The BNP ask, What Would Jesus Do?

Fanny Cradock

I'd suggest this one for the Religious humour thread if it wasn't so shocking. It's very worrying when a cause like BNP starts latching onto Jesus as a model to promote their particular brand of racism. Still, they are currently such a joke of a party (will tough economic time see growth in these type of parties?) that there feeble and transparent attempts at garnering votes is suitably ham-fisted.

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=72708

So the question goes: What would Jesus do? Well, I'm guessing that he would vote Greens, and most defiantly not the BNP.

Idiots!

prinz

Wrong on so many levels.Saddened but not suprised.

I have a feeling Jesus would spoil his vote

Rev Hellfire

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Well, I'm guessing that he would vote Greens

Interesting, so Jesus is an abortionist, who supports same-sex marriages

Interesting... very interesting...

JimiTime

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I'd suggest this one for the Religious humour thread if it wasn't so shocking. It's very worrying when a cause like BNP starts latching onto Jesus as a model to promote their particular brand of racism. Still, they are currently such a joke of a party (will tough economic time see growth in these type of parties?) that this feeble attempt at garnering votes is suitably ham-fisted.

I'm not in the least bit surprised. Christianity has been mauled and misused by countless groups. No doubt we'll see some ignoramus in the future cite this as a reason not to be christian too.:rolleyes:

One possible insult to take from this, is that they probably chose a group that they thought would be stupid enough to fall for their propaganda. Lets just hope they're wrong!

So the question goes: What would Jesus do? Well, I'm guessing that he would vote Greens, and most defiantly not the BNP.

Vote Greens?? How very dare you:) Somehow I don't think Jesus will be a democrat when he returns:)

Fanny Cradock

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Interesting, so Jesus is an abortionist, who supports same-sex marriages

Interesting... very interesting...

LOL! You must be missing the Gospel of Gormley in your Bible.

Anyway, I do hope that in every constituency, guys like above are beaten by a gay, black, red-haired, balding, left-handed, disabled, non-English Jewish female candidate - or whatever variation of the oppressed you care for.

prinz

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

a gay, black, red-haired, balding, left-handed, disabled, non-English Jewish female candidate -

Hey, I know her didn't know she was going for public office!

lostexpectation

oh look jesus is white!

PDN

So is it a forward or a backward step for the BNP to use a Jew as their poster boy?

Zombrex

Slightly OT (happy to start another thread)

What do the Christians here actually think of WWJD?

Is that something you think about in that context, or is what Jesus would do not as relevant as what Jesus would want you to do?

Fanny Cradock

Most amusing! Maybe we should email this to the leader of the BNP - Nick whatshisface.

Humm... i keep on seeing a 't' instead of an 's' in the middle 'whatshisface'.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Slightly OT (happy to start another thread)

What do the Christians here actually think of WWJD?

Is that something you think about in that context, or is what Jesus would do not as relevant as what Jesus would want you to do?

I once just missed the ferry from Stranraer to Belfast. As I looked at the short expanse of water separating me from the boat I must confess I didn't see it as a footpath. Therefore I am obviously more guided by what Jesus would want me to do than what He would do Himself!

In the spirit of the BNP's poster:

Fanny Cradock

Upon reading about the attempts to conflate a racist agenda with Jesus' message I would hope that every CoE Vicar (or his denominational equivalents) worth his salt would have spat out his morning cup of tea in a fit of horror, surprise and amusement.

Still, it does beg the questions: should the larger denominations (particularly those with political sway) speak out against political parties? Or should they keep it more general - so as not to be seen to take sides - and simply condemn in appropriate behaviour such as racism?

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Still, it does beg the questions: should the larger denominations (particularly those with political sway) speak out against political parties? Or should they keep it more general - so as not to be seen to take sides - and simply condemn in appropriate behaviour such as racism?

In general, the larger the church, the less specific the message must be -- I'm certainly aware of a few catholics in this country who support BNP-style politics, so while I'd expect some smaller denominations to speak out, I would not expect the larger ones to do so. Still, it's a prediction in which I'd enjoy myself being proved wrong.

What I'd also like to see is mainstream condemnation of dishonest idiocy like creationism, the religiously-inclined anti-global warming asshats and the strategy and tactics of a distinctly Orwellian, one-man political operation which has unfortunately received significant coverage in Ireland since it was set up 18 months or so ago.

Nodin

PDN wrote: »

So is it a forward or a backward step for the BNP to use a Jew as their poster boy?

