Government sell out to Islam

MPs will not be allowed to drink alcohol at their temporary premises    Source: Sunday Express

The Sunday Express reports that MPs are to be rehoused temporarily in Richmond House while Parliament undergoes much-needed repair. But the building, 91 metres down the road, was transferred from the British Government to wealthy Middle Eastern businessmen and banks under an Islamic bond scheme, called Sukuk, in 2014 in George Osborne's bid to make the UK a global hub for Islamic finance.

The lease terms stipulate the building is governed under Islamic law - which includes the banning of alcohol on the activities. Conservative MP Andrew Bridgen said he could not believe parts of Whitehall are being governed by Sharia law.

Mr Bridgen will not be alone in his disbelief. Mr Osborne would have done well to recall 1 Timothy 6:10. 

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs.

It is not the alcohol, it is the principle. Perhaps Mr Osborne is too busy to notice how Islam features in Syria, Iraq, Greece, Germany, Calais, etc, etc.

What a sell out.

Postscript [04.03.2016]

Five Whitehall buildings held by wealthy businessmen now operating under Sharia rules:

The historic Admiralty House and four other Whitehall buildings are now operating in accordance with some sharia rules – including a ban on alcohol – after they were used as part of an Islamic bond scheme. The properties must comply with some aspects of sharia under the terms of special bonds known as sukuk, announced by George Osborne two years ago when the UK became the first Western country to issue them. - Independent report here.

When bishops were bishops

Canon Rosie Harper                                                                REUTERS/Yui Mok/POOL

After reading "Bishop 'club culture' will change with the first woman, says senior priest" (here), I was reminded of a dear departed old priest's comment in one of his delightfully erudite and ever witty sermons, "I am old enough to remember the days when bishops really were bishops". His homilies were so well crafted that one couldn't be quite sure whether he was taking a swipe at preferment based on political correctness or whether he was lamenting the passing of towering bishops he remembered with affection and awe.

Calling for the new Bishop of Oxford to be a woman Canon Rosie Harper is reported as saying, "The first woman bishop must find a new way of being a bishop and not merely become a female version. Bishops currently behave like 'little boys lost' who 'posture' that they know what they are doing and find it impossible to escape the gentlemen's club culture until they retire", comments no doubt gratefully received by the wimpish bishops who championed her cause rather than that of Apostolic Church to which they pretend allegiance!  

The Canon's next shot: "We've got to look to the future... obviously, you look for the best person for the job but having made the decision to have women bishops, the Church has to enact it not just leave it on the back burner. The face of the Church of England... is exclusively male and that needs to change very quickly." So having fought against so-called discrimination in the Church - which there wasn't - positive discrimination MUST be used to find the best woman for the job (which sums up the position these days) on the absurd pretext that the face of the Church of England is 'exclusively male'.

'Deeply committed to working for issues of justice and equality within and beyond the church' (self praise here), read also Feminists of Faith for more of Canon Harper's views on men and equality. Also 'OUT 4 Marriage' (here) and a supporter of assisted dying (here), she talks of 'what sort of a God' you believe in and selectively quotes the Bible to justify her views on killing based on suicides recorded in the Old Testament while overlooking the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill"!

The first woman bishop will have to find 'a new way of being a bishop' because a woman bishop contradicts Biblical teaching. But who cares about the Bible, faith and tradition any more - apart from the vast majority of Anglicans around the World! 

The women bishops legislation has completed its passage through General Synod and Parliament and has received Royal Assent leaving the way clear for the Archbishop of Canterbury to move at the 17 November Synod that the canon be enacted. The motion will be put before the Synod for a vote with a show of hands but without a debate. And that will be that. The death of the Catholic and reformed Church of England we knew and loved. 

Killed by secular debate in Synod and in Parliament by MPs who worry about the West Lothian question while happily nodding through without demure an issue which affects the faith of their constituents whether they have any themselves or understanding of the religious issues involved. Going back to that sermon I began with, yes, I hear you Father!

PART II

In The Oxford Student (here) the campaign to make the Bishopric of Oxford the first in the Church of England to be filled by a woman is hotting up.

"The women’s rep for Pembroke College, Anna Simpson, commented: 'It is fantastic to see this possible change tying in with wider movements in Oxford for gender equality and more generally that institutions are moving forward with the times' ". 

