It has been and is said that the Church of England is the Tory Party at Prayer. That may even have been true... once: but that was then and this is now.
It is certainly true that the C of E might reasonably said to represent the “Establishment”, or rather the left wing 'hard of thinking' elite at prayer.
Well it might… except that generally, the left wing elite don’t have much time, or use for prayer.
It is ok for the proles you understand - sotto voce. But the thing about the left wing elite is they always imagine themselves on top.. in
charge.. the Vicar rather than the flock. In positions of power handing down “wisdom” from the mount to the admiringly grateful, but sadly
unable to quite see what is best for them, populace.
In the interminable run up to this fixed term election the C of E seems to be becoming more and more overtly partisanly political. It was
interesting to note they were urging business to apparently maximise their UK tax liability? Well that was what it practically amounted to
- whilst (of course) being effectively exempt from paying tax themselves.
'whit′ed sep′ulcher' springs to mind...
...or it would, if they hadn't changed it to 'whitewashed tomb', less poetic language - but
"modern".
Apparently easily enough understood by generations who never had the benefit of Comprehensive state education.
Do they imagine unleashing their vast hoards of fanatical believers (they wish) to vote the churche’s political line will have much impact?
One suspects that whilst their pronouncements may seem significant in the Westminster village they have less impact than vapour trails on the populace in general. At least a small proportion of the voting public do seriously believe that vapour trails are a CIA conspiracy, perhaps a few might take their lead from Welby & Co. ?
Perhaps it is time to disestablish the Church of England as Nick Clegg has called for? It is questionable that they, or indeed any religion, should
be allowed to retain such a position.
Better to concern themselves with diminishing flocks, abandoned Churches in the UK and rampant Christianophobia throughout the bible lands and middle east, driving the religious cleansing of Christians fourth from their homelands. So much for respect of 'people of the book'. More whit′ed sep′ulchers anybody?
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 February 2015
Thursday, 24 December 2009
A Merry and Happy Christmas to all
Christmas Eve... For many of us it conjures happy childhood memories. Memories loaded with excitement and happiness form a time when the world, especially at Christmas, seemed a more magical, happy and safer place.
Each year it seems to be commercialised, diluted and spread out back earlier and earlier. Even so, at it’s heart is that core. Christmas Eve and Christmas Day.
Charles Dickens encapsulates it in his Pickwick Papers when he writes:
“Happy, happy Christmas, that can win us back to the delusions of our childish days; that can recall to the old man the pleasures of his youth; that can transport the sailor and the traveller, thousands of miles away, back to his own fire-side and his quiet home!”
Still for many of us these memories - and the feelings they can still call up, makes us just a little more patient and tolerant at this time of year. A little more generous of spirit, slightly slower to anger.
The celebrations may pre-date Christianity. They always did and still do contain much that has very little, on the face of it, to do with the teachings of Christ. Never-the-less much that is at the core of Christmas as we know it, Christian or Pagan do in a very real sense have at their core the best of “Christian” values.
Values worth having because they generally make life better for all - if we hold to them. That we should hold to, no matter what belief, or philosophy.
So here’s wishing the world - and everyone in it, good cheer and best wishes this Christmas.
Still for many of us these memories - and the feelings they can still call up, makes us just a little more patient and tolerant at this time of year. A little more generous of spirit, slightly slower to anger.
The celebrations may pre-date Christianity. They always did and still do contain much that has very little, on the face of it, to do with the teachings of Christ. Never-the-less much that is at the core of Christmas as we know it, Christian or Pagan do in a very real sense have at their core the best of “Christian” values.
Values worth having because they generally make life better for all - if we hold to them. That we should hold to, no matter what belief, or philosophy.
So here’s wishing the world - and everyone in it, good cheer and best wishes this Christmas.
As Dickens said:
“I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round, as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys.”
Here’s a hope that we can try to be like his reformed character Ebenezer Scrooge from A Christmas Carol and carry that spirit of decency with us into the new year when he proclaimed:
"I will honor Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year."
“I have always thought of Christmas time, when it has come round, as a good time; a kind, forgiving, charitable time; the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys.”
Here’s a hope that we can try to be like his reformed character Ebenezer Scrooge from A Christmas Carol and carry that spirit of decency with us into the new year when he proclaimed:
"I will honor Christmas in my heart, and try to keep it all the year."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~###~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Scrooge was better than his word - He did it all... and infinitely more…
He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world.
Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.
…it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge.
May that be truly said of us, and all of us! …God Bless Us, Every One!
He became as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man, as the good old city knew, or any other good old city, town, or borough, in the good old world.
