Tuesday, March 13, 2012

Cross about the cross


Here we go again. More splutter, froth and fulminating about a trinket which, if literalist-fundamentalists took all of their Bible literally, they would understand is expressly forbidden in the New Testament, for God is more concerned with the purity of the heart than with outward beautification and ornamental adornment (1Pet 3:3; 1Tim 2:9). The Archbishop of Canterbury is quite right: a cross around the neck has been 'stripped of its meaning' and become little more that a 'religious decoration'. Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, apparently finds these comments 'unhelpful'. It is not clear why, since they are self-evident truths: millions wear crosses as jewellery, in ways they tend not to wear a hijab or turban. A cross around the neck is manifestly not an essential attribute of the Christian faith nor an indispensable component of Christian worship. And if it has become so, you are shrouded in obsessive idolatry.

So much has been written about this that the Prime Minister has felt the need to wade in (a wading which is devoid of conviction), and so has Eric Pickles (which is overflowing with sincerity). Speaking at Local Government Questions in the House of Commons, Mr Pickles said: "It's certainly my view that providing any object doesn't get in the way of doing the job that a discreet display of someone's religion is something we should welcome."

And there we have the utterly common-sense position: if you're working a lathe in a factory and happen to have a cross dangling round your neck, when your employer insists that you remove it, it is to ensure your safety, not attack your faith. In such contexts, headscarves and all jewellery are likely to banned, without favour or discrimination.

But when an employer permits Muslims to wear hijabs and Sikhs to wear karas and turbans while prohibiting Christians from wearing a cross, that is a manifest inequality and arbitrary discrimination against the Christians' right to manifest their religion. This is a point which appears to be beyond poor Terry Secular of the National Sanderson Society. Writing on the Guardian's CommentIsFree, he pores over the Eweida/BA Tribunal judgement without any awareness at all of the mandatory dynamics of character assassination which play out in such scenarios. It matters not a jot that Nadia Eweida was an insensitive, bullying, bigoted zealot: by permitting Muslims and Sikhs to manifest their religions while prohibiting her from doing so, British Airways were unfairly discriminating against her and acting prejudicially.

Unfortunately, Government lawyers are now about to do the same in Strasbourg. Which perhaps ought to come as no surprise when the Government is religiously illiterate and David Cameron is surrounded by secularists. But it does look a little odd when the Prime Minister is saying one thing back home while Government lawyers are putting the contrary view in a foreign court.

That aside, there is one dimension of this tediously chronic saga which tends to be completely ignored: it ought not to be for Parliament or the Courts to determine on matters of religious orthodoxy, and yet, increasingly, it is politicians and judges who are presuming to nullify centuries and millennia of religious custom and practice. We saw this most recently in the judgement of the secular Supreme Court which overrode the Chief Rabbi and 3,500 years of Jewish tradition in the definition of what it is to be Jewish. If the Supreme Court is now the ultimate authority of what it is to be Jewish, it stands to reason that the courts must determine whether or not a cross around the neck is as religiously necessary, as theologically mandatory or as spiritually significant as a hijab is for Muslims or a turban and kara are for Sikhs.

And here the politicians and courts (along with BA and the majority of employers) labour under a number of misapprehensions. Muslim women are told nowhere in the Qur'an or the Ahadith that the hijab, or any head covering, is obligatory; the stipulation is that women 'must dress modestly'. And Sikh men are increasingly viewing the example set by Guru Nanak as normative, when there is no such stipulation of law in the Guru Granth Sahib, not least because the GGS is a purely devotional book; not a book of divine revelation like the Torah, Bible or Qur'an. These items of religious clothing may, therefore, be considered as much 'ornamental adornment' as a silver cross.

Sikh men are, however, exhorted not to cut their hair - it is one of the 'Five Ks', and the turban simply became a sensible way of keeping it all together - a Indian cultural phenomenon. It is only the modernist Western mindset that seeks to impose upon this sub-continental manifestation the paradigm of its own understanding of religion. If Sikhs are divided on this, and on how they manifest their faith in a modern Western context, who are the Human Rights lawyers and secular courts to decree what is integral and mandatory?

