eChurch Christian Blog

Oh dear here we go again. I refer you to previous posts on this issue:

It is entirely sensible that ministers have ruled out a ban on teachers being members of the BNP

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

Christian Today

The Baptist Union of Great Britain, the United Reformed Church and the Methodist Church have challenged the right of the British National Party to stand in the general election.

It follows the ruling of the Central London County Court last week which deemed that the BNP’s membership policy was still racist, despite the removal of a whites-only clause last month.

Judge Paul Collins ruled that a clause asking prospective members to support the creation of an indigenous British race was illegal and should be withdrawn from the party’s admissions policy.

The BNP has been barred from recruiting new members until it changes its admission rules to be more inclusive of non-whites.

Rachel Lampard, Public Issues Policy Adviser for the Methodist Church, said Christians had a duty to challenge the “rhetoric of hatred” being championed by extremist parties like the BNP.

“Every human being is created in the image of God and every person deserves to be treated with dignity and respect, regardless of their nationality,” she said.

Graham Sparkes, Head of Faith and Unity for the Baptist Union of Great Britain, said: “If people want to make our laws, first of all they must comply with them. We would therefore question whether the BNP should be allowed to stand as a party in the general election.”

In addition to the discriminatory admissions criteria, the Churches expressed concern over the BNP’s policies seeking to abolish anti-discrimination laws, halt all new immigration, and cut all foreign aid.

Simon Loveitt, Public Issues Spokesperson for the United Reformed Church, said: “We celebrate the fact that Britain is a multicultural society and that British aid can change and improve life for people around the world, such as those affected by the earthquake in Haiti.”

The Churches have long opposed the BNP. The United Reformed Church has contacted its member churches in the run-up to the general election, which must be held by June 3, to remind them that voting for racist political parties has no place among Christians.

The Methodist Church last year passed a motion banning members from joining the BNP and preventing members of racist political parties from becoming full members of the Church.

I’m so tired today of reading the so called “news” that a whopping 70 per cent of Christians believe it is wrong for bishops to have reserved places in the House of Lords.

This is all based on an ICM poll commissioned by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, as part of the Power 2010 initiative for reform of the second chamber in parliament.

Ekkleisa are jumping up and down over this “news” and so is Polly Toynbee (President of the British Humanist Association) over at the Guardian.

I have just noticed that the sample used for this “poll” would appear to be around the 1000 mark, which is a paltry, and statistically unsound as a representation of the entire Christian communities view on this subject. I am also under the impression that the 1000 adults polled are not all Christians anyway. I am open to correction on these assertions and will post corrections if necessary, for the sake of transparency and honesty.

If this be the case, then it reminds me of the many face cream adverts on TV, in which it is touted that 70% of users felt they looked younger, and yet when you look at the small print you notice the sample of women consulted is around 200.

Ekkelsia are also joyful that they have overwhelmed Bishops email systems with 52,000 emails, and I refer you to a previous post on this:-

eChurch: 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.

If I am correct in my analysis then this recent “poll” is more a propaganda drive than true social science in action. To draw conclusions and headlines from such a small sample, using the closed questionnaire method, is naive at best and unscrupulous at worst.

Further, 52,000 emails sent to the Bishops proves nothing, when the entire number of Christians within the UK is considered. Also, what percentage of those sending emails did so as prompted by the British Humanist Association and other anti-Christian groups?

UPDATE: the British Humanist Association has just posted on this, please observe carefully the wording used:-

large-scale public action and poll

large majority of people are opposed to having Bishops sit in the House of Lords as of right.

Andrew Copson, BHA Chief Executive, commented, ‘It is evident that the majority of people in the UK do not support the automatic right of Bishops to sit in the legislature of our country.

But here is the rub:

The poll questioned over 1000 people

Don’t the BHA and Ekklesia sound similar! Sometimes it appears as if Ekklesia are the BHA’s trojan horse.

Please also bear in mind that I have not even commented on the validity of the sample contacted, the use of the telephone interview, the dates used to conduct the interviews, the potential interviewer bias, the funding issue and the slant of the closed questions used etc.

This is indeed good news. If you disagree then consider for one moment that “blasphemy” laws are used by Islamic states to demoralise, persecute, and control non-Muslims. Islamic blasphemy laws have been used in disputes and land grabs.

