Friday, October 28, 2011

Warsi: "The stronger we are as a Christian nation, the more understanding we will be of other faiths"

Here we go again. If Baroness Warsi were to dedicate just one tenth of the effort she devotes to religious affairs to her job as Chairman of the Conservative Party, she might just arrest the inexorable decline in party membership. Today, again, she expounds the infinite acceptance and unending tolerance that are at the heart of the Christian faith. Or her intepretation of it.

His Grace won't re-rehearse the praise he has poured out on Sayeeda Warsi in the past (time and time and time and time and again): she is brave, articulate and forthright in her beliefs. She glides through the complexities of Pakistani politics, confronts ‘honour’ killings and forced marriage, exposes voter fraud and immerses herself in very relevant and pressing social issues which benefit more than her co-religionists: her eyes are not solely on the glorification of Allah and the wellbeing of the Ummah.

But she understands Pakistan's history more that Britain's, and is more attuned to the politics of the mosque than that of the Conservative Party. She proclaims: "For many years, I have been saying that the stronger we are as a Christian nation, the more understanding we will be of other faiths. That is why, a year ago, I went to a bishops’ conference and said that this Government would 'do God'. It is why the Pope’s visit was so important for our country. And it is why I am proud that this year, for the first time, the Prime Minister held an Easter reception in Downing Street."

Yet 'doing God' must be on her terms. And her terms are those of her leader, for whom Jesus was 'the founder of the Big Society', and who preaches that Christians should be 'tolerant and welcoming and broad-minded'. It is the 'love your neighbour' side of the gospel without any theological truth. Jesus did both. The Church must do both, even when that truth is unpalatable.

Baroness Warsi says: "We need to create a country in which people can be unashamedly proud of their faith – where they don’t feel that they have to leave religion at the door. That means being proud of Christianity, not downgrading it. It means encouraging people to say that their faith inspires what they do. It means supporting religious charities in delivering public services in schools, hospices and rehabilitation."

His Grace despairs. The Conservative Party preaches this, but does absolutely nothing to address the injustices of Labour's equality legislation. What Baroness Warsi is saying is that we need to create a country in which people can be unashamedly proud of their Christian faith – as long as they don't hold that faith too strongly. Where they don’t feel that they have to leave religion at the door, unless it's going to offend someone. She says this means being proud of Christianity, not downgrading it. Yet the Coalition are intent on doing precisely that, merely by virtue of imposing a 'wishy-washy' liberal kind of Christianity upon Roman Catholic adoption agencies. One may only deliver public services in schools, hospices and rehabilitation if one is not too doctrinaire.

Sayeeda Warsi says she speaks 'as a proud British, Muslim, Conservative woman'. How many pround British, Christian, Conservative men is her party embracing and promoting? If you happen to believe that homosexuality is a sin and shouldn't be taught to primary school children, or you object to 'gay marriage' on sincere theological grounds, are we really to believe that such candidates could sit in David Cameron's Cabinet alongside the Baroness?

Britain does have a proud history of pluralism and inter-faith dialogue. And the Government is right to take advantage of the Church of England's parish structure in order to move 'beyond the photo calls outside the mosque, beyond hosting the local imam for tea in a draughty church hall'. But, with enormous respect, this is what politicians do in order to get re-elected. They have to be seen, and perception is all. And in order not to offend (and so alienate any constituency), their speeches are bland and the expression of their faith 'wishy-washy'.

But it's a bit rich of of the Baroness to talk about the 'need to take the lead internationally'. She says: "That means pressing other governments to safeguard religious minorities – be it the Copts in Egypt or Christians and other minorities in Pakistan. It means raising problems of persecution at the highest level, as the Archbishop of Canterbury recently did in Zimbabwe."

This, from a member of the Government which links overseas aid to gay rights but not religious liberty; and which bent over backwards to stress that the recent visit of the Archbishop of Canterbury to Zimbabwe was absolutely nothing to do with any branch of governmment. Indeed, a Foreign Office spokesman said: "He is not a representative of the Government and his proposed meeting with Mugabe in no way reflects a change of Government policy."

Baroness Warsi's understanding of the Christian faith is about as extensive as David Cameron's. In the words of the Roman Catholic Bishop of Motherwell, Joseph Devine, the Prime Minister 'has surrounded himself with religiously illiterate, secularist advisers’. He wrote: 'It would appear his priority up until now has been to have an exchange of ideas with more liberal and radical minorities, including sexual minorities. It would appear that those immediately surrounding and advising the prime minister, and perhaps Mr Cameron himself, are not religiously literate and simply have no reference to religious sensibilities.'

So, when the precepts of that God happen to conflict with Government policy, it is not possible to speak robustly about the place of Christianity in Britain without robustly defending the liberty to manifest that religion in the public sphere. Freedom of worship is inadequate: freedom of religion is what is required for this to be a 'Christian country'.

His Grace is not frightened of these debates: politicians are, though they pretend ad nauseam to be having them. And as a result of this disjuncture, the level of political discourse in modern Britain is diminished. Contentious moral issues, no matter how worthy of scrutiny or debate, are swiftly closed down with threats of suspension, expulsion or dismissal. In this age of hyper-sensitivity to offending anyone on any matter, genuine debate is suppressed and liberties are thereby surrendered. David Cameron is an Anglican: in that, His Grace greatly rejoices. Not all Anglicans agree on every matter of doctrine, and that via media is both it weakness and strength. But until the Prime Minister and the Baroness grasp that the cross of Jesus is not a duvet and the crown of thorns was not wrapped in cotton wool, they will not understand that Christians may occasionally be intolerant, unwelcoming and narrow-minded. Indeed, they may even be downright angry: 'The stronger we are as a Christian nation', the more we will certainly love our neighbour, but the less we will tolerate idolatry, sophistry, and hypocritical politicians.

107 Comments:

Blogger The Gray Monk said...

I fear she's a bit behind the times. According to the Civil Service, her political masters and the Humanist and Atheist organisations running the country - the UK is no longer a "Christian Nation."

I'd say it ceased to be around the time Bliar and Liebor forced "Multiculturalism" on the nations and declared "all religions are the same."

