Saturday, January 28, 2012

Sentamu pitches for Canterbury


Secure in the knowledge that Dr Rowan Williams will be vacating the See of Canterbury at some point this year, it stands to reason that the frontrunners will be increasingly making themselves heard over the celebrity chatter and what passes for political analysis in much of the MSM. And Dr John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, really doesn’t have to do much to attract an audience: he is one of the Church of England’s great showmen, baptising believers outside York Minister as a public witness; cutting up his dog collar in protest against Robert Mugabe; and calling for a re-discovery of English pride and cultural identity. When he speaks, he incarnates the sound-bite in ways Dr Williams has never quite grasped.

Two articles about Dr Sentamu might have been written by the same journalist, and published on the same day in the same newspaper, but a story about the CofE and homosexuality will always attract more froth and bubble than a discussion about the CofE and the middle class, despite the latter being by far the most important.

One of the Church of England’s fundamental weaknesses, in common with many churches in Europe, is its tendency to demand that people do not merely acknowledge the Lordship of Christ but also abandon their former way of life in favour of that of a peculiar middle-class sub-culture. Notwithstanding some of the excellent work going on in some of the most impoverished parishes in the country, the public perception of the Church of England remains one of middle-class privilege and an élitism which has little relevance to a modern, pluralist, multi-ethnic society. While this may be a misconception, it is undoubtedly exacerbated by the nature of establishment and the fusion of the Church with secular government.

Now to the froth and bubble...

The very moment the ‘gay marriage’ article was tweeted by (the excellent) Martin Beckford, the Twittersphere was alive with conjecture that with this proclamation Dr Sentamu had just blown his chances of succeeding Dr Rowan Williams to the See of Canterbury.

People appear to have forgotten Gordon Brown’s 2007 reforms, which is forgivable, for just about all of what Gordon Brown achieved is eminently forgettable. But the Prime Minister no longer possesses Royal Prerogative power to sift the names of prospective bishops or archbishops and submit God’s choice to the Supreme Governor. The whole process is now in the hands of the Crown Nominations Committee – a kind of 15-strong college of cardinals who meet in secret to elect a single candidate. And when the white smoke appears, the Prime Minister simply wafts it in the Queen's general direction. And the CNC might quite like a bishop who’s prepared to tell a Tory PM where he can stick his proposal for ‘gay marriage’.

The Committee will be acutely aware that it remains one of the Church’s primary functions to hold government and political parties to account and highlight the inadequacies of the political system, in order that people’s welfare may be improved. Whatever the outcome of discussions and debates, the CNC will be unanimous in their desire to see the public realm remain an arena in which the Church’s moral and ethical mission continues to be exercised. Perhaps it is only the Establishment Church that, in contemporary society, possesses the status to permit it to fight for representation of a slighted electorate in the face of an increasingly abstract political élite. And some of these forays concern themselves with issues which are of primary concern to the majority of the electorate. The Archbishop of York observed of New Labour in 2008:
“Our current Government is in danger of sacrificing Liberty in favour of an abused form of equality – not a meaningful equality that enables the excluded to be brought into society, but rather an equality based on diktat and bureaucracy, which overreaches into the realm of personal conscience.”
And here he is in 2012 voicing the same concerns about a Tory/LibDem coalition. By alluding to David Cameron the ‘dictator’, Dr Sentamu reminds us of Parliament’s omnipotence in our Erastian Settlement. Or is it its impotence in the face of the inexorable metaphysical quest to subvert the created order and eliminate sexual inequality?

184 Comments:

Blogger len said...

The Archbishop of York observed of New Labour in 2008:
“Our current Government is in danger of sacrificing Liberty in favour of an abused form of equality – not a meaningful equality that enables the excluded to be brought into society, but rather an equality based on diktat and bureaucracy, which overreaches into the realm of personal conscience.”

This describes perfectly the way people are being' forced 'to change their opinions and prejudices and behave in a 'politically correct' manner.
Man attempts change by force, the Gospel is far more radical and gives man a new Heart and a new Spirit , a TOTAL change whereas the 'change' by the way of man is merely repression and suppression of his 'natural instincts'.

28 January 2012 at 10:48  
Blogger Albert said...

Dr Cranmer,

And the CNC might quite like a bishop who’s prepared to tell a Tory PM where he can stick his proposal for ‘gay marriage’.

I hope you're right (but I suspect you are not). Last time around, the best candidate was probably Chartres, but of course, he was too orthodox to be Archbishop of Canterbury. We shall see if Brown's reforms have made any difference.

Anyway, is Sentamu really pitching for the post? Is it possible he's just saying what he thinks?

28 January 2012 at 11:02  
Blogger orangegoblin82 said...

I think what COE Bishops forget is that they work for the state. They are civil servants in dresses.

The COE needs to choose, either start towing the line and providing your services for EVERY citizen or disestablish and do what you like.

28 January 2012 at 11:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Len: "This describes perfectly the way people are being' forced 'to change their opinions and prejudices and behave in a 'politically correct' manner."

Sentamu is talking about personal conscience there, which is probably code for "I want privilege for my religious views". It's not clear to me how we square that with claims from (say) our Muslim citizens which require recognition from non-Muslims.

Your comments, of course, also cover racism. Why should racists be forced to behave in a politically correct manner? Why should society try to promote values so that young people do not simply take opinions and prejudices, such as racist ones, from the past?

28 January 2012 at 11:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

orange: "The COE needs to choose, either start towing the line and providing your services for EVERY citizen or disestablish and do what you like."

It can't, can it? It needs to disestablish. The link between CofE and State is an anachronism. It was okay when we were more mono-cultured and it would probably be okay if the senior clergy simply shut up about divisive political matters but they've become too outspoken, too political ... ironically, too religious, for their own good and ours. The CofE should become just a church again so that the rest of us can happily ignore it.

28 January 2012 at 11:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hmmm. An outpouring of liberal angst. This is going to be a VERY enjoyable thread...

28 January 2012 at 11:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

which is probably code for "I want privilege for my religious views".

Asking for our beliefs not to fall foul of thought crime laws, like gay marriage, is not a privilege, but a basic right. You oppose us having this right because you wish to have privileges that you will not extend to other people.

Your comments, of course, also cover racism.

Not at all. Len is talking about behaviour, not being. You have to misuse the "racist" card to suppress opinions that oppose you being given unjust privilege, because, at the moment, the law does not enable you to use force to do so. That's why it's so important that "gay marriage" is legislated for, but you don't have a similar desire for "marriage" or even civil partnerships for (say) sisters or polygamists. Thus your misuse of the race card, is itself a form of racism.

28 January 2012 at 11:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Telegraph: "“Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman,” says Dr Sentamu. “I don’t think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can’t just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are."

Where Sentamu comes unstuck there is that marriage as people know it, and have known it, will stay the same. People are not going to be wandering around Ikea looking bewildered in front of the BILLY shelving displays wondering how to go on in life because their marriage has been 'redefined'. It's the same as it always was for them. The social institution will continue to echo the pair-bonding actuality we know, only it will recognise equivalent pair-bonding for gay and lesbian couples. No biggy, really.

In reality, the subtext of the religious argument is actually: "our influence is waning rapidly and we really don't like it at all". This is just the chosen battleground for that because minorities are involved and there's still prejudice hanging around. The religious would be marching on Parliament about secular divorce and 'living in sin' if they thought they had a snowball's chance in hell of changing that in the collective consciousness. But they haven't so they keep schtum for the most part because they'd get sneered at and told to foxtrot oscar by the general public.

28 January 2012 at 11:42  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

If I thought marriage was only about "pair-bonding" then I would agree with gay marriage (but also probably, with sibling marriage). But I don't think that (and in any case, why only "pair-bonding, for much of human history and culture, marriage has extended to polygamy). Why should I have your "marriage-lite" doctrine imposed on me? This is the point you seem always to evade: your position is profoundly statist and illiberal, you wish your position to be privileged, not only above other people, but even against the consciences of others.

The religious would be marching on Parliament about secular divorce and 'living in sin'

Not really, remember: Protestantism is sufficiently unbiblical to accept divorce, while "living in sin" is (by definition) not a legislated state, and thus requires nothing of the rest of us (except an increase in taxes to make up for the increase family break-down, of course).

28 January 2012 at 11:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

That’s us traditionalists agreed then. Sentamu is the man we want. Just look at how quickly DanJ0 worked up a sweat. A most pleasing sight to behold....

28 January 2012 at 12:08  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Why not grasp the nettle and simply repeal the Appointments of Bishops Act 1533 and the Suffragen Bishops Act 1534?

The fact is the Prime Minister must still offer advice to the Queen on the appointment after and she is presumably bound to reject any such nomination on this advice.

The Monarch is a constitutional Sovereign and must look for advice from the Prime Minister. Bishops sit in the House of Lords and their nominations therefore remain a proper matter for the Prime Minister's concern.

It remains a political appointment. As such, it will be influenced by the mood of the times and not exclusively by the needs of the Gospel.

And at the risk of being tedious, if a Catholic Prime Minister was in office how could s/he advise the Monarch on ecclesiastical preferment? Is this permissible in law or would this duty have to be delegated elsewhere?

28 January 2012 at 12:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Just look at how quickly DanJ0 worked up a sweat. A most pleasing sight to behold...."

Do you ever have anything even remotely substantial to say on these topics? It's just a glimpse of Berk World (tm) whenever you post these days.

28 January 2012 at 12:21  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

len

" ... the Gospel is far more radical and gives man a new Heart and a new Spirit."

Unlike poor old Nicodemos, eh?

28 January 2012 at 12:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0 Do you ever have anything even remotely substantial to say on these topics?

Hardly, old fruit. Not while you’re whining on about your pet subject (...yet again...). How about discussing Sentamu the man, and not how he fits in with YOUR agenda.

28 January 2012 at 12:29  
Blogger Albert said...

at the risk of being tedious

:-) That's a good question. Because of course, the next PM could be an atheist (the Deputy PM is and Miliband is). This is the problem of subordinating the church to the state.

28 January 2012 at 12:37  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Albert

I think there's actually an extant law - the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829 - which meant Catholics could enter Parliament because they no longer had to declare against transubstantiation, reverence for Mary and the celebration of Mass, required by the Test Act 1678.

By the terms of the 1829 Act, its okay to offer advice on Church matters if one is an atheist, buddhist or satanist, just not a Catholic! To do so is still techniclly a "high misdemeanour".

28 January 2012 at 12:57  
Blogger Albert said...

If that's the way the CofE is subordinated to the state, it's a wonder there aren't more voices from within the CofE to have it disestablished. St Paul worries about joining a member of the body of Christ to a prostitute. What would he have thought subordinating the body of Christ to a satanist?

Really, worrying about the Catholic influence on the EU doesn't come into it.

28 January 2012 at 13:13  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Danj0 - I've said it before, but I'd rather see the legal aspects of marriage - or, in effect "partnerships" - to be separated from marriage in the sense that many religious people understand it: as a metaphysical and spiritual bond that is ontologically distinct from a simple legal or cultural pairing. When Christians (and other Abrahamic religionists) and secularists argue about marriage, they are talking about two different things that share the same name and the same space.

One thing though, not intended as trolling:

You said: "It was okay when we were more mono-cultured..."

Do you actually believe this? If so, if by the Grace of God this country experiences a massive return to Christianity, can I assume you would accept the legitimacy of the established church?

28 January 2012 at 13:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Telegraph (second article): "“I used to chair the committee for minority ethnic Anglican concerns, and we seemed to be making some progress but that now seems to be going backwards. Where we have lost out is black people who had been realised Anglicans, who are now joining Pentecostal churches. That’s a huge drain.”"

Is he hinting there that the Church needs a black Archbishop of Canterbury later this year as a role model for ethnic minorities? The flyers for CMEAC read like the sort of stuff that comes out Human Resources departments about diversity following New Labour's tenure. It feels a bit ironic given his comments about diktats and bureaucracy.

28 January 2012 at 13:53  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Cranmer, the Bish is expressing a clear Biblical [and common sense] view on a prescient issue - something that only bishops of the church of Rome do. Why turn it into speculation about internal church politics? Could it possibly be he had no ulterior motive than to defend this sacred institution?

DanJ0 ... "marriage as people know it, and have known it, will stay the same". No it won't. If the government gives every bank the "right" to print currency [in order to redress the the blatant bigotry, inequality & discrimination exercised by the Bank of England], then the Bank of England should be rightly worried that their currency - and in fact the currency as a whole - will become devalued. If everything is special, nothing is special.

