Cranmer

Jedward are out but deadwood remains

2009-11-22T22:14:00.004Z

Cranmer cannot recall the last time the Conservative Party had its act together so swiftly, with such deftness, panache, creativity, flair and intuition for the trivial obsessions and the shallow mood of the nation...

Van Rompuy's tax plans

2009-11-22T09:33:00.007Z

Cranmer was going to talk about the 20-minute meeting the Archbishop of Canterbury had with the Pope yesterday. But it hardly seems worth it. They have agreed 'to make progress'. That's nice, but there can be none.

Bruno Waterfield today reports on Rompuy-Stiltskin's plans for an EU-wide tax, and he has not yet even been installed / enthroned / confirmed, or whatever they intend to do with presidents of Europe.

It appears that both presidents (Rompuy and Barroso) want a new 'Euro tax' (to be drawn from a fixed percentage of VAT and fuel duties).

But here's the interesting bit, which will delight the Bilderberg conspiracy advocates no end:

'Mr Van Rompuy has not set out in detail exactly which tax raising mechanisms he favours most, but after the Bilderberg meeting his spokesman said he would look favourably on either green taxes or a version of the Tobin Tax, originally proposed in 1972 by the US economist James Tobin as a tax on currency speculation.'

And the President disclosed his strategy for attaining high office. He told colleagues a few weeks ago that to achieve a top EU function you must 'not ask for high office, but become a grey mouse, and offers will come'.

Tony Blair's problem was in being a prancing peacock displaying all the colours of the rainbow. The EU prefers grey mice: no-one is interested in watching them; they are uninteresting vermin.

With an EU-wide tax at the forefront of Van Rompuy's manifesto, any hope that David Cameron had of keeping 'Europe' off the agenda for the election campaign and during his first few years of government is in vain. Our President has designs on our national taxation, and neither our Prime Minister nor our Queen can do very much at all about it.

Perhaps Mr Cameron might be invited to a Bilderberg gathering.

Rowan Williams – Defender of the Faith

2009-11-21T09:26:00.006Z

Cranmer never thought he would write that, but credit where it’s due. The Archbishop of Canterbury appears to have (re-)discovered a (slight) Protestant streak, even if his rebuke to Pope Benedict was cushioned with ecumenical pleasantries, concealed by conciliatory overtures and couched in some of his trademark dense theological verbiage.

His speech/lecture/sermon/six theses, that he nailed to the door of Gregorian University in Rome, made as strong a defence of Anglicanism as Cranmer has ever heard his successor deliver. He reiterated his commitment to women priests, and called for ‘clarity’ on the future of Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue which (let’s face it) has been a little stalled over the past decade and somewhat stifled by the Pope’s decision to heed the prompting of the Holy Spirit to offer ‘Personal Ordinariates’ to disaffected Anglicans who think their church has gone a via media too far.

He has said that he was kept largely in the dark about the Pope’s master plan, which The Telegraph says he referred to ‘the elephant in the room’ (though the phrase does not appear in the version on the Archbishop’s website). He diplomatically referred to the move as ‘an imaginative pastoral response to the needs of some’, but added that it ‘does not break any fresh ecclesiological ground’. He said: “It remains to be seen whether the flexibility suggested in the Constitution might ever lead to something less like a 'chaplaincy' and more like a church gathered around a bishop.”

And Cardinal Kasper seems as disapproving of the Pope’s move as the Archbishop was irritated. He said that such delicate issues ‘should be undertaken in the greatest possible transparency, tactfulness and mutual esteem in order not to entail meaningless tensions with our ecumenical partners’.

The Archbishop asked quite directly why the ordination of women by some local Anglican churches had become a deal-breaker in Anglican-Roman Catholic dialogue, in spite of the fact that the two religions had reached agreement on far more complex theological questions in the centuries since the Reformation. And he added a rebuke to the Roman Catholic Church, asking in what way the ordination of women as priests ‘compromise(s) the purposes of the church’.

And he continued, setting out quite clearly the issues which divide: ‘issues about authority in the Church, about primacy (especially the unique position of the pope), and the relations between the local churches and the universal church in making decisions (about matters like the ordination of women, for instance).’ He asks: ‘Are they theological questions in the same sense as the bigger issues on which there is already clear agreement? And if they are, how exactly is it that they make a difference to our basic understanding of salvation and communion? But if they are not, why do they still stand in the way of fuller visible unity? Can there, for example, be a model of unity as a communion of churches which have different attitudes to how the papal primacy is expressed?’

And he gets to the nub of the matter with: ‘The central question is whether and how we can properly tell the difference between “second order” and “first order” issues. When so very much agreement has been firmly established in first-order matters about the identity and mission of the Church, is it really justifiable to treat other issues as equally vital for its health and integrity?’

He praised Vatican II because it ‘turned away from... the Church as primarily an institution existing because of divine decree, governed by prescription from the Lord, faithfully administering the sacraments ordained by him for the salvation of souls – an external, visible society, whose members, under a hierarchical authority headed by the pope, constitute with him one visible body, tending to the same spiritual and supernatural end, i.e., sanctification of souls and their eternal happiness'. And by praising the Ecumenical Council from which Pope Benedict appears to be distancing himself, the Archbishop is seeking the ear of a very sizeable constituency of the Roman Catholic Church indeed.

He identifies the two issues which divide as authority – the nature or indeed the very possibility of the magisterium; and primacy - the extent to which the integrity of the Church is ultimately dependent on a single identifiable ministry of unity to which all local ministries are accountable. And he repudiates ‘the language of rule and hierarchy established by decree, with fixed divisions between teachers and taught, rulers and ruled’, advocating instead ‘filial and communal holiness held in a universal pattern of mutual service’. As far as he is concerned, papal primacy is ‘allied to juridical privilege and the patterns of rule and control’ to such an extent that it fails to achieve what it sets out to do. He realises that this is a ‘slightly sensitive discussion’, but he asserts that ‘the question of altar fellowship and of mutual recognition of ministerial offices should not be unconditionally dependent on a consensus on the question of primacy'.

The Archbishop of Canterbury articulates the historic via media when he observes ‘a restored universal communion would be genuinely a “community of communities” and a “communion of communions” – not necessarily a single juridically united body – and therefore one which did indeed assume that, while there was a recognition of a primatial ministry, this was not absolutely bound to a view of primacy as a centralized juridical office’.

He indicates that the corporate reading of Scripture, obedience to the Lord's commands to baptise and make eucharist, the shared understanding of the shape and the disciplines of what we have called filial holiness, do not need any ‘further test’ and certainly not ‘a universal primate’.

And so he repudiates those Roman Catholic theologians who assert that the ordination of women priests ‘makes the Anglican Communion simply less recognisably a body “doing the same Catholic thing”.’ But he says, for many Anglicans, ‘not ordaining women has a possible unwelcome implication about the difference between baptised men and baptised women, which in their view threatens to undermine the coherence of the ecclesiology in question’.

‘And the challenge to recent Roman Catholic thinking on this would have to be: in what way does the prohibition against ordaining women so “enhance the life of communion”, reinforcing the essential character of filial and communal holiness as set out in Scripture and tradition and ecumenical agreement, that its breach would compromise the purposes of the Church as so defined? And do the arguments advanced about the "essence" of male and female vocations and capacities stand on the same level as a theology derived more directly from scripture and the common theological heritage such as we find in these ecumenical texts?’

‘Even if there remains uncertainty in the minds of some about the rightness of ordaining women, is there a way of recognising that somehow the corporate exercise of a Catholic and evangelical ministry remains intact even when there is dispute about the standing of female individuals? In terms of the relation of local to universal, what we are saying here is that a degree of recognizability of 'the same Catholic thing' has survived: Anglican provinces ordaining women to some or all of the three orders have not become so obviously diverse in their understanding of filial holiness and sacramental transformation that they cannot act together, serve one another and allow some real collaboration.’

‘...It is this sort of thinking that has allowed Anglicans until recently to maintain a degree of undoubtedly impaired communion among themselves, despite the sharpness of the division over this matter. It is part of the rationale of supplementary episcopal oversight as practised in the English provinces, and it may yet be of help in securing the place of those who will not be able to accept the episcopal ministry of women. There can be no doubt, though, that the situation of damaged communion will become more acute with the inability of bishops within the same college to recognise one another's ministry in the full sense. Yet, in what is still formally acknowledged to be a time of discernment and reception, is it nonsense to think that holding on to a limited but real common life and mutual acknowledgement of integrity might be worth working for within the Anglican family? And if it can be managed within the Anglican family, is this a possible model for the wider ecumenical scene? At least, by means of some of the carefully crafted institutional ways of continuing to work together, there remains an embodied trust in the possibility of discovering a shared ministry of the gospel; and who knows what more, ultimately, in terms of restored communion?’

‘...At what point do we have to recognise that surviving institutional and even canonical separations or incompatibilities are overtaken by the authoritative direction of genuinely theological consensus, so that they can survive only by appealing to the ghost of ecclesiological positivism? The three issues I have commented on may all seem, to the eyes of a non-Roman Catholic, to belong in a somewhat different frame of reference from the governing themes of the ecumenical ecclesiology expressed in the texts under review. If the non-Roman Catholic is wrong about this, we need to have spelled out exactly why; we need to understand either that there are issues about the filial/communal calling clearly at stake in surviving disagreements; or to be shown that another theological “register” is the right thing to use in certain areas, a different register which will qualify in some ways the language that has so far shaped ecumenical convergence.’

And the Archbishop ended by noting that these are ‘political matters’ which ‘there is no point in approaching theologically’. And he posed a final question:

‘For many of us who are not Roman Catholics, the question we want to put, in a grateful and fraternal spirit, is whether this unfinished business is as fundamentally church-dividing as our Roman Catholic friends generally assume and maintain. And if it isn't, can we all allow ourselves to be challenged to address the outstanding issues with the same methodological assumptions and the same overall spiritual and sacramental vision that has brought us thus far?’

Cranmer can hardly wait to hear the response of His Holiness today, for we Anglicans ‘need to have spelled out exactly’.

Rompuy-Stiltskin – the first President of Europe

2009-11-19T20:08:00.010Z

Who is he?

God knows.

But perhaps that’s the point.

Just as the Son of God was incarnate as a humble carpenter in Galilee, so Satan does not always appear as an angel of light: sometimes he just skulks incognito, concealed in tenebrous anonymity until the time is right for him to reveal himself. And Herman Van Rompuy-Stiltskin looks far more like the spawn of Gollum that a credible, charismatic, inspirational ‘President of Europe’ who can 'represent the interests’ and 'fulfil the purposes’ of European Union on the world stage. Of course, one should not judge by appearances, but in this instance Cranmer will make an exception. The first President / Emperor of Europe for five centuries is everyone’s third choice and has all the appearance of low-key, lightweight, compromise non-entity; there is nothing presidential about him at all. He looks like just another committee man, of which we have too many already.

Cranmer thought they were after a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all people, and to lift us out of the economic morass in which we are sinking.

And yet...

Rompuy-Stiltskin has called for a massive extension of the presence of the EU in town halls, schools and sporting events. He wants an EU national anthem. He sees no place for Turkey in the EU – ever – because the EU is a ‘Christian club’.

He has talked of Europe's Christian ‘fundamental values’, which would be undermined by admitting Turkey into the union. He said: “An expansion of the EU to include Turkey cannot be considered as just another expansion as in the past. The universal values which are in force in Europe, and which are also fundamental values of Christianity, will lose vigour with the entry of a large Islamic country such as Turkey.”

Gosh.

What is interesting is that a ‘Belgian official’ has attempted to defuse this with the explanation that ‘things that are said in opposition, as David Cameron will soon find out, are different from what you find yourself saying when in government’. He continued: “Serious politics, however, is to judge someone by what they say and do when in power."

Cranmer begs to differ: serious politics is to judge someone by the extent to which they honour when in power the pledges made whilst in opposition. It is to do with such notions as consistency, sincerity, integrity, reliability, truth and honour.

It is noteworthy that when The Times introduced Herman Van Rompuy-Stiltskin last week as being ‘harmless’ and a ‘nice guy’, their opening sentence was: ‘He is a devout Roman Catholic’.

They also said he has ‘a quiet sense of purpose’. Perhaps ‘devout’ in this instance is synonymous with ‘cradle’, or euphemism for non-convert, like Tony Blair, whose devoutness is more to his own liberal agenda than to any particular orthodoxy.

