Ken Livingstone was ‘hit by Jewish rows’

Only a fool would insists that there is absolutely no correlation between religion and politics, and only a foolish politician in a democracy would purposely ignore or caricature a particular ethno-religious group to the extent that an entire constituency became alienated or offended by their words or actions.

But this is precisely what Ken Livingstone did to London’s Jews, and outgoing deputy mayor Nicky Gavron has acknowledged that ‘the Qaradawi and Finegold incidents had cost Ken Livingstone Jewish votes’. In Barnet and Camden — the constituency with the highest Jewish population — his vote dropped from 37.7 per cent in 2004 to 35.4 per cent.

Ms Gavron is herself Jewish – indeed, she was the only Jew on the London Assembly – and so one wonders why she did not urge Mr Livingstone to apologise a lot earlier than he did for comparing Jewish journalist Oliver Finegold to a concentration-camp guard. He would never have dared to compare a Muslim journalist to Chemical Ali or one of Saddam’s murderous republican guard, and so one can only conclude he was rather more concerned with courting the Muslim vote that the Jewish one.

Yet one also has to wonder where Ms Gavron was when in 2005 Mr Livingstone welcomed the radical Islamic cleric Sheikh Al Yusuf Qaradawi, who apparently advocates the murder of homosexuals and Israeli civilians and the beating-up of women. She was completely silent at the time, but now admits: ‘It was very damaging in relation to the Jewish vote… it did cause offence.’

It most certainly did, and not only to Jews, for the views of Sheikh Al Yusuf Qaradawi are offensive to reasonable people of all faiths. Indeed, there emerged a rainbow coalition of gays, lesbians, feminists, Sikhs, Hindus, Jews, secularists and democrats, all ranged against Mayor Livingstone, but all he could do was apologise to the Sheikh for the ‘outbreak of xenophobia and hysteria’ and their ‘underlying ignorance of Islam’.

Ms Gavron’s numerous omissions in her duty to advise Mayor Livingstone lend credence to the assertion that London is best rid of them both, for had Mr Livingstone won a third term, she would undoubtedly have continued as his deputy. And she had been considering implementing ‘a green plan for London Jewry’. Neville Sassienie, chair of the Board of Deputies social-issues action group, said: ‘We were discussing co-operation over a scheme for greening London Jewry and beginning to work with the Greater London Authority’s environmental people. We very much hope it will continue under the new mayor.’

Cranmer rather hopes rather emphatically that it will not. He could not believe that Mayor Boris would wish to pander to any particular ethnic or faith group in such a fashion, but will instead treat all Londoners quite simply as Londoners.

What would the reaction be to ‘greening London’s Muslims’ or ‘greening London’s Sikhs’? Such a focus is not only offensive, patronising and alienating, but it suggests a degree of ethical deficiency on the part of the specified group.

Or how about the deliciously alliterative ‘greening London’s gays’?

But then perhaps green isn’t their colour.

‘Greening London’s Jewry’ is as divisive as anything in a Qaradawi rant, and London’s Jewry were evidently right to support Boris Johnson.

And so were London’s Christians, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Buddhist, Atheists and Jedi Knights, who can all rest asured that they shall be treated equally and respectfully under the new mayoralty.

MPs: Godlessness is ‘making us miserable’

Considering the view of Tony Blair that politicians who ‘do God’ are ‘nutters’, it is a brave group of MPs who dare to issue a report which concludes that Britons are unhappy not because they are materially poor but because they are in spiritual poverty. The Daily Telegraph continues:

A report by a cross-party group of Christian MPs says the country is wallowing in misery despite increasing wealth and emphasis on happiness in schools.

Their study states: "One impetus behind this project was our sense that there is a strong feeling of disaffection among the inhabitants of these islands. It seemed to us that our national sense of wellbeing is at a low ebb; people are wanting something more out of life.

"Given all the advances of recent years, we seek to understand why a sense of human wellbeing – happiness if you like – is not more widespread."

They claim society lacks a sense of well-being because of a loss of faith in God and religion.
They point to the large number of self-help books on happiness available in bookshops, and research which claims people are no happier than 50 years ago despite increased personal wealth.

The authors claim people are pursuing money at the expense of relationships, the environment and respect for each other.

The report continues: "Our solutions do not involve yet more law or increased taxes, but rather a call to re-examine the decisions taken in every sector of society in the light of crucial life-changing principles."

They say all companies and MPs should consider whether any proposed decision will improve relationships in people's families and communities, and whether it is socially and globally responsible.

The authors claim everyone's wellbeing would improve if Christian values were taken more seriously in society.

Gary Streeter, a Conservative MP and a member of the working party, said: "I think many policymakers sense these things, but don't know what to do about it.

"The faith communities have a great opportunity to lead here, but only if they stop carping and being against everything and start to be more positive. It is as much a message to the faith communities as other opinion formers."

But Cranmer is shamed by the ‘political correctness’ and multi-faith-pussy-footing-around that this report appears to promulgate. There is no ‘loss of faith in God and religion’ in the UK; indeed, according to the last census and the rising numbers of those attending mosques, gurdwaras and mandirs, religion is thriving. And these religions would deem that they all practice ‘Christian values’, as would many non-believers. And so the report calls for leadership from ‘the faith communities’ who must ‘stop carping and being against everything’.

Well, Mr Streeter, your view of faith communities is somewhat limited by your own experience of them, and that cannot be very great. If this ‘carping’ and ‘being against everything’ is supposed to refer to campaigns likes those of prominent Roman Catholic clerics against human/animal hybrids, or of Nadine Dorries against abortion, you might like to consider the scriptural injunctions to contend for the faith, and contention is what the faith demands, for we are not concerned with our popularity in the world, but with the approval of God.

And this God is the God and Father of the Lord Jesus Christ, with whom the Son is consubstantial, co-eternal and indivisible. And the report omitted to mention that the religion which is being lost is the Christian religion, and the God who is set aside is the Christian God, and the only holy book which is impugned is the Bible, and the only fellowship of believers who are treated with contempt is the Church.

And Cranmer thinks this to be worthy indeed of more than a little carping.

Turkey and Pork

As Her Majesty the Queen lays a wreath at at the tomb of Kemal Attaturk, the founder of modern ‘secular’ Turkey, she could be forgiven for failing to notice that there is something of a constitutional crisis going on.

The Turkish constitution separates religion from party politics in order to preserve democracy. But Prime Minister Erdoğan has abused this separation, evidenced primarily in the erosion of the distinction between religious and secular public education. He has also embarked on a programme of obligatory retirement of thousands of secular judges - which amounts to those who dared to question his interpretation of the constitution - and replaced them with AKP apparatchiks. He also has instituted an interview process - controlled by party loyalists - designed to evaluate government technocrats on the basis of religiosity rather than merit. Turkish Air employees, for example, have even been questioned on their belief in the Qur’an.

Prime Minister Erdoğan also displays unprecedented (in Turkey) hostility towards the press. He has sued dozens of journalists and editors, and has confiscated whole newspapers - such as Sabah, the national daily - which he deemed too critical or independent, and transferred their control to political allies. Journalists such as Vatan's Can Ataklı and Reha Muhtar, television commentator Nihat Genç, Sky Turk's Serdar Akinan, and Kanal Türk's Tuncay Özkan are now under fire either for their own criticism or, in the case of the television announcers, for their guests' criticism of the ruling party.

Prime Minister Erdoğan has treated courts, both international and domestic, with disdain. After the European Court of Human Rights decided against permitting headscarves in Turkish universities, he declared that ‘only ulama (Islamic religious scholars) could’ issue such a judgment. In several instances, Erdoğan has refused to uphold the Supreme Court's decisions when it ruled against the AKP's confiscation of political opponents' property. In a moment reminiscent of Henry II, a follower gunned down a justice after the prime minister launched a fusillade against the Court.

If all this were deemed insufficient evidence of a distinct agenda, it is reported that the nation’s pork farmers and butchers are being singled out for special treatment, all in the name of EU harmonisation.

Eating pork, which is of course forbidden in Islam, became very popular in secular high society. But ‘religious dictates have begun creeping into their lives since a government led by devout Muslims took power’. Turkey's pork industry is now ‘on the brink of extinction’ as Christians ‘have long since left or been forced out’.

