Wednesday, June 04, 2014

Vicars face sack for joining Ukip



Clergy who support or join Ukip will face disciplinary proceedings under a new resolution passed by the Church of England.

Church of England bishops have backed a declaration stating that the policies, activities and objectives of the far-right party are "incompatible" with Christian teaching on racial equality.

The move means that a complaint of misconduct can be brought under the Clergy Discipline Measure against any cleric who is a member of, promotes or expresses support for the party.

The General Synod will have an opportunity to debate and give formal approval to the declaration when it meets in York next month. If there is no debate, the declaration will automatically come into force at the start of the meeting.

The effective proscribing by the bishops of the political party comes after the General Synod gave final approval in 2012 to legislation making it "unbecoming" or "inappropriate" conduct for clergy to be members of a political party with policies and activities declared “incompatible” with Church teaching on race equality. Where a political party is deemed to have changed its views, the ban could be lifted by a simple majority vote by the bishops.

The move was first proposed by concerned Labour supporters in the Synod, and they have the backing of the former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Ian Blair.

Nigel Farage is fuming.

"We are a modern, forward-thinking and progressive nationalist party,' he said. "We are non-discriminatory and we have a constitution to match."

He added: "It is high time that was put out there. The Church of England has to keep up to date - they are stuck in the 1970s."

A Ukip spokesman said today: "This is indicative of the way that the Church of England is being politicised. What is written in the Bible and Scripture is clearly of secondary importance to the politically-correct option that these people adhere to. Where is it going to end? Are Ukip members going to be allowed to be buried any more in churches? Is that where it is going to end? It makes you wonder. It is very sad to see the Church go along with this."

O, hang on..

His Grace has made a slight mistake.

Silly him.

The Church of England has proscribed the BNP and the National Front, not Ukip.

But this is odd, because 'mainstream' politicians say Ukip is racist; the Rt Rev'd Pete Broadbent, Bishop of Willeden, and the Rev'd Arun Arora, CofE Director of Communications, are both convinced that Ukip is racist, too, which must also render membership or support of that party "incompatible" with Church teaching on race equality.

And what are we to make of the Church of England's own 'institutional racism', as discovered by its own internal report and corroborated by the Rev'd Rose Hudson-Wilkin?

"Parish clergy are part of the problem," she said. "Whether consciously or unconsciously, they are not encouraging black people who are in their churches to come forward. Our report shows that there are some who are aware of the issue and are acting to improve the situation, but the Church is still a long way from reaching an acceptable level of equality."

Gosh.

Is the Church of England to proscribe itself, or is it deemed by the Bishops to be "changing its views"?

His Grace has written on this matter before (HERE, HERE, HERE and HERE). He is constant:

The United Kingdom is a democracy, and the BNP is a legally-constituted political party. It operates within the law, and has a message which a minority find attractive and a sizeable majority finds utterly repugnant.

But so does Respect, Veritas (does it still exist?), the DUP and Sinn Fein. And some unenlightened ones might even find the Conservative Party repugnant, let alone Ukip.

And why only proscribe the far right? What about the far left?

If those in Christian ministry ought to be sacked for holding anti-equality views, should a Christian who believes that salvation is to be found in Christ alone be permitted to teach children? Should a doctor who believes homosexuality to be a sin be in General Practice? Can a member of Opus Dei or a practising Muslim be Equalities Minister? Can an anti-abortion, pro-family Roman Catholic an EU Commissioner?

It is a cornerstone of liberal democracy that the personal-politico-religious can co-exist with the public-religio-political while being at odds with each other. The alternative, as demanded by some politicians of the Left and vast sections of the media, and, it seems, by an entire red sea of bishops, is for the thought-police to patrol our religious consciences and political opinions, to ensure that both conform to the prevailing religio-political zeitgeist.

106 Comments:

Blogger Mike Stallard said...

"And why only proscribe the far right? What about the far left?"

Comrade, this remark is sexist and racist. It is not what Jesus would have written.
I shall have to hate you.

4 June 2014 09:20  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 June 2014 10:06  
Blogger John Wrake said...

YG,

It is apparent that, not only church congregations are largely ignorant of the foundation documents of the Church of England, but also the so-called leaders of the Church who have been ordained and those lay people who serve on the General Synod.

Might I draw to the attention of all and sundry, the contents of Article XXI (Of the authority of General Councils) and Article XXVI (Of the Unworthiness of the Ministers, which hinders not the effect of the Sacrament), particularly, the second paragraph of the latter.

There is a difference between a dictatorial spirit, which should have no place in the Church and a proper response to the current lawlessness among the so-called leaders, which has been tolerated for far too long.

John Wrake.

4 June 2014 10:14  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 June 2014 10:30  
Blogger Len said...

I don`t think Jesus would have stood much of a chance of being a member of the Clergy today?.
In fact Jesus would have been far too radical for the church and would be forcibly ejected where He would have continued to preach from outside the church.
Isn`t that the position He is in today when He stands outside knocking on the door of the Church asking to be let in?.

4 June 2014 10:42  
Blogger Flossie said...

I was hoping this news item yesterday would make Your Grace's hackles rise, as it did mine, and that you would write an illuminating piece about it. So thank you!

What a nerve! For the record, I don't think clergy should vote for, or belong to, far-right political parties, or far-left for that matter, but how dare the bishops tell people what to think. What next? Any party perceived (by them) to be homophobic?

Just because we have a bunch of lefties in the episcopacy it doesn't give them the right to do this. What was it about 'windows into men's souls'?



4 June 2014 10:56  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

I have deleted my comments because I admit to having been so annoyed that I didn't read the whole post through. Whilst I think this is over-reach, I think it reasonable that membership of the BNP and National Front should be proscribed, not least because they are frequently thuggish and violent, and they do rather specialise in various forms of hatred and resentment. Not compatible with gentleness at all. To bar helping them is a proscription fraught with danger however, as clergy are called upon to help any poor soul bleeding by the wayside and clergy disciplinary matters need to be watertight or someone inimical to the Church, or just the Vicar, can slide perceptions to create unnecessary victims, or just waste Church time, which some see as an acheivement in its own right. Electioneering is one thing, helping put up a trestle table another, taking a funeral a third, and bandaging a wounded man a fourth. There needs to be clarity here.

4 June 2014 10:58  
Blogger IanCad said...

The CofE has a pretty sorry record in backing the wrong horses.

Hewlett Johnson, the Red Dean of Canterbury,finished his career well fed and in good standing despite being one of Stalin's most rabid cheerleaders.