28 October 2011 at 10:06  
Blogger graham wood said...

Good post Cranmer, especially your summary:
"'The stronger we are as a Christian nation', the more we will certainly love our neighbour, but the less we will tolerate idolatry, sophistry, and hypocritical politicians."

The trouble is that we are a 'Christian nation' in name and by historical association only.

I think you are right about Baroness Warsi. She has many very adnmirable qualities and does not lack courage to express her convictions, but her assessment on Britain needing to be more "Christian" is a contradiction in terms.
She is politically Conservative, and yet we must ask, is this the same Conservative party which enthusiastically endorses every opportunity to further the "gay" cause which is antithetical to Christianity?
Is this the same Conservative party which is committed to destroying the unique status of Christian marriage in order to accomodate the "non marriage" of same sex partners? Indeed so.
Is this the same Conservative Party which will not reverse Labour's "equality" laws which result in Christians being pursued in courts and criminalised for merely expressing dissenting oinions?
So we could go on.

28 October 2011 at 10:09  
Blogger Richard Gadsden said...

I'm intrigued, what possible argument is there to "objject to 'gay marriage' on sincere theological grounds" if those people being married are doing so explicitly outside of the Christian faith?

Indeed, civil marriages are not sacramental, so they can't challenge the sacrament of marriage.

Now, if another Christian denomination conducts a sacramental marriage of same-sex people, then you have the usual inter-denomination disagreement. But the State can't go picking sides between denominations, can it? It can't say to the Quakers (who, admittedly, conduct non-sacramental religious marriages) that they don't get consideration but Anglicans do, just because there are more Anglicans than Quakers.

I've always liked the French way of marriage in small towns: in the morning, go to the Hotel de Ville for a civic marriage, and then process across town to the Church for the religious ceremony. All the neighbours who aren't invited can come out and watch the marriage procession crossing town.

It makes the point that the thing (called marriage) that the State recognises is different from the thing (also called marriage) that the Church recognises, and our conflation of the two by deputising religious people to conduct fused state-church marriages is confusing even so intelligent and perceptive a mind as Your Grace's.

28 October 2011 at 10:12  
Blogger graham wood said...

Richard Gaddesden wrote: "what possible objection can there be to "gay" marriage"?

Richard I believe the answer has to be that "gay" marriage is by definition not marriage at all - but a subtle counterfeit.I think the theological answer is clear:
“As Christians we believe there is a clear positive biblical line on marriage and family, one which is good for all people, not just people of faith, and which we join with other Christian groups in affirming.
However, there are various other aspects to the issues surrounding gay marriage of which many appear to be ignorant. ‘Gay’ marriage is part of a much larger, and indeed we would say insidious, social engineering project aimed at deconstructing marriage and the family, stripping heterosexuality of it’s ‘privileged’ social, legal and cultural position (under the damning accusation of ‘heterosexism’), and allowing various forms of sexuality to enter mainstream UK life.”

Mr Cameron’s superficial conference statements about “commitment” justifying homosexual marriage fails by omission in one very important area, namely the God given perspective on human relationships in marriage which is basic and clear. The only ‘commitment’ required by God lies in the bond of heterosexual marriage. Thus Jesus himself (Mark’s Gospel Chapter 10) lays down three fundamental governing principles.

Firstly that marriage is a creation ordinance rooted in the creation of man and woman “God made them man and woman”. (no mention of the mythical Adam and Steve here!).

Secondly, the man/woman, or husband/wife union was, and is, to be so intimate that its resultant effect is to create a unique “one flesh” relationship which cannot by definition be replicated in any other. (it is far removed therefore from the parasitical and ‘lifestyle’ concept of the modern “gay rights” movement).

Thirdly, because this relationship is mandated by God as exclusively male/female then of necessity no other is envisaged. “What God has joined together – let not man put asunder”. Clearly a homosexual relationship violates the statement that a man shall be joined to ‘his wife. As John Stott points out: “modern loving homosexual partnerships are incompatible with God’s created order, and since that order is heterosexual monogamy, was established by creation, not culture, its validity is both permanent and universal”.

28 October 2011 at 10:35  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

That's about the sum of it Mr wood.

28 October 2011 at 10:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

When we finally have civil marriage, it's going to be quite funny to watch the right-wing religious walk around completely bewildered and disoriented because the sky hasn't actually fallen. I wonder what irrelevant thing they will stress over and lie awake about then?

28 October 2011 at 11:21  
Blogger Preacher said...

Danjo.
The rules & laws of men, whether political or religous have attacked, persecuted & murdered believers for centuries. But they've never succeeded in altering or scaring God into obeying them. So I don't think that the true believers will be that bothered for themselves.
Belief or rejection of God is a personal choice that individuals have to make, all decisions have consequences (try crossing a motorway with a blindfold on).The only thing that vexes me is when someone spreads oil on the road then tells another who can't see that it's safe to cross.

28 October 2011 at 12:09  
Blogger Preacher said...

Dr Cranmer.
Thank you for this mornings Blog.
Indeed thank you for all your hard work & allowing us all to have the opportunity to respond.

Blessings.

28 October 2011 at 12:15  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Preacher: "The only thing that vexes me is when someone spreads oil on the road then tells another who can't see that it's safe to cross."

A bit like telling women it is fine not to wear a face veil?

28 October 2011 at 12:17  
Blogger Preacher said...

Danjo.
What do you think?.

28 October 2011 at 12:29  
Blogger Nobody Important. said...

Servant of the Vatican, this woman, nothing more.

28 October 2011 at 12:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Preacher: "What do you think?."

I think religious fascists of all stripes can sod off and take their various and competing certainties with them.

28 October 2011 at 13:13  
Blogger Flossie said...

What I think is going to be really funny, DanJo, (11.21) is listening to Equalities Minister Lynne Featherstone explaining exactly how (in technical terms) same-sex marriage can be consummated - which I would remind you is a legal requirement for marriage.

28 October 2011 at 13:44  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Tut, tut, DanJ0, 'fascist' is a lazy man's insult; even Richard Dawkins could do better than that.

