This is not actually a new report. The Bishop of Oxford (whose book Being a Christian I did find very useful years ago during confirmation classes, so he is not a complete idiot, just a pillock) is the usual suspect on this subject, and is quoted and re-quoted frequently.
The percieved bias against Israel is a real worry for many Anglicans of which I am one. Others write at this site http://www.anglicansforisrael.com/
It's a new site (September) that I came to through a link on Melanie Phillip's diary, and I am recommending it to everybody I talk to.

OT I see that Revd Dr Sookhdeo and Bat Ye'or are to speak in London tomorrow.

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at November 13, 2005 7:57 AM

Granny Weatherwax: What is a "pillock"?

While not holding to the same ZIonist eschatology that so many of my fellow American Evangelicals accept, I nonetheless find much "Christian anti-Zionism" a thinkly disguised anti-Semitism.

Posted by: Kepha at November 13, 2005 8:38 AM

A pillock (good London word) was originally a tasty freshwater shellfish (non kosher) which lived in the River Thames. It is now used as an insult, but not a profane or obscene one, for someone who is lacking in common sense, intelligence, ability etc.
How much intelligence does a near extinct mollusc have?

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at November 13, 2005 8:46 AM

While Religous history is one of my main studies, I am still a long way from studying the Anglican church. Here's what I am wondering: When Henry VIII broke England away from the rest of Christianity, was their any particular set of ideas which the Anglican church set aside, which might lead to the way they think towards islam today? Or is this just the general, wrong-side-of-the-multicultural viewpoint, that is infecting them?

Posted by: Gary at November 13, 2005 8:47 AM

Don't you have pillocks in America? We've got loads of them, many working for the BBC or the Guardian.

Posted by: Interested at November 13, 2005 8:49 AM

We've got loads of them
Sadly the modern versions are not as nourishing for Sunday tea in vinegar between a few slices of Hovis as the original.
(Hovis, a brand of traditional style brown bread)

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at November 13, 2005 8:56 AM

Hovis, a brand of traditional style brown bread

Loved by Dvorak, who lived in the north of England at the time he wrote his New World Symphony, and sported a flat cap, with vowels to match.

'Brown bread' - Cockney rhyming slang for what happens to you if you insult Mohammed.

Mohammed - pillock (q.v.) of the first order.

(Ibsen's 'Pillocks of the Community' gets a really good write up by Toby Young in the Speccie. I've never seen it, though I did once see Enema of the People. The seats were nice and comfortable.)

Posted by: Interested at November 13, 2005 9:07 AM

The absurdity is, he's not offering to apologize to any Iraqis for the invasion. I can't imagine he'd find any Kurds or Shia willing to accept it if he tried. No. He wants to apologize to UK Muslims of Pakistani/Bangladeshi origin for his government's actions against the government of a country that they have absolutely no connection with or understanding of; except that they share the same religious affiliation as a minority of its citizens.

Imagine him flying to Kraków to apologize to the leader of Polish Catholics for the Falklands War against the Argentinian junta. It's that silly.

Posted by: georgesdelatour at November 13, 2005 9:21 AM

"just the general, wrong-side-of-the-multicultural viewpoint"
Personally, I think that is it. My father-in-law a retired Anglican priest (who served during the war in Egypt and Sudan, and had several parishs in Yorkshire not a million miles from areas of "interest") has no illusions about Islam. I can't repeat some stories he has told me, it would identify my husband's family too easily.
The Anglican Communion is a very broad church. It is our strength but can be our weakness. We have High Anglicans, Anglo-Catholics of the Oxford movement who are near indistiguisgable from Roman Catholics other than their head is the Archbishop of Canterbury, not the Pope. At the other end of the spectrum are evangelicals whose worship is very very informal. The views covered are equally wide, but we are one body, who share in one bread.
So I don't think this is a pequliarly Anglican thing, some do get it, some don't, more will if I have anything to do with it.

Which brings me again to my recommendation of the the book Islam in Britain - The report of the Institute for the Study of Islam and Christianity which is an arm of the Barnabas Fund. £5.99 +95p P&p http://www.barnabasfund.org/islaminbritain.htm

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at November 13, 2005 9:23 AM

Granny Weatherwax: A pillock was originally a tasty freshwater shellfish

I.e., all mussel and no brain.

