Monday, September 12, 2011

Cranmer's Law

The proposition is really quite simple: it has been in development for many months, if not years, but the articulation has been awaiting further empirical evidence.

It has become axiomatic that when people of a conservative disposition – that is, politically, philosophically, religiously or socially of ‘the right’ – open their mouths, they are, according to their opponents, swivel-eyed, intolerant, hateful, nasty bigots.

Thus, if you believe (and argue) that marriage should be between one man and one woman, you are ‘homophobic’. If you believe Christian ministry should be exercised by heterosexual men, you are a ‘bigot’. Last week, His Grace highlighted the undue influence exerted by ousted LibDem MP Dr Evan Harris upon the democratic process and his proclivity for all things pro-death (legalised euthanasia, liberalised abortion), and it was assumed His Grace’s motivation for doing so was ‘hatred’. Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome reminded us in The Telegraph of Evan Harris’ ‘Dr Death’ moniker. By way of riposte, Dr Harris (who habitually criticises others for their ad hominem) accused Mr Montgomerie of being anti-Semitic.

It appears that if you dare to attack the political or social policies of a LibDem Jew, it must be because of latent anti-Semitism; not an aversion either to the individual or his beliefs. Malevolence is the presumption. Melanie Phillips has also observed the strategy:
...this demonstrates once again the power of the campaigns of instantaneous demonisation and denunciation now employed to silence those who uphold a socially conservative position by tarring and feathering them as swivel-eyed bigots.
Three years ago, His Grace observed the effects of this upon the expression of orthodox Christian beliefs:
When Christians dare to be convicted, they are portrayed as bigots. When they articulate a view with which others may disagree, they are dogmatic. When they fall short of perfection, they are pilloried and cast as hypocrites. When they defend the unborn, they are unenlightened. When they oppose animal-human embryos, they are anti-science. When they express concern over the fatherless, they are homophobic. When they speak up for the poor, they are wishy-washy liberals. When they defend faith-based education, they are intolerant. When they seek to uphold marriage, they are ‘right wing’ reactionaries.
And just over a year ago, he observed the censorious effect of such ad hominem comment upon rational discourse for reasons of distraction and diversion. Should you dare to raise the thorny subject of limiting immigration, you are ‘racist’; if you juxtapose homosexuality with sin, you are ‘homophobic’; if you argue for the Protestant foundations of the British Constitution, you are a ‘bigot’; if you expresses theological concerns over Islam or utter a word in defence of Israel, you are is ‘Islamophobic’; if you are sceptical about man-made global warming, you are a ‘denier’; if you reason from Scripture and seek to uphold traditional morality, you are ‘intolerant’; and should you ever dare to question any precept or directive of the ‘ever closer’ European Union, you are a not only ‘xenophobic’, but a ‘swivel-eyed, right-wing loon’.

Thus is the level of political discourse in modern Britain: every contentious issue, no matter how worthy of scrutiny or debate, is swiftly closed down with threats of a fatwa or observable character assassination. In this age of hyper-sensitivity to offending anyone on any matter, discussion is suppressed and liberties are surrendered, not least because those who are known to hold such views are likely to be barred by the main parties from standing for Parliament.

In fulfilment of the Orwellian prophecy, the prevailing political narrative has given rise to deviant definitions. ‘Bigotry’ has ceased to mean the obstinate and blind, often nasty and hypocritical, attachment to a particular creed. ‘Hatred’ has ceased to mean intense dislike or loathing. ‘Phobic’ has ceased to mean morbid fear or aversion. Each of these terms is now routinely applied to those who simply possess a contrary view or articulate an opposing opinion to the ubiquitous liberal-left worldview and social orthodoxy, and especially to those whose observations are irrefutable and arguments unanswerable.

And so, following the laws of Godwin and Hannan, today His Grace promulgates ‘Cranmer’s Law’, in honour of the memory of the one who was ‘an heretick’ no matter what he wrote, recanted, preached or proclaimed. He dared to articulate a view contrary to the state’s received orthodoxy, and duly paid the price. ‘Heretic’ has today simply been supplanted with ‘bigot’; ‘heresy’ with ‘hate speech’. But it is the same spirit of blind intolerance which is seen to possess even the most intelligent of commentators.
CRANMER’S LAW: “No matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the reasoning of a conservative may be, as an argument with a liberal is advanced, the probability of being accused of ‘bigotry’, ‘hatred’ or ‘intolerance’ approaches 1 (100%).”
Observe, declare and disseminate far and wide.

121 Comments:

Blogger Rebel Saint said...

The law is self-evidently true (and words to that effect have accompanied my blog/twitter bio for some time). I am more than happy for your name to be attributed to it if it disseminates it wider. However, might be nice to acknowledge that it was first postulated in the comments by my good self ;o)

12 September 2011 11:05  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

Cranmer's law is a bit of a statement of the bleedin' obvious.

It's quite clear that the liberal hegemony over everything has been getting worse over the decades. Liberals have been stealthily taking over all our public organisations - the law, medicine, publishing etc. - and the church, but I want to know why.

Is it a symptom of a declining civilisation - a stage that a civilisation goes through as it decays? And thus is ineluctable?

Or is there some other reason and rather than it being part of an inevitable process, is it reversible?

I don't know, but it might help to reverse it if we understood what's causing it.

12 September 2011 11:11  
Blogger Angus Lambkin said...

Do you really believe that this is one-way traffic.

12 September 2011 11:15  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Rebel Saint,

All that His Grace has done is to give the manifestation a definition. As he observed (at least) three years ago, and Melanie Phillips and Dan Hannan have articulated numerous times, it is evident that this has been a self-evident truth in search of an abstract noun. His Grace named it in honour of himself. Whether or not you are 'perfectly happy' with this is really quite immaterial. His Grace's blog is a debating chamber: his thoughts prompt his communicants to respond, and those responses inspire his further thoughts. It is all a gloriously ecumenical collaboration.

12 September 2011 11:17  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Your Grace, this is precisely why I won't vote for any of the buggers; red, blue or yellow.

12 September 2011 11:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Heck, if playing the victim works for Muslim communities then it's probably worth a try for social conservatives too. Good luck.

12 September 2011 11:25  
Blogger Preacher said...

Dr Cranmer.
Keep up the good work, who cares what opponents say?.
We know that the Lord met the same problem & Promised that many would be scornful of truth, especially when it imposed on their cosy little sins that they have cherished & nourished for so long.
Continue to shine the light in the dark, rattle the bars of the cage (especially when they are asleep & snug in their straw). My old pastor had a saying "If you throw a rock up a dark alley & there's a yell, you've hit something!".
God Bless & strengthen you Sir.

12 September 2011 11:40  
Blogger bluedog said...

An excellent exposition, Your Grace.

Your communicant will continue to swivel his eyes, his hips and anything else he can think of. If the Left wish to discriminate against us swivellers, we can now exclaim 'Cranmer's Law Infringement!'. Which will throw them completely off balance, thus buying time, that most elusive of wasting assets.

12 September 2011 11:40  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Belsay BugleI don't know, but it might help to reverse it if we understood what's causing it.

I think Ann Coulter gets a good handle on it: it's the law of the mob and is probably a spiritual affliction at root as well as being a psychological one.