28 October 2011 at 14:17  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

For many years, I have been saying that the stronger we are as a Christian nation, the more understanding we will be of other faiths.

Warsi’s logic is to be complimented. A nation of loving, ever forgiving, infinitely tolerant Christians would present no obstacle to the march of her religion; indeed, judging by the milksop clergy, it would abase itself to ensure the victory of Islam. A nation of cussed, hard-headed realists, however, presents a challenge before which even Allah quails.

28 October 2011 at 14:32  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace, may I add my voice to Preacher's comments of 12:15: Thank you.

As to the Pakistani woman with the german title: I loved my country when (in my experience) it was Christian, tolerant, and aware of its own history. I don't like the fact that we are supposed to re-build it according to the specifications of foreigners who have taken advantage of our tolerance, and who have no idea what the place is about.

But then - I'm probably fortunate that I will never have to meet this female: she is so far above my socio-economic and ethnic status. I know my place.

28 October 2011 at 14:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Corrigan1: "Tut, tut, DanJ0, 'fascist' is a lazy man's insult; even Richard Dawkins could do better than that."

It's the lingua franca down here for many subjects.

Flossie: "I would remind you is a legal requirement for marriage."

It's currently the requirement. Civil marriage is a contract. How about a X day cooling off period in a credit agreement stylee or how about legally refusing the goods if they don't 'fit' when you try them on at home in a distance selling stylee. Ways and means, ways and means, matey. :)

28 October 2011 at 14:40  
Blogger martin sewell said...

Flossie, You and I agree on the consumarion point but in the interests of strict accuracy non-consumation renders a marriage " voidable" ( not void). The " disappointed" party may choose to set aside the marriage, but the marriage is still valid and subsisting unless action is taken to annul it. Accordingly if a party dies before consumation, the widow/er could still claim pension/ insurance rights etc.

Thus an elderly non consumated " companionship" marriage is still a valid marriage if it is agreeable to both.

In my judgement, this, and the necessary acquisition of parental responsibilty by bureaucratic or legal process by the non " natural" gay " parent" makes the claim that we can eliminate distinctions between marriage as currently understood and a reformulated " gay- inclusive" definition illusory.

28 October 2011 at 16:35  
Blogger Roy said...

The problem with "diversity" is that there is nothing diverse about it. Take the subject of "gay marriage", for example. I would expect opinion polls of adherents of the major religions would show that the overwhelming majority of Christians, the overwhelming majority of Moslems, the overwhelming majority of Hindus, Sikhs, Buddhists etc are against it.

You would probably find that the overwhelming majority of people of other ethnic backgrounds were also against it and the same would probably be true in the overwhelming majority of countries in the world.

However the diversity mongers don't really care what most people think. When they talk about "diversity" what they mean is male Guardian readers, female guardian readers and transsexual Guardian readers, Black Guardian readers and White Guardian readers, able-bodied Guardian readers and disabled Guardian readers, young, middle-aged and elderly Guardian readers, atheist Guardian readers, agnostic Guardian readers and wishy-washy adherents of various religions whose only strong convictions are ones that would be endorsed by the Guardian,

28 October 2011 at 16:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy: "You would probably find that the overwhelming majority of people of other ethnic backgrounds were also against it and the same would probably be true in the overwhelming majority of countries in the world."

Well, if that is the sole criteria for deciding stuff then the Coptic Christians had better pack up and feck off out of Egypt, their being a minority about the size of the gay population in the UK and all, if the majority decide they're not wanted.

28 October 2011 at 17:20  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (17:20)—The Copts have little choice but to follow your charmingly worded advice. A Copt recently gave this account of trying to protect the body of her dead fiancé from further abuse after he was run over by an armoured vehicle:

His body was in the middle of the wheels. His legs were torn. His head hit the pavement, breaking his skull. Soldiers gathered around us and started to beat him up. I begged them to leave him. Then a soldier with a red cap came, shouting, cursing and hitting me with a stick then tried to beat him up. I threw my body on him (her fiancé) … and the soldier said to me: ‘You infidel, why are you here?’

28 October 2011 at 18:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JR: "The Copts have little choice but to follow your charmingly worded advice."

It wasn't advice, it was a rhetorical device in the exchange used to show the paucity of thought in other's argument. Your story adds to the strength of it. Hope this helps.

28 October 2011 at 18:10  
Blogger Flossie said...

Martin Sewell - thank you for that clarification of the finer points of law. It does raise interesting questions, though, of future possible dissolutions of gay 'marriages' for non-consummation as to exactly what consummation entails - er - is it hugging and kissing on the sofa, or one of the more unsavoury homosexual practices? As sexual intercourse, as it is widely understood,cannot exist between two men or two women.

28 October 2011 at 18:11  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (18:10)—As it appears to matter to you, ‘The Copts have little choice but to follow your charmingly worded rhetorical device.’

28 October 2011 at 18:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JR: Thank you. Tidy arguments may not be important to the EDL but I'm quite fond of them myself.

28 October 2011 at 18:33  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (18:33)—Thank you, in turn, for a glimpse into the cold, sterile world of the rhetorician.

28 October 2011 at 18:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace

The Inspector concurs with your sentiments. There was a time when politicians kept out of religion, and vice versa. Worked rather well; it was also the polite thing to do. Similar idea exists in keeping the judiciary and legislative separate, thank God. Just as well really, or we would end up like a muslim country.

Would be preferable if we could one day go back to the aforementioned way of doing things. Sadly not –the disastrous multicultural experiment has seen to that. Too many mouthy immigrant, non Christian ‘multiculturists’ on the scene, wishing to change England into something akin to their preferences. Must have found the England we all love and cherish unacceptable. Can’t think why - after all, they must have known something of the land and its people they freely emigrated to. Unless of course, they planned to and did bring their intolerances with them….

The Baroness has the Inspector’s support, but perhaps no more emphasis on religion, and all emphasis on integration. And integration is keeping one’s religion out of the political arena, and facing up to the real threats to the British way of life – Sharia law for example.

