Friday, February 05, 2010

Thank God for the National Secular Society

It has been widely reported that Cherie Booth (ie Blair) QC, sitting as a judge in the case of one Shamso Miah, has chosen to suspend his six-month prison sentence because he was ‘a religious man’.

He had been convicted of breaking a man's jaw with two punches after a dispute in a bank queue in East Ham, London. There was no doubt he was the aggressor, because CCTV footage established this clearly. And he had, in any case, pleaded guilty.

The 25-year-old had gone to the bank straight from a local mosque. Mr Miah produced testimony to the effect that he was ‘a devout Muslim’.

And so Judge Booth did not send him to prison.

There has been some intelligent comment upon this matter, in particular from the incisive Jack of Kent and the magisterial Heresiarch. Cranmer recommends that you read both, for one believes the National Secular Society have a valid complaint that Ms Booth is discriminating against the unreligious, and the other thinks the whole matter has been blown out of all proportion. Cranmer will not repeat their arguments here, but will turn instead to a rather particular matter.

Judge Booth said:

“I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a religious person and have not been in trouble before... You are a religious man and you know this is not acceptable behaviour.”

It has been observed that the Taliban are ‘religious’, and so undoubtedly are Al Qaida; as are the IRA and the UVF. Not to mention (for religious impartiality) the RSS, Sri Ram Sena, Lashkar e Toyba and Babbar Khalsa International. There is no shortage in the world of ‘religious’ people who seek to do rather more harm than break a jaw.

One could take issue with Ms Booth’s determination of ‘the fact’ that Mr Miah was devout in his faith, for it strikes His Grace that punching a man twice in the face and breaking his jaw is rather more persuasive of ‘the fact’ that Mr Miah may not be quite so devout.

Unless, of course, that religion condones the use of violence.

Is Ms Booth saying that attending a mosque is evidence that one is ‘religious’?

Perhaps it is; outwardly.

But, as a Christian, she ought to know better than to judge by the outward appearance.

And Cranmer has to wonder if Ms Booth, a devout Roman Catholic, would have been quite so lenient if the accused had beaten his wife, or if we were not dealing here with a Muslim but a loyal and faithful member of the Martyrs Memorial Free Presbyterian Church in Ravenhill Road, Belfast, who had broken the jaw of one of her co-religionists. For there, you see, they are all liars and bigots.

But Cranmer wishes to be rather more specific in this inquiry, for the word ‘religious’ is used by Ms Booth as a distinctly non-specific adjective denoting conscientious devotion or scrupulous piety.

Why did she choose the generic and not the patricular?

What would have been the reaction had Ms Booth said:

“I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a Muslim...”


“I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are a Roman Catholic...”?

Of course, the latter would have caused her immense difficulties due to an apparent bias towards a co-religionist.

But this is, in fact, precisely what Ms Booth is actually saying.

The NSS have a valid complaint insofar as no judge is likely ever to articulate: “I am going to suspend this sentence for the period of two years based on the fact you are an Atheist.”

The inference is that those who profess a religious faith have a heightened awareness of morality, of the difference between right and wrong, which is plainly nonsense.

And so Cranmer exhorts Terry Sanderson, the president of the NSS, to pursue this complaint.

Not least because Judge Booth was not compelled to refer to the faith of the defendant at all, and may not have done so if she had privately known him to be her co-religionist.

We cannot entertain the possibility that a Muslim judge might be more lenient towards a Muslim defendant, or a Roman Catholic judge might attribute to an accused co-religionist a higher moral awareness which might mitigate the severity of the judgement.

After all, since 1998, judges have been required to disclose whether or not they are Freemasons, in order to dispel allegations that they were treating fellow Masons differently from the un-enlightened.

But this was deemed ‘oppressive’, and challenged in the European Court of Human Rights.

And so Justice Secretary Jack Straw relented.

Yet is it not manifestly obvious that membership of a secret society or religious affiliation might raise suspicions of impartiality and objectivity in the administration of justice?

And might not undisclosed membership of the National Secular Society incline a judge or journalist to believe that Shamso Miah was delusional in his devoutness, or at least hypocritical, and so worthy of a more severe sentence?


Blogger Benjamin Gray said...

"religious" also has another, well-established, judicial and lay meaning: that of attempting to live by a faith's moral code. You go for the generic here because being a Muslim or a Roman Catholic does not automatically mean the same thing (just as one can be a Jewish atheist). There was no reason to use this extended definition because the context provided the meaning. The defendant, to whom the remarks were addressed, knew what she meant.

It's a bit much to accuse her of making a superficial judgement when you are not particularly aware of the law or the facts of the case.

5 February 2010 at 11:14  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Breaking a person's jaw comes under section 18 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. We know it more commonly as grievous bodily harm or GBH.

This offence carries a maximum life imprisonment. Yet Letterbox Gob has reduced the offence to something akin to shoplifting because the man is fricking religious?

What a stupid (censored) (censored) (censored) moronic bitch!!!!

5 February 2010 at 11:24  
Anonymous graham wood said...

Mr Gray said:
"It's a bit much to accuse her of making a superficial judgement when you are not particularly aware of the law or the facts of the case."

I disagree. The material fact in this case is abundantly clear.
It concerned a serious assault on another person. The law itself is also clear that this is an offence. Why should such clarity be questioned?

The judge may decide that there are mitigating circumstances warranting comment and a reduced sentence in (her) summary and verdict.
I am not aware in British law that the mere fact of being "religious" on the part of an offender (whatever "religious" may mean) gives the slightest qualification for leniency.
Justice must be seen to be done.
If I was the victim of the attack I would find the comment entirely irrelevant and cause for justified anger.
YG is correct I believe - the NSS in this instance is right.

