Thursday, January 07, 2010

Muslim defendants refuse to stand for the District Judge because they only stand for Allah

Remember those professing Muslims who ranted and raved chanting Allahu-Akbar as the 2nd Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment marched through Luton last March? Those who were heard to shout at the soldiers ‘burn in hell’ and branded them ‘rapists’, ‘terrorists’, ‘murderers’ and ‘baby killers’?

Well, they have denied using ‘threatening abusive or insulting behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress'. And their defence lawyer Neil Mercer told the court that they ‘were making a peaceful protest which the police allowed to go ahead on the day’. The ‘hell’ reference was because ‘they believe what these soldiers have done will mean they will go to hell’; it is an ‘eschatological statement of fact as they see it’.

Eschatology is a little-used defence in the courts of England, but it is evidently one to which Christians ought increasingly to turn. After all, if these Muslims may harass, threaten and insult because ‘from their theological viewpoint it is an unequivocal statement of fact’, then why should Christians not be able to articulate the ‘unequivocal statements of fact’ which derive from their ‘theological viewpoint’? And this might include inter alia the ultimate fate of Muslims (and all idolaters), the sexual practices of homosexuals, the sanctity of heterosexual marriage, and even the offer by the occasional teacher or nurse to pray for the sick and dying. After all, if Jesus is coming back in clouds of glory to destroy his enemies, it is the eschatological hope of believers that all might be saved, and such a salvation demands a confrontation of sin, sincere repentance and an acceptance of the Lordship of Christ.

And this might occasionally cause harassment, alarm or distress.

But, as interesting as all this is, Cranmer is profoundly disturbed (not to say angered and more than a little irritated) to read in the foreign press events in court which have received scant coverage in the UK, and which were omitted entirely from the BBC report of the trial.

It transpires that the defendants refused to stand when District Judge Carolyn Mellanby entered the courtroom. They insisted it was a ‘grave and cardinal sin’ to show anyone other than Allah respect by standing. And so a compromise was reached whereby they entered the court after the Judge, as they will continue to do so throughout the week.

And, further, the defendants were given an extra 20 minutes on top of their lunch break to go to pray at a mosque a few minutes' walk away.

And, still more, a separate ‘quiet room’ has been set aside for their regular prayer intervals for the rest of the week.

One wonders why they did not demand that the Judge stand for them when they enter the room.

There is absolutely nothing in the Qur’an about standing only for Allah: in many schools, Muslim pupils stand for their teachers, and doubtless Muslim members of the US press corps stand when the President enters to brief them and answer their questions: it is the custom of respect for authority.

The refusal of the defendants to stand for the Judge is a provocative contempt of court and should have been dealt with in the customary way, with threats of a fine or summary custodial sentence. There should have been no compromise, and Cranmer is utterly bemused by the ‘accommodation’ of the prayer requests, for, once again, there is absolutely no qur’anic injunction that prayer at any time of the day must be offered in a mosque; the prerequisites are for purity and cleanliness. The extra 20 minutes they are permitted for lunch and the breaks in the trial to accommodate their prayer times make a mockery of the English system of justice.

But that, of course, is their intention.

The travesty is that District Judge Carolyn Mellanby has fallen for it. By conceding that defendants may henceforth enter a courtroom after a judge in order that they do not have to accord respect to the judicial office, she has undermined centuries of custom and tradition: one should rightly respect and fear those agents of the State who carry the sword and who bring peace and justice to the world.

Judge Mellanby should have asserted the religio-political belief that everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants, who give their full time to governing.

The defendants may refuse to stand in an English court when the Judge enters because they only stand for Allah. But it is an ‘eschatological statement of fact’ that one day they will kneel before the Throne of Jesus Christ.

Not, you understand, that Cranmer wishes to cause any harassment, alarm or distress by imparting this 'theological viewpoint'.

50 Comments:

Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

I share Cranmer's confidence in the new facebook website. This sort of stuff will soon be a thing of the past, especially when David Cameron gets in. Everybody knows that.

7 January 2010 at 10:10  
Blogger BrianSJ said...

This and the Wootton Bassett proposal are examples of information warfare. I suspect that our Caliphate enemy has started a full campaign of info ops on our home front. An election year is an obvious time to choose. The responses need to be much more considered than the politicos have managed to date, and there needs to be an offensive campaign by us (us=Christian Western civilisation) as well as a defensive response.

7 January 2010 at 10:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"There is absolutely nothing in the Qur’an about standing only for Allah: in many schools, Muslim pupils stand for their teachers ..."
Absolutely right - these characters are making it up as they go along. The answer is simple: take away their chairs.
Then deport them to Waziristan, or to some area where the Royal Anglians are on active ops.

