Thursday, August 29, 2013

Christians may be bombed, for that is convention. Muslims may not be gassed, for that is taboo


While the Prime Minister does his parliamentary arithmetic and establishes that there's no majority appetite for immediately launching cruise missiles into Damascus, the Archbishop of Canterbury focuses on the plight of Syria's Christians, who are already paying the price for being strangers in a foreign land.

They have, of course, been there since.. well, the time of Christ. But so have they in Bethlehem, Benghazi, Homs and Cairo. A century ago, Christians constituted 20 per cent of the regional population; now it is nearer five per cent, and falling. Each time 'the West' intervenes, it is the indigenous Christians who pay the price - often with their lives. We crushed Saddam; the Christians paid. We ejected Gaddafi; the Christians paid. We supported ousting Mubarak; the Christians paid. After Assad..? Well, Archbishop Justin has already spoken:

"It's absolutely clear that Christians in Syria are being persecuted," he said, speaking at 'Save Syria', hosted by Open Doors last month at the Church of England's General Synod in York.

Yes, even before the heinous use of chemical weapons captivated the world's attention, Syria's Christians were 'being chased out in large numbers'. But HM Government was not overly concerned about that. And by 'chased out', the Archbishop meant systematically slaughtered - one by one; cleansed utterly from the region by warring factions of Islamists. But the Prime Minister was content to 'stand by' and 'do nothing'.

"I would encourage people to pray very strongly," the Archbishop said. "Continue to pray and to support this kind of campaign and to write to MPs asking them to think very carefully about the wisdom of supplying further weapons to an area of such complex and extreme violence."

Alistair Burt, Foreign Office Minister for the Middle East and North Africa, said: "What the petition tells us is that not one side or the other should win, just that the killing has to stop for normal life to return and it is the biggest determination of the UK government to do all we can to assist that."

Not one side or the other should win? That is HM Government's foreign policy as far as it relates to Syria? That'll work.

The Archbishop promised to speak out about the plight of Syrian Christians in meetings with government figures. But nothing happened until President Assad (ostensibly) used Sarin nerve gas against women and children. Whether he did or not is a matter of some conjecture. He may have done; it is perhaps even highly likely that he has. And it is a grievous moral offence against God and humanity. It isn't that the death of Syria's Muslims is somehow less acceptable than the death of Christians: it is the manner of their dying. Christians may be bombed, beaten and hacked to death, for that it convention; Muslims may not be gassed, for that is taboo.

And so our intervention is paused, awaiting Parliamentary assent. In the meantime, the Church of England warns with one voice. Raining missiles on Damascus may 'send a message', but it will not save innocent people. You only have to consider the plight of Egypt's Copts to see the future for Syria's Christians. Churches burn, homes are looted, men abducted, girls raped, and mobs armed with axes hack them to pieces.

The more we 'intervene', the more Christians are marginalised. In Syria, they are happier living under the the Shia Alawite dictatorship of President Bashar al-Assad than under those we call the 'rebels' or 'opposition forces', who are, in fact, disparate groups of Al Qaeda-affiliated, Wahhabi-Islamist jihadists.

There used to be 80,000 Christians in Homs. The last one was murdered almost a year ago. Only five months ago in Benghazi, Libya, 60 Christians were rounded up by extremist vigilantes. Some were tortured; one was murdered. The media didn't stream the horrors live into our living rooms: HM Government 'stood by' and 'did nothing'.

We liberated Iraq for Christians to be cleansed. We bombed Libya for Christians to be persecuted. We 'stand by' and watch a military coup in Egypt for Christians to be oppressed and exiled. We 'send a message' to Syria for the exodus to continue.

146 Comments:

Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Lets not forget Kosovo and northern Cyprus

29 August 2013 at 08:57  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Check out "Turkish" Cyprus

http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/06/christianity_in_peril_in_turkish_cyprus.html

29 August 2013 at 09:01  
Blogger Albert said...

Good article, and good on the Archbishop. He needs to improve on his timing though. If the Telegraph is anything to go by, any attempt by the AofC to raise the profile of the plight of Christians in Syria has been over-shadowed by his confused and confusing comments on (guess what?) homosexuality.

29 August 2013 at 09:25  
Blogger David B said...

It is not just Christians.

Neither women nor Muslims of the wrong sect have done well in places where the West has intervened, and atheists, agnostics, secularists need to keep their heads well down.

But as far as " "Continue to pray..." goes - well come on let us get real for a minute.

Does anyone really think that prayer does anything at all beyond giving some sort of sense of self righteousness to the person doing the praying?

There seems to me very little evidence pointing to its effectiveness, after all.

No more, before someone else gets in, than my good wishes for the people in these countries, and contempt for Bliar and Bush, is more than waving my hands in the air. Both the Archbish's call for prayer and the calls for lack of action on blogs like this, religious or not, are some sort of public disapproval for this sort of military action, but neither, I suggest, shows signs of any supernatural effectiveness.

David

29 August 2013 at 09:30  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

Neither women nor Muslims of the wrong sect have done well in places where the West has intervened, and atheists, agnostics, secularists need to keep their heads well down.

Gone down from 20% to 5% in the region?

Does anyone really think that prayer does anything at all beyond giving some sort of sense of self righteousness to the person doing the praying?

I do.

There seems to me very little evidence pointing to its effectiveness, after all.

May be it's your judgement that's at fault!

29 August 2013 at 09:34  
Blogger Ivan said...


YG as you so eloquently put it is the Christians who pay the price. The last Western leader who had any concern for them was ironically the disastrous George Bush, a devout Methodist. The Christians turned in the hundreds of thousands to greet JP11 in 1999 or thereabouts. Damascus is where St Paul had his conversion. None of these seem to matter to the current Western leaders. Just as the Nagasaki Christians survived the daimyos and shoguns only to be vapourised by the Americans, the dead Christians in the Mid-East are mere collateral damage.

29 August 2013 at 09:37  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

Good article - comments of Archbishops old & new are appreciated even outside the Anglican fold.

Open Doors is trying to get the ear of the UN, starting with a petition, which only 98,000 have signed so far, and it's been going a while. They need 500,000 signatures to make a dent. https://www.opendoorsuk.org/campaign/savesyria/forms/donate_1.php

I hope His Grace doesn't mind the link.

In the words of one Syrian Christian on that site: "I would like to ask you to ask your governments to think about who they support in this war. Sometimes they seem to make the people that hurt the innocent stronger. Please continue to pray for my country."

Looks like the current ABC has just that.

29 August 2013 at 09:57  
Blogger Ivan said...

One would have more respect for the clowns Cameron and Obama if they put together a team to take out whoever was behind this, including Assad himself. This is what grown men would do. Instead the prefer to preen from 30,000 feet, as Dr Kissinger would have put it.

29 August 2013 at 09:59  
Blogger Rasher Bacon said...

... current ABC has done just that.

29 August 2013 at 09:59  
Blogger bradypus said...

Twas ever thus. The original Crusades did far more harm to Christianity than Islam. After all the Crusaders sacked the only Christian Bulwark against Muslim expansion in the area, Byzantium, so that when they were finally pushed out . The Muslim forces could walk over a greatly weakened Byzantine Empire. Modern day Crusades are no different even if the motives are different

29 August 2013 at 10:11  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

"I would encourage people to pray very strongly," the Archbishop said.

I didn't realise there were degrees of praying; is it pray casually, pray strongly and pray very strongly.

Whatever; not at all wishing to trivialise the seriousness of the post but what does the ABC expect really expect from exhorting the faithful in this manner? This is the standard Islamic modus operandi. Prayers versus bullets? - no contest.

If the ABC wants to help Christians (and presumably all other innocents) he will have to do more than pray. The Islamists also pray to their god, but they pray to become martyrs and back it up for good measure by merrily slaughtering all and sundry, in the prescribed manner of their sodding prophet. Meanwhile the Christians in the West cuddle up to Islam at home, as though it will buy them immunity - Useful Idiots all of them!.




29 August 2013 at 10:16  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

But the Prime Minister was content to 'stand by' and 'do nothing'

He would still be doing nothing if Obama hadn't told him how high to jump.
The Christian minority and all other minorities count for nothing. No one with any power or authority gives a damn. The West is backing Sunni Islam as a bulwark against Iran, to ensure the continued liberty of oil wells, the safety of natural gas tankers to roam the seas unmolested and the free movement of petrodollars.

Syria is the first trench in the struggle to undermine the Iranian regime. The gas attack was just the excuse Obama needs to degrade Shia military assets and delight the Saudis and Gulf States. Never mind that the Syrian opposition has elements of unrivalled brutality. The end justifies the means, power must be projected whatever the expense and regardless of morality.

Absolutely no chance of a principled refusal to react, the US can't afford to be seen as weak by the likes of Iran and North Korea.

29 August 2013 at 10:22  
Blogger Preacher said...

A very good report Dr Cranmer.
The posturing of Western politicians is all propaganda. It's obvious that they don't care for people dying, just how they can flex their muscles & do .... what?, pour more even higher power death & destruction on a defenceless population?.
When Christians are murdered, they stand looking the other way, hands in pockets whistling.
The slaughter of Christians has been happening for centuries in Islamic countries. Radical Islam is a religion of fear, violence, death & intimidation.
The killing of Christians has become so commonplace that most Western political leaders ignore it & accept it because there's no big drum to beat if they react.
Even the Media stay silent about the outrages.
Christians in these countries mainly have to rely on Western brethren simply for the necessary basics to survive daily life, food, clothing, clean water & children's education are supplied by Christian Organisations.
Does Prayer help? IMO, yes! No one without faith can honestly say that it doesn't, they can express an opinion, but as they cannot prove it is not working, in the same way that they can't prove that God does not exist, it remains a matter of belief or lack of it. I would point out that No One can know how much worse the situation could be if we DIDN'T pray into it.

29 August 2013 at 10:34  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Nowadays British PMs and US Presidents see themselves as political leaders of secular democracies, containing those of many faiths and none. The UK is not a Christian country any longer, although it has much Christian heritage. So they feel no particular responsibility for the Christian populations that are being persecuted. Their motives are elsewhere, economic and political I would say. But they present themselves as acting on humanitarian grounds.
Of course none of this justifies the dangerous and pointless military action being planned.

