Contempt triumphs over respect

The Cenotaph surrounded by pro-Palestinian demonstrators                                                                               Source: LBC

The Prime Minister has described the pro-Palestinian protests planned for London on Armistice Day as 'provocative and disrespectful'.

The government, the Metropolitan police and the majority of the British public are against it but the organisers insist it will go ahead.

What the march demonstrates is contempt for British values, values which many of the participants want to replace with an alien ideology so candidly admitted here. 

Closer to home, the Welsh Government recently paid out £300K Swansea's Sketty Mosque and Community Centre to aid Community Cohesion.

From the Swansea mosque on 17 October: " 'Victory to Islam'. 'Look after the mujahideen' in Gaza."

Pure contempt for British values.

Illiberal liberals

Christian Tim Farron pushed to resign leadership of the LibDem Party. Source BBC

It has been widely reported that Tim Farron resigned as the leader of the Liberal Democrat party because he could not continue in the face of continuing questions over his faith. He said that he had been torn between his Christian faith and serving as a political leader. 

Earlier it was reported that former gay bobby, now Liberal peer Lord Paddick had quit as Liberal Democrat Home Affairs spokesperson following the "furore" over leader Tim Farron's views on gay sex. Intentionally or otherwise Paddick's action put enormous pressure on an "honourable and decent" man - the words of the Archbishop of Canterbury.

During the General Election campaign journalists continually baited the Lib Dem leader over his Christian faith implying that the lifestyle of 1.7% of the population was far more important than the faith which not only underpins British society but on which our system of government is based. Tolerance and fair play has no place in the politically correct world of people who have nothing to offer but political correctness and their constant cries of '....phobia' to curtail any rational discussion.

Since the election government talks with the DUP have been dogged by complaints that the DUP is against same sex marriage as if it were the Holy Grail. As an example the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, among others was quick to distance himself from the DUP policies on last Sunday's Andrew Marr TV show.

This has prompted the Coalition for Marriage (C4M) to protest that there has been a sustained attack on DUP MPs simply because they are socially conservative. "Two issues are always quoted – their opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion":

The BBC in particular has seemed far more interested in pursuing this than asking about the DUP’s policy on Brexit or the economy. Even if, like C4M, you are not party political, I expect you are outraged by the media’s actions.

John Humphrys laughed on Monday morning when a former DUP assembly member explained they are a compassionate party. Humphrys immediately claimed that “most people” think their stance is “intolerant”, citing opposition to same-sex marriage as an example. And yesterday, the BBC reproduced a long series of satirists’ cartoons lampooning the DUP.

In response to the whole controversy, Roman Catholic commentator Dr Tim Stanley (who does not support the DUP in general) defended the DUP’s right to hold religious beliefs and argued “it has become politically toxic to be a Christian”.

So dominant has the issue become that the Scottish Conservative leader who plans to marry her same sex partner soon has been told by the Prime Minister that any Conservative deal with the Democratic Unionist Party will not affect LGBTI rights as though there is something intrinsically wrong in the traditional belief that marriage is the union of one man with one woman.

We are supposed to be a Christian country but Christian values based on biblical teaching are ridiculed. Christians are mocked for their faith. Lord Paddick's sexual preference is his own affair but as a liberal one would have thought that he would regard Tim Farron's faith as his affair. Instead he chose to advance the LGBT agenda at the expense of the leader of his Party. How very illiberal.

"There are no atheists in foxholes" still holds true when tragedy strikes. Whether the merciless attacks on innocent people or events such as the tragic London tower block blaze, in times of need people expect the church to be there. But how much longer? Christianity in this country is under threat. Where will people turn when it has been extinguished by illiberal liberals and their like?

Postscript

Former Liberal Democrat Member of Parliament for Yeovil, David Laws, claims that Tim Farron was right to resign because "he held prejudiced views". He said, " As a gay man, I do not wish to be 'tolerated'. I wish to be respected for who I am. And I want a party leader whose respect for human equality comes before outdated and frankly offensive religious views."

Mr Laws would earn more respect if he did not misrepresent the meaning of human equality and the views of opponents of same sex marriage. Many of us welcomed civil partnerships but gay marriage is a red line. Frankly, it is Mr Laws' prejudiced views as a gay man which are offensive but opponents of same sex marriage are no longer expected to hold a contrary view.

Respect!

On the right is a picture of Her Majesty the Queen,  Defender of the Faith and Supreme Governor of the Church of England covering her head as a mark of respect as she visited a 15th century mosque on her state visit to Turkey. 

On the left is a picture Rebekah Dawson showing no respect for The Queen's justice. 

