Sunday, March 28, 2010

Bishops criticise Labour's anti-Christian culture

This letter appears in today's Sunday Telegraph:

The religious rights of Christians are treated with disrespect

SIR – On March 29, a Christian nurse, Shirley Chaplin, will take the Royal Devon and Exeter NHS Trust to the Exeter Employment Tribunal.

This dedicated nurse, who has cared for thousands of patients over 30 years, was told by the trust to remove from her neck a cross she first wore at her confirmation service over 40 years ago.

She has worn the cross every day since her confirmation as a sign of her Christian faith, a faith which led to her vocation in nursing, and which has sustained her in that vital work ever since.

Mrs Chaplin refused to remove her cross and, as a result, was prevented from working in a patient-facing role.

It would seem that the NHS trust would rather lose the skills of an experienced nurse and divert scarce resources to fighting a legal case, instead of treating patients.

The uniform policy of the NHS trust permits exemptions for religious clothing. This has been exercised with regard to other faiths, but not with regard to the wearing of a cross around the neck.

Furthermore, Mrs Chaplin has been informed that the Court requires evidence of the fact that Christians wear crosses visibly around the neck. It cannot be right that judges are unaware of such a basic practice.

This is yet another case in which the religious rights of the Christian community are being treated with disrespect. We are deeply concerned at the apparent discrimination shown against Christians and we call on the Government to remedy this serious development.

In a number of cases, Christian beliefs on marriage, conscience and worship are simply not being upheld. There have been numerous dismissals of practising Christians from employment for reasons that are unacceptable in a civilised country. We believe that the major parties need to address this issue in the coming general election.

The cross is ubiquitous in Christian devotion from the earliest times and clearly the most easily recognisable Christian symbol. For many Christians, wearing a cross is an important expression of their Christian faith and they would feel bereft if, for some unjustifiable reason, they were not allowed to wear it. To be asked by an employer to remove or "hide" the cross, is asking the Christian to hide their faith.

Any policy that regards the cross as "just an item of jewellery" is deeply disturbing and it is distressing that this view can ever be taken.

Most Rev Lord Carey of Clifton
Former Archbishop of Canterbury
Rt Rev Michael Scott-Joynt
Bishop of Winchester
Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali
Former Bishop of Rochester
Rt Rev Peter Forster
Bishop of Chester
Rt Rev Anthony Priddis
Bishop of Hereford
Rt Revd Nicholas Reade
Bishop of Blackburn

One shudders to think how much money the redoubtable barrister Paul Diamond has made out of Labour's pathological anti-Christian propensity (see here, here and here), but when bishops of the Established Church are so bold as to criticise and confront the party of government so publicly on the run-up to a crucial (and cliff-hanging) General Election, one is left in no doubt (and somewhat relieved) that there is still a corner of the Church of England that is forever the Tory Party at prayer.


Blogger Ian said...

Unfortunately this in another area whre Mr. Cameron could be making hay, but with his liberal credentials so important to him its another nail in the coffin of real conservatism.

He either doesnt see, or is deaf to the fact, that there is a front line in the war on Christianity in this country and while ordinary people are manning the barricades, DC and his party have not been leading the line.

Oh how we despair for a real Conservative leader in this dark hour.

28 March 2010 at 15:21  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

YG It is a very clear, greatly needed, and not before time, letter from the Bishops and ex Apb.
The only pity is that the principle of defending Christian liberty had not been upheld by the national church months, even years, ago, in similar fashion.
It has been left largely to the doughty opposition of groups such as the Christian Institute, and Christian Concern for our Nation. But better late than never!

The reference to the 'Conservative party at prayer' and similar sentiments is completely misplaced and a worn out cliche.
IMO the Tory party per se is as secularist, anti-Christian and regardless of Christian liberty as its political opponents.

28 March 2010 at 15:22  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

What Graham Wood said. Especially the last paragraph. I cannot fathom why you are so deluded over this YG, but it's getting rather amusing that you think if you say it often enough that you might make it be true. You are starting to sound like Pinocchio looking for the Blue Fairy.

28 March 2010 at 15:29  
Anonymous British Shorthair said...

Your Grace,
The signatories of this letter were Bishops, and one might expect them to support the public wearing of crosses. The letter says nothing about the Conservative Party, at prayer or otherwise.

28 March 2010 at 16:35  
Anonymous Stop Common Purpose said...

Good heavens! Some CofE bishops who appear to possess spines.

28 March 2010 at 16:52  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Looking in a local church yesterday I noticed a Guidebook to Christian Accommodation, B&Bs etc. I had no doubt such a booklet existed because it is the one I believe gay activists and troublesome Muslim shroud-wearers refer to when preparing their entrapment of Christian hoteliers with connivance of media and Equalities Commissars.

