UPDATED: Was Lincoln a white supremacist?

An assiduous reader has challenged my assertion this morning that the views of Abraham Lincoln on the question of race and the position of African-Americans in society were not that much different from those of Robert E. Lee. "Are you saying," our reader asks, "that Lincoln was a racist?" No, that wasn't what I said. I was just alluding to a half-remembered quote, which Ed. checked with Snopes. Here's what he found.

During his famous debates with Sen. Stephen Douglas, Lincoln explained to the crowd: "I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races.... I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of Negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races from living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be a position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race."

Snopes concludes that "Lincoln was no different than most white males, North and South, at the time. He was a white supremacist."

Now here's the quote from General Lee: "The negroes have neither the intelligence nor the other qualifications which are necessary to make them safe depositories of political power. They would inevitably become the victims of demagogues who...would mislead them to the serious injury of the public."

If anything, I would call General Lee's statement mild by comparison with that of President Lincoln. Snopes, being the arbiter of liberal truth, makes a half-hearted apology for Mr Lincoln. "Of course," they say, "this excerpt from one speech does not represent the totality of Lincoln's views on race and racial equality, but the remarks were far from a complete outlier, and Lincoln's views were more complex and uncomfortable than the prevalent modern impression of him as the racially-enlightened Great Emancipator." (My emphasis. Walt)

So there you have it, folks. Both Abraham Lincoln and Robert E. Lee are guilty, guilty, guilty, and every white male in America must apologize profusely (and continually), and make amends (preferably in cash) to all persons of colour for those vile racist comments.

Footnote added 13/2/20: It's not just in the Paranoid States of America that such fulsome apologies are required. The Daily Caller reports that the heretical Church of England has decided to commission an expert to prepare a report on the church's "deeply, institutionally racist" history following an official apology for its past.

The General Synod, the church's legislative body, voted on February 11th to issue an official apology for the racism that "countless black, Asian and minority ethnic people" have experienced in the past 70 years. The church is also commissioning an expert to prepare a report on the racism of the church. Walt expects the Episopalian Church -- the American version of the C of E -- to follow suit any day now. [Hasn't it done that already? Washington and Lee were both Episcopalians and slave-owners. Ed.]

Archbishop of Canterbury speaks out on refugees, Islamic extremism

Unlike the Paranoid States of America, the so-called United Kingdom does not insist on the separation of church and state. Quite the opposite. The Church of English is the "established" (official) church of, errr, England [Duh! Ed.] and the Queen of England is "Fidei Defensor" (Defender of the Faith), etc etc. As well, senior members of the Anglican hierarchy have positions in the British Parliament as "Lords Spiritual". So it is that the Archbishop of Canterbury, head of the C of E, occasionally makes public his opinions on matters political.

The incumbent Archbishop, Rt. Rev. Justin Welby, gave a lengthy interview to Politics Home, Parliament’s weekly magazine, in which he called upon Britons to be welcoming to migrants but said that concerns about assimilating them into British society are not racist. "There is a tendency to say 'those people are racist', which is just outrageous, absolutely outrageous,>" said Britain's chief cleric. "Fear is a valid emotion at a time of such colossal crisis. This is one of the greatest movements of people in human history. Just enormous. And to be anxious about that is very reasonable."

Archbishop Welby accepts that, politically, the debate around refugees and migrants is deeply divisive, and says concerns about the pressure new arrivals could place on communities and services are entirely legitimate. "In fragile communities particularly – and I’ve worked in many areas with very fragile communities over my time as a clergyman – there is a genuine fear: what happens about housing? What happens about jobs? What happens about access to health services? There is a genuine fear. And it is really important that that fear is listened to and addressed. There have to be resources put in place that address those fears."

Speaking of the jihad being waged by ISIS and other Islamic extremists against the West, Archbishop Welby warned that, "For the first time in centuries in this country ... we find ourselves involved in conflict which has very, very significant theological aspects. Not only in the Middle East but around the world, in all kinds of places, you’re seeing the outworking of that. You’re seeing it in Libya, in Nigeria, Somalia, Yemen, right across the Levant and Mesopotamia.... And therefore an intelligent response to this must include theological and religious literacy, and an understanding of what drives people when they are caught up in religious ideas."

