Friday, July 13, 2012

Cameron takes on the Pope


Not content with rebuking the Church of England and publicly rowing with the Archbishop of Canterbury, David Cameron has now decided to take on the Bishop of Rome, successor of St Peter the Apostle, the King of the Vatican City State and worldwide leader of the Roman Catholic Church.

This is nothing new, of course. English monarchs and British prime ministers have throughout the centuries felt obliged to tell various successors of St Peter where they can go. But the great battles of ages past tended to be concerned with issues of sovereignty: now it is all about sexuality.

Tony Blair challenged Pope Benedict XVI on homosexuality; David Cameron has chosen contraception. In each case, they appear to believe that centuries of Roman Catholic orthodoxy can be overturned by 'the strength of our arguments'. They mistake Rome's Magisterium for the Church of England's General Synod. The motto of the Church of Rome is 'Semper Eadem'; that of the Church of England is 'Argumentum ad Nauseam'.

His Grace, being Anglican, happens to believe that condoms save lives, especially in Africa. And he would much rather a child not be conceived than aborted. For these reasons, in this incontinent age of unrestraint, he believes that contraception should be accessible across the globe. The Church of England accepted birth control in the 1930 Lambeth Conference. In the 1958 Lambeth Conference it stated that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children was laid by God upon the consciences of parents 'in such ways as are acceptable to husband and wife'.

Not so with the Church of Rome, which specifies that all sex acts must be both unitive and procreative. Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae of 1968 decreed that all artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. According to the new Roman Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth, this is 'infallible teaching'.

That's a shame, because it means it was declared ex cathedra, and so is immutable, semper eadem (take this understanding up with the Bishop-elect Mgr Philip Egan, not His Grace).

And that leaves millions of Roman Catholics all over the world somewhat at variance with their church on this matter. Everyone knows that the papal ban on artificial birth control is largely ignored, and many millions of otherwise sincere and obedient Roman Catholics long for a change of policy. The women in particular (including a few American nuns) might rather like the Pope to listen the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom (and the President of the United States) on this matter.

The thing is, of course, that those Roman Catholics who speak out against their church hierarchy are manifesting that very same spirit of protest which ushered in the Protestant Reformation. One either submits to the infallible teachings of one's church, or one disputes and disobeys them. Roman Catholicism is not like à la carte Anglicanism: one may not choose one dimension of the Magisterium and pour scorn upon the rest; one may not prefer one ecumenical council over another; one may not be ‘a pro-abortion Catholic’ or a 'pro-condom Catholic' any more than one may be a paedophile priest. And for Pope Benedict, flooding Africa with condoms is tantamount to murder. This is not a battle the Prime Minister can win.

158 Comments:

Blogger Unheard Melodies said...

I have long thought that a key difference between Anglicanism and Roman Catholicism is that, when Anglicans encounter an aspect of Church teaching they consider unjust or outmoded, they campaign to have the teaching amended. When Catholics encounter such an aspect (and the use of contraceptives is a good example), they just ignore the teaching.

I know which I think has the greater integrity.

13 July 2012 at 10:49  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Kinda shows Cameron's mentality is akin to the infallibility thinking within Cathilicism. "My arguements are clearly correct, as forged by the development of Western society over the years, so all archaic views on how to live will surely fall" is the thinking of an idiot! "Conservative" Cameron is anything but!!!

13 July 2012 at 10:49  
Blogger Derek T Northcote said...

It's all drivel for idiots anyway.

Get over yourself.

And stop speaking in the 3rd person.

You are as much an Archbishop as I am the Queen of Sheba.

Pathetic.

13 July 2012 at 10:52  
Blogger Woman on a Raft said...

What is it with prime ministers? They are elected to do the job of governing here but five minutes after getting the keys to the door of No 10 they are off and telling everybody else in the world how to live.

It's not like he's made such a raving success of it here - not even managing to win an election on his own - so it's not as if talks from democratic authority to run round bossily annoying the neighbours.

13 July 2012 at 11:01  
Blogger Flossie said...

It's not often that I dare (or would wish!) to disagree with His Grace, but I think that he is wrong on contraceptives. I believe that it is the contraceptive mentality that has led to the 'incontinent age of unrestraint', especially with the advent of The Pill - originally intended for married women but now available to all, the result being an abortion rate of 200,000 a year. That didn't work then, did it?

The work of Senior Harvard AIDS Prevention Researcher Dr. Edward Green backs up the Pope on this, especially in Africa where AIDS is so rife, where condoms have actually exacerbated the problem.

http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/harvard_researcher_agrees_with_pope_on_condoms_in_africa/

13 July 2012 at 11:12  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

Flossie, given the modern penchant (it seems) for people to want to recreate porn and the tendency of porn to show external ejaculation I don't think that a lack of contraception would reduce the care-free way western society treats sex. (And that's without even bringing oral and anal into the thought process)

13 July 2012 at 11:20  
Blogger Paul Richardson said...

Cranmer - I find myself wondering why you're not covering what must be the biggest story of the day - the decision by the German courts to ban circumcision of minors.

13 July 2012 at 11:35  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

@Derek T Northcote

If it's all drivel for idiots then why do you keep reading & participating. Actually, I think I understand ... it's because it's drivel for idiots.

Now, since I suspect Cranmer is far too polite & courteous to say so, please place a condom on the phallus on your head.

13 July 2012 at 11:36  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Paul Richardson,

Perhaps because His Grace has already recently done so:

http://archbishop-cranmer.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/circumcision-contravenes-rights-of.html

13 July 2012 at 11:39  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

The Catholic Church takes people as they really are, whereas the protestant denominations pretend they are something they would like them to be.
Cameron is wrong (as are you Your Grace) about contraception and would be better to say nothing about it - or homosexual 'marriage'.
He is on the wrong side of history.

13 July 2012 at 11:44  
Blogger Galant said...

Cranmer: I think - assume - Mr. Richardson is wondering about the lack of an update/response on the issue since the courts reached a conclusion.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-18793842
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/12/us-germany-circumcision-idUSBRE86B0XF20120712

Alternatively, I've been wondering about a lack of posts on the issue of women bishops. :)

13 July 2012 at 11:50  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

You're learning, Cranmer, you're learning; another year or two and we'll have you back in Rome.

As to Catholics who ignore the Magisterium, they are in a state of mortal sin; you are quite correct when you say you cannot be a pro-abortion or pro-contraception Catholic - once the Magisterium speaks, that's it. I personally have found it a great struggle to stay within the precepts of the Faith, but I cannot even conceive of being anything other than a Tim, and I entirely agree with Unheard Melodies on the subject of integrity. I found it much easier from the day I realized I had to choose between Church and state; I chose the Church, and from then on I didn't have to rationalize anymore. I came out of the closet; I'm a Catholic.

13 July 2012 at 11:53  
Blogger MFH said...

the pope successor to St peter?
Only in their own mind.
Peter wouldn't recognize the religion of those that claim to follow on from him

13 July 2012 at 12:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae of 1968 decreed that all artificial contraception is intrinsically evil. According to the new Roman Catholic Bishop of Portsmouth, this is 'infallible teaching'.

This is news to me. Of course, Rome doesn't actually list out its infallible teachings anywhere so its hard to know. It's much more expedient for Rome to maintain flexibility lest any additional infallible teachings be falsified.

carl

13 July 2012 at 12:33  
Blogger John Magee said...

PM Cameron is a President Obama copycat. The USA is facing a major State verses Church Constitutional crisus, in it's history, over this same matter. Your Grace is correct, Church of Rome will not back down from it's valid moral perception about when life begins... and ends.

Twelve different lawsuits are being filed in federal courts around the USA.

"This lawsuit is about an unprecedented attack by the federal government on one of America's most cherished freedoms: the freedom to practice one's religion without government interference," the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington, D.C. explains on its Web site, preservereligiousfreedom.org.

"It is not about whether people have access to certain services; it is about whether the government may force religious institutions and individuals to facilitate and fund services which violate their religious beliefs," the Web site explains.

The suits filed by the Catholic organizations are chiefly in reaction to the regulation that Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced last August and finalized in January. The mandate requires that all health-care plans in the United States cover sterilizations and all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptives, including those that can cause abortions.

The Catholic Church teaches that sterilization, artificial contraception and abortion are morally wrong. The regulation requires that faithful Catholics and Catholic organizations act against their consciences and violate the teachings of their faith.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops had called the regulation an "unprecedented attack on religious liberty" and asked the Obama administration to rescind it.

"We have tried negotiation with the Administration and legislation with the Congress--and we'll keep at it--but there's still no fix," Cardinal Dolan, president of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops said in a statement.

"Time is running out, and our valuable ministries and fundamental rights hang in the balance, so we have to resort to the courts now," the cardinal said.

"Though the Conference is not a party to the lawsuits, we applaud this courageous action by so many individual dioceses, charities, hospitals and schools across the nation, in coordination with the law firm of Jones Day. It is also a compelling display of the unity of the Church in defense of religious liberty. It's also a great show of the diversity of the Church's ministries that serve the common good and that are jeopardized by the mandate--ministries to the poor, the sick, and the uneducated, to people of any faith or no faith at all."

13 July 2012 at 12:36  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Your Grace,

The idea that when a normal man (however pious he may be), sits on a throne and says he has the perfect word and thoughts of a God is not only absurd it is dangerous, as we have seen throughout history.

As for the Peter bit, quite how a God-Emperor who lives in a palace, surrounded by sycophants, can claim descent from a humble Jewish fisherman, who didn't horde colossal wealth, who got killed for what he believed in and preached, who didn't live in some massive palace or run a sovereign state, is beyond me.

13 July 2012 at 12:38  
Blogger Theo said...

Nothing really wrong with the Biblical position that sex outside marriage is sinful; inside marriage its for the procreation of children. "Moral restraint" as Malthus put it is the only legitimate Christian position. Simply because we don't want moral restraint doesn't justify us taking any other view.

13 July 2012 at 12:43  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

"à la carte Anglicanism". An apt description of a Church which really does not know what it really believes in anymore. I will give Catholics credit on one account- at least they believe what they believe and stick to it wholeheartedly.

13 July 2012 at 12:45  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

@ Unheard Melodies:

How does providing people with a clear statement of what is expected of them, even though they are by human nature unwilling or unable to follow it in all aspects, constitute greater integrity than deciding that Christian moral teaching consists of whatever enough people believe is right at any given time?

To do that turns Christ, the eternal Word made Flesh, into an ephemeral God of the Zeitgeist, whose only purpose is to make us feel better about the things we have decided to do anyway. That is not Christianity; it is Moralistic Therapeutic Deism.

13 July 2012 at 13:01  
Blogger Paul Richardson said...

My apologies Cranmer, I should read your blog more often.

I was mischievously enquiring because I thought you might find it a difficult subject to offer your opinion on; and interestingly my suspicion seems to be borne out. Whereas most of your pieces do take the form of 'opinion', you appear simply to report on this subject - an observation further borne out by your lack of contribution to the commentary (unless my search techniques have let me down again).

So, let me put you on the spot: What is your view of this judgment and how do you feel about Lord Sack's comment when he said "Do judges in Cologne today really not know what happened the last time Germany went down that road?" - in effect calling the judges a bunch of Nazis for daring to suggest that it might be wrong to mutilate a child and perform religious branding. It seems to suggest a certain detachment from reason; worrying in someone who sits in our upper house.

13 July 2012 at 13:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If this is about the family planning speech then it's nothing to do with the Bishop of Rome or the Roman Catholic church other than that it promotes a political strategy and vision with which the Church would necessarily disagree based on its own internal religious position. Why should we particularly care about the politics the Roman Catholic Church promotes? We don't tailor our values about the self-determination and freedom of women simply because Islam on the whole views women in a different light.

13 July 2012 at 13:25  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Oops - my previous comment @ 13:01 should have read "constitute lesser integrity" not "constitute greater integrity". D'oh :o)

13 July 2012 at 13:32  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

It appears that the zealous amongst the anti circumcision brigade forget that western society does similar to new borns themselves such as ear piercing which have consequences also.

