Sunday, February 10, 2008

Bash the bishop?

This is The Sun's considered, intelligent and erudite judgement upon the Archbishop of Canterbury. It encapsulates everything that is wrong with the country's crass, superficial, unintelligent 24-hour media, in which everything has to be reduced to a 'soundbite' for the masses to passively absorb.

And here is the Daily Mail's astounding contribution to the debate, under the heading: 'Which of these men poses the bigger threat to Britain's way of life?'

And presently, the idiotic readership (or rather the readership who have bothered to vote) record 37% for Abu Hamza and 63% for the Archbishop of Canterbury. This is tabloid rabble rousing and mob mentality at its worst.

And yet, like it or not, this is the postmodern vernacular, and it is incumbent upon all Christians to communicate the gospel in season and out of season in terms which people can comprehend. It was not for nothing that the Early Church wrestled with communicating Hebrew theology and the incarnation of a Jewish Messiah to a Greek audience who understood nothing of Hebrew linguistic nuances or Jewish beliefs.

If only Dr Williams had spoken of 'sharia shame', or given them a headline like 'shirk off sharia', he would have been exalted as a great leader. But this, to him, would be supping with the devil. Much better to be theologically and politically authentic and true to one's convictions than to scratch itching ears. That is, after all, the stuff of which prophets are made, and the Lord told us that they are never accepted in their home town...


Blogger The Heresiarch said...

Bit of a logical fallacy there, Your Grace. Just because a prophet may be without honour in his own land, that does not mean anyone not honoured in his own land is ipso facto a prophet. He might rather be, for example, an idiot.

10 February 2008 at 15:17  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

"Bash the bishop"? If His Grace does not beware, he will come to a sticky end with headlines like that.
Were I a committed Judaeo-Christian, I could not but feel that Judaeo-Christ would have frowned upon it.

10 February 2008 at 15:24  
Anonymous the very pissed off mary tudor said...

Bashing the bishop is a euphemism for masturbation if you didn't know.

The wreckers within the church have sown - now see what they reap...

nuff said

10 February 2008 at 15:58  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

He was initiated as frikkin' Druid. Does this man even believe in the Nicene Creed?

10 February 2008 at 16:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps the Sun have put matters in a primative fashion but they certainly have distilled the essence of the matter.

The bearded fruitbat should of been booted out years ago.

10 February 2008 at 16:34  
Anonymous mary 'I abdicate' tudor :D said...

It's a nice day - almost spring like - so My Majesty went for a short walk & a think after last comment. Things run their course and though it's been - erm - interesting that's enough from me. If you don't get my drift by now you never will. Best wishes to anyone who would appreciate them (yes, both of you!)

A very very final parting shot - a decent man has been thrown to the verbal equivalent of a lynch mob. Most of you consider yourselves protestants,so get protesting against this. That is what you are for.

pax domini sit semper vobiscum

bloody mary

10 February 2008 at 16:45  
Anonymous DocBud said...

"a decent man has been thrown to the verbal equivalent of a lynch mob."

I missed that with all this fuss over the Archbishop.

10 February 2008 at 19:08  
Anonymous DocBud said...

"Much better to be theologically and politically authentic and true to one's convictions than to scratch itching ears."

I'm sure Dr Williams could not have put it more obscurely himself.

10 February 2008 at 19:10  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

For the Sun it is quite a thoughtful and considered headline.

10 February 2008 at 19:44  
Anonymous Hacked off with this mess said...

The tabloid response, while being short on intellectual rigour by Your Grace's standards, at least exposes and properly reflects the anger felt by much of the population towards the wider issue (that of fundamentally incompatible cultures) that seriously threatens the longer-term stability of our society.

If our elected 'representatives' won't even venture out of their bubble to properly debate this issue, we should not be surprised at the frustration felt by the electorate.

10 February 2008 at 20:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What is it with the British public? On the news last night, I saw a report where Rowan had attended a memorial service for one of his former tutors. Apparently, members of the public were out in force jeering and calling for him to resign. Whatever you may think of anyones views, what sort of sick individual heckles to make a political point at a memorial service?

10 February 2008 at 22:49  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Anon 22:49

Very possibly because it was the only time they have had a chance to express themselves. Since a protest close to the Houses of Commons or No10 is now illegal, without clearing it with the cops first.

