Gingrich: “The bigotry question goes both ways"
Newt Gingrich observes the bias in the left-liberal media which propagates a distorted view of 'bigotry'. He said:
“You don’t hear the opposite question asked. Should the Catholic Church be forced to close its adoption services in Massachusetts because it won’t accept gay couples, which is exactly what the state has done?” Gingrich asked. “Should the Catholic Church be driven out of providing charitable services in the District of Columbia because it won’t give in to secular bigotry?Quite so. Perhaps Speaker Gingrich might consider 'Cranmer's Law', which appears to have entered the US Conservapedia.
“Should the Catholic Church find itself discriminated against by the Obama administration in key delivery of services because of the bias and bigotry of the administration?” he asked, referencing the Obama administration’s unprecedented denial of a health care grant to the U.S. Bishops over their pro-life stance.
“The bigotry question goes both ways and there’s a lot more anti-Christian bigotry today than there is concerning the other side, and none of it gets covered by the media.”
posted byArchbishop Cranmer at 9:16 AM Permalink
146 Comments:
Hmm. So my post on the previous thread is relevant. OB's oleaginous voice pours out words, but meaning doesn't seep below the surface.
I wonder whether he'll try to change the name of his present caravanserai?
The Inspector would like to see politicians use the word ‘degenerate’ more often. Time to come down on one side or the other. Decency or Deterioration.
I note you have noit mentioned Newt's supposed "criticism" of Mitt ROmney, which shows that he is a ignorant, stupid, uneducated bigot.
The opposite, that is of educated, intelligent, and sophisticated.
He as attacked Romney, becauyse R is educated enough to speak anothe language (and I don't mean English, either) - French.
Not good enough your grace.
If you want degeneracy, try Hick Sanatorium, his 13th century opinions, and his crooked political/corporate dealings
I think the last line by Romney "3000 years of human history shouldn't be discarded so quickly" is rather good.
This fight over whose values should be ascendant is going to be problematic, at least in the UK anyway, as our Muslim citizens continue to mobilise.
Tingey. Your endorsement is the kiss of death, you do realise that don’t you.
DanJ0. While watching the clip, it occurred that at least one of His Grace’s resident catamites would sniff out the marriage bit, and stick his head round the door. Hope this day finds you well...
I think there are some very interesting candidates in this election. Though I too was struck by Romney's line 3000 years of human history shouldn't be discarded so quickly
I just wondered why he picked only 3000 years. Is this significant for the Mormons?
Catamite? I'm no Catholic choirboy in Ireland, matey. Nor am I inclined to fiddle with, or beat up, or terrify vulnerable children, unlike those who ran Catholic children's homes before secular justice caught up with them. *shudder* It takes deep-seated evil to do stuff like that, no wonder your church excelled so much in it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Calm down son, you’ll get to wear your stunning wedding dress complete with impressive train (...perhaps designed by yourself, that’s a gay speciality you know...) only it won’t be in this country, God willing.
Off to the tea rooms now, toodle pip
I see the resident Catholics are demonstrating the 'goodness' their religion imparts again.
DanJ0
I haven't said a word .... yet!
G. Tingey said...
I note you have [not] mentioned Newt's supposed "criticism" of Mitt [Romney]. He [has] attacked Romney, [because] R is educated enough to speak [another] language (and I don't mean English, either) - French.
I took the liberty of deleting all the extraneous ad hominem that was cluttering up your post. What remains is actually useful. You might think of this as an example problem in a text book. Slinging a bunch of insults, and distorting someone's name into a not-very-clever parody isn't ... what was that phrase? ... "educated, intelligent, and sophisticated." It's just juvenile. One day you won't be 19 anymore. It's time to start learning how to act.
carl
There's several of those distorted name thingies in the thread below, if you're interested. About your president too!
DanJ0
You really must stop banging on about the child abuse within the Catholic Church every time your sexual chosen preference is discussed.
You've been repeatedly told this was largely homosexual abuse of boys. The Chuch now understands that this sexual perversion can be addictive and compulsive. For this reason, it has taken robust steps to prevent homosexuals from joining the priesthood.
Inspector
I seen no reason why our friend DanJo should not marry in Britain and even wear a lovely dress.
Quite why any woman would agree to such a marriage and allow him to upstage her in this way is beyond me. Love knows no limits and he might just find an understanding woman. Of course the marriage, to be valid, would have to be consumated.
Dodo,
If I may come to Dan's defence, I think the mudslinging started on our side.
Albert. Inspector hangs head low. But why wait for the usual shelling from them that bat for the other side. Yours truly is a Catholic, says so on his box, holds Catholic opinions don’t you know...
Can I just remind DanJ0 that the beating up and terrifying of children in Catholic run homes in Ireland was done while these institutions were acting as agents of the state. This is not to say that the Church had no responsibility for what went on, but those of us familiar with Ireland (as opposed to those who get it all from the media) are aware that the departments of state with overall responibility for these places were perfectly aware of what was going on and chose to ignore it because it was easier than going in and doing the job themselves, as they should have done. The point is that despite the undergraduate assumptions of some people, the secular state is not the end of history; things don't necessarily get better just because the Church is out and the state is in.
I agree with Albert.
Corrigan, I'm not sure of the details but even supposing the state did know what was going on, that doesn't excuse the Church. We should be big enough to hang our heads and say sorry and not look to blame others even if they were complicit.
God laid down certain laws and a way for society to behave that would be mutually beneficial for everyone.Christianity is the basis of a civilised Society, in fact when Christianity is rejected Society starts to disintegrate.
What we see now is God`s laws being overturned not for the benefit of Society but for the benefit of the individual.Self is being exalted at the expense of the greater good of the whole of Society.
The oldest lie in the World is that you can gratify self and not affect anyone else,so the position taken now is that self and 'ones rights' are paramount and to be gained at the expense of all else.
