Friday, June 24, 2011

Sunny Hundal: LIFE are 'religious nutjobs'

Sunny Hundal doesn't haven't much time for religion, and that's a matter for him. But when he dismisses LIFE - one of the country's foremost children's charities - as 'religious nutjobs', it calls for a little inquiry.

He made the remark in the context of the cross-party efforts of Frank Field and Nadine Dorries to ensure that women seking an abortion are provided with impartial and comprehensive information about the alternatives as well as the potential consequences. Presently, the Government only funds abortion providers if the abortion proceeds. And yet it is these same providers which are entrusted to counsel vulnerable and often emotional women before the procedure is carried out. There is no requirement in law for women to be informed about the alternatives, like adoption.

As Frank Field pointed out: "This is a clear conflict of interest that would not be allowed anywhere else, because the clinic will not receive the large fee for carrying out the abortion if the woman decides not to go ahead with it. My proposal is not closing down choice, but promoting choice – because women will receive independent advice about their options."


Clearly, this slightly irritates Sunny Hundal, who detects a conspiracy to usurp BPAS and replace them with LIFE. To him, BPAS are the enlightened ones; LIFE are the 'religious nutjobs'.

What do these nutjobs do? From their website:
LIFE exists to save lives and transform the futures of some of the most disadvantaged children and young people in the UK by supporting vulnerable pregnant mothers and young families through difficult times, offering them the help they need to turn their lives around.

The activities we undertake to realise this vision fall under four broad programmes:

•Housing - Residential centres providing supported accommodation and access to skills training for pregnant homeless young women aged between 16-25 yrs;

•Care - A network of Care Centres offering non-directive counselling for anyone facing a crisis pregnancy, suffering the loss of a baby or coping with the after-effects of abortion. Also provision of free baby clothes, equipment or other practical support to families in difficulty;

•Education - Education Officers working in partnership with schools to provide young people with up-to-date, evidence-based information on abortion, stem cell research, sexual health and other related topics;

•FertilityCare - The UK's leading centre giving women a more natural alternative to traditional fertility treatment, which has just seen the successful birth of its 100th baby!
LIFE's mission is to uphold the utmost respect for human life from fertilisation (conception) until natural death. They fulfil this mission by:
•Offering non-directive counselling and information on pregnancy, pregnancy loss and abortion;
•Offering practical and emotional support to help women continue their pregnancy and supporting them for as long afterwards as necessary;
•Offering counselling and support for women and men damaged by abortion;
•Offering counselling and support for women and men suffering as a result of pregnancy loss;
•Offering information and support on adoption;
•Providing a nationwide network of supported accommodation for pregnant women and/or mothers of small children;
•Educating the public, but most importantly young people, about the rights and dignity of each person;
•Offering fertility treatment for married couples and women's healthcare and natural fertility management for all;
•Acting as an advocate at national and international level for the rights and dignity of each person from fertilisation (conception) until natural death and challenging governments and policy makers to adopt policies which reflect and uphold the utmost respect for human life from fertilisation until natural death.
If this makes one a 'religious nutjob', His Grace is proud to be one. He might have hoped that such an important debate would have been conducted in a more grown-up fashion with mature reason and argument. Apparently, that is not Sunny Hundal's way.

So His Grace will leave it to his communicants to call Mr Hundal whatever childish names they wish.

106 Comments:

Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

Could someone please genuinely explain how a body with a proclaimed anti-abortion stance goes about "offering non-directive counselling and information on pregnancy, pregnancy loss and abortion".

And before anyone leaps to conclusions as to my views on this topic I would suggest that they don't.

24 June 2011 at 15:29  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Difficult choice ... religious nutjobs or psychopathic child-killers? Which ones offer the most impartial information on "pregnancy, pregnancy loss & abortion".

24 June 2011 at 15:36  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Wow. Frank Field a religious nutjob.LOL.

Then I am not ashamed to say ' Old Ernst is A Religious Nutjob'.

Ernsty, my peeps.

24 June 2011 at 16:07  
Anonymous Caroline Farrow said...

Non-directive counselling is just that. It helps someone confirm that a certain course of action is the right one. LIFE counsellors are all BCAP accredited so they have to be impartial otherwise they would lose their accreditation.

Counselling should never ever tell anyone what they should or must do. It is there to provide all sides of the debate, so that empowered with all the facts a person may choose a certain course of action. Pro-abort advocates don't like the idea of counselling because it reinforces that abortion is a serious business, the deliberate ending of a life with potential physical & emotional consequences.

Counselling will affirm some people in their decision to abort, for others it may help them to see that there is an alternative. Either way, unless women have all the information and options available laid out for them, how can their choice truly be a valid one?

