Sunday, December 12, 2010

'HOPE not hate' - the campaign to prevent Pastor Terry Jones from entering the UK


His Grace has been asked to lend his support to the 'HOPE not hate' campaign to prevent Pastor Terry Jones - the US 'Preacher of Hate' who was intent on burning the Qur'an - from entering the UK next year.

His Grace is delighted to say that he will do no such thing.

And, yes, he is fully aware that this would-be quranic incendiarist is some sort of 'swivel-eyed fundamentalist' who is almost certainly not going to be bringing us a message of peace and goodwill to all mankind.

And His Grace also knows that Pastor Jones has been invited to address a meeting of the English Defence League (a sort of devolved branch of the BNP) in a Muslim area of Luton.

And His Grace is fully aware that Pastor Jones holds certain hateful anti-Muslim views which rather conflict with the exhortation of the Lord to love one's neighbour.

And that he attempted to mark the anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attack with 'International Burn a Koran Day'.

And that Pastor Jones is not the sort of man one would appoint to a think-tank on social cohesion.

And, as the campaign's director Nick Lowles points out, that 'extremism breeds hatred and hatred breeds violence'.

But His Grace would like to point out that Pastor Jones - who appears to lead a church of a dozen who are content to meditate on the theology of a gnat - has committed no crime: he has not incited murder or violence and neither has he preached that members of any minority group ought to be summarily executed.

He threatened to burn a book.

As we know, this brought international condemnation.

But Nick Lowles informs us that Pastor Jones 'was forced to back down'.

That is simply untrue.

Pastor Jones was not 'forced' to do any such thing, for book-burning in the US is a perfectly legal pursuit under the aegis of freedom of expression enshrined in US Constitution. Pastor Jones freely chose to show restraint. Certainly, by all reports, he came under considerable pressure to do so. But we must remember that this man chose of his own free will not to burn a book which millions revere, and by repenting, by changing his mind on this matter, he showed himself to be reasonable.

Perhaps not so reasonable that you would invite him to dinner. But when a nation which values freedom of speech begins to ban religious leaders from entering the country because the Government does not agree with their theology, there is no freedom at all.

HM Government was forced to back down over its absurd ban on Geert Wilders entering the UK (he, too, wishes to abolish the Qur'an from civil society, which is tantamount to burning it). And earlier this year HM Government welcomed to the UK (at tax-payers' expense) the pastor of another church, who also had a few unpalatable and offensive messages for sundry minority groups.

His Grace is with 'Hope not hate' in opposing racism and fascism. But Islam is not a race and restricting freedom of expression and denying freedom of speech are manifestations of the very authoritarianism by which fascism is defined.

So let us welcome Pastor Terry Jones to the UK: let him preach from the pulpits and address whatever rallies will have him. The crowds will not be as great as those who gathered for the beatification of Cardinal Newman; and the preacher of secularist hate Richard Dawkins will not descend from on high to curse and condemn.

Because Pastor Terry Jones is really not worth bothering with. And the more you campaign to oppose him, the more you raise his unworthy profile, elevate his absurd theology and make him a martyr to his own petty and simplistic cause.

63 Comments:

Blogger The Heresiarch said...

Quite agree. But to be accurate, the last government did not "back down" over its attempt to ban Geert Wilders. It was defeated in the courts.

12 December 2010 at 12:21  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Heresiarch,

True.

But if one is defeated in the courts, one is forced to reconsider: ergo HM Government 'backed down' because the law required them to do so. Perhaps 'forced to back down' might be better. His Grace has amended.

12 December 2010 at 12:31  
Blogger Bryan said...

Like the flags of most countries, burning is the proper way of disposing of a Koran. Of course, it is the difference between private and solemn as opposed to public and celebratory nature of doing so which is the actual controversy.

Likewise, burning the Koran is an act of love, in much the same way as pouring a bottle of gin down the kitchen sink is an act of love when done in the face of your favorite alcoholic in his own kitchen.

Letting someone practice Islam in peace is the moral equivalent of walking past a man who is on fire and remarking, "a bit warm today, hey?"

12 December 2010 at 12:34  
Blogger Bryan said...

Hope not hate?

Perhaps they hope that no one will notice that they hate Pastor Jones and are intolerant of his message. There is no one more intolerant than those who persecute others for their supposed intolerance. No one has more hate than those who hate because the hate they perceive in others.

12 December 2010 at 12:46  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

I'm not a member of the EDL but even I know they have nothing to do with the BNP. Why do certain middle classes despise the working classes so much that they must tar them all with the same brush? Anything to do with their lack of verbal skills/education maybe? Their lack of political correctness and tendency to call a spade a spade?

