Wednesday, June 22, 2011

Trevor Phillips on those militant, extremist, homicidal Christians


His Grace had not intended to comment on the Sunday Telegraph interview with Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission, not least because any engagement with Mr Phillips invariably produces more heat than light. The article has been greeted with almost universal condemnation by the Christian media, and a certain disquiet expressed by the humanist-secularist-atheist lobby. Reports suggest that offence has been caused in equal measure, thereby establishing Trevor Phillips’ impeccable credentials for neutrality and impartiality.

Not quite.

Consider these exerts:
FASHIONABLE ATHEISM
"There is a view that says religion is a private matter and it's entirely a choice. I think that's entirely not right. "Faith identity is part of what makes life richer and more meaningful for the individual. It is a fundamental part of what makes some societies better than others in my view....”
Why is the Chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission giving us his opinion on whether or not religion is a matter of choice? Indeed, by suggesting that religion is not a matter of choice, he elevates it to the level of ethnicity. His observation that faith ‘makes some societies better than others’ seems designed to provoke and offend those of no faith.
STANDING UP FOR BELIEVERS
"Our business is defending the believer. The law we're here to implement recognises that religious identity is an essential part of this society. It's an essential element of being a fulfilled human being....”
Again, the assertion that religion is ‘essential’ to identity and fulfilment is nothing but offensive to non-believers.
WARNING TO CHURCHES ON CHARITY
"Churches, mosques, temples, religious organisations of all kinds now have to some extent protection under the law but they also have to obey the law including anti-discrimination law because they are charities, because they offer a public service... Catholic care was a clearer and simpler case. You're offering a public service and you're a charity and there are rules about how charities behave. You have to play by the rules. We can't have a set of rules that apply to one group of people simply because they happen to think it's right."
This section is duplicitous, and certainly contradicts his previous statements. Crucially, Trevor Phillips fails to distinguish between freedom of worship and freedom of religion: if Christians are no longer free to worship God in spirit and in truth in their daily lives, they are no longer free. If the state is intent on eradicating space in the public sphere for the conscientious objection of the believer, then it fails to acknowledge that ‘religious identity is an essential part of this society’ and intrinsic to being ‘a fulfilled human being’.

A shift from ‘freedom of religion’ to ‘freedom of worship’ moves the narrative from being ‘in the world’ to the physical confines of a church, temple, synagogue or mosque. It is also disconcerting that the new state orthodoxy of religion has been defined in terms of a Kantian notion of inviolable rights, as though the Platonic Forms and Aristotelian Virtues constitute no part of our syncretised conception of Christianity. Freedom of worship is meaningless for the Christian if it may not be the result of vibrant, living relationship with the Lord; if it may not sear the conscience daily on the life-long journey of faith.

In the Declaration of Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae from the Second Vatican Council, the Roman Catholic Church summarised this right: "Religious freedom, in turn, which men demand as necessary to fulfill their duty to worship God, has to do with immunity from coercion in civil society. Therefore it leaves untouched traditional Catholic doctrine on the moral duty of men and societies toward the true religion and toward the one Church of Christ."

The practice of religion – true religion – permeates every fibre of our being and enters every fabric of our lives. After centuries of constitutional theo-political development, the British State arrived at a notion of tolerance and an understanding of liberty which Trevor Phillips appears to be intent on limiting to state-approved expressions. By advocating ‘freedom of worship’, he adopts the narrative of the ‘aggressive secularist’ who seeks to relegate faith to the private sphere.
NO POLITICS BEYOND CHURCH DOOR
"It's perfectly fair that you can't be a Roman Catholic priest unless you're a man," he said.
"It seems right that the reach of anti-discriminatory law should stop at the door of the church or mosque.
"At the moment the law says it [appointing openly gay bishops] is a matter for the Church of England. It's probably right.
"I'm not keen on the idea of a church run by the state. I don't think the law should run to telling churches how they should conduct their own affairs."
Welcome to the English Church Settlement, Mr Phillips. He is clearly a proponent of disestablishmentarianism, but Erastian Church-State relations are slightly beyond his remit. By expressing this view, he offends many Anglicans and people of all faiths who support Establishment. And doubtless he also articulates a view with which many will find themselves in sympathy. But the important point is that his opinion on this matter is irrelevant: Church of England bishops have already been successfully sued for failing to appoint homosexual youth workers, and we will doubtless begin to see vicars dragged into court by militant homosexualists who are denied a church wedding. Anti-discrimination law has already crossed the threshold and occupied the vestibule. It is presently coursing unhindered up the nave. It is only a matter of time before it crosses the transept, ambles through the choir and occupies the altar.
POLITICAL CHRISTIANS
"I think the most likely victim of actual religious discrimination in British society is a Muslim but the person who is most likely to feel slighted because of their religion is an evangelical Christian," he said.
"There are a lot of Christian activist voices who appear bent on stressing the kind of persecution that I don't think really exists in this country. There are some Christian organisations who basically want to have a fight and therefore they're constantly defining the ground in such a way that anyone who doesn't agree wholly agree with them about everything is essentially a messenger from Satan.
"I think for a lot of Christian activists, they want to have a fight and they choose sexual orientation as the ground to fight it on. I think that whole argument isn't about the rights of Christians. It's about politics. It's about a group of people who really want to have weight and influence and they've chosen that particular ground.
“Personally I don't know why they don't choose ground that really is defending Christian values. I wish they'd choose gambling or human trafficking or something."
It is not for Trevor Phillips to define what constitutes ‘Christian values’. Indeed, by doing so, he has rather made his position untenable. Having said that ‘anti-discriminatory law should stop at the door of the church’, he now seeks to define the extent of what should stop. And one wonders why he singled out Evangelical Christians as those ‘most likely to feel slighted’. Has he not heard any of the recent speeches by Pope Benedict XVI? Or is it just that the Evangelical Alliance is a softer target than the might of Rome?
"OLD TIME RELIGION" HARMING INTEGRATION
"I come from that kind of community. We like our faith strong and pretty undiluted. If you come from an Afro-Caribbean Christian background the attitudes to homosexuality are unambiguous, they are undiluted, they are nasty and in some cases homicidal.
"I think there's an awful lot of noise about the Church being persecuted but there is a more real issue that the conventional churches face that the people who are really driving their revival and success believe in an old time religion which in my view is incompatible with a modern, multi-ethnic, multicultural society.
"Muslim communities in this country are doing their damnedest to try to come to terms with their neighbours to try to integrate and they're doing their best to try to develop an idea of Islam that is compatible with living in a modern liberal democracy.
"One of the aspects of that is essentially saying 'whatever we feel about matter of sexuality we're going to have to deal with the fact that most of our neighbours, most of our children's friends, most of our work mates have a broader, more liberal view and we just have to live with that'.
"Integration is also about compromise and I think the reason you don't hear a lot about that from Muslims is that they're trying to find ways of being good Muslims in a way that is consistent with the society they're living in."
This is where Trevor Phillips hangs himself. He talks the ‘conventional churches’ and belief in an ‘old time religion’ which is ‘incompatible with a modern, multi-ethnic, multicultural society’. Setting aside the historic theological reality that Christianity has always been counter-cultural, Trevor Phillips appears to take David Cameron’s definition of the faith, which is basically that of being nice to everyone. In the context of a discussion on homosexuality, the Prime Minister said just a few months ago: “I think Christians should be tolerant and welcoming and broad-minded." Ergo, if you do not agree with David Cameron, you are intolerant, unwelcoming and narrow-minded, which amounts to the same as being unloving, inhospitable and bigoted.

