eChurch Blog

I still shudder when I remember back to the speech Colin Powell gave to the UN in order to make the case for Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction.

I was sitting in a hotel room in Egypt watching CNN and Colin Powell looked like a broken man. He seemed unconvincing and I perceived that he didn’t really believe what he was saying himself. I vividly remember the satellite images on the screen of a moving convoy of trucks in central Iraq, and Colin Powell trying to convince the world that this was indeed proof of WMD’s on the move.

It came as no surprise to me that Colin Powell decided to step down as Secretary of State and was replaced by Condoleezza Rice, not long after this.

Was this war the “right” decision or “wrong” decision, to be frank I haven’t got a clue. All I can do is watch the resulting aftermath.

In the seven years since the Iraq War was launched, 2,000 Christians have been murdered and 600,000 have fled Iraq, according to Fides, the news agency of the Congregation for the Evangelization of Peoples. 44% of Iraqi refugees are Christians, and many of the 600,000 Christians who remain are internally displaced persons who have had to flee their homes.

“The life of Christians in this nation does not appear to be among the priorities,” said Chaldean Catholic Auxiliary Bishop Shlemon Warduni on the eve of the March 7 parliamentary elections. “We are victims of fanaticism and general instability, which leaves a free hand to those who want to use violence to intimidate. The causes are many and varied, but the end seems clear: continually reduce the Christian presence in Iraq, marginalize it, and deprive it of any rights.” – Source Catholic Culture

This from Cranmer is an absolute disgrace by the Labour party against one of their own and does not bode well for them in relation to floating Christian voters, if it’s true.

Labour deselect Methodist councillor George Reynolds for refusing to canvass on a Sunday

UPDATE: For the sake of balance and transparency, please also view the following link:-

Matt Wardman – Siobhain McDonagh MP & Councillor George Reynolds: End the Speculation

There is a fantastic, “must read” article in the Times, which is so refreshing and uplifting and quite funny too:-

I’m a Roman Catholic and I go to church every Sunday. Towards the end of Mass, there’s a thing called the Sign of Peace. We all shake hands with everyone in shaking distance and say “peace be with you”. Last Sunday the priest told us to drop the handshaking element to show our solidarity with Wayne Bridge.

That’s one of the things I love about being Catholic. You can tell the highly suspicious non-Catholics — their imaginations fired by talk of kissed statues and venerated fibulas — about almost any odd behaviour in a Roman Catholic church and they’ll believe you.

To many British people, Christianity seems like a weird but unexciting theme park. Personally, I like our ever-dwindling status. I even like our ever-dwindling numbers. There was a time when social pressure made people go to church. If anything the reverse is now true. Most adults you see in church nowadays are there because they want to be there. That’s not decline, it’s progress. The wheat has been separated from the chaff. We get quality, not quantity, in the churches and the chaff can enjoy a nice lie-in. That’s just as well, because there’ll be little opportunity for slumber when they’ve got a demon’s pitchfork up their arse.

That’s why I think Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, is wrong to get his cassock in a twist about changing attitudes to Christianity in this country. He speaks of a “strident and bullying campaign” to marginalise Christianity. But that’s great news. “Blessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.”

Continue Reading

I did actually manage to read through the 63 pages of the new report on the religious blogging world from the Social Science Research Council, and although interesting, I couldn’t identify anything revelational to blog about.

Coincidentally, during the week I attended a “Bible study” in which the subject of the Internet and Christianity arose, and I was surprised by the negative comments. Most seemed to view the Internet as some form of sinister threat or danger. The objections to the Internet were two fold. Firstly there was the fear that Christian social networking websites would prevent Christians gathering together physically, and secondly a perceived danger of absorbing erroneous and heretical information. At times there was a palpable sense of hatred towards all things interweb.

As the group mainly consists of folk of my parents and grandparents generation, I am assuming that this is a generational phenomenon and to give them credit, they did note that their objections sounded similar to their own parents initial objections to the rise of the TV. I think their opinions were formed more through fear of the unknown, than anything else.

