Posts Tagged ‘Christianity’

The National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) received £90,000 in grant aid in the last two years while the Christian Police Association (CPA) received just £15,000 in the last five years.

Saturday, March 13th, 2010

The following article from the Telegraph is majoring on the fact that the Home Office has been accused of discriminating against police Christian groups in favour of a Muslim police group, however, the real issue for me is whether religious groups should receive government funding at all.

A while back I posted in relation to a police Christian group and wrote:-

…..Interesting, although I am always slightly concerned when any Christian group receives funding from secular sources, especially governmental sources. I personally believe that all Christian groups should be funded from the Christian purse, even if they are providing a public service. Using public funds always adds fuel to the secularist fires and Christian funding eliminates any unwanted controlling  influences.

I am now awaiting the predictable comments on this, that tax payers are funding ‘magic’ within the policing world. :)

Personally I think this new “row” is another example reinforcing the argument against secular funding of ALL religious groups.

Telegraph:

The National Association of Muslim Police (NAMP) received £90,000 in grant aid in the last two years while the

Christian Police Association (CPA) received just £15,000 in the last five, despite both groups having around 2,000 members.

And the CPA even disputed those figures insisting it has only been given £10,000 over the period.

Faith-based organisations can bid for Home Office grants either for specific projects or for general funding, with officials deciding which are successful.

Don Axcell, executive director of the CPA, said other requests for additional funding had been ignored.

He said: “As a Christian charity we have to rely on the public for funds as our requests for money from government are largely rejected or ignored. Our letters go unanswered.”

Alan Craig, leader of Christian Peoples Alliance, said: “This is yet another sign of Christianity being written off the agenda.

“Christians are constantly marginalised and discriminated against by the government, who are ignoring one of this country’s principle faiths.”

The CPA was handed £5,000 in 2004/05 and £10,000 last year, according to Home Office figures, but Mr Axcell insisted the only grant the group has received is the one last year.

That was to help widen its involvement with local church groups and encouraged members of the public to “adopt a cop” by praying for the safety of local officers.

In contrast, the NAMP was given grants of £45,000 last year and in 2008/09, listed only as general funding.

Continue Reading

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Letter-writer in National Secular Society mailout says Bulger killers went to a Church of England school where they were ‘fed violent Bible stories’.

Friday, March 12th, 2010

Barbara Smoker has written an open letter to the National Secular Society as follows:

In all the media coverage on the character of John Venables [one of the murderers of Jamie Bulger] I have yet to read or hear any mention of the fact that he and his co-murderer were, at the time of their horrific crime in 1993, attending a CofE primary school where, instead of receiving moral education, they were fed violent, vindictive bible stories.

What a despicable and unfounded comment and yet the NSS felt happy to include this in their e-mailshot.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Ekklesia has today teamed up with democracy campaign Power2010 in an initiative to urge Church of England bishops to take a lead in reforming the House of Lords.

Friday, March 12th, 2010

The “religion and society think-tank” Ekklesia is heavily promoting a campaign called Power2010, which is an initiative to urge Church of England bishops to take a lead in reforming the House of Lords.

Just for clarification purposes, this “reforming” would effectively banish Bishops from the House of Lords. Ekklesia are pushing for an ‘all elected’ second chamber, and are opposed to the “special positions” reserved for Bishops.

These are the 5 principles for reform that they advocate:

people of faith participate alongside others in public life through civic action, free debate and good example – not through special reserved places and exemptions

members of the second chamber are elected, publicly accountable and recallable – not based on the appointed status and privilege for a few

legislation is scrutinised for its impact on the most vulnerable in society – not primarily the rich and powerful

membership is open to independent and minority elected voices – not dominated by the big party machines

Parliamentary business is discussed and voted upon in ways that encourage common action, co-operation and understanding of differences – rather than division and confrontation.

The reality well known by most commentators, is that if the House of Lords becomes an elected chamber, then we would see an end to Bishops in the house of Lords, as in reality they would not be able to garnish enough support.

As you can imagine the Bristish Humanist Association are fully behind this campaign also.

Some time ago I received a request to post something about an upcoming debate relating to the issue of the existence of Bishops within the House of Lords, which I did:

Should the bishops be evicted from the House of Lords? A parliamentary debate on the future of the Lords Spiritual

In this debate, arguing that Bishops should be evicted from the House of Lords was Polly Toynbee, President of the British Humanist Association; and Jonathan Bartley, Co-director, Ekklesia.

I wasn’t particularly flattering towards Jonathan Bartley in my post and he kindly took the time to comment, here is a snippet:-

I said:

….it saddens me terribly to watch such an influential figure as you, join forces with groups that are actively opposed to Christianity, such as the humanists.

Jonathan responded:

I am not aware that I have “joined forces” with anyone. I am however prepared to work with people where I believe they are working with, and toward truth.

I do not drive a wedge between sacred and secular and believe that all people who are made in God’s image, have a sense of what is right and wrong. I do not agree with humanists on many things, but where I see them working for justice and equality, which are to me eternal Christian values which resonate with the character of God, and they know what they are because of God (whether they recognise it or not) I will encourage them in that, and debate and discuss with them.

On reflection, as I observe Ekklesia’s preoccupation in ridding the House of Lords of Bishops, I would say that Ekklesia are in fact very much about driving a wedge between sacred and secular.

This Power2010 campaign encourages participants to email the Bishops and they provide a convenient form on their website, with a fully customisable message and every Bishops email address already inserted for you.

Ekklesia have just posted that they are thrilled with the uptake of 20,000 emails sent to the bishops in one day.

In terms of the validity of a campaign strategy of this nature, I am in agreement with a commentator on Twitter who noted the following:-

Not keen on these mass-auto email all the MPs / MEPs / Bishops at once scripts. Smacks of spam techniques.

and

….I’m sure the bishops can handle it! – Missing the point. a) Does it work? b) Do we want click-box politics?

Indeed.

Overall I confess that I am somewhat uncomfortable with Ekklesia’s determination to eradicate Bishops from the house of Lords, and I am certainly uncomfortable with their choice of bedfellows, and I am uncomfortable with their current campaign technique, namely, overwhelming Bishops email inboxes.

I know many will disagree with me, but there you go.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Joe Biden, the US vice president, has condemned an Israeli plan to build hundreds of homes in east Jerusalem & Benjamin Netanyahu snubs Joe Biden to meet with John Hagee

Wednesday, March 10th, 2010

There is a furore over the Israeli governments announcement of plans to build hundreds of homes in east Jerusalem. To make matters worse the timing of the announcement coincided with the official state visit of US vice president Joe Biden, to begin indirect negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian authorities.

Telegraph:-

Israel’s controversial announcement that it had approved construction of 1,600 new apartments coincided with Mr Biden’s arrival in the country for a round of meetings with Israeli officials.

In a strongly-worded statement, Mr Biden criticised the decision to announce the plan during his visit.

“The substance and timing of the announcement, particularly with the launching of proximity talks, is precisely the kind of step that undermines the trust we need right now,” he said.

“We must build an atmosphere to support negotiations, not complicate them,” he added, warning that “unilateral action taken by either party cannot prejudge the outcome of negotiations.”

Although ministry officials said the announcement was procedural and unconnected to the visit, a top aide to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed he had been blindsided by the news. Mr Netanyahu tried to contain the damage at a late-night dinner with Mr Biden, but it was too late and Mr Biden issued his statement after the dinner.

Relations between Israel and the Obama administration have been chilly precisely because of the settlement issue, and one of Mr Biden’s main goals had been to try to repair ties. Mr Biden is the highest-level member of the Obama administration to visit Israel.