28 January 2012 at 13:59  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

^I'm of the mind that it's a mistake for the Church to adopt the language of "human rights". Whilst they have a shared heritage in a Christian past, they are overwhelmingly a secular vision of humanity. If Christians accept it in part ("we need to make sure that ethnic minorities are properly represented in the Church hierarchy" etc.) it's very hard to justify why we don't accept it in whole.

There is a distinct, Christian model of equality, which admittedly shares many of the outward features of the philosophy of modern Human Rights. But, it's about equality in Christ - which is quite different from the idea that we all have innate rights on the basis of our humanity. We (i.e. Christians) could do with being a little more distinctive and, frankly, more honest. Why would anyone need a Church that simply replicates liberal values? It's little more than a Jesus-themed form of liberal culture.

28 January 2012 at 14:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "When Christians (and other Abrahamic religionists) and secularists argue about marriage, they are talking about two different things that share the same name and the same space."

Indeed. Well, if you replace "secularists" with "the non-religious" anyway. Gay marriage to me means the civil marriage of same-sex couples. I clearly see the difference.

If Christians can recognise the marriage of Muslim and Hindu couples in society then they can recognise civil marriage of same-sex couples in society.

"I've said it before, but I'd rather see the legal aspects of marriage - or, in effect "partnerships" - to be separated from marriage in the sense that many religious people understand it"

They are nominally separated already in civil marriage and religious marriage.

"Do you actually believe this? If so, if by the Grace of God this country experiences a massive return to Christianity, can I assume you would accept the legitimacy of the established church?"

My point was about anachronisms. The link between the CofE and the State more or less worked in the mono-culture of the past. We're multi-cultural now and CofE Christians are a small minority. It's not really an appropriate arrangement anymore.

If by the force of nature or human machinations, since I think the Grace of God is an imaginary thing, the UK managed to drum up a Christian majority again then what choice would I have? I'm taking a vague view of legitimacy here, of course.

28 January 2012 at 14:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "There is a distinct, Christian model of equality, which admittedly shares many of the outward features of the philosophy of modern Human Rights."

It's the same with ethics. I daresay much of society has a different moral code to Christians, by definition really, but we appear to bump along because we end up in the same place during moral reasoning and following moral sentiment. If, as I believe, Christianity is a post hoc view of the human condition and our hotchpotch of morality has some roots in Christianity then it's hardly surprising that this is so.

28 January 2012 at 14:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Belfast,

I think you are quite wrong on your position on marriage and human rights. Religious and non-religious people can come to together on both things through natural law. That this usually does not happen, is because secularists are so often happy to have an incoherent view of ethics, to enable them to maintain certain positions which they hold a priori and cannot justify. Marriage is not a religious institution in the sense of being "added" to creation, by (say) the Bible. Marriage is given in nature, which is why the state (which arises from the same nature) has not the jurisdiction to alter it without undermining itself and instead having to resort irrationally, to coercion.

As for human rights, I think you over-look the influence of the Jesuits in the development of the idea, or of Catholic philosophers like Jacques Maritain on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Early ideas of rights can even be found in Aquinas, I think.

It is vital that Christians resist this divide and rule model of the secularists which seeks to tell us that what we believe is entirely separate from public space. What we believe can only be separated from public space if we are. As we are refusing to go quietly, they must legislate against us. It is also vital that we resist the dishonest re-writing of history which air-brushes Christians out - I think you are colluding with that in your comments on marriage and rights.

28 January 2012 at 14:44  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Sorry, I'm still half asleep. Yes I meant "non-religionists", which is a horrible word. It gets so awkward with phraseology when "heathen" is out of the picture ;)

I am intrigued at your answer to my question, though. Most (non-religious) people I've chatted with about this subject usually take the view that the kind of "vague" legitimacy bestowed by democratic/majoritarian views is voided when it institutionalises particular ideologies. Personally, I can't see a return to a kind of pseudo-theocracy (though the historian in me wishes to point out that Christian theocracy was resisted by secular rulers even at the height of Christendom), which might "justify" an established Church so I agree that it's probably not a problem worth obsessing over.

But Albert as to whether there should be voices from within - the only argument I can think of is indeed that the CofE is tainted by association with power. If it was more insistent on orthodox faith, I suspect that Parliament would have disowned it long ago. In that sense, I think it's not for CofE'ers to seek separation: the basic tenet that the Church exists for all people remains unaltered. The teachings of the CofE should not have substantially moved. If government has moved beyond the fetters of Christian morality, it will have to decide if it wants to continue hand in hand with those who don't.

Either that, or they could retain a rump of appropriate candidates. Sea of Faith would probably be the primary recruiting ground.

28 January 2012 at 14:49  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Albert: Fair enough - I can see where you're coming from. My problem is that the public domain is, these days, supposed to be democratically accountable. That being the case, so long as we play by those rules, we could only see the morality you and I share being enshrined in law where there was a majority will for that to happen. As soon as we constituted a minority (which, in reality we probably are in the UK), then we've lost half the argument.

Not that I think our argument is wrong, or that our being a minority changes the eternal Truth. I'm just taking the view that we are increasingly living in a world where leaders and governments are, if not hostile, not sympathetic to our beliefs. Thus was the backdrop to the Church when it was first founded. Looking to them for guidance, we can expect to testify before Kings and Emperors. The only difference is that we're moving from an age where we did so as advisors and peers, to one where we do so without positions of worldly power, and perhaps, even from the dock.

Our Gospel remains the same as it has always been.

28 January 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Oh, to follow up, specifically on the point of marriage.

I too hold to the view that Marriage is a Sacrament, and thus eternal and unalterable in nature. When I got married, I was married before God - and it is to Him that I am answerable with my wife for the state of our marriage. I also signed some paperwork that gave me the legal status. While not inconsequential, it is not from that paperwork, or the certificate that I had to purchase, that my marriage's validity derives. If the government wants to change what it has written on the paper (and I have no doubt that it will continue to do so), it makes little difference to what my marriage is, because it was never the State that instituted it in the first place.

28 January 2012 at 15:04  
Blogger Albert said...

Belfast,

If it was more insistent on orthodox faith, I suspect that Parliament would have disowned it long ago

I agree, if the CofE was the institution it should be, it would have been disestablished long ago. Establishment type Anglicans are always trapped between the state and the Gospel, and tend to soft-pedal the latter in order to retain the former. The problem is that for those of us who are Christians but not Anglican, our voices are undermined too, as if we were all established or all had bishops in the House of Lords.

From your second comment, I think we are much more agreed than I thought. But it is essential to recognise the basis of morality in natural law, otherwise it simply gets washed away in the latest majority view (which is itself manipulated). It needs to be said that there are some thing governments cannot do. Marriage and rights are not instituted by governments, but exist prior to the governments and have the same foundation as governments. To this end, it is vital that we challenge the dishonest and ignorant histories which secularists make up in order to divorce the state from any moral foundation, the better simply to impose their own incoherent power-bids dressed up as moral claims.

The sacramental aspects of marriage are added (as it were) to natural marriage. Certainly, marriage cannot in fact be altered by the state, but that does not mean that a pretended attempt to alter it, will not harm marriage and attack the goods marriage is intended to defend and nurture.

28 January 2012 at 15:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "I am intrigued at your answer to my question, though. Most (non-religious) people I've chatted with about this subject usually take the view that the kind of "vague" legitimacy bestowed by democratic/majoritarian views is voided when it institutionalises particular ideologies."

That's why I usually say "modern, liberal democracy" when I talk about democracy. People power only is only part of it. I stuck "vague" to my view of legitimacy because the legitimacy of a State, or system of governance, is a famously tricky thing to justify. Is our current system legitimate?

In what way are (say) our Muslim citizens served by the CofE? How should the demands of their personal consciences by taken into account? Their god is the only one that exists as far as they're concerned and its morality is what decides right and wrong. How is the State and its attached Christian Church legitimate for them?

28 January 2012 at 15:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Those are mostly rhetorical questions, by the way. I'm not demanding answers. :)

28 January 2012 at 15:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "If the government wants to change what it has written on the paper (and I have no doubt that it will continue to do so), it makes little difference to what my marriage is, because it was never the State that instituted it in the first place."

Thus demonstrating the separate natures of religious marriage and the social institution of marriage even though they overlap for people married in religious ceremonies. Obviously, when a Muslim marries he fulfills Allah's purpose for mankind. I don't believe Allah exists or mankind has a divine purpose. However, I recognise the civil marriage and I accept what that bestows in the public sphere. By and large, that's the nature of living in a shared society based on liberal values and principles. I expect Muslims to reciprocate and recognise the marriages of Catholics, or Anglicans, or Jews, or the non-religious too ... including same-sex couples when the law is changed. Claiming privileges for personal conscience when one is not a direct moral agent makes a mockery of conscientious objection, I'd say.

28 January 2012 at 15:42  
Blogger AncientBriton said...

Well said Dr Sentamu but pitching for Canterbury!

It is difficult to understand why anyone with any sense would want to be Archbishop of Canterbury given the mess that the church is in - apart from Presiding Bishop Jefferts-Schori of course but she appears to enjoy making a mess of things as the Episcopal Church of the United States is witnessing.

28 January 2012 at 15:43  
Blogger Albert said...

Belfast,

You see how you've played exactly into Dan's hands 1542: there's no reality outside of the state and so the state can legislate as it wishes, and we should all fall in. Of course, even from a liberal democracy point of view, this won't quite work, for not everyone accepts that there is no reality outside of the state, and since, in a liberal democracy, we're all entitled to our views (or at least were), things which require that particular view of the state are irreconcilable with liberal democracy. So what you get is a gradual erosion of liberal democracy. Far better to expose the vacuity and violence of the secular position now than when we reach that point.

28 January 2012 at 15:51  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Albert said ...

"Really, worrying about the Catholic influence on the EU doesn't come into it."

Quite so. The irony in the post and all this obsession with Catholic influence on Europe and how it threatens England, is that Erastianian settlement here imposed State primacy over the church as a response to the power of Rome! And look where its landed the Church.

Saint Jerome said: ”The Church firstly languished under persecution. After this, she turned to Christian rulers who gave her wealth and power, but she thereby grew weaker in virtue.”

The power the Church obtained from kings and emperors prepared the way towards the schisms in Christendom. The rise of the Papacy under Gregory VII (1073–85) was based on the theory that the Church was f”founded by God and entrusted with the task of embracing all mankind in a single society in which divine will is the only law; that, in her capacity as a divine institution, she is supreme over all human structures, especially the secular state; and that the pope, in his role as head of the Church under the petrine commission, is the vice-regent of God on earth, so that disobedience to him implies disobedience to God: or, in other words, a defection from Christianity.” Under Boniface VIII, in Unam sanctam in 1302, this became the two swords. Both spiritual and temporal power were to be under the pope's jurisdiction, kings were to be subordinate to the power of the Church.

This was the reason for the revolt of Henry VIII against the Papacy! It was simple rivalry over who claimed political power, the local Monarch or the Pope as ”Emperor of the world”, not forgetting the small matter of who he could have sex with and marry.

The power of the Papacy became extreme during centuries of weak kings and princes, and that power was abused and corruption set in. The answer? Check Papal power and put the Church under secular authority. Make priests and bishops unnecessary. If the clergy is unnecessary for salvation, you do away with the Pope, bishops and priests and replace the Church with the tyranny of the Protestant State.

The doctrine of the separation of Church and State, as it developed in nineteenth century liberalism, was the only solution for the freedom of the Church from atheistic and anti-clerical political authorities. This is what the Papal document on religious freedom, Dignitatis Humanae,addressed. The State and the Church are two radically separate entities.

The State now legislates for abortion, divorce, same-sex marriage - and it has an Established Christian Church! The Church lives in a world of negative secularism. The Established Church collaborates with this, accepts secular moral and ethical tenets and waters down any requirement religion makes of our moral conduct.

Erastianism needs to go. The Church has to live in a secular world and respect the freedom of conscience and pf all religions. The price of the Church’s freedom from political interference is the freedom of non-religious people from specifically religious tenets. We can’t have it both ways. Survival depends on the authenticity of our religion and the quality of our faith.

DISESTABLISH!

28 January 2012 at 16:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "The price of the Church’s freedom from political interference is the freedom of non-religious people from specifically religious tenets."

Hurrah! However, the Church cannot be completely free as the State has a duty to protect its citizens, even Church members, from significant harm by the Church. Religions ought to be private organisations in a liberal democracy which people are free to join or leave as they wish. Rather like a political party, really, and subject to the same sort of rules of engagement from the rest of us ... including contempt.

28 January 2012 at 16:29  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

DanJ0

Go away ...

