According to Wikipedia, Sri Lanka has a variety of religious beliefs, making it a truly multicultural experience. It’s over 70% Buddhist, 12.6% Hindu, 9.7 % Muslim and 7.4% Christian.
For over thirty years, there was a civil war between the majority Buddhists and the minority Hindus. The civil war ended ten years ago. Bombings, frequent during the war, were a thing of the past.
Until Sunday. Easter Sunday, when 253 Christians were killed by nine Muslim suicide bombers. The suicide bombers were all from wealthy backgrounds.
At first, the death toll was 359. This is because of the way body parts were counted. Later, the death toll was revised downward.
Initially, speculation was rife that the attacks were revenge killings for the massacre of Muslims in New Zealand, but intelligence has determined that the attacks were planned three months ago, a long time before the New Zealand massacre. Terrorists need no excuse when it comes to mass carnage.
The BBC’s Clyde Myrie, reporting from Sri Lanka, described ISIS as a “perversion of Islam.” But is it? How many more terror attacks have to take place before we face up to reality? On January 18th the Wall Street Journal, on its opinion page, had a long list of Muslim terror attacks under the title: “A Bloody month of jihad.” In any given month, a number of terrorist attacks take place around the world, all a part of the global jihad against non-Muslims. ISIS has claimed responsibility for the Sri Lankan attacks.
A Christian man who survived the bombing of St. Sebastian’s church in Sri Lanka had this to say:
“We are a peace-loving community in this small city, we had never hurt anyone, but we don’t know from where this amount of hate is coming. This city has become a grave with blood and bodies lying around . . . Since the past three years, we don’t know why, but we see an extremist’s mindset developing among the Muslims. I know many good Muslims, but there are also a lot who hate us, and they have never been so before. It is in these three years that we see a difference.” (Raymond Ibrahim, Gatestone, 4/25)
Also from Gatestone:
“In 2017, in Egypt, Islamic terrorists bombed two Coptic Christian churches during Palm Sunday mass, which inaugurates Easter week, murdering 50 people and wounding 120. On Easter Sunday 2016 in Pakistan, an Islamic suicide bomber detonated near the children’s rides of a public park where Christians were known to be congregated and celebrating; over 70 people — mostly women and children — were murdered and nearly 400 wounded. On Easter Sunday 2012 in Nigeria, Islamic terrorists bombed a church, murdering at least 50 worshippers.” (4/25)
Christians are clearly being targeted by Muslims, yet few give attention to this in the West. Gatestone is one of the few.
(The last time I quoted Gatestone, I saw a comment posted to my blog claiming it’s an extreme right-wing website which is often wrong. Gatestone simply sees the threat posed by radical Islam to the western world. It is warning the West. It is no more wrong than mainstream media, which is failing in its responsibility to warn the West. It is described as “extreme right wing” because it opposes globalization and multiculturalism.)
Former US President Barack Obama could not bring himself to talk about the attack on Christians, describing them as “Easter worshippers.”
Allison Pearson, in London’s Daily Telegraph, wrote:
“Compare and contrast the reaction of Hillary Clinton to the two tragedies. On Sunday, she tweeted, “I’m praying for everyone affected by today’s horrific attacks on Easter worshippers and travelers in Sri Lanka.” Easter worshippers? That’s a clunking new euphemism for Christians. When the mosques in Christchurch were targeted, did Clinton talk of Ramadan worshippers? No, she wrote, “My heart breaks for New Zealand and the global Muslim community.”” (4/23)
Former Vice-President Joe Biden, announcing his candidacy for the presidency, in his promotional video lamented the incident in which one person died in Charlottesville, yet gave no mention of the terror attacks in Sri Lanka, which took the lives of at least four Americans. The widening conflict with the Islamic world will require a president who can stand up to the terrorists, not somebody who avoids the issues. Biden is too deeply rooted in the past and is not facing up to what’s happening in the present, let alone the future.
We’re afraid to face the fact that Christians everywhere are being persecuted.
The multicultural dream that the West has been pursuing, everywhere, is dead. Sri Lanka shows this. Other terrorist attacks have also shown it, but not on this scale.
