Very jealous these Christians

Yesterday, as he again returned to the cathedral to read aloud from the Bible, Mr Coote said: ‘I am not hurt or angry, but very surprised that St Paul’s would support the Occupy London people but not support the reading of the Bible.’

The Reverend Peter Simpson, a pastor at the Free Methodist Church in Penn, Buckinghamshire, said he endured a similar experience outside St Paul’s two years ago, when he and a colleague were ordered to leave. ‘We did not say anything inflammatory as far as I can recall,’ he said.

‘We were just preaching from the Bible but were told to move. We did not want to break the law so we moved to the edge of the grounds marked by bollards and preached from there.’

The Barnabas Fund, which campaigns against the persecution of Christians, has launched an online petition urging Parliament to intervene. Dr Martin Parsons, head of research at the charity, said: ‘This illustrates the slippery slope down which the UK is losing its heritage of religious freedom.

‘One of the first aspects of freedom of religion to be established in England was the freedom to read the Bible in public. A Royal decree specifically forbade clergy from stopping anyone reading the Bible in public. Now St Paul’s Cathedral is trying to stop someone reading the Sermon On The Mount in public.’

Well, you know, the Anglicans don’t want the Methodists – people who actually believe in the stuff – poaching their flock to be shorn, do they? As they have been for a few centuries now.

Yes, amusing

London is known as a bastion of liberal values.

But by some measures the capital city is less progressive than you might think.

Findings from the British Social Attitudes survey found that residents were the least likely to say that pre-marital sex and homosexuality were rarely or never wrong.

Just 73 per cent held this view about sex before marriage and 67 per cent about same-sex relationships.

The trend is despite London having the largest proportion of gay, lesbian and bisexual people in the country.

Researchers said the regional variations were down to “religious differences” between different areas of the country and Londoners’ social conservatism was “largely driven by religious factors”.

“Controlling for religion, a factor significantly correlated with views towards pre-marital sex, differences between London and other regions became statistically non-significant,” the paper said.

So, what’s the explanation? Which religion and its association with immigration?

Part of it would be Judaism – not that I claim to be an expert but isn’t London home to the only substantial Hassidic or equivalent communities in the UK? But much of the rest of it would be Islam, no?

Tempus Fugit etc etc

Holly Meyer The Tennessean
Published 3:32 p.m. UTC Jun 12, 2018
DALLAS — A Georgia church was expelled from the Southern Baptist Convention on Monday over charges of racism.

Er, no, for being racist.

Still, how times change, eh? It’s taken only 80 years or so to go from compulsory to forbidden.

Noncey boy bollocks

But we err in presuming convenience is always good, for it has a complex relationship with other ideals that we hold dear. Though understood and promoted as an instrument of liberation, convenience has a dark side. With its promise of smooth, effortless efficiency, it threatens to erase the sort of struggles and challenges that help give meaning to life. Created to free us, it can become a constraint on what we are willing to do, and thus in a subtle way it can enslave us.

It would be perverse to embrace inconvenience as a general rule. But when we let convenience decide everything, we surrender too much.

Convenience as we now know it is a product of the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when labor-saving devices for the home were invented and marketed.

The rediscovery of Calvinism, hard work is good for you.

Bollocks.

Merry Solstice to all

This is a cause for regret to my more devout friends, I know. They feel as though their festival is being not just cheapened and commercialised but taken over by godlessness. Is it any comfort to them to know that this is a reversion, that the opposite happened some centuries ago? Christianity once colonised and usurped a pagan festival.

Indeed, there are signs that we are simply removing some Christian layers from Christmas to reveal its older traditions buried beneath. While the Christmas tree is a German 17th-century addition, the habit of bringing greenery into the house at the time of the winter solstice is almost certainly far older than Christianity and was a Yule tradition of northern Europeans with origins lost in the fog of antiquity. Likewise gift-giving and the lighting of candles to urge the return of light in the darkest time of winter.

This is of course true of near all of the major Christian festivals. No, not to insist that Christianity means nothing nor that it is an invention (hey, make up your own minds).

Rather, that the hegemonic religion of the time spent some centuries noting that people tended to get merry at certain times of the year, three of the four turning points of the year for example. Samhaim became All Souls/All Saints, the arrival of spring Easter and the winter solstice Christmas.

