Tuesday, August 06, 2013

Tories for Sharia - oh, and Enoch


It has been reported that the Conservative Party is to target UKIP members instead of UKIP policy. This mudslinging is apparently Lynton Crosby’s latest campaigning strategy; to conduct 'below-the-radar' surveillance of Ukip councillors in order to embarrass the party by exposing its fruitcakes, loonies, closet racists and, according to the Telegraph, paedophiles.

Mr Crosby has denied the strategy, but there was a very plausible first salvo in the Daily Mail over the weekend, which has been picked up by the Telegraph and had Nigel Farage hauled over the coals on last night's Channel 4 News.

It concerns the case of Dean Perks, Ukip prospective parliamentary candidate for Halesowen and Rowley Regis, who apparently favours the introduction of sharia law into the UK. According to the Mail, Mr Perks says sharia works as a 'preventative' measure, and he has previously praised Enoch Powell - labelling him a 'visionary'.

That's it: that's all they've got.

And so Nigel Farage is coming under pressure to sack Mr Perks. A brief statement was issued yesterday in an attempt to defuse the furore:
Halesowen & Rowley Regis UKIP PPC, Dean Perks has expressed “deep disappointment” that comments he made have been twisted by political opponents and newspapers to imply he supports Sharia law in the UK.

“I reject Sharia Law and I firmly believe that British law should cover everyone in this country with no exceptions” said Mr Perks today.

“We in UKIP have come to expect our political opponents to play the man, not the ball, as they have realised that it is our common sense policies and not theirs which resonate with the voters.

“Of course if they want to continue ignoring the real issues while we push ahead with representing local people on issues that matter that’s fine by us but we will not permit distortions of the truth and I will be seeking clarification from the newspapers concerned.”
The curious thing is that Dean Perks never advocated the amputation of limbs as a preventative measure for burglary in the UK. He said: "In my opinion, sharia law works as a prevention - and prevention is better than cure." He simply made the rather obvious point that it appears to work in those countries where this punitive aspect sharia law is applied in accordance with the letter of the law. If a man is to have his right hand cut off for stealing, is he not rather more likely to reflect on the potential consequences of committing the crime? Is this not more likely to deter than a warning or a modest fine?

Does the Bible not say to obey is better than sacrifice?

And as for the attempt to tarnish Mr Perks with the racist brush for viewing Enoch Powell as a visionary, well, Lynton Crosby really ought to have done his homework. It transpires that Mr Perks has a Muslim godson, a Sikh brother-in-law and three mixed-race cousins. Presumably, family dinners aren't spent discussing rivers of blood.

The curious thing is that the Conservative Party itself has many members and parliamentarians who are rather fond of Enoch Powell. And the Party manifestly supports aspects of sharia law, not least in domestic arbitration and the financial sector.

In the book Enoch at 100 - a re-evaluation of the life, politics and philosophy of Enoch Powell (Biteback, 2012), there are fulsome tributes paid by very prominent Conservatives, including Lord Norton, Lord True, Lord Forsyth and Lord Lexden. The tome is edited by Lord Howard (of Rising), and carries a Foreword by none other than the Rt Hon Iain Duncan Smith, who refers to Enoch Powell as 'a remarkable man, often remembered...for the wrong reason'.

Not a whiff of racism among them: it is eminently possible to appreciate the achievements of a man without endorsing every word he uttered.

And on Mr Perks' support of sharia law, well, for all Cameron's rhetoric of opposing it lock, stock and barrel, the Conservative Party is complicit in the incremental application of certain sharia provisions, not least because not all aspects of the code are barbaric. Sharia law is in fact profoundly complex, and varies in interpretation and application from Islamic community to Islamic community. In one place, one may be publicly flogged merely for being in the presence of a member of the opposite sex, in another, one may be hanged. And it is the women and children who are executed, since the word of the man outweighs all others. Sharia covers religious rituals, behaviour, dress codes, grooming and diet, and also legislates in matters of finance, trade, marriage and family – in short, it is a religio-political system for the whole of life.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams said quite distinctly that ‘aspects’ of sharia law might be incorporated into British law. He noted that other religions enjoyed tolerance of their own laws, and so called for ‘constructive accommodation’ with Muslim practice in areas such as marital disputes. But he stressed that it could never be allowed to take precedence over an individual's rights as a citizen. This is an important distinction, and one which Mr Perks upholds.

