A new "generous orthodoxy" for troubled times

There are some who are saying now that Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood" speech seems more than a little prescient. With Nick Griffin's sensational acquittal on race hate charges after he called Islam a "wicked, vicious faith", to the cancellation of the Gay Pride march in Israel, we do indeed seem to be living in perilous times. Aegis Trust are among those rightly condeming the verdict as wrong. We in Europe do have remarkably short memories of where racism lands us. Just take the unbelievable events in Germany, where police arrested 16 neo-Nazis after they disrupted a commemoration ceremony of Kristellnacht, just 24 hours after the German President warned at the dedication of the new Munich synagogue that anti-Semitism was still alive in Germany. Even the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, has been speaking openly of a "clash of civilisations", although he believes this is not between Islam and the West, or even between neo-Nazis and Judaism, but between the secular and the sacred. In his speech to the Newcastle Readers' Dinner, this former judge in Uganda seemed almost to advocate civil disobedience to churchgoers of Plymouth angered by the decision to scrap free parking on Sunday. He actually called for a corporate, robust but peaceful response, although sources indicated that this could include not paying parking fines.

The Archbishop does have reason for concern, as illustrated by a quick read of Richard Dawkins' enlightening "mission" statement on the front page of the Richard Dawkins Foundation website. While there is faith and belief in the world, this man is not going to give up. Barnabas Quotidianus has done a good analysis of much of these issues from the Baha'i perspective.

The Anglicans, getting used to the idea of their first woman primate in the US, really do need to stop looking inward and engage in the wider debate, as Sentamu is attempting to do. Even stories such as the latest, about an episcopal priest exposed in a gay wrestling scandal, should not divert them.

It was amid all these storms that the Archbishop of Canterbury's new Lent book, Power & Passion, by Dr Sam Wells, pictured above, came in. Dr Wells, who descibes himself as "generous orthodox", does not address the debate over sexuality in this book, but he has elsewhere. And his approach to that debate is similar to his beautifully written and inspirational approach to the lives of the main characters in the Passion story. I would not blame Rowan Williams one bit if he were looking to modern Christian ethics such as those of Dr Wells as a way forward for the Anglican Communion. His approach could be a way forward for the whole world, if anyone out there were prepared to listen or read.

Dr Wells, at St Mark's Newnham before going to the US, preached an interesting sermon on homosexuality at Cambridge in which he eloquently delineated the virtues and sins of the different approaches to the subject. In another inspiring book, God's Companions: Reimagining Christian Ethics, Dr Wells, married with two children, spells out the goodness of marriage and why this matters. But he is also "generous", although not to a fault, of those not called to heterosexual marriage for whatever reason. (Generous orthodox probably describes my own position today better than the more usual 'liberal catholic'.)

Drawing on an orthodox faith, Dr Wells focuses in his writings on the pastoral and the humane, which makes him non-exclusionist but still faithful. I truly believe that if the Anglican Communion were able as a body to take Dr Wells' approach on board, it might find a way out of its present difficulties. It would not surprise me to learn that this was one reason Dr Williams chose Dr Wells to write his Lent book. Pray that it be thoroughly read and meditated on by the Primates when they meet with Bishop Schori in Tanzania as Lent approaches next February. The result might surprise us all: an orthodox communion that is generous to all, even the most liberal, revisionist and radical.

Comments

[Christopher]

Very telling, Kate. My cousin who lives in Switzerland said that people there were very shocked when, instead of condemning his brother's statement that stoning a woman for adultery was acceptable, Tariq only said that he would ask for a moratorium on stoning. She said he was 'invited to leave'. I am not sure if she has got that right because he was born there, but Switzerland has different rules about nationality from the rest of Europe so it may be possible. There is a not-too supportive article about him at
http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/05/danger_tariq_ramadan_is_coming.html

"A few days ago, in an interview with French Magazine Le Point, Ramadan very subtly revealed his real beliefs. Hiding behind what the Muslims throughout the world think, Ramadan evoked what he called the 'interventions of New York, Bali or Madrid'. So, September 11 was not a terrorist attack, it was rather just an 'intervention.' Of course, nowhere in this interview did Ramadan condemn terrorism. "

The author adds:
"There are so many suspicions against this individual, that it would be wise to interrogate him regarding his multiple connections to terrorist organizations before letting him into the United States on a long—term visa. There is a danger in bringing Ramadan into our Muslim communities, because, with his smooth double language, he might succeed in radicalizing the Muslim community, while charming our naïve Left, as he did so successfully in France."

This was written by Olivier Guitta on 3 May 2004 and I think since then that Ramadan has been refused a visa for the USA where he was due to take up a post at the University of Notre Dame (James's son's university!). He certainly seemed to charm Humphrys during the conversation. The only thing was that Humphrys wouldn't accept his 'moratorium' on stoning as a sufficiently moral stance; he rightly insisted that it needs to be condemned as completely unacceptable throughout the world and muslims need to understand that it is not 'liberal weakness' to think that.

Is Madeleine Bunting a crypto-muslim, Kate?

[kate]

Christopher: "Tariq Ramadan talking with John Humphrys on the BBC ... says that he no longer thinks it appropriate for islamic states anywhere to enact corporal punishments, such as whipping and amputation, or the death penalty for 'sins' such as adultery and homosexuality. Stoning should never be done to anyone - anywhere."

I have posted on other threads regarding the danger of cultural relativism which is understood in contemporary western-speak as 'all cultures are equal'. This is not either the original concept of the term nor, demonstrably, is it accurate when dealing with the Muslim mindset.

Muslim/Arab cultures do not hesitate to speak with 'forked tongue' when dealing with the west because, as any arabist will explain) they regard western notions of diplomacy, equality, and liberty as a sign of weakness.

In a November 2003 interview with the Paris Arabic-language radio [Beur FM], Tariq Ramadan said: 'There is a reformist rationalist stream, and there is a Salafi stream that is trying to remain faithful to the foundations [of the religion]. I belong to the latter stream.'

However, during a February 2004 UNESCO conference, when French Muslim cleric Ghaleb bin Sheikh, who belongs to the reformist liberal stream, attacked him, he said: 'I am not a Salafi. A Salafi is someone who clings to the written word [harfi].'

Tariq Ramadan is completely opposed to this trend [liberal reformist] and sees it as treason and as apostasy in Islam [riddah]. He stresses that the text is eternal, but its interpretation is relative.

Equally, in the west, Tariq Ramadan says that he is not a 'member' of the Muslim Brotherhood. On the other hand, during Ramadan's 1998 visit to Cairo, the spiritual guide of the Muslim Brotherhood said: 'The activity of Tariq and of his brother Hani is faithful to the organization's ideas.'
http://memri.org (Inquiry and Analysis Series No.266)

Ramadan tailors his opinion to the listener and, has even issued a tape on how Muslims should deal with western media. His speeches in Arabic have (as MEMRI regularly reports) a different message.