Butchers are being prevented from slaughtering pigs by the Agriculture Ministry, which is simply refusing to renew abattoir licences because they ‘do not meet strict new regulations’. And curiously, it is only the slaughter houses that deal with pork which are failing: those that deal with beef, chicken or lamb are passing with flying colours.

And one butcher confides that ‘none of us dares speak out’ because ‘it's all about Islam’.

He says: ‘Most people are more religious these days. They don't want to eat pork, and they don't let others produce it either.’ And another reveals: ‘The government doesn't announce out loud that it has banned the pig farms, but at the end of the day, that's what's happened here. They're trying to send a message to their religious constituents.’

Ironically, this is all ‘to bring Turkey up to European standards’ of Enlightenment.

And the affirmation of Her Majesty is just the sort of high-level and prestigious support Prime Minister Erdoğan has sought for his quest to join the EU.

Cranmer hopes they enjoy their state banquet. Doubtless pork chops shall not be on the menu.

Abortion: the largest cause of death in Europe

“We condemn torture, rape - anything that uses another's body for our own purpose. Shouldn't we show embryos similar respect?”

So asks the Archbishop of Canterbury.

As the Government's Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is debated in detail in the House of Commons, they shall consider ‘saviour siblings’, and animal/human hybrid embryos. And some shall ask why ‘religious bigots’ should seek to impose their irrational views on the enlightened part of society, while those of a religious hue (joined undoubtedly by many concerned non-believers) shall ask why science presumes to instruct legislators and dispense with the conscience.

Dr Williams asserts: ‘Conscientious objections about the Bill are not a matter of blind superstition. They arise from serious concerns about where the direction of some sorts of research might lead society. "Slippery slope" arguments don't settle the question, but they can't be ignored. And I, for one, am grateful that both scientists and politicians are willing to recognise there is a serious debate to be had on these matters of conscience, and more is at stake than just a set of irrational prejudices.”

The Archbishop also notes ‘the pressure from some quarters to take this opportunity to reduce the time limits for abortion’.

And this is to be a very interesting battle, and one which is worthy of cross-party support. But in the blue corner is Nadine Dorries MP with her demand for a reduction to 20 weeks, and in the red corner is a Labour counter-amendment, demanding a reduction to 22 weeks. Never has a division on a point of morality assured such mutual destruction, and it is madness. One might think, if Labour members were really concerned with this, that they would have supported the Dorries amendment, but no. They have made the issue party political, seeking to bring in their own (much less effective) amendment, and a house divided against itself cannot stand.

And this comes amidst a report that establishes that there is a marital breakdown and an abortion in Europe almost every 30 seconds:

‘Marriage and birth rates are falling dramatically, pensioners now outnumber teenagers, and more and more people are living alone, says the Institute for family policy in a survey of life in the 27 EU countries.’

And perversely ‘one in every five pregnancies ends in abortion’, which amounts to 1.2 million a year - equivalent to the population of Slovenia. This makes abortion the largest single cause of death in Europe.

And so almost one million (920,089) fewer babies were born in the 27 EU countries last year than in 1980. There are six million more over-65s than under-14s in Europe, compared with 36 million more children than pensioners in 1980.

And this demographic time-bomb is suffixed with the observation that ‘the fact that the number of EU inhabitants has increased at all is largely due to immigration’. It transpires that ‘84 per cent of population growth in 2000-2007 is attributable to arrivals from beyond EU borders’.

And one wonders why there are concerns that the EU has passed a resolution announcing that children have a 'right' to abortion (or rather 'sexual and reproductive health and family planning education and services') and that this 'must' be an 'integral part of thje future EU strategy on the rights of the child'.

One wonders if there is any point expending energy in opposing the EU, for it is clearly intent on its own self-destruction.

The importance of teaching the ‘real history’ of Britain

The Daily Mail reports on the story of the headmaster of an independent school who has scrapped the ‘PC syllabus' in order ‘to teach pupils the REAL (sic) history of Britishness’. In particular, the school is addressing the deficiencies in the teaching of religious education, history and geography, because they ‘fail to give pupils a proper understanding of Britain's past’.

While Cranmer is wholly supportive of this headmaster, he is a little puzzled by the inference of a pedagogical revelation, and also by the suggestion that this constitutes a minor revolution in private education, for private schools have never been bound by the limitations of the National Curriculum, and have never therefore been obliged to conform to any ‘PC syllabus’.

Headmaster Richard Cairns said children ‘loved being told historical stories’ but the ‘official curriculum had reduced traditional subjects to a collection of “bite-sized” topics and skills’. Again, the ‘official curriculum’ is denigrated, while a very great deal would be down to individual teachers. ‘Bite-sized’ teachers tend to deliver ‘bite-sized’ lessons, and it is poor teaching, not the ‘official curriculum’, which is to blame for the fact that ‘around a quarter of children believed Winston Churchill was a fictional character and many more were unable to place countries such as Afghanistan on a map’.

And so Mr Cairns’ new curriculum is called ‘From Nero to Ground Zero’, and intends to cover ‘the broad sweep of history from zero AD to the 21st century over six lessons a week’. We are told: ‘Geography and RE would be introduced for example through studying volcanoes while covering Pompeii or Jewish immigration to Britain in the 19th century’.

How can teaching on volcanoes have ever been ‘PC’? Is the flow of lava subject to gender? Was Vesuvius portrayed as a judgement on the homosexual orgies of Pompeii? In geography, Cranmer is more concerned with the brainwashing of the nation’s children against capitalism, the reams of free ‘information’ being poured into the nation’s schools by the EU with an unquestioning adherence to the CAP, the warped perspectives of ‘child exploitation’ in the third world, and the exaltation of the green agenda with the ‘truth’ of global warming. Geography teachers tend to be pathological Europhiliac, U.N.-supporting Socialists, and any questioning of their learning is met with derision.

Cranmer agrees with Mr Cairns when he observes that too many children ‘have no sense of their history, no sense of their past and no sense of the historical landscape that surrounds them every day’. He observes: ‘We go to great lengths in England quite rightly to understand the culture of others who have come to England but don't provide as much time as we should for children to understand our own culture. We should stop being ashamed of being British. We very hesitant about talking about the past because obviously in the past in every society people did things we would not do today. Slavery existed - that was wrong. But Britain had an important role in the development of the world for good or ill.’

And is music to the ears that he has the support of the Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families, Michael Gove MP, who suggests ‘trendy 1960s and 1970s teaching theories were still prevalent in schools and even gaining ground in subjects such as history and science’.

He observes that too much teaching was ‘child centred’ and failed to pass on to pupils core bodies of knowledge. Children are ‘instead being encouraged to master "skills" and empathise with historical characters’. He states: “Part of the problem with the way the history curriculum has developed is that it doesn't give people a proper understanding of how this country has developed. The history curriculum doesn't give people the opportunity to take pride in this country's story. I don't think there has been such an emphasis on narrative and causality because there has been too much emphasis on empathy and skills."

And all of this Mr Gove attributes to ‘progressive educational theories’ which have ‘damaged the prospects of generations’. And yet these are ‘still in favour across much of the so-called "educational establishment".’

And his remedy is that ‘children needed to be taught knowledge as well as skills so they could "truly become masters of the best that's been thought, spoken and written".’

And it is this ‘knowledge’ which will present problems, for there are so few teachers familiar with the notion of epistemological tensions that they genuinely believe that their opinion is fact, and they are blindly content to dispense the perspectives of one textbook (or the degree they earned 20 years ago) as if it were revealed scripture. And when one reads accounts of the conferences of the National Union of Teachers, it is certain that something needs to be done, for it is indeed the ‘educational establishment’ that will hold back much-needed reform in education.

Is there just a hint in Mr Gove’s analysis that he is considering abolishing the National Curriculum, and that he intends to take on the National Union of Teachers in the same fashion as Margaret Thatcher took on the National Union of Mineworkers?

One lives in hope, and that hope certainly keeps one joyful (Rom 12:12).

And Cranmer wishes all his readers and communicants richest blessings on this glorious Whitsun (the significance of which is also no longer taught in the nation's schools, though all children will doubtless be familiar with Eid and Diwali).

EU invokes God for the salvation of Mother Earth

It is a supreme irony that an institution built on the rock of Roman Catholic social doctrine is sliding toward the shifting sand of secularism, and it is a secularism that is syncretically fused with all manner of ad hoc multi-faith spirituality that there is certain to be something that appeals to everyone

- except the discerning.

The latest Brussels religio-political initiative is concerned with spreading the green gospel for the propagation of an ‘environmentally friendly society’, and so invitations were sent out to the four corners of the earth for religious VIPs to assist in this climate change evangelism. The convened meeting would also usefully promote ‘tolerance between different confessions in Europe’.

They are not that different, though, since the élite consists of 19 men and one woman from European Christian, Jewish and Muslim congregations. While the gender imbalance should have alerted the EU’s equalities watchdog, it has to be observed that this was a distinctly Abrahamic gathering, with no Hindus, no Sikhs, and no Buddhists, which is rather strange considering that these are the faiths to whose karmic doctrine the Mother Earth agenda is intrinsic. The Scientologists were also a little peeved to have received no invitation. And the Jedi Knight fraternity are yet to appoint a spokesperson.

The meeting was chaired by European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso, who told a press conference that ‘churches, mosques and temples could all play an important role in identifying and implementing solutions to the challenge of climate change’.

Well, actually, no. Not least because they do not all accept the premise that global warming is scientifically proven, and Pope Benedict himself has had the good sense to refute the assertions and observe the emergence of a pseudo-cult of Mother Earth worship.

But this is not stopping President Barroso, who, speaking of the EU’s religious élite, intones: “Thanks to their moral authority, their outreach and their structure, they are well placed to make a valuable contribution, mobilising our societies for a sustainable future.”

Prime Minister Jansa (of Slovenia), referring to both the Bible and the Qur’an, said: "Earth was created and given to man, and man has to be respectful of what he has been given," and called for what the late Pope John Paul II described as an ‘ecological conversion’.

"The success in the fights against climate change relies to a great extent on changes in our habits, in our philosophies in our world outlook and the consumer society that has created superficial needs - needs that justify consumption."

But the president of the Council of European Bishops' Conferences (COMECE) – an exclusively Roman Catholic conference – is ignoring the wise concerns of His Holiness, and has called for the appointment of a ‘High Representative for Future Generations’.

Cranmer would rather they worry about the considerable problems of today and let tomorrow take care of itself.

According the the EUObserver report, some MEPs have in the past questioned the presence of religious figures in strictly political fora in Brussels: ‘The parliament's Party Working Group on the Separation of Religion and Politics in a letter to Hans-Gert Poettering last year wrote: "It is unbecoming for any of the EU institutions to provide an exclusive platform to any particular grouping, including religions, in particular as the majority of European citizens are not religious or no longer practice their religion. Thus millions of individual citizens do not have a voice in the dialogue.”’

Cranmer rather doubts the assertion that ‘the majority of European citizens are not religious’, but it is to be observed that the only exclusive platform which is affirmed by this Working Group is the secular one – and there is nothing remotely alienating or insular about that: it is, of course, supremely neutral, tolerant, and just.

Gerald Howarth MP: ‘This is a Christian country and that we owe everything to our Christian tradition.’

While Labour are intent on the systematic eradication of every last vestige of Christian expression from public life, it has fallen to the Conservative Party to advocate on behalf of sincere and worried believers the length and breadth of the country, who collectively have the undeniable impression that their faith is under siege. Cranmer was enthralled by the debate in the House of Commons on Tuesday concerning amendments to abolish the common law criminal offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel. The debate touched on secularism, Islam, disestablishment, and the merits and demerits of maintaining a distinctly Christian national identity. The whole debate may be read in Hansard, and there were excellent contributions from Edward Leigh, Ann Widdecombe, Bill Cash, and Gerald Howarth (with predictable opposition from John Bercow and Dr Evan Harris). But until Mr Howarth rose to speak, it was the amusing observation of Edward Leigh that all those who had spoken in favour of the Established Church of England had been exclusively Roman Catholic, there being so few convicted Anglicans in the House.

It was heartening to hear such a grasp of history and an appreciation of Anglican theology on the Conservative benches, and Cranmer would like to share Gerald Howarth’s speech (minus interventions):

Mr. Gerald Howarth: “I am a simple sort of chap, and a member of the Church of England. I think I am the first member of the Church of England to speak in support of the maintenance of this law—a view I have come to on balance, not slavishly.

“I start from the premise of my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) that this is a Christian country and that we owe everything to our Christian tradition. This nation has been forged and fashioned down the centuries by its Christian tradition. Every Act of Parliament is prefaced by reference to the support of the Lords temporal and spiritual and the Commons assembled. That indicates that our Christian faith has played a hugely important part. Therefore, while I have enjoyed the frivolities of this evening’s proceedings, we should be under no illusions that a serious issue is at stake. I am afraid that I am not interested in the Joint Committee on Human Rights or the European Court of Human Rights; I am interested in my views and beliefs, which are profoundly held and shared by a lot of people in this country.

“There is a message coming through here, particularly from the hon. Member for Cambridge (David Howarth), who treated us to something that was more in the way of a Cambridge union debate than dealing with the practicalities of the concerns of the people of this country. Those of other religions who have come here down the centuries have done so in the full knowledge that this is a Christian country. One of the reasons why they come here is that our Christian faith is a tolerant faith—one that allows mosques to be built and that allows people to observe their traditions, to bring those traditions with them and to practise them. It is a mistake that some of them should now assert that, because they have come here in rather large numbers, they should be entitled to overturn centuries of tradition in this country. That is a mistake that we should resist…

“The hon. Member for Cambridge suggested that people less exalted than us are in fear that their Christianity is under threat. He is absolutely right - they do think that, and they are alarmed that the Government of the day appear to be completely preoccupied with minorities and take no account of their genuinely felt concerns. What they are looking for is somebody who is going to stand up for their concerns and articulate them in simple language, saying, “This is a Christian country—this is the way we do it here. My friend, if you don’t like it, go and do it somewhere else.” It is all perfectly straightforward.

“The Minister relied, as Ministers of course do, on the assertion of the Government’s new religion, which is discrimination: anything that is discriminatory is to be resisted, if not completely rejected. Her case is completely destroyed. Of course the law of blasphemy is discriminatory—but then, as was pointed out to her, so is the fact that the Church of England is the established Church. That discriminates against everybody else. It is a discrimination that unless one is a member of the House of Hanover, now the House of Windsor, one cannot ascend to the throne. That discriminates against every Eagle, every Smith, every Howarth in the land. Discrimination is there; it is in our midst. We are discriminating every day of our lives; we discriminate when we go to the shops. The idea that the Government should somehow rest their case on discrimination is a mistake and indicates that they are going down the wrong track.

“Furthermore and as has also been pointed out, we have Christian prayers in this place, which you, Mr. Speaker, of course preside over. I have been waiting for the day when there are calls to end this practice. I shall resist that for all the reasons I have just given; we should maintain these traditional prayers…

“Clearly, this is an undisguised attempt at promoting the case for the disestablishment of the Church of England. One of the reasons why this is a serious issue is, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) expressed it—he did so articulately, as ever— because some Christians feel under threat. However, the promotion of the Church of England as the established Church in this country is important for other reasons. I can tell him that a Jewish headmistress, whom I was sitting next to at a lunch—I believe that it was for the Conservative Friends of Israel, so a huge number of people attended—said, “It is very important to our school that there continues to be an established Church, because it provides some protection to us in the practising of our religion.” That message must not be forgotten.

“Talking of messages, my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Bone) rightly pointed out that we are dealing not simply with a law that is perhaps anachronistic and perhaps has had difficulty being interpreted in the courts—I am at one with the view of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) that a lack of will was the reason why “Jerry Springer: The Opera” escaped what should have been a proper prosecution that led to conviction—but with a law that is symbolic.