Asked if the adoption of sharia law was necessary for community cohesion, Dr Williams said that certain conditions of sharia ‘are already recognised in our society and under our law, so it is not as if we are bringing in an alien and rival system’. And the Conservative Party recognises this in its support of sharia councils and sharia finance.

Of course, they will insist that both conform to the law of England and Wales, but the reality is that Muslim women are frequently coerced into accepting the ruling of a sharia tribunal which invariably favours the men in issues of property rights and child custody. Religious adjudications do not form part of the civil law, which is why some Muslims are now opting for nikah marriages - an Islamic union quite distinct and separate from a civil marriage. It is far easier to divorce religiously when one has never been married legally: domestic law is thereby subject to sharia.

And our banks are adapting to sharia by offering products which do not charge interest or make investments in alcohol, gambling or pornography. Indeed, Barclays, RBS and Lloyds Banking Group have all established subsidiary companies specifically for Muslim clients. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with this: one may argue that it simply market provision. Except that the increasing acceptability of sharia finance has the effect of legitimising other aspects of sharia law. How long before whole areas of cities are alcohol-free? Or the public advertising of women's underwear is banned? Or certain books are taken off the shelf because they offend? Or schools and restaurants serve everyone with halal meat?

How long before the non-Muslim population finds itself complying with sharia law, whether they like it or not?

Thankfully, the Ukip statement above is unequivocal: Nigel Farage rejects sharia law, presumably in its entirety.

Despite the rhetoric, David Cameron clearly supports aspects of it: there are Tories for sharia.

Lynton Crosby needs a better strategy: he might start with playing the ball; not the men.

38 Comments:

Blogger David Hussell said...

Good morning, Your Grace.
A very necessary clarification and explanation, so thank you for that.

It is abundantly obvious that the three establishment parties, their collective thinking constrained and channeled by the politically correct mindset adopted by their leadership, grasp that much of the public, unfettered by such filters, are and will continue gravitating to a common sense approach that is far closer to reality and truth. In their desperation they lash out at the messengers not the message. So they resort to these desperately low gutter politics techniques for shoring up their tired almost identical policies, which are all designed to continue to undermine our nation and its values.
Whether one is a conservative Christian or a genuinely conservative in politics, or both, is nowadays, to risk being sneered at, or worse. Regarding the reaction to ones faith, John 15 v18 predicts it all.
The spirit of this age is cancerous, and like all cancers it will, eventually, kill its host. So as The Gospel says, better to have early surgery and be rid of it, as soon as possible.
Good morning to all.

6 August 2013 at 07:58  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

I was an early member of UKIP and founded the Derby branch. Our opponents were keen on "playing the race card" then. The fact that my colleague, the Chairman of Leicester branch was married to a black lady made not the slightest difference.

We both switched to campaigning on a cross party basis in the Campaign for an Independent Britain. The TUC in the South West produced a leaflet describing CIB as " a shadowy organisation which sometimes quotes Hitler" .

The fact that our Chairman then was the distinctly unshadowy Labour peer, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, somehow escaped their notice.

This might have been shrugged off as politics as usual. In fact, it was used to break our co-operation with the Fire Brigades Union who were then fighting the introduction of Regional Fire Control Centres.

These were a brainchild of John Prescott's to give his EU-inspired Regional Assemblies something to look after. The EU connection was very deep but barely mentioned publicly. Prescott spent £500 million on them and we are still paying maintenance costs on these white elephants. When taken up on this, he shrugged his shoulders, blaming his civil servants - effectively saying "You can't get the staff these days.

Anything which is effective in exposing the EU racket will be attacked and undermined in these sort of ways. Anyone in the independence movement will know that.

6 August 2013 at 08:37  
Blogger Martin said...

Funny how one selectively quoted speech has turned Enoch Powell into the Big Bad Racist Bogeyman.

Why are we surprised that the 'political classes' try the same trick again and again?