To be a clanging cymbal with no love is not to be a Christian of any kind. Trevor Phillips states quite unequivocally that belief in those Church traditions or adherence to orthodox teachings which conflict with the zeitgeist of (post-)modernity is just ‘nasty’. And he chose the Afro-Caribbean churches to illustrate his point, seemingly because that is his own heritage. Yet, by doing so, he manifestly offends those black churches by divorcing their beliefs from the ‘old time religion’ of Rome, the Church of England, the Baptists, the Methodists, the Evangelicals, etc., etc. Each and every one of these ‘conventional churches’ has its divisions on issues of human sexuality, but, broadly, each of them coheres with the ‘nasty’ orthodox belief that homosexual behaviour is, as St Paul said, ‘against nature’ and a sin.

But it is with Trevor Phillips’ assessment of ‘Muslim communities’ where His Grace must depart from all those who insist this interview offends all in equal measure. Mr Phillips says: “Muslim communities in this country are doing their damnedest to try to come to terms with their neighbours to try to integrate and they're doing their best to try to develop an idea of Islam that is compatible with living in a modern liberal democracy.”

Some may be. But certainly not all. Yet Trevor Phillips does not qualify his assessment with ‘some’, or even ‘many’: he talks simply of ‘Muslim communities’, which presumably includes Saudi-funded mosques, schools and those ‘no-go areas’ of inner-city Birmingham.

He also states that the reason we don’t hear Muslims talking about integration is because ‘they're trying to find ways of being good Muslims in a way that is consistent with the society they're living in’. Well, that’s a very clever covert strategy: you integrate by not talking about the issues publicly; by simply ‘being good Muslims’ privately and getting on with the necessary syncretism which will make Islam tolerant, welcoming and broad-minded. It is not only astonishing that Trevor Phillips talks of Muslims as a cohesive and compliant group like this; it is a manifest prejudicial deception to ignore the existence of the Islamists. Of course, some communities are addressing the issues; of course many Muslims integrate with British culture. But it is a very curious model of integration which daubs the church door with ‘Dirty white dogs’ in red paint; where white children are met with a barrage of stones thrown by Muslim children shouting ‘Satan’; and where the local vicar is called a ‘f***ing white bastard’. Yet these are Trevor Phillips’ ‘good Muslims’. There no mention at all of the ‘nasty’ side of Islam; there is no mention of its attitude to homosexuality which is ‘unambiguous...undiluted....in some cases homicidal’. No, such vehement disapprobation is reserved solely for the Afro-Caribbean Christians - the Christianists.

Trevor Phillips has shown himself to be complacent on Islamic extremism whilst impugning that which is moderately liberal. And that which is moderately liberal is fused with two centuries of that which is liberally conservative. No true liberal society can impose an agenda upon any peaceable individual or democratic group whose conscience(s) do not permit obeisance to its formularies: to do so is to create a new liberal tyranny of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’.

Our freedoms of speech, religion and association predate the ‘Rights of Man’ agenda, upon which the edifice of the Equalities Commission is constructed. Indeed, those rights spring from the fount of Scripture and so should be understood and interpreted in their Sitz im Leben. And the Gospel of Christ is paramount and pre-eminent: it is not for the State to re-write the Word of God or to impose a uniform theo-political expression of morality. And it is certainly not for the Chairman of the Equality and Human Rights Commission to attempt to do so.

89 Comments:

Anonymous Simon said...

"I'm not keen on the idea of a church run by the state. I don't think the law should run to telling churches how they should conduct their own affairs."

Welcome to the English Church Settlement, Mr Phillips. He is clearly a proponent of antidisestablishmentarianism

If he's not keen on a state church, doesn't that make him a proponent of disestablisment(arianism), rather than an anti-disestablishmentarian?

22 June 2011 at 10:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Johns v Derby City Council in 2011 the EHRC said Christians could ‘infect’ children.

Bigoted language like that was last used by the Nazis against Jewish people.

The EHRC should be abolished as it is against the sovereignty of the British people. That is to say it takes civil rights causes, institutionalizes them, and frames them in accord with its own partial agendum.

22 June 2011 at 10:33  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Simon,

Quite right. Corrected. Dammit. His Grace has always wanted to get that word into a post, and in his eagerness and haste he erred. Bless you.

22 June 2011 at 10:34  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Trevor Philips from NUS President to Witchfinder-General.

I had forgotten this man was still around. Will he ever get a real job that contributes to exports....or can we export him to Guyana ourselves instead of having a Guyanese Mafia that would make our ancestors split their sides with laughter - from empire to colony

22 June 2011 at 10:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

And let us not forget how much tax payer’s money “Sir” Phillips blew using his private army of lawyers to persecute, harass and attempt to bankrupt the perfectly legal British National Party in trumped up, politically motivated cases at the High Court. In addition, the EHRC has now been ordered to pay the defence costs of Nick Griffin and party officials. Marxist Phillips should be made to pay out of his own inflated and unjustified salary and his personal witch hunting machine shut down in a “bonfire of the quangos”.

22 June 2011 at 10:54  
Blogger English Viking said...

Trevor Phillips is a nasty racist.

22 June 2011 at 10:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

English Viking @10.59 said:

'Trevor Philips is a nasty racist'

Because he's neither White nor English he's anti both. That's why he got the job.

Steve

22 June 2011 at 11:25  
Anonymous MrJ said...

"His Grace had not intended to comment..." Thank goodness he thought better of it and published this characteristically cogent expose', and bringing Sitz im Leben into consideration.

