Sunday, February 24, 2008

Homosexuality – good; Church – bad

This is the essence of the judgement of Labour-controlled Derby City Council, who have banned a Christian couple from fostering young children because they refused to abide by the new Sexual Orientation Regulations. Social workers rejected an application by Eunice and Owen Johns, who have been married for 39 years and have four grown-up children, to be foster parents because they refused to agree to tell any children in their care that the homosexual lifestyle was acceptable.

But, even more significantly, the adoption panel was also unhappy that the couple wished to take any child in their care to church with them on Sundays. Mrs Johns, a retired nurse, is a Sunday school teacher.

Yet the Johns’ application was to offer weekend respite care for foster children under the age of 10. As Mrs Johns said: "I would love any child, black or white, gay or straight. But I cannot understand why sexuality is an issue when we are talking about boys and girls under the age of 10."

Quite so.

There is obviously not a prejudiced bone in her body; just a sincere expression of the Christian faith with an outpouring of good works in her altruistic desire to do some good and give sacrificially of herself.

But Derby City council responded: "Our first duty is to the children in our care, some of whom are very vulnerable.”

Since when has church-going on a Sunday become a form of child abuse? And since when were children under the age of 10 so sexually aware that they have to be told that homosexuality is acceptable? His Grace is grateful to his loyal communicant Ultramontane Grumpy Old Catholic for the suggestion that such instruction could be slotted in while the child is watching CBeebies or Iggle Piggle.

There is, of course, humour to be found in this story, not least in its irony and absurdity, but it represents a development on the previous case. While the Sexual Orientation Regulations have previously proved a hurdle to Christian foster parents refusing to acknowledge the acceptability of homosexual practice, this is the first time that church-going has been adduced as a reason for declaring a couple to be unsuitable for fostering.

Cranmer can hardly wait for Derby City Council to inform a Muslim couple that their mosque-going renders them unsuitable, or a Sikh couple that their gurdwara-going is unacceptable. And, for that matter, he awaits with bated breath to hear of the first homosexual couple to be rendered unsuitable for fostering because of their refusal to take the children in their care to the local mosque or church. This is as blatant an example of religious discrimination as these regulations could be employed to yield, and the decision must be challenged in law. If not, it may not be long before married, heterosexual Christians – who are all, of course, invariably bigoted and prejudiced - may have their children forcibly removed and handed over to a couple in a civil partnership – who are all so utterly reasonable, progressive and enlightened.

As the ever-impressive Bishop of Rochester says in The Sunday Telegraph: ‘There are times when Christian leaders have to speak out.’ Indeed there are, and this is one of them. So where is the Archbishop of Canterbury?

He is nowhere to be heard. So it is left to Dr Nazir-Ali to ask:

"Do the British people really want to lose that rooting in the Christian faith that has given them everything they cherish - art, literature, architecture, institutions, the monarchy, their value system, their laws?"

Sadly, a morally-bankrupt and anti-Christian Labour Government is strangling those roots, one by one, and permitting the weeds of corruption to flourish. With such a sustained attack upon a nation's social policy, the hallowed institution of marriage, its spiritual heritage and culture, it is only a matter of time before the Christian foundations of Parliament and monarchy are lost forever.

38 Comments:

Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Interesting post Your Grace. It is interesting to me because I know that black friends of mine upon hearing this story will conclude that this couple were denied fostering rights because of their race. The religion and gay rights issues will be seen by them as smoke screens.

White Christians however - who in some cases might be relieved to see a black couple denied such rights (not you Your Grace, but perhaps some of your communicants) - in this case, will shout about the injustice against the Church.

Victimhood is a complicated thing.

Having said that, it is clearly odd that Christianity should be used against this couple in this way. Derby makes me think this has to be about something else. Your Grace, you say it is Labour-controlled as if to suggest if it were Conservative-controlled the outcome would have been different. I am not so certain - although you may be right.

As for the issue about gay rights, I believe Eunice Johns to have missed the point when she questions the issue of sexuality because they are dealing with young children. I am not sure that this law exists to protect possible gay children as such. It is more to do with wanting one's foster carers to be accepting of all of God's creations. If a person actively refuses to agree on the acceptability of homosexuality, then this demonstrates not that they are necessarily going to attack their homosexual gay 7 year old foster children, but rather that they are not accepting of all human beings.

