Wednesday, July 22, 2009

The Guardian: ‘Measure not your politician by their Christianity’

So says former Labour parliamentary candidate Mike Ion.

The last time Cranmer came across an ion was during a riveting discussion involving the exchange of electrons between an aqueous solution and a solid. And he was more enthralled by that tedious process than he is with the puerile level of religio-political comprehension of Mr Ion. His Grace is in the mood for fisking, so here, in negation of Mike Ion, is Cranmer’s cation:

According to the conservativehome website more and more Christians are likely to vote Conservative at the next election. In support of this assertion, it cites the Tory party's pledge to recognise marriage in the tax system, its commitment to move towards 0.7% of GDP being spent on overseas development, support for faith schools and the views of many Tory candidates on the need to restrict the present abortion laws.

It is impossible for Cranmer to take seriously any journalist who manifests sloppy grammar or carelessly deploys the lower case when a word demands capitalisation. Or perhaps the small-c ‘conservative’ was purposeful, and the small-h ‘home’ a tedious emphasis of an alleged insignificance. That aside, it is difficult to grasp Mr Ion’s objection to his list of ‘support’ for the assertion. All of these issues are of varying degrees of concern to Christians of all denominations. It stands to reason that if the Conservative Party is identifying with these priorities that it will attract voters for whom they constitute some degree of importance. Support for faith education and an indication of reducing the time limit for abortion will attract in particular the traditionally Labour-supporting Roman Catholic vote; recognising marriage in the tax system and increasing overseas aid will accord with all Christians who favour the traditional family unit and desire to express compassion to the world’s poorest.

As Tom Harris points out the premise that one party is more "Christian" than any other is both facile and worrying.

The absence of commas is appalling, as is the adulation of Tom Harris who purposely caricatured His Grace’s beliefs and conveniently ignored his riposte and counter-arguments. But neither of these is as appalling as Mr Ion’s facile and worrying inability to reason. If one party supports church schools, favours marriage, seeks to save the child in the womb, feed the poor and house the homeless; while another seeks to close church schools, undermine marriage, promote abortion, maintain levels of poverty and pursues economic policies which increase homelessness, it is perfectly reasonable to assert that the former may be ‘more Christian’ than the latter. One does not need eyes to see or ears to hear that if one church is preaching Christ crucified from its pulpit while another is sacrificing chickens on the altar, that only one is trying to build Jerusalem while the other propagates the dark satanic mills.

Back in 2007 my local Tory MP (Mark Pritchard) initiated a Westminster Hall debate on "Christianophobia" – it was a pity that he couldn't find time to secure a debate about how we can prevent further services transferring from our local hospital in Telford over to Shrewsbury, but obviously he felt this issue was of greater importance to the good people of the Wrekin. During the debate Pritchard argued that the "political correctness brigade" were to blame for fewer schools putting on nativity plays and argued for the need protect our "Christian traditions".

Actually, the liberty to debate services in your local hospital stems from the constitutional liberties guaranteed by the contract between the Monarch and the people, and these liberties are fundamentally those bequeathed and preserved by the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law. The more freedom of speech is hindered; the more freedom of conscience is limited; the more each passing generation is inoculated against the meaning and significance of the nation’s Christian traditions, the more we are diminished. To dismiss this important debate is to dismiss a primary concern of all Christians, and perpetuate the fear that practices not in conformity with the Gospel will be forced upon the unwilling consciences of believers, particularly in the public services. Increasingly it will be the independence of the Christian conscience and those churches that can sustain that independence in spirit and in fact that will come to be seen as the defences of human liberty.

There is a real danger that people use "Christian" as shorthand for "white British" (just as they also often use "Muslim" as shorthand for "British Asian") with the implication that Christianity is seen as synonymous with "Britishness".

Ah, now Cranmer understands. Anyone who expresses concern about the diminution of Christian expression in the public sphere is a closet member of the BNP. Who are these ‘they’, Mr Ion? The Gospel of Christ knows no racial barriers, and Asians may belong to any faith and have done for centuries. Christianity has never been synonymous with Britishness, but ‘Britishness’ (whatever that be) has been Christian in an evolving political character and particular jurisprudence for more than a thousand years. England is Christian, and in that there is no shame. And it is no ‘danger’ that the ‘white British’ may wish to identify themselves as Christian, for the overwhelming majority manifestly do. The danger, Mr Ion, is in those who foment religious strife and who cry ‘danger’ where there is none.