Did you notice this comment:-

Mr Netanyahu tried to contain the damage at a late-night dinner with Mr Biden, but it was too late and Mr Biden issued his statement after the dinner.

If you are wondering why they met during a “late-night dinner” and not earlier in the day, then the answer lies in my post from yesterday:-

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Monday addressed a Christians United for Israel (CUFI) summit in Jerusalem and encouraged Christian Zionists around the world to stay the course in their defense of the Jewish state.

It would appear that Benjamin Netanyahu decided to meet with the CUFI earlier in the evening, rather than meet with Biden.

On top of this, the Middle Eastern press has been unimpressed and rather subdued about Biden’s visit:-

BBC

Press commentators in Israel and the Palestinian territories have given a subdued response to the visit of US Vice-President Joe Biden to Israel shortly after a new round of indirect negotiations between the two sides was announced.

Israeli papers recognised that the visit was aimed at reaffirming relations with the US, but some acknowledged that the spirit of the trip was undermined by the news that Israel had approved the construction of 1,600 new housing units in East Jerusalem.

The Palestinian press, already cool on the prospect of indirect negotiations, were also unenthused by Biden’s visit, with two papers saying he was more interested in Iranian issues than Palestinian ones.

It certainly looks as if the Obama administration is a spent force in the Middle East currently, and these incidents were designed to snub.

Following is Netanyahu’s Address to the Christians United For Israel Jerusalem Summit, and notice the opening comment relating to Jerusalem, which I happen to completely agree with:-

Welcome to Jerusalem, the undivided, eternal capital of the Jewish state and the Jewish people.

Your presence here today represents a profound transformation in the relationship between Christians and Jews. This transformation has its roots in the 19th century when the early Christian Zionists came to the Land Israel and when they began exploring the land of the Bible, when they began to yearn for the Jewish restoration in this land, the restoration of our numbers, the restoration of our sovereignty.

In fact, Christian Zionism preceded modern Jewish Zionism, and I think enabled it. But it received a tremendous impetus several decades ago when leading American clergymen, among them most notably, Pastor John Hagee, a dynamic pastor and leader from Texas, began to say to their congregations and to anyone who listened, it’s time to take a stand with Israel. It was time to take a stand with the sole democracy in the Middle East. It was time to take a stand against the lies and the slander and the vilifications. It was time to defend the Jewish state’s right to defend itself.

Today, Christians by the thousands, by the tens of thousands, by the hundreds of thousands, by the millions, by the tens of millions – today they have heard this call, and they stand with Israel. I salute you, the people of Israel salute you, the Jewish people salute you.

Time after time, through thick and thin, you have stood shoulder to shoulder with our state, and I have come here tonight to thank you for your unwavering friendship. And today that friendship is more important than ever because Israel faces unprecedented challenges to its security and its legitimacy.

No security challenge is more important to our common future than preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons. I have said before and I’ll say again, that the greatest threat facing mankind is the specter of a militant Islamic regime acquiring nuclear weapons, or the specter of nuclear weapons acquiring a militant Islamic regime. The first is dangerously close to happening in Iran, and the second may or may not happen in Pakistan. I believe that with the right policies both can be averted.

If Iran develops atomic weapons, the world would never be the same. We would witness a cascade of terrorism across the globe as terrorists would operate under an Iranian nuclear umbrella. Look at how much havoc, how much terror they sow now, when there is no such umbrella, and understand what can happen if Iran, their patron, sponsor, supplier and supporter, if that Iran had nuclear weapons. Equally, the region’s vital oil supplies could be severely threatened and efforts to prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East would collapse as one regime after another would rush to acquire nuclear weapons of their own. Worst of all, if nuclear weapons would be given to terrorists, or to terrorist states, a 65 year-old era of nuclear peace would be endangered for the first time.

Remember that for the tyrants in Tehran, Israel is only the little Satan. In their eyes, America is the Great Satan. America is their ultimate target. Yet for Israel, the threat from Iran could not be clearer. Iran’s leaders openly call for Israel’s destruction. They brazenly deny the Holocaust and they hope, and they say so just about every other day, they hope to wipe Israel off the map of the Middle East.

We must not allow such a regime to threaten the peace of the world, the peace and security of all humanity. All responsible members of the international community must do everything in their power to stop Iran from developing atomic weapons.

As we speak the United States is leading an international effort to impose sanctions on Iran. We believe those sanctions must have teeth. And to have teeth, they must bite deep into Iran’s energy sector. Simply put, they should prevent Iran from importing gasoline and from exporting oil. I believe that such measures might convince the regime to choose between continuing the weapons program and between assuring the regime’s future. But there must be tough, biting sanctions.

I said that we face great challenges to our security, but we also face unprecedented challenges to our legitimacy. Now this assault on our legitimacy comes in many forms – it comes from the so-called human rights bodies in the UN which would deny Israel its legitimate right of self-defense, it comes by falsely charging Israel’s political and military leaders with imaginary war crimes, and it comes by the outrageous waging campaigns to boycott, divest and sanction Israel. You are all familiar with that.

But I think that there is an even greater assault on our legitimacy. I think it is the attempt to perpetrate one of the greatest lies of history — to deny the connection between the people of Israel and the land of Israel; to cast the Jewish people as foreigners in the land of our forefathers. Make no mistake about it. The attempt to deny our history in this land is an attempt to deny our future in this land. That is why to defend our past is to defend our future.

I ask you all to join us in this battle to defend the truth. Remind them of Abraham and Isaac, remind them of Joshua and Samuel, remind them of David and Solomon. Remind the world that the land of the Bible is not in the heavens but right here on earth. And that the people of the Bible, are on the land of the Bible.

Let me tell you how I remind foreign officials of this connection of the Jewish people to our history and to this land. You see, they visit my office. And I say, Would you come and look at this little signet ring that I was given on loan from the Department of Antiquities? It was found next to the Wall of the Second Temple, but it dates back to the First Temple. It goes back some 2800 years ago, to the period of the Kings. It is a signet seal of a Jewish official, and it has a name written in ancient Hebrew, which I can read. The name is: Netanyahu. Netanyahu Ben-Yoash. I say, that’s my last name. My first name, Benjamin, dates back 1000 years earlier, to Benjamin the son of Jacob, who also walked these hills. That is our connection. And nobody can deny the connection of the Jewish people to the Jewish land.

Israel faces great challenges. We must prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. We must repel the assault on our legitimacy. We must find a way to achieve peace with our neighbors. We must all pray for the peace of Jerusalem.

After centuries in exile, I have come here to assure you, the people of Israel have come home and no force on earth will ever make us leave our home again.

Of course the Obama administration could always attempt to impose a solution on Israel, however, given the above, I doubt that the US has the power or the influence to do so.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism: Understanding the Participatory News Consumer

Monday, March 8th, 2010

Very interesting research from the Pew Forum surveying people’s use of the Internet as a news source.

But check this comment out:-

Asked what subjects they would like to receive more coverage, 44% said scientific news and discoveries, 41% said religion and spirituality, 39% said health and medicine, 39% said their state government, and 38% said their neighborhood or local community.

41% wanted more coverage of religion and spirituality! Who would have guessed that one?

Admittedly this research has a US bias, but let’s not write off this research as potentially applicable to the UK.

I seem to have a recurring theme over the last couple of days relating to the Internet:-

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.

The Tyranny of the SEO Church, Revisited

80% think that Internet Access is a basic Human Right

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

In a few days there will be an international gathering of atheists in Melbourne. Richard Dawkins and many other misotheistic heavyweights will be there.