And it would be very useful indeed to have a devout Roman Catholic leading Europe’s secular government while a devout Roman Catholic also occupies the Vatican: they can oppose Turkey together. It is highly unlikely that a ‘devout Catholic’ in opposition would be inclined to oppose Turkey’s accession on the basis of Europe’s ‘fundamental’ Christian values, only to discover, when in power, that Islam shares all of those values and they are not so uniquely fundamental to Christianity after all.

Whatever else is or is not known about this nonentity, he is no democrat, and so perfect to lead a fascist, totalitarian, anti-democratic, obfuscationally bureacratic Tower of Babel.

When the first Irish ‘No’ vote on the Lisbon Treaty created a slight headache, Mr Van Rompuy said ‘this doesn’t mean that we cannot continue to work in a creative way in the direction which the Constitution points in’.

Creative way?

He clarified: “I don’t object if we break up the Constitution into smaller parts, as long as we continue to work in the same direction: in the direction of more Europe.”

So there you have it: there is just one direction in the world of Rompuy-Stiltskin, irrespective of the express will of the people.

He also supports proposals for an ‘EU Tax’ to finance the Union, which he has identified could come from a specifically ring-fenced swathe of ‘green taxes’ (so that’s what they’re for).

As ever, the whole process for the appointment of Europe’s first president was a Franco-German stitch-up.

The spirit of Charlemagne broods ever closer. Van Rompuy’s appointment is the politics of pure jealousy. Everyone knows that the most credible and competent operator who could have ‘incarnated’ the EU on the world stage was Tony Blair. The problem, of course, is that his shekinah incandescence would have eclipsed the humble halos of President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel. And the EU Commission are also jealous to guard their status: whenever Tony Blair spoke, their voices would have been as whispers and their protestations nothing more than pathetic squeaks. Who would have listened to President Barroso if President Blair were co-regent?

Herman Van Rompuy has succeeded precisely because he has no charisma, no initiative, no personality and no presence. In short, he has no teeth and is therefore no threat either to the Franco-German axis or to the omnipotent European Commission.

Churchill beats Jesus as ‘most wanted Twitterer from history’

2009-11-19T08:59:00.005Z

Cranmer simply cannot be bothered with Twitter: it is nothing but a cacophony of inane flashes of gossip and damp squibs of naught; ephemeral bleats of gossamer and fatuous cock and bull; characterless whisperings of vanity, idle trivia, airy utterings, colourless rumours and hollow streams of consciousness which seeks to reduce everything to the superficial sound-bite of a Sun headline.

It is so perfectly postmodern.

Prospect Magazine has done a poll amongst the Twitterati, asking them which historic character they would have chosen to follow had the technology been around at the time.

Sir Winston Churchill came out on top.

Twits clearly think that his sublime utterances and depths of thought can be condensed into 140 characters.

The poll tested the views of the 11 per cent of British people who use Twitter — an estimated 5.5m people — and compared them to the rest of the country, revealing that while they have a strong liberal bias in their politics, their heroes are conservative (as defined by Prospect). Churchill topped the list (34%), while Jesus (30%) and Darwin (28%) came second and third.

(Cranmer would like to clarify that an examination of the extent to which Jesus and Darwin were 'conservative' would require a thesis, and it is noteworthy that even Churchill ratted an re-ratted).

According to Prospect editor David Goodhart: “Churchill and Jesus both specialised in brief, memorable phrases — so both ‘we will fight them on the beaches’ and ‘blessed are the meek’ are messages perfect for the Twitter generation. Jesus was obviously born to tweet.”

He'd have managed better
If he'd had it planned
So why'd he choose such a backward time
In such a strange land?
If he'd come today he could have reached a whole nation
Israel in 4BC
Had no mass communication...

Churchill was most popular among potential Conservative voters, men, the over-35s, and the English. Jesus, meanwhile, came first among Labour voters and Scots. But the two are a statistical dead-heat with Liberal Democrats, women and the under 35s.

Famous female figures like Elizabeth I (17%) and Joan of Arc (8%) were less popular, and women were much more likely to follow female figures.

The poll revealed that most people would much rather follow someone inspiring than evil — with Jesus, Martin Luther King (24%) and John F Kennedy (23%) comfortably outscoring Adolf Hitler (14%) and Jack the Ripper (13%). Hitler, however, holds a special fascination for men and the under 35s.

Young people were also much more likely to want to follow ‘difficult’ writers and thinkers than their parents: under 35s were more likely to follow Shakespeare — perhaps because his dialogue would be easier to understand if reduced to 140 characters. Noted wit Oscar Wilde was most popular among those who were frequent Twitter users.

The Top 20 people Twitterers want to follow:

Winston Churchill 34%
Jesus 30%
Charles Darwin 28%
Martin Luther King 24%
Leonardo Da Vinci 23%
William Shakespeare 20%
John F Kennedy 20%
Queen Elizabeth I 17%
Princess Diana 16%
Oscar Wilde 16%
Mahatma Gandhi 15%
Adolf Hitler 14%
Jack the Ripper 13%
Marilyn Monroe 12%
Eve (as in Adam and Eve) 11%
Che Guevara 10%
Joan of Arc 8%
Marie Antoinette 5%

Frankly, as far as Cranmer is concerned, the lower down one comes on this list, the greater the compliment.

The Government of Opposition

2009-11-18T18:39:00.001Z

Only in the postmodern era in which black can be white, good can be evil and right can be wrong could the Government be the Opposion.

We have been treated to a seven-minute glimpse of the 15 (or was it nine?) Bills which will constitute Labour’s final (God willing) legislative programme. And they are a distracting delusion. As David Cameron observed, the man who boasted that he had ended boom and bust has presided over the ‘longest, deepest recession in recent memory’. He said: “Our economy has been overtaken by Italy. We have had the biggest bank bailout in the world, the biggest bank run in Europe and after all this the governor of Bank of England's verdict is there has been little real reform.”

And mocking the Prime Minister’s ‘moral compass’, Mr Cameron accused Gordon Brown of borrowing slogans ‘directly from the far right (sic) BNP with his pledge for “British jobs for British workers”, and allowing No 10 staff to smear MPs’. He said this government now represented a ‘moral failure for the prime minister and monumental failure for the country’.

There was no Immigration Bill. There was no Bill for directly-elected police representatives. There was no mention of the NHS or reforms to Parliament, and yet there was the announcement of a new law to halve (yes, halve) the budget deficit.

Cranmer is not sure how a government can legislate for such an aspiration, and he feels sorry for the Queen who is constitutionally obliged to spout such bilge.

How long, O Lord, how long?

Labour’s Equality Bill means Christmas could be ‘killed off’

2009-11-18T09:21:00.003Z

Christmas wouldn’t be Christmas without the annual Daily Mail blurb about Christmas being banned somewhere or other: lights being renamed to accommodate other religions; Santa being banned on health and safety grounds; reindeer having their animal rights restored; carol singers barred from shopping centres; Winterval supplanting any mention of Christ; nativity plays replaced with the Grinch; Christmas cards which don’t mention Christmas...

Monsignor Andrew Summersgill is the general secretary of the Catholic Bishops' Conference. It is his job to make all the arrangements for the Pope’s state visit next year – the first ever by a pope to the United Kingdom – and one gets the feeling that he is raising his profile as a prelude.

Today he warns that Harriet Harman’s Equality Bill will lead to the banning of Christmas celebrations. He warns of the Bill’s ‘chilling effect' on town halls and other organisations, ‘for fear of offending other cultures’. He notes such developments as the renaming of Oxford's Christmas festival as the 'Winter Light Festival' to make it more ‘inclusive’; a local authority instructing tenants to take down Christmas lights in case they might offend Muslim neighbours; and authorities removing the word ‘Christmas’ out of cultural sensitivity to everyone except Christians.

Monsignor Summersgill has also recently warned that the European Commission's Equal Treatment Directive is an ‘instrument of oppression’ which will force Christians to act against their consciences.

Cranmer has some sympathy with the Monsignor’s concerns, but one cannot help but feel that he is stirring feathers and spouting histrionics in a desperate attempt to find something he might have in common with Pope Benedict XVI; some ‘common cause’ he might be able to discuss with His Holiness next year which might earn him a Vatican gold star and perhaps a promotion.

The reality is, for all the Christmas scare stories, the festival remains central to the mid-winter bleakness, just as it did since before the time it was Christianised. There may be the occasional silly regulation, over-zealous interpretation or hyper-sensitive application of some rule or other, but such agendas are really no different to the seventeenth-century attempts to force businesses to trade on Christmas day or to rename the festival ‘Christ-tide’, in order that the ‘popish mass’ might be eradicated from the public sphere. Thankfully, Harpie Hormone is no Lord Protector, and Labour's Equality Bill is nowhere near the Cromwellian level of prohibition on Christmas.

Conservative Muslim Forum shunned by CCHQ

2009-11-17T09:08:00.004Z

Cranmer covered the establishment of this official Conservative-Muslim website exactly two years ago. There is nothing wrong in principle with political campaigning websites aimed at the micro-narratives of the diverse and disparate. Let us have one for the Christians, one for the Jews, one for the Sikhs, one for the Atheists, etc., etc. As long as their aims accord with the objectives of the Conservative Party, and their understanding of theology accords with conservative poitical philosophy, there should be no problems at all.

But back in 2007, the Conservative Muslim ~~Caliphate~~ Forum was concerned with issues which were so far off the policy radar of the Conservative Party that it was difficult to understand why they were permitted a subsidised presence at CCHQ and why they were able to use the Party’s logo – other, of course, than to garner the votes of like-minded Muslims.

They advocated nuclear weapons for Iran, the cessation of support for Israel, a compulsory history curriculum in schools which gave ‘full recognition to the massive contribution that Islam has made to the development of Western civilisation’, and an immigration policy which permitted the right of entry to the UK of those who reject our democracy and its institutions. They even support Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s message of ‘gay-hate’.

Cranmer knows a good many Conservative Muslims and even more Muslim Conservatives, and they do not hold beliefs or advocate policies which bear any remote resemblance to those advocated by the Conservative Muslim Forum. Indeed, it is not clear to what extent those behind the website are Conservatives at all, as they seek to join President Ahmadinejad in his quest to ‘wipe Israel off the map’; grant support to a barbaric theocracy which executes women and children; and give succour to Holocaust-deniers. And by advocating the admission to the UK of Muslim preachers who wish to destroy British democracy, they fuel the flames of the Islamist agenda and offer them the Conservative brand in support of a totalitarian Shari’a system. The rights and liberties of the British people are inalienable, and the Conservative Party above all parties should stand in their defence.

Here was an opportunity for Conservative ‘moderate’ Muslims to distance themselves from their ‘extremist’ co-religionists, yet they have done no such thing. Instead, they challenge the foreign policy advocated by the Party Leader, repudiate Conservative policy, undermine the FCO, and assert that their way is the only ‘sensible’ way. And further, they demand censorship:

‘We accept that some terrorists do abuse Islam for their purposes. However, an incoming Conservative administration must deny their attempt to link criminal acts to any religion. The term ‘terrorism’ must be separated from any religious references. We reiterate that the Conservative Party should not explicitly or implicitly link terrorism with Islam as, similar to other major religions, Islam forbids terrorism.’

It is curious that the Conservative Muslim Forum wishes to silence the factual reporting – ‘explicit or implicit’ – of the Islamist terrorists who shoot or blow up innocent people with a cry of ‘Allahu Akbar!’ on their lips and a copy of the Qur’an in their hands. It is concerning that the Conservative Muslim Forum seeks to silence those Muslim Conservatives who perceive a link between terrorism and the rise of Wahhabi Islam. It is worrying that the Conservative Muslim Forum has no place for Muslim Conservatives who oppose nuclear weapons for Iran. It is disquieting that the Conservative Muslim Forum does not tolerate Muslim Conservatives who support the existence of Israel. It is offensive that the Conservative Muslim Forum isolates those Muslim Conservatives who do not want to see homosexuals summarily executed.