The closer we get to a general election the more I worry that some of our political leaders will simply not be able to resist playing the "faith card" at some stage during the campaign.

The Christian faith is not a card to be played at a moment, but a life-long race to be won. Those who play the ‘faith card’ may be superficial, nominal Christians. But those who live their lives sincerely trying to work out their faith in an increasingly hostile world should not be a cause of worry but of relief. For they are the guardians of conscience, defenders of liberty, and advocates for the right to speak and to think as one wishes. And to accuse such as these of 'playing the faith card' is only to play the anti-faith card.

In 2005 we saw a glimpse of such a move when Michael Howard sought to make abortion an electoral issue.

Hmm... Cranmer must have missed that, though he was somewhat preoccupied. But let His Grace assure Mr Ion that, while Michael Howard might have talked about abortion, he certainly played no ‘faith card’. Such expression would have been antithetical to his essentially secular mindset. He has no understanding of religious conviction, no respect for Christian conscience, no grasp of the Protestant dimension of the Constitution, and no understanding of the symbiosis inherent in the delicate contract that exists between Parliament, Church, Monarch and the people. If Michael Howard mentioned abortion, it was in order to win votes. Any ‘faith card’ he played was simply a joker.

If Britain ends up (heaven forbid) mirroring what happens in the US, candidates seeking the Christian vote in the UK are likely to fall into one of two categories:
1. I am a Christian so please give me your vote. I am a good guy/girl, I go to church regularly and I am a person of simple faith just like you. You are a Christian and I am Christian – that's all you need worry about.
2. I am Christian and I have a strong moral compass (particularly when it comes to "family" values) so please give me your vote. Not only am I a Christian I am also a married Christian with a family. I think family life is the backbone of Britain; it is what makes our nation a great nation and we need to protect and promote the traditional family unit at all costs.

Cranmer agrees with Mr Ion's sentiment here, but is puzzled by his derision of Gordon Brown, who is manifestly a ‘Category 2’ Christian, obsessed with his ‘moral compass’ and who would certainly equate his ‘values’ with the ‘Britishness’ that he is still trying to define.

Let's be honest here. Category 1 is just silly – you might as well be saying "I voted for Diversity on Britain's Got Talent and so did you, please vote for me." Category 2 is slightly more sinister – "I am normal, just like you are" so vote for me. Does it matter? Well yes. Modern Christianity is in danger of becoming a privatised, pietised and politically compliant servant of the status-quo and the prospect of it ending up becoming the handmaiden of conservative, reactionary politics, similar to what has for so long dominated right of centre thinking in US politics, should worry us all.

This is an appallingly-written and utterly confused paragraph, and Cranmer is relieved that God spared the lovely people of Shrewsbury from having this man as their Member of Parliament at the last general election. To equate the agonising and eternal depths of the Christian faith with something as ephemeral and insignificant as voting for ‘Diversity’ is an insult to all people of all faiths. And note the derogatory ‘simple faith’; the caricature Evangelical salesman. There is a degree of projection here, for the only ‘silly’ reasoning is the crass superficiality of this analysis. And the final sentence reveals an alarming ignorance of the English settlement. The Christian faith has been fused at the heart of government for centuries: the English Church is bound with Parliament, and this expression of Christianity has been, to varying extents in various times, the ‘handmaiden’ of whichever political party has been in power. Through the Tory and Whig era, it has even been ‘reactionary’: the English did it way before the Americans declared their statehood. And let us not ignore the purposeful juxtaposition of ‘right of centre’ thinking which ‘should worry us all’. It is the gospel of the secularist, the false faith of ‘neutrality’ which should worry us all, not the temporal liberty inherent in the politics of the Right or the spiritual liberation offered by the Christian faith.

'Measure not your politician by their Christianity'?

That is the cry of the continuing hostility of this anti-Christian government to the defenders of the faith. What better touchstone can there be than that which measures a man by his honesty, integrity, humility, goodness, kindness, self-control? It is written in Magna Carta that ‘the English Church should be free’. In the context of Labour’s overweening power and onslaughts like this from The Guardian, the precepts of Magna Carta take on an urgent contemporary relevance: they remind us that the Christian Church is the defender of liberty and of conscience against the totalitarian State. It is time for Christians in politics to ‘do God’, for if they are silent, who is left to defend what remains of our liberty and rights of conscience?


Blogger Jim Bartlet said...

Thank you for this Your Grace. I am off to Leeds today to collect a new car, and it is a three hour journey each way. I was not looking forward to it. I now have a lot to think about, and I feel in a much better frame of mind.

To state that these people do not get it would be a monumental understatement.

22 July 2009 at 09:52  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

Henry VIII was, at least, honest whilst undermining the Church and it's teachings to suit his own ends.

Whilst New Labour lauds multiculturalism, it systematically and 'politically' seeks to undermine the very basis of our Christian civilization as in a 'revolution'.

Surely, the basis of all religeous teaching is 'goodness and humanity'. Blair not only betrayed his people over the Lisbon Treaty, he now wishes to become President of the reportedly corrupt, wasteful and bullying (shown by it's treatment of the Irish) regime.

For Blair to align himself to catholicism in the process, is to use and damage religion in the pursuit of political aims.

In this life and the next 'man is judged on his actions and that which lies in his heart ...'

Blair has reportedly become a multi millionnaire as a 'politician' - his God appears to be money.

22 July 2009 at 10:30  
Anonymous Puritan Preacher said...

Your Grace,

Mike Ion regards it slightly sinister to think family life is the backbone of Britain. Well, I would suggest that anyone who cannot sign up to family values has a really sinister agenda. Probably one which lacks any moral compass and one where truth is redefined according to an ideology that doesn't value honesty, integrity, kindness, and self-control. The likes of Mike Ion are not only savaging the Christian position on family life, other religions also have family values based on long and deeply held traditions. He implies that 'Christian' is camouflage for 'racism', but it is easy to detect a Socialist, totalitarian, antichristian emphasis amidst his sloppy reasoning and concern. Political Correctness is under threat from free speech, family values, freedom of conscience and the desire for liberty. Good! May the pressure on it increase by all Christians 'doing God' wherever they are.

22 July 2009 at 10:47  
Anonymous TBF said...



Was Your Grace a chemist?

22 July 2009 at 10:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace,

Although I freely admit to voting Tory at every previous general election, I can’t help feeling a tad concerned by David Cameron. Correct me, someone, if I am wrong, but I believe he is on record in The Observer as saying “Not for the first time, I found myself thinking that it is mainstream Britain which needs to integrate more with the British (Muslim) Asian way of life, not the other way around.” This doesn’t sound particularly comforting to a Christian, not that all Asians are Muslim, of course. As for Conservative support for faith schools, this most certainly does not mean exclusive support for Church of England and Roman Catholic schools. We can, therefore, expect the proportion of Islamic schools to grow, while Labour’s anti-Christian policies of diluting the Christian intake of CofE and RC schools will, no doubt, continue, not to mention the abolition of Christian assemblies, Easter celebrations and nativity plays in non-faith schools.

As you mention the BNP and Christianity, it appears the British National Party are standing a Reverend Robert West in tomorrow’s Norwich North by-election, not that the media would want to publicise the fact of course -- well, not until his deposit is lost at any rate. Nevertheless, it will be intriguing to see how many votes he gets despite the protestations of the Rt Rev Graham James, Bishop of Norwich (CofE), the Rt Rev Michael Evans, Bishop of East Anglia (RC), the Rev Graham Thompson (Methodist), the Rev Richard Lewis (Baptist), the Rev Paul Whittle (URC) and John Myhill (Quakers) who also like to engage in politics. Now that it appears that the Glasgow North East by-election will not take place until November 5th at the earliest, one can’t help wondering whether the BNP, also contesting the by-election, would be able to swap Rev West for their declared candidate and thus oppose the SNP’s ‘Catholic extremist’ David Kerr, the subject of your previous blog ‘Religion enters the Glasgow North East by-election’. Not only would November 5th be an auspicious date upon which to hold the by-election but David Kerr and Rev West would surely provide for some interesting fireworks!