24 June 2011 at 16:07  
Blogger thestreetman said...

Your Grace,

Never be surprised by the venal, cruel stupidity of the Left. Indeed, take it as read.

24 June 2011 at 16:31  
Blogger Albert said...

As Frank Field pointed out: "This is a clear conflict of interest that would not be allowed anywhere else, because the clinic will not receive the large fee for carrying out the abortion if the woman decides not to go ahead with it. My proposal is not closing down choice, but promoting choice – because women will receive independent advice about their options."

In objecting to that, Sunny Hundal appears to have given the game away: pro-choice is not pro-choice after all. On what platform do they then stand? Pro-death?

24 June 2011 at 16:31  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

Caroline

Thank you - I agree non directive counselling sounds like most women would want so that they can make their minds up for themselves - and the last thing they probably want is a political debate about the moral rights and wrongs of abortion. Even if you leave aside the question of whether taking a life is right or wrong abortion would be a serious matter for the other reasons you detail.

I am still concerned as to how any organisation which takes an overall position on the rights and wrongs of abortion (in either direction) can ensurre that such a view does not colour its non directional counselling. In my experience "Chinese walls" are never very effective in the financial sector so I'm not sure why they woudl work here.

24 June 2011 at 16:32  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Religious Nutjobs sounds like a term that I might have used myself but for once I agree with Cranmer that many of the aims of Life whilst no doubt motivated by religious belief are benign and humane. Also I have high regard for Frank Field and his suggestion of “promoting choice” seems reasonable.

As I have said previously on these pages I think abortion is morally unacceptable but practically still necessary (lesser of evils) and our aim should be to reduce it to the smallest possible number. Modern contraception should eliminate the majority of unwanted pregnancies so it is the education of young people that has failed. Not simply sex education but giving them a sense of personal responsibility and clear understanding of the personal and social implications of unwanted pregnancies.

I am not happy with the “until natural death.” bit which clearly aimed at constraining the right of anyone to control the timing and manner of their own death. Although I personally couldn’t envisage wanting to end my own life (despite Mr Singh’s generous offer of help) I fully respect the wishes of those who do.

24 June 2011 at 16:36  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Name calling is best avoided, but since you ask: would "vegetarian nutjob" be a better match than "strong environmentalist nutjob"?

He was pleased yesterday to parade his foolishness about free speech (on his pickled politics website): perhaps "censorship nutjob".

24 June 2011 at 16:37  
Blogger Albert said...

Graham,

morally unacceptable but practically still necessary

If practical necessity is allowed to trump morality, then on what standards do you decide when something is morally necessary?

Not moral ones presumably.

24 June 2011 at 16:42  
Anonymous Caedmon's Cat said...

Anything that Sunny Hundal and his illiberal liberal ilk opposes must be worth my support.

24 June 2011 at 16:46  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

Albert

Have you never told a "white" lie?

24 June 2011 at 16:48  
Blogger Albert said...

Tory boy

Of course. Doesn't make it right though, if telling white lies is wrong and Graham thinks abortion is wrong - therefore, I don't think he can find any standard by which to make abortion right (without contradicting himself). If so, the only way out is to deny the significance of morality.

Anyway, telling a white lie - even if it is wrong - is hardly in the same moral category as killing the unborn.

24 June 2011 at 17:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Education Officers working in partnership with schools to provide young people with up-to-date, evidence-based information on abortion, stem cell research, sexual health and other related topics"

I'd be interested in seeing what these education officers say about stem cell research.

24 June 2011 at 17:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Acting as an advocate at national and international level for the rights and dignity of each person from fertilisation [...]"

They need to reword that too, I think.

24 June 2011 at 17:37  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

Albert

The question was about understanding how you would go about deciding what the lesser of two evils was - not making what would be an easy decision for yourself.

24 June 2011 at 17:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Just to be clear, I'm happy of course for women to have all the option explained to them so they can make the best choice they can at the time.

Rooting through the site, I've found this:

"Some people raise the issue of "abortion to save the mother's life”. What they mean by this is that in a very small number of cases, a pregnant woman may have life-threatening health problems which can only be treated by doing something which may have the side effect of ending the pregnancy. An example of this is chemotherapy, which can be an effective treatment against cancer but can also lead to the death of an unborn child. In this situation, it is not really accurate to describe the action as an abortion, as the intention is not to end the life of the unborn child. The child's death is an unintended side effect."

Now that's interesting in terms of abortion ethics and the so-called rights of foetuses!

24 June 2011 at 17:44  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Albert for me morals are not absolutes they are conditional on the circumstances. So my default position is that abortion is morally unacceptable but so is an unwanted baby. Hence lesser of evils.

