Cranmer

Sentamu pitches for Canterbury

2012-01-28T09:45:00.003Z

Secure in the knowledge that Dr Rowan Williams will be vacating the See of Canterbury at some point this year, it stands to reason that the frontrunners will be increasingly making themselves heard over the celebrity chatter and what passes for political analysis in much of the MSM. And Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, really doesn’t have to do much to attract an audience: he is one of the Church of England’s great showmen, baptising believers outside York Minister as a public witness; cutting up his dog collar in protest against Robert Mugabe; and calling for a re-discovery of English pride and cultural identity. When he speaks, he incarnates the sound-bite in ways Dr Williams has never quite grasped.

Two articles about Dr Sentamu might have been written by the same journalist, and published on the same day in the same newspaper, but a story about the CofE and homosexuality will always attract more froth and bubble than a discussion about the CofE and the middle class, despite the latter being by far the most important.

One of the Church of England’s fundamental weaknesses, in common with many churches in Europe, is its tendency to demand that people do not merely acknowledge the Lordship of Christ but also abandon their former way of life in favour of that of a peculiar middle-class sub-culture. Notwithstanding some of the excellent work going on in some of the most impoverished parishes in the country, the public perception of the Church of England remains one of middle-class privilege and an élitism which has little relevance to a modern, pluralist, multi-ethnic society. While this may be a misconception, it is undoubtedly exacerbated by the nature of establishment and the fusion of the Church with secular government.

Now to the froth and bubble...

The very moment the ‘gay marriage’ article was tweeted by (the excellent) Martin Beckford, the Twittersphere was alive with conjecture that with this proclamation Dr Sentamu had just blown his chances of succeeding Dr Rowan Williams to the See of Canterbury.

People appear to have forgotten Gordon Brown’s 2007 reforms, which is forgivable, for just about all of what Gordon Brown achieved is eminently forgettable. But the Prime Minister no longer possesses Royal Prerogative power to sift the names of prospective bishops or archbishops and submit God’s choice to the Supreme Governor. The whole process is now in the hands of the Crown Nominations Committee – a kind of 15-strong college of cardinals who meet in secret to elect a single candidate. And when the white smoke appears, the Prime Minister simply wafts it in the Queen's general direction. And the CNC might quite like a bishop who’s prepared to tell a Tory PM where he can stick his proposal for ‘gay marriage’.

The Committee will be acutely aware that it remains one of the Church’s primary functions to hold government and political parties to account and highlight the inadequacies of the political system, in order that people’s welfare may be improved. Whatever the outcome of discussions and debates, the CNC will be unanimous in their desire to see the public realm remain an arena in which the Church’s moral and ethical mission continues to be exercised. Perhaps it is only the Establishment Church that, in contemporary society, possesses the status to permit it to fight for representation of a slighted electorate in the face of an increasingly abstract political élite. And some of these forays concern themselves with issues which are of primary concern to the majority of the electorate. The Archbishop of York observed of New Labour in 2008:

“Our current Government is in danger of sacrificing Liberty in favour of an abused form of equality – not a meaningful equality that enables the excluded to be brought into society, but rather an equality based on diktat and bureaucracy, which overreaches into the realm of personal conscience.”

And here he is in 2012 voicing the same concerns about a Tory/LibDem coalition. By alluding to David Cameron the ‘dictator’, Dr Sentamu reminds us of Parliament’s omnipotence in our Erastian Settlement. Or is it its impotence in the face of the inexorable metaphysical quest to subvert the created order and eliminate sexual inequality?

Dave in Davos

2012-01-27T10:27:00.003Z

The Prime Minister’s speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos was passionate, lucid and forthright. He firmly nailed his theses to the door, and told his fellow European leaders to desist from the ‘madness’ of their incessant regulations and red tape which are stifling growth. He didn’t quite say they were all as mad as a hatter/fish/march hare/box of frogs, but he won’t have made many friends with his patronising and lecturing tone. Take this, for example:

In the name of social protection, the EU has promoted unnecessary measures that impose burdens on businesses and governments, and can destroy jobs. The Agency Workers Directive, the Pregnant Workers Directive, the Working Time Directive. The list goes on and on. And then there’s the proposal for a Financial Transactions Tax. Of course it’s right that the financial sector should pay their share. In the UK we are doing exactly that through our bank levies and stamp duty on shares... But look at the European Commission’s own original analysis. That showed a Financial Transactions Tax could reduce the GDP of the EU by 200 billion euros cost nearly 500 thousand jobs and force as much as 90 per cent of some markets away from the EU. Even to be considering this at a time when we are struggling to get our economies growing is quite simply madness.

His solution?

Look at America. Or the United Kingdom...

And there we have the Prime Minister’s incomprehension / unawareness / intolerance of the EU’s Catholic-interventionist-corporatist model versus the Anglo-Saxon-Protestant one of free markets and liberty. Perhaps PPE doesn’t cover it, but you’d think the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom would grasp that the ‘madness’ is not political, but religio-philosophical.

The EU is intrinsically structurally autocratic, cohesive, Catholic and corporatist. It is was inspired principally by two Papal Encyclicals, namely Rerum Novarum (1891) and Quadragesimo Anno (1931), and is consequently concerned with solidarity, the single market and the social chapter. It advocates close co-operation between employers and workers, with the State overseeing wages, working conditions, production, prices and exchange. By eliminating competition, the system is meant to promote social justice and order. This, to any Anglo-Saxon Conservative with a grasp of the Protestant work ethic, constitutes unnecessary regulation and red tape. It is the antithesis of free markets, liberty and a sovereign legislature.

And so, while the Prime Minister spouts on about the need for deregulation and less state interference to fuel competition and spur growth, our EU partners believe the solution lies in more regulation and more interventionism to yield a greater social justice. David Cameron urges a liberal economic model; our EU partners urge ever closer cooperation and the pooling of economic and social sovereignty.

The EU is the answer to everything: the State is the author of not only all that is good, noble, right and true, but of everything. It is the State which must fill the gap, for while the market creates the wealth, only the State can ensure social justice. The UK/US Anglo-Saxon neo-liberal model has manifestly failed, they aver: and the solution is the social doctrine of Europe's social-market economies, which need to be guided by cross-border regulation, which must be subject to the global government of the international community.

This is not ‘madness’ to our EU partners; it is logic. The Mother State is our saviour, and she yearns for her recalcitrant children to return to her breast. She must nurture and care for them, for only she knows what’s best. This is global Socialism – unadulterated, unrelenting, unaccountable and undemocratic. It is indeed ‘madness’, but not at all to those who believe the UK/US economic model is a repugnant, dog-eat-dog world of corporate selfishness with the social ethic of a Vegas casino.

As Margaret Thatcher observed, the EU is about Socialism ‘by the back Delors’. It is a tragedy that David Cameron keeps the front door and all the windows wide open to it. Therein lies the madness.

Is Rupert Matthews 'as mad as a box of snakes'?

2012-01-26T09:47:00.006Z

Setting aside for the moment that His Grace thought the madness simile was made with comparative appeals to a hatter, the march hare or a box of frogs, it would appear that Conservative Campaign Headquarters (ie Baroness Warsi) is intent on making windows into men's UFO portals.

Essentially, Roger Helmer MEP (right) wishes to retire, which would usually leave Rupert Matthews (left) to succeed him, since Mr Matthews is next on the regional list system used in elections to the European Parliament. Those elections took place in 2008, when Mr Matthews was an approved candidate of the Conservative Party. Now, however, it appears that Mr Matthews has been unapproved, despite the Party affirming him for that election, and despite Mr Matthews having garnered sufficient support from the millions who voted Conservative.

On the Daily Mail's RightMinds, Simon Richards thinks there's something of a witch-hunt going on, because Mr Matthews is 'a strong Conservative, a man of principle, and, like the overwhelming majority of Conservative Party Members and voters, a convinced Eurosceptic. He also happens - horror of horrors - to be white, middle-aged, grammar school educated and a Christian'.

According to Michael Crick, Mr Matthews has some unconventional beliefs in the paranormal (UFOs, poltergeist, etc), and his company has published material challenging political correctness (featuring gollywogs). According to one (conveniently) unidentified MP, Mr Matthews is 'as mad as a box of snakes', though THIS LIST of published books suggests they are targeted at non-specialists and are of the 'easy-to-read' genre. People who buy such books are often interested in ancient mysteries and stories of ghosts and UFOs, as well as interesting bits of history, snippets of science and accounts of natural disasters.

His Grace does not know Rupert Matthews, but he would like to point out that a publisher is not obliged to agree with either the content or design of every book which is produced and printed under one's aegis. There is nothing in this publication record which merits barring him from office. And His Grace would also like to point out that it would be a dangerous precedent to bar a man from public office because of his alleged beliefs in certain wacky paranormal activity.

After all, Baroness Warsi is reported to believe that some illiterate Arab in the 7th century had a book dictated to him by the Angel Gabriel which was God's final testament for mankind. Others believe that God became a 1st-century Jewish carpenter and rose from the dead. Still others believe they can turn wafers into his flesh and wine into his blood - quite literally - and then consume it cannibalistically. And yet others believe that the head of an elephant can fit squarely onto the shoulders of a man, and the chimera can live and breathe in contravention of all the known laws of biological science.

Perhaps Baroness Warsi might like to produce a convenient list of which privately-held beliefs are permissible and which are prohibited before one may be an approved candidate for the Conservative Party. His Grace has long suspected the existence of an unofficial Conservative Test Act.

Is Ed’s leadership doomed to fail?

2012-01-25T08:24:00.002Z

As readers and communicants will know, His Grace is a fully paid up member of (it’s free) and Hon. Chaplain to DUEMA, and so prohibited by its founding charter from doing anything which may imperil the status and standing of HM Leader of the Opposition the Rt Hon Edward Miliband MP. So here’s a guest post by Zach Johnstone:

You won’t hear too many Labour MPs saying so, but this was the week that was supposed to revive Ed Miliband’s ailing leadership fortunes. With a negative poll rating that presently sits somewhere between that of Ian Duncan Smith and Michael Howard at similar junctures in their inauspicious leaderships, the party desperately required a red letter day (in fact, a whole series of them) in order to ensure its continued relevance in the domestic political landscape, particularly with both the local and mayoral elections now just four months away.

For Ed, the backdrop to success is the ‘battle of ideas’. Without the power to effect change directly, he has spoken on numerous occasions of the need for Labour to project itself as the party pioneering solutions to the country’s ills; in other words, he wants his party to provide a credible alternative to the Coalition and to act like a government-in-waiting. His vision is a Labour Party forcing the political agenda through an awareness of the issues that really matter to voters; with this in mind, Ed embarked upon a series of public appearances in recent days in order to set out his stall and attempt to gain traction with an electorate that has, until now, shown little faith in his credentials for the highest office in the land. Having conducted several interviews with various national newspapers in order to convey his ‘human side’, all that was left was to flesh out his policy initiatives and wait for his fortunes to change.

As it transpires, it was all for nothing. Despite his considerable efforts the latest polling data from YouGov suggests that throughout the past week Labour has actually lost ground, dropping two percentage points. A series of meticulously-planned speeches and television interviews intended to propel Miliband to the fore of the news agenda managed only to reinforce the perception that the Labour leader is hopelessly vacillating. Worryingly for the stability of the party, Cameron’s accusation of “flip-flopping” at Prime Minister’s Questions was met with little more than an agitated murmur by the Labour backbenchers, perhaps redolent of a growing consensus amongst the party’s parliamentary members that Ed is not the man to lead them to electoral victory in 2015.

Frustratingly for Mr Miliband, it is difficult to see what he should be doing differently. The issues upon which he has chosen to focus – notably bank bonuses, executive pay and exorbitant energy bills – are precisely the things that many people expect their politicians to be tackling. He was not the first, as he speciously asserts, to decry crony capitalism, but he has certainly led the way in forcing the subject up the political agenda. He played his part in persuading energy companies such as EDF to cut their bills by as much as 5% this week, and he has ensured that the bonus of the Chief Executive of the publicly-owned Royal Bank of Scotland, Stephen Hester, is receiving appropriate scrutiny. In fact, by and large, Ed has been pushing the very issues that should be drawing Labour’s core voters (and swing voters, for that matter) out in their droves.

So why, if he is talking about the right things, is he failing to attract supporters?

Certainly, part of Miliband’s problem is the distinct lack of clarity on offer, especially with regard to the economy. His assertion that his party presently opposes the Coalition’s economic trajectory but that it cannot pledge to reverse cuts to public services in three-and-a-half years’ time is, given the continually changing nature of the economy, eminently rational, yet his failure to articulate this view with sufficient intelligibility has led to accusations of vagueness. His interview with Andrew Marr on Sunday was, at times, painful for this very reason, as was Harriet Harman’s similarly ungainly appearance on the Daily Politics. But vagueness is not, in itself, enough to keep a credible candidate or party down, as aptly demonstrated by Mitt Romney’s success in the Republican nominations in spite of his refusal to publish his tax returns.

Where Miliband is concerned there seems to be more at play than political strategy.

Take the differing fortunes of the two main parties when pursuing the same tactic. In the run-up to the 2010 general election David Cameron determined that in order to attract voters, the Conservative Party stood to gain more by explaining the harsh economic reality to the electorate and, paradoxically, setting out an austere vision for the next five years. Where electoral convention dictates that candidates must don rose-tinted glasses and espouse a rhetoric replete with optimism, Cameron and his colleagues readily admitted that a Conservative administration would cut public expenditure to such an extent that the United Kingdom’s entire structural deficit would be eliminated by 2015, a frankness that was rewarded (more or less) by the electorate. However as Ed Miliband sought to display similar candour this week by refusing to commit to increased public spending without knowing where the money would come from, he was met with a torrent of abuse. This was led by Unite leader Len McCluskey who, in a characteristically ignorant tirade, criticised Ed’s guarded approach (clearly the only way to placate the Labour Left is to commit to unbridled increases in public spending irrespective of the size of the national deficit). When Miliband attempted the Cameron approach, integrity and a desire to be honest counted for nothing.

So having established that the substance is more or less there, and that ambiguity isn’t terminal, we come to the crux of the matter: the harsh reality for Miliband is that this is about image.

Just as significant as saying the right things is how you look and sound when you do so. Whether it is the slightly nasal voice, his irrepressible blinking or his lack of charisma, Miliband does not look prime ministerial. It was, of course, rather uncouth of John Humphrys to ‘pose this point’ to Miliband in quite so forthright a manner as he did, but it rather reaffirms the point. Rightly or wrongly, it seems to play on people’s minds to a greater extent, even, than the carefully thought-out policy initiatives that Miliband is entreating people to support. It is a galling thought for the Labour leader, for if his problems are rooted in such unalterable factors then it is difficult to see what he can do to reverse his own – and his party’s - fortunes. The Labour Party may have to consider the prospect that with Ed at the helm, anything other than five more years in opposition seems greatly optimistic.

In a speech on responsible capitalism delivered on Thursday, Ed ‘encouraged’ prospective voters to judge the Government ‘on their deeds and not on their words’. To be judged on his words would, at this stage, represent a welcome reprieve for Mr Miliband.

We need more Tory bishops

2012-01-23T08:29:00.001Z

According to The Sunday Times (£), the bishops of the Church of England are (again) ‘at war’ with the Government (which, let us remember, is not some extreme, right-wing, arch-Thatcherite group, but a mild and moderate coalition of ‘progressive’ Tories collaborating with ultra-enlightened Liberal Democrats). This time the conflagration is apparently over government plans to cap household benefits at £500 per week (that’s £26,000 per annum). The cap will apply to the combined income from the main out-of-work benefits – Jobseeker's Allowance, Income Support, and Employment Support Allowance – and other benefits such as Housing Benefit, Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit, and Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit.

Perhaps the ‘war’ ought to come as no surprise, since the vast majority (if not all) of CofE bishops are paid up (or very sympathetic ex-) members of the Christian Socialist Movement who pore over The Guardian every morning with their mint tea and muesli and intercede fervently for the amelioration of the fortunes of Ed Miliband. “O God, let justice flow like a river,” they pray, hoping desperately for the water to turn red. On that count, they might as well pray to win the lottery: His Grace is firmly persuaded that the Lord wants Ed Miliband to become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom about as much as He wants Johann Hari to write the Third Testament.

The former Bishop of Hulme, the Rt Rev’d Stephen Lowe, is of the opinion that capping housing benefit could make children suffer. He said: "We have got some families, quite a large number of families I am sad to say, where neither parent is working. They perhaps are not particularly capable of working. They have large families... The fact that child benefit, which is meant to be attached to the number of children, is being discounted in relation to this particular £26,000 is actually going to damage those children's welfare and put potentially another 100,000 children into poverty."

The Rt Rev’d John Packer, the Bishop of Ripon and Leeds, says: “There is a very real risk that these reforms will cause suffering to the most vulnerable in society. What we’re hoping to do is to lessen that suffering for children in families where parents are unemployed.”

And this, apparently, amounts to ‘war’.

His Grace feels he’s going round in circles on this one, principally because some bishops can’t think beyond their religio-political predisposition, firmly convinced that Jesus, were he to walk our green and pleasant land, would vote Labour.

His Grace would very much like a three-bedroom pad in Kensington, preferably near Harvey Nick’s. And failing that, a nice pied-à-terre in Kensington Palace Gardens would suffice. The reality, of course, is that his abode is commensurate with and proportionate to his meagre stipend: he has no expectation that the taxpayer should subsidise his desire to dwell in a house or an in area he cannot afford.

£2000 a month represents the average weekly wage for working households. Adopting the mean income would appear to be a manifestly fair way of apportioning welfare, the bill for which presently runs at £192bn a year. But the bishops are concerned that the reforms risk pushing thousands of children into poverty and homelessness. How in the name of St Gemma could an income of £2000 a month be considered poverty? Certainly, it won't be enough to pay a rent in Kensington or any major city. So move.

When it comes to protecting the poorest and most vulnerable in society, the Government's measure of poverty is woefully inadequate, and the bishops need to reflect on the teachings of Jesus (just occasionally). His Grace has said this before, but he will say it again for the economically obtuse. If poverty continues to be defined in relative terms, then Jesus was right to insist that the poor will always be with us. For when the average household income reaches £35,000, there will still be children being brought up in households where the income is a meagre £21,000, and thereby damned to be brought up in ‘Dickensian levels of poverty’.

The proportion of UK households defined as living in poverty has been around the 20 per cent through many decades of both Conservative and Labour administrations.

If the Conservative Party were intent on eradicating child poverty, or any other kind of poverty, they would first need to confront UN/EU/UK/CofE definition of the term and reassess how it is measured, for the social(-ist) scientists have being very busy moving the goalposts.

The bishops are right to highlight that subject of poverty, for it was foundational to the ministry of Jesus: he preached more about money than he did about eternal salvation. But when examining what he said about the poor, consideration has to be given to context and audience, and the nuances of Greek vocabulary also need examining.

What does Luke mean by ‘the poor’ (6:20)? The peasants who possessed little material wealth were not called ‘poor’ (‘ptochos’) if they possessed what was sufficient (ie subsistence) - they were termed ‘penes’. Jesus was (and is) concerned with the literal, physical needs of men (ie not just the spiritual [cf Acts 10:38]). When Luke was addressing the ‘poor’, he meant those who had no money - the oppressed, miserable, dependent, humiliated - and this is translated by ‘ptochos’, indicating ‘poverty-stricken…to cower down or hide oneself for fear’ - the need to beg. The ‘penes’ has to work, but the ‘ptochos’ has to beg. Those addressed by Jesus are the destitute beggars, not ‘penes’ or the general peasant audience of few possessions.

This is an important distinction upon which the bishops might like to reflect. They might also like to reflect on the teaching of St Paul:

We were not idle when we were with you, nor did we eat anyone’s food without paying for it. On the contrary, we worked night and day, laboring and toiling so that we would not be a burden to any of you. We did this, not because we do not have the right to such help, but in order to offer ourselves as a model for you to imitate. For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: “The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.” We hear that some among you are idle and disruptive. They are not busy; they are busybodies. Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the food they eat.
(2 Thess3:8-12 NIV – so the bishops can understand it).

Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith has grasped this. But it’s a sorry state of affairs when a lay Roman Catholic has to instruct bishops of the Established Church in God’s justice: we must think of those who pay taxes while some unemployed people live in large houses at public expense. The principle ought very fairly to be that those on benefits cannot ‘earn’ more than those who work.

Mr Duncan Smith said: "The question I'd ask these bishops is, over all these years, why have they sat back and watched people being placed in houses they cannot afford? It's not a kindness. I would like to see their concerns about ordinary people, who are working hard, paying their tax and commuting long hours, who don't have as much money as they would otherwise because they're paying tax for all of this."

Quite.

His Grace is fed up of the moral hazard in this argument: children have become a vehicle for guaranteed income and a sense of entitlement. While society must always protect the vulnerable, adults must take responsibility for their choices, including the bad ones.

Perhaps, instead of obsessing about which bishops are gay, one or two might have the courage of their convictions and come out as Tory and support this manifestly sensible reform.

Abortion ads on TV – courtesy of the taxpayer

2012-01-22T11:03:00.002Z

Abortion is not illegal in the UK, and neither is smoking or prostitution. But society makes moral decisions about what it seeks to propagate and promote, ever mindful of the common good. Thankfully, we are spared TV advertisements for ‘massage services’, even post-watershed, for Parliament and the independent Advertising Standards Authority deem them inappropriate; somehow beyond the bounds of acceptability or respectability. But after years of lobbying by the likes of BPAS and Marie Stopes, we are to be subjected to TV advertisements for ‘post-conception advisory services’, which appear to have become both acceptable and respectable.

It is curious that, at a time when all advertising for cigarettes and tobacco is banned from our TV screens in order to avoid promoting and propagating the habit, we should move towards permitting advertisements for abortion. Only a decade ago, HM Government (spurred on by EU directive) outlawed tobacco advertising in order to mitigate the detrimental effects on the nation’s health. Why is lung cancer of a higher political priority than mental health? Is the life of an emphysemic pensioner worth more than the child in the womb?

Ah, yes. Of course it is.

For Parliament has decreed it so.

But if there is deemed to be statistical correlation between advertising and an increase in the uptake of smoking, how can there not be a causal link between advertising and increased numbers seeking abortion? And surely there must be, for why else would ‘charities’ like BPAS and Marie Stopes wish to spend millions on such advertising? And His Grace refers to ‘charities’ because he was under the impression that such organisations act benevolently and often voluntarily, frequently dependent on public charitable giving. BPAS and Maries Stopes obtain much of their incomes (amounting to tens of millions of pounds) from their ‘partnership’ with the NHS. The NHS is financed by government: government is financed by the taxpayer: the taxpayer is you. Ergo, you are paying for BPAS and Marie Stopes to promote their ‘post-conception advisory services’.

Their primary mission is to ‘protect’ pregnant women from pregnancy advisory services which do not provide abortion: God forbid that they might lose ‘customers’ to pro-life agencies. Yet it is ironic that one of the few human pursuits which still may not be screened on British television is the termination of a baby. If abortion may not be screened, how can BPAS and Marie Stopes possibly be truthful and transparent, as all advertisements must be in order to conform to the requirements of the ASA? Surely, if advertisers omit key facts about the baby’s development, how the procedure is carried out, and the implications for the woman’s mental health, they will fall foul of advertising standards and find themselves in breach their duty of trust.

All tobacco advertising must carry a Government Health Warning, and there is a statutory obligation upon all providers of financial services to disclose a raft of tedious details. Will advertisements for abortion be forced to carry warnings about the high risks of guilt and depression? Will they offer accompanying psychiatric services? Will they be frank and open about the serious psychological, spiritual and physical impact of abortion?

Or will they ignore them? Will they suggest that the tortuous invasive process is, in fact, quite pleasant; a little like a walk in the park? Will they make abortion sound rather attractive in order to persuade women and girls of its benefits and to promote its merits above its demerits. Why otherwise would providers spend money promoting their services if they could not somehow recoup their investment?

How abhorrent, shameful and profoundly immoral it is to shroud the horrors of abortion in lightness and joy, to sell them as we do instant coffee and crisps, and to promote the ‘post-conception advisory services’ of the likes of BPAS and Marie Stopes as though they were no different from Specsavers.

Nadine Dorries’ quest for sexual abstinence

2012-01-20T08:08:00.001Z

This is a guest post by Mr Gillan Scott of the ‘God and Politics in the UK’ blog:

Today sees the Second Reading of Nadine Dorries’ Sex Education (Required Content) Bill which, should it become law, would require schoolgirls to discuss abstinence in the classroom. The summary of the Bill taken from the UK Parliament website is as follows:

A Bill to require schools to provide certain additional sex education to girls aged between 13 and 16; to provide that such education must include information and advice on the benefits of abstinence from sexual activity; and for connected purposes.

In her blog entry following the first reading on 4th May 2011 (which passed 67-61), she explains the reasons for presenting the Bill:

“I am not seeking to diminish sex education as taught at present, but to include the empowering option that young girls can just say no. In school, children are taught to base the decision whether or not to have sex on their feelings and wishes. I don’t believe young girls under the age of 16 have consistent feelings and that they can change from day to day. My bill was about making boys wait being an empowering and cool thing for girls to do and that it should be taught as a viable, if not preferable option for girls aged 16 and under – especially as sex at that age is unlawful.”

And so Ms Dorries, whether deliberately or not, has caused another political storm. Not entirely surprisingly, the National Secular Society and British Humanist Association are opposing. In fact, they will be demonstrating outside Parliament with other aligned groups to protest against it. One of their counter arguments is that this type of education should not be solely compulsory for girls. They have is a valid point. I’m not exactly sure what Ms Dorries was thinking when she left boys out of the Bill. However, I doubt this is the main reason why the protest will be going ahead. Rather, the thrust of their animosity would appear to be the thought of any moral values being applied to sex education under law.

Irrespective of any religious beliefs someone may have about teenage sex, I find it very hard to see how anyone can argue against giving girls (or boys) the chance to consider the benefits of holding back from sexual activity at a young age. Any sexual engagement for young people obviously carries the risks of pregnancy, subsequent abortion and the contraction of sexually transmitted infections. The number of STIs reported by sexual health clinics in the UK is increasing rapidly year on year with 482,900 recorded in 2009. Two thirds of these cases were from females aged 15-24. Studies have shown that young adults are more likely to have unsafe sex and that they often lack the skills and confidence to negotiate safer methods. There have been conflicting studies about whether early sexual activity causes long term mental health issues, but surely there is less chance of this in any form if a young person is abstaining from rather than having sex. The UK has the second highest teenage pregnancy rate in the world behind the US, and the highest teenage abortion rate in Western Europe. This strongly suggests that the current sex and relationship education (SRE) in schools is not particularly effective.

Something has fundamentally shifted in our society’s moral values (and not for the better) over the last few decades. For centuries, abstinence was seen as the norm outside of marriage, but now in some circles any promotion of abstinence in any form is seen as totally outdated and something even to be fought against. When did we decide that ideology was more important than the wellbeing of our children?

Even if Nadine Dorries’ Bill is flawed, her desire to see young people receive sound advice as part of their sex education is not, and she ought to be commended for this.

Christian persecution – the top 50 countries

2012-01-19T08:18:00.002Z

Open Doors have again done the world a great service with the 2012 publication of their World Watch List. It is compiled from a qualitative questionnaire which covers various aspects of religious freedom in each country. Points are ascribed to permit a quantitative assessment of the liberty or oppression experienced by Christians.

Here are the Top 50 worst persecutors of Christians:

1. North Korea
2. Afghanistan
3. Saudi Arabia
4. Somalia
5. Iran
6. Maldives
7. Uzbekistan
8. Yemen
9. Iraq
10. Pakistan
11. Eritrea
12. Laos
13. Northern Nigeria
14. Mauritania
15. Egypt
16. Sudan
17. Bhutan
18. Turkmenistan
19. Vietnam
20. Chechnya
21. China
22. Qatar
23. Algeria
24. Comoros
25. Azerbaijan
26. Libya
27. Oman
28. Brunei
29. Morocco
30. Kuwait
31. Turkey
32. India
33. Burma (Myanmar)
34. Tajikistan
35. Tunisia
36. Syria
37. United Arab Emirates
38. Ethiopia
39. Djibouti
40. Jordan
41. Cuba
42. Belarus
43. Indonesia
44. Palestinian Territories
45. Kazakhstan
46. Bahrain
47. Colombia
48. Kyrgyzstan
49. Bangladesh
50. Malaysia

While the oppressive, atheist-communist regime of North Korea is (again) the worst persecutor of Christians in the world, it must be observed that the rest of the Top 10 are Islamic. In fact, 38 of worst 50 countries persecuting Christians are predominantly Muslim.

While His Grace doesn’t wish to cause offence, he’d very much like to know what is to be made of the appalling statistic that 76 per cent of the world’s fiercest oppressors and persecutors of Christians are culturally, politically and religiously Islamic? Have they all misunderstood the Religion of Peace? Are they torturing and murdering their cousins – the People of the Book – in error and in contravention of quranic precepts? How could so many be so wrong in their interpretation of the sharia? Or misapplication of sharias? What does Allah think of it? Would Mohammed approve of the systematic persecution, imprisonment, torture and slaughter of those who follow the prophet Isa?

And must we remain silent about this? Must we take tea with the Taliban and sell arms to the Wahhabi kingdom of Saudi Arabia out of tolerance and respect? While we happily take their oil money and permit them to build mosques and open their free schools, they murder our brothers and sisters in Christ – reserving the most appalling torture and suffering for those who have rejected Islam and accepted Jesus as their Lord and Saviour.

And so it is ironic, is it not, given this list, that the Organization of the Islamic Conference sponsored a UN resolution entitled ‘Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping, stigmatization, discrimination, incitement to violence and violence against persons, based on religion or belief’.

It beggars belief that while OIC members insist they are the epitome of tolerance and shine at the zenith of global religious liberty, the reality is that they are the most intolerant of Christians and Christianity, and the suffering and despair they inflict places them at the nadir of humanity.

Chris Bryant on the ‘silliness’ of the Roman Catholic Church

2012-01-17T07:27:00.002Z

According to Labour’s Chris Bryant, the Roman Catholic Church ‘has got its cassocks so firmly in a twist’ that it is no longer able to think or communicate rationally on the subject of homosexuality. And he surmises that this is perhaps because so many of its priests, bishops and cardinals are gay. He observes:

In the old days it was all very simple. Homosexuality was a deliberate choice, a perversion, a sin. Gay men were skipping along the rose-pink path to the everlasting bonfire and gay clergy who were caught in the act were dismissed, disgraced and defrocked.

“But nobody seriously believes that anymore,” he avers. “Most church leaders know your sexuality is not something you choose, but something you discover. So you could even argue that God has made some people gay, which is why the Roman Catholic Church no longer condemns anyone for just being gay. Indeed, it even teaches that homophobia is immoral.”