Perhaps the time has come to restrict political parties to the funds they can amass through individual membership fees.

6 August 2013 at 09:11  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Shari'ah is one end of the spectrum. At the other is the 1992 comment of US Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy:


"At the heart of liberty is the right to define one's own concept of existence, of meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life."


Think about it. It gets more problematic the longer you look at it. And I fear it has been pervasive in the West.

6 August 2013 at 10:17  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Edward Spalton,

Thank you for that insight and regional perspective.

The political establishment, professional politicians, and pretend democrats, whose members benefit from the career opportunities offered by the EU, are just plain desperate to silence those few voices that reflect the wishes of Joe and Jane Public.

If they can undermine, by degrees, any sense of family, faith and nationality then there will be few barriers to prevent the easy, unopposed manipulation of a willing workforce, ever more malleable within their grasping hands. This is a power struggle for soul of the european peoples.

Unfortunately only a very few intellectuals of the stature of say, the last Pope, have a sufficiently strategic overview, coupled with a wisdom in tune with the origins of our civilization, to recognize what they are seeing; although many more know it intuitively at a common sense, non-intellectual level. Such people make up the rank and file of Ukip, together with a few scattered remnants in the "main" parties, some of whom are now, thankfully, gravitating towards Ukip. All these people are the heirs , if you like, of the yeomen of Old England.

The ones who are most blind, who have drunk deep from the well of the Spirit of the Age, are the intellectually manipulated, some of whom consider themselves educationally superior, especially the graduates of our ever expanding university system. They have in fact been brainwashed, told what to think, not how to think.
Give me common sense, emanating from the spirit of God, which is rooted within our hearts, in whose image we are created, over false, shallow, opinionated, "education", any time.

6 August 2013 at 10:26  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

UKIP’s rejection of Islamic law is akin to rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is Islam itself we must reject. Otherwise, we condemn future generations to life in a majority Muslim Britain governed partially or wholly by Islamic law. UKIP does fine work opposing the European Union but it has no stomach for confronting Islam. If Christianity is to survive in Britain and Europe, that confrontation will have to take place. Brother Ivo will be too busy polishing his impeccable anti-racist credentials to be of any use so it’ll be up to us ghastly pieces of filth—Cameron’s description of Nick Griffin—to do the necessary.

6 August 2013 at 12:44  
Blogger LEN said...

I am afraid 'Political Correctness' has emasculated our politicians and they are afraid to voice anything which goes against it.

There are two levels of reality going on our Society the 'Politically correct one' and the actual one.We are being trained to have 'the right response 'that our masters in the EU would like us to have.
Orwell was right.

6 August 2013 at 12:56  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, every time Lynton Crosby opens his mouth and is quoted either on or off the record, he diminishes Cameron.

This is not the intention of course. But it is the clear effect, in that Crosby's job is to do two things Cameron cannot do, think strategically and devise electorally appealing policies. Cameron operates on a completely disconnected and reactive basis and only became PM because the electorate thought he was a Conservative. As we all know, Cameron is in fact a liberal radical and anything but conservative or Conservative. It follows that Crosby has his work cut out trying to rebuild a conservative platform for the Conservatives now that Cameron has irrevocably queered the pitch with initiatives like Same Sex Marriage.

Perhaps Crosby is frustrated by the impossibility of trying to focus Cameron and finds savaging a few Ukippers pleasantly soothing.

6 August 2013 at 13:05  
Blogger Owl said...


Lynton Crosby’s "strategy" merely shows how shallow and hopeless the Conservative party has become.

Congatulations YG, once again you have shown the real state of affairs.

Cameron? He might be useful as an ersatz fracking borehead, otherwise I just don't know what to do with him.

6 August 2013 at 13:26  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Just the latest example in the downward spiraling, morally inferior, weapons grade inadequacy of our scumbag politicians, their loathsome toadies and their cheerleaders - the moronic legacy media.

6 August 2013 at 13:35  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Gnostic,

Nice turn of phrase. Very succinct.

6 August 2013 at 13:50  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

Vote UKIP and destroy the 'Conservative' Party. It's our only hope.
Having been taken in by Cameron I now hate him nearly as much as I did Blair.
He is an unprincipled liar, not too bright, with terrible judgment, and in thrall to his lefty wife.

