Saturday, January 26, 2013

It is time to be kinder to hypocrites


Another post from Brother Ivo (who has joined His Grace's cyber-ministry team):

I once sat on the Media Committee of a nationally known institution when we were presented with an impending disaster. The figurehead was about to feature in a front page exposé of a major Sunday newspaper for using the organisation's London accommodation for an extra-marital assignation.

The newspaper had approached the man concerned who had shared the problem with the Public Relations Department. They in turn reported to the Committee and advised us that matters could worsen. The story referred to one lady, but a prudent review of the CCTV revealed that she was perhaps far from enjoying exclusive claim to his wandering affections.

The Committee members could do little more than to wait, read the exposé and hope to limit the damage.

On Sunday morning, the item appeared on the front page as expected, yet half way through the story a simple statement killed the scandal dead; when door-stepped for comment, the miscreant responded with a simple statement: "I am not a moral man"

You could almost hear the collective shrug of the journalistic shoulders. There was no more to be said; the fox was shot/tranquillised. The story died in the original and all other news outlets.

Whatever may have been said of the man's conduct, he was not a hypocrite and in the modern world that is fast becoming the primary secular sin.

How often have we heard that 'all politicians/churchgoers/conservative pundits are hypocrites'?

To avoid this ever present risk of hypocrisy, teachers decline to conduct school assembly. Some young people declare themselves unable to take the Scout Oath or sing the National Anthem. Supposed hypocrisy is the target of choice for the trendy comedian. In consequence, many who live flawed, inconsistent, messy lives dare not risk taking those first faltering steps towards publicly declaring faith. Some feel uneasy entering a Church building. The widespread fear of hypocrisy has become a potent weapon of advancing secularism.

Worse, the tyranny of the accusation easily silences moral or Christian opinion and excludes it from the public space, especially amongst public figures who dare not 'Do God' lest it attract threatening attention. If you profess no standards, you take no risks. Only saints and cynics are safe, and saints are a modest minority.

It cannot be denied that the Bible is a primary source of this opprobrium.

Psalm 26 verse 4 says: 'I do not sit with men of falsehood, nor do I consort with hypocrites.'

Each of the Gospel writers, save John, records Jesus using this term to denounce opponents, especially the Scribes and Pharisees, who would have been especially wounded by the implied likenening of them to Greek actors who customarily hid their true identities by masking their faces. Mathew uses the insult no fewer than 12 times.

The full force of the accusation primarily wounds those of a religious persuasion; the biblical context reminds us that whoever else we may attempt to deceive, there is no fooling God. It is this which is the primary focus of the sin: not simply attempting to fool other people or ourselves, but the mocking of God. Believers must be sensitive to such things but plainly this aspect is of no interest and carries no force to the atheist.

It is therefore especially paradoxical that the charge of hypocrisy is most frequently used by those disinterested in its theological dimension. When the newspaper editors are throwing around the epithet, few of them are religiously aware, fewer still concerned.

Yet there is another side to the coin.

Hypocrisy was described by La Rochefoucauld as the 'Homage vice pays to virtue'.

Samuel Johnson considered:
Nothing is more unjust, however common, than to charge with hypocrisy him that professes zeal for virtues he neglects to practice; since he may be sincerely convinced of the advantages of conquering his passions without having yet obtained the victory: as a man may be convinced of the advantages of taking a voyage or journey without having courage or industry to undertake it and may honestly recommend to others those attempts which he neglects himself.
William Wilberforce put a similar idea more crisply when he asked rhetorically who better promoted the public welfare, the honest man who pointed the way to vice or the hypocrite who urged virtue. That presents the issue neatly.

Many defenders of traditional values will be painfully aware in later life of past failures and indiscretions. Within the present 'hypocrisy narrative', they may feel personally queasy about entering a debate knowing their past inconsistencies, some of which may be either secret or barely acknowledged. Yet facing up to adult responsibilities is something all societies need, and a failure to learn from past failures is a source of weakness and, dare I say, degeneration.

On some sensitive issues - drugs use, child sexualisation, ease of abortion, a reduced age of consent, casual or serial relationships - those who have experience and have suffered in consequence are a great resource, and are particularly suited to explore the issues. Learning from our own mistakes should be a source of strength not the occasion for self censorship in the face of trendy abusers.

Unfortunately, with rare exceptions like Ann Widdecombe and Nadine Dorries MP, the public liberals have managed to bully many believers into silence and it is understandable why others have not joined the few. Perhaps it is the very chutzpah that takes those two onto reality television shows that emboldened them to take up causes which others feared to champion. God moves in mysterious ways.

If we are fearful of ridicule or hurt or unpopularity, it is good to remember that whatever our failures, Jesus has already offered his support when he challenged accusers with the words: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." He did not exclude the hypocrite from that protection.

354 Comments:

Blogger Naomi King said...

It all goes to show that the truth is better than lies, even if the truth is uncomfortably condemning even for the person speaking it. This is the cruz of the argument, the Devil is the father of lies and the accuser of the brethren and likes nothing better than hypocrisy and lies. It serves his purposes well.

26 January 2013 11:27  
Blogger Matt A said...

An interesting post, but after the monumental events yesterday I was hoping for more. Three very significant events have occurred in the last 24 hours. Firstly the legislation to enable same-sex marriages to take place in England and Wales was published. Secondly we learnt that the UK Economy shrank at end of 2012, prompting fears of a "triple dip" recession. Thirdly, and most surprising of all, the Russian parliament has backed a ban on the promotion of homosexuality! We learn that teachers may well be prosecuted for failing to promote gay marriage, and Russia moves in the opposite direction! How quickly the world is changing.

26 January 2013 11:41  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Well said Matt

Call me Dave's got problems - three papers are against him today, The Sun, the Telegraph and the Express

The Sun

Now Cam’s Mum blasts him over gay marriages

'David just won't be told,' she tells pals

DAVID Cameron has come under attack from two fronts over gay marriage — his party and his MUM.
Pressed on the issue by concerned pals, Mary Cameron, 78, was overheard saying: “I know, but David just won’t be told.” The remark by widowed Mrs Cameron — a retired magistrate — emerged as the Coalition’s controversial Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill was published in Parliament
yesterday. The PM’s dad Ian was heavily involved with parish and church councils before his death aged 77 in 2010. Tory Peter Bone said it was wrong to “rush through” gay marriage because it was not in any party political manifesto. He demanded: “What about a referendum? Does that seem fair?”

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4764174/Now-David-Camerons-mum-blasts-him-over-gay-marriages.html#ixzz2J4fJCRAa

The Daily Telegraph


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9827638/David-Camerons-wife-Samantha-is-the-driving-force-behind-gay-marriage.html

David Cameron's wife Samantha is the 'driving force’ behind gay marriage. Cabinet minister claims that David Cameron's wife, Samantha, is behind the gay marriage policy.

A cabinet minister points to Samantha Cameron’s influence on her husband. “Samantha is the driving force behind the policy,” claims the minister.
The baronet’s daughter, who is a creative consultant at Smythson, the Mayfair luxury goods firm, is known to have socially liberal views. Ed Vaizey, a Notting Hill friend of the Camerons who is now a culture minister, claimed that Samantha “might have voted Labour” in the past. Vaizey, who has been a friend of the PM since their Oxford University days, said: “She would be going into this general election poll thinking, 'Is Cameron the real deal or should I stick with [Gordon] Brown?’ ’’

The Daily Express

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/373413

TORY MPS' FURY AT 'BID TO GAG' GAY MARRIAGE REBELS

OUTRAGED Tory MPs last night accused ministers of attempting to stifle debate over plans to legalise gay ­marriage.

MPs will get a free vote on the issue, they were promised yesterday. But Westminster sources indicated details of the Bill to introduce same-sex weddings will not be debated first in the usual full sitting of the Commons.

Instead the Bill will go straight to a committee of MPs. With up to 100 Tory members expected to rebel on the issue in the Second Reading on February 5, opponents claimed the move was an attempt to hide the bitter rift within the Conservatives.

Tory MP David Burrowes, a leading opponent of the Bill, said: “Redefining marriage is a hugely significant step that should be subject to a full debate in Parliament.

“This is a very divisive issue, both in the country and in the Conservative Party.”

Fellow Tory MP Stewart Jackson said: “The Government is terrified of the debate. This is going to be rushed through and MPs are going to be railroaded into supporting the Government’s timetable.

"Mr Cameron's Government should put a proposal in a manifesto and then come back with it with a mandate after it has been put to the electorate.”

26 January 2013 11:53  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

The economy and gay marriage are important issues.

They are not, however the only interesting ones.

26 January 2013 11:55  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Yes but the attitude taken in Russia certainly is.

26 January 2013 11:57  
Blogger Matt A said...

The real state of the economy is very important indeed. In fact, the truth about the economy is shocking, if I think about it too long I feel physically sick, humanly speaking there is no solution. The reality of "gay marriage" became a step closer yesterday, and I am not the only one who is of the opinion that these two issues are more closely linked than what may be immediately obvious.

The stance taken by Russia is very significant, where only two decades ago, persecution of Christians was a reality, while freedom was assured in the UK. We are now on the road to a total reversal of that.

PS: I am not saying that Russia is without problems, I am no communist or socialist.

26 January 2013 12:10  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Quite so Matt !

Russia thank God has got it right on this one although it goes without saying that they have got it wrong on many, many other issues.

Yesterday we had it confirmed by Michael Gove's Department that Teachers who do not actively promote homosexual activity will be sacked and here is a story about a homosexual school sports coach turned University academic.

Here is what a former school sports coach, professor, Dr Eric Anderson from Winchester University, who is homosexual, says about his life ...

A University lecturer, gave a public address during the LGBT History Month, held every February in schools, at Bournemouth University last year entitled, “Open Lecture: “Changing the Game - Gay Athletes then and now”.

The talk was given by a “homosexual” professor, Dr Eric Anderson from Winchester University, who came to tell around 70 sports students why gay sex is better than straight sex.

“Professor Eric Gumby Anderson stated in an earlier taped interview, reported in the “Oxford Student” magazine entitled, “Lecturer or Lecherer at LGBT Talk", “My intention is to offend you. Dr Anderson said the talk was intended to “empower people….to cast off conservative ‘Oxfordian’ beliefs”.

Anderson, a sociologist in the department of sports studies at the University of Winchester, came out of the ‘closet’ in 1993 as America’s first openly gay high school coach.

When it was suggested that Anderson is a sexual “predator”, he said “yeah” and laughed. Anderson claimed to have had had sex with “easily over a thousand people”. He said: “I like sex with 16, 17, 18 year old boys particularly, it’s getting harder for me to get them now but I’m still finding them….I hope between the age of 43 and the time I die I can have sex with another thousand, that would be awesome, even if I have to buy them, of course, not a problem, you pay for all kinds of entertainment and pleasure.”

When asked whether he thought he had taken emotional or physical advantage of some of the thousand youngsters he had sex with, Anderson replied that he thought that team sports were “more damaging” to adolescents than sex. He went on to claim: “The damage that’s caused by child molestation is socially constructed by the western world;” he contrasted this to other cultures where children engage in sexual activity with adults as a rite of passage.

He said that he and his boyfriend like to travel on cruise ships because “it’s like sex tourism, which is just amazing” and “I always screw the dancers”. He went on to say “we stop at a different port every night, go to a gay club every night and have sex with people….you don’t need to know their names”.

During the two-hour lecture at Bournemouth University, topics covered ranged from anal sex, bestiality and incest to religion.

In a society that sees children as an accessory and a commodity their voice is the last to be heard, as we are seeing with the Jimmy Savile case and many more like it, due to be exposed.

This movement to sanctify this base practice of homosexuality, lead by our Prime Minister, has a sinister motive. It is to corrupt our children and convert them to dis-functional lifestyles and to make them available for predatory homosexual males.

Plenty of hypocrisy here then.