There is good reason to actually have Cranmer's Law known as Coulter's Law, however she is far too brash & Evangelical for it to gain much traction this side of the Atlantic.

12 September 2011 11:44  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Cranmer said ... "Whether or not you are 'perfectly happy' with this is really quite immaterial."

Ooo! Handbags at the ready! ;o)

Angus Lambkin said ... "Do you really believe that this is one-way traffic.?"

Predominantly it is. And certainly if you were to compare the speed at which these epitaph's are first introduced, and the vitriol that accompanies them, then the liberals win hands down. Particularly amusing is the viciousness with which they accuse of us of "hating" people, or of being "intolerant" ... without the slightest hint of irony. [And that's another trait of the left - their lack of self-depreciating humour. They take themselves very very seriously ... maybe because no-one else does?].

12 September 2011 11:55  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

Food for thought and now I appreciate your repeated criticism of me in past encounters.

Wise words indeed and I take them on board.

One must also consider that those on the 'right' can be guilty too of throwing such ill-considered accusations around, especially when debates become heated, as I have been. Discerning genuine bigotry from passionate commitment to firmly held views or opinions can be difficult at times.

God Bless

12 September 2011 11:56  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

When you believe, as the Left does, that the world would be awash with equality, fraternity, liberty, happiness and peace if only everyone would think and do as they were told, those who take a pragmatic view of humankind must seem a vexatious bunch fully deserving of whatever insults fall to hand. The fact that the grand projects of the Left invariably disintegrate when they collide with human nature does not seem to deter the visionaries in the slightest.

12 September 2011 11:59  
Blogger whitespacebug said...

Nowhere near one way traffic, I assume neither His Grace nor any of his communicants read some of the stuff they write.

12 September 2011 12:11  
Blogger Hereward said...

Take heart YG.

In the kingdom of the blind the one-eyed man has always been a heretic.

12 September 2011 12:30  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

The liberal needs to demonise someone to justify himself.

Dr Johnson said "The devil was the first liberal Sir, never could bide authority."

12 September 2011 12:31  
Blogger The Justice of the Peace said...

How true are Your Grace`s observations! That is a statement not a question. Discussing with a young close relative`s friends the facts of the over representation as offenders of young black people relative to their proportion of the general population he informed me later that they considered me to be racist. Such disdain for facts is unfortunately linked to "liberals" with anything but a liberal attitude to the truth.

12 September 2011 12:40  
Blogger Jon said...

Angus Lambkin is right - it's not like this is a one way street! The left invokes its temporal fire on those who deviate from its norms, and you've encapsulated them perfectly. Meanwhile, the right sticks to its small 'c' conservative script with gusto...

If you question the merits of foreign wars, you are a "traitor" or an "appeaser". If you dare to be gay - you're a bugger, a shirt lifter, or more gratuitously, a paedophile. If you question the Church's position on abortion, you are "Dr Death" If you're a single mother, you are tarnished as lazy or the progenitor of societal collapse.

The right has signally failed to live up to Hayek's ambitions for its protagonists and are as ready to resort to ad hominem attacks as the left.

12 September 2011 12:51  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Actually I think Cranmer's Law, in this case, is more about putting words in his opponent's mouth so that they can be twisted in order to support his own viewpoint. Go back and look at my post - I never said said you were "motivated" by hatred. I just said that you demonstrated it in your post. Given that the dictionary definition of hatred is usually one of "extreme dislike" - I think your posting as pointed out by Dreadnaught more than adequately demonstrated this to be the case.

It is also worth noting that in my post that my argument as to why Widdicombe's assertion as to 8000 votes having been switched in the Oxford East and Abingdon election - still haven't addresed. Perhaps there is some rule about the right just ignoring counter views that do not fit with their own.

There would certainly be some sort of rule working here that the left/liberals can be treated as homogenous whole to which broadbrush statements and ridiculous rules can be applied.

12 September 2011 12:59  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

As ever Your Grace has captured the problem succinctly. However, I would point out, despite my agreement, that the political spectrum is not linear but circular. Go far enough in either direction and you are in the same place.

12 September 2011 13:04  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Tory Boys Never Grow Up,

The point you say was not addressed has indeed been addressed:

"His Grace thinks there may have been one or two other variables at play (Lembit Opik, for example, was not ejected by the churches)..."

So, as it happens, His Grace agrees with you contra Ann Widdecombe. But, of course, you only see what you wish to see. And, for the record, His Grace is not obliged to 'address' any of your questions or respond to any of your ill-tempered demands.

12 September 2011 13:05  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

Having enthusiastically embraced the tripe of the media,for the past few years,while they demonise any who dissagrees ,holohoax,global temperature change,invasion by the third world,abortion,you now feel under threat,whereas if all Englishmen had stood solidly shoulder to shoulder,this kind of vicious infantility would never have gained any leverage of the kind that we see today.Various political parties have been almost destroyed due to the pack mentality,those very same parties that seek to uphold and preserve the English way of life,and try to ensure that there is at least a vestige of democracy,but no,all of these elderly fascist/nazi supporters,your uncles,aunts,mothers,fathers,in failing health,toothless and many other illnesses besides,were the only ones prepared to object to our peoples dis-possession,and for that they were ridiculed and reviled,exactly when they needed the support of thier countrymen,the state set the mob on them,and the "intellectuals"abandoned them without a second thought,when what they are argueing for will benefit not only themselves but all of the English nation and its future.When the poles and various species stole my job,i complained,to the prime minister of the day,and any-one else i could find,which they all found so amusing,but they are not laughing now that it is thier job up for grabs.so beds and lying in them.

12 September 2011 13:19  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Cranmer

You may see my wish not to have motives assigned to myself which I did not hold as an "ill tempered demand" and that is your prerogative. But please do not lecture the left or anyone else on how they should engage with their opponents and seek to understand their views rather than using glib throwaway statements and accusations.

Perhaps to get back to the original issue you might wish to address how by any stretch of the imagaination your original post on Dr Evan Harris could be seen as decent, intelligent or thoughtful reasoning seeking to advance an argument with a liberal. The language used would be seen as anyone on the receiving end of such a tirade as hateful - and the last thing it would do is advance any argument. That was the gist of my complaint - not that you were motivated by hate.

12 September 2011 13:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Poor Evan Harris, I bet he thinks he's a leper being followed around by someone ringing a leper bell given the amount of times he features here. Aww.

12 September 2011 13:51  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Cranmer seems to have a case-by-case policy on youtube links so this one might not last ...
Part 1 of Ann Coulter explaining the difference between the Liberals & Conservatives. Spot on in every respect (notice how she's not even afraid to talk about a saviour ... how many of our commentators would do the same?)

Interestingly, she points out a phenomenon that has not been touched on so far: the fact that even if people claim that "Cranmer's Law" has an equal & opposite liberal counter-part, liberal-left are far more willing to turn their words into physical acts of violence & intimidation, or with their advancement of "hate" laws, their own version of litigation-jihad.

12 September 2011 13:52  
Blogger PJ said...

Rebel Saint, excellent link! Ann Coulter seems to know what she's talking about!

12 September 2011 14:58  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

“Most revolutionaries are potential Tories, because they imagine that everything can be put right by altering the shape of society; once that change is effected, as it sometimes is, they see no need for any other.”

