Monday, April 5, 2010

Rowan the Lost and His Circular Firing Squad

Here is a hard-hitting article by Peter Hitchens on the lackluster leadership of "Rowan the Lost" as broken Britain stumbles toward the complete rejection of its Christian character and heritage. [My comments in square brackets and in bold]
"Do we have to wait until the hate-filled mobs storm into Canterbury Cathedral and drag him from the pulpit before the Archbishop of Canterbury grasps that Christianity is in danger in this country? [Short answer: apparently yes!] Nice, furry, mild and useless, Dr Rowan Williams chose this Easter week not to protect his Church, but to rebuke several bishops who had rightly warned of the swelling rage against the Church. [It is a bit much to ask him to fight the leftist establishment that rules Britain; after all, he is a life member of it.]

No doubt he is right to point out that Christians elsewhere suffer more. I would like to hear more protests from 'human rights' campaigners against the nasty treatment of Christians in the Muslim world, not least under the rule of the Palestinian Authority which many leftist Christians idiotically admire. [Quite right, but it is doubtful that Williams had those places in mind. He is not entirely against Sharia Law, after all.]

But so what? In those rough neighbourhoods, under the grudging scowl of Muslim so-called 'tolerance', this has been the case for centuries. Here, things are and ought to be different. [And we ought not to forget this fact.] Dr Williams is the head of the Established Church in England. The laws of this country, the shape of its cities and countryside, its language, morals, literature, architecture, family structure and politics are all based upon Christianity.

Take it away and it will be like removing the mortar from a great building, leaving its bricks and stones loose and trembling in the storm to come. [A valid point: if you think it is bad now, it could be worse.] And yet there are many people who want to do this. In this Century of Selfishness, Christianity is an annoying obstacle, with its infuriating insistence on active unselfishness and its unalterable rules which say that there are some things you just cannot do, like for instance murder unborn babies and walk out on your marriage. [This is getting down to hard, cold reality.]

Last week, there was yet another case of someone being in trouble for being a Christian, in an officially Christian country. I collect these incidents: preachers arrested and fined; nurses disciplined for offering to pray for patients; registrars disciplined for declining to officiate at homosexual civil partnerships; adoption societies forced to close because they will not place children with same-sex couples. Just 30 years ago, they would have been unthinkable. Another few decades and Christianity will be against the law. [That is, if you think in terms of the trajectory in which society is heading. For some reason, many people have a curiously static view in which they expect the status quo to go on forever and are surprised when it does not.]

I expect that before long there will be cases of teachers being fired for resisting compulsory sex education in primary schools. Last week's example was that of a nurse, Shirley Chaplin, badgered by superiors for wearing a crucifix on a chain.

Does anyone really believe that she would have been pestered by authority if she had worn a Muslim symbol on a chain round her neck? Does anyone believe that a Muslim preacher would have been put in the cells, and fined £1,000 - as happened to Shawn Holes in Glasgow - for calling homosexuality a sin in a public place? Each of these cases lets others know that they had better be careful, and makes many faithful Christians fear that they may have to choose between their faith and their livelihood. [The chilling effect is real and may even be affecting Williams himself.]

Does Dr Williams even know about the oppressive new codes of practice in the professions and the public sector, which compel employees to adopt the new secular faith of 'Equality and Diversity'? Now the Archbishop has strangely chosen this weekend to attack his fellow Christians in the Roman Catholic church. They must be beginning to wonder how long they have got before they are arrested. [He is upset that the Pope is willing to take in Anglican traditionalists when he thought he had them over a barrel. How is he supposed to impose sodomy and women bishops when the pope gives harassed priests and bishops a choice for heaven's sake?]

Yet nobody seems to ask, in all the justified fury against Roman Catholic priests who have disgraced themselves and wounded others, an interesting question. Here it is. This Easter weekend, a film was released into British cinemas called 'Kick-Ass', which features an 11-year-old girl, Chloe Moretz, who speaks in filthy language and wears outfits obviously designed to sexualise her. [Here is where it gets good.]

I find this repellent, disgusting and immoral. Yet this film, which members of Britain's exciting post-Christian elite helped to make, is receiving generous praise in the liberal media. Why? If this isn't the corruption of the young, then what is? Yet I have no doubt that those who defend this sewage are in the ranks of those howling at the Pope for supposedly condoning priestly child abuse (which he doesn't). [OK, the bluff of the leftist media has been called. Will they condemn child sexual exploitation when it is not done by a priest? Don't hold your breath waiting for the editorials, op ed pieces, headlines and outrage.]

Phooey. What they hate is not the abuse, which happens in liberal state institutions just as it does in the Roman church. What they hate is the Christian church. [The inescapable conclusion.] And at the moment they are winning the argument partly because the Church won't fight back with any spirit. Dr Williams seems actually to be on the side of the anti-God battalions."
HT: Virtue Online

One final comment: it is possible to hate Christianity and to hate child abuse. It is also possible to hate Christianity and to use child abuse as a handy weapon to assail Christianity. Some people fit into the first category and some into the second. One can respect those in the first group. But Hitchens has provided the means for telling the two groups apart. Do they restrict their ardor over to oppose child abuse to cases involving the Church or not?

No comments: