The opening line of Psalm 14 and the rest of the psalm about sums up the current state of affairs vis a vis faith and non-faith. All religions suffer from the same problem, as long as they are in the "folk" stage of growth they remain true to their origins, but then the rich and powerful recognise the advantage of having control of it and then the problems start. There are many examples of this "changing horses" in the Old Testament and nearly all of them end in pain and tears for the real believers while the rich and famous move swiftly on, embracing and espousing whatever is "new" and "popular" for their advantage.
I believe it is so with populist atheism today. A generation ago all the captains of industry, commerce and politics would have made sure you saw them in church Sunday by Sunday, now their descendants make sure you don't. Now it is fashionable to proclaim oneself an "atheist" and to declare one "believes" in a "religion free environment." As I wrote yesterday, it is now fashionable, if not de riguer to make a point of sneering at those who hold to the faith of their forebears. I do believe that this will, in due season, come back to bite with a vengeance.
Pure unadulterated atheism does not admit to there being anything special about humanity. We are, in that view, nothing more than intelligent animals who have a life span of around 70 - 80 years, assuming you don't get hit by a bus crossing the road, and we are all "free" to make a success or failure of our lives. In this line of thought a person only becomes a person when they are born and able to exist externally to the mother, at any time before that point, abortion can and should be carried out to eradicate defects, perhaps because the child threatens the mother's health or any one of several dozen excuses - most of which are predicated on the "child" not having any "right" to life until it is born.
This is a worrying state of mind, because it does not take a great leap of intellect to extend that thinking into a "final solution" for the vulnerable, the disabled, the helpless or the aged and infirm. If the test of having achieved a "right" to life is to be able to exist "independently of the mother" for infants, then how long will it take before some follower of this reasoning begins to ask the question "when should life be ended for those dependent on others?" Who then, will control the choice? The subject of the "care" or the "carer" who has grown tired of caring?
Much is made these days of the claim that atheism is more "moral" than any religion, and this is supported by the claim that there are laws in place that "protect" the "rights" of individuals to be, well, individual. It is argued that the Christian Faith "hates" those who are homosexual, a horrendous term coined early in the 20th Century to describe men who love men. Much is made of some of the more ludicrous and ill-informed utterances on this subject by fringe sects and a great deal is made -usually by the same people who accuse the Roman Catholic Church of sexual abuse - of their recent attempts to clean up their act by, among other things, excluding homosexuals from their clergy selections. There is a scream of indignation against this, yet the evidence does suggest that a "Gay" priest, living in seclusion and supposedly celibate, is more likely to abuse his position. Yes, that is a rather general statement, but it is supported by the evidence of the many cases of abuse reported.
The churches do need to reform and adapt a great deal of their thinking and teaching. Mainstream Christianity has always encouraged and fostered the sciences despite the much vaunted accusation around Galileo, whose offence was to insult the Pope rather publicly and had little to do with his theories and discoveries. It was the Church that founded all the great universities and it was Christian scholars that made the first tentative steps in modern scientific discovery. Darwin was a clergyman and held back publishing his results because he hadn't completed piecing his "theory" together (His correspondence with a bishop, when not quoted out of context or selectively, is enlightening) and there are scientists even now who claim it is not a theory but a hypothesis for which there is, as yet, only incomplete proof.
I find the current atheist drive of concern for a number of reasons and I do believe that it is, in part, fueled by a misrepresentation of the Biblical "ask and it shall be given ..." and by the present generations expectation of "instant gratification." It is said that many children now cannot understand why something they see happen instantly on television, can't happen in the same time frame in reality. Perhaps this is where we have a problem with understanding God and His method of working. Evolution being a case in point. It took millennia and generations to get the humans we are now. It has taken as long to develop the intelligence we have and one sometimes has to wonder about that! God doesn't do "quick fix" and most of His work in our lives is through people.
Therein lies my next concern, He does not force people or coerce them, those are human traits, so where there is no will among the people for a solution, one will not be found. If Atheism becomes the norm (and in recent correspondence with an atheist she suggested that the "world faith" picture" was Christianity, Islam, No Faith, Buddist, Hindu ...") then it will not be long before some of what I was asking earlier concerning the disposal of infants, non-viable adults and those dependent on others becomes a reality...