The above quote from Orwell, from whom Cranmer is prepared to lift for other purposes, perhaps best explains why the tendency to demonstrate a closed mind and seeking to rubbish your opponents is something that occurs among both liberals and conservatives.

Rebel Saint

Does it worry you that you seem to be drawing on only conservatives in idfentifying differences betweeen liberals and conservatives?

12 September 2011 15:00  
Blogger Oswin said...

Belsay Bugle @ both:

Tsk! I mentally compose a wee piece, only to find you've beaten me to it, with your self-same opening line. You then conclude, in almost identical vein, to my intended: Johnson's ''The first Whig was the Devil'' :o)

It appears to be something of a truism, that the allure of soft words and similar blandishments, serve to handicap any contrary opinion from the onset; rather like 'bread and circuses' or, the offer of a juicy apple.

12 September 2011 15:00  
Blogger Mark said...

So disseminated, Your Grace:
http://wannabeanglican.blogspot.com/2011/09/cranmers-law.html

And your law most certainly applies to political discourse in the U. S. as well.

12 September 2011 15:08  
Blogger Eddy Anderson said...

His Grace has a point. It’s a pity, though, that he could not apply his piercing powers of perception as equally to the inflammatory rhetoric of the Right (Dr Evan ‘Death’ Harris?) as to that of the Left; ad hominem is a disease which is by no means unique to liberals.

12 September 2011 15:29  
Blogger Flossie said...

'First vilify your opponents' is the first rule of revolutionaries. Those who wish to destroy the ancient institution of marriage have this down to a fine art.

Melanie Phillips is a hot favourite for Stonewall's 'Bigot of the Year' award, along with several others who happen to think that marriage should be restricted to being between a man and a woman.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2011/09/09/daily-mail-writer-melanie-phillips-and-scottish-mp-bill-walker-in-the-running-for-stonewalls-bigot-of-the-year/

No bigots, of course, though, among readers of Pink News - just mention the word 'Pope' and see what happens!

12 September 2011 15:46  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

NOT EVEN WRONG

It is nothing at all to do with "right" or "Left"

But a lot to do with the other political dimension, at right-angles to the first ...
That between Libertarian and Authoritarian.

Almost all religious believers rae authoritarian, since they rely on "divine" authority (even when that divine authority is that of the communist party, for instance .....

12 September 2011 15:52  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Just noticed...
Rebel Saint.
Quoting Ann Coulter, who is plainly completely demented - she spouts obvious untruths, but believes them, so she isn't lying, she's mad ......

12 September 2011 15:54  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

G Tingey/GreyMonk

Best not to try and reduce politics to geometry - aren't there a lot more than two dimensions and I don't see how they are at right angles to each other or why they have to straight/curved lines. I'm afraid people and their views just do not fit into nice regular shapes.

12 September 2011 16:04  
Blogger Jon said...

Really, Flossie? Melanie Philips being nominated as "bigot of the year" is broadly comparable to the vilification of a man actively complicit in covering up thousands of instances of child abuse in some of the arms of his multi-national corporation/ state?

Sorry for the ad hominem attack, but you're off your rocker, old son.

12 September 2011 16:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Flossie: "Melanie Phillips is a hot favourite for Stonewall's 'Bigot of the Year' award, along with several others who happen to think that marriage should be restricted to being between a man and a woman."

The best thing I can say about Ms Phillips is that at least she's not Jan Muir. Luckily, I'm a liberal rather than a social conservative so I can be a little mean about her without being labelled antisemitic. Phew. Not that I wish her any ill of course, I think anyone that miserable and dour deserves lots of sympathy. Is that ad hominem enough to apparently justify the law? I aim to please. :)

12 September 2011 16:35  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 September 2011 16:47  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Dodo's Law

"Sticks and stones may break my bones and feathers but words never hurt me - they do rile me and ruffle my plumage"

12 September 2011 16:51  
Blogger Flossie said...

Oh, thank you, Jon, thank you, thank you, for making HG's point so brilliantly!

You have made a despicable slur against His Holiness (no, I am not RC) without one single shred of evidence. Nor will you find any, because there isn't any. Believe me, better people than you have tried and failed. In fact, all the evidence is to the contrary, and he is the one above all others who has set in motion moves to prevent any further occurrences of this nature.

And by the way, it just happens that most (nearly 90%) of the cases of so-called paedophilia in the catholic church were against teenage boys (by adult men!). Doesn't sound quite the same as kiddy-fiddling, does it?

You're not one of Pink News's regulars, are you, perchance?

And don't call me 'old son'. 'Old girl', if you like.

12 September 2011 17:32  
Blogger Peter said...

‘When Christians dare to be convicted, they are portrayed as bigots.’ – only when they tend to go on about a topic disproportionately… or in the case of some Christian lobbying orgs or blogs, when they twist and distort information to give a negative and judgmental inference when none was there…

‘When they articulate a view with which others may disagree, they are dogmatic.’ – I don’t think this is always the case is it? e.g. Peter Tatchell supported a Christian woman who was arrested by the police for a homophobic letter – he defended her right to free speech!

‘When they fall short of perfection, they are pilloried and cast as hypocrites.’ And rightly so – particularly (going back to the lobbyists and Christian Rightwing blogs, they are so uncharitable to others whom they deem ‘sinful’).

‘When they defend the unborn, they are unenlightened.’ By pro-abortion lobbyists – there are many liberal Christians (like me) who are pro-life – however, shouting ‘Thou Shalt Not’ doesn’t work – only good sex education and a liberal and tolerant attitude to sexuality seems to make any real in-roads on abortion stats…

‘When they oppose animal-human embryos, they are anti-science.’ That depends if they understand the science – certainly many would agree care has to be taken with just how far science goes with such projects.

‘When they express concern over the fatherless, they are homophobic.’ I think if Christians are really concerned about the ‘fatherless’ - they would do better to be concerned about wider society – the number of ‘fatherless’ families are usually heterosexual, the result of failed marriages or lone (often teenage) parents – oddly enough overtly Christian communities (e.g. in UK Black African and Afro-Caribbean – or Bible Belt USA) seem most prone to breading fatherless children! So yes, to jaw on about ‘fatherless’ children as the preserve of homosexuals, when heterosexual marriage and teen pregnancy is the REAL problem, is homophobia, isn’t it?

‘When they speak up for the poor, they are wishy-washy liberals.’ Alas, as Christianity moves more and more to the Right, when do we hear about the poor, these days ? – perhaps if there was a little more introspection, compunction, humility and some social action from parishes (instead of faith based organisations reliant on state income and an often non-believing workforce) instead of finger pointing there’d be less of an exodus from the churches and greater growth?

‘When they defend faith-based education, they are intolerant.’ Given people fight tooth and nail for a place in a faith-based school and the government happily funds such schools (to the tune of billions a years), I think this is a little bit of an overreaction, don’t you?