There are very many Conservative Muslims who find a natural home in the Party and who view the theology and politics of this Forum with extreme distaste. It is noteworthy that CCHQ have been quick to stamp on MPs or candidates who advocate tax cuts, who support grammar schools, who join Better Off Out, and God help any who dare even quote Enoch Powell. But the odious policies of the Conservative Muslim Forum have been tolerated for years. Global Wahhabism is a far more immediate and real threat to the world than ‘Global Warming’, yet while David Cameron is sledding on the melting glaciers, the Conservative Muslim Forum has been advancing a decidedly anti-Semitic and homophobic agenda - at the Conservative Party’s expense, financially if not electorally.

But it has taken two years for CCHQ to begin to address some of the concerns which were posed by Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome.

And it was The Daily Telegraph’s Mandrake column which prompted the investigation.

It transpires that the Conservative Muslim Forum has been so keen to win the Muslim vote that they have been lifting entire sections of text from ‘IslamOnline’ – a website founded by Yusuf al-Qaradawi. That he happens to be a ‘hate preacher’ and banned from Britain is apparently of no consequence. That he has been described as ‘dangerous and divisive’ by David Cameron is apparently irrelevant.

Can you imagine what wrath, what fire and brimstone would be poured out by CCHQ upon the owner of a Conservative website which happened to quote Enoch Powell?

Yusuf al-Qaradawi doubtless spouts an awful lot that is ‘in line with mainstream Muslim thought’: it is the custom of the devil to appear as an angel of light. But by quoting even the wholesome sections from a website founded and written by a man who supports suicide attacks against Israeli civilians, which he called a ‘necessary Jihad’, the Conservative Muslim Forum lends credence to and exalts the status of the unofficial leader of the ‘Muslim Brotherhood’.

The Conservative Muslim Forum was established in order to increase the Conservative Party’s ‘understanding of Muslim issues and (to) encourage Muslim involvement in the party’.

It is time that its commitment to our shared values – ‘belief in enterprise, in the sense of community, the belief in the family and in the value of hard work’ – was extended to include democracy, transparency, accountability, scrutiny and an advocacy of the British national interest.

Dispatches and the ‘pro-Israel lobby’

2009-11-16T08:15:00.004Z

Cranmer does not know what Peter Oborne intends to say on tonight’s C4 Dispatches programme,Inside Britain's Israel Lobby, but judging by many of the histrionic comments beneath the publicity spiel, one might think they are about to broadcast a revised version of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. The recurring theme is that of 'Global Jewish Conspiracy': and C4 are permitting an ignorant crowd of amoebic anti-Semites to propagate their vile gospel of Jew-hatred with impunity. The thread is impeccably timed to help assuage the rising tide of anti-Semitism in the UK. No doubt The Guardian will be delighted (update: they are).

Cranmer has received an email from a communicant member of the Anglican Friends of Israel, who observes that few people are aware of the European Union Monitoring Centre for Racism and Xenophobia's Working Definition of Antisemitism . Certainly, it appears that C4’s moderators are not, for the comments are punctuated throughout with examples of what the EUMC calls 'the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media’. They say that current anti-Semitism ‘… charges Jews with conspiring to harm humanity, and it is often used to blame Jews for “why things go wrong”. It is expressed in speech, writing, visual forms and action, and employs sinister stereotypes and negative character traits.’

It continues:

‘Contemporary examples of antisemitism in public life, the media, schools, the workplace, and in the religious sphere could, taking into account the overall context, include...

‘Accusing Jewish citizens of being more loyal to Israel, or to the alleged priorities of Jews worldwide, than to the interests of their own nations...

‘Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective – such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.’

Moderators of the C4 comment thread have approved numerous examples of these forms of anti-Semitic discourse. For instance:

‘We are being attacked from within by 5th columns in our parliament for this murderous regime.’

‘It is disgraceful that C4 is intending to expose the pro-Israel lobby. Surely it is a signatory to the "National Press & TV Zionist Agreement", which stipulates in paragraph one: "Thou shalt not print nor broadcast any reference to the undemocratic control by the agents of Israel over the House of Commons &/or the House of Lords”.’

‘.. the Israel lobby works to subvert the British political process and foreign policy to serve not British interests, but the interests of a foreign occupying tyranny, a left-over from the colonial era.’

‘Let's see the hand of global Zionism at work.’

‘We want our country back. The agents of a foreign power embedded at all levels of our government and politics need flushing out.’

‘The Zionist Lobby counts many British politicians (who) function as a fifth column in support of Israel's illegal actions. The powerful impact of the Zionist Lobby on British politics is more damaging to our country than that of the ghastly BNP.’

No-one claims, least of all Cranmer, that the State of Israel and its religio-political policies should not be rigorously examined and critically scrutinised, and some of the comments make legitimate, hard-hitting criticisms. However, many of these comments revive the discredited Global Jewish Conspiracy theory, thereby stoking anti-Semitism in the UK, and their presence on C4’s website is unworthy of a television channel which prides itself on exposing and challenging racism wherever it is to be found.

David Cameron does Songs of Praise

2009-11-15T09:17:00.005Z

In a continuation of his 'doing God' period, today David Cameron appears on the BBC's Songs of Praise as the programme was filmed in his Oxfordshire constituency of Witney. He confesses again his belief in the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and the God and Father of Our Lod Jesus Christ, and he continues his Anglican self-deprecation.

He told Songs of Praise: "I believe in God and I'm a Christian and I worship - not as regularly as I should - but I go to church. Do I drop to my knees and ask for guidance whenever an issue comes up? No, I don't. But it's part of who I am."

There is something refreshingly honest about this appearance which is in stark contrast to that of Tony Blair, and even more to Gordon Brown's attempts to 'do God'. And this is not a trivial, partisan point: Mr Blair purposely did not 'do God' whilst in office, which gave the impression of dissembling: everyone knew that he did 'do God' in private and unashamedly converted to God quite spectacularly on leaving Downing Street. Fair or not, there is more than a whiff of hypocrisy about him. And Gordon Brown undoubtedly has a sincere Christian faith, and yet he is far more comfortable talking about his father's commitment than his own, so much so that when he does it feels insincere. When he talks of his spirituality it is with all the emotion of a Terminator: his compassion is expressed in the dialogue of fiscal rectitude and salvation lies in tax credits.

David Cameron has perhaps learned from both. We live in a 'spiritual' age: it is not fond of orthodoxy, but it demands appreciation of that which lies beyond the carnal and material. In order for Conservatism to regain its compassion, he understands that 'heart' and 'society' need to be re-injected into the brand.

And yet Mr Cameron is keen to give the impression that God will not enter Downing Street as he indicates that he does not get on his knees to pray for help 'when an issue comes up'. We all know he is talking of the 'big' issues, like war and peace. But what is wrong with praying to God before making such monumental decisions? Is there some shame in this? Or is the fear that of accusations of 'Christian jihad' and the perception of an oxymoronic Anglican Crusade? The bizarre thing is that moments of crisis are precisely when most people do fall on their knees: God is the final refuge; when there is no crisis, God is superfluous.

In an apparent reference to the death earlier this year of his son Ivan, Mr Cameron said that tough times in his life had strengthened his faith: "For me, and I suspect for lots of other people too, bad things actually sometimes make you think more about faith and the fact that you're not facing these things on your own," he said.

Mr Cameron said he prayed when he went to church, and described it as 'a quiet time when you can reflect a bit about your life and your family and your responsibilities and ask some questions'.

Asked whether he would follow his Christian beliefs or his political instincts when making a tough decision, he said: "I think all the time in politics, you're always thinking about what's the right thing to do. Politicians are always a bit of a mixture of ego and altro and you just hope that the altro wins out and that people do the right thing rather than the politically convenient thing.

"And by and large I think in politics, if you do the right things and stick to your principles then that comes through."

He sums up his Christian faith: "That's what it is to me. Church and prayer have always been about that. It's a moment to stop, to stand back and to sort of think about how you're getting on."

The Church of England has become a way of being religious without sounding religious, and Mr Cameron is perfectly Anglican. His moral compass has not sprung out of thin air: it is consistent with the moral tone of three centuries of Tory-Anglican fusion.

The media rarely report on the Church of England except when the institution is beset by embarrassment (which is frequent) or chaos (which is legion). The considerable amount of sacrificial good work and unpaid volunteerism which goes on is almost entirely disregarded. And the Church does not blow its own trumpet, not just for fear of sounding pharisaical, but because it knows it is in many ways quite weak. It cannot remain the Established Church by being the church triumphant: it has instead to be the church tolerant and inclusive, which makes friends with anyone of good will, including not only the local Roman Catholics but the local Muslims, and which encourages women to take over those roles which were previously reserved for men. Rather like the Conservative Party under David Cameron: an organisation which many thought to be dying — it is only four years since Geoffrey Wheatcroft published its highly enjoyable obituary under the title ‘The Strange Death of Tory England’ — but which is instead regenerating itself.

Perhaps, under David Cameron, the rift between the Conservative Party and the Church of England - which sadly reached its nadir under Margaret Thatcher - will be healed. Both Party and Church would benefit from a zenith of partnership and cooperation like that seen during the nineteenth century, when both shared a commitment to the maintenance of Establishment in the face of fierce opposition from the dissenting churches and the Liberal Party. The labels have changed slightly, but they are the same spiritual forces. One can only pray that David Cameron will manifest the wisdom and discernment necessary to defeat them.

Straight couple demand civil partnership

2009-11-14T09:27:00.006Z

He he.

Well, why not? Just as homosexuals complain that the institution of marriage is discriminatory because they are forbidden to enter the divinely-ordained institution, so heterosexuals may complain that civil partnership is discriminatory because married couples are forbidden to enter the man-made institution on the grounds that they already have the divinely-ordained institution of marriage.

And so another ‘hierarchy of rights’ battle begins.

But Cranmer prophesies that the heterosexuals will lose. The Civil Partnership Act 2004 is clear on eligibility:

3.1 Two people are not eligible to register as civil partners of each other if—
(a) they are not of the same sex,
(b) either of them is already a civil partner or lawfully married,
(c) either of them is under 16, or
(d) they are within prohibited degrees of relationship.

The Act is inherently discriminatory, or ‘heterophobic’ and ‘offensive’, as Peter Tatchell says (and whatever one may think about him, he is at least consistent).

The Conservative Party attempted to add an amendment to the Civil Partnership Bill; one which would have granted siblings the same rights as homosexuals. Cheryl Gillan was concerned with such instances as two spinster sisters who have lived together all of their lives, or a bachelor brother and spinster sister who care for elderly relatives. The amendment was defeated, since the sole purpose of the legislation was to grant a state-recognised union to homosexuals alone.

And so heterosexual couples are barred from the institution.

Cranmer wonders, though, what is stopping two men or two women who just happen to be mates from entering into a civil partnership purely for business reasons? If they wished to (say) buy a house together in order to get on the 'property ladder', as many single people now do, it is not clear how the Act may discriminate against them in their (laudable) quest to minimise their tax liability.

It is ironic that the Civil Partnership Act admits homosexual couples of the same sex, and (apparently) heterosexual couples of the same sex, but prohibits heterosexual couples of the opposite sex. Perhaps the best way to undermine its discriminatory provisions is not for heterosexual couples to attempt to enter into a partnership by (illegally) 'duping council regsitrars', but by thousands of heterosexual same-sex couples entering into a civil partnership for 'business' reasons. The state can hardly enquire, let alone prove, that such a partnership is asexual.

Lithuania incurs EU wrath for law against the propagation of homosexuality to children

2009-11-13T08:15:00.003Z

If ever proof were needed that EU national governments may no longer legislate in accordance with their own cultural traditions, or enact laws which uphold the Christian understanding of the family, it is now evident.

Astonishingly (or perhaps not), the European Parliament has considered ‘Article 7’ action against Lithuania, which could have resulted in Lithuania’s suspension from the European Union. And all because they have dared to confront what they deem to be insidious homosexual propaganda.

Lithuania is a predominantly Roman Catholic country, and has effectively passed its own Section 28: ‘A Law on the Protection of Minors against the Detrimental Effect of Public Information’ which prohibits promotion of ‘homosexual, bisexual, polygamous relations’ among children under the age of 18. The law does not ban the discussion of such issues; it prohibits their promotion. This is not ‘anti-gay’ or ‘homophobic’; it is for the protection of children. But Gay and human rights groups have condemned the law, claiming it institutionalises homophobia, is discriminatory, and violates the right to freedom of expression. The ubiquitous Michael Cashman, who spends every waking hour of his working life on the promotion of homosexuality, all at the expense of the EU taxpayer, said: “It is my duty as an elected member of the European Parliament to act strongly against grave attempts to diminish human rights of EU citizens. This new law is a spit in the face of the European values. To limit freedom of expression based on homophobia is a clear breach of EU’s fundamental rights and principles.”

