Friday, November 26, 2010

Have the Conservative Party written off the Church of England?


This week has seen the first meeting of the ninth General Synod of the Church of England, inaugurated by its Supreme Governor Her Majesty the Queen, and attended by the State shepherds of the sheep to discuss the pressing spiritual and political issues of the day.

The Conservative Party’s response?

Silence.

On Tuesday, the Synod debated a key theme of Conservative policy: The Big Society. The Bishop of Leicester, the Rt Revd Timothy Stevens, said that the programme had begun to unleash a new wave of energy in the churches for practical social action. The Synod enthusiastically welcomed the concept of the Big Society as an opportunity for the Church and a way of emphasising work that is already being done.

The Conservative Party’s response?

They put out an email celebrating ‘Inter Faith Week’, ‘urging everyone to get involved in inter faith activities and make connections with people of different beliefs’.

Communities Secretary Eric Pickles attended the opening of the General Synod, but nothing was reported by the Conservative Party or the Government: no email was circulated to celebrate the Church’s contribution to the ‘Big Society’ or its important role in public life.

Instead, he focused on multi-faith themes: “Collaboration builds stronger understanding and helps people to concentrate on the values they hold in common – without ever losing their unique strengths,” he said.

And the Conservative Party reminded us: ‘As well as aiming to strengthen bonds between people of different faiths, Inter Faith Week also seeks to increase understanding and collaboration between people of religious and non-religious beliefs.’

There is no longer a privileged place for the Church of England in the Conservative Party; just an expression of ecumenical, multi-faith mish-mash to unite ‘people of religious and non-religious beliefs’.

And the Conservative blogs were no better.

The Party’s own blog said not a word about the Established Church all week.

But neither did any Conservative blog.

The Blue Blog doesn’t even have a category heading into which a discussion could be placed, unless the Church is now merely a component of ‘Community Relations’.

The Spectator's Coffee House has a CofE category, but Theo Hobson uttered not one syllable (in fact, he has only ever uttered one article on the Established Church, and that was more than a year ago on the matter of the Pope's visit).

And the nation’s foremost ConservativeHome blog steered clear of the subject altogether, following its decision to commission and publish an article on Remembrance Sunday which proposed that Islam should be adopted as the state religion.

It is curious, if not a little hypocritical, that the blog which castigated the Archbishop of Canterbury for daring to comment on Iain Duncan Smith’s welfare reforms has absolutely nothing to say when an entire Synod debate is dedicated to exploring the Christian roots of a major theme of the Cameron Government. You would think that ConservativeHome might at least mention the Church’s ‘Big Society’ debate.

Not a word.

Instead, its editor Tim Montgomerie wrote a piece for The Times berating the Church for talking about nothing but homosexuality.

And thereby simply gave further expression to the media caricature that this is indeed the case.

What about the Church of England’s social housing programmes? Its inner-city work among the poor and disenfranchised? The fact that it runs thousands of schools? Its advocacy work for prisoners of conscience in repressive regimes? It unparalleled dedication to charity concerns? Its voluntary work with the elderly, disabled and other vulnerable groups?

The Church does not only talk endlessly about these things; it does them. But the media aren’t very interested, you see: they wish to focus on the drama of division, contention and conflict.

Just as they do with the Conservative Party.

The Church of England is the national embodiment of the ‘Big Society’ and has been for centuries. But the media focus has been the endless debates, committees, reports, schisms and not-quite-schisms on the issue of homosexuality.

Yet behind the scenes, without a word of thanks or appreciation, they simply get on with being acutely engaged in social action; expressing compassion to the alienated, outcast, oppressed and persecuted, irrespective of their gender, skin colour, sexuality or religion. And they were doing it while David Cameron was still a whining schoolboy, with his satchel and shining morning face, creeping like snail unwillingly past Bekynton to Lower Chapel.

Margaret Thatcher, a Protestant Nonconformist, knew and understood. In a speech in 1977 she observed:

‘The Tories began as a church party, concerned with the Church and State, in that order, before our concern extended to the economy, and many other fields which politics now touches. Religion gives us not only values – a scheme of things in which economic, social, penal policy have their place – but also our historical roots. For through the Old Testament our spiritual roots go back to the early days of civilisation and man’s search for God’.
The reality is that David Cameron doesn’t really ‘do’ Church: he doesn’t understand its foundational precepts and he doesn’t grasp its constitutional significance. The CofE does not form part PPE, even at Oxford.

And what the Conservative Party does not do, the Conservative blogs do not do.

And when they do, their narrative evidences precisely the same obsessions as the BBC: homosexuality and Islam.

In Statecraft, Margaret Thatcher wrote: ‘I believe in what are often referred to as “Judaeo-Christian” values: indeed my whole political philosophy is based on them’. In her second volume The Path to Power she went further: ‘Although I have always resisted the argument that a Christian has to be a Conservative, I have never lost my conviction that there is a deep and providential harmony between the kind of political economy I favour and the insights of Christianity.’

David Cameron’s Conservative Party would do well to reflect seriously on the constitutional importance, historical significance and the social and community imperative of the Church of England.

Before it is too late.

82 Comments:

Blogger no longer anonymous said...

I would have more respect for the C of E if it made use of the Book of Common Prayer compulsory in every church and threw out the tambourine-bashing idiots who make all sensible people cringe.

26 November 2010 at 10:43  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Ah Your Grace!

‘And the Conservative Party reminded us: ‘As well as aiming to strengthen bonds between people of different faiths, Inter Faith Week also seeks to increase understanding and collaboration between people of religious and non-religious beliefs.’

‘There is no longer a privileged place for the Church of England in the Conservative Party; just an expression of ecumenical, multi-faith mish-mash to unite ‘people of religious and non-religious beliefs’’.

I see that the Conservative Party’s elite has prepared its internal values for the implementation of s.149 Equality Act 2010 (Harman’s Law):

(1)A public authority must, in the exercise of its functions, have due regard to the need to—
(a)eliminate discrimination, harassment, victimisation and any other conduct that is prohibited by or under this Act;
(b)advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it;
(c)foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it.
(2)A person who is not a public authority but who exercises public functions must, in the exercise of those functions, have due regard to the matters mentioned in subsection (1).
(3)Having due regard to the need to advance equality of opportunity between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—
(a)remove or minimise disadvantages suffered by persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are connected to that characteristic;
(b)take steps to meet the needs of persons who share a relevant protected characteristic that are different from the needs of persons who do not share it;
(c)encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.
(4)The steps involved in meeting the needs of disabled persons that are different from the needs of persons who are not disabled include, in particular, steps to take account of disabled persons' disabilities.
(5)Having due regard to the need to foster good relations between persons who share a relevant protected characteristic and persons who do not share it involves having due regard, in particular, to the need to—
(a)tackle prejudice, and
(b)promote understanding.
(6)Compliance with the duties in this section may involve treating some persons more favourably than others; but that is not to be taken as permitting conduct that would otherwise be prohibited by or under this Act.
(7)The relevant protected characteristics are—
• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• pregnancy and maternity;
• race;
• religion or belief;
• sex;
• sexual orientation.

