Friday, September 02, 2011

Mike Weatherley MP calls for 'homophobic' churches to forfeit their right to perform marriages

Conservative MP Mike Weatherley is concerned about a matter of equality, and has written a letter to the Prime Minister to ask the Government to prohibit those churches which refuse to perform 'gay marriages' from performing marriages. His Grace was going to say 'heterosexual marriages', but that would be a tautologous.


His Grace is pleased (kind of) to reproduce the letter:
The Rt Hon David Cameron MP – Prime Minister
10 Downing Street
London
SW1A 2AA

21st August 2011

RE: SAME-SEX UNIONS IN THE UK

I write as Member of Parliament for Hove and Portslade; a constituency which falls entirely within Brighton & Hove, the city with the most same-sex households in the UK. Like many of my constituents, I am becoming increasingly concerned about the inequality which exists between the unions of same-sex couples and those of opposite-sex couples in this country.

As you are acutely aware, the Civil Partnership Act 2004 resulted in the introduction of Civil Partnerships for same-sex couples in December 2005. There was much debate at the time and the result was undoubtedly an uneasy truce between those wishing to preserve the religious significance of marriage and those fighting for equality. Lawmakers knew at the time that an inherent inequality would still be maintained even if greater equality was being afforded to same-sex couples.

Looking back, I am sure that you would agree that it was nothing less than bizarre that same-sex couples were barred from holding their Civil Partnership ceremonies in religious venues. After all, many religious groups welcome same-sex couples. I am glad that this was reviewed and welcome the change to the arrangement earlier this year as a logical and progressive step.

Several campaigns are currently calling for, variously, the creation of a right to a Marriage for same-sex couples and the creation of a right to a Civil Partnership for opposite-sex couples. Such proposals may seemingly be the next logical step in the campaign for equality but, if enacted, would still leave us with a messy compromise. As long as religious groups can refuse to preside over ceremonies for same-sex couples, there will be inequality. Such behaviour is not tolerated in other areas, such as adoption, after all.

I suggest that it makes little difference if unions are called Marriages, Civil Partnerships or some other term (such as simply ‘Unions’). Until we untangle unions and religion in this country, we will struggle to find a fair arrangement.

I thank you in advance for your views on the specific points within this letter.

Yours sincerely

MIKE WEATHERLEY MP

As it happens, His Grace agrees with Mr Weatherley on the matter of deregulating the marriage licence, and has expounded at length (and here) his reasons. But Mr Weatherley goes further - in fact, he treads the precise path of compulsion of which many warned. He writes: "Such behaviour is not tolerated in other areas, such as adoption, after all."

So, Mr Weatherley appears to be suggesting the imposition of 'gay marriage' upon the Church of England (not to mention the Roman Catholic Church, Evangelical churches, Orthodox synagogues and mosques). Failure to comply, as the adoption agencies discovered, will result in closure. It is not easy to see what Mr Weatherley is proposing by way of punitive action against recalcitrant churches: since he can hardly enforce their closure (one presumes), the removal of the power granted by the state to perform marriages is a possible penalty.

He writes: “Until we untangle unions and religion in this country we will struggle to find a fair arrangement.”

Yes, Mr Weatherley. But what do you mean by 'fair'? And fair to whom? You clearly know nothing of the legal history of state-sanctioned marriage; nothing of the Establishment of the Church of England; and even less of Conservative philosophy and Conservative Party history. By all means, become all things to all of your constituents in Hove in order that they may be saved by the Tory creed. But please do not presume to re-arrange the entire Constitution of the United Kingdom simply in order that your local popularity may increase.

122 Comments:

Blogger JohnofEnfield said...

Marriage is the fundamental unit of society. Denigrate and destroy it at great risk to ourselves. The recent riots show what happens when children aren't brought up in stable relationships.

2 September 2011 at 18:39  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

My first reaction, admittedly not always the most considered, is:

What a silly little twerp of a man!

Once I mulled it over I may say more, although it's probably best if I leave it there.

2 September 2011 at 18:59  
Blogger Nightwatchstate said...

All must conform to the egalitarian religion.

As a homosexual - Not in my name

2 September 2011 at 19:00  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The king demands that at the sound of the trumpet everyone must bow down and worship the golden idol. Let them make their silly rule. It will only serve to differentiate Truth from Counterfeit. The testimony of defiance in the face of loss will speak eloquently.

There is an interesting dynamic in place however. The continued assault on marriage in the name of autonomy will eventually so destabilize society that authoritarian gov't will re-assert itself. That gov't will recognize the need for stable families in the recovery of national power, and will re-assert old sexual boundaries with a vengeance. Except the re-imposition won't be constrained by anything like Christian charity. It won't be good to be a 'sexual minority' whence cometh that day.

carl

2 September 2011 at 19:12  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

The Conservative Party selection procedure; in that constituency, if not in the party as a whole; doesn't appear to work, if it results in entities such as Mr Weatherley being chosen. Surely his intolerance hasn't just erupted, he must have exhibited such traits many times before in his life. Or does he really represent the ethos of the Conservative Party as it exists today? In which case, woebetide anyone who votes for them. It goes without saying that neither the destructive Labour Party nor the deceitful Liberal Democrat Party are any better and in fact are many times worse. Better to vote for an independent candidate, UKIP or some other party, than Mr Weatherley.

2 September 2011 at 19:18  
Blogger English Viking said...

The fact that this moron is a fully qualified football referee should be indication enough that he has a defective, attention seeking character.

Couple in the fact that he is an adulterer, a divorcee and also that his current wife works as a £70 per hour prostitute and I rather feel like I'll take no lectures on marriage from him.

No homo is facing any form of discrimination.

You want to get married? In a church? No problem.

Find a partner of the opposite sex - Bob's your uncle and Fanny's your aunt.

2 September 2011 at 19:33  
Blogger Chris said...

As someone from Mr Weatherley's constituency I find his letter somewhat odd given the warm plaudits he was giving the churches during the hustings that happened to take place in one of the local churches, or was it more a potential (at that point) MP playing the audience for votes!

2 September 2011 at 19:35  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Conservative MP Mike Weatherley said ...
"As long as religious groups can refuse to preside over ceremonies for same-sex couples, there will be inequality."

In the Roman Catholic Church marriage is one of the sacraments and governed by canon law. No Catholic Priest would have the authority to 'preside' over the 'ceremony' of a gay civil partnership in a Catholic Church. In the eyes of the Church such a relationship is objectively disordered. To Bless the relationship and give it the appearance of acceptability would be illogical.

Is the MP wanting to reignite the issue of seperation between Church and State?

Is there an Anglican position on the morality of homosexual civil partnerships and the whether such unions can take place in a Church before a Minister of God?

