Saturday, December 29, 2012

Christian People's Alliance warns of 'secularist capture of political parties'


His Grace has just received this:
Britain’s political order is moving further and further away from its Christian roots and needs the church community to respond by bringing renewal and hope, says the new leader of the Christian Peoples Alliance, Sid Cordle MBE. In an end of year message to the party’s thousands of supporters, Mr Cordle said that the forces of secular fundamentalism had captured Britain’s ruling political elites.

Pointing to the deliberate targeting of the least well off to carry the burden of the Coalition’s deficit reduction plan, to the commitment to spend billions on renewal of the Trident nuclear missile system and to the attack on Christian marriage as examples of a skewed moral outlook, Mr Cordle said Christians in 2013 need to re-engage with the political order:

“Our party is planning a serious fight in the 2014 European elections, where voters nationally will have the opportunity to give their verdict on the Coalition. As PR voting will be used, I urge people of goodwill in the churches to come forwards as candidates and campaigners for the Christian Peoples Alliance. It is in European elections that other smaller parties have first made a break through and we must do the same."

Speaking to a church congregation in London which gave loud cheers to his address, Sid Cordle explained that Christian Democratic parties had emerged across Europe in response to the advance of secularism and need for a Christian voice in politics. Christian Democrats are now present in almost every national assembly.

He said Britain needed a party such as the Christian Peoples Alliance to promote the social teachings of the churches. And Mr Cordle pointed to same-sex ‘marriage’ plans that were not in any party manifesto or the Queen's Speech, as the prime example of the Coalition’s abandonment of Christian morality.

"By contrast witjh the emerging secular establishment, the Queen in her Christmas message encouraged the nation to respect the teachings of Jesus Christ. The CPA is seeking to do this in ways which other parties aren't - and that includes parties on the far right who love to wave the flag - but who show scant regards to Jesus's teaching of care for the foreigner in our midst."

The Christian Peoples Alliance is also pointing to how the ‘lists’ of EU candidates that will be entered in PR elections in 2014 will be controlled by the secular party elites, who are responsible for the attack on church teaching.

Meeting in its final National Executive meeting of the year, the CPA made selection of European and Westminster candidates a priority for the New Year. It approved a 6 Point Election Plan:

1. Candidates will be selected as soon as possible in every region for the next European elections and preparation made for putting a leaflet through every door.
2. Candidates to be selected from now on with the aim of having one in every seat in the country in the General Election 2015 and again a leaflet through every door in the country.
3. All God's people all over the country to be invited to engage with the vision.
4. All elections between now and then to be used as a means of advertising the party and increasing awareness of it. That includes local elections where we should encourage all activists in the party to get their names on the ballot paper.
5. To revive area parties focusing first on Newham and to select candidates now for local elections in 2014.
6. To believe God at every level that He will provide the resources we need to fulfil the vision. We must not put money first. We must put the vision first and trust God to provide resources for it.

Sid Cordle, who last year completed the London Marathon in under 3 hours plans to do his first ultra run of 50km, over 30 miles, on 17th February 2013 to help raise funds for the party. He is hoping for sponsors from a broad spectrum of people. He concluded:

"With a lot of people giving something we can raise the necessary finances. We are not a party who rely on a few wealthy backers. We need a large number of people to vote with their wallets and we think they will."

The CPA will now start urgently looking for candidates for the European Parliamentary elections in 2014 with a view to completing the selection process shortly after Easter 2013.
So, let us be clear about this. The CPA's proposed solution to the 'secularist capture of political parties' is to call all Christians out of those political parties and urge 'people of goodwill in the churches' to campaign for them. Believers are to cease being salt and light in the darkness, and huddle around the illuminating vision of Sid Cordle MBE 'to promote the social teachings of the churches'.

That's interesting.

Will this be the corporatist, collectivist Roman Catholic Social Teaching, or the more Protestant Anglican version? And what of the even more Protestant Puritan or Calvinist views? What do they advocate of capitalist economic organisation? What of militarism, nationalism and expansionism? Which church rejects as dogma renewal of the Trident nuclear missile system?

That's the problem with Christian parties: the spirit of authoritarianism lurks somewhere and someone has to play pope. Only the elite are invited to join the conclave, or, failing that, they develop a committee for nominations, theology and policy to exert an authoritarian moral worldview. You will not address the 'secularist capture of political parties' by forming a separatist political God-squad.

275 Comments:

Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Absolutely ghastly idea !

Those fellows should read Cranmer to see Christian ‘unity’ at it’s best....

29 December 2012 13:00  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Do these people seriously call themselves Christians? Fretting over the "least well off." Don't they know that the poor will be always with us? And opposing Trident is just insane. Armageddon isn't going to happen all by itself, you know!

Still, at least they're gay bashers . . .

29 December 2012 13:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Seems to be an opinion that Christians bash gays.

No, we just don’t like you queering marriage and having anal sex with under age boys. Hardly bashing that, is it ?

29 December 2012 13:45  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Quite right OIG. Equating homosexuality with paedophilia is IN NO WAY gay bashing.

29 December 2012 13:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

That’s the spirit Laurence. Knew we’d get you there in the end.

By the way, if it’s not the homosexual fraternity, who is it then that rapes young boys, and keep volumes of indecent photographs of them on your PC.


29 December 2012 14:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Oh dear ! That should have read ‘on THEIR PC’

29 December 2012 14:07  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
You know that I have opposed Christian Political parties having examined them. It is good for Christians to be involved in politics but not to control as if it is some sort of manifesto.
Until recently, our parties have had a good spread of moral thinking individuals and one was assured of some sort of balance when it came to Christian and moral issues. Sadly, there are few that are batting on our side and these poor chaps know they are not going to be selected as candidates for the mainstream parties. You have to be female or ethnic, gay or disabled to get selected. A friend of mine tried and that was what he was more or less told.
I understand their frustration but this is not the way.

29 December 2012 14:17  
Blogger Tony B said...

Inspector. If "homosexuals" are to blame for indecent images of boys, it follows that we have to blame "heterosexuals" for indecent images of young girls. ( on the narrow assumption that all indecent images are the work of males).

Do you now see how stupid it is?

29 December 2012 14:30  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Since when was Catholic social teaching collectivist or corporatist?

Subsidiarity precludes both of those things.

29 December 2012 14:40  
Blogger arnab rahim said...

Chosen 2010 Best San Francisco Wedding Photographer by SFGate, Joseph Kohn Available for Limited Pre Wedding Photography Assignments Worldwide.
San Francisco City Hall photographer
san francisco wedding photographer
wedding photographer
sf wedding photographer
city hall photographer
sf photographer
wedding photography

29 December 2012 14:48  
Blogger arnab rahim said...

Chosen 2010 Best San Francisco Wedding Photographer by SFGate, Joseph Kohn Available for Limited Pre Wedding Photography Assignments Worldwide.
San Francisco City Hall photographer
san francisco wedding photographer
wedding photographer
sf wedding photographer
city hall photographer
sf photographer
wedding photography

29 December 2012 14:48  
Blogger len said...

Getting back to HG`s article...........How can Christians unite before this tidal wave of Humanism sweeps them away?....

Do we need someone to 'play pope'to utter' infallible' statements or to 'dangle the 'keys' in front of us to keep us in order?.

No... we need to get back to the original Gospel...Christ is the Head.... a group of Elders with the the Holy Spirit instructing and guiding.Unless we go back we will never go forward.



29 December 2012 14:49  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This is such a colossally bad idea. Bad! Bad! Bad! Did I mention how bad this idea is? Flea from it. Better yet, find a club and beat this idea until its dead.

1. The idea of a Christian Political Party is a refutation of its major premise. Countries that are predominantly Christian don't need billboards saying "This is a Christian Country." The citizenry would already know it. The Christian faith would be the ether in which all of politics occurred.

2. It must inevitably reduce the Christian faith to a set of political position papers. Thus it must conflate the Gospel with partisan politics. The answer to the question "What does a Christian believe?" becomes the platform of its political party. This was the great error of the Christian Coalition in the US. It implicitly made a false equation between the Gospel and Conservative politics. It thus creates division between believers where none should exist. The Christian faith should serve to bridge political differences - not exacerbate them.

3. It tempts believers to substitute the easy path of political compulsion for the hard work of evangelism. The Christian faith is supposed to influence politics by shaping the character of the citizen. He then brings that character to the public square and acts accordingly. If the Christian faith wanes, the character of the citizen is shaped by different forces. Politics then takes a different form. A Christian can't fix this by demanding power so that he can force people to behave as they aught. That is the evangelism of the sword. It doesn't work.

The Christian faith is not a political faction. It should not be reduced to such a carnal and temporal entity.

carl

29 December 2012 15:17  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Who thought CPA would be a good acronym for this party anyways? Didn't they consider the most obvious definition of CPA?

She: So what do you do for a living.

He: I'm a CPA.

She: I see.

He: My favorite number is four.

She: Well, look at the time.


carl

29 December 2012 15:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

len said ...

"Do we need someone to 'play pope'to utter' infallible' statements or to 'dangle the 'keys' in front of us to keep us in order?!

That's the way God has ordained it. Seems sensible to me given the mess Christianity finds itself in after all this 'sola scriptura' and sola fide' and centuries of squabbling.

So what do you think?

"No... we need to get back to the original Gospel...Christ is the Head.... a group of Elders with the the Holy Spirit instructing and guiding."

Ah, ah and just who chooses and appoints these? I think you'll find that what's Christ did when He appointed Peter and the Apostles.

29 December 2012 16:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Carl said ,,,

"The Christian faith is supposed to influence politics by shaping the character of the citizen. He then brings that character to the public square and acts accordingly. If the Christian faith wanes, the character of the citizen is shaped by different forces."

Of course it also needs a social, political and economic system that promotes and protects Christian values and, in particular, family life.

That's why there needs to be a Christian collective voice at this time in all political parties.

The social teachings of the Catholic Church are a good reference point. They are not corporatist or collectivist being based on the rights of the individual. They do need application in particular circumstances.

29 December 2012 16:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The natural party for the Christian in the UK was the Conservatives. It is now UKIP.

One suggests those fellows invest their time in getting that organisation into power...

Tony B. No, and you are probably right. Of course, a few will be in it for the money...

29 December 2012 17:02  
Blogger Mike Stallard said...

Christians do have a serious political role which is being denied to them.
It is social welfare. That, based on the Good Samaritan and the two foremost commandments, is what our faith is all about. We are pottering along, in the teeth of the government at the moment, but only by begging for pennies here and there.
Education, Child Welfare, looking after the poor and workless, the immigrants and even health have always been Church based. We have the motivation that the government simply has not got.

29 December 2012 17:48  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Being serious for a minute . . .

I can't quite understand why you guys are against this. If you feel strongly about an issue like gay marriage, then you have three options:

A. Keep the argument strictly secular.

B. Argue God's way, as you see it, from within an existing political party.

C. Support a party like CPA which attempts, however fallibly, to channel God's spirit.

Most people on this thread seem to favour option B, but I can't see that there is any difference in principle between B and C. Option C is what you might try when A and B have failed. Option A is different in principle, but entails people not being fully open about their motivations.

There's nothing wrong in principle with option C, except for one thing. That the ensuing squabbles over policy (which exist in all political parties) will make a mockery out of the idea that God or Christianity bequeaths us a higher truth to which we all can and should subscribe.