No mention, of course, of the diminishing rights of EU Christians, or the buckets of saliva being thrown into their faces, or the limitations being placed on their freedom of expression.

While the Lithuanian president vetoed the measure last June, the Lithuanian parliament exercised its democratic right and overturned his veto. The law is due to take effect next March.

And so the European Parliament voted 349-218 to condemn the new law because they say it contravenes the European Convention on Human Rights. They insist that the law should therefore be repealed: it is inconsistent with EU membership.

And yet we are told that the education of children and parental rights are not a competence of the European Union. And the Irish were duped into believing that the Lisbon Treaty (into which the Charter of Fundamental Rights is now incorporated) does not impinge upon national sovereignty in these areas.

The Lithuanian parliament has expressed ‘regret’ and ‘deep concern’ that the European Parliament attempted to ‘doubt the lawfulness of the law passed by the great majority of the democratically elected parliament of a member state, although this issue should not fall under the jurisdiction of the EP’.

Yet the Lithuanian parliament can ‘regret’ and express ‘deep concern’ until the cows come home. When the European Court of Human Rights speaks, its pronouncements are ex cathedra, perfect wisdom, infallible. The will of ‘the democratically elected parliament of a member state’ is of no consequence.

Interestingly, Lithuanian Labour Party member Mecislovas Zasciurinskas asked if this is a one-off attempt to interfere with the affairs of a sovereign state or the beginnings of an absolute dictatorship. He said: “Some years back we called this ‘Moscow’s Grip,’ the tendency to meddle in everybody’s business…”

Is ‘Article 7’ the fate which awaits David Cameron’s quest to ‘repatriate’ certain competences under subsidiarity provisions? Are threats of expulsion the consequence of transgressing the divine right of the European Union?

The faithful communicant who brought this story to His Grace’s attention has attempted to get a transcript of the debate in the European Parliament. This was eventually provided, but he says that in order to understand what was going on, he would have needed to have been proficient in every European language that was used in the debate. Apparently the EP rapporteurs do not see fit to provide translations of the whole proceedings in a single language. No doubt to do so would provide too much transparency.

Victory for free speech in ‘gay hate’ law

2009-11-12T16:27:00.000Z

Their Lordships have triumphed. The House of Commons has accepted defeat in its attempt to remove Lord Waddington’s ‘free speech’ clause from the Coroners and Justice Bill, wherein is contained the legislation intended to eradicate incitement to hatred on the grounds of sexuality, or ‘homophobic’ expression in the public sphere.

A number of comedians had expressed concern that the new law might leave them open to prosecution.

The real comedians were those who thought that such a law was ever enforceable in the first place, for when does a forcefully-expressed opinion become harassment? When does criticism become phobia? When does a reasoned sermon become hate preaching?

Lord Waddington said:

“We are living at a time when Christian beliefs are under attack. That is something that I never thought I’d see during my lifetime. And so, for the first time, for a very long time, we are compelled to state our beliefs very, very clearly. And when issues arise which clearly are matters which affect our faith we have got to be prepared to state our case before the public.”

The poor you will always have with you – and they shall vote Labour

2009-11-12T09:21:00.018Z

In his conference speech this year, David Cameron received a rapturous standing ovation when he said: "Who made the poorest poorer? Who left youth unemployment higher? Who made inequality greater? No, not the wicked Tories. You, Labour: you're the ones that did this to our society."

And a few days ago, he gave his much-lauded ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ speech, outlining his plans for social renewal. He spoke of community, of relationship, of civility and courtesy – of the need to change our culture.

Today, there is a by-election in Glasgow North East where a scandalous 30 per cent are unemployed and claiming benefits; life expectancy in the poorest areas is just 60.2 years – worse than Bangledesh, Iraq and Uzbekistan. Several primary schools are facing closure, healthcare is manifestly deficient, and poverty abounds. The former-Speaker’s constituency is ranked 7th in the UK for the highest rate of benefit claimants.

And Labour will win the seat, just as they have for the past 74 years.

There is no salvation in Socialism. There is no social justice, no economic sense, no equity, no progress.

Statistics sometimes speak for themselves: sometimes they are convoluted and complex; sometimes they just confirm the bleeding obvious. In this case, it is simply that Labour relies on the votes of the poor. The more people are dependent upon the state, the more likely are they to vote Labour. Ergo, in the naked pursuit of power, there is no incentive for Labour ever to tackle poverty, unemployment or the spiralling welfare bill which presently stands at a colossal £165 billion a year.

The Lord said that the poor will always be with us. He must either have foreseen the rise of Labour or the invention of 'relative poverty'.

Commons seats ranked according to the number of benefit claimants:
(click each table for a clearer view)

Lord Mandelson to be appointed Defender of the Faith

2009-11-11T21:50:00.001Z

There is something of a decomposing inevitability in the news that the Right Honourable the Baron Mandelson of Foy in the County of Herefordshire and Hartlepool in the County of Durham, First Secretary of State and Lord President of the Privy Council and Secretary of State for Business and Secretary of State for Innovation and Skills is to become Minister of ~~Spin~~ ~~Propaganda~~ ~~Truth~~ Information. It is perhaps the New Labour crowning glory that they have created a whole new government department dedicated to his dark art, or, rather, that he has reached such a position of omnipotence within government that a whole new department has been created especially for him.

His task will be to explain the inexplicable, market the unmarketable, defend the indefensible, excuse the inexcusable and sell the unsellable – Gordon Brown and Labour. He will need to be at once an egregious estate agent, a sophist second-hand car salesman and a pimping politician.

It is a curious appointment, for if, as is rumoured, the First Minister is to make weekly televised briefings, it will considerably increase his stature and profile; indeed, he will appear positively presidential, even prime ministerial...

Tom Wise is jailed, but Timothy Kirkhope is defamed

2009-11-11T17:51:00.000Z

A most curious juxtaposition. The article on the EU Politix site which recounts the sorry tale of former UKIP MEP Tom Wise, who was today jailed for defrauding the taxpayer of £39,000, actually carries a picture of leading Conservative MEP, Timothy Kirkhope. And Mr Kirkhope's picture also features prominently on the The EU Parliament main page (which will doubtless disappear overnight).

Cranmer would call Mr Kirkhope to alert him to this slander, but he has rather more important things to do. He does wonder, however, if Edward McMillan-Scott has taken up a position with Dod's Parliamentary Communications Ltd.

Lord Monckton: Global Warming is a pretext for a One-World Government

2009-11-11T08:16:00.006Z

Lord Monckton has warned the peoples of Europe and the United States that the forthcoming Copenhagen Summit in December will use ‘global warming’ hype as a pretext to lay the foundation for a one-world unelected ‘communist-style’ government with enormous powers.

Christopher, Lord Monckton is a business consultant, writer and former policy adviser to Margaret Thatcher. He told a Minnesota Free Market Institute audience at Bethel University in St. Paul, Minnesota on 14 October 2009:

‘At Copenhagen, this December, weeks away, a treaty will be signed — your president will sign it. Most of the third-world countries will sign it because they think they’re going to get money out of it. Most of the left-wing regimes around the world, like the European Union, will rubber-stamp it. Virtually nobody won’t sign it.

‘I have read that treaty and what it says is this: That a world government is going to be created. The word “government” actually appears as the first of three purposes of the new entity.

‘The second purpose is the transfer of wealth from the countries of the West to third-world countries in satisfaction of what is called, coyly, a “climate debt”, because we’ve been burning CO2 and they haven’t and we’ve been screwing up the climate. We haven’t been screwing up the climate, but that’s the line.

‘And the third purpose of this new entity, this government, is enforcement’, Lord Monckton added.

(Click here to watch the full speech and here to watch the concluding remarks)

The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change is a treaty that most world governments are expected to sign in Copenhagen in December 2009 – including Britain and the United States. Lord Monckton told Fox News that the 181-page working document of the treaty, which contains the word 'government' in its Annex I, paragraph 38, transfers enormous powers, greater than any other governments' powers, to the unelected bureaucratic entity, which will be in charge of managing the most important aspect of Western societies without elections and polls. It does not mention the words ‘election’, ‘ballot’, ‘elected official’ or ‘vote’ anywhere in it.

According to Lord Monckton, by signing this document, all the industrial countries, including the United Kingdom and the United States, will forever take responsibility for the ills of other countries.

Page 6 of the document states: ‘PP.15 Further acknowledging that developed countries have a historical responsibility for their disproportionate contribution to the causes and consequences of climate change, reflecting their disproportionate historical use of a shared global carbon space since 1850 as well as their proposed continuing disproportional use of the remaining global carbon space ... Warming of the climate system, as a consequence of human activity, is unequivocal.’

Page 38: ‘28. The adverse effects of climate change and response measures, due to the historical cumulative GHG emissions of developed countries, constitute an additional burden on all developing country Parties (particularly low-lying and other small island countries, countries with low-lying coastal, arid and semi-arid areas or areas liable to floods, drought and desertification, and developing countries with fragile mountainous ecosystems) in reducing poverty, developing strategies to address social vulnerabilities and attaining sustainable development and a threat to achieving the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.’

Page 122: ‘17. (a) Compensate for damage to the LDC's economy and also compensate for lost opportunities, resources, lives, land and dignity ...’

Page 27: ‘(b) Particularly vulnerable populations, groups and communities, [or] All vulnerable groups whose adaptive capacity is low, [or] Groups requiring special protection ...’

Page 43: ‘41. (a) Assessed contributions of at least 0.7% of annual GDP of developed country Parties.’ These funds will go directly to governments and ‘community organizations.’

Page 39: ‘33. [The financial burden] must be at least USD 67 billion (in the range of USD 70-140 billion) per year.’

The commitments of the developed countries are ‘economy wide.’ Page 58: ‘7. (a) Mitigation commitments by all developed countries are legally binding economy wide and absolute quantified emission reduction commitments.’

‘(b) Mitigation actions by developing countries are voluntary ...’ (emphasis added.)

(Click here to read the draft treaty)

Lord Monckton, who disputes whether global warming is man-made, has repeatedly challenged Al Gore to debate him on the science of global warming and asked the High Court to acknowledge nine of the innumerable of errors in Al Gore’s Oscar-winning film An Inconvenient Truth. Addressing Mr Gore, Lord Monckton said, ‘And if you don’t dare, I want you to remain silent about that subject forever from now on.’ Mr Gore did not accept the challenge. Other scientists have also asked Mr Gore to debate the science of global warming and he has consistently refused to do so.

James Delingpole of The Daily Telegraph, wrote:

‘You have to be careful when talking about ‘One World Government’. Sooner than you can say “Bilderberg”, you’ll find yourself bracketed with all the crazies, and conspiracy theorists and 9/11 Truthers. But I don’t think you need to be mad to be concerned about the issues raised by Lord Monckton in this speech.

‘I don’t know how accurate he is on the specific details, but Monckton is certainly right in principle. The climate fear industry is, I believe, the single greatest threat to national sovereignty (as we’ve already seen under the EU, with its directives on carbon emissions, landfill etc) and individual liberty of our era.

‘I don’t believe in conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, the Climate Fear Industry isn’t a theory,' he added.

On 19 October 2009, the Prime Minister gave a speech to the Major Economies Forum in London. He said:

'In every era there are one or two moments when nations come together and reach agreements that make history because they change the cause of history, and Copenhagen must be such a time.'

And earlier, the Swedish EU Presidency said at the Washington DC meeting with President Obama that ‘the climate negotiations in Copenhagen must not fail’.

Of course, environmentalists are presently celebrating a second tribunal decision confirming that their strongly-held views on climate change deserve the same level of protection as religious faith. The Christian Legal Centre is persuaded that this is a clear sign of ‘social, moral and legal chaos’.

And they are not wrong.

Lord Monckton has glimpsed the New World Order. The media focus will be on the politics and the economics, while behind the scenes emerges the spiritual force of Gaia, the one-world religion, through which all mankind will be united whether or not they subscribe to ‘the Truth’ of its infallible orthodoxy and its doctrinal absolutes.