2 September 2011 at 19:39  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

English Viking said ...
"Couple in the fact that he is an adulterer, a divorcee and also that his current wife works as a £70 per hour prostitute and I rather feel like I'll take no lectures on marriage from him."

Is the above accurate?

2 September 2011 at 19:43  
Blogger Lallands Peat Worrier said...

Meanwhile, in Scotland, the SNP government launches its consultation on public views on the possibility of allowing religious ceremonies for civil partnerships and the possible introduction of same sex marriage."

2 September 2011 at 19:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This is a different thing to adoption agencies where the agency is acting on behalf of the State. The clergyman is licensed to marry people as an agent of the State for the civil portion but as a clergyman for the religious portion within the structure of the church. It's a weird idea. If some clergy are willing in their church then good on them but I'd say it wasn't the State's business to compel this. Gay marriage is essentially a marriage and we ought to have the opportunity of a civil marriage but that's the extent of it I think. Mind you, the differentiation would be easier if the CofE wasn't tied in with the State here in the UK. ;)

2 September 2011 at 19:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Is there an Anglican position on the morality of homosexual civil partnerships and the whether such unions can take place in a Church before a Minister of God?

Heh. Heh heh heh. BWA-HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

[ahem] ... sorry about that.

Yes, there are several. It all depends on who you ask. If you ask Rowan Williams, you might get three or four positions at once. Homosexuality is the presenting issue in the Great Implosion of Anglican Church Liberalism.

carl

2 September 2011 at 19:49  
Blogger English Viking said...

Man with no name,

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1309280/Tory-MP-Mike-Weatherley-discovers-wife-Carla-70-time-prostitute.html

You'll have to drag and drop as HG doesn't like me linking.

2 September 2011 at 20:01  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

I wonder if our honourable friend is aware about the other serious matter of inequality within his constituency? It appears that the money produced by counterfeiters is not being treated with the same value as that produced by the bank of England.

Indeed, some shops are refusing to handle it at all. This is grossly unfair. After all, who are we to say that only money sanctioned by the bank of England can be used as legal tender. This treats counterfeiters and even foreign nationals as 2nd class citizens.

I call for full money equality, and those who refuse to recognize foreign currency or counterfeit currency to feel the full weight of the law.

Until we untangle money and the Royal Mint in this country we will struggle to find a fair arrangement.

2 September 2011 at 20:01  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Rebel Saint

Very good! The blighters don't accept Scottish money in Brighton and Hove. That's racist and unequal.

2 September 2011 at 20:05  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@English Viking - Thanks for the link. Fortunately for Mr Weatherley, his wife is only a whore and not a creationist or someone who thinks section 28 was a good idea, otherwise he'd have been out on his ear a long time ago.

2 September 2011 at 20:12  
Blogger Albert said...

Such behaviour is not tolerated

At least he's honest that his position is intolerant.

What he doesn't seem to realise is that what he is proposing won't really penalise the churches but those getting married.

2 September 2011 at 20:26  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

CARL JACOBS SAID ...
"Homosexuality is the presenting issue in the Great Implosion of Anglican Church Liberalism."

And abortion where they seem to have several positions too.

2 September 2011 at 20:35  
Blogger St. Nikao said...

You poor Brits. If this guy's a conservative, what are your liberals and radicals like? I shudder to think!

2 September 2011 at 20:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

St Nikao: "If this guy's a conservative, what are your liberals and radicals like? I shudder to think!"

We liberals are lovely. But not necessarily on forums.

2 September 2011 at 20:39  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Dodo,

You do so appear to enjoy denigrating and ridiculing the Church of England as though your own church were somehow superior and completely devoid of faction, division or potential schism:

http://www.thetablet.co.uk/article/161660

Motes. Beams. Stones. Glass houses.

2 September 2011 at 20:40  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr DanJ0,

The plural of forums is fora.

But a liberal may not necessarily know that, or care.

2 September 2011 at 20:41  
Blogger Albert said...

St Nikao,

If this guy's a conservative, what are your liberals and radicals like? I shudder to think!

Fascists, mainly.

2 September 2011 at 20:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

His Grace: "The plural of forums is fora."

The day I start using the word fora for forums is the day I will probably shoot myself out of pity. With respect to yourself, the product of a more Latin-oriented era, it sounds absurd today. Yet conversely, I would not consider for a moment using a datum for a single piece of data. That too sounds absurd and I'd be laughed out of my computer lab for being pompous. Such is natural language.

2 September 2011 at 20:49  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Weatherley is an opportunist TIT - just what you don't need in times of economic and social melt-down.

2 September 2011 at 20:49  
Blogger Dick Puddlecote said...

I'm sad to see this, it has to be said, as Weatherley is a very good MP usually.

Equality is all very well striving for, but what's the point of being married (civil or otherwise) in a church if the union isn't blessed by the religion concerned? Compulsion strikes me as an arrogant government declaring itself more important than God, as I opined in February.

Say, for a minute, churches are coerced into allowing civil partnerships in religious premises. What good does that do? It boils down, essentially, to gay couples being allowed a few more buildings in which to host their ceremony. That's it!

Is government intervention really that beneficial in such a case?

Peter Tatchell appeared quite understanding of this in February (though he could have moved on to the 'next logical step' in the meantime). It's simply not the government's business to interfere.

The fact that this comes from a normally sound libertarian Tory is rathr deflating.

2 September 2011 at 21:04  
Blogger RevPF said...

I am assuming our honerable friend will reach out to the moslem, jewish and other faiths to ensure that they compromise their view of marriage in the same way he is asking Christians to do.

2 September 2011 at 21:08  
Blogger Albert said...

Dr Cranmer,

The Tablet is not in fact terribly representative of Catholicism. In its heyday New Directions had a wider readership - and that was being published rather less than part-time from a Vicarage attic.

I believe Dodo's comment was about teaching - on which the Catholic Church is entirely clear.

2 September 2011 at 21:12  
Blogger St. Nikao said...

Yes, Your Grace, there's Austria which is raising a bit of a ruckus right now and Ireland too over the sexual abuse horrors (for good reason).

In the US, it's the American Catholic Council, the liberal politicians and the Catholic universities that are the biggest trouble makers or dissenting factions depending on how you see things.

Generally, in the Roman Church, the homosexually-inclined are the priests and conduct the marriage ceremonies; they don't get married. Still, Scripture is Scripture, and no matter what you want or feel, GOD is GOD.

And, then there's Science and statistics which also discriminate against the 'gay' lifestyle with a vengeance. Current CDC statistics show a large increase of disease and negative medical and mental health outcomes for those who participate in homo/bi-sexual activities which is so much higher (44 times higher) than that for heterosexually promiscuous...which is much higher than that for monogamous (faithful) heterosexual married couples. Honest science supports Scripture's moral standards and commands.

