Meanwhile, his country becomes more dhimmified day by day. He should focus on the beam in his eye than the sliver in ours.

Posted by: wrathofasma at September 11, 2007 11:23 AM

Only problem - Gandhi had no qualms about supporting Islamic supremacy, like he supported a campaign to restore the Ottoman caliphate in 1919 after WWI. Dr Williams might want to clarify to his flock whether he actually supports that.

If he does, those in his flock who agree with him might as well join him and Price Charles in converting to Islam. The others could become Lutherans. Or even (gasp) Catholics.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 11, 2007 11:49 AM

12 million peaceful "Gandhis" were killed by the Nazis.

This guy's passive prescription became invalid with the Holocaust.

Islam's march is only different from Nazis in that Mohammadism has a "God" to eternally sanctify its calls to terror, and not simply a some vague idea of "Blood" and "Aryan" pagan myths.

Woe unto England it this fool is representative of their mindset.

Posted by: profitsbeard at September 11, 2007 11:50 AM

You nailed it, wrathofasma. This fool seems so hellbent on understanding Islam that he's forgotten the tenets of Christianity...

Posted by: Vagn Henning at September 11, 2007 11:54 AM

Dr Williams no doubt delivered this speech in the usual patronisingly dull tones that clergy employ when speaking of ‘lofty matters’. Somehow I just cannot take seriously anything said by men who wear funny hats and long dress like robes, as if this attire makes them worthwhile listening to. Perhaps one should consider the more fundamental issue here, this man believes like the Islamists, in an invisible entity that demands your total respect and will damn your eternal soul to hell if you transgress.
He and his religious ilk are part of the problem, if not THE problem. Personally I’d put more faith in a 50 megaton blast as the solution than the bogy man up in the sky.

Posted by: Jihadtobejoking at September 11, 2007 11:55 AM

what a bloody idiot....

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at September 11, 2007 12:00 PM

Does anyone know why JW crashes? DW does not, hence the question........

Posted by: Alert at September 11, 2007 12:02 PM

what a bloody idiot....

Posted by: freddiefreeloader at September 11, 2007 12:09 PM

Of the ‘Reverend’ Archbishop of Canterbury’s dhimmihood I am reminded of Isaiah 5:20:

"Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

A St. Thomas Becket he surely is not!

Posted by: descendantofacrusader at September 11, 2007 12:10 PM

Does anyone know why JW crashes? DW does not, hence the question........

Posted by: Alert at September 11, 2007 12:10 PM

Yes, I'm having problems with JihadWatch too. I think it crashed.

The Archbishop is a fool.

If you want to see real oppression, go to this link, click on the tv icon and watch the Brussels police in action against the 9/11 SIOE demonstration.

http://www.vlaamsbelang.be/0/3682/

Posted by: atheling at September 11, 2007 12:19 PM

"Jihad, or holy war, could nowadays be interpreted as a “struggle of the heart” rather than the defence of the Muslim community against its enemies, he said."

*(Applause and standing ovation from the Muslim constituency of the forum)

"He compared the “act of nightmare violence” six years ago, when extremists flew aeroplanes into the twin towers in New York, with the birth of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent protest movement on September 11, 1906, in Johannesburg."

Another standing-O, I am sure.

There you go you good little dhimmi. How about a nice little dhimmi-snack as a reward?

Posted by: awake at September 11, 2007 12:22 PM

Just more evidence of the total irrelevance of the Anglican Church of England and its liberal sister the Episcopal Church of the U.S. I was once told by an Episcopal priest that one could believe almost anything and be a member of Episcopal Church. I am positive now that the word "almost" can be dropped from that testimonial. Sounds like the right reverend Dr. Williams has become a Muslim Christian like that U.S. priest did earlier this year out on the left coast.

Posted by: Theseus at September 11, 2007 12:26 PM

Canterbury Tails.

Posted by: Shy Guy at September 11, 2007 12:32 PM

Theseus:

It wasn't a "priest", it was a female Episcopal minister.

The fact that a woman decides to be both Muslim and (nominal) Chrstian is a testament to her stupidity.

Posted by: atheling at September 11, 2007 12:33 PM

Does this archbishop know WHAT IN THE HECK a Bible is?

Then open it up and read it for once. It is the one over there on the shelf with the dust on it.

You are suppose to be an archbishop representing this BOOK, you might want to familarize yourself with it before you open your mouth.

Posted by: alaskan1000 at September 11, 2007 12:46 PM

He added that both faiths could offer society an ideal of peaceful co-existence despite their violent histories because they were guided by beliefs that transcended human conflict.

Whatever he wants to believe.. All I ask is that this "peaceful co-existence" take place somewhere else. Say, how about Pakistan or SOWdi Barbaria?

