Thursday, September 27, 2012

Warsi: British Government is proud to 'do God'


So Tweeted Sayeeda Hussain Warsi, the Baroness Warsi, Minister of State for Faith and Communities and Senior Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, at the UN yesterday .

His Grace has been over this before, and the Groundhog dimension of religio-political blogging is becoming tiresome. But perhaps it is unavoidable when governments change and cabinets are reshuffled and one observes the next generation of ill-informed and ignorant politicians uttering the same platitudes and making the same mistakes as their predecessors. There is nothing new under the sun.

It is ironic that this 'Senior' Minister of State (whatever one of those is; not, of course, that the creation is in any sense tokenistic) should boast that the UK Government 'does God' while their lawyers at the European Court of Human Rights have made it clear that the position of HM Government is that Christians should ‘leave their beliefs at home or get another job’.

David Cameron - like Tony Blair before him - appears to mistake freedom of worship for freedom of religion. The Baroness apparently grasps the difference, and yet she is part of that government which is arguing in Strasbourg that there is a ‘difference between the professional and private sphere’.

Freedom of religion includes the right to have a faith, to manifest it and propagate it, either alone or together with others, in private or in the public sphere. It also includs the right to change beliefs and religious affiliation. This is a foundational principle of liberal democracy.

Freedom of worship is the right to express a faith in private, but not to manifest or propagate it in the public sphere. It is a freedom not uncommon in many Islamic countries: you are permitted to be Christian, but not to share your faith with others or to manifest it publicly. Muslims are free to be Muslim and to display their adherence, but they are forbidden to convert.

Whatever the Baroness may spout at the UN, the UK has seen a gruadual shift from ‘freedom of religion’ to ‘freedom of worship’. The whole narrative surrounding religious faith has gone from being ‘in the world’ to the physical confines of a church, temple, synagogue or mosque.

The new state orthodoxy of religion has been defined in terms of a Kantian notion of inviolable rights, as though the Platonic Forms and Aristotelian Virtues constitute no part of our syncretised conception of Christianity. Freedom of worship is meaningless for the Christian if it may not be performed in spirit and in truth; if it may not be the result of vibrant, living relationship with the Lord; if it may not sear the conscience daily on the life-long journey of faith.

In the Declaration of Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae from the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church summarised this right: "Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."

The practice of religion – true religion – permeates every fibre of our being and enters every fabric of our lives. After centuries of constitutional theo-political development, the British arrived at a notion of tolerance and an understanding of liberty which the Government appears to be intent in limiting to state-approved expressions. Whatever the Baroness Tweets, faith - and especially the Christian Faith - is being relegated to the private sphere. This is antithetical to British ‘core values’, for it is as totalitarian and illiberal as the approach taken by any Islamic country.

For this Coalition Government, and the New Labour one before it, holiness is subjugated to an increasingly secular social contract: the peace of Christ is relegated to the absence of civil strife. There is no space for religious dissent: the imposition of the liberal creed is total. Thus we see Parliament agitating to intruduce same-sex marriage and threatening to impose women bishops upon the Church of England, despite the Church having its own laws and democratic bodies to debate such issues. This Government 'does God' only to the extent that His creed begins with equality and rights, as though they may arbitrarily and unilaterally set aside Holy Scripture and dispense with centuries of Church tradition and orthodoxy.

Freedom of religion includes the freedom not only to be intolerant of extremism, but also of that which is liberal. No true liberal society should impose an agenda upon any peaceable individual or group whose consciences do not permit obeisance to its formularies. Our freedoms of speech, religion and association predate the ‘Rights of Man’; indeed, those rights spring from the fount of Scripture and so should be understood and interpreted in their Sitz im Leben. And the Gospel of Christ is paramount and preeminent: it is not for the state to re-write Scripture or to impose a uniform socio-political exposition of how we must 'do God'.

70 Comments:

Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

Wonderfully exposition.

Ernst is convinced that the 'Right's' hand does know what the 'Lefts' hand is doing and is complete agreement with it!

Blofeld

27 September 2012 at 09:43  
Blogger BeeLZeeBub said...

I think most people would prefer if the British Government stuck to "doing reality".

27 September 2012 at 09:52  
Blogger Tommy said...

Yes they are proud to do God indeed but He can't be done, He infact will do them for their hypocrisy and lip service, they honour Him with their mouths but legalise and fight to promote things He declares in His word to be offensive to Him. In fact the god they do is not the God of the Bible, he's the god of all religions. They have no idea and the state church is silent with no gospel preaching coming from its pulpit. Ichabod is written on its walls. It has become an middle to upper class social club drifting back to rome with a liberal compromised gospel preached by unbelievers, masons and homosexuals, I never hear repentance or the cross nor the blood of Jesus. The lukewarm church will be vomitted from His mouth. |Those within her congregations whom are not sleeping I would call to come out and find a bible believing church and embrace the cross, persecution is coming.