26 November 2010 at 11:10  
Blogger Claire Khaw said...

David Cameron's party is not Conservative, Your Grace. I have been saying it for years and years now, ever since Theresa May said the Tories are no longer going to be nasty to single mums, way back in 2004.

The Church of England was created *as a creature of the state*. The state is feminised, liberal and degenerate, and so is the Church.

The older male clergy are going leaving the dross collectivists behind and the women to replace them, and we already know what they are going to do to the Church, don't we?

African Muslims already call African Christians "gay".

Anglicanism will soon allow gay clergy and attract the hatred, ridicule and contempt of all right-thinking members of the international community.

Anglicanism is a loser's religion, Your Grace, the despised religion of a degenerate, despised white people.

Islamic Anglicanism would however be a viable option to keep the women and the openly gay clergy from ruining it with their gangrenous, cancerous ideas.

26 November 2010 at 11:16  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

Why should anyone be surprised that the Conservative Party is reticent about these matters of the Church of England - or the Christian faith in general? Is it not a reflection of the zeitgeist that all political parties distance themselves from Judaeo-Christian culture as if it were some kind of embarrassment or disease, but sycophantically dance attendance upon anything that panders to Islam?

26 November 2010 at 11:21  
Anonymous Tony B said...

"I have never lost my conviction that there is a deep and providential harmony between the kind of political economy I favour and the insights of Christianity."

Did she genuinely think this, while destroying working class communities - a trend which continues in Conservative policy to this day?

One would be forgiven for thinking that you also were obsessed with the issues of Islam and homosexuality, particularly the former.

26 November 2010 at 11:23  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

@no longer anonymous
If your view of the CofE and its worship and worshippers is defined by such crude stereotypes, perhaps you have missed the point of the Christian message. The Book of Common Prayer is a valuable distillation of Christian liturgy in it own right - not some kind of talisman.

26 November 2010 at 11:38  
Anonymous Byrnsweord said...

Your Grace; this comment is revealing indeed:

“Collaboration builds stronger understanding and helps people to concentrate on the values they hold in common – without ever losing their unique strengths.”

An utter falsehood. Collaboration requires massive compromise... surely a minister in this Government would know that very well!

I am perplexed as to why the Tories are satisfied to make the best of a bad lot? Where is their principled stance?

26 November 2010 at 12:22  
Anonymous martin sewell said...

When "No longer anonymous" writes with such narrow minded foolishness, confusing the medium and the message, I am moved to consider that the Book of Common Prayer needs to be suppressed if only for the sake of his/her immortal soul.

26 November 2010 at 12:24  
Blogger Jomo said...

Dave's Conservation Party.

Scoundrels and thieves invited into the Cabinet, while people who even hint at the truth are sacked!

26 November 2010 at 12:24  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

Bishop "Tim" Stevens (as he likes to style himself) blames the ills of the world on "capitalism" - including global warming!

He launched a a really vigorous attack on Roger Helmer MEP because he had dared to challenge the orthodoxy of the faith of global warming in quite mild and reasonable terms on a discussion panel.

I am sure that, if Mr. Helmer had attacked some basic Christian doctrine in extreme terms, he would have provoked no more than the stock Anglican "on the one hand, on the other hand - we are all seekers after truth" response.

So I guess the Conservatives (of which I am not one) have just given up on the C of E, as they "know which foot they kick with" politically speaking. A bit like the BBC really.

26 November 2010 at 12:36  
Blogger Claire Khaw said...

I wonder why people worry about living under a theocracy (as if there were anything inherently bad about being a theocracy) when liberalism is now a totalitarian ideology as can be seen from s 149 of the Equality Act D Singh so kindly copied for us above.

If one were Muslim and accepted the moral authority of the Koran, then one can easily play with the rules to give ourselves the interpretation we want, whether or not we believe in God.

I am sure I need not remind His Grace that pride (in the form of cultural chauvinism and Christian hypocrisy) is still a deadly sin, even in the 21st century.

26 November 2010 at 13:00  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer said

There is no longer a privileged place for the Church of England in the Conservative Party; just an expression of ecumenical, multi-faith mish-mash to unite ‘people of religious and non-religious beliefs’.

Nor should there be. A modern political party cannot afford to ally itself with a dwindling religion at the expense of the rest of its potential voters. However the Tory party is like a multi-headed entity trying to face in all directions. Its Big Society is a naive attempt at creating a nation of do-gooders who it imagines has both the spare time and the inclination to volunteer, get real! It supports Faith schools but allows the introduction of noxious Islamic schools. It has introduced welfare reforms that clobber the poor without the radical reform of the banking system and expects us all to support it.

No point in whingeing about the press, even the broadsheets are only interested in sensation or gossip. If you can name me one organisation that is pleased with its press coverage I will be surprised although I have some sympathy with the following comments.

What about the Church of England’s social housing programmes? Its inner-city work among the poor and disenfranchised? The fact that it runs thousands of schools? Its advocacy work for prisoners of conscience in repressive regimes? It unparalleled dedication to charity concerns? Its voluntary work with the elderly, disabled and other vulnerable groups? The Church does not only talk endlessly about these things; it does them. But the media aren’t very interested, you see: they wish to focus on the drama of division, contention and conflict.

The CofE undoubtedly continues to do good works that go unreported.

26 November 2010 at 13:55  
Anonymous William Nicholson said...

It sounds rather like the Conservative Party's attempt to think eschatologically, albeit without understanding. No longer should the Church of England believe it is privileged within society. We are not. Just as the Sadducees perceived their own privilege, so the Church of England (and anyone for that matter), should be very wary indeed.

By all means evangelise and promote the great historical and cultural importance of the Church of England, but never fail to offer the place at the table. In my view the Church is well out of politics - it should be given the space to be persecuted in order for it to fight for the kingdom.

But the Church is consumed with politics, and on an organisational level oftentimes fails to see its true purpose.

26 November 2010 at 13:56  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Cranmer said

There is no longer a privileged place for the Church of England in the Conservative Party; just an expression of ecumenical, multi-faith mish-mash to unite ‘people of religious and non-religious beliefs’.

Nor should there be. A modern political party cannot afford to ally itself with a dwindling religion at the expense of the rest of its potential voters. However the Tory party is like a multi-headed entity trying to face in all directions. Its Big Society is a naive attempt at creating a nation of do-gooders who it imagines has both the spare time and the inclination to volunteer, get real! It supports Faith schools but allows the introduction of noxious Islamic schools. It has introduced welfare reforms that clobber the poor without the radical reform of the banking system and expects us all to support it.