Posted by: Allahfanculo at September 11, 2007 12:47 PM

http://www.vlaamsbelang.be/0/3682/
Posted by: atheling [TypeKey Profile Page] at

Anyone who hasn't checked this out yet should do so NOW. Its' sickening.

You may have to click on the little TV icon to download the .wmv file and play it on your media player.

Posted by: Allahfanculo at September 11, 2007 12:57 PM

Perhaps the Archbishop of Canterbury is stating his opinions now so as to save his own neck when the Islamists take over - a coward through and through.

Athiests have stated that an adherence to a religion and belief in any kind of god is an indication of intellectual inferiority. There may be something to their assertion in this instance.

Posted by: Pelayo at September 11, 2007 12:59 PM

Allahfanculo, I watched the clip but it wasn't in English so I couldn't understand. It seemed to be some middle aged men in suits getting rough treatment from the police.

What were they talking about?

Posted by: Celsius at September 11, 2007 1:05 PM

No wonder the Muslims view us as weak and ripe for conquest. Cringing mindless Westerners who clearly have no pride and little actual knowledge of our magnificent Western legacy -- a legacy unmatched in human history for accomplishments in art, science, religion, philosophy, these cringing Westerners encourage the Muslim invader, convince Islam that we are ready to be destroyed, deserving of annihilation. This Archbishop of Canterbury, top prelate of his church, stands before them and exhibits himself, not like a lamb of Christ, but as a guilty and deserving lamb of slaughter, of Islamic sacrifice. And the religion he attempts to appease, Islam, the religion he attempts to make nice with is singularly designed to see the signs of his vulnerability and to ATTACK. They are filled with hatred of their prey. Their hatred solidifies their religion -- it is a religion which thrives on hatred.

The Islamic barbarians who measure things by the churnings in their gut and by the smell of fear in the air, the Islamic barbarians are a pack of wolves who sense and taste the blood of their injured prey, they are drawn to it, they calculate their every chance of success in the most primitive manner, in the most flint-hearted opportunisity manner of the jackal and the hyena. The Islamic wolf seeks this thing, eats this thing, craves this thing.

The Muslim wolf smells the growing sea of blood from our hemorrhaging weaklings, weaklings like this Servile Hangdog of Canterbury, weaklings whose slouching shoulders are unable to bear the burdens, whose shoulders cannot stand or repel an attack. The Muslims know this in their guts.

In the West we support malfunctioning people like this cringing Archbishop of Canterbury -- we even elevate them sometimes:

Archbishop of Canterbury.
Editor of the New York Times.
National Security Advisor.
Dean of Colleges.

Such are protected -- we reward them with comforting lives and shield them from the consequences of their fatal weaknesses -- but this only lasts so long. The world has never changed -- it's now unwise and has always remained unwise for the lamb to lay down with the lion -- those insane lambs of the "9/11 Truthers", the Democratic Leadership, the EU, the Code Pinkers and the Komrades of DailyKos and this bleeding Archbishop of Canterbury... They are a lure for the Islamic Dog of War. In other harsher societies, these weaklings are swept aside and crushed by the tide of life and strife -- but here these legions thrive and multiply and are protected by the shepherd of our equanimous laws and our amazing first world tolerance.

So that same wonderful tolerance which we've striven so hard for, that amazing grace which says so much about our prowess and our accomplishments to rise above the law of the jungle which presides everywhere in the world -- that same tolerance has now proved to be our tremendous vulnerability -- one which our worst enemies are eager and willing to exploit. They smell the blood of a fabulous wounded beast, and they are moving in everywhere. In little communities across the West they're springing up like packs of predators, moving in for the kill.

Islam-bait. This Archbishop of Canterbury is little more than Islam-bait.

Posted by: jsla at September 11, 2007 1:06 PM

In the Reverend Patrick Sookhdeo, an Anglican canon who converted from Islam in the late '60's , the CofE has a seasoned expert on.His Barnabus Fund helps Christian victims of religious persecution and natural disasters around the world but he could also see off any Mohammedan apologist with a stroke of his pen. Yet as far as I can make out he is a marginalised figure in the church and the subject of criticism as an obstacle to inter-faith understanding by many of his fellow ecclesiastics.
It shows how out of touch with reality this holy idiot of an Archbishop is.

Posted by: wallyUK at September 11, 2007 1:08 PM

(PLEASE POST THIS ANNOUNCEMENT AT OTHER WEBSITES)

The U.S. Senate Project (an initiative to increase congressional awareness of the nature and goals of jihad) currently has 81 volunteers in 39 states.

