Friday, January 15, 2010

Equality, race and religion

There is something of a unified theme of disparate strands doing the rounds at the moment, but it is difficult to discern if this is superficial electioneering or considered political philosophising.

Lord Tebbit warns of the rise of the left-wing BNP; John Denham MP blames Labour’s failure to heed to the concerns of the ‘white working class’; Lord Carey refers to the need to control immigration and preserve the national DNA; and sundry bishops are warning of the marginalisation of Christianity and its creeping eradication from the public sphere.

With the BNP professing to be the sole guardian of the nation’s Christian traditions, it is not surprising that the million traditional Labour supporters who voted BNP in last year’s Euro elections may begin to perceive that their religion is being routed and their culture is being compromised. When individual identity is threatened and national identity insecure, history teaches that the darkest form of nationalism arises.

There is no doubt that Harridan Hormone’s Equality Bill is causing all manner of ripples among Christians, and it appears that the Government is attempting to mitigate the effects of this odious legislation with a redefinition of the term ‘minister of religion’ in order to secure some kind of conscience exclusion. Without this, it is alleged, we will end up with a woman as Archbishop of Westminster.

Or even a lesbian.

Cranmer spoke yesterday of orthodox Christians becoming a persecuted and dispossessed minority in the UK. It is not only the historic cultural expression which is being eroded, but Christian doctrine is increasingly deemed to be unenlightened and conviction derided. One dare not offer prayer for fear of losing one’s job or wear a cross for fear of being suspended, and God forbid that one might preach that any particular sexual behaviour might be a sure path to hell and damnation.

Christian schools are now besieged with ‘equality’ directives and accusations of being ‘asylums of insularity’: their very raison d’être – that of preserving a distinct religious identity – is under attack from politicians intent on imposing upon us a moral and cultural uniformity in which Human Rights are god, Equality the creed and Parliament the ecumenical council which determines orthodoxy. The Prime Minister is the chief apostle who leads us into all truth, and politicians are the missionaries whose task it is to spread the Gospel of Man and the fullness of the means of salvation.

Cranmer can hardly wait for the manifesto catechism.

Perhaps it is time for a reformation.

England has a fine history of schism.


Anonymous J Abrahms said...

No, it's time religious organisations stopped bashing others over the head with THEIR beliefs.

Not all share those beliefs, and just because they don't is no reason for religionistas to cry foul.

Personal faith should remain just that. PERSONAL.

15 January 2010 at 10:51  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

But I presume it's ok for you to bash us over the heads with YOUR beliefs J Abrahms?

Not all of us share your beliefs, and just because we don't is no reason for you to cry foul.

Your personal beliefs should remain just that ... personal.

15 January 2010 at 10:58  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Personal faith should remain PERSONAL

If only the same were true for personal bullshit, but that's what blogs are for I suppose.

As for the time for reformation...BRING IT ON.....VOTE UKIP!

Time to punish the pigs. Doing the same old things over and over will only produce the same old results. Give them something to think about, don't reinforce their egos now, or you will be eating cake for years to come.

15 January 2010 at 11:02  
Blogger English Viking said...

Rebel Saint,

Well said, you beat me to it.

Atheism, agnosticism, secularism, humanism, etc are all 'isms' which require an element of faith to be exercised by their adherents, just like the adherents of Christianity exercise their faith, except they place it in Christ instead of in themselves or science, falsely so called.

It appears that the only form of religion acceptable to these kind of people is irreligion.

15 January 2010 at 11:04  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

DDIM 'n HOFFI said... "As for the time for reformation...BRING IT ON.....VOTE UKIP!"

I agree. There isn't going to be any reformation if we just keep changing rearranging the same old political deckchairs. The only difficult decision that remains to be made is UKIP or BNP?

15 January 2010 at 11:25  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Rebel Saint

I suppose you have to think long term. But what exactly will be taking place in the world in the next ten years is anybody's guess. I am trying to be optimistic but I am afraid to say that atrocities will be on the menu.

Reading the article from Harry's Place, which is in Cranmer's Twitter panel, I personally forgive anyone who votes BNP and subscribes to what they stand for. In desperate times, people will do what they feel they have to. In Haiti people are looting, but how can you call this looting for God's sake, it's survival.

I cannot criticise the BNP because I have been a member and I remember all too well how I was feeling. All I hear is middle class arrogance and condemnation. It would not have bothered me at the time if Griffin had a swastika tattooed on his dick because I was angry. I am still angry, but I am trying to reconcile some fragment of Christian values into this anger.

My advice is this, send them a clear message that they will not forget for a while. Cranmer talks much sense, but he is riddled with upper class conceit and he naturally gravitates to Conservatism, it fits in with his entire belief system which has been reinforced by his life story of privilege. I say 'he', but who knows.

15 January 2010 at 11:46  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Over the past ten years the working class people have been noticing change. This change has been fast and overwhelming, and it has been endorsed by all the other political parties. The people spoke out, but nobody was listening. They voted BNP but all that happened was that the well off, the educated, the comfortable, the unaffected classes, THEY SLAPPED THEM DOWN.

Now we have Cranmer pointing out in the usual arrogant and conceited way that the unaffected classes are beginning to get the same feelings, and he says it is time for vote Tory. Jesus Cranmer take a day off.

15 January 2010 at 11:54  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"Cranmer talks much sense, but he is riddled with upper class conceit and he naturally gravitates to Conservatism, it fits in with his entire belief system which has been reinforced by his life story of privilege. I say 'he', but who knows."

Upper class? Life story of privilege?

His Grace must have missed something. If he were so well-heeled and privileged, he would hardly be passing around a collection plate to ward off the darkness and devils.

15 January 2010 at 11:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Don’t delude yourself. The million people who voted for the British National Party in the European elections last June were not all ‘traditional Labour supporters’. I was a lifelong Conservative voter until June when I voted for the BNP for the first time. I shall do so again in the General Election. I won’t be the only one.

