Thursday, September 20, 2012

Anglican Communion demands global blasphemy law

In their condemnation of the puerile, amateurish film The Innocence of Muslims which appears to be being used as a pretext for riots, destruction and murder in some Islamic countries (not to mention in some non-Islamic countries with significant Muslim populations), Anglican leaders from across the Communion have written a letter to the Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon, demanding a UN declaration to outlaw ‘intentional and deliberate insulting or defamation of persons (such as prophets), symbols, texts and constructs of belief deemed holy by people of faith’.

Note the specific parenthetical insertion of ‘such as prophets’: if they had dared to specify ‘such as the Son of God’, there isn’t a Muslim nation on the planet that would vote for such a declaration. It is a bizarre point of emphasis in any case, for why should the divinely-inspired prophets of the Abrahamic religions be granted higher recognition than the rishis of the Indian subcontinent? Why should the declaration allude to Mohammed but not to Vasishtha?

It is axiomatic that bad laws are made in ill-thought knee-jerk response to events: a global blasphemy law – which is what this declaration would amount to – cannot be cobbled together on the back of a crude bit of visual anti-Islamic propaganda. It would elevate protection from ‘hate speech’ to the level of a human right. And that would make it impossible to express an opinion – no matter how intelligent or reasoned – for ‘hate’ is in the apprehension of the offended, and the offended have an alarming propensity to decide to be at whatever convenient moment may suit them .

It is incumbent upon Christians the world over to work for peace, and we must be especially mindful of those nations in which Christians are a vulnerable or persecuted minority. But these Anglican leaders who demand a ‘blasphemy’ declaration appear to forget that to outlaw ‘intentional and deliberate insulting or defamation of persons (such as prophets)’ would make it impossible for a Christian to repudiate the anti-Christian teachings of Mohammed. If all ‘symbols, texts and constructs of belief deemed holy by people of faith’ are to be protected from such a subjective notion as ‘insult’, there will be no more freedom of speech or expression where religion is concerned. And the implications for mission would be seismic, for what Muslim may be not feel insulted to hear that his or her religious foundations are built upon nothing but the arid sands of Arabia? What Muslim would not feel that his or her prophet had been defamed if they were to be told that his prophecies were false and his doctrine of God a lie? How would religions dialogue? How dare they challenge, rebuke or even question?

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is clear: ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression. This right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’ It is difficult, if not impossible, to conceive of such freedom being sustained in a context of global religious censoriousness.

His Grace agrees with these Anglican leaders that Christians and Muslims alike should continue to work to defeat attempts of extremists of every religion to create fear, hatred and violence, for, indeed, only love can cast out fear. But the UK Parliament has not abolished our own ‘regressive’ national laws of blasphemy and blasphemous libel only to see them resurface in ‘progressive’ international law or supranational legal regulation against the ‘defamation of religion’, in order to enforce global adherence to a sanctified UN orthodoxy.

Let us be in no doubt about this: any UN declaration to outlaw ‘intentional and deliberate insulting or defamation of persons (such as prophets), symbols, texts and constructs of belief deemed holy by people of faith’ will not protect Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism, Sikhism, Buddhism or Atheism. It is the 56 member states of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation who will agitate in defence of their prophet. Whenever Israel complains on behalf of Judaism, or Tibet on behalf of Buddhism, no-one will listen; few will care. The law will protect Islam alone.


Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Your Grace

Wonderful post!

Why you are the Frankel of religious Bloggers.

E S Blofeld

20 September 2012 at 10:36  
Blogger D. Bum said...

You're completely correct that such a law would prevent a christian from pointing out that Islam is a crypto-satanic religion and that Muhammad is not only not the messenger of God but an agent of Satan himself.

20 September 2012 at 10:45  
Blogger James Lee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 September 2012 at 10:46  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

"Anglican leaders from across the Communion"

"Leaders" is a misnomer. To be a leader you must have followers. Self-important, ivory-towered prats is a better title.

20 September 2012 at 11:13  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Brilliant post your Grace.

20 September 2012 at 11:18  
Blogger William said...

Excellent post Your Grace

"The law will protect Islam alone."

And even if the law protected Christianity alone it would still be wrong - as Your Grace so eloquently expounded.

20 September 2012 at 11:50  
Blogger Ahab`s Leg said...

When supra national pseudo legal organisations are discredited by ill thought out pronouncements such as you have described the whole relationship of law and the citizen is gradually undermined. This is not a satisfactory situation.

20 September 2012 at 12:02  
Blogger Philip said...

Excellent post. Yes, the effect of such a law would be to promote Islam and clamp down on all other religions and on atheism, and remove freedom to debate, criticise... Maybe, hopefully, individual nation states could ignore such a 'law', but one hopes that a corrective letter of clarification will be sent to Ban Ki-Moon by the Anglicans.

20 September 2012 at 12:31  
Blogger non mouse said...

Well said, Ahab's Leg. I've never heard so much about law.

The politicians (and whoever their masters might be) have built themselves a law-making industry, and the rest of us are required to be so awestruck that we'll bow down and be beaten into shape.

Fortunately for donkeys, most of these new law-givers are too ignorant to imagine that their "law is an ass."

20 September 2012 at 12:43  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Islam is by the nature of the beast - EXTREME. Nothing unique in this as all three monotheistic religions were promulgated through extreme phases of violence in all of their existences. But such nonsense as displayed by the above 'leaders'*, and rightly challenged by Cranmer, should give everyone cause for concern as to their* sanity.

'Oh Allah, destroy the rancorous Christians. Oh Allah, destroy the rancorous Christians and the corrupting Jews. Oh Allah, destroy them for they cannot withstand you'.

Talk about turkeys voting for Christmas! Do they really believe in the adage My enemy's enemy is my friend? its just dangerous hog-wash. These unrepresentative so called 'leaders' are traitors to the very concept of democracy and freedom - just what delusional make believe world are they living in? Not the real one that's for certain.

If the Anglican Church is wondering why it is so easily lampooned it need only look in the mirror to see the absurdity of the visage of it's version of an organised religion. It's all smoke and mirrors, men in pointy hats with large egos, filled with an innate sense of self importance with just more than a hint of intimidational tendencies. Only now there seems to be a bit of jealousy creeping in to some of these people within the Anglican hierarchy not least for the apparent ease at which violent mob excesses can be drummed up and enjoyed by a little incitement from the officiants of Islam.

Religion and/or deranged, psycopathic dead prophets can not in any way or understanding be offended. The condition of being offended can exist only in the mind of the beholder - what they do if they feel offended is entirely up to those individuals so inclined and the law of the land. Offence is an option to either be taken or ignored by applying universal freedom of choice: it should never have been enshrined as an article in law by any stretch of the imagination in the first place. If anything is corrosive to mankind it is those inciters to violence and those calling for the re-instatement of the unquantifiable 'crime' of blasphemy.

Blasphemy = Tyranny = the best reason for debunking religion and consigning it to the dust bin of history.

The incredibly stoic man in this vid - was 'convicted' of blasphemy by converting from Islam to Christianity - is this what these Anglican idiots are wanting to sign up to?? - not in anyone's name surely - ever.

20 September 2012 at 13:04  
Blogger tory boys never grow up said...

Given that many Islamists get no where defending even their own declarations of human rights e.g.

Might I suggest that they leave of lecturing the rest of the world on the subject until they have addressed their own inadequacies.

My faith is in human nature and my prophets, such as George Orwell and the writers of the UNCHR, very clearly tell me that restricting freedom of sppech or belief is blasphemous. I am sure that we can invent a divine power if that is necessary - given that among the world's religous faiths there must logically be a few who have already done so.

20 September 2012 at 13:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

From the first moment I heard of this letter, I wondered if it was a serious proposal. After all, the Islamic states already punish blasphemy, and otherwise this law hasn't a hope in hell of being passed on a global scale (granting for the sake of argument that there exists such a thing as 'law' on a global scale.) One of the authors was Mouneer Anis, bishop of Egypt, and I suspect that might be a clue to the real motives of the authors. Perhaps this is nothing but covering fire for Christians in affected Islamic lands - a cheap and painless way to offer some measure of protection to those at risk of persecution. The target audience of the letter might not be the world community, by the Islamic majority in specific Islamic states. A month from now this letter will be forgotten. It will never produce actual changes in any legal structure. But it might be used to deflect the wrath of a mob from murder and riot. If so, then this letter is not such a bad thing.


20 September 2012 at 13:20  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Will the proposed legislation protect Satanists from offensive comments about the Devil?

20 September 2012 at 13:22  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Very good, Your Grace. This is a preposterous proposal by quivering fools which we must fight tooth-and-nail. It will be coming from the soft-headed quarters and dhimmis of all religions and denominations, although not from my own synagogue and our bellicose rabbis and congregation, I assure you.

It is also a cheap attempt by the Islamists and the enabling poltroons to divert attention from where our anger should be directed: The veritable declarations of war which the attacks on embassies amount to and the horrible killing and rape of the American diplomat.

Incidentally, Israel is not known for springing to the defense of Judaism and as for Tibet, a former nation occupied, absorbed and over-run by the Red Chinese, it is in no position to defend Buddhism, a gentle religion under assault and with few willing to help it.

20 September 2012 at 13:59  
Blogger John Magee said...

Of course, a UN global blasphemy "law" is about Islam and Islam alone. This insane concept was dreamed up by Muslims.

What a tremendous victory for Islamic Jihad making the UN it's instrument of final war against the "infidel".

It's a bizarre concept trying to visualize at some future date the UN's blasphemy storm troopers wearing their blue berets rushing to a Western Democracy and arresting blasphemers. Only people like Dutch politician Geert Wilders or the American Islam Robert Spencer and anyone else on the internet or who writes books, articles or says anything in any way critical of Mohammed, the Koran, or the actions of Islamic Jihad would be considered by the UN as "blasphemers".

Where would the UN bring these blasphemers to "justice"? The UN headquarters in NYC or the International Court of Justice in the Hague?

What would be the punishment if found "guilty"? Beheading or just being whipped? Jail terms served in the Islamic Republic of Iran or Saudi Arabia?

It's an interesting fantasy, from a Christian perspective, that global UN laws could almost be fun if we dared give up the concept of freedom of speech which we would not.

Imagine the pandemonium that would ensue if such an international UN blasphemy "law" was applied to satanic rock bands who spew the most unbelievable filth and hatred of Christianity in the "lyrics" of their songs while wearing pentagrams, upside down crosses,and other satanic paraphernelia while they vent their rage against Jesus in their music.

My guess is the UN blasphemy laws would exempt these kinds of twisted rock groups because their hatred of Christ would be considered freedom of speech by Muslims.

20 September 2012 at 14:37  
Blogger John Chater said...

What an egregious and idiotic idea, a cowering response to the violent extremists who continue to commit murder and mayhem because they perceive themselves to be insulted and victimised. The bishops are idiots if they think that such an absurd 'declaration' would make a blind bit of different to those Muslims who believe that violence and terror are the legitimate tools of a religion of 'peace'.

The bishops know that the painfully secular UN will never agree to such a declaration, so we can assume that they are not serious in their ambitions for its granting. Instead, this is a cowardly attempt to curry favour and promote solidarity with a religion with which Christianity has nothing in common, is in competition with and ought to be highly critical of.

Christian leaders should be remonstrating with Muslims who use violence or support its use (especially those who are silent or evasive on the issue), pointing out contemporary Christian examples of tolerance and patience, painfully learnt.

So, for example, on the contention by Harvard professor Karen King that Jesus once remarked that he had a wife (contrary to the church's teachings on his celibacy) the reaction is a critical academic examination of the 'evidence' not the burning down of Harvard University or calls for King to be executed.

