Fair play to Jeremy Corbyn, at least the Labour party have made a public statement of their policies relating to racial minorities and faith groups. The Conservative strategy, as evidenced by a manifesto roughly half the size of those of the other main parties, is that the less you say, the less you can be tripped up with.
Labours Race and Faith Manifesto, published yesterday under the shadow of the Chief Rabbi (of which more later), is a creditable attempt to analyse a major area of social injustice, and put policies in place to tackle it. Most of the manifesto is about racial inequality, expressed in pay, poverty, under-representation, policing, policies towards immigrants, right through to climate change and how aid money is spent. There is a series of policies aimed both at correcting outcomes, and at influencing culture. The former includes greater investment in mental health, using monitoring and regulation to increase BAME participation in academia and business leadership. The latter includes changes to the education curriculum and policing culture.
On Faith, there isn't quite so much - an early paragraph commends 'the contribution of faith groups in filling the gaps left by austerity Britain', and nearly all of the policy stuff is about supporting freedom of religious expression at home and abroad, and combating hate crime and anti-religious prejudice. Page 5 includes a commitment to "ensure the views of communities with or without faith are respected and protected across our society". That's a big one, if they really mean it: the liberal social agenda expressed elsewhere in Labours programme won't be one supported by faith groups.
Yesterdays spat with the Chief Rabbi, and the response from the Muslim Council of Britain, throw all of this into sharp relief. There should be no tolerance of anti-Jewish racism or anti-Muslim prejudice. However the notion of Islamophobia itself needs some refining, and both Islamophobia and anti-Semitism are sometimes used carelessly - someone who criticises the actions of the state of Israel is not necessarily an anti-Semite, and someone who criticises aspects of Islam is not Islamophobic.
Whilst some of the standard antisemitic formulas centre on an imagined global financial conspiracy, there is real evidence of the influence of hard cash elsewhere. Whilst some Muslim students, among others, don't feel that university is a safe place to be themselves and express their views, academia itself is coming heavily under the influence of oil money from the Middle East. This impacts on the freedom of universities to maintain standards of critical scrutiny of Islam, its sources and its history. This isn't isolated of course - we're seeing universities caving in to China, gender lobbyists, you name it, with 54% actively censoring free speech in some form or another. But intellectual freedom and free speech are not qualities prized by Muslim governments and their billionaire leaders who finance faculties from Exeter to Edinburgh. The same goes for China - is it possible for a Labour government to 'respect and protect' the views of Chinese students who try to shut down protests about Hong Kong on British campuses?
The Muslim Council of Britain, representing 500 mosques, schools and organisations (for comparison, my own Diocese of Bath and Wells represents over 500 churches, plus dozens of schools and other organisations), not so long ago boycotted Holocaust Memorial Day. Ironically, in a move which parallels the Conservatives decision to broaden their Islamophobia investigation, they once called for the day to be expanded to one covering all forms of genocide.
Just as with the gender and sexuality debates, emotive labelling can be used both to shut down uncomfortable criticism, and to identify real examples of the things it refers to. Most people reading a tweet don't have time, or don't bother, to work out which of these is at play.
This is a subspecies of the debate over rhetoric and hate speech, and one of the major challenges of making a multi-cultural society work. It is made even more difficult by the lack of an overarching narrative: our current post-Christian liberal Western democracy has evolved from a mishmash of sources. In a postmodern culture which no longer recognises overarching truth or grand narratives, be they Christian, Marxist, Muslim or The American Dream (itself, like Marxism, a heavily morphed version of the Chosen People/Promised Land motifs of the Old Testament). We are left with competing visions of life, sets of 'rights' which keep colliding with each other, and only Tolerance and Respect to hold ourselves together. It may not be enough.