Posted by: Shy Guy at November 13, 2005 9:29 AM

Shy Guy -
:-)

Posted by: Granny Weatherwax at November 13, 2005 9:33 AM

Gary: Speaking as a Presbyterian, I find two modes at work in Anglicanism: one is the political, of which Henry VIII was the fountainhead, while the other is the Evangelical [i.e., Gospel-oriented], of which the reforming bishops of Cranmer's and Ridley's ilk were fountainheads. The latter were in fact close to much of the rest of Protestantism; and this kinship between the two made Puritanism {aka "l.et's be more like the Scots, Dutch, and Swiss")such a live option in the days of Elizabeth I and James VI and I.

The problem with Anglicanism today is the theological liberalism infecting most of the established Protestant churches of Europe and the old-line denominations of America. Back in the 19th century, most Anglicans, clerical or lay, would've agreed with most of the rest of the Protestant world that the solution to the Islamic problem was more and better missionary work; and Anglicans were indeed responsible for some of the best missionary work in parts of the Indian subcontinent and Africa. The father of Abu Abdul Haqq, Billy Graham's Indian associate back between the 1950's and 1970's, was won to Christ by a series of encounters and employments with both Anglican and Presbyterian missionaries (the names of the father and son indicate that the family was Muslim before becoming Christian).

The theological liberalism that infects so many of the older Protestant denominations is relativist, tolerant of the other, and critical of its own sources (the Bible). It has not so much met the task of making Christianity relevant to a new era, but of providing a halfway house whereby traditionally Christian peoples have fallen into apostasy.

Posted by: Kepha at November 13, 2005 12:20 PM

Thank you, Kepha! And GW.

Posted by: Gary at November 13, 2005 12:57 PM

Kepha -- your post is excellent: "halfway house whereby traditionally Christian peoples have fallen into apostasy."

Apt description for the "apsis of Evil" who dominate the Christian post-modern deconstructionists... Are they even Christian? Somehow, I doubt it...

Posted by: jsla at November 13, 2005 2:18 PM

BTW --Upon learning what these self loathing sycophants proffer, it's no surprise pious Muslims conclude the West is decadent and ripe for conquest--

Imagining how these bleatings sound to the fervent Islamic advocates? Such craven appeals from these dubious "Christians" must make them think: "If this represents their strength of conviction for their beliefs, for their way of life, for their religion -- they deserve our utter contempt -- they deserve what punishments we will happily deign to dispense! They grovel before us, and ask to suffer and be held to account at our pleasure! We are only TOO HAPPY to comply!!!! Allah is clearly Greater!!!!"

Posted by: jsla at November 13, 2005 2:31 PM

The attitude of the Church of England is hardly any different from that of our leaders. When our leaders describe Islam as a religion of peace, I only wish I had a bucketful of ice cold water to throw all over them. Political correctness rules, and the obsequious flattery which pours out of our leaders, both in politics and the Church, doesn't get the goodwill of Muslims - it only gets their scorn, and gives them the impression that we're politically correct weaklings, and a pushover. On the other hand, if one of our leaders was to use the words of John Quincy Adams to describe Islam, he'd incur their wrath, but no more wrath than what we're getting now; it would make us feel better because we'd feel someone was speaking up for us, it would be a poke in the eye for the PC brigade, and the Islamists would finally get the impression that us infidels had indeed acquired a backbone, and wouldn't be easy meat. At the end of the day, we might as well hang for stealing a sheep as a leg of lamb.

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at November 13, 2005 4:16 PM

As a "collapsed" Anglican, I can tell you that the Church is full of very nice people, who truly try to practice what they preach. But, of course, that is part of the problem: they turn the other cheek so much that loving your enemies starts to change to "becoming" your enemies in the sense of being so tolerant of other doctrines that it calls your own faith into question. What is the point of being an Anglican if you are not proud of what you believe and are willing to straightforwardly recommend it the Godless as the way to salvation?

Just recently a former Anglican Bishop, Richard Holloway, announced to the world that he was an atheist:

"A Humanist Future Now That God Is Dead"

http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/01/12/edholloway_ed3_.php

And, then, there is Bishop Spong:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/spong983.htm

These are the original 39 Articles defining Anglican Doctrine:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thirty-nine_Articles

I am of two, perhaps 3 or 4 minds on this issue.