‘When they seek to uphold marriage, they are ‘right wing’ reactionaries.’ I don’t think so – the majority of people still uphold marriage – it is looking for easy targets of blame for its failure that irks. The economic policies of Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown (allowing runaway house prices and a debt fuelled consumer economy, not to mention Thatcher’s promotion of Sunday trading, eroding the time families spend together and championing a selfish, materialistic lifestyle – ‘Loads a Money Culture’ of the late 80s) have probably had a far greater impact on ‘traditional’ marriage. Not to mention celeb kulcha, the sexual misdemeanours of those in the public eye (one who will be Supreme Governor of the CofE (old territory for ABC Cranmer...) – and politicians of all flavours). But too much is made of ‘easy’ targets by some of our Christian friends – and so the ‘right wing reactionary’ label is applicable if simple pathologies (often involving various minorities and/or political opponents) are proffered for complex and multifarious social problems.

In all, I can half hear what is being said, but I think the ranting of hyperbole and victim and blame culture is drowning out any real message the Archbishop is attempting to convey...

12 September 2011 18:03  
Blogger Peter said...

@Flossy/DanJ0

I have recently had correspondence with Ms Phillips and found her, for once, less verbose than usual... I can’t think why... See: http://faithisnotthesameasreligion1.blogspot.com/2011/08/ps-to-yesterdays-post-uk-riots-where.html

Regards:

P.

12 September 2011 18:12  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Jon said ...
"If you dare to be gay - you're a bugger, a shirt lifter, or more gratuitously, a paedophile."

What utter stuff and nonsense - as were the other examples cited. You really must get out more or at least broaden your reading.

As an example, here are some extracts giving Roman Catholic teaching on homosexulaity.

" ... the Catholic moral viewpoint is founded on human reason illumined by faith and is consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God our Father.

The Church's doctrine regarding this issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony. The community of faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church's living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.

To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood."


A disordered sexual inclination, an objective disrder, bringing harm to society and to those individuals choosing to engage in homosexual acts.

You may disgree with the above or the premises on which it is built, but homophobic? Talk of 'shirt-lifters' or 'buggers' or paedophiles'? I don't think so.

Reasoned, erudite and well argued.

12 September 2011 18:16  
Blogger J.D. Malcolmson said...

Jon 16.08

In a 1997 letter to The Guardian, Peter Tatchell defended an academic book about 'boy-love', calling the work "courageous" before writing:

"The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy. While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."

It is reasonable to presume from the above that Mr Tatchell did not participate in the "vilification of a man actively complicit in covering up thousands of instances of child abuse" but perhaps someone can confirm that this is the case.

OK - perhaps I'm being a little mischievous - Mr Tatchell did, some time later, in direct contradiction of his Guardian letter, claim that he did not condone sex between adults and children.

Why did he change his mind?

Oh and by the way I'm not a Catholic. Or a paedophile!

12 September 2011 18:36  
Blogger Oswin said...

Hey Dodo, I was about to congratulate you, when I noticed you'd beat me to it, with your last line!

12 September 2011 18:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

The Inspector would like to share with you an observation he has made over the years. As the liberal PC view increased,there was an inverse reduction in the use of a well beloved phrase. There had to be, because deep in their hearts, the PC people know it rings true.

Examples of recent arguments the Inspector has won…

The Local Council is strapped for cash but are still taking on women fire fighters – where’s the common sense in that ?

A well known gay pop star and his partner ‘adopting’ a child, depriving said child of a recognisable mother figure – where’s the common sense in that ?

A 19 year old male youth child care worker is convicted of appalling crimes against his young charges. Why was he employed – where’s the common sense in that ?

The Inspector could go on, but fear not he won’t. Try it and see, they don’t have a defence against it !!

12 September 2011 18:43  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Oswin said...
"Hey Dodo, I was about to congratulate you, when I noticed you'd beat me to it, with your last line!"

Ummm .... Irony or honesty? I never know with you, Sir.

I was, of course, referring to the Roman Catholic exposotion of its position on homosexuality, one that is shared by many other Christian groups - not complimenting myself.

12 September 2011 18:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood."

All bollocks, of course. How would a celibate life outside of a religious disorder contribute to my fulfillment and happiness? As a species, we're inclined to want sex and companionship. Sexual orientation comes after that, surely. This is just the Catholic politico-religious organisation wanting to control amd manipulate people yet again with its insider-outsider thinking and attempts at creepy religious hegemony. The sooner the edifice of that organisation is reduced to rubble the better.

12 September 2011 19:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ha @ Peter. I bet she looked like she'd bitten into a lemon thinking it were an orange when she read that.

wv: mings - honestly! :O

12 September 2011 19:08  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanJO said ...
"All bollocks, of course."

No, just a different way of looking at our human situation. One that believes in a God who has ordered us to live in certain ways for our own good.

12 September 2011 19:42  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

"ordered" as in created us.

12 September 2011 19:44  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

One that believes in a God who has ordered us to live in certain ways for our own good.

Explain that to anyone born with a deformity, disability or any other impediment that marks them as 'deficient' in conforming to the norm.

Do you think your god actually makes people homosexual to prove a point?

According to your records, Jesus never married, or had children or ever enjoyed a heterosexual relationship but enjoyed the company of men ....Hmmmm what would the Blessed DoDo have made of these observations had he been alive at the time I wonder? Not even a teeney bit? - you know, nudge-nudge, wink-wink ... just a teeny weeny little bit curious?

I know I would - but then like now - non of my f.....g business.

12 September 2011 20:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"No, just a different way of looking at our human situation. One that believes in a God who has ordered us to live in certain ways for our own good."

I suspect you'd see it differently if it were your particular human situation. Your church organisation is propagating evil by my way of looking at it.

12 September 2011 20:33  
Blogger C.Law said...

Peter, 18.03,

Way to go, boy !!

I don't agree with everything you say, but you have very neatly pointed out the problem with HG's rant which is that he has bundled together a wide spectrum of opinions and then described them as 'Ánglican Conservatism'.

Many people would hold some of those views while stongly objecting to others in his list.

May I also point out the Wikipaedia definition of 'ad hominem': An ad hominem (Latin: "to the man", "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an attempt to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person advocating it.[1] The ad hominem is normally described as a logical fallacy,[2][3][4] but it is not always fallacious; in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue.[5] with emphasis on the last phrase.

12 September 2011 20:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Do you think your god actually makes people homosexual to prove a point?"

That's the essence of it, really. If it were a moral choice to be or not to be then I could understand it. I mean, I never got why the Israelites kept regressing to golden calves when they clearly had a choice. But I most definitely don't other than to be celibate or not. I'm simply differently-abled and it's inherently harmless. This is what happens when people fall for teleological arguments.

12 September 2011 20:46  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Dreadnaught said ...
"Explain that to anyone born with a deformity, disability or any other impediment that marks them as 'deficient' in conforming to the norm."

I wouldn't look upon people with disabilities or impediments as "deformed". It's interesting that you use this turn of phrase. Homosexuality, however it originates, is viewed by the Church as a disordered sexual inclination an objective disordered. There is no scientific consensus on its origins.

There is a Christian understanding of why God permits evil in the world and why life, physical and moral, is not the way He intended i.e disordered. I would direct you to Genesis if you really want to begin to think about this. Alternatively, you might see all this as a misfortunate mutation of genes in the never ending process of evolution.

As for your blasphemous suggestion about Our Lord, is that really all you have to offer?

12 September 2011 21:21  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Israelites kept regressing to golden calves

Don't blame them - have you seen the price of gold lately!

12 September 2011 21:21  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Dreadnaught said ...
"Explain that to anyone born with a deformity, disability or any other impediment that marks them as 'deficient' in conforming to the norm."

I wouldn't look upon people with disabilities or impediments as "deformed" or "deficient". It's interesting that you use this turn of phrase. Homosexuality, however it originates, is viewed by the Church as a disordered sexual inclination an objective disorder. There is no scientific consensus on its origins.

There is a Christian understanding of why God permits evil in the world and why life, physical and moral, is not the way He intended i.e disordered. I would direct you to Genesis if you really want to begin to think about this. Alternatively, you might see all this as a misfortunate mutation of genes in the never ending process of evolution.

As for your blasphemous suggestion about Our Lord, is that really all you have to offer?

12 September 2011 21:24  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

DoDo - Come on - how can you be so offended unless you have injected your own 'negative' conclusions regarding his sexuality.

My point anyway was - would it have mattered? - and then yes I suppose it would - they would have stoned him to death.

12 September 2011 21:49  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Dreadnaught said ...
"DoDo - Come on - how can you be so offended unless you have injected your own 'negative' conclusions regarding his sexuality."

Did I say you had offended me?

Here's the rather distasteful and smutty comment you made:

Jesus never married, or had children or ever enjoyed a heterosexual relationship but enjoyed the company of men ....Hmmmm what would the Blessed DoDo have made of these observations had he been alive at the time I wonder? Not even a teeney bit? - you know, nudge-nudge, wink-wink ... just a teeny weeny little bit curious?

Jesus chose a life of celebacy and there is certainly no reason to suspect He was homosexual. Why ask such a ridulous question? I think the way you framed it speaks volumes about you.

12 September 2011 22:26  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo:

I was being quite honest, it was a good piece. I was being a trifle playful too; although I admit that I wasn't entirely sure whether you were congratulating yourself, or the stance of the R.C.C - as I never know with you either, Sir. ;o)

12 September 2011 22:27  
Blogger Flossie said...

J D Malcolmson, Tatchell has learned to be a bit more media-savvy since that article, but in his less guarded moments he will admit that he thinks all sexual boundaries should be broken down, as they stand in the way of people's self-fulfilment. What effect he thinks this will have on children he doesn't actually say.

He is the one who has openly accused the pope of being responsible for the loss of millions of lives because of catholic disapproval of condoms and the spread of AIDS. He doesn't appear to have even the most rudimentary grasp of catholic teaching on marriage, the family and human sexuality. Even the most simple minded can surely see that if marriage is restricted to one man/one woman for life, (primary catholic teaching) there would be no AIDS, condoms or no. Besides which, the countries with the highest rates of AIDS have either a miniscule catholic presence or are awash with condoms.

But why let the truth stand in the way of justifying immorality?

12 September 2011 22:34  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

DoDo
Is Jesus recorded anywhere as saying he was an out of the closet Celibate or a closeted homosexual? More likely the records simply do not go there because it could never be proved as it was a private matter. All the records of his life and times were mostly concocted long after his 'death'; it is also a moot point that he ever existed at all in as much as there being such yawning gaps in evidence of his early years or of him having left any personally written record of his thoughts and deeds.

You are obviously so indoctrinated you can't bear to think the unthinkable without screeching 'Blasphemy' - would you reject all the good you say he brought to the world if he had been homosexual?

12 September 2011 22:52  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Dreadnaught said ...
"You are obviously so indoctrinated you can't bear to think the unthinkable without screeching 'Blasphemy' - would you reject all the good you say he (Jesus Christ) brought to the world if he had been homosexual?"

What an inane question! And what an uninformed set of speculations preceeding it.

There was no "screeching" from me. Just a statement of fact. If anything, you appear to be the one getting all indignant.

Blasphemy - Profane speaking of God or sacred things; impious irreverence.
(Oxford English Dictionary)

Christians reject the sin of homosexuality, the acting on the inclination. They do not reject the person who might have such an inclination.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, born with a proclivity towards sin? Hardly likely.

12 September 2011 23:23  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dreadnaught:

Ah, the ''yawning gaps'' - now they really ARE fascinating!

I mean, everyone has to be somewhere, right?

Any thoughts anyone?

13 September 2011 01:16  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Oswin said ...
I never know with you either, Sir. ;o)

But that's the Way of the Dodo, Mr Oswin.

Truth be told, I never really know about myself either! Sometimes I just say it as I see it. Other times I give it more thought. And then there are times I throw out an idea to see what reaction it gets.

After all, we are all human, even us poor, nearly extinct pilgrims doing our best to make sense of an increasingly insane world.

13 September 2011 01:50  
Blogger Ivan said...

Homosexuals will be with us, Jesus Christ spoke of eunuchs born, made and chosen which at a stretch can be made to cover the homosexuals. But bisexuals are quite simply total and unredeemed perverts unless they repent.

13 September 2011 02:07  
Blogger Serpents and Doves said...

Oswin

"Eskimo: 'If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to hell?' Priest: 'No, not if you did not know.' Eskimo: 'Then why did you tell me?'"

But now people know and ...

"It's their God given right not to believe in Him."

13 September 2011 02:10  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Ivan said...
"Homosexuals will be with us, Jesus Christ spoke of eunuchs born, made and chosen which at a stretch can be made to cover the homosexuals. But bisexuals are quite simply total and unredeemed perverts unless they repent."

Seems a wee bit harsh.

The critical aspect of Catholic teaching is that sexual union is intended to be a complementary union, able to transmit life. It is self-giving rather than self-indulgant. It is, according to our Creators design, intended to be expressed within a live long, loving partnership.

Following this teaching many are caught in the grip of sin and not one specific group who we should condemn.

13 September 2011 02:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Presumably, if Jesus was subject to environmental factors (my guess at one possible cause) in the womb which resulted in a gay sexual orientation then he could have just turned himself back into a heterosexual if he didn't like the underlying attraction thing whether or not he acted on it. And who would blame him? No-one really wants to be called a shirt-lifter, especially if one is the son of god. The rest of us just have to live with it. We probably ought to pretend it's a 'test' or something if we want to be religious too.

13 September 2011 06:45  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

"Deforemd"
Well, one of my starting-points for leaving religion was when our vicar preached a sermon on "The Sins of the Fathers".
He was shouted down by a parishoner (and nurse/midwife) who asked him how dare he, when he KNEW there were people in the church with "mongol" (Down's syndrome) children.
Interesting that.

13 September 2011 08:40  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@G Tingely

Well done on your wise choice in leaving religion. Religion doesn't save anyone - but having a saviour does.

Although distant diagnosis is often tricky, sounds like you were a full card-carrying member of churchianity. May you one day come to know the Christ of Christianity.

13 September 2011 09:15  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - let me have a go a writing what you said from the standpoint of someone who does his own thinking (as feeble as my mind may be, thank you Flossie), rather than let an elderly german in a frock do it for him...

"Some elderly celibate blokes' moral viewpoint is founded on human reason, illuminated either by their unproven instinct towards belief in something or their desire to exercise their authority over their clients.

