Thursday, February 24, 2011

Big Brother Watch endorses Census Campaign to remove the 'religion question'

It happened a few weeks ago, but since the departure of BBW's excellent Alex Deane, things have been a little quiet.

When a group like Big Brother Watch put their weight behind a campaign for privacy, it means that it is a question of protecting our civil liberties and personal freedoms. They observe that the British state has accumulated unprecedented power and the instinct of politicians and bureaucrats is to expand their power base even further into areas unknown in peace time.

Big Brother Watch campaigns to re-establish the balance of power between the state and individuals and families. They look for the sly, slow seizure of control by the state - of power, of information and of our lives.

They have judged that the 'Religion question' in the imminent Census (just four weeks to go) is one of those 'sly seizures'. It is His Grace's view that one's religious adherence is no business of the state at all, and the state is hardly in a position to ask questions about it when they have not defined what they mean by 'religion'.

The 'Mind Your Own *%$#@!! Business' Campaign is a perfectly legitimiate and legal protest to tell the Government that enough is enough. It is time to stop this ever-encroaching data gathering. The Campaign raised a few questions, the most frequent relating to its optional status: the assertion that non-response constitutes a protest.

It does not. Some 4 million people left the question blank in 2001, and they were simply discounted. Non-response is not a protest: it constitutes passive assent to being asked again, and communicates indifference. Today's individual indifference will become tomorrow's state compulsion, with all the requisite fines and threats for non-compliance.

The campaign of the British Humanist Association is one of the most disingenuous and hypocritical they have ever conceived. They began well: with a desire to have the religion question abolished altogether, not least because the data elicited was profoundly flawed. On that point, they agreed with His Grace. But this has turned into a concerted campaign costing thousands of pounds which can only have to effect of skewing the data even more: no other group is campaigning to increase their census showing, and it smacks of desperation. It is apparently their contention that if you are not 'practising' a religion, you are not religious, so you should tick the 'No Religion' box. For them, 'belief' doesn't come into it.

It is quite astonishing that a small pack of atheist-secular-humanists should presume to define religion in terms of what they are not; what they are antithetical to. You cannot trust their definition of 'No Religion' any more than you can trust Richard Dawkins on the efficacy of ancient Daoist philosophical and religious conceptions of yin and yang.

The 'religion question' is profoundly flawed; it can only yield flawed data and so needs to be consigned to the bureaucratic dustbin of the outmoded big state.

When you receive your 2011 Census form, to the religion question, please respond ‘Other’. And then write in: 'MIND YOUR OWN…'.

The Campaign is on Facebook. Please spread the word. And, unlike the BHA, His Grace is not appealing for thousands of pounds to 'raise awareness'.

68 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What's wrong.

Scared of religions waning influence being finally found out.

24 February 2011 at 10:10  
Blogger Anoneumouse said...

Only tick the box marked ARAB and take to the streets for 24 hours.

24 February 2011 at 10:19  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 February 2011 at 10:20  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Not only should the state mind it's own business regarding ones religion, but I also fail to see why any more information other than number and sex/ages/ethnicity of occupants in ones house should be divulged. The census was used to calculate the number and make up of the population I believe and therefore should stick to just that.

24 February 2011 at 10:23  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The British Humanist Association is small in number.
Those that tick a no religion box are by no means humanists.
Why not have a question to see how vegetarians are in the UK or how many drinkers and smokers there are?
What about crossdressers and kiteflyers?
How about all those with ginger hair...

24 February 2011 at 10:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Had you written this article over ten years ago I would have disagreed. My argument would have been that if our numbers are unknown then why should State policy-makers consider our demands?

But we have come to a stage now where such legislation as the Human Rights Act 1998 and the Equality Act 2010 have created a hierarchy of groups with Judaeo-Christians having been accorded an inferior status relative to other groups.

This has created a hostile law regime and has emboldened the authorities to ‘persecute’ us.

If men preach the good news in the yelling street we are arrested.

If our children speak in the school playground about life in all its abundance – we are hauled before the headmistress and interrogated.

If we dare to offer prayer for a sick and dying patient we are suspended from our jobs – and if we dare plead to our union for aid – we are rejected.

If we wear a cross at work we are asked to remove it.

If our daughters wear a symbol of purity in school, in this sexually sick age, they instructed to remove it.

What are we to do? Are we to look at the English fox with envy? For he is protected by law and has a hole to rest his head.

As the State ‘persecutes’ us now in the open and in broad daylight, what evil schemes will it devise in the dark with all the data?

We remember from our school history books why good Queen Elizabeth I said:

‘I have no desire to make windows into mens souls.’

Mind Your Own.

24 February 2011 at 10:32  
Anonymous Indigo said...

What happened to witnessing to your faith and standing up to be counted? I forget where in the gospels St Peter wrote "Other" on his census form; it must have been on the same morning that he heard the cock crow thrice. And Christianity has never let him forget it.

24 February 2011 at 10:34  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Indigo

There was also a time when the early Christians hid in the catacombs.

There was a time when Christians fled to the New World.

There was a time when Russian Christians met in secret.

There is a time for all things which are done under the heavens.

The point is why make it easy for the State to ‘persecute’ us?

24 February 2011 at 10:51  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Anon at 10.10

Compared to the world's 2.3 billion Christians, there are 1.6 billion Muslims, 951 million Hindus, 468 million Buddhists, 458 million Chinese folk-religionists, and 137 million atheists, whose numbers have actually dropped over the past decade, despite the caterwauling of Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Co. One cluster of comparative growth statistics is striking: As of mid-2011, there will be an average of 80,000 new Christians per day (of whom 31,000 will be Catholics) and 79,000 new Muslims per day, but 300 fewer atheists every 24 hours.

