Thursday, November 01, 2012

Cardinal Keith O'Brien wins Stonewall's 'Bigot of the Year' 2012

Stonewall has awarded its 'Bigot of the Year' prize to the leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland, Cardinal Keith O'Brien. He apparently won it for his stance on same-sex marriage, which he compared to slavery and described it as 'harmful to the physical, mental and spiritual wellbeing'.

Let's put this into a little perspective, shall we?

The other nominees were:

Alan Craig, former leader of the Christian People's Alliance, who compared gay equality advocates to Nazis, dubbing them the 'Gaystapo'.

Lord Maginnis, who described same-sex marriage as 'unnatural and deviant behaviour.

Philip Tartaglia, the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Glasgow, who said the late David Cairns MP may have died because he was gay and claimed the death was shrouded in a 'conspiracy of silence'.

And Simon Lokodohe, former Roman Catholic priest and now Ugandan ethics and integrity minister, who ordered the disbanding of meetings of gay equality groups and the arrest of all rights activists, insisting that they 'recruit children' into homosexuality. He supported the ‘Kill the Gays Bill’ - parliamentary legislation which proposed increasing jail terms for gays to life. And he actively supports the persecution of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights activists by the Ugandan authorities.

By giving the award to Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Stonewall deem the free expression of religious conviction and Christian theological tradition to be more 'bigoted' than active persecution, harassment, the prohibition of free assembly and freedom of speech, and unjust life imprisonment for gays and lesbians. Is any more evidence needed of Stonewall's blind hypocrisy, perverse immorality and vicious bigotry? They don't even permit the nominees of this award to attend the ceremony and make an acceptance speech in their own defence.

Stonewall isn't a benign and benevolent gay rights charity: it is an offensive, bullying, intolerant and actively-persecuting organisation which pillories Christians and vilifies those who disagree with its political agenda. It is, by its own definition of ther term, fundamentally 'bigoted', and those who sponsor its abhorrent intimidation and harassment deserve to be duly tarnished for their ill-judged association.

189 Comments:

Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

That's democracy for you.

[Oddly enough, I could very easily copy and paste this into the Romney/Obama comments thread below]

1 November 2012 23:48  
Blogger Utar Efson said...

Many private sector companies court Stonewall's approval annually to secure a favourable ranking in their list of top employers.

Utar would suggest that every individual rightly angered by Stonewall's playground bulling should shift focus from Barclays and Coutts to those organisations who work with the Stonewall bigots to ensure that Stonewall is further isolated for the hateful little club it is.

UE

1 November 2012 23:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

By giving the award to Cardinal Keith O'Brien, Stonewall deem the free expression of religious conviction and Christian theological tradition to be more 'bigoted' than active persecution, harassment, the prohibition of free assembly and freedom of speech, and unjust life imprisonment for gays and lesbians.

You have to think strategically. Giving the award to a Ugandan would not serve the purpose of stigmatizing people in the UK. There is too much distance created. However, the nomination of the Ugandan allows the other nominees to be equated with the Ugandan. He silently communicates to the audience "This is what they are all really like."

It all makes sense when you think about it.

carl

2 November 2012 00:15  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Carl

Perceptive comment.

It is the narrative of so many homosexual atheists on this blog. Africa today; Britain tomorrow.

2 November 2012 00:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Dr Cranmer

Spot on!

2 November 2012 00:27  
Blogger Owl said...

Well said Carl.

Guilt by association, semantics as a tool of manipulation.

Where have we seen this before?

2 November 2012 00:32  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Cardinal O'Brien will hopefully acquire more support from this defamatory award.It could backfire on the stonewall group.

The sponsors should be boycotted by all the Christian denominations as they have publically shown themselves to be anti Christian.

2 November 2012 01:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Damn, I should have put some money on the outcome, though I suppose he was what is usually called a racing certainty.

2 November 2012 06:21  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

This is great news for the continuing regeneration of the Church under Benedict; to quote GK Chesterton, it's good to be in hot water - it keeps you clean.

2 November 2012 06:22  
Blogger len said...

I must stand with Catholics who oppose SSM.
A stand must be made against the bullying tactics of stonewall who want their'rights' at the expense of others rights.
The group who deserve the 'Bigot of the Year award' are Stonewall themselves because they have been used as a spearhead(knowingly or not)to silence freedom of speech.

The irony of this matter is that by pushing Christian value systems back they(Gays) stand a chance of actually ending up with Islamic ones.Have they actually thought this through?.
By' standing with Catholics' on the SSM matter I must add that I do not endorse any hatred towards 'gays'but would hope to have the same attitude towards 'gays' that Christ would have.

2 November 2012 07:41  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

He's an RC bishop.
He is, BY DEFINITION ..
A liar & a blackmailer, & almost certainly a bigot, without any reference to people's PRIVATE sexual practices, which are none of his business.

"The bishop of Rome hath no dominion in this realm of England"

OK this is Scotland, but their established church is Presbyterian, is it not?

2 November 2012 07:53  
Blogger len said...

G Tingey , This is not a matter of 'the private life of an individual' but the attempt to force society to accept the views of a minority and to silence any resistance to this through 'gagging' free speech.

I may preach the gospel to you but if you respond with anger hatred or abuse I merely shrug my shoulders and walk away I do not want to see you imprisoned for your reaction!

2 November 2012 08:10  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Tingey old chap! Fresh from the front line of the Oxford English Dictionary I see. Do keep it up.

2 November 2012 08:41  
Blogger D. Bum said...

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist
Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist
Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist
Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew
Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

2 November 2012 08:46  
Blogger Roy said...

Does anyone know where Stonewall gets its money from? Does it all come from individuals who sympathise with its aims? If so, fair enough.

If some of it comes from companies then that is also OK if they are privately owned. If some of it comes from public companies do the shareholders know and approve?

I hope that none of Stonewall's money comes from the government. If it does then we are all supporting that organisation whether we want to or not.

Does Stonewall declare its sources of income?

2 November 2012 08:50  
Blogger Flossie said...

Roy, a fifth of Stonewall's income comes from the taxpayer, as does a huge amount of the Terrence Higgins Trust's. The taxpayer also funds the 'Yes' campaign in Scotland, so if gay marriage becomes law it will be the first social reform campaign to be almost entirely state-funded.

2 November 2012 09:09  
Blogger chevronix said...

A quick google search found this ...

"First, however, a simple statement from the ‘About’ page of Stonewall’s website:
‘Stonewall receives no public funding and raises all its money itself”
Untrue. As the ‘charity’s’ accounts clearly show, it received £45,000 from the Home Office in 2010."

http://hat4uk.wordpress.com/2012/04/13/lies-damned-lies-and-stonewall-55/

2 November 2012 09:22  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

On its website Stonewall says:

'Stonewall receives no public funding and raises all its money itself in a range of ways including donations, sponsorship, and fundraising events.'

The Annual Report viewable on Stonewall's website doesn't contain details of individual sponsors. However, you can read more detailed accounts online here:

http://www.stonewall.org.uk/documents/annual_report_2010_1.pdf

I'm no accountant - perhaps somebody could verify the Stonewall statement against its accounts?




2 November 2012 09:44  
Blogger Nuncajamas said...

A 'bigot' is defined as an obstinate and intolerant adherent of a creed (concise OED). In philosophy, this is a brilliant example of what H. Putnam and B. Williams call a 'thick' concept. In other words it is a factual description that cannot be meningful without entailing a value judgement. As such, in usage, bigot tends to have an evaluative role more than a descriptive one. Cardinal O'Brien is an adherent of a creed (fact) but whether or not he is obstinate or intolerant is not such a simple matter. If, as some people think, it necessarily follows from the holding of certain beliefs that you must inevitably be intolerant of others then the Cardinal is guilty. But, this is to commit yourself to reativism and its denial of moral truth. The hypocrisy and intellectual weakness of this position has been illustrated on countless occasions but for the sake of this particular debate: Stonewall cannot attack the Cardinal for holding his beliefs. They are at liberty to question them and discuss their cogency but they cannot dismiss them because they are different. To do this, is to be grossly intolerant, unreasonable and unkind themselves, the very vices that they strive to protect their members against.Stonewall and the Catholic Church can never agree on this as neither body can 'change' its position without ceasing to be what it is. Therefore, in this regard, Stonewall are wrong because they have been intolerant and unjustifiably disrespectful.

2 November 2012 09:50  
Blogger Roy said...

I wish to thank Flossie, chevronix and Ars Hendrik for the information about Stonewall's finances. I wonder when Stonewall i going to correct the misleading statement on its website about not receiving public finance?

Of course, if the government really is making savage cuts in public expenditure, as its critics claim, then it is possible that Stonewall are simply anticipating that they will not be receiving any more tax payers' money.

However, giving the zeal that David Cameron has shown in cultivating gay support I doubt if Stonewall need have any worries about the government's cuts.

2 November 2012 09:57  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Thanks Roy - I think you are right in your last paragraph!

A semantic point maybe - but Stonewall's claim not to be publically funded may be true, if the organisation means that it is not block-funded by a public body (i.s. it does its own fundraising, targetting public and private secotr bodies in its efforts).

Receiving grants from public sector organisations would not necessarily make it a 'publically funded organisation'. A slippery argument perhaps...

2 November 2012 10:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy: "However, giving the zeal that David Cameron has shown in cultivating gay support I doubt if Stonewall need have any worries about the government's cuts."

Is that what he is doing? Or is he 'detoxifying' the Tory brand for the general public by championing a progressive cause?

2 November 2012 10:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy: "I hope that none of Stonewall's money comes from the government. If it does then we are all supporting that organisation whether we want to or not."