2 September 2011 at 21:13  
Blogger Albert said...

the campaign for equality

I'm sorry to bring this up again, but if we speak of gay and heterosexual couples as being equal, what do we mean? Equally what?

And if it comes to that, are other relationships equal to them? What of spinsters living together, or polygamists, or consenting adults in incestual relationships? Before I am forced to treat people in a particular way, and give up some of my own freedoms I think I am entitled to an answer.

2 September 2011 at 21:17  
Blogger St. Nikao said...

Very good, RevPF!!!

2 September 2011 at 21:18  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Cranmer

Maybe I do enjoy teasing you but I mean no harm. It just seems to me the Archbishop of Canterbury should be giving an authoritative lead to his flock on the great moral challenges of our times. Britain is slipping into a 'cultural Christianity' which really is a poor imitation of Christianity.

The article you cite actually reaffirms the Roman Catholic principle of clear leadership and shows the dilemmas it faces in maintaining this. And its not exactly a balanced article either, whatever its source.

It is not unexpected that Catholics living in the West will adopt secular values and turn to their priests for guidance and reassurance. Those priests too will, out of pastoral compassion want to make compromises with clear Church teaching and some,mistakenly, will do so to give peace of mind to their parishioners.

Official church teaching and what is described as "everyday Catholic life" involves tensions over such issues such as birth ­control, Holy Communion for the divorced and remarried, priestly celibacy and the treatment of homosexuals. However, the alleged "distance between theory and practice" and the supposed "messy compromises of pastoral practice" will be resolved within the Church rather than by embracing a "via media" that ignores the Biblical doctrines and tradition of the Church. The Catholic Church will risk schism rather than abandon what it holds to be Truth.

If Catholics are being led by priests using "pastoral pragmatism" and the Vatican is practicing "Nelsonian blindness", it is surely a sign of the times we live in? The modernist influence that established a foothold post Vatican II is slowly being overcome by the efforts of John Paul and Benedict.

One has to disagree with the conclusions to this article. It appears to recommend a compromise between established Catholic teaching and the wishes of Catholics. This may accord with your more liberal Anglican outlook but it is unlikely to carry weight within the Vatican.

To suggest the Cardinal of Austria would be the "defender of the indefensible" in upholding orthodox Catholic teaching reflects a modernist bias. To argue too that the history of the Church shows that ideas rejected by one ­generation can become the orthodoxy of the next underplays the significance of these issues. Birth control, divorce and homosexuality are just not matters the Church is likely to about turn on. Key to Catholic teaching is the primacy of the family and the attacks it faces from these modern ills.

And where did he get the notion that there are "too many signs" that the Church would "prefer to go backwards"? Some would say the Church is working hard to stand firm amidst the moral confusion of these troubled times. Standing still as the world rushes madly to embrace secular world views is not going backwards!

2 September 2011 at 21:32  
Blogger St. Nikao said...

One must also ask, what are the standards of conduct for a bi-sexual marriage (the B of the LBGT conglomerate of sexual identities) that it is presumed MP Weatherley must also approve and support?

Are there to be three parties, or is it an open marriage where the person within the marriage has agreed to the 'bi' member exercising his alternating proclivities or do they invite a third person to participate in their intimacy? Would this occur on a permanent or temporary basis?

Sadly, this opens the door for polygamy which is a poor counterfeit of true married love in conformity to that of Christ and His Church or of a stable healthy home life, neither of which I am most certain MP Weatherly has no clue nor any experience. One cannot cherish and will not protect something one does not value.

2 September 2011 at 21:35  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

The beloved Tory party, pressing ahead with its progressive liberal agendas.

2 September 2011 at 21:47  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

DanJ0,

In an entirely non-contentious, zeal-free and politically neutered approach with olive branches and white flags waving, white doves fluttering and all that, I'd like to add that etymologically, forum/forums and fora originate from foras, which is not a plural to the Latin plural you dislike, but the word for outside in Latin. Fastinating, no?

His Grace is clearly of a generation different from ours, and although English is a living language as you rightly argue, I'd the conservative pull is necessary as well, unless it unravel and become unrecognizable in our lifetimes. But linguistic puritanism has its droll moments. My Cambridge-educated father-in-law once savagely skewed me at the dinner table for using the word moot in the vernacular, North Ameican sense. I had no ready defense, since it was in the pre-Internet days and the only dictionary at their house was a massive and mouldy Oxford, most likely a singed survivor from the London Blitz. He still insists on calling cats pussies as well, often loudly and in public. No one dares to correct him, as it would entail explaining the meaning of the current usage (another disputed word, as use should apparently suffice). Several years ago the whole family had to stage a revolt to convince him that referring to Black people with the once acceptable old term, Negroes is nowadays, well, a tad out of date. It wasn't easy, took an afternoon of hard lobbying and respectable linguists had to be quoted, but we won in the end.

2 September 2011 at 21:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I have to agree with DanJ0 on the use of 'fora.' You would never hear that word used in the United States.

carl
;)

2 September 2011 at 21:51  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

True, Carl, but you folks speak 'merican, not English. :)

2 September 2011 at 21:56  
Blogger Albert said...

You would never hear that word used in the United States.

That's nothing to be proud of, Carl.

2 September 2011 at 21:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

[Y]ou folks speak 'merican, not English.

A distinction without a difference. Now everyone repeat after me. "Manchester United plays soccer." Just keep trying. You'll get it eventually.

carl

2 September 2011 at 22:06  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

Birth control - divorce - homosexuality - abortion - euthanasia.

Is there a theme?

2 September 2011 at 22:16  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

How long is "eventually," Carl, because I still don't get it. Is the soccer/football thing the key?

2 September 2011 at 22:25  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Not content with destroying our High Streets with McDonalds and Kentucky Fried Chicken et al, now the Yanks want to corrupt the Queen's English.

Is this what we Brits, belatedly helped by the USA, defeated Nazism for?

2 September 2011 at 22:53  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Archbishop Cranmer said...
"The plural of forums is fora."

Now call me picky but shouldn't that read:
"The plural of forum is fora."?

2 September 2011 at 22:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

Mike Weatherley MP shakes his cage. A well known aspect of male homosexuality is exhibitionism. The Inspector puts it to the learned communicants that the man has been seeing too many of his gay constituents in his MPs surgery, and it’s rubbed off on him...

2 September 2011 at 23:02  
Blogger Robert Eve said...

Let's just dump civil partnerships.

2 September 2011 at 23:06  
Blogger English Viking said...

Carl,

The reason you don't hear real English is because you are uncouth.

