Maryland Episcopal Bishop Absolves Himself

Maryland Episcopal Bishop Absolves Himself in Fellow Bishop’s Hit-n-Run Death of Cyclist

By David W. Virtue DD
www.virtueonline.org

The Bishop of Maryland, the Rt. Rev. Eugene Taylor Sutton, has written a Pastoral Letter to the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland absolving himself of being complicit in the hiring of Heather Cook (Suffragan Bishop) by not revealing her true background to the Standing Committee.

Bishop Sutton revealed that he heard from an unnamed bishop saying that Cook’s fatal hit-and-run crash was “not your fault.” Really.

Sutton wrote that he cried when he read the words even though he knew about Cook’s 2010 drunk driving arrest. That conviction revealed she couldn’t complete a sobriety test and was just “one mistake.” Church officials also said Cook didn’t have a problem with the bottle prior to her elevation to the second-highest ranking position in the Diocese of Maryland last spring. Now we know that was not true.

With Bishop Heather Cook in a Baltimore jail cell on charges of manslaughter, drunk driving, and leaving the scene of an accident, the man who presided during her hiring says he didn’t realize how burdened he was by the incident until “a bishop colleague” spoke with him.

Sutton acknowledged to diocesan officials that he knew about Cook’s 2010 drunk driving and drug arrest, but did not disclose it to the people who elected her. He now believes he can draw comfort from his colleague’s words of solace, he wrote in his “pastoral letter”.

“Eugene, I am the child of an alcoholic and I’ve spent many years dealing with that and coming to understand the hold that alcohol has on someone who is addicted to it,” the colleague counseled, according to Sutton’s account.

“I want to tell you that the Diocese of Maryland is not responsible for the terrible accident that killed that bicyclist,” the colleague added, according to Sutton’s letter. “You are not responsible for that; Heather Cook is. It’s not your fault.”

Sutton goes on to say the colleague’s words prompted him to “burst into tears.”

“I hadn’t realized how much I had internalized the weight of responsibility for the tragedy, the sense of shame, and the desperate need to make it all better,” Sutton wrote in the letter that was posted on his Facebook page as well as on the website of the Episcopal Diocese of Maryland.

So the spin begins.

He counsels readers of the letter to think before they act. “In a time of great upheaval, things said, decided upon and done in haste are rarely the most helpful over the long run,” he notes.

Not to be defensive is also recommended, with the bishop writing that “being vulnerable is better than being defensive.” He includes quotes from St. Paul’s Second Letter to the Corinthians and from the philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.

“Later, praying before the Icon of Christ the Pantocrater, I gazed into those piercing eyes of our Lord, asking: What is Christ wanting to say to me? And what did I want to say to him?

“After what seemed like an eternity, I was finally able to gaze into his eyes and say: ‘Lord, it’s not your fault,’” he recounts.

So Sutton feels no responsibility for smoothing the way for Cook to the episcopacy in the name of a false compassion, the sort of phony compassion that allowed John Shelby Spong and Walter Righter to stay in power long after their heresies and apostasies were exposed, long after Gene Robinson’s acknowledged homosexuality, his divorce from his first wife, marriage and divorce to a man, and his own acknowledged alcoholism! It allowed a bishop like Charles Bennison to stay in office even though he said Jesus was a sinner who forgave himself!

So with no Biblical principles to guide them, dioceses elect the lowest candidate they can find in the name of “compassion” because a number of those voting are themselves recovering alcoholics. Cook had not done one notable thing to make her electable. Not one. She had never planted a church, never talked about leading people to Christ, and was, by all accounts, living with her new/old boyfriend when she struck and killed Tom Palermo. Was she ever asked if she was engaged in fornication or is that now off limits because The Episcopal Church acknowledges “that there are currently couples in the Body of Christ and in this Church who are living in marriage and couples in the Body of Christ and in this Church who are living in other life-long committed relationships….(D039).” Wink wink…

In the end we will be told that nobody is to blame. The spin will continue. Sooner or later, we will be told that Cook just couldn’t help herself, she was born with an alcohol gene which was not her fault, that she tried to get her drinking under control, but couldn’t so why should we blame her. She is a victim of her own genes.

In the meantime, Mrs. Palermo must raise two kids alone without a husband and father because Cook killed her husband, left the scene of the accident, and is now languishing in jail with a $2.5 million bail that a judge had the good sense to make so high because she might recommit. This will keep her in jail till her trial maybe in February. If she is found guilty, she could pay a $50,000 fine and do 5-10 years.