No point in whingeing about the press, even the broadsheets are only interested in sensation or gossip. If you can name me one organisation that is pleased with its press coverage I will be surprised although I have some sympathy with the following comments.

What about the Church of England’s social housing programmes? Its inner-city work among the poor and disenfranchised? The fact that it runs thousands of schools? Its advocacy work for prisoners of conscience in repressive regimes? It unparalleled dedication to charity concerns? Its voluntary work with the elderly, disabled and other vulnerable groups? The Church does not only talk endlessly about these things; it does them. But the media aren’t very interested, you see: they wish to focus on the drama of division, contention and conflict.

The CofE undoubtedly continues to do good works that go unreported.

26 November 2010 at 13:56  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Ms Khaw

A theocracy based on your ideology would be disastrous for democracy. It has no concept of: give to the State what belongs to the State and give to god what belongs to God.

I believe that the reason why you imagine such a State could survive is because you ignore that the fact that many of the current arrangements are based on Judaeo-Christian values.

Take for example the world of commerce.

Deuteronomy 1:16 ‘And I charged your judges at that time, 'Hear the cases between your brothers, and judge righteously between a man and his brother or the alien who is with him.’

Contract law encapsulates the values in Deuteronomy 1:16 and makes commercial transactions (and their enforcement) possible in spheres wider than kin, tribe and nation.

In contrast with nations where Islam holds sway, for example Afghanistan, the authority of law runs from chief to serf. A serf is unlikely to be able to enforce contractual conditions upon his chief. If that is not possible neither will he trust the member of another tribe or the alien of another nation – and thus the vast majority of people in Islamic nations tend to remain poor. Commerce cannot grow and spread.

26 November 2010 at 14:04  
Blogger no longer anonymous said...

martin sewell - the medium is extremely important. Few people will take the Church of England seriously if it promotes its message in a dumbed-down way that lacks authority and makes people cringe.

26 November 2010 at 14:16  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Your Grace, - for better or worse - I don't even think most people who populate the pews of the CofE know or care what goes on at the synod so why do you think the population at large should be?

26 November 2010 at 14:17  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@no longer anonymous

I presume your ridiculous caricature (I don't know if I've ever been to a church inhabited by "tambourine-bashers") is meant to refer to low-church and/or charismatic congregations.

These 'idiots' also seem to be the only section of the church that are growing in numbers. And by the 'dumbed down' gospel I presume you mean a gospel that is accessible to everyone. What ever next, sinners coming to church?

26 November 2010 at 14:22  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

@no longer anonymous

Your insistence on the medium rather than the message causes me to wonder if your opinion is shaped by Daily-Maily traditional tribalism rather than reason and experience. The picture you paint is more in keeping with the mentality of those who have more reverence for the wrapping paper than the gift..

26 November 2010 at 14:33  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@Graham Davis "A modern political party cannot afford to ally itself with a dwindling religion"

Hmmmm ... you are aware of the number of people who are members of the CofE, not to mention all the non-conformist denominations? [It makes an informative study to compare & contrast with the membership of the Secular Society or any of the political parties or any other voluntary organisation]. You are aware that the population is becoming MORE religious not less?

26 November 2010 at 14:35  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

@Rebel Saint

Mr Davis and his Secular Society friends are very devout, religious people. The only factor of significance (apart from the substance of their message) is the object of their worship.. ;-)

26 November 2010 at 14:42  
Blogger Tim Chesterton said...

I believe that the reason why you imagine such a State could survive is because you ignore that the fact that many of the current arrangements are based on Judaeo-Christian values.

Spreading Judaeo-Christian values to non-Christians doesn't seem to have been a big concern to the authors of the New Testament. What was a big concern was spreading the gospel and calling people to repentance, faith, and discipleship.

26 November 2010 at 14:56  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Rebel Saint

For the majority of people religion in general and this includes the CofE, is irrelevant, that is except for weddings, funerals and sometimes christenings when it is the ceremony and the venue that attracts them not the religion.

But I would agree that an even smaller number are interested in the National Secular society and most have know idea what secularism is.

But that isn’t the point. You don’t need to support or belong to an organisation in order to ally yourself with its views. The vast majority of people who vote in elections do not belong to the party that they vote for and many wouldn’t even know the name of the candidate before they are confronted with a ballot paper.

Society as a whole is not becoming more religious as you well know but there are exceptions, generally within the immigrant population especially those from Pakistan, Bangladesh and West Africa. The noxious belief of Islam and the odious mix of Christianity and Black Magic (popular among some Nigerians) is presumably the area of growth that you would not be happy with.

26 November 2010 at 15:00  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Caedmon’s Cat

Devout, maybe, religious obviously not, worship what?

26 November 2010 at 15:04  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Claire Khaw (13:00)—… as if there were anything inherently bad about being a theocracy …

It would depend on the teachings underpinning the theocracy. Theocracy A might regard non-believers as sub-human and subject to forcible conversion, it might regard women as inferior beings who can expect to be punished by beating, and it might call for its influence to be spread by any means including murder. Theocracy B, on the other hand, might call for people to love their neighbours as themselves.

Who would even think to argue that Theocracy A would result in Hell on Earth, while Theocracy B would bring the Kingdom of God to Earth?

26 November 2010 at 15:13  
Blogger Claire Khaw said...

D Singh's response to my comment confirms my suspicion that he knows nothing of the Koran and is solely informed by his dislike of Muslims.

When Jesus said "I render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" it didn't mean anything. It was just his way of getting out of trouble and saying that he had paid his taxes, OK?

Do not use the poorest, most backward people who call themselves Muslims as a reason to traduce the Koran and claim it is a bad book. Most of them can't even read and rely on others to interpret the Koran for them, just like the lazy ignorant Cultural Christians who call themselves Christians and look hurt and disconcerted when you ask them if they really believe Christ is God.

26 November 2010 at 16:02  
Anonymous ZAROVE said...

The Tory’s of today are really not that hard to understand. They are not British Conservatives, but are American Conservatives. They have, like the Lib Dems and Labour, and most of Academia, the BBC, and others in positions of power or influence in society decided that British Values and Traditions are something to out aside as Antiquated and no longer valuable. Instead, they have embraced the modern trends, and in the case of the Tories, have taken their Ques from the American Republican Party.

This is why they can write a new reform about dissolving Parliament without bothering to mention the Queen, because they think of Parliament as a Republic and the Queen is an afterthought. American Conservatives are not Monarchists, and the ideals they hold to today are from American’s Neo Conservative branches.

This thinking also provides the newly generally accepted Doctrine of Separation of Church and State, which is a distinctly American ideal, OK, its shared by the French, but mainly grew out of the same Liberal Philosophy of the Revolutionary Era. Its hardly British, what with our State Churches and all, but many Politicians and even Lords now speak of it as if it’s a part f British Law.