The truth is, whether for good or for ill, the Internet is a medium that the Church must master and utilise, as a matter of priority. I will say that I am impressed with the Catholic Church, who seem to have fully grasped this point, especially the Pope himself surprisingly. Check out these previous posts here, here, here and here for recent examples.

If you fancy indulging in a little humour on this theme, then do check out this link:-

Anglican extremists unleash “moderately irksome” computer virus

Anyway, the Associated Baptist Press have released a concise and fairly accurate summary of the report, which follows:-

BROOKLYN, N.Y. (ABP) — Blogs are a growing but still relatively underutilized influence on today’s religious discourse, according to a study of the religious blogosphere by the Social Science Research Council.

“Blogs have given occasion to a whole new set of conversations about religion in public life. They represent a tremendous opportunity for publication, discussion, cross-fertilization and critique of a kind never seen before,” the authors report.

“In principle, at least, the Internet offers an opportunity to break down old barriers and engender new communities. While the promise is vast, the actuality is only what those taking part happen to make of it.”

The study, published on an SSRC blog titled The Immanent Frame, surveyed nearly 100 of the most influential blogs that contribute to discussions about religion in the public sphere.

While none rank in the highest echelons of readership and influence in the blogosphere as a whole, the authors say religion blogs have moved beyond a new and emerging trend into a maturing force that apparently is here to stay.

“Only a decade since the rise of the first user-friendly blog platforms, the blogosphere has become one of the eminent spaces for serious public discourse in the online world,” the study says. “They thrive on quick opinions, a minute-to-minute news cycle and public exchanges with one another.”

As in news and politics, the use of blogs has exploded in the realm of religious life.

Religious leaders, communities and individuals use blogs to share insights and build networks. Starting with BeliefNet in 1999, several religion blogs now focus on politics, inspiration, entertainment and culture.

Conservative blogs like GetReligion provide critiques of religion coverage in the mainstream press, while political blogs like Talk to Action helped galvanize a new “progressive” religious left leading up to the 2008 elections.

Because of their ease of use, blogs have shaped public discourse in society as a whole and around religious questions in particular, the study says.

In organizations like the mainline Protestant denominations, blogging has created space for voices that push back against prevailing trends outside of the auspices of the denominational press. Recognizing the possibility of such a shift in Catholicism, the authors say the Vatican has held high-level discussions about issuing guidelines for Catholic bloggers.

As religion coverage at many national and regional media organizations has been cut back due to budget constraints, journalists increasingly look to Internet sources to fill the void. In that context, the authors warn that traditional lines between journalism and editorializing used by the mainstream media have yet to be clearly defined in the blogosphere.

Asked about their reasons for blogging in the first place, most of those surveyed said they weren’t seeking fame or fortune but simply saw a need. Some, like religion reporters and academicians, were not originally interested in blogging but were forced to give in and eventually learned to enjoy it.

The low cost and ease of use of blogging software enables those so inclined to get involved in blogging on a whim. Those with institutional affiliations tend to rely on support staff for technical help not available to those who go it alone.

After getting started, the authors say, any blogger has to find a source of motivation to keep posting day after day. Usually, what keeps them going is the blog’s community and personal drive.

The authors say the purpose of the study is to “foster a more self-reflective, collaborative, and mutually aware religion blogosphere.”

“Ideally, this report will spark discussion among religion bloggers that will take their work further, while also inviting new voices from outside existing networks to join in and take part,” the report says.

Oftentimes we receive comments on this blog that correlate intelligence with faith in God, and I don’t mean in a positive way.

Today I came across a very interesting article in which it is proffered that there is no good evidence that education leads to secularisation, in fact, the opposite may be true.

New Scientist:-

HERE’s a fact to flatter the unbelievers among you: the bright young things at the University of Oxford are among the most godless groups ever studied in the UK. Of 728 students surveyed in 2007, 48.9 per cent claimed not to believe in any god, with 49.6 per cent claiming no religious affiliation. And while a very small number of Britons typically label themselves as “atheist” or “agnostic” (most surveys put it at about 5 per cent), an astonishing 57.3 per cent of the Oxford sample did.