WE ARE STILL SEEKING ADDITIONAL CITIZEN VOLUNTEERS FROM ALL 50 STATES, ESPECIALLY THE FOLLOWING 12:

Connecticut
Delaware
Hawaii
Kansas
Mississippi
Montana
North Dakota
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming

THE PROJECT: We're looking for people in every state of the Union who would be willing to purchase, from Amazon or any other source, a copy of Robert Spencer's new book Religion of Peace? Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn't and mail it, on an agreed upon date, to one of the senators in your state. We want to get the book simultaneously to all 100 senators, in order to send a strong message. If we get more than two people per state, books can also be sent to the U.S. House of Representatives.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO PARTICIPATE, PLEASE WRITE TO ME AT traehnam@yahoo.com UNDER THE SUBJECT HEADING “SENATE,” AND TELL ME THE STATE YOUR SENATOR REPRESENTS, AN EMAIL ADDRESS WHERE I CAN REACH YOU, AND A NICKNAME. No need for your real name. And I will never share your email address with anyone, not even with other volunteers for this project.

And visit jihadawareness.blogspot.com to get more info on this project and to leave comments other volunteers can read. You can also see there the growing list of participants in this project, and the states their senators represent. I've also designed a graphic that might amuse. Scroll down when you get to the site.

Once we have at least two people from every state, we can agree on a mailing date and then each of us can mail a copy of the book on that date.

Right before each of us mails the book, we can issue a press release to various media outlets in every state, and in that way announce and explain the mailing. And perhaps we can come up with some other ways of maximizing the effectiveness of this project and gaining as much positive attention as possible.

One of the project's volunteers suggested contacting Rep. Sue Myrick, who started the Anti-Jihad Caucus in Congress. I'll try to coordinate this project with Rep. Myrick to maximize its effectiveness. I've also been calling various congressional offices to get advice on how best to go about the project.

Posted by: traeh at September 11, 2007 1:21 PM

We are used to Arab islamochristians. These are the kind of "Christians" who adopt and parrot the Muslim agenda, because they choose to identify with Islam as part of being "Arab" (that "Uruba" or "Arabness"), often as a result of fear and a desire to curry favor with the circumambient Muslims. There are many "Palestinian" islamochristians -- see the Sabeel Center, see Naim Ateek, see Archibishop Michel Sabbagh -- but far fewer among the larger and more secure in their own skins Maronites and Copts, who in any case know that both commmunities pre-date the arrival of Islam, and also are keenly aware that the use of Arabic does not necessarily make one, as Muslim Arabs are keen to convince everyone, an Arab.

But Rowan Williams, who has a long history of being a self-parody, takes pride of place as the first, or at least the most prominent, Islamochristian. Bravo.

Posted by: Hugh at September 11, 2007 1:24 PM

"But Dr Williams argued that religion should not be judged by the failures of its adherents but on its vision of a social order that is 'without fear, oppression, the violence of exclusion and the search for scapegoats.'"
-- from the article above

Dr. Rowan Williams should read -- he must know French - the comprehensive account of the legal status of dhimmis under Muslim rule by Antoine Fattal. He should read -- he must know English -- what has been written about the treatment of non-Muslims under Muslim rule in such indispensable works as "The Dhimmi" and "Islam and Dhimmitude" (both by Bat Ye'or), or in "The Myth of Islamic Tolerance (ed. Robert Spencer), or in any number of articles, by all kinds of Western students of Islam, such as Snouck Hurgronje and Arthur Jeffery and Henri Lammens and Evariste Provencal-Levi and Georges Vajda and Mary Boyce and K. S. Lal, to find out how it was that tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus, Jains, Buddhists, and others fared under Islam. And then he should try again to say, with a straight face, something about faiths which are 'without fear, oppression, the violence of exclusion and the search for scapegoats.'"

If he wants to acknowledge the failure, the singular and horrifying failure, of Western Christendom in its treatment of the Jews of Europe, over a great many centuries, that is legitimate. For him, however, to assume that that represents a continuing failure, or one that is indissolubly based on Christian principles, and to focus on that rather than on Islam as a threat to all non-Muslims, he will demonstrate merely that he has become -- and there have been many other signs before of this -- a Defender of the Faith, that faith being Islam. And that is not legitimate. That demonstrates a diseased sympathy. That demonstrates an inability to see things aright. That is dangerous. That is wicked. And a wicked Archbishop of Canterbury presents a sticky wicket, and not only to Anglicans, doesn't he?

Posted by: Hugh at September 11, 2007 1:33 PM

Here is some more disgusting appeasement from the BBC. What is interesting here is the...horribly maudlin but characteristic...interview with the Palestinian Christian who has joined the Al-Aqsa Brigade! I'm sure he is not the only one. What is so revolting is the BBC reporter's sympathy for a potential suicide bomber.

Posted by: johndoe at September 11, 2007 1:56 PM

Sorry! I omitted the link.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6987897.stm

Posted by: johndoe at September 11, 2007 1:57 PM

This archbishop is now starting to talk like a dimmhi. God help us all.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 11, 2007 2:22 PM

jsla,

Weak prey ready to be eaten alive by the Islamic dogs of war, whose god is SATAN THE HEAD DEVIL.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 11, 2007 2:26 PM

Ah, Gandhi...