28 October 2011 at 18:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0 You do let yourself down at times. You need to focus on the bigger picture. Just be grateful you can wave the rainbow flag in the UK, without having some Islamic sentence applied to you. Suggest you put away said flag and react to events as a decent human...

28 October 2011 at 19:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Just be grateful you can wave the rainbow flag in the UK, without having some Islamic sentence applied to you."

As it's a little over 40 years or so since decriminalisation and about 10 years since we were first allowed to legally consent to sex aged 16, we're not only pleased but rather keen too not to let a bunch of religionists dictate terms based on their chosen theologies. That includes Muslims. Now, react to that as a decent human ...

28 October 2011 at 19:20  
Blogger len said...

The only form of Christianity acceptable to' the World' will be the form of Christianity that has become 'married 'to the World.
It will be this form of corrupted 'Christianity' which will welcome all faiths through its doors.
Instead of Christianity changing the World the World(in many cases) has changed Christianity.
Unless the Church is' salt and light' to the World it will be trampled underfoot.This is/has already happened.The 'trampling 'has occurred when' the World 'entered the Church and imposed its will over and beyond the Word of God.The word of men has taken precedence over the Word of God.
This is the story of the' organised Church' married to the State.
However this is not the end of the story,God`s true church faithful to Jesus Christ is growing rapidly in former communist countries, in Islamic counties, for these people have tasted the bitter fruits of communism ,Islam and secularism, and look for a solution none of these could provide.
God`s only solution for the problems of mankind are all to be found within Jesus Christ.

'And God placed all things under his feet and appointed him to be head over everything for the church'(Ephesians 1:22)

If we ever have a revelation as to what these words really mean it will open our understanding of Gods intentions for Humanity and this World.

28 October 2011 at 19:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. If you target religion for all your woes as a homosexual, you’ll be fighting a rear-guard action for the rest of your life. Instead, consider gays place in society. If society has trouble with, for example homosexual marriage, it might be an idea to accept this, and to move on, and make the most of what you have after 40 years...

28 October 2011 at 19:55  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Gray monk, the start of the rot began before that when Ray Honeyford was sacked as a headteacher at a school in England because of the intolerance and bigotry of Muslims. They got what they wanted because they shouted loud and hard and the politicians trampled on those who were tolerant. Christian Church leaders of all denominations are unwilling to confront the politicians because they don’t want to lose their charitable status. However we have already lost a lot - as I understand it, no religious group for example can receive funding from the national lottery but homosexual groups can – correct me if I’m wrong. How’s that for upside down logic. It’s part of the same pattern of denying aid to regimes which persecute homosexuals but not those which persecute Christians. A servant cannot serve two masters and we have given in to the idea that we can have a ‘society’ with different philosophies. You can’t and the disintegration of our society is becoming apparent. What do we think would happen if all the Christian leaders of all denominations got together and demanded basic Christianity in the laws of our land? We could start with tax advantages for married heterosexual couples and Christian symbols in classrooms and courtrooms. I concur with Your Grace’s statement:
“Christians may occasionally be intolerant, unwelcoming and narrow-minded. Indeed, they may even be downright angry” – why not.

28 October 2011 at 20:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Shacklefree As a Christian, the Inspector is growing increasingly intolerant of views alien to the British way of life. Johnny Foreigner and his pal, Degenerate Liberal need to be put in their place. Ideas anyone ???

28 October 2011 at 20:20  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ OoIG (20:20)—A few months ago, I suggested Britain be de-Islamized. Liberals and dead Archbishops reacted negatively.

28 October 2011 at 20:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Rottenborough. Thanks to England’s drift towards ‘anything goes’, the future is up for grabs. The Inspector is quite prepared to put on his black shirt, should the need arise – of that you can be sure...

28 October 2011 at 20:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "If you target religion for all your woes as a homosexual, you’ll be fighting a rear-guard action for the rest of your life."

Is that euphemism?

"If society has trouble with, for example homosexual marriage, it might be an idea to accept this, and to move on, and make the most of what you have after 40 years..."

No. We'll have our equality and all that comes with it. If a bunch of duffers and their dead god aren't happy with that then tough communion wafer.

You lot are a small minority too, you might want to remember that every now and again. Society doesn't want much to do with you either by the look of it. You might like to keep nice liberals like me on your side just in case, like.

28 October 2011 at 20:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Shacklefree: "What do we think would happen if all the Christian leaders of all denominations got together and demanded basic Christianity in the laws of our land?"

Try it. The more you push, the more you lose by the look of it. We'll get you lot out of the apparatus of the State even quicker I reckon. And let's face it, we need to while the other religions are still relatively weak.

28 October 2011 at 20:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. No euphemism intended. Your answer is disappointing. Forgive the Inspector, the homosexuals he knows are somewhat pragmatic in their expectations. Perhaps they would welcome gay marriage, he hasn’t asked them. What the Inspector does know of his friends is that they are unlikely to accept it if the rest of society jeers them. Could be an age thing though – please do appreciate that as you get older, the quiet life beckons strongly...

28 October 2011 at 20:58  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr JR @ 20.30, Britain and Europe will be de-Islamicised when the money runs out and the Muzzies have to do some work. Of course the money has already gone in Europe. What goes next...?

28 October 2011 at 21:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "What the Inspector does know of his friends is that they are unlikely to accept it if the rest of society jeers them. Could be an age thing though – please do appreciate that as you get older, the quiet life beckons strongly..."

Well, society often jeers at Christian stuff as Dave Allen, Rowan Atkinson and so on have shown over the years. You lot survive. Heck, we still have Songs of Praise on TV despite the death of Thora Hird.

As for an age thing, that's probably true. Our young are no longer prepared to be stealth-gays living in terror of being found out. They expect the same as everyone else, and they're getting it. Rightly so too.

28 October 2011 at 21:10  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ bluedog (21:03)—What goes next? Just a little thing called the nation state, taking our best chance of freedom and democracy with it.