Will the judges in Cologne or elsewhere ban this pathetic mutilation/practice that has no real significance to the human race other than to stick or hang cheap/expensive baubles from humanity's ear lobes from the earliest age possible.

Those naughty, nasty jews, doing what God Almighty required them to perform eh.

E S Blofeld

13 July 2012 at 13:33  
Blogger Albert said...

David Cameron has chosen contraception. In each case, they appear to believe that centuries of Roman Catholic orthodoxy can be overturned by 'the strength of our arguments'.

What planet is this man on? It's tempting to assume he fiddles with the House of Lords, marriage and now the Catholic Church because he knows he is out of his depth on the stuff he is supposed to be dealing with. But he doesn't know what he's talking about on these issues either.

Firstly, as someone has already posted above, we know that condoms are not the answer in Africa to HIV:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/27/AR2009032702825.html

Moreover, according to the Family Planning Association (hardly a Catholic friendly organisation) condoms are not even as effective as the natural family planning methods the Church permits:

If used according to teaching and instructions, natural family planning methods are up to 99 per cent effective, depending on which method is used. http://www.fpa.org.uk/helpandadvice/contraception/naturalfamilyplanning#LyRA

Male condom – If used according to instructions it is 98 per cent effective...Female condom – If used according to instructions it is 95 per cent effective. http://www.fpa.org.uk/helpandadvice/contraception/condoms#effectiveness

But apart from being irrationally dogmatic in the face of facts, unless he is very stupid he must know that the contraceptive mentality is a consequence of a non-Christian, naturalistic metaphysic.

The idea that the Catholic Church will be argued out of believing in creation is truly astonishing.

I thought PMs could not get worse than Brown.

13 July 2012 at 13:43  
Blogger Albert said...

Galant,

I've been wondering about a lack of posts on the issue of women bishops.

You're not the only one.

13 July 2012 at 13:45  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Contraception gives the illusion of control, by hiding our procreative nature. When the control fails, we try to wrestle it back. That's why there is a direct link between contraception and abortion. To give Cameron his dues, he did specifically mention population control rather than sexual health or deaths in childbirth (contraception does nothing to address those). Artificially shutting down the reproductive system of millions of women will only lead to more poverty where there is already too much poverty. We already have a perfectly natural way of shutting down those reproductive systems - time :)

13 July 2012 at 13:57  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Unheard Melodies it is hardly integral as Darter Noster has pointed out to decree Anglicans to be more integral than Catholics .

It is easy to be integral when you adhere to a religion that changes its dogma on popular demand.

However you do have a point which I find very disturbing and that is the hypocrisy of Catholics who ignore the teachings on pre marital sex and contraception but continue to receive the sacraments. Only a Catholic would or should realise the seriousness of this offense. It is tantamount to the worst kind of sacrilege,imaginable.

I can only think that many Catholics are receiving a very provincial or substandard Catholic education by bigoted clergy in certain countries which brings me to

Corrigan. And I cringe when I hear you utter these words
" I am a Catholic" What you should say is " I am a text book Catholic"
You are bereft of the essence of Catholicism..the qualities of compassion and generosity and key to salvation.So be wary about bandying mortal sin threats about because Catholics have degree and circumstantial consideration of sin This is not known to Protestants nor to you evidently.
With your anti semitic views and homophobia you are hardly a poster boy for Catholicism.

Carl, of course it would never occur to you( the epitome of a charitable caressing his shot gun Christian) that Catholic doctrine is not decreed as immutable truth (ex cathedra) because it is not and simply that and without any other agenda. You are projecting far too much and unlike Corrigan are a very good posterboy up for your Calvinist /Mormon cult.

13 July 2012 at 13:57  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

correction..not all Catholic doctrine is decreed as immutable truth

13 July 2012 at 14:05  
Blogger Paul Richardson said...

E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles,

I've read your comment a few times now but all I can find is a suggestion that the same stance be taken towards ear-piercing.

Let me bring you back to the question:

Your argument for permitting circumcision is.......????

(oh, actually I can guess: God tells us to! Well some of us anyway, err, those that listen carefully, err, no, I'll try again, those borne of Abraham, yup, that should it - that's vaguely logical.)

13 July 2012 at 14:07  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Cressida

Have a nice day.

carl

13 July 2012 at 14:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Paul Richardson

So is this your attempt at "Damn, I missed the thread on circumcision, but maybe I can start an argument about it on this thread, because that's what I want to argue about?"

Just wondering...

carl

13 July 2012 at 14:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. An excellent post that belies your former anti catholic stance. You are becoming a noted arbiter in matters spiritual where few of worth tread, or indeed should do. (‘Few of worth’ encompassing prime ministers with their own selfish agendas, don’t you think…)

It is of course the numbers game. The RCC have been urging it’s followers to knock out as many as possible since the Saracen was at the gates of Vienna. Prior to this there was a curious lack of interest in the fertility of the flock. And who could blame them, with a serious risk of death of the mother in the act of bringing forth as well as the demise of a large percentage of the little ones. The best a priest could offer was “it’s God’s will”.

We must also remember that Catholics adhere to Rome, as it’s legitimate successor to Christ’s ministry. It is made perfectly clear that the observance of the church’s thinking does not automatically result in salvation.

One cannot help but view the official attitude to prophylactics especially is that they are responsible for fornication most obviously encouraging the youth. And it can be argued that their use has undermined not just traditional marriage, but also monogamy in general. We can either continue and fight this way or reassess the situation and instead of frowning on sexual activity by the young, concentrate, and take a new approach and encourage sensible pairing, albeit at an early age. And why go along with putting off parenting until comparatively late in life anyway. Rather stinks of the modern putting off death until the last possible moment…

For any sanctimonious Catholic who seethes as he reads this, is mankind not a noble animal, in God’s image. Where is the nobility in knocking out as many children as is bodily possible into poverty ?

13 July 2012 at 14:25  
Blogger Paul Richardson said...

Carl,

Yup. Your point?

Everyone doing a great job of avoiding defending the indefensible at the moment, and still not a peep from Cranmer.

Paul

13 July 2012 at 14:28  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

"This is nothing new, of course. English monarchs and British prime ministers have throughout the centuries felt obliged to tell various successors of St Peter where they can go. But the great battles of ages past tended to be concerned with issues of sovereignty: now it is all about sexuality. "

It appears that the Tiberians that frequent the blog tend to read more into what you state than the obvious point raised by your good self.

Ernst has never found anything within the Holy Bible that declares what has been stated by Rome and that its argument for the Roman Catholic position on birth control comes from the odd word from Clement and the rest built upon by that old false path pointer, Augustine of Hippo who was convinced that original sin was transmitted through sexual generation and that that the only way sexual desire could be balanced was by the positive good of procreative intent. Otherwise all sexual relations, even within marriage, would be venially sinful.

Pope Pius XI in 1930 issued the encyclical 'Casti connubi' in which he declared that "any use whatever of marriage, in the exercise of which the act by human effort is deprived of its natural power of procreating life, violates the law of God and nature, and those who do such a thing are stained by a grave and mortal flaw." Pius did, however, open the door for the so-called rhythm method of contraception, a view that was officially endorsed by Pope Pius XII in 1951.

Ernst's and other Christians views, however, should be that the conscience of the Christian is obligated and bound only by what the Bible either commands or forbids, or by what may be legitimately deduced from an explicit biblical principle throughout the whole texts of the Book.
This is obviously contrary to Roman Catholic 'ex cathedra' dogma.*Chortles*

Ernst Blofeld

13 July 2012 at 14:32  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Paul Richardson

My point was obvious to anyone with two connected brain cells - including yourself. I was attempting to short-circuit your attempt to divert the thread by stating out loud what you were transparently doing.

carl

13 July 2012 at 14:39  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Mr Richardson

"Let me bring you back to the question: You have stated no such question as nothing is defined as against/for the term of reference..It must all be 'implied' regarding your stance..A poor reason for a qualified debate but par for the course with the people who irregularly frequent this blog, to drop their poisonous drippings here.

Your argument for permitting circumcision is.......????
Then what on earth is yours for forbidding..????

"Everyone doing a great job of avoiding defending the indefensible at the moment, and still not a peep from Cranmer" Is this you going La La La La La???

No wonder Cranmer can't be bothered to respond!

Ernst S Blofeld

PS

Please start a comment on the section dealing with this, as given by ABC, as this thread relates to using or not using condoms and you are fast becoming an exemplar for the benefit of its use.

13 July 2012 at 14:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah there you are DanJ0. Despite the Inspector being on his hols, he can always find time to leave the imprint of his walking boot on your gay secular behind…

Why should we particularly care about the politics the Roman Catholic Church promotes?

Why should we care about the opinion of the likes of you. Exactly what business is it of yours ? You have dismissed religion as unsubstantiated. So kindly resume position outside the fence with you looking in, and quietly with it, what !

13 July 2012 at 14:48  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 July 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

@Paul,

The German court was wrong to issue this judgement.

Male circumcision has been part of the fabric of the Jewish religion and culture for centuries, at least three thousand years +. That is enough and requires no further explanation or discussion.

As Carl said, this thread is on a different topic, so wait till it comes up again.

13 July 2012 at 14:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, Cameron is prime minister of the country in which I live and he is pledging some of my taxes to this political and moral initiative. Hence, it has as much to do with me as anyone else in the country and it's well within my sphere for comment. As far as I can see, the prime minister didn't even mention religion, let alone the Roman Catholic Church or Ratzinger in the family planning speech itself? Have you actually read it?

13 July 2012 at 15:08  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, Inspector, i hope that you aren't hanging around secluded carparks and public toilets given that you're on holiday and essntially anonymous. You repressed homosexuals give the rest of us a bad name when you play away.

13 July 2012 at 15:14  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

OIG

"For any sanctimonious Catholic who seethes as he reads this, is mankind not a noble animal, in God’s image. Where is the nobility in knocking out as many children as is bodily possible into poverty ?" Well said Old Sport!

Christian liberty requires that those who advocate the use of birth control not condemn those who choose not to employ it.

Ernst Blofeld

13 July 2012 at 15:14  
Blogger Paul Richardson said...

Carl,
I was open about being mischievous. The old thread is dead so no point pasting there, but the story is very much alive today as you'll see from the Tweets on Cranmer's page.

ESB,
No need to infer anything, I was very explicit in the questions I put to Cranmer and by extension to you. It seems you are the one who have trouble with basic English comprehension.

"Then what on earth is yours for forbidding..????" - not only have you once again avoided answering the question, you've just made one of the most laughable statements I've ever read in these blogs, and I've read quite a few over the years.

"Poisonous drippings" - really? Could you point out what I've said that would genuinely justify that description?


As ever the Christian warmth that oozes from the writings of Cranmer's communicants today reminds me why I return again and again to this blog - and have rejected your various faiths!

Still no one care to have a go at justifying circumcision? It's getting a bit embarrassing this, isn't it? Tumbleweed........

13 July 2012 at 15:15  
Blogger Flossie said...

David Cameron is exposing himself more and more as a shallow thinker. Hence his support for gay 'marriage'. Let us hope he knows by now what a fool he has made of himself over that.

Somebody really ought to explain to him the RC position on birth control. It is getting quite embarrassing.

As a cradle Anglican, the further I go through life the more I am convinced that RC teaching on sex and sexuality makes perfect sense. Joined-up theology. If individuals (Cherie Blair, for instance) want to deviate from it that is up to them to reconcile with their consciences (and with God), but the teaching is right and that will not change. David Cameron please note.

13 July 2012 at 15:22  
Blogger Flossie said...

Paul Richardson, this is His Grace's blog and he can post on whatever he pleases.

If you don't like his choice of topics, start your own blog.

Manners!

13 July 2012 at 15:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0

Point taken. Speech now read. Well crafted it was. One really must avoid knee jerk reactions in familiar area of dispute.

