded by Saudi Arabia.

I doubt France has many religious (ie non-Muslim) academies. In both cases I doubt there is State funding. Denmark uses State funding for Imams and the Netherlands uses State funds for Islamic cultural centres..............but I think any equitable principles of what one group gets another is entitled to emanates from English Courts rather than international treaties.

The funding of Church of England schools is actually a sham - they are really nothing more than designer labels on State Schools. What money the bankrupt C of E has to put up on the capital side is given by soft-loans from the Govt at nominal interest rates over 100 years or so..............

The idea that these schools are religious schools is quackery - they are branded State Schools just as Shell and Tesco brand petrol

5 September 2006 at 09:18  
Anonymous Rick said...


the Government announced in teh summer of 2005 that the churches would not in future need to contribute even the 10% of building costs when their secondary schools were re-built. Thus the 50% contribution of 1944, reduced to 25% in 1959, to 20% in 1967, to 15% in 1974 and to 10% in 2001, is on the brink of being eliminated entirely. ................Alongside the expansion of religious 'maintained' schools the Government has pursued its policy of financing 90% of the cost of building and 100% of the cost or f running about 200 'academies' across the country.

5 September 2006 at 09:21  
Blogger Hettie said...

Schools which don't meet standards shouldn't be allowed to continue teaching in their substandard way regardless whether the school is religious or not. This way there is a constriction on faith based schools that is not contrary to any EU or British ideals of equality.

5 September 2006 at 09:31  
Blogger Joe Otten said...


Can you quote the EU anti-discrimination law that is relevant here?

5 September 2006 at 09:38  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

Joe Otten, Cranmer is right, but I don't think there's a 'specific' law, it's just that if the Government doesn't fund all faith schools equally, it opens itself up to legal challenge for discriminating on the grounds of faith, which is clearly against EU law. We've had it here with Catholic and Protestant schools being unequally funded, and laws are in place to prevent this.

5 September 2006 at 09:43  
Anonymous Rick said...

We've had it here with Catholic and Protestant schools being unequally funded, and laws are in place to prevent this.

It does not require statute and this would be the case under Common Law. The Judge decides not the legislator, especially under the system of Common Law where the Judge takes into account his own political stance in creating precedent.

In short I think this "European" dimension is irrelevant so long as a Judge in a Court within these borders is not restricted to the letter of the law but has discretion in creating precdents through case law - we have seen in the absence of any statute on divorce since 1973 just how far activist judges have pushed divorce settlements ahead of Us practice

5 September 2006 at 10:14  
Blogger istanbultory said...

When he mentions the “EU anti-discrimination directive” , I think the Venerable Cranmer is referring to the EU Employment and Social Policy Council's agreement in October 2000 to adopt a Directive “to combat discrimination in employment on grounds of religion or belief, disability, age and sexual orientation”. In terms of the scope of the directive, it applies to inter-alia:
• access to employment, self-employment and occupation, including selection criteria, recruitment conditions and promotion;
• access to all types and levels of vocational guidance, vocational training, advanced vocational training and retraining;
EU Directive: (EU9912216N),

The Christian Institute has noted that this employment discrimination directive will work in the following fashion in practice:
The headmaster of a Church school becomes a Muslim. The school dismisses him. The headmaster takes the school to an employment tribunal. The headmaster proves that his job did not involve teaching religious education. The tribunal finds that the school acted illegally in dismissing him for changing his religion.

An evangelical youth organisation recruits a full-time youth worker. When appointed the youth worker was married but she subsequently turns out to be a practising bisexual. The organisation feels unable to remove her from her position for fear of an expensive court order against them. The organisation would have no defence - the dismissal would undoubtedly be because of her ‘sexual orientation’.

A Muslim charity for the homeless refuses job applications from non-Muslims. A Hindu takes the matter to an employment tribunal. It rules that jobs within the charity only indirectly involve religious guidance. Being Muslim is not a genuine occupational qualification - it is just the preference of the organisation.

A Christian Bible publishing business wants its Christian ethos to permeate all it does. A bright job interview candidate declares that he is ‘openly gay’. If the firm reject him in favour of another candidate, they fear a possible action for discrimination.