12 December 2010 at 12:56  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

Issue here is whether this guys arrival will incite religious hatred. Me thinks so given who invited him and where he's going. One suspects this is deliberate and will give the Mail plenty of copy.

The Pope "... had a few unpalatable and offensive messages for sundry minority groups."

Indeed he did. However, apart from the rather ridiculous protest by Ian Paisley and the daft march of Peter Thatchell et al, the visit was uplifting. Real question is was he wrong in his interpretation of scripture - professed by the church for 2000 years?

One can choose to accept the views of whoever. Free choice and free will. But please don't expect sanatisation for public acceptability! The Pope doesn't advocate 'the sword' against Islam like others.

12 December 2010 at 13:02  
Anonymous len said...

The desire to burn a book is quite mild compared to what some of the Muslim clerics propose!.

The only hope for mankind is the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the preaching of the same is more important and relevant than burning books.

12 December 2010 at 13:20  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

I agree with the thrust of Cranmer’s comments that this odious man should be allowed to speak even if it inflames Islamic passions. The fundamental beliefs that Islam enshrines are totally incompatible with a modern, democratic, secular society where freedom of expression and the rule of law are paramount. The sooner our political class realise this, the easier it will be to remove this virus from our society. It will come to a head sooner or later, better sooner I say. Today’s bomb in Sweden provides yet another warning of what we are up against, an insane ideology with which compromise is impossible.

12 December 2010 at 13:26  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

Harry's Place has the same petition request up. Comments about the HnH campaign (including Nick Knowles) make for interesting reading:

http://hurryupharry.org/2010/12/12/sign-the-letter-no-preachers-of-hate-in-the-united-kingdom/

12 December 2010 at 13:30  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

… Pastor Jones holds certain hateful anti-Muslim views which rather conflict with the exhortation of the Lord to love one’s neighbour.

The trouble with the Lord is that He exhorted love of neighbour before the emergence of a religion that exhorts anything but love for neighbour if that neighbour is an infidel.

Is that the fatal flaw of Christianity? When a religion that sanctions violence as a means of entering Paradise clashes with a religion that offers peace and love, there is no doubt as to which will triumph. From the early annihilation of Christian communities in Arabia and north Africa right up to today’s exodus of Christians from Iraq, love has proven futile against Islam.

Quite frankly, Christianity’s only hope against Islam is temporarily to abandon peace and love, and meet sword with sword.

12 December 2010 at 13:53  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

There are none so blind as those who will not see -
http://ancientbritonpetros.blogspot.com/2010/11/none-so-blind-as-those-who-will-not-see.html

The 'Islamophobia' smoke-screen is becoming increasingly successful in preventing from speaking anyone wishing to draw attention to the excesses of Islam. In one of the most informative programmes
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-871902797772997781#
(at 40 mins) a surprised Tony Blair was asked what he knew about Islam. If he watched the completed programme the Prime Minister's response on hearing the question a second time would be interesting. I doubt that Government understanding has changed much.

Free speech is important; Islamists in our midst employ it constantly. As long as Pastor Jones is factual we should all be better informed.

12 December 2010 at 14:09  
Blogger Dave said...

I'm with Gamaliel on this. (Acts 5:34)

Let him come, let him speak.

In my travels around the UK preaching and leading worship, I came across many small groups of people who rallied around preachers with "extremist" views.
I was told by some friends as I passed a large Baptist church in Derbyshire that the minister there was particularly vocal against the ordination of women, etc, and that some of his flock travelled 50 miles to hear him preach.

I came to the conclusion that people attend the church that most closely matches their prejudices.

If he's of God, you can't stop him. Somehow I think he'll be hoist by his own petard.

12 December 2010 at 14:10  
Blogger OldSouth said...

Rev. Jones does not practice anything that resembles historical, non-heretical Christianity.

All heresies die, falling of their own weight, eventually. It is good to oppose them, but attempts to suppress speech and religious practice only tend to inflame and embolden heretics.

The best solution is: Let him come, peaceably go about his business, and ignore him. He won't gain much traction, and he will go back home to Florida, grateful to be back in the land of warm and Southern cooking.

12 December 2010 at 15:08  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Johhny Rottenborough said:

"Quite frankly, Christianity’s only hope against Islam is temporarily to abandon peace and love, and meet sword with sword."

I think such a sentiment is unworthy of your usually wiser and level headed comments. You will know that Jesus expressly forbade his followers to resort to the sword under any circumstances.
(I am not talking of war situations in which Christians may be involved where both activists and pacifists can justify their positions from Scripture).