Hmmm. One can now appreciate your comment as justified. {AHEM}

13 July 2012 at 15:31  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Paul Richardson clearly doesn't look very far, already told him, above.

13 July 2012 at 15:33  
Blogger Paul Richardson said...

Flossie, Anna,

Of course Cranmer can post on what he wishes to. And we can ask him to comment. Perfect symmetry.

Manners: yes, I agree, I really shouldn't go turning over tables in the temple or upsetting Pharisees on such a trivial matter as child abuse.

No doubt you'll be pleased to hear that I won't post again in this thread. You're right, you should now be allowed to carry on discussing the topic you started on, and part of my objective has been achieved. Any other reader will have observed the complete lack of desire to justify circumcision or at least support the German judges; you are all feeling a bit queasy about your own position on the topic, and Cranmer, because unlike most of his commmunicants I believe he does have a desire for intellectual integrity, will hopefully be trying to come to a position himself that he can then communicate.

13 July 2012 at 15:50  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Mr richardson

Let us examine your brilliantly put question and argument, shall we.

So, let me put you on the spot:(Is this how you request a response from a Blog owner??)

What is your view of this judgment "A German court has ruled that circumcising young boys on religious grounds amounts to bodily harm even if parents consent to the procedure." As stated concisely by me, this relates to religion and any requirements of it as an argument against it rather than the health of the child..Or is not piercing of ears etc by parents on newborn's or older a mutilation and can cause infection and complications also..Most are accomplished by unsterile and ill trained people!!!!Has the child not got the right to not have this practice against it or does the wishes of it's parents trump physical integrity of the child in this situation???
(The case involved a doctor accused of carrying out a circumcision on a 4-year-old that led to medical complications. The doctor was acquitted, however, and prosecutors said they won't appeal. This is a rare occurence, is it not?????)
Where are it's rights within the mall jewellery shops etc that has practitioners (laugh out loud) that initiate the practice??? Oh yeah..It's not jewish or religious, is it??!!!!

and how do you feel about Lord Sack's comment when he said "Do judges in Cologne today really not know what happened the last time Germany went down that road?"

Bloomin well see above arguument that it is based on religious bias and the Jews in Germany have every reason to fear 'judgments' from German courts!!!- in effect calling the judges a bunch of Nazis for daring to suggest that it might be wrong to mutilate a child and perform religious branding.
It appears the German courts are not thinking about what happened against the jews by their prime inquistors and executioners does it not??!! It seems to suggest a certain detachment from reason; worrying in someone who sits in our upper house.

It appears to show you are not the health practitioner you seem to suggest and boast about on your profile but an avid religion hater that looks at all things religious as vile? Ear piercings etc!!!..Look to the mote in your own eye before requesting to remove the twig from your brother's eye.

"As ever the Christian warmth that oozes from the writings of Cranmer's communicants today reminds me why I return again and again to this blog - and have rejected your various faiths!

"Christian warmth .." Dear boy, I feel I have been patience and goodwilled warmth exemplified by such an obvious provoke with such a biased conclusion presented and reached by yourself with no argument presented to justify.

You see, very easily defendable and not really worth my time in responding to such a foolish argument presented to others on this blog!!!!

Is Dawkins blog truly that boring .?

Ernst Blofeld


"No doubt you'll be pleased to hear that I won't post again in this thread."

The above was a waste of time then. Blast.

13 July 2012 at 16:03  
Blogger David B said...

I've read HG's post more than once, trying to establish the position of the tongue in his mouth, and tend to the opinion that, at the end of the post, it is situated quite firmly in cheek.

I don't follow Inspector as seeing his post as not anti Catholic, though of course Inspector may have had his tongue in cheek himself in his post. Somehow I think not, though.

"Roman Catholicism is not like à la carte Anglicanism: one may not choose one dimension of the Magisterium and pour scorn upon the rest; one may not prefer one ecumenical council over another; one may not be ‘a pro-abortion Catholic’ or a 'pro-condom Catholic' any more than one may be a paedophile priest."

I think HG just points out that many self professed Catholics do what, under Catholic doctrine, they should not. Some for good, some for ill.

And implies that the moral standing of both the RCC and many of its adherents is a complete mess.

Perhaps I am wrong in my understanding of HG's post, but if I am right about it, then of course I concur.

David B

13 July 2012 at 16:25  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Given the length of time it took the Roman Catholic Church to accept that the earth rotated around the sun it make take them a little time for them to come round to the merits of contraception.

13 July 2012 at 16:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Cranmer said ...

"One either submits to the infallible teachings of one's church, or one disputes and disobeys them."

True but one should first seek to understand the Church's teaching and if, in all conscience, one disobeys, one should understand and accept the sacramental consequences.

"Roman Catholicism is not like à la carte Anglicanism: one may not choose one dimension of the Magisterium and pour scorn upon the rest; one may not prefer one ecumenical council over another; one may not be ‘a pro-abortion Catholic’ or a 'pro-condom Catholic' ..."

Exactly and that's what makes it an enduring Church and one that is faithful to Christ.

13 July 2012 at 16:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B, It’s all from the heart from this man (…mainly !…)

What is troubling is that masses of adherents to the world’s largest Christian congregation, the RCs, are made to feel guilty about something which, to all good, should be intensely private - sexual relations between a man and woman in the sanctity og marraige. We do not worship the sex act, so why is so much made of it. So sperm is spilled. What of it ? Is there not plenty to go around. As plentiful as saliva.

Never could see the point in the church interfering beneath the sheets, unless specifically invited to do so, and even then only on a one to one basis.

The church has no problem in its followers taking life, in a military situation, or self defence. Has the Inspector really missed something, or is it the magisterium…

13 July 2012 at 16:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David B: "I've read HG's post more than once, trying to establish the position of the tongue in his mouth, and tend to the opinion that, at the end of the post, it is situated quite firmly in cheek."

Me too.

13 July 2012 at 17:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "Point taken. Speech now read."

He did apparently respond to a question from the audience about the RCC though, according to the contraception link in the blog owner's article. In that position, I suppose he'd have been ill advised to simply say: "stuff 'em" in response. :)

13 July 2012 at 17:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. Am not happy with the way contraception and Roman Catholic is so tied up together it is as strong as the relationship between dog and bone.

We are the spirit of life occupying mere flesh and blood. The fragile vessel containing of ourselves, which will corrupt and turn to dust, (...and maybe causing problems for the owner beforehand...), including our dangly bits. Is the Inspector a lone Catholic voice here ? Does anyone know if this sentiment has ever been proclaimed by any metropolitan bishop, let this man know so that he can study and bathe in this truth…

13 July 2012 at 17:22  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Mr Richardson

"Any other reader will have observed the complete lack of desire to justify circumcision or at least support the German judges; you are all feeling a bit queasy about your own position on the topic, and Cranmer, because unlike most of his commmunicants I believe he does have a desire for intellectual integrity, will hopefully be trying to come to a position himself that he can then communicate."


"Marx and Engels never tried to refute their opponents with argument. They insulted, ridiculed, derided, slandered, and traduced them, and in the use of these methods their followers are not less expert. Their polemic is directed never against the argument of the opponent, but always against his person"

-Ludwig von Mises (1881-1973)

The joys of Socialism.

E S Blofeld

13 July 2012 at 17:36  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

HG's comparison with the American nuns and contraception is definitely tongue in cheek.That nun knows her head is on the chopping block and she better than anyone would know that.It will certainly boost her book sales.

HG last pragraph is not tongue in cheek because that denotes some kind of cruelty and hatred for millions of people. I feel that HG feels genuine pity for millions of
Christian Catholic married couples who are disallowed from taking the pill or other contraception. At some point in the future I think the ruling will change because it is not an ex cathedra doctrine and I wonder why the Bishop of Portsmouth thinks it is.?

The Protestant Reformation was brought about by those who wanted
to split from the Church for different reasons so I dont agree with HG on that aspect .

I am not a spokesperson for Catholics who reject the Magisterum's decision on birth control within the married state but,if I remain a Christian and being anything else is not even a consideration for mein conscience
I cannot join the other denominations for the reasons we discuss here ad nauseam . I do not regard Henry V111's legacy as the Church of Christ.So I must lead a Christian life standing outside the gates of my own Church which is far preferable than entering it and comitting sacrilege making me a rank hypocrite,defiling and disrespecting a belief system which gave me values that I cherish, particularly that important one of Catholic Shakespeare's " to thine own self be true"

13 July 2012 at 17:48  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

correction : me in conscience,not mein conscience.

Heavens I don't want to be accused of being a German again along with every thing else. That would make me a French/German with alter egos of a Jew, Catholic and an atheist male homosexual. Mind boggling really, to think one fragile woman could accomplish all these things:)

13 July 2012 at 18:06  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Cressida

I am sure that things will turn out OK in the end. Perhaps you might even release a poetry book?

13 July 2012 at 18:27  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

13 July 2012 at 18:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector asked ...

"Has the Inspector really missed something, or is it the magisterium …"

It's you Inspector. Try having a read of Humanae Vitae of 1968. Google it and consider the moral and spiritual foundations of the Church's teaching.

13 July 2012 at 18:51  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Cressida

That's great- self publishing is a wonderful tool. You know in my post above, I was simply trying, in my own way to be kind to you. It is a great a pity you couldn't take my comments as the olive branch that they were meant to be. I could see from your post above that you seemed to be distressed and I was attempting to provide comfort to you.

All you have ever done to me for the past several weeks has been to post what can only be described as bitchy comments behind my back. If you are the Christian you claim to be you wouldn't be like that. The only strange and as yet mysterious matter is why a published author is so shocking rude to me. Please explain.

13 July 2012 at 18:53  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo. While folks here debate the Catholic Church's stand on birth control here I want to show you and example of what can happen to a church when it loses it's vetebral column when it becomes at obsessed with trendy social causes and social justice political movements. The American branch of the Church of England is holding it's annual convention this week and some of the headlines I read are stunning - endorsement of cross dessing clergy, same sex marriage, and most important of all... the ordination of the transgendered. I wonder if that means they will now have a male who decides to become a female who is then ordained as a priestess and will "she" be called "father"? As bad as things became after Vatican II can you imagine what the Church of Rome would be like today if it had caved in to all these foolish and even weird trendy concepts and the vast social changes of the late 1960's? It would be exactly like this dying Amrican branch of the Church of England. Liberal Protestantism is on it's death bed. Be thankful for the Magisterium in Rome that saved us from all of these extremes and this wise Pope we have today.

13 July 2012 at 18:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cressida. The Inspector concurs with you. His Grace’s end paragraph is in deadly earnestness.

As for leaving mother church, this cannot be considered. Truly unthinkable. As a child, the Inspector remembers his Carmelite teachings on the matter, which were of “why couldn’t reforming be done from within by the likes of Luther. The corruption of God’s church, due to the fallibility of man, was all too obvious and tangible”. It should at this stage be remembered that the Religious orders such as the Carmelites have never been ‘re formed’. They did not need to be and still present a continuous link with their foundations, which of course is now in the region of a thousand years.

We can but put the blame on scheming Italian Catholics, who when dealing with the many states, who would hundreds of years later form the country of Italy, put the requirements of earthly policy beyond that of spiritual necessity…

13 July 2012 at 19:12  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Cressida,

I am still to be convinced that you are not a sockpuppet for Avi Barzel, but on the assumption that you are not, you really do give an excellent impersonation of the man himself: the same smug self-satisfacion, the same self-congratulatory tone and the identical sense entitlement to throw out libelous accusations against those who disagree with you.

If you are a Catholic then you ought to know that the Church exists for one purpose only - to get souls into Heaven. Any other function it serves is entirely incidental to that, so when you talk about "compassion" don't kid yourself that bashing a tambourine and being "tolerant" of that which you find tolerable comes under that heading. It doesn't. The Catholic Church lives through its liturgy and its cathecism - these are the lungs of the Church, and if (as in a previous thread) you consider it "anti-Semetic" to object to an entire people being ejected from their own country to make room for another, if you think (as you indicated) that in that particular instance there are "special circumstances" which justify this theft, and if you think that you get to decide when derogations from the canon (not to mention the international) law are in order, then maybe you're in the wrong Church.