This may come as no surprise. After all, atheism is the natural stance of the educated and the informed, is it not? It is only to be expected that Oxford students should be wise to what their own professor Richard Dawkins calls “self-indulgent, thought-denying skyhookery” – and others call “faith”. The old Enlightenment caricature, it seems, is true after all: where Reason reigns, God retires.

Of course, things are never quite that simple. Within the sample, for instance, the postgraduates (that is, the even-better educated) were notably more religious than the undergraduates, in terms of both belief in God and self-description. Although the greater number of non-Europeans in the postgraduate population is almost certainly a significant factor here, evidence from elsewhere backs the idea that there is no straightforward relationship between atheism and education.

Let’s look at some results from the World Values Survey, an international attempt to assess the global state of socio-cultural, moral, religious and political values. The 2005 results show that while there is a clear positive correlation between education and lack of belief in God, the effect is slightly weaker, not stronger, among those with a university education (14.8 per cent were non-believers) compared with those whose highest attainment was secondary level (17.2 per cent).

What is more, the survey shows a far stronger correlation between education and certain “irrational” beliefs: for example, only 29.6 per cent of those without even an elementary education believe in telepathy, compared with 51.8 per cent of people with degree-level education.

Closer to home, an analysis of the 2008 British Social Attitudes (BSA) survey by David Voas of the University of Manchester reveals that the historical correlation between being educated and being “non-religious” has not only weakened but reversed. Looking at white British people, for example, the findings show that only around 25 per cent of men aged between 25 and 34 claiming “no religion” have degrees, compared with around 40 per cent of those describing themselves as religious. For women in the same age group, the difference is less marked but the trend is the same. The picture is more complicated across different ethnic groups, although the overall trend remains the same.

It appears that Enlightenment assumptions about the decline of religion as the population becomes more educated will no longer do – at least, not without considerable qualification. Why is it that, despite the long history of the study of religion, the picture seems to be getting more and not less confused about what it means to believe in God? We, and the scholars who gathered in December last year for a conference at Wolfson College, University of Oxford, think we may have the answer. The problems stem from a long-term, collective blind spot in research: atheism itself.

This oversight might seem remarkable (or remarkably obtuse on the part of the social scientists) but it is one with deep historical roots. Many of social science’s 19th-century founders, including Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, Émile Durkheim, Auguste Comte and Max Weber, were unbelievers, or “religiously unmusical”, as Weber memorably put it. For them, religion was the great explicandum: how, they wondered, could so many people believe in something so absurd? What they failed to recognise was that their own, taken-for-granted, “lack” of belief might itself be amenable to inquiry.

Ironically, sociologists, psychologists, economists and, particularly, cognitive anthropologists have become so skilled at explaining why humans seem to have such a widespread bias towards theistic beliefs that a new question readily presents itself: if religion comes so naturally to us, why are so many people, especially in western Europe, apparently resistant to it? In the UK, for example, a sizeable 43 per cent said they had “no religion” in the 2008 BSA survey.

Moreover, social scientists themselves consistently rank as the most atheistic of all academics: see a recent study by Neil Gross at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada, and Solon Simmons of the Institute for Conflict Analysis and Resolution at George Mason University, Arlington, Virginia (Sociology of Religion, in press).

What we need now is a scientific study not of the theistic, but the atheistic mind. We need to discover why some people do not “get” the supernatural agency many cognitive scientists argue comes automatically to our brains. Is this capacity non-existent in the non-religious, or is it rerouted, undermined or overwritten – and under what conditions?

Continue Reading

Do you remember the shameful episode last December when it looked as though an arrest warrant would be issued against former Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni for “war crimes” on visiting the UK? Or do you remember the shameful episode last September when a London judge had to reject a call to issue an arrest warrant against Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak? Well we had some good news today, or so I thought.