Archbishop of Canterbury invites disaffected Roman Catholics to join the Anglican Communion

2009-11-10T08:51:00.010Z

Marvellous development. Tremendous day. Truly historic, momentous and extraordinarily generous.

As Pope Benedict XVI issued his ‘Apostolic Constitution’ setting out the terms by which disaffected Anglicans are invited to cross the Tiber and join his church, in a spirit of ecclesial benevolence and with all the generosity of ecumenical reciprocity, the Archbishop of Canterbury has invited the protestantly-inclined, via-media-attracted (mainly) Tablet-reading, liberal-minded Romanish Catholics to join the Church of England.

Except Tony Blair.

Rome can keep him.

The more orthodox-minded Roman Catholics may be as delighted to see the back of the pro-Vatican II liberals, progressives and ‘trendies’ as some in the Church of England may be delighted by the departure of the ‘closet-Catholics’. But although Dr Williams was only given a few days’ warning of Rome’s intentions, the Church of England is not quite so rude. Instead, they have given His Holiness five centuries of advanced notice of the Anglican ‘Apostolic Constitution’, explaining that the Church of England offers a most generous provision to those who prefer ‘High Church’ practices: that they will find within Anglicanism a refuge for those who wish to be both Catholic and Reformed.

Dr Williams said: “It is kind of the Pope to offer a spiritual home to Anglicans distressed by vivacious vicarettes, priests in panties, bishops in brassieres and the whole gay thing. But there are just as many (if not more) Roman Catholics who are equally as distressed by misogynistic ministers, Latin liturgies, paedophile priests and condomaphobic clerics.”

Cherie Blair is one such: she has consistently demanded reformation and, echoing Luther’s protest on the door of Wittenberg Castle, laid out her 95 contraceptive ‘devices’ on the bed of Balmoral Castle.

But Rome can keep her as well.

Cranmer thinks there is an awful lot of fuss being made over the Anglicanorum Coetibus. It will be more honoured in the breach than in the observing, for those in the observing will be so few and far between that the breaches will attract far more attention than a few women priests ever did. And there is more pleasure in its reading and contemplation than there will ever be in its practice and application. If ‘Ut Unum Sint’ made anything clear, it is that unity is unattainable this side of glory, if only because of the infinite theological variety of Christian nature: God loves symphony, not singularity. The only True Church is the Church Invisible - the 'communion of the saints'. Christ may have prayed that believers might be one, might be united in Him, but an awful lot rests on what we mean and understand by ‘one’ and ‘united’.

Not to mention ‘Catholic’.

And Cranmer finds it bizarre that there are some who are positively wetting themselves with infantile exuberance over the supposed creation of an Anglican branch of the Catholic Church: in case they hadn’t noticed, there has been one since AD597. And even before Pope Gregory despatched Augustine to Kent, there is evidence of Christianity in England from the late second century. England has seen eighteen hundred years of catholic Christianity, from the Ecclesia Anglorum, through the Ecclesia Anglicana to the Ecclesia Angliae. The Church in England and the Church of England have been the geographic, cultural, legal, theological, spiritual and ecclesiological cornerstone of English identity before, through and since the Reformation.

The doctrinal history of the Church of England asserts that it is both Catholic and Reformed; Apostolic and Evangelical; Prophetic and Protestant. The Prayer Book states: ‘Whosoever will be saved, it is necessary above all things that he hold the catholic faith...’. Anglicanism is a worldwide universal communion, and repudiates some of the claims of Rome, not least its soteriology, ecclesiology, its unique claim to catholicity and and its understanding of authority. Unless salvation has ceased to be by faith; unless church governance has ceased to be synodical; unless infallible moral authority has indeed been imparted by God to one man, the doctrinal claims of the Church of England, founded on natural law through tradition, reason and experience, have as much validity now as they had four centuries ago. And let it not be forgotten that when Richard Hooker wrote The Laws Of Ecclesiastical Polity, Pope Clement VIII said of the book: "It has in it such seeds of eternity that it will abide until the last fire shall consume all learning."

The outworking of Pope Benedict’s offer will be nowhere near as significant as some suggest, not least because the Anglican capacity for finding a via media through the via media is boundless. Of course, some will find deep encouragement in the Pope’s offer, and take up residence in a ‘Personal Ordinariate’. And Cranmer sincerely wishes them well in their lifelong pilgrimage. But he cannot help thinking that most of those ministers who are inclined towards Rome went 15 years ago when the first women were ordained: those who remained did so because they were Anglican, not Roman. And if they continued in their ministry believing their holy orders to be ‘absolutely null and utterly void’, it begs more than a few questions about their theological integrity and spiritual sincerity.

It is also difficult to discern precisely what is new in this document.

There has always been provision for individual lay people to be accepted into the Roman Catholic Church, and whole congregations have been excommunicated and incommunicated as successive popes have considered such actions appropriate. The papal encyclical ‘Mortalium Animos’ was promulgated in 1928, and exhorted Christian unity while repudiating ecumenism. If anything, Pope Benedict is building on this - by riding roughshod over ARCIC and by sidelining the lifelong work of Cardinals Walter Kasper and Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, and by insisting that Christian unity can only be had on Rome’s terms. Anglican orders remain ‘absolutely null and utterly void’: priests and bishops will need to be (re-)ordained before they can exercise pastoral and sacramental ministry. Essentially, they will be required to submit to the Magisterium, that is to all teaching authority of the Roman Catholic Church: to admit that the thousands upon thousands of sacramental actions over which they have presided are deficient; that the Archbishop of Canterbury is a fraud and that every other bishop of the Church of England is an imposter: just laymen in ecclesial frocks. It is evident that Pope Benedict has little time for ecumenical pleasantries.

The ‘Ordinariate’ effectively establishes separate dioceses within Roman Catholic dioceses: it will be Anglican in the sense that certain ‘riches’ (Hooker? Laud? Herbert? Donne? Law? His Grace?) of the tradition may be retained. But Cranmer is more than a little intrigued to know which aspects of the Anglican tradition will be preserved within the new structure. Doubtless many of the XXXIX Articles must be dispensed with, and the Prayer Book considerably amended. On worship, the Apostolic Constitution says that ‘the Ordinariate has the faculty to celebrate the Holy Eucharist and the other Sacraments... according to the liturgical books proper to the Anglican tradition, which have been approved by the Holy See’.

The liturgical books used in the Church of England are those approved by Parliament. They refer to the Queen as being the Supreme Governor. Presumably, if there is to be some accommodation in the use of Anglican church buildings by the Ordinariate, all references to the Queen’s governance of the Church will need to be eradicated. Yet the Church of England has neither the authority to permit the Ordinariate to use its buildings in order to accommodate a changed Anglican liturgy: only Parliament may do so. Yet if Parliament were to do so, they not only negate the Queen’s Coronation Oath, they undermine her status as Supreme Governor of the Church of England and deprive her of ‘the style, honour (and) royal name of the imperial crown of the United Kingdom’.

In short, by granting a Roman Ordinariate permission to use an Anglican church for a revised Anglican liturgy and prayers in which Her Majesty is no longer 'our Governor', Parliament would be committing treason.

The Anglican ship might have a lousy captain, but her bow is sound. And if she be holed beneath the waterline, Cranmer would rather reach for a bucket and repair the damage before he would abandon her to the rocks and waves. But one thing is certain: if this matter comes before Parliament – which any bowdlerised Prayer Book and amended liturgy spoken in an Anglican church would demand – they would find that erastianism may not be impliedly repealed, and Prime Minister Cameron will yearn for the halcyon days of Lisbon.

Labour’s Equality Bill will give tax breaks to Scientologists

2009-11-09T09:25:00.008Z

In this era of equality, in which all beliefs are philosophies and all philosophies are religions and all religions are equal, the consequences in law are beginning to be seen.

The Conservative Party has spotted that the equality laws being championed by Harriet Harman will force councils to exempt the Church of Scientology from council tax and business rates. A detailed investigation into the small print of Ms Harman’s new Equality Bill establishes that the Church of Scientology will receive the same tax breaks that the Church of England and other organised religions currently receive.

And Cranmer saw this coming two years ago.

Places of worship are eligible for a complete exemption from business rates and Ministers of Religion are entitled to a series of significant discounts or exemptions from council tax. Following a Court of Appeal test case in 1970 after a legal challenge by the Church of Scientology of California , premises of Scientologists are refused from being considered as a place of worship. This is since their views are deemed to be a ‘philosophical belief’ rather than a worship of a deity.

However, the Equality Bill defines as a ‘protected’ characteristic “any religious or philosophical belief”. The Bill adds to 2003 equality regulations that have already resulted in an employment tribunal ruling that a worker’s views on climate change were a ‘protected philosophical belief’ – a ruling upheld by the courts last week. The Bill imposes a duty that will require all public authorities not to discriminate on these grounds of religion/belief, with the Bill noting that this extends to “revenue raising and collection”. A further new ‘public sector equality duty’ will require all public authorities actively to ‘eliminate conduct’ which may involve discrimination against any philosophical belief and to ‘advance equality’ of those who have philosophical beliefs.

In practice, the combination of these definitions and duties will shoot down the 1970 Court of Appeal ruling. Public authorities will have to treat the likes of Church of Scientology on a par with the Church of England. The Church of Scientology will qualify for 100 per cent exemption from business rates on its premises which are accessible to the public (parts of premises only used for private ‘auditing’ would not be exempt). Residential housing used by Scientologist ‘chaplains’ would be exempt from council tax (or just pay one small bill for a whole complex, saving significant sums). Scientology HQ in Saint Hill Manor, East Grinstead , alone pays £100,000 a year in business rates.

The Church of Scientology has been described in Parliament by Conservatives as “an evil cult founded by an individual purely in the interests of enriching himself and sustained by those who are either wicked or wayward” (Hansard, 31 January 2006, col. 231).

Bob Neill, Shadow Minister for Local Government, said: “The public will be alarmed that Harriet Harman is planning to give local tax breaks to Scientologists. Struggling families and local firms will object to Scientology being able to avoid council tax and business rates, whilst their bills have gone through the roof.

“Tolerance and freedom of expression are important British values, but this does not mean that the likes of Scientology deserve special tax treatment. Like Labour’s so-called Human Rights Act, Harman’s new law threatens to have a series of unintended and unpalatable consequences.”

The current situation on tax breaks for religion include:

Business rates -

Churches and places of worship are 100% exempt from business rates (this is not linked to being a charity, which only gives a partial business rates reduction).

In addition, religious properties receive some council tax exemptions:

Council tax Class H exemption: Unoccupied dwellings, awaiting occupation by a minister of religion.

100% Council tax exemption -

Council tax Class B exemption: Religious communities

A so-called ‘Discount disregard’ – the residents are not counted for the purposes of council tax (e.g. like students), but the owner may be liable for one single council tax bill. Yet this will be significantly less than paying lots of multiple council tax bills, and represents a significant tax break.

Council tax Class E exemption: Occupied by minister of religion.

The owner is liable, not the resident:

“A dwelling inhabited by a minister of any religious denomination, is expressed as a class of property in respect of which liability falls upon the owner, so long as the dwelling is used as a minister’s residence and as a place from which the minister performs the duties of his office”.

Scientologists are not currently eligible for local tax breaks

At present, a premises only qualifies as a ‘place of religious worship’ business rates exemption if it meets certain criteria on worshipping God or a deity. Those which only practice a ‘philosophy’ do not meet these criteria.

“Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer of 3 June 2009, Official Report, column 591W, on non-domestic rates: religious buildings, for which faith communities and religions the Valuation Office Agency has determined that their premises, where used for public religious worship, may be eligible for exemption from non-domestic rating.

Barbara Follett: Places of Public Religious Worship which belong to the Church of England and Church in Wales and all other religions certified under the Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 where there is an open invitation to the public to attend services are exempt from NNDR under the Local Government Finance Act 1988. The exemption does not extend to organisations which practice a philosophy or where the invitation and access is restricted to certain members of the congregation” (Hansard, 28 October 2009, col. 473W).

“Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst of 3 June 2009, Official Report, column 591W, on non-domestic rates: religious buildings, what criteria the Registrar General uses when determining whether to certify the premises of a faith community or religion as a place of religious worship.