International Bulletin of Missionary Research (2011)

24 February 2011 at 11:14  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, the only question I have is that if you oppose the religious part of the census because of state power and that the state has no right to this information, why not simply oppose the whole census? Or does the state have very right to ask about anything else, except religion? I could understand if the census started asking about medical history (as a prelude to stop people from getting heathcare or something), but religion? Are we as Christians not supposed to tell the world about our faith? If so, why is it a problem to tell the state this?

The state has been asking a lot of intrusive questions for many a year, for example, on my somewhat tea-coloured marriage certificate, it tells you the occupation of me and the spouse and our fathers. Given that this is officially a state document, which had to be signed for various records offices as well as the Church and for us, perhaps you might seee this as an abuse of 'state power'-as that is an awful lot of personal information- and is doubtless being used by some civil servant right now in order to take control of the country... Why not start a bandwagon against this as well?

24 February 2011 at 11:24  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

I have a deep conviction that the state should keep it's nose out of my business and therefore want the census limited to the bare facts as I already stated earlier.

I do however have sympathy with what I think D Singh inferred, that it might be good for Christianity if we all declare our affiliation and I'm sure that people of my generation(born in the 60's) have mostly been Christened and are therefore technically Christian.

24 February 2011 at 11:24  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Lord Lavendon

‘… why not simply oppose the whole census?’

We must not throw out the baby with the bath water.

State policy-makers should know some information about their populations. That will enable good administration. For example, the size of sewers a particular location is likely to need: we must not get to the stage where we are calculating population densities by measuring the volume of effluent flowing.

24 February 2011 at 11:38  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Anyone ticking the Christian box should be ticking to say that they believe Jesus was god-become-man who died, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and is their personal saviour interceding between god and their sins. Isn't that what Christian truly means?

Ticking to say that they hope some sort of benevolent-to-humanity deity exists who might think they were good enough on balance to enter some sort of heaven-like spirtual state is as much Islam and Christianity isn't it?

I was Christened into the Church of England as a baby but I don't believe in the Christian god now. I will not be married in a Church of England and I probably won't be interred in their graveyards when I die. Of what use is any of that information to the State?

I'd rather the question be removed so that we don't have the usual pointless use of the census information by Christians to try to justify hanging onto their special political privileges. Let's use (say) monthly church attendence for the numbers of Christians in the UK and be done with it.

24 February 2011 at 11:59  
Anonymous Indigo said...

@D. Singh 24 February 2011 10:51

We are not yet at the level of persecution of Christians that drove Huguenots out of their country, or the Pilgrim Fathers to the Americas, or the Russian Christians underground

The point is why make it easy for the State to ‘persecute’ us?

This I do know from personal experience: the easiest time to oppose and withstand oppression is at the very outset. If you roll over and accept the first beating, it emboldens the oppressors and frightens/silences those who would have stood with you. And we have to stand up for each other. Recently, just after that couple who ran the B&B were taken to court by two gays who had clearly set out to stitch them up, I felt I had to jump on one of our prominent local gays when he posted a vindictive message on Twitter. He's gone very quiet since then.

24 February 2011 at 12:23  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

I just think the census is a total waste of money as government departments already have most of the information demanded. As I said in my own blog , I suppose that we are lucky they can't manage to get it all together in one place. Nevertheless I propose to do the maximum that I can to make life difficult, and I hope that the government has a fixed price contract with the company processing the data. My abysmal hand writing together with lots of alterations and corrections, combined with plenty of blots should make computer reading of the form impossible. Careful misuse of the facts - I say there are two bedrooms because there are only beds in two rooms but an estate agent would see four.
I have never found any subject before in which so many blogs, which would normally offer a very wide range of views, are in virtually total agreement.

24 February 2011 at 12:38  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

@ indigo, above.
I fully agree, why make it easy for someone who might wish to persecute you?
I've just been told by a Jewish friend that she's been advised (presumably by her local synagogue) not to give any indication of her Jewishness. The fear is that the information could get into the hand of extremists now, or even be used in the future by some extremist Hitler style Islamic government to hunt down her descendants.

24 February 2011 at 12:52  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Indigo

'This I do know from personal experience: the easiest time to oppose and withstand oppression is at the very outset. If you roll over and accept the first beating, it emboldens the oppressors and frightens/silences those who would have stood with you'.

I agree.

That is what the great Russian Christian dissident Alexander Solzhenitsyn would have advocated.

24 February 2011 at 12:55  
Blogger Gnostic said...

They'll get the equivalent of my name, rank and serial number. All other qustions will be answered with - I don't understand the question. As in, I don't understand what the buggering hell this has to do with you.

As far as I know it is not yet illegal to appear somewhat lacking in the IQ department. After all, it works wonders for our MPs.

24 February 2011 at 13:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Simply don't return the census. Unless you specifically flag yourself up as a refusenik the chances of being fined or whatever are almost zero.

If you're not willing to do this, you agree with the state in principle and are only haggling over price.

24 February 2011 at 13:33  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

- Yes, but maybe we hace to stand up and say who we are even though this may bring persecution, or facilitate future persecuters.
- DanJO: "special political privileges" - yes, but I bet you're o k with the atheists/
secularists/
materialists (the minority in this country) getting all the special political privileges, as they do at present.

24 February 2011 at 13:43  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

DanJO said 24 February 2011 11:59

"Anyone ticking the Christian box should be ticking to say that they believe Jesus was god-become-man who died, rose from the dead, ascended to heaven, and is their personal saviour interceding between god and their sins. Isn't that what Christian truly means?"

Are you sure that some actually believe this 'god-become-man', I think there are a few 'christian cults' who may disagree on your loose rendition!


Maybe a bit pedantic as well, perhaps.

The Secularist mantra must always be stated as 'It's nothing personal, it's only business!
'
Where will your implied statement lead..

Next you will be asking for all christian denominations/reformed/unreformed/disassociated/unaligned etc, etc to have their own likkle box.