In any other area such victimisation would be punishable, but rather like the German Democratic Republic this Socialist Republic hunts down Christians with the enthusiasm of a Witchfinder

28 March 2010 at 16:59  
Anonymous Oswin said...

It's a tad ironic that the only party to out-rightly favour Christian iconography, if not actual precepts(?)is the BNP.

28 March 2010 at 17:03  
Anonymous len said...

Whilst many in the U K claim to be Christians there are few who think their faith worth standing up for.
There is a war going on where Secular forces wish to completely subjugate Christianity.
Although some party leaders have claimed to be 'doing God'this seems to be in name only with no real commitment.
It is time for the real church of Jesus Christ to awaken from its stupor and to start making an impact on society.

28 March 2010 at 18:00  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

The Bishops are quite right in speaking out, but where have they been for the past umpteen years I hold them equally culpable for the unchallenged rise of Islam in this land. They seem to approach the matter as if ‘it’s a faith, and we need all the faith we can muster’ crap’ Your Grace lets forth at Labour with this rather hysterical outburst, with all the spittle flecked commitment of a Southern States red-neck travelling preacher-man, but that should not be the target here.

You helpfully suggest the reader to examine Labour’s pathological anti-Christian propensity (see here, here and here) So I did just that, only to find no mention at all, that these incidents were in any way attributable to the accused miscreants as you suggest.

The issue concerning the school girl from the Millais School, was in breach of the school ruling on the wearing of jewellery – in this case a finger ring; wherein It clearly states:-

This is not part of school uniform and MUST NOT BE WORN.
Girls with pierced ears may wear one pair of plain ear "studs" - which must be removed for P.E.
Other studs and piercings, including nose and tongue studs are not permitted.

Her case centered around interpretation of Article 9 of the European Convention of Human Rights guarantees the right to ‘manifest’ religious beliefs. Europe sticking its nose in our affairs again.

I don’t think the Labour Party wrote the schools regulations or can be ‘blamed’ if that’s the word, for this ‘outrage’.

The second case concerns a maths teacher of children with varying degrees of health concerns both physical and psychological. She was technically a supply teacher with no contract of employment. She was paid £25 an hour plus mileage to teach maths - not RI. She used the time bought by the local authority raising the subject of her faith in someones home, saying she believed God had saved her life. If she wants to believe that fine - leave it there.
Why did she not just stick to her role as a teacher instead of siezing a golden opportunity to prosletyse on the backs opf the local tax payer? Was she infering that without adopting her belief the woman’s child would suffer?
'Mrs Jones was then called in by her managers who told her that ‘sharing’ her faith with a child could be deemed to be bullying and informed her that her services were no longer required. She was out of order and moonlighting on the ‘firm’s time’. The complaint was made by the parent which I think is fair enough – the authority had to chose between her and her methodology and a complaint by a local tax payer.

Again no suggestion of involvement by the Labour Government

And thirdly, the no doubt kindly nurse who said she has seen her supplications “have real effects on patients”,… including one whose urine infection cleared up days after she said a prayer; Excuse me? she was in clear breach of her professional code which stated:-that 'you must demonstrate a personal and professional commitment to equality and diversity' and 'you must not use your professional status to promote causes that are not related to health'."

Forgive my cynicism, but I doubt whether all nurses if any, would have been taught to equate the power of prayer to interventional medical remediation. What about the patient who may have died or bereaved relatives traumatised because there was no one to pray for her – Come of it Your Grace – this nurse was confusing her professional status with her private beliefs – not on Sire.

I have no love for this present government or the raft of politically correct diktats emanating from local authorities or the NHS. I hope the lady wins her case – I really do,but the Bishops have to be prepared for all sorts of parity claims in the future. These are the people who have let this country down and are more genuinely deserving of your ire.

I've gone on a bid here, but I felt that I should show willing in following Your Graces direction and not simply wishing to re-open old threads.

28 March 2010 at 18:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I suppose the NHS would rather pay compensation than have a violent incident because a religious fundamentalist 'took offense' and bombed the hospital.

A few years ago Exeter narrowly missed what used to be common in Israel, A bomb in a restaurant frequented by children....

28 March 2010 at 18:18  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Further to Oswin’s remark about the BNP and Christian iconography, Nick Griffin talks about Christianity at the beginning of this video; it’s part of his debate with the Revd George Hargreaves of the Christian Party.

28 March 2010 at 18:29  
Anonymous Tancred said...

Its very simple really.

