Calgary Muslim strangles daughter and serves no jail time

Posted on by
2

From the Calgary Herald:

CALGARY – The Calgary mother who killed her teenage daughter by strangling her with a scarf more than three years ago will not have to spend a day in jail, a judge ruled on Thursday.

But, in suspending the sentence of Aset Magomadova and placing her on probation for three years, Court of Queen’s Bench Justice Sal LoVecchio said the penalty can still meet the ends of justice.

“At first blush (a suspended sentence) may sound like a get out of jail free card. It is not,” emphasized the judge.

Let’s be clear: even though the teenager in question was a “disgrace” to her Muslim family, this was not an honour killing. Perish the thought. The murderer – sorry, disciplinarian – in question was sponsored by an Anglican church who praised the “compassion” of the judge:

Marilyn Millions, one of Magomadova’s sponsors with St. James Anglican Church, said outside court she was relieved “at the compassion and mercy that has been shown” by the court.

In case there are any doubts, the CBC emphasises that this was definitely not an honour killing, merely a spot of parental frustration:

While Aset told a health worker that Aminat was a disgrace to their Muslim family, the Crown does not say this was an honour killing — something intended to restore the family’s reputation.

“I see this just as any other parent very frustrated with a very troubled teenager except it went too far,” said Vomberg.

In 1998 Joe Cleary from Ontario spent 2 days in jail for spanking his 5 year-old; presumably he could have avoided the 2 days in the clink if he had strangled his son instead:

DURHAM, ON, Nov 17 (LSN) Joe Cleary a father in Durham Ontario was jailed for two days and his family put through a gruelling court ordeal which lasted months and cost thousands of dollars all because he used spanking to discipline his five year old child. Last month Sun Media columnist Michael Coren reported that Cleary punished his son for having repeatedly kicked the family cat after being told not to.

Why is diversity good?

Posted on by
1

Because it is has brought the squat toilet to parts of the West hitherto unsullied by its seat-less discomfort.

Add an Image

For centuries, the great British loo has been a matter of envy to the rest of the world.

Thanks to the efforts of pioneers like the legendary Thomas Crapper, we have long since led the world in comfort and hygiene.

Now, however, that could be about to change.

For most of us, the squat toilet is nothing more than a staple of horror stories about old-fashioned French service stations or the exploits of adventurous backpackers in far-flung parts of India.

But this basic form of plumbing, also known as a Turkish toilet or Nile pan, could be coming to a shopping centre near you – and all in the name of cultural sensitivity.

From next week, shoppers in Rochdale who push open the cubicle door expecting the reassuring sight of a modern, clean lavatory could instead be faced with little more than a hole in the ground.

Mike Bone, of the British Toilet Association, warned the washing facilities associated with squat toilets could pose a hygiene hazard.  ‘We really don’t see a need for them,’ he said. ‘Space for public toilets in places like shopping centres is already at a premium, and if this is meant to cater for Muslims we would point out that the vast majority use normal toilets in their own homes.’

Many years ago while cycling around Brittany I remember – after weeks of deprivation – the joy of luxuriating in the comfort of a hard-to-find proper Crapper toilet; primitive inconveniences have now made their way to the UK. Such is the march of progress.

Rowan Williams not worried about being a nuisance

Posted on by
1

To politicians, that is:

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, today questioned whether the public would be ready to accept years of austerity for the sake of repairing the economy.

And Dr Williams warned that it would be more difficult for politicians to demand sacrifice from the public if it appeared that the burden of austerity measures was not being borne equally by different parts of society.

In an interview conducted before this week’s General Synod in York, Dr Williams insisted he did not worry about “being a nuisance” to politicians.

Of course, you can only be an effective nuisance to people who are not ignoring you; since even the Church of England ignores Rowan, it is a little optimistic of him to think that politicians won’t.

His pronouncements on economics – of which he knows next to nothing – would appear rather more credible if his labours the Church of England – of which he should know at least something – were bearing fruit. They are not.

Perhaps he finds it easier to be a merchant of leftist egalitarian claptrap than to coherently preach the Gospel.

Baptists against Christianity

Posted on by
8

Who needs atheists when you have Baptists:

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty filed an amicus brief in the appeal of a case brought by two residents of Forsyth County, N.C., who filed suit in March 2007 against the county. The residents challenged the county’s practice of allowing sectarian government-sponsored prayers at county board of commissioners meetings under the First and Fourteenth amendments to the U.S. Constitution and sections of the North Carolina Constitution. They claimed the Board’s prayers advance Christianity and have the effect of affiliating the Board with it.

Women Bishops and the Church of England

Posted on by
5

At its synod, the Church of England voted not to allow a provision to grant alternative male oversight to clergy and parishes who believe a woman should not serve as a bishop.

I have always been ambivalent about the legitimacy of women bishops: I think there are good arguments on both sides. That being said, it seems to me inconsistent to allow women priests but disallow women bishops. So, although I have reservations, I find myself not completely averse to either women priests or bishops.

But is this really about women being called by God to serve as priests and bishops? I don’t think so: if it were we wouldn’t need a campaign:

Christina Rees, of Women and the Church, which campaigns in favour of women bishops, said: “We have already tried our best to keep everyone in [the church] and to increase the level of communion between those who hold different views on women’s ministry.

None of the recent battles at the CofE synod focussed much on God’s calling: the big thing is the battle for Equality – a secular notion that is the antithesis of Christian service, sacrifice, dying to self, humility, placing others high than oneself and carrying one’s cross. Not that I am much good at any of those things either – but then I’m not mounting a campaign to further their antipode.

One thing that rules out all these ladies for bishop is – they are too eager to become one: that should disqualify anyone.

Other than ambition, lust for power and vanity, I can’t imagine why anyone would want to be a bishop. I know of very few bishops who are sufficiently unpretentious to be taken at all seriously: better to become a barmaid, they occasionally make sense.

Kingsley Amis, in his Advice to a Writer, restores proportion to the office of bishop and archbishop. Ladies, take note.  It even has a Canadian ending:

That time you heard the archbishop fart
You did quite right to say.
And should the ploughboy turn up gold
The news would make our day.
But when the ploughboy farts henceforth
Forget about it, eh?

A letter to Bishop Colin Johnson from a parishioner concerned about diocesan participation in the Toronto Pride Parade

Posted on by
1

The letter:

Dear Bishop,

I am writing as a concerned Anglican who would like to bring to your attention a float that was present at this past Sunday’s Gay Pride Parade, a painted up double-decker bus with a banner from end to end which read PROUD ANGLICANS and which featured a great number of people semi-attired waving the gay flag about. To see this float for yourself, assuming you weren’t in attendance, please visit the youtube posting at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOnefx4zg8A&

First of all, I would like to know if this float met with Diocesan approval, and if so, why? I am aware that our church is struggling with the issue of the blessings of same sex marriage and the consecrating of gay and lesbian bishops and that a lot of people within the church are struggling in earnest with these questions. But I would suggest that most would have no problems with their reservations on either issue after seeing this display of licensed exhibitionism and decadence and I for one would like to both see and hear the Bishop of my Diocese stand up and say so publicly in order to protect the church from further embarrassment.

Secondly, I have noticed since my return from Prague, Czech Republic, (where I have spent the last 15 years) that a lot of Anglican Churches in the Toronto Diocese have the gay rainbow insignia either on their church doors or sign fronts. I would like to know if this practice too has met with Diocesan approval and the reasons, if so, why? Surely the only insignia or iconography that belongs on either a church door or sign front should be that of the particular Saint to which the church is dedicated?

From my year back in Canada I am very disappointed at all of this, and after what I witnessed this weekend my fear is that the Anglican Church is preoccupied with sharing the gospel of Church Street and not with the gospel of the Church.

Respectfully,
John McKillop

Bishop Colin’s response:

Dear John,

The focus for the diocese of Toronto is building Christian communities of hope and compassion through healthy, vibrant and life-giving congregations.  We believe that the good news of Jesus Christ is at the heart of that.  We are fully engaged in being a missional church, strengthening both the traditional ways of being church that have nurtured countless people through the centuries as well as seeking to respond where God’s Spirit is leading us in mission to those who are not in church in creative new ways.  At Synod last year, we recognised that our focus needs to be missional, and that while issues of sexuality were important, they were secondary.  We agreed by consensus that issues of same sex blessings, etc. were better dealt with pastorally than legislatively.  The diocese of Toronto is a richly diverse body representing the wide spectrum of theological, spiritual and liturgical expressions that lie within the Anglican tradition.  Some people are more intensely engaged in the sexuality issues (on the many sides of the discussion) than others or than I am.  I can think of other things that offend me more.  I said in my sermon at my installation that I wish all of us would expend as much energy on alleviating poverty and injustice as fighting about sex.

In answer to some of your comments: the float (which I did not see and to which your link did not connect me – although my children attended the Pride parade) was not diocesan sponsored, and I have no comment to make about it; the official policy of the Anglican Church is that all people, regardless of their sexual orientation, are welcome; those parishes which choose to use the rainbow on the sign to signify they are specifically gay-friendly can do so by their own decision processes – I could not dictate otherwise in any case, even of I were so inclined.

Welcome home from Prague.  I’m looking forward to my first visit there this summer.

The Most Rev’d Colin R. Johnson,

Archbishop of Toronto
and Metropolitan of Ontario
Anglican Diocese of Toronto
135 Adelaide St., E.,
Toronto, ON  Canada  M5C 1L8

Diocese of Ottawa ordains another homosexual priest

Posted on by
1

Lest any doubt remains about the direction of the Anglican Church of Canada, here (page 4) is one of the newly ordained priests in the diocese of Ottawa along with his “spouse”:

“Both of you bring so much to the priesthood, so much to this evening – your own histories,” said Gary in his opening remarks. Both men had responded long ago to Jesus’s call to “follow me” and lived lives of faithful discipleship for many years, he said. “And then came a new call, ‘I’d like you to be a priest in the Anglican Church.’” Gary expressed gratitude to Ross and Robert, both middle-aged, saying “Thank you for saying yes to God’s call. Thank God for calling both of you.”

Ross came to the Anglican Church after serving for 13 years as a member of the clergy in the Free Methodist Church. He has been active with Integrity Ottawa, a gathering of gay men, lesbians, and straight friends, and is married to Albert Klein, who was one of his presenters at his ordination, along with the Rev. Dr. Linda Privitera and Barbara Robertson.

The ersatz-pious waffling of Fred Hiltz and others on “sexuality discernment” at general synod is a mere distraction, a decoy to the real business at hand. Actively homosexual priests will continue to be ordained; same-sex blessings will be permitted in any diocese that is willing; papers on the theoretical legitimacy of same-sex marriage will be existentially overshadowed by common practice; marriage has been redefined; sodomy is Anglican; get used to it; have a nice day.

Diocese of Montreal: whatever you do, don’t repeat the marriage vows

Posted on by
1

The Diocese of Montreal has a “Protocol for Use” of the rite for the blessing of Civil Marriage. All of which is a euphemism for blessing same-sex unions. You can read the “Protocols” on page 2 here:

‘The marriage vows should not be repeated’
There is an intimate relationship between the vows of marriage and prayers of blessing which may follow them, even when there is a considerable interval of time between the two events.

Nothing that is done in the blessing of a civil marriage should reflect negatively on the original exchange of vows. The blessing of a civil marriage is not a second marriage. The marriage vows should not be repeated.

It is pretty clear that the intent is to ratify in a Christian – or at least Anglican – setting the sexual union of same-sex partners. That liberals in the Anglican Church would like to actually marry same-sex couples is beyond doubt. They must think the timing is not quite right: that the average Montreal Anglican is not quite “ready”; that to do so would finally push parishioners over the edge; that conservatives haven’t quite all left yet. Thus, for the moment,  we have “Protocols of Use”.

So whatever you do, don’t repeat the marriage vows. I did once, but I think I got away with it; yes, this is a farce.

Stoning women in Iran

Posted on by
1

You would think that the left, women’s groups, KAIROS, the United Church, the Anglican Church, primates, archbishops, bishops, clergy and other assorted social justice merchants would have at least something to say about this. If only to temporarily divert attention from away their obsession with homo-eroticism, global warming and compulsory wealth redistribution. But no.

Church of England synod votes against women bishops amendment

Posted on by
Reply

The amendment would have allowed clergy who do not recognise the validity of women bishops to seek alternative oversight from a male bishop.

From the Church Times:

General Synod votes against Archbishops’ amendment
10/07/2010 17:15:00

The latest (5.15pm) from General Synod meeting in York: Synod has voted against the amendment proposed by the Archbishops of Canterbury and York that would have allowed for “co-ordinate jurisdiction” for those opposed to women bishops.

The vote was narrowly lost in the House of Clergy. The numbers:

Bishops: 25 for 15 against 0 abstain
Clergy: 85 for 90 against 5 abstain
Laity: 106 for 86 against 4 abstain

As a whole, more Synod members were in favour – 216 to 191.

For conservatives who can’t accept women bishops – and who would like the Church of England to remain intact – this is bad news.

For Rowan Williams this is bad news: it is another example of his failed leadership.

For those – like me – who think  liberal and conservative versions of Christianity are actually two different religions and that, because of this,  a split is inevitable, this could be good news: why delay the inevitable?

For the average non-Anglican it is not news at all.

Interestingly, it was the clergy who defeated this motion, not the laity (too much common sense?) or bishops (too politically astute?).