Needless to say, the sane member of the General Synod is not a clergybeing, but a lay person. Unlike the clergy — who are susceptible to pressure from the PC Anglican hierarchy — lay people are harder to tamp down and keep under control.
Ms. Alison Ruoff is certain to bring down the wrath of — well, of someone, since Anglicans don’t really believe in God anymore — for speaking the plain truth. According to The Daily Telegraph:
No more mosques, says senior Synod member
A senior lay member of the Church of England’s “Parliament” has called for a ban on the building of more mosques in Britain.
Alison Ruoff, a long-standing member of the General Synod, said that new mosques should not be built in this country while Islamic states continued to persecute Christians.
The former magistrate, who was one of the strongest critics of the Archbishop of Canterbury’s speech on Islamic law earlier this year, added that sharia would be introduced into Britain “if we don’t watch out”.
Apart from being a Synod member, Mrs Ruoff, a conservative evangelical, also sits on the Bishop’s Council, which advises the Bishop of London, the Rt Rev Richard Chartres.
Are the winds of change blowing through the Anglican Church at last? Not really — it seems there aren’t that many like Ms. Ruoff:
Although her views are representative of a small minority on the Synod, and Church spokesmen moved quickly to isolate her yesterday, they may exacerbate tensions over the place of Muslims in society.
A spokesman for the Diocese of London said: “Mrs Ruoff’s comments are her own and do not reflect the views of the Diocese of London, which enjoys excellent inter-faith relations across the capital.”
A worthy dhimmi response from the hierarchy, just as one would expect. But it’s not enough to assuage offended Muslims, who are already seething:
- - - - - - - - -
A Church of England spokesman added: “These are her personal comments, speaking as an individual.” But senior Muslims had already reacted angrily to her comments, saying they were more typical of a member of the British National Party than the Anglican Church.
Pay attention to what Ms. Ruoff said, and see if you find anything in it that’s false or crazy:
Mrs Ruoff, speaking in an interview with Premier Radio, the Christian radio station, said: “No more mosques in the UK. We are constantly building new mosques, which are paid for by the money that comes from oil states.
“We have only in this country, as far as we know, 3.5 to four million Muslims. There are enough mosques for Muslims in this country, they don’t need any more.
“We don’t need to have sharia law which would come with more mosques imposed upon our nation, if we don’t watch out, that would happen. If we want to become an Islamic state, this is the way to go.
“You build a mosque and then what happens?
“You have Muslim people moving into that area, all the shops will then become Islamic, all the housing will then become Islamic and as the Bishop of Rochester has so wisely pointed out, that will be a no go area for anyone else.
“They will bring in Islamic law. We cannot allow that to happen.”
And now for the important part:
Mrs Ruoff, who lives in Waltham Cross, north east London, added: “We are still a Christian country, we need to hold on to that.
“If we don’t watch out, we will become an Islamic state. It’s that serious.”
Alison Ruoff is right. The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is still officially — if only nominally — a Christian country. The Queen is the Defender of the Faith. The Church of England is the constitutionally established religion.
Britain is an officially Christian country, just as Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq are officially Muslim. Does anyone have a problem with that?
Well, some do:
However, Inayat Bunglawala, the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “These are unfortunately very bigoted and, frankly, xenophobic remarks.”
It is well established that the desire for one’s country to retain its culture and traditions is prima facie evidence of being bigoted and xenophobic. To object to the destruction of your own community is considered racist. If you oppose your government’s policy of importing vast numbers of foreigners while refusing to assimilate them, you are a Hitler-clone who wants to institute a new Holocaust.
Because the BNP will agree with Ms. Ruoff’s position, she will be dismissed as “a BNP person”, just as Dymphna and I are labeled “white supremacists” because various Nazi and Aryan groups agree with our positions on Islam and illegal immigration.
That’s how it works: anyone who stands up for his country and culture is automatically cast into the Outer Darkness with Hitler and Bull Connor. Effective opposition to the multicultural juggernaut is thereby silenced.
If Britain continues on its present path, the day will come when the BNP will be the only organized group in the country that actively opposes the destruction of British culture. Native Britons will wake up one morning with a choice between the BNP and full Islamization. There won’t be any other alternatives.
Which do you think they will choose?
Hat tip: TB.
14 comments:
We don’t need to have sharia law which would come with more mosques
Nice to see that someone's finally making the connection. Mosques are not churches. Mosques are a combined form of embassy, courtroom, observation post, barracks and indoctrination center. Pretend otherwise at your own risk.
Inayat Bunglawala, the assistant secretary general of the Muslim Council of Britain, said: “These are unfortunately very bigoted and, frankly, xenophobic remarks.”
Whenever Muslim f&@kwits like Bunglawala spew this sort of fascist drivel they need to be challenged with how Islam is the most bigoted and xenophobic ideology of all. Every time these Islamic maggots try to point a finger at Western protests they should have a broom jammed into their outthrust hand and be told—in no uncertain terms—to go and clean their own filthy house first.
Native Britons will wake up one morning with a choice between the BNP and full Islamization. There won’t be any other alternatives.
I believe that this is an excellent microcosm of an even greater approaching dilemma.
As a direct result of ongoing appeasment and preferential treatment, soon enough the West will awaken to a day when the only alternative to our own extinction will be a Muslim holocaust.
Despite the fact that such a showdown is Islam's primary and most desired objective, care must be taken to indict those who grease the skids such that we slide all the more quickly towards this hideous precipice.
Soon enough, the objections of people like Ms. Ruoff will no longer be mere angry protestations but cries of fury at the British government's meek concession to outrageous and endless Muslim demands. The lamp posts await.