Thursday, 22 September 2011
Wednesday, 21 September 2011
Belief in unbelief ...
Am I alone, I wonder, in finding the torrent of abuse directed at religion currently popping up everywhere, offensive? Facebook seems, at present, to be full of people taking snide, and often ill-informed, swipes at believers. Atheism is now become the "cool" and "clever" position to occupy.
It seems to me to be, at least in part, a result of the failure of Christianity in all its forms to engage and confront those who spread the lies and the anti-religious propaganda. It must also be said that there is a a lot of ammunition provided by the fundamentalists who insist in perpetuating the teaching that the creation must be taken literally from the first chapter of Genesis. (Islam has a similar wing and adherents who insist that the opening lines of the Quran describe the same event in virtually the same words!) Of course young people don't fall for this, they are intelligent and have been taught to think about things. They are surrounded by science and scientific discoveries which tell them that the creation is a much more complex event or series of events than the Genesis story admits. Yet that, in itself, is an oversimplification because if Genesis isn't taken literally, it actually supports the whole Big Bang and Evolution right down to the rise of humanity.
The fact that someone chooses NOT to accept a religious belief or teaching is not what bothers me most. I am most disturbed by the fact that it is now fashionable, indeed considered clever, to mock everyone who does believe. In fact if you can find something insulting or inflammatory to say to someone who dares to profess a religious belief, so much the better. Scientists who dare to confess religious beliefs are immediately labelled as "nutters" whose work is to be ridiculed and barred from publication because their "faith" makes them suspect. Medical staff who profess Christian beliefs are barred from NHS hospitals, or disciplined for "offending" some non-believer, but someone can post really offensive comments about someone's or some group's faith and that's all right. Posters can be displayed such as "This is a Faith Free Zone" in a workplace and it is considered a "personal statement" but putting up a religious poster is "offensive."
Yes, there are some extremely sick people out there calling themselves Muslim, Christian or whatever, but they do not and never have represented mainstream religion. But that is exactly what the Atheism promoters are trying to convey as "typical" religious behaviour. Thus Witch Burnings in Africa, the crucifixion of a cat (also in Africa), suicide bombers from Islam and the sexual abuses of some Roman Catholic clergy have become "typical examples of why religion must be suppressed."
I believe in God for a number of reasons, not least being that I can cite occasions when He has intervened in my life, usually when I was not expecting it or beyond the point of saving myself from a situation. I also believe because, as someone trained in investigations, I find the New Testament accounts of events believable, particularly the accounts of the Resurrection and the empty tomb. To actually understand what the witnesses are saying about that you need to talk to a Jew, because there are little details in the text that no Westerner will get unless they know Jewish custom and practice. No I don't believe in instant answers to everything from prayer, but I do believe that prayer is answered.
Over the years my faith has grown, changed, matured. The more I study history, the more sense the Bible makes in certain places - even down to the current attacks by the atheist horde. What concerns me is that our children are being fed a diet of false history (Religion is the cause of all wars. Christians supported slavery. The Roman Catholics murdered "millions" of native American Indians in pursuit of gold...) and a strongly anti-Bible, anti-faith message in schools. Religious leaders are swiftly accused of "brain-washing" if they attempt to present a truer picture of their faith, but the atheist community is allowed to brainwash away without a murmur. All, presumably, in the name of "enlightenment."
The truth is that, while religion certainly followed the explorers, there were frequently clashes and confrontations between the "free traders" and the Church in all its forms as the churchmen tried to stop the abuses. It was avowed Christians who finally succeeded in outlawing slavery, not atheists. It is ironic that the story has been twisted on its head and the true accounts, which are available, are never ever shown or mentioned.
I will continue to practice my faith and I will continue to proclaim it. I will also continue to pray for the enlightenment of my children, my friends (where they don't share my faith) and all those who are lead by their gullibility to declare such nonsense as "God is an Atheist." When I first committed myself to faith in God, aged 15, I never expected to be ridiculed or to perhaps suffer for it. I begin to think I may have to take that last on board before very much longer.