The Presiding Bishop may (or may not) exercise Title IV to finally get rid of her; with all the negative publicity globally, she might have no option. Or she can wait till the whole affair dies down and just let it ride. Don’t put it past the PB to do that. It is easier to get rid of an adulterous heterosexual bishop than to rid the church of theologically heretical bishops or a bishop who drives under the influence and kills someone.

Who among the bishops in The Episcopal Church believes in St. Paul’s words any more?

Meantime Bishop Sutton can feel good about himself because he has absolved himself – Je me absous.

Gafcon letter to Burundi

Author:

Eliud Wabukala

A Consultation of GAFCON Primates and Bishops of Africa was held in Nairobi on 3rd & 4th December 2014 to consider a response to the ‘Transformation Through Friendship’ communiqué released from New York on 28th October, signed by five African Primates, including the Chairman of CAPA (the Council of Anglican Provinces in Africa), Archbishop Bernard Ntahoturi, and the Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church of the United States.

A letter was sent from the Nairobi meeting to Archbishop Ntahoturi, copied to the other African Primates and as no reply has been received, the letter is now being made public in order to avoid misunderstanding.

The New York Communiqué does not speak for the Anglican Provinces of Africa and it is a matter of very great regret that the ‘Continuing Indaba’ strategy has led to the division of African Anglicans.  

The text of the Nairobi Consultation letter follows. Click here for a copy of the letter as sent and the New York Communiqué can be found here.

The Archbishop of Rwanda was unable to attend the Nairobi Consultation or send representatives as the House of Bishops were meeting at the same time.

++++++++++++

The Most Rev. Bernard Ntahoturi

Archbishop of Burundi

4th December 2014

Dear Archbishop Bernard,

Please receive our greetings in the name of the Lord Jesus.

We write with a profound sense of distress about your actions in regard to the ”Transformation Through Friendship” gathering.  We take strong exception with numerous points.

First, the document itself is a manipulation. It is in fact, not principally about “Friendship” but is in fact an attempt to further advance the unbiblical and false teaching of The Episcopal Church.

Second, we reject the characterisation that the communiqué represents “African Primates and Bishops.” Given that there is absolutely no acknowledgement that there are other African Primates and Bishops who do not agree, the document, of which you were a collaborator and signatory, presents itself falsely. It does not represent the faith of the overwhelming majority of African Christians. This is particularly offensive given your position as Chairman of CAPA. If you are to be able to continue in your position with integrity, we would need both an explanation and an apology. If you are not able to do so, we would ask you to step down as Chairman.

We are particularly grieved because “it is not an enemy that reproaches… but it was you.” (Psalm 55:12-13) Given the fact that you are the Chairman of CAPA, and are supposed to represent the agreed positions of African Primates, your actions have created a tremendous obstacle to our participation in any CAPA gatherings until this can be properly sorted out.

Third, the theologically superficial approach of the “Friendship Communiqué” attempts to effect reconciliation without repentance. Not only did your presence validate unbiblical teaching and practice of The Episcopal Church (USA), but seeks to give momentum to a process which does not solve issues of salvific import. This is an example of teaching that is socially grounded rather than Biblically substantiated. By your presence, you validate unrepentant, unbiblical teaching and practice.

Fourth, we reject the process of “Indaba” as it is being implemented. Rather than seeking true resolution, it has been consistently manipulated only to recruit people to unbiblical positions. “Indaba” as currently practiced, is a fiction advancing human desires that are not informed by Gospel truth.

Fifth, the meeting uncritically proposes “Mission,” without recognising that there must be theological agreement about what purpose the mission pursues, as opposed to Biblical Mission which furthers the redemptive love of Christ through repentance and conversion.

Sixth, while we are certainly aware of the problem of poverty in Africa, we reject alliances that seek to capitalise on economic vulnerability to advance an agenda.

Dear Brother, we know that this agenda does not represent the faith of your Province, Diocese, or even your own heart. We call you to repentance and restoration to join with us in fellowship that is founded on Christ’s truth and is faithful to His Word. In keeping with our East African Revival heritage of repentance and confession, we long to have this resolved. Please know this letter comes not from malice but from a desire for godly fellowship to be restored.