Another example would be the Venice Film Festival special jury prize to 'Paradise: Faith', which among other things shows a devout Catholic woman masturbating with a crucifix when not engaging in bare-breasted flagellation. As usual it is dressed up as art, predictably condemning of the Church's attitude to women, sex, etc, and no doubt very titillating and worthy to its ultra-liberal fans. Catholics, of course, have heard it all before and learnt to put up with it. And that is the point, and a point that should be put by Christian leaders of all denominations to Muslims globally. We don't like it, it is upsetting and insulting but if ours is truly a religion of peace we do not use violence and murder (or international censorship) to prove it.

Bishops, if they are worth the title, should be advocates of Christianity, not the mouthpieces of those who would, if it were within their gift, put them out of existence. It's time they manned up and started doing what God is paying them to do.

20 September 2012 at 15:39  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

At the very best, this is giving in to Muslims playing the game 'look what you made me do!'

Every time a Christisn recites the Creed as part of an act of worship, he or she is denouncing Muhammed as a false prophet. For if Jesus of Nazareth is God's only begotten Son, then Muhammed is by definition a false prophet.

This tragic capitulation would therefore effectively criminalise Biblical Christianity. Oh, sorry, that was the intention.....

20 September 2012 at 16:12  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

This proposal is nonsense and it is a shame it has come from Anglicans, because each should be able to practice their faith and not be scared of offending people and indeed people should be free to express their views -and disagree.

It is called free speech. We all know which religion would be the most zealous in enforcing such a proposal. But I don't want to turn the globe into an Islamic super state run from Mecca.

It is a bit like what Danjo said regarding Domino Pizza in the thread below. Have the leaflet, but chuck it in the bin if you don't like it. I can have my Jehovah Witness mag brought to me by the foot servant and it does of course go into the fireplace in the great hall!

Now back to my bananas...

20 September 2012 at 16:26  
Blogger John Magee said...

John Chater

If the UN ever passed such a "blasphemy" law, and don't put it out of the realm of possibility considering who is pushing for it, it's almost be impossible to enforce. Especially in any Western Democracies that still have a vertrebal column left and their rights of freedom of speech in their constitutions are still treasured. Ironically, a possible UN blasphemy law would also be impossible to enforce any Communist countries left like Cuba, China, and North Korea.

I wonder if it would be made "blasphemy" by a future UN blasphemy law to mock Karl Marx's or Frederich Engels photographs? Or wear underwear with Che's famous photo on the crotch?

My hunch these countries above would vote for a UN blasphemy law to take a swipe at the West out of solidarity with the 3rd world Muslim countries and then somehow manage to get their nations exempt.

If you live in the USA you would remember the "Piss Christ" photograph controversy (my apologies but that was the name given to this photograph labeled "art") in the late 1980's. The artist photographed a crucifix in a glass of the his own urine. Obviously "art" in the last decades of the 20th century had "evolved" since the Italian Renaissance. This photograph won an award at a visual arts competition in the USA which was sponsored by the National Endowment for the Arts, a USA Government agency. USA Christian tax payers money was used to fund this outrage in the name of art. Imagine any sacred symbol of any other major faith or cult being mocked in this way at the expense of the USA gov't! This is but one example of many I could post of the trashing Christian symbols, Christ, and Christianity in the USA today by our so called intellectuals. Aren't they just brilliant and cultured? They think so.

I assume this sort of trash goes on in the UK and Europe these days too.

It's just fine to trash, mock, and lie about Christians today in art, the cinema, rock music and by rewriting history. Our enemies are ecstatic.

One positive thing about a UN blasphemy law (I am joking of course) if it was applied across the board would end all this. So I guess any UN law making the blaspheming of Christian religious symbols and the life of Jesus would make the far left and the Christophobes very unhappy when all their "fun" mocking Christians could end them up in front of a UN blassphemers inquisition court.

20 September 2012 at 16:44  
Blogger Flame Radio said...

Have we so quickly forgotten the production of "Jerry Springer - the Opera" broadcast on BBC 2 in 2006?

To my mind, the "God who so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that 'whosoever' believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life" is worthy of my worship and my love, not my cynicism or my negligence!

As a human being, I am fallible, and I often am - in this, I am the equivalent of the Apostle Paul who said "for what I want to do, I do not do, but what I hate, I do": it is because of that fact that I could not allow myself to commit physical violence against others who are not so cognisant of their fallibility. Nevertheless, if I were spiritually cut (to the quick), would I not bleed - in the face of cynicism, negligence or ignorance?

Perhaps the Anglican Communion would be helped by further inquiry from interested Christians as to what they hope to achieve - or to their motive for the seeking of a global blasphemy ban - but we should not immediately imagine that their motivation is suspect!

Beryl Polden, Wirral

20 September 2012 at 16:56  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Pat Condell for Archbishop of Canterbury?

20 September 2012 at 17:05  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 September 2012 at 17:06  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Flame :

The Jerry Springer opera was offensive to Christians, however, I as a Christian have the right not to go to see it and people can protest peacefully about it, but the people behind this product also have the right to do such a play. It is called living in a liberal democracy. The alternative is going on the rampage and issuing death threats, which is not the hallmark of civilisation.

20 September 2012 at 17:08  
Blogger John Chater said...

John Magee

Yes, we in the UK also have a long tradition of getting it in the neck from the 'enlightened' critics of Christianity. Usually from the very same people who speak out so strongly in support of minority religions. Whether it's the late mischief-maker Ken Russell making very dodgy films about nuns, homosexuals writing poems about Christ that would have embarrassed the residents of Sodom, Chris Ofili's 'Virgin Mary' rendered in animal excrement or arch-egotists like Richard Dawkins destroying forests of trees with their relentless and repetitive publishing of dud books on religion, we are well used to it.

It supposedly goes against British sangfroid for us to be offended, but nevertheless we are, though not too forthcoming about complaining (mostly confining ourselves to right-thinking blog sites!).

Better this way, though, than all of the above being murdered for their liberties.

20 September 2012 at 17:44  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"Pat Condell for Archbishop of Canterbury?"

Er no. Not in general, and not on the basis of that video. Even the Weirdy Beardy would be a step up.

20 September 2012 at 17:51  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hmm. John Magee has implied an interesting solution. Begin listing and piling actionable complaints and threaten the arrogant among the secularists with raging lawsuits every time they even snicker at religion. This might cool their ardour for social engineering or stiffen their dhimmified spines, as the case may be.

Indeed, Lord Lavendon, and it's more than a shame, 'tis a scandal. Especially coming from the birthplace of classical liberalism. Far be it from the august Communion to propose something that might actualy work. Like, closing down the embassies and consulates which were not adequately protected by their hosts, cancelling all visas and deducting any damage and loss of income expenses, including those by civilian contractors from the regular basheesh ladled out to the make-belief governments until it's clear that the hosts are taking effecting measures to protect and prosecute? Just a thought. May sounds harsh to some, but it's sheer molly-coddling compared to having the USS Enterprise HMS Britannia jointly pulverize a few coastal cities with with canister and grape shot. For example.

And has anyone thought this hair-brained idea past the "wouldn't it be nice to show them we care" stage? O, what a mess of legal challenges, confusion and animosities....and they'll shriek, riot, burn and kill anyway if not for this, then for something else.

Enjoy your bananas, your Lordship; must keep Lord Cavendish's accounts in the black so that he may treat his noble cronies more often on the curry nights.

20 September 2012 at 17:57  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Well no suprise there then, what is it about Anglicans that make them support a One World

I seem to remember Christ rejecting such an offer from one satanic dude

But of course, messianic faiths need a One World to impose the messiahs will upon returning

God forbid we may have a mind of our own, how will this law be enforced, unmanned drones flying over villages, bombing those who sin against the Almighty UN

Trigger happy kids on their playstations could be employed to remote control them

20 September 2012 at 18:16  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

John Magee:

Have you ever read That Hideous Strenght by C.S. Lewis? If not, can I recommend it, and the trilogy it completes (Out of the Silent Planet and Perelandra) to you?

I'll give a quote that seems to me to nicely put this issue in Christian terms (Mark has just been asked by his academic seniors to stamp on a crucifix as a symbolic gesture to the new future):

"“This,” said Mark, pointing with an undefined reluctance to the horrible white figure on the cross. “This is all surely a pure superstition?”


“Well, if so, what is their objective about stamping on the face? Isn’t it just as subjective to spit on a thing like this as to worship it? I mean – [...] – if it’s only a bit of wood, why do anything about it?”

“[...] Of course, it is just a superstition; but it is that particular superstition which has been pressed onto our society for a great many centuries. It can experimentally be shown that it still forms a dominant system in the subconscious of many individuals where conscious thought appears to be wholly liberated. An explicit action in the reverse direction is therefore a necessary step towards complete objectivity.[...] We find it in practice that it cannot be dispensed with.”

Mark himself was surprised at the emotions he was undergoing. He did not regard the image with anything at all like a religious feeling. Most emphatically it did not belong to that idea of the Straight or Normal or Wholesome which had, for the last few days, been his support against what he now knew of the innermost circle at Belbury. The horrible vigour of its realism was, indeed, in its own way as remote from that Idea as anything else in the room. That was one source of his reluctance. to insult even a carved image of such agony seemed an abominable act. But it was not the only source. With the introduction of this Christian symbol the whole situation had somehow altered. The thing was becoming incalculable. His simple antithesis of the Normal and the Diseased had obviously failed to take something into account. Why was the crucifix there? Why were more than half the poison-pictures religious? He had the sense of new parties to the conflict – potential allies and enemies which he had not suspected before. “If I take a step in any direction,” he thought, “I may step over a precipice.”" (my emphasis)

If you'll bear with me, I think one final quote frames, for me, what this debate is about for Christians, and the nature of our response (again from Mark's POV):

"Christianity was nonsense, but one did not doubt that a man had lived and had been executed thus by the Belbury of those days. And that, as he suddenly saw, explained why this image, though not itself an image of the Straight or Normal, was yet in opposition to the crooked Belbury. It was a picture of what happened when the Straight met the Crooked, a picture of what the Crooked did to the Straight - what it would do to him if he remained straight. It was, in a more emphatic sense than he had yet understood, a cross."

"But even if you should suffer for righteousness’ sake, you will be blessed. Have no fear of them, nor be troubled" (1 Peter 3:14).

I don't need a law to protect me from oppression.

20 September 2012 at 18:24  
Blogger John Thomas said...

" Buddhism, a gentle religion " (Avi Barzel) - not if you're one of the Christians being persecuted by them, in Sri lanka, it's not.
There may well be something in Carl Jacobs' point (this letter is aimed at taking the heat off persecuted Christians in Muslim areas), in which case it may, as he says, be not such a bad thing.

20 September 2012 at 18:35  
Blogger John Magee said...

Lord Lavendon

AL Quaeda and other radical Muslims including the Muslim Brotherhood tell us over and over they will emigrate to our free Western nations and use our laws and freedoms to destroy us.

Hitler did the same and he spelled out in great detail in his book, "Mein Kampf" ("My Struggle)", which he wrote during his brief period in prison after the failed Munich Putsch in 1923. Hitler wrote out his plans in his book if the Nazi's ever took over Germany. Churchill read this book in the late 1920's and he took Hitler and the Nazi's very seriously.Churchiill spent the 1930's after the Nazi's took over Germany in 1933 warning Britain Hitler meant war. Churchill was laughed at by the left and ignored by the his fellow conservatives. No one was laughing at him in the in the late summer of 1940 when the Battle of Britain began and he was PM.

Their left wing allies in the law and politics who hate Western Civilization as much or more than radical Islam ... and now a major Christian Church too it appears from this article. Will help them accomplish this.

"...those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them..."

20 September 2012 at 18:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace, Anglican ‘leaders’ tend to be awfully nice types who are rather dense when it comes to keeping it real. Last count this man had of the deaths resulting from the film was 30. One presumes it’s this slaughter which has prompted this piece of asinine do-gooding. Well, fellows, you are not grasping the essentials here. Muslims in the hot countries have hot tempers, so 30 is the going rate. We all regret what happened to the US ambassador, but suggest embassies in these pitiful countries invest in military grade flame throwers to keep these barking people at bay.