Gandhi during Britain's rule + Gandhi's non-violent resistance = British get out of India.

Gandhi during the Muslim Aurangzeb's rule + Gandhi's non-violent resistance = Gandhi's body - Gandhi's head.

Posted by: ZionistYoungster at September 11, 2007 2:27 PM

Thanks to Gahndi, we have the very unstable Pakistan, once part of India, but went independent in order that the Muslims can have their own land.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at September 11, 2007 2:30 PM

Regarding Atheling's link; The European governments do seem to be intent on offering Islam protection not afforded to other beliefs. Their excuse for this behaviour, idiotically, is that if they didn't react against this rallying against Islam then the followers of Islam would then react violently.

Or maybe it's simply that Europeans have dared to disagree with the party line.

Posted by: Xeno at September 11, 2007 2:37 PM

But Dr Williams argued that religion should not be judged by the failures of its adherents but on its vision of a social order that is “without fear, oppression, the violence of exclusion and the search for scapegoats”.

Does this nutter think that Islam really aims for all of this?

without fear

3:151 "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve."

oppression

4:91 "Take them and kill them wherever ye find them. Against such We have given you clear warrant."

the violence of exclusion

4:144 "Choose not disbelievers for (your) friends in place of believers. Would ye give Allah a clear warrant against you?"

search for scapegoats”

4:160 "Because of the wrongdoing of the Jews We forbade them good things which were (before) made lawful unto them, and because of their much hindering from Allah's way"

Posted by: Greek Fire at September 11, 2007 2:50 PM

What is the difference between the Archbishop of Canterbury and Osama bin Laden?

Osama dyes his beard - otherwise nor much of a differ.

Posted by: Charles Martel at September 11, 2007 2:51 PM

"He compared the “act of nightmare violence” six years ago, when extremists flew aeroplanes into the twin towers in New York, with the birth of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent protest movement on September 11, 1906, in Johannesburg."
"He said that Gandhi’s movement showed it was possible to reject a response to oppression that 'simply mirrors what has been done by the oppressor.'"
From the article

Just wanted to clear up that the Archbishop did not equate the Muhammedans with Ghandi's movement, he was equating the pre-9/11 U.S.'s actions with slitting stewardesses necks with carpet razors, hijacking airplanes and deliberately flying them into tall buildings to kill as many noncombatants as possible, all meticulously premeditated and preplanned. Simply mirroring, check.

Posted by: Concerned Citizen at September 11, 2007 3:10 PM

Liberal Christian theology underestimates the problem of evil in the human heart and in the structural human systems (principalities and powers).

I hope the good Bishop also quoted Jesus the Christ in looking for peace, rather than just idealists like M. Ghandi.

Islam is teaching the Secular west that theology matters. Even for those of you who are not Christian or convinced atheists it is important that you are not theologically illiterate when it comes to Christian theology. Christians are still the largest institutional group in Western society and their leaders still have some influence in forming public opinion.

Liberal clergy will see the Islamic issue (I am generalizaing) in two ways. One, the outsider must be included, as a reflection of Jesus our Lord's love for the stranger. They will not however think critically about the motives of the stranger who might want to enslave or kill us all. This leads to the second way of seeing the issue. Liberals tend to think that all religion is a reflection of an inner desire to connect with God. See the following quote. Muslims are therefore just another reflection of humanities desire for the divine. And of course we see that in Rumi's poetry and other Islamic writings. The irony however is that Liberals will tend to be blindly generous with the restrictive and exclusive doctrine in Islam while rabidly critical of non-Liberal Christian theologies exclusivism (ie only Christians go to heaven and all other religions are not true)

"Religion is the outcome neither of the fear of death, nor of the fear of God. It answers a deep need in man. It is neither a metaphysic, nor a morality, but above all and essentially an intuition and a feeling. ... Dogmas are not, properly speaking, part of religion: rather it is that they are derived from it. Religion is the miracle of direct relationship with the infinite; and dogmas are the reflection of this miracle. Similarly belief in God, and in personal immortality, are not necessarily a part of religion; one can conceive of a religion without God, and it would be pure contemplation of the universe; the desire for personal immortality seems rather to show a lack of religion, since religion assumes a desire to lose oneself in the infinite, rather than to preserve one's own finite self." - Schleiermacher

Beware of liberal Christianity
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Christianity
AND Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Daniel_Ernst_Schleiermacher

Posted by: James Martel at September 11, 2007 3:10 PM

As Rowans go, I've always preferred Mr. Atkinson.

Posted by: MarisolJW at September 11, 2007 3:11 PM

Where is Henry II when we need him?

Posted by: David England at September 11, 2007 3:18 PM

Their is a problem with the Ghandi model, Muslims have no problem cutting off your head if you are just sitting there not beieng muslim .