Muslims are as divided on hijab-wearing as Sikhs are on turban-wearing: there is no authoritative interpretation of the qur'anic exhortation to 'dress modestly', which is the precise phrase in Arabic used by Mohammed. While the Taliban of Afghanistan enforce the burkha, Saudi Arabia is content with the niqab, others the hijab, and still others nothing at all. 'Modesty' is either culturally enforced by an external agent, or left to an individual's conscience. Asking a secular court to judge authoritatively on this is as pointless as requesting an authoritative statement on whether Christians should wear a the plain Protestant cross or the more Catholic crucifix.

And that will involve the courts in endless discussion and debate over the 'blasphemous and idolatrous' Sacrifice of the Mass, transubstantiation, vicarious mediation, atonement and exegesis of Hebrews 10:14. As well as grappling with whether the Guru Granth Sahib is more like Leviticus or the Pslamody, and the Hadith has equal status with the Qur'an.

Is this really a matter for the European Court of Human Rights?

67 Comments:

Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

This is a matter for the European Court of Human Rights under Articles 9 and 14 - because British judges violated the Law of Pickles.

13 March 2012 at 11:37  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Put simply, this is a waste of energy and resources that need not have happened if they had stuck to common sense, a la Eric Pickles.
The fact that common sense has been abandoned, as in so many other areas of life, is sadly not surprising, but should be loudly lamented!

13 March 2012 at 11:43  
Blogger Marcus Foxall said...

I recall a stand-up comedian posing the question "Why do some Christians wear crucifixes ? After all , you never saw Jackie Kennedy wearing a rifle pendant."


Marcus Foxall

13 March 2012 at 11:54  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

The fault lies within the Equality Act 2010. The following protected characteristics are listed:

Age; Disability; Gender Reassignment; Marriage and Civil Partnership; Pregnancy and Maternity; Race; Religion or Belief; Sex and Sexual Orientation.

Some of those characteristics are chosen by the individual; for example, Belief and Sexual Orientation.

The wearing of a cross, although not compulsory, is a manifestation of faith – and has been so for 2,000 years.

Therefore, under Article 9 ECHRs the prohibition on wearing a cross must be ‘necessary in a democratic society’.

Article 14 ECHRs prohibits discrimination: what is the justification for treating a Christian differently from a Sikh wearing a turban?

13 March 2012 at 12:03  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

If I was in a hospital awaiting surgery and I saw nurses or Doctors with dangling jewellery I would insist that they removed it before touching me.

It harbours infection.

13 March 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger Jon said...

Your Grace, the government isn't actually taking a position on this - it's simply reflecting the established ruling of the UK courts - it's not a matter of ministerial opinion, as much as the press would like to make it so.

This article explains it all well I thought...

http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/nelson-jones/2012/03/wear-cross-government-rights

13 March 2012 at 12:13  
Blogger Jon said...

Youthpasta - common sense is irrelevant here. This is the law! Stop being so naive! ;-)

13 March 2012 at 12:14  
Blogger GGAANN said...

Why thank you Derek for that specific and very personal response - I'm wonder if you are right that there was nothing more meaningful being discussed in the blog- are you becoming a regular here ?

13 March 2012 at 12:15  
Blogger The Judicious Hooker said...

Why do Anglo-Saxons always deprecate the use of their own religious symbolism and halo-ise the symbolism of other religions?

There are as many reasons for wearing a cross as there are for wearing Islamic attire: some vain, some hypocritical, some high-minded and many shades in between.

As Islam assumes greater visibility in the West, I predict a greater visibility of the cross from those wishing to distinguish themselves from the 'religion of peace'.

After all, the Koran rejects one of the most basic pieces of historical data concerning Jesus of Nazareth: that he suffered death on the cross. Interesting that by doing so, Islam completely invalidates Christian soteriology. This is no coincidence.

His Grace is in a most Calvinist mood today, exhorting his communicants to be free of showy adornments and frippery. While I'm content to carry a pocket edition of his Book of Common Prayer as a personal talisman, others may require a less liturgical reminder of faith.

For those who value a tactile symbol of God's love and power in Christ, the cross is the pre-eminent sign. "Faithful cross above all other, one and only noble tree" as Christians shall sing in a few weeks' time. Whether it's a cross as jewellery or a rough-hewn timber cross set up on Good Friday, both remind us that God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself.

13 March 2012 at 12:34  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

You wrote referrin to the Cross: ‘And if it has become so, you are shrouded in obsessive idolatry.’

I wonder if we are all, including the Pope and the Archbishop of Canterbury, ‘shrouded in obsessive idolatry’.

