Sunday, January 17, 2010

Ed Balls permits corporal punishment in shari’a schools


And Anjem Choudary is laughing because ‘shari’a is coming’, he proclaims.

With Government complicity, it appears.

Cranmer is all for corporal punishment: as it is written: ‘He who spareth the rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him correcteth him betimes’ (Prov 13:24) and ‘Withhold not correction from a child: for if thou strike him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and deliver his soul from hell’ (23:13f).

Not, of course, as a first recourse. And never out of anger, but always in a context of love.

The State banned corporal punishment from its classrooms in 1987. This was extended to all types of schools in 1998.

Some Christian schools tenaciously argued between 2001-2005 through successive court hearings, appeals, and ultimately in the House of Lords, that the legislation breached the right of Christians to practise their religion according to their beliefs as protected by the European convention on human rights. Headmaster Phil Williamson said there was a ‘biblical mandate’ for corporal punishment.

And so there is.

Just as there is for slavery and stoning homosexuals.

But we don’t go in for that any more.

This is not a post on the rights and wrongs or pros and cons of corporal punishment: that is a matter for the conscience of the parents.

And Cranmer is not against corporal punishment in Islamic schools: he is opposed to double standards, differential treatment and the privileging of shari’a schools over others. If corporal punishment be prohibited in all state and independent schools – as the 1998 School Standards and Framework Act clearly intends – then it is difficult to see why madrasahs are exempt.

Do not Muslim children have an equal right under the law as those of other faiths to be protected from abuse? Why are we tolerating a culture of violence and physical oppression in Islamic schools while all the others are constrained by law to encourage, uplift, edify and generally mollycoddle and wrap in cotton wool? Good grief, pupils are not now even permitted to come last in a sporting event or fail an exam lest their fragile egos be deflated and their delicate sense of self-worth be damaged, causing life-long developmental trauma and irreparable emotional retardation.

But stammer over just one of the 99 names of Allah, and you can expect a swift slap around the ear.

Or worse, if you happen to be dyslexic.

According to The Mail on Sunday, there are 1600 schools ‘associated with mosques’ in the UK, and a ‘legal loophole’ grants them the right to smack the children being taught in them.

Mr Balls stands accused of turning a blind eye to this ‘for fear of upsetting Muslim “sensitivities”’.

What Cranmer did not know – and thinks it somewhat bizarre – is that the law does not apply to schools which children attend for less than 12.5 hours per week. And since madrasahs are essentially evening and weekend institutions, the teachers can slap, spank, cane and birch to their heart’s content, in accordance with the will of Allah and adherence to the perfect example of Mohammed.

Or worse; torture, even, for the culture makes it impossible for the children ever to complain without the risk of further retribution.

Very few MPs grasp this. But those whose constituencies have significant Muslim populations are only too aware of the problems. Labour MP Ann Cryer (Keighley) said it would be 'bonkers' if the Government did not act. She said: “I suspect people are frightened of upsetting the sensitivities of certain members of the Muslim faith.”

And please do not think this is simply a ‘white Christian’ bias or concern. The newspaper article says that Irfan Chishti, a former Government adviser on Islamic affairs, tells of one madrasah student was 'picked up by one leg and spun around' while another pupil said a teacher was 'kicking in my head like a football'. In a separate report in 2006, leading British Muslim Dr Ghayasuddin Siddiqui raised fears that physical abuse in madrasahs was 'widespread'.

But while everyone knows that the real problems occur in madrasahs, the Government has to spin the ‘equality’ blurb, for Labour are just as concerned about child abuse in classes run by 'strange Christian sects' and ‘fundamentalist Christian Sunday schools’.

Apparently, the corporal punishment exemption also covers Sunday schools, home tutors and other people who are considered to be acting 'in loco parentis' (Scout leaders can legally spank cubs?). The Mail says: 'They can still smack children as long as the punishment is "reasonable" - the same rule as applies to parents.'

And Ed Balls claims that if the Government banned madrasahs and Sunday schools from smacking children, ‘it would then have to ban grandparents and other relatives from doing the same’.

Cranmer does not quite grasp the logic of this.

But perhaps there is none: any non-sequitur, straw man, logical fallacy or purposeful obfuscation to avoid upsetting a very significant voting bloc in an awful lot of Labour-held seats.

And so it appears expedient for Ed Balls to tolerate the continuing abuse of Muslim children: we can't let a bit of ethnic child abuse get in the way of a General Election campaign, can we?

