God’s place in a humanist society (23) [Locul lui Dumnezeu într-o societate umanistă]

Not only that they are fewer, but British practicing Christians are more and more pressured to hide their faith, in order to go on enjoying the privilege of living in a democratic, progressive and prosperous country like the UK.

Wearing a cross at work, even exhibiting one in an electrician’s van have become unofficial offences that irreligious zealots are eager to punish.

More and more – of the already few! – Christians in Britain are at risk of being put in front of a stark choice: “Take off your cross or you’ll get sacked!”.

Supervisers, bosses, co-workers or any other politically correct authorities have no scruples about threatening Christians like this, whilst no one would dare asking a Muslim woman to remove her veil, a Jew to take off his kippah or a Sikh to renounce his turban.

Indeed, that would be outrageous in a country like Great Britain, wouldn’t it? But shouldn’t the same laws the same right for Christians?

It seems that the answer is definitely negative, according to the Conservative (?!) Chameleon in office at 10 Downing Street.

For the UK Government, wearing a cross is not a “generally recognised Christian practice,” thus it needn’t be supported by the State in front of the ECHR. In a country where any wacky minority can ask for protection, Christians are defenceless…

Then why is the British monarh still called Defender of the Faith? Why is the Union Jack still bearing not one but three crosses?

And what kind of faith is that which the Monarch defends? The faith that Christianity is a relic of history whose demise should be hastened?!

There’s no doubt that being a Christian has become a deficiency for one’s employability in the UK. Unless you’re a New man, you can hardly integrate in a society obsessed with material wealth and with loathing its Christian heritage.

Just like in the USSR, when politically correct bolsheviks in Britain can’t snatch crosses from people’s hearts by brainwashing, they forcibly take them off chests.

They are probably relying on the fact that those of churches will fall by themselves. If not, one day they will take the cross down even from St. Paul’s Cathedral in the City of London…

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

God’s place in a humanist society (22) [Locul lui Dumnezeu într-o societate umanistă]

Has pro-islam gone too far in the UK over the past years? Aren’t Muslims granted excessively many facilities in order not to feel uncomfortable within the British society?

And isn’t it inconsistent – if not outrightly hypocritical –  to see this politically correct concern not to hurt the feelings of Muslims, while Christians are pressured not to wear crosses in public, as this might be ‘offensive’ to other people?

No matter how irreligious many Brits would consider themselves to be, what sane human being wouldn’t notice how far this madness has gone?!

If I were to offer one last (at least for now :-) example of how Muslims are pampered, here are two relevant pictures from the University of Sussex. 

In the second pic, Muslim religious items (books and a prayer rug) are publicly displayed through a window.

The first image is even more problematic, as it shows the (double!) entrance to the Muslim Student Center. Never mind the fact that Christians don’t have a center of their own.

They can also express freely in the secular campus, organize gatherings, spread leaflets, put posters etc. 

The weird thing is that, in a humanist university, with up to 70% female students attending some faculties, gender segregation is allowed. For Muslims only, obviously.

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Din raidurile mele prin inima Scoţiei (24) [From my forays into Scotland's heartland]

Pentru că se apropie prăznuirea Sfântului Andrei – o zi (oare şi miezul ei creştin?!) la mare cinste, atât în Scoţia, cât şi în România – postez câteva imagini din orăşelul scoţian cu numele sfântului.

Acest St Andrews este de-abia al cincilea oraş ca mărime din Fife (circa 16,700 locuitori) şi rămâne în istorie drept capitală a Bisericii din Scoţia (cea dinainte de Church of Scotland).

Deşi de 2.5 ori mai puţin populat decât echivalentul eclesiatic din Anglia (Canterbury), cu greu s-ar putea zice că orăşelul n-ar avea greutate în UK.

Nu atât din perspectivă economică, cât mai ales ca importanţă istorică şi intelectuală, pentru că găzduieşte a treia universitate de pe tărâm britanic, după cele Oxford şi Cambridge.

A treia în ordine cronologică şi încă în top zece universităţi britanice în privinţa calităţii educaţiei, University of St Andrews a fost fondată la 1410-1413.

Mii de studenţi din toată lumea au venit şi vin aici, foarte probabil atraşi nu doar de vreo poveste de iubire princiară precum cea dintre William şi Kate.

Ci de aerul boem dintr-un oraş medieval, fără industrie (în afara celei turistice, inclusiv celei dedicate golfului), unde n-ai ce face decât să studiezi şi să te distrezi.

