Tuesday, February 21, 2012

The hounding of David Burrowes

David Burrowes is a Conservative MP, a Christian, and parliamentary chairman of the Conservative Christian Fellowship. He happens to believe precisely what the vast majority of Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs (and, indeed, people of no faith) believe about marriage. He has said: “My views are that the values of marriage should be between a man and a woman and that is something which is set out in statute hundreds of times – if you change the shape of marriage then you change its purpose and risk changing the meaning of it. I don’t in any way challenge the fact that people will want to change the law and it’s important that this is a debate that is done with respect and we respect people’s views.”

He has also suggested that David Cameron’s support of ‘gay marriage’ is part of his decontamination strategy to show that Conservatives are a ‘modern party’ – socially liberal, ‘with it’ and cool. There are, Mr Burrowes avers, many other ways to demonstrate the demise of ‘the nasty party’ without the Orwellian redefinition of the foundation of civilisation.

In the midst of economic hardship, concerns over health and education reforms, the focus on government cuts, impending drought, the terrorist threat, and the meltdown of the euro, David Burrowes said last month that ‘gay marriage’ was not something ‘people are hammering us on the doorstep to do something about’.

Enter Phillip Dawson, treasurer of Mr Burrowes’ local Conservative association, who has decided to set up a Facebook group demanding that Mr Burrowes ‘listen to the views of his constituents’ on this matter. Mr Dawson is homosexual, and a proponent of marriage equality. He says of himself that he is ‘intolerant of inequality, unfairness and homophobia’. At the time of writing, his Facebook page has c250 members, and his Twitter account has 212 followers, so perhaps c250 homosexuals in a constituency of 86,201 (Census 2001) where, statistically (we are constantly told), there are supposed to be c8,600 homosexual and lesbian residents are now ‘hammering’ their MP on the cyber doorstep over 'gay marriage'.

But membership of this Facebook group is not contingent on being domiciled in Enfield Southgate, so the number of Mr Burrowes’ constituents who are actually ‘hammering’ for equality will be considerably less than 250. At the last general election, UKIP scored 505 votes, the Greens 632, the English Democrats 173 and Independents 391. When it comes to being obliged to ‘listen to the views of his constituents’, there are groups with far stronger cases than Mr Dawson’s ‘gay marriage’ gathering.

As a consequence of the publicity surrounding the mere articulation of his beliefs, Mr Burrowes has received insults and low-level harassment by letter, email and phone. He is coming under pressure to disassociate himself from the ‘hard’ expressions of his faith, and a certain ‘far-right’ Christian charity (ie one which is orthodox and opposes ‘gay marriage’). Gay rights charity Stonewall are very much on his case, publicising his ‘poor record’ on homosexual equality, and urging their supporters to continue writing and emailing to condemn his appalling voting record.

Mr Burrowes has also received a death threat. He is not alone, of course: the Archbishop of York has also received racist death threats following his comment that he believes marriage to be between one man and one woman.

Thus is the intolerance of those who demand toleration. Phillip Dawson protests in the name of tolerance but manifests a malignant intolerance of anyone who opposes his view. As JS Mill observed: ‘Yet so natural to mankind is intolerance in whatever they really care about, that religious freedom has hardly anywhere been practically realised...’.

While Mr Dawson has vehemently denied that he is attempting to deselect David Burrowes as his constituency MP, he is certainly doing everything in his power to undermine him, if not to bring his Party into disrepute, not least because David Cameron is likely to make ‘gay marriage’ a matter of conscience and so a free vote. Mr Dawson is content for his MP to abstain on the issue, but to lead any kind of revolt against the planned legislation is, he avers, ‘unacceptable’. Rather provocatively, Mr Dawson enjoys the backing of Stephen Twigg, the homosexual Labour MP who formerly represented this constituency.

It would matter far less if Phillip Dawson were an ordinary Conservative Party member in Enfield Southgate, but he is an association officer of the local Conservative Association. He manifests his unfitness for office by choosing to lead a revolt in the media and side with political opponents against an honorable Conservative MP on a matter of conscience. Mr Dawson's partner is Cllr Henry Lamprecht - David Burrowes' Constituency Agent and Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group on Enfield Council. This must present Mr Lamprecht with certain - how shall we say - 'tensions' in allegiance.

But this is not a matter of 'persecution': David Burrowes would not call it such, and when one considers what many Christians endure the world over, it is wholly inappropriate to equate such low-level political harassment with the sort of systematic bullying and torture found in the most despotic and repugnant regimes of the world. But Mr Burrowes is being threatened, bullied and reviled...
Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savour, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men.
Ye are the light of the world. A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid.
Neither do men light a candle, and put it under a bushel, but on a candlestick; and it giveth light unto all that are in the house.
Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven.
Do not attack Phillip Dawson on this matter; instead, pray for him. And pray also for David Burrowes, and thank God that he is being salt and light in Parliament and dares to risk unpopularity, inconvenience and harassment for his good works. His reward will indeed be great.

149 Comments:

Blogger bradypus said...

It is interesting how the so called liberals hound people who don't believe as they do where as Peter Tatchell can say "The price of freedom of speech is that we sometimes have to put up with opinions that are objectionable and offensive. Just as people should have the right to criticise religion, people of faith should have the right to criticise homosexuality.”

21 February 2012 at 08:31  
Anonymous Kafka said...

As often the case, the role of an MP is totally misunderstood. They are representatives, not delegates. Once elected, they are free to vote as they choose, notwithstanding any voluntary submission to the Whip.

21 February 2012 at 08:42  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

NO
We "liberals" - actually I'm a conservative in politics, but I really don't care what (other) people do in bedrooms - it is none of my business, and it is none of yours, either.
This MP sounds like a really creepy evangelical to me,,,, euuuw.

21 February 2012 at 08:42  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"NO
We "liberals" - actually I'm a conservative in politics (but illiterate in articulation?), but I really don't care what (other) people do in bedrooms - it is none of my business, and it is none of yours, either.
This MP sounds like a really creepy evangelical to me,,,, euuuw.(You sound like a ghoulish nutjob whose only chant is NO,LIARS etc, to Ernst and others on a continuous basis and with monotonous, dire regularity, who is most definitely in dire need of a purpose in life, that enriches others. Do try fella, if not for us here, then do it for yourself.)"

Dear Tingey

Like an uninvited guest at a house warming, you really have the nerve to bring nothing to the party, do you not? Not even a bag of stale wotsits.

Ernst

21 February 2012 at 09:16  
Blogger Albert said...

Excellent quote from Mill. It does look as if some people spend all their time looking for freedoms to suppress. The most important freedom for them to suppress is freedom of speech. It's hard (though not impossible) to do this legally. So they resort to intimidation. But when freedom of speech is suppressed (by whatever manner), it is not just freedom of expression, but freedom of thought that is suppressed. How is that good for anyone? It's so short-sighted.

21 February 2012 at 09:40  
Blogger Roy said...

So Phillip Dawson wants the MP to listen to the views of his constituents - as long as they are typical Guardian readers, presumably.

Dawson sounds just the sort of person David Cameron and the Conservative Party Central Office would chose to be a candidate for a safe Conservative seat so it would not surprise me in the least if he does stand in the next general election. I hope by that time there will be a nationwide reaction against the intolerance and the treachery of the new left, or newish left since it is no longer all that new.

21 February 2012 at 09:41  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

YG, good comments, which I fully support. I'm surprised that Mr Dawson is a Conservative. But then I suppose I shouldn't be, since the actual party no longer has anything to do with conservatism; and Mr Dawson, therefore, exemplifies the new Conservative party. I resigned last year from party membership, writing a letter to explain my decision. I have heard nothing from the party; so, I conclude they think they can afford to lose members, probably because it's not me they want in their gang. So, it must be the likes of Mr Dawson.
I hope Mr Burrowes can keep his nerve in the face of all the opprobrium that is being thrown at him. As you suggest, we should pray for him.

21 February 2012 at 09:54  
Anonymous Stewart Green said...

Couple of points:

1) David was elected in 2005. Twigg beat Portillo in 1997.
2) There are just under 65,000 people on the electoral role in Enfield Southgate

21 February 2012 at 10:37  
Anonymous MattNotts said...

Thank you, your Grace, for another sensible and measured comment... However, I believe you mean to say that Stephen Twigg is the Labour MP who ousted Michael Portillo in 1997 (you were still up for that I'm sure), and who was ousted by David Burrowes in 2005.

21 February 2012 at 10:45  
Anonymous SouthgateTory said...

YG, you miss one important link out = Mr Dawson's partner is Cllr Henry Lamprecht - David Burrowes' Constituency Agent and Deputy Leader of the Conservative Group on Enfield Council! Why not ask Henry who he agrees with - his partner or boss?

21 February 2012 at 10:55  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Most people are in favour of gay marriage actually.

21 February 2012 at 11:06  
Anonymous Josh VB said...

Good for David Burrowes. I'm glad I was able to vote for him at the last election.

21 February 2012 at 11:10  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
So typical of society and politics today. David Burrowes seems like a good old fashioned Conservative in the best sense. It’s a pity that there are not more like him. Certainly we should pray for him and all Christians in Parliament.
Also we should pray for those that despise us. When we do, we should be aware that we are likely to be persecuted for doing so. I bring before you the case of Lesley Pilkington. As a Christian Psychotherapist, she is fighting suspension from practising Psychotherapy because she used Psychotherapy and prayer as Christian counselling for Homosexuals to be healed.
Lesley says Christians must speak up for their faith and challenge the militant secularists and aggressive atheists. Her case was broadcast on Channel 4’s 4thought.