4 June 2014 10:58  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

sorry, "achievement"

4 June 2014 10:59  
Blogger MrTinkles said...

Unfortunately, this is another example of the CofE becoming more and more like a standard secular organisation than anything resembling the church of Jesus Christ.
When I was last teaching a couple of years back one of the teaching unions had a poster up asking anyone who knew of teachers or governors who might be members of of the BNP to let them know. With my big mouth, I got into a fairly large argument...names such as Hitler and Stalin were much used - justified in that case I think. However, despite my objection to such stuff, I was not surprised.
But the church???
So a vicar who doesn't believe in God? Well, unfortunate but never mind...but God forbid they should join a legal political party.
Don't get me wrong, I think the BNP are an odious bunch and I would have serious questions for my pastor , vicar or priest if he were to be a member but surely the church has no business banning thought or opinion.
But this is the modern way and we've seen it in the debates (or lack of) over immigration and yes, gay marriage - why try to explain why you are wrong when it's so much easier to shout "bigot" or ban.
I've come to expect it of politicians, unions and the BBC - now I suppose I shall have to expect it from the good old CofE too.
Sad...

4 June 2014 11:11  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

activities declared “incompatible” with Church teaching on race equality.

What the CoE demands of its employees’ extra-curricular political leaning, is their own affair and of little national importance, apart from exhibiting a sorry lack of understanding of the iniquities of imposed multiculturalism.

But the CoE (and others) need to
identify what actual meaning they attach to the expression ‘Far-Right’?

Not everyone outside of the convocation will understand what they are specifying and why should they?.
Singling out the BNP of course is like shooting fish in a barrel.

Taking forward the same epithets without explanatory definitions, as some folk are wont to do, and applying them to the detriment of a legitimate political Party by using words, much used and abused by core white liberal outfits such as the BBC and other left leaning media outlets, they are guilty in my opinion of being ‘racist’ (to use the common parlance) themselves even if the Party is the BNP.

More to the point, what exactly do these people mean by ‘Race’?

The word Race and its derivations has become the blunt tool of establishment intellectuals with which to beat in to mute submission, the voices of people they don’t wish to hear. Not surprisingly, it is overwhelmingly applied in the context of being a socially unacceptable position when taken by white skinned people.

Being Alien to these shores doesn’t establish a person’s ‘race’

Religious affiliation does not establish ‘racial’ identity.

Being indigenous to these islands, does not establish a ‘racial’ identity.

Being concerned about indiscriminate immigration, asylum and border control-measures, is not ‘racist’.

Unless it wants to alienate a vast swathe of the population and appear even more less-connected than it already is, the CoE needs first to engage with the lexicon of the English Language and explain what it means; first its definition of the words race then, racism, racist, racial, interracial etc… and take great care, how it chooses to apply it’s interpretations in the socio-political sphere.

Anyone for disesetablishment?

4 June 2014 11:12  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

It can’t be long before some bishop Tom, Dick or Pete issues a ruling that, in his diocese, clergy will risk being suspended if they’re caught supporting any football team other than Spurs.

4 June 2014 11:41  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Your Grace, like Flossie I noted this news item and wondered whether it would form the next sermon delivered from Your Grace's electronic pulpit. It did, and moreover was presented to us in your customary "preaching through teasing" style, which is very effective. Thank you Cranmer.

I agree with earlier communicants that whilst it would be appropriate for a priest or indeed any committed Christian to consider carefully, prayerfully, whether they should be members of any extreme party, right or left, it should not be for the Bishops to lessen his/her democratic right for an individual to join any legal political party.

John Wrake points to the likelihood that the Bishops seem unaware, or at least ignore, the Articles of Religion, our Anglican foundational documents; indeed I would add to that my observation that their unthinking support for the EU, a thoroughly anti-Christian political force, indicates to me that they are unaware or oblivious to the foundational documents of that body as well. Certainly they are oblivious to the deep, widespread pain and social suffering from massive unemployment, inflicted upon a swathe of southern europe by the economically insane adoption of a single currency for economies as divergent as Germany and Greece, Portugal, Spain and even industrial Italy. Their analysis and understanding of current affairs seems shallow and "of the surface" , without attempting to penetrate basic philosophies, methods of operation, trajectories, intended effects, externalities, and intended destinations. I struggle to understand how any Christian can support an anti-Christian political grouping such as the EU. My disappointment in our Bishops grows daily.

On a political point, but also one of equity, the policies of the BNP seem more National Socialist, so left wing, than as the left, and now recently leftish, so called "liberals" spin it, right wing. And what of a vicar who joins the Communist Party, a political philosophy and world view that has resulted in the slaughter and oppression of far more people than the truly right wing regimes of say, an earlier South America ? I am no defender of the BNP, at all, but how many have died or been tortured at their hand ? This knee jerk edict has not been well thought through at all.

If I, as an about to be licensed Reader, ever had to choose between my support for Ukip, the only political party that supports nationally based democracy and the Judaeo-Christian tradition in the UK, or the C of E, I would as a Christian without hesitation choose Ukip, resign my license, and seek other ways of serving in Christ's universal Church.

4 June 2014 11:42  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

I think banning ALL political involvement is a sensible step forward for the CofE

That of course has wider implications

Phil

4 June 2014 11:43  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Dreadnaught @ 11.12

Quite !

The way these vague, totally undefined terms of abuse like "racist" are sometimes thrown about to control people through intimidation, is morally repugnant and intellectually incoherent. For the bishops to join in this lefty-liberal establishment feeding frenzy is most disappointing indeed. Often it is certain cultural practices that right thinking people object to, but linking it erroneously, with "race" is simply an intellectually dishonest, but emotionally effective, intimidatory and brutal method of crushing honest dissent and debate.

4 June 2014 11:52  
Blogger skeetstar said...

Lucy...

it reasonable that membership of the BNP and National Front should be proscribed, not least because they are frequently thuggish and violent, and they do rather specialise in various forms of hatred and resentment.

I agree with you and the BNP would not get my vote, but I can hardly avoid asking (somewhat playfully) has there ever been an example, say, of an old man being forcibly (violently) ejected from a Labour party conference? Has any campaigning Labour politician ever thrown a punch at anyone? Does anyone know of Labour supporters expressing hatred and resentment of Mrs Thatcher, especially at the time of her death and funeral (I almost typed resurrection instead of funeral)?


I don't think I have ever met a Labour supporter who is not steeped in resentment of something.

Perhaps on this basis the Bishops might proscribe membership or support for the Labour party as well?