There will be a Public Meeting on the 11th November at Christ Church Cathedral at 7:15pm to discuss  the appointment. 

Other items offered by The Oxford Studentfor thought to be interest to readers are :

 THIS HOUSE BELIEVES THAT WE ARE ALL FEMINISTS NOW

OUT IN THE COLD: UNION’S “DEEPLY CONCERNING” GENDER IMBALANCE 

“APPALLING” GENDER SPLIT IN POLITICAL SPEAKERS and

THE OXFORD UNION MUST REFLECT AN EQUAL SOCIETY

This should please my sternest critic who wrote earlier: "All male lead instutions (sic) have moved on from this decades ago (police, law, medicine) and now it's time for us to do the same. 

Will these people never learn that faith is not about secular institutions and gender politics!

Honour!

"Honor Diaries is the first film to break the silence on ‘honor violence’ against women and girls. 
Honor Diaries is more than a movie, it is a movement to save women and girls from human rights abuses – around the world and here in America". Read about it HERE.

While women around the world suffer the most appalling abuse, a phony war has been conducted in Anglicanism to discredit Christianity as being misogynistic and out of touch with modern society. So successful has this campaign been that Christian values are now constantly ridiculed and undermined, the price of facilitating the advancement of women in the Church on the basis of secular criteria of discrimination. In doing so a religious vacuum is being filled by a religious ideology which encourages the very thing that is complained about - regarding women as inferior beings as the film clip so distressingly illustrates.

That Parliament and now The Law Society have become party to this deception must be a cause for despair for women around the world who suffer genuine discrimination, hardship and real misery.

Today's top story

I am not a soccer fan, nevertheless I understand why so many fans are wrapped-up in the 'beautiful game' which allows a degree of escapism from the trials of life but I despair that it dominates the news when matters of substance affecting the lives of people should make the headlines. 

Having endured the extended deference to Sir Alex Ferguson's impending retirement at lunch-time I thought that gesticulating George may have offered a more balanced presentation on the BBC's News at Six, but no, it was Sir Alex Ferguson's retiremant again. Soccer is portrayed as the beautiful game despite the disgusting example of over-paid players spreading germs not only by constantly spitting but by evacuating their nasal cavities onto the pitch, a habit that has become the norm along with having to drink excessive amounts of water at every conceivable opportunity. So as far as I am concerned the less exposure the better.

Normalisation was also the process highlighted in today's second story, the State opening of Parliament. Yesterday we absorbed the news that Charles would represent the Queen at the Commonwealth Conference in gesticulating George's home country of Sri Lanka and that Charles would have a more prominent role in future so here he was with Camilla his former mistress  being prepared to act as consort despite all the denials that accompanied their establishment as a couple after the death of Princess Diana, rather like the denials that accompanied the appointment of women priests then bishops - just give it time!

Afterwards came reports of abduction, murder and abuse with the obligatory gut-churning statements before what appeared to be almost an afterthought when some time was given at the end of the bulletin to the Battle of the Atlantic, the longest continuous campaign of WW2 which ensured our survival and enabled us to watch events unfold now as a free country, sadly in decline, not through war but through total indifference.

Thank God for all those who gave their lives so that we are free to endure the trivia that has become all important today.

The Church of England: A new Sect

"The Church of England's decision to reject the introduction of
women bishops makes it look like 'a sect'." - Sir Tony Baldry

 The Second Church Estates Commissioner, Sir Tony Baldry, displays an unusual understanding of the word sect which in Christian terms means a group of people with somewhat different religious beliefs (typically regarded as heretical) from those of a larger group to which they belong. In our case that means the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church which Parliament, the House of Bishops and a majority of clergy in Synod choose to ignore for purely political purposes.

Much has been made of the Commissioner's buffoonery in sporting a male-only, club tie while he was berating orthodox Christians for being sexist. What he had to say about sects was equally ridiculous. It is the rejection of Christian orthodoxy that will turn the Church of England into a Protestant sect, not the other way around. As mentioned in my previous entry, the new Dean of Llandaff wrote that "We should listen to Parliament". Why? MPs have demonstrated that they have no understanding of the issues involved. Every member I heard made false accusations on the lines of that peddled in the press by 'over one thousand clergy' when they suggested that orthodox Anglicans believe women are inferior to men. What utter nonsense and from senior clergy!