21 February 2012 at 11:11  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Roy said @09:41, I hope by that time there will be a nationwide reaction against the intolerance and the treachery of the new left, or newish left since it is no longer all that new.

Whatch This Space!

21 February 2012 at 11:23  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Stewart Green,

His Grace thanks you for the correction, which he has incorporated. He will not, however, limit demographics to the 65,000 on the electoral register, since the age of consent for homosexual sex is now 16 while the voting age remains 18.

Mr Southgate Tory,

His Grace thanks you for that interesting fact, which he has incorporated.

21 February 2012 at 11:36  
Anonymous Jack. said...

Thank God for David Burrowes. When will the P.M and the rest of the weak politicians of all parties, recognise the difference between tolerance and condoning, even legalising sinful acts to the detriment of all of us? David Cameron claims to be a Christian, but hasn't the B***'s to stand up for what he says he believes. The constant screeching whining from many of the "gay" community about their right to force their lifestyle on the rest of us and make us accept it, as normal is wearing very thin.
My advice? forget about gay marriage and gay pride marches, get on with, and enjoy life, quietly like the rest of us. Jack.

21 February 2012 at 12:08  
Blogger Owl said...

Anonymous 11.06

"Most people are in favour of gay marriage actually"

Do you mean most people who happen to belong to Stonewall?

If not, then I suggest you check with your doctor. These feelings of grandisement can be treated.

21 February 2012 at 13:01  
Blogger MrTinkles said...

Ernst..spot on...but perhaps we shouldn't feed the troll. Oh well, let us do so...
G Tingey, once again you miss the point, probably because you cannot actually argue it. This is not about what people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Although of course you, or at least most people DO care about that. Try taking a 12 year old (or a sheep) to your bed and see if anyone cares! And no, of course I'm not comparing consenting gay couples with paedophiles and zoophiles; I'm just challenging your underlying assumption.
But to return to the point, this is yet another example of the strange and sinister view that a number of groups and individuals have over the ideas of free speech (and freedom generally). It seems that you want freedom to do as you want but become all mouth-frothing if anyone should mention that they disagree with you. Mr Burrowes himself would seem to want a "debate that is done with respect" - he won't get one!
One strange aspect of this is that it looks as if Mr Dawson would rather have a dishonest MP than an honest one - you would have thought he would be pleased that this had come out. Would he really rather his own MP pretended to be in favour of gay marriage? After all, as this is such a burning issue in Enfield, he will surely be ousted at the next election.
But of course he won't (at least not for that reason). "Anonymous" notes that the majority of people support gay marriage - well yes, sort of. Firstly, it depends on how you ask the question and you can easily get answers from anything around 40% to 60% in favour. But putting that aside, guess what sort of answer you get if you poll the importance of the issue. But even if this was the burning issue of the day and even if 99% of the population supported it and even if hoards of people were throwing themselves in front of the Queen's horses at Ascot...even then, wouldn't it be nice if we could just have a grown-up debate rather than the disenting voice being "threatened, bullied and reviled..."

21 February 2012 at 13:10  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Well whaddaya know. G Tingey actually made a point that requires a response. OK. It was an accident. It was just a throw-away line intended to establish his thoroughly modern outlook. But still. It's an improvement.

I really don't care what (other) people do in bedrooms - it is none of my business, and it is none of yours, either.

Yes, this is the modern outlook. Sex is a purely private matter and so there exists no grounds for public regulation of said private behavior. The problem of course is that sex is a private behavior with profoundly public consequences. It is after all at the center of both procreation and marriage. The current privatized arrangement has maximized the opportunity for sexual freedom at the cost of undermining the institution responsible for producing and raising up the next generation. If nothing else, self-interest should assert itself because stable families are required to civilize children, and stable families are built upon public regulation of sex. Limited government assumes a certain degree of virtue in the population. To the extent you lose the ability to civilize the next generation, you undermine representative government.

To what may this generation be likened? Grandfather worked hard and filled the family coffers. He provided ease and comfort to his family. Dad rather preferred ease and comfort to working, and so decided that life was about the experience. He lived large and spread his seed on a wide furrow. Now he is dying of syphilis and his children of many women (both legitimate and illegitimate) huddle around his bed. They wait for the inheritance so they may follow their father's footsteps. They will son discover that he has left them nothing but debts and a heavily mortgaged house. Dad will die in the nick of time - one step ahead of his creditors.

But what of his children? They are too ignorant to learn. They are too indolent to work. They are too entitled to humble themselves. What will they do?

carl

21 February 2012 at 13:29  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

MrTinkles said...

"Ernst..spot on...but perhaps we shouldn't feed the troll. Oh well, let us do so..."

Ernst is of the opinion that the good news here is that His Grace used the encryption method below (oh me eyes, me eyes) to see if G Tingey (Is that his real name as his spelling is atrocious and the poor chap believes he is spelling his own moniker correctly) was really only a robot.

The bad news..Strewth, he's a human being after all (barely, probably) but with serious proviso's! .

Ernst loved this "The MrTinkles identity comes from one of my other passions...gaming. MrTinkles is the name I often use in on-line games. I always thought it would really annoy people when they were fragged by someone named after a white fluffy cat!"... or an eccentric old man, stroking a white fluffy cat! (really annoy people) It does lad, IT DOES!!!*Huge Titters*

Always nice to hear from you.

Ernsty

Ernst

21 February 2012 at 13:38  
Anonymous MrsPecksniff said...

So, saying Burrowes is 'persecuted' is over egging it but claiming he is 'bullied and reviled'is just God's honest truth. Hmm, is that so? Burrowes has a view, which some of his constituents are seeking to change. None of them are as important as he, though embarrassingly one is his agent. No one is trying to silence him as far as I can see - the argument is about how many of his constituents might support gay mariage. Burrowes thinks, like you Archbish, that there aren't so many, so their views can be safely dismissed; his opponents are trying to say otherwise. He says he's got a death threat, well, not so very unusual for MPs, I tempted to say, what, only one?. This is absolutely nothing to some of the shenanigans that go on in constituencies over MPs' voting on the EU, immigration, and crime: what is unusual is that Burrowes seems to feel so very sorry for himself, an attitude which increasingly characterises political Christians and doesn't exactly add to their attractiveness.

21 February 2012 at 14:04  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

If nothing else, self-interest should assert itself because stable families are required to civilize children, and stable families are built upon public regulation of sex.

Dear CJ, I take it that you are not married then. For a married man knows that it is most usually the woman's needs, and/or the mans talents which regulates sex within a committed relationship, not public anything, least of all the state.

This is a true today as it has ever been, whether our utterly destructive establishment wishes it to remain the case or not; and I do not predict this situation changing at anytime in the future.

Of course the establishments state would very much like to set up regulate to their advantage every human activity, including breathing, eating, walking, talking and masturbating, so far they have been frustrated, and are set to remain so.

Established religion used to be the method by which the establishment sort to regulate sexual activity, however history teaches us that it never worked well, in in some cases was clearly counter-productive as I have alluded to on a previous thread.

21 February 2012 at 15:09  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace.
Am I a twat or what? Why does the LGBT groups want marriage? Are they so spiritually minded that they can't bear to yoked other than in a church in the presence of God? God forbid. It is clear that there are at least one hundred Clergymen and one Bishop who would be willing to undertake such ceremonies. But the vast majority of religious venues would strongly oppose it. It can fairly be assumed that they want this change in the law, not for the sake of equality, but to attack the institution of marriage itself. If they truly wanted equality, a male would marry a female and vice versa. That would make them equal with the rest of society. I can’t get my head around what the difference is between a Civil Ceremony and a Civil Marriage which is what most would plump for I suspect.

21 February 2012 at 15:13  
Anonymous MrsPecksniff said...

'It can fairly be assumed that they want this change in the law, not for the sake of equality, but to attack the institution of marriage itself..

Nope. Christian opponents like to say that but it doesn't look fair to me, in fact it looks paranoid. I've met quite a few deeply religious LGBT people in my life - haven't you?

21 February 2012 at 15:25  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

MrsPecksniff.I've met quite a few deeply religious LGBT people in my life - haven't you?
No I have not. I have heard about 'Religious' gays but I am confident that will be no Born Again, full of the Spirit Christians. They would surely turn from their sin if they were.

21 February 2012 at 15:59  
Anonymous MrsPecksniff said...

Then maybe you should hold back on the confidence until you have got out a bit more. Going back to the fairness point, do you have any evidence to back up your claim that the ultimate aim of the campaign for gay mariage is to attack the institution of mariage because it sounds ludicrously self centred and self regarding to me. This isn't always just about you, you know.

21 February 2012 at 16:37  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Planned Parenthood in Wisconsin deviously attempted to discredit Paul’s Pantry, part of the St. Vincent de Paul Society and the biggest food pantry in Wisconsin. They offered to donate food but because of caller ID, the receptionist knew it was Planned Parenthood making the call and the offer was declined preferring not to give a propaganda scoop to abortionists. Soon after, they stated getting hate mail.

If PP had really wanted to help the poor they could have driven down and dropped the food off anonymously. Instead on their Facebook page they said that Paul's Pantry had refused their donation and "This level of extremism impeding individual access to essential health care service [i.e. killing babies] and now food is outrageous and must be stopped". Nasty despicable organization but manipulation of the airwaves is making us probably the most indoctrinated in history.

21 February 2012 at 16:39  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace, thank you for a characteristically excellent article on what is, superficially, a dull topic!

So I say it is only right to do as you suggest, and pray for Mr. Burrowes- that his strength of character be rewarded and supported as he works to face the enemy in our home field.