6 August 2013 at 14:25  
Blogger Nick said...

Looking at the BBC headlines, I see "Liberty" have started a campaign against the Governments recent van advertisments aimed at illegal immigrants...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-23589448

It is a good example of the unthinking stupidity of the PC culture that we should encourage and welcome illegal immigration in this country. The PC culture is found almost everywhere, though the fact the Tory party has also succumbed to the disease means the plague must be near its zenith.

One wonders whether UKIP can avoid catching it too. I hope so. If they don't, they will become indistinguishable from the Lib/Lab/Con melange. I would say the political future of UKIP hinges on their not yielding to PC culture, however much they get attacked for it.

6 August 2013 at 16:23  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Nick,

Agreed.

I can tell you from the inside that the chances of Ukip catching the disease are exceedingly low. Whilst just a few unpopular oafs enjoy being un PC, just for the sake of it, the vast majority of members and activists are mature people who simply see through it, and stick to communicating in plain English. This is mainly because this is who they are, but also because they recognize that authenticity is what promotes the party and its values.
Spreading PC speech is achieved via weak people, through their social fear of upsetting those who choose, to take offense, at plain speech.

6 August 2013 at 17:21  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Or two men dressed up as Borat doing a charity walk get abused because if offends the muslim sensitivities during ramadam. The list is ever increasing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2385392/Brothers-law-wearing-mankinis-charity-walk-abused-Ramandan.html

Bring on UKIP. Nigel Farage supports one law for all, British Law, thank goodness.

Thank you YG for putting the record straight, I knew the Tories were going to fight dirty, they're scared.

6 August 2013 at 17:28  
Blogger David B said...

It is not just Christians who are concerned about any sort of acceptance of Sharia law into British life.

David

6 August 2013 at 17:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say chaps. Let’s not rule out Sharia altogether now. Here’s why…

We need to contemplate the future. We need to understand what it is the muslim community wants or indeed will want. We need to consult the following - The generation of elders in charge now. The generation behind them, and if possible the generation behind that. And we need to know that because we all know in our minds that integration to the British way of life by these people isn’t going to happen. It’s a dead duck, a deceased parrot. It would have been nice, but there you go. We’ve taken in far too many of them, the seed potatoes, that gives us the home grown potatoes, exactly like the seeds were in most ways. You can’t import a vast number of aliens into the country and expect them to dance to your lefty tune. They have their own ideas about how they are going to do things. Quite natural really, sure ex pat Britons abroad in, say, Africa feel the same way. No eating of the afterbirth for them or pogo-ing in church, for example. It’s called racial diversity, you know. Apparently, it’s marvellous when celebrated and appreciated by us in people of other races, so now it’s our turn to be marvelled at and appreciated and celebrated for all things English.

One supposes he is of course alluding to separate development of the races. But before you start throwing bricks at this man, think of this. It’s never been tried before where both parties are in agreement. And with a demographic time bomb set to vastly increase our muslim population, agreements are what we will need. Better a demographic time bomb, than a Baghdad car bomb, what !

So there you have it. Sharia law in legally defined muslim areas then. No risk of contaminating British law with it, as there will be no calls for British law to include aspects of it. For any muslims who don’t want Sharia, then they live outside of the muslim quarter.

6 August 2013 at 17:52  
Blogger Peter D said...

"It transpires that Mr Perks has a Muslim godson"

Do Muslim's have Godparents?

6 August 2013 at 17:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article: "How long before whole areas of cities are alcohol-free? Or the public advertising of women's underwear is banned? Or certain books are taken off the shelf because they offend? Or schools and restaurants serve everyone with halal meat?"

But who can argue against that if moral absolutism and appeals to the authority of a god somehow trump notions of individual liberty and the value of diversity?

6 August 2013 at 18:17  
Blogger Flossie said...

Thank you, dear Crannie, for exposing the despicable tactics being used by the Tories. This just shows how frightened they are of UKIP. To think, I have been voting for them all these years! But no more. I loathe and despise David Cameron with every fibre of my being.