Islam is the great lie the beast has cursed the world with. As if an archangel would reveal anything divine to a paedophilic psychopath. If there was an archangel, it wasn’t Gabriel but the fallen one, Satan, the great liar, impersonating him. And Allah isn’t God but Satan himself, receiving the worship of his earthly disciples.

The wicked truth will out. We must NEVER be muzzled to speak it…

20 September 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

John Magee:

Quite right to raise the fact that certain sects in Buddhism engage in what most of us might understand as persecution. In the spirit of Cranmer's previous post, however, it's worth noting that they tend to be the Ningmapa and Kagyupa branches. My knowledge of Buddhism is scant, but I believe there are other branches that take a position not enormously unlike our own with regards to freedom of belief.

20 September 2012 at 18:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I think people are treating this letter with way more seriousness than it deserves. In the first place, there exists no legal mechanism to pass a 'global law.' In the second place, there exists no mechanism to enforce its implementation. In the third place, there exists no majority (outside of Islamic nations) that would even want to enact such a thing. The letter is just meaningless rhetoric in terms of law.

Ignore it, and it will go away. The Episcopal Church in the US makes political pronouncements like this all the time. No one cares. Can any of you even name one such proclamation without looking it up? But I can understand that some people in leadership might feel a need to say something if they thought it could keep people from being killed.


20 September 2012 at 19:03  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

John Magee,

Promptus ad vindictam ...

20 September 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, yes, yes, of course it's a toothless proposal, I'm sure everyone here knows that, but that's not the point. The point is that such blatant dhimmitude needs to be ridiculed, shouted-down and slam-dunked fast and hard before the esteemed Communicants ...not to mention their brethren-in-weak-spirit from other faiths and denominations... think of new ways and reasons to spread their nether cheeks.

As for there being no international law if one really looks at the situation closely, that too is true, but look what's happenned to Israel; decades of repeating the lie of "international law" (when the only binding law to date is the San Remo agreement!) and the "world" believes it and worse, wants to act on it...if it had the yarbles to do that. Better not to have the UN buggers pass it, as we'll hear no end of it.

20 September 2012 at 19:19  
Blogger John Magee said...


I never heard of that particular book by C.S. Lewis. Thank you for the tip. I will see if it's in the library here. Your post was interesting and appreciated. You can't fight the bullies in life alone. That's why we have laws. To bring them and all who harm others to justice.

As a RC the Crucifixion represents for me the greatest act of love (caring unselfishly for others) in history. I'm sure most Christians think the same.

If the Lewis's trilogy isn't in our small town library there is also a Presbyterian University here. It has an excellent library which is great because our town library which is only a block away can't compare to it. It's a bit of a walk but it's autumn weather here, almost chilly, and the leaves are changing so I won't mind the walk.

I'm familiar with Lewis's books and his life as a professor at Oxford University. He was a close friend of J.R.R. Tolkien who was also a professor at Oxford. Tolkien was Roman Catholic and Lewis of course was a former atheistic and convert to Anglicanism. It's an easy bet they had a lot of interesting conversations when they had their weekly pints after dinner at a local pub with friends from the University.

Ever see the movie "Shadowlands" starring Anthony Hopkins? It's a moving film about Lewis's (Hopkins) relationship and eventual marriage to an American divorcee and his loving and caring for her during her final days dying from cancer.

Lewis, as you must know, grew up in Belfast.

20 September 2012 at 19:21  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah Avi,

Well one of Mr Cavendish's predecessor's blew up his green house and decided to build a maze where it stood, although there is still a glass house which grows a small bunch of bananas.

As for my bananas, I simply produce enough for self sufficiency, along with beer, wine and other such stuff, in fact we created a water feature which runs down from an artificial lake at the top of the peak and that creates quite a bit of hydro power- not exactly the hoover dam- but enough to create power for the house and estate, all a result of the war and wartime rationing you see and the fact that building a reactor would be too expensive, even for me.

And don't worry, I have made sure that our chefs produce only the finest Kosher Curry.

20 September 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger John Magee said...

The Episcopal Church in the USA has lost almost 30% of it's members since 1970 because of it's liberal stances on social issues. Most of my father's family were Episcopalians since they came to Pennsylvania from Ulster in the 1700's. They joined the exodus from the Episcopal Church USA too. Several including my aged aunt decided to bite the bullet and became RC's, other's have returned to the new Anglican Church here.

The Episcopal Diocese of nearby Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania has atcually broke from the Episcopal Church in the USA over ordination of openly gay priests and a gay Bishop by the Episcopal Church USA and has joined the Anglican Church of Latin America. The Bishop and 80% of the churches in the former Pittsburgh Episccopal Diocese voted to leave and took their cathedral and most of the churches with them. Their church signs now say "Anglican Church" which they haven't called themselves since before the American Revolution 230 years ago.

Several conservative Anglican Churches here have hinted they want to join the Anglican Rite of the Roman Catholic Church approved of by Pope John Paul II which allows them to retain the 1927 Book of Common Prayer as part of their Mass. This Anglican Rite Church in in the USA has few churches in the North but there are a number in the South in places like the Carolina's, Virgina, and Texas.

Who would have thought?

20 September 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

John Magee,

I say, are you related to the Anglican Magee's from Pennsylvania who were missionaries in China?

20 September 2012 at 19:46  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

John Thomas said, "'Buddhism, a gentle religion' (Avi Barzel) - not if you're one of the Christians being persecuted by them, in Sri lanka, it's not."

Or a Hindu as well, Mr Thomas, but it seems to me it's the fault of local adherents and militant monks, not of an overall theological position. The difference may be meaningless to the victims, but in terms of numbers, a policy of non-violence does seem to greatly reduce incidents of violence.

"There may well be something in Carl Jacobs' point (this letter is aimed at taking the heat off persecuted Christians in Muslim areas), in which case it may, as he says, be not such a bad thing."

Good of you to remind me; meant to scold Carl over his uncharacteristic position. This is the same thinking that got Israel into trouble. Unconditional policies of not dealing with terrorists or kidnappers resulted in reduction of attacks. Then came a few grudging negotiations and soon enough Israel wound up shaking the hand of a mafia thug on the steps of the White House. Just look at the empirical evidence offered by history; a long hiatus after the '67 shellacking and the Entebbe raid and an explosion of savagery inversely proportionate to the generous offers during the deadly years of the imposed "peace process."

The situation is sheer blackmail and we are witnessing a progressive creep towards a tactic where crazed Muslim rioters who run out of foreigners and local non-Muslims will now begin killing their own, demanding our submission to ever-more demented demands. They have long ago clued-in on the fact that we are absolute pussies who recoil with sheer horror at deaths of enemy "innocent civilians" and chubby-cheeked urchins sometimes collected from local morgues and messed-up a bit to serve as propaganda props. The answer is to stop dabbing at our eyes and to begin rolling back these failed approaches of "humanitarianism." Lord Lavendon's promptus ad vindictam ...swift to avenge... seems like a good way to begin.

20 September 2012 at 20:10  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 September 2012 at 20:18  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Lord Lavendon,

Don't be fooled by John Magee- he is raging Judeophobic who can't stand Judaism.

20 September 2012 at 20:18  
Blogger len said...

The over reaction of Muslim`s to any criticism of their religion or its founder are intended to intimidate and silence any opposition.And it works...fear can be an affective weapon for those prepared to use it.

However if fear and intimidation are the only means of advancing and protecting ones religion what does that say about that religion?.

There should be and need to be discussions about various religions and the authenticity of each should be called into question.This can be done without ridicule or disparaging remarks(hopefully).

Any religion which cannot be put 'under the spotlight' and examined in detail is probably fearful that its inadequacies will be exposed.

The Kingdom of God is a Kingdom of Light everything is there for all to see, but the Kingdom of the enemy of Mankind is cloaked in darkness afraid for the Light to shine upon it because it does not want to be exposed.

20 September 2012 at 20:36  
Blogger John Magee said...

Hannah Kavanagh

Post your examples please.

20 September 2012 at 20:41  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Well, Lord Lavendon, I must say that Casa Barzel cannot compete with your estate's infrastructural delights. My domestic self-suffiency extends to growing my own cherry tomatoes, a past-due-date box of freeze-dried crud and probably rusting c-rations somewhere under all the junk in the basement, and an old 5500W generator intended to keep the fridges, freezer and air conditioning going during the hot Summer night blackouts. I can't stand heat; give me Winter all year 'round.

Be consoled, your Lordship, that having your own mini-brewery for when the world ends is much preferable to messing with a fidgety reactor with a misplaced instruction manual. My second alma mater, the University of Toronto, has a SLOWPOKE reactor in a basement on its downtown campus, actually. Fairly safe and not rigged for power turbines, but quite neat. Not a secret, but fortunately few in Toronto and even at the university know about it, otherwise the Nervous Nellies would be having kittens over it.

20 September 2012 at 20:43  
Blogger John Magee said...


I posted that not long ago.


20 September 2012 at 20:50  
Blogger John Magee said...

John Thomas

There is a lot to admire in Buddhism.

The rosary, a Christian prayer mantra or meditation on the main events in the life of Christ said using beads is said by Roman Catholics, High Church Anglicans, and in a differnt form by the Eastern Orthodox comes to us from the East most likely India and was brought back as far as I know by the Crusaders during the Crusades. How they got it I have no idea. Perhaps some traveled to India from the Middle east. It's not that far.

I am convinced that Jesus in fact did spend time in India and Tibet during his "missing years" and that it's not new age nonsense. There are too many legends in the folklore of India and in Tibet that point to this possibility.

His message of total love and forgiveness as well as His never condoning violence other than the time the he got ticked off at the merchants at The temple in Jerusalem episode in the Gospels shows He was distinctly different as a person when as an adult after returning from India to a culture with radically differnet values.

There is an excellent book written and is back in print. It was first published in the 1890's by a Russian named Nicholas Notovich called "The Reluctant Messenger" The Lost Years of Jesus, The life of St. Issa" by Nicholas Notovich. Notovich traveled to Affgahanistan, india, and Tibet as well as I think northern India. He discovered ancient scrolls in Tibet that revealed Jesus's seevral years studying in Tibet with Buddhist monks. The one scroll that astounded him was one called "The Life of St.Issa". For more look up on your search: The legend of St. Issa.

Also, another Russian named Nicholas Roerich after traveling in the Tibet, Nepal, and India in the 1920's came to the same concludions. Roerich came to beelieve liek Notovich that Jesus learned his pacifism, total love, and forgivness from the Buddhists monks. His paintings of that journey, especially the ones of the Himalayas and his Russain Orthodox Christian paintings and paintings of Russian saints, countryside, and folk stories are beautiful and there are many on the internet. Search: Roerich paintings.

What I said is sure to generate a lot of flak here but I like to look at all possibilites and I want to hear the other side of every story and discover stuff people don't care about, want to ignore, or worse cover up of censor.

My paternal roots are Irish and Anglican (Protestant Episcopal USA), I am now Roman Catholic, but I am open to all possibilites yet I will always believe exactly what the Apostle's Creed says and how it defines what Christians all believe..

20 September 2012 at 21:27  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Hello Hannah

Thank you for the advise.

20 September 2012 at 22:03  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah Avi,

Well the house itself is going through a bit of a repair job, given the many leaky roofs and whatnot.

Apparently some of it is reputed to be haunted, but I have never seen any evidence of such things.

I have to admit that the two vegetables I find difficult to grow are beetroot and cherry tomatoes...strange that eh?

My own beer is more of an ale that the Canadian or American style larger, but I've managed some modest success into making it something better than, ahem, "
"moonshine". Never realised that brewing was de facto chemistry till i tried it.

