UK’s ‘blasphemy law’ is effectively Shari’a
It is, apparently, quite legal to sport a placard in a public parade proclaiming ‘Jesus is a fag’, and not fall foul of the existing blasphemy laws, or even the laws on incitement. And this in the most Christian and religiously-sensitive corner of the United Kingdom. It is, of course, a question of ‘freedom of expression’ of both speech and religion; a convenient summary of quite a complex gay christology, and Christians simply have to put up with it.East Belfast DUP councillor May Campbell wants such freedoms curbed. She says: ‘Christians all over the province, and indeed, the world will be disgusted by this slur.’
Quite so, though Cranmer is almost as disgusted by the unfortunate creature carrying the placard as he is by the message of the placard itself.
But while parades are a legitimate form of protest, and placards and banners are by definition provocative four-word summaries of much more complex grievances, there can be no doubt that this particular placard was designed to provoke and upset Christians.
But there were no arrests, and there will be no prosecutions. The blasphemy laws in the UK were designed to protect the name of Christ, though since 1838 restricted to protect the ‘tenets and beliefs of the Church of England’. They are from an era when faith was the nexus of society, and to challenge or offend was considered a crime against the established order. Since the laws are no longer upheld, one may assume that they have been impliedly repealed.
But that is not quite the case.
If this placard had said ‘Ganesh is a gay-boy’ or ‘Buddha is a bugger’, the Hindus and Buddhists might have raised an eyebrow, but, like the Christians, they would have been obliged to endure the offence. But if the placards had dared to say ‘Mohammed is a homo’ or ‘The Prophet is a puff’, the Mohammedans would have been up in arms (some quite literally), and those carrying the placards would have been arrested for breach of the peace, or incitement.It may be adduced, therefore that one may attack Christianity and offend Christians by blaspheming the name of Christ with impunity, but any such attack on Islam and its prophet would meet with the full force of the law. The default 'blasphemy law' in the UK is therefore Shari’a.
But the irony over the ‘Jesus is a fag’ placard is that the DUP helped to finance Belfast’s Pride march, and the Free Presbyterian Church is not best pleased. While some condemn the ‘celebration of sodomy’, others are adjusting to the realities of the tensions inherent in government. It is one thing to be doctrinally pure in one’s theology, but quite another in one’s politics. Dr Paisley is discovering the age-old dilemmas of being both priest and king. As one church member observes: ‘Far from the DUP elevating the morals of society, it seems that the DUP is going to come down to the level of morality that society demands.’
And on this level of morality, Cranmer has just one more thought. Homosexuals are now free to flaunt their sexuality in public and force it down the throats of Christians, but if Christians were to carry a placard saying ‘The Wages of Sin is Death’, or ‘Homosexuality is a sin’, they would certainly be arrested.
So Islam and homosexuality both now trump Christianity. Perhaps they are not so mutually exclusive or reciprocally antithetical after all.
posted by Archbishop Cranmer at 8:24 AM Permalink
Cranmer is humbled and honoured to have been ranked #1 in the 
60 Comments:
One of the real difficulties for the DUP is that they are now shackled to Sinn Féin who are committed to any and every liberal left-wing cause that you care to mention.
The real tragedy for democratic society is that tolerance of the lifestyle that one finds objectionable is no longer an option. One is forced to accept it as legitimate and right, whether one likes it or not. The right to tolerate but disagree seems to have disappeared.
As Bob says, we have witnessed the death of tolerance. To say we tolerate something we agree with is meaningless: the only true tolerance is to hold a principled view and respect the principle behind those who disagree with it.
The unholy alliance between Islamic and homosexual extremists is hugely damaging to our society and our freedoms. These people should reflect on the fact that it is only through the sacrifices of Christians that they have the freedoms which they so flagrantly abuse.
Generally, I think people should have the freedom to express any views they like. However, the two placards shown by Cranmer do not express a view; nor are they campaigning for anything in particular: they are just gratuitously abusive. That cannot be right and should not be tolerated.
Bob,
That's not quite accurate. The challenge for the DUP is that they are now in government. Funding for parades like the one in Belfast is safeguarded by various strands of equality legislation, the DUP being 'shackled to Sinn Fein' has nothing to do with it.
There is a real issue here, but your focus on SF is misleading and takes us away from the substantive issues that Cranmer is raising.
Mel
I'm no scholar, but I seem to remember that Christ may appear at any time as a beggar. If that is the case then, presumably he may also appear as a "fag", or even as Piss Christ. I take this to be the essential message of the "Jesus is a Fag" sign. It is a very, very old idea that there is a little of God in all of us.
I would describe myself as a follower of Christ who is also an atheist. Corny as it may seem, I find it very useful to ask myself what Jesus would do in this situation. Would he, for example, refer to the book of Leviticus and behold an abomination, or would he look to the essence of his own teaching and see a member of his flock in distress?