Bradypus has a point. From my admittedly knowledge limited understanding and reading of the history of Eastern Holy Roman Empire, centered on Constantinople, the rest of Christendom failed to support their eastern co-religionists, even when assistance was requested. Rome was more concerned with upholding the supremacy of The Papacy, over the Orthodox Church, and insisting that its doctrines, especially regarding the Filioque addition to the Creeds was accepted. People like to point to the Arabs and say how divided they are, but the same is also true of the formerly Christian countries, that we loosely call The West.

29 August 2013 at 10:40  
Blogger Ivan said...


The First Crusade was launched at the behest of the Byzantines, and was going great guns until Alexis Comneneus got cold feet when he saw how successful the Franks were. Nonetheless the Crusader Kingdom lasted near a hundred years, which is quite an achievement when one considers that Tyre and Sidon were a long way from the centres of Europe. The disaster that resulted from the Fourth Crusade (and condemned by the Pope) was not entirely the Latins' fault. The soldiers had not been paid for a year and their intervention in Byzantine affairs was at the invitation of one of the pretenders to the throne. Not for nothing is Byzantine a byword for convoluted and ultimately useless schemes.

29 August 2013 at 11:15  
Blogger graham wood said...

Such is the arrogance of power.

As others have pointed out, the UK coalition government did not exist before the election.
No one could therefore have voted for it, and therefore it does not have a mandate for anything.

It had no mandate for the arbitrary and disgusting policy of Same Sex Marriage.

Likewise it has no mandate to commit British armed forces to attack targets in Syria - in a country where civil war reigns, and where no credible strategy with defined outcomes is possible.

If this government has no mandate, then the call for a parliamentary debate on Syria is entirely academic and without purpose.

Yet again, and reminiscent of the scenario of the 2nd Psalm, the Cameron/Clegg duo have imagined a "vain thing"

29 August 2013 at 11:27  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Preacher

Does Prayer help? IMO, yes!...

And presumably the same goes for the death embracing Islamists too does it?

This is at the root of the conflict and the absurdity and consequence of religion mixing with politics. My God is more powerful than your god therefore you must die?

29 August 2013 at 11:39  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Good point Albert @ 09:25
"The Archbishop [Welby] needs to improve on his timing though. If the Telegraph is anything to go by, any attempt by the AofC to raise the profile of the plight of Christians in Syria has been over-shadowed by his confused and confusing comments on (guess what?) homosexuality."

Welby is clearly wanting to be "all things to all men" which actually makes him a dishonest chameleon. Flanders and Swann did an excellent song about the man who didn't know what he believed. At New Wine His Grace the ABC told the gathered thousands of evangelical Christians that he was all against homosexual marriage and now here he is saying, according to the Daily Telegraph headline today "Archbishop urges Christians to ‘repent’ over ‘wicked’ attitude toward homosexuality !" WICKED attitude towards homosexuality ! So we who believe what the Holy Bible says are now wicked are we ?

I ask what is left for the Church of England now ?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10271438/Archbishop-urges-Christians-to-repent-over-wicked-attitude-to-homosexuality.html

29 August 2013 at 11:54  
Blogger Naomi King said...


On the Christians in Muslim controlled lands they are being killed willy nilly but in this Spirit of Lies which prevails no one in the media cares, because they are only Christians.

I have just found this which I would ask you to listen to. Here is the link

http://www.corbettreport.com/interview-731-mother-agnes-mariam-on-the-syrian-crisis/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+CorbettReportRSS+%28The+Corbett+Report%29

A radio interview with Sister Agnes Mariam who lives in Syria and is a member of a peace network who talks to leaders from around the world speaks for the innocent citizens in Syria and questions where all the child victims came from in the chemical weapons attack as there were no citizens resident anymore in the area of Damascus that was targeted, and that there were no flying weapons with chemical warheads nor any smell? She seems to think it's the terrorist mercenaries Al-Nusra, egged on by the west, who have carried out the attack. She also tells us they have raped 500 women, probably Christian, cutting some up with chain saws and others splitting their wombs. Sister Agnes Mariam thinks we are entering a new barbaric phase in Syria and the Middle east with the Spirit of Islam.

Mother Agnes Mariam is a Carmelite nun who has been living and working in Syria for the past 19 years. Throughout the Syrian conflict, she has been working with a network of peace activists across the country and around the world to counter the lies and disinformation that is leading the West toward war. Today we discuss the lies surrounding last week’s alleged chemical weapons attack and the fate of the country if Assad were to be toppled.

29 August 2013 at 12:01  
Blogger Albert said...

I find the various attacks on Dr C's call to prayer over this, rather odd. Whatever the evidential state of the question of prayer, prayer for peace at least has this in its favour when compared with military and political solutions: it hasn't made the situation worse.

Dreadnaught,

And presumably the same goes for the death embracing Islamists too does it? This is at the root of the conflict and the absurdity and consequence of religion mixing with politics. My God is more powerful than your god therefore you must die?

That's just rubbish isn't it? From a Christian perspective, for prayer to be effective, it cannot be a prayer for something wicked. So no, it doesn't in any way go for the death embracing Islamist, and necessarily, it is not about my God being more powerful therefore you must die.

The distinction between religion and politics is part of the Christian inheritance that you are mocking BTW.

29 August 2013 at 12:03  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

From an interview conducted in May with a Christian leader in Israel:

Archbishop Elias Chacour, head of the Melkite Greek Catholic Church in Israel, said Christians had suffered the greatest bloodshed since the Arab Spring which in his view had failed.

‘Arab Spring is a mistaken definition. In Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Libya and now in Syria we are witnessing a wave of bloodshed, and we will not see a garden grow from this so-called spring,’ he warned.

Across the Arab world and in the Middle East, he said ‘many are dying, but those who are losing the most are Christians.’


The archbishop echoes Your Grace’s observation about Christians in the Middle East faring best under dictatorships: ‘We were not happy with the totalitarian regimes, but we are even less so today because of the risk of Sharia.’

With due respect to Archbishop Justin, prayer on its own will not ensure the survival of Christianity against the depredations of Islam—both abroad and, increasingly, at home.

29 August 2013 at 12:06  
Blogger Albert said...

Naomi,

actually makes him a dishonest chameleo

That's too harsh. Assuming the AofC's comments have been faithfully reported (experience shows that is unlikely), the AofC is confused on the matter.

according to the Daily Telegraph headline today "Archbishop urges Christians to ‘repent’ over ‘wicked’ attitude toward homosexuality !" WICKED attitude towards homosexuality ! So we who believe what the Holy Bible says are now wicked are we ?

Again, what did he actually say (as opposed to what does the Headline say he said?)? According to the article:

the Church has not been good at dealing with homophobia ... in fact we have, at times, as God’s people, in various places, really implicitly or even explicitly supported it. And we have to be really, really repentant about that because it is utterly and totally wrong.

Is he not entirely correct on that?

29 August 2013 at 12:11  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Albert - Why is my question rubbish? I'm not mocking at all, I'm deadly serious.

Do you know to which god the Islamists refer when the yell Allahu Akba? I thought it was a straight enough question.

As I said religion and politics is absurd and impacts everyone in range

29 August 2013 at 12:16  
Blogger Albert said...

I see that the Russians are mobilising naval forces. It's all "routine" of course, but then again, they are also saying:

The well known situation currently developing in the eastern Mediterranean required some adjustments to the make up of the naval flotilla. It the next few days it will be joined by a large anti submarine vessel from the Northern Fleet

I'm reminded of Dr Mullin's suggestion that this looks like August 1914.

In meantime, have we not had another lesson in the last 24 hours of the impetuousity of the PM? He looks like an adolescent who says and does things without thinking first of what will happen later.

29 August 2013 at 12:17  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

Why is my question rubbish? I'm not mocking at all, I'm deadly serious. Do you know to which god the Islamists refer when the yell Allahu Akba? I thought it was a straight enough question.

The issue is whether prayer is effective - that was your starting point. A prayer for peace and a prayer for some kind of (say) success in suicide bombing are not remotely on the same level.

As I said religion and politics is absurd and impacts everyone in range

Whereas the separation of religion and politics has led only to peace and justice...

29 August 2013 at 12:21  
Blogger Irene's Daughter said...

The words of Jesus. “20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also. 21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not Him that sent me.” (John 15:20-21 AV)

The Christian Church was brought into life in persecution. Remember the Christians thrown to the lions, or those whose bodies were used as lamps. Nothing has changed. Around the world there is a growing persecution of God's people and Christ's Church. People are suffering unimaginable things - but one thing sticks out for me. All these men and women have to do is deny Christ and admit to believing in a false god and the suffering will immediately cease. Very few do this. They would rather die than deny Jesus. This is their witness.

It is a witness that would be impossible if they were standing in their own strength. But with the Holy Spirit indwelling them, they are able. Actually it is the Holy Spirit who does the standing! They are no longer mere men. They are the Body of Christ. And because they are standing in His strength, we know that He is ruling, even in this terrible situation.

The Light is still shining in the darkness. And just because the 'fools who say in their heart that there is no God'(psalm 14:1) have shut their eyes tight and keep out the Light doesn't make it less so.

Pray
1)That His will is done in this situation and
2)That there will be a great harvest of saved souls from this conflict.

And keep looking up to God who is enthroned high over all because Jesus HAS already won the victory. He does know what He is doing.

29 August 2013 at 12:35  
Blogger Flossie said...

David Cameron is beginning to look like a very dangerous man. He says he wants to improve the lot of homosexuals in other parts of the world, but says nothing about the far greater number of persecuted Christians.

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, Director of Barnabas Fund, has today written a letter to David Cameron:

Dear Mr Cameron,

As the government determines a response to the serious and deteriorating situation in Syria, I urge you to consider the consequences for the Christian minorities across the country of any military action initiated by the United Kingdom, the United States and their allies.