Then there is the need to look and feel “Modern” and “Relevant”, and so he Tories will repeat the same old lines we hear repeated elsewhere they have become fashionable, such as “We must respect everyone of all Faiths and None”. I’ve called this into question several times, notably here with Mr. Davies, in that those with no faith seem to have a lot they believe in regardless, and I’ve always said that the people of no Religion really do have one, just as they have a Faith, they just don’t call it that in the hopes that they can get their own way without opposition.

Still, its poplar around the world to talk of interfaith dialogue so the Tories, wanting to appear up to date and in style, do the same, and given their political ideology borrows from the American Republican Party, this merger will lead automatically to them not liking the Church of England. Why should they? How often do American Conservatives talk about an established Church as something great? Even the God-Fearing image of Sarah Palin is surprisingly bereft of actually discussing the inner workings of the Church she attends.

26 November 2010 at 16:07  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Graham Davis "Society as a whole is not becoming more religious"

You are very mistaken. It is not becoming more Christian but is most definitely becoming more religious ... new age pantheism, spiritualism, occultism, mysticism, islam ... One thing is for certain people are not adopting atheism in place of Christianity

"Worship what?"

Self. Knowledge.

26 November 2010 at 16:09  
Blogger Claire Khaw said...

"Who would even think to argue that Theocracy A would result in Hell on Earth, while Theocracy B would bring the Kingdom of God to Earth?"

Johnny Rottenborough should be aware that once upon a time European Christian nations were theocracies. Indeed, there was once a time when all the cleverest people would become clergymen because that was the profession that brought with it the greatest opportunity to become powerful and wealthy.

Johnny Rottenborough should also know that there are many state religions that do not have deities, only cults of personality, eg Mao, Hitler, Stalin, that caused a lot of unnecessary inconvenience, pain and even death to lots of people.

If he thinks that using the "2 legs bad 4 legs good" method of reasoning is going to save him and his society from evil, then he really should think again.

Secular Koranism necessarily requires that most people read it, but that will prove the greatest hurdle of all - because so many of you hate and fear Islam so much that you would rather die than to be seen reading the Koran.

In other words, fear, hatred, pride and sloth prevent you from reading a book that you say you already hate and fear.

That is not quite rational, but most people are not really rational, are they, Your Grace?

Modern clergymen really are not the brightest bulbs in the box. Indeed, the more enterprising, versatile and honest man would already know that Christianity is a ship sinking with the weight of so many decades of demented liberalism and feminisation.

It is beyond rescue now with its women bishops to be, its openly gay priests to be ordained and its aging male traditionalist clergy who will now be fleeing to Rome.

26 November 2010 at 16:17  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@Claire Kwar. You are mistaking Christianity with Anglicanism - a common mistake, but a significant mistake non-the-less.

26 November 2010 at 16:22  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Theocracy inevitably compels people to conform to the externals of particular relgious observance. England under the original 'Church' of England was decidedly theocratic, in these respects: compuslory church attendance, compulsory tithing, compulsory infant baptism. Dissent was not tolerated. In this it was no different from the Roman 'Church' of England which it supplanted. Theocracy inevitably invlves exclusivity and persecution for those who are honest enough to declare their disagreement.

There is nothing harmless about theocracy. It is oppressive and, almost by definition, totalitarian.

And so there is nothing Christian about theocracy. Those theocratic states that call(ed) themselves Christian were using the vocabulary of Christianity, but 'knew not what manner of spirit they were of.'

The idea of an established 'church' in our own time is a watered-down form -- a sort of rump -- of theocracy: bishops being part of the legislature, prayers before parliament, acts of so-called worship (of a 'broadly Christian character') in schools, etc.

Throughout past centuries competing theocracies have been responsible for wars, colonisation, mass-murder, slavery, mass seizure of private property, intolerance and persecution of minorities. They have brought the name of God into disrepute. The fact of them feeds Dawkins et al with some of their completely justified complaints against religion. And yet many of those who claim to oppose The Dawk still cling to that system that has given him so much of his legitimate ammunition.

The prospect, having been delivered from one sort of theocracy (faux-Christian), of falling into the clutches of another (Islam) is horrifying.

Theocracy is neither desirable nor inevitable.

May God deliver us from it. (But not by the use of theocratic weapons.)

26 November 2010 at 16:34  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

The Party probably remains silent because the Church of England is doomed to drag down the feel-good aspect in its new Happiness Index. Who could be content after all?

26 November 2010 at 16:43  
Anonymous ET said...

Your Grace,if I may put a non-human perspective on all of this, you will have to excuse the typos, it is just there is a small solar flare going over Alpha Romeo at the moment (I understand from fellow ET's that it is quite cold in the UK now?).

I would just like to point out that we have a civilisation that is far beyond yours, for example we known how to create stars and we occasionally grow planets (to sell, but there has been a slight galaxy wide credit cruch so the planet market is a bit slow at the mo). But we still have our religions- I am sure Graham Davies and Claire Chaw will be distraught at this- but by the same token we do not use religion as an excuse to kill each other or as a political tool.

You know I do dread to think what will happen if you guys ever seriously work out proper space travel- you'll be bombarding us will your religions, arguing the toss over which is better,possibly starting wars over the whole dam thing, whereas all we want to take from you is a nice pint of warm English ale and possibly the complete collection of Neil Diamond's greatest hits.

No raming religion down our tenticles please! Or I will have to send out a probe or possibly a flying saucer.

26 November 2010 at 17:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does Claire Khaw do it dogie style?

Wv : dogie (no joke)

26 November 2010 at 17:38  
Anonymous ET's Boss said...

"I would have more respect for the C of E if it made use of the Book of Common Prayer compulsory in every church and threw out the tambourine-bashing idiots who make all sensible people cringe."

You know last time I was on Earth, there was a great altercation about whether or not the C of E should continue with Latin or go English with its services, so if I had vocal cordes I'd bee laughinmg...

26 November 2010 at 17:39  
Anonymous Gerard Tibercross said...

It is a rare pleasure to be able to agree with Mr D Singh, but it is an undeniable truth that that the legal system Christendom shares and has exported to so much of the world is indeed based on Christian precepts.

It is plainly superior to Sharia based systems, which we would describe as Draconian, referring back to an ancient legal system, the rigidity and brutality of which shocked even in the early Iron Age.

Gerard Tibercross

26 November 2010 at 17:44  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I think no longer anonymous and ancientbriton sum up rather well what has been happening . The church vote has become inconsequential as the new tools of persuasions have had some success .

