The Daily Mail reports that the Church of England is considering abandoning St. George as the patron of England because "his image is too warlike and may offend Muslims."
Lord have mercy. These people. Ashamed of St. George! (Who may not have actually existed, but that's not the point). Look, why don't these sherry-sniffing buttercups just surrender now and spare their enemies the indignity and tedium of having to beat up a bunch of sniveling jellyfish? I swear, you could arm the choirs of the ten Bible churches closest to where I sit deep in the heart of Texas with pool noodles and bullhorns, and they could run half the marmalade-spined clerics of the Church of England over the White Cliffs of Dover like a herd of shrieking Gadarene schoolgirls.
Poor Church of England. Whoever thought it would end like this?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Subscribe
gitv,
The point is, both the immigrant and the country need to be grown up. Only then is compromise possible.
If the immigrant rejects the host country's "heritage and values," there is little incentive for the country to change. (BTW, love the analogy of "If you give a mouse a cookie...")>
Grow up yourself. No, my point is not that society's standards don't ever have to change as society itself changes and as new people come in. My point is that people who move into a society have a responsibility to accommodate themselves to their new surroundings, not the other way around. Yes, there is such a thing as meeting people partway, and every group of immigrants has contributed to and changed society. However, this presupposes good will on the part of the new arrivals, that they want to try to adjust to their new society; not an attitude of "you need to change your longstanding customs to suit my tastes."
And I stand by my statement that society has NO obligation to accommodate the sensitivities of people who blatantly reject that society's heritage and values. Such people are not showing any willingness to try to assimilate and be good citizens of their new society; they just want their new society to change everything to suit them.
I think all this was pretty clear in my posts, though I apologize if it wasn't. But it's clear from your post, TV, that you just want to be insulting.
BTw, I don't know why my last two posts came through as from "Anonymous".
David J. White>
My point is that people who move into a society have a responsibility to accommodate themselves to their new surroundings, not the other way around.
Just like the expansionists who raped and pillaged their way across the nation, slaughtering millions in their way?
You people - and I mean that with *all* the venom I can muster - are completely unable (or merely unwilling) to see how your "do as I say, not as I do" attitude toward the world makes us the joke that we are today.
I will continue to pray for revolution.>
And thus it is demonstrated why "dialogue" is generally a silly goal. I think it was Frederica Mathewes-Green who said something to the effect of, in writing about a "dialogue" group between pro-choice and pro-life folks, "What is there to dialogue about? We believe it's murder, and you don't. What do we have sufficiently in common to make any 'dialogue' productive, when our premises are so diametrically opposed?"
Richard>
I've posted about this at my blog and emailed the Rev Philip Chester (who seems to be the initiator) for comment. The synod part seems to be a beat up according to one commenter at GetReligion who attended. Anyone know how to confirm that officially?>
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.