Theres no guarantee they think they are.....
http://www.biblestudysite.com/news10b.htm#3

Fanny Cradock

robindch wrote: »

What I'd also like to see is mainstream condemnation of dishonest idiocy like creationism, the religiously-inclined anti-global warming asshats and the strategy and tactics of a distinctly Orwellian, one-man political operation which has unfortunately received significant coverage in Ireland since it was set up 18 months or so ago.

While I would welcome an open and frank discussion that highlights the notion that evolution and Christianity aren't at odds (this would seem to be the most reasonable position to emphasize), I really don't see the evolution debate as being issue that is as pressing as something like the racism of the BNP or the anti-climate change message. (That's a long sentence!)

So while one can have a perfectly normal life and also be at odds with the scientific consensus regarding evolution (not ideal, I'll admit), I would think that the other two issues discussed have a wider and infinitely more damaging affect on us all.

wolfsbane

robindch wrote: »

What I'd also like to see is mainstream condemnation of dishonest idiocy like creationism, the religiously-inclined anti-global warming asshats and the strategy and tactics of a distinctly Orwellian, one-man political operation which has unfortunately received significant coverage in Ireland since it was set up 18 months or so ago.

Why are you wishing for what already is?

Mainstream 'Christianity' already opposes creationism, receives as dogma the idea of man-made global warming, and is mostly pro-EU superstate. Robin, you are blood-brothers with them - all you lack is a vague belief in a Inter-Faith God. :pac:

Fanny Cradock

wolfsbane wrote: »

Why are you wishing for what already is?

Mainstream 'Christianity' already opposes creationism, receives as dogma the idea of man-made global warming, and is mostly pro-EU superstate. Robin, you are blood-brothers with them - all you lack is a vague belief in a Inter-Faith God. :pac:

wolfsbane

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Upon reading about the attempts to conflate a racist agenda with Jesus' message I would hope that every CoE Vicar (or his denominational equivalents) worth his salt would have spat out his morning cup of tea in a fit of horror, surprise and amusement.

Still, it does beg the questions: should the larger denominations (particularly those with political sway) speak out against political parties? Or should they keep it more general - so as not to be seen to take sides - and simply condemn in appropriate behaviour such as racism?

Having had to think through the same issue, but with a different subject, here in Northern Ireland, let me give you my penny's worth.

I think it unwise to enter party-political commendation/condemnation. No party is going to be perfect, and all parties are likely to have some good policies. We should stick to commending/condemning policies on their moral basis, and only on that. There is no place for the church commentating on the relative merits of economic policies, even if we are sure some are better than others. Only where they step over the moral line should we intervene.

Racism is a moral issue. So too is economic, national and religious oppression. However, it is not the church's duty to interfere in the affairs of the State - we are only to warn our fellowman of his error and God's judgment that will follow if it is not repented of. We are not called to tell men how to vote or who to vote for - just to tell them what policies are immoral. They have to make up their own minds on how best to effect good morals.

So no commendation/condemnation of the BNP, New Labour, Conservatives, etc. Just commend/condemn the immoral policies, and if they happen to be held by any party, so be it.

The BNP seem to be a safe case for an exception to the above, but that is not so. Their racism is not unique in its immorality. What are we to say about the anti-Semitism of other parties who would be strongly left-wing? Or the pro-abortion stance of most of the parties?

Finally, we need to be sensitive to the needs of those likely to vote for the likes of the BNP. Most of these voters will not be racists, but will be in desperation about the take-over of their neighbourhoods by non-natives who aggressively seek to impose their culture on the original inhabitants. If the BNP are the only ones willing to speak up for their concerns, no wonder the main parties feel threatened.

The latter would be better off trying to bring order to illegal immigration and the protection of every peaceable citizen. Decent natives will have no problem welcoming immigrants who strengthen the moral tone and liberties of our country. The Church should not be seen as ignoring the real concerns of the ordinary citizen in order to prove how 'tolerant' it is.

studiorat

robindch wrote: »

one-man political operation which has unfortunately received significant coverage in Ireland since it was set up 18 months or so ago.

'Twas only a matter of time before he came into the discussion.

One of the highlights is

ganley

attempting to get out of his association with Cyprian Gutkowski the deputy chief of All-Polish Youth who believes that Jews are biologically different. When

ganley

tried to say who? Cohn-Bendit was able to point to the sick Pole who was in the audience.

http://peoplekorps.blogspot.com/

postcynical

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Still, it does beg the questions: should the larger denominations (particularly those with political sway) speak out against political parties? Or should they keep it more general - so as not to be seen to take sides - and simply condemn in appropriate behaviour such as racism?

