Tuesday, March 23, 2010

From this day forth it is a crime to incite hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation


The Torah says:

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination (Lev 18:22).

If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them (Lev 20:13).

The New Testament says:

Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God (1Cor 6:9f).

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another (Rom 1:24).

The Qur’an says:

Lut: he said to his people: "Do ye commit lewdness such as no people in creation (ever) committed before you? "For ye practice your lusts on men in preference to women: ye are indeed a people transgressing beyond bounds" (7:80-81).

Of all the creatures in the world will ye approach males. And leave those whom Allah has created for you to be your mates? Nay ye are a people transgressing all limits!" (26:165-166)

Please note, this is not a post about the theological divergences between Hasidic/Orthodox/Haredi/Masorti and Reform/Reconstructionist Judiasm; or between Orthodox/Protestant/Roman Catholic and Liberal Christianity, or between Sunni/Shi’a and Sufi Islam. And Cranmer is fully aware of the hermeneutic complexities, exegetical difficulties and socio-theo-political debates over the Sitz im Leben of all of these passages. Sexual ethics is not the point.

We are concerned here with the religious conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the perception of ‘hatred’.

Whatever one’s interpretation of the above scriptures, as of today it would be a bold preacher who so much as jokes about homosexuality.

Today is the appointed time by our wonderful Government for Section 74 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 to come into force. It creates the new offence of intentionally stirring up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

What is ‘hatred’?

OED: ‘intense dislike’.

It is not a matter of inciting violence or grievous bodily harm: there are already laws against that.

So it is now a crime to ‘intensely dislike’ homosexuality.

Or to ‘intensely dislike’ homosexuals.

Because the two are so easily confused in the mind of the victim (if not the perpetrator) that the mildest disapproval of the behaviour might be mistaken (or purposely distorted or misinterpreted) as vehement disapprobation to the extent that it becomes an irrational attack upon the person.

It is true that the Lords won an important ‘freedom of speech’ amendment, but it will exist only on paper. In practice, the culture will shift towards an auto-self-censorship: people will be so afraid of transgressing the law (or, worse still, of merely being accused of transgressing the law) that the jokes will subside, humour will diminish, drama will avoid the subject and real life will consequently be impoverished. Debates on sexuality will become taboo, not because of a statutory prohibition but because of an impediment to negativity, questioning, accusation and allegation.

Did you hear the one about the gay guy who…?

Bigot.

Call the police, report the crime.

And you can be very sure that the police will treat the allegations with the utmost urgency.

God forbid that Her Majesty’s Constabulary might be accused of being homophobic.

What is ‘hate speech’?

Is not literature full of it? Not only the religious texts from just about every culture, but also the greatest works of Shakespeare, Marlow, Webster, Ford, Tourneur…

And that’s just the Elizabethans and Jacobeans.

This manifestly illiberal legislation is not only designed to prohibit the use of words or behaviour and the display, publishing or distribution of written material which might be deemed to constitute ‘hatred’ towards homosexuals, lesbians, bisexuals and the transgendered: it also covers the public performance of plays; distributing, showing or playing a recording; broadcasting a programme and the possession of inflammatory material.

Is the Bible ‘inflammatory material’?

Is the Qur’an?

Is it not ironic that forty years after the Lord Chamberlain ceased being the official censor of theatrical performances, with the primary responsibility to uphold public decency and morality, that we now have an entire Government dedicated to inflicting upon us the very indecency and immorality from which they used to guard us?

Or is it now a crime to say that?

Should one really face a seven-year jail sentence for voicing an opinion in an inappropriate way?

Who is to decide whether that opinion is justified or not? Who is to judge the propriety?

Let us not be deceived that this legislation has been rationalised by Parliament or that it will be fairly interpreted by the Courts. It is the police we must fear, for it is their heavy hands, hot heads and over-zealous authoritarianism that will descend upon the religious, with allegations of incitement, condemnation and ‘hatred’.

And then they will descend upon the school playgrounds where children do what children do: tease, cajole, hurl insults… slugs and snails and puppy-dog’s tails. That’s what little boys are made of.

And who then judges the level of ‘threat? Who predicts the likelihood of violence?

Cranmer can do no better than to reproduce the speech made by Rowan Atkinson in the context of New Labour’s religious hatred laws. The parallels are self-evident:

My Lords, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Those of us who have opposed this measure since its introduction in 2001 have never had a problem with its alleged intent, viz. to counter the expression of racial hatred under the disguise of religious hatred. Rather, our problem was always the legislation’s breathtaking scope and reach far beyond that intent.

The prime motivating energy for the Bill seemed to come not from communities seeking protection from bullying by the British National Party but from individuals with a more aggressive, fundamentalist agenda. Those who have sought, from the very day of the publication in 1989 of Salman Rushdie’s book The Satanic Verses, to immunise religions against criticism and ridicule – or at least to promote legislation that is so sinister and intimidating, it can provide that immunity without even the need to prosecute anyone. In other words, to impose self-censorship.

The starting point for my objections to this Bill is to argue with its supposedly inarguable premise: the ‘ooh Yes Religious Hatred, that sounds like a bad thing, let’s have a law against that’. As hatred is defined as intense dislike, what is wrong with inciting intense dislike of a religion, if the activities or teachings of that religion are so outrageous, irrational or abusive of human rights that they deserve to be intensely disliked?

The Government has often spoken of how under existing legislation, Jews and Sikhs are protected from religious hatred on the basis of their race and that this Bill seeks merely to extend that protection to others. The problem that that ignores is that race and religion are fundamentally different concepts – you cannot choose your race, you can choose your religion – and even if for many the line dividing their race from their religion is blurred in the eyes of the law. A sharp line can and should be drawn.
If Jews and Sikhs are protected from criticism of their religious beliefs or religious activities, then that is a wrong and the idea of extending that to other religions is also a wrong. To criticise people for their race is manifestly irrational but to criticise their religion, that is a right.

The freedom to criticise or ridicule ideas – even if they are sincerely held beliefs – is a fundamental freedom and a law which says that you can ridicule ideas as long as they are not religious ideas, is a very odd law indeed. It promotes the idea that there should be a right not to be offended, when I think that the right to offend is far more important than a right not to be offended.

The only moderating influence on this legislation will be the Attorney General, who can veto prosecutions. Yet how can the Office of the Attorney General, an instrument of government, be expected to take only a judicial view of cases brought before him and not be influenced by the political ambitions of his employer?

The ease with which one religious group or another could be favoured or disfavoured is clear. You many not know that there is an Anti-Vilification law in a state in Australia, where a Witch successfully brought a prosecution against a Christian pastor for vilification of her religion. Now the government has assured us that our Attorney General would veto such a frivolous prosecution.

However, you can imagine that if, one day, electoral research by the party in government revealed that there were a surprising number of witches living in a number of marginal constituencies whose votes could be of considerable benefit to the party at the next general election, then such a prosecution might suddenly seem a more attractive and less frivolous idea to the Attorney General than it had previously. The potential for abuse is manifest.

It is time for the Government to listen. It has made no attempt to address any of these concerns – other than to deflect the criticism with the most anodyne rebuttals.