I still have to pinch myself sometimes when I see grown men and women talking about gay marriage as if it is the same as proper marriage, with the sneering tone they like to adopt towards us fuddy-duddies. One would imagine that politicians should have a modicum of intelligence, but surely even the dimmest can see that the whole edifice (gay marriage) is based on thin air? Len is right - I sometimes feel I am living in a parallel universe, where reality is unreal.

There are even times when I feel I would welcome some aspects of Sharia, even if only to knock the arrogant smirks off some of these smug faces. Well, perhaps not, but I am so contemptuous of the whole political class that I am not at all sure that I will vote at all in future.

6 August 2013 at 18:47  
Blogger Peter D said...

"How long before the non-Muslim population finds itself complying with sharia law, whether they like it or not?2

Some 'demands' by a vociferous minority have to be nipped in the bud. Small concessions, based on notions of 'rights' and 'equality', can result in the imposition of unanticipated and unacceptable ways of life on the majority.

6 August 2013 at 19:08  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Nick.

PC is not 'unthinking' it is part of a coherent plan. See Peter Hitchen's latest blog post re Andrew Neather's revelation about the deliberate use of mass immigration as a tool of cultural change.

PC=communist thought control.

6 August 2013 at 19:12  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Realistically there is no defence agaisnt a resurgent majority. Minority rule rarely lasts, and the more a minority tries to cling to power, the swifter and more violent its demise tends to be.

In that sense, the idea that you can have a bulwark in liberal tolerance is as convincing as having a bulwark in Christianity - both rely on the same thing: that everyone else will share that view. At best, it evinces a kind of hopefulness that finds its expression in evangelism. But if that fails, and a sizeable portion scorn, say, the principles of tolerance, or the idea that religious parents should be able to raise their children in the same way as any other (i.e. as they see fit), then you are going to lose.

De facto, there is no value in diversity except that which is invested in it. De facto, the same is true of Christianity - and if all you ever value in it is its earthly power, you are in the same boat. But Christ's teaching is rooted in the Law of Heaven, immovable and unassailable. Belief in Him quite simply means living to that measure.

Very few other views are like that: in fact when it boils down to the necessity of winning the material world, atheism and Islam are remarkable alike in their assumptions. Both must secure the here and now - oh the idealism may endure for psychological reasons, but the atheist who dies defeated has ceased in being as surely as the prophet who is defeated is no prophet. Neither can afford to lose the world, which is why, like those who wear Christianity without faith, they will fight all the more vehemently to hold it if they think it will be lost to them.

There, I think Christ's absolute and unfailing Authority is not merely a comfort in persecution and death, but the only thing capable of answering it and remaining untouched by the madness of the World.

6 August 2013 at 21:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Seed. That opinion has been aired before. If it is true, then the Labour party is beyond pink Marxist – it is evil...

6 August 2013 at 21:51  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ OoIG (21:51)—Oh, it’s certainly true that immigration is being used to effect irreversible changes in the populations and cultures of Western countries. Our supranational rulers are quite open about it:

❛The EU should ‘do its best to undermine’ the ‘homogeneity’ of its member states, the UN’s special representative for migration has said.

Peter Sutherland told peers the future prosperity of many EU states depended on them becoming multicultural.❜—BBC

It isn’t just Labour, though. The Tories are every bit as guilty of nation wrecking.

6 August 2013 at 22:12  
Blogger bluedog said...

Indeed OIG @ 21.51, Blair and Straw as architects of Neathergate should be indicted for High Crimes and Misdemeanours by a Peoples Disciplinary Tribunal, summarily convicted and publicly executed.

Or do you think that would be too mild a punishment?

6 August 2013 at 22:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One feels sick...

6 August 2013 at 22:58  
Blogger Peter D said...

Belfast

Come now, more courage. Even if defeat comes let's go down fighting with our heads held high.

The threat to our freedom comes from the 'tolerance', 'human rights' and 'diversity' ideology that is eroding our democratic culture.

As Christian values are removed from the public sphere and pushed into the private sphere and replaced by atheist-secularism freedom will die. It isn't going to be helped by the “Who am I to Judge?” bandwagon gathering pace.