Do we not all have an image of God is like in our hearts? Some may see Him as an old man with a long white beard; others may see Him as a nebulous spirit.

Are we not all like Mrs Eweida? and she like us?

St John simply said: 'God is love.'

13 March 2012 at 12:47  
Blogger Al said...

D. Singh- the likes of Martin Luther and the churches that follow similar teachings would of agree that yes, the Pope and Archbishop of Canterbury are very much ‘shrouded in obsessive idolatry’- though I'm not sure if there are any christian denominations that go as fa as to ban the use of the cross as a symbol.

13 March 2012 at 13:00  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Al

This all quite odd; Christians in the 21st Century want to hang onto the cross as a ‘manifestation of religion’ – and yet the Church is in decline (or at least its liberal wing).

This is odd too; Christians in the 17th Century wanted to ban the cross as a ‘manifestation of religion’ and yet revival after revival swept both sides of the Atlantic and produced the greatest theologians ever listened to and read.

I wonder in which century Christians best carried the burden of the cross in the West.

We know they are carrying it in the East through newspaper reports, of burnings, shootings, hangings and beheadings.

On Sunday morning I heard my vicar mention another vicar (in England) who has decided no longer to wear the collar in public – for every time he did so, he was repeatedly spat upon.

For as the lightning comes from the east and shines as far as the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.

13 March 2012 at 13:33  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Jon, if the law does not reflect common sense then the law is worthless. As such it is not being naive but commenting on the asinine nature of things at the moment.

On the issue of dangling jewellery, I believe that as the law would be applied now it would outlaw crosses that are pins, not just necklaces. Indeed, my hoodie would be outlawed as well!

13 March 2012 at 13:50  
Blogger Anoneumouse said...

Crown, orb and Sceptre

13 March 2012 at 14:17  
Blogger Oswin said...

Mr. Singh @ 13:33 : I was appalled to read of your spat-upon Vicar. Yes, there are occasions when one should 'turn the other cheek', but in my book, being spat at is not one of them!

I'd love to read the headline : ''Vicar Ko's Spitter!''

13 March 2012 at 14:20  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Oswin

I don't believe it is an isolated case.

13 March 2012 at 14:32  
Blogger David Ould said...

As a deacon I always wear a T-shirt when celebrating the Lord's Supper and distributing the bread and Ribena.

13 March 2012 at 15:04  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace: it is surely true that place of the crucifix, CROSS symbolism developed precisely so as to avoid image-making and idolatry.

Christians developed cross symbology to signify the life of Christ: from Incarnation to Crucifixion. The sign also represents the Word, the Creator who weaves what is visible from the invisible.

The system developed way before german Luther, or even before our own Wycliffe. And since powers and dominions now dragg the world back to the Dark Ages of Diocletian, let us learn from the Enlightened ones whose persecution preceded ours.

Post-modern pinheads cannot clear the crosses from the cosmos. We present-day Christians, consequently, can avail ourselves of crosses whenever and wherever we find them and are so minded. We can do it right in the poor blind faces of our oppressors.

As for euroland and its courts: they are Anathema. They are foreign powers who set themselves up before us and require us to worship humankind. Well, they deceive themselves in believing that they make us less than we are.

St. George's Day is only a few weeks away. Let's raise that cross in front of euroland as ever before.

13 March 2012 at 15:18  
Blogger non mouse said...

----oh dear; regret typos...lost the first post to technology, and rushed through the second. The deletion process has also become very complicated

So please read 'in place of' and 'drag,' at least!

13 March 2012 at 15:25  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

It is a matter for each country to decide itself on what it considers moderate dress. It is NOT for the dodgy EU to impose sameness on every member country. (Another reason for us to part company)

Britain as a Christian country should allow all forms of Christian manifestations as long as sensible and befitting for a work environment. Like his Grace says you would not wear a cross and chain to work a lathe, but I guess you could have a cross in a metallic thread embroidered onto your jumper.

All other forms of religious manifestations that clash on occasions with our British culture should have to take secondary place to Christianity here. We need to keep our mono culture and have common core values with which we can all untie around. So, the British airways employee should be able to wear her little cross as it does not interfere with her work nor does it replace a part of her work uniform. But a muslim lady employee could not wear her Islamic clothing because it would clash with her British Airways uniform. Same as a Siki male. The Turban clashes with the Uniform.
But he could wear the Kara steal bracelet on his left arm thereby still keeping his Guru close to his heart.