27 September 2012 at 10:35  
Blogger gentlemind said...

If somebody calls me gentlemind, they get my name right. There are millions of ways in which to get something wrong, but only one truth. "Equality of the truth" means that wrong is as right as right. It is then discriminatory to tell the truth. This is the dynamic of totalitarianism - legislate a lie, and make the truth a crime.
Keep doing the truth.

27 September 2012 at 11:06  
Blogger Demetrius said...

Is "religious" a contradiction in terms?

27 September 2012 at 11:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

*activates homing beacon*

Argument X

27 September 2012 at 11:54  
Blogger IanCad said...

YG,

You set the bar pretty high and today's post has to be one of your very best.

"Freedom of religion includes the right to have a faith, to manifest it and propagate it, either alone or together with others, in private or in the public sphere. It also includes the right to change beliefs and religious affiliation. This is a foundational principle of liberal democracy."

So very well put, and contrasts starkly with freedom of worship.

But, what on earth is "the Groundhog dimension"?

27 September 2012 at 11:58  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace

It is to be hoped that Baroness Warsi will read your post and try to understand what you have said, even to the extent of getting in touch with you for further explanation, should she feel the need.

It would interesting to hear Warsi's opinion of the proposed global blasphemy ban currently being promoted by the OIC and, it would appear, the EU. For example, to what extent does Warsi see reasoned criticism of Islam as blasphemy? Was the Regensburg Address in its original form an act of blasphemy?

27 September 2012 at 12:36  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace: I agree with Ian Cad. Indeed: Freedom of worship is meaningless for the Christian if it may not be performed in spirit and in truth; if it may not be the result of vibrant, living relationship with the Lord; if it may not sear the conscience daily on the life-long journey of faith.
And again:
The practice of religion – true religion – permeates every fibre of our being and enters every fabric of our lives.

The "masters" cannot grasp this---they've never taken the trouble to communicate with their own consciences, so how can they understand that others do so? They don't even know what conscience is. So how can they think, let alone in moral terms. They are, indeed, overgrown and overfed children, who work to repress in others what they have successfully repressed in themselves.

As for their "doing God" ... well, they clearly interpret that as "playing God."

27 September 2012 at 12:42  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

IanCad

"But, what on earth is "the Groundhog dimension"?" 'Been here before', 'continuing from a start point repetitively without concluding', 'same ole same ole'.
Based on a famous movie!

Blofeld

27 September 2012 at 13:12  
Blogger IanCad said...

Blofeld,

Thanks for that.

I guess I don't get out as much as I should.

27 September 2012 at 13:15  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
For those that have no faith or do not realise they have no faith, one religion is the same as another, which indeed they are. Religion is the worship of a Deity that is perceived to be there, somewhere.

Christian faith is based on a personal experience and encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ.

Without getting mixed up with meditational and physic experiences, the Christian experience is unique and can't be governed by anyone who fails to appreciate this.

27 September 2012 at 13:41  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hear, hear, Your Grace! Again, you've outdone yourself. Your government has lost its way in the maze of politics and piece-meal deals and compromises. and ignores your shots-across-the-bow at its own peril.

27 September 2012 at 14:49  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

His Grace
“Freedom of worship is the right to express a faith in private, but not to manifest or propagate it in the public sphere. It is a freedom not uncommon in many Islamic countries: you are permitted to be Christian, but not to share your faith with others or to manifest it publicly. Muslims are free to be Muslim and to display their adherence, but they are forbidden to convert.”

Freedom of worship might come in handy if it's applied here then. If we want to remain a Christina country, Muslims and other faiths can be permitted but not manifested publicly, that should curb the progressive march of Islam here.

Freedom of religion has ruined our country. You've got all sorts of weird faiths, cults and non now all vying for the same amount of importance and status. If Christianity, which is the most advanced and civilised in which our country Britain is steeped, is to survive, we must have freedom of worship to elevate and promote Christianity above all others in a way that ensures we stay civilised.

27 September 2012 at 15:06  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Marie1797,
It is not up to us, but God Himself as to how well his name is honoured. We can only be co-workers with him in the spread of his name.
God, being devine and the creator of all things does actually not need us to complete his purpose but chooses to share his work with us.

27 September 2012 at 15:35  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Marie:

I think perhaps the time has passed when Christians could assume that theirs should be the only faith with access to the public sphere.

