Monday, July 09, 2012

Church of England moves to proscribe the BNP

Most will have immense sympathy with an expression of Christian witness which seeks to denounce racism in all its forms, including in the temporal political realm. The Church should be completely intolerant of all those who would foment discord on the basis of ethnicity or skin colour: since the Early Church abolished the Jew-Greek division and declared all to be one in Christ Jesus, there can be no theological rationale 2000 years later for black-brown-white segregation. To be Christian is to be blind to race: all of humanity is equal in the great plan of salvation.

But here we have the Established Church of England intent on enshrining in ecclesiastical law a prohibition on those in Holy Orders from membership of a political party which is not only legally constituted in the United Kingdom, but has won elections to the European Parliament and is deemed to conform to both UK and EU law.

Oh, of course, the party has not been named: the General Synod has simply decreed that allegiance to a party whose policies are ‘incompatible with the teaching of the Church of England in relation to the equality of persons or groups of different races’ would be ‘unbecoming and inappropriate’. So, in theory, all racist or discriminatory political parties are to be proscribed.

But let us be clear: clergy are being prohibited from joining the BNP because the Church is perceived by some to have a problem with racism (too few BME vicars and bishops). Which is fair enough. But the Church is also perceived by a sizeable constituency to have a problem with homosexuality (too few practising gay vicars and bishops). And, moreover, the Church is perceived by an even more sizeable constituency to have a problem with women (none is permitted in the Episcopate).

His Grace has undoubtedly met a few racists in the Church of England, just as he has in the Roman Catholic Church. He has even come across one or two in the Baptist and Methodist churches. He has come across none in the Church of the Latter Day Saints, but that may be because he knows no Mormons.

But, ultimately, it is obseved that everyone’s a little bit racist.

We know that the Synod motion is aimed at one party in particular, for it was born out of a proposal in 2009 by Vasantha Gnanadoss who warned then of the potential for the BNP to grow in influence. “Passing this motion is a push that is seriously necessary,” she told the Synod at that time.

The peculiar thing is that it is a completely hypothetical move, since no member of the Church of England clergy is presently known to be a member of the BNP. But if one were, why would they now disclose it? And, further, it is not at all clear how prohibiting membership of a racist or discriminatory political party could change a racist or discriminatory heart, with which the Lord is far more concerned.

That the BNP has a racist foundation is beyond dispute. That the Church of England is sexist at the Episcopal level is also beyond dispute. That the Church of England is ‘homophobic’ (to use the vernacular) is manifest to everyone who grasps the basic principles of discrimination. Some would say these discriminations are ‘institutional’.

Yet the Church of England has only voted in favour of legislation to prohibit clergy from joining racist or discriminatory political parties like the BNP because that party’s policies are deemed to be inconsistent with Christian values, notwithstanding that there are many thousands who find the Church’s stance on women and gays equally inconsistent with Christian values.

If it be ‘unbecoming’ and ‘inappropriate’ to associate with a political party which is deemed (by some) to be racist or discriminatory, what about the Rev’d Stephen Sizer?

Or does ‘unbecoming’ and ‘inappropriate’ conduct exclude anti-Semitism?

And what of UKIP?

Surely, if there is neither Jew nor Greek, and if there is neither black nor white, a fortiori there is neither British nor French; neither German nor Spanish, for the Church is universal and completely unconcerned with the artificial confines of the nation state. Surely a political party which advocates United Kingdom independence – that is, separateness from all other European nations – is propagating nationalism and discrimination, and so ought also to be proscribed.

It is now for the Bishops to determine which parties or organisations are deemed to be incompatible with Christian values. To them is given power to bind and loose, and they may do so as long as two thirds of them support the motion. Any ban can be lifted by a simple majority vote should the political party repent and change its ways.

One wonders how long it will be before a bunch of Guardian-reading, liberal-leaning bishops determine membership of the Conservative Party to be ‘unbecoming’ or ‘inappropriate’ conduct for clergy, for, surely, that which became known as Thatcherism was (and is) frequently denounced as being ‘incompatible’ with Church teaching on equality. What of the poor? Was not Jesus the first Socialist?