After your outrageous remark on another thread I've decided to ignore you, so please don't address any further comments my way.

28 January 2012 at 16:43  
Blogger len said...

The Church needs to be salt and light and if this involves being outspoken and not' politically correct' then let it be so.
The Church should not be an extension of the State especially when the state promotes laws opposed to Christian morality.Christians are to be law abiding but not at the expense of stifling their Christian conscience!.
If the Church is not salt and light to a dying World then it will be trampled underfoot.
The very foundations of Christianity are under sustained attack and this is a time to speak up for the faith regardless of opposition(wherever that comes from!)

28 January 2012 at 16:48  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

More and more on this blogs comments I am coming across discussions about the Gay agenda. I wish Gays would realise that basically the majority of the world is united in it's disapproval of such practise, always has been and hopefully always will be. Using a small elitist lobby like bloody Stonewall to force 'equality laws' down our throats doesn't make us see you in any different light it just gags us. Instead of always knocking Christians for their views on homosexuality, be grateful that Christians here are happy to tolerate your behaviour as long as it is restrained and leave it to God to judge you. In a lot of other places on Earth your outlook is not so safe.

Before you scream and shriek 'homophobic bigot', I have got along well with a few homosexuals in my lifetime and have never had a wish to persecute any but neither have I had a wish to see such a, in my view, perversion promoted as equal to a normal relationship between a man and a woman.

28 January 2012 at 17:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "After your outrageous remark on another thread I've decided to ignore you, so please don't address any further comments my way."

Excellent! As long as it doesn't go the way it did last time where you immediately started bracketing my comments deliberately and obviously to goad then you're on. If only this sort of thing would work with that creep and your berk for a sidekick too. :)

28 January 2012 at 17:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Maturecheese: "More and more on this blogs comments I am coming across discussions about the Gay agenda."

Check out the blog article and the twitter comments to the right. There's a reason for it.

"Instead of always knocking Christians for their views on homosexuality, be grateful that Christians here are happy to tolerate your behaviour as long as it is restrained and leave it to God to judge you. In a lot of other places on Earth your outlook is not so safe."

Be grateful we, and the rest of society, are happy to tolerate you too. As you probably know, Christians in places like Egypt are having a rather hard time of it. It might be worth keeping your head down just in case.

28 January 2012 at 17:22  
Blogger Roy said...

@ DanJO

Sentamu is talking about personal conscience there, which is probably code for "I want privilege for my religious views".

No he is not talking about either of those things. How many times do you need to be told that the overwhelming majority of people in the world know that marriage is a heterosexual arrangement, and the overwhelming majority of all humans who have ever lived have known that too.

On the other hand the sort of ridiculous Guardian readers who think it is a good idea to bring up children in a "gender neutral" way and let them decide what "gender" they want to be, will, of course, agree with you.

28 January 2012 at 17:35  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"For, all men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the Word of the Lord stands for ever.

And this is the word that was preached to you." (1 Peter 1:24-5)

"Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us." (1 Peter 2:12).

28 January 2012 at 17:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Maturecheese 17:07.

Well done that man, you speak for millions of decent folk.

DanJ0. Running away with this blog again, singlehanded. How tedious. Proud of yourself are you ?

28 January 2012 at 17:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy: "How many times do you need to be told that the overwhelming majority of people in the world know that marriage is a heterosexual arrangement, and the overwhelming majority of all humans who have ever lived have known that too."

That's a non sequitur in the argument. Around the 1900s, it was the norm for women to be excluded from the voting process. Most people understood and accepted that for most of social history too, I expect. But values and culture change. Women have the vote now and no-one thinks anything of it, except perhaps a few misogynists here and there. A Good Thing, I reckon.

28 January 2012 at 17:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Proud of yourself are you ?"

Is that 'gay proud' or just proud?

28 January 2012 at 17:49  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

Be grateful we, and the rest of society, are happy to tolerate you too.

That's a rather illiberal threat. To whom should we be grateful? To those who have the power to withdraw tolerance on a whim? And why should we be grateful? Have we therefore already earned the fate of Christians in Muslim lands but received mercy instead of justice?

carl

28 January 2012 at 17:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Archbishop Do please invite DanJ0 to submit his own guest post on this site. It will save him the trouble of taking over yours...

28 January 2012 at 17:59  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

DanJ0

A number of times you have said that civil marriage is different from religious marriage. You have also said that marriage is just a partnership.

If only there was a way of giving homosexuals the same legal privileges as married couple, whilst differentiating it nominally in law... I wonder what we might call this... Civil marriage partnership? Erm... Secular partnership... Hmmm... Civil marriage! No.... Wait give me a moment, I'll think of a name eventually.

28 January 2012 at 18:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "That's a rather illiberal threat."

There's no threat from me there, it merely echoes very closely the source which you have chosen to step over to comment on mine. Here in the UK, we have rather a lot of history to look back on and a fair chunk of it involved internecine religious warfare. On top of that, we now have a growing Muslim population a fact I'm sure Maturecheese (who is rather right-wing as I recall) knows very well. I'm a realist as well as a liberal and I know full well how different it could be and what could happen if tensions rise. He's in no position to play power games, even if they're just trivial word-based ones here.

28 January 2012 at 18:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lakester, why should we do that? It's a civil marriage in all but name. Let's call it a marriage and have done with it. I'm sure the sky won't fall in and Christianity will carry on somehow.

28 January 2012 at 18:17  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Just out of interest’s sake, we’ll say you get your gay marriage. What’s next on your list ?

28 January 2012 at 18:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

DanJ0

the source which you have chosen to step over to comment on mine.

Fair enough. I understand now. I didn't read the sourced comment. My error.

carl

28 January 2012 at 18:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, go to the top and roll down the thread picking out your comments. What exactly have you contributed to the topic? My comments about church establishment and gay marriage are inevitably going to be unpopular but at least they count as some sort of debate. What of substance do you ever actually contribute?

28 January 2012 at 18:33  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I think, as the proponent of change, it is to you to justify change. 'Why not' is not good enough. What will change? What will it make better?

28 January 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "Fair enough. I understand now. I didn't read the sourced comment. My error."

I've said this a number of times in the past because people assume that as an atheist I intend to see the death of religion: I happily support ECHR Article 9. I'm a liberal in the John Stuart Mill tradition, I hope that freedom of expression can deliver better things through a brainstorming fashion even if some things appear to be untrue. That sounds a bit pompous, I know.

28 January 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lakester: "I think, as the proponent of change, it is to you to justify change. 'Why not' is not good enough. What will change? What will it make better?"

Not that I haven't done that before many times, of course. I don't believe the institution of marriage for heterosexuals will be adversely affected either. Also, I think it's a matter of justice which is a good enough reason on its own. So. Firstly, I think it will encourage long-term pair-bonding of gay and lesbian people, directly and indirectly, which is surely a good thing. Secondly, I think it will help young gay people feel they belong which I hope will reduce gay teenage depression and suicides. Thirdly, I think it will help with social capital for gay people later in life. Fourthly, I think it will help social cohesion because there are perhaps 2-3 million gay people in the UK and we pay taxes like other people. On top of that, if gay people adopt then a marriage seems a better environment for that to take place. That's not an exhaustive list, I'm sure I could think of some more.

28 January 2012 at 18:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 January 2012 at 18:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Sentanu is re-visiting the popular lefty idea first aired in the 1970s, that the CoE is somehow too middle class. He bemoans that the leadership are that. He can’t seem to realise that the middle class are the life blood of the CoE. It gives the working and benefit classes a church structure to be members of, as well as providing most of the clergy and volunteers. Can he be uncomfortable with the idea of hierarchy ? Yes, An unpopular idea today, we all being equal and that, but that’s the way it was and that’s the way it will always be.

Presumably, he blames this situation on the Anglican’s inability to retain it’s black members and stopping them from joining the black churches. If he is, then perhaps he wants Anglicans to embrace the black churches methods. Dancing in the aisles perhaps, and loud shrieking. Not altogether sure that’s going to work. Rather think black people join black churches because they are run and populated by blacks. It’s a form of racism, but of the ever so nice and inoffensive type. That kind of worshipping would be a bit too noisy for (...overwhelmingly white...) traditionalists. He risks driving them away, though of course, they’ll receive a warm welcome from the Catholics.

So, is he really the right man for ++Canterbury after all. He would be sure to leave his mark there, but at the expense of the infrastructure...

28 January 2012 at 19:40  
Blogger Roy said...

@ DanJO

That's a non sequitur in the argument. Around the 1900s, it was the norm for women to be excluded from the voting process.

That is a complete non sequitur. We are talking about marriage, not voting. Most men in Britain did not have the vote until well into the 19th century. Voting itself is a fairly recent development in many countries. Sex is not a recent development.

The existence of the human race, past, present and future, has depended, does depend, and will depend on heterosexuality. It has nothing at all to do with homosexuality or lesbianism.

28 January 2012 at 19:59  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 January 2012 at 20:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Roy: "That is a complete non sequitur. We are talking about marriage, not voting."

We're also talking about social change. Including women in the franchise is a good example of social change, one which met with a lot of resistance at the time from social conservatives. Perhaps this will help you.

"The existence of the human race, past, present and future, has depended, does depend, and will depend on heterosexuality. It has nothing at all to do with homosexuality or lesbianism."

And it will continue to do so. However, the social institution of marriage is more than just procreation and does not depend on procreation. How many times do you need to be told etc etc?

I think you need to exercise your imagination. The people who thought women deserved to have a say in the running of the country did. We've even had a woman as prime minister as a result.

28 January 2012 at 20:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

No Dodo, not tedious, just lucid. You’re probably right. It’s time for dis-establishment. If only to save the CoE from government. Ludicrous to be saying that with a majority Conservative one, but we take it all as we find it. Always been supportive of the Anglican communion, being a Christian, but it now needs to fight it’s corner unfettered. And yes, it does seem to be easily pushed into a corner these days.

Mainstream middle class involvement in the CoE is its strength. Can’t accept that middle class ways are thrust upon those who attend services. Put down the falling membership to rampant consumerism and society’s rush for self satisfaction, the new religions.

Read somewhere that Sentamu is the bookies favourite, should think the Queen has a few shillings on him !

28 January 2012 at 21:47  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

In the preservation of tradition, I'd rather a managed decline under a Conservative government than a whole-scale dismantling by a "Progressive" government.

Mind you Inspector, you raise (perhaps unintentionally) an interesting complication with the monarchy. Tedious constitutional debate aside, the monarch has historically occupied a curious position since Elizabeth I, in balancing the reforming and catholic traditions in the CofE.

I say this as someone who tends undogmatically towards republicanism, but more than a small portion of the CofE's (and much beloved of His Grace) via media derives from the involvement of the Crown. I suspect without such influences, the CofE would splinter rather rapidly. This might, of course, be inevitable, but I think it will be a sad occasion if it comes to pass.

Anyone interested in the history: there's a really nice lecture by the superb Eamon Duffy here (click on the link for a full recording).

28 January 2012 at 22:06  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Belfast said ...

" ... more than a small portion of the CofE's (and much beloved of His Grace) via media derives from the involvement of the Crown."

Maybe. It was certainly a politicl compromise initiated by the Monarchy during the Reformation, in an attempt to prevent a civil war between Protestants and Catholics.

If the Church of England cannot agree on fundamentals surely it should splinter rather than damage the Christian faith further by being so ineffectual because of division?

28 January 2012 at 22:19  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

DanJ0

No argument you have made makes any change from the current system necessary. Civil partnerships offer the exact same legal benefits and social acceptability that you seem to so desperately need. (I don't know why you can't accept legalisation like adulterers have)

Here's an argument why not. At the moment marriage means (that is to say, is defined as even if many don't live up to it) many things. These include the loving unity of the masculine and feminine in the image of God, the safe environment for the procreation and rearing of children as well as the balance of the masculine and feminine that a child needs to model their views on and finally the basic functioning unit of a society. Gay marriage is nought more than a contract between two people who are in a sexual relationship. That is what marriage is being redefined as. So...

1. It is eliminating nearly all of what makes marriage special in order to include a tiny minority of the population who already have the capacity to have their own version.

2. It opens up more challenges to the definition of marriage. If marriage is a legal contract between people who are in a sexual relationship, then any ban on polygamy or incest is arbitrary.

2a i Polygamy is also a contract between people who are in a sexual relationship. Just like you'd say that homosexual marriage is like marriage but with two men or women instead of one of each, polygamy is like marriage but with an extra person

2a ii Who are you to say that three people can't love each other?