5 February 2010 at 11:30  
Blogger John.D said...

I think the NSS are venomous haters of religion and people of faith, and the fact that they are making the complaint is rather insignificant to the situation; it does not increase their vile status any.

But yes the case is truly absurd nonetheless. The consolation is that the NSS has managed to highlight this so decent people can do something about it. But do not be under any illusions about their motives here.

5 February 2010 at 11:44  
Blogger John.D said...

They say that smoking weed addles the brain, and the fact that she looks as though she has been toking on a bong every night for the last 30 years could lend a clue to what is going wrong here.

Hey Cranmer, did you know that CCHQ is watching you?

5 February 2010 at 11:49  
Anonymous kufr said...

Being 'religious' in Islam has slightly different connotations from being 'religious' in less macho faiths.

5 February 2010 at 11:49  
Blogger English Viking said...

It would appear that this dreadful woman's features are being contorted by her sins. In the photo at the head of the post she displays a more than passing resemblance to Cromwell, 'warts and all'.

5 February 2010 at 12:30  
Anonymous I fancy cherie said...

I think she's quite a looker myself.

5 February 2010 at 12:36  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I think she's quite a looker myself."

So did Tony, and look where his standards have got us.

5 February 2010 at 12:49  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

See we can agree on things despite our differences.

5 February 2010 at 12:50  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace
Hugo Rifkind in the Times had this to say (05.02.10)
‘The NSS, equally unsurprisingly, seems to find this quite offensive. My instincts are with it. Annoyingly, though, and as my philosophy degree taught me in week one, it’s only Cherie’s lot that make conceptual sense. There’s no such thing as abstract morality. It doesn’t even make any sense. If God isn’t the ultimate answer, what is?
‘This is precisely why secularists are always even more annoying than religious people. Often they’re even more annoying than Cherie Booth. It’s because they’re insincere. Sooner or later, I always think, secularists are going to have to bite the bullet, ditch “morality” and “fairness” and all that Goddish guff, and start talking about convenience. Crimes are wrong, because they are inconvenient. Value systems are good, because they make life nicer. Murder is a hassle. It’ll never be stirring stuff, but at least it’s honest.’

The traditional Judaeo-Christian view was once exepressed by Prof. C.S. Lewis:
‘[T]he concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust.’

In my opinion, Judge Booth’s sentence should indeed attract a complaint – from the Judaeo-Christian. For, on what basis can an atheist base his theories of crime and punishment? I know: ‘inconvenience’ and ‘hassle’.

5 February 2010 at 13:22  
Anonymous I fancy Sam said...

to "I fancy cherie", Sam's better looking...

5 February 2010 at 13:35  
OpenID britologywatch said...

Perhaps Cherie applies the same standards to Tony: 'he may have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands in Iraq and Afghanistan; but he's a religious man, so he shouldn't be condemned or prosecuted for it'.

Alternatively - and call me a cynic - perhaps she didn't send Shamso Miah to gaol in case he got radicalised there or, indeed, radicalised others. Better in the mosque under the supervision of the probation service than in the gaol as a sitting target for radicalisation!

Or perhaps, as the election campaign is underway, Labour is courting the Muslim vote! (And the Catholic one.)

5 February 2010 at 13:36  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Mr Singh,again you talk as if only the Judaeo-Christians are the only ones in the world with any morality,I am not an Athiest but your narrow blinkered holier than thou opinions of others is I believe very un- christian.

Humans proved by their co-operation with each other for millenia that they did not need a God to understand that stealing,murder,causing another pain and injury is wrong.

5 February 2010 at 13:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr I am Stan

'Humans proved by their co-operation with each other for millenia that they did not need a God to understand that stealing,murder,causing another pain and injury is wrong.'

My knowledge of history is a little hazy. Could you just advise me which cultures and societies?

5 February 2010 at 13:42  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Mr Singh...try any BC.

Every religion, from earliest times, has hated and condemned those who could not believe whatever it was that those old religions happened to believe.

Throughout the ages there have been the 'intellectual outlaws' who have questioned the "unquestionable," and doubted even the very existence of the gods. And those individual thinkers have been hated, hunted, persecuted, and murdered by the religious believers.

Yet the Atheists and doubters are very much with us today, but those old religions, and the gods they created, have long since ceased to trouble the thoughts of mankind.

If Atheism is considered to be a religion, then it is easily the oldest living religion in the world. Atheism is truly "that old time religion" that the Baptists keep singing about.

5 February 2010 at 14:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr I am Stan

You have now gone from they ‘did not need a God’ to ‘Every religion, from earliest times,...’

Are you looking to be fed to the lions?

Anyway - I would appreciate your thoughts on Judge Booth's judgment.

5 February 2010 at 14:17  
Blogger Dr.D said...

Did you really think she could find it in herself to say, "... because I am a coward"?

5 February 2010 at 14:41  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Mr I am Stan,

I just couldn't make up the fatuous nonsense that emanates from your keyboard.

Atheism is the oldest religion? Atheism (in the sense I think you mean it) is a modern phenomenon. Can you name a society whose religion was atheism? And while you're at it, name one of those 'old time religions' that has been forgotten in the great co-operative rush to atheism.

And why is 'stealing, murder, causing another pain and injury' wrong?
What's wrong with it if you can get away with it?
Why co-operate with the weak, the stupid and the feckless when you are better served taking what you want from them without giving anything in return?

But more to the point, tell us what you think about Ms Booth's judgment.

5 February 2010 at 14:43  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Mr Singh,

A "Judea-Christian" God is what I was reffering too,Mr MiaH should have been locked up IMHO.

As I have said I am not an atheist but I have an open and inquiring mind and I have noticed Atheism is a difficult subject to study because of the slander and misrepresentations preached and published against it.

Even the information that is available in our most trusted and respected reference books is the distorted and prejudiced view presented by religion.