Monday, March 8th, 2010

Bill Muehlenberg has put together an interesting post looking at the correlation between religion, democracy, morals and freedom.

As a quick caveat, I will say that when Bill uses the term “Religion” I suspect he’s referring explicitly to the Christian faith. I make this caveat as the problem nowadays is that whenever the word “Religion” is used in the context of democracy, freedom, morals and so forth, the immediate thought is the repressive totalitarian Islamic theocracy.

Unfortunately more and more in the minds of folks that I interact with, I am finding that the fear of the Islamic theocracy is transmitted to a general fear of all religions.

As a result atheists and others reject out of hand any form of non-secularisation, as they perceive that “religion” intends to ultimately restrict their freedoms, as in the case of the Islamic theocracy. Because of this perceived fear they no longer recognise that they are themselves beneficiary’s of a system formed by the influence of Christianity.

Religion, Morality and Democracy by Bill Muehlenberg:-

In a few days there will be an international gathering of atheists in Melbourne. Richard Dawkins and many other misotheistic heavyweights will be there. I suspect it will not be unlike so many other religious gatherings, complete with revered leaders, sacred texts, official orthodoxies, denunciations of outsiders, and fanatic followers. The zeal and fervor on display there will undoubtedly match that of any church meeting.

And they are most welcome to gather there and hold their little pow-wow. After all, that is what democracies are all about: allowing those of differing opinions and worldviews to freely assemble and discuss their faith. But the ironic thing is, while democracy allows these atheists the freedom to assemble, it is by and large what atheists so dislike which seems to make democracy possible.

That is, there has long been noted the connection between faith and freedom; between religion and democracy. Many intellects and analysts have noted how democracy really needs a moral foundation in order to successfully operate. And many have noted that morality requires a religious foundation to successfully operate.

Thus there is a strong, historic connection between religion, morality, democracy and freedom. A number of authors have discussed these connections. One thinks of Alexis de Tocqueville’s 1835 classic, Democracy in America for example.

The French writer and historian was greatly impressed with the American experiment at the time, and noted in his work the strong role religion played in the life of the young republic. Indeed, he contrasted Europe with America, focusing on the importance of religion to the new nation.

Many other key commentators have written about these interrelated aspects. Michael Novak has written extensively on such themes, including his quite important 1982 volume, The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism. It is a masterful treatment of how democratic capitalism is really a three-legged affair: a democratic political system; a free market economic system; and a moral/spiritual cultural system.

Other volumes worth pursuing here include John Hollowell, The Moral Foundation of Democracy (1954), and Claes Ryn, Democracy and the Ethical Life (1978). In addition to these newer writers, other older thinkers can also be mentioned.

Consider a famous letter British politician Lord Macaulay sent to an American friend on May 23, 1857. In it he stated that the average age of the world’s greatest democratic nations has been 200 years. Each has been through the following sequence:

From bondage to spiritual faith.
From faith to great courage.
From courage to liberty.
From liberty to abundance.
From abundance to complacency.
From complacency to selfishness.
From selfishness to apathy.
From apathy to dependency.
And from dependency back again into bondage.

Can we escape this fate?

He was quite right to note the moral/spiritual underpinnings of freedom and democracy. Indeed, this is not a very new insight. The history of Ancient Israel, especially as found in the book of Judges, reveals this very same set of connections. When Israel forgot about Yahweh and slipped into sin, they always ended up in bondage and judgment. Freedom was restored only when they got their moral and spiritual priorities sorted out.

My secular and atheist friends will complain however that it is not just the Judeo-Christian worldview that made democracy possible. What about the ancient Romans and Greeks? Yes and no would be my reply. Yes, any nation which has had some sort of religious basis will have a greater chance of both lasting, and lasting with a modicum of freedoms.

In that sense I think philosopher Peter Kreeft is right to argue that the most durable societies have been the most moralistic, while our recent officially secular societies appear to be rather short-lived, whether fascist or Marxist. Says Kreeft:

“The longest-lasting societies in history were all highly moralistic, the Confucian (over twenty-one hundred years), the Islamic (almost fourteen hundred years), and the Roman (about seven hundred years). The longest-lasting moral order in history has been that of Mosaic law: it has structured Jewish and then Christian life for thirty-five hundred years (though not as a continuous civil society).”

He cites Charles Colson who says that a community’s longevity is proportionate to its morality. To which Kreeft adds: “And to its religion, for no society has yet existed that has successfully built its knowledge of morality on any basis other than religion.”

As to the ancient Greeks and Romans, they were certainly a mixed bag in terms of freedom and democracy. They were a far cry from a modern democracy, with perhaps the majority of their own people being slaves. Historian Rodney Stark discusses this matter:

“While the classical world did provide examples of democracy, these were not rooted in any general assumptions concerning equality beyond an equality of the elite. Even when they were ruled by elected bodies, the various Greek city-states and Rome were sustained by large numbers of slaves. And just as it was Christianity that eliminated the institution of slavery inherited from Greece and Rome, so too does Western democracy owe its essential intellectual origins and legitimacy to Christian ideals, not to any Greco-Roman legacy. It all began with the New Testament.”

You can pursue his thoughts on this further in his important 2005 book, The Victory of Reason. But let me finish by noting some other voices on this connection between democracy, morality and religion. Benjamin Franklin said this: “Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and viscous, they have more need of masters.”

Edmund Burke put it this way: “The only liberty I mean is a liberty connected with order; that not only exists along with order and virtue, but which cannot exist at all without them.” George Washington noted that “of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensible supports.”

Historian Will Durant made this observation, “There is no significant example in history, before our time, of a society successfully maintaining moral life without the aid of religion.” Or as US General Douglas MacArthur once said, “History fails to record a single precedent in which nations subject to moral decay have not passed into political and economic decline. There has been either a spiritual awakening to overcome the moral lapse, or a progressive deterioration leading to ultimate national disaster.”

Such thoughts can be repeated at length. But let me conclude by returning to de Tocqueville who rightly said this about the US: “America is great because America is good and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.”

That is true of all modern democracies. Morality seems to be essential to freedom and democracy, and religion seems to be essential to morality. That case needs to be argued for more fully, but it does offer us something to think about as our atheist friends enjoy the freedoms Australia now offers.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

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

Friday, March 5th, 2010

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

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

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.

Friday, March 5th, 2010

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.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Where do atheists come from? Time to accept that atheism, not god, is odd

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

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

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Simon Luke A bible student who threatened a dustman with a knife during a road rage incident has been jailed for 15 months.

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

I can feel the BBC glee from here.

Take a look at this article about some bloke who completely lost the plot in a road traffic incident and started waiving around a fishing knife, which ended up cutting the victim on the hands.

Cornish bible student jailed in road rage knife row

Cornish Bible student, uh huh, that’s the headline grabber, then this:-

A bible student who threatened a dustman with a knife during a road rage incident has been jailed for 15 months.

Bible student, OK got that one already.

And we end thusly:-

Luke, who has no previous convictions, was described in court as a “sincere Christian man” and a “kind and compassionate man” by his bible college friends.

Ah, OK this guy is a Christian, makes sense, given the two references to his being a bible student. And we mustn’t forget that he hangs around with other bible students.

Come on, am I over analysing, or are the BBC revelling in the fact that this guy is a “Bible student” and “Sincere Christian man”, who has ballsed up big-time?

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) a Christian response?

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

The sixth international Israeli Apartheid Week kicked off yesterday, with the “week-long” festivities taking place over 14 days in over 40 cities across the globe.

Organizers say this year’s events are meant to “educate people about the nature of Israel as an apartheid system and to build Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions campaigns as part of a growing global BDS movement.”

