None so blind as those who will not see

Islamic extremists are not typical of the Muslim presence in Britian (yet) so the problem is swept under the carpet but how much evidence of a problem in our midst do dhim-wits need? In Great Britain we have become so accustomed to the type of demonstrations illustrated above that the participants are simply dismissed as cranks. When British troops return from duty and are heckled by Islamic demonstrators they are dismissed as minorities entitled to protest in a democracy.

Their placards are not idle threats. In Islamic countries Christians, Jews and other non-Muslims are being massacred and driven out of their homelands, proof that jihadists are deadly serious. The double-standards employed by dhim-wits here reinforce the view that they regard only Islam as sacred with no understanding of what that means for our survival as a Christian nation. To question their stance is regarded as bigotry.

Thankfully there are many more peaceful Muslims than extremists, the excuse regularly used for inaction but there is no excuse for ignoring threats to our liberty. It takes only a few, four in fact in the last major outrage when the 7/7 bombers killed fifty-two civilians and injured 700. The Inquest into that atrocity has revealed that the backbone of Britain has been replaced by a paralysis of self interest. From The Guardian today it is even more apparent that the full force of the law is reserved for relatively peaceful protest.

The aim of Islam is a world under Sharia law in which the democracy Islamist protesters use to further their cause would not be permitted. Evidence from most Islamic countries clearly demonstrates that minority religions are not tolerated. In the process of Islamisation, the beheading demanded on the placard is no idle threat. Meanwhile, when it comes to Panorama warning us of serious problems facing this country, the Prime Minister is more vocal about football than our freedom.

All roads lead to Rome – except the Anglican one!

What price unity?

It must now be clear to everyone but the blinkered that the wider Catholic and Eastern churches regard the Church of England as in error. The ambitions of a few frustrated women who have ignored Christ’s prayer that we all may be one have put self above church wrecking the possibility of unity which Christianity yearns for, aided by the Church of England hierarchy.

Before the Synod vote to allow women to enter the Episcopate, many women protested that failure to grant the demands of WATCH would lead to a mass exodus to other churches. What price loyalty? Their secular regard for equal opportunities clearly means much more to them than sacramental assurance.

Some Anglo-Catholics are already in the lifeboats hoping for a safe arrival in their promised land but while details are awaited, squabbling has broken out between different factions. Apart from being unchristian further fractures could have serious repercussions with secular indifference and the threat to religious freedom posed by the spread of Islam.

‘United we stand, divided we fall’ could never be more apt. Anyone involved in the Synodical process should remember that.

Lies, damned lies and statistics

The Church Times today (23 July 2010) is carrying an article showing that “a poll by YouGov, which was not commissioned by any external organisation, found that 63 per cent of those questioned agreed that the Church of England should appoint women bishops, while ten per cent objected to the move. Nearly a quarter (24 per cent) said they had no opinion either way, and three per cent did not know what they thought.”

In response to their own ‘survey’ the Church Times found that Synod did the right thing for traditionalists in the women bishops' votes. These figures will now be bandied around by the supporters of women’s ordination as justification for their stand, ignoring the fact that the historic faith shared by the vast majority of Christians throughout the world cannot be changed by committee simply to satisfy feminist whims.

Accepting that the YouGov survey was a representative sample, what did the sample really represent? It represents the views of people with scant, if any, knowledge of the real issues. The organisation Women and the Church (WATCH) have skillfully manipulated public opinion, including many church-goers, into believing that it is simply a matter of women’s rights. Having achieved their aim in principle, they sought to put the measure into practice while claiming that adequate provision will be made for those worshippers who, in common with most of Christendom, believe the innovation to be illegal, breaking our bond with the wider Catholic and Orthodox churches.

The proposed voluntary code of practice is another skillful device which, to those looking at the issue from the women's rights perspective, obscures the real issue that it cannot be acceptable to those who, in conscience, believe that what is being done is not the will of God but of man, or, in this case, of woman with the support of many men who have been hoodwinked into supporting the measure under false pretences.

In another YouGov poll, 67 per cent of people agreed that the burqa should be banned in Britain. Along with the Immigration Minister, many oppose such a ban on the grounds that we are a tolerant society and Muslims should be allowed freedom of expression. It has been admitted that for security reasons there are circumstances where the face would have to be uncovered leaving one to wonder if the only time it would be permitted in public would be on the public highway where it could conceal anyone or anything. As witnessed on Question Time last night, strong passions are aroused in such discussions, similar to those aroused over the possible restoration of the death penalty in 1998. In that debate, 99 per cent of those questioned said that the death penalty should be re-introduced according to “a staggering 99 per cent of the 95,000 [Sun] readers who responded to our You The Jury poll”. You can get almost any answer you want if you ask the ‘right’ question of the ‘right’ people.

So what of our so called ‘tolerant’ society when the very thing we pride ourselves on is used against us? Our cherished values are being undermined under the banner of political correctness but we deceive ourselves at our peril. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York failed in their attempt to provide a crumb of comfort for traditional orthodox Anglicans in their battle for survival. As one female activist shouted from the gallery on an earlier occasion, “We asked you for bread but you gave us a stone!” Short memories!

The intolerance of Islam towards Christians in Islamic countries is being echoed by intolerance of ‘Christians’ towards traditional Anglicans. So much so that Dr John Sentamu the Archbishop of York had to remind Synod members to behave like Christians. Tolerant Britain?