Please disable your Ad Blocker in order to interact with the site.

I always thought that the Archbishop of Canterbury was the head of the the church of England. But the more I read about Rowan Williams the present Archbishop I get the feeling I might have been wrong, because he sometimes sounds more like an Ayatollah than an Archbishop. This “man of God” is constantly taking the side of Radical Islam over western thought and progress.

Here are some of they Ayatol….I mean Archbishops ditty’s:

According to a recent Times of London headline, the Archbishop of Canterbury has declared the U.S. to be the “worst imperialist.” Rowan Williams is the senior prelate of the Church of England and the spiritual head of 77 million Anglicans worldwide. He apparently thinks the 4 year U.S. presence in Iraq is far more insidious than any of Great Britain’s 3 centuries of imperialism.

Rowan lambasted Christian Zionists, America’s “chosen nation” syndrome, and Israel’s security fence against Palestinian terrorism. He expressed concern for Christian Palestinians and Christian Iraqis, but only as victims of U.S. and Israeli wrongheaded policies. That both are more immediately victimized by anti-Christian Islamists apparently was not worth noting, either by the archbishop, or by Emel. Williams preferred to shy away from critique of radical Islam’s own proclivity towards war, though he did suggest that Islam’s present political arrangements aren’t always “very impressive.”

If you live in Britain and have a teddy bear named Jesus…I would be more than a little nervous.

On the Iraq War, Williams wants to “keep before the government and others the great question of how you can actually contribute to a responsible civil society in a context where you’ve undermined most of the foundations on which that society can be built.” Evidently the archbishop did not describe for Emel the “foundations” for a strong civil society that had been allowed to exist under Saddam but were undermined by the U.S.-led removal of the tyrant.

Williams dismissively described “violence” as a “quick discharge of frustration. It serves you. It does not serve the situation. Whenever people turn to violence what they do is temporarily release themselves from some sort of problem but they help no one else.” Disappointingly, the archbishop’s perspective on “violence,” like the Religious Left’s throughout the West, is facile. He portrayed all “violence” as equally sinister, when classical Christianity affirms the state’s responsibility to employ force in defense of the good when other options fail. The archbishop preferred to portray the U.S.-led overthrow of Saddam as merely an emotional catharsis. “A lot of the pressure around the invasion of Iraq was ‘We’ve got to do something! Then we’ll feel better.’ That’s very dangerous.”

I think CAIR Calls it viol-o-phobia. But you notice he says nothing about the terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere?

Williams was “scathing” about Christian Zionists who support Israel, connecting them to “the chosen nation myth of America, meaning that what happens in America is very much at the heart of God’s purpose for humanity.” Seemingly the archbishop, who was not “scathing” against the world’s many dictators or Islamist terror groups, reserved his special fire for the supporters of U.S. and Israeli policies. Presiding over a secularized nation, the archbishop has probably forgotten that Christians traditionally believe that all nations are mystically instruments of providence. It would be heterodox for American Christians to think that their nation is not part of God’s purpose, especially after its uniquely offering refuge to persecuted Christians, the first wave of which were victims of Williams’ own nation and church. Williams was distressed about the “beleaguered Christian communities” in Iraq, as he should be. But he reported they are suffering because their “neighbors” have “turned against them, identifying them with the West.” Why not identify these “neighbors” as radical Islamists? Or would that divert Williams from its primary objective of faulting the U.S. and winning the favor of an Islamic magazine? He also has special condemnation for Israel’s security fence. “Whatever justification given for the existence for the wall, the human cost is colossal. Source for the quotes above The Worst Archbishop, Front Page Magazine.

Ah Yes the security fence, you need Justification for that Mr Archbishop Sir. Below is the Justification and the Human cost of NOT having the security fence try to put these images into your tiny little mind before you talk about human toll



Become a Lid Insider

Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we'll make sure to keep you in the loop.

Send this to friend