No country is perfect in this world, but to vilify Israel in this manner is absurd at best, especially when you pause for a moment to consider the rogue, despot, brutal regimes that exist in our world today, most notably; Iran, North Korea, Zimbabwe and others.

As CAMERA rightly point out on their IsraelApartheidWeek website, even the name of this campaign is subtly designed to malign and delegitimise Israel:-

They come as part of “Israeli Apartheid Week,” a series of lectures, exhibits and events that single out Israel for fierce attack. Students are told the Jewish state is, by nature, a racist, colonial and oppressive state. They are told Israel should be boycotted, and even destroyed. They are told this by ideologues who distort facts about country while ignoring genuine oppression in the Middle East and across the world.

One need look no further than the event’s title to understand its malignant nature. The canard that Israel is an apartheid state is an assault on the country’s very legitimacy. South Africa’s racist, apartheid regime was rightfully dismantled, and this campaign seeks absurdly to cast Israel — the Middle East’s most progressive state and only liberal democracy — as being guilty of similar policies and equally deserving to be dismantled.

Having said all of this, the truly disheartening sight for me personally, is watching “Christian organisations” joining the chorus of Israel-bashers. Jonathan Bartley over at Ekklesia, has this to say about the Israel Apartheid Week:-

Since it was first launched in 2005, IAW has grown to become one of the most important global events in the ‘Palestine solidarity calendar’, but in the UK it often passes by without a mention.

Last year though more than 40 cities around the world participated in the week’s activities, which took place in the wake of Israel’s brutal assault against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip. IAW continues to grow with new cities joining this year.

In London, most of the action takes place around universities. I see that my friend Ben White (a regular Guardian CIF contributor) is speaking at the LSE next Tuesday.

I make no secret of my Zionist theology, however, this DOES NOT equate to a “blank cheque” approach to Israel and it must be remembered that anti-Zionist theology has the potential to pose an existential threat to Israel, especially when hijacked by Israel hating radical groups and regimes. See my recent post on this:-

‘Liberal Protestant churches pose growing threat to Israel’ – Rabbi Abraham Cooper says some theologians “are seeking to destroy Israel from Above.”

Ekklesia is vocal in its condemnation of Israel and it is most notable that Jonathan Bartley should mention his friend Ben White, who is a regular Guardian CIF contributor.

This is a comment from CIFWatch, which is a blog set up to combat the virulent anti-Semitism relentlessly propounded through the Guardian’s “Comment is Free”:-

When it comes to coverage of Israel on ‘Comment is Free’, readers are regularly exposed to a noxious mix of antizionism, antisemitism and other garden variety Israel-bashing.

On the pages of ‘Comment is Free’, contributors regularly label Israel as a racist and apartheid state and use emotive epithets such as “coloniser”, “ethnic cleansing”, “war crimes”, “separation wall”, “bantustans” and “war-mongering” to delegitimize Israel’s right to exist. Intentional acts of violence against the civilian population in Israel are either downplayed or totally ignored while attempts by Israel to prevent such attacks portray Israel as the unprovoked bloodthirsty aggressor that is motivated by an innate and racist hatred of the non-Jewish Arabs.

Recurring themes include spuriously characterizing Zionism as the antithesis of core Jewish values, touting of the one-state solution, comparing the acts of the Israelis with those of the Nazis, dehumanizing the Israeli settler population, morally equivocating between the Israeli right-wing and the Islamists, trumpeting the “Israel lobby” lie, accusing Jews of dual loyalties and sneering at those that dare defend Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish and democratic state.

It is no coincidence that Jonathan Bartley’s friend, Ben White, is a much loved contributor to the Guardian CIF, as he himself is most certainly not friendly to Israel.

Seismic Shock has blogged on Ben White and has this to say:-

…..I’ve also blogged about Ben White, a British journalist who rose to fame recently whilst defaming Israel and praising Christian anti-Zionist theologians such as Stephen Sizer and Colin Chapman. In recent months, White has gained notoriety for recommending the work of a Holocaust denier in a polemical book against Israel, banning Zionist Jews from his meetings and facebook groups, and for being alarmed at the arrest of antisemites who plotted to blow up a synagogue in New York.

It was the Seismic Shock blog that first picked up on Ben White’s infamous quote “I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are”. 

The Modernity Blog has an interesting article reflecting on Ben White’s journalism in the Guardian.

Following is an excellent article from Seismic Shock, posted on CIFWatch, reviewing Ben White, the Guardian and also mentioning Ekklesia:-

All About Zion

As Israeli professor Neve Gordon makes headlines around the world following his call for a wholesale boycott of Israel on CommentIsFree, it is no surprise to see CIF’s Ben White vigorously defend Gordon.

White blogs about Neve Gordon, highlighting a sentence in The Nation about reaction to Gordon’s article:

‘Mention boycott in a discussion of Israel, and chances are you’ll find yourself the butt of vicious attacks.’

But is Ben White also the ‘butt of vicious attacks’? He has complained about his critics in the past. Writing on Liberal Conspiracy, White protests:

‘A favourite tactic of die-hard defenders of Israel is to smear critics of the country’s policies through guilt by association, lies, and decontextualised quotations.

I have come to know this latter strategy quite well.’

For Ben White, it’s All About Zion. White sees himself as ‘a critic of the country’s policies’, and his critics in turn are ‘die-hard defenders of Israel’, seemingly obsessed with Zionism.

Yet Ben White is not your average critic of Israel, nor even your average boycotter of Israel. White has even stated ‘I do not consider myself an anti-Semite, yet I can also understand why some are.’ There is a strong religious dimension to Ben White’s anti-Zionism. White gives talks in churches and theological colleges, and his writing is praised by vicars, archbishops and other prominent clergymen. His book on Israel has received positive reviews on the Ekklesia website, an evangelical blog, and his letter in the Independent on Israel’s 60th birthday has raised his profile significantly amongst Christians.

He has previously written on CIF in praise of Christian “anti-Zionists” Colin Chapman and Stephen Sizer, who have developed a theology which suggests that the modern state of Israel is an offence to God, as Jews are no longer God’s Chosen People. For example, Sizer thinks that Israel is a rejected vineyard tossed into the flames by God.

Can you imagine The Guardian’s liberal-left Comment Is Free publishing praise of Christians who argue that the Curse of Ham extends to all dark-skinned people, and so black people cannot run their own countries? Or publishing praise of Christians who argue that Ishmael’s descendants are cursed, and therefore don’t have a right to run their own countries? Why did CommentIsFree publish a piece in praise of replacement theology-spouting anti-Zionists?

This is not the only disturbing aspect of Ben White’s writings and blog posts. Take his article from 11 January 2006 from The Palestine Chronicle (written four days before Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s announcement of plans for a Holocaust review conference), in which he argued that Mahmoud Ahmadinjead was not really a Holocaust denier.  Framing his comments in a religious context, White rationalised Ahmadinejad’s Holocaust denial thus:

‘The news agency goes on though to report that the President described how “some have created a myth on holocaust and hold it even higher than the very belief in religion and prophets because when a person expresses disbelief in God, religion and prophets they do not object to him but they will protest to anyone who would reject the Holocaust”. Again, Ahmadinejad is drawing attention to the extent to which European nations prosecute Holocaust deniers, yet are by and large post-Christian societies with little regard for religion. For a devout believer like the Iranian President, this must seem like a strange situation.’

White also produced this astounding sentence:

‘The Holocaust comes to symbolize the intrinsic anti-Jewish racism of ‘Gentile’ societies, and therefore proving the need for a Jewish state. More disturbingly perhaps, the Holocaust acts as a standard for human depravity set so high, that any treatment of the Palestinians is justifiable, as long as it falls short of what was experienced by the Jews in Nazi Europe.’