If a white foster carer were to hold similar views of black people for instance, one might have an easier time seeing that the state might not want them fostering children - even if they were only ever to foster white children.

24 February 2008 at 12:28  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...

Please excuse the way I'm going to say this, Your Grace. If you delete it I will not complain:

Let's cut through all the crap shall we?

1. First bumbanditry was illegal.

2. Then they made it legal.

3. Now they've made it compulsory to promote it.

4. Is it sooner or later going to be made compulsory to at least try it? Is no boy going to be allowed to grow up without being rogered at least once ... y'know, just to see if perhaps they like it?

I object strongly to 1, 3, and 4.

2 is acceptable.

Church-going:

1. When I was growing up it was effectively compulsory (I grew up in a Welsh rural area - it was chusch or chapel, and Sunday school for the kids). It was a social thing.

2. then it became that take it or leave it was fine either way.

3. Now it seems to have become (at least officially) frowned upon.

4. How long before it's made illegal (not counting mosque-going of course)?

Again, 1, 3 and 4 I strongly oppose.

2 is fine.

You'll notice the progress of bumbanditry is the precise opposite of church-going.

24 February 2008 at 12:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the people who made this decision should be sacked on the spot.

24 February 2008 at 13:40  
Anonymous billy said...

Your Grace said, "And, for that matter, he awaits with bated breath to hear of the first homosexual couple to be rendered unsuitable for fostering because of their refusal to take the children in their care to the local mosque or church."

Will homosexual couples teach the children intheir care that heterosexual marriage is ok?

BTW Is there any correlation between homosexuality and paedophilia?

24 February 2008 at 13:55  
Anonymous dexey said...

Snagglepuss almost makes being black a disease. You don't have to be a victim, S.

I and my wife, both white, have fostered through our church but refused as foster parents by the council because we weren't black. It was held to be too difficult for us to learn how to care for the 'special' needs of black children. Oiling their skin after a bath was a major issue for the social worker, I recall.
Nothing to do with racism just stupidity.
We just got on with life and did what we could.
There aren't enough black foster parents but not many apply.

24 February 2008 at 14:02  
Blogger Wrinkled Weasel said...

I think Snuffy is wide of the mark. Councils are pro-black. They love blacks. They can't help but fall over themselves and if affirmative action were made legal we would have thousands of Labour Controlled councils taking on under-educated ill-suited black people in jobs that others could do better.

No, this is straightforward prejudice against Christians. Plain and simple. Being gay is now compulsory in Labour land and Christianity is verboten. These poor people, have been subject to descrimination for their beliefs.

Is there any hope for this mad inversion of the truth?

I am pinning my hopes on a good, old fashioned Christian revival; we should look to God to have mercy on this desperate bunch of liberal nihilists and zap them with some ol time religion.

A question of attribution:
Just when I am beginning to suspect that the host of this blog is not the revivificatum of Thomas Cranmer+ (1489-1556), he reassures me with his very quaint 16th Century views on the relationship 'teen Church and State.

24 February 2008 at 14:59  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

Sadly, a morally-bankrupt and anti-Christian Labour Government is strangling those roots, one by one, and permitting the weeds of corruption to flourish. With such a sustained attack upon a nation's social policy, the hallowed institution of marriage, its spiritual heritage and culture, it is only a matter of time before the Christian foundations of Parliament and monarchy are lost forever.

Of course New Labour is anti-Christian: it's funded by people who hate Christianity, namely Jews, with Muslims trying to emulate them. The Tories are the same. When Labour Friends of Israel and its twin Conservative Friends of Israel are no longer running British politics, things may start improving, unless Labour/Tory Friends of Islam have taken over their role.

"Do the British people really want to lose that rooting in the Christian faith that has given them everything they cherish - art, literature, architecture, institutions, the monarchy, their value system, their laws?"

Everything? The land of Britain itself? Its flora and fauna? Stonehenge and other pre-Christian sites? The Roman alphabet? Beowulf? The classical literature that inspired Shakespeare and Milton? The classical architecture that inspired Wren and Lutyens?

I don't think Christianity is responsible for everything we cherish.