2 September 2011 at 23:14  
Blogger English Viking said...

PS Carl,

Man U are a bunch of cheating, diving, bullying cheats.

Try a proper team.

Liverpool.

2 September 2011 at 23:16  
Blogger Man with No Name said...

Ofice of General Inspector said ...
"the man has been seeing too many of his gay constituents in his MPs surgery, and it’s rubbed off on him..."

Sir! What has "rubbed off" on him?

Ps
Is there an apostrophe in "it's"? Is it "it's" as in "it has" or "its" as in, er, its? Innit!

2 September 2011 at 23:33  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

EV

[Y]ou are uncouth.

I bet you say that to all the Americans. Anyways, I picked Manchester United because I wanted to pick a club associated with winning titles.

carl

2 September 2011 at 23:36  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

English Viking

Now you know that not to be true.

Liverpool? Now when was it they last won an English Premiership title? Yeah, yeah, we know about the fluke wins in Europe but what about winning the strongest league in Europe?

Knocked off the perch by class.

2 September 2011 at 23:38  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

carl

LOL .... a FOOTBALL team with an international recognition.

2 September 2011 at 23:40  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

How ironic that a Man U fan would speak of luck in Europe?

If John Terry could kick a ball as well as a one-legged man, you would have just 2 titles.

If Ole Gunnar Solskjær was called off-side, when he clearly was, you would have just one.

You have spent just 1 year as the most successful domestic team.

We spent 30.

And this year all your dreams will be rudely interrupted by a real team.

We win 'cos we're better, not because we cheat.

I suppose you like them because you think their shirts look pretty?

3 September 2011 at 00:08  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

carl
Cc Mr Cranmer
Bcc Dr Williams

By the way, you got off light when the old Archbishop let loose on me.

I was accused of enjoying
"denigrating and ridiculing the Church of England", a suggestion was made that I was hyocritical and my own Church was attacked.

Looking back, all I did was ask a question about Anglican teaching on homosexuality to which you replied:

"Heh. Heh heh heh. BWA-HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!
[ahem] ... sorry about that.
Yes, there are several. It all depends on who you ask. If you ask Rowan Williams, you might get three or four positions at once. Homosexuality is the presenting issue in the Great Implosion of Anglican Church Liberalism."

I then replied

"And abortion where they seem to have several positions too."

Whilst not impartisan in this, it does seem to me that you, if anybody, displayed enjoyment from my question. I showed none. You were bitting critical of Anglicanism. Did you denigrate and ridicule Anglicanism, as accussed? That is a matter between you and our host.

I hope he picks this up with you and it would be good if he acknowledged his error in respect of me.

3 September 2011 at 00:11  
Blogger English Viking said...

Carl,

I said it BECAUSE you are American.

Your unseemly grasping at respectability makes it so much worse.

Uncouth. Uneducated. Ill-bred.

And arrogant, to boot.

Your history stretches the vast expanses of 300 years. You have no culture, no independent language, no culture, no history (except one of violence) no finesse, no ... well, anything, really.

Except bombs. And big mouths.

You certainly haven't got any money.

3 September 2011 at 00:14  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

English Viking

I support Manchester United primarily because of their history and because of the traditions of the club. From before the time I could read I was an avid fan. One reason I aquired any language skills, an inquiring mind and some semblance of reasoning was my passion for the club.

Then I witnessed their football and what an awakening! Law, Charlton and Best! And Nobby Styles! What pure joy!

After years in the wilderness, bitter years, the 1990's arrive and football, creative, attacking, beautiful football, arrives in England once more.

I wish Liverpool well this season. I do. Any club with their anthem merits support. They are a proud club and deserve a manager like Kenny Dalglish after the incompetents before him. England needs both a Liverpool and a Manchester United. The rest? Just imposters.

3 September 2011 at 00:26  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

If you were a proper Scum U fan, you would hate us to the core.

I really, really hate Man U.

The reason you dislike us is because you know we're better than you.

3 September 2011 at 00:32  
Blogger English Viking said...

Carl,

Did I mention 'no culture'?

3 September 2011 at 00:35  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

English Viking

I don't do hate.

We'll see in October and February who plays the better football and come May Manchester United will be lifting another trophy.

3 September 2011 at 00:51  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

EV

I suppose its fortunate I don't live in the UK. Else you would have me deported at the point of a bayonet.

And, yes, you mentioned 'No culture.' Three times. But don't let that stop you. Your exposition is amusing. I'm sure you could work it in at least three more times.

carl

btw, you do seem a little bitter about Manchester United. Lots of assertions like "you know we're better than you" & "If John Terry could kick a ball as well as a one-legged man.." I take it I shouldn't pay attention to any final scores then?

3 September 2011 at 00:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

[I]t does seem to me that you, if anybody, displayed enjoyment from my question. I showed none. You were bitting critical of Anglicanism.

I wasn't denigrating the Anglican Church. I was speaking the bitter truth. Everything I said was accurate to the last syllable. I laughed because the question was hysterically funny given what has happened since November 2003. It has happened because the Anglican Church contains a false religion that dresses like Christianity, and sounds like Christianity, but is in fact a counterfeit of Christianity. Its public face is TEC, but there are secondary infections in many places. That's why there are multiple positions of homosexuality in the Anglican Communion. Tares have grown among the wheat, and tares bear no fruit.

carl

3 September 2011 at 01:05  
Blogger Chancellor More said...

The Way of the Dodo

You use many words to say little.

The Holy Roman Catholic Church has withstood protestations throughout its 2000 year history. It has survived them. The 'gates of hell' stare it in the face today but shall not prevail. It may suffer further schism; guided by the Holy Ghost, it will not fail in its sacred mission.

3 September 2011 at 01:20  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

carl

Explain that to Mr Cranmer, not me.

3 September 2011 at 01:21  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

carl

English Viking has 'anger management' issues. Don't provoke him.

3 September 2011 at 01:25  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Explain that to Mr Cranmer, not me.

He requires no explanation. He knows what I said is true. I suspect he thought your question was asked with guile. It's not unlike asking "Does Margaret Thatcher have an opinion on the Trade Unions?" In 1985, that question would have been very funny, but who would ever think it could have been asked from innocence? Do you really have no familiarity with the convulsions that have griped the Anglican Communion since Gene Robinson was made a Bishop? Do you know who Gene Robinson is?

carl

3 September 2011 at 01:31  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 September 2011 at 01:44  
Blogger Marya said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 September 2011 at 01:47  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

carl

What I will say is that Gene Robinson and his understanding of how to express a Christian lifestyle was incubated for many years within the Episcopalian Church.

3 September 2011 at 01:50  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 21:32 :

''Britain is slipping into a 'cultural Christianity'' ...''

