Wednesday, February 15, 2012

What kind of idiot does Baroness Warsi take the Pope for?

It was a good speech – carefully crafted and spiritually sensitive, and quite good enough for the Rev’d George (who appears to be falling in love). Baroness Warsi, leading a delegation (at least two of whom are gay, and thereby afflicted with an ‘objective disorder’) to the Pontifical Ecclesiastical Academy in the Holy See, focused on the warm, cuddly stuff: inter-religious dialogue, human rights, fundamental values, communities, fair trade, disarmament, climate change, and closer cooperation between the United Kingdom and the Holy See. There was a fair smattering of Red Tory Catholic Social Teaching on the common good and sustaining a culture of social, economic and political responsibility.

But there was something ever so slightly inappropriate, not to say embarrassingly patronising, about a few sections of the speech, which made His Grace wonder at the religio-political disconnect which exists at Conservative Campaign Headquarters. Not only is it bizarre that the Baroness is of the view that Britain is being taken over by Dr Evan Harrismilitant secularists’; there is more than a hint of blaming these poor marginalised members of the National Secular Society for great swathes of government policy. The NSS actually boasts about 7,000 members – the same number as the British Sausage Appreciation Society.

If that’s a takeover, the BNP are virtually at Downing Street. The problem isn’t the paltry number of ‘militant secularists’ or the rise of ‘aggressive secularism’: it’s the gulf that exists between what Baroness Warsi is preaching and what HM Government is practising. If Pope Benedict has got half a brain (which he surely has, along with two or three other halves as well) he must be wondering what on earth this woman takes him for.

Her introduction included the observation that diplomacy between England (though she said the United Kingdom) and the Holy See is ‘the oldest formal diplomatic relationship in my country’s history’, dating back to 1479. But, she continued, ‘for reasons we all know too well, we broke diplomatic relations...’

Don’t, for God’s sake, mention the ‘R’ word.

And she went on to boast about her speech at the Anglican Bishops’ Conference on the importance of governments ‘doing God’, with the Coalition ‘marking a clean break with the approach from the past’ (ie Blair), saying that ‘our Government would be on the side of faith.’ And so she made a plea (‘one simple argument’) ‘to ensure faith has a proper space in the public sphere...’.


Setting aside what she might have meant by ‘proper’, it must be observed that the Coalition has simply continued (and, indeed, extended) New Labour’s aggressive assertions of equality: if it moves, it has to be equalised. It is the inviolable dogma and immutable creed to which religion, politics and the economy must be subsumed.

Baroness Warsi insists that Christians ‘need to feel stronger in their religious identities, more confident in their beliefs’. This, she avers, ‘means individuals not diluting their faith...and nations not denying their religious heritage’.


This is a Cabinet minister of a government which fully supports Labour’s war against Roman Catholic adoption agencies, and intends to go even further than Tony Blair went with civil partnerships in a quest to redefine marriage. If that isn’t diluting faith and denying heritage, it’s difficult to know what is. Marriage isn’t exclusively Christian, but its essential heterogeneity is certainly part of our religious heritage: the Established Church maintains that the venerable institution consists of one man and one woman for the procreation of children.

But she avoids that banana, opting instead for a swipe at French laïcité. Europe, she says, ‘needs to become more confident in its Christianity.’ She bemoans the ‘basic misconception’ that somehow ‘to create equality and space for minority faiths and cultures we need to erase our majority religious heritage’. This is strange, since religious equality demands a paradigm shift in the state: a multi-faith presence in the House of Lords; a Monarch who is ‘defender of faiths’; a Church of England complemented by a Mosque of England, the Gurdwara of England, the Mandir of England...

And she boldly proclaims: ‘You cannot and should not erase these Christian foundations from the evolution of our nations any more than you can or should erase the spires from our landscapes.’ And yet these foundations are not buildings or spires, but centuries of accumulated wisdom based on Scripture, tradition and reason. She continues:
Let me get one thing very clear (oh, go on): In the United Kingdom, we have guarded against such fear by recognising the importance of the Established Church and our Christian heritage – our majority faith. And that is what has created religious freedom and a home for people like me, of minority faiths.
She’s quite right there, of course. But this Established Church is being somewhat sidelined by the Government of which she is part. And her primary allegiance is to her Prime Minister and Party Leader; not to the Archbishop of Canterbury. Such inconvenient truths are conveniently sidestepped, and there follows a profound, insightful and revelatory bit of theological exegesis:
As the Bible teaches us: “For even as the body without the spirit is dead: so also faith without works is dead.”
The Quran teaches us something similar – that:
“those who believe and do good works are the best of created beings”.
Stunning, eh? And yet she berates those politically-correct ecumenists who reduce irreconcilable doctrines of God to the most banal common denominator.

