eChurch Christian Blog

I don’t think this will be well received in general. I understand the argument relating to the freedom of religious expression, but where do you draw the line?

Nadia Eweida is back in court against British Airways in the dispute over BA asking her to stop wearing a necklace cross at work. Originally an appeal tribunal found that no religious discrimination had been committed, because “Christians generally” do not consider wearing a cross as a religious “requirement”. I believe this is the crux of the issue for Sir Mota Singh QC, as he would argue that wearing the Kirpan is a religious “requirement” and to deny this ‘right’ is tantamount to religious discrimination.

What happens if I believe that carrying a sword is a religious requirement for me personally, or if the Jedi Church decide that wielding a Lightsaber is a ‘religious requirement’? We’d all be in trouble then

Telegraph:-

Sir Mota Singh QC spoke out after a number of Sikhs were refused entry to schools and other venues because they were wearing the Kirpan or other religious artefacts.

Sir Mota, who received a knighthood in the 2010 New Year Honours list, said he had worn his Kirpan without problems for up to 40 years, in public buildings including Buckingham Palace.

“Not allowing someone who is baptised to wear a Kirpan is not right,” Sir Mota told BBC Asian Network.

The sheathed scimitar, which is attached to a cloth belt and normally worn discreetly under clothes, is one of five “articles of faith” that baptised Sikhs must be carried at all times. The others are Kara (a steel bangle), Kesh (unshorn hair), Kanga (a comb) and Kacha (special underwear).

Last year, a 14-year-old Sikh boy was refused entry to the Compton School in Barnet after governors ruled his Kirpan was a health and safety risk.

The same year, a Sikh police officer won his case for discrimination against Greater Manchester Police after he was told to remove his turban during riot training.

And in 2008, 14-year-old Sarika Singh won a High Court case against Aberdare Girls’ School in south Wales after it excluded her for breaking its “no jewellery” rule for wearing a Kara. The school was found guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations and equality laws.

Read More

BBC

Sikhs should be allowed to wear their ceremonial daggers – known as Kirpans – to school and other public places, Britain’s first Asian judge has said.

There have been a number of cases of Sikhs being refused entry to venues because they wear the Kirpan or other religious artefacts.

Sir Mota Singh QC has now criticised schools, in particular, over the issue.

“Not allowing someone who is baptised to wear a Kirpan is not right,” Sir Mota told BBC Asian Network.

‘No objection’

Last year, a Sikh police officer, who had been told to remove his turban during riot training, won a discrimination case against Greater Manchester Police.

A schoolboy was also banned from wearing his Kirpan at a school in Barnet, London.

And, in 2008, 14-year-old Sarika Singh won a High Court case against her school after it excluded her for breaking its “no jewellery” rule for wearing a Kara (steel bangle), which is another symbol of Sikh faith.

The school was found guilty of indirect discrimination under race relations and equality laws.

“I see no objection to a young Sikh girl or boy, who’s been baptised, being allowed to wear their Kirpan if that’s what they want to do,” said Sir Mota, who received a knighthood in the 2010 New Year Honours list.

Read More

This is a moving and sad blog post from Carla over at ‘More Books and Things‘, looking at Christian blogging and the battle against false teaching within Christendom, which I liken to ’swimming in the sewer’. I’ve only just discovered this blog via Vee over at the Living Journey blog, but will ensure that I follow this from now on.

[.....]

No, we post-modern Christians would rather read a book to learn about who God is than sludge through the Bible. Isn’t that right? Just take a look at your local Christian book store and wander over to that best seller section. See that fiction book up there? Yes, that book. Do you know its author just got an award for his book, even though he openly denied the penal sacrificial atonement of Jesus Christ on the cross in a recent interview (transcript is here)? Doesn’t that make this nice, popular author (who is speaking in churches across the land spreading his nice fabricated false fable) a false teacher?

So how do we combat today’s false prophets and authors and speakers (who the Bible calls ministers of Satan)? Every Christian should be able to spot them and point them out and avoid them, but they can’t because they are not spending time in God’s Word (I mean studying, not doing a Lectio Divina). And so this is why some unworthy sinners saved by grace are called upon by God to warn His people today, because He is merciful and just. Even so, God said that the people who love listening to the false prophets will not listen to God’s truth, even when He sends it to them.

So why would any person in their right mind spend three hours of their much needed beauty sleep posting a well researched article with a dozen live links, all previously searched out during long hours of burning the midnight oil, to warn Christians about false teaching when maybe 30 of them will skim through it and nod their heads in agreement, 30 might quickly browse the headline and decide it’s not bad enough news to bother reading, another 30 will politely disagree, yawn and move on to a more interesting website, and 9 more may read it, shake their head in disgust, and leave a very nasty comment? Here is why – we who blog these things blog for the few; the remnant, for that one person to whom God is speaking, who may read the truth, be convicted, will not harden their heart, and will have the guts to come out of the popular deception.

Read More

From Zenit – H/T Anglican Mainstream:-

Benedict XVI has been under fire this past week for supposedly condemning equality legislation in the United Kingdom that seeks to protect gays and women in the workplace. His comments, however, were misunderstood, says a Vatican spokesman.

Jesuit Father Federico Lombardi, the director of the Vatican press service, noted in the most recent installment of the Vatican Television program “Octava Dies” that “assuring equal opportunity to all members of society is a noble objective.”

“Nevertheless,” he added, “in certain cases one tries to achieve it with laws that impose unjust limits on the freedom of religious communities to act according to their own convictions.”

“If then these laws contradict the natural law, one undermines the foundation that guarantees equality and therefore the right to enjoy equal opportunity,” the priest explained.

Last Monday, the Holy Father addressed the bishops of England and Wales on the occasion of their five-yearly “ad limina” visit to Rome. In his address he noted: “Your country is well known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society.