All the Archbishop of Canterbury and the most senior UK Catholic Bishop or, better still, the Pope need to do is jointly write to the Government and state emphatically that wearing a cross, visibly, around the neck is a fundamental expression of Christian Faith.

The Government will be unable to argue otherwise (at the risk of losing all electoral support from Christians) - nor their political appointees in the Law.

My question is simply this - "why haven't they done so already/".

28 March 2010 at 19:12  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

I'm sorry but what does this story have to do with Labour in any direct sense?

'Bishops criticise Labour's anti-Christian culture'

Erm, where in the letter is that?

28 March 2010 at 19:57  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

Johnny Rottenborough said...

//Further to Oswin’s remark about the BNP and Christian iconography, Nick Griffin talks about Christianity at the beginning of this video; it’s part of his debate with the Revd George Hargreaves of the Christian Party.//

28 March 2010 18:29

I've just watched this video (on Genesis TV) - and I can't help comparing the anchorman's thoughtful and incisive questioning of Mr Griffin with Dimbleby's performance in playing to the baying, witchhunt-following mob when the BNP leader took part in Question Time last October.

The reaction of the (diverse) audience was informative too: restrained applause when they thought Griffin had made a valid point, silence when they were less impressed with his responses. Compare this with the jeering, the booing and the catcalls from the average QT audience, and the interruptions from other panellists (and not just on the programme Griffin appeared on) when anybody dares say anything they strongly disagree with.

It seems that the MSM is becoming less and less capable of holding grown-up debates in which contributors can say what they think without fear of being shouted down, and politicians don't simply use their opportunity to speak to launch into partisan party diatribes which often have no relevance to the question asked.

Perhaps there's a lesson to be learned here: let's support what might be termed the "niche" media a little more, and the MSM a little less. Even the BBC has to respond to lower viewing figures these days.

One further point about the video, however - it's a shame that it cut off before we really heard anything of the Rev Hargreaves' views.

28 March 2010 at 20:01  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ John Malcolmson (20:01)—The whole debate between Nick Griffin and George Hargreaves can be found on these YouTube videos:

Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7, Part 8, Part 9.

28 March 2010 at 20:37  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Tancred said...
'All the Archbishop of Canterbury and the most senior UK Catholic Bishop or, better still, the Pope need to do is jointly write to the Government and state emphatically that wearing a cross, visibly, around the neck is a fundamental expression of Christian Faith

Were they to do so, it would mean that in their opinion I am not a Christian. I do not subscribe to the idea that wearing trinkets has anything to do with Christian faith, and I think this is an absurd fuss worked up by people who don't seem able to think clearly.

Jesus said that if anyone wished to be his disciple, they should deny themselves and take up their cross. This isn't met by wearing a gold trinket. It is met by a life of self denial.

Let religions moan about persecution, not Christians. When Jesus went as a lamb to the slaughter, he opened not his mouth. And before you ask, no, I don't see Christianity as a religion. It is a way of life. All those pagan and semi-pagan phenomena are religions.

The apostle Peter wrote:
'Dear friends, do not be astonished that a trial by fire is occurring among you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice in the degree that you have shared in the sufferings of Christ, so that when his glory is revealed you may also rejoice and be glad. If you are insulted for the name of Christ, you are blessed, because the Spirit of glory, who is the Spirit of God, rests on you. But let none of you suffer as a murderer or thief or criminal or as a troublemaker. But if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but glorify God that you bear such a name.'

Get that? If you are persecuted, don't be astonished; rejoice and be glad. You are blessed.

Don't moan and whine about it. Don't write letters to the press. Don't keep saying it's not fair.

But this isn't even persecution. No Christian can complain that it is part of their Christian duty to wear a little cross. So they can't complain that they are being persecuted for righteousness' sake if somebody tells them off for doing so.

When Peter wrote about a trial by fire, he wasn't talking about some trifling bit of jewellery.

The problem is that institutional Christianity has had things all its own way for so long that it whines and squeals when it finds them otherwise.

Get real, friends.

28 March 2010 at 20:45  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ John Malcolmson—For completeness’ sake, here are three videos that show excerpts from the phone-in that followed the Griffin-Hargreaves debate. The first video, ‘Emails and Phone-in’, contains this statement by the presenter:

❛A lot of the people of this country…they’re looking for leaders that will express their own personal views. They are concerned about Islamic militants and nobody’s saying a word. So, when you get someone like Nick Griffin come out and say it, obviously you’re going to get people that will support him because a lot of the things he was talking about made a lot of sense—sex education in schools, so many things he was talking about. These are the things the Christian leaders should be talking about. But they keep quiet.❜

Emails and Phone-in, Emails and Phone-in Part 1, Emails and Phone-in Part 2.