Unless of course BA became a Muslim Company? I suppose whoever has the major share holding in a Company has the clout. How about putting it to the share holders how they want the company's dress code to be?

13 March 2012 at 15:48  
Blogger martin sewell said...

It is so sad that we have fallen into a dispute over "rights".

Once, our priority was manners. Could we reasonably accommodate this nice person's request? If it made you more happy and didn't affect me over much, why should I object?

Now we compete, argue and differentiate, in some grotesque game of religious/ political one upmanship. It is the tragic logic of the miserable culture of the politically correct.

13 March 2012 at 16:04  
Blogger non mouse said...

Mr. Sewell ... it keeps us busy so we don't notice they're robbing us of every material thing they value.

Remind me again: How many angels can dance on a pin?

13 March 2012 at 16:12  
Blogger Arden Forester said...

If there are any Christians who think the Cross of Christ is ‘shrouded in obsessive idolatry’ then they have departed from faithfullness quite considerably.

David Cameron may wish to diffuse this new attack on Christians if only to stop people from not voting Conservative. He'll have to do a lot more for me to think he is a proper Conservative. For starters, to tame his attack dogs in the Commons who are spoiling for a fight with those of us who cannot agree to meddling with the sacraments of the Church. That is the "One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church" which we say we believe in when reciting the Creed.

13 March 2012 at 16:16  
Blogger non mouse said...

Yes, Marie @ 15:48. Any act of weaving involves the crossing of threads. The jumper itself is therefore composed of crosses.

As for BA-- I think it's now no more British-owned than BAA. Not to mention the mozzie colonization of LHR. I can hardly stand to go near any of it, any more.

Meanwhile... remind me again... how many angels----????

13 March 2012 at 16:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I suppose one can hardly blame them but surely this is just militant Christian religionists trying it on again. I notice the Christian Institute is backing that poor B&B couple to go to the Supreme Court now. So much for the bloke's heart complaint!

When the exemption was granted to Sikhs over motorbike helmets and other hard hats, it was a finely balanced thing. The requirement, like selt belts, was paternalism and therefore a bit suspect in itself. On the other side, if no exemption was made there was little doubt it would have excluded a significant proportion of the Sikh population from using motorbikes or working in industries with headwear requirements. These are exemptions, rather than rights.

When we look at wearing crosses, a significant proportion of Christians will not be excluded from the workplace. Most of them probably don't wear them anyway in the workplace. If a particular workplace does not accept them then another probably will. If push comes to shove them I expect almost everyone would simply not wear one to the workplace.

The people causing the fuss here are a bunch of chancers being used by the Christian Institute, the religious version of Stonewall, to push for recognition in a competitive marketplace. I don't suppose the individual results or the people involved actually matter. It's about power.

13 March 2012 at 17:05  
Blogger non mouse said...

So then, David Ould ... your shirt represents a Tau cross :)

13 March 2012 at 17:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Many thanks for finding the ‘width’ setting on your blog. (...Reward in heaven, and all that...)

13 March 2012 at 17:26  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Well Non Mouse, Angles are incorporeal so it could be an infinite number, it's irrelevant. The Truth is that Christianity the fabric of our civilised lifestyle is being shrunk and destroyed. It is in this environment that those of us who are Christian need to display signs as well as the actions of our faith.

13 March 2012 at 17:27  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

No Danj0 they could have just complied with the rules and regulations of this country and fitted in with everyone else. BUT no they had to be different and thereby has been the problem and it's becoming ever increasingly complex as different religions and cultures flood in.
We can be international but have to be mono cultured in order that people can unite and be British.

13 March 2012 at 17:42  
Blogger David B said...

Looks like I might have to spend a few quid on a Flying Spaghetti Monster pendant or badge.

David B

13 March 2012 at 17:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Marie, trying to close the stable door on multiculturalism now is a pointless waste of time. The stable door is wide open, the dust has settled, and the horse has had a long career and died. Perhaps you ought to move to New Zealand, that's a bit like Britain in the 1950s by all accounts. It should suit you down to the ground.

13 March 2012 at 17:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David B: "Looks like I might have to spend a few quid on a Flying Spaghetti Monster pendant or badge."