Posted by: KAOSKTRL at September 11, 2007 3:21 PM

He's the shepherd of his flock saying

"Wolves, sheep we're all just mammals and should learn to live together".

Posted by: poetcomic1 at September 11, 2007 3:44 PM

Rowan is clearly the product of decades of liberal theological indoctrination to even write such crap.
But what do you expect from a supposed Christian who takes initiation to become a druid of all things! For a man of his position to associate with such a group speaks of his mental bankruptcy.

Posted by: waltc at September 11, 2007 3:58 PM

Britains enormous problem:

3 million increasingly hostile Muhammedans, an idiot prince who sees himself as some kind of Charles of Arabia, and a deluded clergy.

But Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury, is in a league of his own.

Delusion and stupidity will not save his miserable soul.

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at September 11, 2007 4:56 PM

I look forward to Muslim leaders taking the Church of England's lead and acknowledging Islam's violent past.

For instance, apologies for Islam's violent annexation of large parts of Europe; its brutal slave-trade; its vicious treatment of minorities...

etc.

I imagine we shall still be waiting for these apologies on the 100th anniversary of 911.

Posted by: A Nonny Nonny at September 11, 2007 5:42 PM

I look forward to Muslim leaders taking the Church of England's lead and acknowledging its violent past.

For instance, apologies for Islam's violent annexation of large parts of Europe; its brutal slave-trade; its vicious treatment of minorities...

etc.

I imagine we shall still be waiting for these apologies on the 100th anniversary of 911.

Posted by: A Nonny Nonny at September 11, 2007 5:42 PM

Alaskan 1000,
LoL,let's not be too hard on the ole archbishop there!

Getting the "TRUE" scoop from all those eager,smiling ambassadors of islam,their generous often tax-payer laden checks in hand,leaves one little time to reacquaint oneself with the good book or the actual tenets of one's faith.

Posted by: We need G.C. Scott at September 11, 2007 5:45 PM

"Rowan Williams, who has a long history of being a self-parody"

Spot on.

Posted by: Odyessus at September 11, 2007 5:45 PM

Gandhi during Britain's rule + Gandhi's non-violent resistance = British get out of India.

Gandhi during the Muslim Aurangzeb's rule + Gandhi's non-violent resistance = Gandhi's body - Gandhi's head.

You make a most excellent point, ZionistYoungster. Maybe the Archbishop should take you on as an advisor. Based on his dumb-ass commentary, they could use a few Jews around the old Cathedral, just to keep things straight.

Posted by: Alarmed Pig Farmer at September 11, 2007 6:04 PM

Gandhi's demand to "Quit India" was morally correct. How long before theire is a demand to "Quit Britain?"

Posted by: MP at September 11, 2007 6:20 PM

He is also a known anti-semite. That fits!

Posted by: Gramfan at September 11, 2007 6:53 PM

Quick!

Rush a copy of "Why Christianity is the religion of peace and Islam isn't" to the archbishop

Posted by: Sir Oinks Alot at September 11, 2007 8:46 PM

This clown is not a Bishop, he is an impostor. That is why no one is listening to him anyway. His pews are filled with brain dead zombies, his flock has been butchered by Islamic wolves, their ravaged corpses wilting in the sun. He plays his fiddle and praises the oppressor. He is not a shepherd. He has no concern for his flock only for himself.

Posted by: Briars at September 11, 2007 8:57 PM

A mouthpiece and sock puppet for the Muslim Jihad. An ignoramus and an awful contemporary ornament at the fag end of all those centuries of English piety, scholarship and defiance in the face of attacks by Vikings, Danes and Muslim corsairs. The blood has finally run so thin that an Archbishop of Canterbury, no less, can't wait to bend over for his Muslim masters.

Posted by: GaryK at September 11, 2007 10:20 PM

The Archbishop of Canterbury used the eve of the anniversary of the September 11 attacks on America yesterday to defend religion against claims that it promotes division and violence.
Dr Rowan Williams said that although Islam and Christianity had histories scarred with violence, they carried the “seeds of non-violence and non possessive witness.”

Jihad, or holy war, could nowadays be interpreted as a “struggle of the heart” rather than the defence of the Muslim community against its enemies, he said.