Ticking the Islam box? Do you believe Mohammed was a prophet, stoning and beheading is appropriate for disenfranchised infidel's, Sharia knows best etc, etc. Oops, I can see problems here, DanJO.

Where will it all lead...

Secularists and atheist being given their own boxes with sub sections. Dawkins would need 500 pages just to lay out an opening statement. Could be tricky?

"I was Christened into the Church of England as a baby but I don't believe in the Christian god now. I will not be married in a Church of England and I probably won't be interred in their graveyards when I die."
Goodness me, my poor sweet boy, your 'hatred' is barely concealed. Ernst is too scared to ask what happened!

"I'd rather the question be removed so that we don't have the usual pointless use of the census information by Christians to try to justify hanging onto their special political privileges. Let's use (say) monthly church attendence for the numbers of Christians in the UK and be done with it."

State your own twisted, rational and obviously unbiased opinion of WHO they are and WHAT they believe, then 'Tuck them up like a kipper' based on YOUR own argument/definition, not theirs. Very Impressive!!

You are a cunning little rascal Operative DanJO;-) 1010. Remind me NEVER to underestimate you again.


Ernst

24 February 2011 at 13:53  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

John Thomas: "yes, but I bet you're ok with the atheists/ secularists/ materialists (the minority in this country) getting all the special political privileges, as they do at present."

I'm not sure to be honest. Would you name a few of the special political privileges and I'll let you know. Thanks in advance.

24 February 2011 at 14:08  
Anonymous Socrates said...

@ernstblofeld said 13:53

Danjo merely is asking for a fair approach to what people put down on a form so the information collected is correct.

Surely this is only fair?

24 February 2011 at 14:17  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Ernst, Christianity inherently implies the man-god thing just like Islam implies monotheism with Mohammed as the final prophet. A belief in trans-substantiation is one difference between Catholicism and the Protestantism (I think) but they are both Christian because that core belief is the same. Jehovah Witnesses are not Christians because they do not believe in the core theme of Jesus as a facet of one god.

It's rather like the relationship of the class of horse to the class of quadruped. That a zebra has four legs does not mean it is a horse but both a horse and a zebra are quadrupeds because they both satisfy the necessary condition of being a qudruped: having four legs. The necessary condition of being Christian is the belief in Jesus as a facet of god instantiated as man for a specific purpose. Hope this helps.

Let's face it, if you don't believe that Jesus is your personal saviour then St Peter is not going to be checking the 2011 census form and opening the Pearly Gates if you have made a tick in the Christian box, is he? The rest is fluff compared to that belief.

24 February 2011 at 14:26  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

'I was Christened into the Church of England as a baby but I don't believe in the Christian god now'.

What happened DanJO?

Why do you keep kicking Jesus?

24 February 2011 at 14:27  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Socrates said 24 February 2011 14:17

Hello old fellow. What a surprise that one of the greatest exponent of western philosophy and ethics should make an appearance.

We have not heard from you for few millenia.

Fair IF he was only referring to all religion but he shows his predisposition towards one in particular, hence my pointing out this salient fact to the rascal.

This is why I pointed out he had gone 'Off message' as 'It's nothing personal, it's only business! is how it should best be rendered to the masses.

Once that mask slips, you enlighten your enemies and all is then lost, in a moment. Very Sloppy!

Nice hearing from you. Don't be a stranger.

Ernst

ps

Greece is not doing very well at the moment old chap, they might need your 'words of wisdom' about life pretty soon.

24 February 2011 at 14:34  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

DanJO said 24 February 2011 14:26


"Let's face it, if you don't believe that Jesus is your personal saviour then St Peter is not going to be checking the 2011 census form and opening the Pearly Gates (Are you sure you were CoE and not RCC, dear boy, it's irrelevant to me. A freudian slip?) if you have made a tick in the Christian box, is he?

The rest is fluff compared to that belief.(Yet you fight quite vigorously when the 'superstitious bunch' here try to inform your opinions and non beliefs).
Live and let die...Oops live, is better if you believe in the secularist mantra, correct?"

I am seriously considering having a few sharp words with Dawkins, as he appears to be inflaming the passions of several of my operatives and the masks are now slipping. Not good for business.

Give him a few paragraphs and he takes 10 volumes!

Irma, get on it.

Ernst

24 February 2011 at 14:57  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

"The rest is fluff compared to that belief.(Yet you fight quite vigorously when the 'superstitious bunch' here try to inform your opinions and non beliefs)."

Have you absorbed the idea of hierarchical classes yet, Ernst? One can argue about the differences between (say) Catholics and Methodists but people just accept that they're flavours of being Christian because they recognise the idea of a base class and derived classes.

We can happily argue about the various types of atheist or what being agnostic means but we know for sure that both are not Christian. To say an agnostic is a Christian is a category error and arguments about (say) Christian pacifism versus 'muscular' Christianity are not valid.

24 February 2011 at 15:28  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

DanJO said 24 February 2011 15:28

"Have you absorbed the idea of hierarchical classes yet" Dear boy, you confuse one kind with another!

"One can argue about the differences between (say) Catholics and Methodists ( religion/beliefs) but people just accept that they're flavours of being Christian because they recognise the idea of a base class and derived classes (This is called Status, a world of difference).

Are you seriously stating that your class informs and therefore decides your beliefs..My dear fellow, Atheists/Secularists are as likely to come from rich or poor as the Religious are. Your argument is flawed.

This is called Status and must not be confused with personal beliefs or the lack of them.

If you hate religion, state it but your reasons are seriously flawed and defined by your 'Self Justified Rebellion'. This is your choice as much as the religious exercise their choice.

"because they recognise the idea of a base class and derived classes." nonsensical, my sweet boy.

"To say an agnostic is a Christian is a category error and arguments about (say) Christian pacifism versus 'muscular' Christianity are not valid." But THEY state such for their own reasons, should someone tell you how or complete a category for you as they 'understand you better'!

Just awaiting the declaration from you that need a big cuddle.