43 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'd like to smack Ed Balls. Or perhaps Mandelson will get there first - if he likes spanking, that is.

17 January 2010 at 08:16  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

Whatever way you look at it, hitting a child is assault, in exactly the same way as hitting an adult is; and far more likely to result in injury. The only exception may be self-defence, hardly applies to children though, does it?
Your observation, "... can't let a bit of ethnic child abuse get in the way of a General Election campaign, can we?" is well made.
Ed Balls, and the government he represents, is a disgrace.

17 January 2010 at 08:23  
Anonymous matthias said...

When i look at Anjem Choudary i see the modern day example of the Pharisees who crucified Jesus. He reminds me of what Jesus called the Pharisees' walking sepulchers seeking to bind up men with their laws" .Interesting that he is even despised in his community. Pray that Anjem Choudary and his followers are made powerless.

17 January 2010 at 08:38  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Ed Balls-Up

Ed No-Balls

Ed Bollocks

All of them suit. Take your pick...

17 January 2010 at 08:56  
Anonymous len said...

Balls seems to be an apt name for this man.If only he had some.

17 January 2010 at 09:19  
Blogger Miss Snuffleupagus said...

"Do not Muslim children have an equal right under the law as those of other faiths to be protected from abuse?"

Rather, what one should be writing, Your Grace, is, Do not non-Muslim children have an equal right under the law as Muslim children to be disciplined properly and have the opportunity to go forth and achieve a decent education?

The Bible, (in this occasion) is right. The cane is no more shocking than a detention. Why ever it is scandalous to say such a thing in our modern age is beyond me. In fact, I fear, as a teacher, writing such a comment, I will soon have the Liberal Police at my door, banning me from being around children ever again simply for uttering this opinion.

But somehow, for Muslims, it is OK to give them an environment where they can learn. Lucky them. In 20 years, don't be surprised when they are the only ones in this country with good degrees and the rest of us are unable to do basic maths.

Bring back the cane! Not for my sake. For the sake of the children.

17 January 2010 at 09:32  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Oh, he's got brass neck instead of balls. But he is entirely devoid of any moral sense - just like the rest of the crew that flooded into power on the arch-deceiver Blair's coat-tails.
The only crumb of consolation is that Balls is comprehensively detested by Christians and Muslims equally.

17 January 2010 at 09:33  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

Miss Snuffleupagus said... "In 20 years, don't be surprised when they are the only ones in this country with good degrees and the rest of us are unable to do basic maths."
But it's not Mathematics the madrassas are teaching is it? It's the Qur'an, line by line, word for word, that's being taught. In 20 years time, should this continue, don't be surprised at the result!

17 January 2010 at 09:50  
Anonymous len said...

I think our society in rejecting Gods remedy for mans fallen condition ( gods love for humanity expressed through Jesus Christ) are going to get, by default, one of the most oppressive, brutal regimes the world has ever known.
Some might welcome some of the more moderate forms of Sharia law but this is just the tip of the iceberg.Read on,
The Quran says:

24:2 The fornicatress and the fornicator, flog each of them with a hundred stripes. Let not pity withhold you in their case, in a punishment prescribed by Allah, if you believe in Allah and the Last Day. And let a party of the believers witness their punishment. [This punishment is for unmarried persons guilty of the above crime (illegal sex), but if married persons commit it (illegal sex), the punishment is to stone them to death, according to Allah's law]. (Hilali and Khan).
(1) Reviling Allah or his Messenger; (2) being sarcastic about ‘Allah’s name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat’; (3) denying any verse of the Quran or ‘anything which by scholarly consensus belongs to it, or to add a verse that does not belong to it’; (4) holding that ‘any of Allah’s messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent’; (5) reviling the religion of Islam; (6) being sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law; (7) denying that Allah intended ‘the Prophet’s message . . . to be the religion followed by the entire world.’
On homosexuals,

This hadith passage says that homosexuals should be burned alive or have wall pushed on them:

Ibn Abbas and Abu Huraira reported God’s messenger as saying, ‘Accursed is he who does what Lot’s people did.’ In a version . . . on the authority of Ibn Abbas it says that Ali [Muhammad's cousin and son—in—law] had two people burned and that Abu Bakr [Muhammad's chief companion] had a wall thrown down on them. (Mishkat, vol. 1, p. 765, Prescribed Punishments)
and so on,
Sharia Law already exists in the UK.

