Another nice mess

As my friend Barack said to me George, "Well, here's another nice mess we've gotten ourselves into!"

The world and his wife it seems are piling on the pressure to tell us Brits that we should remain in Europe. To leave would be a catastrophe. If that is so, why in the world has Dave 'gotten' us into this mess at enormous cost financially and politically?

'Paddy Pantsdown' wagged his finger throughout BBC Question Time on Thursday as he previewed what President Barack Obama was to say about American blood being shed in Europe in the US's contribution to the 1917 - 1918 and the 1941- 1945 wars fighting for freedom in Europe. As Albert Steptoe once said, it might have been the '17 - '18 and '41 - '45 wars for them but it was the '14 - '18 and '39 - '45 wars for the rest of us. 

All in the 'IN' camp at home and abroad appear to be reading from the same news sheet prepared and circulated by No 10. That is in addition to the £9 million of tax payers money they have spent on circulating propaganda for the 'IN' campaign. So much so that it is difficult to trust anything that is said or written about the consequences of leaving Europe.

Paddy Pantsdown claims that every important world organisation and every world leader "with the exception Vladimir Putin" wants us to remain in Europe. Indeed, the President of the United States has gone so far as to threaten that the UK would be left at the back of the queue when negotiating future trade deals with the US if we left, not that Obama will be President in that eventuality. But so much for friendship and our 'special relationship'. When self-interest rears its head it is OK in the US but not in Great Britain!

For many I suspect the head says IN but the heart says OUT. The decision would be easier if the self-perpetuating bureaucracy in Brussels desisted from regulating everything they can think of plus anything else they had not thought of when it comes to light. If Turkey is allowed in that will allow another flood of economic migrants with all the dangers already apparent as they try to impose their alien ideology on their hosts. The last thing we need is more failed multiculturalism.

My feeling is that the British people have had enough of being told what to think and what to do and are inclined to vote with their hearts, sink or swim.

Time to move on - but is it possible?

The Crusades - history

The Inquisition - history

President Obama's reference to the Crusades and the Inquisition in the same breath as IS atrocities was unfortunate. No doubt he meant well but listening to what he actually said (here), he left himself open to misunderstanding: "People committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ", he said. So they did.
Nobody can excuse that. But the Crusades and the Inquisition are history. The world has moved on but Islam has not.


Islam makes much of the Crusades in their propaganda war to justify their aggression. Apologists fall for it every time with no apparent knowledge of what actually took place. As  Prof. Thomas F. Madden put it in The Real History of the Crusades:

Regarding the modern day reference to the crusades as a supposed grievance by Islamic militants still upset over them..."if the Muslims won the crusades (and they did), why the anger now?  Shouldn't they celebrate the crusades as a great victory? Until the nineteenth century that is precisely what they did. It was the West that taught the Middle East to hate the crusades. During the peak of European colonialism, historians began extolling the medieval crusades as Europe's first colonial venture. By the 20th century, when imperialism was discredited, so too were the crusades. They haven't been the same since." He adds, "The truth is that the crusades had nothing to do with colonialism or unprovoked aggression. They were a desperate and largely unsuccessful attempt to defend against a powerful enemy. The entire history of the crusades is one of Western reaction to Muslim advances." [My emphasis - Ed.]

Muslim jihad continues to this day acting on a 7th C. instruction manual which forbids changes to its instructions and imposes ancient punishments such as stoning, amputation and crucifixion plus the death penalty for apostasy. 'Their' (Muslim) lands are lands held as a result of conquest, a process still going on, most noticeably in the Middle East and in Africa. The Temple Mount in Jerusalem and the Hagia Sophia in what was Constantinople are obvious examples of mosques replacing Holy sites after Islamic victories. Mosques continue to be built in increasing numbers in the West through cultural jihad while Christian churches are being destroyed in what used to be Christian countries abroad. Do Muslims not understand this or are they merely being devious when they deny the truth of what is mandated in their religion?

Excuses are fruitless. Islam should be held up to the same scrutiny as other religions and ideologies if any progress is to be made in the fight against so-called extremism.

The present. (Actual graphics are too gruesome for illustrative purposes)

How did we get here?

The General Synod of the Church of Ireland has passed a motion upholding marriage as a union between one man and one woman but for upholding tradition, the Church of Ireland Synod [is] blasted for 'homophobia'.