26 January 2013 12:31  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

The suppression of the required parliamentary procedures to push through a bill that was never on the election manifesto of any political party is a major scandal and we must go on shouting about it. Naive to believe that it is the work of Samantha Cameron. It is the work of the Gaystapo which now has a stranglehold on every political party and on the media. While the vast majority of people are politically apathetic, the gay fanatics have been working tirelessly for the past twenty years to get control of all our institutions. Membership of political parties has never been lower. Fanatical lobby groups have never been more powerful. I bet that Cameron made some pledge to the Gaystapo before the last election. He was a fool of course because they will have got the same pledge out of all the other parties, and it will have gained the conservatives no votes at all. Democracy utterly betrayed.

26 January 2013 12:50  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Good post on a much neglected topic. I've often considered that a major part of the sickness at the heart of moder society is the notion that anything you do is fine so long as you're not a hypocrite about it, as though hypocrisy was the single and worst possible sin.

The result of that world view is a body politic full of people who've never done anything and will never do anything because they're afraid they may fall short of absolute perfection and thus be hypocrites. Or at least it's a good excuse to act like pigs.

26 January 2013 12:52  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

As for Professor Eric Gumby Anderson, he is indescribably disgusting. He uses his position in a university to campaign for attitudes that only belong in porn. This is part of the pornification of British culture. Many people have remarked on the revolting language and obscenity of his public speeches. Did he really advocate bestiality? When was that? What did he say? It doesn't surprise me. Once when a man stood up and complained about the filthy language in one of Anderson's lectures, Anderson screamed at him and physically assaulted him. He had him thrown out for "homophobia". And we pay for these universities?

26 January 2013 12:56  
Blogger Naomi King said...

I believe it was at Bournemouth University last February but I could be wrong, it may have been at Oxford the year before.

26 January 2013 13:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Brother Ivo

This is a wonderful post. It is insightful and sensitively written.

26 January 2013 13:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Br Ivo

Judaeo-Christians also have a potent weapon in the British Culture War: the intellectual inconsistency of the liberal.

For example the Conservatives (in the upper case) are about to legislate for SSM.

Can they tell us why they won't remain consistent and legislate for Muslim men to have multiple wives?

Does failure to do so make them the moral equivalent of 'racists'?

26 January 2013 13:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

D Singh: "Can they tell us why they won't remain consistent and legislate for Muslim men to have multiple wives?"

We're going to need some very big council houses if a Muslim man, his four wives, and their children fall on hard times and they collectively claim an entitlement to social housing. I wonder if things like that might be part of the argument against it?

26 January 2013 13:33  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Br Ivo

The biphobic Danjo won't even approve of a woman having multiple husbands, dozens of children and a mansion to shelter in.

26 January 2013 13:51  
Blogger Matt A said...

DanJ0: No more houses than usual. At the moment, our country only allows consecutive polygamy, in other words, you can have as many husbands or wives as you like, just as long as it is one at a time. However, each husband or wife would be entitled to their own house as long as they kept at least one child.
It's a mad world out there.

26 January 2013 13:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Hypocrisy only exists relative to the self. Virtue on the other hand is external and therefore makes general claims about all people. We live in a culture that has rejected the concept of external morality. Does it surprise then that the principle sin of the modern world should by hypocrisy? That world us primarily interested in establishing its own autonomy. It isn't interested in virtue lest it find its own conduct restricted. And yet its obsession with hypocrisy is a testimony to its own moral impoverishment.

carl

26 January 2013 13:57  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Oh Brother!

The hypocrisy, the inconsistency of the biphobic Danjo.

26 January 2013 14:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Matt A: "No more houses than usual."

Erm, if you reread what I wrote then you'll see that it refers to size rather than quantity. Also, serial monogamy is not the same thing as polygamy.

26 January 2013 14:00  
Blogger Matt A said...

DanJ0: Not the same thing, but both wrong.

26 January 2013 14:05  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Brother Ivo,
Thank you for your post.
I have always been taught that Church was not for Saints but for Sinners and that Church is a hospital where we are healed of our indiscretions and failures.

26 January 2013 14:08  
Blogger Matt A said...

Mr Integrity: Totally agree. This was best summed up by a sign outside a church "Workshop downstairs, Showroom upstairs".

26 January 2013 14:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One echos Corrigan’s insightfulness. The Inspector has been called a hypocrite on this site, by a fellow who shall remain nameless. Your man’s sin was not corresponding to the chaps idea of what a Christian should be about. The Inspector was / is therefore a hypocrite. Now, who’s that for duplicity from his accuser !

26 January 2013 14:17  
Blogger Naomi King said...

I understood congregational church was a hospital for the spiritually damaged, a school for the teaching of the Word of God and an army for Reaching every Creature under the Mark 16 commission.

26 January 2013 14:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Matt A: "DanJ0: Not the same thing, but both wrong."

Neither are inherently wrong. What happens now, do we arm-wrestle? The winner gets to decide the scope of morality? Of course, if we just go back a couple of steps then we'll see that the argument about polygamy is essentially a secular one since it is attached to the government's justifications. So, is there an inconsistency in the government's argument for same-sex marriage alongside the argument against polygamy?

26 January 2013 14:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Oh, go on ! ....It was DanJ0...


26 January 2013 14:22  
Blogger Matt A said...

I think we can all be labelled as hypocrites in one way or another, especially Christians. I now strongly speak against the very things I used to delight in, and am often called a hypocrite for doing so. But, as Mr Integrity says, the church, and the work of Jesus Christ, is for sinners, not for saints, even for hypocritical sinners like me.

26 January 2013 14:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, even some of your Roman Catholic co-religionists complain that you're way off message and not a proper Roman Catholic. Feel free to broadcast the name of one of them in like manner.

Isn't part of the article writer's implicit message that one ought to be able to move forward yet learn from past transgressions and indiscretions?

I'm not sure you're supposed to plough on committing them willy nilly (no pun about you intended there) not worrying about being a bit of a twunt to all and sundry.

26 January 2013 14:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


“Twunt” Sir !!!

That’s fighting talk !

26 January 2013 14:39  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Surely the point is
2COR 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

26 January 2013 14:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "That’s fighting talk !"

I don't suppose people mind when someone stand up to say "I'm not very good at this myself but we should all try to be nice to each other" and then they get caught being mean to someone else.

It's when people take great pleasure in publically judging others to look good, especially when they won't have to suffer the circumstances themselves, that it sticks a bit in the craw.

It's worse when people take great pleasure in publically judging others to look good and making their lives a misery ... and then it turns out they have been doing the same sort of stuff in private themselves.

26 January 2013 14:52  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0 pontificated ...

"Neither are inherently wrong. What happens now, do we arm-wrestle? The winner gets to decide the scope of morality?"

So just what 'standard' are you using to make such a statement? What does "inherently wrong" mean to you?

One could never call you a "hypocrite" because you have no discernible moral compass. Your DIY, make it up as you go along, code can just about accommodate any behaviour.

26 January 2013 14:57  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

26 January 2013 14:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Implying the Inspector is gay again ! How dare you !

26 January 2013 14:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Good Lord – 3 posts aimed at the scoundrel all timed at 14:57. Quite remarkable, and telling !

26 January 2013 15:00  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

So who judges if another person "takes great pleasure" from criticising another person's conduct? It's an easy charge to make. Your suggesting we should all keep quiet areas of unacceptable behaviour because we might have areas of our lives that we might do not want exposed.

I was wrong in saying you could never be called a hypocrite. You are one. By your own measure, which may change when it no longer suits, you condemn the very tactic you use yourself.

How many times did you use my "transgression" of sock puppetry against me? How many times have you accused the Inspector of being a repressed homosexual? Accused another blogger of a lascivious interest in you?

Hypocrite!

26 January 2013 15:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Quite remarkable, and telling !"

All from our special coven of Roman Catholics With Issues.

26 January 2013 15:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Brother, as we live and breath, here on this very site is an example of outrageous hypocrisy...

You see, it’s in the person of DanJ0.

He loves the attention on this site, and he’s like a pig rolling around in his own filth when he gets it. (...Rather apt description there, don’t you think, as the man is a sexually active (...when he can get it...) homosexual.
This site helps fill a massive void in his life, caused by his choice of lifestyle.
He posts not to fight his corner, but to reassure himself he is right to hold his bizarre views. it’s never ending, God help us !
He tends to be ignored in the real world because people see him as slightly odd. Shame we can’t ignore the blighter here...

And if he denies a word of this, then he’s a hypocrite !

26 January 2013 15:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Office of Inspector General said...

"Good Lord – 3 posts aimed at the scoundrel all timed at 14:57. Quite remarkable, and telling !

Indeed.

In two threads, the man has been exposed for what he is. He warrants our prayers as well as our condemnation.

(And there goes Enrsty's conspiracy theory out of the window too.)

26 January 2013 15:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lordy, this is a work of art and I wasn't even attempting to create it.

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

Dodo. He warrants our prayers as well as our condemnation.

You are a good and fair bird. Jesus would be impressed...

26 January 2013 15:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Inspector

One should thank Brother Ivo for his article. It reveals a major weapon used today against God fearing people today.

26 January 2013 15:23  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

You out your finger on one of several potential outcomes of a line of thought that starts from the loose premise " What does it matter so long as they love each other".

26 January 2013 15:29  
Blogger Charles Dawne said...

Brother Ivo,

A wonderfully insightful and interesting post.

One of the best ways the Politcal Class has used to achieve power is by making these transgressions much easier to take part in them.

All revolutionaries require its followers to get their hands bloody so there is no turning back - and this use of 'hypocrisy' is one of the most powerful and effective ways.

26 January 2013 15:31  
Blogger David B said...

Some of us might find a defence of 'Don't do as I do, do as I say' rather morally questionable, to say the least of it.

Also, some of us might find the moral strength of those not prepared to falsely make oaths, like the young non-scouts, praiseworthy, and while it doesn't follow from what the writer says that such people do live flawed messy lives, the juxtaposition in

"To avoid this ever present risk of hypocrisy, teachers decline to conduct school assembly. Some young people declare themselves unable to take the Scout Oath or sing the National Anthem. Supposed hypocrisy is the target of choice for the trendy comedian. In consequence, many who live flawed, inconsistent, messy lives dare not risk taking those first faltering steps towards publicly declaring faith..." might seem to some rather snide.

And then we have a whole load of biblical references to why hypocrisy is a bad thing, all of which is swept aside by "If we are fearful of ridicule or hurt or unpopularity, it is good to remember that whatever our failures, Jesus has already offered his support when he challenged accusers with the words: "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." He did not exclude the hypocrite from that protection."

If Jesus existed, and if those words can be correctly attributed to him, then he also did not exclude the kiddy fiddlers, nor those who covered up their crimes and moved them on to places like deaf schools where they could continue their crimes with impunity.

What can we draw from this? That the Bible contains deep contradictions? That it is fundamentally amoral? Or fundamentally immoral for promoting an 'anything goes' mentality - exemplified by the users of mental reservations, the hypocrites who preach against sexual licence while indulging in the very worst of it, and their defenders?

Your Grace, your new team member is not worthy of you.

David B

26 January 2013 15:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbour and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven
(Matthew 5:43)

Powerful words, Inspector.
Loving one's enemies - those opposed to God's word - doesn't mean accepting their worldviews or its imposition on others.

It means resisting their corrupt ideas, challenging their behaviours, attempting to persuade them of the error of their ways and helping them turn away from evil. Simultaneously, one must try to minimise the harm they cause themselves and others.

It's not personal, they are made in God's image, and this means we should pray for them too - though it be difficult.

26 January 2013 15:34  
Blogger Naomi King said...

I like the reply of Dodo to Danjo on another post, vis

"Danjo you present the 'nature of the beast' so well.

The secular, amoral sneering at values held by ordinary folk who may or may not have a solid belief in God. Yet they know He exists and expects certain things from us. The use of clever words and the presentation of *reasonable* concepts like 'equality', diversity' and 'human rights', to advance your cause step by step. And, when all fails, the attempt to manipulate people by use of personal attacks and accusations of 'bigot', 'in denial' and 'totalitarian'."