The Telegraph carried this story today:-

Britain must protect foreign leaders from private arrest warrants

In recent years the world has made huge progress in the way it acts against those suspected of war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.

Significantly, the United Nations has embraced our responsibility to intervene in countries where such atrocities are being committed.

And the complement to this is the principle of universal jurisdiction, which allows for prosecution in any country of certain serious offences wherever and by whoever they were committed.

It is our moral duty to ensure that there is no hiding place for those suspected of the most serious international crimes.

Britain will continue to take action to prosecute or extradite suspected war criminals – regardless of their status or power.

This is why the UK was among the first countries in the world to put in place legislation providing for universal jurisdiction over torture, hostage taking and grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions.

Without universal jurisdiction the Afghan warlord Faryadi Zardad, who had fled to London on a fake passport, would not have been brought to justice for a merciless campaign of terror in his homeland.

Britain will always honour its commitment to international justice. The police here remain ready to investigate cases; the Crown Prosecution Service to bring them; the courts to hear them.

But the process by which we take action must guarantee the best results.

The only question for me is whether our purpose is best served by a process where an arrest warrant for the gravest crimes can be issued on the slightest of evidence.

As we have seen, there is now significant danger of such a provision being exploited by politically-motivated organisations or individuals who set out only to grab headlines knowing their case has no realistic chance of a successful prosecution.

Continue Reading

After reading this I had similar thoughts to Calvin L Smith:-

About Time

According to this morning’s Daily Telegraph Gordon Brown at last is going to put a stop to the politically-motivated abuse of our court system. About time! How can Britain ever be taken seriously as a peace broker if every time an Israeli official or politician comes to Britain they’re threatened with arrest because a campaign group seeking publicity approached a magistrate? As usual, it’s one rule for Israel and another for everyone else.

However, my bubble has been burst by a far shrewder Melanie Phillips:-

Smoke and Mirrors

The Israeli paper Ha’aretz , along with the Kadima leader Tzipi Livni, appear to have been taken in by Gordon Brown’s noisy but misleading announcement in today’s Daily Telegraph that he will change the law to prevent the abuse of ‘universal jurisdiction’ through threats to arrest visiting Israeli dignatories for ‘war crimes’, an abuse which has caused the cancellation of a number of high-profile visits by Israelis to the UK of which the latest was the planned visit by Livni. Brown wrote:

There is a case now, therefore, for the evidential basis on which arrest warrants can be allowed to be tougher and for restricting the right to prosecute the narrow range of crimes falling under universal jurisdiction to the Crown Prosecution Service alone.

Livni and Ha’aretz naively take this at face value to assume that the UK is to change the law. But this is not so. Brown has merely said he intends to change the law and will consult on the best way to do this. But with a general election to be held by June at the very latest, and with no legislation actually being tabled, there is clearly no time for any such change in the law to occur.

It is actually very easy to end this abuse, as Brown suggests; all that has to happen is for the consent of the Attorney-General or Director of Public Prosecutions to be required before any arrest warrant can be issued, just as is now required for any prosecution. This should be introduced not just in respect of visiting Israelis but to cover any other such vexatious and oppressive arrest stunts. But the reason Brown will not do this is that more than 100 Labour MPs have given notice they will revolt against any such infringement of ‘ancient English liberties’ – a cover for their actual motivation which is their hatred of Israel.

Brown’s announcement today, and the fact that he personally associated himself with the case for a change in the law, are merely designed to camouflage the diplomatically embarrassing fact that he is in fact unable to take measures to prevent ‘lawfare’ in the UK against Britain’s ally by extremist activists determined to delegitimise Israel over its defence against genocidal attack — because so many of his own MPs share that same despicable objective.

The JTA has picked up on this and make a similar point to Melanie Phillips:-

Brown vows to change universal jurisdiction law

LONDON (JTA) — British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he will change legislation enabling Palestinian organizations to obtain arrest warrants against Israeli political leaders on suspicion of war crimes.

However, in practice, the legislation is likely to wait until after the general elections in the United Kingdom.