Labour, at least, are trying to address some of the fallout from this. There is no sign of it in the Conservative manifesto at all. Search the document for 'race' and the only return is the word 'embrace'. 'Racism' occurs once, in the mother and apple pie statement 'we will tackle racism', and the most concrete expression of free speech is the scrapping of the Leveson enquiry, which tells you just a little bit more about the malign influence of money on UK life and politics. In respect of the Conservative policy on race, religion, culture, community cohesion and tolerance, how can you blog about and criticise something that doesn't exist?
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label racism. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 27, 2019
Saturday, July 02, 2016
Yeovil Churches statement: 'hear each other rather than fear each other'
A joint statement from Yeovil churches, which went out this week:
“As followers of Jesus we are committed to loving our neighbours. This is foundational to who we are called to be; a community of diverse people who reflect a God whose sacrificial love reaches out to each person, irrespective of nationality, belief, behaviour, or any of the other differences that so easily divide us. His love is unconditional, freely offered to the apparently ‘deserving’ and the allegedly ‘undeserving’. That is why grace is amazing.
Whatever the politics, and whichever side of the debate people are on, we encourage our whole community to seek to disagree well, to be kind and to hear each other rather than fear each other. We also pray that in the local, national and international arena, wisdom, justice and mercy will be at the heart of any discussions.
Regardless of how we voted in the recent referendum, as Christians we are committed to loving those from other nations who are here. We declare emphatically that they are welcome. We are resolved to show the same compassion towards them as we seek to show towards all other members of our community. They are important in God’s eyes, so they are important to us. And we will stand alongside them, and against prejudice, discrimination and hatred.
Jesus consistently welcomed strangers and valued those whom others disliked.
He still does, and we stand with Him.”
Thursday, July 30, 2015
BBC Dreadful Language Swarm Shock
David Cameron has been in the firing line for using the word 'swarms' as a collective noun for people. How very very dreadful. After all, the BBC wouldn't do that would they?
Oh: it looks like Americans swarm
you can see the vast swarms of people who turned out to see the inauguration.
and so do Christians
The preacher and other members of the crowd swarm around him, and join him in dance
How very very shocking, dreadful, divisive and inflammatory. I feel whipped up against Americans and Christians just as a result of hearing the term used once. But I'm sure all the people having a go at Cameron today are, behind the scenes, working really really hard to find a way to solve the problem, rather than just having an opportunist pop and trying to get people worked up about a non-issue.
update
and Syrians
and Nigerians
If I didn't know any better I'd venture that 'swarm' was a common way of referring to the behaviour of crowds.
Oh: it looks like Americans swarm
you can see the vast swarms of people who turned out to see the inauguration.
and so do Christians
The preacher and other members of the crowd swarm around him, and join him in dance
How very very shocking, dreadful, divisive and inflammatory. I feel whipped up against Americans and Christians just as a result of hearing the term used once. But I'm sure all the people having a go at Cameron today are, behind the scenes, working really really hard to find a way to solve the problem, rather than just having an opportunist pop and trying to get people worked up about a non-issue.
update
and Syrians
and Nigerians
If I didn't know any better I'd venture that 'swarm' was a common way of referring to the behaviour of crowds.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
A 'Christian Country?' BNP rhetoric and reality.
According to the BNP themselves, 3,000 people have registered to be signed up as members following Question Time. Unsurprisingly, their site is getting way more hits than those of any other political party at the moment – Alexa rankings are proudly displayed at the bottom of it. A poll carried out since the programme found that 22% of those surveyed would ’seriously consider’ voting for the BNP.
Some of that may be Brits siding with the underdog, as we traditionally do, but there’s nothing to be gained by simply dismissing these figures. As the BBC report puts it “more than half of those polled said they agreed or thought the party had a point in speaking up for the interests of indigenous, white British people.” Baroness Warsi made the point during the debate that there was more to the BNP vote than disillusionment over expenses: “there are people who feel the pace of change is too fast.”
A Christian Country?