In any event, the terrible mistake and rejection of Christ's command in this respect led to the disaster of the Crusades, and then later to the policy of persecution and death being meted out by some of the Protestant Reformers against other Christian minorities.(Anabaptists and others)

It is worth adding that collectively the Moslem world has not forgotten the hypocrisy of Christians engagement of the "sword" in the sorry Crusade saga, and there should be no attempt or occasion to either revive the notion of to justify it.
It would nullify entirely the Gospel message.
In part it arose from the mistaken idea of seeking to impose and extend some sort of 'Christendom' hegemony on other religions and cultures.

How would any Christian missionary endeavour prosper or succeed using the 'sword'?

12 December 2010 at 15:16  
Blogger St Thomas More said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 December 2010 at 15:17  
Blogger Chancellor Thomas More said...

No good can come from his arrival. He will only bring disorder and strife to the state.

12 December 2010 at 15:22  
Anonymous Oswin said...

I'm not a particular fan of American protestantism, be they writhing with snakes, speaking-in-tongues, or Darwin-denying fossil-abusers. All in all, they scare me.

The big 'however' being, they don't scare me nearly as much as do the two, point whatever, million adherents of Islam that we have within Britain.

If we are truly concerned with 'hope' and wish to displace 'hate' from our shores; then it is time for some serious truth-telling.

Britain lies to itself if it believes that Islam is anything other than a devouring abomination intent upon the domination of Britain, europe and beyond.

Be you a Bible-basher, a 'happy-clapper', conventional Anglican, moderate-muslim(?) atheist/agnostic or whatever - if you fail to realise the above, then you are, at best, a dangerous fool ...

12 December 2010 at 15:25  
Blogger Alcuin said...

Wilders ... too, wishes to abolish the Qur'an from civil society, which is tantamount to burning it

It is with the greatest diffidence that I suggest Your Grace may have misrepresented this. Wilders objects to laws banning books - several European countries have banned Mein Kampf for reasons understandable in the raw pain of 1945. His position is that the Koran is every bit as objectionable as Mein Kampf (certainly an arguable position), such that if the latter is banned, so should the former.

Historically, Britain has admitted all and sundry, such as Marx and Lenin, and tolerated them to death. Such a strategy would work with Terry Jones, who is a pretty rare form of nut. Unfortunately this strategy does not work on violently intolerant Islamists, far too many of whom have found a platform here, where they have had a deeply malign influence.

Christianity is stony ground for intolerance, Islam as all too fertile.

12 December 2010 at 15:42  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Mr Wood (15:16)—It would nullify entirely the Gospel message.

My fear is that unless Christendom physically defends itself against Islam, the Gospel message and everything associated with it will be eradicated; Islam’s declared purpose is to establish itself as the world’s only religion, by fair means or foul.

In the past, European Christendom has defeated Islam only by force of arms. I wish I could believe that the Gospel message alone would do the trick this time round but I’m sorry to say it will not.

12 December 2010 at 15:44  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr Rottenborough informs us:
'… Pastor Jones holds certain hateful anti-Muslim views which rather conflict with the exhortation of the Lord to love one’s neighbour.

The trouble with the Lord is that He exhorted love of neighbour before the emergence of a religion that exhorts anything but love for neighbour if that neighbour is an infidel.

Is that the fatal flaw of Christianity?
'

Ah, Mr R, along with so many others -- not least, commenters on this blog -- you mistake the origin of the command to love the neighbour, and you completely miss what Jesus had to say about it.

You shall love your neighbour as yourself' is from the Mosaic Torah, pre-dating Jesus by many hundreds of years (Leviticus 19:18). Jesus endorsed that commendment, and commended his Jewish hearers for their knowldege of it.

But he added to it in the sermon on the mount (which so many people claim to follow, without the slightest understanding of what it says), “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour’ and ‘hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, love your enemy and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be like your Father in heaven, since he causes the sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?" (Matthew 5:43-46)

The fatal flaw of 'Christianity' is that its adherents don't seem to be aware of this commandment, and have for centuries been persecuting and killing those whom they dislike, including other professing Christians.

Jesus uttered these words in the face of enemies at least as implacable as those to whom you refer, urging his followers to turn the other cheek, and 'giving his own back to the smiters, and his cheeks to them that plucked out the hair.'.

Whilst, as I suspect, you do not yourself profess to be a follower of Jesus, you are of course free to be sceptical about its ethical demands. Professing Christians, though, have no such excuse, and it is grievous to hear their blood-curdling rhetoric in relation to Muslims and others. It is that sort of talk that gives me considerable sympathy for the views of The Dawk and his followers.