So should Catholics be allowed to make a stand for their religious beliefs and turn away 'gays' or be forced to close their doors?. Secular Humanism is the 'new religion 'and intends to displace Christianity and impose its' belief system' on everyone.Secular Humanism even has its own 'bible'(Darwin`s theory)and its 'prophets' Dawkin`s and co.
When man decides that he can be' as God' and decide what is right and what is wrong then man has fallen into the oldest deception in the World and everyone starts doing what is right' in their own eyes'.
The problem with religion is that there are many people within it who are there for the wrong reasons.
There are also people within religion that are 'unconverted sinners'. This is a recipe for disaster, unless one is 'born again'and truly converted then a change of ones 'fallen character' is impossible.Only God can change a man`s essential being, religion puts on a veneer which merely puts a lid on what lies underneath.
Many within religion think they are converted by infant baptism but this is an illusion not backed up by scripture.
Untold damage has been done by the betrayal of trust by a few fallen men operating within the religious system.
Len. If the Inspector reads you correctly, you are saying that there is something special about you born agains. A permanent state of grace, perhaps. Jesus said believe in him and find salvation, he didn’t mention a special type of believer. Time to bring you back down to earth. You are a sinner like the rest of us. Do reply, but will appreciate it will take some time. you will of course have to trawl the net first...
Albert
I actually said nothing to trigger DanJ0's latest outpouring of poison against the Church!
len
"So should Catholics be allowed to make a stand for their religious beliefs and turn away 'gays' or be forced to close their doors?"
What on earth is this nonsense? Catholics don't turn homosexuals away andwho is threatening to close our doors?
As for the rest of your post, well, simplistic self-truths with anti-Catholic rhetoric thrown in for good measure.
What you stubbornly fail to grasp is that it is your individualistic, doctrinally hollow, version of Christianity that is underming the Gospel and not the organised Church founded on Christ's authority and teaching a consistent message for 2000 years.
We all know faith is necessary for salvation! We all know only God can change man! Please change the record!
Len,
So should Catholics be allowed to make a stand for their religious beliefs and turn away 'gays'
We do not turn away gays. We just do not think that homosexual relationships are equal to heterosexual relationships.
There are also people within religion that are 'unconverted sinners'. This is a recipe for disaster, unless one is 'born again'and truly converted then a change of ones 'fallen character' is impossible.Only God can change a man`s essential being, religion puts on a veneer which merely puts a lid on what lies underneath.
You're sounding like a Catholic again! For surely, the disgraceful behaviour relating to paedophile priests could arise if one accepted the doctrine that one can be Simul justus et peccator.
Dodo,
actually said nothing to trigger DanJ0's latest outpouring of poison against the Church!
I know you didn't. The Inspector has graciously taken responsibility. He is like Elijah - very jealous for the Lord!
I have to say that the adoption of Cranmer's Law was one I witnessed with dismay, mainly because it ascribes stupid, partisan political behaviour found on all sides, and assigns it to one side of the political spectrum as though diversionary, personal attacks with little to no cause are not found on all sides, but are the provence of one group alone.
That is, frankly, bonkers, as much as some leftish blog declaring that only the right resort in the end to attacking the morality of the speaker or some other such specific nonsense.
The adoption of the law seemed a regrettable instance of a lack of self awareness and sound reasoning.
And of course, bias in any right-nonlibral media is just fine and dandy.
It will be interesting to see how Newt gets along in SC - will he finally be to nail down the Anyone but Mit vote if he secures a win there I wonder?
Dodo, it's small wonder you're the way you are when you were raised in the religious filth of the Catholic Church. Its mindfucking of vulnerable children is a disgrace on its own, more so given that it is reinforced in schools. The fact that its priesthood raped and fondled children, and its nuns beat them up and mentally abused them too, just shows what sort of people are drawn to its corruption. That it went on for so long in places where the temporal power of the Church was so strong shows why we must be so very careful of what power we allow the Church to take. In fact, we should be installing spies high up in its ranks to monitor what goes on behind the scenes like we do in mosques.
Inspector: "Inspector hangs head low."
Hardly. You don't give a shit in reality. As with Dodo, it's all just a game with you. You're those Millwall supporters of the 80s: not actually interested in the football, just the partisan punchups the game provides. You get off yourself on it.
What’s all this ? The DanJ0 Appreciation Society ! {INSPECTOR SPITS IN BUCKET BUT MISSES AND GOES AWAY EVEN MORE DISAPPOINTED}
DanJ0
Bless you. You are so balanced and even handed in your analysis of the problems of systemic abuse of children and vulnerable adults in organisations. It's all due to Catholicism - even if the Church wasn't or isn't involved. Is Catholicism responsible for global warming too?
Corrigan1: "Can I just remind DanJ0 that the beating up and terrifying of children in Catholic run homes in Ireland was done while these institutions were acting as agents of the state."
Oh I don't need reminding. This is the organisation that wants to mind the welfare of vulnerable children and place them in families which it finds suitable. It's the organisation that minds older children too, the ones its priests like to fondle, and its nuns like to take their own bitterness out on when they are put in their power.
DanJ0
Were you mistreated as a child? Help is available, you know? You don't have to carry all this hatred with you any more.
There you go, Dodo and Inspector, that should be enough to keep you going and feed the flames you need. Enjoy. It was very noticable that on Christmas Eve all the Christians were absent from here, posting-wise, except the two of you trying to be as offensive as possible. For me, that showed what you both are in stark relief.
DanJ0 in contemplative mood ? Well contemplate this, out of every 20 people, we have 1 homosexual. But, and this is where it gripes, you people have such an influence that you’d think your were half the population ! It’s demand after demand. Now take another ‘cherished’ special group - the Giant Panda. Millions spent on them, and you might be lucky to get one born every God knows how many years. Let the buggers die out if they can’t get it together to breed. But when it comes down to it, the Giant Panda is still more successful in breeding than the Normal Sized Homosexual....
Mr Albert @ 12.11, perhaps 3000 years is a sort of combo-period, designed to capture both Christianity and a good bit of Judaism too. One imagines that MR already has the Mormon vote sewn up, how ever that is done.