But in a classic twist of Roman logic, Mr Bryant points to the absurd hypocrisy of the Holy Mother Church, which, despite many of its priests and bishops being inclined towards homosexuality, considers it a more or less strong tendency ordered toward an intrinsic moral evil; and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.

Celibacy is the rule – for all clergy (except pre-married converting Orthodox and Anglicans) – and same-sex sex is definitely off-limits.

There are two problems with this, Mr Bryant observes: “For a start it is a great big lie. It ludicrously pretends that the Roman Catholic Church has no gay bishops.

“What is even worse,” he adds, “is that the Church's double-speak is so cruel. It condemns people to a life without the joy of sexual intimacy – and all to placate a theology that is as misplaced and out of date as Christianity's onetime advocacy of slavery.”

And he ends by asking: “Is it too much to hope that one day the Roman Catholic Church will get this silliness out of its system?”

O, hang on.

His Grace may have got this very slightly wrong. Silly him.

If Chris Bryant thinks the Church of England is being ‘silly’ over this issue, what on earth does he think about the Roman Catholic Church, which is rather more robust on the issue?

Or Islam, which he might find even more robust?

It is astonishing that an MP attacks the Established Church on this matter, not least because it is one of the few expressions of faith in this country which has bothered to commission and convene endless debates, committees and reports on the issue, tearing itself apart and driving it to schism and not-quite-schism over the last decade and more.

The Church of England has been adapting, compromising and perpetually 'modernising' along via media after via media since 1534. The genius of Anglicanism is that it seeks to reconcile opposed systems, rejecting them as exclusive systems, but showing that the principle for which each stands has its place within the total orbit of Christian truth.

The Church of England is not a political party that may be recreated in the image of man. It is no-one’s private fiefdom (though it may once have been). Her Majesty the Queen is the Supreme Governor, and Jesus Christ is the Head.

It is acutely concerned with many pressing prioritries: the persecution abroad of homosexuals; the adoption of children by suitable parents irrespective of sexuality; the provision of services for the poor and marginalised; the expression of compassion to the alienated, outcast, oppressed and persecuted, irrespective of their gender, skin colour, sexuality or religion. The doors of the Church of England are open to everyone in the land. For centuries before the Labour Party even existed, it has possessed the capacity for the via media which was never in its essence compromise or an intellectual expedient but a quality of thinking, an approach in which elements usually regarded as mutually exclusive were seen to be in fact complementary. These things were held in 'living tension', not in order to walk the tightrope of compromise, but because they were seen to be mutually illuminating and to fertilise each other.

This is the ‘living tension’ which was first advocated by Hooker (whom Mr Bryant has probably long forgotten since his Cuddesdon days). This finest of Anglicans (Hooker, that is; not Bryant) was opposed to absolutism in both church and state and an exponent of conciliar thought. This ensures that the laity, clergy and bishops all participate in guarding against autocracy in a system of checks and balances that in many ways apes the parliamentary process. If authority is dispersed, spiritual tyranny is prevented. The similarities between the synodical and parliamentary procedures are unsurprising when both expressions of representative government have a common root in mediaeval political thought.

Yet Chris Bryant appears to be intent on pursuing the Harman agenda and forging an absolutism in sexuality: dissent is ‘silliness’. The Archbishop of York once said of Labour that they were ‘in danger of sacrificing Liberty in favour of an abused form of equality – not a meaningful equality that enables the excluded to be brought into society, but rather an equality based on diktat and bureaucracy, which overreaches into the realm of personal conscience’.

While Mr Bryant’s grievance may have some vailidity, it only adds to the perception that the Church of England seeks to exclude or is out of sympathy with some distinct groups of people for whom it should have a pastoral concern. This would be less of a problem if the Church’s Supreme Governor were not also the Head of State, for by virtue of being so, she is obliged to exercise her public ‘outward government’ in a manner which accords with the private welfare of her subjects – of whatever creed, ethnicity, sexuality or political philosophy. The Royal Supremacy in regard to the Church is in its essence the right of supervision over the administration of the Church, vested in the Crown as the champion of the Church, in order that the ‘religious welfare’ of its subjects may be provided for.

While politicians may argue over the manner of this ‘religious welfare’ in a context of ‘equality’ and ‘rights’, by focusing on such issues they alienate and distance the Church from political engagement.

His Grace would very much like Chris Bryant to reflect on these matters, and to ask himself why he does not show equal contempt for the Roman Catholic Church or even greater contempt for Islam on this same issue.

Or would that run the risk of accusations of being ‘anti-Catholic’ or ‘Islamophobic’?

Ah, much easy to be anti-Anglican, isn’t it, Mr Bryant?

Alex Salmond’s Anglophobic racism

2012-01-16T07:28:00.003Z

Is there much more than a letter between the SNP and the BNP? Both are nationalist parties: both seek to enforce separatism, propagate insularity and practise protectionism, all under the guise of benign patriotism. And both are led by racists.

Let us imagine that Nick Griffin discovered that curry may first have been eaten in Britain and only later popularised by Asians. What if he then declared: “I don’t mind the Asians claiming curry as their own, as long as they leave us our country.”

Racist?

This was Alex Salmond’s precise reaction to the seismic revelation that haggis may first have been eaten in England. And he went further (as is his wont): detecting an opportunity for political hyperbole, this trivial piece of culinary history became akin to a ‘land grab’; an unwarranted political threat by ‘the English’ on ‘our country’. Go to parts of Birmingham, Leicester, Luton, Bradford or Tower Hamlets and dare to talk of ‘the Asians’ making a ‘land grab’ on ‘our country’, and you’ll soon find yourself in court.

What, then, if a colleague and senior adviser of Mr Griffin then accused those who did not agree with his nationalism of being ‘anti-British’?

Offensive?

But any Scot who does not agree with the Salmond brand of nationalism is a traitor. Indeed, all Scottish Unionists are traitors. The SNP haven’t used that word, but they might as well have done, for what else does an allegation of being anti-Scottish mean to a patriotic Scot?

It is curious that we repudiate British nationalism while tolerating Scottish nationalism. After decades of bloodshed and civil strife, Irish nationalists have been welcomed into the fold of the enlightened, and Welsh nationalism is tolerated because it’s basically as warm and fluffy as the sheep. In these constituent countries of the United Kingdom, nationalism is synonymous with patriotism. But underlying them all is a deep antipathy towards some alien other, namely the English. What exactly is the difference between Nick Griffin’s racist outbursts against Asians and Alex Salmond’s nationalistic enmity against the English? Do they do not both represent a form of bigotry?

UKIP are not infrequently derided as closet racists, petty little Englanders and xenophobes for seeking the secession of the United Kingdom from the European Union. Their backward-looking insularity is self-evident to the progressive, enlightened, globally-minded establishment. The BNP are undoubtedly racist for seeking to exclude non-white people from their ranks and for advocating the primacy of the ‘indigenous Caucasian’ (or 'ethnic groups emanating from that race’). Understandably, the non-racist, non-sectarian UKIP often get a little irate when their brand of ‘extreme Right’ is mentioned in the same breath as the BNP’s more robust brand. Peas in a pod, some say: the one leads to the other.

But why is Alex Salmond not cast by the media as a little Scotlander, a petty anti-English xenophobe or a racist? Certainly, if one were to spout the bile he does against any minority ethnic group, one might just find oneself accused of inciting racial hatred. But Anglophobia is apparently not as illegal as Islamophobia, or as abhorrent as Europhobia. Indeed, it appears to be quite a respectable and legal pursuit, even by politicians.

We all know what the media and the entire establishment make of a white politician renowned for his ‘persistent contempt for Pakistanis’. Such irrational scorn based on nothing but skin colour is rightly to be reviled. Yet Alex Salmond is noted for his ‘persistent contempt for the English’, and is simultaneously lauded as ‘the best politician in Britain’.

The eminent Scottish composer James MacMillan accuses Alex Salmond of inciting racial tensions, and the entire SNP leadership has a history of ‘anti-English bigotry’. Which is curious when you consider the lengths to which Mr Salmond is going to eradicate sectarianism in Scottish football.

Why is bigotry to be outlawed from the Ibrox Stadium or Celtic Park but tolerated, encouraged and positively embraced at Holyrood? Sectarianism is as vibrant across political movements as it is across religious denominations. It is bigotry, discrimination or hatred which arises from attaching importance to perceived differences between subdivisions within a group. Together we are a United Kingdom, with a shared history, philosophy, industry, religion and literature. Agitate and exaggerate the differences, and the rhetoric leads to enmity, hostility and disunity. The spirit that hates the Protestant or the Roman Catholic for their religion is the same as that which hates the English for their polity. Sectarianism is sectarianism; nationalism is nationalism; evil is evil.

Gingrich: “The bigotry question goes both ways"

2012-01-14T09:16:00.002Z

Newt Gingrich observes the bias in the left-liberal media which propagates a distorted view of 'bigotry'. He said:

“You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done?” Gingrich asked. “Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry?

“Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration in key delivery of services because of the bias and bigotry of the administration?” he asked, referencing the Obama administration’s unprecedented denial of a health care grant to the U.S. Bishops over their pro-life stance.

“The bigotry question goes both ways and there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side, and none of it gets covered by the media.”

Quite so. Perhaps Speaker Gingrich might consider 'Cranmer's Law', which appears to have entered the US Conservapedia.

Religious Freedom Day 2012

2012-01-13T18:11:00.003Z

His Grace has just received this communication from The White House. He is at a loss to know why President Obama keeps honouring him with such polite missives, not least because His Grace can hardly wait for President Obama to be ousted (not that he will be). It is curious that His Grace has never received anything from 10 Downing Street (or Lambeth Palace, for that matter). He would like very much to receive a proclamation from the Prime Minister concerning the UK's 'Religious Freedom Day'. He could do with a laugh.

THE WHITE HOUSE
Office of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release January 13, 2012
RELIGIOUS FREEDOM DAY, 2012

- - - - - - -

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
A PROCLAMATION

For nearly four centuries, men and women have immigrated to America's shores in pursuit of religious freedom. Hailing from diverse backgrounds and faiths, countless settlers have shared a simple aspiration -- to practice their beliefs free from prejudice and persecution. In 1786, the Virginia General Assembly took a bold step toward preserving this fundamental liberty by passing the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which brought to life the ideal of religious tolerance from the texts of the Enlightenment in the laws of state. On Religious Freedom Day, we celebrate this historic milestone, reflect upon the Statute's declaration that "Almighty God hath created the mind free," and reaffirm that the American people will remain forever unshackled in matters of faith.

Drafted by Thomas Jefferson, the Virginia Statute formed the basis for the First Amendment, which has preserved religious freedom for both believers and non-believers for over 220 years. As our Nation has grown, so too has its diversity of faiths, cultures, and traditions; today, individuals of rich and varied beliefs call America home and seek to follow their consciences in peace. Our long history of religious tolerance and pluralism has strengthened our country, helped create a vibrant civil society, and remained true to the principles enshrined in our founding documents.

Our Nation is committed to religious liberty not only for all Americans, but also for individuals around the world. Internationally, we bear witness to those who live in fear of violence and discrimination because of their beliefs. My Administration continues to stand with all who are denied the ability to choose, express, or live their faith freely, and we remain dedicated to protecting this universal human right and the vital role it plays in ensuring peace and stability for all nations.

Today, as we reflect on the many ways religious freedom enriches our country and our lives, let us lend our voice to all people striving to exercise their innate right to a free mind.

NOW, THEREFORE, I, BARACK OBAMA, President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim January 16, 2012, as Religious Freedom Day. I call on all Americans to commemorate this day with events and activities that teach us about this critical foundation of our Nation's liberty, and show us how we can protect it for future generations at home and around the world.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand this thirteenth day of January, in the year of our Lord two thousand twelve, and of the Independence of the United States of America the two hundred and thirty-sixth.

BARACK OBAMA
# # #

UCL students forcibly sensitised to sharia

2012-01-13T10:05:00.003Z

His Grace has had his differences over the years with Dr Richard Dawkins and the National Secular Society, but on this matter they are quite right. Indeed, if this sinister and illiberal agenda isn’t nipped in the bud pretty quickly, the entire population will wake up one day to find new blasphemy laws in force. And then they’ll be yearning for the long-gone days of the benign Anglican Settlement, when Rowan Atkinson was free to mock ministers of religion in raucous pulpit parody, and the spirit of Spitting Image enlightened closed minds with its biting satire.

It has taken many centuries of religio-political evolution, but liberal democracy has learned to permit expression of the God who laughs (Ps 2:4). So why are the thought police (aided and abetted by government) collaborating on the ascendancy of a god in whom there is no humour? Protests over cartoons satirising Mohammad combined with images of Muslims criticising frivolous aspects of Western culture leave the distinct impression Islam and comedy are incompatible – it is haram. The most concerning thing for Britain is that those Muslims who dare to express humour or satrise aspects of their religion are derided by those who hold to the Puritan School of Islam. Ayatollah Khomeini once said: "An Islamic regime must be serious in every field. There are no jokes in Islam. There is no humour in Islam. There is no fun in Islam."

Well, the students of UCL don’t agree. And this doubtless includes some Muslim students who have no problem at all with the above cartoon. But it appears they are censored, and being forcibly sensitised to sharia. UCL’s Atheist, Secularist and Humanist Society have every right to post the cartoon on Facebook. It is taken from from a comic book, Jesus and Mo, Volume 2: Transubstantiated, by a pseudonymous British cartoonist called Mohammed Jones (pseudonymous, presumably, out of fear for his life). It depicts Jesus and Muhammad as flatmates who share jokes together over the occasional pint. But UCL’s Student Union suggested it would be ‘prudent’ to remove it.

‘Prudent’ in the sense of averting physical harm or damage to property?

Apparently, there have been complaints (number undisclosed) from students (identities undisclosed). But instead of engaging in open discussion and debate on the limitations of freedom or the consequences of censoriousness (as one might expect in an august seat of learning), the cartoon had to be taken down.

This advice prompted an online petition to ‘Defend freedom of expression at University College London’, which has attracted the support of Richard Dawkins, who also left a comment stating: "Jesus and Mo cartoons are wonderfully funny and true. They could offend only those actively seeking to be offended – which says it all."

Quite so. It is important to take a firm stand against religious censorship. Indeed, in the context of yesterday's post on our ever-diminishing liberties, it is becoming crucial (quite literally).

We must be free to insult our neighbour

2012-01-12T09:26:00.002Z

What the hell is the point of life if you can’t get out of bed in a morning and hurl insults in the general direction of your neighbour? Yes, we know we’re supposed to love them – for so we are commanded – but loving doesn’t preclude insulting: indeed, sometimes a solid dose of the truth is entirely justified and wholly necessary.

Of course, one man’s truth is another man’s offence. But, hey, that’s life. Being able to offend is one of the foundations of liberty. Freedom of speech must be tolerated, and everyone living in the United Kingdom must accept that they may be insulted about their own beliefs, or indeed be offended, and that is something which they must simply endure, not least because some suffer fates far worse.

What’s the point of being a Member of the European Parliament if you can’t stand up and denounce the Pope as antichrist? Why would you want to open a hotel if you can’t call Mohammed a terrorist or paedophile or rail at the oppression of hijab-wearing women? Why would you want to stand in Hyde Park Corner if you can’t call Scientology a cult, or open a café if you can’t tell gays they’re going to hell for their abomination?

It may not be very Christian in the PC Christology of perpetual tolerance to say any of these things, but should it be illegal to do so? Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 outlaws ‘threatening, abusive or insulting’ words or behaviour if they are likely to cause ‘harassment, alarm or distress’. This is increasingly being used by certain people to get the police to arrest and silence Christian street preachers, prosecute hotel owners for chatting about their faith with a Muslim hotel guest (no, they didn’t use the 't' or ‘p’ words), and to prosecute a teenager for calling a religious cult, err... a cult.

This is the New Inquisition: the demand for theological orthodoxy has given way to prohibition of ‘feeling insulted’. And you might be next. Indeed, His Grace’s blog may well be closed down because someone complains to the police that religio-political polemic makes them feel uncomfortable and causes them distress; that they feel ‘insulted’. This blog is, after all, a public space and His Grace is publishing alarming material. He probably not infrequently falls foul of equality and diversity demands, or transgresses the bounds of acceptability for those of other faiths or ‘exotic’ sexual proclivities. His Grace rarely means to insult, but the intention is irrelevant: if the beholder feels offended, His Grace may be reported to the police under Section 5 of the Public Order Act, and they are obliged to investigate.

If you wish to continue to be free to insult and be insulted, please support the Christian Institute's campaign to have the word ‘insulting’ removed from this Act, as part of the forthcoming Protection of Freedoms Bill. THE CLOSING DATE IS TOMORROW (Friday 13th). The campaign has cross-party support, including Edward Leigh (Con), Tom Watson (Lab), and Alan Beith (LibDem), along with very many others. They believe that the freedom to disagree and to challenge received wisdom lies at the heart of a democracy. It is certainly intrinsic to the proclamation of the gospel.

The Government are asking for our views on Section 5 to help them decide on whether or not to introduce an amendment to the Freedom Bill. Of course, they may very well ignore us, but that shouldn’t deter a response. Please respond now, using the Christian Institute's online guide, and submit your response by Friday 13 January 2012. Please note – if you decide to complete the form, you may be put off by the unnecessary questions they ask. Please just complete questions 1-9 in part 1 (you can ignore the rest).

The link is HERE: there is a quickie version, and a longer one... While ye may...

The quest for the elusive ‘Conservative Particle’ in the Coalition Collider

2012-01-09T09:26:00.003Z

Buried deep beneath the British political fray there is an ongoing search for the elusive Thatcher boson – a composite ‘Conservative Particle’ with integer spin which can only be seen at great distance. The Coalition Collider is the most powerful political decelerator ever conceived. It is capable of perpetuating the very conditions last seen in the country a billionth of a second after the last General Election, when political potency was consumed by a vast vacuum. It permits Conservatives to study the fundamental ingredients of the matter of which their philosophical universe was formed.

The Conservative Party under David Cameron is intent on using the full force of the state to control wages (of bankers) and prices (of alcohol); they penalise enterprise with a high 50p rate of income tax; continue to volunteer the surrender of domestic policy to European Union competence; fail to defend British interests in talks over a new European Union treaty; have made it easier to concrete over swathes of the British countryside; are undermining marriage and the family; have given us a defence review which leaves us with aircraft carriers but no aircraft; are bequeathing a dog’s breakfast of constitutional reform in the House of Lords; and appear to have lost all confidence of the union of the United Kingdom.

David Cameron has done more than any Conservative leader since the nineteenth century to centralise the internal workings of his own party. Taxes are increasing; total government spending continues to rise; the national debt continues to rise; interest payments continue to rise; contributions to the European Union continue to rise; the private sector is forecast to contract while the public sector grows; mass immigration continues unchecked; illegal immigrants are no longer routinely finger-printed; billions of pounds are being committed to combat ‘man-made global warming’ adding £100s to energy bills; civil liberties are being curtailed; religious liberties are being diminished; ‘gay rights’ are being expanded; the Rt Hon Ann Widdecombe has not been elevated to the House of Lords.

Traditional Tories believe they have glimpsed the elusive ‘Conservative Particle’ in certain education and welfare reforms, but these are subject to further experimentation in the Coalition Collider. Certainly, there is to be no return to selection by academic ability, and the latest budget established that it really does still pay to be unemployed and claiming benefits, which are increasing at a higher rate than public sector salaries. Dozens of Conservative MPs are said to distrust David Cameron’s political strategy and modus operandi; indeed, he suffered last year the greatest rebellion of any prime minister in post-war history.

To try to understand what is going on beneath the froth and bubble, Conservatives have come up with a theory called the Standard Model. It explains three of the fundamental forces that interact at the political level: the philosophical force, the strong policy force and the weak policy force. The Thatcher boson is part of this Standard Model, which is why it believed to exist. Frustratingly, though, it is the only boson or particle predicted by the Standard Model that has not so far been detected. This may be because it is difficult to detect (which is undoubtedly is) or that it does not exist.

To find such particles, it is necessary to collide other particles together at high energies using the £700bn Coalition Collider, which accelerates fudged policies and decelerates Conservative ones. Sensitive MPs at the sites where the particles collide are designed to monitor the tell-tale signs of a Thatcher boson. There are about 80 such detectors searching at high energy levels. Unfortunately, there is a lot of ‘noise’ coming from other liberal particles and coalition collisions which can mask the existence of the Thatcher boson. Sophisticated statistical analysis is the only way of improving the certainty that a Thatcher boson has truly been detected. The search continues.

The Iron Lady - not a review

2012-01-08T12:14:00.002Z

His Grace dragged his ashes off to see 'The Iron Lady' last night. This is not a review: there are far more important things to do with one's time than meditate upon the trivial, transient and ephemeral. But there are few nuggets of dialogue which are well worth propagating:

"Watch your thoughts for they become words. Watch your words for they become actions. Watch your actions for they become...habits. Watch your habits, for they become your character. And watch your character, for it becomes your destiny. What we think we become."

"Politicians used to be concerned with doing something. Now they are obsessed by being someone."

(To be augmented)

DUEMA – Don’t Unseat Ed Miliband Association

2012-01-07T09:26:00.003Z

His Grace has been honoured and pleased to accept the appointment as Hon. Chaplain to this august endeavour, as determined by a Twitter Conclave consisting of Guido Fawkes, Harry Cole and Iain Martin, all of whom were eligible to vote and did so in accordance with the will of the Holy Spirit.

DUEMA is a non-partisan association of those who deeply value the enormous contribution of the Rt. Hon. Edward Miliband to British politics and his manifest abilities as HM Leader of the Opposition. He is a supreme example of political conviction, cunning strategy, decisive leadership, oratorical eloquence, and blinding charisma: Labour needs more like him.

And to those who find His Grace’s acceptance of this position to be in any sense contrary to Scripture, tradition, reason, or the XXXIX Articles, he is unapologetic. His Grace does not for one second believe that the Lord who created the universe would want Ed Miliband to become leader of any fraction of it, least of all this blessed plot, this realm, this United Kingdom. His Grace therefore graciously accepts this honour, and pledges to intercede before breakfast, before lunch, before tea and before dinner. And he’ll get up next morning to start again. He will do all he can to forge an ecumenical, multi-faith alliance to ensure that Ed Miliband remains in situ.

Accordingly, by the power and authority vested in him by Almighty God and Blogger, His Grace gives you a new commandment: ‘Love Edward Miliband as he loves himself, for in his atheism is eternal oblivion, and in his premiership would be precisely the same.’

Rick Santorum on Islam, Muslims and EUrabia

2012-01-06T08:32:00.004Z

His Grace has believed for many years that the 2012 US presidential race would be an Obama/Romney affair (see here and here). The fact that a relative nonentity called Rick Santorum came within a whisker of beating Mr Romney in the Iowa caucus is really neither here nor there: the name on the Republican 2012 ticket will surely still be Mitt Romney. But Rick Santorum merits a little scrutiny, not least because Mr Romney has yet to choose his vice-presidential running mate, and a Romney-Santorum partnership would represent a religio-political epiphany the likes of which hasn’t been seen since the Magi visited Bethlehem (which, incidentally, we commemorate today).

Rick Santorum was recently referred to by the BBC’s Mark Mardell as an ‘evangelical Christian’. This caused a bit of a stir, not least because Auntie was doubtless using the term in the derogative; not simply for convenient and lazy categorisation. In fact, Rick Santorum is a rather traditional Roman Catholic. Now, it is quite possible, theologically, to find synonymity between ‘traditional Roman Catholic’ and ‘evangelical Christian’ – ‘evangelion’ (εὐαγγέλιον) means ‘gospel’ or the ‘good news’ of the coming of the Kingdom of God. But Mark Mardell was talking, not writing, and it is impossible in speech to distinguish between ‘evangelical’ and ‘Evangelical’, between which terms there is as much religio-theological difference as there is between ‘catholic’ and ‘Catholic’. And such is the level of theological ignorance in the UK that 99 per cent of Mark Mardell’s audience will have heard ‘Evangelical’ – a Protestant movement with a doctrinal emphasis upon penal substitutionary atonement, justification by faith, the authority of Scripture, and the priesthood of all believers.

Rick Santorum would not, of course, be the first Roman Catholic to become President of the United States (not that he will): John F Kennedy broke down that barrier in 1961 by placating the Protestant church leaders with the declaration that he was ‘not the Catholic candidate for President’ but instead was ‘the Democratic Party's candidate for President, who happens also to be Catholic’. He went on to allege (as Mitt Romney is doing) that those who play the religion card have something to hide. He said:

But because I am a Catholic, and no Catholic has ever been elected President, the real issues in this campaign have been obscured - perhaps deliberately, in some quarters less responsible than this. So it is apparently necessary for me to state once again - not what kind of church I believe in, for that should be important only to me - but what kind of America I believe in.

But Rick Santorum is not a JFK kind of Roman Catholic: while Mr Santorum would feed on the orthodox feast provided by the Catholic Herald, Mr Kennedy would have delighted in the more liberal and progressive fare served up by The Tablet. In BBC terms, Rick Santorum is a ‘fundamentalist Catholic’, after the fashion of Pope Benedict XVI. Some will find the label oxymoronic, but we’re talking in the vernacular. To many, Rick Santorum is a ‘social conservative extremist’ because he favours amending the Constitution to outlaw same-sex marriage and to overturn the Supreme Court's ‘Roe v Wade’ ruling on a woman's right to choose to abort her baby. Essentially, he views the Presidency as a religio-political office – an instrument of governance instituted by God for the propagation of biblical values. Besieged by wars and rumours of war, economic meltdown and sin such as we have not seen since the days of Noah, he stands four-square in the millennialist tradition, believing Washington can usher in the Second Coming.

Mr Santorum’s policy priorities chime with the primary social concerns of American Evangelicals – poverty, abortion and homosexuality. But he will struggle for credibility in this constituency for as long as he believes that contraception should be illegal. And yet, and yet...

It is what Rick Santorum has to say about Islam, Muslims and EUrabia which merits rather more scrutiny, for it gives clues to what would be his foreign policy concerns. He is on record for a speech he made shortly after being ousted a senator in 2007, in which he talked of the need to ‘define the enemy’. It is averred that he ‘made little effort to distinguish between the general population of Muslims and violent Islamic extremists. If anything, he seemed to conflate the two’. He said:

"What must we do to win? We must educate, engage, evangelize and eradicate."

"Look at Europe. Europe is on the way to losing. The most popular male name in Belgium -- Mohammad. It’s the fifth most popular name in France among boys. They are losing because they are not having children, they have no faith, they have nothing to counteract it. They are balkanizing Islam, but that’s exactly what they want. And they’re creating an opportunity for the creation of Eurabia, or Euristan in the future...Europe will not be in this battle with us. Because there will be no Europe left to fight."

We should "talk about how Islam treats homosexuals. Talk about how they treat anybody who is found to be a homosexual, and the answer to that is, they kill them."

"...the Shia brand of Islamist extremists (is) even more dangerous than the Sunni [version]. Why? Because the ultimate goal of the Shia brand of Islamic Islam is to bring back the Mahdi. And do you know when the Mahdi returns? At the Apocalypse at the end of the world. You see, they are not interested in conquering the world; they are interested in destroying the world."

"The other thing we need to do is eradicate, and that’s the final thing. As I said, this is going to be a long war."

This is styled an ‘Islamophobic rant’, for which he is accorded the style and status of ‘bigot’. But is there anything here with which Pope Benedict XVI would find fault? Islam is a proselytising religion – it seeks converts. ‘Da’wa’ is the invitation to convert or submit to Islam, and is intrinsic to jihad. In a liberal democracy, which prizes freedom of speech and values freedom of religion, Muslims must be free to ‘call to Islam’ those whom Allah has chosen. But it is incumbent upon Christians to ‘educate, engage and evangelise’, as Rick Santorum said. And a logical corollary of fervent mission and successful evangelism would be the ‘eradication’ of Islam - by the power of the Word, not the sword.

Pope Benedict has long known this: his closest advisers have warned him of the ‘Islamisation of Europe’. A recurrent theme of Benedict’s pontificate has been the desperate need for Europe to rediscover its ‘Christian roots’ as the only bulwark against ‘attempts to Islamise the West’ – that is, the incremental establishment of EUrabia. And yes, let us ‘talk about how Islam treats homosexuals’, for surely wherever sharia law is supreme, ‘they kill them’.

And Mr Santorum informs us that ‘the Shia brand of Islamist extremists (is) even more dangerous than the Sunni (version)’, for the principal reason that ‘the ultimate goal of the Shia brand of Islamic Islam is to bring back the Mahdi’. His Grace has covered this (here and here).

This ‘Islamophobic rant’, even in its selective and fragmented form, is actually a politically reasoned and theologically reasonable assessment of the consequences of an aggressively ascendant school of Islam. We ignore it at our peril. Rick Santorum may be mocked and pilloried by the media for his ‘fundamentalist extremism’, but it is difficult to put a hair between his beliefs and those of Pope Benedict XVI on this matter, which really ought to be a priority concern of all Christians, whether evangelical, Evangelical, catholic or Catholic.

Is Ed Miliband racist?

2012-01-05T09:50:00.002Z

The above tweet comes from Shadow Minister of State Dianne Abbott. All white people, she avers, seek to divide and conquer black people. It is a flagrant and offensive generalisation: a sweeping allegation of ethical delinquency or moral deficiency based on the colour of one’s skin. In the United Kingdom, we call it racism.

The context of the comment is evident, and rather than apologise, Ms Abbott was quick to defend herself. Paul Goodman has pointed out that such a tweet from a white politician about black people would not be tolerated. Guido Fawkes thinks she is in breach of the Public Order Act 1986, which outlaws the distribution of racist material and ‘inciting inflammatory rumours about an ethnic group, for the purpose of spreading racial discontent’.

When a Conservative shadow minister accused ‘idle and useless’ ethnic minorities in the Army of using allegations of racism as a cover for their poor performance, he was forced by David Cameron to resign. Patrick Mercer, then shadow homeland security minister, claimed that being subjected to slurs like ‘black bastard’ was common, and to be expected, in the Armed Forces.

David Cameron, then Leader of the Opposition, described such comments as ‘completely unacceptable’. He was criticised by Labour’s Sadiq Khan for not responding swiftly. Mr Khan said: "Patrick Mercer's comments are deeply shocking and so is the initial response of Cameron's HQ. Rather than dismissing it as a 'personal matter' David Cameron's Tory Party should have sacked him immediately. This shows that the Conservative Party has not changed."

Following his resignation, Patrick Mercer admitted: "The offence I have obviously caused is deeply regretted... and I can only apologise if I have embarrassed in any way those fine men whom I commanded. I have no hesitation in resigning my frontbench appointment."

And only a few weeks ago, Mr Cameron (quite rightly) dismissed Aiden Burley as a PPS for hiring a Nazi uniform for a stag party at which the aims and objectives of the Third Reich were lauded and praised.