“Yet as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

“In some respects, it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed.”

The Pope’s words, according to Father Lombardi, “touch on a critical point in the debates over equality and rights that are much in focus in many countries of the world; debates that involve fundamental aspects of the understanding of man: right to life, sexuality, the family.”

“It is not at all a matter of the Church’s interference in the social and political arena,” he said, “but of a right and proper — and thus courageous — manifestation of her positions at the service of the common good.”

Father Lombardi then cited Sir Jonathan Sacks, chief rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the Commonwealth, who cautioned against an ideological use of the theme of equality of rights in the U.K. daily The Times.

He wrote: “Rather than regard the Pope’s remarks as an inappropriate intervention, we should use them to launch an honest debate on where to draw the line between our freedom as individuals and our freedom as members of communities of faith. One should not be purchased at the cost of the other.”

“So it is not only the Catholics who see a problem,” the Vatican spokesman concluded, “it is a problem for everyone to honestly confront if they truly want to build a better society together.”

Bill Muehlenberg has also written about the so called equality legislation in a piece entitled: “Heterosexuality: A New Hate Crime”

It is not just in the futurist, dystopian novels such as Brave New World and 1984 that the totalist state seeks to punish thoughts as well as actions. In real world dictatorships and totalitarian states the same attempt has been made. Certain thoughts and ideas are declared to be verboten with corresponding punishments for those daring to think them.

The tyrannical state determines what is acceptable thought, and woe to those who wish to remain a free thinker. Any recalcitrants are swiftly dealt with, and the full weight of the state apparatus is brought to bear on any offenders. Correct Speak and Correct Think are maintained by various measures, including re-education camps.

The really scary thing is that the free West is not all that far away from what we find in these novels and these police states. Increasingly Western nations are passing their own totalitarian ‘hate speech’ laws, vilification legislation, and so-called equal opportunity bills.

All these laws may seem like they were enacted with good intentions, and perhaps some were. But the outcome remains the same: a radical diminution of freedom of speech, increased powers of the State, and encroaching government-enforced Correct Think

The number one expression of this in the West concerns the radical homosexual agenda. All over the West coercive legislation is being passed by activist governments to enforce the homosexual agenda. And there is good reason for this: the majority of the population simply do not accept the normalisation of homosexuality, nor see things like same-sex marriage as being in any way on a par with heterosexual marriage.

Therefore the only way complete submission on this matter can be achieved is by the heavy hand of the law and the threat of punishment for those who do not comply. The majority will simply be forced by increasingly hostile states to kowtow to the homosexual agenda or face the music.

Consider just two more examples of this, both of which appeared recently in the media. Add these two to the many dozens of other cases, and things are not looking very good for freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and freedom of religion.

The two examples should not come as a surprise, given where they originated. Canada and the UK have been world leaders in pushing a politically correct, pro-homosexual agenda, complete with government sanction. The first case has to do with a government proposal in Quebec to stamp out politically incorrect thinking on the issue of homosexuality.

It comes in the form of the “Quebec Policy Against Homophobia” released by Quebec’s Minister of Justice and Attorney General, Kathleen Weil. Journalist Drew Zahn explains. The policy is aimed at “eliminating all forms of ‘homophobia’ and ‘heterosexism’ – including the belief that homosexuality is immoral – from society as a whole.

“The text and specifics of the policy are steeped in vague bureaucratic language about ‘coordination’ and ‘synergy,’ but the goal is spelled out clearly: to enlist the government to normalize homosexuality in society and to quell common criticisms levied against ‘sexual minorities,’ a term the policy uses to inclusively describe ‘lesbians, gays, bisexuals, transsexuals and transgenders.’

“‘An inclusive society such as ours must take the necessary steps to combat homophobic attitudes and behavior patterns and move towards full acceptance of sexual diversity,’ states the Premier of Quebec Jean Charest in a letter that serves as the policy’s introduction. ‘The policy sets out the government’s goal of removing all the obstacles to full recognition of the social equality of the sexual minorities, at all levels of society.’ The policy further defines the heterosexism that must be stomped out as ‘affirmation of heterosexuality as a social norm or the highest form of sexual orientation.’

“Furthermore, the policy laments, ‘It is still possible to hear people say that homosexuality is an illness, morally wrong or a form of deviant behavior, and that people choose their sexual orientation. These beliefs, often instilled in the past, tend to marginalize sexual minority groups and prevent full recognition of their social equality.’ Such ‘prejudice,’ the policy affirms, must be combated.”

Wow! Even if only a fraction of this is true, this is scary as all get out. This matches anything envisaged by Aldous Huxley, George Orwell, and other fiction writers warning of future totalistic regimes. This is mind moulding at its worst.

Imagine that! Anyone who even affirms that homosexuality is in anyway other than absolutory hunky dory must be punished and re-educated. This is Big Brother at its worst. And get this: even to suggest that homosexuality is a choice will bring on the wrath of the state thought police. But what about the many homosexuals themselves who have suggested that choice plays an important role in their lifestyle? Will they be punished as well?

But wait, there’s more. In the UK an MP has actually said that his party would ensure that faith-based schools would be forced to comply with PC views on homosexuality. This is how one article describes this:

“UK Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg says his party (the third largest in the UK) would legislate to legally oblige faith schools to teach that homosexuality is normal and without risk to health. In a magazine interview, Clegg outlined proposals to advance ‘gay rights’, including forcing all schools to implement anti-homophobia bullying policies and to teach that homosexuality is ‘normal and harmless.’ He also proposed to end the ban on homosexual men being allowed to give blood, and to allow same-sex couples to marry with the same legal rights as heterosexual couples.”