The Most Rev’d Eliud Wabukala

Primate, the Anglican Church of Kenya,

Chairman GAFCON Primates Council

The Most Rev’d Nicholas D Okoh

Primate Church of Nigeria (Anglican Communion),

Vice Chairman GAFCON Primates Council

The Most Rev’d Henri Isingoma

Primate, The Anglican Church of Congo

The Most Rev’d Stanley Ntagali

Primate, Church of Uganda

Bishop Isaac Ater

For the Most Rev’d Daniel Deng Bul

Primate, the Episcopal Church of South Sudan and Sudan

CC : The Most Rev. Albert Chama, 
Archbishop of Central Africa; The Most Rev. Thabo Makgoba, Archbishop of Southern Africa; The Most Rev. Jacob Chimeledya,
 Archbishop of Tanzania, The Most Rev. Daniel Sarfo, Archbishop of West Africa; Rev Canon Grace Kaiso.

Christians March for Life Plus Some Methodist Mockery

IMG_1388.PNG

Yesterday’s March for Life in Washington, D.C. was a tremendous day both as a demonstration for human rights and a display of Christian unity. Catholic bishops marched with Anglican bishops and Orthodox clergy, with Lutheran and Southern Baptist leaders.

In the morning I attended an Evangelicals for life seminar co-hosted by the Southern Baptist Ethics and Religious Commission, featuring its leader Russell Moore and Hispanic Evangelical Samuel Rodriguez. March for Life President Jeanne Monahan, a Catholic with an angelic disposition, thanked Evangelicals for their ecumenical solidarity. Moore smilingly explained that future matches don’t need fewer rosaries but do need more Evangelicals. A fiery young Southern Baptist pastor shared his testimony of complicity in the “murder” of his own child by abortion at age 21, after which he sought God’s mercy.

Back at the IRD office, 12 Anglican bishops, including Archbishop Foley Beach, joined us for brunch in what has become a cherished annual tradition. Afterwards, IRD staff and bishops together joined many thousands for the march down Pennsylvania Avenue.

Meanwhile, on Capitol Hill, the unofficial pro-life caucus of United Methodism hosted its annual service in the Methodist Building chapel. United Methodist theologian Edgardo Colón-Emeric of Duke Divinity School delivered a thoughtful message on the “luminosity of life,” citing St. Thomas Aquinas. General Board of Church and Society chief Susan Henry Crowe, even though her agency is not pro-life, courteously attended the service.

Sadly, one of her colleagues was less courteous. Her agency’s “Director of Civil and Human Rights” Bill Mefford tweeted a sarcastic photo of himself outside among pro-life marchers with a sign proclaiming: “I March for Sandwiches.” His tweet further explained: “I was inspired by the march for life to march for what I believe in!”

Har-har-har, and no doubt he did. Mefford’s bio on the GBCS website explains his job entails opposing the death penalty. But while defending several hundred convicted murderers evidently is imperative, the nearly 1 million unborn children destroyed every year in America apparently are a topic of mirth.

Unfortunately, Mefford’s sign and tweet embody the lack of moral seriousness in much of modern Methodism’s social witness. Some day, this church’s social witness will be redeemed. Some day.

But Mefford’s antic in no way detracted from the powerful Christian witness of more dignified church leaders. Check out some photos below, especially the robed Anglican bishops in a prayer circle.

Christianity Is Losing in America

Christianity Is Losing in America

By Craig Dunkley
http://www.americanthinker.com

Christianity is under attack in America, and it’s losing. Meanwhile, the Church is, in general, sitting out the fight and hoping the problem goes away.

Hope is not a strategy. It’s time to act.

Since its inception, the United States has been a predominantly Christian nation, though open-minded and founded on religious tolerance. Our sense of personal freedom and tolerance, backed by a thoroughly Judeo-Christian worldview, has contributed mightily to this nation’s greatness. That worldview, and the Christian faith behind it, is being whittled away by the media, our popular culture, and a newly emboldened “activist atheist” movement. The pace of that whittling has accelerated over the last decade.

Atheism and “Nones” Rising

Data from the Pew Research Center shows that those who consider themselves atheist, agnostic, or unaffiliated with any religion have been rising as a percentage of the U.S. population. In 2012, nearly 20% of the public fell into one of those categories, up nearly 5 percentage points over the preceding 5 years. When focusing on adults under 30, about one third consider themselves atheist, agnostic, or unaffiliated. Almost exclusively, the gains in these groups reflect losses for Christians, with Christians dropping from 78% to 73% of the population over the same period. Doubtless, the trend has continued.

Lies and Misinformation

Christianity’s retreat is facilitated by a new breed of authors and “scholars” who have worked hard to undermine the most basic teachings of Christianity. With the help of a sympathetic media, they’ve captured the public’s imagination. Their impact has been significant.