Does Gingrich blush in these things when the topic of marriage comes up?
DanJ0
Do you keep a log of people's blog comments and spend time mulling and drooling over them? How very sad.
I simply have a good memory. Much, much better than you anyway given that you are disconcertingly unable to remember what you've written and occasionally contradict yourself. The problem of not actually believing what you write, I suppose. I was thinking you were a 'collective' identity at one point, as well as a collection of identities.
Inspector ,
You still seem unable to grasp the point I am making.
To be 'born again' is not to be a 'special sort ' of super Christian it is the very basic, entry level Christian.
The difference between me and you(I suspect) is that I have accepted that without Christ I am a sinner, and that without the new birth I would remain one!.
Does this make me 'special'?.Certainly not in myself.
One can join the Church but one cannot join the Body Of Christ one must be born into it.
Len. The difference between me and you(I suspect) is that I have accepted that without Christ I am a sinner
Still think you are a bit of a sinner though....
Bluedog,
I think that's the best explanation. Still a bit odd though, I think.
Inspector
You missed the most important bit of len's statement:
" ... without Christ I am a sinner, and that without the new birth I would remain one!."
He clearly believes he is no longer a sinner. A living, breathing impeccable saint for us all to emulate. The next Pope, perhaps?
DanJo
Now you know you keep records - why lie?
Own up, you like all the attention and enjoy being the butt (excuse the pun) of our criticism. I do it to feed your sadomasochistic tendency. Keep you off the streets and out of harms way.
Dodo, you're the guy who has a history of lying here and posting shite daily with your sidekick. I remain amazed that you continue posting comments when your reputation is so shot. Most people would have done a runner after that debacle over the multiple identities you were operating. Actually, normal people wouldn't have been doing that anyway. That someone professing to be a Christian was doing it ... sheesh. But you have no shame, no shame at all.
DanJ0. The Inspector is no ones sidekick, nor does he post shite, or self indulgent justification for being a homosexual and (...apologies to MacDonalds here..) “loving it”. Have you ever considered ‘keeping your sexuality to yourself’ ?
The two of you are a degenerate double act, marauding around and backing each other up as you go. That you're as vile to fellow Christians as you are to anyone else is indicative, I think.
DanJ0
You must get over my little indiscretion. It was a bit of fun and hardly warrents the attention you insist on giving it. And who really cares - apart from you? Hardly up there with serious crimes against humanity. Do rmember this is a blog - yes, a blog.
As for you. Well, you really do invite abuse. What's the matter, didn't daddy *understand* those *cute* little ways mummy found so amusing? Do you feel you need to be punished for letting them down?
Now you have your very own sidekick, I suppose you don't need to invent some to help you along anymore. I have to laugh at your idea of my even needing a log. Christmas Eve was a mere three weeks ago and it was notable because most Catholics were probably at Midnight Mass at the time you were posting your stuff. Most Christians were probably thinking thoughts about holy things, what with it being a festival celebrating god's birth as a man. But not you guys. Oh no. That you don't think it remarkable in any way is also indicative.
DanJ0. Thank Christ there are people around to oppose the godless, degenerate ideas you and your kind would inflict on decent British society. Everything you post is infected with it. Are we supposed to watch you lay it down and nod in approval ? You’re posting against principled people who have the interests of the next generation in mind. YOU don’t do the next generation. You're here now but tomorrow you will be gone. That makes us better than you. Don’t you forget that.
DanJ0
Do read the posts again and you'll see things were going along peaceably on Christmas Eve until you came in spouting your passive aggressive hatred. Indeed, if you actually read my posts there was no criticism of you or your lifestyle, merely a statement I wasn't going to get drawn into your nonsense. Remember?
YOU are the problem and YOUR behaviour discredits those homosexuals who go about their lives quietly. Stop trying to get mummy and daddy's attention and run along now.
Inspector
Time to ignore the obscene little oike who goes by the name DanJ0. He gets a buzz out of attracting hostility. He's the troll and then turns it around onto others. Horrible chap!
Dodo. Can’t say I’ve ever met anyone so wrapped up in themselves. Totally Me Me Me. Quite astonishing...
Inspector
And it appears to be Catholics he latches onto when his pet subject comes up (probably literally, I shouldn't wonder). For example, have you noticed how he avoids engaging with carl on these issues? Damaged goods, I'd say.
Dodo
I have largely stayed out of this sad example of a thread, but I must say this. If I were Roman Catholic, I would be cringing in mortification over what I have read. This thread has been embarrassing, and not because of DanJ0's efforts. And not just this thread, but other recent threads as well. Public displays of crude humor about anal sex do not befit the man who claims the name of God. Think about it, please.
carl
carl
Fair comment. As my priest often says - avoid 'occassions of sin'. Not sure anyone has actually made any direct references to anal sex, however, more like British humour and double entendre. Nevertheless, I take your point. Thank you.
G. Tinney... I can't let you get away with the nasty slurs agaisnt Newt Gingrich. Perhaps a brief biography of him is necessary to enlighten you and clear up the misconception you have of him. He is former Speaker of the USA House of Representatives and he has a B.A. in history from Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia as well as a MA and a PH.D in modern European history from Tulan University in New Orleans, Louisiana. Alone of all the present Republican Party Presidential candidate hopefuls he is able to talk seriously for more than ten minutes (he could do it for hours and never be a bore)about history, the threat of radical Islam, economics, religion, animals, space travel, and much more without the aid of a teleprompter. Newt's misfortune is that his DNA didn't give him the gift of smarmy good looks nor does he come from a wealthy Mormon family with all the advantages and connections that has in life. He is is the last person who qualifies to be called "stupid, ignorant, and an uneducated bigot". During his father's military career in the USA Army, Newt lived for two years in Orleans, France. During that time it can be assumed an intelligent boy like Newt would have picked up some conversational French while he traveled to historical sites all over France with his parents on holidays. These trips instilled in him a life long love of European history and civilization. Did I forget to mention Newt's several New York Times historical narrative best selling novels?