And enemy it is... for what conflict of interest can 'underpin' the machinations of someone called "Lamprecht"? Whether he springs from a Maastricht branch of that Prussian family name, or from a Norman one, he represents those building molehills in British soil: for foreigners. He is simply reinforcing the power they have already gained-- by turning homosexuality to the deconstruction of British culture.

And, as ever (the Normans were good at this), the useful idiots Lamprecht subjugates employ argument so as to keep us busy fighting each other... instead of fighting them and their masters in what is now the euSSR.

btw- if Your Grace's photo is up to date, Dawson is nobbut a bairn. If so, he's a naive idiot, to boot, who should have no control of anybody's pursestrings. But... 'tis obviously 'a tangled web.' What a pity that, this time, we can't just "close the theatres."

21 February 2012 at 17:03  
Blogger Oswin said...

As my old Gaffer used to say: ''it ain't WHAT you know, but WHO you know!''

The trouble these days, is that the 'WHO' could be any old bugger; and frequently is ... :o(

My real objection? Well, the seeming death-grip that homosexuals appear to have on politics, the media and local government; to say nothing of the arts!

There must be homosexual plumbers; whose ONLY thought is that of all plumbers, to extract as much money as is humanly possible? Ok, a bad analogy, but I've had water dripping through a bedroom ceiling today; and I'm now much lighter in the pocket. :o(

21 February 2012 at 17:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article: "Phillip Dawson protests in the name of tolerance but manifests a malignant intolerance of anyone who opposes his view."

What exactly has Dawson done other that use social media to highlight a cause he feels strongly about? When all the hyperbole in the article has been stripped out, I'm struggle to see anything else. Is there more?

21 February 2012 at 17:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Mr Integrity: "I can’t get my head around what the difference is between a Civil Ceremony and a Civil Marriage which is what most would plump for I suspect."

One difference is that you and your partner have trouble taking a room with a double bed in it if the hotel is run by certain Christians.

21 February 2012 at 18:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Do not attack Phillip Dawson on this matter; instead, pray for him

You are far too kind and generous of nature to these types. You see, they are only where they are today by shouting loudly and continually, tiny number that they are. Once the silent majority shouts back, they soon scamper off to their gay clubs, albeit to get posting to tell anyone who isn’t bored with them how homophobic our tolerant society is.

Dawson, you are the hound concerned. You are an absolute disgrace pressing your deviant line like this. Have you no shame Sir !

The Inspector commiserates with you on your unfortunate preference for the same sex, but you are quite categorically NOT entitled to consider you and your man friend marriage material. It would be an abomination not just before God either. Before all right thinking men and women too. And what about the children. Too young to appreciate your condition, they’ll be confused and frightened will they not ! But then again, homosexuals don’t seem to care about children or future generations. They are here and now people, or is the Inspector wrong.

Abandon this foolishness now, for all our sakes. What !

21 February 2012 at 18:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Mr Integrity: "It can fairly be assumed that they want this change in the law, not for the sake of equality, but to attack the institution of marriage itself."

I'm a little confused, what would be gained by that?

21 February 2012 at 18:10  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Integrity. You ask why marriage is so important to LGBT. It is actually ESSENTIAL if their Gay Agenda is to be followed through. The Inspector asked the same question some time ago. Rather than go through his findings in detail for you, you’ll have your answers met by googling ‘Gay Agenda’. Recommend you start with ‘Conservawiki’, lest you blunder onto one of the gay sites instead.

If you think throwing them marriage, even if it were morally and religiously possible, would shut them up, you would be very much mistaken. It would be like throwing petrol on their flame. Marriage for them means TRUE equality, and it’s the launching stage whereby LGBT are elevated into the prime and leading members of society ! It cannot happen until marriage is theirs. You think the Inspector jests ? He most certainly does not…

21 February 2012 at 18:14  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Atlas shrugged

Dear CJ, I take it that you are not married then.

I have been married for 28 years come June.

For a married man knows that it is most usually the woman's needs, and/or the mans talents which regulates sex within a committed relationship, not public anything, least of all the state

How shall I put this delicately? I wasn't referring to the questions of "doing what" and "how often." I was referring to the questions of "With whom" and "In what context." Marriage is intended to act as the public regulator of sexual behavior. It is supposed to represent public permission to go forth, have sex, and produce children. The relationship binds a man to his children, and provides a stable relationship in which they may be raised. It is supposed to be permanent so the parties can't willfully choose to deny their prior commitments for reason of self-interest. In other words, it surrounded sex with a whole bunch of imposed obligations. It should not surprize to understand that removing these obligations from sex was the principle objective of the sexual revolution.

The new rules of sexual freedom deliver exactly what they were intended to deliver. Sex without obligation. Late marriages. No marriages. Transient unstable relationships. Divorce. Illegitimacy. Fatherless children. Disease. Abortion. Falling birthrates. The devaluation of older women. The increased valuation of older men. All in the name of autonomy. And in the midst of this sexual chaos exist those few children who happen to be born. Who is raising them? How are they being socialized? Upon them rests the burden of the future. Are they capable of carrying it? Good question.

Understand the state knows very well the connection between state power and population. So either one of two things will happen. 1) The state will take active measures to restore sexual discipline. 2) The state will fail because of its inability to compete with more fecund nations. If the second, then they will come and take both the land, and the women, and throw the men into the outer darkness. I would bet on (1) but I wouldn't look forward to living under the government that enforces those rules. We have already lived through "Blut und Boden" once.

carl

21 February 2012 at 18:27  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry Owl not quite a majority http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/2011-10-04/YG-Archives-YouGov-SameSexmarriage-041011.pdf but it is one once you remove don't knows and factor in the tendency to vote for the middle option.

21 February 2012 at 19:10  
Blogger Albert said...

An excellent post Carl, showing just how naive people are who think this "progress" will just go on and on without any change of direction.

What we need is to restore our culture - it is culture that guides our actions without imposing legislation. But secularism cannot create such cultures - it is designed to bring them down. To have a culture, you first need a cult (in the proper sense of the word).

Anyway, I'm giving up blogging for Lent! So for all my Christian brethren: may God bless you with a holy Lent. For secularists and Islamists: may God confound your attempts to undermine our freedom in this English house.

21 February 2012 at 19:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article: "He has also suggested that David Cameron’s support of ‘gay marriage’ is part of his decontamination strategy to show that Conservatives are a ‘modern party’ – socially liberal, ‘with it’ and cool."

I think most of us have thought something similar. I wouldn't have said it's to be cool though, I think it's more cynical: I think Cameron wants to have a stack of progressive things to throw back at New Labour across the chamber in the years to come. Lots of people still think the Tory Party is filled with the likes of Norman Tebbit and the disability benefits changes only reinforce that view.

21 February 2012 at 19:31  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Oswin said @21 February 2012 17:36...

Ernst knows nobody else who can strike or tickle Ernst's funny bone with such scary but hilarious regularity, that he seriously has to hold his ribs. A Humour Soulmate, my boy.

ps

Your father wasn't in Newcastle around June 1949 was he? *Chuckling away*

Not for nothing has Ernst declared you 'The Northumbrian Master of Mirth', INDEED.

Always a joy.

Ernst

21 February 2012 at 19:36  
Blogger Oswin said...

Ernst: I am honoured Sir, thank you. As to my father, he was everywhere, but often returned via 'Central Station' - could it you who waylaid my inheritance?!?!?!? ;o)

21 February 2012 at 19:54  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

MrsPecksniff & DanJo; The answer to your points are met by The Inspector @18:14. Also see the Stonewall agenda of I think 1987 for the destruction of the family.

21 February 2012 at 20:52  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 February 2012 at 20:52  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Inspector @18:14
Thank you for taking the time to comment on my post. It was somewhat rhetorical. However you are of course absolutely right. It is their avowed and published intention to supplant the family as the normal socialization.

21 February 2012 at 21:03  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Albert
Giving up blogging for Lent! Now that will require self discipline and sacrifice. No signing on nonymously now.

Keep well and God Bless.

Mr Integrity asked ...
"Am I a twat or what?"
Please ... don't tempt me!!

I'm considering giving up being abusive on here for Lent!
(Still 3 hours to go.)

Speaking of twats ...

Atlas Shagged
This is the man who brags about bedding Catholic girls and displays the morals of an alley cat, then he dares comment on committed relationships! Mind you, it was in terms of sexual technique and need.

Inspector
Well said but we can hammer someone's behaviour and beliefs, yet still pray for them.

Remember Catholics believe in the power of intercessionary prayer.

I'm praying he's kicked out of the Conservative Party along with his "partner". That way he might start to see the error of his ways instead of having his ego boosted.

21 February 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ah, American right-wing Christian propaganda. I thought you were being serious for a while there. However, have you checked out Protocols of The Elders of Zion? Now there's some scary stuff!

21 February 2012 at 21:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Speaking of twats ..."

I see you're full of your Holy Spirit again then Dodo.

21 February 2012 at 21:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Truth will out Integrity and thank God for blog sites ! Politicians can’t pull the wool over our eyes, and there’s NOTHING they can do about it. Altogether a jolly good show. English spring anyone, what !

21 February 2012 at 21:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The Gay Agenda (UK version)
1. Look fabulous!
2. See 1

I'm hoping this will be picked up by an irony-deficient right-wing MP, subsequently becoming enshrined in Hansards for posterity.

21 February 2012 at 21:41  
Anonymous Wing-Tsit Chong said...

Your Grace

Could Carl Jacobs be made Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Mars? Albert should be Foreign Minister and the Inspector General should become Defense Secretary.

Oh and Johnny Rottenborough should become Secretary for the Home Land Defense forces!

21 February 2012 at 21:44  
Anonymous Wing Tsit Chong said...

Also, Dodo the Dude should be Minister without Portfolio!