24 February 2008 at 15:20  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Dexey
Choosing foster parents in a way that takes into account the colour of the child and the potential parents is a complex one. While I understand your frustration at being rejected, especially when there simply aren't enough black foster parents to go round, one needs to consider the reasons why.

They aren't just stupid. And it isn't just about oiling skin. Black children (minority children) face issues in life that white children do not have to face, and their parents need to have the skills to help them through that.

One might argue that a white person may very well have these skills. Experience often sharpens these skills so it is assumed (perhaps wrongly) that whites do not have these skills. Certainly there are many parallels between Jewish and Black groups and the former in many respects is considered to be white. Ironically, if the white parents are gay, they too know something of the how to live as a minority. In addition, one might want to argue that one needn't have experienced being a minority to have knowledge of such skills.

But that doesn't mean that the skills aren't needed. Perhaps there needs to be some testing done, rather than a blanket 'no' given to white parents. There are other tests that foster parents must past at interview: answering correctly on how to deal with certain situations etc. Some of the questions could have a race bias to them and the council could judge its foster parent applicants in this way.

Being black is a disease? Did I say that? Recognising that life can throw up difficulties for black people is not the same as thinking of oneself as a victim. It is to pre-empt problems which is the best of way of not becoming a victim.

Wrinkled Weasel
I would agree with you when you say that 'councils' are pro-black etc. But when it comes to fostering, one usually deals with a few individuals and those particular individuals may not be so pro-black. Notice however I did say friends of mine might make accusations of racism. I myself, am unsure in this occasion.

I, for instance, being black, and a teacher, was rejected by the council (and my council seems only to employ black people) when I applied to foster children. Or at least I didn't pursue the application because I was told (by a white worker) that I was unlikely to get anywhere.

The point I am making is that people in the position of victim - blacks, Christians - may interpret a decision wrongly. I for instance could have concluded that the council was turning me down because I was black and that would have been wrong.

24 February 2008 at 18:28  
Blogger Wrinkled Weasel said...

Snuffy

You have made a major point here; none of us should chose victimhood. We should be proud of who we are.

I am perplexed as to why your local council gave you the heave ho on fostering.

I know you are an awkward bugger, but that isn't grounds for a refusal is it?

24 February 2008 at 19:13  
Anonymous The recusant said...

Miss Snuffleupagus

I find your suggestion that “White Christians however - who in some cases might be relieved to see a black couple denied such rights (not you Your Grace, but perhaps some of your communicants)” quite bigoted and offensive.

You would do well to cast your mind back to your traumatic experience teaching in a Catholic school and refresh your memory of the Catechism of the Catholic Church Part Three, Section One, Chapter Two, Article 3 - Social Justice Para 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1935 where you will see quite unequivocally that racism is condemned in terms of human justice and dignity as well as being taught by the Catholic Church as sinful. Many Anglo-Catholics, Anglicans and other non-catholic denomination value the CCC highly as a guide and reference and so it can be taken as applying to the majority of UK Christians.

You would quite rightly object to derogatory remarks based on colour if that colour were black yet this comment reveals a side of you we have not yet met, a side that you seem to lose any prohibition in the case of the white Christian population. I am surprised that you would voice such a disgraceful allegation; we have come to expect this level of discourse from nedsherry and his ilk, you on the other hand usually post your comments devoid of such unpleasantness.

24 February 2008 at 19:56  
Blogger andrew holden said...

Unfortunately it seems that your hero, the esteemed Bishop of Rochester, is not immune to a bit of spin of his own. He is quoted criticising the Archbishop of Canterbury:

"People of every faith should be free within the law to follow what their spiritual leaders direct them to, but that's very different from saying their structures should replace that of the English legal system because there would be huge conflicts."

Well of course it is - but then the AoC did not suggest that Islamic Law should replace English Law at all. He said that perhaps some aspects of it might be accommodated within British Law - which presupposes that those aspects would be consistent with it.

24 February 2008 at 20:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Please remember this.

Socialism does not give a flying fig, and never has, whether you are white, Black, Asian, Muslim, Chinese, Christian, Green, Orange, rich or poor, upper class, working class, or of no class. Or even Jewish come to think about it.

It will use you until it needs you no more.