Anyway I am letting my mind wonder off well away from the topic at hand, so I shall desist.

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

Given that the Archbishop’s blog has such prominence in the Anglican world, one would have expected some come back from these, er ‘leaders’.

Poor show, leader type Anglicans, what !

20 September 2012 at 22:29  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

The Maronite Patriarch's echoing of Sheikh Hassan Nasrallah's call for a sort of universal blasphemy law is an important pointer: it would be wrong on the proposed global scale, but there is presumably already such a thing in Lebanon, since how could the country function without one? We had better get used to that sort of perspective, because Lebanon now looks like the coming place as Israel is taken over by the Haredim with (rather aberrantly in their own terms, but there we are) their extremely low levels of general education and of economic productivity. The only people still doing anything in that Land are going to be the almost equally fecund Arabs.

Even Sunni, increasingly Salafi Tripoli is the Prime Minister's constituency, the Prime Minister who is in office because both Hezbollah and the Maronite militia veterans around General Aoun wanted and want him. So at least a good proportion of the Sunnis in Lebanon are obviously no keener on the Saudis than their compatriots are. It is still within living memory that an immemorial Christian-Muslim society and culture, over which Christian sovereignty (Roman, Byzantine, Crusader, British) has been the historical norm, were destroyed further south, and it is no wonder that neither the Christians nor the Muslims in Lebanon are inclined to risk the same fate. Direct or indirect protection by Iran, which has reserved parliamentary representation for her ancient indigenous Christians and which more to the point is the enemy both of Israel and of Saudi Arabia, suits them down to the ground.

The rise of Lebanon, although it would be placed at enormous risk by any victory on the part of the Islamist insurrection in and invasion of Syria, would be a striking example of how such a thing could be attained by a country with a large, historically definitive, and constitutionally entrenched Christian population even if half of the population at large were Muslim, a situation which, if it ever happens anywhere in Western Europe, will not do so until long after we are all dead. And that really does mean a Christian population, not a pseudo-Western one as defined by neoconservatism. Specifically, it means numerically and otherwise a predominantly and observantly Catholic population. Learn the lessons well. There is every sign that we are about to be taught them.

20 September 2012 at 22:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

John Magee

Jesus did not learn "his pacifism, total love, and forgivness from the Buddhists monks"!

Christians believe He was God made man. Do you really think God learns from His creation?

20 September 2012 at 22:41  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

John Magee & Dodo:

I've always been fond of C.S. Lewis' idea of pagan religion prefiguring Christ's coming.

Rather like David writing the words of Psalm 22, never guessing that the words he penned would the words his Saviour could not fully utter for the agony of the Cross.

20 September 2012 at 23:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


"Anglican Communion" and "leadership" doesn't quite sound right.

For a Christian to intentionally and deliberately insult another's faith, especailly if intended to provoke violence, is abhorrant. It's what football hooligans do. However, we are called to evangelise and spread the message of Jesus and if people do not respond we are to move on.

The producer of the Innocence of Muslims and those who posted it on YouTube, in my opinion, are guilty of inciting murder. They knew the impact it would make and the inevitable outcome. This was an abuse of freedom of speech.

As Christians we should remember the example given by Christ when He spoke the Truth:

"Then the high priests rent his garments, saying: He hath blasphemed; what further need have we of witnesses? Behold, now you have heard the blasphemy:
What think you? But they answering, said: He is guilty of death."

The Gospel tells us He stayed silent after answering His accusers. He was executed by the Roman's for political reasons - to keep the peace.

"The governor said to them: Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying: Let him be crucified. And Pilate seeing that he prevailed nothing, but that rather a tumult was made; taking water washed his hands before the people, saying: I am innocent of the blood of this just man; look you to it."

Islam as a religious system is based on aggressive eradication of all other belief systems. Christianity walks a different road.

20 September 2012 at 23:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


I agree God has partially revealed Himself throughout human history - only do so fully through Judaism and then Christianity.

I also think there are counterfeit religions that do not come from God. Buddhism, to my mind is a philosophy and ultimately a philosophy of despair. Some of the religious beliefs of China and Japan have great reasonance with Christ's message.

However, this is not the same as suggesting Christ learned from pagans!

20 September 2012 at 23:11  
Blogger len said...

I can see why (From Mr Magee`s comments)why all aspects of religion should be brought into the Light and examined.The Word of God should be used to examine all prophesies and suppositions about Christ and Kingdom matters.

There is so much deception , myth and folklore woven around and into religion that needs to be exposed and 'blown away'as so much dust and cobwebs.

Many aspects of religion are straight out of Babylon.

Religion (in its worst sense) is man wanting to ascend to equal God... this was the purpose of the Tower of Babel..... man wanting to be 'as God'.
Jesus as a' new ager' learning from the Buddhists is quite frankly laughable and shows a total misunderstanding of the Deity of Jesus Christ!.
We should be very careful not to make Christ in OUR image or to image that we can become' gods.'

We who call ourselves 'Christian'must cling to the Truth... Biblical Truth... or we will be swept away on the oncoming tide of deception.

20 September 2012 at 23:16  
Blogger John Magee said...


Wouldn't the human side of Jesus want to meet and talk with people His father created who practiced pagan religions especially one so advanced as spiritually Buddhism and want to witness their lives and hear what they had to say? As the Son of God did he instantly know everything and was he able to understand each and every human being and what they thought and believed from the moment he was born or conceived?

I have no idea.

All I said it was a possibility that he went to India and Tibet and apparently there are ancient documents there containing legends that make that claim. Legends often have a basis in fact.

Personally I am open to all reasonable explanations where He spent his "missing years" including the possibility He stayed at home and helped His step father Joseph make tables and chairs.

On the other hand it really doesn't matter for us Christians does it? He fullfilled his mission as the Son of God to redeem us from Original Sin. That's all I know and really care about.

21 September 2012 at 00:00  
Blogger John Magee said...


Please judge people for yourself and not by what others post here about them.

Just like in a court of law there are two versions of every accusation posted here. One side, the other side, and the truth.

I do not tell lies, I admit when I am wrong, and I do not hate individuals I question everything even stuff that some people imagine makes them special and even things I believe in. Dare to qurstion some people's sacred cows and you will feel their wrath. I know that feeling.

Some folks are so insecure they can't stand being critized or questioned but they like to dish it out here.

21 September 2012 at 00:10  
Blogger Peter Denshaw said...

Odd isn’t it that Muslims spend so much time seeing the threats from ‘outside’ of their culture and societies, yet far more Muslims are killed and have been killed by Muslims than non-Muslims.... And answers on a post card (I suspect a very small postcard) for the list of Muslim countries that aren't a basket case!

21 September 2012 at 00:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

There is only one God - so being impous towards a false god is not really blasphemy. The "Anglican Community" and its "leaders" (both problematic descriptions) carefully avoided the use of the word.

"I am the Lord thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. Thou shalt not have strange gods before me ... Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain: for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that shall take the name of the Lord his God in vain."

Christians believe Christ is the only sure route to God:

"I am the door. By me, if any man enter in, he shall be saved ...

I am the good shepherd. The good shepherd giveth his life for his sheep ... I know mine, and mine know me ... And other sheep I have, that are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice, and there shall be one fold and one shepherd."

"You believe in God, believe also in me ... I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me."

If we follow Christ's commission to teach all the world about Him, His death and His resurrection, then these could be held as "offensive" and probably "insulting" if not delivered with the audience in mind.

I guess it hinges on the what we mean by "intentional and deliberate insulting". What is "insulting"? Is there a way of engaging with other faiths in ways deemed polite and rational? Christians forgive insults (some far too readily in my view). What are acceptable methods for faith groups to respond to what they see as insults? Examples given here of insults to Christ should result in open action; short of violence but nevertheless having as much impact as possible.

That said, this is not a matter for a global law. These are already covered in Human Rights agreements. What nonsense.

21 September 2012 at 00:34  
Blogger John Magee said...


What scares the hell out of me is what blasphemy means to the Muslims who are pushing for this insane "law" in the UN. They still KILL people today for "blasphemy".

French Embassies all over the majority Muslim world are closed now because of a magazine in France which showed CARTOONS of a semi nude or nude Mohammed. People may die because of these cartoons.

Photos of Prince Harry's wife topless have yet to send the people of Britain into the streets condemning the Swedes and the Danes and buring their embassies in London for are allowing magazines in their countries to print these pictures.

As far as a major Christian denomination today supporting a "blasphemy law" in the UN. I guess we could say "it's back to the bad old days"?

21 September 2012 at 00:56  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

John Magee

Is it the Muslims pressing for this? I thought it was the leaders of Anglican Community. Has the Anglican Church been infiltrated by Muslims?

Okay, it's wrong for the Muslim mobs to get so violent when faced insults to their 'prophet'. It may well be in the very nature of Islam to do so.

What's the point of the 'art'? The point of these cartoons and the recent film? They seem to me deliberately provocative in a volatile time. Why?

21 September 2012 at 01:51  
Blogger John Magee said...


Tolerance becomes a crime when applied to evil.

Thomas Mann

German novelist


21 September 2012 at 02:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

John Magee

This is an interesting post following your speculation about Jesus' "missing years".

"Wouldn't the human side of Jesus want to meet and talk with people His father created who practiced pagan religions especially one so advanced as spiritually Buddhism and want to witness their lives and hear what they had to say?"

Why? His mission was to the Jews. The people chosen by God for His revelation and to bring forth the Messiah. And Buddhism "spiritually advanced"? It has no conception of a personal God or a path to individual salvation. Any genuinely advanced religion would, in any event, have been prompted by the Holy Spirit.

"As the Son of God did he instantly know everything and was he able to understand each and every human being and what they thought and believed from the moment he was born or conceived?"

Yes. He was fully God and fully man. The passages in Scripture relating to His knowledge of His second coming is open to many interpretations. We also know that as a child He spoke with great wisdom and insight about Jewish law and was aware of His Sonship.

"All I said it was a possibility that he went to India and Tibet and apparently there are ancient documents there containing legends that make that claim. Legends often have a basis in fact."

And some don't.

"Personally I am open to all reasonable explanations where He spent his "missing years" including the possibility He stayed at home and helped His step father Joseph make tables and chairs."

Is it so hard for you to accept that Jesus' values and His message about God and how we should live were consistent with the Judaism of His family and community?

Can I ask what tradition of protestantism you were a member of before converting to Catholicism? What understanding of the Old Testament and the Jews were you given?

On the other hand it really doesn't matter for us Christians does it? He fullfilled his mission as the Son of God to redeem us from Original Sin. That's all I know and really care about."

I think it does and that it is important.

What sense do you make of this:

"Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind. This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets."
(Matthew 22:36-40)

Jesus was a Jew and His message is rooted in Judaism.

21 September 2012 at 02:52  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Lord Lavendon,

A wandering mind, especially one drifting towards the topic of drink is perfectly acceptable. I don't drink much beer and when I do, it's as an accompaniment to food. I'm mostly partial to the genuine Pilsner, Plzensky Prazdroj/Pilsner Urquelle, from which I purloined sips as a boy and have warm and cuddly feelings for. Not that I would ever reject your home-made brew, your Lordship.

Such fond memories of beer. When we lived in Prague and a guest popped over, Dad would give me a jug and send me to the beer cellar down the street, where they sold three kinds of ale or beer straight from oak casks. The cellarer would put on an extra head of foam for us kids and I would suck the stuff up on the way back. Years later, in Canada, Pilsner appeared in our government-run beer stores and I was reunited with an old friend.