21 February 2012 at 21:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Echo ... feeling left out?

21 February 2012 at 22:34  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Nighty Night Chaps and chapesses.

A Final thought for the evening.

Watched Newsnight and the pitiful display by Harriett Baldwin Conservative MP and she has been a member of the Work and Pensions Select Committee since 2010.

Harriett, lass, a Word in your shell-like.

1. Be wary of anyone from GCHQ/10 Downing St saying what a jolly good career move it would be to go on Telly and promote muddled (employment) directive.

2. ergo Andrew Lansley...promote muddled NHS Reform directive.LEARN!

3. For God's sake..BE BRIEFED!

4. Being shown nationally to be a 'rabbit caught in a headlight' buffoon by a Jobseeker called, ironically, Mr Brace, who looks like Peewee Herman with the intellectual grasp of our communicant G Tingey, is NEVER acceptable.

5.For God's sake..BE BRIEFED!

6.Try not to answer the question but being so bleed'n obvious not to must be avoided at all costs.

7.For God's sake..BE BRIEFED!

8.You may find yourself stacking shelfs at Tesco come 2015 at JSA rates you justify.Happy Stacking!

You have now been briefed.

You say on your blog that...Harriett Baldwin is this week (February 15) visiting Ethiopia with the charity Save the Children.
Looks like you are in as much need of being saved as The Children.

What an absolute shower these people are..and 'They Work For Us.
Give me strength!

Ernst

21 February 2012 at 23:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Could Carl Jacobs be made Prime Minister

I don't know about Prime Minister, but I have always thought I would make a pretty good king. Of course we would have to lose that whole Parliament thing. I couldn't have interlopers mucking around with my wise decrees. A little American common sense could pay large dividends. We could:

1. Fix up your spelling.
2. Get you to drive on the right side of the road.
3. Abolish round-abouts.
4. Rationalize the rules of Cricket.
5. Eliminate BBC America as utterly extraneous.
6. You did pretty well with Rugby so we won't need to touch that.
7. Make DAMN SURE that episodes 74 through whatever of 'Midsomer Murders' are lived-streamed on Netflix.

I don't know what genius decided to only upload the first 73 episodes, but when I find him, I am gonna throw him in the Tower of London.

So when do I start?

carl

22 February 2012 at 00:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl

Should you become King, I'd be willing to act as your Chancellor and return the nation to communion with Rome. We could seek autonomous status as the 'British Church' but would have to accept the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Think about it.

22 February 2012 at 00:24  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Hrmmmm. So I would get to be both the king and the Bishop of Rome? Yes, I could go for that. But I won't wear those silly hats.

carl

22 February 2012 at 00:31  
Blogger Phil said...

Carl

When you are King can I be your executioner?

I have a few names for you to consider, top of the list is my boss!

22 February 2012 at 00:38  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo @ 00:02: I've thought about it too; over your dead body, as the saying almost goes. :o)

Carl: we do drive on the right side of the road, it's called the 'left'.

Touch cricket, and you join Dodo!

22 February 2012 at 01:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl

No,no,no!

As King you'd have full dominion in temporal affairs, subject to yopur degrees being consistent with the will of God, In matters spiritual and doctrinal you would, as a Christian pilgrim, have to defer to the Bishop of Rome. That's what autonomous Christian Kings do.

No divorces or any other departures from God's commands or excommunication awaits. This would undermine your position as God's Divinely appointed King and lead to civil unrest.

The appointment of the Archbishop of Canterbury would be a key issue and naturally the Church, under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, would make this appointment. None of this Supreme Governor of the Church of England malarky, now!

22 February 2012 at 01:20  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Oswin

You libertarians and protesters are such party poopers!

What if you were offered a position to head a commission to review the potential of reviving elements of the Celtic Church? That would keep you occupied for at least a decade and your findings would receive full and proper consideration in the fullness of time!

22 February 2012 at 01:26  
Blogger Oswin said...

Dodo: moi, a libertarian and protester? 'Fraid not Old Duck, we ain't giving up the incumbency any time soon.

Does your generous offer include my own stiletto; and if so, can I have an office next to yours??? ;o)

22 February 2012 at 01:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

In matters spiritual and doctrinal you would, as a Christian pilgrim, have to defer to the Bishop of Rome.

Oh, well, that's a deal breaker then. And here I was quite looking forward to being infallible.


Oswin

Touch cricket, and you join Dodo!

But it's already been much improved. Here, let me explain 'Earned Run Average' to you.

Phil

Yes, I may have a couple of names for your list already.

carl

22 February 2012 at 03:44  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

My dear Carl.

Call me a cynic if you wish, many do, but I see a much darker picture as far as population control is concerned.

The first thing to understand is that our population is not growing it is falling, and falling fast.

If it were not for masses of net immigration most usually of fertile and productively minded people in their 20's, the population of The UK, as well as Western Europe, and The USA would be falling off of the graph. This in spite of my own efforts, which number 5, at least and possibly still counting.

The second thing to remember is that our owners long since decided to radically reduce the population of THEIR planet, using foul means or fair.

As I have said before they have not yet found a way to stop us F.....g, the introduction of HIV not withstanding, therefore maybe it is best for you to use your imagination as to how our owners plan to ultimately achieve their aims. I have and I don't like what I have imagined.

I suggest more technological, cruel, and covert means, rather then social religious, moral or lawful ones.

22 February 2012 at 03:52  
Anonymous Gerard Charmley said...

One thing immediately jumps out at me; the statement that this is somehow 'about what people do in the bedroom, which is private'. Leaving aside whether what people do with other people is wholly private, it is clear that this debate is emphatically not about what people do in the bedroom, but what they do at the Registry Office or church. Which is rather public. If this was simply about allowing people to be homosexual, then the debate would have ended with the equalisation of the age of consent. This debate is about a very public thing, namely marriage.

22 February 2012 at 07:17  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Given that there is some evidence for the "God Gene" http://bit.ly/yjR5zF
it would follow that being a Christian (or follower of another faith) is hard wired i.e. it is not a matter of choice.

That would mean that the persecution of Christians for displaying their faith in public, wearing a cross, talking to others about their faith and pursuing their interests is natural.

Just like gays say they have "no choice", having been born that way (despite Peter Tatchell believing that "gayness" is formed in early life - perhaps due to an unusual childhood upbringing).

To discriminate against Christians is therefore the same as discrimination against gays.

I would suggest therefore that Phillip Dawson and the people who are threatening David Burrowes be reported for "hate crime".

22 February 2012 at 09:27  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Mr Anonymous @ 09.27, you raise an extremely important point that the atheists and some evolutionists do not wish to concede. It is an easily demonstrable fact that not one of the major civilisations currently extant in human society has arisen without a theistic belief at its root. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that belief in a deity has been an important factor in the success of these human societies. Clearly the nature of the deity has changed over time, from early tangibly based spirits to our current abstract belief as knowledge of God has grown. But belief in a deity remains a pervasive and tenaciously enduring characteristic of humankind.

So when Mr G Tingly and before him Mr G Davis say that we are all just chemical reactions and nothing more, we can say, yes we know that. Except that the chemical reactions make us think in a theistic way which is a factor in our success as a species.

And none of this denies the science of Darwin's theory of evolution. In fact it may enhance and reinforce Darwin's ideas. In addition, it proves yet again that there is none so blind as those that will not see.

22 February 2012 at 10:09  
Blogger Little Black Sambo said...

"Most people are in favour of gay marriage actually."
"Actually" is evidently the clincher there.

22 February 2012 at 11:24  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Gerard Charmley said ...

" ... it is clear that this debate is emphatically not about what people do in the bedroom, but what they do at the Registry Office or church."

Which then opens up the issue of what people do in the bedroom because the State now insists on educating children about this.

Accept homosexual 'marriage' and one accepts homosexuality as equivalent to hetrosexual marriage and it follows sex education must cover both if we are to 'embrace diversity'!

22 February 2012 at 11:53  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dodo wisely said

"Accept homosexual 'marriage' and one accepts homosexuality as equivalent to hetrosexual marriage and it follows sex education must cover both if we are to 'embrace diversity'!"
You do not go far enough with the conclusion, my lad..Homosexual marriage is to 'level' it with Heterosexual but by there by doing so it allows for the homosexual marriage to topple the heterosexual by 'supremacy' of positive discrimination under law as they are still viewed as a discriminated unit and this is proven by it being given equality with Heterosexual, which is the accepted norm of society.

Example..

Married couple with 2 kids..Husband decides he's gay, finds another marries Him..has therefoire a wife/husband..he is now a wife/husband.
Mother deserted marries again heterosexually.. The husband applies for custody of children with gay husband/wife?. Who wins and on what basis under law decides the terms of family life???

Thank You Tory Party!!!!!!

So in any dispute between the 2 'marriages', Ernst surmises under current legal landscape that the homosexual/Lesbian will triumph....It naturally follows! Simples *Squeaks*

Secularism..Where right is wrong and wrong is right and we are prepared to take you to court to prove it. Just be tolerant or else!

Ernst

22 February 2012 at 12:59  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Inspector,said @21:35,
Truth will out Integrity.
I'm not sure what you are implying? Are you sugesting that I am concealing something?

22 February 2012 at 13:59  
Anonymous Harry said...

The sum total of Camerons capitulation to the gay lobby, added to his sending foreign aid to countries that persecute Christians (but not gays), continuation of mass immigration, Islamisation and political correctness is that the majority of Britons actually no longer have a mainstream party to vote for.

And yet they sit in Parliament acting as if they are in the Mother of Parliaments whereas they are just petty dictators, ruling over a disenfranchised people.