Here is God's pattern of Judgement on Nations but it also applies equally as well to individuals

The Pattern of Judgement
1 First comes a serious departure from God or from service on the part of the Nation
2 Then comes Divine correction
3 Then comes resentment and revolt of the human will against the Divine, instead of harkening, heeding and repenting the Nation determines to act in a Spirit of Defiance
4 The Nation that indulges in this Spirit of Defiance will find in time the disastrous mistake it has made
5 As the first stage of the judgement has been followed by no true conversion to the LORD of Lord there is now coming a second day of judgement
6 What further Judgement will fall upon the Nation ? With the warning given having not been heeded there will be a greater calamity. Because they have not turned to Him, the LORD will now bring a greater judgement on that Land.
7 God's purpose is not to destroy but to wake up the Nation. His anger is not turned away, the LORD will cut us off. It is a symbol of grace, the God of Judgement calling the Nation back to its beginning with Him. A Nation that cannot hear God by his whispers will only hear his shouting. God's purpose is primarily not to destroy but to Save. The turning back, an awakening, a revival often only comes through the hand of the God of Judgement when people are shaken which does not come at easy times.

Fits very well with Matt's opening remarks about the moral collapse evidenced by the call for homosexual so called 'marriage' and his remark at 12:10 "The real state of the economy is very important indeed. In fact, the truth about the economy is shocking, if I think about it too long I feel physically sick, humanly speaking there is no solution, these two issues are more closely linked than what may be immediately obvious."

26 January 2013 15:34  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

True, but even the hypocrite may, according to Wilberforce, serve the cause of righteousness.

The moral universe is sometimes one of paradox.

26 January 2013 15:35  
Blogger Naomi King said...


"The moral universe is sometimes one of paradox."
WHAT ?

26 January 2013 15:40  
Blogger Charles Dawne said...

Jack Spratt,

I think you are giving to much credit to the 'Gaystapo' as you call them. They are nothing more than useful idiots to the Political Class, helping them to weaken the foundations of the previous Britain so that they can then build a new one much more to their liking.

Fanatical lobby groups are the government - most of them are sock puppets so that the Political Class can lobby itself and make significant changes whilst still claiming to be democratic and inclusive of independent institutions.

regards.

26 January 2013 15:42  
Blogger John Magee said...

I'm glad HG has finally taken the step and to give himself a much needed rest from his work on his blog when he feels the need and to delegate authority to his trusted friends by asking them to lend a hand and give him their valued input here to help him keep his blog afloat and always interesting.

Thank you

26 January 2013 15:57  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Naomi King said...@14:46
Surely the point is
2COR 5:17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

Yes. We are made perfect through His redeeming love, but that does not make us immune from sin.


26 January 2013 15:59  
Blogger Naomi King said...

It is disappointing this post seems rudderless and 'thin'.

26 January 2013 16:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Brother Ivo said...

"The moral universe is sometimes one of paradox."

Is it? Don't you mean God will turn evil to His own purposes?

Wilberforce was, I think, talking about outcomes - not advocating a moral code. In his case the abolition of slavery was the goal. He wasn't advocating hypocrisy as a good in and of itself.

An active homosexual who sees nothing inherently wrong with this lifestyle would surely be wrong to publically campaign against it or condemn it from the pulpit? On the other hand, if he has put his past behind him and accepts it is inherently wrong, he would not be. His past is what it is - the past.

26 January 2013 16:04  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 January 2013 16:05  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

I was trying to be concise and allude to the need to be open to the unexpected.

Our faith has many things that challenge the ordinary assumption.
The father who is one with the son
The incarnation whereby God sets aside his majesty to become a helpless child ....
I am sure you can think of others

26 January 2013 16:05  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

DanJo
We're going to need some very big council houses if a Muslim man, his four wives, and their children fall on hard times and they collectively claim an entitlement to social housing.

Not like you to be so naive DanJo: they (Muslim men)may have up to four 'wives'(and even more they have divorced) but only one is recognised in the UK as a legitimate wife. The three other are classed a single mother and thereby given free access a house (which at some time they will be eligible to buy) each and all the associated cash and health benefits.

It's the best scam yet.

26 January 2013 16:06  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Tsk Dodo. My post 14:57 has been removed by HG, I presume, so there goes the proof that I am not you.
I was looking forward to the apology you would have received from Ernsty for all of his false accusations against you in this regard.

26 January 2013 16:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


We really ought to give voluntary repatriation a go, and have a ban on new muslim immigrants before they’re asking US to leave...

26 January 2013 16:17  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

My response to Naomi may point you in the way of my thinking.

Naomi may be disappointed but I can only say that my purpose is not to lead to the denunciation of others but rather to encourage us to address the complexities of such issues with a degree of generosity of spirit.

Jesus was especially welcoming of those others felt outside of polite society.

26 January 2013 16:22  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

You have followed my thought and extended it.

26 January 2013 16:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Brother Ivo

It was such thinking that may have led many a Bishop astray when confronted with abusive priests.

A "generosity of spirit" towards those "outside of polite society" is not the same as staying silent when confronted with evil.

26 January 2013 16:33  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Brother Ivo,
Jesus did care for those whom one might call 'ordinary people'.
On another Blog I pointed out that when he came looking for disciples, he went to the common working man and not to the intellectuals of the day. Intellectuals in my humble opinion can sometimes argue their way up their own backsides and thereby get in the S**t and smelly.
Excuse the vulgarity please.

26 January 2013 16:33  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

I congratulate you on taking the argument beyond its terms of reference, and convincing your self that you have been right all along to distrust the flawed but faithful.

26 January 2013 16:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Cressida

It was, I suspect, the use of two unacceptable words which some find offensive. You were quite right to tackle the unacceptable post from DanJ0 @ 14:31:

" ... being a bit of a twunt to all and sundry."

You merely explained the meaning of the term.

" C... is a word for the female genitalia, particularly the vulva, and is widely considered to be vulgar. The earliest citation of this usage in the 1972 Oxford English Dictionary, c 1230, refers to the London street known as Gropecunt Lane. Scholar Germaine Greer has said that "it is one of the few remaining words in the English language with a genuine power to shock."
(Wiki)

"T... has various functions. It is a vulgar synonym for the human vulva,but is more widely used as a derogatory epithet, especially in British English. The word may originate from Old Norse þveit meaning cut, slit, or forest clearing."
(Wiki)

As it was a quite proper academic exposition, maybe our host will reconsider and repost it.

26 January 2013 16:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dreadnaught: "Not like you to be so naive DanJo: they (Muslim men)may have up to four 'wives'(and even more they have divorced) but only one is recognised in the UK as a legitimate wife. The three other are classed a single mother and thereby given free access a house (which at some time they will be eligible to buy) each and all the associated cash and health benefits."

I checked the current state of play before posting so I followed the obvious link just like you seem to have done. I'd just like to note again that my argument was about the size of house required, not that such people get entitlement to benefits.

26 January 2013 16:47  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

His Grace will not restore the post. Ms Cressida de Nova knew full well what the fate of her contribution would be the moment she chose to include the word. By all means allude to it, explain it, censor certain letters or creatively communicate the meaning. But no, you may not use it upon His Grace's blog.

26 January 2013 16:49  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

You are absolutely right that Christian charity to the offender must never compromise the safeguarding of the vulnerable. I do not think this is within my exploration of the issue I identify.

Let's take this away from the obsession of some with sex.

Few of us have sold all we had and given it to the poor. When we say we have put our faith in Christ, some might say " If you really did that you would follow that imperative. By that standard we are all hypocrites.

What I have been trying to do is not cover up wrong doing but encourage those who are painfully aware of their failings and vulnerabilities to nevertheless be willing to speak up and not be silenced by the charge of hypocrisy which is easy simply because I have never met a perfect Christian.

Furthermore, any preacher who claims his place in the pulpit on the basis of his own moral rectitude is likely to be at least guilty of pride.

26 January 2013 16:52  
Blogger Naomi King said...

r Integrity said...15:59

"Yes. We are made perfect through His redeeming love, but that does not make us immune from sin."


1JN 5:18 We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

1JN 5:19 And we know that we are of God, and the whole world lieth in wickedness.

Does that answer your question ?

26 January 2013 16:53  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

I have lived:-)

26 January 2013 16:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 January 2013 16:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I occasionally ask "What would Jesus do?" when presented with some particularly malevolent behaviour by a self-identifying Christian here. Presumably the correct answer is "Ah, you're right. Certainly not this. There's a Christian standard and I have failed to live up to it. I regret doing so and I will aim to try harder." rather than "Oh who gives a hoot? The end justifies the means where the end, in this case, is not that of Jesus but my own which I'll pretend has some transitory realpolitik benefit, to Christianity as experienced through a blog. Oh sod it, I just enjoy causing trouble so sue me. Or call me a hypocrite."

26 January 2013 16:56  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Brother Ivo,
It might be helpful if you would identify the comment you are referring to.
As to Naomi, Yes, you know your scriptures well and I commend you, but, who is their without sin, or do you a live a totally sanctified and perfect life?

26 January 2013 17:04  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Mr Integrity

Here is some more which might help to clarify

God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. And hereby we do know that we know him, if we keep his commandments. He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him. Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.

Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

Whosoever committeth sin transgresseth also the law: for sin is the transgression of the law. And ye know that he was manifested to take away our sins; and in him is no sin. Whosoever abideth in him sinneth not: whosoever sinneth hath not seen him, neither known him.

Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose the Son of God was manifested, that he might destroy the works of the devil.

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. And hereby we know that he abideth in us, by the Spirit which he hath given us. Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in him, and he in God. For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.

26 January 2013 17:07  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

it's time to be kinder
to the hypocrites
to the perverts
to the liars
to the adulterers
to the atheists
to the pornographers

it is time to gather
your dust pans and brushes
to sweep up the ashes
of Christianity
set ablaze and destroyed
by waffle heads
who want to please everyone
to be kind to everyone
doing no one any good
taking the coward's way out
who see Jesus as an effete weakling
rather than an innovative revolutionary for changing the status quo.






26 January 2013 17:10  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Intellectualism can be the death of Faith

26 January 2013 17:15  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

I am sorry I cannot pick up your " cue"
Can you identify the point for me more clearly and I will try to answer.

26 January 2013 17:16  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Naomi,
We know what it says but you ingored the question. Are YOU saying that YOU lead a perfect life withot sin or are you made perfect through his forgiveness?

26 January 2013 17:17  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Naomi@ 17:15
Well done. That is what I getting at earlier. Intelectuals can be too clever for their own good.

26 January 2013 17:19  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

And that forgive.ness will encompass a variety of instances of our hypocrisy.

Few of us are invulnerable on the point. Yet we still can and do dare to speak on these matters.

What I am getting at is that one who smoked pot a couple of times at University should not be silenced forever and unable to support the protection of the young from the very powerful skunk on sale today.

Similarly an MP who slept with his wife before they were married, should not, for example, be inhibited from speaking out against promiscuous behaviour amongst the young.

These are specific instances where I fear the hypocrisy narrative silences would be critics of the progressive agenda.

26 January 2013 17:28  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Brother Ivo

It sounds to me that the incidents you offer call for conviction and full repentance of sin followed by baptism into the Holy Ghost. Then, by having a renewing of their minds, such sinners who have found salvation through the LORD Jesus Christ can indeed speak freely on all such matters.

26 January 2013 17:34  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Mr Integrity

I trust in His promises including

Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

He that committeth sin is of the devil;

Whosoever abideth in Him sinneth not

But the anointing which ye have received of Him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you

We know that whosoever is born of God sinneth not; but he that is begotten of God keepeth himself, and that wicked one toucheth him not.

For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.

and lastly

There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.



26 January 2013 17:35  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dreadnaught

The welfare states can't survive today because their middle classes aren't reproducing themselves in order to produce enough future tax payers to pay into the system to keep it afloat and pay for the needs of the elderly and for benefit for future generations unless the population grows. This is why European countries knew in the 1960's (Germany and France in the 1950's invited Muslim "guest workers" from Turkey and North Africa because of their lack of male workers because of their war dead) future demographics pointed to radically smaller populations which meant to survive and keep their welfare states operating they would have to open the doors to the 3rd world to become needed workers and tax payers. Of course these European economic and social geniuses either didn't know or didn't want to know their generous welfare states would be the beacon for millions of 3rd worlders to come to their happy lands to live OFF of those same welfare systems and not work to contribute to support the systems.