Comments made in Parliament showed an abysmal ignorance of the theology involved. This offering from David Winnick was typical: I am not involved with the Church of England and I am a lifelong non-believer, but I want to say to the hon. Gentleman, whom I greatly admire for the stance he has taken, that it is simply impossible to understand how on earth it can be argued that if women are considered appropriate to be deacons and priests, as they have been in the last 20 years, they are not worthy to be bishops. It is simply impossible to understand that. Will the hon. Gentleman also accept that, for many of us, this opposition to women bishops bears comparison with the opposition 100 years ago to women having the right to vote and to sit in the House of Commons? It is an anti-women attitude—a feeling that women have no place in public life, in religion or in politics—that I find contemptible.

It is contemptible that an Honourable Member is allowed to get away with such statements such as "they are not [considered] worthy to be bishops" and "It is an anti-women attitude—a feeling that women have no place in public life, in religion or in politics" when nothing of the sort has been suggested. That is not the position of the church but it remains unchallenged because clergy and bishops in general hold their positions not for their belief in orthodox Christianity but in the church being relevant to society. Typical of the bishops' response came from the Bishop of Sheffield who told the BBC that 'he hoped the news would not affect congregation numbers' when the most vocal don't attend church anyway. He should wake up to the fact, as one historian put it, 'God doesn't do relevance'. What has affected congregation numbers is the use of half-truths and even lies to promote a liberal agenda at variance with Christian teaching. 
 
There are far too many women who experience real suffering and desperately need our help instead of squabbling over imaginary injustices. Although illegal in the UK Female Genital Mutilation goes on because of "respect" and "cultural sensitivity" which makes detection in the UK almost impossible. Also, gender inequality is one of the main reasons for early and forced marriage: women and girls often occupy a lower status in societies as a result of social and cultural traditions, attitudes, beliefs that deny them their rights and stifle their ability to play an equal role in their homes and communities. Young girls are forced into marriage as child brides. It is ironic that immense suffering is allowed to continue out of respect for other cultures while a lack of respect for our own culture sees Christian orthodoxy overturned and genuine believers marginalised.

Women and men who complain about the supposed pain and suffering of women because they are not yet able to be bishops in the Church of England should focus on the real pain experienced by women and even girls in this country and far beyond. If they had had any thought for others they would already have secured the vote they crave for. All that is needed now is to allow orthodox Anglicans to practice their faith as it has been received. If they would only do that they could direct their considerable talents into helping to ease real suffering among women. That is the challenge. As Christians they should have the humility to accept it.

I really am appalled

Older readers will recall how, in pre-PC days, comedy was used to defuse a stressful situation. This clip about another ministry humourously conveys a feeling of utter disbelief. My reaction to the ungracious reaction of the losers of the vote was the same. The performance of the press, Parliament and, most distressingly, of our own church to the lost vote in Synod was appalling. The vote was secured by the agreed democratic process with a margin three times greater than that which secured the ordination of women as priests - clearly a colossal mistake in hindsight. The winners of the vote are representative not only of the majority of Anglicans in the world, but of the view of the Apostolic Church to which we claim allegiance. That we have been treated with such contempt truly is appalling. The reaction of the press was to be expected since they are more interested in a good headline than the facts but Parliament! MPs are used to being whipped to vote without having listened to the debate but had they done so on this occasion they would have heard much stronger reasons for voting against the measure than for it.

I don't know whether the MPs who condemned the vote ever enter a church but whether they do or not, I would have expected a greater understanding of what is involved, not a misplaced view of equality of opportunity in the workplace as if they were considering female representation on the board of Tesco. Having demonstrated an extraordinary ability to fiddle expenses in many cases, one would have thought they would at least have been able to acquire a rudimentary understanding of the church's democratic process before condemning it whether they agree with it or not. Had they been dealing with Muslims instead of Christians there would have been outrage at their criticism. Their hypocrisy is on a level matched only within our own church. 