Actually, I'd go further: whilst having true religious freedom may well mean putting us in "the marketplace" so to speak - all the better. If we follow the Lord's commission to us, if we follow His teaching and His example, then we are well placed in that marketplace, just as Paul was in the marketplaces of Greece.

It will be true, that like the disciples before us, we will face hostility and even violence from those of differing religious opinions - and certainly we can expect to receive scorn from those with none. But this in itself is part of our witness: if we give no reason for such hostility - "they have neither robbed temples nor blasphemed our goddess" (cf. Acts 19:23-41) - then what we will have is the Christian message embodied.

In fact, although I make no apologies for turning my mind towards following Christ's command, I think there is an important piece of common ground in that example between a number of religious views, and even perhaps some of no religious views: that part of the message against cults that seek to control or to suppress, or religions that respond to others with violence, is found in a refusal to do likewise. That whether one is living to evangelise, or simply living as one must, the Truth will out.

What we need from the law is an assurance for the conditions in which that can occur - in other words, the age-old upholding of the Rule of Law. We don't need special laws to protect religious sentiment, nor should we have special laws to curtail religious influence. We simply need to know that if I start threatening you with violence, I will shortly be enjoying a cool-off period at Her Majesty's pleasure.

27 September 2012 at 15:37  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

AIB

Jesus needs help from the Government who are not listening to Him, they rather listen to all the others, and the Law. He isn't getting either at the moment.

27 September 2012 at 16:17  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

But He will have His due Marie, whatever we do. Every knee will bow, and kings (and EU Presidents) will cast their crowns before Him.

More importantly, He achieves this not through our efforts - tainted as they usually are by human failure - but through His perfect Justice that flows from the Throne of God. In practical terms, that means having faith in God - pursuing Him with all our hearts, and wherever authority and responsibility falls to us, dispensing it in a manner that would please Him, but not seeing our influence over government as being the measure of God's ability to see His Will done.

27 September 2012 at 16:27  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

An example is that we are not allowed to carry knives in this country in a public place but a Sikh is allowed to carry the Kirpan dagger. We are dismissed as ignorant if we report someone wearing it in a park or public place to the police. If you go to a concert we get searched, anything dangerous is taken off us but, if you're a Sikh you get excused and allowed to carry your enormous dagger into the concert.

27 September 2012 at 16:29  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that a Sikh is very unlikely to stab someone with a Kirpan. Perhaps there's some statistics on the matter - I'm more than happy to concede the point if it turns out that Sikhs are disproportionally more likely to commit knife crime.

I was under the impression (which may be wrong) that many of the Kirpan were actually pretty small. There I would see common sense cutting both ways: I'm far less likely to be concerned about my safety (rightly or wrongly) if the knife in question is obviously ceremonial, than I am by seeing a man wielding an enormous plain knife. I'd assume that most Sikhs would be capable of appreciating that, just as most Catholics tend not to wear two-foot long crucifixes (though obviously, outside of Midsomer Murders, a crucifix is probably not going to be a weapon).

27 September 2012 at 16:35  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

AIB 16:27
I hope and pray you are right

27 September 2012 at 16:36  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I'll admit to only having got this from Wikipedia, but I read there that:

"The kirpan is always kept sheathed except when it is drawn in religious ceremonies/prayers or to defend ones self and protect others."

I can live with that. Much rather have a few more people like that with knives than some of the yobbos round here with their stanley knives.

27 September 2012 at 16:39  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

AIB
"I may be wrong, but I'm guessing that a Sikh is very unlikely to stab someone with a Kirpan. Perhaps there's some statistics on the matter - I'm more than happy to concede the point if it turns out that Sikhs are disproportionally more likely to commit knife crime."

That's not the point, The Kirpan is a dangerous weapon.
We are not allowed to carry dangerous weapons in public.

27 September 2012 at 16:43  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

AIB, wise words. Leaving aside how Marie's Christian-style Talibanization of the UK would be accomplished, with the majority of the population being secular, if not hostile to religion...any and all religion...a glance at the history of Christianity in Britain, gleaned from any school textbook, should be enough to dispell such fantasies. Then there is the obtuse and rebellious British character when faced with overly-pious dictatorial decrees. I cannot imagine such an attempt to impose Christianity (which "traditional" British version?) occuring peacefully. Any temporarily insane government attempting such silliness will see millions of otherwise hum-drum middle class Brits defiantly donning burkas, hijabs, turbans, mitres, dog-collars, kippahs, samurai top-knots, loin cloths, Buddhist robes and whatnots just to rightfully stick it to the fanatics. If neither a Bloody Mary nor a Cromwell could tame the British character for long, who can?