Just as in Communist countries, where the articles on Capitalism, democracy, politics, etc., are always written by Communists and from the Communist point of view,

So in Christian dominated societies, such as the UK all articles on Atheism, Rationalism, Freethought, etc., that are to be found in encyclopedias and other reference books, are written by theologians, and from the Christian point of view which always seem narrow ,predjudiced and with an agenda.

5 February 2010 at 14:49  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Mr Singh,

The article on Atheism in the current edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica was written by a Roman Catholic Jesuit Priest, Rev. Cornello Fabro, Professor of theoretical Philosophy, University of Perugia, Italy.

In the Encyclopedia Americana the article on Atheism was written by Roger L. Shinn, a professor at Union Theological Seminary. It seems to me that religion, like Communism, can survive only when it can control the information about conflicting beliefs.

This system of writing the most trusted and basic reference and information books from the point of view of the dominant ideology in every society has the dangerous effect of further polarizing and isolating the peoples of the world within their own narrow beliefs, and of creating contempt and distrust for all others examples of I see regularly in yours and others comments Mr Singh .

5 February 2010 at 14:59  
Blogger Brian, follower of Deornoth said...

The really outrageous part is that a known bribe-taker and perjurer like Cherie Booth/Blair is a judge at all. But then I suppose those activities are routine for the establishment nowadays.

5 February 2010 at 15:13  
Blogger I am Stan said...

@phillip walling-And why is 'stealing, murder, causing another pain and injury' wrong?
What's wrong with it if you can get away with it?
Why co-operate with the weak, the stupid and the feckless when you are better served taking what you want from them without giving anything in return?

You by your comment appear delusional and cruel..
Morally speaking, Atheism has a great advantage over religion. The great failure of religious morality comes from the illusion of a morality above right and wrong I believe.

The religious mind has always known it is wrong to murder and torture, wrong to persecute and hate, wrong to force its beliefs upon others. Religion has always known these things are wrong, but the religious mind suffers from the illusion of a "higher morality," and because of that illusion all history runs deep with innocent blood. In the name of their "god" and a "higher morality,"

Christians have waged holy wars of extermination, have plundered, tortured and murdered those who could not agree with their religion, or who had never even heard of it. In the name of this "higher morality" Christians have hated, hunted, persecuted, and burned alive the "heretic," the "infidel" and the "atheist."

5 February 2010 at 15:18  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

We cannot entertain the possibility that a Muslim judge might be more lenient towards a Muslim defendant…

We have had to learn to accept the reality that Muslim policemen are more likely to be corrupt (Secret report brands Muslim police corrupt), so why should Muslim judges be any different?

❛A secret high-level Metropolitan police report has concluded that Muslim officers are more likely to become corrupt than white officers because of their cultural and family backgrounds. The main conclusions of the study, commissioned by the Directorate of Professional Standards and written by an Asian detective chief inspector, stated: ‘Asian officers and in particular Pakistani Muslim officers are under greater pressure from the family, the extended family…and their community against that of their white colleagues to engage in activity that might lead to misconduct or criminality.’❜

5 February 2010 at 15:20  
Anonymous Clare Short said...

Question is, where was "I am stan", when the atheist hordes were invading his grace's blog? Seems like he hid and now the danger is over, he's back to bother everyone with his views (of which i can never work out -is he an atheist socialist or a christian?).

5 February 2010 at 15:22  
Anonymous Khalid Mummoud said...

Why can't Johnny Rottenbrough just declare himself to be a BNP member and call for muslims to get kicked out the UK? Would be more honest than posting about some anti muslim rant every time the subject is mentioned.....

5 February 2010 at 15:24  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Ms Short

His agenda is: Zulu. I believe he is upset that his ancestors' land was taken in exchange for the Bible.

5 February 2010 at 15:26  
Blogger John.D said...


If you are not an atheist, can I enquire what it is you actually believe? ie - do you then have one of these 'religious minds' you speak of, or are you by some strange dint of 'moral superiority' excluded? Or is it drugs?

5 February 2010 at 15:28  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Since he is "a religious man", shouldn't his sentence have been doubled?

He should know better.

5 February 2010 at 15:33  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Mr Singh you are again revealing your infantile steak,perhaps you could comment on some of the points I have raised.

Today, as always I have noticed, when many religious people do a thing that even he recognizes as being wrong and immoral, his illusion of a "higher power" and a "greater morality" allows him to perform some ritual, confession, or prayer, and presto, miraculously, "all his sins are taken away", and he is free again from all pains of conscience and regret which for me is not what the teachings of Jesus were about.

Instead of being childish and vindictive Mr Singh try responding to my theological insights and concerns..without pasting passages from the Bible.

5 February 2010 at 15:40  
Blogger John.D said...


The best advice I can offer is to go to church and talk to people about your concerns. You really do have things in bad perspective and here is not the best place to get a better view. Sins are not 'taken away' willy nilly, this is what is called delusion. Go to church and make friends with people and attend bible study and prayer meetings.

If you are not in fact a Christian, then this could be the root of it.

5 February 2010 at 15:51  
Anonymous non mouse said...

"Mr Singh you are again revealing your infantile steak [...]"

Gosh, Mr. Singh. Maybe the views of this writer are overdetermined by some 'superior' pagan instinct!

Please be reassured that I don't believe a word of his accusation -- however much the Cherry in the pic may distort the law!

5 February 2010 at 16:10  
Blogger I am Stan said...

@John D-Thanks for your advice,I do go to my local church on a regular basis and I pray,and I pray hard,till I am tearful sometimes,not out of self pity but at the hate,anger,arrogance and lies that I find promoted in the "christian" circles I find myself in.

I admit I am confused and worried about my place in Christianity,it is as strong today as it has ever been, and yet has not achieved any respectable amount of morality in this country.

Nowhere is the failure of Christian morality more evident than in America and the UK.