The baying crowd reminded me of a biblical scene: 'And he said, "Why, what evil has He done?" But they kept shouting all the more, saying, "Crucify Him!" ' Matthew 27:23. Few are interested in the facts. The expressions of outrage were continued in BBC 1's Question Time. As in Parliament, there was a perceived 'inequality' but no-one admitted to being Anglican. We have come to expect people to have an opinion on everything in the media age whether or not they have any understanding of the underlying issue but the church should know better. The clergy have shouted the loudest and have been matched by the crowd. Most appalling for me was to hear our Archbishop tell Synod: "The fact remains that a great deal of this discussion is not intelligible to our wider society. Worse than that, it seems as if we are wilfully blind to some of the trends and priorities of that wider society. We have some explaining to do. We have as a result of yesterday undoubtedly lost a measure of credibility." [My emphasis]. 

Promises of 'respect' quickly evaporated. Is that what the Church of England has come to? In the Church in Wales Dr Morgan has also taken up the cry, mimicking the Archbishop of Canterbury who, when asked what he would say to women in the Church following the result, said: “I can well understand that feeling of rejection and unhappiness and deep disillusion with the institution of the Church. "But I would also say: it is still your Church. Not mine, not Synod’s, but yours. Your voice matters and will be heard. It’s important not to give up.” This is the crux of the problem in England and in Wales. The Anglican church is being transformed into a reformed, women's church.

There is some explaining to do. First and foremost to orthodox Anglicans who have been pilloried by their own church for defending the faith of the Apostolic church.

Balderdash!

"Women priests are treated as second-class Christians, suffering from institutionalised sexism and racism within the Church of England, female clergy claim." Well they would claim that, wouldn't they? That is the whole thrust of their argument. What utter balderdash. Even the Church of England, hell-bent on creating women bishops denies that: "The church does treat men and women equally...It is true that a higher proportion of women have tended to serve in self-supporting rather than stipendiary posts.... Decisions are made on the basis of their individual situation and not on the basis of their sex; much depends on their personal circumstances as well as their aptitudes."



But never mind the facts. This shabby campaign has little to do with religion and everything to do with secular feminism with their aim of "achieving equality within its ranks". In a Parliamentary debate on Women in the Church of England yesterday, Diana Johnson MP opened by "[paying] tribute again to the women and men who have been fighting for justice and equality in the Church of England for many years". She spoke about the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Equality Act 2010, international women’s day, the suffragette campaign, and "the legislation in relation to women priests [which] went through in November 1992, but it specifically said that women could not become bishops". 


No impediment there of course, merely the opportunity for another campaign. Contrary to the assertions that women priests are treated as second-class Christians, Ms Johnson stressed that: "There are now 3,000 women priests. The talents and abilities of both women and men are now being recognised and utilised by the Church. There are four female deans of cathedrals and many others in senior roles." Surely Ms Johnson would not mislead the House!


There was no surprise to see Sir Peter Bottomley quipping his way through the debate to make the point: "However, from 1928 to now, we have had arguments over the ordination of women as deacons rather than deaconesses and the decision, eventually, to ordain women as priests. Now we come to the decision—this could have been taken at the same time as the decision to ordain women as priests, but out of kindness to the last ditchers it was deferred —about women being ordained as bishops [my emphasis - Ed].


The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Tony Baldry) made an interesting point: "Leaving nothing to chance, I have already had discussions with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House of Commons. Using the precedent of what happened in respect of the Measures for ordaining women as deacons and priests, it is deemed to be appropriate to consider this Measure on the Floor of the House, rather than upstairs in Committee. The understanding that I have reached with the Leader of the House is that we will set aside half a day—we hope, some time in November—to approve the Measure in this House. It has to be approved separately in the House of Lords, and I hope that it will do similarly. If the Measure is approved by General Synod in July, it is my ambition to do everything possible to have it pass all its legislative stages before the end of this year. We would therefore hope to see the first women bishops appointed as early as 2014." 


In her opening speech Ms Johnson remarked: "As I said, the draft Measure goes to the House of Bishops in May, and it can amend the reforms as it sees fit. If it does, that would be unacceptable to WATCH [my emphasis -Ed] and most senior women [can't be second-class then], because it would change the episcopacy in ways that would undermine the Church’s integrity and mission, as well as limiting female bishops’ ministry too far."


So it is all laid out. Carefully crafted claims that women bishops will be second-class bishops unless WATCH have their way and exclude all who disagree with them. Ms Johnson spoke of a 'broad church' but not broad enough to accommodate 'yesterday’s people', or Sir Peter's 'last ditchers' as they refer to their fellow Anglicans. Dishonour, deception and outright balderdash is the recipe for change 'to serve the people of today and tomorrow'. It almost makes one glad to be un-churched.