But why does White suggest the Holocaust ‘acts as’ or ‘comes to symbolise’ anything? Why does White see Israel’s Holocaust memorial as merely a tool of Zionism, without appreciating that millions of Israelis are simply the descendents of Holocaust survivors, and don’t want the atrocities of Nazi Europe to be forgotten? Or is the Holocaust now All About Zion?

Most offensive is the idea that Israelis gladly mete out cruelty and punishment to Palestinians, and so long as Israel doesn’t actually create gas chambers, Israel will feel it can do what it likes. Does White genuinely believe this? Is White reluctant to show sympathy with the victims of antisemitic violence?

Consider also White’s reaction to the arrest of antisemites in May of this year. White saw the arrest as a ‘fully controlled threat to our freedoms,’ as an FBI agent had infiltrated a group of four men plotting to explode a synagogue in New York. All four plotters now have prison sentences.

So how was this a ‘fully controlled threat to our freedoms’? For Ben White, what are ‘our freedoms’ in this case?

Was this about our freedom to worship in synagogues without fear of terrorist attack, or about our freedom to plot attacks on synagogues so long as we aren’t successful in carrying them out, or don’t actually have explosives?

Did the threat come from the extremists willing to launch terror against innocent Jews, or did the threat come from law enforcement agents seeking to prevent anti-Jewish terrorism?

Once again, amazingly, White appeared to sympathise with those responsible for antisemitism rather than the victims of antisemitism. To add insult to injury, White’s book (intended for ‘beginners’ to Israel/Palestine) contains a recommendation of the writings of French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy.

Now ask yourself whether Ben White’s critics always have Zionism in mind, and whether it always is All About Zion? Perhaps it’s about doing unto others as you would have done to you.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

If you were counting on a robust offensive from U.S. churches to stop in its tracks the incursion of Islamism in America, perhaps you should save up to pay your jizya

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

This is a hard-hitting piece from the FrontPageMag by Faith J. H. McDonnell.

This article follows hot on the heels of an email that went around yesterday from the Institute of Religion and Democracy, which featured the thoughts of Faith McDonnell (Faith is the IRD Religious Liberty Director) on the upcoming “Christian-Muslim summit”, in the Episcopal Church’s Washington National Cathedral. Her thoughts were also featured in Christian News Wire, which can be found on this link:-

Cathedral Summit with Iranian Ayatollah Should Speak Out for Those Under Oppression, Says IRD

This is the piece in FrontPageMag:-

Guess Who’s Coming to the Cathedral?

If you were counting on a robust offensive (or even a mild defense) from U.S. churches to stop in its tracks the incursion of Islamism in America, perhaps you should save up to pay your jizya (tax imposed on non-Muslims, dhimmis, for the right to exist). Many churches in America are neither willing nor prepared to counter the influence and infiltration of Islamism in their own congregations, let alone in the wider civil society. Rather than fear the judgment of the Almighty, these churches fear the label “Islamophobic.”

Particularly in the left-leaning mainline denominations, but disturbingly more and more common with formerly conservative evangelicals as well, many churches are obsessed with making themselves likeable to Islamists. All in the name of peace and reconciliation, such churches opt for sessions of feel-good dialogue with the local mosque, gushing about how much Christianity and Islam have in common, and never challenging Muslims to serious debate on those so-called commonalities such as peace and brotherhood, the Muslim belief in the return to the earth of Jesus (Isa) and their devotion to Jesus’ mother, Mary (Maryam).

The Islamic interpretation of all of these is about as convoluted as the English translations in a Monty Python Hungarian Phrasebook. But most Christians don’t know that the Koran teaches that Isa was a prophet of Islam (Surah Âl ‘Imran 3:84) or that the Hadiths declare that Isa will return to earth to destroy Christianity and establish Islam. One tradition of Muhammad says that Isa will break the cross (abolish Christianity), kill pigs (infidels), and abolish the poll-tax (stop accepting the jizya and wage Jihad again). (Sunan Abu Dawud, 37:4310) Nor do they know that in the Koran, Muhammad pretty obviously confused Maryam, the mother of Isa, with the centuries’ older Miriam, the sister of Moses.

Eager to accept at face value expressions of peace and brotherhood, Christian/Muslim dialogues ignore these errors, as well as the many troubling statements about Christians, Jews, and other “unbelievers” in the Koran and the Hadiths. The Christian participants accept the claim of their Muslim guest speaker – usually a professor of Islamic studies at some Saudi-endowed university trained to present a perfectly palatable version of Islam to Christians – that the Shari’a is quite compatible with democracy.

Another display of eagerness to engage in fantasy was the sycophantic Loving God and Neighbor Together. In this statement, Yale theologians-and-friends naively responded to A Common Word Between Us and You, a letter from international Muslim leaders inviting Christians to embrace Islam. The Yale response’s ‘bold’ insertion of Christianity into the conversation references Jesus’ admonition to the Pharisee to remove the log from his own eye before attempting to deal with the splinter in his neighbor’s eye (Matthew 7:5). But they cite Christ’s words in order to apologize for such Christian “logs” as the Crusades and the War on Terrorism.

This was a strategic blunder according to theologian and author the Rev. Dr. Mark Durie, since “it sends the signal to Muslims that whatever the problems with Islam, and whatever the sins of Muslims, they are but a ‘speck’ compared to the collective crimes of Christians.” It was also a moral failure, because it betrays Christians in the Islamic world who are being slaughtered.

Durie explains that the Yale response, “adopts a self-humbling, grateful tone.” This is disturbing, he says, because it fits right in with the classic Islamic understanding that Christians are dhimmis who should be grateful “for the generosity of having their lives spared” and humble, because their condition as dhimmis is contemptible. “It is regrettable that the Yale theologians have shown themselves so ready to adopt a tone of grateful self-humiliation,” Durie reproves, since A Common Word “did not offer awareness of, or any apology for, Muslims’ crimes, past and present, against non-Muslims.”

Such a scenario is sure to be played out next week when the Washington National Cathedral of the Episcopal Church hosts a “Christian-Muslim Summit,” March 1-3, 2010. There will be four main speakers and twenty other participants at this “gathering of high-ranking Christian and Muslim leaders for a candid discussion of matters affecting Christian-Muslim relations and peacemaking efforts worldwide” But if this summit is true to form and to all such past events, it will just be another exercise in dhimmitude for most, if not all, of the Christian participants as they fall all over themselves in their efforts to be inoffensive to Islam.

On a website page seemingly designed as an ‘homage’ to Islamic/Arabic art, the participants of the summit are introduced in the typically solemn and self-important tones which the National Cathedral reserves for interfaith events. There are “The Principals,” including two Muslims, Ayatollah Dr. Seyyed Mostafa Mohaghegh Damad Ahmadabadi, professor of law at Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran (once known as the National University of Iran, now “Martyr University”), and Professor Dr. Ahmad Mohamed El Tayeb, president of Al-Azhar University in Cairo. This home to such interesting fatwas as death to apostates who leave Islam and approval of adult suckling was recently referred to by President Barack Obama as “a beacon of Islamic learning.”

His Eminence Jean-Louis Cardinal Tauran, president of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue, and ultra-liberal John Bryson Chane, D.D., the Episcopal Church’s bishop of Washington are the Christian “Principals” in the Summit. One can only hope that Cardinal Tauran might show the same courageous and forthright spirit as when he criticized the Archbishop of Canterbury for suggesting that some aspects of Shari’a in Britain were unavoidable and when in an interview he declared the world to be “obsessed with Islam.”