4 June 2014 11:55  
Blogger Preacher said...

There's nothing new in the CofE. With a bit of luck & Divine help, we might see the equivalent of such proscribed worthies as Whitefield, the Wesleys & Bunyan.
Now wouldn't that be something to look forward to?.

"Go for souls & go for the worst ones" General Booth's orders to his 'troops'.

4 June 2014 11:56  
Blogger Nick said...

Skeetstar

"it reasonable that membership of the BNP and National Front should be proscribed, not least because they are frequently thuggish and violent, and they do rather specialise in various forms of hatred and resentment"

I agree with that, but in that case you should also ban groups like "Unite Against Fascism" who are often the real street thugs whenever the BNP are around. The truth is that if you give way to the vivtim mentality then the list becomes endless. One could even accuse those bishops who make accusations and insults about those who support UKIP of being "hate criminals". I think the whole country needs to grow up a bit. That includes in the CofE who are too preoccupied with political trends and not concerned about saving souls.

4 June 2014 12:06  
Blogger Thomas Moon said...

"it reasonable that membership of the BNP and National Front should be proscribed, not least because they are frequently thuggish and violent".

Do you have personal experience of this, or is this just what the media tell you?

4 June 2014 12:12  
Blogger Shadrach said...

Len said;
Jesus would have been far too radical for the church and would be forcibly ejected
Isn't that what actually happened to him? And today also he is often left outside of the doors of the Church.

This decision of the Bishops is not surprising. It is because they are not accountable to anyone, let alone God.

Is there no way the grass roots members of the church can do a Jesus thing and clear out the Temple with a whip.

4 June 2014 12:22  
Blogger bluedog said...

Most confusing.

Ukip supports the monarchy but many bishops are apparently republicans, like Bishop Pete, and HMQ is Supreme Governor of the CofE.

Ergo, being a republican is alright.

Can I get back to you on this one, Your Grace?

4 June 2014 12:23  
Blogger Father David said...

Bluedog, apart from the Bishop of Willesdon can you name any other member of the Psaltery who is an avowed Republican and not a Monarchist? You use the word "many" but personally I can't think of any others apart from Bishop Pete!

4 June 2014 12:43  
Blogger ukFred said...

Then we also have the politics of the CofE affiliations. No disapproval of Palestinian rockets fired from domestic areas of Gaza but strong disapproval of Israeli self-defence. The CofE has gone from the tory party at prayer to a collection of self-righteous hypocrites.

4 June 2014 12:59  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

So Bishops declare race policies of far-Right parties such as the BNP and the National Front a “blatant denial of the Christian faith”
Yet they embrace the diversity policy imposed by other Parties, some aspects of which are also a blatant denial of the Christian faith. (Is it any wonder that the Church gets accused of hypocrisy.)

Why are they bothering to proscribe the BNP? Is it worth the effort? One can hardly believe that there are cohorts of clergy falling over themselves in their enthusiasm to enlist so what is the agenda here, which Party is really the target? Is it co-incidence that the Bishops have exercised their “power of declaration” so soon after Unowho won the European election? Is it a stepping stone towards proscribing membership of that Party when an outright ban at this stage would be “a bridge too far”?

4 June 2014 13:04  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! Emboldened by this move, my Lord has (and I agree with him) ordered all diocesan clergy in Barchester to vote Whig.

4 June 2014 13:46  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

I do believe the Messiah dealt with these thorny issues with the pithy retort of Mark 12:17:

'And Jesus answering, said to them: Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him.'

4 June 2014 13:58  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack wonders if a cleric of the Church of England can be a signed up member of the Communist Party? Has it been proscribed?

Is it fitting for clergy to give public allegiance to any particular party by becoming members? Surely the Church should be a 'critical friend' of all politicians and consider their particular policies, according to the 'signs of the times' and decide on the one most suitable to have their vote?

First and foremost, they are servants of Christ.

Racism is objectionable. The BNP's position of only providing assistance to the hungry and destitute of British and Caucasian heritage is a disgrace and directly contradicts scripture. Preach against it and win the argument.

4 June 2014 14:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

If you have bishops in the house of Lords, you can't very well complain when bishops make self-serving political statements.

Dreadnought is right. Disestablishment is the answer.

carl

4 June 2014 14:32  
Blogger IanCad said...

Happy Jack

Re: my post @ 10:58

He also was the recipient of the 1951 Stalin International Peace Prize.

If not the definitive oxymoron, then pretty close to it.

Let me further add that I was raised in a Marxist home.
Christianity was held as all square because - according to the leftist minds - His teachings broadly followed those of Marx.

Note the order of precedence.

4 June 2014 14:42  
Blogger Thomas Moon said...

If you apply to join UKIP online, you have to declare that "I am not and have never been a member of the British National Party, National Front, British Freedom Party, British People's Party, English Defence League, Britain First or the UK First Party."

So perhaps they're with the bishops on this one!

4 June 2014 14:43  
Blogger steve said...

C of E Fatwa on UKIP?

4 June 2014 14:57  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

a message which a minority find attractive and a sizeable majority finds utterly repugnant

The BNP’s message is (a) that countries stand the best chance of being decent places to live when they are ethnically homogeneous and (b) that, in common with all peoples, Europeans are entitled to lands they can call their own and to make them minorities in their own countries is evil.

If the sizeable majority continues to agree with Your Grace, European civilization and European Christianity are finished.

It’s good to see Simon Darby, the BNP’s press spokesman, maintain a sense of humour. Not wishing to kindle life-threatening levels of Christian repugnance, I refrain from linking to his blog:

‘…the C of E announces the start of its new witch hunt against patriots. Village and church halls where BNP meetings have been held are also to be exorcised and graves carefully inspected for potential exhumation should they contain nationalist thought criminals. Still I’m grateful in a way that with all the paedophile scandals engulfing the church, its hierarchy have been good enough to distance themselves from us. A selfless act of political realism and sacrifice in the true Christian spirit.’

4 June 2014 15:12  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Johnny R, let's leave all the "apple pie and motherhood" to one side for now.

Do you support the BNP's position of only providing 'charitable' assistance to the hungry and destitute of British and Caucasian heritage? This is Nick Griffith's stated policy - food banks for white Brits only.

4 June 2014 15:45  
Blogger Flossie said...

Brother Ivo has penned a good post on this very topic.

” First they came for the racists, and I did not speak out, I was not a racist : then they came for the climate change deniers, I was not a climate change denier and I did not speak out: then they came for the homophobes…"

http://brotherivo.com/blog/2014/06/04/first-they-came-for-the-racists/

4 June 2014 15:46  
Blogger Martin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 June 2014 15:54  
Blogger Martin said...