I just finished reading Raymond Ibrahims book, "The Al-Qaeda Reader"and it is probably the most powerful book I have ever read relating to Islam (no offense, Robert and Hugh). The words of our sworn enemies reverberated with a chilling wind and sent shivers throughout my whole body. This book needs to be required reading for EVERY schoolkid, politician, pundit, talking head, Muslim "expert", free thinker.....well, every person in America! When you read, from the mouths of our enemies what their true goal is and how they will accomplish it, there can be no doubt at all that we must begin to not only take what they say seriously, but also take whatever steps are needed to defend our country, Judeo-Christian values, family and society. I am shocked and saddened that the people in power refuse to open their eyes and truly see what is in store for us if we continue to ignore what should be painfully obvious to all. I have no faith in this current administration nor any other "free" government that substantial changes will occur to derail this very real and terrifying threat to our very exsistence. I am but a mere "john doe" here in Oregon but if I can ubderstand the realities of the threat, why can't those in power who are supposed to know the difference between right and wrong do the same? A rhetorical question, to be sure but one that must be addressed before our time runs out. I see Europe as "Eurabia" (Thanks to Bat Ye'or) and soon, America as "The United States of Islam" if something isn't done, and soon. I feel Europe is done, south asia next and then........

God forbid

"Apostates of the world, Unite!"
"Stop Muslim immigration now"
"Islam, abusing women since 622AD"

Posted by: OregonJake at September 11, 2007 11:06 PM

Gandhi came from the "bania" or business caste. He had a shrewd businessman's instinct that no matter what concessions were made to the Muslims, they would want the whole hog, that they would settle for nothing less than Pakistan. As it happens I am quite happy with the creation of Pakistan, it means less Muslims in India to deal with. It seems to me that in the long run we in India got ourselves a good bargain with much of the seething ummah on the other side of the borders.
As for Gandhi telling the Jews to take it for the non-violent team, did he say this in 1944? Or more likely before WW11, when everyone who could were rushing to do business with the Nazis. When the full horror of the Nazi program was not apparent even to most Jews.(For had it been apparent, it is clear that they would have preferred to die like their ancestors of old than to be led to the gas chambers.) Anyone who lives as long as Gandhi is bound to say or do stupid things. This was one of those occassions.

Posted by: ivan at September 11, 2007 11:16 PM

Oh, on Ghandi....a man of peace? Really. For anyone interested, check up on him, as I have on good authority that during WWII he said of the Jews to just go ahead and surrender to germany as that would save them from being killed. I am sorry that I do not have the computer skills or capabilities to reference this but please, for those who want the truth about just how peaceful and tolerant Ghandi was, it is available on the net. Just wish I was smart enough to give all of you the links.

"Apostates of the world, Unite!"
"Stop Muslim immigration now"
"Islam, abusing women since 622AD"

Posted by: OregonJake at September 11, 2007 11:17 PM

"But Dr Williams argued that religion should not be judged by the failures of its adherents but on its vision of a social order that is “without fear, oppression, the violence of exclusion and the search for scapegoats"

I agree with the first part, that religions shouldn't be judged by their adherents alone, but the second part is just fuzzy thinking. It is long past the time when one can ignore failed systems under the rubric of social relativism. Islam has all the failings of Christianity during the missionary era and few of the virtues. If we in the West can sometimes feel embarrassed at our imperialist past, how can we ignore the same failings in Islam?

Posted by: Jerry M at September 11, 2007 11:22 PM

Dr. Williams said that "...mounting criticism of religion as dangerous and destablising..."

Correct. That is what religious belief must do. It must destabilise and be dangerous and think thoughts, and make such thoughts public, that seek to undermine the norm. If it doesn't do this then it is powerless and stupid. Religion doesn't exist to promote the status quo but exists to promote our God-given freedoms in Christ.

His Grace Dr. Williams also argued "...that religion should not be judged by the failures of its adherents but on its vision of a social order that is “without fear, oppression, the violence of exclusion and the search for scapegoats”...".

Brilliant! And utter balderdash when he says it! As the supreme Archbishop of the Anglican Communion (my Communion I'm ashamed to admit) he has singularly failed to defend the weak and impoverished from "fear, oppression ... exclusion and the search for scapegoats”...".

Has he defended gay people from fear and exclusion? No! Has he defended the poor amongst us from oppression and exclusion? No! Has he defended the weak from the overwheening mighty? No! Has he defended the impoverished in learning and in ability from the search for scapegoats? No! Has he defended with rigour and with the full spiritual force of the office to which he has been called, any single group in society? No, he has not! Has he defended democracy, freedom and justice with the full force of Christian belief and conviction? No, not ever, not once!

He is nothing more than a place-holder - a mere cipher - and an intellectual make-weight incapable of defending his people or the Communion which he leads in any real sense for he is so bound up in process and administration and the right way of doing things that he baulks at using his spiritual authority lest it offends someone. We in the British Anglican Communions thirst for guidance and all we get given is time-serving Canterbury! Weep for us, brethren, for our leader has lost the path.

He said that "...Gandhi’s movement showed it was possible to reject a response to oppression that “simply mirrors what has been done by the oppressor”."

Yep. That's what Ghandi's movement showed, right enough - and, ultimately, it led to a free and vibrant India. Does anyone really believe that the 'William's movement' (if such a thing exists, which I doubt very much) will lead to a free and vibrant Britain? I, for one, don't!