Unless Sadiq Khan is more concerned with partisan politicking than he is with the evils of racism, he should today be criticising the paralysis and inaction of Ed Miliband and the deafening silence from Labour Party HQ. Or does he think Dianne Abbott should be treated differently from Patrick Mercer?

Does Ed Miliband treat his ethnic minority ministers differently from the majority whites? Does he have lower expectations of people like Dianne Abbott?

Do we not call that racism?

What about Dignity in Living?

2012-01-04T10:07:00.009Z

It is absolutely outrageous that only the wealthy terminally ill or disabled have the option of jetting out to Dignitas in Switzerland to seek assistance in ending their lives: the poor have to stay in the UK and suffer like dogs (actually, we treat dogs better). And so Lord Falconer convened an ‘independent commission’ to consider the case for legalising ‘assisted suicide’ (not euthanasia). Dr Peter Saunders has blown the whole ‘independent’ claim out of the water. It was financed by the pro-euthanasia lobby, and composed predominantly of those whose pro-euthanasia proclivities precede their medical or ethical expertise: they are all appointees of Lord Falconer himself.

So it comes as something of a shock to learn that they have rejected Lord Falconer’s recommendations on ‘assisted dying’ and have opted to protect the elderly, sick and vulnerable.

O, sorry, got that bit wrong.

The conclusion of this ‘independent commission’ is that ‘assisted suicide’ (not euthanasia) should be legalised in this country, if only to mitigate the inconvenience of having to jet off to Dignitas, and to address the gross injustice that the poor are discriminated against.

So, you hand-pick a dozen people who think as you think on a matter, and then publish their findings as reasoned and independent intelligence. Palliative care is dismissed as ‘patchy’, and improvements in hospices would not be sufficient for everyone: there would still be some who wanted to die at the time of their choosing ‘rather than face a period of reduced function and independence in their final illness’.

Lord Falconer’s proposals (and, coincidentally, those of his independent commission) include protection for the friends and families of the ill: they should not face prosecution when they help someone to commit suicide, and neither should doctors. Disabled people will be protected from feeling pressurised into taking their lives by ensuring that they must seek the opinion of two independent doctors to certify their mental capacity.

It’s ironic – is it not – that as Parliament dispenses with the very statutory safeguard designed to limit the number of abortions, it is deemed sufficient to protect the disabled. We have seen this before: it does not work. It will always be possible to find two independent doctors to grant one’s wishes, especially if those doctors are as independent as Lord Falconer’s commission. And when, a generation from now, it is deemed to be a hurdle to compassion, it will be done away with. And where ‘assisted suicide’ is impossible for some disabled (simply because they are physically incapable of ‘pressing a button’), we will, as sure as night follows day, see the incremental introduction of state-sanctioned euthanasia, in order that a third party may legally kill the terminally ill or disabled. And from there, why not terminate those who are mentally disabled and incapable of assessing their own ‘quality of life’? Why should autonomy trump compassion?

The report – due to be published tomorrow (but ‘leaked’ by Lord Falconer to The Telegraph) – is designed to pressure Parliament into considering the case for legalising ‘assisted suicide’ (not euthanasia) in order to make people’s ‘last days on earth are bearable’. The problem is that such a Bill would implicitly determine that some lives are simply not worth living: some existences are ‘second class’.

This is not an easy subject; indeed, it is fraught with complexities. The Christian is commanded to love, show compassion, and to weep with those who weep. It is impossible not to be profoundly moved by the testimonies of people who have watched their spouses, parents or children suffer and die. When you add a few celebrities like Sir Terry Pratchett, who has early-onset dementia, and Sir Cliff Richard, whose mother died of the same disease, the campaign for reform gains momentum. And so leading think-tanks and the BBC inculcate the mantra ‘Dignity in Dying’.

When nine out of 12 members of the commission are known supporters of ‘assisted suicide’ (if not euthanasia), and those who take a contrary view are denied a hearing, it is unsurprising that many individuals and organisations (including the BMA) refused to give evidence. The outcome was predetermined, and one must hope that Parliament sees through this façade of an inquiry. The current law exists to protect the vulnerable, elderly and disabled from being or feeling pressured to end their lives because they are either a financial or care burden. It is hard to see how the requirement for two doctors to certify a person’s mental capacity will offer adequate protection against the feeling of being a burden on one’s family, especially when unscrupulous members of that family have a financial interest in the death.

Presently, only about 20-25 people jet out to Switzerland each year to end their lives. It is estimated that the legalisation of ‘assisted suicide’ and euthanasia would lead to 13000 deaths annually. The most vulnerable elderly and disabled would inevitably feel they were a burden on their families and society, and the terminally ill may view the option as preferable to months or years of treatment and palliative care. God alone knows how many teenagers might choose to end their lives over depression, family breakdown or unrequited love.

God said: “I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life...” (Deut 30:19). The only response to the 'Dignity in Dying' agenda of despair is for us to talk endlessly about Dignity in Living and the hope it engenders. Suffering is never easy, but it is inseparable from the sentient life. There is more to be gained from carrying one's cross than than avoiding it, though the desire is innate. But the passion of Christ is the fundamental paradigm for life: suffering produces perseverance; perseverance, character; and character, hope.

As we await Lord Falconer's full report, we can be sure of one thing: it will be hope-less.

A knighthood for 'services to the enlargement of the European Union'?

2012-01-02T10:09:00.006Z

While politicians, commentators and the media continue to squabble over the ex-convicts, drug dealers and Tory donors included in the 2012 New Year's Honours List, one knighthood has gone unnoticed. Slipped in under the Departmental List (Diplomatic Service and Overseas) for the Order of St Michael and St George is the name of one Dr Michael Leigh. We are told that he is 'lately Director General, Enlargement, European Commission, Brussels'. He is appointed Knight Commander 'for services to the enlargement of the European Union'.

It will, of course, come as no great surprise that an 'independent committee' of the Civil Service would scrutine the case of Dr Leigh and find him entirely meritorious. It is even less surprising that the Cabinet Office, led by the Rt Hon Francis Maude, made the recommendation, and that the FCO honours committee supported it.

But it is the Prime Minister who puts the ultimate political stamp of approval on the Honours List before it is passed to the Queen. And here we have a Conservative Prime Minister bestowing one of the nation's highest honours 'for services to the enlargement of the European Union'.

While it may be true to say that the wider the EU goes, the deeper it cannot be, it is difficult to see how rewarding those who work for enlargement of the Union with its present 'ever-closer' political objective may reflect a eurosceptic disposition. How does it accord with the stated objective of 'repatriating' powers? How is it consistent with the professed desire to reform EU structures, diminish bureacracy and cut costs?

The Order of St Michael and St George is awarded 'to men and women who render extraordinary or important non-military service in a foreign country. It can also be conferred for important or loyal service in relation to foreign and Commonwealth affairs'. Those appointed to the Order are being rewarded 'for services rendered to the Crown in relation to the foreign affairs of the Empire'.

So we may deduce that the enlargement of the EU remains an 'important' FCO objective (and so the Crown's).

The Order's motto is Auspicium melioris ævi ('Token of a better age'). Its patron saints are the Archangel St Michael and St George. One of its primary symbols is that of St Michael trampling over Satan. It would be the perfect religio-political Order to which prominent eurosceptics might be appointed. Christopher Booker KCMG?

The Prime Minister said the 2012 New Year's Honours List reflects his aims for the 'Big Society': it accords with his 'strategic agenda'. By enlisting these honours for his over-arching political programme, it would appear that the present Conservative Prime Minister is committing his 'Big Society' government to the same foreign policy as every government since 1973 - that of incrementally surrendering the sovereignty of the United Kingdom to an ever-bigger supranational Union. And those who work to that end are handsomely rewarded with knighthoods. Not so much cash for honours, as trash for treason.

Politicians and civil servants lack 'religious literacy'

2012-01-01T11:19:00.002Z

You can read the Archbishop of Canterbury's New Year message HERE. But he has been rather upstaged by that of the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ail, former Bishop of Rochester and current director of the Oxford Centre for Training, Research, Advocacy and Dialogue. Writing in The Sunday Telegraph, he talks of a tough year ahead; of challenges which are moral and social as well as economic. And then he asks one of His Grace's favoured themes: 'But to what extent is it right for politicians to bring spiritual considerations to bear?'

The Bishop's response is quoted in its entirety:

In his recent speech on the place of the Bible and Christianity in our national life, David Cameron showed how the political development of the nation is inextricably bound up with Christian ideas. He challenged the Church, and specifically the Church of England, to provide moral and spiritual leadership. Such a challenge is long overdue, but the role of the Judaeo-Christian tradition in national life is more important than the status of any particular church. Whether or not this or that church provides what the Prime Minister is asking for, this tradition must remain central to our public life.

Much of what Mr Cameron said is music to my ears. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Many obstacles will confront him if he tries to give effect in legislation to things he has said in his speech.

One issue is religious literacy in the Civil Service, Parliament and local authorities. What Mr Cameron said about Christian ideas being embedded in our constitutional arrangements is no longer understood in the corridors of power. A disconnected view of history and the fog of multiculturalism have all but erased such memory from official consciousness. A concerted programme is needed if this literacy is to be recovered. Church leaders can help with remedial action, but this has to do with the place of Christianity in schools, and the teaching of history. Michael Gove, the Education Secretary, knows that history cannot just be about dates and personalities, but must be a narrative of a nation’s emergence from the mists of time. For such a project, the place of Christianity is absolutely central. Education on citizenship cannot ignore the fact that our cherished values have biblical roots.

The proper relation of religion to science is also vital. Young people must be taught to appreciate both the experimental methods of science and the ultimate values which religion offers. Such a conversation must take place in the classroom if we are not to continue being divided by “scientistic” and religious fundamentalists.

Mr Cameron reminded us that inalienable human dignity is founded on the biblical idea that we are made in the image of God. But to whom does this extend? And are there circumstances when a person might lose such dignity?

It was for these reasons that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act recognised the special nature of the human embryo and established an authority to regulate scientific work involving embryos. I support the Coalition’s desire to trim the quangos, and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority is not perfect. But we need a body, perhaps modelled on the US President’s Council, that can consider the moral implications of developments in bioethics.

As Mr Cameron reminded us, the value of equality comes from the biblical teaching, confirmed by science, of the common origin of all humans. This has to do with the equality of persons, not necessarily the equal value of all behaviour or relationships. Equality of all before the law is a development from the Judaeo-Christian influence on the law, but so is respect for conscience. I would hope that legislation initiated by this Government will, increasingly, respect the consciences of believers. Legislation in America provides for the “reasonable accommodation” of religious belief at work. If such a doctrine had been in place in Britain, we would not have seen the absurd dismissals – and absurd judicial decisions that upheld them – of Christians and others because they could not do certain tasks on account of their faith.

The Prime Minister is aware of the vast scale of social service, prison work, relief of poverty and the like that churches and their agencies undertake. He is right to expect their help with his vision of citizens working for the common good. Churches will welcome greater participation in building up communities. But they cannot simply be surrogate service-providers. What they do springs from their beliefs; the authorities must respect these, if there is to be genuine collaboration. Let us hope and pray that the Prime Minister’s recognition of the importance of Christianity in public life provides a springboard for such co-operation in this New Year.

Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali is the greatest Archbishop of Canterbury we never had.

Happy New Year!

2011-12-31T16:49:00.002Z

His Grace is delighted to announce that he was 100 per cent accurate in all of his predictions for 2011: the coalition survived; there was a LibDem meltdown in May; there were wars and rumours of wars; Israel continued to be portrayed as a pariah state; there were terrorist atrocities; taxes increased; people died; and Jesus didn’t return.

This is one of the advantages of existing incorporeally in the ether. While His Grace does not quite know perfectly or see God face-to-face, the dim reflections in dark mirrors are certainly fewer. In celebration of his astonishing prescience, His Grace offers the following predictions for 2012:

The Coalition will survive another year.

The UK will remain a full and compliant member of the EU.

There will be wars and rumours of war (especially in the Middle East).

The eurozone will split (but the moon won’t turn red).

Meryl Streep will win her third Oscar for The Iron Lady.

She will decline any advances from Mitt Romney to be his running mate.

Barack Obama will win a second term as President of the United States.

Boris Johnson will win a second term as Mayor of London.

The Archbishop of Canterbury Dr Rowan Williams will retire.

He will be replaced by another lefty-liberal male.

Pope Benedict XVI will criticise humanistic creeds and moral relativism.

A baby will be born to the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge.

It will be male, and brought up in the Church of England.

Israel will continue to be portrayed as a pariah state.

Taxes will rise again and more people will die.

Jesus will not return.

His Grace again makes the last prediction with a high degree of certainty (though not infallibility), for there is still no sign of the Tribulation or Rapture, and it would be a little rude of the Son of God to upstage Her Majesty’s Diamond Jubilee celebrations: a God of love simply wouldn't do that. In addition, for the parousia to occur during the Olympiad would take the shine off all the gold medals, since the Lord is citius, altius and fortius than any of them. And finally, Mr Cameron isn’t quite ready to give a full account to Jesus and place the government upon His shoulders.

His Grace wishes all of his readers and communicants a happy and blessed New Year.

Thank God for Gerald Ronson CBE

2011-12-31T10:02:00.004Z

There is a bit of a fuss being made over the CBE awarded to Gerald Ronson, an ex-convict imprisoned in 1990 for his part in the Guinness share-trading scandal. He was found guilty of conspiring to create a false market, false accounting and theft. He was also fined £5million.

He is awarded the CBE for services to charity, having raised more than £100million for (and donated more than £30million to) charities such as the Community Security Trust, NSPCC, the Prince's Trust and Jewish Care.

Labour find this deplorable. The Daily Mail is apoplectic.

While it is indeed rare for a former prisoner to have such an honour bestowed, surely it is a good thing to reward those who reform themselves; to honour those who have turned away from sin, vice and crime and chosen to walk a righteous path. Are those who have erred and paid their debt to society to be denied recognition? Are they to be outcast forever?

When the wayward and prodigal return, the angels rejoice and God honours them with a banquet. The state should do no less. Bestowing a CBE upon Gerald Ronson is symbolic of healing, wholeness and forgiveness. We should be proud that we live in a society in which redemption may be found. Mr Ronson has received words of admonition and been subject to the discipline of the community. He is thereby worthy to receive words of encouragement and the forgiveness of the community. Rebuke and correction cannot mean that a person becomes a perpetual pariah, for then there is no mercy. It means, rather, that the person becomes an object of the community's missionary efforts: the shepherd leaves the 99 sheep to search for the one who goes astray. If it is not God's will that any should be lost, the ultimate goal of the community's disciplinary action must always be the restoration of the sinner to fellowship, thereby providing forgiveness and reintegration of the wrongdoer into the life of the community.

Since his fall from grace, Gerald Ronson has not only raised millions for charity, he has received many awards including 'Entrepreneur of the Year' from the Variety Club of Great Britain; 'Businessman of the Year' from Hambros; and he won the Property Industry Award for High Achievement. King Juan Carlos of Spain has also bestowed upon Mr Ronson the Encomienda de Numero of the Spanish Order of Civil Merit Decoration. He is also the Ambassador of the Druze Community on Mount Carmel, and in 2009 was awarded an Honourary Doctorate in Civil Law by Northumbria University.

There is no shame or disgrace in Gerald Ronson CBE. On the contrary, we must thank God that justice may be tempered with mercy, and that reformation can be rewarded with forgiveness.

Vatican lauds the euro as 'a stimulus for greater unity'

2011-12-30T19:45:00.008Z

His Grace is reminded that this New Year’s Eve marks the 10th anniversary of the launch of the euro coins and notes. It is easy to pour scorn over the BBC, the FT, the Guardian or poor Michael Heseltine for their europhiliac obsessions. But what may be easily (or purposely) overlooked is the boundless enthusiasm (Gr. 'inspired by God') which arose from the Throne of St Peter in Rome. ‘Euro in the Vatican gets Pope's blessing,’ bleated The Telegraph even before the coins were minted.

And a special ‘Celebrative Silver Coin’ was minted (‘Europe, a project for peace and brotherhood’). Pope John Paul II addressed the faithful pilgrims gathered in Saint Peter's Square regarding the introduction of the Euro, saying:

I extend a special greeting of peace and of prosperity to the Nations of the European Union that today, with a single new currency, have reached an historical goal. I very much hope that this will favour the full development of the citizens in the various countries. May justice and solidarity grow throughout Europe for the advantage of the entire human family!

Historic goal? The ‘full development’ of citizens?

According to a Wikileaks cable from the US Embassy in the Vatican to the State Department in Washington, the Vatican’s Finance Minister Cardinal Sergio Sebastiani said the euro can be seen as a kind of guiding light ‘so that it can overcome the barriers of past divisions and become a stimulus for greater unity among the nations’. It notes: ‘The introduction of the euro is actively supported by the Vatican for political reasons rather than economic reasons’. It adds: ‘Throughout his pontificate Pope John Paul II has consistently preached of a Christian Europe stretching from the Atlantic coast to the Ural mountains.’ And then we read: ‘He is likely to regard the introduction of euro notes and coins as another instrument towards the realization of the dream.’

That dream is of a united Roman Catholic empire stetching 'from the Atlantic to the Urals'. And it remains the religio-political objective under the pontificate of Benedict XVI (eg here and here). His Grace will say no more, lest the mere reporting of these (inconvenient) facts incite the usual suspects to the same tedious ad hominem.

Anti-Semitism at Warwick University

2011-12-30T09:34:00.002Z

Smadar Bakovic, a Jewess from Neveh Ilan near Jerusalem, has won a long campaign against Warwick University and her anti-Israel dissertation supervisor Professor Nicola Pratt. Miss Bakovic was studying for a Master’s degree in the Department of Politics and International Studies, under the academic direction of Professor Pratt. Her dissertation was concerned with the identity of Israeli Arabs after the second intifada.

It transpires that Professor Pratt is a notable activist against all things Israeli, and is a leading proponent of the campaign to boycott, divest and impose sanctions. She was a signatory to a letter in the Guardian calling for Israel to lose the battle with Hamas, stating that the ‘massacres in Gaza are the latest phase of a war Israel has waged against the people of Palestine’.

Understandably, Miss Bakovic was a little perturbed by this, and asked the university to assign her an alternative supervisor. “I am not challenging Prof. Pratt’s intellectual abilities,” she wrote politely. “I’m sure she is extremely competent... (but) I would be much happier that a person who is not involved in anti-Israel campaigns be my supervisor.”

Her request was refused.

In due course, Miss Bakovic’s dissertation was awarded a ‘pass’ (60%) by Professor Pratt. This was substantially beneath the standard of the rest of Miss Bakovic’s degree work, which was of ‘distinction’ level. One of Professor Pratt’s criticisms of the dissertation was that Miss Bakovic had a tendency to ‘adopt Israeli/Zionist narratives as thought they were uncontested facts’. As an example, Professor Pratt cited the student’s point that minorities in Arab countries did not have equal citizenship rights. Professor Pratt countered: “That is not strictly correct. Minorities in Arab countries have the same citizenship rights as the majority but there are usually restraints on the freedom of religion (except Lebanon) and also limits on minority cultural expression in Syria. More significantly, there are restraints on citizenship rights in general for the whole population.”

Right.

Professor Pratt is supposed to be an ‘expert’ in the politics of the Middle East, and apparently has no knowledge at all of Egypt’s Coptic Christians or of Gaza’s gays. If minorities in Arab countries have the same citizenship rights as the majority, why are minorities so persecuted? Is she not aware of the plight of the kuffar and infidels throughout the region? Of their systematic eradication under autocratic Arab regimes? And minorities aside (since Professor Pratt is also keen on feminist narratives), is she not aware of how women are treated in Arab countries?

It is quite incredible that the concerns of a Masters level student went unheeded by Warwick University. It is equally incredible that Miss Bakovic had to contend for seven months against the pervasive Guardianista culture of the education establishment in order to have her academic thesis assessed fairly. After further consideration, the University re-marked the dissertation, and Miss Bakovic was awarded a distinction (71%). One might expect examiners at this level of academia to differ by a few percentage points, but 11% is an unbridgeable gulf.

There is little point in trying to get Professor Pratt put through competency or disciplinary procedures, because her superiors have already shown themselves to be blind to her anti-Semitic views. Of course, had this been a Muslim student complaining against a Jewish professor, the University would have bent over backwards to address the student’s concerns (and the Jewish professor would probably have been summarily dismissed for racism). The academic world appears to be oblivious to the fact that by calling for a boycott of all things Israeli, or by singling out Israel alone as a target for sanctions, amounts to an irrational hatred for Israel and loathing of Jews.

There is prima facie evidence that Professor Pratt's personal political opinions prejudiced her academic objectivity. His Grace would advise Miss Bakovic to leave Professor Pratt to progress her career (the LSE would welcome her with open arms) and focus on suing Warwick University for breach of contract, breach of trust, and failing in their duty of care. This blog stands ready to support her every step of the way.

Alcohol price-fixing will not solve binge-drinking

2011-12-28T07:40:00.006Z

It is rumoured that David Cameron is inclining towards the imposition of a minimum price for alcohol in order to the problems of binge-drinking. The Prime Minister is understood to have instructed officials to develop detailed proposals to ban the sale of drink at below between 40p and 50p a unit.

So a professing Conservative free-marketeer in coalition with a professing Liberal proponent of equality seek to adopt a Socialist mechanism to interfere with market prices which will disproportionately hit the poorest in society. Estimates suggest that a minimum price per unit of 45p would result in the steepest price increases for cider, gin and vodka, while wine, beer and whisky would see more modest rises.

So, a bottle of Sainsbury's finest gin with around 37.5 per cent alcohol content would go up from £6.95 to £11.85. A two-litre bottle of Tesco's cider would more than triple in price from £1.20 to £3.75. The cost of a £12 bottle of whisky would rise to £12.60, while a bottle of cheap wine would go up from around £3.75 to £4.20. A four-pack of beer with more than five per cent alcohol content would cost a minimum of about £3.95.

Cold someone please tell the Prime Minister that louts and slappers intent on getting off their faces on a Friday night binge in the town centre will not be deterred by a couple of quid: those who can pay £1.20 for two litres of cider will certainly find £3.75. And what 60p on a £12 bottle of whisky will achieve is something of a mystery (other, of course, than to swell the coffers of HM Treasury). The poorest will find it hardest: low-income households who drink their stout responsibly will feel the effects far more than the middle and higher-income households who swim in lager and guzzle down the Chardonnay.

National price-fixing will not solve binge-drinking. And if it is left to local authorities to introduce bylaws to make alcohol more expensive in the town centres, this will simply introduce incoherence into the market and give retailers outside the controlled zone an unfair advantage. There is also an EU dimension here which cannot be ignored, but is tangential to the main issue, which is that it is not the supply of alcohol that needs regulating, but the demand.

People drink for a variety of reasons, and the vast majority do so responsibly. But alcohol is a drug like any other, and those who seek escape from loneliness, depression, abuse or the stresses of modern living are far more vulnerable to its effects and prone to addiction. It is tragic to hear of 25-year-old men with incurable cirrhosis of the liver. It is heart-breaking to read of young mothers who have been drinking heavily for 10 years and who bring up their children to prefer Tetley's to Ribena. And it is profoundly distressing to learn of children who cower in fear when their fathers return at 2.00am; when the doors slam and the shouting starts. Those scars can last a lifetime.

Alcoholism is a classless disease quite independent of wealth. It may be more discreet in the affluent suburbs, but only because it spreads behind closed doors. In poorer areas, it has to spill out onto the streets because there is an overwhelming need to escape from a home of tedium, depression or abuse. However fleeting, alcohol makes you feel better: it anaesthetises you to the unbearable reality.

A few quid on a bottle of vodka will not address hopelessness, despair, mental illness or family breakdown.

Christmas concerns: a pope, a queen and a couple of archbishops

2011-12-27T12:54:00.002Z

Having trawled through the Christmas messages of leading Church figures, there was only one glimmer of light; only one person used the occasion of the birth of the Son of God to communicate joy to the world. And it wasn’t a cleric in a pulpit.

After the Prime Minister had issued his challenge to the Archbishop of Canterbury that the UK is a Christian country ‘and we should not be afraid to say so’, Dr Williams duly responded, saying: “Bonds have been broken, trust abused and lost.” He urged people not to build lives based on selfishness and fear. He lamented: "Whether it is an urban rioter, mindlessly burning down a small shop that serves his community, or a speculator turning his back on the question of who bears the ultimate cost for his acquisitive adventures in the virtual reality of today's financial world, the picture is of atoms spinning apart in the dark."

Merry Christmas to you, too.

The Pope did no better, choosing to focus on the increasing commercialisation of Christmas. He opined: “Let us ask the Lord to help us see through the superficial glitter of this season, and to discover behind it the child in the stable in Bethlehem, so as to find true joy and true light."

Of course, one man’s ‘superficial glitter’ is another’s sacred tradition.

The most egregious Christmas message came from the Roman Catholic leader in England and Wales, Archbishop Vincent Nichols, who saw fit to use the occasion of the birth of the Son of God to criticise Israel for constructing a security barrier. He spoke of the shadow that falls particularly heavily on the town of Bethlehem: “At this moment,” he said, “the people of the parish of Beit Jala prepare for their legal battle to protect their land and homes from further expropriation by Israel.”

Of course, one’s man’s ‘expropriation’ is another’s historic and legal right. But note this is ‘further expropriation’, without any context of on-going terrorist atrocities or understanding of the security concerns. “We are to be freshly attentive to the needs of those who, like Jesus himself, are displaced and in discomfort,” the Archbishop said, adopting the narrative of ‘Jesus the Palestinian’. One wonders why Archbishop Vincent did not see fit to mention those Jews are slaughtered in their own homes, because Jesus was a Jew, too. And he also faced one or two bloody atrocities.

And what of the Coptic Christians, Archbishop? Or the Assyrian Christians? Or the Palestinian Christians? Perhaps the Nigerian Christians bombed to kingdom come by Islamists on Christmas Day came a little too late for his sermon, but there are many thousands of believers all over the Middle East who must wonder why such a senior bishop would chose to ignore their plight and focus instead on 50 Arab families in Beit Jala.

Love your neighbour? Perhaps so. But one’s neighbour is also the Jew who lives in Israel, who is dependent on the security wall for his life. But perhaps the Archbishop is ignorant of those who are victims of ethnic and religious cleansing by successive Palestinian authorities. And the little town of Bethlehem, which 20 years ago was 60 per cent Christian, is today less than 15. Perhaps he has forgotten the Church of the Nativity, which Palestinian gunmen stormed and defiled in 2002. How many Christian families have been ejected from their homes, Archbishop? How much land has been ‘expropriated’ by Arab Muslims?

There was only one Church leader who spoke inspirationally of courage and hope; only one who used the occasion to speak of the importance of family, friends and the indomitable human spirit. Only one who spoke of the gospel of forgiveness, the uniqueness of Jesus the Saviour, the love of God through Christ our Lord:

And there were shepherds abiding in the field

2011-12-24T08:48:00.002Z

The birth of the Son of God was heralded by the Angel of the Lord, accompanied by the Shekinah, the Glory of God, followed by a multitude of the Heavenly Host singing praises. Hallelujah!

And for whose benefit was this magnificent display?

Kings? Presidents? Politicians? Religious leaders?

No, it was all for a few lowly shepherds – humble, poor, obscure and unnamed rustics of whom nothing more is heard in Scripture thereafter. While today’s puffed-up prelates court the wealthy, famous and influential, so today’s wealthy, famous and powerful seek out the privileged counsel, private chapels and cathedral pulpits of those same prelates for their displays of religiosity.

But not these shepherds. No, the Lord deemed them worthy because they were lowly. They were not body-beautiful celebrities, gifted orators, powerful decision makers or authoritative opinion formers; they were simply ordinary men, and the Lord chose them to be among the first to know that the Christ was born; that the Messiah had entered history; that the Son of God had come to redeem mankind - Immanuel.

Hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace!
Hail the Son of Righteousness!
Light and life to all He brings
Ris'n with healing in His wings
Mild He lays His glory by
Born that man no more may die
Born to raise the sons of earth
Born to give them second birth
Hark! The herald angels sing
"Glory to the newborn King!"

The real deliverer and the real fulfilment of the needs of humanity is human, one of us, flesh of our flesh. He is born to rule, born to be a king, conceived of the house and lineage of David. His name is Wonderful – a mystery of divinity in humanity; Counsellor – the oracle of wisdom; the mighty God – the Word was not just with God, but was God; the Everlasting Father – not the same person as the Father, but of one substance with the Father; the Prince of Peace – bringing a peace that passes understanding.

His Grace wishes all of his readers and communicants a blessed, joyful and peaceful Christmas.

Behold, a virgin shall conceive

2011-12-23T18:45:00.001Z

His Festive Grace

2011-12-21T09:03:00.003Z

Readers and Communicants will have to forgive this slight interruption to His Grace's daily homilies: he is rather preoccupied with sundry festive preparations and innumerable celebratory gatherings. He has also discovered what a lush drink is port mixed with brandy. Normal service will be resumed (he promises) in good time to hail the heav'n-born Prince of Peace.

Church of England warns of ‘disastrous’ EU policy

2011-12-19T09:28:00.002Z

There is more than a little tension at the moment between Lambeth Palace and No10. So when the Church of England’s ‘Europe spokesman’ in the House of Lords is critical of the Prime Minister’s negotiating style in the European Council, it’s a fair bet that the Archbishop of Canterbury has given the nod. The Bishop of Guildford, the Rt Revd Christopher Hill, who chairs the House of Bishops’ Europe Panel, said: “In the long term, it will be disastrous if we were actually isolated from the rest of Europe, economically and in terms of international relations... We are part of Europe, culturally and historically.”

We are, to coin a phrase, associated with Europe but not absorbed. Perhaps Bishop Christopher has forgotten his history, not least because ‘in the long term’ it was very much in Britain’s interest to be isolated from ‘the rest of Europe’. Our economic might and global influence came as a direct consequence of the Reformation: it was the Protestant faith and a Reformed Church which permitted England to run her affairs, without recourse to Rome. Thomas Cromwell drafted the fairly decisive Statute of Appeals which established this: ‘An Act that the appeals in such cases as have been used to be pursued to the See of Rome shall not be from henceforth had nor used but within this realm’.

We are certainly ‘part of Europe, culturally and historically’, and yet we are apart. The Bishop’s Supreme Governor wears the Crown, and Parliament governs in her name. Of course, by virtue of her EU citizenship, she is subject to foreign courts and so no longer sovereign. But what Parliament can give away, it can reassert.

The Bishop said that the European struc¬tures had been ‘created for peace’ after the ‘major wars in the 20th century’. He acknowledged: “The structures need reform and accountability, but you don’t do that by stepping out; you do that by keeping in step with Europe.”

O dear. There is something spiritually, economically and politically naive about this ‘keeping in step with Europe’. It is as though Europe is the way, the truth and the life: all things were made by it, and without it was not anything made which was made.

Both the Church of England and the Roman Catholic Church are pathologically predisposed to bouts of Europhilia, sometimes verging on Eurotica. They’ve got Europe Panels, Europe spokesmen and Bishops’ Conferences, all ostensibly concerned with the ‘Soul of Europe’ to ‘encourage the religious communities to present projects meetings, seminars social activities...; to contribute to the recognition and understanding of the ethical and spiritual dimension of European unification and Politics’.

Daniel Hannan MEP observed a few years ago:

As regular readers of this blog will know, one of my own recurrent themes is that the EU always pits the top brass against the Poor Bloody Infantry. This is true of the CBI, the TUC, the NFU, most political parties and, for that matter, most churches. I'll never forget walking past my local parish church in 1992 and seeing, among the prayers being posted, one for "the Maastricht Treaty and peace in Europe".

It is time for lay members of both churches to object to this obsessive europhiliac nonsense. Britain is not ‘isolated’: it would not be ‘disastrous’ if we were to leave the EU altogether. It is not for the Shepherds of the Church to instil fear into their flocks. And neither is it their task to help re-create the Empire of Charlemagne.

Vaclav Havel is dead

2011-12-18T11:32:00.003Z

It is reported that the first post-Communist president of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Havel, has died at the age of 75. He and his colleagues in ‘Charter 77’ pointed the way to freedom and brought Czechoslovakia to its rightful place as one of the free and democratic nations of Europe. With Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, he helped to usher in a new era of human rights and freedom in Eastern Europe and throughout the Soviet Union. It was, as the Great Lady said, a campaign conducted against tremendous, sometimes overwhelming odds; it demanded courage and conviction of the highest order.

His Grace was fortunate enough to meet this great man in 1990. We talked of much, but the enduring impression has been of the man’s faith and his politico-philosophical conviction. There was an excellent article a year ago in The Catholic Herald on Mr Havel’s address to a conference in Prague entitled ‘The world we want to live in’. It dealt with ‘different spheres from politics, economics, sociology and political philosophy to aesthetics and religion’.

At the opening of the conference Mr Havel, an acclaimed playwright and essayist, gave a speech in which he deplored the global society, describing it as the 'first atheistic civilisation'. This society, he said, preferred short term profit over long term profit, but its most dangerous aspect was its pride.

He described the pride as: 'The pride of someone who is driven by the very logic of his wealth to stop respecting the contribution of nature and our forebears, to stop respecting it on principle and respect it only as a further potential source of profit.' Mr Havel continued:

I sense behind all of this not only a globally spreading short-sightedness, but also the swollen self-consciousness of this civilisation, whose basic attributes include the supercilious idea that we know everything and what we don’t yet know we’ll soon find out, because we know how to go about it. We are convinced that this supposed omniscience of ours which proclaims the staggering progress of science and technology and rational knowledge in general, permits us to serve anything that is demonstrably useful, or that is simply a source of measurable profit, anything that induces growth and more growth and still more growth, including the growth of agglomerations.

But with the cult of measurable profit, proven progress and visible usefulness there disappears respect for mystery and along with it humble reverence for everything we shall never measure and know, not to mention the vexed question of the infinite and eternal, which were until recently the most important horizons of our actions.

We have totally forgotten what all previous civilisations knew: that nothing is self-evident.

The former president described the current financial and economic crisis as a very edifying sign to the contemporary world and a call to humilty:

Most economists relied directly or indirectly on the idea that the world, including human conduct, is more or less understandable, scientifically describable and hence predictable. Market economics and its entire legal framework counted on our knowing who man is and what aims he pursues, what was the logic behind the actions of banks or firms, what the shareholding public does and what one may expect from some particular individual or community.

And all of a sudden none of that applied. Irrationality leered at us from all the stock-exchange screens. And even the most fundamentalist economists, who – having intimate access to the truth – were convinced with unshakeable assurance that the invisible hand of the market knew what it was doing, had suddenly to admit that they had been taken by surprise.

I hope and trust that the elites of today’s world will realise what this signal is telling us.

In fact it is nothing extraordinary, nothing that a perceptive person did not know long ago. It is a warning against the disproportionate self-assurance and pride of modern civilisation. Human behaviour is not totally explicable as many inventors of economic theories and concepts believe; and the behaviour of firms or institutions or entire communities is even less so.

This call to humility, he said, was: 'A small and inconspicuous challenge for us not to take everything automatically for granted. Strange things are happening and will happen. Not to bring oneself to admit it is the path to hell. Strangeness, unnaturalness, mystery, inconceivability have been shifted out the world of serious thought into the dubious closets of suspicious people. Until they are released and allowed to return to our minds things will not go well.' He continued:

Wonder at the non-self-evidence of everything that creates our world is, after all, the first impulse to the question: what purpose does it all have? Why does it all exist? Why does anything exist at all? We don’t know and we will never find it out. It is quite possible that everything is here in order for us to have something to wonder at. And that we are here simply so that there is someone to wonder. But what is the point of having someone wonder at something? And what alternative is there to being? After all if there were nothing, there would also be no one to observe it. And if there were no one to observe it, then the big question is whether non-being would be at all possible.

Perhaps someone, just a few hundred light years away from our planet, is looking at us through a perfect telescope. What do they see? They see the Thirty Years War. For that reason alone it holds true that everything is here all the time, that nothing that has happened can unhappen, and that with our every word or movement we are making the cosmos different – forever – from what it was before.

In all events, I am certain that our civilisation is heading for catastrophe unless present-day humankind comes to its senses. And it can only come to its senses if it grapples with its short-sightedness, its stupid conviction of its omniscience and its swollen pride, which have been so deeply anchored in its thinking and actions.

Amen and amen.

There have been throughout millennia numerous religious movements which prophesy the imminent destruction of the present order and the establishment of a new one, usually reversing the relative status of the oppressed and the oppressor. Vaclav Havel lived through such an oppression: he saw in a revolution and arose to lead his people to a promised land. He was a political visionary, a symbol of all that is finest in the human spirit, and we mourn his passing. God rest his soul.

Eric Pickles keeps Christ in Christmas

2011-12-18T10:50:00.007Z

Here is the utterly godless and manifestly egocentric Christmas card of Speaker Bercow, which appears to suggest that, far from being embarrassed by or ashamed of his wife's appearance on 'Big Brother', he saw it rather as an opportunity to augment his personal profile (and so diminish his status):

Here is the rather strange Christmas card of the Prime Minister. Patriotic? Certainly. But who are these random children? What relationship are they to Mr and Mrs Cameron? Are they props, simply to avoid the exploitation of their own children? What has any of this to do with the birth of the Son of God?

Here we have the Christmas card of the Home Secretary. It is as inane, bland and PC as Theresa May herself. It appears to feature a spinning tree. Perhaps someone should tell her that Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus are not offended by Christmas: the Home office may freely celebrate the nation's indigenous culture and festivals:

And finally, we come to the Christmas card of Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government. He has ridden to the defence of Christmas numerous times over past years. His card even features a church with a cross upon it. What a relief that there is someone in government who is not ashamed to keep the Christ in Christmas:

David Cameron on the King James Bible

2011-12-16T16:48:00.003Z

Today, at Christ Church Cathedral, Oxford, the Prime Minister did God. He delivered this sermon on the importance of Christianity and of the King James Bible in particular (His Grace will forgive the lower case 'p' in 'Protestants'):

It's great to be here and to have this opportunity to come together today to mark the end of this very special 400th anniversary year for the King James Bible.

I know there are some who will question why I am giving this speech.

And if they happen to know that I'm setting out my views today in a former home of the current Archbishop of Canterbury...

...and in front of many great theologians and church leaders...

...they really will think I have entered the lions' den.

But I am proud to stand here and celebrate the achievements of the King James Bible.

Not as some great Christian on a mission to convert the world.

But because, as Prime Minister, it is right to recognise the impact of a translation that is, I believe, one of this country's greatest achievements.

The Bible is a book that has not just shaped our country, but shaped the world.

And with 3 Bibles sold or given away every second...

...a book that is not just important in understanding our past, but which will continue to have a profound impact in shaping our collective future.

In making this speech I claim no religious authority whatsoever.

I am a committed - but I have to say vaguely practising - Church of England Christian, who will stand up for the values and principles of my faith...

...but who is full of doubts and, like many, constantly grappling with the difficult questions when it comes to some of the big theological issues.

But what I do believe is this.

The King James Bible is as relevant today as at any point in its 400 year history.

And none of us should be frightened of recognising this.

Why?

Put simply, three reasons.

First, the King James Bible has bequeathed a body of language that permeates every aspect of our culture and heritage...

....from everyday phrases to our greatest works of literature, music and art.

We live and breathe the language of the King James Bible, sometimes without even realising it.

And it is right that we should acknowledge this - particularly in this anniversary year.

Second, just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics.

From human rights and equality to our constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democracy...

...from the role of the church in the first forms of welfare provision, to the many modern day faith-led social action projects...

...the Bible has been a spur to action for people of faith throughout history, and it remains so today.

Third, we are a Christian country.

And we should not be afraid to say so.

Let me be clear: I am not in any way saying that to have another faith - or no faith - is somehow wrong.

I know and fully respect that many people in this country do not have a religion.

And I am also incredibly proud that Britain is home to many different faith communities, who do so much to make our country stronger.

But what I am saying is that the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today.

Values and morals we should actively stand up and defend.

The alternative of moral neutrality should not be an option.

You can't fight something with nothing.

Because if we don't stand for something, we can't stand against anything.

Let me take each of these points in turn.

First, language and culture.

Powerful language is incredibly evocative.

It crystallises profound, sometimes complex, thoughts and suggests a depth of meaning far beyond the words on the page...

...giving us something to share, to cherish, to celebrate.

Part of the glue that can help to bind us together.

Along with Shakespeare, the King James Bible is a high point of the English language...

...creating arresting phrases that move, challenge and inspire.

One of my favourites is the line "For now we see through a glass, darkly."

It is a brilliant summation of the profound sense that there is more to life, that we are imperfect, that we get things wrong, that we should strive to see beyond our own perspective.

The key word is darkly - profoundly loaded, with many shades of meaning.

I feel the power is lost in some more literal translations.

The New International Version says: "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror"

The Good News Bible: "What we see now is like a dim image in a mirror"

They feel not just a bit less special but dry and cold, and don't quite have the same magic and meaning.

Like Shakespeare, the King James translation dates from a period when the written word was intended to be read aloud.

And this helps to give it a poetic power and sheer resonance that in my view is not matched by any subsequent translation.

It has also contributed immensely to the spread of spoken English around the world.

Indeed, the language of the King James Bible is very much alive today.

I've already mentioned the lions' den.

Just think about some of the other things we all say.

Phrases like strength to strength...

...how the mighty are fallen...

...the skin of my teeth...

...the salt of the earth.

... nothing new under the sun.

According to one recent study there are 257 of these phrases and idioms that come from the Bible.

These phrases are all around us...

...from court cases to TV sitcoms...

...and from recipe books to pop music lyrics.

Of course, there is a healthy debate about the extent to which it was the King James version that originated the many phrases in our language today.

And it's right to recognise the impact of earlier versions like Tyndale, Wycliffe, Douai-Rheims, the Bishops and Geneva Bibles too.

The King James Bible does exactly that...

...setting out with the stated aim of making a good translation better, or out of many good ones, to make "one principall good one"

But what is clear is that the King James version gave the Bible's many expressions a much more widespread public presence.

Much of that dissemination has come through our literature, through the great speeches we remember and the art and music we still enjoy today.

From Milton to Morrison...

...and Coleridge to Cormac McCarthy...

...the Bible supports the plot, context, language and sometimes even the characters in some of our greatest literature.

Tennyson makes over 400 Biblical references in his poems.

...and makes allusions to 42 different books of the Bible.

The Bible has infused some of the greatest speeches...

...from Martin Luther King's dream that Isaiah's prophecy would be fulfilled and that one day "every valley shall be exalted...

...to Abraham Lincoln's Gettysburg address which employed not just Biblical words but cadence and rhythms borrowed from the King James Bible as well.

When Lincoln said that his forefathers "brought forth" a new nation, he was imitating the way in which the Bible announced the birth of Jesus.

The Bible also runs through our art.

From Giotto to El Greco...

...and Michelangelo to Stanley Spencer.

The paintings in Sandham Memorial Chapel in Berkshire are some of my favourite works of art.

Those who died in Salonika rising to heaven is religious art in the modern age and, in my view, as powerful as some of what has come before.

And the Bible runs through our music too.

From the great oratorios like J S Bach's Matthew and John Passions and Handel's Messiah...

...to the wealth of music written across the ages for mass and evensong in great cathedrals like this one.

The Biblical settings of composers from Tallis to Taverner are regularly celebrated here in this great cathedral...

...and will sustain our great British tradition of choral music for generations to come.

It's impossible to do justice in a short speech to the full scale of the cultural impact of the King James Bible.

But what is clear is that four hundred years on, this book is still absolutely pivotal to our language and culture.

And that's one very good reason for us all to recognise it today.

A second reason is this.

Just as our language and culture is steeped in the Bible, so too is our politics.

The Bible runs through our political history in a way that is often not properly recognised.

The history and existence of a constitutional monarchy owes much to a Bible in which Kings were anointed and sanctified with the authority of God...

....and in which there was a clear emphasis on the respect for Royal Power and the need to maintain political order.

Jesus said: "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's."

And yet at the same time, the Judeo-Christian roots of the Bible also provide the foundations for protest and for the evolution of our freedom and democracy.

The Torah placed the first limits on Royal Power.

And the knowledge that God created man in his own image was, if you like, a game changer for the cause of human dignity and equality.

In the ancient world this equity was inconceivable.

In Athens for example, full and equal rights were the preserve of adult, free born men.

But when each and every individual is related to a power above all of us...

...and when every human being is of equal and infinite importance, created in the very image of God...

...we get the irrepressible foundation for equality and human rights...

...a foundation that has seen the Bible at the forefront of the emergence of democracy, the abolition of slavery...

...and the emancipation of women - even if not every church has always got the point!

Crucially the translation of the Bible into English made all this accessible to many who had previously been unable to comprehend the Latin versions.

And this created an unrelenting desire for change.

The Putney debates in the Church of St Mary the Virgin in 1647 saw the first call for One Man, One vote...

...and the demand that authority be invested in the House of Commons rather than the King.

Reading the Bible in English gave people equality with each other through God.

And this led them to seek equality with each other through government.

In a similar way, the Bible provides a defining influence on the formation of the first welfare state.

In Matthew's Gospel, Jesus says that whatever people have done "unto one of the least of these my brethren"...

... they have done unto him.

Just as in the past it was the influence of the church that enabled hospitals to be built, charities created, the hungry fed, the sick nursed and the poor given shelter...

...so today faith based groups are at the heart of modern social action.

Organisations like the Church Urban Fund which has supported over 5,000 faith based projects in England's poorest communities...

...including the Near Neighbours Programme which Eric Pickles helped to launch last month.

And St Ethelburga's Centre for Reconciliation and Peace in London's Bishopsgate...

...a building once destroyed by an IRA bomb...

...but now a centre where people divided by conflict, culture or religion can meet and listen to each other's perspective.

In total, there are almost 30 thousand faith based charities in this country...

...not to mention the thousands of people who step forward as individuals, as families, as communities, as organisations and yes, as churches....

...and do extraordinary things to help build a bigger, richer, stronger, more prosperous and more generous society.

And when it comes to the great humanitarian crises - like the famine in Horn of Africa - again you can count on faith-based organisations...

...like Christian Aid, Tearfund, CAFOD, Jewish Care, Islamic Relief, and Muslim Aid...

...to be at the forefront of the action to save lives.

So it's right to recognise the huge contribution our faith communities make to our politics.

...and to recognise the role of the Bible in inspiring many of their works.

People often say that politicians shouldn't "do God."

If by that they mean we shouldn't try to claim a direct line to God for one particular political party...

...they could not be more right.

But we shouldn't let our caution about that stand in the way of recognising both what our faith communities bring to our country...

...and also just how incredibly important faith is to so many people in Britain.

The Economist may have published the obituary of God in their Millennium issue.

But in the past century, the proportion of people in the world who adhere to the four biggest religions has actually increased from around two-thirds to nearly three quarters...

...and is forecast to continue rising.

For example, it is now thought there are at least 65 million protestants in China and 12 million Catholics - more Christians than there are members of the communist party.

Official numbers indicate China has about 20 million Muslims - almost as many as in Saudi Arabia - and nearly twice as many as in the whole of the EU.

And by 2050, some people think China could well be both the world's biggest Christian nation and its biggest Muslim one too.

Here in Britain we only have to look at the reaction to the Pope's visit last year...

...this year's Royal Wedding...

...or of course the festival of Christmas next week, to see that Christianity is alive and well in our country.

The key point is this.

Societies do not necessarily become more secular with modernity but rather more plural, with a wider range of beliefs and commitments.

And that brings me to my third point.

The Bible has helped to shape the values which define our country.

Indeed, as Margaret Thatcher once said, "we are a nation whose ideals are founded on the Bible."

Responsibility, hard work, charity, compassion, humility, self-sacrifice, love...

...pride in working for the common good and honouring the social obligations we have to one another, to our families and our communities...

...these are the values we treasure.

Yes, they are Christian values.

And we should not be afraid to acknowledge that.

But they are also values that speak to us all - to people of every faith and none.

And I believe we should all stand up and defend them.

Those who oppose this usually make the case for secular neutrality.

They argue that by saying we are a Christian country and standing up for Christian values we are somehow doing down other faiths.

And that the only way not to offend people is not to pass judgement on their behaviour.

I think these arguments are profoundly wrong.

And being clear on this is absolutely fundamental to who we are as a people...

...what we stand for...

...and the kind of society we want to build.

First, those who say being a Christian country is doing down other faiths...

...simply don't understand that it is easier for people to believe and practise other faiths when Britain has confidence in its Christian identity.

Many people tell me it is much easier to be Jewish or Muslim here in Britain than it is in a secular country like France.

Why?

Because the tolerance that Christianity demands of our society provides greater space for other religious faiths too.

And because many of the values of a Christian country are shared by people of all faiths and indeed by people of no faith at all.

Second, those who advocate secular neutrality in order to avoid passing judgement on the behaviour of others...

...fail to grasp the consequences of that neutrality...

...or the role that faith can play in helping people to have a moral code.

Let's be clear.

Faith is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition for morality.

There are Christians who don't live by a moral code.

And there are atheists and agnostics who do.

But for people who do have a faith, their faith can be a helpful prod in the right direction.

And whether inspired by faith or not - that direction, that moral code, matters.

Whether you look at the riots last summer...

...the financial crash and the expenses scandal...

...or the on-going terrorist threat from Islamist extremists around the world...

...one thing is clear: moral neutrality or passive tolerance just isn't going to cut it anymore.

Shying away from speaking the truth about behaviour, about morality...

...has actually helped to cause some of the social problems that lie at the heart of the lawlessness we saw with the riots.

The absence of any real accountability, or moral code...

...allowed some bankers and politicians to behave with scant regard for the rest of society.

And when it comes to fighting violent extremism, the almost fearful passive tolerance of religious extremism that has allowed segregated communities to behave in ways that run completely counter to our values...

... has not contained that extremism but allowed it to grow and prosper...

...in the process blackening the good name of the great religions that these extremists abuse for their own purposes.

Put simply, for too long we have been unwilling to distinguish right from wrong.

"Live and let live" has too often become "do what you please".

Bad choices have too often been defended as just different lifestyles.

To be confident in saying something is wrong...

...is not a sign of weakness, it's a strength.

But we can't fight something with nothing.

As I've said if we don't stand for something, we can't stand against anything.

One of the biggest lessons of the riots last Summer is that we've got stand up for our values if we are to confront the slow-motion moral collapse that has taken place in parts of our country these past few generations.

The same is true of religious extremism.

As President Obama wrote in the Audacity of Hope:

"...in reaction to religious overreach we equate tolerance with secularism, and forfeit the moral language that would help infuse our politics with larger meaning."

Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and a much more active, muscular liberalism.

A passively tolerant society says to its citizens, as long as you obey the law we will just leave you alone.

It stands neutral between different values.

But I believe a genuinely liberal country does much more; it believes in certain values and actively promotes them.

We need to stand up for these values.

To have the confidence to say to people - this is what defines us as a society...

...and that to belong here is to believe in these things.

I believe the church - and indeed all our religious leaders and their communities in Britain - have a vital role to play in helping to achieve this.

I have never really understood the argument some people make about the church not getting involved in politics.

To me, Christianity, faith, religion, the Church and the Bible are all inherently involved in politics because so many political questions are moral questions.

So I don't think we should be shy or frightened of this.

I certainly don't object to the Archbishop of Canterbury expressing his views on politics.

Religion has a moral basis and if he doesn't agree with something he's right to say so.

But just as it is legitimate for religious leaders to make political comments, he shouldn't be surprised when I respond.

Also it's legitimate for political leaders to say something about religious institutions as they see them affecting our society, not least in the vital areas of equality and tolerance.

I believe the Church of England has a unique opportunity to help shape the future of our communities.

But to do so it must keep on the agenda that speaks to the whole country.

The future of our country is at a pivotal moment.

The values we draw from the Bible go to the heart of what it means to belong in this country...

...and you, as the Church of England, can help ensure that it stays that way.

Royal Holloway College holds Islamic Christmas Carol Service

2011-12-15T08:27:00.005Z

One grim finding for Anglicans in the new British Social Attitudes survey is how few find religion after not being born into it. So says the ‘concerned’ Nick Spencer in The Guardian.

But even grimmer for Anglicans are ‘inclusive’ Christmas carols services – you know, the sort that bend over backwards to be all things to all people in order that by any means possible none may be offended. In fact, it is these sort of gospel-lite and theology-free services which are largely responsible for people not finding Christ – even at Christmas.

Royal Holloway College, in the University of London, held its Christmas carol service in its own College Chapel, presided over jointly by the College's Chaplain – an Anglican vicar, the Rev'd Cate Irvine, and a Roman Catholic chaplain from the local church, Fr Vladimir Nikiforov.

And what did the assembled festive throng hear? The prophecy of of Isaiah? 'For unto us a child is born...'? The Gospel of Luke? 'There went out a decree from Caesar Augustus...'? A reading from Micah, perhaps? 'But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall He come forth unto Me that is to be Ruler in Israel'?

No, none of the above. Instead, they got the Qur'an:

Behold! the angels said "O Mary! Allah giveth thee glad tidings of a Word from Him: his name will be Christ Jesus the son of Mary held in honour in this world and the Hereafter and of (the company of) those nearest to Allah.

"He shall speak to the people in childhood and in maturity and he shall be of the company of the righteous."

She said: "O my Lord! how shall I have a son when no man hath touched me?" He said: "Even so: Allah createth what He willeth; when He hath decreed a plan He but saith to it 'Be' and it is!

"And Allah will teach him the Book and Wisdom the Law and the Gospel.

"And (appoint him) an Apostle to the Children of Israel with this message: I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I make for you out of clay as it were the figure of a bird and breathe into it and it becomes a bird by Allah's leave; and I heal those born blind and the lepers and I quicken the dead by Allah's leave; and I declare to you what ye eat and what ye store in your houses. Surely therein is a Sign for you if ye did believe.

"I have come to you to attest the Law which was before me and to make lawful to you part of what was before forbidden to you; I have come to you with a Sign from your Lord. So fear Allah and obey me.

"It is Allah who is my Lord and your Lord; then worship Him. This is a way that is straight." (Qur'an 3:45-51)

Fantastic, eh? Perhaps we should be grateful that the Rev’d Cate and Fr Vladimir didn’t select this reading:

That they rejected faith: that they uttered against Mary a grave false charge.
That they said in boast "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary the Apostle of Allah"; but they killed him not nor crucified him but so it was made to appear to them and those who differ therein are full of doubts with no (certain) knowledge but only conjecture to follow for of a surety they killed him not. (Qur'an 4:156-158)

Perhaps they’re saving that for Easter.

The other readings were extracts of 'secular' poetry, including Eliot’s ‘The Journey of the Magi’ (which was the least egregious). The beginning of St John's Gospel was, mercifully, still in place as the final reading, but it was erroneously printed as ‘1 John’ – a totally different book altogether.

Royal Holloway College has been in the news recently for downgrading its Classics department. Perhaps Professor Paul Layzell, the College's Principal, and Professor Geoff Ward, the Vice-Principal responsible for the Chapel, ought to find other means of economising. When you compromise on the intellectual, political, and imaginative foundations of Western culture, you create a spiritual vacuum which needs to be filled. The people cry out for meat, and all they can get is the milk of dumbed-down Anglicanism followed by a mouthful of Islam.

Sarkozy: Cameron is 'an obstinate kid'

2011-12-14T16:45:00.003Z

So, the President of the Republic of France has resorted to hurling insults at the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. Nicolas Sarkozy has accused David Cameron of behaving like 'an obstinate kid' during last week's European Council meeting.

An obstinate kid?

No10 has apparently refused to comment on President Sarkozy's remarks directly. His Grace has no such scruples:

DUP motion attracts Commons majority

2011-12-14T09:54:00.004Z

It is a curious anomaly of the UK devolution settlement that when the British Prime Minister attends a meeting of the European Council, he does so on behalf of the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, but is not constitutionally obliged to consult with any of them. Foreign policy is not, of course, a devolved competence. Yet it is a further anomaly that EU matters continue to fall under the aegis of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office when they are concerned neither with matters foreign nor those affecting the Commonwealth. Indeed, since the EU has entered us, is at work within us, and we are consubstantial with it, EU policy is now manifestly domestic policy, and so ought more properly to fall under the aegis of the Home Secretary. Then, at least, the first ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland might be able to veto whatever IGC veto or summit ‘effective veto’ the Prime Minister chooses to wield.

Yet even then, it is not likely that the constituent nations of the United Kingdom will be united. In Scotland, Alex Salmond MSP (SNP) has made it known that the Prime Minister made a ‘blundering’ decision. In Wales, Carwyn Jones AM (Labour) says David Cameron has left the principality ‘sidelined’ in Europe. But in Northern Ireland, Peter Robinson MLA (DUP) is praising Mr Cameron to the skies. So ecstatic are these proud Prods that yesterday they introduced a motion praising the Prime Minister for his recent stance. The motion ‘commends the Prime Minister on his refusal at the European Council to sign up to a treaty without safeguards for the United Kingdom’. The wording also states that the use of a veto is a ‘a vital means of defending the national interests of the UK’.

DUP deputy leader Nigel Dodds led the debate (Mr Robinson being no longer an MP), and explained that Britain’s ‘relationship with the EU’ (His Grace is increasingly irritated by that phrase) needs further assessment. Speaking on the BBC's Good Morning Ulster programme on Monday, Mr Dodds said: "Now we have a situation where, for instance, the Irish Republic has been told, you are only going to borrow so much and you might have to do away with your corporation tax. I don't think in the long run that kind of approach, one-size-fits-all in Europe, is going to actually lead to the kind of growth economically that all countries need in order to make their economies prosperous and work well."

He’s not wrong there.

Mr Dodds' parliamentary colleagues queued to speak in the three-hour debate, and they were unanimous in their adulation of the Prime Minister. Jim Shannon raised the plight of the County Down fishing industry; David Simpson mentioned the agri-food sector; Willie McCrea said the Prime Minister 'did what was right and that is not always easy'. Jeffrey Donaldson aluded to the Empire of Charlemagne, observing a 'bandwagon driven by Germany and France to take us to a European super-state'.

Responding for the Government, the Europe Minister David Lidington welcomed the DUP's kind comments. Henry Bellingham returned the kindness, describing the DUP as 'true allies' who were 'consistent and reliable'. (His Grace won't say he told you so...).

But we've come to a sorry pass when the leadership of the DUP is lauding the Prime Minister while the leadership of the Liberal Democrats – the Coalition partners – are absenting themselves from the Chamber and/or voting against a motion commending the Prime Minister for defending the national interest.

One wonders what clout we will have in the EU when it is no longer the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom attending European Council meetings, but the disparate and divided representatives from London, Belfast, Edinburgh and Cardiff. United we stand.

What precisely is David Cameron’s EU strategy?

2011-12-13T09:15:00.001Z

This is a guest post by Zach Johnstone:

The events of the last few days demonstrate precisely why predictions have no place in politics. As Cameron departed for Brussels on Thursday the script was ostensibly written; despite promising a resolute defence of British interests there was little to suggest that the Prime Minister intended to act any differently to his recent predecessors. Indeed, he had conspicuously refused to even use the word ‘repatriation’ at Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday – his focus was instead on the imperative need to tackle the euro-zone crisis and to prevent a collapse that would be profoundly damaging not only to our neighbours but to Britain too. The stage was set for a Chamberlain moment – nothing but submission was expected from a prime minister bound by coalition and up against overwhelming diplomatic pressure. And yet by the time he arrived back in the UK the comparisons were, instead, firmly with Thatcher. In the face of the Franco-German alliance’s refusal to allow the United Kingdom exemption from financial services regulation that would negatively impact the City Cameron did what few leaders have dared in recent decades: he stood up to Brussels.

On the continent the reaction to British defiance was as immediate as it was contemptuous. One French diplomat asserted that Britain’s stance is, mutatis mutandis, like a man who goes to a wife-swapping party without bringing his wife, whilst another said that it was a ‘blessing’ that would enable the other 26 member states to move more quickly with implementing financial reforms. This, of course, reflects the view of Sarkozy, for whom the exclusion of Britain ‘is a famous political victory’. President Nicolas Sarkozy had long favoured the creation of a smaller, ‘core’ euro-zone, ‘without the awkward British...that generally pursue more liberal, market-oriented policies’. Unhindered by the chronic recalcitrance of Britain, France and Germany are free to push ahead with the two-speed Europe they have long sought. For her part, Merkel expressed the opinion that Britain ‘was (n)ever with us at the table’ – 20 years to the day after negotiating an opt-out from monetary union at Maastricht, the British were once again seeking special treatment rather than moving forward with other member states towards ‘ever closer union’. There was initially talk of Sweden, Hungary and the Czech Republic joining Britain in rebuffing the proposed amendments to the Lisbon Treaty – and they may still do so after consulting their respective national parliaments. However, for now, the United Kingdom stands alone.

While the European reaction was immediate, it is only now that the domestic fallout from Cameron’s ‘veto’ is beginning to unravel. Having initially enjoyed nearly unanimous support in both the media and Westminster (save for the ubiquitous Miliband who, in typical fashion, offered plenty of disapproval but no credible alternative) opinion has become fractured, and nowhere more so than at the heart of the Coalition. Nick Clegg’s initial praise for the Prime Minister’s ‘modest and reasonable’ demands has long since been cast aside: the Deputy Prime Minister has instead chosen to placate the dissatisfaction that courses through his own party by vocalising his deep dissatisfaction at the events of the summit. Britain’s refusal to play the diplomatic game, he avers, will harm British interests in the long run by leading to ‘isolation’ and ‘marginalisation’. To some extent Clegg’s change of tune is unsurprising: the latest Populus poll indicates that 51% of Lib Dems are unhappy with Cameron’s decision, while figures such as Cable and Ashdown are incensed at the way in which the Prime Minister handled the summit.

But the LibDems’ discontent should not overly trouble Cameron: for all Cable’s bluster there is little chance of him stepping down as Business Secretary, and with the party struggling to reach double figures in polling, they are acutely aware that an outright Coalition split would be tantamount to political suicide. Despite not even turning up to the Commons for yesterday’s EU statement, later saying that his presence would have caused an unnecessary distraction (something his noticeable absence did quite satisfactorily), Clegg has insisted that the Coalition is ‘here to stay’, a sentiment reiterated by Danny Alexander. The Coalition’s junior partner may bemoan the Conservatives’ European policy and even attempt to thwart it in the coming months, but there is no risk of disintegration. What is far more significant for Cameron is that he has succeeded in uniting his party over what is easily its most divisive issue and won over vast swathes of the mainstream media.

What should worry him, however, is the pressing need to decide where to go next.

Amidst the back-slapping and optimism within the Conservative Party, Cameron’s MPs remain acutely aware that in ‘effectively’ utilising his veto in Brussels, the Prime Minister actually did far less than he had previously promised he would do. In requesting immunity from the proposed financial services tax and other fiscal measures Cameron sought only to maintain the status quo: there was no talk of repatriation and no spectre of renegotiation, two issues that punctuated Cameron’s rhetoric throughout the run-up to the general election last year. That the Prime Minister’s ‘effective veto’ is such big news owes not to his fulfilment of any manifesto pledge or ‘cast-iron guarantee’ but to the fact that previous prime ministers did not dare to stand up to the EU in such a forthright manner. Cameron’s decision was, for this reason, rather gutsy – in the face of overwhelming diplomatic pressure he placed integrity before complicity in a way that few heads of nation states have previously dared – but it was not analogous to Britain setting out its desire to renegotiate its terms of membership.

The frustration at Cameron’s unwillingness to hold a referendum and his refusal to back up talk of repatriation with substantive action may have been assuaged for now, but failure to maintain momentum will cause the same dissatisfaction exhibited at the recent Commons referendum motion debate to percolate through once more. Cameron made it clear in yesterday’s House of Commons statement that he wishes to see Britain remain ‘a full, committed and influential member of the EU’. But with referendum calls from Iain Duncan Smith and Boris Johnson, in addition to a sizeable minority of backbenchers, it will not be long before the Prime Minister is forced to articulate his precise vision and the extent of this commitment. For, at present, so much is still uncertain – will there be a referendum? A renegotiation? Will the Prime Minister maintain his opposition to the Euro-26 making use of the EU’s institutions to impose their new fiscal measures?

A prosaic and indistinct commitment to returning powers at some point in the future will not satisfy those who view last week’s actions as representing, at best, the start of something seismic, and at worst an ample opportunity for Britain to at least begin to renegotiate its relationship with the EU.

Lord Sacks: "Has Europe Lost its Soul?"

2011-12-12T18:22:00.005Z

Every so often a sermon or lecture is delivered which merits being published in its entirety. In truth, the Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks delivers them all too frequently, but the pithy brevity of the blog is hardly the optimum medium for dissemination. This one, on the question of 'Has Europe Lost its Soul?' was delivered today at The Pontifical Gregorian University. It is replete with wisdom and insight (for those who don't have the time to read it, His Grace highlights some salient points). Lord Sacks' grasp of history, theology, philosophy, politics and economics is profound. His address is to the Roman Catholic Church, and his appeal is to their partnership. Yet in talking of the market and capitalism, he ignores the fact that the EU was founded upon (and is steeped in) Roman Catholic Social Doctrine which is not quite synonymous with 'markets with morals'. He said:

As the political leaders of Europe come together to try to save the euro, and with it the very project of European Union, I believe the time has come for religious leaders to do likewise, and I want to explain why.

What I hope to show in this lecture, is first, the religious roots of the market economy and of democratic capitalism. They were produced by a culture saturated in the values of the Judaeo-Christian heritage, and market economics was originally intended to advance those values.

Second, the market never reaches stable equilibrium. Instead the market itself tends to undermine the very values that gave rise to it in the first place through the process of “creative destruction.”

Third, the future health of Europe, politically, economically and culturally, has a spiritual dimension. Lose that and we will lose much else besides. To paraphrase a famous Christian text: what will it profit Europe if it gains the whole world yet loses its soul? Europe is in danger of losing its soul.

I want to preface my remarks by thanking His Eminence Cardinal Koch for not only inviting me to deliver this lecture, but being so graciously helpful throughout my trip and private audience with His Holiness.

I want to thank Father Francois-Xavier Dumortier, Rector of the Gregorian University for his kind words of introduction as well as Father Philipp Renczes of the Cardinal Bea Centre for Judaic Studies and Dr. Ed Kessler of the Woolf Institute in Cambridge for hosting this lecture and for all their support in arranging this visit. These two institutions represent the best of European thought, wisdom and spirituality. Through collaborative work, my hope is that these two institutions will help build a European platform to showcase and apply the resources that this continent with its rich heritage has to offer to build a better future for the world.

I am also honoured to see a number of Ambassadors and many other distinguished guests join us here this evening; I thank you all very much for coming.

I want to begin by saying a word about the relationship between the Vatican and the Jewish people.

The history of the relationship between the Catholic Church and the Jews was not always a happy or an easy one. Too often it was written in tears. Yet something extraordinary happened just over half a century ago, when on 13 June 1960 the French Jewish historian Jules Isaac had an audience with Pope John XXIII and presented him with a dossier of materials he had been gathering on the history of Christian antisemitism. That set in motion the long journey to Vatican II and Nostra Aetate, as a result of which, today, Jews and Catholics meet not as enemies, nor as strangers, but as cherished and respected friends.

That is one of the most dramatic transformations in the religious history of humankind and lit a beacon of hope, not just for us but for the world. It was a victory for the God of love and forgiveness, who created us in love and forgiveness, asking us to love and forgive others.

I hope that this visit, this morning's audience with His Holiness, and this lecture might in some small way mark the beginning of a new chapter in our relationship. For half a century Jews and Christians have focused on the way of dialogue that I call face-to-face. The time has come to move on to a new phase, the way of partnership that I call side-by-side.

For the task ahead of us is not between Jews and Catholics, or even Jews and Christians in general, but between Jews and Christians on the one hand, and the increasingly, even aggressively secularising forces at work in Europe today on the other, challenging and even ridiculing our faith.

If Europe loses the Judaeo-Christian heritage that gave it its historic identity and its greatest achievements in literature, art, music, education, politics, and as we will see, economics, it will lose its identity and its greatness, not immediately, but before this century reaches its end.

When a civilisation loses its faith, it loses its future. When it recovers its faith, it recovers its future. For the sake of our children, and their children not yet born, we – Jews and Christians, side-by-side – must renew our faith and its prophetic voice. We must help Europe recover its soul.

***

That is by way of introduction. Let me begin with a striking passage from Niall Ferguson's recent book, Civilisation. In it he tells of how the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences was given the task of discovering how the West, having lagged behind China for centuries, eventually overtook it and established itself in a position of world pre-eminence. At first, said the scholar, we thought it was because you had more powerful guns than we had. Then we concluded it was because you had the best political system. Then we realised it was your economic system. "But in the past 20 years, we have realised that the heart of your culture is your religion: Christianity. That is why the West has been so powerful. The Christian moral foundation of social and cultural life was what made possible the emergence of capitalism and then the successful transition to democratic politics. We don't have any doubt about this.”

The Chinese scholar was right. The same line of reasoning was followed by the Harvard economic historian, David Landes, in his magisterial The Wealth and Poverty of Nations. He too pointed out that China was technologically far in advance of the West until the 15th century. The Chinese had invented the wheelbarrow, the compass, paper, printing, gunpowder, porcelain, spinning machines for weaving textiles and blast furnaces for producing iron. Yet they never developed a market economy, the rise of science, an industrial revolution or sustained economic growth. Landes too concludes that it was the Judeo-Christian heritage that the West had and China lacked.

Admittedly the phrase “Judeo-Christian tradition” is a recent coinage and one that elides significant differences between the two religions and the various strands within each. Different scholars have taken diverse tracks in tracing the economic history of the West. Max Weber famously spoke about The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, with special emphasis on Calvinism. Michael Novak has written eloquently about the Catholic ethic. Rodney Stark has pointed out how the financial instruments that made capitalism possible were developed in the fourteenth century banks in pre-Reformation Florence, Pisa, Genoa and Venice.

Those who emphasised the Jewish contribution, from Karl Marx to Werner Sombart, tended to do so in a spirit of criticism. Nonetheless it cannot be pure coincidence that Jews, numbering less than a fifth of a per cent of the population of the world, have won more than 30 per cent of Nobel Prizes in economics and include such contributions as John von Neumann’s invention of Games Theory, Milton Friedman’s monetary economics, Joseph Stiglitz’ development economics, and Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky’s behavioural economics and the less-than-fully-rational way in which we make market choices. The biblical Joseph may have been the world’s first economist, having discovered the theory of trade cycles – seven years of plenty followed by seven lean years. The financial state of Europe would be better today if people knew their Bible.

There is, though, enough common ground to speak, at least here, of shared values. First there is the deep biblical respect for the dignity of the human individual, regardless of colour, creed or class, created in the image and likeness of God. The market gives more freedom and dignity to human choice than any other economic system.

Second is the biblical respect for property rights, as against the idea prevalent in the ancient world that rulers were entitled to treat property of the tribe or nation as their own. By contrast, when Moses finds his leadership challenged by the Israelites during the Korach rebellion, he says about his relation to the people, “I have not taken one ass from them nor have I wronged any one of them.” The great assault of slavery against human dignity is that it deprives me of the ownership of the wealth I create.

Then there is the biblical respect for labour. God tells Noah that he will be saved from the flood, but it is Noah who has to build the ark. The verse “Six days shall you labour and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God” means that we serve God through work as well as rest.

Job creation, in Judaism, is the highest form of charity because it gives people the dignity of not depending on charity. “Flay carcasses in the market-place,” said the third century teacher Rav, “and do not say: I am a priest and a great man and it is beneath my dignity”.

Equally important is Judaism’s positive attitude to the creation of wealth. The world is God’s creation; therefore it is good, and prosperity is a sign of God’s blessing. Asceticism and self-denial have little place in Jewish spirituality. By our labour and inventiveness we become, in the rabbinic phrase, “partners with God in the work of creation”.

Above all, from a Jewish perspective, the most important thing about the market economy is that it allows us to alleviate poverty. Judaism refused to romanticize poverty. It is not, in Judaism, a blessed condition. It is, the rabbis said, “a kind of death” and “worse than fifty plagues”. At the other end of the spectrum they believed that with wealth comes responsibility. Richesse oblige. Successful businessmen (and women) were expected to set an example of philanthropy and to take on positions of communal leadership. Conspicuous consumption was frowned upon, and periodically banned through local “sumptuary laws”. Wealth is a Divine blessing, and therefore it carries with it an obligation to use it for the benefit of the community as a whole.

The rabbis favoured markets and competition because they generate wealth, lower prices, increase choice, reduced absolute levels of poverty, and extend humanity’s control over the environment, narrowing the extent to which we are the passive victims of circumstance and fate. Competition releases energy and creativity and serves the general good.

***

So the market economy and modern capitalism emerged in Judeo-Christian Europe and not in other cultures like China that were more advanced in other ways. The religious ethic was one of the driving forces of this once new form of wealth creation.

Equally however, this same ethic taught the limits of capitalism. It might be the best means we know of for generating wealth, but it is not a perfect system for distributing wealth. Some gain far more than others, and with wealth comes power over others. Unequal distribution means that some are condemned to poverty. And poverty is not just a physical disaster for those without the means to sustain themselves. It is a psychological disaster. Poverty humiliates. It can also force the poor into a cycle of dependence. They may be forced to borrow. They might in biblical times be forced to sell themselves into slavery.

The Hebrew Bible refuses to see as an inexorable law of nature, a Darwinian struggle in which, in Thucydides’ words, “The strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.” That is the ethics of ancient Greece not the ethics of ancient Israel.

And so we find in the bible an entire structure of welfare legislation: the corner of the field, the forgotten sheaves, and other parts of the harvest, left for the poor, together with the tithe on certain years; the sabbatical year in which all produce is available for everyone, debts cancelled and slaves set free; and the jubilee year in which ancestral land returned to its original owners.

This is a highly sophisticated system, aimed at two things: first that the poor should have means of a livelihood, and second that there should be, every seven and fifty years, periodic redistributions to correct the inequalities of the market and establish a level playing field. And what was done in biblical times in a largely agricultural economy was done in post-biblical times through a vast extension of the tzedakah, the word we usually translate as charity, though it also means justice.

Every Jewish community in the Middle Ages had an elaborate system of tzedakah that amounted to nothing less than a mini-welfare state. There was a chevra, a fellowship, gathering and distributing funds for every conceivable purpose: for poor brides, for the sick, for education, for burial, so that no one was deprived of the means of a dignified existence. What made this structure remarkable, indeed unique, was not only that it was the first of its kind, the precursor of the modern welfare state, but also that it was entirely voluntary, the collective decision of a community with no governmental power and often no legal rights.

In a recent and impressive study Harvard political philosopher Eric Nelson has shown that it was the Hebrew Bible, as read by the Christian Hebraists in the sixteenth and seventeenth century, that was the source of the idea that today we take for granted that it is part of the business of a society to engage in the redistribution of wealth through taxation to ensure the welfare of the poor. Such an idea could not be found in the Greek or Roman classics that inspired the Renaissance. The concept of welfare – distributive justice as opposed to legal or retributive justice – is Judaic in origin and flows ultimately from the same generative principle as the free market itself, the idea that every individual has dignity in the image of God and that it is our task to develop social structures that honour and enhance that dignity.

So not only is the market the outcome of a Judeo-Christian ethic. So too is a keen sense of the limits of the market and the need to supplement it with a system of welfare itself funded by the market.

***

However as the critics of capitalism pointed out, the market does not create a stable equilibrium. It engages in creative destruction, or as Daniel Bell put it, capitalism contains cultural contradictions. It tends to erode the moral foundations on which it was built. Specifically, as is manifest clear in contemporary Europe, it erodes the Judeo-Christian ethic that gave birth to it in the first place.

Instead of seeing the system as Adam Smith did, as a means of directing self- interest to the common good, it can become a means of empowering self-interest to the detriment of the common good. Instead of the market being framed by moral principles, it comes to substitute for moral principle. If you can buy it, negotiate it, earn it and afford it, then you are entitled to it – as the advertisers say – because you’re worth it. The market ceases to be merely a system and becomes an ideology in its own right.

The market gives us choices; so morality itself becomes just a set of choices in which right or wrong have no meaning beyond the satisfaction or frustration of desire. The phenomenon that uniquely characterises the human person, the capacity to make second-order evaluations, not just to feel desire but also to ask whether this desire should be satisfied, becomes redundant. We find it increasingly hard to understand why there might be things we want to do, can afford to do and have a legal right to do, that none the less we should not do because they are unjust, or dishonourable, or disloyal, or demeaning. When Homo economicus displaces Homo sapiens, market fundamentalism rules.

There is a wise American saying: Never waste a crisis. And the current financial and economic crisis affords us a rare opportunity to pause and reflect on where we have been going and where it leads.

***

Let’s begin with the current crisis and what led to it. First the sheer complexity of the financial instruments involved in subprime mortgages and the securitization of risk, was so great that for many years their true nature eluded the regulatory authorities, who continued to give the firms involved Triple A ratings, despite the fact that as early as 2002 Warren Buffett described them as weapons of mass financial destruction. Governments, and sometimes even the bankers themselves, did not fully understand the risks involved nor the way in which failure in any part of the banking system could cause the entire system to collapse.

This was in clear contravention of the principles of transparency and accountability. The book of Exodus devotes astonishing space to a detailed set of accounts as to how every item donated to the building of the Tabernacle was spent, to establish the principle that those in charge of public funds must be transparently above suspicion.

Second, many people, especially in America but also in Europe, were encouraged to take out mortgages, often with low initial repayment rates, that they could not repay, and that those encouraging them should have known they could not repay except under the most optimistic and unlikely scenarios of continued low interest rates and continually rising house prices. This is forbidden in Jewish law under the biblical prohibition: “You shall not place a stumbling block before the blind.”

Third, the bankers themselves not only awarded themselves disproportionately high salaries but also, by providing themselves with “golden parachutes”, insulated themselves from the very risks to which they were exposing both their customers and their shareholders. Almost two thousand years ago the rabbis established a series of enactments precisely to avoid the possibility that someone could benefit from failure or dereliction of duty.

Fourth, no one who reads the Bible with its provisions for the remission of debts every seventh year could fail to understand how morally concerned it is to prevent the build up of indebtedness, of mortgaging freedom tomorrow for the sake of liberty today. The unprecedented levels of private and public debt in the West should have sent warning signals long ago that such a state of affairs was unsustainable in the long run. The Victorians knew what we have forgotten, that spending beyond your means is morally hazardous, however attractive it may be, and the system should not encourage it.

There are larger issues. There is the fundamental question of who can control the modern international corporation and to whom is it accountable. In medieval times, however much the owners of land abused those who worked for them, there was an organic connection between them. The landowner had some interest in the welfare of those who worked for him, for if they were well and reasonably happy, they worked reasonably well. Likewise in the nineteenth century, industrialists may have created appalling working conditions, but at least some enlightened employers, like Robert Owen or the Cadburys and Rowntrees, knew that satisfied employees produced good work. Their example, together with the great nineteenth century social reformers, eventually led to more humane working conditions.

To whom is an international corporation answerable? Often they do not employ workers. They outsource manufacturing to places far away. If wages rise in one place, they can, almost instantly, transfer production to somewhere else. If a tax regime in one country becomes burdensome, they can relocate to another. To whom, then, are they accountable? By whom are they controllable? For whom are they responsible? To which group of people other than shareholders do they owe loyalty? The extreme mobility, not only of capital but also of manufacturing and servicing, is in danger of creating institutions that have power without responsibility, as well as a social class, the global elite, that has no organic connection with any group except itself. As for moral responsibility, it seems that that too can be outsourced. It is someone else’s problem, not mine.

This has profound moral consequences. George Soros writes of how in his early years as an investment manager he had to spend immense time and energy proving his credentials, his character and integrity, before people would do business with him. Nowadays, he says, deals are transactional rather than personal. Instead of placing your faith in a person, you get lawyers to write safeguards into the contract. This is an historic shift from a trust economy to a risk economy. But trust is not a dispensable luxury. It is the very basis of our social life. Many scholars believe that capitalism had religious roots because people could trust other people who, feeling that they were answerable to God, could be relied on to be honest in business. A world without trust is a lonely and dangerous place.

It was precisely the breakdown of trust that caused the banking crisis in the first place. We sometimes make the mistake of thinking that the market is a shrine to materialism, forgetting that its keywords are deeply spiritual. “Credit” comes from the Latin “credo” meaning “I believe.” “Confidence” comes from the Latin meaning “shared faith.” “Trust” is a word that has deeply religious resonance. Try running a bank, a business or an economy in the absence of confidence and trust and you will know it can’t be done. In the end we do not put our faith in systems but in the people responsible for those systems, and without morality, responsibility, transparency, accountability, honesty and integrity, the system will fail. And as it happens, the system did fail.

With this we come to perhaps the most profound truth of the Judeo-Christian ethic. That ethic, based on justice, compassion and respect for human dignity, took moral restraint from “out there” to “in here.” Good conduct was not dependent on governments, laws, police, inspectorates, regulatory bodies, civil courts and legal penalties. It was dependent on the still, small voice of God within the human heart. It became part of character, virtue and an internalised sense of obligation. Jews and Christians devoted immense energies to training the young in the ways of goodness and righteousness. A moral vision, a clear sense of right and wrong, was present in the stories they told, the texts they read, the rituals they performed, the prayers they said and the standards the community expected of its members.

If you were Jewish, you knew what it felt like to be a slave in Egypt, eating the bread of affliction and the bitter herbs of slavery. You knew what it felt like to be homeless for forty years as you wandered through the desert. You knew the call of Isaiah, “Learn to do good, seek justice, rebuke the oppressor, defend the fatherless, plead for the widow.” You had social justice engraved in your neural pathways. When I asked the developmental economist Jeffrey Sachs what motivated him in his work, he replied immediately, tikkun olam, the Jewish imperative to heal a fractured world. Christians did likewise. They did not need regulatory bodies to ensure that they worked for the common good. They knew they were morally responsible, even if they were not legally liable, for the consequences of their decisions for the lives of others.

Economists call this social capital, but it is not a given of the human condition. Societies where self-interest trumps the common good eventually disintegrate. That is why societies at the peak of affluence have usually already begun on the downward slope to decline. The fourteenth century Islamic thinker Ibn Khaldun argued that when a civilization becomes great, its elites get used to luxury and comfort, and the people as a whole lose their asabiyah, their social solidarity. Giambattista Vico described a similar cycle: “People first sense what is necessary, then consider what is useful, next attend to comfort, later delight in pleasures, soon grow dissolute in luxury, and finally go mad squandering their estates.”

This was said first and most powerfully by Moses long ago. The theme of his great speeches in the book of Deuteronomy is that it is not hardship that is the real trial, but affluence. Affluence makes you complacent. You no longer have the moral and mental energy to make the sacrifices necessary for the defence of freedom. Inequalities grow. The rich become self-indulgent. The poor feel excluded. There are social divisions, resentments, injustices. Society no longer coheres. People do not feel bound to one another by a bond of collective responsibility. Individualism prevails. Trust declines. Social capital wanes. When that happens, you will be defeated.

Those who believe that liberal democracy and the free market can be defended by the force of law and regulation alone, without an internalised sense of duty and morality, are tragically mistaken.

***

At the most basic level, the consumer society is sapping our moral strength. It has produced a society obsessed with money: salaries, bonuses, the cost of houses, and expensive luxuries we could live without. When money rules, we remember the price of things and forget the value of things, and that is dangerous.

The financial crisis was caused, at least in part, by banks and mortgage brokers lending people so much money at such low interest rates to buy houses, that house prices rose rapidly until investing in a house seemed the best you could make. More people borrowed more money and house prices rose yet higher, until everyone felt that they were richer. But in real terms we weren't. Ignoring values and concentrating on price, we mortgaged our future to feed a fantasy. Like other historic bubbles, it was a moment of collective madness, of the essentially magical belief that there can be gains without losses; forgetting that the larger the gain, the bigger the risk, and that the price is often paid by those who can least afford it.

In general, the build-up of personal debt happened because the consumer society encouraged people to borrow money they didn’t have, to buy things they didn’t need, to achieve a happiness that wouldn’t last. The sages of the ancient world said: Who is rich? One who rejoices in what he has. The consumer society says the opposite. Who is rich? One who can buy what he does not yet have. Relentlessly focussing on what we lack and what others have, it encourages feelings of inadequacy that we assuage by buying a product to make us happy, which it does until the day after, when the next best thing comes along and makes us feel inadequate all over again.

It is no accident that despite the fact that until recently we were affluent beyond the dreams of previous generations, we were not measurably happier. We turned children into mini-consumers, giving them mobile phones instead of our time. The result, in Britain, is a generation of children more unhappy, more prone to depression, stress, eating disorders, and drug and alcohol abuse than they were fifty years ago. The consumer society turns out to be a highly efficient system for the creation and distribution of unhappiness.

It goes deeper still. We know – it has been measured in many experiments – that children with strong impulse control grow to be better adjusted, more dependable, achieve higher grades in school and college and have more success in their careers than others. Success depends on the ability to delay gratification, which is precisely what a consumerist culture undermines. At every stage, the emphasis is on the instant gratification of instinct. In the words of the pop group Queen, “I want it all and I want it now.” A whole culture is being infantilised.

My late father, coming to Britain at the age of six fleeing persecution in Poland, knew poverty and lived it. But he and his contemporaries had a rich cultural, communal and spiritual life. He enjoyed classical music and the great painters. He loved synagogue and his faith as a Jew. The Jewish communities of the East End, like some Asian sub-communities today, had strong families, supportive networks, and high aspirations, if not for themselves then for their children. Of the gifts of the spirit they had an embarrass de richesse. Can we really say that the world of brands and status symbols, of what you own rather than what you are, is better? What of the future if we really are fated to years of recession? What will that mean for a culture where happiness is defined by material possessions? It will mean the maximum of disappointment with the minimum of consolation. Whether our social structures are strong enough to survive this is wholly open to doubt.

***

A good society has its own ecology which depends on multiple sources of meaning, each with its own integrity. I want to draw attention briefly to five features of Judaism, largely shared by Christianity, whose role over the centuries has been to preserve a space uninvaded by the market ethic.

The first is the Sabbath, the boundary Judaism draws around economic activity. The Sabbath is the day we focus on the things that have value but not a price, when we neither work nor employ others to do our work, when we neither buy nor sell, in which all manipulation of nature for creative ends is forbidden and all hierarchies of power or wealth are suspended.

It is the still point in the turning world, when we renew our attachment to family and community, living the truth that the world is not wholly ours to bend to our will but something given to us in trust to conserve for future generations, and in which the inequalities of a market economy are counterbalanced by a world in which money does not count, in which we are all equal citizens. The Jewish writer Achad Ha-am said that more than the Jews have kept the Sabbath, the Sabbath has kept the Jews. It is the one day in seven when we stop making a living and instead simply live.

The second: marriage and the family. Judaism is one of the great familial traditions. Many of its supreme religious moments take place in the home between husband and wife, parents and children. Marriage is where love and loyalty combine to bring new life into the world. If Jews have survived tragedy, found happiness, and contributed more than their share to the human heritage, I suspect it is because of the sanctity with which they endowed marriage and the way they regarded parenthood as their most sacred task.

Third: education. Since the days of Moses Jews have predicated their very survival on education. They were the first civilization to construct, two thousand years ago, a universal compulsory education, communally funded, to ensure that everyone had access to knowledge. They even said that study is holier than prayer. Jews are the people whose heroes are teachers, whose citadels are schools and whose passion is the life of the mind. Sergey Brin, co-founder of Google, once said that he came from one of those Russian-Jewish families where they expected even the plumber to have a PhD. Jews did not leave education to the vagaries of the market. They made the market serve the cause of education.

Fourth: the concept of property itself. Deeply embedded in the Jewish mind is the idea that we do not ultimately own what we possess. Everything belongs to God, and what we have, we hold in trust. There are conditions to that trust. As the great Victorian philanthropist Sir Moses Montefiore put it, “We are worth what we are willing to share with others”. Hence the long tradition of Jewish philanthropy that explains how Judaism encouraged the creation of wealth without giving rise to class resentments.

Finally, there is the Jewish tradition of law itself. It was William Rees-Mogg who first drew attention to a connection between Jewish law and economics I had never thought of before. In a book he wrote about inflation, The Reigning Error, he said that inflation – like high levels of debt – is a disease of inordinacy. It happens because of a failure to understand that energy, to be channelled, needs restraints. It was the constant discipline of law, he says, that provided the boundaries within which Jewish creativity could flow. It taught Jews self-restraint, and it is the failure of societies to practice self-restraint that leads to inflation or unsustainable debt.

So the Sabbath, the family, the educational system, the concept of ownership as trusteeship, and the discipline of religious law, were not constructed on the basis of economic calculation. To the contrary, they were ways in which Judaism in effect said to the market: thus far and no further. There are realms in which you may not intrude.

The concept of the holy is precisely the domain in which the worth of things is not judged by their market price or economic value. This fundamental insight of Judaism and Christianity is all the more striking given their respect for the market. Their strength is that they resisted the temptation to believe that the market governs the totality of our lives, when it fact it governs only a limited part of it, that which concerns goods subject to production and exchange. There are things fundamental to being human that we do not produce; instead we receive from those who came before us and from God Himself. And there are things which we may not exchange, however high the price.

When everything that matters can be bought and sold, when commitments can be broken because they are no longer to our advantage, when shopping becomes salvation and advertising slogans our litany, when our worth is measured by how much we earn and spend, then the market is destroying the very virtues on which in the long run it depends. That is the danger that advanced economies now face. At such times the voice of our great religious traditions needs to be heard, warning us of the gods that devour their own children, and of the ruins of once-great buildings that stand today as relics of civilisations that once seemed invincible.

***

I have argued that the market economy originated in Europe in the fertile environment of Judeo-Christian values sympathetic to hard work, industry, frugality, diligence, patience, discipline, and a sense of duty and obligation. Capitalism was seen by its early proponents as a profoundly moral enterprise. It generated wealth, softened manners, tamed unruly passions, and diminished the threat of war. Two adjacent nations could either fight or trade. From fight both lost. From trade both gained.

The market’s “invisible hand” turned the pursuit of self interest into the wealth of nations, and intellectual property fuelled the fires of invention. Capitalism has enhanced human dignity, leaving us with more choices and a longer-life expectancy than any generation of those who came before us.

But there is no such thing as a stable equilibrium in human affairs. There is a natural tendency for institutions in the ascendancy to invade territories not rightly or fully their own, with disastrous consequences. In religious ages, the culprit was usually religion. At times it sought political power and became an enemy of liberty. At other times it sought to control the dissemination of ideas and thus became an enemy of the unfettered collaborative pursuit of truth.

Today, in a Europe more secular than it has been since the last days of pre-Christian Rome, the culprits are an aggressive scientific atheism tone deaf to the music of faith; a reductive materialism blind to the power of the human spirit; global corporations uncontrollable by and sometimes more powerful than national governments; forms of finance so complex as to surpass the understanding of bodies charged with their regulation; a consumer-driven economy that is shrivelling the imaginative horizons of our children; and a fraying of all the social bonds, from family to community, that once brought comfort and a redemption of solitude, to be replaced by virtual networks mediated by smartphone, whose result is to leave us “alone together.”

What can we do, we who, because we have faith in God, have faith in God’s faith in humankind? There is a significant phrase that Pope Benedict XVI has often used: creative minority. If there is one thing Jews know how to be it is a creative minority. So my proposal is that Jews and Catholics should seek to be creative minorities together. A duet is more powerful than a solo. Renouncing any aspiration for power, we should seek to encourage the single most neglected source of energy in a consumer-driven, profit-maximising society, namely the power of altruism.

We should enlist business leaders to help us teach that markets need morals; that without a strong ethic, there may be short term success but no long term viability; and that conscience is not for wimps, it is the basis of trust and confidence on which business, financial institutions and the economy as a whole depend.

We should use this moment of recession to restore to their rightful place in society the things that have value but not a price: marriage, the family, home, dedicated time between parents and children, the face-to-face friendships that make up community, the celebration of what we have not the restless pursuit of what we don’t, a sense of gratitude and thanksgiving, and a willingness to share some of God’s blessings with those who have less. These are the true sources of lasting happiness and have been empirically proved to be so.