2b i. Given that modern society has done away with that whole 'producing children is the main purpose (or even a purpose at all) of sexual intercourse' thing

2b ii. and that the only secular objection to incest is that of eugenics(i.e. that any children would be at increased risk of genetic abnormalities).

2b iii and that a marriage is now just a contract between people who are in a sexual relationship

2b iv there is no logical objection to allowing the marriage of close family members

The current definition of marriage as based on Biblical and traditional values has arguments against these things. The definition offered with the acceptance that homosexuals can be married has no argument other than that of arbitrary denial.

The fact is, that even if we remove every other argument, homosexual marriage is an oxymoron because there is no facilitation for the procreation and raising of children. When homosexuals adopt, it is merely a separate add-on to the relationship, not a major purpose.

Also, before you use the 'Well not all marriages are perfect so we should give up' defeatist mentality, I also consider marriages where the couple refuse to have children (note that I said refuse, not are pathologically unable) to be sham marriages. If you are not willing to have children then you should not have sex.

28 January 2012 at 22:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Belfast. Have strong feeling that once our beloved Queen is no longer with us, the monarchy would ditch it’s CoE responsibilities with gusto.

Good post Lakester. The Inspector would also add gay marriage is the same as seeing a dog walk on just it’s hind legs – astonishingly unnatural.

28 January 2012 at 23:21  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Inspector, you are almost certainly right. I'm not persuaded that the CofE will ultimately survive the next century.

28 January 2012 at 23:51  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Inspector said ...

" ... gay marriage is the same as seeing a dog walk on just it’s hind legs – astonishingly unnatural."

Not too good an analogy. A dog walking on it's hind legs is unnatural but possible. Homosexual 'marriage' is both unnatural and impossible - an oxymoron as
Lakester pointed out.

A better comparison might be .... no ... better not!

29 January 2012 at 00:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lakester: "Civil partnerships offer the exact same legal benefits and social acceptability that you seem to so desperately need."

Really, what's the point of the "so desperately need" there? It doesn't describe me and it adds nothing to your argument.

1. "These include the loving unity of the masculine and feminine in the image of God"

Most people are not actually religious so that has little bearing on it as a social institution. Also, how do Hindu marriages fit into that notion because we recognise those too?

"the safe environment for the procreation and rearing of children as well as the balance of the masculine and feminine that a child needs to model their views on"

Well, I agree that children are best reared in the ideal environment of a stable, loving family with a father and mother.

However, as I say again and again on this topic, the desire to have or the ability to create children is not necessary for marriage.

Also, I know for sure that some same-sex couples provide a much better environment for a child than some mixed-sex couples. We're talking of ideals here.

"and finally the basic functioning unit of a society."

Yes. At least for the sort of society we have in the UK anyway. That's an important one for me. Of course, couples can still live together without getting married and still form that functional unit.

"Gay marriage is nought more than a contract between two people who are in a sexual relationship. That is what marriage is being redefined as."

Well, you'd no doubt like it to be as simple as that for your argument but it's rather more than that.

"1. It is eliminating nearly all of what makes marriage special in order to include a tiny minority of the population who already have the capacity to have their own version."

That's nonsense. It eliminates nothing. Are you seriously saying that if Parliament extends the social institution to include same-sex couples then currently-married people will have their arrangement conceptually destroyed? It will change nothing for them. Also, that tiny minority is probably about the size of the active CofE congregations, possibly more.

"2. It opens up more challenges to the definition of marriage. If marriage is a legal contract between people who are in a sexual relationship, then any ban on polygamy or incest is arbitrary."

This is a topic on its own which I've argued many times. Besides, challenges can be argued on their own merits so this is a rather poor argument. At best, it's an argument from tradition and definition. That is, it's arbitrary too.

29 January 2012 at 07:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lakester: ""2a i Polygamy is also a contract between people who are in a sexual relationship."

You mean "a marriage". Often a religious marriage, too. Who are you to complain about the religious mores of others? Besides, I have arguments for this too.

"2a ii Who are you to say that three people can't love each other?"

Huh? I have never said that. Of course three people can love each other. Or, more likely, one person loves two others.

"2b i. Given that modern society has done away with that whole 'producing children is the main purpose (or even a purpose at all) of sexual intercourse' thing"

I'll happily take your acceptance anyway that society has already redefined marriage away from your own religious views. Thanks.

"2b ii. and that the only secular objection to incest is that of eugenics(i.e. that any children would be at increased risk of genetic abnormalities)."

Well, that's nonsense. It's not the only objection at all. Really, you ought not to assume the extent of opposing arguments to make your own. You might end up relying on some of it and find yours ends up in a heap.

"2b iii and that a marriage is now just a contract between people who are in a sexual relationship"

Again, you're pretending that is the extent of it to suit yourself.

"2b iv there is no logical objection to allowing the marriage of close family members"

And it does indeed end up in a heap.

"The current definition of marriage as based on Biblical and traditional values has arguments against these things."

Well, the Bible is not an intregal part of our society any more I'm pleased to say. Its arguments apply only to its religious adherents.

"The definition offered with the acceptance that homosexuals can be married has no argument other than that of arbitrary denial."

So say you.

"The fact is, that even if we remove every other argument, homosexual marriage is an oxymoron because there is no facilitation for the procreation and raising of children."

There you go, you assume the definion you are arguing for and produce a conclusion from it. A logical failure, I'm afraid. Also, same-sex couples can and do raise children, as do single parent families and mixed-sex families without marriage. Often better than married couples.

"When homosexuals adopt, it is merely a separate add-on to the relationship, not a major purpose."

So say you. I have to say, you're on a roll with these assertions.

"Also, before you use the 'Well not all marriages are perfect so we should give up' defeatist mentality, I also consider marriages where the couple refuse to have children (note that I said refuse, not are pathologically unable) to be sham marriages. If you are not willing to have children then you should not have sex."

Ha. You ought to try for standing as a Member of Parliament on that ticket. Oh boy, I'd like to see the press coverage if you did. :)

29 January 2012 at 07:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lakester: "Civil partnerships offer the exact same legal benefits and social acceptability that you seem to so desperately need."

They do offer the same benefits. However, I think they're divisive because they don't imply the same institutional acceptability. Check out the the famous Christian B&B case in the UK. If you think they're equivalent of marriages then call them marriages. We want our equality, I'm afraid. You can see from the blog here that some people want us to be quiet, keep our heads down, not make a fuss, be gay behind closed doors, etc. Why should we? By and large, we're functional, tax-paying members of society. We're doing nothing wrong. We have nothing to be ashamed about. If there is a problem then it's a problem in the attitudes of those people. Let them deal with their own issues, not foist them on us. I see no reason why gay teenagers in particular should have to put up with that sort of stuff at a vulnerable time in their lives.

29 January 2012 at 08:11  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

What you have put forward at 1855 is based only on supposition. You say that gay marriage will not have a bad effect on heterosexual marriage and you list a number of things which you think will be improved by it. But being supposition you do not provide any evidence at all for these claims, and indeed the evidence would appear to be against them.

Let me just take your first example:

Firstly, I think it will encourage long-term pair-bonding of gay and lesbian people, directly and indirectly, which is surely a good thing

You say there are 2-3 million gay people in the UK (probably an exaggeration, but certainly, there must be substantial number). How many have taken advantage of Civil Partnerships? Since the law was passed there have been fewer than 50 000 such partnerships - so fewer than 2 % of homosexual persons on your figures.

But you might object, that Civil Partnerships haven't been around long enough to get a decent proportion. This would be a fair point, except that the number of Civil Partnerships per annum has fallen greatly, so that it sits steadily at about a third of the original number.

So Civil Partnerships don't seem to be making a real difference to homosexual promiscuity because a tiny proportion of homosexuals are entering Civil Partnerships. This evidence is confirmed BTW by other countries with have had similar arrangements, and indeed, it doesn't seem to make any difference whether they are Civil Partnerships or marriages.

But the most disturbing evidence is that rates of promiscuity remain stubbornly high, even within such partnerships. These seem to increase over the course of the relationship.

So we have good grounds to dispute your currently undefended claim that it will help with long-term bonding.

So what about your claim that it will not make any difference to marriage? Isn't it obvious that if non-reproductive and promiscuous relationships are given the same status are heterosexual marriage, then marriage itself is trivialised? So you caused harm to the family, to children, without actually doing the good you say you are doing to homosexuals.

But the truth is, as you admit, that your position isn't about supposed good effects of "gay marriage". Indeed, if undeniable evidence of huge harm was produced in 40 years time, with no arising goods of the arrangements, you would still support it. Why? You tell us:

I think it's a matter of justice which is a good enough reason on its own

But what is this justice argument going to look like? Whenever you've given any details at all, you have committed what you regard as the is/ought fallacy.

But is the present situation unjust by any standard anyway? Is there a right which heterosexuals have that homosexuals do not have? Clearly not, heterosexuals do not have a right denied to homosexuals to marry someone of the same sex, neither do they have a right denied to homosexuals to marry someone of the gender of their choice. No, they have the same right you have: to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Ah, you say, but you don't want that right, you don't want to marry someone of the opposite sex. But then, when a Christian loses their job or gets fined because they will not give a B&B room to a gay couple, or they will not register a Civil Partnership, you say "If you don't want to do the job, don't do the job." And on this basis you are happy for people to lose their livelihoods, and in the case the of the B&B owners, their home. Well, shouldn't that apply to you too then? If you don't want to get married because you are not attracted to people of the opposite sex, don't get married.

None of this affects your rights, or your dignity, it just means you don't want to get married. Fine. Who's forcing you?

29 January 2012 at 10:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Cont.

So in the end, all you offer is series of implausible and undefended claims, hiding an argument, to infringe other people's consciences and possibly harm family life which is serially inconsistent with your own principles. So it seem that, in the end, when you say that there probably is no consistent ethical truth, what you mean is you expect to be able to discriminate against other people according to a standard you refuse to apply to yourself.

What's the basis for this privilege you demand for yourself? We haven't had anything to support it yet.

29 January 2012 at 10:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The topic of gay marriage is being discussed on The Big Questions on BBC1 right now if anyone is interested. Some interesting points being made, I think, amongst all the usual stuff.

29 January 2012 at 10:53  
Blogger Albert said...

Thanks, Dan. I just caught the end of it. More heat than light though, as far as I could see!!

29 January 2012 at 10:59  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

DanJ0 said...
The topic of gay marriage is being discussed on The Big Questions on BBC1 right now if anyone is interested. Some interesting points being made, I think, amongst all the usual stuff.

I would rather boil my head than listen to that annoying socialist twerp Nikki bloody Campbell and more so considering the corrosive topic.

29 January 2012 at 11:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Maturecheese: "I would rather boil my head than listen to that annoying socialist twerp Nikki bloody Campbell and more so considering the corrosive topic."

Thanks for letting me know, I was worriedly pacing around my home wondering if you were watching or not. I can finally settle down now.

29 January 2012 at 11:51  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

I can't remember the last time I saw a decent version of 'The Big Questions'. Usually it is a combination of vitriolic atheists and woefully inadequate theologians. This with the exception of the priest last week who was not given nearly enough airtime compared to the Muslim at the back who's arguments consisted of 'the Bible has been corrupted' and 'the Koran is perfect'.

29 January 2012 at 11:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Songs of Praise is on BBC1 at 5pm if anyone is interested.

*waits expectantly*

29 January 2012 at 12:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0 knows that he will have to break us in this blogsite or lose gay marriage. If we can stand up to him, all Europe may be free and the life of the world may move forward into broad, sunlit uplands. But if we fail, then the whole world, including the United States, including all that we have known and cared for, will sink into the abyss of a new Gay Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the sight of perverted LGBTQ activities.

Let us therefore brace ourselves to our duties, and so bear ourselves that if His Grace and his communicants last for a thousand years, men will still say, 'This was their finest hour.'

29 January 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Inspector

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength, we shall defend our values, whatever the cost may be; we shall never surrender, and even if, which I do not for a moment believe, this blog fell we would carry on the struggle on other forums, until, in God's good time, the moral order, with all its power and might, steps forth once again to liberate the world.

29 January 2012 at 13:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

There'll always be an England,

And England shall be gay marriage free

If England means as much to you

As England means to me.

29 January 2012 at 13:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "DanJ0 knows that he will have to break us in this blogsite or lose gay marriage."

Gay marriage is inevitable, it's just how much resistance religious fascist minorities put up. On a slightly different tack, I notice the CLC and their lackey Paul Diamond are up to their usual tricks again.

It's probably like watching an Opus Dei cultist flagellate themselves ... quite nauseating but strangely fascinating too. Why do they put themselves through it? The CLC, I mean, not the actual self-flagellants.

