Friday, February 15, 2008
|
|
Steyn On The Archbishop of Canterbury, And "The Suicide Of Britain"
|
|
Posted by:
Hugh Hewitt at
12:42 AM
|
From today's interview with columnist to the world Mark Steyn (complete transcript here):
HH: Now let’s talk about a third kind of fundamental unseriousness. When I last spoke to you, I left the studio and got on a plane and went to England. I’m back, it was a wonderful trip, but I got there in time to see the Archbishop of Canterbury declare that Sharia law should be accommodated in large part by the laws of Great Britain. The firestorm that followed was good to see, but how can the Church of England have fallen into such a state, Mark Steyn, to be led by someone like this?
MS: Well, you know, this man is supposedly the head, worldwide head of the Anglican Communion. The Anglican Communion, in many ways, is a healthy Church, if you look at, say, Nigeria. There are more Anglicans at Church in Nigeria every Sunday morning than there are in the U.S. and Canada and Britain combined. And the Nigerians, who…Nigerian Anglicans who live on the hard face of Sharia, where it has become the law in certain provinces in Nigeria, understand that Sharia is, in fact, incompatible with a pluralist society. So they understand, because they live with it, what an idiot the Archbishop of Canterbury is. And I think this in fact goes beyond defeatism. This is the kind of guy who actually is…his solution to the problem is to preemptively surrender. There’s a term, I think, it was the Times of London used some years back, to refer to post-Christian Churches, and I think as led by someone like the Archbishop of Canterbury, you actually see that in effect, the Anglicans are becoming a post-Christian Church.
HH: Well, one of the reactions that was most amazing when this hailstorm, firestorm of criticism hit him, his staff reported that he was quite "chippy." And evidently, you can’t force even a completely irresponsible Archbishop from office.
MS: Well, the only person who has the power to fire him is the Queen. There’s no separation of Church and state in Britain. And one of the reasons I’m in favor of separation of Church and state is because the Church, or Christianity, has thrived in a free market in the United States. The established Church in England, in part because it’s fallen into the hands of buffoons like Rowan Williams, who is basically this sort of weird, Welsh druid who’s been promoted way beyond his abilities, that the established Church in the United Kingdom and in Continental Europe has fallen, because there is no free market in Churches. And I think if there is going to be a future for Christianity in Britain at all, it will come, it will not come from an established Church like this.
HH: Well, one good bit of news to close with. I went over to the Oxford Union on Sunday night, the 75th anniversary plus a day of the King And Country Resolution…
MS: Right.
HH: And I was informed by the vice president of the society that they had indeed voted to defend Queen and country 75 years later. So at least that’s a bit of good news. But I must say, Mark, and you lived there a lot longer than I’ve ever visited there, there’s a lot wrong with Great Britain right now.
MS: Yes, I said a while back that I thought Britain was in danger of turning into Somalia with chip shops, that it’s a country that I think has been hollowed out by Islamism in many ways. What is particularly tragic about Britain is it’s a country that didn’t fall for any of the other great evils of the 20th Century, for fascism or communism. It’s a country that has probably contributed more in terms of its ideas to civilization in the world. That’s why there are over fifty English speaking countries, that is why English common law can be found all over the world, English ideas, Westminster parliamentary system. The dominant powers in every corner of the world, the United States, South Africa, Australia, India, descended from Britain. And the death of Britain, the sort of suicide of Britain, is a tragedy to watch.
|
|
I consider that a commendable credential, given the manner and style of what has passed for education since the faculty of most schools in the west became populated by children of the Age of Aquarius.
Original intent is oft worth consideration in evaluating the statements of the head of an institution like 'the worlwide anglican communion.'
A man named Henry Tudor established this church some years ago. In the spirit of original intent we might ask if Henry Tudor intended that the Archbiship of the church he founded give way to the savage laws of Islam? I think not. Were Mr. Tudor around now, he would probably have the head of the 'Mincing Fair of Canterbury' mounted at the end of a pike.
Steyn is a genius, make no mistake. |
|
|
The A of C has always been an ideologue not a Christian for at least 60 years. When Anglicans-Episcopals are divided between following the Anglican bishops over and against the Bishop of Africa, we know that that church is dead to Christianity. The African bishop is actually a Christian. For years the so called left in the Church, whether Catholic, Anglican or the varied mainline denominations, have represented a faux Christianity. They all sound like socialist pacifists and would fit right into the Democrat Party here in the USA with Obama representing their empty headed ideology and religious values. For anyone to suggest that Sharia law could be the representative foundation of Britain, or the USA, or any Western nation, is plain absurdity, foolish and perhaps treasonous. Europe is dying in front of our eyes religiously and culturally and hopefully there are some islands of sanity and Spirit-filled Christianity still extant there. The 'tolerance' crowd in the heart of liberalism here in the USA would see Sharia put forward with New Age ideas plus some type of socialistic love them all phraseology in a shorter time than any analyst would have suspected. Liberals have always supported 'internal rot' of Judeo-Christian foundations, heritage, and our history. It would not surprise me to see them 'tolerate' Islam as the Change we all need!! |
|
The archbishop is wrong.
