Wales, Wales and beyond

Vienna 1683                                                                                           Vienna 2015

An interesting article from Wales Online today for Welsh History Month, Gerald of Wales championed what he believed were the ancient rights of his church: "In the closing days of November 1199, the archdeacon of Brecon, Gerald de Barry – better known today as Gerald of Wales – arrived in Rome after a long and arduous journey from Wales. He had not come as a pilgrim to pray at the shrines of the saints, but as bishop-elect of St Davids to champion what he believed were the ancient rights of his church". One wonders what Gerald de Barry would make of the Church in Wales under Archbishop Barry and, indeed, modern bishops in general and of the problems facing the Church today.

Also of interest is a letter to the Editor of the Western Mail headed "Immigration crisis in Europe". This is a very emotional subject as viewers of last Thursday's Question Time will testify. It is a natural Christian instinct to take pity on the plight of others, especially the less fortunate. As commented on the Question Time programme, "we are all human beings" but many of the worst affected do not have the resources to flee to Europe. Those who do so appear well dressed with smart phones and a determination not just to get out of war zones but to decide which Christian country (for now) should be their ultimate destination. Beware the Trojan Horse?

Vienna 1653 saw a mighty last ditch battle against the Muslim Ottoman Empire in defence of Christianity but in Vienna 2015 Muslims are welcomed with open arms despite the butchery of Christians that continues in Muslim countries. Armed jihad or cultural jihad, the object is the same, Islamisation of the world by whatever means according to their holy book. Read "Islamic State reveals it has smuggled THOUSANDS of extremists into Europe" here.

Church of England bishops who failed to see the consequences of their actions in mimicking the liberal policies of the Episcopal Church of the United States have joined the emotional clamor to allow more migrants into Great Britain on a suck it and see basis. Meanwhile, David Cameron is accused of "McCarthyism" over extremism plans by UK's biggest Muslim group, the Muslim Council of Britain.

Bishop Cottrell assured the Prime Minister that the church has "troops on the ground" ready to help. Just the Church?

Express: People climb through windows of a train to try and get to Serbia [Getty Images]

Postscript [20.10.2015]

David Cameron rebukes Church of England bishops over refugee letter here.

Postscript [23.10.2015]

Read Rod Liddle writing in The Spectator about his Question Time encounter with Simon Schama here. The TV clip is excellent. Note also the designer clothing in the above picture.

Priestesses and fertility rites to save the Church of England?

Photo: Tradition in Action 

"The Church of England is trying to recruit pagans and spiritual believers as part of a drive to retain congregation numbers". So says an article in the Telegraph under the headline "Church of England creating 'pagan church' to recruit members." As bizarre as this may seem it is not without precedent. There are examples here and an explanation here. 

The Church of England is following the medical and teaching professions in becoming increasingly feminised so the notion of parity has become a contradiction. Perhaps female dominance will result again in celebrating the 'ess' of womanhood with the return of the priestess. However, it is important to retain a sense of proportion. Calls for more women to be involved in every sphere of public life simply for being women are nonsensical as Melanie Phillips reminded Tessa Jowell on Question Time after her sweeping generalisation that women have a moderating influence. Tessa Jowell was contradicted by Melanie Phillips who cited the female dominated Care Quality Commission debacle as a topical example. 

In pagan times the Christian church stood apart from sexual license and fertility rites dominated by temple priestesses but that is being overturned with demands for diversity to be celebrated in the church. In a speech in the Lords the Archbishop of York posed the question: "What do you do with people in same-sex relationships that are committed, loving and Christian? Would you rather bless a sheep and a tree, and not them?" The difference is, Your grace, that sheep and trees and the birds and the bees do what comes naturally!

There is something radically wrong when the basis of our institutions can be changed to mean what was never intended at the outset. In the Telegraph article Andrea Campenale, of the Church Mission Society, said: “Nowadays people, they want to feel something; they want to have some sense of experience". Some of us used to!

Postscript

How about a mid-service disco too? Andrew Brown thinks this vicar's disco dance gives hope to the Church of England.

Homophopic, bigoted and racist - that's me, allegedly!