28 March 2010 at 20:53  
Anonymous Happyness Stan said...

Please try to read the following very carefully. I will try my best to be as concise as possible, given that the subject in question is a very large, as well as a very complicated one.

We are being CONNED yet again.

When things do not seem to make sense, for example when politicians, scientists or priests seem to be acting against their own interests or devotees, be absolutely 100% assured that a high up CONSPIRACY is very much afoot.

A conspiracy so high up the pyramid of power that hardly any one has eyes to see it.

Religion is safe, very safe. That does not mean your particular brand of religion is safe, far from it.

However the greatest, most powerful and universally spread religion of them all is far safer then investing in houses will ever be.

I hope we can now clearly see that post the so called fall of the Communist block, capitalism has now got infinitely more overtly into bed with Communism then ever before. Thus creating soon to be eternal jack-boot in the face FASCISM.

Thesis, first creating, then opposing, then combining with anti-thesis, so to create the long intended synthesis.

Well to cut an extremely long story as short as possible. The exact same powers that conspired to achieve the above are now well embarked on doing the same to the worlds religions.

The Christian Church ultimately represented by the RCC (thesis) combining with the Islamic establishment (anti-thesis) to create a single world church authority covertly or otherwise completely controlled by the people who control The Pope in Rome.

Given the inherent problems involved with such a seemingly improbable outcome the powers that be have a plan. ( Warning this is not a nice plan, therefore please feel free to miss the following bit out, if you are of a nervous disposition.)

A World War of sorts is planned between the Christian/Judaic world and the Islamic one. The last 60 or more years have been used to build up the backdrop. The last 8 or so the excuse or rational for mass ritual sacrifice on a yet unseen scale.

It may not come down to this apocalyptic end of times, but it very well could and in the not too distant future.

This has been done before during living memory. Jews were DELIBERATELY encouraged to settle in 1920-30s Germany. Then the state turned big time, and very nasty indeed.

The same things are happening here, with the rise and rise of the BNP, and overt anti-Islamic and anti-Jewish sentiment all over the country.

We are being SET-UP by forces we can't see, have never voted for, and don't understand, for perhaps a bigger fall then even 1940's Germany.

Please be reminded that back then they only had larger and larger amounts of TNT to play with. This time the proverbial THEY have things that make the carpet bombing of Dresden look like a small bag of sparklers that got just a little out of control. Or indeed the Great Spanish Flu Epidemic look like half a sneeze on a bright summers day.

Please try your best to see current events in the above context, and I am sure things will make at lot more sense, if not at all a nice type of sense.

28 March 2010 at 22:12  
Anonymous len said...

For a believer persecution is inevitable, we are after all behind enemy lines so to speak.
But Christians must be allowed to express their faith, to preach the gospel and more and more restrictions are be placed against this.
I as an established believer would go to prison if necessary for express my faith but I believe new believers might be intimidated by hostility shown towards them.A cross may be a 'trinket'to you but to others it may be the only way to express their faith.

28 March 2010 at 22:15  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr len, you tell us that:
'...Christians must be allowed to express their faith, to preach the gospel and more and more restrictions are be placed against this...'

Why? What eternal law declares that Christians must have freedom? Did not the gospel flourish under Roman persecution? And they were all 'new believers'.

If a trinket is indeed the only way to express faith, then the Christian faith is in a very sorry state, and it is not persecution we should be worrying about.

28 March 2010 at 22:23  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I think the bigger issue is not whether we should be allowed to show to others our faith through small chains (I myself wear a small crucifix, though I've never had anyone object to it), but whether we are allowed to spread the Gospel. Whether it is sought that no Christian may overtly show his faith through symbols is one smaller issue. When we are banned from praying for/with people, or spreading the faith in our own country, that is when we must make our stand.

The secularists claim it is completely reasonable to ban all faith from the public sphere; that it is a private matter to be kept away from schools and governance. It is unreasonable for two reasons. One because without the ability to teach our children the faith, Christianity will become extinct (the true intention of the secularist) and two, it is completely anti-thetical for us to hide our lights under bushels. If we stopped attempting to bring others to the faith, then we would be accused of hypocrisy. They would make the argument that, if Jesus was so great, why don't we spread his message. Are we the only ones that he is good enough for? It is the great hypocrisy of the secularist, that we, the faithful, are wrong in whatever we do.

It is also interesting to note that the tactics of the rabid anti-religious bodies in our nation only work against the peaceful religions. They only fuel the rise of Islam, which fills the spiritual vacuum left by the death of Christianity. One could compare it to use of antibiotics. You may remove a few of the pathogens, but you will also remove far more of the beneficial organisms, whose place will only be taken up by the more obstinate creatures.