13 July 2012 at 19:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

corrigan said ...
" ... if you think that you get to decide when derogations from the canon (not to mention the international) law are in order, then maybe you're in the wrong Church."

Let's stick with contraception. Nothing said by cressida struck me as anything but pain that her conscience prevents her attending Mass and receiving the saraments whilst she chooses not to accept Church teaching on this issue.

Read it again.

"So I must lead a Christian life standing outside the gates of my own Church which is far preferable than entering it and comitting sacrilege making me a rank hypocrite,defiling and disrespecting a belief system which gave me values that I cherish, particularly that important one of Catholic Shakespeare's " to thine own self be true""

Not quite a protester, by my reading.

13 July 2012 at 20:27  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Corrigan I have read "Angela's Ashes" and I am sincerely sorry that you had to suffer a religious training of that nature which has affected you adversely and shames all Catholics.

13 July 2012 at 20:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. The Inspector thanks you for your advice. He will at one stage research humanae vitae, or in his case, revisit it, as he remembers it formed a key part of his RE tuition at school in the fifth form. (…No idea what the fifth form is in today’s language, Year 12 perhaps ? Something else that was changed for the sake of change…)

More to say on subject, but will have to post later. Queue of people wishing to use this old piece of twentieth century technology…

13 July 2012 at 20:39  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Inspector I know very little about the Carmelites except they live their lives in prayer and silence.
So I must be mistaken or you are very proficient at sign language or not which could explain a lot of things about you:)

Middle Class Catholics at fee paying schools are not subjected to an over emphasis on sexual conduct in marriage etc as some other Catholics seemed to have experienced whic I know is terribly unfair.The only thing that seems to binds all the Catholics on this blog is that they all consider themselves Catholic and do not wish to belong to any other faith group.

Dodo I do attend Mass for the big events but of course I never take the Eucharist. This is not a forun to discuss this matter but I also find Catholics rather cavalier about taking the Eucharist particularly when they are supposed to be in a state of grace when they receive it.Realistically it is very difficult to achieve a state of grace.
Toodle pip..My last post for this evening.May we all receive salvation and may God be merciful by allowing only compatible souls to share the same apportioned area
in celestial outta space:)

13 July 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hotel cat is missing. Hasn't come in for it's food.

heh heh, it was quick and painless...

13 July 2012 at 21:13  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Dodo, I didn't hear you ask Cressida to stick to contraception when she used this thread to parrot the Avi Barzel line; moreover, my response was that Rome is not Canterbury - either you accept the Magisterium, or you join the Church of England. You don't get to pick and choose which parts of Catholicism you'll uphold. So, while yes, Catholics are indeed cavalier about taking communion without being in a state of grace, that's a post Vatican II development, an outgrowth of the "bleeding all over the carpet with compassion" school of catechesis whereby Aquinas is replaced with Angela's Ashes. Fortunately, that's beginning to turn around now. It will take decades, perhaps centuries, but Cressida's kind of liberal will either attain that state of grace which she finds so difficult to achieve or she'll desert. Either way, the Church wins.

13 July 2012 at 21:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

There’s an idea Corrigan, Vatican II and all that came after it swept away, leaving the Catholic church free to do what it should have been doing all along. Enabling the faithful to worship God, and helping to keep families together and getting souls into heaven.

For the casual observer, it’s called basics. Beyond these basics, there is no point in the church having anything to do with it.

But of course, proud man, supposedly with the gift of the Holy Spirit behind him, knows best for his brother. It is regrettable the Catholic church gets itself mixed up in the complexities of this life, when the basics themselves should take all it’s time up…

13 July 2012 at 22:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ispector

When you do get around to that re-reading of 'Humanae Vitae' consider the truly prophetic elements about human well-being at its core.

God's law is there for a reason. Human sexuality, its purposes and proper use is pretty 'basic', I'd say. As is upholding traditional marriage and family life. So too the protection of children in their mother's wombs.

13 July 2012 at 22:42  
Blogger Preacher said...

Bravo OIG!.
Back to basics. Spot on, that's what I've been saying for ages.

13 July 2012 at 22:42  
Blogger Preacher said...

Dodo.
Have you been on the sauce again, there's an N in inspector. LOL!

Blessings Preacher.

13 July 2012 at 22:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

corrigan said ...

" ... either you accept the Magisterium, or you join the Church of England ..."

Many Catholics have fallen away from their faith because of an inability to accept the Church's teaching on contraeption or remarriage. I am always heartened to see those who I know are divorced and remarried continue attending Mass and being a part of the parish community whilst not receiving the Eucharist or other sacraments. Presumably others do the same with contraception.

The days of excluding from the Church people deemed to be in a state of unrepentant sin are behind us.

Why should they join the Church of England or another protestant cult? Better they stay in the Church and remain aware of their sin in the hope they will one day be reconciled with God, than join a branch of a Church that condones what they're doing.

13 July 2012 at 22:55  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

The days of excluding from the Church people deemed to be in a state of unrepentant sin are behind us.

I don't know what planet you're on, Dodo, but wherever it is, there's no Vatican there. Like Cressida, who appears to think the Carmelites are a silent order (which would be news to the priests in the church I attend), you don't seem to understand what Catholicism is about. For you and her (and Avi too), here is a map of Catholicism:

a) There is a God

b) His son is Jesus Christ who

c) Founded the Catholic Church as His body on Earth to continue His work and who is

d) Physically present at the mass.

The vital point is d. Everything is secondary to that. Charity, education, Cressida's much vaunted compassion, it's all incidental. The entire focus of Catholicism is that moment when the communion bell tinkles and you bow your head in the physical presence of God. If you don't get that, you have no business calling yourself Catholic, and if you aren't prepared to at least attempt to enter a state of grace before receiving communion then there's no point in attending a Catholic service at all.

13 July 2012 at 23:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo, The Inspector is the son of a Wexford man. On a Sunday, everybody went to church. You were either a Rowe street man, the Church of the Immaculate Conception, or you were a Bride street man, the Church of the Assumption. They do Mary very well in Wexford. It’s the least they can do, after Mr Cromwell came to say hello only a few generations before. As you know, the Irish like the best of elephants, NEVER forget.

Can you imagine that. Two churches a quarter mile apart, vying for your worship on a Sunday.

Of course, since then, there are no more families of twelve children. Contraception has seen to that. The Inspector has seen a picture of his own father in the early nineteen forties. He was like a f_____g stick !

You can amplify the Magisterium’s advice, and that is all it is, advice, in this man’s eyes, until you are blue in the face…

14 July 2012 at 00:09  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Anna,

I am somewhat amused at Cressida's dismal attempts to poke fun at you- look back on the thread and see that she called Carl Jacobs a Mormon, in what we can assume to be an attempt to insult him and 'get a reaction' (even though that is not factually correct).Note how Carl reacted and that is a lesson- a very good one- in itself.

14 July 2012 at 00:14  
Blogger David B said...

The 'Mormon' comment was not a typographical error, you think?

David

14 July 2012 at 00:36  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

corrigan

Your views on Catholicism, the power of God's Grace and the membership of the Church, are not the same as mine.

"The entire focus of Catholicism is that moment when the communion bell tinkles and you bow your head in the physical presence of God."

The Mass and Eucharist is central to our faith. Worshipping Jesus Christ as God and as physically present, is not reserved for those in a state of grace, is it? Even sinners can do this.

"If you don't get that, you have no business calling yourself Catholic ... "

Get what exactly? And who gave you this right to determine who is and who is not a Catholic? My faith extends beyonds the doors of the Church on a Sunday. Recognising and being in the Presence of God is the beginning not the end of Catholicism. The strength we draw from His Presence. The readings in the Ministry of the Word is also important too, wouldn't you agree?

" ... and if you aren't prepared to at least attempt to enter a state of grace before receiving communion then there's no point in attending a Catholic service at all."

And here we part company. People are unable to receive the Eucharist because they are in a state of sin if they actively and freely disobey with full understanding the Church'steachings. The Church should bar them? Is that what you're saying? Make them unwelcome? Make them sit in a seperate area? How mediaeval of you.

The greater sin would be them receiving Communion knowing they were in a state of sin. Another hazard for their souls would be them never attending a Catholic service again and the potential for reconciliation.

We all commit grevious sin. Should we avoid attending Mass until we are able to reconcile ourselves completely with God?

14 July 2012 at 00:51  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

@ Dodo and Corrigan 1

I have to admit I know nothing about the Catholic faith, but don't you have a confessional to solve your sin, so you can actually take the mass?

Just asking btw.

14 July 2012 at 01:02  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

The 'Mormon' comment was not a typographical error, you think?

No, I don't think so. I don't know what word she could have intended to write that would fit. It could have been simple ignorance, but I think she was trying to categorize me into a group that includes Mormons. At least that's they way I took it.

carl

14 July 2012 at 02:42  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Paul Twigg, you are correct. Confession is the antidote to being in a state of sin. However, it's not considered something you take like a vitamin pill. Dodo talks of Catholics attending mass having divorced and (presumably civilly) remarried, and others attending while using contraception. He further goes on to state that "recognising and being in the Presence of God is the beginning not the end of Catholicism." He is quite correct in this, but what he is effectively saying is that we can ignore the beginning and go straight on to what should follow (the "compassion" bit, as Cressida would no doubt call it). It doesn't work that way. For a Catholic to be in a state of grace, he MUST start at the beginning. That means that when he goes to confession, he must undertake to stop committing whatever sin that was preventing him attaining that state. So if he is divorced and civilly remarried, he must part with his new partner; if he is using contraception, he must stop. He cannot simply go to confession, receive absolution, take communion and then go back to doing whatever it was that he was doing before. Again, it doesn't work that way, so while Dodo is right in that it is better to refrain from communion if not in a state of grace, "better" is simply not good enough.

Think of it this way: perhaps you are an art lover. Maybe you've gone to see an exhibition of some new artist and - while you acknowledge that he has some native talent - you don't think a lot of his work because, like many young artists today, it's apparent that he simply hasn't put the hours, weeks and months in studying perspective, proportions, art history and all the boring, tedious stuff that art students learned by rote back in the "repressive" bad old days; he hasn't developed technique, in other words. This is exactly what we're talking about here, and it's exactly indicative of the post-Vatican II mentality which has come close to destroying the Catholic Church.

Actually, Vatican II was nowhere near as radical a sea change as the liberals would have you believe; yes, it was an attempt to bring Catholicism out into the wider world, to extend it beyond its "beginnings" in the Real Presence, but in no way did the Council approve any Catholic disregarding that doctrine, or making it in any way secondary to what you do outside the mass. It added to your responsibilities as a Catholic, it did not relieve you of any of them.

Unfortunately, that was not the way the liberals chose to interpret the Council, and the Church has paid a heavy price for that willful disobedience. Today, the traditionalists are the only part of Catholicism which is actually regenerating; liberal dioceses and parishes are dying because they are so vague and unfocused in their thinking. It's going to take perhaps a century for the Church to regain Her strength, but fortunately, the Church thinks in centuries.

14 July 2012 at 07:19  
Blogger len said...

The' authority' of the Pope SHOULD be challenged because this 'authority 'does not belong to the Pope but the Holy Spirit.

If we submit to the authority of the Pope we become part of 'the lie' and you your Grace have been in that position once before?.

All who prefer the lie to the Truth will be given over to the lie and the evidence of that is displaced (tediously) by the adherents to the 'Roman System'.

14 July 2012 at 07:55  
Blogger len said...

'displayed'although' displaced' would do equally as well!.

14 July 2012 at 07:56  
Blogger len said...

Corrigan..... all you are stating is the 'try harder syndrome' described by Paul in Romans(14 July 2012 07:19)

'21 So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22 For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; 23 but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? 25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!'