The other participants, referred to as “The Twenty,” include eight other Muslims along with Anglicans/Episcopalians, Catholics, and two Jewish observers. (So nice that they let another Abrahmic faith be semi-included!) All of the Muslim participants in the summit are considered “moderate.” But even a little research raises questions about the truth of their commitment to peace and religious freedom as we would define these concepts.

It is admirable to desire to “influence governments to promote peace and reconciliation efforts worldwide.” But this description of the summit on the National Cathedral’s website does not take seriously the differences between Christianity and Islam. It portrays them as morally equivalent.

“These initiatives must be taken,” the cathedral urges, “to engage leaders across faiths and nations in the search for what Jesus called “the Peace of God that passes all understanding” and what the Qur’an teaches: “O ye who believe! Enter into Peace whole-heartedly” (Surah 2:208).

Well, it was actually St. Paul, and not Jesus, that referenced “the peace of God that passes all understanding,” (Philippians 4: 7). Jesus offered His peace in John 14: 27, which he contrasted to the peace offered by the world. But one can forgive the National Cathedral for the error since they don’t quote Jesus all that much.

And whether or not the folks at the National Cathedral know it and made a deliberate omission, or were ignorant of the fact, when Surah 2: 208 speaks of “ye who believe,” the believers do not include non-Muslims. “Enter into Peace” it says. It’s that tricky “peace” as in “Religion of Peace” that really means “submission” to Islam. Ironically, the verse undermines and contradicts the whole premise of a Christian-Muslim summit.

The March 1-3 summit will consist of private meetings, ending with a Wednesday evening public dialogue between the participants. The dialogue, moderated by Washington Post associate editor David Ignatius, is only open to invited guests and to selected members of the media who possess White House, Capitol Hill, Department of State, or Department of Defense press credentials. The website assures that “anyone may participate in the forum by watching it online” and submitting a question for consideration.

But just as in 2006, when the cathedral hosted the former president of Iran, Sayyid Mohammed Khatami, the far side of the street across from the cathedral may be lined with Iranian Americans, and possibly this time with Coptic Americans, Pakistani Christians, and others who have been marginalized by Islamist regimes, as well. At the 2006 event, hundreds of Iranian Americans and other advocates for freedom and democracy in Iran carried flags, banners, and posters. Some posters featured photos of young Iranian dissidents who were in prison or had been killed. Others excoriated Khatami and the Episcopal Church. The Chosen Ones, the guests invited to the public dialogue at the 2006 meeting, received an earful as angry and energetic protestors shouted, “Shame, shame Episcopal Church!” and directed both Khatami and the denomination to go to a location which many Episcopalians no longer believe exists!

At this coming summit, there is all the more reason for a multi-national demonstration. In addition to last summer’s slaughter of Iranian protestors and dissidents, American Copts are mourning the recent murders of Egyptian Christians. Christians in Pakistan continue to suffer injustice and violent, murderous attacks. And most Sudanese are extremely angry with Egypt because of its attempts to force a postponement of this year’s national election in Sudan, its complicity in Khartoum’s Arab Islamist racist agenda, and its brutal treatment of Sudanese refugees trying to flee to Israel.

Dhimmitude stops at the doors of the Washington National Cathedral. The doors that are painted bright red to remind worshippers not only of Christ’s sacrifice, but of the blood of the martyrs who have gone before them. The sidewalk demonstration will be a summit for those who have experienced that other side of Christian-Muslim relations, the martyrdom side. It will be a far sight more candid than what goes on inside the cathedral.

Faith J. H. McDonnell directs The Institute on Religion and Democracy’s Religious Liberty Program and Church Alliance for a New Sudan, and is the author of Girl Soldier: A Story of Hope for Northern Uganda’s Children (Chosen Books, 2007).

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

The case for, and against, the canonization of Pope Pius XII

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

An interesting and informative article in the National Post today looking at the controversy surrounding the move to canonize Pope Pius XII.

Is Pope Pius XII the The Nazi pope who facilitated Nazi aims, or is he the misunderstood and much maligned protector of the Jews, in a harrowing period of history? You decide:-

Holy Post:-

The road to sainthood is never speedy, but rarely is it as divisive as the campaign to canonize Pope Pius XII. Just last week, a group of prominent Catholic scholars urged Pope Benedict to slow down the process in order to better assess contradictory evidence. Some see the Pope, who reigned over the Roman Catholic Church during the Second World War, as a pro-Nazi collaborator and anti-Semite who went along with the Holocaust. To others, including some prominent Jews, he was an anti-Nazi, who actively saved Jews, risking his own safety and that of the Church in defence of the persecuted. To add to the complexity, many historians say Pius was neither a war criminal nor a saint, just a complicated individual caught in one of history’s most catastrophic conflicts. The National Post’s Charles Lewis looks at some of the leading theories in the complex case for and against the making of his road to sainthood.

Read More

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Roman Catholic Church’s guide to voting in the next general election

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

Two articles in the Times today looking at the “Catholic vote”.

Ruth Gledhill – Times

Roman Catholic bishops enter pre-election fray

The Roman Catholic Church will wade into the general election campaign next week with a controversial document condemning the loss of virtue in public life.

In their pre-election manifesto, Catholic bishops are expected to take a line that is economically to the left of centre but conservative on social issues such as marriage, education and care for the elderly.

They will argue for the right to religious freedom at a time when secularist campaigning is on the rise as never before. The document will also be interpreted as a warning to the Conservatives that their more liberal attitude to certain social issues, such as homosexuality, threatens to alienate a core block of swing voters in an election where the religious vote is regarded as crucial to the outcome.

In the document, discussed with the Pope when the bishops were in Rome for their ad limina visit earlier this year, the Catholic bishops of England and Wales warn that regulation has replaced virtue in public life. They condemn the substitution of red tape and petty rules for virtue, the loss of trust, the financial collapse, the decimation of social capital, the loss of human dignity in policies on migration, the devastation to the global environment and the repeated attempts to erode religious freedoms in Britain.

Continue Reading

Philip Collins – Times

Catholic Church voting guide will be claimed by the Tories

It was once famously said that the Anglican Church was the Conservative Party at prayer. If that adage was ever true it abruptly ceased to be in the autumn of 1985. When the Church of England’s Commission on Urban Priority Areas published Faith in the City, a report that blamed the Thatcher Government for spiritual and economic poverty, ministers were incensed.

One Cabinet minister dismissed the report as “pure Marxist theology” and claimed it proved beyond doubt that the Anglican Church was governed by “a load of communist clerics”.

It is unlikely that any Labour minister will react with quite such anger to the publication of the Roman Catholic Church’s guide to voting in the next general election. The document is scrupulously non-partisan in the sense that it endorses no political party. That is wise politics, for the largely Catholic segments of the northern and Scottish cities are almost exclusively Labour areas.

Continue Reading

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

An interesting week for secularism – Editorial by Terry Sanderson

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

Strangely, I found this to be quite an interesting and entertaining article by Terry Sanderson (National Secular Society President) reflecting on the goings on, of the last week:-

An interesting week for secularism – Editorial by Terry Sanderson

This week has been an interesting one for secularism in Britain. It began with the announcement by the Government that it intended to amend — at the behest of the Catholic Church — its Children’s, Schools and Families Bill provisions on mandatory sex and relationship education in all schools. After whingeing from the Catholic Education Society, Mr Balls gave an opt-out for “faith schools” to teach sex education in conformity with the teachings of the faith. He insisted that it would not compromise the Bill in any way. But he did not adequately explain why, if that was the case, the amendment was necessary in the first place. (See also this interesting video on YouTube on what it will mean in practice).