We should seek to recover the alternative world created by the Sabbath, one day in seven in which we set limits to the power of the market to enslave us with its siren song, and instead give our relationships the chance to mature and our souls the pure air they need to breathe. We should challenge the relativism that tells us there is no right or wrong, when every instinct of our mind knows it is not so, and is a mere excuse to allow us to indulge in what we believe we can get away with. A world without values quickly becomes a world without value.

Economic superpowers have a short shelf-life: Spain in the fifteenth century, Venice in the sixteenth, Holland in the seventeenth, France in the eighteenth, Britain in the nineteenth, America in the twentieth. Meanwhile Christianity has survived for two thousand years, and Judaism for twice as long as that. The Judeo-Christian heritage is the only system known to me capable of defeating the law of entropy that says all systems lose energy over time.

Stabilising the Euro is one thing, healing the culture that surrounds it is another. A world in which material values are everything and spiritual values nothing is neither a stable state nor a good society. The time has come for us to recover the Judeo-Christian ethic of human dignity in the image of God. When Europe recovers its soul, it will recover its wealth-creating energies. But first it must remember: humanity was not created to serve markets. Markets were created to serve humankind.

Newt Gingrich and the ‘invented’ Palestinians

2011-12-12T04:17:00.002Z

It’s a nasty game, politics.

Sick of sophistry and repulsed by lies, the people generally loathe and despise their politicians. But the moment you get one who provides even a modicum of truth, those same people spit and splutter as though the Pope had just beatified Mohammed.

The US presidential hopeful Newt Gingrich (and it’s not, let’s face it, an unreasonable hope in the Republican sea of mediocrity) has given an interview to The Jewish Channel in which he disclosed that the Palestinians are an ‘invented’ people.

That’s great for those who spend their cable-viewing hours engrossed in Srugim 17, Kippur, or James’ Journey to Jerusalem. But it hasn’t gone down too well with the rest of the world. (Yes, His Grace is fully aware that The Guardian doesn’t constitute ‘rest of the world’, but where Israel is concerned, it’s certainly around 99.98 per cent).

Mr Gingrich said: "Remember there was no Palestine as a state. It was part of the Ottoman Empire. And I think that we've had an invented Palestinian people, who are in fact Arabs, and were historically part of the Arab community. And they had a chance to go many places. And for a variety of political reasons we have sustained this war against Israel now since the 1940s, and I think it's tragic."

The thing is, of course, he’s right.

The indigenous peoples of the land known as Palestine are Semitic – both Arab and Jew. Religiously, they are Jewish, Christian and Muslim. It is a myth to talk of Palestinian ethnicity or indulge in historical revisionism to advocate a Jew-free Palestine.

Palestine’s Arabs are about as Palestinian as the Jews in the Judæan Mountains are Hebronite. There is no more a Palestinian race than there is a Gibraltarian one. And the state of ‘Palestine’ is a fabricated political entity designed to agitate for ever-increasing Arab sovereignty over Israel, the logical corollary of which is an ever-decreasing Jewish identity; an ever-diminishing Jewish presence; and the eventual eradication of Israel’s sovereignty.

As Mr Gingrich says, Hamas, which controls the Gaza Strip, and the Palestinian Authority, which controls the West Bank, express ‘an enormous desire to destroy Israel’.

They do. It’s a fact.

But politics isn’t so much concerned with facts as perceptions. You’d think that any credible negotiated peace would acknowledge the facts, however inconvenient they may be. The problem is that the more these facts are raised, the more they may be scrutinised and shown for the sham they are. Yet it is Prime Minister Salam Fayyad (of ‘Palestine’) who has demanded that Mr Gingrich ‘review history’. He said: "From the beginning, our people have been determined to stay on their land. This, certainly, is denying historical truths."

From the beginning? So Allah bequeathed to them the land on the eighth day of creation, did he? The Palestinians have never had their own state: they have been ruled (often quite contentedly) by successive empires, most notably that of the Ottoman Turks. This, certainly, is historical truth. The tribes of Simeon and Judah actually predated the establishment of ‘Palestine’: the Jew was in Judæa long before the ‘invention’ of the Palestinian. After Roman rule, whenever Jews attempted to reclaim their homeland, their communities were destroyed and they were exiled. The pogrom continued under the Byzantines, Crusaders, Ottoman Turks, British, and the modern Egyptians. In all the heated talk of ‘occupation’ and ‘illegal Jewish settlements’, you rarely hear about the indigenous Jewish populations of Gaza and the West Bank: all sympathies are with Hamas, which is pathologically programmed (if not constitutionally pledged and theologically dedicated) to finishing what was begun millennia ago: the extermination of the Jews and the eradication of the State of Israel.

The history of this region is fiendishly complex and solutions to seemingly intractable problems will not be found in crass geopolitical policy objectives which only take account of the most recent shifts in territorial lines. Israel is an historic nation: Palestine is a recent invention. Only a sophist politician like Obama, ignorant of the history, steeped in moral relativism and with an eye on re-election, could reduce the existential threat faced by Israel to a trivial game of Risk.

But (and it’s an important ‘but’), while the notion of an exclusively Arab Palestinian identity is indeed ‘invented’, His Grace will say that it doesn’t help Newt’s presidential ambitions to label all Palestinians as ‘terrorists’. Some are: that is factually correct. We are indeed in a situation ‘where everyday rockets are fired into Israel while the United States – the current administration – tries to pressure the Israelis into a peace process’.

And Mr Gingrich is right to declare: “Somebody ought to have the courage to tell the truth.”

The truth is that Israel is bombarded almost daily by missiles fired from Gaza. But not all Gazans are terrorists: some may murder, maim, and plot atrocities; some may teach terrorism in their schools. It might even be a majority. But let us not ignore the peaceful Arab in a land called Palestine who wishes to live in peace with his Jewish neighbour in the land called Israel.

Blessed are the peacemakers.

The problem with telling the truth is that it can appear awfully insensitive. An ‘invented’ people rapidly become a people with no rights. A people with no rights are not a real people. And when you deny personhood, you deny humanity. And when you deny humanity, you end up in Auschwitz.

But Newt says: “I spoke as a historian who has looked at the world stage for a very long time … I feel quite confident that an amazing number of Israelis found it nice to have an American tell the truth about the war they are in the middle of.”

His Grace speaks as a theologian and philosopher who dabbles in politics and has also looked at the world stage for a very long time. And he does wish Newt wouldn’t end his sentence with a preposition. No real president would do that.

“Europe is entering Croatia”

2011-12-10T09:00:00.003Z

Not content with Croatia entering the EU as the 28th state, signing his accession treaty Croatian President Ivo Josipovic told the heads of government of all 27 current members: “Today Croatia is entering Europe, but more importantly Europe is entering Croatia.”

His Grace can scarcely bring himself to visualise the violation. And yet the continent is named after Europa, who was herself raped. Perhaps it's a case of doing unto others...

Croatia has spent seven years negotiating away her sovereignty, hindered by a few territorial disputes with Slovenia and a couple of trivial allegations of war crimes. Nothing that time couldn't heal.

But His Grace has a question. Really, it is a genuine bemusement.

Croatia is more Catholic than the Pope. Okay, not quite. But the population does declare itself to be c80% Roman Catholic. Pope Benedict XVI has been a passionate advocate of Croatian membership of the EU.

Now that the text of his 'prayer for the euro' (as reported by Jon Snow C4 News) may be seen to have been nothing of the sort (naughty Mr Snow), we do get an insight into his primary spiritual concerns:

Therefore the People of God, as pilgrims throughout time, turn to their celestial Mother and seek Her help; they ask that She might accompany them on their path of faith, that She might encourage them in their commitment to Christian life and sustain their hopes. We need this support, especially in this difficult moment for Italy, for Europe, and for many parts of the world.

This is not a prayer for the euro, but it is a prayer acknowledging the economic morass into which Europe is fast sinking, which has been brought on by the euro. So, why would the Pope, at this precise 'difficult moment', be desirous to see Croatia (not without her own difficulties) burdened with even greater difficulties, which may even lead to civil war?

Cameron finds his Bulldog

2011-12-09T09:31:00.007Z

He did it. By George, he did it.

This is not the delusional ‘game, set and match’ claimed by John Major over Maastricht: David Cameron returns to the UK from his mini-summit in Brussels with the media unanimously lauding his resolute defence of the ‘British interest’ (ie the City) from further irrevocable EU regulations to provide ‘stability’ for the eurozone. His demands were really quite modest: in exchange for the euro-17 becoming a bit ‘ever closer’ in their union, the UK should be granted permanent derogation from any financial service regulations related to the eurozone crisis.

Merkozy said ‘non/nein’. The heirs to the Empire of Charlemagne had their heart set on London: nothing less would do. And so the -ozy half of the chimera announced that Mr Cameron’s demands were ‘unacceptable’, making a full accord impossible ‘given the position of our British friends’. Conveniently ignoring the fact that the UK is not ‘isolated’, but is (presently) joined by Sweden, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

Perhaps the Swedes, Hungarians and Czechs are not Merkozy’s ‘friends’.

But this is all very interesting. The Treaty of Rome (as amended by successive treaties) does not provide for a two-tier union. It remains to be seen how the eurozone (+6) move ‘ever closer’ without impinging upon the rights of the recalcitrant members. As the Prime Minister makes clear, all the institutions of the EU – the Commission, Parliament and courts – are designed for a union of equal partners: the inner-23 may not ride roughshod over the outer-four. And yet the outer-four should not be permitted to imperil the ‘stability’ of the inner-23.

In fact, the inner core will find that their fiscal union (for that is what it is) will produce its own instability: France and Germany are simply perpetuating the euro’s fatal flaws, delaying the inevitable: Eurogeddon will surely come.

But His Grace is worried this morning about His Holiness.

Last night, C4 News announced that Pope Benedict XVI was ‘praying for the euro’. Now, C4 is impeccably concerned with the reporting of facts, and John Snow is known to be an admirer of His Holiness and great respecter of the Holy See. The source of his information is unknown, but if Mr Snow provides the nation with insight into the Pope’s prayer priorities, it must be true.

Jesus exhorted us to pray for the poor, the sick and destitute; for those who are persecuted, and those who are being lost. There is not one example of the Lord praying for the denarius, even as it was debased by successive caesars.

Of course, the debasement of Mammon leads to inflation, which increases poverty, which multiplies the poor and impoverished, which increases suffering. One wonders why John Snow didn’t simply say that the Pope was praying for the alleviation of our suffering.

Scottish Government shifts the gay goalposts

2011-12-08T14:55:00.000Z

Hitherto, we have been led to believe that the consultation in Scotland on the introduction of ‘gay marriage’ was a matter for the Scots alone: no-one else in any corner of the UK was able to vote.

However, yesterday the pro-‘gay marriage’ groups let it slip that they are asking people outside Scotland to respond, suggesting that the Scottish Government will accept non-Scottish responses.

So, with a nifty last-minute shift of the goalposts (the consultation closes tomorrow [Friday]), it now appears that ANYONE in the UK (and beyond?) can respond the Scottish Government's consultation on redefining marriage.

It is not clear if this crude democratic ‘consultation’ will be won by the side with the greatest number of supporters. But the pro-side claim to have gathered over 15,000 responses in favour of changing the definition of marriage. It is likely that many of these will be from outside Scotland.

If marriage is redefined in Scotland, then pressure will be greater for redefining marriage throughout the UK.

Please use THIS FORM to register your view, and URGENTLY pass it on to your family/friends/churches/synagogues/mosques/mandirs/gurdwaras/viharas. The consultation closes tomorrow (Friday 9th Dec). Every vote counts.

And please pray that the legal definition of marriage will be retained throughout the UK.

As Zimbabwe's Anglicans are persecuted, their numbers grow

2011-12-08T08:59:00.005Z

His Grace has received a further letter about the situation in Zimbabwe. Yes, he knows that many of his readers and communicants don't really care about the matter, and he is fully aware that when he turns from matters gay and Eurogeddon his hit-rate decreases significantly. But he really doesn't care about such temporal trivia. This is important. It concerns our brothers and sisters in Christ who are suffering, and we are commanded to remember them in our prayers, for their suffering is our suffering: we are one.

This letter from Bishop Julius gives some background on the Archbishop of Canterbury's recent visit to Zimbabwe and the spirit of hope which seems to prevail in the face of evil. As they are persecuted, their numbers grow. Bishop Julius is shown above knocking at the western door at St John’s Cathedral, to which he was denied access.

ANGLICAN DIOCESE OF MANICALAND CPCA
Pastoral Letter November 2011

To our Brothers and Sisters in the Anglican Diocese of Manicaland and to our friends further afield.

I write to you with great concern over the prevailing challenges and suffering the church is still going through in our diocese. I also write with great joy and hope when I consider the success stories in the diocese despite the challenges we continue to face daily.

We still do not have access to about 50% of our diocesan schools, clinics and hospitals and churches. This has hindered progress and development as opportunities have been lost and many lives badly affected. Despite the challenges we face, including our inability to pay stipends, legal bills and rentals, our congregations continue to grow in numbers outstripping the challenges. Yes we are concerned, “but we are not anxious but continue to present our plight before the Lord in prayers.” (Philippians 4:4-8).

In August, the diocese hosted a Zimbabwe Anglican Youth Association (ZAYA) annual conference. Youths from all the five Anglican dioceses in Zimbabwe converged at Hartzell High School, a Methodist institution, from the 5th to the 8th of August 2011 for a vibrant and powerful conference. Regrettably, this conference could have been held at St Augustine’s Mission where the Anglican Church started in Zimbabwe but the youth were denied access to this conducive and historical venue. They were however, not deterred by the high costs of hiring the Hartzell High School facilities. About five hundred youths from all over Zimbabwe attended. This was a great success and they were highly inspired and strengthened. We value youth ministry in the diocese and should keep on supporting them in our churches.

From the 11th to the 14th of August 2011 the diocese registered another big success by successfully hosting the Anglican Mothers’ Union of Zimbabwe (AMUZ) annual conference at Mutare Teachers’ College. This was a well organized, spirit -filled and well attended conference. About five thousand ladies from all corners of Zimbabwe enjoyed the joyous and powerful fellowship. All the five Anglican Bishops in Zimbabwe attended the main mass on the 13th of August 2011. The bishops gave powerful messages of solidarity with Anglicans in Zimbabwe. Indeed this event was a clear demonstration of the strength of the true Anglican Church. It was an eye-opener too for those who have decided to follow Mr. Jakazi and Mr. Kunonga. Some of the misguided members attended the conference under cover of darkness to see whether it would be a success. They must have been shocked to realize that they are very much in the minority since almost ninety percent or more of Anglicans in Zimbabwe have remained faithful to the true CPCA. It is pleasing to note that despite the financial challenges in the diocese and the perpetual harassment by Mr. Jakazi and Mr. Kunonga’s supporters, sometimes with help from the police, true Anglicans have not despaired.

The diocese was highly privileged to receive the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, on the 10th of October 2011. He was accompanied by the Archbishops of Central Africa, Tanzania and Southern Africa, and bishops of Botswana, Harare, Manicaland, and Southwark. The Archbishop and his party visited the displaced congregation of St Matthew’s Parish, Rusape, where he worshiped with and encouraged the gathered faithful. It was touching to witness His Grace and other bishops join in worship with the displaced congregation in a town hall with poor ventilation. Their church stood locked and remained dark, only a few hundred yards away.

The next stop was St Paul’s, Christmas Pass, where displaced worshippers were gathered and are thinking of building a large church and conference centre. His Grace blessed the site. Next stop was the Mutare Showgrounds, where I was consecrated two years ago- how time flies! A gathering of about three thousand worshippers gave the Archbishop and the accompanying Archbishops and bishops a rousing welcome. Dr Williams gave a moving homily and encouraged all gathered to remain steadfast in the faith. He assured us of his and the support and prayers of the worldwide Anglican Communion.

From the Showgrounds, the visiting party made a brief stop at St John’s Cathedral. We were denied access but I managed to knock at the Western door with my Crosier and was joined in prayer by all the bishops present.

We had a welcome break at our rented diocesan office. There was much singing and dancing and photo opportunities – when the Archbishops were not swaying to the Manicaland Gospel rhythms!

St Augustine’s Penhalonga was our final stop in Manicaland. Rather than argue at the locked gates, we took a side entrance and walked up the hill to the church, then the CZR Convent where we spent time in prayer and reflection led by the Archbishop. This was indeed a poignant and memorable time.

From Manicaland we sped back to Harare where we met with President Mugabe. The meeting was cordial. The Archbishops and all the bishops were received well. The Archbishop presented the President with a dossier of abuses against Anglicans in Zimbabwe. The President professed ignorant of these abuses and promised to look into the matter. Throughout, the Archbishop was polite but firm and focused. We had a brief meeting with the Prime Minister in the evening.

Full marks for the Archbishop who dare enter the lion’s den to speak, firmly and without fear especially after his powerful sermon at a service attended by an estimated twenty thousand people in Harare the day before. Apart from highlighting our plight, the Archbishop’s visit showed unequivocally that Messrs Kunonga and Jakazi are not Anglicans, despite their claims to the contrary. A lot of their followers have since seen the light and left them. Secondly our plight is now out in the open and the authorities cannot profess ignorant anymore. The rest we leave to our law courts. The Archbishop played his part fully.

It is my encouragement to all of you to seek wisdom, knowledge and understanding as well as God’s guidance in all that we do in life. Choose to be an instrument of righteousness and not an instrument of wickedness.

Soon after the Archbishop’s visit the diocese hosted two visitors from, Southwark Diocese, Woolwich Episcopal Area. Fr Steve Cook and Fr Anthony Buckley were in the diocese from the 15th to the 21st of October 2011. There is a mutual link relationship between our diocese and the Woolwich Episcopal Area. Steve and Anthony were impressed by what they saw. They said that they learnt a lot from their visits to schools, churches and even families in Manicaland. “Our interaction with Anglicans in Manicaland at different levels or in different circumstances be it at a school, in church, or over a meal had a lot say about your faith, determination and hope in doing the work of the Lord.” said Anthony. We thank the Woolwich Episcopal Area for their prayers and support.

The diocese sent six ordinands to Bishop Gaul College in Harare and one Ordinand to Westcott House, Cambridge. We thank the Community of the Resurrection (CR Fathers) who helped the diocese to raise US$8400 for the college fees and Canon Martin Seeley who helped to fund the Westcott House Ordinand. This is a big step in an effort to increase the number of trained priests in the diocese. It is only the beginning. More ordinands should be sent for theological training because we are still very far from meeting the required number of priests in the diocese. This critical need calls for greater commitment and sacrificial giving to support the training of priests.

Whilst many churches have been unlawfully taken over by Mr. Jakazi we have had moments of great joy and celebration after lawfully taking back some of our churches. Tears of grief soaked the elderly ladies from All Saints Zimunya church when their church was unlawfully taken over by Jakazi’s priests with the help of the police. When the matter was taken to the High Court, justice prevailed unlike in many other cases where we have been denied justice. We got back All Saints Zimunya church on the 11th of October 2011 and this time tears of joy streamed down on the same faces where tears of grief had flowed. All our assets that had been unlawfully grabbed are being recovered lawfully. The process is slow. I know you have suffered, you have cried but our faith and hope is that soon we shall be rejoicing. Let us not forget that first and foremost, we are the church and that the risen Lord will break all the locked doors and open doors no one can shut. It is not the buildings, but us who make a true church anchored on the spiritual foundation on which our lives are built. God will restore all our property back as well as the peace and joy that we have lost.

St Peters Nyamandwe Church in Pafiwa area has suffered a series of violent attacks from Mr. Jakazi’s supporters. Like All Saints Zimunya, this church was unlawfully grabbed and CPCA members have been tormented. The worst incident happened on the 23rd of October 2011 when five of our members were viciously attacked by thugs who had been hired by Jakazi’s supporters. Some sustained serious injuries. Even when you go through such suffering, never give up. Just remember 2 Corinthians 4:8-12 and be strengthened. As we move closer to Christmastide let us be motivated by the fact that just as God gave His only son Jesus Christ as the savior of the world He will in the same way come to our rescue. A perfect solution is in His hands.

+ Julius Manicaland
7 November 2011

Zimbabwe: Kunonga continues to persecute Anglicans

2011-12-07T08:24:00.008Z

His Grace has drawn attention to Robert Mugabe's persecution of the Anglican Church in Zimbabwe on previous occasions. The dictator's henchmen harass all of the independent churches which are seen as hostile to Mugabe's government. While he singles out Roman Catholic bishops who have ‘a nauseating habit of unnecessarily attacking his person’, it is leaders of the Anglican Church who continue to face the most sustained pressure.

It was hoped that the visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury might have had some effect. Dr Williams provided Mugabe with a dossier of outrages and abuses he has perpetrated against Anglican dioceses over the past four years, which include ‘false imprisonment, violence, denial of access to churches, schools, clinics and mission stations’ at the behest of the excommunicated bishop Nolbert Kunonga. Anglican leaders who refused to submit to Mr Kunonga’s authority say they have been subjected to death threats, spied on by state agents and blocked from worshiping in their churches or burying the dead in Anglican cemeteries.

Nothing has changed.

Kunonga and his allies continue to harass believers and interrupt worship in the Anglican Diocese of Masvingo. His Grace has received the following epistle, which he hopes will exhort the faithful to prayer. Pray for those who suffer, that they might find courage and strength. Pray that they might find the peace that only God can bring. Pray that their faith will not fail, but that persecution might draw them closer to Him and increase their faith. Pray also for Robert Mugabe and Nolbert Kunonga - both professing Christians - that the Lord might blind them with a revelation of Himself, that their evil will cease.

Dear His Grace (The Most Revd. Archbishop A. Chama), Lord Bishops, Clergy in the Province, Partners within the Communion and The faithful. Greetings from the Anglican Diocese of Masvingo.

We profoundly thank you for your continued support during our times of trial and persecution by opponents of the truth. we still request your unwavering support spiritually and socially so that we can overcome the attacks we are continuing to receive from Kunonga and his allies.

Attached is an account of what obtained on Sunday 27th November when the bishop and some clergy went to Daramombe Mission to Celebrate Mass with the faithful there.

God bless you for your support. Have a blessed Christmas.

Regards,
(Name withheld)
For The Diocesan Information Desk-Anglican Diocese of Masvingo

EVENTS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE FROM 31 JULY TO 30 NOVEMBER 2011

Daramombe Mission falls under Bishop Godfrey Tawonezvi of the Anglican Diocese of Masvingo but Nolbert Kunonga invaded the Mission on 31 July 2011.

On 31 July Kunonga and his supporters in the presence of ZRP officers, forced entry into the Daramombe Church. The local congregation together with their Priest, Father Muyengwa Murombedzi were barred from getting into the Church by Kunonga. Kunonga then celebrated Mass with a handful of his supporters in attendance. During the Church Service he announced to his supporters that Andrew Mugomo, one of his priests who was ordained without any training, was now the priest in charge at Daramombe Mission.

On Sunday 4 August 2011 Mugomo came to the Mission in the presence of 3 ZRP officers with police dogs. Mugomo forced entry into the Church. He then changed locks on all the doors and used the Church as his bedroom.

On 5 September Kunonga illegally evicted Father Murombedzi, School Heads of Primary and Secondary Schools, two teachers, two nurses and 3 ancillary staff from Daramombe Mission. Mugomo then took occupation of Father Murombedzi’s house. The High Court ruled that those who had been evicted be restored. Kunonga reluctantly allowed them back but has since written them letters saying that they should leave the Mission effective 1 January 2012. Copies of these letters were sent to Provincial Education Director of Mashonaland East, Mr. S.Matshaka.

Father Murombedzi who moved back to the Mission on 14 November was again illegally evicted on 29 November by the Chivhu Deputy Sheriff on Kunonga’s instructions. The Deputy Sheriff threatened Fr. Murombedzi that if he refused to move from the Mission, he would be arrested.

Mugomo and a handful of his supporters have been visiting Churches in the Chivhu area that fall under the Diocese of Masvingo locking up churches and terrorizing the faithful and clergy alleging that all Anglican Church property in Zimbabwe belongs to Kunonga.

In Chivhu Town, Kunonga supporters made several attempts to take over Church properties without success. The Priest, Archdeacon Shamuyarira and the Parishioners resisted.

The faithful at Holy Trinity Church were joined by the community and drove away Kunonga supporters who had come to forcibly take control of the Church on 6 & 13 November. Mugomo hires thugs who get drunk before they invade Churches.

Bishop Godfrey Tawonezvi led a delegation of Daramombe Mission Church Council and Church Wardens and Priests and had a meeting with Superintendent Mapuranga Officer in Charge ZRP Chivhu. The Bishop and his delegation informed the Officer In Charge, Chief Inspector Kuwakumire and one other lady officer, that Daramombe Mission congregation that had been barred by Kunonga from using their Church building would return to the Mission on Sunday 27 November. The delegation also expressed disappointment in the manner in which ZRP, Chivhu was handling issues at the Mission, ie always accompanying Kunonga and his supporters when they engage in unlawful activities at the Mission and surrounding Churches.

Superintendent Mapuranga informed the delegation to go and have audience with Chief Superintendent Tsoka, Officer commanding Chikomba. A meeting was convened and Superintendent Tsoka was in the company of Superintendent Muparadzi and Superintendent Mushawavetu. The meeting took one and a half hours. The same sentiments were expressed by Masvingo Diocese delegation. The delegation produced copies of documents that show that Diocese of Masvingo is the Responsible Authority for Daramombe Mission. Copies of the High Court Judgment/Order that was issued by Justice Bhunu [Case No. 8777/11] on 12 October 2011 were given to the Chief Superintendent. The order clearly states that Kunonga should not interfere with operations at Daramombe Mission. But Kunonga has been violating this order since 12 October by directly interfering with operations at the Mission.

Kunonga’s priest, Mugomo, who is at Daramombe Mission, illegally employed people at the High School and Clinic on 15 October 2011. He also demands groceries from the School Tuck Shop free of charge. He demands cash for pocket money and on 22 October 2011 and 19 November 2011 was given $200.00 on each occasion. He has demanded money for petrol and car repairs from the High School. When a beast is slaughtered by the School for use by boarders in the Dining Hall, Mugomo demands a share which includes the liver.

On 26 November, 2 ZRP Officers in the company of Kunonga’s priest Mugomo, went to Father Murombedzi’s house at 12 midnight. Fr. Murombedzi and 8 other Priests who had gone to Daramombe Mission to join the Bishop in the celebration of Mass the following day, were woken up and questioned why they were at the Mission and what their plans were for the following day, Sunday. The Priests had their names taken by the Police officers.

On Sunday 27 November 2011, the faithful gathered for Mass at Daramombe Mission at 8.00am. When Bishop Tawonezvi arrived at the Mission to celebrate Mass, there were 8 ZRP Officers, some of them armed. There was also a police dog. The main entrance to the church was guarded by the police. The Bishop and his faithful who numbered over 300 were denied entry by the police. Superintendent Mapuranga and Superintendent Nhando, officer In charge CID, informed the Bishop to go to Chivhu Police Station. The Bishop was accompanied by the Churchwardens of Daramombe Congregation and 3 Priests. The Bishop, Priests and Churchwardens were at the police station for 2 hours. A meeting was convened with Superintendent Mapuranga, Superintendent Nhando, and Superintendent Mushawavetu. The Bishop was denied use of the church at the Mission and he [the Bishop] opted to use the School Hall instead since the faithful wanted to attend Mass on the first Sunday in Advent.

On arrival at the Mission from the Police Station, the Bishop was denied access to the School Hall by the police officers. He then addressed the faithful outside the church at 4.30pm. He spoke words of encouragement and said that Daramombe Mission belongs to the Diocese of Masvingo. He said that Kunonga was using the issue of homosexuality as a smoke screen, yet in actual fact he wants to grab church property for personal benefit. He expressed disappointment at how the institution is being run down, including the maternity home that was built by the Mothers’ Union in 2009. He encouraged the faithful to be peaceful and vigilant and never allow their churches to be invaded by Kunonga.

Bishop Tawonezvi and Father Murombedzi have received numerous threats from Mugomo and other Kunonga supporters. While they fear for their lives they continue to be in solidarity with the faithful and always pursue peaceful ways of repossessing Daramombe Mission.

Cameron must confront the Euro-Beast

2011-12-06T09:39:00.003Z

When national newspapers refer to the Euro-beast, one wonders whether (1) they’ve been reading too much of His Grace; (2) they’ve received some prophetic insight from the Lord to proclaim to the British people at this time; or (3) they’re mad.

The Daily Mail has named the Euro-beast ‘Merkozy’ – a chimera of Germany and France. This is the essence of the spirit of Charlemagne.

Both Chancellor Merkel and President Sarkozy would like a new EU treaty, which must be agreed by all 27 member states. With or without a referendum (to which His Grace will return), this means that the UK will get a say in the negotiated outcome, and that say includes the power of veto.

The Prime Minister might have hoped that the Euro-17 would come to some informal arrangement among themselves for fiscal union, without anything as inconvenient as a whole new treaty. But Charlemagne-Merkozy requires something binding (Merk being more insistent than Ozy). A mere summit in Brussels cannot achieve that objective.

David Cameron is about to be confronted by ‘Europe’, and he needs to tread very carefully indeed: the omnipotent Euro-beast has been responsible for the downfall of more than a few of his predecessors, and is presently stamping upon the foreheads of the peoples of Europe the mark of austerity. Neither the Greeks nor Italians may buy or sell without his authorisation: along with Ireland, they have been sucked into the post-democratic era in which elections (when they happen) are nothing but a facade.

The problem is that the EU urgently needs treaty amendments to deal with a very present crisis (and crisis it is). But that requires an IGC (not simply some informal Franco-German summit, or even something informal for the euro-bloc or the entire EU membership). There are those who believe this represents an historic opportunity for the UK to effect the subsidiarity provisions of Maastricht and demand the repatriation of various competences now exercised at a supranational level under QMV.

And yet for HM Government to attempt to use this crisis to renegotiate its ‘relationship’ with the EU will appear petty and awfully small-minded. It’s a little like the merry band of musicians on the deck of Titanic walking up to Captain Smith as his ship was going down, to demand better working conditions. If he doesn’t agree, they’ll simply refuse to play. A crisis is a crisis: as the euro sinks, the Captain may well respond with a polite reminder that the icy waters will consume the musicians, too.

Let us be clear about this: the EU is at a crossroads. If the euro-bloc does not form a fiscal union, the euro will cease to be. A single currency requires not only a single bank, but a single government. One cannot render unto Caesar that which belongs to sundry ethnarcs without first ensuring the compliance of the vassal states. Caesar must be suzerain.

Which brings us to the thorny issue of a referendum.

The Prime Minister said yesterday that, despite his ‘Referendum Lock’, there will be no referendum because a new treaty for the eurozone involves no further transfer of sovereign powers from London to Brussels.