I'm going for the whole religious look myself. I need to pop into human resources and let them know I know my rights over their dress code policy.

13 March 2012 at 17:56  
Blogger non mouse said...

You're so right, Marie at 17:57! That argument always was as irrelevant as most of the claptrap that's supposed to distract us today.

So I'm all for leaving the neu-borne filosofers to tangle, about it and about.

13 March 2012 at 18:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

DanJ0 and Jon

So tell me chapesses what's your preferred symbol? The Lambada? Purple hand? Rainbow flag? The Rhino?

And is either one of you a 'Bear' or 'Leather'?

13 March 2012 at 19:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It should be interesting at the Olympics this year if Sikh visitors can insist on wearing daggers because Christians can insist on wearing crosses.

13 March 2012 at 19:20  
Blogger David Ould said...

Like the Bishop of London I'm a bear.
As a Sydney Calvinist I don't wear leather as it creaks during Worship Meetings.

13 March 2012 at 19:22  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Ah, I'm pleased to have managed to get a signal, even though I am currently sipping some of that nice stella, I got from earth, whilst watching Jupiter's giant storm (managed to bounce the signal from Uranus), whilst I fill up the old ship with some fusion energy from Jupiter...nice view.

But what species is David Ould? I have never met such a funny creature.. is he friend or foe?

13 March 2012 at 19:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Alpha

Carry on this way with silly questions and you'll be demoted to Omega!

Read Mr Ould's blog. He'sa male, fundamentalist house-elf from the colonies (family probably ex-convicts). He likes to persecute Anglicans when he's not watching the satanic film 'Harry Potter', or listening to Kylie Minogue (another who's background is ex-convict colonial).

How did you manage to get a signal from Uranus and did it prove difficult?

13 March 2012 at 20:32  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

Dodo,

You are quite right, we are here to discuss important matters of religous-political discourse in an erudite manner, not listen to me warble about drinking human larger and watching the Jovian sun-spot!

How did I bounce a signal from Jupiter to Uranus to Earth? Hah Hah! Forbidden technology. It would be like giving cavemen nuclear weapons! In good time, Dodo, in good time.

13 March 2012 at 20:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Ould
You do know what a "Bear" and a "Leather" is?

DanJ0
I'm guessing "Bear". Old, fat, hairy and working class in manner.

13 March 2012 at 21:00  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
A very interesting and well evaluated post. Christians do need to be responsive to their coleagues, neighbours and friends. If I had to work on a Christmas day, once in three years or so or the occasional Sunday, God's not going to fall off his throne. So let’s be understanding to others and not make out that we are super religious and won't do anything against so called religious special days.
Your comments on the dress requirements of other religious groups I found very interesting. The problem I see is convincing them that their values and traditions are incorrect. What about burning the Quran or creating an image of Mohammed? These actions have caused great outrage in recent times.
Overall I believe you are right, but I just can’t see it working at the moment. However we do need a robust defence of those things that really matter, not get bogged down in trifling issues.

13 March 2012 at 21:16  
Blogger David Ould said...

DanJO: I don't believe "old, fat, hairy and working class in manner" adequately describes Richard Chartres.

13 March 2012 at 22:09  
Blogger Chris Gillibrand said...

Delighted to see Your Grace that you remain consistently Puritan over the centuries.

13 March 2012 at 22:16  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Office of Inspector General said

Your Grace. Many thanks for finding the ‘width’ setting on your blog. (...Reward in heaven, and all that...)


Ernst seconds that remark. May not improve me fading vision but it sure is balm for tired sore eyes. Bless You.

Ernst

ps

What took you sooo long? ;-O

13 March 2012 at 22:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Ould

The good Bishop of London is happily married - isn't he?

He's also traditional and orhodox - isn't he?

Against women priests and has a traditional stance on gay priests i.e being gay in itself is not a sin but the only two "life projects" open to a priest are celibacy or lifelong, faithful, heterosexual marriage.

Sounds okay to me and certainly not a "Bear"!

13 March 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger David Ould said...

You are right, Mr Dodo. The good Bishop must be a "leather".

13 March 2012 at 22:47  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

No, Mr Ould, he is neither.

He is a good and faithful Christian servant in a difficult and fluid situation. If Anglicanism loses such Bishops as he then it is surely lost.

13 March 2012 at 23:03  
Blogger David Ould said...

In that case he must be a "twink".