It seems to me to be, at least in part, a result of the failure of Christianity in all its forms to engage and confront those who spread the lies and the anti-religious propaganda. It must also be said that there is a a lot of ammunition provided by the fundamentalists who insist in perpetuating the teaching that the creation must be taken literally from the first chapter of Genesis. (Islam has a similar wing and adherents who insist that the opening lines of the Quran describe the same event in virtually the same words!) Of course young people don't fall for this, they are intelligent and have been taught to think about things. They are surrounded by science and scientific discoveries which tell them that the creation is a much more complex event or series of events than the Genesis story admits. Yet that, in itself, is an oversimplification because if Genesis isn't taken literally, it actually supports the whole Big Bang and Evolution right down to the rise of humanity.
The fact that someone chooses NOT to accept a religious belief or teaching is not what bothers me most. I am most disturbed by the fact that it is now fashionable, indeed considered clever, to mock everyone who does believe. In fact if you can find something insulting or inflammatory to say to someone who dares to profess a religious belief, so much the better. Scientists who dare to confess religious beliefs are immediately labelled as "nutters" whose work is to be ridiculed and barred from publication because their "faith" makes them suspect. Medical staff who profess Christian beliefs are barred from NHS hospitals, or disciplined for "offending" some non-believer, but someone can post really offensive comments about someone's or some group's faith and that's all right. Posters can be displayed such as "This is a Faith Free Zone" in a workplace and it is considered a "personal statement" but putting up a religious poster is "offensive."
Yes, there are some extremely sick people out there calling themselves Muslim, Christian or whatever, but they do not and never have represented mainstream religion. But that is exactly what the Atheism promoters are trying to convey as "typical" religious behaviour. Thus Witch Burnings in Africa, the crucifixion of a cat (also in Africa), suicide bombers from Islam and the sexual abuses of some Roman Catholic clergy have become "typical examples of why religion must be suppressed."
I believe in God for a number of reasons, not least being that I can cite occasions when He has intervened in my life, usually when I was not expecting it or beyond the point of saving myself from a situation. I also believe because, as someone trained in investigations, I find the New Testament accounts of events believable, particularly the accounts of the Resurrection and the empty tomb. To actually understand what the witnesses are saying about that you need to talk to a Jew, because there are little details in the text that no Westerner will get unless they know Jewish custom and practice. No I don't believe in instant answers to everything from prayer, but I do believe that prayer is answered.
Over the years my faith has grown, changed, matured. The more I study history, the more sense the Bible makes in certain places - even down to the current attacks by the atheist horde. What concerns me is that our children are being fed a diet of false history (Religion is the cause of all wars. Christians supported slavery. The Roman Catholics murdered "millions" of native American Indians in pursuit of gold...) and a strongly anti-Bible, anti-faith message in schools. Religious leaders are swiftly accused of "brain-washing" if they attempt to present a truer picture of their faith, but the atheist community is allowed to brainwash away without a murmur. All, presumably, in the name of "enlightenment."
The truth is that, while religion certainly followed the explorers, there were frequently clashes and confrontations between the "free traders" and the Church in all its forms as the churchmen tried to stop the abuses. It was avowed Christians who finally succeeded in outlawing slavery, not atheists. It is ironic that the story has been twisted on its head and the true accounts, which are available, are never ever shown or mentioned.
I will continue to practice my faith and I will continue to proclaim it. I will also continue to pray for the enlightenment of my children, my friends (where they don't share my faith) and all those who are lead by their gullibility to declare such nonsense as "God is an Atheist." When I first committed myself to faith in God, aged 15, I never expected to be ridiculed or to perhaps suffer for it. I begin to think I may have to take that last on board before very much longer.
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
The Death of the Paper Book?
The death of paper based "print" books is much discussed these days on a variety of fora frequented by authors and would be authors. Seanan MacGuire, writing on Live Journal, makes an excellent case regarding the need for "printed words" to continue. I find myself in full agreement with him.