22 February 2012 at 15:02  
Blogger Jon said...

Danj0 - it's be, not look. Fabulous is a state of being and manners maketh man. Rude maketh a Dodo.

I think it's time for the gay marriage venn diagram again.

http://imgur.com/gallery/VgWvr

Alternatively - I'll waive my right to marriage if Dodo waives his right to oxygen. I'd see that as a price worth paying.

22 February 2012 at 15:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 February 2012 at 16:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Jon said...
""Danj0 - it's be, not look. Fabulous is a state of being and manners maketh man. Rude maketh a Dodo."

More importantly, so too is sin a state of being as in an objective moral disorder that one embraces rather than resists.

"I'll waive my right to marriage if Dodo waives his right to oxygen. I'd see that as a price worth paying."

That's the thing you fail to get, you have no 'right' to marriage and breathing is a natural activity (responsibility) which cannot be voluntarily surrendered.

22 February 2012 at 16:45  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

carl

21 February 2012 18:27


There is much I find easy to agree within the post from yesterday which leaving out the references to 'God' simply makes good sense to me.
However, given that Christianity has been around for only 2000 years and human kind for about 200,000, I don't think it likely that human nature did not shape or contribute through 'culture' and practise within proto-groups, to what the Christian concept claims it does for the principle of parental responsibility.

There are societies all over the world where marriage exists without Christian influence yet still has norms which have been adhered to for very similar reasons as stated by Carl in his eloquent fashion.

I don't accept the principle purely on the grounds of equality legislation that this is logically extendable to same sex couples simply...because...I see I want. I think gay people rightly deserves to live their lives as they naturally are and to do so free from discrimination. I just happen to believe that they are undoing all the good will they have garnered and progress that has been made since the 1960s, by demanding that a Church should be forced in to a legal obligation that puts them at odds with their committed beliefs.

Whats so problematic with a civil ceremony anyway?

22 February 2012 at 17:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dreadnaught: "I just happen to believe that they are undoing all the good will they have garnered and progress that has been made since the 1960s, by demanding that a Church should be forced in to a legal obligation that puts them at odds with their committed beliefs."

I certainly don't demand that. In fact, as I have said a number of times, I'm happy to demonstrate alongside Christians against that if it is a Government proposal ... which it definitely isn't at the moment. No doubt there are some gay Christians who want to marry in their Church in a Christian ceremony but that's a different matter.

22 February 2012 at 17:48  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

No intention at all to personalise my comment DJ - its just seems to be getting too silly for words and doing more harm than good.

22 February 2012 at 18:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mr Integrity. I'm not sure what you are implying? Are you suggesting that I am concealing something?

You couldn’t be more wrong, dear chap. The ‘Truth’ concerned is what lies behind this endless pursuit of gays advocating that the state of ‘marriage’ be afforded them. The activists all seem to have risen on their hind legs more or less in unison. Deeply suspicious behaviour, what !

Well, we now know a Gay Agenda is at the root of it, yet it’s not a phrase that well known. The activists are indeed keeping stumm. And they have every reason to. Even the resident quare fella on this site would not be drawn, merely making light of the phrase, yet he’s all too happy to mouth off on anything and everything else.

For those for whom all this is a mystery, allow the Inspector to elucidate. In a nutshell, gays want to seize control of the Education sector. If you have control of our young’s tutorship, the world is yours tomorrow. Children as young as seven will be encouraged to admit homosexual inclinations, even if they are too young to appreciate what they are. This will continue throughout their schooling. When identified, these children will have vast resources spent on them (…and them alone…) to ensure they are not ‘disadvantaged’. Individual mentoring, that kind of thing. They will be made to feel ‘special’, and they will learn in a group, just them, because, in time, they are to become an elite. All in the name of ‘equality’ of course !

With this elite one day in charge, you can imagine that the traditional family unit doesn’t stand a chance. Neither does organised Christian religion, or any other ‘divisive’ force, like time served, tested and proven morals. It will indeed be a ‘Brave New World’ we’ll find ourselves in…

Battle on you men. It’s on sites like this we can achieve something positive – informing all who care enough to want to know the truth of it…

22 February 2012 at 18:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace
you refer to the myth that one in ten of the population are gay. This appears to originate with the "research" by Kinsey whose sample consisted of a non-representative group including sex offenders. When the Kinsey institute at a later stage - using Kinseys own figures - reanalysed the data they came to much lower figures.

Did you know where the "10% of the population are gay" figure comes from - well, it was made up.
have a look at
A Dr Silverstein emails Prof Cantor from Toronto and states
(see http://individual.utoronto.ca/james_cantor/)

From: Charles Silverstein
Sent: Sunday, June 14, 2009 12:21 PM
To: James Cantor
Subject: the 10% statistic


Dear Jim,

I was looking through your webpage & found where you said that that the 10% of males are gay was incorrect & too lengthy to discuss. I can tell you where the figure came from because I was there. It came out of the Gay Activist Alliance (GAA) in the early 1970s. There was a Press or PR Committee headed by Bruce Voeller and Ron Gold. Ron was an experienced PR man & Bruce a researcher at Rockefeller. The media always wanted to know how many men were homosexual. When Bruce would talk to them about statistics and sampling problems, their eyes would glaze over. The press does not want to know about sampling probabilities. So Bruce decided to tell them that 10% of males were gay, since that was a neat and easily understood figure. It then became the mantra of gay liberation. I’m sure that Bruce got 10% from somewhere in the first Kinsey book, but can’t remember specifically where. Nor did anyone at the time care how accurate it was. We were fighting for our rights and publicity was extremely valuable to our cause.
(...)

Charles Silverstein
www.doctorsilverstein.com
----

well, there we have it!

22 February 2012 at 18:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Even the resident quare fella on this site would not be drawn, merely making light of the phrase, yet he’s all too happy to mouth off on anything and everything else."

The reality is that I simply think you're in the land of nutters and conspiracy theories, which is why I joked about the famous Gay Agenda/Manifesto thing and talked about the Protocols of The Elders Zion. Someone people still think the Protocols are true because it panders to their prejudices, you know. I'm putting you right into that camp. Hope that helps.

22 February 2012 at 18:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "For those for whom all this is a mystery, allow the Inspector to elucidate. In a nutshell, gays want to seize control of the Education sector."

Blimey. You mean a little bit like setting up Faith Schools to inculcate young people into a certain way of thinking, only in a more diverse, rounded environment? That sounds terrible. :O

22 February 2012 at 18:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dreadnaught: "No intention at all to personalise my comment DJ - its just seems to be getting too silly for words and doing more harm than good."

I don't know whether it's doing more harm or not. The opposition from organised religious groups has turned the rhetoric up but I suppose that's to be expected. I wasn't really so bothered about it all until the opposition turned up and tried to suppress it. It may seem a little silly at times but occasionally someone is viciously murdered simply for being gay or throwbacks like this start threating us and I end up thinking we need to make hay while the sun shines and establish our social normality asap.

22 February 2012 at 18:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

From the link: "Ali, 42, of Fairfax Road, Ahmed, 28, of Madeley Street, and Javed, 28, of Wilfred Street, had claimed they were simply doing their duty as Muslims to condemn sinful behaviour in society."

And so the justifications go.

22 February 2012 at 18:47  
Blogger Jon said...

DanJ0 - that's exactly it. I didn't realise how much I wanted this until someone tried to deny it to me. I don't want to pay any religious institution to marry me that doesn't want to - it's enough that they get away without paying tax. I do want to have EXACTLY the same rights afterwards as if I was marrying a woman, though.

Dodo - If I have no right to marriage then you don't either, so let's annul your marriage, call it a civil partnership and the argument is over - that seems fair?

22 February 2012 at 18:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. You mean a little bit like setting up Faith Schools to inculcate young people into a certain way of thinking, only in a more diverse, rounded environment? That sounds terrible. :O.

Er, well yes you are right. But the difference between the two approaches is that the mass majority want or accept faith schools. Right then fellow communicants, anyone else in favour of the Gay Agenda instead. No anonymi please...

22 February 2012 at 18:57  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Make no mistake DJ I am very much aware that over the years my views (from institutionalised bigotry) have been changed dramatically through the work of the gay lobby. Today I find it hard to defend them on many of the demands they seek to achieve and frankly I do feel they are pushing away straights like me.

Having said that, the overt sexualisation of hetero and homosexuality in just about everything around us, I find worrying; especially in the messages it transmits to impressionable minds.

Exploring ones sexual awareness and development used to be an adventure; a right of passage, but now the mystery has been blown away simply for commercial exploitation at the click of a button or by a lack of personal modesty and restraint in public places- and I think that is a great pity.

22 February 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Gay lads. Did your parents ever say ‘No’ to you, and did you respond by ‘squeeming and squeeming and squeeming until you were sick ‘ ?

22 February 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught said...
"No intention at all to personalise my comment DJ - its just seems to be getting too silly for words and doing more harm than good."

Actually it's doing quite a lot of good. It exposes the actual intention of homosexual activists and their true aims. The more this is challenged, the more is revealed.

Yes, I can see why you might want to say less.

Inspector
Quite right, Sir.

A 'conspiracy' does not have to be contained in a written document or be a pre-agreed, worked out strategy. It can flow from a set of commonly held assumptions that lead to an inherent conclusion.

With homosexuality, as with feminism, the basic family structure is attacked; so too gender roles and reponsibilities. This means reframing world views and reeducating the young in 'diversity and equality'. It also leads to 'positive discrimination'.

An illustrative example is the removal of competitive sports from schools and the move towards group work. Winning and losing a game of football or cricket matters not. Don't just make anybody feel bad.

Look how boys are now dramatically falling behind girls in academic achievement as the concept of masculinity acquires negative connoctations.

I see our happy friend is personally attacking you. Standard behaviour and soon to be followed with an obscenity. His tactic and those of his 'co-religionists', are to say as people believe in a number of different gods - they cannot all be right so must all be false. It's the same with Christianity - Christians disagree so the faith itself must be false.

Keep on challenging these anti-theists and their amoral attacks on family life and the status of the genders.

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

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 February 2012 at 19:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Jon said ....

"Dodo - If I have no right to marriage then you don't either, so let's annul your marriage, call it a civil partnership and the argument is over - that seems fair?"

Dear boy, but of course you have a right to marriage! You just need to find the right woman who accepts your proposal.

Simple!

22 February 2012 at 19:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, going back to the Ipsos Mori poll of self-identifying Christians here it seems like you're wrong. 53% support Christian Faith Schools (44% support Faith Schools in general) whereas 61% think that gay people should have the same legal rights in all aspects of their lives as straight people. And that's just a poll of self-identifying Christians!

*State-funded Faith Schools

22 February 2012 at 19:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, in the recent Scottish Social Attributes Survey here, 61% backed same-sex marriage, a steady rising figure over recent years.

22 February 2012 at 19:29  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Hear Hear, that bird...

DanJ0. You must face the unpalatable truth. There are just TOO FEW of you to be bothered about, let alone changing cherished institutions at your insistence. Perhaps you could further advance your cause by joining up with another tiny section in society, paedophiles. As we sadly know, both groups have a lot in common, don‘t you agree.... [INSPECTOR RETIRES FOR NOW, WITH WRY SMILE ON HIS FACE}

22 February 2012 at 19:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, I've waved the contradicting data at you whereas you simply reassert your ungrounded opinion and run away in response. The act of a bigot, I think.

22 February 2012 at 19:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The Ipsos Mori poll is here as I deleted the link by mistake.

22 February 2012 at 19:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Before the Inspector leaves for the washing up: ‘eight out of ten cats’ said they’d eat the advertisers pet food in preference to a bowl of nothing at all...

Will read the second survey later.

Incidentally, drop the ‘bigot’ word. The Inspector just didn’t see your preceding post, you idiot...

22 February 2012 at 19:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

With your overt racism on that earlier thread too, you're not presenting a great image really.

22 February 2012 at 19:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

"I see our happy friend is personally attacking you. Standard behaviour and soon to be followed with an obscenity."

Wait for it .... not long now.

Actually that reminds me. I forgot to mention his other stock in trade - as we're not perfect we're hypocrites.

22 February 2012 at 20:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Jon: "Danj0 - it's be, not look. Fabulous is a state of being and manners maketh man."

That famous facebook picture with the caption "Someone's feeling Fabulous!" springs to mind. Makes me laugh every time I see it. :)

22 February 2012 at 20:24  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Actually it's doing quite a lot of good

If you mean as in the cause of resurrecting open prejudice and all that goes with it in the name of your faith please carry on - that will do more to ensure a future secular State than anything I could achieve.

22 February 2012 at 20:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught said ...

"If you mean as in the cause of resurrecting open prejudice and all that goes with it in the name of your faith please carry on."

No, I mean as in the sense of exposing the intention to change society by removing reference to God. I mean the intention to redesign and redefine family life to suit the few at the expense of the many. And I mean the desire to influence young minds.

22 February 2012 at 21:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. As recently as last week the Inspector was invited to ‘contribute’ to a phone survey. And why not, it’s 20 minutes you’ll never get back, and after they’ve asked you when was the last time you bought a bra from Marks and Spencers, and do you buy the latest salt saturated snack for the children, they finally get round to ‘any other business’ - ‘How do you feel about gay marriage ?’ By now of course, there are only women left on the phone, bless them, they love to chat. So phone polls = bollocks. Only half the population if that, will ever take part...

Women, by the way, can form quite close relationships with gay men. You may even have yourself. So, women are quite ‘understanding’ of gays and there ‘needs’. But why do women feel comfortable with gay men. Easy answer there, gay men will not take emotional control of them and ride them in moments of the women’s weakness....

On the subject of race, you are confusing an appreciation of the different characteristics of the races, with racial hatred. An easy mistake to make if you are none too clever...

Toodle pip !!

22 February 2012 at 21:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "On the subject of race, you are confusing an appreciation of the different characteristics of the races, with racial hatred. An easy mistake to make if you are none too clever..."

Ah yes. Describing the peoples of Africa as "Lower Races" and "Racial Losers" is very appreciative of characteristics. Gotcha.

22 February 2012 at 21:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

There might be a confusion of terms here. When you use the word 'race' what do you mean?

For example, would you refere to the Germans as a 'race' in the way you did the Japanese? Would you see Jews and Arabs as distinct 'races'? They are both Semitic tethnic groups.

And you're lettingDanJo change the subject of the thread because he would prefer to discredit you than continue with the original subject.

22 February 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The original subject is like the lunar landing conspiracy, not to be taken too seriously other than by cranks. I'd have thought my comment at 21 February 2012 21:41 humourously says all that needs to be said.

22 February 2012 at 22:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The "original subject" being the Inspector's Gay Agenda conspiracy, I'm assuming, rather than the blog article.

22 February 2012 at 22:09  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

To Jon and Danj0 and any other Homosexual here,
You've got Gay Union solemnised in a civil ceremony with all the legal rights of heterosexual couples. Whatever you say you homosexuals ARE different, therefore marriage does not define your partnership, it only defines a heterosexual partnership. Why can't you accept that and enjoy your lives together in your Union. And if you are Christian go to Church by all means, but don't force it do something that is against what it stands for and is written in the Bible as sinful.

Inspector

Gays are not necessarily that close to women really, some see us as competition especially the single ones when out socialising. Women I seem to see are friends to a point and if single rather be chatted up by a heterosexual man they can flirt with than spend time with a gay bitching about others.
I think women form friendships with gay men then gossip about them to their other female friends.

22 February 2012 at 22:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Don’t fall into the trap that we are all the same. God didn’t turn us out that way. Don’t ask the Inspector why – he justs observes the creation...

DanJo. Assertion repeated. If an African mother feels the need to circumcise her daughter, then yes she’s a loser through race. And lower down the scale than us. There is good news though, if you are operating at that level, it must surely be easier to get into heaven. Genital mutilation not withstanding...

22 February 2012 at 22:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Marie. The Inspector thanks you for your contribution to his understanding on how women consider gay men. It has been duly noted.

22 February 2012 at 22:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

Accepted and I said what I said in a spirit of frienDship.

'Race', 'culture' and 'ethnicity' get used interchangeably and at times I observe you talk at cross purposes with correspondants of goodwill such as carl.

The Japanese are a good example. Their culture of total devotion to Emperor and nation, combined with their believe in 'honour',led them to look upon the defeated British as less than human. This was not a function of DNA but values transmitted within their society.

It's why we need to stand against those seeking to corrupt our Christian culture. Should we return to the dark days of depravity of godlessness it will not be because our genes have changed but because our ideas of what it means to be human have changed.

Yes we are all different - that's what makes live so rich. What unites us is however a believe in the power of the Good News to change and sustain that change all people regardless of 'race', creed or colour.

22 February 2012 at 22:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. The most truly enlightened of us can live a pure life independent of outside influences. For the rest of us, we must endure these influences, though we can redeem ourselves by rejecting the worst. Can you now see where the Inspector is going with race. For individuals, It’s usually a case of follow the leader, sad but that’s humanity for you. As the Inspector has said before, there is no animosity involved, merely acceptance. Free your self of any ‘baggage’ regarding the term and appreciate it for what it is, a useful group noun. Sit back and observe it in action....

22 February 2012 at 23:30  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

If an African mother feels the need to circumcise her daughter, then yes she’s a loser through race. And lower down the scale than us.

I do not mean this in an unkind manner, but do you truly not understand the ignorance of this assertion? You might as well say "If a fashion-challenged mother feels the need to circumcise her daughter, then yes she’s a loser through plaid." You have nothing to connect the behavior to genes, and nothing to correlate these alleged 'mutilate my daughter' genes with race. Nothing at all.

carl

22 February 2012 at 23:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

It's the term that's wrong!

Bear in mind the Jewish people at the time of Abraham were no different from other Semitic people and tribes.

Culture and world view is what counts. Germany is a good example of the potential depravity in the soul of people. Arabs and Africans are prisoners of their cultures and social and political circumstances, not 'race' and not DNA.

22 February 2012 at 23:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Another link, this time to a Daily Mail article trumping that only a minority support it according to the ONS/Eurobarometer poll. They then were forced to clarify it by pointing out that only a minority were against it too: 46% for, 45% against, from the updated article. I still doubt that Cameron will get it through this time but it's not just got tiny minority support at all so I think it will happen in the not too distant future.

23 February 2012 at 06:48  
Blogger len said...

The hounding of David Burrowes.

Any Christian who puts forward the Gospel and Christian values is going to be attacked and this is only to be expected.Salt stings when rubbed into a wound and light can be blinding when piercing the darkness(and not always welcome).

Secularists see Christians as the main obstacle to them bringing in their' new order' and intend using any means to rid themselves of Christianity.

The sad fact(if secularists only realised this) is that all that stands between them and utter chaos and the subsequent dominion of the powers of darkness is the 'restrainer' the Holy Spirit which indwells Christians.

So secularists are sowing the seeds of their own destruction by the removal of Christians and the Christian foundations of our society.
The surest way to cause the fall of a building(or a Society) is to undermine the foundations.

We Christians should (as His Grace suggests) pray for those who persecute us, pray for those who oppose us,because we once also stood in their shoes and without revelation of the reality of our Saviour Jesus Christ we also would be lost.