I like to think of myself as a tolerant sort of chap who will listen to an argument and come to a conclusion, just as I would expect others to do, based not on propaganda but on relevant facts. I must be showing my age because different criteria are demanded today, basically just following the crowd by deferring to political correctness. Sorry but that's not for me.

The discussion on the last session of Question Time (QT) in 2012 left me in no doubt that tolerance can back-fire badly. In times past the sexual orientation of people was not important, you liked them or you didn't. People did not go around shouting I am gay, I am a lesbian, etc. They were more important as people, as human beings. Now it seems that sexuality is all. A comment was made on QT that the number of same sex couples living in partnership was a small fraction of one per cent of the population. I read another report which placed Newport in Gwent with the highest percentage of same sex partnerships at just 0.4%. So why all the fuss?  I welcomed the legislation on civil partnerships and believe that what consenting adults do in private (hetero and homo) is between them and God if they are believers, but our failure not only to recognise but to applaud different life-styles is now portrayed as unforgivable for not supporting so-called equality.

One of the QT panel, the Shadow Home Office Minister, while admitting to being an Anglican strenuously claimed that love was all important so people who love one another must be allowed to marry each other. On that basis if we are obedient to Christ's command to love one another, we should all be able to marry each other! Taking things out of context typifies the problem with the Church of England in its obsession with sex and secular notions of equality which, applied in the context of faith, have torn Anglicanism apart, first in demanding that a woman's place is at the Altar but now that they have to be bishops as if they are unable to perform their ministry in any other way, contrary to the example of the vast majority of women in the church.

So, because I believe that marriage is a holy estate between a man and a woman I am labelled homophobic not only by panel members but enthusiastically endorsed by the audience when it was clear that all but a couple of speakers from the floor showed an abysmal ignorance of the subject they were discussing. Likewise I am labeled a bigot for believing that the priesthood whose orders flow from the Holy Catholic Church is not something to be changed unilaterally by gathering votes from non-believers to influence Synod. On immigration, any consideration of the impact on housing, schools, transport, education, health, etc, without any preconceived idea let alone the impact on social cohesion is regarded as racism so there can be no discussion without a charge of being racist.

I tried Googling on this phenomenon. It produced the rainbow flag, above. Read what inspired it here. What a sad nation we have become, aided and abetted by the Church of England. I sometimes wonder if God wills her demise. Anyone for the Queen James Bible? And there's more.

Thank God then for the Bishop of Portsmouth who demolished any idea of a case for same sex marriage with all the relevant facts in a letter to the Prime Minister. Read it HERE.

Our 'multi-cultural' society

I missed the Channel 4 programme, Make Bradford British, but since it has been referred to so many times and debated on the BBC's Question Time I caught up with it on 4OD. There is a Telegraph review here. Reading the review, I see I was not alone in thinking that Rashid, a Muslim former Rugby League player made the biggest impact. The reason being that out of eight people from various backgrounds brought together in an integration experiment he was the least co-operative, not out of malice, but because his religion came first which was clearly disappointing for the others in the house. What put a different complexion on the proceedings was not that Rashid insisted on praying five times a day but that he had to go to the mosque to pray, delaying the dinner he had offered to cook (he eventually went to a take-away) and disrupting the experiment in the process. The reason? In his own words because he would get a lot more blessings and rewards, the reward being '27 to 25 times more' if he prayed in a congregation rather than at home.

For most Christians, buying one's way to paradise is an alien concept, a concept explained here in 'Gather Blessings in the Mosques'. This article stresses that 'praying in the mosque and being attached to the mosque is a very pious and rewardable action gathering rewards and good deeds for the hereafter. God loves and rewards those who find repose and comfort in the mosques. Whoever builds a mosque seeking the pleasure of God, God builds a similar one for him in paradise'.The following paragraph helps to explain the thinking of Muslims and to understand the pressure for more mosques to be built: 'There are six places in which a person is guaranteed the safekeeping of God, the Most High, as long as he is in one of them. In a congregational mosque, with a sick person, at a funeral, in his house, with a just ruler whom he supports and treats with respect, or at a place where people are fighting jihad! [my emphasis - Ed]. 