15 January 2010 at 12:07  
Blogger D. Singh said...

[Part 1 of 2]

Your Grace,

You state:

‘There is something of a unified theme of disparate strands doing the rounds at the moment, but it is difficult to discern if this is superficial electioneering or considered political philosophising.’

There is indeed a unified theme. What we are witnessing is an American-style culture war, between the Immoral Left and the Moral Right, being primarily waged in the Internet. Many of us have been studying American commentators to draw lessons on how to confront the fascist-left-liberals. Many of our arguments and slogans are being used by journalists (for example, ‘Elf ‘n’ Safety’).

But it is not only on the moral-Right that there is concern over left-liberal fascism – the concern is also being expressed by some of the best of the left-livbreals themselves. Take for example, an article by the left-liberal Geofferey Roberston Q.C. in the latest issue of Standpoint criticises the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights as being transformed, through modern interpretation (the old interpretation being based, presumambly on Judaeo-Christian values) into an instrument of oppression:

‘There is mounting evidence that the weasel words of the European Convention are damaging other basic British rights. Take the "open justice" principle, the rule that justice must be seen in order to be done. As Jeremy Bentham put it, "It keeps the judge, while trying, under trial." First articulated by Lilburne when put on trial by Cromwell in 1649, it was given definitive shape by Lord Halsbury in the great case of Scott v Scott in 1913: "Every court in the land is open to every subject of the king." And so it was, until the European Convention imposed by the 1998 Human Rights Act began to take hold, with its myriad of exceptions. It says: "The press and public may be excluded from all or part of a trial in the interests of morals, public order...or where the protection of the private life of the parties so requires..."’

You state:

‘When individual identity is threatened and national identity insecure, history teaches that the darkest form of nationalism arises.’

Nationalism is arising because British identity and culture (which cannot be discussed without refernce to its Judaeo-Christian anchorage) is being systematically attacked and stripped by the federal authorities (the EU).

Not one of us gave this present national socialist government, particularly The Father of the Peoples, Gordon Brown permission to strip us of our national identity, British. Yet, in December 2009 we were told that we were, in domestic and international law, for the first time, citizens of the federal European Union. And that our state indentity was subordinate to that federal identity. It is the left-liberals who have cheated, lied and defrauded every man, woman and child in this country of their birth-right.

15 January 2010 at 12:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Not only that: they, that species called the Socialist, handed over our most sacred and precious treasure: sovereignty to the fascist EU as if it were the lowest valued coin in the realm.

We now know that we are no longer a people. Yet, men woemn and children are sacrificing their lives around the globe for the right not bonly to be a people, but to govern themselves.

Yet, the intelligentsia of this country was warned by one of its best sons – his warning was ignored:

‘The philosophical root of Marxism is found in Hegel. So is the philosophical root of racism, and so too is the root of totalitarian nationalism. If the EU/NSU bans the nation-state, it risks leading either to the anarchy, the gangsterdom, of class, race, tribal, linguistic, or religious self-interest or to the authoritarian imposition of empire. (The scenarios presented at a seminar a couple of years ago by the EU Commission's Forward-Planning Unit all envisage some variant of chaos followed by the imposition of authoritarian "European" rule.) "Classes," in all countries, and races, in many countries, interact with each other on a daily basis. If there is class or racial conflict it is immanent. Nations are, in contrast, geographically distinct from each other. The whole point of the nation-state is to maintain at least some aspects of separateness from other countries while creating a national community that minimizes the risk of class or race conflict within the nation. That is, a nation-state is defined by the willingness of its citizens to say, "We, and only we, will make the laws that govern us, and only us."’

Bernard Connolly, The Circle of Barbed Wire

This is what happens when you the politicians, who have poisoned that noble calling politics itself: the dark sinister, filled with fear, spectre of nationalism arises.

Don’t blame the British people: they have been lied to; they have been cheated; they have been defrauded and they have been robbed of their sacred treasure which their fathers and their allies from the Commonwealth fought and died for – supported by the evidence of graves across continental Europe from Agincourt to Berlin.

Stupid, socialists.

15 January 2010 at 12:11  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Cranmer is not the personality of someone brought up on your average council estate. But if you have chosen a path of restraint then that is commendable, but to do this and then champion the devil is a privilege in it's own right; a quaint choice. The people I speak of are not so philosophically aware, they are indeed herded into their position. The choices may be there, tucked away, but they will not see them for the world. In psychological terms there are many ways to cry for help, and these people are crying for help. It is also another privilege to be able to look down and suppose that all working class people who think like this are racist and evil. It's like slapping a dog, you will either end up with a nervous wreck or a vicious beast.

If you need some cash then ask Dave, he has plenty.

15 January 2010 at 12:18  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

The following may seem irrelevant to many of the bloggers on this site, but I think it is relevant to the complaint which I suspect is behind Cranny's comment, namely the interference by the State into the internal affairs of the church(s) in the UK. (Lets leave aside for the moment the issue of government ideology being imposed upon schools or the stance of political parties etc ).
YG you ask for reformation. Indeed so for it is urgently required.
The question is, briefly, why should the State or government impose its ideological constraints upon the church (in employment policies, upon ministers, or in the internal teaching of the church in any shape or form?
A good question, but it is not as if we have not been here before.
Nearly every inch of the ground has been contested in The Reformation, and later as Christians struggled to assert the separation of Church and State with Tudor and Stuart kings.
Put simply the issue is - Should the church be free? (from State imposed jurisdiction in any degree?)
One of the first clauses wrung from King John in the 1215 Magna Carta was the ringing declaration that the Church in England ' is to be be free', and in perpetuity. Thus:

"First, that we have granted to God, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired.