29 January 2012 at 13:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Have you tried self-flagellating, Inspector? You know, to deal with the problem ;)

29 January 2012 at 13:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well really DanJ0! You can be a wicked old poof at times... {SNIGGER}

29 January 2012 at 13:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Just pretend you're in the confessional, Inspector, and let it all out. I'm sure your fellow Catholics won't mind too much if you knowingly break Catholic sexual morality rules. They'll just clap you on the back and say "Well, we're all sinners. Let he who is without sin etc" as some of them pick up some stones to throw at others in time-honoured fashion.

29 January 2012 at 14:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Agreed DanJ0, Mrs Pilkington has gone up a dead end (...unlike sodomites, if you catch the Inspectors drift...). The Inspector has trawled the net looking for positive signs of conversion therapy, on your behalf, he might add. Nothing doing.

29 January 2012 at 14:11  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Inspector

I would say to the blog, there is nothing ahead but blood, toil, tears and sweat. We have before us an ordeal of the most grievous kind. We have before us many long months of toil and struggle.

You ask what is our policy. I will say, it is to wage war with all our might, with all the strength that God can give us, to wage war against a monstrous perversion never surpassed in the dark, lamentable catalogue of human crime.

You ask what is our aim? I can answer in one word: Victory. Victory at all costs. Victory in spite of all terror. Victory however long and hard the road may be. For without victory there is no survival.

29 January 2012 at 14:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Too right, that brave and not at all tedious bird, there are dark times ahead of us...

29 January 2012 at 14:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "The Inspector has trawled the net looking for positive signs of conversion therapy, on your behalf, he might add."

I think she specialises in people who the Church and its followers has fecked up in their heads. Not my thing, thanks, I'm what is normally called 'sorted' on that score. Still at least people like me are 'getting some'. How's that working out for you, Inspector?

29 January 2012 at 14:18  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Inspector

This is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty — never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.

29 January 2012 at 14:21  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

Gay marriage is inevitable

You are surely right. But there's surely something disturbing about the inevitability of it, given that the public consultation on it hasn't even started (thanks to Dr Cranmer's beloved Conservative Party). What does that say about the state of our democracy, and the role reason and public discussion plays in policy? All it will take is for public opinion to change, and it will be abolished, even if there are good arguments for it by then.

religious fascist minorities

I'm slightly surprised that you are using the term "minorities" in a derogatory sense. As for calling your opponents "religious fascists", remember, we are not imposing anything on anyone's consciences, nor are we the ones claiming victory before the democratic consultation period has even begun. When "gay marriage" takes place, what will happen to those of us who refuse to acknowledge it? Will it be possible to prosecute us for our beliefs? If so, it's clearly not us who are fascists. If not, what will it have achieved?

29 January 2012 at 14:54  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

DanJ0

It appears that one could summarise most of your response to my points as 'no it's not!'. Not exactly logically binding.

Some of the other responses are essentially 'religious people believe it so it's wrong'. No comment needed.

Otherwise it's a 'some homosexuals would make better parents that some heterosexuals' kind of 'well the system isn't perfect so we should do away with the whole thing' mentality. Some alcoholics make better parents that some non-alcoholics. Does that mean we should encourage alcoholism among parents?

One of the main arguments I've heard for homosexual marriage is that marriage is just a contract between two people in sexual relationship. If you'd like to give me your own and your justification for it then I'm happy to listen. The justification, of course, is where you risk tripping up. I'll add that gay marriage is definitely not a matter of equality, because redefining marriage for homosexuals adds nothing to the definition, but takes much away.

I'd also like you to give me the benefits of marriage that civil partnerships currently deny. You say that it is about equality and that homosexuals shouldn't be forced to stay behind closed doors. (This coming from someone who thinks religious views should be considered a private matter?) Homosexuality is about relationships whose main basis is sex. Whilst a minority of homosexuals enter long-term relationships, how long do they know each other before they go to bed? Do any wait until they are in a civil partnership? Before you say "Well heterosexuals have the same problem!" I consider relationships based on sex to be invalid no matter what the make-up. The issue with homosexual relationships is that the ideal is impossible.

29 January 2012 at 17:16  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Albert

DanJ0 doesn't know the meaning of fascism. His hypocrisy shows the insincerity of much of his argument about homosexual equality.

29 January 2012 at 17:17  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

NOTE

There is no such thing as "homosexual marriage" and can never be. It is a contradiction in terms - an oxymoron.

Calling a pig a "horse" does not change the nature of a pig or that of a horse.

Homosexual relationships maybe a form of fruitless "pair bonding" recognised by civil partnerships for purposes of mortgages, pension rights, property and inheritance but marriage? Never!

29 January 2012 at 17:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Sex alone should not be the sole basis for marriage. This coming from a man who’s had his leg humped by a dog...

29 January 2012 at 17:46  
Blogger Albert said...

Lankester,

It appears that one could summarise most of your [Dan's] response to my points as 'no it's not!'

There're certainly some odd moments in his correspondence with you. He accuses you of assertion, but then at a crucial juncture in his response to you, he simply said:

Well, that's nonsense. It's not the only objection at all. Really, you ought not to assume the extent of opposing arguments to make your own. You might end up relying on some of it and find yours ends up in a heap.

which does not have the content of even a counter-assertion. But then he proceeded as if he had answered you there:

And it does indeed end up in a heap.

Perhaps Dan does have an argument at that point. It would certainly put his position in a better light if he used it. At the moment it just looks like assertion.

None of this means I don't defend his right to express his view - I do - it's just that as the law he is supporting is going to be imposed upon us, I would have looked for more from him.

29 January 2012 at 19:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lakester: "It appears that one could summarise most of your response to my points as 'no it's not!'. Not exactly logically binding."

They're mostly stakes in the ground since just that covered two full comment lengths. They highlight the areas where your argument will collapse. We can tackle whichever ones you like in more detail.

"Otherwise it's a 'some homosexuals would make better parents that some heterosexuals' kind of 'well the system isn't perfect so we should do away with the whole thing' mentality."

Clearly that's nonsense. The intention is to legally extend the social institution of marriage to cover same-sex couples. What's 'doing away with the whole thing' about that? Have I ever advocated doing away with marriage? Quite the opposite.

"I'll add that gay marriage is definitely not a matter of equality, because redefining marriage for homosexuals adds nothing to the definition, but takes much away."

Equality is about relevantly like being treated alike. It's also about equality of access to various things. What does including same-sex couple in the social institution of marriage take away from it?

"I'd also like you to give me the benefits of marriage that civil partnerships currently deny."

Huh? You think that if civil partnerships bestow similar benefits then you can legitimately deny us legal marriage? Dream on, matey.

"You say that it is about equality and that homosexuals shouldn't be forced to stay behind closed doors. (This coming from someone who thinks religious views should be considered a private matter?)"

You need some clarity to your thoughts, I think, regarding public and private realms. I don't care if you lot dance in streets. Organise parades if you like. Continue sticking naff dayglo signs with weirdo things like "He is Risen!" outside your churches for all it matters to me. I'm actually talking about what goes on at State level. I must point that out every couple of weeks but it doesn't go into people's heads.

"Homosexuality is about relationships whose main basis is sex."

You're asserting for your own benefit again. Unless you're also saying that heterosexuality is about relationships whose main basis is sex too. I disagree with both of course.

"Whilst a minority of homosexuals enter long-term relationships, how long do they know each other before they go to bed? Do any wait until they are in a civil partnership?"

Of what relevance is that? We haven't had same-sex marriage in the UK so far. It's not that long since justice has prevailed in other areas so that gay people have their rights recognised. Same-sex marriage will probably take a generation or more to filter through values, mores, and behaviours.

"Before you say "Well heterosexuals have the same problem!" I consider relationships based on sex to be invalid no matter what the make-up."

You're polluting this with your own personal sex issues now. Who cares whether you have hangups about sex or weird religious ideas about it. We don't legislate based on stuff like that anymore.

Mixed-sex marriage is what it is today and since, in general, relevantly alike ought to be treated alike then the argument is that the same basis can apply to same-sex couples.

You perhaps ought to look at the official statistics for marriage, divorce, and civil partnerships in the UK. There are some interesting things there. In particular about co-habitation. I also have things to say about promiscuity if we carry on.

29 January 2012 at 19:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lakester; "DanJ0 doesn't know the meaning of fascism. His hypocrisy shows the insincerity of much of his argument about homosexual equality."

You do yourself no favours appealing to people you think will support you like that. It makes you look like you're in intellectual trouble. You are, of course. Still, you ought to be able to argue for yourself. By observation, it mostly seems to be a Catholic thing to rove in packs. I suppose having to take onboard an off-the-shelf religion attracts a certain type of person.

29 January 2012 at 19:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lakester: "If you'd like to give me your own and your justification for it then I'm happy to listen."

I'll go back through the old threads looking for one I set out previously. I can't be arsed typing it out again.

29 January 2012 at 19:30  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Danjo @ 13.51 'gay marriage is inevitable.' This communicant recalls other inevitabilities, the triumph of communism and ever-closer union within the EU to name but two. Claims of inevitability by supporters of acts against the natural order tend to be defeated by the natural order.

29 January 2012 at 20:36  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

The question is why do sodomites want "marriage"?to seek the endorsement of hetero-sexual society for thier perversion?are they ashamed?Is it not inconsistent to parade thier differences,whilst seeking to be the same as hetero-sexual couples?it can never be more than a pretense and a delusion which seems to be grounded in hatred,as they push this issue,not because they sincerely want this,but because they can,under the protection of the twisted imaginings of the "liberal"elite,whos sole purpose in encouraging this perverted practice,is not for the well being of sodomites,but the furtherance of thier totalitarian agenda,and queers are simply "useful idiots" in the destruction of what once was a reasonable social order where people could live in relative freedom.

30 January 2012 at 08:39  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Gay marriage IS an oxymoron, Dan, if only for what the dictionary says marriage is:
"the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife" (Oxford Online Dictionary)

Since, in a gay relationship, both parties are of the same gender they clearly cannot fit within the definition, no matter how hard they try. It would be like me, a single man, wanting to be a spinster or a single woman wanting to be a bachelor, it doesn't work because it is outside the realms of definition!

If "gay marriage" comes in it will be more post-modernistic rubbish attempting to redefine the world according to a politically correct understanding of the world but it will make no real difference for gay relationships. It will, however, make a mockery of the traditional institution of marriage as it will take what it has meant and throw it away for no reason other than to make a minority (and let's make no mistake about this, it is very much a minority) feel that they can be the same as heterosexual couples. Problem is that by the very fact that heterosexual and homosexual are used to define the relationships show that this cannot be the case, not unless you then start lobbying for a change to the meaning of heterosexual as a word and then also make sure that the definitions of gender are also removed. But even then you still cannot get away from the fact that those who have dangling sexual organs, when partnered with those who have internal sexual organs, are still very different from those who partner people of the same sexual organ placement as themselves.

Differences exist, it's a fact of life and language. Rather than whining about how "civil partnership" doesn't sound like "marriage" when you say it, why not realise that in law it is the same and that, in time, it will likely become accepted as such. That doesn't mean that everyone will agree with it, particularly from a theological perspective, but then, since you are an atheist, I don't think you're really bothered about that.

On all other aspects I bow to Lakester's excellent post on the subjec as it points to the legal doors that "gay marriage" would open if it were brought about.

30 January 2012 at 10:25  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Another thought has just come to me - what about if things were changed to the French way of doing things? By that I mean that the civil marriage is very separate from the religious aspect for heterosexual couples? That way it is then down to the conscience of the religious organisation as to whether or not they offer a blessing/ceremony afterwards (or, indeed, before).

How this would then impact on "gay marriage" would be that you would keep civil partnerships, as it clearly then denotes whether you are in a heterosexual or homosexual relationship, but if a religious body were to decide to offer blessings for a union, be they hetero or homo, then that is something independent of the law and thus not legislated upon. Would this be something that you might be more inclined towards, Dan?

Sadly, for you at least, there is still no getting away from the fact that gay and straight relationships are very different, if only from a biological perspective. But the equalising of civil partnerships and marriage in the religious sense is still there. Or is it going to be about more than this and the idea of enforcing The Church to accept something regardless of the inanity of it?

30 January 2012 at 10:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Youthpasta, when the definition is changed then the first part of your argument will simply collapse. That's how far Argument By Dictionary gets you.

Your argument about minorities doesn't get you very far either. As I have pointed out already, the number is of the same order as the monthly attendence at CofE servies.