Save Our Forests

From a campaign email received today, "this Wednesday there is a crunch vote in Parliament. MPs will vote on a motion demanding a rethink of plans to sell our national forests. If enough of us contact our MPs now, we've got a real chance of winning this vote!"

Please Email your MP to save our forests.

Parliamentary interference in the Christian faith

According to The Telegraph "A group of influential MPs will tomorrow call for Parliament to intervene over the historic reform as fears grow that the Church will reject plans allowing female bishops." For 'intervene' read 'interfere'. I am not surprised to see Sir Peter Bottomley involved. He lost my respect some time ago but I am disappointed to read that Frank Field has tabled an early day motion, which could abolish the Church's current exemption from equality laws relating to gender discrimination and ultimately force it to consecrate women.

Why is it that MPs tread so softly on the faith of Muslims yet when it comes the Church of England some see the Vicar as someone doing just another job in the workplace? Men and women are equal in the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church but not interchangeable. Faith in Christ's example, the tradition of the church and the overwhelming opinion of Christians is not discrimination. That is something manufactured by Women and the Church (WATCH) to suit their cause. MPs should know better.

A pox on them all

That was the message received from WATCH and their allies after yesterday’s Synod vote. Those in favour of the ordination of women succeeded in denying those who disagree with them an honoured place in their New Anglican church simply brushing them aside with false accusations of discrimination against women. Their spokesperson Ms Rees with her usual charm hailed the result as “wonderful news”. So wonderful that it will exclude people from their church simply for keeping the historic Apostolic faith.

Of course they argue that ‘traditionalists’ are not being excluded while they legislate to make their position untenable with a ludicrous code of practice designed to ensure that women bishops would not be seen as 'second class bishops'. Demonstrably they must be if that is their idea of pastoral care. It cannot be discrimination to oppose something that is regarded as illegal by the vast majority of Christians.

I have long believed and trusted that Archbishop Rowan would see us through this mess but he is so wedded to women’s rights that he is in danger of losing sight of the rest of his flock. Like Forward in Faith he uses the ways of gentleness to persuade but there is no persuading those who see only their own selfish ends. The time for gentleness is over. Strong action and leadership is essential. For the results of the meek look to Wales where Credo Cymru has become impotent in the face of those who seek only to satisfy the insatiable demands of a few frustrated women. Traditionalists have been left with nothing but a self-satisfied Bench bent on doing the latest trendy thing to keep themselves “relevant to society”. In the process they have become wholly irrelevant to 99% of the population.

Ironically the Eucharist reading yesterday was from 1 Corinthians 3. One verse in particular stood out, “There can be no other foundation beyond that which is already laid; I mean Jesus Christ himself.” Today, thanks to Fr Michael’s Let Nothing You Dismay blog, I read:

"Robert Key, the General Synod member and former Conservative MP, speaks exclusively to The Times about women bishops and why he believes strongly that any legislation that makes women 'less than' men or that attempts to guarantee the Church of England exemption from the 2010 Equality Act should not and probably will not get through Parliament's Ecclesiastical Committee, or the Lords and Commons"

Is that what the church has come to? Unable to win the argument based on scripture and tradition they use untruths repeating them often enough so that people believe them. Jesus Christ, the foundation of our faith, did not shy away from righting injustice. Neither must we. Despite the cries of the Anglo Papists that the battle is done it must continue to ensure that faith prevails over feminism for those for whom the Anglican church is their natural home.

Jubilee Debt Campaign: Vulture Culture Bill - Update

On Friday, 26^th February I blogged on the Vulture funds which profiteer by buying up the debts of heavily indebted poor countries cheaply then seek to recover the full amounts, thus depriving the very poorest people in the world of the basic necessities of life while they wallow in the riches of their ill-gotten gains.

After slowing the Debt Relief (Developing Countries) Bill in its Second Reading it failed to pass its Third reading in Parliament when a single Conservative MP objected:

http://www.jubileedebtcampaign.org.uk/ACTION%201:%20Who%20Killed%20the%20Vultures%20Bill%3F+5572.twl

Coming from a party in which it has been estimated that two-thirds of the shadow cabinet are millionaires this block looks more than insensitive. No understanding of poverty perhaps?