Until recently, through the direct interference of the British Government via various 'gender equality' laws, that position had remained.
But the issue of independence from the State came to a head in Scotland, largely through the 1920s controversy about imposition of the English Prayer Book.
Scotland declared its own spiritual 'UDI' from the English Church and jurisdiction, which was given expression in the Church of Scotland Act 1921 declaring the Church's independence in spiritual matters.
The supremely important principle behind the Act is expressed in the following - as it unambiguously, and clearly asserts the sole headship and authority of Jesus Christ over his Church(s), and the consequent subservience of the State to that principle.

"The Church as part of the universal Church wherein the Lord Jesus Christ has appointed a government in the hands of church office bearers, receives from Him, its Divine King and Head, and from Him alone, the right and power subject to no civil authority to legislate, and to adjudicate finally, in all matters of doctrine, worship, and government, and discipline of the church"

This principle need to be urgently reasserted and declared by every Christian church in the land and, in the case of the Established Church, confirmed by both Archbishops as inviolable, whether or not approved by Parliament, the Courts, government, or the EU.
That YG, will be the first priority, and a driving imperative for the reformation you seek. Do you agree?

15 January 2010 at 12:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@ DDIM ‘ HOFFI 11:02

‘Punish the pigs’ was a BNP slogan during the EU Parliamentary elections last June.

There is no finer example of a politician with his head in the trough than UKIP’s Nigel Farage who boasted in 2009 about his £2M EU expenses gorge.

15 January 2010 at 12:20  
Anonymous Tulloch Gorum said...

Would it really be such a bad thing to have a female A.B of C? The Church of Scotland (yes, I know, land of red flag waving nutcases, the Church of George MacLeood etc. etc.) has had two female Moderators in recent times - and at the last assembly voted pretty convincingly to uphold the appointment of a openly gay divorced minister (against, I may point out, a rather nasty internet campaign with a lot of non-Scottish input).

If England has a history of schism, then Presbyterianism in Scotland is practically made of it - yet female leadership and homosexuals haven't split the Kirk of Scotland. Maybe the Anglican church needs stop fearing change...

15 January 2010 at 12:24  
Anonymous Tulloch Gorum said...

* "MacLeood" should read "MacLeod". He wisna Dutch!

15 January 2010 at 12:25  
Anonymous graham wood said...

As usual, very good posts by Mr Singh. The EU juggernaut is behind many of our troubles - i.e. the imposition of cultural Marxism.

For an enlightening read on how the homosexual agenda is being spread in the USA - do read David Kapelian's contribution. Excellent. (Posted first on World News Daily)

15 January 2010 at 12:44  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, I couldn't have put the situation better than D.Singh describes it, but I shall nonetheless add my thoughts to this and this is that we are watching the meltdown of our once great and good country before our very eyes:

1.Corruption in the mother of Parliaments- expenses scandal. All parties had been corrupted by this greed and it was shameful.

2.The Ending of the hereditary Peers sitting in the Lords- now filled with party cronies.

3.The surrender to the EU- Lisbon treaty. Britain is no longer captain of her own destiny.

4.The fascist equality laws- in attempting to create equality, the socialists are in fact creating the opposite of equality and creating a new set of Christian martyrs.

5.A faltering economy-which further exacerbates social and racial cohesion, whether this was a right or wrong policy is immaterial now, it is how we deal with the resultant backlash from sections of the community who have been abandoned by the party they used to look towards for help (the labour party).

6. The country is heading towards bankruptcy, but no-one is willing to explain this to the British people and we are tied down to the labour and liberal democrat lie about spending verses cuts or that cuts will damage our recovery. When we go bankrupt there will be no recovery for anyone; why cannot the labour /liberals see this? Do they want to live with interest rates at 20% and/or go to the IMF for a bailout?

All of the above has occurred under this current regime and I fear it will only take
Another 5 years of the socialists or the socialists and the liberal democrats to seal our island's fate.

So yes it is time for a reformation or see the country sink without trace, never to be seen again.

15 January 2010 at 12:45  
Anonymous Rory Martin said...

I too agree with his grace. As a Christian I too am worried about the road society is going down. All in the name of 'equality'.

How can you say you are imposing your views on someone else when the bill is clearly designed to impose such a secular humanistic attitude toward equality.

I would say Christianity isn't discriminatory due to the fact that that the bible says we are sinners in need of being reconciled with God. John 3:16 pretty much encompasses that Christ died for the whole world. If it gets to the stage (i would make a stand even now) that this is deemed stage then I would be prepared go to prison.

But of course following the reformed faith only God is able to save us out of our depravity.

To answer J abrahms. The problem with post modern attitudes and Christianity is that they are offensive to each other. Jesus said that 'I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.' on top Christians are to declare that message. So if there was no exclusivity then it would simply be just another man made religion.

But to put a question ton his grace. Don't you think we need not a reformation but a Reformission? (phrase courtesy of Pastor Mark Driscoll, Mars Hill Church, Seattle)

15 January 2010 at 12:47  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Lord Lave
20% interest rates?
Yes please.I could live with that on my savings!
I look forward to two increases in the base rate on the same day as happened on Black Wednesday.

15 January 2010 at 12:59  
Blogger greenalien said...

Cry me a river.

15 January 2010 at 12:59  
Anonymous circus monkey said...

Harman is the nation's nightmare school prefect! Come to think of it the hectoring hypocrite would be over promoted as such. She has never had a "real job", failed in every post she has ever been given but somehow, magically, she has taken it on herself to make us all better people. Must be one of those divine right things, mmm?

15 January 2010 at 13:13  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Manfarang, yes savers would benefit from higher interest rates in the short term, but clearly a base interest rate of 20% would imply massive inflation, which would decrease the purchasing power of your cash. So you either need to stock up on gold bars or tins of food. Or both. As this is what the socialists are stoking up for the future- you cannot increase the money supply by 300% (done via quantitative easing or printing money to in effect pay for the massive deficit Brown and Darling are clocking up on the nations behalf) and not expect a fairly large dose of inflation within a few years (2-3).