12 December 2010 at 16:02  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

Is the only response to all the poor souls misled by Islam that of violent suppression?

It wasn't that long ago that heretics were hung drawn and quartered in this fair land or that Jewish people were expelled or coralled.

Isn't it the extreme Islamists who are the enemy? Why play into their hands? Their evident tactic is to draw down fear and hate on Muslims to justify fundamentalist Islam. Why play in to their hands?

For God's sake lets be a little more intelligent!

12 December 2010 at 16:03  
Blogger Anabaptist said...

Mr Rottenborough further tells us (@15:44):
'European Christendom has defeated Islam only by force of arms.'

Too right, Mr R, and there you put your finger on the heart of the issue, namely Christendom. The concept of Christendom, which turns Christianity into a worldly power, reversing its original, Jesus-centred palce on the margins. From being persecuted, it became a persecutor. Churches became 'the Church' -- an oppressive inolerant organisation as far from Christ's body as can be.

All that is wrong about Christianity today is in some way the result of the Christendom concept.

12 December 2010 at 16:28  
Anonymous Oswin said...

See above 'dangerous fools' ...

12 December 2010 at 16:39  
Blogger Crusader said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 December 2010 at 17:18  
Anonymous Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! It's perfectly true that nobody listens to the working class, as the recent episode at Hiram's Hospital demonstrates quite clearly. Why, my Lord Bishop is quite clear about the rich man in his castle and the poor man at his gate. But, having had a long and interesting discussion with Mr Quiverful at Hogglestock I have come round to the view that if no one listens to the working man he will be forced to take desperate measures, or indeed, turn towards some demagogue who promises him not only jam tomorrow and jam yesterday, but jam today as well. Therefore do not blame Tommy Atkinds for joining the EDL: rather ask the question, why has he been forced to do so in the first place?

12 December 2010 at 17:18  
Anonymous Voyager said...

I don't consider "Pastor" Jones to be any such thing. He is a former hotel manager who was prosecuted in Germany for fraudulent claims regarding his religious training.

Luton is a provocative choice as the Stockholm bomber seems to be an Iraqi with Luton connections. That alone gives the Home Secretary a claim to exclude him.

Frankly, I think he should be excluded and that should set a dstandard for excluyding nutcase Muslim so-called religious leaders.


Britain has been engaged in a peculiar "dialogue" with extremist Muslims in Turkey and the Middle East and lets them into this country as part of the deal, just as Britrain imported Algerian loons expelled by France in the 1980s on condition they did not foul their nest here.

There is no merit in being a plaything for Americans or Arabs or Pakistanis and we should start to seal our borders tightly.

12 December 2010 at 17:19  
Blogger Crusader said...

Ecclesiastes 3

"There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under the heavens:
a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace."

Give peace a chance before embarking on yet another religious crusade!

12 December 2010 at 17:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You clearly cannot tell the time 'Crusader'!

12 December 2010 at 17:41  
Blogger English Viking said...

If Christ was such a lefty, how come he fashioned a whip with his own hands and used it to drive the money-changers from the temple, over-turning their tables and ruining their business for the day?

When he ordered believers to turn the other cheek, I think he was saying that we should be prepared to suffer loss, even physical abuse, and UNNECESSARY escalation is to be avoided. He did not say ' ... allow your enemies to rape your women, or bury them in the back garden for immodest attire'.

To love someone as myself I must correct them when they are wrong. To allow an enormous group of people to develop a parallel system of Law and Government, who openly declare that they intend to take over the country and also the world, by force, to continue along that path without correction is criminally insane, cowardly and sinful.

Someone had to physically confront Hitler and his forces. This was after numerous cheek-turnings. Failure to have done so would have been a colossal error. An even bigger one is being made by failing to confront Islam, head-on.

12 December 2010 at 18:01  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Graham Wood, I am no expert on History, but didn't the Muslims embark on an expansion into what were territories inhabited by Christians and Jews and did this by use of the Sword, thereby ending up in Jerusalem and this in part was what triggered the Crusades?

I can't say I agree with the brutality of the Crusades but surely they were embarked upon to recapture the Holy land from Islamic Expansion. Mustn't we also bear in mind that Christians were around for hundreds of years before Islam even existed.

Again I could well be wrong but hasn't Islam always expanded it's influence by use of the sword.