Then throw your particular freedom, religion, individuality, race, democratic rights, liberty and maybe your life, down the proverbial toilet along with everyone else's.

Sorry to have to tell you this Cranmar.

The hallowed institution of marriage went the way of the DO-DO many years ago. That it survives at all in name only, is a testament to a womens need for a fast buck, and a mans need for a regular f..k.

As for the monarchy have no fear. They will still be around for many more years.

Do you think for one second that the Royal Family would be backing the EU if they did not know for certain that their position and wealth were completely assured?

Parliament, now that is a more urgent issue, to say the least.

IMHO

Our once respected representative parliamentary democracy is on its death bed, and expelling its last breath.

It has been DELIBERATELY corrupted and will eventually be exposed as being so, BIG TIME. The purpose is to remove any vestige of confidence we still have in our own ability to self govern.

This process has been going on in Europe for many decades where needed. This is why the EU has not the fear within the common people of mainland Europe as it does here.

We still believe, very stupidly, that our elected representatives care about any one but themselves. Europeans have grown up out of this thinking. They just accept politicians are all criminals and vagabonds on the make and just get on with exploiting the system as best as they can.

This is because the battle/debate between freedom and authoritarianism in places like Sweden was mostly lost before it even took place. So they are now completely used to it.

In other parts of Europe like Germany Spain and France nationalism and socialism have been hand in hand since way before Adolf Hitler was in short trousers.

We the British however are the last half good apple in the barrel.

NOW, here is the really bad news.

We are now clearly seeing quite how determined Europe's later day Nazi's really are.

( Remember this time the US, the British Royal family along with almost the entire British establishment are batting up the order, for the other side. )

Not MAYBE as determined and murderously insane as there gods Adolf Joseph and Napoleon.

But far more well funded, more internationally united, highly organized and powerful, then Adolf was in his most happy of happy dreams.

I know which side my money is going on. The same side I am sure David Cameron's has it also, whether he likes it or not.

ATLAS shrugged and booked some swift French lessons.

24 February 2008 at 20:49  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

your grace
this topic for me gets to the very nub of new labours achievements, i feel sorry for the couple mentioned who no doubt can offer a very good educational and safe home for a child that does not have one !!.

so beyond this basic offer we then have the thought police wanting to make a form of institutuion based on the forced PR of the pink agenda.

there is nothing of equality in homosexual practices , except in the gender of the consenting adults doing the actual act.

it is quoted that 10% of the population is gay , working on this i would think that 10% of any talk given to a foster child should be 10% of the total on sexual relationships. but oh no the thought police want you to give it at least 50% significance .

such debates always start by saying that christians will say homosexuality is bad , but oh no your are not allowed to say its bad . I pondered about its lack of pro creation , it is sex without procreation . is this good or bad . well if you want to replace the population it is bad , but hey we now have invitro and surrogacy , procreation can occure without the married man and wife foudation , so we now are supposed to have no basis for attacking homosexuality.

in summary it is labours intention to create a society not based on right or wrong with a common foundation , but good or bad based on the there own liberal rights agenda.

they say it is not an experiment but progress , no need for dark judgemental condemation , at least not if you go along with it !.

i look around and do not see a transition to somthing better but a hopeless abondonment to the basic feral emotions/desires of the flesh.

of course cheap alcohol always helps the advancement of the feral liberal, cheap morals based on 10% of the populations sexual actions , seems to show it up as forced inequality , which has no determinable means of success .

if the success of this experiment is to create a confused and repressed voter , that will only vote for extended drinking hours and cheaper drug , it appears to have had its day.

24 February 2008 at 23:28  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

Your Grace

I endorse all your points, but what I find particularly bizarre is the assumption by the Social Workers that the subject of gayness and gay lifestyles is to be put on the agenda of 10 year olds.

Can one imagine this type of exchange at tea time?

Parent/Foster Parent "Did you have a good day at school today Johnny?"

Johnny: "Fred called me a homo, 'cos my hair was too long and I dont like playing football."

Parent/Foster Parent: "Don't worry about that Johnny. Everyone has to find out their sexual preference, and if you are gay (that is the correct word Johnny) that's just fine. Same sex partnerships are no different from Mummys and Daddys..."