(Paul here states the problem he wants to overcome sin(be good) but he cannot!.This is why saying 'try harder' is useless ,'the harder' one tries the more powerful sin becomes!
This is why the endless circle of sinning confessing sinning again is repeated.
Paul(fortunately has also supplied the answer to this endless problem.

'25 Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!'

When one steps out of the fight and relies on Christ to defeat sin victory is assured,' But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh'.(Galatians 5:16)

14 July 2012 at 09:05  
Blogger The Judicious Hooker said...

Why do the RC's that frequent His Grace's esteemed blog seem to favour the more 'brain-dead' versions of contemporary Popery? For them it's either believe the Vatican magisterium or fall into gross error and mortal sin! What ever happened to the 'informed conscience' and its pivotal role in coming to terms with personal moral dilemmas? Or is that also banned under Ratzinger's growing list unspeakable topics?

How can one ignore all the papal flip-flops over the centuries? These range from weighty issues such as usury, democracy and secular education, to the adoption of vernacular liturgy, reading of Scripture by laity, the lay cup at the Supper of the Lord, and recently to the possible use of prophylactics to reduce incidents of BBV's.

It should be noted that Rome has regularly anathematised those who have rejected its numerous stances and presumably its anathemas are as reversible as its moral pronouncements and as retractable as its ethical tenacity ebbs and flows. Here a sense of history is, surely, indispensable.

The party-line Papalists - for whatever psychological deficiency - seem to crave the support of an absolute external authority to support their faith. They excuse themselves from 'working out their salvation in fear and trembling' and the hard moral effort of engaging in thinking through issues in the light of Christ's Gospel. The magisterium does it for them and they need only assent. What a cop out of conscience!

There are, of course, 'creatively faithful' RCs who are becoming increasingly alienated under BXVI's hardline 'primacy of love' and as his reactionary influence spreads, they are likely to seek fellowship among other expressions of Christianity, including Anglicanism. And when worshipping with Anglicans they'll recognise liturgical texts that resemble contemporary English, rather than the stilted and quaint 1950's 'Missalish', BXVI has incongruously forced on English-speaking RC's.

The Articles of Religion 1562 rarely anathematise and mostly maintain a charitably rational tone throughout, famously culminating in the words: justice, judgement and truth. But Article XVIII is an exception and comes down hard on those who think salvation depends on ticking boxes according to the regulations of some law or sect:

They also are to be had accursed that presume to say, That every man shall be saved by the Law or Sect which he professeth, so that he shall be diligent to frame his life to that Law, and the light of Nature. For holy Scripture doth set out unto us only the Name of Jesus Christ, whereby men must be saved.

14 July 2012 at 09:49  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

@ len

When one steps out of the fight and relies on Christ to defeat sin victory is assured,' But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh'.(Galatians 5:16)

And what is it you suppose Catholics do in confession, len? You also appear to misunderstand the role of the Pope; his authority (when it is invoked within the Magisterium; he is not quite the absolute autocrat he is often depicted as)comes through the Holy Spirit, and is guided by that force.

14 July 2012 at 09:52  
Blogger len said...

Corrigan with respect your comment (14 July 2012 09:52) cannot possibly be true.Does the holy Spirit contradict Himself as the Pope contradicts scripture?

14 July 2012 at 10:40  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Corrigan I think I should point out to you that your deep seated hatred of Jews prevents you from being in the state of grace .The poison that spills from your black heart does not make you
worthy of the Eucharist which I bet you take with regularity digging yourself a deeper trench into damnation.
In fact I think you are a stooge on this blog for the sole purpose of inciting hatred against Catholics and Jews. The Church needs to disassociate itself from
your bog Irish interpretation of Catholicism which is fuelled by hatred and ignorance.

14 July 2012 at 11:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hooker: "The party-line Papalists - for whatever psychological deficiency - seem to crave the support of an absolute external authority to support their faith."

Buying a commercial, off-the-shelf religion, as I call it.

14 July 2012 at 12:58  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Judicious Hooker

There are, of course, 'creatively faithful' RCs who are becoming increasingly alienated under BXVI's hardline 'primacy of love' and as his reactionary influence spreads, they are likely to seek fellowship among other expressions of Christianity, including Anglicanism.

I have no love for the RCC or its false gospel, but I must ask. Would these 'creatively faithful' RCs be accurately represented by the liberal 60's flower children ... excuse me ... nuns in the US who are currently in trouble with the Vatican over such issues as homosexuality and abortion and their vision of a 'post-Christ' Christian future? It that what it means to be 'creatively faithful?'

carl

14 July 2012 at 13:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

I do wish people would research what Papal infallibility actually means before misrepresenting or misunderstanding it. It is a complex subject.

The Catholic Church is guided by the Holy Spirit in defining truth. The Bishops throughout the world, in union with the Pope, when they speak with a united voice on matters of faith and morals, are authoritive; when Ecumenical Councils with the Pope, declare a a matter to be doctrinal, they are infallible; when the Pope speaks excathedra on a matter, only twice in over a 100 years, this is infallible.

Infallibility concerns matters of faith, doctrinre and teachings. It does not cover things like the adoption of vernacular liturgy, reading of Scripture by laity, reception of the Cup at Communion.

Humanea Vitae restated traditionally accepted and authoritative Catholic teaching on contraception in the face of a modernity that wanted to bow to the forces of the liberal times of the 60's and 70's. The Pope used his authority to underline the truth of the Church's stance on this matter.

Views differ within Catholicism about whether this position on contraception can ever change but Humanea Vitea is not considered an excathedral document in itself but the views it states as binding.

14 July 2012 at 13:53  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

"Deep seated hatred of Jews"? "Poison spilling from my black heart"?

It's you, isn't it Avi?

14 July 2012 at 14:09  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Corrigan you are suffering from Avi Barzelmania. Stop fantasising about me being a hot Jewish truck driver and
FAC UT VIVAS!

15 July 2012 at 13:04  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ha ha ha ha ha! Corrigan, you sad, demented nutter. Being unpolished, I lack Miss Cressida's poetic streak and instead of "poison spilling from your black heart," would have said, "putrid fecal matter sloshing in your brain bucket."

If you want to chew on a conspiracy, you silly Corrigan muppet, you, consider the possibility of the Misses Anna and Cressida faking rivalry and arriving here with the sole purpose of maddening the snarling crowd of male wolves with their stunning avatars. Empires have crashed for less.

15 July 2012 at 15:46  
Blogger John Magee said...

CORRIGAN Wise up. You should know by now that any valid criticism or questioning of Israel or Judaism will get you branded a "hater". Of course it's just fine to trash Western Christian Civilization, the Vatican, the Papacy, Protestants (unless they are fanatic Evangelical supporters of Israel),and our having the temerity to defend concept that Jesus was the Messiah if you are a member of AVI's tribe. You must get used to this double standard. it also applies to Islam.

15 July 2012 at 18:02  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

I support Cressida on this one; people should stop being so vicious to her for being open and honest about herself and not wanting to be a hypocrite- it shows to me she is truer to her faith than some of the other card carrying catholics here who like to bash around the catholic rule book like they own it. It is also a stupid suggestion to think that she is really Avi or Avi is she.

15 July 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Avi,

oh that would be very naughty. Wish I'd have thought of that idea, but I didn't! And Cressida is a fine woman really, I only wish we hadn't somehow got off the wrong foot :).

15 July 2012 at 18:15  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Oh, I'm way ahead of you, John. Everyone is a hater, the world is full of Nazis and Corrigan is the worst of the lot. Heard it all before, and I take comfort in the fact that if Cressida actually is a real person, then the only pone here who could possibly have more contempt for her than I do would be Avi. On the face of it, that may sound counter-intuitive, but how can a user have respect for the used? Look back over her postings and ask yourself why she feels so entitled to ladle out abuse with such aplomb. If she is Avi, it's self-explanatory - Zionists just are; if she's not, it means she's swallowed all the bull Avi and his kind have been feeding her and her liberal kidney for the last sixty years and thinks it makes her a "good person" to hand out filth like that. In fairness to Avi, how can he actually be expected to respect someone like that? He can use them, of course, but he could never respect them.

On the wider subject of "how low can you go", here's a link to a statement by Norman Finkelstein. Nothing I have had to take from Avi and his apostles even registers on the radar of abuse compared to what Finkelstein has suffered at the hands of these people, and the dignity of his response would shame anyone who actually had any shame. Unfortunately, he's dealing with Zionists, so in that regard he's wasting his breath, but for the rest of us it's an object lesson in how Zionism operates.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fC53_XvYXQ

15 July 2012 at 19:52  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Avi,poor demented Corrigan is hallucinating again. He thinks you are Jesus and I am one of your apostles.Could you please assure him that this is incorrect

.He thinks anyone who is articulate and is capable of delivering a criticism with conviction, confidence and aplomb must be a Jew,once again displaying his ignorance and limited insular thinking by portraying Catholics as mindless bunch of anti intellectual indoctrinated bigots.

He does represent a minority section of whom the rest of us are desperately ashamed but his ilk is on the decline,mainly because they are all at that geriatric stage.

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

cressida
Don't be too harsh on corrigan. I've 'crossed swords' with him and he is a 'traditional' Catholic who overlooks the good that came from Vatican II because all he focuses on is the harm. In my opinion, he completely misjudged your approach to the Church.

In terms of being 'black and white' over Israel, well isn't Avi similarly predisposed? Nothing I've read of his indicateshe is antisemitic because he is critical of the State of Israel.

Anna said ...
" ... some of the other card carrying catholics here who like to bash around the catholic rule book like they own it."

Meaning, young lady?

16 July 2012 at 00:58  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Meaning Dodo,

Don't start looking for an argument where there is none.

16 July 2012 at 01:34  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Miss Anna, I have even a better one for Corrigan to speed him onto his cognitive melt-down. What if His Grace created the Anna and Cressida personae to get all the boys hopping and to bedevil the Corrigan types? Let the neurons fry his synapses over that one.

Miss Cressida, my trying to convince Corrigan of anything will only set him off on a demented journey to uncover another dastardly Jewish plot. And truth be known, I wouldn't be cross at all if you were to be a disciple of mine; I can't sell a dollar for a quarter, so the idea of having disciples is quite heady and I'm entitled to bask in it for a bit. Perhaps it's my Avatar that has him going. Looking at it again, my visage does seem to exude a certain benign serenity, deep wisdom and even holiness. But little does the blighter know that it's a digital sketch from a photo a friend took of me in jest when I passed out at his table after consuming an indecent amount of food and tasted a too great of a variety of vintages he had waited to impress me with.

But no, my tentative hypothesis is that Corrigan's actually trying to impress you with the subtlety and sophistication of a fifth grader trying to dip a girl's pigtails in an ink bottle. And you're right, the man is an embarrassment to Catholics, although I've heard and read far worse from self-hating Jews, a few of whom he quotes from his mystery sites. The twit is so down on his perceived "goyishness," he'll actually cite Jewish antisemites!

16 July 2012 at 05:00  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

Nothing I've read of his indicates he is antisemitic because he is critical of the State of Israel.

Well, thank you for that, Dodo, but I'm afraid you miss the point; being critical of the state of Israel is in and of itself anti-Semitic, at least if you listen to the Avi Barzel's of this world. When you think about it, how can it be any other way? In a previous thread, I asked Cressida how what had been done to the Palestinians could be separated from the supposed need for a Jewish homeland; her answer was "special circumstances". That "it's different when we do it" response was what first made me think she might be a sock puppet, but in fairness to Avi, such a self-indulgent and morally lazy answer would fit as easily in the mouth of a liberal Catholic interested in perceiving of herself as a "good person", but too lazy and too canonically ignorant to do the ethical spadework that would maker her one. That accounts for her, but what about Zionism's outlook?