Christians make up about 10% of Syria’s population, yet they are particularly vulnerable and have become targets of religious cleansing by forces who are determined to establish sharia law. Islamist militant groups, including Al Qaeda, have become increasingly prominent and now control some parts of the country, endangering the Christian residents in those areas.

Already rebel forces have destroyed numerous churches, and many thousands of Christians and other minorities are displaced within Syria or have fled their homeland altogether and are now living in very difficult circumstances in refugee camps in neighboring countries.

In one of the latest incidents, at least 15 Christians were killed in a murderous attack near Ein al-Ajouz in Wadi al Nasara (“Valley of the Christians”) in the early hours of Saturday August 17, 2013. Armed militants first killed soldiers at a checkpoint before going on a shooting rampage, targeting innocent Christian civilians.

Military action that results in the demise of President Assad’s forces would almost certainly allow a strengthened Al Qaeda presence in Syria that would result in significant and increased persecution of Syrian Christians. This is the situation in southern Libya, where the void created by the demise of the Libyan military has emboldened Al Qaeda’s operation in the region.



One of the grave consequences of military action initiated by the United States in Iraq was the destruction of the Iraqi Christian community. Over 3.5 million Iraqis were forced from their homes after the conflict. Christians, who made up only 3-4% of the population of Iraq, account for nearly a quarter of the refugee population.

What guarantees of security and religious freedom can you and the government give to the already suffering Christian community in Syria if a military intervention is initiated by Western states? And how can you be certain that the recent history of Libya and Iraq will not repeat itself once again and cause indefensible and unpardonable suffering to Syria’s vulnerable Christians and other minorities?

The United Kingdom and her allies may use the Responsibility to Protect rationale to justify military action in Syria. But they should not use this selectively, and ignore the unintended consequences of their actions on the Christian minority which, unlike other minorities in Syria, is largely defenseless. Furthermore the Christians will also be at greater risk than other minorities in the aftermath of a Western strike on their country; this is because Christian minorities are perceived as allies of the West due to their Christian faith and are therefore the traditional scapegoats on which Muslim extremists vent their wrath against the West.

Yours sincerely,

The Very Rev’d Patrick Sookhdeo, PhD, DD, FSyI

International Director, Barnabas Fund

29 August 2013 at 12:37  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Flossie,

I agree. Both Obama and Cameron are very dangerous men. In their ignorance and confusion they are in danger of accelerating the suffering and the darkness so powerful already in this benighted region. Those closest to the truth, the Christians have always suffered the most.

29 August 2013 at 12:51  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Albert,

I think that you make a good point regarding the A of C. Although I would much prefer plainer speaking from him, upholding both Scripture and Tradition without any frills, he is trying, I think, to encourage exploration of common ground. He may well fail, and he knows that, since there is but one path forward, and it is not the broad one that The World would have us take.

Forming opinions regarding what someone has said without reading the whole speech is always a risky and uncertain process. We all know that the media works by searching for sensational headlines, usually leaving the full truth far behind.

So I shall watch and see, patiently and with restraint, to see what develops. The truth remains in Scripture and sound Tradition.

29 August 2013 at 12:59  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

ALBERT

I believe that one may as well hope for the best and cross your fingers as much as pray, the outcome won't be influenced either way. If it did work we wouldn't be having to re-fight old issues like Christians versus Muslims.

I live in the only world I expect to be aware of because it exists and so do I. Turning the other cheek and loving our murderous neighbours does not work unless one believes (like the Muslims) that this life is of no consequence or value.

The Christian Churches (as far as I am aware) are not calling upon their followers to join a volunteer strike-force as in days of old or even organising inter-denominational talks to take up arms, against rampant Islam in the way it does with great ease and effectiveness.

The price being paid for such niceties is in lost lives and the eradication of your belief system in its heartland.

Pray if it helps you sleep at night but I would rather have a metaphorical loaded gun under my pillow.





29 August 2013 at 13:03  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Dreadnaught.

I think you misunderstand us. Orthodox Christian belief, and all denominations would agree here, dos not believe that all prayer is answered, or rather all prayer is assented to. It is mandatory to pray "according to the Will of God".

I suspect you know this at some level. If my neighbour were to get a pile driver and use it non-stop when I had a headache and I prayed that he would cut his feet off and die, none of us would seriously expect God to assent!!

God's will is not for bloodshed and massacre so the mandate is clearly there.

As for strength of prayer, it does seem to make a difference. Not sure exactly why. Francis McNutt, an RC well-versed in the healing ministry, notes this in his second book on healing. If you pray for healing for s.o. it works out that the more hours, and the more people and the more care and faith of the people praying the better the outcome on average. Of course that is not brilliant in terms of our rushed and time poor society, nor easily explained fully, but it works and Justin Welby is right here!

29 August 2013 at 13:04  
Blogger Preacher said...

Dreadnaught.
Prayer is common to every belief, even covens pray to the devil & who's to say that they don't sometimes receive an answer?.

I would suggest that you should research more on the difference between Jesus & His teachings in the New Testament, then compare them with those of Mohammed in the Koran.
The differences between them should be readily discernible, thus the prayers of their followers will differ accordingly in their aims.

While it is undoubtedly true that evil men have used all religions in a bid to further their own wicked plans, from the very beginning of time, the teaching of Jesus that "By their fruits you shall know them" will sort the sheep from the goats.

29 August 2013 at 13:09  
Blogger The Explorer said...

As a former unbeliever myself, I can appreciate how difficult this prayer issue is for unbelievers.

For example, Christians believe that history is not random, but is moving towards an outcome; and they have been warned of the possibility of persecution: ongoing through history, and intensifying before the final outcome occurs.

Is prayer simply for the spiritual discipline of the believer, or can it actually make a difference?

If so, are we praying:

1. That the course of history be averted/fulfilled?
2. That the persecution should stop?
3.That those having to endure it should be strengthened?

If we pray to God to intervene, are we asking for:

a. Direct Divine intervention?

b. Intervention by means of some human agency? God moving hearts and minds, for instance, or - a big task, even for God - giving wisdom to Western politicians?

29 August 2013 at 13:10  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I would suggest that you should research more on the difference between Jesus & His teachings in the New Testament, then compare them with those of Mohammed in the Koran.

Preacher, I can't change the fact that my background is culturally Christian (nor I might add would I want to) so why I would ask is Christianity not making vociferous opposition to the spread of Islam in places it has not been before?

29 August 2013 at 13:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

I believe that one may as well hope for the best and cross your fingers as much as pray, the outcome won't be influenced either way.

Yes, and I believe that prayer is effective. Nothing in my belief about the effectiveness of prayer commits me to the fallacy of assuming that it is always effective regardless of what is prayed for (your starting question, which should not be lost sight of).

If it did work we wouldn't be having to re-fight old issues like Christians versus Muslims.

That's a very simplistic view of what Christians believe about prayer - so simplistic, in fact, that it does not even begin to respond to our beliefs.

Turning the other cheek and loving our murderous neighbours does not work unless one believes (like the Muslims) that this life is of no consequence or value.

Well again, you need to address your comments more carefully to Christianity. Yes, we have a tradition of turning the other check. We also developed a theory of Just War to defend the weak against the violent. It is to be regretted that Western leaders have tended to reject that Christian tradition in favour of a secular utilitarian model. Had they stuck with the specifically Christian model, a lot of people would be alive today who are in fact dead as a result of our wars.

The Christian Churches (as far as I am aware) are not calling upon their followers to join a volunteer strike-force as in days of old or even organising inter-denominational talks to take up arms, against rampant Islam

No, thank goodness.

The price being paid for such niceties is in lost lives and the eradication of your belief system in its heartland.

That's completely false. The eradication of Christianity (if that is what's going on) is nothing to do with Islam, but is because of the gutlessness of Christians (who liberalise and fail to reproduce in sufficient numbers) and stupidity of atheists whose attacks on religion only seem to affect Christianity - the religion which is closest to them (and therefore leaves space for religions which are violently opposed to secularism).

Can't you see it? The decline of Christianity is part of the decline of Western culture? That decline is a feature of secularisation - the rejection of our own culture without being clear on what to put in its place. But secularisation is only one feature of modernity. And when secularism is swallowed up in its own vacuousness and self-contradiction and moves on to something else, Christianity will still be there - rising again.

29 August 2013 at 13:30  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Lucy Mullen,

thanks for your input and I would agree that prayer or a personal belief system may well assist a body in healing - I think it is well documented that lets say 'positive thinking' does at times produce beneficial advantages in aiding recovery.

For what its worth, if prayer helps people get through life I'm ok with that, very ok in fact, but without proper human assistance, its efficacy is greatly diminished.

29 August 2013 at 13:34  
Blogger Owl said...

I am just wondering if the real question should not be "how do we stop Assad" but "how do we stop Cameron/Obama".

It would appear that they are a far greater danger to mankind than Assad (not that I think much of him either).

29 August 2013 at 13:36  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Oh Albert - it is simple - tried to keep it simple, spin of into la-la-land if you wish; I'm out.

29 August 2013 at 13:36  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Dreadnaught

I am uncertain as to whether your last comment takes into account that most of us would see a clear and important distinction between persecuting or eradicating Muslims, (or even just being nasty and rude to them) and enlarging the Kingdom, not least because many of us will have Muslim friends and acquaintances.

I would be happy to see Islam as a religion be replaced by Christian belief, but am far from happy at what appears to be a policy against "the non-integrating gap" and to be wiping out large quantities of Muslims, encouraging inter-necine tensions and all whilst simultaneously eradicating a high % of Christians in the same areas.

29 August 2013 at 13:38  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Dreadnaught

Sorry that "your last comment" was a hostage to fortune as several comments were posted inbetween!!

29 August 2013 at 13:41  
Blogger Martin said...

Perhaps if the ABC were to be biblically consistent I might take notice of what he says. I'm afraid he seems no better than his forbears for at least the past 150 years.

29 August 2013 at 13:42  
Blogger LEN said...

Prayer does affect things spiritually and materially.
God works through His people unfortunately Satan works through 'his people' as well.There are instances of prayer changing the course of History.