His Grace can hardly wait to see which political parties or organisations are deemed by the Bishops to be incompatible with Christian teaching and so proscribed. For then we will surely see high-profile court cases giving such groups £millions worth of free publicity. His Grace is loath to quote any BNP spokesman (and, like the bishops, they do all tend to be men). But one of their number has challenged the Church of England, insisting: “We are a modern, forward thinking and progressive nationalist party. We are non-discriminatory and we have a constitution to match. It is high time that was put out there. The Church of England has to keep up to date – they are stuck in the 1970s.”

And since the European Convention on Human Rights gives all people (including CofE vicars, who fall within the broad definition of ‘people’) the right to freedom of political belief, the Church cannot win in the courts: clergy cannot be disciplined for lawful political activity.

For His Grace, if the Church of England were to expend just one tenth of its efforts to the propagation of the Gospel that it devotes to issues of gender or sexual equality, it might just reverse its terminal decline. Racist views and discriminatory undertones are going to exist wherever there is diversity and the freedoms of belief, expression and association. This is not to excuse them: it is a simple statement of fact. But the proscribing of the outward manifestation will not transform the inner life of the believer, which is a work of the Holy Spirit.

According to the latest church statistics, only 2.8 per cent its 114 bishops and 1.4 per cent of the 4,443 vicars come from ethnic minorities. No doubt we are now heading for quotas to address this scandalous under-representation.

What would Jesus say?

Well, for the Church of England, God can undoubtedly speak through the Labour Party, the Guardian, the EU, the Rev’d Giles Fraser, and even an ass (Numbers 22:21-38). But He would never choose to speak through a member of the BNP. No, they have replaced the ‘homosexual offenders’ who were once destined for eternal darkness: the Kingdom of Heaven is not for such as those.


Blogger Just Me said...

Well said dude. Ignorance can be exposed to the light of truth, that's if you don't dig a huge pit and try and bury it.

9 July 2012 at 09:46  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

Our vicar has gone on three months' 'sabbatical' to find out why people no longer go to church and report on it.
He could read your piece in five minutes and have the answer.

9 July 2012 at 10:08  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

I think your argument is spot on. As the Church of England absorbs more religious secularists and liberal sacramentalists, the squeezing of the traditional faith will continue.

The way to handle the BNP is not to proscribe but to prescribe. Prefably love of thy neighbour. The way the synod speaks, one would have thought the lost sheep have been sold for mutton stew rather than found for inclusion in the sheep pen.

9 July 2012 at 10:12  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I've long been of the opinion that the Church is incompatible with Christian values. Therefore I have retained my values but parted company with the Church.

9 July 2012 at 10:31  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

That's quite worrying in its breadth actually. I had thought it was going to be a specific proscription of the BNP, but actually this is sort of worse, as it gives the CofE some sort of power to determine by itself what constitutes a political party incompatible with Church teaching.

Funny thing that: "teaching of the Church of England".

Haven't we seen plenty of people in the CofE (no doubt delighted at this measure) telling us that restrictive definition of the CofE teaching is wrong?

What on earth's going to happen when two dominant views in CofE teaching get taken up by two political parties? Are we going to have to ban them both, or just the one that offends the sensibilities of the Church's very own metropolitan elite? Perhaps we can just ask Giles Fraser and save time.

9 July 2012 at 10:58  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

For "the record" (you know who you are :p)

I don't much imagine that Jesus would have been a member of the BNP. He probably would have gone and had dinner with them though, and surprised and shocked them. I imagine by telling them a parable about the Good Pakistani.

9 July 2012 at 11:00  
Blogger Theo said...

The Church of England is a liberal/left secular organisation populated by people calling themselves Christians. It is far too fond of pandering to the fashions of this world rather than learning what the Word of God has to say.

The globalisation agenda runs directly against God's plan. He created the nations (Dt 26:19; Ps 74:17; Ps 86:9) and it would be good to hear the C of E upholding Biblical truth rather than lambasting those who seek to fight to retain their national identity.

9 July 2012 at 11:11  
Blogger Philip said...

While racism is thoroughly evil, it is only one evil. So, perhaps more to the point, where is the CofE intent on enshrining in ecclesiastical law a prohibition on membership of parties that are consistently/majority pro-abortion, or political parties that have a policy to change the definition of marriage? Then perhaps the stand against racist parties would be more credible.

9 July 2012 at 11:53  
Blogger Lady Anne said...

It WOULD be good to hear the C of E upholding Biblical truth.