Penn's Woods, USA wrote:
"Alone of all the present Republican Party Presidential candidate hopefuls he is able to talk seriously for more than ten minutes--"
You must have lifted this from the Gingrich Glee Club. Truth is, all of the remaining candidates are, by UK standards, fine debaters who can think on their feet and acquit themselves well in any discussion of an issue with which they are familiar.
He's also a serial-adulterer with several marriages behind him, isn't he? That's not a great position from which to be talking about 'traditional' marriage on the campaign trail.
Dodo: "For example, have you noticed how he avoids engaging with carl on these issues?"
About homosexuality? I have done so a number of times in the past, using Carl's terms too, and I'm more than happy to do so again as I'm sure he knows. You're trying to provoke fights elsewhere now, I think. Part of that gang mentality thing you have, I suppose, where you're the mouthy skip rat at the back of any such group.
wv: minsin :)
Regarding the deplorable antics of Dodo and the Inspector.Crude sexual remarks and goading people in a malicious manner speaks volumes about exactly what lies inside them.
As Jesus said about the self righteous Pharisees"Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you are like whitewashed tombs which on the outside appear beautiful, but inside they are full of dead men's bones and all uncleanness".(Matthew 23:27)
I can only conclude that true Catholics must shudder with horror when they read what these two( who by name alone) represent all Catholics.
I can only assume that they are left to parade their vile opinions are crude remarks as a warning to all who would consider becoming Catholic?.
Len, Carl,
You are both so right. Cesspool crudities should have no place in these discussions. They reflect badly on us all.
Len said @ 20.20, to the Inspector, 'You still seem unable to grasp the point I am making.'
Good to know it's not just me after all.
len
You self righteous opportunist! Parasitically and so meekly joining in the genuine and well intended criticism of carl. At least I don't pretend to be a 'whitewashed tomb' and my 'uncleanness' isn't hidden away behind pompous judgements on others.
Hypocrite!
May I join my voice with those of IanCad, Len, and Carl-- indeed, I suggested the same a few months ago. Whether or not the 'others' are merely idiots, or are useful idiots who work for organized campaigns-- in their concentrated denigration of Your Grace, your standards, and your long-term communicants, they work by perversion to destroy Your Grace's blog.
Oh... and perhaps the topic is vaguely related to this strand. The "RCs" are Non-communicants in Residence: that they presently subvert discussion of Gingrich and US RCism speaks volumes. Doubtless some form of bigotry informs their poison.
Personally, I visit Your Grace in support of an honest search for Truth. At this point, I can only suspect that you partly fulfil that ideal by permitting abuse of your leniency: thus highlighting the true colours of the abusers.
The contrast to Your Grace's postings and philosophy is so striking as to achieve sublimity; the dramatic effect makes visible that which is invisible. As a result, readers are encouraged to recognise the situation, and free to synthesise their own conclusions.
English rhetoricians have long employed these venerable techniques: from Beowulf and before. The practice manifests the Host at work against the Enemy, as does the subject of Your Grace's post today.
DanJ0. Now listen son. The Inspector appreciates we have our differences, but you can be assured he bears no malice towards you. You remain a respected contributor to the site. so, with that out the way, do carry on being DanJ0...
Carl. It’s been like an olde English streete brawle out there lately. No quarter given or requested. It’s the British way old chap...
Len these two( who by name alone) represent all Catholics.. You flatter us, you born again weirdo.
non mouse
Trying to get your own little troupe going then? Well carry on. A few insults and a couple of jokes, which I admit were in poor taste, and civilisation as we know it is about to come crashing down. A blog is being wilfully subverted by an organised assault and God's work compromised - oh, please! I dare say it's not like the more refined atmosphere of your schooldays or your gentille home setting but do keep some perspective. Goodness me, whatever's happening to good old England? In the past such people would have been deported or bull whipped.
non mouse said ...
" ... they work by perversion to destroy Your Grace's blog ... The "RCs" are Non-communicants in Residence."
Translation - kick these Catholic intruders off your blog.
Don['t vote for Ronmey because he speaks French! Quite right. If we had followed that advice we wouldn't have had 10 years of bliar.
Mon Dieu! I haven't posted on this site for a few weeks, but it seems the threads/comments are exactly the same kind of theme... couldn't we get back to something a bit more interesting, that Catholic/not Catholic world views?
Paul Twigg
I had a similar reaction. Of course, the whole 'He speaks French' argument was ironic humor. It wasn't really meant to be taken seriously. France is merely the bete noir of the United States. But there was a serious point in there somewhere.
Why would someone choose to learn French? There are far better utilitarian choices available. Spanish is much more useful in the US. An Asian language like Chinese or Japanese will create economic opportunity. Germany is the economic drive shaft of Europe. Why choose to learn a language that is guarded by a Committee to prevent creeping encroachment by the English Language?
By stereotype, France is what America sees itself as not being. France is that weak profane degenerate mouthy scion born into a privileged family of old wealth long since dissipated. But there is a section of America that sees France as a role model. They see instead a sophisticated cosmopolitan secular nation that has grown up and cast off its Puritan roots. They were offended by the 'cheese eating surrender monkey' references for they understood the implications.
This is why the choice of French as a second language is the source of ironic humor laced with a smidge of political bite. It implies Romney is a part of a different culture within the US - the Blue State culture that sees continental Europe as something to be emulated and reads the NY times as Scripture. It's not really fair. To choose French in the 1960's is different from choosing it now. But humor isn't necessarily supposed to be fair.
carl
who hopes the reader noticed the irony of using a French phrase imported into the English language to describe France. ;)
Paul Twigg Dead right on the Catholic/catholic animosity. We have some great differences but the underlying truths should be enough to unite us against those who oppose us all. If a kingdom is divided against itself, that kingdom cannot stand. Mark 3:24
carl
Whatever the merits of the French language, and it does have some, one has to acknowledge that pet peeve or Hauptärgernis just hasn't got quite the same ring to it as bête noire.