Cu atât mai puţin nu cred că mai interesează pe cineva moştenirea creştină a localităţii, unde mai funcţionează ‘biserici’, dar nu ştiu câtă ‘credinţă’ o mai fi.

Şi unde ruinele Catedralei din St Andrews – înălţate (începând cu anul 1158) după ruperea creştinătăţii britanice de Biserica Una a lui Hristos  – vin ca un avetisment.

De s-o încrede cineva doar în ştiinţa lui, să nu uite ce zice Mântuitorul: “Cel ce rămâne întru Mine şi Eu în el, acela aduce roadă multă, căci fără Mine nu puteţi face nimic”.

[Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]

God’s place in a humanist society (19) [Locul lui Dumnezeu într-o societate umanistă]

I assume that it’s no surprise to any constant reader of this blog that, from a religious point of view, I saw Brighton as being a sort of ‘spiritual flea market’ – all choices available for the weirdest of ‘consumers’ (see here or here).

One such choice is this so-called Religious Society of Friends, a self-proclaimed Christian (?!) movement, whose members are better known as Quakers.

I haven’t personally met any believer, and even if I had done so, I should refrain from judging that person. Which won’t prevent me from dimissing this heresy, made up of a concoction of beliefs as far from Christ’s message as any other ‘man-made’ religions.

Fed up with the disarray and countless moral flaws within the Church of England (CoE), as well as with the brutality of the English Civil War in Oliver Cromwell’s troubled times, these ‘friends’ came up with some simple and appealing ideas.

Humans need no priest between them and the Lord, no ordained and paid clergy, neither an ‘established Church’, the founder of the sect (George Fox) said.

Guided by ‘inner voices’ (Orthodox Holy Fathers give a precise diagnosis reagarding whose voices are these), Fox claimed that, instead of ‘organised religion’, what matters is the ‘inner light’ that believers in Christ can find in themselves.

They may speak on His behalf, however, they surely don’t know Christ, as they don’t revere – like most Protestant denominations – the Mother of God (Theotokos) whose birth we are celebrating today.

There’s no proper understanding of Salvation without understanding the Theotokos’ unique role in God’s plans. No one can be ‘attracted’ to Christ and remain ‘indifferent’ to His Mother.

Anyway, I could’t have anything against these people – only the Lord will judge each of us. At least these ‘friends’ are pacifists (refusing to take arms and swear oaths), their ‘services’ consist of mostly silent meetings, and some of their ancestors were victims of cruel acts perpetrated by other self-entitled Christians.

To the extent they are living by their convictions (although there is no Quaker ‘creed’ at all; there are only some books used for guidance) , they seem to be harmless, unlike many aggressive sects.

What I find worthy of considerations are the troubled times that would determine George Fox to channel his frustrations towards creating this sect.

When Fox began preaching (1647), there had been 581 years since 1066 (Norman Invasion of England), and 593 since the Great Schism. In its death throes today, the CoE was already in a grave condition back then.

The Church of England could have been shredded to pieces – because of the many English Dissenters – had it not been for the Civil War, for Cromwell’s iron grip on power, and for the fact that most of these sects would eventually move (forcibly or by their choice) to the New World.

Not that I’d agree with the harsh methods used against them, but we must acknowledge the fact that, some 350 years ago, English Dissenters could be easily silenced by the state religion.

Today, any dissenter within the CoE would be granted protection by the secular and politically correct state. It often happens that this ‘church’ changes for the sake of the dissenter.

In the meantime, from the outside of this ailing organisation, Anglicans in the UK are steadily being out numbered by Muslims, while all religious people would be soon a minority in a country where irreligiousness is valued positively, and religion is frowned upon.

Social and political turmoil, festering in a swamp of consumerism, make up the ideal habitat of false prophets like George Fox.

Most people today prefer to dive deeper into the mire, using these false prophets as evidence for their “there’s-no-God-but-my-own-will” creed. Few take comfort in the deceitful peace and meanings of sects, which keep mushrooming like in 17 century England.

Even fewer throw themselves into the arms of the Mother of God, knowing what path (the Royal Path of Orthodoxy) to take towards her.

As long as even our Saviour nestled in her arms, that should be the safest place to put one’s soul in these mad times. 
.
[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

God’s place in a humanist society (17) [Locul lui Dumnezeu într-o societate umanistă]

No matter how obsolete concepts like ‘God’ or ‘faith’ appear to be in today’s ultra-secular Britain, political leaders sometimes find themselves compelled to speak about religion.