Christianity has become an offront to politics , a competitor perhaps, which tells me how supreme the sharp elbows of all parties have become .
I hadnt noticed your grace how the lack of narrative implied some sort of subliminal fear by the parties , as though symbolic of some tradegy they had commited but could not face upto , perhaps having foisted the equality icon of British defined as happy consumerism , they couldn admitt teenagers with minds full of guns ,violence sex and fashion imagary, was some sort of unexpected consequence of denigrating moral christian teaching as slow and not realy helpfull to the economy or socialism .

pottage or gruel cross party uber group , living up to the expectations of what they hath professed as truth/convergence unto us all ,why it could be cult , er hold on.......

26 November 2010 at 17:48  
Anonymous Gerard Tibercross said...

ET's Boss

The BCP Eucharist is a bit odd, being as it is a Catholic Mass disguised as a protestant service. But His Grace's wonderful, beautiful Evensong, is a majestic service celebrated with joy in any CofE church which can scrape together a choir.

Perhaps we should export it to the Romans.

Gerard Tibercross

26 November 2010 at 17:50  
Anonymous Philip said...

The Conservative Party seems to have abandoned any interest in this nation's roots in Biblical Christianity, preferring instead the creed of socialist equality, promotion of homosexuality, Islam, refocusing foreign policy to Arab concerns, and giving more sovereignty to the EU. As for Mr Montgomerie's Times article (which I didn't read) perhaps he has forgotten the CofE is a church, and therefore should uphold Christian morality and not adjust its beliefs to current secular whims. Any ‘obsession’ with homosexuality in the CofE would be due to the efforts of those within it who want to force it away from holding centuries-held Biblical beliefs, and failure to discipline the culprits. Its witness to the nation is damaged by departure from Biblical standards and beliefs.

26 November 2010 at 18:00  
Blogger Preacher said...

Your Grace.
Whether the Conservative party has 'written off' the CofE or not seems to me irrelevant.
Although the Anglican Communion has done stirling work over the years in sustaining the Christian faith in the U.K & evangelising in the rest of the world, it is not the sole representative for the Christian faith.

For centuries before the CofE or the R.C or 'Orthodox' Churches existed, the gospel was preached & people responded to its message, many paid with their lives rather than turn away from its life changing truths.

The Baptists, Methodists & hosts of others who are the nameless saints of the Christian faith have continued to reach humanity with the gospel of salvation & still continue to do so despite torture, murder & persecution to this day.

This is why the hosts of Hell will never prevail & the gospel will continue to be preached until the Lord's return. Be assured that the vagaries of rulers, Kings & fallen man will never silence the truth of the gospel.

They can plan, plot & try to destroy its truth, they may attempt to weaken it by the poison of synchretism. But as long as this world exists & one true Christian remains, Satan is doomed & even if all of us are martyred, then the end would come.
Because we will return following the Lord Jesus as the time of judgement will have come on the Earth.

26 November 2010 at 18:13  
Anonymous non mouse said...

David Cameron’s Conservative Party would do well to reflect seriously on the constitutional importance, historical significance and the social and community imperative of the Church of England.

Before it is too late.


Indeed, Your Grace. Sadly, their powers of reflection appear to have suffered 'arrested development,' while Fabian doctrine has flourished.

So thanks to you and those of your communicants who remain Conservative and/or Christian - you refresh the polluted day!

Clearly the fumes aren't healthy, at the Gates of Hell - which is where we stand, as Preacher seems to indicate, and as Chaucer certainly did (HoF). This commentariat alone reveals the increasing difficulty of avoiding the miasma.

26 November 2010 at 18:59  
Anonymous Christian Woman of 21 with jugs the size of Portsmouth harbour said...

Well at least I won't have to kiss Claire Khow or Graham Davies under the mistletoe as neither are Christian!

26 November 2010 at 19:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Is Claire Khaw in a relationship? I would really like to be her boyfriend/partner?

26 November 2010 at 19:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps when Camerons wife and daughter have to walk around like black pillar boxes and their lifes chances are stripped to nothing he might begin to appreciate the idiocy of his myopiic PC hand-wringing appeasement.

26 November 2010 at 19:28  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Claire Khaw (16:17)—I am baffled by your wish to found a Secular Koranism. Why not a reformed version of Christianity? At least, then, you would build on a promising foundation—that of universal love. But the Qur’an, with its verses of intolerance and violence, is just about the most unpromising foundation it is possible to imagine. Why make a rod for your back?

26 November 2010 at 20:22  
Anonymous len said...

Christianity in its purest form can never be united with the 'World'.
Christianity is totally at odds with the World system.Christianity is not of this World and can never 'fit in'.
Christianity demands a new order, a new being, a new World.

A Political Party especially in our multi cultural society needs to be all things to all people hence the 'inter faith week'.If it'does Christianity' it will be a watered down ineffectual sort of Christianity much like the A B of C and D C 'does'.

The Christianity Jesus preached and lived caused great enmity between Himself and the ruling classes of His day.

26 November 2010 at 20:25  
Blogger Kit said...

Why exactly should the Conservative Party care about what the CoE says or thinks?

Sorry, but the CoE is dying on its feet, it stands for nothing except a vapid, cringing form of semi spiritual social work. It no longer has self confidence in its own core principles and beliefs and it wonders why people no longer pay it any attention.

It is sad, but the CoE has become a depressing joke, with its apologia for Sharia and its obsession with feminism and outdated 60's style liberalism.

When the CoE is too embarassed to use its own Bible for fear of offending people with its 'sexist' language then you are left with an organisation devoid of self respect and deserving no respect from others.

And then people actually wonder why no one is listening attentively to them any more?

26 November 2010 at 20:30  
Anonymous Flossie said...

Stick to your guns, No Longer Anonymous #1. I think some people here have forgotten that it is the cringeworthiness which drove many out of the C of E. I am sure His Grace would approve of his masterpiece being brought back to life. It might even bring people back to church.

26 November 2010 at 20:53  
Blogger Unsworth said...

Your Grace,

Why should a political party be associated with any religion whatsoever? Do we believe that morality is somehow bound up in politics? All the evidence would show otherwise.

Politics is often said to be the art of the practical, and has very little to do with principles.

One might observe that the Church of England is precisely the opposite.

26 November 2010 at 21:19  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@anabaptist ... I just tried emailing you by using the 'Contact' form on the webpage your blogger profile links too. Alas, they have no idea who you are!!

I was wanting to discover more about your doctrine of church and state but didn't want to be a parasite on Cranmer's blog.

Maybe you could indicate some other way of getting in touch.

26 November 2010 at 22:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kit, you could say the same for the current cameron led damp squip of "liberal conservatism". Why should we care what the Tory party has to say, when it has become the de facto lib dem party?

