Holy Saturday: devastation, anguish, hell

Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand (Jn 19:41f).

The Messiah, the Lamb of God, the Lion of Judah, the hope of Israel, the long-promised Saviour is dead. He lies lifeless in a tomb. For Christians, after the intensity of the Last Supper and the Passion, this is usually a low-key day of quiet expectation and preparation for tomorrow. And it's going to be a scorcher, so mow the lawn, go for a pint of warm English beer and get the barbeque out.

It is a much misunderstood day, seemingly of no great spiritual significance. Jesus is buried: we are left wondering and waiting. But for the Lord, it was the day he descended to Hades and conquered eternal death.

Most of the Church has forgotten the Harrowing of Hell; those who remember tend to half apologise for it. Certainly, ‘hell’ is not a helpful translation: Jesus was in Hades (ᾍδης) or Sheol (שאול) – a place of peace for some and torment for others. Following the trauma of the crucifixion, Mary was distraught, the disciples were weeping, Judas was hanging, and the Romans, Pharisees and Saducees were rejoicing. But Jesus was descending to the place of departed spirits to preach the Good News and liberate the captives.

The Apostles’ Creed says so (‘He descended into hell’ [BCP]); Aquinas affirms this in his magisterial Summa Theologica (IIIa, q52); the idea is found in some of the earliest writings of the Church Father: Irenaeus, in his tract Contra Haereses (5,31,2) says the Lord ‘tarried until the third day “in the lower parts of the earth” (Eph 4:9)...where the souls of the dead were...’; and Tertullian, in A Treatise on the Soul (60), wrote: ‘With the same law of His being He fully complied, by remaining in Hades in the form and condition of a dead man; nor did He ascend into the heights of heaven before descending into the lower parts of the earth, that He might there make the patriarchs and prophets partakers of Himself.’

The event is referred or alluded to numerous times in Scripture (Acts 2:31; Eph 4:8-10; 1Pt 3:18-20), and many consider the parable of the rich man and Lazarus (Lk 16:19-31) relevant, and also Jesus’ statement to the thief on the cross – ‘Today shalt thou be with me in paradise’ (Lk 23:42f).

Here is not the place to discuss the diverse interpretations of these scriptures and expositions: it is not news that Christians disagree, not least on the soteriological implications of a ‘second chance’ of repentance after death. Whether or not this was the point of salvation for Adam and Eve, Noah, David... cannot be known this side of Glory. What we do know is that the Lord wants all to be saved (1 Tim 2:4): He wants all to see his image, repent of their sin, take on his likeness, be pure, holy, perfect. He wants everyone to know Him and to love more.

On this Holy Saturday, the final day of Lent, let our faith be made stronger; let us be more assured that sin and death are conquered; let us know a little more of the light through the sometimes impenetrable shadows. Whether the Harrowing of Hell is literal or figurative, corporeal or spiritual, it has a message for all of us today: the highest response to evil is to free people from it. Let us rejoice that our Redeemer lives.

I’m No Healthcare Consumer

Yesterday's New York Times contained a very sensible column by Paul Krugman. He asks a question that’s really rather obvious – so obvious, in light of our national healthcare-funding woes, it’s escaped the attention of a great many who ought to be asking it:

“Here's my question: How did it become normal, or for that matter even acceptable, to refer to medical patients as "consumers"? The relationship between patient and doctor used to be considered something special, almost sacred. Now politicians and supposed reformers talk about the act of receiving care as if it were no different from a commercial transaction, like buying a car - and their only complaint is that it isn't commercial enough.

What has gone wrong with us?”
– Paul Krugman, “Patients are not Consumers,” New York Times, April 21, 2011.

This is more than a mere quality-of-life question. It’s got big implications for economics, as we continue to struggle through our national healthcare-funding debate:

“Consumer-based" medicine has been a bust everywhere it has been tried. To take the most directly relevant example, Medicare Advantage, which was originally called Medicare + Choice, was supposed to save money; it ended up costing substantially more than traditional Medicare. America has the most ‘consumer-driven’ health care system in the advanced world. It also has by far the highest costs yet provides a quality of care no better than far cheaper systems in other countries.”

The problem is that there are an awful lot of people out there who profess an unquestioning, fundamentalist faith in what economist Adam Smith called, way back in 1759, “the invisible hand” of the market. For him, it was probably just a metaphor, but for his latter-day followers, it’s become a virtual deification of free enterprise. Attached to that invisible hand, in their fantastic imaginings, is a new Olympian god, who effortless regulates human affairs through astute transfers of capital.

That would be of little significance, were not living, breathing human beings mightily affected by such transfers.

That makes it, as Krugman correctly points out, a moral issue.

Good Friday: love, sacrifice, death

Then Pilate therefore took Jesus, and scourged him.
And the soldiers platted a crown of thorns, and put it on his head, and they put on him a purple robe,
And said, Hail, King of the Jews! and they smote him with their hands.
Pilate therefore went forth again, and saith unto them, Behold, I bring him forth to you, that ye may know that I find no fault in him.
Then came Jesus forth, wearing the crown of thorns, and the purple robe. And Pilate saith unto them, Behold the man!
When the chief priests therefore and officers saw him, they cried out, saying, Crucify him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Take ye him, and crucify him: for I find no fault in him.
The Jews answered him, We have a law, and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the Son of God.
When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he was the more afraid;
And went again into the judgment hall, and saith unto Jesus, Whence art thou? But Jesus gave him no answer.
Then saith Pilate unto him, Speakest thou not unto me? knowest thou not that I have power to crucify thee, and have power to release thee?
Jesus answered, Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: therefore he that delivered me unto thee hath the greater sin.
And from thenceforth Pilate sought to release him: but the Jews cried out, saying, If thou let this man go, thou art not Caesar's friend: whosoever maketh himself a king speaketh against Caesar.
When Pilate therefore heard that saying, he brought Jesus forth, and sat down in the judgment seat in a place that is called the Pavement, but in the Hebrew, Gabbatha.
And it was the preparation of the passover, and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King!
But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him. Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King? The chief priests answered, We have no king but Caesar.
Then delivered he him therefore unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away.
And he bearing his cross went forth into a place called the place of a skull, which is called in the Hebrew Golgotha:
Where they crucified him, and two other with him, on either side one, and Jesus in the midst.
And Pilate wrote a title, and put it on the cross. And the writing was JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS.
This title then read many of the Jews: for the place where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was written in Hebrew, and Greek, and Latin.
Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate, Write not, The King of the Jews; but that he said, I am King of the Jews.
Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.
Then the soldiers, when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout.
They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be: that the scripture might be fulfilled, which saith, They parted my raiment among them, and for my vesture they did cast lots. These things therefore the soldiers did.
Now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother, and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene.
When Jesus therefore saw his mother, and the disciple standing by, whom he loved, he saith unto his mother, Woman, behold thy son!
Then saith he to the disciple, Behold thy mother! And from that hour that disciple took her unto his own home.
After this, Jesus knowing that all things were now accomplished, that the scripture might be fulfilled, saith, I thirst.
Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a spunge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth.
When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost.
The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:
But one of the soldiers with a spear pierced his side, and forthwith came there out blood and water.
And he that saw it bare record, and his record is true: and he knoweth that he saith true, that ye might believe.
For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, A bone of him shall not be broken.
And again another scripture saith, They shall look on him whom they pierced.
And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand (Jn 19).

It is curious how many times this episode in the life of Christ is recorded on YouTube and 'crucifixion' is spelt '-fiction'. It is as though the event were but a fairy tale.

John brings us, through the depiction of the utter serenity of Jesus, to a point of silence. For Mark Jesus is the Son of God, for Matthew the King, for Luke the Saviour; but for John, this is the Lamb of God who goes to the slaughter like the animals in Hebrews, ritually bled so that no drop of blood remains in him but is poured on the ground. This is no fiction.