12 December 2010 at 18:05  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I dont see why the home secretary is thinking too deeply about this , as yet he hasnt had weekly meetings on the road in east london , nor promoted 9/11 as a blessing , and even then it takes many years to be deported .I pressume he realises the EDL is not the Ecclesastiecal Democratic Liberals and has said he will be mindfull of our laws on free speech which differ from the USA.
He has no outstanding offence restricting his travell , in that sense he is free .
As for being a preacher of hate , i dont think we have judged that yet .
So its all sailing awfully close to prejudugment and freedom of assembly at this stage and perhaps misses the all too vocal radical Islamic assemblies at remembrance day which no such ban has been imposed .
The EDL do perhaps cause a concern in how they conduct themselves given parliment squares protests have caused so much anger .
In some ways it is more worrying if as free person we lose the right to speak freely , might as well design the memorial for hyde park corner commemorating the last person who spoke before the law was enacted .

12 December 2010 at 18:16  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Anabaptist (16:02)—Far from indulging in ‘blood-curdling rhetoric’, it seems to me that professing Christians in Britain are among the leading appeasers of Islam; Muslims can’t believe their luck.

Since Christians will not confront Islam, thank God there are people like the English Defence League, and even fellow travellers of Christianity like me, to do the job for them. We don’t expect any thanks, which is just as well because it doesn’t look like any will be forthcoming.

12 December 2010 at 18:17  
Anonymous JayBee said...

Jesus who said “Love your enemies" also said to his disciples who were about to face severe persecution “But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one." (Luke 22:36)

I believe this gives us the right of self defence.

In a civilised society one would normally expect this right to be exercised by Government protecting its citizens by policing or military force. Appeasing a belligerent minority that lays claim to every square inch of the UK in the name of its god, is no way to preserve freedom. Nevertheless, the use of force by individuals or groups can only be justified if Government fails to protect them.

12 December 2010 at 18:27  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Your Grace, I should like to amend the second paragraph of my last comment as follows:

Since Christians will not confront Islam, thank God there are people like the English Defence League, atheists like Mr Davis, and even fellow travellers of Christianity like me, to do the job for them.

12 December 2010 at 19:00  
Anonymous Ross J Warren said...

Burning the Koran is pointless gesture politics,I do not support it, but as this man is clearly a fellow traveler who has done nothing wrong, I would wish to see him welcome.

We have no reason to keep this man out.

12 December 2010 at 19:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

im not sure how you can link the edl with the bnp when the edl has members of various ethnic minorities and religions including islam. then again your a tool of the media and are happy to go with the flow. unfortunately bnp types tag along but the edl as an organisation is nothing like them and has no truck with their vision/

12 December 2010 at 19:47  
Blogger Phil Taylor said...

Rather impressed that those suggesting that Christianity "fight back" are neglecting what Jesus said about turning the other cheek and also apparently under the impression that humans are more powerful than God.

So what if Muslims fight by the sword? We are not called to fight as humanity does but as God does. You want to "fight" Islam? Pray!!!
Questioning the survivability of Christianity in the world is as good as questioning God's power and will on the matter. If God wills it that His Church end then there's nothing we can do to stop it, nor should we. However, if He wills it that His Church should survive (and I'm pretty sure that he does) then there's nothing that you, or I, or any Islamic horde can do to stop this.

Now please, can we have some more sensible and, more importantly, Biblical comments?!

12 December 2010 at 19:58  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

I would only be prepared to support organisations like "Hope not Hate" if they can show that their message is directed universally, against hate preachers regardless of their religion.

But I wonder how many people supporting this campaign have in the past, argued that some other extremist preacher of another religion should be allowed into this country because we should not prevent it on the basis of freedom of expression?

People have desecrated the Bible, indeed I read recently that one such Bible has been a made into a "Work of Art" and is on display in Scotland.

I'm all for respect of other views, but this has to be two way, and at the moment is most certainly isn't.

12 December 2010 at 20:06  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Turn the other cheek is lost in the English banality. Jesus was a Torah-observant Jew in 1st century Judea and used midrash and other rabbinical methods to communicate with fellow Jews.

To slap the right cheek was an insult punishable. To offer the other cheek was to demean the transgressor by showing the attempt at humiliation was ineffectual.

It does not signify being a carpet for thugs to wipe their boots on. Such is the bastardisation of Christian Faith by revisionist translation

12 December 2010 at 20:17  
Blogger Dick Puddlecote said...

Very well said, your Grace. That's all.

12 December 2010 at 20:40  
Blogger Crusader said...

Christianity and freedom do have to be protected by the sword - at the right time and in the right way.

I fought and died for Jerusalem;
At Tours;
The siege of Constantinople;
At the Le Panto;
The Battle for Vienna;
The Battle of Philippopolis;
There too at Gallipoli and Junction Station;
At el Alamein, Montecasino, over the skies of Sussex, Normandy and Berlin.