The Government says you will continue to be able to criticise or ridicule religion. Where in the Bill does it say that? Where is the clause that even implies that kind of freedom of expression? How can such bland reassurances carry any authority when there is no wording in the bill to support them and the chief promoters and supporters of this legislation, in consultation with whom the thing was drafted, have always taken the opposite view. They don’t think that religions should be ridiculed. They don’t think that religions should be criticised or insulted. That is why they have lobbied for this legislation for so many years and unlike the government are not blind to its potential to achieve those aims.

The problem with this Bill is its imbalance. It represents the relentless pursuit of the interests of a tiny minority of the population with, so far, no consideration or quarter being given to the concerns of the baffled majority. This is not to belittle the concerns of the minority which can be and should be accommodated but good government is also about doing everything in your power to accommodate the concerns of those most affected by your legislative ambitions. And this is simply not happening.

That is what these amendments are about. They do not affect the essence of the Bill – they seek only to provide reassurance and above all to protect freedom of speech, from which not just a minority will benefit, nor just a majority, but every single one of us.

It is undoubtedly irrational and illegal to state that black people are somehow disordered or in any sense inferior: that is racism.

It is undoubtedly irrational and illegal to state that women are less able than men and ought therefore to be paid less: that is sexism.

It is undoubtedly irrational and illegal to prevent the disabled from the fullest participation in education and wider society: that is disability discrimination.

And now it must be illegal to state that homosexuality is ‘an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder’.

The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning or good-intentioned it may be.

"...if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed, but praise God..."

101 Comments:

Blogger taskermax said...

It would seem that Government no longer thinks God has any right to judge on morality. Yet in God's eyes that changes nothing...

23 March 2010 at 08:11  
Blogger taskermax said...

Let us hope and pray that Paedophilia is never classified as a Sexual orientation...

23 March 2010 at 08:35  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Whither now for our country?

1. Self-censorship: the most oppressive and effective form of censorship known to man?
2. Welcome to a society that will increasingly resemble Sodom and Gomorrah.
3. Judgment has already begun ‘in the House of the Lord.’
4. The final step, before the Great Awakening: the disintegration of social relations.

What are we to do? Study the sermon that got John Wesley banned from St Mary’s (where Your Grace was put on trial) preached before the University on July 25, 1741.

Go on bended knees and confess our country’s sins, lay siege to God’s heart, and plead for mercy.

Now is the time for leadership to be shown by our leaders.

23 March 2010 at 08:39  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Cranmer said....
“And now it must be illegal to state that homosexuality is ‘an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder’”.
More important than the legislation is the question why is it that homosexuality is regarded with so much hatred by many religious groups. Live and let live seems reasonable to me.

Cranmer said....
“The rights of conscience cannot be made subject to legislation, however well-meaning or good-intentioned it may be.”
The problem with “conscience” is that it can be used to excuse anything. The 9/11 bombers were undoubtedly obeying their conscience. Is that acceptable?

23 March 2010 at 08:51  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Graham Davis @ 08.51 said 'The 9/11 bombers were undoubtedly obeying their conscience. Is that acceptable?'

Answer, you can think what you like but if your act is a crime such as mass murder, following your conscience is wrong at the point of execution.

Perhaps that sentence is too close to common sense, Mr Davis

23 March 2010 at 09:10  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Bluedog

As even this government is not yet able to intercept your thoughts it is the “act” of obeying your conscience that is in question. So what is your point?

23 March 2010 at 09:29  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Just more attacks on the rights of free speech.

YG and your crew, I certainly don't agree with your thoughts on homosexuals, but I agree you have a right to voice your opinion on them.

However voicing opinion and active discrimination are two different things and that is where the waters begin to muddy a little.

23 March 2010 at 09:30  
OpenID Michael said...

To veer off topic just a little, Fr Tim Finigan reproduces a letter today (I don't know how to embed links - sorry!) from the Public Communications Unit, clarifying proposed education legislation (in this case how it relates to Catholic schooling). The pertinent section was,

'Schools with a religious character will, as now, be able to teach their faith’s view on issues that arise within the teaching of PSHE education, but they will not be able to do is suggest that their views are the only valid ones, and they must make clear that there are a wide range of divergent views.'

I think that is a neat summation of where we are here - and why government feels it has to pass legislation to protect every possible 'orientation', 'belief', or 'conviction'. That is, governmental creed nowadays is entirely relativistic, and essentially nihilist in its alleged neutrality. It believes in nothing, and for this reason thinks that it has to protect everything - by acting against those who think otherwise. Incitement against hatred is a terrible thing - but this will be the thin end of the wedge, and is actually little more than a government seeking to eradicate the last vestiges of Christian orthodoxy from underneath its own clay feet.

23 March 2010 at 09:50  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Mr Davis asks:

"More important than the legislation is the question why is it that homosexuality is regarded with so much hatred by many religious groups. Live and let live seems reasonable to me."

Answer. From a Christian point of view homosexuality is a perversion of the natural and God given order for mankind.
As Cranmer points out, in the sight of God therefore such perversion is, as Scripture declares 'an abomination'
What God abominates and hates therefore so do Christians.

It has nothing at all to do with Newlabour and other pseudo Marxist conceptions of "gender equality", but a rejection of homosexuality per se.
That rejection is shared by all major religions of the world, and even recognised by non Christians to be a violation of the natural order, as Paul explains in the New Testament.
You have a right to disagree and express an opinion.
What Cranmer is rightly explaining is that Christians,individually and corporately, must enjoy that same right in a free society as they have done so for centuries.
The expression of views and opinions are part of our great liberal tradition of free speech, freedom of association and freedom of conscience.
Labour has moved to attempt to criminalise these expressions of what has been hitherto the basic freedoms of a democratic society.

God's SOLE intention for men and women is heterosexual marriage of one man and one woman for life, not the predatory or parasitic relationship characteristic of homosexuality.
What God has joined together, let not man put asunder.
Cranmer is right to re-state the Christian and libertarian case.
I assume Mr Davis you would accord Christians the same right that you assume, namely the same freedom to express a view, without fear of false accusation of perpetrating a so called "hate crime" (BTW no such concept is known to British law as a "hate crime")
You may not like it, but most people understand that there is a moral order in our world, and the inbuilt monitor called 'conscience' is a major, universal, human phenomena which witnesses to it.

23 March 2010 at 09:52  
OpenID Michael said...

My apologies, that ought to have said 'incitement of hatred is a terrible thing'.

23 March 2010 at 09:52  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

grahamWood said...
“I assume Mr Davis you would accord Christians the same right that you assume, namely the same freedom to express a view, without fear of false accusation of perpetrating a so called "hate crime" (BTW no such concept is known to British law as a "hate crime")”

Yes

grahamWood said...
“You may not like it, but most people understand that there is a moral order in our world, and the inbuilt monitor called 'conscience' is a major, universal, human phenomena which witnesses to it.”

Your “inbuilt monitor” is indeed shared by most human beings and is the result of our evolutionary development that has of necessity resulted in our ability to empathise with others and is the primary source of our morality. When it is corrupted by unreasoned religious belief it becomes nasty and vindictive as you post amply demonstrates.

23 March 2010 at 10:10  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Your Grace has muddied the waters here by including the Toarah and Testaments with the moral equivalence of the contents of the Koran. This is a very big mistake. The Koran condemns not only homosexuals to death by stoning it demands similar action for Jews, Christians, apostates and non-believers alike for anything that transgresses the lunatic ramblings of a warped mind.