There you go: more coercive social utopianism. If the masses will not bend the knee to the extreme secular-left vision, then the totalist state will simply force all those unwilling scum to embrace the homosexual agenda. Using the force of the law to impose unpopular and draconian social engineering policies is always the stuff of ruthless dictatorships – it is never the stuff of genuinely free democracies.

But our coercive utopians really don’t give a rip about freedom, democracy and other hallmarks of civilised society. They are only interested in implementing their radical social engineering – at any cost. All opposition will swiftly and stiffly be dealt with.

Today the affirmation of heterosexuality is seen by many social engineers to be a hate crime. One can only speculate as to just how long it will be before heterosexuality itself becomes a punishable offence. Don’t laugh – who just a few short decades ago would ever have dreamed that to champion heterosexuality and criticise homosexuality would become a criminal offence?

The Western world is well on the way to complete self-immolation. The only thing that stands in the way of Big Brother dictatorship is an informed and concerned citizenry. And as Edmund Bourke so rightly warned, the only thing that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=122113
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jan/10011307.html

Ruth Gledhill reports in the Times:

The chaos of the Church of England’s move towards consecrating women bishops is revealed in the statement the Bishop of Manchester will make to the General Synod tomorrow. Articles of Faith has obtained a copy of this statement. In it he says:

‘…proposals for a recognised society, some sort of transfer or vesting, or for adopting the simplest possible legislative approach all got initial amber lights, that is to say, we agreed to consider them further.. We then did some serious work on these models, particularly to tease out the pros and cons of the society model and to understand exactly what it might mean in terms of who exercised what jurisdiction and on whose authority…. The Revision Committee voted by a clear majority to reject the society option but, by a similarly clear majority to go for the transfer or vesting route….

Continue Reading

Revd. Fr. Edward Tomlinson has commented on this and of course makes reference to the Pope’s offer to Anglicans:-

Breaking news from the Revision committee of the General Synod has appeared on Ruth Gledhill’s blog. Just as predicted it spells a complete betrayal of those Anglo-Catholics who cannot in all conscience accept the ordination of women. Far from honouring the sincere promises made to us in 1992 the recommendation effectively ushers in the end game for the Catholic movement within the Church of England.

[.....]

For those who had already decided that the Pope’s offer cannot be ignored this is a wonderful day. It makes it abundantly clear that there is no long term future for traditional Catholicism in the Church of England and ensures no one can point a finger of blame when congregations walk away. But for those who feel unable to convert to Catholicism this is a very grave and tragic development. How wicked that the Church of England is unable to offer this group any space in which to thrive. The Revision Committee are ensuring they have no future which renders evangelism dormant. Such priests are forced into a life as one generational hospice chaplains….

Continue Reading

On the subject of the Pope’s offer to Anglicans, Fr Tomlinson writes:-

It is no surprise or secret that feelings are running high on both sides of the Tiber with regard to the Pope’s offer of an Ordinariate for those Anglicans seeking to enter fully into the life and witness of the Roman Catholic Church. However those feelings are markedly different depending on what shore you stand. This week Pope Benedict met with the RC Bishops of England and Scotland and his words were full of welcome, encouragement and hope. This is what he said:

Ecumenical and inter-religious dialogue assume great importance in England and Wales, given the varied demographic profile of the population. As well as encouraging you in your important work in these areas, I would ask you to be generous in implementing the provisions of the Apostolic Constitution Anglicanorum Coetibus, so as to assist those groups of Anglicans who wish to enter into full communion with the Catholic Church. I am convinced that, if given a warm and open-hearted welcome, such groups will be a blessing for the entire Church.

With these thoughts, I commend your apostolic ministry to the intercession of Saint David, Saint George and all the saints and martyrs of England and Wales. May Our Lady of Walsingham guide and protect you always. To all of you, and to the priests, religious and lay faithful of your country, I cordially impart my Apostolic Blessing as a pledge of peace and joy in the Lord Jesus Christ.

How clear that the Pope sees this development in a positive light. His words are full of graciousness and welcome and he seems to be implying that we Anglicans with truly Catholic hearts have something to offer the RC church as well as something to receive. Now contrast that with the very dismissive manner in which the Archbishop of York pours cold water on the whole affair in a recent interview:

“If people genuinely realise that they want to be Roman Catholic, they should convert properly, and go through catechesis and be made proper Catholics. This kind of creation [the Apostolic Constitution] — well, all I can say is, we wish them every blessing and may the Lord encourage them. But as far as I am concerned, if I was really, genuinely wanting to convert, I wouldn’t go into an Ordinariate. I would actually go into catechesis and become a truly converted Roman Catholic and be accepted.”

William Crawley: “So those Anglicans who take advantage of the Apostolic Constitution, you’re saying, would not be ‘proper Catholics’?”

Archbishop Sentamu: “Well, I mean, I’d be very surprised –”

William Crawley: “What would they be if they are not ‘proper Catholics’?”

Archbishop Sentamu: “They would be what they are: an Ordinariate of the Vatican.”

These words stand in stark contrast to the holy Father’s and I am left wondering what information ++Sentemu has that the Pope does not? With what authority does he proclaim the ordinariate to be ‘not proper’ when the Pope so clearly expresses a desire to give it full life? At best he is troubled and misinformed, at worst he is deliberately trying to worry those considering the offer on both sides of the divide.

Perhaps the heirarchy of the Church of England should pause before speaking and consider how ungracious it appears when they both refuse the space for Catholics to thrive whilst also trying to deny us life elsewhere! As General Synod meets this week it would be wise to ponder the situation carefully. Either decide to embrace orthodox Catholic theology and match the Pope’s offer or else embrace the generosity of the Vatican and seek to help those you no longer value to find life with integrity elsewhere. But be warned, after years of pain and frustration there will be those who no longer care by what tortous means the Synod intends to progress or to stifle now that Saint Peter is calling them home.