28 October 2011 at 21:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. We don’t want young homosexuals living in fear, but neither does society want them to be queering it big time. The Inspector looks forward to the next avante garde comedian mocking Islam – do be a good fellow and let him know when it’s to be broadcast. Thora Hird was a serious loss. The Inspector’s now deceased aunt had a stair lift installed on her recommendation – thinks she might have come round and put it in herself. Perhaps her contribution will be recognised by the church – arise blessed Thora.

28 October 2011 at 21:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "We don’t want young homosexuals living in fear, but neither does society want them to be queering it big time."

Same with Christians. I'll even put up with dayglo signs outside churches shouting "He is risen!" and stuff like that. But don't be too in our faces with your god stuff hey? Godding it big time is a little nauseating at times.

28 October 2011 at 22:43  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Solemn Collects in the 1662 Book of Common Prayer of the Church of England:

"O merciful God, who hast made all men, and hatest nothing that thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of any sinner, but rather that he be converted and live; Have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidels, and Heretics, and take from them all ignorance, hardness of heart, and contempt of thy Word; and so fetch them home, blessed Lord, to thy flock, that they may be saved among the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit, one God, world without end. Amen."

28 October 2011 at 22:44  
Blogger Roy said...

DanJo completely missed the point that I was making about diversity. I did not say that the majority is bound to be right. What I implied was that the people who like to use "diversity" as an argument against Christianity are often only interested in the opinions of non-Christians when they agree with them.

You seem to implicitly accept my point since you did not challenge it.

28 October 2011 at 23:36  
Blogger David B said...

Various people have said that all sorts of people from all sorts of groups are against gay marriage, which, by the way, is a bit of a digression from HG's opening post.

Strange how conversations here tend to drift towards who puts what in whom.

But to continue - I have something thing to say to those who are opposed to gay marriage, and against gay sex altogether come to that.

If you are against gay marriage, then don't have one, and if you are against gay sex, then don't have any, and join - if appropriate - people like me who have had, nor personally wanted, neither gay marriage nor gay sex, but have a moral rule of thumb - that consenting adults should have the freedom to form such attachments as they see fit.

29 October 2011 at 00:37  
Blogger English Viking said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

29 October 2011 at 02:03  
Blogger Oswin said...

Yo Viking! Fat or thin, you're probably right! You might be a mess (who is not?) but I value your opinion. Take care old pal!

29 October 2011 at 02:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 October 2011 at 07:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy: "DanJo completely missed the point that I was making about diversity."

As you now describe it, it was so hidden that missing it was inevitable.

Your first paragraph says that the majority adherents of all the major religions are probably against gay marriage. Your second paragraph says that the majority of people in the ethnic minorities are probably against it. And your final paragraph says that it is only the opinion of Guardian readers and the very liberally religious which matter to those pushing 'diversity', by which you seem to mean gay rights.

In short, I think I've caught the gist of it right the first time.

"You seem to implicitly accept my point since you did not challenge it."

Well, if you want to go with the bog-standard, boilerplate Christian whinge now that's fine. I challenge that regularly and pour scorn on the likes of the Christian Institute who seem to be the equivalent of the Daily Mail for whingey Christians who like to play a victim card after seeing the successes of Muslim religionists doing exactly that. Well, when you lot lose your special privileges at State level then you might be taken more seriously.

29 October 2011 at 07:45  
Blogger bluedog said...

David B @ 00.37 said 'that consenting adults should have the freedom to form such attachments as they see fit.'. Doesn't this beg the age-old question of balancing the rights of the individual against the needs of society as a whole?

There seem to be many communicants who hold that acceptance of gay 'marriage' and same-sex adoption is profoundly detrimental to society. These communicants may have reached that opinion irrespective of any confessional beliefs.

Furthermore, these communicants recognise that 'progressives' will call them unsophisticated medieval retards and similar terms of endearment as a consequence.

29 October 2011 at 08:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy, going back to your original comment, I think the opening sentence is where things aren't quite right (at least as I am reading it): "The problem with "diversity" is that there is nothing diverse about it."

Diversity essentially means variety. That most people don't exhibit a particular attribute doesn't mean diversity as a whole doesn't exist. Where I work, there are currently a handful of Christians of various types that I know of, a Sikh, several Muslims, and many of no faith. We have a variety of ages from under-graduates to almost-retirees. There are five or six nationalities. Several gay people that I know of. Both men and women in the management group. In short, the company embraces diversity.

Supporting a change in the law to make gay civil marriage legal is not an argument against Christianity. Removing religion from the State is not an argument against Christianity. Making it illegal to use religious belief as an attribute to filter out job applications when religion has nothing to do with the job is not an argument against Christianity. I fully support the right of Christians to (say) hold public rallies in public, and other religious rights and freedoms. I'm a liberal and liberalism inherently accepts the value of diversity. Of course, this is probably anathema to those who want social homogeneity centred around Christianity but hey.

29 October 2011 at 08:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "There seem to be many communicants who hold that acceptance of gay 'marriage' and same-sex adoption is profoundly detrimental to society. These communicants may have reached that opinion irrespective of any confessional beliefs."

There are also people who hold that mixed-race marriage is profoundly detrimental to society. I don't call them "unsophisticated medieval retards" in that case but I think they're wrong nonetheless and I think people need to move on past them regardless of how strongly they hold those opinions.

29 October 2011 at 08:46  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr DanJO, in the matter of same-sex 'marriage' and adoption there is no need for compromise, nor should there be. These things are detrimental to society and nothing will change that. Homosexuality is the road to extinction. Why 'move on' towards extinction?

29 October 2011 at 09:13  
Blogger len said...

The topic of Homosexuality seems to be an issue that is a conflicting one between Christians and 'gays'.
The Bible condemns Homosexuality but the reasons for doing so are often unclear.
The Bible also condemns many other things but these are are not so often debated as the Homosexual issue.
Judgement was rained down on Sodom and Gomorrah for amongst other things..Homosexual Practices.. but was that all?, there were undoubtedly many 'other things 'going on there.
The sins of Sodom and Gomorrah were the same sins that are prevalent in our society today.
This is what the Lord says about Sodom"'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."(Ezekiel 16:49)
The basic sins of Sodom were selfishness,carnality, and self indulgence (basically 'looking after number one')and this opens the doorway to all sorts of self indulgent behaviour and indifference to others.