So those who sit by passively either through unbelief or ignorance of the nature of the spiritual battle that is being fought are going to be merely bystanders in the coming events.

God has a plan for Humanity and Christians can pray that His 'Will be Done' as Jesus said In the Lord`s Prayer.

29 August 2013 at 13:56  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Why do Christians behave as if they are in la-la-land?

Why don't they behave like the rest of the world?

Don't they know that embracing love will very often mean their deaths when the wicked and the violent come in force?

"Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting, that I might not be delivered [...] But my kingdom is not from the world.”" (John 18:36)

29 August 2013 at 14:06  
Blogger David Hussell said...

I would point out that being a committed Christian believer does not require me to be a pacifist, far from it. The Christian has every right, in my opinion, and in our traditions, to defend himself, his family and his territory. Let Quakers , some of whom are still recognizable as Christians, say otherwise, but that is my position. Living in the UK I am fortunate in that I am most unlikely to have to fight for my life and that of my family, but if push came to shove I would indeed fight.
Now I am not arguing that self defense forces are a practical option in Syria or any specific location, but I am making the general point about the right to self defense. I do note that in Irag, a country long saturated with weapons, congregations defend themselves with guns.
The "turn the other cheek" is a moral ideal and high ground, literally, but Christian fathers and parents generally are not required to see their children, relatives or themselves slaughtered if there is a worthwhile alternative.

29 August 2013 at 14:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

Oh Albert - it is simple - tried to keep it simple, spin of into la-la-land if you wish

Simplistic rather than simple - simplistic to the point of being misleading when not actually false.

29 August 2013 at 14:20  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert said ...
"I find the various attacks on Dr C's call to prayer over this, rather odd."

The only prayer we can say in the face of this situation seems to me to be:
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from the people in Syria and the middle east; yet not our will, but yours be done.”

And it will be done.

Prayer is effective - we ask God to remove suffering and not to permit evil and give us courage to face the future and to do what is necessary, come what may. And we believe God listens. He knows before we pray that we will do so, and what our needs are. Thereafter, we have to trust in His Divine will and have confidence that good will triumph over evil.

The Lord's Prayer encapsulates it all.

29 August 2013 at 14:22  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Lucy Mullen

...but am far from happy at what appears to be a policy against "the non-integrating gap" and to be wiping out large quantities of Muslims...

I am not advocating 'wiping out' Muslims but I am advocating limiting their expansion in a State with which many of them and their theo-political ideology see in a suitable county to be Islamisized. Islam and in this case many individual Muslims, is the entity that does not wish to integrate but dominate sooner if not later.

There has been a propaganda war successfully waged by the likes of the MB and Wahabbists of many shades that the West has failed to rebuff having manacled itself with such manifest stupidity as 'Hate Law' implemented in the main for the 'protection' of Islamic belief and practice at the expense of common sense, free speech and cultural identity.

29 August 2013 at 15:17  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Dreadnaught

I wasn't referring to your policy, neither to issues in this country, but in US/UK policy with particular reference to the book by Thomas P M Barnett (2004) a US Naval strategist, which is influential and also disagreeable and seemingly cheerful at the concept of pre-emptive wars of aggression.

I remain a proponent of free speech except for that which incites violence against others- an unremarkable position probably shared by a huge majority here!!

29 August 2013 at 16:15  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Dreadnaught:

"Turning the other cheek" is probably best seen in the context of its audience: unarmed Galilean peasants. It's about not bearing festering resentments, not letting the Sun go down on your wrath.

Against it, we must set Christ's statement of bringing not peace but a sword (standing up for your beliefs), and his treatment of the money changers in the Temple. When the Centurion sought help, Christ praised the man's faith; he didn't tell him to leave the army and become a pacifist. Historically, Christendom fought a long war with Islam.

I agree with Albert. Modern Western attitudes to Islam are not framed by Christianity, but by the PC concept of victimhood: with Muslims as blanket victims. Probably not even PC still believes this, but its adherents are too terrified of what they have inadvertently created to actually face reality.

29 August 2013 at 16:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

Probably not even PC still believes this, but its adherents are too terrified of what they have inadvertently created to actually face reality.

I would tweak that slightly, insofar as it seems the secular left has sometimes promoted Islam in the name of multiculturalism, in the name of undermining Christianity and other elements of our culture. It is one of the weirdest elements of the secular mindset: ensure all decisions are made on secular lines, but still blame everyone else.

29 August 2013 at 17:35  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert:

On the subject of PC and related ills, enjoyed Feser immensely: including the humour. Great book!

Have got on much less well with Gillespie: although his actual topic should make it a winner.
a. Can't work out where he's coming from.
b. He seems too inclined to take Machiavelli at face value. (Who ought to be approached in the spirit of the Cretan in, "If a Cretan says all Cretans are liars is he lying?")
c. Too simplistic an acceptance of the Thirty Years' War as religion-driven. Cavanaugh's unreadable book does at least put a big stick of dynamite under that theory.

29 August 2013 at 17:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I've put a lucky charm on my house to stop it burning down. It must work because it hasn't burned down so far! That said, if it does burn down in the future then I expect the charm has eventually worn down.

29 August 2013 at 18:26  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0:

Duff charm, then. Can't you buy one with a specific expiry date, so that you know when to renew it?

29 August 2013 at 18:32  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Here's where DanJ0's coming from:

If his house doesn't burn down, it's because the charm is working. If it does burn down, it's because the charm has stopped working. Unless you know in advance the duration of the charm, you cannot assess its efficacy.

You pray for someone who's ill. She gets better, it was God's will. She doesn't get better, that was also God's will. God wins either way. And if God's will always determines what happens, what's the point of praying anyway?

Responses, anyone?

29 August 2013 at 19:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

How would I know that the new one is effective? It appears effective until the house is about to burn down because of an accident.

29 August 2013 at 19:40  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0:

That's my point about things happening anyway. What if the charm is simply a placebo, and has no bearing on events?

You'd simply have wasted your money: you'd get the same outcome without it.

29 August 2013 at 20:17  
Blogger Peter D said...

Explorer

I thought I'd answered your point @ 14:22:

The only prayer we can say in the face of this situation seems to me to be:
“Father, if you are willing, take this cup from the people in Syria and the middle east; yet not our will, but yours be done.”

And it will be done.

Prayer is effective - we ask God to remove suffering and not to permit evil and give us courage to face the future and to do what is necessary, come what may. And we believe God listens. He knows before we pray that we will do so, and what our needs are. Thereafter, we have to trust in His Divine will and have confidence that good will triumph over evil.

The Lord's Prayer encapsulates it all.

29 August 2013 at 20:40  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

I'm glad you enjoyed Feser. Sorry, Gillespie wasn't such a hit. I don't know much about M, but I think the overall point still stands: the modern world is built on some decidedly Medieval (and dodgy) theologically motivated philosophical assumptions. There are also grounds for thinking science would have progressed faster on a Thomistic model than an Ockhamist one. It is vital to the modern world that people remain as ignorant as possible of the Medieval moves that underpin everything now.

You pray for someone who's ill. She gets better, it was God's will. She doesn't get better, that was also God's will. God wins either way. And if God's will always determines what happens, what's the point of praying anyway?

I would say the outcome was still contingent on whether you did pray and God knew from all eternity whether you would or not. If he had decided to heal her and he knew you would pray, he arranged it so that the act of healing was in answer to your prayer. If he knew you wouldn't pray, he could appoint someone else to pray for her or just decide to heal her anyway.

29 August 2013 at 20:51  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0 @ 19:40

With your introduction of accident, I think I've lost the thread.

a. Surely, while the charm was working, there would BE no accidents? Or would the accident over-ride this hypothetical charm, and provide the vendor with an escape clause?

b. What would the accident in your little allegory equate to in the scenario of real-life prayer?

29 August 2013 at 20:51  
Blogger IanCad said...

Your last paragraph says it all YG.

We intrude at our peril.

29 August 2013 at 20:53  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert @ 20:51

What I DID enjoy about Gillespie was how he mirrored much of what's happening in 'The Name of the Rose': one of my favourite novels.

I agree with your comment on prayer. I phrased it the way I did, of course, not to reflect my own views but as a decoding of what I took DanJ0 to be saying.

29 August 2013 at 20:59  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

I phrased it the way I did, of course, not to reflect my own views but as a decoding of what I took DanJ0 to be saying.

Danjo's position seems to mirror that of Dreadnaught. Both take the view that to believe in one kind of supernatural activity is to open the door to all. This seems unreasonable to me - it certainly wouldn't stand if translated into formal reasoning. If God exists, it is clear he has the power to answer prayers. I cannot see how a lucky charm, by itself, can have the powers of God. Thus, there is, I think, no comparison. However, it may be I am misunderstanding the point they are making.

I'm glad you found something to enjoy in Gillespie - putting "The Name of the Rose" (which I too love - although I have only seen the film) into historical context is great.

29 August 2013 at 21:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Prayers ! Did someone say prayers !

It could be the Almighty likes nothing better than to watch us (humanity) knock seven shades out of each other...

As this man has suggested before. The Creation – exactly what did God get out of it ?

29 August 2013 at 21:27  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert
Not forgetting He moves us to prayer too.

Inspector
Why without creation God wouldn't have you to entertain Him, now would He?

29 August 2013 at 21:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

As God might say. “My Human creation. Have you ever known such arrogance in all my universe. Here they are now, praying to me. Trying to arrange a deal with ME !

But I love them for it.”

29 August 2013 at 21:49  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
Oh dear ...

29 August 2013 at 21:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tell ‘em Belfast. Tell ‘em to think outside of their boxes. Awfully good for the IQ, what !

29 August 2013 at 21:56  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector:

Wouldn't greater arrogance be among those who felt no NEED to pray because they considered themselves God's equal? Or, indeed, His replacement?

29 August 2013 at 21:57  
Blogger Albert said...

Peter,

Not forgetting He moves us to prayer too.

Indeed.

29 August 2013 at 21:57  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Belfast: (Apropos of 21:56)

Get him back in his box, won't you?

And make sure the lid is securely fastened!