26 November 2010 at 22:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Stick to your guns, No Longer Anonymous #1. I think some people here have forgotten that it is the cringeworthiness which drove many out of the C of E. I am sure His Grace would approve of his masterpiece being brought back to life. It might even bring people back to church"

Cleary Flossie and No longer Anon know what they are talking about . The tambourine brigade or the "Evangelical Anglicans" are actually the largest section of the Church of England and would be considered by many to be the true "conservative" fraction of the Church. I would suggest using outdated language is no better than using latin and that this type of service is likely to put off people, not bring them back in droves.

26 November 2010 at 22:30  
Anonymous bluedog said...

'The reality is that David Cameron doesn’t really ‘do’ Church: he doesn’t understand its foundational precepts and he doesn’t grasp its constitutional significance.'

May your communicant be permitted to suggest, whilst confessing his impertinence, that Your Grace sounds uncharacteristically confused? If today's Conservative Party is to be reviled, why would the CofE wish to be involved with it?

The quote above may be profoundly wrong. It is possible that Dave does indeed understand the Constitutional significance of the CofE. The elephant in Your Grace's Chambers may be the possibility of Dis-Establishment. After all, Dave recognises the importance of Constitutional reform. It is therefore entirely possible that Dis-Establishment will be part of a raft of measures designed to make the British Constitution both progressive and multi-faith in its structure and its appeal. The head of the Conservative Party is a life peer and a Muslim woman. What has she said to Dave about the CofE bishops in the Lords? Has she suggested that if they go, she can deliver the Muslim vote, lock, stock and barrell?

In the view of the communicant, Dis-Establishment would not be a disaster for the CofE. The RC Church thrives in the UK without Constitutional status, just as the Anglican church thrives outside the UK without Established status in a number of Commonwealth countries. If there complaints that the CofE is dying, it may be that the cause of death is Establishment. Perhaps the CofE would be re-juvenated by the need to compete to stay alive.

One thing is certain. Whatever is decided, the British political elite will not permit the British electorate to have their say at a referendum.

Your Grace may need to reach a settled position on the issue of Dis-Establishment sooner rather than later.

26 November 2010 at 23:15  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grQvZBaVspU

A World of diverse Cultures ans Races is Wonderful, but who be our Lords and Masters?

The Lords prayer forgives our debts and our debtors, tis favourable to a Common prayer.
Signed: Ian Mea

26 November 2010 at 23:18  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

Anonymous len said...

Christianity in its purest form can never be united with the 'World'.

Christianity is totally at odds with the World system.Christianity is not of this World and can never 'fit in'.

How true. Even the Chinese find some content in it rather disturbing. And you wonder why the Saudis would do such a thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhVISA_NiGY

27 November 2010 at 00:34  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

I wonder if Johnny Rottenborough knew about it? And I wonder if he recalls the 1,000 years of darkness engulfing Europe before they got acquainted with the Muslims, which awaken them to their senses and brought them out of the dark ages?

All of Europe were not Muslims then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Ages

Since your reign of Christianity has not even achieved the 1k years limit of prosperity and glory, like the Muslims, with exception of Andalusia, one shouldn't be so boastful of the current decline of Muslims, for it has not been 1k years yet for their second enlightenment. (And the idea Muslim nations consist of Afghanistan, which had undergone relentless invasions and Somalia,also a war torn country as the representative of the Muslim nations is a naive notion to the very least. Look at Iraq. Now it's stand in ruins and thanks to whom?

27 November 2010 at 00:55  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Claire Khaw @ 11.16

''Anglicanism is a loser's religion''

I think, sweet-cheeks, we'll decide that at a later date; if you are unlucky enough to still be around, you may have your mind changed on that score.

Do not imagine that we of the lesser Christians, will allow either the Church of England to fail, or for Islam, in any shape or form, to triumph. It will NOT happen!

Beneath the soft underbelly of the modern Church, lies a steel core of those who will not turn the other cheek, but smite blow for blow until we win through.

Doubt this at your peril!

27 November 2010 at 03:13  
Blogger Ian said...

What's in a filename?
I noticed the names of the files your Grace used to illustrate his post were "Archbishop thinking.jpg" and "Cameron scratches head.jpg".
It doesn't take a Poirot to work out which grey cells are the most active.

27 November 2010 at 07:04  
Anonymous Flossie said...

Well you are wrong, Anonymous. Well, not entirely wrong, but partly. The pop culture which has infiltrated the church might attract people initially but they don't stay. I understand that some evangelical churches have a 90% turnover in five years. What is needed is sound doctrine, not guitars and drums.

27 November 2010 at 07:09  
Blogger Kit said...

'Anonymous said...

Why should we care what the Tory party has to say, when it has become the de facto lib dem party?''

You should care because the Conservative Party has actual power. What the Conservative Party says matters, whether you like it or not.

Unlike the CoE, which has become a sad joke.

27 November 2010 at 09:39  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr TheObserver @ 00.55, may I suggest that you actually read the piece in wikipedia to which your link refers?

If you do you will find that modern scholars now recognise that the 'Dark Age' was no such thing, even in Western Europe. Indeed, the period after the fall of Rome saw the rise of Constantinople in the Eastern (Byzantine) Empire to the absolute peak of its wealth and power. As you would be aware, the Cathederal Church of Hagia Sophia was completed in 537 Anno Domine. Sadly this great church became a mosque in 1453 AD, and its design was subsequently copied in mosques across the Muslim world. This typifies the flow of learning even to the present day. After all, if the founder of your religion was a paedophile brigand and camel thief one can hardly expect anything else. Your suggestion that contact with Islam was the catalyst for the European Rrenaissance is a perversion of history. What actually happened was that Greek scholars fleeing from Constantinople settled in Italy.

To round off your education, try comparing the number of Muslim Nobel Prize winners, total 7, with the number of Jewish Nobel Prixe winners, total 129. There are two categories where a Muslim has yet to score any prize, economics and physics.

What does that tell you?

27 November 2010 at 09:51  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr Rebel Saint, your wish to contact me is gratifying. You will understand that I don't want to advertise my email address publicly, as that might attract the attentions of various nutters who lurk around these blog comment forums (obviously, I don't include you in that).

So here's a suggestion: I will email Cranny (whom you can contact via the link in 'About Cranmer') with my email address, and ask him to pass it on to you when you do the saame.

I realise that Dr Cranny may not wish to become a clearing house or go-between for any old T, D or H (to say nothing of heretical Anabaptists), and that he has plenty of better things to do, but if he is kind enough to do so on this occasion I shall be very grateful.

27 November 2010 at 12:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(7)The relevant protected characteristics are—
• age;
• disability;
• gender reassignment;
• pregnancy and maternity;

• race;

• religion or belief;
• sex;
• sexual orientation.

...er... isn't everybody of a race?

Do you tick the non-race box on the form?

Or is there a secret - nudge nudge, wink wink - list of non-races?