As Matt Ridley notes:

If Christmas is really just a repurposed pagan festival of the solstice, this does not make any of its traditions, Christian or pagan, any more or less worthwhile than others. In particular, let us give the Christians credit for two things: charity and beauty. Had it not been for St Paul and Constantine, we might still be celebrating midwinter with just debauchery, flamingoes and female gladiators, and no acts of kindness, consideration, contemplation and care. And we might never have heard a boy’s treble singing Once in Royal David’s City in the incomparable, soaring splendour of Kings College chapel’s perpendicular architecture.

So have a merry solstice, be good and let’s hope the sun heeds our heathen hopes and starts to return this week.

Whatever your beliefs do have a merry one.

I assume they were all destroyed once sold then, yes?

England’s vicarages and parsonages are almost as iconic as its churches. But campaigners say they may be all but gone after a 70-year process of selling-off which began after the Second World War and has seen thousands of vicars ejected from the historic buildings and moved into private houses.

What’s more, they have raised concerns that many modern priests have no interest in living in the properties – leaving them vulnerable to being sold.

Campaign group Save Our Parsonages estimates that 8,000 such houses have been sold by dioceses since the Second World War, causing the Church of England financial loss because of the growing value of property.

For that’s the only way we should be worried about “saving them” isn’t it?

For non-Brits here, vicars and parsons were people of some substance in Ye Olde Englande, their housing reflecting this. Substantial buildings built for a largish brood plus a clutch of servants. Often the second or third largest house in a village for example.

This is not a requirement for a parish these days, given the size of today’s nuclear families, even among churchmen.

Err, yes, the confessional is sacrosanct

Melbourne Archbishop Denis Hart has said he’ll risk going to jail rather than report what’s said to him in the sacrament of confession, even if what’s confessed relates to child sexual abuse.

His latest comments, made on ABC radio, were responding to a recommendation from the royal commission into institutional responses to child sexual abuse to make reporting child sexual abuse allegations mandatory in institutions including when an allegation is made in religious confession. Failure to report would be a criminal offence.

The recommendation is one of a suite of proposed reforms to improve transparency and reporting of sexual abuse and improve the law’s effectiveness to apprehend sexual abusers and protect children.

Archbishop Hart wouldn’t report something said in confession by a child who’s been abused or by an abuser. Non-Catholics don’t understand confession, he said. Confession is sacrosanct, above the law, which is what makes it different from other forms of telling. It’s communication with God of a higher order.

You can believe it or not, as you wish, but it is what they believe and they’ll be sticking to it.

There is an added piquancy to this particular tale:

When I was 16, I went to confession. I wish the priest had reported what I’d told him

Hmm.

When I was 16, I went to confession for real. I’d been sexually abused by a Catholic high school teacher and her husband. I went to see a priest on the suggestion of one of my abusers, because I was so upset.

The priest I saw gave me absolution which didn’t make me any less upset. I can’t remember what the penance was. He didn’t do anything about what I told him as far as I know. I guess he maintained the seal of confession, the higher order communication with God in Archbishop Hart’s terms. I wish he had done something, reported what I’d told him to my school, parents or the police, because I’d have been far less harmed. What happened to me after that time has had lifelong consequences. I was a child who had a child. The priest let me down badly.

Perhaps reporting it to the police, the headmaster, might have helped a bit?

The Catholic church is not above the law. It’s not above anything. It’s down here on Earth with the rest of us and ought to be more concerned about protecting children than protecting its practices.

No, you’ve really not grasped the internal driver of the Church, have you? Sure, you can believe it or not, as you wish, but they certainly think that they’re dealing with the next world, not this one.

Not just left footers then?

A Jehovah’s Witness charity has been attacked by the Charity Commission for covering up allegations of paedophilia against one of its former leaders.

In a damning report by the charities watchdog, Manchester New Moston Congregation of Jehovah’s Witnesses was criticised for failing to report its members claims of sex abuse to the police.

“The inquiry found that the trustees of the charity did not report the allegation of child sexual abuse to the police or to other authorities,” the report said. “Nor did it report the matter as a serious incident to the Commission.”

Well, y’know, there’re traditions and there’re traditions

Donald Trump has not hosted an iftar dinner during Ramadan, breaking a nearly 20-year tradition.

Is two decades a tradition?

And how many such religious festivities should the White House follow? Muslims are some 1% of Americans, Jews 2% (or so). Passover at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave? 0.7% Hindu and Buddhist each. By some estimates Eastern Orthodox outnumber Muslims. Jan 6 th celebrations, just where are they?

