'Blasphemous libel' to be a criminal offence

Just two questions. Why? And why now?

Melancholicus was surprised to learn that, despite the reputation of Ireland’s Catholic past, blasphemy has never been a criminal offence in this country.

One would have thought that in this secular age, and in the midst of the most serious economic downturn the State has seen since its inception, the last thing required to occupy the attention of government ministers would be legislation introducing a new offence of ‘blasphemous libel’.

Melancholicus is not impressed.

For the past two hundred years it has ever been the fashion for the rulers of the States, as embodying the temporal power, to pretend incompetence in matters spiritual in order to excuse themselves from the obligations attendant upon adherence to the Christian religion: this, that they might be unfettered in their rule by the doctrines of any Church, whether Catholic or Protestant, and that they might appeal to both by appealing to neither.

The notion of the agnostic or atheistic State was condemned by the Popes down to the middle of the twentieth century.

Then in the 1960s there occurred an Event^TM which saw the holy Church turn turkey and completely reverse her position, in which religious liberty for all and sundry was ebulliently proclaimed from the basilica of St. Peter’s, and enshrined for Modern Man^TM in Dignitatis Humanae.

So if even the Catholic Church herself now prescinds from the notion of the confessional State, what business does an elected politician—here today, gone tomorrow—have in prescribing penalties for controversies touching upon religious matters?

How ironic, that the same State which confessed itself agnostic in matters religious these many years past suddenly claims to know what blasphemy is, how to sniff it out, and how best to punish it when detected.

When Melancholicus first heard of this proposed law, and once he had retrieved his jaw from its recumbent position on the floor, he wondered if it might not actually be a good thing. The Irish media, and not least RTÉ, have for unnumbered years made a sport out of baiting doctrines, practices and persons associated with Catholicism, not least the Holy Father himself. It would not be at all unpleasant if a stop were to be put to such odious practices.

Melancholicus has read grossly offensive articles in daily newspapers in which the writer’s treatment even of our Divine Saviour and His Blessed Mother has appalled him. But instead of going out rioting and setting cars on fire and taking up a scimitar to start beheading people, Melancholicus’ response has been simply to stop reading, or to say a prayer for the smug, self-satisfied writer—or at the most, to submit a letter of complaint to the paper concerned.

Then he realised he was deluding himself by believing that this might redress the current state of open season against the religion he himself professes. The proposed law will be of no benefit whatsoever to Christians. It is now many decades since the government of this country pretended concern for the welfare of Christians and for the integrity of the religion they profess. The relentless spiteful, sarcastic and mocking attacks in the nation’s media on the religion of the majority of the nation’s citizens—attacks including ridicule and defamation which could certainly be regarded as blasphemous—has in recent years never been a cause of concern to the nation’s government.

So why start now? Has Dermot Ahern suddenly found God?

Blasphemy is defined in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (§2148) as “uttering against God—inwardly or outwardly—words of hatred, reproach, or defiance; in speaking ill of God; in failing in respect toward him in one’s speech; in misusing God’s name. St. James condemns those “who blaspheme that honorable name [of Jesus] by which you are called” (2:7). The prohibition of blasphemy extends to language against Christ’s Church, the saints, and sacred things. It is also blasphemous to make use of God’s name to cover up criminal practices, to reduce peoples to servitude, to torture persons or put them to death”. (This last sentence is as clear a condemnation of the religion of Mahomet as ever was written).

As Ireland is now what they call a ‘diverse’ and ‘multi-faith’ society, the Church’s definition of blasphemy is most certainly not that which will inform the proposed law. Instead, we find blasphemy now defined as matter “that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion”.

This law will not take a single step towards banishing anti-Christian prejudice from the airwaves and the printsheets. No, this law is being introduced in order to protect the Mahometan—or rather, to appease the Mahometan and thus protect the peace by forbidding any criticism of Mahomet, or the religion he founded, or the Qur’an, or the behaviour of those who practice that religion, lest there be disturbances against public order. For if anything which might offend Mahometans be prohibited by the new law against blasphemous libel, perhaps they shall not riot if they see the offender punished by the full rigors of the law.

Melancholicus rather doubts that. The Mahometan will riot anyway because it is in his nature to do so. Perhaps by saying so Melancholicus has himself uttered blasphemy—at least according to how Dermot Ahern might define it.

From The Irish Times:

Crime of blasphemous libel proposed for Defamation Bill

CAROL COULTER, Legal Affairs Editor

A NEW crime of blasphemous libel is to be proposed by the Minister for Justice in an amendment to the Defamation Bill, which will be discussed by the Oireachtas committee on justice today.

At the moment there is no crime of blasphemy on the statute books, though it is prohibited by the Constitution.

Article 40 of the Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech, qualifies it by stating: “The State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.

“The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent material is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.”

Last year the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, under the chairmanship of Fianna Fáil TD Seán Ardagh, recommended amending this Article to remove all references to sedition and blasphemy, and redrafting the Article along the lines of article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which deals with freedom of expression.

The prohibition on blasphemy dates back to English law aimed at protecting the established church, the Church of England, from attack. It has been used relatively recently to prosecute satirical publications in the UK [Although Melancholicus has no knowledge of such matters, he guesses Private Eye as a likely victim of that law. The ironic thing is that the Church of England now, more than at any other period of her history, most fully deserves a thoroughgoing lampooning].

In the only Irish case taken under this article, Corway -v- Independent Newspapers, in 1999, the Supreme Court concluded that it was impossible to say “of what the offence of blasphemy consists” [and the Supreme Court is impeccably correct since its judgement is not informed by adherence to one religion or another].

It also stated that a special protection for Christianity was incompatible with the religious equality provisions of Article 44 [indeed. Denial of special protection for Christianity ipso facto confers that special protection to other religions, of which Mahometanism will no doubt be the chief beneficiary].

Minister for Justice Dermot Ahern proposes to insert a new section into the Defamation Bill, stating: “A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000.” [That’s rather steep. To deter those who persist in warning the western world about the grave threat posed by Islam, perhaps?]

“Blasphemous matter” is defined [by whom, precisely?] as matter “that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, [pay attention... here’s the meat] thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion; [of what religion, gentle reader, do “a substantial number of adherents” become outraged when confronted with ‘blasphemous’ matter? It ain’t Catholicism. When was the last time Catholics rioted because an off-colour journalist made some off-colour remark about the Pope or about the doctrines of the faith? When was the last time a film-maker was murdered by outraged Catholics after a piece of his work which reflected badly on the Church was screened by RTÉ?] and he or she intends, by the publication of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.” [One thinks at once of the Motoons, and perhaps indeed those who drafted this definition even had the Motoons in mind when they did so]

Where a person is convicted of an offence under this section, the court may issue a warrant authorising the Garda Síochána to enter, if necessary using reasonable force, a premises where the member of the force has reasonable grounds for believing there are copies of the blasphemous statements in order to seize them [in order that books, pamphlets, other writings, images, video footage, computer disks or any other media containing criticism of Islam may be seized and destroyed. Melancholicus wonders if it will even be an offence to download Pat Condell’s videos for personal use].

Labour spokesman on justice Pat Rabbitte is proposing an amendment to this section which would reduce the maximum fine to €1,000 and exclude from the definition of blasphemy any matter that had any literary, artistic, social or academic merit.

The Legal Affairs Editor of The Irish Times clearly disapproves of the proposed law. Melancholicus cannot blame her.

Anti-semitism and the BBC

Roger Bolton, of BBC Radio 4’s Sunday fame, is somewhat nonplussed by the claims of the UK parliamentary committee for anti-semitism that incidents inspired by this prejudice are at their highest level since recording began 25 years ago.

The interviewee, the Rt. Hon. John Mann, is the chairman of the aforesaid committee, and he was most adamant about the rise in the level of anti-semitic incidents, which he rightly described as “disturbing in a country which prides itself on its tolerance”.

Bolton doesn’t believe it, though. Listen to his language: “reported increase ... said to be ... danger of overstating the level of anti-semitism ... incidents are pretty low level ... we’re talking about hate-mail, anti-semitic graffiti ... I don’t want to downplay this [tongue firmly in cheek] but there’s still a relatively small amount of physical assaults and things like that...”