See: http://www.christianinstitute.org.uk/html-publications/EUthreattoReligiousFreedom.htm#directive

5 September 2006 at 10:51  
Blogger Wibble said...

ulsterman writes:

We've had it here with Catholic and Protestant schools being unequally funded, and laws are in place to prevent this.

But that's due to the unique set of circumstances that is Northern Ireland - I don't think that came down from Europe, but from London.

5 September 2006 at 11:49  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Wibble said "But that's due to the unique set of circumstances that is Northern Ireland - I don't think that came down from Europe, but from London"

To say nothing of Dublin's active efforts behind the scenes....

5 September 2006 at 11:52  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

But that's due to the unique set of circumstances that is Northern Ireland - I don't think that came down from Europe, but from London

Yes, yes, all that's true, I was just trying to clarify that there ARE anti-discrimination laws affecting faith schools. They certainly exist at national level, but they are reinforced at the EU level. I was trying to explain that, nationally, the Government could have argued the 'historical' exemption for Church of England schools, but now EU law makes that impossible.

5 September 2006 at 12:22  
Anonymous Rick said...

Yes but I come back to the point that it is Judges in English Courts or whatever analogous courts exist elsewhere in the United Kingdom that make these judgments.

It is English Courts which have made the divorce settlements so ludicrous in the absence of any EU Divorce Law.

We cannot always blame Europe for what our own government and courts want............after all British Ministers are even allowed to attend Council of Ministers meetings and this is the supreme legislative body in the EU.

5 September 2006 at 12:29  
Blogger Joe Otten said...

OK there is a clause in the European Convention on Human Rights against discrimination on the grounds of religion. This convention is not part of the EU.

The idea, as has been suggested in this blog, that it should be possible to sack teachers for changing religion, I find absolutely staggering. The convention exists to protect that sort of freedom of religious conscience, as it should.

People who are against this sort of religious freedom need to realise that the alternative is that the state will decide what people should or should not believe. That is both absurd and very much to be feared.

What the convention doesn't do is require public spending on any particular religious projects, such as schools.

If it did, frankly, it would be unworkable. Scientology schools? Jedi schools? Phelpsian schools? Who, after all, is to say what is a faith and what isn't?

5 September 2006 at 16:35  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

What the convention doesn't do is require public spending on any particular religious projects, such as schools.

Surely that is, by implication, exactly what it enforces? If the Government choses, for historic reasons, to finance Church and Jewish schools, it is then obliged, on the grounds of non-discrimination, to finance other faiths' schools. To not be obliged to do the latter, it would have to cease doing the former? No? Or am I missing something?

5 September 2006 at 16:50  
Anonymous Rick said...

Who, after all, is to say what is a faith and what isn't?

No Govt in Europe shares your self-doubt. It is pretty clear that despite the efforts of the US Congress to force the issue no govt in Europe will accept Scientology as a religion.

The European Convention is not hell-bent on undermining Britain - Section Four which handles UK cases has a British Judge as chairman. when big cases come into The Grande Chambre the British Govt is represented by its Barristers yet more often than not does not defend a case it wants to implement anyway - such as gays in the military etc.

It gets a bit like Polish peasantry in the eighteenth century the way people go on about European legislation; it is British courts which implement and you will find that Germany is only just now putting through a Bill to outlaw discrimination on grounds of race or gender.........2006.

Most countries do not get so worked up as in Britain because their courts are less free-ranging than here in what judgments they may offer up because they have a written constitution.

In fact it is a ruling of the ECHR that if say the German Constitution has a provision on a particular matter broadly congruent with the Convention then the Court will accept the German Supreme Court as having ultimate jurisdiction.

5 September 2006 at 17:48  
Anonymous Rick said...

Or am I missing something?

Yes you are. The US Constitution is a far more detailed document than the EuroConvention of 1951. The Charter of the UN is also a document which binds its signatories including the UK........it too has provisions - let us look at Chapter 55 (c) but (a) and (b) area also interesting.

I do not know how often the US or UK have been sued through the International Court at The Hague, but I suppose they could under those provisions relating to full-employment, education, religion etc.

The US Constitution has no mention of childbirth which is very strange, yet the Roe v Wade Judgment of 1973 found that the Constitution permitted abortion even though statute law prohibited it.