An interesting continuity

Russia’s Supreme Court has accepted the government’s request to designate Jehovah’s Witnesses as an outlawed religious group, deeming it to be an extremist organisation.

The Tsars rather hammered down on those who didn’t follow their flavour of Russian Orthodox. Old Believers buggered off into Siberia in order to be able to make the sign of the cross their way.

The Soviets rather hammered down on the non-Orthodox religious sects too. Baptists and Jehovah’s W and so on.

Putinism is hammering down on………

There’s more than a soupcon of a hint of truth to the idea of the Deep State, isn’t there? That whatever the political complexion on the top certain policies are going to be roughly the same?

Err, well, yes

However, the hijab doesn’t fit neatly under the bracket of being a “religious symbol”. It’s not the equivalent of a piece of jewellery that displays pride in your faith, and which can easily be concealed to stop people feeling uncomfortable. For its wearers the hijab is a core part of their way of life, linked to the way they choose to practise their faith. It is not up for debate.

By permitting a ban on the hijab, Europe is essentially permitting a ban on Muslim women in the workplace.

Well, oddly enough, the hijab itself isn’t a particularly Muslim thing.

The actual injunction is to dress modestly and different cultures have interpreted this differently. From, roughly speaking, the full burka to just not flashing one’s tits. Hijab refers not to the scarf nor even the head covering, in truth, but to the “modestly”.

I’m actually old enough to recall when it was considered very much not on for a woman to be bare armed in a Catholic Church…..

Now, it might be that the dominant Muslim culture of our times says that the head covering is that necessity for modesty but it’s still not universal. Just as Orthodox Jewish ladies wearing wigs so that only their husbands see their hair is a definitely minority pursuit.

Myself I’m all in favour of this ban upon religious symbols. Yes, this includes the air hostess wearing a crucifix, the Rasta insisting upon dreadlocks and so on, that’s the way the ECJ has written it. Employers are indeed allowed to discriminate among those they would employ. As we’re all allowed to discriminate against employers who do damn fool things. And as Gary Becker pointed out, employers who stupidly do so will lose money. This is a problem best left to the market to solve.

And think what happens if this really is discrimination against Muslim women? Their wages fall I make a fortune by specifically employing only Muslim women. And don’t say it doesn’t happen that way because Dame Stevie Shirley showed outright that it does work.

How Fanatabulously fabulosa

I had seen this story and not thought much of it. Now I understand it a bit better and think it’s great:

A Church of England theological college has apologised after trainee priests held a church service in the antiquated gay slang language Polari to commemorate LGBT History Month.

Couldn’t give a bugger about LGBT history month of course but a service in Polari? Why the hell not?

Well, actually, given that this is the CoE, the only reason I can think of for why not is that only the priests would understand it.

How is bacon racist?

Two men who threw rashers of bacon inside a north London mosque in a racially motivated attack have been jailed for eights months.

Mateusz Pawlikowski, 22, and Piotr Czak-Zukowski, 28, walked into Al-Rahman Mosque in north London as worshippers were getting ready for evening prayer.

Pawlikowski approached one of them, swore at him, and threw a rasher of bacon towards him, continuing to throw further rashers on the floor of the prayer room.

Behaviour likely to cause a breach of the peace I can see, yes. But racism? How can we have race when talking about a religion?

There’s silly, there’s Ritchie and then there’s crazed

Various ones have been properly convinced that there is a plan for a European superstate. Forbes’ writer Tom Worstall wrote that the Brexit vote was about the United Kingdom “not joining the monster of the European Union to come.” The Bible tells of a Beast monster that will arise in the end times in Europe. Dr. Thiel cites news reports, as well as the Old and New Testaments, to show that the monster many fear will arise in Europe, despite the vote by the British to exit the European Union.

A written article of related interest is titled “Is a Brexit a step towards a monstrous militaristic superstate?”

Your guide to Ramadan fasting

Interestingly sensible, once one has absorbed the basic idea of daytime fasting through Ramadan:

Ruling for person unable to observe fast?

Dr. Ali Ahmed Mashael: If a person is unable to observe fast, he has to feed one poor person for each day that he didn’t fast. But, it is better to observe fast.

What is the ruling on fasting for those who are constantly travelling and not staying at a place for a long time.

Dr. Ali Ahmed Mashael: A traveller is permitted not to fast if he travels over a distance of 78kms per day.