“The act of abolition in which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon wishes to rejoice will send out a signal to the entire nation. It is a dreadful time for this House to indicate that it no longer feels that religion is important and that the Church of England has a central role to play in our life in this country. It is a time when we desperately need to reassert moral values in this country. The fact that the archbishops have deserted the field is unfortunate, because that again sends out the wrong message, but my simple role in the Church is as a mere church warden. The Minister is wrong to suggest that no drift to secularisation is likely to flow from this proposal, because that is what will happen—indeed, it is happening—and it is an important time to reassert moral values.

“Furthermore, this act of abolishing the law of blasphemy also carries with it a risk that nothing is sacred in our country and that nothing ought to be given some sort of special protection. Our children will not understand if this House says that it is not important, because why then should anything be sacred? That would send a dreadful message to the young people of our country…

“I think that this is no time to be abolishing the law of blasphemy. I say that not necessarily because prosecutions of tomorrow will be denied, but because abolition would send a dangerous signal to this nation at a very difficult time for it.”

It is people like Gerald Howarth, and indeed all those who spoke eloquently in defence of the nation's Christian heritage, who deserve our prayers. They are manifestly the 'salt of the earth', which may irritate, but it also cleanses and heals. They know to do good, and so they do it, irrespective of the humiliating taunts and ridicule they receive at the hands of the likes of Mssrs Bercow and Evans.

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake.

The UN on Israel’s human rights record

Cranmer has received notification from the Anglican Friends of Israel of the first ever UK 'Salute to Israel' parade. He also received the following missive. He finds it curious the intolerance, hate and irrational invective he receives whenever he posts on Israel, that he cannot resist but to do so again:

"Sixty years after its birth, Israel continues to test the proposition that reality counts for more than perception.

"The Web site eyeontheun.org keeps a running tally of all United Nations resolutions, decisions and reports condemning this or that country for this or that human rights violation (real or alleged). Between January 2003 and March 2008, tiny Israel - its population not half that of metropolitan Cairo's - was condemned no fewer than 635 times. The runners-up were Sudan at 280, the Democratic Republic of the Congo at 209, and Burma at 183. North Korea was cited a mere 60 times, a third as many as the United States.

"Is Israel the world's foremost abuser of human rights? A considerable segment of world opinion thinks that it is, while an equally considerable segment of elite opinion thinks that, even if it isn't, its behaviour is nonetheless reprehensible by civilized standards.

"I would argue the opposite: that no other country has been so circumspect in using force against the provocations of its enemies. Nor has any so consistently preserved the civil liberties of its own citizens. That goes double in a country so constantly beset by so many threats to its existence that its government would long ago have been justified in imposing a perpetual state of emergency.

"For reasons both telling and mysterious, Israel has become unpopular among that segment of public opinion that calls itself progressive. This is the same progressive segment that believes in women's rights, gay rights, the rights to a fair trial and to appeal, freedom of speech and conscience, judicial checks on parliamentary authority. These are rights that exist in Israel and nowhere else in the Middle East. So why is it that the country that is most sympathetic to progressive values gets the least of progressive sympathies?

"The answer, it is said, is that as democratic as Israel may be in its domestic politics, it is nothing but bloody-minded as far as its foes are concerned. In May 2002, at the height of the so-called al-Aqsa Intifada, I reviewed Israeli and Palestinian casualty figures, sticking to Palestinian sources for Palestinian numbers and Israeli sources for Israeli ones. Much was then being made in the Western media of the fact that three times as many Palestinians as Israelis had been killed in the conflict - evidence, supposedly, that despite the suicide bombings, lynchings and roadside ambushes perpetrated daily against Israelis, Palestinians were the ones who really were getting it in the neck.

"But drilling down into the data, something interesting turned up. At the time, 1,296 Palestinians had been killed by Israelis - of whom a grand total of 37, or 2.8%, were female. By contrast, of the 496 Israelis killed by Palestinians (including 138 soldiers and policemen), there were 126 female fatalities, or 25%.

"To be female is a fairly reliable indicator of being a non-combatant. Females are also half the population. If Israel had been guilty of indiscriminate violence against Palestinians, the ratio of male-to-female fatalities would not have been 35-1.

"These are not complicated facts. Yet the effort to think them through is rarely made. Is it laziness? I think not, because the image of demonic Israel, presented in copiously footnoted and ingeniously mendacious books like "The Israel Lobby," is the product of a great deal of effort.

"Is it anti-Semitism? One dare not suggest it, since the standard by which anti-Jewish bigotry is judged today is considerably stricter than what is usually used in the face of allegations of racism, sexism or homophobia.

"But whatever it is, the constant assault on Israel's morality has had its effect. Beyond Hamas, beyond Hezbollah, beyond the competition between Jewish and Arab numbers west of the Jordan River and the ever-growing number of Iranian centrifuges spinning a nuclear future for Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Israel is beset by the fear that, being unloved, it is unworthy. "The anti-Semite makes the Jew," said Jean-Paul Sartre, as if Jewishness was something conferred rather than practised.

"A sibling notion, seemingly benign but insidious, is that Israel's right to exist rests ultimately with the acquiescence of others, which in turn is a function of their perceptions. This is also known as "legitimacy."

"Perhaps not surprisingly for a state that was born of a U.N. resolution (which the U.N. has never since ceased trying to disavow), Israel has been uniquely mindful of how it is perceived. Yet a nation that constantly feels the need to demonstrate its right to exist, rather than simply assert it, puts itself to an endless test, which it may someday fail.

Then again, look at the headlines in the copy of the May 16, 1948, Palestine (later Jerusalem) Post, reproduced nearby. That was a nation in far greater peril than the one that exists today. For 60 years, it has survived mainly through courageous and improbable acts of assertion, yielding an unfolding set of realities that defied perception. It's the only formula by which Israel's next 60 years may be assured."

Greetings from President Shimon Peres on Israel’s 60th anniversary

Dear Friends,

As we stand poised to celebrate Israel's 60th Anniversary, we can only but look back on our achievements with a great deal of pride. From its inception, practically rising from the ashes of the unspeakable horrors of the Holocaust, Israel has had to fight for its survival through 7 wars and relentless attacks on its very existence. Yet we persisted in turning the vision of a homeland for the Jewish people into reality.

We have created a model democracy, an independent judiciary system and set ourselves at the forefront of fields such as science and technology, hi-tech, agriculture and medicine, to name but some of the areas in which Israel excels.

But we should not allow ourselves to rest on our laurels. We must seek to educate our younger generation for leadership roles in our 3 Tomorrows:

The Israel Tomorrow, The Jewish Tomorrow and The Global Tomorrow.

We must bridge the growing social gaps in our country. We must cultivate stronger ties with the Jewish Diaspora and engage the young in these communities to connect with Israel. We must initiate breakthroughs in spheres such as nano-technology, desalination to alleviate water shortages, find alternative sources of energy, green the desert and make inroads in ever more sophisticated medical applications. During these years, we have made peace with Egypt and Jordan and hope that the peace negotiations with the Palestinians will bear fruit.

We must be true to the values dictated by our Prophets, a legacy that has united the Jewish people through the ages and that must continue to serve as our beacon for the generations to come.

As Israel celebrates 60 years of independence I wish the citizens of our country, the Jewish people and our friends throughout the world a peaceful and prosperous anniversary year.

Shimon Peres
President of the State of Israel

Cardinal Kasper: Anglicans must choose between Protestantism and Catholicism

The Times reports on this ultimatum, delivered to the Anglican Communion by Cardinal Walter Kasper, the president of the Pontifical Council of Christian Unity. It is, he asserts, time for the Anglican Church to choose between Catholicism and Orthodoxy of the first millennium, or Protestantism of the 16th century. It is time for Anglicanism to ‘clarify its identity’ because it is presently unacceptably ‘somewhere in between’.

While one is tempted to wonder if Cardinal Kasper is locked in a time-warp (what about a church of relevance to the 21st century?), one certainly has to ask what kind of pastor whose heart genuinely seeks Christian unity issues such an offensive ultimatum? This is exemplary diplomacy from the Vatican, displaying an alarming ignorance of Anglicanism, and manifestly timed perfectly to coincide with the visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury to His Holiness.

But it is an affront to Anglicans worldwide. It ranks with the declaration of Cardinal Ratzinger that the Church of England is ‘not a church in the proper sense’, and qualifies merely as an ‘ecclesial community’.

Who does Cardinal Kasper think he is to issue such a demand? He cannot possibly be speaking with the approval of His Holiness, who is too eminent a theologian and knowledgeable a historian to pontificate in such absolutes. Certainly, the Anglican Communion is in a state of paralysis between the Rt Rev Gene Robinson of New Hampshire and Archbishop Peter Akinola of Nigeria, but the conservative / liberal factions have coexisted in the via media for centuries, and this is the essence of the Elizabethan settlement which has suited England since its inception. The Cardinal ought to heed the wise observations of many Roman Catholics in the House of Commons last night, who were unanimous in their support for the Church of England and marvelled at a via media which permits the coronation ceremony of a Protestant monarch to be organised and presided over by the Earl Marshal the Duke of Norfolk who is a Roman Catholic and the Premier Duke in the peerage of England. It is ambiguous; it is a compromise, but it works in practice if not in theory.

Cardinal Kasper might also like to consider that it is the contention of the Church of England that it is both Catholic and Reformed, and his dissent from this assertion does not make it not so. It is not necessary to conform to Rome’s narrow capacity for definition, for there is little latitude in its dogma. And even the Church of Rome is divided between its conservatives and liberals - there are few who would assert that The Tablet articulates the same adherence to doctrine as The Catholic Herald - but no ultimatum has been issued demanding unity of voice, for that would require a meeting of minds between His Holiness and Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor. And Cranmer cannot quite envisage that. Indeed, most of the Roman Catholic bishops in England appear to be pathologically antipathetic to all that Pope Benedict XVI stands for, so Cardinal Kasper may care to lecture his own house before presuming to instruct the Anglicans.

Roman Catholicism is literally a broad church, and the gulf between its disparate factions are tolerated because they can coexist in tension, in the imperfect communion that is exemplified in the suffering of the cross. And so it is with the Church of England.

Of course there are immense concerns over the ordination of homosexuals and women priests and bishops, and it may even be time to lay the worldwide Anglican Communion to rest, but it is not for any Cardinal to dictate to the Church of England what it must and must not do, for that is contrary to the Constitution of the United Kingdom, and is hardly conducive to ecumenical progress.

The Church of England need not ‘clarify its identity’ for any foreign prince, prelate or potentate, because its Anglo-Catholic wing and its Evangelical Protestant wing constitute a whole, and without each other the body would be wounded, possibly mortally so.

But perhaps that is the Cardinal’s real agenda.

Muslim PC removed from Tony Blair’s security claims damages

Meet PC Amjad Farooq. He is presently suing on the grounds of discrimination for being removed from his job of guarding Tony Blair when he was prime minister. Mr Farooq was transferred from the Diplomatic Protection Group on 'national security grounds' after MI5 had carried out a number of checks on him. As a consequence, he claims that he suffered ‘racial and religious discrimination’.

Religious, quite possibly, but racial, not at all.

Ironically, PC Farooq was recruited to the Metropolitan Police as part of its campaign to increase the number of black and minority ethnic officers and staff. And this is the stereotypical thanks they can expect.

It is all to do with the Jamia mosque that PC Farooq and his family attended in Swindon. There is an alleged link between a former imam and the Sipah-e-Sahaba terror group in Pakistan, which is believed to be a part of the Al-Qaeda network. PC Farooq's two sons, then aged nine and 11, attended this mosque for religious studies.

While PC Farooq insists he did not associate with any Islamist extremists at the mosque, he is, like Barack Obama with his fiery pastor, somewhat tarnished by association. But this association is deemed to constitute ‘evidence’ to justify the refusal of his counter-terrorism clearance. And when PC Farooq appealed to the Security Vetting Appeal Panel, which is run by the Cabinet Office, he was refused any details on the grounds of ‘national security’. He was simply told that ‘his presence might upset the U.S. secret service which works with the Met's close-protection unit that guards Downing Street and the U.S. Embassy’.

So it is all to do with appeasing the US secret service.

While the Metropolitan Police insists that its decision was ‘proportionate and justified’, unless clear evidence was discovered of a link between PC Farooq and certain madrassas in Pakistan, this is manifestly a case of religious discrimination.

And if one is now to be denied a position on the grounds of the views of one’s religious leader, Cranmer fears for all adherents of the Church of England.

How Gordon Brown really went down in the USA

In today’s Daily Telegraph is a tediously boring article explaining how Prime Minister Brown intends ‘to refocus on food and homes’. He appears not to have a clue about economics, the free market, or even wisely-apportioned compassion. It is all predictable leftish waffle, principally aimed at shoring up Jacqui Smith’s slender majority, and also those of numerous other Labour MPs who are facing redundancy.

But a communicant has drawn Cranmer’s attention to an excellent comment by one Mr Paul Wilcox, who offers real insight into how Mr Brown was really received in the United States. Food and homes are ‘not the issues that are important’, he says, because ‘the US press have Brown sussed out precisely’:

It's a good thing that British Prime Minister Gordon Brown's U.S. visit was upstaged by the dramatic reception Americans gave Pope Benedict XVI. Brown might have been booed if he hadn't delivered what aides called his "signature" speech within the cloistered walls of Harvard's Kennedy Center.

Brown's tedious, hour-long speech impudently demanded that we issue a "Declaration of Interdependence" in order to submit to global governance. That's another way of calling on us to repeal our Declaration of Independence.

No thanks for the advice, Mr. Brown. Brave Americans rose up and rejected Britain's royalist rule in 1776, and we've gotten along mighty well without transatlantic interference in our government for more than two centuries. We certainly don't want to reinstate any foreign supervision today.

The redundancy of Brown's outrageous semantics was oppressive. His speech used the word global 69 times, globalization 7 times, and interdependence 13 times. He referred to Kennedy 19 times, lavishing fulsome praise on John F. ("his influence abides everywhere"), Robert (he sent forth "ripples of hope"), and Ted ("one of the greatest Senators in more than two centuries").

Brown rejected the traditional concept of national sovereignty, which means an independent nation not subservient to any outside control, telling us to replace it with "responsible sovereignty," which he defined as accepting what he calls our global "obligations." Hold on to your pocketbook.

Brown admitted that his "main argument" is that we must accept "new global rules," "new global institutions," and "global networks." Brown's global rules include massive U.S. cash handouts and opening U.S. borders to the world.

Brown's use of well-known American political phrases was tacky. He tried to morph FDR's New Deal into a "New Global Deal," and JFK's New Frontier into "the New Frontier is that there is no frontier."

Brown even slipped in an attempt at thought control: "Americans must learn to think inter-continentally." He declaimed, "We are all internationalists now."

Using the rhetorical device of inevitability, Brown warned us that his vision of the globalist future is "irreversible transformation." He wants to "transcend states" and "transcend borders" as he builds the "architecture of a global society."

Brown peddled the nonsense that the peoples of the world "subscribe to similar ideals." He tried to tell us that all religions (Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Sikhs and Buddhists) have "common values" and "similar ideals." No, they certainly do not.

Brown wants to increase the power of the United Nations to become the source of "an international stand-by capacity of trained civilian experts, ready to go anywhere at any time," and even be able to exercise "military force." Americans do not intend to cede such authority to the corrupt UN.

The silliest part of Brown's ponderous speech was his claim that "a global society" is "advancing democracy widely across the world." In fact, he doesn't even practice democracy in his own country.

Brown refused to allow the British people to vote on whether or not they want to accept the European Union (EU) constitution. He acquiesced in the plot of the constitution's author, Valery Giscard d'Estaing, to put the EU constitution into effect by calling it a treaty so it did not have to be voted on by the people.

Brown was chicken about the treaty subterfuge and did not permit a photographic record of his participation. He sent his Foreign Secretary to perform the official treaty signing in front of cameras.

The EU constitution, now called the Treaty of Lisbon, requires all signers to surrender their sovereignty and democracy to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and judges in Strasbourg. The EU constitution takes away England's right to pass its own laws, forces England to surrender more than 60 UK vetoes of EU decisions, and gives the EU bureaucracy and tribunals total control over England's immigration policy.

Instead of a self-governing nation whose democratic system was developed over centuries, England is now ruled by what Margaret Thatcher called "the paper pushers in Brussels."