Some stuff that some other guys may have entirely made up thousands of years ago must be understood in the context of a "living tradition" which means that we can pretty much ignore the stuff that we don't like or which stops us making money, like anything about usury, wearing clothes of different threads and not living in gigantic art galleries while millions around the world starve. Because obviously those things are utterly irrelevant in a society which has just bailed out its banks, or where children labour in sweat shops or where the Horn of Africa is experiencing famine. But no, what's really crucial is that we ensure that we stop two consensual adults from entering into a public commitment to one another with all the attendant tax benefits and societal recognition that we give to our marriages that we place so much value on, and that those things should absolutely not happen in churches, regardless of the feelings of the parishioners. And what's more, we make sure that our churches ensure that these individuals feel like crap about themselves when they indulge in lustful thoughts or, heaven forfend, fall in love. Yes, that's where we'll draw the line in the sand of our "living tradition".

etc. etc.

You're presenting your text as a priori fact, when it simply can't be regarded as such by anyone who doesn't share your set of beliefs. Hell, there are catholics who don't share your beliefs, so how they'd find your "living tradition", I don't know. How do you know that the Holy See isn't going to change it's mind, and if it does, will you change yours?

And J.D. Malcomson - I don't know anyone who claims papal infallibility for Peter Tatchell. Try asking Dodo about Joseph Ratzinger - he'll probably complain that I used the man's real name. But Dodo will believe that Papa Ratzi is infallible, hence, I suppose is able to write, or at least shape, the RC "living tradition". As such, Flossie, I don't think it's unreasonable to hold him responsible for the things that the Catholic Church does wrong.

13 September 2011 10:26  
Blogger Jon said...

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/875184-catholic-church-bishop-calls-gay-marriage-cultural-vandalism

No matter how decent, intelligent or thoughtful the political consultation process may be, as an argument with a Catholic is advanced, the probability of saying something bigoted, hateful of intolerant approaches 1 (100%).

Yep - Bishop of Paisley - you've fulfilled Jon's Law!!

13 September 2011 10:32  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

DoDo invokes the concept of Blasphemy

Blasphemy in Pakistan today

Use of derogatory remarks, etc; in respect of the Holy Prophet. Whoever by words, either spoken or written or by visible representation, or by any imputation, innuendo, or insinuation, directly or indirectly, defiles the sacred name of the Holy Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine. — Pakistan Penal code: Offenses relating to religion: Section: 295-
C
http://www.muhammadanism.org/Government/Government_Pakistan_Blasphemy.htm


Blasphemy in England - yesterday

The offence of blasphemy was originally part of canon law. In the 17th century, blasphemy was declared a common law offence by the Court of King's Bench, punishable by the common law courts
In 1656, the Quaker James Naylor was sentenced to flogging, branding and the piercing of his tongue by a red-hot poker by the Second Protectorate Parliament.


So DoDo, as far as I can see, there is nothing between your primitive concept of 'blasphemy' and that of the Koranic literalists, except that they can still get away with what you can't.

13 September 2011 11:59  
Blogger Flossie said...

So, Jon, you still think the Pope is responsible for the so-called 'child sex abuse scandal'.

A little test for you. Who do you think is the most culpable for the spread of AIDS? - for argument's sake let's say in the UK. Is it

(a) Pope Benedict, who upholds Christian teaching about sexual activity being restricted to lifelong marriage between a man and a woman, or

(b) Mr Peter Tatchell, who advocates unrestricted sexual activity?

If you think (b) is the most likely answer, should not Roman Catholics be out on the streets holding 'Protest Tatchell' meetings or organising anti-Tatchell marches? But are they? No, of course not.

But then, who are the 'haters' and 'bigots' to whom His Grace refers?

13 September 2011 12:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Flossie, I'm stuck whether to answer (a) or (b). You're expecting everyone to answer (b) right?

A Catholic man who commits the sin of adultery but won't wear a condom with his wife ostensibly to be a good Catholic may infect her with HIV.

Does Mr Tatchell advocate unrestricted sexual activity? I'd expect he would be very much in favour of protection on the grounds of sexual health.

You need to tilt your examples a bit more to favour the answer you want, I think.

13 September 2011 12:49  
Blogger Jon said...

DanJ0 - I think I love you.

13 September 2011 12:54  
Blogger Flossie said...

The pope does not advocate adultery, DanJo, so you can't blame him for that. Adultery is a primary no-no. Condom use is secondary, to be left to the conscience of individuals.

I have already mentioned the dismal failure of the condom culture. The easier availability of condoms, the more STIs of all descriptions, plus abortions, and many other societal ills. Mr Tatchell might advocate their use, but the pope's stance is better. Really, it's a no-brainer.

13 September 2011 12:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"The pope does not advocate adultery, DanJo, so you can't blame him for that."

He also knows that people commit sin. Heck, it's built into his notion of religion. So he knows there are consequences of encouraging people one way or the other and those consequences fall on the innocent as well as the guilty. He can't wash his hands of the blood of those innocents I'm afraid.

13 September 2011 13:04  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Thatchell, like a good number of paedophiliac homosexuals, actually sees no harm in taking advantage of the developing sexuality of children. Similarly, there are hetrosexual paedophiles who deliberatly delude themselves with the idea children 'enjoy' being sexually abused by them and are equal participants.

Homosexuality is a sickness of the soul - like paedophilia. An objective sexual disorder. One moral disorder tends to open us to another, especially once the God given purpose of human sexuality is replaced by hedonistic self-gratification.

13 September 2011 13:08  
Blogger Jon said...

Flossie, just a question for you - would you rather have sex with someone with HIV with or without a condom. You'll say you wouldn't have sex with them regardless, but that's Dan's point. What if it was your partner who had been unfaithful. Are the sins of husband to be visited on the wife now?

Condoms might not be perfect, but they're better than nothing.

13 September 2011 13:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, one of the positives of condoms and other contraception is birth control. People can plan the size of their families to make the best use of their resources. Who wants 8 kids if one lives in a 3-bed semi? It's not fair on the kids is it? They'll be at a significant disadvantage compared to kids with sensible parents. And really, pulling it out at the last minute or having dibdob only on certain days of the month is no different to wearing a condom is it? It's the motivation that counts.

13 September 2011 13:08  
Blogger Jon said...

Flossie, also, since you ask, actually Catholics and various other religious types regularly picket gay pride marches. Fred Phelps' lot even turn up at the funerals of straight soldiers saying that their deaths are the direct result of God's judgment on America for tolerating 'fags'.

I'm just saying - your side has its "characters" too.

13 September 2011 13:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Thatchell, like a good number of paedophiliac homosexuals, actually sees no harm in taking advantage of the developing sexuality of children."

Jesus, Dodo, you're sailing close to libel there ... if not actually committing it. :O Making an argument about something is not the same thing as actually doing it, or wanting to do it.

13 September 2011 13:12  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Thatchell believes exploiting young boys for sexual purposes is acceptable because, wait for it, 9 year olds can be equal participants!

Paedophiles share this delusion and can be homosexual or hetrosexual - although reported instances of sexual abuse of minors tend to be male on male.

Once God's purpose for human sexuality is deviated from and replaced by hedonistic self gratification the door is open to all sorts of perverted proclivities. The sickness of the soul, the objective sexual disorders share this common root. Lust, once 'normalised' is a powerful addiction to break free from.