This was followed by a little requisite flattery and sycophancy: the Roman Catholic Church is credited for being ‘instrumental in toppling communism’ and for playing a ‘key role in securing peace in Northern Ireland’.

Dr Paisley might have a different perspective (as might all dispassionate historians).

If, as she says, spirituality is suppressed and divinity downgraded (fine, alliterative oratory, incidentally, and most worthy of His Grace [– who wrote this speech?]); and if, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has said, faith is looked down on as the pastime of ‘oddities, foreigners and minorities’; and if we are at that place ‘where religion is dismissed as an eccentricity’ and ‘where faith is overlooked in the public sphere’, it is utterly bizarre that she apportions blame for all this to the ‘European Constitution. Why not look a little nearer home?

When she criticises the ‘well-intentioned liberal elite...who, conversely, are trying to create equality by marginalising faith in society...who think that the route to religious pluralism is by creating a path of faith-neutrality...who downgrade religion to a mere subcategory in public life’, she is talking to her own government and to the Prime Minister, for on the subject of sexual morality, he has said (‘as a church-goer’ himself): "I think Christians should be tolerant and welcoming and broad-minded."

By saying he’s a church-goer before expounding his doctrine, he places the imprimatur of the Bride of Christ upon his belief: ‘I’m a church-goer, and...’ is to arrogate to himself a certain spiritual authority; to appropriate a superior experience; to claim charismatic insight; to place his theological judgement over and above those who oppose homosexual behaviour. And if none of this, he is certainly placing his Anglicanism over and above their Protestant Evangelicalism, which is itself illiberal and religiously regressive.

But the inference is, in any case, quite clear: if you disagree with him, you are intolerant, unwelcoming and narrow-minded, which amounts to the same as being unloving, inhospitable and bigoted. To be a clanging cymbal with no love is not to be a Christian of any kind. Cameron and Warsi are themselves part of the ‘well-intentioned liberal elite’. They want us to ‘do God’ more assertively, but not the Pope’s kind of God. For if you believe the inclination toward homosexuality to be an ‘intrinsic disorder’, and if you believe marriage to be heterosexual, you are a homophobe. If you believe women should be neither priests nor bishops, you are a misogynist. If you oppose abortion and contraception, you are anti-liberty and anti-women’s rights. And neither does the Baroness admit the God of the Established Church, for if you believe the Throne of the United Kingdom should remain Protestant, you are a bigot. It is all reminiscent of the remark made on Roman Catholic schools by Labour’s Barry Sheerman MP. He detected 'intense turmoil' about the future of Catholic education, and asserted: 'It seems to me that faith education works all right as long as people are not that serious about their faith. But as soon as there is a more doctrinaire attitude questions have to be asked. It does become worrying when you get a new push from more fundamentalist bishops. This is taxpayers' money after all.'

People who are 'not serious about their faith' do not possess a faith. And faith schools which are 'not serious about their faith' are not faith schools. Let us all ‘do God’, but not by all means, for we must make sure it is the loving God of mercy who accepts us just as we are, for the Holy God of judgement who punishes and rejects is no longer welcome.


Blogger G. Tingey said...

Answering your question directly ...
The same, identical sort of idiot that she (Warsi) is ....

For a genuine take on Warsi's idiocies, read the comments sections of the two Daily Telegraph articles on this loopiness.
Now, theis is the "Telegraph", right?
WHere the readership are centre-to right-to far-right (though the latter tend to cluster in the "Mail")
Now, like I said, read the comments.
and here too:

Very interesting.

15 February 2012 at 08:26  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Yes. While 70 odd percent of the population identify as Christian, we are being overtaken by militant secularism. More of the kind of illogical hysteria that gives religion a bad name. Keep it coming. As someone tweeted, "Britain being overtaken by militant secularism, says Muslim woman seated at cabinet table"

15 February 2012 at 09:12  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

David Cameron is pandering to the secularists by suggesting the Church waters down doctrine or gets rid of unpalatable truths. The Pope has seen these dodgy backsliders before. Rowan Williams won't be saying much about all this visit. If he does, it will be tightly worded phrases.

Sometimes the Church of England is its own worst enemy. By giving in to worldly beliefs and trying to be like the world, the Gospel has been sacrificed.

15 February 2012 at 10:25  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Then again, if the Gospel is seen as being irrelevant to the world, the world will continue to ignore it.

15 February 2012 at 10:43  
Blogger bluedog said...

It's all taqiyya, Your Grace, much as one would like to believe it is not.