At the same time, it seems to be open season on Christians. For decades, they have been persecuted in the Middle East, with little concern expressed in the West, even in the Vatican.
In London, the Muslim Mayor of the city, sent extra police protection to mosques after the New Zealand massacre. None were sent to Christian churches on Easter Sunday. Christians are on their own. They can never be described as victims (hence Mr. Obama’s use of the term “Easter worshippers”). Only Muslims can be victims!
There are also reports that many Frenchmen do not believe Notre Dame was an accident.
Allison Pearson again:
“I’m afraid that politicians like Clinton and May are paralyzed by a terrible dilemma. It’s too scary to admit that militant Islamists are at war with Christianity and Western civilization, that vandalism of churches is rife across Europe and that, according to the Pew Report, Christianity is the world’s most persecuted religion.”
Prince William, the future king of New Zealand, was asked to come and speak at the Christchurch mosque, to encourage the people at this very difficult time for them. They were the victims of a white nationalist who protested the presence of Muslims in the country.
Attacks and counter attacks. This has become almost a daily staple worldwide. This “clash of civilizations” between Islam and the West was predicted by Samuel Huntington 25 years ago; it is also prophesied in Daniel 11:40-44.
Sadly, Sri Lanka is the future of us all!
I am going overseas for three weeks and am unlikely to post while I’m away. This is a fun trip. Hopefully, no news will interrupt it!
One of my earliest memories is of a trip with a friend and his father to the shore of the River Humber in England. It was twilight and, along with thousands of other people, we tried to position ourselves comfortably on the rocks so that we could watch the famous yacht go by.
The yacht was the Royal Yacht Britannia. On board were the Queen and Prince Philip who were returning from a royal tour. Those tours were frequent back then – often to faraway places like Australia and New Zealand or one of the islands in the South Pacific. I don’t remember where they were returning from on this evening, or why they were sailing up the River Humber. I remember having a brief look through binoculars, but the yacht was just too far away.
There’s been hundreds of royal tours since then. The latest in the news is actually the first tour of the new Duke and Duchess of Sussex, formerly known as Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, before their marriage five months ago. They are now on an 18-day tour of Australia, New Zealand, Fiji and Tonga, during which they have 76 engagements.
The tour comes at an interesting time. In five months time, the United Kingdom is leaving the European Union. Almost fifty years ago, the country turned its back on the Commonwealth of former British territories; now, it hopes to revive the commercial and other ties it once had with these nations.
At the same time as the British are focused on Brexit, Australians are preparing for a plebiscite on the future of the monarchy in their country. With an election next year, the Labor (socialist) party is planning an immediate vote on whether to turn the country into a republic, not a republic American style but one where the titular head of state will no longer be a monarch who lives 10,000 miles away, but an Australian figurehead likely chosen by parliament. The American model is not likely to be adopted as it’s too expensive and politicians don’t like it as it’s too weak. One member of the Australian parliament warned against adopting the US system lest they, too, have a President Trump!
Even republicans admit the change will lead to some confusion and political instability as 63 laws have to be changed, if the people vote for a republic. Any change will also be more expensive.
Immediately prior to the arrival of the prince and duchess, the new Australian prime minister, Liberal (in Australia, that’s conservative) Scott Morrison, declared he is a monarchist and had the monarch’s portrait returned to the PM’s official office. His expressed view is that “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Australia’s founders chose to remain loyal to the Crown after achieving independence at the turn of the twentieth century.
Australia’s constitutional monarchy and parliamentary system has been the envy of the world. It has attracted immigrants from all over the world, mostly, in recent decades, from failed states that happen to be republics; it’s likely that most of these immigrants, not knowing the past, will vote for a republic, setting Australia on the path to yet another dysfunctional state run by politicians for politicians.
Before casting their vote, they would do well to watch the Australian documentary, “When the Queen came to town,” a record of the monarch’s first royal tour of Australia in 1954, with many interviews of those who remember the tour, in which 75% of Australians saw the monarch at least once. She was the first reigning monarch to set foot in the country. It was a highly successful visit.