The Independent asks what happened after Rebekah Dawson refused to take her niqab off in court. Read the shocking story here.

Fight the Good Fight

There are those who have given up the fight, there are many who are weary of the fight, but there are others who will continue to fight the good fight to save the Church they love.

It is now clear that Anglo-Catholics and Evangelicals in the Church of England have been betrayed. In good faith they believed the promise of an honoured place in their church if the measure to allow women to be ordained went through. Since then every glimmer of hope of living together from the prospect of a 'Third Province' to a statutory 'Code of Practice' has been dashed. It has been made abundantly clear that we are not wanted in the new Anglican church. All that remains is a vague promise; this time the promise of a voluntary Code of Practice which ultimately will be unworkable because anyone not in favour of the ordination of women will be gradually weeded out. This final compromise is summed up in an offer of 'Respect' but what value can be placed on respect after years of false accusations of bigotry, misogyny and everything else the women's movement has chosen to hurl at us in pursuit of their cause while their opponents turned the other cheek. The brazen campaign by WATCH and their like to exclude opponents from the church as though they are cleansing the Temple has been over-egged to such an extent that many of their supporters have become uncomfortable at the lack of love and respect shown to their neighbours, many of whom have worshipped in Anglican churches long before the Church of England was infiltrated by these feminists in pursuit of their secular cause. 

The hoped for live and let live stance has become so one-sided that if women are ordained bishops there will no longer be a place in the church for dissenters. Their objective is based on lies. This cannot be right in any circumstances let alone a religious environment. The last ditch face-saving campaign to encourage opponents to abstain rather than vote against the measure is offensive to those whose sole objective has been to act in a way they believe to be the mind of Christ. Since WATCH and their fellow travellers are the authors of their own misfortune it is now time for their supporters to turn the other cheek. If the women's movement had shown any sign of respect or understanding for their fellow worshippers whom they seek to crush through the legislative process they would have been guaranteed success. Now it is too late, their thirst for power has served no-one but themselves. They deserve defeat.

 

Respect!

So the bishops have capitulated. What little comfort was left for traditionalists in the Church of England opposed on theological grounds to the ordination of women has been watered down to one word: Respect. Archbishop Rowan says ‘Respect’ means taking somebody else in their own terms; letting them define what they believe, what they think, who they are. It means trying to find a settlement that allows them to recognise in whatever emerges that their views have been taken seriously. Archbishop Rowan may very well think that but few have the capacity of His Grace for treating their opponents with the same respect. Across the border in the Church in Wales even their Archbishop has difficulty in showing respect for those he disagrees with and far from 'taking somebody else in their own terms; letting them define what they believe, what they think', he obstinately refuses even to appoint a replacement Provincial Assistant Bishop preferring to tell traditionalists what they must accept while, tomorrow, making another bid to allow women to be ordained into the episcopate on his own terms in his vanishing church. 

Consider also the attitude already displayed in England by proponents of the ordination of women in the Church and in Parliament - "No promises were broken, says GRAS" and "Essentially everyone knew that when you had the ordination of women as priests that this would lead to the ordination of women bishops after a decent length of pause. Some would say it has now been an indecent length of pause" said Peter Bottomley. Where is there any evidence of respect? When the House of Bishops proposed an amendment to the legislation which would have "strengthened somewhat the provision for the minority, in the hope that this would allow people in the minority to feel that their position was respected, that they were allowed to flourish, and that they were welcome in the Church of England" Women and the Church (WATCH) found it "deeply offensive " claiming that the vision of women as bishops, and the dignity and security of the position of women when they were ordained as bishops would be undermined.

So what is in a word? Personally I find it offensive to be branded as one of those "whose consciences gave them difficulties with the idea of women as bishops, and would find it difficult to receive their ministry." I would have no difficulty with the concept of women bishops or of receiving their ministry if it were simply a matter of debate or if it were accepted throughout the Church Catholic but it cannot be for the simple reason that in conscience we remain faithful to Christ's example rather than synodical persuasion. Whatever arguments are advanced in support of the ordination of women they can only be opinions not supported by historical fact. They condemn Jesus as a failure for being a captive of His time in not appointing women Apostles but in an age when there were numerous priestesses, Christ showed us a new way which honoured men and women equally, different but complementary. What is difficult about that?



No Respect

George Galloway's 'Blackburn triumph' victory in winning the West Bradford by-election for his Respect Party has brought into sharp focus the power of the ballot box where many apparently disaffected young Muslims registered disapproval of their lot in the traditional British manner. 


Totally unacceptable is the other side of the Islamic coin which shows no respect for British values and culture claiming freedom of speech only to further their anti-British agenda.