Consider also that blasphemy laws in the western world strengthens the case for the ‘Organization of the Islamic Conference’ to introduce a U.N. Resolution banning “defamation” of religion, which would usher in a global blasphemy law and only favour Islam.

Pakistan co-opted the wording of the Irish Blasphemy law in their submission to the UN, in order to bolster their own blasphemy laws. Recently Pakistani Christians have been sentenced to 25 years in jail for alleged blasphemy in relation to the Qu’ran.

In my opinion anyone should be free to “blaspheme” if they so choose and religious folks should be grown up enough and secure in their identity and beliefs to rise above it (and that goes for everyone by the way).

If religious folk wish to retain the right to comment freely and potentially negatively regarding other belief systems or lifestyles, then we must accept quid pro quo.

Cross Post from MediaWatchWatch (permission pending but expected):

Irish blasphemy law could go to referendum!

PZ Myers has commented positively also:

P Z Myers – Grand news from Ireland!

I hope that this law will be repealed in Ireland and that there will not be “blasphemy laws through the back door”, as in the recent troubling English criminal legal case involving Harry Taylor:

eChurch – Philosophy tutor and atheist Harry Taylor in court for leaving anti-religious cartoons in John Lennon airport

Thorough analysis over at Solomonia looking at the Obama administration’s recent “strategy” in dealing with Israel.

Is Israel a Banana Republic with a Banana History? Obama Seems to Think So.

Could the people who have been complaining about the “timing” of the Israeli announcement of 1600 new Jerusalem apartments — which includes pundits on both left and right — please now adjust their commentary? We’ve now found that the Obama Administration is continuing to hammer the Israelis over, not the timing of the announcement, but the substance of Jews building living space. I supposed there’s something positive in that. It’s illuminating, liberating even. Let’s get down to substance and skip the cosmetics and the diplomatic dance. Good! Unfortunately, what it says about the direction the Obama Administration is taking is nothing good.

Continue Reading

And more on this theme from Prof. Barry Rubin:

The Palestinian Authority Walks Out of Talks with a Big Smile on Its Face

In 1994, Israel asserted, and the PLO accepted, that construction would continue on existing Jewish settlements. For the next 15 years, negotiations were never stopped by that building.

In January 2009, the Palestinian Authority (PA) stopped negotiations because Hamas attacked Israel from the Gaza Strip and Israel defended itself. Of course, Hamas is also the PA’s enemy and the PA would be delighted if Israel destroyed that group. But for public relations’ purposes, the PA had to pretend inter-Palestinian solidarity.

Then came President Barack Obama who demanded a stop to all construction on settlements in 2009. Israel finally complied but announced that it would keep building in east Jerusalem. The United States accepted that arrangement and even highly praised Israel’s policy as a major concession.

But the PA refused to return to negotiations. Why, because the construction offended it? No, because the PA’s radical forces don’t want to make a peace deal because they believe they can win total victory and destroy Israel. The more moderate forces are too weak to make a deal because of Hamas and their own radicals, though they also have some problems with mutual compromise.

Continue Reading

George Pitcher over at the Telegraph shares his thoughts on the news that Ministers have ruled out banning teachers who are members of he BNP.

The BNP are predictably eminently jubilant with this news and have said:

The Maurice Smith review ruling that teachers may be members of the British National Party means that democracy has “just survived another leftist totalitarian onslaught on our basic freedoms,” said Nick Griffin MEP.

“This is a commonsense decision, as classrooms should be places of learning and not far left indoctrination centres,” Mr Griffin said.

George Pitcher also takes a positive stance on this news:

It is entirely sensible that ministers have ruled out a ban on teachers being members of the BNP. I’ve always been embarrassed that the Church of England’s Synod voted to prevent its clergy joining Nick Griffin’s party. There is, apparently, one retired clergyman somewhere who’s a member and the action seemed out of all proportion. Let the BNP argue its case and we can see how ridiculous it is. And, like it or not, it’s a legally constituted political party.

Continue Reading

I concur.

No matter what your view on the BNP, they are, whether we like it or not, a legal political entity in the UK and for ministers to have prescribed a ban on teachers being members of the BNP, would have been a profoundly dangerous move and an overt assault on our democracy and liberties.