29 August 2013 at 21:59  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Belfast:

And don't let him out again until you can extract a promise of good behaviour!

29 August 2013 at 22:06  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

While Christians in the comfortable West ponder the efficacy of prayer and debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, a Christian girl in Syria is raped and tortured by jihadis. A report, in French, with photographs of the girl alive and dead may be found by searching for:

une petite fille chrétienne syrienne martyrisée par des barbares

God having done little, if anything, to halt the expansion of Islam in the Middle East, it’s unlikely that prayer will move the Almighty to save Europe. Christians will have to do that for themselves, if they can be bothered.

29 August 2013 at 22:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

As a God fearing man Explorer, one suggests we worship Him in his house, and do what the Christ asks of us. That will deal with any arrogance going...

Note the 'fearing' bit.

29 August 2013 at 22:12  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Johnny:

If the biblical Armageddon will one day be a reality - as I believe - then Europe will certainly not be exempt.

Christianity is not a comfortable religion. Bear in mind that nearly all of those who wrote the New Testament were martyred for their faith.

29 August 2013 at 22:25  
Blogger Albert said...

Johnny,

God having done little, if anything, to halt the expansion of Islam in the Middle East, it’s unlikely that prayer will move the Almighty to save Europe.

Despite numerous attempts throughout its long history, Islam has not managed to conquer Europe thus far. If it does so in our time, we might want to ask why now and not before? Is it because Islam is now culturally and militarily superior to the West, whereas previously it was the other way around? That doesn't look plausible does it? So what then? It is because the West has sunk in the mire of a corrupting secularisation, it does not know what it believes or stands for.

So perhaps prayer has been more effective thus far than you allow.

As for the girl, that is profoundly tragic story. However, a belief in prayer does not commit me to belief that there is no evil.

What precisely is secularism offering to this?

29 August 2013 at 22:38  
Blogger Naomi King said...


The Archbishop spoke eloquently today in the Lord's on the Christians position in Syria and I have heard from someone who was at his speech in York yesterday when he spoke to the Evangelical Alliance, that he has been misquoted and misrepresented by the Daily Telegraph. I have to admit that I had believed better of the Daily Telegraph. So be it and I withdraw what I said earlier about his views and like David Hussell @12:59 I shall "watch and see, patiently and with restraint, to see what develops. The truth remains in Scripture and sound Tradition".

This is what Justin Welby said in the Lords today

"My Lords, I welcome very much the opportunity to speak later in this debate because of the extraordinary quality of many of the contributions that have been made and how much one can learn by listening to them. Like many noble Lords I have some experience in the region, partly from this role that I have and from recent visits and contact with many faith leaders of all three Abrahamic faiths, and through 10 years of, from time to time, working on reconciliation projects.

I do not intend to repeat the powerful points that have been made on international law, which is itself based on the Christian theory of just war. That has been said very eloquently. However, I want to pick up a couple of points. First, it has been said, quite rightly, that there is as much risk in inaction as there is in action. In a conflict in another part of the world—a civil conflict in which I was mediating some years ago—a general said to me, “We have to learn that there are intermediate steps between being in barracks and opening fire”. The reality is that, until we are sure that all those intermediate steps have been pursued, just war theory says that the step of opening fire is one that must only be taken when there is no possible alternative whatever under any circumstances. As the noble Lord, Lord Alli, just said very clearly and very eloquently, the consequences are totally out of our hands once it has started.

Some consequences we can predict. We have heard already about Lebanon and about Iran, particularly the effect that an intervention would cause on the new Government in Iran as they are humiliated by such an intervention. However, there is a further point. I talked to a very senior Christian leader in the region yesterday and he said that intervention from abroad will declare open season on the Christian communities. They have already been devastated. There were 2 million Christians in Iraq 12 years ago; there are fewer than 500,000 today. These are churches that do not just go back to St Paul but, in the case of Damascus and Antioch, predate him. They will surely suffer terribly, as they already are, if action goes ahead. That consequence has to be weighed against the consequences of inaction.

In civil wars, those who are internal to the civil conflict fight for their lives, necessarily. Those who are external have a responsibility, if they get involved at all, to fight for the outcome. That outcome must be one that improves the chances of long-term peace and reconciliation. If we take action that diminishes the chance for peace and reconciliation, when inevitably a political solution has to be found, whether it is near-term or in the long-term future, then we will have contributed to more killing, and this war will be deeply unjust.

In consequence, I feel that any intervention must be effective in terms of preventing any further use of chemical weapons. I have not yet heard that that has been adequately demonstrated as likely. It must effectively deal with those who are promoting the use of chemical weapons. It must also have a third aim, which is somewhere in the strategy: there must be more chance of a Syria and of a Middle East in which there are not millions of refugees and these haunting pictures are not the stuff of our evening viewing."

29 August 2013 at 23:16  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Albert (22:38)—Why now and not before? Never before has Europe invited Muslims to settle and breed here, and never before has defence of Europe’s indigenous people and culture been met with cries of ‘racist’, a label of shame which Christians are particularly fond of applying.

29 August 2013 at 23:19  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I found this comment from a person calling themselves angermanagement on the Telegraph's live running thread today 29th August, he got it from a comment on the Independent by a Steve Quail whom I yet find so not sure if all facts or partial fiction.
But it does seem to make sense and tie in with other information.

"question - are our politicians like Hague getting paid for this dirty work?

"The trouble for Syria began with two things. First the discovery of natural gas in the Mediterranean right off the coast of Syria, Lebanon and Israel. Read that list again, especially LEBANON and SYRIA. This discovery took place about a decade ago, the thing is though there already exists within the middle east a Liquid Natural Gas Producing power house. That my friends is the tiny nation of Qatar.
Now here is where you need to put your thinking caps on. Qatar is floating in LNG (Liquid Natural Gas) It has over 77 Billion Tonnes in Reserve and that is with a moratorium in place. The problem is that Qatar would love to sell it's LNG to the EU and the hot Mediterranean markets. The problem for Qatar in achieving this is their regional big brother Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have already said "NO" to an overland pipe cutting across the Land of Saud. So what is the oil rich micro mite to do? Simple, cut a deal with the biggest bully in the neighbourhood, you guessed it, the US.

As recently as May of this year deals have been put in place by Exxon Mobile and Qatar Petroleum International, a $10 Billion deal that allows Exxon Mobile to sell natural gas through a port in Texas to the UK and Mediterranean markets. So little Qatar is anxious, power hungry and dangerous, the only thing standing in the way of their aspirations is Syria.

The US plays into this in that it has vast wells of natural gas, in fact the largest known supply in the world. There is a reason why Natural Gas prices have been suppressed for so long in the US. This is to set the stage for US involvement in the Natural Gas market in Europe while smashing the monopoly that the Russians have enjoyed for so long.

Enter Nabucco signed by a handful of European nations and Turkey back in 2009 it was an agreement to run a natural gas pipeline across Turkey into Austria bypassing Russia again with Qatar in the mix as a supplier to a feeder pipeline via the proposed Arab pipeline from Libya to Egypt to Nabucco (is the picture getting clearer?). The problem with all of this is that a Russian backed Syria stands in the way.

Is it not interesting that the main cities of turmoil and conflict in Syria right now, the ones so spoken of in the news are Damascus, Homs, and Aleppo. Coincidentally folks those happen to be the same cities that the proposed gas pipelines happen to run through. Qatar is the biggest financier of the Syrian uprising having spent over $3 billion so far in conflict. The other side of the story is that Saudi Arabia also financiers anti-Assad groups in Syria. You see the Saudis do not want to be marginalized by their ambitious little brother, thus they too want to topple Assad and implant their own puppet government, one that would sign off on a pipeline deal and charge Qatar for running their pipes through to Nabucco.

Hence this is the reason why you have two somewhat opposing factions in Syria. On one side you have the Qatari backed Muslim Brotherhood and it's subsidiaries who have very close ties with the Emir of Qatar. On the other side you have the Saudi backed Wahhabi AL-Queda and it's subsidiaries. Hence you have various levels of atrocities from the cannibalism of the Wahabis to the Christian slaughter of the "Brotherhood". These all have Qatari and Saudi fingerprints all over them.”

So this conflict really should be thrashed out in the boardroom not on the battlefield.

29 August 2013 at 23:36  
Blogger David B said...

I see from the BBC website that for once Parliament has done its job by over-ruling the executive, apparently finding military action in these circumstances no more palatable than what seems to be the consensus of opinion here.

This I view as good news.

David

29 August 2013 at 23:52  
Blogger Peter D said...

Johnny R
"Race" is not the same thing as religion - one is a consequence of accident of birth and unchangeable; the other is capable of reasonable challenge and critique.

Inviting other people's to settle here is not the same as accepting their beliefs as equally valid to Christianity or saying they have the right to change our Christian culture. That is a product of a secularist, atheist, pluralism espoused by some on here.

Multiculturalism, diversity and the totalitarianism of a legislative approach to 'human rights' are not Christian concepts.

Albert asked if Islam is growing in the West because "the West has sunk in the mire of a corrupting secularisation, it does not know what it believes or stands for." He is right to ask this.

Consider Justin Welby's speech yesterday to the Evangelical Alliance. Although opposed to it, he tacitly agreed with the same sex marriage bill intention as "quite rightly, trying to deal with issues of homophobia in our society" Homophobia was left undefined.

And then this:
"We have seen changes in the idea about sexuality, sexual behaviour. We have to face the fact that the vast majority of people under 35 not only think that what we're saying is incomprehensible but also think that we're plain wrong and wicked and equate it to racism and other forms of gross and atrocious injustice. We have to be real about that.

"I haven't got the answer one way or the other until my mind is clear on this. I'm not going to get into the trenches."


The leader of our Established Church - who has already admitted being seriously challenged"
by loving homosexual relationships - say's he has not got the answer and doesn't want to go to war for God! The Church of England has to acknowledge the change in attitudes. Why? Truth is Truth is Truth.

When the leader of the Established Church, known for changing its mind about divorce, women priests, and bishops, fails to condemn these changing views he is playing the politician and not leading God's people. God is immutable nor are His Commandments.