It won't be too soon before we become an oppressed minority in this country. The great tactic of the Bolsheviks was to diagnose political dissenters as mentally ill. I already see Christians as being accused of believing in fairy tales and of being unreasonable, irrational and illogical. Just like in Soviet Russia, there is never any justification for these accusations, yet they are allowed to stand.

We argue over small, though relevant things, but we forget the big picture. We are distracted; bogged down by the small battles, and we forget the bigger one.

28 March 2010 at 22:51  
Blogger aj said...

Is this a claim of religious persecution? It seems a little overwrought to me. It might be worthwhile to save the cry of "victim" for when it's really needed.

28 March 2010 at 23:05  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

It is true that the faith managed to flourish despite Roman persecution, but surely, if it could be prevented, you'd rather not go back to such days? In a Christian country we should be allowed to express our faith. No wonder the Islamic world looks on the West with such disbelief. We claim to be Christian, though we persecute Christians.

Yes, some people want to show their faith through a 'trinket'; why should we say that it is such a problem. Is it not possible to show one's faith through Christian actions as well as jewellery?

I fear that such regulations are gateway laws. We allowed abortion for rape and mortal health issues and now we have abortion on demand. The same is happening with euthanasia and it is now happening with Christian persecution. We should not lose sight of the bigger picture, but I still think we should oppose superficial discrimination as it will most likely lead to worse treatment.

Jesus never claimed that we should simply accept assaults and persecution. The 'turn the other cheek' speech was about clever non-violent resistance. If a man strikes you with the back of his right hand, it is because he is your superior. If you offer your other cheek, then he must strike you with his palm (which would make you equals) or with his left hand (which would make him unclean). When we fight this we need to be clever, we can find a way to turn the hypocrisies and the injustice against those who wish to do us harm.

28 March 2010 at 23:06  
Anonymous not a machine said...

The palm sunday service was I found very moving , the discussions at the last supper ,who would betray who would be the greatest , Jesus retiring on the mount of Olives to a stones throw to be in prayer , Judas kiss ,Peters cutting off the centurions ear , Jesus healing it back , some scourging by authority and still the crowd pleaded for Barabas and the curious work of Joseph of Armanthea .

Lark Rise to Candelford was also moving , love lost ,save the postal office , lost sentimental goods properly returned a saviour of sorts.

I realised that the churches telling of the story , was not just a replay of a much loved drama .Christs story speaks powerfully in a confluence of power and indifference .

Lord Carey makes the case of an item of jewerllery shaped as a cross , This goverment do not wish for any personal items of not being state compliant being on display or promoted . One could not see much difference to Stalin or Pol Pott in underlying ideaology.

As if jewerllery worn under clothes is a threat to patient care , when people die due to government beaurocracy.

The fabian crooks of course do not want people to think too much for themselves ,Christianity is opposed to them yet like Herod or Pilate they can find nothing wrong to sentence it to death (yet) , so they work round the edges , banning it in schools , funding counter propoganda , declaring other ideas greater whilst portraying the church as lesser .

I often wonder how terrible it must be for a fabian to consider why christ has meaning , or for them to discover it is not just attachement to the words , and the baked bean tins and string device compared to the busy enslavement of broadband superfast knowledge.

Free Barabas ! I think he got elected in 1997 , as the Torys got sentenced along with Christ, "This man has commited no crime" said one of the prisoners crucified along with Christ .I thank Lord Carey for all his good work , the Church of England may yet find there way out of the sawmp that this goverment has sent them into, let us hope some lights begin to go on in theological minds that have been put to sleep or led astary.

29 March 2010 at 02:57  
Anonymous no nonny said...

At last, as the previous poster might suggest: a glint of light.

I agree that we Christians have to be aware and knowledgable about our use and understanding of Christianity ...
Thus I'm grateful to Lakestar for the explication of "turn the other cheek." Perhaps we should also look to the history of the Cross as an emblem - and its adaptation and meaning for Christians.

Careful analysis can reveal that modern (latter day-commie) adaptations of all our traditions are superficial; they lack understanding of finer applications and deeper thinking. That's one of the differences between Christianity and commiedom: Christianity liberates the individual and encourages thought: commies, as we are experiencing presently, suppress all freedom and individuality.