Liberal, atheist “values” are becoming more important than freedom. People just want to feel good about themselves and their lifestyles and anyone who challenges this will be a threat - a disturber of the peace.

“Hate speech” and "discriminatory attitudes" becomes the weapon of first choice against Christians. “Hate” will be everything that questions individual "freedom". We have to be nice, harmless, friendly people living in the middle of single-parenthood, serial monogamy, abortion, murder, and homosexuality - and all brought in "democratically". Christians who challenge the comfort people want to feel about themselves will be consider intolerable by the oh so tolerant masses!

If we think it wrong to "judge" homosexualists, abortionists, euthanasia promoters as immoral now one day this mind-set will be the standard - the height of our civilised, ever so comfortable, liberal-democratic society where man worships himself.

Religion will be "hate", "bigotry", "pollution" and "child abuse".

If the Muslim population does grow in number in Western Europe and if their faith proves stronger against atheism than Christianity, then God help us. The irony is we protect the religion of Allah and make concessions to it whilst destroying Christianity as hateful and judgemental.

What madness!

7 August 2013 at 00:22  
Blogger plishman said...

Accusations of 'racism' etc. are designed to elicit a conditioned response on the part of the accused, silence and compliance. It is a form of psychological manipulation known as 'operant conditioning'. In this approach, behaviours in the subject are reinforced or destroyed through the applications of punishments and rewards, of four forms: positive reward (the presentation of a pleasant sensation to the subject as a reward for co-operation); negative reward (the removal of an unpleasant sensation); negative punishment (the removal of a source of pleasure); and positive punishment (the application of an unpleasant sensation to the subject).

Judging by the increasing popularity of UKIP, the conditioning of the public is beginning to fail.

It is wonderful how people can transcend the expectations of evil forces, and a source of joy.

7 August 2013 at 02:00  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Peter:

Forgive me for picking up your points out of the order in which you made them.

The "Who am I to judge?" bandwagon would indeed be not merely unhelpful but dangerously false if its central core was that judgement was in itself inherently wrong. This is all the more highlighted by the fact that "not judging" is rarely meant any way except particularly - and usually, particularly about not judging sexual sins. I myself find that the phrase, "who am I to judge?" causes no small discomfort in people when it is interjected into conversations where people are asking me to agree with an unfair or unreasonable assault-by-gossip, or where it is used to indicate a genuine reason to offer forgiveness to someone when they have done wrong.

In the latter sense - which is the only sense that I understood your Pope's recent comments - the difference is the emphasis. The point is not: "who am I to judge?" but rather "who am I to judge?" One falsely rejects judgment - and with it the standards against which one is judged - whilst the other admits just where we stand in the court.

The answer is: not in the Judge's seat.

I think it quite important to convey this idea, since the Gospel has ever been: I have been saved undeservingly by Grace that I may tell you how you may receive the same.

When one considers that we have been saved not only from the chains of our sins, but from death itself by our Saviour, the remainder finds itself in its proper context. I do not dismiss such threats as trivial. They may well prove to be the death of the Church in the West, but that does not let us off following His command.

Matthew 28:18-20 sums many of these points up, but it's that final line that catches it all together:

"I am with you always, even unto the end of the world"

Well then, who shall we fear?

7 August 2013 at 02:02  
Blogger Peter D said...

Belfast

I agree with much of you comment.

However, the Pope has a job to do. Amongst his responsibilities is to judge the suitability of men to enter the priesthood and what risks they might pose to vulnerable people.

He is called upon to speak clearly about how God views homosexuality as a way of life. And remember, he was referring to a particular senior church appointment when he made his comment. It is this sort of casual dismissiveness that permitted abusing priests to continue in their roles.

It's not necessarily about judging particular individuals either but being clear about the sinfulness and implications of certain behaviours.

It also comes down to whether one's life experiences can put a barrier in the way of one's receptivity and responsiveness to giving a positive response to God's Grace.

Was Sodom's sin contagious? Was being raised in Sodom likely to predispose one to sin and to rejecting the Grace of God? Is being raised in a culture where homosexuality and abortion are acceptable and 'normal' likely to corrupt people and make conversion more difficult?

Predestination ....... ?