It's beyond satire, but could be interpreted as more sinister. The government already wants to introduce sex education at earlier and earlier ages (ostensibly in an effort to reduce the pregnancy rate). In this way they will progressively destroy the innocence of little children. Shame on them!!!

24 February 2008 at 23:42  
Anonymous Cinnamon said...

Your Grace,

searching for common sense and/or competence amongst social workers is pointless, whoever is working in this line of business had their moral corrupted and destroyed by now, for good.

Those are the same people who are signed up to win the tractor production contest and make the NuLabourborn adoption program a success, if necessary with malicious lies, false denunciation and secret court sessions.

Don't adopt, don't foster unless the parents of the child have told you face to face that this is their expressed wish. You may otherwise help in the theft of children, unwittingly, but your uncritical help is what enables the child thieves.

Besides that, given all the publicity regarding NuLabourborn -- foster and adoption parents won't be able to claim they did not know -- and eventually that question will come and they will have to admit to their child that they didn't check, but selfishly signed the papers that sealed the theft despite knowing that child theft by social services is endemic. Can you imagine having to own up to that kind of sin?

So, those hindered foster parents have more important things to contemplate than just sex education :(

25 February 2008 at 00:17  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

1 in 9 gay men in London have HIV. We ought to discourage gayness on the grounds of it being an unhealthy lifestyle like smoking and obesity.


WHHHHHOOOOPPPPPSS

25 February 2008 at 00:53  
Anonymous DocBud said...

Blindly believing that children are always best placed with families within their own race/culture can lead to this:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22902781-601,00.html

An extreme case but, sadly not a unique one.

Contrary to what Snuffleupagus says, in my experience, black children (especially under 10) do not face issues in life that white children do not have to face. And all children want the same things, high on their list being love and attention, which I'm sure all those willing to be foster parents are able to give in abundance.

25 February 2008 at 01:09  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...

Cinnamon

It's a lot of reading, but if you click through all the tabs on this, and read all the pages, you'll probably give yourself a stroke

http://www.forced-adoption.com/introduction.asp

Twice in my life social workers took a hand. Each time, they turned it upside-down. Completely ruined it up to that point. People like His Grace would say you shouldn't hate. But I hate social workers.

Indeed, "Hate" may go in the right direction, but conceptually it is entirely inadequate as a description of my feelings for social workers.

Sorry Your Grace, but that's the way it is, and will be to the moment of my death.

25 February 2008 at 01:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Homophobic horse

Yes of cause logically they should, if they really cared about peoples health.

But what has caring logic got to do with the divisively evil policies of our ruling class?

Promotion of homosexuality is a mainly modern western method of reducing the birth rate.

(It is also The Gods and their natures favorite way.)

Socialism has little to do with protecting individual lifestyles. I personally would argue it has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting anything individual.

Homosexuality has been around since man became to numerous to peacefully co exist. Which was a very long time ago.

Why mankind finds its so difficult to co exist however, is a very complicated question indeed.

In my opinion.

Wars and conflict in general have much to do with destroying the power of ordinary people. So to assist the continuation of the overwhelming control our ruling class have always had over us.

It can be summed up in one simple phrase.

Divide and rule.

Which is one of the oldest tricks in the despotic elitist handbook. Next to straight forward murder and genocide.

25 February 2008 at 09:36  
Anonymous Terry said...

homophobic horse: 1 in 9 sounds plausible, do you have a link or evidence please?

Can you imagine the BBC constantly referring to the BNP in the same breath as the other parties at election time, on the basis that they were equally likely in theory to win? I don't think so. So why is such a (deviant) minority practice given equal status?

25 February 2008 at 10:45  
Blogger Homophobic Horse said...

I saw it on some Channel 4 program about "Bug Chasers."

Because of AIIIIDDDSSSS(Statistics)

25 February 2008 at 14:58  
Anonymous James said...

And the winner is Anonymous at 20:49 - I knew this would be a NAZI plot!

"Bumbanditry" and "(deviant) minority practice" - I see your Grace is keeping good company these days, it's barely disguised hatred and you know it.

1 in 9 gay men in London have HIV can't deny it - but actually there are far more heterosexual people in this country living with HIV than there are Gay people; and the rate of increase in infections is far higher in the straight population than in the gay - so let's put that myth to bed shall we - as well as the myth that infection with HIV is some kind of moral failure - it ain't. You wouldn't say the same of a woman with cervical cancer would you - a cancer that is mostly caused by the HP Virus - contracted, yes you guess it, during sex - oh my freaking God, shock horror!