[.....]

However, since the UK is in the midst of an election campaign, and the prime minister might announce the election date before the date the committee has to present its conclusion, it might be too late to enact the law before the election.

Israeli officials and military officers, unwilling to risk having an arrest warrant issued against them, have been avoiding the UK.

Britain wants to continue to be involved in the Middle East peace process, and the British government is aware that it would be marginalized if Israeli politicians refuse to visit Britain.

[.....]

The Conservative Party’s spokesman on Justice, Dominic Grieve, said: “This morning Gordon Brown wrote in the Daily Telegraph that ‘Britain cannot afford to have its standing in the world compromised’ by spurious and politicized war crimes prosecutions. This afternoon he kicked the whole issue into the long grass. The Conservatives would have supported him in resolving the problem, but he has chosen to duck it instead.”

Read All

For anyone that’s interested the below PDF download link is the new pre-election publication from the Catholic Church:-

Choosing the Common Good (pdf)

Archbishop Cranmer has now posted his thoughts:-

Choosing the Common Good: the emergence of the Conservative Catholic Fellowship

Here is the blurb from the Catholic Church website:-

Catholic Bishops of England and Wales launch their pre-election document

The Bishops today launched Choosing the Common Good to present key themes in Catholic Social Teaching as a contribution to the wide-ranging debate about the values and vision that underpin our society.

The document anticipates the forthcoming general election, but the Bishops argue that finding a shared vision for society is more urgent than the detail of particular party policies. “Where there is no vision, the people perish” (Proverbs 29:18). The Bishops argue that social issues cannot be left only to government to solve, but are the responsibility of all.

Choosing the Common Good argues that the construction of a just and civil society can be achieved as the desire for love and truth is innate in all women and men. While there has been a fracturing in trust in institutions and in each other, the Bishops argue that it is up to all in civil society to lead the re-building of this essential trust. Central to that task is the understanding that we are not self-contained individuals but inter-dependent, where human flourishing lies in the quality of our relationships and the practice of virtue.
“The virtues form us as moral agents, so that we do what is right and honourable for no other reason than that it is right and honourable, irrespective of reward and regardless of what we are legally obliged to do. Virtuous action springs from a sense of one’s dignity and that of others, and from self-respect as a citizen. It is doing good even when no-one is looking.”

Archbishop Vincent Nichols, president of the Bishops’ Conference, said: “We encourage everyone to read this document and participate in the wide-ranging and necessary debate about the values and vision by which we seek to construct a just and civil society. Ultimately Choosing the Common Good is about human flourishing. It does not offer a direction on how to vote, but forms a back-cloth to the more particular issues which may well dominate the election itself and offers an invitation to the political parties on how best to respond in all of our joint efforts to build a better society.”

The application of the key themes of Catholic Social Teaching presented within the document leads to some consequences which are briefly presented. They include life itself; poverty and inequality; care of the elderly, community relations and migration; the global community and ecology, marriage and family life and the role of faith communities. In this section, the Bishops argue that the Church has a distinct role in building a society which allows for the flourishing of all, but warns us against to privatise religion.

“The right to religious freedom means the right to live by faith, within the reasonableness of the common good, and to act by faith in the public forum. This arises from the fact that the human person is, by nature, a spiritual being, with a longing for love, truth, for beauty, for happiness.”

The Bishops conclude by urging confidence in the challenges ahead, quoting Pope Benedict XVI in his most recent encyclical Caritas in Veritate: “The complexity and gravity of the present economic situation rightly causes us concern, but we must adopt a realistic attitude as we take up with confidence and hope the new responsibilities to which we are called by the prospect of a world in need of profound cultural renewal, a world that needs to rediscover fundamental values on which to build a better future.”

I remember quite a few years ago the Anglican church published statistics that analysed the average congregants Bible reading patterns, and the results were revealing. One-third had read the New Testament in full and only one-fifth had the read the Bible in its entirety.

Although these results were dismal at best, it highlighted the fact that among those who actually bothered to read the Bible, most were majoring exclusively on the new testament.