Some people laughed to see the alteration in him, but he let them laugh, and little heeded them; for he was wise enough to know that nothing ever happened on this globe, for good, at which some people did not have their fill of laughter in the outset; and knowing that such as these would be blind anyway, he thought it quite as well that they should wrinkle up their eyes in grins, as have the malady in less attractive forms. His own heart laughed: and that was quite enough for him.
…it was always said of him, that he knew how to keep Christmas well, if any man alive possessed the knowledge.
May that be truly said of us, and all of us! …God Bless Us, Every One!
Thursday, 25 December 2008
Merry Christmas
Well it's December 25th, So I am taking this opportunity to wish a Mery Christmas and a Happy New Year to one and all.
Saturday, 2 February 2008
Bishop receives death threats
It is interesting to note that since his remarks about no go areas in the UK for non-adherents to the so-called “religion of peace” the Bishop of Rochester, Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, has received death threats.
Confidentially folks, I may be wrong here - but I suspect the threats were not from Seventh day Adventists, Buddhists, Jews, or Quakers, who were homicidally enraged by his daring to point out the bleedin’ obvious.
One suspects that if the good Bishop’s surname hadn’t been Nazir-Ali then he would have been attacked by some of his less rabid critics employing the dubious combination, Non-Sequitur/Ad hominem erroneous accusation of being ‘racist’ by now. It would certainly not be the first time they have played the race card by any means.
That seems to be their usual first attack that many will reflexively fall over themselves to kowtow to. It cannot be racist to criticise a religion, unless possibly it is one that only allows adherents of one ethnic group with no conversions.
Clearly Islam is not such a religion as it’s ultimate goal is a world Islamic state and it currently has adherents from many different ethnic groups.
Confidentially folks, I may be wrong here - but I suspect the threats were not from Seventh day Adventists, Buddhists, Jews, or Quakers, who were homicidally enraged by his daring to point out the bleedin’ obvious.
One suspects that if the good Bishop’s surname hadn’t been Nazir-Ali then he would have been attacked by some of his less rabid critics employing the dubious combination, Non-Sequitur/Ad hominem erroneous accusation of being ‘racist’ by now. It would certainly not be the first time they have played the race card by any means.
That seems to be their usual first attack that many will reflexively fall over themselves to kowtow to. It cannot be racist to criticise a religion, unless possibly it is one that only allows adherents of one ethnic group with no conversions.
Clearly Islam is not such a religion as it’s ultimate goal is a world Islamic state and it currently has adherents from many different ethnic groups.
Thursday, 1 November 2007
UK think tank wants to Downgrade Christmas to be 'even-handed' to non-Christians
The Institute of Public Policy Research in all it’s think-tanky ‘brilliance’ has decided it might be a good idea to downgrade Christmas.
I know it’s become too commercial over the last few decades - but why? To help make the UK more multi cultural. That’s why?.
Just when the consensus amongst the ‘great and good’ had worked it’s way round to the conclusion that ‘multiculturalism’ does not work, is devisive and causes more harm than good. The IPPR is marching the other way.
They are suggesting it in the interests of even-handedness and argue we should mark other religious festivals in the same way.
Some problems there – Exactly how many of them?
If you are not going to accord all religions the same treatment what ones do you ignore and how do you justify it?
Should they all be Bank Holidays? When will anyone work if they are?
Their ‘solution’ looks rather more like just another opportunity for the law of unintended consequences to wreak damage and cause ill feeling, just another bunch of cognoscenti eroding of social cohesion…
I know it’s become too commercial over the last few decades - but why? To help make the UK more multi cultural. That’s why?.
Just when the consensus amongst the ‘great and good’ had worked it’s way round to the conclusion that ‘multiculturalism’ does not work, is devisive and causes more harm than good. The IPPR is marching the other way.
They are suggesting it in the interests of even-handedness and argue we should mark other religious festivals in the same way.
Some problems there – Exactly how many of them?
If you are not going to accord all religions the same treatment what ones do you ignore and how do you justify it?
Should they all be Bank Holidays? When will anyone work if they are?
Their ‘solution’ looks rather more like just another opportunity for the law of unintended consequences to wreak damage and cause ill feeling, just another bunch of cognoscenti eroding of social cohesion…
Friday, 5 October 2007
UK Teachers becoming reluctant to teach theory of evolution
It seems that teaches in the UK are becoming more and more reluctant to include the theory of evolution in science classes.
Not as you might initially imagine because of fundamentalist Christian objections.
No. Apparently it is much more because teachers are worried about Moslem objections.