On the French, I think John McCain got it right:
"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the 1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the face for it."
And General Patton:
"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one behind me."
Paul and Mr I
On a point of information, the initial spat was with a secularist who promotes homosexuality and not between Catholics and catholics.
A certain American gentleman rightly pointed out that crude humour was unbecoming. Thereafter, a certain non-catholic 'born again' chappie, who by his own admission detests organised religion and binding doctrine, especially Catholicism, opportunistically leaped in with a self righteous tirade against Catholics. His fellow travellers then joined the chorus, culminating in one thinly disguised and obsequious plea for a pogrom of "RC" 'non communicants'.
DanJo @ 20:19 : ''a collective identity'' ... the mind boggles at such a collection. It would take half a lifetime to gather together such a bunch as manifested by Dodo. All vaguely reminiscent of demonic possession ... Dodo's dudes - WE are legion! Swivelling heads notwithstanding.
Carl,
France is merely the bete noir of the United States.
Am I missing something here? I always thought that the US and the French had rather a cosy relationship.
Mr. Jacobs, re the Froggish Tongue -- I do believe I've found one good word therein: meconnaissance. Surely that principle has pragmatic applications: for bigots and marxist philosophers.
Oswin
Being a bit melodramatic aren't we? Reminds me of a scene from a 1970's film. Now, how did it go? Oh yes (suitably amended for your benefit):
Demon: What an excellent day for an exorcism.
Oswin: You would like that?
Demon: Intensely.
Oswin: But wouldn't that drive you out of Dodo?
Demon: It would bring us together.
Oswin: You and Dodo?
Demon: You and us
Disclaimer
The events depicted above are fictitious. Any similarity with real people or events is purely accidental.
Paul Twigg, Mr Integrity. 14:10
You raise a good point Sirs. How’s this for an observation. When an atheist or homosexual posts a self interested proposal or opinion, no matter how abhorrent, it is frequently left to the RCs to address it. When we do, certain ‘Christians’ appear and put the sectarian boot in. One can only conclude that they find RC opinion more abhorrent than the sentiments of the original post !
A good point Inspector. A couple of us (Catholics) are busy defending the shared Christian faith against Muslim attacks, over on the Rick Santorum on Islam, Muslims and EUrabia. But from the Protestants there is nothing - even though Len is clearly reading it.
Come on chaps, shape up!
It's srizals, that's why.
What difference does that make?
Quite right Danj0. Albert at al appear to think they are trail-blazing the defence of Christianity on this blog. One does wonder if HG ever gets dizzy seeing the same argument merry-go-round, over and over, again and again, year in, year out, on and on, etc, etc.
It's a sisyphean task. Easier to just leave that particular boulder at the bottom and do something more productive.
*Opens door*
Hi guys! What's going on in h...
*Closes door*
I was looking at some old articles from a year or so back. Whatever happened to Bred in The Bone? And Lakes ... oh. :)
Albert
I always thought that the US and the French had rather a cosy relationship.
I wasn't referring to a gov't to gov't relationship so much as a culture to culture relationship. Remember the strange case of Dominique Strauss-Kahn? I am fairly certain that was a political dirty trick that depended upon a presumed 'puritanical' American response to the testimony of the maid. That's the kind of difference to which I referred.
carl
For those of strong, even when differing, opinions, I would politely suggest a read of William James' "The Varieties of Religious Experience". It might just broaden the horizons somewhat.
His Grace has very clearly raised the spectre of Barry winning by default which is enough to send a chill down the back of most people, by Republican (GOP) infighting.
I wonder who the Tea Party will propose to settle the dispute.
Maybe Sarah will make a comeback?
Albert
I've been following the debate with our long time friend srizals. Very interesting too.
What struck me was the similarity in confusion and misunderstanding on many points of Christian
doctrine between him and len's. Consider the Incarnation and the Trinity, for example. Strange but true.
William
No one's claiming they're 'trail blazing'. But why is it you leave others to challenge the more outrageous posts of those seeking to undermine the Christian faith. Tired of it? That's how it succeeds. In the end one gives up for the sake of a peaceful life.
Or is it that there's something inherent in British Anglicanism and British protestantism more generally that stops it criticising those attempting to justify behaviour that is objectively sinful? Is it the tradition of the 'via media', a reaction the authority of the Church and a religious interpretation of the Word?
Dodo. You may have something there with Protestantism being generally unable to fend off criticism: “Who are we to object to others opinion, we rebelled against the mother church”
Carl,
I see. But I was thinking more historically. The US and France had a common enemy: Britain. So France helpfully supported the Americans in their attempt to be independent. I was under the impression that French intervention was rather decisive.
Then you have two "Enlightenment" style Republics in a world of evil monarchies and Empires, leading eventually to the French donation of the Statue of Liberty.
I grant you, this is rather patchy history, but I would have thought it was culturally significant for Americans.
Dodo,
What struck me was the similarity in confusion and misunderstanding on many points of Christian
doctrine between him and len's.
That had struck me too, together with a number of other things. I almost wondered if Len had become a Muslim...
Albert
I think the kindest thing to say is that len's faith is a work in progress.
Inspector
At it's root protestantism is individualistic - solar faith and one's personal reading of scripture guided by the Holy Spirit. It has an inbuilt aversion to the organised Church and authoritative teaching and doctrine. This makes it very difficult to question anyone's way interpretation of scripture and their life choices.
Inspector; You may have something there with Protestantism being generally unable to fend off criticism: I hear what you and Dodo are saying but it may be that we don't see the point of fruitless disputation. As to answering all the agnostics, atheists, and any other disputer of the faith, I believe that when you see where the discussion is going, it’s better to walk away and to not ‘cast ones pearls before swine’. They will go away when you fail to dispute with them.
Unfortunately for some, that would spoil the fun!
Mr Integrity,
we don't see the point of fruitless disputation
I understand that. It's pretty clear that it is unlikely that we can convince anyone of anything - as evinced by the fact that they same people make the same arguments over and over again even though those arguments have been answered without response.