During the same time that Christianity has been growing ever stronger and ever richer, over the past thirty years or so, the use of harmful drugs has became a national scandal, the crime rate has been climbing ever higher and ever faster, the divorce rate has skyrocketed, and during that time our nation has been embroiled in more wars and international conflicts were thousands of innocents are killed with the latest killing machines than in any other similar time period in its history.

Right to-day we have the highest narcotics abuse rate, the highest crime rate, the highest divorce rate, and the highest 'religion rate' that we have ever had in the history of this nation.

What does Christianity say about these facts and how to cure them? They tell me we need more religion and they are determined to force their bran of it upon us.

Christianity feels so strong today that it is moving into politics to try to force its failing morality upon every person through a Christian Dictatorship and a new Dark Age.

5 February 2010 at 16:19  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Still almost in disbelief in reading this story second time around , I thought judges were supposed to judge according to the law , so that the law is seen to work .

Something is clearly wrong .

5 February 2010 at 16:36  
Blogger John.D said...


The best advice I have now is to seek medical attention. I am serious. You are showing signs of confusion and depression. You seem well out of the scope of what can be done on a blog in any case. You need to sit down and take a deep breath and start over.

Alternatively, go down to the shop and crack someone in the jaw and hope it is Judge Blair that deals with your case.

5 February 2010 at 16:40  
Anonymous Reg said...

"John.D said...
I think the NSS are venomous haters of religion and people of faith,"

--maybe with good reason?

5 February 2010 at 16:40  
Blogger John.D said...

Satan will always have good enough reason.

5 February 2010 at 16:43  
Blogger Reg said...

"John.D said...
Satan will always have good enough reason."

--so I am Satan?--how interesting,--and I thought I was only the Prince of Darkness.

5 February 2010 at 16:53  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Dear Mr I am Stan,

I'm sorry if you didn't hear my tongue in my cheek when I asked the questions.

If you were to try to answer, rather than assume I am advocating murder and so on, you might see the limitations of your assertions and why moral acts cannot flow from atheism.

5 February 2010 at 16:53  
Blogger Reg said...

" If God isn’t the ultimate answer, what is?"

--this is a bit naive; you could try reading some moral philosophy, then you might realise that an invented Superman in the sky is not the ultimate answer,-indeed there is no ultimate answer except human accountability to his fellow man.

Reg (Prince of Darkness)

5 February 2010 at 17:00  
Blogger John.D said...

I am detecting some seriously negative vibes in here today, or as the Jedi would say 'a disturbance in the force'.

Reg thinks he is the prince of darkness; and a Zulu who goes by the name of 'I am Stan' (which is an anagram of Im Satan) is reduced to tears over the increasing levels of drug abuse and imorality, and he doesn't think that spreading the Gospel which has saved him will make things any better.

It's all down to interpretation methinks. Or could it be a low midiclorian count?

5 February 2010 at 17:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Reg

Let me agree with you for one moment: that there is no God.

Then why should you be accountable to me and I too you.

You might be inconvenient to me and I to you.

Perhaps that's why the French existentialist philosopher, Jean-Paul Sartre wrote: 'Hell is other people.'

5 February 2010 at 17:08  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Sartre also wrote that if there is no God then 'we are condemned to be free.'

Free to shoot each other.

5 February 2010 at 17:15  
Anonymous No to the socialists said...

"-this is a bit naive; you could try reading some moral philosophy, then you might realise that an invented Superman in the sky is not the ultimate answer,-indeed there is no ultimate answer except human accountability to his fellow man."

Reg, the only moral philosophy the socialist/atheist understands is that of stalin and mao, that of the gulag and the police state. we are approaching this in the UK as brown attempts to build "socialism in one country".

5 February 2010 at 17:20  
Blogger I am Stan said...

@John D 16:40-Alternatively, go down to the shop and crack someone in the jaw and hope it is Judge Blair that deals with your case.

Well that is the typical glib response I find whenever i ask serious questions about the state and role of modern Christianity,and their is nothing wrong with my mental state,it is my spirtitual
health that is of concern to me.

Is His Graces blog not a place for christians to come and express their concerns for their and others I am mistaken.

Is it a place to be glib, smug and self satisfied within a small cabal of regular commentators? and ignore the horrors inflicted by armies and leaders that CLAIM to be of MY faith, Christian!

Talking of minds is it sane and healthy christian minds that have waged the bloody politico-religious wars and crusades where the conquered are slaughtered, men, women, and children, even infants, all are put to the sword or the bomb and bullett simply because they are there,are these the teachings of Jesus?

The chambers of the Holy Inquisition were run by sane and healthy christian minds. Was it a sane mind,a christian mind, that would tie a woman to a stake, pile wood and fagots around her and burn her alive for the impossible crime of being a witch.

I expect Satan is fully supporting our "Christian" actions.

5 February 2010 at 17:21  
Anonymous Organic Christian said...

"Is it a place to be glib, smug and self satisfied within a small cabal of regular commentators? and ignore the horrors inflicted by armies and leaders that CLAIM to be of MY faith, Christian!"

erm? Yes it is "I am Stan", hence when anyone new turns up and disagrees you get called "an atheist" or a "socialist".

5 February 2010 at 17:28  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr I am Stan

This may add to some balance:

It is strange to witness the passion with which some secular figures rail against the misdeeds of the Crusaders and Inquisitors more than 500 years ago. The number of people sentenced to death by the Spanish Inquisition — which was active over a period of 350 years — is estimated at 5,000.

This figure is tragic, and of course population levels were much lower at the time. But even so, it is minuscule compared with the death tolls produced by the atheist despotisms of the 20th century. In the name of creating their version of a religion-free utopia, Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin, and Mao Zedong produced the kind of mass slaughter that no Inquisitor could possibly match. Collectively these atheist tyrants murdered more than 100 million people.

