Anglicans embracing insects

According to the Anglican Journal, we haven’t been doing enough to look after the insect population – or, as I expect it will soon be called, the Insect Community.

Since there 900,000 varieties of insect representing 80 percent of the world’s species and around 10,000,000,000,000,000,000 individual insects currently roaming the planet, it seems to me that they are managing quite well without our help.

In fact, there are too many insects by far; insectophobia be damned, it’s time stock up on Raid and indulge in a little insect cleansing.

The Anglican Communion’s fifth mark of mission urges us to safeguard the integrity of creation and sustain and renew the life of the earth and all its forms. This is an issue that greatly concerns Dr. Stephen Scharper, an associate professor in the University of Toronto’s Centre for the Environment, department of the study of religion and department of anthropology.

In his promotion of planetary stewardship, the Connecticut-born expert in ecological theology often goes back to U.S. marine biologist Rachel Carson and her landmark 1962 book, Silent Spring. “This was a turning point in the environmental movement,” he says. Carson challenged the modern world’s domineering approach to nature and humankind’s need to control everything in it, especially insects, with increasingly potent chemicals.

‘This was a question of worldview as much as a question of science and data,” says Scharper. “What Carson helped people see was that this world view was at odds with the growing ecological understanding of integration and webs of relationships…” In other words, we must respect even with the creepers and crawlers of the earth.

[…]

Scharper, however, sees Carson’s wakeup call as an invitation to the Christian imagination and community to embrace this worldview of integration with creation and a refusal to adopt a view of control and capitalistic exploitation. “The invitation is to reflect on a larger Christian worldview that embraces creation in a radical relationship,” he says.

 

A different kind of chance encounter

The headline blares: Women in chance sex encounters can receive the morning-after pill by courier.

Much as it find it revolting, at least I understand the concept of the convenience of having an abortifacient delivered to your door after filling out an online form. What mystifies me is the mechanics of a “chance sex encounter”. How does it work? With absolutely no volition on the part of the participants, does one accidentally bump into a person on the street, fall over and, by chance lose one’s underpants, insert one’s you-know-what into her you-know-what until there are fireworks and an offspring is conceived?

That must be it. I suppose it could happen to anyone.

A metaphor for contemporary Anglicanism: a cardboard cathedral

From here:

The idea may sound flimsy, particularly given that cathedrals tend to be known for their solid presence: the flying buttresses, the soaring domes, the Gothic grandeur. But in the earthquake-devastated city of Christchurch, Anglican leaders believe it will deliver both a temporary solution and a statement about the city’s recovery.

On Monday, they announced plans to build a 25-meter (82-foot) high cathedral constructed with 104 tubes of cardboard. The structure will be a temporary replacement for the iconic stone Christ Church Cathedral, which was ruined last year in an earthquake that killed 185 people and destroyed much of the downtown.

The Rev. Craig Dixon, a church spokesman, said the temporary cathedral would seat 700 people, cost up to 5 million New Zealand dollars ($4.1 million), and would be used for 10 years while a permanent replacement is designed and built.

This year a cardboard cathedral, next year cardboard cut-out bishops. There is nothing new under the sun.

 

The Diocese of New Westminster doesn’t know what “scorched earth” means

At a recent diocesan council, the following comments were made about the three buildings that were awarded to the diocese as part of its legal action against ANiC:

Bishop Michael pointed out that DC has spoken in the past and made decisions about the three parishes that are the subject of this plan; St. Matthew’s, Abbotsford, St. Matthias and St. Luke, Oakridge and St. John’s Shaughnessy, primarily regarding funding.

Bishop Michael reminded DC of Assistant Treasurer Jim Stewart’s words that no diocese has ever planted three churches on “scorched ground”.

What Jim Stewart and Michael Ingham meant was that there are no people in the parishes that reverted to diocesan ownership. That is because the congregations decided that it is better to follow Christ than Ingham and so forfeited their buildings.

Stewart misquoted: he meant “scorched earth”. “Scorched earth” is “a military strategy or operational method which involves destroying anything that might be useful to the enemy while advancing through or withdrawing from an area.” Had the parishes adopted a scorched earth policy, they would have set fire to, or otherwise demolished their buildings before they fell into the hands of the enemy. But they didn’t – they just left.

Even Jesus left with congregations; not that the diocese would miss him. All that remains is – as Stewart himself noted – a mausoleum: death and the stench that accompanies it.

Diocese of New Westminster to spend $4.5 million in an attempt to revitalise seized parishes

Having won the court battle for the buildings of St. John’s Shaughnessy, St. Matthias and St. Luke, and St. Matthew’s Abbotsford, the Diocese of New Westminster must decide what to do with them. Since it has no substantial congregations in the buildings, the diocese has concluded that it must “plant three new churches” to “establish Diocese of New Westminster, Anglican Church of Canada worship” in the parishes. The diocese makes no mention of worshipping Jesus.

The money is to come from “the assets of the parishes returned to the diocese by the courts of Canada” along with funding from the diocese.