What to pick up the sword for today? Against 13 billion people who follow a faith other than mine? To die for Christ on behalf of a feckless generation; a generation obsessed with self and who turn away from God daily?

"Without a vision the people perish" (Prv 29:18)

12 December 2010 at 22:02  
Anonymous A humble plumber said...

One agrees with His Grace.

12 December 2010 at 22:06  
Blogger Mr Eman said...

Ummm, fascinating blog comments.

I tend to agree with Cranmer's suggestion to allow him into the country. Although I disagree with many of his arguments getting to his conclusions.

Let the man in. I cannot call him pastor. He can then be arrested for public order offences and inciting hatred and then deported.

12 December 2010 at 22:29  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Atlas very rarely disagrees with anything your grace has to say, this is no exception.

To ban this man now, would simply add much more fuel to the establishments home grown fire. To not do so, would not add as much, but it would still add plenty enough.

Which is why this whole issue has been given so much coverage by the MSM.

Would it not have been better if the Media had just ignored the entire issue, in the same way that they entirely ignore so many far more important others?

We should ALWAYS ask ourselves, why this at all? Why this now especially when so many other highly important issues either never get reported at all, or are effectively ignored, as soon as they are begrudgingly mentioned.

We should also ask ourselves why the Murdoch media, ITN and the BBC report the same issues, more or less the same way, at the same time, and for a very similar length of it?

One could be forgiven for thinking that they are all taking their instructions from the same people. While at the same time sourcing ALL of their major, as well as most of their minor news stories from the exact same one, or two places.

One could be forgiven, because that is precisely what they have been doing for a very long time. The people, being elements working for the establishment, mainly MI5 operatives, or Common Purpose graduates, that have now infested every TV, Radio and Fleet Street news department that exists.

The sources, being The Associated Press and Reuters, who are both majority owned by the same members of the British establishment that set up the BBC in the first place.

There is no point the establishment deliberately winding-up our Muslim brothers if the establishment do not also wind-up the remaining nationalist elements within the country. To not do so would not bring the required blood onto the streets. Which will not do, not do at all.

How many more excuses, do the proverbial they need to give to such groups as the BNP to start going seriously psycho all over our major cities?

It matters not what the precise number turns out to be. This because they will not stop winding-up the natives of both here, and the middle-east, until their desired effect is achieved. At which point they will move to the next stage of their plan. I do not know precisely what the next stage will be, all I do know is that they do, and it will not be good for any of us.

Whether this issue turns out to be the spark or final straw, remains to be seen.

I suspect not, however please be reminded, we now have a Conservative government apparently running the country. Which if past experience is anything to go by, which it always is, things could get rather more nasty on the streets, a whole lot more quickly than at anytime during the last Labour government.

Or perhaps more accurately, they certainly may appear to have become so, if the BBC have anything to do with it. Which of course they most surly will, in many ways more then one.

12 December 2010 at 23:23  
Blogger Chancellor Thomas More said...

Is it an 'Illuminati' plot brother Atlas shrugged? Driven perhaps by a world elite intent on world domination? Or a cabal of capitalists?

In my time it was a Papal conspiracy. In later times a Zionist/Masonic conspiracy; followed by a communist one; and more recently it turns out to be Islamist.

So many conspiracies! Maybe the press report what the populace want to read.

13 December 2010 at 00:32  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the original monotheistic religion called Atenism has the right idea.

"love god and do no harm"

that does not however make Atenists a bunch of pacifists because their single command to do no harm allows the use of force to prevent greater harm being done, surely a good christian should step in to prevent someone harming a child? if so what is the difference to them taking a physical stance against the evil of islam?

as to this pastor of 50, of course he should be allowed into this country, he has broken no laws and has done no harm to anyone unlike the fascists of the hope not hate and the laughably named uaf who are more fascistic than the bnp have ever been.

Mike (England)

13 December 2010 at 00:38  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Would their slogan be more honestly worded: Hope not, Hate not?

How many of us ever practiced "hate" before these people invaded and started spitting the word at us? [Not me]

How many of us even disliked Middle Eastern/subContinental people, before they invaded us and started being culturally aggressive? [Not me - I used to visit their countries and be quite fascinated by the whole thing: vive la diff. etc.]

Now I find that my attitude to them has done a 180 because of their own actions, attitudes, and ... yes, the word they understand best: hate. They are the ones who've taught me what it can mean.
____________

In support of my claim, I cite the following incident:
Not long ago, in the US, I dropped a $10.00 bill while checking out at the supermarket. For whatever reason (I limp and am not young) the sari-wearing woman behind me picked it up. Appreciative of her human-kindness, I smiled and thanked her.