Gods remedy for mans fallen condition= recreate man through the power of the Holy Spirit.

Islams remedy for mans fallen condition= control through fear and intimidation,

For those who say Islam stole some of their punishments from the Bible= God was controlling man and restraining mans evil nature until Jesus Christ opened the way for man to be redeemed, recreated,set free from the nature that drove him to sin.

17 January 2010 at 10:14  
Anonymous len said...

Missed out, reviling or questioning Allah or his messenger = Death penalty. It is no wonder that critical investigation of the truth claims of Islam can never prevail in Islamic lands when the sword of Muhammad hangs over the scholars’ head.

17 January 2010 at 10:20  
Blogger ultramontane grumpy old catholic said...

This coming election has opportunity for some great bumper stickers

'Bollocks to Balls'

According to Wikipedia

The 'science' of Physiognomy is now being revived again as some new research indicates that people's faces can indicate such traits as trustworthiness, social dominance and aggression. The latter trait seems to be determined by the level of the hormone testosterone during puberty, which affects the ratio between the height and width of the face - aggressive individuals are found to have wider faces.

There must be something in this. Ed Balls has the most vicious looking face I have seen in politics for a long time.

His voice is rather different though.

17 January 2010 at 10:27  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Miss Snuffleupagus said Bring back the cane! Not for my sake. For the sake of the children.

At last, a teacher with common sense! Bringing discipline back into the classroom would be a positive start to repairing decades of "progressive" do-gooder damage. I'm well into middle age now but all of the teachers I remember most fondly were strict but fair. In their classes you paid attention; you learned. Even the slower ones benefitted and no one I went to school with left without the ability to read, write and add up.

Time to wind the clock back on education, perhaps?

17 January 2010 at 10:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

May I help those that wish to see the forest for all of the many trees, to do so.

When things seem to not make sense, and a logical answer seems far from sight. Like for example, when extreme religious, or political ideologies appear to have power and influence well above their support among the common people, ask yourself this question.

Are there unseen forces at play?

If you still have the wits to plainly see that there must indeed be unseen forces at play.

What are these forces, and how on Earth did they become so incredibly powerful, universally spread, while remaining so cleverly hidden from sight?

Here are some clues.

It is not exclusively or even mainly freemasonry, although freemasonry is a very important part of the story.

It is not exclusively, or even mainly Judaism, although certain Jews, are a very important part of the story.

These forces have been around for a very long time.

These forces have no regard for human life whatsoever, yet claim to care about little else.

These forces control the worlds entire MSM, banking, financial, and multi-national corporate industrial systems, eduction systems, national, and pan-national governments, and have effectively done so for at least 500 years. Some say much longer then that, and they may very well be right.

These forces subverted, or fully infiltrated all of the worlds ruling class bloodlines, major, and minor religions, many years before any of us were born.

Therefore to work out for yourself what indeed these forces are, all one has to do is to think of the ONLY organisation that could possibly have achieved such a seemingly infinite amount of wealth and power, which underpins their utter control over the destiny of mankind. Because there is ONLY one power that could possibly have achieved this. There is ONLY one organisation that has ever historically and officially come close to running this planet of THEIRS. A power that has been periodically defeated, but has NEVER stayed defeated for long.

The SUN has in reality never set on this Empire, and it very much seems that it never will.

Got it yet?

Then keep thinking, while you are still permitted, or indeed able to do so.

17 January 2010 at 11:34  
Anonymous Mark Blades said...

I think 'Anonymous' [of course]@11.34 has been watching the Zeitgeist video. He should watch the Christian refutation of said video on YouTube. Actually, just a simple Google search checking the historical facts at the beginning of the video would have saved him/her the trouble of watching it any further.

17 January 2010 at 12:11  
Anonymous Mark Blades said...

Or perhaps Mr. Cranmer would allow me to post the address of a website which debunks this whole 'zeitgeist' conspiracy rubbish?
http://explanationblog.wordpress.com/the-myth-of-jesus-a-refutation-of-the-zeitgeist/

17 January 2010 at 12:19  
Anonymous opsimath said...

Cranmer writes: And so it appears expedient for Ed Balls to tolerate the continuing abuse of Muslim children: we can't let a bit of ethnic child abuse get in the way of a General Election campaign, can we?

Indeed not. But what will they do when the moslems start putting up their own candidates for their own pro-shariah parties? Never ones for long-term thought, merely knee-jerk reaction to whatever seems newsworthy today

17 January 2010 at 12:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hang on just a minute here!
Surely, given Mr Cranmer's post below, he should be saying "there’s nothing British about banning Islamic punishment?"