15 January 2010 at 13:23  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Lord Lavendon
High iterest rates would imply DEflation.With no demand because people would have to service their debts leaving little to spend.The purchasing power of my cash would increase.

15 January 2010 at 13:47  
Blogger Theresa said...

Tulloch Gorum,

Homosexuality has split the Kirk. It just hasn't had a debate on it yet, because it knows when it does, everything is going to hit the fan.

As for the BNP, I keep thinking of the lines, from Yeat's 'Second Coming'

'The blood dimmed tide is loosed and everywhere
The ceremony of innocence is drowned,
The best lack all conviction while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.'

When I see Nick Griffin I also think of the lines from the same poem 'A face as blank and pitiless as the sun.'

Pick any party you will, but don't vote for them. The Germans voted for the Nazis for exactly the same reasons and look what they got.

In a grim mood today :(

15 January 2010 at 13:53  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,
So this is why Her Majesty’s Opposition refuses to defend our faith schools and churches:

‘Brussels, 20 November 2009
‘Employment equality rules: reasoned opinion to the UK; cases closed for Slovakia and Malta
‘The European Commission has today sent a reasoned opinion to the United Kingdom for incorrectly implementing EU rules prohibiting discrimination based on… sexual orientation in employment and occupation (Directive 2000/78/EC….It has also decided to close infringement proceedings concerning the same Directive against Slovakia and Malta as their national legislation has been brought into line with EU requirements.
‘"Tackling all forms of discrimination – especially at work – has been a priority for this Commission and for me personally. Our legal action has led to better protection against discrimination in workplaces across the EU," said Equal Opportunities Commissioner Vladimír Špidla. "We call on the UK Government to make the necessary changes to its anti-discrimination legislation as soon as possible so as to fully comply with the EU rules. In this context, we welcome the proposed Equality Bill and hope that it will come into force quickly," he added.
‘In the reasoned opinion sent to the United Kingdom, the Commission pointed out that:….
- exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for religious employers are broader than that permitted by the directive.’

So tell me now, anyone, Bishop or Cardinal, what is the point of debating the Equality Bill in parliament?

Which is superior: federal law or British law?

15 January 2010 at 13:55  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Manfarang, I agree that the impact of a high interest rate should theoretically squeeze inflation out the economy and thus bring inflation down, but just think about how you would get to a situation in which interest rates would need to be increased to 20% in the first place.

Inflation and the impact upon interest rates does take time to show in the 'real' economy, so for the old lady to increase the base rate to something as high as 20%, you would at first have had to have a large wave of inflation for some time; during this period of the build up of inflation and the old lady raising her base rate, the value of your cash would be diminished and make purchases for you more expensive. As an addendum I would also say that high inflation affects the poor the most, but clearly as a Tory (according to the gospel of the left) I am an uncaring rotter for questioning the whole printing of money saga in the first place.

Anyway. At present the old lady has increase the money supply into the economy (or rather the banks) by a staggering 300%. Eventually this will impact upon the economy as it feeds its way through the economic system and will eventually led to an increase in prices and thus cause higher inflation (asset prices have already increased from their lows seen in 2008).

Also I did not mention the impact upon all of the above in the value of the pound-, which has decreased in value by about 30% to the major world currencies. Again this can lead to higher inflation as the cost of imports will increase and even by the treasuries own pre-budget report, we will be having a trade deficit of at least 20-30 billion, even though the other side of the coin, exports should get a boost.

All in all, this is what a socialist government does:

1. High inflation
2. High unemployment
3. Balance of payments problems
4. High public deficits
5. No ability to step up to the mark and confront 1-4.

Best Lord Lavendon

15 January 2010 at 14:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear David,

I am sure you will have seen a report in today's Daily Telegraph that your
Shadow Health Secretary has recently accepted a £21,000 private donation
from the chairman of one of the country's largest private health care
providers, Care UK.

From the report, it would appear that this is not a sum of money given to
the Conservative Party for the purposes of campaigning in the normal way
but a donation specifically to the Shadow Health Secretary's office.

Let me make clear that, at this stage, I have no way of knowing whether
this is factually correct. However, I am sure you will agree that it
doesn't look good and requires urgent explanation.

If one of the leading memebers of your team has chosen to accept a donation
of this kind and for this purpose, it would raise major questions about the
independence of Conservative policy-making.

At a time when public confidence in the political system has been shaken,
we all have a responsibility to be as transparent as possible about the
access given to stakeholders, particularly those who stand to benefit
commercially from policy decisions. This is particularly important in the
field of health policy, where there is still uncertainty about your precise
plans for the NHS in government.

For these reasons, I call on you today to place in the public domain all
relevant information explaining the precise nature of the relationship
between Mr Lansley's office and this donor. Specifically, I would be
grateful if you answer the following questions:

Do you consider it acceptable that any member of your shadow cabinet should
accept private donations from companies that have a vested interest in
their policy areas?

Have you personally vetted this arrangement and, if so, what safeguards
have you put in place to guard against any accusations or perceptions of
undue influence in the policy-making process?

Will you provide a full breakdown of all involvement that Care UK have had
in any meetings, discussions or other events related to Conservative health

What formal meetings have Mr Nash or Care UK had with Lansley, George
Osborne or you and reprenstatives from your office?

Will you take immediate steps to publish any information about other
private donations to shadow cabinet offices by companies with clear
interests in those portfolios?

Will you publish a full and detailed commentary of all communications
between Care UK and the Conservative Party?

I hope you will agree that to leave any of these questions unanswered may
further damage public trust in the political process. I therefore await a
reply at your earliest convenience.

Yours sincerely,

Andy Burnham

15 January 2010 at 14:29  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Anon, I would also like to know about why the government is funding your paymasters in the Trade Unions. Or how come in a general election year spending on government promotional adverts has gone through the roof? Is it because your party is bankrupt and if it were any other company would be calling in the administrators?