Nick Griffin referred to the UK as a ‘Christian country’ several times during the debate. Do a search for ‘Christian’ on the BNP site, and most of it is articles against Islam and political correctness where that impinges on the church. It’s a defensive statement of cultural identity (’we don’t want Islam’) mre than a positive one of religious identity. ‘Christian country’ is a piece of branding, the language of resistance, looking back to where Britain has come from, and trying to hold on to it. Christian groups have made it clear that Griffin speaks only for the BNP when he seeks to portray them as defenders of the faith.
Britain is in a transition phase: post-Christian without being non-Christian. We still have many of the institutions, but culture and personal ethics have slipped their Christian moorings for the open sea. ‘Life of Brian’ would scarcely raise a murmer now – witness recent attempts to create ‘outrage’ stories over religious imagery which, 40 years ago, wouldn’t have needed any media help in causing a storm.
But it’s not a clean break: recently two councils added 3 other religious holidays to the normal closures for Christmas and Easter. Despite relatively small numbers of Sikhs in Newham and Waltham Forest, Guru Nanaks birthday joins Eid and Diwali on the holiday list. The ensuing lively debate has caused a review of the policy.
The stated aim is, you guessed it, ‘community cohesion’. The result is often the opposite: there will no doubt be another row over ‘Winterval’ some time in the next 2 months, as Christmas is rebranded, and ‘we don’t want to offend people of other faiths’ is cited as the rationale. Result: people of other faiths are blamed for the decision. Winners: nobody. Except perhaps the BNP.
Given the use the BNP makes of ‘Christian Britain’ language, Jonathan Bartley questions whether the church should give up the ghost on trying to preserve the remnants and rhetoric of Christian identity in the UK, but I’m not sure the church should give the BNP the right of veto over the terms of debate. If the opposition starts to colonise our language, do we abandon it, or try to redeem it?
Aside from a reference to freedom of worship, there is no statement about religion or Christianity in the BNP Constitution. However a BNP leaflet from May/June this year, calls for a ‘Day of Prayer’ and attacks the Church of England for selling out. It’s since been taken offline, but points the finger at ‘Judas Archbishops’, who in the next breath, bizarrely, it calls for dialogue with. It doesn’t take much digging to find BNP members with religious views which range from the bizarre to the scandalous. But is it enough simply to dismiss them?
Issues
Back to the data at the top. Ridicule may make us feel better, and more righteous, but what else does it achieve? Whether we like it or not, the popularity of the BNP raises a host of knotty issues which our politicians have been tiptoeing round for years:
– What is the nature of British identity, and what is the place of Christian faith, and the Christian roots of our society, in that picture?
– What is the true nature of Islam? I live in Yeovil, which is almost entirely white, and went up to London for a day conference earlier this year. Westminster seemed to be swarming with police, and young Asian men with backpacks. You know, the kind you see getting onto the Tube in those CCTV videos. I was nervous, I couldn’t help it, even though I know that Al Qaeda is a crackpot minority. Can we talk in the UK about, for example, Muslims persecuting Christians in Pakistan, without it being branded as hate speech and quickly ushered offstage? When Nick Griffin quotes from the Koran, how many of us know whether those texts are foundational to Islam, or peripheral?
– Apart from appointing a few ‘Community Cohesion Officers’ at local councils, how are we dealing with immigration? If the population projections are right, we can expect 180,000 new immigrants per year for the next 20 years. It’s either that, or raise the retirement age to 80: increased life expectancy means that 15.6m people will be drawing their pension by 2033, and with a low birth rate, immigration is the only way to keep a balanced demographic.
- Without some crass ‘back to basics’ campaign, how do we have a debate between the values of the past and the values of the present? In two generations, public morality has changed out of all recognition, whether you look at race issues, the environment, or sexual ethics. There are both gains and losses. In areas like sex and culture, schools are encouraged not to teach a set of beliefs/morals, but to promote an informed choice. The continued epidemic of broken families, and the stubborn persistence of racism, show that this isn’t really working. Is there a place for a moral framework, and in post-Christendom, where do we get that framework from?