On Saturday we have a headline in the Daily Mail - "Archbishop of Canterbury signals Church of England may bow to Government pressure and allow same-sex marriage".

Why? "Dr Rowan Williams said it was ‘only right’ to take into account that all three major political parties support gay marriage."

Umm - what happened to what God thinks?? Jesus didn't take into account what the Pharisees thought - collectively, he laid into them! Individually, he told people they must be born again, to "Go and sin no more" and "sell all that you have and come follow me". He would not change his stance to appease them.

9 July 2012 at 11:54  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

And this highlights perfectly why the CofE is no longer "fit for purpose".

The typical CofE congregation is completely void of working class people. It has no idea what matters to working class people; no idea WHAT they think or HOW they think. It has no idea how to appeal to them or reach them with the gospel. And this latest edict sends out the message, "the views & concerns of huge numbers of you are beyond the pale".

Do synod realise that Jesus was happy to invite a nationalist zealot (terrorist even?) to be one of his disciples?

The Church, of all institutions, should realise the counter-productive outcomes of persecution.

And if any political parties should be prohibited, surely Nu Liebour should be for it's barrage of ant-Christian legislation, it's irresponsible stewardship, for saddling everyone (especially the poor) with generations of debt.

My decision to revoke my membership & financial support from the CofE several years ago was the right one. I suspect that there is probably more fellowship, truth & sound reasoning to be found being preached at a BNP party conference than there is at synod.

9 July 2012 at 12:03  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

"Racism is evil". I what is meant by racism is to prefer one's own gene pool, to recognise the differences between different races, then I don't see that as being evil, I see that as normal common sense. So, what is implied when the term racist is used? It's meaningless and more correctly, I would suggest, a swear-word more than anything else.

9 July 2012 at 12:19  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

In the sixties people called it racialism. Is there a distinction or have they the same meaning?

9 July 2012 at 12:25  
Blogger Just Me said...

Yeah, the church is repulsive to ordinary people. Clown suits and voodoo psychology etc. It needs to roll its sleeves up and get stuck in washing some feet. I wouldn't generalise and say that its entirely made up of the privileged and those who have lived sheltered lives, but I suppose it's all too easy to fall in line. The church has nothing to offer the general population; it has become so far removed from the reality of people's everyday concerns that nobody could endure a session in church on a Sunday without being bored to death and feeling completely excluded based upon the reality of how we are forced to live. It no longer preaches the Gospel but rather it preaches society and the values of privilege and elitism. In this sense the church has been a huge success, and the message has been heard - loud and clear.

9 July 2012 at 12:34  
Blogger Damian said...

So,I wonder if the clergy who are members of the Lib/Lab/Con parties will be expelled? After all, if you are a member of these parties you must then agree with their policies and practises, eg invasion of foreign lands and the killing hundreds of thousands of men ,women and children,lies,theft,the turning of a blind eye to the mass rape of young girls by muslims in this country, the murder of Dr Kelly, need I carry on or do you get the gist?

You must admit it is amusing that the CoE accuses the BNP of racism
and yet you find in the Bible,on which Christians base their beliefs God exorting his chosen people (is that racist btw?) to commit genocide against the Midanites,Sihonites,Gibeonites,Libnahites,Eglonites,Hebronites,Debirites,the people of AI, the people of Anakim, the people of Jericho and of course not forgetting the Canaanites to but name a few, still there is a saving grace those few they did not kill they could enslave with Gods permission.

Perhaps a well known quote will not go amiss here?

Those without sin.......

9 July 2012 at 12:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. No doubt about it. The CoE have their own Thought Police actively defining the nu-religion. In their carefully defined image shall the nu-anglican work, rest and pray. Henry’s plan for his church was never this, and yet your spirit clings to the corruption it has become...

Anyway, back to the real world. To be a racist, as the Inspector finds almost daily, is to be castigated for daring to CRITICISE members, cultures, attitudes and behaviours of the other races. And God knows, there is plenty of just criticism there. When he criticises members of his own race, he is not a racist. So, it’s not all black then !

9 July 2012 at 12:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One wonders how the CoE will tackle the problem of the biggest ‘racist’ of the lot – God. Invite him to a conference perhaps, point out His mistakes. Tell Him the flaw in His divine plan that allowed for the different races in the first place. God could learn an awful lot from these people. And those types will be happy to put Him right...