22 July 2009 at 11:00  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, this is a knee-jerk reaction from the Nu-Lab aparatchiks who suddenly perceive the Christian vote as a threat because it has been publicly embraced by the opposition (intentionally small "o"). Probably because there are more Christians than Muslims and Nu-Lab have spent the last 12 years sucking up to a minority alien culture while p*ssing of the indigenes. How pathetic.

To be honest, to see the Tories pandering so ineptly to the Christian vote is rather pathetic too. I mean, last week it was the Pink vote they were after. What special interest group is it going to be next week? One legged tap dancers?

If it's votes Cameron wants then all he has to do is come out against the EU. Give us an unconditional (none of this wait and see BS) referendum on whether we want in or out and people will be falling over themsleves to vote Tory. I'll be one of them.

It's not rocket science for goodness sake! Or maybe, if your name is David Cameron, it is...

22 July 2009 at 11:58  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

...more and more Christians are likely to vote Conservative at the next election.

If Christians do vote Conservative and a Conservative government is elected, what rewards will those Christians receive? Continued membership of the European Union, which is nothing more than a thinly disguised dictatorship, and the continued Islamization of their country.

A vote for the Conservatives is a vote for the eradication of Christianity in Britain. Assuming that a turkey would not vote for Christmas, turkeys have more sense than Christians who vote Conservative (or Labour, or LibDem).

I would ask Your Grace to look at this article on the BBC website. It speaks of the Coppice district of Oldham, Lancashire. When I last saw Coppice, in the mid-1970’s, it was overwhelmingly, if not exclusively, white and Christian. And now?

•Johnny Rottenborough•

22 July 2009 at 12:01  
Blogger Dave said...

Isn't a cation the opposite of an 'anion'? Ion is just a general term, no?

22 July 2009 at 12:09  
Blogger Dave said...

Don't mean to be fussy as you are far and beyond my favourite, ahem, journalist but:

"It is impossible for Cranmer to take seriously any journalist who manifests sloppy grammar or carelessly deploys the lower case when a word demands capitalisation"

The other day, you used the phrase
"Sitz im Leben". The thing is, you forgot the capital letters...


22 July 2009 at 12:14  
Blogger English Viking said...

I find it disturbing that the so called 'Christians' in Your Grace's post are considering voting for either the Conservatives, Liberal or Labour parties. These parties are, almost without exception, the parties of Government, local and national, for the last 100 years. Just look out of the window and admire what a fine job they have all done. Due to the required swing of voters needed by the the Conservatives to win the next election, and the increasing likelehood that they will get it, it is apparent that, by definition, these swing voters will be mostly ex-Labour voters. These are the very same people who have, despite numerous warnings from those who have eyes to see, repeatedly voted for the liars, thieves, warmongers, whoremongers, homosexuals, pro-abortion, pro-islamic, pro-secular, anti-marriage politicians that form the Labour party. They now appear to think that Blu-Labour will be different. They are wrong. What concord hath Christ with Belial? What fellowship hath the light with the darkness? If you are a Christian you already have a representative, a man seated at the right hand of The Father, The Lord Jesus Christ. I cannot see how someone can possibly be living a life pleasing to God if they wish to be represented by an unregenerate man who will continue in same way his predecessors have. Be not partakers of their sins.

22 July 2009 at 12:20  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dave,

While the term 'Sitz im Leben' is indeed usually capitalised when referred to as an hermeneutical method within inverted commas, when the term appears mid-sentence and unquoted it may be considered as unworthy of capitalisation as talking generally of one's setting in life.