27 September 2012 at 16:48  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Incidentally AIB, I think here in Canada the hijab issue is finally being approached with existing laws, where disguise is prohibited. Already it is against the law to cover one's face during a demonstration and banks can refuse service to people...all people, including of the Muslim persuasion. After all the human rights and sunjugation of women versus religious right to obscure one's visage, it took a few disguised rioters and gangstas to focus on the real issue.

27 September 2012 at 16:59  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

It would seem then Avi that the law as opposed to the governemt in your country is dictating terms who shall wear what and when?


AIB
My point is Jesus didn't carry a dagger, we don't carry (aren't allowed to) daggers in this country so why should we permit foreigners who come here for a better life to? Freedom of religion has brought us to third world level.

27 September 2012 at 17:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Bravo Your Grace for highlighting this.

We can assume our Government lawyers are being briefed, but by whom ?

We need someone in there to break ranks and squeal, on the quiet of course...

We need to know their instructions in minutiae, for as we know, lawyers cannot do what they are not told to do…

But what if they are acting on their own secular ideas. WE would have to tell THEM to ‘leave their NON beliefs at home or get another job’.







27 September 2012 at 17:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

It should be noted that only theistic faith is being shunted to the private sphere. Non-theistic faith is being open proseltyzed from every street corner. In fact, the former is being accomplished to facilitate the later. Those who would dare to violate this public proscription of theistic religion are charged with (ironically enough) heresy against Secular Orthodoxy. What after all is a charge of 'homophobia' but a charge of heresy against the secular dogma of human nature?

Public religion hasn't gone away. It has simply changed hands. The old temple has been burnt down and its followers driven into the desert. A new temple is built in its place. New priests offer strange fire and stranger sacrifices. Only the god of the temple has changed.

carl

27 September 2012 at 18:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Avi: "I cannot imagine such an attempt to impose Christianity (which "traditional" British version?) occuring peacefully."

I expect churches burn quite well when petrol is applied. There is no way I would accept an imposed theocracy in my country.

27 September 2012 at 18:26  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

India does not put up with the British Raj anymore, why should the English

Can't the woman be found a posting in Calcutta, as we are used to our Barons and Baronesses having some lineage here in accordance with our constitutional expectations

27 September 2012 at 18:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Good lord, bone !

Posting to Calcutta, that takes a fellow back. Not the diplomatic corp of course, only white indigenous types there you know. Stands to reason. Even though Johnny Foreigner settles here, and his offspring are as equal as the rest of us, when it comes to representing the country, they are not to be trusted. Good job too, what !





27 September 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Miss Marie, I posted a lengthy reply to you and it seems to have disappeared. Perhaps it was too lengthy. Alas, as I have to get back to work, It'll be later tonight, my time, when I can try and respond to again. My apologies.

27 September 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Inspector, the woman is quite simply unconstitutional and none representative

27 September 2012 at 19:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Excellent insight, thatbone...

She is at the end of it rather like the inhabitants of the Punjab where she originates from. Enough said, don’t you think ?

Tally ho !

27 September 2012 at 19:36  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

AVI and Danj0
I don't advocate imposing Christianity on everyone, but let's give it more support. That we look at the Bible (KJV) for our nourishment when government makes the laws and lawyers look at the interpretation of them. That we adhere more to what the Bible says for our public and private lives here in the UK if we want to raise standards and halt the backward slide that we seem to be on.

27 September 2012 at 19:46  
Blogger Community PC AIB said...

"I expect churches burn quite well when petrol is applied. There is no way I would accept an imposed theocracy in my country."

Excuse me sir, but are you aware that your rear-view homing beacon is on?

27 September 2012 at 19:59  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Well Inspector, I am sure the Punjab have enough problems of their own, without folk taking on pretentious titles like Baroness and doing damage here

27 September 2012 at 20:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "That we adhere more to what the Bible says for our public and private lives here in the UK if we want to raise standards and halt the backward slide that we seem to be on."

No thanks. I don't think we're on a backwards slide at all. Moreover, I see no reason for the rest of us to adopt some off-beat religious text as a guide to anything when we're not religious. Feel free to do what you want yourself with it as long as you leave the rest of us alone.

27 September 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

A few minutes to get a start on preparing my dinner for later with my new onboard gas stove while the warehouse guys are unloading and loading my trailer.

The point I was trying to make is that our laws, which along with American laws are more true to classical British liberalism and common law are now more British than the Europeanised once in Britain. In the case of the burka, the prohibition of disguising one's features is still in the books, but it took a challenge by bandana=obscured riotors and gangsta hoodlums to reactivate it and to make it impossible for judges to look the other way. The burka is still worn, but must come off in demonstrations at the pain of serious jail time. It's a good start.