9 July 2012 at 12:47  
Blogger Stephen Foot said...

I think a Church of England Vicar's adventures after joining the BNP would make a great Reality TV show.

Bring it on.

9 July 2012 at 13:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


You appear the racist because you make invalid generalizations about men based upon the color of their skin or the width of their nose. Your criticism of your own race is careful to never impugn your own unstated assumption of white racial superiority. And when asked to justify these opinions, you spin wild anthropological tales that have all the intellectual integrity of 'Horton Hears a Who."

The evil that resides in the heart of man is common to all men. The Spirit that redeems is no respecter of persons.


9 July 2012 at 13:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Breaking news...

CoE splits with God. No more worshipping Him with His attitudes !

“It’s quite clear that all the ills in the world stem from God. He has shown Himself to be completely at odds with modern thinking”, says a woman synod member, who quite fancies herself as a bishop. “We are going to find something else to worship. Cats probably”

9 July 2012 at 13:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. The Inspector has never mentioned the width of a mans nose. But you do, frequently on this subject...

You are on record for actually denying the concept of race at all. Would that that be the case ! Race as a term to describe a common culture, attitude, behaviour and achievement of a group of humans is far too convenient to discard. You see, no hatred involved at all. Merely searching for solutions to on going problems. For example, in an area blessed with a high percentage of Afro-Caribbean's, more policing resources. Perhaps completely dis-arming them all. That would be nice...

9 July 2012 at 13:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 July 2012 at 13:29  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


"Race" is an arbitrary collection of characteristics. It's a continuous spectrum and not a set of discrete points. Tell me. If a black man and a white woman have a child, what is the race of the child? If a half-Asian/half Jewish man has a child with a black woman, what is the race of the child? Some people are going to answer both questions with 'black' and thus reveal that they see 'blackness' as an inherent corruption of racial purity.

The right answer to both questions is "Who the Hell cares?"


9 July 2012 at 13:30  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

btw, the church could learn something from the military, and simply proscribe active involvement with any political party. Clergy could still vote, but they would have to be formally apolitical. It certainly would preclude unfortunate outcomes like the Christian Coalition in the US - an organization that hopelessly confounded the Gospel with conservative and partisan party politics.

OK, so this would in essence proscribe liberal religion since liberal religion is just liberal politics dressed up in religious clothes. That thought never entered my mind.


9 July 2012 at 13:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. You are being too specific. Race is a useful generalisation. And what’s all this about ‘racial purity’. Not a racist are you ? Must say you kept that quiet, what !

9 July 2012 at 13:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


How am I being too specific? By asking you to define your terms? It's a simply question. What is the race of a child born of a black man and a white woman? Where does he fit into your useful generalization?

btw, the question is more difficult than it first appears. To answer it properly you would have to account for the diverse racial mix in both parents. 'Black' and 'white' are not sufficiently descriptive to allow for an adequate answer.


9 July 2012 at 13:52  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


I like your thinking. The CofE could probably do with a bit of military discipline too.

9 July 2012 at 13:55  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

"The globalisation agenda runs directly against God's plan. He created the nations (Dt 26:19; Ps 74:17; Ps 86:9)"

So now we know who is responsible for nationalism and all the ensuing grief!

9 July 2012 at 13:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. Race is of course a fluid concept. It really is up to the child as a man to decide where he fits in with God’s creation. A requirement of course we have all gone through personally, and ideally painlessly. If your man decided to become a rap artist and carry a gun, we can safely assume he has chosen black. If he decides to get married, raise a family, and importantly, live with his wife and children, we’ll call him white.

It really is up to him. His decision...

9 July 2012 at 14:06  
Blogger Theo said...


It is mankind who has created the grief with his selfishness and sinfulness, not his Creator.

9 July 2012 at 14:15  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


I see. So originally you said that race was descriptive thus implying it had ontological permanence. That way it could be employed for useful generalizations. Now you say it is prescriptive and is defined by chosen behavior. But you have cleared up one important historical mystery. Horst Wessel was black! A close examination of his behavior must demand that conclusion.

And here we all thought the murderer who got himself killed over a prostitute was Aryan.


9 July 2012 at 14:18  
Blogger Berserker said...

Dear C of E

Following on from John in Cheshire:

Racism? Is it intrinsically bad? Or is it a form of protection. Like families? No doubt, racism can be used and exercised in a nasty wa but so can Liberalism. At core, what we have is an extension of Village-ism.