The point of these discussions I think is to challenge some of the complacency. Secularists tend to assume that religious people cannot use reason to defend themselves. This is because Christians have far too often walked away rather than joined the argument. The cultural consequences of that are now obvious.
I find similar assumptions among some Protestants vis a vis the Bible.
Inspector
Upper-case Protestant. Lower-case mother church.
I bet you own several cats and are really one of us.
Albert
The US and France had a common enemy: Britain.
Yes, well, sort of. France was an ally of the US during the American Revolution, but it didn't fight of course. It was really more a case of 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' But if you look at how conflicts between Britain and France are portrayed in popular culture, (say, for example, the movies) you will find that Britain is always cast as the "good guys." It is, for example, not even conceivable that an American movie about the Napoleonic Wars would cast the heroic French against the nefarious British.
France doesn't really appear in American presentations of the Revolutionary war. They are the cynical Continental power that supports us just to injure the UK. Once past the Revolutionary period, they disappear. Britain, however, appears as an ally from the Revolutionary War forward. There is that minor divergence called the 'War of 1812' but it's a blip of noise. That's almost a hidden war in US history.
The French revolution is viewed as the Reign of Terror that led to Napoleon. The guillotine. Regicide and murder. We don't equate it with the American revolution. We contrast it. We see the difference between France and America in the different outcomes. And then there is May 1940. I am not sure France has ever recovered from that debacle. That is the true source of all the jokes about France issuing new white flags to its army. It collapsed at literally the first shot. That apparent moral weakness is contrasted with the fortitude of 'blood, sweat, toil and tears.'
Now, of course, the fashionable set in NYC doesn't care about any of that. But that is a disconnect from the general attitude about France in the US. I am sure the French have corresponding views about Americans - all of which include the concept of 'puritanical barbarians' at some level.
carl ---> Protestant
who doesn't have any trouble defending the Christian faith form attacks.
Mr I: "They will go away when you fail to dispute with them."
I've tried that in the reverse direction, at least over other topics, and it doesn't really work. One becomes a challenge that must be overcome one way or another. It rankles, I think, that the pearls some people consider valuable are just farmed and cultivated ones of little value to others with a good eye.
Apropos of nothing in particular, I'm current reading God Is Not Great and, boy, is it exhausting. It's relentless and insistent, but somehow majestic in its own way. Worth a read though. Favourite chapter name so far: "Why Heaven Hates Ham". :)
Albert; You can take a horse to water but you can't make it drink. There comes a point when it is clear that a discussion is going nowhere and the art of the enemy is to keep us occupied with fruitless activities. In my short time of commenting on this blog I have realised that there is much 'Fruitless disputation'. No matter how much 'reason' is employed, it goes nowhere but tickling the egos of so called intellectuals who believe themselves to be the ultimate authority on any subject, particularly biblical interpretation. This applies equally to the unbelievers.
I appreciate that not all commentators are the same and would not wish to tar everyone with the same brush. You can tell those that have a genuine spirit and are concerned for the objectives of the Cranmer Blog.
IanCad. First and foremost, the Inspector is a Christian, so yes, he’s one of you. (More of a dog man though, man’s God given companion. Can’t imagine walking a cat to a pub...)
Carl: "Now, of course, the fashionable set in NYC doesn't care about any of that. But that is a disconnect from the general attitude about France in the US."
I confess I laughed at the "Freedom Fries" thing that was reported over here during the last major spat. Isn't some of this thing about the French a bit like Americans having the bravado and self-confidence to turn up at a dinner party wearing a donkey jacket but quietly looking at the French guest in his tuxedo and thinking: "I wish I could look so effortlessly stylish and elegant"? We Brits might sport tuxedos too and be natural with it but we're bulldogs wearing lipstick in comparison really.
A Catholic, an Anglican, a Calvinist and a born again are in a pub arguing over Christianity.
In walks Jesus and tells the men to line against the wall. He then walks past them, and in turn slaps everyone of them on the face.
He then says to them “I am the one, and me alone”
The men are left startled, then one by one make their way to the bar to order a drink.
Last to go was the Catholic, as he starts off, Jesus lent over and whispered in his ear “Look old chap, had to slap you as well in front of the others. Hope you don’t mind”
Carl,
An excellent summation ofn the US view.
One quibble. Prior to their surrender, and in the course of two months the French lost about 250,000 soldiers. Absolutely massive losses. They made a heroic effort to save the BEF and do not deserve the ridicule they get.
Inspector; You are wicked, but I do like you.
I think some of the Catholic comments are ludicrous (does Catholicism send people a tad insane?)Well it would be scriptural (see below)
So now I am a Muslim??? What the...
I think the Catholic confusion comes from their( Catholic) inability to understand what a true Christian is, they(Catholics ) have been so brainwashed and indoctrinated into their religion that they are unable to discern truth anymore.
I can only conclude that because Catholics have accepted all sorts of un- Biblical teachings and traditions that God has let them go their own way.
2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 says, "Because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved. And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: that they all might be damned who believed not the truth."
And if God send a delusion their is nothing anyone can do to convince them of the truth which is becoming patently obvious.
Mr Integrity. Haven’t heard that since the sad loss of Dick Emery (...the comedian, not the specialised polishing product...). A fine fellow who made EVERYONE laugh (new age 'comedians', take note).
DanJ0
quietly looking at the French guest in his tuxedo and thinking: "I wish I could look so effortlessly stylish and elegant"?
Certainly in NYC, I would agree. But not as a general rule. France is more seen as the rich 63-year-old degenerate who was once powerful and important and still expects the hotel maid to provide a quick favor before he leaves for the airport.
carl
Len. You are so reminiscent of a ‘party member’ in pre war Germany.
Mr Carl @ 19.10, a surprising view of history. Let me float some ideas and I await your comments with interest.