Wrapping Up
It’s easy to dismiss the British National Party and what they stand for, and it would be wrong to let the BNP tail wag the dog of the British body politic (sorry, metaphor decay is setting in here). Most of the liberal chatterati can’t understand how anyone could support Nick Griffin. But until we start to understand their appeal, and start addressing some of these questions, British soil will remain a fertile place for the BNP.
this article is cross-posted from Touching Base, a regular column at the Wardman Wire.
on the same topic, different angle, but well worth a read, is John Richardsons piece today.
Some of that may be Brits siding with the underdog, as we traditionally do, but there’s nothing to be gained by simply dismissing these figures. As the BBC report puts it “more than half of those polled said they agreed or thought the party had a point in speaking up for the interests of indigenous, white British people.” Baroness Warsi made the point during the debate that there was more to the BNP vote than disillusionment over expenses: “there are people who feel the pace of change is too fast.”
A Christian Country?
Nick Griffin referred to the UK as a ‘Christian country’ several times during the debate. Do a search for ‘Christian’ on the BNP site, and most of it is articles against Islam and political correctness where that impinges on the church. It’s a defensive statement of cultural identity (’we don’t want Islam’) mre than a positive one of religious identity. ‘Christian country’ is a piece of branding, the language of resistance, looking back to where Britain has come from, and trying to hold on to it. Christian groups have made it clear that Griffin speaks only for the BNP when he seeks to portray them as defenders of the faith.
Britain is in a transition phase: post-Christian without being non-Christian. We still have many of the institutions, but culture and personal ethics have slipped their Christian moorings for the open sea. ‘Life of Brian’ would scarcely raise a murmer now – witness recent attempts to create ‘outrage’ stories over religious imagery which, 40 years ago, wouldn’t have needed any media help in causing a storm.
But it’s not a clean break: recently two councils added 3 other religious holidays to the normal closures for Christmas and Easter. Despite relatively small numbers of Sikhs in Newham and Waltham Forest, Guru Nanaks birthday joins Eid and Diwali on the holiday list. The ensuing lively debate has caused a review of the policy.
The stated aim is, you guessed it, ‘community cohesion’. The result is often the opposite: there will no doubt be another row over ‘Winterval’ some time in the next 2 months, as Christmas is rebranded, and ‘we don’t want to offend people of other faiths’ is cited as the rationale. Result: people of other faiths are blamed for the decision. Winners: nobody. Except perhaps the BNP.
Given the use the BNP makes of ‘Christian Britain’ language, Jonathan Bartley questions whether the church should give up the ghost on trying to preserve the remnants and rhetoric of Christian identity in the UK, but I’m not sure the church should give the BNP the right of veto over the terms of debate. If the opposition starts to colonise our language, do we abandon it, or try to redeem it?
Aside from a reference to freedom of worship, there is no statement about religion or Christianity in the BNP Constitution. However a BNP leaflet from May/June this year, calls for a ‘Day of Prayer’ and attacks the Church of England for selling out. It’s since been taken offline, but points the finger at ‘Judas Archbishops’, who in the next breath, bizarrely, it calls for dialogue with. It doesn’t take much digging to find BNP members with religious views which range from the bizarre to the scandalous. But is it enough simply to dismiss them?
Issues
Back to the data at the top. Ridicule may make us feel better, and more righteous, but what else does it achieve? Whether we like it or not, the popularity of the BNP raises a host of knotty issues which our politicians have been tiptoeing round for years:
– What is the nature of British identity, and what is the place of Christian faith, and the Christian roots of our society, in that picture?
– What is the true nature of Islam? I live in Yeovil, which is almost entirely white, and went up to London for a day conference earlier this year. Westminster seemed to be swarming with police, and young Asian men with backpacks. You know, the kind you see getting onto the Tube in those CCTV videos. I was nervous, I couldn’t help it, even though I know that Al Qaeda is a crackpot minority. Can we talk in the UK about, for example, Muslims persecuting Christians in Pakistan, without it being branded as hate speech and quickly ushered offstage? When Nick Griffin quotes from the Koran, how many of us know whether those texts are foundational to Islam, or peripheral?