You are correct about the Muslim's knowing a sucker nation in the West when they spot one. These shysters know how to manipulate these countries and abuse their welfare system and legal codes. When the UK allowed individual Mulsim males to bring into your country as many as four wives but only if they married them in a Muslim country, which their "holy" Koran allows, your leaders opened up a new can of welfare worms. It's also discriminatory. Why only Muslims? There are UK Mormons (all of them converted indigenous Britains) who's fundamentalist sects allow polygamy yet they are not allowed to have several wives even if they married them in another country as Muslims are allowed. Only Muslims are given that privilidge. Our governemnts bend over backwards to redefine marriage under our present legal codes to please such diverse groups as Muslims and Gays but won't allow any other group or individual to define marriage as they see fit. Isn't this hypocrisy? Or in the case of Islam dhimmitude? Why can't a man or woman decide to practice polygamy pr polyandry if Muslims are permitted have as many as four wives? Why do we even have marriage laws today if the government can redefine marriage as it sees fits to please certain privilidged groups?

I almost choked when one person mentioned "the size of the house" these Muslim male harems would get from the welafre state. A Muslim male with four wives could have as many as forty children or more. Why not assign them the former estates of the aristocracy dotting the landscape they can't pay the taxes for?

Remember Mr Bumble from the Charles Dicken's novel "Oliver Twist"? Mr Bumble is told the law supposes his wife acts under his direction and the common sense Mr Bumble says. "The law is an ass", meaning it is frequently both stupid and stubborn.

Today our legal and political system is completely haywire.

It's starting to dawn on me that we can' trust our religious, political, or ancient traditional leaders from the top on down. They will betray us in the end.

The keep the present show running our governments must tax, tax, and tax again. Look at France and what us happening there.

@ Inspector

Save your breath. Iggy the atheist tooth fairy. Who the hell is he to question your Roman Catholic credentials or the religious faith of anyone else here?

26 January 2013 17:38  
Blogger John Magee said...

Naomi

Ever wonder if God laughs? He has been known to laugh when human intellectuals on planet earth imagine they know more than he does... The angels know this.

26 January 2013 17:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Magoo: "Save your breath. Iggy the atheist tooth fairy."

I suppose I'll see some weird apology thing for this at some point later, and your honking for me to respond in kind as though I have an obligation.

26 January 2013 17:44  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Naomi,
There are none so blind they cannot see and none so deaf they cannot hear. Let’s just be honest for once and not hide behind what we suppose we are and admit what we really are. Sinners saved by grace.

Brother Ivo, Right, our past indiscretions should not be a hindrance to speaking out.

26 January 2013 17:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Brother Ivo: "Similarly an MP who slept with his wife before they were married, should not, for example, be inhibited from speaking out against promiscuous behaviour amongst the young."

Perhaps Tory MP Bob Blackman, an advocate of the sanctity of marriage in the same-sex marriage debate, falls into a similar sort of category?

26 January 2013 17:53  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Hubert Humphrey advised politicians " Never run on the sainthood ticket".

26 January 2013 17:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Cressida

If I understand the article correctly, it refers to past behaviour, not current. Its asking us, whatever our past, to speak up and not be cowered by secularists seeking to use this against us.

Its a different situation is one is still smoking cannabis and urging others not to; or being sexually promiscuous whilst demanding others reform.

Sometimes loving others means being brutally honest with them, making them face the full consequences of their actions and ensuring they are aided to amend their ways - including removing them from situations that may tempt them.

There us a 'tough' kindness. It means separating the person from the action. Someone who steals, for example, has committed an act of theft. They are not necessarily "thieves" unless they see no harm in this and are set on a life of crime.

26 January 2013 17:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Mr Blackman had a valid point and it's sad that he couldn't have stuck to just stuffing envelopes in his surgery late at night. The trouble is, his story went right across Facebook and it was splashed across a national newspaper. It's inevitable that people, and not just gay people, get exasperated and wonder why should they listen to anything these moralising politicians say. It's not mind-controlling "public liberals" who are encouraging those reactions, it's the people doing this sort of stuff themselves.

26 January 2013 18:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Mt Integrity said ...

"Let’s just be honest for once and not hide behind what we suppose we are and admit what we really are. Sinners saved by grace."

Sinners in the process of being saved by Grace, surely?

In my experience, past discretions are not always in the past. The temptation to repeat familiar sins is powerful. The person has to reform within and not just claim the cloak of Christ's redeeming sacrifice.

26 January 2013 18:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Assuming the story about Mr Blackman is true, of course.

26 January 2013 18:09  
Blogger IanCad said...

John Magee

A beautiful illustration of our God laughing is in Genisis 18:15:

"Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but you did laugh."

Isaac, roughly, means God's Laughter.

26 January 2013 18:10  
Blogger Naomi King said...

No Mr Integrity it is the LORD who pulls us out of the Miry place and puts our feet upon a rock. I do not hide behind what I suppose I am, I believe what the Word of God tells me I am. I am a sinner saved like all other believers. It is the Devil only who accuses the Brethren not the LORD.

26 January 2013 18:11  
Blogger IanCad said...

How could I?
Genesis

26 January 2013 18:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0

Bob Blackman's affair ended in 2000 and his scorned mistress acted vindictively. I think this has some some relevance. I mean if he'd murdered his wife that long ago he'd be eligible for parole.

The experience may have impressed on him the sanctity of marriage and that's why he spoke up.

26 January 2013 18:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Note the context at 26 January 2013 17:53.

26 January 2013 18:17  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Dodo @18:06
Try telling that to Mrs King!

26 January 2013 18:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

These are specific instances where I fear the hypocrisy narrative silences would be critics of the progressive agenda.

But how can I take seriously the arguments of Ted Haggard if he speaks against homosexuality? The fact is that our past actions do impact our ability to speak with credibility, and that is why we should be careful to guard our manner of life.

The hypocrisy narrative is rooted in a belief about autonomy. The modern world asserts "You live your life and I will live mine." It is a claim of the primacy of personal desire over public obligation. The narrative then is employed against those who would to reverse this priority. The proposed imposition of public obligation is seen as an illegitimate effort at control. The hidden assumption is that the effort at control has no tangible moral substance - that it is simply a play for power by those who in fact do not actually live according to their own professed standards.

That's why the subject of this post could get off by saying "I am not a moral person." He is affirming the underlying premise of his own moral autonomy. He openly states that he will do what he will do without regard to the consequences of those around him. His selfishness is authentic and that resonates with a modern world that can detect no virtue beyond autonomy. In keeping with the modern understanding, he seeks to control only his own behavior. The pain and injury and suffering he may inflict are collateral. And, in any case, he rationalizes those affected are free to respond in kind. It is a narrative of atomization.

It is this transformation of obligation into control that we are fighting. And that means we have to live the obligations. We can't just talk about them. The authenticity of the witness will resonate with a world that (as I said) can find no moral center beyond authenticity.

carl

26 January 2013 18:29  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace
and
Brother Ivo

Quite why I presently find Omar useful, I’m unsure. But the following does depict our situation (talking clay pots in the Potter’s shop) and might amuse:
So while the Vessels one by one were speaking,
One spied the little Crescent all were seeking:
And then they jogg'd each other, "Brother! Brother!
Hark to the Porter's Shoulder-knot a-creaking!"


This is Stanza 66, and The Porter, I think, is the Angel (stanzas 42, 48) who carries on his shoulder the Draft of Death.

So thank you for helping out, Brother Ivo; and thank you Your Grace, as ever. I’m glad you identify Anti-Christian application of the label “hypocrisy” - it is undoubtedly part of Marxist word-poison. As usual, the Accusers appropriate a twisted absolutely hypocritical view of Christianity, and turn it against us:
The widespread fear of hypocrisy has become a potent weapon of advancing secularism. [...] Worse, the tyranny of the accusation easily silences moral or Christian opinion and excludes it from the public space, especially amongst public figures who dare not 'Do God' lest it attract threatening attention...

So I say let us choose which wine we drink, from whose Messenger.

cont'd...

26 January 2013 18:54  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 January 2013 19:00  
Blogger len said...

It is impossible to have any sense at all of what an acceptable' moral standard' is without knowledge of what the original Creator intended.
The secular World is in the process of tearing up the original blueprint for mankind and supplanting it with its own.Without the original blueprint we have no idea of where we are in the scheme of things.And this is the intention of those behind the de -construction of our Society.
Political Correctness plays an important part in the re-arranging of the moral fabric of our Society and many have been programmed to accept PC without question, the fear of the disapproval of the 'herd' is an important factor in this respect.
A Christian will be unable to fulfil his function in the Body of Christ if he owes his first allegiance to 'his fellows' or even 'his religion'over and above God.

26 January 2013 19:10  
Blogger non mouse said...

cont'd

You show us, however, that the Enemy's weaponry is flawed; its substance is weak because it too is forged from lies. It is also Unjust: even as the Accusers wield their “Sword of Justice,” they silence the Defendant and set themselves up as his Judge, Jury, and Executioner.

As we approach Easter, we will continue to memorialise and vocalise the most Potent illustration of their method - in the Christian Paradox whereby Greatest Evil (the ‘Killing’ of Christ) is transformed to Greatest Good (Redemption).

Among supports for your argument, I respond most positively to William Wilberforce’s asking who is “better promoted the public welfare, the honest man who pointed the way to vice or the hypocrite who urged virtue.”

The point is well made: we are weak vessels, and individual knowledge is limited within the bounds of each clay pot. No single one is equipped to judge or sentence any other — or even what the marxists have proclaimed as “Other.” Only The One can do that.

cont'd...

26 January 2013 19:10  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dodo no one is going to accuse the MP who slept with his wife before marriage as promiscuous unless they have an agenda. If secularists want to twist the term hypocrite that it is easily argued against.

I also agree with the tough love stance.
All the waffling and tippy toeing about does not get results.

It is easy to become a holy Joe with age. Satan does temptation very well particularly in youth.
If one reminisces about the good ole sinful times with no remorse then one is hypocritical.Admitting the truth to oneself is a good start to communicating with God and then others.

26 January 2013 19:10  
Blogger non mouse said...

.... Cont'd

However, I do believe we are here to learn and to help each other towards Truth: by sharing our perceptions of truth. Like Chaucer’s Clerk of Oxenford, “gladly [should we] lerne, and gladly teche.”**
As I have understood old culture, learning from mistakes is one important use of this life, and we were often protected by family and law to allow us to adjust our paths in the right direction. Marxist useful idiots proceed, beams in eyes, to take away all our rights to do so; the polarity at work is Hypocrite/hypocrite! Their method denies our use of the grey or middle ground for forging clearer understanding from experience.

Thank you for fighting it.
________________
cf: Chaucer, G. “General Prologue.” 308.


26 January 2013 19:15  
Blogger John Magee said...

Brother ivo

Talk about hypocrites. The fast talking, shyster, and very liberal Senator Hubert Humphrey you mentioned above said in 1964 after he signed the Civil Rights Acts (passed thanks to the majority of Republicans voting for it by the way) said to the press. "If this civil rights law means quotas I will eat my hat". Unfortunately the old wind bag has long been in his grave and can't be forced to eat his Steson hat. Millions of middle class and poor young white men are denied jobs today because of their race, even if they get near perfect scores and pass the physical exams, in favor of less qualified (sometimes they even fail the exams) non whites and women. That's "civil rights" for you. Our hypocritcal government wants young white men to join the military and risk their lives for this country only to come home and face government sponsored discrimination for stuff neither they no their ancestors almost certainly had no part of. Government sponsored racism and sexism in hiring our police, firemen, and a myriad of other local, state , and federal jobs is wrong and God help you if you bring the subject up to liberal politician or media "expert".

what a sham this contry and the whole Western world has become.

26 January 2013 19:17  
Blogger John Magee said...

IanCad

Thank you for the Biblical post about Sarah in Genesis.

God also laughs when we make plans...