Melancholicus is not in the least surprised by this attitude. He knoweth the BBC far too well.

But who to blame for this “reported increase” of anti-semitic prejudice? Sure, why not the Jews themselves! Mr. Bolton asked his guest if there was a danger that opposition to Israel’s actions in Gaza might be confused with racial prejudice. Melancholicus thinks that Mr. Bolton would prefer the answer to be yes, which would comfortingly imply that there isn’t any genuine anti-semitism out there, at least not really. But that would necessarily involve the corollary of the BBC admitting—at least tacitly—its own responsibility for fanning the flames with its consistently partial and one-sided coverage of the interminable Israeli-Palestinian conflict. So either way Mr. Bolton can’t win, can he?

So he seeks a scapegoat: “In the past anti-semitism has been driven by religion, Christianity in particular”. Yes, he really did say those words. Listen. It’s at 9:20.

Melancholicus shall let pass this swipe at Christianity, soft target that it is (how brave of you, Mr. Bolton), for he is more interested in the words in the past.

Thus the elephant in the room goes completely unnoticed. Anti-semitism is indeed on the rise as the elephant grows bolder, more militant, and more sure of itself. But Mr. Bolton cannot admit this, since to do so would violate one of the BBC’s most cherished nostrums of political correctness. Witness the obsession with Israel; the other “I-word” doesn’t even get a mention. Melancholicus was disappointed that Mr. Mann likewise failed to cite the Islamic impetus behind contemporary anti-semitism—but then Mr. Mann is a Member of Parliament, so he can’t be expected to have a brain.

But guess who did get a mention? Yes, good old Dickie Williamson again! Melancholicus believes there has not been a single edition of Sunday which failed to mention the holocaust-denying bishop, even in passing, since the story first broke three weeks ago. Some things never change.

Portrait of a terrorist

Listen to the BBC Radio 4 programme Jihad UK, broadcast last Monday in the wake of the convictions of three British Muslim men for terror offences, here. Unfortunately Melancholicus is unable to embed the BBC media player in this post, so readers will have to activate the thing themselves after clicking the link.

The objective quality of the coverage is really quite good, in spite of the BBC’s institutionalised reverence for all things Mahometan. Nevertheless, the BBC still cannot bring itself to name religious ideology as the inspiration behind jihadi violence lest the reputation of Islam itself be besmirched.

Instead, the blame is laid on a variety of external factors; the seductive lure of foreign jihadi groups, the youth and impressionability of young British Muslims and—that perennial scapegoat for Mahometan aggression—western foreign policy.

It was interesting—and certainly refreshing—to hear comments such as “platitudes such as Islam meaning ‘peace’ won’t cut it here”—but the reporter failed to go the full distance and inform his audience that Islam does not mean peace at all; it means submission.

Particularly interesting, even revealing, is this comment by Hanif Qadir of the Active Change Foundation in describing the motivation of young Britons who give themselves up to the jihadi cause:

“These people who carry out terrorist activities, they’re not evil individuals. It’s because they’re most human, unselfish and often self-sacrificing kind of individuals, that will jump in when they see unfairness, and when they see injustice being done to a person, or to a race or to a community. It’s often these type of people that want to get involved.”

For all it seems to exculpate those who participate in terrorist attacks, this remark nevertheless rings true to a large extent. Ah, the idealism of thoughtless youth! The misplaced zeal that leads young persons to become socialists and that which leads them to become jihadis is ultimately the same. Young persons are often gifted with a self-sacrificing desire to make a change and be of service to something important—or at least something that they consider to be important. What that something is, however, makes all the difference. The foolish, idealistic young that are seduced by an evil, twisted ideology such as socialism—or Islam—will end by becoming evil and twisted themselves. That is simply the way of things. One’s character cannot remain untainted by one’s acts.

At the end of it all, it is disquieting to know that even though Britain may not have the largest Muslim population in Europe, it certainly has the most radical. Britain has been a breeding ground for jihadis for years. In this respect, Melanie Phillips’ Londonistan is required reading. Melancholicus does not quite agree with her stance vis-a-vis the invasion of Iraq, but her social commentary and her diagnosis of the malaise currently afflicting British legal and political life is right on the money.

But that such a programme can be aired on the BBC at all is progress in itself; it must surely indicate that Britain is beginning to wake up to the fact that a significant proportion of her Muslim minority, including those born and raised on British soil, does not identify with her culture and institutions, and is intent on turning her into an Islamic state.

And why? What is the cause of their alienation?

Is it really because of poverty and hopelessness, as is so often claimed?

If so, why are university campuses such fertile recruiting grounds for the jihadis?

Is not the problem rooted in something much simpler than the interplay of complex socio-economic factors?

Could it be a matter of theology, perhaps?

Is it not the Islamic religion that ultimately drives the jihadis?

This programme is perhaps the closest the BBC has ever come to making the link between Muslim violence and the Islamic religion.

Will they ever get there? Melancholicus somehow doubts it. Political correctness is so deeply engrained in the minds of the British intelligentsia that he cannot see it being dislodged any time soon.

Islamist plot against the Queen

From The Telegraph:

Islamic terror cell 'may have been plotting to attack Queen'

A terror cell caught with details of bomb-making and suicide vests may have been plotting to attack the Queen and members of the Royal family, it can be disclosed.

By Duncan Gardham, Security Correspondent
Last Updated: 1:55PM BST 19 Aug 2008

The cell, which included Britain's youngest ever terrorist, arrested on his way home from his GCSE chemistry exam, was found with information about the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh along with the Prince of Wales, the Duke of York, the Earl of Wessex and the Princess Royal.

Also on the list were Princess Michael of Kent, The Duke and Duchess of Gloucester and The Duke and Duchess of Kent.

Aabid Hussain Khan, from Bradford, West Yorkshire, had compiled pictures, maps and details of the opening hours of official residences from information available on the internet.

There were also details of London landmarks including the Houses of Parliament, Tower Bridge and the underground as well as the New York and Washington metros and a home-made video of the Washington Memorial and World Bank in the US.

A counter-terrorism source said: "They had details of explosives and poisons along with information about London landmarks and a computer folder on Royal residences. We would be foolish to rule out the fact that they may have been planning an attack."

Detective Chief Superintendent John Parkinson, Head of the Counter Terrorism Unit in Leeds, said the men posed a "very real threat".

He added: "Let there be no doubt, these are dangerous individuals. These men were not simply in possession of material which expressed extremist views. They were also in possession of material that was operationally useful to anyone wishing to carry out an act of violence or terrorism."

Khan, 23, was yesterday convicted of three counts of possessing articles for terrorism but the jury was not told he was part of a network of international terrorists in Europe and North America.

It can now be revealed that Khan was closely connected to the alleged leader of a group of men currently awaiting trial for plotting an attack.

Khan, using the name Ocean Blue, was also in regular contact with an aspiring suicide bomber in Edinburgh, Mohammed Atif Siddique.

He had also communicated regularly with three terrorists who ran websites for Al-Qaeda in Iraq from London and Kent.

Khan groomed Hammaad Munshi, then 15, the grandson of the head of a sharia court in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire.

Munshi, who lived with his parents and four brothers, was carrying two small bags of ball bearings, a key component of a suicide vest, when he was arrested on his way home from Westborough High School in Dewsbury on the afternoon of June 2006.

He had been running his own website selling knives and Islamic flags and using the online identity Fidadee – meaning "to die for" - on the auction website ebay.

He also had hand-written notes on martyrdom and had created and circulated technical documents via email and secure web forums on how to make Napalm, how to make a detonator and the production of home made explosives.

Operation Praline, run by the Counter-Terrorism Unit in Leeds, was sparked when police, acting on intelligence, stopped Khan at Manchester airport as he returned from Pakistan.

Officers found two computer hard drives, DVDs, forged currency, false identification papers, handwritten notes and correspondence.

Mr Denison said the collection amounted to a "terrorist encyclopaedia or library that would have enabled him or others to carry out terrorist attacks here or abroad in a variety of ways, and thereby to further the cause that appeared to be his mission in life - the war on western values and anyone who was a non-believer in the Muslim faith."

Khan, an unemployed burger-bar worker, who used the email name Delboy and FoolsandHorses claimed he was selling Islamic streetware.