Until the advent of mass Muslim immigration into the West, hate crime as such was unheard of and quite frankly most of us would have laughed at the absurdity of such a concept, but not any more. The constant drip of laws that owe more to the left wing fringe parties of Europe, are now embedded by statute in our culture but do we hear from the Conservatives, who should by their own ethos be the last bastion of British culture, promises of review and repeal of any of the 4500 plus New Labour laws– Not a word.

The trial of Geert Wilders should be the cause celebre of a resurgent Conservative Party, as hard as I try I still cant hear a word of support from the party machine. These laws as they stand to my simple mind, mean that Your Grace's opening remarks leave Him open to prosecution. Yet, he is only quoting from a book – just like Wilders - Lewis Carroll could't have dreamed up a scenrio like this even if he wanted to.

As was mentioned yesterday Dave's commitment to cutting back on Ministerial car use seem to predict more of the same sound bite politics if they do win.

May your God help us.

23 March 2010 at 10:15  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr Wood said:-

..From a Christian point of view homosexuality is a perversion of the natural and God given order for mankind..

So what then are we to make of the equivalent God given order that causes children to be born mentally handicapped or severely disabled? After all don't you believers accept that we are made in 'God own image'?

23 March 2010 at 10:25  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Dear Graham Davis,

You must of course be playing devil's advocate.

If your 'conscience' tells you to murder someone or steal their goods or burn their house down, you are not entitled to act according to it, but if it tells you that you must do something which is controversial, hateful even, but does no physical harm then you must be allowed to do it, because each of us is required to act and be accountable as an individual; we cannot hide in the collective (no matter how much Unite fulminates against 'scabs').

The state's prohibition on murder (for example) is not based on the state being the ultimate arbiter of right and wrong, but on a pragmatic obligation laid on those who presume to rule us to see that a form of earthly justice is done - to the best of their ability and in this case to maintain civil peace.
But when the state forces us to act against our conscience in ways that have hithertofore been not only lawful, but considered morally desirable throughout our recorded history, you have to ask why we are being coerced in this way (on pain of imprisonment with real criminals).

I agree with you that if there is no right and no wrong then anything goes; but there IS right and wrong - and in an absolute sense - there are rules by which we are required to live, it's just that we moderns don't want to recognise them.
Your moral relativism seems to me to be derived from the Nietschean idea of the 'will to power', and if it were to be applied logically it would make paedophilia protected by law if its adherents shouted loudly enough about their right to practise it. Is it not illogical in your cosmology that it is punished with considerable ferocity, despite those convicted of it being, in the main, defective personalities, damaged by their upbringing.

Also, slightly at a tangent, is it not unfair and unjust of the state to encourage all manner of sexual licence and then when people take the state at its word and indulge themselves they find that some kinds of licence are promoted and others are vilified. Does this not give the lie to the 'equality' legislation?

23 March 2010 at 10:44  
Blogger Montcalm said...

I beg you pardon gentlemen, but I believed that Lord Waddington had managed to amend the law. It changed since?

In France, laws punish "homophobia" (I mean insults or jokes) for a long time. But we are even more hysteric than you, because in France, anti-Semitism are punished for prison! On the other hand, Christians naturally have no law which forbids hate of Jesus.

23 March 2010 at 11:10  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Philip Walling said....
“I agree with you that if there is no right and no wrong then anything goes; but there IS right and wrong”.

There is no objective right and wrong. Is a cat wrong when it kills a bird? That doesn’t mean that anything goes. Many of those things that you claim are God given have been hard wired during the course of human evolution or we would not have survived. They are continually reinforced by every human family. Over centuries many of these have been codified into the laws that most of us abide by.

We would probably agree on many of the features that a civilised society should include but when you use your conscience, or more accurately your adherence to a religious code, to endorse intolerance towards another human being, I say that is immoral. That you then claim the moral authority of your particular belief makes me bridle.

Those who are truly good are motivated by a simple compassion for their fellow human beings not by a set of rules dreamt up in a time of ignorance and superstition and before the explanations that we now have for most natural phenomena.

You should subject all your beliefs and particularly your conscience to rational scrutiny and not simple be content that because you believe it, it must be right.

23 March 2010 at 11:21  
Blogger Dave said...

Jesus' teachings are quite clear that we must love the sinner yet hate the sin. This can be expressed as "I don't hate you but I hate what you do"
Paul then wrote
"Have I now become your enemy by telling you the truth?"

Apparently so.

23 March 2010 at 11:33  
Anonymous Mikec said...

I think the attempt here is to create a 'tolerant' society by legislation. This is, of course, a huge oxymoron, as legislation is a tool of intolerance.

We cannot be tolerant of theft, so we legislate our intolerance of theft.

We cannot be tolerant of physical assult, or any action that causes injury.

But can we be intolerant of intolerance? What does it mean?

This is the point at which it gets 'Kafkaesque'. The first prosecution under this bit of legislation will be interesting, except that the defendant is likely to be an innocent who has said the wrong thing in the wrong place.

Also, can the Police be trusted to apply this legislation with an 'even' hand?

23 March 2010 at 11:44  
OpenID Michael said...

@Graham - It is a source of perpetual amusement to me that self-proclaimed rationalists tend to be decidedly antipathetic towards simple reason when presenting their world-view. That reason transcends the simplistic creeds of the rationalist is something they refuse to acknowledge, and instead remain content with the belief that, because they believe it, it must be true.

23 March 2010 at 11:46  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Dear Mr Davis,

I hardly know where to start to correct you; I haven't the energy to deal with all of it, but what you say is so demonstrably silly and illogical, that I think I will pray for you instead; it might do more good.

One thing, though, what the hell have cats and birds got to do with it?
We are clearly not cats or birds, but men, and are made in a different way. Cats kill birds because they are being perfectly obedient to their creator's will that they act as cats.

And, where does true goodness and compassion for our fellow human beings come from, do you think? It is neither rational, nor intrinsic to our true nature, to act with 'simple compassion'. In the modern west it is plainly against our self-interest to be compassionate towards our fellows.
Any 'sensible' rational person would be driven to conclude that his interest would best be served by treading on necks to get what he wants.

23 March 2010 at 11:48  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As far as I can recall the authors of the Bible found a great many acts abhorrent, and called for vicious punishment for those who transgressed, yet the Christian community nowadays seems to be able to forgive most of these SINS as mere peccadilloes, until it comes to homosexuality (and male homosexuality at that) when all the hateful self righteousness of the saved comes to the fore. If you are going to condemn gay males, condemn adulteress, fornicators, masturbators and usurers with the same zeal, but before doing so examine your own past and conscience.
Jobrag

23 March 2010 at 11:51  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Michael
Reason is a tool; it can be used in any circumstance. A reasonable explanation can be sought for any phenomena. That does not mean that an explanation today will not be superseded by another or better one later on. This I imagine is what frightens you and what makes you cling to a belief however implausible that there is certainty.

When the magician reveals how the trick was done, it is no longer amazing. So it is with the religious who keep their belief behind a firewall so that it is not subjected to rational scrutiny, in that way the Magic can continue.

23 March 2010 at 11:57  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr Walling said:-
..and if it were to be applied logically it would make paedophilia protected by law...

No it would not. Paedophilia relies of the action of an adult, presumably fully 'compus mentis', in an act of a sexual nature with a minor, immature in the understanding, that what is taking place is unlawful in any sense.

Homosexuals engaging in sexual acts that affect no one but themselves, other than compromising someone's written words or opinions, are innocuous and should be of no concern to anyone but the individuals involved.

Do you expect the same level of bigotry to be levelled at a man and a woman who willingly engage in anal sex? Or do you only persecute homos.

What goes on behind closed doors, in private is no concern of yours or any ones if it means anything that this is a 'free country'.

'Pink Politics' has alienated itself and the cause of freedom of the individual by promoting legislators to criminalise a persons right to express opinions that reject same sex
relativism.

Its not all that long ago that a heterosexual couple booking into a B&B under the assumed Mr. & Mrs. Smith epithet, was the source of much seaside-postcard humour, but as far as I am aware (please correct me if I am wrong),is not listed amongst such sundry abominations to be condemned, as being against God's law.

Legislation so framed that takes more from, - than it gives to, society is bad legislation - that is the issue that should concern us; not spittle flecked rants of outraged indignation. Leave them alone I say - if it displeases your God/s - let them deal with it at the appropriate time.

23 March 2010 at 11:58  
OpenID Michael said...

@Graham - which roughly translates into 'reason can be whatever I, reason's arbiter, choose it to be at any one moment'. It seems to me that that this is the firewall that keeps you, Mr Davis, from applying that much loved 'rational scrutiny' to your own creation myths.

23 March 2010 at 12:07  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Dreadnaught
23 March 2010 11:58

Hear hear!

23 March 2010 at 12:10  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dreadnaught said...

Mr Walling said:-
..and if it were to be applied logically it would make paedophilia protected by law...

No it would not. Paedophilia relies of the action of an adult, presumably fully 'compus mentis', in an act of a sexual nature with a minor, immature in the understanding, that what is taking place is unlawful in any sense.

Homosexuals engaging in sexual acts that affect no one but themselves, other than compromising someone's written words or opinions, are innocuous and should be of no concern to anyone but the individuals involved.



Note this especially:

Paedophilia relies of the action of an adult, presumably fully 'compus mentis', in an act of a sexual nature with a minor, immature in the understanding, that what is taking place is unlawful in any sense.

The concept of an "adult" and a "minor" is not fixed in stone. 20 years ago a 40 year old man who was involved sexually with a 16 year old schoolboy would have been a legally regarded as a paedophile, now it's a "mutally loving, concentual realationship".

In our past the idea of a 40 year old man marrying a 12 year old girl would have been perfectly acceptable, now it's (rightfully) classed as wrong.

Canada's age of consent was 14 until very recently. If a government body reduced the age of consent in the UK to 15, or 14 then would a 40 year old man who had a sexual realtionship with a 14 or 15 year old schoolboy suddenly stop being a in an act of a sexual nature with a minor, immature in the understanding and suddenly be ok just because the law changed?

23 March 2010 at 12:15  
Blogger Wallenstein said...

What's most saddening is that the Christan response to these issues - as exemplified by Cranmer - seems to be one of fear, anger and the juvenile cry that "it's not fair".

No-where in Cranmer's writings do you see Christ's love reflected, merely the same posturing and obsessive legalism of the Pharisees.

The pomposity of this type of "little Englander" mentality is surely a far cry from the humility shown on the shores of Galilee.

Do you really think Christ values the amount of time spent lobbying Ministers to allow B&B owners to bar the door to gay couples? Or would he rather that energy be used in taking his message to those who need to hear it?

23 March 2010 at 12:17  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Michael said...
“which roughly translates into 'reason can be whatever I, reason's arbiter, choose it to be at any one moment'”.
No. I am not reasons’ arbiter. But what I say can be subjected to a reasoned interrogation. Reasonable people can assess its merit and if they do not agree they can make a counter argument. That is not the case with religion because the end of every argument will be a non existent entity that has never been seen and resides only in the imagination of those who will it into “being”

23 March 2010 at 12:20  
OpenID Michael said...

@Graham - your declaration of non-existence is founded entirely on your own immanentised (and arbitrary) reasoning - which seems a little unreasonable to me.

And really is quite confusing that those who profess so loudly to adore and adhere to reason's call should suffer from such a fatal lack of ambition when it comes to reason's application.

Anyway, thanks for the comments,

Best,

Michael

23 March 2010 at 12:25  
Anonymous circus monkey said...

Graham Davis, why is it people like you are always so terrified of the belief's of others. If you dont want to/ or can't believe in a force greater than you then don't, but keep cheap, and may I say, not very original insults, out of the equation!

23 March 2010 at 12:26  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Dreadnaught asks, and by way of criticism:
"So what then are we to make of the equivalent God given order that causes children to be born mentally handicapped or severely disabled? After all don't you believers accept that we are made in 'God own image'?"

Answer: This is to mix apples and oranges.
Monogamous, heterosexual marriage is an essential part of the God given order, but mentally handicapped, disabled, people most certainly are not.
You raise an entirely different question about the origin of evil and the malfunctioning of society, and not least the part played by man as causative. Too big an issue to be taken on here.
Suffice to say that God's creation of the natural order, including Man was pronounced "good" and "very good". It was only after Man/Woman rebelled against God, and the consequent entrance of sin into the world with all its malign effects that is causative of much of the "falleness" we see in human lives and societies.
Some of the sad instances you mention are directly the result of human self inflicted wounds which affect whole generations. Drugs, abortions, addictions, parental neglect, wars etc.
In other words evil and sin is part of the human condition which can affect unborn children as we know. None of this is God's will. Christ came to break the power and reign of man's sin, and the results of this fall, spiritually and physically - to to deliver and heal - summarised in Luke 4:18. This is why the Gospel = Good News!

23 March 2010 at 12:34  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

circus monkey said...
“Graham Davis, why is it people like you are always so terrified of the belief's of others”
Correct! I am frightened by irrational belief because it is dangerous; do you need more evidence than 9/11? I loath the hypocrisy and inhumanity of the Catholic Church that recent events illustrate, need I go on, the list is a long as history itself?.

23 March 2010 at 12:36  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr Wood said:-
...This is to mix apples and oranges... Too big an issue to be taken on here...

This I think is a fudge Sir and well you know it - If not in the forum of freedom of speech and expression - Where? (and this is indeed a criticism) - after all, that is what the entire thread is about!

As for Mr Anonymous,(hardly a unique soubriquet)

What'is your point? - other than to endorse the view that 'if it's in the book' it must be immutable. In his opening His Grace foolishly in my opinion, invoked surrahs from the Koran - the same book that praises Mohammad's marriage to Aisha at the age of six and still provides a role model to excuse such paedophilia where this cult's Sharia law is in the ascendent.

Why do you, the Jews and the Christians not have the collective guts (these days at least) to condemn Islam as unwelcome in toto in the West, rather than make fools of yourselves persecuting consenting adults.

23 March 2010 at 13:09  
Blogger Preacher said...

Your Grace.
I feel it would be wise & perhaps help some communicants if we extend the quote from 1 Cor.6:9-10 to include verse 11 "And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God". Surely the question must be, is it a hate crime to bring to someones attention that their actions are likely to bring them into danger of judgement, further to refuse to be an accomplice to these actions, or is it more 'loving' to let them continue or for fear of man made laws to say nothing? Scripture is clear that repentance brings mercy & forgiveness for all sin, in all conscience I can not stand idly by & watch them perish for want of warning. If their response is one of anger & rejection at my concern then so be it, but the case then will be one of their choosing, I will have fulfilled my duty to them & to God.