Remember, they thrive on fear and disorientation. Now thanks to people like Geert Wilders we can now reasonably reply to the charge of "Xenophobia" with "Yes, there is much to fear in Islam."
There should be some reasonable limitations on what you can build in a community while remaining free of property tax yet still receive services. Their should also be a condition on houses of worship to the effect that they relinquish all religious demands on public behavior outside their property line.
But keeping Muslims from congregating would not stop clerics from preaching and just makes it harder to hear what they tell their followers. Replacing one moderately large mosque with several tiny house mosques only spreads the influence around, creating more job opportunities for Imams. Large buildings have large expenses and while the Saudi sponsors may have deep pockets now, things can change. Until that happens, I would rather see true believers having to spend money on roof maintenance and heating bills and worrying about attendance. There are a lot of people who are counted as Muslims in statistics who don't actually go to Mosques or pay zakat. If a nominal Muslim or closet apostate wants to rarely go to the mosque it is easier to do this if they can claim membership at a large mosque where it is hard to tell who is there and how often.
I suspect that one of the numerous factors working in favor of Christian evangelists in Islamic nations is the widespread ban on churches and the need to maintain small, house based communities. If this is so it would be a mistake to grant Islam a similar advantage in the West.
But there are only 5 million Muslims (pbuh) in England. Let them have their own Muslim (pbuh) homeland in England so they can build all their mosques and live in peace. We should follow the example of the U.N. and their great achievements in giving Kosovo to the Albanian Muslims (pbuh).
;)
"If Britain continues on its present path, the day will come when the BNP will be the only organized group in the country that actively opposes the destruction of British culture. Native Britons will wake up one morning with a choice between the BNP and full Islamization. There won’t be any other alternatives.
Which do you think they will choose?"
I've got a feeling the worm is starting to turn in the UK. The local elections on May 1st should be a good indication of whether i'm imagining it or not.
Nikolai -
"...I've got a feeling the worm is beginning to turn in the UK." I feel it too, but then is it merely wishful thinking?
I hope not and don't really think so. Britain's political leaders appear frightened to me - on the one hand they've got the Muslims and on the other they've got an increasingly dissatisfied British electorate, and they've got to somehow work out a convincing compromise that will bring the two together in some sort of mutual admiration.
You've got to laugh. Even the politicians know that's not going to work - you can see it in their faces. But what else can they do without bringing down the whole house of cards?
The Anglican Church disgusts me - no backbone at all.....barely a true Christian in the lot...at least one that can admit to it. I'm sure Mrs. Ruoff is sickened by the Anglican Church not having the backbone to stick up for the truth of which she speaks.
stv,
I think they're starting to panic a bit too. What worries me most is if they decide to go for broke. Some desperate measures to flood the UK with as many foreigners as possible (Turkey?) and an amnesty for illegals. They'd lose their working class support for good and be out of power for a long time but they'd know that eventually the demographics would work for them in the long run.
nikolai said: They'd lose their working class support for good and be out of power for a long time but they'd know that eventually the demographics would work for them in the long run.
This is under the assumption that a party like New labour is using Muslims, and Muslims will continue to go along with that.
However, just as soon as Muslims are sufficeintly numerous, they will set up the British Muslim Party (BMP). If they can count on 30% of the vote, they will have majority in parliament.
Unfortunately, civil war is the only way that will get rid of Islam from the West. Any political way will be riddled with compromises. Give the high birth rate of Muslims, any compromise wilj just delay the final reckoning.
@dp111
Sure. The potential Leftist strategy I outlined is insane and fundamentally flawed. But the only way I can see to explain the Left's current appeasing of Islam is if they somehow believe they can use Islam for their multi-cult purposes and yet be able to control it when the job is done.
I think it's insane for the reasons you mentioned but the Leftists may not agree and they're the ones with the power (at the moment).
I agree civil war is inevitible if the multi-cultists aren't stopped in time but I am still hopeful that they will be stopped and the invasion of the last 40 years reversed before it gets to the point of mass killing.
The no-compromise point needs to be recognized politically first imo i.e in deciding who to vote for. Something which I've finally decided for myself. Everyone in the UK and Europe will have to make that decision eventually. If the tribes of Europe can't get 30% voting for no-compromise parties then there's no chance we'd win the eventual civil war anyway.
nikolai said...I agree civil war is inevitible if the multi-cultists aren't stopped in time but I am still hopeful that they will be stopped and the invasion of the last 40 years reversed before it gets to the point of mass killing.
A peaceful separation is what I would like. This is the most humane solution available, or else we are looking at a civil war that will make Bosnia look like a garden party. Innocents will be killed - but that is the nature of war, and civil war particularly.
I hope this time round, the USA will not intervene on the side of Muslims, when the kickoff starts at Wembley.
nikolai
Here is an article by Charles Moore (former editor of the Daily Telegraph)
We live in a state of emergency: and we are getting angrier
Ignore all the fluff about "hijacked Islam", "muslim moderates", which seems to indicate that Moore does not understand Islam and its MO. Come to the bit though about Cromwell, and you see that there is now deep anger in Britain, even among those who believe in "moderate muslims" and "hijacked Islam". Read the comments as well. It wont take much to set off a revolution. Maybe I will take that holiday in Nepal.
It is not Churchill we need but a Cromwell.
@dp111
Good article, and I agree words like "Cromwell" are significant. Things are definitely bubbling imo. Which is good as I want Britain to be the first.
I'm actually hoping for a big recession as that would speed things up.
Post a Comment