[Top: the Rev Ray Gaston, 'Interfaith Enabler', Methodist Minister, Trotskyist, member of Respect, former Muslim (for a year), former rastafarian (when he wore his dreadlocks), Anglican priest, etc. Left: Archbishop Rowan Williams, also an 'enabler' of Islam and sharia law as well as a adherent of the InterFaith faith.]
What do many Anglicans think is the cause of Islamic terrorism? The Koran and Islamic theology generally? No. Political Islam? No. ‘We’, that is, ‘the West’, have caused Islamic terrorism. Or, rather, in this particular case, George W. Bush.
I will explain. There was a meeting of C of E clerics which occurred just as the horror of 9/11 was being shown on a large TV screen at that meeting. What was their response to this? One cleric said to another:
‘I hope Bush doesn’t retaliate. The West has brought this judgement on itself.’
Thus, if were not Bush and 9/11, and because the Anglican talked about ‘the West’, we can safely state that, say, after 7/7 a similar Anglican cleric would have said very similar things about that outrage as well. That is, that, say, ‘Blair is to blame’.
Bush’s sins, whatever they deemed them to be at the time, were only a part of a general raft of pernicious Western attitudes and actions. The C of E says that the West is needlessly aggressive and violent when it comes to little things like Islamoterrorism. (What about in the case of Adolph Hitler? Anglican appeasement goes back that far.)
Castigating the Bushes and the Blairs of this world, the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, once said:
‘If we do act in the same way as our enemies, we imprison ourselves in their anger, their evil.’
That sounds all fluffy and nice. It sounds pious. He even recognises that some of our foes are ‘evil’ (which is a step in the right direction, I suppose). However, what Williams is calling for here is appeasement – suicidal appeasement; the kind that Williams would have no doubt supported in 1938, along with Neville Chamberlain.
However, a lot of ‘pacifists’ are phoney pacifists; just as a lot of appeasement is actually selective appeasement. Scratch many a pacifist hard enough and you will soon find out that he’s only a selective pacifist. For example, all those violence-hungry Trots and Commies who march with the Holy Ones often claim to be pacifists and to be ‘against war’. But in actual fact they are only against the wars 'the West' or 'the Capitalists' wage. Similarly with appeasement. Many UK appeasers only want to appease Muslims and not many or any other people.
So it no surprise that Rowan Williams said what he said at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo in 2004. This university is, in fact, a ‘seat of Islamic learning' – an Islamic university. Now can you sincerely preach about pacifism at an Islamic university, in an Islamic country, considering the huge war-like and imperialist past of Islam and even the violent history of Muslim Egypt itself? Did the Muslims Williams was talking also not want to ‘imprison themselves in anger’ and ‘evil’? I sincerely doubt it. But, then again, Williams will almost certainly have different standards for the Brown Exotic than he does for Westerners. Indeed he does.
For example, to put it basically, as Williams never does, the Archbishop of Canterbury believes that Western aggression or violence is nearly always unjustified; whereas the violence or aggression of the Brown Exotic is nearly always justifiable. Or to put it in the flowery but vague language of Williams himself:
‘… we have something of the freedom to consider whether or not we turn to violence and so, in virtue of that very fact, are rather different from those who experience their world as leaving them no other option.’
In other words, don’t expect any good moral decisions from the Brown Exotic. Instead, the Brown Exotic is nearly always simply forced into violence; whereas, even after 9/11 and 7/7, the West was still not forced into violence (or self-defence!). In addition, I must presume that Williams believes that Hamas has ‘no other option’ but to blow up infant schools and night clubs in Israel. And Osama bin Laden had ‘no other option’ but to command the destruction of the Twin Towers with resulted in the deaths of over three thousand innocent civilians (some of whom were Muslims).
In any case, despite the religiously flowery language, does ‘the West’ really have ‘the freedom not to turn to violence’? Do we really have the freedom to be pacifists and/or appeasers? I don’t think so! If the British state were to turn pacifist and complete appeaser (it’s nearly there already on this one at least), within twenty years, or even a hell of a lot less, the UK would be turned into an Islamic state. Then again, since Williams is an interfaithing fan of all religions – or any religion, that would no doubt be a good thing to him. That is, many Anglicans and Methodists are Islamophiles, or interfaithers, because they realise that they have engendered, to some extent, the 'godlessness' of their own society, and thus they are now ready to recognise any religion – even Islam - which kicks some arse. But this is hypocritical. On one side, the C of E has helped to destroy itself. On the other side, it then grasps for the Islamisation straw as some kind of happy alternative. The Anglicans can no longer fill their pews, so that's why they help Muslims fill theirs instead – and all in the true spirit of InterFaith.
In a sense, Rowan Williams is happy that the pews of the C of E are only filled with prayer books and not by people. Why is that? Because the history of the C of E, to him, is quite frankly shameful.