7 January 2010 at 10:15  
Blogger Links said...

Your Grace,

The mail had it:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1240518/Muslim-protesters-branded-British-soldiers-rapists-baby-killers-homecoming-parade.html

and the telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/6931203/Homecoming-soldiers-branded-murderers-and-terrorists-by-Muslim-extremists.html

Can't find it anywhere else.

p.s. (please excuse the irrelevance) a while back you recommended me Snuffy as a good teaching blog. Thank you, it was well worth it. Have you come across Old Andrew on "Scenes from the battleground?"

Here's a blog map

http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/a-guide-to-scenes-from-the-battleground/

and here's an example of the kind of post/discussion that follows :

http://teachingbattleground.wordpress.com/2009/12/19/a-guide-to-scenes-from-the-battleground/

7 January 2010 at 10:28  
Anonymous Kiwi said...

"Taking the Piss" is a long established British tradition - these people learn fast!

7 January 2010 at 10:29  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

This is why it is even for of a shame that natural justice didn't take it's course as demonstrated on this video I posted yesterday.

These people gave them the contempt they deserve.

7 January 2010 at 10:33  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, any other group in society would be considered to be in contempt of court, which is a serious crime in itself, if they didn't show respect to the judge or the court. Also, would the court allow Christians to have an extra 20 minutes for a quick Holy Communion service? Seems like one group in society is above the law.... (I'm suprised that they have not asked for this case to be tried in a shaira court).

7 January 2010 at 10:33  
Anonymous pedant said...

A most interesting and perceptive post. Your Grace, of all men, will not need reminding of the days when "eschatological statements of fact" were relied on by Christians to justify actions, and what those actions could be.

Silly-ass Muslims aren't the only ones to inflate their private views into universal grandiosities. One recalls, for instance, the Quakers' rejection of the courtesy of uncovering to social superiors (and King Charles II's wise and gentle rebuke to William Penn when he insisted on keeping his hat on).

And what, one wonders, was the essential difference between Your Grace and Sir Thomas More? He was certain enough of his opinions to kill you; and you were certain enough of yours to die for them. One of you must have been wrong. Why so sure it's not you? And was not the real problem the clash of two shallow certainties, neither of which, in the nature of things, could have been known for sure at all.

Oliver Cromwell begged his king, "I beseech you in the bowels of Christ, consider that you might be mistaken." But did Cromwell ever consider that he himself might be the mistaken one?

For centuries Christians used eschatological statement of fact to justify the gaol, the rack, the strappado and the stake. They often seem unwilling to remember this. Refusing to stand up for a magistrate seems to me, in comparison, relatively small beer.

7 January 2010 at 10:57  
Anonymous Dave H said...

If you are in any doubt as to the fundamental attitudes of the BBC towards Christianity and Islam, take a peek at the material they would prefer children to be learning at school. I thought it was a rather tasteless hoax at first.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/rs/war/christianityrev2.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/rs/war/islamrev1.shtml

7 January 2010 at 11:08  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Pedant,

You are confusing all manner of trivial imputations and conflating all manner of irrelevances.

The important thing to note (from your own discourse) is that Sir Thomas More never ceased to call Henry VIII 'Your Majesty' or refused to bow to his sovereign. Religious conscience does not demand the negation of reverence or verbal expressions of respect for offices of state.

7 January 2010 at 11:09  
Anonymous Hereward said...

You can be absolutely certain that the Beeb would have reported it if they had been sent down for contempt.

7 January 2010 at 11:22  
Blogger Johnny Norfolk said...

Muslims in Britain say and get away with things that the rest of us would not. The day cannot be far off when as a nation we are going to have to confront this.

Labour cannot continue to brush things under the carpet.

7 January 2010 at 11:28  
Anonymous Knighthawk said...

The disrespect shown to the Judge is clearly contempt of court. The defendants should be held in custody between hearings until they show proper respect. If they persist with their disrespect throughout the trial they should receive an appropriate jail sentence for contempt even if they are acquitted of the charges they face.

For the Judge to reach an accommodation with them is deplorable. This is the unacceptable face of Multiculturalism and Positive Discrimination at its worst. We cannot have immigrants and their descendants being granted special privileges to which the natives are not entitled. Neither should we tolerate a Biased Broadcasting Corporation that indulges in concealment of facts detrimental to their political masters, the rogues responsible for dissident enclaves taking root in this country and undermining the nation.

7 January 2010 at 11:29  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Johnny Norfolk

I can promise you that Labour will not continue to brush this under the carpet - The Tories will be doing it in their place- I PROMISE YOU.