These people in Sodom were so caught up with their lives that they did not recognise the signs of what was impending (much like today)

29 October 2011 at 09:43  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len squeaked ...

"The Bible condemns Homosexuality but the reasons for doing so are often unclear."

Really? You haven't really read the bible then!

I agree with your analysis of the condition of Sodom and Gomorrah but, regardless of the moral climate of the time, homosexuality is condemned in scripture.

You do know that many homosexuals advance the argument used by you here as a defence of homosexual practices?

29 October 2011 at 10:17  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, Of course!.

Are you aware that people use the bible to authenticate hate crimes against Homosexuals?.

29 October 2011 at 10:35  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

Of course. Just as they used it in the past to justify the murder of Jews and today some cover their hatred of other religions through scripture.

Human depravity knows no bounds.

29 October 2011 at 10:58  
Blogger len said...

The 'Truth will out' as they say and God`s Word is Truth.This is the Truth we use to uncover error which is the duty of every Christian.

We are commanded to contend for the faith and counter error.

"Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt I had to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints." (Jude 1:3, NIV)


(Saints being believers not the plaster version)

29 October 2011 at 11:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "These things are detrimental to society and nothing will change that."

Well, you'd have to actually make the case for that rather than assert it. One might make a case for divorce also being detrimental to society but we allow that. What do you think? If you think it is then perhaps right-wing Christian energies would be better spent trying to ban divorce given that it's rather common. I suspect most people would take a dim view of Christians if they tried that but, let's face it, Christians won't for exactly that reason.

"Homosexuality is the road to extinction. Why 'move on' towards extinction?"

We've had homosexuality throughout history and we're still here. The animal kingdom seems to have it too. It's a nonsense partial-argument isn't it? And made from a weak position.

29 October 2011 at 12:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You do know that many homosexuals advance the argument used by you here as a defence of homosexual practices?"

We don't need a defence in a similar way to women not needing a defence for going around the UK unveiled despite what some Muslims believe about the practice.

29 October 2011 at 12:20  
Blogger bluedog said...

DanJO, the case has been made ad infinitum, not merely asserted. There is no doubt that homosexuality, or something like it, persists in many species for which there must be an evolutionary reason. But glorifying sterility which is implied in the current fashion for the glorification of homosexuality is a dead end. Literally. So yes there will always be homosexuality, but when the birth rate falls below 2.1 children per woman, homosexuality is a luxury no society can afford.

Now I've made all these points before. Do you need to renew your subscription to the Memory Loss Clinic?

29 October 2011 at 12:50  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

Yes, yes, we do know.

Others should know that according to you:

- Anyone who is a member of an organised religion (eg Anglican, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox) is on the road to Hell.

- Anyone who accepts a sacramental priesthood and codified doctrines is on the road to Hell.

- Anyone who has not received adult baptism by immersion following a personal encounter with Christ, is damned to Hell.

Do you deny any of the above?

29 October 2011 at 13:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

bluedog: "But glorifying sterility which is implied in the current fashion for the glorification of homosexuality is a dead end. Literally."

Glorifying sterility?

"So yes there will always be homosexuality, but when the birth rate falls below 2.1 children per woman, homosexuality is a luxury no society can afford."

If I am not allowed to take part in a gay civil partnership, I'm hardly going to start fathering children with women instead. I'd need a fecking turkey baster to impregnate a woman.

What's the actual argument here? How does gay people marrying affect the birth rate? I'm almost afraid to ask. Or ask again. Should I hum the Twilight Zone theme tune?

Here's an idea. Why don't you lot simply shag more? Even shag around if you like. Impregnate women. Enjoy it. That sort of thing. Perhaps even advocate making having kids tax efficient! Instead of promoting social injustice for your own weirdy right-wing belief system?

"Now I've made all these points before. Do you need to renew your subscription to the Memory Loss Clinic?"

I vaguely remember but I must have laughed and filed them in the round container labelled "flat earthers, Harold Camping, and right-wing Christian nonsense". I probably dug out loads of stats and stuff. There was talk of Muslims breeding like rabbits, population projections, and other BNP/EDL stuff making one feel like scrubbing one's skin after reading it, wasn't there?

29 October 2011 at 14:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

And what about divorce, bluedog? Good or bad for society? You didn't say. ;)

29 October 2011 at 14:08  
Blogger Oswin said...

DanJo @ 14:05:

I've seen actual video footage (U Tube, I think?) of muslim speakers/delegates, at their so-called 'Muslim Parliament of Great Britain', giving power-point presentations of muslim breeding trends, and projections, as to when they might take-over Britain. Scout's honour!

This was some years ago now, but it might still be available on-line.

29 October 2011 at 15:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Oswin: "I've seen actual video footage [...]"

Well, I can't really argue with that but I expect they're making the same assumptions as EDL/BNP: that their birth rates will remain higher than the indigenous population. As you probably know, that rate is falling over time. It's probably under the same sort of pressures as that of the indigenous population: economic reaso^h^h^h gay marriage. That is, the idea that some gay men somewhere in the UK are choosing tasteful drapes for their shared marital home is putting them off dobbing their women without contraception as often as they used to. It should have been obvious to me but *slaps head* I just didn't spot the causal link. :)

29 October 2011 at 15:38  
Blogger Roy said...

@ DanJO

Well, if that is the sole criteria for deciding stuff then the Coptic Christians had better pack up and feck off out of Egypt, their being a minority about the size of the gay population in the UK and all, if the majority decide they're not wanted.

The Copts make up about 10% of the Egyptian population. As someone who is obviously knowledgeable about gays you will be aware that the most authoritative recent surveys put the proportion of homosexuals and lesbians in the population as much lower than that.

Nobody is suggesting that gays get out of the country. All that is being suggested is that they should stop trying to twist the definition of marriage. Instead of "twist" I could, perfectly legitimately, have written "pervert the definition" but if I did you would no doubt start screaming about "homophobia" instead of discussing the nature of marriage.