Conversation in a local pub-- 'He be going to marry my Edna. T'ain't right. How long's he lived in Little Muckle. Well, I tell 'ee! Bare on 25 year and more's to the point he come from Big Muckle and they's are known to be a theivin' bunch of bastards. You say he's kept 'is nose clean. As far as we know, that is. All in all, we know our own villains and don't want none of them. Better the cow you know than the farm hand you don't.

Darwinian? What I'm saying, is being a so-called 'racist' not a form of survival?

9 July 2012 at 14:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl. Your red faced shame over all things race doesn’t stem from embarrassment over your Germanic ancestry now does it. Horst Wessel indeed...

9 July 2012 at 14:44  
Blogger David said...

Wouldn't it be better - or perhaps more consistent and practical - to ban clergy from belonging to any political party? After all, the logic of the Jew-Greek distinction being abolished is to delegitimise all 'party' within the Church. (We wish.)

Is it really appropriate or consistent for someone charged with spreading the gospel and preaching the Word of Truth to belong to a party and so lead his (or her) flock astray by misleading them into thinking that any one party is more Christian than another?

9 July 2012 at 14:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

That’s the spirit Beserker, that’s what it’s all about. In pre 39-45 war Gloucestershire (...{AHEM} that will be the 42-45 war to you Carl...), when folk round here went around with bits of straw hanging from their lips, everybody mucked in with the harvest. Now, among the groups were gypsies. They would come onto the farmers land, yet the farmer used to pay them a slightly less rate for their work. A prima facie example of racism in full glory ?

Not at all. Every farmer knew that while they were on his land, his chicken count would go down by the day. So to even things up a little, he would deduct for shrinkage...

Of course, while they were there, any farmer who respected his collie would lock him up in the house. For an obvious reason that can’t be spelled out here because Carl would do his nut....

9 July 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Uh yeah, Beserker. Because we all know how well keeping it in the village works.

9 July 2012 at 16:04  
Blogger Paul de Mello said...

Im trying to figure out how the CofE would react to a party that used religion as a proxy for race like Wilders or LePens. How can a missionary faith stop say Islamophobic parties, while also seeking to convert muslims, and campaign against sharia-imposing aggression on co-religionists?

9 July 2012 at 20:51  
Blogger Atlas Shrugged said...

Division posing as unity.

As a half Jew, half Anglican, married with many children to a Mauritian Hindu. Who also has both Greek orthodox and Italian catholic uncles, and an Irish Catholic aunt. Also a Scottish Catholic bother-in-law, and an Irish Catholic sister-in-law, I speak with some degree of experience on this matter.

Racism is a politically and financially motivated construct designed to divide humanity from itself for the worse possible motives imaginable.

It was first created during the rise of Colonial Darwinism and has since been used by our ruling elites to divide society in particular and the world in general, and by so doing more easily rule over both.

The Left and The Right are simply devises used to control the ultimate direction of not just the state but ultimately much of the world.

We are being mind controlled to accept two seemingly contradictory ideas.

1. We the people should not discriminate on ANY grounds at all including that of criminal record, personal experience, party political persuasion, sex, sexual preference, race or national identity.

2. Our state, corporations, and religious authorities better known as the establishment should, can and do discriminate on any grounds it so wishes including that of criminal record, party political persuasion, sex, sexual preference, race and national identity.

Are any of you seeing what I am seeing?

Some of you maybe be beginning to do so, however judging by the comments above, not many.


We are having our plonkers collectively pulled for many reasons, absolutely none of them good or Godly ones.

The foremost of which is to utterly destroy our own confidence in ourselves, neighbors and national institutions, very much including our representative parliamentary democracy, and political and religious leaders.

David Cameron and The Arch Druid of Canterbury being just two examples from an ever growing list of disingenuous wolves in sheep's clothing, currently clawing at our flesh.

It would be possibly unfair to describe this two evidently mentally, and spiritually feeble individuals as damned right evil.

It is better to see them as highly expendable, or here today and gone tomorrow pawns in a very nasty game of murderous control freakery, run by infinitely greedy power crazed psychopaths, that make Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin, look like simply sexually frustrated Sunday School teachers in comparison.

I do not overstate my case, indeed it is difficult, if not impossible to do so.