Charities get tax relief on donations so we all end up supporting those organisations whether we want to or not. That includes charities with a religious purpose too.

2 November 2012 10:16  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 November 2012 10:23  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

DanJo

I'm not sure the general public shares your definition of toxic.

2 November 2012 10:23  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Hello Ars Hendrik,

You're right about the funding; I worked for a disability rights group a while back, and we were regularly paid by the Government for undertaking specific pieces of work, or would bid for and win grants of public money for specific projects, but that's not the same as being 'Government-funded' - it's more like being a contractor.

Where it got controversial was with organisations who, by the nature of their business - providing care homes, respite services, that sort of thing - were almost entirely supported by Government money, and yet when undertaking campaigning work claimed to be independent.

2 November 2012 10:25  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Gift aid is not public money, it is the return of private money. When I give to the church they claim some of MY money back, not as for a government handout. At most it is an individual declaring where they want their tax to go (more power to the people, which is a good thing) but even then it is not really the same as it is pretty much an in-out process, ather than the faff that it going through the tax system would be.

2 November 2012 10:35  
Blogger PME2013 said...

What an odd little post. I'm not sure if:

A) you're complaining more about the other homophobic Christians (thanks for making people aware of their vile views by the way) and saying there were more deserving winners than O'Brien; or

B) you're taking a narrow linguistic point about the definition of the word "bigot"

If it is the former, then all of these fine Christians have something to commend them for the prize. I would note in passing that the Stonewall awards generally have a specific UK relevance, so the Nigerian is not the most obvious candidate to me, though. O'Brien's comments may not be the most offensive, but his position of power and influence gives him a special reach, which pushes him up the list.

If it's the latter, I would actually agree with you. So much objection to the word "bigot" apparently turns on the narrow linguistic definition. It relates to an intolerance of others' views and therefore probably makes it a poorly chosen name for a award by a lobbying group.

My suggestion: rename it "Homophobe of the Year" award and, in the spirit of Christian generosity, offer it to all this year's nominees jointly. Next year, they should put you on the awards panel, given your obsession with LGBT issues. I'm sure your input would be invaluable and the same mistake won't be made.

2 November 2012 10:41  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"DanJ0 said @2 November 2012 06:21

Damn, I should have put some money on the outcome, though I suppose he was what is usually called a racing certainty."
Its called a Frankel!

AnonymousInBelfast said @2 November 2012 08:41

" Tingey old chap! Fresh from the front line of the Oxford English Dictionary I see. Do keep it up."
Hilarious!! More like Peter and Jane series for age 5: Reading is fun. ;-P

Blofeld

2 November 2012 10:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ars: "I'm not sure the general public shares your definition of toxic."

How have I actually defined it, Ars?

Cameron is a public relations man and the Conservative Party was known as the Nasty Party for some of its policies. In fact. Teresa May pointed this out at a party conference a few years ago. Isn't it widely understood that Cameron has tried to re-image the party along the lines of Tony Blair's re-imaging of Labour with its Clause IV into New Labour?

2 November 2012 10:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

YouthPasta: "Gift aid is not public money, it is the return of private money. When I give to the church they claim some of MY money back, not as for a government handout."

You've paid the tax and tax is essentially public money. If you subsequently give the money net of tax to a charity then it's a government handout of the tax related to the donation. If you didn't donate then that tax would go towards State expenditure such as education, national health service, the armed forces, and so on, like the rest of the taxes collected.

2 November 2012 10:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Everytime anyone purchases a National Lottery ticket they are contributing to a whole host of anti-christian organisations. I wonder if Stonewall has received any grants from this source.

2 November 2012 10:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

len said ...

"I must stand with Catholics who oppose SSM."

As Mrs Brown would say: "That's nice."

Will you stand with Muslims who oppose ssm too?

2 November 2012 10:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Just to be clear, I'm not a member, or indeed a supporter, of Stonewall. They may do some public good but I'm not comfortable blanket-supporting lobby groups in general, other than Liberty.

If you google around about this story then there's coverage across a particular section of the blogosphere. It might even be a coordinated response.

I think it remains to be seen how this turns out. The 'awards' are just a media thing and I'm sure Stonewall have a particular agenda there. It may backfire though I'm not really sure yet.

It's a bit childish but does it really do any harm to the nominees and 'winners'? I doubt it. It's just headline politics. I don't suppose Jan Moir could have fallen any lower in the public eye after her Stephen Gately moment anyway.

Cardinal O'Brien is an interesting character. One might even be tempted to think he's a political opportunist by suddenly buying into Catholic orthodoxy as his cleric's star rose. But at the end of the day, that's what he is promoting: Catholic orthodoxy.

That said, to me he's fair game in proper politics now, following his £100K lobby plan to support the Scotland For Marriage campaign. That's when he really came to my notice, and we're usually quite happy to lay into our politicians. He doesn't get any exceptions now for his fancy cardinal's clothes.

2 November 2012 11:10  
Blogger Matt A said...

I bank with Barclays, one of the sponsors. I intend to write to them, to ask them if they plan to continue to sponsor these awards. I see a similar situation developing to Tesco and the Gay Pride sponsorship, which happened earlier this year. In the end, Tesco assured all that it would never sponsor such an event again.

2 November 2012 11:23  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

DanJo: "'detoxifying' the Tory brand for the general public by championing a progressive cause?"

Ars: "I'm not sure the general public shares your definition of toxic."

DanJo: How have I actually defined it, Ars?


Cameron is 'detoxifying the Tory brand' (by moving the party to a position of 'marriage equality'). If you are detoxifying something it must be toxic to begin with (namely the current Tory brand in the context of its longstanding championing of heterosexual marriage). That's your opinion – no problem with that.

'For the general public' suggests it is something the general public wants or would find favour with or benefit from (the removal of a toxin is usually beneficial). When I say I am not sure that the public would agree with your definition of toxic (as above) what I mean is I am not sure it has ever been asked the question is a way that doesn't allow both sides to cry 'foul'.

'Progressive' is entirely subjective in this instance, in which respect no one can say you are wrong.

On your other points about Cameron's political E&D engineering in parallel with Blair – yes I'd agree with that. He really is to the Conservatives what Blair was to Labour.

2 November 2012 11:29  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"You've paid the tax and tax is essentially public money. If you subsequently give the money net of tax to a charity then it's a government handout of the tax related to the donation. If you didn't donate then that tax would go towards State expenditure such as education, national health service, the armed forces, and so on, like the rest of the taxes collected."

A minor point, and certainly a tangental one, but I'm afraid I take the view that Gift Aid is more in line with Youthpasta's definition of private money being directed as the individual sees fit.

If it were truly only public money, the decision to award it would be a matter for government: charities don't get Gift Aid unless individuals assign it to them. That's an important (and good) thing.

2 November 2012 11:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0 said ...

"One might even be tempted to think he's a political opportunist by suddenly buying into Catholic orthodoxy as his cleric's star rose."

You really mustn't judge others by your own standards. You know nothing of Cardinal O'Brien's deeply held Christian faith - nothing.

2 November 2012 12:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ars: "'Progressive' is entirely subjective in this instance, in which respect no one can say you are wrong."

It's certainly a malleable term. One might question whether legislating for same-sex marriage is social progress but it's certainly a reform, and it's pretty liberal, and the ongoing change towards equality is evolutionary since 1967.

The toxic thing is about progressive politics, not about same-sex marriage per se. It almost doesn't matter what he uses as long as it is seen to differ from the attributes associated with the Nasty Party. In this case, it was Section 28. It could just as easily have been Compassionate Conservatism had the economy not gone tits up and a subsequent cut to the welfare budget seeming like a good idea.

2 November 2012 12:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You really mustn't judge others by your own standards. You know nothing of Cardinal O'Brien's deeply held Christian faith - nothing."

If you say so.

2 November 2012 12:07  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

He does - so do I.

2 November 2012 12:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Perhaps he just had a Damascene-type conversion around that time and I'm being unduly mean and cynical. I mean, politicians can change their mind when the wind changes can't they?

2 November 2012 12:23  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

A more interesting possibility is that his public compassion in early years is not incompatible with his staunch opposition to same-sex marriages, but in fact naturally proceeds from it. The error would then be the media's in assuming that his former views were liberal, whilst his present views on the union are not, implying a shift. Both are orthodox to Christianity.

2 November 2012 12:31  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

2 November 2012 12:33  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Sure they can, DanJ0 - but Catholics can't, and that's especially true of clerics. The cardinal would have been marked from the seminary (as all Catholic clergy are) and a sudden Damascene conversion would be suspect; there was only one of those, and some of the more extreme trads are still waiting for that Saul fellow to relapse...

2 November 2012 12:35  
Blogger Jon said...

Flossie, you're on your "we fund Terence Higgins" rubbish again. THT runs counselling courses for people who are newly diagnosed with HIV. If you wanted to run these courses, you could bid to do so.

I know a number of people who volunteer with THT and it's not an easy job. They deal with people who are often newly arrived into the UK and for whom English isn't their first language, pregnant mums with HIV and people who've had a pretty tough time of it generally, as well as people who you would no doubt turn away through contracting the disease of their own "choices" like gay people and drug addicts.

I'm sure they would all find your "christian" compassion overwhelming!

2 November 2012 12:36  
Blogger Flossie said...

How dare you, Jon, suggest that I would 'turn people away'. I would not. People get ill through many lifestyle choices such as smoking, and it would be a pretty heartless person who would deny them treatment.

There is a difference, though, between that and encouraging people to get these illnesses through 'education', which is what is happening through THT, and Stonewall to some degree. I have frequently complained about the cool £200-odd grand of taxpayers' money handed to THT recently to go into schools and teach children about sodomy and other deviant and potentially catastrophic high-risk sexual practices under the guise of an anti-bullying campaign. (For doubters, just look at their website - although some of the vilest material has been removed following adverse publicity.)