It took detectives some time to unravel all Khan's aliases and some of the conversations he held in internet chat rooms, which were found on the hard drives, were discovered too late for the trial.

Khan wrote to one recipient: "If you can find a big target and take it out, like a military base in the UK, then praise be to Allah.

"Our group is growing. We need to plan better and to adapt now a few more people are showing interest. We need to confirm and to encourage...I want to have a group of at least 12 if possible."

He reassured another correspondent who had told him: "I am not too sure about strapping a bomb to myself anymore."

He also talked of explosives, warning: "You need to take care to store them in low temperatures otherwise they can kill. They must not come into contact with fire, oil or detergent."

Another associate, Sultan Muhammed, 23, a postman from Bradford, fled to London with £1,265 in cash following Khan's arrest.

When police raided his house they found maps of the London Underground, Jerusalem and Manhattan and a book entitled Suicide Bombings.

"Perhaps one of the most chilling videos was one that provided a step-by-step guide as to how to make a suicide bomber's vest, using ball bearings as shrapnel and demonstrating the effects of such a bomb," Mr Denison said.

Muhammed was found guilty of three charges of possessing articles useful for terrorism and another charge of making a record of useful for terrorism.

Munshi, now 18, was convicted of making a record useful for terrorism. A fourth defendant, Ahmed Sulieman, 30, from south London, was cleared of all charges.

H/T to Exposing Islam.

It is clear that, since this cell possessed information on the monarch and other members of the royal family, they were at the very least considering the possibility of an attack on the Queen, or on a member of her family.

Ought not such intentions—however notional they may have been—to kill or harm the reigning monarch be considered evidence of high treason? Or has British law changed in the interim to such a degree that it is no longer treasonable to plot against the head of state?

Although Melancholicus is not one of Her Majesty’s subjects, he believes that such plots should be treated by the British authorities with the utmost gravity, for an attack against the monarch is more than an assault on a police station, or the congregation of a church, or the passengers on an aircraft. In a certain very real sense, the Queen IS England. An attack on the Queen is more than an attack on a single individual; it is the symbolic overthrow of the British state. The Islamists in Britain can reach no more significant a target than Her Majesty. Were they to succeed in such a venture, they could never top that success for its political significance however many planes they could bring down or however many people they succeeded in killing in events like the 7/7 bombings three years ago.

In the reign of the first Elizabeth, plotters against the monarch were subjected to public evisceration and dismemberment as a warning to other potential malefactors, or—if they were of noble blood or had been royal favourites—to decollation. Either way, death was the end result. In the reign of the second Elizabeth, plotters against the monarch will appear before a court, with their human rights enshrined in law and—if convicted—will spend a few years in prison. Thereafter they will be released back onto the street, to resume their plotting from the point whereat it was interrupted, should they be so minded.

Now while Melancholicus does not advocate a return to the savage butchery of the sixteenth century, he must nonetheless ask: where is the punishment that treason deserves?

Religion of Peace update: Qur’anic protection racket in the Philippines

From Catholic World News:

"Muslim warriors" threaten bishop in Philippines

Manila, Jul. 24, 2008 (CNA/CWNews.com) - A Catholic bishop in the southern Philippines’ Basilan province has received a letter from self-described “Muslim warriors,” possibly linked to Abu Sayyaf, who are threatening him with harm if he does not convert to Islam or pay “Islamic taxes.”

Further, authorities are seeking the return of three adults and two children, all Catholics, who were kidnapped in the same area this week.

On July 19 Bishop Martin Jumoad of Isabela sent a copy of the threatening letter to Church-run Radio Veritas in Quezon City, UCA News reports. Bishop Jumoad told UCA News that a student at Claret College in Isabela was told to give the letter to the school secretary who could pass it along to the bishop.

The writers of the letter claimed to be “Muslim warriors” who “don't follow any laws other than the Qur'an.” They say the bishop should convert to Islam or pay the Islamic tax, called a jizya, to their group in exchange for protecting him “in the place of Muslims.” If the bishop refuses, the letter threatened, “force, weapons or war may be used” against him. Citing bombings in other Philippines cities, the letter said he should not feel safe even if protected by soldiers.

Bishop Jumoad was given two mobile cell phone numbers and told he had fifteen days to respond. The letter bore the two names “Puruji Indama” and “Nur Hassan J. Kallitut,” both of whom were titled “Mujahiddin.” The letter was accompanied by a letterhead in the local dialect that said “Al-Harakatul Islamiyya.” The bishop said he has seen the phrase “Al-Harakatul” in kidnapping incidents in Basilan involving the terrorist group Abu Sayyaf. He also reported that other Catholics have said they are receiving threatening letters. “Bishop, we are disoriented and we cannot sleep. What is our reaction to this?" they have reportedly said.

On July 21 the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines’’ CBCP News reported that three adults and two children who are members of a parish in Basilan had been kidnapped from a public jeep. Provincial administrator Talib A. Barahim on Tuesday told UCA News that no one has reported receiving a ransom demand.

Muslims who commit violence were rebuked at a joint conference between Catholic bishops and Muslim scholars on Monday in Manila, where Hamid Barra, the Muslim convener of the conference, underlined Islamic belief in the sacredness of life.

“It is God who gave life; he is the only one authorized to take life,” he said.

Barra, an Islamic law expert, explained that non-Muslims protected by an Islamic state are required to pay the jizya tax, which is used to support the needy, but no such payment is required in a non-Islamic state.

As these events are taking place in the far-off Philippines, an exotic foreign land which Melancholicus (and presumably most of his readers) has never visited, we tend to read these stories, frown disapprovingly, perhaps say a prayer for the unfortunate victims, and then forget all about it.

But how long, gentle reader, before similar events begin taking place in western countries? There are already places much closer to home in which hot-headed fanatics and Qur’anic bullyboys feel themselves entitled to behave whatever way they want towards the indigenous inhabitants without fear of rebuke from the law—or if the law gets too close for their liking, they look forward to the day in which they can overturn western democracies and install their hideous sharia.

These fanatics cannot be reasoned with, and they are no respectors of persons, property, laws or custom; there is only one language that they understand. The west keeps making the mistake that these people think as we do, that their reasoning processes and our reasoning processes are identical. Not so. With them there is no such thing as human rights or human dignity, never mind religious liberty. Whatever they find in their Qur’an—or think they find in their Qur’an—is used as an excuse which justifies all kinds of inhuman and criminal behaviour.

Under Islam, as under Communism, there is no “opt-out” clause exempting non-Muslims from the dreary yet violent Orwellian society these savages would impose upon us if we let them. It has happened in parts of Nigeria, and in parts of the Philippines also. Sharia is already clandestinely practiced in Britain, and the situation has become so grave that sections of the British government are giving serious consideration to recognising ‘aspects’ of sharia in British life. More fool they if they do.

Notice that at the conference in Manila referred to at the end of the story, the Mahometans wheel out one Hamid Barra, a “moderate”, who obligingly wrings his hands and deplores the violence, cocksure that all us dhimmis will be reassured that Islam really is a religion of peace after all, and that its violence is an aberration.

Melancholicus is not impressed by these “moderates”. In his eyes they are just as guilty as the terrorists for whom they make excuses.

Why do they not condemn the Islamofascists? Why do they do nothing to stop them?

It is because they too are Islamofascists. They are in agreement with the aims of the extremists. They are just more subtle regarding the means whereby those aims are to be achieved.

The difference is only in degree, not in kind.

Where are those 138 signatories of that letter for peace now?

Indeed, where are they?

From Catholic World News:

Iraqi bishop begs help for Christian minority

Milan, Jun. 2, 2008 (CWNews.com) - "Do not leave us isolated and abandoned," an Iraqi bishop pleaded as he accepted an award for defending the faith.

Archbishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk received the Defensor Fidei prize in Milan for his activities on behalf of Iraq's embattled Christian minority. In his acceptance speech he urged international pressure on Iraq to protect Christians in the face of Islamic pressure, the AsiaNews service reported. The Chaldean Catholic prelate said that the Church is Iraq is threatened by a "terminal exodus" of Christians, as the result of "ethnic-religious cleansing" by Muslim zealots. He begged Christians in the Western world to "take stock of the seriousness" of the situation, and "apply diplomatic and political pressure to the United States, the Iraqi government, and also to the countries that support the Islamization of Iraq."