With almost daily stories of Christian churches being burned to the ground in Islamic states and worshippers murdered or driven out of their homeland it is illuminating to read "Britain is among the safest places for people to worship freely and in peace, an Islamic leader has said at the opening of a new £900,000 mosque in Feltham, west London" despite the constant reports of supposed Islamophobia. There is an interesting juxtaposition between the 'Gather Blessings in the Mosques' article referred to above and an article in the Left Foot Forward Blog  under the headline 'Warsi’s call for the dominance of Christianity ignores that it’s Islam under threat'. In defence of mosque building, towards the end of the article there is a complaint about a statement in the Telegraph back in 2006: 
   "the most prominent religious building in the camera shot will not be one of the city’s iconic churches that have shaped the nation’s history, such as St Paul’s Cathedral or Westminster Abbey, but the mega mosque. Its arrival in London will be a significant coup for Islam and a major event for the country as a whole’. However, there was no complaint or even a mention about the introduction to the article where 'Abu Izzadeen, the firebrand Islamist militant, berated John Reid last week for "daring" to visit a Muslim area." This a concept that is spreading, a problem which was referred to in the CH4 programme where Bradford City centre was said to be now 95% Asian.


But these double standards are something to which we have become so accustomed that we hardly turn a hair. It was no surprise then that the head of the BBC, Mark Thompson, admitted that 'We’ll mock Jesus but not Mohammed'. Of course if anyone dared to offend Muslims there would be demonstrations and death threats from those who say they are British but Muslim first. They believe that 'Mosques are special places filled with blessings and rewards, however, God has conferred a special blessing upon the nation of Muslims, the whole earth has been declared a mosque, so when the time for prayer comes and a believer is unable to pray in congregation in a building he may pray wherever he may be.' Hence the use of surrounding streets to justify more and bigger buildings. 


We are surrounded by Islamic symbols be it mosque or Islamic dress and threatened with retribution against perceived threats while Christians are denied the opportunity to express their religion other than in their churches. The authorities pussyfoot around making endless excuses about unrepresentative extremists in apparent ignorance of fundamental Islamic teaching which regards non-Muslims as underdogs in a world that belongs to Allah. In the Question Time programme I referred to above, most speakers uttered the usual bland platitudes about living together apparently unconcerned about David Starkey's complaint that he was the one who would be arrested if he criticised the Quran because it prescribed the death sentence for his homosexuality, one of many Islamic 'sins' attracting the death penalty such as apostasy and blasphemy, often used to oppress Christians, particularly in Pakistan. 


Unusual for the BBC, today's Breakfast News reported on the 'divided loyalties' of one million Pakistanis living in Great Britain out of 3.7 million expatriates who are to be given the vote in Pakistan in recognition that 5% of Pakistan's GDP had been sent back by overseas Pakistanis showing “solidarity and integrity of our motherland” despite their country's failure to protect minorities, something they insist on in Great Britain. On top of this comes the revelation that British war graves on the outskirts of Benghazi have been desecrated by Islamist militants and the symbol of Christ's redeeming love, the Cross, attacked with sledge hammers. This after Libyans had pleaded with the West to assist them in their struggle for freedom and the outrage expressed after burning some copies of the Quran. 


No doubt the CH4 experiment will show that multiculturalism can work in a house of eight people designed for the purpose but in the real world, Christianity is suppressed and only Islam is shown any respect, something that our children now pick up in school adding to the impression that in our multi-cultural society, Islam is holy when all the evidence is to the contrary. Apologists for a political ideology that seeks our demise should get their heads out of the sand, look around them and listen to someone with experience.

Riots in England: the Prime Minister's response

In his statement to the Commons this morning the Prime Minister admitted what was obvious to anyone watching recent events unfold, that is, 'the police got it wrong'. MPs representing areas worst affected said that their constituents looked on in disbelief as the police simply 'observed' looters entering vandalised shops and walking off with stolen goods. This was the view witnessed by television viewers around the world.