29 December 2012 17:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Laurence. The rest of us ditched your way of reasoning by the time we were 13.

Do you seriously think that preventing the corruption of a social institution warrants abandoning the damn obvious – fighting you every inch of the way ?

29 December 2012 18:16  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 December 2012 18:17  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Lawrence Boyce

I can't quite understand why you guys are against this.

A couple of reasons. First of all, I have had direct experience with it. There was a time in the mid 90s when I briefly flirted with the idea of getting heavily involved with politics. I was in fact a convention delegate for county, district, and state. That experience convinced me of the folly of this course.

Second, I want to keep the two kingdoms kept separate. The purpose of the Church is to preach the Gospel, and that is not a political task. There are Christians on this weblog who are considerably to the Left of me politically. That's fine with me. We are all limited finite creatures. We are going to disagree on temporal matters because we are going to adopt different priorities. That however is not a spiritual division. There is no Christian position on marginal tax rates. We can disagree and still enjoy the fellowship of a common faith. The problem with a Christian political party is that it must crystallize its politics into a pseudo "Christian position."

I don't need to make secular arguments. I need to propagate my worldview through evangelism. That is the proper course of action. One hundred years ago, Christianity was simply assumed. You couldn't make arguments about (say) gay marriage because they wouldn't be received. People recognized homosexuality as a sexual perversion and would not recognize any claims to the contrary. The worldview of the populace has now changed. It receives arguments that align with its own worldview - its own position of faith - and refuses to receive mine. I can't change that by political action because it's not a political problem. It is a worldview problem. It requires a worldview solution. Then the politics will naturally follow.

carl

29 December 2012 18:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I think the Christian People's Alliance is a great idea. It's the next stage from the loose alliance of fringe Christian organisations pushing the narrative of Christian persecution in the UK and various cases towards the Supreme Court. After that, we need a Muslim People's Alliance to form.

29 December 2012 18:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Marvellous idea. Why don’t the LGBTQ types and the Greens unite to become Green_Gay_Alliance. You’d have a heady mixture of Green fascism with Gay demands, and because both groups are so so popular with the public, or so they tell us, forming the next government is a forgone conclusion...


29 December 2012 18:35  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Inspector,
The LBGTQ lot already have the positions of power, distributed through the parties to hide their unholy alliance.

29 December 2012 18:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, I expect most homosexual people just want their rights within a diverse society so a political party would be completely inappropriate. Religionists as a whole not only want their rights but they want to control the lives of others too according to their minority religious views. This is why their trying to form political parties is great thing for the rest of us. They'll be seen as like the Taleban, only normal people will still be steering our society. With a fair wind, a properly secular State will follow naturually not long after.

By the way:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/26/voters-back-gay-marriage-poll

'God' bless Vincent Nichols ... and now Bernard Longley. ;)

29 December 2012 18:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Religionists have had their chance and they completely blew it. We can all look back and ask ourselves whether we want any more of that evil shenanigans. The answer seems to be a pretty solid "No" these days. Phew.

29 December 2012 19:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. What absolute rot you talk.

Homosexuals want their rights ? They have their rights. What they want is special consideration.

Religionists want to control the lives of others too according to their minority religious views ? You call 33 million in the UK a minority ? And since when has your life ever been controlled by religion !

only normal people will still be steering our society ? That would be a great idea. Sub normal types who have a problem with the boy girl stuff need not apply.

a properly secular State will follow naturally not long after ? So you and your fellow godless lot can run the place. Can’t wait !

29 December 2012 19:18  
Blogger David B said...

Any religious person has to be pretty much unthinking and/or dim not to realise that secularism is the best defence of freedom of religion. Though not, perhaps of religious privilege.

Do the religious people here think religious privilege a good idea, really? Think Islamic privilege as an example.

David B

29 December 2012 19:19  
Blogger John Magee said...

"we need a Muslim People's Alliance to form."

Another baseless comparison of conservative Christians with Islam. Even if it was meant to be sarcastic it's still a false and stupid statement.

Any future "Muslim People's Alliance" would be, after gaining power (or even before then if they can get away with it with the cooperation of wimpy liberals), to establish Islamic Law of Sharia. That would mean an immediate ban on on all homosexual behavior and the public execution offenders.

Any comparison of even the most weird Christian fringe group with the acts of the Taliban or what happens weekly in the 2nd decade of the 21st century to Gays in Iran or Saudi Arbia is an insult to the Gays killed today by radical Islam inspired by verses from the Koran.

29 December 2012 19:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

We’ve seen secularism at work. Revolutionary France, The Soviet Union, China, and every other communist state. Why visit that here. First the secularists will tolerate religion, then comes the persecution, because secularists will brook no criticism. That’s how it always happened in the past, and how it’s going to happen here...

You blind fools !

29 December 2012 19:30  
Blogger IanCad said...

"--the spirit of authoritarianism lurks somewhere and someone has to play pope.--"

You've got it YG.

The First Amendment makes it so much simpler for the Americans:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;--"

However, we are stuck with an established religion.
Let us then, praise God for the benign and broad church that is the Church of England.

29 December 2012 19:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David B: "Do the religious people here think religious privilege a good idea, really? Think Islamic privilege as an example."

I expect that's where all this "Christian Country" stuff comes in. The desire seems to be for a hierarchy of religious belief, with Christianity on the top because that's sort of, well, British, and with Islam just about tolerated because those beliefs are mostly held by, well, interlopers with 2nd class citizenship even if for some of them their parents were born here.

29 December 2012 19:34  
Blogger John Magee said...

carl jacob

Don't you see the inconsistency of a person who belongs to a state church being critical of other Christian churches who have no privilidged status from forming a political party to represent their religious values?

It's especially odd since the state church I am talking about still enjoys special privilidges and support of the governent which it once used in the past to promote the persecution of other Christians.

This state church's power has been tempered in the last 100 yeaars or so by the advance of universal concepts of freedom and democracy...

I pose this question to the few Protestant and Catholic state churches that may still exist or where they are not the state church but still enjoy special privilidges. This question of hypocrisy applies to the Vatican as well.

The Pope and the Vatican talk wonderful stuff today about the "rights of man" and other nice sounding ideals but their record in the past is one of persecution, discrimination, and violence similar to the state church I mentioned above.

29 December 2012 19:45  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 December 2012 19:52  
Blogger John Magee said...

IanCad

A state Church and a monarchy can be wonderful institutions when rendered harmless by modern concepts like freedom and equality.

It wasn't always so.

This applies across board to both Catholics and Protestanats.

This is my personal observation and not meant to be any kind of offensive remark. I am open for any criticism of republicanism and there are some criticisms which I can agree with.

29 December 2012 19:53  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Yes, I think we can safely say that religions absolutely do crave political power. It's just that they have no particular desire to go through the tawdry business of democratic elections.

I wonder how many bishops would stand for election in a reformed House of Lords? I'm guessing none, which is strange because they are so adamant that they play a vital role in parliament.

29 December 2012 19:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 December 2012 20:13  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

secularism is the best defence of freedom of religion.

It depends greatly on what you mean by secularism. Certainly I think that both the UK and the Church would be better off if the CoE was dis-established. If by secularism you mean 'No formal governing role for the Church (like say Bishops in the HoL ex officio) then I have no objection. But that isn't what I hear when you say 'secularism.'

I fear you mean that religious freedom will be 'protected' by hermetically sealing off the public square from religious influence. If secularism means that the gov't must presume all theistic religions are equally false, then I object. Religious freedom does not mean that I am allowed to go to a building on Sunday morning. It means I can bring my religious presuppositions into the public square on equal terms with other presuppositions. If in a Republic I can convince my fellow citizens to agree (for whatever reason) then law will be based upon those presuppositions. I fear many would say "No, a secular government is established on materialist presuppositions and all others are by definition excluded." It amounts to anti-theism becoming the established state religion.

carl

29 December 2012 20:24  
Blogger David B said...

Carl, I think many atheist secularists would not want anti-theism being a matter of policy.

I'll try to make a more clear post at some point - I'm on antibiotics and pain killers now, as I'm now suffering from cellulosis.

But I don't think the Dawkinses, the Dennetts, the Graylings of this world would want an anti-theist policy any more than I would.

David

29 December 2012 20:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

I'll try to make a more clear post at some point - I'm on antibiotics and pain killers now

I empathize. Hope you feel better soon.

carl

29 December 2012 20:35  
Blogger bluedog said...

DanJO @ 18.56 said:

'By the way:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/dec/26/voters-back-gay-marriage-poll'

Pathetic. Wait for the BBC poll, they'll come in a 99%. Message to the Grauniad - must try harder.

29 December 2012 20:38  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Are you serious Bluedog? That's an independent ICM poll carried out for the Guardian. Are you seriously suggesting that the Guardian asked ICM to slant the poll in favour gay marriage? And that ICM said "yeah sure"?

29 December 2012 20:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bluedog: "Pathetic. Wait for the BBC poll, they'll come in a 99%. Message to the Grauniad - must try harder."

What's the nature of your complaint against this particular poll? Is it the question, the set of questions, the methodology, ICM Research itself, [...]?

Or is it just the result that bothers you?

29 December 2012 20:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The specific question posed seems to have been:

"You might be aware that currently the law allows gay people to enter civil partnerships but they cannot get married. The Prime Minister, David Cameron wishes to legalise gay marriage but some senior members of both the Catholic Church and the Church of England are opposed. Do you support or oppose the move to legalise gay marriage?"

29 December 2012 20:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Note this bit too:

"Among those who voted Tory in 2010, gay marriage now enjoys 52%-42% backing, a big turnaround from ICM's survey in March, which recorded 50%-35% opposition from 2010 Conservative voters."

It looks very much like the Guardian has commissioned the same set of questions as the Telegraph earlier on in the year. That's the Telegraph. Not the BBC or the Guardian. The Telegraph.

29 December 2012 20:58  
Blogger bluedog said...

DanJO @ 20.48, the result certainly bothers me.

An electorate which has finally realised that EU is a disaster and that Tony Blair was a complete disaster is now looking around for its next misjudgement and seems to have latched on to homosexual marriage.

The worm will turn. Then watch out.

29 December 2012 21:12  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Can anyone define 'secularism' in the sense that Evangelical Christians use it? I always thought secularism meant separation of church and state, but to these people it seems to be something similar to Satanism.

Are they doing a humpty-dumpty on the English language, or does secularism really have hidden meanings?

29 December 2012 21:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bluedog: "The worm will turn. Then watch out."

If we're indulging in floating but nonetheless dire prophesies then perhaps vocal 'right-wing' Christians should watch out. The more these archbishops and like-minded religionists shout, the more it seems people are asking why on earth these people are so obsessed with the sex lives of other people. It's like watching someone self-harm when they make their pronouncements; horrible but fascinating too.

29 December 2012 21:22  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 December 2012 21:32  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

seanrobsville

Can anyone define 'secularism' in the sense that Evangelical Christians use it?

I just did.

I always thought secularism meant separation of church and state

But that isn't a sufficient definition. It's a mere title. We Americans in general all agree on the separation of church and state. But then along comes something called "Americans United for Separation of Church and State" to tell me that (for example) advocating the overthrow of Roe v Wade is a violation of that separation. Why? Because my position is founded upon the presumption a religious anthropology. In effect, they have said "All positions founded in religion are illegitimate." Do you understand the problem now?

but to these people it seems to be something similar to Satanism.