As HIV in gay men has doubled in the last decade, I cannot see how their strategy, which Stonewall celebrate so gleefully, is working.

And you call me homophobic! You must really hate gay people to wish this on them.

2 November 2012 13:16  
Blogger William said...

AIB @12:31

Quite.

2 November 2012 13:19  
Blogger William said...

YG

"... Is any more evidence needed of Stonewall's blind hypocrisy, perverse immorality and vicious bigotry?"

Nope.

It seems that their obsession with homosexuality uber alles has completely perverted any moral discrimination they may originally have had.

2 November 2012 13:43  
Blogger Paul Halsall said...

It is not bigoted to name a bigot as a bigot.

2 November 2012 14:22  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Roy said at 08:50 Does the Government support Stonewall?
Coutts, the Queens Bank, is owned by the Royal Bank of Scotland which is mostly owned by the Government. Glad to see Coutts objected to the Bigot award. Can't understand why they were involved at all?

Give a gay an inch and they take a mile. They have already stolen the word 'gay' for their own purpose. Now they want to re-define 'bigot'.

2 November 2012 14:28  
Blogger Commissioner Diss said...

I'm gathering the Cardinal has not given a BIG Donation to Stonewall. If he did he could be as abusive towards Gays as he wanted and Stonewall would not Criticize him, no matter how many people voted.
I'm a Gay male and the biggest enemy me and my friends ever faced was Ben Summerskill and his Diversity Champions List.
Take this on board, when an Organization pays to get on that List, and you DO have to pay, the rules of Stonewall State,
"We cannot get involved in disputes of Homophobic Bullying!"

2 November 2012 14:37  
Blogger Berserker said...

Len says:
The irony of this matter is that by pushing Christian value systems back they(Gays) stand a chance of actually ending up with Islamic ones.Have they actually thought this through?.

Don't forget that in the Hadith collections of the after life, a believer will have not only 72 virgins but 28 young boys as well. Is not 'gayness' rampant in the society of mullahs and clerics? What do the wild eyed terrorist fighters do more than anything else to their male victims. Bugger them of course.

So in the event of Islam taking over in a Western Country, would Islam then change its spots relating to homosexuality? Of course, Lesbians and Old Queens would be first for the chop.

2 November 2012 14:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "The irony of this matter is that by pushing Christian value systems back they(Gays) stand a chance of actually ending up with Islamic ones.Have they actually thought this through?."

This gay man prefers a value system which is not based in any religion. For the most part, we have that already. It just needs a secular State now to build on our existing liberal, democratic structure.

Christian lobby groups also need to be careful. It wouldn't take too much more, especially if it were highlighted carefully in the media, for their direction to appear to the general public rather Taleban-esque.

I expect people have an inertia over much of this stuff, being happy to let it sort itself out, but if one is to rely on religious arguments about sexual morality in society then the lifestyles of most people will need to change too. People ought to be warned.

2 November 2012 15:09  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Well said Len at 7.41 am

This bigot of the year award Stonewall give out to someone they think is a threat to their homosexualising agenda for the UK is really rather childish. If they want to do any good whatsoever then why don't they take up the cause of fighting against the violence and hate that Muslims dish out to homosexuals?
I'd respect Stonewall if they would stand up to the anti gays in muslim countries, but no, they don't dare do anything there far too risky. This really shows this organisation up in its true colour, yellow for cowards.

2 November 2012 15:23  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

From Ben Summerskill CE of Stonewall:

This year Stonewall supporters recognised the Rev. Giles Fraser as their Hero of the Year for his unstinting efforts to speak up for how decent Christians respect and value loving, committed relationships. His support for equality embodies the very heart of what true faith looks like.

The Stonewall Awards are a unique chance to celebrate the enormously positive contribution made by so many. But our Bigot of the Year award is reserved for one individual who has gratuitously caused distress and anguish by demeaning and deriding gay people and their families. All of the nominees for Bigot of the Year have gone well beyond what any normal person would call a decent level of public discourse. This year’s winner – Cardinal Keith O’Brien – has, in just the past 12 months, compared gay people to slave owners and child abusers.

2 November 2012 16:06  
Blogger William said...

DanJ0

"Christian lobby groups also need to be careful. It wouldn't take too much more, especially if it were highlighted carefully in the media, for their direction to appear to the general public rather Taleban-esque.

I expect people have an inertia over much of this stuff, being happy to let it sort itself out, but if one is to rely on religious arguments about sexual morality in society then the lifestyles of most people will need to change too. People ought to be warned."


People ought to be warned about what? That Christians think sex is for marriage? I think that you will find that most people in this country are aware of this and will either take it or leave it.

Also, I think that your warnings of the UK becoming a Taleban-esque, Christian theocracy are rather over-done not to say bordering on the paranoid. Or perhaps I missed the point about the "highlighted carefully in the media" bit. Perhaps it's me who should be "paranoid"?

2 November 2012 16:07  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

And also from Ben:

P.S. None of our work tackling prejudice and bigotry would be possible without the support of thousands of individual donors. We do not take, nor seek, any core government funding.

2 November 2012 16:08  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"His support for equality embodies the very heart of what true faith looks like. "

What a fascinating theological insight.

2 November 2012 16:23  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

I shall treat the award as something that needs competing for and wish the losers better luck next year!

2 November 2012 16:28  
Blogger Dick the Prick said...

@Bred in the Bone - quite right. Definately worth a bottle of champers and some bunting. I bet his congregation have a laugh with him about it.

2 November 2012 16:57  
Blogger pat said...

stone wall stop insulting our cardinal......for those of us that know keith obrien he is a saintly gentleman....who stands up for good..
your losing theargument when you resort to insults....pat/edinburgh

2 November 2012 17:09  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Paul Halsall said...

It is not bigoted to name a bigot as a bigot.

Assuming your standard of bigotry is correct. There is no valid standard intrinsic to simply saying "I have these desires, and I want to act on them, and you are a bigot if you say those desires are immoral."

It is not bigoted to call perverse desires perverse.

carl

2 November 2012 17:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "People ought to be warned about what? That Christians think sex is for marriage? I think that you will find that most people in this country are aware of this and will either take it or leave it."

No, that some of these fringe Christian lobby groups seem to want the law to follow their religious precepts and they're getting rather political about it. Homosexuality is the low hanging fruit, no pun intended, but what about divorce, abortion, contraception, pre-marital sex, stem-cell research, and so on?

"Also, I think that your warnings of the UK becoming a Taleban-esque, Christian theocracy are rather over-done not to say bordering on the paranoid. Or perhaps I missed the point about the "highlighted carefully in the media" bit. Perhaps it's me who should be "paranoid"?"

It's hyperbole. However, I think a clever media campaign could make good use of it if push comes to shove. Christians as a class already have a reputation for having an uncomfortable interest in other peoples sex lives. Would people tolerate the sort of cultural oppression based on religion that used to exist in (say) Ireland not that long ago? Especially if Muslim groups were seen to become more obviously active against same-sex marriage.

2 November 2012 17:16  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Dick the Prick, perhaps the sponsors should provide a celebratory, gala dinner for the entrants next year, with an after dinner talk from the winner

It would be as enjoyable as Serbian football, as I support any side which rails against political correctness

2 November 2012 17:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Those queer types on Pink News are cock a hoop the cardinal has won. Just one post noticed that had a greater concern for what that Ugandan is about. Maybe it was in the mind of others but why spoil a good party.

Interestingly on the next thread up, Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives and a lesbian, who has won the Stonewall title of ‘Politician of the Year 2012’, merely for being homosexual one suspects, was actually booed off stage. She had objected to the term bigot and said that it was important to respect people who have a different view.

Well, what can one say ?

This perhaps. One is more than ever convinced the gay man thinks and views differently from the mainstream. DanJ0 has been gifted to us as a superb example. He doesn’t believe the country is gay accepting, or even merely gay tolerant. He actually believes the UK is gay ENCOURAGING ! And, on top of that, the people here are nearly all atheists, who wake daily in the hope the Christian church no longer has any influence what-so-ever, and would gladly see the back of Christianity, the sooner the better. Totally wrapped up in gayness, so he is, to the exclusion of what society is all about. A remarkable exhibit…

But take note gentlemen. Our DanJ0 is no one off. He is par for the course…



2 November 2012 17:48  
Blogger Dick the Prick said...

@Bred in the Bone - perhaps in this instance the old Groucho Marx quote could be amended to 'I wouldn't have dinner as a member with any club that would vote for me as a member'.

I guess it would be vaguely interesting to know how this was judged but it'd be a waste of bandwidth.

With that, my first drink of the week shall be to the Cardinal and my 2nd to Lord Denis of MacShane.

Happy weekend all.

2 November 2012 17:50  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

So Ben Summerskill thinks that a person who is about as shameless self-promoter as we have in the CofE (and not in a good way) is the best example of faith, not because of what he believes about a deity but because he wants people to be treated equally?
Next he will be declaring that there is no such thing as chaff or goats, theologically speaking!

2 November 2012 18:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Communists were keen on equality you know. Turned out the leadership held everybody else in equal contempt.

Poor show, reds and queers !


2 November 2012 18:17  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"Would people tolerate the sort of cultural oppression based on religion that used to exist in (say) Ireland not that long ago?"

I'm not sure cultural oppression is at all accurate for Ireland. The main reason the Catholic Church has been haemorraging adherents in Ireland is the child abuse scandal - there's still quite substantial popular support for a good deal of what might be called "Catholic culture". Just not for the institution which many feel betrayed them. The image of a Catholic church that imposes a foreign culture has a lot of currency for atheists and Protestants alike, but it's not particularly accurate.