Warsi needs Christianity as cover for Muslim expansion, not out of Abrahamic solidarity. There is no doubting that Warsi is a class act, and certainly smart enough to realise that if Christianity is delegitimised, Islam has no prospect of acceptance by the increasingly secular political elites. Note also the gratuitous support and justification for Turkish membership of the EU. That would burnish her credentials on the Bosphorus.

And Warsi is also a social climbing snob. For years the top-end girls boarding schools in England have been educating the daughters of the Pakistani elite, as Warsi would be well aware. For some reason the sons are not risked in the West until much older. In any event, it seems likely Warsi's choice of a particular Anglican convent is on referral of the Pakistani social register. Indeed, one can imagine Warsi on parent's day, the social lioness, English and Urdu in alternate sentences, throwing her head back in laughter.

Yet by mentioning her daughter's Christian education to the Pope, what was Warsi really trying to achieve? Are those remarks anything other than a case of pimping her daughter for political gain? Warsi says that her daughter's Christian education has only served to strengthen the child's Muslim faith; certainly a remarkable nine year-old if true. But in which case, why is the Pope going to be either impressed or interested?

And so many references to Pakistan in the speech. Is Warsi confused by which country she represents? Did she confer with the Pakistan High commission before giving the speech in Rome? Perhaps we should be told.

Your Grace, this woman is extremely dangerous. Quite why the British political elite continues to indulge her is beyond comprehension.

15 February 2012 at 10:49  
Blogger non mouse said...

A fat Pakistani Moslem female with a German title has the gall (pun intended) to say that it represents me. It not only tells me what I must say, think, and do -- it tells me what I think and what I am.

And that includes the necessity of including me as part of itself.

wv: ingla

Now there's multiculturalism for them.

15 February 2012 at 11:05  
Blogger Jon said...

In which case, Your Grace, surely the time has come to recommend disestablishment, so that the CoE can be free to pursue an agenda of spiritual and ideological purity and reject the Big-Society-based reduction of the Church to something like the religious wing of the WI?

Where the interests of the Conservative party and the interests of the Church conflict (as David Cameron evidently believes they do) - I guess you will take the side of the Church. Since this is happening increasingly frequently, perhaps its time you took your leave?

15 February 2012 at 11:16  
Blogger Jon said...

Taking your leave of the Conservative party, I mean, rather than blogging. I don't want you doing anything so rash as stopping writing...

15 February 2012 at 11:17  
Blogger anne said...

The same idiot that she and her ilk take the rest us of for.

15 February 2012 at 11:20  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

The C of E IS the religious wing of the WI. Or is it the religious wing of the Conservative Party?

15 February 2012 at 11:22  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

>People who are 'not serious about their faith' do not possess a faith.

Ah, so that's the 70% census figure down the drain eh? It seems you agree with Prof Dawkins on that one. Wonderful!

15 February 2012 at 12:04  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

A fine assessment Bluedog.

The appointment of Warsi is simply a crude example of political multi-tokenism. The fact that she is female and therefore likely to appeal to all women and that she will be perceived as less 'scary' than a bearded Muslim male, is no coincidence.

Regarding the 'secularphobia' (if there is such a word) element - this is simply the Islamic foot in the door for greater incursion into British politics.

Secularism is not ant-faith. It is not an exclusively atheist concept either.

The USA's Declaration of Independence contains a clear statement of everyone inalienable right to freely follow their religion without hindrance (but I doubt that it had todays resurgent Islam secured within its orbit of reference). It also made the similarly clear commitment to keep religious influence out of politics. The US is constitutionally a Secular State and we have relied on the support of that Country in matters of protection of our own - what's the problem?

Secularism a neutral, not an extreme position, and occupies a middle ground between repressive theocracies and regimes where any expression of faith is outlawed or at least heavily controlled.

'Baroness Warsi will call for a more robust discussion between people of different faiths. She says that faith has a “key role” in bridging divides. She will say: “Interfaith dialogue works when we debate our differences, when we wear our beliefs on our sleeves. It’s not about you giving your version of God, and me giving my version of God. And us coming to some watered-down compromise.”

Complete and utter bollocks.

Individual liberty in the West and World peace is threatened not by Socialism or Secularism, but by Political Islam. To believe that Islam as just another religion is to fall for the fallacy of 'my enemy's enemy is my friend' is a clear act of delusion.