They will have their precious interest rates back up though - which is all that matters in the end.

7 January 2010 at 11:33  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

It's a simple ideology and it works. If you are a Muslim with money and education you can become a Tory. If you are a Muslim and you are skint then you can join the rest of the scum; it really is that simple. Brutal, harsh but effective; who gives a toss about religion when there are carpets and brooms to sweep the inconvinience of it all away. In fact, all this religious fighting is very useful.

7 January 2010 at 11:53  
Anonymous M. said...

I am in complete agreement with His Grace.

7 January 2010 at 12:07  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

M

'M' wouldn't stand for money by any chance would it?

7 January 2010 at 12:09  
Blogger I am Stan said...

I was in court (as a witness) and when the judge passed sentance on a particularly vicious thug sending him to the clink for 3 years the criminals brother jumped up ran to the bench shouted ¨dickhead¨ into the judges face..

The judge to his credit just looked at him with utter contempt,explained to him in almost a whisper why he had sent his brother down and then with an imperious wave had two court officials remove him from the building,he then just carried on with business...

7 January 2010 at 12:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's been over 3 weeks since we last heard from D.Singh, hope he is OK.

7 January 2010 at 12:42  
Blogger F.G.S.A said...

This only demonstrates that they do not acknowledge the authority and competence of a judge to adjudicate upon cases wherein they are involved. They thereby deny also the authority, sovereignty and power of the one in whose name this adjudication and process take place, namely, The Queen's Most Excellent Majesty. What are they then but traitors? The Bill of Attainder should be revived to deal with such persons.

7 January 2010 at 12:45  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The judge should reconise the rich cultural diversity this religion has brought to england and celebrate such actions by these chaps, there should be no threat of contempt of court towards these men, this should be reserved only for the locals. We must give in to their requests for extra long breaks and prayer times, I am grateful to the government whom have conditioned the local authorities into providing such facilities for our countries guests. Hopefully afer the tax payer has funded such a trial the chaps will get off with a slap on the wrists and a don't do it again you naughty boys, at which they will of course develop an even greater hatred and disrespect for the cowardly country that allows and protects them to mock us so.

7 January 2010 at 12:48  
Anonymous pedant said...

A response from Your Grace is always a privilege. Alliteration, alas, however amusing, is no alternative to argument. Insofar as Your Grace was addressing the phenomenon of those who plead their personal convictions as justification for their public behaviour (or lack of it), I stand by my comments.

I beg Your Grace's pardon, however, for mentioning Sir Thomas More. He is not relevant in the circumstances and I do not know where he popped up from.

As to whether the judge in the case under notice should have taken such pains to indulge these fatuous defendants, I remember seeing Lord Denning in court nearly 40 years ago, when, as Master of the Rolls, he had up before him an appeal from some Welsh cottage-burners. He had taken the trouble to write a little homily to them and have it translated into Welsh, which he then learnt by heart and delivered with much gravity (Denning was about 7ft tall and had no teeth; this not only made him very impressive but also seemed to help with the Welsh consonants). It was a charming courtesy to some silly young fellows, and it clearly made a salutary impression on them.

Lord Denning knew that tolerance, patience and kindliness are not the least of the law's weapons when dealing with monomaniac zealots. Perhaps the judge in this current case felt the same.

7 January 2010 at 13:25  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Pedant,

An equivalent 'homily' in this context would have been for the judge to have learned by rote a section of the Qur'an which deals with sitting or standing or respecting 'people of the Book', and delivering it to the defendants in Arabic.

7 January 2010 at 13:40  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

Was that 40 years ago? Gosh how time does fly. Not only do we now have Polish road signs, we bend over backwards to help build mosques where once stood Welsh chapels. That toothless old bastard has a lot to answer for in my mind.

7 January 2010 at 14:29  
Blogger DDIM 'n HOFFI said...

People may be wondering why I am bashing on about money and privilege in a post about Muslims and disrespect for the law. Well, I am grateful that His Grace allows headaches like me to have my say, so I at least should explain.

I get the very distinct impression that such posts as these are mainly about pointing out the ills of this Labour government - quite right too! But the annoying part for me is that His Grace almost pretends that many of these ills will be rectified with a Conservative government under the leadership of David Cameron, when many of us know this is just political propaganda. Now if His Grace believes that these ills will be rectified by DC, then this would be fine, but His intelligence comes through in this blog, and this contradicts such notions as we are supposed to believe. The conclusion then has me looking for alternative motives apart from the specified Christian concern which we are supposed to follow with due enthusiasm.