Mr Balls received a massive kicking for watering down the requirements – not least from the NSS, which was on the front line of attack for this further disgraceful concession to the “faith communities”. (You can read all about it by following the links in the “NSS Speaks Out” feature below.)

No sooner had this gift been given to the Catholic Church, than the Government’s (zealously Catholic) Scottish Secretary, Jim Murphy, gave a speech in Westminster opining that religion has a big part to play in politics and that the Labour Party should court the “faith vote”. It wasn’t clear what exactly he wanted the party to do, beyond an embrace of “family values” (a concept that takes on a sinisterly authoritarian shade in a Catholic context), but presumably appealing to religious voters means giving them something in exchange for their vote.

Continue Reading

Check out George Pitcher’s (Telegraph) comments during the week:-

Secularist Terry Sanderson launches bizarre attack on Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy’s faith in politics

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

J Street Slanders Evangelical Christian Supporters of Israel Once Again

Saturday, February 27th, 2010

CBN - Erick Stakelbeck (Hat-tip Solomonia)

Have you ever heard of a supposedly “pro Israel” group that has issued more press releases condemning Christian Zionists than it has Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadenijad, Hezbollah and Syria combined? No? Then welcome to J Street, the self-described “pro Israel, pro peace” lobbying group that bends over backwards to insult Israel’s friends and supporters, especially evangelical Christians, and makes a living off of criticizing Israeli government policies.

I’ve discussed J Street’s naked anti-Christian bigotry before (see here and here) but since they are at it again (more on that in a bit), I felt compelled to undertake a little research project. I went to J Street’s website and surveyed the group’s press releases from the past year and a half. The results? To start, four press releases (including one from February 1, 2010) attacking John Hagee and Christians United for Israel (CUFI). Indeed, two of J Street’s first four press releases were devoted to slamming Hagee. Talk about misguided priorities: a purportedly pro-Israel group using all of this ink on Hagee and evangelical supporters of Israel at a time when Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria are stockpiling increasingly lethal weapons and publicly calling for Israel’s destruction.

In those press releases, J Street essentially painted Hagee–a man Senator (and orthodox Jew) Joseph Lieberman once compared to Moses–as a closet anti-Semite and portrayed Christian supporters of Israel as some sort of wild-eyed, apocalyptic death cult (a strategy which this release by J Street’s founder, Jeremy Ben-Ami, took to new extremes).  But what may be even more offensive is that J Street has come up with exactly one–one–press release condeming genocidal Iranian dictator Mahmoud Ahmadenijad. And zero press releases condeming either Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah or Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, two others who regularly threaten Israel’s demise. If J Street wants ”end times” and “apocalyptic,” then Ahmadenijad, Assad and Nasrallah–who all met yesterday in Damascus to plot further attacks against Israel–are certainly the real deal. So why the bizarre preoccupation with evangelical Christians, an extremely large and influential group that Israeli government officials of every political persuasion routinely hail as among the Jewish people’s greatest friends and supporters?

I was greeted by the same puzzling output when scanning through opinion pieces penned by “members of J Street’s Advisory Council and by its staff and friends.” No less than three scathing op-eds that mention Hagee or CUFI in the title, and others, like this one, that slam them in the body of the piece. Yet not one op-ed that mentions Ahmadenijad, Nasrallah or Assad in the title, or Hamas for that matter. Christian supporters of Israel and Israeli government officials, on the other hand, are specifically targeted for criticism. Again, this is a quite peculiar strategy for a “pro-Israel” group to pursue.

Which brings us to the latest example. J Street founder Jeremy Ben-Ami once again mischaracterized CUFI recently, erroneously claiming that the group contributed money to a certain Israeli organization. I won’t go into all the details here–rather, I  strongly encourage you to read two comprehensive responses to J Street written by a pair of CUFI spokesmen (see here and here).

Bottom line: J Street’s press releases, writings and public statements reflect a great deal of time and energy spent cutting down Israel’s friends and supporters–with a special venom reserved for evangelical Christians–not to mention, the Netanyahu government. On the other hand,  the group has spent precious little time condeming Israel’s sworn enemies. You can call this perplexing tactic many things. Pro-Israel is not one of them.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

The Catholic Church of Brazil seems to be under the impression that it owns any image of the famous Christ the Redeemer sculpture which stands high above Rio de Janeiro, and is suing Columbia Pictures for using it in last year’s blockbuster 2012.

Friday, February 26th, 2010

This beggars belief, Cross-post MediaWatchWatch:-

Brazil Catholics sue Hollywood for crumbling Redeemer image

The Catholic Church of Brazil seems to be under the impression that it owns any image of the famous Christ the Redeemer sculpture which stands high above Rio de Janeiro, and is suing Columbia Pictures for using it in last year’s blockbuster 2012.

The apocalyptic film shows Rio being destroyed by a tidal wave, and the 40-metre statue crumbling under the water.

The Archdiocese of Rio de Janeiro, who commissioned the sculpture in 1931, refused permission to Columbia when they asked to use the image in their film, but Columbia went ahead anyway. The Archdiocese’s laweyer, Claudine Dutra, explained:

many faithful have said they are shocked and offended by the images of the destruction of this sanctuary that the archdiocese wanted to preserve.

We want Columbia Pictures to publicly declare that it did not intend to cause offense.

They are also seeking undisclosed damages.

Funnily enough, director Roland Emmerich wanted to include a scene which showed the destruction of the Kaaba – the holy rock-in-a-box towards which devout Muslims point the crown of their head five times a day. But he feared a fatwa.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Question of the Day: Is Hell a Necessary Christian Doctrine

Friday, February 26th, 2010

I just wanted to draw your attention to a fascinating discussion over at The Church of Jesus Christ.

Question of the Day: Is Hell a Necessary Christian Doctrine

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Why there’s Nothing British about the BNP’s (British National Party) “Christian values”

Friday, February 26th, 2010

There has been an inordinate amount of outrage online relating to this small article in Dutch News today:-

Christians can’t vote for Wilders, say vicars

A Christian cannot vote for Geert Wilders’ anti-immigration party PVV, say 75% of church leaders in a poll of 1,200 ministers and church workers in the Nederlands Dagblad.

The ministers represent a cross-section of all the Netherlands’ Protestant churches, representing 2.3 million people, the paper says.

One third of the people polled said there were people who supported Wilders in their communities and 5% said Wilders had a lot of support.

Wilders and the PVV’s views contradict Christianity,’ one minister told the paper.

As you will note from comments on this article, there is little sympathy for these church leaders simply stating that Christians cannot vote for Geert Wilders, and the accusation that these leaders are “out of touch”.

Church leaders in the UK have made similar comments in recent times relating to the British National Party. Most notably in July last year, BNP members were banned from joining the Methodist Church,

It was back in October that a joint statement was issued by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, stating that; “Christians have been deeply disturbed by the conscious adoption by the BNP  of the language of our faith“.

Towards the end of last year the Archbishop of Wales Barry Morgan became embroiled in a furious war of words with the BNP, over the far-right party’s claim to represent “Christian values”.

We also had the embarrassing episode whereby, David North a Churchwarden from Melton Mowbray, was bullied into resigning, after church leaders deemed that his membership of the British National Party (BNP) was “incompatible” with Christianity.

The truth is that I do not believe that church leaders should be banning or discriminating against folks who vote for, or are members of, any legal political body, no matter how distasteful we may find their “politics”.

This may sound a little ironic to regular readers, as I have often posted rebuttals of the BNP claims to represent Christianity, especially articles written by Edmund Standing, see; here, here, here & here.

My point in saying this, is that it is pointless church leaders simply saying Christians mustn’t be involved with political parties such as the BNP, they must make a strong case as to why this is so.