Meg Hillier: I have been asked to reply. The Places of Worship Registration Act 1855 provides for places of meeting for religious worship to be certified to the Registrar General but does not apply to the established Church. When considering the registration of a building which has been certified as a place of religious worship, the Registrar General applies the judgment by the Court of Appeal in the Segerdal case. The main finding in the judgment is that the words ‘place of meeting for religious worship’ in the Act connote a place of which the principal use is for people to come together as a congregation to worship God or do reverence to a deity. Apart from the Church of England and the Church in Wales , any faith or denomination which meets these criteria would be capable of recognition under the 1855 Act” (Hansard, 26 October 2009, col. 147W).

The Church of Scientology is not currently eligible for tax breaks.

“Robert Neill: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) of 7 May 2009, Official Report, column 382W, on the Church of Scientology, what (a) criteria and (b) methodology the Valuation Office Agency uses to determine whether a faith community is deemed to be eligible for a place of worship business rate exemption.

John Healey: Schedule 5 para. 11(1) to the Local Government Act 1988 provides the criteria for exemption from non-domestic rating for places of public religious worship. Premises occupied by a faith community will be exempt providing:

- It is a place of religious worship
- The worship is public
- The premises are certified as a place of religious worship by the Registrar General or belong to the Church of England or the Church in Wales .

Valuation officers’ methodology is to follow the above criteria” (Hansard, 1 June 2009, col. 49W).

“Robert Neill: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Jackson) of 7 May 2009, Official Report, column 382W, on the Church of Scientology , whether the Valuation Office Agency recognises venues of the Church of Scientology as places of public worship eligible for an exemption from non-domestic rates.

Mr. Timms: It is for the Valuation Officers of the Valuation Office Agency to decide whether any hereditament is a place of public religious worship which is exempt from non-domestic rates in accordance with Paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988. In general, following an Appeal Court decision in 1970, Valuation Officers do not regard premises occupied by the Church of Scientology as being so exempt” (Hansard, 1 June 2009, col. 49W).

The tax inspectors’ manual explains:

“2.1 Paragraph 11(1)(a) sets out a series of requirements which need to be satisfied for exemption to apply.

2.2 ‘ A Place of Religious Worship’ - (Test 2)

The words ‘a place of religious worship’ are to be taken as meaning places to which people come to do reverence to or for the veneration of God (not only a Christian God):-

‘worship …which must have some at least of the following characteristics: submission to the object worshipped, veneration of the object, praise, thanksgiving, prayer and intercession’ See R -v- Register General ex parte Segerdal and Church of Scientology of California 1970/RA/439.

A belief in the spirit of man or simply, a ceremony of instruction or discussion of a philosophy is not religious worship.”

Valuation Office Agency, Rating Manual - Volume 4 - Section 8 - Part B, Churches, Church and Chapel Halls and Similar Buildings.

The 1970 Court of Appeal ruling noted:

697 Regina v Registrar General, Ex parte Segerdal and Another Court of Appeal, 7 July 1970

“The acting chaplain of a building in Sussex known as a chapel of the Church of Scientology applied to the Registrar General for registration of the building certified by him as a place of meeting for religious worship under the Places of Worship Registration Act, 1855. The Registrar General made inquiries into the nature of the services, ceremonies and other proceedings for which the building was used and in the course of a long exchange of correspondence was supplied with two booklets, one of which set out, inter alia, the form of ceremony for the naming of children, marriages and funerals, and the creed, and stated that in a Scientology church service ‘we do not use prayers, attitudes of piety, or threats of damnation’ but the facts and truths ‘as discovered in the science of Scientology.’ The creed made reference to ‘God’ but stress was laid on the perfectibility of man as a spiritual and immortal being by application of the tenets of Scientology. The Registrar General refused to register the building under the Act. The chaplain and the Church of Scientology of California applied to the High Court for an order of mandamus directed to the Registrar General to register the building certified to him under the Act of 1855; and an affidavit sworn by the chaplain set out the facts as to the form of regular Sunday service, referred to the creeds as prayers, stated the nature of the sermons delivered, and deposed that the purpose of the services and ceremonies and the existence of the chapel was to the best of his understanding and belief religious worship in every sense of the word. The court refused the order of mandamus.

On appeal by the applicants:-

Held, dismissing the appeal,

(1) that unless a place certified to the Registrar General under the Act of 1855 was in truth a place of meeting for religious worship he had no jurisdiction to register it and accordingly was entitled to make such inquiries as he thought fit to satisfy himself that it was at the relevant time such a place; a fortiori where his refusal to register a particular place could be challenged in the High Court on an application for an order of mandamus and the court could itself decide on the evidence whether or not the place was one for meeting for religious worship.

(2) That a place of meeting for religious worship connoted a place where people came together to do reverence with prayer, humility and thanksgiving to a Supreme Being; and as on the evidence the services and ceremonies carried on in the building contained none of those elements but consisted in instruction in the tenets of a philosophy concerned with man and not with worship of a deity the building did not qualify for registration under the Act of 1855.”

Rulings on council tax exemptions would be a matter for local authorities rather than the Valuation Office Agency; yet they too would be influenced by the Court of Appeal ruling precedent.

“Mr. Stewart Jackson: To ask the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government pursuant to the answer to the hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Robert Neill) of 31 March 2009, Official Report, column 1047W, on the Church of Scientology, whether the Church of Scientology is recognised as a religion for the purposes of (a) council tax exemption Class H and (b) business rate exemptions.

John Healey: It is for individual local authorities to decide whether Class H exemption from council tax applies in any case. The Department does not have information about those decisions as they relate to the Church of Scientology . It is for the valuation officers of the Valuation Office Agency to decide whether any hereditament is a place of public religious worship which is exempt from non-domestic rates in accordance with Paragraph 11 of Schedule 5 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988” (Hansard, 7 May 2009, col. 382W).

A list of Scientology’s “churches” may be found here.

Based on the Rateable Values on the Valuation Office Agency’s at www.voa.gov.uk, their HQ at Saint Hill Manor in East Grinstead pays £98,213 in business rates in 2009-10.

The effect of Harman’s Equality Law:

Harriet Harman’s new law will blow this precedent out of the water. The Equality Bill defines “religion” and belief as any “philosophical belief”. This is in stark contrast to the tests of believing in a God or deity in the 1970 Court of Appeal ruling.

“10 Religion or belief

(1) Religion means any religion and a reference to religion includes a reference to a lack of religion.
(2) Belief means any religious or philosophical belief and a reference to belief includes a reference to a lack of belief.
(3) In relation to the protected characteristic of religion or belief—
(a) a reference to a person who has a particular protected characteristic is a reference to a person of a particular religion or belief;
(b) a reference to persons who share a protected characteristic is a reference to persons who are of the same religion or belief” (Equality Bill, Part 2: Protected Characteristics).

The Equality Bill builds on the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003. Under those rules, there has already been a test case (Nicholson v Grainger Plc) where an employment tribunal ruled that an individual's views on climate change were a “protected philosophical belief”. Legal experts have noted: “This test means that this area of the law may create an abundance of litigation in the future as the tribunals will have to weigh an individual’s beliefs against the yardstick of current popular thinking. This will make this area of law a potential minefield for employers” (New Law Journal, 29 July 2009).

This ruling has recently being upheld by an Employment Appeal Tribunal (BBC News Online, 3 November 2009).

The Equality Bill goes on to impose duties on public authorities not to discriminate on grounds of religion. The Bill’s Explanatory Notes explicitly state that this includes revenue raising functions.

“110.It also makes it unlawful to discriminate against, harass or victimise a person when exercising a public function which does not involve the provision of a service. Examples of such public functions include law enforcement and revenue raising and collection” (Explanatory notes to Clause 27 of the Equality Bill).

There is also a brand new ‘public sector equality duty’ that explicitly requires public bodies to take steps to ‘advance equality’ and ‘eliminate conduct’ which may compromise the protected characteristic of religion. This is a new duty that does not currently exist.

“466. This clause imposes a duty, known as the public sector equality duty, on the public authorities listed in Schedule 19 to have due regard to three specified matters when exercising their functions. The three matters are: (a) eliminating conduct that is prohibited by the Bill… (b) advancing equality of opportunity between people who share a protected characteristic and people who do not share it…

“472. There are no equivalent public sector equality duties for age, religion or belief or sexual orientation in current legislation. The clause extends the new public sector equality duty to cover gender reassignment in full, age, religion or belief and sexual orientation” (Explanatory notes to Clause 143 of the Equality Bill).

These cumulative effect of these new laws will be to annul the 1970 Court of Appeal ruling, and impose active duties on local councils and the Valuation Office Agency not to discriminate against the Church of Scientology and to ensure they receive the same treatment as other religions, faiths and beliefs. The Church of Scientology will be put a part with the Church of England and other organised religions. Councils and the tax inspectors will have a legal duty to ensure that they receive the same tax breaks as any other place of religious worship which is open to the public.

On the Church of Scientology:

Conservative MP, Michael Gove, has told Parliament: “I regard Scientology as an evil cult founded by an individual purely in the interests of enriching himself and sustained by those who are either wicked or wayward” (Hansard, 31 January 2006, col. 231).

Charitable status

The Charity Commission ruled in 1999 that the Church of Scientology was not eligible for charitable status since it did not have a public benefit. They argued:

“The Commissioners also noted CoS’s submission that the activities of auditing and training constitute its worship, this argument being supported by the expert opinion submitted by CoS. However, the Commissioners were unable to accept that the practices of auditing and training were akin to or comparable with the acts of worship indicated by the English cases – praise, veneration, prayer, thanksgiving, intercession, submission to the object worshipped” (Decision of the Charity Commissioners, Application for Registration as a Charity by the Church of Scientology, 17 November 1999).

Such a ruling could also be overturned by the Equality Bill, given the new public sector equality duty and placing any belief on a par with religion.

In 2006, despite the ruling of the Charity Commission, the Corporation of London unilaterally made a bizarre ruling that the Church could be considered as having charitable status for the purpose of its business rates bill in that part of London. Yet this only provided an 80% reduction, not the 100% that it would receive a place of religious worship. Such a ruling has not been copied by other councils (Daily Telegraph, 10 December 2006).

VAT status

In 2000, the Inland Revenue ruled the Church of Scientology was a not-for-profit body and therefore exempt from VAT. However, this has no bearing on its eligibility for business and council tax exemptions (Daily Telegraph, 11 August 2006).

Cranmer awaits with interest to see if the same tax breaks being granted to the Church of the Jedi.

Senior chaplain in Helmand province: 'We kill to defeat evil'

2009-11-08T07:55:00.006Z

The senior padre of Task Force Helmand, 11 Light Brigade, has said British soldiers in Afghanistan should be prepared to die in a 'fight against the evil of fundamentalism'.

Padre Mark Christian said killing 'to defeat evil' was 'morally permissible'. He leads today's Remembrance Sunday service in Lashkar Gah, where hundreds of soldiers will gather to remember not only the fallen of past wars, but also their own friends, colleagues and brothers who have paid the ultimate sacrifice.

We only see their faces for a few seconds on the news, but they are quickly forgotten amidst the glitz of X-Factor. Parliament hears their names routinely read out each week by the Prime Minister, and their heroism is quickly subsumed to party political point-scoring. But those who live in the warzone face the reality of death every day.

The Padre said: "In a perfect world, the world that God intended for us, we would all live at peace with each other.

"But we don't live in that world, we live in a fallen world where evil exists and it is the obligation of all good people to confront evil and to defeat it where they can.

"Unfortunately that necessitates us in doing things like killing, which in the abstract is wrong.

"But when you are doing that to defeat a greater evil I think it is morally permissible but it requires our soldiers to have a very, very high degree of understanding of morality."

Politicians have largely ceased seeing things in terms of good and evil: everything is relative. Cranmer wonders if, just occasionally, our solidiers ask themselves if that which they are fighting to defend is worth dying for. Why die to bring liberty and democracy to Afghanistan, when liberty and democracy are in peril in the United Kingdom?

By confronting the evil abroad, we take our eyes off the evil at home.

Or we simply cease to call it evil, and so it ceases to be.

European Court bans classroom crucifixes

2009-11-07T09:30:00.002Z

Cranmer has received quite a few emails asking why he has not commented upon this story. The short answer is that His Grace is not a news service: he comments upon whatever he wants to whenever he wishes.