How did we get ourselves into the ridiculous position that those upholding tradition are pilloried as extremists? What was previously considered normal is now considered outrageous. In another example, Cranmer is being persecuted by the Advertising Standards Authority following "a number of complaints about an advertisement carried on behalf of the Coalition for Marriage". Same sex marriage is the latest trend in a movement, often in search of votes, that has brought the church to its knees, not to pray but by pressing fashionable minority, secular values on the church with no regard for tradition and scripture. In research carried out for the Coalition for Marriage, the majority of the 150 MPs who have declared themselves support equal marriage, a decision also taken by President Obama, perhaps sensing some electoral advantage in the decision. 

While there is no excuse for unchristian religious extremism, the homosexual campaign for so called equality is in danger of turning away supporters of equal rights. Same sex couples deservedly have equal rights through civil partnerships but it is not homophobic to reject the notion of same sex marriage. Equality does not mean sameness especially when it dilutes the faith of the church. Unsurprisingly the champion of minorities (other than those who keep the faith), the Archbishop of Wales has already expressed his support for same sex marriage along with so called senior bishops of the Church in England. In a recent hard hitting article for Virtueonline the question was posed: What future for the Church of England: Is it too late to save her?  The Church of England is now a very short step from following precisely the same agenda as The Episcopal Church. Here a few paragraphs to give the flavour of the article:

 "The tragic facts are these: in order to maintain the illusion of a universal Church of England, inseparable from the state and its people, the Church's leaders have spent more than 150 years in trimming Christian doctrine so as not to "offend" anyone. Or to be "inclusive". Or to make the scriptures and Christian doctrine conform to the prevailing scientific fad of the day. Or, perhaps worst of all, in the truly misguided belief that by watering down the gospel they might be more successful in persuading unbelievers to come to Christ. They have compromised, with relative impunity, down the years, writing from the security of senior positions within the Church's establishment and protected by the national courts from any complaints which have come from concerned church members - but rarely, if ever, from the bishops who are supposed to be the guardians of Christian teaching. ... The Church of England has no effective mechanisms, either for guaranteeing orthodoxy of public teaching by its leaders, or for dealing with those who lead the way in subverting its witness to the gospel. Many of the leading revisionists have actually commenced their careers as teachers at the Church's seminaries. The outcome for the Church is constant drift in the direction of unbelief. Every novelty which is proposed has to be met halfway, with a compromise. The direction of movement each time is a step away from a recognisable faith in the gospel as the Church has received it, and the further alienation and exclusion of those within the Church who seek simply to be faithful to that gospel.

The catastrophic abandonment by the Church of England's bishops of their intrinsic role as guardians of Christian teaching concerning the Scriptures and the Creeds has been accompanied by a progressive relinquishment of their teaching authority in favour of voting on doctrinal and moral issues by the Church Assembly and latterly by the General Synod, whose members are not required to possess any qualification for judging such matters and who increasingly take their lead from media and politicians who want to see the Church redesigned in their own image. If it is possible for leading Anglicans to declare that there is no Hell, that there was no Incarnation and no Resurrection, and that there is no need for repentance and conversion in the universalist institution which the Church of England has become, then any appeal to the Scriptures for guidance as to God's will, or definition of morality, is met with blank looks and bafflement by many lay and clerical leaders for whom such an intellectual and spiritual universe is largely unknown." 

So what hope is there for the Church of England? It was not encouraging to read that the Apostle of Faith by Fad has been elected to serve on the Crown Nominations Commission, the body that will nominate the next Archbishop of Canterbury, an honour he will no doubt regard as an endorsement of his secular creed. 


The writing is on the wall.

Freedom of religion for all - except 'traditional' Anglicans

Pope Benedict's official visit to Great Britain has had a good start in Scotland. Faith seemed to matter again, not just Catholicism but faith in general. Even the Government says it will 'do God', whatever that may mean in reality. Religious tolerance is in the air.

President Obama spoke of religious freedom in relation to the proposed mosque near ground zero quoting Thomas Jefferson, among the inestimable of our blessings, also, is that ...of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will.

Article 18 of the universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance. This is echoed in the The European Convention on Human Rights.

Her Majesty the Queen ended her speech of welcome to the Pope with the words "Your Holiness, in recent times you have said that ‘religions can never become vehicles of hatred, that never by invoking the name of God can evil and violence be justified’. Today, in this country, we stand united in that conviction. We hold that freedom to worship is at the core of our tolerant and democratic society." My emphasis, but that comes emphatically from from the Defender of the Faith and Head of the Church of England. Only out of step is Synod.