15 January 2010 at 14:38  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's too easy to blame the EU but this in todays Telegraph...

SIR – Peter Seccombe (Letters, January 13) wonders why there has been “silence from opposition parties” about “the Equality Bill being driven through Parliament by Harriet Harman which threatens to make it illegal for Churches to refuse to employ people opposed to the Christian faith in their beliefs and lifestyles”.

A European Union press release last November stated that “the European Commission has today sent a reasoned opinion to the UK for incorrectly implementing EU rules prohibiting discrimination based on religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation in employment and occupation [Directive 2000/78/EC] … The Commission pointed out that exceptions to the principle of non-discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation for religious employers are broader than that permitted by the directive.”

A “reasoned opinion” is a yellow card in EU jargon. The next step is going to court in Luxembourg.
Regardless of the Equality Bill, therefore, Brussels is already in the business of telling Churches (and hence church schools) what to do.

Because all three main political parties assure us that British membership of the European Union is a good thing, you won’t hear much argument from the opposition, especially in an election year.
Olly Figg
London SW8

15 January 2010 at 15:01  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Not sure if this is relevant to this post, but here's what Dave said in his speech to Demos on Monday:

"I think it is essential to say loudly and proudly that commitment is a core value of a responsible society and that’s why we will recognise marriage, whether between a man and a woman, a woman and a woman or a man and another man, in the tax system."

[emphasis mine]

Read the whole speech at

I suspect that Her Majesty's Opposition needs no pressure from the EU to express such sentiments. At least the Labour government has restricted its social engineering to 'civil partnerships'.

Cameron's 'commitment' to support marriage in the tax system is such that it actually undermines marriage as most of us would understand the term.

Another reason to vote ABT (Anyone But Tory).

15 January 2010 at 15:07  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

Mr Anabaptist, a genuine question- if you don't like the liberal democrats and you don't like the tories, are you therefore a labour supporter? If not labour who?

15 January 2010 at 15:10  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mrs Lady (or may I call you Bag?), if I vote, it will be for UKIP. My current MP is a wonderful Tory, who was one of John Major's 'bastards' who refused to accept Maastricht. He also steered the FOI legislation through parliament, and was an early supporter of Carswell's motion to remove Speaker Martin.

Sadly, boundary changes will move me out of his constituency at the next GE, into what has been, but may no longer be, with said boundary changes, a safe Labour seat. The Tory candidate is a new bug, who is, as they all have to be, a Cameron loyalist.

It seems to me that Cameron's Tories are almost indistinguishable in their social and moral attitudes from New Lav and the LibDems. They want nothing to do with grammar schools, EU withdrawal, serious cuts in the welfare state and the removal of government from our lives.

In a sense I couldn't care less, as they are all Caesar, and Jesus is Lord, not Caesar. In another sense I care deeply, as what is on offer is creeping totalitarianism, oppression and the destruction of liberty. Their intentions may be good, in which case they are simply useful idiots.

So, for all its faults, if I vote, I shall vote for the least worst, namely UKIP. I agree with the great Peter Hitchens, that the only hope for genuine conservatism in this country is the utter destruction of the Conservative Party.

Sorry to go on.

15 January 2010 at 15:29  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Your grace is noting some of the things I keep coming across , i think the socialist have really gone and done it this time round , very nice social leagacy for us to all enjoy in years to come .

1600 years of christianity systematically destroyed by socialist spin only to find that when they finally arrive at the totalitarian eutopian destination , that they told us all would such fun, they start saying "well you know we got it wrong"

There are a large number of people who feel robbed by this goverment , that 2007 election must look ike one of the most missed oppertunities in electorial history

15 January 2010 at 15:43  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

To fight for Christian freedom and conscience a line needs to be drawn and a firm stand taken by churches and institutions. Perhaps on the lines of the following:-

We will render to Caesar what is Caesar's, but under no circumstance will we render to Caesar what is God's.

In particular:

We will not comply with any legislation which forces us to employ staff who are not committed Christian beliefs, values and practices.

We will not comply with any edict that compels our institutions to participate in abortions, embryo-destructive research, assisted suicide and euthanasia or any other anti-life act.

Nor will we bend to any rule requiring us to bless immoral sexual partnerships, treat them as marriage or the equivalent

Nor will we refrain from proclaiming the truth, as we are commanded by God, about morality and immorality and marriage and the family.

15 January 2010 at 15:49  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Knighthawk's sentiment (15:49) is summed up in the succinct phrase of the apostle Peter and his companions when the Jerusalem authorities commanded them not to teach in the name of Jesus of Nazareth. Their reply was simple and direct:

"We ought to obey God rather than men." [Acts 5:29]

This non-compliance with the commands of men is what Knighthawk proposes. Good. He is right.

However, when the 'church' has taken the king's shilling to run its adoption agencies, it is not so easy to say, "Well, we'll carry on without your money."

It would have been better had they in the first place declined any involvement in taxpayer-funded charity.

Back to the issue: it is easy to say the we ought to obey God rather than men, but there may be disagreement on its practical application.

One view holds that we should resist the introduction of laws that compel our compliance with ideological correctness and other intrusions on our liberty and conscience as Christians.

The other approach, which seems to me to be closer to that of the apostles, is to say, "Let Caesar get on with it. We'll comply if so doing does not cause us to disobey God; but we shall not comply where the choice is between obedience to God or men. In that case, whatever the issue, we will not do as you say, but as God says. And you must do your worst."

If Knighthawk is supporting the latter course of action, then I am one with him (though I can't understand why any church should want to employ anybody).

15 January 2010 at 16:35  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Yo Your Gacieness ,

I agree there is a growing I would say hysteria in the UK about multiculturalism,a growing grumble that we have been too "nice" to immigrants in the past.

I think it's part of a greater debate in the 21st century about who people are in a globalised world, where there are fewer barriers, where there are fewer geographical locations essentially made up of the same people. It's about the interweaving of cultures and values and moralities.