Right now and at no time in the foreseeable future is Gordon Brown going to allow the police to clear any protests anywhere near his demonic existence.


If all the ABofC meant was a similar set up as the Jewish community have, then thats more then fine.

Except that. If this was his meaning there was no point in him making any comment on the matter of sharia law at all.

There is nothing immoral or illegal about people choosing to sort out their own disputes in just about anyway that both parties freely accept.

Private unofficial Muslim, like Jewish courts in Britain, already exist and have done for some considerable time.

So the ABofC must have been trying to communicate something far more 'interesting' and radical, then what we already have.

Therefore Dr Williams is either a truly incompetent communicator or a highly dangerous idiot.

Either these two things or a masonic founded Druid on a mission for the NEW WORLD ORDER. To help assist in the creation of a One World Religion.

The problem as I see things is.

The Cow The Ram and The Fish or should I say the Hindu/Buddist Jewish and Christian versions of our Gods creation, have no place available for Mohamed on the chart.

Therefore no amount of highly political and potentially explosive messing about by the head of The CofE P.L.C., can change this FACT of theological reality.

However much Dr Williams or myself might like very much to have found a way to fit Old Mo and our Muslim brothers in.

Or have I missed something?

11 February 2008 at 00:44  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...


Maybe, just maybe the British public, even Sun Readers, are not as stupid as it may at first seem.

After all Hamza is currently in custody waiting extradition to the US.

Williams however is one of the most influential men in political and religious authority, in the WORLD.

Hamza may even, by a third party, be able to kill a few Human beings every now and again, while making a lot of nasty noise and fuss.

However Dr Williams has the power to deliberately or otherwise, partially, or completely destroy one of the worlds largest and greatest religions. His own.

A vast majority of deaths happen when an individuals own body gives up its spirit, in its own time.

Not when another chooses it to do so.

11 February 2008 at 01:28  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...


May I beg you graces forgiveness and indulgence? For I have another point that may or may not interest.

You state.

"It was not for nothing that the Early Church wrestled with communicating Hebrew theology and the incarnation of a Jewish Massiah to a Greek audience who understand nothing of Hebrew linguistic nuances or Jewish beliefs."

This is a very interesting comment indeed. Which I think I understand, but I am not completely sure that you do.

Could you please clarify as to what you mean by this.

Using if possible, specific details, as to what exactly the early church did to help solve the problem.

11 February 2008 at 01:54  
Anonymous didactophobe said...

Anyone who comes to this country should conform to our laws. Those laws are far superior for protection of individual liberty, upholding of human rights and respecting freedom of belief than those of ANY country where Muslims form a majority.

If we introduce Shari'a for Muslims, we are depriving them of the equality that they are entitled to. Gays, women, and anyone else who provides a convenient target would be subject to abuse, torture and murder. Many Muslims in this country have come here to escape that kind of savage regime.

This is constitutionally a Christian country: that provides the basis for the Established Church which provides Rowan Williams with his large salary and fat pension. If he is uncomfortable with his job description, he should make way for someone who follows the one true Christ, who is "the way, the truth and the life".

11 February 2008 at 07:13  
Blogger Cranmer said...

This is a very interesting comment indeed. Which I think I understand, but I am not completely sure that you do.

Mr Atlas Shrugged,

His Grace is not usually concerned with people who assert that he does not understand something, but in this case, for the sake of others, he shall clarify.

The Early Church councils (particularly Nicaea II and Chalcedon) wrestled with comunicating the concept of the Trinity to a Greek audience, and to do so they finally used unscriptural Greek terms which made rather more sense to their intended audience.

What is the significance of "quod Graeci dicunt homousion"?

11 February 2008 at 07:35  
Anonymous Ap Blog said...

To the Homophobic Horse - the likelihood of any members of that esteemed organ Gorsedd yr Eisteddfod taking anything done in a silly frock in a damp field in the first week of August with any theological seriousness is as likely as an unlikely thing that is less likely to happen than normal. It's a bit like objecting to your vicar's membership of the Gilbert & Sullivan Society.

11 February 2008 at 14:52  
Anonymous Latimer said...

One would have thought a successor of Thomas Becket (Archbishop of Canterbury, martyred 1170) would be thoroughly aware that supporting separate religious courts could be fraught with danger!

