‘Suicide Bomber Was Christian Convert’ claimed the MSM headlines yesterday. No, he wasn’t. The Liverpool bomber, we now know, was just another failed asylum seeker gaming the system with the disgraceful and inexcusable complicity of the Church of England.
His name was Emad Al Swealmeen and, as Kurt Zindulka reported for Breitbart, he ‘converted’ to Christianity in order to cheat his way into British citizenship.
In 2014, Emad Al Swealmeen had his first asylum claim rejected. The would-be bomber proceeded to launch “appeal, after appeal” in order to prevent any deportation proceedings. He then underwent a five-week course to convert to Christianity — ultimately confirmed in Liverpool Cathedral in 2017 — to convince immigration authorities that he should be able to stay in the country.
This is a massive scandal. But the scandal is not that Al Swealmeen lied: of course he did, probably on the grounds of taqiyyah. Rather the scandal is that the Established Church, instead of saving souls, is regularly putting them at risk by enabling potential terrorists like Al Swealmeen to slip in through the back door.
If Al Swealmeen had succeeded in blowing up anyone other than himself, it would not be a stretch to say that the Church of England had blood on its hands.
Christian ‘conversion’ appears to be an established route for would-be terrorists. For example, Khairi Saadallah, who stabbed three people to death last year in a Reading park, was another failed asylum seeker who ‘converted’ to Christianity.
What makes this so inexcusable is that the Church appears to be fully aware of what is going on.
As Zindulka reported:
Migrants exploiting the church has been a longstanding issue, with then-Dean of Liverpool the Very Rev Pete Wilcox admitting in 2016 that “mixed motives are not unheard of” in migrant conversions.
He went on to say that the same fervour for conversions was not present in Muslims who already attained British citizenship, saying: “I can’t think of a single example.”
‘Mixed motives are not unheard of’. Isn’t this just exactly the kind of mealy-mouthed circumlocution you’d expect from a senior cleric in the Church of England? Almost to a man (and woman) these are globalist, Gaia-worshipping, open borders activists whose allegiances owe more to George Soros and St. Greta of Thunberg than they do to God or Christianity.
It’s no coincidence that last month one of the Church’s few half-way decent senior clerics, the former Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali, quit the C of E in despair and converted to Roman Catholicism.
Nazir-Ali explained that the Church of England was so irredeemably woke he could stand it no longer. He wrote in the Mail:
The Church councils and synods are permeated by activists who each have a single-issue, often faddish agenda, whether it is about cultural correctness, ‘climate change’, identity politics, multi-culturalism (which actually encourages communities to live separately) or critical theory on race, religion and gender – a neo-Marxist theory developed to create conflict by dividing people into victims and villains.
Whether the Catholic church is currently any better under the disastrous current pope Bergoglio is a moot point. But Nazir-Ali is certainly spot-on in his suggestion that the Church of England has utterly lost its purpose.
As with the Roman Catholic church, its only hope lies with those principled clergy in its lower ranks who keep the Christian tradition alive. But they face an uphill struggle.
Consider, for example, what happened to the Rev. Jamie Franklin, co-host of the Irreverend podcast, when he controversially suggested on Twitter that having children in marriage was a good and blessed thing to do.
Lest there be any doubt, he cited one of the relevant scriptures:
Lo, sons are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward.
But instead of receiving support from his fellow clergy they lined up to condemn him.
Someone called Fr Mikey, with a rainbow flag next to his name, tweeted:
As priest in the Church of England, we should take ecologists seriously when they say we should consider the impact a high population has on the environment. We are stewards of this earth and have to be responsible.
Hannah Cartwright, ‘Assistant Priest, University Church Oxford’ tweeted:
Dear Fr Jamie I tried to DM but your inbox is closed. Can I urge you to reconsider this thread & the hurt (whilst Im sure unintentional) it is causing? We all makes mistakes & misjudgements (I know I have) but without qualification your recommendation could be deeply damaging.
Elaine Evans, who describes herself as ‘wife, priest, cat lady’, tweeted:
It is no one else’s decision except the two people involved, and certainly not yours as a priest in the Church of England. You overstep the mark by a considerable way. I speak as a childless C of E priest myself.
Fr Sam Frampton tweeted:
I am a priest in the Church of England and I would NEVER recommend people have as many children as they possibly can. It’s insensitive, inappropriate and frankly irresponsible. As one who *survives* on a stipend, we couldn’t possibly have 10 children.
As Rod Dreher puts it in the American Conservative:
A church whose clergy pounce on a priest who puts in a good word for childbearing is a sick institution.
Yep. And a church that combines this kind of woke nonsense with enabling apparently aspiring suicide bombers to gain asylum isn’t just moribund but a dangerous liability.
COMMENTS
Please let us know if you're having issues with commenting.