In brief, I believe their Graces and all our teachers have much to gain by reminding us that the Cross (not necessarily the crucifix) refers to the Incarnation as well as the Crucifixion: that it is an abstract representation of Christ Himself, and that it can extend to include every aspect of His combined Divinity and Humanity while on earth. Furthermore, since every rectangle extends a Cross from its corners, the Cross also projects a reference to the ancient idea of the Quaternity (height, breadth, depth and width) of the Universe: the infinity, the all-encompassing Love and Power of God. Overall, it represents the Way, the Truth, and the Light; and it heals our error and our blindness, and everything that it represents protects us against evil. No wonder Anti-Christ has such a problem with it!!!

Ultimately the Cross binds, frames, and infuses everything that Anti-Christ tries to control: including its evil self (cf St. John). Why, look: even if he puts us in chains - he still must use crosses to do it.

29 March 2010 at 05:19  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Oh - and I forgot to mention the 'Gold' of that trivial trinket - the precious metal signifies Spiritual Glory. Now I quite see that, in hard times, the gold might sometimes be turned to other charitable purposes: but if it is a gift from one soul to another, then who is to say that is not Charity? Better Charity than taxes exacted by Rome or brussells, for example?

29 March 2010 at 05:43  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Sorry to post thrice, especially as the others were long. I feel constrained to make a point about rhetoric, though. At the very least it relates to the Cross in that it is cross-cultural, in addition it is deeply rooted in Judaeo-Christianity. Once more: Anti-Christ appropriates, subverts, debases and pollutes the concept.

I believe our evangelists should respond by spreading knowledge of the rhetoric that Christians have developed throughout western civilization. For the last 2,000 years, we have practiced and polished the principles that we derived from, and share with, the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans; and, from the 7-9th centuries, British (and English) Christians played an essential role in the preservation and propagation of those traditions.

Analysis reveals that commie appropriation of the traditions rejects the finer understanding and the deeper thinking that exercises in rhetoric elicit. That's the difference between Christianity and commiedom: Christianity encourages thought and learning, and so it liberates the individual. Commies, as we see, suppress and confine all freedom and individualism. In destroying Christianity, in depriving us of the facts of history and the principles themselves, they say: “Who do you think you are to imagine that you can think about or evaluate anything? We’ll tell you what the facts are, and what they mean....”

The application of Paradox, as Stan explains it, is a case in point. A paradox consists of two facts or arguments about one topic that are both true, but which simultaneously contradict each other; right? That is, Thesis/Anti-thesis.

The great Christian Paradox is that God became Man in order to save Man/Man ‘killed’ (crucified) God. For Christians that Paradox contains its own Resolution. Firstly, we cannot ‘kill’ God. Instead, the Ultimate Human Sacrifice (of God-made-Man) effects the synthesis of Redemption. It buys back - spiritually and physically - Man’s chance for freedom from Evil.

How then does Stan’s ‘Fabian’ paradox compare? Here Fascism uses force and economic power to consolidate the politics of Communism/capitalism. Here an invisible oligarchy coerces (buys) a Puppet in Rome to enforce the 'amalgamation' of Christianity/Islam. The commies Enforce - they hammer together a Socio-Economic hegemony. They Consolidate an invisible oligarchy on the Anthropocentric hell-hole where, as someone suggested the other day, the rest of us whizz about pointlessly.

Here there is no gift of Freedom; here is no grace-full ‘resolution.’ Here is no right (individual or national) to participate in, or take responsibility for, Freedom. In fact: commies simply re-present the evil, fallen side of the Christian Paradox; they re-enact the Crucifixion. So here is not even a Paradox, for: Evil is made man/Anti-Christ crucifies Christ. Here is only “Do as I say, and as I do. Or I’ll make your ‘fairy-tale Devil’ look like a Pussy-Cat.”

No wonder they can't face the symbolism the Cross.

29 March 2010 at 07:49  
Anonymous Voyager said...

We claim to be Christian, though we persecute Christians.

They of course define all Whites as "Christians" as if it is an ethnic group rather than The Elect.

The problem is Marxism and the way it infected clergy many of whom simply took Theology because it was easy to get into University in days of restrictive numbers.

They rather like the secular priesthood of Marxist claptrap which made them able to associate with the politicos and English Lit undergraduates on an even keel

The 'open access' Christianity propagated in The West is alien to Christianity which is more a membership group than a public square open to all-comers.

The breakdown in structure and form in Western societies is quite extensive and the manipulation employed to destroy boundaries and undermine authority structures almost institutionalised.

This is why Christians are more likely to be found outside churches than inside just as Gallilean Jews were the excluded and not part of The Temple.

Christianity is far more extensive than Marxists or Muslims care to admit, being the world's largest religious group with China likely to provide the largest Christian congregations on earth.