If Mr Phillips brings such shallowness to the execution of the office to which he has been appointed, the responsibility must be with the appointing authority and the political, social and academic ineptitude which had resulted in the enabling legislation.

22 June 2011 at 11:56  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

I am no fan of Trevor Phillips but the organisation of which he is head in essence should have a simple mandate that both secular and religious communities could agree with. Something along the lines that society acknowledges your right to do whatever you want unless it hurts or discriminates against someone else. Implicit in this statement is that along with rights are responsibilities, essentially the notion of give and take.

Of course the problem arises when those rights are in conflict. I may want to play my music loudly but that may offend my neighbour. You might wish to run an adoption service that discriminates against red haired foster parents, so how are those conflicting rights to be resolved? As not playing music is unlikely to offend a neighbour and as red haired people are no different in kind to any other in both cases most people would probably agree which party’s rights trump the other.

Cranmer says

The practice of religion – true religion – permeates every fibre of our being and enters every fabric of our lives......By advocating ‘freedom of worship’, he adopts the narrative of the ‘aggressive secularist’ who seeks to relegate faith to the private sphere.

Like Cranmer many here think that their religious belief gives them the right to trump those of an opposing view, evidenced by the phrase “true religion”. Not only is he claiming precedence of religious belief in general but one specific set of religious beliefs.

Now take the example of assisted suicide.

I consider it my right to nominate a person to help me kill myself and I want the law changed so that my assistant will be free from prosecution.

You may be of the opinion that I do not have the right to make that decision since my life is “on loan” from your God and so the law should prevent me from having assisted suicide..

As my right will not affect you but your right will affect me it is reasonable that mine should trump yours?

Changing the law will allow you to personally practice what you believe and stop you from imposing your will on me.

22 June 2011 at 12:32  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

Why don't you just jump of Beachy Head instead of going through all this nomination malarkey?

22 June 2011 at 12:42  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

Graham Davis - I do not think you have the right to have the law changed so that your suicide assistant may be freed from the possibility of prosecution, because I know darn' well that if such a legal change happens, it will leave us wide open to the gradual adoption of compulsory euthanasia for the old/infirm/demented/poor in future decades. Do you have any children who'll be, say, 70 in 2060? If so, you'd better get used to the idea that they'll eventually be seriously at risk. If you believe there can be "safeguards" against such a drift, you're very very naive. Look at Holland/Belgium. Look at the history of legal abortion. And get real.

22 June 2011 at 12:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Phillips is not merely complacent about Islam, his biased position is Islam friendly. There is little criticism of this religion and its political ideology but many paragraphs about political Christians. We are not going to swallow blatant lies about integration when it would be nearer the truth to suggest that there are localities being ethnically cleansed as a direct result of systematic Islamic colonisation. Why are Christians disproportionately targeted by Equality legislation? Theirs is not the only holy book to condemn homosexuality. Where are the high profile cases regarding Islamic objections to homosexuality? It seems that Equality has yet to put its jackboot over the threshold of the mosque and is in absolutely no danger of occupying its vestibule.

22 June 2011 at 12:56  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Simon @ 10:30

Could we not stretch it further and pronounce him a "neoantidisestablishmentarianist"
I think that takes thirty one letters.
His sympathies are definitely neoantidisestablishmentarianistic.
Thirty three.
Sorry about that YG.

22 June 2011 at 13:15  
Anonymous Philip said...

Excellent post. I think the difference between freedom of worship and freedom of religion is absolutely critical.

Mr Cameron should be challenged on this, as his multiculturalism speech only upheld "freedom of worship".

Freedom of worship permits worship in private and in church buildings, but potentially only there. It potentially allows the State to curtail freedom for Christians to manifest their faith publicly outside these confines, where it doesn't conform to State-prescribed beliefs on, e.g. sexual ethics. And of course as HG points out, freedom within churches is now threatened by proposals that would result vicars being brought before courts for refusing to allow civil partnerships/homosexual marriages. (Of course it is likely to be only churches that will be affected - I can't imagine homosexualists will be more likely to target mosques than churches).

Indeed, "No true liberal society can impose an agenda upon any peaceable individual or democratic group whose conscience(s) do not permit obeisance to its formularies: to do so is to create a new liberal tyranny of ‘equality’ and ‘diversity’."

Indeed as HG says "Our freedoms of speech, religion and association predate the ‘Rights of Man’ agenda, upon which the edifice of the Equalities Commission is constructed." If Mr Cameron is serious about freedom of speech, he would ensure Government support for the clause in the Protection of Freedoms Bill that would amend S5 of the Public Order Act to ensure people can’t be prosecuted for saying something someone disagrees with on the ground they felt “insulted”.

Trevor Phillips slates Christians for refusing to change centuries of truth on sexual ethics to conform to the modern “Rights” and “Equality” agenda, while praising Islam (which is often cited elsewhere as having a less liberal response than Christianity to homosexuality) for their efforts to integrate! Incredible! His statement that "I think for a lot of Christian activists, they want to have a fight and they choose sexual orientation as the ground to fight it on.” is of course a ridiculous distortion even inversion of what has happened. It is ‘homosexual rights’ agenda that, among other things, has meant Christians have to stand for Christian truth on sexual ethics and marriage, and it is laws that further that agenda that are used to target Christians such as B&B owners and evangelists. Why is it OK to Mr Phillips for Christians to defend Christian values (which they do) on gambling or human trafficking, but not on sexual ethics?

22 June 2011 at 13:35  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

"But it is a very curious model of integration which daubs the church door with ‘Dirty white dogs’ in red paint; where white children are met with a barrage of stones thrown by Muslim children shouting ‘Satan’; and where the local vicar is called a ‘f***ing white bastard’. Yet these are Trevor Phillips’ ‘good Muslims’."

Where does Trevor Phillips portray such people as 'good Muslims". I am pretty sure that he would happily acknowledge them as "bad and intolerant Muslims" just as there are bad and intolerant Christians (or supporters of all political viewpoints for that matter).

And since when has it been impossible for non believers or agnostics to acknowledge that religions do not make positive contributions to society (as well as negative ones for that matter). We just do not share your faith - it doesn't mean that some of the things you say are not worth listening to.

22 June 2011 at 13:36  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Graham Davis said ...

" ... a simple mandate that both secular and religious communities could agree with. Something along the lines that society acknowledges your right to do whatever you want unless it hurts or discriminates against someone else."

Any faith group will believe that 'society' needs to be organised in such a way as to minimise the harm that flows from too much personal 'freedom' that is exercised without reference to a moral code.