Apparently the police viewed the situation as a "public order" issue rather than criminal activity!  The irony is that, as illustrated here, the police are much swifter in dealing with 'public order' protesters than with criminals, often employing controversial 'kettling' procedures to restrict movement. Watch the BBC clip here and listen to what the then Metropolitan Police Commissioner had to say about containment to avoid trouble spreading. 

Force needs to be met with force employing any lawful means to take control of a situation but in this instance the riotous looting was allowed to get so out of control  that the Prime Minister has since had to speak of 'fighting back'. Rubber bullets have been used elsewhere in the United Kingdom so why not in England? If the police fail to protect citizens it is inevitable that they will seek to protect themselves with all that implies.


The only good thing to come out of this shameful episode is the Prime Minister's stated determination to get to grips with the gang culture and other elements that have blighted our society for too long. It's a pity it comes at such a price.


Update
In the row that has blown up about whether the Government or the Metropolitan Police should take credit for bringing the London riots to a halt we have been treated to this statement by the Acting Commissioner Tim Godwin "As a result of that we were able to nip this in the bud after a few days." 

The problem wasn't 'nipped in the bud', it was allowed to flower grotesquely for 'a few days' resulting in loss of life, homes and jobs with millions of pounds worth of damage. There was much talk on Question Time last night of the difficulties 'officers' face because of fear of further criticism for rough handling but the cases referred to arose as a result of lawful protest, not criminal behaviour involving riots and looting.

Neither the Government nor the Metropolitan Police should be looking to take credit for damping down the public disorder. The complacency in the interview is mind blowing - self praise is no recommendation! 


If more trouble flares up 'nipping it in the bud after a few days' is entirely unacceptable. No wonder we are in such a mess. 


Postscript
An American view here.

Question Time - Evasion or ignorance?

"Was it right for Jack Straw to say that Pakistani men saw young white women as easy meat?" A perfectly reasonable question from Asim Khan (apologies if the spelling is incorrect) on a topical issue proper to BBC Question Time but the panel completely missed the point referring to crime, race, colour, ethnic group, culture, multiculturalism, ethnic minority, class and gender. The only time religion was mentioned was a smear of the Catholic church in a comment from the floor. A girl in the audience claimed that instead of blacks, young Pakistani men were now the victims of stop-and-search. The oppression of women was mentioned only in the context of feminism, not religion.

The question and responses were a gift to those who regard searching questions as Islamophobia. Michael Gove actually suggested that those outside a particular community were ill equipped to comment. None of the Asian community men in the audience did so. Was the panel's response based on political correctness, ignorance of Islam's aim of world domination or fear of raising the problem? The more forthright make no bones about world domination under Islam and Sharia law. Some ex-Muslims have had the courage to address the problem on pain of death for their apostasy. Others simply sweep the problem under the carpet in the apparent belief that those without a religion are exempt. Perhaps oblivious to the persecution of Christians they fail to appreciate that they defend a religious ideology that does not tolerate independence. 

Question Time for No 10

Full marks to the BBC for not giving into pressure from No 10 to decide who should appear on the Question Time panel.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8710081.stm

A small but welcome blow for the defence of freedom.

A Question of Balance

Once again I allowed myself to become irritated by watching Question Time on Thursday. It was like a repeat of the Carol Vorderman show in drag with that offensive little pip-squeak David Starkey ranting from a similar Tory election script. Whilst I welcome a variety of opinions (within reason) such tirades become wearisome especially when formed from a narrow historical perspective. Some will recall his 2009 dismissal of the Scottish, Welsh and Irish nations as ‘feeble’. People in glass houses….

Much was made by most of the panel, and the Chairman of course, of the links between the Labour party and its trade union sponsor Unite as a result of its dispute with British Airways. That was fair game but what are we to make of the report that the Tories have forced the BBC to drop their intensive investigation into the affairs of Lord Ashcroft in the run up to the general election? Can the implication be that they have something to hide? So much for transparency and balance.