God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, who was with him at and since the creation of the world, to die the agonising death of a cursed criminal. The cross that killed the Son of God blotted out our every sin: that which was torture for Him was a sweet gift to us – the path to eternal life.

On this Good Friday, take a moment to look at the man hanging upon that cross. Consider that our every selfish thought, our pride, our fits of anger, our lies, jealousy, greed and intolerance drove those nails into His feet and hands. Even in His deepest agony, he was forgiving us.

The death of Christ brought his disciples to the very depths of despair: they were abandoned, mocked and disillusioned. And yet they possessed within their hearts the peace which passes all understanding: an assurance, a hope that their time of testing might pass and that the curse of death might be conquered.

They did not know; they believed.

And the message they believed has been central to the Christian faith for almost 2000 years. It is one that has continually to be reinforced at times of stress, despair and danger, the moments when faith is tested and the will to overcome is undermined. This is why Good Friday is so central in its symbolism: the descent of darkness, the portents of destruction, the expiry of vision and hope. It is the Good Friday that comes to every person at different times, when failure robs life of all meaning, joy and love. It is the collapse of enterprise, confidence, relationships and dignity. It is the descent into Hell.

Christians endure what Josephus referred to as ‘that most wretched of deaths’ on Good Friday because of the sure and certain hope of the Resurrection: it sustains them through the despair. But this life does not promise the joy and ecstasy of Easter: that is for another place. All that we can expect on earth is to be persecuted for the sake of righteousness: the world will hate us, but it hated Him first.

Today is a time to reflect, remember, re-enact how our sin brought Jesus to his death on Calvary and what that death meant for our sinfulness and redemption. How can we not be grateful? Love so amazing, so divine, demands our souls, our lives, our all.

Arnold Schwarzenegger, President of Europe?

President of the European Council, to be precise. But it amounts to pretty much the same thing.

To be honest, His Grace has no idea if this report is true or not (it started here, and has spread here and here), but it is certainly an intriguing (and highly entertaining) prospect. Having served two terms as Governor of California, and barred from following his fellow thespian Ronald Reagan in running for The White House, Arnold Schwarzenegger does appear to have hit something of a political brick wall.

Being Austrian-born prohibits him from becoming President of the United States (Article II, Section 1, Clause 5 of the US Constitution). But it is just the ticket he needs to succeed Herman Van Rompuy. If this were an EU-wide plebiscite, the outcome would be foregone. Although both men are Roman Catholic and 63 years old, Van Rompuy is obscure and unknown, while Schwarzenegger is a global brand. It is interesting that his former chief of staff, Terry Tamminen, talks of the need for a higher-profile man – a Washington or Jefferson of a new unified Europe. It’s certainly true, as he says, that ‘the French do not want a German, and Germans do not want an Italian’: that’s why we’ve got a Belgian.

The prospect of President Schwarzenegger brought to mind a certain quotation by a certain previous president of the Council of Europe, Paul-Henri Spaak:

‘We do not want another committee. We have too many already. What we want is a man of sufficient stature to hold the allegiance of all people, and to lift us out of the economic morass in which we are sinking. Send us such a man and, be he god or the devil, we will receive him.’

The problem with Van Rompuy is that he exudes committee: indeed, he is a one-man committee. Schwarzenegger has stature in abundance and would hold the allegiance of the people (certainly on Facebook). Judging by his performance (political) in California, he might even lift us out of the economic morass into which (thanks to PIIGS), we are all sinking. An Austrian leading Europe? With an Austrian pope at his side?

It will certainly cause the futurist premillennialists a little bother. Many in the US are persuaded that Obama is the Anti-Christ. For those who believe he will arise from a European 10-nation confederacy, Schwarzenegger is rather more plausible than Van Rompuy. After all, it’s easy to envision the Apocalypse of the Last Days and Armageddon with a Terminator than a bank manager.

Maundy Thursday: cleansing, humility, supper

Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end.
And supper being ended, the devil having now put into the heart of Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, to betray him;
Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;
He riseth from supper, and laid aside his garments; and took a towel, and girded himself.
After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded.
Then cometh he to Simon Peter: and Peter saith unto him, Lord, dost thou wash my feet?
Jesus answered and said unto him, What I do thou knowest not now; but thou shalt know hereafter.
Peter saith unto him, Thou shalt never wash my feet. Jesus answered him, If I wash thee not, thou hast no part with me.
Simon Peter saith unto him, Lord, not my feet only, but also my hands and my head.
Jesus saith to him, He that is washed needeth not save to wash his feet, but is clean every whit: and ye are clean, but not all.
For he knew who should betray him; therefore said he, Ye are not all clean.
So after he had washed their feet, and had taken his garments, and was set down again, he said unto them, Know ye what I have done to you?
Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am.
If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought to wash one another's feet.
For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you (Jn 13:1-15) .

Today we remember that Jesus washed the feet of his disciples and then ate bread and drank wine for the last time. We remember the Last Supper day after day all year round: we only focus on foot-washing only once a year, and rarely is it re-created. Perhaps we should precede every celebration of the Eucharist with foot-washing or a modern equivalent; a little induced humility to dispel superiority and confront our pride.

After all, we all need to wash our feet, so having someone perform for us a necessary act without expectation of payment is a manifestation of humility and service. And we all need to eat, but the bread and the wine are privileges. Only if we are humble can we dine with Him; only when everything else fades into oblivion can we feed on Him.

There’s a bit of fuss at the moment about the precise day of the Last Supper: apparently, it was yesterday, not today. It is typical that we get bound in technical minutiae and forget the commemoration. Jesus wasn’t born on December 25th and Easter Day is determined by the lunar cycle, the solar cycle, the division of each year into 365 days and a 1,700 year old Church ruling. Does it matter?

We must focus on humility, feeding on Him, and praying as he did in the garden of Gethsemane, with grief and tears of anguish, that our hour will come, that the cup of suffering may pass and that all believers may be one. Without our hour and in the absence of our cup, we will never be one. Supper’s ready.

April 21, 2011 – Radiation Pill?

It seems lymphoma treatment isn’t the only cancer-treatment field that’s rapidly changing. Today I come across an article on my other cancer – thyroid cancer – indicating that one treatment that’s been talked about for me is currently being reconsidered by the experts.

I’ve been hearing all along that, once my thyroid is removed surgically, I’ll probably need to follow up with a single radioactive-iodine treatment. This is a dollop of radioactive material encased in a small pill, that I would swallow several weeks after surgery. Because thyroid tissue thirstily slurps up iodine, if it should happen that there’s any thyroid tissue remaining in my body after the surgery, the radioactive iodine would zap it.

Now, it turns out the radioactive iodine is risky in itself, and is possibly the cause of some secondary cancers. Recent studies indicate that a more nuanced treatment decision now needs to be made, weighing the likelihood that there is indeed any remaining malignant thyroid tissue against the slight – but real – risk of the radioactive iodine running amok and causing another cancer elsewhere.

The American Thyroid Association is now saying that radioactive iodine “should be used selectively and [only] in patients with intermediate and high-risk thyroid tumors.”

So, with a nodule presently at 1.5 centimeters, how’s my tumor classified? I didn’t ask Dr. Boyle about precise staging, so I can’t be sure.

That’s one thing I’ll need to remember to ask the doctor about, as the time of surgery draws near.

In the meantime, it’s Holy Week, and I’ve got a whole lot of other things on my mind. Sermons to write!

Demands to reform the Monarchy are nothing to do with equality

It has become a very wide bandwagon with limitless carriages, and virtually everyone is jumping aboard. And if you’re not, you’re either mediaeval or bigoted, or both. And so politicians of all persuasions, prelates of all complexions and even the Queen herself apparently favour reform.