17 January 2010 at 12:47  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Capital - sorry corporal - punishment. 'Not, of course, as a first recourse. And never out of anger, but always in a context of love'.

Sorry...

Rubbish.

I promised myself never to hit my children. I only broke this promise to myself once. It was nothing to do with correction, or love.

It was blind rage.

It always is.

17 January 2010 at 13:58  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Why are anonymice (@12.47) so irredeemably dense?

Mr Jeremy Hyatt,

His Grace understands and wholly sympathises. But in your blind rage you did not cease to love: indeed, the fact that you were provoked to such wrath is evidence of your love. For who truly hates those for whom they do not care?

17 January 2010 at 14:29  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Kiwi said, "Whatever way you look at it, hitting a child is assault".

As Kiwi perfectly well knows, this is not about "hitting".

Hooray for Snuffy! Sensible as always.

17 January 2010 at 14:38  
Anonymous no nonny said...

No. Corporal punishment inflicts severs psychological damage, it's utterly cruel and unnecessary.
All my father had to do was say my full name in a certain tone of voice, and I was devastated. That was enough.

Oddly enough, that was all I had to do for my little dog, as well. I also believe in treating horses the same way.


So I wouldn't dream of flogging any children: especially not those of the enemy.

17 January 2010 at 14:51  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

And Ed Balls claims that if the Government banned madrasahs and Sunday schools from smacking children, ‘it would then have to ban grandparents and other relatives from doing the same’.

This is a convenient smokescreen. He is ducking the problem of harsh unreasonable discipline, namely constant perfectionist bulling and assault bordering on torture.

The government should be acting. They won't because Islam is not only a vital source of desperately needed Labour votes, but its inherent insularity aids their deliberate policy of cultural destruction in a war of attrition against national identity to further their globalised socialist dystopia.

His department claims 'We have no evidence that the law is being abused or that children are being abused in these circumstances'.
Heads conveniently buried in the sand. Eyes firmly shut to child abuse coming to light through injuries and trauma discovered by schoolteachers, the NHS and social services. Mr Balls and his minions can remain complacent, safe in the knowledge that children never grass on their abusers. They won't make much noise about the issue; except when they are crying.

17 January 2010 at 14:54  
Anonymous Stewart Cowan said...

Just as there is [a ‘biblical mandate’] for slavery and stoning homosexuals.

But we don’t go in for that any more.

I would argue the opposite. Christ's teaching of repentance and forgiveness means we no longer stone folk for such things, heinous though they are, but the proverbs still apply.

This, Your Grace, is my humble reading of the situation.

17 January 2010 at 15:11  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

no nonny said, "I wouldn't dream of flogging any children".

As no nonny perfectly well knows, this is not about flogging.

Do people who manipulate language like this take readers for complete idiots?

17 January 2010 at 15:19  
Anonymous not a machine said...

your graces item makes me think of other problems , I am not sure if this liberal experiment we have had over the years has done much good , I am no doubt sure that some want to progress it under the general banner of making discipline akin to violence.
The polite term these days is perhaps boundries , but then we have that old lib/socialist foe of tolerance .
Thankyou Len for your explanation that made me think also .

Indeed the more I think about this the more I see how our schools have been made into audiences for socialist speil .

The immigration layer is unfortunately overlaid onto this , we have a weak argument seeking to bring about further weak arguments to support it .

If we have lost our way then there are not really many oppertunities goverment wise to correct this , indeed this matter is so profound to me I will be in need of a walk and a think. If this is all socialism can acheive then i greatly look forward to its end.

17 January 2010 at 15:34  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Little Black Sambo: I have no idea what you're talking about, so I'll thank to refrain from your accusations.

I am not a manipulator. I do, however, work to achieve clarity of expression; but even Hemingway needed to revise some passages up to 30 times! We haven't always time for that, here in Blogland.

I remain grateful not to have suffered the punishment inflicted on some others. I know of several who received '6 of the best' more than once, none of whom thought it did them any good. They also referred to it as flogging, which consists with my dictionary - Chambers -:
flog vt to beat or strike; to lash; to chastise with blows, to sell.

And I certainly don't do anything that cruel to animals. I can't even stand to upset them with my voice: the only time I spoke sternly to my dog she was so miserable I was horrified ... and I never did it again.