Islam laughs at the West as the basic unit of our society crumbles and scoffs at th alternative we offer.

30 August 2013 at 00:10  
Blogger Peter D said...

"and so are His Commandments"

30 August 2013 at 00:17  
Blogger Ivan said...


Marie1797 @23:36 This appears to be the real reason for the ferocity of the war. As in the Congo wars, the desire for lucre turns an already difficult conflict into an endless bloodbath. Had Quabbus pulled this on the Israelis, there would be no end of stories of his connection to Quarwadi and the unreliability of Al-Jazeera. He who controls the news, controls the outcome.

30 August 2013 at 00:30  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Johnny Rottenborough 23:19
"Never before has Europe invited Muslims to settle and breed here"
The Balkans and Russia(much of which is in Europe) have settled Muslim populations.

30 August 2013 at 03:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "Never before has Europe invited Muslims to settle and breed here, and never before has defence of Europe’s indigenous people and culture been met with cries of ‘racist’, a label of shame which Christians are particularly fond of applying."

The racism thing has two parts, to my mind: the fact that most Muslims in the UK are of South Asian descent makes people feel it's also about race, and treating them as a homogenous lump worthy of disadvantaging treatment is the worst type of stereotyping.

Of course, Christianity and Islam may be equally wrong in terms of reality but they can be assessed on the same external criteria according to social values etc and one found to much more peferable than the other. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

The problem for me comes from moving on from that so that the majority of Muslims who are decent people living in a microcosm are considered as alien and threatening, being part of a Fifth Column acting with a single, hidden intent. Effectively, it makes Islamic belief a thought crime. We've been here before during the religious wars here in England and it's not good.

30 August 2013 at 06:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Just to add, I expect most people value freedom of thought and expression and that's now part of our British values. If there's a right to those things then it applies to all our citizens, not just the ones who have the 'correct' thoughts nominally held by the majority.

30 August 2013 at 07:11  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Very interesting Marie 1797 @ 23:36, thank you for pointing this out.

30 August 2013 at 07:43  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Syria can't celebrate yet ...

President Obama could well still consider a "go it alone" military strike in Syria despite the British Parliament rejecting a motion authorizing the UK’s involvement in the conflict.

White House officials told reporters Thursday that the statement from United States’ closest ally Britain, reluctance from the United Nations Security Council, and widespread uncertainty in the US Congress would not be enough to sway Obama from a limited missile strike on Syrian targets. Obama, who has been criticized for not consulting with Congress over Syria, met with lawmakers and other top leaders in a White House conference call Thursday.

“We have seen the result of the Parliament vote in the UK tonight. The US will continue to consult with the UK government - one of our closest allies and friends. As we've said, President Obama's decision-making will be guided by what is in the best interests of the United States,” said a White House statement following the meeting. “He believes that there are core interests at stake for the United States and that countries who violate international norms regarding chemical weapons need to be held accountable.”

30 August 2013 at 08:00  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Several US officials, including one senior member of the intelligence community, told AP on condition of anonymity that there were noticeable holes in US intelligence assessments, which the White House said would prove the Syrian government’s responsibility for the use of chemical weapons on August 21.

Only days after the White House suggested it was all but certain Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons to gas hundreds of civilians, United States intelligence officials briefed on the situation say the evidence isn’t all there.

Despite recent remarks from US President Barack Obama, Secretary of State John Kerry and other top administration officials, sources within the intelligence community are disputing the certainty that Assad ordered the use of chemical gas last week on innocent civilians outside of Damascus, Syria.

Four US officials — including one senior member of the intelligence community — told the Associated Press this week that there’s confusion over where the reported chemical warheads are currently being held and who exactly possesses them. Citing a lapse in both signals and human intelligence reports, the officials all told the AP on condition of anonymity that US and allied spies “have lost track of who controls some of the country's chemical weapons supplies,” according to reporters Kimberly Dozier and Matt Apuzzo.

Multiple officials, the AP reported Thursday morning, used the phrase “not a slam dunk” to discuss the credibility of intelligence linking chemical weapon use directly to Pres. Assad. In 2002, then-Central Intelligence Agency Director George Tenet infamously said Washington scored a “slam dunk” with regards to confirming Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction. Now more than a decade down the road, US officials hesitant to rush off to war are again questioning the credibility of the White House’s own report.

30 August 2013 at 08:08  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0 @ 07:11:

I've never really understood what is meant by "Freedom of thought and expression".

1. Can you, for instance, have freedom of thought that does NOT involve expression? ie, think what you like, but keep your thoughts to yourself. (Not a statement of the obvious: Orwell's Newspeak aims to make certain thoughts impossible.)

2. You should be allowed to express your thoughts - however unpalatable - in speech or writing. (Orwell's Thoughtcrime makes it forbidden to hold certain thoughts, even if never expressed.)

3. Or should 'expression' mean putting your thoughts into action, provided they do not break the law?

4. Or should freedom of expression allow you to break existing laws if, according to your thoughts, existing laws are silly or unjust?

30 August 2013 at 08:09  
Blogger Naomi King said...


The Pentagon appeared to be making further preparations for action, announcing yesterday that it was moving a fifth warship armed with cruise missiles into the eastern Mediterranean. Mr Obama is due to go to Sweden next Tuesday, followed by the G20 summit in Russia on Thursday and Friday. Analysts said that the was highly unlikely to unleash the targeted missile strikes while alongside Vladimir Putin, the Russian president. “Why would you launch when Putin is sitting there next to you ? You either go before the trip to Russia or after and my guess is before,” said Barry Pavel, a former White House defence official, adding that the US could launch attacks over the weekend once UN inspectors have left Damascus.

LETS PRAY THAT THEY DON"T. Let's pray that the spirit of lies is broken and the spirit of quiet returns and the US democratic process controls Obama's insanity.

30 August 2013 at 08:18  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0:

I believe Robert Spencer and Barbara Geller were banned from laying a wreath for Lee Rigby because of fears about the reaction from British Muslims.

If true, then forget what's desirable: there's the modern British reality about freedom of thought and expression.

30 August 2013 at 08:46  
Blogger Albert said...

Johnny,

Never before has Europe invited Muslims to settle and breed here, and never before has defence of Europe’s indigenous people and culture been met with cries of ‘racist’, a label of shame which Christians are particularly fond of applying.

Well, for once, I agree with Danjo (if I've understood him). All citizens should be treated equally, and our political and cultural life should never be foreclosed against the opinions of anyone. However, this does not mean that all opinions in the end, must be treated equally (nor, as a matter of logic, can they be, sometimes one opinion must triumph over others).

However, you make a fair point about culture. The balance is a difficult one, and I certainly think Christians since (say) the 60s have been weak. Why? They have followed zeitgeist - no opinion may be held to the exclusion of others. A position which is literally absurd.

Never before has Europe invited Muslims to settle and breed here

Two things to that. Firstly, there is no particular problem there, provided new comers know they will be expected to abide by our own laws and customs, our own culture. Secularists of the left have led the charge for Islam because it suited them to undermine Christianity. For years Christians were being told we could not express our faith for fear of offending Muslims and others ("Winterville", whether real or not, expresses this idea). This was dishonest. There was no interest in worrying about Muslims - but it undermined Christian culture, and that suited the dishonest secularist.

Secondly, why do we now have mass immigration anyway? It's because we don't reproduce enough to support our population. Why don't we reproduce enough? It is because we have adopted secular models of sexuality and the family.

This is the point which must continue to be made: for some considerable time now, the West has been run on secular lines. Thus as now that those policies are looking tired and damaging in the long-run, we ought to be able to expect secularists to take the can.

So if we take your premise that Europe is being Islamised (and I'm not sure if I do), I would say, we preserved Europe from Islam, despite superior military ad cultural threats for well over a thousand years. You guys, facing no military threat to speak of, and at a time of the West's utter dominance, dropped the ball in a matter of decades.

30 August 2013 at 09:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Fellows, don’t be too surprised if you don’t hear from DanJ0 again today. He’s achieved what he usually sets out to do. To put Islam and Christianity in the same sentence and engineer in the word ‘wrong’.

Then he goes on to imply the majority of muslims here are decent. And so they are, old fruit. So they are.

But then there are the statistics. 95% of all muslims involved in UK home grown terror are from these very decent families. And that’s rather red facingly awkward for you, don’t you think ? Well, it would be if there was any honesty from you...

Now, we have to ask ourselves, why is it these individuals, normally male, but including some little things covered head to toe in black are twisting Islam as they do. Then we find they are not. They are just being ‘enthusiasts’ like their middle eastern and African cousins.

So it looks like there really is a de facto fifth column in this country. How damn awkward for you...

30 August 2013 at 11:49  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Well said Inspector.

30 August 2013 at 12:03  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Peter D (00:10)—Multiculturalism, diversity and the totalitarianism of a legislative approach to ‘human rights’ are not Christian concepts

I’m glad to hear it. When Choral Evensong comes from a city with a large Muslim population, the introduction and prayers invariably mention the vibrant diversity of the place as though it’s something wonderful. An example of the Church managing its decline as gracefully as possible.

@ DanJ0 (06:54)—the majority of Muslims who are decent people … are considered as alien and threatening

To non-Muslims living in majority Muslim countries, ‘alien and threatening’ is part of their everyday life, as Islam fully intends it to be. Wafa Sultan said at the trial of Geert Wilders in 2010: ‘Islamic values do not match the Western values. Islam attaches no value to human life. Muslims are on Earth to kill or be slain in the name of Allah, to the benefit of Allah, to spread Islam, and then you get a free ticket to heaven.’ Your liberal conscience—pricked by considerations of equality, diversity, tolerance and anti-racism—gives that degenerate philosophy free rein to conquer this country.

it makes Islamic belief a thought crime

A religion that preaches violence is committing real crime.

@ Albert (09:20)—Firstly, there is no particular problem there

I am baffled that, knowing how the advent of Islam has affected other countries, you can say that the presence of several million Muslims in this country presents no particular problem.

why do we now have mass immigration anyway?