Fraser Nelson has a good post today over at the coffee house blog. My feelings about Fraser are that he is your classic born with a spoon in your mouth privileged toff, I mean his mouth is so full of marbles he can barely speak at times. And reading this latest post of his it becomes clear that he simply cannot cope with being out of his comfortable world that he became so used to.

The Tory message is as described - non specific. There seems to be an abject desperation to gain power but no forthcoming alternatives to what we are enduring now. so as his post declares:

What's it all about, Dave?

And more importantly here, why is His Grace reluctant to ask such questions given His concern about what Labour have done to His precious Church of England?

What is it all about Your Grace?

Religion?
Money?
Hatred?
Snobbery?

7 January 2010 at 16:48  
Blogger ReconciiationTalk said...

For one who is is accustomed to receipt of due honour i can understand your concern at the lack of honour accorded to Judge Mellanby. However maybe my own feeling on the relative importance of that aspect of the current trial is reflected by my own lack of reverence to you.

It is true the BBC did not reflect the contempt of court issue in its Monday report though several English news reports did. Having been closely involved in seeking peace in the community since the March 10 Royal Anglian homecoming parade, I attended the trial at Luton Magistrates Court this morning. It seems that the compromise was both ways, though this has not been reported. True the defendants entered after the judge, but when the judge addressed them at the conclusion of legal argument and to adjourn the proceedings they did stand. The trial has just entered the defence stage (after legal argument dismiss the case) it remains to be seen if they will do so and in what manner.

As to extra time for prayer the judge this morning at least ran the trial until 1.15 and had an hour recess for lunch.

What the defendants (and their leader Anjem Choudary) think of the legal system, the government and our society is well known. While it could be argued this is continued accommodation to the prevailing multiculturalism that has got us to this point, I think the judge Mellanby has rightly in this matter decided to focus on the primary issue. The case itself is I believe going to highlight failed government policy and the wider multiculturaism that has prevailed.

It is a bad case and should never have been brought in its current form. The legal arguments yesterday and this morning were on the basis of freedom of speech, and while the judge ruled for the trial to continue it was on the basis that it was not for her to determine issues of legal administration. She may still rule at the end of the trial that there is no case to answer. If not and it does result in a conviction I predict it will go to appeal and be overturned there.

You yourself in your post on 12 March wrote: "As unpalatable as the protest may have been, Cranmer’s ‘bottom line’ (opposite) is inviolable. Free speech, expression and lawful demonstration must be permitted, even if it be born of misguided motives, political naïveté or religious bigotry." This current case will I hope, either at a dismissal of the case or at appeal, demonstrate that.

It will also highlight your second point on March 12 last year, which was that police policy in allowing the protest to proceed once it became clear it was inciting violence was faulty. That the case was eventually brought after 5 months is we hope indicative of a change of policy after all the disastrous community events of last year. That the prosecution will probably fail will highlight the fact that police policy in allowing it was wrong.

And at that point maybe it will time to attend to the issue of how we treat those who are in contempt of the system and its courts. Despite my apparent contempt for the proceedings of this blog I am all for that.

7 January 2010 at 17:31  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Thin end of the wedge. It's about time this lot learned that they are not a special case.

7 January 2010 at 17:51  
Anonymous Peter said...

It is not my normal practise to hide behind a screen name. Note my website and details there.

Also I note I a mistake in the end of the second para. It should read,
"The trial has just entered the defence stage (after legal argument to dismiss the case) and it remains to be seen if they will recognise the court and in what manner."

You will be pleased to note that the convenor of the Luton council of mosques has in todays local press condemned the decision not to stand for the judge. It is not yet on the web.

7 January 2010 at 17:52  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Reconciliation Talk,

Since, as you have observed, His Grace has not said that freedom of speech should be inhibited or that the right to peaceful protest should be in any sense diminished, he is at a loss to know the nature of your grievance. He does not need reminding by you or anyone else of what he wrote in March: he stands by every word, and came in for some fierce criticism for articulating his view on the issues.

But the main matter of this post is the accommodation by the state of a pseudo-religious assertion of the right not to accord the respect which is customarily expressed to a judge in his or her court.

But perhaps you have purposely ignored this in order to focus on your expression of contempt for His Grace's blog, for which His Grace is deeply appreciative for without such wisdom and insight his dullness of mind and slowness of apprehension will find no remedy.

7 January 2010 at 17:53  
Anonymous len said...

Islam is a religion that feeds on hate, suppression, and intimidation.
It is an antithesis of every thing Christ stood for.Hardly surprising to see muslims mocking British justice and values.