The defeat of the Royal Navy by the French Navy at the Battle of Chesapeake Bay was instrumental in the defeat of the British land forces in the Revolutionary War, as they could no longer be reinforced at will. Following Trafalgar, the RN was once again supreme and the War of 1812 became possible. Of course there were still very close links between many British and the US throughout the post-Independence period. The USN was slow to develop and as late as the early 1800s the RN had a frigate based in Raritan Bay within sight of NYC. In addition the RN made itself very unpopular in the US during the Napoleonic Wars by press-ganging the crews of American merchantmen. This was all part of the animus that lead to 1812.
Culturally, the relationship between France, the British elite and the US elite is complicated. There is an undoubted cultural pecking order that goes right back to 1066 and the three hundred year period of French rule that followed in England. Throughout that period the King of England was a Frenchman, as were most of the English nobles. That the Duke of Normandy was a vassal of the French King is no longer an issue politically, but it does seem to have a cultural echo that permitted the French to be the arbiters of taste, fashion, cooking and a host of other cultural markers for centuries. This cultural precedence of France was accepted without question in the UK and explains why the British elite are still so susceptible to French overtures. One can argue that it was not until the Swinging Sixties in Britain when the aristocracy lost its influence in British life that this French view of culture was diminished. The modern celebrity cultural is the antithesis of French.
The East Coast US elite, as former colonists of the UK, seem to take their lead from the British in this cultural chain of command. In conclusion, even though French and British power has been eclipsed (deliberately) by that of the US, both countries retain an ability to influence the US that has its origins in the decision of William of Normandy to seize the English crown nearly 1000 years ago.
Dodo
I'm happy to defend Christianity on this blog whenever I feel it would be fruitful. Sadly where trolls are concerned that is rarely the case and it's best to keep quiet. Currently, the main attack seems to be coming from one or two abusive Catholics.
Names please William
Inspector
Try inspecting the comments of this and other threads. It should become obvious. Although perhaps not.
William said ...
"I'm happy to defend Christianity on this blog whenever I feel it would be fruitful."
It's always fruitful to defend Christianity! One may not suceed in convincing a particular individual but it shows you are willing to take a stand.
Why not start with the obvious challenge from the attention seeking DanJ0?
'God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion' is a sloppy and uninformed critique of your faith. In the book he contends that religion is "violent, irrational, intolerant, allied to racism, tribalism, and bigotry, invested in ignorance and hostile to free inquiry, contemptuous of women and coercive toward children and sectarian".
You going to sit back and let all that wash over you? Perhaps it is best to ignore it and dismiss the poster but don't call those who name it for what it is trolls.
Carl,
Thank you for your answer. Apart from joining Ian in a little defence of the French (we were all rather unprepared for May 1940 and we were saved by the Channel before we were saved by the RAF and Winston Churchill, and it's only fair to remember the huge numbers of Frenchmen in the resistance too), I found it fascinating and not what I was expecting. I suppose there is a sense in which the Europeans tend to lump the UK and the US together as "Anglo-Saxons" as well.
Pity Obama does seem to care about Britain, and seems strangely tone-deaf to the principle of self-determination with regard to the Falklands not to mention his lack of trustworthiness in relation to our nuclear secrets and the Russians. But hopefully Obama will be consigned to a very short footnote in a history book before too long!
“William, it was really nothing.”
Remember I am describing how I think the average American perceives history today. I am not trying to describe the truth at the time of the events. Certainly an American view of the UK would have been much different in 1812. Fighting together in two world wars more than laid the War of 1812 to rest.
carl
Dodo
"It's always fruitful to defend Christianity! One may not suceed in convincing a particular individual but it shows you are willing to take a stand."
Sometimes silence is the best defence (John 8:1-10). I commend it to you.
Dodo
"Why not start with the obvious challenge from the attention seeking DanJ0?"
Perhaps I should follow your lead and grant him the attention that he apparently seeks with an ad hominem?
Inspector
It's never nothing.
William
No, by all means use reason and logic.
Ps
John 8: 1-11 is so wrong at every level as a recommended strategy given the onslaught facing Christianity today. Think about it.
Dodo: "Why not start with the obvious challenge from the attention seeking DanJ0?"
One would need to read the book first, rather than merely being a Google Savant about it. I'm only halfway through it myself so I'm not best placed to argue on its behalf even if I were so inclined.
It's a polemic, not a philosophy book, so it would need to be argued in those terms. So far, it's as dismissive of the Qur'an as of the Bible, and the Book of Mormon takes a good hit.
It argues about the Qur'an using similar arguments to those made here, actually: pointing out plagarism, amongst other things. A similar argument is made about the Book of Mormon.
The Immaculate Conception gets a mention too. I had to sit on my hands over that here recently, including the genealogy thing. It was too much about comparisons of belief rather than detail and structure, you see. I may revisit that at some point.
As for trolls, I'm mainly here to test and sharpen my arguments on my own in an adverse place. It's the nature of forums that arguments often become acrimonious but they're still useful places to do that. Trolls have a very different agenda and they become very obvious after a while.
Inspector(15 January 20:01 )
'party members' in pre war Germany
were mainly Catholic as was Hitler himself , I am quite obviously not Catholic.
As for attention seekers(what about the abusive duo?)who do not appear to work but sit at their PC`S all day on their behinds thinking ways to abuse people and parade their tawdry 'religion'.
I would appeal to all people genuinely interested in learning more about God that these two do not serve the God of the Bible but themselves.In fact 'religion' is the total opposite of all these two do and say!.
It would appear that the defenders of christrianity don't know their own so-called "holy" book.
Hitchens was correct: "god" is not great - in fact he/she/it doesn't exist.
I challenge you to produce one book of the bible, even the NT only, that does not contain cruelties &/or bigotry &/or intolerance &/or ridiculous statements about the world, now known to be completely false.
Moonpie: what does science have to say about cruelty, bigotry and intolerance; that they exist? Well yeah, we knew that already - it's called 'life'.
As for ''ridiculous statements about the world'' does not science have a few of those too, in its kit-bag of stuff since proven otherwise? Life/humanity/science is 'work in progress' wouldn't you say? Relax a tad old chap, chill awhile...