There's obviously no need to change the meaning of the words heterosexual and homosexual, they describe the actuality very well. Gender works well too. You're mixing up descriptive things with conceptual things, I think. The dangly bits are a non-issue.

If advocating legal recognition of same-sex marriage is 'whining' then you could try not whining about changes in shared social institutions instead. That works better for me.

The civil partnerships thing may in time be seen as marriage as you say but clearly at laast one Christian B&B owner does not accept the essential equality of the two. Also, one doesn't need to be an atheist not to care about the 'theology', I think about two thirds of marriages are performed as civil ceremonies now.

Of course, if Christians were truly worried about threats to the institution of marriage then divorce ought to feature quite highly. I think about two in five mixed sex marriages end in divorce now. Marriage used to be pretty much for life, you know. Heterosxuals in general seem to want the option to divorce despite your 'theology'.

30 January 2012 at 11:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Youthpasra, as I say over and over I'm advocating civil marriage for same sex couples. I don't care a hoot what churches do as private organisations with their religious versions. It would be quite wrong for the State to try to force vicars or priests to marry same sex couples in their religious ceremonies. That's a matter for conscientious objection since there is direct moral agency involved. Hotel owners running businesses in the regulated public sphere is a rather different matter.

30 January 2012 at 11:25  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

I now pronounce you Mr and, er, Mr Smith! Or Mrs and Mrs Smith."

Doesn't sound quite right, does it?

30 January 2012 at 11:36  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Dan, stop deliberately being a cretin. You know very well that the B&B issue was not about recognising civil partnerships but about orientation. Whether they were right or not in that regard is another argument, but has no relevance here.

I' afraid your first response falls down at it's first hurdle as you merely dismiss the idea of changing a word's meaning as if that's:
a - Not a problem
b - within the remit of government

You also, conveniently, completely ignore the central point I was making, that differences are a fact of life and should be accepted as such.
THAT is why I said "whining". You don't hear me whining about wanting to be able to get a civil partnership because I prefer the sound of it as opposed to the sound of the word marriage, do you?

Also, just to play your idiotic numbers game, add the monthly attendance figures for the CofE to the equivalent figures for non-CofE churches, mosques and synagogues (n OT to mention any other religion that holds the same views in marriage as the 3 "big" monotheistic faiths) and I think you will find yourself still in a minority. Don't think for a moment that this is purely an argument between gays and the CofE, it's nowhere near that small!

30 January 2012 at 12:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Youthpasta, I think you need to look again at the B&B case again. The defendents claimed it was not about orientation but about sex, actually unmarried sex, and the couple were unmarried, despite being in a civil partnership. Tye judge ruled it was indeed about sexual orientation and therefore against the law.

Next, it was actually your numbers game. I merely responded to it. If you wish to consider it as idiotic in retrospect then that's up to you. For myself, the numbers don't really matter because it's about justice and rights but I usually fire the thing back in like terms to make the point.

As for differences, I'm afraid your personal insistance is not enough for me on its own. I hold an opposing opinion that the differences are not significant to the core of it. So where does that leave you? Is it down to an arm wrestle?

Finally, changing the definition is indeed in the realm of the State because it's a social institution regulated by law. Changing the law will not be problem free in terms of coupling with other related things but it's undoubtedly possible. I don't actually think it will happen at the first attempt either, but hey.

30 January 2012 at 12:48  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Right, Dan, let's get this numbers business clear. You were claiming, either directly or through intimation, that your idea has some kind of mandate and should be accepted. I merely pointed out that you were in a minority, thus without mandate for your idea on marriage. You then decided to turn that into numbers, using false numbers to suggest that I was wrong. However when I gave you the real numbers and tell you to stop playing idiotic numbers games you cry foul and say it was me, as though you are 6 years old and back in a school playground! You ARE in a minority, just accept it and stop deliberately being a cretin!

As to the B&B matter, in the legal sense you are correct. However, if you read what the Bulls actually say it points that they have no issues with the legality of civil partnerships, more that their belief is that marriage is something more than legal papers according to their faith. As such it is very clearly an issue about orientation (not one of being homophobic, just disagreeing with it) and not whether civil partnership equate to marriage in any civil sense.

On differences, you are either deliberately being a cretin (again), trying to stir up an argument where than clearly be none or genuinely thick. Given your general posting behaviour in the past I'd say that it's one of the former 2 and so will assume tht you have no argument and are admitting to be wrong over the issue.

Finally, definitions are absolutely NOT the state's jurisdiction! For someone who declares himself to be liberal that's a very left wing thing to say, aside from the fact that it's wrong! Marriage predates the UK by many millennia, you can't just decide one day that it doesn't fit with what you think the world should be like and change it! That's the sort of insanity that led Labour to bring in all sorts of idiotic laws to do with political correctness and health and safety (to name but 2 areas they blundered into) and look at how people reacted. Words have meanings for a reason, it's because that is what they mean! Start meddling with that and you start to unwind the fabric that society is held together by. Suddenly the number 1 might be a problem, so it has it's definition changed. Then murder is no longer murder. The list could go on. Just because you don't like e fact that the word "marriage" has a particular meaning that excludes you because of your choice to act upon your sexuality doesn't mean that the word is at fault. It means that either you are at fault or that the language is missing a word/term for what you wish to have.

I now expect at least 1 post that attempts to make it look like you've addressed all my it's but actually fails to deal with them in any substantive fashion, almost certainly trying to aim at some trifle or barely registering inanity, rather than what my post actually says!

30 January 2012 at 13:32  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Been thinking about this and there might be a light at the end of the tunnel for you.

See, the thing is that not only can the state not define something it has no claim on due to it pre-dating it, but it also cannot have any claim on the definition on the grounds that marriage is a universally understood term and to change it would be to stick the proverbial 2 fingers up at the rest of the world and say "We know best, you're all wrong".

However, if you were to get a majority of the world to agree with you that marriage was to be redefined to include homosexual unions then I think you could have a case. Not a theological one, but a mandate that the world could not deny.
The problem is that you currently have a big challenge in numbers. Using Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religious_populations) we can see that the world is, at worst, 49% Christian and Muslim. That's at worst. If you then add in the Jews and the African Anglicans (no idea why they aren't classified as Christian) and you find that it's over 50%. Now we look at places like China and North Korea, where homosexuality has very few friends, and places like Africa and South America (where they might still be of their ancient, traditional faith rather than Christian or Muslim) and we see that their views lean quite heavily against homosexuality. if we keep going with this we will come to a result that is still heavily against the idea.
So, if you can convince a majority (that's about 3.5 billion) around the world then I'd say you have your mandate for universal change. But until then...

30 January 2012 at 15:16  
Blogger Jon said...

Youthpasta - your in depth wikipedia-ing has rather stumped the gay marriage advocates. How can we respond? After all, Christians all vote as one, don't they? And so would South Korea and Namibia if you gave them the chance... Oh, but, Brazil and Argentina have civil partnership and gay marriage respectively, so they're not going to be on your side in the great big marriage death match. Neither would Sweden, Canada, Israel, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain or South Africa. But you've got Iran, so you're definitely on the moral high ground - hooray for you.

Unless you're proposing an open door policy, we're talking about the UK here, and the fact is that most opinion polls show than people are increasingly relaxed about gay marriage here (as I think Albert realises in an earlier post on 29/01 at 14.54).

Albert - I think Sir Humphrey must have had some wise words on consultations - engaging only when the issue is either relatively settled and you need cover with your less modern backbenchers, or when you want to kick an issue into the long grass.

Hetties will still get married when the gays can. We didn't have to change the word "vote" when women and the poor got it, so why do we need to change the word marriage?

Dan - I'm thinking that you should put up a wordpress blog with pages for your standard answers to the usual objections (incest, bestiality, god hates gays etc.) so that you can just refer people to them rather than having to retype them each time.

30 January 2012 at 17:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Oh dear, Jon, what’s this at 17:11. When you’ve run out of argument for gay marriage, or never had any in the first place, all that’s left you is to list countries that have it ! Poor show that man. Reminds the Inspector of the time his nephew said “Mum, must we have roast dinner EVERY Sunday. Can’t we eat at MacDonalds ? Lots of my friends do”

30 January 2012 at 17:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. A few communicants raised the point that with Civil Partnerships in operation, why would gay people still want ‘marriage’. This question is of such sufficient importance, that the Inspector decided to do some investigating. This is what he found (…please note that the gay view expressed below is specifically that of the activists, who of course, will one day be ALL of them…)

Far from being satisfied with CP, the gay considers it a mere concession. You see, while it is in operation, there is NO gay equality. Instead, it highlights the fact that they are still excluded from the mainstream. That’s their aim. Gay marriage will allow them to step up to the front rank, where they have always wanted to be, where they MUST be.

Now comes LGBTQ adoption. Now at the first rank of society, denial is not an issue. In fact, to oppose it is a hate crime.

Next comes education. It will be the duty of every gay to come out and declare their sexuality as early as possible. Even pre pubescent pupils will be encouraged. Those that do will receive ‘complimentary’ training to live their role as a proud unashamed gay. More resources will be spent on these pupils, the lefties will see to that, to make sure they are not ‘disadvantaged’. It will actually become ‘sexy’ to be seen as a gay pupil. The Education sector is very important. Have this under control and the future is yours. Of course, you won’t have to be gay yourself to teach in it, but you will have to be registered as ‘gay sympathetic’. Lose that classification, eg through an inappropriate remark, and you’ve lost your job.

Onto the professional scene come well educated gays. Now, they are NOT to be discriminated against, so the law will be changed so that EVERY profession has it’s gay quota. And these one in ten, who knows maybe two in ten by then, will be highly sought after, if only to fill the quota. In fact, they will become PRE-EMINENT in their field. They must be encouraged to remain, otherwise you fall foul of the quota law.

So here we have it, a brief look at our ‘equal’ society of the future, with LGBTQ paying a FULL part in it (…God help us…). A worst case scenario ? Hardly, they are already half way down the road. It’s called the GAY AGENDA, you know…

30 January 2012 at 17:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 January 2012 at 18:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Youthpasta: "You were claiming, either directly or through intimation, that your idea has some kind of mandate and should be accepted."

Please show me where. I can show you where both Lakester and you try to make the numbers count against. My core argument is actually made on the basis of social justice. When I talk about religious minorities in the context of gay marriage, it is usually to throw the thing back at religious people.

"You ARE in a minority, just accept it and stop deliberately being a cretin!"

So are the people who attend CofE services. So are black people in the UK. Even non-adults are in a minority. The numbers are not sufficient reason to deny these people social justice. You can add up all the religious people in the world who you think might way against us but that's the thing about minority rights, they're guards against the tyranny of the majority.

As you're a user of wikipedia, perhaps you might like to look up the article about polygamy. There are 50 or so countries in the world where polygamous marriage is lawful. Many of these places have a long tradition of it, many of them being historically Muslim and all. That's mostly a religious thing, it hasn't followed down a slippery slope from gay marriage either. Mohammed had something like 11 wives you know; a special dispensation from (his) god for more than 4, I think.

"On differences, you are either deliberately being a cretin (again), trying to stir up an argument where than clearly be none or genuinely thick."

It's probably the genuinely thick one despite my knowing about stuff like the so-called naturalistic fallacy and similar reasoning.

"Finally, definitions are absolutely NOT the state's jurisdiction!"

Luckily, marriage is codified in our law, specifically the Marriage Act but also other related Acts. You may like to note that the Act has been changed a number of times, one of the more important being that civil cermonies were introduced. Prior to that, marriages had to be religious. You may also like to note that most religious people recognise that people who have married this way are actually married. There you go, a clear and definite example of the State changing the definition of marriage, wider society accepting it, and the sky not falling in.

"See, the thing is that not only can the state not define something it has no claim on due to it pre-dating it, but it also cannot have any claim on the definition on the grounds that marriage is a universally understood term and to change it would be to stick the proverbial 2 fingers up at the rest of the world and say "We know best, you're all wrong"."

I refer you to my comments about about polycamy. Marriage is obviously not universally understood as you claim. There's at least 1300 years of that and probably a lot more for nomadic cultures. No, no, there's no need to thank me for educating you there. It's all part of the service.

30 January 2012 at 18:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Youthpasta: "As to the B&B matter, in the legal sense you are correct. However, if you read what the Bulls actually say it points that they have no issues with the legality of civil partnerships, more that their belief is that marriage is something more than legal papers according to their faith. As such it is very clearly an issue about orientation (not one of being homophobic, just disagreeing with it) and not whether civil partnership equate to marriage in any civil sense."