I don't know how to say this nicely. That assertion is idiotic.

carl

29 December 2012 21:42  
Blogger bluedog said...

DanJO @ 21.22, it seems highly likely that any increase in the acceptance of homosexual marriage is in part an anti-religious sentiment. A Catholic bishop striking a moral pose on matters sexual has a fair bit of lead in his saddle, so to speak. In addition, the unrelenting pro-gay campaign being run by Jimmy Saville's employers may be having an efffect, despite potentially suffering the same credibility issues as the RCC. An interesting contrast between the respective impact of the RCC and the BBC, perhaps.

It now seems inevitable that Cameron will invoke the Parliament Act and simply drive homosexual marriage on to the statute act. Maybe Dave likes it rough-shod.

But that is the point at which homosexual power and influence will peak. Then those of us in the resistance will have an open goal, the only way for you is down. Just as we have waged unremitting war on the EU and on the reputation of the charlatan Blair, so we will wage total war on homosexual marriage until a consensus builds for its removal from the statute book.

Whatever it takes and however long. Homosexual 'marriage' is an insult to men, women and the families that result from marriage.

Happy New Year.

29 December 2012 21:47  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace: Ummmmm.... this Sid person says: “Our party is planning a serious fight in the 2014 European elections, where voters nationally will have the opportunity to give their verdict on the Coalition. As PR voting will be used, I urge people of goodwill in the churches to come forwards as candidates and campaigners for the Christian Peoples Alliance. It is in European elections that other smaller parties have first made a break through and we must do the same" [my stress].

To vote in euro elections is to accede to and participate in our subjugation to the euSSR. Thus, a 'Christian' party which joins that carbon-ring-like structure further increases europower.

Applying TSE's imagery to the situation:
IV**The eyes are not here
There are no eyes here
In this valley of dying stars
In this hollow valley
This broken jaw of our lost kingdoms. (52-57)
. . .
Sightless, unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death's twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men.
(61-67)

Among such men, as Your Grace observes, [. . .] : the spirit of authoritarianism lurks somewhere and someone has to play pope.

So Here we go again round the prickly pear (HM 68)... innocents being sacrificed to the Unholy Roman Empire.

_______________
**Eliot, T. S. "The Hollow Men." [HM] Modern British Literature. Eds. Kermode, Frank and John Hollander. London: Oxford University Press, 1973; 490-494.

29 December 2012 21:57  
Blogger David B said...

John Magee

I'm pretty much with you as far as "Modern secularists are Marxists who hate freedom and deny any concept of a Creator who loves each of his children equally. They want to bring down Western Christian Civilization and create a "heaven on earth. The other version of modern secularists are the children of the late 60's hedonistic culture often talked about here who deny all morals and values other than pleasure."

I don't recognise that in myself or my cyber and real life secular friends, nor in the writings and lectures of prominent freethinkers and atheists such as Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens, Grayling, Pinker et al.

That last bit strikes me as pure prejudice, and completely out of touch with any semblance of reality.

David B

29 December 2012 21:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bluedog: "it seems highly likely that any increase in the acceptance of homosexual marriage is in part an anti-religious sentiment."

The increase from the Telegraph commission to the Guardian one? Well, there's been lots of discussion in the media about the issue so people have probably thought about it now.

I'm not sure it's an anti-religious sentiment as much as an anti-religionist sentiment. I think militant religionists like these Roman Catholic archbishops are doing a lot of damage.

It seems like almost all the opposition to same-sex marriage is from religionists in the media. I expect people notice that. The support seems to be mainly from mainstream politicians and media commentators, not from the small number of gay lobby groups. I expect people notice that too.

If Muslim religionists get hold of the 'microphone' next then I think same-sex marriage will breeze through. I don't think the general public will tolerate more religionists trying to impose religious constraint on the rest of us. It will be a case of "First they came for the Jews [...]", I reckon.

"It now seems inevitable that Cameron will invoke the Parliament Act and simply drive homosexual marriage on to the statute act."

Well, that'll be an interesting quasi-constitutional issue. There's a sort of inverse-Salisbury-Convention thing going on there. They'll have to get a move on too given the two-year thing (if I understand the mechanism correctly, which I may not do).

"Just as we have waged unremitting war on the EU and on the reputation of the charlatan Blair, so we will wage total war on homosexual marriage until a consensus builds for its removal from the statute book. "

Well, except that by then I expect its impact will be known by most people and I expect that the impact will be negligable. That is, heterosexuals will continue to get married and no-one will notice the difference ... except around 6400 homosexual couples a year of course.

That's the thing with the EU, people see the problems. Especially with the single currency. You're relying on people seeing a problem with same-sex marriage. If you look at the progress over the last 30 years and the shift in attitudes then I think your assumption is duff.

"Whatever it takes and however long. Homosexual 'marriage' is an insult to men, women and the families that result from marriage."

So are 'darkies' living in the UK to some of you. We'll never please you but we'll just work around you. There's room for all of us but we need to keep an eye on you and make sure you know your place.

29 December 2012 22:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The poll question should be as follows...

“Are you for or against same sex marriage on the understanding that if it is granted, then homosexual organisations will ensure that homosexuality will be taught in schools as a valid lifestyle, along with introducing your children to life threatening sexual practices, and there is absolutely nothing you me or anyone else for that matter can do to stop them.”


29 December 2012 22:14  
Blogger non mouse said...

Corrigendum. last quote at 21:57 should read:
So, again: Here we go round the prickly pear (HM 68).

Addendum also though, because Eliot's title alludes to ---
Brutus: There are no tricks in plain and simple faith;
But hollow men, like horses hot at hand,
Make gallant show and promise of their mettle.
But when they should endure the bloody spur,
They fall their crests, and, like deceitul jades,
Sink in the trial.
**

Your Grace is right. We have been warned, and that old Sun keeps on shining.
_____________
Shakespeare. Julius Caesar. IV.ii.22-27).

29 December 2012 22:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"It will be a case of "First they came for the Jews [...]", I reckon."

Meaning: people will see their own self-interest in all this, unlike those in the poem.

29 December 2012 22:17  
Blogger David B said...

Anyone remember the dire warnings that the sky would fall if openly gay people could be members of armed forces in various countries?

Did the sky fall?

I rather think that to the general public, especially to the younger generation, there is a large credibility gap when old men in frocks representing an organisation that covered up large scale sexual abuse claim that the sky will fall, and indeed claim to have any moral credibility.

It is encouraging to notice that even in countries where the RCC has had great influence in the past, like the Philippines, politicians, with public support, are ignoring their pronouncements.

David B

29 December 2012 22:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One thinks the number of openly gay men in the infantry ranks of the British Army is zero, and any that do announce themselves as gay can measure his army career in numbers of hours...


29 December 2012 22:58  
Blogger bluedog said...

David B @ 22.51 says, 'It is encouraging to notice that even in countries where the RCC has had great influence in the past, like the Philippines, politicians, with public support, are ignoring their pronouncements.'

Entirely accurate. When the social history of the 20th/21st centuries is written the moral collapse of the RCC will be recognised as a critical factor in the acceptance of homosexual marriage. Take the Kingdom of Spain, for example. This communicant can remember childhood stays with Spanish friends in Andalusia profonda. Rows of black clad aunties muttered 'Que calor' in the summer heat as their fans fluttered. Intensely Catholic, the Reconquista was a recent memory and some families were habitually condemned as 'Morisco'. And now what? The Spanish are over-compensating, just as the British did in the 1960's.

29 December 2012 23:31  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 @ 20:50

"You might be aware that currently the law allows gay people to enter civil partnerships but they cannot get married. The Prime Minister, David Cameron wishes to legalise gay marriage but some senior members of both the Catholic Church and the Church of England are opposed. Do you support or oppose the move to legalise gay marriage?"

That question above is not neutral, it inclines people towards ticking the support gay “marriage” box by making out the Church is nasty to oppose Call me Dave's wishes to legalise it. And the fact that it states gays cannot get married gives the impression that they are hard done to thereby invoking the sympathy factor especially in women and the younger generations who would go on to tick the support it box.

There needs to be a lot more discussion and debate for the man on the street to take note and realise the full implications of making changes like this to society.

The Guardian poll has been subtly manipulated and manoeuvred. With a age comes wisdom.

29 December 2012 23:39  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

That's quite a Rorschach reading of a fairly straightforward question, Marie. You forget that half the country hates Dave. You might just as well argue that the question is slanted towards opposition of Cameron and his nasty "cuts" agenda. Why not simply accept that you've lost the argument in the country?

30 December 2012 00:04  
Blogger non mouse said...

Sorry, Your Grace -- I seem to have lost my ability to read or understand English!

I thought you posted this strand on the topic: "Christian People's Alliance warns of 'secularist capture of political parties.'"

Ah well. The euSSR will soon take care of such aberrations: once Camoron's party has labelled all the potential opposition as suffering from dementia.

30 December 2012 00:07  
Blogger len said...

When I think of the mess religion has got itself in with all the splits and various denominations I cannot but think of the disciples when they set off across the lake without Jesus in the boat.It was not very long before they encountered a storm and things got very critical and their boat nearly foundered.I imagine the disciples feared for their lives and a great deal of confusion was present until Jesus returned to the boat.
Perhaps the Church(fragmented and in disunity) needs to invite Jesus back into the church.... after all He is 'the Rock' the Foundation of His church.

30 December 2012 00:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "The Guardian poll has been subtly manipulated and manoeuvred."

It was originally a poll for the Telegraph. I think I might have mentioned that somewhere.

"That question above is not neutral, it inclines people towards ticking the support gay “marriage” box by making out the Church is nasty to oppose Call me Dave's wishes to legalise it. And the fact that it states gays cannot get married gives the impression that they are hard done to thereby invoking the sympathy factor especially in women and the younger generations who would go on to tick the support it box."

That's an, erm, interesting interpretation.

30 December 2012 03:27  
Blogger John Magee said...

David B

If I had to put my finger on a year it would be 1969. That was the year of the incarnation of the present hedonistic pop culture. After 1969 it was full speed ahead with anything goes for the sexual revolution which advocated promiscuity resulting in a myriad of sexually transmitted diseases like Herpes and later AIDS. Rampant drug use and abuse causing millions of ruined lives. Along with every weird anti social group demanding society change to meet their demands. Etc, etc, etc.

The year 1969 was the summer of Woodstock. The most idiotic event of the 20th century. So let's say, BW and AW (Before Woodstock and After Woodstock)to mark the "Age of Aquarius" which began in 1969 (or was it 1970)? It was all so stupid I can't remember anymore.

This is only my opinion but am I far off the mark?

30 December 2012 05:42  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 December 2012 06:59  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 December 2012 07:27  
Blogger David B said...

@ Inspector, who said

"One thinks the number of openly gay men in the infantry ranks of the British Army is zero, and any that do announce themselves as gay can measure his army career in numbers of hours"

Wiki begs to disagree with you. Isn't it about time that you learnt that your prejudices and reality have little in common.