Electronic books are fine, I have some of mine available in e-format now, but if you don't have a Kindle, iPad, whatever, you can't read them. All you need to read a paper book is the book. You can get it from a library, from a bookstore, from Amazon and even from the second hand bookstore tucked away in a backstreet. But here lies a part of the problem. Authors have to get past a large number of "gate keepers" in order to get published by the traditional publishers. Most won't even look at a manuscript submitted by an author if it doesn't come through an agent. Even when they say they will. The truth is that they are swamped by manuscripts these days as the electronic age gives more and more people the power to create the novel "everyone" is supposed to have inside them.
Even if you do get read by a traditional publisher, more and more manuscripts are rejected because the author isn't marketable. Note, I said the Author isn't marketable. An unknown writer is just too much of a gamble. It costs a lot to publish traditionally, the overheads are enormous in terms of premises, salaries and so forth and then the manuscripts have to be edited properly. That all takes up time and money. I know, because I have been told and have now acquired quite a bit of experience in "doing it myself" that the actual printing isn't expensive. It ain't, what is expensive is the editing (Someone has to take the time to find the mistakes, typos and so on), the correcting (Again, there has to be a physical check that the "Proofs" are correct and there are no glitches), that any "facts" are properly sourced, correct and acknowledged, and finally, the really expensive bit - promotion. If people don't know its available, they won't buy it! More and more, this is the bit left to a new author ...
Even once you have managed to get your book printed, there is a further hurdle. The bookstore has limited space on their shelves. The books they are prepared to put there are those they believe will sell rapidly. Any book that sits on the shelf more than two weeks is costing them sales. Ergo, the books they will put there are those they KNOW will sell quickly. In other words, the books that make it through the next hurdle gate, the media review pages, the advertising posters and blurbs and so on. The books listed for various "Literary Prizes" and promoted to the point the public believe that only that book will be available in the stores ...
This leaves the "fringe" author very few options. I can try to get my books noticed by the bookstores, I can even offer them a "sale or return" deal on limited numbers so it gets at least onto a shelf. Trouble is, I know it won't get a prominent place and it remains a matter of chance whether anyone will actually spot it. (Funny thing about shops and shelves - the middle range, around eye level is where most people will look for something and buy it. Lower shelves seldom get looked at unless the buyer knows they are looking for something on a low shelf, and the same applies to anything above head height. These are well known ploys in store layout and marketing. Being on a bottom shelf is near 'death' for a book and being on a high one is to be classed with the sort of magazine that comes in opaque wrappings and not for sale to minors ...)
It is also said these days, that for a "self published" author to get taken seriously, they need to make sales of 10,000 copies. I find that threshold a bit misleading, especially since the traditional industry regularly publishes "Prize Nominees" and "known" authors who sell fewer copies. One "Prize Nominee" a few years ago sold a total of 150 copies!
So, this leaves us with a market where the easiest way for a fringe author like me to sell my stories and books is through the e-formats. However, I still prefer the book to be available in paper and like to see paper sales. After all, I like to hold a book, to smell a book, to feel a book and to read it. Like Seanan MacGuire, books were my friends as a child. They were my escape into a wider world and a wider understanding of how the world works, its people and the wonders of science, religion and nature. What I think needs to change is the publishing industry, not necessarily the format of books. There are a lot of good books not published by "traditional" publishers, some of them definitely potentially best sellers. But there are also a lot of absolute rubbish books as well. As they say, the buyer must exercise judgement and caution there.
Personally I think the paper book is far from dead, but the industry that produces them must also change and adapt. E-Books are here to stay, though not everyone will embrace them and some, like me, will continue to keep stacks of printed books on every flat surface and in every shelf we can find.
Books provide a fantastic opportunity to learn, to gain knowledge and to have fun doing it and killing off the paper based book will cut off access to them for a large section of every community. The Public Library was my door into a whole new world as a kid and I sincerely hope it will continue to provide that door to generations yet to come. Sadly, though, there is another part to this problem, illiteracy.