What His Grace is perhaps objecting to, at a wider level, is that society has become even more morally Christian than the church, which seems to lie trapped in a web of Biblicism. Indeed, some Church teaching often appears quite un-Christian to people like me. The slightly nauseating hypocrisy of "Loving the sinner but hating the sin" is one example of what I mean.
It's not at all true that Muslims are content to see Jesus blasphemed. In Islam he is a revered prophet, and many Muslims would place 'pbuh' after his name in the same way they do all the prophets (no, I don't, but I'm not as 'fanatical' as some of you seem to presume). Muslims would agree with Christians that this banner's statement implying Jesus was gay is blasphemous and the law should not allow it.
Saturday’s parade, in my opinion, proves the utter incompatibility with being a Christian and holding high office in Northern Ireland.
Your Grace, laying aside the rights and wrongs of the “peace process” do you believe that it is possible to be both priest and king?
Muslims would agree ... the law should not allow it
The idea that one can create a moral society by legislation seems preposterous to me. I'm genuinely curious as to why I hold that view, though. Anyone know? Burke? Mill?
"Muslims would agree with Christians that this banner's statement implying Jesus was gay is blasphemous and the law should not allow it."
Why should it not allow it? I'm a fully paid-up Christian who finds this assertion abhorrent, but I don't want to ban it. Nadim, why should we seek to ban people from saying things which we disagree with? Who ultimately decides what is ok and what is not ok to say?
PB
I would describe myself as a follower of Christ who is also an atheist. Corny as it may seem
No it is not "corny" at all - it is 'Doublethink' - George Orwell had quite a bit to say on that subject, but it shows someone who has no deep thoughts at all and is not ashamed to expose himself to public ridicule.
That Your Grace is essentially the problem - were Christians to subject such people to sustained and public ridicule their very shallow perception of Self would be shattered.
It is simply that we have lost our sense of the absurd; and indignation has replaced contempt and humiliation for those who transgress the bounds of good taste
Voyager said:
..were Christians to subject such people to sustained and public ridicule their very shallow perception of Self would be shattered.
Would Jesus say something like this?
...do you believe that it is possible to be both priest and king?
His Holiness appears to manage...
His grace should be aware that 'practising' Christianity is dying in this country. Some Christians may go to church on sunday morning but there is no passion about their religion. These days there is hardly a peep out of Christians when Jesus (Peace be upon Him) is insulted or abused. Yet when Muslims protest when people they hold dear are insulted , they are all bracketed as fundamentalist, anti liberal, supressors of freedom of speech etc etc. There was more passion from Christians when fox hunting was banned that there has ever been when Jesus (Peace be upon Him)has been blasphemed. Protesting (without breaking the law) doesn't mean a dislike for freedom of speech and liberty - it shows people's disapproval of the behaviour of others. His grace does witter on about Muslims and how everything about them is evil - he'd be better expending his energy into energising his docile companions in trying to breathe some life into a dying creed.
I love it when people start posts with the self depricating "I am no scholar" which usually prefixes a load of crap... and 16 words, you didn't dissapoint.
16 words said "I take this to be the essential message of the "Jesus is a Fag" sign. It is a very, very old idea that there is a little of God in all of us"
Erm... have you seen the girl in question?? Any claim to deep reasoning is swept aside when you realise that she has painted the message on the wrong side of the placard...
In the same vein of 16 words, I too have my own understanding of her sign. In British English, the word "fag" was used (as a verb and a noun) to refer to a kind of apprenticeship practiced within public schools. Younger boys within the school "fagged" for the older boys by cooking breakfasts, cleaning sports kit (equipment) or other menial tasks. Clearly she is saying that Jesus came to serve, not to be served.
As a result of this, she has almost certainly joined the wrong march, I believe that she wandered off of the local church prayer walk and got caught in the strong flow of marching gays, drawn in by the bad dress sense and badly applied make-up...
Anonymous 10.58. How tedious, you cannot even be bothered to name yourself, though being named thus, you are legion.
"there is no passion about their religion"
British people rarely do outward displays of "passion" unless it is over something perfectly trivial like football.
Many of us are saddened and passionate about blasphemy. The words "Jesus is a fag" upset me deeply, because it indicates barefaced disrespect and hatred of someone with whom I have a living relationship. That Jesus is easily able to rise above this garbage is another matter. However, it is in the nature of Christianity to forgive, because Jesus did not come into the world to condemn it, but to save it.
Like His Grace, I find certain aspects of the Gay lifestyle revolting. That is different to being "homophobic" which is in itself a made-up, politically biased word to describe anyone who does not embrace this perversion with delirious joy.
"His grace does witter on about Muslims"
So do I. I witter on about Muslims because they come to this country and demand that, not only do we live as they do, but that we bow before them and do as they do.