Moreover, many of the conflicts that are counted as "religious wars" were not fought over religion. They were mainly fought over rival claims to territory and power. Can the wars between England and France be called religious wars because the English were Protestants and the French were Catholics? Hardly.

5 February 2010 at 17:28  
Anonymous View from America said...

Your Grace, why does everyone on the right not like Cherie? What exactly did she do wrong? She wasn't the PM? Shouldn't people be attacking blair and not the wife?

BTW- Sam Cameron is much better looking and will be a great first lady.

5 February 2010 at 17:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It is because we all have an 'atheist' side to us that we need the law and punishment - a truly God-fearing man would not break any of the commandments or seek to transgress the morality of God's Holy Spirit, but we are all human; it's a question of transcendence and understanding.

Loosing your temper and cracking people in the jaw is behaviour that needs to be discouraged - there has to be a sense of justice. In this particular case, the man's religion clearly went out of the proverbial window, and justice demands correction that can be justified within the extended community. Letting the 'religious' off lightly may produce an upsurge in religious numbers, but it will not encourage the desired behaviour, in fact it will send out a completely contrary message and before you know it you have gangs of people committing violence in the name of religion.

There again though, we are talking nulabour mentality here?

5 February 2010 at 17:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nothing will happen, shes fireproof.

5 February 2010 at 17:40  
Blogger Reg said...

"Free to shoot each other."

--what's wrong with being free to love each other?

5 February 2010 at 17:58  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Maybe lay off her? Even if her husband is a war criminal. The sentencing remarks would only matter if the impossible to prove could be proved - namely that she would have sent this man to prison had he been non religious - or a hypothetical person in an identical case who was non-religious.

On the basis that no such thing can be proved maybe all calm down? Inept at worst. And why big up the egregious National Secular Society?

5 February 2010 at 17:59  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Mr Singh-Again your comments are delusional nonsense.

The dominant, controlling ideology in Russia/Mao was the economic-political dictatorship known as Communism.

Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

As a boy, Hitler attended to the Catholic church and experienced the anti-Semitic attitude of his culture. In his book, Mein Kampf, Hitler reveals himself as a fanatical believer in God and country.

I am not just talking about past war and slaughter,what about TODAY,christian leaders,men and women who claim to share MY faith are NOW in THIS moment unleashing more death and destruction on the world,with a crusader ideology.

5 February 2010 at 18:01  
Blogger Reg said...

"Reg thinks he is the prince of darkness;"

--my title should be capitalised.
Do I detect a lack of humour vibe?
-- or is answering back to a
Christian now considered a purely "negative" thing to do?

5 February 2010 at 18:03  
Blogger Reg said...

"Reg, the only moral philosophy the socialist/atheist understands is that of stalin and mao,"

-- O dear, it's the old Stalin ploy again. Stalin was a flash in the pan,-likewise his few imitators. Stalin learned the ways of the autocratic Tsarist State and the Russian Orthodox Church; he was brought up by a Church seminary. The role of oppressive dictator came naturally to him, with that kind of background.
In contrast we have three thousand years of Judaeo-Christian bigotry, still alive and well apparently.
You mentioned Hitler as well I believe? I wondered if his anti-semitism might have been influenced by that good Christian Martin Luther, in his book "On the Jews and their lies"?

5 February 2010 at 18:14  
Anonymous Dick Van Dyke said...

How can Reg say Stalin- who killed more people that hitler was a "flash in the pan". ALL socialists regimes are dictatorial in some way or other. Stalin was the extreme and Brown is a milder version of socialism. But socialism- with all of its controls and rules etc is still in evidence. I cannot wait until we have thrown the socialists out. The the rot at the heart of the great british oak may start to heal.

5 February 2010 at 18:20  
Blogger D. Singh said...


It may not be convenient for me.

5 February 2010 at 18:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Look chaps, I am an atheist, but I cannot stand socialism. Can people please understand that there is a difference? Atheists simply do not believe in God's existence. A socialist believes that the state replaces God and should run everyone's lives. And if they are very extreme, they revert to type and become like Stalin or Hitler.

5 February 2010 at 18:27  
Anonymous Socialism rots the english oak said...

Reg, Hitler was a national socialist- note national socialist not national christian- socialist! And so we can all see what happens if you vote for socialism- however well packaged, it is oppression, the gulag, the concentration camp. As Churchill said (and he is yet again proving to be right) socialism would only work in the UK with some form of Gestapo.

5 February 2010 at 18:29  
Anonymous RobertTheDevil said...

Err....View from America.

Excuse my sharp intake of breath, we only have one "first lady" in England.

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth 11.

5 February 2010 at 18:41  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Khalid Mummoud (15:24)—I’m not a member of the BNP but I do vote for the party when possible; my vote helped to elect Nick Griffin. I doubt if the BNP will stand in my constituency at the general election (it’s hideously white) so I’ll vote UKIP.

I don’t think that Muslims should be kicked out of Britain; the BNP policy of encouraging them to leave by offering money is better. But, yes, I believe that the advent of Islam in Britain has made the country worse. As it happens, I have just posted a comment on Lord Tebbit’s Telegraph blog, quoting from the book, Reflections on the Revolution in Europe:

❛Immigrants and their children commit much of the crime in all European countries, and most of the crime in some of them…Among immigrants, Muslims are particularly prone to get into trouble. According to the sociologist Farhad Khosrokhavar, Islam is now ‘probably the first prison religion of France’.❜

As to today’s ‘anti-Muslim rant’, it’s a direct quote from the Guardian. What am I supposed to do? Suppress the truth?

I lived in Riyadh for five years and got on very well with the people; I even learned to read Arabic. I sympathized with those who described their country as a prison. Now, I do what I can to inform others about Islam to try and prevent Britain becoming a prison.