I'm thankful Christianity is a spent force in this Country; but the sooner they disestablish the church and let the "faithful" have no further interference in state life the better - you are all so full of your own self-importance, cherry-picking the bits of your tedious morality from the "Good Book", it beggars belief.

One other thing before I go, if all this is all so wrong, why hasn't your chap upstairs sorted it all out by now, eh?

25 February 2008 at 15:15  
Anonymous Terry said...

If (say) 95% of the population are heterosexual and 5% homosexual and assume over overlap for bisexuals, you would expect HIV on pure maths to be 95:5. If though homosexuals suffer from HIV more pro rata, something is going on.

To be clear, it's not hatred of people, just hate of a deviant sexual practice.

God isn't allowed into much of what happens so people suffer the natural consequences of what they do ie STDs. And it's not sex (penis + vagina) - it's homosexuality (penis + male anus)

25 February 2008 at 15:41  
Anonymous James said...


To be clear, it's not hatred of people, just hate of a deviant sexual practice


Words fail me. You can't hate the practice without pronouncing on the practitioner - do you hate rape, but not rapists - murders and not murderers?

God isn't allowed into much of what happens... - really? I thought the old fella was omnipotent, in which case, there's no practice he isn't part of as far as I can see.

As for the obsession with Anal sex, it may surprise you to know, but most Gay men and certainly most lesbians never partake on any sustained basis - and even if they do, what business is it of anyone elses; the idea that because it poses a health risk, it's immoral is patent nonsense.

Cranmer waxes lyrical about the Libertarian position, Libertarian that is, until he disaproves - then it's all down to half-baked morality, devised some two thousand to fifteen hundred years ago - morality which the faithful can chose which bits to believe and which to carefully cast aside as being too troublesome for modern life. I mean, I bet the majority of you eat shellfish, with no moral objection.

We're all atheists, some of us just go one God further.

25 February 2008 at 16:05  
Anonymous hear o israel said...

james you appear to be falling into the trap of the thought police, why can i not find homosexual acts and adgenda wrong??

what is it the reason that i shouldnt have in objecting to the promotion of homosexuality .

25 February 2008 at 17:55  
Anonymous nedsherry said...

james said...

but actually there are far more heterosexual people in this country living with HIV than there are Gay people;

Yes, lots of black heterosexuals. Their sexual practices are unhealthy too -- and in fact there's a lot of hidden homosexuality among black men.

and the rate of increase in infections is far higher in the straight population than in the gay -

Thanks to immigration from Africa and other vibrant areas.

so let's put that myth to bed shall we - as well as the myth that infection with HIV is some kind of moral failure - it ain't.

It's not necessarily a moral failure, but can be, like infection with other diseases. Concealing facts the way you did is definitely a moral failure.

The recusant said...

You would do well to cast your mind back to your traumatic experience teaching in a Catholic school and refresh your memory of the Catechism of the Catholic Church Part Three, Section One, Chapter Two, Article 3 - Social Justice Para 1928, 1929, 1930, 1931 and 1935 where you will see quite unequivocally that racism is condemned in terms of human justice and dignity as well as being taught by the Catholic Church as sinful.

Interesting to see Catholic teaching praised in the language of a Guardian editorial. Significant too. No wonder the church is dying.

I am surprised that you would voice such a disgraceful allegation; we have come to expect this level of discourse from nedsherry and his ilk, you on the other hand usually post your comments devoid of such unpleasantness.

The truth often is unpleasant. Catholics shouldn't need to be told that.

25 February 2008 at 18:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And deep in his hell sang the Devil,
and this was the strain of his song:
The ancient, outworn, Puritanic
traditions of Right and Wrong
Robert Service - The Woman and the Angel

25 February 2008 at 18:36  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

The Recusant
By no means do I mean to suggest that all, or even most white Christians are racist - whatever that might mean.

Yes, I suppose Nedsherry is an atheist. But I often read the most offensive comments on this blog (on the issue of race, which is sometimes disguised as religion), which I would consider racist. In Nedsherry's favour, at least he happily admits that he is a racist.

