Church of England Surrenders to Islam

In one of the most stunning remarks in the Church of England's 1500 year history, current Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams ceded centuries of ideological ground to marauding Muslim demands without even a fight.

Rowan actually said that, "the introduction in Britain of some aspects of sharia law was unavoidable."

Britons are rightfully outraged. Based on the high volume of protest hurled at the Archbishop, many are not only convinced his statements are untrue, but are quite willing to take action to prevent such paganry to rule the people of England.

Williams later defended his statements by saying, he was "exploring ways in which reasonable accommodation might be made within existing arrangements for religious conscience" and his core aim was "to tease out some of the broader issues around the rights of religious groups within a secular state".

What the good, most and right reverend ought to do is check his history books a little and see that Islam does not have the heretofore: "conscience." Or perhaps he could simply turn on the news - any channel, any day.

As for the "rights of religious groups within a secular state, " what about a group that hates the state, that is diligently seeking to overthrow the state and would love to kill all its citizens; how many rights should such people have, according to the good bishop?

Though Mr. William's kindness is noble, it seems that he is blissfully unaware of the nature of the snake that has woven its way into many aspects of British society, and he is bending over backwards to try to make accommodations for it. "Sure, Mr. Snaik," says the archbishop, "Come in and lie down and make yourself comfortable. Why, you can sleep right here in this young child's crib."

Why should any society make accommodations for those who would seek to overthrow it? In fact are not those people who seek to overthrow England and other western countries actually, then, the enemies of the host country? And how should a state deal with its enemies, from those who seek to change its laws or kill its citizens? Should the state invite such enemies into the homes of her people?

A millennia ago, the Archbishop's forerunners also were confronted with the scourge of Islam, when it once before sought to conquer Europe. Fortunately previous generations of Brits were braver and more insightful than Mr. Williams as they aggressively went to the middle east and gave the muslims the kind of whatfor that they were asking for.

I doubt many of those who gave their lives on such battlefields would be too proud of the Archbishop's current attempts at secession or surrender.


(Cartoon from Red Planet Cartoons, http://www.redplanetcartoons.com/) :
T.K.O. (Technical Knock Out)

Ecumenica Blames Israel, Palestinians Skate Once Again

In another incredible example of the world's headlong swirl into the abyss, the World Council of Churches has denounced Israel for the plight of Gaza's incorrigible Palestinians. Of course, no mention was made by the liberal WCC of the rockets fired from inside Gaza by Palestinians that continue to rain into Israel.

No, it is the mantra of the times to allow any muslim, or muslim group, on the planet to do whatever they would like, and then blame everybody else; especially if one's name is Israel. There is no accountability to any recognizable standard of dignified humanity that these people are being held to. Rather than recognizing and announcing to all that Islamic cultures are ignorant, depraved, oppressive, dark, shallow and evil, the world has instead become Islamic enablers.

And we also conveniently forget things. Just a few years ago was Israel not pressured to give up the Gaza area entirely? Yes, we heard, 'Land for Peace'; the Palestinians will stop attacking Israel if Israel will just give them that land. So what happened to that? Where is the peace? There is no peace. Palestinians continue to attack Israel.

Have the Palestinians, then, lived up to their end of the agreement, or have they not? And if they have not, who is responsible and what are the consequences?

I know, Israel is responsible and Israel should suffer the consequences. Let's blame them!

Can you see this glaring hypocrisy? Can you see how Israel is being held to a completely different standard than are the muslim Palestinians, who are held to exactly none?

Israel is thus being dissuaded from its responsibility to its own citizens to protect them from attack. For some inexplicable reason, everybody wants to tie Israel's hands behind their backs and subject them to continual harassment and terror.

Sad to say, but not even George W. and Condi are on the right track on this one. They, too have fallen into the mire that concludes that the Palestinians can somehow be reasoned with. But how can you reason with someone who only wants your death and will stop at nothing? A child could answer that muse; a child could tell you that it cannot be done.

So why is everybody protecting the Palestinians from getting the lumps they have called down on their own heads by their own actions? And part of the world's requirement of this worldly, 'protective' stance is that Israel should take the lumps instead. How reasonable is this? How fair is this? How hypocritical is this!

The WCC is wrong to condemn Israel for actually taking steps to defend itself against ruthless murderers. And by its declaration it is in fact protecting evil. Compassion is one thing, but when such a stance ignores or denies evil, and does not insist on accountability, it simply works to perpetuate and exacerbate a cycle of drawn-out violence.

T.K.O. (Technical Knock Out)