(London Times) Church boosts Cameron cause by supporting action in Syria

The Church of England has overwhelmingly backed military intervention in Syria to establish safe routes for refugees. The general synod voted yesterday in favour of a motion that the Archbishop of Canterbury said committed the church to supporting the use of armed force. Justin Welby said that if the motion was passed the “implications are enormous”, adding that he supported it.

It comes as David Cameron today reveals his “comprehensive strategy” for taking on Islamic State in Syria, designed to allay fears that airstrikes alone will not solve the crisis.

The prime minister said there was no “perfect strategy” but added that the UK could not wait for the arrival of a stable government in Syria capable of tackling Isis. “There is a clear and present danger to the United Kingdom from [Isis], based in Iraq and Syria, planning attacks against our country,” he told MPs.

Read it all (requires subscription).

Posted in * Anglican - Episcopal, * Culture-Watch, * Economics, Politics, * International News & Commentary, --Justin Welby, Anglican Provinces, Archbishop of Canterbury, Church of England (CoE), Defense, National Security, Military, England / UK, Ethics / Moral Theology, Foreign Relations, Middle East, Politics in General, Religion & Culture, Syria, Terrorism, Theology

One comment on “(London Times) Church boosts Cameron cause by supporting action in Syria

  1. Terry Tee says:

    What, I wonder, do the Christians on the ground in Syria feel about this? The Orthodox? The Eastern Rite Catholics? The Syriacs?

    I read the that the Syriac Catholic Patriarch of Damascus (who isbased in Lebanon) feels that the West has abandoned Christians in the Middle East. But is bombing Syria the answer?

    Here is the soup:
    Turkey bombs the Kurds (who are just about the only effective anti-Isis force)
    Russia bombs rebels (including both Isis and anti-Isis forces) but support Assad
    France bombs Isis (But is anti-Assad)
    Iran supports Assad but is anti-Isis, because Iran is Shia and Isis is Sunni
    Qatar feeds arms to Isis (because Qatar thinks that Isis has been defending the Shia in Iraq against Sunni oppression)
    Britain bombs Isis in Iraq (but not currently in Syria although it plans to change that next week)
    The United States supplies and trains non-Isis rebels although it seems to be money wasted.

    OK? Got all that? And we should add to this madness?