For a concrete example of imposed majority religion, I give you our silly, ethnically, linguistically and mentally French Quebec, which pretends to be a state and elected itself a provincial government which among other things, floated a similar idea to yours. During the elections it promised to ban all religious symbols except for the Cross in public sector jobs and venues, such as schools, government offices, courts, etc. It said the Cross is a national not a religious symbol. This, as you may well imagine, upset both religious people, especially the Christians who see the Cross as more than a nice postcard visual, or the secular Quebeckers who see it as a return to a Church-State dictatorship during the fascistic days before their Quiet Revolution. Some among them haven't lost their marbles yet tool, and see this as leetle-beet of a problem for a modern democracy with a constitution and ambitions to be world-class this and that. We laugh at Quebec, for Quebec is French and the French will always come up with cockamanie French silliness, such as sweeping dictatorial decrees it hasn't thought through. Years ago our federal government under the spine-less federal Liberals knuckled under with Quebec's anti-English language laws and saw a major exodus of Anglos and Jews. Oops. Perhaps knowing how unworkable a law to impose such medieval requirements in a modern state is, the new Quebec government backed away from it and concentrates on appeasing its rioting students instead.

More rambling from me was to follow but you've been saved by the fast warehouse guys. Got to go again.

27 September 2012 at 21:37  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ah, saw your other post, Miss Marie. Boosting Christianity is an entirely different issue from prohibiting non-Christians from wearing non-Christian symbols or honouring their holy days, as you proposed elsewhere. Such you can do under existing conditions as a monarchy and a robust parliamentary democracy. Unless you've become "Europeans," in which case it's time to turn off the lights anyway as you head towards a glorious future of sustainability, cold water flats and bicycles. Going after your non-Christians, though, is a red herring. I'm betting that the majority of Muslims in the UK are more interested in making a living and partying than institituting sharia and turning the Tower into a minaret. It's at least two centuries of classical British liberalism and various Christian groups and Christians of all matter of opinions, not mention the powerful secular sector you need to content with. And there is still the problem of the historically established English bloody-mindedness which will scuttle any attempt to regiment one's or someone else's religion.

27 September 2012 at 22:01  
Blogger len said...

There will come a point in the not too distant future when religions will have to be regulated.There will have to be a body set up to decide which religions can be allowed and which banned as being' too dangerous' for Society to permit them free expression.
In the days of the Roman Empire when John wrote 'the Revelation 'different religions were
tolerated as long as they were registered as religio licita (a legal religion)we will quite likely return to this system in the face of ongoing threats.Radical Islam is the greatest threat to World peace (states Tony Blair).
The EU seeks to ever extend its power and control over Europe and any religious/financial threats and the control of such would be a means of achieving this.

27 September 2012 at 22:30  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Avi 2201
We don't have a robust parliamentary democracy though!
Boosting Christianity to me means disallowing noticeable regalia that does not fit in with our way of life such as daggers, hijabs, burkhas etc,,, but leaving other small symbols of non Christianity such as bracelets, necklaces that do not really interfere with our way of life. Same with their holy days, we don't need to recognise them only Christian ones otherwise nobody would get anything done! Same with methods of killing food, and funerals and anything else that does not fit in with us. It would make life a lot easier. I wish that British bloody mindedness would kick in and stick two fingers up to the EU. Sadly all we do now is lie down and roll over. Ideally for our prosperity we need to untangle ourselves from the EU. We need a referendum.

27 September 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger John Chater said...

Having a go at Warsi is about as difficult and meaningful as shotgunning a fish in a barrel or punching a corpse in the face – it's too easy to even be called sport.

She is not the problem, only a symptom of it, being little more than an opportunist benefitting from a kind of multicultural serendipity. You can't blame her for not really getting it. Likewise pot-shots at Cameron or the EU are pretty much a waste of time.

What is it that is being called for here – the establishment of a Christian equivalent of international Islam as a religious/political answer to the 'forthcoming invasion'? Since when have Christians thought like this, except when allied to dubious secular empire builders?

Never mind the spiritual aspirations of the few, how can we pretend that Christianity is the national religion of the UK, even if it is in name? The few professing make clear the truth.

Ours is not a fighting religion, never has been, not truly, but rather belongs in the catacombs, the sand of the arena’s floor, in loss and fear and failure. That is the cross, and that alone. Not victory or domination or the destruction of alien faiths.

Jesus Christ is either God or he is not. If you believe that he is then why are you afraid of Islam, Europe or anything else. And if you are afraid of these things, how can you say that you believe?

27 September 2012 at 22:46  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"What is it that is being called for here – the establishment of a Christian equivalent of international Islam as a religious/political answer to the 'forthcoming invasion'? Since when have Christians thought like this, except when allied to dubious secular empire builders?"