H/T Polycarp

Fox

Two men ministering on the streets of Boynton Beach were allegedly gunned down by an 18-year-old man.

Police say 24-year-old Tite Sufra and 23-year-old Stephen Ocean were preaching to Jeriah Woody for about 15 minutes, until he got a phone call.

Woody left, but then allegedly started walking toward the two. When Sufra approached, Woody allegedly shot him in the head. Ocean ran, and police say Woody shot him in the back, then walked up and shot him again — this time in the head at point-blank range.

This is lovely from CyberBrethren:-

On the second last Sunday before the start of Lent, Sexagesima, the focus is on God’s work through His Word. The Sower sows the seed of His Word (Luke 8:4–15). This Word is living and powerful (Heb. 4:9–13) to conceive new life in those who hear it. But the planting of Christ is attacked by the devil, the world, and the flesh. Satan snatches the Word away from hard hearts. The riches and pleasures of this life choke off faith. Shallow and emotional belief withers in time of temptation and trouble. But see how Christ bears this attack for us! Christ’s cross was planted in the hard and rocky soil of Golgotha. A crown of thorns was placed upon His head. Satan and His demons hellishly hounded and devoured Him. Yet, through His dying and rising again, He destroyed these enemies of ours. Jesus is Himself the Seed which fell to the ground and died in order that it might sprout forth to new life and produce much grain. In Him, the weak are strong (2 Cor. 11:19–12:9). He is the Word of the Father which does not return void (Is. 55:10–13) but yields a harvest hundredfold. Lesson summary source.

Continue Reading

Whilst glancing quickly at news feeds in the middle of moving house, I noted this rather odd news relating to a Rockefeller raising capital for a proposed 3rd Temple in Jerusalem.

I posted last year an article from ‘Israel Today’ that spoke of a a centuries-old rabbinical prophecy, that Israel will begin construction of the Third Temple in Jerusalem on March 16, 2010.

Vee over at Living Journey has put together an excellent post (as usual) relating to this recent “Temple Talk”, which is well worth a read:-

The Third Temple – Temple Talk…

The BBC nailed its colours to the mast when it appointed a Muslim head of religion (Aaqil Ahmed) last year and caused much disquiet in some quarters of the Christian world. This move was perceived by some Christians to be a ’slap in the face’ and to be frank it was never going to be an easy road.

Aaqil Ahmed moved from Channel 4, where he caused some controversy as their ‘head of religion’ and was accused of a pro-Islamic bias.

Interestingly it was only last November that Aaqil Ahmed stated that, “Christianity is still the BBC schedule’s cornerstone”. How things can change in such a short period of time.

Telegraph:-

Aaqil Ahmed, a controversial executive whose appointment last year prompted more than 100 complaints, said: “I think all the faiths should be treated in the same way. I don’t believe in treating any faith differently.”

[....]

Mr Ahmed’s comment that Christianity should not receive preferential treatment comes despite nearly three-quarters of the population describing themselves as Christian in the last census.

Read More

Now we all know that the census is rubbish and the fact of the matter is that the vast majority of the UK population are not Christian and that Christians are now a tiny minority group in this country.

Aaqil Ahmed’s comments relating to the Church of England ‘living in the past’ are accurate and I find it extraordinary that there will be a debate at the General Synod, the Church’s parliament, over the BBC’s treatment of Christianity. The Church of England is lamenting a loss of a privileged status in the UK more than anything else and is still trying to come to terms with this reality.

The BBC has to cater for a plethora of diversity and sadly Christianity is just one very small part of that diversity in the UK today.

The Biased BBC blog has quite a scathing comment on all of this and they do bring up a salient point, relating to the fact that no matter what direction the BBC take, we are still legally obliged to fund it and this is the real issue.

As for me, I rather enjoyed ‘A History of Christianity’, which was presented by the Oxford historian Diarmuid McCulloch and was commissioned by Aaqil Ahmed.

UPDATE

L Grove – Aaqil Ahmed did not commission BBC FOUR’s A History of Christianity. The series was already in post production when Mr Ahmed was appointed Head of Religion & Ethics at the BBC. A History of Christianity was commissioned by Adam Kemp the BBC’s commissioning editor for Arts, Religion and Music in 2008.

Cranmer has now commented on this and also Jihad Watch, amongst others.

I’ve moved house over the last few days and so inevitably I have fallen behind with the Internet news feeds. I have just spent the last the couple of hours trawling through them, and the only conclusion I can come to is from the Wisdom of Solomon:-

There is nothing new under the sun.

Ecclesiastes 1:-

Everything Is Meaningless

The words of the Teacher, son of David, king in Jerusalem:

“Meaningless! Meaningless!”
says the Teacher.
“Utterly meaningless!
Everything is meaningless.”

What does man gain from all his labor
at which he toils under the sun?

Generations come and generations go,
but the earth remains forever.

The sun rises and the sun sets,
and hurries back to where it rises.

The wind blows to the south
and turns to the north;
round and round it goes,
ever returning on its course.

All streams flow into the sea,
yet the sea is never full.
To the place the streams come from,
there they return again.

All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing.

What has been will be again,
what has been done will be done again;
there is nothing new under the sun.

Is there anything of which one can say,
“Look! This is something new”?
It was here already, long ago;
it was here before our time.

There is no remembrance of men of old,
and even those who are yet to come
will not be remembered
by those who follow.

Wisdom Is Meaningless

I, the Teacher, was king over Israel in Jerusalem. I devoted myself to study and to explore by wisdom all that is done under heaven. What a heavy burden God has laid on men! I have seen all the things that are done under the sun; all of them are meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

What is twisted cannot be straightened;
what is lacking cannot be counted.