Perhaps the problem is not so much with the bishops decree but with the idea that individual churches and their minister should be subject to the authority of someone outside the local congregation.

Elders and overseers, of course, are servants, not tyrants.

Martin

4 June 2014 15:56  
Blogger Philip said...

What does the CofE propose to do about clergy who are members of political parties that are dominated by politicians who advocate (and therefore effectively as a party advocate) the "right" to slaughter (unborn) children?

The likely answer to that question demonstrates that the ruling metropolitan lib-left elite class (of which much of the CofE establishment seems to be a part) and their media seek to enforce their beliefs and values on the population. (Problem is God seems a bit slow catching up and adjusting HIS beliefs where necessary to conform.) And they'd love to marginalise and force out of public life those who adhere to Christian truth where it doesn't conform to the ruling elite creed (e.g. their version of 'equality'). They oppose evils the 'Left' tend to be more likely to highlight (e.g. the evil of racism), but do nothing about the evils that the "Right" tend to be more likely to highlight (e.g. abortion).

I expect most in the CofE silently and reluctantly accept that UKIP isn't racist, thus less able to justifiably oppose a party that doesn't conform to their metropolitan lib-left and EU integrationist beliefs.

4 June 2014 16:10  
Blogger Albert said...

I can't see too much to complain about here in principle. But the inconsistency strikes me. No Anglican should be a member of a political party that supports abortion or other pro-death policies. Why worry about racism, if murder is permitted? Moreover, it does seem a bit odd for a Church to interfere with people's politics but not their religion.

4 June 2014 17:08  
Blogger Flossie said...

Here is another enjoyable blog post, from the inimitable Peter Mullen (forgive me, YG)

http://www.revpetermullen.com/four-legs-good-two-legs-bad/

I wonder if any members of Synod will dare to vote against this move, for fear of being labelled as racists.

4 June 2014 17:08  
Blogger Owl said...

Flossie,

"I wonder if any members of Synod will dare to vote against this move, for fear of being labelled as racists"

excellent point.

Be PC and don't get the wrong label seems to be of most importance to these "leaders of the flock".

I think they have exchanged JC and prophets for DC and cronies.

Bad move, that they may well regret.

4 June 2014 17:52  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Martin at 15.56:

Elders and overseers, of course, are servants, not tyrants.

Servus servorum Dei, the servant of the servants of God.

4 June 2014 18:00  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Must the CofE guide you in matters political as well as what matters to God ? Seems to be serving two masters then, and that’s quite untenable, what !

Now, the interesting thing about the BNP is that in regard to the European elections at least, its support has fallen away. This shows that its main core of support are not racists at all, but more likely to be at the end of their tether, over the sheer numbers involved in immigration one suspects, in the first instance. You see, we have quite literally run out of places to put everyone. The housing situation is eventually going to go the Japanese way. There, mortgages in excess of 50 years are now common place. Parents take out a mortgage, their children pay it off. They don’t move out and start up by themselves. Their country is far too small for that to happen, as increasingly is ours..

It doesn’t surprise at all then this is happening to the BNP, as one does not believe his fellow countrymen are intrinsically racist. They’ve now gone on to support UKIP. At least UKIP offers some RESPECTABLE hope, as at the moment no mainstream party wishes to engage the misguided government immigration policy from over the last 4 to 5 decades which has manufactured racism. A somewhat different situation altogether.

A quick word on social housing / council housing lists. Used to be there for the white working class who traditionally rent. At one time you could marry on a Saturday, have a couple of nights away on honeymoon, and be handed the keys to a three bedroom house on Monday. Now a couple will watch from their cramped one bedroom flat as the latest immigrant family occupy what should have gone to them, and their future family.

So let us not talk about mere racism anymore. Let us call it government immigration policy manufactured racism, or if you like, the part of multicultural England they want to keep a tarpaulin over. One does think God would understand, approve even…

4 June 2014 18:04  
Blogger David Hussell said...

IanCad @ 14.42

"I was raised in a Marxist home"

Congratulations for extricating yourself so admirably from that mindset.

4 June 2014 18:09  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Happy Jack (15:45)—By its acts of kindness, the BNP is doubtless hoping to persuade disadvantaged whites (who ought to be its core vote) that it is on their side and that they’d do themselves a favour if they engaged with politics and voted BNP.

4 June 2014 18:28  
Blogger IanCad said...

David Hussell,

Thank You!
It took a few years.

Was it Churchill who said?

"If you're not a Socialist in your youth, you have no heart.
If you still are one in your maturity, you have no brains."

4 June 2014 19:21  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Johnny R, Happy Jack asked if you agreed with the BNP Party in restricting charitable giving to white British only.

He did not ask what political strategy might lie behind this policy.

4 June 2014 20:01  
Blogger Thomas Moon said...

Flossie - "I wonder if any members of Synod will dare to vote against this move, for fear of being labelled as racists."

I'm surprised that Synod have the option of another vote on this. They voted to ban clergy from being members of the BNP some time ago (was it really only 2012, I thought it was earlier) and I must admit I assumed it was already in force.

4 June 2014 20:06  
Blogger David Hussell said...

This banning of clergy is really just empty, gesture politics. There are no current members of the clergy who are members and I would be very surprised if any wanted to join.

To me it indicates that they are focussing their energies on the wrong problems.

4 June 2014 20:14  
Blogger ukFred said...

There exists one problem which no-one has yet alluded to. While the the parable of the Good Samaritan, and the story of Jesus conversation with the Samaritan woman at the well both are indications that the need to love one's neighbour did not end with the boundaries of one's tribe or nation, many of the so-called sins which the post-modern political elite see as unforgivable were created as a consequence of our nation being hoodwinked by the cultural marxists. In support of my thesis, I quote "SpeedofDark", a poster on the Telegraph website who says.
“It is part of the Frankfurt School agenda which was created to aid communism spread. It was originally based in Germany but fled to the USA when Hitler came to power. From then to the early 60′s it embedded itself in the US college and University system. It was, in fact, responsible for the counter culture revolution of the 60′s which most of the youth at that time saw as liberating from the admittedly authoritarian, and moral governance that existed. This is not the stuff of conspiracy theories but stark fact. Marcuse was one of the leading lights of this operation and his frank and open confessions are all on the youtube. The aim was to change forever the long establshed judao-christian heritage. To give you further insight (assuming like most people you are now aware of all this) I show below the key points of the Frankfurt School agenda.
“To further the advance of their ‘quiet’ cultural revolution – but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future – the School recommended (among other things):
1. The creation of racism offences.
2. Continual change to create confusion
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking
7. Emptying of churches
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits
10. Control and dumbing down of media
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family
“One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pansexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:
• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors’
“Munzenberg summed up the Frankfurt School’s long-term operation thus: ‘We will make the West so corrupt that it stinks.’
“The School believed there were two types of revolution: (a) political and (b) cultural. Cultural revolution demolishes from within. ‘Modern forms of subjection are marked by mildness’. They saw it as a long-term project and kept their sights clearly focused on the family, education, media, sex and popular culture.”