Uncle Ernst

24 February 2011 at 16:12  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Well, as long as we know that when someone ticks the 'Christian' box in the census they may mean 'British' or 'likes cricket as long as the players wear white' or 'not Muslim' or 'agnostic' or 'was christened at one point' or 'likes listening to the Sally Army band once in a while' or, god forbid, 'believes Jesus was a facet of god' then we know where we stand as far as the number of Christians in the UK is concerned. That is, we know the numbers in the census are useless as a measure of that.

24 February 2011 at 16:31  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Now Uncle Ernst is REALLY concerned for you, my lad.

"Well, as long as we know that when someone ticks the 'Christian' box in the census they may mean 'British' or 'likes cricket as long as the players wear white' or 'not Muslim' or 'agnostic' or 'was christened at one point' or 'likes listening to the Sally Army band once in a while' (You are beginning to sound like the nazi fanatics that occasionally frequent this blog but informed from a secularist perspective. A worrying development, DanJO, as you appear to paint as 'broad a stroke with a brush' for others different from you as them)

or, god forbid, 'believes Jesus was a facet of god' then we know where we stand as far as the number of Christians in the UK is concerned."

You truly despise one religious belief, in particular, making no attempt to hide it. Ever so worrying, DanJO.

"That is, we know the numbers in the census are useless as a measure of that."

The offer of an Ernsty, manly 'cuddle' still stands, you poor boy.

Uncle Ernst

24 February 2011 at 16:46  
Anonymous Voyager said...

s far as the number of Christians in the UK is concerned. That is, we know the numbers in the census are useless as a measure of that.

Funnily enough it is useless as a measure of the number of persons in the United Kingdom.

The Bible however had a better Census - called by Caesar Augustus whereby everyone returned to the place where the head of household was born.....that seems like a sound basis for a Census rather than multiple choice questions

24 February 2011 at 16:53  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

The question about visitors is quite interesting. They want to know who usually lives in your UK dwelling and they want to know the name of anyone who is staying overnight on the census night together with their usual UK address, sex, and date of birth.

The religion question looks like this:

20 What is your religion? (This question is voluntary)
• No religion
• Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all
other Christian denominations)
• Buddhist
• Hindu
• Jewish
• Muslim
• Sikh
• Any other religion, write in

What if all you Christian types identify yourselves as Muslim for the night? The data would hit the headlines for sure and it might cause a huge controversy?

24 February 2011 at 17:51  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

DanJO said 24 February 2011 17:51

You refuse to accept Ernsty cuddle offer. Understand, my boy, too painful to hold in mind, so we shall move on from said imagined 'traumatic incident'.

"What if all you Christian types identify yourselves as Muslim for the night? The data would hit the headlines for sure and it might cause a huge controversy?"

You make a very interesting argument for 'tossing a spanner' in the works, by scaring the Gov into believing the UK has become Sharia property overnight.

Believeable? hardly my dear boy!

Ernst's response it to tell them to stick it. What business is it of theirs.
Hence why I always ensure my crater is secretly located, away from prying eyes. (Council tax free, hurrah!)

My biggest nightmare is the crater's bell ringing and one of my minions telling me that someone is at the door, wondering why I have not completed the Consensus form and requiring me to now go to the entrance of my hideout, to complete it over the doorway.

It's just NOT going to happen, dear boy, as the last person found out to their cost, who stubbled up my dormant volcano.

Interesting proposition though.

Clever boy, 1 star granted, for having such a vivid imagination!

Ernst

24 February 2011 at 18:17  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DanJo @ 11:59 : Tollund Man ...

If you're looking for a suitable burial plot, non-affiliated, of course, then I'll do you a good deal on a area of upland bog that I own. Guaranteed no worms, as it's far too acidic. Suits you Sir, suits you!

24 February 2011 at 18:22  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Thank you but I'm considering being buried in concrete outside my local Tesco with my bum in the air. Great for a bike rack, I think.

Alternatively, we have a natural burial ground nearby where one is buried in a willow or cardboard coffin with no grave marker in a wood. That would suit.

Actually, I may in fact end up in my parish churchyard where the ashes of all the rest of my family are interred. I don't care a hoot really. I'll be dead by then.

24 February 2011 at 18:33  
Anonymous not a machine said...

The census was always deemed a useful snapshot of the population and actvitives for government to glean some idea on future requirments . Given that information on people is now available on a variety of sources the imperative of the census have perhaps wained although I would add that this cenusus may show somthing of what has happened during the Labour years , not that may make us all smile.

The idea that placing ones religion on census is meaningless is a little unfair as in terms of opinion measurement athiest is just as notable as Christian , Hindu , muslim ,jew and jedi .

If the new concern is that goverments and other organisations now have more information on you than you would like , and you yearn for the days when your lifes details were less well known , it will be very difficult to go back .

People of course have adjusted to this new era of frauds and deceptions , but I dont know if they are happier , and it has perhaps created a new breed of criminal who is looking for the right victim . I doubt if you can change the morality for if £million frauds occure with little legal justice , in our banks what deters the small fraud.

You may then consider the broader question of where does morality and keeping of the law come from ? and if its somthing beyond lip service . The traditional notion of the law being sharply focused and punishment adminstered depending on how much one can be shown to have strayed , was a fear that everyone understood , but when the law becomes somthing for lawyers alone and the church neglects the laws role in national life (is the law not spiritually defined?) ,it ceases to be somthing of the substance of its people .
morality adminsitered by a process is perhaps different to that administered by moral persons .The judges that used to make the headlines seem to have largely dissappered and yet they often used to take time to explain law considerations to people , and its meanings of and for good . It was english spoken , soveriegn and subject to parliament .the EU nonsense/franchise has not really done much for making things clear , even the 500 euro note was the choice of the international fraudster.

24 February 2011 at 18:34  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Not A Machine tried to comment about 18.30

Such a shame it disappeared as it was a wise reflection.