I guess my point of view was recently summed up by Mark Steyn:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1519371/posts

"A hyper-rationalist might dismiss the whole God thing as a lot of apple sauce, but his hyper-rationalism is a lot more vulnerable in a society without a strong Judaeo-Christian culture. American firearms owners have a popular slogan: ‘If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns.’ Likewise, if you marginalise religion, only the marginalised will have religion. That’s why France’s impoverished Muslim ghettos display more cultural confidence than the wealthiest enclaves of the capital."

At the same time as I no longer believe in anything supernatural, I lament that so many people are moving away from these valuable cultural traditions. In other words, as a pragmatist, I can see the social utility of our Judeo-Christian heritage.

What to do? I am angered by my former Church's spineless, Godless approach to its faith but, at the same time, I am ideologically powerless to do anything about it as I will never be a hypocrite and confess to believing in something just because it is socially useful.

Posted by: Mentat at November 13, 2005 4:41 PM

As a "collapsed" Anglican...

Never heard that one before. Presumably a collapsed Anglican has lapsed even further than a lapsed one?

A collapsed bishop must be one who has lost his bishoppric and has no option but to turn the other cheek?

Posted by: Interested at November 13, 2005 5:06 PM

Intererested:

Re: "Collapsed Anglican"

What do you call someone who is so confused that when he goes by yet another Anglican Church being demolished to make way for a condo development that he just about has a fit but, at the same time, cannot believe in anything supernatural? As they say, "Life is hard and then you die."

Posted by: Mentat at November 13, 2005 5:23 PM

Fair enough.

Posted by: Interested at November 13, 2005 5:26 PM

A lot of good a**-kissing is going to do them. Hasn't al-qaida just declared the head of the Church of England--Queen Elizabeth--an enemy of islam? I can only shake my head.

Posted by: 3812Michelle at November 13, 2005 9:34 PM

As they say, "Life is hard and then you die."

Posted by: Mentat at November 13, 2005 05:23 PM

I thought it was: "life is a bitch, and then you die."

Spiritual revival in Europe would be very helpful in countering the muslims. If the churches were filled to capacity every Sunday, even with hypocrites, the potential reawakening of the Crusaders would intimidate muslims more than anything else I can think of.
And who knows, maybe people would find the message of Christianity appealing and inspirational once again. I have drifted away, drifted back, away and back so many times, but I still find comfort and hope in the church when I can find it nowhere else. To each his own; some people seem quite content to worship the pursuit of pleasure, the government, or an Arab fable.

Posted by: Susanp at November 13, 2005 10:13 PM

I correspond with various students at Princeton University Theology dept. at times, though it makes me puke. They are nice young people so mired in relativism that I, an atheist, find myself lecturing them on morals and ethics from a Christian stance because: they don't get it!

The university dept is so disgusting that the only group who make me sicker is the PCUSA. Filth people. I would rather spend my time with Satanists. The only likely reason I'm not as disgusted or moreso with the Anglican Church is that the southerners are alien to my experience. From what little I know of them I dont want to know any more.

If I were religious the PCUSA would be enough to ake me an atheist all over again. Vile and disgusting people. If there were a God He'd throw them all in prison.

Posted by: sonofwalker at November 13, 2005 10:23 PM

Let me add that I don't mean to insult anyone at this forum. I have a deep likeing for Kepha's comments and perspectives and the depth of his scholarship and commitment; and for Granny Weatherwax I have some real liking as well, as well as for others. In fact, most of those who are religious here beat the devil out of any of the weasels who claim to be Leftists and atheists. It's when one cannot tell the difference between an Protestant and a fascist supporter of murder for the sake of oneness with Mother Nature or some such shite that I completely lose it. Most Protestants are such nasty atheists that I think I should refer to myself as a believer just to make sure no one confuses me with a Chrisitian who supports murder. Filth people. They make me so sick I can't stand to read their comments or hear their filthy rants. If Christians want to destroy Israel, then they are the work of the devil and nothing else.

But I digress. I was writing that I have no animosity at all toward those who are Christians. I truly cannot stomach the filth bastards at PCUSA though. Those sickening....

But I digress.