17 January 2010 at 16:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dhimi

17 January 2010 at 18:00  
Blogger English Viking said...

Anonymous @ 18:00

Two m's in 'dhimmi'.

Your spelling is poor but your sentiments are correct.

17 January 2010 at 19:28  
Anonymous Matthias said...

Well you are all welcome to come to Australia if Choudary becomes Sharia leader.you can then give our pollies a run for their money
kevin Rudd-supposedly a Christian but has a foul temper and foul mouth
julia Gillard-his deputy ,has a voicelike an acromegalic frog

tony Abbott-ardent catholic, leader of the Opposition gets up the nose of the Left-Is also a volunteer life saver and volunteer fire fighter.not a goodlook in speedos' though when on life saver duty

17 January 2010 at 21:49  
Anonymous Carlyle said...

Boys need a good thrashing every now and then. All this molly coddling has produced a bunch of spineless gits!

18 January 2010 at 06:12  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The loophole is not specific to Muslim schools, you can still beat your Christian kids if the loophole applies to your Sunday school or whatever... put simply this is yet another story for people with massive chips on their shoulders to flail about and curse at Islam and the democratically elected government you despise so much. Boring. There are no double standards here, just a poorly written law and whingers who hate Muslims. Big deal.

18 January 2010 at 06:54  
Anonymous len said...

Wake up! Paul writes, “Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light.” The church of this age, just like that of Paul’s, has multitudes of believers who are spiritually asleep. Only those Christians who are conscious, attentive, and obedient can be used by the Lord to further His work. The apostle also speaks to those who have never come to Christ for salvation. It is time to awaken out of sleep.

It is time to wake up or perish! (Romans 13:11). Those who remain in sleep will taste God’s wrath. This is true for the unsaved and those who claim to be born again. Awake, do not rest until you are saved. Realise that you sleep in the arms of Satan if you do not walk in Christ. Awaken from the false dreams of happiness and contentment in this world. Do you not know that an eternity of happiness and blessing awaits you?

18 January 2010 at 07:52  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

It is commonly known that Madrassas here in Bradford whack the kids. Has no one ever wondered how they manage to get children with the attention of a gnat at the state schools - with all their high tech wizardry & qualified teachers - to sit still whilst some unqualified beardy-weirdy makes them recite things in a foreign language for 2 hrs?

18 January 2010 at 13:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

The loophole is not specific to Muslim schools, you can still beat your Christian kids if the loophole applies to your Sunday school
---------
But the taxpayer is not being made to fund your Sunday School. These islamic schools are getting funded to provide mainstream education, so they should be required to meet the same standards as any other school.

That also means the same National Curriculum, the same teacher qualifications, the same disciplinary rules, the same inspection regime, by the same inspection agency, and the same restrictions on selection criteria.

And if they aren't interested in complying with all of that, they shouldn't be getting any funding.

Incidentally, I'm not sure whether anyone but a parent has the legal right to smack a child without risking prosecution nowadays.

There are too many double standards in this country, and I for one am getting sick of it.

Monty

18 January 2010 at 14:50  
Blogger peachperry said...

1st PAGE.

Christian Wedlock.

QUESTION:
Can a woman have more than two husbands?

ANSWER:
No, a woman cannot have more than two living husbands. A man has no choice, as he must be in wedlock with one wife. But a woman has three choices. Firstly, no wedlock with a husband. Secondly, wedlock with one husband. Or thirdly, wedlock with two husbands. That’s it, there are no further choices for a woman, and there is no choice at all for a man.

1 Corinthians 7:2 King James 1611.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

Yr. 1783. 10th George Prince of Wales Own Hussars. (King George III).
Yr. 1898. 19th Alexandra Princess of Wales Own Hussars. (Queen Victoria).

Therefore two women can own a regiment of cavalry, and two men can own a regiment of cavalry.

1 Corinthians 6:16 King James 1611.
What! know ye not that he which is joined to a harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh.

Therefore in the New Testament a man and woman lying together are one flesh, as follows:

A husband and wife who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and courtesan/prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A man and common courtesan or common prostitute who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

An adulterer and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and adultress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

A fornicator and fornicatress who lie together by carnal copulation shall be one flesh.