Extract from wiki

"In 2010, following defeat of repeal of 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' by the United States Senate, the Colonel Mark Abraham, head of diversity for the British Army, told People Management magazine the lifting of the ban on gays serving in the military in 2000 had "no notable change at all... We got to the point where the policy was incompatible with military service and there was a lack of logic and evidence to support it... We knew a lot of gay and lesbian people were serving quite successfully, and it was clear that sexual orientation wasn’t an indication of how good a soldier or officer you could be... The reality was that those serving in the army were the same people the day after we lifted the ban, so there was no notable change at all. Everybody carried on with their duties and had the same working relationships as they previously had while the ban was in place" Colonel Abraham argues that the lifting of the ban actually made the armed forces more productive: "A lot of gay and lesbian soldiers who were in the army before the ban was lifted, reported that a percentage of their efforts was spent looking over their shoulder and ensuring they weren’t going to be caught. That percentage of time can now be devoted to work and their home life, so actually they are more effective than they were before."[65]"

30 December 2012 08:48  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

"We'll never please you but we'll just work around you. There's room for all of us but we need to keep an eye on you and make sure you know your place."

You could have put it as "you will have to put up, or we will make you shut up"

Phil



30 December 2012 09:03  
Blogger Di said...

All who feel sympathy for this cause should vote Ukip.

30 December 2012 09:06  
Blogger David B said...

John Magee, have not people said similar things abou Rock'n'Roll, the Jazz age and the Waltz, among other things?

If there is indeed more promiscuity now, I would suggest that antibiotics and the pill had more to do with it than the odd music entrepreneur.

Look back to the Bohemians, look back to the Bright Young Things, to the days of Boswell, and further.

Do you really think that there was ever a Golden Age, ruined be the capitalistic evils of the entrepreneurs behind pop festivals?

You might look at what you can find out about STDs and cases of infanticide in the Victorian era if you really do labour under such a misapprehension.

David B





30 December 2012 09:08  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 December 2012 09:11  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

If the Christian Alliance puts up a candidate I will vote for them.

Since I have only voted twice in my life.... I think they might get 5% of the vote, more perhaps in London.

Also whilst we are on the same topic. I don't think we can tell if Gays in the military are a good idea until we have a war

Phil

30 December 2012 09:18  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

This will be like a cross between the Synod and LibDems.

More beards, talking shops and fiddling whilst Rome burns.

Not attractive, and certainly not a winner.

30 December 2012 09:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "You could have put it as "you will have to put up, or we will make you shut up""

Well, they're your words not mine. I see it more like my possible reactions to the BNP or EDL: at times I advocate everyone quietly turning their backs on them as they march past, at others I advocate challenging everything they say and showing their beliefs and intentions for what they are. In both cases, it's about showing them their place.

30 December 2012 09:35  
Blogger bluedog said...

Phil Roberts @ 09.18, you might be surprised by the number of homosexuals who allegedly fought in 'The Few'.

30 December 2012 09:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B at 08:48

Quoting a piece of PC dogma from the impeccable Wiki is hardly convincing...

The Inspector did specify the infantry branch of the Army. No wonder there was no change detectable there. There were no gays to begin with. From what this man knows about the barrack mentality of this group, the men just wouldn’t have a gay amongst their ranks. We must remember that in the past, there have been several suicides in army camps for reasons unknown. Or, as this cynical man suggests, reasons not published...

Now, other branches of the army, yes, you will find gays, but the hard nosed fighting man, no.

30 December 2012 10:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Anyway, lets get back to the thread. Why is it that a nuclear deterrent is un-Christian.

One of mans finest inventions, the hydrogen bomb. Has kept the peace for decades. What’s so un-Christian about that !



30 December 2012 10:48  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Danjo

I was reacting to the Martin Niemöller quote you made above

First they came for the Christians might be a good start to the 2015 poem.

But one of the lines later could be then they came for the gays and there was no one left to speak for me.

DanJo the gays are just a handy pawns of something much bigger.

Maybe you will survive or you don't, however, in the game, nobody cares very much for pawns.

Phil

30 December 2012 11:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

“then they came for the gays...”

And about bloody time too !

30 December 2012 11:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

“then they came for the paedophiles...”

And found only half the number they were expecting....

30 December 2012 11:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "First they came for the Christians might be a good start to the 2015 poem."

First they came for the Christians' special privileges to put them on an equal footing to everyone else and left it at that?

By the way, did you notice that story in the Telegraph about the Christian women who wanted Sundays off work to attend church? I'm thinking my way through that one. I'm quite sympathetic on the face of it but there's stuff to be said about how 'mandatory requirements' are determined by the courts and tribunals to consider. I suppose we must also think about rights to Fridays off for Muslims to attend the mosque.

"DanJo the gays are just a handy pawns of something much bigger. Maybe you will survive or you don't, however, in the game, nobody cares very much for pawns."

Don't start the Inspector off by mentioning pawn! As you say, we're being used ... but that's just by Cameron et al to try to detoxify their party. Blair did much the same thing and that's turned out pretty well so far. We'll have our equality and we'll be part of mainstream culture and that will be that, I expect.

30 December 2012 12:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "But one of the lines later could be then they came for the gays and there was no one left to speak for me."

Well, it's religionists trying to come for us again and people are in fact speaking out this time.

30 December 2012 12:05  
Blogger len said...

Governments seem to want or need periods of instability so they can supply 'solutions' to' threats' (real or imagined.)Cause the problem and then supply the solution seems to be the philosophy behind Governmental thinking?.

Christianity has been under attack since Jesus Christ appeared on Earth.Immediately attempts were made upon His life as an infant which continued right up to the Crucifixion..All except one of the disciples met violent deaths.
Through History and more so now Christians are being killed for their faith.Some 150,000 Christians are killed for their faith each year, according to both the Catholic relief agency Aid to the Church in Need and the evangelical group Open Doors.

Christianity is under direct attack in the UK...this takes the indirect route of 'outlawing' making a stand for Christian morals and preaching the Gospel without reservation.

The 'shock troops ' leading the attack on Christianity.. are Atheist'intellectuals'and' Gays'.Both groups have their own agendas for wanting to tear up the Christian foundations of this once Great Country...namely being 'pride' (Gay or otherwise.)
Gays want to practice their 'Human Rights' without restraint or reservation and 'intellectuals' do not want to have their' intellectual grasp of reality' challenged in any way.



30 December 2012 12:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "The 'shock troops ' leading the attack on Christianity.. are Atheist'intellectuals'and' Gays'."

Yep, we're that powerful. We just click our fingers and another law is on the statute book outlawing something Christian. Nothing much to do with multiculturalism, or globalism, or religious apathy, or the ascendency of human rights, equality and freedom, or stuff like that.

30 December 2012 12:22  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

"Well, it's religionists trying to come for us again and people are in fact speaking out this time."

If it were me in charge and I wanted to find a scapegoat perhaps it would be looking to find a homosexual to blame for some atrocity or other.

I would then find some academics to say that gays are emotionally unstable and we needed to cut down on their freedoms or make them take drugs to inhibit sexual desire etc

If gays become unpopular and are very public who they are then all sorts of unpleasantness is possible for the "common good"


Aren't you glad I'm a christian and so the thought does not even cross my mind because the Church has faithfully taught the scriptures to me.

But with a weak church.......who would care? Darwin would approve, so that is alright then.

Fancy your chances with Richard Dawkins guiding the leaders of our nation?

Thought not. Oh hang on a min, he already does guide the Liberals.

In the long term, If I were you I would prefer anonymity, not my name on some civil partnership or marriage list.

Too easy


Phil

30 December 2012 12:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Aren't you glad I'm a christian and so the thought does not even cross my mind because the Church has faithfully taught the scriptures to me."

But it clearly did cross your mind.

"But with a weak church.......who would care? Darwin would approve, so that is alright then."

Darwin? Why on earth would he approve of that?

"Thought not. Oh hang on a min, [Richard Dawkins] already does guide the Liberals."

The Liberals? I'm afraid you've lost me now. Do we all meld into one in your mind or something?

30 December 2012 12:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Not "globalism", I meant "globalisation" back there.

30 December 2012 12:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0 said ...

"Well, it's religionists trying to come for us again and people are in fact speaking out this time."

Just who are these 'religionists' coming after you "again"? What nonsense!

Most Christian are happy to leave you be provided you don't attempt to spread your minority immorality as 'normal', 'natural' or 'God-given'.

What's with the paranoia?

30 December 2012 15:21  
Blogger John Magee said...

David B

Of course you are correct. The new has always been shocking. The waltz was condemned by Catholic and Protestant clerics in the mid 19th century because of the close body contact bewteen the sexes and all that whirling around together in a ballroon. By the 1890's children were learning it at dancing schools. Elvis Presley's gyrating hips caused a sensation back in the mid 1950's. Most churches back then were apoplectic over Rock n Roll lyrics and the dancing the music inspired."Rock n Roll" is American black slang for intercourse. Lyrics could get unbelievable suggestive back during the prim and proper 1950's by many obscure R & B's groups.Look up the pop song from that era on Youtube called "Sixty Minute Man". It was made by the black American group called "The Dominos". I think you will understand almost immediately the message in the lyrics of that pop song from 60 years ago.

Even though we never had contact with them my friends thought beatniks and their ilk were total losers with their stupid poetry read at their meetings and their phony seriousness about total nonsense. I remember one Beatnik fad was to read obituaries or want ads from the newspaper to their friends and try to be "serious". Rubbish!

Even so, none of this was connected with a political movement. A lot of the pop culture of the late 1960's was and caused the social diseases which destroyed lives I listed above in my post.

One of my favorite songs from the late 1950's was : Rock n Roll is Here to Stay...by Danny and the Juniors. Please look it up on Youtube. The 3rd one down with the red albumn cover shows a video from the time with the group singing their song. It's funny to see the kids bopping in the audience with the boys in coats and ties and girls dressed fit to kill. It was just music to us kids.

I remember going to a record hops in the late 1950's and early 60's. they were a sensational experience. My mother, who was Czech, happened to love Rock n Roll so I wore out records by playing them over and over at home and she never complained. My father hated that kind music.

I doubt if anyone who attended Eton could possibly identity with my teen years but then a group in your country came along in the mid 60's called the Beatles and created their own music based on American Rock n Roll...

Conservatives 60 years ago thought it was the end times too but in reality it was a very calm era. I survived and grew up to be a right wing convert to Roman Catholicism.

The late 60's was a different matter altogeher.

30 December 2012 16:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Just who are these 'religionists' coming after you "again"? What nonsense!"

*shrug*

"Most Christian are happy to leave you be provided you don't attempt to spread your minority immorality as 'normal', 'natural' or 'God-given'."

Hey, it works in reverse too. If you stay inside your churches and keep quiet in public then I doubt anyone cares what you lot believe. Unfortunately, your archbishops are spreading their poison and getting involved in politics and trying to extend the reach of your minority immorality over the rest of us as though it's 'normal', 'natural' or 'God-given'. So, I suppose we'd better get on with our cultural war.

30 December 2012 16:46  
Blogger John Magee said...

I would ask the Gay atheist Catholic haters here to keep in mind that it was Catholic France, Catholic Italy, and Catholic Bavaria in southern Germany with their tolerant homosexual laws where Gays from the UK fled to in the 19th century to escape the harsh anti homosexual codes in the UK at that time. Oscar Wilde escaped to France after two years of hard labor at a prison in London for his homosexual affair with the son of the Marquess of Queensbury and for his other "gross indecencies". Wilde died in 1900 at Paris and converted to Roman Catholicism on his deathbed. During the 19th century coastal resorts and villages in Italy were a haven for Gays from Northern Europe escaping their nation's vicious anti Gay laws too.