I thought to myself, “Look, I have grown and increased in wisdom more than anyone who has ruled over Jerusalem before me; I have experienced much of wisdom and knowledge.” Then I applied myself to the understanding of wisdom, and also of madness and folly, but I learned that this, too, is a chasing after the wind.

For with much wisdom comes much sorrow;
the more knowledge, the more grief.

I’m pleased about this, previous post here and also check out previous posts on Orissa here.

Ekkleisa:-

The Church of England has disinvested from the controversial mining company, Vedanta Resources, after sustained pressure from campaigners, including many Christian groups.

The Church Commissioners and the Church of England Pensions Board announced today (5 February) that they have sold their shares in the mining company on the advice of the Church’s Ethical Investment Advisory Group (EIAG).

As a result, none of the three national investing bodies of the Church of England now hold shares in the company.

Read More

BBC:-

In a statement released on Friday, the church said that it was not satisfied that the company, Vedanta, has shown enough respect for human rights.

Campaigners said that the lives of indigenous people were threatened by the mining project.

Vedanta has not commented on the church’s move.

But in the past it has vigorously defended the project.

Continue Reading

Firstly we had Tony Blair publicly advising the Pope on homosexuality and now we have David Cameron doing the same with the Church of England.

We really do need a separation of church and state:-

Times – Ruth Gledhill

Cameron tells Rowan: Make your Church pro-gay.

Tory leader David Cameron has launched an astonishing attack on the Church of England over its attitudes to homosexuality. In an interview with the gay magazine Attitude, Cameron tells award-winning journalist Johann Hari that ‘our Lord Jesus’ would back equality and gay rights if he were around today. He says he doesn’t want to get into a row with the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams. ‘But I think the Church has to do some of the things that the Conservative Party has been through – sorting this issue out and recognising that full equality is a bottom line full essential.’ He also introduces a new phrase to the English language, one that might be current in High Tory circles but not one I’ve heard before, in reference to Muslim women: ‘Blowing the hijab off them.’

Ho ho. And we all thought he was a politician.

Cameron is a member of the Church of England. He worships at a liberal High Anglican church in Kensington and his daughter attends the local church school. Readers here will remember what happened when Tony Blair criticised the Pope on gays, also in an interview with Hari for Attitude. He’s never quite recovered his standing with the Catholic establishment since.

Luckily for Cameron, Dr Williams will probably be more forgiving.

Read More

Cranmer:-

David Cameron tells the Church of England to be more ‘gay friendly’

Ruth Gledhill has picked up on an interview David Cameron has done for a gay magazine called Attitude, (available courtesy of The Independent).

She refers to his ‘astonishing attack on the Church of England over its attitudes to homosexuality’.

Curious, that.

One wonders why Mr Cameron has not seen fit to criticise the Roman Catholic Church, which is rather more robust on the issue.

Or his local mosque, which he might find even more robust.

That aside, Mr Cameron is of the opinion that ‘if our Lord Jesus was around today he would very much be backing a strong agenda on equality and equal rights, and not judging people on their sexuality’.

Cranmer begs to differ: if ‘our Lord Jesus’ were around today, there is nothing at all to suggest that he would be remotely interested in talking about ‘equality’ or ‘rights’ at all.

He would be preaching the gospel, in season and out, and calling on people to repent of their sin and prepare for the coming of the Kingdom.

Mr Cameron says: “I don’t want to get into a huge row with the Archbishop here, but the Church has to do some of the things that the Conservative Party has been through. Sorting this issue out and recognising that full equality is a bottom-line, full essential.”

To be frank, Cranmer is rather irritated by this, not least because Mr Cameron appears to be completely ignorant (as Mrs Gledhill points out) of the ‘endless debates, committees, reports, schisms and not-quite-schisms that have played out in the Anglican Communion over the last decade and more on this issue’.

His Grace would like respectfully to point out to Mr Cameron that the Church of England began the process to which he refers while he was still a whining schoolboy, with his satchel and shining morning face, creeping like snail unwillingly past Bekynton to Lower Chapel.

And now, in the tenor of Tony Blair lecturing the Pope on this very matter, David Cameron is suggesting that the Archbishop of Canterbury should ‘modernise’ the Church of England.

Good grief.

Continue Reading

Anglican Samizdat

In the UK, there’s no-one worth voting for

Labour have turned the UK into a training ground for Islamofascist terrorists; the BNP are the next best thing to Nazis; the Liberal Democrats are so naïve that they “Believe in Fairness” and the Tories have become the gay party:

Cameron tells Rowan: Make your Church pro-gay.

Read More

Christianity Today:-

Chief Rabbi Jonathan Sacks has said Pope Benedict XVI’s attack on the Government’s equality legislation should be taken seriously.

Writing in The Times on Wednesday, Mr Sacks said: “We may not agree with the Vatican line on homosexuality. But the State is trampling on our rights as individuals.”

The Pope told bishops from England and Wales that the Government’s equality legislation had served to “impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs”.

His attack came a few days after Church of England bishops in the House of Lords helped to vote down an amendment that would have narrowed the exemptions for religious organisations in existing equality employment laws.

Mr Sacks said he did not believe religious beliefs were entitled to privileged status in a democratic society but warned that using the ideology of human rights to “assault” religion risked “undermining the very foundation of human rights themselves”.

“There are times when human rights become human wrongs. This happens when rights become more than a defence of human dignity, which is their proper sphere, and become instead a political ideology, relentlessly trampling down everything in their path,” he said.

“This is happening increasingly in Britain, and it is why the Pope’s protest against the Equality Bill, whether we agree with it or not, should be taken seriously.”