22 July 2009 at 12:41  
Anonymous Philip said...

Mr Ion is a typical demonstration of the hatred of Christianity by the Labour party and indeed the liberal-left generally. As for the Tories, while they do have ‘Christian’ policies on supporting marriage in the tax system (will this survive necessary spending cuts?), increasing overseas aid, reducing the abortion time limit and so on, what about the increasingly important issues of freedom of speech and conscience? Will the Conservatives repeal all legislation (even if it comes from Brussels) that limits freedom of speech and freedom of conscience? I’ve yet to hear any such pledge. Mr Cameron’s recent seeking the gay activist vote does not give much hope. Also, his supporting Labour against against freedom of conscience for the RC adoption agencies doesn’t indicate he’s motivated by the Magna Carta declaration that the “English Church should be free”.

22 July 2009 at 12:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Johnny Rotten
Are these new 7 bedroom houses with specially designed kitchens and bathrooms for muslims only.Is there any housing provision being made for British white underdogs in this area?

22 July 2009 at 12:51  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Q: If those properties are available to everyone who qualifies for social housing why were they designed with Muslims in mind?

Q: Is all new social/private housing going to be designed along the same lines?

I think we should be told...

22 July 2009 at 13:08  
Blogger Mike Ion said...

I really enjoyed reading your post - it is well written, cogent and clearly much more entertaining than mine.

There is, however a serious point to be made. In my view secularists are wrong when they ask – more often insist – that believers leave their religion at the door before entering into the arena of public debate. The majority of great reformers in British history – from Wilberforce to Keir Hardie - were not only motivated by faith, but repeatedly used religious language to argue for their cause. I recognise that democratic engagement will and should make demands of religious believers. It will demand that those who are religiously motivated act to turn their concerns into universal, rather than faith-specific, values. Democratic engagement will also demand that the values espoused by people of faith be subject to argument and debate.

Apologies if you think my article was too partisan - on reflection I think it was.


22 July 2009 at 13:30  
Blogger Dave said...

Your Grace,

My apologies, I was perhaps a little quick off the mark. I was showing a German friend the article and he pointed it out. A google search reveals that when used in English, it doesn't matter too much whether it is capitalized or not. I could not find any rules on the usage of German nouns (capitalized in their own language) in English.

Good day

22 July 2009 at 13:33  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Anonymous (12:51)—I should imagine the answer is ‘No’. As one of the lucky residents says, ‘We’re all Muslims here’.

You’ll have noticed that the kitchens are designed to comply with halal cuisine, meaning provision to sluice away the blood when an animal has its throat cut while fully conscious. Hey, Cranmer! Another reason to vote Conservative—maximum cruelty to animals. It just gets better and better.

22 July 2009 at 13:47  
Anonymous Rudyard said...

It irks me that the language of the hun is being used here at all.
I don't see a need for it.

22 July 2009 at 13:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Johnny Rotten
So what are they doing in the bathroom to have them comply as well?

22 July 2009 at 14:04  
Anonymous Philip said...

Mr Ion (1330) said, "democratic engagement...will demand that those who are religiously motivated act to turn their concerns into universal, rather than faith-specific, values." I presume this means he's saying, forget the unborn child, forget the undermining of marriage and freedom of speech and conscience (as if these things are not wider than 'faith-specific' concerns)arising from the lib-left 'diversity and equality' agenda. In other words, people of faith, shut up.

Mr Ion says "Democratic engagement will also demand that the values espoused by people of faith be subject to argument and debate." if only the lib-left would allow the same for their ideas - e.g. cp their 'hate speech' or 'harassment' laws that could be used to silence those who hold traditional views on sexual ethics and family.

22 July 2009 at 14:27  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Rudyard @13,49: Seconded. I don't like the affectation of french phraseology, either. I enjoy a bit of Latin, on the other hand.

Back to the topic - how a Christian is supposed to separate his public self from his private self is a mystery to me! Are the secularists going to enshrine hypocrisy in law? Will it read: YOU WILL ALWAYS, UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES, SAY ONE THING AND DO ANOTHER.

22 July 2009 at 14:44  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Anonymous (14:04)—I can’t be certain but I presume that excrement is offensive to Allah so Muslim lavatories must be sited on the side of the house furthest from Mecca. Hey, Cranmer! Yet another reason to vote Conservative—more building regulations. Better and better and better...

22 July 2009 at 15:14  
Blogger Welshcakes Limoncello said...

Totally agree with you about sloppy grammar and punctuation.