It's worth pointing out as well that up here in the North, many of the same touchstones for Christian culture are accepted largely as cultural - and indeed political norms, despite the protestations of the small, but growing number of secularists and atheists.

2 November 2012 19:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One notes that SSM accepting King Salmon has distanced himself from Stonewall’s bigotrous attack on the cardinal.

Looks like that master manipulator needs the Taigs on board if his feudal kingdom is ever going to come about.

An honourable man with a sincere dignified morality, or a highly cynical bastard. Your choice...



2 November 2012 19:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Belfast, old confused chap. The quare fella was alluding to the Catholic subjugation at the hands of it’s erstwhile protestant masters...

2 November 2012 19:29  
Blogger len said...

Dodo ' Will you stand with Muslims who oppose ssm too?'
(2 November 2012 10:56)

In reply to your question(above)

No...If I was invited to join a gang about to intimidate and even assault homosexuals because I opposed ssm I would refuse.Islam denies the Deity of Christ and therefore there is no hope of redemption only Judgement and for that reason alone would make it impossible for me to make a stand with Islam over anything.
Let us make one thing clear I do not hate anybody... God`s plan for redemption can transform anyone whatever gender and whatever religion but this can only be done through Christ and if you deny Him then your situation is completely hopeless.

2 November 2012 19:40  
Blogger Matt A said...

Len: I hope you would always refuse to intimidate or assault homosexuals!

2 November 2012 20:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

len

Did I ask you if you would join a gang and assault a homosexual? I was talking politically and to some extent, theologically.

Let's put it another way. If a Muslim candidate for Parliament stood against a supporter of homosexual marriage and made it clear he was opposed to it, would you vote for him?

Would you vote for a Mormon in the USA election?

Also, do you not think a reasoned dialogue with Muslims about the Old Testament and about Christ, were it is possible, and one day it may be, is obligatory on Christians?

I take it you'd have opposed the alliance with Russia against Nazism in WW2 too.

2 November 2012 20:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Some interesting polls here and here and here for the Irish Times.

2 November 2012 20:49  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,(2 November 2012 20:41)
In answer to your questions.

I would pray about voting for anyone and be guided by the holy Spirit, and also whether I should support 'alliances' of any sort and be guided by whatever answer I received from The Holy Spirit.

2 November 2012 21:32  
Blogger len said...

I believe Jesus loves homosexuals as much as he loves any one else(be they religious or secular.)

But Jesus didn`t go round telling people He loved them...He (when they were willing) healed them, changed their lives changed their circumstances gave them hope.Jesus didn`t condemn anyone.Tax collectors prostitutes,the lame the blind the deaf Jesus loved them all, healed them all, raised the dead went to the Cross for ALL. humanity .

All we have to do is repent and believe He did all the rest necessary for salvation and a renewed and totally transformed life.

2 November 2012 21:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Fair enough, len.

It's good to know too that you don't subscribe to predestination -

" ... He (when they were willing) healed them, changed their lives ... "

We'll make a Catholic of you yet!

2 November 2012 21:53  
Blogger len said...

The thing is the Bible defines sin and the boundaries between sin and Christian morality and value systems are being[deliberately] blurred.

UNLESS we know and define sin then salvation becomes meaningless.Why get saved and from what?This is what the youth of today will be [and are] saying.

Christians first need to state the problem(the fallen nature of man) and then the solution which is receiving a new heart and a new mind through the Power of the Holy Spirit released through the finished work by Jesus Christ at Calvary.
The problem with humanity ( fallen corrupted nature of man) is becoming all the more evident but the solution (Jesus Christ)is as much an offence to many as it was in times past.
Jesus Christ is God`s ONLY solution to the problems of suffering Humanity as man should have realised by all the failed systems man has tried and that have failed.


2 November 2012 21:55  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

DanJ0, I'm not sure what these surveys are supposed to reveal, other than that Ireland is pretty much the same as Britain, France or any other modern country you care to name. I suspect that you're operating from the premise that Ireland=Catholic and therefore if Ireland is changing, so is Catholicism. Yes, there was a time when Ireland and Catholicism were virtually the same thing, but that day is done; the two have separated, but Catholicism continues to exist as it has for two thousand years. As in every other country in the west, it has been made clear to Irish Catholics that they must choose between Church and state; the stress comes when some of us are foolish enough to think the two can continue synonymously. People like that are easy to recognize. They talk about 'adapting', 'reaching out' 'making the Church fit for the twenty-first' century etc; those of us who have chosen have no such stress in our lives.

2 November 2012 22:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Corrigan: "DanJ0, I'm not sure what these surveys are supposed to reveal, other than that Ireland is pretty much the same as Britain, France or any other modern country you care to name."

I made a statement earlier and it was inevitably challenged by the usual suspect so I'm just going some way to refuting the challenge. Enjoy.

2 November 2012 22:26  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"the usual suspect "

You mean me?

2 November 2012 22:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

LEN

Must admit it, that last post was one of your 'nail on the head' moments.

People have to be open to receiving and responding to God's Grace and the call of the Holy Spirit. Consciences and character need forming and protectiing. The "ground" has to be perpared.

"Behold, I stand at the gate, and knock. If any man shall hear my voice, and open to me the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

To him that shall overcome, I will give to sit with me in my throne: as I also have overcome, and am set down with my Father in his throne."


The secular and, at best, "God-neutral" culture our young are exposed to will have consequences for society - the Bible, history and reason all warn of this.

I take hope in the knowledge that the course of human history is in God's hands and, as for us as individuals, we must do what God wants of us.

2 November 2012 22:57  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This is worth watching if you have the time

http://vimeo.com/52009124

It is a long video, lots of people give their views about the current and likely impact of changes in society over the last 30 or so years. Not just immorality, but education and the rise of Big Government. I was particularly persuaded by the argument (in the middle) that people rely on Government and making them dependent on the State is a deliberate policy, similar to communist ideology. The whole of society is set up to make as many people as possible dependant on the state. DanJo and his friends are just a small minority, who would have no real power, (and probably much persecution) without the state’s backing. So most gays are for more Government as they rely on the state for their survival. They make the point that the state is fickle, take 1930s Germany compared to 1920s and will discard those that is no longer any use to the state.

For Christians a big powerful State will always be a danger and so we should be arguing for less Government as this is the real enemy, Stonewall is not the real enermy of freedom, it just functions as an arm of the State. Even if we could ban it or make it see reason it would have little effect since an increasingly intollerant and powerful State is still existent.

The Christian response that is suggested in the last few min is spot on. Mind when I read Revelation, a big state does seem to be symptomatic of terminal decline in society.

Phil

2 November 2012 23:44  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

In the Epic struggle between those who lost before it started and those who won before it begun

I chose the side of Mythology and the Eternal Way

2 November 2012 23:44  
Blogger Dick the Prick said...

If we didn't have a Church of England we'd have to invent one. I love a good shakedown. Guess this is the pimped from 70's drug mentality. The CoE has taken so much abuse from holier than thou perverts and held itself beyond statistical distinction.

3 November 2012 01:46  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Bones 16:28
LOL ..my thoughts exactly!

3 November 2012 04:42  
Blogger John Magee said...

Our brother and sister Coptic Christians in Egypt are enduring daily persecution and even death in Egypt today by the Muslim Brotherhood and their insane followers.

It would be nice if a word was said about their sufferings here once in a blue moon.

Nigerian Catholics and Protestants face church bombings almost every Sunday by Muslim Jihadists and this Stonewall story is worthy of being rehashed again while Christians are being persecuted in 2012?

Everyone knows the real bigots are the liberal and left wing Stonewall supporters who hand out this stupid "award". They hate Christians. That's old news.

3 November 2012 05:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "DanJo and his friends are just a small minority, who would have no real power, (and probably much persecution) without the state’s backing. So most gays are for more Government as they rely on the state for their survival."

By "friends" you mean "other gay people" I don't know who may be completely different to me other than we have a similar sexual orientation?

You're right of course but it applies to all minorities. That's one of the things about rights, they protect minorities against the potential tyranny of the majority. You could just as easily be talking about Jews though.

Ironically, I'm a libertarian-leaning liberal so I generally prefer less State rather than more. The State should provide the super-structure and do stuff that private individuals and organisations can't effectively do but should not really act paternally."

"For Christians a big powerful State will always be a danger and so we should be arguing for less Government as this is the real enemy,"

I'd have thought that would depend on whether the State is acting like a theocracy or acting with Christian-oriented power behind it. Obviously you had to be following the right Christian sect at the right time but Christians did well for a long while with very powerful States operating alongside the Church.

3 November 2012 06:25  
Blogger len said...

John Magee.. Christianity is certainly under attack at home and abroad.
One wonders why...Stonewall doesn`t seem to criticise Islam(or have I missed that?.

Christianity is an offence to many.

Saw a programme yesterday by David Pawson[bible teacher] which gives an explanation.
All religions accept Jesus Christ as a 'prophet' or' teacher'.

But Jesus Christ said "I AM THE Way the ONLY Way back to God".
This statement by Jesus Christ[by definition]proclaims all other religions to be false....this statement By Christ also denies than any one can save themselves by 'good works'an offence to the pride of many!.
Christianity has been and is seen 'as divisive'and not in the interests of 'social and religious harmony' by many in positions of authority.(This was a problem under the Roman Caesars too many' opposing gods'eventually all gods were accepted as being' a way'under the authority of the' main god Caesar' of course!

If [falsely]Christians claimed the Christ was 'a way' then it would exist in harmony with other religions[and probably the secular World as well] but of course this would be a denial of the Truth!.