24 June 2011 at 17:52  
Blogger Albert said...

Tory boy,

Doing evil is always evil (be definition), permitting the lesser of two evils in the circumstance in which we cannot stop both is not evil.

Danjo

The principle of double-effect, is hardly new and the moral difference here is evident, provided one isn't stuck in a purely ends based morality.

24 June 2011 at 17:52  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Can it ever be right to choose a course of action that is 'morally evil' to justify an outcome deemed to be 'less morally evil'?

The end justifies the means?

24 June 2011 at 17:53  
Blogger Albert said...

Graham,

If no moral is absolute, then every moral can be trumped by a non-moral claim. In which case, there is no morality - ultimately.

24 June 2011 at 17:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 June 2011 at 17:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"If no moral is absolute, then every moral can be trumped by a non-moral claim. In which case, there is no morality - ultimately."

Without meaning to be rude, that's nonsense through and through I'm afraid. It doesn't make sense mixing the categories up like that.

24 June 2011 at 17:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"The principle of double-effect, is hardly new and the moral difference here is evident, provided one isn't stuck in a purely ends based morality."

But why does the foetus 'get it' rather than the mother if, as LIFE claims, they both have personhood at the time? The foetus is an innocent life, arguably much more so than the mother I expect since it is amoral for much of its in utero life.

24 June 2011 at 18:04  
Blogger English Viking said...

Your Grace,

As I have your permission;

I don't care what punka-wallahs think.

24 June 2011 at 18:31  
Blogger English Viking said...

ESB+T

Huzzah! You're not dead!

Where have you been?

(To london, to see the Queen, perhaps?)

24 June 2011 at 18:32  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

No.

Thou shalt do no murder.

Black and white. No in between.

24 June 2011 at 18:43  
Blogger Albert said...

Without meaning to be rude, that's nonsense through and through I'm afraid. It doesn't make sense mixing the categories up like that.

It doesn't make sense to make such an accusation preceded by the words "without meaning to be rude" and then not give an argument to show how it is nonsense. Show me how it's nonsense.

But why does the foetus 'get it' rather than the mother if, as LIFE claims, they both have personhood at the time?

The action in itself is not evil, the child is not the object of the action and the outcome is unwanted. We cannot always control the effects of our actions - indeed to make us morally responsible for every outcome of our actions would be impossible.

24 June 2011 at 18:59  
Anonymous Oswin said...

English Viking @ 18:31 :

You make a singularly valid point, in your own inimitable fashion.

I have become suspicious of the opinions of those whose opinions ought not to count, as they themselves have little bearing on anything that I, and the many millions like me, consider to be none of their damned business anyway.

However, on the wider issue, I'm with Graham Davis on this one, and I'll take what's comuing to me.

24 June 2011 at 19:03  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Viking

Black and white. No in between

But that's not how it is in the real world is it.
I admit that I am pro right of a woman to have a termination but it is the wide expanse of grey area that gives me cause for concern. There are many good reasons for abortions to be free from stigma or shame - we have been down those roads before and they still happened, in the back streets on kitchen tables. Many a pregnant woman destroyed herself for fear of public and private shame and all for the lack of a caring advisor from a non judgemental section of society.

I only hope that LIFE offers the genuine help that desperate women need and not harangue them to give birth to an unplanned baby.

Not all atheists I'm sure, are for the abortion on demand culture that is more often than not highlighted by the pro-life lobby - I certainly am not.

Would it have been better for BabyP to have been aborted rather than suffer in life as he did? - I think so.

Whether

24 June 2011 at 19:07  
Blogger Albert said...

But that's not how it is in the real world is it.

Viking's point was about murder. You mean that murder is sometimes acceptable?

24 June 2011 at 19:15  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Albert
- murder - manslaughter - assisted suicide - 'collateral damage' - execution - some one ends up dead -only the legal definitions remain.

Abortion = murder? definitely not a black and white issue.

24 June 2011 at 19:31  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Murder, or whatever word one might choose, is frequently acceptable.

That's why we still have an army (et al) to kill for us, when required.

We daily acknowledge that 'killing' under certain circumstances, is indeed acceptable. Or are we only quibbling over a legal definition here?

24 June 2011 at 19:35  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

It's comments like the one from Hundal that deflect from serious debate in to old fashioned mud slinging and hardly worth breaking sweat over.

He shot himself in the foot this time as he frequently does on his own blog.

24 June 2011 at 19:42  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Oswin

Murder, or whatever word one might choose, is frequently acceptable.

How about infanticide? That's also a word.