Clearly the New Testament lays down that a man must be in wedlock with his own wife, and a woman must be in wedlock with her own husband. Furthermore the New Testament specifically limits the number of wives that a man can have to only one, but sets no limit to the number of husbands a woman can have. But there must be some limit for a woman, or one woman could be in wedlock with thousands of men. Rationally, if one woman can satisfy the bodily lust of one man every day, and forty men can satisfy the bodily lust of one woman every day, then is one wife for every man and forty husbands for every woman what the New Testament requires? No, because the New Testament is a document of truth, not a document of reason.

18 January 2010 at 16:06  
Blogger peachperry said...

2nd PAGE.

Luke 1:28 King James 1611.
Luke 1:31 King James 1611.
Luke 1:28-35 King James 1611.
In the New Testament, the angel Gabriel came in unto Mary, a virgin woman, and Mary conceived and delivered her firstborn son, Jesus, the son being God the Son, the father being God the Father. And when Mary’s womb delivered her firstborn son Jesus unto the world, then Mary was like all women delivered of a firstborn son unto the world, as a woman’s firstborn son can never belong to the mother but must belong to the Lord God.

Luke 2:23 King James 1611.
Exodus 13:2&12 King James 1611.
And so like all women delivered of a firstborn son, Mary was no longer a virgin woman, but like all said women, Mary was a holy woman.

Matthew 13:53-56 King James 1611.
Mark 6:1-4 King James 1611.
And husband Joseph Jacob came in unto Mary and husband Joseph Heli came in unto Mary, and Mary conceived and delivered Jesus’ brothers, James, Joses, Simon, Judas, and also Jesus’ sisters.

Matthew 1:6&16 King James 1611.
Luke 3:23&31 King James 1611.
Joseph Jacob was the descendent of King David’s son Solomon, and Joseph Heli was the descendent of King David’s son Nathan.

Genesis 38:16-18 King James 1611.
“Came in unto her” means congress or carnal copulation. In the Old Testament, Judah came in unto Tamar, his daughter-in-law, and Tamar conceived and delivered twin sons. Tamar had lain in wait for Judah on the side of a far away road, and Judah had been unable to recognize Tamar because she was wearing a veil, and only common harlots wore veils. Upon first seeing this strange woman wearing a veil, Judah bargained a payment of his personal signet ring, his personal wrist bangles, and his personal walking staff, for coming in unto her. Tamar had been in wedlock with Judah’s first son, who God had killed for being wicked. Tamar had then been in wedlock with Judah’s second son, who God had then killed when he saw the second son deliberately spill his seed on the ground during carnal copulation with Tamar. Judah then pledged Tamar that she could marry his third son when he became old enough for wedlock. But when his third son became old enough to marry, Judah broke his pledge and forbade his third son to marry Tamar. When Tamar was seen in her third month to be heavy with child, Judah was told that Tamar was with child through harlotry. Judah then summoned Tamar to him in order to be burnt to death for harlotry. Tamar came and Judah demanded that Tamar tell him by which man she was with child. Tamar then produced the signet ring, the wrist bangles, and the walking staff, and said the man who gave me these is the man by whom I am with child. Then Judah confessed to all that he had broken his pledge and sinned by going back on his word that Tamar could have wedlock with his third son when his third son became of age, and then denying such wedlock to her. Six months later Tamar safely gave birth to the twin sons conceived with Judah.

18 January 2010 at 16:07  
Blogger peachperry said...

3rd PAGE.

Genesis 1:27-28 King James 1611.
Genesis 2:7&18-19 King James 1611.
Genesis 3:20 King James 1611.
The first man and first woman in this world were Adam and Eve. Adam means “man” in the hebrew tongue, and Eve means “life” in the hebrew tongue. Therefore a man is man, but a woman is life.

Romans 7:4-6 King James 1611.
Old Testament law dead and gives as an example that a woman can have more than one husband.

1 Timothy 3:2 King James 1611.
A bishop can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 3:12 King James 1611.
A deacon can have only one wife, and as he must be an example to other men, a man can have only one wife.

Titus 1:6 King James 1611.
An elder can have only one wife.

1 Timothy 5:4&9 King James 1611.
Elders are not to provide for widows under three score years of age without children, who have only had one husband.

The Estate of Marriage. Martin Luther 1522.
Although Martin Luther confirmed that a woman could have two husbands, he nevertheless immediately restricted it to women who were in a marriage which had produced no children and who had then obtained permission from their first husband to take their second husband. Confusingly, Martin Luther did not make it clear as to how long a woman had to wait before taking her second husband.