Christianity cannot compromise in the interests of 'harmony'with opposing religions or dictates from the State and must remain true to the intents and purposes of God....There will be enormous pressure on Christians to conform to exchange the Truth of God for the lies of 'this Present World system'.
I see a time in the not too distant future when proclaiming Jesus Christ as The Way and the ONLY Way will be prohibited.

3 November 2012 08:59  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Danjo

You are right I should not have used the phrase "and his friends"

As a student I travelled extensively in East Germany, Hungary, Yugoslavia.

There were three interesting things, where were the Christian Churches, where were the disabled, where were the mentally disabled, where were the down and outs? I could also ask where were the dissidents but it was not obvious that they were missing. To a student it seemed like the ideal society, everything was cheap, the girls liked rich boys from the west and nobody spoke ill of the Government. The students from the East would only say “not everything is nice here”. In many weeks did not see anyone who was openly gay.

Later I worked for a European company in an African Country with a “One Party State”. On frustrating day I mildly stated how annoying it was that it was so difficult to get good quality materials to do the job.

Later that evening a car arrived, at my house, the "Party man" (every community had one) called and chatted to me telling me quietly (but with some menace) that it was not a good idea to say again what I had said. As he left he turned at the door and spoke to me with the words that I had a wonderful wife and baby son and then looked at me directly for about 5 to 10 seconds, but without smiling. First hand, I can truthfully say, the big state is VERY scary.

Are we there yet? No but we are moving rapidly in the direction of the above. NOBODY will be safe, let alone free, not even I realise now the Party man. Stonewall? my guess is that you are useful now but when necessary just expendable.

Phil


3 November 2012 09:50  
Blogger 2010deacon said...

Cardinal, I would say you must be doing something right!

3 November 2012 10:16  
Blogger 2010deacon said...

Cardinal, I would say you must be doing something right!

3 November 2012 10:16  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

No Imams in their list I note, funny that.

3 November 2012 16:40  
Blogger John Magee said...

Maturecheese

Of course not. To tell the truth and name the mullahs and imams who atcually DO call for the death of homosexuals would have had the Stonewall party disrupted by a bomb or even by a suicide bomber in the name of Allah. We can't have that can we?
Liberals always feel safe trashing Christian leaders at events like this. I'm amazed they didn't give Pope Benedict XVI an honorary award as the "Internationaal Bigot of the Year Award" at this gathering of liberal Christophobe bigots.

3 November 2012 17:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Indeed John. Should Stonewall or the devotees of that AIDS victim Higgins ever point their fascist finger at Islam, the Inspector predicts the contents of their offices being blown through their windows within a month. Interesting parallel with Hitler. It was only in the late thirties that the NAZIs felt confident enough to take on the German High Command when they were gifted the Blomberg affair. They spent a good five years wondering if a military coup by the German Army would put an end to their madness each and every tomorrow.

Militant homosexuality are a long way from taking on Islam, but taking on UK Islam they will. They will be unable to stop themselves and it leaves one wondering just what forces they will need and have behind them when they do.

3 November 2012 18:09  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Maturecheese

No Imams in their list I note, funny that.

Remember one thing. Islam is still very much an alien presence in the West. You can't advance the ball in the culture war by attacking it. You have to attack the culture you are trying to displace. That would be the residual influence of Christianity in Law & Society. You win by keeping your focus on what is important. It's not important to attack Islam. If you are Liberal, you will assume that Islam will be safely castrated by secularization anyways. You will assume that religion is weak and getting weaker. There would be no reason to attack Islam. You would assume you would neutralize it for free by secularizing the country.

Now, that's not to say that Liberals aren't afraid of Islam. They are. Loaded AK47s tend to concentrate the mind. But that fear isn't necessarily the driving factor in excluding Muslims from this list. There are sound strategic reasons for focusing on Christians only. The Christian faith is what they are trying to displace.

carl

3 November 2012 20:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl.. If you are Liberal, you will assume that Islam will be safely castrated by secularization anyways.

In the UK, Islam has gone to ground. Not a news item, with the exception of the odd trial of Islamic gangsters plotting a greater than 911 attack on the indigenous people here . There was a recent trial in Birmingham. Interesting crowd. They looked like finalists in a “Britain’s ugliest man” competition. Actually, that’s rather unfair on just them. ALL groups of muslim men here look like finalists in a Britain's Ugliest Man competition...

3 November 2012 21:12  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector

We now know German Generals in the High Command of the Germany Wehrmacht (Army)had plans to arrest Hitler & Company had he ordered the invasion Czechoslovakia in late October 1938. Hitler was planning to do this if he didn't get what he wanted at Munich but most of his Generals, who remembered the horrors of WW I, were opposed to a new European war and were completely opposed to his plans. This plan to arrest Hitler by his generals was called "Operation Green". We all know France and Britain appeased Hilter at Munich and sold out the Czechs and war was delayed until September 1939. Had Hitler not been appeased and ordered the attack on next door Czechoslovakia
German Generals had agreed to arrest Hitler, Goebbels, Himmler, and Goering. Hitler was to be sent to a mental hospital and examined to be insane by the world famous German psychiatrist Karl Bonhoeffer father of the famous German Protestant minister and anti Nazi Dietrich Bonhoeffer. Had Hitler not been appeased at Munich in late autumn 1938 when he and gained the Sudetenland from the Czechs, and later the rest of Czechoslovakia (Bohemia and Moravia) and instead had been arrested by his own generals. WW II would have be avoided.

The world came that close to not having WW II in Europe. Appeasement caused WW II.

Of course we all know the many attempts by German Army officers involved in the many plots to kill Hitler including the famous and respected "Desert Fox" Feld Marshall Erwin Rommel who had to kill himself after the failed assassination plot of July 20, 1944 carried out by by the devout Roman Catholic German Army Officer Colonel Count Klaus Von Stauffenberg (made famous in the recent Tom Cruise movie which was an accurate portrayal of the events) and other devout Protestant and Catholic German High Command officers and generals who hated the Nazi's and their deeds and put their Christianity and love of the real Germany above NAzi ideology.

Another famous member of the plot to kill Hitler was the devout Protestant Christian named Count Helmut Von Moltke who people should also know about today and read his about life. He was executed after the July 20th plot along with Von Stauffenberg and many others. The total executed is estimated at about 5,000 before the War ended.

Moltke's wife went to live in the USA after 1945 and died in Vermont in 2009.

Appeasement never pays. It only delays unpleasantness that must sooner or later be confronted.

Let this be a lesson for us about Iran and Islamic Jihad.

3 November 2012 23:15  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector

The far left and militant Islam are in the midst of another a cozy relationship similar to the one they shared in Iran to bring down the Shah in the late 1970's. We know how that turned out and we also know the Ayatollah Khomeini and the mullahs killed all of their former leftist allies in Iran.

They both hate Western Civilization and in particular Christianity.

3 November 2012 23:22  
Blogger len said...

John Magee (3 November 2012 23:22)

That is exactly what will happen here in the UK.
I suppose it will be a sort of' self administered Judgement' on those who hated Christianity so much to attempt to destroy the Christian foundations of this Country.
The tragedy of this will be the millions of inocent people who will be caught up in this national tragedy.

Those who are spearheading this assault on the Christian foundations of this Country (and in Europe) will be seen only as 'useful fools'by those with greater objectives( these 'useful fools'includes those in Government who are assisting this attack on Christian moral and value systems)

4 November 2012 08:46  
Blogger John Magee said...

len

I agree 100%.Never has a Civilization atcually opened it's doors and welcomed those who promise to destroy it.

4 November 2012 18:09  
Blogger Frank said...

What you're arguing is that Cardinal O'Brien is undeserving because there are other more ruthless men in the hierarchy who are more blatant in their desire to destroy gay people.

I agree. The Pope who appointed all the filthy altar-boy pimping bastards in the hierarchy should get the nomination.

You, a filthy but unaccomplish Christo fascist shitbag will simply have to try harder.

4 November 2012 23:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Frank

There. Hope you feel better now that's all off your chest. Deep breathing and sitting still helps after such tantrums.

Now, did you have something to contribute to the discussion?

5 November 2012 00:25  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Frank

filthy altar-boy pimping bastards

You do realize that all those "filthy altar-boy pimping bastards" were overwhelmingly homosexual men seducing vulnerable teenage boys. Right? If there hadn't been homosexuals in the Priesthood, then there wouldn't have been a crisis to speak of. Now, that doesn't lessen the guilt of the bishops who protected them, or the seminaries that allowed them into the ministry. But let's understand that the "filthy altar-boy pimping bastards" were "homosexual filthy altar-boy pimping bastards."

And it does leave open the question about how the Pope was "trying to destroy gay people" by exposing post-pubescent teenage boys to the depredations of gay priests. That's quite a conspiracy angle you have going there. Something along the lines of "Let's bring gay men into the priesthood and let them abuse young teenagers so that we can discredit the gay rights movement?" You need to work on that a bit.

carl
The "anti-catholic" Protestant who is making statements against interest.

5 November 2012 00:56  
Blogger John Magee said...

carl jacobs

You said:

"The "anti-catholic" Protestant who is making statements against interest."

I never thought of you as an "anti-catholic" here. You are pro-Protestant. That's a reasonable and honorable stance because that is your faith. You are much more articulate in defending your beliefs than I am of mine.

Truth is truth. I am willing to make harsh criticisms of my own side, Roman Catholicism, when necessary and willingly list our hypocrisy and historic blunders. To be consistant I am also critical of the sacred cows and inconsistencies of other religions in the name of historical truth here and I get a lot of flak for doing so. Which is fair.