13 September 2011 13:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I have to point out that I profoundly disagree with what Tatchell (actually) says about this topic.

13 September 2011 13:20  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanJ0

Not libel - he defended a book where this notion of consensual sex with children was presented as acceptable. Never said he did it. He's hardly likely to, now is he?

13 September 2011 13:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, I'd much rather be gay than Catholic. And not just because we have better taste in curtains and other soft furnishings. I cannae be doing with any of that institutionalised nonsense.

13 September 2011 13:25  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Tatchell is a largely a self serving, professional, publicity seeker (if indeed a brave one at times) however, he is a mile wide of public opinion or acceptability when advocating sex with minors.

13 September 2011 13:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

And poor. So unlikely to pursue libel actions anyway. :)

13 September 2011 13:55  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Oswin said 13 September 2011 01:16

"Any thoughts anyone?" Plenty, actually.
Dreadnaught blurted as per..

"Is Jesus recorded anywhere as saying he was an out of the closet Celibate or a closeted homosexual?
He came to save in the form of Messiah as Fully God, Fully Man and declared this His mission and was confirmed by John the Baptist in his mission..John was not married, neither was Paul..queer was he, with repressed homo tendencies or was it his mission to declare the righteousness of God in the Law and by the Holy Spirit.


More likely the records simply do not go there because it could never be proved as it was a private matter.
The Jewish authorities would have loved to have proved ANYTHING about Him that denied His sinlessness..they actually brought false witnesses against Him at His trial so, if it was even implied, it would have been recorded by them and they would have had Him stoned..GET IT, yet?

All the records of his life and times were mostly concocted long after his 'death';
He was a humble carpenter's son who worked in his earthly father's business, helping support Himself and His family, not some Earthly King in fine palaces etc where the lack of information would be unusual yet most of world history is moot on the lives of famous people and kings who are only revealed after archaelogical evidence..Do you deny they existed because you do not have 10 volumes in writing of their life's information in front of you?

it is also a moot point that he ever existed at all (OUTRAGEOUS..ask the persecuted jew if Jesus was a figment of their imagination and a bloody history that had led to the millenial long vileness they have been treated to by others in error?)in as much as there being such yawning gaps in evidence of his early years (HE WAS A HUMBLE CARPENTER'S SON FROM NAZARETH NOT A FAMOUS CELEBRITY..YOU SEE, I WOULD BE VERY SUSPICIOUS IF THERE WAS WHAT YOU ARE AFTER)or of him having left any personally written record of his thoughts and deeds."
Are you being serious? Think He had disciples, what..and many of them!
Matthew was a tax collector for the Roman Empire and who was able to write in shorthand or do you know nothing about the tax collectors of the Roman province's and their demands.. Read some History dear fellow? The works of Sir William Ramsey would be a start!

You are obviously so indoctrinated you can't bear to think the unthinkable without screeching 'Blasphemy' (You are simply a fool, denying obvious facts)- would you reject all the good you say he brought to the world if he had been homosexual?"

THEN HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GOD AND HE WOULD HAVE BEEN A LIAR AND LAWBREAKER OR WORSE, A MADMAN TO LIE SO OBVIOUSLY. YOU CONFUSE YOUR MAN-MADE ETHICS AND LOGIC WITH CHRISTAN MORALS AND THE LAWS OF GOD! or do you?
I can comprehend you not believing as this involves the will, it is the commonsense denial I find hard to fathom in your argument. THINK HARDER, young man and read more.

Ernst S Blofeld

13 September 2011 14:00  
Blogger Flossie said...

DanJo, I don't get it. If I were to say to you, 'Danjo, thou shalt not steal', and you disregarded this and went on a shoplifting spree in Curry's, would I then be the one to blame when you got your collar felt? Then how come the Pope is responsible for unhappy repercussions of people who commit adultery?

And I must say, I think it's a bit rich to have a go at Dodo for libelling Mr Peter Tatchell when Mr Peter Tatchell libels the Pope at the top of his voice at every given opportunity.

Jon, I must say that I think your idea of sex and mine differ widely. For me, it is the most intimate expression of love within a marriage, and having sex with someone with or without HIV is not something that would happen. In the unlikely event that my husband would stray and pick up some nasty disease, this would be an act of betrayal so great that it would wreck all the happy years we have had together. Casual sexual encounters can never bring true happiness.

13 September 2011 14:27  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Blowers

THEN HE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GOD AND HE WOULD HAVE BEEN A LIAR AND LAWBREAKER OR WORSE, A MADMAN TO LIE SO OBVIOUSLY. YOU CONFUSE YOUR MAN-MADE ETHICS AND LOGIC WITH CHRISTAN MORALS AND THE LAWS OF GOD! or do you?

Clam down Dear - I Just don't share your view that morality is ordained supernaturally - and shouting in block-caps is so unbecomming to such an aesthete as yourself dontchaknow.

13 September 2011 14:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"DanJo, I don't get it. If I were to say to you, 'Danjo, thou shalt not steal', and you disregarded this and went on a shoplifting spree in Curry's, would I then be the one to blame when you got your collar felt? Then how come the Pope is responsible for unhappy repercussions of people who commit adultery?"

Flossie, you're loading your dice all the time. Firstly, Ratzinger is in a position of responsibility in regard to these people. Secondly, he's pushing a loaded gun onto the robbers before they inevitably go a-robbing and then washing his hands of the consequences.

"And I must say, I think it's a bit rich to have a go at Dodo for libelling Mr Peter Tatchell when Mr Peter Tatchell libels the Pope at the top of his voice at every given opportunity."

Ah, I see. Two Wrongs make a Right in your moral code. Sorry. Mine is different you see, my being an atheist and all.

13 September 2011 15:18  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dreadnaught said 13 September 2011 14:54

GOT YOUR ATTENTION though. hehehe.

"I Just don't share your view that morality is ordained supernaturally"
Fine but then what was all the other tosh about that Ernst responded to?

Clam down dear?

Clam: A close-mouthed person, especially one who can keep a secret.

This would not be Ernst, my boy. he blurts the secret of the universe to all who hath an ear. There is a God, He sent His Son who lived on the earth and was a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief, as are we. He died for all and was resurrected by God as proof that any might be reconciled to God if they would believe in His Son.

Oooopss, I have let it out.

Ernst, me old Dreadnaught chappie.

13 September 2011 15:24  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Blowers

Yes I fell for it hook line and sinker before I realised you had used Oswin as a smoke screen - you cunning Blighter!

Pax

13 September 2011 15:37  
Blogger Oswin said...

Damn, my first post disappeared!

Dodo @ 01:50 :

You can't say fairer than that old chap. I agree with both your motivation and sentiment (subject to contract) and wish you well, from a gale torn Northumberland.


Serpents and Doves @ 02:10 & Ernst (I think?) @ 14:00:

We appear to be at cross purposes here. My comment/question referred to the 'lost years' of Jesus's childhood, youth and early man-hood, and to nothing else, whatsoever. My apologies for any confusion.

13 September 2011 15:43  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

DanJo

I'd much rather be gay than Catholic - priceless!