Of course funding isn’t a problem for the really high earners in our society. A joke was made on Sport Relief last night that if every footballer donated a week’s wages we could buy Africa. Not being a fan of round ball games I may be biased but I find the astronomically high wages of footballers offensive especially given the bad example many of them set with their aggressive behaviour and disgusting habit of spitting all over the pitch which is then echoed by yobs spitting on the street and spreading diseases. “Spitting spreads germs” is a sign we ancients recall seeing on public transport.

Just as, if not more, offensive is the reported £60m bonanza for the president of Barclays. From the Telegraph: “The package is based on a £384,000 salary, but through a combination of perks including share bonuses, Mr Diamond could earn more than 150 times that amount”. Ignoring the perks, can anyone deservedly earn a salary sixteen times that of the average wage even if he does want to build the biggest investment bank in the world - especially if it is on the back of the tax payer as Vince Cable aptly put it?

David Cameron’s plan to impose a tax on banks to repay the billions used to bail out financial institutions is most welcome as is Alistair Darling’s expected Government support for a global bank tax. Whoever wins the next election and by whatever means, someone needs to do something about these greedy bankers.

Question Time

For me, regular viewing on Thursdays was Question Time with its audience populated by posturing people proffering party political propaganda and populist piffle in the guise of enlightened debate. Alas no longer. Like many others I find the same old clap trap too much of a bore and bed time in a rage isn’t the best aid to sleep. However, nodding off as one does during the football item at the end of the 10 o’clock News I was aroused from my slumbers last Thursday evening by familiar music and the sight of an intriguing looking panel.

On the Chairman’s far left was the Lord Adonis, a misnomer if ever there was one even if he is referred to in the corridors of Whitehall as “Muscles”! Next was the long time favourite with her no-nonsense hair style, Shirley Williams, Baroness Williams of Crosby. She was to battle valiantly to restore some dignity to the programme but had no hope of victory.

On the right was the blond bomb-shelled Mayor of London, Boris, boosting buffoonery to new heights. One may have thought him the most disastrous representative of the Tory Party but worse was to come in the shape of their now red-headed Maths advisor, Carole Vorderman. I must admit she looked fantastic, especially for a woman pushing fifty; a real tribute to the make-up department. When she put on her scholarly spectacles she looked every inch the boyhood dream of the perfect school mistress only lacking a 12” rule in her hand.

Perhaps oddly placed on the far right was the self effacing ‘say it as it is’ Will Self who these days reminds me of Melanie Phillips. Not for looks which are a slight improvement but for her Zionist outburst on a previous show in 2001 when, if my memory serves me correctly, she described Will as a disgrace to Judaism (his mother was Jewish) for daring to disagree with her.

This time it was Carole’s performance that stole the show. I thought I may have been uncharitable, perhaps influenced by her much criticised high interest TV adverts which appeared to target the poor and needy, until yesterday when I stumbled upon an on-line article in the New Statesman (I have now added their Blog as an antidote to Cranmer for fear of being labelled) which not only mirrored my views but which attracted a large number of comments from the like minded.

When she opened her mouth the experience was a bit like an aural version of the days of the dance hall when, after tapping a girl on the shoulder she turned around and you almost exclaimed, “Oh, consonant, consonant, vowel, consonant!” But we were often surprised, reinforcing the view that beauty is after all only skin deep. But not this time.

Mr Dimbleby the Chairman never tires of telling his audience that the panel has no idea of the questions they are about to be asked but that doesn’t stop panellists preparing briefing notes, so comprehensive in Ms Vorderman’s case that on one occasion during her diatribe she appeared to have lost her place. Even the audience appeared embarrassed by her performance, no mean feat where extremist views are far from uncommon. As she snatched the pillock prize from an increasingly baffled looking Boris I concluded that, after all the furore of the parliamentary expenses row, this was to be the launching pad for a new political career. Surely something the Tory party would now be desperate to avoid. The Monster Raving Loony Party perhaps?

But the big question now is Has Question Time had its day? Despite some of the potty people who pander to popular public opinion it still provides an increasingly rare forum for public debate. So time for a change? My suggestion is that Mr Dimbleby gives up his public platform (with notes) and spends more time with his Land Rover travelling around Britain to bring us more programmes such his admirable Seven Ages of Britain. Any nominations for a replacement?