22 July 2009 at 15:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@Welsh limoncello
Why do the muslims kill the animals in the kitchen rather than over the bath?

22 July 2009 at 16:07  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

Interesting about "the true Profession of the Gospel and the Protestant Reformed Religion Established by Law", because this was instituted in 1688 when the king was orange and not very papist!

Since then the Church of England has received the Catholic Revival (in parts, I grant you) so not all of us are protestants. If we'd stuck with Henry VIII's original beliefs there wouldn't be any protestants to start with.

Funny old world, isn't it?

22 July 2009 at 16:40  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Mr Ion has probably been getting his inspiration for his awful non article from the Queensland Uniting Church’s Christian Journal “Journey online” of particular interest an article from Oct 4th 06 where Australian Labour politician and writer Kevin Rudd gets confessional.

I don’t think a large proportion of the population will vote Conservative just for those Christian values outlined. They are more likely to vote for a candidate and a party that is honest.

22 July 2009 at 17:09  
Anonymous not a machine said...

There was a time when some of my more communist leaning friends in the 8os used to attempt there conversion process with "religion is the opiate of the masses" . such youthfull thinking was all part of rebellion , and I never was really of my own mind enough to challenge it as peer pressure is vital in your social position.

secualrism wasnt even on the horizon , you were either church or agnostic .

Mr Ion is free , free to write , free to hypothesise , free to position , yet as ever with these types of articles that are supportive of non belief as being the stuff of equally enlightend beings , we are posed with a choice , the answers for which are not to do god .

The article assumes early on that god doesnt exist and that Mps who do it should be kept out of any major political thinking and legislating as they are , driven by a mental health condition , as yet undefined and proven .

they always write in the tense of the forthcomming extinction and eradication of Christianity , once the modern logic constructs sweep it away !!

I cannot recall when I last read, an article on christianity , that like the barclay series illumiated a section of the new testament in a more modern discovery aspect. Christianity is utterly absent in its teaching , you want reki , hot stones, crystals and anitageing plant extracts being extoled as having meaningfull and restorative powers , no problem .

Its sometimes as though a lawyer has crept into what we can tell the world as religion , indeed we have legalistic definition of religion , which Christ triumphed over john 7 45-52 is perhaps how it is .

22 July 2009 at 17:35  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

22 July 2009 at 17:44  
Blogger OldSouth said...

Excellent post!

Time to get that book deal in place, Your Grace, time to get it written.

May I chime in from Across The Pond, as Mr. Ion cites us as an example of 'what not to do'.

I speak as a conservative Protestant, who has seen a good deal of the Conservative Evangelical Movement(from about 1980) up close and personal.

There are many, many dear and sincere souls who have gone to great lengths (and at real sacrifice) to participate in the political life of the United States, speaking as firm believers in the Gospel.

There are also a number of cynics here who have preyed upon them for the ends of their own political power. The present leadership of the Southern Baptist Convention and its seminaries comes immediately to mind as an example.

And, there are candidates who cynically tout their 'Christianity' before the electorate, in both parties. Jesse Jackson comes to mind here, as well as this week's poster child, a Tennessee state senator found shagging his office assistant whilst his website proudly displays his wife/family/church affiliations as reasons pious people should support him. Had it not been for the 'shagee's' other boyfriend attempting blackmail, all would have remained respectable and quiet.

All to say--our Lord issued warnings against 'false shepherds', and enjoined us all to be both gentle and wary in our dealings with others. He also spent minimal energy on the political situation of his time, even going into hiding when the crowd wished to make him a secular king!

The absolutely most abysmal, damaging behaviour I have personally experienced has invariably come from 'church people', who somehow believe that God loves them better than others, that ethics don't matter. I have seen so much viciousness cloaked in such piety, that I now automatically assume that when approached with pious language that another agenda is at play.

Again, a great post. Keep up the good work!

22 July 2009 at 18:26  
Anonymous Bethel said...

Your Grace
Why bother to read articles that rile and bug you? Walking whilst taking deep breaths is so much more refreshing. Leave Mr Ion to his daft rants.
And don't fret so about capitalisation. You'll only upset yourself

22 July 2009 at 20:46  
Blogger Brad said...

Just separate church and state.
You have no idea how little you will miss the connection.
Trust me.
Join the 17th century!