5 February 2010 at 18:42  
Anonymous RobertTheDevil said...

That of course should be

Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

5 February 2010 at 18:56  
Blogger Reg said...

"How can Reg say Stalin- who killed more people that hitler was a "flash in the pan"."

--I meant "Stalin as mass killer", was a flash in the pan, (apart from the RC Hitler, and other wannabe "saviours"). I did not say I was a necessarily socialist or communist myself.
Incidentally, if atheists are mass murderers, guess how many people I've killed in 52 years of being a rampant atheist and NSS member?(None actually, though some Christians have tempted me).
I think this thread is going off topic, and although I enjoy winding up Christians, I am now getting bored,--so Bye, Bye.

5 February 2010 at 19:00  
Anonymous View from America said...

Robert the devil, but that still does not explain why people can't stand cherie, Tony seems like such an easy going man.

Also, what do you call the wife of the prime minister, if not first lady?

5 February 2010 at 19:00  
Blogger Oswin said...

What an utterly ghastly woman! Mind you, it does bring back memories of a certain rumour, of old Tony keeping a copy of the koran on his bed-side table! Too much law, seldom enough justice!

5 February 2010 at 19:04  
Blogger Gnostic said...

...what do you call the wife of the prime minister, if not first lady?

How about top cow?

5 February 2010 at 19:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Gnostic or the Rump?

5 February 2010 at 19:22  
Blogger D. Singh said...


The atheist is condemned to be free. As Stalin, Hitler and Mao.


5 February 2010 at 19:59  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Mr Singh,

Hitler wrote: "I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.."

Hitler atheist!

5 February 2010 at 20:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Hitler was born Catholic just as Stalin was born into the Russian Orthodox Church and Mao was raised as a Buddhist. These facts prove nothing as many people reject their religious upbringing, as these three men did. From an early age, historian Allan Bullock writes, Hitler "had no time at all for Catholic teaching, regarding it as a religion fit only for slaves and detesting its ethics."

How then do we account for Hitler's claim that in carrying out his anti-Semitic program he was an instrument of divine providence? During his ascent to power, Hitler needed the support of the German people -- both the Bavarian Catholics and the Prussian Lutherans -- and to secure this he occasionally used rhetoric such as "I am doing the Lord's work." To claim that this rhetoric makes Hitler a Christian is to confuse political opportunism with personal conviction. Hitler himself says in Mein Kampf that his public statements should be understood as propaganda that bears no relation to the truth but is designed to sway the masses.

The Nazi idea of an Aryan Christ who uses the sword to cleanse the earth of the Jews -- what historians call "Aryan Christianity" -- was obviously a radical departure from the traditional Christian understanding and was condemned as such by Pope Pius XI at the time. Moreover, Hitler's anti-Semitism was not religious, it was racial. Jews were targeted not because of their religion -- indeed many German Jews were completely secular in their way of life -- but because of their racial identity. This was an ethnic and not a religious designation. Hitler's anti-Semitism was secular.

Hitler's Table Talk, a revealing collection of the Fuhrer's private opinions, assembled by a close aide during the war years, shows Hitler to be rabidly anti-religious. He called Christianity one of the great "scourges" of history, and said of the Germans, "Let's be the only people who are immunized against this disease." He promised that "through the peasantry we shall be able to destroy Christianity." In fact, he blamed the Jews for inventing Christianity. He also condemned Christianity for its opposition to evolution.

Hitler reserved special scorn for the Christian values of equality and compassion, which he identified with weakness. Hitler's leading advisers like Goebbels, Himmler, Heydrich and Bormann were atheists who hated religion and sought to eradicate its influence in Germany.

Recognizing the absurdity of equating Nazism with Christianity, Christopher Hitchens seeks to push Hitler into the religious camp by portraying his ideology as a "quasi-pagan phenomenon." Hitler may have been a polytheist who worshipped the pagan gods, Hitchens suggests, but polytheism is still theism. This argument fails to distinguish between ancient paganism and modern paganism. It's true that Hitler and the Nazis drew heavily on ancient archetypes -- mainly Nordic and Teutonic legends -- to give their vision a mystical aura. But this was secular mysticism, not religious mysticism.

The ancient Germanic peoples truly believed in the pagan gods. Hitler and the Nazis, however, relied on ancient myths in the modern form given to them by Nietzsche and Wagner. For Nietzsche and Wagner, there was no question of the ancient myths being true. Wagner no more believed in the Norse god Wotan than Nietzsche believed in

5 February 2010 at 20:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Apollo. For Hitler and the Nazis, the ancient myths were valuable because they could give depth and significance to a secular racial conception of the world.
In his multi-volume history of the Third Reich, historian Richard Evans writes that "the Nazis regarded the churches as the strongest and toughest reservoirs of ideological opposition to the principles they believed in." Once Hitler and the Nazis came to power, they launched a ruthless drive to subdue and weaken the Christian churches in Germany. Evans points out that after 1937 the policies of Hitler's government became increasingly anti-religious.

The Nazis stopped celebrating Christmas, and the Hitler Youth recited a prayer thanking the Fuhrer rather than God for their blessings. Clergy regarded as "troublemakers" were ordered not to preach, hundreds of them were imprisoned, and many were simply murdered. Churches were under constant Gestapo surveillance. The Nazis closed religious schools, forced Christian organizations to disband, dismissed civil servants who were practicing Christians, confiscated church property, and censored religious newspapers. Poor Sam Harris cannot explain how an ideology that Hitler and his associates perceived as a repudiation of Christianity can be portrayed as a "culmination" of Christianity.