Internationally, he opines, that means confronting those states, in particular Saudi Arabia, that have aided the development of extremism and violence. "The key thing is, if we are going to deal with extremism, mainstream religious leaders – which within many parts of the Islamic world includes governments – must be very, very clear about taking responsibility for the violence within their own traditions ... and tackling that effectively. That will mean places like Saudi Arabia tackling extremist thinking within their own tradition. Much support has come from within those countries, and they need to be challenged on that. They need to stamp out the support for the extremist views from within their own societies."

In order to be fully successful, the Archbishop said, the struggle against religious violence and extremism must involve a domestic component too. He offered a staunch defence of the UK’s own "Judeo-Christian tradition", and warned against attempts to dilute those values out of a misplaced fear of causing offence.
"I think you’ve got to be very clear about rights and wrongs," he said. "You can’t turn a blind eye, in any way at all."

This, he added, is where secularism too often goes wrong. A successful multi-faith society, he believes, should not view faith as a threat to be pushed to the margins, nor identity as a zero-sum game of exchange, where different groups deny their values to avoid alienating others. "We need to be confident about our own heritage, our Judeo-Christian heritage, whether we’re believers or not," he says. "That is what has shaped our own values, and we need to be confident in that." [My emphasis. Walt]

Islamization of UK complete, England to disestablish Anglican Church?

Here's a news flash from Old Blighty! Walt's man on the Clapham omnibus [Seems to be a legal joke. Ed.] has sent us this article from today's Telegraph:
"Britain is no longer a Christian country and should stop acting as if it is, says judge"

It's not really news, izzit. Everyone knows that only a small minority of Brits who call themselves Anglicans actually go to church except for "hatched, matched and dispatched" occasions -- baptisms, weddings and funerals -- and even those rituals are being skipped by Gen Y and the Millennials.

Are there any religious people left in England? Sure. Plenty of them. Evangelical Protestants, Catholics, some Jews, and... wait for it... hundreds of thousands of followers of the Prophet Mohammed. Yes, Islam is the fastest-growing religion in England, so a two-year commission into the place of religion in British society has called for public life to be systematically de-Christianized to reflect the reality of modern Britain.

The Commission on Religion and Belief in Public Life, chaired by the former senior judge Baroness Butler-Sloss and involving leading religious leaders, has discovered that secular humanism is the prevailing "belief system" in Britain. It says that the decline of churchgoing and the rise of Islam and other faiths mean a "new settlement" for religion is needed in the UK, giving more official influence to non-religious voices and those of non-Christian faiths.

The Telegraph says that the report has provoked a furious row, being condemned by Cabinet ministers as "seriously misguided". The Church of England -- "The official church of Cool Britannia" -- said the commission appeared to have been "hijacked" by humanists. That is wrong. It's not the commission that has been hijacked, but the C of E itself!

The report has several controversial things to say, including a claim that faith schools are "socially divisive". So that will probably mean the end of Anglican and Catholic schools, and says that the selection of children on the basis of their beliefs should be phased out. It also accuses those who devise some "Religious Education" syllabi of "sanitizing" negative aspects of religion in lessons. And, it suggests, the compulsory daily act of worship in school assemblies should be abolished and replaced with a "time for reflection".

The report backs moves to cut the number of Church of England bishops in the House of Lords and give their places to imams, rabbis and other other non-Christian clerics as well as evangelical pastors.

As if that weren't enough, the Commission also calls for a rethink of anti-terror policy, including (get this!) ensuring students can voice radical views on campus without fear of being reported to the security services. Yessir, freedom of speech is a great thing, especially when it protects hate speech. Right? Oh... only for non-Christians, you say. Got it. Welcome to the new, diverse, multicultural, not-so-Great Britain.

Former Archbishop of Canterbury slams British PM for promoting gay "marriage", aggressive secularism

British Prime Minister David Cameron has a hidden agenda of "aggressive secularism", and is alienating Christians by promoting gay marriage. So says Very Rev. George Carey, a former Archbishop of Canterbury (head of the Anglican Communion), in a strongly worded article in the Daily Mail.