One should hold the last one very loosely, for ‘talking to Buckingham Palace’ and ‘advisers tell contacts who tell journalists’ are not quite the same as being invited for tea and cake at Windsor Castle to hear it straight from Her Majesty’s mouth.

Once again, the Act of Settlement 1701 is in the firing line: not this time primarily because of its ‘anti-Catholic bigotry’, but because of sexist primogeniture: the right, by law or custom, of the firstborn male to inherit the throne. Since the monarch is no longer a military protector, testosterone is incidental. And since also the mystical fusion of priests with kings is long gone, there are no sacred instruments which females are forbidden to touch.

Nick Clegg rather foolishly insists that reform is now of the upmost priority because Prince William and Catherine Middleton may soon have a baby, and the reform must be in place before he or she is born.

Why?

Their firstborn immediately becomes third in line to the throne whether the child is male or female: it is only the advent of the second-born which creates an issue, and that event must be at least a couple of years off being ‘pressing’. And even then, it’s only an issue of the firstborn is a girl: if the couple have a boy first, the whole discussion can be kicked into the long grass for another generation.

But it’s not only Nick Clegg: David Cameron is now aboard, and so is ConservativeHome.

And so is Daniel Hannan.

This is not a ride on the latest Harry Potter theme park: it is foundational constitutional stuff. It is bizarre indeed that Burkean Conservatives should be queuing to support these reforms which are nothing to do with ‘equality’ and everything to do with secularism and (eventually) republicanism. Of course (pace Dr Evan Harris) these destinations will be denied. But it is interesting indeed that ‘Human Rights’ are invoked and the issue is presented as one of injustice. Discrimination against Roman Catholics in the laws of marriage is indeed contrary to Article 14 of the ECHR, which prohibits discrimination on the grounds of religion, in conjunction with Article 12, which provides a right for men and women to marry. It is also arguably contrary to the freedom of religion of Roman Catholics protected by Article 9. In relation to male primogeniture in the law of inheritance, it is contrary to Article 14 in conjunction with Article 1 Protocol 1.113.

But the Head of State is the Monarch, and the Monarch is Supreme Governor of the Church of England, and the Supreme Governor of the Church of England may not be a Roman Catholic or married to one. That is the Constitution of the United Kingdom (along with Antigua & Barbuda, Australia, The Bahamas, Barbados, Belize, Canada, Grenada, Jamaica, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea, Saint Kitts & Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent & the Grenadines, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu). To insist that the Supreme Governor of the Church of England must be in communion with the Church of England is as sensible as insisting that the Pope must be Roman Catholic. Is the Act of Settlement really more offensively discriminatory than Article 1125 of Roman Catholic Canon Law? Is not discrimination inherent in the very concept of religious adherence?

Dr Evan Harris despises the Church of England and appears to criticise it at every turn. Doubtless he knows what he’s doing to further his atheist-humanist-secularist-gay agenda. But those Conservatives who demand reform apparently do not. They fail to realise that the matter does not only concern the Act of Settlement 1701, but a number of other acts, including the Bill of Rights (1688), the Coronation Oaths Act (1688), the Crown in Parliament Act (1689), the Act of Union (1707), and the Royal Marriages Act (1772). And it is the Act of Union (1707) which ought to be of primary concern to Unionist Conservatives.

The Act of Settlement was passed by the old English parliament, which ceased to exist in 1707. The Act was also arguably incompetent, since the English parliament could not unilaterally decide on the British Regal Union of 1603-1707. The Scottish parliament recognised this fact, and deliberately countered the Act of Settlement with a Scottish settlement Act - the Act of Security of 1704. The Act of Settlement 1701 was superseded by the Treaty of Union 1707, which, in Article 2, also prohibits Roman Catholics ascending the throne of the United Kingdom. The Treaty of Union 1707 is the founding charter of the United Kingdom. Tamper with this, and the Union is imperilled.

This is why successive prime ministers of the United Kingdom and Unionist Scottish secretaries of state have no intention of ending the ban on the Monarch either being a Roman Catholic or married to one, and why they are quite happy to let historically-ignorant and politically-ill-informed people like Dr Evan Harris continue harping on about the Act of Settlement 1701.

David Cameron is right to point out that reform will take years: it is a spider's web, can of worms, knot of vipers and a house of cards all rolled into one. It may even prove a Gordian Knot. The unintended consequences will make House of Lords reform seem like a walk in the park, because the reform will, as sure as night follows day, lead to disestablishment and a secular republic.

If this were about equality, it ought to be observed that it is not only Roman Catholics who are discriminated against, but those who are born out of wedlock. Such children are no longer referred to as bastards, and even ‘illegitimate’ would fall foul of the PC police. In an era in which marriage is falling out of fashion and more than half of children are born every year to unmarried or single parents, why should the state perpetuate the absurd, ‘old fashioned’ belief that children born out of wedlock are ‘second-class citizens’, incapable of inheriting?

As ever, Shakespeare considered the point, and Edmund reasons:

Thou, nature, art my goddess; to thy law
My services are bound. Wherefore should I
Stand in the plague of custom, and permit
The curiosity of nations to deprive me,
For that I am some twelve or fourteen moon-shines
Lag of a brother? Why bastard? wherefore base?
When my dimensions are as well compact,
My mind as generous, and my shape as true,
As honest madam's issue? Why brand they us
With base? with baseness? bastardy? base, base?
Who, in the lusty stealth of nature, take
More composition and fierce quality
Than doth, within a dull, stale, tired bed,
Go to the creating a whole tribe of fops,
Got 'tween asleep and wake? Well, then,
Legitimate Edgar, I must have your land:
Our father's love is to the bastard Edmund
As to the legitimate: fine word,--legitimate!
Well, my legitimate, if this letter speed,
And my invention thrive, Edmund the base
Shall top the legitimate. I grow; I prosper:
Now, gods, stand up for bastards!

So, to all who favour reform of 'old fashioned' attitudes, why stop at Roman Catholics and women? Doesn’t equality equally demand that you ‘stand up for bastards’?

Holy Wednesday: selfishness, greed, betrayal

And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.
When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)
Then let them which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:
Let him which is on the housetop not come down to take any thing out of his house:
Neither let him which is in the field return back to take his clothes.
And woe unto them that are with child, and to them that give suck in those days!
But pray ye that your flight be not in the winter, neither on the sabbath day:
For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be.
And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.
Then if any man shall say unto you, Lo, here is Christ, or there; believe it not.
For there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.
Behold, I have told you before (Mt 24:14-25).

Even as Jesus was enlightening the masses with a little sermon on the Mount of Olives, Judas was preparing to betray him. Why? How can you spend so much time in a man’s company and not get the measure of his character? How could Judas not know? How could he not believe? How could he not trust? The reason is that he did not love: or that he loved himself, his ambition and money more. Judas is one of those friends who aren’t friends: you know the sort – the superficial hangers-on; those who like to be seen with you or use you for their own ends; those who boast and name-drop, whose every conversation becomes a discourse about them. The world of politics is full of such people. They profess eternal friendship and mouth their undying loyalty while they plot to stab you in the back: as one great person observed, it is treachery with a smile.

Then one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, went unto the chief priests,
And said unto them, What will ye give me, and I will deliver him unto you? And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver.
And from that time he sought opportunity to betray him.
And from that time he sought opportunity to betray Him (Mt 26:14-16).

As long as Judas lined his pocket, he never paused to consider the consequences for Jesus. That would have been an act of love, yet his heart was consumed with selfishness, greed and exploitation. Friends are God’s gift of love: they are there to nurture and support, and also to correct and rebuke. On this Holy Wednesday, let us thank God for them, and reflect on forgiving those who have betrayed us – politically and religiously – even if they have caused to cry a whole river of heartache and hurt.