Ernst

24 February 2011 at 18:41  
Anonymous Voyager said...

What if all you Christian types identify yourselves as Muslim for the night?

Since you favour lying on the Census you could describe yourself as such......"Christian types" 9sic) "Muslim" 9sic non-types no doubt.

You are readily insolent

24 February 2011 at 19:30  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

In English please, Voyager. Consider it practice for question 19 of the census.

24 February 2011 at 19:44  
Blogger Windsor Tripehound said...

DanJ0 said...
The religion question looks like this:

20 What is your religion? (This question is voluntary)
• No religion
• Christian (including Church of England, Catholic, Protestant and all
other Christian denominations) ...


And there was I thinking that Anglicans were protestants.

24 February 2011 at 19:44  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Dear Capitis Diminutio Maxima tell me what a slave believes?

I believe liberation from privation is a God given right.

24 February 2011 at 20:03  
Anonymous DerekS said...

As a non-practicing Agnostic I have simply written "N/A" in the past.

24 February 2011 at 20:48  
Anonymous not a machine said...

I am too tired to try and explain to Danjo , that indeed you can chart a course to the edge of reason.

However I will ask him/her an innocent question : what use is the law to an 18 month old child ?

are all functions/actions of a human subject to law under non religous constructs.

Ernst and I thought it was spectre again

24 February 2011 at 21:40  
Blogger srizals said...

Ernst on 24 February 2011 13:53 said "stoning and beheading is appropriate for disenfranchised infidel's."

Please refrain yourself from lying about Islam, if not, a duel is inevitable between you and me. If you are man enough.

Why do you keep on writing your name after commenting? Your name is already on top of it. It's annoying. Stop it.

24 February 2011 at 23:53  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Imagine there's no heaven, it's easy if you try.

No Hell below us, above us only sky.

Imagine all the people living for today.

Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do.

Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too.

Imagine all the people living in peace.

I know I'm just a dreamer, but I'm not the only one.

I hope some day you will join us, and the world will be as one.

I would like you to imagine that the above words were written by a satanist, wife beater, abusively neglectful father, who was also a serial sex and periodic drug addict, money grabbing, over ambitious bread-head.

Ok, you do not have to imagine anything of the kind, because that was exactly the kind of person who wrote these words. Although I am sure JL was not all bad, as very few human beings ever are.

IMO It is very difficult to imagine a world without religion, while their are still fully conscious human being living on it.

Perhaps JL had universal genocide and/or mass hypnosis on his agenda, who knows?

Of course the real questions are not whether the majority are atheists or not, the questions are, IS THERE A DIVINE CREATOR, or is there not, and if there is, SO WHAT?

We are told that 2 world wars less then 100 years ago, which claimed many more innocent victims then all previous recorded wars added together, had nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with political ideology, and Imperial competition.

Of course as usual they were lying to us. The real reason for the last two world wars, was the same as all of the rest. Which was the concentration of GOLD, and so ultimately power in the hands of fewer and fewer people/ruling elite families.

THEREFORE

A world living as one in peace and harmony will be achieved one day.

Unfortunately for millions, if not several billions of human beings, it will only be allowed to happen when the there is only one religion,(theirs) one world government,(one they utterly control) living under one ruler,(one they select) who also owns all of the Gold,(but only in name). While the common people own absolutely nothing whatsoever, including sovereignty over their own conscious minds, children, or any other aspects of their existence.

Therefore the lessen for today is;

Beware wolves in sheep's clothing singing pretty sounding songs, or claiming to be 'whiter then white' especially those who own brand new white Rolls Royce's, or become officially Roman Catholic, shortly after leaving office.

25 February 2011 at 04:35  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Blimey.

25 February 2011 at 05:59  
Anonymous len said...

Everyone practices a religion of some sort.
But it is a wise man who knows which God/god he serves.

25 February 2011 at 08:11  
Blogger srizals said...

Len,

A wiser man would not want to have anything to do with terror and destruction of human lives and their livelihood to prove his religion is right. How wrong can he get?

25 February 2011 at 14:31  
Anonymous P. Burgess said...

Cranmer, you incorrectly characterise the position of the BHA as "if you are not 'practising' a religion, you are not religious, so you should tick the 'No Religion' box. For them, 'belief' doesn't come into it. "

I believe you are quite wrong. The BHA's position is that if you are neither practising *nor* believing then it is inappropriate to tick a box identifying you with a religion merely because you have interpreted the question as being about either:
a. an accident of birth/cultural affiliation (e.g born in a Christian country)
b. initiated as a child by your parents into a religion (e.g christened)


That sounds eminently appropriate to me and remarkably uncontroversial. Why get so hot under the collar unless it's simply because you fear that the artificial inflation of the numbers adhering to religion will be unmasked by the census?

25 February 2011 at 15:25  
Anonymous P. Burgess said...

From the BHA website:

"We now need to encourage people who do not have religious beliefs to answer the question more carefully: too many people who have not been near a Church for many years and have no religious beliefs still have a ‘Church of England reflex’ when faced with an official form and their responses undoubtedly inflated the 'religious' figure arising from the 2001 census. "

The ease with which I came upon this information and the obvious care with which Cranmer usually takes to get his facts right leads to me to suspect deliberate disinginuity on his part. To avoid such suspicion perhaps Cranmer would publically correct himself and go on to explain what is so awful about the BHA actual stance rather than Cranmer's caricature.

25 February 2011 at 15:37  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

An Amusingly Moustached Icon blurted 24 February 2011 23:53

"Why do you keep on writing your name after commenting? Your name is already on top of it.'It called 'Etiquette/Manners', young man'

It's annoying. Stop it. 'Not Ernst's intention, however every cloud, dear boy, every cloud' "

You remind me of one of those nice foreign chappies that usually 'Buys It' from 007 within Bond's opening 5 minute sequence.

