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 Religion. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Religion. Show all posts
Tuesday, 17 February 2015
Friday, 16 January 2015
Yo Momma...
Pope Francis is “pontificating” over the Paris
Massacres in Sri Lanka on a trip that focused on “inclusion” and “Harmony”
between religions.
Pontificating - That’s what Popes do you’ll be thinking, practically part of the job description.
Many Nazies apparently sincerely believed in racial superiority, a master race. Would anyone now suggest that belief should not be questioned, possibly made fun of?
Pontificating - That’s what Popes do you’ll be thinking, practically part of the job description.
No one is saying he is not a nice, well meaning man. That is
what he ought to be and history might have been less bloody if some of his predecessors
were more like him in that. On the other hand maybe not, who knows.
Specifically he has been commenting on the Charlie Hebdo
aspect of the apparently religiously motivated Paris murders/killings.
Presumably the massacre of Jews, simply because they are Jews does not quite fit within his homily. Those murdered French people – blameless Parisians who also happened to be of the Jewish faith - "move along, no insults to see here folks".
Presumably the massacre of Jews, simply because they are Jews does not quite fit within his homily. Those murdered French people – blameless Parisians who also happened to be of the Jewish faith - "move along, no insults to see here folks".
He seems to simply sign up without question to the Islamicist argument that
any depiction of Mohammed at all is an insult to Islam. If it is actually in
bad taste or an insult seems to be irrelevant.
Pope Francis suggests that some sort of physical and violent
action (a bloody nose) is actually somehow appropriate to a perceived insult as
long as it falls short of an actually fatal response
He goes on to say that; “One cannot provoke, one cannot insult
other people’s faith, one cannot make fun of faith.”
One question that immediately arises is - why? Why one can’t point out the inherent
illogicality and ridiculousness of some aspects of a faith or belief, or mutual contradictions, or two faced practitioners, or moral contradictions – Exactly?
What, dare I ask, makes belief based on some aspect of
religion - no matter how sincerely held so… for want of a better word.. sacred?
No one would
reasonably expect similar preference and deference to politically based beliefs
- except perhaps the apparent British devotion to it’s National Health Service :-)
Many Nazies apparently sincerely believed in racial superiority, a master race. Would anyone now suggest that belief should not be questioned, possibly made fun of?
It seems to me that Pope Francis is skating dangerously
close to saying that a physically violent response to a perceived insult -
intended or not - to a person’s religion is acceptable. He just feels that actually
killing people is too extreme. Conceding that, “To kill in the name of God is an
aberration.”.
It seems to me that an all powerful and omnipotent being who
created the cosmos would be able to take note of… and casually mention at some later accounting
if he/she felt any behaviour - was “inappropriate”, that they would not be even a tiny
bit insecure or thin skinned. Further that a person truly convinced of their own
faith ought to view any so-called insult as pathetically risible and beneath their
notice.
Maybe the Holy Father should Google “Yo Momma” before he
punches anyone out. An art form all on its own - Just sayin man…
Notice: this is in no way intended to the Pope's Mother, any parent of any senior religious figure, any person living or dead. Any resemblance is coincidental and it is intended simply as an example of the art form.
~
Yo mama so poor I saw her holding a penny and I asked "Whatcha
doing with that?" and she said "What’s it look like dummy? Taking my life savings to the bank!"
Tuesday, 3 June 2008
Just how useless are 'community support officers'?
Community Support Officers appear to be New-Labour’s cheap response to what had been the public’s demand for more police officers on the street. There may well even still be a demand, despite the police apparently targeting ordinary citizens and trivial effectively non-crimes in order to boost government targets.
These ‘Community’ (don’t you just hate this newspeak) Support Officers are a kind of pretend police officer, presumably intended to fool the public into believing there are actually police officers on the street. Well police officers used to be taught how to swim and use life saving techniques, they used to be taught CPR and first aid. They may still be, but not it seems these Community Support officers. Their Idea of supporting the community would appear to be to leave a child to drown .