Obviously, His Grace, Archbishop Williams, should have sought legal advice before pronouncing a legal opinion. The general conclusion of those who considered introducing Sharia courts in the Province of Ontario, Canada, was that Sharia courts "put women in danger". The fear was that the threat of an "honour killing" might force a woman to submit to a Sharia court against her will. Furthermore, a woman who disagreed with the sentence of a Sharia court, and who appealed to a secular court would be considered an apostate from Islam and punishable therefor by a death sentence, even if that death sentence were to be carried out by the Islamic community privately, acting on its own authority. Sharia is considered above all legal systems.

To get around the problem of Sharia in modern society, Islamic countries are gradually trying to "secularize" the principles of Sharia law, by rephrasing it in secular language and then taking its fangs out!

11 February 2008 at 17:40  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From David Lonsdale

Williams has opinions on most subjects, or so it seems. The only subject he sems not remotely interested in is Christianity.
Our nation is desperately in need of Christian leadership from someone who believes that the gospel message is life changing. If Williams wants to change the world he should be spending his every waking hour introducing our nation to Jesus.
Sadly I have never heard Williams even mention the name of Jesus. I have heard him mention Paul, very briefly. Should'nt he be telling the Muslims and everyone else in the country that Jesus is the way the truth and the life and that no man comes to the Father but by him.
If it is true that by their fruits you shall know them, then I can only conclude that Williams is not a Christian. It appears to me that he is not born again by the Spirit. No wonder the C of E is in decline. If it is not interested in spreading the gospel message, then what is it for?

11 February 2008 at 18:11  
Anonymous Time will Tell said...

Your Grace,
You may remember that I begged you to beseech York for guidance.

What was his response?

11 February 2008 at 21:53  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Time Will Tell,

York is being more than a little trappist, most likely because he realises that the next Archibshop of Canterbury is unlikely to the one who wields the knife on the present incumbent.

11 February 2008 at 22:32  
Blogger Jeremy Jacobs said...


Thank G-d we were born and raised in this green and pleasant land. Amongst the most, if not the most, tolerant society on earth.

11 February 2008 at 22:43  
Blogger mongoose said...

I come late to Your Grace's musings...

It seems on the face of it a simple mistake, the unsteady step of an innocent scholar abroad in a world knee-deep with caddish hacks and political brutes. But is not the A of C quite an operator in his own right? Unworldy folk - druids with silly beards or no - such men rarely scrabble as high up the greasy pole as has he without an arrow or two in the old quiver. This seems to indicate that we may be in the company of an error of a different kind - if error it be at all. Said error would seem to be one of simple misjudgement of the current state of public opinion. By this we mean the state of the opinion of the good chattering citizens of Notting Hill, Hoxton and Hampsteaad. I htink that the good bishop was merely trying to be a decent inclusive starter of a conversation along the lines of "Not all Muslims deserve to be quaking at the end of the bayonets of 2 Para." This was intended to begin a process of reassessment of our communal prejeducices and misconceptions. Alas, it seems that this is a step too far while the boys are abroad and in danger. For this if nothing else, the bish deserves to be bashed. A innocnet fool indeed, but not a knave, the bishop has clattered into the ceiling of his political competence.

11 February 2008 at 23:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Thank you

Yes I am sure, but that was not what I was really driving at.

My Latin and Greek are up to the standards of your average state school educated oik, not surprisingly.

The only version of the Bible I have read is the King James which is overflowing with inaccurate interpretations of my distant Jewish teaching, especially in the first five books.

(Which are the only ones in my opinion that really matter to us today.)

That seem to be deliberately hiding the true reality of how the GODS created us and why. This because our specific god, as I was instructed, is of a very different kind of character then most Christians seem to understand, but by no means all.

I was trying to see if you could help me find out when and why exactly this happened.

Why should Greeks or indeed the English not understand a direct translation. Was it just a problem with language, which it could have been. I am in no way a language expert, I have enough problems with English.

Or could there have been a more sinister, complicated, political, moral, or spiritual reason?

Do not feel you have to comment but if you could enlighten me as to your more highly educated opinion it would be much appreciated.

Atlas Shrugged

13 February 2008 at 04:51  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

14 February 2008 at 14:17  
Blogger Cranmer said...

The above post has been deleted because of an alleged infringement of copyright.

His Grace was inundated by supporters of one Iowahawk, some of whom were more polite than others.