For example, from the likes of the late Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, Bart Ehrman, Sam Harris, Reza Aslan, Simcha Jacobovici, and others, we have “learned” that:
• The New Testament is full of errors and alterations, and we can’t even figure out what the original texts said.
• Neither Jesus nor his early followers considered him divine. The whole idea that Jesus is the “Son of God” came about centuries after Jesus’s death.
• Jesus was actually just a poor, illiterate bumpkin who preached about the end of the world.
• The early church ruthlessly — and violently — silenced “heretics.” As a result, many valid writings were hidden from people because they were damaging to orthodox Christianity.
• The whole Jesus story was just a rip-off of other “dying and rising” god myths, common in ancient times.
• The traditionally accepted authors of the four canonical gospels could not have been the real authors.
• Christianity has killed and persecuted millions over the centuries, including “pagans,” heretical Christians, and thousands of Muslims during those first acts of Christian imperialism, the Crusades.
• Archeological discoveries have proven time and again that the Bible is untrustworthy as a work of history.
• The Bible is riddled with inconsistencies that render it invalid.
• Christianity encourages scientific illiteracy because it teaches that the Earth is the center of the universe and that it’s just 6,000 years old.
• Many more “facts” that serve to undermine the faith.

There is one problem common to all of the “facts” mentioned above: they’re demonstrably wrong, or else they take a tiny bit of truth and distort it beyond all recognition. For example, the assertion that Jesus was not considered divine until a vote of church leaders at the Council of Nicaea in 325 A.D., an oft-repeated myth, is absurd. The Council did not debate whether Jesus was divine. Rather, it debated the nature of his divinity: was he the created Son of God — sort of like an “über-Angel” — or was he a pre-existent being, co-equal with God? The Council decided, based on scriptural interpretation, that Jesus was the latter. His basic divinity was never doubted.

In another example, some authors are fond of pointing out uncanny similarities between the story of Jesus’s life, death, and resurrection and the stories of a range of other “dying and rising” gods, such as Mithras, Attis, and Dionysus. This is done in an effort to paint the Jesus story as just a rip-off of earlier myths. A closer analysis, however, reveals that most of these alleged similarities were either fabricated or wildly misrepresented. In a number of cases, such as that of Mithras, some similarities were genuine but were developed long after Jesus’s death by pagan cult members to boost their own movement’s credibility. In other words, it was Jesus who got ripped off!

For each of the “facts” listed above, there are highly sound, historically accurate rebuttals. Yet these myths are repeated ad infinitum by some “scholars,” authors, bloggers, popular media outlets, and ill-informed atheist activists all over this nation.

Their incessant “cut and paste” mentality on the internet has established a strong base of content that is now in the process of fooling many Christians into abandoning their faith, while turning away many otherwise open-minded “seekers.” A textbook example is the shamefully inaccurate cover story on Christianity, “The Bible: So Misunderstood It’s a Sin,” published on December 23, 2014 by Newsweek.
In addition, a confident-feeling activist atheist community is working to reinforce the notion that anyone who turns to religion (especially Christianity) is an intellectual weakling who believes in fairy tales. Consider the latest ad campaign by American Atheists. The net result of all this is a rising number of people who consider themselves atheist or agnostic.

Churches on the Sidelines

It’s important to note that churches do fantastic work. Christian charities help people across the globe, Christian missionaries risk life and limb to spread the faith abroad, and churches provide comfort and support to millions. But churches are not properly equipping their members to combat the lies being spread about their faith.

People raised in church are often taught what the Bible says, and many can recite key passages, chapter and verse. However, they are not often taught about the specific anti-Christian myths that have been developed, nor are they taught the data-backed responses to them.

In short, churches are not teaching their members enough about Christian apologetics. This leaves church members unable to respond effectively when their beliefs are challenged. As a result, they often come to doubt what they’ve been taught, and they are certainly ill-equipped to help “win over” friends or acquaintances who may be seekers “on the fence.”