The Hansard Society on why people may support AV

As old enemies unite against a common foe and the latest opinion poll informs us that No2AV is enjoying a lead of 16 per cent over the Yes2AV campaign, perhaps we should pause to consider that the 'undecideds' constitute in excess of 20 per cent.

There is still plenty of scope for this important constitutional referendum to be treated as little more than a by-election protest against the coalition, or a popularity test of David Cameron and Nick Clegg personally. The future course of our democracy might be shaped by momentary grievance and ephemeral discontent.

In its 8th Audit of Political Engagement, the Hansard Society notes;

"Despite very mixed views about the advantages and disadvantages of the Alternative Vote (AV) system, most who took part in our research discussion groups said that, if they vote, they will likely support a change in the system. This was not because of particular dissatisfaction with First Past The Post. Rather, their dissatisfaction with the current system of politics, with MPs, Parliament and government was such that almost any change was preferable to the status quo."

A damning indictment.

Holy Tuesday: questions, authority and hypocrisy

When Jesus had thus said, he was troubled in spirit, and testified, and said, Verily, verily, I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me.
Then the disciples looked one on another, doubting of whom he spake.
Now there was leaning on Jesus' bosom one of his disciples, whom Jesus loved.
Simon Peter therefore beckoned to him, that he should ask who it should be of whom he spake.
He then lying on Jesus' breast saith unto him, Lord, who is it?
Jesus answered, He it is, to whom I shall give a sop, when I have dipped it. And when he had dipped the sop, he gave it to Judas Iscariot, the son of Simon.
And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.
Now no man at the table knew for what intent he spake this unto him.
For some of them thought, because Judas had the bag, that Jesus had said unto him, Buy those things that we have need of against the feast; or, that he should give something to the poor.
He then having received the sop went immediately out: and it was night.
Therefore, when he was gone out, Jesus said, Now is the Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in him.
If God be glorified in him, God shall also glorify him in himself, and shall straightway glorify him.
Little children, yet a little while I am with you. Ye shall seek me: and as I said unto the Jews, Whither I go, ye cannot come; so now I say to you (Jn 13:21-33).

As Jesus continued to teach in the Temple, he was questioned by the chief priests and scribes about his authority to teach. He didn’t show his theology degree, his qualified teacher status or his CRB check: instead, he responded to their questions with his own. Their reaction was doubtless one of irritation and embarrassment: doubtless some stormed off, as hypocrites tend to when confronted with their own absurdities: the parable of the wicked tenants (Mt 21:33-45; Mk 12:1-12; Lk 20:9-19) wouldn’t have helped. The Pharisees then tried entrapment, asking whether it was lawful to pay taxes to the Emperor. Aware of their motives, Jesus’ response was unequivocal that taxes must be paid.

The Lord’s authority came from God, but he never used it to subvert the princely authorities of this world. And neither did he run to The Daily Mail with every petty grievance. Our citizenship is in heaven; we are merely passing through the temporal state. And while we journey, we must obey the political authorities and the precepts of our employers. Of course, we may agitate for change, but never without humility or love, which penetrates the souls of men because it is divine.

Religious shows of ostentation and hypocritical piety are antithetical to what the kingdom of heaven is about: by focusing on the letter of the law, we easily forget that the substance is justice, mercy and love; by obsessing about outward adornments, we risk ignoring the spirit, the heart, the purpose of our faith. Indeed, the outward manifestation is hollow when it is more pharisaically obsessed with propriety than with loving one’s neighbour.

Yesterday, one contributor said that His Grace was ‘more Pharisee than Apostle’.

His Grace agrees.

On this Holy Tuesday and all this week and every day thereafter he reflects and will reflect upon his sin, his shortcomings, his hypocrisies and inadequacies. Everything he does is dirty rags before the Lord. His whited sepulchre may be full of dead men’s bones (or, indeed, ash), and he may be plagued by all manner of uncleanness, but he takes the Lord’s warnings about authority and hypocrisy very seriously indeed: he will not be outwardly what he is not inwardly.

New Harmony: IPAPA First Brush of Spring 2011!!

 6x6 oil

 6x6 oil

 6x6 oil

 6x6 oil

 7x5 oil

 8x6 oil

12x16 oil Greenhouse (New Harmony IN)

What a wild week it has been! Off last Friday to New Harmony Indiana for the Indiana Plein Air Painters Assoc. event titled The First Brush of Spring. Each year a small army of artists from around the country descend on this small ( about 12 square blocks) , quaint, fabulously beautiful, antique historical town just as spring is unfolding. I understand there were over 150 artist there this year! Each year...this was my 6th...I have gone I have felt like a little bitty baby artist because the quality of the work is so stunning. Collectors come from far and wide to purchase works as the word is out about the sheer quality of the pieces! It pushes me hard all year to improve so as to be competitive some day. I determined to paint every day this year and that I think, has made a world of difference.

While I did not win any awards this year I felt much more competitive and I sold 7 pieces of art! The one of the greenhouse is going to hang in the towns bed and breakfast...I am sooooo honored!I will post the rest of the pieces I did soon!

Johann Hari vs Ann Widdecombe on the future of Christianity

In the briefest of interludes, Johann Hari says:

1) 'The factual claims Christianity makes have been proven to be false.'

2) 'The nasty dogmas that lead people to discriminate against gay people or treat women badly because God commanded it...will wither.'

To which His Grace responds:

1) If a fact has been proven to be false, it was not a fact in the first place. Which factual claims made by Christianity have been proven to be false?

2) How is it possible to belong to a religion (any religion) without discriminating against those who do not belong? Is that not freedom of association? Are traditional Christian beliefs and the teachings of the Church now to be subject to an illiberal and intolerant creed of equality and rights? The nasty dogmata that lead people to discriminate against Christians are incompatible with liberalism, liberty and tolerance. And where, pray, do the commands of God or the teachings of the Church encourage people to treat women badly? As far as His Grace can see, men are instructed to love their wives as Christ loves the Church (Eph 5:25).

There is so much more His Grace could comment upon, but there is a weary feeling of pearl before swine. It is simply not possible to dialogue with the deaf when they prohibit sign language and then feign blindness to avoid lip-reading.

BBC bias against Israel: a petition to the Rt Hon Jeremy Hunt MP

His Grace is of the opinion that the BBC ought to honour its own Charter and broadcasting guidelines. Yet it is seen time and again that whenever the Arab-Israeli conflict is concerned, the Corporation's impartiality and accuracy fly out of the window straight to the nearest holy mosque or to the bed of an aggrieved Palestinian: the holiest Temple Mount and the slaughtered Jews don't get much of a look-in.

A petition has been brought to His Grace's attention which he commends to his readers and communicants for their consideration. It demands that the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport launch an independent investigation into BBC coverage of the Middle East conflict in view of persuasive evidence that it is biased against the State of Israel.

In particular, it requests an immediate instruction to the BBC to release the 'Balen Report' into its coverage of the Middle East conflict, which appears to be subject to a 100-year non-disclosure order. It was commissioned by the BBC with taxpayers' money (rather a lot of it) to investigate whether or not its Middle East coverage was biased. They obviously didn't like its findings, because they have since spent an awful lot more of taxpayers' money suppressing it through the courts. Please consider signing this petition, and commending to others to do so.

And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it (Zech 12:3).

Holy Monday: anointing, cleansing and happiness

Then Jesus six days before the passover came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, which had been dead, whom he raised from the dead.
There they made him a supper; and Martha served: but Lazarus was one of them that sat at the table with him.
Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.
Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,
Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?
This he said, not that he cared for the poor; but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was put therein.
Then said Jesus, Let her alone: against the day of my burying hath she kept this.
For the poor always ye have with you; but me ye have not always (Jn 12:1-8).