He said the dismissal of a nurse for offering to pray for a patient, the closure of Roman Catholic adoption agencies for refusing to place children with same-sex couples, and the branding of a Jewish school’s admissions policy as racist were evidence that Britain was entering “dangerous territory” over human rights.

“When Christians, Jews and others feel that the ideology of human rights is threatening their freedoms of association and religious practice, a tension is set in motion that is not healthy for society, freedom or Britain,” he said.

“Rather than regard the Pope’s remarks as an inappropriate intervention, we should use them to launch an honest debate on where to draw the line between our freedom as individuals and our freedom as members of communities of faith. One should not be purchased at the cost of the other.”

Cranmer has provided a very good analysis and synopsis of reactions to the Pope’s comment:-

Cranmer has been asked to comment on the ‘Ad limina’ address of Pope Benedict XVI to the 35 assembled bishops and archbishops of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, in which His Holiness was perceived to criticise the legislative programme of Her Majesty’s Government.

His Grace has already attempted to do this, but manifestly failed miserably. He was accused of being inter alia ‘too clever’, ‘pompous’, ‘conceited’, blah, blah, blah (though not [yet] ‘bigoted’, ‘creepy’, ‘yucky’ or ‘disgusting’): the usual diatribe of puerile ad hominem vitriol which tends to be deployed by those who are either incapable of comprehension or unwilling to engage with the argument (or both).

Firstly, it would help to understand precisely what the Pope said, for the true account will not be found within the pathological distortions of the mainstream news media. When one is acquainted with the Pope’s perception of many of his 35 bishops and archbishops in Eccleston Square, it becomes evident that his ‘attack’ was not so much upon the UK’s anti-Christian Labour Government as it was upon his own recalcitrant bishops’ lack of unity, their obstinate reluctance to implement his reforms, and their stubborn refusal to be subject to the Magisterium and adhere to traditional orthodoxy.

And his speech concerned ‘natural law’, though few journalists have mentioned it, and of those who did there is apparently little understanding of the term or of how it relates to issues of justice.

What has been read by most commentators as a high-handed, interfering papal condemnation of the secularist-humanist-equality-obsessed politicians in Her Majesty’s Government was more a humble and wholly-justified rebuke to the ecumenical-relativist-perpetually-compromising bishops and priests in the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales.

And yet the media narrative has been dominated by Harriet Harman’s ‘Equality Bill’, and she has not helped herself by the timing of her spectacular (cowardly and utterly disappointing) climb-down. After all, either she believes in ‘equality’ or she does not: if she does, why has she not pushed this Bill through Parliament irrespective of the will of the Lords, as Labour have done on so many occasions for far more trivial bills? Does the banning of hunting with hounds really merit the deployment of the Parliament Act more than ensuring the inviolable rights of women or homosexuals?

Ms Harman, is the fox’s right to life worth more than gay equality?

Continue Reading

This is part 1 of a cross-post by Calvin L Smith:-

Two Peoples, Not One? (Part 1)

However much as Christians we seek to avoid confrontation and division, unfortunately Christian responses to the Israel-Palestinian conflict are sharply, dogmatically, even bitterly polarised into the pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian camps. The problem is, polarised positions are not particularly constructive, exacerbated by at times quite shrill rhetoric, which makes any effort at moving the debate forward somewhat difficult, if not downright impossible.

Phase 1: “People, not land”

A major sticking point in the Church’s polarised response to the conflict, which echoes the nature of the debate in both the media and the region itself, is the issue of who owns the land. My own approach, during the course of various conference papers, journal publications and debates, has been to shift away somewhat from this aspect of the conflict and instead focus on the election of the Jewish people, that God has not finished with the Jewish people. It is significant He is described as the God of Israel around 200 times in the Bible, while “Israel” is a truly biblical theology theme, covered substantial in both Testaments. This canonical theme, together with his delving into systematic and historical theology, is the approach taken by R. Kendall Soulen in his excellent book The God of Israel and Christian Theology.

So God retains a plan and purpose for the Jewish people, with whom He has not finished. The Bible presents Israel – the Jewish people – as God’s historical people, to reveal and bring about his salvific historical plan, fulfilled through an historical Jewish Messiah. Given how God has worked through history in this way, how then can he ditch his historical people so cavalierly? Such a position makes little sense in light of a biblical theology approach. Thus, I think it is significant that throughout Church history even many thinkers, churchmen, theologians and others not coming from traditions necessarily sympathetic towards Israel nonetheless have expressed unease with a fully supercessionist approach, recognising that the Jewish people retain at least some continued theological significance.

Actually, with a little digging one finds this view appear throughout the pages of Church history, and notwithstanding a real and shameful Church history of anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism, I do rather wonder if the supercessionist tradition has been rather over-egged by both zealous pro-Israel Christians keen to highlight the dangers of taking an alternative approach, as well as the equally zealous new strain of supercessionist – as opposed to the older, less politicised and less polemical variety – who for triumphalist reasons speak up their strength and history in order to portray themselves as part of the historical orthodox mainstream. I’m not convinced their numbers add up.

Arguably, then, an approach focusing on the people allows us to disengage to a degree this issue from ownership of and what to do with the land. In short, the approach of “people, not land” presents a way to move the debate forward. Yes, I know, biblically ownership of the land is a central feature of God’s covenant with His people. But while in exile in Old Testament times, or under Roman occupation in the New Testament (when they were not in political control of the land), the Jews nonetheless still remained God’s chosen people. So while the land is a major biblical issue which cannot be ignored, nevertheless I believes it plays a subservient role to God’s calling, election and covenant and covenant with the Jewish people.