It is said that "we get the leaders we deserve," which is hard to deny.

After all if we allow ourselves to be mindlessly dictated to by either an ABofC who is not a Christian, or a leader of The Conservative Party, who most self evidently is not a conservative, we fully deserve all of the extremely nasty things they will undoubtedly be obliged to inflict upon us.

9 July 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger David B said...

@ Paul

I'm not sure that Wilders does use religion as a proxy for race.

The test, I suppose, would be how he would react to people like one of the people I most admire, Maryam Namazie, despite her politics having more in common with mine 40 years ago rather than my current centrist liberal position.

Standing up against the evil that is political Islam is dangerous.

Especially for an apostate woman atheist of, I understand, Iranian origins.

I think it a great mistake to confuse opposition to political Islam with racism.

Some of those who stand up against Islamic oppression, of Christians, women, other sects of Islam, homosexuals, of atheists might be racist.

But most, I suggest, ain't.

The implicit suggestion in your post that to oppose Islam is racist is offensive, false, and, above all, stupid

David B

9 July 2012 at 22:42  
Blogger David B said...

@ Atlas Shruggged who said

"Racism is a politically and financially motivated construct designed to divide humanity from itself for the worse possible motives imaginable.

It was first created during the rise of Colonial Darwinism and has since been used by our ruling elites to divide society in particular and the world in general, and by so doing more easily rule over both...."

Were you to read 'The Voyage of the Beagle", written well before there was anything that could be mis-characterised as Darwinism, and compare and contrast the views on the treatment of indigenous people by Darwin and the very religious Fitzroy, the perhaps you might come to understand how wrong you are.

Fitzroy, great man that he was in his way, being the father of modern meteorology, was a man of his time, as was Darwin. But Darwin was much the more humane of the two.

David B

9 July 2012 at 23:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Is which political party a Minister of the Church of England wants to join really a matter that the Holy Spirit needs to guide the Bishops in General Synod on?

There are more pressing theological matters for the worthy Bishops to attend to. This motion demeans the Church and makes it look more like a student's debating chamber that the leader of Christianity in this nation.

10 July 2012 at 01:48  
Blogger IanCad said...

Good one YG.

Amatuer Hour is never ending with the CofE.

10 July 2012 at 07:33  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Inspector, go read a history book. '41 not '42!
Not that I care for your attempt at baiting Carl, especially when you refused to answer his question (probably because it would confirm you racist tendencies) and try to turn it all back on him.
And yes, I call you racist! And for the simple reason that you pour scorn on those who have a different way of life to that you ascribe to and declare them to be inferior. And it's not a sense of being technologically inferior that you base your derision, it is that they are by their very nature inferior that you claim to be basing your right to deride.

As to the original topic, synod were wrong to do it. I am pretty sure that if a priest decides to act in a way that is unbecoming then they can be disciplined and this does not require this new law for it to be acted upon.
Far more interesting would be the suggestion above of saying that all who are ordained must, before ordination, renounce all political allegiances. That would certainly be acceptable in my eyes as it would define that every clergy-person must be supporting God's politics, not those of Man.

10 July 2012 at 08:31  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

The Apostle Peter wrote ' the last days false teachers will arise amongst you, secretly introducing damnable heresies, even denying the Lord who bought them...'

If scripture is true (and the above quote from (and 2nd Peter is only one of many that could be cited on the theme of plausible false teachers embedded within the church) then it is INEVITABLE that there will be enemy moles within the church, deceivers and deceived, seeking to destroy her from within by false doctrine.

The fact that the phrase 'wolves in sheep's clothing' has become a cliche does not alter the fact that it came from the mouth of our Lord. His warning against false prophets and false teachers was repeated by all of the New Testament writers.

watch and pray, and maybe 'come out from her my people lest ye share in her sins'.

10 July 2012 at 08:56  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

"[Racism] was first created during the rise of Colonial Darwinism and has since been used by our ruling elites to divide society in particular and the world in general, and by so doing more easily rule over both...." (David B, 9 July 2012 23:30)

In its broader definition racism has been around for as long as there's been a humanity, as people naturally favour those who look like them and tend to, wrogly of course, assign cultural and behavioural characteristics on the basis of those looks. I would suggest that formalized and institutionalized racism, which is what we're talking about first emerged in Medieval and Renaissancre Spain which began to persecute descendants of Jewish converts to Catholicism -- the Marranos or more apropriately, the Conversos -- purealy on the basis of blood lines, rather than religion. Also, families began to point to the "purity" of their "blood" by claiming that there was no trace Jews or Moriscos (Arabs and Blacks) in their lines.