Acceptable killing is normally preceded by some moral culpability on the part of the deceased. The culpability of the unborn child is limited to the responsibility he would impose on his parents. He is being killed not for his own moral fault, but because of the costs in time and money that he would impose. Certainly there are many people who could likewise be killed. The disabled. The defective. The elderly who refuse to die in good order and provide that inheritance. All those who by collective rational judgment constitute Lebensunwertes Leben.

Think of the economic efficiency that could be purchased. Think of the leisure time that could be reclaimed. Think of the all money that could be much better spend on oneself. All it takes is a little 'acceptable killing.'

carl

24 June 2011 at 19:50  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dreadnaught,

Keep yourself warm at night with all the legal definitions you like.

I prefer moral definition. Absolute moral definition.

As God is absolute, His definitions will do me fine.

Killing unborn children, no matter the reason, is, according to God, murder.

We (quite rightly) are utterly repulsed by the 'Jewish Holocaust'.

The death toll of Jews pales into ridiculous insignificance when compared to the systematic killing on an industrial scale, the 'foetal holocaust', that has been taking place in Western nations over the last 50 years.

A few (a very brave few) of those Jews fought back. See them today, and try the same trick, you wouldn't get very far.

They have strength; they have power; they have the ability to destroy, destroy even the world.

The unborn have nothing; except the voices of those who are willing to speak up for them.

People like me.

24 June 2011 at 19:53  
Blogger PJH said...

"...Nadine Dorries..."

Seriously? That's one of your quotes?

24 June 2011 at 20:09  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

English Viking said...
"Dodo,
No.
Thou shalt do no murder.
Black and white. No in between."

Now this has to be a first - I agree!

However, the commandment is translated in twom ways:
"You shall not kill/murder." and there are circumstances where it is morally defensible, even an imperative, to kill - e.g. self defence, a just war or a properly sanctioned execution.

Abortion cannot be justified under any circumstances.

24 June 2011 at 20:11  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

It is a clear and cut case of Sunny Handuls verses Love Handuls and I know which I would choose.

God is love.

24 June 2011 at 20:12  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Viking

The death toll of Jews pales into ridiculous insignificance

Abortion - foetal holocaust? The Jewish Shoah - bad but not that bad?

Sheesh!

24 June 2011 at 20:19  
Blogger Anoneumouse said...

All life (even Sunny's) started with a 'nut job'

24 June 2011 at 20:21  
Blogger len said...

We must speak for those who have no voice, because as E V says there is a holocaust going on in abortion clinics as we speak.
It is a multi billion dollar business, a ministry of death.

24 June 2011 at 20:23  
Blogger William said...

"Would it have been better for BabyP to have been aborted rather than suffer in life as he did? - I think so."

Had he been aborted, you would never know! And why is that your choice anyway? Oh yes, you don't have a God.

See how easily the relative morality of the atheist turns towards eugenics.

24 June 2011 at 20:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"The action in itself is not evil, the child is not the object of the action and the outcome is unwanted. We cannot always control the effects of our actions - indeed to make us morally responsible for every outcome of our actions would be impossible."

But you know the likely outcome of it and therefore you are responsible. The morally right action in some cases is the least worst option of some bad options.

You assert a type of morality as far as I can see that always has an answer that is right and leaves no moral residue of wrongness. But that may not be the case, though obviously you wish it were so.

24 June 2011 at 20:31  
Blogger 1569 Rising said...

Who the Hell is Sunny Hundal?
Only asking

24 June 2011 at 20:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"It doesn't make sense to make such an accusation preceded by the words "without meaning to be rude" and then not give an argument to show how it is nonsense. Show me how it's nonsense."

Even with what you might call moral relativism, it doesn't make sense to say that something following from one or moral principles determining whether an action is better or worse in terms of moral good(s) may be trumped by (say) buying a bag of crisps. Is that not obvious to you?

24 June 2011 at 20:35  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

200,000 abortions per year in the UK. How many in other 'civilised' nations?

The Jewish holocaust and abortions should not be compared in terms of one being worse than the other. Both were/are acts of evil. What makes them both so reprehensible is that they were/are acts accepted politically and socially by society as justifiable.

24 June 2011 at 20:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dread: "Not all atheists I'm sure, are for the abortion on demand culture that is more often than not highlighted by the pro-life lobby - I certainly am not."

Me neither.

24 June 2011 at 20:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"See how easily the relative morality of the atheist turns towards eugenics."

That's not eugenics.

24 June 2011 at 20:41  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

1569 Rising said...
"Who the Hell is Sunny Hundal?
Only asking."

Indian of Sikh origins and a vegetarian and environmentalist.