15 February 2012 at 12:16  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


The American Founding Fathers realized the limited government was only possible if the population was sufficiently virtuous to restrain its own behavior voluntarily. The mechanism they assumed would achieve this necessary condition was religion. Do not mistake the lack of an established church for an officially secular society. There was no equation of religion and its non-theistic counterparts in the minds of those who established the American government. The First Amendment was intended to protect religion from national government. It was never intended to isolate religion in the private sphere. That is simply what it has become in the hands of those who hate religion.


15 February 2012 at 12:59  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 February 2012 at 13:43  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Carl j
You really are an idiot are you not?
THE US fouinding fathers, almost all agnostics, if not atheists, wanted no sp[ecific religious oppression - and they all kne how religions oppress people ....
SO they made sure there was no specific religion at all.
Religions kill, torture and are based on blackmail, remember.

15 February 2012 at 13:51  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Agree with everyting you say - exept.
Actually, islam IS "just another religion" - it behaving now as christianity did 622 years ago, and would like to now, if it thought it could get away with it ....

15 February 2012 at 13:53  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Yes Mr T, but that was then and this is now. Unlike the majority of today's Christians; Muslims and Islam have yet to experience something like the evolutionary changes brought about of The Enlightenment and spread of Democracy.

15 February 2012 at 14:35  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

The Founding Fathers did not want one denomination to laud it over the others. So they set about taking the lands from the Church of England in the name of religious freedom. Interesting that the Episcopal Cathedral in Washington doubles as the "National Cathedral" for important events. I get the impression Americans wanted religion part of the state on their terms, so those who say a secular state was not desired are probably right.

I think being distastefully rude about Baroness Warsi does not help the debate one iota.

The Throne of England may be protestant (we have King Billy to thank for that) but the Church of England is not. There may be those who espouse protestant notions within it, but the Prayer Book speaks not of "protestant" things but catholic things.

Queen Elizabeth I hoped for a via media church, but currently the via bit is hurtling in the direction of "let's please everyone".

15 February 2012 at 15:02  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

By "let's please everyone", I mean "those like us" who have the novelty doctrines. Traditionalist believers are being pilloried and pummelled in the name of "inclusiveness".

15 February 2012 at 15:06  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace;
Warsi, Wooly Woofters, and goodness knows who, meeting with a man dressed in a skirt wearing a skull cap, and supposedly representing our country to His Holiness, whatever next.
No disrespect to the Pope but he might have been better not to be 'At Home' for their visit. What did they do and where did it get us? Precisely nowhere I would say. In fact it could be considered a backward step in anyone’s perception of our moral Politico/Religious status.

15 February 2012 at 15:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

What kind of idiot does Baroness Warsi take the Pope for? Clearly an idiot of the first order if she and her speech writer believed he would fall for this guff.

The Pope and the Catholic Church have witnessed these double talking politicians before and no doubt will until the end of time itself.

If only she believed in what she was saying. If only she was representing a Christian government. Actions say it all and the "works" of this coalition demonstrate an absence of commitment to Christianity in favour of the advancement of an aggressive secularism.

Mr Integrity, was it really necessary to be dispectful of the Popes clothing? Jesus wore a "skirt" too and He was a Jew. Remember?

15 February 2012 at 16:22  
Blogger The Heresiarch said...

"Worthy of His Grace?" That painfully alliterative couplet was not even worthy of Tony Blair.

Who indeed wrote the speech? Who writes all these speeches? Why are British political speeches these days all such painful exercises in verb-avoidance and cliché mongering? Whoever the politician is, whichever party they represent, whatever the audience, it makes no difference. They speak like powerpoint presentations devised for the amusement of vocabulary poor eight year olds.

Every time I hear the words "let me make one thing clear" a little something in me dies.

15 February 2012 at 16:26  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

That Warsi woman must love the sound of her own voice, what long drawn out and patronising crap. Enough to make everyone nod off! And far too many references to muslims, islam, her personal circumstances and family in Pakistan.

Shouldn't the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary be giving the speech not a muslim co-party chairman who pretends to support a more robust Christianity only to justify the strengthening of the Islamic faiths in UK and Europe?

15 February 2012 at 16:27  
Blogger Oswin said...

bluedog @ 10:49 : Respect! You have it as it is.

non mouse @ 10:49 : titters in agreement! :o)

Moonpie @ 13:53 : ''Islam is just another religion'' ... well, I'd disagree with that, at least as far as 'original intent' was concerned; and much besides, for that matter.

On a more current level, I'd suggest that you ought to better identify your enemies : 'selective-fire control' etc.

You do seem to spend over much time attempting to kick-in the teeth of those who have no thought of relieving you of your head.

There are many Islamic sites; are you not interested enough, brave enough, to berate them?

Know your REAL enemy old chap, else you'll be wearing your cravat OVER your head sometime soon!