His Grace has now copyrighted the word 'Cranmer', of which this is due notice to the entire world, so if Iowahawk or any of his followers use it without his express written permission, the same fate shall before them as he wished upon those who offended him.

And His Grace further asks that any of his communicants who wish to post contributions to his august blog do not lift the words verbatim from over-sensitive, insecure or paranoid sources whose words are never going to make them any money but who, for some reason, need to assert 'copyright' on the WorldWideWeb and then spend their lifetime demanding monies from wherever their words have been inadvertently or unknowingly reproduced.

25 February 2008 at 13:28  
Blogger nk said...

I have no dog in this fight, I like your site and Iowahawk's both and understand that you might not have been able to "excerpt" the comment but only delete it. Still, you could have taken the high ground from the beginning by deleting the comment and then posting the link or excerpt with link yourself. Just saying.

25 February 2008 at 18:02  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr NK,

His Grace never posted the words, and had no foreknowledge that they were there or indeed lifted from elsewhere. The anonymous poster did link to Iowahawk, indeed, to the precise address, but this was deemed insufficient.

It is not a case of taking the moral high ground, not least because the 'polite' (he asserts) request from Iowahawk falsely accused His Grace of breaching a copyright, with a demand 'not to reproduce in full', though he welcomed 'modest exerpts' with direct links.

In fact, His Grace did not reproduce anything by this person, and (having read his blog) never would. He threatened litigation, yet google and blogger would be as culpable as His Grace, notwithstanding that none of these parties was aware of any breach, and and such litigation would need to establish intent with a likely claim for damages.

His Grace can't be bothered with this, for life is too short, especially the second time around. And since this is a blog for the intelligent and erudite, on reflection, the Iowahawk 'poem' should have been deleted immediately, And His Grace regrets not doing so.

25 February 2008 at 18:20  
Blogger nk said...

Well, I still like both youse guys.

25 February 2008 at 18:40  
Blogger nk said...

I do remember an attribution to Iowahawk at the end of the poem in the deleted comment but it was not a clickable link or even a URL. Is this what you meant by "link"?

26 February 2008 at 03:59  
Blogger Cranmer said...

The accusation was that the 'poem' was unattributed. Since the name 'Iowahawk' was evident at the bottom of the passage (ie, it WAS attributed), and it is further apparent that readers clearly recall this fact, then all of the accusations leveled against this poor anonymous contributor are nothing but lies.

26 February 2008 at 10:42  
Blogger Angry White Guy said...

You mean you delete comments of people who support your position too?

Because I only know of people disagreeing with your claim, not that you allow such base criticism based on fact survive long...

26 February 2008 at 16:20  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr Angry White Guy,

If you read 'Cranmer's Bottom Line', discussions are to be on topic. That really is very simple to comprehend. Anything else may be deleted because that is the prerogative of the blog owner, or is that too difficult for you to comprehend also?

It is curious that you only know of those who disagree with a view posited on here, because others state differently. Your version of the truth is, of course, true, while others will assert to the contrary. The real truth may lie somewhere in between, amidst the confusing and inconsistent use of some words, but you have no regard for that possibility.

Even when it clear that the Chaucer parody was credited to 'Iowahawk' (and therefore attributed, for credited means attributed in England), the false accusation comes back that Cranmer added it subsequently. There is no rational argument to be entered into after such facile comments, because ultimately the facts will be warped to suit your particular worldview and version of the truth.

26 February 2008 at 16:53  
Blogger nk said...

I've added you to my very short blogroll (for whatever it may be worth). I think that the truth is obvious to all who are interested in seeing it and for those that aren't ... well, I wouldn't have felt the loss had Iowahawk kept his site down a little bit longer. I don't really care for pictures of Kato Kaelin and I also went to the Chicago Auto Show and have been shoveling my driveway for quite a while.

Anyway, Illegitimi non corburundum.

27 February 2008 at 01:22  
Blogger John said...

The accusation that is was unattributed is your strawman. iowahawk's complaint was that it was lifted in its entirety without permission. What's more, there was no link to his site.

What's more, you have defended yourself with false implications and lies. False implication: iowahawk demanded money from you. He denies it and I believe him and not you. Lie: you said "The anonymous poster did link to Iowahawk, indeed, to the precise address, but this was deemed insufficient." Since then I posted the truth: that the poster neither "linked" to Iowahawk nor used his "precise address" -- which is not "" These truthful posts of mine get deleted, although I am getting screenshots of them to prove you are deleting them.