After the queen returned to England, Robert Menzies, Prime Minister of Australia, wrote an article that appeared in the Sydney Morning Herald, in which he wrote:
“It is a basic truth that for our Queen we have within us, sometimes unrealized until the moment of expression, the most profound and passionate feelings of loyalty and devotion. It does not require much imagination to realize that when eight million people spontaneously pour out this feeling they are engaging in a great act of common allegiance and common joy which brings them closer together and is one of the most powerful elements converting them from a mass of individuals to a great cohesive nation. In brief, the common devotion to the Throne is a part of the very cement of the whole social structure.”
WHAT DAMPENED THE ENTHUSIASM?
Britain’s entry into the EU, then the Common Market, on January 1st, 1973, contributed to the republican movement, as many Australians felt betrayed by the mother country, formerly their biggest trading partner. In November of 1975, more people turned against the monarchy when the queen’s representative, the Governor-General, Sir John Kerr, dismissed the socialist government of Gough Whitlam for financial improprieties. As this dismissal was “in the name of the Queen,” it boosted republican feeling.
Australians gave the monarchy “the walkabout,” where members of the royal family walk amongst the people. This was named after an aboriginal practice. The term has caught on in the other constitutional monarchies, as well. It’s a great way for the people to meet their sovereign and other members of her family; and for them to show that they care about local issues. Politicians only show up at election time; Harry and Meghan are in Australia for the Invictus games and to promote growing concerns about mental health.
Wikipedia has this to say about the Games, which are now being held in Sydney:
“The Invictus Games is an international adaptive multi-sport event, created by Prince Harry, in which wounded, injured or sick war veterans take part in sports including wheelchair basketball, sitting volleyball, and indoor rowing.”
Even with binoculars, we didn’t get to see the Queen or Prince Philip sixty years ago, but I do remember the crowds and the excitement. One other memory from about the same time was of the Queen’s visit to my hometown of Grimsby, a town on the estuary of the Humber. Again, crowds lined the street. I couldn’t see anything, but a man standing next to me offered to lift me up on his shoulders and my mother consented. From that vantage point, I remember a couple of people across the road fainted and the Red Cross was called to revive them. They were suffering from heat stroke (yes, even in England)!
I remember, too, that my father, a republican (not to be confused with Republicans in the US), complained that he could not drive his car through the center of town, where all the crowds were. Ironically, he got the best view of the monarch as she passed by. It did not lead to his changing his mind on Britain’s constitutional arrangements. Perhaps Prince Harry and Meghan’s visit will help change the minds of those Australians who are tempted to step into the unknown with a questionable and uncertain republic.
Australia, Britain, Canada, New Zealand, together with a number of small islands in the Caribbean and South Pacific, share a cultural heritage. A significant part of that heritage is the monarchy, which has provided each nation with a solid foundation and continuous, peaceful political and economic development. A change in the political system will mean a diversion from that heritage. First, abolish the monarchy, then change the flag, then something else until Australia becomes just another Asian republic – the kind of republic that new Australians have recently fled from!
Note the following from this week’s Spectator:
“Whether it was intended so or not, the decision by the Duke and Duchess of Sussex to choose Australia as the place to announce that they are expecting their first child was a public relations triumph. For years the royal family was criticised for having a tin ear when it came to reading and dealing with the public, but no one could say this now. The tone of the younger royals’ tour to the southern hemisphere has been one of approachability, without compromising the dignity of the positions which Harry and Meghan hold.
“Their visit also runs counter to the conventional wisdom of some republicans — in Britain as well as Australia — that support for the monarchy is dependent on personal affection for the Queen and that the institution will be doomed upon her death. Now that Elizabeth II is, for reasons of age, no longer able to conduct long-haul tours, her grandchildren have achieved what her children never quite managed: to show that they have the ability to follow on and capture the support of the public where she leaves off.” (The Spectator, 19th October).
As the prime minister recently said: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”
DEATH OF JAMAL KHASHOGGI
The famous Washington Post columnist was brutally tortured and murdered in the Embassy of Saudi Arabia on October 2nd. What happened to him was reprehensible. It‘s not the first time that an Arab government has killed a critic. At the same time, we should also remember that Mr. Khashoggi was no friend of the West. His support of the Muslim Brotherhood and his close friendship with Osama bin Laden both illustrate this.