Beautiful churches (like the one in the picture***) may be emptier and emptier (unless they are Catholic and frequented by Polish or other Eastern European emigrants), yet they are still visible. And what they stand for is also visible.

There are instances – most often created by the media, as religion is of no interest for most Britons – when prefabricated ‘religious hot topics’ are unavoidable for politicians.

Be it an irreligious society like the British one has become for the past decades, members of the ruling class – in a country where the head of state (Monarch) is the formal head of a religious institution (Church of England) – sometimes have to explain themselves.

After hiding his papist leanings while in office – a Catholic Prime Minister (PM) would have been such a heresy in Protestant Britan, wouldn’t it? – Tony Bliar’s (this is no spelling mistake :-) started parading his belief.

He has been quite vigorously speaking in defence of his faith and of religion in general for the past years. However, from an Orhodox Christianity perspective, his twisted understanding of Christianity is utterly irrelevant.

His confession “I have always been more interested in religion than politics” (in his book: A Journey) can hardly do anything else but offer more loads of anti-religion ammunition for hardline British atheists.

Then, the son of Church of Scotland minister, Gordon Clown (no mistake here either :-) also claimed that religion is at the center of his Government. He praised Catholic for “being UK’s conscience” but stopped short of becoming a Catholic. At least until now.

These days David Chameleon (-:) is in charge at Downing Street 10. Even before the last elections, he diplomatically tried to distance himself from the (apparent) religiousness of his predecessors:

“My own faith is there, it's not always the rock that perhaps it should be. I've a sort of fairly classic Church of England faith, a faith that grows hotter and colder by moments.”

That’s quite a confession of faith, yet here are some other chameleonic addings:

“I think that it’s perfectly possible to live a good life without having faith, by which I mean a positive and altruistic life, but I think the teachings of Jesus, just as the teachings of other religions, are a good guide to help us through.”

Help us through what?! Chameleon, Bliar & Clown see religion as a mere instrument, meant to help us trough (even through a political career), and ‘Jesus’ is no more than a character – a teacher as good as the founders of other religions.

“I suppose I sort of started life believing that one’s individual faith was important, but actually the institutions of the church were less important. I do think that organised religion can get things wrong, but the Church of England and the other churches do play a very important role in society,” he adds.

Organised religion can get things wrong, while personal religion not?! I don’t understand. But the fact that I don’t understand doesn’t mean that I blame Chameleon, nor the other two PMs before him, of anything.

This is the way in which self-described religious people in a humanist society understand religion. They happen to be political leaders, and their outlook on life and religion is not worse, nor better than that of most Britons.

It would be pointless to accuse them of knowing nothing about Our Lord Jesus Christ, as long as even the ‘institutions of organised religion’ in the UK (Church of England, Church of Scotland, Catholic Church etc) know so little about Him.

What I find culpable is their chameleonism. They find it necessary to include references to religion in their public discourse, skilfully trying not too seem ‘too religious’ in their effort of proving that they are not altogether religiously indifferent.

From this perspective, Ed Miliband, the current Labour Party leader, appears worthy of praise for his honesty. He puts it bluntly:  “I don’t believe in God personally.”

His subsequent explanation doesn’t water down his atheist stance: “Different people have different religious views in this country. The great thing is that, whether we have faith or not, we are by and large very tolerant of people whatever their view.”

There’s no doubt that Britain is one of the tolerant countries in the world, nevertheless, Ed Milliband seems to forget that during the glorious years of New Labour rule (1997-2010) more and more British Christians complained of being discriminated.

Two other important political leaders of today’s UK claim to be atheists. One is former Foreign minister David Miliband. The other is deputy PM Nick Clegg.

Both have been accused of a ‘lesser insincerity’ – one has already sent and the other considers sending their children to faith schools.

Only fanatical atheists could blame them for making pragmatic choices. Over and over again, studies show that faith schools are the best in Britain, and even Ed Milliband thinks that these institutions do “a fantastic job” in educating children.

The Lord and none else could know what will happen to Britain with such leaders. Blair claimed to have known Him and to have constantly prayed to Him, while Chameleon says (meaning to emphasize the idea of not being like Bliar) that he has “no direct line to God.”

What matters is that, to a great extent, Britain’s elected leaders (+ the Royal Family) are as irreligious as most of the nation. Neither the elite, nor the electorate could steer the other party in another direction.