It is doing no such thing.

The 'culturally Christian' are disappearing at a rate of knots.

Probably faster still, if they get to read your usual turgid tripe.

3 September 2011 at 01:54  
Blogger Cam Ma said...

No longer the Conservative Party but the Counterfeit Party. It no longer wants our votes.

3 September 2011 at 01:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

You can't plead the Fifth. The US Constitution doesn't cover you. Besides, pleading the Fifth is a de facto admission of guilt. Since I am an uneducated, uncouth, ill-bred American, I was too unsophisticated to recognize the guile behind your question. Our Host was far wiser than I it seems.

But at least I am not a 'cheating cheat.' (As in "Man U are a bunch of cheating, diving, bullying cheats.") I wonder, does a cheating cheat end up accidentally obeying the rules?

carl

3 September 2011 at 02:00  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

carl

"Guile" - now what do we mean by the term? Being shrewd and using a cunning stratagem is not the same as denigration or ridcule. There is a difference between means and motive.

What incenses me as a Christian citizen of Britain, a country with an Established Church, is the silence of that Church. Its acommodation of secular beliefs that are contrary to my understanding of the Christian Gospel is, to my thinking, contributing further to the erosion of Christianity.

How long before a female Episcopalian Minister openly discloses she has opted for an abortion? Or before a Minister in a gay civil partnership, blessed in a Church, seeks a surrogate child?

Without the anchor of Truth we are adrift in a sea of moral relativism.

Being British entitles me to comment on a Church that is publically funded and Headed by the Sovereign of this land. What must she as the Governor of the Church of England, the Defender of the Church, think?

3 September 2011 at 02:22  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

i.e Defender of the Faith

3 September 2011 at 02:23  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace, as with everything else, our language is indeed under attack-because it provides the foundations and building blocks of our culture while remaining the medium for its transmission. The deconstructionists have been at it for a long time now; origins and etymologies are as shadow to their lights. They are pleased only with what they think they have destroyed by 'meconnaissance' and lopped off for artifice. Their poison is directed at the root.

While consequently I can't be doing with most recent denizens of your blog, I continue to esteem Your Grace's linguistic strength: recognising all the while, of course, that the motives of good writing are substance and truth. The most powerful text is not mere hollow effect, nor is it about winning 'arguments' by contorting technical points.

To turn this to the week's topics ... I merely guess at why people whose lifestyle obviates procreation should choose to dominate the matter for everyone else. However, they clearly seek to do so by both discourse and regulation.

The visible effect is the unravelling of our Anglo-Christian social construct--by striking at the nurturing root of marriage and procreation. On a macrocosmic level, one suspects that is as intentional as the move to destroy your blog - while thrusting crudely contrived monikers in our faces.

The invisible effect remains, however. It is that of the Word, who infuses every particle of His Creation (and of Your Grace's BCP). None may know how He works; some of us, on the other hand, spend lifetimes trying to understand as much as we can about what we do not know. So we tolerate a certain amount from the destroyers, and carry on to the teleological corollary: like any good pilgrim to Canterbury.

As always, Chaucer had it right. It is cupiditas against caritas; lust against Love; words against Word; law against Law, etc. And ... if Cupid and Venus impose raging necrosis on all living things, the sooner all will migrate to their true polarities. The ones who think this is "the worst of things"? Well, there is that road to Hell......

3 September 2011 at 02:28  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

You 'don't do hate'???

Is there something wrong with you?


Carl,

I don't live in GB either (UK is such an uncouth nomenclature, don't you think?)

It is such a shit-hole now, after numerous bastardisations, including yankee ones, that I was forced to leave before I died of a broken heart.

Really Carl, on a point of the utmost seriousness;

LFC is all you need.

Scum U are cheating scum.

3 September 2011 at 02:36  
Blogger English Viking said...

Dodo,

I thought I was managing it quite well.

I haven't hurt anybody for ages.

Not physically, anyway.

3 September 2011 at 02:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Regarding the plural of forum, can I just add that if I were writing an article, an academic paper, a book, or some other sort of formal prose (which might include a respected blog) then I'd use fora. I'd use the same approach with formulae even though I'm inclined to use formulas on colloquial media and therefore on a medium such as the one down here.

3 September 2011 at 06:35  
Blogger Gnostic said...

...a constituency which falls entirely within Brighton & Hove, the city with the most same-sex households in the UK.

Weatherley comes across as an opportunist scumbag preparing to fight an election campaign. Is there something Weatherley knows that His Grace and iDave doesn't?

3 September 2011 at 07:16  
Blogger pAmELa said...

Nobody is stopping them from choosing their partners, but why do they want to be married??? They can do all they like but marriage is sacred, to us and the Church and almost all religions. They dont want to obey the Churches then why do they want to particpate in the Church's sacraments?? Funny...

3 September 2011 at 08:51  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

Your picture of Mr Weatherley shows him to portray a certain self-satisfaction. I don't see his problem unless of course he is trying to outlaw sacramental marriage in its entirety.

There are some people who will never be satisfied until they triumph entirely in their own cause. Mr Weatherley is only following in a long line of detractors against the Church. But he's more huffing and puffing rather than signifying anything.

3 September 2011 at 09:48  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Your Grace is correct to point out that there are also problems in the Catholic Church. We have traitors in our midst and it has been a problem ever since the second Vatican Council with new innovations been brought in. However, even with traitors in influential positions the teaching remains clear. Hopefully, the new translation of prayers during mass will be part of a revival back to normality. Incidentally, if I were in a position to attend mass under the auspices of the new Anglican ordinariate I would be going there as I expect it would be much more reverential.

3 September 2011 at 09:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Pam: "Nobody is stopping them from choosing their partners, but why do they want to be married??? They can do all they like but marriage is sacred, to us and the Church and almost all religions."

Marriage is also a social institution irrespective of religions, hence the civil marriage option. As for getting married in church, perhaps they are 'cultural Christians' who are gay?

3 September 2011 at 10:03  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

DanJo said
"I'd use the same approach with formulae..."

How delightfully, frightfully 'couth' of you good sir!

3 September 2011 at 10:20  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I'm getting to the stage where I honestly don't know why the State permits any part of marriage to the church. If a large portion of it is so concerned to make civic unions equitable, why don't they overhaul the system either to the point that:

a) The State has no role in marriage (people are free to make whatever arrangements they like, with whomever, or I suppose whatever they like)

or the more realistic option of:

b) Everyone has a civic union - without any compulsory ceremony, and then if religious individuals wish to have a religious ceremony they are welcome to do so as private citizens with no interference by the State.