While beer for me is a sit-down drink to be had with meat or fine cheeses, at gatherings where mingling and drinking are happening, I stick to shots of straight scotch or whiskey and drink only where I can eat and have a glass of seltzer after every doze. I learned to drink late in life, in synagogue after services, and under the tutelage of old Polish Jews, short, cantankerous fellows, most of whom are in homes now or have gone over the event horizon of this life. They always wolfed-down shmaltz or pickled herring on cracker, or smoked salmon on a spread of cream cheese over a slice of rye bread, all of which at first seemed disgusting to me, but for which I developed a passion in time. And thus I learned that with straight liquor followed by a bite of victuals one has a much better notion of where one stands on the tricky spectrum of inebriation. This method allows for precise calibrations of one's condition through the methodological device of pacing the shots or stopping their progression all together. I've also observed that people who quaff down fancy and tasty mixes tend to miscalculate and often make asses or disgusting pigs of themselves. A friend once hypothesized that the stomach recognizes straight liquor as a poison and resists absorbing it, thus slowing down the rate, whereas diluted drinks are treated as harmless food (or mother's milk?) and sucked up eagerly by the greedy tummy. Perhaps,or perhaps one drinks faster and greater quantities with mixes. Sort of like the myth that drinking beer with a straw makes one drunker because of something to do with the gases. Not so, according to a study; we drink much faster with a straw and the rate of ingestion is an important factor in inebriation.

How on earth did I meander onto all this? Well, at least at this hour in Britain this post is safe from deletion due to topical irrelevance as His Grace must be fast asleep ...after his night-cap of Rioja.

21 September 2012 at 03:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


meant to scold Carl over his uncharacteristic position.

Well, remember that 'swift vengeance' must be the reserve of those who have the authority to take it. Certainly if these statements about enacting a 'global law' had been made by someone in authority (political or militray), then I would agree with your assessment. The Prime Minister does not make groveling noises of appeasement when the bad guys hijack a plane and take it to Entebbe. He loads a plane with Commandos, and sends that plane to Entebbe to kill the bad guys and bring the hostages home. It takes authority to enact vengeance and the bishops don't have it.

I would also agree with your assessment if the groveling noises of appeasement came from a place free of the dominance of Islam. There is no reason to preemptively lick the boots of a religion so obviously incompatible with the West. Islam must remain in an inferior position or it will transmogrify any western state which it comes to dominate into an Islamic state. That is the central problem with liberalism after all - it cannot defend itself from aggressive world views that have no commitment to liberalism.

But here we have bishops - private individuals who have no public authority - making a statement on politics that has no realistic chance of ever being realized. We are dealing with a minority religious population in a Islamic state that is already vulnerable to the mob, and left defenseless by the state. The bishops in question feel some responsibility for these people since they have been placed in spiritual authority over them. The bishops seek to do something to offer them some measure of protection. There is little they can do, but they do what they can. They make a statement to appease the mob. Will it work? Who can say? But I understand the logic.

This statement is of no political consequence. It will influence nothing. No one in authority will stand up in the UN and promote it. It will not become the oft-repeated lie. It will not become the seed grain of Dhimmitude in the west. It is a throw-away line intended to turn aside the anger of the mob. It is a feeble attempt at help for the benefit of those who already live under the boot of Islam. Outside of that context it might as well be the mist on the morning grass. But that mist might save a life.

No nation in the world will take up arms to avenge these people if the mob comes to burn them alive. There will be no swift vengeance for them. What then would you have the bishops do? To stand on principle is a difficult thing when your words could be the proximate cause of someone else's tragedy. You are right. It is a form of blackmail. But is this specific instance worth risking the lives of other people? There certainly are such principles. There certainly are reasons to risk the lives of people. I am just not certain that these bishops confronting this situation have encountered one.


21 September 2012 at 04:45  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

John Magee said "On the other hand it really doesn't matter for us Christians does it? He fullfilled his mission as the Son of God to redeem us from Original Sin. That's all I know and really care about."

The concept of 'Original Sin' is based on a literal reading of Genesis and the Creation myth. Buddhism has a far more Darwinian approach to the problem of evil.

21 September 2012 at 08:52  
Blogger Roy said...

Why didn't the Anglican "leaders" endorse Pakistan's blasphemy law as a shining example to the whole world?

21 September 2012 at 10:30  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Re : the missing years of Jesus. Being an old romantic, I'd like to suggest that he came over to Blighty to say hello and teach us rugby and cricket :

"And did those feet in ancient time.
Walk upon Englands mountains green:
And was the holy Lamb of God,
On Englands pleasant pastures seen!"

21 September 2012 at 11:04  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

John Magee, you said, What scares the hell out of me is what blasphemy means to the Muslims who are pushing for this insane "law" in the UN. They still KILL people today for "blasphemy".

Fair enough. And yet you and several others agreed with Russia's ad-hoc "hooliganism" law which conveniently, for propaganda purposes turned into a kind of a "blasphemy law." Granted two years is better than having one's head lopped-off or worse, but these are differences in degrees of sanction, not in principle. If blasphemy laws are rightfully repugnant to you, as you imply, then for the sake of consistency, why not apply this in the case Pussy Riot? At this time, the women's lawyer is appealing for them to be placed in isolation rather than the general population, where they will serve beside murderers and whatnots. Russia being Russia and Russian jails being notoriously brutal, it is very likely that they will be additionally "punished" perhaps terminally, by volunteer agents for the state or by fanatics who bought into the state's pseudo-claim that they were insulting the Orthodox Church rather than Putin, his lap-dog and the Moscow church-turned-into-a-Putin-TV-Studio.

21 September 2012 at 13:29  
Blogger John Magee said...


Years ago I read a story, a legend that Jesus visited Cornwall when a boy or a young man with Joseph of Arimathea. It seems Joseph of Arimathea, a family friend of Jesus's step father Joseph, was in the tin trade with Phoenicians who owned tin mines in SE England. Do you think this legend has any validity? I think it just might.

Odd that Joseph, a carpenter, would have a rich merchant like Joseph of Arimathea as a friend but I assume the Jesus family weren't class conscious having a son like Jesus who was the Son of God. Maybe Jospeh the carpenter knew Joseph of Arimathea when they met at the 1st century Nazareth versions of the Kiwanis or Lion's Club businessmens clubs?

Then of course the same legend claims they both visited the site of Glastonbury Abbey (ruins today) and Jesus preached to the Druid priests there. Supposedly Joseph of Arimatheia stuck his staff into the ground and it took root and flowered miraculously into the Glastonbury Thorn...

21 September 2012 at 13:41  
Blogger The Judicious Hooker said...

I note that the New Zealand Roman and Anglican leaders feature in this report. Their good work has helped produce one of the most anti-religious, politically correct and secular societes in the world. The Christian witness would be invisible if it weren't for the Polynesian churches.

New Zealand is a country which happily slaughters all lamb by Islamic methods, thereby allowing a religious group to control a chief component of food production. Those who question this alien ritual slaughter are considered eccentric, 'rascist' or both.

When Anglican leaders provide knee-jerk pronouncements for the media on the latest offence to Islamic sensibilities, it makes me glad that whatever they say is non-binding on the faithful and the mind of God can usually be assumed to be the direct opposite.

Can I assure those who may think that these pontifications reflect the views of Anglicans: many of us are only too well aware of what our Sudanese brothers and sisters have suffered. The Barnabas Fund was established by an Anglican, Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, and it works to support Christians under persecution, particularly by Islamic regimes. We have not all been 'dhimmified'.

21 September 2012 at 13:58  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

John Magee,

For me it doesn't matter whether these stories are true or not. What matters is that this is a part of English folk law, so I cherish it as part of my country's culture and history.

Also, the only people in Britain who have a problem with 'class' are the raving socialists of the guardian and some sections of the labour party, who continue in their contemptuous class warfare, when ever they have an opportunity. For example exiling hereditary peers from the House of Lords or banning the patriotic country pass time of fox hunting.

21 September 2012 at 13:59  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Also, if you were not aware the quote I gave was the first verse of the hymn 'Jerusalem', which was in part inspired by the stories you mention.

21 September 2012 at 14:02  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Ah, Avi ,

Yes there is nothing like a trip down memory lane. I do like the Czech Republic, Prague is quite a nice place to visit.

21 September 2012 at 14:03  
Blogger John Magee said...

The Pussy Riot story is dead and when it was alive could in no way shape or form be compared to proposed anti-blaspshemy UN laws proposed by Muslim nations which in reality mean no criticism of Islam and the end of our freedom of speech. Blasphemy in Islam countries under Islamic law of Sharia carries the death sentence.

The Pussy Riot clowns were X rated amatuer movie makers and drug users. Not nuns.

These women need our prayes.

Next topic please.

21 September 2012 at 15:25  
Blogger John Magee said...


My mother was Czech and grew up in Prague. She left Czechoslovakia in 1945 when she was 28. Later in 1946 in Germany she met my father in Bremerhaven where she was working as a translater for the USA Navy (Bremerhaven was a small USA Zone and port city in the British Zone of north western Germany it handled 90% of the supplies for the American Zone down south in Bavaria) my father was an officer in the Navy when he met Mother in Bremerhaven in 1946. After the Communists took over in 1948 most of her family fled to the West after losing everything they had worked for over generations. Two of my uncles were arrested in 1949 and 1951 only because they had belong to prewar Catholic political parties and helped revive them after 1945. They were sent to Stalin's Gulag in the USSR. We never heard from them again.

Prague for me is not just a beautiful city today but a reminder of the the horrible years for my Mother's family under the Nazi's from 1939 -1945... then the Red Army in 1945... and Communist coup d'tat in February 1948 when the Czechs lost there freedoms again. I was born in January 1948 one month before the coup and thank God in the USA. My Mother thought when she arrived in Pittsburgh in December 1946 she was heaven compared to what she left behind in wartorn Europe. One of her memories I often heard was that lighted streets stores full of everything she had forgotten existed. Plenty of food which amazed her too.

Yes Prague is beautiful again today. It was only bombed slightly during WW II so it's architectual treausures, as you saw as a tourist, are intact and restored after 40 years of neglect under Communism. I was there for the first in 1980 with my Hungarian American wife.(she came to the USA as a child of 8 with her parents in 1957 after the Hungarian Revolution and Soviet invasion in 1956). Prague was a dreary then and my few remaining realtives not very excited about our visit as Czechs were not encouraged to have contact with foreigners then and the police noticed such things and so did snoopy neighbors. Prague like Budapest we visited earlier during our visit was falling apart. Almost every building was unpainted and dirty. Hotels seedy and some had cockroaches and bedbugs. We returned in 1992 after visitng her family in Budapest and mine still in Prague and in Brno in Moravia and the Czech Republic was being transformed after liberation from Communism only 3 years before. Last time I was there was in 2004 and was amazed at how totally and Beautifully restored since 1992 and a following vist in 1996 but it was crowded, jammed full of tourists. Not same city with a only a trickle of tourists in 1992 and nothing like the empty city we saw in 1980.

If you ever visit the Czech Republic and travel south to the wonderful Medieval town of Cesky Krumlov. If you have ever been to Rothenburg or Dinkeslsbuhl in Germany this is the Czech version. A perfect Medieval town with lovely churches all now beautifully restored. Also Karlovy Vary (Karlsbad) the beautiful old spa town west of Prague and the nearby Medieval Karlstejn (not Karlstein) Castle too.

I love the magnificent Gothic St Vitus Cathedral which as you know is part the Hradcany Castle complex overlooking the old town across the Charles bridge to the "new town". You can climb the single gigantic south tower of the Cathedral for an amazing view of the city. Not far from the Hradcany is the fantastic Baroque Strahov Monastery Church and library. The Strahov Church is one of the longest Baroque naves in Europe . It was given back to the Premonstratesian order of monks after the collapse of Communism in 1968.

Then there is the beautifully restored Church where the Infant Jesus of Prague "lives". Our lady of Victories in the Old town below the Castle.

This Church was restored by the German Government after 1989 in partial compensation and as and act of reconcialion with the Czech people for the crimes the Nazi's inflicted upon them durng WW II.