Younger Christians are the most vulnerable, particularly when heading off to college. It’s in college that a young Christian is most likely to have his or her beliefs seriously challenged, be it by professors, atheist students, or both. He must be prepared to deal with this challenge. This reality was brought home to the author by an e-mail, sent by a friend. In part, it read:

I know what you mean about faith being challenged. I grew up in a Christian school where we learned Bible verses and attended chapel every Friday. We were taught ‘truths’ and were expected to absorb them at face value. It was a good foundation of faith, but it was just faith, and not supported by true ‘knowledge,” if that makes sense…I was completely unprepared to defend my faith when Biblical inconsistencies were pointed out in college. I signed up for a ‘Religion’ class thinking that I would pass with flying colors because of my years of education. Surprise. The first lecture and assignment in the class was about all the discrepancies within the Old Testament. I had never been taught about the Bible from a historical or factual perspective…

The Need for Apologetics

It’s time for churches to join the fight. It’s not acceptable to “duck and cover” and wait for this to pass. It won’t. Lies and misinformation must be countered with truth and logic in an open and loving way. Churches must get serious about creating apologetics ministries to educate their members, prepare their youth groups, and spread the word. Every Christian should understand the attacks that are being launched against the Christian faith, and be prepared to counter them. Strong apologetics ministries will inoculate Christians against these attacks and equip them to win over those bystanders trying to find their own paths to faith.

These apologetics ministries should also be open and directed toward the general public, inviting open-minded seekers, as well as committed Christians to attend. These ministries should make ample use of social media and other online resources to maximize their reach.

If Christians do not answer the call now, then even more people will turn away from Christianity because they think it’s not for them…when it might be exactly what they’re seeking in their lives.

Craig Dunkley is a marketing and public relations executive. He is also founder and editor of Logic & Light, a website dedicated to Christian apologetics.

“If 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France”

 The words of French Prime Minister Manuel Valls echo down the centuries of anti-Semitic Europe, where Jews have been marginalised, persecuted, reviled, expelled and turned to ash in the ovens of Auschwitz. France could survive the emigration of any ethnic group, he avers. But if the Jews leave, “France will no longer be France. The French Republic will be judged a failure.”

His comments are published in The Atlantic, in an interview he gave to Jeffery Goldberg before the Charlie Hebdo massacre and the subsequent murder of four Jews in a kosher delicatessen in Paris. Given what he calls the “intensifying crisis”, Goldberg hastened publication of certain sections of the interview because of the demographic reality that thousands of Jews are certainly fleeing France. Indeed, Stephen Pollard, Editor of the Jewish Chronicletweeted: “Every single French Jew I know has either left or is actively working out how to leave.” Manuel Valls insists that France must do more to halt the exodus. He explains:

The choice was made by the French Revolution in 1789 to recognize Jews as full citizens. To understand what the idea of the Republic is about, you have to understand the central role played by the emancipation of the Jews. It is a founding principle.

..If 100,000 French people of Spanish origin were to leave, I would never say that France is not France anymore. But if 100,000 Jews leave, France will no longer be France. The French Republic will be judged a failure.

..Jews were sometimes marginalized in France, but this was not Spain or other countries – they were never expelled, and they play a role in the life of France that is central.

..There is a new anti-Semitism in France. We have the old anti-Semitism, and I’m obviously not downplaying it, that comes from the extreme right, but this new anti-Semitism comes from the difficult neighborhoods, from immigrants from the Middle East and North Africa, who have turned anger about Gaza into something very dangerous. Israel and Palestine are just a pretext. There is something far more profound taking place now.

..It is legitimate to criticize the politics of Israel. This criticism exists in Israel itself. But this is not what we are talking about in France. This is radical criticism of the very existence of Israel, which is anti-Semitic. There is an incontestable link between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism. Behind anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.

..The Jews of France are profoundly attached to France but they need reassurance that they are welcome here, that they are secure here.

Prime Minister Valls may speak with piercing clarity on the nature and scale of the evil, and President Hollande may be equally unequivocal in his recognition of this “new anti-Semitism” (though it isn’t entirely clear what is “new” about oppressing Jews). And yet it is reported by Haaretz (and tweeted by Channel 4′s Jon Snow) that Hollande urged Benjamin Netanyahu not to attend the Paris march for freedom and unity: “Hollande wanted the event to focus on demonstrating solidarity with France, and to avoid anything liable to divert attention to other controversial issues, like Jewish-Muslim relations or the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Audibert said that Hollande hoped that Netanyahu would understand the difficulties his arrival might pose and would announce that he would not be attending.”

Which is curious, because the murder of four Jews in a kosher deli might just have something to do with Jewish-Muslim relations. And journalists have fallen over themselves to suggest that Israeli policy toward Gaza explains (if not justifies) attacks on Jewish people, institutions and economic interests. “Many critics, though, of Israel’s policy would suggest that the Palestinians suffer hugely at Jewish hands as well,” said the BBC’s Tim Willcox to the daughter of a Holocaust survivor. The same sentiment is found in the Financial Times: basically, the political provocation known as Zionism offends against justice and peace, so taking up AK-47s against Jews – whether they are Israeli or not; whether they support Israeli policy or not – may be rationalised and justified. As Tim Willcox enlightens us: “You see, people see it from all sides.”