Under most systems in history, colonists tended to assimilate with their subjects and quickly disappeared as distinct parts of the ruling elite. Not because their "race" became "watered down" of course, but because they were comparatively few in number and the pace of intermarriage and the flow of inherited or acquired property outwards quickly submerged any attempts of the colonists to maintain their cultural identities and economic advantage. A fascinating dynamic, this pride and prejudice thing.

10 July 2012 at 18:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi said ...
"I would suggest that formalized and institutionalized racism, which is what we're talking about first emerged in Medieval and Renaissancre Spain which began to persecute descendants of Jewish converts to Catholicism -"

Racism didn't originate in that way. At the time you're referring to, 'blood lines' was the central issue and not race as such.

When we refer to racism we're generally talking about prejudice on the grounds of skin colour. The whiter you are the more advanced you are; the blacker you are, the less worth you have.

The idea originated in Jewish, Christian and Muslim interpretations of the Bible.

"The Curse of Ham (also called the curse of Canaan) refers to the curse that Ham's father, Noah, placed upon Ham's youngest son, Canaan, after Ham "saw his father's nakedness" because of drunkenness in Noah's tent.

The "curse of Ham" had been used by some members of Abrahamic religions to justify racism and the enslavement of people of African ancestry, who were believed to be descendants of Ham. They were often called Hamites and were believed to have descended through Canaan or his older brothers. This racist theory was widely held during the eighteenth to twentieth centuries, but it has been largely abandoned since the mid-twentieth century by even the most conservative theologians."
(New World Encyclopedia)

"Questions raised by this story, especially regarding the nature of Ham's transgression, and the question of why Noah cursed Canaan when Ham had sinned, have been debated for over two thousand years. The original objective was to justify the subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites, but in later centuries, it came to be interpreted as a curse of, and explanation for, black skin; in addition, when Islam became established in the Middle East, and with it the widespread Muslim practice of owning black African slaves, it became interpreted as a curse of slavery visited on black Africans, Ham's supposed descendants.

Although Genesis does not identify Ham's skin colour, some ancient Jewish writings, including part of the Talmud, state that either Ham or Canaan had his faced "blackened" by God as part of curse, in punishment for Ham seeing Noah's nakedness.

This idea became more widespread in Europe during the Middle Ages, as an argument for the inferiority of the black race, whose dark skin was believed to be an outward sign of the curse, and to sanction some instances of slavery. Noah's decree that Canaan should be the slave of Shem was seen as God's command that Africans should be the slaves to white Christians."
(Rational Wiki)

"Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 108b states, "Our Rabbis taught: Three copulated in the ark, and they were all punished—the dog, the raven, and Ham. The dog was doomed to be tied, the raven expectorates, and Ham was smitten in his skin"
(Talmud Bavli, Sanhedrin 108b).

The nature of Ham's "smitten" skin is unexplained, but later commentaries described this as a darkening of skin. A later comment by rabbis in the Bereshit Rabbah asserts that Ham himself emerged from the ark black-skinned."

"In the Middle Ages, European scholars of the Bible picked up on the Jewish Talmud idea of viewing the "sons of Ham" or Hamites as cursed, possibly "blackened" by their sins. Though early arguments to this effect were sporadic, they became increasingly common during the slave trade of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The justification of slavery itself through the sins of Ham was well suited to the ideological interests of the elite; with the emergence of the slave trade, its racialized version justified the exploitation of a ready supply of African labour."

11 July 2012 at 01:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Youthscoundrel. And yes, I call you racist!

Thought you might. It’s all to do with standards dear boy. If Johnny Foreigner wants to reside in the UK, he’d better improve his act, don’t you think ?

As for the heathen masses living in their own countries, mutilating their daughters before murdering them in their teenage age years, is it not right to intervene. Assert one’s muscle, so to speak. After all, if one’s hound behaved disgracefully, you’d take a cane to him Sir !

No wish to annoy Carl, but he does stumble about like a punch drunk boxer when it comes to matters of race…

11 July 2012 at 11:07  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


he does stumble about like a punch drunk boxer when it comes to matters of race…

I do? Well, let me stumble some more then. Let's return to my question - from which you fled much like Sir Robin the Brave.