If Nazism represented the culmination of anything, it was that of the nineteenth-century and early-twentieth century ideology of social Darwinism. Read historian Richard Weikart's revealing study, From Darwin to Hitler. As Weikart documents, both Hitler and Himmler were admirers of Darwin and often spoke of their role as enacting a "law of nature" that guaranteed the "elimination of the unfit." Weikart argues that Hitler himself "drew upon a bountiful fund of social Darwinist thought to construct his own racist philosophy" and concludes that while Darwinism is not a "sufficient" intellectual explanation for Nazism, it is a "necessary" one. Without Darwinism, quite possibly there would not have been Nazism.

The Nazis also drew on the philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche, adapting his atheist philosophy to their crude purposes. Nietzsche's vision of the ubermensch and his elevation of a new ethic "beyond good and evil" were avidly embraced by Nazi propagandists. Nietzsche's "will to power" almost became a Nazi recruitment slogan. I am not for a moment suggesting that Darwin or Nietzsche would have approved of Hitler's ideas. But Hitler and his henchmen approved of Darwin's and Nietzsche's ideas. Harris simply ignores the evidence of the Nazis' sympathies for Darwin, Nietzsche, and atheism. So what sense can we make of his claim that the leading Nazis were "knowingly or unknowingly" agents of religion? Clearly, it is nonsense.
So in addition to the mountain of corpses that the God-hating regimes of Stalin, Mao, Pot Pot and others have produced, we must add the body count of the God-hating Nazi regime. The Nazis, like the Communists, deliberately targeted the churches and the believers because they wanted to create a new man and a new utopia freed from the shackles of traditional religion and traditional morality.

5 February 2010 at 20:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Those views are from an essay by Mr D. D'Souza

5 February 2010 at 20:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

The real reason why people are coming here to read is because the message from the pulpit just does not connect with them: they can hear that message on the High Street every day; on the street corner. It does not address the questions people ask.

Are not our bishops and cardinals ashamed?

5 February 2010 at 20:41  
Anonymous Holly Davie said...

D.Singh- Majesterial as ever !

5 February 2010 at 20:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Still, there is Sunday morning and no doubt I shall listen to another sermon on why football is a game of two halves and why I must repent of global warming.

And all the time, my church, the Church of England, has worked behind my back, to hand me over to that fascist power that men call the EU.

Well, the Mr Synges of this world, sitting in the pew: will no longer take it.


5 February 2010 at 20:46  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Are you reading Rowan?







And that Still Small Voice - that still speaks to men.

5 February 2010 at 20:49  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Joseph Goebbels

Goebbles served as Hitler's Propaganda Minister . The pious Catholic parents of Joseph Goebbels raised him and his two brothers in that faith. He spoke of Hitler as "either Christ or St. John." "Hitler, I love you!" he wrote in his diary.

"I converse with Christ. I believed I had overcome him, but I have only overcome his idoltrous priests and false servants. Christ is harsh and relentless."
Munich, 1929

I take the Bible, and all evening long I read the simplest and greatest sermon that has ever been given to mankind: The Sermon on the Mount! 'Blessed are they who suffer persecution for the sake of justice, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven'!
Joseph Goebbels

Christ is the genius of love, as such the most diametrical opposite of Judaism, which is the incarnation of hate. The Jew is a non-race among the races of the earth.... Christ is the first great enemy of the Jews.... that is why Judaism had to get rid of him. For he was shaking the very foundations of its future international power. The Jew is the lie personified. When he crucified Christ, he crucified everlasting truth for the first time in history.
-Joseph Goebbels

The idea of sacrifice first gained visible shape in Christ. Sacrifice is intrinsic to socialism.... The Jew, however, does not understand this at all. His socialism consists of sacrificing others for himself. This is what Marxism is like in practice.... The struggle we are now waging today until victory or the bitter end, is in its deepest sense, a struggle between Christ and Marx. Christ: the principle of love.

Christ cannot have been a Jew. I do not need to prove this with science or scholarship. It is so!
-Joseph Goebbels

A Jew is for me an object of disgust. I feel like vomiting when I see one. Christ could not possibly have been a Jew. It is not necessary to prove that scientifically-- it is a fact.
-Joseph Goebbels,

When today a clique accuses us of having anti-Christian opinions, I believe that the first Christian, Christ himself, would discover more of his teaching in our actions than in this theological hair-splitting.
-Joseph Goebbels,

When we call for the unification of the Protestant Church, we do so because we do not see how, in a time when the whole Reich is unifying itself, twenty-eight Landeskirchen can persist.... In the interpretation of the Gospel one may hold the command of God higher than human commands. In the interpretation of political realities, we consider ourselves to be God's instrument.
-Joseph Goebbels,

A verbal confession cannot suffice; we require an active confession. Christianity to us is no empty form, but rather a continual action.
-Joseph Goebbels,

We have a feeling that Germany has been transformed into a great house of God, including all classes, professions and creeds, where the Führer as our mediator stood before the throne of the Almighty.
-Joseph Goebbels,

Those are the words Joseph Goebbels Mr Singh,a Nazi doing God.

5 February 2010 at 20:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr I am Stan

You classify him as a Nazi doing God.

But are you not doing I am Stan a Nazi?

If you believe, on the balance of probabilities, the Nazis were acting out on the behalf of 'Christian' compassion - then follow your conscience.

Why look to me?

5 February 2010 at 20:59  
Blogger I am Stan said...

@Mr Singh-So what sense can we make of his claim that the leading Nazis were "knowingly or unknowingly" agents of religion? Clearly, it is nonsense.