There are those who are of the opinion that this is ‘legally correct’: any new treaty would be a matter only for the euro-17. But this is disingenuous. A new treaty would effectively create a United States of Europe – an inner core (the euro-bloc) all subject to a single economic governance (=government), with the authority to tax and spend irrespective of the democratically-elected ethnarcs. At the moment, the UK is an equal participant in a one-size-fits-all union. A treaty heralding fiscal union for the few would fundamentally change that status: the UK is shunted to the outer tier; forced into the slow lane; expelled to the periphery; left behind; missing the boat, etc., etc. In short, the UK could no longer be ‘at the heart of Europe’, where successive governments have insisted we should be.

Many, of course, will rejoice at that: the notion that Britain needs to be ‘at the heart of Europe’ is historical nonsense. But no-one can pretend that a shift to a two-speed Europe does not represent a fundamental change in policy. The ‘heart of Europe’ is securely occupied by Germany and France. It is now for David Cameron to ‘fight Britain’s corner’, to ‘exert more influence’ and ‘punch above her weight’. And he can only achieve his professed Euro-sceptic objective by threatening the Euro-beast with a referendum of the British people.

Succeed there, Prime Minister, and your place in the pantheon of Conservative greats is assured. Fail, and you will go down in history as another weak, hypocritical, duplicitous, mendacious traitor.

Eric Pickles – Defender of the Faith

2011-12-05T10:08:00.002Z

A certain atheist councillor in somewhere called Bideford is apparently a little upset that council meetings are preceded by prayers to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ. Clive Bone, the aforementioned upset councillor, has tried numerous times by democratic means to end the practice, but has consistently been outvoted by his colleagues.

Frustrated by the impotence of the ballot box, Cllr Bone recruited the support of the National Secular Society, who are seeking a judicial review. The group is well known to readers of His Grace’s blog: it campaigns for absolute the separation of religion from the public sphere. They are of the opinion that these prayers are ‘unjustified (and thus unlawful) indirect discrimination against persons of no religion’. The state, they aver, is ‘a secular environment concerned with civic business’: God has no place.

By that logic, of course, they also seek the abolition of army and hospital chaplains; the removal of all references to God on Remembrance Sunday; the deposing of the Queen as Supreme Governor of the Church of England; and the termination of the BBC’s ‘Songs of Praise’.

The amusing thing is that Mr Bone is no longer a councillor: the NSS are bringing this case on behalf of someone who is actually suffering no alienation, exclusion or discrimination. And when Mr Bone was a councillor, he was not obliged to be present in the council chamber to participate in the prayers against his will: he was free to arrive afterwards.

The NSS are relying on the argument that praying goes against Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of thought and religion, as well as Article 14, which prohibits discrimination. Prayer, they argue, makes the non-believer uncomfortable; and prayer to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, and the God and Father of Our Lord Jesus Christ prevents those of other faiths a full and equal participation.

Should the NSS succeed, the abolition will follow of prayers before the Commons and Lords begin their proceedings. This would represent a further diminution of the status of the Church of England, and constitute another attack upon the Christian foundations of the nation.

NSS president Terry Sanderson said: "We think it would be much better if people keep their prayers private and away from the council chamber so that everyone can participate in the democratic process without embarrassment or causing aggravation to members of other religions, or of none."

Enter Eric Pickles – Defender of the Faith.

He said (via his press office): "This Government recognises and respects the role that faith communities play in our society. Prayers are an important part of the religious and cultural fabric of the British nation. While the decision on whether to hold prayers is a matter for local councils, we believe they should have the freedom to do so."

His Grace thinks it more likely that Mr Pickles would have been even more robust had the matter been put to him directly on Newsnight. Press officers are notoriously cautious: Mr Pickles says exactly what he thinks. He should have bypassed his minders and tweeted his thoughts on the matter instead.

Bideford Town Council is boldly defending their right to pray before they conduct their business. Interestingly, their agenda for the forthcoming council meeting on Thursday 8th December says: ‘Agenda - 1. Prayers - subject to statutory regulation.’

The Prayer Book of the Church of England is, of course, subject to statutory regulation. But ad hoc prayers before the business of government may be conducted are not. His Grace is of the opinion that this spurious legal challenge will be thrown out because (a) it is manifestly silly to suggest that town hall prayers intimidate or discriminate against someone; and (b) whatever one thinks of the Human Rights Act/ECHR, it cuts both ways – Article 9 provides for freedom of religion ‘in worship, teaching, practice and observance’, ‘in community with others and in public or private’, and says that any restriction on this freedom should by necessary for public safety, public order, health or morals, or the protection of other’s freedoms.

Unless the NSS plan to adopt the means and methods of the Islamist, His Grace cannot quite see prayers at Bideford Town Council endangering the peace and security of the Realm.

The end of the traditional church wedding?

2011-12-04T09:03:00.004Z

This is guest post by Rev'd Julian Mann:

If the Church of England is to avoid substantial numbers of its clergy being prosecuted under the Equality Act, it could have to stop registering marriages when Parliament legislates for same-sex marriage.

That is the clear implication from the commendably candid briefing the Church House Legal Office has just given General Synod members.

The advice is clear that Anglican parish churches are no more required under the Equality Act to register civil partnerships than gentlemen’s outfitters are required to sell women’s clothes. But 'if Parliament were in due course to legislate for same sex marriage, as recently suggested by the Prime Minister, we would of course be in new territory'.

Quite so – we would be on our way to a very cold place indeed for British Christianity.

If the law of the United Kingdom were to define marriage as both between a man and a woman and between two persons of the same sex, then it must become discriminatory for a registrar to refuse to conduct ceremonies for people who are legally entitled to get married.

The legal reasoning given in the Church House briefing on civil partnerships in religious premises explains why and merits careful reading:

A key relevant provision is section 29 of the Equality Act which makes it unlawful for 'a person (a "service-provider") concerned with the provision of a service to the public or a section of the public' to discriminate on various grounds, including sexual orientation, 'against a person requiring the service by not providing the person with the service'. A Church which provides couples with the opportunity to marry (but not to register civil partnerships) is “concerned with” the provision of marriage only; it is simply not “concerned with” the provision of facilities to register civil partnerships.

The briefing continues:

That would be a different 'service', marriage and civil partnership being legally distinct concepts. If Parliament were in due course to legislate for same sex marriage, as recently suggested by the Prime Minister, we would of course be in new territory. But that is a separate issue which would have to be addressed in the course of that new legislation.

Clearly, if the Established Church decides that the price of continuing to register weddings is too high under the same-sex marriage regime, then that would be a significant social change for the nation. The traditional church wedding to which the eligible residents of an ecclesiastical parish are legally entitled is part of the national collective memory. Its cultural continuation is the legacy of the fact that Britain was spared the 19th century revolutions that convulsed mainland Europe, particularly France.

Unlike France, Britain had an evangelical revival in the 18th century in which Anglican clergy such as Wesley and Whitefield proclaimed God's message of salvation by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone. Thankfully, the soul of Britain did not fall for the unenlightened cynicism of Voltaire, which meant that our country was spared a state monopoly on marriage registration.

But the Church of England could not be blamed for making such a change in order to protect its front-line clergy from getting sued.

Can there be any reasonable hope that on present form homosexual activists would refrain from pursuing vexatious litigations against churches? Witness what happened to the Bulls.

The fact is that front-line clergy are not wealthy people nor in many cases are the churches we serve. Furthermore, orthodox clergy should not expect a great deal of moral or indeed financial support from their congregations. Often, Christian people in Anglican churches, even evangelical ones, are biblically illiterate compared with previous generations and so are less than clear on the biblical issues at stake. It takes a long Bible teaching ministry in one place to turn that around.

Orthodox Anglican clergy could find themselves quite isolated in civil actions, as well as finding their piggy banks depleted due to legal costs. It is also highly unlikely that there would be much of an outcry from the public over clergy going bankrupt.

In most people's eyes, clergy were dog-collared oddballs on the margins of society even before they started being pictured in the papers on the steps of the Crown Court for being homophobic.

Regular members of churches could still have a Christian service after their civil marriage. But the terms under which such services were offered would need to be carefully crafted in order to avoid falling foul of the Equality Act.

How ironic and indeed tragic that an intellectually able and politically gifted Conservative Prime Minister could unwittingly prove to be the midwife to the end of the traditional church wedding.

Julian Mann is vicar of the Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, South Yorkshire. He blogs as Cranmer's Curate.

ECB celebrates 10 years of the euro

2011-12-03T09:44:00.003Z

The ECB is the central bank for Europe's single currency, the euro. Its main task is to maintain the euro's purchasing power and thus price stability in the euro area.

Ten years ago, on 1 January 2002, euro banknotes and coins were introduced in 12 Member States of the EU. Five further states have since joined. In commemoration of this decade of prosperity and growth, the ECB have released this short film.

The euro, they say, 'builds bridges and inspires hope'. It 'enables its people to look to the future with confidence'. It is a 'symbol of integration and cooperation'. And it puts the French, Italians, Finns and Greeks on notice that their 10-year period for exchanging their old currencies is about to expire.

His Grace advises them to keep their francs, lira, markka and drachmas, for the symbol of integration and cooperation has become one of coercion, exploitation and oppression. The end is nigh.

Matthew Gould - serving the Zionist master

2011-12-02T09:53:00.002Z

There is a curious fuss about the comments of Labour's Paul Flynn MP, who suggested that Matthew Gould is an inappropriate choice for British Ambassador to Israel, because he is, er... Jewish.

Mr Flynn has reportedly been carpeted by Labour Chief Whip Rosie Winterton, rebuked by Edward Miliband, and sent to Coventry by his Labour colleagues.

Mr Gould is the UK's first Jewish envoy to Israel. Mr Flynn raised the ages-old question of divided loyalties: the political dilemma of serving (or being perceived as serving) two masters. Mr Flynn said: “No Jewish diplomat has held the post before because of concerns that it might lead to a conflict of interest, or at the very least create the impression of dual loyalty. Given these traditional concerns, Gould was a strange choice. He is a self-declared Zionist who has cultivated an image that led the Forward, the most prominent Jewish newspaper in the US, to describe him recently as ‘not just an ambassador’.”

Mr Flynn is firmly of the opinion that the post should be filled by 'someone with roots in the UK (who) can't be accused of having Jewish loyalty'.

This is curious.

If Mr Flynn is preoccupied with 'traditional concerns', why did he not object to the appointment of Francis Campbell, the UK's first Roman Catholic ambassador to the Holy See since the Reformation? That particular potential divided loyalty has rather more historic resonance than any Jewish treason or plot against the British State. Would Mr Flynn object to Roman Catholic convert Ann Widdecombe being appointed to the Holy See? Might she not conspire with the cardinals to abolish contraception and outlaw abortion in the UK? Would Mr Flynn object to Sayeeda Warsi being appointed ambassador to Pakistan? That is not an unlikely future posting for her, but would she pass Norman Tebbit's 'cricket test? And what of Labour's Shahid Malik, who appears to favour the total islamification of Britain within the next 30 years? Or Sadiq Khan, determined to subsume Britain's justice system to sharia? Are they serving Allah or Her Majesty?

Why is it that Paul Flynn raises the need for a religio-political 'Test Act' upon Jews, but has never once questioned the potential divided loyalties of Muslims or Roman Catholics? Why is Mr Flynn concerned only with Zionist conspiracy? Is it because talk of 'papist plots' and 'political Islam' might offend minorities? It is bizarre indeed that, having incrementally abolished restrictions upon Nonconformists and Roman Catholics holding public office, Paul Flynn seeks to render Jews ineligible for postings which relate to Israel.

As it happens, His Grace thinks such questions may be pertinent, and MPs ought to be free to express concerns and reservations. But the fact that Paul Flynn singles out the Jews is undeniably and undoubtedly anti-Semitic, no matter how 'friendly' he professes to be towards Israel.

Bribing Croatia to join the EU

2011-12-01T07:13:00.003Z

This is appalling. Absolutely appalling.

As Nigel Farage observes, the whole campaign is ‘bent, corrupted and distorted’.

It’s one thing to blame the Communists.

They are not, however, working alone.

Mr Farage points out that Croatia does not have a free press. This is curious, since there exists a European Charter on Freedom of the Press, which you might think ought to be a pre-requisite for EU membership. After all, how can a nation be in any sense democratic if there is no media pluralism and freedom of expression?

As the EU Commission states: '...in order to have effective freedom of the press, public authorities have a role to play: they must be ready to protect freedom of expression and foster its development'. It is incumbent upon the Commission to itself comply with this Charter and contribute actively to ensuring its recognition throughout the European Union. In the press release announcing the Charter, there was a call for it 'to be made a condition for candidate countries in future accession negotiations'.

How on earth can an EU member state be permitted to censor its media, prohibit free access to national and foreign media sources, and deny its journalists the freedom to gather and disseminate information?

Unless, of course, the EU is concerned neither with freedom nor democracy.

Everybody out!

2011-11-30T09:06:00.001Z

It is billed as the largest strike since strikes were invented, or something like that. Public sector workers by the million will today withhold their labour, imperiling the education of millions of children; prolonging the suffering of the sick; endangering national security...

Brendan Barber, very important man at the TUC, said the public sector was ‘absolutely under attack’ by the Government. Not just ‘under attack’, but ‘absolutely under attack’. So he explains: “There comes a time when people really have to stand up and make a stand. With the scale of change the Government are trying to force through, making people work much, much longer and get much, much less, that's the call people have made.”

What is so difficult to understand about the state of the nation’s finances?

WE CAN’T AFFORD TO GO ON SPENDING MORE THAN WE EARN.

Unless we are to bequeath to our children (and their children, and their children’s children) not merely entrenched structural deficit but perpetual levels of impossible debt. We are all living longer, the economy is stagnant, and the balance sheet isn’t too healthy. You’d think teachers at least might understand these simple facts.

But this is not merely about economics or politics: it is about morality. Look at Ireland, Greece and Italy (which Spain and Portugal are likely to follow). If you bankrupt your nation, you increase poverty, hardship, suffering, and so the likelihood of civil strife. It is incumbent upon this coalition government to keep the country solvent – it is its foundational raison d’être. We simply cannot afford to go on paying living beyond our means.

Austerity measures are never easy, but the failure to act now will simply prolong the misery. The lifestyle to which we have become accustomed is illusory: we have created an economic model that was built on sand. It may have been 3-D, surround-sound, all-singing, all-dancing sand. But sand is sand. As the eurozone is discovering, the foundations need to be rather more robust.

Today’s strikes aren’t about privileges or pensions: they are about union revenge. Having endured 13 years of ‘New Labour’ – during which period the unreformed Socialists were frustrated but essentially compliant – they at last have another Tory government against which they can vent a decade of pent-up grievances. And so, like the 70s, it’s back to ‘everybody out’. It is profligate, unthinking, and selfish.

The joke, of course, is that George Osborne and David Cameron are not cutting as deep as is necessary: yesterday’s Autumn Statement actually confirmed £111bn of increased borrowing. As ConHome observed, it was a Brownite budget; not a Thatcherite one. The perilous state of affairs demands the blood, sweat and tears of Churchill; not the media-friendly strokes of the PR-pro Blair. There is no point trying to please all of the people all of the time: you end up pleasing no-one, and going down in history as a Heath or a Brown.

Unpopularity is the price you pay in politics for courage, conviction and truth. The perpetual pursuit of popularity brings nothing but paralysis.

Chancellor's Autumn Statement 2011

2011-11-29T13:24:00.008Z

George Osborne has delivered his Autumn statement to Parliament. Paul Goodman at ConHome is right to observe that the content scarcely matters. His Grace thinks the Chancellor's statement is best summed up in pictures.

Basically, after this:

There's likely to be one of these:

Followed by quite a bit of this:

Resulting in a seeming eternity of this:

And there's absolute no point donning this:

Because nothing will insulate you from the effects.

Winter's coming. It's going to be chilly; there's no hibernating; and those who don't die of hypothermia can expect to get frost-bite.

Merry Christmas.

John Bercow's coat of arms

2011-11-29T09:02:00.001Z

Speaker John Bercow has commissioned his coat of arms. So tackily implausible is the design that His Grace thought the whole thing was a bit of gilded mockery. Perhaps it ought to have come as no surprise that it is, in fact, deadly earnest.

The symbolism is utterly banal: blue and red are the colours of the main political parties, representing John Bercow’s own journey. The ladder (regressing right to left) represents his ascent from humble beginnings to one of the highest offices of state. The balls represent his fondness for tennis: they are four to represent the constituent countries of the United Kingdom – England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The sabres are not a nod to the Arab-Muslim world, but are drawn from the Essex coat of arms (where Mr Bercow went to university). The motto – All Are Equal – is interspersed with pink triangles, this being the symbol on Nazi concentration camp badges to identify male prisoners who were sent there because of their homosexuality. It has since been appropriated by the gay rights movement. The banner is lined with the spectrum of the rainbow, signifying the Speaker’s support for lesbian and gay rights.

If you aren’t yet retching with incredulity (not least at this £15k waste of taxpayers’ money on such an absurd vanity project), His Grace would like to explore the motto a little. ‘All Are Equal’ – what does it mean?

That all should be treated equally when similarly situated in morally relevant respects? Which of these similarities count as relevant? What constitutes treatment? Is the equality concerned with the same basic human rights, or is it about fostering a more general equality of condition? Is this equality before the law? Equality of political power? Equality of opportunity for social and economic advancement? Equality of resources? Equality of welfare? Equality of freedom? Equality of respect?

Is not inequality natural? Are we not born unequal? Are not some gifted with genetic advantage? Since complete equality is impossible for all people, the only meaning of the motto can be the aspiration for a reduction in inequality. This being so, His Grace would urge all MPs to treat the Speaker as their equal: not to accord him reverence or respect; not to get out of his way as he walks down the corridors of the Palace of Westminster; not to obey his commands in the chamber; and not to believe he is in any sense superior to them, for all are equal.

Unless, of course, John Bercow is more equal than others.

Sacked for challenging ‘Muslim fundamentalists’

2011-11-28T10:21:00.004Z

On the face of it, the case is cut and dried: a further appalling injustice against a Christian. The story has been covered by Christian Concern, the Telegraph and the Mail. Nohad Halawi, who has worked at Heathrow’s Terminal 3 for 13 years, has been dismissed by Autogrill Retail UK Limited (trading severally as ‘World Duty Free’ and ‘Caroline South Associates’) after daring to challenge Islamic fundamentalists who were harassing her work colleague.

She is now suing for unfair dismissal, on the grounds of religious discrimination. Over the months, she has apparently been told that she would ‘go to Hell’ for being a Christian; that Jesus is ‘shitty’; that ‘the Jews were responsible for the September 11th terror attacks’; and she has seen a friend reduced to tears after being bullied for wearing a cross. This intimidation has allegedly been at the hands of Muslim employees, one of whom brought in a copy of the Qur’an and ‘extremist leaflets’ and insisted that Mrs Halawi read them.

However, instead of the behaviour of these Muslims being investigated under the company's disciplinary proceedings, they ganged together and brought a complaint against Mrs Halawi. They said she was ‘anti-Islamic’, and so she who summarily dismissed by David Tunnicliffe, the trading manager at World Duty Free. She says: "I have been sacked on the basis of unsubstantiated complaints so there is now great fear amongst my former colleagues that the same could happen to them if one of the Muslims turns on them. This is supposed to be a Christian country, but the law seems to be on the side of the Muslims."

Mrs Halawi says she was targeted by the fundamentalists after she stood up for her 62-year-old friend (whom she is keeping anonymous because she still works at the terminal). The Telegraph has Mrs Halawi’s account of her ‘anti-Islamism’ and her subsequent treatment:

The row had stemmed from her description of a Muslim colleague as an allawhi, which means 'man of God' in Arabic. Another Muslim overheard this and thought she said Alawi, which was his branch of Islam.

Following the complaints she was suspended immediately, but was not told the grounds for her suspension until she met Mr Tunnicliffe in July.

Two days after the meeting she received a letter, which said the "store approval" - the Heathrow security pass - needed to work at World Duty Free was being removed because her behaviour was deemed to be unacceptable.

"I believe that the breakdown in relationship between yourself and some of your colleagues has contributed to this situation and has led to a number of inappropriate conversations taking place," the letter said.

"Whilst I do not believe that you may have meant to be offensive, I believe that it was not unreasonable for the individuals who either heard these comments, or who they were directed at to find them offensive, and they are extremely inappropriate."

A petition was circulated and signed by 28 of her colleagues, some of them Muslims, insisting that she has been dismissed on the basis of ‘malicious lies’. It evidently failed to win over Mr Tunnicliffe.

Enter Andrea Minichiello Williams, of the Christian Legal Centre, and the redoubtable Paul Diamond, arch defender of persecuted Christians, who are intent on bringing Mrs Halawi’s case to an Employment Tribunal.

His Grace has a problem with this. Actually, he has quite a few.

Firstly, these Muslims are allegedly ‘fundamentalist’. It would take a quranically-illiterate and islamically-ignorant ‘Muslim fundamentalist’ to refer to their prophet Isa (Jesus) as ‘shitty’. Very many Muslims – fundamentalist or not – would object to such abuse of one of their major prophets.

Secondly, it is a strange kind of ‘Muslim fundamentalist’ who chooses to work in an airport Duty Free, flogging cheap booze (haram) to the kuffar.

Thirdly, it’s an even stranger ‘Muslim fundamentalist’ who would bring a copy of the Holy Qur’an to work and put it into the unwashed hands of a filthy kafir.

Fourthly, Mrs Halawi’s account of her conversation is strange. Was she discussing her own name? If so, why would any misunderstanding cause any offence? Her name is certainly Arabic, so it is likely that either she or her forebears are converts from Islam. Is this why she has been singled out by the ‘Muslim fundamentalists’?

Fifthly, it really is not clear to His Grace that any of the phrases used by these alleged fundamentalists may constitute an offence. Very many Muslims believe the Jews perpetrated the September 11th atrocities. They are quite mad, but they ought to be free to articulate such views. The belief that Christians will ‘go to Hell’ is nothing but Islamic orthodoxy. Again, they should be free to express such a view. That Jesus is ‘shitty’ is certainly offensive to Christians, but it is merely the vocalisation of the manner in which He is invariably treated by sundry media. And as for being bullied for wearing a cross... well, didn’t the Lord warn of such treatment at the hands of the non-believer? Should we not rejoice?

Sixthly, the account says Mrs Halawi was ‘summarily fired’. This, of course, would be illegal in the UK except in cases of gross misconduct: the law protects employees from unfair dismissal, and her employer has a statutory obligation to ensure that their disciplinary and grievance procedures are up-to-date and in accordance with employment law.

But digging a bit deeper, it transpires that Ms Halawi is not and has never been employed by Autogrill Retail UK Limited (aka ‘World Duty Free’ or ‘Caroline South Associates’) at Terminal 3. She is apparently a part-time, freelance contractor in the Terminal’s Duty Free, and she sells perfumes and other goods on a commission only basis.

The fact that she is part-time is immaterial: under EU law they have every protection and benefit as full-time employees. But the fact that she was a self-employed contractor does rather alter things. Autogrill Retail UK Limited (aka ‘World Duty Free’ or ‘Caroline South Associates’) are able to terminate such contracts with impunity, and Mrs Halawi has no employment rights as such because she is not employed. It is difficult to see what Mr Diamond might achieve here, lest all contractors suddenly acquire all the benefits afforded to employees.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Mrs Halawi has had her security pass removed by Heathrow Duty Free. How, pray, did she acquire one in the first place if she was not an employee? Surely, if she were not an employee, neither are the ‘Muslim fundamentalists’ with whom she worked. Are we to believe – in this age of constant threats of terror – that Islamist extremists possess security passes at the UK’s principal airport and they have no contract of employment with the company which arranged it? What security checks are carried out on non-employees?

Whilst acknowledging that Muslims and Christians are not infrequently treated differently by employers, the Christian Legal Centre and barrister Paul Diamond are gaining something of a reputation for generating an awful lot of media heat, but ultimately losing the case. Judges can only be persuaded when there is a sound basis in law for a case being brought. It would come as no surprise if this case were to be summarily struck out by the Employment Tribunal. That is not to excuse or minimise any injustice Mrs Halawi may have experienced. But one cannot help feeling that such cases are increasingly being brought not to win, but simply to have one's day in court and thereby generate an awful lot of publicity.

To which His Grace is more than happy to contribute.

Cameron embroils Queen in Turkey's EU bid

2011-11-27T09:24:00.004Z

At a State Banquent this week in honour of the visit of Turkish President Abdullah Gul, Her Majesty's Government placed these words in the mouth of Her Majesty:

"We have come through a great deal together to develop what is, today, a very modern partnership. In Europe, the British Government remains committed to working with you to secure your place in the European Union."

The Express gets all hissy about the banquet being halal, which is absurd: like any hospitable host, Her Majesty will ensure that her guests are presented with food they may eat. If one is prepared to serve a special broccoli and celery quiche to vegetarians, offering halal meat to one's Muslim guests would be a basic courtesy.

No, the most objectionable aspect of this visit was the decision to enlist the Sovereign in support of Turkey's (continuing) bid for membership of the European Union. Were Turkey to join, she would not only be the EU’s most populous Muslim nation, but also the EU’s largest nation with a potential voting weight exceeding that of Germany. While Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger was implacably opposed to Turkish accession (he said it would be 'a grave error against the tide of history’), Pope Benedict XVI is making distinctly conciliatory overtures. The EU and Turkey simply have to agree ‘fundamental rules of cohabitation’ in order to build ‘a common future’ through ‘mutual dialogue’.

David Cameron is far more concerned abroad with inculcating gay rights than religious liberty. Turkey perpetuates anti-Christian discrimination laws that make it difficult for churches to own property. The treatment of Christian minorities has been one of the major hurdles to EU accession, and Christian Solidarity Worldwide has highlighted two cases of Christians being arrested for the nebulous and all-embracing crime of ‘insulting Turkishness’. And don't even think of mentioning 'Armenian genocide' or 'Cyprus'. According to a previous poll, 81% of Turks believe that the EU is not treating them ‘sincerely and fairly’, compared to 2% who say that it is.

But France and Germany are both opposed to Turkish membership. Former French president Valery Giscard d’Estaing once said that Turkish membership would be the 'end of Europe', and that those supporting the membership bid were 'the adversaries of the European Union'. President Sarkozy has always been opposed, insisting that it is up to individual member states of the European Union (ie not the collective) to decide. He is on the record as saying: “Turkey has no place inside the European Union." The French even changed their constitution to ensure a referendum on the issue. Chancellor Merkel said that while close links with Turkey were important, its future status in Europe was ‘still open for discussion’ (ie not remotely likely).

It is difficult to understand why the Consevative Party supports Turkey in the EU, unless it is in the belief that the wider the Union is, the deeper it cannot be. The 'free movement of people' would open the floodgates of cheap Turkish labour, and if CAP subsidies were to be bestowed upon Turkey's farms of the order they are in France, it would bankrupt the EU. Is there method in this madness? President Sarkozy perceptively said: “Enlarging Europe with no limit risks destroying European political union.”

With Edward Leigh, there is a part of His Grace that begins to warm to the Turkish EU bid, and Her Majesty's fervent support of it.

Cameron mocks Dawkins

2011-11-26T11:29:00.006Z

Thanks to ConHome for bringing this little snippet to the attention of His Grace:

Richard Dawkins: "Why do you support faith schools for children who are too young to have chosen their faith, thereby implicitly labelling them with the faith of their parents, whereas you wouldn't dream of so labelling a 'Keynesian child' or a 'Conservative child'?"

David Cameron: "Comparing John Maynard Keynes to Jesus Christ shows in my view why Richard Dawkins doesn't really get it."

Quite.

Tory peers oppose civil partnerships in churches

2011-11-25T09:27:00.002Z

His Grace is in favour of the Government’s plan to deregulate for civil partnerships to be held in religious buildings. It is absurd for the state to prohibit churches, synagogues, mandirs, gurdwaras and mosques from performing some kind of blessing upon homosexual unions if they wish.

The continuing prohibition on the use of pseudo-spiritual poems in civil ceremonies is really quite absurd: it amounts to state censorship and an enforced division between the private realm of spiritual belief and the public realm of political policy. If consenting adults wish to read the Bible, the Qur’an, the Gita, the Upinishads or a divine piece of Shakespeare as they make their vows, that should be a matter for them. We do not have a tradition of laïcité in this country, and the fundamentalist secularisation of society amounts to the systematic elimination of all religion from public life. Conservatives should see such a violation of conscience and property rights as utterly abhorrent.

If two consenting adult Muslims wish to trundle off to their local mosque to get their gay-friendly imam to pray Allah’s blessing upon their happy civil partnership, what business is that of the state? Is it not a fundamental religious liberty for the imam to adopt whatever liturgy he wishes? What business is it of the state to limit the use of religious buildings and thereby determine socio-religious orthodoxy? Having legislated for same-sex civil partnerships, it is bizarre to permit ceremonies to be performed in the Palace of Westminster while barring them from Finsbury Park Mosque. The state should have no interest other than in the licensing of partnership by which property rights may be determined in law.

However, this deregulation must be accompanied with adequate protection for the religious liberty of those who demur. Despite David Cameron’s best efforts to engineer a redefinition, civil partnerships are not marriages. The Church of England has no intention of bowing to political pressure to allow its buildings to be used to conduct same-sex civil partnerships: the Church holds a clear position that marriage is between a man and a woman. The Archbishop of Canterbury will undoubtedly be accused of ‘alienating homosexuals’ and rendering the Church ‘out of touch with society’. And no doubt Peter Tatchell will decry the injustice (while steering well clear of Finsbury Park Mosque). But it is not for politicians to coerce the Christian conscience or redefine two millennia of Christian orthodoxy. And neither is it for the Church of Jesus Christ to accommodate every passing fad and societal obsession.

Conservative peers are mindful of the inadequate protection in the regulations for churches or ministers who do not wish to register civil partnerships. As proposed, they cannot provide protection from equality legislation which is increasingly used against Christians. Further, it is local authorities which will administer the scheme, and these bodies now routinely coerce religious organisations (on pain of the withdrawal of funding) to comply with equality law, for they are themselves charged with the elimination of discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation. One must be sufficiently Christian to be recognisably so, but not so much so that a whiff of doctrinaire might determine one’s ethos.

The peers are led by Baroness O'Cathain, and the debate is scheduled to take place on 15th December (bizarrely, 10 days after the provision comes into effect). If the scheme is to be voluntary and consensual, the Government must ensure adequate legislative protection for those religious organisations to whom ‘gay marriage’ is inimical to their beliefs and who do not wish to accommodate religio-civil partnerships.

It is bizarre that a Conservative prime minister should seek to augment the freedom of the homosexual by curtailing the freedom of the religious. Sacred liturgy for the solemnisation of marriage is not mere words, and the institution is not merely a construct of the state. Ali and Jamal should be free to enter their mosque for the blessings of Allah to be prayed upon their happy union. But there should be no remote possibility of their dragging their recalcitrant imam into court for his refusal to do so.