– Apart from appointing a few ‘Community Cohesion Officers’ at local councils, how are we dealing with immigration? If the population projections are right, we can expect 180,000 new immigrants per year for the next 20 years. It’s either that, or raise the retirement age to 80: increased life expectancy means that 15.6m people will be drawing their pension by 2033, and with a low birth rate, immigration is the only way to keep a balanced demographic.
- Without some crass ‘back to basics’ campaign, how do we have a debate between the values of the past and the values of the present? In two generations, public morality has changed out of all recognition, whether you look at race issues, the environment, or sexual ethics. There are both gains and losses. In areas like sex and culture, schools are encouraged not to teach a set of beliefs/morals, but to promote an informed choice. The continued epidemic of broken families, and the stubborn persistence of racism, show that this isn’t really working. Is there a place for a moral framework, and in post-Christendom, where do we get that framework from?
Wrapping Up
It’s easy to dismiss the British National Party and what they stand for, and it would be wrong to let the BNP tail wag the dog of the British body politic (sorry, metaphor decay is setting in here). Most of the liberal chatterati can’t understand how anyone could support Nick Griffin. But until we start to understand their appeal, and start addressing some of these questions, British soil will remain a fertile place for the BNP.
this article is cross-posted from Touching Base, a regular column at the Wardman Wire.
on the same topic, different angle, but well worth a read, is John Richardsons piece today.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Nothing British: campaign launch.
Recieved today:
War heroes speak out against the BNP
Nothing British launches today (Tuesday 20th October) a campaign by veterans to reclaim the honour of Britain's Armed Forces from the British National Party.
You can find the campaign at http://westbourne.createsend.com/t/r/l/hjyhjd/jldkjdlyk/y, watch the videos on our YouTube channel, or follow on facebook and twitter.
In an internet blitz of videos, a number of war heroes describe their anger that the BNP seeks to use the public's warm feelings towards Britain's military to promote the politics of racism and extremism. The veterans call on fellow ex-servicemen to sign their petition.
The campaign is accompanied by a hard-hitting report with a foreword by Charles Moore (Chairman of Policy Exchange) which describes the BNP's efforts to use military rhetoric, insignia and memorabilia in their party political propaganda. The high profile veterans behind the campaign include:-
Andy McNab DCM MM. Ex-SAS commando and Iraq War veteran.
Colonel Tim Collins OBE. Ex-SAS commando and Iraq War veteran.
Simon Weston OBE. Falklands War veteran.
Nicholas Soames MP. Veteran cavalryman and grandson of Sir Winston Churchill.
Top Brass supporters have signed a letter of support which condemns the BNP. "We call on all those who seek to hijack the good name of Britain's military for their own advantage to cease and desist," write the Generals:-
General The Lord Guthrie GCB, LVO, OBE, DL.
General Sir Mike Jackson GCB, CBE, DSO, DL.
General Sir Richard Dannatt GBC, CBE, MC.
Major-General Patrick Cordingley DSO.
James Bethell, Director of Nothing British, said:-
"People are fed up with the BNP using the honour of Britain's Armed Services and the memory of fallen heroes to promote the politics of racism and extremism".
In his foreword, Charles Moore says:-
"Almost everything the BNP does is somehow linked to the commemoration of fallen heroes, evokes the spirit of the Blitz, condemns the broken Covenant and gripes about foreign wars.
"It is a deliberate strategy to exploit warm feelings felt towards the Armed Services by the British public, particularly the sort of traditionally-minded families that provide the rank and file of the Services.
"And it's working. The European Election campaign - branded "The Battle for Britain" - saw the BNP win two significant electoral victories with nearly one million votes.
"The danger to Britain is that the BNP's poisonous brand of racism, segregation and intolerance will worm its way into the fabric of British life.