4 June 2014 20:21  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

David Hussell

4 June 2014 11:52

I agree with all you say.

4 June 2014 20:27  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Uk Fred
It has happened. Now whilst I probably differ from a fair few here on the precise delineations of the male/female role boundaries, I don't question their existence.

The latest some of the "academics"- by no means all of whom are Frankfurter Marxists [(is that allowable description?)but sometimes just useful unaware stooges] have dreamed up is that people in future might think it was normal to change gender several times. They have the loopy concept that gender is a "social construct". Now sane people with a smidgeon of common sense know that that is impractical and absurd nonsense, but those whose lives are largely taken up with theorizing think it is an exciting new set of thoughts that proves how "modern" they are.

Future generations will laugh at them, of course but they see it not. Meanwhile we have to gently disabuse them and point out that life is largely a practical business of how to make the best of your three, four, occasionally five score years + or - ten, and there are many more interesting and useful things to do with it than flip in and out of mutated and mutilated gender constructs.

And also stand against all those things you list, and the Weishaupfian nonsense all about breaking down property rights, marriage, the church and the nation state, which is done by celebrating all that they denigrate.

4 June 2014 20:38  
Blogger David Hussell said...

ukFred @ 20.21

I suspect that most of His Grace's regular communicants on here are very well aware of this slow burning but deadly fuse, designed to explode western society.

However it is surprising just how few within the wide society are aware. The media obviously studiously ignore or ridicule it, as to admit its existence, and its deadly cancerous effects on society, would be so utterly contrary to the whole 60s and onwards post-modern, "no authority resides in tradition", PC ideologies. Once revealed it loses so much of its potency, so it's kept well and truly covered. Perhaps ironically it's existence is one of the last taboos.
But many so called "conservatives" are utterly ignorant of its intentional trajectory. If you have any ideas as to how to reveal it to a wider public, do please say.

4 June 2014 20:45  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

I wonder what Jesus would say?

Given his penchant for insisting that we see all human beings as neighbours I think he might give us the parable of the good BNP skinhead, where the mainstream MP is too busy to help the black guy bleeding on the street in Brixham because he has a meeting about positive discrimination to attend, and the Bishop walks by on the other side of the street because he is hurrying to Synod to pass these anti-racist instructions, but the BNP guy stops, gives first aid, phones for an ambulance, stops by his house to tell his family, and brings him a fresh set of clothes and his mobile phone into the hospital.

I think he would want us to talk to BNP members rather than condemn them from a convenient distance, and treat them as untouchables. Some of their concerns might just be reasonable, and others might be dissolvable. And they may be potentially very kind neighbours after all. You never know!

4 June 2014 20:50  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

ukFred. Damn good show from you tonight.

Gentlemen, if any of you are in any doubt who are the foot soldiers of the Frankfurt School cause, then take a hard long look at homosexual intellectuals.

Gay marriage is here, but as our man Fred points out, it is only part of the overall new world we are unfortunately living in.

4 June 2014 21:08  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 June 2014 21:08  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

IG in O

Are the ladies also permitted a peek at the homosexual intellectuals?

If however they look like those prancing camp nazi foot-soldiers that gyrate and pirouette around Madonna (or is it the gaga one?) in one of her videos however I would prefer to give it a miss and keep my supper down!

4 June 2014 21:18  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Lucy, of course you are allowed to peak, dear thing. But only in the company of a true man. What these degenerates get up to is far too much for a gentle woman of pure spirit. (Same goes for you Mrs Proudie)

4 June 2014 21:33  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Vote Whig - you know it makes sense!

Why dear Inspector, I shall not peak - the sight of my Lord the Bishop in his jim-jams is quite sufficient.

4 June 2014 21:56  
Blogger Albert said...

Can someone please give me the provenance for the list given at 20.21?

4 June 2014 21:57  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Would an Anglican clergyman be disciplined for joining Boko Haram, or would this be seen as interfaith outreach to improve community cohesion?

4 June 2014 22:08  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Happy Jack (20:01)—By agreeing with it, I give Christians the pleasure of sneering at a racist. In these times of Christian persecution, it’s an all too rare treat for the poor dears.

4 June 2014 22:08  
Blogger bluedog said...

Father David @ 12.43, it is usually safe to work on the cockroach theory. Thus if Bishop Pete is the only republican bishop in sight there are probably another ten, or more, hiding in the woodwork of the CofE. Deathwatch beetles, all of them. Bishop Pete seems to delight in being overtly abrasive, his fellow travellers may be more silently corrosive.

4 June 2014 22:34  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Lucy Mullen @ 20:38

Judith Butler was the pioneer of gender as a construct. Do you know this glorious single-sentence example of her prose style?

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a viewof hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

Althusser, by the way, strangled his wife. If she talked or wrote like Judith Butler, he may have had a point.

4 June 2014 22:50  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Explorer, that was a naughty post.

Given bluedog's shrewd observation above, you may have stumbled up a new law - 'Explorer's Law'.

To wit:

"A lack of evidence proves the point: that which we suspect must be there or it wouldn't be hidden so well."

Just popping out now to build an underground shelter for when the aliens arrive.

4 June 2014 23:17  
Blogger Shmu'el said...

Well I'm with Mrs Proudie,

I'd have voted Whig it had been on the ballot at the Euro elections!

4 June 2014 23:29  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Explorer, Happy Jack has re-read Judith Butler's sentence. She was quite correct in pointing to the importance of the control of ideas in sustaining particular societies.

Mind you, God got there before her and was so much more succinct:

"Where there is no vision, the people perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he."