Dan,
I thought God is Not Great a worse book even than The God Delusion. There were many errors of basic fact, one or two of which have been denounced as akin to holocaust denial, together with very dodgy arguments. But it's fantastically well written (except for the bits when one suspects the author was drunk).
len said ...
"As for attention seekers(what about the abusive duo?)who do not appear to work but sit at their PC`S all day on their behinds thinking ways to abuse people and parade their tawdry 'religion'."
What a lovely, gracious and Spirit filled comment to make first thing in the morning. Full of love and generosity.
Tell me, did you think of it before or after your morning prayers?
Gingrich is un-watch-ably hypocritical! How many wives has he had? How much money did he make with his snout in the Washington trough?!
As for media bias - Fox is the largest news network in the US and never shows any fear about adopting a loony-tunes rightist agenda. It's like Glenn Beck doesn't even exist?!
This speech simply serves his rhetoric to suggest that his tribe are under attack from a group of people who just want the same right to defile the institution of marriage that he has so "enjoyed" so many times!.
If this man is your standard bearer then your colours are too muddied to be recognisable.
SS Obergruppenweasel Len 07:59 and posts passim. You living, breathing, irritating shameless fraud. You are so blinded by your raving anti Catholic agenda that you completely miss the point. The Inspector is accusing YOU of anti Catholic fascism., in the same way that party members of pre war Germany were anti anything or anyone who was not them..
He will leave it to the communicants and indeed the Archbishop himself to judge you for themselves. God knows everyone is aware of what you are about by now...
Jon,
As I understand it, the story of Gingrich is that of a man reformed, thus making him quite un-hypocritical. Were he unrepentant then your point would stand. Either way I still prefer the hypocrisy of action on the right to the hypocrisy of thought on the left.
Lakester
Quite right.
Gingrich converted to Catholicism in 2009. He has stated that he has developed a greater appreciation for the role of faith in public life following this conversion. He also believes that the United States has become too secular. He once said:
"In America, religious belief is being challenged by a cultural elite trying to create a secularized America, in which God is driven out of public life."
Is it really any wonder the likes of Jon attack him?
Oswin
In your ignorance an stupid bigotry, you sneer at "science", but tjere is one vitsl difference.
The scientific community admits past mistakes and corrects them, always with a better and more accurate picture.
Religion does no such thing.
Re: Gingrich - "god driven out of public life"
Well, since "god" does not exist, it can't be driven out, can it?
Too much god in public life gives you Calvin's Geneva, or Inquisition Spain, or the Albigensian crusade, or the Taliban, or N. Korea, come to that.
Will someone hit Mr. Tingey, I think he's stuck.
Metaphorically of course.
Lakester
It's a serious crime to assault, or encourage another to assault, the mentally disordered. A few sessions of ECT perhaps but unless he can be shown to be a danger to himself or others he'd have to agree to this treatment.
I notce, again, insults, but no rebuttal or evenb answer to my points.
Typical
G Tingey
You are the last person on this weblog to have standing to complain about insults.
carl
Listen again. One evening at the close
Of Ramazan, ere the better moon arose,
In that old Potter's Shop I stood alone
With the clay population round in rows.
And, strange to tell, among that earthen lot
Some could articulate, while others not:
And suddenly one more impatient cried---
"Who is the Potter, pray, and who the Pot?"
(OK/Fitz. Rubaiyat 59/60).
Moonpie @ 22:20: were you, perchance, a tad inebriated back there?
Notwithstanding your illiterate, but tres amusant insults, I do not sneer at science; whatever gave you that idea?
Were I poltroon enough to join you, in your usual cock-sizing, you'd be embarrassed.
Remember, in calling you 'Moonpie' I flatter you; you're more of a failed 'Howard Wolowitz', than a 'Sheldon Cooper' - get my meaning?
I now feel 'greasy' having lowered myself to your level - eeeuck!
My apologies to innocent bystanders, but Tingey's tosspot-tery knows no bounds.
Tingey
Fancy a bag of peanuts Howard?
Catholic church says one thing and does another. true, the clergy are mainly homosexual, yet they condemn it on paper. It keeps the straights happy. It not a false religion for nothing
bosco
What sheer nonsense - and your evidence is?
This comment has been removed by the author.
Well done, Dodo. You went all the way to Wikipedia to copy paste your last comment!
So, since he was a Southern Baptist before, he was allowed to sin? Or was it that his sins were irrelevant? Or was it that the character of the man was only formed once he became a Catholic?
You see, for those of us who don't share your incense addiction, we tend to go on more concrete things. Like a man who preaches the sanctity of marriage but who has had several affairs, or who preaches low taxation, but has been a significant beneficiary of state largesse, including his lobbying for Freddie Mac. I guess he can afford his reformation now, eh Lakester?! And how does that sit with your dislike of intellectual hypocrisy?
Jon
Such bitterness and cynicism from an ex-evangelical. It used to be said that Catholic converts were hardline but how judgemental are those who chose to leave the light of Christ to walk in darkness!
People reform - for better or worse. The greater the sinner the greater the more the celebration when change comes.
Dodo
People often mistake realism for cynicism. You tell me. Why should I believe Mr Gingrich? He's running for President, and suddenly he is making statements tuned to resonate with a particular set of Primary voters. Is that a coincidence? I'm an Engineer. I don't believe in coincidence. So what conclusion does that leave to me?
I caucused for Rick Santorum. I never considered Newt Gingrich because I didn't believe that what he said could be trusted. I still don't. When he gives legitimate evidence of change, and that evidence is not tainted by his own self-interest, then I will reconsider. That's not cynicism. That's prudence.
Of course, I would still vote for him over President Obama.
carl
carl
I doubt one would level a charge of cynicism at you. Whatever the motives of Mr Gingrich's change of heart or his behaviour as a politicain, I found Jon's comments suspect given his hostility towards Christianity.
Post a Comment
<< Home