Don’t they just.

The suffering of Palestinians is caused not by Israel, but devised and formed by “Jewish hands”. Willcox didn’t say those hands offend and must be cut off, but he might as well have. When Jews are victimised, their businesses raided, their synagogues bombed and their cemeteries desecrated – and journalists and politicians justify this by objecting to ‘offensive’ cartoons and pointing to the plight of Palestinians – it is no wonder that Jews are leaving Europe for a safer home.

A survey published in November 2013 by the Fundamental Rights Agency of the European Union observed that Jews across Europe “face insults, discrimination and physical violence, which despite concerted efforts by both the EU and its member states, shows no signs of fading into the past”. Two-thirds considered anti-Semitism to be a problem across the countries surveyed. Overall, 76% of respondents said that anti-Semitism had worsened over the past five years.

In the last International Religious Freedom Report issued by the US Department of State, tucked away amidst the horrors being perpetrated in Burma, China, Eritrea, Iran, Iraq, North Korea, Sudan, Saudi Arabia, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, we find this:

Throughout Europe, the historical stain of anti-Semitism continued to be a fact of life on Internet fora, in soccer stadiums, and through Nazi-like salutes, leading many individuals who are Jewish to conceal their religious identity.

..Rising anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim sentiment in parts of Europe demonstrated that intolerance is not limited to countries in active conflict. The European Union’s Fundamental Rights Agency (FRA) survey of perceptions of anti-Semitism among Jews in eight member states (Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Sweden and United Kingdom), released in November, found that in some countries as many as 48 percent of the local Jewish population had considered emigrating because of anti-Semitism.

You see, it isn’t only France: incredibly, half of the Jewish populations of many European countries are so fearful, intimidated and oppressed that they are considering leaving their homes, families and communities and emigrating to a foreign land. Cries of “Death to the Jews” ring across towns and cities as the spectre of Nazi ghettos descends once again. “They pursue the Jews in the streets of Berlin… as if we were in 1938,” says Israel’s Ambassador to Germany, Yakov Hadas-Handelsman. He has also heard chants of “Jewish pigs” and “Gas the Jews”. “Since March 2012, I am ambassador of Israel in Germany,” he said. “If someone had told me that I witnessed such hateful, incites hatred and anti-Semitic phenomena would be in public in this country, I would not probably have thought it possible.”

Jews are being advised not to go out onto the streets wearing a kippah. In Toulouse, Jewish children are shot in a Jewish school. In Brussels, people are randomly killed in a Jewish museum: if they happen to be Jews or Israelis, all the better. In Liege, a café displayed a sign in its window which said dogs were welcome, but Jews were not allowed to enter.

This is Christian Europe, which, of all the continents of the world, ought to feel the deepest shame at the rise of this “new anti-Semitism”. And the oppressors are not all hardened Islamists obligingly plotting their next spectacular on SnapChat and WhatsApp for the convenience of MI5: no, many are simply ordinary but angry, young, male Muslims, itching for some self-proclaimed imam to issue the Call to Jihad.

To these young male Muslims, the Israeli occupation of Gaza is a certain grievance, but the Jewish occupations of Paris, London and Amsterdam also need sorting. To the media, they may be male; they may be Asian or “of Asian appearance”. But no, they may not be called Muslim, for that would cause great offence. These extremists, Baroness Warsi insists, “do not follow any faith”. Sajid Javid, the first elected Muslim to join the Cabinet, is not so blind: “The lazy answer from people out there is to say that this had got nothing whatsoever to do with Islam and Muslims and that should be the end of that part of the debate,” he said. “That is lazy and that would be wrong. You can’t get away from the fact that these people are using Islam, they are taking a great religion, a peaceful religion of a billion people around the world, taking this religion and using it as their tool to carry out their horrible activities.”

The Jews are leaving Europe not because the Jihadists are coming, but because they are already here, dwelling among us. They hate Israel and they loathe Jews, but, pace Manuel Valls, we say almost nothing and do very little. Instead, we let the Jews emigrate to the United States or “go back” to Israel, and they are doing so in their thousands every year. In the Holy Land they may be surrounded on all sides by the enemies of Zionism, but at least they have in Benjamin Netanyahu the leader of a government which will not hesitate to shelter and defend them. It will even bury their martyred bodies in fortified Jewish cemeteries in Jerusalem, where their sanctified graves will never be defiled with swastikas.