To sum up, the New Testament upholds the example of deacons, elders, and bishops, for men to follow. That example is one wife. The New Testament also lays down that the Old Testament no longer applies to men or women, except for the 10 Commandments, and gives as an example of this that a woman is no longer bound to have only one husband. If men must follow the example of the male Christian leader, whether bishop, deacon, or elder, then surely women must follow the example of the female Christian leader. What leader is that? The primary one in the New Testament is Mary, the Mother of Jesus, God the Son.

Luke 1:35&41 King James 1611.
Mary had carnal copulation with three men. The Angel Gabriel, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. However, Mary was only in wedlock with two men, Joseph Jacob, and Joseph Heli. Furthermore, the Angel Gabriel was not a man of this world, and he seems not to have taken a fully visible male form when he had carnal copulation with Mary as ordered by God the Father, for it appears that at some stage God the Holy Ghost came upon or entered Mary. Either this was at the moment Mary conceived or immediately afterwards. After Mary conceived, she immediately went to visit her cousin Elisabeth, who was six months with child, a son, who also had been conceived when Elisabeth had been filled by God the Holy Ghost.

18 January 2010 at 16:07  
Blogger peachperry said...

4th PAGE.

Accordingly it would be fully in accordance with the New Testament for a man to have one wife, and a woman to have two husbands. That the Angel Gabriel had carnal copulation with Mary is both interesting and theologically necessary, but it is not enough of an example for a woman to attempt to take a third husband in wedlock, whilst her first and second husbands still liveth.

Matthew 19:11-12 King James 1611.
The New Testament does not give man any choice; he must have wedlock with one woman. Although do bear in mind that Jesus, God the Son, was not in wedlock with any woman.

But the New Testament gives a woman three choices.

1st Choice:
Virgin woman without wedlock.

2nd Choice:
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock without child.
Virgin woman with one husband in wedlock with female child or female children.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with one husband in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

3rd Choice:
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with firstborn male child.
Holy woman with two husbands in wedlock with male child or children together with female child or children.

A number of denominations have a service for wedlock, but so far every one of them has inserted words that clearly say a woman may be in wedlock with only one man at a time. Even the State Lutheran Evangelical Church of Sweden states this, despite Martin Luther himself saying that a wife can be in wedlock with two living husbands.

But what do you expect. After all, Martin Luther stated in writing that under no circumstances was anyone to call himself a “Lutheran” and under no circumstances was any church to call itself a “Lutheran Church”. So what do all northern europeans called themselves? Lutherans! Ask them what church they belong to? The Lutheran Church!

A number of denominations do not have any service for wedlock, on the grounds that wedlock is not a church matter, as it is a state matter. But every such denomination has nevertheless inserted words in that denomination’s discussion of wedlock, that firmly says that a woman can only have one husband in wedlock at a time.

Nowhere do any of the denominations give any explanation for their defiance of the New Testament. Of course that just might be because there is neither any justifiable explanation or excusable explanation for such defiance.

18 January 2010 at 16:08  
Blogger peachperry said...

5th PAGE.

Still, just looking at using only the principle of choice as a guide, all the above denominations are pointing in the right direction, even if they are not pointing down the correct path.

That is, a man has no choice, he must make efforts to be in wedlock with one wife at some stage of his life here in this world.

And a woman still has a choice, in that she may choose not to be in wedlock with a man in this world, or she may choose to be in wedlock with one husband at some stage of her life here in this world. This means that the principle of a woman having a choice remains intact.

The defiance of both the Lord God and the New Testament by the various denominations by the removal of a woman’s option to make efforts to be in wedlock with two husbands at the same time at some stage of her life in this world, still leaves intact the principle of choice for the woman and no choice for the man.

Constitution of The Spartans (Xenophon). 388 B.C.
League of The Iroquois (Lewis Henry Morgan). 1851 A.D.
Only two non-christian groups in the world have been known to practice New Testament wedlock. The Spartans and the Mohawk.

Only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Spartans, citizens of the greatest of the greek city-states, Sparta, and history’s final saviours of Western Civilization at Thermopylae (The Hot Gates) in 480 B.C.

And only monandry and diandry, or New Testament style wedlock, was lawful among the Mohawk, citizens of the greatest of the eastern woodland North American tribes, which forever blocked France’s attempt to seize New York so as to split England’s colonies in twain.

Much criticism of both the Spartans and the Mohawk, has been leveled by outsiders who complain of the extreme freedom of the females and the extreme militarism of the males. It must be noted that there is no record of any Spartan male, Spartan female, Mohawk male, or Mohawk female, complaining of female freedom or male militarism.