Does prostitution and pornography 'harm' people? Does abortion 'harm' the moral fabric of a society. Does divorce, homosexuality and ethenasia?

This is a Christian society and I beleieve Christian values are needed to ensure the wellbeing of people. You don't. I press my case politically and you yours. The problem is when 'human rights' 'diversity' and 'equality' become seperated from any higher principles. Principles that you would not recognise or accept in your 'selfish gene', 'enlightened self interest' secular world.

22 June 2011 at 13:41  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

"those ‘no-go areas’ of inner-city Birmingham"

I'm afraid one anonymous article in Standpoint isn't really substantive evidence for the assertion that parts of Central Birmingham have been a police no go area for 20 years.

22 June 2011 at 13:44  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

What a disappointing comment.

His Grace was eagerly awaiting your expressions of profound gratitude to him for not choosing to write today upon the appalling matter of chronic paedophilia the Rosminian Order, which (even) your co-religionists term a 'disgraceful Catholic cover-up'.

Doubtless, if His Grace had chosen such a headline, you would have wheeled out all your usual invective against him. You appear to agree with Trevor Phillips to the extent that only adherents of a particular religion may presume to criticise that religion. That is no freedom of speech at all.

22 June 2011 at 14:05  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

I think he is being left in the job until he self detonates.

The EHRC is undergoing a massive budget cut, it has NEVER had its accounts signed off since inception (such is the level of incompetence and maladminstration - perhaps even corruption).

They couldn't even defeat the BNP despite an unlimited budget to do so.

Ridicule is often the best way to deal with such creatures. Phillips and his equalities Stazi are dead in the water - his speach is a cry for attention.

And a very confused and dishonest one at that.

22 June 2011 at 14:23  
Anonymous Jon said...

Your Grace,

How did you get that from Mr Dodo's comment? I was waiting for the point...

22 June 2011 at 14:28  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

"You appear to agree with Trevor Phillips to the extent that only adherents of a particular religion may presume to criticise that religion"

Garbage - I'm afraid.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4752804.stm

22 June 2011 at 14:52  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

It went without saying that I agreed with your article this morning. It was well written, well argued, enjoyable and free any hint of anti-Catholic sentiment. Mr J has been enlightening me about your approach to these matters.

Like Jon, I cannot understand how you arrived at your conclusion about my response to Mr Davies!

You comment:

"You appear to agree with Trevor Phillips to the extent that only adherents of a particular religion may presume to criticise that religion. That is no freedom of speech at all."

Not at all. In fact mine was an argument against the interpretation you seem to have placed on it.

I believe the secular, 'human rights' approach being adopted is contrary to the Christian basis of our society, is harmful to us and should be resisted. I also believe Islam's understanding of God is a distortion and its responses to breaches of its moral codes as brutal.

Maybe I didn't make the points clear enough.

It is legitimate and, as a Christian, I would say it is a duty to question and challenge other faith groups and world views both theologically and in ways of behaving.

I also believe there are certain universal standards, not accepted by secular humanists, that if breached cause harm to individuals and to societies. These include abortion, ethenasia, divorce, prostitution, pornography homosexuality etc. For me, these are evils that undermine human relationships and are harmful. Others disagree - and that's where the 'religious' 'political' arena overlap.

Hope I've made my points clearer.

22 June 2011 at 14:58  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

D. Singh said...

Why don't you just jump of Beachy Head instead of going through all this nomination malarkey?

Thank you for those kind words


Mr Dodo said

Any faith group will believe that 'society' needs to be organised in such a way as to minimise the harm that flows from too much personal 'freedom' that is exercised without reference to a moral code. Does prostitution and pornography 'harm' people? Does abortion 'harm' the moral fabric of a society. Does divorce, homosexuality and euthanasia?

I baulk at the notion that “harm flows from personal freedom”. It can of course just as adherence to religious belief can cause harm. With the exception of homosexuality I would agree that the other things that you cite are often likely to harm people (although lets not confuse morally inexcusable euthanasia with suicide, assisted or otherwise). However what we are talking about is rights and people cannot be banned from self harm; educated of course even cajoled but not banned.

There can be no higher principle than genuine human rights, that is the obligation to respect another persons own rights, easy to say, very difficult to apply. We don’t need your mythical higher authority or its shamans. Just look at your own holy book and be disgusted with some of its violent and inhuman decrees (I can provide a list). That you have shrugged off the worst of these excesses is nothing to do with your faith and everything to do with the humanising effects of the enlightenment and the developments of genuine human rights.


John Thomas

I know darn' well that if such a legal change happens, it will leave us wide open to the gradual adoption of compulsory euthanasia

No you don’t, that’s pure speculation. Suicide is not euthanasia.

22 June 2011 at 15:14  
Anonymous Toby the Jug said...

There's not a lot more to say about chronic paedophilia and the RCC.

"The element of surprise has long passed. We've got so used to Catholic priests being accused of child sex abuse that the real rarity would be a TV documentary about one who kept his hands to himself." (John Crace - Guardian on line)

22 June 2011 at 15:14  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

"It is legitimate and, as a Christian, I would say it is a duty to question and challenge other faith groups and world views both theologically and in ways of behaving."

Oh you mean just like Trevor Phillips does from a secular viewpoint.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4752804.stm

22 June 2011 at 15:16  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

Phillips is caught in a situation where, I believe; he fears that the black communities are going to accuse him of covert racism.

He realises that the Equality Act 2010 creates a hierarchy of rights religion being at the bottom.

On the other hand he realises that a disproportionately high (compared to say whites) number of blacks practise Christianity and are thus more likely to fall foul of the provisions in the Act.

His problem is not just religion or belief – but remarkably – race itself (through ‘indirect discrimination’)!

22 June 2011 at 15:17  
Anonymous Sydneysider said...

I implore Mr Singh to contol his manic violent unchristian urges re
telling Mr. Davis to jump off Beachy Head.
I was hoping this was a thing of the past Mr. Singh.No more piano wire incidents please:)

22 June 2011 at 15:22  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

His Grace was being a little playful: his comment was not derived from what you had said today, but rather from what you had not said. You might have thanked him for not writing on (another) major paedophile cover-up by your church. Why is it that your co-religionists may lead with such headlines as 'A Disgraceful Catholic Cover-up' when speaking of just one (minor) order? Certainly, if His Grace had done so, you would have been the first to criticise and condemn. Is it, for you, only Roman Catholics who may criticise Roman Catholics or the -ism without being 'anti-Catholic'?