Brown made his globalism speech emphatic by repeatedly invoking the words "New World Order." The New World Order Brown tries to con the United States into accepting would mean taxing Americans for foreign handouts so immense they would make the Marshall Plan look puny, global warming rules to drastically reduce our standard of living, and putting American workers in a common labor pool with the world's billions who subsist on less than $2 a day.

Gordon Brown invited us to march forward to globalism "where there is no path." He's correct that there is no path on which we can expect globalism to lead us to a better world; in fact every path toward global government is a surrender of our liberty and our prosperity.

Gordon Brown should go back home and study up on how Americans refused to accept orders from King George III.

This is a most excellent debunking of a patronising and utterly pretentious speech, which must leave Americans wondering why Labour politically assassinated Tony Blair. But the phrase ‘New World Order’ is one that readers and communicants will hear again and again, whoever is in power in the UK, for it is teleologically inescapable.

The nations of the world are ready to surrender their kingdoms to any man who will offer a solution to the problems of the world - the real ones and the fabricated ones. All he needs is ‘sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all the people and to lift us up out of the economic morass into which we are sinking’. Stature, charisma, compassion, credibility, experience, political skill, spirituality, a global profile – that man is not Gordon Brown, but Gordon Brown knows who it is.

Election fraud: ‘Labour failed to act’, say MPs

When one considers that more than 500,000 postal votes were sent out in the election for the office of Mayor of London, and that this method of voting has been shown time and again to be less than secure with one judge referring to UK elections being no better than those in a ‘banana republic’, one might have thought that HM Government would be doing all that lies within its power to root out corruption in the electoral process. But one must remember that the Government is Labour, and that such corruption tends to be favourable to its electoral ends.

And The Guardian explains a further unsavoury dimension to Labour’s inaction, as a ‘senior backbencher’ states that the principal reason the issue is not being addressed is that ‘they fear stirring up controversy in ethnic minority communities’. This leaves us to conclude that most of the abuse of the system is to be found amongst the minority communities.

It is a brave group of MPs indeed who have dared to broach this subject, but the Labour-controlled public administration select committee is genuinely more concerned about openness and honesty than it is about offending ethnic minorities or depressing the Labour vote.

Quite why The Guardian begins with an air of anonymity for its ‘senior backbencher’ is a mystery, for it goes on to disclose the name of Tony Wright MP, chairman of the committee, and quote him at length. No doubt the collapse in support for Prime Minister Brown will yield more of these emboldened backbenchers over the coming months - like John Cruddas, John McDonnell, or Frank Field...

Mr Wright is demanding the introduction of some form of individual - rather than household - registration, which would require photo ID. And he calls for an end to ‘Labour silence’ on one source of the problem: “Almost all the abuse cases that we have had have involved minority communities. We should not be mealy-mouthed about it. It is importing cultural practices from one place to another, and if we are serious about Britishness, surely one of the things we have to got to be serious about it is telling everybody that lives here about the integrity of democratic politics.

"If we are honest about it, we have been so anxious to get turn-out up that we have been rather casual about some of the implications ... I think we have (been) casual because we have resisted individual voter registration."

These ‘cultural practices’ are, of course, Asian. They are not specifically Muslim, Sikh, or Hindu, though these religions have certainly influenced the cultural practice. And the practice to which Mr Wright principally refers is that of patriarchal supremacy and the oppression of women. While the West has gradually moved towards equality and non-discrimination, very many Asian families sustain segregation and propagate the suppression of female members of the household. This is not only evident in practices like assisted/arranged marriages or the limiting of female education and career options, but is seen quite clearly in postal voting. Frequently, the father of a household will vote on behalf of all members of that household - which may be a large and extended household - and hand the cards over en masse to a helpful party worker (which is itself a breach of regulations). Thus one voter expresses the will of 7, 10, 15, or 26, as Gordon Prentice MP discovered in his constituency of Pendle. The whole system simply requires male ‘community leaders’ to speak to the men.

Kelvin Hopkins, Labour MP for Luton North, favours individual voter registration, but admits that ‘one of the reasons our party is reluctant to do this, is because it might actually dent our support in certain areas’.

And the final word is left to a report by the Joseph Rowntree Reform Trust, which states that ‘greater use of postal voting has made the UK elections far more vulnerable to fraud and resulted in several instances of large scale fraud’, and then concedes that there is ‘anecdotal evidence that Pakistani clan politics played a role in some of the fraud’.

It is all hushed up, of course, for fear of aggravating racial tensions or causing offence.

And then the 'mainstream parties' wonder why the BNP wins a seat on the London Assembly.

'Mayor Johnson' - what music to the ears!

Cranmer's readers and communicants will have to indulge him a little today, for he has not felt so good in centuries. And such euphoria has the tendency to cloud the mind more than a little, and render one intoxicated with such unalloyed joy that one is temporarily incapable of writing much that is either spiritually or politically edifying.


Ah, victory... just a taste of things to come.

Boris takes London as UK moves to ‘No Overall Control’

Cranmer is praising in the pulpit and dancing in the aisles at the news that Boris Johnson has become Mayor of London, and the Conservative Party has triumphed in local elections the length and breadth of the land. Ken Livingstone is definitely gone, and Gordon Brown is now certainly going. It is the culmination of months of fervent prayer and intercession, and Cranmer is humbled that the Lord has answered his prayers.

Winning the London mayoral contest is the delectable icing on the luscious cake of this historic day in Conservative Party fortunes. Labour have been humiliated into third place – their worst result in local elections since Harold Wilson was prime minister - and their share of the vote was worse even than that achieved by Michael Foot. The Conservative Party’s vote was 20 percentage points ahead of the Labour vote, and that augurs well for the next general election.

But Cranmer would like to point out that Boris Johnson now wields more executive power than any other Conservative in Britain.

He has promised Londoners he will phase out bendy buses, ban alcohol on the Tube and set up a Mayor's Fund. His winning manifesto pledges include:

TRANSPORT
* Wants the unions to sign up to a no-strike deal in return for binding arbitration. Will expand air conditioning and manage the infrastructure better.
* Will phase out bendy buses and replace them with a fleet of hybrid Routemasters that he now estimates will cost up to £100 million.
* Wants to fine utility companies that dig up the roads, “reform” the congestion charge, re-phase traffic lights and bring in monthly billing.

CRIME
* Will chair the Metropolitan Police Authority and “tear up red tape”, as well as holding the MPA to account
* Would make the transport network safer with 440 extra Police Community Support Officers and 50 extra British Transport Police paid for by slashing advertising budgets
* “Payback London” scheme requiring antisocial under- 18s to earn back their right to free travel when passes are confiscated
* Ban alcohol on the Tube by amending the conditions of carriage to help reduce anti-social behaviour and cut the 40 per cent of crime that is alcohol-related.
* Mayor's Fund would use the private sector to pay for schemes including fighting youth crime, bring in handheld scanners and neighbourhood crime maps.

ENVIRONMENT
* Would protect the green belt and invest £6 million in making open spaces cleaner and safer.
* Would work to help cut London's carbon emissions by 60 per cent from their 1990 levels by 2025.
* Opposes third Heathrow runway. Has suggested a new airport in the Thames Estuary instead.

HOUSING
* Will drop the Mayor's current target of 50 per cent of all new homes in London to be affordable and build 50,000 more new homes instead.
* Would release GLA-owned land and £130 million from the Regional Housing Pot to launch a new First Steps Housing Scheme.
* Invest £60 million from the Regional Housing Pot to renovate the capital's 84,205 empty properties.

CITY HALL
* He has promised not to stand for more than two terms as Mayor and to lobby for a change in legislation.
* Would publish the biographies, responsibilities and contact details of mayoral advisers online so public can see their role and get in touch.
* To make the London Development Agency grants process much more transparent by publishing details of all funding over £1,000.

Autumn Kelly renounces Roman Catholicism

It has been a long time in coming. All of the conversions of prominent politicians or members of the Royal Family in recent years have been inexorably Romeward, and crossing the Tiber for love (…or political advantage…) has become a familiar affair. Indeed, The Times reported almost a year ago that Peter Phillips would renounce his place in the line of Royal succession in order that he may marry his Roman Catholic fiancée, Autumn Kelly.