Why Yes, there is actually, confirmd by this very document's tacit indirect admission.

The last time this idealogy was implemented, it led to Big War, not Big Society.

27 November 2010 at 13:00  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

Mr. Bluedog @27 November 2010 09:51,
With all those Western oriented prize and award, would a Muslim have any advantage of gaining even one? Indeed the numbers are relevant, and have significant impact on the human race. If only the Jewish didn't top the chart of killing and treating his fellow humans as garbage and violating the UN resolutions.

Yes the Muslims have a lot of catching up to do. With all the manipulations around the world by the 'privileged few' which also consist of Jews in the stock market, porn industries, media and monetary speculation, their overwhelming achievements are matched with almost the same degree of failures.

For the Muslims, having to wade through manipulation and hinderence by the 'others' be it economic and distracting conflicts, and threats if any started to be on par with the Western capabilities, they really have to double their part of ingenuity. One of them would be to stop relying on the West and stand on their own feet. First step would be not buying any weaponry from the West, the Argentine learned it the hard way in the Falklands conflict.

You seem to be comparing the achievement of the Jews with the Muslims. Are you saying because they are smart, they can get away with killing and stealing? What does that tell you? If you're smart, you can take whatever that is not yours and do whatever that pleases you?

The yard sticks involved is quite controversy. For instance, Obama didn't stop any wars, but he was granted the Nobel of Peace.

As for the dark ages, maybe you should be reading more, especially about the torture instruments created during those ages. We do not rewrite history that easily as any true historians would tell you.

One more, Avicenna was not an Italian.

27 November 2010 at 14:17  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

Mr. Bluedog @27 November 2010 09:51,
With all those Western oriented prize and award, would a Muslim have any advantage of gaining even one? Indeed the numbers are relevant, and have significant impact on the human race. If only the Jewish didn't top the chart of killing and treating his fellow humans as garbage and violating the UN resolutions.

Yes the Muslims have a lot of catching up to do. With all the manipulations around the world by the 'privileged few' which also consist of Jews in the stock market, porn industries, media and monetary speculation, their overwhelming achievements are matched with almost the same degree of failures.

For the Muslims, having to wade through manipulation and hinderence by the 'others' be it economic and distracting conflicts, and threats if any started to be on par with the Western capabilities, they really have to double their part of ingenuity. One of them would be to stop relying on the West and stand on their own feet. First step would be not buying any weaponry from the West, the Argentine learned it the hard way in the Falklands conflict.

You seem to be comparing the achievement of the Jews with the Muslims. Are you saying because they are smart, they can get away with killing and stealing? What does that tell you? If you're smart, you can take whatever that is not yours and do whatever that pleases you?

The yard sticks involved is quite controversy. For instance, Obama didn't stop any wars, but he was granted the Nobel of Peace.

As for the dark ages, maybe you should be reading more, especially about the torture instruments created during those ages. We do not rewrite history that easily as any true historians would tell you.

One more, Avicenna was not an Italian.

27 November 2010 at 14:22  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Dear Mr TheObserver @ 0951, thank you for your reply. If you have already wiki'ed the Nobel Prize I apologise for what follows.

The Nobel Prize is only awarded for two Arts subjects, Peace and Literature. The other prizes are for Sciences such as Medecine, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Economics. Whether Economics is Arts or Science is of course a matter of endless debate.

However, despite your inclination to regard the Nobel Prize as 'Western orientated' and therefore implicitly un-Islamic, there is little doubt that the Sciences of Mathematics, Physics and Chemistry are absolutely objective. There can never be anything subjective or remotely political about Mathematics, and there cannot be any allegation of cultural or religious bias in Mathematics either. One can put Chemistry and Physics in the same category.

However, the same cannot be said about Economics, witness the award to Paul Krugman. One of the most interesting awards for Economics was that of Robert Solow in 1987, whose work destroyed the theoretical basis for the Communist economy.

In short, there is no manipulation or hinderance to Muslims winning a Prize for either Medecine or Physics, but it has yet to happen.

Why?

Many communicants would agree that Obama's award for Peace was premature. Experience suggests that this award is always political. His Grace's recent suggestion that Gerry Adams may become Toasieach of Ireland raises the possibility that this individual may one day win a Peace prize. As a repentant terrorist Mr Adams has already passed an important threshold test.

27 November 2010 at 21:34  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Thank you, Bluedog @09:51 and 21:34!

Furthermore, Greek learning came to our shores (c.668-90AD) via Theodore and Hadrian; thence we would return it to Viking-and-Arab-flattened euroland. The British 'dark ages' preserved and propagated great Enlightenment.

This is not to deny that Greeks had collected some of their scholarship and skills from Arabians, Egyptians, and Hebrews. The Near and Middle East provided cultural crossroads; and it adapted some knowledge, such as algebra or iron-smelting, that came from even further east. Perhaps it's arguable, then, that Britons and Anglo-Saxons delighted in the Greek example for assimilating and processing all the knowledge we could.

I suggest, if we look even further back, that we rightly label our original cultures 'Indo-European.' Arguably it's less that one or the other of us invented knowledge and education, than that we carried them in different directions when we moved from the Pontic lands. And after that, learning kept criss-crossing in every direction: through Greece, and Rome at first, but also through Constantinople and Birka, etc.

We in the West have since carried learning further than the desert-dwellers did, and we developed more scientia in the process. Was that an extension of our impetus to move away from those areas, and to learn new things, while retaining the old? We cannot fully understand all the dynamics; but there's no doubt that we are the ones who subsequently advanced learning and science to its present-day turning point.

Like all predators, though, the modern late-comers seek to destroy the geese whose eggs they covet. Perhaps that's why they focus on negatives like torture and hatred, corruption and blame; while some of us prefer to concentrate on preservation - of other things beyond their ken.

27 November 2010 at 22:23  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Non-mouse @ 22.23, Indeed, forgive them Father, they know not what they do.

27 November 2010 at 22:57  
Blogger srizals said...

Hmm. The Nobel Prize as the yardstick of the truth. How sad. The atheists would be jumping with joy when they read this. Non of the Prophets, even Paul was awarded with such a high prestige recognition..

But then again, Paul was not even a prophet.

27 November 2010 at 23:58  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Didn't Martin Luther have a problem with the Roman Church obsession with "good works" and the money-obsession which resulted ? Didn't "Sola Fide" once have a resonance ?

Your Grace writes about all the good works the CofE undertakes as if it were Barnardos, Oxfam or NSPCC and I do wonder if it is simply Round Table. There is almost no discussion of FAITH.

I do not feel the C of E has FAITH but is simply a social organisation to raise money, send postcards on Third World Debt (when will we have postcards for First World Debt Forgiveness ?) and for divorced women and widows to feel a sense of belonging, but to an organisation which is soulless.

The Church of England seems to be a branch of the Home Office with its campaigns telling people who not to vote for, and arranging tours of mosques, telling us that Jesus was a Palestinian rather than a Judean and generally distorting the scriptures handed down through the ages to suit some fashionable agenda

28 November 2010 at 06:42  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Srizals, the Nobel Prizes are a yardstick of intellectual achievement. They have nothing to do with religion, except possibly those for Literature and Peace. Sadly the award for Peace has yet to be bestowed on the self-proclaimed Religion of Peace. Something for you to explain to yourself and then to the rest of us. Claims of victimhood will not be accepted.

28 November 2010 at 09:18  
Blogger srizals said...

Indeed bluedog, it's getting tougher and tougher now for me since I can't relate any aggressions and sufferings on behalf of the "unintelligent" people that are being tormented by the higher beings of the Nobles. The Nazi can't be touch on for Godwin's reason. What defense should I use in the court of the cleverest and the purest man of them all? How to stop people from attacking the attackers? How to fight with one eye closed? Go holiday and unwind. See you bluedog.

28 November 2010 at 11:32  
Blogger D. Singh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 November 2010 at 10:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Claire Khaw at 16.02 says:

‘When Jesus said "I render to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's" it didn't mean anything. It was just his way of getting out of trouble and saying that he had paid his taxes, OK?’

No. Not ok.

God does not ‘need to get out of trouble’. If He wanted to get out of trouble he would not have permitted His execution.

The State is a God-ordained institution. It is to punish the bad and reward the good.

Unfortunately, the British State’s Judaeo-Christian roots are dying; for example, celebrities are rewarded with knighthoods; 200,000 abortions carried out per year and Christians are being driven out of the public sector.

Christians are to obey the State in good conscience. They are to disobey the State when it commits evil actions. The disobedience has taken two forms. Both have consequences. One form is to disobey non-violently; for example, Martin Luther-King Jr and the other is to disobey violently; for example, Oliver Cromwell.

The notion of giving to God what belongs to God and giving to the State what belongs to the State is simultaneously a fundamental support to democracy, an attack upon totalitarianism and a test of the Christian’s courage often in the face of, apparently, overwhelming odds.

29 November 2010 at 10:32  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

200k a year D Singh! Unbelievable! Where are all the Nobel Prize Winners?

Are you saying the atheists and agnostics are the majority in GB now?

29 November 2010 at 10:41  
Anonymous AtillaTheHun said...

I say bluedog, since you used figures in an aspect of humanity as a tool of comparison, should we used the figures above as well as a barometer of the truth? How about genocides, atrocities inflicted in the name of religion or by those without faith? How about all the injustices done in the name of Christianity and the Western values? What say you? To be fair don't you think so? We should appreciate the wise, but we must not ignore the ignorant. Yes, knowledge flourish in the West as they are the masters of the world recently, and thus having the upper hand, laden with guilt for crimes on Jews, which would explain the support for the Jews. Nonetheless, the decadence are manifesting themselves day by day.

Out of curiosity, could you give a link of those award winners according to race and religion?

29 November 2010 at 13:54  
Anonymous AtillaTheHun said...

Updates! One more 'unintelligent' Muslim not going to be on the list of candidates of the Nobel Prestige. If you can't stop their 'thinking abilities', kill them. Google Iranian Scientist assassinated, not by "legitimized terrorists."

Remember, Muslims are not the victims, they never were. They deserved terror.

30 November 2010 at 01:53  
Anonymous bluedog said...

'Iranian Scientist assassinated, not by "legitimized terrorists."'

Reading WkiLeaks, this looks like the work of the Saudi Mukhabarat.

The Saudi King is obsessed by the threat from his fellow Muslims in Iran. However in WkiLeaks, Abdullah makes no mention of the Israeli settlements on the West Bank which are alleged to inflame Muslim opinion so much. Perhaps the Mukhabarat have correctly assessed that the Muslims are a bigger threat to the Al-Saud family than the Jews. The real problem for Abdullah is that Obama can't bring himself to attack a Muslim nation, having declared his desire to reach out to Islam.

Life was so much simpler under the one dimensional George W Bush.

30 November 2010 at 09:22  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

Apparently bluedog, apparently. How do we wade through such confusion? How can we tell who is the real enemy and who is behind the specified selective exposure and it's timing? For what purpose? Only for the sake of the truth?

30 November 2010 at 12:00  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr TheObserver, the greater irony is that the Muslim Holy Places, in the care of the Saudi King, are protected by the Israeli nuclear umbrella. And yet the Muslims continue to hold the Jews in contempt!

So what is the truth? As a Christian I can quote the words of our Saviour and Redeemer, 'I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.'

George W Bush would instantly agree. Obama might have to check before remembering its a quote from the Gospel according to St John.

30 November 2010 at 19:59  
Anonymous TheObserver said...

Mr. Bluedog, as any Muslims would told you if anyone wanted to nuke those Holy Places, they housed the House of God, we will not stop you.

Maybe this short story would tell you why. So to expect any Muslims would want to destroy their own holy places and rebel against God, is at most, absurd.

"In Yemen, there once lived a king named Abrahah under the Nejjashi (Negus) empire of Abyssinia. Abrahah wanted to please Negus and so for that he built a huge place of worship for the Christians. He wanted the attention of the crowd going to Mecca for Hajj and had plans to attract them to this new place of worship."...

http://islahicentre.org/tag/nejjashi/

I leave you with what was said to the once great Christian power.

...During that time, Abdul Muthalib, the grand father of Prophet Muhammed (s) was the leader of Quraysh and was responsible for taking care of Ka’bah. Abrahah, when he reached the outskirts of Mecca, he captured 200 camels of Abdul Muthalib. Abrahah called Abdul Muthalib for a meeting. Abrahah, while talking to Abdul Muthalib regarding his intentions, he asked Abdul Muthalib if he has anything to say.

Abdul Muthalib said, “Your men hold my camels in captive. Please release them”.

Abrahah was surprised and said, “Instead of being of concerned about the destruction of your religious monument that was built and respected by your ancestors, you are a useless who is just concerned about your camels. The impression that I had when I saw you is all gone!”

Abdul Muthalib retaliated, “I am the owner of the camels. That monument has an Owner. He will take care of it.”

1 December 2010 at 08:25  
Anonymous Checkmate said...

"Why attack both Medina and the Temple Mount? Why not only one? Because if Israel destroys only the Jerusalem mosques, the Muslim reaction will be one of rage. While if Israel destroys only the Medina mosque, the Muslim reaction will be one of fear. Israel needs both feelings to be present - rage and fear."

http://www.benabraham.com/html/checkmate_-_the_mideast_soluti.html

And you wonder why Muslims resent the Jews and had to fight them before the End of Days.

1 December 2010 at 09:03  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older