23 February 2012 at 07:59  
Anonymous LondonVicar said...

Gay activists are desperate to redefine the family along their lines.
It is not about rights (they already have those in civil partnerships).
it is about changing society's view on gay relationships wholesale.
Once they have gay marraige and have that protected, that will be complete:
children will be taught anal sex in schools, encouraged to explore bisexuality, etc etc.

The 'liberals' are not liberal at all. Everyone must bow to their Agenda.

Shame on many CHurch of England bishops for not standing up to it. FOUR so far have signed the marriage petition.

Where I am, many clergy are seeing whether our Bishop signs it as a moral test of his leadership.

23 February 2012 at 08:58  
Anonymous bluedog said...

'Arabs and Africans are prisoners of their cultures and social and political circumstances, not 'race' and not DNA.' sayeth the Dodo @ 08.58

So Mr Dodo, should we expect;

a)that a white man will win the 100m sprint in the Olympics this summer and that an Asian man will win the Marathon?
Or b) will a man of West African descent win the sprint and a man of East African descent win the distance race?

Now if men of African descent win these races, as has been the case invariably for the last fifty years, is it a function of nuture (culture) or nature (DNA)?

23 February 2012 at 10:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

bluedog

Are you really as obtuse as you appear? Of course DNA affects the physical attributes of people - that's what adaptation to one's physical environment is about.

It's not about being 'better' or 'worse' physically, just different. That's why we have different skin pigmentation.

Are you proposing that the brains of black people are somehow different and less well developed to those of white people? That by nature they are inferior beings? That by nature they are more 'savage' and less intelligent?

How the brain becomes 'hard wired' is a function of cultural and social context. It is not an inherent quality passed on in the genes. Unlike our physical features it is not in one's DNA.

How we develop and use the inherent capacity of our brain is
open to influence as your post amply demonstrates.

23 February 2012 at 11:03  
Blogger Natalie said...

I find it hilarious that people believe that there is a 'gay agenda'. You poor, poor souls.

23 February 2012 at 12:44  
Blogger Jon said...

OIG. Wow. I mean really - wow. I think even Dodo must be backing away from you now with that little tirade.

LondonVicar - I remember a hymn at school - "at the name of Jesus, every knee shall bow". Well, has the CoE recanted from "Onward, Christian Soldiers"? Or do you still want to force everyone in the land to hold your views? I don't - I just want the right to marry my boyfriend, and not in a church. Doesn't seem like much to ask to me.

Dodo - you tried to dismiss my point with a little jibe about "the right woman" but the fact is that you know I'm right. If I don't have a right to marriage, neither do you. That would be a great day in Parliament - "The Annulment of Dodo's Marriage Act 2012". Future generations could breathe a sigh of relief!

Also - your latest post - "It's not about being 'better' or 'worse' physically, just different." Well done - you're finally getting it. You were born this way, it's not better or worse, just different.

Dan - that picture is genuinely brilliant. It just makes you laugh!

Dreadnaught - can you tell me what's making you nervous? Marriage equality? What else?

23 February 2012 at 13:33  
Blogger Jon said...

Marie - I've got loads of female friends. I think they like me because I'm good company (so they tell me), happy to listen and not stare at their boobs (though I do appreciate a well formed décolletage!) and happy to get a round in when it's my turn. It's called friendship.

23 February 2012 at 13:36  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Jon said ...

"OIG. Wow. I mean really - wow. I think even Dodo must be backing away from you now with that little tirade."

Why would I break away from the Inspector? How fickle you must be.

"Dodo - you tried to dismiss my point with a little jibe about "the right woman" but the fact is that you know I'm right. If I don't have a right to marriage, neither do you."

Utter tosh! Marriage is a permanent union between a man and a women for the purposes of partnership, love and, God willing, the transmission of life and the raising of children.

"Also - your latest post - "It's not about being 'better' or 'worse' physically, just different." Well done - you're finally getting it. You were born this way, it's not better or worse, just different."

Did you read the part about the brain and 'hard wiring'? To be an active homosexual is a choice not a predetermined path. Just as a heterosexual chooses to be sexually active outside of marriage. Or a paedophile to give expression to his 'preference'. Somebehaviours are moral and some are not.

It's one thing keeping sexual activities that are legally permitted private, it's quite another to use political means to attempt to foist your opinions on the population in an attempt to change the very basic building block of society to 'embrace' it as equal. It isn't. It can never be. And we can never pretend otherwise.

23 February 2012 at 15:26  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Jon - I fail to see why you assume that I am nervous - apprehensive? probably.

Pursuing the concept of 'gay' marriages as an equal right and as mainstream as heterosexual, seems quite an illogical and inappropriate quest when viwed in terms of the religious doctrine's definition and understanding of the act of marriage.

Civil partnerships you now have and all well and good. If a particular religion or section of a religion welcomes same sex couples and marry them - great, get on with it. So many heterosexual couples do not see religion as relevant to their lives and live together and raise families without first going through a religious ceremony. Unless those gays wanting a church wedding are regular attenders in the congregation, I see their clamour for 'equality' in this respect as invalid as the churches logic in marrying non practising 'Christians'.

My apprehension is for the potential undoing of the advances made to safeguard homosexuals rights to live their lives as they wish without fear of violence or discrimination in the workplace.

In the 60's I was sickened to witness several violent episodes of on street 'queer-bashing'. I have no wish to see a return to those days and the return of those people who thought this kind of behaviour was a kind of deserved social retribution for making it compromising for straights to use public toilets for instance.

Society has broadly accepted the injustice that drove homosexuals to find outlets for their needs in such seedy environments. It is now no longer necessary for gays to deny their sexuality - major progress in changing society's opinions have been clearly made. Why not allow some generational time to elapse to allow for homosexuality to evolve in society as something 'natural', instead of following professional gay activists 'bent' on staying in the media limelight.

The unending promotion of campaigns that seek equality where many see concession as simply as inequality as the net result causes alienation and negativity. Should gay bars be legally ordered to have and equal number of straight nights or gay groups ordered to have a specific number of straits on their committees - after all this is all about equality isn't it?

23 February 2012 at 16:19  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Dreadnaught said ...

"Why not allow some generational time to elapse to allow for homosexuality to evolve in society as something 'natural'"

Heaven forbid!

That's it though it never will be seen as natural unless it's positively promoted, particularly amongst the young.

23 February 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger Jon said...

Dreadnaught - that's precisely the point. Some religious denominations would like to conduct same sex marriages, but are forbidden from conducting even civil unions which must have no religious content whatsoever. It's not an attack on churches' or congregations' right to refuse to marry a couple (as Dan has said repeatedly) this is about allowing religious denominations (and non religious ones) to conduct marriage ceremonies if they want to, in whatever way they want to.

Also I agree with you and share your relief at the progress that's been made but queer bashing still happens. A lot. What's more, gay teens are more likely to commit suicide than straight teens (hence things like the Trevor Project and the "It get's better" campaign). A campaign for gay marriage is about saying to gay teens (and everyone else) - you can do what you want with your life. You can get married and have kids (or not) - all the options of society are open to you. You are normal. You don't have to fit into a pigeon hole that society wants you to occupy because that's what it wants gay people to be.

The question of gay bars is a good one. If you'd like to go to some, I'd gladly take you. (Wear something fabulous! LOL) I go to straight bars and my straight mates come to gay bars. But bars fulfil roughly the same purpose either way. They're not for tourists and gawkers - they're for serious drinking and dancing! I don't think many gay people have objections to straight people in gay bars provided they don't rub their sexuality on our faces ;-)

Dodo

"Why would I break away from the Inspector? How fickle you must be."

Because he said something awful and should be reprimanded for doing so by the only one on this blog whose leg he humps. Nice to know your commitment to an affiliation comes before principle, though. It explains a lot I guess...

23 February 2012 at 18:54  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Heaven forbid!

That's it though it never will be seen as natural unless it's positively promoted, particularly amongst the young.


It's as much a part of Nature and therefore natural, as is hermaphrodism in the animal and plant world - and according to your beliefs ordained by god.

23 February 2012 at 18:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Right then Jon. You’re as excited as a schoolgirl over something the Inspector said, let’s have it then...

23 February 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Jon, I think you'll find I have been discussing the issue with the Inspector.

So your programme is about "saying to gay teens (and everyone else) - you can do what you want with your life ... all the options of society are open to you. You are normal."? This hedonistic, self-centred world view requires a description about homosexual acts with all children. Most will find these practices disgusting.

Society does not want homosexuals to "fit into a pigeon hole". Rather it wants you to you to stop trying to change the world to suit your minority interests and acussing those who see the practices as immoral and disordered as homophobs and bigots.

Dreadnaught, nature makes mistakes - that mutation for you! Are you saying homosexuality is determined by DNA? If so, what is your evidence?

23 February 2012 at 21:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Homosexuality may indeed be genetic linked. Current thought is that it could be carried by the matriarchal DNA appearing as a prima facia ‘neutral’ gene.. It may explain why some females have beyond average fertility. It is well known that some homosexuals, presumably these particular females children, have [AHEM] large privates as a result...

23 February 2012 at 22:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

I am aware of the 'theory'. And that's all it is. Scientists are unable at present to fathom the muliplicity of genetic interactions and environmental factors to account for human physical and social diversity.

We may all born with a set of predispositions. Some people are more aggressive, some more sensitive, some more creative. It's the challenge oflife to make the best of what we're given by 'nature' and 'nurture' and to live within a moral code.

23 February 2012 at 22:32  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Dodo @ 22.32 says 'Scientists are unable at present to fathom the muliplicity of genetic interactions and environmental factors to account for human physical and social diversity.'