It is simply that the British are intellectually and physically lazy and have lost any will, determination or backbone: they are decadent

29 March 2010 at 07:52  
Anonymous Trencherbone said...

How long before the crucifix is classed as pornography under Shariah?

29 March 2010 at 09:40  
Anonymous Rowan said...

Good to see that Carey has some cohanas.I don't.

29 March 2010 at 09:45  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

One small corner of the Church of England speaks out against Socialism’s persecution of Christianity.

One wonders, where is the ‘centre-piece’? The Archbishop of Canterbury. Has he, as His Grace sometimes suggests, gone Trappist?

When will the Church of England abandon its 1970s’ pro-EU position? When will it realise that behind the laws passed by New Labour sit the impulsion of European Union directives?

29 March 2010 at 09:46  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

Johnny Rottenborough

I'm obliged for the links - thanks.

29 March 2010 at 09:47  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

They said...
“This is yet another case in which the religious rights of the Christian community are being treated with disrespect.”

Herein lays the problem. Because religious belief has been treated with respect in the (now distant) past the clergy is miffed because that is increasingly not now the case. As a Unicorn believer I am not allowed to wear my beloved unicorn medallion outside my uniform but no-one if defending my rights. By default respect should of course be conferred on an individual but not on a belief. Why should belief in your magic deserve respect when mine doesn’t?

The nurse has every right to pursue her beliefs privately but in a hospital these should be kept to herself. If a patient requests the ministry of a religious official let them ask for a priest, not a NHS chaplain currently paid for out of my taxes. There must be thousands of CofE clergy with dwindling or non-existent congregations and nothing much to do who could fulfil this role at the church’s own expense of course.

What the bishops are really worried about is the fact that this supine government has allowed religious privilege to extend to other faiths thus denying them the exclusivity of their own position. What this county needs is for all religious influence and privilege to be reduced so that we can make a success of this life rather than worrying about the next.

29 March 2010 at 10:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry for this late late awakening from the Church. For many years I was not happy with the way lord Carey carried on with his quest to accomodate other faiths when he was in office. I believe when you make overtures for friendships people interprete it as weakness. I have always felt unhappy with his strenous efforts to accomodate the others whilst they were exploiting the situation to their advamtage - they took every thing, did not yeild anything. The Government I believe has no set policies but merely read the cue from the Church who were in essence preaching integration and less evangelism on their part whilst opening the doors for others to occupy the open space. Why is it only now that the Church has woken up to speak when they sat on their hands and did nothing to keep schools assemblies, defend the PC on Christmas cards to read seasons greetings not merry christmas. Do not blame the Government cast the moat from your eyes so that you can see the beam in your brother's eye.
If you now want to campaign on religious instruction for schools and see how the youth crimes will fall. No one knows now any rules that keeps society in fear of retribution. If you vacate the field those who are interested will occupy it. The COE decided to sell churches,to dampen down christianity and sell its soul so as Easur sold his birth right for a pot of porridge so we solds our rights and priviledge for inclusiveness. I am after all an African but despair at the way those who took christianity to us have capitulated to modernism and progress. I am happiest when I go to a church where I here the words of the king James version it warms my heart.
Oh England your traditions are beautiful let us worship the Lord and preach his words as in the books of John James Matthew so that they who will hear it will glorify my Father who is heaven. I Holy week let the light so shine on us that they will glorify our father in heaven. The Church evangelists not the state to do it for them. when was the last time I saw a COE preacher on a soap box since Lord Runcie's challanges on inner cities poverty. The Church has been silent for a long time it is time to come out and see where they went wrong and repent. I am not a theologian but a concerned Christian.
I end with a much loved phrase:"Since Christ is at the vessel he shall surely smile at the storm" Go out and spread the word do not be afriad or ashamed to declare the name of Christ as the Son of God. That he died on the cross and ascended to heaven -evangalise you have not got a captive market. The church now is like a whispering brigade we need to hear the church bells again peeling, the fire and breamstone preachings the rocking in the isles. God in his infinite wisdom gave me Christianity I will serve that to the end, each to its own

29 March 2010 at 10:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graham your argument on the Nurse and her cross is missing a point do you know that in almost all Government offices we have prayer rooms and people use it five time a day to manifest their religious beliefs. Do you know that people who cover their heads and faces do it because they say their religion says so, do you know that those are much more substantial swymbols of their faith. Do you know that in the very Hospitals others work there who visible display their dresses and culture akin to their religion.
Well what is wrong with the Nurse's cross why should it offend. If she is queried it is a form of persecution.
Are you ashamed of being a Christian this is my point the COE wants to worship Christ in the beauty of holiness whilst others stand on strert corners and evangalise. Those who see her and respect her religion will do so because they would have experienced her faith and belief through her caring spirit and if they are converted they are converted because they liked her ways. She says I wear the cross as a witness to the teachings of christ and a testimony that I will be judged by my actions as ambassador of my faith. It takes a brave person to offer themselves to be judged by the world if we have many of those, society will be richer by far. Let your light so shine before men so that they may see your good works and glorify your father in Heaven.
The real issue is those whpo object do so because they are afraid that others of different faiths will be impressed by her character and be convereted to seek the same ways.