The Jews commemorate Pesach today: the time the Israelites escaped slavery in Egypt by marking their doorposts with the blood of a pure lamb so that the spirit of the Lord might pass over their homes in the slaughter of the first-born. In the Gospel of John, he records that six days before the Passover, Mary lavishly anointed her Lord in anticipation of His burial. Christ commends her for the deed, saying: “Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her” (Mk 14:9).

Pope Benedict XVI wrote of this: ‘There is only one anointing that is strong enough to meet death and that is the anointing of the Holy Spirit, the love of God. There is, then, something that is both exemplary and lasting in Mary's anointing of Jesus at Bethany. It was above all a concern to keep Christ alive in this world and to oppose the powers that aimed to silence and kill him. It was an act of faith and love. Every such act can have the same effect.’

Holy Monday is also frequently linked to the Lord’s cleansing of the Temple which had become a den of thieves. The House of God, supposedly a place set aside for meditation and prayer, had become a place of hypocrisy, insincerity, greed and lust.

Nothing changes.

Christians are called to be living sacrifice; to worship God daily in their daily actions and with their every word. This is becoming increasingly difficult in a context of aggressive secularism confronted by a toothless church. But the witness of our extravagant devotion to the Lord is wholly dependent upon the purity and honesty of our lives: and that must be marked by humility and love, not by aggressive demands for rights or assertions of pride. Let Caesar collect his taxes and make his laws: it is for Christians to cleanse our temple and devote ourselves lavishly to the Lord, and then may be found peace, joy and happiness.

Hosanna in excelsis! Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini

His Grace has decided to share some music with his readers and communicants on the approach to Easter Sunday: a kind of Spotify for Holy Week. Here is the Palm Sunday instalment; the moment Andrew Lloyd Webber became a composer:



And for those who find the exuberant dancing somewhat distracting (though but a shadow of the ecstasy and joy in Jerusalem as the Messiah entered 2000 years ago), here's the original:

Hosanna to the Son of David

Today is Palm Sunday.

So His Grace is not going to concern himself with trivial distractions, such as the fact that Archbishop Vincent Nichols has used the opportunity to give a high-profile interview to The Sunday Telegraph in which he accuses the Prime Minister of duplicity and criticises the Big Society for ‘lacking teeth’. And neither does His Grace wish to dwell on the announcement by the Muslim Council of Britain that ‘not covering the face is a "shortcoming" and suggest(ing) that any Muslims who advocate being uncovered could be guilty of rejecting Islam’; or that the Deputy Prime Minister is obsessing about constitutional change to scrap the principle of male primogeniture, which will have absolutely no significance until the Royal couple’s second-born (and only then if their first born is a girl and the second born a boy); or that ConservativeHome is following up its call for Islam to be adopted as the state religion with quite un-Burkean support for this constitutional meddling; or that former soldier Colin Atkinson has been told by his employer that he may not display a palm cross in his company van (which is not his property, and His Grace cannot for the life of him work out what the issue is here: the van belongs irrefutably to Caesar).

No, today is Palm Sunday.

The focus will be Christ.

Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini.

As we enter this Holy Week - the most solemn and intense period of worship in the Christian calendar – it is important to remember that it begins with supreme joy as Jesus entered Jerusalem as the fulfilment of the long-promised salvation of Israel.

Palm leaves to the Romans were a symbol of victory and of military prowess. The Jewish people simply echoed this practice, perhaps drawing on 1 Maccabees where it is recorded that the people waved palm branches to celebrate the independence of Jerusalem and Judea.

In the palm cross we find a symbol of Christ's grace which simultaneously fuses the joy of his triumph with the profound sorrow of his death. The Passion Gospel is forever in the background of the Hosannas of the people – a people who could never have foreseen what would befall their Messiah just a week later. They yearned for a king who would proclaim Israel’s independence from Rome; they wanted a Messiah who would be their religio-political hero; they wanted a Jesus who would fulfil their religious expectations and affirm their political agendas.

On this final Sunday of Lent, His Grace wishes to pause from temporal matters religio-political and eschew all trivial distractions to reflect on the fact that little has changed in two millennia. Even today, those who believe in Christ want a certain kind of Jesus; a certain type of Messiah – one who will bless our politics, bless our wars and battles, and will be ‘on our side’ against all our enemies, foreign and domestic. We seek a Messiah who will affirm out notion of truth, our interpretation of Scripture, our spiritual pilgrimage through this temporal existence.

Today is a day for humility; to reflect on the fact that Jesus did not enter Jerusalem riding a fine chariot, or the equivalent of a armoured vehicle or a Rolls Royce: he rode in on a donkey, like a humble peasant on a mission of peace.

And let us not forget that these same people who today shouted ‘Hosanna!’ are the same people who cried out ‘Crucify him!’ just five days later. And all because they realised that the Jesus who rode in on a donkey was not the Jesus they had invented in their minds, for he had an agenda which was not remotely in accordance with their own.

Local press is the limit of local accountability

Eric Pickles is proving to be one of the great reformers of this government. He intends to use the transparency agenda to highlight the waste and inefficiency in local government, and to increase local accountability to go with the transfer of more power and responsibility to local councils.

A few weeks ago, his Department for Communities and Local Government introduced citizens’ rights to inspect councils’ ledgers:

“New transparency rules will require councils to publicise to the press and public the little-known rights to inspect councils' detailed financial accounts, ledgers and records. This is designed to increase scrutiny of councils' spending decisions by armchair auditors and local investigative journalists.”

This is in addition to plans for online transparency – not just publishing spending over £500, but also contracts, tenders, staffing and more:

"The Code proposes the minimum datasets that should be released, openly and for reuse, by local authorities are:

-expenditure over £500, (including costs, supplier and transaction information)
-grants and payments under contract to the voluntary community and social enterprise sector
-names, budgets and responsibilities of staff paid over £58,200 - equivalent to the lowest Senior Civil Service pay band
-an organisational chart
-councillor allowances and expenses
-copies of contracts and tenders to businesses and to the voluntary community and social enterprise sector
-policies, performance, audits and key indicators on the authorities' fiscal and financial position
-data of democratic running of the local authority including the constitution, election results, committee minutes, decision - making processes and records of decisions"

So far every council has started publishing their spending over £500 – apart from Labour-run Nottingham. They alone appear to believe that it is for them to determine what transparency and accountability the people may enjoy.

But there is a crucial problem with localism: the weakness of the local press. The nationals can (and frequently do) jump in with both feet, regardless of the consequences: it’s not so much ‘publish and be damned’ as ‘harass, eavesdrop and intercept mobile phone messages and be damned’. It is a highly competitive, aggressive and invasive pursuit, to the extent that journalists are prepared to transgress the law in order to secure their story. And they do so, it appears, because (on the off-chance they’re caught) they can afford to pay the odd £100k in compensation to make it all go away.

But the Burton Mail, the Bedford News, the Shields Gazette and the South Bucks Star can’t work that way. In difficult economic times they are more vulnerable. There are only around 90 city-based and regional dailies and 1,200 weeklies, but they are all struggling to survive in a world of free internet. Local readerships are already ageing, and when local newsagents and post offices close and the papers lose their three key regional advertising markets - property, cars and jobs – local reporting is cut back and thousands of journalists are made redundant. The very mechanism for local scrutiny and accountability is precariously dependent on the boom and bust cycles of the economy.

Further more, local editors do not dare touch some stories for fear of an instant lawsuit: they simply cannot take the risk for fear of bankruptcy or uninsurability should they lose a case. An allegation of financial impropriety doesn’t even have to name an individual before it becomes libellous: if the subject may be identified by anyone from discursive description or elliptical allusion, the newspaper has committed a tortious act and the journalist or editor becomes a tortfeasor. Punitive compensation is then due for any emotional, economic, or reputational injuries.