26 January 2013 19:20  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Well certainly Mr Cameron's plans will be his Waterloo and he isn't the Duke of Wellington !

26 January 2013 19:26  
Blogger len said...

Are we saved By Grace?., or being saved by Grace?


"Let’s just be honest for once and not hide behind what we suppose we are and admit what we really are. Sinners saved by grace."(Mr Integrity)

Our Spirit is saved(if we have been born again "A new heart I will give you, and a new spirit I will put within you; and I will take out of your flesh the heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. And I will put my Spirit within you, and cause you to walk in my statutes and be careful to observe my ordinances". (Ezek. 36:26–27)

Our Spirit (once we are born) again is perfected for all eternity.
Our souls(mind will emotions ) are BEING saved and our bodies WILL be saved.

Many think 'water baptism' will save them but this is not Biblical and does not make them' a Christian'.
Well how do you become a Christian? ..lets us Jesus Christ Himself after all He should know if anyone does!.

John 3:3-7 Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God." 4 Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" 5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

Jesus warns of those who attempt to enter His Kingdom by 'means other than He defines.'

26 January 2013 19:31  
Blogger Naomi King said...

A friend of mine sent me this report of her meeting with her MP this week and here is my response

Dear Naomi, At the end of our time I thanked our MP for standing up for marriage - he thinks it is absolutely awful that they are thinking of changing the law concerning marriage. However, when he had a private word the other day with David Cameron - he [DC] looked at him with "hatred" in his eyes and is vehement that he is going ahead with "gay" marriage. Thank God for MP's like xxx who speak out but they need prayer.

Dear Eve

That man, David Cameron, is sold out to the Devil. That is where the hatred and vehemence comes from. I saw the same in Chris Grayling (Justice Minister) who came to speak at our Conservative Party Annual Dinner. I was startled by his aggression on the topic. He is supposed to be a Christian. His sister certainly is, who is a member of our church but she was keen to distance herself from him on the issue. Tragic isn't it ?

This is what I came upon earlier today, God's pattern of Judgement on Nations and it seems to summarise the situation pretty well.

Warmest regards in Christ
Naomi

26 January 2013 19:32  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

16:49

You Grace I used the c word because I remember Danjo using that term to insult Dodo. I do not know if you removed his post or not or on which thread it was..Besides some of your communicants may not have been aware of the origins of the insulting word --unt. I could apologise profusely for having used it but that would be insincere and hypocritical.

26 January 2013 19:33  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Yet his advice is sound.

26 January 2013 19:37  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Marie1797 said...on a next door post "I saw a You Tube video of that disgusting professor Anderson some time ago, he was at Bournemouth uni. Not sure if been taken down as I can't seem to find it again.
He should be struck off for inciting young people into harmful and dangerous lifestyles. He's a vile attention seeking bugger, what he says is not at all educational just sensationalist boasting."

26 January 2013 20:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida, I expect the sight of you and Dodo clutching your pearls in fake shock at a trivial bit of slang made more than just me snort.

26 January 2013 20:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0 - the word "twunt" is obnoxious given its root in the two words c**t and t**t. That you directed it at a fellow blogger speaks volumes about you. That you regard it as "a trivial bit of slang" says even more.

26 January 2013 22:20  
Blogger Matt A said...

He wrote the word to get a reaction. Lets pray for him, then move on.

26 January 2013 22:37  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Matt, nice to have you back

I have just found this prophetic Word which ties in very well with your opening remarks this morning. God bless.


There is a change coming, there is a shift coming. The age has seen the spreading of the Gospel, this Salvation, the power from Israel to the nations and from now there must be the ingathering back. From the ends of the Earth, the Gospel, the Children of Israel, the Church must come home, from the ends of the Earth. The return. For 2,000 years this Gospel, this Salvation, this power of Messiah has gone away from Israel, from Israel it has gone out. The Church must come back to Jerusalem and the Jewish people. The final ingathering. We must be ready, we are standing at the gate prophetically of something new. We are to return not as the tail but as the head. This power of Messiah must return. There is an ancient torch of the prophets and the apostles of Israel, the first Messianic Jews and Gentiles, that was the most powerful force ever seen on earth that must come again and we are to receive it. We are the closing act of what is to come. We are linked to the final outpouring of the spirit of God. We must be ready. We have a call to be watchmen. We are accountable if we do not sound the shofar, we are accountable, if we do not proclaim to people salvation we are the ones who are accountable.

Cont

26 January 2013 22:42  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Son of Man, 'If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." It is the time, the end times, to be vigilant as watchmen, we don't have forever to repent, we don't have forever to get our lives together, we don't have forever to live out the holy calling He has put upon our lives and we don't have forever, it is time to wake up, if you would ever preach the Gospel, preach it now, if you would ever save the lost, save them now, if you would ever live victoriously as God calls you, live it now because we do not have forever. It is time to be diligent and vigilant and to live in the Word and in Prayer as holy apostles and disciples as in the 1st century. God will pour out his Spirit on the people who are before Him. It is time to sound the alarm and to lift up our voices and save the lost. It is time to proclaim the Gospel and not be held back by fear or compromise. It is time to stop compromising with the world and to wake up and to wake up the world. It is time, we must start rising higher as we are the heirs of the apostles and the prophets, as they began we are the closing last days. Its for us to take up the ancient mantle and God will give it to us. It is time we stopped playing around and stop being complacent and to love God as never before. The time is short. To draw near as never before. To love others, to minister others, as never before. To say "I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Salvation, it is the power of God for Salvation to everyone who believes to the Jew first and also for the gentile". It is time to save the lost and to be all out, to be sold out for Him. For the Lord says "I have set you as watchmen on the walls, for Zion's sake, do not keep silent until Jerusalem blazes forth like a mighty touch". "Go through, go through the gates says the LORD, remove the stones, for a voice is crying in the wilderness prepare ye the way of the Lord make his paths straight, let every mountain be cast down and every valley be lifted up and the crocked ways be made straight and the rough places plain and a highway for our God that all flesh shall see the Salvation of our God. The hour is prophetic and prophetic is your calling. Let us my brothers and sisters for real begin to live like it, let us rise to the charge. May God open the eyes of your heart that we may see the lateness of the hour and the height and the glory of his calling. May God strengthen and empower us for such a time as this. May God have mercy and bring his end time revival that we might at last arise and shine because our light HAS come and the glory of the LORD will shine upon us. For Nations shall come to our light and Kings to the brightness of our rising to the most high and glorious name the KING of KINGS the anointed one, Jesus Christ, who is exalted for ever and ever. Amen. Praise the LORD

26 January 2013 22:42  
Blogger Matt A said...

God bless you too Naomi, they are powerful words.

26 January 2013 22:58  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

What! you have been snorting coc---e as well, shifty little ---t. Lucky you have an ---y in His Grace!

27 January 2013 00:19  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

The Islamic hypocrisy going on here where the Islamic moralists turn a blind eye to the smuggling of forbidden substances a lot of it to the UK in order to fund their war and terrorism against the west who are too busy fussing with redefining marriage.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/mali/9829099/Revealed-how-Saharan-caravans-of-cocaine-help-to-fund-al-Qaeda-in-terrorists-North-African-domain.html

27 January 2013 00:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Cressida

Give me a clue - you know I'm dense.

I Get the references to "snorting coc---e" (that's quite possible) and the "shifty little ---t" (nice alliteration btw, assuming it starts with an 's' and not a 'c') but the "you have an ---y in His Grace" is causing me a bit of a problem. Does it start with an 'a' and have a couple of 'l's' in it, by any chance?

27 January 2013 00:39  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thanks for that information, Marie. We've long known how the Viet Cong used drugs against the US, and also that South Americans deploy the same. The Afghans, also, are renowned for their poppy fields.

It shouldn't surprise that other Arabs have upped their game against the rest of us; but it's good to have confirmation. Further, one would expect the 'dry state' mozzies to reject other stimulants along with alcohol, so perhaps that is one of their snivelling dissimulations.

In any case, the issue fits into Br. Ivo's discussion of hypocrisy with regard to drug use. We might indeed do more to help the young to learn from their mistakes and those of others. We can also point out that they are themselves being used as weapons for the greater destruction of others: though some I've heard might not mind that. We have our work cut out.

_________________

PS: Yet again regret earlier typos ... we all, of course, know the difference between a Draught of Death, and a Draft of same!!

27 January 2013 01:33  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Doddles ***l***,

Just ejoying a squidgeon of mirth spoofing all these dots and dash requirements.
Tad hypocritical p*** m**!
Be sure ** v**** me sometimes. Wont ** **** for a *****.
Chaste ****** and soft s******s
for a mou***** ole Catholic ****

Cressida

27 January 2013 01:50  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Carl:

I'm with you on this one, though I commend Brother Ivo for his thoughtful post.

Part of the difficulty with charges of hypocrisy that are based on past behaviour is either a suspicion that that behaviour is secretly continuing, or a suspicion that any confession is primarily one of convenience rather than conviction.

My understanding of repentence is not one where the redeemed party no longer needs to pay the consequences. All too often "I'm sorry" is used to mean "I should no longer be punished" - as with a case I read of this week, where a pair of women who were involved in a horrific assault, and one of them sought to claim that God had forgiven her for her crime as a defence.

That God can forgive sin through Christ's atoning death is the cornerstone of the world. But His forgiveness restores us to be just. The person whose soul has been cleansed of sin is not relieved of its consequences, but rather put in a place where the act of restitution is made attractive not by virtue of fear of authority but by love of Justice.

And as to the fear that the sin continues in secret - well are we not exhorted to put aside the things that tempt us? To cast into the fire our idols, and even (one for you here, David B given your love of literalism) to cut off one's hand if it causes us to sin.

It's what's so frequently missing in modern Christianity - not good intentions, which abound both within the Church and beyond it, but discipleship.

27 January 2013 02:09  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Another example of hypocrisy and confusion here in that it's OK for an Islamic faith school in the UK to teach pupils that women are worthless, but it's not acceptable in the name of equality and diversity for our teachers not to teach the state enforced homosexuality package to children.

Will muslim faith schools also have to conform to equality and diversity and teach about homosexuality too? I bet not. The fact is Cameron & his weak government are s**t scared of them so they take advantage of this and it's not on.

27 January 2013 03:45  
Blogger non mouse said...

There must be some way for parents to protect their children. Every normal family should rebel against this despicable law, and many teachers would be amongst them. Surely an evil regime cannot force this on families unless we allow it. We have to find our backbones somewhere.

Some years ago, a teacher friend of mine said that they'd let virtually anyone teach in my area-- simply because qualified people had resigned because of what they were required to do. How much truer that must be now.

27 January 2013 04:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Parents are of course the insurmountable obstacle. They will never accept that 'fate' hands them the pain and disappointment and humiliation that attends a homosexual child. They know intuitively that homosexuality is a learned behavior, and they will want to isolate their children from its advocacy. No bureaucrat or psychologist or administrator will turn them aside from this desire. This is dangerous ground. If you want to turn the populace against the normalization of homosexuality, there is no better way to do it than to say to parents "Of course, Mr Smith, you must consider the possibility that your little Jimmy is gay. And you must support him in that orientation."

carl

27 January 2013 05:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Another example of hypocrisy and confusion here in that it's OK for an Islamic faith school in the UK to teach pupils that women are worthless [...]"

Why shouldn't they teach pupils that women ought to be subservient, and have a specific gender role, and dress modestly? If our concepts of equality are merely cultural-Marxist thought control then on what basis can we argue otherwise? That Jehovah is better than Allah? They're not going to fall for that one, are they? What if the teachers claim a right based on conscience not to teach their pupil stuff about the emancipation of women? Who can argue against that? Not their employers if some alternatively religious people have their way.

27 January 2013 06:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 January 2013 07:13  
Blogger Brother Ivo said...

Thank you so much for taking my thought forward in a new and grace-full contribution.

It is this kind of response for which I hoped.

27 January 2013 08:13  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Dear Marie1797 Thank you for your useful comment and link at 00:38

We have many brothers and sisters in Nigeria where there is a HUGE revival going on over the last 20 year. Yet there is appalling Muslim cruelty against them. This article explains why.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/mali/9829099/Revealed-how-Saharan-caravans-of-cocaine-help-to-fund-al-Qaeda-in-terrorists-North-African-domain.html

Well done !