Posted by: sonofwalker at November 13, 2005 10:34 PM

Please remember the the c.of.e is not Christian, that is it does not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ. It is just a miserable man made religion with its pagan bells and smells, ministerial "frocks" - ad nauseum.
It has bishops who do not believe the Bible as the Word of God or the virgin birth etc.
Now before I am lynched I am sure that many, many lay members are Christian and are also sickened and dismayed by their 'leaders'.
Islam to the heads of this pagan church is just another pagan religion. Regards, numbat

Posted by: numbat at November 13, 2005 11:09 PM

If the rapture happened tomorrow I think a lot of "Christians" would be left here on earth in a state of shock.

"I will bless those that bless you, and I will curse those that curse you".

This is straight from the Bible, and still applies today. England did great things for Israel in WW1 (well it was mainly the ANZAC's). Since then the English have supported Israel's enemies (Muslims), more than Israel. From this point on you can see the English empire crumble.

France is no different. Watch how these once great bastions of freedom, crumble into states that resemble Israel's enemies, or worse, get taken over by them. What these countries wished upon Israel, will be returned upon themselves three fold. Which is a worry as I have family in England – even after the 7/7 bombings they are still blind to the threat of Islam. It’s amazing!

Posted by: 3rdtimelucky at November 14, 2005 12:24 AM

Numbat tha was load of bs...
Now meboy you r starting to sound as some sort of Wahabbi Christian.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at November 14, 2005 3:49 AM

The 'church' (and other such orgs) are misguided by definition.

Anyone who in this day and age still believes in the supernatural, magic, god(s) or any 'wonders' of any kind is part of the problem.

The bishops are just as crazy as the imams, you can't use one lunatic to heal another, it doesn't work :-D

Imli

Posted by: Imli at November 14, 2005 4:23 AM

Imli

Yes I agree. More religion, more "chosen ones" are not the answer.

Religion (all brands currently in the "Market") are the natural enemy of humanity.

Best regards
Albion

Posted by: albion at November 14, 2005 4:29 AM

Granny:

Re the C of E's apparent bent toward Islam, you may recall the episode of Yes, Prime Minister, where they were looking at potential candidates for Archbishop and came up with a convert to Islam because at least he believed in God.

Gary:

I'd hazard a guess that in part higher-ups in the C of E are tainted with a latent Arabist tendancy, just as are senior beaurocrats in the foreign service and intelligence agencies, and pro-monarchy types, influenced by the romantic Lawrence of Arabia view of the noble Bedouin sheiks in the desert vs the materialistic, grubby Jews who have managed to reclaim the desert and have created among other things, the world's foremost life sciences research institution: the Weitzman Institute. (Not bad for a country of 5 million that's been under siege for 60 years.)

Vis what moves the American counterparts in a similar direction, I'd agree it's more about the general tendancy pseudo-liberals have to cast Muslims in the role of the oppressed underdogs.

Posted by: waterdragon52 at November 14, 2005 9:31 AM

"Hasn't al-qaida just declared the head of the Church of England--Queen Elizabeth--an enemy of islam?"

This apparently comports with the opinions of the Anglican Bishops --Perhaps this is the reason they want so badly to apologize for the Iraqi war -- Their nation went to war, the titular head of the UK is QE2, so it follows that she has implicitly endorsed something which requires the Bishops to apologize to "Muslims" for the UK's "transgression" against them... The self-loathing sickness is on a rampage in Europe in these latter days....

Posted by: jsla at November 14, 2005 11:20 AM

@albion: Not all religions claim to be the chosen ones. Dharmic religions for example never claim to be the only path to "salvation".

BTW I findprejudice against atheists amongst most JW/DW'ers pretty strong.Maybe thats because atheism is commonly associated with left.

Posted by: Vikrant_Camberleykar at November 14, 2005 2:53 PM

As for prejudice against atheists, I dunno. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, and if everyone wants to jump into a big pile-on on a poor prophet, with the person at the bottom getting the right to tell me the "Good News" (or, if Jewish, why the "News Isn't So Good", be it as it may), then that's fine, whatever. I myself am a little interested in the Good News anyway, so it bothers me not. They, unlike some religions, don't seem to want to burn me alive or cut off my head or give me 1000 lashes or canings or cut out my tongue or stone me to death or call me an "evil Jew" or the like.

This, I call improvement.

Geoff

Posted by: Geoff at November 15, 2005 12:34 PM