23 March 2010 at 13:16  
Blogger taskermax said...

To prevent the Act being used to inhibit freedom of speech on the subject of homosexuality, paragraph 14 of Schedule 16 inserts a new section 29JA, entitled "Protection of freedom of expression (sexual orientation)" but sometimes known as the Waddington Amendment (after Lord Waddington who introduced it). It reads:“In this Part, for the avoidance of doubt, the discussion or criticism of sexual conduct or practices or the urging of persons to refrain from or modify such conduct or practices shall not be taken of itself to be threatening or intended to stir up hatred.”

23 March 2010 at 13:16  
Blogger taskermax said...

The Bible tells us that Man hates God. God has a order to his creation. The unrelenting push to get all forms of perversion accepted in society is nothing more that man flicking the V's at God..

23 March 2010 at 13:26  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

MrTaskermax

..The unrelenting push to get all forms of perversion accepted in society...

Nuts!

23 March 2010 at 13:37  
Anonymous Dick the Prick said...

Your Grace

Dash it, I didn't know that drunkards couldn't get into heaven. Gadzooks - suppose it depends when I pop it but if it's after 6pm on most days, i'm going down sucker.

DtP

23 March 2010 at 13:38  
Anonymous Simon said...

Answer: This is to mix apples and oranges.
Monogamous, heterosexual marriage is an essential part of the God given order, but mentally handicapped, disabled, people most certainly are not.


Did I read that right?

23 March 2010 at 13:50  
Anonymous It's faith, stupid said...

Simon@13:50

Tough question! You seem to have copied it correctly if that's any help.

23 March 2010 at 14:05  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I'm not religious and I wouldn't like them doing what they do under my roof. I don't have any particular bone to pick with gay couples because what consenting adults do in private is up to them. Just as long as they don't bring it to my door. The idea of being criminalised for holding such an opinion is outrageous. Whatever happened to sticks and stones?

PS Wot, no indigomyth?

23 March 2010 at 14:08  
Blogger Bryan said...

Dear Dick the Prick,

Matters are worse than you think. The denial of heaven is not merely premised on being caught in a listed activity of wrongs, but rather it is premised upon our failure to live perfectly according to the laws established by the Creator. "None are righteous, no not one".

But there is amazingly hope, for "while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us." He, the Lord Jesus, the Christ, paid for our sins with His innocent blood. So "that if you confess with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you confess and are saved." "Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved."

23 March 2010 at 14:17  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

To everyone....
Do you have any Gay friends and if so has this informed your opinion? I would appreciate an answer either way if you would be so kind.

23 March 2010 at 14:21  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr Gnostic

I tend to agree. Cultural change takes a long time to become the accepted norm. A little restraint from 'pushing the envelope' by Gays would do more to support their desire for equality, than relying on bad laws.

23 March 2010 at 14:21  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Mr Davis,

Of course I have 'gay' friends, and gay friends as well. I've even been on holiday with one of them (and shared a bed with him when we couldn't get two separate beds) and I'm very fond of him, but I'm not taken in by what he gets up to with his companions - I'm not talking about the bits you think interest people - where he puts his penis - I'm talking about the serial partners used to satisfy lust, the debauchery and racketty way of going on, and quite often the sheer misery of the deeply unsatisfying life he leads.
Read Quentin Crisp (one of the few honest ones) who wished with all his heart that he had not been a homosexual.

But what has having homosexual friends to do with believing homosexualism (putting it into practice) is a perversion? I also believe that adultery is wrong, but I've done it a few times, as is lying, which I try not to do, but fall short about every (waking) hour, on average; as is sloth, and pride, and all the rest, which I find myself falling into regularly.

This is about objective truth, not some truth based on how you feel, or how you want things to be.

23 March 2010 at 15:03  
Anonymous Voyager said...

They are building the gulag on an island just off Mainland Europe. The structures are being put in place, fortunately the primitive tribes inhabited the island in question have so far been unconcerned about the change of use envisaged for their settlement.

23 March 2010 at 15:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I enjoy reading your blog Cranmer, but on this case I think you are wrong. The reason why it is so important to have legislation like this is because "hate speech" - even innocent words like "homosexuality is wrong" eventually leads to violence against people. Church teaching on this issue is indirectly responsible for much of the violence and hatred against gay and lesbian people in society. Consider the case of Matthew Shepard, killed at only 21 because he was gay. he was tied to a fence in the middle of nowhere, beaten and left to die in the freezing cold for 18 hours. The people saying "gays are bad" or whatever may not be bad people or have bad intentions, but that doesn't excuse the fact that those words help to promote hatred of gay people in society and are then used by some to justify violence and bullying.

23 March 2010 at 15:39  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Simon asks. "Did I read this aright?"
Yes, you read this aright, but by all means disagree if you so wish.

"Monogamous, heterosexual marriage is an essential part of the God given order, but mentally handicapped, disabled, people most certainly are not."

23 March 2010 at 15:48  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Philip walling said....
“Of course I have 'gay' friends, and gay friends as well. I've even been on holiday with one of them”

and

“But what has having homosexual friends to do with believing homosexualism (putting it into practice) is a perversion? I also believe that adultery is wrong, but I've done it a few times, as is lying, which I try not to do, but fall short about every (waking) hour”

Your response surprised me.
Firstly why after experiencing such a friendship are you still so judgemental? Why is his sexuality so important and why do you call it a perversion?
Secondly I don’t think adultery is “wrong” but I have never done it because I know the hurt it would cause to my wife, for others it may be ok. As for lying, I cannot understand how the opportunity to lie occurs every hour of your life, perhaps you are a salesman.

Anyway thanks for responding.

23 March 2010 at 15:50  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Dreadnaught said...

Mr Wood said:-
...This is to mix apples and oranges... Too big an issue to be taken on here...

This I think is a fudge Sir and well you know it - If not in the forum of freedom of speech and expression - Where? (and this is indeed a criticism) - after all, that is what the entire thread is about!

No fudge. Simply a practical point - the thread is about an imposed State law suppressing freedom of speech and criticism of homosexuality. We could discuss many aspects ad infinitum - which one was on your mind?

23 March 2010 at 16:00  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Anon.

"The reason why it is so important to have legislation like this is because "hate speech" "

No, no and thrice bloody no.

First of all I cannot abide the terms "hate speech" and "hate crime".

It implies that somehow if I was to attack someone who was black or someone who was white then the attack on the black man would be deemed worse because of him being black and me white. As such a heavier penalty should be exacted for the crime! Even if I was to attack both for the seem reason that I found them to be a twat, nothing to do with skin colour. This is wrong.

Nonsense, all crime of this nature is hate crime but it is not a crime to hate.

I hate brussel sprouts. I voice my hate of brussel sprouts, if someone was to then attack a brussel sprout farmer because of my voicing of hate of brussel sprouts should I be legislated against? Extreme and slightly ridiculous example but the point still stands.

Incitement to violence and hateful speech are two different things. You would do well to understand the differences before legislation is brought against you on something you happen to hate.

23 March 2010 at 16:06  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Congratulations Your Grace, on a beautifully crafted piece....and a vigorous 'nod' too, to the Vicar of Little Wallop, the Reverend Goodfellow, aka Rowan Atkinson.

Without the sound sense of either, what a parlous state we would inhabit.