Accoring to a Professor at the Institute of Education, London, Moslems are less likely to accommodate the theory of evolution within their belief structure than Christians. A much greater percentage are Creationists than amongst Christians. The large increase in Moslems in the UK means that there are many more pupils and parents with more extreme creationist views.
One can’t help wondering if teachers would be quite so concerned about the views of, say Christians for example - and if the real driver behind their concerns is not political correctness and fear of being unjustly accused of being institutionally prejudiced, culturally insensitive, or racist, in some way, if objections are raised to their covering the subject.
Not as you might initially imagine because of fundamentalist Christian objections.
No. Apparently it is much more because teachers are worried about Moslem objections.
Accoring to a Professor at the Institute of Education, London, Moslems are less likely to accommodate the theory of evolution within their belief structure than Christians. A much greater percentage are Creationists than amongst Christians. The large increase in Moslems in the UK means that there are many more pupils and parents with more extreme creationist views.
One can’t help wondering if teachers would be quite so concerned about the views of, say Christians for example - and if the real driver behind their concerns is not political correctness and fear of being unjustly accused of being institutionally prejudiced, culturally insensitive, or racist, in some way, if objections are raised to their covering the subject.
Tuesday, 17 July 2007
UK School wins right to ban Christian ‘purity’ ring
The Millais School in Horsham, West Sussex in the UK banned a pupil from wearing a ‘purity’ ring as it contravened the schools uniform policy.
She was one of a dozen girls who wore the ring, engraved with a verse from the Bible, as a sign of their intention to abstain from sex until they married.
She took the school to court on the grounds that it was as "unlawful interference" with her fundamental rights to express her Christian faith, but the court rejected this.
A school that banned a teenage girl from wearing a "purity" ring to symbolise her opposition to sex before marriage did not discriminate against her religious beliefs, the High Court ruled today.
The judge ruled, that the ring could not be regarded as ‘a proper Christian symbol’, and so the school had not breached the Human Rights Act. The decision does seem a little perverse and one wonders at how qualified he was to make the decision and what advice he may have taken.
This is the same school that had no problem allowing Moslem girls to wear headscarves. These scarves are clearly no more a (in the words of the court) ‘proper’ Moslem symbol, originating as they do with certain Middle Eastern ethnicities and not necessary to all Moslem women.
The Koran talks about modesty, but there is no specifically prescribed dress code for Muslim men and women.
The details regarding women's dress differ in various Muslim countries according to local cultural traditions. It ranges from any form of modest but not specifically Moslem dress to the extreme, all-covering chador, or burqa.
In fact the scarves when they are worn are worn to symbolise their ‘modesty and purity’ fulfilling much the same roll as the ring albeit far more overtly - and with just as much, or as little, ‘proper ness’ as the ring. Modesty might be regarded as a requirement but not the wearing of the scarf
Some in the Moslem world regard the headscarf and other more extreme versions of dress for Moslem women as an agenda being pushed by the more the ‘fundamentalist’ to assert a strict Middle Eastern homogenising control over Muslims in Europe.
Surely to be fare it should be one rule for all - and it does not look all that much like one rule for all at the moment.
Will the school, having won it’s argument on this basis, now be banning headscarves on the same basis? Or will they reconsider allowing the rings?
How likely is that?
She was one of a dozen girls who wore the ring, engraved with a verse from the Bible, as a sign of their intention to abstain from sex until they married.
She took the school to court on the grounds that it was as "unlawful interference" with her fundamental rights to express her Christian faith, but the court rejected this.
A school that banned a teenage girl from wearing a "purity" ring to symbolise her opposition to sex before marriage did not discriminate against her religious beliefs, the High Court ruled today.
The judge ruled, that the ring could not be regarded as ‘a proper Christian symbol’, and so the school had not breached the Human Rights Act. The decision does seem a little perverse and one wonders at how qualified he was to make the decision and what advice he may have taken.
This is the same school that had no problem allowing Moslem girls to wear headscarves. These scarves are clearly no more a (in the words of the court) ‘proper’ Moslem symbol, originating as they do with certain Middle Eastern ethnicities and not necessary to all Moslem women.
The Koran talks about modesty, but there is no specifically prescribed dress code for Muslim men and women.
The details regarding women's dress differ in various Muslim countries according to local cultural traditions. It ranges from any form of modest but not specifically Moslem dress to the extreme, all-covering chador, or burqa.
In fact the scarves when they are worn are worn to symbolise their ‘modesty and purity’ fulfilling much the same roll as the ring albeit far more overtly - and with just as much, or as little, ‘proper ness’ as the ring. Modesty might be regarded as a requirement but not the wearing of the scarf
Some in the Moslem world regard the headscarf and other more extreme versions of dress for Moslem women as an agenda being pushed by the more the ‘fundamentalist’ to assert a strict Middle Eastern homogenising control over Muslims in Europe.