23 July 2009 at 01:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The church just needs to get more assertive, that's all. At the moment its like the nutter that follows behind muttering..'excuse me', excuse me', 'excuse me', 'can you tell me....', 'hello', 'excuse me'.....and everyone thinks...Jesus - fuck off will you!

23 July 2009 at 06:58  
Anonymous Ben said...

So, tell us please, what's the truth about the swine flu post? Did you get carried away, was it a badly timed April Fool's ?

And why did you decide to take it down?

23 July 2009 at 08:45  
Blogger Jim Bartlet said...


Sometimes it can be refreshingly reassuring to have someone who is prepared to make objective statements and thus reduce any elements of panic.

It seems that Swine flu is becoming more of a real threat, and people have now lost their lives. If the post has been removed, then this demonstrates calm reasoning and ultimate respect.

But with headlines like this:

'Go back to your disease-ridden country!' What the French said to British schoolchildren with swine flu.

I think the panic is about to go viral.

23 July 2009 at 12:41  
Anonymous churchmouse said...

'Go back to your disease-ridden country!' What the French said to British schoolchildren with swine flu.

Hmm. Well I'm all for keeping our children away from the pernicious french. I mean, if we are disease-ridden surely it's largely due to that Jungle they keep at calais - from which they zhush aliens across to us.

Furthermore - might we not doubt the accuracy and honesty of their own numbers on Porcine Pestilence?

23 July 2009 at 14:47  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The House of Lords will cease to be a court at the end of this month.Lets hope reform of Church/ State relations will follow soon.

24 July 2009 at 05:00  
Anonymous Ben said...

Jim Bartlet: Goodness, did you read the article before it got zapped? I wouldn't have said it was reassuring or likely to reduce any elements of panic!

Unless living in a world where the German secret service deliberately infects us with a man-made virus is more reassuring than one where human greed and stupidity created the conditions where the virus could mutate and transmit.

You pays your money and you takes your choice. Just ask yourself how many truly evil people you have met, and how many stupid or greedy people you have met.

24 July 2009 at 10:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


If "hate bill"-obsessed Congress [and Obama] can't protect Christians from "gays" as much as it wants to protect "gays" from Christians, will Congress be surprised if it can't protect itself from most everyone?
If "hate bills" are forced on captive Americans, they'll still find ways to sneakily continue to "plant" Biblical messages everywhere. By doing so they'll hasten God's judgment on their oppressors as revealed in Proverbs 19:1.
(See related web items including "David Letterman's Hate, Etc.," "Separation of Raunch and State," "Michael the Narc-Angel," "Obama Avoids Bible Verses," and "Tribulation Index becomes Rapture Index.")
Since Congress can't seem to legislate "morality," it's making up for it by legislating "immorality"!

[We are a longtime ministry specializing in airing unique articles such as the ones above. Please pray for us!]

1 August 2009 at 06:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Serious question.

What do you do if:

a) Both Conservative and Labour candidates declared they were Christian before the 2005 election;
b) The successful Labour candidate declared himself a Jedi during his maiden speech (though reassured everyone afterwards that this was a joke;)
c) The Conservative candidate is high up in the Freemasonry which you despise because of your Christian faith and because you know it is officially condemned by all leading Christian denominations;
d) Your local Labour MP is an extremely hard-working MP who has a long list of major achievements which he has secured for his constituency;
e) The BNP are making mileage out of the lie that the local MP doesn't care about his constituents and is only in politics for his own gain. The Tories are silent in the face of these lies which are destroying our community.
f) Your constituency faces urgent economic and social issues which the Labour MP understands and is working brilliantly to address;
g) It sounds wierd so say this but because of these urgent social and economic issues you almost don't feel you have the luxury of indulging in debates over your own religious liberty.
h) Having met your local MP and talked with him at length you are convinced that he has as much right to carry the "Christian" label as the Tory candidate.

5 August 2009 at 15:17  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older