Thursday, November 09, 2006
White flag from Ekklesia
Christian surrender group Ekklesia (note the right on spelling) are reported in The Times (not online) as wanting to change the red poppy of remembrance into a white one. Unfortunately no article appears to be on the Ekklesia site either, also there appears to be no mention on the Church Times site, which the report refers to. Although they do carry a report about a Yorkshire church selling a 15th Century Processional Cross, I think they'd probably be better to keep the Cross and sell the church.
Anyway according to Jonathan Bartley the director of Ekklesia (salary unknown), white poppies are more in tune with Christian ethics. Really? I thought white poppies were "in tune" with certain poppies from Afghanistan. He then goes on to claim that the "Christian message" ... is that redemption can only come from non-violent sacrifice. I don't know quite how non-violent he thinks Christ's Crucifixion so I just don't know which hymn sheet he's singing from.
At the end of the day you pratt, we have a red poppy because these were growing in the fields of Flanders and other places when we fought in the Great War. During the Great War many ordinary and brave and noble people lost their lives (and lie in those fields) and were injured, for no real great purpose (unlike the Second World War). Since the Great War, the poppy has been used as a symbol of remembrance of those people and their sacrifice. The fact that it was a violent sacrifice in no way diminishes it either for a Christian or indeed anyone else. The red poppy provides a direct link from us today, with those who fought then, and with those who've fought in subsequent wars (as the symbol has been in continuous use).
No one can really now make any claim that the red poppy is somehow inappropriate and certainly not someone such as a leftie director of a self-proclaimed "think tank". You people just take anything and attempt to demean it for no real purpose, what have you done to allow you to determine what form of remembrance should be used for those killed in battle?
You shouldn't wear any poppy, but a white flag is probably what you really want.
Anyway according to Jonathan Bartley the director of Ekklesia (salary unknown), white poppies are more in tune with Christian ethics. Really? I thought white poppies were "in tune" with certain poppies from Afghanistan. He then goes on to claim that the "Christian message" ... is that redemption can only come from non-violent sacrifice. I don't know quite how non-violent he thinks Christ's Crucifixion so I just don't know which hymn sheet he's singing from.
At the end of the day you pratt, we have a red poppy because these were growing in the fields of Flanders and other places when we fought in the Great War. During the Great War many ordinary and brave and noble people lost their lives (and lie in those fields) and were injured, for no real great purpose (unlike the Second World War). Since the Great War, the poppy has been used as a symbol of remembrance of those people and their sacrifice. The fact that it was a violent sacrifice in no way diminishes it either for a Christian or indeed anyone else. The red poppy provides a direct link from us today, with those who fought then, and with those who've fought in subsequent wars (as the symbol has been in continuous use).
No one can really now make any claim that the red poppy is somehow inappropriate and certainly not someone such as a leftie director of a self-proclaimed "think tank". You people just take anything and attempt to demean it for no real purpose, what have you done to allow you to determine what form of remembrance should be used for those killed in battle?
You shouldn't wear any poppy, but a white flag is probably what you really want.