*** NOTĂ: The pictured church is the Catholic Cathedral of Westminster, London, the first Catholic place of worship built (1895-1903) in England after the English Reformation. The credit for this photo, taken in February 2011, belongs to my reader Mihai Gociu.

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

[EN] A few wonders from the UK / [RO] Câteva minunăţii din UK (18)

[EN] The images taken on a winter day (by my reader C.L.) may not fully show it, but this is one of the ‘most romantic castles’ in Scotland.

[RO] Imaginile într-o zi de iarnă (de cititoarea mea C.L.) poate că nu o arată deplin, dar aceasta este unul dintre ‘cele mai romantice castele’ din Scoţia.

[EN] Built in early 13th century, its name honors a Celtic saint – St. Donnán of Eigg – being another piece of evidence about Scotland/UK’s rich (Orthodox) Christian heritage.

[RO] Construit la început de secol 13, numele său onorează un sfânt celt – St. Donnán of Eigg – fiind o altă dovadă despre bogata moştenire creştin (ortodoxă) a Scoţiei/UK.

[EN] The pictures in this 18th episode, of Eilean Donan Castle, were taken in the western part of the Scottish Highlands, close to the village of Kyle of Lochalsh and the Isle of Skye.

[RO] Fotografiile din acest al 18-lea episod, ale Eilean Donan Castle, au fost făcute în partea vestică a Scottish Highlands, aproape de satul Kyle of Lochalsh şi de Isle of Skye.

[For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]

Femeile în UK (21) [Women in the UK]

Că or fi 5 ani sau 8 ani (zic surse diferite) din viaţa britanicelor, probabil că nu este vreo exagerare a spune că multe dintre ele petrec foarte mult timp la shopping, fie criză economică sau nu.

Pentru unele dintre ele, după ce s-o mai fi atenuat ‘depresia de Crăciun’ (sau nu?! …că încă mai este o jumătate de iarnă înainte), de-abia acum încep adevăratele sărbători – perioada de reduceri din magazine.

Amăgirea că un chilipir – pentru că, într-adevăr preţurile scad mult, astfel încât te întrebi de proşti pot fi cei care cumpără în afara perioadelor de reduceri – te face să te simţi bine nu ţine mult. Dar merită încercată, ca o distracţie între atâtea altele.

Până la urmă, deşi se aruncă bani pe lucruri de care nu prea ai nevoie, parcă această risipă este mai puţin nocivă decât alte mijloace la care apelează femeile de pretutindeni pentru a-şi pansa puţin nefericirea, a o ascunde de ele însele.

Iar că britanicele suferă, nu o zic eu, ci un studiu al Platform 51 (numele politic corect al fostei Asociaţii a Tinerelor Femeilor Creştine – YWCA). Potrivit cercetării, 15,2 milioane de femei din Anglia şi Ţara Galilor au “probleme psihice de vreun fel”.

Desigur, despre verdicte ştiinţifice care să ne arate cât de nebuni suntem şi ce mare nevoie de tratamente avem nevoie s-a mai auzit. Totuşi, multe observaţii ale studiului rămân triste şi adevărate. Şi nu sunt aplicabile doar britanicelor.

Nenumărate femei contemporane, moderne, ‘eliberate’ de tiranicele reguli care îngrădeau viaţa până la jumătatea secolului 20 suferă de depresie, anxietate şi alte tulburări pe care şi le tratează cu diferite aparente ‘leacuri’.

Cu shopping, cu pumni de pastile, cu izolare în faţa televizorului, cu tentative de suicid dar şi cu ‘suprasexualizare’ şi promiscuitate sau cu tot mai mult alcool. Nimic din acestea nu vindecă şi nici nu pare să dea de gândit cuiva care sunt cauzele.

Studiul numeşte problema, descrie simptomele, dar nu este capabil să arate cauza. Ce incorect politic ar fi să pretind că una singură este cauza (întinsă pe câteva secole şi accelerată de vreo 50 de ani), anume decreştinarea acestei naţiuni, nu-i aşa?

Aceeaşi cauză care explică şi situaţia României de azi. Ba încă şi tot mersul trist al lumii, dar care nu poate fi decât respinsă de cei care, deşi or descrie ştiinţific (deşi parţial) problemele femeilor de azi, nu pricep defel că nu le pot rezolva ştiinţific.