However, a seasoned traveller who does not get travel weary can fast.

If a person stays in the country for four days or more, he should fast and perform prayers.

But if he stays for less than four days, he should perform Jama and Qasr prayers and fast.

Earlier, travelling was not easy. But now travelling has become smooth so fasting is not tough even for regular travellers. So, it is preferable for Muslims to observe fast.

A very sensible observation that the world has changed.

What is the Shariah ruling as regards eye drops and injections during the day?

Dr. Ali Ahmed Mashael: Eye drops, according to Shafai’i and Hanafi, do not break the fast even if the fasting person can taste it in the throat.

This is because the eye is not a normal place for receiving food or drink, even if something reaches the throat.

The fast is broken through anything entering through open ports like the ear, nose and mouth.

Injections do not invalidate the fast, whether it is intravenous or intramuscular, and whether there is a taste or not.

These do not reach the stomach via an open port, unless the injections are used to assist the body as food and drink like in the case of a nutrient injection. In such cases it breaks the fast.

I grew up in a pretty relaxed Catholicism but reading around what the Irish Church of the 50s was like, for example, one can imagine very similar questions and answers about Lent or no meat Fridays and the like. I actually recall one monk teaching us youngsters (and it was youngsters) of a Lenten rule. If we’d given up sweeties for Lent (no, didn’t happen for me but….) did that mean that if we were given some for our birthday, which happened to fall in Lent, we couldn’t eat them? No, your birthday, and for example that of St Patrick if you were of Irish background (and very grudgingly, the Irish influence in British Catholicism being rather strong, St George if you were English, David, Welsh and so on) is a celebratory day, a Feast Day, and thus Lenten restrictions do not apply. That might actually be exactly the same as Shariah works, the answer being dependent upon which authority you consult.

The actual injunctions are different but the method of logic in reaching them is almost exactly the same. I can imagine Rabbis chewing over the same points too, or at least in the same manner.

This would be a most unkind translation

Voice of America

LA Muslim Leaders Demand Gun Control in Response to Orlando Shooting
Voice of America – ‎1 hour ago‎
June 14, 2016 3:19 AM. LOS ANGELES—. At a multi-faith vigil at the front steps of the Islamic Center of Southern California, Muslim leaders said it is time to do something after the worst mass shooting in the history of the United States.

Don’t let our peeps have guns because one of them might do this again…..

Shock! Horror! Religious people believe their religion!

Half of British Muslims want gay sex to be made illegal, according to a new poll.

The survey for Channel 4 found there was a “chasm” between views among the British Muslim community and mainstream opinion in this country.

It found 52 per cent of Muslims said homosexuality should not be legal in Britain.

Of more than 1,000 British Muslims polled by ICM, 39 per cent agreed “wives should always obey their husbands”, and 31 per cent said it was acceptable for a man to have more than one wife.

I’m pretty sure that all flavours of Islam believe the following three things:

1) Homosexuality should be illegal.

2) Wives should obey their husbands.

3) A man may have more than one wife.

The finding is thus that people who believe in a religion believe in a religion.

As to what we do about it we ignore them. Just as we do the Jews about not mixing meat and dairy, the Jehovah’s Witnesses about not having a blood transfusion and so on.

How amazingly weird

Paris attacks made me ‘doubt’ presence of God, admits Archbishop of Canterbury

Despite my pure atheism it strikes me as very odd indeed to lose or doubt faith over that. Looks like pretty good evidence that the Devil and evil do exist: and if one then so the other, God and grace, no?

Our local SJW calls our attention to this

Hundreds of British Muslims have taken out an advert to highlight their “united condemnation” of terrorism after the attacks in Paris.

The advert, issued by the Muslim Council of Britain (MCB) and endorsed by more than 300 of the body’s affiliates, features an image of the Eiffel Tower and the words: “With one voice, British Muslims condemn the Paris attacks unreservedly.

“The barbaric acts of Daesh [Isis] have no sanction in the religion of Islam, which forbids terrorism and the targeting of innocents.

“Muslims have held vigils and donated blood for the victims. It is not the terrorists who represent our faith but brave individuals like Stade de France security guard Zouheir, who risked his life to stop the attackers.”

I’m quite certain that that is how the vast majority of Muslims feel. Just as I’m certain that that tiny fraction that supports Deash reads the existence of the Caliphate differently. Which is rather the rub really.