Probably for as long as human beings have formed life-long partnerships for bringing up children people have known that marriage is a heterosexual union. It is absolutely incredible that it should be necessary to defend that idea.

As for your comparison of gay "marriage" with mixed-race marriage there is absolutely no comparison. Throughout history whenever people of different races have met each other people of one race have naturally been attracted to those of the other. Sometimes their motives have been evil, e.g. in the rape of women slaves, but often the attraction has been mutual.

I am sure that many mixed race couples, and those who have relations of different races (as I do) will find your comparison of gay "marriage" to hetero-sexual marriage extremely insulting even though you probably did not actually mean it to be.

29 October 2011 at 15:40  
Blogger Roy said...

With regard to the dispute between The Way of the Dodo and Len regarding Heaven it does not matter what we think. You should be content to leave the matter up to God. Those that know Him, whether they realise that they know Him or not, will be accepted and that includes homosexuals just as it includes other sinners, otherwise nobody would get in.

Many readers will recognise the quotation below, taken from the Authorised (King James) Version.

Then shall the King say to them on his right hand, Come, you blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was an hungered, and you gave me meat: I was thirsty, and you gave me drink: I was a stranger, and you took me in: Naked, and you clothed me: I was sick, and you visited me: I was in prison, and you came to me. Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we you an hungered, and fed you? or thirsty, and gave you drink? When saw we you a stranger, and took you in? or naked, and clothed you? Or when saw we you sick, or in prison, and came to you? And the King shall answer and say to them, Truly I say to you, Inasmuch as you have done it to one of the least of these my brothers, you have done it to me.

29 October 2011 at 16:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy, if the percentages were 3% and 10% then would that actually make difference to the argument? Really? As for twisting the definition of marriage, it's just extending it to encompass gay people given that the salient features are pretty much the same if one doesn't have to have children to justify a marriage. Alternatively, perhaps you could stop trying to hold back progress? That works better I think. Thanks.

The thing about gays getting out of the country: that wasn't the argument. It was a point about the desirability of having a so-called tyranny of the majority, as JS Mill would call it. That is, it's not very desirable if one is a minority under pressure like, say, Coptic Christians in Egypt. As His Grace mentioned them in his article, I thought it was a relevant example.

The marriage is a heterosexual union thing is simply one of definition. Civil marriage is really what we make it. There are lots of thing that we accepted in the past because of tradition that we no longer accept now, such as women having a say in the running of the country. So, argument by tradition is quite a poor argument really.

The mixed-race marriage thing was a point about things people like to believe are detrimental to society. As you may know, there were laws in some States in America about that. As far as I can tell, some right-wing Christians there thought that god put the races on different continents for a good reason and that we shouldn't be mixing them through marriage. I'd place bets that there are even people around here who think fairly similar things today. Nice try, btw, with the insulting thing. Ha.

29 October 2011 at 16:04  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Roy

An interesting outlook. Will good people go to Heaven without having accepting Christ? Certainly, the bible suggests this in some limited circumstances.

I tend to agree with the sentiments of your position. However, some weasels might believe this suggests 'salvation by works'.

Where I differ is that each of us has a moral responsibility to seek out the truth. Genuine ignorance of Christ, through no fault of oneself, is different from a wilful and stubborn refusal to listen and open one's heart to Christ.

That said, it has to be accepted salvation is the sole prerogative of God Himself and is entirely in His hands.

29 October 2011 at 16:11  
Blogger Owl said...

"The marriage is a heterosexual union thing is simply one of definition"

The Stonewall stalker is at it again.

Blog taken over, again...

Get real old son, toleration level is getting worn thinner and thinner.

29 October 2011 at 17:57  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (15:38)—that rate [the Muslim birth rate] is falling over time

In your capacity as Professor of Tidy Arguments at Ramsbottom University, have a word with your alter ego who posted last night at 20:57 that it was imperative to oust believers from the apparatus of the state ‘while the other religions are still relatively weak’. If the Muslim birth rate is falling, Islam will remain weak and may even contract.

29 October 2011 at 18:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaps

A theory of the origin of homosexuality the Inspector is fond of....

There were times at which the early human race nearly became extinct. Could it be it survived by some humans not being prepared to breed themselves, but to assist in the raising of the children of other members of the tribe. Thereby, these groups survived, when the others did not...

29 October 2011 at 18:16  
Blogger English Viking said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

29 October 2011 at 19:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl: "The Stonewall stalker is at it again."

And the moral pygamy is back by the look of it. Off you trot, Concannon, before the urge to lie like a cheap watch overtakes you again.

29 October 2011 at 19:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JR: "If the Muslim birth rate is falling, Islam will remain weak and may even contract."

It's not the numbers. However, if the Christian Institute persists in its policy of causing an unnecessary fuss to get test cases to the top courts, then Islam may well get a leg up. And that's even if they lose the cases.

29 October 2011 at 19:40  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (19:40)—Thank you, Professor. Clear as mud. But tidy.

29 October 2011 at 19:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JR: "Thank you, Professor. Clear as mud. But tidy."

You're welcome. Were you meeting up in Birmingham today? Perhaps you just need to let the alcohol wear off if so? ;)

29 October 2011 at 19:55  
Blogger Roy said...

The Way of the Dodo said...

Roy

An interesting outlook. Will good people go to Heaven without having accepting Christ? Certainly, the bible suggests this in some limited circumstances.

I tend to agree with the sentiments of your position. However, some weasels might believe this suggests 'salvation by works'.


I don't believe in "salvation by works." I agree that it would be quite easy to twist the passage I quoted as implying salvation by works, just as the Epistle of James or parts of the Epistle to the Hebrews could be used for that purpose.

What I was suggesting is that God will judge people by how they responded to Him but He will do so in a way that is perfectly just. I believe that those who, for no fault of their own, have heard God speaking only faintly, through their uninformed conscience, but have responded in a sincere and whole-hearted way to that faint voice will discover to their surprise on the day of judgement that the Judge is not a complete stanger to them but is someone they befriended when they were given the chance.

That, I think, is one of the meanings of the teaching of Jesus concerning the sheep and the goats. However, as you said, "salvation is the sole prerogative of God Himself and is entirely in His hands."

