Sunday, October 14, 2012

Muslim gang-rape in France

There's a disturbing story presently emerging of 14 men accused of participating in repeated gang-rapes over a two-year period of two teenage girls, on housing estates in the suburbs of Paris. From the New York Times:
One of the women, identified as Nina, brought her complaint in 2005, saying she had been raped by dozens of local teenage boys almost daily for six months beginning in September 1999, according to Ms. Heinich-Luijer. Nina, who was then 15, said she was forced to perform sex acts in apartments, in basements, in a public park and on the roofs of housing towers.
From The Guardian:
The alleged Fontenay-sous-Bois attacks took place between 1999 and 2001. One night returning from a cinema, aged 16, Nina, described as a tomboy who was good at school, said she was grabbed by a local group of youths, taken to basement cellars in the flats, raped and subjected to a series of brutal sex attacks by scores of local boys. The extremely violent, prolonged sex attacks by large groups of boys continued daily, in car-parks, stairwells, apartments, cellars and the empty playground of a local nursery school. She said there would be "at least 25" youths present during attacks in which she screamed, protested, cried and vomited. One witness described 50 boys "queuing" to attack her.

Threatened that her flat would be burned down if she spoke out, she was afraid to tell her mother, who noticed she was washing eight to 10 times a day.

The controversy surrounds the fact that 10 of the 14 accused were all minors at the time the crimes were said to have occurred. Despite French law permitting custodial sentences of up to 10 years for minors convicted of rape, they were all acquitted. More disconcertingly, the four adult men convicted of gang-rape were given remarkably light sentences: two were sent down for a year; one for six months; and the fourth was given a suspended sentence.
The thing is.. the convicted men are all Muslims. At least, they have recognisably Islamic names. Yet the mainstream press are not reporting this fact. Is this religio-cultural aspect of French gang culture taboo? As much as it appears to be in the UK? Why the whitewash? Why the ethno-religious censorship? Why is the issue of gang-rape committed by young men identified as belonging to a particular minority background consistently suppressed? Are there reporting restrictions? Infringement of their human rights? A conspiracy of silence?

Or is it simply that the Roman Catholicism of Papal Knight Sir Jimmy Savile had nothing to do with his alleged paedophile predilection?

Funny, isn't it, how the latter question is undoubtedly bigotry, while the former are enlightened, reasoned and wholly justified.

123 Comments:

Blogger Garry Q said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

14 October 2012 at 11:24  
Blogger Jeremy said...

I would say that this argument doesn't wash, simply because the majority of those who identify as Christians are, in fact, ashamed of the things reported as done by those in the body of the Church, Catholic our not.

I had nothing to do with the priests who abused those entrusted to their care, but I am appalled that it would be done by someone who professes, as I do, the Christian faith.

Yes, this should be reported. If it serves no other purpose, at least the Muslim community can publicly condemn it and they can distance themselves from the account, rather than us assuming a distance on their behalf.
From us, it is empty self-censorship. From them, it would be meaningful and helpful to the world's perception of Islam and Muslims.

14 October 2012 at 11:36  
Blogger Hugh Oxford said...

Savile wouldn't be the first person to use Catholicism as a cover to abuse children.

14 October 2012 at 12:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

hmmm. We know of course that muslims are encouraged by Allah (...we know that character better as Satan...) to impregnate the infidel woman. So the lads are just doing what the koran asks of them. So, you liberal bleeding hearts out there, still want to hand Israel to the Palestinians ?

The intensity of the Savile enquiry is quite astonishing, considering the man is dead. As far as this man knows, he didn’t even receive a caution in his lifetime for what has been attributed to him. He does seem to come over as a particularly lascivious uncle figure. The kind of man who sneaks up on a girl from behind, places his hands on her breasts and says “guess who”. Unpleasant, but hardly a life wreaking experience requiring years of therapy.

If it helps the victims, perhaps we could open his grave and shovel lime on him. A final salute from an annoyed and ungrateful public...

14 October 2012 at 13:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Unpleasant, but hardly a life wreaking experience requiring years of therapy."

