New police guidelines on how to arrest a witch

Posted on by
1

In summary, if you don’t want to be incarcerated in a re-education camp by the diversity Gestapo, don’t. Arrest a Christian instead.

From here:

Usually, police officers take a pretty dim view if they stumble upon anyone who is blindfolded, naked and tied by their hands.

But tonight is Halloween and the boys in blue have been told not to throw the spellbook at gaudy-painted witches and their rituals.

Officers have been given a 300-page ‘diversity handbook’ with a list of dos and don’ts when approaching  followers of a range of religions from atheism to Zoroastrianism.

The guidance includes a ban on touching a witch’s Book Of Shadows which contains their spells and handling their ceremonial dagger.

And the online handbook advises officers not to jump to conclusions if  they come across a bizarre pagan ritual.

It says: ‘Some ceremonies include a blindfolded , naked participant whose hands may be bound. This is in accordance with ritual and has the full consent of the participant.’

Here’s one such willing participant in pagan revelries pictured before the blindfold and handcuffs come out:

Anglican concupiscence vs. The Covenant

Posted on by
Reply

The Anglican Covenant has raised the ire of liberals because, they say, it will forbid “new developments” create an un-Anglican dogma, be too centralised and – this is my favourite – hinder “mission”.

Some of the whining is emanating from the Modern Church and some from the Inclusive Church and there is a full page advertisement denouncing it.

Without a change of heart within Western Anglicanism, the Covenant itself is not going to solve anything. For example, the Anglican Church of Canada has promised to study it for the next six years – if it is still around in six years; but no-one seriously believes that this is anything other than a tactic to delay its inevitable rejection in the hope that,by then,  most of the conservative opposition will have left for greener pastures.

The liberal fuss about the Covenant reminds me of the Bloomsbury Group who, for all their lofty ideals of re-inventing literature, politics, gender and aesthetics, simply wanted to subvert contemporary mores so that they could be free to copulate with anything that moved. And so it goes with the priestly protestations against the Covenant: it is really all about sex. Dogma should be subservient to sodomy – it’s as simple as that.

Anjem Choudary, the politically incorrect Muslim

Posted on by
Reply

In this interview Choudary claims that, while he isn’t quite stupid enough to personally attack the people whose taxes keep him in comfort, he supports overseas efforts to take revenge on the West for trying to promote civilisation in Iraq and Afghanistan. In other words he supports those in Yemen who posted the bombs to US synagogues.

Moreover, he claims that, no matter what a Western Muslim may tell CNN in public, he will, in private agree with Choudary. Imam – it’s a cultural centre, not a mosque – Feisal Abdul Rauf undoubtedly would like to shove Choudary’s skull cap down his throat: the question is, is that because Rauf had been rumbled?

UNESCO classifies Rachel's Tomb as a mosque

Posted on by
1

From here:

Government responds sharply to cultural body’s request that Israel remove Rachel’s Tomb and Cave of the Patriarchs from list of national heritage sites; Netanyahu calls decision “absurd.”

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu on Friday slammed world culture organization UNESCO’s decision to characterize the site of Rachel’s Tomb as a Muslim mosque.

“The attempt to separate the nation of Israel from its cultural heritage is absurd,” said the prime minister.

A statement issued by the Prime Minister’s Office read, “It is unfortunate that an organization that was established with the goal of promoting the cultural preservation of historical sites around the world, is attempting due to political reasons to uproot the connection between the nation of Israel and its cultural heritage.”

Whatever next?

Primate Fred Hiltz apologises to gays, lesbians and bisexuals

Posted on by
3

At a Eucharist to celebrate the 35th anniversary of Integrity, Fred Hiltz apologised to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered Anglicans for hurting them. He didn’t extend the apology to sadomasochist Anglicans for the obvious reason.

From here (Page 8):

AT a 35th anniversary celebration for Integrity, the organization for Anglican gays, lesbians and bisexuals, the primate, Archbishop Fred Hiltz, publicly apologized for the hurt the church had inflicted on gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people.

“I know many of you have suffered the consequences of homophobia in the church,” he said. “I know many of you have suffered subtle forms of persecution.” He acknowledged that lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered people have been labeled as disordered and unnatural, have suffered anxiety and depression and “have been pressured to hide the truth about what you are.”

He said, “I stand before you as one member of the church called by office to care for all members of the church.” He admitted the church had silenced them, refused to listen to them, and failed to see them as deeply committed to the church. Then, speaking slowly and emphatically, he said, “I am sorry for the many ways in the past, and maybe in the present, in which you have been hurt by the church. I am sorry.”

The Anglican view of a “just society”

Posted on by
10

Toronto Archbishop Colin Johnson ate out of a food bank for three days to make a point to the Ontario government. I’m not convinced he made much of a point other than that Archbishops have little better to do than indulge in temporary play-act poverty before returning to the comfort of their Pâté de Foie Gras, Chardonnay and lattes.

The point he wanted to make has nothing to do with Christianity: he thinks it is the government’s responsibility to create a “just” society by redistributing wealth through taxation. He is entitled to his opinions however wrong headed; what he is not entitled to do is dignify them with the stamp of approval of the church – even the Anglican Church.

From here (Page 4):

Foodbanks were created by churches and others to deal with the crisis of people in our province going hungry. That was a quarter of a century ago. It was meant to be a temporary relief, but it has tragically become an expanding social safety net. We should not rely on the generosity of a small percentage of folk to voluntarily provide food and labour, nor on the largesse of a few companies.

Poverty has an impact on the whole community. It is the responsibility of the whole community to deal with poverty through its government’s resources. The government can use its tax base to build a healthy, sustainable strategy to reduce poverty, a strategy where everyone contributes to the solution, not just a motivated few. That’s what a just society is about. In the Old Testament, we read about provisions for leaving the edges of the fields un-harvested so the poor could glean. It wasn’t about encouraging the generosity of an individual farmer; it was a societal injunction that was to govern a society’s responsibilities (Leviticus 19:9; repeated at 23:22; see also Ruth).

The passage from Leviticus is exactly what Johnson claims it isn’t: God’s instruction to individuals on their responsibility to help the poor. It has nothing to do with God giving tax advice to governments.

No Amnesty for the unborn

Posted on by
Reply

Another reason for not supporting the increasingly unhinged Amnesty International.

From here:

Lima, Peru, Oct 27, 2010 / 01:51 pm (CNA).- Amnesty International has announced it will give Peru’s ministry of health a petition signed by 11,000 people calling for the legalization of abortion.

The organization’s secretary general, Salil Shetty, will meet Oct. 27 with Peru’s vice minister of health, Zarela Solis Vasquez. Shetty plans to deliver the petition signed by abortion supporters from Peru as well as other countries.

Canadian Anglicans and Lutherans share problems

Posted on by
Reply

Other than their theology, that is.

From here:

Lutheran and Anglican bishops brainstorm solutions to common problems.

Canadian Lutheran churches appear to be faced with many of the same problems known to Canadian Anglicans.

Trying to find homosexuals to marry?

Well, yes, but also:

These include shrinking congregations and an increased interest in weekly eucharist.

What this really means is that many congregations are too small to warrant their own priest, so, if members of these “shrinking congregations” want a weekly eucharist, it may have to be a do-it-yourself job. Not that there’s much wrong with that – at least the sermons might make sense:

Speaking here at the Oct. 22-25 joint meeting of the Anglican House of Bishops and Lutheran Conference of Bishops, she added there has also been pressure to revive a practice of permitting lay people to preside at the sacrament, as some Lutheran churches did at one time.

A snooty response from the office of the Archbishop of Canterbury

Posted on by
Reply

Here is a letter to Rowan Williams followed by a condescending response from his office:

To Archbishop Rowan Williams:

RE: http://www.episcopal-life.org/81808_125254_ENG_HTM.htm

“Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams has deplored attempts by governments in Europe to prohibit Muslim women from publicly wearing the burqa, a garment that covers the entire body.

“Governments should have better things to do than ban the burqa,” Williams,the leader of the worldwide Anglican Communion, told an interfaith meeting organized by the National Council of Churches in India at its headquarters in Nagpur, during a visit to India.”

I find it mind boggling that you, Dr. Williams, have time to make pronouncements on the status of other religions when your own house is not in order. Rather than wading into the debates of others, you should successfully resolve your own problems rather than “indaba” them to death. As the chief churchman of the Church of England, you should be upholding Christian values, including the right of women to dress as they wish, not as their religious husbands order them to dress. Some customs in clothing represent the values our society wishes to maintain, and the rights of women are some of those hard fought values. Women got the vote only 100 years ago, and I would hate to see the Primus intra pares make women less equal than men in rights in the UK and anywhere else that Muslims seek to insert their sharia law into the lives of those who do not wish to live in the 7th century.

Dr. Williams, you are already on record as approving of some aspects of sharia law being used in the UK. I could not disagree with you more violently. You are undermining the rights of the Church of England, granted all the way back in 1215: “(1) FIRST, THAT WE [John] HAVE GRANTED TO GOD, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. . . . ” (Magna Carta). Muslims want a theocracy; sharia law is part of this desire. The mistreatment of women is also part of Islamic culture due to the Qu’ran and sharia law. If you grant equality to Islam re Christianity, do not think that Muslims will for one iota share your relativistic concept that we can all get along. Both religions make exclusive truth claims; therefore, one must be incorrect. That’s not politically correct, but then I’m not the Archbishop of Canterbury and I don’t make my living by being politically correct. I don’t think you should either. You should stand up for your own faith. Muslims don’t need any help standing up for theirs.

Personally, I don’t want my relatives in the UK to have to live as second class citizens in a Muslim controlled UK, because the way the birth rate is going, that is what is going to happen by sheer numbers unless legal guarantees are made and kept for religious freedom – freedom that does not discriminate against any women. And why is it that there are no-go zones even for Christian bishops in their own dioceses because Muslim citizens of the UK don’t want them there? Why have you not gone to bat for the Bishop of Manchester’s right to walk through his own city? Why did you allow that issue to just blow over, and thereby affirm a Muslim intrusion into the rights of Christian citizens of the UK?

You’re concerned about the coming civil war in the Sudan. Have you tackled the Christian / Muslim clash there? Have you spoken out about Christians murdered by Muslims in Nigeria? Have you spoken out about Muslim state sanctioned persecution of Christians in countries like the Yeman or Iran or …. Have you exposed for all to see what the Qu’ran actually says about how to treat those who are not of the Muslim faith? Do you really know how sharia law restricts women?

Don’t you have better things to do than suggest that men should be allowed to control “their women” by encouraging the use of the ultra religious, control symbol of the burqa? How is it that you are in favour of women bishops in the UK ( I assume you are since you allowed debate on this topic), yet support the maintenance of the downtrodden state of women who have Muslim husbands? I do not understand this apparent hypocrisy.

In Canada it is illegal to cover one’s face to hide one’s identity. This is for safety purposes. I assume the same is true of the UK. As a member of the House of Lords, as part of British institutions, you should be upholding those institutions, not helping to undermine them. You will lose the very freedoms you think you are upholding if you continue to waffle the way you do into such relativistic religious waters.

I was in South Africa in 1993, and visited the mosque in Durban when I was there. I was invited to meet Imam Ahmed Deedat, who was referred to as a “prophet,” although I thought that rather odd. This man attacked me as the “devil incarnate,” as a “racist” because I was white, and as a victim of delusions because the bible was full of lies. In the head office there were piles of posters ready to be dispersed proclaiming the forthcoming “MUSLIM DESERT STORM OF GREAT BRITAIN. You’re in the middle of this “Desert Storm.” Ahmed Deedat told me that if Jesus had wanted to prove he was risen from the dead and was the son of God, he would have appeared to a man first, not a woman. I assume you do not wish to align yourself with such misguided ignorance.

thank you,

Here is the reply:

Thank you for your email to Archbishop Rowan’s website.

I think that it is a mistaken understanding of Christianity to suggest as you seem to, that upholding Christian values is incompatible with engaging with issues arising from the presence of communities of other faiths in this country and internationally.

Issues of religious conscience in the face of State legislation have always been important matters for Christians whether they affect our own community or others. Indeed the basis of individual freedoms under God is rooted in our understanding of the nature of God and God’s relationship with human beings.

The particular issue that the Archbishop was referring to was whether there should be legislation banning the wearing of the niqab or burqa in Britain as in some other European nations. This is a different matter than whether it is desirable for this face covering to be worn. Whilst one may well consider this – and indeed some other forms of clothing to be undesirable for socialisation and integration – there is no tradition of legislation on these matters in this country and nor should there be. The niqab is not religiously required and is a matter of culture and custom and should remain a matter of personal decision.

May I correct your comment about the Archbishop as being on record as ‘approving of some aspects of sharia law being applied in the UK.’ This is not the case. If you are referring to his lecture at the Royal Courts of Justice some years ago, you will see from his text that he was defending the cause of religious conscience against recent legislative trends in this country.

You refer to a number of other matters and I regret having to say that you appear to be substantially misinformed perhaps because you have relied on newspaper headlines.

The Archbishop is one of the foremost and respected amongst those who proclaim the gospel both in this country and internationally, including giving a series of addresses on Christian doctrines to Muslim audiences in Pakistan, Egypt and Libya.

Finally you refer rather slightingly to the Archbishop’s role in Sudan and Nigeria. In relation to the former the Archbishop has not only been in Sudan to support the Church there, but has raised the issues directly in Parliament and with Ministers. In relation to Nigeria, he frequently is in touch personally with the Christian leadership and in recent months has sent a delegation in the aftermath of the violence in Jos.

I hope that you may be led by my comments to take a more informed and charitable view.

Yours sincerely,

Canon Guy Wilkinson
Archbishop of Canterbury’s Secretary for Inter Religious Affairs