I am reminded that Your Grace may have a less than happy remembrance of 'faggots'...albeit they kindled the fiery birth of your everlasting glory!

23 March 2010 at 16:36  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mr Wood you say:-
...the thread is about an imposed State law suppressing freedom of speech and criticism of homosexuality...

His Grace says:- We are concerned here with the religious conscience, freedom of speech, freedom of expression and the perception of ‘hatred'chosen to be the way they are.

Our society has repealed in 1968, the law that criminalised homosexual practice but you and His Grace and others, seem to want to bring it back. So much for your religion's stand on loving one's neighbour as yourself I say.

I accept your right to believe what you will, why not try a little reciprocity and maybe we would negate the need for such stupid laws in the first place.

I'm tired of this thread now, lets hope further opportunity to disagree arises with His Graces good offices.

nb - Nice one Oswin.

23 March 2010 at 17:14  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Apologies for the gibberish - whole chunk went missing in transmission and I dont have copy.

I'm out.

23 March 2010 at 17:16  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Questions of good and evil, right and wrong are commonly thought unanswerable by science. But Sam Harris argues that science can -- and should -- be an authority on moral issues, shaping human values.

I am not suggesting this particular thread will benefit from further discussion by its inclusion, but this video piece is I think, well worth viewing in relation to the broader construct of this thread. Whether His Grace permits it to stand, is up to Him. As I prematurely said I am out from here on.

http://blog.ted.com/2010/03/science_can_ans.php

23 March 2010 at 18:12  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Erm....

Our Lord had remarkably little to say about sex and nothing at all about sexuality (as we are given to know) - an example some of his more obtuse followers would be wide to follow.

The Leviticus extract posted above goes on to say that such charcters should be put to death. Is that equally sound and applicable?

23 March 2010 at 18:35  
Anonymous len said...

What we are seeing is the new religion 'Secular Humanism' seeking to displace Christianity.
Secular Humanism( the religion of man) is pushing forwards aggressively aided by Socialism,and the new age religions.
Secular Humanism has its own prophets,its own bible and its own commandments.
Its bible, Darwins evolutionary theory,prophets, too numerous to mention, most prominent at the moment Prof Dawkins.Commandments,don`t be judgmental,there is no absolute truth,all truth is relative.
Whilst Christianity is derided as being without foundation and God mocked, evolutionary THEORY is taught as fact to our children.
We are as a society being brainwashed into the 'God doesn`t exist' mindset.

23 March 2010 at 18:52  
Anonymous graham Wood said...

Len Your last post is spot on and the humanism element is becoming more and more militant.
You would probably agree that our own government is not a neutral observer in the process, but its many repressive anti Christian laws over the past decade or so reflect its absorption into the same ideology - backed behind the scenes by the equally secular, and now powerful European Union.
Add to the mix a militant Islam and the challenges to our Christian faith and heritage grow.
The following link reveals that the Moslem agenda is promoted right from the top in the USA via a Moslem fellow traveler in the form of Obama.
If you were not aware of the extent, then this short video will shock you. I recommend all posters to view this :-
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=tCAffMSWSzY#t=28

23 March 2010 at 19:26  
Anonymous Utar Efson said...

"jeremy hyatt said...

Erm....

Our Lord had remarkably little to say about sex and nothing at all about sexuality (as we are given to know) - an example some of his more obtuse followers would be wide to follow."

Erm, no. You seem to be labouring under the misaprehension that Jesus and His Father are two separate entities. They are not. They are part of the Godhead and are perfect in unity, purpose and holiness from eternity past to eternity future.

This means that the same voice that gave us the beatitudes inspired the Levitical laws. This same God the Son sanctioned the destruction of Sodom and Gommorrah for their sins.

UE

23 March 2010 at 19:40  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

Graham Davis 11.21

//when you use your conscience, or more accurately your adherence to a religious code, to endorse intolerance towards another human being, I say that is immoral.//

I think you're confusing intolerance with disapproval, Graham. Undoubtedly Christians disapprove of the behaviour of homosexuals: but that doesn't mean they don't tolerate it. They have no choice: it's a perfectly legal activity. The question is simply whether they should be permitted to express that disapproval in the public arena, if some (like you) twist the truth to make it synonomous with intolerance.

Outlawing the expression of disapproval (on any issue) is an extremely
dangerous development by anyone's standards.

One further point: I think you'll find that what you call the "intolerance" and what I call (as I have explained above) the "disapproval" of homosexual behaviour does not extend, for the Christian, to either intolerance or disapproval of the homosexual him/herself. Christians, I believe, have a saying "love the sinner, hate the sin".

Do you want them to be forced to love what they see as a sin?

23 March 2010 at 19:54  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Sleeping with your best mate is one thing, but bloody sprout farmers? Just the mention of it! Faggot farmers, now that's a whole different ball game!

23 March 2010 at 20:06  
Anonymous Simon said...

Whilst Christianity is derided as being without foundation and God mocked, evolutionary THEORY is taught as fact to our children.

You clearly do not understand the term theory in this context. Gravity is a theory, the Earth revolving around the Sun is a theory - being a "THEORY" as you term it - does not mean it isn't true.

We are as a society being brainwashed into the 'God does not exist' mindset.

Go on then Len, startle us all by providing one - just one - single piece of verifiable evidence that God exists. What's that, you can't? Really, I am shocked!

23 March 2010 at 20:07  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

This is the closest I came to sleeping rough. I once new this homosexual, and I went to sleep with his sister, who owned a cat, and when I woke up there was a dead bird in the bed with me (of the feathered variety). Totally true (man)!

23 March 2010 at 20:12  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

On a more serious note, the Dalai Lama's last Tweet:


DalaiLama: It is totally illogical to seek happiness if we do nothing to restrain angry, spiteful, and malicious thoughts and emotions.
22 minutes ago via web
Retweeted by you and 100+ others

23 March 2010 at 20:30  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Our Lord" had rather a lot to say about "inclusion" when it went against the standing Jewish moral norms of the day- eg towards women, divorce, paying taxes

It is far more likely that "Our Lord" didn't say anything about homosexual activity because he felt that the prevailing Jewish attitude that it was sinful was correct.

I know you probablly belive it's all a "fairy tale" anyway, but for those oh so few Christians who actualy do belive that the Bible is God's Word and not a a list of suggestions that good but flawed people wrote- it's intresting that in the "gay sex is a sin" culture of Israel, Jesus & his followers made no mention of homosexuality. In the Greek/Roman culture where gay sex was "normal" Paul condems it as sinful... but why let logic get in the way? Let's all agree with Elton John that Jesus was a "super intellegent gay man"!

23 March 2010 at 21:50  
Anonymous len said...

Simon said,
If God came to earth preached what His Kingdom was
like, gave evidence of His authority over sin and death,fulfilled hundreds of very exact prophesies,( that no-one else could possibly fulfill) made atonement for mans sin, was crucified,rose again from the dead, .

Would you then believe Him?

23 March 2010 at 21:59  
Anonymous len said...

Simon Said, God chose to validate His message and His Messiah by telling the future in advance -- sometimes thousands of years in advance -- in great detail. No one but God could do that!
ISAIAH 46:9-10 NKJ
Remember the former things of old, for I am God, and there is no other; I am God, and there is none like Me,
Declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, 'My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure,'

God foretold the future to authenticate His message -- so we would know the truth and trust Him.,
...........................
( It would be quite an education to study Bible prophesy!)