There is, of course, nothing which can justify Zionism except the power of the sword, but in the 21st century, that's a problematical weapon, especially in the hands of those who claim moral superiority. The problem is compounded by the fact that the prime movers in Zionism were atheists, so claiming a divine right is a bit of a joke. So instead, we press on the most sensitive nerve of the Gentiles, and scream "anti-Semite!!!" whenever a criticism of this indefensible entity is raised. It is, of course, utter cynical and deeply mercenary, because not only do you not really believe that the critic is an anti-Semite, you don't actually care either. Remember, Zionism is a racialist creed based on a supposition of genetic superiority; it has to be, since that supposition is the only thing which can possibly justify what the Zionists have done, but as I have already said, such a philosophical basis is completely unacceptable in the 21st century. Therefore, you do exactly what Finkelstein was describing in the video - you tell the most massive lies you can think of, and it's not actually wrong to do so since these lies are deployed in the service of The Cause. Since some of the dirt will stick, your opponent will be too busy trying to clean your filth off to be able to object as you get on with more theft and rapine.

It's a simple strategy, and hugely effective, unfortunately made more so by people like Cressida who are already too busy admiring their own goodness to spend any time discerning right from wrong.

16 July 2012 at 11:43  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Avi

The jewish anti-semites you refer to have a connotation given by our great Prime Minister Winston Churchill during WW2...'Quislings'

Ernst

16 July 2012 at 13:27  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

The thing about Quislings is that they actually owe allegiance to the thing they're fighting. See the weakness, Blofeld?

16 July 2012 at 13:45  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

A fine Churchillian term that's fallen out of fashion, Mr Blofeld, which is unfortunate, because a close look at the character behind it is very informative. The ubiquitous Wiki has a fairly lengthy portrait of the fellow; a former socialist (of course) who easily moved on to fascism and admiration of Hitler and National Socialism, tinkered with philosophy, coming with a world-control concoction he called "Universism," and finally, during his trial, miraculously saw another light and rejected National Socialism and antisemitism. A brilliant, clever and very nasty fellow he was...but a good reminder that the extreme "Right" and "Left" and the pseudo-intellectual elites clamouring for power over us peons are merely different flavours of fascism.

So yes, a good term for opportunistic, power-hungry and principle-free traitors, but far too inadequate in this case. The main difference between Quisling the man and our Judaic quislings, Mr Blofeld, is that he played for the high stakes with dreams of world control, whereas our petty quislings are neutered and mangy circus bears on leashes who'll wigle their arses for the admiration of a thin crowd from the lunatic fringes and for the pleasure of a few sweets. They are happy with associate professorships in second rate universities, a few publishing deals and speaking tours. A few, like Chomsky, Shlaim and Corrigan's beloved Finkelstein made it "big." Norman Finkelstein is quite the number, worth a look-see; a son of Holocaust survivors, beloved by the Left and the radical Right, Norm became the first prominent Jewish neo-Nazi, Holocaust denier and cheerleader for terrorism. Alas, the adulation from the loonie fringesgot to his head and he went too far even for the rmost "anti-Zionists" in academia and apart from stints at neo-Nazi and Islamist functions, is currently unemployed and unemployable. The traitor Quisling, compared to these pathetic lunatics, who've turned on their people and even on their own parents, was a moral giant.

16 July 2012 at 14:41  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Who would've thunk, Mr Bofeld our Corrigan got something right! Quisling did, at least partialy, sell his soul for Norway, whereas the Fink and Chom types wish hatred and destruction on their own. Go on, be a sport, give him that one, pat him on the head; he's been in the dumps lately, seeing conspiracies on this very blog, spinning off about me being Cressida and having secret disciples here.

16 July 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi

You do realise most of those posts are simple assertion and abuse? Surely you can do better than that.

Criticising the formation of the modern State of Israel and objecting to its recent policies, does not an antisemite or self-hating Jew make.

There are many devote and observant Orthodox Jews deeply troubled by the political and terrorist origins of modern Israel and by its behaviour today.

A reasonable discussion can be had about all this. I appreciate Israel is effectively at war and conceding ground may seem like weakness. However, reason and argument can still be used, surely?

16 July 2012 at 15:53  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

It is wrong to equate Catholics who ignore the Church's teaching with protestants.

To be a protestant you have to actively embrace error.

My Dad agrees with the first sentence and is an examplar of the second.

16 July 2012 at 17:26  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo, we have been over all of this again and again, and you know my position. But for any passer-by here I'll repeat that you and Corrigan, including the Finkelsteins and Chomskys, the radical socialists, fascists of all sorts Islamists, like the Ismaists ss Hamasniks and jihadniks, all of this world are for practical purposes indistinguishable to me. Selective demonization of Israel, use of classic antisemitic charges, blatant double standards, denying Jews the right to their own state and self-determinations are the halmarks recognized by mainstream hisorians and even the US State Department, which is not known for its favouritism towards Israel.

I don't have to be reasonable, moderate or polite with those who challenge Israel's origins and existence. Whether they blast away crudely like Corrigan or like you tinkle, drop by annoying drop clever inuendos, comments and endless "questions in the pursuit of deligitimizing Jews and Israel is only a difference of character and preference. Corrigan's repeated Zionism = Racism assertion, which only the radical left and fascists repeat and your silly pseudo-scholarly analyses to "many devoted Orthodox Jews," in fact a sdmall minority holding theological opinions on the matter are prime examples. That neither you nor Corrigan give a rat's arse about "Palestinians" or human rights, of oppressed peoples in general is clear by your indifference not only to actual victims out there, but even to your Muslim and Christian Palestinians. Their far greater suffering under any organization or government apart from Israel's is of no concern to you. So, consider, Dodo, the reality that once the terrorists lose control over their own people and the stupendous amount of aid money going their way, the Arab "street" may turn not only against them, but against their enablers, like you two clowns, who ran interference for and popped distractions at a time of unprecedented internal oppression and Muslim-on-Muslim attrocities, including genocides. Not that you care, but just saying.

16 July 2012 at 18:19  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I understand Dodo that you need the support of your cronies but I don't, so kindly do not tell me not to be harsh on Corrigan with his lies spiteful and abusive behaviour towards me.

The Church in the past has been anti semitic and Corrigan is a relic from that time. The last Pope apologised for the Church's anti semitism and noted that Jews and Catholics were from the same family.If members of your family were being persecuted would you deny them a safe haven particularly as the Balfour declaration countenanced Israel to be the homeland of Jews.?

"Special circumstances" means the holocaust and WW2 enabling the homeless and displaced Jews to go to Israel because it had already been set up for them by the British.

Since the Pope recognises Israel, why are his faithful followers
Corrigan and the converts opposing this? I am only discussing
Israel as a Jewish home state.Not any ensuing policies. I think any Catholics who think there should be an exodus of Jews from Israel
and it should be handed back to the Arabs are anti semitic.

.Corrigan's view of Jews is that they think they are superior to everyone else and there is Jewish doctrine to support that gentiles are lesser.So what if they do..we believe that we are the only true Christian faith and the Protestant clergy are just fancy dress.

Corrigan presents salacious internet material about Jews...sounds anti semitic to me.

No doubt there were devout and pious Catholics who were deeply troubled during some of our frightful history too..Jews do not have a monopoly on bad decision
making.It's all back to hideous hypocrisy again.

16 July 2012 at 18:32  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

I have to say this through some what gritted teeth, but Cressida's post at 18.32 is outstanding, using prose like a boxing champion's upper cut. I think I will need to lie down...

16 July 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Avi,

Problem is that I am in no way good enough to write like his Grace does. And more importantly you assume a bit too much- that Corrigan has a brain which could be fried in the first instance.

16 July 2012 at 19:53  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

I'll repeat that you and Corrigan, including the Finkelsteins and Chomskys, the radical socialists, fascists of all sorts Islamists, like the Ismaists ss Hamasniks and jihadniks, all of this world are for practical purposes indistinguishable to me.


Are you starting to get it now, Dodo?

16 July 2012 at 19:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

Perhaps it's my Avatar that has him going. Looking at it again, my visage does seem to exude a certain benign serenity, deep wisdom and even holiness.

Yeah, I was thinking more a Professor of Music. Perhaps with an affinity for John Cage. I bet if we saw an uncropped version of that picture, we would see a violin.

Oh, and a can of Coors Lite.

carl

16 July 2012 at 21:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

John Knox's lovechild

To be a protestant you have to actively embrace error.

Not so. We don't pay any attention at all to Rome or it's erroneous pronouncements.

1. We reject the Roman concept of justification by faith plus works, and all the other errors of Trent.

2. We reject Papal Infallibility (and Magisterial infallibility for that matter.)

3. We reject the non-Revelation called Sacred Tradition.

4. We reject the functional deification of Mary and the idolatry that attends her position in the dogma of the Roman church.

To the contrary. If we embraced error, we would be good sons and daughters of Rome.

carl

16 July 2012 at 22:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl

And your rejection of Catholicism is also based on the writings of men claiming special guidance from the Holy Spirit in relying on reading scripture!

I prefer to put my faith in the Church established by Christ and the leaders He appointed and their successors. He gave His commission to His Church and promised it Divine guidance and protection. I don't think it is written anywhere that Luther, Calvin or Knox were given this responsibility.

Where did Jesus ever say: "write this all down"? Unlike Judaism there is no written Torah directly delivered by God. Jesus commissioned His Church to teach and to preach and to Baptise in His name and with His authority.

And when when you say "we" as a protestant it doesn't really count for much, now does it?

17 July 2012 at 00:26  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

cressida

I need the support of no-one on this blog, cronies or otherwise. And forgive me for offering advice.

As for Israel, critising the deceit and double-dealing behind the Balfour Declaration and the League of Nation's and UN resolutions, is perfectly legitimate. So too, challenging the modern, secular
State of Israel, just like any other nation, is proper.

Much of Avi's defence simply consists of "we're right; criticise us and you're antisemitic". It's simplistic and it's dishonest.

And this is historically inaccurate:

""Special circumstances" means the holocaust and WW2 enabling the homeless and displaced Jews to go to Israel because it had already been set up for them by the British."

The British did no such thing!

Who's opposed to the actual existance of Israel in 2012? It's the misrepresentation of history and their current foreign and internal policies that attract criticism and quite right too.

I agree that it is unthinkingable its residents should now be compelled to leave. I also support them in their fight against Islam although I disgree the future survival of the civilised world depends on them defeating Islam.

And for the record, my prime critique of the rebirth of modern Israel is theological. I do not see Rabbinic Judaism as being faithful to God. As a Christian I am minded of Jesus' condemnation of the Pharisaical sect upon which it is based. I also doubt God would want His Holy and Chosen nation to return to their Promised Land via terrorist activity, the deaths of innocent people and driven politically by nationalism and socialism. And Israel is hardly a shining example of human and spiritual purity.

Politically, they should do all they need to do, within the framework of UN agreements and standards they publically adopt, to secure their territories internally and externally - and be held accountable.

From Israel's perpective in terms of its security, it's evident there can be no 'two state' solution, the occupied territories cannot be returned and Gaza is unsustainable. Its also pretty clear the 'jewel' of Jerusalem - the heart of Israeli national identity - will not be conceded or shared.

A future conflict is perhaps inevitable. Israel must decide how to act. In that respect, they are no better nor worse than any other nation state.

17 July 2012 at 01:42  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Anna, I agree with you about Cressida's shot, but hesitate to compliment her for fear of being accused either of talking to myself or favouring one of my disciples. I must say, you hold your own quite well, too. You certainly get to the point faster than I. As I'm apparently acquiring disiples and brainwashing them with Zionist imperialist propaganda, Carl came to mind as a potential recruit, but his potshots (note his totally gratuitous Coors Lite crack) are disconcerting. I fear he may be harbouring anticanadianitic sentimentiments.

Carl, Coors Lite in cans? Sir, I have standards. In bottles with twist-tops in an ice bucket would be more like it. My memories of that evening are a bit hazy, but if I had any Coors Lite, I would have easily confused it with budget mineral water saved from those swamps the early Zionist pioneers drained. And if you saw the uncropped version of my picture, you wouldn't see me clutching a violin, but an empty wine glass, a cold cigarette butt and a half-eaten rib. My musical weapons of choice are unvarnished acoustic 6-string Norman dreadnaught and a rare Sakura Artisticca nylon string classical from the mid-seventies.