It is also clear that the main import of His Grace's article is that a clear double standard is being operated, i.e. that Christians are not allowed to criticise the homosexual lifestyle, but Muslims can now threaten them with death and not only get away with it but have the backing of the Poice Force.
If you think Christinity is dying you are quite wrong. To borrow from Gerry Adams, seems apposite:
We never went away.
please wrinkled weasel, you have not seen "passion" until you witness the daily prayers towards mecca, they lower and raise at the waist with such frivolous joy and unabridled, nay shameless PASSION! And the madrasses! the madrasses are a sight to behold, the young brilliant children rocking back and forth like an epileptic's nightmare, murmering scripture and twitching.. truly God is there. We have a lot to learn.
A couple of thoughts by G.K. Chesterton on this subject
Christianity has died many times and risen again; for it has a God who knew his way out of the grave.
At least five times, . . . with the Arian and the Albigensian, with the Humanist sceptic, after Voltaire and after Darwin, the Faith has to all appearance gone to the dogs. In each of these five cases it was the dog that died.
...after Darwin...
After Darwin? It's a bit early to be suggesting that we are after Darwin. Darwin is only just getting started again, and that thanks to Watson & Crick. If I may risk a possibly blasphemous comparison, this "after Darwin" is rather like referring to the period about 150CE as "after Christ".
Now I feel the flames licking about my own feet. Not on account of what I have said but for want of work product.
Would Jesus say something like this?
I have no idea...but I did !
The words of Jesus in The Bible are highlighted in red - you would do well to read them and remember them - there is no need to use him as a ventriloquist's dummy and have your own thoughts articulated as if they are from Jesus Christ.
It is one of the more pathetic aspects of people who have no grounding in Scripture - they keep imagining what it is they would like to hear rather than what was said
'practising' Christianity is dying in this country.
You are looking in the wrong places....it is an Underground Church once more
voyager, if your bible has the words of Jesus in red you need a better bible. try
The Complete Gospels
Annotated Scholars Version
Robert J. Miller, editor
liddon said...
voyager, if your bible has the words of Jesus in red you need a better bible. try
The Complete Gospels
Annotated Scholars Version
Robert J. Miller, editor
Thank you for your considerate recommendation but I have a perfectly adequate set of bibles - nothing to rival the J P Morgan Library in New York, but a perfectly good KJV and others including a Tanach....though I have bee looking at your edition and wondering why it is only available in paperback.
This point was made very effectively and wittily(?) in South Park's Cartoon Wars episode.
While Comedy Central refused to broadcast an inoffensive picture of the prophet Mohammed holding a cup of tea; in the same episode they were quite happy to broadcast images of Christ defecating on George Bush.
Stewart Lee, who directed Jerry Springer the Opera, was once asked why he never made fun of Islam. His reply was that he didn't want to lose his hands (this was back in the nineties).
It's important to just keep pushing their boundaries until they eventually accept that Islam is not exempt from satire or insult.
m.d. I'll comment here, because your half-witted spamming has bulgared up the other comments.
nedsherry, I seem to have missed Blair or Bush holding up the Bible and quoting scripture as they proposed military action. Perhaps (whatever you think of the moral rights and wrongs of the war) it was done with realist political and economical reasons, not as it were, for religious. In this case, religion is merely incidental.
How can religion be 'incidental' for devout Christians? How can a decision to go to war be taken by a devout Christian other than 'prayerfully'? Yes, Bliar and Bush are lying hypocrites, but they are still devout Christians and still prove that Islam has no monopoly on killing and destruction.
You may as well attribute the blood on their hands to their passion for Jam sandwiches.
I'll type this slowly, because you've already proved you're not the sharpest knife in the box:
For devout Christians, Christianity does not have the ontological or ethnical status of a passion for jam sandwiches. Part of the problem with Islam is that it is not decadent like Christianity and its adherents still take all the supernatural nonsense seriously. Before Christianity got decadent, Christians used to burn people alive for heresy, homosexuality and other offences against the Lord. The history of Christianity, founded by a man who, you may recall, told us to 'turn the other cheek', has been punctuated by blood-baths. You strike me as a pharisee who likes to pretend that his religion is pure while his opponents' religion is impure. That is not the case. I am not friend of Islam and would all Muslims out of the UK ASAP, but Islam is a problem because it is an Abrahamic religion, not because it is Islam.
Nedsherry, I found your rebuttal quite amusing on account of your bravery. You have, rather courageously exposed your meagre knowledge of three subjects 1)Christianity 2) Islam 3) Politics.