23 March 2010 at 22:12  
Anonymous Happyness Stan said...

Where are we going with all of this?

To establishment conspired hell in a hired handcart.

Are there street protests over this issue?

No.

Are Homosexuals unhappy with their lot?

No.

So why the new law?

Basically because the establishment desperately need/want to F... with your mind.

Is it designed to make the world a better, and more tolerant place?

Is it seen that these types of laws make the world a better, and more tolerant place?

No they don't, and what is more they are not designed to do anything of the sort.

They are designed to effect the exact same result, that they do indeed effect.

Which is to divide society so that elites can carry on ruling over it. While at the same time mind controlling the public into believing that they have absolutely no control over their own minds, never mind how their own country is run. Which of course to an ever increasingly large extent THEY DON'T.

Does it have to be this way?

Not at all. However our ruling class elites very much wish you and me to believe that it does, and that there is nothing we can do about it.

All is not lose, and it certainly does not have to be this way. We are legion where as they number no more then around 400.

Democracy is not dead, it is just that our ruling class wish to grind us ALL into the dirt. That means all of us, very much including homosexuals even more then non-homosexuals.

40 years ago the vast majority of homosexuals very much wished to be treated just like any other member of society. The truth is that the vast majority of homosexuals still do.

I truly believe that the vast majority of common people do not see it as their business to concern themselves with what other people do with their genitals in private. If they ever did in the past, they surly do not now.

Therefore Homosexuals have nothing to fear from the majority of their fellow citizens. However they do have plenty to fear from the totally intended medium and long term consequences of these types of thought control laws.

With every action is an equal and opposite reaction. The establishment who came up with these divisive ideas around 50 years ago, are not stupid, they know only too well what they are doing, and none of it is nice, or intended to be.

The establishment have not conspired to flood this country with dependant immigrants because they like brown people.

The establishment are the originators of true racism, and sexism for that matter. However if there is only one thing that the establishment hate and fear more then women and less then wholly WHITE races, it is the will and therefore uncontrollable power of a united majority.

There is an answer, and with a lot of luck it may even happen.

Only by directly electing our mayors, police chiefs, and top judges, completely free from party political affiliations, can the majority regain its voice.

This is in no way a perfect road to travel, but it is a fine start down the only good road that still exists.

Even the longest of journey's starts with just one small step.

23 March 2010 at 22:45  
Blogger Roger Pearse said...

Remember the excuse for legalising homosexuality in the 60's? That what two men do in private is no-one else's business?

Evidently it IS all our business.

I imagine the legislation was drawn up by Stonewall, like so much of Blair's gay legislation. Funny thing is, I don't remember voting them into power. Democracy, eh?

But the question is WHAT DO WE DO? How do we oppose this?

The Irish atheists seem to me to have the right idea: create a website of quotes by famous people explicitly against this, report it to the police (cc the media) and invite them to prosecute.

24 March 2010 at 10:29  
Anonymous Scott said...

I couldn’t give a toss what the major or minor world religions think about anything. We do not live in a theocracy- get over it!

24 March 2010 at 11:38  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

You cannot choose your race, you can choose your religion.

Why will people keep saying this? Any religious believer knows it is false.
You believe something because it is true - or so you think. Only a mad person can choose what he wished to be true.

24 March 2010 at 14:12  
Anonymous Simon said...

Len

When he appears before me and shows me his power over the Universe, I'll believe it. Until then, it's just a bronze age myth that people use to control other people; and hide behind their so-called consciences to peddle hate about people they don't like or disapprove of. And don't even get me started on vicarious redemption through personal sacrifice, the fascistic ideas about permanent monitoring of thoughts and the somewhat bonkers ideas of transubstantiation and the like.

Power, control and money Len, it's all about power, control and money - just ask those Irish orphans.

24 March 2010 at 14:36  
Anonymous jeremy hyatt said...

Utar Efson

Erm again...

Yes, I know about the Trinity. The difficulty I have is that I do not accept that 'If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them' is the revealed word of God. Do you seriously say that 'they shall surely be put to death' is a divine command to be acted upon?

I don't think so....

24 March 2010 at 15:01  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

24 March 2010 at 15:31  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dutchlionfrans1953,

Would you please stop blaming the Jews for everything.

24 March 2010 at 15:35  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

Did I not tell you? You do not want anything said about the Jews, no matter how true!

But if you censor the truth, Cranmer, you serve the liar, the devil. Do you realise this, Cranmer?

And I am sorry to see that.

In response to your remark: How can you write that I blame the Jews for 'everything?' Women talk like that! I expect men to talk more reasonable.

Do some research and you find that what I wrote is true...the truth you removed... because you want nothing on your bLog that exposes the Jews. They control the media and that is why most people do not know the truth about them. But why do you also dance to their tune...do you think to serve God this way?

God is not a respecter of persons. Dó read again Jesus' own Words in John 8:44 and the whole passage.

But the Jews will not succeed to control the suppression of the truth (and doing so guarantees their own perishing... ) the way they like continously. God will see to that. This is why He will take His flock up, to leave the Jews and other people of the world to their own devices after they are left behind. Matthew 24, Luke 17.

24 March 2010 at 15:56  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dutchlionfrans1953,

Thank you for your manifestly sexist contribution.

Your deleted post blamed the Jews for all (yes, all) 'hate' legislation, including this one.

It would have been deleted had you chosen to blame the Muslims, the Christians, the Sikhs or the Jedi.

His Grace is concerned with reason and rationality.

If you wish to continue posting your unreasoned and irrational opinions, to which you are more than entitled, please do so upon your own blog.

Bless you for saying that His Grace serves the Devil.

24 March 2010 at 16:42  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Jared Gaites: Cor! To day you win the 'noticeably less than vile' award. Well, almost...but it's a start!

24 March 2010 at 16:43  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Little Black Sambo (thank you for allowing the deeeelicious 'intro'!)

: ''Only a mad person can choose what he wished to be true''

I am chary of allowing you an entirety of logic on that one. Perhaps those years of acknowledging the inverse, has rendered me insane?

Now I must don my 'lucky' pantaloons...I saw them just a moment ago...(rummages amongst the black plastic bin bags...)

24 March 2010 at 17:04  
Anonymous Septimus said...

Even if Levicitus had not said anything about homosexuality no heterosexual is comfortable with the idea of it.Homosexuals are a fringe group who should not be persecuted but cannot expect to be
part of the main stream. They will
always be isolated .Sorry, the truth is it is an unnatural act which is repugnant to most of us and nothing will change this.It has nothing to do with religion.

24 March 2010 at 17:14  
Anonymous len said...

Simon Says ,
I think you may be confusing religion with the Gospel.
I think God probably hates religion more than most people do,with good reason.

24 March 2010 at 17:41  
Anonymous len said...

Sorry that should be Simon Said.

24 March 2010 at 17:43  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

@ Cranmer: You wrote Thank you for your manifestly sexist contribution. Your deleted post blamed the Jews for all (yes, all) 'hate' legislation, including this one.

I want to say: Befre you delet my comment, prove me wrong! You have not done so. And you call my comment 'sexist.' Point out where and in what way. The way you have now publically satted it, people have the idea it is so, because you removed my comment you accused as 'sexist.'