5 June 2014 01:15  
Blogger Father David said...

Bluedog, I note that your "many" has now been downgraded to a "maybe". Come on, you can do better than that - names and palace addresses please of the "probably another ten! or more" Republican CofE bishops hiding in the woodwork. Go on, be brave and make public your suspicions!
Is today the day ukip meets is Waterloo, I wonder? Mind judging by the vacuity of the Queen's speech yesterday we should really be having a General Election today not just a by election. The Coalition has got Nowt to do! " My Government will charge 5 p for a carrier bag!" No wonder that Page Boy fainted on hearing such proposed legislative tripe!

5 June 2014 05:59  
Blogger The Explorer said...

HJ @ )1:15

Butler won a 'Worst academic sentence of the year' award for that particular effort.

She was not aware she had entered the competition until informed by the judges.

5 June 2014 07:08  
Blogger The Explorer said...

HJ:

And thanks for the Explorer's Law formulation.

Along with bluedog's Law, both are needed in confronting the contemporary world.

5 June 2014 07:40  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Is Judith Butler going into competition with the Postmodernism Generator ?

5 June 2014 07:56  
Blogger The Explorer said...

seanr @ 07:56

I think Butler preceded the Generator: she was one of its sources of inspiration.

5 June 2014 08:04  
Blogger Flossie said...

Thomas Moon @20:06 - Apparently, in 2009, 300 of the 418 members of General Synod voted in favour of banning clergy from belonging to the BNP. William Fittall, secretary general of the synod, warned that there may be legal difficulties in implementing the policy. In a background paper, he said clergy could not currently be disciplined for lawful political activity, and the BNP was not a proscribed political party. He suggested the church could be vulnerable to discrimination claims. Well, quite.

5 June 2014 08:39  
Blogger Christopher Whitmey said...

Today's CoE Media Centre Daily Digest gives the line:
'Archbishop Cranmer - vicars face sack for joining UKip
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/?_sm_au_=iVV4DTp7jpD44VTP'
In this twitter-itching age would it have been prudent to put a question mark after the title?

5 June 2014 09:48  
Blogger Unknown said...

@UKFred

Quoting another BlogPost extensively to make a serious case
isn't exactly conclusive !!

5 June 2014 10:28  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

I wonder whether we perceive fahions in untouchability.

I am reminded of reading about the passing around of a quotation in an office that was highly critical of bankers paying themselves big fat bonuses. They all agreed wholeheartedly, and then the man passing it around pointed out who had written it, namely Hitler, and the room went quiet.

The point is that no one do we wholly disagree with, as you learn if you do one of those political tests, and find you have a % of agreement with even the BNP. For me it was very low indeed, not quite as low as the Liberals (!) but I am not seeking to ban those loonies either!!

So what does it mean to outlaw all support for the BNP? If s.o agree with 10% of their policies and happen to mention agreement with them on p or q can someone make trouble? If you stop off at the side of the road because someone is in trouble and it turns out to be Nick Griffin are you labelled a supporter? Does one have to treat all BNP candidates as untouchables if one is a vicar, unworthy of a church funeral for instance?

I really cannot see that this has been thought through very clearly at all. The church is supposed to recognise that we are all sinners. What does it mean if we are fine with marriage after divorce, which Jesus clearly was not, and yet any inkling of racism, even in a traumatised person is regarded as a sure route to hell?.

5 June 2014 10:28  
Blogger Thomas Moon said...

Lucy Mullen @20:50 "Some of their [BNP members] concerns might just be reasonable, and others might be dissolvable."

I assume that most BNP members are concerned that, in not much more than half a lifetime, their country has been transformed by mass immigration, with many of those who have immigrated showing little sign of wanting to conform to traditional British standards of behaviour. I assume that many of them are concerned that their children are attending schools where the majority of pupils do not speak English as a first language and where Christian pupils are a small percentage. I assume many of them are concerned that the police now seem more concerned about persecuting white people for what they've said in private conversations rather than solving real crime. I assume that they are concerned that legal safeguards and freedoms enjoyed for centuries are quickly and quietly being ditched in an effort to silence political debate in the interests of race relations. In short, I assume that many of them are concerned about being treated as second class citizens in their own country as a consequence of a multi-racial experiment that they did not want and were never asked about.

Are these reasonable concerns, or can you dissolve them?

5 June 2014 11:03  
Blogger bluedog said...

Father David @ 05.59, your powers of comprehension seem to have deserted you. 'May be' relates to a description of the nature of the many. Bishop Pete - overt, the others - covert, or silent. Does that clarify the position sufficently for you?

As to names, I have none. However, based on a sound working knowledge of the politics of groups, I'm aware that in relatively closed yet collegiate gatherings such as the House of Bishops there are always cliques and factions. If Bishop Pete were to make outspoken comment about the monarchy, expressing a Guardianista repugnance in some episcopal convocation, one could be certain that during the very next coffee-break a support group with gather round him.

Sotto voce perhaps, but there and then, an initially tentative faction would form.

It was ever thus.

5 June 2014 12:04  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Thomas

Not quite sure where your problem lies. I never supported mass immigration, nor did my parents, who spoke out on the issue, but not of course under a BNP flag. It was always clear it would cause major undesirable issues and cultural conflicts. Some people just closed their eyes and ears and made shocked sounds that have been very unelpful in the long term. Of course British society can welcome a small quantity of immigrants, and has to, but the quantity and rate of change was utterly irresponsible both to the native inhabitants, and to the immigrants.

Now that we have had lots of immigration I am nevertheless in favour of treating people decently and not treating the colour of the skin as being indicative of much other than....well, whether people are likely to suffer from skin cancer or tan easily.

I can understand why someone, had their sister been raped by an Italian say, to keep it less emotive, might think all Italians were scum, but this would be an undesirable attitude nevertheless. Unlike parts of the C of E I would want to talk to that person and help them deal with the hurt and come to a more reasonable view, not just distance myself and make disgusted speeches to show I was better.

5 June 2014 12:20  
Blogger Thomas Moon said...

Lucy Mullen @12:20 "Not quite sure where your problem lies".

I don't have a problem, I'm just pointing out that most BNP supporters are not rabid white supremacists, just ordinary, decent people who are supporting the only political party that appears to give a damn for them and their kind.

It hardly matters what the BNP's policies are, they will always be labelled racist, just as UKIP has been. Why should this meaningless label put people off supporting them? What other political choice do they have? None of the three main parties have anything but contempt for the white working class.

5 June 2014 12:44  
Blogger 5050noline said...

Ars Hendrick @ 4 June 13:58.

Indeed, our Lord had strong words for what lay within Caesar's dominion and what was within His Father's.

I note that he referred only to Caesar and did not distinguish between the 'Populares' and the 'Optimates'.

Neither should our Bishops.