Rather answers the questions that you asked at 11.03, doesn't it?

Here they are again: 'Are you proposing that the brains of black people are somehow different and less well developed to those of white people? That by nature they are inferior beings? That by nature they are more 'savage' and less intelligent?'

If you bother to read my earlier post @ 10.43 you will see no such inference. By asking these questions you merely indulge in moral posturing. Indeed, one could potentially conclude that athelitic superiority may be matched by parallel intellectual superiority. Why should it not be? But then you prefer to see the glass of another communicant's contribution as half empty rather than half full.

It's an area that requires an open mind rather than sneering accusations of obtuseness. Your approach merely implies a desire to censor and reconstruct the debate on terms that you find less challenging.

Keep it dumb and parrot the dogma, eh, Dodo?

24 February 2012 at 10:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

bluedog

What's the matter? Embarrassed by the logic of your own argument?

Just to remind you:

"'Arabs and Africans are prisoners of their cultures and social and political circumstances, not 'race' and not DNA.' sayeth the Dodo @ 08.58"

"So Mr Dodo, should we expect;"

.....

And then you gave your argument about the physical differences between different peoples.

The implication and inference was perfectly clear.

And what particular dogma am I representing? Not anti-racism is it by any chance? You know the racist argument that differences between the nations and cultures are based on inferiour and superiour DNA? Have you heard about that theory?

24 February 2012 at 10:54  
Blogger bluedog said...

'Have you heard about that theory?' Indeed, most recently from your co-religionist the Inspector.

However, there is no denying that the Olympics are coalescing into results that increasingly appear to be racially determined, in the track and field events at least. It must be very demoralising to be a Caucasian or Asian in the 100m knowing that your prospects of winning are zero. One has to admire them for upholding the Olympic Ideal. It was recognised years ago that men and women could never realistically compete in the same heats and there is no suggestion that this is a sexist categorisation in a pejorative sense. It appears that that debate did not suffer from your moralising.

There is no suggestion that any DNA is inferior or superior (note spelling) per se. However, there seems little doubt, based on easily quantifiable athletic comparisons that some ethnicities have greater gifts than others in track and field.

Regrettably that one cannot make that observation without censorious comment and moral indignation from you.

What are you afraid of?

24 February 2012 at 11:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

bluedog

"'Arabs and Africans are prisoners of their cultures and social and political circumstances, not 'race' and not DNA.' sayeth the Dodo @ 08.58"

So do you agree or not with the above comment I made that you were so critical of?

And you know full well we're not talking here about - what was the term you used, ah yes - "gifts" in athletics or field events.

24 February 2012 at 14:21  
Anonymous Sally Roberts said...

Shame on His Grace for writing in such terms about good friends of mine - Philip Dawson and Cllr Henry Lamprecht. They are standing up for their beliefs just as you stand up for yours. Leave them alone!

24 February 2012 at 18:18  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Apart from producing some of the fastest runners and strongest long distance runners, where are the great shoulders to stand on in the African world? Where are the Isaac Newton's and Isambard Kingdom Brunel's of the African countries? Where is their version of Christopher Wren and today Norman Foster? They have no great shoulders to stand on yet and it seems are not that interested in producing any.

Most of them are still at the hunter gatherer stage in evolution but are having advanced western civilisation thrust upon them like a 4 year child having to play with toys designed for a 12 year old.

24 February 2012 at 18:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

For any who missed it, here’s something from the Inspector that was posted a little late in the day a couple of threads down…

Dodo / Carl / DanJ0. A brief note as the subject is off thread. The Inspector’s interest in race primarily stems from what is happening (…or not happening…) in Africa. Let’s just say he has seen one picture of a child with a distended stomach too many. He really believes he’s on to something, but at the moment it’s all fluid. If we can find an ANSWER to why Africa is like it is, we should be able to do something in that direction, then just think of how better the inhabitants’ lot will be. The existence of large numbers of recent out-of-Africa people in the West and their behaviour may go some way to accomplishing this. The Inspector thanks you for your contributions on the subject of race, and indeed your patience…

The Inspector merely wishes the truth, or as much of it that we can determine. He regrets no Western scientist will touch the subject, but fully understands it would be professional suicide to do so…

24 February 2012 at 18:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Sally Roberts. You really must see the Inspector's post of 22 February 2012 21:48

Your thoughts would be appreciated...

24 February 2012 at 18:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Marie said ...

Most of them are still at the hunter gatherer stage in evolution but are having advanced western civilisation thrust upon them like a 4 year child having to play with toys designed for a 12 year old.

Replace 'tribal' for 'hunter gather', 'development' for 'evolution' and 'western culture' for 'civlisation', and I would agree with the thrust of this.

24 February 2012 at 19:17  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Dodo 14.21, the Arab spring and the cries for the introduction of democracy from Syria suggest that your view is outdated. This communicant has always been optimistic about the power of Western political ideas, based on the Hellenic ideal and Christianity as so many of them are. We can see the extraordinary effects of these ideas in the move by Hamas to reject the Syrian regime, its former protector, and to call for democracy in preference. This sort of epiphany by an Arab polity deeply hostile to Israel at present may lead to a greater understanding. Indeed, it is no exageration to say that democracy is becoming the default political setting in the Muslim world. This may yet lead to the long overdue Islamic enlightenment.

As to sub-Saharan Africa, it is less easy to be optimistic. The historic truth is that not one of the world's major civilisations has ever emerged from this quarter. Encouragingly, economic growth across Africa now runs at levels that are the envy of Europe. Rising living standards and the emergence of an African middle class made lead to greater political development. But the concept of the 'Big Man', the tribal chieftain, seems enduring. Witness the survival of Papal favourite Mugabe.

24 February 2012 at 20:50  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

bluedod

And then you go and spoil it all by saying some thing ....... Mugabe is not a favourite son of Rome. He's a disgrace and an embarrassment.

I do agree Christianity alongside Roman law and Greek philosophy drove the civilisation of the modern world. The tragedy is that colonialism, nationalism and religious divisions stopped these effects spreading in Arabia, Asia and Afica. Hopefully, the day will come when these regions arrive at ways of governing themselves that serve all the people and the not the few.

24 February 2012 at 21:53  
Blogger len said...

If Mugabe IS an embarrassment to Catholicism then the Pope should have the courage to say so!.

Appeasement never worked, look at Hitler and Chamberlain!.

26 February 2012 at 08:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

The Pope should openly chastise Mugabe and risk the lives of millions of Catholics? Very wise!

26 February 2012 at 23:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

With all due respect I have never been so infuriated by such a load of twoddle in all my years. So Mr Dawson is a gay man who would like to have the same legal marriage rights as you or I?? And because an old book has been misinterpreted you feel you have the right to condemn him as a sinner? Would your god not want you to treat all men as equal whether they favour men or women? You and your followers are deluded archaic fools who should not be allowed to corrupt society with your discrimination. I am a heterosexual man not a homosexual man however I would happily stand side by side with any man and call him brother, perhaps you should revisit this old old book which you hold so dearly and read it how it was intended to be read you dinosaur philistine

29 February 2012 at 19:51  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

And what sort of an anonymous coward are you to belch forth such hot air?

29 February 2012 at 20:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am happy to stand accountable for my actions whilst you foolishly believe that a homophobic fairy will preserve your 'soul' when you die.... Well Marie you are the coward, when you die you will not go to heaven, you will simply cease to be, but perhaps the memory of your disgusting intolerance and pathetic discrimination may linger but a few moments. Yes I withhold my name because I know the level of abuse to expect from religious opposition, I do not fear you though, nor do I fear any extreme Christian, I simply choose to take the higher ground away from potential confrontation which you clearly desire you simple minded pleb

29 February 2012 at 21:34  
Anonymous Benjamin22 said...

Marie - although you may feel it makes you brave to provide your name on this thread, it does little to support your views or make you appear stronger.

There is no cowardice in withholding a name - just as there is no bravery in providing it. Perhaps you see far too many things to be signs of weakness or just being things you don't agree with? Is this not just another example of how narrow minded your views are?

Just a thought from another straight, unbigoted man…

29 February 2012 at 21:47  
Blogger The Way of Dodo Ben Soze said...

Anonymous

What a lot of hot air!

Mr Dawson is a gay man who would like to have the same legal marriage rights as you or I?? And because an old book has been misinterpreted you feel you have the right to condemn him as a sinner?

Marraige is a union between a man and a woman. It's not a question of legal rights, it's a question of its purpose.

The Bible may be old but that does not detract from its Truth. Misinterpreted? In what way and by whom?

Would your god not want you to treat all men as equal whether they favour men or women?

Absolutely! That does not mean condoning or permitting whatever they want to do.

You and your followers are deluded archaic fools who should not be allowed to corrupt society with your discrimination.

One does need to discern good from eviland 'discriminate between them.

I am a heterosexual man not a homosexual man however I would happily stand side by side with any man and call him brother ...

And your point is?

... perhaps you should revisit this old old book which you hold so dearly and read it how it was intended to be read you dinosaur philistine.

Perhaps you should too as you seem to know very little about it or the reasons why Christians are opposed to homosexual marriage.

29 February 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ben22: "There is no cowardice in withholding a name - just as there is no bravery in providing it."

Almost everyone uses a non de plume here, including the blog owner of course. It ties opinions to their proponents over time, you see. That's what Marie is asking for, I think. No-one likes to talk to multiple people using the same moniker, or one person using multiple monikers pretending to be different people as has happened here in the past.

1 March 2012 at 01:51  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Never! One person using multiple monikers? Outrageous! Who would do such a dastardly deed?

Anonymous.

1 March 2012 at 15:40  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older