21 September 2012 at 16:20  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Carl, you make many a good point, as always, but the issue is not the ability of the Anglican Communion to make policy or to bring down retribution, nor what their motives are. I'm assuming, as you and as His Grace have, that they hope to save lives of fellow Christians in the hot zones by mollifying the crazies. I'm also assuming that it won't work, as it's too little and too late.

And don't be so sure that this will be a forgotten event; perhaps so as a single event, but not as a contribution to a seamless expression of pacifist policies by Churches and Western goverments. The method has been tried and it has failed time and time again. Decades of appeasement to terrorists and Islamist regimes by Churches and governments have brought only disasters to Christian, Hindu, Buddhist and Animist minorities; robberies, rapes, ethnic cleansing, killings and massacres.

This latest move is not just ineffective; it is a powerful empowerment of the Islamists and allows our governments to pretend to "listen to the concerns of the faithful," with which "license" they can continue doing sweet bugger all.


Not your most effective response, John Magee; avoiding the glaring similarities, the central principle, dismissing and defaming the victims and calling for prayers before running away from the gaping inconsistency in your position and ethical system. But if it feels good....

21 September 2012 at 16:28  
Blogger John Magee said...

Islamic Law of Sharia's definition of blasphemy in not to in any way be compared with the present Russian government's using the word "hooliganism" (rudeness, disruptive behavior, bullying, disrespect, or violent acts) to define their law which defines "hooliganism" against ANY religion of ANY house of worship as a hate crime.

Isn't that what liberals in the West want hate crimes defined as too?

Isn't Western hate speech laws in fact exactly like the Russian governments "holliganism" laws?

The old USSR used that word "hooliganism" often for far different crimes and the punishment was at least in the Gulag that usually resulted in death. Oddly enough in the old USSR tens of thousands of churches and many cathedrals were invaded by atheist youth groups who performed in similar ways that Pussy Riot did but back then that behavior was SPONSORED and approved of by the Soviet government.

It all depends who's religious house of worship is being desecrated I guess.

If it's a Russian Cathedral being desecrated by X rated film stars in a state of high dudgeon protesting stuff Putin did it's "OK" in the liberal mind.

Once again I LOATH Putin because of his ex KGB past and membership in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. It's not for me to judge his heart about his conversion to Orthodoxy. That's between him and God and I hope it will eventually change his life before he dies.

A church (or a Russian Cathedral in Moscow) is private property open to the public. As such it has the right to ask or even demand a certain type of behavior and respect inside the church by worshippers AND visitors.

Many buildings are open to the public to serve them yet the owners have the right to demand a certain behavior and decorm for the benefit of others and safety reasons. Those in charge or who own the building also have the right to call the police if these rules are broken. Banks have a right to not allow a person to wear a gun inside a bank even if it's a harmless cap gun, gas stations have the right to ask that you don't smoke near the gas pumps for obvious reasons, libraries have the right to ask people not to talk loud or make disruptive noises, we don't allow nudist camps next to grade schools...on and on and on.

Blogs and chat rooms can boot or ban people who "misbehave".

21 September 2012 at 17:58  
Blogger John Magee said...

Sorry for my many typos. I must learn to proof read before I post.

21 September 2012 at 20:12  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

John Magee

Islamic Law of Sharia's definition of blasphemy in not to in any way be compared with the present Russian government's using the word "hooliganism"

Well, yes, since the Muslims are actually punishing what they consider blasphemy. Putin is punishing Pussy Riot for what amounts to "Public Disrespect of the Maximum Leader for Life." However, when I ask you to specifically enumerate the actions for which Pussy Riot was justly imprisoned, your list sounds suspiciously like charges of blasphemy. For example, "They did all those things in front of the Host!" In fact, that list sounds very similar to the kinds of things a Muslim would say to justify charges of blasphemy in an Islamic context.

The difference you seem to want to make is this. "Blasphemy against the Christian faith in the context of Orthodox Russia should be legally punished. Blasphemy against the Islamic faith in the context of Pakistan or Saudi Arabia shouldn't be legally punished." We call that 'special pleading.'


21 September 2012 at 23:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

John Magee
Have you decided not to respond to my questions posted on 21 September 2012 @ 02:52? Unlike you.

I see you have been drawn into a debate on the Pussy Riot situation - again.

I am hoping you will clarify your views on Judaism and confoirm you agree Jesus' message is rooted in this faith and the Jews were dhosen by God to receive His revelation and set themselves apart in accordance with their covenant with Him.

"Special pleading" it may be but after a public trial and conviction, 2 years in prison for deliberately and provocatively breaking the Russian law on hooliganism, allegedly inspired by religous hatred (have you grasped this law yet?) cannot be compared to the murderous behaviour of the Muslim mob or the death penalty for insulting Muhammed.

21 September 2012 at 23:56  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


have you grasped this law yet?

I'm not sure, but I think I have made progress. Let me see if i understand this correctly.

If (say) Pakistan were to recategorize the crime of (say) burning a Koran from blasphemy to "deliberately and provocatively breaking the Pakistani law on hooliganism, allegedly inspired by religous hatred" and imprison the criminal for no more than two years, then you would be totally fine with that result.

If your answer is "Yes, I would be totally fine with that result" then I have grasped the concept completely.


22 September 2012 at 00:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Carl, clearly you haven't troubled to research the Russian understanding. No more to be said until you do. It's not about blasphemy which you keep comparing it to.

22 September 2012 at 02:27  
Blogger John Magee said...

Lord Lavendon

I just listened to "Walk in Jerusalem" on Youtube. I chose one of the first on the list offered by YT which was taken from the Royal Wedding of Prince Willima and Kate Middleton in April 2011.


Reading the lyrics of that hymn is inspiring and the words righty inspire your pride in being English. I never knew the lyrics were from a poem by William Blake.

The opening hymn of the Royal Wedding was the hymn "I was Glad". That I am familiar with and to hear it sung by a splendid choir acompanied by the great organ of Westminster Abbey was amazing.

I love those few seconds after a glorious hymn is finished when the organ and choir immediately stops in a great cathedral or large church and there is an echo that reveberates for a few seconds throughout the structure back from the chancel down the nave to the west window and the organ.

Hymns I still remember from going to Episcopal church services as a boy when I stayed with my paternal grandparents and other relatives are the old standards "Abide with me" and "How great Thou Art" and at Christmas "Once in Royal David's City" which you must hear every year on Christmas Eve on BBC radio and I imagine on TV too sung by Kings College Choir, Cambridge University. Regarding the first two hymns, I never payed attention to the lyrics until I was as adult and realized how inspiring they are.

Both hymns are really wonderful to hear sung by a choir or solo without an organ.

This is off the wall comment but related to the subject above. In Catholic Austria "Silent Night",written by an Austrian Catholic priest in the earl;y 1800's (and perhaps the most beautiful of all Christmas Carols)is never played by tradition in that country on the radio or anywhere else until Christmas Eve.

How joyful it must sound hearing "silent Night" on Christmas Eve each year and not everywhere else for weeks in advance of Christmas in every department store or Wal-Mart.

If you can spare the time please look up Washington National Cathedral, the seat of the Episcopal Bishop od Washington, DC. It is a magnificent English Gothic Cathedral on the scale of Canterbury and the other great English Cathedrals and is the 6th largest cathedral in the world. It sits on the highest point in Washington and can been seen for miles over the treetops. It's construction took over 100 years from the 1890's until it's dedication in about the year 2000. It is possibly the last great Gothic Cathedral ever to be built.

22 September 2012 at 03:23  
Blogger John Magee said...


I don't think any group of people or an individual today can call themselves a chosen people or chosen person by God and assume they are born with certain God given privilidges the rest of the human race doesn't have and then have the temerity to lecture other people who say they aren't special as haters. Does that clarify my views?

What I said above covers a lot of territory starting with religious zealots all the way to political lunatics as well as a few real lunatics in mental hospitals.

God loves all his children equally and always has and always will.

It's my view He does chose people borb with unique gifts to carry out his will on earth through the Holy Spirit. I think that's obvious if you look at religious and secular history. I guess they are in a way "chosen" but they don't know it as they are busy doing the jobs God wants them to do on earth, namely, helping advance the human race, relieve suffering, and bringing about justice.

That's my personal opinion. It's crystal clear I am no expert on religion so I will let the experts here lecture me how I am wrong and then I will yawn while they throw the "book" at me with their wisdom and accusations... and some fire and brimstone too.

That's my opinion and it is not an opinion of hate a few people here claim.

Ever hear the old adage (some will call it a cliche) what having a conscience means? It says, "having a conscience means doing the right thing when no one is looking". Add to that what Jesus said in the Gospels when he asks us over and over to love (unselfish concern) for others (especially strangers who need help)and you have Christianity in a nutshell.

PS: Those sad young women deliberatley blasphemed the Blessed Sacrament (Eucharist) in the Christ the Savior Cathedral in Moscow. The story here is FINIS as far as I am concerned.

22 September 2012 at 04:29  
Blogger len said...

Mr Magee,

God reveals Himself through humanity.
When Adam failed to return God`s love to Him and sought 'self'instead of God who then turned to look elsewhere for someone with the integrity and the vision to allow God to fulfil His purposes for Humanity through them.

God chose Abraham and was to raise a people through whom God could bless the rest of Humanity.The Jews whilst failing God in many ways kept the knowledge of God alive and recorded throughout History.Without the Jews there would be no Bible there would be no salvation.Never forget that!.
When the Jews rejected Messiah(despite all the evidence)the door to salvation was opened to the gentiles, this was to be opened anyway through the Jews!.

The Jews are to be given another chance to accept their Messiah during the end days and so fulfil God`s original intention.
God has never given up on the Jews and will bring many of them home (although this will be through great tribulation.)

'Replacement theology' is totally wrong and partly to blame for the persecutions of the Jews and lines 'the Church' up against the purposes of God.

There are many enemies of God who desire to destroy the Jewish people before God can redeem them and fulfil His purposes for them... we who call ourselves 'Christian' must pray for God`s purposes to come about during these 'last days.'

22 September 2012 at 10:04  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

John Magee said ...

Something and nothing ...

I asked about the origins of Judaism and your understanding of the God's revelation to a people He chose and set apart. I also asked if you acept Jesus' teachings were consistent with the law of Moses and the prophets.

"I don't think any group of people or an individual today can call themselves a chosen people or chosen person by God and assume they are born with certain God given privilidges the rest of the human race doesn't have and then have the temerity to lecture other people who say they aren't special as haters. Does that clarify my views?"

It certainly displays an ignorance of both the origins of Judaism and modern day main-stream Judaism, yes. As I understand Jewish teaching, they claim special responsibilities and not privileges.

"God loves all his children equally and always has and always will."

Of course, but but He also hates sin and its gripon man since Eden. Do read the Old Testament and try to grasp His plan for human salvation, through the Jewish people, as revealed ultimately in His Son, Jesus.


I agree with your post. What you have misrepresented - again - is "replacement theology". This is odd because the rest of your post actually defines the core of its teaching! I suspect its just your inbuilt anti-Catholic reflex at work.

Christians believe, and the Catholic Church teaches, the Mosaic Covenant was superceeded by the the New Covenant in Christ. Are you questioning this?

22 September 2012 at 13:18  
Blogger John Magee said...


I am not an anthropologist so Google their origins yourself.

My Europan ancestors migrated from east to west from Central Asia and India gradually ending up in Ireland and Scotland and Central Europe. We are all immigrants.

Since we are told by science that humans come came from a single African DNA mother that makes all humans related doesn't it?

My guess is they migrated east to west from Kashmir 4,000 years ago.

Please do your own research and when you find out let us know.


22 September 2012 at 13:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

John Magee

Right, so now you dispute the existance of Noah, Abraham and Moses? You dispute God's direct encounters with these men and His covenants with them, do you? I was referring to the origins of the Judaic faith and not the semitic tribes who became the Jews.