5 June 2014 14:12  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Lucy Mullen (12:20)—Now that we have had lots of immigration I am nevertheless in favour of treating people decently

The suicide note of English Christianity. Treating people decently when they follow a religion that has an unimpeachable track record of persecuting Christians is a foolishness of today’s Church for which future generations will pay a terrible price. The ease with which Christians condemn their descendants to life in a Muslim Britain never ceases to amaze and disgust me. On the tombstone of English Christianity: ‘We gave up our country and our faith to Islam but no one can say we were racist.’

5 June 2014 14:31  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ johnny

That is totally inaccurate as many immigrants are CHristians. Take the large black churches like KICC for instance. They are helpful in keeping persecution of Christianity further from us than it would otherwise be, for which gratitude. They also improve the national statistics for practising Christians and are leaven in the nation.

Furthermore a lot of Muslims have converted to Christianity. Not all of them dare to "come out" and many prefer to remain covert but Jesus can work in many ways, and in countries where the gospel is prohibited from being preached he has often worked through dreams and visions. It is not the culture that makes the Christian but the Christ.

Yes some aspects of Islam are very worrying, and violent towards other beliefs, but I would be far more worried by the goings on and ritual at Bohemian Grove. I set out to try to prove that there was nothing to worry about re the Cremation of Care several years back, and after weighing all the evidence I could find came to the precise opposite conclusion. The photographs produced by the people who ran it to show that there was nothing to worry about had the opposite effect indeed. Now I know Alex Jones let it get to him and became a bit loopy afterwards, but, sadly, the evidence is awful, and it is definitely melodramatic ritual rather than drama. People who follow this garish and gruesome melodramatic ranting garbage ritual of extreme tastelessness might also quite like to set all those religious beliefs who believe in the Golden Rule against each other more than is unavoidable, and I would bear this in mind.



5 June 2014 15:19  
Blogger Father David said...

No Bluedog, I simply cannot give any credence to your argument if you refuse to provide any evidence or examples! I am sure that the entire Bench of Bishops of the Established Church are loyal Monarchists to the core with just one singular exception. Ask Mrs. Proudie to confirm this, as she has inside information. I'm sure that she will agree with Dr. Spooner when he says "Three cheers for the queer old Dean!"

5 June 2014 15:30  
Blogger The Justice of the Peace said...

This post could have been directed at the Ministry of Justice. Indeed it inspired me to post today with reference to the tolerance or otherwise of political views of magistrates.

5 June 2014 15:43  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Lucy Mullen (15:19)—These black Christians who are going to keep Muslim persecution at bay. They have no success in other parts of the world—Nigeria springs to mind—so why should they fare any better here? One other thought: shouldn’t British Christians fight their own battles? Have you no shame, roping in blacks to do the fighting for you?

5 June 2014 22:21  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Johnny

I am fighting, alongside all my brothers and sisters. But in the spiritual battle God plays some players in one part of the field and other players in other parts of the field. When parts of the PC brigade are in full swing someone from an ethnic background can sometimes play a part that would not come so effectively from me. On the other hand I may be able to do things that would be hard for them.

All Christians are a team, that is the meaning of the Body of Christ. And our main weapon is prayer and the gifts of the Holy Spirit. You judge Nigeria by the bits in the news where things go wrong. How about the bits where things go right despite the odds through the prayers of GOd's faithful people. Any chance Reuters doesn't report those, do you think? Are you aware of the ownership and moving hands behind Reuters even?

5 June 2014 22:40  
Blogger bluedog said...

Father David @ 15.30 says, 'No Bluedog, I simply cannot give any credence to your argument if you refuse to provide any evidence or examples!'

In April 2011, just before the Royal Wedding, Guardian/ICM conducted a poll on British attitudes to the monarchy using a fairly small sample of 1003 respondents. Among the findings was that 26% of those surveyed felt that the UK would be better off without the monarchy. Let us define that 26% as republicans.

The House of Bishops of the CofE numbers 53 men in total, and includes 7 suffragan bishops of whom Bishop Pete is one. If one applies the Guardian/ICM sample to the House of Bishops, 13.78 bishops have republican sympathies. If one generously assumes that the HoB is exceptional and that republicanism runs at just 50% of the Guardian/ICM sample, 7 bishops are republicans. Bishop Pete has already nailed is colours to the mast. Bearing in mind that Rowan Williams used to communicate with the CofE through the medium of the New Statesman, you should explain why you think Bishop Pete is alone and why there are not an additional six, or even thirteen, republicans in the ranks. Such an outcome would appear to be a statistical inevitability.

5 June 2014 23:44  
Blogger Father David said...

Rejoice, Rejoice, the Ukip fox has been shot and stuffed long before Mr. Pastry's fox got anywhere near the Westminster Hen House.
"Trebles all round"

6 June 2014 05:25  
Blogger bluedog said...

' the Ukip fox has been shot and stuffed'

Really? The turnout dropped from 74% of registered voters to 53%, or a decline of 28%. The Conservative majority fell from 16800 to 7000, representing a 44% decline. Ukip certainly lost but they won 25.8% of votes cast versus 6% in 2010,a 400% increase.

Labour and the Lib-Dims were also-rans by any standard.

In the next general election the Conservatives will be unable to flood a single constituency with talent, as they have just done. They will be spread thinly and more easily overwhelmed.

Cameron may reflect that he has won a battle, but that is not the same as winning the war.

6 June 2014 09:15  
Blogger Len said...

I think the only winner in the Newark election is UKIP who have now become a serious contender. UKIP is the new Lib Dem party.
The only person' stuffed' is Clegg.

6 June 2014 09:40  
Blogger Timbo said...

Bluedog 23:44 The worst support argument for a claim made I think I have ever read. CofE Bishops are not a representative sample of British society as a whole. Thankfully!

6 June 2014 10:41  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Len
If the Ukip were the Lib Dems then they would have won the by-election.They did not and they won't.The Coalition government were the winners.

6 June 2014 12:38  
Blogger Len said...

I think you lost me somewhere Manfarang?.

6 June 2014 15:29  
Blogger IanCad said...

Wonderful news for we loyal Conservatives. Change will come!

Let's see; A 44% drop in support (according to bluedog's calcs.)


There is no longer any excuse to keep Cameron.

Leadership change now!!

6 June 2014 16:40  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Len
If Ukip can't win a by-election now then they never will.

6 June 2014 16:49  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Lucy (22:40)—There’s something in Genesis 10 (and possibly 11) about God creating the nations. That’s presumably how He wishes us to live, each ethnic group to its own patch of land. Makes sense to me. I think we should try it.