I know I am correct in the legal sense. The case went against them because they only wanted to supply rooms to married couples and, since people in a civil partnership are not married by definition, they denied them the room. That is, they did not recognise civil partnerships as being equivalent to marriages in the regulated service they offered. As this is contrary to the regulations regarding the supply of goods and services, they lost the case because they unduly discriminated against couple. There was a furore at the time in religious circles because the implication of this is that the court considered civil partnerships as legally equivalent to marriages, at least in this area of regulation.

30 January 2012 at 18:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 January 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Youthpasta (13:32) - "I now expect at least 1 post that attempts to make it look like you've addressed all my it's but actually fails to deal with them in any substantive fashion, almost certainly trying to aim at some trifle or barely registering inanity, rather than what my post actually says!"

I rest my case

30 January 2012 at 18:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lakester: ""2b ii. and that the only secular objection to incest is that of eugenics(i.e. that any children would be at increased risk of genetic abnormalities).""

Feck it, I'll throw something out on this too rather than wait around for the second round. As I think about two thirds of marriages are now performed as civil marriages, one might squint a bit and say that these people fall into the secular on marriage. If they do then I think I can just refer to existing concerns about incest and move on provided gay marriage doesn't undermine them.

Is the only objection from these heterosexual people about the possible genetic problems in the offspring of incestuous couples? We could ask I suppose. But I doubt it. Most probably don't even consider it but from the occasional newspaper reports about incest I think they might be concerned over the social relationships there too.

So, the child of a brother by his sister has a father who is also an uncle and a mother who is an aunt. That's probably not the end of the world but it's a bit odd. But what about a father who has a child by his daughter? Things get more odd now as the child has a father who is also his grandfather. The daughter's relationship with her father has changed from primary carer to male role model to sexual partner. She's also lost the arms-length grandfather thing.

To me, things to do with duties and obligations have potentially got rather mixed up there and they're the stuff of morals and ethics. Also, how do we decide whether there is proper consent by the daughter given that fathers usually have a special place in a daughter's life? How do we determine whether sexual abuse has occurred earlier in life with such blurred boundaries?

Given that the claim in the argument is that the only secular objection is the genetic one, I think the argument in (2b) necessarily collapses if my concerns about duties, obligations and so on are recognisable concerns which a social taboo addresses. I think I've probably raised these concerns too in past debates on this.

30 January 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Youthpasta: "I rest my case"

You've misspelt "concede" there, fella. You've been soundly drubbed, even though I say it myself, and I think you know it very well.

30 January 2012 at 18:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Please show me where."

Also, I note that the evidence relating to this is rather obviously missing. You could try past threads, you know. I may have been sloppy somewhere in my thinking/writing.

30 January 2012 at 18:47  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

A homo who lived in Khartoum
Took a lesbian up to his room,
And they argued all night
Over who had the right
To do what, and with which, and to whom.

30 January 2012 at 18:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lordy, reading back through that, the spelling mistakes jump right out. In my defence, I posted much of that squinting on an iPhone. I also messed up one of the relationships. But hey. As you were.

30 January 2012 at 19:12  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

I think this is the heart of your argument:

Equality is about relevantly like being treated alike.

I take it that this could be expressed formally like this:

1. Gay relationships are equal or alike to heterosexual relationships.
2. Therefore they should be treated equally.
3. Therefore they ought to have equal access to marriage.

But this argument has several problems: 1. assumes the point that you need to prove. Whereas 2. commits what you regard as the is/ought fallacy.

I haven't read through the preceding in any detail I must admit. But if this is the heart of your argument (and it keeps coming up, which is why I keep mentioning it), then I don't see that it will do the work that you want it to do.

30 January 2012 at 19:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ah, I really love Newsthump. :)

30 January 2012 at 19:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. You’ve had plenty of time to respond to the Inspector’s post of 30 January 2012 17:59. Can we take it then that YOU are a Gay Agendist. Wouldn’t want to misrepresent you, you know...

30 January 2012 at 20:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

You're assuming I've read it, Inspector. I simply skipped it because it was long, it didn't look interesting at a quick glance, and you were the author. That's the problem with your being a fuckwit these days, I'm afraid. I just assume everything you post is fuckwittery. Sorry.

30 January 2012 at 20:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. You read it alright, out of curiosity. Quit stalling and answer the question.

30 January 2012 at 20:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

30 January 2012 at 20:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Excellent DanJ0. You’ve given the Inspector the answer he was after. He was about to say “hard luck old son, truth will eventually out”. But that would be wrong, wouldn’t it. Did you not let slip your real age on a recent thread ? Late middle age wasn’t it. That would put you in your 60s, for Gods sake. Older than the Inspector, he’s only mid middle age, many years younger than you. And yet, you post like you were in your 30s. Why is this, we ask. Is it really true what they say, if you’re a male gay, you have to be Peter Fucking Pan. “Homosexuality is a young man's game, few want to know an old queer”.

Well, the entire thread is on to you now. Best crawl away and lick your wounds. You do realise they take longer to heal at your age...

30 January 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Did you not let slip your real age on a recent thread ? Late middle age wasn’t it."

Jesus wept. No, you misread or misunderstood it. Here it is, in response to someone talking about the 'significant spiritual pain' of the 'homosexual community':

"To be honest, I think you have the misunderstood bit right if you think we're in significant spiritual pain as a group. It's not a description I recognise, that's for sure. There's a danger of losing 'social capital' as one gets into very late middle-age at the moment but that's not really anything spiritual. I think marriage and changes to social mores will help with that anyway."

I also comment about the problems of gay teenagers along the same theme and I'm not one of those either.

Do you need to seek more attention like an over-tired child or is that it for now? There's something for the smacking thread in that: bored children craving attention such that even negative attention, such as a smack, is seemingly better than none for them.

30 January 2012 at 21:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

One reason I know about the social capital thing is because a neighbour of mine in his early 60s quietly committed suicide a few years ago. I had no idea he was gay myself though some of my other neighbours did. A real gentleman, was how they described him. I didn't know him particularly but I recall him as very polite and rather kind to people. He had no living family at all, I think, and I guess life simply got tedious. There you go, something for you and your special chum to take the piss about later on tonight, followed by a couple of Hail Marys to wipe the slate clean for the day no doubt.

30 January 2012 at 21:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

30 January 2012 at 21:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I'm quite happy for it to be deleted all the way back to, and including, 30 January 2012 20:33 if the language is too much. Other than the story, which has made me rather sad in its recall, it's a fairly squalid and unnecessary tangent.

30 January 2012 at 22:24  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

30 January 2012 at 22:36  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

DanJ0 I feel obliged to apologise on behalf of my fellow Christians whose absence of compassion and, frankly, dignity, is offensive.

Inspector "few want to know an old queer"...

Jesus does.

"A faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners, of whom I am the chief." (1 Tim 1:15)

When you and I stand before the Throne of God, do you imagine for one minute that we will appear more pure in His sight than any other, gay or straight?: "For all have sinned, and do need the glory of God." (Rom 3:23)

We are saved only by God's Grace. How well do you think your conduct witnesses to that truth?

30 January 2012 at 23:53  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Belfast

Let's keep a sense of perspective! Of course its wrong to be offensive. However, that's what tends to happen when faced with the persistent, mind numbing arguments of a particular person pushing the homosexual agenda. Its relentless, relentless, relentless!

And do remember, a 'rational' attempt at the justification sin and outright rejection of Christ in this world, is unlikely to lead to a favourable reception in the next.

So rather than criticise on the sidelines and play the part of 'Holy Joe', why not come in and defend Biblical truths on this subject? What's happened to Christians that so few feel able to condemn such overt sin? Why does the fact that we are all sinners mean Christians, who acknowledge this, must stayn silent whilst this society literally goes to Hell?

In the name of God, speak up - you and others who stay silently by!

31 January 2012 at 00:56  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Dodo

"a 'rational attempt at the justification [of] sin... is unlikely to lead to a favourable reception in the next."

"that's what tends to happen when faced with the persistent, mind numbing arguments..."

---

"Know this, my beloved brothers: let every person be quick to hear, slow to speak, slow to anger; for the anger of man does not produce the righteousness of God." (James 1:19-20)

"Get rid of all bitterness, rage and anger, brawling and slander, along with every form of malice." (Ephesians 4:31)

"As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions." (Romans 14:1)

"For I wrote to you out of much affliction and anguish of heart and with many tears, not to cause you pain but to let you know the abundant love that I have for you." (2 Corinthians 2:4)

"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him." (John 3:17)

And finally:

"Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. On account of these the wrath of God is coming. In these you too once walked, when you were living in them. But now you must put them all away: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and obscene talk from your mouth. Do not lie to one another, seeing that you have put off the old self with its practices ..." (Colossians 3:5-10; my emphasis)

Which sin is the worst here? Or could it be that we are all sinners, equally attainted, and equally in need of God's Grace?

Just to get the ball rolling - I've certainly committed sexual sins, including, by Christ's own definition, adultery. If I recall correctly, that has a punishment of death assigned to it. How then am I justified in condemning the sin of another when I myself have been forgiven?

I would rather tell people that they can also be forgiven.

So you see, Dodo I would not have made the rebuke I did if I didn't believe in the transforming power of Grace. I believe that God has saved you, me, and Inspector. I believe Christ died for all of us, including DanJ0 - even, and indeed especially because he is, like us, a sinner.

None of us can reform ourselves to God's standards. That being the case, we preach Christ, because it is only in Him that our hope is found. How does aggressive and abusive conduct further that Gospel?

31 January 2012 at 02:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "DanJ0 I feel obliged to apologise on behalf of my fellow Christians whose absence of compassion and, frankly, dignity, is offensive."

You know, I was thinking about this and other instances earlier and wondering how it was being received elsewhere. I can't seem to find the right words here but it's ... reassuring to read what you've written, even for a robust, no-prisoners atheist like me.

31 January 2012 at 04:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace.An Apology. The Inspector regrets the offensive language used last night. What you saw was the result of a man brought to rage. One hopes you could bear this in mind as to whether you will forgive him or not...

31 January 2012 at 08:27  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Belfast said ...

"I've certainly committed sexual sins, including, by Christ's own definition, adultery. If I recall correctly, that has a punishment of death assigned to it. How then am I justified in condemning the sin of another when I myself have been forgiven?"

Can you really not see the difference? You don't go around proclaiming that adultery is perfectly acceptable and that our society should reorganise its values to accept this behaviour and institutionalise it. Also, presumably, when you do fail to hit the mark in terms of conduct, and we all do, you regret this and seek forgiveness.

Here we are dealing, in his own words, with "a robust, no-prisoners atheist" who enjoys goading (yes, so do I), and playing the philosopher. He routinely becomes personally obscene and offensive once debates reach the point of conclusion and is quite happy to insult Jesus Christ.

So, as I said, sometimes you just have to name what someone is doing as seriously offensive in God's eyes. This doesn't mean we're claiming sanctity or salvation for ourselves. It is about defending Christian truths and values against the godless and aggressive atheism that is all around.

And I do agree one must resist the temptation to respond with abusive and aggression. That said, we human and there are times when one can't just help oneself!

31 January 2012 at 13:04  
Blogger Jon said...

AiB. Thank you - I've tried to make the same point myself in the past, but it's never stuck unfortunately.

31 January 2012 at 14:45  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - didn't Jesus also say "go away and sin no more"? How many sins have you committed today?

AiB - I would also add Matthew 7:16.

31 January 2012 at 14:49  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Jon asked ...

"How many sins have you committed today?

Too many to mention, but what on earth has that got to do with you? And tomorrow I'll do my best again.

The point is I'm not on here bragging about my failings, flaunting them or trying to have society change its structures to accomodate unacceptable behaviours.

Do you actually accept the concept of sin?

31 January 2012 at 16:48  
Blogger Albert said...

Dodo, Jon & Belfast,

There does seem to be some confusion in all this. It is one thing to refuse to judge a person and quite another to think that there is no truth regarding sin, and that therefore it is wrong to point out the sin:

As for those who persist in sin, rebuke them in the presence of all, so that the rest may stand in fear. 1 Tim.5

I charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus who is to judge the living and the dead, and by his appearing and his kingdom:
[2] preach the word, be urgent in season and out of season, convince, rebuke, and exhort, be unfailing in patience and in teaching.
2 Tim 4

"Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me.
[18] If I say to the wicked, `You shall surely die,' and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, in order to save his life, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand.
[19] But if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, or from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you will have saved your life.
Ez.3.

The key thing about Jesus saying "Go and sin no more", is that Jesus is not just saying "Neither do I condemn you" (so carry on committing adultery, Jesus doesn't really mind).