I know that I regard my own marriage as being effective only before God, and that I am answerable on my vows to God, not the State. The State required a whole load of paperwork when we got married, and we had to jump through pretty much the same loopholes and (of course) pay the same fees as my friends in civic partnerships did. I couldn't care less about the moral weight of that bureaucratic component.

The funny thing is, quite often, nor could they.

3 September 2011 at 10:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dreadnaught: "How delightfully, frightfully 'couth' of you good sir!"

Well I try to be, but not as hard as I once did. I've just read all the comments in the first link His Grace has in his article. Hahaha. It shows just how rude and aggressive some of the religious are and how restrained I once was. I've just realised I'm a product of my environment. :O

3 September 2011 at 10:40  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

These morons abuse the tolerance that is normal for a Christian society. The actions of the likes of this idiot breeds hate rather than dilutes it.

3 September 2011 at 11:26  
Blogger graham wood said...

Dear Mr Weatherley.

You are deceived. Homosexuals do have equality with all other people in the UK, irespective of their age, politics, gender,or sexual proclivities.

Thus they retain their equality under the law like everyone else.

The current discussion therefore is not about equality issues.

It is about the attempt by homosexuals to impose their particular secular ideological values upon the rest of UK society, and in particular upon Christians who do not share their view on sodomite practices.

In doing so homosexuals are intent on radically altering the God given concept of marriage (one man with one woman for life) to include "same sex unions". To this end your letter to Mr Cameron which purportedly seeks to redress your perception of "inequalities" via the imposition of "same sex unions" in Christian church venues is completely bogus, bizarre and irrational. The Christian concept of marriage is totally incompatible with such a view.

If homosexuals wish to presume an endorsement for their practices with a form or religious approval then they are free to organise their own venues for this purpose. They have automatic right to freedom of assocation under the law, and that right is also theirs to establish their own churches of "same sex unions" or with a title of their choosing if they so wish.

(the word church is used in its original sense of "ekklesia", or simply a gathering whether for religious or secular purposes)

What Homosexuals are not free to do is to impose their views on others who hold a diametrically opposite concept of Christian marriage.

Such an attempt is to demand more than equality and tolerance, but to deny the same freedoms on the part of Christians not to associate with those with whom they fundamentally disagree. Imposition is not freedom.

One further brief point.

It is a matter of fact, established by law and custom over many centuries since the Magna Carta that the State has no jurisdiction in the internal affairs of the Church, whether in doctrine or practice.

Your appeal therefore to the Prime Minister is to no purpose.

"Wherefore we will, and firmly command, that the Church of England shall be free" (Article 63. The Magna Carta)

Graham Wood

3 September 2011 at 11:30  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Graham Wood said ...
"It is a matter of fact, established by law and custom over many centuries since the Magna Carta that the State has no jurisdiction in the internal affairs of the Church, whether in doctrine or practice."

Did Henry VIII agree with you?

3 September 2011 at 11:41  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Oswin said...
"''Britain is slipping into a 'cultural Christianity'' ...''
It is doing no such thing.
The 'culturally Christian' are disappearing at a rate of knots.
Probably faster still, if they get to read your usual turgid tripe."

Do you ever make comments of substance?

A definition fro Wiki:

"A cultural Christian is a secular or irreligious individual who still significantly identifies with Christian culture. The term is used, for example, by popular atheist Richard Dawkins in reference to himself. Likewise, non-believing sex advice columnist Dan Savage has described himself as a "Catholic — in a cultural sense, not an eat-the-wafer, say-the-rosary, burn-down-the-women's-health-center sense." Deists of the 18th and early 19th centuries, such as Napoleon and various Founding Fathers of the United States, similarly considered themselves part of Christian culture, despite their doubts about the divinity of Jesus."

I think you'll find cultural Christianity is alive and well and growing at a rate of knots.

3 September 2011 at 11:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cultural Christians to me are those who have a vague idea of god and an arms-length knowledge of what Jesus was about, find Songs of Praise a worthy programme, see Christianity informing English morality in some way, and expect a B.M.D relationship with their local church. In short, not really proper Christians at all.

3 September 2011 at 12:04  
Blogger Preacher said...

I think that it's time for this country, if we can still call it that after the intervention of the EU, to get back to their Bibles & read the outcome of society turning from God & following its own licentious ways.
It doesn't matter what one daft politico believes, or for that matter what I or any other person believes. If you want to use my house, you go by my rules, the same applies to God.
You have choice over your own lives, you can steal, kill, commit adultery or sleep with the dog. But you will one day be held to account for your actions.
The problem is when society goes rotten,everybody suffers.
Time for thoughtful repentance I'd say.
Incidentally welcome back EV.

3 September 2011 at 12:04  
Blogger St. Nikao said...

Mr. Wood,

Problem is, 'gays' want to be more than equal. They consider themselves our superiors. They, like Obama and the Muslim believers, are totalitarian (and thus oligarchical). They demand to be in control and to force their views down our throats, into our and our childrens' minds. They want to control what we believe, think, say, have and do and whether you are allowed to live, work and prosper.

DoDo,

Again, pot-kettle.

Your ancient Church has also acted in the past as a totalitarian system (and a bloody-handed one at times).


The Roman Church has been a power monger in the past, with many more kings and emperors than the Englich Church. Moreover, she has vaunted and separated herself from the rest of the Church, invented her own standards, practices, theologies, dogmas and now pridefully, presumptuously claims to rule over and judge all of Christendom.

The Church that produced the Borgias and more recently Maciel, Lahey, Favalora, Sodano (and a sick slew of sexual deviants, predators and their protectors) - is superior, the ideal and an authority?

Get. Real.

In fact, an unbiased review of the condition of Christ's Church today would reveal that neither Catholic, Protestant, congregational or episcopal, has over the longterm been more successful, stable or virtuous than any other. The whole Church (the eternal entire) is a body made up of individuals and groups that must be continually refined and remain constantly watchful and repentant in order to stay united and obedient to Christ and thus be in communion and unity with each other. There is no other way.

Many Christian churches, leaders and members are in grave need of repentance in the style of II Chronicles 7:14.

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

Mr Nikao SAID ...
"The Roman Church has been a power monger in the past ... she has vaunted and separated herself from the rest of the Church, invented her own standards, practices, theologies, dogmas and now pridefully, presumptuously claims to rule over and judge all of Christendom."

I have never denied the Roman Catholic Church, like all organisations, has had sinful members.

The issue at hand is whether Christian Churches TODAY are providing sound leadership to its members on issues such as birth control, homosexuality and abortion.

So far as the more recent shocking scandals are concerned, again the structures of the Church failed. The Pope has apologised and is taking steps to ensure, so far as is humanly possible, that there is no reoccurance.
Cardinal Schönborn: "The days of cover-up are over. For a long while the Church's principle of forgiveness was falsely interpreted and was in favour of those responsible and not the victims."