The nationals can afford to investigate rigorously, and they have highly proficient journalists who are up to the task. They can and do risk tort by publishing a partial truth in order to eke out the greater truth. They can hold Parliament and politicians to account because they operate under a secure financial aegis. The locals have no such liberty, and rarely do they have journalists who up to the task. Indeed, while there are a few notable exceptions, many view local journalism as little more than work experience where they learn their craft as they await their elevation to Fleet Street. Local journalists are frequently beholden to local officials and friendly councillors for their stories, and they would be loath to compromise a cosy relationship of mutually-beneficial back-scratching.

So, when a local council pays its chief executive £200k a year while it is closing libraries and cutting care for the disabled, the local narrative is one of ‘Tory cuts’. When council managers are paid more than MPs while ‘Sure Start’ centres are sacrificed and grants to voluntary organisations are slashed, the local narrative remains that of ‘Tory cuts’. A journalist eager to investigate waste, mismanagement or downright fraud is all too often warned off by their editor, because they can’t make the story ‘stand up’: if it’s not watertight, they won’t risk.

Localism is a laudable aim, and Eric Pickles is a vastly underestimated and unjustly derided politician of great knowledge and considerable expertise. But ‘armchair auditors’ become largely redundant when their only media outlet is the local rag populated with not-so-investigative journalists and a hyper-cautious editor. And since local rags are read by only a tenth of a local population, the vast majority are still dependent on inter alia the BBC to perpetuate the narrative of ‘Tory cuts’. Ironically, the localism designed to foster transparency and accountability may founder not for want of the necessity of local curiosity, but for want of the luxury of the medium for disseminating what is uncovered. If the timid local press is eroded further, the crisis in local democracy will simply be blamed on central government. And the wheel will have come full circle. Again.

At last - the true horror of the persecution of Serbs by Croats emerges

His Grace has occasionally turned to this matter, but it is generally not an angle which interests the 'mainstream media'. Today, however, The Guardian reports that two Croatian generals - Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač - have been found guilty of war crimes against the Serbs, and have received lengthy jail terms.

This was, of course, a Roman Catholic Croat majority against an Orthodox Serb minority, but it is rarely reported in those terms. Today, The Guardian boldly refers to a 'recalcitrant and powerful Catholic church'. Usually, only when the report is of the persecution of Bosnian Muslims does a hint of religion enter the equation. We are told:

Judges in The Hague found Ante Gotovina and Mladen Markač guilty on eight of nine counts for commanding operations that included the shelling of civilians, the torching of Serbian homes in south-west Croatia, the murder of hundreds of elderly Serbs and the forced exodus of at least 20,000 from the Serbian minority rooted in the Dalmatian hinterland for centuries.

Gotovina was given a 24-year jail sentence; Markač was jailed for 18 years.

This represents a political disaster and profound diplomatic embarassment for Croatia: but it is a triumphant vindication for Serbia. Effectively, the Croats have been told that the decisive victory of the war, which sealed their independent statehood, was a war crime. The judges found:

"Croatian forces committed acts of murder, cruel treatment, inhumane acts, destruction, plunder, persecution and deportation. There was a widespread and systematic attack directed against this Serb civilian population, (creating) an environment in which those present there had no choice but to leave."

His Grace has been sent a letter relating to this, which he is pleased to publish:

Sir

A UN court in the Hague has convicted a key wartime Croatian commander, General Ante Gotovina and another General Mladen Markac of committing atrocities in a campaign of shelling, murder and persecution which drove Serbs out of Croatia's Krajina border region in 1995. Having spoken at a Downing Street demonstration at the time, trying to get the British media to acknowledge those crimes, I am personally pleased.

At last the true horror of the persecutions of Serbs by Croats is acknowledged officially in western media who, throughout the Yugoslav war (begun by Croatia in 1991 when they declared illegal independence and started persecuting Serbs in Croatia) blamed only the Serbs.

The Yugoslav war crimes tribunal has also delivered a damning verdict on Croatia's then-president, Franjo Tudjman who declared that independence and whose 1969 book described genocide "as a natural phenomenon commanded by the Almighty in defence of the only true faith (Roman Catholicism)" - Serbs are of course Orthodox Christians. I note that even today the Croatian Roman Catholic Church has defended these convicted Generals.

Tudjman was said by the Court to have led a "joint criminal enterprise" to repopulate the Krajina region with Croats after driving out Serbs. It was Tudjman who had the full support of Germany and Croatia has been invited to join the European Union!

Yours etc

Rodney Atkinson

Google commemorate Charlie Chaplin's Birthday with 2:08 Video Doodle

Google Celebrates Charlie Chaplin's Birthday with an Animated Doodle

Google Search is celebrating Charlie Chaplin’s 122th birthday with a special animated Doodle which is actually a short movie in Chaplin’s style.

Born Charles Spencer Chaplin on April 16, 1889, Charlie Chaplin was an English actor and director, well known for his comedy work in the silent film era. His style of visual, slapstick comedy, as well as his legendary hat and mustache made him one of the most recognizable pop icons of all time.

Charlie Chaplin celebrated with video Google doodle is Length 2:08 minute, Google Doodle team stars in an homage to the silent film era's greatest star's 122nd birthday.

For God's sake, it's Easter: just go out and march

There is story in today's Daily Mail which is of the genre of those that usually appear around Christmas. You know the sort: ‘Winterval’, ‘Winter Festival’, ‘Winter lights’, ‘Celebrity lights’, ‘Luminous’, ‘Eid/Diwali/Christmas lights’, ‘multi-faith holiday’, school bans on nativity plays and shopping centres clamping down on carol singers due to health and safety fears, etc., etc.

Well, it appears we have our first Easter 'ban'. Father Hugh MacKenzie, of St Mary Magdalen Roman Catholic Church in Willesden has been told he and his congregation may not march on Good Friday along a 400-yard route, as they have done every Easter for 13 years, because Brent Council say it breaches health and safety regulations. There is now, apparently, 'strict legal procedure' the council has to follow before they can permit such marches. And so 200 Christians from four churches – the New Testament Church of God, St Andrew’s Church of England, St Mary Magdalen and Willesden Green Baptist Church – will not be able to march. It has been tradition that the public witness precedes their joint celebration of communion (which is interesting ecumenically, but His Grace won't go there today).

He is tempted to say that this is one for Father Pickles, but it really isn't. This is the Queen's highway, and she is supreme Governor of the Church of England. She is sworn to uphold our customs and traditions, and Easter marches go back just a few centuries.

His Grace advises these churches not to make any fuss: don't draw parallels with gay pride marches or Muslims blocking roads to pray with impunity; or to Brent's support for Diwali or Eid celebrations. Just go out and march, as you have done for years. Let them arrest you and bring you to court. And then we will see what excrement hits the fan.

David Cameron: immigration has led to ‘discomfort and disjointedness’

Discomfort and disjointedness? Maybe that’s the case in Witney, the Prime Minister’s constituency; or even around Chequers at the foot of the Chiltern Hills, where he has his country residence. But in many towns and cities the length and breadth of the country, you’d be hard-pressed to know this was England. Immigration has led not so much to discomfort and disjointedness, as suffering, strife and sectarianism.

The speech is widely trailed as the Prime Minister’s ‘most forthright speech on the issue since he became Prime Minister’. Perhaps His Grace is racist, or bigoted, or immoderate, or unreasonable, or all of these, for he finds it somewhat less than forthright and more than a little discursive.

Is it really adequate to refer to ‘Muslim ghettos’ as ‘disjointedness’, when we have cultural and social apartheid and some areas virtually run by Hizb ut-Tahrir? Is it ‘disjointed’ to have mosques promote a conscious rejection of western values? Is it merely ‘disjointed’ that in many places the prevailing attitude is that sporting a flowing Arab robe symbolises your religiosity while your piety is linked to the length of your beard?