In this he, and others of his persuasion, are assisted by 'opinion formers' within the British media. Note Sir Harold Evans (former editor Sunday Times), reported in the New York Sun:

"When I spoke at the Hay-on-Wye literary festival a couple of years back and criticized newspapers that headlined suicide bombers as martyrs, I was told by two angry leading intellectuals that I had lived too long in America.

Something similar happened at this year’s Hay-on-Wye festival, sponsored by the Guardian, where a five-person panel discussed ‘Are there are any limits to free speech?’

One of the Muslim panelists said if anyone offended his religion, he would strike him. A lawyer, Anthony Julius, responded that Jews had lived as minorities under two powerful hegemonies, Christian and Muslim, and had been obliged to learn how to deal nonviolently with offense caused to them by the sacred scriptures of both.

He started by referring to an anti-Semitic passage in the New Testament — which passed without comment. But when he began to list the passages in the Koran that denigrate Jews, describing them as monkeys and pigs, the panelists went ballistic.

One of them, Madeline Bunting of the Guardian, put her hand over the microphone and said words to the effect, ‘I am not going to sit here and listen to any criticisms of Muslims.’ She was cheered, and not one of the journalists in the audience from right or left uttered a word about free speech — not hate speech, mind you, but free speech of a moderate nature.

That free pass is extraordinary in light of the deaths in Britain, the conviction last week of a man plotting to blow up the London subways, and the public warning ... by the head of British intelligence, ... that 30 more plots were in the offing."

[Christopher]

Dear Abidah

Punishment of the criminal is one thing but it has to be humane. Of course the vast majority of muslims are law-abiding and peaceful citizens of whatever country they live in but what worries me and a lot of people is how certain things in holy texts, written down centuries ago can be taken to justify acts which we now see as barbarous. I heard Tariq Ramadan talking with John Humphrys on the BBC a couple weeks back say that he no longer thinks it appropriate for islamic states anywhere to enact corporal punishments, such as whipping and amputation, or the death penalty for 'sins' such as adultery and homosexuality. Stoning should never be done to anyone - anywhere. Amnesty International is against it and Professor Ramadan is also of the view that such punishments are not appropriate in the modern world, whether they are in the Qur'an or not. Good muslims everywhere should urge their governments not to inflict such punishments on any human being.

It doesn't matter if harsh punishments are not usually carried out. The fact that they are there means that at some stage they might be. It should be a condition of entry to the civilised world of nations that states remove such penalties from their laws. And I am not just thinking about islamic countries; I consider the American use of the dealth penalty insupportable in the modern world. It does not deter murder and mistakes are made in the execution of innocent people. I am glad that President Musharaf commuted the death sentence on the British man last week, despite the fact that a religious Shari'a Court had imposed it and the victim's family refused to accept blood money. The principle of blood money used to operate here in Anglo-saxon times - it was called wergild - but thank goodness victims' relatives no longer have an influence on sentencing.

[Christopher]

Dear Abidah

Punishment of the criminal is one thing but it has to be humane. Of course the vast majority of muslims are law-abiding and peaceful citizens of whatever country they live in but what worries me and a lot of people is how certain things in holy texts, written down centuries ago can be taken to justify acts which we now see as barbarous. I heard Tariq Ramadan talking with John Humphrys on the BBC a couple weeks back say that he no longer thinks it appropriate for islamic states anywhere to enact corporal punishments, such as whipping and amputation, or the death penalty for 'sins' such as adultery and homosexuality. Stoning should never be done to anyone - anywhere. Amnesty International is against it and Professor Ramadan is also of the view that such punishments are not appropriate in the modern world, whether they are in the Qur'an or not. Good muslims everywhere should urge their governments not to inflict such punishments on any human being.

It doesn't matter if harsh punishments are not usually carried out. The fact that they are there means that at some stage they might be. It should be a condition of entry to the civilised world of nations that states remove such penalties from their laws. And I am not just thinking about islamic countries; I consider the American use of the dealth penalty insupportable in the modern world. It does not deter murder and mistakes are made in the execution of innocent people. I am glad that President Musharaf commuted the death sentence on the British man last week, despite the fact that a religious Shari'a Court had imposed it and the victim's family refused to accept blood money. The principle of blood money used to operate here in Anglo-saxon times - it was called wergild - but thank goodness victims' relatives no longer have an influence on sentencing.

[Abidah Sawsan]

Thank you,Christopher. The majority of Muslims are peaceful and law abiding but some stray. Unfortunately they have to take the consequences. The law of the country in which they find themselves in must be obeyed. That ruling is in the Quaran. It is also accepted by "secular" governments. If there is sufficient deterent there is usually less motive to do the naughty deed. Also, "harsh" punishments are not always carried out; The cause and effect factor plays its part and leniency can be given. Laws are created by God and cannot be altered. I do not consider the west to be safe. There is so much crime!

[Christopher]

"Islam is not a cruel religion it is a very tolerant one."

Well Abidah, if it is then let muslims behave that way and give up supporting cruel and unusual punishments such as stoning or whipping for adultery and homosexuality or amputation for theft. It may not happen in the safety of the West but it does in islamic countries like Saudi Arabia or Northern Nigeria.

[Abidah Sawsan]

I am a Muslim lady and have just read the comments and article they relate to.
Islam is not a cruel religion it is a very tolerant one. It must be to let me in; I do everything wrong! The trick is to try one's best. There are many paths to God. Anti this and that seems foolish when we can focus on more positive stuff. For the Athiests amongst us, there are many paths to happiness and the most successful is tolerance as you are probably aware.

[Frank Schnittger]

I don't disagree with you john gregory Flinn - accept that only the CofE is "established" and thus technically the "Christian" education would be the Anglican one - which creates obvious difficulties for other Christians. Secondly, the National Curriculum could be extended to include "what else Faith Schools teach" particularly in relation to teaching the basics of all the major religions - can't see a Mullah teaching a very positive version of Christianity though!

There was also a controversy about including a reference to Europe's Christian heritage in the rejected European Union constitution. It all goes back to my question to Alistair - are we a Christian Secular society, an Atheistic one, or do we have to give "parity of esteem" to Islamic concepts of society and redefine ourselves as Multi-cultural/multi-religious with no official position on Religion whatsoever? Most people, I suspect would prefer the last option if it wasn’t for the fact that they fear the Islamic influence and if push comes to shove would prefer to go back to a Christian (albeit secular) definition if only as a means of Marginalising Islamic influences.

[john gregory Flinn]

".. - if the state supports Christian faith schools it must also support Islamic ones. The most it could do is impose a common curriculum."

Two fallacies there Frank.

Technically Britain is both a Christian State (The queen is head of both Church and State) and a secular one.
I think you said that!
(Of course you may be wrong there as well, but assuming you're not...)
Hence the State should support both Secular and Christian education. There is no obligation to support Islamic education, except through some (challengeable) devious or sophist interpretation of UDHR.

There is a common Curriculum, it's called The National Curriculum, and Ofsted regulate schools according to it.
What is at issue is what else Faith schools teach, and how do they treat their pupils. For example, it can (and surely will) be argued that making christian girls in Leicester wear a full hijab at school all the time breaches their existing human rights, as well as their ability to safely conduct Science and Food technology (cookery) practicals.

[alistair mcbay]

"Pity that some of those who signed it don't appear to be the real powers in the land."

So who are the real powers then Frank? The MCB, who didn't sign it? Now you mention it I am not sure I know or remember what the official CofE stance was, or the RC church. Must look it up.

" However if you are to make common cause with Christians, why do you spend so much time on this blog needling them?"

Not needling them, Frank, just trying to understand them, although some think you are disqualified from trying to understand if you don't believe, or even if you once did believe but have come to see the truth.....

[alistair mcbay]

Frank, are you a prophet?

Have a look at this, released today. A perfect example of secularism and Christianity making 'common cause' precisely as you suggested in order to counter fundamentalist...., er, Christianity, actually!

http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/newsarticleview.asp?article=2282

DfES answers anti-creationist call

"The British Humanist Association and the Christian think-tank Ekklesia have welcomed a statement from the DfES in answer to the two organisations’ call that they denounce materials sent to schools by the organisation ‘Truth in Science’ which encouraged schools to incorporate ‘intelligent design’ into school science.

The DfES has said that officials are ‘currently working with the QCA to find a suitable way of communicating to schools it is not part of the Science National Curriculum.’ The two organisations wrote to the DfES on 29th September to insist that the government rule out the teaching of non-scientific explanations of the origins of species in school science.

In addition, the Department distanced itself from the resources sent to schools, saying, ‘Neither the DfES nor the QCA have been involved in the development or distribution of the Truth in Science resource pack’.

Andrew Copson , BHA education officer, said: ‘Truth in Science claimed the support of the National Curriculum and then they claimed the acquiescence of the DfES – it’s now clear they were wrong on both counts.’

I wonder if "wrong on both counts" is a polite BHA euphamism for something to do with breaking one of the Commandments?

Now since the Times gave much coverage to the Truth in Science initiative, I wonder if it will give similar coverage to the DFES' rebuff?

Who's holding their breath?

[Frank Schnittger]

Good letter, Alistair. Pity that some of those who signed it don't appear to be the real powers in the land. However if you are to make common cause with Christians, why do you spend so much time on this blog needling them? Doesn't seem very politic to me. Or are you in the conversion business too?

I agree with your point about faith schools - if the state supports Christian faith schools it must also support Islamic ones. The most it could do is impose a common curriculum. On the other hand Britain could always go back to only supporting the Established Church. Can't see the RCs and Methodists etc, being too happy with that! Tory Governments would be supporting the CofE and labour ones the Methodists!

The only answer to this conundrum would be to insist that all Faith schools be private. Given the amount of Middle Eastern money available this might not stop the spread of Islamic schools either.

Re: segregating classrooms for anti-sectarian training for footballers it seems clear that you cannot have right-wingers and left wingers in the same class. Stoppers and Centre forwards would also hardly get on but those wishy washy midfielders would probably fit in anywhere.

[alistair mcbay]

Frank, I should also have added that at some point Christianity might have to make "common cause" with secularism to keep Islam at bay.

Faith schools are a case where Christianity has decided it won't give up its privilege, and so yields the quid pro quo that means Islam must have state-sponsored faith schools too.

As I have said before, you have to be very careful when playing "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" game and accept that uncomfortable choices may need to be made.

The faith schools thing has blown up again to day north of the border in the Herald - see http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/74634.html

We are also told today north of the border that EVERY footballer in the Scottish Premier League should be sent back to the classroom and given anti-sectarian training. This comes from a report commissioned by the Scottish Executive, and produced by Professor Bert Moorhouse. See http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/scotland.cfm?id=1701482006

Now, do you think we will go about this by first segregating footballers by the religion of their parents, and teaching them about anti-sectarianism in sectarian classrooms?

[john gregory Flinn]

Nick4693;
I largely endorse your comments about Islam, although I remain a convinced christian.
I try to apprise others similarly, ref; my posts on 'Islam under fire' and others. The biggest problem is that no-one in the UK/government/media seems to have any real concept of what life under Islam is like. And Sharia law is a quantum step worse.
Having spent some years working in Saudia Arabia, Sudan and Egypt I feel qualified to comment.

Sharia law may be 'de facto' already in parts of muslim Britain.
Reports from the strict muslim faith schools signify the children are being grounded in Sharia.
Unofficial Sharia courts are undoubtedly making decisions in certain muslim city/town ghettos about their own issues.
Halal meat is the preferred school menu through many Local Education Authorities in England.
Certainly Sharia is preached from the mosques, and demanded of the government by those 'nice gentlemen-zealots' of the MCB.
Thus, the balkanisation of British cities is well under way, and sooner or later a local Council will submit to an official (theocratic) Sharia Law.
'But that is local democracy', the western liberal will pronounce, except that democracy disappears under Islamic theocracy, and there is no going back - renouncing Sharia is tantamout to committing the sin of 'Apostasy', which of course is punishable by death.

There is little common knowledge nor indigenous experience of muslims and Islam in Britain. Unlike France for example, where the direct contact with their neighbours Algeria & Tunisia have taught them exactly how to handle their special pleading since it usually masks their deceitful stratagems.
Of course everyone knows the Pakistani or Indian who run the corner shops or Balti restaurants, but they are no longer representative of this new wave of Islamic immigrants.

Converting Britain to Islam is a particular target because of its relationship with the USA. Which is the ultimate goal of course. And Britain is seen as an easy target, especially susceptible to the sophistry of clever Islamic zealots.
The guilt complex associated with the colonial period in the Indian subcontinent imbues a tendency towards sympathy in those 'duffer's collectives' which parody effective public service.
Her very generous rules governing 'arranged marriages' are pretty well unique in Europe and provide a constant stream of mostly women, ignorant of the west, subservient to their menfolk and whose sole horizon is that of the third world village. Her extensive language and translation services for such immigrants are not common elsewhere.
Most of the Welfare, and Social Security systems are uninsured directly, and free at the point of use; which is also different to most other European systems and a tremendous magnet for the world's poor. Its reliance on declared means renders it easy to defraud.

There is a dangerous complacency extant in Britain today. Appeasement abounds as an advised advocacy. 'Embrace them with parity of esteem' is advice that I've no doubt New Labour are considering as a craven Chamberlainesque strategy for muslims; maybe a school, a road or a building or two can be named after the 7/7 martyrs!
And it does'nt take much imagination to guess where a nuclear armed submarine will be targeted once Britain's democracy submits to Islam.

[alistair mcbay]

"You may even have to make common causes with those awful Christians to keep Islam at bay, - if only to protect the secular freedoms you enjoy today."

Have done already, Frank, when we shared platforms with the EA, the CI and others to oppose the Incitement to Religious Hatred bill. Do keep up! A joint letter was published in the Telegraph on 31 January, signed by the NSS, BHA, Colin Hart of the Christian Institute, Don Horrocks of the Evangelical Alliance and - wait for it -
Dr Ghyasuddin Siddiqui, Muslim Parliament and Manzoor Moghal, Muslim Forum. Yes, Muslims against the incitement legislation too, but not the MCB of course who wanted it so badly.

It's worth repeating the text of that letter here:

Sir - We, as leaders of some of the main organisations representing the views of Christians, Muslims, secularists and humanists in this country, are calling on MPs to vote tonight to reject the Government’s proposals for a wide-ranging new offence of religious hatred and instead support the cross-party Conservative-Labour-Liberal Democrat amendments.

As people with strong views on religion, we know how easy it is to offend those with whom you disagree and how easy it is to resent what others say, and see insult in it.

But we also recognise that a free society must have the scope to debate, criticise, proselytise, insult and even to ridicule belief and religious practices in order to ensure that there is full scope - short of violence or inciting violence or other criminal offences - to tackle these issues.

The amendments that we hope will be supported will deliver the Government its election pledge of a new law, but one that would cover only threatening words or behaviour, would be restricted to intentional offences only and would have a clear statement in law that protects legitimate free expression.

Tonight’s vote is the last chance to protect this precious liberty that we all enjoy."

Of course, some organisations who signed the letter quickly forgot about their comimitment to the need for religion to be insulted and ridiculed, but let that pass!

[Frank Schnittger]

"Ah, but what sort of heretic to be, Frank - a Christian one or an Islamic one? Can I be both, do you think?" - Alistair

Be careful what you wish for Alistair!

I suspect Christian heretics get away with it rather more lightly than do Islamic heretics these days, and I also suspect you are less likely to enjoy your freedom to promote a secularist agend in a Christian rather than an Islamic society.

If all the theories about the Caliphate are to be believed - which I tend to view as rather alarmist - you may indeed be forced to choose one day. You may even have to make common causes with those awful Christians to keep Islam at bay, McBay - if only to protect the secular freedoms you enjoy today.

[alistair mcbay]

"So you accept you are a Christian secularist rather than an Islamic one, Alistair?"

Frank, I didn't know I had been asked to accept any descriptor! I must have missed something in your posts.

"if forced to choose you would prefer Britain to be Christian rather than Islamic?"

Why should I be "forced to choose" bewteen Chrisianity and Islam - is there another Inquisition in the offing? Islam apparently has Inquisitions too - see http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=22182.

Ah, but what sort of heretic to be, Frank - a Christian one or an Islamic one? Can I be both, do you think?

I'd much rather Britain was secular, of course!

[Frank Schnittger]

So you accept you are a Christian secularist rather than an Islamic one, Alistair? I.e. whilst you might prefer there to be no organised Religion at all, when push comes to shove, if forced to choose you would prefer Britain to be Christian rather than Islamic?

When Bishops become exercised with parking fees you can probably rest assured that the Second Coming is still some way off. Time enough to consider your options!

[alistair mcbay]

"Egypt is ruled by an Islamic regime but with a large Coptic Christian minority community."

Frank, have a look at this link:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/rt_egypt.htm

"About 94% of the population of Egypt are Muslim. The largest minority religious group are Coptic Christians - members of The Christian Coptic Orthodox Church of Egypt. The Copts are persecuted by radical Islamic groups, by the abusive practices of local police and security forces, and by discriminatory and restrictive Egyptian Government policies. The result is that while Coptic Christians are generally able to practice their faith, increasingly they do so in a climate of fear."

"The Egyptian government discriminates against the Copts and hampers their freedom of worship: it enforces onerous restrictions on building or repairing churches; applies religiously discriminatory laws and practices concerning family law, conversion, and education; restricts Copts from senior government, military, and educational positions; and subsidizes media which are used to attack Copts."

"The police at the local level frequently harass and sometimes even persecute Christians, particularly converts. In 1998, police detained up to 1200 Copts in the village of el-Kosheh. Many were tortured, beaten and subjected to electric shock. This is exacerbated by terrorist violence and the imposition of an extortionate jizya "tax" on thousands of Copts, primarily in Upper Egypt. According to the International Coptic Federation, the situation facing Copts in Egypt has worsened over the past three decades."

[Frank Schnittger]

And which Islamic regime would guarantee and protect Christians, I wonder? - Alistair

Egypt is ruled by an Islamic regime but with a large Coptic Christian minority community.

And did I not say pathetic?

[alistair mcbay]

"It guarantees and protects Alistair’s secularism – as no Islamic regime would. No need to be grateful"

And which Islamic regime would guarantee and protect Christians, I wonder?

And in reality, the truth is that the CofE is busy attacking secularism, one only has to read the twitterings of ++York to see that.

He really does like to opine, doesn't he?

[Simon]

Ekklesia are the people who want us all wearing White Poppies -> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6131464.stm

Its a profound misunderstanding of the whole idea of remembrance, of what the British Legion does, and of the symbolism of the red poppy itself.

I agreed with most of Giles Fraser's article (till near the end) - but writing for the Guardian, and being part of a think tank who thinks it important we move from white to red poppies (as a supposed move against political correctness!), is not a great example of intellectual Christianity!

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Giles' article which appeared in the Church Times nearly two weeks ago, possibly on a similar subject (haven't seen the Ekklesia one), was quite astonishingly factually inaccurate and is, I understand, being looked into.

[Christopher]

"However in a leader, after the teaching, I welcome, I need and desire, some guidance."

Fair enough, Rosemary, if the leader is giving expert adivice but I am rather wary of the guru-mentality myself. I think people-in-the-pews ought to to be treated with respect for the fact that (usually) they do have brains and may know more than the preacherman, who should be giving them the facts as far as we have them and drawing his message from those, rather than feeding them anodyne pap or some simplistic fundamentalist clap-trap.

That's why Giles Fraser is so good. His recent sermon 'Why Christianity is not a purity cult' -Nov 14, 2006 posted on Ekklesia is a good example of his brilliant analytic mind that revivifies the spiritual quest even for people who don't share his religious axioms.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/fraser/article_061114purity.shtml

[Frank Schnittger]

Ah but is Alistair a Christian secularist or an Islamic one? An Atheist, relativist, pantheist, or a believer in multiple secular Gods? A crypto Christian or an Egyptotheologian for that matter? What’s the point of a secularist attending a religious memorial service in any case? Let secularists worship their own gods by whatever means they choose. Is secularism diminished by some attending a Christian commemoration? Only if it considers itself to be a competing faith.

Technically Britain is both a Christian State (The queen is head of both Church and State) and a secular one - it is not ruled by the Priesthood. It is a multi-cultural one, but no part of the constitution is Islamic. If you want to live in a society where Islamic principles are enshrined in the constitution and reflected in official state occasions - move to an Islamic state. If you want to live in an entirely secular state, depose the Queen, or at least disestablish the CofE.

Pathetic though the CofE is in many ways, is suspect most Britons would prefer to see it established than given just “parity of esteem” with whatever Islamic or secularist faith you fancy. The Queen is still a focus of Natonal unity – in contradistinction to the EU, Islam, or whatever other foreign influences might apply. It used to be against Rome, then against Nazism, Communism – now perhaps against the anomie of a consumerist society. It guarantees and protects Alistair’s secularism – as no Islamic regime would. No need to be gratefull.

[Keith Downer]

Over the top as usual, Alistair, once you feel that your beloved secularism is under threat. I stand by my feeling that every year it is uplifting and reassuring to recognise the memorial service at the Cenotaph reflecting the Christian nature of this country - although not inclusively attended by Christians (which is also a welcome fact). If you think that view is expressed from a "deeply insulting, rude and arrogant " perspective then that is your opinion but I assure you than nothing further could be from my mind. Like so many things we cannot see eye-to-eye on, let's just add these to the list, and agree to disagree while remaining free to express our point of view.

[Simon]

Alistair

All this and more has happened in the last ten years with the Christians in charge - Blair, Brown and Opus Dei Kelly.

And you blame secularism for this rise in religious tensions? Don't make me laugh.

I didn't blame secularism for any of that. It seems to me most British PM's have been Christian - the only one I can think of right now who seemed to be a closet atheist was Anthony Eden - the most disastrous PM this country has ever had! New Earth Creationism being taught in schools, and radicalised Islam being welcome everywhere from prisons to schools, is actually a result of the ex-liberals at the Guardian and parts of the BBC etc who have embraced political correctness above the ideals that liberalism once stood for, such as women not being slaves to men, and people not being considered evil for their beliefs or sexual leanings etc. Do you really expect a government in a democratically run country to stand against such widely accepted, uncritically accepted and powerfully regurgitated nonsense ? Let alone people requiring the support of the militant politically correct elements of the Labour party ? And yet you blame Blair, Brown and kelly ??? Me thinks you may not be being objective about this...

You may be surprised but I actually believe in secularism. The ideal of secularism came from Christianity. What I have a problem with, and what I was referring to, is when secularism becomes a Weltanschauung in and of itself. Once the main thing we teach our children to believe in is themselves and what they can get from society, the consequences are inevitable.

[alistair mcbay]

"the Christian heritage of this country, similar to the reaction I had when watching the Service of Remembrance on Sunday in Whitehall. It was a Christian Service because, of course, we are a Christian nation and in these times when various people and groups are trying to confuse and disturb the religious life of our community, there was a sense of normality and stability to accompany what is primarily, a reflection on a very sad series of events in our history."

Keith, this demands a response on several levels.

First, you have absolutely no right to hijack remembrance of war dead as some sort of exclusive Christian ritual. Remembrance of war dead is not the unique preserve of Christianity, and it is deeply insulting, rude and arrogant for you to suggest otherwise - though perhaps not surprising. It is for all of us to remember in our own way, but please do not coflate that with it being an exclusively Christian occasion that happens to be televised in that context.

Just for information, I attended a remembrance service which was "Christian" in context. That part of it was utterly irrelevant - it was convenient for me to go to that one and the ONLY thing that was important was standing together with fellow human beings to remember people who had died fighting for freedom from oppression.

Second, this is no longer a Christian nation. For one thing, the Church of Scotland admitted in 2002 that the Scottish bit at least was in fact now a pagan nation! See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2007739.stm

This report says the overall picture in Scotland is one of "massive indifference" to organised religion and "an unwillingness to have it impinge on their lives. There is little hostility, but when it (the Kirk) has been abandoned by so many of its own people, it has little right to speak for or to the nation," the authors say. No doubt you will tell me different for England and Wales and Northern Ireland, but the "massive indifference" is there too, as is the desire not to have religion of any kind dictate one's life stances.

Third, it is religious groups, not any other kind, that are striving to disturb both the religious life in the community and the non-religious life.

Fourth, you always talk of 'Christian heritage' but you are never able to explain it in anything other than purely human or humanistic terms. The real situation is different - as David Starkey said in the most recent Sunday Times:

“For it wasn’t a Christian tradition that created modern Britain but the reaction against it."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2092-2449504,00.html

Exactly, as Starkey goes on to illustrate extremely well. It's a history lesson for all of us.

[Keith Downer, Freestyle (50 yards)]

I'm not sure that the article by William Rees-Mogg justifies a rant against religion in general and Christianity in particular. I thought it was a well-balanced reflection on the Christian heritage of this country, similar to the reaction I had when watching the Service of Remembrance on Sunday in Whitehall. It was a Christian Service because, of course, we are a Christian nation and in these times when various people and groups are trying to confuse and disturb the religious life of our community, there was a sense of normality and stability to accompany what is primarily, a reflection on a very sad series of events in our history.

[Tim Cooper]

What we must all remember of course is that Dr Sentamu can only reasonably address his Anglican colleagues, who presumably chose to install him as a figurehead within their own religious society. Inside this arena, and during intercourse with other faiths, where the same confused and controversial beliefs seem to abound, he is absolutely entitled to fulminate over what he may see as the preposterous humanist or secular viewpoint. Equally, it would be unrealistic to think that in his own community, he could not rail privately against those who express the desire to remove or adjust the more restrictive or unbalanced elements of religion from the wider business of state. They are of course rejecting his beliefs and in doing so actually challenging his position.

However, from his narrow religious perspective, he would, of course, not have the audacity to presume that he has a legitimate mandate to challenge, pronounce upon, manipulate or speak for the wider society by criticizing others with differing views? Surely he would judiciously avoid giving the impression that he was attempting to superimpose his own dogmatic viewpoint? There are many already who see him within the legislature as wholly lacking legitimacy - an appointed authoritarian with no remit; unfortunately his utterances can only ever be seen as faith-based.

During a time when so many religious extremists are ratcheting up the rhetoric, notably to rebut the crazy assertions made by other extremists, moderate leaders of faith groups need not fear those with secular views. Presenting no moral danger to society, their standpoint might not accord with that of pious prelates and may even dent their egos, but it is imprudent in the extreme for them to pretend to impart a majority view, using archaic and rigid codes of behaviour as weapons to fight imaginary enemies.

No true democracy presents a fait accompli to its electorate over who governs. No tenet exists that allows the imposition of laws or codes of behaviour by unelected appointees. If Dr Sentamu wishes truly to represent society, speaking publicy for others, let him stand for parliament, be accountable and removed if necessary.

[Rosemary Behan]

Christopher, I agree, "Laying out the complexities of a situation and seeing that there are several sides to a question," is an excellent thing to do. As you say, it shows that reality always has shades of 'black, white AND grey.'

However in a leader, after the teaching, I welcome, I need and desire, some guidance. Saying that it's good to have all points of view in a church .. is in my humble opinion, not only not giving that guidance, it's to sit on the fence.

Posted by: Christopher | Monday, 13 November 2006 at 02:19 PM

[Nick4693]

My comment is two-fold.
First, I refer to the article written by former editor of the Times, William Rees-Mogg, headlined "Thank Heaven for Britain's Christian History."
Affirming belief in his faith, he ends with the statement: "Christian teaching gives value and life to human society; education without religion does not."
How dare he make such a presumptuous and arrogant remark, given the unforgiveable and violent history of Christianity. I learned that Christianity, like all other "religions," is a cult born of myths, legends and superstitions. Having come to my senses, I am no longer a Christian, but that doesn't mean I have become a bad person, a criminal, that my life is now empty and desolute. Christians live their lives preparing for death and for the sole purpose of obtaining an impossible reward; I on the other hand have no ulterior motive. Rationalists live their lives to the full in the here and now, because they know there isn't any afterlife. I help others as much as I can and, in fact, my charitable works have expanded because I know that I can only help others while I still live.
Religion was created for the simple purpose of establishing control over others to maintain power and obtain wealth.
Second, after prolonged study and much research of Christianity, which led me to examine other religions, I reached the conclusion that religions are simply cults, with the exception of Islam, which is nothing more than a terrorist organization. As Nick Griffin said quite clearly, "Islam is a wicked and vicious faith."
I'll go even further: it is EVIL, founded by an evil, self-proclaimed "prophet," Muhammed, who was a bandit, a murderer, a kidnapper, a rapist, a slave holder and a child molester.
How many, without having read the Koran, say that Islam is a peaceful religion in order to avoid a clash with Muslims? I urge everyone to examine the Koran for themselves and then see if they think it is peaceful.
Britons will live to rue the day so many Muslims were allowed to enter our land. They didn't invade like armies of the past; they have slowly but surely slunk in by the thousands (2 million by latest count with over 1,200 mosques spewing out sermons of hate against the very people among whom they live). How many churches are there in any given Islamic country? Democracies are governed by the majority, and Muslims eventually will become that majority. Muslims males obviously want Sharia law because it will enable them to continue their chauvinistic treatment of women.
I am not a scaremonger; this WILL happen unless more effective action to taken to eradicate this pandemic disease.

[J Pearce, BA(Hons), MSc, IEEE, OBE, Wytchfinder General]

Alistair,

I wonder if Dr. Sentamu's opinions on the chinese Xmas imports would have been slightly different, if they were a ship load of battery-powered Nativity Scenes? Or "Jesus Is For Life, Not Just Xmas" festive bumper stickers? Its a thought...

Robin - apposite idea. I shall list my qualifications forthwith, to impress upon you my intellectual credentials. Note that some of them may not be entirely accurate...

[Robin Bather]

No!
C Eng certainly does NOT mean Church of England!
It means Chartered Engineer.
Next they'll be addressing me as +Robin.

Unfortunately Ruth's system cut off some of my most prized qualifications, viz:
Ex Member of the Ipswich Model Engineering Society, and
Ex Sixer Queensbury Boy Scouts

[Dr. Robin Bather, C Eng, I Mech E, IMEDAL (Treasurer), IPADE (Harvard), Ex Member of the Ipswich Mod]

Why is it that the teaching profession so often gives the teachers a sort of overbearing, schoolmarmish "holier than thou" attitude which makes them prone to absolute statements such as "you are wrong on both counts"?
Perhaps as I come from another more pragmatic profession I feel that life is more complicated.
Oh, by the way, I have a proposition for all the bloggers here, why don't we all start using our full titles and academic qualifications as some of us already do?
It might bolster up our arguements when all else fails.
You know, "if I have these letters after my name, I can't be wrong".

[Christopher]

Rosemary, are Dr Wells and Mr Limehouse talking about the same thing? Mr Limehouse seems to be talking about multifaiths rather than homosexuality but if they are then I should say Mr Limehouse's approach falls into the 'holiness' approach. Even so, as it was so brief I really cannot concede that his piece was more helpful than Dr Wells's. Laying out the complexities of a situation and seeing that there are several sides to a question is not necessarily to sit astride a fence. The trouble is that some people just want everything in black and white when the reality is in shades of black, white AND grey.

[alistair mcbay]

"Tell that one to the fairies at the bottom of your garden"

Will do, Keith, if you tell your sky-fairy for me!

Sentamu is wrong on so many counts, but right on a couple. He is angry for example that Christian symbols have been removed from a crematorium in Torbay, and points to this as part of his argument.

What arrogance - does he think it is only Christians that die and get cremated? "I think the thing is in British society you can wear what you want, but you can’t expect British society to be reconfigured around you. No minority can expect to impose this on the public or civic life.” Well, he may be right on that, but why then argue that Christians must manifest their religion with Christian symbols in publicly funded places, and the hell with anybbody else who doesn't like it? Why doesn't he think that a non-Christian family would not be offended in such a situation by Christian symbolism?

Or maybe Alan will come along now screaming '72%' and make a case for "faith crematoria" and "non-faith crematoria", along his schools-for-all idea?

[alistair mcbay]

JPearce

You will also doubtless be amused / bemused / confused to see Sentamu denounce consumerism in the Times today while his Church Commissioners trumpet in their annual report the healthy returns on their substantial investments in shopping centres!

This is rather like Alcoholics Anonymous condemning the evils of alcohol while simultaneously investing in pub chains!

Wouldn't it be ironic if the contents of the Chinese cargo ship laden with Christmas consumer items that the Archbishop criticises, according to the Times report today, were to be stored in one of his Church's investments in the retail warehouse sector, now the subject of focus by the Church Commissioners because it "is expected to outperform over the next few years”, according to the Commissioners’ 2005 report?

Practising what they preach? I think not, but nothing new there.

I thought his best comment though in the Times today, aside from the one about the BBC which just illustrate how silly he is being, was this one on the "Chattering Classes":

“They see themselves as holding the flag for Britain and that Britain is definitely secular and atheist. I want them to have their say, but not to lord it over the rest of us.”

Isn't lording it over the rest of us precisely what he thinks is his very own divine right?!

The first rule of PR is knowing when to keep one's trap shut, but the Archbishop, good man that he may be, is also breaking rule two, which is that when one's trap is open, one should not put one's foot in it.

Here is another example. I am still wondering about his August 'living for a week in a tent' vigil in York Minster as part of an act of "public witness" to encourage peace in the Middle East. It coincided with Church Commissioners announcing that same week that it had submitted plans to York City Council for the extensive refurbishment of Bishopthorpe Palace, the historic base for the Archbishop of York’s ministry since the 13th Century.

While it's true no doubt that much work is needed to bring the building up to modern requirements, it did strike me as odd - or subterfuge - that the announcement was made during his week-long vigil. A sort of clerical equivalent of Jo Moore's @chance to bury bad news' episode on 9/11. Views of Bishopthorpe Palace can be found here.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/northyorkshire/content/image_galleries/bishopthorpe_palace_gallery.shtml

Nice pad! I'd live in a tent for a week (indoors, mind, like the Archbishop) and fast for a week too if that was the house I had as my official residence and someone other than me was going to spend a large seven figure sum doing it up for me.

And while the detail of the refurb (mius cost) was announced on the CofE web site, there is nothing about it on the Diocese of York web site that I can find.

[J Pearce]

Hang On! It seems I may have been a little hasty with Dr. Sentamu after all:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-2451922,00.html

[Keith Downer]

Reading Dr Setamu's Address to the Readers of the Diocese of Newcastle, the thrust of his argument is illustrated by the comment that in the eight years since Birmingham City Council tried to name Christmas, Winterval, "there have been many other instances and decisions where Christianity is being systematically eroded from public view – more often than not in the fear of offending those who would not be offended in the least or because of the mistaken belief that Christianity has no role to play in the public arena."
Personally, I don't think anyone can make a case for believing secularism is responsible for religious extremism except in the sense that a secular society results in a spiritual vacuum that puts all but the most hardened humanists, atheists and the like in a vulnerable position. The emergence of Islam as a competing faith against Christianity is an example of this.
Of course, many in this blog would counter this view with the argument that the spiritual vacuum is a figment of imagination, that even if it did exist it would be filled with natural human respect and love for one another, emotions not dependent on any religious mumbo-jumbo but simply on the "milk of human kindness". Tell that one to the fairies at the bottom of your garden.

[J Pearce]

I'm quite gobsmacked by the views of John Sentamu. Is he really so far up his own cassock that he thinks that the problems in society today are a manifestation of a clash between religion and secularism? Has he not been on this planet for the past 5 years? Do the words "Islamism" mean nothing to him?

Or does he believe that relgious extremism (in all its forms) is merely an 'unfortunate reaction' against secular society and as such, it must be understood (and excused) in that context?

As for his urging churchgoers to boycott parking fee's - does he really see this as some hidden secularist agenda to financially cripple the poor, downtrodden Chritstian community?! What is this man on? Has it not struck him that normal, non-Churchgoing shoppers are also going to be hit by the very same parking fee's? I suppose they don't count, being as they are, secularist heathens who deserve all they get for violating the sanctity of the Sabbath! In my local town, they introduced a flat parking rate on Sundays about a year ago. I don't think it was perceived as an assault on the religious. Rather, it was taken as the local council looking for ways to raise more money, by squeezing the consumer for everything they could get.

But I don't suppose this kind of thinking occurs to Dr. Sentamu...

[Rosemary Behan]

Perhaps Dr. Wells sermon on homosexuality is helpful, in that it delineates the arguments for and against .. but from a teacher and leader, it's surely the ultimate in 'fence sitting.' It gives no guidance to his parishioners, rather it extolls tolerance without limits. Far more helpful is Frank Limehouse' piece [http://www.adventbirmingham.org/articles.asp?ID=3078], pointing out to his parishioners that we must be legally tolerant, socially tolerant .. but to be theologically tolerant leads to the downfall of civilisations.

[Frank Schnittger]

Christopher – at the risk of going cross thread on this discussion – my challenge to Irene on the 'Islam under fire' thread, was a simple question to her: "Why do you deserve a welcome in Israel when many indigenous Palestinians do not?" She has posted several times since, including a few personal insults at me, but has so far declined to answer the question.

However I do want to answer your question “On the other hand, promised lands are never empty - once it was the Canaanites, now it is the Palestinians who are displaced. But Israel is there now - that is the reality - so when her very existence is threatened what is she expected to do? Pack up everyone and move out?”

I think the answer is absolutely not. One ethnic cleansing does not justify another. But we also need to move away from an ideology that military might is right and a theology that only we have God on our side. Otherwise war will be the ongoing reality – and one that threatens to engulf us all. The late and unlamented James (formerly of this blog) said many times that the conflict would end up in Nuclear war and many American Fundamentalist Christians see this as the inevitable and necessary precursor to the Second Coming. I beg to differ.

We cannot just sit back and let hundreds of thousands of Palestinians rot in refugee camps and in completely unsustainable and unstable homelands in Gaza and the West Bank which are at present little more than breeding grounds for more terrorism. The UN has again been suckered into providing more “peace-keeping troops” when there is no peace to keep and who end up acting as little more than target practice for both sides, (Ireland has lost equal numbers of peace keeping troops to Israeli and Hezbollah fire) and the EU has also provided Billions for essentially corrupt Palestinian regimes that are incapable of providing a stable and viable economic future for their inhabitants.

Emmanuel Appel has argued that it is up to the Islamic world to find homes for the refugees – preferably in Chad or Liberia or somewhere as far away from Israel as possible. My question is simply this: If Jews from around the world have the right to emigrate to Israel – some from families who haven’t lived there since time immemorial, why shouldn’t Palestinians from families who have lived there as recently as a generation or two ago not also have that right? Is it not racist to exclude them on the grounds that they are not Jewish?

Irene herself has testified how well Palestinians remaining in Israel have integrated there. We rightly criticise Islamic countries for being racist and theocratic and discriminating against Jews and Christians. If we want to ensure human rights in all of the Middle East, then the character of the Israeli state and the homelands and refugee camps have to be on the table as part of negotiations for a settlement. My suggestion is that a non-racist secular Western model requires that equal rights should be given to Palestinians and Jews to live and work in the State of their choice subject only to the requirement that they respect the laws of the state they have chosen.

I have debated possible political models for such a solution at length on David Aaronovitch’s blog. It is not appropriate to go into such political detail on a religion blog. Suffice to say here that I am extremely pleased that Irene is happy in her new home – and only wish that the privilege of residence and prospect of citizenship that has been extended to her should also be extended to Palestinians who have been displaced by the conflict. I happen to believe that Israel’s long term security and prosperity depends on such a solution and that European euros and lives would be better spent supporting it rather than the present unstable status quo.

Irene is entitled to differ – but a little less of the personal abuse and haughty attitude towards those she considers less qualified than herself would also be welcomed.

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

Robin

I'm terribly sorry to disabuse you, but it's not me that is saying all these things about antisemitism in England, but the recent cross-party Parliamentary report, the Archbishop of Canterbury (see his web page), CST and the Chief Rabbi.

Not to mention the police.

Need I go on.

Plus, I really would rather you didn't draw me into arguments to do with third parties on this blog.

I can draw myself in and don't need you to do it for me.

As for your remarks about Gaza and the nature of this blog, you are wrong on both counts.

How about Kassam rockets for one and has it occurred to you that if this blog was 'pro-Israel', as you suggest, I would not have to be keeping an eye on it and correcting misrepresentations about Israel and the Palestinian-Authority held areas from people like you.

By the way, I really am a good guy, promise, even though I am one of those awful Israelis.

[Sarah Dylan Breuer]

Sam Wells' sermon of 24 Oct. 2004, to which you link in your post, says that The Episcopal Church consecrated as bishop I "a man that had recently left his wife and family to live with a male partner" when he was elected and consecrated as bishop. I assume that this is a reference to +Gene Robinson, as The Episcopal Church has consecrated no openly gay bishops beside him. The statement that he had "recently left his wife and family to live with a male partner" is a lie, however. I am sure it was repeated without the knowledge that it was untrue, but it is a particularly vicious and damaging untruth that I hope you would want to correct in a note accompanying your link to the sermon.

+Gene and his wife, Isabella (nicknamed 'Boo'), separated in May of 1986, and the divorce was final in August of 1987 -- a full 16 years before +Gene's consecration. That's hardly "recently." Furthermore, and more importantly, +Gene and Boo parted by mutual consent, and neither was seeing anyone else. +Gene did not meet his partner until after the divorce was final, and they did not live together until two years after the divorce was final. Even then, +Gene never "left his wife and family"; they remained and still remain in close contact, they raised their children working closely together, and they are close to this day. His entire family (including Boo) strongly supported his election and consecration.

If you'd like more precise information, here's the correct chronology of events:

August, 1972 - V. Gene Robinson and Isabella 'Boo' Martin are married, All Saints Church, Peterborough, New Hampshire, USA.

May, 1986 - Gene and Boo separate; Gene moves to Wilton, New Hampshire (five miles away), sharing joint custody of daughters Jamee and Ella.

March, 1987 - Boo meets Robert McDaniel, by May they are engaged to be married; Gene moves to Concord, NH, where he is now employed as Canon to the Ordinary.

August, 1987 - Boo and Gene's divorce is final; the Rector of Grace Church, Manchester, accompanies them to the judge's chambers for the final decree, and then they return to Grace Church, where they mark the ending of their marriage, the mutual release from their wedding vows (symbolized by the return of their wedding rings), and the pledging of themselves to the joint nurture and care of their children—all within the context of the eucharist.

October, 1987 - Boo and Robert are married (within a couple of years, they have two sons).

November, 1987 - Gene meets Mark Andrew while on vacation.

February, 1989 - Mark leaves his career with the Peace Corps and moves to New Hampshire to be with Gene, Jamee, and Ella.

July, 1989 - Gene, Mark, Jamee and Ella host a 'Celebration of a Home' from the Book of Occasional Services.

Thank you for drawing our attention to Wells' sermon, much of which is a very helpful contribution to conversation. I look forward to correction of its one very destructive claim.

[Robin Bather]

Joe, don't be so sensitive about Emanuel Appel's remarks about inferior moronic groups. He's capable of much worse remarks than this and for such sins he was unceremoniously thrown off the blogs of David Aaronovitch and Mike Smith.

He's trying his very best to be a gentleman but, you know, well......

What is far more important is the dastardly action of Portsmouth City Council in applying Sunday parking fees to church goers. What is the world coming to?
Why don't we have a thread exclusively on this topic?

I agree with Ruth that the far right neo Nazis are despicable, or as Irene would have us believe, anti semitism stalks the streets of England, but how come this is mentioned but nery a word about the recent spate of murders of Arabs in Gaza committed by the Israeli army, or yet again another "unfortunate mistake" when more Arabs were shelled and killed?
I know I'm a damned nuisance bringing up these points (especially on such a blindly pro Israel blog such as this) but to my mind real deaths are more important than these other topics, serious though they are.
The Islamic threat by extremists seems real and strong steps must be taken to control these people. The recent severe jail term given to a terrorist plotter was a good start and much tougher steps are required to stamp out the threat of extremism.
However let's not fall into the error of swallowing George Bush's broad brush theory of lumping together Moslems, Arabs, Saddam Hussein, Iranians, Palestinians, and North Koreans in one corner "The bad guys", and the USA, the UK and (strangely) Israel in the other corner, "The good guys".
Like all generalizations it is not completely true and the truth is more complicated although it serves as a handy rule of thumb for most people who don't care to go deeper into the facts.

Ruth, your comment on the Portsmouth Gang was interesting but let's not get sidetracked.

[joe]

Emanuel, maybe you'd be kind enough to elaborate about the people you've just labelled as an 'inferior, moronic group'.

Sorry mate, but there are no moronic groups, none that are subhuman and that deserve no respect.

[Christopher]

"Homosexuality once again is the focus of the religion column. I give up. Let's make all the prophets gay and go on to other concerns."

I appreciate your exasperation, Emanuel, but in defense of Ruth on this particular thread, I think she was right in posting what is an interesting and very helpful sermon on homosexuality and religion by Dr Samuel Wells. I intend to post on that on the 'Haggard on the Ropes' thread. Here I want respond to what Irene posted in answer to Frank's challenge on the 'Islam under fire' thread. But first, what you say in the rest of your post about the hypocritical and cowardly 'most observant' rabbis doesn't in any way detract from the fact that the government of Israel did their level best to allow the Gay Pride rally to go ahead, against the massed forces of ultra-orthodox, muslim and Vatican bigotry. That says something pretty strong about Israel's commitment to freedom of speech and I salute her for that. The thuggery of the ultra-orthodox yobs with knives and knuckle-dusters concealed in their tallits, who hypocritically refuse to recognise the state of Israel yet take advantage of the benefits of living there, made the police recommend a down-scaled Pride. It was reasonable for the organisers to heed the police warning but also important not to cave in entirely to the threats of violence from religious bigots, ignobly stoked up by the Vatican. I haven't visited Israel since the 60s when the Mandelbaum Gate was still in place and Jerusalem was still divided so I quite enjoy reading Irene's posts about her new country. Nevertheless I can also see the point of the question Frank was asking. I suspect that none of us who is not Jewish can fully understand what it must feel like to have an ancestral connection with the Promised Land after so many centuries of persecution. On the other hand, promised lands are never empty - once it was the Canaanites, now it is the Palestinians who are displaced. But Israel is there now - that is the reality - so when her very existence is threatened what is she expected to do? Pack up everyone and move out?

On the matter of the BNP and freedom of speech, the BNP is loathsome. If Nick Griffin carefully limits his comments against religions rather than ethnic groups so be it. That doesn't seem to me justification for the government to try to reintroduce the religious hatred law 'to get him next time'.

[Dr Irene Lancaster FRSA]

I found Dawkins' erroneous statements about the 'OT' as shockingly offensive as I suppose many would find the BNP's views on a number of issues, including Islam.

However, the Hebrew Bible has been the object of vicious and uneducated attack for so long in the UK that nobody bothers and it is even regarded as politacally correct to attack it, without having mind to the consequences, which are the five-year or more increase on attacks on British Jews and institutions, including cemeteries.

The Jewish leadership in Britain seems unwilling or unable to stand up and defend its Bible and other Jewish teachings (let alone Israel) on blogs like this,so no wonder Dawkins and others (including Muslims, Christians and atheists) have got away with these defamations for so long.

I doubt that even the recent parliamentary review on the anti-semitism now prevalent on the streets of Britain will do much to curb the tide.

And the Hebrew Bible will carry on being attacked by ignoramuses who do not understand its teachings at all.

[emanuel appel]

a postcript from America

Dear Simon,

Since you've raised the question of "immigration" , I'd like you to look at the account of Jewish emigration below and it's circumstances.Are there any Moslem / African immigrants of the same category?

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1162378359170&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

A real Moslem or African or Third World person that loves himself and his land stays and improves it. If money is the only criteria, why not ( the whole lot of you) pack up and move to either Switzerland or Hong Kong? That's where the money is.