Mr Tory Boys Never Grow Up,

Do grow up: His Grace was referring to Trevor Phillips' most recent interview; not to something he said five years ago. Or perhaps you believe that people are suspended in some sort of immutable belief which is fixed for the rest of their lives.

22 June 2011 at 15:24  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis said:

'D. Singh said...

'Why don't you just jump of Beachy Head instead of going through all this nomination malarkey?

'Thank you for those kind words.'

Mr Davis if you wish to stick two-fingers up to the flowers, the sun, the bird that sings and the busy little honey bee - then hanging yourself is your business.

Don't involve other people.

22 June 2011 at 15:24  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Well, well, well - Sydneysider eh?

I have no intention of wrapping a piece of piano wire round your soft neck.

Besides if I did, I would instruct YOU to 'YELL OUT IF IT HURTS'.

See?

22 June 2011 at 15:28  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

Cranmer

So lets look at his current article - where did Phillips express the view that you attribute to him "that only adherents of a particular religion may presume to criticise that religion". Just because he didn't criticise a religion other than his own in a single article it cannot be inferred that is his view on the matter. I could infer a lot of things from what you don't say in individual articles - but this is a technique best less to the Inquisition etc.

Yours in dumb insolence

22 June 2011 at 15:36  
Blogger len said...

Catholics pontificating again?(shakes head, sharp intake of breath )

His Grace has obviously restrained Himself on matters Catholic when there is sooo much one could say.

Look on the positive side Mr Dodo , every 'attack 'on Catholicism whether real or perceived) gives you and your mates a chance to further elaborate on the positive benefits of Catholicism to Humanity /or not as the case might be.

22 June 2011 at 15:36  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

I did appreciate that, just chose not to play!

As I said yesterday I'm all for up front criticism and straight forward exposure of the faults of individual Roman Catholics, boths priests and the laity, and the Church as an institution.

The disgraceful behaviour of priests who physically and sexually abused children is a source of deep shame and remorse in the Church. It has led to effort to understand it and to reform processes to prevent it reoccurring.

Thankfully, such behaviour was perpetrated by a small minority who were then inappropriately shielded by the Church. At the time the addictive, manipulative and pernicious nature of this crime against innocence was not understood. Today it is.

I'm sure if you had written about it today you would have been balanced and fair. Change often requires external pressure and criticism. It is the simplistic, reflex attacks of some I object to.

22 June 2011 at 15:43  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Graham Davis wrote:

Something along the lines that society acknowledges your right to do whatever you want unless it hurts or discriminates against someone else.

There are at least three critical assumptions in this statement. You have failed to provide a definition for:

1. "hurt"
2. "discriminate"
3. "someone"

The lack of definitions will reduce your proposal to scrap metal. Those are precisely the categories that people argue about, and here you are assuming some definition in your statement without actually stating it. As soon as you provide definitions, the arguments will start. Consider. No-fault divorce hurts both the violated spouse, and any children. Laws against polygamy and incest discriminate. Abortion kills someone. You haven't avoided these arguments. You have simply tried to preempt them.

Changing the law will allow you to personally practice what you believe and stop you from imposing your will on me.

Laws impose on the will. That is what they are supposed to do. The question is "How do we decide what impositions should be placed on the will?" Simply saying "We shouldn't hurt or discriminate against others" doesn't really say anything.

You also have to properly account for the fact that the autonomous actions of one man cannot be hermetically isolated from impacting the life of another. It is not just direct harm that must be considered. You must also consider the indirect impact that personal actions may have on others. You only have to consider the very real connection between fatherless children and violent crime to understand this impact.

carl

22 June 2011 at 15:47  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr len

You've just proved my point!

22 June 2011 at 15:48  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

His comments on old time religion makes me wonder if Trevor has brought us to Jeremiahs crossroads, do we take Trev's path or seek the old ways?

YG, your Platonic Forms and Aristotelian Virtues quip is just marvelous reminds me of Anaxagoras famous quote, "who ate all the Pies"

Trevors is a square peg in a round hole.

22 June 2011 at 15:49  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

Mr Dodo

I think you forget that paeodophilia and other abuse is not unknown in Christian churches other than the RCC. It is a sad fact of life that abuse and authority figures often go together, regardless of the views of the authority figure concerned.

22 June 2011 at 15:51  
Blogger Phillip said...

His Grace speaks great truth's. But the comments and arguments that follow are just as interesting.

22 June 2011 at 15:56  
Anonymous Justin Time said...

I beg to differ Mr Dodo re your not objecting to criticism of the Catholic Church.

In a previous post you said you would rather a full frontal unthinking assault (such as len's )rather than a considered measured criticism(sydneysider's) as you considered those comments to be subversive and presumably more threatening because
you thought sydneysider had 'inside information' whatever that means!

22 June 2011 at 15:59  
Blogger len said...

Mr Dodo,
and you proved mine!
Stand off then.?

If your religion doesn`t stand close examination perhaps it has something to hide? Or perhaps its error is so huge that it is impossible NOT to see it, that further concealment of its errors have become impossible?

I see Catholicism that started of with one error but kept adding to it as it rolled along like a snowball and it got bigger and bigger until it was so huge that everyone could see it, apart from those who were trapped within it.

22 June 2011 at 16:11  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Carl Jacobs said

No-fault divorce hurts both the violated spouse, and any children. Laws against polygamy and incest discriminate. Abortion kills someone. You haven't avoided these arguments. You have simply tried to preempt them.

I have not trivialised the difficulties but if your solution is to do what a mythical and non-existent God tells you then that hardly solves the problem.

Divorce hurts but I am sure that you are not advocating banning it or suggesting that couples who loathe each other stay together? There are lots of things that make divorce less likely, namely marrying later when you have already had a few trial runs with other partners and using contraception have avoided creating unwanted children.

As for polygamy what business has the State or you to tell me how many spouses I can have? There may be tax and benefit implications but these can easily be resolved.

Incest between parent and child is also paedophilia and wrong because the older person is exploiting the younger’s innocence and inexperience.

Incest between adult siblings not morally wrong but it is biologically harmful and so is rightly discouraged.

22 June 2011 at 16:18  
Anonymous MrJ said...

15:28_ That may be a private message (or an expletive better deleted?), but if it is intended as part of the common discussion here is(Mr) D.Singh willing to give some further explanation.

22 June 2011 at 16:22  
Blogger len said...

Mr Davis,
Your 'guitar' seems to have only one string and it makes a most mournful noise.