Wiki him - he's a politically confused numpty (voted conservative, liberal and now in the Labour Party) who has run a number of unsuccessful websites and now does the odd piece for the media. Political opportunist and a business failure.

Smug looking chap from his photo who I'd love to slap with a wet haddock!

24 June 2011 at 20:46  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Len

I agree to a large extent that the facility has and is, being abused and has gone far beyond Alton's original decriminalisation Act and needs urgent review. Abortion should be a last resort to safeguard the health of women who for what ever reason would be seriously compromised or endangered by compulsorily giving birth to a child.

William

See how easily the relative morality of the atheist turns towards eugenics

Rubbish! this is nothing to do with eugenics or atheism. I suppose if a woman has a miscarriage you would regard this as an act of God would you - or is he guilty of something more sinister?

I await with the predictable nonsensical, non-evidential double speak.

24 June 2011 at 20:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'd argue that aborting an anencephalic foetus is a morally acceptable act.

24 June 2011 at 20:56  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

DanJo

God the impeccable designer no doubt having a sick joke on womankind.

24 June 2011 at 21:06  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

Abortion = murder? definitely not a black and white issue.

Of course one can always ask what constitutes murder, but Viking's point was simply to say murder is always wrong - and it appeared you didn't agree.

Dan

Even with what you might call moral relativism, it doesn't make sense to say that something following from one or moral principles determining whether an action is better or worse in terms of moral good(s) may be trumped by (say) buying a bag of crisps. Is that not obvious to you?

It is obvious to me that no moral relativist would be likely to say that - but I think that reflects the incoherence of moral relativism. You can't say there are no moral absolutes, and then say it absolutely morally wrong to trump a moral good by buying a bag of crisps. If it is not absolutely morally wrong, then it is possible that it could be trumped by buying a bag of crisps. You really can't have it both ways.

24 June 2011 at 22:20  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

DanJ0 said...
"I'd argue that aborting an anencephalic foetus is a morally acceptable act."

Go on then present the argument.

24 June 2011 at 23:43  
Blogger English Viking said...

I'll admit it ... I am not what I used to be.

A time was that, if you felt yourself a big man, I would show you differently.

Now I am just an old man, one that is willing to fight to the death, no matter what, but one that knows that they will lose.

Unborn babies start me off again.

How can a civilised person dispose of their trash, without an all consuming sense of guilt?

25 June 2011 at 01:35  
Anonymous CRUX SANCTI PATRIS BENEDICTI said...

DanJ0 said...
"I'd argue that aborting an anencephalic foetus is a morally acceptable act."


Anencephalic Baby Shatters Pro-Abortion Myths

25 June 2011 at 01:54  
Anonymous Sydneysider said...

I would rather hear Mr Dodo's argument of why it is immoral to abort an anencephalic foetus.Is cruelty Christian?

If you were in a war and had your guts blown out with no medicos around..would you like a mate to end it all for you rather than die in the most excruciating suffering? .If he did,do you think he was acting immorally?

Many would consider it an act of mercy.Even farmers give an animal a
bullet to stop it agonising to death.

25 June 2011 at 02:56  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Carl @ 1950 : believe me I've thought about it; it's only the threat of the law that prevents me doing a bit of killing myself (actually, quite a lot) to improve standards here and there, as I find and perceive them etc.

However, I wasn't advocating the right or wrong of the matter, just obliquely pointing out that there are inherent hypocrisies.

Squishing a slug is little different from pulling-off the wings of a beautiful butterfly. Both are potential pests, both are innocent in their own right.

As Christians, if we followed to the letter, we would have been wiped-off the face of the planet long since. It is a fact that our inherent hypocricy sustains us.

I wish to survive, if necessary I will kill. I may be a poor Christian, but I'll be damned if I'll be a hypocrit too.

Admittedly, honesty won't save me, or necessarily make me a better person; but at least it isn't the unwritten 'sin' of lazy thought.

We are animals, with occasional spiritual/artistic/intellectual flourishes that soar heavenward.

During times of stress, many animals ingest their own young. Should we then call a Roe doe a murderer, or a bad mother, for doing just that?

Our motives are human, good or bad, but we are still animals, however otherwise advanced, at times.

Rambling blether over.

25 June 2011 at 03:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"It is obvious to me that no moral relativist would be likely to say that - but I think that reflects the incoherence of moral relativism. You can't say there are no moral absolutes, and then say it absolutely morally wrong to trump a moral good by buying a bag of crisps. If it is not absolutely morally wrong, then it is possible that it could be trumped by buying a bag of crisps. You really can't have it both ways."

Of course I can have it both ways. You just made a category error earlier although I can imagine what you were trying to get at.