Comparing Bush and Blair to Islamic terrorists is complete balderdash, you sound like you have just put down a Noam Chomsky or Howard Zinn book and been so infuriated what you have read/immediately plagiarised that you have boldly switched on your computer and begun to set the world to right. You clearly have little to no knowledge of the bible or of Christianity or indeed of politics (or Islam). First of all you cloud the argument with your label 'devout' (normally the first felled hurdle for non-Christians) which I'm sure doesn't apply to Blair for a start, possibly not Bush either (Atheists usually use the term 'devout' to describe their relationship with a certain Mr. Dawkins, FYI, the Christian use of the word is slightly different) Secondly, the war in Iraq was nothing to do with Jesus, God or the Bible, there was no scriptural basis for it, nor was any quoted (unlike Islamic terrorism)... it was for oil/ influence in the middle east/ democracy/WMD/getting rid of a tyrant/ delete where applicable. READ WIDER THAN YOU CURRENTLY DO.
I love getting replies from people like you because there are so many fallacies in your argument, it is hard to know where to start.. but let's wade right in with Christianity being 'decadent' as opposed to Islam's 'purity'.
1) Both Christianity and Islam are NOT monolithic (that means one big homogenous entity) so much so that the different factions of Islam are always deploring each other and fighting over alleged heresy etc, as well as moderates and extremists within those factions being in conflict with each other too.. so for a start many Muslims themselves would disagree with your Junior Encyclopaedia of Religion level arguments, even though you were paying them a kind of perverse compliment.
2)Christianity has elements which have strayed from the literal reading of the Bible, many haven't and still follow it as best as a human can. So when you make comments like "Christianity is decadent", what the people reading your posts are thinking is NOT how clever you are by making sweeping statements, but how little you really do know about what you are talking about (the kind of people who post here know a heck of a lot more than you about their own faith). I would explain to you about old and new covenants, but I'm sure it would be a waste of time.
you said: "You strike me as a Pharisee who likes to pretend that his religion is pure while his opponents' religion is impure"
(well done for using the term Pharisee by the way, I'm sure you were really pleased when you thought of that! Using Biblical terminology against me! Bah, you scoundrel!) I certainly don't think that Christians are always pure, but I do believe that Islam explicitly directs people to kill others. As for your remarkably stupid comment about Abrahamic faiths.... Old Covenant/New Covenant... look it up please.
The shallow level of knowledge shown by yourself is all the more amusing by reading your comment about "sharp tools" and "boxes"! Ha! You come here, on a Christian blog, and try to lecture us on a subject which you really only know cursory information about is absolutely hilarious, I can only hope for your sake that others ignore what you have written, simply to save you getting ripped apart theologically.
Nedsherry, I have included the definition of spamming here for your perusal, just so that you can choose the correct terminology in future:
1)The term used to describe techniques that might be used to 'trick' search engines into ranking a website high up in their search results.
2)The act of sending unsolicited email. This multiple or vast emailing is often compared to mass junk mailings.
Mr 16Words I see you are an advocate of the CE dating metrics, how politically correct, tell me when was year zero on your adopted scale and why was it chosen?
The Darape still has his disciples I see, although undoubtedly cleaver men I am still waiting for the secret of life proclaimed by Crick as I would like to buy another 50 years. The problem with having scientific secularism for a religion is that it elevates man to the echelon of God, how many times do we have to learn that lesson before it sinks in.
I wouldn’t worry about the flames licking about your feet now; eternity is a sodding long time to ponder where you went wrong.
Are you American or just Americanized, m.d.? That mixture of logorrhoea and stupidity is characteristic of but not unique to certain class of American, which is why I offer the alternatives.
First of all you cloud the argument with your label 'devout' (normally the first felled hurdle for non-Christians) which I'm sure doesn't apply to Blair for a start, possibly not Bush either
Gosh, you're sure it doesn't apply to Bliar. Does Bliar agree? And you're not sure about Bush neether. Does Bush agree? Well, what do they matter when an expert theologian like you has pronounced?
Comparing Bush and Blair to Islamic terrorists is complete balderdash...
Bliar and Bush have slaughtered huge numbers of people in the name of demoxy and freem, which both justify by reference to their faith. They lied and cheated their way to war in Iraq and have made the world a far more dangerous place for everyone. They both can and should be compared to Islamic terrorists, and Islamic terrorists should come out of the comparison better. If Islamic terrorists had the weaponry at Bliar's and Bush's disposal, they might well surpass them, but that isn't the case as yet.
...but let's wade right in with Christianity being 'decadent' as opposed to Islam's 'purity'.
I didn't say Islam was 'pure', I said Muslims still took their religion seriously. You, as a Christian, don't, which is why you told me 'religion is merely incidental' to the decision of two devout Christians to go to war.
I certainly don't think that Christians are always pure, but I do believe that Islam explicitly directs people to kill others.
Doesn't that strike you as a rather stupid thing to say on a blog named after a Christian burnt alive by other Christians for his views on Christianity? If it doesn't, here's a question to help you to understand better -- I doubt you'll have the honesty (or the courage) to answer it:
Q. Why did Christians execute all those heretics, homosexuals, witches et al over many centuries, often in extremely painful and degrading ways?