Ta, Ta, film fodder.

More etiquette/manners, my long- winded barbarian!

Ernst

25 February 2011 at 16:28  
Anonymous Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

Not A Machine said 24 February 2011 21:40

"Ernst and I thought it was spectre again"

They wouldn't dare, old boy, without Ernst's giving the nod. As Irma is such a stickler for following protocol, I seriously doubt any operative would consider testing her resolve either.

Anyway, glad it re-appeared. I liked it the first time, my dear fellow.

Ernst

25 February 2011 at 16:37  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Srizals @23:53:

What-ho old chap!

It is very difficult to 'tell lies about Islam' as from its very conception (invention) it has been guilty of almost everything imaginable. Guilty of following Mohammed's creed, that is, and not merely guilty of over-enthusiasm, or misunderstanding.

To 'tell a lie about Islam' I'd be reduced to saying something like: Mohammed was a good man...Islam is a religion of peace etc.

If you ever do cath me saying any such thing, forget the ''duel'' and just shoot me in the head!

25 February 2011 at 17:54  
Anonymous Oswin said...

That's 'catch' & not ''cath'' ... I hate it when that happens!

25 February 2011 at 17:57  
Blogger Ernst Stavro Blofeld said...

An Amusingly Moustached Foreign Chappie whined 25 February 2011 16:28

Happy Now!

25 February 2011 at 20:22  
Blogger srizals said...

Ah, much better, Ernst, but I don't like the way you petting your cat; it looks like the hands of Doctor Evil in some Inspector Gadget's scene or something. You're not him, are you?

Oswin, a man can say whatever he wants to. Backing them up with solid evidences and examples to support his arguments is something else. For you, I'll provide this link about the one that died on the cross. The heritage goes longer back in history than D Singh could have ever imagined. Len might not like the paganism element involved. Non Mouse would constantly be in the state of denial, as most are.

Zeitgeist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNf-P_5u_Hw

I have not encountered any counter measure by any Christians even until now, except denial without refuting them with evidences and examples. Hope you can. As for the abundant lies against Islam, I have almost all the answers refuting them in the web links in my blog, if I can't find them or think they are not enough, I'll use my own neurons to assist me. The answers were not refuted by anyone, convincingly, as the allegations themselves in the first place.

For example, the only culture and religion that specifically had torture as their norm is Christianity and White Caucasians. It was instrumental only to them; Narni was one great, recent example. Gaza, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo are their continuum.

Second, the only religion and culture that killed civilians/dissidents horribly was/is based on Christianity and White Caucasians. The only creature that used weapon of mass destruction on civilians instead of heavily armed armies was not man as many scientists would suggest. I reject being generalised with them. We should narrow down the category for better understanding.

The major culprits in exploiting sex to corrupt the human race while profiting on them without shame, are none other, well, you guessed it right, Ernst.

All these events were not isolated instances nor did they happen in a short lapse of time, definitely not limited occurrences. They were wide spread, consistent and had a long life span.

The only religious institution tarred by sexual scandals worldwide is based on Christianity and White Caucasians as do major paedophiles, worldwide too, in the past and even now.

It is better to focus on your own religion and culture than trying to defile others. You may not like the end result.

The only new sect of religion born out of a king's desire to divorce his queen and marry another was also based on Christianity and a specific identifiable race.

True, some would say these examples were committed by criminals. The only problem is that they were not considered by criminals by the majority of their culture and religion. Most remained in powerful and luxurious position, Scot free even he's English. Some would not dare to go to certain countries in fear of indictment, of course.

Oswin, please provide the examples and evidences that you have as proof against Islam. If I can, I'll address them here or in my blog. Elegant silence is no longer the rule of the day. It would only be showing the obvious.

Last but not least, the region of Caucasus that was said as the origin of Whites had not been Christians for a long time now. They even survived Stalin and the Gulag. As all the same people that believed as they had believed. It made them indestructible. No matter what the tyrants and their democratic compatriots did and do to them. The Aryans and the ten lost tribes of Israel are not Christians too. They are now battling the Western occupying forces, defending their beloved motherland of Afghanistan and Pakistan, outgunned as always. Undefeated as always. They are the master race remember?

http://www.white-history.com/hwr5c.htm

http://ohr.edu/ask_db/ask_main.php/329/Q1/

26 February 2011 at 02:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

srizals: Total gibberish. To take one example of what you say, which religious sect was born out of a king's desire? I hope you don't mean Protestantism as this pre-dates Henry. The Church of England is a Protestant church.

Have you actually read the Koran? I doubt it if you have or you wouldn't claim Islam to be a non-violent creed. Beating women, cutting off hands, killing non-Muslims as a quick route to paradise, telling lies to unbelievers, having no unbeliever friends, hatred of Jews, not supporting unbelievers against a Muslim no matter if he is wrong etc etc. Mohammed went with a young girl and most Caucasians would call him a paedophile. It is easy to claim Muslims are not paedophiles when Islam makes it acceptabel. I note that we have quite a lot of Pakistani paedophiles in this country or don't they count?

You are delusional.

26 February 2011 at 15:12  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Srizals @ 02:29 :

Haven't we done this before old chap? I seem to recall you saying so yourself, yes?

It cannot have escaped your notice that your revered prophet does not stand too close a scrutiny? I think I've said before: bandit, con-man, war-leader, murderer, extortionist, womaniser and, possibly worse still, yes?

Each and all accusations have been put to you before, with all relevent references supplied, which you have never addressed, but sought to bamboozle with your inimitable, and wide-ranging smoke-screen of bluster, blether and piffle.

I hope, old bean, that you and your family are well?

26 February 2011 at 18:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Presumably the silly rizzla person is linguistically challenged overall, not just in English. His absence of logic reaches beyond the mechanical - as when he pontifies:
"It is better to focus on your own religion and culture than trying to defile others. You may not like the end result."
These sentences are functional if unconnected, and presumably he echoes them without further reflection. Willy nilly is, indeed, his method for assembling the decoupage that he fondly credits as research.