I wish these rabid anti Catholic Gays would give some credit to Catholic cultures for their tolerance of homosexuality long before the modern Gay movement was organized and flourished in Germany during the 1920's or San Francisco in the USA in the 1950's & 60's.

30 December 2012 17:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

French Revolution -> Napoleonic Law

30 December 2012 18:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

It doesn't quite work like that in a pluralist democracy, DanJ0.

'Christianity' isn't a single issue pressure group like the "rabid homosexualist" lobby.

Once people understand legalising homosexual marriage will impact on the education of their children and actually undermine established values, there will be a reaction.

30 December 2012 18:37  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 December 2012 18:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

And by the way, the Catholic Church has a tolerant attitude towards homosexuality as an "intrinsic disorder".

30 December 2012 18:38  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

@ Laurence. You are deliberately and maliciously misrepresenting what the CPA believes. This new political party (of which I am not a member) has the courage to stand up for some moral principles, and because they uphold a logical definition of marriage you accuse them of "gay-bashing". You are telling absolute lies by suggesting that they either practice or promote any sort of violence. They are CND for God's sake.
Gaystapo bores and bullies always resort to that tactic of passive-aggression, posing as victims, and the scary thing is that they delude themselves.
You are a liar.

30 December 2012 18:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This man regrets his earlier ‘take them away at any cost’ outbursts about militant gays. But he is not going to delete them as a warning to you all that there is only so much a good man can take before his right eye starts to twitch...

EVERYONE has their limit...


30 December 2012 18:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "It doesn't quite work like that in a pluralist democracy, DanJ0."

Work like what?

30 December 2012 19:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The UK is a liberal democracy and hence there's a marketplace of ideas. There's a culture war with militant religionists developing here.

30 December 2012 19:07  
Blogger William said...

I don't see why a homosexual cannot fight in the army. In fact I would argue that there is precious little that homosexuals cannot do. The exceptions being marriage and raising a family. Of course there are some heterosexuals who are not cut out for these either.

30 December 2012 19:12  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

A bit over the top, Julia?

First off, there is nothing new about the CPA. They've been going since 1999. Secondly, I can assure you that there was nothing malicious in my original post which I thought was fairly obviously ironic in tone. But I'm afraid that there is plenty of gay bashing that occurs in these threads. It doesn't of course refer to physical violence, but to the unfortunate use of words.

Also, the claims of religion are false. You could call them "lies."

30 December 2012 19:35  
Blogger David B said...

@ John Magee

Even though it was a bit before my time, I have looked back at the roots of Rock'n'Roll, and I'm already familiar with 60 Minute Man and At The Hop.

'Rock Me Baby' is another case in point, but sometimes the roots of these songs can be rather surprising.

I always though 'St James Infirmary Blues' originated in New Orleans at the beginning of the Jazz era, but I recently found out that it dates from the 18th Century and refers to London, and the terrible consequences of venereal diseases.

Eliza Carthy did a good version of the original for the BBC, but sadly youtube tells me that it is currently unavailable.

David

30 December 2012 19:46  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

"
But it clearly did cross your mind."

Aren't you glad that God is in charge of me and not me in charge of you without God?


Darwin? Why on earth would he approve of that

It seems to me that the Nazis/Communists were acting perfectly rationally when they latched on to the teachings of Darwinism to give them the excuse they needed to do the things they did.

Improving the human race and all that rubbish

Mind you the pro abortion argument takes much the same line, except the main outcomes seems to be less girls and (In theory at least) less disabled born.

Phil

30 December 2012 20:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Laurence

Some words whose meanings gays have wrung the necks of, to the extent that we now have...

Homophobic – now means the slightest objection to anything and everything LGBT put forward
Bigot – A particularly annoying homophobic
Bash – LGBT attempt to get some sympathy when opposed by a bigot
Normal – Anything LGBT says it is
Rights – Exceptions made for LGBT community

30 December 2012 20:30  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

OIG

Office of Inspector General said...

“then they came for the gays...”

“then they came for the paedophiles...”

And found only half the number they were expecting....

This caused great hilarity.

One of your best so far

Keep it up

Phil


30 December 2012 20:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "It seems to me that the Nazis/Communists were acting perfectly rationally when they latched on to the teachings of Darwinism to give them the excuse they needed to do the things they did. Improving the human race and all that rubbish"

You're confusing the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection by Charles Darwin, which is an explanation of how species come about, with the ideological notion of Social Darwinism which is of course a rather different thing. It's quite depressing how often one sees religious people making elementary mistakes like this.

"Aren't you glad that God is in charge of me and not me in charge of you without God?"

I expect a Muslim could ask much the same question and I'd shake my head sadly in much the same way as I'm doing now.

30 December 2012 20:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Actually Phil, one was being rather mischievous. Everyone knows that gays are the highest and sincerest form of humanity and do not have a stain on their character.

The Inspector wishes he too was gay, so he does, to be sure.


30 December 2012 20:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Rights – Exceptions made for LGBT community"

Could you tell Paul Diamond that? I notice that he and the Christian Legal Centre have lost yet another of those Christian rights cases:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9770825/Christians-have-no-right-to-refuse-to-work-on-Sundays-rules-judge.html

30 December 2012 20:49  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

. . . then they came for the priests?

But who, Inspector, are LGBT exactly? They have a spectrum of views too. A few of them are even opposed to gay marriage. On the other hand, the 62% in favour will be mostly straight. Unless you think the great gay takeover has already taken place?

30 December 2012 20:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well Laurence, if Pink News is anything to go by, then the LGBT are fractured beyond repair. They never were a unified group.

B = Bisexual. These really upset L and G. Considered part time queer types, they give the group a bad name as they are identified for spreading G disease amongst the hetro population. Some G have AIDS and are wallowing in enough self pity without reading about these buccaneers.You must admit they have a point.

T = Transsexuals. Seem to be loathed by 50% of LG for being ‘unnatural’. Log on that site now, and see the vitriol posted on one recent trans thread.

DanJ0. I don’t think God would expect us to endure Sunday without civilisation, as not working on that day would ensure.

Blast – the lights have gone out !


30 December 2012 21:13  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 December 2012 21:58  
Blogger David B said...

I have listened to the version suggested, which apart from the piano break I would term 'doo-wop' rather than rock'n'roll.

Actually, I have to confess a secret fondness for doo-wop, as well as a song on the same theme that I think the only thing of value performed by Cliff - 'Move it'.

Since we seem to be getting into a side track on early rock'n'roll, to me the archetypal track is a little known Sun record by Warren Smith called 'Red Cadillac and a Black Moustache'.

You guys might check it out on YT

David

30 December 2012 22:26  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Danjo

"Social Darwinism which is of course a rather different thing. It's quite depressing how often one sees religious people making elementary mistakes like this."

no I think the Nazis were thinking that they were giving the process of natural selection a helping hand. They saw nothing wrong in it because even the Lutheran church decided not to oppose Darwin's "science".

In my posts I am saying that you are being played for advantage now and your rights extended. Nothing to stop a future Government playing you the other way. Minorities always have to be aware of this. I am Welsh after all, the Welsh have always got on with the English because they knew which way their bread was buttered. If the Welsh had insisted on special treatment and advantage, we would have been persecuted a long time ago.

All I am saying it now is the time perhaps for gays to be careful, people get nasty and look for people to bash when there is no money and my bet is that in the UK at least we have already reached the point where there is technically no money. Fancy standing in the street promoting gay rights in Athens at the moment? I thought not.

Pawns can be advanced and lost at the whim of the Government.

Phil

30 December 2012 22:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John your photos are there to see. Stunning. Much in common with the Forest of Dean and surroundings...



31 December 2012 00:04  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 December 2012 00:10  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 December 2012 01:15  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Inspector

" ... a place in our garden" sounds a tad sinister to me. Be careful.

31 December 2012 02:06  
Blogger John Magee said...



Dodo

You are welcome too. :O)

31 December 2012 02:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "no I think the Nazis were thinking that they were giving the process of natural selection a helping hand."

Phil, you originally said "Darwin would approve, so that is alright then." but now you've quietly segued to the Nazis. As I said, you're mixing up Darwin's theory, which people like me think is a pretty good explanation of how species came about, with Social Darwinism, which is something rather different, and bundling us and it all together to make your point. There's no chance you're getting away with that.

31 December 2012 09:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "All I am saying it now is the time perhaps for gays to be careful, people get nasty and look for people to bash when there is no money and my bet is that in the UK at least we have already reached the point where there is technically no money."

Actually, I think that now is the time to bank our social capital while we can. Their looking for people to bash in an austerity period and picking on gay people for some reason is such a tenuous link that it's essentially your make-believe. Perhaps even wishful thinking given the impotence of the religionists now that the religionist argument has been all but lost as the polls such as the one I linked to show. If there are targets then they will be the ostentatiously rich, large corporations, and, depending on who is doing the bashing, probably immigrants and their offspring.

31 December 2012 09:11  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

I did not mention social Darwinism, you did. I don't think the Nazis were into social Darwinism more like direct action

Glad you feel safe and secure. If you are not a target in a time of austerity, as I said go and shout I am Gay on a street corner in Athens.

Write to us from hospital, if you are lucky.

Phil



31 December 2012 09:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "I did not mention social Darwinism, you did."

Okay, we can loop if you like. So, why do you think Darwin would approve when you wrote the following?

"Darwin would approve, so that is alright then."

31 December 2012 10:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Glad you feel safe and secure. If you are not a target in a time of austerity, as I said go and shout I am Gay on a street corner in Athens. Write to us from hospital, if you are lucky."

Phil, we're in a time of austerity here in the UK which is the culture we're actually talking about. You're sounding like you really hope there's violence and scapegoating here. Do you think we'll deserve it too?

31 December 2012 10:31  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

"we're in a time of austerity here in the UK which is the culture we're actually talking about. You're sounding like you really hope there's violence and scapegoating here. Do you think we'll deserve it too?

First the UK is nothing like as bad as Greece. Second I did not say I hoped for violence, however, (I repeat) history seems to suggest it will happen.

"Darwin would approve, so that is alright then."

This sentence was in connection my point about the Nazis. They were told that Darwin would approve and so it helped to overcome any moral objections they may have had.

My point was not whether you deserve it or not. My point was as pawns you can be played either way by those in charge and by pointing yourselves in a married or civil partnership list you make things easy for them.

I may add that by not extending civil partnerships to heterosexuals or having the same grounds for divorce, there is a potential groundswell of grievance that could be exploited.

Phil



31 December 2012 14:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "This sentence was in connection my point about the Nazis."

No it wasn't. It was in your comment (30 December 2012 12:27) about what you could do if you were in charge to find a scapegoat.

You went on to say:

"If gays become unpopular and are very public who they are then all sorts of unpleasantness is possible for the "common good"

Perhaps you think Jews ought to become less prominent too, just in case. Especially in politics. Afterall, there are historical precedents there.

"My point was as pawns you can be played either way by those in charge and by pointing yourselves in a married or civil partnership list you make things easy for them."

As you may know, some Jews aren't keen to be identified as Jews in the census and the like. So perhaps you are right, gays and Jews (and Gypsies?) ought to keep off radar. Just in case, like. Not expect too much of civil rights or justice lest they get a good kicking or worse when things get a bit more austere. Etc.

"First the UK is nothing like as bad as Greece. Second I did not say I hoped for violence, however, (I repeat) history seems to suggest it will happen."