You do not, in a free society, accommodate a separate system of law that deprives an entire class of persons of their rights and views them as inferior.
You do not, in a free society, accommodate a separate system of law that further isolates and divides the populace.
One law, one people. No compromise. |
|
|
I didn't know Steyn dropped out of school at 16. He's done well for himself. Just saw "Pursuit of Happyness" last night. I'll bet Steyn likes that movie. Anyway, Steyn comments confirm what I observed for myself last fall over in "Europistan." Europe as we knew it is fading into a postmodern haze of no absolutes. Sharia is absolute and takes no prisoners. While Beth Din of the Sanhedrin of old may compare to Sharia of today, the power of the Sanhedrin (that sharia of today possesses) was destroyed in the First Century by the Romans. Far as Beth Din authority today, no probably not many have even heard of Beth Din. But then again, I doubt many outside of the Catholic understand the significance of having a marriage annulled versus a standard divorce either. But neither priests nor rabbi's are cutting off heads, hanging homosexuals, beating women for showing some skin, and so on. Your comparison is apples and oranges to say the least |
|
Inspiring, don'tcha think Polder?
Go, Mark. Best writer currently at work for us Warmongers. |
|
|
your "Great Mark Steyn" dropped out of school at 16 and was a disc-jocky before he became a entertainment-critic for Conrad Blacks Hollinger-group. |
|
|
http://www.meatriarchy.com/?p=733 |
|
the Great Mark Steyn called "a moron".
Whew. I'm in like total like awe of Polderboy-yo. |
|
The problem in all of Christendom is the ugly face of "organized religion." From Adam to now the search and pursuit and knowledge of God is meant to be intensely personal.
Who has the authority of God to declare His Word? Since organized religion has violently contradicted its own infallible decrees over the centuries it is a wonder that anyone looks for such an "authority."
Wycliff, Tyndale, Hus and Luther were all extremely well-educated theologians who turned against the church that had educated them (and in Luther's case. awarded him with the title of "Doctor"). A bishop in England in the 16th century noted that the priests under his authority were wholly ignorant of scripture, many of them couldn't even name one commandment.
Even Adrian VI recognized that his predecessors were grossly wicked and ignorant men. Should be "bow will and intellect" to men that Paul commands that we not even eat with? Should be hold that Catholicism should be the religion of the state "to the exclusion of all other forms of worship" as Pius IX demanded?
Today we have seminary graduates who cannot even agree on mode of baptism. Study to show yourself approved unto God, not unto a system. All must study for all will stand alone.
|
|
|
|
Did it ever occur to anybody that perhaps the leader of the C of E is a political appointment and not a person called of God?
This is and always has been the central and glaring weakness of Protestantism and its American offshoots of bible-based evangelicalism - there is no way of knowing who has authority from God to be declaring His word.
This means that every leader or preacher is self-called, with the sad consequence that nobody knows which preacher or leader is truely acceptable to God as a representative, or who is speaking the God's words correctly.
The entire structure - the notion that a person can read the Bible and feel "called" to preach - is non-Biblical and thus fundementally flawed. It leads to these rogue "Reverands" that preach the philosophies of men, mingled with scripture.
Hasn't this ever occured to anyone? (Besides the orthodox Catholics and Joseph Smith?) |
|
First. When Mark's first claim is "this man is supposedly the head, worldwide head of the Anglican Communion", then you know right there that this man is incapable of commenting on the Anglican Communion and Rowan Williams.
The Anglican Communion doesn't have a "worldwide head". Period. The Anglican Communion is a world-wide affiliation of Anglican Churches. There is no single "Anglican Church" with universal juridical authority, since each national or regional church has full autonomy. The Church of England is viewed as the "mother church", but it has no special status above the other anglican churches.
Second. Nice job of misrepresenting what Rowan Williams said and meant. Not once do you or Mark even include the specific comparison with that other religious court in the UK and the US the Archbishop made. You know, the Beth Din? I guess the both of you and a lot of your readers don't even know what it is. Educate yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beth_Din http://www.bethdin.org/
Should these be abolished too? The Roman Catholic Church and Protestant Churches have similar ‘courts’ (mainly about marriage but with less broad powers. Should they be abolished too? |
|
|
Britain has been dead for a while now. We're currently witnessing the suicide of America, in the nomination of McCain and the return to mid twentieth century, one-party, communist rule of this country. |
|
|
|