15 February 2012 at 17:18  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

The Heresiarch said 15 February 2012 16:26

Goodness me. Never thought I'd write these words. 'I agree with old scary chops!'
Indeed, why do every cabinet minister point their hands and splay their fingers in that annoying manner that Blair made 'the norm'. They are all like the cars that now come off the production line..all look bleed'n identical.

If Ernst was hit by one he would not know the manufacturer let alone the model!

Old scary chops said "It never does to be too confident (well that will definitely miss the mark with Gawkie Dawkie, Fella ), but it was frankly painful to listen to (what a fine discerning fella you are). I was willing him on."

Aaah bless you, old boy. You must be that poor chap cheering on the 50-1 outsider in the 4.30 handicap hurdle in the tossing down rain at Huntingdon!

"Every time I hear the words "let me make one thing clear" a little something in me dies."
It's called 'the will to live' lad and should be a Human Right, so as not to make those who accidentally stumble across you and those opinions feel so. It has the same effect on Ernst when Rambling Dick pontificates.

Your humble adversary.

Ernst S Blofeld

15 February 2012 at 17:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "There are many Islamic sites; are you not interested enough, brave enough, to berate them?"

I've been thrown off one of them.

15 February 2012 at 17:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Mr I: "No disrespect to the Pope but he might have been better not to be 'At Home' for their visit. What did they do and where did it get us? Precisely nowhere I would say."

It was probably intended to play better at home. "We do god, etc. Look, Warsi recently visited Ratzinger and cosied up"

15 February 2012 at 17:38  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


Pointed out to old Ernstie in YouTube clip of Dawkins spluttering @ 0.39 secs.

"On the Origin of Species, er, with... oh God..."

Mr Dawkins, is that a sentimental reference to deity or a cultural one. *Uncontrollable chortles*

Does God have a sense of humour or what?.


15 February 2012 at 17:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Could it be that Warsi is a committed member of the political wing of Islam, (…as opposed to the ‘active units’ who want to bomb us into ‘submission to God’…) ? The last thing she wants is for religion to be sidelined and disdained, though ironically it can be argued that since Islam arrived in this country, it has hastened EVERY religion’s rejection. With the threat that Islam may no longer have any sway in the future, it’s hardly surprising she is busying herself to Rome and back, and whatever else it will take.

We await with interest her reconciliation of that faith with the traditional British way of life. And that’s a difficult one; her previous efforts have not found favour with her fellow muslims in the past. She does carry a good chance of being disowned and rejected by her own side. heh heh

And the Inspector’s opinion of the woman and her integrity. To put it bluntly, She has too much of the fifth columnist about her…

15 February 2012 at 17:55  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

G Tingey

You really are an idiot are you not?

When you learn the difference between an argument and an insult, then I will take you seriously. In the meantime, here is something for you to think about. There is a reason I don't try to instruct British citizens on British history. Learn from this bit of wisdom.


15 February 2012 at 18:01  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr Forester
The Founding Fathers did not want one denomination to laud it over the others. So they set about taking the lands from the Church of England in the name of religious freedom.

I'd like to follow up this aspect of American history - do you (or Carl) happen to have a good starting reference?

15 February 2012 at 18:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

hmmm. Our Broadmoor correspondent upsetting the colonials ! Poor show Tingey. Do clean your act up, if you can, that is...

15 February 2012 at 18:14  
Blogger Oswin said...

DanJo @ 17:35 : well done that man; and, er, SNAP! :o)

15 February 2012 at 19:18  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Arden Forester @ 15.02, it seems reasonable to question Baroness Warsi's motives.

Her political achievements in the UK are very considerable, but she could never become prime minister or head of state. On the other hand, Warsi may speculate on whether her position in the UK political firmament is somehow transferable to Pakistan. Perhaps the remarkably frequent references to Pakistan in Warsi's Vatican speech are designed to cultivate a constituency within the Pakistani political elite.

Who knows, Baroness (she'd keep the title) Sayeeda Warsi, President of Pakistan!

15 February 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I see Her Maj has stepped up, making a short speech about the CofE's duty to protect the free practice of all faiths.

15 February 2012 at 19:51  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Faith is a strange thing whether religious or secular. We should all be able to agree to disagree and use our reason to defend our position. That said, I continue to be amazed how intelligent educated people continue to say Islam is a religion of peace. Do you ever walk through an airport Baroness Warsi?

15 February 2012 at 19:52  
Blogger LibertyPhile said...

Just look at the comments (and the votes on them) in that Telegraph article linked to at ‘militant secularists’ in the 2nd paragraph of the Archbishop’s post.

3259 comments (which is one of the highest numbers I’ve ever seen on a British website) overwhelmingly against Warsi and her ridiculous attack on secularism.

15 February 2012 at 21:07  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

The Queen (DanJo's link) said:-

'...its (the CoE's) role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country'

Sounds to me as though the CoE, through HMQ, has decided to throw in the towel on the long term concept of England remaining a 'Christian Country' without any assistance from any 'aggressive' secular initiatives.

15 February 2012 at 21:10  
Blogger Phil said...

Once again Carl gets to the root of the issue but the rest of us because we are British don’t get it.

Small Government needs Virtue, Virtue needs Religion, Religion needs Freedom. Freedom comes from low Government interference. It is a (Positive) cycle, (I think Rick Santorum first mentioned it) Clearly there is a negative cycle, that Big Gov reduces freedom, Loss of Freedom means restriction on religion, Restriction on Religion leads to loss of virtue, so the Gov steps in with more regulation etc. (The negative Cycle)

The positive cycle has been encouraged many times in history, America is just one example, the negative cycle has been tried many times also. One thinks of the French Revolution, Various Marxist Governments and of course …..Britain/ Europe/ America not quite yet, but catching Europe up fast!

15 February 2012 at 21:16  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Dodo dear fellow; No disrespect meant to the Holy See. You would have noticed I called him His Holiness. I was merely refering to the bizare nature of the meeting.

15 February 2012 at 21:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Integrity,I accept you weren't being deliberately offensive but to refer to His Holiness as "a man dressed in a skirt wearing a skull cap" is hardly respectful to him or the Church!

15 February 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 February 2012 at 22:25  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

I’ve got another couple of questions for Warsi bearing in mind the comment by Bluedog about Warsi’s eduction in a Christian school and her decision to do likewise for her daughter. We know that throughout the Islamic world Muslim parents have been sending their children to Christian schools in preference to Muslim ones and yet they still promote Islam as a legitimate religion. Can you not see the hypocrisy of your actions Warsi? Secondly, how many non-Muslims would opt to send their children to a Muslim school. If your answer is more than zero I shall be very surprised. Thirdly, Islamic and Christian scriptures teach that Jesus will return again and Christianity teaches that he will come as a judge. I suggest Baroness Warsi that if you wish to enter paradise you don’t stand in front of the judge and proclaim the virtues of Mohammed. Your fate will depend not on the words you say then but upon what you say now and to stand in front of the Pope and proclaim the religion of Mohammed is a sure way to perdition.

15 February 2012 at 22:26  
Blogger said...

"If Pope Benedict has got half a brain (which he surely has, along with two or three other halves as well) he must be wondering what on earth this woman takes him for."

Your Grace, I think His Holiness knows enough about British politicians (both secular and religious) from his own experience during his short visit to the UK and from his predecessors to know to take anything they say with the proverbial pillar of salt.

I am reminded the very probably apocryphal story, much retold by a mischievous Evelyn Waugh, of Lord Fisher of Lambeth's visit to John XXIII - the first by an A of C to a Pope since 1397 - which began with Dr Fisher proclaiming: "Your Holiness, we are making history!"

A week later, the RC Archbishop Thomas Roberts made a papal visit, where John said to him: "There was another Archbishop from your country here last week. Now what was his name?"

I suspect Benedict has a lot more on his mind to remember Warsi's name next week, let alone her obsequious waffle which, let's face it, was purely for home consumption.

15 February 2012 at 22:29  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

With regard to the Founding Fathers and the Continental Army, Church of England incumbents were seen as being part of the enemy as they had to swear allegiance to the King. Not all Anglicans were loyalists but most were. Those Anglicans who remained loyal had their property confiscated and a certain Judge Charles Lynch, (Lynch Law/Mob!) hanged a few! Most fled to England, Canada or elsewhere.

By depriving the church of loyal ministers, the church lands fell into disrepair and were appropriated by the rebels. It was only in 1786 that the Episcopal Church under Seabury was put in place to cater for Anglicans that remained in the new republic.

With regard to Baroness Warsi, by all means be critical but why be offensively nasty?

15 February 2012 at 22:30  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

I hope you people are watching panorama. The truth about American capitalism. What our politicians want for us.

15 February 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger Oswin said...

Larks: I hope ''what they want for us'' is more than I've got at present; which is damned near bugger-all!

16 February 2012 at 00:28  
Blogger Oswin said...

Larks again @ 11:22 : were the C-of-E indeed the religious wing of the WI, we wouldn't have half so many problems; or muslims!