We have told the churches that we stand for positive Christianity. Through the zeal of our faith, the strength of our faith, we have once again shown what faith means, we have once again taken the Volk, which believed in nothing, back to faith.
-Hermann Göring in a 1935 speech,

Naturally there are always people at work who represent a type of provocateur, who have come to us because they imagine National Socialism to be something other than it is, who have all kinds of fantastic and confused plans, who misunderstand National Socialist racial thought and overstate their declaration to blood and soil [Blut und Boden], and who in their romantic dreams are surrounded by Wotan and Thor and the like. Such exaggerations can harm our movement, since they make the movement look ridiculous, and ridiculousness is always something most harmful. When I hear that a "Germanic wedding' is to be celebrated, I have to ask: my God, what do you understand to be a Germanic wedding? What do you understand to be National Socialism?
-Hermann Göring in a 1935 speech, Positives Christentum, 3 Nov. 1935,

God gave the savior to the German people. We have faith, deep and unshakeable faith, that he [Hitler] was sent to us by God to save Germany.
-Hermann Göring

How shall I give expression, O my Führer, to what is in our hearts? How shall I find words to express your deeds? Has there ever been a mortal as beloved as you, my Führer? Was there ever belief as strong as the belief in your mission. You were sent us by God for Germany!
-Hermann Göring

Although he himself [Hitler] was a Catholic, he wished the Protestant Church to have a stronger position in Germany, since Germany was two-thirds Protestant.
-Hermann Göring Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945,

The Führer wanted to achieve the unification of the Protestant Evangelical Churches by appointing a Reich Bishop, so that there would be a high Protestant church dignitary as well as a high Catholic church dignitary.
-Hermann Göring Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945,

With the Catholic Church the Führer ordered a concordat to be concluded by Herr Von Papen. Shortly before that agreement was concluded by Herr Von Papen I visited the Pope myself. I had numerous connections with the higher Catholic clergy because of my Catholic mother, and thus-- I am myself a Protestant-- I had a view of both camps.
-Hermann Göring Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945,

I myself am not what you might call a churchgoer, but I have gone now and then, and have always considered I belonged to the Church and have always had those functions over which the Church presides-- marriage, christening, burial, et cetera-- carried out in my house by the Church.
-Hermann Göring Trial of The Major War Criminals Before the International Military Tribunal, Nuremberg, 1945,

Not nonsense Mr Singh and not Majesterial Holly Davie!

Why are you so uncomfortable with the truth Mr Singh..why?

5 February 2010 at 21:07  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr I am Stan

It is written: 'By thier fruits you shall know them.'

5 February 2010 at 21:11  
Blogger I am Stan said...

Mr Singh,

It is also written,"For each tree is known by its own fruit. For men do not gather figs from thorns, nor do they pick grapes from a briar bush.

5 February 2010 at 21:19  
Anonymous Fay Dutton said...

I am Stan, no suprise that you are familiar with Nazi propoganda, as you appear to be a socialist yourself. Don't forget the Nazi party stands for NATIONAL SOCIALIST. note it is does not say NATIONAL CHRISTIAN, but SOCIALIST. tells you all you need to know about Nazi germany.

5 February 2010 at 22:13  
Anonymous Daryl Burgess said...

I am Stan, as you said Joseph Goebbels was Hitler's propoganda Minister, perhaps therefore you should treat his public statements with a pinch of salt? Also you fail to mention the many christians who did stand up to the nazi regime. you are just displaying a one sided approach to you view. But then you are one sided anyway.

You talk about attending church and moaning and questioning a lot- well ask you vicar about that! Perhaps he/she will be able to help. You appear to be so confused.

5 February 2010 at 22:20  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr I am Stan

Three people have suggested that you are a Nazi:

Fay Dutton;

Daryl Burgess; and me.

Rorke's Drift?

5 February 2010 at 22:48  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Rorke's Drift or Battle of Isandhlwana?

5 February 2010 at 23:03  
Blogger D. Singh said...

I can smell your fear.

You're thinking, if I go for Rorke's Drift then...

If I go for Isandhlwana then... he gonna say that.

Best thing to do kid is select the military genius... regardless...

5 February 2010 at 23:46  
Anonymous Bruce(industrial strength) said...

The imams must be laughing.Can't say I blame them.You are suffering from a serious case of death wish over there.Running scared is not the answer.

6 February 2010 at 02:21  
Blogger I am Stan said...

@ 22:48 Mr Singh,

Mr I am Stan

Three people have suggested that you are a Nazi:

Fay Dutton;

Daryl Burgess; and me.

Rorke's Drift?

Mr Singh,

Fay Dutton,Daryl Burgess and Mr Singh are one and the same person.

Multiple posting Mr Singh!

6 February 2010 at 13:42  
Blogger I am Stan said...

@ 22:48 Mr Singh,

Mr I am Stan

Three people have suggested that you are a Nazi:

Fay Dutton;

Daryl Burgess; and me.

Rorke's Drift?

Mr Singh,

Fay Dutton,Daryl Burgess and Mr Singh are one and the same person.

Multiple posting Mr Singh!

6 February 2010 at 13:42  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yet is it not manifestly obvious that membership of a secret society or religious affiliation might raise suspicions of impartiality and objectivity in the administration of justice?

Your Grace
Shouldn't that be partiality not impartiality.

On Cheire, I suspect Mrs Blair is only a judge because of her husbands former position; it cannot be based on her sense of justice.

Hopefully the assaulted person can bring a civil claim for damages.

6 February 2010 at 14:19  
Anonymous no nonny said...

I read his His Grace as saying that the membership might raise suspicions about impartiality and objectivity suspect [i.e. render them suspect]... Assuming that the society or sect does not place itself under the requirements of One Impartial Judge (Iudex Aequitatis).

Am I wrong?

6 February 2010 at 16:53  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Sorry - typos. That should read:
...impartiality and objectivity [i.e. render them suspect]..

the One Impartial Judge.

Humid, polluted, weather always gets to me!

6 February 2010 at 17:00  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Getting back to the thread......

Cheryl Blah is paving the way to allow unpunishable paedophilia for RC priests.

7 February 2010 at 13:21  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

@no nonny
I agree that replacing of with about would solve the problem nicely of misreading.


7 February 2010 at 16:46  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older