What is the race of a child born to a black man and a white woman?

I will even allow you ignore the actual racial heritage of the parents to simplify the problem. What answer might you provide?

1. White. Well, no, you wouldn't say that because that pure white and delightsomeness will be marred black racial features.

2. Black Dangerous answer. It implies that 'whiteness' is corrupted by 'blackness.' We might have to establish rules on the limits of allowable 'black' content before 'whiteness' can be declared. Perhaps no more than one-eighth blackness. Wait. didn't someone already make some rules like that?

3. Something else. A brand new race? But that would prove that race is a nebulous concept that is as unique as the individuals categorized by it. Why then even talk about it?

No wonder you dropped off into spouting foolishness about chosen behavior.


11 July 2012 at 13:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl, one’s interest in race is beyond the cosmetic. It’s about the ‘attitudes’ a group that fulfil the requirements has, the predominating articles, so to speak. Thus a man who emigrates to Israel, and does his time in the armed forces, is a de facto Jew. Whether he has any Jewish ancestry in him whatsoever. Or any belief, come to that.

We have a few examples in the UK whereby nominally white people, men usually, have converted to Islam. We know of them because they are up before the courts on terrorist charges. They have bought into the race of the people who have converted them. Are they not now as North African or Sub Continent as their new family.

The hypothetical young lad you mention of what would be called a mixed marriage. He has the choice in life. He can either ‘assume’ the modus operendi of what is currently the most obvious and in-your-face expressions of being black. Rapping and violence. Or he can choose stability and what passes today for white civilisation. There may come a time when rapping is not the immediate characteristic that comes to mind of being typically black, but it’s not here now.

Perhaps this is where the confusion lies. You are seeking a blood link. Am actually rather uncomfortable with that idea. It seems to have more in common with IQ. The lower the IQ, the more beastly the behaviour. An interesting question is why someone with a high IQ should want to associate themselves with behaviour more typical of a group of people, ten, twenty or more points beneath him. We have the answer. It’s power and influence. They trade their intellect, and much more for this temporal superiority…

11 July 2012 at 16:39  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo, none of the biblical and talmudic examples about "blackened" faces or the supposed Black race of the Hamitic tribes you cite are interpreted in racial terms by the scholars whose rulings we follow. Judaism cannot be held accountable for how others, especially hostile or self0interested parties, interpret their scriptures. The Torah recognizes Nations, but "Race" has no standing, not even a definition, in hallachah, as we are all children of the Almighty and descend from Adam and Hava. There are tensions between Blacks and Jews in some parts of New York, between some Israelis and Ethiopian Jews, but these are cultural, not racial in origin. No rabbinic authority has sought to prohibit convarsions or "intermarriage" between Jews of different colours. The proof of that pudding is the growing appearance of Black people in Orthodox and ultra-Orthodox circles who marry to White spouses. I don't know anyone who would object to their child marrying a Jew and a decent person who is of another "race" or who is a proper convert.

16 July 2012 at 03:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

See, on the defensive again! I did not say Judaism was "responsible" for racism.

I was disagreeing with your assertion that racism first emerged as antisemitism in Renaissancre Spain.

My point was that differentiating people according to skin colour, originated in Jewish, Christian and Muslim interpretations of the Bible.

The "curse of Ham" had been used by members of all Abrahamic religions.

Originally it was to justify the subjection of the Canaanites to the Israelites. In later centuries, it came to be interpreted as a curse of, and explanation for, black skin; in addition, when Islam became established in the Middle East, and with it the widespread Muslim practice of owning black African slaves, it became interpreted as a curse of slavery visited on black Africans, Ham's supposed descendants.

The Talmud states that either Ham or Canaan had his faced "blackened" by God as part of curse, in punishment for Ham seeing Noah's nakedness. Surely a negative perception of black skin?

Later the idea of a 'black race', whose dark skin was believed to be an outward sign of the curse, sanctioned slavery. Noah's decree that Canaan should be the slave of Shem was seen as God's command that Africans should be the slaves to white Christians.

Christian scholars of the Bible picked up on the Jewish Talmud idea of viewing the "sons of Ham" or Hamites as cursed, possibly "blackened" by their sins.

17 July 2012 at 23:07  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older