A. Because the Koran told them to.
B. Because the Bible told them to.
Another question, which I doubt etc:
Q. Why did Christians kill each other in wars for all those centuries, often over theological rather than material differences?
A. Because the Koran provides ready justification for war, among other forms of violence.
B. Because the Bible provides ready justification for war, among other forms of violence.
To repeat: Islam is a problem because it is an Abrahamic religion, not because it is Islam.
As for spamming: you posted a v. large amount of unrequested and useless information that interfered with effective use of the comments. IOW, you were spamming.
Now, I expect a lot more logorrhoea and stupidity from you. Pls don't let me down.
Dearest Nedsherry,
1)I am English, but don't worry, your slur against an entire country definately bolsters your argument.
2) You labelled them as devout initially, yet you criticise me for labelling them as not devout... so you are allowed to label them and I'm not? Gosh are you sure they are devout? Does Blair agree? Does Bush agree?
3) The war in Iraq did not set out to kill innocent civilians, Islamic terrorism explicitly targets them... If you think that morally they are even equivalents you are a stupid, stupid man.
4) You have got some cheek to assume to know anything about me. As someone who makes such a quick assumption, do you think you can extrapolate where I stand with my faith from one blog post? You seem very arrogant. Assuming that Blair and Bush are devout christians, do you know anything about the processes involved in taking a country to war? There are more people involved in making and sanctioning those decisions than the PM or President... Remember the war did win the commons vote. But I'm sure you're right.... It was definately the Bible which made them go to war.
5) you strike me as stupid Nedsherry... you said: Q. "Why did Christians execute all those heretics, homosexuals, witches et al over many centuries, often in extremely painful and degrading ways?"
I cannot answer that can I? and neither can you. The new testament does not condone any kind of murder, so as far as I'm concerned they acted against Christian beliefs.
6) "Why did Christians kill each other in wars for all those centuries, often over theological rather than material differences?"
The Bible doesn't condone that, so again, you are wrong. And don't throw some old testament piece of scripture at me because if you do, I'll just ask you to research The old covenant and the new covenant which Christians are under.
As for my "spamming" I don't recall anybody asking for your opinions.
Nedsherry has clearly just finished a Dawkins or Sam Harris book and thinks he knows about religion the History of Christianity, which was started by who?? Oh yes Jesus! Nice one Ned. RETARD ALERT
Could His Grace please remind his communicants that this blog is distinguished in the blogosphere by the manifest intelligence and erudition of those who contribute their wisdom and insight in response to His Grace's revered and thought-provoking posts.
Could we please consider the cessation of puerile insult-hurling? It is a waste of His Grace's life having to read them
Blessings,
+Cranmer
"So Islam and homosexuality both now trump Christianity. Perhaps they are not so mutually exclusive or reciprocally antithetical after all".
What's the answer?
Imagine a caricature of Jesus as a demented bombhead.
Imagine a caricature of Buddha as a demented bombhead.
Imagine a caricature of Mohammed as a demented bombhead. (OK you don't really need to imagine it thanks to the Danish cartoonists)
But why is only one of these an effective statement?
Definition of caricature:
'Grotesque comic representation of a person by exaggeration of characteristic traits'
That's why representation of Mo as a bombhead works, and corresponding representations of Jesus or Buddha would just fall flat. Only Mo has the characteristic traits.
M.D. "And the madrasses! the madrasses are a sight to behold, the young brilliant children rocking back and forth like an epileptic's nightmare, murmering scripture and twitching.. truly God is there. We have a lot to learn."
God or Contagious Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder?
M.D. humbly apologises to his Grace for making sarky remarks to a certain Nedsherry, although he does not retract said statements because they are incorrect.
To najistani: neither!... If the child in question expresses symptoms of delerium and terminal incoherence the correct terminology as of now is a 'Nedsherry'.
Further to my previous comment about caricatures, take a look at http://thestudyofrevenge.blogspot.com/2006/01/portrait-of-prophet-muhammad.html
This cartoon was massively offensive to Muslims, far beyond the rather tame Danish representations. In fact it got ALL blogspot sites banned in some parts of Dar al-Islam.
The imagery of the severed heads, the raped little girl, the subjugated women, the sword of hypocrisy and the cockroach swarm are so resonant with Islam that the caricature is a cohesive and powerful visual statement of anti-Islamic blasphemy.
Now substitute into the picture an image of the Kuffar religious leader of your choice (Jesus, Buddha, The Pope, Chief Rabbi, Archbishop of Canterbury etc) and the 'blasphemy' dissappears. All that's left is an incoherent puerile attempt to offend, like piss-Christ.
I am English, but don't worry, your slur against an entire country definately bolsters your argument.
m.d., you seem to have difficulty understanding simple English:
That mixture of logorrhoea and stupidity is characteristic of but not unique to a certain class of American...