29 October 2011 at 20:03  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (19:55)—I don’t understand the Birmingham reference. I don’t drink.

29 October 2011 at 20:20  
Blogger Owl said...

Danjo boy,

as soon I mention your blatantly obvious aims, you always fall back into insult mode.

I have often noted this strange behaviour in Lefties who have been caught with their pants down.

Very strange, but telling...

29 October 2011 at 20:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Owl, I'd say the truth hurts when I throw it at you but I doubt you even know what it looks like. Crawl back under your stone.

29 October 2011 at 20:44  
Blogger Owl said...

Dan,

thank you for making my point.....

29 October 2011 at 20:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Masterful. Owl, I insult you because that's all you deserve. That's nowt else.

29 October 2011 at 21:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Rottenborough. There was an EDL demo in Birmingham, passed off fairly peacefully . Do believe they are trying to smear you again....

29 October 2011 at 21:17  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ OoIG—Ah, thanks. DanJ0 must think I’m Tommy Robinson.

29 October 2011 at 21:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

;)

29 October 2011 at 21:38  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

I've already commentd on this on the DT's web-site.

The woman is a harmless loonie.
As is His Grace, of couse.

Let's get this straight.
Religion is blackmail, all religions kill enslave and torture.
{ And just as a reminder - you have to remember that communism is a classic religion - hence the body-count }

30 October 2011 at 08:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tingey. You managed to give the Inspector a laugh. Delicious irony, you know, your mention of “harmless loonie”. You can be a scream at times !!

30 October 2011 at 10:47  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Tingey

I really doubt Marx and Engels believed in, now how do you put it, sky fairies and goat-herder myths!

30 October 2011 at 12:12  
Blogger Jon said...

Surely the fact that Cameron and Warsi are so easily able to characterise Christianity as nothing more than tea, cake and turning the other cheek suggests that you have a problem successfully communicating your core message to our political classes? It also suggests to me that you have a problem translating your voter numbers popular appeal into control of the House of Commons.

Cranmer has always advocated ideological consistency, which is admirable, but you must see that this is not something Cameron understands. He doesn't even know what the Conservative party stands for, and he's its leader!

The Inspector suggests that gay people should give up the battle for equal rights and accept what we've got, but this argument could equally apply to Cranmer's attempt to bring his brand of thinking to the Tory party.

Perhaps it's time to choose between your adherence to the Conservative Party and your faith? It used to be said that the CoE was the Tory party at prayer. Why allow them to enjoy your continued support when they have so comprehensively rejected your views?

31 October 2011 at 11:47  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Good point Jon, Unfortunately we are, as Jesus describes us sheep and voters in this country do not seem to be able to change their lifelong (unthinking?) allegiance.

31 October 2011 at 19:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jon. Gays DO have equal rights – rather surprised no one told you. What Gays can’t do is get married in church, due to unsettling similarities shared by the happy couple’s genitals..

1 November 2011 at 08:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"What Gays can’t do is get married in church"

Or in register offices in a civil marriage ceremony. I don't just a flying feck about being able to marry in a church but I think we ought to be able to get married in a register office. If gay Christians want to marry in a church then that's an internal fight for them. Once the civil bit is sorted, it's up to the churches to take a position on their own rites and woooo stuff.

1 November 2011 at 19:34  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanJ0

Of course you can get married.

Will you DanJo take this woman to be your lawfully wedded wife.

Go ahead. No one's stoping you. Find a woman willing to marry you and pop down to the registry office.

Simples.

1 November 2011 at 20:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, I expect that if I want to I'll be able to marry a man in a civil ceremony in the not too distant future. Why should we be bothered by a bunch of religious control freaks trying to impose their feckwittery onto the rest of us when we don't believe in their god? And let's face it, why should we when people like you are the poster boys on comments places like this? Lordy, you're more of a poster boy for ditching it for atheism i.e. look at this unpleasant tosser who believes he's attached to a god and drawing his morals and guidance from it yet behaves as he does!

1 November 2011 at 20:23  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

DanJ0

Oooooo, how mean of you!

You may be a regular tosser, it's not something I'm into. Unnatural, unproductive and selfish, you see. Oh, you don't see it that way? Just so long as you don't judge others by your own standards carry on.

1 November 2011 at 22:20  
Blogger len said...

I am surprised that the Catholics posting on this site have not been subject to' a gagging order 'from the Catholic hierarchy, even from their invincible(sorry infallible ) leader.
Because these Catholics are the worst possible promoters of their' faith '.(Surely it would be better to remain silent and give the illusion of Holiness that to open one`s mouth and remove all doubt that it existed at all?)
They display all the worst aspects of religion and none of the fruits of a relationship with a loving Christ.

(Perhaps a gang of Jesuits are seeking them out even as we speak?.)

2 November 2011 at 10:53  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

You clearly confuse being human with saintly.

2 November 2011 at 15:09  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - why shouldn't we judge you by our standards, you judge us (and everyone else) by yours? Oh, I forgot, they aren't yours standards, they're someone else's. Someone, you hope was feeling holy, wrote yours down for you so you don't have to think.

It must be a relief for a bird of so little brain!

2 November 2011 at 16:28  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Jon

Do sit down when you speak - that way we might not hear you.

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

Might try that yourself Dodo.

2 November 2011 at 22:26  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

len

Now, now! I thought you disapproved of this sort of comment being a born again saint.

Goon let it all out. Passive aggression is such a pain.

2 November 2011 at 22:39  
Blogger Jon said...

I don't type with my buttocks, Dodo.

Yeesh, I don't envy the person who cleans your keyboard!!

4 November 2011 at 16:35  
Blogger The Way of the Dodo said...

Jon

Really? I wasn't thinking of your buttocks. Close though. Where does the smell come from?

4 November 2011 at 20:21  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Yohana Ibrahim, the Syriac Orthodox Archbishop of Aleppo, told the Austrian newspaper Die Presse that most Christians supported both Assad and demands for democracy, but that killings by Assad supporters and opponents had to end.

12 November 2011 at 02:27  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older