25 June 2011 at 05:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "Carl @ 1950 : believe me I've thought about it; it's only the threat of the law that prevents me doing a bit of killing myself (actually, quite a lot) to improve standards here and there, as I find and perceive them etc."

Blimey.

Well, take note everyone: I'm an atheist who doesn't think an absolute morality exists and I would never reason like that or require a law to stop my being a murderer.

25 June 2011 at 05:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Go on then present the argument."

Can I just point to past threads please?

25 June 2011 at 05:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

“cross party efforts”

Love it. It conjures up the image of real democracy with parties for and against membership of the EU, for and against bailing out private banks, for and against mass immigration, for and against “no fly zones” and illegal wars, for and against...

25 June 2011 at 09:16  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

The truth is that women have gone beyond "right and "wrong,they now simply use murder as a convienience,enthusiastically encouraged by profiteering businesses,absolved of any crime,they exhibit thier victim status for something that is entirely thier own lust,abstinence was always the best contrceptive,unfortunately we have allowed the femail ego to run rampant throughout our civilisation which is now sex obsessed and wholesome love has been exiled in favour of the cheapest ephemeral thrills,satisfactory for animals,but should we not be striving for something of more intrinsic value?

25 June 2011 at 09:55  
Anonymous MrJ said...

That could be misread as misogynistic if not undersood as premised upon an acknowledgment that the male is at least equally complicit in enabling, permitting and promoting this state of affairs.

Some might venture to say the male is the guiltier, but this may be out of order under contemporary rules of debate, as may be appeal to the mysterious Biblical wisdom about Adam and Eve in and from the Garden of Eden.

25 June 2011 at 11:15  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

He is a Sikh is he, well tell him to Sikh it elsewhere, he won't find it here.

25 June 2011 at 13:00  
Blogger Angus said...

Three Cheers for the Liberal Conspiracy Nutjob!

25 June 2011 at 15:30  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Sydneysider said...
"I would rather hear Mr Dodo's argument of why it is immoral to abort an anencephalic foetus.Is cruelty Christian?"

Simple. Five words:

"Thou shalt not murder/kill"

No if's and's or but's or qualifications against the "culture of death" that has gripping our society.

25 June 2011 at 15:49  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DanJo @ 05:16

As being the sensitive wee soul that you forever purport to be, I'd have thought you more aware of nuance?

Taking you at YOUR word though, may I congratulate you on being the perfect person; the apotheosis of all things nice and cuddly.

You really must share with me your choice of lip-balm (Raspberry Lush?) as all that 'trumpet-blowing' seldom seems to bother you.

Meow-pur-purrrrr ...

(that's not me being 'catty' but English Viking's moggy, borrowed for sinister stroking thereof)

25 June 2011 at 16:01  
Blogger English Viking said...

Oswin,

I thought I was one light at feeding time, now I know why!

Give him back, you rotter!

25 June 2011 at 17:18  
Anonymous Oswin said...

English Viking :

:o) 'word verification for this was: 'expeteri' hee hee.

25 June 2011 at 18:37  
Anonymous 1569 Rising said...

Mr Dodo, many thanks for explaining who Hundal is.

You have explained everything - vegetarian and environMENTALIST.

One quibble, you say you would love to slap him with a wet haddock - wouldn't a long piece of frozen cod be more effective since it would be much more painful.

25 June 2011 at 20:15  
Anonymous Oswin said...

... but not as enviromentally sound, surely?

25 June 2011 at 20:20  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Oswin 25 June 2011 16:01 and EV 25June 2011 17:18

Lads, does Ernst have doppelgangers on this blog.lol.

Good Lord, knowing EV it's probably a Smilodon. Rather you stroking it than me Oswin!

Old Ernsty.

25 June 2011 at 23:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "Taking you at YOUR word though, may I congratulate you on being the perfect person; the apotheosis of all things nice and cuddly."

If being staunchly against capital punishment, unwilling to kill people on the sort of foreign policy adventures the State embarks on these days, and unwilling to kill people because of their different beliefs is nice and cuddly then I am indeed those things. I won't blush though as those are just normal things to me.

26 June 2011 at 05:47  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DanJo: yet more of the same...

I'm blinded by the light.

26 June 2011 at 19:33  
Anonymous Caterina said...

@ Oswin

who remains

" Sightless unless
The eyes reappear
As the perpetual star
Multifoliate rose
Of death's twilight kingdom
The hope only
Of empty men"

27 June 2011 at 04:43  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Caterina : whose ''headpiece filled with straw'' exactly? :o)

27 June 2011 at 17:36  
Anonymous Caterina said...

You've been hanging out with English Viking for too long. It was never in your character to be cruel ( eg your treatment of the unfortunate Mr DanJo)

Keep this up and you will turn into Mr.D Singh
Now that should be a cause of concern to you:0)

28 June 2011 at 03:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"It was never in your character to be cruel ( eg your treatment of the unfortunate Mr DanJo)"

:O

Don't worry about me, I can more than hold my own here! :)

28 June 2011 at 18:10  
Blogger len said...

'The unfortunate Mr Danjo'

How apt.