Canterbury is nothing more than a (willing?) dupe of a left-wing government of the UK the transparent attempts of which to destroy what remains of UK society is gradually becoming apparent to all - hopefully, a government that cannot last beyond the next election.

The order has gone out - sotto voce perhaps but, never the less, audible - from both Canterbury and York, give in, don't fight, follow the PC route, keep your heads down, don't stand up for England, don't resist the stupid march of illogicality, don't promote Christianity and freedom, don't, above all else, rock the boat. So Canterbury spouts arrant nonsense and His Grace of York, Dr. John Sentamu, goes all happy-clappy. Good grief, where does that leave the normal everyday believing Anglican? Well, let me tell you: leaving the Church of our fathers in droves, that's where.

The Anglican Communion has never been so weak and so divided as it is now - and Canterbury and York are to blame! They serve only the PC left-wing establishment who put them in power and they do not minister to their flocks. They have lost the way in Christ and their ways in the world. They do not know how to stand up to the forces of reaction nor how to react to the challenges of fundamentalism and absolutism of interpretation that face them - Canterbury creates a fog of obfuscation and York goes backward into some mythic tribal age of rythm and drumbeat and psuedo-evangelism.

And all the while the incessant beat, beat, beat of the evil that is Islam (and the evil that is Political Correctness) pounds, pounds, pounds upon the doors of faith and freedom and upon the very shores of England. Canterbury! York! For God's sake, wake up!

Posted by: OliverPCamford at September 11, 2007 11:53 PM

"Where is Henry II when we need him? Posted by: David England"

Only God knows for the perfidious French dug up his remains from the Abbey at Fontevraud and have moved the remains God knows where in the name of research. Henry died at Chinon on 6th July 1189 and was interred at Fontevraud and now, almost a thousand years later the anti-English French have finally, in their own weak and despicable way, had their revenge.

You don't believe me? Then why don't you try to find out exactly where his remains are! They won't tell you!

And you wonder why Englishmen loath the French!

Posted by: OliverPCamford at September 12, 2007 12:09 AM

BTW, they've also dug up Eleanor of Acquitaine Richard the Lion Heart and his sister-in-law Isabella of Angouleme.

Go on! Now go rent "The Lion in Winter!"

Bloody French!

Posted by: OliverPCamford at September 12, 2007 12:16 AM

And they have the sheer gall (or perhaps, to give a bad pun, the 'sheer Gaul') to call it the 'Abbaye Royale de Fontrevaud'

What an insult when they cannot respect our Royal line! But that's the idiot French for you - anything to insult the English, regardless of how much harm it does they just can't help themselves.

Posted by: OliverPCamford at September 12, 2007 12:28 AM

Heavens, I hate the French and their mocking, superior ways - probably more than I hate the Muslims. That's what you Americans will never understand - the divisions in Europe run so deep and so visceral that we find it almost impossible to unite behind you in your campaign (justified and accepted on an intellectual level) for freedom.

Ancient hatreds and distrusts run deep - that's the problem!

But trust the French? Nah, no freeborn Englishman ever could! And there's the rub!

Posted by: OliverPCamford at September 12, 2007 12:41 AM

Where is Henry II when we need him?

Posted by: David England

Oliver

They dug up King Richard I? Robin Hood & Ivanhoe's King Richard?

Posted by: Infidel Pride at September 12, 2007 12:49 AM

"They dug up King Richard I? Robin Hood & Ivanhoe's King Richard?" Posted by: Infidel Pride.

Yep, and they, the stupid, prideful, ridiculous, vengefull French refuse to tell us where the bones now lie and to what end they are holding them!

Worse, they refuse to re-inter them at L'Abbaye Fontrevaud because the abbey is, apparently, a 'French National Monument' and cannot, therefore, 'be home to the remains of a derelict English King'.

For Heaven's sake, countries have gone to war over lesser insults than that! Who the Hell do these stupid French peasants think they are?

And why, oh God why, do my countrymen not feel as incensed as I do over this issue? Am I, in some sense, unique? Does nobody share the sentiments of blood and struggle and freedom that I do? Does anyone out there see the sources of freedoms?

Seems not, doesn't it?

Posted by: OliverPCamford at September 12, 2007 1:17 AM

What is it with the Brits and Islam?

Posted by: Elric66 at September 12, 2007 7:37 AM

The English people gave up thaire guns and now are completely at the mercy of PC elites. The PC elites are now selling them down the river.

Another 9/11 in the US and Islam will be snufted out in the US. But England will take 7/7 over and over with the PC elites caving in every time.

Posted by: Ruebacca at September 12, 2007 9:50 AM

But Dr Williams argued that religion should not be judged by the failures of its adherents but on its vision of a social order that is “without fear, oppression, the violence of exclusion and the search for scapegoats.