The UK has a quite different culture to Greece, especially regarding far-right-wing groups. It's groups like the Golden Dawn over there, not everyday people, who are targetting certain minorities in their traditional way.

Look, let's cut to the chase here. There's something quite unpleasant and very dubious in what you're suggesting. You really ought to have a quiet think about it and about your motivations too. In particular with that Christian thing you think you have going on.

31 December 2012 17:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Phil, DanJ0 knows there is a coming backlash against gays. When they walk up the school drive after ssm goes through to ‘educate’ youngsters on the joy of homo sex. It will not only be legal but state endorsed...

So he’s looking for a whipping boy now, and it’s going to be the Christians (again). He’s practicing his “Why must you persecute us this way” on YOU for now, but in time, the gays are going to prepare the ultimate line. “It’s us or the Christians in this country. It can’t be both...”


31 December 2012 17:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 December 2012 17:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, I'm a liberal and an advocate of a secular State. I explicitly advocate protecting space for the religious here. It's people like you who want people like me to be out of sight, as you have said time and again. It's people like Phil who are giving us some 'advice' now the religionists' argument has been all but lost to keep our sexual orientation off official lists. You're the vicious fascists. You know it and I know it.

31 December 2012 17:49  
Blogger John Magee said...

There is no proof anywhere that Hitler personally hated Gay or wanted them persecuted until he was influenced By heinrich Himmler. As I noted above, his best friend from the early days of the Nazi movement in Munich, was former WW I German Army hero Ernst Rohm. Rohm organized and commanded the personal Army of the Nazi party the SA. In 1933 the SA had about three million members and a large percentage of them were homosexuals. The SA was many times larger that the small German Army then which was limited to around 200,000 soldiers by the 1919 Treaty of Verailles. Himmler's SS was growing and finally it was Himmler who's was jealous of Rohm's power and compitition and was convinced Rohm was secretly plotting to get rid of Hitler and take over and have the SA take over the Nazi Party. Himmler brainwashed Hitler until finally, in July 1934, Hitler was convinced by phony evidence suppled by Himmler and had Rohm and his boyfriends murdered at a lakeside resort in the Bavarian Alps. Himmler hated Gays mainly because they reprsented a threat to his concepts of masculenity and also Gay males meant fewer future babies to fulfill Nazi Germany's need for Lebensraum in the east.Russian, the Ukraine, and Poland were to "cleansed of Christian racially inferior Slavic peoples soon be filled with millions of German settlers. Himmler hated abortion too, not because it was morally wrong, but because it killed future German soldiers and settlers.

Ernst Rohm and the SS had no animosity or hatred of the Jews. This was Hitler's and Himmler's obsession. Had the SA rubbed out Hitler in 1934 or 1935 the Nazi movement would have been nationalistic still, but minus anti Semitism, and hatred of the Slavic peoples and others.

Anyone who looks at art and sculpture from the Nazi era will clearly see the homoeroticism in it. Posters showed brawny young men usually performing some form of labor shirtless or half naked. Handsome soldiers and perfect blong young men in the Hitler Youth were also part of Nazi posters and sculpture. Hitler's favorite sculpture was a man named Arno Breker who's artistic style was realism and always featured heroic naked men and sometimes a few women too. Breker died in 1991.

It's odd that one of the truly great homosexual haters of modern times, the Communist Che Gueverra, is never mentioned by modern Gay activists. Che set up (with the support of Castro) labor camps in Cuba in 1962 specifically for Gays in Cuba. Any male who looked or acted feminine or was caught in homosexual activites was arrested (for being anti social) and thrown in these Cuban Gay concentrations camps to be worked to death under the hot Cuban sun. This started in 1962 in Cuba and there is a total silence from radical left wing gays about this persecution. They also fail to mention that until recently there were zero Gay rights groups in Communist countries.
I wonder how many gays wear Che T shirts not knowing he was as evil towrd Gays as that Nazi Heinrich Himmler?

The problem with the Gay movement is that the left is using them for it's own needs which is votes and another group they can manipulate as part of the chorus who hate Western Civilization and want it brought down.

No one I know hates Gays even if they dislike their lifestyle. many are like me and we are just tired of hearing Gays whine and moan instead and shove their lifestyle in our faces instead of getting on with their lives enjoying the civil rights laws giving them protection and even special privilidges in Western societies today.

31 December 2012 18:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Surprisingly harsh response from you DanJ0. It has “they’ve rumbled me” all over it.

This man doesn’t care if you are JS Mill himself, because although you profess to be tolerant towards Christians, you don’t run the gay show. Stonewall and Higgins do. Go over to the Christ haters on Pink News and read the comments there. They loathe Christians and have the nerve to call us mentally ill for believing in God.

THAT is the militant gay movement’s real attitude, not yours...

And for anyone with children / grand children reading this. If they want your child and he / she gives them the slightest encourage, the gays WILL have that child...



31 December 2012 18:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"No one I know hates Gays even if they dislike their lifestyle."

You obviously don't know any people in Athens!

31 December 2012 18:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Surprisingly harsh response from you DanJ0. It has “they’ve rumbled me” all over it."

Unfortunately for you, I have a long history here of saying it time and again, and you have a long history of saying your stuff time and again. I'd turn it around and say it has "I've rumbled you" all over it but there's nothing to rumble as you say your fascist stuff quite openly.

31 December 2012 18:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The reality is that advocates of a secular State like me want islands of protection for diverse beliefs and lifestyles as part of our social structure. It's religionists who tend to advocate a controlling religious mono-culture, as the Christian People's Alliance manifesto shows. They want their god to be the foundation of society for the rest of us whether we want it or not. I advocate living side by side, they advocate a hierarchical arrangement.

31 December 2012 18:18  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector

It's the same old story repeated over and over in history. The persecuted become the persecutors.

Radical gays have joined the side of the radical left (or vice versa). They both want our present political systems and Western Civilization brought to their knees or wiped out. It's odd that some Gays especially atheist ones, are obsessed with Christianty when Christ never mentioned homosexuality. Unlike another book that preceeded him which had a lot to say about homosexuals and what should be done with them.

31 December 2012 18:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"It's odd that some Gays especially atheist ones, are obsessed with Christianty when Christ never mentioned homosexuality."

We have Catholic archbishops trying to nobble parliament about same-sex civil marriage through their churches now. There's obsession around, for sure, and we don't need to look far to see where. Some of these Catholics seem to think about gay sex more than most homosexuals.

31 December 2012 18:27  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

OK Everyone

Oh dear it seems I might have struck a nerve and as a result DanJo has let the mask slip

Happy New Year Everyone!

Phil

31 December 2012 19:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, you are not getting the message, son. All you can give us is your opinion, your thoughts. In the great scheme of things, you opinion is worth jack !

Now, the Inspector has the length and breadth of it. He knows this as he gets little criticism on this site, save you.

Is every Christian a fascist then ?

Do you really expect gays to cease fire after ssm goes through ? Why should they, they will still be the same dissatisfied crowd as ever.

You are a minority of one on this site now. Don’t forget that...



31 December 2012 19:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0 said ...(to Phil)

"There's something quite unpleasant and very dubious in what you're suggesting. You really ought to have a quiet think about it and about your motivations too. In particular with that Christian thing you think you have going on."

Same ole, same ole. Can't win the debate so resort to questioning the authenticity of the beliefs and motivations of others.

I mean, none of us are Christian really. We're all bigots and homophobes.

31 December 2012 20:39  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

DanJo said "I explicitly advocate protecting space for the religious here"

And later "islands of protection for diverse beliefs and lifestyles as part of our social structure".

I'm not sure that creating 'safe havens' for the religious will be any good, for anyone, this seems likely to Balkanise the UK. Will this be as effective as the other 'safe havens' of recent history?

31 December 2012 20:49  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Inspector

You are going a bit OTT there. I don't think gay are there to take our children. I think the issue is about the secular case for gay marriage and possibly by extension, the issue of gay marriage within religion. I am not sure about the secular case for marriage. But the religion one- that is a matter for each religion to decide. What I object to is the undertones of compulsion on this issue in respect to religion.

31 December 2012 21:10  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 December 2012 21:15  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

John Magee

You really cannot help yourself when it comes to attacks on Judaism can you?

You state :

"Gays especially atheist ones, are obsessed with Christianty when Christ never mentioned homosexuality. Unlike another book that preceeded him which had a lot to say about homosexuals and what should be done with them."

I have on countless occasions explained to you the Orthodox Jewish view on homosexuality, but here you are using this thread to attack Judaism.

The one thing you didn't mention in your post above is that your New Testament also attacks homosexuality.

If Jesus didn't mention it, Paul of Tarsus certainly did. Unless you do not think that anything written after John's Gospel is Holy writ in the New Testament? And as a Catholic (and as Dodo reminds us on this blog) the Catholic Church sees Homosexuality 'full stop' as a 'disorder'.

So please, please, feel free to disagree with gay marriage and Judaism.

But please, please don't think that by using this issue to take a dig at my faith and build up your own, it will have any impact upon those to whom you argue with in respect to gay marriage, on this blog.

31 December 2012 21:18  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

We've let off the fireworks now (Yes I am not in the UK)

Some people think that the fall of man was something to do with sex.

It has nothing to do with it What Satan put into the heads of our remote ancestors was that man could "be like gods" and set up a society that they could create on their own. They would be their own masters and set themselves up as their won masters and create some sort of happiness outside of God and apart from God.

So we have the misery throughout history, money, poverty, ambition, war, classes, slavery etc. Over the last 300 years the french revolution, communism, etc and of course the most recent lie the notion of a "liberal democracy".

Throughout history we have men trying to find something other than God to make them happy.

CS Lewis puts it like this "We are like a car engine designed to run on petrol, it just will not work on any other fuel" Well not for long anyway. "God designed the human machine to run on himself".

My view is that the Christian Party is our best hope. We may not agree with everything they say but we do agree as Christians with the most important motivator in their lives.

Do you really trust DanJo with yours and your children's future? -- I don't -- so why vote for people like him who believe they will create some man made utopia without God. It has been tried before 1789, 1917, 1933, and now the new nation without God can officially start in 2017? -- only if we let it happen.

Phil

31 December 2012 21:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David Kavanagh. You really must google ‘Gay Agenda’ and see what it’s all about. Like other fascist movements, militant gayism sees the young as the future. Not any young, mind you, specifically gay young. And how do the young know they are gay ? A member of a homosexual organisation will tell them if they are or not.

Wake up man and see the campaigners for what they are...

Anyway, off you trot and go about your studies...

Come back to the Inspector. He'll be waiting for you...

31 December 2012 21:24  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 December 2012 22:03  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

David

" I don't think gay are there to take our children"

Not as such they still want parents to bring them up but they do not want parents to instill any values in the child. So they want access to their minds. In the UK this is achieved by subtle (or overt) anti religious messages via the media and an anti Christian message in schools.

We find as parents of 7 that er are constantly needing to expose, discuss and ridicule the indoctrination our children receive. They in turn have tried to show the weaknesses in the arguments put forward in school. My 15 year old has been removed permanently from RE "lessons" and my older son and daughter were removed in PHSE for effectively not accepting the point of view that the class was supposed to find by consensus.

In science both older students were shouted at repeatedly and told to shut up when they tried to put forward Christian viewpoints.

It is interesting that my eldest daughter is now studying for a PhD. The money for her research come from people long dead and those near death who are or want to be frozen so that they might stand a better chance of being "woken up" after they die.