"The danger for the British military is that they will inadvertently provide a leg-up at home for the kind of fascism that so many of our dead and wounded fought in foreign battlefields. This will damage the reputation of our armed services."
Notes :
"There is nothing British about the BNP", is a campaign against the politics of racism and division set up by James Bethell and Tim Montgomerie, editor of ConservativeHome.
It aims to promote the gentle British values of tolerance, fair-play and respect for one another and seeks to address the frustrations and concerns of ordinary, hard-working people living in today's Britain.
Update: the BNP has responded by comparing the generals with Nazi war criminals. Words fail me.
War heroes speak out against the BNP
Nothing British launches today (Tuesday 20th October) a campaign by veterans to reclaim the honour of Britain's Armed Forces from the British National Party.
You can find the campaign at http://westbourne.createsend.com/t/r/l/hjyhjd/jldkjdlyk/y, watch the videos on our YouTube channel, or follow on facebook and twitter.
In an internet blitz of videos, a number of war heroes describe their anger that the BNP seeks to use the public's warm feelings towards Britain's military to promote the politics of racism and extremism. The veterans call on fellow ex-servicemen to sign their petition.
The campaign is accompanied by a hard-hitting report with a foreword by Charles Moore (Chairman of Policy Exchange) which describes the BNP's efforts to use military rhetoric, insignia and memorabilia in their party political propaganda. The high profile veterans behind the campaign include:-
Andy McNab DCM MM. Ex-SAS commando and Iraq War veteran.
Colonel Tim Collins OBE. Ex-SAS commando and Iraq War veteran.
Simon Weston OBE. Falklands War veteran.
Nicholas Soames MP. Veteran cavalryman and grandson of Sir Winston Churchill.
Top Brass supporters have signed a letter of support which condemns the BNP. "We call on all those who seek to hijack the good name of Britain's military for their own advantage to cease and desist," write the Generals:-
General The Lord Guthrie GCB, LVO, OBE, DL.
General Sir Mike Jackson GCB, CBE, DSO, DL.
General Sir Richard Dannatt GBC, CBE, MC.
Major-General Patrick Cordingley DSO.
James Bethell, Director of Nothing British, said:-
"People are fed up with the BNP using the honour of Britain's Armed Services and the memory of fallen heroes to promote the politics of racism and extremism".
In his foreword, Charles Moore says:-
"Almost everything the BNP does is somehow linked to the commemoration of fallen heroes, evokes the spirit of the Blitz, condemns the broken Covenant and gripes about foreign wars.
"It is a deliberate strategy to exploit warm feelings felt towards the Armed Services by the British public, particularly the sort of traditionally-minded families that provide the rank and file of the Services.
"And it's working. The European Election campaign - branded "The Battle for Britain" - saw the BNP win two significant electoral victories with nearly one million votes.
"The danger to Britain is that the BNP's poisonous brand of racism, segregation and intolerance will worm its way into the fabric of British life.
"The danger for the British military is that they will inadvertently provide a leg-up at home for the kind of fascism that so many of our dead and wounded fought in foreign battlefields. This will damage the reputation of our armed services."
Notes :
"There is nothing British about the BNP", is a campaign against the politics of racism and division set up by James Bethell and Tim Montgomerie, editor of ConservativeHome.
It aims to promote the gentle British values of tolerance, fair-play and respect for one another and seeks to address the frustrations and concerns of ordinary, hard-working people living in today's Britain.
Update: the BNP has responded by comparing the generals with Nazi war criminals. Words fail me.
Friday, June 12, 2009
Is the BNP Racist?
Is the Pope a Catholic? The British National Party go to some lengths on their website to dispute that they're a racist party. Matt Wardman has done us all a service by demolishing their claim. There's also a nice little site, called 'Is the BNP racist' . It has the longer answer to the question, rather than the short answer.
Which is 'yes'.
Which is 'yes'.