27 January 2013 08:20  
Blogger John Magee said...

Marie

It angers me to see a Gay defend Islam's degradation of women in the name of "diversity" in their religious schools in a free society like the UK. His "all religions are the same" nonsense defies the fact that Christianity repects women. It always has. From the honor given the Virgin Mary, Jesus's friendship with women, Catholic female saints, the honor shown by knights during the Middle Ages to their ladies during the Age of Chivalry, and the politeness that men used to show women when they met or passed on the street and tipped their hats, kissing their hand when they met, ladies first through a door, men stood when a lady entered a room. These are NOT concepts of respect shown to women which exist in the Islamic world today nor did they ever exist in their religious culture in the past. The West has it's faults in it's treatment of women in our past. But no sane female today would want to trade places and live as Islamic women who are virtual slaves to their husbands and sons and must endure beatings and the humiliation of her husband having as many as three other wives in the same house.

These same Muslim schools teach death to homosexuals which comes directly from the Koran. I wonder how an atheist Gay liberal in a Western nation can justify that brutal concept in the name of diversity?

27 January 2013 08:44  
Blogger David B said...

John I don't think Danjo was defending Islam.

As I read it he was implicitly pointing out, by asking questions, that religious privilege of any flavour is a bad idea.

Sauce for the goose and all that.

David

27 January 2013 08:59  
Blogger IanCad said...

non mouse wrote:
"There must be some way for parents to protect their children. Every normal family should rebel against this despicable law,"

There is. Homeschooling is still legal in this country and local councils are very helpful to those who choose that option.

Groups of parents can work together to give their children an education free from the constraints of an over-weening government.

Take advantage now. It is a right which is hated by the collectivists.

27 January 2013 08:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David B: "As I read it he was implicitly pointing out, by asking questions, that religious privilege of any flavour is a bad idea."

Of course.

The cultural-Marxist thing was a reference to one of Marie's comments in the thread below about equality. The conscience thing was a reference to the recent religious demands for a right to dictate employment terms. The juxtaposition was there as an example of how tough arbitration by the State is when someone claims moral absolutism as a justification for their behaviour.

It really shouldn't need explicit deconstructing, even for a Septic.

27 January 2013 09:09  
Blogger Naomi King said...

There is an excellent home schooling organisation called TEACH which is supported by our Local Authority. Here are their contact details Arthur Roderick

27 January 2013 09:22  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Link didn't work first time try http://www.christian-education.org

27 January 2013 09:24  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Just to clarify TEACH works throughout Europe it just happens to be recommended by our Local Authority in it's homeschoolers support pack.

27 January 2013 09:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie, I think, would claim that "we" are a Christian country and so "we" should be able to tell "them" what to do. Possibly there would be some sort of reifying of tradition too to justify the hierarchy.

Of course, "we" are not all Christians at all. In some hands, Marie's too I think, this is just a means of distinguising between "real" citizens and interlopers, meaning Muslims.

What's to stop me from describing myself as a real citizen and pointing out that Marie has very different views to me? I was born here and my lineage goes all the way back as far as I know.

However, compare what's going on there with our "core values". Do "we" believe in a right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion? Do "we" believe in tolerance? Do "we" believe in liberty? If so then on what basis do "we" limit the freedom of others who have different beliefs and values?

27 January 2013 09:28  
Blogger len said...

"I am not a moral man" statement is the sum total of years of indoctrination into' Evolutionary thinking.'

If man is but an animal why not behave as one?.This leads to a degenerative process which is exactly where we are at the moment.

27 January 2013 09:45  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Indeed Ien we are all moral men, who have a relationship with our Creator, whether we choose to admit/recognise/embrace it.

27 January 2013 09:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 January 2013 09:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "If man is but an animal why not behave as one?"

We're just animals at one level but evolution has resulted in a species which is self-aware and empathic and reflexive. That is, we're a species of moral agents. We behave as one might expect a member of homo sapiens to do, which is not as a member of vulpes vulpes does even though we share many of our genes. That's no great revelation to most people, I expect.

27 January 2013 09:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

There's an interesting story at the top of The Tablet at the moment, and now reported in The Times:

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/latest-news.php

From the Times:

"SENIOR teachers and governors at Catholic schools face the sack if they live with a partner without getting married or if they get divorced. A new booklet, published by the bishops of England and Wales, says that teachers working in Catholic schools should also not marry divorcees or get married in register offices or in ceremonies which do not meet with the church’s approval."

and

"A Department for Education spokesman said: “This is a matter for schools and their governors. Faith schools can consider whether a person’s conduct is in line with their religious values when dismissing teachers. However schools must also comply with employment law.”"

27 January 2013 12:48  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


As I read it he was implicitly pointing out, by asking questions, that religious privilege of any flavour is a bad idea.


Only if one supposes that all positions are equivalent. You and DanJ0 want them all to be equivalently bad for the purposes of rhetorically dismissing all religion - although it must be said, you've both explicitly rejected the hypothetical argument that polygamy is morally equivalent to SSM before, and when pressed on Islam have usually admitted a more complicated landscape.

I've no interest in defending the virtues of other faiths, nor do I consider them morally equivalent with Christianity - or for that matter atheism. Consequently, I find it perfectly possible to reject the idea that an imagined and artificial parity is ideal.

Of course, whilst that artificial parity is expressed persistently through our "equality" culture, as I've observed before, it's very clear that nobody save the most myopic bureaucrat truly advocates it. What we end up at is a position in which a generic (and so, increasingly meaningless) equality is advanced, and all "prophets" are honoured, but where the detail is defined by the advancement of the putative rights of any minority groups presently favoured by our political and cultural elite, and the attrition of those who are not.

It must be remembered that this is distinct from how we use these things rhetorically down here (none of us are law-makers or editors as far as I'm aware). Effectively we use them to demonstrate hypocrisy - an eminently easy task given that, as I say, none of us really believe in that "perfect" ideal of equality.

The main difference between us on that front is whose rhetoric aligns most closely with the behaviour of those in power. I'll not dispute you win there.

27 January 2013 12:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Most people seem to accept the notion that men and women ought to have equality of access and opportunity in things like employment and education. Yet when it suits some people, this concept of equality becomes something from the toolbox of what the far-right calls cultural-Marxism. Is fairness as most people understand it to do with treating like alike? I certainly think so. In that case, it all turns on what is sufficiently alike to be treated alike. If a Muslim says that Allah has given a specific gender role to women, and that men are their masters, then who are the rest of us to argue when he points at a religious book?

27 January 2013 13:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If women choose to adopt a specific gender role and accept certain men as being their masters then so be it as long as the rest of us can get on with our lives without being forced along the same route.

However, freedom is at the core of our society and those women must be allowed a free choice. Someone like me would argue that they're the product of a culture and therefore not really free to choose at all.

We can't force people to be free but we can present the options to people so they can see what's on offer, we can support the choices of people if they adopt a different lifestyle, and we can even actively encourage people to do so.

If a Muslim chooses to live a certain way, and he or she doesn't harm others in doing so, and he or she doesn't stop people making their own choices then so be it. It's when Muslims try to stop the rest of us from living according to values which are not Islamic that things get iffy. Similarly with Christians.

As an advocate of a secular State and a free society, I'm happy to formalise space through rights so that people with diverse beliefs and lifestyles, such as Islamic or Christian ones, can share society with the rest of us. However, with rights come responsibilities, one of those being that they should recipocate.

27 January 2013 13:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0

Now, wouldn't it be hypocritical if a Church school taught one thing to children and its Head Teachers and School Governors practiced another thing?

The booklet you refer to is intended as guidance for those applying for senior leadership positions which are only open to Catholics such as potential Head Teachers, Deputy Heads or Heads of RE as well as Governors.

The booklet warns "non-chaste" Head Teachers could be sacked as any "substantive life choice" against Catholic teaching could be incompatible with their work

Anyone deemed to be in a “non-chaste” relationship outside marriage, which could also be interpreted to include gay staff in civil partnerships, could be removed from their posts.

The booklet argues that any “substantive life choice” which went against Catholic teaching could be incompatible with their work. It lists divorcees who remarry; those who marrying outside a Catholic church without canonical approval or those in openly “unchaste” relationships alongside those who had committed “apostasy” – or renouncing faith.

It goes on to say:

"Even the most committed Catholic frequently fails in the full expression of the practice of their faith through personal weakness and sinfulness on various occasions and at particular moments,” the booklet says.

“These failures in the practice of the faith are, however, distinct from adhering to and maintaining substantive life choices which are incompatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church and which prevent them from receiving the sacraments.

“These choices can give scandal potentially both to the Christian and wider community and bring the religious ethos and character of the school into disrepute.”


And one sees the secularist emerging to sneer and criticise the Church for its approach.

The National Secular Society has slammed it as "crude discrimination". Other unnamed "critics" say that the "diktat" leaves teachers “uniquely vulnerable to religious discrimination” and that it breaches European equality laws.

So here we go again! Diversity and Equality being presented as threats to Christian Truth.

27 January 2013 13:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Of course, this is why I view faith schools as something rather dubious. They're designed to create products of a specific culture where freedom is not so valued. They indoctrinate children with the intention of closing their immature minds to the other options. They're the ribonucleic acid of religious culture.

27 January 2013 13:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Now, wouldn't it be hypocritical if [...]"

Hence my inclusion on this thread. ;)

Now, shoo.

27 January 2013 13:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "You and DanJ0 want them all to be equivalently bad for the purposes of rhetorically dismissing all religion [...]"

Actually, for the most part I want to point to their religious moral absolutism being a mere claim amongst many. The fact that it's "tidy" because it asserts something god-ish and then derives all the rest from it is not in itself all that great.

27 January 2013 13:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

With acknowledgement to our resident sage (and onion), DanJ0

"Of course, this is why I view secular, atheist schools as something rather dubious. They're designed to create products of a specific culture where self desire is valued. They indoctrinate children with the intention of opening their immature minds to options such as homosexuality and other immoral practices where pleasure is what counts. They're the ribonucleic acid of a hedonistic, self destructive culture."

27 January 2013 14:48  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"The fact that it's "tidy" because it asserts something god-ish and then derives all the rest from it is not in itself all that great."

Which is exactly what I said: you simply derive the "badness" from reference to the supernatural or divine, and so have no reason to differentiate between them. In the end, as so often, you can dismiss almost anyone religious, on the grounds that they are religious.

27 January 2013 14:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "Which is exactly what I said: you simply derive the "badness" from reference to the supernatural or divine, and so have no reason to differentiate between them."

No. That's not it.

There are usually two things I'm pushing back on.

The first is that I have a choice to believe in god or not. Of course, you have a similar choice too, to believe in god or not. Both you and Muslims give me that choice, and hint at the consequences in not believe in god, only the choice is about a different god in each case. Yet I'm never offered the choice to believe in your god, someone else's god, or no god. You each assume you've made the correct choice. Only one of you can be right and you're both completely convinced it's each of you. On the outside of religious belief, I see that very clearly.

The second is that I have a choice between religious moral absolutism and some sort of moral relativism, where moral absolutism somehow trumps moral relativism because it has a single foundation whereas who's to say which morality in moral relativism is right? That's pretty naff though, isn't it? It's foundation relies entirely on ungrounded premises and who's to say which morality in the available versions of moral absolutism is right?

I haven't bought into either paradigm of the universe being sustained by Allah or by Jehovah. In fact, I haven't bought into a paradigm of the universe being sustained by a human-interested god at all. I haven't bought into the paradigm of the universe being created by a god at all, actually, as I don't know enough about the nature of our reality. On that basis, why would I pick one theistic morality over another other than by comparison with a more earthy and personal notion of goodness or something like it?