31 January 2012 at 17:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, you insult the concept of Jesus more than I ever could in words through your behaviour here. I'm sure you know it too but you just don't give rat's ass.

After this, what's next to alleviate your boredom? Are you going to goad the blog owner again, pursue one of the evangelical Christians around the threads, or continue with your sidekick trying to trash every thread I debate on?

31 January 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. The Inspector thanks you for your support back there. Don’t hang around this particular thread too long, old chap, has definite toxic effect on the soul. Must be the subject in discussion…

31 January 2012 at 18:18  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Dodo (and to an extent, Albert) I've not attempted any justification of sin, to my knowledge, and certainly not to my intent.

Romans 12 in its entirety sums up precisely my view of how Christians should respond to sin and evil in the world, and also to those who carry them out.

Far from trying to covertly subborn Christianity to worldly values, Paul gives precisely the means by which Christ's love transforms the world through us:

"Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse them... Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honourable in the sight of all. If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God... To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.” Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good." (Rom 12:14-21 with ommissions for the sake of brevity)

Personally, it was the witness of Christians doing exactly this that led to my acceptance of Christ.

Matthew 7:16 is, as Jon says absolutely relevant here. If you belong to Christ, you will possess the fruits of the Spirit (Gal 5:22-23). That fruit is both the proof of the redemption of our sinful nature and our witness to others. Nobody comes to take fruit from a thorny bush.

Practically, though, the Inspector is right (18:18). If this thread, and more generally this continuing debate, is having a "toxic effect on the soul" - we're better off shaking the dust from our feet than letting ourselves be overcome, bogged-down, despondent, and attainted by evil. And if we do want to challenge sin, in ourselves and others, then we need to do so by meeting it with the love that redeemed and drew us to God in the first place.

31 January 2012 at 19:42  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Inspector
You're very welcome and I do understand how you 'fell from Grace'. Some people just push and push.

Belfast
I do take your points but do bare in mind there are some on here who deliberately seek to trip others up for no other reason than to score points and to discredit Christianity. Indeed, there's an example @18:07.

Albert
Wise words - particularly the Ezekiel reference.

31 January 2012 at 19:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Belfast. Your words digested. You are a good man. It’s cold here, away from our creator...

31 January 2012 at 20:07  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I'm really not, but that's why I'm a Christian.

It is indeed cold away from God.

31 January 2012 at 20:21  
Blogger Albert said...

Belfast,

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to say that you were justifying sin. Rather that it came across as a little unbalanced. We can only appreciate the immense mercy of God, if we first recognise the justice of the punishment his mercy spares us. The greatness of his forgiveness is only grasped against a recognition of sin. It is because we were still sinners, that Christ proves his love for us by dying for us - for someone might just dare to die for a righteous man.

31 January 2012 at 20:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You're very welcome and I do understand how you 'fell from Grace'. Some people just push and push."

You insisted I must not direct comments at you, to which I happily agreed and complied, and you said you would ignore me. Setting aside your subsequent goad which was deleted, you were at it again only a day later. Much to the amusement of your sidekick there, I might add. Yes, some people just push and push. So, leave out the faux-pious crap here huh. I expect you have as much of a relationship with Jesus as I have: none.

31 January 2012 at 22:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Next time he’s in church, the Inspector will light a candle for you, in the hope that you too will see the light....

31 January 2012 at 22:55  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Inspector
Light two candles - three even.

DanJ0
"Go away ...
After your outrageous remark on another thread I've decided to ignore you, so please don't address any further comments my way."

(28 January 2012 16:43)

31 January 2012 at 23:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Some people just push and push."

And you contine to do so. That is the history of this thread. The initial attempt to cause trouble and its followups by your sidekick at the start. Your silly double act in the middle, trying to disrupt the ongoing debate. The usual attempts to support your fellow Catholics by snide comment. Your sidekick repeatedly insisting I read his trouble-making when he couldn't get the attention he wanted. The almost nauseating faux-contrition with a side-swipe in every iteration. Tell me, What Would Jesus Do huh? Not this for sure and you damned well know it but you don't give a rat's ass. And that's the real, core insult to Christianity: you do it in Jesus's name.

1 February 2012 at 06:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I see you're back to hassling and insulting one of your 'fellow' Christians on another thread again too. That'll be the answer to my question about your next boredom-alleviating disruption then, Dodo. Round and around it goes.

1 February 2012 at 06:13  
Blogger len said...

Dodo, seems to get some sort of 'kick'out of verbally abusing people I think this is a mark of a true 'troll.'
Dodo does this under the guise of 'being religious'.
Which I find insulting to ALL true Christians Catholic or otherwise!.

I imagine him to be the one who caused playground fights then hid behind the bigger boys goading them on.

1 February 2012 at 07:42  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Chief Priest len

So now you have determined (infallibly?) I am not a true Christian but pretending. On whose authority, I might ask, do you make these judgements?

1 February 2012 at 13:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Your behaviour, I should imagine. It's outrageous for someone who professes to be in some sort of spiritual communion with the Holy Spirit. The evidence at best says Cultural Christian ... but it's more likely just Forum Troll.

1 February 2012 at 13:39  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Message Posted:

"Go away ...
After your outrageous remark on another thread I've decided to ignore you, so please don't address any further comments my way."
(28 January 2012 16:43)

1 February 2012 at 16:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, you've demanded this a little over a month ago and then almost immediately bracketed one of my post with one of your goads. You demanded this a couple of days ago as you show then shortly after posted another goad to me and the blog owner (which was almost immediately deleted for you), and a day later decided you were not going to ignore me afterall. You're in control of your own actions, not me. Or rather, you ought to be. When it is clear you're actually able to ignore me, you'll find I am quite happy to post around you as I do with one or two others I find vexatious or creepy. Until then, you can expect your unchristian mischief shoved right back down your throat if it is directly or indirectly about me, followed by a swift metaphorical kick to your knackers.

1 February 2012 at 17:26  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

"What a fool art thou, a rampaging fool, to brag and stamp and swear."

1 February 2012 at 18:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Still at it, I see. What Would Jesus Do?

1 February 2012 at 18:11  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. You’ve had a bit of a shock to the system by the look of it. Fancy that, coming across two Christians with teeth. Of course, that’s your real gripe isn’t it. You see, for far too long the image of Christianity in this country has been that of elderly tea drinking, cardigan wearing ladies who forgive the thugs in this country (…be they physical or intellectual…) at the drop of a hat, without even being asked for forgiveness.

Got used to that, haven’t you. All ‘liberals’ have got used to it over the last forty years. It’s why we have abortion, family breakdown, single parenthood, massively increased crime, drugs, binge drinking, LGBTQs who think they can go around and display their sexual outrages and foist them on the rest of us. These and more are the fruits of ‘liberalism’. Well you’ll get no thanks from the Inspector for what’s been done in your name.

And you say we hunt in packs. That’s a good assessment. You see, as men of conviction, it’s somewhat easy to fall in line and shout with one voice. And how do you oppose us ? With devastating intellectual rationale ? If only… No, you pick up dirt and throw it at every opportunity. You whine people are getting at you. Indeed, you appear to enjoy calling your opponents childish - we wonder why that is ? Perhaps it’s only natural coming from the over-indulged adolescent-like self serving all-for-me hedonist you are.

To top it all, YOU, a non believer and mocker of Christianity have the nerve to tell US what Christ would think. Well, let the Inspector tell you this. Jesus didn’t ask the money lenders to leave the temple, He threw them out. And if you were to meet Him today walking the street, He’d throw you out of the way as well…

Be seeing you…

1 February 2012 at 19:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Two Christians with teeth? Is that how you'd like to be seen? Listen up, all I see is two self-indulgent, faux-religious berks marauding around as a tag team trying to trash a forum. You're spiritually void and socially inadequate, and no amount of bluster is hiding it. That's the reason for the rage. Men of conviction? Lol. I think you need to convince yourselves first. It certainly isn't making the trip over here. Start by asking What Would Jesus Do here? I'm pretty certain I know what he would not be doing. Even a couple of berks like you know that but you don't give a rat's ass anyway. Highly indicative, I'd say.

1 February 2012 at 22:18  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

"It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

1 February 2012 at 22:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. What a rather sad reply. Have you abandoned all pretence of maturity ? As for ‘trashing the forum’ YOU listen up. The Archbishop is a right wing Christian. The Inspector the same. You are anything but. Why do you live here ? Surely ‘Secular Cafe’ is more your home, or do you have a ‘Gay Agenda’ you wish to float here. Sensible answers welcome...

WV = 'bawlin'. And that's God's truth.

1 February 2012 at 22:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

*whispers* WWJD?

Right, I reckon I've done all I need to here. Now let's see who's the first to demand attention from the other on future threads.

1 February 2012 at 23:07  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Why are you guys still responding to Dan? I stopped and gave up after I saw he was never going tone able to answer any questions that I asked properly. All he's doing now is trolling for his own amusement, don't give him the satisfaction.

2 February 2012 at 00:15  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

"Foul spoken coward, that thund'rest with thy tongue, and with thy weapon nothing dares perform."

2 February 2012 at 00:29  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Youthpasta

I'm not responding to said blogger, just posting the odd quote from the Bard.

Inspector

Wise words. Don't allow your passions to get the better of you for this knave. He's attempting to discredit you. To my mind he showed his true colours when he insulted Christ's passion.

Ignore him.

2 February 2012 at 00:34  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

There's a good reason why the New Testament spends so long exhorting Christians to be patient and kind to one another: it's because they weren't.

Christians are like that - we come to Christ as sinners, and we possess the same sinful nature as everyone else. Look at the two men on whom the Church is founded: one was famously prone to fits of anger, even to the point of causing grevious bodily harm (John 18:10), and the other had a pretty damning track record when it came to watching people getting stoned to death (Acts 8:1).

There's an even longer pedigree of some pretty shitty human beings being called by God to lead His people, running all the way back through the Bible.

We aren't Christians because we're Christlike, we're Christians because we need to become Christlike. And, by His Grace, we are gradually moving towards the perfection that awaits us, not as a reward for what we have done, but as a freely given gift to those who fundamentally do not deserve it.

So it seems to me, that it is very difficult to know exactly "What Jesus Would Do", without accepting what Jesus did.

For most of us, the transformation of our hearts is, quite literally nothing short of miraculous. "For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of talk but of power" (1 Corinthians 4:20). Without Christ, in Christians "you will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy" (to quote a slightly less divine source). With the Salvation He gives, well, you find the Church, a collection of very imperfect people called to everlasting perfection.

Titus 3:3-11.

2 February 2012 at 01:40  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

@Albert
:

If it came across as unbalanced there is no need to apologise, and I thank you for your clarification.

2 February 2012 at 01:41  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Belfast

Wise words,thank you. It's tough being human!

2 February 2012 at 01:42  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,Even tougher being a Christian!.

Try it sometime!.

2 February 2012 at 08:10  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Chief Priest len

One either is or is not.

Funny how you repeatedly align yourself with those aggressively opposed to Christ yet condemn Nicodemus, a prominent member of the Sanhedrin who publically showed his love for Jesus by helping take Him down from the Cross and bury Him.

Why is that?

2 February 2012 at 08:41  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,

Do you get every thing wrong unintentionally or is this a deliberate character trait?.

3 February 2012 at 21:42  
Blogger Dodo the "Poly-Nominal" Dude said...

Chef Priest

So what are you referring to now? Your alliance with those promoting homosexuality or your condemnation of Nicodemus?

You really must be clearer. I know it can be difficult but do try, there's agood chap.

4 February 2012 at 01:00  
Blogger len said...

Homosexuality seem to be a' pet subject' with you Dodo.?

Why?.

Poor old Nicodemus knew no better than his religion...until he met Christ.
Religion changed no one but one meeting with Christ and you will remain changed forever...born again.

5 February 2012 at 11:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Chief Priest len

So changeable!

So now Nicodemus was "saved"? In an earlier thread you were so authoritative about consigning him to hell!

As for homosexuality, I'm surprised you need ask why I am so opposed to it. It is the very antithesis of God's revealed plan for human society and contradicts natural law.

But then you don't do proper biblical reading or use reason, do you?

5 February 2012 at 16:27  
Blogger len said...

Dodo you musn`t keep jumping to conclusions, its getting so boring.There are certain 'key words' that really' push your buttons.'

What was Jesus`s reply to Nicodemus.

Give you a clue (John 3:3)

6 February 2012 at 00:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

Yes, yes, we know!

So still non-committal, as ever? First you judge him and then you don't, then you do again.

6 February 2012 at 15:15  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older