The still-influential Anglican cleric said Mr. Cameron's plan to legalize same-sex unions threatened the link between church and state. For American readers not clear on this point, Britain's largely unwritten constitution is opposite to that of the USA in that church and state are not separate, but linked together in the person of Her Majesty the Queen, who is both head of state and head of the schismatic Anglican church.

Wrote Lord Carey (as he is now known), "The danger I believe that the government is courting with its approach both to marriage and religious freedom is the alienation of a large minority of people who only a few years ago would have been considered pillars of society."

The former leader of the world's 80 million Anglicans also condemned what he saw as a lack of government support for Christians who choose to wear a cross at work, a practice that has been challenged in the past due to politically correct rules on religious expression at the workplace.

He referred to a ComRes survey, reported here earlier today, which revealed that more than two-thirds of British Christians felt they were a "persecuted minority".

Lord Carey opined that "it was a bit rich to hear that the prime minister has told religious leaders that they should 'stand up and oppose aggressive secularization' when it seems that his government is aiding and abetting this aggression every step of the way."

Most British Christians see themselves as persecuted minority

Yesterday (Holy Saturday) brought depressing news from the Disunited Kingdom, a.k.a. Once-great Britain. A survey done by pollsters ComRes revealed that more than two-thirds of  British Christians feel they are now part of a "persecuted minority".

And guess who the persecutors are? Not Romans and Jews, as in the time of Jesus, or even Muslims, but the promoters of what the polling firm calls "aggressive secularism", which churchgoers increasingly feel threatens freedom of religion.

In the UK, even more than in the USA and Canada, court rulings against people who want to wear crosses at work, and legal action preventing prayers before council meetings, have combined with a persistent anti-religious bias in the press to make Christians feel marginalized.

Adding fuel to the flames of resentment is the British Government's decision to legalize "marriage", in spite of the opposition of the Church -- including, in a half-hearted way, the Church of England -- and a significant chunk of popular opinion.

According to the PressTV article on the poll, if the march of secularism continues unabated, by 2030 Britain will no longer be a Christian country. By that date, there will be more non-believers than Christians. Why, because immigrants from Asia keep their faiths, and "born Christians" (as opposed to "born-again Christians") don't.

In the past six years, the report says, the number of Muslims has surged by 37% to 2.6 million. Hindus have increased their numbers by 43%, and Buddhists by a massive 74 per cent. Meanwhile, people who choose to call themselves Christians declined in number by more than 4 million between the censuses of 2001 and 2011. In the latter census, fewer than 60% of all residents of the UK described themselves as Christian. That's down from 72% in 2001.

A former Archbishop of Canterbury -- head of the so-called Anglican Communion -- has a comment on the role of Britain's government in the decline of Christianity in his country. Walt will be posting a précis later today.

Yes, Virginia, Britain IS a Christian country

That's the official word from British Prime Minister David Cameron. In a speech commemorating the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible, Mr. Cameron said "We are a Christian country, and we should not be afraid to say so." The PM refrained from taking a swipe at other heads of government, such as Canada's Steve Harpoon and US President Al O'Bama, who either do not believe their countries are Christian or are afraid to say so.

"What I am saying," Cameron went on, "is that the Bible has helped to give Britain a set of values and morals which make Britain what it is today. Values and morals we should actively stand up and defend. The alternative of moral neutrality should not be an option. You can’t fight something with nothing. Because if we don’t stand for something, we can’t stand against anything."

What Britain is today is hardly a shining example of Christian morality, but Walt agrees with the point. Indeed, you can't fight something with nothing. That is what Mark Steyn says in America Alone, mentioned here twice in November. Nature abhors a vacuum, as the physicists tell us, and the reason the Muslims are taking over the west without firing a shot [Errr, not exactly... Ed.] is that we are creating a vacuum where there ought to be faith and morality.

Here's the way Cameron put it. "Those who oppose this usually make the case for secular neutrality. They argue that by saying we are a Christian country and standing up for Christian values we are somehow doing down other faiths. And that the only way not to offend people is not to pass judgment on their behavior. I think these arguments are profoundly wrong. And being clear on this is absolutely fundamental to who we are as a people, what we stand for, and the kind of society we want to build."