I’ll pass on Reuters for now. Mention the J word and the Clampetts are biting your ankles before you know it.

6 June 2014 19:09  
Blogger Father David said...

Oh dear, Herr Farage is looking very grim and glum in the photograph in today's London Evening Standard. The Headline of the Leading Article says it all:-
"Ukip's bubble bursts"
Thank you Timbo for responding to Bluedog's ridiculous nonsensical proposal concerning alleged Republical Bishops of the Established Church.

6 June 2014 22:11  
Blogger bluedog said...

Timbo @ 10.41 says, 'CofE Bishops are not a representative sample of British society as a whole.'

Indeed, undoubtedly a well-informed opinion and possibly very true. One imagines that there are members of the House of Laity who would agree with the statement.

Father David @ 22.11 says, 'Thank you Timbo for responding to Bluedog's ridiculous nonsensical proposal concerning alleged Republical Bishops.'

Perhaps Father David should gather his thoughts and consider how a determinedly Europhile body such as the CofE House of Bishops can be anything other than republican. After all, the role of the British monarch has been diminished by the Treaty of Lisbon to an enforced subsidiarity to the President of the European Union. 'President' is generally taken to be a republican honorific.

It is not obvious to this communicant how anyone can claim to be a British monarchist while simultaneously lauding and magnifying the EU and its presiding head, President van Rompuy.

7 June 2014 08:46  
Blogger Father David said...

Perhaps Bluedog can look at some of the recent D Day Anniversary footage and thank the Lord that as a result of the E U we have enjoyed a long and lasting peace in Europe between former enemies since 1945.
Perhaps he can also see the great love and deep respect there is for Her Majesty the Queen - long may she reign. Or maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree in thinking that I can teach an old dog new tricks?

7 June 2014 11:15  
Blogger bluedog said...

Good morning, Father David. Heartening to see you touch on the prospects for peace in Europe. Clearly there is scope for different conclusions about the cause of this peace, and you dutifully promote the EU position. This communicant sees the peace as a function of the total defeat of Nazi Germany in 1945, and the subsequent military dominance of NATO in Europe. Indeed, without the protection of NATO, the EU could never have arisen.

Now we face a different set of challenges. At a both ends of the Eurasian land-mass there are powers who seek to overturn the World War 2 settlement that introduced the rule of law into the conduct of relations between states. You will note that both Russia and China have made territorial acquisitions, in the Crimea and the South China Sea respectively, that are in flagrant breach of international law. The only antidote to this lawlessness is power, which only the United States possesses in abundance, and which Obama prefers not to exercise. Remind us, Father David, how many divisions does the EU have?

This communicant is more than happy to be called a monarchist, and is a wise enough dog not to try and serve two masters. One can only pity the House of Bishops for doing so.

7 June 2014 12:53  
Blogger Father David said...

"Remind us, Father David, how many divisions does the EU have?"
Last time I looked - same number as the Pope and without any he is a great advocate for world peace, inviting the Presidents of Israel and Palestine to the Vatican in order to pray for peace in the Middle East. Similarly, his predecessor but one - Saint John Paul II was instrumental in bringing about the fall of Communism.

7 June 2014 16:21  
Blogger FrankFisher said...

Your Grace, please don't refer to UKIP as "far-right", even in jest. We're no further to the Right than the Tories were in 1979, AT MOST.

7 June 2014 18:17  
Blogger bluedog said...

'Last time I looked - same number as the Pope'. True, but the Pope is a spiritual power while the EU is a temporal power, and there's the rub. Toothless temporal powers can be safely ignored, and in the case of the EU, long may it be so.

But we have drifted well away from the original point of the thread, which may spare you from enduring embarrassment. There is only one man who can answer your question about names and numbers of republican bishops, and that is Bishop Pete. Let us take BP's silence as evidence of the validity of the Explorer's Law.

Some further observations on the House of Bishops. It's support for SSM alienated a significant number of CofE congregants. Now we have the gratuitous insult that Ukip are 'racist', when a less excitable discernment might be that Ukip are 'nationalists'. CofE congregants who voted Ukip are therefore alienated, yet again.

One is left wondering what next the post-modern random abuse generator that is today's House of Bishops has in store for the faithful. Or will the ever-dwindling numbers of the faithful soon simply turn their backs, for ever?

7 June 2014 22:40  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ bluedog

I don't think the House of Bishops did support SSM. From this diocese, let us say Barsetshire(!), they most certainly did not.

Whilst aware of one or two who would support it I had thought they were in a distinct minority (and frankly they are a naive one who don't seem to know the half of what goes on, and think that any gay couple who say, in a seemingly earnest manner that they are faithful a) are telling the complete truth b) don't do anything violent, sadistic, sadomasochistic or bloody and c) mean the same faithful monogamy to which earnest heterosexual couples aspire.) In other words they live in cloud cuckoo land, which is exhausting in terms of really bad cases it throws up, and destined to end in disaster, as per Chichester.

Of course some forces out to destroy the Church know all this perfectly well, and it is distressing for some of us to know that some of our Bishops are so unaware and so way behind the plot, but I think they are still a small minority. I hope so.



8 June 2014 01:17  
Blogger bluedog said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 June 2014 07:18  
Blogger bluedog said...

Thank you for your reply @ 01.17, Lucy Mullen.

It is encouraging to learn that there are some corners of increasingly foreign fields that are forever CofE. Sadly it will take more than your post to persuade this communicant that 'progressive' is not the new normal in the CofE Synod, specifically in the Houses of Bishops and Clergy. The House of Laity seems solidly Ukip in attitude.

The first sign of malaise was the boycott and disinvestment of the Church's Israeli investment positions on orders of Synod. Was this the rising anti-Semitism of the Left? Of course it was, but it wasn't racist, was it? Then there was the homosexual insurgency as Justin Welby grappled with SSM, with the implicit accusation that those opposing SSM were homophobes. At the same time, nothing deflects the ardent Europhilia of the CofE. Now comes the insult that Eurosceptic Ukip is racist, and Ukip repeatedly polls >25% in elections. Bad politics.

If the CofE didn't play politics where there is no need to do so, it would be less inclined to wrong foot itself and alienate its remaining congregation. On all the evidence the Houses of Bishops and Clergy are now mouthpieces for the teachings of the Frankfurt School, but not necessarily those of Jesus Christ.

Justin Welby certainly has his work cut out for him.

9 June 2014 07:38  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older