That's where the panic creepnging in; people feel insecure about themselves in a globalised society.

You can't go into a society and live in a virtual bubble where you interact with people but not enough to change. We're not boxes that stand by each other but don't infect each other.

The point of human interaction is to mingle and mix surely. Many of the migrants who have come to this country have changed profoundly through their interaction with British society.

Likewise, so have white Anglo-Saxons, and that's not a bad thing I believe. It's a strength, it fosters an outlook on the world based on reality. Having such an outlook helps us deal with threats from whomever it may be.

Shouldn't a society that claims to be civilised and represents humanist morality, where everyone is equal before the law, shouldn't we care about minority rights and equality and justice.

The idea that good citizens don't make demands on the state is rubbish. Good citizens must make demands on the state, because they are the state; the state reflects all repeat ALL its citizens.

The point of citizenship is to improve life for the common good. What's been said to many minorities in the UK is disturbing: "you're a nice little community , we'll give you a mosque/school etc, just keep quiet and don't make any trouble for us." I think that's a very subtle form of discrimination and racism.

There are people in the UK who call themselves British and Christian/Muslim/Jedi Knight, but in their way stands this almost fundamentalist secularism witch wants to paint us all the same shade of grey.

I don't have any confusion on what Britishness means to me, diversity, inclusiveness, a shared idea about values of respect, justice, equality.

But the narrow delimitations of Britishness are wrong, those that say you can't be British if you're one thing and not the other. It is our strength to be inclusive.

15 January 2010 at 16:45  
OpenID britologywatch said...

Your Grace will scarcely need reminding that, as a consequence of the liberalism and preferment of women to the episcopate of which you write, many Anglican priests may soon leave the C of E to form a new quasi-Uniate branch of the Church of Rome. This is, I suspect, not the kind of reformation you are envisaging but is perhaps the harbinger of it: the (re-)formation of an English Catholic Church, perhaps, to keep the torch of Christian orthodoxy burning in England?

Maybe, then, all the manifold inequities of this present age are nonetheless working in the long run to the glory of God and of England through His almighty Providence?

15 January 2010 at 17:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...


Salute you!


15 January 2010 at 17:15  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Britologywatch,

Please do not talk to His Grace of keeping the torches burning.

Bad memories.

But surely you mean counter-reformation? Or Catholic reformation? To speak of (re-)formation raises all manner of philosophical inquiry into the manner and expression of of that 'form'.

After all, the Church of England, although Reformed, is Catholic ;o)

15 January 2010 at 17:49  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

I agree with what you say about the practical application of obeying God rather than men. The second approach is closer to scripture. Thanks for pointing out the dilemma of Christian organisations who benefit from public funding. We were warned by St Paul not to enter into binding relationships with unbelievers. (2 Corinthians 6 14:18)

D Singh,
Thanks for your support.

15 January 2010 at 18:09  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

D. Singh you seem like a well read and wise person, therefore I find it difficult to disagree with anything you write.

We are all in deep deep trouble, of that there is no doubt.

We are betrayed by the very establishment we have trusted to protect our property, liberty, and freedoms.

Yes, the EU is a devoutly FASCIST concept, and as you say SOCIALIST in all its worst possible respects.

You may ask why this is so, especially at a time when it has become clear that capitalism is here to stay, and more essential to our very survival, then at any other time in our history?

The answer is simple, and staring humanity full square in the face.

Socialism, along with its blood brothers Communism, Fascism and indeed Nazism are the love children of the BANKING SYSTEM, and the ruling elites that have ALWAYS ultimately controlled it.

The Berlin Wall did not fall all by itself, it was instructed to do so by the forces that erected it in the first place. The exact same forces that created the Russian Revolution, and made a perfect fortune from the resultant Cold War SCAMS.

Which is why post 1990, the western world is now more, not less communist socialist and generally FASCIST then it was before. Also why it will become ever more so as time goes on, whether we like it or not.

Internationalism in all its most nasty realities is itself essentially an invention of the BRITISH ruling class. Backed up, and ultimately controlled from Rome, not London or New York.

If we fail to understand who, what or where the enemy has always been, we have no possible chance of defending ourselves from the coming apocalypse. We are fundamentally subverted, radically, racially, politically, and financially divided, and so secretly ruled by EVIL.

That we have been so divided and subverted for such a very long time is of course the good news. There is very little under The Sun that is in reality NEW, including The New World Order. In fact the only thing that is actually NEW about the New World Order is the date.

Yet we are still here, and as yet remain free enough to state our case. It is sometimes hard to decide whether we are safer to carry on in ignorance, or to finally wake up to our true reality.

I prefer the later, however many self-evidently prefer the former, and quite frankly who can blame them?

15 January 2010 at 18:12  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Anabaptist - Weren't tha anabaptists in favour of holding property in common? Hardly UKIP policy!

15 January 2010 at 18:18  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Gold dinaris all round !

Its this idea that by making christianity equal it somehow puts it as the same as atheism , its very subtle how it gets stifled into fear of being prominant.

Does anyone else somedays wakes up and thinks they are in some sort of wierd prison where you are not allowed to show any love of Christianity , share the good news , we are the new heratics ! of atheism.

15 January 2010 at 18:22  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Atlas Shrugged,

Mr D. Singh may indeed be a 'well read and wise person'. He has some affiliation to the Physics Department at Oxford University, so he must be well-read. Oxford is not, however, Cambridge, so his wisdom may be somewhat lacking.

15 January 2010 at 18:44  
Anonymous MA Oxon said...

So Crammy is a cambridge man eh?

15 January 2010 at 18:58  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

I think I am going to be sick.

15 January 2010 at 19:06  
Anonymous Nicholas Proutford Smythe said...

I always thought he was more of a red brick university man myself or dare I say it Harvard or Yale(heaven forbid), rather than a cantab or an oxon. What a small world eh?

