Monday, April 23, 2012
Archbishop of York victim of 'naked racism', claims ally
This is all too funny. Senior C of E clerics can stand His Grace being black and foreign-born but being a genuine Christian who respects Bible teachings on homosexuality is unforgiveable. They are even willing to resort to racist remarks to justify their hostility to him. I wouldn't be surprised if most of them were covert homosexuals themselves
The early favourite to become the next Archbishop of Canterbury is the victim of “naked racism” by critics who are trying to besmirch his name, one of his closest supporters has claimed.
The outspoken Archbishop of York, Dr John Sentamu, was born in Uganda and is the only black bishop in the Church of England. A former aide, who is about to become the Church’s director of communications, said there was a “stark contrast” between the way Dr Sentamu was portrayed and the treatment of other bishops.
“At its best, the besmirching of John Sentamu has revealed that strand of snobbery which views outsiders as lacking class, diplomacy or civility — in other words 'not one of us,’” said the Rev Arun Arora.
“At worst, it has elicited the naked racism which still bubbles under the surface in our society, and which is exposed when a black man is in line to break the chains of history.”
His allegation of an “anonymous whispering” campaign against Dr Sentamu has the potential to be hugely damaging to the Church.
It recalls the last time that the Church sought a new Archbishop of Canterbury, in 2002, when the Rt Rev Michael Nazir-Ali, then Bishop of Rochester, was described as a “Paki Papist” by an unidentified cleric.
Dr Sentamu has spoken in the past about his experience of racism but stressed that any abuse came from outside the Church.
However, two bishops who spoke to The Sunday Telegraph on condition of anonymity drew, unprompted, on Dr Sentamu’s African birth in their criticism — one likening his temperament to that of an “African chief”.
He said: “I think Sentamu is clearly going to be a very strong front-runner, although I think there are also the people who are not quite sure that he is suitable in terms of the way he behaves, because he is quite tribal and the African chief thing comes through.
“My preferred candidate would be [the Bishop of] Norwich, who is very level-headed, sensible and would actually do the job well and has a lot more kind of stability. You wouldn’t know where you were with Sentamu, whereas you would with Norwich.”
The second bishop, who is retired, said Dr Sentamu had some “outrageous moments” which had been “balanced” out by Dr Rowan Williams. He added: “There is something in Sentamu which retains his African views and approach, which can be at one time an asset and another time can be a problem.”
The retired bishop said Dr Sentamu’s African background was apparent in “his understanding around issues of human sexuality”. The Archbishop has opposed Government proposals for same-sex marriage.
Last night, The Sunday Telegraph gave both bishops the opportunity to put their comments on the record but they declined. Both denied their comments were racist.
Their words will be seized on by supporters of Dr Sentamu, who fear a whispering campaign against him.
He was immediate favourite to become Archbishop of Canterbury when Dr Williams announced his departure last month, but is now in third place with bookmakers, behind the Bishop of Coventry and the Bishop of Norwich.
The comments by Dr Sentamu’s former aide were published on Mr Arora’s blog on March 23, before his new appointment was announced.
Dr Sentamu, a former barrister and judge, has campaigned against racism and advised the Stephen Lawrence murder inquiry.
In 2000, he criticised police after an officer refused to justify stopping him and searching his car near St Paul’s Cathedral.
Earlier this year, he received racist emails after speaking out against plans to legalise same-sex marriage.
British doctors 'forced to carry out sex-change ops' under rules meant to 'marginalise Christian medics'
Christian doctors have criticised a new ruling that they claim will force them to carry out sex-change operations against their will.
Under new guidelines drawn up by the General Medical Council, they will no longer be able to refuse to perform the operations on the grounds that they are against their religious beliefs.
Until now, section five of the GMC code said: ‘You may choose to opt out of providing a particular procedure because of your personal beliefs and values.’
But a GMC meeting last week decided that doctors will be banned from opting out of providing sex changes as they are ‘only sought by a particular group of patients and cannot therefore be subject to a conscientious objection’.
Dr Peter Saunders, who runs the Christian Medical Comment blog, said: ‘Legislation and regulations are being used to marginalise Christian health professionals in Britain. 'This new GMC guidance is a clever piece of double-speak.’
Doctors were told they are free to practise medicine in accordance with their beliefs, he said, yet they were also told that if this involved ‘denying patients access to appropriate medical treatment or services’ then they must ‘set aside their personal beliefs’. He added: ‘British medicine in the 21st Century now involves practices which many doctors regard as unethical.
This latest guidance by the GMC will be seen by many as a further attack on the right to practice independently in accordance with one’s conscience, which lies at the heart of being a true health professional.
‘A significant number of doctors do not wish to be involved in sex-change operations or prescribing contraceptives to unmarried couples.’
A GMC spokeswoman said last night that the new guidelines – currently for consultation – only reflected the ‘law of the land’. She said the Equality Act 2010 already prohibited doctors from discriminating against people who are undergoing gender reassignment treatment.