29 March 2010 at 10:48  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...


Hospital is for the sick, which means medical care. Nursing is a caring profession; it is in the job description. You don’t need the support of an invisible friend to enable you to do it properly. If you want express your religious belief go to a church not a hospital.

29 March 2010 at 11:07  
Blogger Preacher said...

An interesting post your grace, of course wearing a cross does not make one a christian any more than wearing any symbol proclaims the wearers affinity to any group or faith, I have spoken to many cross wearers who simply regard it as a 'nice' piece of jewellery but as I undestand it there are deeper issues at stake. The symbolism that the cross portrays seems to send certain groups in society into a tailspin of frothing mouthed cruxophobia, which deserves closer scrutiny, why should it, unless of course its message strikes a deeper chord in the conscience of its detractors? If this is the case then wear a cross, preferably a BIG one.
No, I would take issue with the rights of the individual to wear what ever they choose without the intervention of petty officials trying to score points by making their stand against christianity with a gutless, sly dig at crosses being worn. If they hate Christ or christianity then have the courage to say it, at least then they would deserve some respect, I can respect a person who holds different views or beliefs to mine but gutless sniping by toadies is not acceptable.

29 March 2010 at 11:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Shame it's left to the 'former' Archbishop of Canterbury to speak up for Christians in our country.

29 March 2010 at 11:48  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Yes Preacher: I now plan to wear my biggest Cross all the time: right in the faces of the Marxist Anti-Christs.

They are indeed about Death - their master brought it upon us, and they intend to keep us as dead as they can.

They've turned our hospitals into processors of genocide: and they tell the people whose tradition founded the first institutions for caring that we have no business continuing our mission there.

They've turned our Law into invasion of privacy, spy cameras, chains and lashes: and they tell the tradition that wrote our first laws, fought for our rights, and developed our freedoms to clear off out of defending those rights -because they feel cabin'd and confin'd by us.

They've turned our education and our culture into illiteracy, obscenity, and ignorance: and they tell the people who made it the most advanced culture in the world to clear off out of it ... well, because we're better at it than they are. They don't even know the meaning of 'science' -let alone how to analyze and evaluate the natural world: thence to synthesize new ideas and inventions for common good to all. All they know is how to present lies and misinterpretations as if they're legitimate research!

They revoke our Freedom to Speak - and tell us to stay home and keep our faith to ourselves: but they
invade every Christian, conservative and traditional blog, mouthpiece, or space: and they fill it full of their claptrap and filth. They don't know that what a person believes in determines speech and action.

And they're so thickly polluted they don't even know they're sick unto Death.

In nomine Patris, et Filii, et...++++++

29 March 2010 at 13:57  
Anonymous Oswin said...

It's amazing that, although the denigration of the Christian Church began (in our terms) several years ago, that it should become so advanced post 9/11 there some significance in this do you think?

29 March 2010 at 20:12  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Graham Davis,
Invisible friend? Have you already resorted to poorly aimed insults to argue with?

Priests don't only work Sundays. They have many other matters to attend to during the week, including some, though few, hospital visits. The fact that we are a Christian country means that there should be no problem with a tax supported chaplain. Do you object to those in the army being allowed spiritual care when abroad? Then surely others who cannot access priestly care should be provided also.

I've already posted about your religion being a private matter nonsense. Stop using it like it's a justified argument.

29 March 2010 at 20:22  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Len...well said, and humbly so too!

30 March 2010 at 19:21  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

Oswin 29/3 20.12

//It's amazing that, although the denigration of the Christian Church began (in our terms) several years ago, that it should become so advanced post 9/11 there some significance in this do you think?//

Oswin, with respect, I would have thought it was obvious. The Left in this country believe that the denigration and marginalisation of Christianity will appease radical Islamists. They are, of course, spectacularly wrong. It is the moral decadence and globalised McDonaldisation propagated by the West which enrages them, not true Christianity.

The confusion arises because radical Islamists are perceived as condemning Christianity, when in fact they are condemning the embracing of transient fashions and betrayal of spiritual values by those supposedly entrusted with upholding them (in particular the Anglican Church).

30 March 2010 at 20:13  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older