« NYC Cat Policy Suggests Dark Ages Could Be Making a Comeback | Main | Latest Feel-Good Campaign: Bleeding Hearts Against Bleeding »
December 21, 2007
A Rowan Williams Moonbat Christmas
As Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams holds the top rung on the rickety ladder known as the Anglican Church. This year he's celebrating Christmas by publicly debunking various details of the yuletide "legend."
Instead of celebrating the birth of Christ, Williams chooses to nitpick about whether the Three Kings were really kings, whether there were asses in the stable (like there are in Canterbury), whether it was really December 25th, whether there was snow on the ground, etc. Less trivially, he suggests that the conception wasn't immaculate after all.
On a tip from Wiggins.
Posted by Van Helsing at December 21, 2007 6:48 PM
Soon to be your disembodied head for real, there, Archbishop, when your muzzie friends take over in G.B. I imagine that your expression then will not be so glum, however -- more like stunned amazement that your new, bestest friends would decapitate you without the slightest hesitation. "But, I thought we were buds!"
Merry Christmas!, ArchMoonbat -- might be your last, so enjoy it while it lasts.
Posted by: jc14 at December 21, 2007 7:56 PM
A surprising moment of clarity from Bill Maher.
Watch it, because moments like this are rare and fleeting.
Posted by: Arthur at December 21, 2007 11:58 PM
Watch it, because moments like this are rare and fleeting.
Umm, did you watch all of this? It started off halfway decent, but it degenerated into Maher's typical vile tripe.
Posted by: Brooklyn Red Leg at December 22, 2007 3:35 AM
The best way to understand this is to grasp why America's separation between Church and State is such a boon. The Church Of England is a state church. Williams' position is an official one. He's not just some vicar in some church. He's a state official, effectively. His church is part of the establishment.
When the Left began their fifth column, one of the first splinter organisations set up from the Fabian Society (which is effectively the kernel of the progressive socialists here (as opposed to the working class communist socialists)) was the Christian Socialist Movement, whose purpose was to carry the socialist message into the official church, a task in which it succeeded admirably. The State Church was rapidly converted into just another wing of the progressive movement, pursuing progressive ideology.
In America, you have "liberal" i.e. socialist churches and churchmen, but they have no special status. Each of them is just another vicar. Your multiplicity of private churches makes your christianity robust against subversion; if a worshipper hears bilge emanating from the pulpit they can just go to the church down the road instead. Everyone can find a church that suits their own beliefs, not just on a denominational basis but on an individual church-by-church one.
A state church has special authority; it is an arm of the Ruling Class. And thus, those who are chosen to lead it are not those whose ideas necessarily attune with their congregation; it is those whose ideas attune with (to use Progressive terminology) the Cultural Hegemony. The pressure on any churchman who aspires to lead is therefore not to represent Christians, or God, but to fit in with the views held among the power elite.
Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at December 22, 2007 5:02 AM
Where is Henry II when we need him?
Posted by: epaminondas at December 22, 2007 5:18 AM
Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at December 22, 2007 7:30 AM
Is it any wonder why Tony Blair has converted to Catholicism?
Posted by: KGB at December 22, 2007 8:21 AM
Ah no, the best guess for that is he's converted to Catholicism in order to be more acceptable to the EUSSR's continental subjects when he's appointed president.
Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at December 22, 2007 8:42 AM
What about Mary, Queen of Scots?
Posted by: dad29 at December 22, 2007 11:02 AM
Regarding Ian's point, in the terms of contemporary debate, one typically thinks of the precept of "separation of church and state" as being established to protect the state against theocracy. In light of the absolute subversion of the Church of England by elements of the state, the original intent of keeping the state out of the religion business becomes much clearer.
On another tangent, this Rowan Williams guy looks and sounds to be an absolute caricature of the debased leftwing Christian. Is he for real? He looks like he escaped from the set of the Golden Compass.
Posted by: Beef at December 22, 2007 11:09 AM
Just regard the sad bugger, if only for a moment...isn't that the phizzog of the Devil Himself?
That's why Bony-Tony (the Blair-slair) chose the saddo as the state-church-destroyer. This man must have thus been his friend, or even possibly that of his wife and her "lifestyle-advisers", such as a person called "Carole Caplin" and some Australian-property-developer-or-other. The "Caplin" ought to have stayed as a "page-3-girl". Nothing wrong with being page-3-girls.... except that, being inherently nice friendly girls, they ought to learn not to get mixed up with bad-people such as the Blairs.....those whom they appoint to the Archbishopric may even be worse people, even if they do not get to meet them.
Posted by: David Davis at December 22, 2007 1:01 PM
I mean, just look at the bugger. It HAS GOT TO BE a pose. In the desperation of his "church" and its downfall, he is just trying, trying, hard and desperately, to look like some sort of ascetic monk, really really sort of a kinda religious guy, like what we all think they look like.
Beard. Hair. Glasses, even (sort of post-modern.)
It won't help. The CofE church is finished, monnbattered into multiculti-stalinist submission to political-correctness. It slept along with us, although being infiltrated, while we celebrated the end of the cold war. It was fine while it lasted and batted for Christian values and liberalism, but it's gone now. End. Bang.
Posted by: David Davis at December 22, 2007 1:09 PM
Beef: I think it's the case that in a sense rather than one subverting the other, they simply become the same, and a state is reached where eventually "we outside look from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it is impossible to say which is which".
(apologies to Orwell)
Posted by: Ian from the EUSSR at December 22, 2007 1:40 PM