Don't knock 'Jam and Jerusalem' - remember what they did for Blair; and most probably intend for Cameron too, given half a chance, and a fair wind.

16 February 2012 at 00:47  
Blogger Manfarang said...

If the Baroness Warsi thinks so much of Christianity then is she prepared to say something on the protection of the Christian minority in Pakistan?
A minority that faces many difficulties as do the Ahmadis.
Her remarks stop at the borders of the UK.

16 February 2012 at 03:05  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

The last paragraph of this post is
interesting.My interpretation of it is that Christians accept the God of the NT and not that of the OT.

'for we must make sure it is the loving God of Mercy who accepts us just as we are, for the Holy God of judgement who punishes and rejects is no longer welcome'

I suppose this represents the fundamentalist (OT) verses the non fundamentlist (NT) understanding of the nature of God.

I do not think the NT God will accept all of us just as we are. We are still required to follow commands, strive to be better than we are . Whether to be oneself or morph into someone else..that is the question.

YG has been floating around with the angels for several centuries now so I expect you probably have more up to date information on the topic.

Imagine what the world would be like if we were still waiting for the Messiah living under the oppression of the OT.Sorry YG (just musing here)

16 February 2012 at 03:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Virtue needs Religion"

I was with you until that bit.

16 February 2012 at 06:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The more I think about Warsi's stuff, the more I think she's just using Christian tradition at State level to try to slide Islam in alongside it. The curious thing is that she's on an official visit so this is presumably government policy.

16 February 2012 at 06:23  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Warsi recently attended my local Conservation Party group.

What amused me was the initial postal invite to members was followed by another, then desperate emails begging us to attend.

I gather the "event" was poorly attended. I did not go.

The Pope is a very intelligent and caring man.

He can both see through Warsi's cant as well as be kind enough to suffer fools.

He knows exactly what is going on.

As for Frances "laicite" it is noticeable that in France the State maintains churches - and to a very high standard as they are seen as representing both the spiritual life AND culture of the French people.

Meanwhile the CofE is gradually running its churches into the ground or selling them off as mosques, creches or pubs...

16 February 2012 at 08:19  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr DanJO @ 06.23, you may be right, and Warsi may have persuaded Dave that the only way to deal with Islam is through appeasement.

Warsi wouldn't put it those terms, but that is what she intends. After all, as a Muslim, she understands how Islam uses threats and physical violence to create an Emirate for the ummah.

Dave has lead a life too sheltered to imagine that possibility.

16 February 2012 at 10:47  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Thank your for the response AF, I will certainly follow it up. As for being 'offensively nasty' you are rightly entitled to your opinion of course - but it was not my overriding intention.

16 February 2012 at 10:49  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

Re Prev post - Conservation should read Conservative. Tiny keypad issues!

Warsi surely is the enemy in the camp and Dave/Tories are too dim and out of touch with reality on the streets to see it..

16 February 2012 at 11:22  
Blogger Oswin said...

If I may, Your Grace: I'm not a robot, but I am having considerable difficulty reading the new thingywhatsit; any chance of a return to the old system?

16 February 2012 at 12:22  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Oswin,

To what 'thingywatsit' do you refer? And what 'old system'? His Grace has changed nothing.

16 February 2012 at 13:04  
Blogger William said...


The word verification now contains two words, one of which can be hard to read. It has "Please prove you're not a robot" written above it. I think Google are trying to get us to help with their cataloguing of the entire internet.

However, you can now press a button for a different set of words and it's also possible to hear the words - if you press the speaker button!

16 February 2012 at 13:59  
Blogger len said...

I cannot completely figure out if our Government is pursuing a policy of eliminating Christianity deliberately or if this policy comes direct from the Halls of the E U.

Blair claimed to have 'done God' (whatever that means,) Cameron says he does God (in a half hearted sort of way)The A B of C makes the odd(sometimes very)statement but fails to lack 'punch' and impact!.

What is it about 'establishment Christianity' that makes it so feeble and half hearted?.

'He replied, "Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: "'These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.'(Mark 7:6)

16 February 2012 at 19:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


What's up, fed up attacking Catholics and decided to turn on Anglicans instead?

The blog watches.

Mind you, Anglicans have probably got the sense to ignore you.

16 February 2012 at 20:00  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Also YG, a while ago your mobile visitors were delighted with the mobile version of your site that appeared for a couple of days and was then no more. Any chance it might return?

16 February 2012 at 20:09  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Len said and asked

"What is it about 'establishment Christianity' that makes it so feeble and half hearted?."

"Lk. 16.13

No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. Ye cannot serve God and mammon."