15 January 2010 at 19:06  
Anonymous Bag Lady said...

DDIM 'n HOFFI- hope it is not something you ate....

15 January 2010 at 19:07  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

We mostly sem to have somethings in common (cough) and here is a little something to amuse us all:

The Last Decade Of Liberalism In 40 Quotes

15 January 2010 at 19:13  
Blogger Observer said...

Do any of you think you are actually going to reverse anything? Are you going to reverse immigration or sexual equality or any of these other things? Are you going to recreate a bygone Britain that never was? Or are you just all having a right good huff about it.

Anyway it's a good laugh so do carry on.

15 January 2010 at 19:32  
Blogger Observer said...

Atheism is not a thesism. It's just people who don't believe in God. And who consequently think all religion is silly.

If you are a theist you believe there is one deity. We don't think such a thing exists.

15 January 2010 at 19:35  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...


Who rattled your cage? I take it you never attended Oxbridge then?

15 January 2010 at 19:59  
Anonymous Voyager said...

the million traditional Labour supporters who voted BNP in last year’s Euro elections

How comforting that Cranmer thinks only Labour voters have the urge to switch allegiance; but I must as His Grace, why he believes Cranmer knows that BNP voters would have voted Labour and not Conservative had they not been disillusioned.

It is possibly because he knows that Conservative Party membership is concentrated in Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Dorset, Kensington and Surrey....the constituency that made David Cameron leader and that people in Northern England would hardly vote for David Cameron and his Clivedon Set....but to admit it so baldly is surely to recognise Cameron's failure before the election result ?

15 January 2010 at 20:16  
Blogger JPT said...

Well it's the BNP or bust then.

15 January 2010 at 20:58  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Voyager, you left out Hampshire, Wiltshire and Gloucestershire but I get your point. Dave and his inner circle are in a foreign land once north of the Watford Gap. They are culturally incapable of understanding the mindset of any resident of a city like Liverpool or Glasgow.

Your Grace, the only hope for the UK is to leave the EU. A frequent accusation made on the internet is that the EU is tool of the Catholic Church. Given the atheist and marxist tendencies of the EU this is somehow hard to believe. However the return of caesaro-papism to the shores of Britain is not something we should welcome, but it does seems to be coming for a number of reasons. Much better to follow the Orthodox model of auto-cephalism and stick to the C of E as it is within a broader Catholic practise and belief. Those who seek to cross the Tiber for doctrinal reasons may find the burden greater than they expect. A bit like the EU.

15 January 2010 at 21:23  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

observer is clearly of a lower middle class background and was educated at a failed state school, followed by a stint in a poly university, in which he either graduated with a third or crashed out in year 2. Probably now observer is the junior in some big corporation, whose main task is to photocopy and feeling he is hard done by because he earns just above the minimum wage ,as he has a degree in media studies or at least studied for one.

A classic result of the failed education policy of Labour.

Or at this I think this is his background given his intellectual capacity for reason and debate.

I could of course be wrong and observer could be the son of an aristocrat- Lord Lavendon's bastard perhaps?

15 January 2010 at 23:32  
Anonymous Matthias said...

JAbrahms-as per usual those who say that religion is personal ,show the dung hypocrisy that is in that comment. For secularists certainly bring their religion-the centrality of man and society-into the public arena so why not Christians. And secularists are starting to show that they are able to persecute-under the guise of the law.Just like the Inquisition.
so Abrahmns get real banana peel and either you are a closet secularist or a cowardly believer not wanting the status quo to be upset.

15 January 2010 at 23:34  
Anonymous matthias said...

We here in Oz are about two years behind the Mother of Parliaments' country .If you want to see what is happening in Queensland-our most conservative state ,can i suggest that you go to 'GLOSSES FROM AN OLD MANSE"

15 January 2010 at 23:40  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

"I could of course be wrong and observer could be the son of an aristocrat- Lord Lavendon's bastard perhaps?"

Actually Anon you are incorrect in saying this, so please do keep me out of your diatribe there's a good fellow

15 January 2010 at 23:49  
Blogger OldSouth said...

The final paragraph of Lord Carey's essay should be engraved in stone at all UK entry ports, as well as (with appropriate editing) all US entry ports:

...those who seek to live in this country recognise that they are coming to a country with a Christian heritage and an established Church. Just as we should expect immigrants to subscribe to democratic principles, abide by our laws, speak English, support freedom of speech and a free press, so they should also respect the Christian nature and history of our nation with its broad, hospitable Establishment.

In my country, those who have quietly persisted in this attitude have been labelled 'bigots', 'racists', 'radical right', etc, etc.

As of today, we have no equivalent of the BNP operating. Yet.

But, if one is to be smeared with all those names for advocating this sort of sane position, the temptation to go ahead and align with a radical group such as BNP begins to grow.

It's the wrong decision, to be certain, but unless the leadership of each country begins to behave sanely, the temptation will grow.

16 January 2010 at 01:42  
OpenID britologywatch said...

Observer wrote: "Atheism is not a thesism. It's just people who don't believe in God. And who consequently think all religion is silly."

Not very logical or accurate for a supposed rationalist: atheism isn't people who don't believe in God, it's people who believe that there isn't a God - which is not the same thing (cf. agnosticism). Therefore, it is a kind of belief system or creed, if not a faith in the religious sense, even if it requires faith of another sort - in reason or empiricism.

Not all atheists believe religion is silly. Otherwise, they wouldn't get in such a huff about it. But carry on, it's amusing.

To his Grace: the paradox was intentional; but the providential hope is genuine, all the same.

16 January 2010 at 04:30  
Anonymous no nonny said...

"There is something of a unified theme of disparate strands doing the rounds at the moment[...]"

Back to Bede, then. Actually, Gregory the Great, or so D. H Farmer has it.* That's the thing about Anti-Christ: he mirrors the Christian way, but debases, corrupts, inverts, and reverses it!!!