You sir appear not to know your Scripture nor the Catholic faith you claim to profess.

22 September 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger John Magee said...


Did I say even mention Noah, Abraham, or Moses? No I did not. Pease comment on what I post and not what you imagine I may have implied.

22 September 2012 at 23:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

John Magee

Do stop all this obfuscation and avoidance and answer my original questions about Jesus being a Jew.

23 September 2012 at 00:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


On the contrary. It is you who hides a charge of blasphemy behind a charge of 'hooliganism.' That's why you cannot substantiate even so much as one legitimate charge of violence or vandalism or intimidation. That's why you must retreat to assertions of pseudo-crimes like 'disrespect' and 'insults.' That's why you constantly demand unconditional 'respect' for a Russian law on the basis of Russian culture - respect that you would never demand for similar laws in Pakistan or Saudi Arabia. That's why you constantly change the subject away from the nature of the law and towards the penalty inflicted for violating the law.


23 September 2012 at 00:48  
Blogger John Magee said...


The Old Testament calls for the stoning to death of women who commit adutery. In the New Testament Jesus OUR SAVIOR stopped a mob of his own people from stoning to death a adulteress and when the mob stopped stoning this poor women who's life Jesus saved what did Jesus say to her? "Go and sin no more".... Jesus Christ showed compassion and love for a whore and saved her from being stoned to death by religious zealots OF HIS OWN CHOSEN PEOPLE. What does that tell you?

Am I a hater for reminding you of this fact that Jesus Christ in the Gospels said STOP to his own people the stoning to death of an adulterous women?????

23 September 2012 at 02:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


But, whether you like it or not, showing "disrepect towards society" is a crime in Russia with a term of imprisonment of up to 7 years.

What these young women did offended the Christian people of Russia - they showed calculated disrespect towards the majority mores of their country and knew the possible consequences.

I agree such disrespect is hard to define and this law is and has been open to misuse. However, because you don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ does not mean that those who do were not seriously offended or that these actions were not "hooliganism" - as legally defined in Russia.

You bang on constantly about the decline in Western society and in traditional morality. What answer do you have? Maybe we should be less liberal and tolerant too towards calculated attacks on the foundation of our society.

And, yes, if someone were foolish enough to deliberately burn a copy of the Koran in public in Pakistan, with the intention insulting the faith of millions, I would see this as disrespect for Pakistani culture and society and deserving of intervention. Similarly, I would support legal action against the abuses directed at Christianity in the West in the name of art.

23 September 2012 at 03:00  
Blogger John Magee said...


I see the burning of the Koran, the Gospels, the Torah , or any other "holy book" as an act of freedom by a person or person in a society free of religios control and domination.

23 September 2012 at 03:07  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

John Magee

More avoidance. It tells me nothing on its own.

What is your point? That Judaism was not authentic? That the old law was not from God? How do you explain all the requirements of Leviticus?

Do you see no continuity between the Old and the New Testaments?

Jesus taught the Jews had misunderstood and added to the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets. He did not set Mosaic law aside or say the Jews were not chosen by God. He (re)explained and reframed it - because the time had come to fulfil the law.

(And, strickly speaking, the mob had no right to stone this woman to death. This would have been a matter for the Sanhedrin.)

23 September 2012 at 03:13  
Blogger John Magee said...


I forgot to add the right of free people to burn the stinking filth of Karl Mark's "Das Kapital

23 September 2012 at 03:14  
Blogger John Magee said...


No sane person would allow the stoning to death of an adulterous woman in the name of "God".

23 September 2012 at 03:16  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Umm ... wow. It's not often I see someone so completely dismantle his own argument.

But, whether you like it or not, showing "disrepect towards society" is a crime in Russia with a term of imprisonment of up to 7 years.

To which the only appropriate response is "So what?" It was a crime in Hitler's Germany for an 'Aryan' man to marry a Jewish woman. What is your point? That laws should be respected in their own context merely because they exist? That the existence of said law justifies whatever punishment is imposed? And yet you condemn the imposition of the death penalty for blasphemy in Pakistan. Why?

What these young women did offended the Christian people of Russia

Yes, well, there is a prosecutable offense worth two years in prison. Do you suppose I could get Richard Dawkins prosecuted under such a law? He has deliberately offended me. Tell me, however. Who determines the objective existence of 'offense?' Am I legally offended simply because I say that I am? It's important after all. If you are planning to imprison people for giving offense, you have to answer these questions.

- they showed calculated disrespect towards the majority mores of their country and knew the possible consequences.

Sort of like the man who might say "Mohammed was not a Prophet" in an Islamic country. Talk about showing "calculated disrespect towards the majority mores of their country." And, or course, he would know the possible consequences. Or are you going to say the listeners weren't offended in any legal sense.

I agree such disrespect is hard to define and this law is and has been open to misuse.

Impossible to define, I should say. But who cares? When did the concept of 'disrespect' become an actionable crime?

However, because you don't believe in the Real Presence of Christ..

Indicating once again the true nature of the charge against them. Why don't you just admit what is patently obvious to everyone who has read any of the posts you have made on this subject?

... does not mean that those who do were not seriously offended ...

I have no doubt about the reality of that offense. The question is whether that offense should be legally actionable.

... or that these actions were not "hooliganism" - as legally defined in Russia.

That 'legally defined in Russia' is really important to you. That's why you keep saying it. It's like your 'Get out of Jail Free' card. Funny how you never say "As legally defined in Pakistan." But, never mind. Yes, countries do all sorts of malicious things, and pass all sorts of malicious laws to achieve all sorts of malicious objectives. This is Putin's Russia after all. In any case, I trust you will show SSM the same respect when Parliament passes it into law. It will of course encompass homosexuality into marriage - but it will be marriage as legally defined in England.

to be continued

23 September 2012 at 04:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

You bang on constantly about the decline in Western society and in traditional morality. What answer do you have?

And what has this to do with anything? You think an absence of laws against blasphemy indicate the presence of decline? You do miss the Papal States, don't you. And, yes, you are talking about blasphemy. That's why you mentioned the real presence. That's why you said the 'Christian people' of Russia we offended.

Look, the Jewish religion is technically a blasphemous religion to Christians. And guess what? The Christian religion is technically a blasphemous to Jews. Should we therefore have a nice little pogrom in our respective countries against the Jews for their blasphemous religion? Wouldn't want to sink into liberal decline.

Maybe we should be less liberal and tolerant too towards calculated attacks on the foundation of our society.

As if Putin and his pet chihuahua are the 'foundations of our society.' But to answer your question directly, You don't defend the foundations of liberty by putting people in prison for "showing disrespect." That's how you destroy the foundations of liberty.

And, yes, if someone were foolish enough to deliberately burn a copy of the Koran in public in Pakistan, with the intention insulting the faith of millions, I would see this as disrespect for Pakistani culture and society and deserving of intervention. Similarly, I would support legal action against the abuses directed at Christianity in the West in the name of art.

What of a Saudi woman just went out into public without sufficient covering? You would support her being beaten by the religious police for disrespecting Saudi culture? Or the Muslim who converts from Islam to Christianity. You would support legal action against him for insulting the faith of millions? No, of course you wouldn't. You just won't have any consistent reason to explain your inconsistency.


23 September 2012 at 04:44  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

John Magee

You can't kill ideas by burning books, but you can make a satisfying statement against dull literature. My older daughter would recommend you start with "Anything by Dickens." I would suggest a book inflicted on me by my English teacher when I was senior in High School: 'Giants in the Earth.' Yeah, yeah. I know. The Literature experts say they are 'classics.' When I was slogging through 350 pages of an impossibly dull story about Norweigen farmers in South Dakota, I wasn't much mollified by its status as a classic. So strike back against the Power!

And while you are at it, you might start in on Wagner as well. My wife once made me watch the Ring Series on TV. Four nights in a row. Four hours a night. The scars are still visible after 20 years. How did I marry a woman without first discovering that she likes Wagner?


23 September 2012 at 05:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Magee: "I forgot to add the right of free people to burn the stinking filth of Karl Mark's "Das Kapital"


Burn your own copy as you will but "stinking filth"? It's a masterpiece in its genre even if one doesn't agree with it or its effects.

23 September 2012 at 08:17  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Mr Dodo,

Just as a warning to you,I covered similar ground with John Magee a couple of weeks ago, specifically about the issue of stoning and Covenants etc. I do not think you will get anywhere or have any satisfaction in trying to discuss matters, as you will just go round in circles. The next topic that will be brought up(which I can see has on numerous other threads) will be the issue of Soviet Russia, genocide etc.
And of course a certain former Rabbi...

23 September 2012 at 09:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


You insist on framing this in terms of blasphemy. This is not about the freedom of religious expression. Methods of challenging and changing the customary mores of a society need not be so in your face and insulting as those undertaken by Pussy Riot - or, for that matter, your hypothetical example of a Saudi woman going out unveiled. Such calculated acts of 'protest' will attract State attention. I support the 'rule of law' in such situations and the Courts dealing with these matters, as in Russia.

Perhaps protestism leads inevitably to the liberty you support and the liberalism and consequential social anarchy you espouse. It recognises no public or institutional authority over the individual other than a neutral state that balances the interests of competing groups. Maybe that's the way it "should be"; perhaps its predestined to be that way.

Christian culture has been effectively eroded by concessions to minority interests - Sunday trade, contraception on demand, abortion on demand, divorce on demand and now homosexual marriage.

"Putin and his pet chihuahua" are not the foundation of Russian society but Orthodox Christianity is. I think you are defending its foundations by protecting this from insult.

You appear to be making a god out of Liberty!

23 September 2012 at 14:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

John Magee

Just answer my questions.

23 September 2012 at 14:33  
Blogger John Magee said...


I answered your question a long time ago:

Today in 2012 (we don't live in the world of 12 BC) no group or an individual whether they be political, religious, ethnic, racial, a cult, or a meeting of Mensa International(a society of geniuses), or truck drivers with Ph.D's merit calling themselves "the chosen people of God" and requesting or demanding special treatment from the majority society. If this is how they think of themselves in private as being superior to others that's fine. There are no laws about being bigots behind closed doors. I just wish they had the honesty to admit it when the hateful things they say in private are discovered and stop being two faced about it. Honest Criticism to raise interesting questions is not hatred.

One of two examples of "God's Chosen people" influencing our world today is Islam. An Egyptian government official said last week that in the name of Allah the USA government must not allow it's citizens to do or say anything that "offends" Allah, Musims, or Arab culture. He openly stated he wants America to give up it's 1 st Amendment right of freedom of speech. It's called dhimmtude. It means submission to Islam's demands. This is the first time I have heard a Muslim in a high government position anywhere in the Islamic world atcually demand dhimmitude openly of a Western country.

If you remember I said that in the past God, through his Holy Spirit, has guided historical events and chosen individuals to influence the world for good. Satan does the opposite.

Those nations and individuals who God choses to do his work do so with force, justice, amd humility.

The only person who was ever perfect and was created by God who truly IS special in every way is His Son Jesus Christ.

Next time the Church decides to impliment the Inquisition you should apply for the job that the Grand Inquisitor Torquemada once had. A good torturer can twist words and turn half truths into lies and get the confession they wanted from their victims.

No doubt you would have me burned at the stake.

Just joking.


23 September 2012 at 20:01  
Blogger len said...

Dodo' Replacement theology'( 22 September 2012 13:18)

'And I will establish my covenant between me and thee and thy seed after thee in their generations for an everlasting covenant, to be a God unto thee, and to thy seed after thee'. Gen. 17:7.

(What does everlasting mean to you Dodo?)

Be ye mindful always of his covenant; the word which he commanded to a thousand generations; Even of the covenant which he made with Abraham, and of his oath unto Isaac; And hath confirmed the same to Jacob for a law, and to Israel for an everlasting covenant. I Chron. 16:15-17
My covenant will I not break, nor alter the thing that is gone out of my lips. Ps 89:34
For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest. For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more. Hebrews 8:10-12
(There are more scriptures if you need more?)