And there really is not much to add to this, this or this.

God forbid that schoolchildren might ever again have such an oppressive and disturbing art project as this imposed upon them.

Essentially, it is a further clash to establish one’s ranking in the emerging EU hierarchy of rights; a further battle in the interminable internecine war in the quest for supremacy. So far throughout the EU, ‘Muslim rights’ and ‘Gay rights’ are pretty much neck and neck, and this latest spat is just the Atheists putting down a marker for their own rights. Since each group has mutually-exclusive objectives, the only way to keep them from mutually-assured destruction is to unite them against a common enemy – the Christians. And so, in its infinite enlightened wisdom, the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that crucifixes should not be displayed in state schools.

Of course, this will affect some EU countries more than others, and the wise and learned judges of Strasbourg have chosen Roman Catholic Italy to commence their secularisation programme. Henceforth, it is decreed that crucifixes violate the rights of parents to bring up their children according to their own beliefs: the crucifix is ‘disturbing’ for children who are inter alia Atheist, Muslim, or Gay.

And Cranmer has purposely capitalised the terms, for they have attained a status superior to the Christians, for whom, incidentally, the crucifix is also ‘disturbing’: it is supposed to be. Perhaps the ECHR might permit a classroom picture of an androgynous Jesus-looking man lying upon a wooden bed covered in a snug duvet – no nails. History and culture are of little consequence against the quest to eradicate all offence and diminish that which may ‘disturb’.

It becomes even more alarming when one considers that the Atheist complainant in this case was a woman by the name of Soile Lautsi, a native of Finland who subsequently acquired Italian citizenship. And she has enriched herself and her Atheist children to the tune of 5000 euros for ‘moral damages’, to be paid by the Italian government for subjecting them to a school which had ‘disturbing’ crucifixes in every classroom.

The consequences of the ruling are far-reaching. For surely, if the crucifix is offensive, so is the cross. And if the cross, why not every picture of Jesus or representation of God? And if those, why not every Christmas tree, nativity play or Easter egg? Not only will the ruling potentially force an entire continent to reconsider the use of religious symbols in the public realm, it appears that any ‘foreigner’ may now enter a country as a guest, choose to dwell there as a naturalised alien, and then directly challenge the country’s cultural unity and moral values by forcing change to suit their own beliefs and social mores.

And the supreme arbiter in all cases will be the European Court of Human Rights, which has set its face against Christian history, Christian culture, Christian tradition, Christian belief and Christian expression. As far as the Court is concerned, Europe moved from the language, culture, government and religion of the Graeco-Roman world directly to that of the Enlightenment. A millennium-or-so of Christianity in between may not be mentioned.

The children might find it ‘disturbing’.

David Cameron does God

2009-11-06T15:13:00.012Z

He will be criticised by the zealots on both sides of the divide: by the religious fundamentalists who demand an unequivocal exposition and adherence to a strict theology, and by the anti-religious fundamentalists for whom any expression of faith in the public realm is anathema.

But in a very welcome, not to say wholly refreshing interview for the London Evening Standard, David Cameron has talked about his Christian faith in a fashion which would have had Alastair Campbell gnashing his teeth and jumping over a cliff with the Gadarene swine.

In talking about God, Church, prayers (and what he really thinks of Boris), the next prime minister of the United Kingdom (d.v.) is perfectly candid, indeed quite ‘chilled’, in revealing that he prays regularly and understands Christianity to be a 'good guide' by which one might live.

Is faith in God important to him? He says: "If you are asking, do I drop to my knees and pray for guidance, no. But do I have faith and is it important, yes. My own faith is there, it's not always the rock that perhaps it should be.

"I've a sort of fairly classic Church of England faith, a faith that grows hotter and colder by moments but...I suppose I sort of started life believing that one's individual faith was important, but actually the institutions of the church were less important.

"I do think that organised religion can get things wrong but the Church of England and the other churches do play a very important role in society."

It is revealed that Mr Cameron waited until he was 18 years old before being confirmed in order that he was sure it was what he really believed. He explains: "I was a good, sceptical, questioning Christian when I was younger. I liked to think it through, thinking am I really sure about this? But I don't feel I have a direct line (to God).

"I think that it's perfectly possible to live a good life without having faith, by which I mean a positive and altruistic life, but I think the teachings of Jesus just as the teachings of other religions are a good guide to help us through.

"Do unto others as you would have them do to you; don't walk on by. These are good and thoughtful ideas to bring to life."

And it was suggested that his Christian insight was foundational to his speech at this year’s party conference.

It is no surprise, being Anglican, that his religious fervour runs 'hotter and colder by moments'. Cranmer has suffered (and suffers) the same: it is evidence that one is human. There is a via media between the ‘hotter’ moments when one may be deluded that one has a 'direct line to God’, and the ‘colder’ moments when one may be equally deluded into believing that God has cancelled the contract.

And perhaps Christians in politics may experience more ‘colder moments’ than those in many other professions.

There will be those who assert that this interview says nothing: that is just 'motherhood and apple pie'. But they would be wrong, for in the declaration that Mr Cameron is a practising Anglican (as opposed to a cultural one), there is insight into his preferred methods of motherhood and his favourite recipe for apple pie.

Of course, all of the world’s religions are enriched to some extent with great spiritual expression and are replete with millennia and centuries of insight into the human condition. In a plural society, Mr Cameron is rightly concerned to create space for them all in the public sphere, yet that admission is not based on equality or equivalence, but respect. He is not ashamed to say that it is the Christian faith about which he is ‘sure’, and it is Jesus in whom he ‘really believed’. Significantly, he highlights the ‘Golden Rule’ as being that which distinguishes between theology that is ‘good and thoughtful’ and that which is not.

Poignantly, and admirably for such a senior politician, he is unembarrassed to talk about grief as he discloses his greatest fear: that he might lose another child. He says: “That's fear Number One. Particularly as it has happened already, it is a sort of permanent fear.” He added: “The most natural thing in your life is to look after your little ones.”

And one begins to grasp something of his belief in the stable building block of society: "My family is the most important thing in my life. I had a strong and supportive family upbringing. And it was not the wealth, it was the warmth that counted. It was the love of good parents and brothers and sisters. I am very simple in that way."

And curiously, he revealed that his greatest driving force is a fear of failure and making a mess: “Fear of getting things wrong inspires me more than the wonder of getting things right.”

Cranmer would like to remind Mr Cameron that we are now in age in which politicians are so afraid of doing the wrong thing that they no longer have the courage or conviction to do what is right. Fear has to be dealt with.

Being Anglican can be one of the most difficult Christian paths to follow: one often feels that one is neither one thing nor another; as was once observed, that one is somehow 'crucified between the two thieves’ of the Puritans and the Papists; suspended between doctrinal fanaticism and superstitious ritualism. And this must be how David Cameron sometimes feels, suspended not only in his party between the modern Whigs and Tories, but in the country between the decline in institutional religion and the burgeoning of generalised ‘spirituality’; between the secularisation of society and the plurality of faith communities.

But it is refreshing to note that David Cameron is genuine and sincere in his expression of Anglicanism, and not pretending to be what he is not in order that people might not judge him to be a ‘nutter’. Cranmer would rather have a prime minister of any faith (or none) who is proud to declare his faith (or lack of it) than a pseudo-Anglican with undisclosed sympathies and undeclared beliefs whose awkwardness stems from the fear of what people might think.

Equality under the law is abrogated by shari'a councils

2009-11-06T09:11:00.005Z

From ‘Very Worried of Richmond Hill:

Islamic shari’a councils are now recognised as arbitration tribunals under the 1996 Arbitration Act, and are part of the Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) procedure available to UK citizens. So far, at least five councils have been recognised as tribunals and moves are afoot to have scores more throughout the country.

The tribunals cover all disputes that come under civil law or family law but exclude criminal matters.

In the case of a civil dispute, the decision of the tribunal is recognised by the UK courts and, if it is a family matter, will be accepted as the basis of a UK court decision and in both cases, if necessary, enforced under UK law.

In the one case, the court is upholding the judgement of the shari’a tribunal; in the other, it is using it as the basis of its own decision and which it is very likely to accept as courts are generally reluctant to overturn a tribunal judgement.

The Arbitration Act simply requires that both parties make a prior agreement to submit their dispute to the tribunal and that the outcome does not break any UK law.

It would do an aggrieved party no good to appeal to a UK court that the shari’a ruling to which he or she had submitted was wrong or that he or she would have been treated differently in a UK court not acting on shari’a principles: unless it could be shown to be unreasonable and outrageously unfair it would be enforced. Thus, Islamic shari’a is propagated by UK law.

We have cause to be worried.

(1) Has anything changed?

Apologists for shari’a claim nothing has changed. A shari’a tribunal decision cannot be enforced if it breaks UK law. This view is out of touch with how things really work and what is going on today.

We have, for example, the Archbishop of Canterbury’s revelation in a BBC interview that the adoption of Islamic shari’a law in the UK is ‘unavoidable’. This gives a disturbing insight into the minds of some of our leaders.

Twisting the law to meet cultural requirements is not unknown. Lord Pearson asked this question in the House of Lords in June: “…. will Her Majesty’s Government take steps to ensure that resident Muslim men will no longer be allowed to commit bigamy by bringing in their second, third and fourth wives and all their children to enjoy the benefits of our welfare state?”

He was not given an answer.

And, most importantly, judges judge: they assess witnesses, weigh up the worth of arguments, and apply social criteria, interpretations and precedents as they believe they fit the facts of a case. There is plenty of scope for keeping to the letter of the law.

Recognition of shari’a tribunals introduces a new breed of judges with a mindset alien to this country and which provides ample evidence of its hostility both to western Christian and Enlightenment secular values.

(2) Unequal treatment of men and women

Under shari’a, men and women are not treated equally. In matters of inheritance, property division, divorce and the custody of children, shari’a law disadvantages women and they are considered inferior as witnesses: a man may easily divorce his wife whereas a woman must argue her case and undergo a lengthy legal process.

A Muslim woman seeking a divorce is subjected to an interview process aimed at keeping her married and she risks financial ruin by the obligation to return her dower.

Shari’a rules on child custody can be rigid and were described by judges in the House of Lords as ‘arbitrary and discriminatory’. In general, child custody reverts to the father at a preset age (seven for boys) no matter the circumstances or the behaviour of the father, and if a woman remarries she loses custody of her children.

If a wife refuses to agree to give the husband access to their children, even in cases of possible child abuse, the divorce is stalled until that issue is resolved.

A Family Court judge may find himself presented with an ‘agreement’ produced at a shari’a tribunal that gives custody of the children to the father which in normal circumstances the court would register and enforce. But how is he to tell if this is a truly mediated agreement or simply the woman’s resigned acquiescence in shari’a law which does not explicitly consider the interests of children?

Women inherit half what a man inherits. And, of course, a Muslim man can have up to four wives.

Under shari’a, a Muslim woman will get a decision from a tribunal far less favourable than she would get from a British court under the Crown.

Shari’a councils are entirely male: there are no female shari’a judges. Nearly a quarter of judges in UK courts are female and in magistrate courts it is half. The Islamic Shari’a Council is listed as a charity and people who seek a divorce pay a fee. For a man, it is £100; for women, it is £250 because (they say) it is more work to process a woman's application as her word has to be corroborated.

(3) Community pressures and exploitation of ignorance

Muslim women will be under enormous pressure to use shari’a tribunals rather than civil courts. If they don’t use a shari’a tribunal, they run the risk of being ostracised by their family and their community as bad Muslims or even as apostates.

This pressure already exists but giving any shari’a council recognition as a tribunal under the Arbitration Act massively increases it.

Many women may simply be ignorant of their rights, due to language or cultural barriers. Many of those dealt with by shari’a councils are from the most marginalised segments of society with little or no knowledge of their rights under English law.

This will be true of male and female workers, especially the poorly-educated and low-paid, who find themselves unfairly treated by a Muslim business owner, or of tenants in disagreement with a Muslim landlord.

The appearance of ‘officialness’ will give the uneducated and the vulnerable the impression that there is a parallel Muslim system of law in England which is the one that Muslims should use.