This man seems to be singularly ignorant of Christianity for someone who is an archbishop.
Strange.

Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
16 By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
17 Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but the corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
18 A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 Therefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Posted by: treehugger at September 12, 2007 10:13 AM

hi elric

some of us brits actually don't like islam.. as for the Archbishop he's a complete wanker along with the future king. and then there's dear old terry waite, finally lost his marbles and thinks we should negotiate with the more moderate (!!!!!) members of a-q .....
we need excalibur's return.

Posted by: frakked at September 12, 2007 10:29 AM

I feel for you frakked. We have our own idiots that think appeasing Muslims will solve our problems.

You have a good pulse of the British people. Is it the common feeling to appease Islam or is it just the leadership? Are the Brits actually aware of the dhimmification of the UK and want it to stop? I am truly interested since its seems the UK is lost and I do hope that its not as bad as it seems. I dont want Britian to fall. I look at the UK as our closest friend and ally.

Posted by: Elric66 at September 12, 2007 10:47 AM

I am more and more saddened, dismayed and baffled as I watch the country of my ancestors lie down supine, practically begging Muslims to grind them into the dust, to supplant them; as I see English leaders in the monarchy, the government—national and local, the church, the educational establishment, the media, the “intelligentsia” giving up, hell, throwing out and trampling on their English heritage and culture and what used to be called Judeo-Christian civilization--which they evidently despise—without so much as a good demonstration, much less a good fight from those in opposition. Is there any organized, strong opposition, because, from here, it sure doesn’t seem like there is.

What the hell happened to bring the England and the Englishmen--inheritors of an illustrious and glittering heritage of more than a thousand years--who endured so much, sacrificed so much and came out of WWII victorious, to today’s apparently almost universal, suicidal denial, impotence and ennui? If there are those opposed to this accelerating slide into oblivion, where are they and are they doing anything effective to counter this rush toward the black hole?

Posted by: GaryK at September 12, 2007 11:15 AM

The Archbishop of Canterbury should be stripped balls naked and thrown in the nearest mosque as penance. What a moron. Where did these idiots come from and end up in positions of responsibility? It baffles the mind!

Posted by: Truthseeker at September 12, 2007 11:55 AM

Why is this dumbass using Ghandi as an example? He is supposed to represent Christianity, I mean he's an Archbishop.
Could he be one of the "wolves in sheep's clothing" Jesus spoke of?
/rhetorical

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 12, 2007 11:55 AM

The Archbishop of Canterbury should be stripped balls naked and thrown in the nearest mosque as penance. What a moron. Where did these idiots come from and end up in positions of responsibility? It baffles the mind!

Posted by: Truthseeker at September 12, 2007 11:56 AM

Here is an article about Ghandi...
It tells the story of how he denied his wife antibiotics that would have saved her life, but he took quinine when he contracted malaria. What a guy!
http://history.eserver.org/ghandi-nobody-knows.txt

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 12, 2007 12:08 PM

From my link above:
The term
"Jew," also, has a reasonably hard profile, and I feel all Jews sitting
emotionally at the movie 'Gandhi' should be apprised of the advice that the
Mahatma offered their co-religionists when faced with the Nazi peril: they should
commit collective suicide. If only the Jews of Germany had the good sense to
offer their throats willingly to the Nazi butchers' knives and throw themselves
into the sea from cliffs they would arouse world public opinion, Gandhi was
convinced, and their moral triumph would be remembered for "ages to come." If
they would only pray for Hitler (as their throats were cut, presumably), they
would leave a "rich heritage to mankind."

Posted by: interestinconundrum at September 12, 2007 12:21 PM

From my link above:
The term
"Jew," also, has a reasonably hard profile, and I feel all Jews sitting
emotionally at the movie 'Gandhi' should be apprised of the advice that the
Mahatma offered their co-religionists when faced with the Nazi peril: they should
commit collective suicide. If only the Jews of Germany had the good sense to
offer their throats willingly to the Nazi butchers' knives and throw themselves
into the sea from cliffs they would arouse world public opinion, Gandhi was
convinced, If
they would only pray for Hitler (as their throats were cut, presumably), they
would leave a "rich heritage to mankind."
Posted by: interestinconundrum [TypeKey Profile Page] at September 12, 2007 12:21 PM

Seems 2 me that the holocost will make them remembered for all time

Posted by: ooddballz at September 13, 2007 6:10 AM

Thanks, Atheling, for the link to the outrageous conduct of the police in Belgium against the peaceful 9/11 demonstration. Here is an English-language link with the videotape:

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/sep/07091202.html

Is this what we can expect when the left takes over? No freedom of speech or assembly? I was upset by this video. The demonstrators were totally peaceful, yet the police abused them.

Posted by: Rahman bin Rahman at September 13, 2007 8:27 AM