Notice George Pitcher also mentions this:

I’ve always been embarrassed that the Church of England’s Synod voted to prevent its clergy joining Nick Griffin’s party.

Again, I concur. It is fruitless and counter-productive to simply impose “bans” on folks joining a specific political party and allows parties such as the BNP to portray themselves as persecuted at the hands of powerful and ruthless aggressors.

Leaders in the church have to learn to articulate a persuasive and factual case as to why they believe Christian folk should not align themselves with the BNP.

I have often posted on the BNP in order to counter their claims to represent British Christianity, and you can find my recent post on this below:

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

The Spitoon have just posted on this one and make some salient points:

No Banning for BNP Teachers

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.

The British Humanist Association has put together their election manifesto, which can be found on the following PDF Links:-

BHA – Local Manifesto

BHA – General Manifesto

Personally I can’t be bothered to read them as I am politically depressed and apathetic currently, however, here are a couple of links from folks that could be bothered:-

The Church Mouse – The British Humanist Association have published their ‘manifesto’ for the coming local and general elections.  They have put together a series of issues which are of particular interest to humanists, along with a list of questions to ask candidates, should they come knocking on your door.

CCFON – The British Humanist Association has issued its Manifesto for the 2010 General Election attacking faith schools and what they call ‘religious privilege’, and slamming any accommodation of faith groups’ initiatives.

Archbishop Cranmer has today written of his hopes and dreams for the forth coming election:-

The Tory Trinity: the ineffable theo-political Three in One – Cameron, Osborne and Johnson. Or, for those who feel more immanence, Dave, George and Boris.

More absolute madness from Harriet Harman’s “Equality” drive:-

Mail:-

Vegans, teetotallers and atheists are to be given the same protection against discrimination as religious groups, under Harriet Harman’s controversial new equality laws.

People who do not eat products and refuse to wear leather have been singled out for inclusion under the new legislation by Labour’s super-quango – the Equalities and Human Rights Commission.

Official guidance issued by the body points out that the ‘ethical commitment’ of vegan’s to animal welfare is ‘central to who they are’.

The code of practice explains the legal implications of the equality bill states that religions need not be mainstream or well known for their adherents to gain protection.

The Equality Bill, masterminded by Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman, is due to come into force this Autumn.

It makes it a legal requirement for public authorities, including schools, to consider the impact of all their policies on minority groups.

But the guidance explains: “A belief need not include faith or worship of a god or gods, but must affect how a person lives their life or perceives the world.”

Singling out vegans as meriting protection from religious discrimination, it says: ‘A person who is a vegan chooses not to use or consume animal products of any kind.

‘That person eschews the exploitation of animals for food, clothing, accessories or any other purpose and does so out of an ethical commitment to animal welfare.’

A spokesman from the commission explained: ‘This is about someone for whom being vegan or vegetarian is central to who they are. This is not something ‘thought up by the commission’.

‘Parliament makes the law, the courts interpret it and the commission offers factual and proportionate guidance to organisations where necessary. We are providing guidance on the implications of the equality bill.’

The legislation also covers ‘any religious belief or philosophical belief’ and even ‘a lack of belief’.

This means that members of cults and “new religions” such as Scientology, whose supporters include the film stars Tom Cruise and John Travolta, would also be offered protection, as would atheists.

The official guidance has already caused controversy after warning that schools which force girls to wear skirts may be breaking the law – because the policy apparently discriminates against transsexuals.

It claims the dress code may breach the rights of girls who feel compelled to live as boys.

Religious leaders have condemned Miss Harman’s equality laws for sideling religion to promote a false idea of ‘tolerance’.

The Archbishop of York has warned that Christianity risks being wiped out from public life in the name of equality.

The Pope has also described the Bill as ‘unjust’, restricting religious freedom and violating ‘the natural law’.

Under the legislation, people with philosophical views such as pacificism and humanism could also seek protection from discrimination.

However, the Commission has insisted that scientific or political beliefs such as Marxism and fascism would not be covered. People for whom abstention from alcohol was a way of life would also be protected.

The watchdog also warns that advertisements giving preferential treatment to men or women could be illegal.

This could mean the end of “ladies’ nights” at clubs, when women receive cut-price drinks or free entrance but men pay full price.

Archbishop Cranmer has put together an excellent piece on this today, which cuts straight to the heart of the matter and exposes this “equality” folly:-

That is the only logical conclusion of Harpy Hormone’s Equality Bill, and one which Cranmer not only foresaw but was sufficiently prescient to sound the trumpet about years ago.

The moment the state begins to define ‘religion’, and then attempts to apportion rights and liberties under the guise of an enlightened tolerance of relativist equality, there is no logical end to the official recognition of all manner of weird cults, strange sects, spurious beliefs and pseudo-religions, all of which have to be equal under the law irrespective of the common good and irrelative to the inherent counterknowledge believed or propagated.

If you wish to believe that a carpenter from Nazareth can rise from the dead, you are free to do so. But in the age of ‘equality’ and ‘non-discrimination’, this is no different from believing that a middle-eastern illiterate warmonger had a direct line to Allah; a man can walk around with the head of an elephant; you should never cut your hair; you can be cremated in the open air; you believe that a mortal man may speak infallibly; and if you walk around Tesco in a hoodie carrying a light sabre you are in harmony with ‘The Force’.

And if you want to worship Satan, that is perfectly cool. If you want to take Pagan holidays, that is accommodated. And if you want to believe in man-made global warming, the courts have already decreed that your devotion to such a philosophy is indeed the same as religious faith.

And now we learn that vegans are to enjoy the same protection against discrimination as religious groups.

And if they, why not vegetarians, non-dairy consumers, wheat-eschewers and teetotallers?

Oh, and Atheists are to be given the same protection as well.

Professor Dawkins will be very happy.

Now, this is going to get very interesting indeed.

An atheist in the House of Commons who presents himself in the chamber during parliamentary prayers will have the right in law to object to the affront. Those of all faiths and none will have the right in law to object to the 26 bishops who sit in the House of Lords, which is a manifest discrimination against not only Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus and Buddhists, but also the Nonconformists and Roman Catholics.

Continue Reading

Calvin L Smith (Principal of King’s Evangelical Divinity School) is “live blogging” his trip to the US, and I found his latest post to be an interesting follow up to yesterdays post entitled: Why Christians should be politically conservative:-

The Christian Academy and Christians in Politics

At the Evangelical theological conference I’ve been attending I am struck by how a substantial number of people I’ve listened to at debates or chatted with lean towards the political left (I think the preferred term is “progressive”). Now it is a truism that the academy always tends towards radicalism and the left. But it is also the case that in politics many politicians on the left move somewhat towards the right when they gain power (according to my politics professor during my MA studies, a classic historical example is the British Labour Party). Of course, there are exceptions to this and most rules. Thus, some people within the academy are on the right, while some on the left do seem to shift further leftwards when in power (though some of these, I think, are actually populists employing leftist rhetoric, but that is an issue for another day).

So the exceptions aside, what are the reasons for a left-leaning academy and politicians who shift rightwards towards the centre? I’m not sure, though I suspect in the case of the academy it is a place driven by idealism, as well as an arena in which to exchange ideas and in doing so challenge the status quo and the Establishment. Meanwhile, I suggest the cold, hard realities of the political world arguably lead politicians to ditch idealism in favour of pragmatism, firstly to get things done, and secondly, because there is a realisation that academic idealism and utopianism is somewhat of a pipedream in the real world. Enter Reinhold Niebuhr’s Christian realism.

Whatever the reasons for both these political tendencies, I do not believe these two stereotypes of the academy and political world should be permitted to influence Christians in either arena. The Christian academy should certainly not be shaped by the world’s currents, trends, political outlook, worldview and philosophy. Such postmodern ideals will pass one day, as indeed the scepticism of modernity’s biblical criticism – and indeed various philosophical influences upon Christianity during its 2000 year history – has now passed into oblivion. And that’s the point, isn’t it? When the Christian academy permits the world to influence its mindset and worldview it enslaves itself to the dominant fashion of the pervadign Zeitgeist. This is, in a very real sense, worldliness, that is, allowing the world’s values to rub off and influence the Church and its actions. Instead, the Christian academy should be thoroughly biblicist in its approach to issues (and not just issues but in shaping its own agenda and worldview), seeking to establish and walk its own path rather than emulate that of the secular academy. It should be radical by all means (after all, Jesus was incredibly radical), but being radical means being something completely different to what is already out there. Yet all too often, Christianity offers a carbon copy (and a poor one at that) of what the world has to offer. In short, the Christian Evangelical Left should not look much like the Democrats or Labour Party, while the Evangelical Right should not be a religious carbon copy of the Republican or Conservative parties. Indeed, there should be no Evangelical Left or Evangelical Right in the first place, as these are simply examples of how the world has rubbed off on us so that we even categorise ourselves on that basis. But of course human nature and things like political cleavage make it hard for us to shake off these ways of thinking.