Archbishop Sako spoke at length about the Christians who have fled from Iraq and now live, often under desperate conditions, in neighboring countries. After centuries of faithful witness in Iraq, he said, the Christian presence must be preserved.

Those 138 allegedly ‘moderate’ Islamic leaders who signed that much-hyped letter for peace addressed to Christian leaders last October are of course silent in the face of the bitter persecution of the Christian minority in Iraq as in other countries. This is because the Mahometans, just like conciliar bishops, will never act against the infamies perpetrated by their own unless compelled to do so by some sufficiently powerful third party.

Amnesty International is likewise silent on matters such as this; apparently, being persecuted for bearing the name of Christ is not as egregious a violation of one’s human rights as to be persecuted for belonging to such and such an ethnic group, or to such and such a sect within Mahometanism. Melancholicus has trawled the Amnesty website, has found much evidence of the appalling horrors and miseries to which human beings are subjected in places without number all over the world, but there is hardly any mention of the persecutions and hardships suffered by Christians on a routine basis in Mahometan lands. Amnesty is more concerned with the welfare of the inmates of Guantanamo (islamist combatants and budding terrorists to a man) than with the fate of ordinary Christian people in some of these God-forsaken places.

But this silence coming from an organisation which promotes abortion as a woman’s right is not really surprising, is it?

Will they or won’t they?

Melancholicus rather thinks they won’t. But who knows? After all, stranger things have happened. Allegedly.

From Catholic World News:

Saudis again weigh building Catholic church

Riyadh, May. 12, 2008 (CWNews.com) - The Vatican has renewed talks with Saudi Arabian leaders about the possible construction of a Catholic church in that country, Vatican Radio reports.

Vatican officials have confirmed that in November 2007, when King Abdullah became the first reigning Saudi monarch to visit the Vatican, he was pressed by Pope Benedict about the possibility of allowing a parish for the estimated 800,000 Catholics -- mostly foreign laborers -- who now live in Saudi Arabia. Although Saudi law does not allow public worship for followers of any faith other than Islam, King Abdullah reportedly signaled his willingness to consider building a Catholic parish church.

In March an influential Saudi leader -- the president of the Middle East Center for Strategic Studies, Anwatr al Oshqi -- announced that the government had decided against proceeding with plans for a Catholic church. That announcement was unofficial, but because it was broadcast by a television station controlled by the Saudi royal family, it was widely interpreted as an authoritative signal that the matter was closed. But Vatican Radio now reports that the conversations continue several weeks later.

How does one say “we’ll let you know” in Arabic?

There is no way that Saudi Arabia — the home of Wahhabi extremism — will ever permit the construction of a Catholic church within the borders of the same country which contains the centre of the universe. When all is said and done, no outward expression of any religion other than Mohammedanism is permitted in that country. There are no churches. Christians are forbidden to gather for common prayer, even in private homes. The importing of Bibles, missals, and prayer books of any description is outlawed. It is unlawful to use a rosary, or to have one in one’s possession. One may not wear a cross, crucifix, miraculous medal, scapular or anything of that nature in Saudi Arabia. The Islamist ethos of that country is all pervasive, and non-Muslims cannot help but know their place in such a society.

However, if God wills that a church to His honour and glory be constructed in that unbelieving land, so shall it be. It will probably be a humble edifice, devoid of steeple, cross, bells and the like — and probably devoid of windows also — and who knows how long it will last before being firebombed or blasted to smithereens by jihadi fanatics?

We await the outcome of this one. But Melancholicus will not be holding his breath.

In an ideal world...

Since the followers of the Islamic ideology are consistently animated by their religion with a murderous rage, many folks both east and west have argued that Islam needs a reformation in order to tame it and render it less of a threat to the rest of the world.

Melancholicus disagrees. Islam doesn’t need a reformation.

It needs a Vatican II.

Yes, the equivalent of a Vatican II in the Islamic world would transform all those hot-headed, murderous fanatics into geldings and wilting wallflowers, or cause them to lose so much interest in their religion that they would instead give themselves willingly to beer-drinking, football and chasing girls, or for the more politically inclined, to liberal causes like crusading (sorry!) against global warming.

Harmless pursuits for the most part to be sure, and much more salvific than anything Islam has to offer.

More pious mohammedan hagiography from the BBC

As the other occupants of the household rose early and departed for work, Melancholicus lay abed this morning, enjoying a late snooze and listening to BBC Radio 4. This is partly a consequence of end-of-job indolence, since Melancholicus will, upon the expiry of his contract, be leaving the university at the end of this month of April to seek his living elsewhere.

Regular listeners of Radio 4 may be familiar with Woman’s Hour, which is broadcast daily (Mon-Fri) after the news at 10am. Woman’s Hour, as its name implies, is a programme by, for and about women, often with a strongly feminist slant. This morning’s edition was presented by Jenni Murray and included a feature called Women of the Qur’an. This is a serialised item, and this morning’s instalment was on Aisha, one of Muhammad’s many wives and a prominent influence on early Islam.

There was nothing particularly offensive in this feature (although Melancholicus did not listen to it all the way through once he realised it would be a hagiography). The feature was more significant in terms of what was omitted rather than what was included. Nothing offensive to the politically-correct reverence in which the BBC holds Islam was ever mentioned. Muhammad was referred to throughout as ‘The Prophet’, even by Jenni Murray (who is not, to my knowledge, a Muslim). The feature was presented by an academic woman who was herself a Muslim, so we knew straight away there would be no remarks or judgements hostile to the Islamic religion or to pc-orthodoxy. She narrated that somewhat amusing tale of Aisha losing her necklace in the desert, going back alone to look for it, and her empty litter being carried on by the Muslims unaware that she was no longer in it. It was all very charming and homely, which is precisely the effect the BBC wanted to achieve. Aisha was also a strong character, and being Muhammad’s favourite she could carry on with a certain licence not available to other Muslim women. Naturally, being so close to Muhammad, she could exert a considerable influence over the whole community. This portrait of Aisha as the stereotypical ‘strong woman’ likewise enabled the Radio 4 people to feel good about themselves, and allowed them to indulge in the leftist fiction that Islam really doesn’t endorse or encourage violence against women, nor relegate them to the status of chattels under the absolute dominion of their male relatives.

The fact that Muhammad ‘married’ Aisha when she was only six years old and consummated the marriage when she was only nine was of course discreetly omitted. The fact that Muhammad had several other wives (of whom Aisha was merely his favourite) was likewise not mentioned. It is ironic that in a programme devoted to promoting sexual equality as well as the social and political advancement of women, the degraded position of women in Islam should be glossed over so completely. Rather than doing its own research and adopting what should be an impartial approach to women’s lives under Islam, the BBC is instead given to repeating the pious nostrums it has heard from Muslim clerics and Islamic scholars.

It is fashionable in leftist circles to talk about how Islam has somehow “elevated the status of women”, and that Islam is a religion that is good for women. This is of course utter nonsense, and is totally at variance with the facts on the ground. These facts are so obvious that one wonders how they could be overlooked. Even the BBC itself has reported repeatedly on the plight of women in many Islamic countries (and even Muslim women in western countries like Britain), but has so far failed (or refused?) to make the connection between the Islamic religion and the misery in which these women’s lives are spent.

So on today’s edition of Women of the Qur’an, there was no mention of the harsher Qur’anic injunctions against the fairer sex—no mention of the fact that the Qur’an permits a Muslim husband to assault his wife, or that it permits the rape of female captives taken in war, or that it makes divorce a male prerogative, or that it permits a man to take a plurality of wives and have sexual relations with his slave-girls as well.

None of this was even mentioned by the BBC, so the listener might be forgiven for assuming that Islam is a peaceful and benevolent religion that promotes equality and harmony between the sexes. Not for the first time, the BBC has allowed its ideological views to dominate its attitude to the evidence, with the result that its presentation of the Islamic religion is one-sided, deferential, partial and to a certain extent dictated by the leaders and spokesmen of the Muslim community.