So we have a dirty, messy, anachronistic tangle: Gollum-rumpy may well be exactly like whoever was king of the aggressive Belgic tribes in the 6th/7th century. But Dave is no Aethelbert, who gave us laws of our own in the vernacular; the ArchDruid is more like the Welsh who refused to help Augustine evangelize the English, than vice versa; Balls isn't fit to wipe the intellectual shoes of Theodore, nor is there a Mediterranean here of the mental stature of Hadrian. As for Benedict Biscop and his books: he brought the best of scholarship to us --- and set our world-class standards through Christianity. But the Book and the works of the Fathers, rhetoricians, and philosophers are now replaced by those of sick and perverted children: marx, freud, lacan, and the m-person, for starters.

In fact, this lot are really more like the unHoly Romans: they had ruled by seduction; divide and conquer; the imposition of their language to the detriment of ours; and the killing of as many of us as possible--by taxes if not by the sword.

Furthermore, the society they're pretending to weave into unity is Godless: and it was God, through Christ, who provided the inspiration for our forebears to seek out the threads we had in common: "And through Him to reconcile all things unto Himself, making peace through the blood of his cross, both as to the things that are on earth, and the things that are in Heaven," (Coll. 1.20). For a long time, Christians tried to reconcile the cultures in the island not necessarily under one earthly king, but under kings who answered to God (not that it worked, entirely, especially with the advent of the Viking!). And this el papa (ex?nazi) is like the Alexander who backed Billy Conk: Destroyer of the English and their independence, Divider of the Celts (and a descendant of Vikings).

In short, the euros and their commie agents know nothing about weaving. Indeed: they are doomed because every weave consists of a multitude of Crosses!!! So how could they tolerate it? Spin as they may, furthermore, they don't even know decent fibre when they see it: let alone understand the engineering of a beautiful and original design. All they know is how to rent us asunder and fob us off with cheap copies in artificial euro yarns: fuzzy stuff, that tries to obliterate the crosses.

I say it's time we made like the Celts who, after the Roman withdrawal, re-designed and reinforced their swords: they pattern-welded them from woven strands of steel.

Thanks to YG and respondents again!! Good to see D. Singh in fine fettle; Knighthawk and Lord L. too. I'm about to check on those glosses, btw Matthias.

*The Penguin edition of the Ecclesiastical History; pg. 27.

16 January 2010 at 08:15  
Anonymous len said...

Time for reformation?

Its time to get back to the original intention of God.
Jesus Christ didn`t come to bring us a new religion.
He came to restore mans relationship with the living God.
One thing religion cannot do is impart life,Jesus Christ the last Adam is a life giving spirit.
Many people have sampled religion and found it dead, dull, and boring( unless you happen to like performing rituals)
Life through the Holy Spirit is vibrant and full of life, this is what needs to happen to 'religion'
Satan does all he can to prevent this sort of relationship with the living God( evidenced in the garden of eden) and the constant attacks on the true relationship type of Christianity.

16 January 2010 at 08:22  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

Mr Anabaptist, you may call me by my first name which is Ruth if you so wish. To clarify there are 2 bag ladies posting on the cramner blog- one is me and I am by religion a Jew. The other is my twin, who also likes to call herself bag lady, but she is a Christian. Therefore I am Jewish bag lady (or Ruth) and the other is Christian Bag lady.

I hope this helps.

16 January 2010 at 10:51  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

jeremy hyatt said...
'Anabaptist - Weren't tha [sic] anabaptists in favour of holding property in common? Hardly UKIP policy!'

I don't know how serious you are, but here's an answer. 16th century Anabaptists varied in the degrees to which they advocated community of property. But all of them held that community of goods (to the extent they pracised it) should be within the Christian community -- the ekklesia. As with all their other practices, they regarded them as applying not to the state, by compulsion, not to the world at large as if that were the church, but to themselves as called-out communities. All they asked for was the liberty to live according to their principles.

The ruling Catholic and Protestant authorities regarded this as a threat to their social and political cohesion. They could not countenance any sort of pluralism. So the Anabaptists were ruthlessly suppressed and persecuted.

I do not see in UKIP a potential totalitarian threat to the liberty of conscience of churches. On the other hand, I see in the EU a serious threat of creeping totalitarianism. Both Labour and Conservative parties subscribe to EU membership, and in practice they follow slavishly every dictate emanating from 'Europe' as if it were a Papal bull.

In any case, as I hoped I had made clear, my support for UKIP is a protest, knowing the extreme unlikelihood of a UKIP government.

16 January 2010 at 12:23  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Thanks to tha anabaptist (tha was a typo but I rather like it) for considered response. I had in mind the article of the 39 articles (a document I regard as solely of historic interest, I say hastily) that 'The Riches and Goods of Christians are not common, as touching the right, title, and possession of the same; as certain Anabaptists do falsely boast'.

Following what you say, I suppose the key word is 'certain'.

I would relax about the EU if I were you. It's cool...


16 January 2010 at 13:28  
Anonymous len said...

The E U is a Godless conspiracy , a trap for fools.

16 January 2010 at 14:47  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

You must remember, Mr Hyatt, that the Anabaptists were dramatically, consistently and libellously misrepresented by those who hated them. As in all things, history tends to be written by the victors. Anabaptist publications were often destroyed, misquoted and otherwise mutilated.

So the 39 Articles could say whatever they liked (or disliked), and represent the Anabaptists in the worst possible light. Since the Anabaptists were harmless, charges such as community of goods were the worst thing that could be pinned on them. And even then the charge was still a serious exaggeration.

That these harmless, peace-loving people should have been so hated and persecuted says much about the strngth of the idea of the totalitarian sacral state -- a similar idea that caused millions of ordinary people in Nazi Germany to turn a blind eye to, or join in with the persecution of Jews, Jehovah's Witnesses and others.

I can't relax about the EU. It has in it the seeds of totalitarianism.

16 January 2010 at 14:53  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older