Now it seems they are employing suppressors of free speech who might be interpreted as verging on the edge of being racists. Nothing new there then some of the more jaded and cynical amongst you may think. But it is. The reason police in the UK have been so successful until successive governments have begun to politicise and micro manage them was precisely because they were not. Because they were largely fair, even despite the natural tendency towards preconceived ideas we are all so often prone to - also they had and were allowed to use their discretion.
The question is why did West Midlands Police not suspend and hopefully sack this particular Community Support Officer? His behaviour went beyond the pale.
If the police are in the business of suppressing religion then surely they should be more even handed and suppress them all, or is it only some.
If it is ok for them to hate certain nationalities and treat them differently to others then maybe we need to come up with some alternative.
Or display a clear antipathy towards certain political parties, in this case the Republicans. Maybe the Conservatives and Liberals had better watch their backs.
West Midlands Police refused to apologise and fobbed off enquiries claiming the incident had been "fully investigated" They are going to offer training in understanding hate crime and communication. One fears it actually calls for a little more than that. Surely if investigated the way New Labour seem to prefer the PCSP’s behaviour could generate a number of ‘detections’ for them.
Depends on how you interpret the words "You have been warned. If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned". In light of the whole incident.
These ‘Community’ (don’t you just hate this newspeak) Support Officers are a kind of pretend police officer, presumably intended to fool the public into believing there are actually police officers on the street. Well police officers used to be taught how to swim and use life saving techniques, they used to be taught CPR and first aid. They may still be, but not it seems these Community Support officers. Their Idea of supporting the community would appear to be to leave a child to drown .
Now it seems they are employing suppressors of free speech who might be interpreted as verging on the edge of being racists. Nothing new there then some of the more jaded and cynical amongst you may think. But it is. The reason police in the UK have been so successful until successive governments have begun to politicise and micro manage them was precisely because they were not. Because they were largely fair, even despite the natural tendency towards preconceived ideas we are all so often prone to - also they had and were allowed to use their discretion.
The question is why did West Midlands Police not suspend and hopefully sack this particular Community Support Officer? His behaviour went beyond the pale.
If the police are in the business of suppressing religion then surely they should be more even handed and suppress them all, or is it only some.
If it is ok for them to hate certain nationalities and treat them differently to others then maybe we need to come up with some alternative.
Or display a clear antipathy towards certain political parties, in this case the Republicans. Maybe the Conservatives and Liberals had better watch their backs.
West Midlands Police refused to apologise and fobbed off enquiries claiming the incident had been "fully investigated" They are going to offer training in understanding hate crime and communication. One fears it actually calls for a little more than that. Surely if investigated the way New Labour seem to prefer the PCSP’s behaviour could generate a number of ‘detections’ for them.
Depends on how you interpret the words "You have been warned. If you come back here and get beaten up, well you have been warned". In light of the whole incident.
Thursday, 17 April 2008
Mental health connection to girls ethnic clothing
A new study by Queen Mary University of London has raised some interesting questions. It suggests that in the UK Bangladeshi girls who wear ‘traditional’ clothes suffer from fewer behavioural and emotional problems than ones who wear more mainstream clothes.
This apparently only applies to females and nothing equivalent could be seen in the mainstream community.
It is extremely doubtful that the actual clothes make any the difference, and the report does not claim it does. There is likely to be some indirect link.
One of the authors of the study, Professor Kam Bhui, , felt the result was "surprising", having expected the reverse. He conjectured the reason could be:
"Traditional clothing represents a tighter family unit, and this may offer some protection against some of the pressures that young people face.
"What it suggests is that we need to assist people who are moving from traditional cultures and becoming integrated into Western societies, as they may be more vulnerable to mental health problems."
One wonders if it has occurred to the reports authors that yes traditional clothing does indeed indicate a tighter less integrated family with more ‘traditional’ attitudes towards females and all that that implies.
Bangladeshi girls that don’t resist this come under less pressure from their families. They are often resident in effectively ghettoised areas, where this is the prevailing attitude and may well attend schools containing a significant number of girls from similar backgrounds.