17 July 2012 at 02:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

I would be really interested to hear what "deceit and double-dealing" you think happened in the UN in 1947. Because whatever happened before the end of WWII really doesn't matter.

There was a large number of Jewish DPs in Europe after the war. They didn't want to go home to nothing and live among the people who had tried to kill them. They wanted to go to Israel. The bureaucracies in the major western powers (i.e. The US Depts of State and War, and the British Foreign Office were decidedly Arabist and saw no national advantage in supporting a Jewish state in Palestine. They generally wanted the Jews to go away ... which meant "Go back where you came from."

One powerful political man bent the world to his will. The man was Harry S Truman. It was Truman who kept the issue of the Jewish DPs in the forefront. It was Truman who kept pressing the British (much to British annoyance) about upping the quota of Jews allowed into Palestine. It was because of Truman that the vote on Israel got to the UN. It was Truman who faced down Sec'y of State Marshall over the issue when Marshall's resignation would have brought the whole idea to an end. It was Truman who swayed enough votes at the last minute to secure the UN vote for Israel in 1947. It was Truman who gave the Israeli state instant credibility by recognizing it.

Now there were in fact boatloads of people who opposed Truman in what he was doing. They were well-placed to subvert his efforts, and they tried. In the end, they failed. There was plenty of "double dealing and deceit" around the UN vote in 1947, but it was performed by western agencies trying to subvert the creation of a new Jewish state. So do you have any actual examples of "deceit and double-dealing" in 1947 that somehow lead to the establishment of Israel in a deceitful and double-dealing way?

And for the record, my prime critique of the rebirth of modern Israel is theological.

And why should this matter? I don't see any theological significance in the state of Israel. What has that to do with its establishment or its right to exist? This is a temporal question. It's not a theological question.

carl

17 July 2012 at 02:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

I'm not prejudiced. Some of my best friends are Canadian.

carl

17 July 2012 at 02:48  
Blogger len said...

Dodo
You say you don`t need 'cronies'(nearly split my sides laughing)

You remind me of those of little stature at school who surround themselves with 'bigger boys'and them hurl insults at others from behind their backs.
You have even 'invented cronies'(until you were rumbled by HG)

Cressida.... I believe you have 'spiked' Dodo`s blunderbuss and it has exploded in his face.

17 July 2012 at 08:48  
Blogger len said...

I find the comments of some [most] of the Catholic contributors almost beyond belief.
Albert(the magician) keeps pulling 'theological rabbits' out of his hat with a flourish.... to my constant amusement and amazement.
The Inspector sneering at all who seek the Truth, and Dodo just being Dodo.Corrigan(well best not go there....)
The latest contribution' John knoxes lovechild';

'To be a protestant you have to actively embrace error.'

This would be humorous if it were not so tragic.Protestantism (and Islam too)were produced by the Catholics Churches refusal to follow Biblical Truth.

This is no endorsement of Islam who also embraced error supplied by unscrupulous scribes and encounters with Catholicism and religious sects.
The reformers were' former' Catholic Priests who saw through the errors of Catholicism and wished to return to Biblical Truth.The brave men wanted to put scripture into the hands of 'common men ' so they could see the Truth for themselves and most paid for this with their lives.

To deride these brave souls exposes the callous heart of Catholicism more concerned with preserving its own concerns than with revealing the Heart of God and the Truth of God and to my mind at least is truly contemptible.

Protestantism is by no means perfect and some of the denominations are definitely 'off the wall'but this is because they [also] have not followed Biblical Truth.IF we stick to Scripture, and IF are lead by the Holy Spirit then we should be able to stick to the straight[and narrow] road.

17 July 2012 at 09:18  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

The thing about Quislings is that they actually owe allegiance to the thing they're fighting. See the weakness, Blofeld?

16 July 2012 13:45

Not in the slightest quisling lover.
The quislings denied the natural rights of Norwegians to rule themselves as they wished and wanted to gain control to sell out the rights of the majority to fascist ideology. They view security by arms as Zionist rather than the supposed guaranteed security by 'friends' of Israel if they will only move away from defendable areas.

The Jewish quislings desire the wishes of the world order to have precedence over the needs of the nation Israel to guarantee its own safety and survival by reverting back to unprotected borders without assurances. They believe they will have some land but damn the obvious consequences of the surrender because nice people like you will support them as they are attacked by others, bit like the support Rwandans being massacred got from their 'friends'.

It is not the size of the land that Israel has that bothers arab/muslims but that it actually exists as a nation hence why peace for land is a terminal process for Israel.

See the logic of the argument tiberian boy??

Blofeld

17 July 2012 at 09:26  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

The reformers were' former' Catholic Priests who saw through the errors of Catholicism and wished to return to Biblical Truth.The brave men wanted to put scripture into the hands of 'common men ' so they could see the Truth for themselves

Remind me len, is it 30,000 or 40,000 Protestant "Truths" in the world now? I keep losing count.

Protestantism is by no means perfect and some of the denominations are definitely 'off the wall'but this is because they [also] have not followed Biblical Truth.IF we stick to Scripture, and IF are lead by the Holy Spirit then we should be able to stick to the straight[and narrow] road.

Some of us do; we're called "Catholics"

17 July 2012 at 11:08  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

From Avi's gag book -

...neither you nor Corrigan give a rat's arse about "Palestinians" or human rights...

Don't you just love the way he separates "Palestinian" and "human"?

Their far greater suffering under any organization or government apart from Israel's...

Wayyyy down upon the Swanee River...
Ain't our darkies so much happier pickin' cotton for us than runnin' around Africa buck naked, dr Beauregard?

I love this guy, I really do.

17 July 2012 at 11:15  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

@Carl Jacobs & Avi

Coors light is called a beer?!!?

17 July 2012 at 11:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl said ...

"I would be really interested to hear what "deceit and double-dealing" you think happened in the UN in 1947. Because whatever happened before the end of WWII really doesn't matter."

My reference was to the whole lead up to post war Israel, as you well know. The Balfour Declaration, agreed in part to encourage the USA into WW1, set the scene. Do you disagree? 1947 and events thereafter were constrained by all the events up 'til then.

"And why should this matter? I don't see any theological significance in the state of Israel. What has that to do with its establishment or its right to exist? This is a temporal question. It's not a theological question."

I entirely agree and have never argued it should not exist and should not defend itself. However intractable, the current political problems need resolving through political means. Remember David Ben-Gurion's statement during the 1956 Suez War that Israel was fighting for "the kingdom of David and Solomon." Scary, I'd say, and it forms a part of the Israeli national psyche.

My 'complaint' is against those Christians who see the rebirth of the current Israeli secular State as Divine intervention and in scriptural terms portenting the 'end times' and lend it uncritical support on this basis. I mean some are even making collections for the rebuilding of a Third Temple!

God has a plan for Israel, the Promised Land, and for Jews, His Chosen People, no doubt, and it is unfolding. I don't pretend to know what it might be bit I do know He brings good from evil.

17 July 2012 at 12:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len

So unoriginal of you. Do stop trying to mimick Danj0.
And have a look at Albert's comments to you in the thread above. Insulting him is really unbecoming for someone who claims to be spreading the Gospel.

17 July 2012 at 12:20  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dickkie

"And have a look at Albert's comments to you in the thread above. "

I did about 10 minutes ago and haven't stop laughing since, hence coming onto this thread to calm down. Now you have started me off again, you daffy bird.

Ernst

17 July 2012 at 13:02  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Dodo,

Your wrote to Carl :

"The Balfour Declaration, agreed in part to encourage the USA into WW1, set the scene"

I disagree:

The Balfour Declaration was issued in November 1917, America entered World War One in April 1917. I don't think America entered the war to create a Jewish state (Albany didn't get to Jerusalem until December 1917).

I always thought America entered the war due to Germans unrestricted submarine warfare against neutral -i.e. American- ships. That and the worry over all the billions America had lent Britain and France in their war effort.

Doubtless Carl being the budding historian will correct me if I'm wrong on that.

17 July 2012 at 13:14  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.

I've asked before, but never got an answer: how come that section of the Balfour Declaration always gets ignored?

17 July 2012 at 13:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna

James Gelvin a Middle East history professor, gives three main reasons for the British government supporting Zionist aspirations.

- USA support in WW1 aims;

- Russian support

- Jewish financial assistance

Issuing the Balfour Declaration would appeal to Woodrow Wilson’s two closest advisors, who were Zionists.

"The British did not know quite what to make of President Woodrow Wilson and his conviction (before America's entrance into the war) that the way to end hostilities was for both sides to accept "peace without victory."

Two of Wilson's closest advisors, Louis Brandeis and Felix Frankfurter, were avid Zionists. How better to shore up an uncertain ally than by endorsing Zionist aims?

The British adopted similar thinking when it came to the Russians, who were in the midst of their revolution. Several of the most prominent revolutionaries, including Leon Trotsky, were of Jewish descent. Why not see if they could be persuaded to keep Russia in the war by appealing to their latent Jewishness and giving them another reason to continue the fight?"


In addition to the above there was Britain's desire to attract Jewish financial resources.

At a War Cabinet meeting, held on 31 October 1917, Balfour suggested that a declaration favorable to Zionist aspirations would allow Great Britain "to carry on extremely useful propaganda both in Russia and America"

Or is Professor Gelvin an antisemite too?

17 July 2012 at 14:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ernsty

Yes and I dare say you'll do your usual disappearing act some time soon now. Just like the other issues you avoid answering.

17 July 2012 at 14:08  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Corrigan said...
...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.

"I've asked before, but never got an answer: how come that section of the Balfour Declaration always gets ignored?"

Because it was a late compromise and the whole Balfour Declaration was an act of political deception.

A Jewish Homeland in Palestine alongside Arabs and Muslims was never a realistic possibilty that could be achieved openly, honestly or peacefully. The British and Americans knew this.

17 July 2012 at 14:14  
Blogger John Magee said...

DODO American President Woodrow is well known for his role at The Treaty of Versailles in 1919, the creation of the League of Nations, and creating several nations in Central Europe from the remains of the German and Austro-Hungarian Empires. He is hailed as a progressive thinker and hero of oppressed national minorities in Europe yet how many realize that Wilson was a racist, a segragationist, the president who deintegrated the USA Federal Government in 1912 at the beginning of his first term in office and was a member of the KKK? He suported eugenics as a policy to ensure that racial minorities didn't reproduce and grow in number and was anti immigration from all non northern European countries. Liberal, loveable, progressive Wilson also abused his power of office to repress the hudge anti war movement in the USA after 1914 (the overwhelming majority of Americans by 1916 were against the USA becoming involved in a European war they rightfully considered totally not in their nation's best interests) and sent tens of thousands of people to jail and had newspapers and magazines closed who dared to openly oppose his pro-war policies. Not a nice man yet streets and squares and statues of him exist all over Europe especially in those countries in the Central Europe he helped indirectly create while totally neglecting black people in his own country.

17 July 2012 at 19:07  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Dodo takes up Corrigan's torch and whines for an answer --as if it will make a difference to his cant-- to the following: ...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.

It takes a moral cretin to deny the obvious, that for whatever shortcomings, Israel demonstrably defends such rights legislatively and actively through the courts. Muslims, a growing population of exiled Arab Christians, Bahais and others enjoy far more rights than they would in any Muslim country in the world and in fact, most countries of the world, including large parts of Europe. They have citizenship, the vote, right to join and form political parties, can depend on advocacy by hundreds of NGOs, avail themselves of the protection by an independent court system and and a liberal judiciary, have access to government services and freedom to engage in communal self-government.