And how do you tell people who are afraid to venture out of their homes that they live in area of ‘discomfort’? How can you say to young girls who are systematically groomed, raped and murdered by Asian men that they have suffered ‘discomfort’?

Mr Cameron reminds us that between 1997 and 2009, 2.2million more people came to live in this country than left to live abroad. He says: “That’s the largest influx of people Britain has ever had, and it has placed real pressures on communities up and down the country. Not just pressures on schools, housing and healthcare – though those have been serious – but social pressures too.”

Labour may well be to blame for this, and for allowing extremist parties such as the BNP to flourish by dismissing legitimate concerns about mass immigration as ‘racist’. But the Prime Minister’s plan to cut annual net immigration from around 200,000 per annum to around 50,000 is too little, too late. Not least because a few years later these 50,000 will have had families and we are back up to 200,000 anyway.

Or is it racist to point out that immigrants have babies?

Or is it just the word ‘breed’ that causes difficulty?

The Prime Minister calls for a ‘sober’ debate, which is ‘clear-headed about not only the benefits of immigration but also its impact on our public services, communities and society’.

And so His Grace is happy to make his ‘sober’ and ‘clear-headed’ contribution.

Immigration has been and can be of enormous economic and social value to the UK: we are enriched by many aspects of diversity. But our communities are diverse not only in ethnic terms, but also in their religious understandings and traditions, and also in their cultures and languages. The arrival of asylum seekers, refugees and migrants is the principal cause of the higher proportion of multi-faith parishes, and these are exemplified by the existence of ‘parallel lives’ which weaken community cohesion. There is no singularity of culture or religion, or unifying notion of morality or truth, and this complex pluralism demands a politics which grasps the inherent tensions and potential volatilities – religiously, culturally, economically and socially. Immigration and the advent of other religions, coupled with the process of secularisation, have forced change. We cannot wind back the clock: we are where we are.

But the Prime Minister's pledge to cut the numbers entering Britain to tens of thousands, rather than hundreds of thousands, is not deliverable. Yes, you can halt those coming from the sub-continent; those who fought with us through two world wars to defend our way of life against German tyranny. But those who are members of the EU are free to come and go as they please. And they do more coming than going. Our borders are open to all who dwell within the European Union, and to all who manage to swim or smuggle themselves into it: when they reach the shores of Lampedusa, they are in Dover.

We can agree that ‘for too long, immigration has been too high’, but 50,000 per annum is still too high. Try teaching a group of 30 children in which 20 of them speak no English, and among them are represented eight different languages. Is it any wonder that the other 10 ‘white, working class’ children never achieve their potential? Try getting an appointment with a doctor or a dentist in some areas (not to mention a local authority house), only to find that the world and his dog is in the queue before you.

What welfare benefits does the Prime Minister believe he can withhold from EU immigrants that will not transgress their human rights? What discrimination does he believe he can manifest that will not fall foul of Labour’s equality and diversity legislation? Unless the Prime Minister intends to scrap the Human Rights Act, he will find some of his ‘zero-tolerance’ rhetoric will fall foul of the courts.

Not all, of course. He is quite right to reiterate the imperative of zero-toleration of some religio-cultural practices like forced marriages, which he promises to ‘stamp out’. But he needs to also to stamp out ‘assisted’ marriages, for in some communities the ‘assistance’ is nothing but bulling, intimidation and coercion, which, in some sad cases, results in an ‘honour killing’. He is right that ‘cultural sensitivity’ cannot be allowed to stop the Government from acting. But Human Rights and equality and diversity legislation certainly will.

Community is forged through commonality. When there is no compulsion upon immigrants even to learn English (for that is to discriminate), there can be no integration. Where there is no integration, there is suspicion. And that suspicion leads to fear and unrest. This is not a new phenomenon, and neither is it exclusively black or brown versus white: in some areas, the civil war has been and is between Muslims and Sikhs, perpetuating the conflicts of the Moughal Empire. A cut from 200,000 to 50,000 will do nothing to address the cause of this 'discomfort'. The damage has already been imported and actively perpetuated through state-induced multiculturalism.

The Prime Minister boldly promises: ‘But with us, our borders will be under control and immigration will be at levels our country can manage. No ifs, no buts. That’s a promise we made to the British people. And it’s a promise we are keeping.’

His Grace does not mean to be obtuse, but in what sense and to what extent are our borders under our control when they are part of the EU’s acquis? How can the Prime Minister promise, ‘no ifs, no buts’, to limit immigration when we are treaty-bound to permit the free movement of peoples? How can he promise to restrict immigration when it is not his promise to proffer?

England and the United Kingdom have changed, and changed forever. We are an island which is over-stretched, over-burdened and overcrowded. We have no sovereign control of our borders in the way that Australia, New Zealand or Canada do, for we signed it away long ago. We are now simply reaping what our politicians have sown.

And still they go on sowing.

Taxpayers are funding the Yes2AV campaign to the tune of £15million

This is not an equally-funded referendum or a fair campaign. According to the No2AV group, Freedom of Information requests reveal the Electoral Reform Society and its subsidiaries have made £15 million in the past 3 years from contracts with central government, the NHS and local councils. To view the dossier Taxpayer funding of the Yes campaign (with full regional breakdowns by Local Authority, NHS Foundation Trust and Central Government department) please click HERE.

Key findings:

Over the past three years, the Yes campaign’s largest donor – the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) – have received an astonishing £15.1 million from taxpayers through its various subsidiary companies including Electoral Reform Services Ltd (ERSL).

ERSL have earned at least £5.4 million from taxpayers in the last year alone. In the last three years ERSL has made over £12.6 million from at least 220 Local Authorities, £2.3 million from 67 NHS Foundation Trusts and over a quarter of a million pounds from Central Government.

ERS, in turn, has provided over £1 million in funding to the Yes to AV campaign, already recycling taxpayers’ money directly back into the referendum campaign.

This highlights the Yes campaign’s financial conflict of interest in campaigning for a yes vote. The biggest donors to Yes to AV are making money from the taxpayer and stand to make far more from an increased demand for AV-related services should ‘yes’ win.

Recent campaign literature that has been sent out by Yes to AV bears the ‘imprint’ of ‘Electoral Reform Services, The Election Centre, 33 Clarendon Road, London, N8 0NW’

The ERS conflict of interest also undermines the secrecy of referendum ballots: the Yes campaign have the opportunity to know which postal ballot has gone to which voter – and, potentially, whether any given person has voted.

Over the last three years, councils have paid the Yes campaign millions:

East Midlands £1,166,847
East of England £1,595,987
London £1,702,671
North East £178,768
North West £2,531,633
Scotland £578,907
South East £2,039,879
South West £1,408,658
Wales £195,799
West Midlands £736,435
Yorks. & Humber £459,081
Total £12,594,663

Matthew Elliott, Campaign Director of No2AV, said: “Voters will be outraged by the huge amounts of taxpayers’ money that are being channelled straight back into the Yes campaign. The Electoral Reform Society says there is no link between the two organisations, but their commercial wing are happy to trade off their name and are printing the Yes to AV leaflets. So, once again, we urge the Yes campaign to come clean about their conflict of interest and also to promise that their backers will not earn a penny from a Yes vote.”

Google Adsense Tips You should Know!

Million to Billions people have integrated Adsense with their websites in the hope of being the next success story. However they are not generating nearly as much money as they might have expected simply because they don't know how to utilise such a great tool.

Top Ten Google Adsense Tips 2011
Number 1.1 - Focus on a Niche Topic

Niche topics generally work better than websites based around larger topics. The ads made on niche topics are going to be be more relevant to your topic. The more relevant to your topic the more likely someone is going to click on it.