No. They should keep our of politics. Enough politicians (including clergy) have besmirched Catholicism as they climbed their greasy poles. It's interesting to read back over republican records of the times, that the Catholic church never supported the independence movement in Ireland. And a great enemy of the Catholic Church in Ireland today would be Sinn Fein, the same hypocrites who would have used their "Catholicism" as a vote-grabber in recent times.

The Churches should keep it more general, condemning wrong behaviour and encouraging people to do the right thing at every step. It should be obvious that the BNP's teachings are incompatible with Christianity. Also, 'sneaky' claims by the likes of Libertas should be thoroughly analysed at a Christian standard, if that's how they would like to portray themselves.

Being a Christian and being a politician must be one of the toughest tests for any Christian.

MrPudding

PDN wrote: »

I

In the spirit of the BNP's poster:

Call youself the son of god and you can't even hold an AK correctly? it's hard to get the messiahs these days...:D

MrP

studiorat

postcynical wrote: »

It's interesting to read back over republican records of the times, that the Catholic church never supported the independence movement in Ireland. And a great enemy of the Catholic Church in Ireland today would be Sinn Fein, the same hypocrites who would have used their "Catholicism" as a vote-grabber in recent times.

On the face of it perhaps, but there were plenty of Catholic Priests up to their ears in it too. It was a moral decision made by each as they saw fit, sometimes contrary to the official catholic stance

Fr. Michael Flannagan http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/33988

wolfsbane

studiorat wrote: »

On the face of it perhaps, but there were plenty of Catholic Priests up to their ears in it too. It was a moral decision made by each as they saw fit, sometimes contrary to the official catholic stance

Fr. Michael Flannagan http://www.anphoblacht.com/news/detail/33988

Indeed. And your example shows how much more so when one moves outside the British/Irish conflict. The Fascists had by far the greater number of priests on their side.

Protestant pastors have been involved in our conflict, and in other historical events - the English Civil War, the American War of Independance, American Civil War, for example.

robindch

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

me wrote:

What I'd also like to see is mainstream condemnation of dishonest idiocy like creationism, the religiously-inclined anti-global warming asshats [...]

While I would welcome an open and frank discussion that highlights the notion that evolution and Christianity aren't at odds

I'm not referring to a duke-it-out scrap between the Archbishop of Canterbury, Pat Robertson and the Pope on one side, against Dawkins, Harris and Dennett on the other -- enjoyable and all as that would be. Historically, when something's turned out to be a porker, religion has simply declared the text or idea allegorical, and that, in broad terms, is what A's of C, JPII and BXVI have done with evolution. But as you say, it's a sideshow anyway and (other than missing out on some great stuff if you're a creationist) it doesn't really matter a damn whether or not one accepts that species arise through a long-winded process of differential reproductive success.

Instead, I'm wondering about why christians let buffoons like the diploma-mill-doctor Ham engage in widespread and occasionally rather nasty dishonesty in the name of their common religion, something which most believers say is very precious to them.

It seems strange that people would let him get away with it, even when one takes into account the general armistice on public criticism between different species of christianity. Unless of course, I'm wrong and all chrisitans happen to agree with Ham (perish the thought...!)

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I would think that the other two issues discussed have a wider and infinitely more damaging affect on us all.

Quite right.

wolfsbane

robindch said:

Instead, I'm wondering about why christians let buffoons like the diploma-mill-doctor Ham

Does Ham present himself as Dr.Ham? AiG states that Ham's doctorates are honorary: In recognition of the contribution Ken has made to the church in the USA and internationally, Ken has been awarded two honorary doctorates: a Doctor of Divinity (1997) from Temple Baptist College in Cincinnati, Ohio and a Doctor of Literature (2004) from Liberty University in Lynchburg, Virginia.

I think most of us understand the difference between an earned doctorate and an honorary one.

AiG give his actual qualifications: Ken’s bachelor’s degree in applied science (with an emphasis on environmental biology) was awarded by the Queensland Institute of Technology in Australia. He also holds a diploma of education from the University of Queensland (a graduate qualification necessary for Ken to begin his initial career as a science teacher in the public schools in Australia).

Queensland University of Technologyhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queensland_Institute_of_Technology

University of Queensland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Queensland