Oxford row over Call to Prayer: Christians apologize

The choleric blogger who rather grandly calls himself Archbishop Cranmer is incandescent over an issue in Oxford - where the mosque lately decided not to try and broadcast a muezzin after all - because some Christians who called their church session a 'call to prayer' have apologized for offending Muslims.  If you read the Oxford Mail report it is a bit more balanced and explains how the 'offence' occurred and how it related to Islam.  But Cranmer is very, very, very angry indeed...
   Hmmm.  One could argue that sweet apology for offence taken (even if not intended) is well within the Christian remit.  I always thought the two factions of Northern Ireland 'Christians" in the Garvachy road row were both behaving appallingly, since properly-Christian Protestants would have said "No, we won't march if it upsets you, brother" and properly-Christian Catholics would have replied "No, of course, do march, it's important to you".  But hell, what do I know?

O

Comments

[Geoffrey Smith]

Cranmer does have a point, Libby. If the Call to Prayer took place inside a church, what business is it of the Muslims? Would any Christians protest if the Muslims held a similar service in a mosque? They wouldn't give a monkey's. Perhaps AC was filling up blog space with an overworked reaction, but this time I don't think it was he who was being superbly splenetic.

[Ian]

At least you know it was about 'marching' and not at all about their faith.

[Recusant]

Still anyone who can use the name Cranmer without irony has to be a worry. If England has produced anyone more treacherous, mendacious, vile, hypocritical and murderous than that foul prelate I would be interested in hearing who.

[Archbishop Cranmer]

Mr Recusant,

His Grace always believed you to be of a moderate disposition.

In his experience, those who resort to the ad hominem insults of the extremists have invariably already lost the argument.

[Andy]

Can Recusant offer convincing evidence for his astounding and evidently absurd post? Or should he just re-write it to something like "I hate protestants and wish the reformation had never taken place"? How many readers know what a recusant is?

[Oliver Nicholson]

I take it that Recusant alludes to the martyr whose Prayer Book has been the core of English spiritual life for the past 400 years. Why do so many Roman Catholics who comment on matters connected with the Established Church (especially in the blog of your contemporary Holy Smoke) find it necessary to be so very rude.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Mr Nicholson, if rudeness had been the only fault of Mr Cranmer, we Catholics would have little cause for complaint. History records, however, that this Henrician toady was every bit a villain as described by Recusant.
Contrary to the words of Holy Writ, he found it expedient to grant King Henry his desired annulment from Catherine, and even his later divorce from Ann Boleyn. A second divorce from Anne of Cleves (1540) was no problem for our biblical savant.
It was, however, his co-operation in the attempt to divert the succession from Mary to Lady Jane Grey that branded him as an opportunistic traitor.
Mr Smith has always known that Mr Cranmer was a thug. In his experience, those who attempt to whitewash one of England's worst-ever bully boys should attempt a GCSE course in history. Even at that abysmally low level, they will acquire a sufficient knowledge of our nation's past to relieve them of any further romantic notions concerning our Tudor forebears.

[Recusant]

Oh come on chaps; 'ad hominem', 'rude'...?

We are talking about a man who sent people to the stake under Henry VIII for disputing the doctrine of transubstantion and then two years later for believing it.

The man who validated Boleyn's marriage and then invalidated it and proceeded to validate all the others.

The man who took a secret oath before his consecration as AoC that he would not be bound by the public oath he was about to make to be obedient to the Pope.

The man who took a secret wife in Germany against his vows freely made.

The man who allowed and gave justification for the plunder of the monasteries, chantries and guilds.

Etc., etc..

Yes, I do despise his memory. And yes, the man could write

[j]

Deary me

And this was meant to be about a news article.

Can I say that Libby is entirely right and you should all apologise to one another for insult, intended or otherwise.

[Andrew Milner]

No one invited Muslims to come and settle in UK, so if they can't deal with the shallow, hedonistic culture, there's nothing to prevent them leaving. Expecting the host nation culture to change, particularly at the religious level to facilitate integration of a type of headbanger immigrant doesn’t just border on insanity. It’s a gutless surrender of hard-won freedoms. But presumably that's what you get when you found a religion on the family values of Henry VIII.

[Geoffrey Smith]

Why is it an insult to protest against someone's crimes, J? Why should anyone even have to apologise for doing so? Why should Christians need to apologise to Muslims for protesting against the illegal excesses committed by these immigrants?