27 January 2013 15:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I could point at an example of moral universalism, such as Utilitarianism, and say that it doesn't suffer from the seemingly unsatisfactory issues around moral relatavism. One could say that it's consistent, and coherent, and applies universally across space and time. However, there's a problem. It relies on a single moral principle from which all others are derived and who's to say that the moral principle is actually the correct one? I have to appeal to people's understanding of the world and to their moral intuition. And, at the end of the day, most people find it unsatisfactory when they try to use it. Not because it is internally inconsistent or incoherent, but because it comes up with moral conclusions which do not chime well with our moral intuition. It seems that the single moral principle it relies on is not enough.

27 January 2013 15:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, wants us to be free. But he’s not so sure about faith schools. Looks like ‘free’ is a subjective term then. We all want freedom, but not necessarily his version...

27 January 2013 16:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I don't want burglars to be free to do what they want as far as people's houses are concerned either. Damn, you've got me there. I must be applying it as a subjective term and oppressing their freedom. Oh woe.

27 January 2013 16:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Don’t worry DanJ0, we understand your predicament. But it is worth considering by those who play fast and loose with the term ‘free’ just who’s freedoms we are talking about. More often than not, it’s or own, unless we subscribe to a set of moral behaviour, like Christianity. Then it’s OUR freedoms.
Much better investing in an off the shelf set of values instead or muddling ahead alone, don’t you think ?

27 January 2013 16:39  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 Thank God we are a Christian country and Christianity has and still is kind to women as John Magee has pointed out at 08:44

That anyone is subservient to anyone else nowadays here in the UK is not right and should not be taught. That women have a role to play in life, yes and teaching them to dress with decency is no bad thing when I see the girls on a night out. The emancipation of women is part of our history and should have to be taught as factual history.

These madrassas teach and instil into pupils that the woman's role in life is not as equal as the man's and that they are of a lesser species to be treated however a man should choose and if she doesn't comply she can be beaten. That's wrong, they are fellow human beings. Our laws and evolved civilisation state a woman is not to be used as a punch bag or a sex slave against her will. This is where cultures clash, We don't believe in beating women Danj0. By all means have Islamic faith schools BUT what they teach needs to be modified according to the country they are living and teaching in.

That we are having to endure more cultural Marxist though control and destruction of our once gentle culture and civilisation needs to be fought off Muslims on the other hand with their hot tempered violent tendency are not taking much notice of the cultural Marxist thought as they are still raping and plundering, and the government is too weak to do much about it.

27 January 2013 16:47  
Blogger John Magee said...

David B

"John I don't think Danjo was defending Islam.

As I read it he was implicitly pointing out, by asking questions, that religious privilege of any flavour is a bad idea."

Sauce for the goose and all that."

I live in a secular society so by law and in theory relgion is neither favored nor dicriminated against here. This applies to non believers as well. There are exceptions. Pacifists and people who chose to live apart from society like the Amish are exempted from serving in the military and are allowed to have their own schools (where religion is not taught)paid for by the tax payers.

In the 99% of the nations in the Christian West today the Muslim "goose" gets special treatment and a sauce of tolerance and undeserved respect from our governments and liberals. whileAt he same time the Christian/Jewish "gander", which in large part created our Western Civilization, is forgotten in the oven and left to burn.

Sorry. I took it his remarks a slap in the face. It's the never ending atheist mantra that Christ and Mohammed are the same which they most definately are not and never were. They were exact opposites in every way, shape, or form. The Christian God and His son Jesus Christ, inspite of the hypocrisy of individual Christians and sometimes the Church, is a God of love, forgiveness, and redemption. Allah is a god of vengence, hatred, and violence. Atheists who live in free Western majority Christian nations never give up their hatred of religion which is strange because Christians and othe people of faith tolerate them and could care less if they don't believe in God. We want to live peaceably beside our atheist neighbors. At the same time some atheists are always busy at work using the courts to undermine religion every chance they get. An example of atheist brutality when they get power is the former USSR and Mao's China. tens of millions died in the name of an atheists state that had absolutely no respect for anyone who deviated from Marxist/Leninist thinking.

In the West today Muslims demand and get special treatment in every way the can push us and use our laws. From their dietary needs met by forcing Hallal foods on the majority by their demand this meat be sold at grocery stores and even restaurants, all the way to caving in to their demands for footbaths in public places such as airports, to banning dogs for the blind from Muslim cab drivers cars. Muslims are always "offended" and they want compensation and they get it from us. In your country Muslim men may now have as many as four wives, but only if they marry them outside the UK, then they can bring them back to your country and collect welfare benefits and have enormous families. Why can't fundamentalist Mormons or any man or woman of no particular faith practice polygamy or polyandry if they chose just as Muslim men are now allowed in your country?

Muslim schools are not places where love, tolerance, and respect for the majority society's history and culture, which tolerates them and gives them their freedoms, is taught. Christian and Jewish schools do teach these things. Does the UK MI 5 or the USA FBI have to monitor churches or synagogues or Christian and Jewish schools for bomb makers or Jihadist radical teachings? No they do not.

What's good for the Muslim goose is a left wing Marxist reddish colored sauce called politically correct affection which they lavishly bast upon any "goose" who hates Western Christian. Civilization.

27 January 2013 17:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 January 2013 17:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "That anyone is subservient to anyone else nowadays here in the UK is not right and should not be taught. That women have a role to play in life, yes and teaching them to dress with decency is no bad thing when I see the girls on a night out. The emancipation of women is part of our history and should have to be taught as factual history."

But why? You're just asserting how you think it should be.

"By all means have Islamic faith schools BUT what they teach needs to be modified according to the country they are living and teaching in."

But why?

That's what my questions were trying to get you to think about. We claim to value "freedom of thought, conscience, and religion", in fact it's in our law and we're a signatory to the ECHR, but you want to restrict their freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

"That's wrong, they are fellow human beings."

And there. You're invoking some sort of notion of equality yet you simultaneously decry it as an aspect of cultural-Marxism when it suits you.

"This is where cultures clash, We don't believe in beating women Danj0."

It's against the law but someone usually needs to complain. What if the woman has been socialised to think it's her place to be beaten when she's misbehaved? What if she agrees that she's subservient to her husband and he can punish her in various ways?

27 January 2013 17:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 January 2013 17:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

These people are British, you know. They have citizenship. Many of them were born here. Some may have parents who were born here too. Why do you own our culture? Why should your notion of god trump theirs?

27 January 2013 17:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John, we are particularly blessed with race traitors in this country. From our protestant heritage, arguably. It’s like a damn disease they pick up at university. Of course, it will all change when our brown guests start ‘agitating’ as they are wont to do. Inevitably, there will be a perceived slight to set them off. One remembers the American ambassador murdered by these types...

27 January 2013 18:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Of course, it will all change when our brown guests start ‘agitating’ as they are wont to do."

Or citizens, as they're normally called.

27 January 2013 18:06  
Blogger John Magee said...

"If women choose to adopt a specific gender role and accept certain men as being their masters then so be it as long as the rest of us can get on with our lives without being forced along the same route."

What utter and complete liberal hypocrisy!

Married women in the West who CHOSE to stay at home and raise their children have been sneered at, mocked, called vile names by the radical feminists since the late 60's. The left hates women who chose a family and her children over a career. As if being a mother isn't a career!

Women of faith in the West who do not support abortion are viciously attacked by radical feminists and the left.

These same Western feminists and their left wing allies never voice a peep today when a Muslim women is stoned to death for commiting adultery my a mob in the name of Islamic law of Sharia in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, the Sudan, or any other unfortunate place where that evil Muslim law exists.

Why is it only Muslim women who are allowed this "privilidge" of leading a traditional life according to their strict Koranic laws. Yet Western Christyian or Jewish women who want to lead a traditional life and are modern women in every sense of that word are attacked and hated by the same left who salute Muslim women who submit and are beaten by their husbands??????

Liberalism is truly a mental illness.

27 January 2013 18:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

27 January 2013 18:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ah feck it, better just leave him alone to boil.

27 January 2013 18:16  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thank you Marie, Mrs. K, and all who've responded about taking back the education of our children. The more people who use the information, the better. Perhaps they can start to move the Parent-Teacher Associations out of the schools.

Next, we should surely tackle the infiltration and corruption of our universities. Since organisation of such institutions took firmest and most successful root in Christian establishments - such as monasteries and abbeys - perhaps the Church should consider a movement to set up more alternatives: non-monastic, but of Higher Learning. We can start by looking at what Theodore and Hadrian (and their students)accomplished .... Under the same spate of materialist attacks, the Irish, too, did much to initiate the preservation of learning.

27 January 2013 18:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. You do realise they would consider you as an infidel unbelieving dog who ought to be hanged by his sinning genitals....

27 January 2013 18:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

race traitors

What is a 'race traitor' and how would you recognize him?

You really ought to stop and consider before you write things like this. Don't you realize what you sound like? Who do you think talks about race traitors? You are implicitly aligning yourself with such people when you make a statement like that.

carl

27 January 2013 18:27  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspetor

Exactly.

Philby, Maclean, Burgess, and Blunt. Traitors and Cambridge graduates all and all members of the privilidges Protestant establishment who betrayed the freedoms the UK gave them. They and many others betrayed their country and became agents for the USSR during the 1930's. Kim Philby had a high position in MI 6 during WW II and caused enormous damage during and after the war giving secrets to the USSR.

They were all either openly Gay or bisexual.

Sir Anthony Blunt was a Soviet spy as well during the 30's through the early 50's and he was also keeper of the Queen's Pictures! Thanks to PM Margaret Thatcher this traitor's name was released to the press as one of her first acts after becoming PM. Blunt was stripped of all his honors. God Bless PM Thatcher for doing this!

The USA had our own sleazy traitors like these evil men above. Ours too came from the privlidged Protestant establishment families and went to Ivy League schools like Harvard and Yale (our versions of Oxford and Cambridge). The most notable was Alger Hiss. But there were many others. Several worked for President FDR. No wonder the West betrayed Eastern Europe at Yalta!

These communist traitors working for the USSR were not as clever as they thought they were. The USA FBI along with your MI 5 & MI 6 kept tabs on these some of these scum. If you can, please look up the "Venona project":

"The Venona project intercepted codes passed among agents of the communist Soviet Union during World War II, and attempted to decrypt them. This was a project by the United States and United Kingdom during the Cold War. It helped identify people who were spying for the Soviet Union, and passing military secrets (such as information about the atomic bomb). The USA FBI monitored all messages that went from the Soviet Embassy and it's consulate in New York City to Moscow from 1940 until the collapse of the USSR in 1991. Unfortunately the FBI could not act on the information it knew because this woud give a way it's secret. But it got the names of the traitors during those years and no one can deny these people worked for the USSR."

It staggers the immigination how these young men in the 1930's could have fell for the lies the USSR stood for then about a "paradise on earth" and betray their wealth and privildge for a country that would have shot them because of their class during and after the Russian Revolution of 1917. All the while they played the serious game of being spys for the USSR they continued to live the lives and enjoy the perks of their upper class privilidges and wealth and NEVER rubbed shoulders with the working classes they supposedly were working hard for to bring about a Soviet style revolution in the UK.

Typical. Just like the "Occupy Movement" scum we saw last year. Almost all of them were the children of the privilidged too dong their "bit" for the coming "revolution".

27 January 2013 18:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "You do realise they would consider you as an infidel unbelieving dog who ought to be hanged by his sinning genitals...."

Of course I do. I'm not fan of Islam at all despite what that clueless numpty you're running with thinks. I'm a liberal through and through, in the traditional sense rather than the Septic one, and I don't advocate having "thought crime". I think we'll all be stuffed if we don't get a secular State in place and set out the practical terms yet there's a bunch of bloody Christian religionists lobbying and agitating at the moment to give themselves special religious privileges, seemingly not caring that there's a bunch of Muslims quietly hanging onto their coat tails.

27 January 2013 18:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl, John has done the honours, but just for you, a bar room definition. Anyone who sells out the culture of his homeland for that of a lesser culture. An alien culture. Selling out includes weakening their homeland by importing so many aliens, that parts of it, in the UK case, cease to British at all, de facto.
As the Inspector considers Christian Western culture the best available on planet earth despite its disgraces like abortion and generous benefits system, that in effect means EVERY other culture in the world.