The gross and glaring violations to civil and religious rights occur under the PA and Hamas "governments" right under the nose of the supposedly humanitarian organizations and the UN. Savage religious oppression of dissenting Muslims and especially Christians, growing censorship, detentions, rampart torture and executions, rule through terror, arbitrary confiscation of private property, rampant corruption and severe restrictions on women's rights are the norm. But Dodo knows all this, and only waits for an opportunity to bring up petty problems and a host of made-up charges.

Which again leads to the hulking elephant in the room, the question the self-described "critics" of Israel will seemingly never, ever answer, namely why are they totally uninterested in the obvious: The vicious mistreatment and robbery of their darling Palestinians subjected to their "own" regimes and in the neighbouring countries where they are confined to unique, UN-sponsored "refugee camps," which fit the definition of concentration camps, without rights to citizenship, employment opportunities and equal treatment under the host nation's laws? Why are these brave "critics of Israel" actively backing crudely some of the worlds most racist and fascist regimes and assisting them by silencing the complaints of the victims and diverting hatred towards Israel, Jews and Judaism instead? Since its not genuine concern for "Palestinians, what could it be? Hmmmm......

18 July 2012 at 16:44  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Paul, yes, the brewers of Coors Lite have somehow won the legal right to call their coloured water a beer. Just like water, it does quench the thirst, though, and works as a chaser to whiskies and single malts. I have wondered whether one can fill one's swimming pool with it and avoid chlorine treatments, as I can't imagine anything wanting to live in it.

18 July 2012 at 16:50  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

@Avi,

I tried Labbatt's, but in my brief visit to your capital I mostly drank Belgium beer. Is that spider monstrosity still outside the US embassy?

18 July 2012 at 18:24  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

1 - Israeli Arab "citizens" who marry Palestinians cannot pass on that "citizenship" to their spouses or children; any Jew from anywhere in the world can take Israeli citizenship, as can any Goy provided he converts.

2 - In 1956, "the region's only democracy" took advantage of the war it started with Egypt to expel 5000 Arab "citzens" to Syria.

3 - The Basic Law (the constitution) of Israel says, "A list of candidates shall not participate in elections to the Knesset if there exists, in its objects or actions, expressly or impliedly, one of the following (1) the rejection of the existence of the state of Israel as the state of the Jewish people...

That means the state of ALL Jews worldwide, but NOT the state of its "citizens". The law was clarified in 1989 when the Progressive List for Peace, a Jewish-Arab cross community party headed by retired IDF general Matti Peled and Arab lawyer Mohammad Miari was banned from standing for election. The crucial element was the PLP's programme of complete equality between Jewish and Arab citizens in an Israel which would be "the state of all its citzens, Jewish and Arab in the same degree". It was disqualified, according to Justice Levin of the Israeli High Court, because "a state, as all democratic states, of the totality of its citizens, without any advantage to the Jewish people as such" could not be entertained. Justice Elon stated, "it is necessary to prevent a Jew or Arab who calls for equality of rights for Arabs from sitting in the Knesset or being elected to it."


4 - I'm wondering why Avi Barzel thinks it's the duty and obligation of the Arab nations to clean up Israel's mess for it.



More and more, I'm drawn to one of two conclusions in all this - either everyone in the world is an anti-Semite, or Zionists are scum. Place your bets.

18 July 2012 at 20:23  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

@Corrigan

Written like a true Guardian reader. However, you fail to answer any of Avi's points

and

secondly you fail to see that Israel is a state under attack- since the 1940s the surrounding states have been attempting to crush Israel by brute force.

Thirdly, why don't you consider the brutal Assad regime and attack that for a change- if Israel had done half of what Assad has done to Syria you'd be calling air strikes by now.

Finally can you tell me how many Arab members of the Knesset their are and how many Christians, Jews and other religions sit in the Saudi, UAE, Yemen, Iranian and other Arab Parliaments?

Oh, I forgot they don't HAVE an elected Parliaments- Iran does but I think you will find the parties quite restricted and subject to veto by the clerics.

Hence- Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East.

18 July 2012 at 21:26  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

UAE? Iran? Saudi? Yemen? These are your moral touchstones? Let me try to get it through your thick skull, buster - I don't care about any of these places because none of them are trying to pass themselves off as "Western" states. None of them are trying to claim the democratic legitimacy that the west took a thousand years to develop. None of them are claiming to be my best friend to whom I show such serpent-like ingratitude, and then going off and sniggering up their sleeves at anyone in the west stupid enough to believe their drivel. None of them, in short, are insulting my intelligence.

You can't have a democratic-ish country; it is or it isn't, and Israel isn't. That's fine, the world is full of tinpot tyrannies, and one more or less won't make any difference, but get this clear - the west owes Israel precisely nothing.

And by the way, you muppet, Israel injected itself into a foreign body in 1949; it wasn't just sitting there minding its own beeswax until millions of mad Arabs decided to attack it for no reason. You steal somebody's land, they're going to get hacked off with you. What the hell did they think was going to happen?

18 July 2012 at 21:55  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Pity it was not about sovereignty as was the Traditional quible

18 July 2012 at 22:06  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

@ Corrigan,

Please don't making this into a battle of personal insults.

Let us take the thrust of your post:

1) "UAE? Iran? Saudi? Yemen? These are your moral touchstones?"

No they are not my moral touchstones -they are yours. However as you say you don't care about them. So you don't care if, say, Syria, massacres its own people? Or if Iran is prepared to do the same or to launch a strike which would vaporize millions and destroy a whole civilization? Which means you really neither care about Jews or Arabs. To you the other middle eastern countries can do whatever they like because they are not western, because ergo they are not 'civilized'- very patronising and racist view towards those whom you support, isn't it?

So why are you posting, if you neither care about Muslim Arab or Jew (Or Christian for that matter)?

2) When did Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq etc own Palestine?

18 July 2012 at 22:51  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Corrigan,

For your delight and pleasure, I did post the following in the thread above :

"Your Grace,

Getting back to one of the blog's recent themes- I cannot understand all this nonsense that a few communicants are spouting about Israel.

Israel is a legitimate established state that has had to fight for her own right to exist since her creation in the 1940s. I find it laughable that people here think Israel is the bully and Arab states are the victims. Israel is a tiny country and the Arab states plus Iran have a population and armed forces several times Israel's size; given half the chance they would crush Israel and kill her population without mercy.

And what of the disgusting Syrian regime, which is slaughtering its OWN citizens on a daily basis? Where is Dodo, Corrigan, John Magee in deploring that murderous regime?

And Iran, developing a nuclear bomb, in order to wipe a whole country from "the face of this earth"?.

But that's OK you see, because they are victims in all of this. They need nuclear weapons so big bad Israel will become the average Guardian reader's wet dream.


RE : boycotting Israel. There is zero way I am going to boycott Israeli goods- in fact I've just ordered a crate of wine from Israel, thanks in part to the advert of His Grace which showed the Israeli wine maker babe on the wine barrel.

Vive Le Israel!"

18 July 2012 at 22:59  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hey Twiggy!

Thanks for your posts above -they're really fab! But be careful,because Mr Corrigan is beastly when it comes to Jews and Israel and non-Catholics (and some who are Catholics as well).

Grrr.....

18 July 2012 at 23:31  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Corrigan wrote...

I don't care about any of these places because none of them are trying to pass themselves off as "Western" states.

Wow. File this sentence under "How to shred what little remains of your moral credibility in one easy lesson." Here, let's rephrase this statement so that its perfectly clear.

"It's not about them, It's about ME!"

In the future I shall staple this statement to your forehead any time you wax eloquent about your sympathy for the sufferings of the Palestinians. After all, you just stated you don't care about them at all. They are only a vehicle for expressing your animosity against Israel.

Hrmmm. What do we call someone who uses other people as a vehicle for expressing animosity towards the Israelis? Hrmmm. No, wait! Don't help. It will come to me.

carl

19 July 2012 at 01:17  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Avi said ...

"Dodo takes up Corrigan's torch and whines for an answer --as if it will make a difference to his cant-- to the following: '...it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine.'"

I rarely whine for answers, Sir.

You proceed say this clause in the Balfour Declaration has been honoured! Are you so rapped up in national propaganda as to not care about historical truth?

At the time this sentence was a late and, by some, resisted inclusion. It was deliberately ambiguous and intended to assure Arabs there would be no independent Jewish State in their midst. At the same time it gave a 'nod and a wink' to political Zionists that such a State was a possibility. 'Homeland' was another ambiguous term used. The document was a dishonest political compromise and written to be interpreted fluidly.

Please do not dress-up this clause from 1917 in the human rights language of 2012. People at the time knew it was referring to an Israeli State. And at that time Arabs far outnumbered Jews in Palestine and owned the majority of land.

19 July 2012 at 02:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

Since its not genuine concern for "Palestinians, what could it be? Hmmmm......

vs.

Hrmmm. What do we call someone who uses other people as a vehicle for expressing animosity towards the Israelis? Hrmmm. No, wait! Don't help. It will come to me.


See, this is what happens when you read a thread backwards. You end up using a motif that has already been used on the thread. Either that, or great minds think alike.

Which could it be? I think I'll drink some of that Canadian Bud Lite and ponder that question awhile.

carl

19 July 2012 at 02:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl

The 'offensive' comment:

"I don't care about any of these places because none of them are trying to pass themselves off as "Western" states."

The comment was prefaced by:

"UAE? Iran? Saudi? Yemen? These are your moral touchstones?"

Moral touchstone being the operative word, I think.

Doesn't it mean that Israeli is a beacon of hope in the Middle East? It is a modern, liberal and pluralistic democracy. It adheres to UN Resolutions and subscribes to the UN Charter of Rights. The charge that it isn't being compared to autocratic, undemocratic regimes surrounding it is not really valid. The West, and your country more than others, have supported some of these regimes for decades. Israel also presents itself as a model of democracy in the region and is financially and politically supported by Western nations becauseof this.

It is unfair and it is unreasonable! Adopting civilised behaviour, retaining standards, setting an example and walking God's path is "unfair".

19 July 2012 at 02:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

No, Dodo, it means he wouldn't give a rat's ass about the Palestinians if the Israelis weren't involved. That's why he isn't all that concerned about the fate of the Palestinians should the Israelis be removed. It's not about the Palestinians. It's not about their "stolen land." It's about who "stole" it. You know. The ones who are trying to pass themselves off as a "Western" state; claiming the democratic legitimacy that the west took a thousand years to develop; claiming to be his best friend. The ones who are insulting his intelligence. That's what he said to explain why he doesn't care about what goes on in Saudi Arabia. He wouldn't much care if the Palestinians ended up being ruled by the House of Saud.

So follow the logic.

Corrigan: "Look at how terrible the Israelis treat people in the occupied territories."

Objective Observer: "They would fare worse under Hamas."

Corrigan: "You are obviously missing the point. Look at those vile despicable Israelis. Did I mention they are vile and despicable? They are vile and despicable for oppressing the ... wait a minute, I have it right here ... oh, yes.. the Pal-es-ti-KNEE ans."


Yeah, that's a morally credible position.

carl

19 July 2012 at 03:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl

I'm not sure I read the comments in quite the same way as you do. That said, I stand by comment that more can be expected of Israel. I will repost it because it represents my opinion:

"Israeli is a beacon of hope in the Middle East? It is a modern, liberal and pluralistic democracy. It adheres to UN Resolutions and subscribes to the UN Charter of Human Rights. The charge that it isn't being compared to autocratic, undemocratic regimes surrounding it is not really valid. The West, and your country more than others, have supported some of these regimes for decades. Israel also presents itself as a model of democracy in the region and is financially and politically supported by Western nations because of this.

It is unfair and it is unreasonable! Adopting civilised behaviour, retaining standards, setting an example and walking God's path is "unfair"."


Is this an antisemitic stance?

19 July 2012 at 14:43  
Blogger Anna Albion said...

Hi Dodo

Israel can't be expected to fight a war with hands tied- if she did then there wouldn't be an Israel left to defend!

19 July 2012 at 17:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Anna

Did I say she should fight a war with her hands tied?

20 July 2012 at 11:17  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older