The War On Easter? Furor Erupts In The UK Over The “Cadbury Egg Hunt”

Every December we hear about the War on Christmas, and often those who complain about the secularization of the Christmas season have a legitimate beef. It’s often easy to see the forces at work trying to strip Christmas of anything remotely Christian.

But we don’t really hear that much about a War on Easter (and Passover, for that matter). After all, it seems as though the secularists would feel more threatened by the celebration of the resurrection of God’s Son.

To see the creeping War on Easter, look no further than our cousins across the pond. In the UK, this year’s National Trust Easter Egg Trail has a new name – The Cadbury Egg Hunt. Notice what word is missing? The Church of England did, and they’ve accused the National Trust and sponsor Cadbury of “airbrushing faith.

For their part, Cadbury has said, “We invite people from all faiths and none to enjoy our seasonal treats.” But the church isn’t letting them off the hook.

A spokesman for the Church of England said: “This marketing campaign…highlights the folly in airbrushing faith from Easter.”

It was also met with anger by the Archbishop of York, who said the decision to remove the word Easter from the egg hunt logo was tantamount to “spitting on the grave” of John Cadbury, the chocolate firm’s original founder.

He told the Daily Telegraph: “The Cadburys were Great Quaker industrialists. If people visited Birmingham today in the Cadbury World they will discover how Cadbury’s Christian faith influenced his industrial output.

Over at Christian Concern, Tim Dieppe told a radio interviewer, “We’re not having a public holiday to celebrate a brand. We’re having a public holiday to celebrate the most momentous event in history – the resurrection of Jesus Christ.”

Both major parties of the British government have decried the National Trust and Cadbury’s decision. Conservative Prime Minister Theresa May – the daughter of a vicar – said, “I think the stance they’ve taken is absolutely ridiculous, and I don’t know what they’re thinking about, frankly. Easter is a very important festival for millions of Christians across the world.”

Her Labour counterpart, Jeremy Corbyn, said, “It upsets me because I don’t see why Cadbury should take over the name, but that’s what it’s done. It’s this commercialization gone a bit too far.”

For what it’s worth, both May and Corbyn are members of the National Trust. Many other members of the National Trust have threatened to cancel their membership in light of the controversy:

It’s nice to see Britons rising up against these politically correct word games that deny the religious origins of such an important holiday – especially in a nation that has grown less religious and more secular.

The National Trust has replied to Twitter complaints with a stock reply denying their downplaying of Easter, and they and Cadbury have snuck references to Easter into their secondary marketing. But is it all too little, too late?

Britain Filed for Divorce From the E.U. Today

Great Britain has began the formal process to leave the European Union. This came after residents of the country voted for autonomy last June with a vote of  51.9-48.1 percent in favor of the “Leave” campaign. The election boasted a historic 77.2% turnout. Following “Leave” campaign’s success, Prime Minister David Cameron resigned and his fellow Conservative Party member Theresa May assumed the prime minister role.

Today, Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty –which has never been invoked before — will be used to begin Great Britain’s formal divorce from the E.U. This will initiate two years of lengthy negotiations with respect to autonomy and trade–with a formal British exit expected by March 2019. If no formal agreement is reached or agreed to by the remaining EU countries within two years’ time, then Great Britain will be under the duress of the World Trade Organization and have tariffs imposed on all goods the nation sells to the E.U.

Here are the provisions for Article 50 of the aforementioned treaty, which would theoretically penalize any member that decides to leave:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

For context as to why the vote took place, I recommend watching “Brexit The Movie”:

Why Brexit? The Brits were tired of taking decrees from Brussels–the epicenter of the E.U. How can a continent-wide entity decide the fate or best represent all 27 countries? It clearly can’t. And we’ll see more countries attempt to defect and similarly regain autonomy.

Plus, for Americans, travel to Britain is expected to become cheaper — an expected 20 percent in savings.

What will other tangible benefits of Brexit be? We are expected to have better U.S.-U.K. trade relations and a renewed friendship that soured under the last administration.

For those asserting Brexit in any way, shape, or form is an endorsement of pro-Kremlin activists should be dismissed. Both the European Union and Putin’s attempt to create a Eurasian Union are terrible arrangements which fail to promote autonomous countries, free market ideals, and limited government. This dichotomy musth be rejected when thinking in terms of Brexit.

Overall, Americans should welcome Brexit. Countries desiring to be autonomous and more freedom-minded should be embraced in the 21st century. Cheers to our friends across the pond!


British Government Smacks Down John Kerry Over His Israel Speech

Democrats have been pointing out that the British voted for the UN resolution about Israeli settlements as proof that our allies were okay with it. They’d prefer you not look at the pretty significant smackdown of John Kerry by the British government.

A spokesman for Prime Minister Theresa May said it was inappropriate of Mr Kerry, America’s top diplomat, to attack the make-up of the democratically-elected Israeli government – a key ally of both the US and Britain.

Downing Street also rebuked Mr Kerry for focusing on the single issue of Israeli settlements and not the whole conflict.

Intervening in the increasingly hostile international dispute today, a spokesman for the British Prime Minister said: ‘We do not… believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this case the construction of settlements, when clearly the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is so deeply complex.

‘And we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically-elected government of an ally.’

‘The Government believes that negotiations will only succeed when they are conducted between the two parties, supported by the international community.’

Democrats and Republicans alike in Washington have rebuked Kerry for saying Israel can either be Jewish or democratic, but not both. Now the British are going after him too.

And in all honesty, how is that not racist? Would Kerry ever say a country can be all Arab or democratic, but not both? Would he? Would he say a country can either be all Muslim or democratic, but not both? Of course he would not.

Good on the British for calling out the pompous jackass.