Surely, then, this offers a way of forwarding the current debate among Christians surrounding our various responses to the current Middle East conflict. By focusing on the election of the Jewish people rather than the land permits me to consider the possibility of exchanging some land for peace (though pragmatically I believe this wholly unrealistic at the present time, and indeed for the foreseeable future, as the Gaza pull-out demonstrated, even before the Israeli blockade). On the other hand, however, emphaising the view that God has not finished with the Jewish people, that their calling and God’s plan for them continue to exist (a view which has a long and respected tradition in Church history) will have a positive theological bearing on how Christians view the Jewish state. Thus by focusing on people rather than land we open the way for a more theologically nuanced approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, where we disengage modern Israel’s politics and relationship with its Arab neighbours and population from a biblical focus on the house of Israel, that people with which God has an ongoing relationship.

Thus, disengaging the issue of the people from the land, differentiating between God’s ongoing covenant with the Jews from the present Israeli secular democracy and political situation, frees up Christians to be more critical of the situation when Israel does wrong. In other words, rejecting supercessionism and holding to the view God has not finished with His people does not automatically translate into unbending, uncritical support for the State of Israel or prohibit the exchange of land for peace on theological grounds. It also does not mean one must take an “Israel right or wrong” position when it comes to the current conflict. After all, if biblical Israel sinned how can we maintain modern Israel does not?

So for now, by emphasising “people, not land”, I am content to leave the land issue in God’s hands, not believing (as some Christians seem to) I somehow need to read myself into a biblical prophecy role aimed at restoring the land to Israel and so influencing politics and lobbying governments to achieve this aim. God’s sovereignty is much greater than that, than me, and whether we are pre-, post or a- millennial, Reformed or dispensational, pro-Israel or pro-Palestinian Christians, it seems to me there is at least one thing we can agree on: God’s sovereignty is such that His will and plans will be brought about in his own time, regardless of human activity or agency which either seeks to assist or oppose Him..

Phase 2: Two peoples, not one?

So having focused for a while on “people, not land”, I’m ready to begin developing a possible second theological approach towards the Israel-Palestinian conflict, encapsulated in the phrase, “two peoples, not one”. (I also have a third phase already developed for later discussion). In short, I want to explore how God views the Arab people and what this might bring to the table for Christians debating the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Please note my aim here is simply to outline an idea I first encountered as a child through my father, a churchman and thoughtful Bible teacher. Neither is it a particularly unique view in various Christian circles – including among some Christians Zionists – though I’m unaware of it yet being developed academically and biblically (if you know different, please do let me know). If it transpires there is merit in the approach it will, of course, need to be developed and critiqued through a conference paper and journal article or two.

Part 2 to follow within the next few days.

BBC

A secularist group has lodged an official complaint against Cherie Booth QC after she spared a man from prison because he was religious.

Shamso Miah, 25, of Redbridge, east London, broke a man’s jaw following a row in a bank queue.

Sitting as a judge, Ms Booth – wife of former Prime Minister Tony Blair – said she would suspend his sentence on the basis of his religious belief.

The National Secular Society claims her attitude was discriminatory and unjust.

Read More

Sadly the National Secular Society are dead right. Cherie Booth’s (Blair) comments make it sound as though she would have sentenced Shamso Miah to prison if he were not a “religious” man. What the heck does “religiosity” have to do with sentencing in a criminal case? I wonder how the victim feels after his attacker is effectively let off for breaking his jaw, because he is a “religious” man and should know better?

This is how the Catholic world is reporting on the so called “Equality Bill” developments:-

(CNA).- After criticism from national religious leaders and Pope Benedict XVI, The British Government has retreated from plans to implement an Equality Bill many saw as oppressive of religious freedom.

The rules of the failed anti-discrimination proposal could have barred groups from requiring Christian sexual ethics from youth leaders. Some warned it could have also made the male-only priesthood of the Catholic Church illegal.

On Monday Pope Benedict said the proposed laws imposed “unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.”

A source at 10 Downing Street, Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s residence, told The Telegraph, “We are clear that these parts of the Equality Bill should not go forward. The Pope’s intervention has been noted.”

Many Catholic Labour Ministers of Parliament are reportedly upset that the new bill has provoked such strong reaction from Rome.

Naomi Phillips, head of Public Affairs at the British Humanist Association, characterized the pope’s remarks as an attack on “modern, liberal values” and said they further motivated her group’s opposition to the Pope’s state visit to the United Kingdom.

Archbishop of Westminster Vincent Nichols told BBC Radio 4 that the Pope was “certainly not” getting involved in party politics but was trying to give his “reasoned voice” a hearing in the public debate.

The archbishop thought Pope Benedict’s words will find an echo among many in Britain who are “uneasy” that an unintended consequence of recent legislation would “drive religious belief and practice into the sphere of the private only.”

And here is Andrew Brown from the Guardian – Comment is free

Harman retreats
The churches seem to have protected their exemptions under the equality bill successfully, despite secularist outrage.

It looks as if the bishops have won their fight against the equality bill. Two papers are reporting that Harriet Harman will not bring back to the commons the clause that the House of Lords struck out which appeared to narrow the definition of jobs which would be exempt from the equality legislation. So the bill, if it passes at all before the election, will not change the present law at all in that area.

Reading at least some of the hundreds of comments about all this on the site here, one possibly original thought did occur to me: one of the main secularist lines here is that the churches are entitled to their views, but not to any public money or support. How many of the people who say that would also argue for the public funding of political parties?

As it happens I agree that the church should not be the recipient of public funds as this causes resentment from other groups and stokes anger with Secularists.

Public funding facilitates unwanted governmental control and if the church cannot self-fund projects then perhaps they should not undertake them.

If the church wishes to act in a political way as a pressure group or ’special interest group’ then they most certainly should fund themselves.

The BBC is covering this news:-

A delegation of the European Union is due to visit a region which was hit by anti-Christian riots in the eastern Indian state of Orissa last year.