In any other circumstance the diocese would quietly close non-viable parishes but, in this case, there would be too much loss of face and Bishop Michael Ingham is prepared to spend $4.5 Million to make sure that doesn’t happen. I expect that it will anyway.

The whole document is here.

Note the last sentence: the parishes have a limited time in which to spend $4.5 million to “become vital and sustainable” before they are put on the chopping block.

Rev. George Pitcher likens Anglican Mainstream to racists

Rather than address the actual point that Anglican Mainstream is making, Pitcher has chosen to make the grotesquely bigoted assertion that Anglican Mainstream is populated by people who are no better than racists – it must be so because he disagrees with them. This probably explains why he didn’t last long as the Archbishop of Canterbury’s public affairs secretary.

From here:

I do see that the banned ads – ‘Not gay! Post-gay, ex-gay and proud. Get over it!’ – could have caused offence. But I tentatively suggest that the offence may have been worth it if Anglican Mainstream were forced to try to justify its ‘reparative therapy’ for homosexuality and, in doing so, were examined for the type of people they are. That worked at the last election with the BNP, which was blown away in the media airspace and is now electorally nowhere to be found.

And I do see that had our racist political parties (you know the ones) clubbed together for a campaign that read ‘Not black! Post-black, ex-black and proud. Get out!’, then it wouldn’t and shouldn’t have seen the light of day.

 

 

Is there a bra under that niqab?

From here:

A photo of a Muslim woman wearing full Islamic dress and holding up a bra as she sorts laundry is stirring controversy in Kamloops, B.C., and the Saudi Arabian Embassy is now involved.

The photo, taken by Thompson Rivers University fine arts student Sooraya Graham, features one of Graham’s friends wearing a niqab, a veil covering the face, and an abaya, a full-body cloak.

The picture was a class assignment and was originally displayed with other student photos in mid-March, until some students complained and a staff member tore it down a week later.

[….]

But the Saudi Education Centre in Kamloops, which is funded by the Saudi Arabian government and provides support to Saudi students and their families, is taking issue with the photo.

“The artist didn’t approach the artwork let’s say in a very professional way that can state and can clarify the information and clarify the idea behind the picture,” said centre president Trad Bahabri.

It goes without saying that anything that upsets the Saudi embassy must have something good about it. The photographer wants us to interpret the photograph for ourselves, so here goes: judging by the bemused way the young lady is staring at the bra, it is apparent that she has never seen one before and doesn’t know what to do with it. In the same way a Scotsmen wearing a kilt stares at underpants.

 

Mayor of London censors ex-gay ad

From here:

Boris Johnson, the Conservative mayor, has pulled an “offensive” Christian campaign advertising “gay conversion” which was due to appear on London’s buses next week.

Revelations that adverts asserting the power of therapy to change the sexual orientation of gay people were due to be driven around the capital came as Johnson, who is seeking re-election in May, was due to appear at a mayoral hustings organised by the gay campaigning group Stonewall on Saturday.

The mayor immediately put the wheels in motion to halt the campaign after being alerted to the plans by the Guardian, and made clear that such advertising had no place in a tolerant city.

A clearly angered Johnson said: “London is one of the most tolerant cities in the world and intolerant of intolerance. It is clearly offensive to suggest that being gay is an illness that someone recovers from and I am not prepared to have that suggestion driven around London on our buses.”

A few points:

This is censorship of a message that is not illegal, hateful, pornographic or harmful to anyone: it simply goes against the Zeitgeist and that, it seems, is all it takes to justify state censorship.

The fact that there are some people who used to experience same-sex attraction, now don’t and are happy about it, means that the ad is true: it is not false advertising.

There is nothing in the ad that suggests homosexual acts are wrong (I think they are, but the ad doesn’t imply that), merely that it is possible for a homosexual to change his experience of sexual attraction. How is that intolerant?

Why is Boris Johnson’s intolerance of the ad more palatable than the imputed intolerance of the ad itself – especially since the ad is not intolerant and Johnson’s banning of it has been done in the name of tolerance?

When does diversity become uniformity?

In the case of London Metropolitan University, when Muslims are involved. The university is considering banning alcohol to accommodate the sensitivities of Muslim students – all in the name of “diversity”. Real diversity would allow those who want drink alcohol to do so and those who don’t, not to. What is being considered here is totalitarianism. Before anyone else says it: teetotalitarianism.

A university is considering ending the sale of alcohol on campus due to concerns from Muslim students.

London Metropolitan University could take action because a ‘high percentage’ of its students thought drinking was ‘immoral’, according to its vice chancellor.

Professor Malcolm Gillies raised the prospect of an alcohol-free campus after gauging the changing values from the influx of new students.

He said it would be unwise to ‘cling’ to a ‘nostalgic’ view where the vast majority wanted alcohol to be available and instead take account of diverging views.

He told MailOnline: ‘I was raising the issue of changing values in student populations and the question of how a responsible university responds.

‘London Metropolitan University is a highly diverse university ethnically and in religious terms. ‘

‘Our students come from all over the world and they come with changing balance of values.