Her husband nearly exploded -"She's English!" The woman said, "I didn't realize." (They spoke in English to each other, at that stage).
_________________

So YG can claim to his heart's content that I'm the one who suffers from arrested development --- I simply don't believe you.

13 December 2010 at 03:18  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Oh - and as to the guy from the city of Gainsberg (Gainesville to you) ... I incline to returning his hospitality.

I lived and studied in 'Gator territory for a year or so (it's home to the University of Florida). Can't pretend that I enjoyed it, although the environs are pretty.

I was, though, quite chuffed that Mr. Jones put the place on the map, and I appreciated the symbolism inherent in his act: they shouldn't build a mosque at Ground 0, or otherwise crow about their strength an our weakness. Neither should they replace the Bible with their own version of the story.

The only reasons I'd recommend that he stay home would involve his own safety. Most Floridians neither know nor care what's happened to Britain: so the reception that awaits him in this alien and mozzy colony would shock them.

13 December 2010 at 03:49  
OpenID makewealthhistory.org said...

Easy for you to say - you won't have him on your street, along with the police horses and the young men in black hoods. As a resident of Luton, I feel somewhat differently.

Luton is a diverse town, large asian community, and gets along just fine. The English Defence League holds its protests in Luton not because it has lots of supporters here, but because it sees the potential for lots of supporters. To your average Lutonian, he could not be less welcome.

Of course I'm in favour of free speech, but we also have laws about incitement to hatred and Jones would clearly be in breach of those.

Enjoy the view from your high horse. I'll be signing the petition.

13 December 2010 at 08:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

""And, as the campaign's director Nick Lowles points out, that 'extremism breeds hatred and hatred breeds violence'."'

Quite right !

I look forward to giving my support to Mr Lowles campaign to deport all anti-British extremist element.

Oh,hang on- Nick is a communist , so that campaign aint't gonna see the(Search)light of day , is it ??

Marcus Foxall

13 December 2010 at 10:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

”the English Defence League (a sort of devolved branch of the BNP)”

The EDL have nothing to do with the British National Party. EDL have stated this on their banners in the past – “Not the BNP”. The British National Party’s chairman has made it abundantly clear to members on several occasions that they will be expelled for attending or supporting EDL events.

13 December 2010 at 10:24  
Anonymous non mouse said...

ummm... that's what I say. He wouldn't be welcome. That's why he shouldn't go. His backbone's too good for them, besides.

In addition to misreading, you jump to conclusions. You see, the last time I rode a camel was in the desert. While the seat was higher than any horse, the view was desolate. Spacious, though.

It's true, I admire horses; though rest assured that even wild ones have more sense than to drag me to your mozzy Luton. I do care, however, that parts of Yorkshire are also off limits -- not just because hissing aliens have destroyed the view I love: they refuse to let us native folk in, anyway.

We are no longer welcome in our homeland - while the conquering hordes stride masterfully about in flowing saffron robes, exuding hatred. Simple logic really --- our eyes are the wrong colour. I mentioned the last fact to an old schoolfriend, who answered that I'm not allowed to say things like that, nowadays.

But I reject your hegemony.

13 December 2010 at 10:35  
Anonymous non mouse said...

My last note addressed the remarks of makewealth history.

13 December 2010 at 10:38  
Blogger Phil Taylor said...

Voyager, you seem to forget that Gandhi embarrassed the British government into giving India it's freedom through turning the other cheek. There's proof that it can work if ever there was need!
Whilst I am not suggesting that we should offer ourselves to be walked all over, "fighting fire with fire" etc will only lead to some of the idiocies that have come from all the various religious wars that Christians have been a key part of because of their faith. The Crusades were a good call for trying to regain lands stolen by the Moors and Turks, but then you see how people abused the call to defend Christian-held lands and you realise that human nature is not capable of fighting a truly just war except in the most extreme circumstances (so far, WW2 is the only truly just war to have happened imo) and so to say anything to encourage this sort of attitude will only lead to pain and suffering, neither of which is something that God wants.

And I say again, are you really that scared about God not being able to protect His Church? Truly Christ spoke to the heart of the matter when he said "Why are you so afraid? Do you still have no faith?" (Mark 4:40) Trust that God knows what he's doing and act as Jesus did. Jesus fought through being the servant of the people he created. And I know this much, fighting fire with fire is not serving anyone!

13 December 2010 at 12:33  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

makewealthhistory.org

um, It looks like the Swedish bomber might well have been from Luton, where it is reported that he was radicalised.
Admittedly its early days yet in the investigation but if true it doesn't appear to bear out that all is sweetness and harmony in that area.