Looking around the sink estates today and listening to the youngsters speaking one quickly realises that many cannot read anything complex. Worse, they don't have the underpinning knowledge to realise what they are missing or what they could gain by stretching themselves reading a good book. There are all sorts of causes underlying this state of affairs and one of them is the "instant gratification" that comes from "quick hit" TV shows, games and the like. Reading a good book means actually having to savour the anticipation of the pleasure to come as the book reaches its peroration. For a generation now trained to have the attention span of gold fish, that is difficult to grasp.
If books are to survive in our society it requires that we nurture a wider audience than the cognoscenti who currently dictate what is published. We need to engage the youth at schools, particularly among the poorer end of society and show them what is available to them in the printed word. Books must be saved, but not just as the preserve of those who consider themselves "above the common herd" or as the "literate" - we must find ways to reach those who don't, at present, read anything other than the blurb on the latest "game" wrapper...
Quite a challenge for authors, publishers, sellers and educationists.
Electronic books are fine, I have some of mine available in e-format now, but if you don't have a Kindle, iPad, whatever, you can't read them. All you need to read a paper book is the book. You can get it from a library, from a bookstore, from Amazon and even from the second hand bookstore tucked away in a backstreet. But here lies a part of the problem. Authors have to get past a large number of "gate keepers" in order to get published by the traditional publishers. Most won't even look at a manuscript submitted by an author if it doesn't come through an agent. Even when they say they will. The truth is that they are swamped by manuscripts these days as the electronic age gives more and more people the power to create the novel "everyone" is supposed to have inside them.
Even if you do get read by a traditional publisher, more and more manuscripts are rejected because the author isn't marketable. Note, I said the Author isn't marketable. An unknown writer is just too much of a gamble. It costs a lot to publish traditionally, the overheads are enormous in terms of premises, salaries and so forth and then the manuscripts have to be edited properly. That all takes up time and money. I know, because I have been told and have now acquired quite a bit of experience in "doing it myself" that the actual printing isn't expensive. It ain't, what is expensive is the editing (Someone has to take the time to find the mistakes, typos and so on), the correcting (Again, there has to be a physical check that the "Proofs" are correct and there are no glitches), that any "facts" are properly sourced, correct and acknowledged, and finally, the really expensive bit - promotion. If people don't know its available, they won't buy it! More and more, this is the bit left to a new author ...
Even once you have managed to get your book printed, there is a further hurdle. The bookstore has limited space on their shelves. The books they are prepared to put there are those they believe will sell rapidly. Any book that sits on the shelf more than two weeks is costing them sales. Ergo, the books they will put there are those they KNOW will sell quickly. In other words, the books that make it through the next hurdle gate, the media review pages, the advertising posters and blurbs and so on. The books listed for various "Literary Prizes" and promoted to the point the public believe that only that book will be available in the stores ...
This leaves the "fringe" author very few options. I can try to get my books noticed by the bookstores, I can even offer them a "sale or return" deal on limited numbers so it gets at least onto a shelf. Trouble is, I know it won't get a prominent place and it remains a matter of chance whether anyone will actually spot it. (Funny thing about shops and shelves - the middle range, around eye level is where most people will look for something and buy it. Lower shelves seldom get looked at unless the buyer knows they are looking for something on a low shelf, and the same applies to anything above head height. These are well known ploys in store layout and marketing. Being on a bottom shelf is near 'death' for a book and being on a high one is to be classed with the sort of magazine that comes in opaque wrappings and not for sale to minors ...)
It is also said these days, that for a "self published" author to get taken seriously, they need to make sales of 10,000 copies. I find that threshold a bit misleading, especially since the traditional industry regularly publishes "Prize Nominees" and "known" authors who sell fewer copies. One "Prize Nominee" a few years ago sold a total of 150 copies!
So, this leaves us with a market where the easiest way for a fringe author like me to sell my stories and books is through the e-formats. However, I still prefer the book to be available in paper and like to see paper sales. After all, I like to hold a book, to smell a book, to feel a book and to read it. Like Seanan MacGuire, books were my friends as a child. They were my escape into a wider world and a wider understanding of how the world works, its people and the wonders of science, religion and nature. What I think needs to change is the publishing industry, not necessarily the format of books. There are a lot of good books not published by "traditional" publishers, some of them definitely potentially best sellers. But there are also a lot of absolute rubbish books as well. As they say, the buyer must exercise judgement and caution there.