The use of labels, I thought, only homosexuals, muslims and Jews could be accused of. Just shoot with such blank shots, that make a lot of noise...and many holes all over the place...causing a lot of collateral damage, when you have no treu arguemnets and can not prove the other wrong, but want to make him look bad...character-assassination. Victims become the perpetrators...

Here is what I wrote - let me do that in the next comment, so you will not have to delete this part, when you want to delete again what made you express your accusations.

I would appreciate it if you could point out in your response to my comment, what and in what way that comment is sexist and if what I wrote about Jews there is wrong.

24 March 2010 at 23:26  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

24 March 2010 at 23:30  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

@ Cranmer: " Bless you for saying that His Grace serves the Devil."

Really? I did not say that!

I wrote: "But if you censor the truth, Cranmer, you serve the liar, the devil. Do you realise this, Cranmer? And I am sorry to see that.

Either you are saying by your words that you indeed censor the truth and therefore serve the devil, or you are so full of anger against me that you fail to see what I really wrote.

24 March 2010 at 23:41  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

@Cranmer: How can you accuse me of "unreasoned and irrational opinions? "

Again: That sounds like a woman's statement. It is absolute nonsense as you well know, having read my comments.

It is the present-day way of killing all whose opinions you can not or will not reasonably overcome by the truth and the facts. Instead of admitting the other is right, you shoot these blanks or mudd, and you get away with it when you have the power to silence or deny your opponent access to the microphone.

24 March 2010 at 23:53  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Hasn't everyone rather missed the point?! Why should it be illegal to incite a feeling of any sort?

Is hatred worse than lust or greed or anger or malice or envy? Aren't just as many crimes committed as a result of these emotions as out of hatred?

No one should be responsible for the reaction that others have to their words or actions. It is possible to incite diametrically opposed responses at the same time. Gordon Brown incites anger in me but(unbelievably I know) admiration in others - lock him up just in case. My neighbour's house incites envy in me but aspiration in others - lock them up just in case. Those ladies on the magazine cover incite lust in me but admiration in others - lock them up just in case. Those preachers incite hatred in me or love in others - best lock them up just in case.

And whilst we're on it ... when did it become wrong to practice discrimination? We practice discrimination every day by choosing to be friends with some people and not others, buying certain products but not others, by reading certain blogs but not others, by patronising some service providers but not others. Private individuals and businesses should be free to exercise discrimination in whatever way they choose ... by race, religion, sexual orientation, hair colour, weight, age or whatever they choose. It's their loss surely if they lose valuable business or enriching relationships.

What a limp wristed, thin skinned bunch the homosexual mafia seem to be. They really do incite contempt in me. [Damn them too for making me break my lenten blog fast!]

25 March 2010 at 01:15  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Actually, I've just realised the paradox in this whole thing. Surely they should turn themselves in for inciting us to hate them because of their pathetic, self-pitying, poor-me bleatings?

25 March 2010 at 01:19  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dutchlionfrans1953,

"In response to your remark: How can you write that I blame the Jews for 'everything?' Women talk like that! I expect men to talk more reasonable."

If you cannot see that that is a sexist comment, you are quite ignorant.

But doubtles that is also 'the sort of thing a woman would say.

25 March 2010 at 10:03  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

Oswin, I expressed myself clumsily and you are right to correct me. Of course we can - and continually do - wish for certain things to be true. But the typical believer in a religious doctrine, believes it because of its truth. He may be wrong, but he has no option but to believe it. You can't believe something to be true if you think you know it to be false. That is madness. You can't choose a religion, if that entails a set of beliefs; the religion in a sense chooses you.

25 March 2010 at 14:16  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Little Black Sambo

Brilliant!

In fact I am copying and pasting that on my office wall.

25 March 2010 at 14:38  
Anonymous Simon said...

I think God probably hates religion more than most people do,with good reason.

I've often thought this to be the case, Len. Perhaps paradoxically, I find the existence of religion an argument against the existence of god. Surely an entity of his supposed majesty and righteousness would not allow their moral philosophy to be preached in such a corrupted, venal, egotistical manner - and I'm thinking of the Ted Haggard, Fred Phelps, Abu Hamza type people here.

The idea that anyone "knows" the complete truth of what god would want is beyond my intellectual reach.

25 March 2010 at 14:57  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Little Black Sambo....you misunderstood; I was not correcting you...merely lampooning myself, in recognition of my insanity.

25 March 2010 at 18:21  
Blogger dutchlionfrans1953 said...

aj Cranmer, I thought you better informed! This is not a sexist remark but the truth. Woemn think different than men. Women talk in terms of extremes: You never, or, You always, and such. Any good Christian seminar on the difference between men and women will teach you that.

For men it is important to know how women communicate and for women how men communicate.

It is because men and women do not know how the other gender communicates that causes a lot of marital/ relationship problems.

So my remark is a knowledgeable remark, and you thought it sexist. Mercy.

25 March 2010 at 20:37  
Anonymous len said...

Simon Said, "The idea that anyone "knows" the complete truth of what god would want is beyond my intellectual reach."

God gave us His written Word which reveals the will of God.





Why God Hates Religion.

The English word "religion" is etymologically derived from the Latin word religo, meaning to "bind up." Religion binds people up in rules and regulations or in ritualistic patterns of devotion.

Christianity, on the other hand, was never meant to be a religion. Christianity is the dynamic spiritual life of the risen Lord Jesus indwelling the spirit of man so as to create functional behavior to the glory of God. Granted, men have attempted to force Christianity into the molds and forms of religion. That is evident by all the steeples and sanctuaries and ecclesiastical programs that dot the landscape of our society.

It is the propensity of man to formulate religion to take that which is of the invisible God and attempt to make it visible, tangible and controllable. Man-made religion! The apostle Paul refers to it as "self-made religion" (Colossians 2:23), and goes on to indicate that it is of no value against fleshly indulgence. In essence, Paul is saying that "religion is of no value against man's sinfulness." In fact, religion is a co-dependent enabler of the sins of mankind. It is itself an addiction.

Religion is essentially idolatry. Men worship their man-made formations and structures their ideological idols formed in the concrete of inflexible minds. When the apostle Paul came to Athens (Acts 17:22), he observed their idols and exclaimed, "Men of Athens, I observe that you are very religious in all respects." The Greek word that Paul used for "religious" literally means "to have great respect for demons."
(for full article Chrtistinyou ministries)

25 March 2010 at 23:29  
Blogger Preacher said...

Excellent exegesis Len!

26 March 2010 at 10:17  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Good stuff Len!

26 March 2010 at 17:56  
Blogger Terry Hamblin said...

Thanks for teh link to teh Pope's opinion. The best exegesis of what Scripture says about homosexuality that I have seen.

26 March 2010 at 19:19  
Anonymous Simon said...

Len

Whilst we don't agree, may I say you are one of the most intelligent and erudite commenters on HG's blog. It is always a pleasure to read your comments.

Best Wishes.

26 March 2010 at 22:07  
Anonymous len said...

Simon Said,
Religion has turned so many 'people off'to the simple Gospel message that anything anyone can do to point people away from religion and to Jesus Christ is well worth the effort.
Best Wishes.

26 March 2010 at 23:06  
Blogger ZZMike said...

On the other hand, when the Koran or the Hadith tell Muslims that they must shun the infidel, and kill him if it's convenient, this is to be regarded as little more than a little playful fun, nothing to be taken seriously.

Except for Muslims.

27 March 2010 at 00:44  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older