It might also be a reason for the EDL to protest there.

13 December 2010 at 13:07  
Anonymous Oswin said...

JohnnyRottenborough @19.00

Amen to that!

Us lesser/nominal/knowingly hyocritical 'Christians' (and others) will be the eventual saviours of Britain ... fighting on two fronts, the enemy to the fore, and the massed ranks of holier-than-thou, conscience-mongers sniping at our rear!

Appeasement and liberal conciliation have got us to where we are now; more of the same will not save us from what is yet to come.

We are indeed lucky that the majority of us are singularly lesser mortals ...

13 December 2010 at 13:25  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Phil Taylor @ 12.33

''You seem to forget that Gandhi'' openly stated that his policy of ''turning the other cheek'' could only have worked against the British!

You really cannot choose the wee bits, and snippets of history that serve your purpose, to the exclusion of the wider truth!

13 December 2010 at 13:32  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ makewealthhistory.org (08:19)—Of course I’m in favour of free speech, but we also have laws about incitement to hatred and Jones would clearly be in breach of those.

The Qur’an and other Islamic texts fairly bristle with incitements to hatred. Why not start a petition to ban them? You can certainly count on my signature.

@ Oswin (13:25)—You express it beautifully. It looks as though professing Christians are shaping up to be the conscientious objectors in the fight against Islam. But, when the current Archbishop of Canterbury describes Islam as ‘a fine religion’, what else can we expect?

13 December 2010 at 13:49  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

For those that have access:

http://www.facebook.com/notes/english-defence-league-edl/english-defence-league-press-release/173843549304444

13 December 2010 at 19:49  
Blogger LeucipottomySpoon82 said...

Interesting: All not sweetness and light in Luton

13 December 2010 at 20:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

HERE IS A MAN WHO SAYS THE KORAN IS AN EVIL BOOK AND WE MUST REGISTER OUR ABSOLUTE OPPOSITION TO IT BY PUBLICLY BURNING IT. AND WHAT IS OUR RESPONSE TO HIM? WE TELL HIM HE IS THE "BAD GUY".

AND HOW DO MUSLIMS RESPOND? THEY RESPOND BY THREATENING TO KILL WESTERNERS IN RETALIATION FOR BURNING THE KORAN.

DOESN'T THAT CONFIRM THAT THE KORAN AND KORAN BELIEVERS ARE EVERY BIT AS BAD AS WHAT TERRY JONES SAYS AND THAT IT IS THEREFORE MORALLY IMPERATIVE TO OPPOSE ISLAM?

TERRY JONES IS NOT A HATE PREACHER; THIS FANTASTICALLY BIZARRE CHARACTERISATION IS TO ME INDICATIVE OF A DEEPLY DISEASED AND IRRATIONAL PSYCHE AND PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE IT ARE THE DELIQUESCENT DETRITUS OF A DYING SOCIETY.

14 December 2010 at 04:12  
Blogger Phil Taylor said...

Oswin, have you had a lobotomy or are you really as dense as your comments suggest? (Harsh start perhaps, but I have really come to the end of my tether with the amount of idiots here who seem to think that Christianity, i.e. following Jesus, should start fighting "fire with fire")

Jesus never used violence. Jesus never spoke positively about using violence. If we are truly to be followers of Jesus then start by following His teachings.
Ok, so some have a way of interpreting the "turn the other cheek" thing. But I don't see any other teaching from Jesus about how to respond. And if we take the Bible correctly (the way to know God, through Jesus, so that we might be saves, and as a guide to live life at all times and in all times) then we go by what He said and did.

And as to this ridiculous comment about my mention of Gandhi's tactics, did they work? Yes. Did he use violence? No. What, and indeed who, did Gandhi say he based his understandings upon? Jesus! (yes, I know he didn't believe Jesus was the Son of God, but that doesn't take away from how Gandhi understood Jesus' teachings)
And I think you'll find that whilst at that time it could "only have worked on the British" we are now living in a world where the majority would react in the same way as the British back then.

Any that believe truly that violence in response to violence is the answer, quote me some scripture (and by that I mean NT, not just OT) that says it's how we should respond, because I really can't find any!

17 December 2010 at 16:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

if you read the america press, this little pastor has a tiny congregation, is a known creepy greedy trouble maker, it cost the americans a donation of a new car to stop him from burning a book worth about 6.00.

i will burn 10 books on you tube for say a secondhand ford focus......lols.
[what can i say, we are all in this together, with the cuts n all]

17 December 2010 at 23:46  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older