Let's just agree to differ on your theological and ecclesiastical opinion on the primacy of the Roman Church. So far as I'm concerned, the Roman Catholic Church was instituted by Christ and carries His direct authority.

Today she makes no claims to "rule over all Christendom" if by that you mean temporal power. It is neither prideful nor presumptious to teach Christian Truth as it was directly mandated to do by Christ.

I completely agree with your concluding remarks. The Church is made up of flawed individuals, after all.

3 September 2011 at 12:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

St Nikao: "Problem is, 'gays' want to be more than equal. They consider themselves our superiors."

I don't.

You know that equality in this context is not about being equal, but having equal opportities, right?

"They, like Obama and the Muslim believers, are totalitarian (and thus oligarchical)."

I'm a liberal of the JS Mill school.

"They demand to be in control and to force their views down our throats, into our and our childrens' minds."

Nah. We'd have Faith Schools if we wanted to get up to that sort of shenanigans.

3 September 2011 at 13:11  
Blogger ALLtoJesus said...

Here's an enlightening compare/contrast on the various churches and gay marriage.

http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2011/09/01/a-breakdown-of-gay-marriage-support-by-religion/

Note the effectiveness of teaching of The Truth the various groups by the convictions and position of their members on this issue.

3 September 2011 at 13:14  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Graham Wood:

""Wherefore we will, and firmly command, that the Church of England shall be free" (Article 63. The Magna Carta)"

Shurely the Church *in* England in 1215?

3 September 2011 at 13:18  
Blogger St. Nikao said...

Don't be disingenuous, esteemed Dan JO,

You know I wrote that the Roman See has presumed to be in authority over all Christendom, issuing various 'bulls' and 'edicts' declaring one group or another's ordinations, ministries and Eucharists invalid, while inventing new doctrines on her own authority.

3 September 2011 at 13:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

St Nikao, you were talking about gay people in the paragraph from which I quoted. I replied because I'm gay.

3 September 2011 at 13:53  
Blogger graham wood said...

AnonymousInBelfast said...
Graham Wood:

"Wherefore we will, and firmly command, that the Church of England shall be free" (Article 63. The Magna Carta)"
Shurely the Church *in* England in 1215?

Agreed, re "in" England in 1215, but by no means limited to that year, or any other. I suggest it applies to the relationship between the State and the Church (es) for all time.
The Great Charter pre-dates the establishment of Parliament and therefore cannot be repealed.
It stands as a permanent principle and contract between the Sovereign and the people - establishing the independence of the Church (es) from the State.
The principle has been vigorously defended and fought for by Christians over many centuries, many of whom gave their lives in as martyrs for that essential principle.
The essence is that Christ is the sole head of His church, not the State or any secular body.
Thus the Archbishops and Bishops rightly proclaimed in 1928 (during the Prayer Book controversy) that:

"It is a fundamental principle that the Church - that is the Bishops, together with the clergy and laity - must in the last resort, when its mind has been fully ascertained, retain its unalienable right in loyalty to our Lord Jesus Christ, to formulate faith in Him, and to arrange the expression of that holy faith in its forms of worship"

For Mr Weatherley to attempt to invoke the power of the State to impose a homosexual ethos which would be BINDING upon churches via the law, would be to turn that principle on its head.
A Christian, by definition is spirtually obligated to accept the headship of Christ over His church, irrespective of the claims of the secular authority. (see Acts 4:19-20 &5:29)

3 September 2011 at 14:14  
Blogger graham wood said...

St. Nikao said...
Mr. Wood,
"Problem is, 'gays' want to be more than equal. They consider themselves our superiors."

SK. Indeed, and in doing so their arrogance is demonstrable.

3 September 2011 at 14:17  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Been away for a few weeks and I am pleased to see things are carrying on as usual.

Dodo you wrote "Being British entitles me to comment on a Church that is publically funded".

That is actually not true. The state/government does not actually fund the C of E, it is the Parishoners/members of the public who contribute the bulk of the money to upkeep the Church of England, alongside glebe lands, investment funds and legacies.

3 September 2011 at 14:21  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Paul Twigg

Thank you for the correction.

Still, some money comes from the State, does it not? And who appoints the Archbishop of Canterbury?

Nevertheless, as a British citizen I do think I am permitted to comment on the country's Established Church.

3 September 2011 at 15:36  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Mr Nikao said...
"Don't be disingenuous, esteemed Dan JO,
You know I wrote that the Roman See has presumed to be in authority over all Christendom, issuing various 'bulls' and 'edicts' declaring one group or another's ordinations, ministries and Eucharists invalid, while inventing new doctrines on her own authority."

I think you may have meant Dodo and not DanJ0.

The central point is that the Roman Catholic Church is not acting on her "own authority" but on the authority given her by Christ Himself and under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

You are free to accept or reject her authority, alongwith her Sacraments and various teachings, doctrines and dogmas of the Church.

3 September 2011 at 15:43  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

ALLtoJesus said...
"Here's an enlightening compare/contrast on the various churches and gay marriage.
Note the effectiveness of teaching of The Truth the various groups by the convictions and position of their members on this issue."

As one comment of the website said:
"Good grief! How can Catholics be so misguided?"

It should be pointed out the question put to 3000 people isn't known. Neither is the status of those responding who described themselves as Catholic. Richard Dawkins would describe himself as a 'cultural Christian' but I doubt his views would be representative of Christians who follow the teachings of the Church.

Note: the Roman Catholic Church has very clear teachings on these matters.

3 September 2011 at 15:54  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 11:58 :


I've used the terms 'cultural/culturally Christian'and similar variants, since first hearing it's use during a Fifth Form R.E. discussion, of 1966. Whereas your bosom buddy Wikipedia, has been in existence since when exactly?

''Do you ever make comments of substance?'' : if you mean do I blether-on interminably, regardless of subject, then no, I do not.

I have neither the time, nor the inclination, to offer up lengthy dissertations. However, I hope that my occasional 'quips' are not entirely without purpose; neither, I suspect, are they particularly onerous unto the recipient.

Surely it is the point of the pin that deflates the balloon, and not the length of the shaft? A 'point' you might care to remember, Dodo, when sucking life's blood from His Grace's communicants.

Admittedly, brevity does not always serve, neither is it necessarily the ''soul of wit'' - but I'll leave ''...the limbs and outward flourishes'' to hang yourself upon; after all, you do it so well.

To those others, whom I have overly burdened with excessive verbiage, my sincere and heartfelt apologies.

3 September 2011 at 16:08  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Dodo, as we have theoretical freedom of speech in this country you don't need anyone's permission to speak on any matter.