I personally know of some Christians who are leaning towards the BNP right now. These are good folk, who are utterly disillusioned with the “main” political parties on a number of issues, especially, immigration, the perceived rise of Islamic extremism and the erosion of a “Christian British cultural identity”. Readers have to be aware that as Christians we are acutely aware of the horrific persecution of our brothers and sisters in Islamic lands, which gives additional impetus to the fear of the rise of Islamic extremism in this country.

The BNP are cunningly attempting to fill a vacuum and tap in to a Christian sense of abandonment by the “main” political parties, and have gone as far as to clone and hijack Christianity through the Rev West West’s Christian Council of Britain. Do take the time to read the interesting comments on this blog relating to the Rev Robert West, including some from Rev West himself.

The British National Party (BNP) candidate styles himself as Rev.

I agree with the Communities Secretary John Denham, who last October called on faith groups to “nail the lie that the BNP is a “Christian party”, however, this does not take place by “bashing” those Christians who have been duped by the BNP, but by informing them and peeling off the skin of the BNP Christian claims.

I’ll say publicly that at one stage I was personally leaning toward the BNP, until I began reading articles written by Edmund Standing, who worked tirelessly to highlight the inconsistency of the BNP’s Christian claims (even though he himself is an atheist), but sadly has now stopped this work (tired of swimming in the sewers), which left a worrying gaping hole.

Thankfully, the website “There is nothing British about the BNP” has picked up the gauntlet today:-

Why there’s Nothing British about the BNP’s “Christian values”

Nick Griffin and the British National Party are keen to portray themselves as on the sides of traditional British culture.  They see a gap in the market that they can fill. While other parties surrender to multiculturalism, Islam, and politically correct secularism, the BNP stand up for traditional British Christianity. This is nonsense. There is nothing Christian about the BNP.

On the BBC’s ‘Question Time’ programme, British National Party leader Nick Griffin stated: ‘If Muslims do stay in this country they must remember that Britain is essentially a fundamentally British and Christian country’. The BNP is a ‘Christian’ party that can save ‘Christian culture’

The BNP have created a front organisation called the ‘Christian Council of Britain’, headed by BNP activist and electoral candidate Robert West who leads religious services at various BNP events, including the party’s ‘Red, White & Blue’ and reportedly preaches on topics such as ‘the importance of nationalism’ and how “homosexuals do greatly err”. For West, a multi-racial society is a form of ‘Holocaust’, with immigration used to create “Lebensraum” for the Third  World. Despite initially denying any connection with the BNP, West has admitted that the BNP “encouraged and facilitated” its establishment.

Why the BNP are not Christian

-          There’s nothing Christian about the BNP’s ethics. For Jesus Christ, humanity was all part of one family. Christianity from the outset taught a universal message which dissolved the idea of race or nation, teaching that it is of no significance to God. He said that we should love our neighbour, preach the good news and understanding to all nations. He taught the parable of the Good Samaritan, to show our true neighbours were not just those from the same race. Most of all, he abhorred violence and the hatred that is fascism’s speciality.

-          The BNP use Christianity as an excuse to attack Muslims. Rather than refer to the actual teachings of Christ, the BNP’s favoured role model are the Crusaders. In a letter, Nick Griffin wrote “We will never allow our children to become a minority in our homeland! We will fight to the bitter end, just like our Crusader ancestors, to preserve our Christian culture and heritage. The spirit of the Medieval Knights lives on in all of us!”

-          The BNP’s use Christianity as an excuse for their homophobia. British fascism has a history of extreme homophobia. While the party’s policy is no longer officially to ban homosexual activity, they are always keen to claim that homosexuals are an affront to Britain’s ‘Christian heritage’. 

-          The BNP’s real ideology is pagan. Christianity, of course, is a “foreign import”, and for the extreme activists within the BNP inner circle, like all other imports it must be purged.

The BNP’s Foreign Affairs spokesman Arthur Kemp wrote in his March of Titans that “the introduction of Christianity has to count as the single greatest ideological catastrophe to ever strike Europe.”

Ever since Himmler’s obsession with the occult, there has been a strain of Paganism with fascism, as zealots attempt to reclaim a purely European religion.

Lee Barnes, the BNP’s legal director, is a particular fan: ‘Christianity is a semitic religion, it is creature [sic] of the deserts of the Middle East not the forests of the Northern Europe [sic] and its symbol the cross is an instrument of torture not of living redemption’. In place of Christianity, Barnes advocates Odinism, the worship of the Norse pagan gods of pre-Christian Europe, and he connects the Odinic ‘tree of life’ (Yggdrasil) with a religion based on race: ‘The roots represent our descent from the Gods and our connection to the Earth, the trunk represents our shared European racial heritage, the main branches of the tree our nations and tribes, the twigs on each branch represent each family unit and each single leaf symbolises an individual life’.

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark

Response to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide

Thursday, February 25th, 2010

As the Director of Public Prosecutions has just released the long anticipated new guidelines on assisted suicide, I anticipate quite a bit of interesting analysis, so I’ll post links here.

As I was musing over the the stark differences between the Christian community’s view of euthanasia and many non-believers, I suddenly realised that many non-believers tend to view humans as no different than animals. On this blog we frequently receive pro-euthanasia comments from non-believers, that simply ask why should we not have “mercy” on humans as we do dogs and “put them out of their misery”.

Anyway, here are the first of the Internet links:-

I’m putting George Pitcher from the Telegraph first, because he has been on particularly fine form.

Geroge Pitcher Telegraph – Rejoice! DPP deals severe blow to Dignity in Dying’s hopes for assisted suicide

Church of England – Response to the Director of Public Prosecutions’ Policy for Prosecutors in Respect of Cases of Encouraging or Assisting Suicide

Telegraph – Keir Starmer, the Director of Public Prosecutions, set out a list of factors for prosecutors to consider when deciding whether to charge someone who had assisted a suicide. There are six that will sway decision against prosecution.

Lee Rayfield Guardian – Let’s not take the path of assisted dying – Arguments in favour of assisted dying play on our sense of compassion – but they should be resisted

The Christian Institute – Pro-lifers have voiced their concern over new assisted suicide guidelines, published today, which say prosecutions are unlikely if the act was “motivated by compassion”.

CPS – Assisted Suidce Guidelines

Telegraph – Relatives who profit from assisted suicide may not be charged – People who assist another person commit suicide and then make a financial gain from the death can still escape charges under new prosecution guidelines.

Telegraph – The new policy on prosecuting assisted suicides, published yesterday by Keir Starmer QC, the Director of Public Prosecutions, might make those who campaign for legalised euthanasia in Britain wish they had been more careful about what they asked for.

CCFON – The Department of Public Prosecutions must uphold Parliament’s view that assisting suicide is a serious crime and not necessarily an act of mercy, says Professor John Keown.

Church Times – THE CHURCH of England has commended changes to policy for prosecutors on assisted suicide, published on Thursday by the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP), Keir Starmer QC.

LifeSite – Despite urgent warnings from the British pro-life movement and shouts of triumph from euthanasia campaigners, a statement from the Catholic Bishops Conference of England and Wales has “welcomed” newly published legal guidelines on the prosecution of assisted suicide cases, saying they have given “greater protection” to vulnerable people.

Catholic News Agency – Vulnerable better protected by new assisted suicide prosecution policy, says Archbishop Smith

If you have stumbled onto this blog and are not a Christian, get yourself a hot drink, pull up a comfy chair and then tuck into the following article written by one of the best in the business:- All Of Grace by Charles Spurgeon
  • Share/Bookmark