When we tell the truth, especially when we use exact quotes by the haters, it's in everyones' best interest.

5 November 2012 01:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

John Magee

The 'anti-Catholic' reference was intended to be ironic. I included it only to preempt the thought that I might be defending the RCC out of self-interest. The lack of personal interest adds weight to my argument.

Frank's argument (if such it can be named) was basically "You people hate gays, and that's why you allowed the priests to abuse children." That argument is rather transparently specious once and obviously so once it is realized that the abusers were themselves mostly homosexual.

Thank you for your kind words about my being articulate. My (English teaching) older daughter does not share your opinion of my writing. I let her edit something I wrote once. She was (shall we say) overly critical and unreasonably so. "Dad, the English language called. It wants its commas back." She was wrong of course. And I don't care what her snobbish Grammar books say.

carl

5 November 2012 05:02  
Blogger William said...

John Magee said

"Truth is truth. I am willing to make harsh criticisms of my own side, Roman Catholicism, when necessary and willingly list our hypocrisy and historic blunders."

This makes you a rarity amongst the Roman Catholics who comment on this site and is to your credit Sir.

5 November 2012 09:05  
Blogger Frank said...

Carl,

Most of the rape victims I knew from my all-male Catholic high school were gay. The priests who raped them were able to use that fact as blackmail against their victims. Those boys grew up to be blamed for their rapists crimes.

As for "pimping" altar boys, it doesn't involve having sex with them. It's making them available for sexual exploitation by accommodating perpetrators. Pimping in this case means obstructing justice, and the most conservative members of the Catholic hierarchy are as guilty as sin for that.

Now even if we believe these priests were gay in the sense that they ever had a relationship with an adult male, we're left with your argument that all should be stigmatized and legally penalized regardless of their guilt. That may play with Calvinists but it doesn't play with Americans or Catholics.

Moreover, it begs the question why are you as a father not stigmatized and legally penalized because some fathers have sex with their children? For all we know, the rate of incest may be higher than the rate of priestly child molestation. This would certainly be under-reported; after all, hunger is the incest perpetrator's best aphrodisiac.

Best,
Frank

5 November 2012 17:28  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Surely Cardinal Keith O'Brian does not need to resign? It's a bit drastic.
He is entitled to voice his opinion and it's in-keeping with what is in the Bible.
By resigning he is in effect agreeing with that mob of bullies at Stonewall.

5 November 2012 22:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

John Magee said ...

"I am willing to make harsh criticisms of my own side, Roman Catholicism, when necessary and willingly list our hypocrisy and historic blunders."

Yes, how very noble.

Do try to get Catholic theology correct first though and also research each side of the multi-faceted 'events' that constitute the history of Christianity.

You might also want to acknowledge and credit past Popes (Blessed John Paul, say?) and the current Pope, Benedict, with some small contribution too.

Mind, after your recent speculations about Judas being in a plot with Christ and then your comments on the 'God of the Universe', I do wonder about your ability to be accurate or objective.

5 November 2012 23:55  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo

OK

6 November 2012 00:15  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Frank

Now even if we believe these priests were gay in the sense that they ever had a relationship with an adult male ...

Where 'adult' is defined by what? The age of consent? Is it a legitimate 'adult' homosexual relationship if the boy is 15 in a place where the age of consent is 15? Would it suddenly become illegitimate if the age of consent was raised to 16? Homosexuality doesn't cease to be homosexuality simply because you think the object of desire is too young. It's defined by a post-pubescent male desiring to have sex with another post-pubescent male. You want to slip 'consent' in there somewhere to separate homosexuality from the abuse crisis. As in "It's not homosexual if there isn't legitimate consent." Yes, it is.

... we're left with your argument that all should be stigmatized

Well, of course homosexuality should be stigmatized. It's a moral fault.

...and legally penalized regardless of their guilt.

They wouldn't be legally penalized at all. They would be denied entrance to the priesthood. Neither would they be penalized regardless of their guilt. The fact that they didn't seduce a teenage boy into a homosexual relationship would not be relevant. They would be penalized because homosexuality is a sin, and being an unrepentant homosexual should disqualify one from entering the priesthood.

That may play with Calvinists but it doesn't play with Americans or Catholics.

Heh. Yes, go ask your typical American Catholic Dad how excited he would be about placing his teenage son under the charge of a homosexual priest. People may accept homosexuality in the abstract. They will never accept it in the particular. In any case, isn't that exactly what the Vatican is now doing - excluding homosexuals from ordination?

it begs the question why are you as a father not stigmatized and legally penalized because some fathers have sex with their children

Because being a father is not a moral fault. Being an unrepentant homosexual is a moral fault. There is no 'legitimate' homosexual relationship. You don't stigmatize all homosexuals for being abusive. That's a ridiculous proposition. Few homosexuals would seek out 14-year-old boys in order to seduce them. Instead, you stigmatize homosexuals for the immoral sexual desires which they act upon.

carl

6 November 2012 02:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

When you set aside familiarity and look at it afresh, Christianity's actually a pretty horrible religion. In fact it's an ideology, with all the negative connotations of that word. Gah.

6 November 2012 18:55  
Blogger len said...

IF you want to truly understand Christ - ianity look at Christ not at' religion'.

Christ came healed the sick ,raised the dead, comforted the brokenhearted,took the sins of the World onto His own shoulders.

I would say the World treated Him very badly and He returned that hate with Love and forgiveness.

6 November 2012 19:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Presumably he really hates poofs though.

6 November 2012 19:20  
Blogger len said...

Jesus came to save sinners...which means all of us!.

6 November 2012 20:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Christianity's actually a pretty horrible religion

Compared to homosexuality it’s a breezy walk in the park. Being a male gay means adoration of the human solid waste pipe.

As you would say , “Blimey”


6 November 2012 21:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0 said...

"Presumably he (Christ) really hates poofs though"

No!

Don't you see that's where projection and displacement come in. An immature person assigns to God those negative qualities s/he encountered in his past and internalises them.

We have been over all this before - endlessly.

Jesus loves you; not your sin.

6 November 2012 23:01  
Blogger John Magee said...

DanJO

Are you aware that Mother Theresa's nuns have been taking care of poor and abandoned AID's sufferers since the mid 1980's and giving them love and care and a pleasant environment they could find no where else to live out their last days? These nuns never ask or care about their patient's homosexulity or care about the behavior which gave them their terrible disease. The nuns treat these AID's victims with the love and caring Jesus's asks us to do no matter who is suffering or what they suffer from.

Ever hear of Father Damian (St Damian of Molokai) the Belgian RC priest who dedicated his life to helping lepers on one the Hawaiian Island now part of the USA? He gave his life helping these lepers and finally contracted the disease which eventually killed him.

And you have the temerity to say: "Christianity's actually a pretty horrible religion.

Where are the Gays volunteering and dedicating their lives to help people with AIDS by bathing them, cleaning up their vomit, and wiping their rear ends when they have severe diaherra spells? Mother Theresa's nuns do with total love and get no pay.

7 November 2012 01:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

John: "And you have the temerity to say: "Christianity's actually a pretty horrible religion."

I do. You're all caught up in the ideology so you don't see how vicious it appears at times when its adherents open their mouths.

7 November 2012 06:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

That was a Rowan Atkinson type line up there by the way. I loved that sketch: "Are you a gay Christian?"

7 November 2012 06:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. You are a rather sensitive thing in your own way. One can imagine you with tears welling looking at this blog and all the opposition you face as you desperately seek reassurance and validation for your bizarre, and one might add, CHOSEN, lifestyle...

7 November 2012 19:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I was too sensitive when I was younger and the world was a less tolerant place. I remember when being gay was horribly stigmatised at school and I was terrified that someone would guess. Others were terrified that someone would label them so even though they weren't and make their lives a misery as a result. I remember very seriously considering suicide as an impressionable young man, thinking it would be preferable to living in a world where I would be stigmatised for not conforming by marrying and having children. I couldn't imagine choosing either to live alone and be celibate, or having a furtive sex-life with strangers and meeting in special places out of sight. We've come a long way here in the UK so it's pretty good for young people now. It aeems like America has a way to go yet given the stories of teenage suicide that get regularly published. I want to make sure young people can grow up in a benign, supportive environment and if that means standing up to some of the evil, religious filth who want to stigmatise people outside their religious circles for their sexual orientation then I'm well up for that these days.

7 November 2012 21:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Christian and Muslim, it's all the same to me.

7 November 2012 21:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. The future is the young. And it is at this age we are the most vulnerable as we try to see where we fit into creation. When this man was a schoolboy, homosexuality was treated as a joke and a stigma. When someone said, last one up the hill is a poof, even the overweight lads put a bit of effort in.

But now, thanks to children's television, the subject is well discussed. However, one has noted in the past year or so that the young have started associating gay with ‘crap’. Any idea why ?
This is the Inspector at his most inspecting, so it’s not a trick question.


7 November 2012 21:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "However, one has noted in the past year or so that the young have started associating gay with ‘crap’. Any idea why ?"

In the past year? Where on earth have you been? Five years or more ago. Did you know that "sick" now means "good" or "cool" in youth culture? Perhaps ten years ago, good things were said to be "da bomb". Don't take these things too literally.

7 November 2012 22:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, when I was at school it was the norm to call people "spaz", or "mong", or "flid" ie. "thalid", too. Disability was a bit of a joke back then. No-one was beaten up or ostracised afterwards though.

7 November 2012 22:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The young. No making them out, what !

But unless you were brought up proper, their ignorance is currency...