She says there is absolutely no chance of this working but her university takes the money as it is used to fund other research "sort of" connected, but of some use now.

My point is that if DanJo and his friends in Government decide to pick on the Jews again, the teachers in the UK are already almost robots who will indoctrinate pupils with whatever they are told to. It was 20 years or so since teachers were free, (or principled) they are now just cowed pawns of the liberal government (I mean all three parties), with Oftsed being the Gestapo that enforces compliance.

Our best bet is free schools and to campaign for Ofsted’s demise.

Happy 2013!

Phil

31 December 2012 22:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Same ole, same ole. Can't win the debate so resort to questioning the authenticity of the beliefs and motivations of others."

I've wiped the floor with him, you berk. I was nice enough to let him quietly drop the Dawkins nonsense. He's gone round in circles with the Darwin thing, trying to get out of his mistake. Finally, he's reduced to making pretty dubious comments about pogroms on gay minorities. He has nothing. He's just flailing around with impotence, knowing that same-sex marriage is on the cards. And of course it's "same-ole, same-old" with you too, rocking up here.

31 December 2012 22:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Inspector and John Magee

Like you I am opposed to homosexual marriage and view homosexuality as a condition that is 'intrinsically disordered', in the Catholic, moral sense.

However, David Kavanaugh is correct for picking up the negative reference to the OT.

As Catholics we believe all Scripture was written by man under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, i.e. the entire Old and New Testaments. They are a coherent set of writings.

31 December 2012 22:17  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 December 2012 22:18  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Inspector,

Almost every people, religion, creed and race, on this planet have their zealots and their fundamentalists. But that does not translate into, for example, 'all Christians are like Westboro Baptist Church'.

My sister, Hannah, is gay and a Halakha committed jew . I have no problem with her babysitting for my younger children and frankly think that she is a great Aunty.

As for the other comments :

"Anyway, off you trot and go about your studies..."

I'm not a horse. I have not done any academic study since 1986, but I do try and read Torah and Talmud. So thank you anyway.

"Come back to the Inspector. He'll be waiting for you..."

That's very kind. I am not gay, though.

For you, though, I have a joke :

"The Rabbi and his wife were cleaning up the house. The Rabbi came across a box he didn't recognize. His wife told him to leave it alone, it was
personal.

One day, she was out and his curiousity got the better of him. He opened the box and inside he found 3 eggs and $2000. When his wife came home, he admitted that he had opened the box and asked her to explain the contents to him.

She told him, every time he had a bad sermon, she would put an egg in the box. He thought to himself, "In twenty years, only three bad sermons, that's not bad." His wife continued, "And every time I got a dozen eggs, I would sell them for $1.""

31 December 2012 22:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0

Your debating 'skills', like your ego, have no limits.

"He's just flailing around with impotence ..." - is that your real problem?


31 December 2012 22:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David: "I'm not sure that creating 'safe havens' for the religious will be any good, for anyone, this seems likely to Balkanise the UK. Will this be as effective as the other 'safe havens' of recent history?"

You're over-thinking it. I'm talking about religious rights along the lines of Article 9 of the ECHR, only taking account of all the major religions equally rather than privileging Christianity. The State just needs to find a practical way to arbitrate between special interests and sort out conflicting rights.

31 December 2012 22:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, go cause trouble with someone else. I can't be arsed dealing with your nonsense.

31 December 2012 22:25  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...



Article 9 of the ECHR

Part 2

"Freedom to manifest one's religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others"

It basically means we the government will give you such freedoms as we the government see fit

In short or in practice, it may be no freedom at all that is worth having.

Phil

31 December 2012 22:40  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 December 2012 22:41  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Dodo,

I guess I'd say it is a free country, so John Magee or anyone is really free to criticise Judaism.

G-d knows it has been going on for a couple of thousands of years and we are still here (pogroms, gas chambers and all- btw to John and to Integrity, I think that the third reich also tried to exterminate gays and the mentally disabled).

What I objected to was John Magee using the issue of gay marriage as a 'Trojan Horse' with which to attack my faith.

I understand that if one is a literalist Christian, that the "Old Testament" calls for the killing of gays. But as I have said before, from a Jewish perspective the interpretation is totally different.

As I have said before, I have tried to read the 'New' Testament to make sense of Christianity, so I really do get quite perplexed when a Christian attacks Judaism for its apparent attack on homosexuality, yet ignores the passages of Paul of Tarsus in the epistles of the apostles.

And indeed the bits in the gospels in which Jesus attacks sexual immorality generally. I can't recall which part it is from, but I think Jesus says, if you even LOOK at a women in the wrong way it is adultery?

31 December 2012 22:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "It basically means we the government will give you such freedoms as we the government see fit"

That's not actually true, is it? Kudos for actually looking it up though and recognising the qualified right thing of the second part.

How are you getting along with the Darwin thing? Let me refresh your memory:

"Darwin would approve, so that is alright then."

from your comment 30 December 2012 12:27. If you weren't mistaking it with Social Darwinism then what did you mean about Darwin approving of it?

31 December 2012 22:49  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

I haven't forgotten Danjo or Phil, who replied to me . The keyboard can only go as fast as my hands...

31 December 2012 22:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0

So Phil got Darwin wrong. Big deal! Will you beat him over the head with this for ever more?

Now address his point about qualified 'human rights' and the potential arbitrariness of this when a scape-goat is needed for social disorder.

31 December 2012 23:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

David Kavanaugh

The Catholic view of sexual morality is consistent with Orthodox Judaism. One man, one woman, for life, for the purposes of sexual union and the raising children in the faith.

Where we differ, and where denominations within Judaism and Christianity differ, is how to apply this truth and whether one can compromise on it and to what extent.

31 December 2012 23:24  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Danjo,

Ah, well, I have little time for the UN- stuffed as it is with states I wouldn't ever want to live in myself (e.g. Iran, Uganda, Somalia, Afghanistan).

But on the other hand I do not have an agenda to advance the cause of 'privileging Christianity'.

To my mind we must separate religious and secular marriage, in so much as the state could recognise marriage between a man and a car, but that wouldn't make it right in terms of the various religious beliefs and certainly not my own.

[I have to confess I do not agree- at present- with gay marriage at all, but that does not mean that I am comfortable or 'on board' with Inspector or any of the others who gay bash on this forum].

But if gay marriage is to be allowed- that being a big if- then it should be at the state and secular level and not the religious one, 'period', as my American relatives would say.

This may seem bigoted, but at the end of the day, you have to think, if one is an atheist, or even,say, a gay religionist, why would one want to get married in a religious building anyway? What is the point in the marriage 'before G-d and according to his law', if one does not

a)believe in a deity in the first place?

b)If some-one does believe, why would you want to get married in a religious context (given what religions have to say about the matter) anyway?

c) As a point to a and b, yes, yes, yes, you have 'liberals' in Christianity and Judaism, but I've tried to tackle that :

One caveat is the tension amongst religious groups to want to endorse gay marriage.

This is a tricky one and depends upon the religion and its structure.

I am not sure how you'd do this, but from a Jewish viewpoint, there are liberal/reform Jewish congregations who want to marry gay couples.

The irony is that even my liberal Jewish co-religionists would insist upon conversion to a form of Judaism for you to do that. So they'd let a gay couple be married, but you'd have to learn a bit of Hebrew and might frown upon you for eating pork...

31 December 2012 23:29  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Dodo,

It took me over 40 minutes to write to Danjo, so ...

I am miffed that you do summarize matters in a couple of words. You are correct in so much as Orthodox Judaism does not agree with the gay 'sexual act', but as you note the tension is how to deal with the wider issues in public (secular) life.

And secondly, I would add, from a personal perspective, I cannot go along with the causal 'queer bashing' that goes on here; my sister is gay, so it doesn't mean I want to agree with or read some of the tripe that is written here regarding 'gay agendas' etc.

As I have said above, Hannah is a great Aunt and perhaps if biology have been different an excellent mother.

I understand and respect those who do not agree with gay marriage from a religious viewpoint. But I do get concerned over some of the comments regarding gay people generally.

31 December 2012 23:39  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 December 2012 23:48  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DAnJo

My reply(ies) to your fixation with my comment on Darwin and on what governments and individuals have used his theory to justify are there somewhere above in this blog.

I'm certainly not saying they were right. As you knew all along but chose to take the sentence literally.

Phil

31 December 2012 23:50  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 December 2012 23:52  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

As an aside, before I reply to Phil Roberts, the other thing my religious colleagues have to understand here is that what is wrong with society is not 'gay agendas', but the collapse or destruction of the Torah given way of family life in our country or more specifically the idea of the married family unit of a loving man, woman who have children. If anyone who is 'religious' wants to attack the ills of society, do not look at the gay community for answers. Look at your own.

31 December 2012 23:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David Kavanagh. One is extremely disappointed in you. You were advised to bone up on the gay agenda. Instead, you keep it personal.

So your sister is gay, what of it ? DanJ0 despite his bleatings is a member of society first, and a gay second. That his accommodation for homosexuality and faith will be thrown out the window by the gay leadership is not our concern. Let him have his delusion.

So, with that in mind, what have you got to say for yourself ?


31 December 2012 23:54  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 January 2013 00:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "My reply(ies) to your fixation with my comment on Darwin and on what governments and individuals have used his theory to justify are there somewhere above in this blog."

But why would Darwin approve, Phil? I ask over and over and you just obfuscate.

1 January 2013 00:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Now address his point about qualified 'human rights' and the potential arbitrariness of this when a scape-goat is needed for social disorder."

I have addressed it. What he said is simply incorrect, and obviously so. One doesn't need to be an expert on the ECHR to recognise that. What else is there to say?

Furthermore, what's it actually got to do with you, other than as a means to try to set up one of your so-called drama triangles with you as his 'rescuer' to cause forum trouble yet again?

1 January 2013 00:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David, I just advocate same-sex civil marriage. It's for religious organisations to decide whether they want to recognise same-sex marriages within their religious structure. I'd be happy now to remove all licensing from religious organisations to perform marriages so that legal marriage is just a civil institution. Let religious organisations perform their rites separately on top if they wish.

1 January 2013 00:36  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Phil Roberts,

You have my understanding. I also have to govern over a large brood of children, of various ages, from a 1 year from my second marriage, to a 17 year old from my first. A total of 8 children.

And yes I agree that there can be issues in state schools and conflicting religious principal.

Interesting that you eldest is doing a PhD and has got funds from those who believe in cryogenics. What field is the PhD in?

1 January 2013 00:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "That his accommodation for homosexuality and faith will be thrown out the window by the gay leadership is not our concern. Let him have his delusion."

It's your delusion, really. Gay leadership? Most gay people are just people who happen to be gay. We're not a cohesive, organised group. We're not even equivalent to a union. For the most part, mainstream people, i.e. politians and media commentators, handle our identity politics for us. Heterosexuals mainly, I expect.

Compare and contrast with the 1 million church-attending Catholics in the UK who have a set of formal beliefs carefully maintained and propagated by the Magisterium in a foreign country, and who archbishops and bishops are trying to politically mobilise to try to protect the hegemony of their organisation.

1 January 2013 00:49  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 January 2013 01:22  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi David,

'A great Aunt'. Ow, that means soooo much to me.

1 January 2013 01:23  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Oh Hi Inspector,

If we are all supposed to believe in a 'gay agenda', I thought I'd look into other agendas.