“Khashoggi was a political Islamist to the end. He did not believe in secularism. He wanted an alliance of Islamic democratic states. There’s nothing wrong with that, necessarily. But it is relevant and worth saying, as it helps explain the dynamic by which he found himself on the wrong side of the Saudi regime.” (Freddie Gray, The Spectator, 19th October)
700, 000 PROTEST OVER BREXIT
A huge demonstration took place in London on Saturday, calling for a second referendum on Brexit. They oppose the United Kingdom leaving the European Union, scheduled for March 29th, five months from now.
Referenda in the EU has often followed this path. A vote is taken on an issue, and when the result is not to the liking of the EU, a second referendum will be called for. Whereas the demand sounds reasonable, it could lead to further division in the United Kingdom, already seriously divided as it is.
Those who want to Remain in the EU have concerns about leaving the world’s biggest trading bloc.
WHAT MULTICULTURALISM HIDES
If we bring in highly qualified immigrants to our workforce, we would be taking away from poorer countries the best they have to offer, and the situation in those countries will further deteriorate. The result will be an even greater flow of unskilled migrants escaping those countries.
The proponents of the new multiculturalism want to share their welfare states with masses of refugees who — through no fault of their own — will be unable to participate in financing themselves for a long time to come.
(Jan Keller, a Czech, writing for Gatestone Institute, 16th October)
RESPONSE ON MULTICULTURALISM
Following a comment to my last blog this morning, here is my response:
Multiculturalism was a term first coined by a Royal Commission in Canada in 1971. It was an attempt to show Canadians a way forward following a significant number of immigrants arriving from Africa, the Caribbean, the Middle East and Asia, peoples of different cultures from the dominant culture of Canada. The policy was adopted by Canada and then other western nations. It has not worked well and will lead to further problems ahead.
Jesus Christ prophesied that, at the time of the end, “Nation will rise against nation, kingdom against kingdom” (Matthew 24:7). The word “nation” comes from the Greek word “ethnos,” from which we get the word “ethnic.” Ethnic conflict will be common at the end time. Indeed, it is already, arguably, the biggest cause of conflict around the world.
While we sing “O God of every nation,” and all nations are descended from Noah’s sons, we should also remember the following words spoken by the Apostle Paul, from Acts 17:26:
“And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their pre-appointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings.” God set the boundaries; man (mainly western man) is behind mixing, which is the opposite.
We see many problems with multiculturalism. Tolerance is required for it to work, but this is sadly lacking in some groups. Rising conflict in many nations is leading to the rise of populist movements that want to preserve one culture over others. None of this means that any race is superior to another. People simply want to preserve their own cultural heritage. Some cultures are just not compatible. Comments I have made on the threats from immigration are based on this reality — that the mixing is going to lead to negative consequences. It is not meant to imply that any race is superior.
The Apostle Peter said that: “God is no respecter of persons” (Acts 10:34)
CARAVAN PUTS IMMIGRATION BACK IN THE SPOTLIGHT, IN TIME FOR MIDTERMS
“As 4,000 Honduran migrants push north toward the US, President Trump sees an opportunity to help Republicans hang on to the House in the midterm elections.” (Axios, 20th October).
IN RETROSPECT — OF INTEREST TO THE WCG DIASPORA
“Throughout this study two related concepts have been mentioned repeatedly: authority and government/governance. We have seen Herbert W. Armstrong imposing his authority, diminishing his son’s authority. Having his authority challenged, using his authority to change long-held doctrines, and being accused of authoritarianism. We have seen Joseph W. Tkach and Joe Jr. making use of the strong ethos of obedience to top-down authority in the Worldwide Church of God to revolutionize its teachings, thus precipitating the three major schismatic moves of 1989, 1992-3, and 1995. We have seen various attitudes to authority in the offshoot churches, from the hardline position of Philadelphia, Restored, and others to the more liberal attitudes found in United and its smaller offshoots and in the GTA group of churches.
“As for church government or governance, for some churches in the Worldwide family this is a crucial part of their beliefs; differing attitudes to governance are a major distinguishing factor between the hardline and the more liberal churches.” (“Authority in the Churches of God,” chapter 7 of “The Fragmentation of a Sect,” by David V Barrett, 2013, Oxford University Press.)