So Dan - not into men in lacy frocks and hats that Boy George would die for eh - you do realise of course that this does not conform to what most homophobes that post here expect of you :-)

13 September 2011 15:50  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dreadnaught said 13 September 2011 15:37

Pax et absit invidia. Forgive my Hebrew, old boy.hehehe

Sneaky Uncle Ernsty, my old dreadnaught.

13 September 2011 15:53  
Blogger Oswin said...

Oh, I see (I think?) old Ernst has shoved me into the firing line; and me too young to die!

Ernst, one point here from your earlier ambuscade : ''a humble carpenter's son''

Many scholars (for the life of me I can't recall a single name at this point!) believe that 'carpenter' is a slight inaccuracy, a minor fault in translation ... being more of a 'builder' and even a 'builder-architect' than a 'carpenter/joiner' etc.

However, as with other issues pertaining to the 'Jesus' family, the 'Church' has prefered to stress the 'humble' aspect; for whatever reasons...

13 September 2011 16:05  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Oswin 13 September 2011 16:05

Duck..or was it too late to shout?

The gospels describe Joseph as a "tekton" (τέκτων); traditionally the word has been taken to mean "carpenter", though the Greek term brings to view an artisan with wood in general.

"the 'Church' has prefered to stress the 'humble' aspect"

Ernst believes because it would be logical and reasonable to refer to Jesus's humble family business as Joseph and sons rather than Jewson, as part of the Meyer group, which is owned by the French conglomerate Saint-Gobain..HeHeHe.

Next time Ernst looks for a diversion he will shout DUCK prior to commencing.

Ernst, my fine fellow.

13 September 2011 16:17  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Blowers

Absit inuiria verbis.

13 September 2011 16:18  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dreadnaught

'ipsissima verba'

13 September 2011 16:38  
Blogger J.D. Malcolmson said...

Jon 13 September 10:26

"And J.D. Malcomson - I don't know anyone who claims papal infallibility for Peter Tatchell."

Not being a Roman Catholic, I don't fully understand the doctrine of papal infallibility and so will leave others to answer your point.

Nevertheless it would be reassuring to know that Stonewall and the gay rights lobby unequivocally condemn the comments Mr Tatchell made in his 1997 Guardian letter. I don't remember them doing so - perhaps I missed something?

And we still don't know why he changed his mind about the acceptability of adult-child sexual relationships. Or does not being "infallible" mean that you can simply make it up as you go along?

13 September 2011 17:35  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

"The positive nature of some child-adult sexual relationships is not confined to non-Western cultures. Several of my friends – gay and straight, male and female – had sex with adults from the ages of nine to 13. None feel they were abused. All say it was their conscious choice and gave them great joy.
While it may be impossible to condone paedophilia, it is time society acknowledged the truth that not all sex involving children is unwanted, abusive and harmful."

(Peter Thatchell 1997)

13 September 2011 20:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well done that bird !

Highlighting this unfortunates sick view of his world. Would residence in long term institution be of benefit to him, secure a cure perhaps...

13 September 2011 20:52  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace

Communicants may have read the report in the Daily Mail of two Australian lesbians who dressed their six year old adopted son as a girl and posted his photo on facebook. One of the happy couple was awaiting a sex-change operation to become a man. In taking the hapless child away from the two gays, the Australian magistrate commented, ''Oh my God - what are we doing?'.

Mr Jon @ 10.26 would possibly see this as yet another example of homophobic bigotry by a religious fanatic in a position of authority.

For the rest of us it's just a matter of 'we told you so'.

13 September 2011 22:04  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Dodo's Law (2)

Whenever a Roman Catholic engages in a discussion with secular homosexuals about the morality of acting on their inclinations they will:

Accuse you of being incapable of independent thought; insult the Pope; say priests are celibate; misrepresent Papal infallibility; and become generally offensive about all religion.


Frankl, Jon, DanJ0, Dreadnaught, et al, it is up to you what you believe and what you do so long as it causes no harm to others. It's your choice and your responsibility.

From my point of view, the common good is damaged by the proliferation of ungodly ideas and practices. When you seek to 'normalise' these and in so doing undermine family life, the foundation of society, it is a Christians clear duty to speak up without fear or favour.

Bishop Tartaglia of Paisley:

“A government which favours and allows for same sex "marriage" does wrong. It fails in its duty to society. It undermines the common good. It commits an act of cultural vandalism. Such a government does not deserve the trust which the nation, and including many in the Catholic community, has shown in it.”

13 September 2011 22:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Homosexuality MUST be suppressed.

That’s how it has to be, too much at stake you see, my ginger friends...

13 September 2011 22:27  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

Is it better to give than to receive?

13 September 2011 22:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Man with no name

A surprise appearance...

And your point is....

13 September 2011 22:56  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

No point ... just wondering.

14 September 2011 00:25  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

Ps
Give my regards to Eve.

14 September 2011 00:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "From my point of view, the common good is damaged by the proliferation of ungodly ideas and practices. When you seek to 'normalise' these and in so doing undermine family life, the foundation of society, it is a Christians clear duty to speak up without fear or favour."

I feel something similar with regard to religion [1], and especially the Roman Catholic one in the UK which seems to be particularly intrusive as far as kids are concerned. We ought to do what we can to break its hegemony. If free people subsequently want to pursue it as a matter of private interest then so be it. I honestly think the organisation behind Roman Catholicism is a destructive and quite sinister force. Like you, I feel I'm compelled to speak up a lot of the time.

[1] Including Islam but I'd have more to say about that.

14 September 2011 08:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

At the risk of sounding melodramatic here, we are actually at war in some sort of Cold war sense. This is a struggle for freedom at its core: freedom from the designs of the religious over the rest of us.

14 September 2011 08:14  
Blogger Oswin said...

Ernst @ 16:17 :

It's an interesting point of discussion; I'd like to get back to you on that, if I may? At present, I've buggered my back, and cannot sit at my desk for any appreciable time.

14 September 2011 17:51  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

*The sound of cannons could be heard blasting away in the background and the fields of Britain were enveloped by it's strange, errie, smoke filled fumes until a brave voice blared from the above paraphets, behind the barricades a triumphant call to arms was issued ;

"At the risk of sounding melodramatic here, we are actually at war in some sort of Cold war sense. This is a struggle for freedom at its core: freedom from the designs of the religious over the rest of us."

Umm, not exactly young Hal, is it..Crispians Day and all that?

SUCH A DRAMA QUEEN!

14 September 2011 18:14  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

One could put it wider.
Frredom from the designs of ANY special-interst group to dominate and control our lives against our will.
Not a rallying call, or a piece of rhetoric.
But a plain, solid, scary fact.

15 September 2011 10:37  
Blogger Quizzical Gazer said...

I say your Grace, that really is rather good, and eminently recyclable.

Formerly Croydonian

14 October 2011 15:48  
Blogger Joe Daniels said...

I have just revisited this post following a link on Twitter. How true it is!

22 March 2012 23:11  
Blogger gilesrowe said...

Stonewall's 'Bigot of the Year' award is a pretty stellar example of this pseudo-liberal bullying.

9 October 2012 17:33  
Blogger Chris Miller said...

Better late than never:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbULBAjstBA

It doesn't just happen in Britain...

22 October 2012 17:20  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older