They check in but they don't check out (Whoops! Sorry! I was getting confused with something else)
The Marriott hotel chain is known for its comfortable rooms and amenities. But in addition to a plethora of appeasing services, the popular company also offers value packages to individuals who are gay. Curiously, numerous hotels within the Marriott chain offer what they call “OUT” packages.
At the Renaissance Washington Marriott in Washington, D.C., for instance, the deal includes chocolate covered strawberries, sparking wine upon arrival and a copy of NaviGaytour Magazine, among other benefits.
In addition to offering this deal in Washington, D.C., other “OUT” cities include Seattle and Philadelphia. These plans differ from the D.C. option in that they offer breakfast rather than chocolate-covered strawberries and wine.
The main thrust of the deals seem to be predicated upon an urge to attract a gay customer base, while distinguishing the company as particularly diverse and accepting. The Marriott web site even has a section called “Gay Weddings & Events,” which is devoted to helping individuals plan their noteworthy occasions.
In the end, it may simply be a PR game, but one that seems to be working. Take, for instance, the testimonials that have been published on the company’s web site:
“This year’s Lavender Law was the biggest in history with over 1500 lawyers students in attendance, and we were thrilled to be back at the Hollywood Renaissance. I regularly send notes to my national sales rep praising Marriott as being the most LGBT-friendly brand with which I work.”
“DC Capital Pride was very fortunate to have theRenaissance Washington, DC Downtown Hotel as the host and a Presenting Sponsor for our 2011 celebrations. Our partnership with the Renaissance elevated the caliber of this year’s celebrations and the experiences of our attendees. Everyone felt respected and valued, and we hope to work with Marriott Hotels again.”
Based on the evidence, it does seem as though the Marriott is, indeed, distinguishing itself at the most LGBT-friendly hotel chain.
Mix, matching class and race
By THOMAS SOWELL
Apparently the soaring national debt and the threat of a nuclear Iran are not enough to occupy the government's time, because the Obama administration is pushing to force Westchester County, N.Y., to create more low-income housing, in order to mix and match classes and races to fit the government's preconceptions.
Behind all this busy work for bureaucrats and ideologues is the idea that there is something wrong if a community does not have an even or random distribution of various kinds of people. This arbitrary assumption is that the absence of evenness or randomness -- whether in employment, housing or innumerable other situations -- shows a "problem" that has to be "corrected."
No speck of evidence is considered necessary for this assumption to prevail at any level of government, including the Supreme Court of the United States. No one has to show the existence, much less the prevalence, of an even or random distribution of different segments of the population -- in any country, anywhere in the world, or at any period of history.
Nothing is more common than for people to sort themselves out when it comes to residential housing, whether by class, race or other factors.
When there was a large Jewish population living on New York's lower east side, a century ago, Jews did not live at random among themselves. Polish Jews had their neighborhoods, Rumanian Jews theirs, and so on. Meanwhile German Jews lived uptown. In Chicago, when Eastern European Jews began moving into German Jewish neighborhoods, German Jews began moving out.
It was much the same story in Harlem or in other urban ghettoes, where blacks did not live at random among themselves. Landmark scholarly studies by E. Franklin Frazier in the 1930s showed in detail how different neighborhoods within the ghettoes had people of different educational and income levels, with different male\female ratios and different ways of life living in different places.
There was nothing random about it. Within Chicago's black community, the delinquency rate ranged from more than 40 percent in some black neighborhoods to less than 2 percent in other black neighborhoods. People sort themselves out.
None of this was peculiar to blacks or Jews, or to the United States. When emigrants from Scotland went to Australia, the Scottish highlanders settled separately from the Scottish lowlanders. So did emigrants from northern Italy and southern Italy.
Separate residential patterns that are visible to the naked eye, when the people are black and white, are also pervasive among people who physically all look alike. Charles Murray's eye-opening new book, "Coming Apart," shows in detail how different segments of the white American population not only live separately from each other but have very different ways of life -- and are growing increasingly remote from one another in beliefs and behavior.
None of this matters to politicians and ideologues who are hell-bent to mix and match people according to their own preconceptions. Moreover, like many things that the government does, it does residential integration more crudely than when people sort themselves out.
Back in the days when E. Franklin Frazier was doing his scholarly studies of the composition and expansion of black ghettoes, he found the most educated and cultured elements of the black communities living on the periphery of these communities.
It was these kinds of people who typically led the expansion of the black community into the surrounding white communities. By contrast, government programs often take dysfunctional families from high crime ghetto neighborhoods and put them down in the midst of middle-class neighborhoods by subsidizing their housing.
Whether these middle-class neighborhoods are already either predominantly black or predominantly white, the residents are often outraged at the increased crime and other behavior problems inflicted on them by politicians and bureaucrats.
But their complaints usually fall on deaf ears. People convinced of their own superior wisdom and virtue have no time to spare for what other people want, whether in housing or health care or a whole range of other things.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, DISSECTING LEFTISM, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN (Note that EYE ON BRITAIN has regular posts on the reality of socialized medicine). My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there is a mirror of this site here.