Girls from traditional families under these circumstances that choose to step outside the somewhat narrow confines of this, to embrace a more mainstream ‘western’ lifestyle are surely more likely to come under increased pressure from the family, face the possibility of disapproval, loosing family support in some cases - and in some extreme cases even the possible threat of honour killing.
These factors are bound to undermine their equilibrium.
A comparison with girls of more mainstream integrated Indian decent might prove instructive.
This apparently only applies to females and nothing equivalent could be seen in the mainstream community.
It is extremely doubtful that the actual clothes make any the difference, and the report does not claim it does. There is likely to be some indirect link.
One of the authors of the study, Professor Kam Bhui, , felt the result was "surprising", having expected the reverse. He conjectured the reason could be:
"Traditional clothing represents a tighter family unit, and this may offer some protection against some of the pressures that young people face.
"What it suggests is that we need to assist people who are moving from traditional cultures and becoming integrated into Western societies, as they may be more vulnerable to mental health problems."
One wonders if it has occurred to the reports authors that yes traditional clothing does indeed indicate a tighter less integrated family with more ‘traditional’ attitudes towards females and all that that implies.
Bangladeshi girls that don’t resist this come under less pressure from their families. They are often resident in effectively ghettoised areas, where this is the prevailing attitude and may well attend schools containing a significant number of girls from similar backgrounds.
Girls from traditional families under these circumstances that choose to step outside the somewhat narrow confines of this, to embrace a more mainstream ‘western’ lifestyle are surely more likely to come under increased pressure from the family, face the possibility of disapproval, loosing family support in some cases - and in some extreme cases even the possible threat of honour killing.
These factors are bound to undermine their equilibrium.
A comparison with girls of more mainstream integrated Indian decent might prove instructive.
Thursday, 20 March 2008
More threats, allegedly from bin Laden.
A video has been released purportedly from bin Laden. Purportedly, because graphics and computers have come a long way.
For the moment lets go with the idea it really was him though. He is apparently comparing Danish cartoons of Mohamed to the crusades - one is tempted to intemperate language here...
From this one might be forgiven for assuming he is so disconnected from reality that he is incapable of distinguishing the difference between marks on paper and an actual physical conflict, where real people get really injured and killed.
It seems he even blames the Pope - given that only 3% of the population of Denmark is Roman Catholic this is a bit disingenuous, even for bin Laden. Either that, or he is simply displaying contemptuous ignorance; “All you Dhimmies look the same to me”. Given that he visited Europe to sample the’ high life’ as a teen though, probably the former.
Two percent of the Danish population is Moslem, almost as big as the Roman Catholic influence; maybe he ought to commit suicide to get revenge (fingers crossed).
By extension he blames all of Europe, clearly he has problems with rational categorisation.
He nebulously ‘threatens’ a “reckoning”. This of course allows him to claim credit for almost anything at all, as the likes of his organisation have to take what targets they can get.
The weakest targets that no decent human being would consider, even then they need to launch many plots for one to succeed. Still as the IRA once famously observed of the British Government: “You have to be ‘lucky’ all the time, we only need to be ‘lucky’ once”.
Going down this route means they have to be able to justify killing innocent people. They seem to do this by claiming they are not innocent on religious grounds. So that makes it all right then. They don’t seem to consider that they may equally well be bound for eternal damnation, viewed by other religious grounds.
The thing to remember is that you are more likely to be killed, or injured, every time you get behind the wheel of a car. Yes it does happen and if it is you personally, or someone you know or love involved it will have a massive, in the former case possibly terminal, impact.
This risk and many other risks of daily life do not stop the majority of us carrying on with our lives as per normal and does not significantly alter our behaviour. Hopefully nor should the likes of these threats.
For the moment lets go with the idea it really was him though. He is apparently comparing Danish cartoons of Mohamed to the crusades - one is tempted to intemperate language here...
From this one might be forgiven for assuming he is so disconnected from reality that he is incapable of distinguishing the difference between marks on paper and an actual physical conflict, where real people get really injured and killed.