7 January 2010 at 19:12  
Anonymous Knuckledragger said...

It is an ‘eschatological statement of fact' that Muslims perform human sacrifices of kuffars to Moloch.

7 January 2010 at 19:41  
Blogger Links said...

Mr/Mrs/Miss/Ms Reconciliation Talk,

To take your first few lines (I can't face more than that):

"For one who is is accustomed to receipt of due honour i can understand your concern at the lack of honour accorded to Judge Mellanby"

do you mean you or His Grace?

However maybe my own feeling on the relative importance of that aspect of the current trial is reflected by my own lack of reverence to you.

What does that mean? Were you trying to make any other point than that you are very rude?

"The case itself is I believe going to highlight failed government policy and the wider multiculturaism that has prevailed. "

and that? His Grace was talking about the fact that irreverence towards a judge has been justified and accepted because of the perpetrators supposed religious beliefs. I think that is of quite a lot of interest - compromise would certainly not be reached with your average chav who refused to follow standard procedures. Yet, what if said chav announced he was refusing it on religious grounds? There we appear to have something different....

Yet you talk about failed government policy and do not specificy to what you are referring. You also state that the whole thing shows multiculturalism has prevailed.

Please tell me what culture (deserving of that name) encourages complete disrespect towards the guardians of justice?

7 January 2010 at 19:58  
Blogger DP111 said...

The judge could have remanded them to custody for contempt of court, and then ordered that they be brought before the court in a one week say.

If the defendents still continued with their contempt, the term of incarceration is doubled, and that course continued ad infinitum, till the contempt is purged.

We are being too charitable and kind to these people who are waging war on us. The correct response to enemies of the state waging war, is one that leads to their termination.

7 January 2010 at 23:17  
Blogger DP111 said...

Brian SJ wrote:Wootton Bassett proposal are examples of information warfare

War is deceipt says the canon of Islam, and Mohammed practiced it, therefore it is not only legitamate but morally acceptable in Islam.

Foe all we know Anjem Choudary's threat to march at Wootton Bassett, is merely a ploy so that the so-called moderate Muslims can show that are against Anjem Choudary, and therefore no threat to Britain.

7 January 2010 at 23:23  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

Quoting you: The defendants may refuse to stand in an English court when the Judge enters because they only stand for Allah. But it is an ‘eschatological statement of fact’ that one day they will kneel before the Throne of Jesus Christ.

AMEN! AMEN! So it shall be! Not only will ALL muslims bow their knees to Jesus Christ and confess that He is Lord = God, so will allah - the devil

As it is written: "Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;" - Weymouth New Testament: "in order that in the Name of JESUS every knee should bow, of beings in Heaven, of those on the earth, and of those in the underworld " Phil. 2:10

7 January 2010 at 23:53  
Anonymous M. said...

I believe His Grace was commenting on defendants, not on "all muslims."

8 January 2010 at 02:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Labour cannot continue to brush things under the carpet.

The 'brushing' is mostly done by the impartial media, directed by the sitting Government's License Fee power - the very real threat of jail.

" . . . events in court which have received scant coverage in the UK, and which were omitted entirely from the BBC report of the trial."

8 January 2010 at 05:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wasnt Romans 10 Hitlers favourite bible passage also?

8 January 2010 at 18:07  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

"The authorities that exist have been established by God"

Does this include our New Labour
Government?

If it does, then clearly, the day of reckoning has come without our realising it. Prepare to meet thy doom, if God has decided that we deserve this kind of punishment.

The alternative interpretration of HG's comment defers to the anthropomorphic concept so beloved by atheists - God must be a socialist!

8 January 2010 at 20:31  
Anonymous len said...

God established authority structures.
Unfortunately humans put these structures into practice.

8 January 2010 at 20:43  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

Point taken Len - but I'm simply quoting from HG's blog. This only mentioned "authorities that exist" - it didn't say anything about "structures".

8 January 2010 at 20:53  
Anonymous non mouse said...

Beneath this problem is another:
our own 'government' has no respect for our law. They respect only the euSSR, who also have no respect for our law.

So what can we expect from the colonists, if we won't do anything to defend our country and our law?

9 January 2010 at 00:44  
Anonymous Romney said...

I suggest that when a custodial sentence is passed where the convicted criminal is a devout Muslim, that their sentences are increased to account for the minutes they require to spend each day in prayer. Surely such servitude to Allah should not count as time spent serving at Her Majesties pleasure?

9 January 2010 at 19:56  
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 16:23  
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 16:24  
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 16:24  
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.

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.

18 January 2010 at 16:25  
Blogger peachperry said...

5th PAGE.

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 16:26  
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 16:26  
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 16:27  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older