Unfavourable coverage of Islam or Muslims is deemed to be ‘racist’. Any evaluation of the current political situation, in which we see young Muslims—even Britons—radicalised by their religion to the point of attending terrorist training camps in Afghanistan and Pakistan and seeking to blow themselves up on the London tube, that attempts critically to study the relationship between their acts and their religion, is strictly off limits. The politically-correct position is that Islam must never be blamed for the misdeeds of its adherents.

Contrast this deferential approach to Islam with the BBC’s hostile treatment of Christianity, in which the Church is lashed—often with generous helpings of satire and mockery—for her teaching on such issues as contraception, abortion and sodomy. Any journalist may adopt this stance with total impunity and be as spiteful and sarcastic as he or she likes, without fear of the slightest rebuke from Broadcasting House.

So much for impartiality, and for standards of professionalism in broadcasting, even at the vastly-overrated BBC.

Religion of Peace update: right on cue

At the outset of the current furore over the recent tactless remarks by his Lordship’s Grace of Canterbury, Melancholicus considered that all we need to inject a dose of realism into this matter is a good display of how adopting parts of Islamic Sharia law can help maintain social cohesion.

And here it is, right on cue. From Catholic World News:

Christians suffer in Nigerian religious violence

Lagos, Feb. 8, 2008 (CWNews.com) - About 1,000 Christians have been driven from their homes, and every Christian church destroyed, in a rash of religious violence in a northern Nigerian state, reports Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW).

The violence in the heavily Islamic Bauchi state began when a young Christian woman was charged with blaspheming the prophet Mohammed, CSW reports. (Christian neighbors say that the young woman was the target of reprisal by a spurned Muslim admirer.) A mob gathered at the young woman's house, police opened fire on the crowd, and a riot broke out in which the Christian minority suffered from assaults, arson, looting, and vandalism.

Nigeria's northern region is dominated by Muslims, and Christians have expressed mounting fears about the imposition of shari'a law and disenfranchisement of religious minorities.

In fairness to Dr. Williams, Melancholicus feels duty bound to acknowledge that he does not believe for a moment that Dr. Williams advocates this kind of carry on, much less public floggings, stonings, amputations and beheadings, or the treatment of women as little more than slaves.

But there is no such thing as a little bit of sharia; if any western government should ever stoop to the folly of legally recognising sharia law, the effect will be to establish a state within a state and to transfer sovereignty from the government to the mullahs. Recognising any individual principle of sharia will be tantamount to swallowing the entire beast. To admit any part will be ultimately to admit the whole, whether intended or not. And the Mohammedans, emboldened by such unexpected success, will press for even greater control over the dhimmified majority.

Thereafter, this kind of mass Islamic violence, which is routine in parts of Africa and Asia, will become routine in Europe also.

Muslims against sharia and that damned logical principle of non-contradiction

Every now and then, Melancholicus comes upon a post written by another blogger that is just so perspicacious and to the point that he feels duty bound to reproduce such wisdom on Infelix Ego for the benefit of his readers. Yesterday he discovered just such a post while reading Orwell’s Picnic; Hilary has been rather active of late, much to the satisfaction of this member of her reading public.

The post in question addresses a new Islamic reforming movement that has appeared of late, a movement which seeks to excise the rationale for islamist violence by editing the Qur’an to remove all the nasty bits that are used by the fanatics to support their “holy war” on all non-believers. This movement is called Muslims Against Sharia, and their website may be viewed here. There is also a blog which is worth a look.

While the enterprise of Muslims Against Sharia is both noble and commendable, and while Melancholicus would certainly be inclined to support it, Hilary draws attention to the fundamental illogic in professing religious faith in Islam on the one hand and in taking it upon oneself to edit the Qur’an according to criteria that one decides oneself—in effect rewriting the Qur’an to suit one’s own tastes. This cavalier rewriting does not trouble Melancholicus in the slightest, since he does not believe the Qur’an to be in the least bit divinely inspired, let alone dictated by God directly from heaven—but it does raise unavoidable questions about truth and authority within Islam.

The big problem of course is that most Muslims will simply not buy into the idea of editing their holy book according to criteria established by mere mortals—and the extremists certainly won’t, as they are surely bound to view Muslims Against Sharia as apostates, and anything that they may say (never mind their doctored Qur’an) as the most egregious heresy.

But let us now hear Hilary on the matter:

It reminds me a bit, somewhat incongruously perhaps, of John Henry Newman's efforts to bring Anglicanism back to its origins and to create some kind of reconciliation between the CofE and its apostolic Christian roots. Of course, in this investigation Newman was too honest and diligent and his work brought him into the Catholic Faith. (While others of his clique, carried on in their desperate delusions, bringing us the weird and surreal house of mirrors known as "high" or "traditional" Anglicanism.) Perhaps it reminds me of Newman's solution for the Protestant Problem because there are certain correspondences between that and the Muslim Problem.

It strikes me also that the item gives us a hint of why the so-called "liberal left" is currently so dedicated to the Islamic project of world domination. It is not just that they are both bent on the same goal, to wit, the utter demolition of Christian culture and the philosophical assumptions upon which it is founded. It is deeper than that.

Adherents to the modern authoritarian leftism currently in fashion in places like the newsrooms of the BBC and Guardian, are making common cause with the Mahometans and their brand of authoritarianism because their ideology comes from Protestant authoritarianism. The "new left" is merely a logical extension of the ultra-authoritarian Calvinism that preceded it. Calvinism also, if you recall, required its adherents to slavishly submit to the words of the Bible as though it is the literal word-for-word dictated message from God. It also required its followers to conform their thoughts to an unquestioning acceptance of a number of logical contradictions. To a 17th century Calvinist, the idea of interpreting the bible was a capital offense.

Similarly the proposal to examine and edit the Koran to bring it into line with Christian moral values seems to be a self-defeating and self-refuting proposal, one that neatly exposes the inherent logical contradiction at the heart of Islam.

I wonder what an honest, objective Muslim who is not normally inlined to become a "homicidal zombie", would make of the Koran when approached in the way these people seem to be suggesting.

It does create a little dilemma doesn't it? Islam requires unconditional and unexamined submission to Allah; this requires submitting to the notion that the Koran (unedited) is the actual literal faxed-to-earth-by-angels words of Allah. But because of the manifestly evil and self-contradictory content of the Koran, to do this, they must turn off both their conscience and their intellect.

But if Muslims then edit the Koran to make it nicer (and, let's face it, more Christian), how can they possibly "submit" to it? It would then have to be admitted that it is not the literally dictated words of Allah, but a book written by human beings for their own purposes. The entire religious proposal of Islam then collapses.

The problem of Islam is this:

The Koran is the literal word of Allah,
but the Koran is manifestly wicked, and is full of contradictions,
leading to only two possible logical conclusions: that Allah either does not exist at all and was invented by an evil megalomaniac to further his dreams of world conquest, or is a ravening demonic monster who must under no circumstances be mistaken for the living God.

This leads us to the next problem:
Islam requires submission to Allah, as revealed to man in the Koran.
But human beings are endowed naturally by their Creator with the ability to tell right from wrong and are created with the freedom to choose between them.
If a man submits to Islam, he knows that he is submitting either to the demonic monster Allah, or to something he knows is false. Either way, in order to submit to it, he must do violence to his nature and suppress his conscience and his intellect in order to do something wicked and dishonest. He must, in other words, become a wicked and dishonest man himself.

But to try to solve this dilemma by making the Koran better, by trying to make Allah into the True God, he is back to dishonesty again. If he remains a Muslim, since the only thing a Muslim is required to believe, the only "tenet" of Islam is utter submission to the Koran as it is, he must admit that his religion is wrong, false. To say he submits, but only to parts of the Koran, is to say he submits only to his own preferences, and we are back to dishonesty and internal contradictions again.

The only way out is to ask the question, "Can the Koran in its entirety be the true word of God?" And if we are starting with Christian presuppositions about the nature of God (He is always good, cannot will evil and cannot ever contradict His own nature), we are obliged to say that the idea of a good God is always and can only be utterly contrary and opposed to the savage beast represented as God in the Koran.

What they seem to be admitting is that the only way to be a good Muslim is to be a bad Muslim.

Now, the human intellect, will and conscience, in its natural un-deformed state, is ordered to that which is objectively good because it was made not by man, nor by the monster Allah, but by the true God who can only make good things and only will the good.