28 June 2011 at 19:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len, you dim and creepy little god botherer, give it a rest huh? You're like a mosquito buzzing around trying to draw a tiny drop of blood.

28 June 2011 at 20:06  
Anonymous Oswin said...

DanJo ... no, you ''cannot hold your own here'' - you merely think you can.

Your remarks to Len are as a mirror to yourself; I reckon it is you who are the creep, and a botherer of God.

29 June 2011 at 03:41  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Caterina: my treatment of DanJo is much less than he deserves. However, I do agree with you that he is ''unfortunate'' - but that is no excuse for being the way he is. Stick around and I wager you'll change your mind. Note his treatment of Len, and for what exactly?

PS. Thanks for the poetry x.

29 June 2011 at 03:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "Note his treatment of Len, and for what exactly?"

For what? Hmmm. Len knows what he does and I know too. It's systematic. Not that that's a problem but it deserves a response when he goes too far with it.

"[...] but that is no excuse for being the way he is. Stick around and I wager you'll change your mind."

I'm a 'lightning rod' here, my being seen as almost diametrically opposite the extreme right-wing Christians regulars. Those sort of people really don't like opposing views.

I expect I'd be deported in your ethnic cleansing if you ever got the chance, along with a whole raft of my fellow citizens, wouldn't I Oswin?

29 June 2011 at 06:37  
Anonymous Sydneysider said...

Oswin is a good chap . He provides some humorous interludes , a light relief to some of these extremely turgid posts.He is not capable of these monstrous things that you suggest DanJo.I think you should apologise.

29 June 2011 at 07:24  
Anonymous DanJ0 said...

Sydneysider: "He is not capable of these monstrous things that you suggest DanJo.I think you should apologise."

Unfortunately for you, he committed it to writing here on this blog. So, no I won't apologise. And no, I'm not providing the link to it as I can't be arsed. Feel free to apologise to me by return though if you think you ought to, I like a good apology.

29 June 2011 at 08:27  
Blogger len said...

Danjo,

You are starting to 'come out'(if you pardon the phrase) in your true colours.

Never mind I forgive you, you see you cannot hurt one who truly forgives, its like water ' off a ducks back.'

Bless you.

29 June 2011 at 18:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "You are starting to 'come out'(if you pardon the phrase) in your true colours."

Len, do internet people independently exist in your world or are they just reflections of your own changeable emotional states on the day? I'm much the same as I have always been here, giving out approximately as much crap in return as I get from the very religious, the very weird, or the very right wing here.

29 June 2011 at 20:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Liking the "Bless you" though, it has the ring of "Jesus tells you to fuck off" about it when you use it like that. Your inner demon is wanting out, I think. ;)

29 June 2011 at 20:08  
Blogger len said...

Danjo,

LOL. :)

30 June 2011 at 18:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I've just been reading about Mother Teresa again, following the comments from the other thread. I bet her spiritual plight is quite common amongst Christians, I've had enough of them online using their religion as an offensive weapon to suggest it is so.

30 June 2011 at 19:00  
Blogger len said...

Danjo, your`e really getting into this religion thing aren`t you?.

30 June 2011 at 19:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Danjo, your`e really getting into this religion thing aren`t you?."

It's a politico-religious blog. Haven't you noticed?

30 June 2011 at 19:07  
Blogger len said...

Danjo,

Well, with all the comments going on at the moment could be almost anything, Politico /religio/socio /philosico/anti pretostento/ add finitio etc

Getting 'into; religion is different from commenting 'about' religion.
Subtle difference.

Same comparison from some one having a religion 'about' Christ, to someone having a relationship 'with' Christ.

30 June 2011 at 19:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Getting 'into; religion is different from commenting 'about' religion. Subtle difference."

Well, in answer to your former question: no, I am most certainly not getting into religion in an inside looking out sort of way. I think religion is pretty weird for the most part but very interesting nonetheless. I mean all religions of course, since they're much the same to me: products, with fanbois.

30 June 2011 at 20:11  
Blogger len said...

Danjo,
I agree with you ,religion for the greater part is 'pretty weird' that is why I steer well clear of it.