23 September 2012 at 20:33  
Blogger len said...

Dodo The origins of 'Replacement Theology'.

Justin Martyr - 100-165AD Claimed God's covenant with Israel was no longer valid, and that gentiles had replaced them.

Ignatus said that those who partook Passover were partakers with those who killed Jesus.

Tertullian - 160-220AD Blamed the Jews for the death of Jesus.

Origen 263-339AD Origen and his school in Alexandria taught the interpretation of nearly all scripture as allegorical rather than literal and based teaching on Greek philosophy. Although he was considered heretical at the time he was tolerated and influenced the church teaching profoundly. He was responsible for much Anti-Semitism and accused Jews of plotting to kill Christians.
Eusebius 263-339AD Wrote an influential history of the church and taught that the promises of scripture were for the gentiles while the curses were for the Jews, and that the church was the "true Israel"

John Chrysostom 344-407AD Was the greatest preacher of the day but preached that there could never be forgiveness for the Jews, it was the Christian's duty to hate Jews and that the Jews worshipped the Devil.

Jerome Produced the Latin translation of the bible which became the official bible. He said , "Jews are incapable of understanding scripture and should be severely punished until they confess the true faith." The authors of the scriptures believed that the Jewish Messiah would literally establish a kingdom on earth which would bless the gentiles too, but this was rejected in favour of a non literal "replacement theology"

Augustine 354-430AD Turned the literal into spiritual - "The kingdom is only spiritual, is now, and is in men’s hearts. The millennium is now and Satan is bound". He wrote that the Jews deserved death but were destined to wander the earth to witness the victory of church over synagogue. The Catholic church has recently refuted this view but it is still around.

And finally Constantine 'Romanised' the Church and severed its Jewish roots.In David Stern's JNTC (p274), he quotes an informative contemporay writing from Epiphanius -

Why, in the past, did many Jewish believers. in practice, leave their people? Because in the fourth century, when Roman Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity and the Gentile-dominated Church gained political power, it began to require Jews who accepted Yeshua as the Messiah to give up all ties with Judaism, Jewish practices, Jewish friends and anything Jewish.

23 September 2012 at 20:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Please cite an infallible doctrine of the Church either from a Church Council or from an ex-cathedra letter from a Pope stating the Jews have been abandoned by God.

Those you cite are speaking on their own authority and not on behalf of the Church. It is accepted the Church was full of anti-Jewish sentiment. It is a part of our common heritage as Christians - including your own.

Tell me, do you believe the Mosaic Convenant and law is still opperative for Jews?

Actually, here are the "origins" of "replacement theology":

"And whilst they were eating, Jesus took bread; and blessing, broke, and gave to them, and said: Take ye. This is my body. And having taken the chalice, giving thanks, he gave it to them. And they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood of the new convenant, which shall be shed for many."

"And taking bread, he gave thanks, and brake; and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me. In like manner the chalice also, after he had supped, saying: This is the chalice, the new covenant in my blood, which shall be shed for you."

And whilst they were at supper, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke: and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat. This is my body. And taking the chalice, he gave thanks, and gave to them, saying: Drink ye all of this. For this is my blood of the new covenant, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins."

23 September 2012 at 22:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

David K
Yes, but face it you are a Jew who claims superiority as a member of a 'chosen race' and lectures poor Mr Magee. I, on the other hand, am a lowly Catholic, far less knowledgable that he, so he might just answer my questions - one Christian to another.

John Magee said ...
"Dodo, I answered your question a long time ago"

You've done no such thing! I asked about the origins of Christianity and you seem unable to acknowledge this lies in Judaism.

Scripture appears to be just words to you to bring forth to support whatever 'theology' you follow at any given moment. St Paul taught all Christians are "the seed of Abraham". Do you accept this?

Earlier you said ...

"The Jews are to be given another chance to accept their Messiah during the end days and so fulfil God`s original intention.
God has never given up on the Jews and will bring many of them home (although this will be through great tribulation.)"

Now, this to me sounds very much like 'replacement theology', properly understood. And God Has a Will that can never be twarted - not original and secondary intentions!

Do stop trying to score denominational points at the cost of truth!

Do you know the differences between the distinct Covenants God made with the Jews?

Is the Mosaic Covenant still in force or has it been superceeded by Christ's "new and everlasting covenant"?

24 September 2012 at 00:55  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,in answer to your question.

'Pope Innocent III wrote to the archbishops of Sens and Paris in 1200 CE that "the Jews, by their own guilt, are consigned to perpetual servitude because they crucified the Lord...As slaves rejected by God, in whose death they wickedly conspire, they shall by the effect of this very action, recognize themselves as the slaves of those whom Christ's death set free...'

Dodo you keep demanding answers to your questions but never answer anyone else`s.

Here is one you have never answered .

Why do the Catholics practice things forbidden by God?.

24 September 2012 at 01:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

len, but that is not an infallible statement!

Whilst you're scanning the web for *evidence* against the Church do have a read of this:

Pope Innocent III: Constitution for the Jews?
(1199 AD)

"Although in many ways the disbelief of the Jews must be reproved, since nevertheless through them our own faith is truly proved, they must not be oppressed grievously by the faithful as the prophet says: "Do not slay them, lest these be forgetful of Thy Law," [Ps. 58 (59):12] as if he were saying more openly: "Do not wipe out the Jews completely, lest perhaps Christians might be able to forget Thy Law, which the former, although not understanding it, present in their books to those who do understand it."

Just as, therefore there ought not to be license for the Jews to presume to go beyond what is permitted them by law in their synagogues, so in those which have been conceded to them, they ought to suffer no prejudice. These men, therefore, since they wish rather to go on in their own hardness than to know the revelations of the prophets and the mysteries of the Law, and to come to a knowledge of the Christian faith, still, since they beseech the help of Our defense, We, out of the meekness proper to Christian piety, and keeping in the footprints of Our predecessors of happy memory, the Roman Pontiffs Calixtus, Eugene, Alexander, Clement, and Celestine, admit their petition, and We grant them the buckler of Our protection.

For we make the law that no Christian compel them, unwilling or refusing, by violence to come to baptism. But if any one of them should spontaneously, and for the sake of faith, fly to the Christians, once his choice has become evident, let him be made a Christian without any calumny. Indeed, he is not considered to possess the true faith of the Christianity who is recognized to have come to Christian baptism, not spontaneously, but unwillingly.

Too, no Christian ought to presume, apart from the juridicial sentence of the territorial power, wickedly to injure their persons, or with violence to take away their property, or to change the good customs which they have had until now in whatever region they inhabit.

Besides, in the celebration of their own festivals, no one ought to disturb them in any way, with clubs or stones, nor ought any one try to require from them or to extort from them services they do not owe, except for those they have been accustomed from times past to perform.

In addition to these, We decree, blocking the wickedness and avarice of evil men, that no one ought to dare to mutilate or diminish a Jewish cemetery, nor, in order to get money, to exhume bodies once they have been buried.

If anyone, however shall attempt, the tenor of this decree once known, to go against it - may this be far from happening! - let him be punished by the vengeance of excommunication, unless he correct his presumption by making equivalent satisfaction.

We desire, however, that only those be fortified by the guard of this protection who shall have presumed no plotting for the subversion of the Christian faith."

Oh and there's a *clever* question about Catholics. Just when did you stop beating your wife?

Now do answer my question:

Is the Mosaic Covenant still in force exclusively for the Jews or has it been superceeded by the New Covenant in Christ and God's promise now includes all people?

24 September 2012 at 03:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

And the correct text of the letter is somewhat different to the summary you gave:

"The Lord made Cain a wanderer and a fugitive over the earth, but set a mark upon him, making his head to shake, lest any finding him should slay him. Thus the Jews, against whom the blood of Jesus Christ calls out, although they ought not be killed, lest the Christian people forget the Divine Law, yet as wanderers ought they to remain upon the earth, until their countenance be filled with shame and they seek the name of Jesus Christ, the Lord. That is why blasphemers of the Christian name ought . . . to be forced into the servitude of which they made themselves deserving when they raised sacrilegious hands against Him Who had come to confer true liberty upon them, thus calling down His blood upon themselves and upon their children."

24 September 2012 at 03:29  
Blogger John Magee said...


Of course the origins of Christainty are Jewish. Christianity is the Child of Judaism. Jesus was a Jew, the prophesies that gave Him to us come from the Jewish Bible, His mother was a Jewish Virgin chosen from all the women of all time by God to be the mother of His Son. All the Apostle's were Jews, the first Christians were Jews. The first Christian martyr was a Jew named Stephen who was killed by being stoned to death by other Jews, Peter the Apostle was the first bishop of Rome (the first Pope).At least the first 5 bishops of Rome (the first 5 Popes) were Jewish Christians. All Catholic Bishops today are direct successors with unbroken links directly back to the original Jewish Apostle's.

Does that answer your question?

For Christians there will never be another Messiah. Jesus is the one and only Son of God who fulfilled his mission as prophesized in the OT 2,000 years ago so why the need for a "chosen people" from our point of view in 2012?

In 2012 all God's children are chosen people and loved by Him. No more favorites.

This in no way means a group people or an individual doesn't have the right to call themselves chosen if they chose. We live in free societies and people can call themselves anything they want. I am also free to comment about such a claim and even not have to accept it. They also have a right to deny Jesus Christ is the Son of God.

Does this make either party haters? I don't think so unless they threaten one another.

Please don't twist what I just said into a lie that I hate people. I answered your question from an individual Christian's point of view based on my limited knowledge of the Bible and theology.

If people are still patiently waiting today for the Messiah or others believe Mohammed is the last prophet that is their privilidge and I understand their desires.

There's no waiting if you believe Jesus is the Messiah and Son of God and He definately trumps a mere desert prophet from Medina.

Dominus vobiscum.

24 September 2012 at 05:11  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Mr Magee

"Jesus Christ showed compassion and love for a whore and saved her from being stoned to death by religious zealots OF HIS OWN CHOSEN PEOPLE. What does that tell you?" It was more than compassion shown. They were breaking mosaic law as both adulterers are to be stoned and one was conspicuous by his absence.!!! Jesus knew what they were up to..ever wondered what Jesus was writing in the sand? Only they knew but it was poignant obviously.


24 September 2012 at 08:57  
Blogger len said...

Dodo still waiting.

24 September 2012 at 19:47  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...


Have you met John Magee? Let me introduce you. The two of you should have a whale of a time together.

My answer to your question:

Why do the protestants ignore those things commanded by God?

Now the Mosaic Covenant? Surely you've Goggled an answer by now!

24 September 2012 at 21:45  
Blogger len said...

Dodo Still waiting(yawn)

24 September 2012 at 21:59  
Blogger len said...

Dodo the fact that you will not answer my question leaves me with no obligation to answer yours.

24 September 2012 at 22:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Yes, that's right scurry off and bother someone else. You have no answer because you do not understand the issues.

All you really base your "faith" on is a malicious opinion of Catholicism that is both ignorant and irrational.

Now be gone!

24 September 2012 at 22:53  
Blogger len said...

Everything must be brought into the light and exposed. The true intentions of those who pose 'as religious'but really are 'wolves in sheep's clothing'is plain to see.

Dodo and the Inspector have' come out'and their true intentions have been revealed, their loveless religion betrays the fact that they do not know Him.

I truly pity the both of you.And I certainly will 'not go' there is Sooooo much more to be said!.

25 September 2012 at 08:05  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. You’d best make your hide disappear p.d.q. lest you suffer the Inspector’s boot against your behind...

25 September 2012 at 18:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

This from the man who owns 9 cats because we express a dislike for cats! God help and save us all; the man is a raving nut-case.

25 September 2012 at 20:12  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older