So Cranmer is surprised but nonetheless delighted that Miss Kelly has decided to renounce her Roman Catholic faith in order that Mr Phillips may retain his place in the succession. And she has not only renounced her faith, but has converted to Anglicanism.

This has not gone down well in certain quarters, with some expressing their sorrow that she has betrayed ‘the blood of martyrs’.

The issue, of course, is the Act of Settlement 1701 which forbids British monarchs and their heirs and successors from being, becoming or marrying a Roman Catholic. Actually, it is not that they may not do so, for that would be a breach of their human rights; it is simply that they may not do so and accede to the Throne, which is not a human right.

Miss Kelly was baptised into the Roman Catholic Church in 1978, and marriage to Mr Phillips, who is now 11th in line to the throne, would have meant him surrendering his place. But Miss Kelly has been taking instruction from the Dean of Windsor, and has now been received into the Church of England.

But Cranmer is more than a little puzzled by this.

He is admiring that Miss Kelly evidently loves her fiancé so much that she is prepared to renounce the faith into which she was born. But why would Mr Phillips consider being 11th in line to the Throne a position worth retaining? Does he have some foreknowledge of a calamity which will befall all the senior royals, leaving Parliament with no choice but to appoint him king? The chances of him acceding to the Throne are negligible, not to say zero, and so nothing would have been lost by his continuing in the Anglican tradition and she in the Roman Catholic. One might think that Miss Kelly would have insisted that he accept her as she is or not at all.

Perhaps it does not say much for Mr Phillips that he is prepared to make his wife change her religion simply in order that he may retain his relatively obscure place in the line of succession. And neither does it say much for Miss Kelly that she is prepared to renounce her faith in order that she may acquire a little royal privilege.

Is not faith more important than royal status?

Unless, of course, her faith meant absolutely nothing to her? Or she had been having doubts about papal infallibility and transubstantiation for some considerable time? Or perhaps, understanding the importance of British tradition, she has simply decided to love, honour, and obey?

One may be baptised into the Roman Catholic Church as baby, but it is manifestly a decision of the parents and although the sacrament may be considered efficacious, it does not make one anything. Autumn Kelly is now expressing her free will on the matter and has decided to join the Church of England which is both Catholic and Reformed - a most enlightened fusion.

Cranmer welcomes her warmly into the Church of England, which has its own blood (and ashes) of martyrs. God bless her.

Israel at 60

While some sections of the British media maintain their pathological and not-so-latent anti-Semitism, or are of the considered opinion that Israel ‘stinks of shit’, this is a time for celebration, for the State of Israel was founded 60 years ago in May 1948. The declaration precipitated an immediate war, and Israel has been surrounded and beseiged ever since by enemies pledged to her annihilation.

It was the realisation of 5000 years of yearning for the Jewish people, but that was not the end of the story. Israel's first 60 years have been filled with hope, achievement, miracles, trauma, tragedy and joy. And today one must counter the incessant adverse publicity and negative portrayal in the media.

Anglican Friends of Israel have produced an excellent commemorative booklet, which Cranmer is delighted to share with his readers and communicants:

Foreword
“I am delighted to have been asked to contribute a foreword to this pamphlet, written to celebrate the 60th anniversary of Israel, the Jewish State. There is a long and honourable history of Anglican involvement in the Zionist project. From the 17th to the 20th centuries, English advocates of the Jews' restoration in the Holy Land worked tirelessly to realise Jewish dreams – often, in more practical ways than by the Jews themselves. It became their mission to restore the land to its lawful owners, and thereby assist in fulfilling Biblical prophecy. The pamphlet, in its own sober and factual way, is but the most recent instance of this centuries-long endeavour. I welcome it.”
Anthony Julius
April 2008

Introduction
Israel celebrates its 60th Birthday in 2008. In May 1948, the tiny piece of land, focus of Jewish prayer and aspirations for over 3,000 years, was restored to them. To many, including Jews whose communities had lived continuously in the Holy Land, Israel’s rebirth was a joyous event. To some it represented a safe haven to be Jewish in a Jewish land without fear of persecution. To others, the sovereign hand of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob fulfilling promises from the Torah and the Prophets was clear to see. Much of the world rejoiced with them. However, not everyone was pleased. Many Arabs, including those whose own nations were formed in the same period, call Israel’s national rebirth ‘The Naqba’ or ‘catastrophe’. The formation of a Jewish state in the region, they claimed, robbed Palestinians of their land; the Jews were portrayed as interlopers. The region’s problems were – and are – blamed on Israel by many people. Criticism has gone beyond Israel’s actions. Even the legitimacy of Israel’s existence has been questioned.

Anglicans are engaged in the debate for Anglican Palestinians are caught up in the conflict. We at Anglican Friends of Israel recognize that Israel should not be immune from criticism; but we are dismayed that so much of it is rooted in error, misrepresentation and even racism. We hope this booklet will contribute to a fuller understanding of the foundation of modern Israel and dispel some of the hostile myths which have grown up around the events during and prior to May 1948.

What is Zionism?
‘Zionism’ is the desire of the Jewish people for self-governance in the Holy Land. The term refers to Mount Zion in Jerusalem, the ‘mountain of God’. Zionists support Jewish rights to national self-determination and Statehood, just as, say, Poles or Pakistanis have.

What are Christian Zionists?
Christian Zionists insist that Jewish desire for self-determination is as legitimate as that of any other ethnic group. They recognise the restoration of the Jews to the land of Israel as a fulfilment of an overarching prophetic theme in both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. They refute Replacement Theology which suggests that God has rejected the Jewish people and replaced them with the Church, believing that it contradicts both the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. They affirm God’s love for Palestinians and often support projects which benefit Palestinians by addressing educational or social needs, or work to bring a greater understanding between Jew and Arab.

Is Zionism racist?
The UN defines racism as ‘the belief in the genetic/inherent superiority of one group over others.’ Such vile notions are utterly different to the wholly legitimate desire for national renewal. To brand the Jewish desire for self-determination as distinctively racist – as some do – is in itself racist. Ironically, many who smear Zionism as racist are the shrillest in their insistence that Palestinians have an absolute right to the very same self-determination which they would deny to Jews.

Why create a Jewish state in the Middle East?
✡ Because this territory is central to Jewish religious and national identity – the place where Jews are closest to God.
✡ Because this is the one piece of land historically promised to the Jewish people as recorded in Genesis.
✡ Because this is the only land where the Jewish nation has ever experienced self rule.

In contrast, there has never been an autonomous Palestinian state in the area. It was ruled by a succession of empires until the Ottoman Empire fell in 1917 and the League of Nations granted the British a Mandate in 1920.

Jews are indigenous to Israel
Israel’s critics claim that only Palestinians are indigenous to the Near East. This is patently false, as is the claim that Jews are a religious and not an ethnic, group. Archaeology confirms the Bible record: Jews spoke and wrote Hebrew, and worshiped Israel’s God in what is now Israel at least 1,000 years before Jesus was born. Jews are the only people who have ever had an autonomous state on this tiny piece of land. They governed themselves as a national entity,producing kings, visionary prophets and writers from whose pens flowed some of the most treasured writings in the history of the world. Archaeological support for these claims includes:

✡ an ancient Hebrew alphabet, from 10th century BCE discovered at Tel Zayit in 2005;
✡ Israel is named in ancient Hebrew on the 9th Century BCE ‘Moabite Stone’;
✡ An inscription at Tel Dan dating from the time of King Ahab names the ‘House of David’ and ‘Israel’.

Jews have inhabited the Holy Land continuously for 3000 years
Despite attempts by successive occupying powers to expel them, communities of Jews have lived in the Holy Land continuously since the time of Abraham until the present in, for example, Safed, Tiberias and Hebron. Jews returned to the Holy Land throughout the Diaspora period, notably from Spain and other Mediterranean countries in the late 13th and 14th Century.