The Supreme Court Justice Blackmun who wrote the ruling had been legal counsel to THe Mayor Clinic prior to nomination and was pro-abortion. He therefore created some very specious legal arguments to push a policy he favoured and used very tortuous reasoning to claim it was a constitutional right.

The point that must be grasped is that Judges make Law not legislatures; that it matters little what is in a treaty or a convention if a Judge is determined to push his own personal agenda.

I don't know if anyone blogging has ever been in court and see how a judge deliberately ignores evidence that does not fit with his preconceptions, or how he concocts his judgment. It is not an edifying situation.

The simple fact is that whatever is written down is subject to interpretation. Laws can be safely ignored until they are enforced.........no law in Britain says marriage is between a man and a woman, no convention specifies this either, which is why cases are brought to challenge this exclusivity - to date both the High Court here and the ECHR have refused to budge on this so the law is defined for marriage between man and woman...........until the next case.

It is Case Law that is the issue not Conventions. British Judges do not understand the EuroConvention but use it as a fig-leaf because it is broad-brush, to push the envelope in the direction they want.

It is time to see Judges as political actors rather than hallowed eunuchs taking divine instruction. There are activist lawyers who become activist Judges who change case law.

5 September 2006 at 18:05  
Blogger Cranmer said...

no law in Britain says marriage is between a man and a woman, no convention specifies this either


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’ (Canon B30, and the law of England concurs). This has its basis in the OT, where God says: ‘It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him’ (Gen. 2:18). It continues: ‘for this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh’ (v24). Although these verses do not purport to define marriage, they do describe its origin, and are therefore crucial for understanding the Bible’s teaching on marriage, which is both heterosexual and monogamous. The fact that Canon B and the law of England accord with this negates the assertion that there is neither convention nor law.

5 September 2006 at 18:31  
Blogger istanbultory said...

Fundamental principles of religious doctrine should not be re-defined or abandoned in order to placate the demands of various minority factions within/extermnal to the Church. This constant effort at inclusivity stands in stark contrast to the unity and discipline of the Mohammedans from whom we might usefully learn a thing or two on the sanctity of belief....

5 September 2006 at 19:13  
Anonymous Rick said...

I concur with you Your Grace - my point was simply that the words in a Convenvention do not bind English Judges, nor does the absence of words.............it is a strange feature of Anglo-Saxon Jurisprudence that judges MAKE law and can interpret what is not written...............

It is the legal system which has uundermined Western society because it is the expression of secularism in antipathy to religion..........and morality

5 September 2006 at 21:15  
Blogger Tom Tyler said...

While I agree with the general thrust of this article, surely there is, at this stage, no-one left in Britain who would seriously equate the likes of this Jameah Islamiyah "school" with an Anglican or Catholic school in any real sense? Can JI even be termed a "school" at all? "The curriculum is not broad and balanced." - You don't say, OFTSED! We all have a good idea of just what sort of "curriculum" was being "taught" there, I think. GCSE in beheadings? A-level suicide bombing? PhD Chemistry (with special emphasis on ammonium nitrates)?
While it might be fair to say that some Catholic schools (or some aspects of Catholic education) may indirectly and unwittingly contribute to a climate of sectarianism and divisiveness, to compare such Christian establishments with what, I suspect, is little more than a deliberate Jihadist training camp disguised as a school, is , for want of a better phrase, "bang out of order, Guv".
I don't recall any instance, during my "Religious Studies" lessons at Catholic school, where Protestantism was attacked or held to be inferior in any way. Of course, there was an underlying sense among us pupils that "we are Catholics, we're in a different "club" from those other schools", but that was nothing to do with what the teachers said; it was just part of that natural "we are in this gang, they are in that gang" thing that schoolchildren draw a sense of communal identity from.
Most of us grew out of such petty ideas once we got out into the real world and started meeting and working with others of different (or no) faiths. The tiny minority of bigoted Catholics/Protestants who still like to cause trouble on such grounds, are idiots and almost certainly not churchgoers. Such people have turned their backs on Christianity. To call groups such as the IRA "Catholics" is frankly ludicrous as it suggests that they are motivated by their faith. Neither would I insult genuine Protestants by referring to Loyalist paramilitary groups as such.
But, and here's the big difference, the radical Islamists who actively seek to shed our blood are far from "lapsed" or "heretics", but on the contrary, they are the most fanatically devout ones.