In fact, I have just googled the words 'Catholic agenda' I have found nothing more than anti-catholic bigotry. The same goes if I type in 'Jewish agenda'. I think that answers that one!

There is nothing personal in my brother's comments. As he notes the core of things is G-d, Torah and family.

Grrrrr

1 January 2013 01:36  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Hannah,

I was going to say something profound then. But I guess 'happy new year' is adequate.

1 January 2013 01:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

David Kavanaugh said ...

" ... what is wrong with society is not 'gay agendas', but the collapse or destruction of the Torah given way of family life in our country or more specifically the idea of the married family unit of a loving man, woman who have children. If anyone who is 'religious' wants to attack the ills of society, do not look at the gay community for answers. Look at your own."

I actually agree with this. Homosexuality has always been with us. Today it is being normalised and promoted as acceptable conduct because of a wider moral collapse in heterosexual morality. Separate sexual love from permanent relationships and raising children and what do we have? Sex for hedonistic, personal pleasure.

Talking of which:

DanJ0 bleated ..

"Furthermore, what's it actually got to do with you, other than as a means to try to set up one of your so-called drama triangles with you as his 'rescuer' to cause forum trouble yet again?"

Not at all.

As I advised you some time ago, I'm onto your tactics and the way you cease on side issues to personally discredit those you debate with.

This is just a game to you. There are times I actually wonder if you're homosexual at all or if you just use this as a convenient spring board for expressing hatred for God.

1 January 2013 02:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Sorry about the typos ... and it's seize on and not cease on.

1 January 2013 02:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, you were warned not that long ago about trying to cause trouble in exactly the manner you are doing now. At the time, there were threats by the blog owner about closing the place down and you are taking us back to that place again. I won't tolerate your attacks and trouble-making for much longer.

1 January 2013 08:11  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

"But why would Darwin approve, Phil? I ask over and over and you just obfuscate."

Goodness, the point is he would not have approved. However, many governments have used his theory to justify all sorts of atrocities. Either committed by themselves, or ones that they have encouraged or permitted others to commit.

Phil

1 January 2013 08:24  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

Shall I be clear, Darwin's thoeory gave moral justification for the murder of undesriable groups from the population under the Nazis.

It is used today to justify the murder of children who are unborn but may develop diabilities or are just unwanted.

If a test for potential homosexuality was found it would also be used as justification for abortion.

Lets be quite clear here. I do not personally agree with the above uses of Darwin's Theory or the practices that it was used for.

However, I suspect that you are banging on about this to avoid answering the other issues I have raised above, beoause you have no answers and know deep down that in order to thrive we need a society based on God and not what some men say is good for us.

Phil

1 January 2013 08:51  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Phil:

Have you ever come across a chap called Walter Benjamin? Jewish philosopher with a fantastic grasp of both history and progress. Well worth a read. His Angel of History springs to mind.

1 January 2013 09:03  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

DanJ0:

We were all warned.

1 January 2013 09:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "We were all warned."

I wasn't talking about the blog owner, I was talking about me.

1 January 2013 09:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Shall I be clear, Darwin's thoeory gave moral justification for the murder of undesriable groups from the population under the Nazis."

You're talking about Social Darwinism, of course. You just don't seem to know it.

1 January 2013 09:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 January 2013 10:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Goodness, the point is [Darwin] would not have approved."

Perhaps it's my interpretation of your words but you don't seem very coherent on this. I jumped on that comment at 30 December 2012 12:27 because you lumped in Darwin (evolution), Dawkins (evolution, atheism), and Liberals (whatever the capitalisation means in this context) and attached a dubious Social Darwinian situation to it as though it follows from that. Dawkins has made his position pretty clear about so-called Social Darwinism. The whole comment is dubious, and in multiple ways. As I said, you're not getting away with that one.

1 January 2013 10:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "However, I suspect that you are banging on about this to avoid answering the other issues I have raised above, beoause you have no answers and know deep down that in order to thrive we need a society based on God and not what some men say is good for us."

Based on god? I'm an atheist. I don't think a god even exists, at least in the small-minded, theistic sense of many religions. There is no deep down god thing going on there with me. I think we're on our own and need to move forward on that basis. Ultimately, most discussions like this turn on interpretations of human nature.

As for the "other issues" you've raised above, I wrote them off right from the start as your needing something to throw back knowing that same-sex marriage is on the cards irrespective of religionist arguments. I get bored of religionists throwing out ungrounded warnings of dire consequences.

The notion that we'll somehow suffer violence in an austerity period for expecting to be treated like everyone else in society just reads to me like a petulant retort. Especially when we're flying so high with the general public now. As I alluded to earlier, you wouldn't get away with that if you were suggesting Jews keep out of sight and lower their expectations.

Finally, we can do a side thread about the ECHR, the nature of qualified rights, and the resulting relationship between the citizen and the State if you like. From your earlier comment, I don't think you quite get it. However, it applies just as much to the religious as it does to homosexuals anyway. Moreover, we know what having the religious in charge for centuries is like in this country and it wasn't all that great to my mind.

1 January 2013 10:19  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

DanJo

Always the last sentence is the main point. The rest is just drivel.

"Moreover, we know what having the religious in charge for centuries is like in this country and it wasn't all that great to my mind."

Chose a time period when you would have preferred to live where people have tried to rule without God as the basis for morality.

Revolutionary France?

Various communist states—take your pick..?

The pre Christian Saxons? Vandals? Babylonian empire?

Norse States?

Please answer before (as you usually do) answer my question with a question or try to read into what I write what I haven’t said and then take issue with a slight that did not happen or you knew was not intended. – Your tactics works in live debates I realise and we as Christians need to be aware of this as apart from Peter Hitchens most Christians seem to fall for it time after time.

Phil

PS I get the EHCR just fine. They are not interested in providing safegards for Christians, only constraints on Christain freedoms. Much better in my view not to cooperate at all. The end result will be the same anyway.




1 January 2013 11:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Always the last sentence is the main point. The rest is just drivel."

Marvellous.

"Chose a time period when you would have preferred to live where people have tried to rule without God as the basis for morality."

I think we're pretty blessed here in the UK today actually.

1 January 2013 12:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "PS I get the EHCR just fine. They are not interested in providing safegards for Christians, only constraints on Christain freedoms."

Clearly you don't get it at all.

1 January 2013 12:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. You seriously deny the concept of a Gay Leadership ?

It’s Tatchell, it’s Summerskil, It’s THT, it’s any prominent gay with a microphone thrust in his face. It’s a de facto hierarchy. That’s how groups with disparate objectives operate. There WILL be a common ground, and it will be determined by the aforementioned. The only LGBT NOT represented are the thousands of them who want nothing to do with the uprising and are just happy to live their lives out...


1 January 2013 15:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah at 01:36

Your brother is somewhat ‘gay friendly’ apparently on the grounds that it is because his beloved sister is a lesbian.

This is hardly an academic stand, and what the Inspector is trying to coax out of him is whether or not this man’s supposition is true.



1 January 2013 15:37  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 “The reality is that advocates of a secular State like me want islands of protection for diverse beliefs and lifestyles as part of our social structure. It's religionists who tend to advocate a controlling religious mono-culture, as the Christian People's Alliance manifesto shows. They want their god to be the foundation of society for the rest of us whether we want it or not. I advocate living side by side, they advocate a hierarchical arrangement.”

But God IS the foundation of society take it or leave it until we know 100% that there is no God, you don't have to believe yourself, you already enjoy a protected lifestyle under Christianity, with the love the sinner loathe the sin type of thinking.
And most of us don't wish to end up having to endure secularism as a way of enforced life here either which it would come to. I think Christianity is far more civilised than secularism

I'm not advocating Christian parties take over politics as I think His Grace is right in that they don't make good politicians. BUT we have to have more politicians that are or at least support Christianity here.

You're getting in a homosexual tizz over what you think a “controlling religious mono-culture.” will do. We have been a Christian nation for centuries and there have always been atheists and minority diverse beliefs that quite happily existed alongside as secondary. It's only since the rise of those who disbelieve in the wake of the Church becoming so tepid and disengaged and the influx of too many immigrants and the pandering to their whims thereof that it all started to go awry.

We need to restore and support our Christian culture as it's the most advantageous and tolerant for our society. You can still live alongside and have your views, cultures and beliefs but you just don't come first. Otherwise what guarantees are there that secularism will not become the controlling destructive nightmare it is already progressing to be?
If Christianity is strengthened here it will give balance to try and ensure that we do not become like Greece.

1 January 2013 17:05  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 January 2013 17:35  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Inspector,

Actually I do take the whole concept of marriage seriously. It is to us called kiddushin, or 'making holy'.

In respect to your views about me being 'gay friendly'. Ironic given that a few posters here like to quote the Torah as a justification for Judaism not being oh so tolerant as Christianity.

I do feel that some times people who come out an opposed gay marriage on this blog, do not do so out of religious conviction, but because they simply do not like gays as a group. Sometimes it feels as if religion is the smokescreen for these views.

In respect to my sister, my reply would be that Judaism is an extremely family based faith and supporting my family is very important to my world view and ethic, especially to some one who is gay and sincerely wishes to live her life according to faith.

Turning to you for a minute, I am confused as I cannot actually your academic reasoning in your dislike of homosexuality or gay people generally. But then I cannot see you academic reasoning when it comes to your views on race.

I do not see how you can talk of a 'gay agenda', when in this country you are also part of a minority faith, which (as people often point out on these threads) hasn't been treated well in the past and in one corner of this country was discriminated against quite badly, until relatively recently.

I am also part of a minority faith and whilst I think everyone has the right to join and set up a political party, I am not sure I'd vote for one who wants to legislate for a particular brand of Christianity, as I don't want to turn this country back to Puritan ruled elite circa 1650. It is clear that the CPA have an 'agenda', too. But that doesn't mean all Christians follow it.

So the use of polemical language in what is quite an emotive topic for people doesn't help anyone out.

As for me. If you read my posts more carefully you will note that I am not arguing from an academic, but a theological/religious viewpoint. As per my own faith and traditions, I disagree with the homosexual sexual act, but that is a different nuance to saying I hate homosexuals for being what they are.

Furthermore, this would be one small part of the wider matter of sexual ethics. So, for example, I wouldn't approve of sexual intercourse outside of straight marriage either. This was the point I was making, that Dodo subsequently picked up.

Finally, we are actually discussing civil gay marriage and whether or not the next move would be to force religions into endorsing such ceremonies in their places of worship. I would certainly oppose that.

As for civil gay marriage, again whilst I don't agree with gay sex anyway, there is a issue for me to the extent to which I should be imposing my own religious traditions onto others, so I am not sure. What I am sure of is that the current government proposals are a complete dog's breakfast, which if I were an MP I'd vote against.

This might make you and others think I am being a bit of a relativist, but in terms of my faith or anyone's faith, I think you have to grapple - and indeed struggle-with taking it as a whole and not pick and choose bits you don't like.

For example, in my own religion I am not allowed to eat certain foods, Pork for example, and I am not to have intercourse with my wife during her period. After that she has to ritually clean herself in a special bath.

This may seem absurd to you because you are not part of my faith, which is fair enough. But is it right or correct for me to then argue that this should apply to every married woman in the country or that the whole of the UK should go and have a pork free diet?

1 January 2013 17:38  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older