Christian morals have endured for so long because they work!.They are a blueprint for society.
Of course if you want to tear up the blueprint and throw it away what do you propose to put in its place?.
Bearing in mind everyone has a different viewpoint of what would make society work.One man`s meat can indeed be another man`s poison.'Human Rights' don`t seem to be working too well either.

22 June 2011 at 16:30  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

"Good Muslims / Bad Muslims" - remember that most people, on both sides of this argument, characterise a "good" Muslim as good in our, Western Judeo-Christian terms. To Muslims themselves (and certainly those of the Islamicist/jihadist variety) what we call "good" Muslims may be bad Muslims, and vice versa; to the Islamicists, a Good Muslim is one who rejects integration, Western democracy, law, etc., and plants bombs at the possible cost of self-destruction (which they inaccurately call "martyrdom").

22 June 2011 at 16:32  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

Singh

Do you ever consider that there may well be people terminally ill reading this blog. Stick to sycophancy it is after all your forte.

You display an appalling lack of propriety or understanding of humanity. From what I read of yours, you are nothing without rambling tracts from the Bible - you are a husk without even the germ of empathy.

It matters not to you that the people you would condemn to a living death may well be using this time to prepare themselves for the end of their life - why else would you be so gratuitously graphic.

You are without doubt the best antidote for religion.

22 June 2011 at 16:32  
Blogger len said...

The one outstanding thing about Jesus Christ was his love for people, all people, (except the Pharisees.)
If we Christians do not reflect the love of Jesus we have failed Him and perhaps we should not speak at all.
Jesus was close to the broken hearted, to those suffering emotionally and physically, He healed all who came to him for help.
The main theme running through Jesus`s ministry was love and this easily becomes corrupted into judgement and condemnation and dead religious works.
As Paul said without love we are nothing.

22 June 2011 at 17:01  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Feed Phillips to the Lions!

22 June 2011 at 17:12  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

Graham Davis

Thank you for making my point for me. You immediately defended the implicit concepts you embedded in your definition. You yourself want to impose your will on others. You thus establish that we are not arguing about whether to impose on the autonomous will but how to impose on the autonomous will. So what then are we to make of your original statement?

Changing the law will allow you to personally practice what you believe and stop you from imposing your will on me.

It would seem to be somewhat inconsistent. It seems you merely want me to not be able to impose my understanding on you while you are free to impose your understandings on those around you. Have you said anything more than "You should all agree with my understanding of 'hurt' and 'discriminate' and 'someone?"

carl

22 June 2011 at 17:18  
Anonymous MrJ said...

(Mr) len (17:01) ... "except the Pharisees"...?

Surely none were to be excepted, not even those who were proud to be Pharisees: used in parable as an example of how not to pray, but also in the person of Saul - Paul shown as a foremost example of true repentance having turned from the way of "Pharisaism".

22 June 2011 at 18:39  
Anonymous Bill said...

Mr Phillips is an advocate and protector of "Group" rights over those of the individual. If you are a member of a state mandated "group" or "communuity" he is payed to defend you against non mandated groups such as christians, white men etc.

His statements are in this sense consistent, but one would hope that one day he would begin to see that "human rights" are actually for all "humans" and that the ultimate minority is the individual. It is individual that needs protecting from state tyranny which is the essence of our legal system. Mr Phillips may one day stand up the individual but at present his organisation cannot speak for non mandated individuals and societal conflict goes on.

22 June 2011 at 18:54  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len

Presumably your critique of Roman Catholicism is directed equally at the Church of England and the Orthodox Church too?

Of course my concerns about the heresies of 'protestantism' apply across all the various sects and cults who come under this broad term.

22 June 2011 at 18:57  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

Is the Church of England a sect or a cult, in your view? How do you define the difference? Why do you place 'Protestantism' in inverted commas and apportion a lower-case 'p'?

22 June 2011 at 19:05  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Phillips is caught up in his private maya of illusional in power and should keep his beliefs to himself.

Let his disciples follow him and erect a place of worship.

Myself I think he is a tribal deity and just one of the many faces of JesuShiva.

22 June 2011 at 19:09  
Anonymous MrJ said...

The anathemas pronounced against "heresies" and "heretics" as resolved by Ecumenical Councils under or by virtue of Imperial authority, and the pursuit and punishment of "heretics" by the Inquisition (and similar action under Catholic or Protestant princes) seems to have about it something like the state mandated group to be defended against others not state mandated.

(The comparison is not exact.)

22 June 2011 at 19:19  
Anonymous MrJ said...

Replaces incomplete 19:19...

The fortuitous juxtaposition of the comments of (Mr) Bill (18:54) and Mr Dodo (18:57) may be instructive.

The anathemas pronounced against "heresies" and "heretics" as resolved by Ecumenical Councils under or by virtue of Imperial authority, and the pursuit and punishment of "heretics" by the Inquisition (and similar action under Catholic or Protestant princes) seems to have about it something like the state mandated group to be defended against others not state mandated.

(The comparison is not exact.)

22 June 2011 at 19:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

His Grace: "It is not for Trevor Phillips to define what constitutes ‘Christian values’."

But the rest of us are regularly told that our society is based on Judeo-Christian values and that they're the very pillars of it such that if they are removed then the hole thing will collapse. I don't believe that for a minute of course but if society is based on those values then surely the rest of us ought to be able to recognise them straight away?

22 June 2011 at 20:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I can see that there's a difference between 'freedom of religion' and 'freedom of worship', where the latter might be advocated by some sort of atheist totalitarians. However, I'm not really seeing how 'freedom of religion' is really being challenged in the UK.

Of course, when we talk about freedom we're really talking about the open space between rights. That is, it's a freedom from constraint or coercion. Who is actually suggesting that the religious should abort foetuses, or have nookie with members of the same sex, or rob banks, or take part in black masses? There's an obvious freedom of conscience available.

What some people are saying is that the religious should not in general be able to dictate to employers what they wear or parade around on work premises, and that they should not be able to unduly discriminate in the provision of goods and services to the public, and so on. That is, their religious beliefs are private when they adopt social roles in public.

22 June 2011 at 20:26  
Anonymous Rufus McGrew said...

Here is an interesting study of how Muslims increase in violence as the percent of population grows. I wonder if Mr. Phillips is aware of this?...

http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-national/as-muslim-population-grows-what-can-happen-to-a-society

22 June 2011 at 21:26  
Anonymous carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

Of course, when we talk about freedom we're really talking about the open space between rights.