Philippians 2:12 – “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.”
According to the British Daily Express on Friday, 92% of the British people are now against remaining in the European Union.
This means that Prime Minister David Cameron’s gamble has not paid off. Mr. Cameron hoped that by gaining some concessions from his EU partners, the British people would vote to remain in the 28-nation bloc.
What’s defeated him is the migrant crisis.
“Shock poll result as asylum claims rocket yet again,” is the remainder of the front-page headline. The British people feel like they are being invaded and that the British way of life is seriously threatened. One of my brothers put it well when he said you don’t hear English spoken any more at the local “precinct” (mall).
This is not a recent phenomenon sparked by the mass exodus of people fleeing Syria. It’s been going on for some time. Migrants take advantage of Britain’s generous welfare system. They will cross a dozen countries in Europe to get to the United Kingdom, when international rules on asylum say you should apply for asylum status at the first country you go to.
The British only have themselves to blame. Firstly, in joining the EU in the first place; secondly, in having such generous welfare benefits; thirdly, by, unbelievably, distributing leaflets on claiming benefits in British Council offices around the world. This was the way it was when we lived in Ghana. The British Council was a British taxpayer funded library and information center in the Ghanaian capital and in the second biggest city of Kumasi. Leaflets on their information table promoted all the freebies available once an individual arrived in London. Britons should remember St. Paul’s admonition: “If a man doesn’t work, neither should he eat.” (II Thessalonians 3:10)
Under EU rules, anybody moving from country to country within the EU is entitled to receive benefits from his/her new country upon arrival. All people have to do is get to the EU, from where they can easily move to Britain. This is causing serious financial problems in the UK and is widely resented.
Question: if Britain leaves the EU, where will she go? What will she do?
The Norwegian Foreign Minister, visiting Britain last week, cautioned the UK on leaving. Norway is NOT a member but often pays a heavy price for not being allowed to make decisions on European trading policies, dictated from Brussels.
Prior to entering the European Economic Community, the predecessor of the EU, Britain had close trading ties with its former colonies, the four Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. These countries now have different priorities.
The term “dominions” is not used any more, except in Canada, whose official name is “Dominion of Canada.” Australia is the “Commonwealth of Australia.” Collectively, the four nations mentioned were termed the “Dominions.” When I was growing up, the British government had a special minister to handle relations with these nations, they were so important. He was the Secretary for the Dominions. The dominions each had the Westminster system of parliamentary government with the British monarch as Head of State.
“New Brunswick premier Sir Samuel Leonard Tilley suggested the term ‘Dominion,’ inspired by Psalm 72:8 (from the King James Bible): “He shall have dominion also from sea to sea, and from the river unto the ends of the earth.” This is also echoed in Canada’s motto: A Mari Usque Ad Mare (Latin for “from sea to sea”). The term had been used for centuries to refer to the lands held by a monarch, and had previously been adopted as titles for the Dominion of New England and the Dominion and Colony of Virginia. (Wikipedia: “Name of Canada”)”
These dominions, together with Britain itself, were the number one military and economic power in the world prior to the United States. They were the only nations that fought against fascism in World War II from beginning to end. In World War I, they led the fight against German militarism.
In June 1953, the prime ministers of these countries, who then comprised the British Commonwealth, met in London to discuss security matters. They had been in the capital for the coronation of the queen. Sir Winston Churchill chaired the meeting. Sir Robert Menzies, the Australian prime minister and an ardent monarchist, was also present.
Two of the issues they discussed were the Korean War, in which the Commonwealth played a major role; and the new radical government in Egypt, which had overthrown the Egyptian monarchy. The new nationalist government wanted to seize the Anglo-French Suez Canal, an artery of the British Empire, giving Britain ready access to its territories in the east.
In 1956 the Egyptians seized the canal. The British and French, together with the Israelis, invaded Egypt to take the canal back. Unexpectedly, US President Dwight D. Eisenhower told them to stop and threatened the UK with severe economic consequences if the country went ahead with its plans.