Surely to be fare it should be one rule for all - and it does not look all that much like one rule for all at the moment.
Will the school, having won it’s argument on this basis, now be banning headscarves on the same basis? Or will they reconsider allowing the rings?
How likely is that?
Sunday, 1 July 2007
Bishop says UK floods are the wrath of God
Apparently Senior Church of England Bishops are claiming recent flooding in the UK as evidence of the wrath of God. The Bishop of Carlisle suggested new legislation in favour of homosexuals may have provoked God.
He said that whilst this actually affected innocent victims the flooding was a result of Western civilisations decision to ignore biblical teachings. The Bishop of Liverpool and the Right Reverend Dow, also seem to feel we are reaping what we are sowing.
One wonders why they have such a low opinion of God that he could not manage to flood the Palace of Westminster, it being on fairly low ground, right by the Thames, or strike it with lightening maybe. Parliament would, after all, be the logical target - and the better clearer ‘message’, if it really were an act of God, rather than the overwrought imagination of the Bishop.
If I were actually inclined to believe God was small minded I would be more likely to believe it was a judgement on voting for Tony Blair, the man, who with such a cavalier attitude to the democratic process, signed the EU constitutional Treaty as his last act as PM.
Maybe, like the terrorists, the Bishop feels God prefers a ‘softer’ target like Sheffield.
Or do they perhaps feel God, like some maiden aunt at a church fete coconut shy, is not quite up to it - and accidentally gets the stall holder instead? Some may recall immediately after the installation of the rather ‘controversial’ clergyman the Rt Rev David Jenkins as Bishop of Durham in 1984, York Minster was severely damaged by lightening strikes around midnight. This hints at a fairly good aim.
Have they been paying too much attention to some of the pronouncements of the more obviously ‘reasonableness challenged’ Imams?
Then one wonders, what about the people of New Orleans? I have no doubt many of those affected were devout Christians, would the Bishops suggest that it was another ‘soft target’ chosen because of the Administration in Washington DC. Again, given that Washington was effectively built on a swamp, one would have felt he could have managed something a little more direct, more obvious.
Or the people of the sate of Victoria in Australia. Droughts and now floods, what have they done?
All a bit too ‘Western’ maybe?
Then, as a random example, what had the Bangladeshis done to irritate, when 30 million of them were flooded out in July 2004’s monsoon? Wilfully being largely non-Christian perhaps?
No I don’t think that God uses the earth as his personal coconut shy. One suspects the explanation is more prosaic. Simply put - Shit happens.
He said that whilst this actually affected innocent victims the flooding was a result of Western civilisations decision to ignore biblical teachings. The Bishop of Liverpool and the Right Reverend Dow, also seem to feel we are reaping what we are sowing.
One wonders why they have such a low opinion of God that he could not manage to flood the Palace of Westminster, it being on fairly low ground, right by the Thames, or strike it with lightening maybe. Parliament would, after all, be the logical target - and the better clearer ‘message’, if it really were an act of God, rather than the overwrought imagination of the Bishop.
If I were actually inclined to believe God was small minded I would be more likely to believe it was a judgement on voting for Tony Blair, the man, who with such a cavalier attitude to the democratic process, signed the EU constitutional Treaty as his last act as PM.
Maybe, like the terrorists, the Bishop feels God prefers a ‘softer’ target like Sheffield.
Or do they perhaps feel God, like some maiden aunt at a church fete coconut shy, is not quite up to it - and accidentally gets the stall holder instead? Some may recall immediately after the installation of the rather ‘controversial’ clergyman the Rt Rev David Jenkins as Bishop of Durham in 1984, York Minster was severely damaged by lightening strikes around midnight. This hints at a fairly good aim.
Have they been paying too much attention to some of the pronouncements of the more obviously ‘reasonableness challenged’ Imams?
Then one wonders, what about the people of New Orleans? I have no doubt many of those affected were devout Christians, would the Bishops suggest that it was another ‘soft target’ chosen because of the Administration in Washington DC. Again, given that Washington was effectively built on a swamp, one would have felt he could have managed something a little more direct, more obvious.
Or the people of the sate of Victoria in Australia. Droughts and now floods, what have they done?
All a bit too ‘Western’ maybe?
Then, as a random example, what had the Bangladeshis done to irritate, when 30 million of them were flooded out in July 2004’s monsoon? Wilfully being largely non-Christian perhaps?
No I don’t think that God uses the earth as his personal coconut shy. One suspects the explanation is more prosaic. Simply put - Shit happens.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)