[Pentru toate episoadele din această serie şi toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la/For all the episodes of this series, and all the posts on this blog go to: Contents/Cuprins]

Christ’s Holy Face in a disfigured world [Chipul Sfânt al lui Hristos într-o lume desfigurată]

Some 1981 years ago (2011 A.D., minus the 30 years of Christ’s unseen life as child then carpenter in Nazareth), the Holy Face of God’s only begotten Son was revealed to the entire world, by His Forerunner, St. John the Baptist.

That Self-revealing of God has effects upon the world that surpass those of all scientific discoveries, revolutions, inventions, philosophies of all ages combined, which have always been foolishly idolatrized by mankind.

However, the celebration of Theophany remains a mere annual curiosity in so many once Christian nations, including orthodox Romania and secular Britain. Few people, including so-called Christians, understand the meaning of the Feast.

Outside the Christian world (made up of only One (Orthodox) Church + a myriad of heterodox beliefs) people keep hating and mocking Christ, like Herod did when He was born or like the Romans and Jews did when crucifying Him.

If they were just unbelievers (agnostics), maybe their sin was of a lesser kind (forgivable), but proclaiming themselves atheists (at war with their Maker), they are completely unscientific, as no one has ever scientifically proven the inexistence of God.

Moreover, they declare themselves to be at war with Him. They want Him out of everything His, unaware that the more they fight an inexistant God, the more they prove the opposite. That’s because all demons inspiring atheist ideologies know that HE IS.

But that’s outside the shrinking Christian world. Inside it, there are other devilish traps meant to dilute the faith, at work since the days of the Apostles, then shredding Christianity after 1054 and up to these very days.

In a world soaking with hedonism, Christ appears as ‘relative un-ascetic Christians’ would like Him to be, as they caricaturize Him, in the weirdest of circumstances. The world is disfigured, living under the spell of ‘I-do-what-I-want’, therefore it disfigures Christ.

People so unlike the angel-man John the Baptist suddenly claim to have ‘seen Him’, and such apparitions are deemed newsworthy by The Daily Mail and The Daily Telegraph. Sometimes, such news quickly travel around the world.

A Brit girl saw the Face of Jesus in her chewing gum, a banker claims to have been saved by a divine intervention, with Jesus appearing in his frying pan, a so-called church advertises itself with the Lord’s Face drawn on a beer glass.

One man from Southampton is sure that an image taken by Google Earth over a field in Hungary shows Jesus, a woman and her unlawfully wedded (they were in a concubinage) partner said they saw Him in a baby scan, next to their son sucking his finger.

A (probably quite wacky) American community saw Him crucified on a telephone pole, a couple could swear it’s Him on the door toilet of an IKEA outlet in Glasgow, while a family in Hertsfordshire recognized Him on a flaming log in the fire place.

And the list of (surreal, psychotic?!) ‘apparitions’ could go on an on. Thus, relative Christians of all denominations feel that they are refreshing their faith, while atheists have another round of laughter. Both sides are satisfied :-(

According to the teachings of His One Church, ascetics trying to live like their role model John the Baptist rarely see Him in their lifetime, then how come ordinary people, especially in a secular society like the British one, suddenly ‘see’ Him?

Are these ‘apparitions’ somehow changing the lives of these people, like in the very few cases when some future saints saw our Saviour or the Theotokos, and completely changed their lives from that moment onwards?

Maybe no more than one man or one woman in half a million is drawn by a monastic life. God only knows how many of those called are eventually chosen – not by blind fate, but by their own toil as well – to become true ascetics.

Few are those whose hearts get purified, so that there are worthy of seeing His Holy Face? It’s very likely that as few people as one human being in a billion (out of all billions that have lived!) have ever seen Him during their lives on Earth.

Yet in the contemporary world, so disfigured by sin, so away from Him and so astray from His commandments, seeing Him appears to have become a cheap curiosity. ‘Apparitions’ are so at hand these days, like going to supermarkets or switching on the TV.

Actually, seeing Him is something for which John the Baptist would have lived a hundred years in the desert or would have had his head cut a hundred times. And still there’s no price any human being could pay for this priceless gift.

So full of our petty ourselves, most of us remain unable to understand John the Baptist’s words “My joy is now full. He must increase and I must decrease.” Blessed be those extremely few humble ones who are still able, and for whom the Lord keeps the world alive!

[For all the posts on this blog go to/Pentru toate postările de pe acest blog mergi la: Contents/Cuprins]