7 November 2012 23:10  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 your post @21:03 was rather nice until you came out with “and if that means standing up to some of the evil, religious filth who want to stigmatise people outside their religious circles for their sexual orientation then I'm well up for that these days.”
Hardly furthers your cause or endears you to any anti gay people and organisations.

I agree it's not nice to be stigmatised but I think people have to grow a thicker skin where name calling is concerned.

I suppose you're pleased that Cardinal Keith O'Brian has stepped down, I can't believe it an elderly Cardinal bullied out of his job by a gang of evil, homosexual filth! There two can play at that game.

7 November 2012 23:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie, I don't think it is appropriate simply to expect childrn going through puberty to have a thicker skn about their sexual orientation. If anyone is some sort of monster because of homosexuality then it's the people, religious or not,  tryng to stigmatise them and trying to make them feel they are wrong in themselves.

I think your comment about endearing myself to anti-homosexuality people and organisations is a bit bizarre. Why would I want to endear myself to them? We are in a political war and they must lose for the good of the country and for moral goodness itself.

As for Cardinal O'Brien, I understood that he has a gout-related illness and has been hobbling around on a walking stick for a while. I believe gout is very painful so I think it is sensible to take it easy for health reasons. I sincerely wish he gets better but I hope he chooses to keep out of national politics. Perhaps when he steps aside he can find his former.compassion again.

8 November 2012 05:08  
Blogger John Magee said...

DanJO

You said "Christian and Muslim, it's all the same to me."

When was the last time Gays were beheaded and women stoned to death for adultery in St Peter's Square at the Vatican? This sort of blood thirsty slaughter is regular Friday entertainment at Mecca amd Medina for Muslim pilgrims.

A fond memory for those who Mulims who make the Hajj to take back to their families and friends back in Baghdad, Jakarta, Dusseldorf, Wembly, or New York to share with the family.

Hard to imagine you must pass Muslims every day on the street who have made the Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca) and may have witnessed this kind of brutality isn't it?

A pilgrimage to Mecca can't be compared to one made to Lourdes, Fatima, or Walsingham by a group of pious old ladies from a suburban London Catholic or Anglican parish can it?

Christianity and Islam are as different as the dark and light side of the moon.

8 November 2012 06:03  
Blogger len said...

Catholicism has got a bloody past.
There can be no denying that essential fact!.

Islam may catch up with Catholicsm in about another 600yrs(if we had that much time)

The Church of Jesus Christ is the persecuted Church not the persecuting Church.

8 November 2012 07:55  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Danjo

"If anyone is some sort of monster because of homosexuality then it's the people, religious or not, tryng to stigmatise them and trying to make them feel they are wrong in themselves."



So Homosexuals are always right. Thought so.


"We are in a political war and they must lose for the good of the country and for moral goodness itself."

I agree we are in a war. However, if you win it (You won't) will ruin society and there will be no morals. We are not talking just sexual morals. Imagine a society that does not obey ANY of the 10 commandments.

It happened before, we are on the way to it happening again


Phil


8 November 2012 07:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

John, you've dropped the context there so I see no point responding really. Of course Islam and Christianity are different but I'll stand up to the people from both who try to stigmatise homosexuals.

Phil, I don't see a necessary link between the two. Our ethics are independent of your 10 commandments. Your moral code is wrong but we share many ethics anyway.

8 November 2012 09:13  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

From the Telegraph

" Sources close to the Prime Minister said he was not happy about being handed a list of suspected abusers on ITV's This Morning and thought the issue "was not handled well" by the programme.

Mr Cameron did not look at the list and warned there is a danger that the current hunt for child abusers turns into a "witch-hunt" against gay people. "

So it seems from the Prime Minister's comment, that it indeed be in this case what many heterosexuals, have always suspected that is, that Gay people seem to be overrepresented in Child abuse cases.

But as you say DanJo "Your moral code is wrong" and "Our ethics are independent of your 10 commandments"

So should be be surprised at this...? Answer No.

Phil

8 November 2012 18:00  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0”I don't see a necessary link between the two. Our ethics are independent of your 10 commandments. Your moral code is wrong but we share many ethics anyway”

And where do you get your ethics from that are independent from the 10 commandments?
Who's authority and why? Surely Satan's commandments are invalid.
You and your homosexual activists are truly evil for your desire to change the face of society by subverting the meaning of marriage (a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman) into something it has never been to justify your promiscuous homosexual lifestyle.

I don't think you realise just how nasty and egocentric these gay activists you are standing up for really are. It's gone beyond standing up to stigmatisation at school in puberty as that really no longer happens much or happens along with all the other types of bullying too.

These activists are wanting to drag society down to their level in the sewers of life with their multiple partner lifestyles.

Watching a documentary called “Unsafesex” I think on Ch4 about an STD clinic, it went into the lives of some of its patients. The gay ones were the worst. One young man a gay porn star was so upset that he had to have an injection in his buttocks for his Gonorrhoea and Chlamydia and to refrain from sex for at least two weeks he was nearly in tears as he couldn't take part in a shoot for a new video and would loose £1000. The nurse had to insist he stay for the jab.
If that doesn't tell you how little he values human lives nothing will. We saw him and a friend giggling on a bus some time later without a care in the world obviously free of his diseases, but continuing with his lifestyle.

8 November 2012 18:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I get them from Allah, Marie. On Krishna's authority.

8 November 2012 18:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "You and your homosexual activists are truly evil for your desire to change the face of society by subverting the meaning of marriage (a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman) into something it has never been to justify your promiscuous homosexual lifestyle."

Firstly, I don't have a promiscuous lifestyle. From past disclosures, it looks more likely that it's you who is promiscuous given your dating site inclinations and experience. In the unlikely event that you're not just a cultural Christian because you think that is part of being English in your BNP way, surely one of the best ways for a single woman to find a man is through church? Secondly, how does advocating same sex marriage justify a promiscuous homosexual lifestyle when we can just, well, shag around like young heterosexuals anyway without too much opprobrium these days? We also have civil partnerships too which go a long way to giving society's approval to gay relationships completely out in the open. You're not making much sense to me, luv.

8 November 2012 19:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "I can't believe it an elderly Cardinal bullied out of his job by a gang of evil, homosexual filth!"

Just to go back to this again, you didn't comment any further. Do you still believe he was bullied out of his job by "evil, homosexual filth" or would you like to retract any of that at all?

8 November 2012 19:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0 quoting Marie. a gang of evil, homosexual filth!"

Well, this is what happens old fruit. When you stick your heads up proudly and celebrate your sad infirmity.

Marie. Well done that gal. When our man has to associate you with the BNP, you know he’s scratching around for ammunition...


8 November 2012 20:28  
Blogger John Magee said...

DanJO

Ever ask yourself why there are no Gay Pride Parades in Muslim countries? That's simple. The Koran demands homosexuals be killed.

Are there Muslim drag queens wearing burka's or the chador? A hijab?

I have a suspicion the answer is no.

8 November 2012 20:48  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 You're not promiscuous but, by allaying yourself with the gay activist mobs you are promoting and normalising promiscuity. Not all heterosexuals are promiscuous but it has got worse since the decline of Christianity in general. No checks and balances much now.
Meeting up with dates from the internet for a glass of wine or diner hardly makes me promiscuous.


”Marie: "I can't believe it an elderly Cardinal bullied out of his job by a gang of evil, homosexual filth!" “Just to go back to this again, you didn't comment any further. Do you still believe he was bullied out of his job by "evil, homosexual filth" or would you like to retract any of that at all?”

I do yes, by being given the 'bigot of the year' award and the subsequent media reports surrounding it. He maybe in pain and 74 so not far off official retirement, but I'm sure he would have wanted to go into retirement officially and properly and not have to feel pressured to melt away quietly. He wrote a good and sensible article for the Telegraph 03 March 2012 which the homosexuals did not like at all. Just shows they cannot discuss anything in a civilised way at all. I hope he goes into politics.

8 November 2012 21:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You didn't realise about the gout, did you? You just assumed the twitter message was true. ;)

8 November 2012 22:33  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I don't really follow anyone on Twitter, reading only what His Grace shows on his blog, I read a link he posted to “The Scotsman” where they quoted his age as the reason for his stepping down. I know what you're up to Danj0 and you're very naughty!

8 November 2012 23:53  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

We have all been subjected to a massive propaganda campaign by homosexual liars.

http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/2012/11/09/gays-spread-fake-claims-of-bullying/

9 November 2012 13:31  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

Cranmer says:
"Stonewall isn't a benign and benevolent gay rights charity: it is an offensive, bullying, intolerant and actively-persecuting organisation which pillories Christians and vilifies those who disagree with its political agenda. It is, by its own definition of ther term, fundamentally 'bigoted', and those who sponsor its abhorrent intimidation and harassment deserve to be duly tarnished for their ill-judged association." Hear hear!
Pity the scotch lass didn't have anough courage to refuse the award altogther. Did you know tht last yuear's Stonewall Hero Roger Croach killed himself after being exploited falsely and inappropriately for their campaign ends?
I hope Cranmer has signed this petition that was posted on another thread earlier--
https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Make_Stonewall_Pay_Its_Taxes/

Let's get this thing moving.

9 November 2012 13:41  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Thank you Jack. Ive signed.

9 November 2012 14:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Inspector concurs with Jack Spratt. The Crouch affair happened locally, in Cheltenham. The lad wasn’t gay, it was merely rumoured, as this kind of thing has been rumoured for millennia. Sadly, the young man didn’t have the necessary backbone to tell his accusers to piss off. Probably a hereditary thing as Dad lacked similar backbone to get on with it and put the tragedy behind him. This world is far too rough for sensitive types...

9 November 2012 19:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ironically, it sounds like his son was stigmatised to me. It's not always easy for youngsters to deal with homophobia like that. The homophobes probably learned it from their parents, too.