Personally I think the paper book is far from dead, but the industry that produces them must also change and adapt. E-Books are here to stay, though not everyone will embrace them and some, like me, will continue to keep stacks of printed books on every flat surface and in every shelf we can find.
Books provide a fantastic opportunity to learn, to gain knowledge and to have fun doing it and killing off the paper based book will cut off access to them for a large section of every community. The Public Library was my door into a whole new world as a kid and I sincerely hope it will continue to provide that door to generations yet to come. Sadly, though, there is another part to this problem, illiteracy.
Looking around the sink estates today and listening to the youngsters speaking one quickly realises that many cannot read anything complex. Worse, they don't have the underpinning knowledge to realise what they are missing or what they could gain by stretching themselves reading a good book. There are all sorts of causes underlying this state of affairs and one of them is the "instant gratification" that comes from "quick hit" TV shows, games and the like. Reading a good book means actually having to savour the anticipation of the pleasure to come as the book reaches its peroration. For a generation now trained to have the attention span of gold fish, that is difficult to grasp.
If books are to survive in our society it requires that we nurture a wider audience than the cognoscenti who currently dictate what is published. We need to engage the youth at schools, particularly among the poorer end of society and show them what is available to them in the printed word. Books must be saved, but not just as the preserve of those who consider themselves "above the common herd" or as the "literate" - we must find ways to reach those who don't, at present, read anything other than the blurb on the latest "game" wrapper...
Quite a challenge for authors, publishers, sellers and educationists.
Monday, 19 September 2011
Good bye old friend ...
Sometimes our mortality is brought rather sharply into focus. I have just had that sort of day.
At 09.30 this morning a lady I was at school with, who sailed with me in the Sprog "Seanna" (Xhosa for "Runner") and who shared a large part of my life as a friend, and "sister" in many ways, died. Diana had suffered for a number of years with failing health. She suffered from glaucoma and she'd had a tumour removed from her brain around twelve years ago. The operation and the radiotherapy left her with an epileptic like condition, horrendous scarring and loss of her hair, but Di never gave up trying to beat it.
She was a very talented woman, musical (played the cello, mandolin, guitar and several other instruments), she was also creative, enjoyed singing and walking and certainly knew and understood the flora of our home country. In 2006 I was able to take her to Ireland and we were lucky enough to catch the show by Bru Boru. (I've probably not spelled that correctly.) She was entranced. We had taken seats near the stage so she could see them and the instruments, and once the players realised how interested she was and that there was a problem with her eyesight, some moved to sit next to her so she could see what they were doing. I've never seen performers do that before or since.
Her last four or five years have been very difficult, but she bore it all with her usual determination and humour and she never lost the faith we shared - we were confirmed together in 1962 at St Saviour's Anglican Church in East London. For the last few days she has been in a coma and died quietly and painlessly this morning. The cancer eating away at her brain finally won.
May she rest in peace and rise in glory with all the faithful.
At 09.30 this morning a lady I was at school with, who sailed with me in the Sprog "Seanna" (Xhosa for "Runner") and who shared a large part of my life as a friend, and "sister" in many ways, died. Diana had suffered for a number of years with failing health. She suffered from glaucoma and she'd had a tumour removed from her brain around twelve years ago. The operation and the radiotherapy left her with an epileptic like condition, horrendous scarring and loss of her hair, but Di never gave up trying to beat it.
She was a very talented woman, musical (played the cello, mandolin, guitar and several other instruments), she was also creative, enjoyed singing and walking and certainly knew and understood the flora of our home country. In 2006 I was able to take her to Ireland and we were lucky enough to catch the show by Bru Boru. (I've probably not spelled that correctly.) She was entranced. We had taken seats near the stage so she could see them and the instruments, and once the players realised how interested she was and that there was a problem with her eyesight, some moved to sit next to her so she could see what they were doing. I've never seen performers do that before or since.
Her last four or five years have been very difficult, but she bore it all with her usual determination and humour and she never lost the faith we shared - we were confirmed together in 1962 at St Saviour's Anglican Church in East London. For the last few days she has been in a coma and died quietly and painlessly this morning. The cancer eating away at her brain finally won.