Williams, in 2005, said that the Church had taken ‘cultural captives’ by exporting its religion, in a kind of religious imperialism, to the world. (You know, like Muslims all over the world are doing today – including at InterFaith meetings in England.) And again he said this in Cairo (see his earlier quote). One wonders if Williams, when in Cairo on these two occasions, spent more time talking to Muslims, or even Islamists, than he did talking to the persecuted (by Muslims) Christian Copts.
I mention the Copts because the Church has been remarkably, and obscenely, silent about the persecution of Christians in the Islamic world. As I said earlier, Anglicans, Leftists, etc. are selective about their pacifism and their appeasement. The same is true about their search for Justice. That is, Justice for the Palestinians is good. Justice for Muslims in England is good. But Justice for the Copts of Egypt seems to be not so good. Or for Sudanese, Indonesian, Pakistani, Nigerian, Lebanese, Palestinian, Somalian, etc. Christians - again, not so good.
This is fine, I suppose, because, apart from the political opportunism and blatant hypocrisy when it comes to the Fight for Justice, Williams will also have taken large doses of contemporary relativism into himself. Thus injustice is not always a bad thing. For example, what about justice for, say, the English Defence League and the expression of its legitimate voice? That’s a bad example of justice. Yet these clergymen and Leftists talk of Justice as if it’s a Platonic entity (hence the capital). But in practice these people are highly selective as to whom or what really deserves justice (with a small ‘j’).
The Iraq War
Let’s move from 9/11 to Iraq. In 2003/2004, the Church’s General Synod discussed the war in Iraq as well as the Islamic responses to that war (if, indeed, many - or any - of the acts of Islamoterrorism in Europe and America were responses to that conflict). At the Synod, a report by the Church’s House of Bishops was read and discussed. Part of it stated:
‘… and understanding of what is being thought and felt in the Islamic world, together with active steps to address legitimate concerns, such as the ongoing Middle East conflict.’
You can find every Anglican and Leftist political inanity in that single passage alone. Firstly, the biggest mistake of the Left, and surprisingly of the Church as well, is to see all Islamoterrorism as only a response to the ‘legitimate concerns’ of Muslims. Thus a religious faith, Anglicanism, effectively erases all Islamic motivations - religious motivations - from just about every act of Islamoterrorism. So none of this has anything to do with religion – with Islam! It is all about injustice and the Evil West doing Evil Things in the Middle East.
There is no evil in Islam. Therefore terrorism cannot be an expression of Islam. (That’s if these Anglican believe that Islamoterrorism is evil in the first place, which is debatable.) Isn’t it all about the ‘legitimate concerns’ which are ignored by the Evil West and the evil which is done by the Zionists in the Middle East? Talk about Evil only having one colour – white. (Yes, Israelis, part of the most colourful nation on earth, are deemed ‘white’ by Leftists; even Desmond Tutu called Israel a ‘white state’ in one of his spiels against Israeli ‘apartheid’.)
Why do Islamists bomb? Why does Hamas, and the PLO before it, bomb? Because terrorism often works. It ain’t always – if ever - a ‘cry of desperation’. Bombing is a political tactic for many Muslims throughout the world. Why do I say this? There are many reasons for saying this; but let’s take one from the report by the Church’s House of Bishops mentioned earlier. Let me take one relevant sentence from that report:
‘A political settlement that meets some of the terrorist concerns…’ [My italics.]
That’s right. The Islamoterrorists know that if they bomb enough, or if their bombs cause enough death, destruction and pain, then Anglican Bishops, and many others, will ‘meet [their] concerns’. So these Bishops are effectively being told what to do by Islamoterrorists; or they are being blackmailed into doing what terrorists want them to do (as our governments have often been blackmailed by our ‘moderate’ Muslims here).
The Bishops seemed quite happy to do be blackmailed. After all, all Evil resides in the West and the Brown Exotic only bombs us because 'he has no other choice'. No. Islamoterrorists bomb because it often works. And it often works because of people like these Anglican Bishops, amongst others, think that they are addressing the entirely legitimate ‘concerns’ of the terrorists.
The Islamoterrorists also got more from the Church; as, indeed, they have got more from UK governments, etc. over the years. For example, would the Church have apologised for the war in Iraq if it weren’t for the death and destruction brought about by the many Islamoterrorists in that godforsaken country? After all, in many respects, the ordinary people of Iraq, the ones who had suffered immensely under Saddam Hussein, had wanted the invasion, as the new government in Iraq wanted the US/UK forces to stay immediately after Hussein was toppled.
The Church castigated the Labour Government of the time for not showing remorse or apologising for the Iraq war. So the Church took it upon itself to do so instead. In fact, it did so in front of many leading Muslims and Islamists – all of whom were no doubt lusting for kuffar blood, or for ritual Christian self-abasement. The Church committed its ‘public act of repentance’.
Good Christians or Just Christians for Christianity?
[Left: George Carey, former archbishop of Cantebury and member of the 'far right' EDL (according to Searchlight). Right: the Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu; proving that not all critics of multiculturalism are racist or against post-structuralist Difference.]
Lord Carey, the former Archbishop of Canterbury, has been very forthright about Islam and indeed other things which ‘rattle’ the C of E’s ‘cage’ (see later quote).