To be honest, I am not sure if the impression I have - which is that most of Cranmer's communicants are white Christians - is right. Perhaps it isn't. In that case, I would be wrong to have the impression which prompted the comment which offended you. But this was what I meant by SOME of His Grace's communicants. You, for instance, do not belong in that category.

Wrinkled Weasel
I have commented on here before about my experiences with regard to fostering. They didn't mind me being difficult at all. But they did mind that I had no 'significant other'. My significant other could have been a man, a woman, or even my mum. I needed someone who would step in for me if I was held up at work or whatever. But my parents live abroad and I am unattached. I could see their point. It is however funny that I could have a child on my own, and the council would pay me to do so. But if I try to help the council by housing a child in need, then somehow I am inadequate.

25 February 2008 at 19:34  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Docbud
I didn't say that race was the only thing one should consider when judging foster parents. I said it should be one of many. Clearly not all minority potential foster parents will make good parents.

And as for Australia and the way in which Aboriginal children have been treated over the decades by the white population... For every article like that one you cite, I could produce thousands telling the opposite tale...

25 February 2008 at 19:42  
Anonymous DocBud said...

Please do, snuffleupagus. I'll accept ten (instead of thousands) verifiable articles telling the opposite tale. But given that the leading proponents of the "Stolen Generations" myth cannot produce ten aboriginal children who were removed from their families because they were aboriginal, I think you'll have your work cut out.

25 February 2008 at 22:22  
Anonymous Sir Henry Morgan said...

I notice James (I think) criticises the language I used, but chooses not to address the point I was making.

25 February 2008 at 23:30  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Docbud
What on earth are you talking about?? For decades Aboriginal children were taken from their families by force for exactly that reason!

26 February 2008 at 07:27  
Anonymous DocBud said...

Well, if you say so, Snuffleupagus, it must be true. The only thing that is missing is evidence. Like evidence that this was ever any state's policy or actual children who were removed from their families other than for their own welfare and protection. You said you could produce thousands of articles, I only asked for ten, where are they?

26 February 2008 at 09:43  
Blogger Snuffleupagus said...

Docbud
I don't have the time. If you are happy with an inaccurate view of history - so be it.

26 February 2008 at 20:34  
Anonymous DocBud said...

Snuffleupagus,
That is too pathetic for words. You make an assertion that you claim you can back up with 1000s of articles and then offer nothing.

I am very keen on accurate history, which implies some level of evidence in advance of conjecture and interpretation. I am not at all keen on history manufactured for political reasons, which evidently you are.

26 February 2008 at 21:48  
Blogger Adrian said...

Although (or because?) I'm a secularist, I don't think Christians should be prevented from adopting or fostering. The law and the council are both mad.

27 February 2008 at 00:21  
Anonymous James said...

@Sir Henry Morgan

I notice James (I think) criticises the language I used, but chooses not to address the point I was making

Your point being what, that the legalisation of homosexual acts between men has brought about the serial fall in church numbers witnessed in this country over the last 40 years?

If I didn't know you were serious...etc, there is no evidence of a direct causal link for this whatsoever.

Could it simply be that people recognise the church has nothing to offer them in 21st century Britain - and that they have nothing to offer it?

@nedsherry - you are clearly a racist and it does Cranmer no favours whatsoever in allowing you to spread your bile (heterosexual blacks have dodgy sexual practices, you know?) on this blog. You are sir, a moron.

28 February 2008 at 10:55  
Anonymous billy said...

james said...

Could it simply be that people recognise the church has nothing to offer them in 21st century Britain - and that they have nothing to offer it?

28 February 2008 10:55

That may be true of the 20th century but it is a little early to be saying that of the 21st century.

The church seems to be on the up and up in our city parish. I'm back for one, and I'm not the only one.
We have two vicars, a curate, two retired vicars, the curates wife is a vicar but busy raising children, two parishioners training as vicars, and lots of lay readers and wannabes. We are just taking on a full time family and children support worker and there's more to come.
God is good (is that the same as Allah akabar?)

Of, course, if you are a miserable git whose glass is always half empty or threatened by blacks, muslims or gays, or all three in one, it's never going to be Good News

1 March 2008 at 19:44  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older