In respect of the C of E funding it is not like the BBC in which everyone regardless of Beboid adherence pays a tax or is funded by the state.

The Church does get VAT relief for building work, but this applies to the other Christian denominations and religions. The Church does also claim back the tax on the money given to it by parishoners, but again this is not a special privelege of the established church. Also I guess the Cof E can apply for lottery grants etc, but that is hardly 'state funding' viz the BBC.

3 September 2011 at 16:16  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

@Oswin, please quip away!

3 September 2011 at 16:18  
Blogger Oswin said...

Further apologies for the wrongful apostrophe - oh the shame!

3 September 2011 at 16:26  
Blogger Oswin said...

Paul Twigg: you are most generous Sir, thank you.

3 September 2011 at 16:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

The Inspector agrees with comments that homosexuals are no longer victimised, but if they raise their profile by engaging an MP to propagate their selfish deviant views, they deserve every criticism coming their way.

Front Page In-Your-Face Homosexuality is about as desirable as dog shit on the pavement. For a man to sodomise or be sodomised by another man is repellent. They should keep their unpleasant, anal bleeding, rectal prolapsing perversions well under wraps lest they attract the attention of the Health and Safety people, and find themselves in court...

Personally speaking, the Inspector has no problem with Gays who live the quiet life – ‘non-scene’ as they would put it...

3 September 2011 at 17:00  
Blogger Nightwatchstate said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 September 2011 at 17:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

On the subject of ‘divine intervention’ we have of course AIDS. No cure , and millions being kept alive by pills. The victims -
Promiscuous hetersosexuals, intravenous drug addicts, and the ‘unfaithful’ male homosexual community.

It’s almost as if the Almighty is having a clean up exercise, and ridding His world of some of the worst of the dross. Perhaps in His mysterious way, He is...

3 September 2011 at 17:39  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Oswin

Finally you string a few sentences together but all to make a criticism of myself.

Any actual answer to issue of 'cultural Christians' that initiated your first little 'quip'?

3 September 2011 at 17:40  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector General said ...
On HIV and AIDS
"It’s almost as if the Almighty is having a clean up exercise, and ridding His world of some of the worst of the dross. Perhaps in His mysterious way, He is..."

And the children born with the HIV - the sins of the father? Or those infected by contaminated blood? You missed out prostitutes, some being held as human slaves.

Not good calling anyone "the worst of the dross". Thank God instead
you are not a promiscuous hetersosexual, (were you ever?) an intravenous drug addict or an ‘unfaithful’ homosexual.

Maybe it is a judgement; maybe it's not. Let's not loose a sense of compassion for the sinner.

3 September 2011 at 17:53  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo:

You call that a criticism???

Believe me, it was a mere waft of a feather.

As to your other point (and of many others) you have already demonstrated an ignorance beyond conversion. I know my limitations.

Besides, you appear not to grasp the point of debate, so don't ever expect me to indulge your self-inflation; I'm content with the pin.

3 September 2011 at 17:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Agreed Dodo...

...but God has a way of taking people, whether we are compassionate about them or not.

If HIV AIDS is divine intervention, then God has proved He is as accurate as US Artillery or a US Air Strike.

What’s interesting about this particular disease is that humans can change their behaviour with a good chance of avoiding it.

‘Dross’ seemed a perfectly fitting word in context and if it is a judgement; He is definitely targeting (and you have to call the condemned something)...

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

Oswin

Good to know you accept your limitations.

Best just stick with to the odd quip with your little pin, as pointless as they are.

3 September 2011 at 18:14  
Blogger English Viking said...

Preacher,

Thank you very much.

3 September 2011 at 18:15  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Inspector General said ...
"‘Dross’ seemed a perfectly fitting word in context and if it is a judgement;"

Little word "if" with a whole lot of meaning.

3 September 2011 at 18:16  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Oswin said...
"I've used the terms 'cultural/culturally Christian' and similar variants, since first hearing it's use during a Fifth Form R.E. discussion, of 1966."

Strange that since, according to my source, it was first coined in the 1970's and became popular in the 1980's and 1990's.

Fertile imagination?

3 September 2011 at 18:47  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Graham Wood

Fair do(')s [or, as His Grace is monitoring the standard of the Queen's English: Fair *deuce*].

I only added the 1215 to be specific, but I wouldn't disagree with anything you've said.

I suspect however, that you are probably going to be proved somewhat opimistic in the long term if you imagine that a clause regarding the relationship between church and state in the Magna Carta will prove much of a hindrance to politicians intent on achieving the kinds of constitutional changes hinted at in His Grace's post.

It tends to be that legislation expressly designed to prevent the exercise of conscience invokes that conscience (whether Christian or not); so I do not imagine that the worst possible forms of law will end up being particularly effective. I've said it before: Christianity has an exceptional record for survival (and in many cases resurgence) in the face of hostility.

---

@Inspector - "Love does not delight in evil, but rejoices with the truth".

4 September 2011 at 03:30  
Blogger len said...

Mike Weatherby Mp is a product of Politically Correct brainwashing.
Like most politicians today he is 'jumping on the bandwagon' no doubt hoping to pick up a few votes on the way.
Ther was a day(once) when politicians had some sort of moral fibre and would stand up for what was right for Society and the Family unit.
There seems to have been some sort of 'cloning process' going on with politicians and they(Politicians of all parties) seem to say the same thing with regard to 'moral issues'.
Anyone who makes a stand does so at their own peril as they will be turned upon and attacked by those who 'toe the PC line'.

4 September 2011 at 08:09  
Blogger Peter said...

Perhaps there is something odd about me, as a man living in a same-sex relationship, but I really can’t see the need for same-sex weddings (tho’ I suppose they could be a tiny boost to the economy...). A Civil Partnership seems ample to protect the mutual interests of a couple.

On another point: ‘Failure to comply, as the adoption agencies discovered, will result in closure...’ I do wish people would get their facts right about Catholic adoption agencies; e.g. Leeds Catholic Care receives 2.6% of its income from donations and the rest – in the main – from the taxpayer (94%) – there is nothing to stop the Catholics of Leeds clubbing together and setting up their own adoption agency, stating its aims as only providing adoption to Catholics and funding it themselves as a private non-profit making company. But alas, given only 2.6% of Catholic Care’s present £4million+ income comes from the ‘faithful’ it is highly unlikely such there would be enough support to pay the rent on the premises, let alone run a business. If the Catholics of Leeds can’t put their money where their mouth is, to maintain their religious integrity, why should the taxpayer do it for them? See: http://faithisnotthesameasreligion1.blogspot.com/2011/06/leeds-catholic-adoption-debacle-again.html

P.

9 September 2011 at 02:46  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older