Free speech is sacrosanct – as long as you worship the Gods of the liberal elite

There is a stench wafting down from Mount Pompous. The liberal elite, who inhabit Mount Pompous, are generating such a stink of hypocrisy it is difficult to stand.

“United” in their condemnation of the Islamic terrorist attacks in Paris, we are told freedom of speech will not be defeated. They will defend – Cameron, Hollande and the rest of the muppets who cannot protect their own people from some idiot losers getting their hands on AK47s – the freedom to offend. This from the PC Brigade!

This stench of hypocrisy is so overpowering because it comes from those architects and defenders of the PC agenda who depend entirely on shutting down debate that offends the new liberal-PC norms. The entire raison d’etre of the PC agenda is  essentially to outlaw thoughts and speech deemed beyond the pale. Anything that offends with be mercilessly rooted out.

You can offend religion, or the religious. That is fine. But you cannot offend the secularists Gods of Equality and Diversity for instance. Now, I will accept that the PC police will not shoot you for offending the PC/Liberal Gods, but they will attempt to ruin you and your livelihood. Demanding resignations is now stock in trade for anyone who does not toe the Liberal line.

It was only last week that the resignation of none other than that hapless jobsworth Gordon Taylor was demanded for making an idiotic comparison between the campaign for justice by the families of those who died in the Hillsborough disaster and Ched Evans, who maintains his innocence against a conviction for rape. Sure, this was stupid but did not justify calls for his resignation.

When the welfare reform minister Lord Freud suggested ways of improving employment prospects for people with disabilities, including the option of paying them less than the minimum wage, the braying PC mob – including those in his own party – wasted no time in demanding his resignation.

Ed Miliband said: ‘It’s very serious. He didn’t just say that disabled people weren’t worth the minimum wage, he went further and said he was looking – and I quote – whether there is something we can do if someone wants to work for £2 an hour. Surely someone holding those views can’t stay in his Cabinet.’

Conservative MP Nadine Dorries was one of the few to call a spade a spade saying that Labour was whipping up a ‘faux outrage, PC trial by Twitter.’ Lord Freud had to issue the usual groveling apology to keep his job.

The ‘colourful’ Michael Fabricant MP (who no person in their right mind should take seriously) also found himself lynched by the PC Brigade when he expressed his less than PC views about The Independent’s sanctimonious Yasmin Alibhai-Brown.

After she and Rod Liddle got into a bunfight on Channel 4 News, where she expressed her delight about being able tell Mr Liddle to his face how much she hated him, Fabricant tweeted: “I could never be on a discussion prog with Alibhai-Brown as I would either end up with a brain haemorrhage or by punching her in the throat. You can read the usual outrage – if you are bothered – here.

So on and on it goes. Ironically, even those at the forefront of the PC agenda can be caught out. It was some time back that Diane Abbott MP faced calls to resign after she tweeted “white people love playing divide and rule. We should not play their game”. She survived.

MPs should be fired for being incompetent or useless in their work, criminal, or indeed dodgy financially. But the PC Brigade want more than this. They want total obedience to PC views – or else.

What is so galling in the last week is how the PC Brigade have been extolling the necessity of having the freedom to offend while, on the other hand, they waste no time rounding on anyone who dares offend any of their own beliefs. So you can be free to offend – as long as you are willing to resign.

Unbelievably, the PC elite are even using the terrorist attacks to shut down any debate that does not fit the “we are all in this together” agenda. If anyone – as Nigel Farage did – raises issues that go beyond this, he is shouted down as a ‘making a political point’ (can you imagine – a politician being political?) and his comments being ‘sickening’. All this heretical talk will only divide us – which is what the terrorists want – so shut up.

We can expect this stench from Mount Pompous to continue for some time. I am seeking refuge.

Western Dhimmitude is Enabling Bloody Jihad

CultureWatch

Bill Muehlenberg’s commentary on issues of the day…

Imagine if the Christian religion were responsible for some 250 million deaths over a 1400 year period. Imagine if the New Testament brimmed with passages commanding the death of the unbeliever. Imagine if we had daily headlines of bloody terror attacks done in the name of Christ by devout Christians.

Imagine mass slaughter of the innocents on the streets of New York, Boston, London, Paris, Sydney and other Western cities by armed militant Christians. Just how would our ruling elites and mainstream media be responding by now?

parisDo you think they would say, ‘Well, we can’t judge the whole bunch by a few bad apples. We must be tolerant. We cannot be judgmental. We must look within to see what we have done to cause all these Christian attacks. They were surely unstable people to begin with, and acting as lone wolves. This clearly has nothing to do with Christianity.’