7 August 2013 at 03:17  
Blogger Jonathan James | Associate Solicitor said...

Apropos the strategy of mud slinging against UKIP councillors and the like, this proceeds, I note, this morning with the interest the press has in remarks which may have been made by a UKIP MEP. I suspect that all major parties will have comments from prominent members they are glad haven't yet seen the light of day. Perhaps sauce for the goose will become a condiment for the gander as well as politicians fight fire with fire.

As far as Rowan Williams' idea that sharia in family disputes might be acceptable, as a family lawyer, I couldn't disagree more! One of the few legal doctrines of which we can continue to be very proud indeed is the principle that a child's welfare is paramount. Now this principle may be implemented in an imperfect way, but sharia simply doesn't start from this point of origin so it isn't a system which can coexist with the law of England and Wales.

7 August 2013 at 09:54  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Peter:

"Is being raised in a culture where homosexuality and abortion are acceptable and 'normal' likely to corrupt people and make conversion more difficult?"

It's a good question. Looks to me like you've just summed up 1st century Greece.

"Was Sodom's sin contagious? Was being raised in Sodom likely to predispose one to sin and to rejecting the Grace of God?"

Undoubtedtly - worse than that, though: being born into sin as a member of the human race predisposes you to reject God. Don't forget what it is you have been saved from. Don't forget why it was you needed Grace.

What, then, shall we say in response to these things?

7 August 2013 at 10:10  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

AIB,

What does this have to do with the subject of the post?

7 August 2013 at 10:11  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

Meanwhile, in Egypt.

http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3919/al-qaeda-christian-churches

And silence from our Christian leaders....

7 August 2013 at 10:48  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Cranmer:

A good many of your posting communicants, perhaps even a majority, make of Islam, and the imposition of Sharia law, an existential threat to Christianity and our way of life. Although the two are elided, when one pokes at the edges of this view it becomes apparent that there is rather a stronger presence of the latter component than the former.

If one believes in Christ as Lord that belief, surely, has a bearing on how such a threat is regarded and also how it is responded to.

Many of your communicants have expressed the view that this can be done with the threat of force, with punitive legislation, or with the encouragement of a counter culture. I have some sympathy with the last one - but as my original post above tried to make clear (perhaps unsuccessfully) ipso facto it relies just as much on being the dominant culture to succeed as advancing the presence of modern secularism, or for that matter, Sharia itself.

If one holds Scripture to be true, then it has every bearing on the subject: since the very dimension in which the issue is understood alters. It has every bearing on why it is that self professed Christians follow some very strange paths, whether its advocating street violence on one end, or - as with many in the hierarchy of the CofE - seeking to accomodate false religion and teaching. The question is simply of faith.

If we have it, what does it mean to how we view struggles for earthly power? It seems to me that there are many who support UKIP's position for reasons that have no faith at all. Working out what difference - if any - lies between us, is, I would submit, really quite important.

7 August 2013 at 11:59  
Blogger John Thomas said...

"Minority rule rarely lasts" - I wish you were right, Anonymous in Belfast, but I have a horrible suspicion that most societies/states are, and always have been, ruled by a few; and I have another horrible feeling, that if everyone got to vote on a particular issue (eg. same-sex marriage, abortion) the vote would go against what I would want, and hope for.Of course, a geneal vote on the EU would go my way, no fear - it would get us out of the wretched thing (our politicians would never risk that, of course, so I don't expect a referendum any time soon).

7 August 2013 at 16:16  
Blogger Peter D said...

Archbishop

I agree with Belfast above.

My point, made earlier:

If the Muslim population does grow in number in Western Europe and if their faith proves stronger against atheism than Christianity, then God help us. The irony is we protect the religion of Allah and make concessions to it whilst destroying Christianity as hateful and judgemental.

The real enemy is within and is dismantling Christian culture by normalising anti-Christian practices. I also happen to believe this undermines receptivity to the Gospel message. At the same time, we're pussy footing around Islam and making concessions to it in the name of 'diversity'. Increasingly to speak out in public about this is a "hate crime" and all become tarred with the one brush - "bigots", "racists", "homophobes" and "misogynists" or "swivel-eyed loons".

7 August 2013 at 17:39  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older