‘Hence the reception of strangers in colonies, either at the time of their foundation or afterwards, has generally produced revolution’—Aristotle, Politics Book V Part III

We have mass immigration to wreck the nation state.

we preserved Europe from Islam

By teaching that racism is a sin—and thus neatly prohibiting any actions that would save Europe from Islam, such as the return of Muslims to their ancestral homes—the Churches are aiding and abetting the Islamization of Europe. The Churches weigh up the options and conclude that allowing Europe to become Muslim is a lesser evil than to expose themselves to the charge of racism. Truly pathetic.

30 August 2013 at 12:06  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector @ 11:49

Cracking analysis, old man!

(Including your analysis of DanJ0's tactics.)

30 August 2013 at 12:17  
Blogger Albert said...

Johnny,

you seem to have by-passed my comment entirely.

Albert: Firstly, there is no particular problem there

You: I am baffled that, knowing how the advent of Islam has affected other countries, you can say that the presence of several million Muslims in this country presents no particular problem.

But you've not given my whole quote:

there is no particular problem there, provided new comers know they will be expected to abide by our own laws and customs, our own culture.

You say

We have mass immigration to wreck the nation state.

No. We have miss immigration because we do not have a large enough birth-rate to maintain our standard of living. If that troubles you, oppose the contraceptive mentality or accept that secularism leads to a lower standard of living.

By teaching that racism is a sin—and thus neatly prohibiting any actions that would save Europe from Islam, such as the return of Muslims to their ancestral homes—the Churches are aiding and abetting the Islamization of Europe. The Churches weigh up the options and conclude that allowing Europe to become Muslim is a lesser evil than to expose themselves to the charge of racism. Truly pathetic.

Racism is a sin. But, as I have pointed out already, that does not mean all cultures should be treated equally. And you are missing the whole point: it is secularism that is in charge at the moment. It is secularism that has created the birth-rate that resulted in mass immigration. It is secularism that promoted Islam to undermine Christian and British culture. Given that so many people of different ethnicities are here, it is entirely right that Christians speak up for their equal rights. But we aren't the people who have created this situation. We aren't the people who have been prohibiting British and Christian culture. That's your role. For you now to turn around and blame Christians for the outcome of your own policies is what is truly pathetic.

30 August 2013 at 12:36  
Blogger Albert said...

Or even mass immigration, rather than miss immigration!

30 August 2013 at 12:38  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Albert you are right when you say contraception and the immorality, which has flowed as a direct result of it, is the cause of the decline in the indigenous population and the need for alien labour to come in from outside. Selfishness, or call it self-centredness if you like, has lead to great weakness in our nation.

30 August 2013 at 12:43  
Blogger Albert said...

Naomi,

By artificially undermining our God given nature, contraception is wrong in itself. For those who doubt it, I would say you can tell a tree by its fruit. The fruit of artificial contraception is to be found in virtually moral problem of our time. God's wisdom is incarnated in our very nature. We do not know better than our creator.

And, as usual, when we do evil, we become subject to the law of unintended consequences.

30 August 2013 at 12:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

“Racism is a sin”

Don’t be silly Albert

cf OT

30 August 2013 at 13:05  
Blogger Albert said...

Do you ever read the Bible, Inspector?

30 August 2013 at 13:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Do you ?

30 August 2013 at 13:12  
Blogger Albert said...

Yes - isn't it obvious?

I've answered your question, will you answer mine?

30 August 2013 at 13:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Albert. The OT is the epic story of how a race of people, yes, a race of people, survived against the odds that were stacked up before them. They did not give up and intermarry or abandon their culture. The kept on at it, and they are around today. Until recent decades, it would have been unthinkable for them to marry outside of their race.

Now, you were saying something about racism being a sin...

30 August 2013 at 13:20  
Blogger Albert said...

Yes, Inspector, and when God makes his covenant with Abraham, he says things like:

and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.

As the NT makes clear, the purpose of calling Israel is not racist, but to so that, through them, all people could receive the call of God. Hence, St Paul says:

For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile--the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him

30 August 2013 at 13:25  
Blogger Albert said...

BTW Inspector, were you going to answer my question about whether you ever read the Bible?

30 August 2013 at 13:44  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Albert (12:36)—Having spent time I can ill afford reading and re-reading your comment to answer it as fairly and comprehensively as possible, I take exception to your flippant opening remark.

I used the phrase ‘knowing how the advent of Islam has affected other countries’ precisely because your proviso about newcomers being expected to abide by the host’s laws and customs has never been observed by Islam, once it reaches a certain critical mass, in its history.

Better for our birth rate to decline and remain a Christian country than artificially to inflate it and become a Muslim country.

I have no doubt you’ll be parroting ‘racism is a sin’ even as the jihadi is raising his sword to behead you. Good luck with that.

By the way, I said ‘Churches’, not ‘Christians’. That’s me done on this thread.

30 August 2013 at 13:58  
Blogger Albert said...

Johnny,

My opening comment was not flippant. You ignored the arguments I provided that it was secularism that opened the door to Islam and continued to blame Christianity.

I used the phrase ‘knowing how the advent of Islam has affected other countries’ precisely because your proviso about newcomers being expected to abide by the host’s laws and customs has never been observed by Islam, once it reaches a certain critical mass, in its history.

Your need here is to defend your earlier comment:

how you can say that the presence of several million Muslims in this country presents no particular problem.

The point I am making is that there is no particular problem, unless Muslims make it a problem. I am not going to rule Muslims out of immigration just because they are Muslims. But that does not commit me to the view that we should all role over and be judged by Sharia Law either. Therefore, my position stands.

Better for our birth rate to decline and remain a Christian country than artificially to inflate it and become a Muslim country.

Well, it's in an era of political secularism that the decisions have been made. But in any case, mightn't it just be better to reject the secular contraceptist mentality and increase home-grown births?

I have no doubt you’ll be parroting ‘racism is a sin’ even as the jihadi is raising his sword to behead you. Good luck with that.

Yes, I'll happily say that - that would be one argument why he shouldn't behead me. The fact that the force of the argument had been undermined by people like you, would however, seem to me to be a bit inconvenient at the time.

By the way, I said ‘Churches’, not ‘Christians’.

Well then your argument is even harder to defend. Even the CofE has had bishops standing up for Christian culture against Islam.

Face facts Johnny: it is secularism that has caused our cultural capitulation (though whether it is to Islam is another matter).

30 August 2013 at 14:12  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 August 2013 at 14:36  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Although 'churches' and 'Christians' are not synonymous, neither are they disparate.

Certainly, by the 'Acts' Antioch definition, there are many within the churches who are Christian.

Less identifiable is the number of Christians outside the churches.

30 August 2013 at 14:37  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 August 2013 at 14:38  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Explorer,

That reminds me, I haven't posted on your blog for a while. Will do so in a mo.

30 August 2013 at 14:43  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

I wouldn't disagree with your 'epic' analogy of the written Torah and the idea that Jews should be distinct from pagan practices, but would gently point out that by denying racism is a 'sin', you might be implying that you are racist, which I don't think is true?

And relax, Jews are not racist. If you mean the laws forbidding one to marry outside of Judaism that is true. But two things to think about over your stout and mr Porkie, is to think about the difficulties of inter-religious marriages. How would an Islamic-Christian (or atheist) marriage actually work or even unite? What about a Roman Catholic-Protestant marriage? How could Johnny R-big Anglo-Saxon- hunk that he is- cope with being married to a observant Jew?

I am sure that examples exist,of these kinds of marriages and fair doos to those who do managed that, but at what cost and who is compromising whose faith there into a nice bit of mushy-wishy washy- kind of belief?

Secondly, a Jew can also be a Jew via conversion, regardless of 'race', because Jews are like a nation as much as a race (despite what secular Jews say, who cling to that for some kind of identity).

My oldest bro is married to a Welsh convert, who can speak Welsh and is as 'celtic' Briton (as Welsh used to be called or the real 'indigenous of Britain) as they come. But via Orthodox conversion she is 100% Jewish too!

An early Shanah Tovah to one and all!

30 August 2013 at 15:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Fellows. It would do as good to define what is racism. For this man, it has only one definition, the appreciation of the differences apparent in the various peoples of the world. The strengths and weaknesses thereof. The white European races, while tolerant of other peoples (a strength), has a problem these days replicating itself for it’s continuation (a weakness). North African and south Asian types have allowed themselves to be governed by a nasty way of for their life and other peoples death, Islam (a weakness). But they generate new numbers of themselves with no problem at all (strength).

Albert. One does read books that interpret the bible. One has always been wary of picking up the wrong end of the stick. Don’t want to turn out like Len do we. Anyway, back to ‘racism is a sin’. Really can’t find anywhere in the bible where this is implied. Quite the reverse in fact. Tellingly, it didn’t make it as a Mosaic commandment. Tell you what, let’s have a go that. “Honour the races of the world. Whatever they think of you. If they want to kill you because you are not as they are, then go to them. Do make them come up those stairs...”. What do you think ?

Hannah @ 15:13. Call it what you like. Purity laws. Religious considerations. Pragmatism. Solidarity. If you don’t feel comfortable with the term ‘racial’ to describe how the Jewish race has arrived here today, direct descendants from the people of the book, and importantly, with only a manageable amount of converting in, then don’t use it. (So manageable that outsiders coming in have had no effect on the drive of Judaism. Any changes that have occurred have been from inside the faith, not as a consequence of accommodating blow ins)




30 August 2013 at 16:29  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...


Hi Inspector,

I just love it when you get all intellectual on us (:

But, as we are all children of Noah, I don't think that is a reason for thinking Jews might be racist & it is kind of you to note the things you do about Judaism. However, I have always said that Jews as a chosen people does not equal 'master race'. As I've said above other tribes and people's (races if you will) are free to join the Jewish nation, if that is what they want to do. I fail to see how this is racist.

But, the BIG but is , you have always rejected that 'tag' of racism for yourself, when others have accused you of it, for example, when you said in a recent post :

‘ You must do so without calling this man a bigot, a racist or a white supremacist'

Given your views, that is how some would see it, your views on the 'Old Testament' notwithstanding. So are you any of those things or not?