Monday, June 01, 2009
'National Day of Prayer' call..... by the BNP....
The British National Party has produced a leaflet calling for a 'National Day of Prayer', though it's clearly a political stunt because they don't actually say when (or maybe they're even more split than the Church of England and can't even agree the date).
It's a sickening exploitation of the Christian faith for their racist ideology. They argue that the BNP are better guardians of the national soul than the Church of England: "the cowardly yes-men, functionaries and time-servers leading the Church of England have consistently failed to lift a finger in defense of Britain against those who would destroy it." Untrue on so many levels, and gratuitously insulting. The leaflet, entitled 'Judas Archbishops Betray Ordinary People' then has the gall to call for 'dialogue' with church leaders who, in the next sentence, they tell to 'grow up'. Sorry chum, that's not the way you initiate dialogue.
Harrys Place has some analysis, and Unity draws attention to an, um, interesting comparison made by a BNP leader between Jesus and Adolph Hitler. Oh yes. Another BNP leader has written of the 'death' of Christianity, and argues that ancient Heathenism is the basic religion of the English people. So who exactly do the BNP want us to pray to?
As a Christian, I pray to God through his son Jesus. Asylum seeker, Jew, unemployed traveller, not a trace of Anglo-Saxon blood in his Mediterranean veins. God so loved the world he didn't become English, because we already think we're the greatest anyway. And did those feet in ancient times walk upon Englands pastures green? No.
So a bunch of rude, insulting, racist, Odin-worshipping, white supremacists call for a day of prayer. Sure I'll pray - that nobody votes for the BNP.
More background at Quarentia. This video clip is interesting too (HT June 4th) - insights into the BNP use of 'saleable' words like 'democracy' to appeal to people, without changing their supremacist ideology of 'every last (non-white) one must go'.
It's a sickening exploitation of the Christian faith for their racist ideology. They argue that the BNP are better guardians of the national soul than the Church of England: "the cowardly yes-men, functionaries and time-servers leading the Church of England have consistently failed to lift a finger in defense of Britain against those who would destroy it." Untrue on so many levels, and gratuitously insulting. The leaflet, entitled 'Judas Archbishops Betray Ordinary People' then has the gall to call for 'dialogue' with church leaders who, in the next sentence, they tell to 'grow up'. Sorry chum, that's not the way you initiate dialogue.
Harrys Place has some analysis, and Unity draws attention to an, um, interesting comparison made by a BNP leader between Jesus and Adolph Hitler. Oh yes. Another BNP leader has written of the 'death' of Christianity, and argues that ancient Heathenism is the basic religion of the English people. So who exactly do the BNP want us to pray to?
As a Christian, I pray to God through his son Jesus. Asylum seeker, Jew, unemployed traveller, not a trace of Anglo-Saxon blood in his Mediterranean veins. God so loved the world he didn't become English, because we already think we're the greatest anyway. And did those feet in ancient times walk upon Englands pastures green? No.
So a bunch of rude, insulting, racist, Odin-worshipping, white supremacists call for a day of prayer. Sure I'll pray - that nobody votes for the BNP.
More background at Quarentia. This video clip is interesting too (HT June 4th) - insights into the BNP use of 'saleable' words like 'democracy' to appeal to people, without changing their supremacist ideology of 'every last (non-white) one must go'.
Monday, May 18, 2009
The Not So British National Party
This is a campaign started by Tim Montgomerie of the Conservative Home blog. There's a supporting website and petition. Interesting to find the name of a former classmate in Sheffield among one of the BNP supporters. However, I'm sure you could publish a list of Labour, Libdem or Tory members with criminal convictions too, so I'm not sure that section of the site is entirely fair. Otherwise, I agree completely: hospitality shown to the stranger is hospitality shown to Jesus.
Ht Mark Meynell
Update: it also appears that the photos in the BNP literature are just cut and pasted from Google searches, and they don't have permission to reproduce them. The people pictured aren't actually BNP supporters. Oops.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)