Footnote: Mr. Cameron says he is a "vaguely practising Church of England Christian" -- "vaguely" being a very appropriate term for the C of E. The Anglicans generally regard the King James Bible as the first (or almost) and best version of the Bible. Traditional Catholics prefer the Douay-Rheims version, still available from certain Catholic bookstores and, of course, on Amazon.

Anglo-Catholic or Roman Catholic?

Walt started cheering, perhaps prematurely, when Pope Benedict XVI last fall announced the creation of ordinariates through which entire Anglican communities could leave the Church of England and come into communion with Rome.

In this way, Anglicans fed up with their sect's stance on such things as homosexuality and the "ordination" of women could return to the True Church and yet keep their distinctive English liturgy and present leaders.

The Pope's move has caused some consternation in the ranks of liberal "new church" Catholics, but even more amongst Anglican leaders (including the nominal head of the church, Queen Elizabeth II) who fear a mass exodus.

Now a leading Anglican bishop has dismissed the Holy Father’s decision as, in effect, a half measure. John Sentamu, the Anglican archbishop of York, said “If people genuinely realize that they want to be Roman Catholic, they should convert properly, and go through catechesis and be made proper Catholics.... If I was really, genuinely wanting to convert, I wouldn’t go into an ordinariate. I would actually go into catechesis and become a truly converted Roman Catholic and be accepted [as such].”

Indeed. To analogize with hockey or football, you can't join another team but keep wearing your old team's jersey. Either make a total commitment, with all that implies, or stay where you are.

Click here to read "Archbishop of York dismisses Pope's call for conversions to Roman Catholicism", in the online edition of the Telegraph.

Let all who believe be welcome in the true Church

There is great rejoicing in Catholic and traditional Anglican circles this week, over the news that Pope Benedict XVI is promulgating a new apostolic constitution which will permit entire Anglican communities to be received into the Catholic Church should their members so wish.

The papal document allows for the creation of "personal ordinariates" to be headed by priests already ordained as Anglicans. This would include married priests, but presumably not openly gay priests.

The new "personal ordinariates" would be integrated into national Catholic episcopal conferences, but encouraged to preserve the distinctive aspects of the Anglican tradition. It is unclear whether the new Anglo-Catholics would be required to accept and declare their belief in Catholic dogma.

Over the course of the four and three-quarter centuries since Henry VIII split with Rome in order to get the first of his many divorces, the Anglicans have rejected Catholic positions on such major issues as transubstantiation, the role of the Blessed Virgin Mary in salvation, and the supremacy and infallibility of the Pope.

In any case, the creation of the new structure has been loudly applauded in most quarters. It is heralded as a triumph of ecumenism, and a precedent for the eventual embrace by Rome of what remains of the Anglican church as well as the schismatic Orthodox churches.

Most Rev. Vincent Nichols, Archbishop of Westminster, and Dr. Rowan Williams, the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury and primate of the Anglican Communion, issued a joint statement calling the new apostolic constitution "the fruit of years of ecumenical dialogue".

Acknowledging that recent developments in the Anglican communion have complicated the quest for reunion with Rome, the joint statement nevertheless insists that both the Vatican and the Anglican communion remain committed to the ecumenical process.

Of course there are dissenters. There were bound to be. The phrase "sheep stealing" has been bandied about. And voices of the old Tory establishment, in Britain and the colonies, are already decrying the weakening of a church which has been described as "the Tory party at prayer".

The editors of The Globe and Mail, Canada’s self-styled national newspaper, have lashed out at the Vatican’s decision.

"The Vatican's welcome of some Anglicans into the Roman Catholic Church is a Trojan horse," they write. "In the face of an inflexible hierarchy, liberal Catholic voices have had little effect; the grudging loyalty of those who remain is in jeopardy. The Vatican announcement will make the Catholic Church more conservative and the Anglican church more liberal. Is that what ecumenism is meant to accomplish?"

If the result is as the editors predict, Walt is all for it. Let those who believe in the traditional Catholic Faith -- the Faith handed down to us by Our Lord Jesus Christ through the Apostles and the doctors of the Church -- come within the embrace of the Church. And let those who reject that Faith remain in the outer darkness.