Check out this previous post to find out why this delegation will not see the reality of the dire situation for Christians in this region.:-

Authorities in India’s Orissa state are reportedly forcing Christian refugees out of the makeshift camps ahead of a visit this month by a European Union delegation.

You will have to forgive my slightly cynical nature, but something is afoot.

All week the BBC have been trumpeting the ‘death cult’ of euthanasia. Firstly last Sunday we had the results of a rather small BBC Panorama programme survey (sample 1000) which claimed that almost three-quarters of people support assisted suicide for someone who is terminally ill. This news was picked up by other media outlets.

The next day (Monday) on the BBC, Sir Terry Pratchett said he was ready to be a test case for assisted suicide “tribunals” which could give people legal permission to end their lives.

Yesterday (Wednesday) was a big day for the BBC as they again covered Sir Terry Pratchett and announced that he will deliver their 34th annual Richard Dimbleby Lecture. His lecture will explore how modern society needs to redefine how it deals with death and will of course be broadcast by the BBC.

Running alongside all of this, the BBC also extensively covered the fact that there may be potentially more sufferers of Dementia than previously estimated and made much of the financial “Burden” associated with treating dementia.

Are you beginning to detect a theme?

Unsurprisingly, yesterday the Bristish Humanists joined the fray and announced that they are also calling for an independent inquiry into the law on assisted dying. They of course cite Terry Pratchett in their article as follows:-

Sir Terry Pratchett, a distinguished supporter of the BHA, took the Dimbleby Lecture, on the subject of assisted dying.

The BBC tirelessly promote euthanasia as they have done this week, in what can only be described as an organised and structured campaign. Is it right that a we legally have to fund such a liberal biased, government controlled operation? What ever happened to balance at the BBC?

We only ever seem to hear the pro-assisted suicide view from the BBC and they are prepared to use their news network, their flagship Panorama program and their prestigious lectures to push one view and one view only.

I received this by email and thought it worthy to pop on the blog, especially given the terrible time the Egyptian Copts have been having of late, and of course not forgetting the drive-by machine-gun slaying of 6 Egyptian Copts after a midnight mass service recently:-

Dear Sirs

We would be most grateful if you would kindly support the Downing Street petition to ask the Egyptian government to show seriousness in prosecuting attacks on Christians in Egypt, following the incident on Christmas Eve of the shooting and killing of 7 Coptic Christians leaving the church and resulting in the severe wounding of many others.

Please find the link here:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/CoptsJustice/

We would appreciate it if you would kindly forward to others in your organisation.

Many thanks for your time. It is much appreciated.

Kind regards

A Bassilli
Member of Coptic Orthodox Church UK

This is quite fascinating:-

UKPA

Personal integrity will be a key issue with voters at the general election following the scandal over MPs’ expenses, according to a survey.

Telephone interviews with 1,000 British adults last month have shown nearly three quarters – or 71% – say the Parliamentary expenses scandal has made them more concerned that their MP is someone of integrity.

The survey showed 72% of people said the personal integrity of their MP mattered more to them than the political party, with women, at 74%, more likely than men, at 69%, to place personal integrity ahead of party allegiance.

The ComRes poll for the Bible Society also found that one in five people believe that politics in the UK would be improved if more MPs read the Bible.

A quarter of people said they would trust an MP who is a practising Christian more than one who is not, and more than a third assumed their MP was a Christian.

The survey was commissioned to mark the launch of the new website www.susa.info providing information and links for Christians who wish to get more involved in politics.

Bible Society Parliamentary officer Dave Landrum said: “Two-thirds of the UK regards themselves as Christian, and globally religion is growing fast.

“As faith is set to play an increasingly important role in politics in the future, it’s important that this engagement is positive, hopeful and effective.”

I know that my view won’t be very popular, but frankly who cares anymore what is taught in Religious Education. The fact of the matter is, that true Christian education should be the preserve of the family and the church. It is not the responsibility of a publicly funded education system to pump out Christians.

I did note that among the ‘obscure religions’ to be taught as part of ‘Religious Education’, we can find secular humanism. This raises a couple of interesting questions in my mind such as, why have the government opted to include Humanism in religious education?

Are we to conclude that Secular Humanism’ is in fact a religion, and if it is, how does this impact their war on religion? As Humanists favour the removal of religion from the educational environment, will they be asking for Humanism to be removed from this governmental guidance.

Or is it perhaps that our children simply need to know why all religion is crap, from the Humanist worldview?

Some Christians will be up in arms over all of this (as usual), but for me personally, I learned nothing of Christianity from my Christian RE teacher and looking at my sons school work, it might be better all round if the public education system removed religious education altogether.

This is from my sons school RE book:-

Christians have been responsible for two millenia of suppressing women and Christians believe that if they are good they will go to heaven.

Islam was cited as bringing science and mathematics to humanity.

Uh huh!

Mail Online

Children as young as five to learn about minority faiths

Primary school children should be taught about obscure religions that believe plants have souls and the dead must be eaten by vultures, according to government guidance.

Ministers are recommending that pupils as young as five learn about minority faiths – some of which have a few thousand British followers – alongside Christianity and Islam.

Areas of study in the first religious education programme for primaries include humanism, the faiths of Baha’i, Zoroastrianism and Jainism along with Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Hinduism and Christianity.

But critics have condemned the guidance as ‘educational nonsense’ and a ‘multi-faith mish-mash’.

The programme is not mandatory but is likely to be taken up by most primaries and will mean children learning beliefs such as the Zoroastrian tradition that the dead should be eaten by vultures.

Jains believe in non-violence and think that all animals and plants have souls, each of which are of equal value.

The Baha’i faith teaches followers that all religions have valid origins and has laws prohibiting alcohol, drugs, adultery and party politics.

Read more: