The Church of England, goes more insane.

I was going to title this thread "The Church of England goes completely insane" and ended titling it "The Church of England goes more insane", I know that is bad grammar, but in so far as I am aware, there is no facility for describing a state which is more insane than insane, but never the less, it seems that is just where the Church of England is. There are lots of issues, in relation to the BNP which are concerning but that said, the Church of England seeking to ban membership of the BNP on the grounds it has a racist ideology, whilst the Church of England supports Islamic slavery, must be one of the great comedy moments of the year.

Church of England may ban clergy from joining BNP | World news | guardian.co.uk

YouTube - Rowan Williams - Resign!

http://tw.youtube.com/watch?v=0Yo5XcWY9mo

NB Strong language etc used in the video materiel in the following link, not suitable for minors.

The Muslim march the BBC didn’t let you see : The British National Party

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

 

Ah, another conundrum for Christianity!

It so badly wants to demonstrate it's tolerance of other religions, even those which advocate denial of basic human rights to a significant portion of the human race.

And now it's trying to be Politically Correct by denying freedom of political thought to it's members.

Paradoxes abound!

 

I disagree.

It's true that the Church of England may not represent the mainstream Christian churches.

But I have seen enough Christian denominations here in the US wrestling with the question, to conclude that Christianity, in general, does have a dilemma on it's hands concerning the appropriate attitude toward Islamic religious values and practices.

On the one hand, Christian churches do want to be perceived as being tolerant of Islam, yet, on the other hand, it's obvious that Islamic values do not generally conform to the broad outlines of Christian beliefs. The way Islam treats women is one glaring example.

So, while Christianity wants to "tolerate" Islam, it can't really buy into the values of Islam. I'd call that a paradox.

 

Well, you are making a good point, but things in respect of the Church of England are not as bad as that, they are worse than that. In that, a simple definition of Christianity is belief in the divinity of Christ but actually to define Christianity would run to hundred of pages of a closely typed A4 sheets. On the other hand, the Church of England is a far simpler issue, than the argument as to whether say Catholicism or say Eastern Orthodox Christianity are Christian Churches or not, the Church of England can not be said to be a Christian Church for the reason, if it is encouraging the conversion of Christians to Islam by the sword, it can longer be said to acknowledge the divinity of Christ. Furthermore, the argument of turning the other cheek falls flat on its face, in that Christ was a trinity and therefor it is not just what he said but the reality of the son, the father and the Holy Ghost has to be taken in to account and the Christ who said to turn the other cheek, is also the same entity who drowned the pursuing Egyptian army in the Red Sea, which was hardly a pacific thing to do. Even without reference to the trinity and even reducing Christ to having no divinity but merely being a Prophet of God, which would essentially make the Church of England a Jewish sect, that would not work either for the reason that turning the other cheek is balanced by, render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and therefor if the Church of England was merely to see itself as a Jewish sect it still could not support conversion by the sword to Islam, in that would be conflicted with the British constitution and hence would not be rendering unto Caesars what is Caesars. So where do we end up, the Church of England is not Christian, it not a Jewish sect which takes Christ as a major prophet, it is organization for which Christ was merely some historical figure with some ideas which the Church of England is free to reject or not and the only alternative to this the Church of England does see Christ as a major prophet but rejects all the Christian Gospels and accepts the Christ of the Koran as being the true Christ. So in conclusion the Church of England is not a Christian church, it is not a Jewish sect and it is either an organization who sees Christ merely as historical figure with no divine or supernatural aspects or more likely the Church of England has defacto converted to Islam without actually declaring its new status.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

 

Well the Church of England is the mother Church of the Worldwide Anglican Community and Archbishop of Canterbury is most senior clerical figure in the World wide Anglican Community and I thought Episcopalian church in the US was pretty prominent.

Well there can be real dilemmas for Christians and Christian Churches about aspects of Islam e.g. what attitude to take to veiling of Muslim Women but I think if you are up for the conversion of Christians to Islam at the point of the sword, you have disqualified yourself from calling your Church Christian.


Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

 

You all have made a basic error: you assume that islam is a religion. I suggest that it is more than likely just a death cult aimed at world domination and political rule all the while "dressed up" as a religion. The members find ways to justify suicidal bombing, female domination and genital mutilation, and other things in their framework of their "holy" works.

The CoE suffers too much from PC instead of relying on scripture to help make church decisions. Political correctness has its roots, btw, in the school of communism (class warfare and thought control).

 

Well the Catholic Church in Spain the 15th Century seems to have many of the characteristics you describe, World domination, etc, etc. One could actually argue that Ottoman Turkey which was Muslim was relatively tolerant compared to christian Spain , no whether Islam can advance no further than the stage it got to in 15th Century or Islam can adapt itself to be at home with liberal ideas is a big issue. What I would say in defence of Islam is that many people who are strongly opposed to Islam do not differentiate between Wahabi Islam and other Islamic traditions and that is a big issue, because Wahhabi Islam does not have justification within traditional Islamic teaching. There is a very hard line interpretation of Sunni Islam which parallel's Wahhabi Islam in many respects but that is just an example of parallelism, Wahabbism is not Islam in fact the Caliphate was at War with the Wahhabis. As for the Church of England being left wing and politically correct, I do not buy in to that. There is a strong socialist tradition in the United Kingdom that does have a honorable tradition of striveing for decent values and Church would pick up on that and that would propel it in to opposition to Islam big time if the Church was taking a left wing perspective, no they are simply power playing and believe the balance of power is shifting to Islam and are trying ingratiate themselves with Islam. Many Americans lump socialism and communism in the one basket but they are actually quite different in that, e.g. Animal Farm which is one of the greatest anticommunist pieces of literature ever produced, was written by a socialist George Orwell.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

 

Well I was not disagreeing with your premise if I have understood you correctly that Episcopalians could not be taken as representative of the American Christian Community for the reason other large American Christian communities have similarities between them but major differences with the Episcopalians and even without combing any of the other congregations together Episcopalians rank 15th in size. My point being that even if the Episcopalians were the most numerous "Christian" community in the US, that is essentially irrelevant as I do not believe they are a Christian community, so even if they were larger in numbers than all the other Christian communities combined together, they still could not be representative of Christianity.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

 

The Church of England doesn't represent anyone in the UK who doesn't actually live in England.
Not that the church of Scotland is any less of a joke.....

 

LOL Well to be really precise, the Church of England doesn't really represent anybody except middle aged men who like to wear dresses.



Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

 

So it appears that we've eliminated the Church of England as a body representative of Christianity, in general.

That still leaves the various branches of the Christian religion that do generally represent Christianity on the horns of a dilemma.

How does Christianity react to Islamic beliefs and values when those values and beliefs are contradictory to the values and beliefs generally held by Christian sects? One of the tenets of the Christian faith is tolerance of other religions, but should that tolerance be extended to a religion that advocates practices that are in violation of Christian beliefs?

Oh yes, on the issue of Political Correctness; Texson66 is correct when he asserts that PC is based on, and stems from, liberalism/socialism/communism. There is a strong tradition in each of these "isms" that demands a high degree of conformance, i.e. a standard of "correct thought" and "correct behavior" among the "true believers". The purpose of the state, ultimately, in each case is to enforce the correct way of thinking.

 

Ah, the Church of England is confused again. Frankly however I see nothing wrong with them banning members of the clergy from being part of the BNP, it is exactly the same as the army, police and so on. The BNP are an extremeist political group who actively incite racial hatred and have links to illegal and terrorist organisations. Frankly I think that any organisation is within its rights to say 'sorry, if you are going to be a part of our organisation we do not want you being a part of the BNP because it's values directly contradict our own.'

I also have yet to see any evidence the CofE supports Islamic slavery, I remember Williams commenting that seeing Sharia law in some form in Britain was inevitable (that doesn't mean chopping peoples hands off incidentally, recognition of the Muslim marriage ceremony would constitute the inclusion of Sharia law in our own legal system).

So why is it wrong for the CofE to ban it's representatives from being a part of the BNP?

Gordon, btw, there is a massive Anglican community in Africa who are technically part of the Church of England.

How is Christianity any different? Since in the name of Christ people have justified mass murder I can't see how it is any different from Islam in that respect. Christian ideology held back women for centuries, the entire religion is founded on the basis of repression. Just because a few extremists do things you object too, doesn't give you the right to condemn a religion millions practice quite peacefully throughout the world.

PC is based on Communism? What are you on? Don't know if you've noticed but nowhere in Marx does PC come up, in fact the idea of class warfare is quite clearly the exact opposite of 'political correctness.' Political correctness is the act of changing your behaviour, language and so on in order to minimise offense to people of different races, creeds, genders, economic levels and so on, Communism actually sets out to cause such offense.

This is good for a giggle too. Firstly lumping liberalism, socialism and communism together when they are very separate strands of political thought is just plain wrong. Then the suggestion that they all require conformity, well, doesn't any political system? Capitalism requires a pretty clear set of 'correct thoughts' and 'correct behaviour.' Indeed are these latter two not essential to the functioning of any society? People who don't think and behave 'correctly' according to the standards of society tend to wind up in prison.

I don't know if you have noticed but in the age of corporate culture, arguably the epitome of capitalism, enforcing the 'correct way of thinking' (i.e. a state of affairs where peoples ambition is to buy 'stuff' and measure their wealth in terms of money in the bank and the cost of the things they own) is pretty essential. Arguably the same can be said of feudalism, fascism and almost any other 'ism,' probably 'democracy' too I would say.

So would you care to provide any evidence suggesting PC stems from communism? Incidentally, whilst the term 'correct' is used in Marxist-Leninist writing to mean 'fitting in with the party line,' the first reference I can find to something being 'politically correct' indicating whether it did or didn't fit in with the stated political stance of the US.

Sorry, but it does get rather dull seeing the same 'I don't like this ergo it's liberal' way of thinking. I think this record is broken, don't suppose you have another one.

 

Well, I have no objection to banning members of of the clergy from being part of the BNP, but if one is going to ban clergy from BNP membership they also should ban the clergy from membership of the Labour Party, which is a Fascist Party.

So you would be for, banning clergy from membership of the Labour Party?

Who is Rowan Williams, like he was some guy who cleans the Archbishop of Canterbury's car or something on a saturday and the BBC just decided for mischief sake to interview him about his views on Sharia and pretend it was something to with the Church of England?

Well presumably you did not listen to the video I posted, in how Sharia was developed in Nigeria. Right until the moment that the bombs went off in London, all the usual crew were saying a Muslim terrorist attack would never happen in the UK and at the rate the UK is going, they will probably be saying nobody will ever be executed by the British State under Sharia Law, until about five minutes before somebody is executed in Britain under a charge of insulting the Prophet Mohammed PBUH

Because it is likely they are doing because they are just plain stupid and it more likely they are doing because it is cynical public relations stunt to smokescreen their support for political correct Islamonazism.

Yes there is, and many of them are disgusted with Archbishop of Canterbury for his support of Sharia.

Well there are millions of Muslims who do practice an Islam which is compatible with Western values but unfortunately there are millions of Muslims that believe that non-Muslims who refuse to convert to Islam or live as Dhimmis under Muslim rule should be exterminated.

You are right that there is not much connection between the likes of Communism and political correctness but you are exactly wrong that political correctness is changing one's behavior not to cause unnecessary distress to people that is called politeness, what political correctness is the concept that e.g. a Christmas tree should not be allowed in a Police Station in case it offends Muslims, whilst Muslims should be allowed to call for the murder of people if they criticize the Prophet Mohammed PBUH.

Well, most Americans really do not understand what liberalism means, like they would probably be shocked to find out that Ronald Reagan would probably be classed as liberal but Gordon Brown and Tony Blair most certainly would not.

Best and Warm Regards
Adrian Wainer

 

I assume it is still okay for clergy members of the Church of England to join far Left orginizations that promote atheism though.....

 

Calm down, Stefan, I'm not "on" anything, I just happen to be a little more educated on the matter than you are.

Yes, PC is a direct outgrowth of the communist need to control group thought through self-criticism and group-criticism. More than one political commentator has traced the rise of what is popularly known as "political correctness" to the methods employed in communist "re-education" efforts directed at people who are judged to have strayed from the party line.

The idea of class warfare has nothing to do with political correctness; it is a discredited MArxist theory of the dynamics of historical events, nothing less, nothing more.

Political correctness is NOT the act of minimizing behavior, attitude, or anything else, to avoid offense to other people. It is simply an over zealous application of state power designed to force conformity of thought and speech. It is a hallmark of the authoritarian regimes so beloved by those on the Left.

Giggle away, then, I frankly expected you to make some such inane comment. Liberais, socialism and communism, may be separate political philosphies, but that doesn't mean they don't have some things in common. A strong desire to enforce conformity of thought happens to be one of them. Socialist and communist societies happen to be extremely bureaucratic. Why? Because they have to be in order to function; they have to strictly enforce the rules or they fall apart. Liberalism, though it pays lip-service to individualism and freedom of thought is the same. Liberalistic societies can only function well if the members think the same way.

And BTW, Americans are just as educated as any other people when it comes to political philosophy. I'll put my knowledge of political science up against yours any day.

Actually, "corporate culture", as you erroneously call it, is much less structured than any political system. Capitalism depends on individualism, it absolutely requires the individual to be concerned about his own welfare. No political system (capitalism is an economic concept) requires such concentration on the individual or individualism n general.

There is plenty of such evidence. Probably the best indication is the methods used by communists to "re-educate" those considered to have staryed from the pasrty line. It consists of self criticism sessions, wherein the person being "re-educated" publiclly admits committing "errors" in his or her thinking. The communists developed such psychological pressure into a fine art and practiced it at all levels of society. It is the epitome of "political correctness" because it demands adherence to the Party's political dogma.

Sorry if we're boring you. But then, nobody forced you to read the thread, or put in your rather predictable two cents worth.

 

You (and Stefan, as usual) are making a mistake to pre-judge American's political sophistication.

Most Americans know that there are at least two definitions of the term "liberal", and that in one sense (the positive sense), Reagan almost certainly would be considered a "liberal". However, here in the US there is another connotation of the term which is not positive. We have a political party here known as the "Libertarian Party" which embraces the positive aspects of liberalism. But we also have a faction of the Democratic Party which has more or less hijacked the term "liberal", yet does no more than pay lip-service to the principles of dlassical liberalism. It is that faction I refer to when I speak of Liberals being charter members of the political correctness crowd.

 

You are speaking of the Christian religion as practiced 200 or 300 years ago; we are speaking of Islam as practiced today.

And yes, a "few" extremists that justify their actions by invoking Islam does confer the right on their victims to condemn the religion. When Islam is uniformly intolerant of other religions, when Islam uniformly denies half of it's membership basic human rights, when Islam uniformly refuses to condemn those "few" extremists among it's membership, and has for the last fifty years, then there is more than sufficient grounds for confronting Islam, and demanding reform.