Absolutely spot on.

"
Ours is not a fighting religion, never has been, not truly, but rather belongs in the catacombs, the sand of the arena’s floor, in loss and fear and failure. That is the cross, and that alone. Not victory or domination or the destruction of alien faiths.

Jesus Christ is either God or he is not. If you believe that he is then why are you afraid of Islam, Europe or anything else. And if you are afraid of these things, how can you say that you believe?"

Well said.

27 September 2012 at 22:56  
Blogger William said...

"Jesus Christ is either God or he is not. If you believe that he is then why are you afraid of Islam, Europe or anything else. And if you are afraid of these things, how can you say that you believe?"

Indeed

27 September 2012 at 23:16  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Carl

Yet again you have the ability/gift of being able to simplify the complex.

Your comments need to be more widely read.

Keep it up

Phil

28 September 2012 at 00:38  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Well with that attitude no wonder Christianity is dying fast in this country! Jesus needs help as I've said. He can't defeat Islam with minimal numbers, or on his own.

John Charter
“What is it that is being called for here – the establishment of a Christian equivalent of international Islam as a religious/political answer to the 'forthcoming invasion'? “

Not quite, but a bit more support for Jesus wouldn't go amiss.

Since when have Christians thought like this, except when allied to dubious secular empire builders?”

Since the invasion of muslims and the EU's ever closer union stranglehold.

Stand up Stand up for Jesus
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsFhGkh71sY

28 September 2012 at 00:44  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Marie, I can't help but think that you might find Romans 8:31-39 reassuring.

The Holy Spirit helps us in our weaknesses. At the minute, the Church is weak in these lands, but our Lord does not abandon His people. It might be that we have apportioned to us some lean times, but we have a mighty Redeemer, and we should be singing His praises in the half-empty church halls, or in the prison cells. Paul puts it like this:

"No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am sure that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord." (Rom 8:37-39)

28 September 2012 at 01:28  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Phil

Thank you for the kind words. I am sure my natural American humility will not let it go to my head. ;)

carl

28 September 2012 at 05:43  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 September 2012 at 07:27  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Miss Marie: "Avi 2201...We don't have a robust parliamentary democracy though" A good point you have, and to that I say: Devote much more energy in building and maintaining one. It's a shame that we in the former colonies are doing a better job than you folks are in the home country. Not that we're perfect.

"Boosting Christianity to me means disallowing noticeable regalia that does not fit in with our way of life such as daggers, hijabs, burkhas etc,,, I'm no theologian, not even a Christian, but from reading what many here post, I thought boosting Christianity has to do with a strengthening of the faith...or just getting a few more bodies into the near-empty churches. for starters. It's a problem we all have to some degree, btw, and it won't be solved by enforcing draconian apparel rules.

And I do personally worry about those little et ceteras, being a vain and selfish sort. Will I have to shave off my magnificent beard? No, don't answer...on that you might have my wife's support and traitorous assistance in holding me down. To stop wearing my fancy kippahs hand-knit by the pretty rifle-toting girls on lonely hill-top forts and outposts of Judea and Samaria and sold on the Net? Or to meekly tuck-in my flashy, knee-length ritual fringes? O horror...you're trying to make me look like one of our....liberal Conservative or Reform congregation types! But then again, I recall being told on my last trip to Europe to hide my oddities lest I wind up beat-up or worse. Which would mean dead, I think. So once again, Jews lead the way, I guess.

"...but leaving other small symbols of non Christianity such as bracelets, necklaces that do not really interfere with our way of life." But I hate wearing fey trinkets...rings and bracelets and necklaces and such. Annoying stuff for magpies and Calcutta matrons, not meant for real men. You pay inflated prices for tacky junk that gets melted down by pawn shops for bullion when out of fashion anyway. And it gets snagged on stuff everywhere and attracts thieves and robbers. Jewellery should be banned, I say, like in Calvin's Geneva or among the Puritan settlers of Plymouth Rock!

"Same with their holy days, we don't need to recognise them only Christian ones otherwise nobody would get anything done!" Ah, yes, non-recognition works for me too, which is why those of us who are serious about our oddly-placed holy days tend to work for ourselves or find employers who don't mind and even profit by our work and essential serices when most people take time off.

Same with methods of killing food... Kosher and halal, no doubt. With no evidence that these are not worse than "stunning" (which often fails), I suppose it's the foreign sounding names that annoy so many people. Easy to fix: The former we'll call "James," the latter "Chris." Problem solved. I offer this simple and brilliant solution to anyone who cares to hear me out and I get furred brows and weird looks. Odd.