There are allegations of rape, and most of the allegations of sexual abuse are from vulnerable young teenagers, for heaven'sake.

14 October 2012 at 13:49  
Blogger Durotrigan said...

How painful yet predictable it is to read of yet more Muslim sexual abuse of young non-Muslim girls, but this time in France instead of in one of our many English towns and cities. Although here the allegations connected to Jimmy Saville are revolting, why is it that the media have afforded such attention to him as an individual, whilst largely glossing over the Rotherham and Rochdale Muslim grooming cases, as well as the fact that more are in the pipeline, such as in Oxford?

14 October 2012 at 14:02  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

So there are no protestant rapists.

I didn't know that.

14 October 2012 at 14:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0. What part of the phrase “considering the man is dead” are you having problems with ?

14 October 2012 at 14:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Plenty of alleged victims alive though. The police are saying 60 so far, and counting. I suppose you'd prefer them to remain quiet, like the kids and teenagers your priests fiddled with?

14 October 2012 at 14:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. 60 eh ? I think we can safely quadruple that in the end, with our compo chasing society. And of course, the man not able to put up a defence now...

14 October 2012 at 14:39  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Cranmer said ...

"Or is it simply that the Roman Catholicism of Papal Knight Sir Jimmy Savile had nothing to do with his alleged paedophile predilection?

Funny, isn't it, how
(this) question is undoubtedly bigotry ...

Well, it is. Unless you make a connection between Saville's Catholicism and his persistent sexual assaults of young women. Can you?

As the Catholic Herald commented in 2011 on the silence of his faith:

"It must, at the very least, be a sign of the underlying almost instinctive hostility in England to the notion that anything good could come from a life whose foundation is the Catholic religion."

Of course, now we know he is an alleged sexual deviant his Catholicism suddently becomes relevant for those with such hostility. What joy some must now feel!

Funny, isn't it ....?

Mind you, some protestants will find it impossible to "judge" and "condemn" as they repeatedly inform us we are all depraved sinners and all sin is equally offensive to God.

14 October 2012 at 14:40  
Blogger Richard Watkins said...

The Church needs to do a hell of a lot more in exposing and resisting the jew led non white invasion and genocide of white Chriatian Europe. This is a good article, well done.

14 October 2012 at 14:44  
Blogger Hugh Oxford said...

The only reasons there were paedophiles in the Catholic Church is because certain dioceses listened to trendy liberals rather than the Vatican, and chose to see homosexuality as an indication of a priestly vocation, rather than something deeply problematic.

14 October 2012 at 14:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Oh, Hooray.

Another white Aryan warrior arrives with cudgel in hand, and Fahne Hoch.

carl

14 October 2012 at 14:51  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Not the best Cranmer post I've read and that's a shame. HG has left himself wide open to accusations of racial/religio stereotyping thereby handing any Islamist apologists, the perfect foil for deflecting from the real issue.

Identifying them (the rapists and groomers) from only by their Islamic sounding names, detracts from the more legitimate journalistic observations available. HG's position is sadly and uncharacteristically no more valid, erudite or worthy at this level than the actions of the imams and mullahs who command the lunatic Muslim mobs to go on the rampage against anyone or anything perceived to be 'western' and therefore regarded however remotely ,as being involved in anything deemed 'offensive' to their vile, slack-arsed imaginary prophet and any of their stupid beliefs or practises.

If religion is to be the subject of a post such as this, it should be in identifed as being directly connected to the mysogenistic categorisation of women, their role and status as 'explained' in parts of Koranic teaching. However, neither should it be forgotten, that the OT components of Christian and Jewish teaching, still include elements of the same demonisation of women, not to mention the stoning of adulters and homosexuals.

It is no surprise that the MSM doesn't focus on the potential religious aspect as a source of group identity. None of the monotheistic big three and their innumerable sects or cults has a clean record. Focussing on religion alone is also to miss the secular point, that the malaise of our democracy and sign of our cultural weakness, is summed up in the laziness of our spineless press in failing to apply journalistic rigour and preparedness to stand in defence of their publication. Instead we and they, ostensibly for the sake of not causing 'offence' to Muslims, our politicians sell our birthright and freedom of expression in exchange in easy tick in the news room copy box and the supine presentation of yet another righteous example of our claimed Christian inspired, sense of British fair play.