Um, no. We know exactly how they would be responding. They would demand that Christianity be banned, that the Bible be banned, that churches be closed down. They would condemn Christianity and Christians en masse for being a bloody, evil death cult.

Yet when we have exactly all this happening, except it happens to be done by devout Muslims, we live in denial, hide our heads in the sand, make Islam out to be a great and noble religion, turn the terrorists into the victims, and make every excuse in the book for them.

The duped dhimmis in the West in other words are just as responsible for these daily terror attacks as are the attackers themselves. By defending the attackers and blaming the West instead, they are simply enabling and encouraging plenty more such attacks.

I have already had an absolute gutful of the clueless wonders in the lamestream media repeating their diabolical mantras about “Islamophobia” and “racism” and “xenophobia” being the root cause here, and how we must tolerate Islam, and how this is simply the work of a deranged lone wolf, etc, etc.

The dhimmis at our ABC for example have been running these lines ever since the 12 Parisians were murdered by Islamic jihadists. Hardly anyone is even using the ‘I’ word. Fox News is one of the rare exceptions here, willing to speak of “Islamist executioners”.

But most of the MSM has been morally repugnant here, and they seem to be acting as agents of Islam. There is no other way to describe their treasonous actions. CNN for example actually attacked the satire magazine Charlie Hebdo for “going over the line” in offending Muslims.

Hey, CNN, let me bring you back down to planet earth. Charlie Hebdo was proud to be an equal opportunity offender. They were provocative and attacked everyone, whether Christians, Jews, or anyone else. And guess what, all these groups who were regularly attacked by CH did not find the need to purchase assault weapons and gun down the editors, the police and others.

Why is it that only one religion in the world – a political ideology really – seems so intent on killing every last man, woman and child who dares to differ, who dares to disagree with this death cult? Why have Christians or Jews or Buddhists not bombed CH?

And the Associated Press said “We Won’t Use ‘Deliberately Provocative’ Images,” referring to the Mohammad Cartoons which Charlie Hebdo was willing to bravely run. Hey, stooges at the AP, I got news for you: claiming your religion means killing all infidels and waging holy war against all non-Muslims is being provocative, not showing a few lousy cartoons.

And remember that Obama and other world leaders were also keen to attack CH for running with these cartoons, claiming they were “offensive”. Well, I find these useless leaders offensive. Give me some satirical cartoons any day of the week over bloodthirsty murdering jihadists.

Every media outlet in the West, if they had the slightest bit of guts, should be running these cartoons in solidarity with their murdered brothers in Paris. But no, these clowns are doing all they can to claim these attacks are somehow our fault, and we are to blame for any jihadist attack.

As Mark Steyn comments:

My Wednesday appearance on The John Oakley Show was dominated by the breaking news from Paris of this morning’s murderous assault on the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo. Unlike so many of the supposedly “edgy” “satirists” on this side of the Atlantic, congratulating themselves on their transgressive “bravery” at one back-slapping awards ceremony after another, the editors, writers and cartoonists of Charlie Hebdo were genuinely brave – and paid for it with their lives.
I did not know at the time I spoke to John that among the dead was Stéphane “Charb” Charbonnier, the editor of Charlie Hebdo and a great cartoonist in the French style. Two years ago, he said: It may seem pompous, but I’d rather die standing than live on my knees. He did. He was an heroic figure, and he paid for it with his life. But he wasn’t being in the least bit pompous, merely stating what ought to be far more obvious to far more people.

As I say, the dupes in the media and our ruling elites are actually collaborators with the jihadists. And as such, they ought to be punished with similar severity to those with the fingers on the triggers. Those throwing the bombs and those defending these miscreants are really cut from the same cloth, and are both to be condemned.

A new novel just released by award-winning French author Michel Houellebecq, called Submission, deals with a near future in which France is controlled by sharia law, with a Muslim President ruling the country. His is a work of fiction, but it really should be put in the non-fiction section of bookstores.

With over 5 million Muslims in France, this country, as I have documented so often already, is well under way to becoming a Muslim nation under sharia law. This is not fiction, but reality coming soon to a nation near you. And with dhimmi tools running most Western countries and media outlets, it will likely happen far faster than this French novelist imagined.

www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-06/novel-depicting-islamist-president-for-france-stirs-controversy.html