To be precise, we are talking about defining the boundaries of the open space between rights. You are presuming that you and people who think like you should have the exclusive right to define those boundaries. That is not an acceptable answer. To use your own example from previous in this thread, it is not sufficient for you to say "No one is forcing you to have an abortion." The moral nature of any decision does not reduce to the autonomous desires of the individual will. I cannot look away from some actions simply because I choose not to partake. Some choices are objectively evil and must be prohibited. Even you, though you inhabit a world devoid of objective truth, would still universally prohibit some actions. One should not be allowed to kill his own child any more than he should be allowed to sell that child for body parts. The fact that I choose not to sell my children for parts is irrelevant to the decision to universally prohibit the act.

It's all well and good for you to say "We must leave space just so long as I get to define the boundaries of that space." Except I refuse to acknowledge the parameters by which you would define it. Your secular notions of morality are no more acceptable to me than my religious notions are acceptable to you. Neither are your notions more rational or more neutral or more objective. They simply allow you to do what you want to do without interference. And that is the whole point of your assertion.

carl

22 June 2011 at 22:01  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

Mr AB Cranmer

To my way of thinking the Church of England is an Apostolic Church, is based on sacraments and shares much in common doctrinally with the Church of Rome.

Regretably, within the Anglican community there is great division and a lack of definate leadership about the significant issues of the times. It is a very great shame the ordination of woman has now placed what is probably an irreparable barrier in the way of greater communion with Rome.

I would see the Church of England as neither a 'sect' nor a 'cult' but part of a divided Christian family. There is, or should be, room for the one, holy, catholic and apostolic church to find ways to resolve its differences.

'Protestantism' in inverted commas and lower-case 'p' (which maybe it shouldn't have) is so varied, lacks leadership, lacks doctrines and dogmas that I regard as valid and is not based on Apostolic authority or succession. It seperates itself from the sacraments, from 'religious' observance and a priesthood. In my opinion it is therefore a series of 'cults' and heretical 'sects'.

The confusing bit for me as an 'outsider' to Anglicanism is the overlap between the Church of England and 'protestantism'.

This probably isn't too clear, but it's my best effort as answering your questions.

22 June 2011 at 23:17  
Blogger len said...

I believe when we meet Jesus face to face his first question will not be "what denomination are you then?."
The problem when we identify with a denomination rather than a person is that we feel obliged to defend that denomination.
Christianity is Christ from start to finish.
Christianity is a person not a religious organisation.
Each denomination claims to have the truth, to be the way, but Jesus said HE is the Truth,HE is the Way.
If all we have is a denomination then we have nothing at all.
If all we have is a religion then we have nothing at all, we have missed the point entirely.
If works can gain one entrance to Heaven then Christ`s entire life and sacrifice on the Cross was in vain.
The religious are probably the most difficult people to come to Christ because they think they have it within themselves to equal Christ`s righteousness.

(WV culted)

22 June 2011 at 23:24  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len

I asked this question some hours ago:

"Presumably your critique of Roman Catholicism is directed equally at the Church of England and the Orthodox Church too?"

Have YOU just answered it in the affirmative?

22 June 2011 at 23:33  
Blogger len said...

Mr Dodo ,I think I just answered your question.

You are still doing the 'denomination thing'.
I think the 'Church 'is failing spectacularly.The World has entered the Church and is destroying it from within.
Looking at various churches I see the apostasy is well advanced in most.
Meantime I think the Body of Christ is doing very well and growing rapidly.God is calling people out of Churches and false religions and gathering His people to Himself.
The Body of Christ is within the denominations but not part of the denominations.
The Body is gathering in House groups and solitary individuals in contact through the internet.Prayer is rising up to God in spirit and in Truth and the threshing floor is being prepared to separate the wheat from the Chaff.

23 June 2011 at 00:21  
Blogger Mr Dodo said...

len

The 'denominational thing', as you call it, is, in my Christian faith, the direct link between Christ, His message and His appointed successors.

The Church is more than a body of disjointed individuals each believing what they want, but a body organised for the purposes of preserving and propagating the faith.

23 June 2011 at 01:02  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "To be precise, we are talking about defining the boundaries of the open space between rights. You are presuming that you and people who think like you should have the exclusive right to define those boundaries. That is not an acceptable answer."

That's simply not true is it? We're a liberal democracy: we argue and reason and eventually agree as a collective to follow a course of action. I don't claim an exclusive right in real life.

It's a marketplace of ideas, and a competition of special interests, and it's based in part on the value of maximising the freedom of the individual.

If you don't like the form of a liberal democracy then you can try to change it, by argument or by force, or you can try to join another society that you find more acceptable if they will have you.

"Some choices are objectively evil and must be prohibited. Even you, though you inhabit a world devoid of objective truth, would still universally prohibit some actions."

I would argue to prohibit certain things based on a shared understanding of the world and based on a shared emotional/moral response to certain things.

As for abortion, it is not "objectively evil" and there is no "must" about prohibiting it. You need to argue for that as it stands. I have seen the typical Christian argument many times and it is not persuasive in its entirety.

The form of the arguments between religionists and non-religionists is better characterised as one between a theoretical / wishful thinking approach (the assertion of an absolute moral code flowing from your asserted gods) and a practical approach (ethics for living in a diverse society agreed amongst ourselves from a diverse set of values).

I recognise what you are trying to say about intervention. The construct of rights that I understand means that some rights produce duties on third parties. Of course they do, they're claim rights. But others are liberty rights such as being able to manifest one's religion while operating a B&B which is a regulated activity.

A religious person might assert that blood transfusions are prohibited by their god and deny a potentially life-saving on for their child. Well, that's not an acceptable decision for most of us so the State steps in to force the issue and prevent harm to the child irrespective of the religious (but qualified) rights of the parents. There's the opening for yet another abortion debate there. ;)

Religionists are asserting that some of their rights are claim rights but that is very much a contested issue for the rest of us. This is what is underlying some of the 'freedom of religion' issue in the article, I'd say.

23 June 2011 at 06:58  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Dreadnaught:

'living death '.

Oxymoronic.

23 June 2011 at 07:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Dread’:

‘Singh’

‘Do you ever consider that there may well be people terminally ill reading this blog.’

Yes of course I do.

And if they haven’t given their lives to Jesus Christ – then they may suffer the torments of the damned forever.

Mr Davis must learn to be consistent with his view that he is ‘biologically driven’. This means that it does not matter, in his view, if he hangs himself or does not hang himself.

I can’t imagine why any atheist would want to elicit sympathy for a ‘cloud of molecules’.