May she rest in peace and rise in glory with all the faithful.
Sunday, 18 September 2011
Weekend
It's been a busy weekend. Yesterday we had a street party. The residents of our street came together, tents were pitched in front of one of the houses, "Schwenk-grills" were set up, children's games set up in the street and beer, grilled sausage and loads of salad supplied. Proceeds will go to support a school for blind children in Wiesbaden. It was great fun, and now the Monk finds himself with three "students" for English Conversation classes ...
Quid pro quo ... He gets to practice his German on them.
Today has been a rather autumnal day, though the Old Catholic community had their "Parish Meeting" after the Eucharist. Both were quite well attended and we also learned that our Pfarer has been elected to replace the retirning "Dekan" for this area. This is the equivalent of an Archdeacon in Anglican terms, so he will have a lot of extra responsibility to deal with.
And now the weekend is winding down and Monday looms for Mausi and a deadline for his presentations and papers for a conference for the Monk. Tempus obviously has a serious case of the fugits ...
Quid pro quo ... He gets to practice his German on them.
Today has been a rather autumnal day, though the Old Catholic community had their "Parish Meeting" after the Eucharist. Both were quite well attended and we also learned that our Pfarer has been elected to replace the retirning "Dekan" for this area. This is the equivalent of an Archdeacon in Anglican terms, so he will have a lot of extra responsibility to deal with.
And now the weekend is winding down and Monday looms for Mausi and a deadline for his presentations and papers for a conference for the Monk. Tempus obviously has a serious case of the fugits ...
Friday, 16 September 2011
Supporters of Genocide ...
Seems to be what the current British Government will become if they continue to allow the BBC among others, to spread the hate against Israel. Cranmer carries an excellent post on the sordid manner in which British prejudice is being openly exploited by those who wish to eradicate Israel from history. The post Palestine – no Jews, no gays, no gypsies... is well worth reading.
We are treated to the spectacle of British politicians campaigning for the recognition of a "Palestinian State" while the leaders of this supposed "people" (Who didn't actually have a name or exist until the pedophile Yasser Arafat invented the title in the 1960s) openly proclaim that they intend to make the new state a "Jew Free" land. The PLO "Ambassador" has declared this publicly. Given that there are some 300,000 Jews who have lived in and around Hebron and in Samaria for several millennia, that can only mean one thing. Hamas make no secret of their intentions regarding anyone non-Muslim or non-Palestinain. Get out or die. As I recall, some 70 years ago our fathers and grandfathers were busy fighting a war over an attempt to exterminate the Jews in Europe.
Funny, isn't it, that the same bunch of politicians in the UK have campaigned to bring Serbian generals and politicians to trial in the Hague for doing what their Palestinian friends are now proposing to do to the Jews. Funny? Or is this a sign of the prejudice in the UK political classes? Israel is now branded an "Apartheid State" because of the way it treats the Palestinians - who don't live in Israel and are not Israeli citizens - at the security check points. They refuse to acknowledge that "Palestinians" who live in Israel and are Israeli citizens enjoy all the rights of Jewish citizens and do rather nicely thank you. But now, a bunch of self-serving, propaganda spouting politicians plan to give ascent, on behalf of the people of Britain, to yet another war to eradicate the Jews. If the draft Resolution goes through with the words "return to the 1967 borders" in it (Those words are NOT in the original UN Resolution), they will, by default, be giving Iran, Syria and every other Jihadi inclined Muslim state a license to launch an all out war.
In using the term "Apartheid" in this manner they debase what that ideology actually stood for and did. Mind you, what can one expect of such passionate campaigners who know nothing at all about the philosophy that was "Nazi" or "Fascist" and now apply these labels to anyone who fails to share their particular point of view.
Would someone please take the BBC in hand and stamp on their constant stream of apologetics for the daily - yes, daily - rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza. Will someone in the government please stamp on the moronic Student Unions, Greens and other left wing clowns who are running these "boycott Israel" campaigns? Send the lot of them to live in their idealised states in the Middle East. A dose of the realities of those supposedly "nice" countries might just slap them into recognising reality.