14 October 2012 at 14:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hugh Oxford. homosexuality as an indication of a priestly vocation, rather than something deeply problematic.

You are so damn right Sir. By the way, have you met DanJ0...


14 October 2012 at 14:55  
Blogger RMBruton said...

Bring back the Guillotine!

14 October 2012 at 16:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Easy adherence to a corrupt and murderous religion is racial. Some of the races exist at a very low level of humanity. We remember the 14 year old Pakistani girl shot in the face by one of the Islamic faithful. Allah was pleased. There can be no accommodation of them, especially not those in the West. Eternal vigilance, and never ever make the mistake that you are dealing with people of equal status or worth, value, goodness. You get the idea, chaps, what !

14 October 2012 at 16:15  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

You do this just to spin me up, don't you?

Easy adherence to a corrupt and murderous religion is racial.

Yes, you are right on this. I think the religion was called Gottgläubig and the race was Aryan.

Oh, wait. I missed the point again, didn't I?

carl

14 October 2012 at 16:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One baits the hook and casts the line. The usual indignant yank bites.

Placed in holding net and then released, to be caught another time, as surely as night follows day...

8 minutes this time you know. There’s no stopping you, is there ?

{HOWLS OF LAUGHTER RING INSIDE INSPECTOR TOWERS}


14 October 2012 at 16:34  
Blogger Naomi King said...


The Rt Revd Michael Nazir-Ali described it perfectly last week when he said Mohammedism is based on 3 INEQUALITIES

Muslim against Non-Muslim
Men against Women and
Freeman against Slave

Rather a different world view to Christianity where we are all equal before God because we are all made in the image of the Devine.

14 October 2012 at 16:36  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

The thing is, sooner or later we, the normal inhabitants of Europe (let alone England) are going to have to ask our unwanted guests to leave. And if they won't leave, then we will have to eject them by all means. The final solution to this problem will be when there are no muslims left in Europe (or as far as I'm concerned, in England).

14 October 2012 at 16:51  
Blogger John Magee said...

This is sort of thing has been going on in the Muslim dominated suburbs of French cities for over 30 years. Everyone knows these Muslim ghettos in France are "no go zones" for the French Police and non Muslims if they want to live.

What is shocking is the skyrocketing rape and crime wave Sweden and Norway are experiencing today by their own young immigrant Muslim innocents who are making Stockholm, Malmo,and Oslo equal to South Africa as having the highest per capita rape statistics of any country or cities in the world.

An interesting speech was made this past week by a South African television journalist and war correspondent now working for a USA TV network who herself was gang raped in Cairo by Muslim men during the Arab Spring "celebrations" two years ago. She has some interesting things to say about how our governments lie about Islamic Terrorism (as if we didn't already know) and the meaning of Islamic Jihad. Search: Lara Logan Speech and read how a liberal female becomes a conservative overnight after experiencing gang rape activities first hand by young men who are members of the "religion of peace" and readers of the Koran who regard blond Western Christian women as sluts to be raped and abused and thrown in the gutter.

14 October 2012 at 18:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John, this raping behaviour and general disdain for women can only be a racial trait, in as much as the less humane the race, the more they seem to embrace Islam. Though not everybody agrees with the Inspector’s findings, it has to be said...

14 October 2012 at 19:23  
Blogger len said...

Political Correctness has gone a long way to suppressing the truth and has given birth to a whole new vocabulary and an entirely 'new way of thinking.'The Psychology behind Political Correctness is that if you can control speech you will ultimately be able to control the way people think.
Some subjects are 'taboo' and although people still think these thoughts these thoughts must not be spoken otherwise the accusations are made of being 'Homophobic' , racist, hate speech ,and the cardinal sin is being 'judgemental'(this shuts up those who try to make a stand on moral matters)
Therefore there are 'two levels' of reality.The Politically Correct reality which everyone gives voice to, and the 'actual reality' which not many dare speak.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act."
George Orwell.