I was just rather disappointed that this article, instead of urging us to temporarily forget our differences and instead to close ranks around a truly terrifying common enemy which seeks the destruction of us all, instead chose to focus on (what came across to me, at any rate, as) a thinly veiled dose of "Catholic-bashing" and an attempt to equate Catholic education with radical Jihadist indoctrination.

5 September 2006 at 22:14  
Anonymous The jabberwock said...

Certain Local Authorities in the West Country (I have heard of Wiltshire via BBC West and Bristol by word of mouth) have withdrawn free bus passes from children attending faith schools more than 3 miles away (i.e. further than the nearest 'local' school). This makes me wonder whether this is merely to save money, or whether these (overwhelmingly atheistic and PC) Councils and Council officials have a hidden agenda.

In my elder son's experience, the difference between a Christian school and a 'community' school is in the real sense of acceptance and community in the former, and the marked absence thereof in the latter. His brief experience of our local RC secondary school was reasonably happy, and the pastoral care and discipline there was far, far better than the 'community' school to which he went following a house move to a different local authority.

6 September 2006 at 11:19  
Anonymous Rick said...

Jabberwock......it is politically-motivated when the withdraw bus-passes............it is a case of Newspeak when they say "Community School" and it has none............we live in highly politicised times where everything becomes politics because that is how The Left thinks

6 September 2006 at 11:31  
Anonymous vikki said...

That's a bit rich coming from......

6 September 2006 at 15:12  
Anonymous Ulster Man said...

I was just rather disappointed that this article, instead of urging us to temporarily forget our differences and instead to close ranks around a truly terrifying common enemy which seeks the destruction of us all, instead chose to focus on (what came across to me, at any rate, as) a thinly veiled dose of "Catholic-bashing" and an attempt to equate Catholic education with radical Jihadist indoctrination.

You can't know much about militant Catholicism, which is every bit as real as 'radical Jihadism'. Ask non-Catholics in the Phillipines, Uganda, Croatia, how they're treated in their countries. Where there is strict Church control of the education system, there is just as much sectarian poison preached as there is in Jihadist schools. Your personal experience is utterly Western, if not simply British, and the face of Catholic education here is a world apart from where Rome is dominant.

6 September 2006 at 16:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think accusing Cranmer of 'Catholic bashing' is a bit rich considering what they did to him. I'm just disappointed it's considered 'thinly veiled'. Why not be as blunt as they are about a whole lot of things?

6 September 2006 at 18:19  
Anonymous Rick said...

Yes and I should expect His Grace to be virulently anti-Spanish too after all it was Philip of Spain who was husband of Bloody Mary..............wasn't it Colin (Anon) ?

6 September 2006 at 19:39  
Anonymous vikki said...

Rich coming from Opus Dei !

6 September 2006 at 20:13  
Blogger Mission Impossible said...

Had it not been for the Catholic Church, and the Papacy, Europe would have fallen under the dominion of Mecca by the 17th Century (ref: Vienna, 1683) if not long before.

We should therefore temper our criticisms of Catholicism with this historical fact in mind.

I am Methodist. But, I would rather see a Catholic Europe than a Militantly Secular / Socialist Europe that cannot even reproduce. And, I am quite certain most of you, having thought about it, would think the same. Right now, Sweden, Norway, and Britain are under the political control of a rabidly feminist, anti-male, anti-maternal alliance. At least Catholic women are more likely to use their vaginas as a birth canal, and not just for orgasmic satisfaction (ref: Vagina Monologues).

Islam is an opportunist infection (akin to TB), that has taken advantage of the Cultural Aids that began to infect our body politic and institutions following the 2nd World War.

Opus Dei is a secret organization, as is the Masons. Truly democratic societies cannot afford to tolerate such self-serving organizations. They are not necessary. They can only serve an (often faceless and power-hungry) elite. Elites are very dangerous to the health of any representative form of government. Elites are also the logical end-result of socialism (in all its forms).

Nature abhors a vacuum. A vacuum has been created by the collapse of the Church of England and the complete loss of leadership from Canterbury. That is your "ground zero."

The remainder are consequences.