In Jerusalem Jews have been the largest ethnic group since the 1840s. During the Mandate many Jewish communities in Arab towns such as Nazareth and Gaza were forced out by Arab neighbours and their members joined kibbutzim or moved to predominantly Jewish towns. Since the Babylonian exile, the Jewish diaspora has spread as far as South America, China and Australia. But Jewish ethnic identity, recognised by the countries in which they lived as minority communities, was based on Jewish affinity with the land of Israel and the Jews living there.

The League of Nations Mandate
At the 1920 San Remo conference, the League of Nations granted Britain a Mandate over Palestine. It committed Britain to the creation of a Jewish homeland in Palestine west of the Jordan River. Recognition of ancient Jewish links with the land was foundational to the Mandate. A Palestinian state was to be established east of the Jordan River (present day Jordan). Jews could not settle or buy land there.

The Jewish homeland was stolen from Palestinians
This claim is false. In the early 19th century more than 10,000 Jews lived throughout what is today Israel. In 1880 Jews made up about 6% of Palestine’s population. The land was then a run-down colonial outpost of the Ottoman Empire. Jews purchased much land from Arab owners legally during the late 19th and early 20th century and by dint of huge effort, turned it from rocky hillsides and malarial swamps into productive and profitable land.

By World War One, the Jewish population of Palestine was around 85,000 out of 700,000 (roughly 12%). It rapidly became the most dynamic economic centre in the Middle East attracting people from all over the region eager for a share in the growing prosperity of Palestine. In contrast, no independent Palestinian entity or identity has existed until the 20th Century.

The British Mandate
In the opinion of many observers, Britain failed to honour the Mandate to facilitate the creation of a Jewish Homeland in Palestine. In the 30 years of British colonial rule, tensions between Arabs and Jews grew inexorably. In desperation at the rising levels of inter-communal violence, Britain handed the whole issue over to the UN.

The War of Independence 1948
On 29 November 1947, the United Nations voted to create an Arab and a Jewish State alongside each other in what is now Israel and the West Bank. It was accepted that Israel would have a sizeable Arab minority. The Jewish State was allotted 56% of Mandate Palestine, since the UN correctly predicted heavy Jewish immigration from Europe after the creation of the Jewish State. Perhaps they also guessed that large numbers of Jewish refugees from Arab nations would also need a home.

The Jewish Agency, led by David Ben Gurion, accepted the plan. Arab leaders rejected it, and Arab attacks on Jewish communities began at once. Britain announced that her troops would be withdrawn from Palestine on 15 May 1948. Aware that Arab countries had vowed to destroy any Jewish state, David Ben Gurion declared the independence of the State of Israel on 14 May 1948, with borders as stipulated in the UN Partition Plan.

Significantly, the Declaration of Independence stated ‘We appeal ... to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions..’ Within days of the British withdrawal, 35,000 Iraqi, Lebanese, Syrian and Egyptian troops (led by British officers) invaded Israel. Despite overwhelming odds, and the loss of 1% of the population of Israel, Israeli forces decisively defeated the Arab armies. Israel took territory beyond the UN allocated borders because their territory could not be defended against further Arab attacks.

Jews were preparing to attack Arabs prior to 1948
False. Jewish communities were routinely attacked by raiding parties from Arab villages. The Haganah – defence units of Jewish farmers – was formed to warn Jewish communities about planned Arab assaults and to afford some protection against them. The attacks became more frequent after the UN Partition plan of November 1947: intelligence about proposed raids upon Jewish people and property had to become much more efficient – and it did.

Jews had a plan ‘D’ to expel all Arabs from Israel in 1948
This claim is false. As Professor Benny Morris wrote: ‘Plan Dalet (Plan D), of March 10th, 1948 … was the master plan of the Haganah – the Jewish military force that became the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) – to counter the expected pan-Arab assault on the emergent Jewish state.’

The presence of 147,000 Arabs in the new State of Israel after hostilities ceased shows that claims of a planned ‘ethnic cleansing’ of Arabs are absurd. In contrast no Jew was permitted to remain in territory occupied by Jordan after the 1948 war.

Jews drove Palestinians out of Israel in 1948.
Some 6-800,000 Palestinian Arabs were displaced as a result of the Arab war on Israel in 1948. Some were compelled to leave their homes by IDF forces. But many left voluntarily before the 1948 war because local and national leaders advised or compelled them to do so. Prof. Morris comments ‘… in dozens of localities around Palestine, Arab leaders advised or ordered the evacuation of women and children or whole communities, as occurred in Haifa in late April, 1948.’

Palestinians, who heeded this advice, could not return to their homes after the Arabs lost the war. Unsurprisingly, given repeated Arab threats to annihilate Israel, Israeli leaders feared an Arab ‘fifth column’. However, most Arabs who had remained in Israel became Israeli citizens. Jews were also expelled from their homes by Arab forces, for example from Gush Etzion and K’far Darom in Gaza, all built on land purchased legally. And of course Jews were expelled from the Old City of Jerusalem. In addition, 800,000 Jews were forced to abandon homes and businesses in Arab countries. They arrived in Israel with nothing.

These are the forgotten refugees of 1948. Both sides committed atrocities. Women and children were murdered by Jewish fighters of the Stern gang and Irgun in the peaceful Arab village of Deir Yassin. Arab fighters took revenge by murdering Jewish women and children in K’far Etzion and members of a convoy taking medical supplies to Jerusalem’s Hadassah hospital.

Is modern Israel is a western colonial project?
With 3000 years of continuous presence in the Holy Land, how can Jews be characterised as interlopers in the region? After World War II, Palestine was the only place that many European Jews, robbed of their homes and families, could go. A further 800,000 Jews from Arab countries fled or were expelled in pogroms and were absorbed into the Jewish state in the years following Israel’s Independence. Later, Jews from all over the world – Africa, India, China, the old USSR, as well as the USA and Europe, made aliyah to Israel.

Modern Israel combines the best ideals of the west – democracy, openness to debate and criticism as well as new ideas in technology and the arts. Such ideals are much needed in the region. Given the ferocity of comment in the Israeli press and the intensity of debate and moral self-criticism which so characterises discussion in Israel – so rare in public life today – the attacks on Israel are profoundly depressing and disturbing.

Conclusion
This May, while Israel and her friends celebrate her 60th anniversary, others will mourn the Palestinian ‘Naqba’. As they do so, they might reflect on the crucial contribution of Palestinian and Arab actions to the absence of their longed for state. Had they accepted the UN Partition plan and welcomed their Jewish neighbours into the tiny piece of land allotted to them, 60 years of bloodshed and misery could have been averted.

As Prof. Benny Morris wrote recently ‘In defiance of the will of the international community, as embodied in the UN General Assembly Resolution of November 29th, 1947 (No. 181), (Palestinian Arabs) launched hostilities against the Jewish community in Palestine in the hope of aborting the emergence of the Jewish state and perhaps destroying that community. But they lost; and one of the results was the displacement of 700,000 of them from their homes.’

God promised Abraham that his descendents would have a land, and would be a blessing to all the nations of the earth. We at Anglican Friends of Israel believe that modern Israel is a fulfilment of that promise: we rejoice unashamedly at this, Israel’s 60th birthday, thanking the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob for the restoration of the Jewish people to their land.

And we pray for a just peace for all the people of the region, Jew and Arab – a peace which we believe that ultimately, only God himself can bring.

Cry God for Boris, London, and the Conservative Party!

Today is the culmination of months of daily intercession on behalf of the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London. Cranmer prayed that Mr Johnson would stand; Cranmer urged him to do so; Cranmer was delighted when he finally decided to, and has been profoundly impressed by the professionalism of the campaign.

And today is Judgement Day.

For all his promises on policing, safety, housing, the Olympics, the environment, or business-friendly policies, the key difference between Mr Livingstone and Mr Johnson is that good old democratic foundation – accountability.

In Mr Johnson’s own words:

I believe Londoners should have a greater say on how their city is run, more information on how decisions are made and details on how City Hall money is spent.

Ken Livingstone presides over a budget of more than £10billion and demands £311 per year from the average taxpaying household in London. Yet Londoners have little confidence in the Mayor spending their money with care and prudence.

Mayor Livingstone's extravagant spending on publicity, his jaunts to Cuba and Venezuela at taxpayers' expense, and the recent reports of his close advisers using their influence to manipulate t