Why is this a problem? Let me use a famous quote from St. Augustine:-

“The New Testament lies hidden in the Old Testament and the Old Testament is unveiled in the New Testament”

In other words Scripture reveals and illuminates Scripture.

Gev over at the Rosh Pina Project has put together some excellent thoughts based around the question of: “Why the ‘Old’ Testament for the ‘New’ Testament believer?” This is well worth a read in my opinion, so do pop across:-

Rosh Pina Project: The Wholly Bible!

I simply found this article morbidly fascinating and I have no idea why, so here it is:-

Rome, Italy, Mar 3, 2010 / 04:20 pm (CNA).- A renowned exorcist in Rome recently released a book of memoirs in which he declares to know of the existence of Satanic sects in the Vatican where participation reaches all the way to the College of Cardinals. A second demonologist, also residing in Rome, entered the debate this week, clarifying the origins of the information and defending the Vatican’s clergy as an “edifying and virtuous” collection of prelates.

In a book of memoirs released in February, the noted Italian exorcist Fr. Gabriele Amorth affirmed that “Yes, also in the Vatican there are members of Satanic sects.” When asked if members of the clergy are involved or if this is within the lay community, he responded, “There are priests, monsignors and also cardinals!”

The book, “Father Amorth. Memoirs of an Exorcist. My life fighting against Satan.” was written by Marco Tosatti, who compiled it from interviews with the priest.

Fr. Amorth was asked by Tosatti how he knows Vatican clergy are involved. He answered, “I know from those who have been able to relate it to me because they had a way of knowing directly. And it’s something ‘confessed’ most times by the very demon under obedience during the exorcisms.”

The famous Italian exorcist was also asked if the Pope was aware of Satanic sects in the Vatican, to which Fr. Amorth replied, “Of course, he was informed. But he does what he can. It’s a horrifying thing.”

Benedict XVI, being German, comes from a place “decidedly averse to these things,” argued Fr. Amorth, saying that in Germany “there practically aren’t any exorcists.” However, he clarified, “the Pope believes (in them).”

The Italian priest also warned of the existence of bishops and priests who do not believe in Satan in the interview.  “And yet, in the Gospel, Jesus speaks extensively about it, so it should be said, either they’ve never read the Gospel or they just don’t believe it!”

Fr. Jose Antonio Fortea Cucurull, a Spanish priest and theologian who specializes in demonology and is now studying for his doctorate of theology in Rome, responded to Fr. Amorth’s assertions on March 1.

After reading reports of Fr. Amorth’s accusations pointing a finger at members of the clergy, including cardinals, Fr. Fortea declared that it is a “duty of justice” to speak out in their defense.

Noting that some prelates “are more spiritual and others more earthly, some more virtuous and others more human,” he wrote on his blog, “from there to affirm that some cardinals are members of Satanic sects is an unacceptable distance.”

The Spanish priest then explained the sources of information used by Fr. Amorth to say that Satanic sects are operating in the Vatican.

In addition to the people that seek help for demonic possession, said Fr. Fortea, “innumerable persons come to us who claim to have visions, revelations and messages from Our Lord.” Among these, “a certain number offer apocalyptic messages and revelations about the infiltration of Satanism and the Masons within the dome of the Church.”

Fr. Fortea added that the only acceptable stance is to suspend judgment of the messages while they are subjected to time-intensive discernment, “sometimes months for each one of the cases.”

The other source Fr. Amorth refers to, according to Fr. Fortea, is the demons who are being exorcised. Of this, the Spanish priest wrote that knowing whether or not the demon is telling the truth “is in many cases impossible.”

“We can know with great confidence when a demon tells the truth in the subject directly related with the exorcism. That is, the number of demons, their name and similar things. But we cannot be confident in what regards concrete news relating to people.”

“Father Amorth does not have other sources of knowledge than the two that I just cited,” indicated the Spanish exorcist, “I refer to his own words for this affirmation.”

Fr. Fortea observed that the existence of similar messages from the same sources is “something known by me just as (it has been) by many other colleagues for many years.”

“Among exorcists, some have come to similar conclusions as those of Fr. Amorth. Others have not.”

Fr. Fortea also defended those implicated in Fr. Amorth’s statements, stating, “Our College of Cardinals, if we compare it with past centuries is the most edifying and virtuous that history has ever known. One would have to go back to the epoch of the Roman Empire to find a body of electors so distanced from all earthly pretension as the current one is.

“Cardinals might be better or worse,” he reflected, “but all have upright intentions and seek the glory of God.”

He concluded by emphasizing, “Statements must be proven, especially when they are about such grave accusations that affect the honorability of those who form part of the Head of the Church as far as they help the Supreme Pastor.”

The telegraph is covering the news of “militant atheist” Harry Taylor who left leaflets mocking Jesus Christ, the Pope and the Koran in the prayer room of an international airport, and has now gone on trial charged with religious harassment.

Telegraph:-

The materials dumped by Harry Taylor at Liverpool’s John Lennon airport included “sexually abusive and sexually unpleasant cartoons”, a jury heard yesterday.

One image showed a smiling Christ on the cross next to an advert for a brand of “no nails” glue. In another, Islamic suicide bombers at the gates of paradise are told: ” Stop, stop, we’ve run out of virgins.”

A further cartoon showed two Muslims holding a placard demanding equality with the caption: “Not for women or gays, obviously.”

Mr Taylor, 59, a self-styled philosophy tutor, denied bearing a grudge against people of faith and said he was only trying to “convert” believers to atheism.

Liverpool Crown Court heard that he left the materials in John Lennon airport as a tribute to the former Beatle, whose most acclaimed solo work Imagine referenced “a world with no religion”.

He said: “The airport is named after John Lennon and his views on religion were pretty much the same as mine. I thought that it was an insult to his memory to have a prayer room in the airport.”

Continue Reading

Now before I go any further, I want to make clear that I would probably find the material left by Harry Taylor a mix between humorous and distasteful, however, I do accept that I have a somewhat warped and deviant sense of humour.

This material was found by chaplain Nicky Lees and here is a snippet of her reaction as reported in the Liverpool Daily Post:-

She said: “I was insulted, deeply offended and I was alarmed. I was so concerned that I rang the duty manager and the airport police. I was alarmed other people could come in and see these items and also feel offended and affronted and I was responsible for the prayer room.”

So, this material so alarmed chaplain Nicky Lees, that she felt prompted to involve the airport police.

To be frank with you it is astounding that some Christians can muster the courage to leave their homes. Would you not have simply chucked the crap in the bin? OK, so the police did become involved, but is it not astonishing that they charged Harry Taylor with three counts of religiously aggravated harassment, alarm or distress under the Crime and Disorder Act?

Am I missing something perhaps?

MediaWatchWatch, probably have the sanest take on the whole matter.

There is some consolation for hyper-sensitive Christians however, as they are not alone:-

Scottish Sun:-

Muslims’ fury at ‘holy city’ boozer

A MUSLIM leader has blasted a pub for using the name of holy city Medina – branding it an insult to his religion.

The boozer in Dundee changed its name from Bar Rio to Medina Bar and Grill after a renovation.

But this has sparked outrage – as Saudi Arabian city Medina is the second-holiest site in Islam behind Mecca.

Medina is also a term used for a market or trading centre in north African cities.

But Mohammed Bashir Chohan, chairman of the Dundee Islamic Society, last night said: “People are upset about it because Medina is a holy city. It does hurt when somebody misuses the name, especially if they are going to sell liquor.”

Continue Reading

Perhaps Muslims and Christians can band together to protect themselves from “alarm”, “outrage” and “offence”, oh hold on, they just did:-

Christian Institute – Muslims help lift library ban on Christian poster

Of course the irony is that maybe the library and council staff felt alarmed, offended and affronted at the poster advertising the Women’s World Day of Prayer