Whatever your point of view on Spartan life or Mohawk life, the New Testament lays down cast-iron guidelines for wedlock. The fact that the New Testament complies with Spartan law and Mohawk law is irrelevant.

Of absolutely no relevance to this discussion, the symbol of the United States of America is the bald headed eagle, which is a species that uses both monandry and diandry for conception, and where the one male or two males reside in the exactly the same nest as the one female. The one female and either the one male or two males, stay in the nest together and raise the chick together.

Mark 10:7 King James 1611.
Ephesians 5:31 King James 1611.
Both husbands must leave their families to go and become a member of the wife’s family, or the one husband must leave his family to go and become a member of the wife’s family.

THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MOHAMMEDRY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POLYGAMY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CLITORECTI.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS MONKERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS POPERY.
THE NEW TESTAMENT FORBIDS CASTRATI.

18 January 2010 at 16:10  
Blogger peachperry said...

6th PAGE.

CAPITAL LAWES OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE MOHAWK.

1st. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall by direct, exprest, impious, or presumptuous ways, deny the true God and his Attributes; he shall be put to death.

2nd. If any person within this Government of The Mohawk shall maliciously and on purpose deny that any Mohawk person may have arms for his defence suitable to his condition and as allowed by law; he shall be put to death.

3rd. If any person shall commit any willful murder, which is manslaughter, committed upon malice, hatred, or cruelty, not in a man’s necessary or just defence, nor by mere casualty against his will; he shall be put to death.

4th. If any person shall slay, or cause another to be slain by guile or by poisoning or any such wicked conspiracy; he shall be put to death.

5th. If any man or woman shall lye with any beast or brute creature by carnal copulation; they shall be put to death, and the beast shall be burned.

6th. If any man lyeth with a man or mankind as he lyeth with a woman; they shall be put to death, unless the one party were forced or under fourteen years of age, in which case he shall not be punished.

7th. If any man forcibly stealth or carrieth away any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

8th. If any person shall bear false witness maliciously and on purpose to take away any person’s life; he shall be put to death.

9th. If any man shall traitorously deny his Clanmother’s right and titles to her Eagle Feathers and Dominions, or shall raise arms to resist her Authority; he shall be put to death.

10th. If any man shall treacherously conspire or publiquely attempt, to invade or surprise any town or towns, fort or forts, within this Government of the Mohawk; he shall be put to death.

11th. If any child or children, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall smite his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, unless thereunto provoked and foret for the self preservation from death or mayming, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that child or those children so offending shall be put to death.

12th. If any stubborn and rebellious son or sons, above sixteen years of age, and of sufficient understanding, shall not obey the voice of his or their Natural Mother or Lodgemother, and that when the said Mother or Lodgemother have chastened such son or sons will not hearken unto them, then at the complaint of the said Mother and Lodgemother, and not otherwise, they being sufficient witnesses thereof; that son or those sons so offending shall be put to death.

18 January 2010 at 16:10  
Blogger peachperry said...

7th PAGE.

13th. If any unmarryed man above twentyeight years of age and under fortytwo years of age shall maliciously and on purpose refuse wedlock for over fourteen days with any marryed woman under sixtythree years of age, said marryed woman having borne a son, or unmarryed woman under sixtythree years of age; he shall be put to death.

14th. If any person shall maliciously and on purpose deny any marryed woman wedlock with two husbands, said marryed woman having borne a son, or any unmarryed woman wedlock with one husband; he shall be put to death.

15th. If any marryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation, other than his wife; he shall be put to death.

16th. If any marryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation, other than her two husbands or one husband; she shall be put to death.

17th. If any unmarryed man shall lye with a woman by carnal copulation; he shall be whipt thirteen strokes, unless he hath his Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case he shall not be punished.

18th. If any unmarryed woman shall lye with a man by carnal copulation; she shall be whipt three strokes, unless she hath her Natural Mother and Lodgemother authorities, in which case she shall not be punished.

19th. If any person shall geld any man or mankind to take away generative power or virility; he shall be put to death.

20th. If any person shall geld any woman or womankind; he shall be put to death.

18 January 2010 at 16:29  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

peachperry - blimey!

Is peachperry a peach equivalent of babycham btw?

18 January 2010 at 17:35  
Anonymous Scralsoc said...

Peachperry needs a good thumping for writing all that rubbish!

19 January 2010 at 02:50  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older