It seems he even blames the Pope - given that only 3% of the population of Denmark is Roman Catholic this is a bit disingenuous, even for bin Laden. Either that, or he is simply displaying contemptuous ignorance; “All you Dhimmies look the same to me”. Given that he visited Europe to sample the’ high life’ as a teen though, probably the former.
Two percent of the Danish population is Moslem, almost as big as the Roman Catholic influence; maybe he ought to commit suicide to get revenge (fingers crossed).
By extension he blames all of Europe, clearly he has problems with rational categorisation.
He nebulously ‘threatens’ a “reckoning”. This of course allows him to claim credit for almost anything at all, as the likes of his organisation have to take what targets they can get.
The weakest targets that no decent human being would consider, even then they need to launch many plots for one to succeed. Still as the IRA once famously observed of the British Government: “You have to be ‘lucky’ all the time, we only need to be ‘lucky’ once”.
Going down this route means they have to be able to justify killing innocent people. They seem to do this by claiming they are not innocent on religious grounds. So that makes it all right then. They don’t seem to consider that they may equally well be bound for eternal damnation, viewed by other religious grounds.
The thing to remember is that you are more likely to be killed, or injured, every time you get behind the wheel of a car. Yes it does happen and if it is you personally, or someone you know or love involved it will have a massive, in the former case possibly terminal, impact.
This risk and many other risks of daily life do not stop the majority of us carrying on with our lives as per normal and does not significantly alter our behaviour. Hopefully nor should the likes of these threats.
Monday, 18 February 2008
Definitely something to think about
Beaman’s World had an interesting post the other day.
It articulated something that I had trying to formulate more concretely myself:
Probably a majority of any group wishes to live in peace and quietly get on with their lives - but a majority that will not police their fanatic minorities is in fact irrelevant, when it comes to the activities of the fanatics and extremists - when it comes to how that group relates with and impacts on, the greater world.
If the majority do not oppose them then if anything they become part of the problem as they provide a form of legitimisation, and/or a medium for the fanatics to move and conceal themselves within and a resource.
There will always be fanatics, of every stripe. If they are not opposed the chances of their reaching a tipping point in numbers and momentum where they then effectively ‘own’ the rest and can do untold harm are greatly increased.
Possibly a concrete illustration of where the phrase: “If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem” fits well…
Go read the post.
It articulated something that I had trying to formulate more concretely myself:
Probably a majority of any group wishes to live in peace and quietly get on with their lives - but a majority that will not police their fanatic minorities is in fact irrelevant, when it comes to the activities of the fanatics and extremists - when it comes to how that group relates with and impacts on, the greater world.
If the majority do not oppose them then if anything they become part of the problem as they provide a form of legitimisation, and/or a medium for the fanatics to move and conceal themselves within and a resource.
There will always be fanatics, of every stripe. If they are not opposed the chances of their reaching a tipping point in numbers and momentum where they then effectively ‘own’ the rest and can do untold harm are greatly increased.
Possibly a concrete illustration of where the phrase: “If you are not part of the solution then you are part of the problem” fits well…
Go read the post.
Friday, 8 February 2008
Quote of the day
" With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."Steven Weinberg
Arch Bishop suggests adoption of aspects of Sharia Law in the UK
About now there must be quite a few people, especially in the corridors of power and possibly within the Anglican Church tuning over the phrase: “Will no one rid me of this turbulent priest?” in their minds - or possibly paraphrasing it and substituting turbulent for pestilential.
Not content to be presiding over the apparent disintegration of the Anglican Church the Arch Bishop of Canterbury Dr Williams has chosen to start stirring things up by unhelpfully suggesting the adoption of some of Sharia law in the UK appeared to be “unavoidable”, attracting criticism from across the (rather narrow these days) political spectrum.
Such comments can only put back the possibility of Moslem integration into British society.
He did raise some valid points in his speech, identifying problems - but his conclusions, solutions and ideas; betray him as misguided, weak and rather foolish.
If the law of the land does not apply equally and fairly for all then it is not the law of the land at all. Ghettos where different laws apply will just entrench the no-go areas the Bishop of Rochester, Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali spoke of.
Better we separate religion from the state formally and entirely.
Parliament should be the place the law is decided and it should be uniform - though unfortunately that is becoming less so, as more and more, actual power, is brazenly transferred to the EU, amid political denial.
It seems almost traditional now that Arch Bishops of Canterbury will say something controversial from time to time, possibly in an attempt to appear ‘relevant’.
But maybe it is time for this one to consider stepping down in favour of a more capable pair of hands – and who knows – converting ;-)
Not content to be presiding over the apparent disintegration of the Anglican Church the Arch Bishop of Canterbury Dr Williams has chosen to start stirring things up by unhelpfully suggesting the adoption of some of Sharia law in the UK appeared to be “unavoidable”, attracting criticism from across the (rather narrow these days) political spectrum.
Such comments can only put back the possibility of Moslem integration into British society.
He did raise some valid points in his speech, identifying problems - but his conclusions, solutions and ideas; betray him as misguided, weak and rather foolish.
If the law of the land does not apply equally and fairly for all then it is not the law of the land at all. Ghettos where different laws apply will just entrench the no-go areas the Bishop of Rochester, Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali spoke of.
Better we separate religion from the state formally and entirely.
Parliament should be the place the law is decided and it should be uniform - though unfortunately that is becoming less so, as more and more, actual power, is brazenly transferred to the EU, amid political denial.
It seems almost traditional now that Arch Bishops of Canterbury will say something controversial from time to time, possibly in an attempt to appear ‘relevant’.
But maybe it is time for this one to consider stepping down in favour of a more capable pair of hands – and who knows – converting ;-)
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.
Monday, 21 January 2008
Sharia Law comes to the UK
Delhi born Dr/Shaikh Suhaib Hasan has set himself up in his own little Sharia court in a converted corner shop in Leyton, North East London.At the moment this has all the legality of a TV show ‘court’ where participants are technically only bound in as far as they agree to be bound. Though it is perhaps much more than just that to a Moslem, embedded in largely exclusively Moslem community, who has no English.
Dr Hassan is the General Secretary of the Islamic Sharia Council and bills himself as a spokesman for the Muslim Council of Britain.
He is keen to share the benefits of Sharia Law, on an official and legal basis, with the rest of us. He is convinced it can turn the HK into a “haven of peace”.
In fact he, in a documentary, currently scheduled to be screened on Channel 4 next month, entitled ‘Divorce: Sharia Style’, Dr Hasan reveals ‘just where he is coming from’, as they say. He revealingly comments:
"Once, just only once, if an adulterer is stoned nobody is going to commit this crime at all.”
"We want to offer it [Sharia Law] to the British society. If they accept it, it is for their good and if they don't accept it they'll need more and more prisons."
I think the good Dr’s Freudian slip is showing here - As far as I am aware adultery is not a crime in the UK, there is certainly no penalty, apart from the possibility of divorce, for it.
I am sure he is correct in that the realistic prospect of being stoned to death would discourage it, against the law or not, that’ll do it for you most every time.
One wonders what else that the good Dr disproves of, that is not against the law we can consider stoning people to death for?
How the man can seriously suggest such a thing without realising it brands him as a fascist is beyond me.
The Muslim Council of Britain is usually held up by the ‘great and the good’, as an exemplar of ‘moderate’ Islamic opinion. This man is their Sharia spokesman.
If this is moderate it can only be so by comparison to something incomparably worse. If this is moderate maybe we need to redefine the meaning of ‘moderate’.
Oh! - Looks like we did already…
Monday, 3 December 2007
Thursday, 29 November 2007
Teacher charged in Sudan inciting hatred and insulting Islam over naming of Teddy Bear
Many of us will now be aware of the plight of Gillian Gibbons, a teacher fairly recently arrived in the Sudan, who is in trouble because she didn’t prevent a pupil of her’s named Mohammed naming a teddy bear after himself. It has been posted about quite a bit on the net.Teddy bears have a pretty positive image, so inciting hatred is difficult to see and if a president of the US did not find it insulting to have them generically named after him, then why should it be seen as an insult?
In any event, it was not Gillian Gibbons who named the Teddy.
Before this incident I had rightly, or wrongly, largely associated the place largely with the slaughter and beheading of General Charles Gordon, in Khartoum, by ‘mad’ Mahdi Mohammed Ahmed - Now I have something else to tuck into my mental ‘Sudan’ pigeonhole with that.
And before anyone says it - no I have not forgotten Darfur, or the Sudanese government’s semi official military arm the Janjaweed.
The Sudanese Embassy had previously claimed it was all "storm in a teacup" and she could be released soon, as the incident was based on a cultural misunderstanding.
It seems this is not the case and she has now been charged with insulting religion, inciting hatred and showing contempt for religious beliefs. This could result in a fine, prison, or 40 lashes. It’s just as well New Labour had the teeth pulled on a bill introducing similar legislation here - for the moment.
It is difficult to see what the Sudanese authorities are playing at, one presumes they are not actually trying to bring Mohammedism and Sharia Law into disrepute, or make the average Westerner more suspicious of their co-religionists, but they would have found it difficult to do a better job of it if they were.
Maybe they are hoping to use the affair as leverage...
Friday, 2 November 2007
Remember, remember, the Fifth of November...
“Remember, remember, the Fifth of November,
Gunpowder, Treason and Plot.
I know of no reason,
why Gunpowder Treason,
should ever be forgot…”
It is at this time of year that we, in the UK, celebrate ‘Guy Fawkes night’, November the 5th. Though more often at the weekends either side of it. In remembrance of a plot to blow up parliament in 1605.
It is said that that Fawkes was: "The only man to ever enter parliament with honourable intentions"
These days it sometimes seems we celebrate it, almost as much for the fact that someone actually had a go in the first place - as for the foiling of the attempt.
Guy Fawkes (13 April 1570 – 31 January 1606), b. 13 April 1570 in Stonegate, in the city of York and former centre of power of Richard III.
Christened 'Guye Fawxe and raised a Protestant Anglican he became a Roman Catholic at 16, possibly because his tutor at school was Roman Catholic possibly because his stepfather was.
He joined the army of Archduke Albert of Austria and went to fight alongside the armies of Catholic Spain, against the Protestant United Provinces in the Netherlands.
It around then that he took to calling himself Guido, the Spanish version of Guy. He served for many years as a soldier and in the process gained became an explosives expert.
A group of English Roman Catholics, lead by Robert Catesby, hatched a plot to blow up the Houses of Parliament, during the state opening when all the movers and shakers would be there.
The plan being, killing King James I of England and ending Protestant ascendancy by wiping out everyone crowded into parliament. They probably picked Fawkes, as much for his expertise with explosives, as his muscular devotion to Roman Catholicism.
James was a moderate for the time, criticising both fundamentalist Puritans and Catholics. So there was little assistance on offer from an over extended Spain.
The plan was due to be carried out on November the 5, 1605. Guy was looking after the explosives hidden in the cellars of Parliament in the early hours when he was caught red handed and arrested.
One of the plotters had let the cat out of the bag by warning William Parker, 4th Baron Monteagle, not to attend the sate opening. William Parker went to the authorities and that was the end of that.
Fawkes was made of pretty stern stuff and refused to reveal who his fellows were, even under torture – until they did the job for him. Realising it had all gone wrong they rather gave the game away by taking up arms against the authorities.
Fawkes was found guilty and executed.
The BBC ran a poll in 2002, to find out who the public thought were the ‘100 Greatest Britons of all time’. Guy came in at No 30…
Saturday, 8 September 2007
Creeping overtake of UK Mosques by fanatics
Worryingly, according to the Times over 600 of the mosques in the UK are now run by a Moslem sect known as the Deobandi. That is around half of them.
The Deobandi sect is an ‘ultra-conservative’ movement. The Taleban in Afghanistan originated from it - So they are not known for being ‘moderate’ then.
The sect, has managed to gain a significant foothold on the Muslim Council of Britain.
Now it seems a chap who goes by the name of Riyadh ul Haq is poised to become it’s leader in the UK. He makes the BNP look like a bunch of particularly wet Polly Toynbee wannabes, by comparison.
He is fanatically against what he sees as ‘western’ values and has openly called upon Muslims to “shed blood” for Allah.
He loathes any Muslims who admit to any commitment to being British, believing that any friendship with a Jew, or a Christian, is “a mockery of Allah’s religion”.
Clearly pretty ‘moderate’ then ;-)
By all reports he is not someone you would want to see in charge of rounding up shopping trolleys, let alone armed with ‘spiritual’ authority, pouring his hatred into the unwary and volatile.
It seems he wasprogrammed educated and trained at an Islamic seminary in the UK. So the Governments talk of wanting ‘home grown’ imams does not look, on reflection, like such a good idea after all, as things are.
Mr ul Haq is part of a whole new generation of UK Imams who share similar views and agendas.
It seems the Deobandis run Seventeen of Britain’s twenty six Islamic seminaries and are quiely churning out four, out of every five, of all UK trained Muslim clerics. In many cases blithely funded by local education authority grants.
Should we be concerned?
Just because they cloak their evil in religion does not make them any less sinister, any less dangerous or any less to be resisted than the black-shirts of the 20th century.
The Deobandi sect is an ‘ultra-conservative’ movement. The Taleban in Afghanistan originated from it - So they are not known for being ‘moderate’ then.
The sect, has managed to gain a significant foothold on the Muslim Council of Britain.
Now it seems a chap who goes by the name of Riyadh ul Haq is poised to become it’s leader in the UK. He makes the BNP look like a bunch of particularly wet Polly Toynbee wannabes, by comparison.
He is fanatically against what he sees as ‘western’ values and has openly called upon Muslims to “shed blood” for Allah.
He loathes any Muslims who admit to any commitment to being British, believing that any friendship with a Jew, or a Christian, is “a mockery of Allah’s religion”.
Clearly pretty ‘moderate’ then ;-)
By all reports he is not someone you would want to see in charge of rounding up shopping trolleys, let alone armed with ‘spiritual’ authority, pouring his hatred into the unwary and volatile.
It seems he was
Mr ul Haq is part of a whole new generation of UK Imams who share similar views and agendas.
It seems the Deobandis run Seventeen of Britain’s twenty six Islamic seminaries and are quiely churning out four, out of every five, of all UK trained Muslim clerics. In many cases blithely funded by local education authority grants.
Should we be concerned?
Just because they cloak their evil in religion does not make them any less sinister, any less dangerous or any less to be resisted than the black-shirts of the 20th century.
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.
Thursday, 14 June 2007
Vatican puts horse's head in amnesty's bed
Here is a complicated one. The Vatican is being seriously authoritarian. It is leaning heavily on Amnesty international where it hurts. It has suspended all financial aid to them and is ordering all Roman Catholics to stop donating to it as well.
Why? Over Amnesty’s position on abortion.
Amnesty's Deputy Secretary General, Kate Gilmore, told Reuters that Amnesty does not take any particular position over whether abortion is right, or wrong and it was not trying to push abortion as a universal right - but it did defend its position in support of allowing abortion, when a woman’s health is in danger, or her rights have been violated, particularly where rape, or incest, was involved.
"We are saying broadly that to criminalise women's management of their sexual reproductive right is the wrong answer"
Cardinal Renato Martino, said abortion was "murder", "And to justify it selectively, in the event of rape, that is to define an innocent child in the belly of its mother as an enemy, as 'something one can destroy',"
The Vatican’s cash is the Vatican’s cash. They can do with it what they will. Explaining their position to their flock and asking them to back them is ok, but they should not be using their authority to bend them to their will.
Certainly a woman owns her own body and has a right to determine what she does with it, including conceiving, no matter what the Roman Catholic Church says about contraception.
Sperm and unfertilised eggs are just that and no more. Even if every single act of sex led to a conception it would still be the case that only a tiny fraction of a percent of eggs and sperm would ever result in a human being.
Also many fertilised eggs never make it to term, through entirely natural causes they ‘self ‘abort for various reasons.
Now the position you take on abortion rather depends on, at what point you view a foetus as a human being, with the right to life and self determination.
Why? Over Amnesty’s position on abortion.
Amnesty's Deputy Secretary General, Kate Gilmore, told Reuters that Amnesty does not take any particular position over whether abortion is right, or wrong and it was not trying to push abortion as a universal right - but it did defend its position in support of allowing abortion, when a woman’s health is in danger, or her rights have been violated, particularly where rape, or incest, was involved.
"We are saying broadly that to criminalise women's management of their sexual reproductive right is the wrong answer"
Cardinal Renato Martino, said abortion was "murder", "And to justify it selectively, in the event of rape, that is to define an innocent child in the belly of its mother as an enemy, as 'something one can destroy',"
The Vatican’s cash is the Vatican’s cash. They can do with it what they will. Explaining their position to their flock and asking them to back them is ok, but they should not be using their authority to bend them to their will.
Certainly a woman owns her own body and has a right to determine what she does with it, including conceiving, no matter what the Roman Catholic Church says about contraception.
Sperm and unfertilised eggs are just that and no more. Even if every single act of sex led to a conception it would still be the case that only a tiny fraction of a percent of eggs and sperm would ever result in a human being.
Also many fertilised eggs never make it to term, through entirely natural causes they ‘self ‘abort for various reasons.
Now the position you take on abortion rather depends on, at what point you view a foetus as a human being, with the right to life and self determination.
Friday, 1 June 2007
Ayatollah O'Brian
It looks as if Scotland may have it’s very own McAyatollah.
Cardinal Keith O’Brian an ardent Scottish secessionist has now effectively threatened Catholic politicians who do not take an anti abortion stance with virtual excommunication .
He went on TV yesterday, emotively proclaiming all abortion to be murder, referring to it as the “slaughter of the innocents” and "an evil trade". Saying: "We are killing - in our country (Scotland) - the equivalent of a classroom of kids every single day. Can you imagine that? Two Dunblane massacres a day in our country going on and on - and when's it going to stop?"
He denied actually wanting to excommunicate pro-choice Catholic politicians, but did the next best thing warning: "They must consider their own consciences - and whether or not they can approach the altar to receive Holy Communion.".
One possible reason for his support for political secession may relate to the possibility of acquiring much greater power in the smaller political pond – divided they fall, so to speak.
Free speech is one thing and he is perfectly entitled to that – but this is clearly using his position to deliberately heavily pressure susceptible politicians into voting the way he wants, rather than for what they may think for the best.
He would probably be one of the first to complain if, say, the Queen, were to do something similar in relation to supporting the act of union, despite her being personally involved with it.
Cardinal Keith O’Brian an ardent Scottish secessionist has now effectively threatened Catholic politicians who do not take an anti abortion stance with virtual excommunication .
He went on TV yesterday, emotively proclaiming all abortion to be murder, referring to it as the “slaughter of the innocents” and "an evil trade". Saying: "We are killing - in our country (Scotland) - the equivalent of a classroom of kids every single day. Can you imagine that? Two Dunblane massacres a day in our country going on and on - and when's it going to stop?"
He denied actually wanting to excommunicate pro-choice Catholic politicians, but did the next best thing warning: "They must consider their own consciences - and whether or not they can approach the altar to receive Holy Communion.".
One possible reason for his support for political secession may relate to the possibility of acquiring much greater power in the smaller political pond – divided they fall, so to speak.
Free speech is one thing and he is perfectly entitled to that – but this is clearly using his position to deliberately heavily pressure susceptible politicians into voting the way he wants, rather than for what they may think for the best.
He would probably be one of the first to complain if, say, the Queen, were to do something similar in relation to supporting the act of union, despite her being personally involved with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