See the words 'a certain class of American'? They do not mean 'all Americans' or 'most Americans' or even 'a large minority of Americans'. I was being very careful not to slur the 'entire country', but I'm unsurprised that you pretend otherwise.
3) The war in Iraq did not set out to kill innocent civilians, Islamic terrorism explicitly targets them... If you think that morally they are even equivalents you are a stupid, stupid man.
I see. Bliar and Bush went to war on lies and without adequate preparation for the aftermath. 10,000s of civilians have died as a result, but they weren't 'explicitly' targeted, so Bliar and Bush are morally superior to the Muslim terrorists whose cause their lies and blunders have facilitated.
2) You labelled them as devout initially, yet you criticise me for labelling them as not devout... so you are allowed to label them and I'm not?
I label them according to their behaviour, you according to what suits your dishonest argument.
Gosh are you sure they are devout? Does Blair agree? Does Bush agree?
Does Bliar agree that he's a devout Christian? Seems so:
Blair's Christianity: His faith is both spiritual and intellectual compass
...But the greatest tension between his spiritual and political beliefs came in the run-up to the Iraq war. Jim Wallis, the US evangelical preacher, led a last-minute delegation of anti-war clergy to Downing Street appealing against an invasion. An intense theological discussion ensued. 'We talked about the "just war" in particular,' Wallis told The Observer last year. 'He was very candid about his own struggles.'
http://politics.guardian.co.uk/labourleadership/story/0,,2053818,00.html
Note that they discussed theology rather than jam sandwiches and that Bliar, as I said and you denied, regarded his religion as central to his decision to go to war. You can 'research' Bush's Christianity on your own: I've done enough to enlighten your ignorance.
Q. "Why did Christians execute all those heretics, homosexuals, witches et al over many centuries, often in extremely painful and degrading ways?"
I cannot answer that can I? and neither can you.
"Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live." "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is an abomination." Ring any bells?
The new testament does not condone any kind of murder, so as far as I'm concerned they acted against Christian beliefs.
The whole Christian world for centuries thought it was acceptable to behave like that, but it was "acting against Christian beliefs", according to a decadent Christian like you in a secular nation. I prefer to judge Christians, like Muslims, by their deeds, not their dishonest words. When either religion has power, it behaves badly.
6) "Why did Christians kill each other in wars for all those centuries, often over theological rather than material differences?"
The Bible doesn't condone that, so again, you are wrong.
So the Bible 'doesn't condone' the wars that Christians were happy to wage against each other for centuries, often in the name of Christianity itself. How could they have been so foolish? How could they have misread the Bible so egregiously?
Because it's very easy to 'misread' an Abrahamic scripture. All it takes is power: when Christians have it, they misread; when they don't, they bleat that their past bad behaviour has nothing to do with Christianity. Muslims and Jews do the same.
And don't throw some old testament piece of scripture at me because if you do, I'll just ask you to research The old covenant and the new covenant which Christians are under.
Don't worry, I've 'researched' Christianity quite enough to know that reasoned argument and facts have no power to overcome the dishonesty and irrationality of Christians. You represent one particular Protestant branch of it, which other branches disagree with vehemently and would persecute if they could, just as you'd persecute them if you could.
As for my "spamming" I don't recall anybody asking for your opinions.
I don't recall anyone asking for yours or for Cranmer's, if it comes to that. That's not how blogs work, as you should have realized by now. But my opinions a) don't come at enormous length; b) don't wreck the comments for other people; c) aren't cut'n'pasted. See the difference? Understand why you're a spammer now?
Jonathan_B turns the other cheek and says:
Nedsherry has clearly just finished a Dawkins or Sam Harris book and thinks he knows about religion the History of Christianity, which was started by who?? Oh yes Jesus! Nice one Ned. RETARD ALERT
Tut, tut. Is that a loving Christian thing to say, Jon? Am I really a 'retard' for questioning your beliefs? Trust me: liberal idiots like Dawkins or Harris haven't informed my questions, tho I have to say I suspect both of them are rather brighter than you are.
I remember the last prosecution under the blasphemy laws (yes, that dates me!). At the time the establishment made it very clear that any further use of them would lead to their repeal. They are, effectively, dead, and have been for decades.
I suspect both of them are rather brighter than you are.
That is a giant leap of faith.....but even Dwakins must build his religion on the adulation of his readers and the Simonyi funding....L Ron Hubbard has a rival
'...but if Christians were to carry a placard saying ‘The Wages of Sin is Death’, or ‘Homosexuality is a sin’, they would certainly be arrested.'
The participant holding the placard is a very close friend of mine, in fact my arm is in the far left of the photo, and that sign was made in retaliation to the ones held by the Christian protesters each and every year reading 'Sodomy is a sin' and 'Homos burn in hell'. And they never, ever have recieved media attention or vast criticism for their actions. It is also a response to Ian Paisley Jnr who openly admitted that he found homosexuality revolting, but has not encountered any commupence for his prejudice.