"...and funerals..." Funerals? ."..and anything else that does not fit in with us." Well, good luck with you Brits agreeing on a definition of "us" or what "fits" and what doesn't. "It would make life a lot easier." Oh, no, I assure you it wouldn't.

"I wish that British bloody mindedness would kick in and stick two fingers up to the EU. Sadly all we do now is lie down and roll over. Ideally for our prosperity we need to untangle ourselves from the EU. We need a referendum." Well, that's something I can agree whole-heartedly with at last. Alas, it won't bring prosperity, what with that EUSSR of yours pissed off like a rattle snake without a tail. I'm afraid you'll have to do it for the sheer love of liberty and freedom...which, paradoxically, would make your proposals anathema.


28 September 2012 at 07:34  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

I rather like Warsi.

She went to see the Pope, you know, which is more than that moralising bully, my dad, ever did.

Militant atheists corrupt the notion of secularism and try to redefine it to mean the banishment of religion from the public sphere.

They are the real enemies of freedom of religion. Don't waste your ammunition on Warsi.

28 September 2012 at 12:36  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Avi

I remember having similar conversations about beards here with others a while ago. I am only against the religious regalia if it interferes with our laws and way of life in a negative way or it inhibits performance in a place of work, or causes us to compromise to our detriment.
Or is harmful. I don't know why you fear having your beards shaved off, but still insist on lopping chunks of skin off all your baby boys in this day and age when personal hygiene is uppermost.

We'll have to agree to disagree on Kosher and Halal methods of killing as I think our method of stunning is far kinder to the animal.

28 September 2012 at 13:56  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Inspector
Regarding your comment about the caste nature of British society,
Asif Anwar Ahmad (born London, 21 January 1956) is a British Diplomat, recently served as the British Ambassador to Thailand.

28 September 2012 at 15:09  
Blogger Manfarang said...

AIB
"Ours is not a fighting religion, never has been, not truly, but rather belongs in the catacombs, the sand of the arena’s floor, in loss and fear and failure. That is the cross, and that alone. Not victory or domination or the destruction of alien faiths."
Go and take a look at some of the Crusader castles in the Middle East. One of them in Lebanon was the scene of clashes in the recent civil war.Still an important strategic position then as now.


28 September 2012 at 15:26  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Manfarang:

I was actually quoting John Chater - however, as I agree entirely with what he wrote, can I point you to his post (@22:46) and highlight the following:

"Since when have Christians thought like this, except when allied to dubious secular empire builders?"

That's not a denial or indication of ignorance about the Crusades, it's making the important point that Christians and the Church do not have a mission in their original commission to create empires. Both Christians and the Church have engaged in and supported empire building - but they did so as secular (in the medieval sense of that word) powers, not as a result of a divine or Biblical command.

28 September 2012 at 15:44  
Blogger Manfarang said...

AIB
Then I hope those Christians support a separation of Church and State.

28 September 2012 at 16:08  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Miss Marie,

Ah, my beard. There's actually no requirement for me to have one, only to use an approved electric shaver that doesn't nick or pull hairs. It's a personal choice with me. I'll probably upset 19 out of 20 guys here when I say that when a man reaches a certain age (in my case it wasin my mid-40s), he should give up on the hopeless attempt at the neat and youthful look. Oops, now I've done it...alright, bring it on, folks!

Ritual slaughter and circumcision have been always the first acts of any society which has decided to begin acting against Jews. The Greek and Romans stand out, and after a long hiaitus in Europe, the attack was first re-initiated by Nazi Germany. These are not rational concerns, as they were raised by societies which mistreated animals and engaged in gross slaughter methods and routinely killed and tortured, often for public entertainment.

The issue is largely political. In ritual slaughter practiced by Jews, Muslims and some Christians, there is little objective evidence to show that it is more painful than other methods. Temple Grandin, the foremost expert on slaughter methods and a Christian, admits that several studies do show EEG signs of brief pain, but that they were done with improper methods, without expert ritual dslaughterers and with short knives which were not properly sharpened. Her much more detailed research shows that it is the abusive handling practices before slaughter, ritual or standard, stress and poor restraint account for most of the suffering. A proper ritual slaughter involving proper equipment and humane pre-slaughter methods is far superior to a stunning procedures with regular animal handling methods.

As for circumcision, no evidence...as we undeerstand evidence... exists of problems when it's done on the 8th day after birth by a practiced mohel, which nowadays are increasingly performed by physicians, often urologists. I've been to dozens of circumcisions, have been circumcised myself and physicians I know have never seen a single horror case, such as the ones manufactured anonymous "victims" on cooky websites.

Opposition to sh'hita and the b'ris follows a predictable pattern: It is greatest where antisemitism is most prevalent. This is why it's big in Europe and rare in North America. I'm not saying that all people opposed to these are antisemites...most genuinely believe they are acting ethically...but that most opponents have been misled.