Do they not understand that a Palestinian declaration of statehood - based upon the 1967 'borders' and with the 'right of return' of several million Arabs - amounts to a declaration of war against Israel? How is it that Israel may be demonised simply for existing? How is it that she may be universally condemned for allegedly propagating the very evils which Palestine is seen to do with impunity?
We are treated to the spectacle of British politicians campaigning for the recognition of a "Palestinian State" while the leaders of this supposed "people" (Who didn't actually have a name or exist until the pedophile Yasser Arafat invented the title in the 1960s) openly proclaim that they intend to make the new state a "Jew Free" land. The PLO "Ambassador" has declared this publicly. Given that there are some 300,000 Jews who have lived in and around Hebron and in Samaria for several millennia, that can only mean one thing. Hamas make no secret of their intentions regarding anyone non-Muslim or non-Palestinain. Get out or die. As I recall, some 70 years ago our fathers and grandfathers were busy fighting a war over an attempt to exterminate the Jews in Europe.
Funny, isn't it, that the same bunch of politicians in the UK have campaigned to bring Serbian generals and politicians to trial in the Hague for doing what their Palestinian friends are now proposing to do to the Jews. Funny? Or is this a sign of the prejudice in the UK political classes? Israel is now branded an "Apartheid State" because of the way it treats the Palestinians - who don't live in Israel and are not Israeli citizens - at the security check points. They refuse to acknowledge that "Palestinians" who live in Israel and are Israeli citizens enjoy all the rights of Jewish citizens and do rather nicely thank you. But now, a bunch of self-serving, propaganda spouting politicians plan to give ascent, on behalf of the people of Britain, to yet another war to eradicate the Jews. If the draft Resolution goes through with the words "return to the 1967 borders" in it (Those words are NOT in the original UN Resolution), they will, by default, be giving Iran, Syria and every other Jihadi inclined Muslim state a license to launch an all out war.
It’s nothing to the Jews, of course. They’ve been there and done that numerous times – Seleucid Empire 167 BC; England 1290; Spain 1492; Goa 1552; Germany 1941 – to name but a few. Of course, other ethnic and religious groups have also suffered throughout history: Don Cossacks, Greeks, Armenians, Serbs, Roma, Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists, Tibetans, Tutsis, Arabs, Muslims, Christians... The world has bent over backwards to prevent the repeat of such atrocities, and has occasionally directly intervened to preempt the return of such horrors.Where, in the Arab world, has there been a Jewish President? No where; and you won't find a Christian in that position either, yet, in Israel, there has been an Arab President and there are "Palestinian" members sitting in the Knesset. Yes, there are problems in Israel and it, like most democratic states isn't always right and isn't perfect, but it is a damned sight more free and fair than any of its neighbours.
In using the term "Apartheid" in this manner they debase what that ideology actually stood for and did. Mind you, what can one expect of such passionate campaigners who know nothing at all about the philosophy that was "Nazi" or "Fascist" and now apply these labels to anyone who fails to share their particular point of view.
Would someone please take the BBC in hand and stamp on their constant stream of apologetics for the daily - yes, daily - rocket attacks on Israel from Gaza. Will someone in the government please stamp on the moronic Student Unions, Greens and other left wing clowns who are running these "boycott Israel" campaigns? Send the lot of them to live in their idealised states in the Middle East. A dose of the realities of those supposedly "nice" countries might just slap them into recognising reality.
Thursday, 15 September 2011
My Review on GoodReads
Cox's Navy: Salvaging the German High Seas Fleet at Scapa Flow 1924-1931 by Tony BoothMy rating: 5 of 5 stars
Absolutely fascinating story and man. This is the sort of man who made the Great in Great Britain, and his story reminds one forcibly that we have lost the ability to be innovative, to tackle the "impossible" and to succeed through sheer determination and natural ability. This should be studied in schools.
The book is so well written I couldn't bear to put it down. If you attempted to write a fictional story around this man's achievement you still couldn't beat the reality of what he did.
View all my reviews
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