In 2004, in Rome, Carey had many things to say about Muslims and indeed about Islam itself. He began by stating the self-evident fact that not all Muslims are Islamoterrorists, Islamists or even political activists (as was also the case with the supporters of Bolshevism, the supporters of the Nazi Party and indeed is still is the case with most members and supporters of the Conservative and Labour parties). In Carey’s words, most Muslims are ‘honourable and good people who hate violence’. (I’m not entirely sure what he meant by ‘honourable’ or even if is true that the majority of Muslims ‘hate violence’ – did the majority of Brits ‘hate the violence’ against the Nazis in the 1930s and 40s? No! And a good thing too.)
Despite the nice and required start, Carey went on to say that Islam causes, and has caused, much trouble to
‘practically every other world religion – to Judaism in the Middle East; to Christianity in the West, in Nigeria, and in the Middle East [e.g., in Palestine]; to Hinduism in India; to Buddhism, especially since the destruction of the Temples in Afghanistan’.
That’s quite a terrible list and indictment of Islam from Carey. However, despite the massive and global crimes committed by Islam against everything and everybody non-Islamic and non-Muslim, what is the Muslim response to all this – or at least the response to the specific crime of Islamoterrorism? Carey wrote:
‘Sadly, apart from a few courageous examples, very few Muslim leaders condemn, clearly and unconditionally, the evil of suicide bombers who kill innocent people.’
Everything Carey said was and still is the case. But truth didn’t matter to one of the canons of Leicester Cathedral. What mattered to him was the defence of Community Cohesion, multiculturalism and sustaining the Embrace of Diversity. Or, as Carey himself put it:
‘The following week I went to Leicester and the canon of Leicester Cathedral told me that I had done a great deal of damage because I had rattled the cage.’
At least this jobsworth canon admitted that there was a ‘cage’ to ‘rattle’. That could be a cage full of Islamist snakes, no doubt. Or a cage full of Muslim Community Leaders who feed their Muslims with fake Islamophobia and thus encourage resentment against the infidel. Sadly, Carey didn’t spell out what precisely the canon thought he had done wrong. Tell the truth? Imperil the canon’s highly-Muslim catchment area (he was canon of Leicester Cathedral, after all)?
Another brave Anglican has also ‘rattled’ a few ‘cages’. The black Ugandan cleric, Dr John Sentamu, spoke out in 2005 (when he was installed as the archbishop of York). He tapped into something which runs through all this Anglican interfaithing, Islamophilia and Leftist rhetoric – guilt!
Think of what Rowan Williams said earlier when he apologised for bringing Christianity to non-Christian countries (along with democracy and other terribly imperialist things). Then again, John Sentamu is black. And, as a black man from Uganda, he probably doesn’t do guilt – at least not race guilt. No. Only educated and privileged white men, like Rowan Williams, do guilt so well and so often. Perhaps the Williams and posh Leftists of this world feel so much guilt because they know that many of their forefathers ruled the British Empire or whatnot; whereas the majority of white working class Brits, for instance, can only trace their ancestry back to factories and farms in the 19th century and further back. (Tommy Robinson may be able to trace his family back to Ireland – hence his, and the EDL’s, distinct lack of Leftist guilt.)
Let’s get back to our guiltless archbishop of York, John Sentamu. He didn’t apologise for anything. Instead, he derided the excess of white postcolonial guilt from the privileged sectors of our society (such as Rowan Williams and many Far Leftists). He went even further than this. He slagged off multiculturalism and even stood up for the British Empire and saw it as primarily an engine which spread British culture around the world. In fact, we can quite safely say that in certain respects he went further than the EDL. After all, Tommy Robinson has said that he’s not against multiculturalism. He said that he’s for multiculturalism but against Islam and Islamism. Indeed, it is precisely because he’s for multiculturalism (or aspects of it at least), that he’s against Islam and Islamism. We all now know that Islam, being exclusivist, self-segregating, expansionist and pathologically violent against all non-Muslims, will destroy multiculturalism, as well as pluralism and Diversity, the moment it has enough power to do so. The fanatical and blind multiculturalists, who hear and see no Islamic evil, are defending the very beast that may eventually destroy them and all their dreams of Diversity. This is the perverse contradiction and consequence which seems to escape all of them.
Outside the Anglican Church, too, it’s not all self-flagellation and self-abasement. For example, Cardinal Ratzinger, now Pope Benedict XVI, (well hated by the Left and by Liberals) focused on this White or Western Guilt. He wrote:
‘… The West is laudably trying to open itself, full of understanding, to external values, but it no longer loves itself; in its own history, it now sees only what is deplorable and destructive, while it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure.’
In other words, the pendulum has swung too far the other way. It has swung from Western ‘triumphalism’, as the Left and the C of E would no doubt put it, to our culture of guilt; as well as to those many acts of ritual self-abasement which have been carried out in front of a single religion, Islam, whose own history is far from being uniformally pure and good.