This is already being exploited. The home page of the website of the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal (MAT) goes out of its way to look official. It has a photograph of Lord Phillips when he was Lord Chief Justice in his wig and finery. A bold heading declares: ‘Lord Chief Justice endorses ADR (alternative dispute resolution) under Shariah Law’.

Underneath it has a picture of Lord Hunt, a government minister. The website emphasises that MAT rulings are binding under English law.

(4) The importance of civil and family law – what binds people together

Proponents of shari’a tribunals make the point that they are involved only in civil and family matters and are not involved in criminal cases, as if this somehow lessens the impact on society.

Family, marriage, children, inheritance, relations with neighbours, doing business, are the most important matters for most people. Very few of us are touched by the criminal courts, but civil and family matters touch us all.

By recognising shari’a councils as tribunals, the UK authorities are saying it is fine for some British citizens not to exercise certain rights, even if English law and tradition grants them those rights, and to accept deals that are worse than what they would get from other British courts with regular judges.

Rights are established for the good of society as a whole, and they are often achieved only after a long and hard struggle, so why should a particular group of people be allowed to ditch any of those rights against the wider interest of society?

Why should my next-door neighbour live by a different idea of what is ‘fair’ – for example, what is seen as fair in a default position on inheritance or the relative difficulties between men and women in the procuring of a divorce? Surely ‘what is considered fair’ is a universal that binds people together and gives them a sense of identity.

(5) Quick and cheap justice

A vital foundation for any society is a legal system that provides justice quickly at a reasonable cost. The breakdown of the legal system in parts of Pakistan is the underlying cause of the anarchy and strife that prevails there. In the UK, we do not have massive corruption but we seem to be well on the road to a system that is too expensive and takes too long.

It is claimed that an advantage of shari’a tribunals, and a good reason for having them, is that they take on some of the burden of solving disputes and relieve an overburdened courts system (this was the justification given in Canada for a similar proposal to recognise shari’a tribunals in family matters, but it was eventually rejected largely due to the protests of Muslim Canadian women). This theme crops up all the time. Shari’a tribunals are a way of helping people to resolve their differences in their own way without clogging up the higher courts: it is cheaper and quicker. Apparently, shari’a tribunal judges are not paid a fee.

It seems unlikely that the availability of an alternative justice system for Muslims would ease the burden to the degree that cost and efficiency issues are solved for everyone else who only has the regular court system to turn to.

If this is good solution, you might ask why we do not also have a parallel tribunal system for civil and family matters for Christians? Why not tribunal systems for Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhists, and even one for atheists?

But the question we should really ask is why do we not have a system for all citizens that delivers timely justice at an acceptable price?

(6) Criminal matters

Notwithstanding the numerous statements that shari’a tribunals do not cover criminal matters, under the heading ‘Types of Cases that we deal with’, the Muslim Arbitration Tribunal website lists:

Forced Marriages, Domestic Violence, Family Disputes, Forced Marriage (Civil Protection) Act 2007, Commercial and Debt Disputes, Inheritance Disputes, Mosque Disputes

In relation to domestic violence, it says:

“MAT is unable to deal with criminal offences as we do not have jurisdiction to try such matters in the UK.

“However where there are criminal charges such as assault within the context of domestic violence, the parties will be able ask MAT to assist in reaching reconciliation which is observed and approved by MAT as an independent organisation.

“The terms of such a reconciliation can then be passed by MAT on to the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) though (sic) the local Police Domestic Violence Liaison Officers with a view to reconsidering the criminal charges. Note that the final decision to prosecute always remains with the CPS” (emphases added).

So, Muslim domestic violence cases are treated differently from those in the rest of the population!

Just imagine – the vicar can get involved: he can formally tell the police that the suspect is a regular church-goer, he attends every Sunday, and he really regrets what he has done. He has agreed to go on an anger management course and the vicar thinks he deserves a second chance. The policeman, who is also a Christian because it is a Christian area, agrees.

This is precisely what is going on in some Muslim areas. In incidents severe enough to be referred to the police, the Muslim men involved have been directed to take anger management courses, and the women to withdraw their complaints. This has caused considerable disquiet suggesting that the police are turning a blind eye to domestic violence in the name of community cohesion or cultural sensitivity.

(7) Support for barbaric laws and practices

Shari’a is a system of laws and a mindset which approves, inter alia:

(i) Death for apostasy
(ii) Amputation of limbs as punishment
(iii) Stoning to death for adultery
(iv) Belief that a woman’s evidence is worth less than a man’s
(v) Blood money
(vi) Polygamy

Recognition of shari’a in the UK – even of just those sections which do not conflict with UK law – bestows status and respectability to a system which produces these barbaric practices. They are not some distant echo of the past but a fact in many parts of the world today.

Faisal Siddiqi, a Pakistani-born barrister and the founder and chairman of MAT’s governing council, criticised the British media for its obsession with beheadings and other extreme punishments. He said: “They constitute only 10% of shari’a.”

What a relief.

For an insight into current thinking by some Muslims on the matter of death for apostasy, one might consider: Muslim chaplain at Harvard to be toying with idea of executing apostates? And Supreme Court dismisses plea against death sentence for blasphemy.

For current views on stoning for adultery, consider: Indonesia's Aceh to stone adulterers under Islamic law.

Inayat Bunglawala, the assistant general secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain, says that stoning to death for adultery is acceptable in a country that chooses to have that as the law.

And for an explanation of why the evidence of a woman is worth less than that of a man (you may laugh or cry), see the Islamic Sharia Council.

Conclusion

The Government has allowed and is encouraging the establishment of a parallel legal system for Muslims on matters that affect all of us. It is wrong for the country and wrong for Muslims.

The official recognition of shari’a councils as arbitration tribunals is simply another mechanism by which Muslims are being segregated from the rest of the population: it is a further barrier to integration and reinforces the fragmentation of society. The UK authorities are undermining both the Christian font of jurisprudence and the Enlightenment values by which this has been developed. The British concept of justice has been forged over centuries, sometimes at great cost. It would be ironic if it were to return to primitive expressions of inequity and unfairness.

Please note: Cranmer will not be tolerant of any unjustified or unjustifiable expressions of intolerance towards any group of people. He would like to remind his readers and communicants that there are very many British Muslims indeed who abhor the notion of shari'a in the UK, and who seek to challenge the intolerance of the ascendant and increasingly-pervasive Wahhabi orthodoxy.

Guy Fawkes Night - from the burning of a traitor to Parliament itself

2009-11-05T13:48:00.009Z

Cranmer would like to wish all of his British readers and communicants a most blessed Guy Fawkes Night, and an exhortation to his non-British (foreign[?], except the colonial) readers and communicants to bear with us while we indulge in this annual eccentricity of which so few now know the origin, meaning or purpose.

If any do not manage to find an effigy of Mr Fawkes to commit to the consuming flame, there is an alternative.

One has to wonder, on the day we commemmorate deliverance from a seditious continental terrorist plot and the treacherous subversion of Rome, that the continental powers have achieved the subjugation of England, her Monarch and her Parliament, and the Treaty of Rome has triumphed. The wheel is come full circle.

David Cameron: “Essentially, we will let matters rest there”

2009-11-05T09:21:00.006Z

When the EU has a de jure Constitution which is self-amending, there is no point in a UK Sovereignty Act. When the EU has everything it requires ‘in order to fulfil its objectives’, there is no point offering the British people a referendum on any future treaties. When the EU has as supreme court to whose judgement all UK law is subject, there is no point having a UK supreme court to pretend the contrary.

Sovereignty has already been removed. Insofar as it has been ‘pooled’, subjected to QMV, dissected, disseminated and meted out to our ‘EU partners’, it is invalidated, negated, nullified, destroyed and snuffed out. There is no sovereign Act of Parliament which can take precedence over EU law, for the Lisbon Treaty states quite clearly that EU law is supreme. A UK Sovereignty Bill will be as ineffectual as Margaret Thatcher’s Merchant Shipping Act of 1988. The moment it was placed before the ECJ, it was ruled to be incompatible with the provisions in the Treaty of Rome, contrary to the founding principle of ‘ever closer union’, and Her Majesty’s Government was obliged to set aside what was believed to be a sovereign Act of Parliament because Parliament no longer had the authority to pass such an act.

In a representative liberal democracy, sovereignty resides with the people: it is they and they alone who may determine which of their powers and liberties may be abrogated in perpetuity. And successive generations of politicians have conspired to deprive them of their birthright.

David Cameron has decided that there will be no referendum, and yet he intends to amend the European Communities Act 1972 to legislate for a referendum ‘lock’ on all future attempts by the British government to transfer power to the European Union. ‘Never again’ is to become an election campaign slogan. Bizarrely, he boasts that this protection will be ‘very similar to that which exists in Ireland’. And a fat lot of good it did them. He refers to this provision as a ‘major constitutional development’: it is nothing of the sort. There is no such thing as an Act of Parliament enacted by a Cameron government which cannot be undone by a future parliament, for Parliament may not bind its successors.

The Conservative Party’s via media on ‘Europe’ is neither conservative nor reformist. Significantly, it has profoundly alienated the thinking ‘sceptics’ like Dan Hannan and Roger Helmer (both have resigned their front bench posts), while the European Movement appears to be delighted.

And yet Mr Cameron says he doesn’t want a ‘massive Euro-bust-up’ to distract him from his primary task.

The argument that the next period of government is too important to be ‘distracted’ by the EU is absurd. Is not the Tory revolution in education too important to be distracted by the economy? Is not tending to the economic morass too important to be distracted by education? Is not the reform needed in health provision too important to be distracted by either education or the economy? Is not our commitment in Afghanistan too important to be distracted by education, the economy or health?

The essence of effective government is the ability to juggle a dozen balls at once. But the EU ball has already been dropped. This should come as no surprise, because it is a weighty spheroid of disproportionate significance: it is the ball of balls; the globe of ubiquity; the balloonistic mother ship from which everything else hangs and by which it ascends or falls.

And yet...

What Mr Cameron has outlined is more ‘Eurosceptic’ than has been set out by any Conservative leader who has either held the office of prime minister or been likely to over the past 30 years. It never really mattered what EU policy was under the leaderships of William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith or Michael Howard: deep down, we all knew they were never going to become prime minister. Even Margaret Thatcher never set out such a stall while she led her party and the country, and she has lived to regret it.

Cranmer urges his readers and communicants to consider the details of Mr Cameron's speech for just one moment, and then ask if it is not worth a five-year benefit of the doubt.

One may set aside certain cosmetics, like the Sovereignty Bill or the establishment of some sort of Constitutional Court. But Mr Cameron’s assertion that he intends to ‘repatriate’ certain competences marks a profound change in direction, and this change is not without immense significance. The subsidiarity principle, enshrined at Maastricht, has never before been invoked by an EU member state, and yet the Conservative Party is now pledged to reverse the Acquis – i.e., to roll back from ‘ever closer union’. There will be a manifesto commitment to opt out from the Social Chapter, the Charter of Fundamental Rights, and all matters relating to criminal justice.

This is sovereignty restored. It is unheard of in the UK’s entire 36-year subjection to EEC/EC/EU rule. It is progress. It will not be easy to attain: indeed, the French have already declared their unequivocal opposition to it. Whether Mr Cameron likes it or not, there will be a ‘massive Euro-bust-up’, and it has already begun.

And there is great encouragement in that, for the beast has been stirred, and the prince of the power of the air offended by the presumption and insubordination of the likely next prime minister of the United Kingdom.

And to all those who are thinking about voting UKIP or the BNP in protest, since neither can win the next general election, you simply risk a further five years of Gordon Brown and his deficient, amoral, anti-Christian Labour government. It is a grotesque contemplation; a perverse political strategy.

Please consider that just as we have been ratcheted in to the superstate, almost imperceptibly, so must we be eased out. The Conservatives (and their Tory forebears) have always preferred measured reform over revolution: change implemented piecemeal rather than by seismic upheaval. Burke argued that no political community is a blank slate upon which one can write whatever one wishes on the basis of the latest theory. In order to move a political community in a different direction one has to take account of what it is, where it is, and, above all, the facts of experience. But move it must, because ‘a state without the means of some change is without the means of its conservation. Without such means it might even risk the loss of that part of the constitution which it wished the most religiously to preserve’.

David Cameron has set out a strategy by which the United Kingdom may re-acquire some means of change, and thereby some means of national conservation. It is worth giving him the benefit of the doubt.