13 March 2012 at 23:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Most certainly not Mr Ould. He's has no homosexual inclinations and, even if he did, he would be too old and bearded to qualify for such a description.

Do you have an inkling in this direction yourself?

13 March 2012 at 23:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Alpha
A favour,please.

Run your technology over Australia and inform me of the character of Mr Ould, the queer looking little pixie.

One suspects he is mischieve making and is a homosexual attempting to discredit the teachings of Christianity. If this proves to be the case, send a lazer beam, via Uranus, to block his future messages.

14 March 2012 at 00:38  
Blogger David Preiser (USA) said...

Your Grace,

Does this include wearing a cross on air at the BBC?

14 March 2012 at 01:07  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

David Preiser (USA)

Sarah Falkland, presenter on BBC Midlands Today used to wear a cross on air.

She was told to take it off.

14 March 2012 at 07:08  
Blogger non mouse said...

Well I tell you what. The next time I have to go near LHR or any of the vile aiports or hubs in what used to be Britain, I will wear my biggest cross on the outside of my clothing, and cover myself with as many other crosses visible as possible. I will make absolutely sure that none of the foreign so and so's can miss them. I'll also carry my Union Jack with me.

Furthermore, I shall put sticky notes with crosses on them on top of all references to the euSSR on my passport, I shall use my leather cover that carries the British Coat of arms and, in as loud a voice as possible, I will answer all relevant questions to the effect that I am British, not european. I will declare my flat rejection of euro citizenship or identification with it.

While not going out of my way, I will say and do everything possible to register my refusal to kowtow to this oppression.

I shall also pray that God will send some vile eurobloatee or westminster stooge near the same area as me, so that I can effect dignified irreverence.

14 March 2012 at 08:07  
Blogger non mouse said...

The delete thing doesn't work, Your Grace --- sorry I'm unable to correct typos after posting.

14 March 2012 at 08:11  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, a question on etiquette.

Should one wear a cross when arrested at 6.00am on possible charges of perverting the course of justice?

Or should one's iphone dispay the cross as one looks up the Prime Minister's telephone number in the police station?

14 March 2012 at 10:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Well, good luck with that. I'm thinking a strip search and long delays there.

Right click, open in separate window works for me.

14 March 2012 at 11:41  
Blogger will said...

From the great Republic of Texas-

You guys are going off the deep-end never to be seen again.

And we are blindly following you.

May God have mercy on us all!

14 March 2012 at 16:14  
Blogger Alpha Draconis said...

@Dodo, with regret my ship is a small science vessel- I have a few anti-matter beams, but they would simply turn Australia and turn it into a sea of glass... You would need an Aero Space Carrier, with fighter capable of entering earth's atmosphere to do the trick of precision targetting.

14 March 2012 at 19:07  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Alpha
Not worth all the hassle for a nuisance. No worries.

14 March 2012 at 19:12  
Blogger David Ould said...

I am NOT a nuisance, Mr Dodo. As an upright, erect fundamentalist, I am a campaigner against homosexualism in a former colony.

15 March 2012 at 07:33  
Blogger len said...

Your Grace your blog is like a beacon in the darkness.
Seems alien life forms are using it as a landing aid.

15 March 2012 at 08:22  
Blogger David Ould said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 March 2012 at 10:41  
Blogger Jon said...

Dodo - my preferred symbol? I don't require representation in the way that you appear to do. I don't advertise my supposed piety with a piece of metal around my neck any more than I advertise my sexuality by wearing a rainbow flag (well hardly ever...)

My preferred symbol for me is me. You should try just being you sometime.

As for being "a leather" (whatever that is) or a "bear" - I don't readily fit into any of those categories. I suspect if you met me you wouldn't even know (the reason I know this is that hardly anyone I come across guesses). I may already have done so. We're everywhere now, you know, and we look just like you....

15 March 2012 at 17:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Jon
Feeling a bit touchy-feely tonight?

Mr Ould seems to know all about the 'codes' of your chosen lifestyle and I'm sure he'll enlighten you.

15 March 2012 at 19:48  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,

feeling a little left out?.

15 March 2012 at 20:47  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Len: not something that ever concerns to me - does it you?

15 March 2012 at 22:02  
Blogger velvel in decatur said...

Sportin' of him.
I suppose that the heathens and their minions can wear tin foil helmets.

16 March 2012 at 18:45  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older