From this it naturally follows that no human being who wants to do good can submit to the Koran without deforming his conscience in some way. Either by using the pretense of obedience to the wicked instructions in the Koran to excuse the evil he wants to do in life anyway (beat his wife, murder people who disagree with him, rape, launch Human Rights Commission complaints against magazines and publishers, and blow up buildings) or he can pull a Winston Smith and masochistically force himself to submit and love something he knows is false. His religion requires that he become, in other words, either a bad man with a hopelessly deformed conscience, or a self-enslaved dhimmi living a lie.

Both of which will make him into the kind of monster so beloved of the demon Allah.

Which is precisely what we have seen.

Anyway,

Muslims against Sharia, it seems to me, are trying to figure out a way out of this impossible logical contradiction: they are trying to be good men and good Muslims at the same time.

The debate that has since arisen in the commbox is also well worth reading.

Whatever one may think about Muslims against Sharia and whether the kind of reformation they advocate is compatible with the profession of Islam at all, it is nonetheless heartening to see a group of Muslims willing to oppose the religious fanatics in their midst and to take a stand for freedom of speech, personal liberty, democratic government and all that good stuff that we in the west have traditionally enjoyed, and which values which we tend not, on the whole, to associate with Muslim societies. While Melancholicus considers their project as ultimately doomed to failure, he is impressed by the courage of these people, who are prepared to risk their necks—literally—in the struggle against extremism.

Terror attacks on Iraqi churches on the feast of the Epiphany

Here we go.

Is this the first one of the new year?

From Catholic World News:

Iraqi Catholics hit by Epiphany bombing campaign

Baghdad, Jan. 7, 2008 (CWNews.com) - Catholic churches and institutions in Baghdad and Mosul, Iraq, were hit by a series of bombing attacks on Sunday, January 6, the AsiaNews service reports.

Remarkably, no one was killed by the explosions, Church officials said. But several church buildings sustained major damage.

The attacks "represent a clear message," Archbishop Louis Sako of Kirkuk told AsiaNews, noting that they seemed clearly to indicate "a coordinated plan." Catholics in Iraq have been shaken by several bombing campaigns, evidently designed to intimidate the Christian minority and encourage further emigration from Iraq.

Car bombs exploded at the Church of St. George in Baghdad, where Chaldean Patriarch Emmanuel III Delly had recently finished celebrating the Divine Liturgy. There were also explosions at a Chaldean convent and a Melkite church near Baghdad, another Chaldean church and an orphanage in Mosul, and a Dominican convent in Mosul.

Melancholicus could comment, but he is already weary with reporting on outrages such as this.

Mohammedanism defended by UN resolution

With thanks to Damian Thompson for this depressing piece of news. The emphasis within the excerpt is my own.

It didn't attract much notice, but the General Assembly of the United Nations ended the year by passing a disgusting resolution protecting Islam from criticism of its human rights violations.

Lots of non-Muslims voted for it a sign that more and more corrupt Third World governments are identifying with the ideology of Islam, even if they don't accept its doctrines.

The resolution goes under the innocuous title "Combating defamation of religions" but the text singles out "Islam and Muslims in particular". It expresses "deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism".

The text of the resolution can be read here.

A commentator on Holy Smoke, one Patrick B., took issue with Damian’s view of the resolution, criticised his use of the word ‘terrorist’, attempted to argue that much islamist violence is politically rather than religiously motivated, and at the last interjected the red herring of the existence of violent groups that have no connection to Islam, as well as religiously-motivated violence involving the adherents of non-Muslim religions.

Melancholicus has re-read Damian’s piece, the text of the resolution itself and Patrick B.’s commentary, but in the end he must come down squarely against the commentator.

A fundamental error—into which both Patrick B. and the drafters of this resolution fall—is to regard all religions as essentially the same. Patrick B. points out that various other groups and the adherents of other religions also commit violent acts. Melancholicus is not impressed, since all this splitting of hairs and arguing over what precisely the meaning of the word ‘terrorist’ might be fails to confront the reality of a problem with which those who live in close proximity to Muslims—particularly Muslim majorities—have to deal with every day of their lives.

The fundamental problem is that in our time Mohammedanism is aggressively expansionist and a threat to the stability of all non-Muslim societies in a way in which other religions are not. To place all religions on the same level irrespective of their merits and demerits is to invite disaster. To even imagine that Mohammedanism is just a religion like any other is, in the face of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, criminal folly. Add to this the brainwashed paralysis of western civilisation, in which those who make the decisions seem to be programmed to appease the Mohammedans on foot of ‘minority rights’, and the reader will have some idea why this resolution is bad news. These dhimmis actually seem to think that if they give the Mohammedan everything he asks for that he’ll politely go away and leave them alone. But the problem about paying Danegeld is that the Dane keeps coming back, and his price for keeping the peace rises steeply each time he does so. There is no better way to encourage an aggressor than by constant appeasement of his demands and capitulation before his threats. Appeasement of the Vikings didn’t work in 991, appeasement of the Nazis didn’t work in 1939, and appeasement of the Mohammedans won’t work now.

And in the meantime Melancholicus fears that this salient truth will not be recognised until it is too late.

A bishop speaks....

...and is punished for so doing.

Michael Nazir-Ali, the successor (after a fashion) of St. John Fisher, is one of the few bishops of the Church of England with a backbone.

He is also one of the few English bishops willing to tell it like it is, instead of concealing the truth not only from the British public but from himself as well because the facts happen to run contrary to the nostrums of political correctness.

On the feast of the Epiphany this year, the Sunday Telegraph published an article by bishop Nazir-Ali, in which he warned of Islamic extremism having turned “already separate communities into ‘no-go’ areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability”.

The shrill cries of horror were not long in coming. Melancholicus was awakened by them on Sunday morning listening to the news on BBC Radio 4. The BBC, which has of late developed a habit of cosseting the Mohammedans, was clearly disapproving of the bishop’s remarks. “Calamity” Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, helpfully dismissed the bishop’s thesis as “a gross caricature of reality”, although Melancholicus would have thought that phrase more accurately epitomised whatever passes for thought inside Mr. Clegg’s head. The Mohammedans, predictably, reacted with displeasure, although Melancholicus supposes (somewhat sourly) that they ought to be praised for not rioting in the streets or setting fire to cars or beheading people in their outrage at the spotlight shone on their antics by the bishop. In fact, none of the statements released by Mohammedan organisations reacting to the bishop’s article were quite as hysterical as the response of Mr. Clegg, although one group, the Ramadhan Foundation, did go as far as to call for Dr. Nazir-Ali’s resignation on the grounds of “inciting religious hatred” (whatever that means).

It shows how far British society has succumbed to the tyranny of “multiculturalism”, when an organisation set up to represent an alien religion can with impunity demand the resignation of a bishop of the established church!

Bishop Nazir-Ali’s article is important and will repay study, so Melancholicus has taken the liberty of reproducing the offending text in full below (original here).

Extremism flourished as UK lost Christianity

By Michael Nazir-Ali, Bishop of Rochester

In fewer than 50 years, Britain has changed from being a society with an acknowledged Christian basis to one which is increasingly described by politicians and the media as "multifaith".

One reason for this is the arrival of large numbers of people of other faiths to these shores. Their arrival has coincided with the end of the Empire which brought about a widespread questioning of Britain's role.

On the one hand, the British were losing confidence in the Christian vision which underlay most of the achievements and values of the culture and, on the other, they sought to accommodate the newer arrivals on the basis of a novel philosophy of "multiculturalism".

This required that people should be facilitated in living as separate communities, continuing to communicate in their own languages and having minimum need for building healthy relationships with the majority.

Alongside these developments, there has been a worldwide resurgence of the ideology of Islamic extremism. One of the results of this has been to further alienate the young from the nation in which they were growing up and also to turn already separate communities into "no-go" areas where adherence to this ideology has become a mark of acceptability.

Those of a different faith or race may find it difficult to live or work there because of hostility to them and even the risk of violence. In many ways, this is but the other side of the coin to far-Right intimidation. Attempts have been made to impose an "Islamic" character on certain areas, for example, by insisting on artificial amplification for the Adhan, the call to prayer.