The smoke from his sizzling cigarette paper may blind this non-communicant, and so he ignores the body of His Grace's present post. On the other hand, perhaps there's less behind the cobbler's mask than even I suppose, for he betrays no understanding of either what he reads, or what he writes.

If he's located where he claims to be, one likes to imagine that he will not receive a Census form --

Nevertheless, my message to this Other is: "Mind Your Own."

26 February 2011 at 19:45  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

The pagans are even out campaigning now:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12589641

"Wiccans, druids, shamans, sacred ecologists, odinists and heathens all make up parts of the Pagan community."

27 February 2011 at 05:46  
Anonymous srizals said...

Oswin, those are allegations, not proof. The family's fine. Thank you for asking. How's yours?
Oswin, A man that reacts to situations at hand must be judged by the situations that exist around him at that time. For example, you're not going to kill anyone around you in where you live since you're not at war. No one is trying to kill you and your loved ones, confiscated your belongings, driving you out from your home, stripping you to the bone, literally. You are not in a state of war nor being threaten constantly to annihilation by greater, cruel foes that find torturing and killing as amusing. So you don’t have to confiscate the belongings of your enemy to stop their ability to destroy you while financing your own defence effort after exhaustive oral defence. The West took it further by introducing the concept of total war, which literally means, everyone and everything has to perish in order to destroy the enemy’s capabilities to make war. They don’t like it when the terrorists copied their total war concept though. The West had adopted the same oral defence by reminding the Germans that the Nazi had been lying to them that they cannot win the war and foremost they would not relent. And millions of Germans perished after the war was over, everyone, even those who do not agree with Hitler. Only the smart Nazis would live on lavishly in the US to err, help with NASA and all.

Anon at 15:12,
You don't even know your own church history. Read first and maybe we'll talk later. Give yourself an identity. Stop being a brave anonymous commenter. I don’t think you know the characteristics of a paedophile. A paedophile exploits, dehumanises and tends to kill his victims to satisfy his sick needs! A husband does not. A victim suffers in humiliation and resents his/her torturer. A wife is respected, honoured and treated with dignity in what is resented by most nowadays, by most Westerners, a decent legal family unit. A wife does not suffer anything as a victim has suffered.

The Christian Byzantium royals practised young marriages, and even your past Christian king! I'll be careful if I were you. You might end up saying bad things about your own royalty and decent Christian’s history. However, these are the only documented events in history we know of. Most will never be known. Interestingly, the likely ages for a young woman to marry in the West then were not like today. Most importantly, a girl is not a girl when she is a woman. If you don't understand this, ask any scientist, better, a biologist. The late age of marriage nowadays are the result of none other but the availability of contraceptive pills and modernity requirements. Everything is too expensive and overly priced since most can only eat millions and billions of money. We need to have lots of papers and plastics to live nowadays to feed their greed. A thousand years ago, we would have been stoned to death for not paying our bills with gold and silver.

27 February 2011 at 17:53  
Anonymous srizals said...

Oswin, those are allegations, not proof. The family's fine. Thank you for asking. How's yours?
Oswin, A man that reacts to situations at hand must be judged by the situations that exist around him at that time. For example, you're not going to kill anyone around you in where you live since you're not at war. No one is trying to kill you and your loved ones, confiscated your belongings, driving you out from your home, stripping you to the bone, literally. You are not in a state of war nor being threaten constantly to annihilation by greater, cruel foes that find torturing and killing as amusing. So you don’t have to confiscate the belongings of your enemy to stop their ability to destroy you while financing your own defence effort after exhaustive oral defence. The West took it further by introducing the concept of total war, which literally means, everyone and everything has to perish in order to destroy the enemy’s capabilities to make war. They don’t like it when the terrorists copied their total war concept though. The West had adopted the same oral defence by reminding the Germans that the Nazi had been lying to them that they cannot win the war and foremost they would not relent. And millions of Germans perished after the war was over, everyone, even those who do not agree with Hitler.

Anon at 15:12,
You don't even know your own church history. Read first and maybe we'll talk later. Give yourself an identity. Stop being a brave anonymous commentor. I don’t think you know the characteristics of a paedophile. A paedophile exploits, dehumanises and tends to kill his victims to satisfy his sick needs! A husband does not. A victim suffers in humiliation and resents his/her torturer. A wife is respected, honoured and treated with dignity in what is resented by most nowadays, by most Westerners, a decent legal family unit. A wife does not suffer anything as a victim has suffered.

The Christian Byzantium royals practised young marriages, and even your past Christian king! I'll be careful if I were you. You might end up saying bad things about your own royalty and decent Christian’s history. However, these are the only documented events in history we know of.

27 February 2011 at 17:56  
Anonymous srizals said...

Most will never be known. Interestingly, the likely ages for a young woman to marry in the West then were not like today. Most importantly, a girl is not a girl when she is a woman. If you don't understand this, ask any scientist, better, a biologist. The late age of marriage nowadays is the result of none other but the availability of contraceptive pills and modernity requirements. Everything is too expensive and overly priced since most can only eat millions and billions of money. We need to have lots of papers and plastics to live nowadays to feed their greed. A thousand years ago, we would have been stoned to death for not paying our bills with gold and silver.

The tendency of not marrying at all while living like a husband and wife is a widespread norm in most Christian based countries. It is never a norm in any Muslim based countries.