8 September 2006 at 05:26  
Anonymous Rick said...

There are more Masonic Lodges in Britain than anywhere else on earth, and that is indeed a satanic cult. One problem we have is that The Church and The Law have gone their separate ways in the past few centuries and the latter has emerged as the Secularist Religion of Laws.................Ann Coulter's book "Godless" is quite interesting in this respect for the Warren Court and the contentious striking down of Anti-Abortion laws in the US by Justice Blackmun, formerly Legal Counsel to The Mayo Clinic, shows how far Judges are legislating just as imperiously as Absolute Monarchs without public consultation.

8 September 2006 at 07:10  
Anonymous The jabberwock said...

Mission Impossible 5:26 AM

As an evangelical Protestant, I am reluctantly minded to agree with you re. better a Catholic Europe than a Muslim Eurabia. However, you do need to heed Ulster man's warning of 4:54 PM - the Roman Catholic Church is anything but tolerant of other Christian denominations where her adherents form an overwheming majority of the population.

Mission Impossible 5:26 AM, Rick 7:10 AM.

Might I also suggest that 'Common Purpose' be added to the list of secret societies, since it is not open to all, but only to those 'invited' by virtue of their position of influence in public administration or business? The difference here is that this organisation seems to be an EU-sponsored 'shadow administration', whose leading light is a Senior Civil Servant in the DCLG (formerly ODPM) - the department in charge of promoting the regionalisation agenda. It appears to be infiltrating Local Government and the Civil Service in the same way that the Nazis infiltrated Austrian institutions prior to the Anschluss.

8 September 2006 at 11:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I find it reprehensible that organisation exist where I am not entitled to membership -

8 September 2006 at 16:32  
Blogger towcestarian said...

I was educated in an English Catholic school in the 1970's during the worst of the Troubles. At no point was there any tacit or active glorification of the IRA as Cranmer suggests, in fact the whole thing was a complete non-issue and hardly ever discussed. My own views, and I believe most of my classmates was overwhelmingly pro-Britain (our nation) rather than pro-Catholic (our religion). Most Catholics seem to be able to make this distinction, Muslims it seems can't.

16 September 2006 at 11:35  
Anonymous Casual Observer said...

Religeous beliefs, or the belief in religeon, has been responsible for more persicution and deaths than anything else in the history of the planet. A plague on all those so-called 'believers' that hide behind their God whilst plotting and killing.

If there is a GOd, I bet he's cringeing in a dark corner somewhere wondering why he ever had anything to do with these morons down there...

16 September 2006 at 19:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Casual Observer said...
Religeous beliefs, or the belief in religeon, has been responsible for more persicution and deaths than anything else in the history of the planet. A plague on all those so-called 'believers' that hide behind their God whilst plotting and killing.

That may be, but that Religion like Music Like Arts are so Widespread Implies the humans have a Spiritual Need, it is rather disturbing to find that this need appears to be being Subverted by Govt in this country, what are they hoping will fill the void.

30 October 2007 at 13:47  
Blogger Dissenter said...

Bishop Nazir-Alil's comments are stimulating, as are the responses to them.

I was educated in English Catholic schools in the 60s and 70's and while they did not glorify the IRA, they certainly taught a Catholic version of history, giving the impression that all the burnings etc had been done by those evil protestant heretics. I think I was well over 40 before I realised that an archbishop of Canterbury (and a few other people)had been burned at the stake by the Catholic power.

I am now an Evanglelical protestant, and still disagree with Rome on many matters, but I cannot see any possibility of what some call 'The Whore of Babylon' (I dissociate myself form such language) recovering her former powers and prefer to regard Catholics (The Lord knows who are His) as fellow Christians, mistaken as they might be (takes one to know one) on various matters of faith and practice.

But for anyone who sees no difference between Christianity in all its flawed sects (including Anglicanism) and Mohamedanism, please just do this one thing for me, and for England. Google on 'insult the prophet'.

Compare and contrast the teachings towards antagonists of our Lord 'turn the other cheek' and Mohammed 'cut his head off'.

there may or may not be time to reassert and save what remains of English Christendom, I don't know. But in view of the horrid failures of 20th century atheism and the looming possible alternative of an Islamofascist Britain, it seems a pity not to try.

29 May 2008 at 22:10  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older