9 November 2012 19:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One is quite acquainted with the story old chap, it made a stir, and that was before the father killed himself. The lad merely went through what other sensitive types endure for a time before his taunters grow up. Had he been the Inspector’s son, he’d still be around today. The Inspector would have taught him how to stand up for himself, of that be assured...



9 November 2012 19:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

When gay people stand up to such people, those sort of people really don't like it. Especially if uncouth language is used in the process. Look at what happens here. ;)

By the way, I see the Daily Mail is reporting about another of those anti-gay religious people by the look of it. Name of Rev. Ryan J. Muehlhauser. A cliché.

9 November 2012 20:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

When this man was in his courting years, late 70s onwards, the buzzword amongst the gals was to get yourself a ‘soulmate’. Presumably, someone who thought like you as opposed to a solid provider. Perhaps Mrs Crouch felt the same way when Mr Crouch proposed. As it happens, she failed to produce an offspring hard enough to survive life’s trials, and indeed failed to find a husband similar. No idea what’s she’s doing now. Perhaps she’s shacked up with a hard bastard like the Inspector, who can provide solid reliability in her life.

It’s a strange world, what !

9 November 2012 20:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I bet Mrs Muehlhauser thought she had solid reliability in her life.

9 November 2012 20:33  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 November 2012 22:19  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

Cranmer's article is not fair to Alan Craig. It says "Alan Craig, former leader of the Christian People's Alliance, who compared gay equality advocates to Nazis, dubbing them the 'Gaystapo'.
No, the people Alan Craig compared to the Gestapo are the kind of people who are snooping around all the time looking for victims to denounce. Viz the nasty types who denounced Mr Adrian Smith, demoted from his job with Trafford housing trust just because he said in his private Facebook page that he doubted whether same-sex marriage was right. He never discriminated or even said one rude or harsh word to any homosexual person - yet he was reduced to a job on half the pay. For what crime? For the crime of "fomohobia".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055137/Housing-chief-admits-demoting-Christian-protect-award-gay-charity.html
That is an appalling attack by queers on freedom and democracy.
Alan Craig is right and I will go on using the word Gaystapo whenever it is needed. The word has caught on actually.

9 November 2012 22:20  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Jack I agree. I think the word Gaystapo describes exactly what a lot of these vicious homosexual activists are like. There are some homosexuals who will go to all sorts of lengths to bully and try to find dirt to defame anyone from the Church especially the Catholic one.


What happened to Mr Adrian Smith is really sad and a gross injustice. Shows that Trafford Housing Trust think more of getting an award from a gay charity than they do of their staff. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. I wouldn't want to work for an organisation like that or even live in one of their properties they seem rather ruthless and shallow.

10 November 2012 01:27  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 November 2012 05:05  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 November 2012 05:07  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 November 2012 05:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Julia: "That is an appalling attack by queers on freedom and democracy."

I think Mr Smith was badly treated if the publushed facts are true. However, I'm wondering who the "queers" are in the story. Are they the unnamed work colleagues? Or David Barrow the commercial director of the Trust? Obviously it isn't Peter Tatchell who has spoken out against his treatment. Perhaps it's Ben Summerskill but I haven't found anything about his involvement? Who are you talking about, Julia?

10 November 2012 08:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie, why have you signed Julia's petition. It's simply and fundamentally incorrect, as you would know if you went to the Charity Commission's website to look it up. Julia knows this too. Honestly, it shows just how much online petitions are actually worth.

10 November 2012 08:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Militant Homosexuality is rather like the wizard of Oz. Behind the curtains, there are a couple of ‘fisters’ turning wheels and pulling on ropes. That’s all it is. You merely need to shout at these people and they will scatter. WE are being taken for a ride by these chancers, and no mistake...


10 November 2012 15:14  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I've signed Jack's petition

https://secure.avaaz.org/en/petition/Make_Stonewall_Pay_Its_Taxes/

Copied from the website:

The Stonewall Group has wrongly been granted charitable status and avoids paying tax. Under British law, it is not permitted for charities to engage in any sort of political campaigning or lobbying to change laws.
"It is considered unacceptable for charitable trusts to
campaign for political or legal change, although discussing political
issues in a neutral manner is acceptable." Yet Stonewall has never stopped campaigning on political issues for the last 30 years!
They state on their own website that they were formed to campaign against Clause 28 of the Local Government Act. That is political and so are all the campaigns they have conducted since then e.g. to lower the age of consent or to advocate homosexual adoption "rights". Stonewall's banner advertisements on London buses for the view that homosexuality is innate (a view not supported by any scientific evidence) can hardly be described as "neutral!"
Stonewall has never been entitled to claim charitable status. Therefore its charitable status ought to be withdrawn and it should be required to repay to the Inland Revenue all the tax that it has improperly avoided since being founded.

10 November 2012 15:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Petition duly signed...

10 November 2012 15:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's like a minibus full of window-lickers has just driven by.

10 November 2012 16:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good Lord ! A Stonewall placeman of all things !

10 November 2012 17:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Did you mention "fisters" up there, Inspector? Now I know you like to drink your sorrows away, so to speak, on Saturday afternoons, but you'll get into awful trouble from your co-religionists writing "filth" like that. Or you would in a hypocrisy-free world anyway.

10 November 2012 17:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I believe you did actually sign Julia's petition too, as it was at 25 earlier and now it's at 26. Oh dear.

10 November 2012 17:13  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
I read the blurb on the Charities Commission site. I understand it from the Charitable website
http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/publications/cc9.aspx
section C4 that charitable campaigning is awareness raising in an effort to educate not relentless campaigning and pushing to change the law and changing the face of society by manipulation and bullying as Stonewall are doing. Also Stonewall are not a human rights charity, by human rights they mean the campaigning against torture.

10 November 2012 17:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, another hundred thousand or so, and parliament gets to debate it.

Wouldn’t that be absolutely topper, what !

10 November 2012 17:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You're not troubled by the blatant falsehood of

"Under British law, it is not permitted for charities to engage in any sort of political campaigning or lobbying to change laws. "

in Julia's petition then?

10 November 2012 17:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, you're getting confused with the epetitions site. That said, a copy was put on there under yet another name but it was rejected.

10 November 2012 17:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Rejected was it, how queer...

Stonewall certsainly keeps you up to date on matters, so it seems...

10 November 2012 17:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


“blatant falsehood”

and we come round nicely to same sex marriage

heh heh

10 November 2012 17:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 November 2012 17:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, I'm a bit concerned that you've over-imbibed and won't have the staying power to last into the late evening. What will I read on Sunday morning, shaking my head, if you haven't been running amok here the night before?

10 November 2012 17:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Er DanJ0, old man. The Inspector’s post at 17:53 - That was check mate.

Do try and pay attention...

10 November 2012 18:08  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 November 2012 18:12  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

It's not necessarily false Danj0 it does seem a fine line see D3 Can a Charity have political purpose?

10 November 2012 18:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well DanJ0. That was an interesting game. You didn’t so much lose the initiative as fail to grasp it in the first place. You spent the rest of the time in a responsive roll. Too easy today, but to be charitable to you, your mind wasn’t completely on the game, was it. There’s something pre-occupying you. Forth coming results from the clinic perhaps. That would explain it.

Tally ho !

10 November 2012 18:26  
Blogger John Magee said...

DanJO

In 2007 a taxpayer-supported “Gay” celebration in San Francisco, featuring a poster portraying Jesus Christ and his disciples as “half-naked homosexual sadomasochists. On the table were all types of dildos and other sex toys intended to mock the Last Supper which is one of the most sacred events in the life of Jesus.

Would you have condemned this poster which was plastered all over the city of San Francisco and on city buses as gay bigotry if you knew about it then or if such a poster mocking the Last Supper or other sacred Christian events in the NT were used to promote Gay Prides parades in London or some other British city?

Gays never mock Islam or Judaism in similar ways. To be fair the Old Testament and the Koran has some pretty brutal stuff to say about homosexuals and how to "deal" with them.

Jesus Christ never mentioned a word about homosexiality yet He is constantly abused by Gays. Why?

To see this poster type: Folsom Street Last Supper Poster and then hit image results.

10 November 2012 22:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

John, why are you askng me that?

11 November 2012 05:04  
Blogger John Magee said...

danJO


I am asking you to look at this poster and give me your impression of this blatant anti Christian blasphemy and hatred by Gays shown in public places for everyone to see. Your're Gay. I need your input. Is this freedom of speech or Gay Christophobia?

12 November 2012 06:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm a token gay now, like being a token black. Marvellous.

12 November 2012 06:47  
Blogger Frank said...

John,

Given that the Bible incites ritual murder against gay men if they ever have sex, but promotes sexual slavery and polygamy for heterosexuals, it can never be considered a legitimate source of sexual morality. For a Christian caling gays bigots for criticizing their habitually ruthless at the hands Christians is just as morally bankrupt as a rapist calling his victim "violent" because she defended herself.

14 November 2012 15:57  
Blogger Frank said...

Inspector General,

I know the thought that some gay men die of AIDS sexually excites you, but it really isn't seemly to demonstrate that in public.

14 November 2012 16:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Apparently not Frank. One had to cast his mind back over a lifetime for an example of being sexually aroused by any man, let alone one dying from a nasty sexually transmittable disease. Failed miserably to come up with just one example.

Tremendous faux pas you made, by the way. That’s mentioning gay and AIDS in the same sentence. The gay community will call you a heartless uncaring bigot for that. The only way to redeem yourself then would be to sign that campaign for plastic marriage those boys are eating their hearts out over.

pip pip !

14 November 2012 19:06  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older