Relationship(with Christ) now you`re talking!.This is the reason Jesus Christ came to Earth, to restore the broken relationship between man and God.
Those who practice religion (of whatever variety) have totally missed the point.
Religion offers a' stairway to Heaven' a way of approaching God on one`s merit.
God give the gift of Life through acceptance of the finished work of Jesus Christ on the Hill at Calvary.Its that simple, God has done all the work.
Man tries to earn what only God could accomplish.This is the futility of religion which hold countless millions in its grip.

1 July 2011 at 07:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well, so you say.

It's all much of a muchness to me: Christians fighting it out over sola scriptura, or transubstantiation, or how a Greek word is best rendered into English, or whatever. Throw in Allah or Zeus or Vishnu etc with everyone claiming their god is the right one and their relationship is authentic and the rest of us can see what a load of nonsense it all is. I used to like watching The Big Questions on TV on Sundays just to see really passionate and certain people argue about their own gods with equally passionate and certain people.

1 July 2011 at 17:10  
Blogger len said...

The 'big questions' is a total waste of time.Much heat and very little light.

There are many 'gods' but there is only one God.
Until you know the true God I suppose this is a confusing situation.
But once you know the true God all the false 'little gods 'fade into oblivion.

1 July 2011 at 18:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"But once you know the true God all the false 'little gods 'fade into oblivion."

But different people claim a different one to someone else is the true god! People even detonate bombs attached to themselves, convinced that their god is the right one and will reward their religious act. It's hard to imagine someone more convinced about their beliefs than that.

1 July 2011 at 22:10  
Blogger len said...

Danjo, Agreed , But can you imagine Jesus Christ telling people to go out and blow themselves and others up?.

Jesus said " you will know them by their fruits,a good tree cannot bring forth bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bring forth good fruit.

This is where it gets complicated and discernment is needed, there are divisions within Christianity (those who follow Jesus Christ and those who follow religion)Jesus describes this as weeds growing amongst the wheat.But once again they are identified by their 'fruits.' Some who practice religion are so convincing that only Jesus Himself will identify them.

2 July 2011 at 09:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"But can you imagine Jesus Christ telling people to go out and blow themselves and others up?."

No.

I can't imagine his Dad telling the Israelites to murder the inhabitants of Jericho to every last man, women, and child either. Did he?

But anyway, you're arguing like any religious person argues in favour of their particular god. Does it really matter that one likes the smell of burning flesh? Or one of a bunch champions heroes to amuse itself in a cosmic game between its fellow gods? Or one encourages a distinct group of people to think of themselves as superior to all others? Etc?

2 July 2011 at 15:58  
Blogger len said...

Danjo,
God must be assessed pre Jesus Christ,and post Jesus Christ.

I must admit I was pretty shocked at some of the Old Testament stuff.
When God told Saul to totally destroy the Amalekites I couldn`t understand the harshness of this command.Saul actually spared some of the lives of the Amalekites,he took what he considered 'good' from their camp. I had a hard job getting my head round Gods instructions to Saul, but if evil has totally contaminated a people and will spread to others how do you confine it.?
You seem to be pretty well up on medical stuff , so visualise sin as a virus which will grow and spread killing all it comes into contact with.If this virus will eradicate humanity before your plan for salvation (for all Humanity) can be put into affect what course of action would you take?.
Old Testament actions regarding God are for the containment of sin, to restrict its progress, otherwise sin would have overtaken humanity and there would be no salvation through Jesus Christ.
Sometimes an action must be seen in its true context much like amputating a gangrenous leg.
Incidentally when Saul was killed in battle he was killed by a (you guessed it( an Amakelite)

2 July 2011 at 16:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"You seem to be pretty well up on medical stuff , so visualise sin as a virus which will grow and spread killing all it comes into contact with.If this virus will eradicate humanity before your plan for salvation (for all Humanity) can be put into affect what course of action would you take?"

I'll save Edward from the other thread from the bother of coming down here and saying this is how Jews were viewed by the Nazis and treated in a purely utilitarian manner irrespective of their rights. Not that I actually think Edward would, arguments like that are always deployed to advance a particular argument and not applied universally in my experience.

2 July 2011 at 22:14  
Blogger len said...

Danjo, regarding all the 'in fighting' between denominations which gets a bit tiresome and extremely confusing for those on the sidelines. This article might help to explain the conflict (which is basically a battle for the truth)about Christianity.

http://www.justgivemethetruth.com/sherry/churches.htm

(Might surprise you, and all those involved with denominations )

3 July 2011 at 18:18  
Blogger len said...

Danjo, As an afterthought;
Some of sherry shriners articles are a 'bit off the wall'but the above one seems quite balanced also there is

The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop.

Which is quite comprehensive.

4 July 2011 at 00:37  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older