Funny how posts that show how you have lied are "off topic" and get deleted, but posts on the same subject matter that support you are on topic and remain.

As for nk's comment: "I think that the truth is obvious to all who are interested in seeing it and for those that aren't ... well, I wouldn't have felt the loss had Iowahawk kept his site down a little bit longer." Well, all I can say is nk is usually far more sensible. Why he is siding with a liar like you baffles me.

27 February 2008 at 01:55  
Blogger John said...

By the way, it's your deletion of my truthful comments, contradicting your erroneous statements, that convince me you are a liar. If it weren't for that, I would think your inaccurate statements might be simply innocent and sloppy misrepresentations.

But the fact that you delete my comments, leave your own misrepresentations up, and refuse to correct the record -- that's what suggests to me that you are a liar.

27 February 2008 at 02:15  
Blogger nk said...

Because I think Iowahawk got his pund of flesh and it's time to move on. And because I mostly like this site but I don't guarantee that I won't disagree with His Grace from time to time just as on occasion I disagree with you, Patterico. As for the "money", it's easy to resolve. Iowahawk did not post his "cease and desist" email. Bishop, do still you have it? Did he threaten you with the monetary penalties of the copyright laws?

27 February 2008 at 02:20  
Blogger John said...

I didn't read his comment as suggesting he had been threatened with monetary penalties under copyight. Here's what he said:

"And His Grace further asks that any of his communicants who wish to post contributions to his august blog do not lift the words verbatim from over-sensitive, insecure or paranoid sources whose words are never going to make them any money but who, for some reason, need to assert 'copyright' on the WorldWideWeb and then spend their lifetime demanding monies from wherever their words have been inadvertently or unknowingly reproduced."

I read "spend their lifetime demanding monies from wherever their words have been inadvertently or unknowingly reproduced" as "give me money now since you used my words."

iowahawk says he didn't do that. He says: "I don’t want to belabor this, but I want to correct one addition thing: the blog owner is now insinuating I tried to extract money from him. That is complete and utter bulls***. My only request was that he either remove the comment or reduce it to an excerpt."

I'll ask iowahawk to forward his letter to me and we'll see who's right.

In the meantime, whether iowahawk has gotten his "pound of flesh" by having some guy take down his material -- which I don't consider to be getting a pound of flesh at all; what if he could have actually made some money from someone for reproducing it, if asswipes didn't do it for free all over the Web? -- I still don't understand why you seem to suggest that the blogger who runs this site is really telling the truth, and the rest of us just can't see that. He has made several misstatements, and deleted comments that point them out.

27 February 2008 at 02:39  
Blogger nk said...

Bishop, is this correct:

Here is iowahawk’s letter:

Hello, I am the author of the Chaucer parody reprinted on your site.

This is copyrighted material. I welcome linked excerpts, but please do not reproduce in full.

Thank you in advance for editing the copy back to a modest excerpt.

David Burge in Chicago

27 February 2008 at 03:28  
Blogger Cranmer said...

Mr NK,

Iowahawk is lying.

His Grace has re-read Iowahawk's first email in full, and he now quotes selectively.

But as previously said, there is no point posting in full because the accusation then comes that His Grace has added to it.

There is no winning, so no point in arguing with a manipulative and profoundly insecure liar.

In short, if he did not want peoole to 'lift' his work, he really shouldn't post it on the internet. And in the UK, if 'Iowahawk' is credited (as he was), then it is hardly unattributed, for that accusation was in THE FIRST LINE of Iowahawk;'s complaint.

And as for extracting money, that is the clear implication of threatening litigation. What else was he after in the courts? An apology? And if so, who pays all the costs?

He is incapabale of perceiving anything other than through his profoudly narrow window of 'truth', but his truth is strictly according to him; no room for error or misinterpretation at all.

27 February 2008 at 07:23  
Blogger Cranmer said...

This matter is closed.

If Ioahawk is still not happy, despite his Chaucer parody having been removed, he should take the matter up with someone who cares.

27 February 2008 at 15:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's closed when I say it's closed, pal.

28 February 2008 at 02:57  
Blogger sexy said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

14 January 2009 at 07:30  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older