Kathryn, why can't somebody say that they find homosexuality revolting?
I'm not saying they can't, I'm defending the right of free speech. There's been an absolute outrage over this silly last minute statement written in make-up on the back of another placard, which was not pre-meditated, and a politican can get away with effectively doing the same thing.
If indeed the message was in defense of free speech, why was the sign "made in retaliation to the ones held by the Christian protesters each and every year... and also a response to Ian Paisley Jnr who openly admitted that he found homosexuality revolting, but has not encountered any commupence for his prejudice"?
Surely if indeed you are a defender of freedoms, Ian Paisley's son should not encounter any such "comeupance" as he is exercising his right to say whatever he feels, a right which you say he is entitled to...
Presumably the t-shirt was pre-meditated?
While what say is true Your Grace, Christians should feel proud that they do not react badly when their faith is offended.
By all means, point out the discrepancies, but I think the phrase 'turn the other cheek' works well here. If only all Muslims could learn to do the same thing.
I posted something but it's magically disappeared so I'll try again... I feel it's unjust that Ian can offend 1/5 of the world's population and is still allowed to do whatever highly useful things he does (if he'd have said muslims were revcolting...?), and this person who offends one guy who maybe died about 2000 years ago causes an absolute media frenzy!
The t-shirt just happens to say what we're all thinking. This media frenzy proves the t-shirt.
So are you saying that he cannot express his beliefs? If you are championing freedom of speech, then you must accept it when it turns against you. You cannot at once defend peoples right to freedom of speech yet also take that freedom away when a person exercises that freedom against you, it is nonsensical. If you are saying that he should not say what he feels because he is in a position of power, then nobody in positions of power should express any beliefs whatsoever with your reasoning, because of the potential to say something which some people might not agree with or be offended by... for example cannot a vegetarian say that eating meat is a revolting act simply because meat eaters may take offense?? Or is it that people can say whatever they want, but those who make comments which are antithetical to your particular lifestyle should not utter their beliefs? I'm sure you know that your lifestyle (assuming you are gay of course) would offend a number of religious people, are these people below you in the hierarchy of rights? can you openly state your beliefs in the validity of your sexuality, but they cannot oppose you because somehow your position is superior, they can be offended by you but you cannot be offended by them? Would it be ok for a homosexual male MP to state that he personally feels disgust at the thought of sleeping with a woman? that it may... revolt him? or would that just be a personal feeling which he cannot either deny or indeed change?
Kathryn: "I feel it's unjust that Ian can offend 1/5 of the world's population",
Which fifth is that?
who openly admitted that he found homosexuality revolting, but has not encountered any commupence for his prejudice.
Why can't someone find homosexuality "revolting" ? Your idea of ideological conformity is a straitjacket - are you wearing one ?
and this person who offends one guy who maybe died about 2000 years ago causes an absolute media frenzy!
Mohammed didn't die 2000 years ago - he was not even alive 2000 years ago...but people are still murdered over cartoons about him or suffer fatwas as in the case of Rushdie - or if they draw attention to Aisha schoolgirl attractions for a very much older man
No response then, m.d.? No humble admission that you were wrong about Bliar, inter multa alia?
Of course not. Humility and honesty are Christian virtues too precious to be wasted on anyone who disagrees with a Christian. That's why you won't answer when I ask how Christianity has supported free speech down the centuries.
That's why you won't answer when I ask how Christianity has supported free speech down the centuries.
You are very confused. Holding up a Post-1945 Shibboleth as if it was a Universal Truth throughout Time is fatuous.
Why have you failed Nedsherry to uphold free speech in most of the world ? It exists in very few parts of the world and is restricted for most of the world's population - ironically it is in countries where Christians are persecuted that free speech is most curtailed.
You are very confused. Holding up a Post-1945 Shibboleth as if it was a Universal Truth throughout Time is fatuous.
If you think free speech is a 'Post-1945 Shibboleth', you need to do a bit of research.
Why have you failed Nedsherry to uphold free speech in most of the world ?
Sorry -- must try harder.
If you think free speech is a 'Post-1945 Shibboleth', you need to do a bit of research.
My statement was based upon the results of such research - it is only Post-1945 that the obsession with Positive Freedoms became quite so prescriptive
My statement was based upon the results of such research - it is only Post-1945 that the obsession with Positive Freedoms became quite so prescriptive...
Which is why the 1st Amendment to the American Constitution is so prescriptive about free speech, I suppose.
"if Christians were to carry a placard saying ‘The Wages of Sin is Death’, or ‘Homosexuality is a sin’, they would certainly be arrested"
As Stephen Green was at last year's Cardiff "Mardi Gras" - an event named after a Christian festival :
Mr Green faces a court appearance today charged with using 'threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour' after his attempt to distribute the leaflets at the weekend 'Mardi Gras' event in Cardiff.