14 October 2012 at 20:35  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I've read this through now several times, with a big break inbetween first reading it this afternoon, and I must be pretty dense, because I can't quite work out where this is slanted at.

"Or is it simply that the Roman Catholicism of Papal Knight Sir Jimmy Savile had nothing to do with his alleged paedophile predilection?"

Cranmer, you suggest that this question is "undoubtedly bigotry" - but how could anyone take that view? Surely it is the case that Savile's Catholicism has nothing to do with his alleged paedophilia? Else, we would expect to see a disproportionate level of paedophilia amongst Catholic laity, which simply isn't the case.

Even the Catholic priesthood does not have a disproportionate rate of abuse compared with other similar institutions (except that an abnormally high number of the abused were boys). I realise I have to write and make it clear that one victim of abuse is heinous and one too many - comparing rates of abuse does not mean justifying the abuse.

One could certainly talk about a culture of "entitlement". It seems to be the case amongst some of the Muslim grooming groups that have been covered in the news, and certainly of many of the abusive priests. Protestantism too has its fair share - or did I miss a similar spate of scandals in the Anglican Church? There appears also to have been such a culture amongst Radio 1 DJs. Perhaps that might provide another question to add into the mix:

Was Savile's alleged paedophilia the result of his being a Radio 1 DJ?

14 October 2012 at 20:39  
Blogger Van Grungy said...

To all those morons that think this is a "jew led non white invasion and genocide"

Why don't you learn about the Baha'i faith of Unity in Diversity

That's where multiculturalism comes from.

They are full of Jews, Christians, Muslims and other anti-white idiots

Ever heard of the New World Order?

The Baha'i made it their RELIGION

not to mention Baha'i are messianic muslims whose prophet claimed to be the second coming of Isa (muslim jesus)

Shonghi Effendi brought this madness to England, wake up you anti-Jew morons

14 October 2012 at 21:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

If anyone knows what Van Grumpy was on about, don’t keep it to yourself...

14 October 2012 at 21:21  
Blogger Corrigan1 said...

We should all join the Church of England, perhaps? Ugly, Boris. Just plain ugly.

14 October 2012 at 21:23  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Carl

"Oh, Hooray.

Another white Aryan warrior arrives with cudgel in hand, and Fahne Hoch"

I don't really know what you mean by this comment Carl.

Are you in fact saying that that suspended sentences are correct in cases of rape?

Phil

14 October 2012 at 21:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Phil

It was a direct response to this statement by Richard Watkins at 14 October 2012 14:44.

The Church needs to do a hell of a lot more in exposing and resisting the jew led non white invasion and genocide of white Chriatian [sic] Europe. This is a good article, well done.

carl

14 October 2012 at 21:31  
Blogger Gareth said...

Being a shitty, evil little quisling knows no bounds of race, gender or religion. It is an equal opportunities position.

14 October 2012 at 21:51  
Blogger Galant said...

Here's a problem though. For sake of argument, let's assume that these rapes stem directly from the religion of these young men. So what?
Do we ban that brand of religious belief? Do we eject it from society? What about those of the same faith who would defend their brand of it and state that the young men are in the wrong? Do we press for reform then?

Here's the issue, the crime here isn't erroneous theological belief, it's rape. Gang rape.

Perhaps the actions reveal an underlying belief. Yet we can't control what we people believe. We can promote right beliefs and ideas, and need to - although on the front of valuing women I don't think society is doing too well. Men in general (and now women, more and more) are being given entirely the wrong messages.

Nevertheless, ideology aside, the crime here is rape and the failing here is the message of the judicial system not to deal with this properly. If rape is serious, it needs to be shown to be serious. Punish these people. Punish them fiercely. Put out the message that no matter what religion you belong to (or none), if you treat our women this way you will suffer the consequences.

I'll be very honest. I'm about 9/10 signed on for the death penalty in violent rape cases.

Crimes are crimes and should be dealt with objectively. I very much dislike the notion of 'hate' crimes as though certain beliefs or motives make a crime worse. I think it's not only the wrong approach entirely, but by nature, unjust.