30 August 2013 at 16:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "Better for our birth rate to decline and remain a Christian country than artificially to inflate it and become a Muslim country."

I'd rather we had fewer people in the country now, let alone increase it through either immigration or procreation.

30 August 2013 at 17:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Hannah. No. One does not consider himself a bigot, a racist, or a white supremacist. Neither does he consider himself a homophobic or a sexist. He DOES consider himself a Christian.

Here’s a nice little story. and to this man it illustrates his attitude to the successful campaigns of feminists and militant homosexuals, courtesy of the common sense deniers that politicians have become.

Just come from visiting an old school pal and family. He has a house in Lancaster which he lets to university students via the university. It’s an ordinary terraced house, nothing special. It has a glass panelled front door, leading onto a well lit street. The university has seen fit to stick to the inside of said door a green plastic label. It says “Fire Exit” . One joshes you not...


30 August 2013 at 17:39  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Well I'm glad you are neither racists nor homophobic.

Now sing along with me :

'I kissed a girl and I liked it
The taste of her cherry chap stick...'

30 August 2013 at 17:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The various "lesser races" comments over time here say all that needs to be said about that really.

30 August 2013 at 17:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0. Having assessed the candidates, we put them in order. One is particular impressed by the Chinese. Or for that matter any that don’t do SSM. One is less impressed by races that string gays up. And if the truth be known, so do you. They would be lesser then, would they not ?

30 August 2013 at 18:08  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Well when a couple of this blog's Titans start to quarrel among themselves, it is best to scamper away whilst

Danjo does his atheist & liberal [whilst calling anyone else a berk]stuff.

Inspector does his [non-]racist, Roman Catholic, [non]-homophobic stuff.

Shanah Tovah to you both!

30 August 2013 at 19:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0. Highly annoyed as this man is for agreeing with you, you are right on this country’s population. We need to shrink back down to well below 60 million. We just don’t need high numbers of unskilled labour or cannon fodder anymore. And we don’t need to leach on developing countries (...alright, African and south Asian countries then...) talents that are better off being encouraged to stay in the country of birth. Not pretend they are doing us a favour by coming here.

However, we do need to procreate. One has taken you to task before on this. Living here today because you yourself will be gone tomorrow isn’t a particularly attractive trait in you.


30 August 2013 at 20:29  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
You really should read your Bible - occasionally.

The Israelites were a "lesser type" in days gone by, you know. They did improve despite their lowly beginnings.

All started with their patriarch Jacob, grandson of Abraham (you know, that crazy chap who thought God wanted him to kill his son), who was renamed Israel after a incident in which he wrestles all night with God or an angel.

Jacob's sons become the ancestors of twelve tribes. Imagine that, tribes - not even a race or a nation. Goodness me. Not sophisticated types and with no inherent superiority but chosen by that Old Testament God for a special purpose. "Lesser types" too.

Jacob and his sons were forced by famine to go to Egypt. When they arrive they and their families are 70 in number, but within four generations they have increased to 600,000 men of fighting age. No sign of contraception there!

The Pharaoh of Egypt enslaves them - tad worried by their growing numbers - and orders the death of all male Hebrew children. Bit like contraception and abortion today - keep numbers down.

The God of Israel reveals his name to Moses, a Hebrew of the line of Levi; Moses leads the Israelites out of bondage and into the desert, where God gives them their laws and the Israelites agree to become His people. Nevertheless, the Israelites lack complete faith in God, and the generation which left Egypt is not permitted to enter the Promised Land.

Just shows you what "lesser types" can become, what! Who knows the potential of the peoples of Africa and even the Arabs given the right circumstances?

You a racist? Heavens no. Just unimaginative and rather fixed in your thinking, what.

31 August 2013 at 01:50  
Blogger LEN said...

In the past 100 years (during the 20th Century) 26,000,000 Christians were killed for their faith . This is more than the combined total of all previous centuries. It does not count the untold numbers who were persecuted in other ways, imprisoned, tortured, and even enslaved.
Where is the church receiving the greatest persecution today?
A major area of intense persecution today is in the "10/40 Window" where 97 percent of the world’s least evangelized people live. This rectangular area extends from West Africa across Asia, between the 10th and 40th parallels north of the equator.

There are 1.6 billion Muslims, Hindus and Buddhists living in this window, and in some countries the Church has almost been eliminated as a result of Islamic oppression.
We have in the UK a Government which is promoting anti- Christian laws and helping to marginalize the Church.There are those within the State Church who are embracing what God calls sin to their own detriment.
Our once great Nation is 'winding down' we in the UK are not as 'Great' as we once were and probably will never be again.
God hasn`t left us we have left Him.
If we continue on the course we have set ourselves we will return to our Pagan origins which we already see beginning to re -appear.


31 August 2013 at 08:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "We have in the UK a Government which is promoting anti- Christian laws and helping to marginalize the Church."

It's making laws for all its citizens to protect their rights in our shared space and nominally to protect the freedom of everyone. In some areas, there's a zero sum game going on. That's unfortunate but it's the nature of rights and freedoms together that the rights of some take away some of the freedom of others.

31 August 2013 at 09:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hence, when Christian employees try to force employers to accept their religious practices, imagery, and opinions in the workplace by trying to create a right, the freedom of employers to set their own terms on their own premises would be reduced accordingly whilst the freedom of those Christian employees would be enhanced in the workplace. Similarly with other minorities with their demands for certain rights and expectations of certian freedoms.

31 August 2013 at 09:48  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0:

In 'Goodbye to All That' there's a WWI trench episode. A lieutenant imposes his musical tastes (by virtue of his rank) with a particular record. A Captain comes in and (by virtue of his rank) replaces the record. A Major comes in and replaces the Captain's record (after denouncing it) with the original one.

Moral: musical quality is not the issue; power is the issue.

In a situation of conflicting rights, those with the greatest power to impose their views will prevail. Hobbes saw it. Nietzsche saw it. Foucault saw it. In a subjective world, there's no other way.

31 August 2013 at 11:07  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Let me give another instance of conflicting value systems.

Roman Empire running a bit short of citizens: pursuit of the pleasure principle, mass abortion; you know the kind of thing. Advisers to Valens persuade him to let in some barbarians: grand lads who can be turned into good Romans. Valens does so.

Probablem is, the Barbarians don't want to become Romans. Happy to occupy Roman territory, but only on their own terms. They defeat the Roman army sent against them, and then open the border to let in more of their own kind (THEIR view of diversity, not Rome's.) Result, end of the Roman Empire.

31 August 2013 at 11:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

We need to make sure the best people have the power to create and maintain rights; the best people being those who recognise that people have their own interests and that those interests may be diverse.

31 August 2013 at 14:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. We have an excellent account of early Judaic history through their books. Now, these people at the time would have been no better and no worse than similar groups, their contemporaries.

Fortunately, most peoples around at that time improved themselves and here we are today. However, we have examples of races today whose essential behaviour is little better than it was four, five thousand years ago. Now, this is where we can compare racial behaviour, and comparison means being prejudicial in consideration. From the root of that word, ‘to judge’. Do you understand thus far ? If you want to rate the head hunters of Borneo equally to the western European farmer, that’s your problem. And yes, you do have a problem because your freethinking is impaired by an imaginary obligation to ‘do or think the right’ thing – whatever that is...

Who knows the potential of the peoples of Africa and even the Arabs given the right circumstances?

Care to elaborate on what those circumstances might be ? This man suggests strong arm government, and the death penalty for political agitators and religious persecutors. For the good of all and stability, you see - though certainly nothing there to soothe your PC generated guilt it will be admitted...

31 August 2013 at 14:57  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0:

That these are the best people is simply your opinion.

If those who think otherwise gain power, a very different truth will prevail.

31 August 2013 at 15:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. It's making laws for all its citizens to protect their rights in our shared space and nominally to protect the freedom of everyone.

The Inspector now declines to visit PN on a regular basis due to sanity issues {AHEM}...

One of the final stories he read concerned a happening over in the Americas. A Christian photographer declined a commission to record a gay wedding. He was sued as he broke a law no doubt intended to protect his freedom. To wit, he cannot advertise a service and choose not to provide on grounds of sexual orientation, even though it compromises his religion.

Had it happened to this man, he would have petitioned the judiciary to abandon the case, and stated he would comply with the happy couples request. He would then have provided the worst set of ‘wedding’ photographs ever seen in Christendom...


31 August 2013 at 15:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Greetings Explorer. Excellent post at 11:07

Once again, adherence to this site has proven it’s worth...


31 August 2013 at 15:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Goods and services Act, or its equivalent, I expect. It's hardly a conscience issue afterall. Had he declined to do it for black people simply because they're black then no doubt he'd have been pilloried too.

31 August 2013 at 18:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

31 August 2013 at 19:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

31 August 2013 at 19:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

31 August 2013 at 20:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

31 August 2013 at 20:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

31 August 2013 at 21:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

31 August 2013 at 21:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

31 August 2013 at 21:30  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Marie 1797.
Fascinating. As one puts this together with the Mail e-mail story which I think Naomi pointed out a picture emerges. Aangirfan website, which is more than 60% accurate-would not wish to vouch for more than that- has what it claims to be a recent interview with Assad's wife which has internal coherence at any rate. Unsurprisingly it is by "anon" but it comes with what it claims is a recent picture, and what is more interesting mentions the LNG pipeline.
I note Norman Tebbit is against a Syrian invasion. While not always agreeing with him he is no mean political thinker and has no need to toe the party line!

What a lot of cancelled comments. Someone needs to spend time in the "sin bin" at this rate!!

31 August 2013 at 22:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Archbishop. One would expect that you know by now the Inspector’s deep respect for your site. He does not post wilfully in expectation his efforts be deleted. That you do so is to this man’s shame that he caused it thus.


31 August 2013 at 23:29  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

OIG,

His Grace refers you to his Bottom Line in the adjoining column. Pink News and gay sex have absolutely nothing to do with the subject matter of this thread.

31 August 2013 at 23:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Sir. One will continue to strive to observe your bottom line...

31 August 2013 at 23:51  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older