As for You really ought to stop and consider before you write things like this., your own advice doesn’t stop you publishing your pre-destination rot, which many people find disgusting, this man included.

Who do you think talks about race traitors? . Come on that man, enlighten us all. Who does talk about it ? Patriots perhaps. People like you who run the stars and stripes up the pole on July 4th and refuse to part with their weapons. How come these people like you are patriots, but this man in the UK is denied that particular accolade. No, he’s more of a racist. And we all know what a nasty cruel word that is ! Far more cruel than fathers who murder their daughters, when they are not circumcising them, assuming they weren’t left on a rubbish heap in the first place for having the temerity to be born female. Still, ALL cultures are to be valued, aren’t they, even if we do have to turn a blind eye to much of it...

27 January 2013 19:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. A rare occurrence. One thinks there is some condemnation of Islam in your post at 18:45, if you look carefully enough.

Still, it’s back to business as normal for you now - beating Christians with your stick then...

Hold on just a moment, even at 18:45 you couldn’t stop yourself. You really are something else, aren’t you ?


27 January 2013 19:34  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
No not asserting how I think things should be at all but saying how they already are. Isn't it infinitely more preferable to have Christian values.
I would rather not have Islamic faith schools because they teach this anti western barbaric nonsense.
But in the name of tolerance we allow them but they are now far too numerous so we should cut back on them and mosques too. Anyway I thought they came here for a better life, if we start allowing women to be socialised to think it's her place to be beaten when misbehaved it would be a huge backwards step for our culture. Is this really freedom for them in this country? They can still in the privacy of their own homes perform whatever power games between husband and consenting wife they like as long as they don't start inflicting it on others who do not want to live in a slave and master situation.
This might be OK for an Islamic country although I think women there are starting to wake up against being treated worse than a camel!

27 January 2013 21:31  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Non Mouse, Yes if PTA's were abolished that would be a positive step forward and the Church can do a lot for Higher Education too.

27 January 2013 22:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "No not asserting how I think things should be at all but saying how they already are."

I just don't seem to be getting through.

28 January 2013 05:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Hold on just a moment, even at 18:45 you couldn’t stop yourself. You really are something else, aren’t you ?"

Oh blimey, I have a "right-wing", homophobic, racist hypocrite trying to look down on me. It's quite surreal here at times.

28 January 2013 06:02  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Why is it that Danjo always has to have the last word ?

28 January 2013 08:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Word .... (last) .... job done.

28 January 2013 12:24  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0 NO you don't get it.
Other practising religions in the UK have to practice within our Country’s Christian boundaries otherwise you get what is happening now all pushing their “rights and freedoms” Freedom has to be organised somewhat otherwise you get anarchy where all are fighting for pole position for their religion and lifestyle including secularism.

I believe Christianity in which we are steeped and have successfully thrived and grown should remain as our guideline.

BTW the ECHR is a very oppressive old marxist organisation with a modern face who's end goal is to break up and destroy what we have created. What I am suggesting is for other religions here to be free to practice but, that they take the elements which clash with our culture out and adapt to fit the country they are living in. Otherwise leave. One can still believe in Allah but in modern day Britain Allah values women as highly as men. And that muslim men living here treat their women in line with our laws not their own. That they are forbidden to change the laws of our country to suit themselves and to the detriment of our advanced culture. That they treat homosexuals the same as we do etc etc...

Oh! and regarding marriage, the Civil Partnership provides homosexuals with the same quality of life as marriage does for heterosexuals therefore no need to redefine marriage at all.

28 January 2013 15:55  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Marie,

I can see where you are coming from, but if you could help me with a few of the finer details :

1. You want to have this country guided by Christianity, may I ask which version of it? Anglican? Protestant? Roman Catholic?

2. "Other practising religions in the UK have to practice within our Country’s Christian boundaries"- but what does that mean and how do you arrive at it? What are these Christian boundaries and where does it stop- male circumcision/Kosher foods laws?

[In respect of how women are treated in Islam, to my mind this is a fair point.

But did women's freedoms come from Christianity- a religion which doesn't agree with women Bishops or Vicars and in which the Holy Books says women should shut up in Church or from such movements as the suffragettes, which in their day were considered to be radical/socialist?].

28 January 2013 17:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 January 2013 17:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Other practising religions in the UK have to practice within our Country’s Christian boundaries otherwise you get what is happening now all pushing their “rights and freedoms”"

The overwhelming majority of our population is not Christian in any meaningful sense. We have some legacy stuff in our constitution but our body of law is clearly not Christian.

A core value and principle is the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. We've even incorporated it in our law as a right so there is no doubt. In fact, Christians, including the blog onwer here, use it to argue for their own religious freedom.

Another of our values is fairness. We pride ourselves on it. It's part of our national psyche. Fairness includes the notion that like is treated alike. Hence, the freedom of thought, conscience, and religion ought to apply to all citizens unless there are clear reasons why not.

I said I don't seem to be getting through to you because I keep asking you why i.e. what are the principles you are using when you dismiss things like the notion of equality as cultural-Marxism, and you simply slide into a Daily Mail "ought to" response each time.

On what basis should Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, Muslims etc be denied or have restricted freedom of thought, conscience and religion while Christians, a minority group in the UK, have a right to it?

"What I am suggesting is for other religions here to be free to practice but, that they take the elements which clash with our culture out and adapt to fit the country they are living in. Otherwise leave."

Well, I suggest that all religions be treated equally as far as being free to practice is concerned, subject of course to the qualifications in the second part of Article 9. If Christians don't like it then they can leave, if we're to take the approach you take there.

Now, you might (and I suspect you do) take the view that our Muslim citizens are somehow not British even if they're third generation immigrants. Well, I'm British and, as far as I know, my lineage goes back many generations. Hence, I own our culture as much as you do and my opinion counts.

You might try to say that our traditions matter and our traditions ought to stay in place. In answer to that, I'll remind you as I always fo that we've always had social change and that one of them was for women to get the vote despite strong opposition from social conservatives. On what basis was it argued? On the notion of equality, in part. Yes, there it is again. Your cultural-Marxism.

But you still want your bloody vote now though, don't you? It's inconceivable that we men would take it away, thinking that you ought not to worry your pretty little empty heads about man stuff, like politics, land ownership, and so on. Well, there's a certain lack of respect for tradition for you right there.

28 January 2013 17:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Just to ram home the point again about religious rights, for every time the Christian Institute et al take a claim for special religious privilege to the Supreme Court or the European Court, they risk winning the same right for Islam too because it's embedded in our values and principles and in our law that like ought to be treated alike unless there are clear reasons why not.

28 January 2013 17:32  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

David Kavanah

A united Christianity would be ideal or at least them all pulling together.

Well circumcision harms the baby and takes away his choice. We have stopped doing this a long time ago unless the male has health problems. But if a man should wish it he still has the choice.
Similarly we treat the killing of animals in a more humane and kinder way to your Kosher killing. You should have to give up these two, but anything else, your schools and synagogues within reason are no problem. Under secularism you would have to give up everything of course!

28 January 2013 19:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie: "Under secularism you would have to give up everything of course!"

HUH??

28 January 2013 19:09  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Danj0
The reason why like should not be treated alike in every case is when there is harm, slippery slope and devaluation and our culture and society will be harmed, devalued and erased.
We might not be majority Christian now as secularism/socialism has eroded these values away.

So OK Danj0 we get rid of all religion and become a total secular state. Before long it will be The United Islamic Kingdom and if we cling to the EU, the United Islamic States of Europe because secularism does not provide the strength and backing for their values other than good old fashioned communism and this gives way to Islamic bullies.

If you have life here based on Christian values although many might not agree with this, they are not bad or extreme,one has to compromise to keep what we have now. It's part of brand Britain. And, Islam is NOT embedded in our values, principles and laws and I hope it never will be.

28 January 2013 19:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"We might not be majority Christian now as secularism/socialism has eroded these values away."

Actually, I think people just got apathetic about Christianity, thinking it is irrelevant and a bit odd these days.

"So OK Danj0 we get rid of all religion and become a total secular state."

Well, you're half right. We embrace secularism and have a secular State. Only, religions carry on in the lives of individuals as long as they want them. That's secularism.

28 January 2013 19:31  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 January 2013 19:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



DanJ0, 33 million consider themselves Christian according to the last census. Who the hell are you to deny them their adherence ?

We are therefore a Christian country by a MAJORITY !!!

28 January 2013 19:41  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Marie,

Giving up male circumcision and our Kosher laws basically means not being Jewish...

I would point out that Jews have been doing these things in Great Britain since 1656, that is 356 years and for a total of about 4,000 to 5,000 years and now it becomes an issue?. Long before the Daily Mail was around. Yet now this is a problem for you? Why?

Also to Danjo :

"The reason why like should not be treated alike in every case is when there is harm, slippery slope and devaluation and our culture and society will be harmed, devalued and erased."

As I said Jews have been around in Britain since they were allowed to return in 1656. In the past 300 years, I can't see that Jews have in any way, shape or form destroyed British culture... in fact during those 356 years, Britain became a global empire, which controlled a quarter of the globe; a Jew made Queen Victoria Empress of India, and British Jews have contributed to my country, over and above their % of population.

So, how do you answer that, Marie?

28 January 2013 19:42  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Danjo,

There is many an irony here between you and Marie. The example that springs to mind is the one given above- Jews were allowed to practice their faith, under a Protestant fundamentalist regime, but it took a Roman Catholic Irish nationalist to fight for Jewish equality in this Island.

Yet Marie wishes we were the same, but to not allow other religions to practice their faith.

Judaism does not actively seek converts, but simply wish to live in peace and quiet in accordance with our own Jewish law and faith, although those that wish to do so are welcome and embraced as fully Jewish (I think of my father, my own wife here, and hopefully my sister's partner).

28 January 2013 20:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

David K asked ...

"So, how do you answer that, Marie?

Ummmm ... a Jewish-Masonic-Jesuit conspiracy, (Jemasuit) perhaps?

28 January 2013 20:30  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Dodo,

OK, OK, yes you are right! I can't be serious for too long and having to restrain myself on several threads, any longer, is an impossible task, for my [Jewish] humour is springing forth like a volcanic lava flow!

28 January 2013 20:35  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

David I guess you are only harming your own with circumcision but Kosher killing impacts on others' lives that are not Jewish and you maybe want to start to think about a more humane approach.

What constitutes practising your religion in this day and age with the health and hygiene standards we have here now then David? I thought it was attending the Synagogue and giving thanks to God and to avowing to be a better person not chopping off babies foreskin and slashing the necks of animals to kill them?


Danj0
So what about the elements of the different religions that clash with our culture & values and impact on others' lives such as Kosher killing and halal meat not only a Jewish thing or sharia law, funeral pyres, street prayers blocking roads, no go areas and muslim menaces bullying citizens in the street and the like? All allowed then is it, and what about other extreme elements of Islam too? You know damn well that other faiths are not going to take their religions being a private part of their lives if so desired at all.

28 January 2013 20:43  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Marie,

[AND apologises to His Grace, for my little rant] :

Neither male circumcision or Kosher food laws impact upon anyone outside of the observant Jewish community, because, unlike other faiths, say Christianity or Islam, Jewish law is FOR JEWS ONLY and we do not seek to "impose" that law upon anyone else.


"I thought it was attending the Synagogue and giving thanks to God and to avowing to be a better person not chopping off babies foreskin and slashing the necks of animals to kill them?"

That is so ignorant of the Jewish faith, I do not know where to start in addressing it.

"no go areas", Yeah like Kensington, Hendon, Golder's Green for example? You know Mrs Thatcher was MP for one of the most Jewish areas of the UK?

One final thought is that Jews have been a part of Britain since 1656. That is 356 years and only 40 years less since the great Englishman Shakespeare died. Yet you write as if Jews came on the boat yesterday and suddenly a group which makes up less than 1% of the UK population is a threat to 'British' values?

I would suggest you read the links my sister posted on the thread above to note the contribution of British Jews to ALL parts of British society in those 356 years.

Go shovel your far right nationalist, excrement onto a different website please.

Thanks!

28 January 2013 21:37  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older