Such amplification was, of course, unknown throughout most of history and its use raises all sorts of questions about noise levels and whether non-Muslims wish to be told the creed of a particular faith five times a day on the loudspeaker.

This is happening here even though some Muslim-majority communities are trying to reduce noise levels from multiple mosques announcing this call, one after the other, over quite a small geographical area.

There is pressure already to relate aspects of the sharia to civil law in Britain. To some extent this is already true of arrangements for sharia-compliant banking but have the far-reaching implications of this been fully considered?

It is now less possible for Christianity to be the public faith in Britain.

The existence of chapels and chaplaincies in places such as hospitals, prisons and institutions of further and higher education is in jeopardy either because of financial cuts or because the authorities want "multifaith" provision, without regard to the distinctively Christian character of the nation's laws, values, customs and culture.

Not only locally, but at the national level also the establishment of the Church of England is being eroded. My fear is, in the end, nothing will be left but the smile of the Cheshire Cat.

In the past, I have supported the establishment of the Church, but now I have to ask if it is only the forms that are left and the substance rapidly disappearing. If such is the case, is it worth persevering with the trappings of establishment?

Much of this has come about because of a "neutral" secularist approach which refuses to privilege any faith. In fact, secularism has its own agenda and it is certainly not neutral. It is perfectly possible for Britain to welcome people on the basis of its Christian heritage.

Christian chaplains can arrange for people of other faiths to have access to their own spiritual leaders without compromising the Christian basis of their own ministry.

Instead of this, the multifaith "mish mash" is producing a new, de facto, establishment as the Government attempts to bring particular communities on to its agenda for integration and cohesion, an agenda which still lacks the underpinning of a moral and spiritual vision.

If it had not been for the black majority churches and the recent arrival of people from central and eastern Europe, the Christian cause in many of our cities would have looked a lost one.

At last it seems the Government may be waking up to the situation; to the importance of English as a means of communication, to greater integration in housing, schools, and leisure pursuits and in citizenship education.

But none of this will be of any avail if Britain does not recover that vision of its destiny which made it great. That has to do with the Bible's teaching that we have equal dignity and freedom because we are all made in God's image.

It has to do with a prophetic passion for justice and compassion and it has to do with the teaching and example of Jesus Christ regarding humility, service and sacrifice. Let us pledge in this New Year to restore this noble vision to the centre of our national life.

Amen. Melancholicus is worried about the frail condition of the Church of England, and by the current weakness of the Anglican communion as a whole. In traditionally protestant countries such as England, the established church has an important role to fulfil in society. To the degree that it is impeded (or allows itself to be impeded) in the discharge of this role, the whole of the society committed to its care will be weakened as a result. The English Church needs more prelates with the mettle of Michael Nazir-Ali, who will fearlessly diagnose the serious problems facing Christian civilisation rather than pretending they don’t exist. Without such leadership, the Church will continue to erase itself from existence and what, pray, will fill the vacuum left behind it when it’s gone? The Mohammedans are already bold enough to publicly recommend that Britain adopt Islamic values. Hazel Blears told the Today programme on BBC Radio 4 that she was proud that Britain was a “secular democracy” with a strong tradition of allowing people freedom to worship in their own way. But this completely misses the point. It is not an issue of allowing the Mohammedans freedom of religion. The post-Christian British seem to be so secure in their secularism that they cannot imagine themselves ever being threatened by a religious ideology, even in the onset of a greater threat to the stability of British society than was posed by World War II!

Time is a great teacher. Unfortunately by the time the lesson is finally learned, it may well be too late.

Do they really think the Turks will allow it?

Melancholicus rather doubts it. But who knows? Stranger things have happened. And pigs might yet fly.

From Catholic World News:

German Church leaders ask Turkey to build church in Tarsus

Berlin, Dec. 20, 2007 (CWNews.com) - German Catholic leaders, supported by their country's government, have petitioned the government of Turkey to allow the construction of a church in Tarsus, the birthplace of St. Paul.

In an interview with the magazine Cicero, Cardinal Karl Lehman, the president of the German bishops' conference, mentioned the appeal. He disclosed that Cardinal Joachim Meisner of Cologne had introduced the petition to Turkish Prime Minister Recip Erdogan, with support from the Christian Democratic Union.

Cardinal Lehmann told Cicero that Islamic countries should be pressed to allow greater religious freedom for their Christian minorities. "While it's possible to build a mosque taller than St. Peter's in Rome," he pointed out, "I'd be arrested for celebrating Holy Mass in Saudi Arabia."

Well, the Turks ought to accede to the wishes of the German bishops, even if only for decency’s sake; after all, Germany has provided a welcome and a fertile job market to several generations of Turkish gästarbeiters.

If, on the other hand, the Turks refuse to allow the proposed church to be built — which is not unlikely, given the pattern of difficulties endured by Christians in that country — that at least would constitute further evidence of endemic religious intolerance in Turkey and might provide political ammunition to those who oppose allowing this rogue nation to join the European Union.

Keeping Turkey out of Europe is more important than building a church in Tarsus.

The most noteworthy aspect of this story is that the president of the German bishops’ conference, his eminence Karl Cardinal Lehmann, seems to have finally taken his head out of his ass broken through the fog of ecumaniacal and politically-correct nonsense for which he is well known, and at long last to have admitted the reality that Christians really aren’t treated all that well in Muslim countries. His observation that whereas it is possible to build a mosque in Rome taller than St. Peter’s basilica while in Saudi Arabia he would be arrested for the egregious crime of offering Mass, cuts right to the heart of the matter, and it is refreshing to hear such unexpected realism from someone like Lehmann.

Maybe the penny is starting to drop after all.

The Church persecuted (continued)

Yet further proof, if proof were needed, that Christians are routinely subjected to persecution in Islamic countries. Indonesia is no exception:

Islamic pressure closing churches in Indonesia

Jakarta, Dec. 20, 2007 (CWNews.com) - The Indonesian Catholic bishops have called public attention to rising Islamic pressure against Christian churches, Vatican Radio reports.

Bishop Martinus Situmorang of Padang, the president of the country's episcopal conference, is the co-author of a new report on the campaign by Muslim activists to close down Christian churches. The report shows that from 2004 through 2007, 108 churches have been closed because of Islamic pressure.

The report notes that Indonesia's constitution guarantees freedom of religion, and challenged the government to honor that promise, protecting the Christian minority from Muslim extremists.

Catholics constitute just 3% of the population in Indonesia. About 85% of the country's 220 million people are Muslims, giving Indonesia the world's largest Muslim population.

108 churches closed in Indonesia in the space of three years! Can you, gentle reader, provide me with an example of a western country that has closed 108 mosques in a similar space of time?

Thought not. This is surely illustrative of the vast gulf that exists between the standard of treatment accorded to Muslims in the west and that endured by Christians in the Mohammedan east.

The Indonesian constitution may guarantee freedom of religion, but since when have Islamists shown themselves willing to obey such things as laws and constitutions? Freedom of religion, in Indonesia as elsewhere, must be guaranteed by enforcement of the law, else it is a dead letter. But it is clear from this and from so many other news stories where the sympathies of the Indonesian government lie.

Why is the onus for peace on Israel alone?

Patriarch Michel Sabbah of Jerusalem is himself a Palestinian, which at least explains this curious animus contra Iudaeos. But this story was worth the read if only for the wonderfully sarcastic comment appended by a reader to this article on the Catholic World News website:

At last, somebody speaks the truth. As soon as Israel decides fror peace, there will be peace. Hamas will have the state it desires, from the River to the Sea, and all religions will be welcomed, as they are in all the other Muslim countries. Just ask the Chief Rabbi of Riyadh, or the Archbishop of Mecca.

Meet Leslie Rohn

At the moment the Mohammedans (some of them, at least) are engaged in the Hajj, that is the obligatory pilgrimage to Mecca prescribed as one of the ‘five pillars’ of their religion, in which they walk around this black oblong Ka’aba thingy among sundry other exercises.

The annual Hajj is such big business for Saudi Arabia that it is second only to oil as the country’s top earner.

Melancholicus was nonplussed when RTÉ radio 1 ran a feature on the Hajj, according this Mohammedan effort a level of respect and religious awe they would never accord to any Catholic pilgrimage to Rome, the Holy Land or one of the Marian shrines.