23 June 2011 at 07:54  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

I am surprized that any-one bothers to examine what this foreign placething says.Us sub-humans think that he ought to retire to his homeland amongst the trees where he can enjoy his roots and the cloudforest in company with others of his kind.

23 June 2011 at 08:04  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

"I can’t imagine why any atheist would want to elicit sympathy for a ‘cloud of molecules’."

Because the sympathy is for relatives and friends who continue to exist.

23 June 2011 at 09:37  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

And if they haven’t given their lives to Jesus Christ – then they may suffer the torments of the damned forever.

Along with their physical and mental suffering you would have them contemplate this false expectation as well as the natural distress at leaving their loved ones?

Anywhere else this would be regarded as cruel coercion by a bully or worse through lies and wilful deceit. Religious Fascism by any other name - love your use of the word 'may' - in other words you would torment this person even though you admit to having an element doubt. Truly nasty.

23 June 2011 at 09:57  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU and Dreadnaught

‘Relatives’, ‘friends’, ‘distress’?

Davis’s ‘biologically driven’ units?

I thought you were friends of his? Sympathetic to atheism?

23 June 2011 at 10:30  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

D Singh

The desire to look after relatives and friends does indeed have biological drivers - although personally I do believe human consciouness does permit us to do things that are above biological imperatives as well. As an agnostic I remain open minded as to where human consciousness comes from.

23 June 2011 at 10:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

TBNGU

Make your mind up, kid:

'human consciouness' (machine switched on) or the human conscience?

23 June 2011 at 10:45  
Anonymous tory boys never grow up said...

@D Singh

Make your mind up

Why and how? I'm afraid blind faith or threats don't do it for me.

23 June 2011 at 11:01  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

Mr Singh

I am touched by your concern for my welfare and your suggested options for my suicide, Jumping of Beachy Head sounds nice although hanging might be ecologically sounder as it avoids a long drive to the south coast. As I will require assisted suicide by the time the need arises I was wondering if you would be my suicide buddy? A sharp push is all that is needed for either option.

And for the record this ‘cloud of molecules’ would be happy to indemnify you from prosecution and I understand that your primitive belief system offers you a special exemption for the assisted suicide of atheists.

23 June 2011 at 11:11  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Davis

'As I will require assisted suicide by the time the need arises...'

The 'need' is now? Why wait? Don't procrastinate!

Don't wait for a malfunction! Do it now!

Remember: repairs are expensive!

23 June 2011 at 11:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Indeed!

Overpopulation?

Sex ed. Not working? Rise in teenage pregnancies?

Atheists living too long in a meaningless world? Suffering depression?

We atheists can solve that too!

‘Renewal Centres’ are opening up all over the country – bring ‘em on in.

Quick terminations guaranteed!

Say do you know someone who’s unhappy?

23 June 2011 at 11:30  
Blogger Graham Davis said...

D. Singh said...

Don't wait for a malfunction! Do it now!

Isn’t incitement to suicide illegal?

Anyway I think I’ll wait, apparently there are some very good last minute deals for weekend breaks at Dignitas.

Slogan: “For the weekend you will never remember”.

23 June 2011 at 11:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Incitement to suicide?

No!

We are terminating 'bio. driven' units.

No law against that.

No, sir!

23 June 2011 at 11:33  
Anonymous Dreadnaught said...

What a Tit ! - (bird brain)

23 June 2011 at 12:06  
Blogger D. Singh said...

You're afraid of the implications of your atheism.

You've suddenly realised that it can be used to terminate you.

23 June 2011 at 12:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Dreadnaught

Quoting D. Singh:

‘And if they haven’t given their lives to Jesus Christ – then they may suffer the torments of the damned forever.’

Dreadnaught:

‘Anywhere else this would be regarded as cruel coercion by a bully or worse through lies and wilful deceit. Religious Fascism by any other name - love your use of the word 'may' - in other words you would torment this person even though you admit to having an element doubt. Truly nasty.’

‘May’?

There are some who clearly have never had the opportunity of hearing the good news about Jesus Christ; for example, the 7th century Eskimo. So what happens to them?

‘For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness, and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.’

Romans 2:14-16

They will be judged in accord with how they lived with what their consciences advised them.

I’ve always wanted to ask you this Dreadnaught: are you Dawkins?

It’s just that the way you use language is very similar to his style.

23 June 2011 at 13:03  
Anonymous Oswin said...

tory boys never grow-up @ 13:44 :

Do you live in Birmingham perhaps? If yes, then I can only presume that you don't get out much. Probably a wise decison really; stick to it, is my advice.

24 June 2011 at 02:12  
Blogger Nightwatchstate said...

I know I'm late to this party and don't have anything worth much to contribute, but I just wanted to say that I wish all these awful cultural marxists would just go away.

If they think muslims are so effin' tolerant, why don't they move to the gaza strip and help smuggle weapons for hamas.

24 June 2011 at 02:26  
Anonymous John Thomas said...

"Terminally ill people reading this blog". Many terminally ill people are not as delicate as you suggest; some facing degenerative diseases are quite strong (some of them even make television programmes ...). Learning the truth about things can maybe help them; some may even appreciate it. Euthanasia/suicide, "assisted"/"chosen" ... just words ... all comes down to the same thing.

24 June 2011 at 09:38  
Anonymous Bishop Dominic Stockford (Evangelical Connexion) said...

Even later to this party - how on earth does Trevor Phillips think it so difficult for Christians to 'integrate' into a country with a Christian Constitution and a Christian state church, and a Christian monarch?

Or has he missed the fact that Christians shouldn't need to integrate into a country that is Christian in that way?

24 June 2011 at 16:31  
Anonymous Bishop Dominic Stockford (Evangelical Connexion) said...

And:

"Dreadnaught replied to this following by picking on the word "may" and getting most upset by it...

"And if they haven’t given their lives to Jesus Christ – then they may suffer the torments of the damned forever."

I would like to take this opportunity to remove the word that so offends him and replace it with the teaching of the Bible.

"And if they haven’t given their lives to Jesus Christ – then they will suffer the torments of the damned forever."

24 June 2011 at 16:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"into a country with a Christian Constitution and a Christian state church, and a Christian monarch?"

Not for long. ;)

26 June 2011 at 06:52  
Anonymous scs said...

If Mr Cameron wants Freedom of Worship rather than Freedom of Religion for Christians, then let him lead the way by example in the political sphere and limit his activity to the party clubhouse.

After all, politics deals with distinctly less truth and more opinion than Christianity.

27 June 2011 at 10:19  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older