You said the prophet was a paedophile, so he’s a sadistic criminal. There must be victims (since a paedophile can’t stop at only a victim) that despised him, hated him so much that they would do anything to have justice and exposed his evil to the society, remember, a paedophile preys on little girls and boys and never marries them. (It was never a paedophile’s intention to be a good husband and older victims with proper bodily function cannot satisfy his manipulative and sadistic lust). Name me one victim if you can. If there is no victim, could there be a crime? Interestingly, do you know since when was this allegation started? Right after his marriage or a thousand years after? And we all age with time, so did Aisyah r.a. She grew wiser and older with her husband and continued his mission long after he’s return to the Lord’s mercy. No one dared to refute her since only a wife knew her husband better than anyone. Islam was preserved in this way despite conflicts that follow shortly after the prophet’s return to God’s mercy, as we all will, I pray.

Anon at 19:45,
Isn’t that what you're likely doing? Instead of addressing what I've raised, you just talk elegantly without any facts as comparison to refute me. A linguist I presume? Sorry for my mistake.

"It is better for us to focus on our own religion and culture than trying to defile others. We may not like the end result." There, I have amended the sentences. Thank you for reminding me.

27 February 2011 at 17:57  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

srizals:You are absolutely laughable. I know the history of the English church very well - you don't so don't "pontificate." You don't even seem to have read the Koran.

Contraception has little to do with the age of marriage. The minimum age of marriage is set by law and is well above what Mohammed considered acceptable when searching out young girls.

There are a lot of victims of Muslim paedophiles in this country. See recent cases of Muslim Pakistanis. As you are on the internet look up the meaning of paedophile as you obviously don't know it. For girls it seems to be accepted that the minimum definition is sex with pre-pubescent females. Obviously many Muslims commit much worse offences than this.

I used anonymous as I don't have a google account. Others use made up names. My real name, if it matters, is Hannam.

You claim a paedophile can't stop at one victim and never marries them. You seem very familiar with this! It is, however total nonsense. Are you really saying that if a Muslim rapes a 6 year old girl and then marries her 10 years later it wasn't a paedophile act? Complete nutter.

On victims: A young child may not know it is a victim so does that mean that Mohammed going with very young girls is not a paedophile act?

As I said before, delusional to which I add despicable and completely illogical.

28 February 2011 at 09:58  
Blogger srizals said...

Hannam,

Allow me to refer to the basis of a dominant religion familiar to you, since many Christians nowadays think that they have this Judea-Christian heritage,
1. “Child marriage was possible in Judaism, due to the very low marriageable age for females. A ketannah (literally meaning little [one]) was any girl between the age of 3 years and that of 12 years plus one day”
This article incorporates text from the 1901–1906 Jewish Encyclopedia article"Majority"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_marriage

2. Baptism, usually at birth, was the fundamental rite of incorporation into the body of Christ and the Church…Betrothal, sometimes as early as the age of five, marked another stage in the child’s social incorporation.
(Byzantine Studies: 2006 Spring Symposium, http://www.doaks.org/byz_2006_symposium_abstracts.html)

3. “It is not uncommon case, especially in France, for a girl of scarce ten years to be married and a mother next year. . . . It seems portentous, and yet we sometimes see it, especially in Britain and Italy, that a tender child is married to a septuagenarian [i.e. a man in his seventies]. . . . Yet Church laws do not rescind such nuptials”
Quoted in G.G. Coulton, Medieval Panorama (New York: MacMillan, 1944), 639

4. In the twelfth century, Pope Alexander III ruled:
If a girl of tender age is betrothed and delivered to her husband, and afterwards desires to marry a different man, her petition is not to be granted if her husband swears that he has had carnal knowledge of her even at the early age of eleven or twelve.
Quoted in John Fulton, The Laws of Marriage (New York: E. and J.B. Young, 1883), 112.

5. Roman law gave the minimum age for marriage as that of puberty which was 14 for boys and 12 for girls; these remained the legal age for marriage until the late 19th Century in Britain…There is however evidence that child marriages were reasonably common in North West England in the 16th century
(Marriage: Laws and Customs, http://www.isle-of- man.com/manxnotebook/famhist/genealgy/marr.htm)

6. Further arguments that I don't wish to repeat here,
http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.com/2010/12/mohammed-was-liberal-democrat.html

7. The origin of the word in dispute was coined in the 1950 -1955. It was not a problem before that I guess. The paedophiles had appeared and gave birth to the term we know of today.

1950–55; pedo-1 + -phile, or directly < Greek paidóphilos loving children
Dictionary.com Unabridged

8. In Britain, for example, among the most notorious of criminals are Ian Brady and Myra Hindley, who in the two years ending in 1965 murdered a number of children, whom they buried on Saddleworth Moor. The children were sexually assaulted and tortured before being killed. The prospect of their release produces considerable public outcry whenever it is mooted.
http://www.human-being.nl/Library/demonology.htm

1 March 2011 at 15:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

srizals: All irrelevant other than to show how laughable you are.

1. Judaism has nothing to do with me.

2. Byzantine? Give me a break. Betrothal was the promise of a FUTURE marriage and did not involve, as with Mohammed, paedophile acts.

3. English Church - so what has France to do with it? If people broke the law in NW England they should have been punished. Under Islam these acts are legal. That is the fundamental difference you are unable to understand.

4. There is no dispute on the meaning of the word paedophile. You just don't know what it is.

The rest are too irrelevant to deserve comment.

What have Brady and Hindley to do with it. Note that if you are trying to condemn English society this an appalling example. No Home Secretary dared release either as the public out cry would have been massive. Contrast this with the shameful defence by Muslims of Pakistani paedophiles (see MPAC UK) who tried to claim that the girls were to blame and the Muslim rapists were not.

I won't be coming back to this particular blog so write what ever nonsense you like as no-one will read it.


Hannam

2 March 2011 at 10:13  
Anonymous srizals said...

Wanwisa Janmuk of Thailand gave birth normally to a baby girl and her lawful marriage was accepted by her society and country.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

A white Caucasian sample,

http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/03/07/woman-23-worlds-youngest-grandmother/

A girl is not a girl after she becomes a woman, a lawful marriage is not a sadistic sexual crime, Hannam. See you.

8 March 2011 at 08:01  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older