For me for example I'm hoping that the ads that this site presents will be related to setting up a online business!

Number 2.2- More Traffic

You need more and more people to visit your website everyday because the more people the better chance of someone clicking on your ads.

Click here to read up on some of my tips on building traffic

Number 3.3- Intelligent Placement

Ad placement seems to be the hot topic this year. Why? Because it's important!

When you go into a website you make your mind up about whether you want to stay in it in the first 2 seconds. If you cannot differentiate the text from the ads then there is a problem.

You need to place your ads in a tidy manner and make sure that they are easily identified.

Here is what google recommend when choosing ad placement: (the darker coloured areas represent hot spots)

However you need to experiment with different placements to optimise ad revenue.

Please Take a Look at The Picture, You can find the Answer to your Quistion!
See  Google Adsense Earning Guide

Number 4.4 -Experiment with different Designs

Layouts... Design....

It's talked about a lot and I feel is not completely understood by everyone. Simply because there is not one simple answer. Your ad's have to fit into your site. You need to change your design and layouts to optimise your ad placement.


Number 5.5 - Filter irrelevant ads

You want your ads to be as relevant to your topic choice as possible. If you see an ad that are not relevant you are potentially blocking revenue. So get rid off them!

Number 6.6 - Colour integration

When you design your ads you have the option to change the colour. Changing your ad colour might seem like such a small thing... But it could make a big difference. I recommend to try and avoid clashing colours and try and pick colours that match your website design colours.

Number 7.7 - Keyword targeting

Your ads will be relevant to the pages on your website. The more keywords that you focus on the more traffic that you will attract. Which means there is a bigger chance someone will click on your ads.


Number 8.8 - Only put ads with rich content

Sometimes I go into a website and see literally the page covered in ads. (Adsense terms and conditions only allow 3 units of ads) With a tiny bit of original content at the bottom. I take one look and then go out of the website. Try to resist making a page with only a sentence or two and then adding a ad unit. Your ads need to be next to quality content.

Number 9.9- Experiment with text and image ads

Dont restrict yourself to one type of ad. Try out some image based ads along with some text ads. Sometimes image ads work better than text... Keep experimenting and you will find out whats best for you.

Number 10.10- Google Analytics

You now have the ability to link up a google analytics account to your website. This is such a useful tool! You can see how people use your website. There is lots of data that you can look at, for example what pages get the most hits.

By looking at the data you can work out why certain pages are getting traffic and apply your knowledge to other pages on your site.

Are the LibDems the compassionate side of Cameron’s Conservatism?

You don’t get many rats scurrying to join a sinking ship. The news that lawyer David Allen Green has joined the Liberal Democrats would not merit a mention upon this blog were it not for the fact the he writes for the New Statesman and tweets prominently (prolifically and incessantly). With his new party besieged by critics and slumping in the polls, and his new leader harangued and scorned by Gillian Duffy (no less), his conversion (if it be; he might simply have finally ‘come out’) is certainly contra the zeitgeist and completely counter-intuitive. Yet, knowing how people like underdogs, perhaps he is no different from those poor, misguided souls who have flocked to join Labour under Edward Miliband. It’s all quite unremarkable and perhaps perfectly explicable (especially if he wants a safe(-ish) seat under AV).

But David Allen Green’s reasoning for joining the LibDems at this particular juncture merits a little analysis. He points to articles (here and here) by Tim Montgomerie (blessings for the graphic), which suggest the current government is significantly more liberal than an entirely Conservative administration would otherwise be. And so Mr Green concludes (without any apparent comprehension of what Mr Montgomerie is doing): ‘There is only one political force which is having an actual liberal effect in our polity as it is presently constituted, and it is the Liberal Democrats... What the Liberal Democrats are doing in practice may not be popular, but it certainly should be commended by any liberal person.’

If perpetual liberalisation were Mr Green’s goal, it is bizarre indeed that he would give his support to a party which denies foundational tenets of JS Mill. Only devout anti-democrats would deny the British people a referendum on the inexorable assigning of powers to European Union institutions; and only totalitarian Marxists would seek to eradicate the Christian faith from the public sphere. Both of these Liberal Democrat macro-objectives are contrary to any notion of liberalism and antithetical to the majority democratic profession of the British people.

Essentially, Mr Green’s reason for joining the LibDems is that he believes they represent the liberal, rational, moderate and compassionate force in the coalition: whatever the 'nasty' Tories want to do, it is the LibDems who rein them in; soften them, moderate them, make their obnoxious policy somehow more palatable. That is the developing narrative, and it spells danger for the Conservatives.

But it is a crass analysis and an utterly superficial reading of the situation.

The Conservative Party has been a coalition since its inception: it has its ‘liberal’ wing inbuilt, and the extent to which it manifests itself in policy is dependent on the character and disposition of the Leader. Under David Cameron, there has been a focus on empowering communities because the sense of political community is intrinsic to people’s sense of the need for social community. This is part of his ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ agenda. It is not down to the LibDems: it is Conservatives who see that community is a fundamental human good because commitments and values are shared; the good life demands participation in a political community, and this requires communal participation in a political organisation of the widest scope, such as the nation state.

David Cameron is exploring the relational and social strands of conservatism consonant with the party’s Christian foundations: it is not original, for he is standing on the shoulders of Disraeli and his ‘One-Nation Conservatism’. The narrative focus is on welfare, family breakdown and ‘social justice’ in the context of traditional conservative themes like low taxation and the small state. Its proponents aver that social problems are better solved through cooperation with private companies, charities and religious institutions rather than directly through government departments. And so the ‘Centre for Social Justice’, headed by Roman Catholic MP and former Conservative leader Iain Duncan Smith, issued the reports Breakdown Britain (2006) and Breakthrough Britain (2007) as a means of identifying the causes of social ills and encouraging stability.

This was a Conservative initiative: not a LibDem one.

Although the terms ‘One-Nation’ and ‘Compassionate Conservatism’ may be dismissed as vacuous electioneering sound-bites designed to make conservatism (or, rather, the Conservative Party) more appealing, there is little doubt that those involved in the formulation of policy are genuinely seeking ways of mitigating the polarisation of society evidenced in both Militant Socialism and what became known as ‘Thatcherism’. Yet, curiously, David Allen Green has not uttered a word in support of Margaret Thatcher’s conservatism, which was founded on personal freedom and the repudiation of bureaucratic vested interests, waste and economic stagnation.

It is not the LibDems who injected ‘social justice’ into the Conservative brew, but individual Conservatives who have worked patiently and doggedly behind the scenes throughout years of opposition. They seek to prioritise the moral and spiritual health of the nation just as much as Margaret Thatcher was concerned with its economic health. Under David Cameron, economic reality and moral concerns are no longer in conflict. Academics such as Professor Timothy Garton-Ash observed (a year before the election, Mr Green) that Britain now has ‘two social democratic parties’ lacking any real ideological differences: they are both capitalist; all that divides them is ‘the question of which form of capitalism works best’. And the political theorist and philosopher David Selbourne observed that the Conservative Party’s traditional themes ‘have largely disappeared...or can be glimpsed only in dilute, timid and half-baked forms’. He concluded: ‘It is as if the party, in its “modernised”, pick’n’mix condition, was embarrassed by the very impulse to conserve.’

These shifts of emphasis in Conservative philosophy and political policy have not come about as a result of coalition with the Liberal Democrats: under Nick Clegg, that party has become increasingly illiberal, undemocratic and corporatist. It is why they seek to exist ‘at the heart of Europe’, while the Whiggish and liberal wing of the Conservatives continues to agitate for liberty. If David Allen Green were really concerned with having ‘an actual liberal effect’, he would have joined the Conservative Party, for that is the only party in Parliament which sustains any understanding of the priorities of JS Mill.