A spokesman for the police said the campaigner had not behaved in a violent or aggressive manner, but that officers arrested him because 'the leaflet contained Biblical quotes about homosexuality'.
http://ukcommentators.blogspot.com/2006/09/campaigner-arrested-because-leaflet.html
I think the point is that Paisley has responsibility for equalities issues. His own views on whether he likes gay sex or not are irrelevant. the issue is: does he think gay people and their relationships should be treated equally. That is what the law says and it ensures that people are treated as equal citizens
As for the T-shirt, if Jesus was a 'fag' that can only be seen as beneficial. Its a cool thing to be - I'd highly recommend it!
ISLAM A RELIGION OF PEACE
In a nut shell Islam is about world dommination! this is a short and brief view of how the muslims intend to attain their agenda and what is their motivation.The muslims ummah propgates expnasion of islam by all means ,First and fore most by the sword ,it is the duty of all the muslims to kill the non muslims it written. the koran state that there is no other god other than Allah and Mohammed is only true porphet,any one who beg's to differ is a infidel and kafir so should be beheaded at once.It is said not to be friend them (the non muslims)! strike them when you get the chance..Any peace treaty with the muslims is invalid, as the koran say make peace treaty with the infedals, in the dead of the night go out kill them all . Eevery muslim no matter how he or she is educated in western value 's DO NOT FOLLOW MULTICULTURE ethics it is evident in the way they dress, they live.It is a mere obligation that muslims pretend that they follows the law of the land(this is allowed in islam-Taqiyya-to be decitfull to confuse the nonbeliver) when they are minority.If they become tha majority the rules of engagment diffrent,Remember(jessiya the slave tax which give's the non beliver right to live in muslim dominated country,persecution are many in islam yet it called the universal brother hood ) & who ever disagrees has to be beheaded.Polygamy is rampant in islam have any one every wondred why? the point is women in islam are sub-human without any rigths on their own ,they are only useful to reproduce their own, It is because polygamy leads to a lot of children .They breed like rabbits,And without a single short being fired one fine day in the near future (may be in another 50-75 years) the muslims will over run Europe by sheer numbers,this also a method of jihad, Might sound LIke conspiracy theory,?Here comes answer as the muslims immigrant from pakistan,libya,morroco and the north afircan belt,middle east & sub continent come to Europe with their peace full brotherhood they slowly change demograph of europe, as of now.,(More than 53 million Muslims live in Europe -- 14 million of them in the European Union and growing.) in Europe. A Europe which dose not belive in any thing now(GOD, FAMILY VALUES,IDEOLOGY or,IDENTY). ,because of their hypocriscy, of being politically correct or because,widely held libral secular views or simply the lack of will to act,The european's way of life as we know it now will cease to exist. thank to our Muslim appeasing politicians who are only intrested in there votes because of their growing numbers,so they could hold on to power,These hypocrites look the other way when EUROPEAN WOMEN ARE GANGE RAPED,AND HUMILIATED , by these peace loving Muslims,Muslims aim is ISLAMIFICATION OF EUROPE. This is what happened in Egypt almost 1300 yrs ago,after conquering the arabian peninsular by war ,the Muslims went on to conqure mighty egypt which was then a super power,which was a very advanced cosmopolitan culture,Rich in science,astonomy,mathematics and medical science(remember the LIBARY OF ALEXANDRIA a center of higher knowledge) like that of present day Europe, the culture which we admire so much and fascinated,is now confined to the pages of histoy thanks to peace full islam and his prophet.The muslims from the arab heart land populated Egypt ,the native's of this once ancient land became a minorty in their own land, Enslaved & Persecuted and heavily taxed and they vanished without a trace in less than 100 years .And yes the koran advocates this to be a form of jihad.......................ethnic cleansing i would say!...can we still claim islam to a religion of peace!.i see europe going the same way ...........not far behind is America .it not to late................sit up and smell the coffee!.let us still not say that Islam is peacefull...it time the World ( the people, politicians& media) strat acting today tomorrow migth be too late for who ever who is not a muslim
regards
S.G.W
maybe after muslims overun europe ,im would love to see how these gays & lesbian feel..........by then i think they will be praying jesus to save them i guess.........hahahah
So, you are saying that Jesus would want people to be punished for calling him "gay". Is that what you think Christianity is about? You really have understood nothing of Christianity.
"Muslims would agree with Christians that this banner's statement implying Jesus was gay is blasphemous and the law should not allow it."
Yes, and that shows us the real danger. "Conservative Christians" and radical Muslims are really pretty much the same kind of people: they idolize the messenger and signs of the religion, and they believe in a society governed by, and oppressed by, religious institutions. It's no accident that Muslim terrorists were supported by "conservative Christian" politicians in the West until those terrorists turned against America: their agendas are similar. Both "conservative Christians" and radical Islam need to be stopped from destroying our democracies.
Post a Comment
<< Home