At its most basic level, the word Mammon meant 'riches' or 'wealth,' but it connoted an idea of personified wealth gained with avarice. It even took on a deified nature as shown in paintings during the middle ages.

Riches promise Much, and perform Nothing: they excite hope and confidence, and deceive both: in making a man depend on them for happiness, they rob him of the salvation of God and of eternal glory.

"Lk. 16.15
15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

It has been said that the hypocrite has ever argued that it is well to have two strings to one's bow, but Christ here exposes this cheat and demonstrates the impossibility of the human heart being divided between God and the world.
He who has his eye partly on God and partly on self, who desires and endeavors to grasp both worlds, deceives his very soul. Such who holds to this is in danger of losing both, and if he does not he will certainly miss the kingdom of God. Our minds must be fixed supremely upon God in Christ, and the world sought only in strict subservience to Him.

We are commanded to not love the World

1 John 2:15–17

15 Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
16 For all that is in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life, is not of the Father, but is of the world.
17 And the world passeth away, and the lust thereof: but he that doeth the will of God abideth for ever.

"What's up, fed up attacking Catholics and decided to turn on Anglicans instead?"
Common failing related to both Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism, I am afraid.
Both invite heathens in to say joint prayers or celebrations that should praise the uniqueness of Christ yet that are denied by the heathens. What do we have in common with these people??? Balance lad Balance.

"Mind you, Anglicans have probably got the sense to ignore you." Tsk Tsk!

Ernst, my fine fellow evangelist.

17 February 2012 at 02:11  
Blogger Oswin said...

William @ 13:59 : thank you for the explanation.

I've just tried the 'speaker' button, and it's a bloody robot speaking broken gibberish, with a load of lesser, background robotic gibberish, making it impossible to follow! :o(

17 February 2012 at 03:16  
Blogger Oswin said...

PS. The above took five attempts, plus three failed attempts to decipher the 'speaker' nonsense ... I just hope this won't take so long too!

17 February 2012 at 03:20  
Blogger William said...


Yes. I've just tried the speaker button and it's pretty rubbish. I do wonder if Google are trying to get us to produce transcripts of all their VoIP conversations.

17 February 2012 at 10:20  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Verily this anti robot thingy is becoming an obstacle even for real humans.

17 February 2012 at 10:44  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Trevor Philips is probably a hangover from the Blair era and has been said earlier, the whole Quango should go. His change in stance is like that of any similar organisation, they do not have a real opinion, they say what they think people want to hear or that which will keep them employed.

17 February 2012 at 15:25  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
I have just got my Kindle going but can't find 'Cranmer' listed among the Blogs to subscribe to.
Any advice would be grateful.

17 February 2012 at 15:27  
Blogger Oswin said...

Your Grace, I think you need to set up a 'user support' section. :o

Perhaps the youngsers amongst us can help-out with techniical advice; 'beliefs' notwithstanding.

DanJo appears to know about this sort of stuff; perhaps he might be persuaded to run a weekly 'clinic' for the par-blind, deaf old duffers like me?

17 February 2012 at 16:40  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Oswin keep pressing the little circular arrow that you see next to the input field until you see a pair of words that you can read. If a message appears click leave the page and it renews. I agree it's awful.

17 February 2012 at 16:47  
Blogger Oswin said...

Thanks Marie, that does help somewhat - I think!

17 February 2012 at 17:27  
Blogger Oswin said...

Nope, I still got it wrong ...sighs...

17 February 2012 at 17:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The trick is to 'gestalt shift' white to back and then squint a bit. It's a bit like this. No doubt you all see Freud and I see the other image, my apparently being a sexual libertine and all, but you get the idea.

17 February 2012 at 18:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...


17 February 2012 at 18:31  
Blogger Oswin said...

DanJo: er, thanks for that; I reckon the Rorschach Test is as equally useful - not! I've just knocked-off ten, of fourteen ''Only Connect'' boards with less effort than this comment will doubtless entail. :o(

It's me age you know ... shuffles off in search of an elastic bandage ...

17 February 2012 at 19:22  
Blogger len said...

Oswin, glad I am not the only one having problems with this!

18 February 2012 at 08:13  
Anonymous Sad Observer said...

The numbers comparison between the National Secular Society and the British Sausage Appreciation Society is a great example of lying with statistics.

The members of British Sausage Appreciation Society cannot get you sacked from a private sector job for privately held opinions. They can't force a private bed and breakfast inn to serve sausage.

18 February 2012 at 10:54  
Blogger Larks Tongues in Aspic said...

Presumably they could do so if the non sale of said sausages were illegal.

18 February 2012 at 11:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

^ Lol

18 February 2012 at 11:12  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older