Yesterday Melancholicus stumbled upon this video of a Muslim woman from America on the Hajj; this was her first experience of this pilgrimage, and she was clearly quite emotional. The Hajj must be to Mohammedans what the Chartres pilgrimage is to traditional Catholics at Whit-weekend, and Melancholicus can identify with such spiritual emotion since he has felt it himself. Chartres, however, does not attract anything like the numbers involved in the Hajj, but on the up side, no one at Chartres has ever been killed in a stampede.

But this American is no ordinary Muslim pilgrim. Her name is Leslie Rohn. She is white. She was not born into Mohammedanism, but chose to embrace it in her adult life. As such, she is a convert. Her former religion: Christianity. Specifically, she was a Catholic.

Now while Melancholicus acknowledges that Ms. Rohn is not without personal culpability in choosing to abandon the one true ark of salvation, i.e. the Church, in favour of the darkness of a wicked false cult founded in the seventh century by a shyster who had stayed out too long in the sun and had a penchant for underage girls, we must at least ask ourselves why she has chosen to do so.

It has always been a mystery to Melancholicus why westerners — particularly those of the female variety — would convert to a religion like Islam, when the track record of the latter regarding the treatment of women especially would hardly inspire much confidence in their future safety.

But the key phrases in Ms. Rohn’s conversion story are that she “had grown dissatisfied with Catholicism”, and that she was “looking for a closer relationship with God”.

This is not a soft, liberal lefty who abandoned Christ in high dudgeon because the Church wouldn’t allow contraception, abortion, homosex, women’s ordination, or any other of the myriad progressivist causes du jour. Rather, this is someone for whom religion is a serious business, and Melancholicus surmises that she must have been so scandalised by the laxity, worldliness and sheer profane goofiness of the conciliar church that she could no longer believe the Church to be a divine institution or the religion professed by the Church to be true.

The Mohammedans, as we all know, take their religion seriously (perhaps a little too seriously). Melancholicus can imagine Ms. Rohn’s joy at discovering the raw bloody meat of Islam after being fed with nothing but the stale, sour milk of conciliar ‘catholicism’. It is a pity that she did not discover a traditionalist Catholic group such as the SSPX before beginning this romance with Mohammedanism; that might at least have given her what she was looking for and kept her in the Church — although the SSPX and the Mohammedans are in many ways not that far apart.

While the decision to become a Muslim was hers and hers alone, this story nonetheless speaks volumes about how Catholicism has been weakened by the conciliar revolution, weakened even to the extent that we are now witnessing defections to the religion of Mohammed. The bishops and theologians of the conciliar church have much to answer for.

Is this state fit for admission to the EU?

Well, is it? Let the reader decide.

From Catholic World News:

Turkey: propaganda encouraging assaults on Christians?

Istanbul, Dec. 17, 2007 (CWNews.com) - An Italian missionary serving in Turkey survived a stabbing attack on December 16, but the AsiaNews service argues that the latest assault on a Catholic priest illustrates the dangerous effects of "a widespread campaign of defamation and hatred against Christians" in the predominantly Muslim country.

Father Adriano Franchini, a Capuchin priest, was hospitalized after being stabbed by a teenage assailant in St. Anthony's church in Izmir, a coastal city. The Italian priest-- who has served in Turkey for 27 years-- was reported in stable condition, and doctors said he should recover quickly.

However an AsiaNews analysis by Mavi Zambak notes that the attack on Father Franchini falls into a pattern, matching several other recent acts of violence against Christians including the murder of Father Andrea Santoro in February 2006. Zambak remarks:

What all these cases have in common is the fact that all the culprits are young Turkish men, all supposedly unbalanced, crazy or mentally feeble, who ostensibly acted according to investigators on an impulse triggered by watching TV programmes and reading online material that focused on “missionary activities” by religious and secular Christians.

Father Franchini had been accused of proselytizing Muslims, the AsiaNews analysis points out. The accusations against him were part of a continuing propaganda barrage aimed against Christians in the Turkish media. The violent attacks, Zambak suggests, can be attributed to the hatred roused by those attacks, which Turkish officials have done nothing to counteract.

Of course our political leaders, dying to admit Turkey into the European Union at the soonest opportunity, would not care to raise issues such as this with their Turkish counterparts. They would not even care to be reminded of Turkey’s appalling human rights record, of its resurgent islamism, or of the fact that Turkey has not even acknowledged — never mind regretted — its culpability in the first genocide of the twentieth century.

Do we in Europe really want this rogue nation to be admitted to full membership of the EU? What sort of grubby political and/or financial gains are our politicians going to receive on the back of this betrayal? Moreover, the leftists in our midst are vocal whenever anyone says or does anything that carries the slightest whiff of ‘racism’ against Mohammedans and other immigrants in countries like Ireland; but why are their voices not raised in protest against the incomparably more serious abuses of human rights that take place on a routine basis in countries such as Turkey?

If we ever get a referendum on the issue — which Melancholicus very much doubts — every citizen of this union should do his duty by refusing admittance to the bosom of Europe to this barbarous state. Now Europe is already a sty of many evils; but we should beware lest we increase them. Though the shepherds may be negligent, even tyrannical and corrupt, how does it improve matters to open the door of the sheepfold to the wolf?

The Church persecuted

This in from AsiaNews:

The authorities in West Jakarta stop a parish priest from celebrating mass

by Mathias Hariyadi

The Christ’s Peace Parish Church was shut down under pressure from Muslim extremists who have challenged its legal status. Its resident priest wanted to celebrate at least Sunday mass, but local authorities have “strongly advised” him against it. Some 4,000 local Catholics now feel like they have been forced “underground,” denied the right to practice their faith.

Jakarta (AsiaNews) – Indonesian authorities have prevented the parish priest of Christ’s Peace Church in South Duri (West Jakarta) from celebrating mass. The Catholic parish church in which the function was supposed to take place is at the centre of controversy ever since a group of Muslims have challenged its legal status. As a result of strong pressures from Muslim extremists Tambura Sub-district officials banned all activities in the church to avoid “social tensions.”

The parish priest, Fr Matthew Widyalestari MSC, signed an agreement forcing him to cease all activities in the church but expressed a desire to celebrate a Sunday mass for his 4,000 parishioners who now find themselves unable to practice their faith.

On Friday after a meeting between local Catholic leaders and officials from the West Jakarta District and the Tambura Sub-district, local political authorities insisted on cancelling the Eucharistic function as well. The same reason or excuse was given, “public order,” and the fear of sectarian clashes as Father Widyalestari told AsiaNews.

“The faithful want their spiritual needs fulfilled; they feel like they are on a most wanted list, forced underground to find another place to practice their religion,” the priest said.

But “technically it is difficult to find the right place”, said another priest, Father Lestari, MSC. “Some parishioners go to mass at the Provincial House of the Missionary of the Sacred Heart of Jesus, but that place is not big enough for thousands of people.”

The Christ’s Peace Parish has at least 4,000 members and usually held three masses on week-ends. It has used the same building since 1968.

Some weeks ago a group of local Muslims calling themselves the Cooperation Forum for Mosque, Prayer Rooms and Koranic Group of Duri Selatan, challenged the legal status of the church and its presence in the area because it does not have the right permits required by places of worship.

In 2005 the Interior and Religious Affairs Ministries issued a joint decree designed to put a stop to violent attacks against so-called “illegal churches” by making it easier to get building permits.

However, attacks have not stopped and local Christian communities are still in a legal no man’s land, at risk of having to give up all forms of religious practice.

Spare a thought, dear reader, in the coming Christmas season to remember these our poor persecuted brothers and sisters in Christ, as they try to hold fast to their faith in a Mohammedan land.

This story is indicative of the kind of difficulties experienced by Christians all over the Muslim world. On many occasions, the persecution they experience is far more serious — and violent — than that reported here; at least the priest has not been shot dead, nor his congregation raped and beheaded.

But the next time some tiresome windbag whines about the plight of Muslims enduring ‘racism’ in the west, you might like to stop the prating fool’s mouth, gentle reader, by reminding him or her where real persecution is to be found, and that it has a Muslim face.