This spelled the end of the British Empire. It was clear that Britain could no longer continue as a global power. Britain’s colonies were rapidly given independence, most of them joining the Commonwealth, which became meaningless. Today, 94% of the people in the Commonwealth are Asians or Africans. This has totally transformed the organization from what it was in 1953. Most member nations are republics, though they still recognize the Queen as the Head of the Commonwealth.
Now, it’s America’s turn to start pulling back from international commitments.
If Britain pulls out of the EU, it presents Australia with an opportunity. Instead of severing the last tie with Britain, the country could propose a reactivation of the alliance that existed right up until Bob Menzies was PM. The four nations that were founder members of the original Commonwealth (South Africa, Rhodesia and Newfoundland were the other three) could once again be a formidable force, with a global reach. Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom could have a major presence in the world again. Queen Elizabeth II is queen of all four countries, in herself a unifying symbol. This does not mean Britain would be in the lead. But all four, working together, would be a positive force in the world. They have a great deal in common, including a commitment to the freedom of the individual and the rule of law. A formal, more meaningful relationship between the four could also bolster the US led western alliance, at a time of growing disillusionment and disinterest in the US.
It’s such a good idea, it’s unlikely to happen. Australia and New Zealand will more likely continue to pursue closer ties with Asia; the UK pursuing a differed European model. Further examples of Anglo-Saxon delusions.
The result is the continuing decline and fragmentation of the Anglo-Saxon-Celtic peoples who, a century ago, dominated the world.
The US Administration is also delusional.
Amidst clear signs that the economy is slowing down, unemployment has dropped to below 5% for the first time in a few years. This is due to the way the unemployment figures are calculated and has little to do with reality. The figure is based on how many people are receiving unemployment benefits and are actively looking for work. As benefits are for a limited time only, the numbers decline over time. Additionally, millions of people have simply given up looking for work.
Another sign of spreading delusion is the federal deficit. It passed $19 trillion last week and hardly got a mention. Nobody cares anymore. It appears that nobody in Washington has any concept of why the country should live within its means. Of course, few people, mere mortals included, has any idea how to balance a budget, so it’s not surprising our leaders get away with it. Somebody once described credit cards as “45 days to reality” – it may take longer for the US to reach its “pay by” date, but it will come and when it does economic upheaval will follow.
Further delusion was shown when the President visited a mosque Thursday, as a guest of the Islamic Society of Baltimore. Stressing how Muslims were involved in America from the beginning, he continued to build on the false idea that this country is based on Judeo-Christian-Islamic principles and that Islam, together with the other two religions, is a religion of peace.
None of this is based on reality. Yes, some Muslims were brought to America as slaves, but they did not retain their religion. The book “Muslims in America” says the first recorded Muslim was an American who converted after his travels in the Middle East. This was after the Civil War. The first mosque was opened in Chicago in 1929. The mosque visited on Thursday is only 47 years old. As for Islam being a “religion of peace,” history shows otherwise.
Perhaps there’s no time to read history when you’re President of the United States!
There’s no time for geography, either, when you are running for president. Marco Rubio has upset both the Swedes and the Norwegians by suggesting that one of his rivals should run for president in one of the two Scandinavian countries. The two nations are quite upset with this suggestion – they have never had a president. Nor do they want one. Can you blame them after being exposed to all the debates on CNN?
Note the following comment from a Swedish magazine:
“The thing with some American politicians, such as Sarah Palin, is – I don’t want to use the word stupid, but I do. They are. They are so ignorant about the rest of the world. They think there are two monarchies in the world. And that’s the UK and Monaco, because of Grace Kelly.”
– Roger Lundgren editor of Sweden’s Kungliga (Royal) magazine
The presidential candidates did not just sleep through history and geography classes, they dozed off during English classes as well. In one of the Republican debates, I was introduced to the following new words: “vigorousness” (Ted Cruz) and “falseness” (Rand Paul, who has since dropped out, hopefully to take further English classes!) Donald Trump also expanded my vocabulary. Thankfully, those words were bleeped out!
The Democrats, meanwhile, argued over the meaning of the word “progressive.”
"Once in a while you will stumble upon the truth but most of us manage to pick ourselves up and hurry along as if nothing had happened." — Sir Winston Churchill