Church of England rejects Cameron’s ‘British Bill of Rights’

2011-11-24T07:23:00.001Z

Okay, it’s not Lambeth Palace: it isn’t even the House of Bishops; it’s the Church’s ‘Mission & Public Affairs Council’. But it’s sufficient to merit another Church v State spat (along with Welfare reform, Education reform, and ‘gay marriage’). It’s strange that a coalition of expedience forged as a marriage of convenience with the primary economic raisons d’être of tackling the deficit and paying down the debt should so irk the Lords Spiritual.

The whole statement is reproduced below. It is not without significance that they conclude a British Bill of Rights is absurd (they have channeled His Grace on some points), not least because of its superfluity in the context of our obligations under the provisions of the ECHR (to which the Attorney General is wed). It is, however, utterly baffling (for a Church response) that the Council nowhere refers to the fact that we already have a Bill of Rights (1689) which enshrines our liberties, defines the limitations of the Executive, and inextricably binds the process of government to the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law.

DO WE NEED A UK BILL OF RIGHTS?

Response to the Discussion Paper from the Commission on a Bill of Rights
by the Mission & Public Affairs Council of the Church of England

The Mission & Public Affairs Council of the Church of England is the body responsible for overseeing research and comment on social and political issues on behalf of the Church. The Council comprises a representative group of bishops, clergy and lay people with interest and expertise in the relevant areas, and reports to the General Synod through the Archbishops’ Council.

(1) Do you think we need a UK Bill of Rights?

1. Our answer to this question is a clear “No”. We find the proposal set out in the first of the Commission’s Terms of Reference puzzling in a number of respects. First, the stipulation that a UK Bill of Rights would “incorporate and build on” all our obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights raises the question of the meaning of “building on” ECHR obligations and how this would operate. Second, it is unclear what is meant by the function of “ensuring that these rights continue to be enshrined in UK law” and how this would be achieved. Third, it is unclear how a Bill of Rights would “protect and extend our liberties”.

2. Human rights law is shaped by the interplay between the sovereignty of Parliament in enacting legislation, the obligations to which the UK is committed as a result of ratification of the European Convention in 1951, and the interpretation and enforcement of Convention rights by the domestic courts under the 1998 Human Rights Act. It is difficult to see how a UK Bill of Rights would materially add value to this already complex framework; indeed it would risk adding further confusion, not least for those whom it was designed to benefit.

3. If a Bill of Rights merely “incorporated” ECHR obligations, it would appear to be superfluous. If it added to ECHR obligations, the status of those additional rights would be problematic. They would not constitute international obligations constraining domestic legislation, and even if the provisions of the Bill were entrenched, it is unclear how the courts and Parliament would deal with a finding of incompatibility between the Bill of Rights and other domestic legislation.

4. It is also unclear what rights would be selected to “build on” those contained in the European Convention. There is an argument for parsimony and restraint in identifying human rights as distinct from civil, political and economic rights. The defining characteristic of human rights is that they claim universal scope: rights to life, liberty, privacy, a fair trial, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of expression and freedom of association can be seen to apply to all societies. Social and economic rights, crucial though they are, cannot be categorised and enforced in the same way as a human right applicable to all people in virtue of their humanity.

5. If, on the other hand, the Bill of Rights reduced or limited ECHR obligations, there would be a straightforward situation of incompatibility. Since the Attorney General has recently stated that the UK has no intention of repudiating the European Convention, the option of attenuating its provisions has already (rightly, in our view) been closed off. Yet there is a sense that part of the political impetus behind the proposal for a Bill of Rights is a wish to loosen the constraints imposed upon UK legislation and policy by the operation of the Convention. This evades the awkward complication that adherence to the Convention is integrally related to the UK’s membership not only of the Council of Europe, but of the European Union through the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and Articles 6(2) and 6(3) of the Treaty of Lisbon which effectively incorporate the ECHR into European Union law.

6. The Prime Minister has previously spoken of “a British Bill of Rights”, but it is clear that this could not be “a Bill of (restricted) British Rights” without withdrawal from the Convention. It is disturbing that many MPs and members of the public seem to think that repeal of the 1998 Human Rights Act would reduce the scope of the UK’s human rights obligations. This ignores the fact that the effect of the Act is simply to make enforceable in domestic courts the Convention rights which have been operative since 1951 and of which individuals have had the right to seek enforcement through the Court in Strasbourg since the 1960s.

7. Since the European Convention was ratified in 1951 and has been enforceable in UK courts since 1998, it is difficult to give any meaning to the suggestion that a Bill of Rights would ensure that Convention rights would continue to be enshrined in UK law. The Convention is already enshrined in UK law, and the proposal for a Bill of Rights to reinforce it comes dangerously close to what the Book of Common Prayer terms “vain repetition”.

8. If, on the other hand, it is intended that the Bill of Rights should entrench additional obligations, it is unclear how this would be effective given the sovereignty of Parliament. Parliament, having enacted the Bill of Rights, would always be free to amend or even repeal it, unless it also enacted some kind of self-limiting provision. However, in the absence of a written constitution, no Parliament can bind its successors. Therefore, a Bill of Rights would be at best declaratory. In many contexts, declarations can have value, but not where there is already a large and complex corpus of law.

9. The rhetoric of “protecting and extending” our liberties through a Bill of Rights is problematic for much the same reasons as are set out above in relation to “incorporating and building on” our obligations under the Convention. The function of “protecting” is either unintelligible or futile for the reason given in para. 7. The function of “extending” is incoherent for the reasons given in paras. 3 and 4.

10. The claim that the UK needs a Bill of Rights is therefore highly implausible and illogical. This raises the question why such a proposal is being advanced by the coalition Government. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the proposal is being supported by the parties in the coalition for diametrically opposite reasons. For one party, the appeal seems to be the (false) assumption that a Bill of Rights would confer a degree of independence from the European Convention and the European Court, a means of combating what many describe as “human rights gone mad.” For the other party, it seems to be a rhetorical way of burnishing their credentials as champions of human rights and civil liberties.

11. Clearly these sets of objectives are incompatible. While compromise and ambiguity are inevitable in the management of a coalition, it cannot be right on a subject as important as this to contemplate legislating when the logical case for what is proposed simply does not exist.

Because of a negative answer to question (1), questions (2) and (3) on the content and application of a Bill of Rights are not relevant.

(4) Having regard to our terms of reference, are there any other views which you would like to put forward at this stage?

12. Having regard to the second of the terms of reference, there would be value in the Commission “examining the operation and implementation of these obligations”. We have expressed the view that there is widespread ignorance and misunderstanding both of the European Convention and the Human Rights Act. An informed and expert assessment of the impact of human rights law should help to dispel myths and prejudices.

13. Our expectation is that such an assessment would reveal that unacceptable and anomalous interpretations of human rights originate, not so much from the provisions of the Convention or the decisions of the courts, but from ill-judged statements and actions by politicians and public authorities. This would also contribute towards the aim of “promoting a better understanding of the scope of these obligations and liberties”.

14. Having regard to the third of the terms of reference, we believe that some of the concerns driving the demand for a UK Bill of Rights would be met by appropriate reforms of the operation of the European Court of Human Rights. In his ministerial statement of 18th March 2011, Mr Mark Harper, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office, said, “We will be pressing in particular to reinforce the principle that states rather than the European Court of Human Rights have the primary responsibility for protecting Convention rights”.

15. It is difficult to know what to make of this, as both the Court and states have a role in “protecting” Convention rights at present. If “protection” is taken to include interpretation of the meaning and application of the Convention, this would seem to usurp the function of the Court and to weaken the binding force of the Convention on national governments – though it must be conceded that the practical consequences of a declaration of incompatibility between domestic law and practice and the provisions of the Convention remain somewhat unclear.

16. A better way forward might be increased use by the European Court of the “margin of appreciation”, whereby variations in the application of the Convention are allowed in view of the diverse history, traditions and institutions of different states. This might, for example, have taken the heat out of the Court’s judgment on the voting rights of prisoners in the UK in the Hirst case, which is a major cause of present discontent in Parliament with human rights law. At any rate, reform of the operation of the European Court of Human Rights and its relation to national courts is a more logical and promising way of dealing with difficulties in the system than the introduction of a UK Bill of Rights.

Dr P J Giddings November 2011
Chair, Mission and Public Affairs Council
Church House
Great Smith Street
London
SW1P 3AZ

Beyond Individualism – the imperative of Christian political engagement

2011-11-23T07:26:00.001Z

His Grace was very interested to learn of a conference taking place in London this week – ‘Beyond Individualism – Why Civil Society Needs Christian Political Engagement’, with speakers including Phillip Blond, Lord Glasman, Professor John Milbank and the eminent Bishop Michael Nazir-Ali.

The event appears to tap into a growing exasperation over the Government’s conflicting and contradictory treatment of British Christians. On the one hand, churches and Christian groups are courted as partners in the ‘Big Society’ project (unsurprisingly so, given they have a centuries-old track record of building crucial social institutions and a continuing presence in serving their local communities through a network of parishes). On the other hand, the Government continues to pursue policies which make it nigh on impossible for Christians to participate in the ‘Big Society’ while simultaneously maintaining their Christian identity.

The conscience of the individual and the distinct ethos of Christian organisations are neither recognised nor respected by those who prioritise the inviolable creeds of equality and inclusion. Meanwhile, the Christian commentary on the fundamental building blocks of society – such as the nature of marriage and the status of the family – seems to fall on deaf (or deliberately blocked) ears. The suspicion is that the ‘Big Society’ isn’t really big enough to include Christians (unless, of course, they are prepared to leave their faith at the door).

All this spells problems for David Cameron’s flagship project: the danger is not only that an enormous and otherwise willing group of citizens is effectively excluded. More fundamentally, it is that the ‘Big Society’ project falls flat on its face precisely because of a refusal to engage with the reality that any successful manifestation of civil society requires a rich and robust common narrative, capable of delivering a shared collection of goals, values and motivations. Historically our Christian heritage has provided that, and it remains the only credible candidate for it. Government grants, initiatives and ‘nudges’ are certainly not a sufficient alternative.

So Christians are rightly concerned. Until these fundamental tensions in government policy are resolved there will be no rich, civil society. And, in the meantime, Christians will increasingly feel as though they are being sidelined, abused, taken for granted, exhorted to work hard on delivery but also to keep silent about their concerns over the direction of the whole project. At best, the situation stems from a fundamental failure on the part of government to understand that religion in general and Christianity in particular is a ‘public’ and not just ‘private’ phenomenon. At worst, it reflects a deliberate refusal to listen.

Such a state of affairs cannot be expected to continue. Perhaps the Coalition’s plans to ‘redefine marriage’ will provoke a rallying call. There are already signs that Christians will express their concerns at the ballot box. As His Grace has reported, a recent ComRes survey suggested that 57% of UK Christians will abandon the Conservatives over ‘gay marriage’.

Whatever happens on that issue, Christians need to consider how to strengthen their political engagement and this event provides an opportunity to do so. And perhaps it suggests a growing recognition of some of the fundamental challenges. That it has attracted ‘Civil Society’ thinkers from across the political spectrum is perhaps indicative of the realisation that engaging with these issues is not peculiar to one particular political hue but fundamental to the very concept of ‘civil society’ and successful manifestations of it. That the conference is a hosted by the European Christian Political Movement allows for the possibility that there are lessons to be learned from ‘Christian Democracy’ in other parts of the continent.

So, perhaps there are stirrings of something new. Perhaps this event will act as a catalyst for that. His Grace looks forward to seeing what emerges from it. If it leads to a more coherent and robust Christian presence in the political discourse, that can only be a good thing.

Government-guaranteed 95% mortgages ‘buck the market’

2011-11-22T09:13:00.001Z

This must be a moral hazard zenith.

Or nadir.

It’s hard to tell if this unmitigated folly is a high or a low: His Grace is unsure of the unit of measurement or if a negative quantity is beneficial or detrimental. Either way, the proposal for the taxpayer to underwrite 95% mortgages is an offence against all that is moral, just and right. It amounts to the taxpayer-enforced insuring of the individual against incautious investment. No longer caveat emptor, but screwat taxpayor.

The proposal is aimed at first-time buyers. The Government wants to help 10,000 of them to get a foot on the first rung of the housing ladder by providing a mortgage indemnity scheme of about half a billion. At a time of increasing national debt and growing budget deficit (ie failing Coalition policy), the Government is intent on restoring 95% loan-to-value mortgages to improve affordability and inject some life into the housing market.

It is difficult to conceive of a more peccable policy than one which lures you into a state of maximum indebtedness at a punitive rate of interest, especially when debts of such gargantuan proportions built on the shifting sand of inflated property prices were largely responsible for the global credit crunch and the state we’re in. This time, instead of financial institutions selling on the risk of sub-prime mortgages to an ever-cascading carousel of private banks, the taxpayer will act as guarantor of last resort.

As with the bank bailouts, the shareholder (homeowner) takes the profit in times of plenty, but the poor taxpayer takes the hit in the lean years. It is even more invidious when you consider that those who take out these 95% loans will be subject to a higher rate of interest than those who are deemed to present less of a risk: the repayments will be arduous and the emotional costs very high. This is simply piling Pelion upon Ossa. At these thresholds, the ‘dream of home ownership’ can rapidly become a nightmare trap of negative equity and unsalability: the Englishman’s castle becomes his dungeon. House prices are not guaranteed to go on rising in perpetuity: the easier-credit bubble will surely burst, just as it has always done. It is as if we have learned nothing from Gordon Brown’s economic innumeracy.

Of course, Conservatives favour home ownership: Margaret Thatcher heralded a revolution in the property-owning democracy with the sale of council homes to tenants. But these were massively discounted in recognition of decades of paid rent: they were sold at significantly less than their market value, and so presented no financial risk to the buyer. She was, as ever, mindful of the market, famously noting that it cannot be bucked.

David Cameron, however, is taking an enormous risk: he is not only gambling that current property prices will be sustained; he is attempting to ‘buck the market’ by encouraging would-be home owners to a level of indebtedness beyond what the market believes is advisable, desirable, sustainable or moral. Lenders are cautious because they have just learned (the hard way) that debts must be secured. When they are not, you enter into the Looking Glass economics of Wonderland.

Church of England takes a 'moral stand' against welfare reforms

2011-11-20T11:15:00.003Z

The introduction of a cap on benefits, as suggested in the Welfare Reform Bill, could push some of the most vulnerable children in the country into severe poverty. While 70,000 adults are likely to be affected by the cap, the Children's Society has found that it is going to cut support for an estimated 210,000 children, leaving as many as 80,000 homeless. The Church of England has a commitment and moral obligation to speak up for those who have no voice. As such, we feel compelled to speak for children who might be faced with severe poverty and potentially homelessness, as a result of the choices or circumstances of their parents. Such an impact is profoundly unjust.

We are urging the government to consider some of the options offered by the Children's Society before the bill is passed into legislation, such as removing child benefit from household income for the purposes of calculating the level of the cap and calculating the level of the cap based on earnings of families with children, rather than all households. The government could also consider removing certain vulnerable groups from the cap and the introduction of a significant "grace period" of exemption from the cap for households which have recently left employment.

The Bishops of Bath & Wells, Blackburn, Bristol, Chichester, Derby, Exeter, Gloucester, Guildford, Leicester, Lichfield, London, Manchester, Norwich, Oxford, Ripon and Leeds, St Edmundsbury and Ipswich, Wakefield and Truro

The above open letter appears in today's Observer, over which CofE bishops routinely pore on the Lord's Day as they partake of their English Breakfast tea and marmalade on toast. The letter was apparently written with the blessings of the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, who are of the opinion that the imposition of a £500-a-week benefit cap on families is 'profoundly unjust'.

Right.

His Grace would like a pad in Virgina Water, preferably on the Wentworth Estate. Failing that, a nice pied-à-terre in Kensington Palace Gardens would suffice. The reality, of course, is that his abode is commensurate with and proportionate to his meagre stipend: he has no expectation that the taxpayer should subsidise his desire to dwell in an area he cannot afford.

£2000 a month represents the average weekly wage for working households. Adopting the mean income would appear to be a manifestly fair way of apportioning welfare, the bill for which presently runs at £192bn a year. But the bishops are concerned that the reforms risk pushing thousands of children into poverty and homelessness. How in the name of St Gemma could an income of £2000 a month be considered poverty? Certainly, it won't be enough to pay a rent in Kensington or any major city. So move.

When it comes to protecting the poorest and most vulnerable in society, the Government's measure of poverty is woefully inadequate. His Grace has said this before, but he will say it again for the economically obtuse. If poverty continues to be defined in relative terms, then Jesus was right to insist that the poor will always be with us. For when the average household income reaches £35,000, there will still be children being brought up in households where the income is a meagre £21,000, and thereby damned to be brought up in ‘Dickensian levels of poverty’.

The proportion of UK households defined as living in poverty has been around the 20 per cent through many decades of both Conservative and Labour administrations.

If the Conservative Party were intent on eradicating child poverty, or any other kind of poverty, they would first need to confront UN/EU/UK definition of the term and reassess how it is measured, for the social(-ist) scientists have being very busy moving the goalposts.

The bishops are right to highlight that subject of poverty, for it was foundational to the ministry of Jesus: he preached more about money than he did about eternal salvation. But when examining what he said about the poor, consideration has to be given to context and audience, and the nuances of Greek vocabulary also need examining.

What does Luke mean by ‘the poor’ (6:20)? The peasants who possessed little material wealth were not called ‘poor’ (‘ptochos’) if they possessed what was sufficient (ie subsistence) - they were termed ‘penes’. Jesus was (and is) concerned with the literal, physical needs of men (ie not just the spiritual [cf Acts 10:38]). When Luke was addressing the ‘poor’, he meant those who had no money - the oppressed, miserable, dependent, humiliated - and this is translated by ‘ptochos’, indicating ‘poverty-stricken…to cower down or hide oneself for fear’ - the need to beg. The ‘penes’ has to work, but the ‘ptochos’ has to beg. Those addressed by Jesus are the destitute beggars, not ‘penes’ or the general peasant audience of few possessions.

This is an important distinction upon which the bishops might like to reflect. The Bishop of Truro, Tim Thornton, said the unity of the bishops should convince the government to act: "We are proposing something positive rather than just saying something negative," he said.

Bishop, with enormous respect, being positive isn't the same as being right, just, fair or moral.

Farage's Cromwell moment: "What in God's name gives you the right...?"

2011-11-18T10:55:00.003Z

Cometh the hour, cometh the man. Nigel Farage might as well have said:

It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.

Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter'd your conscience for bribes? Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?

Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil'd this sacred place, and turn'd the Lord's temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!

Pope kissing Sheikh ‘is evocative of inter-faith dialogue, co-operation and communication’

2011-11-18T08:31:00.002Z

This is a guest post by Caroline Farrow (a ‘Cassock-loving Catholic’):

Not content with Benetton’s withdrawal of their offensive advertisement featuring a photoshopped image of Pope Benedict XVI kissing Sheikh Ahmed Mohamed el-Tayeb, the Vatican have announced that they intend ‘to take the proper legal measures’ to stop the use of the photo.

That the photo is offensive can be in no doubt. The photo displays the Pope in the act of a homo-erotic embrace, which Catholics would consider to be a grave sin and suggests a deep underlying hypocrisy. Not only that, but the by-line ‘hope not hate’ seems to endorse the sin as being a positive development and a sign that the Church might change its doctrine on homosexuality. To add insult to injury, there is a further implication that the Catholic Church’s stance is one of hatred when nothing could be further from the truth. As the Catechism states:

The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination...constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided (CCC 2358).

The Vatican would be wise to accept the withdrawal and accept that the Pope was an inevitable pawn in Benetton’s global brand strategy. This is not the first time that Benetton has deliberately caused controversy and offence to the Catholic Church: the technique is a familiar trope in advertising – run offensive campaign and subsequently withdraw poster, resulting in maximum publicity. It is a deliberate weighing up of limited disgust with brand versus enormous recognition and publicity, designed to net them millions of dollars. How else might one guarantee global headlines and even a mention by the President of the United States?

Whilst the Vatican spokesman, Fr Lombardi, is correct in identifying the demonstrable lack of respect to the Pope and the offence caused to millions of believers, he should also remember that no-one has a right not to be offended. To sue for hurt feelings would be to squander resources that could be put to better use and casts Catholics into the mould of dour Puritans or fundamental Islamists, unable to laugh at ourselves or see the comic surrealism inherent in the image.

Furthermore, Catholic doctrine is considered offensive by a not inconsiderable number of secularists, hence if Catholics wish to push the right-not-to-be-offended card, we could well find ourselves on a sticky wicket and legislate away our own already-diminishing religious liberties and freedoms of speech. We cannot have a situation where nobody may publicly say anything negative about anybody else for fear that the offence caused may see them facing civil or criminal charges. Satire is an important tool of a healthy democracy, although this advertisement was of a more cynical nature. The censorship of images and the suppression of creativity are the hallmarks of a totalitarian state.

If there is no such thing as negative publicity, then the wisest move the Vatican could make would be to hijack and own the advertisement. The figures of two great spiritual leaders embracing is evocative of inter-faith dialogue, co-operation and communication. Sheikh el-Tayeb froze relations with the Vatican in January of this year after the Pope spoke out about the plight of the Coptic Christians in Eygpt. The Vatican could use this image to emphasise ‘the Holy See’s readiness to continue on the path of interreligious dialogue and cooperation’.

Since May, over 90,000 Coptic Christians have been forced to leave Egypt, and state broadcasters loyal to the military junta have been urging 'honourable Egyptians' to help the army to put down the 'sons of dogs’ as Christians have protested about the destruction of their Churches. What could be more apposite than the message of ‘Hope not Hate’, in these circumstances?

The Pope has demonstrated much commitment to inter-faith dialogue with Islam over the past few years, praying in a Turkish mosque in 2006; holding many meetings with Muslims, most recently in Berlin during September’s Papal visit to Germany; and even inviting Sheikh El-Tayeb to the recent inter-faith gathering in Assisi, which the Sheikh refused.

Of course, Fr Lombardi’s threat of legal action might well be a canny move, because to publicly endorse the advert might well cause further offence in an already volatile and precariously-balanced relationship. Presumably, Sunni Muslims find this image every bit as offensive as Catholics, but I would agree with el-Tayeb’s spokesman, that the image is indeed ‘absurd’. The Vatican has more pressing battles on its hands, not least halting the spread of a greedy and corrupt over-corporatisation: at his weekly audience at the beginning of November, the Pope denounced a profit-at-all-costs mentality as being responsible for the current global financial crisis. It would therefore be ironic if the Church were to play straight into the hands of corporate strategists, by giving the advertisement far more importance than it actually merits.

Is it offensive to photoshop the Pope?

2011-11-17T07:28:00.002Z

Benetton has withdrawn the advertisement which shows Pope Benedict XVI kissing Islamic Sheikh Ahmed Mohamed el-Tayeb. Perhaps understandably, a number of Roman Catholics found it offensive, and Fr. Lombardi at the Holy See called it 'unacceptable'.

But if it be, why is not also 'unacceptable' to photoshop images of any world leaders kissing each other? Benetton have not pulled their posters of President Barack Obama smooching Venezuela’s Hugo Chàvez, or that of Chancellor Merkel snogging President Sarkozy.

Are not these offensive to their followers? Do not Democrats find manipulated images of their saviour offensive? Why should religious leaders be preserved from 'unacceptable' parody or satire? We are not, after all, talking about the images of Mohammed or Jesus or any demi-god; we are talking about fallible men (except, of course, in dogmatic matters of faith).

And if be offensive to show the Pope kissing, is it not also offensive to juxtapose the Archbishop of Canterbury with Animal? Is that not designed to provoke? Who deterimes the threshold of offence?

Give a Jew a bacon sandwich, and he’ll roar with laughter, and what's more there will be no lawsuit for infringement of their human rights or a call to jihad. Islam is no laughing matter, Mohammed no joke, and Allah apparently incapable of humour. One must hope this incapacity for levity does not become too widespread, or Rowan ~~Williams~~ Atkinson will be out of a job.

Rainbow street signs establish Liverpool ‘gay area’

2011-11-16T07:10:00.002Z

Longtime readers of this blog will know that His Grace is of an essentially latitudinal and tolerant disposition: he eschews the extremes of political ideology, schismatic theology and abstract philosophy in favour of a plethora of viae mediae, even when they may be mutually exclusive or held ‘in tension’, often to the immense frustration of some of his more robust readers and communicants.

The title of this blog post may sound like a joke, but it really isn’t. And His Grace really (no, really) wouldn’t have much of a problem with it, if it were not for the inexorable ascendancy of the emerging hierarchy of competing and mutually-exclusive rights with which Labour has unremittingly burdened the British taxpayer and irredeemably corrupted all political discourse.

We have set religious liberties against gay rights and we have sexual equality legislation which infringes freedom of conscience. The law which was designed to protect minorities from discrimination is riding roughshod over the rights and beliefs of the majority. There is no limit to the application of such a principle. As the Archbishop of Canterbury observed: 'By legislating to protect and promote the rights of particular groups, the government is faced with the delicate but important challenge of not thereby creating the conditions within which others feel their rights have been ignored or sacrificed, or in which the dictates of personal conscience are put at risk'

Now it transpires that homosexuals in Liverpool are being granted their own brightly-coloured street signs emblazoned with rainbows, and these signs are just so happy and gay (that is, if one is any longer permitted to use that word in its original sense of possessing a merry, lively mood or showing extravagance and ornament). Lest anyone be confused by this development in highway insignia, there are no street signs featuring Bungle, Zippy, George, or even Geoffrey: just up above the streets and houses, rainbow climbing high. Everyone can see it smiling over the sky. Paint the whole world with a...

Oh, sorry.

As His Grace was saying, the rainbow (Gen 9:13) has been appropriated by the homosexual community/ies rather like the word ‘gay’ (not to mention Abba, Kylie, the colour purple [not the film – yet] and male grooming). Liverpool has become the first city in Britain to have street signs featuring rainbows, the first of which was unveiled last week on Stanley Street at the heart of the city’s ‘gay quarter’.

Apparently, these rainbows will also feature on Cumberland Street, Temple Lane, Eberle Street and Temple Street, after a decision by the city’s council to recognise the Stanley Street quarter as a ‘gay area’.

Now then, these signs are all very nice and jolly and would brighten up any neglected and rundown area. But the inescapable logic of this precedent (paid for, of course, by the Council Tax-payer) is that any geographic area typified by a distinct identity could now be subject to a barrage of ‘equality’ demands for councils to endow street signs with sundry logos.

Should the entirety of Brighton’s streets be recast with rainbow signage? Or Soho? And what about the straight areas? Should there be a whatever-the-logo-for-‘straight’-is in (say) Newcastle? Or is it only minorities which get dedicated street signs?

How about putting Labour’s logo all over Barnsley? Or the Tory logo over Gerrards Cross? Or Banbury Cross? Or the LibDem logo on rubbish bins? Talking of crosses, why don’t we have the Christian symbol on streets around Holy Trinity Brompton? Or the Sikh khanda in Southall? Or some expression of Islamic incursion and ownership in ~~Minaret~~ Tower Hamlets or Leyton?

O, hang on.

We already have some of the more robust followers of Mohammed demanding: ‘How dare you come to a Muslim area?’ And they know what they’re doing. Where they are in a majority, it becomes a territorial land-grab for Allah – part of the dar-al-Islam, where sharia law prevails. This leads to a rejection of the unbelieving kuffar, or the demand of special taxes upon them and the imposition of the sharia criminal code administered through sharia courts. There is a de facto ban on alcohol consumption in public, and many pubs and bars are forced to close. The advertising of ladies underwear is prohibited, and there are certainly no gay bars.

His Grace is not saying that those behind street signage with gay rainbows are as bad as those who seek to blow us all to kingdom come: but the alienating effects upon some straight people may be just as keenly felt as it is by the infidel gays who dare to venture into a ‘Muslim area’ where a rigorous policy of ‘no gays’ is in operation. It is ironic that, as our public space becomes more secular (and so, we are told, more ‘neutral’), we are apportioning a distinct sexual identity to entire quarters of our main cities. The logic of what must follow, under the provisions of the Equality Act 2010, is inescapable.

Cameron: "What kind of Europe do we want?"

2011-11-15T07:44:00.002Z

Angela Merkel: "The task of our generation is to complete economic and monetary union, and build political union in Europe, step by step. That does not mean less Europe, it means more Europe. If the euro fails, then Europe will fail.

David Cameron: "Change brings opportunities, an opportunity to begin to refashion the EU so it better serves this nation’s interests and the interests of its other 26 nations too. An opportunity, in Britain’s case, for powers to ebb back instead of flow away, and for the European Union to focus on what really matters. That is the kind of fundamental reform I yearn for, and I am determined to do everything possible to deliver it."

If these statements are not mutally exclusive, there is certainly a chasm between them of the order of that which separates heaven from hell. Chancellor Merkel helpfully confirms that the ECSC/EEC/EC/EU project was and is about political union; not mere matters of trade, as we were told in 1973. She also succinctly confirms the Monnet/Schuman doctrine of the incremental fusion of nation states. 'Fused’ is the word Monnet used in 1952, and is wholly consistent with the language of EU treaties. For this to be achieved without the peoples of Europe realising what was happening, the plan was to be accomplished in successive steps. Each was to be disguised as having an economic purpose, but all, taken together, would inevitably and irreversibly lead to federation.

After Europe’s coal and steel production were pooled, Europe’s atomic programmes were to be co-ordinated. Then would follow the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Market. After this would come the single currency, and so on. The anti-EEC leaflet of the 1975 referendum plainly set out the dangers of such a federation, warning: ‘The fundamental question is whether or not we remain free to rule ourselves in our own way... the Common Market...sets out by stages to merge Britain with France, Germany, Italy and other countries into a single nation... our right, by our votes, to change policies and laws in Britain will steadily dwindle.’ Hugh Gaitskell uttered the same warning at the 1962 Labour Party Conference, when he spoke of ‘the end of Britain as an independent nation state... the end of a thousand years of history. You may say “let it end” but, my goodness, it is a decision that needs a little care and thought.’

It would be easy to confuse Gaitskell with today's 'xenophobic right-wing swivel-eyed loons'. But successive European treaties have shown that his fears were not without foundation. The question for Mr Cameron is what will he do if France and Germany proceed (as they will) with 'more Europe'? Eurosceptic-sounding speeches are all well and good, but there comes a point when the rhetoric is devoid of credibility. The Prime Minister is not stupid: he knows that 'for powers to ebb back instead of flow away' will require the unanimous consent of 26 other nations. That means a further amendment to the Treaty of Rome, and so a new EU treaty. And he is pledged to put any further treaty to a referendum of the people. Hmm...

The Iron Lady - official UK trailer

2011-11-14T19:07:00.003Z

His Grace can hardly wait.