Meanwhile, from the political perspective (and here is why, perhaps, Christians don’t make good politicians) Christian politicians should not be driven by pragmatism and realism, because this is the route of compromise and watering down one’s Christian, biblical values. Rather, the Christian politician should be driven by idealism and firmly challenging the status quo. But of course in this route lies a short political career.

It seems to me, then, Christian radicalism means a Christian academy which espouses realism and pragmatism, while Christian political outlook and activity should be zealously idealist and keen to challenge the status quo. But of course the opposite very often seems to be the case. Everything just seems so messed up, doesn’t it?

I thought this to be an excellent post from David over at the Anglican Samizdat Blog, in which he articulates a very important and salient point, relating to the correlation between our general perception of the “human condition”, and our political and theological worldview.

Anglican Samizdat

Some friends recently returned from a stay at a kibbutz in Israel. The individuals they were staying with believe they have the solution to the problems in the Middle-East: if only the people were allowed to go about their daily lives free of political agendas and politicians, there would be peace and harmony.

This assessment is based on the liberal fallacy that man is essentially good and, if left alone, his innate goodness would flourish resulting in God’s kingdom being established on earth. Political liberals believe this, as to religious liberals. What they are both overlooking is the Jeremiah 17:9 factor: original sin.

Mankind is not innately good, he is innately evil. That is not to say every person is as evil as he could be, but that no person is as good as he should be. Even Christians who have been judicially exonerated through Christ’s atoning sacrifice will continue to sin as long as they are this side of heaven, since their old nature is still present.

The secular government has a divinely appointed role in restraining evil – a fact that goes unrecognised by political and religious liberals.

To put it another way:

Conservatism is built on the idea of original sin — on the assumption of human fallibility and uncertainty. To remedy our fallen condition, conservatives believe in civilization — in social structures, permanent institutions and just authorities, which embody the accumulated wisdom of the ages and structure individual longings.

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

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 can already predict the responses from both sides of the camp on this news that the House of Lords has voted in favour of allowing civil partnership ceremonies to take place in “religious” buildings such as churches. I’m sure you can too.

As a result, I’m going to post a few links reporting this news, and then post in full, the only sane, sober, sensible comments I have read on this issue, written by our Christian Libertarian friend, the Young Mr Brown.

Here are the news links:-

Press Association – Civil partnership church ban lifted

Times – Peers vote for church civil partnership ceremonies

Mail – Gay couples now able to marry in church after House of Lords lifts ban

Telegraph – Peers vote to allow homosexuals to marry in church

Ekklesia – Parliament votes to recognise religious same-sex partnerships

And here are the thoughts of Young Mr Brown from Marmalade Sandwich:-

Civil Partnerships and Religious Premises

In a letter to the Times this morning, a group of gentlemen have argued that the current law which prohibits civil partnerships from being registered in any religious premises in Great Britain should be repealed, and they write in support of an amendment which would do just that. They argue on two grounds – the spiritual independence of churches, and the principle of non-discrimination. Indeed the way they end their letter (“We urge every peer who believes in spiritual independence, or in non-discrimination, to support it.”) indicates that they are aware that there are people who may support one of their arguments but not the other.

I personally am not convinced by their argument concerning non-discrimination, and agree with the Bishop of Winchester that “churches of all sorts really should not reduce or fudge, let alone deny, the distinction” between marriage and civil partnership.

(On the other hand, I am not convinced by the argument of the Bishops of Winchester and Chichester that changing the law would put unacceptable pressure on the Church of England. As long as the law does not compel the Church of England, then the Church has the ability to decide what it believes is correct, and the duty to withstand pressures from society.)