For me, opposition to these is a litmus test for livability by Jews in a given society and an EWS...an "Early Warning System." It's also a reminder about the importance of having a strong, independent Jewish state, as all promises of tolerance have historically been short-lived. After the brief post-War break, the "EWS" for Europe is long past amber and is blinking red. Currently they are being squeezed between fundamentalist Muslims, anti-Muslims who as in times past include Jews in their complaints, ultra-nationalists and racists, antisemites masquerading as "anti-Zionists" and growing sectors of intolerant Christian revivalists. The short of it is that Jews are again become "outsiders" in spite of history. They need to quietly and politely, with smiles, pleasant waves, without looking Europe in the eyes, get the Hell out of the unravelling continent ASAP.

28 September 2012 at 16:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Manfarang. Inspector indebted to you old fellow...

28 September 2012 at 16:50  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah, Avi,

I for one would welcome the Jewish populations of Europe to British shores and as we are a part of the EU, they would have a full right to do so.

28 September 2012 at 17:50  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Lord Lavendon,

Thank you for the invite; will try not to trample your park grounds, but might have to gobble up your bananas in the glasshouse. With compliments to your peer, Lord Cavendish, of course. In looking at trends over the years, Britain has one of the most Jew-friendly populations in Europe, especially among the middle class and the enterpreneurial groups. That's the upside. The downside is that its governing, media, academic, arts and other elites, not to mention its Muslim population, are mostly hostile. I'm not sure I'd like to make bets.

And it's magic time in my time zone soon; shabbat shalom to you and all.

28 September 2012 at 21:58  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Manfarang:

"Then I hope those Christians support a separation of Church and State."

Depends what you mean by that. Given that the original idea of there being temporal and spiritual spheres of power dates to the High Middle Ages when Christianity was ubiquitous, I'm not necessarily sure that being in favour of secular power remaining distinct from religious authority needs to be reduced down to the terms I suspect you'd advocate.

28 September 2012 at 23:35  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah, Avi

"I'm not sure I'd like to make bets"

I will speak for my family here, we will never, until each one of us is dying ,choking on the ground in our own blood, allow any harm to come to Britain's Jewish population.

28 September 2012 at 23:56  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

If the british government is 'Proud' to do God, what with the influx of muslims and the imposition in secret of deference and collusion to apply sharia principles on the nation, it will only be a matter of time before the great colleges of places like Oxford are re- branded..
'Trinity College' will be 'Allah has no son College', 'Jesus College' will be 'Mohammed the one true prophet College', Corpus Christi will be 'Allah Al-Wāḥid college' and 'All Souls' will be 'Allah Al-Qahhār' etc.

Where will all this nonsense take us? Now I have to listen to the chief instigators of the demise of our nation over the airwaves for the next 4 days declaring all that needs to be done that they could not do whilst in power for the previous 13 years..are we that gullible to believe this claptrap and if we are, don't we deserve what we will most surely get?

Blofeld

30 September 2012 at 12:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

The Catholic Church teaches toleration of other religions in order that man may through free will and choice may discover his way to Christ and respond to His call.

This is not the same thing as equivelance between faith groups - "eror has no rights". It sees it as a responsibility of the civil authorities to ensure such toleration does not harm civil society. It also assumnes, naturally, that the faith of the one Christian Church is the Truth that right minded States will promote.

So "doing god" is not the same as "doing God". This is what recent secular minded governments have forgotten. They see "faith" and "religion" as good in themselves regardless of God and fail to promote and protect our Christian faith and its values.

Other religions, and those of no faith, need the tolerance shown them by Christian States to be granted in such a way that the greater good of the wider community is not damaged.

30 September 2012 at 16:16  
Blogger len said...

Dodo 'the way out dude' The Catholic Church no longer deems is Politically Correct to execute 'heretics'so in that respect I suppose it has 'moved on'.
I wonder how many more facets of Catholicism will' be ditched'in the years to come?.

30 September 2012 at 19:52  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

Yet again you fail to grasp the fundamentals of Catholicism. The Church applies consistent Truth to changing circumstances. The principles remain the same.

Do try to keep up! It is nothing to do with 'political correctness'. It is to do with the changing circumstances and threats to civil society.

Do read the encyclicals!

30 September 2012 at 23:19  
Blogger len said...

Dodo I think your fundamentals have been firmly grasped by the Catholic Church.

1 October 2012 at 19:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len - at least I have some.

2 October 2012 at 00:37  
Blogger len said...

Pleased to hear it Dodo!.

2 October 2012 at 20:27  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older