I do, however, believe that the argument concerning spiritual independence is valid – and that the law as it stands is very strange. If the Quakers and the Unitarians want to register civil partnerships in their places of worship, then that is a matter for them, and not for the state. Traditional Christians will be horrified at such things happening, but their horror should be directed not at the state for permitting these things, but at the Quakers and Unitarians for wishing to do them. If traditional Christians want freedom to proclaim that homosexual activity is wrong, and to exclude practising homosexuals from their membership, then they should be willing to allow freedom to religious bodies which think otherwise.

More analysis on the breaking news of the “infiltration” of the IFE (Islamic Forum Europe) from the Telegraph and this:-

by Shiraz Maher from Standpoint

There is a fair bit of online activity in response to a Sunday Telegraph article by Andrew Gilligan, claiming the Labour party has been “infiltrated” by Islamic extremists, in the form of Islamic Forum Europe (IFE).

This from the Spitoon

The Telegraph has published news of a six-month investigation which it undertook with Channel 4’s Dispatches on the Islamic Forum Europe (IFE). The IFE is a Jamaat-e-Islami entryist organisation which now commands a sizeable vote bloc and is physically located in the East London Mosque (ELM) with which it is closely linked. The chairman of ELM is Mohammed Abdul Bari, who is a former president of the IFE and is the current Secretary General of the Muslim Council of Britain.

Continue Reading

Obviously anti-Islamic websites are featuring this news heavily and repeating the Telegraph article verbatim.

Cranmer has a very insightful article on this one as usual:-

Andrew Gilligan is usually sound, so there is no immediate reason to dismiss his report in The Sunday Telegraph that the Labour Party have been ‘infiltrated by a fundamentalist Muslim group that wants to create an “Islamic social and political order” in Britain’.

He quotes the Environment Minister Jim Fitzpatrick, that the Islamic Forum of Europe (IFE) have become ‘a secret party within Labour and other political parties’. He says the group ‘believes in jihad and sharia law, and wants to turn Britain and Europe into an Islamic state’. In order to do this, it ‘has placed sympathisers in elected office and claims, correctly, to be able to achieve “mass mobilisation”’.

He appears to be oblivious to the fact that all Muslims ‘believe’ in jihad and sharia law: it is the duty of all Muslims to struggle for their faith and live a life in submission to the laws of Allah; it is what makes a Muslim a Muslim. But he appears to be incapable of distinguishing between the plethora of schools of thought on these theo-political concepts: one Muslim’s jihad and sharia are not another Muslim’s jihad and sharia: theological interpretation has been devolved and judicial authority protestantised.

This is not the first time Mr Fitzpatrick has incited ill-feeling towards his Muslim constituents: it was he who back in August ‘stormed out’ of a wedding reception when he refused to be separated from his wife.

And here he is now decrying a Muslim group for ‘acting almost as an entryist organisation, placing people within the political parties, recruiting members to those political parties, trying to get individuals selected and elected so they can exercise political influence and power, whether it’s at local government level or national level’.

‘Twas ever thus.

In a liberal representative democracy, it is the right of any legally-constituted group to order itself, get its members to join political parties, and then get them selected and elected ‘so they can exercise political influence and power’.

Good grief, even The Countryside Alliance are at it. And only a few weeks ago, an anonymous Conservative was decrying the same strategy of the Evangelical Christians.

Continure Reading

UPDATE: Harry’s Place have now covered this one:-

The Sunday Telegraph has published four articles about the Islamic Forum of Europe’s baleful influence on politics in East London.

The IFE is closely linked to Jamaat-e-Islami, a South Asian Islamist group. For a look into its thinking, see this speech last week by its leader Syed Munawar Hasan:

Continue Reading

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

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’.

Two quite depressingly realistic posts on “sex education”:-

Cranmer – Teaching abortion in an ‘enlightened’ and ‘non-judgmental’ way

Aunti Joanna – Much discussion today, at a pro-life working group which tackles such matters, about latest developments on the Govt’s sex education scheme.

Whilst I’m linking, Ruth Gledhill has been the first to comment on the new guidelines on assisted suicide, which have just been released by the DPP:-

Ruth Gledhill Times – Assisted suicide guidelines ‘blunt’ the law, warn faith groups