None of this will happen though, because it requires fixed values, objectivity and a firm stance. The move, as we all know, is for more and more 'flexibility' and 'understanding' according to the shifting, relative, paradigms.

Meanwhile, a young girl, many, many young girls, have suffered one of the worst abuses possible, and evidently, society doesn't care.

Church - get move on!

14 October 2012 at 22:57  
Blogger John Magee said...

If the dead body of Jimmy Savile must be dug up and his taste for prepubescent young girls revealed in the same sentence mentioning that he also happened to be a Roman Catholic Catholic. Maybe it's time the story about confidential documents revealing the enormous scale of police and social workers coverup of the sexual exploitation of HUNDREDS of young white girls in Rotherham, and other paarts of South Yorkshire by young Asian men(Muslims mainly from Pakistan) dating back to 2000 should be mentioned in relation to this story about French "youths" (Muslims)?.

Police in Rotherham, South Yorkshire turned a blind eye to allegations of sexual abuse of white girls by gangs of largely Pakistani men for more than a decade.

Research, reports and case files also revealed that council officials were desperate to cover up any racial link to the abuse of young girls.

The research shows that a string of warnings dating back as far as 2000 were ignored by the authorities. In many cases, police action was taken only against the victims.

All this was done in the name of Political Correctness and fears of being called racists and NOT by the Roman Catholic Church which is the main target of such stories about individual priests by the usual suspects here who delight in casting up priest pedophilia to Catholic visitors here.

This massive coverup of the abuse of young girls by Muslim men was by British police and social workers.

14 October 2012 at 23:04  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

In fairness, John, those of us who have been horrified by child abuse no matter where it has been found will find the revelations at the BBC depressingly familiar.

The fact is that the Catholic Church was not alone in either possessing abusive adults in positions of responsibility, or in trying to "cover-up" abuse scandals to limit damage to its reputation. The Anglican Church was similarly culpable for scandals through the 70s and 80s, with more still coming out of the woodwork. Social Services had some pretty appalling approaches too that did the typical blurring of fudging and deceiving. And now the BBC.

Believe me, if I thought that political correctness could be primarily blamed for abuse going undercover, I'd say so. But we've found so many other ways of ignoring it before now, that I think it would be disingenuous.

15 October 2012 at 00:15  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

AIB

Quite correct.

I've worked in this field for decades and until relatively recently society was in denial that seemingly "normal" men and women could sexually abuse children and teenagers. I mean, it was "men in dirty macks", surely, or "sex crazed psychopaths".

No it wasn't and no it isn't.

In France it seems there is a recognition, "a culture of silence", that in poor neighbourhoods on the fringes of Paris, Muslim men and boys find it acceptable to commit multiple rapes on white girls - it's known as "tournantes", ("pass-arounds").

We may find a similar "culture of silence" existed in the BBC concerning the cult of celebrity.

15 October 2012 at 00:43  
Blogger John Magee said...

Belfast

I agree. The only reason I mentioned the Rotherham, UK case is because no one in today's Europe should be at all surprised by these gang rapes, honor killings, and attacks on indigenous "infidels" by immigrant Muslims any longer. Misogny is part of Islamic culture. They refuse to assimilate into the majority culture so it's only to get worse and grow.

Isn't it amazing that American and European feminists have remained completely silent about the brutality and sexual abuse against women througout the Islamic world?

My country has over 30 million uneducated illegals from Mexico and Central America who brought their gangs and violence to our cities on top of the black gang violence that has already existed for decades and it is chaos... no ... it is war.

In our world today when a country imports the 3rd world it sooner or later becomes the 3rd world.

15 October 2012 at 02:20  
Blogger Ivan said...


Islam is unlike any other mainstream religion in that its founder himself was a bandit, a murderer and a rapist all rolled into one. No good can come of a religion with such an exemplar. It should be apparent that the better class of Muslims are in fact the ones who do not take the example of Mohamed seriously. Now a Buddhist going on a raping spree can always be admonished that Lord Buddha eschewed all physical pleasures, a Hindu by the appeal to the Bhagavad Gita which teaches that desire is an enemy to be overcome. All Christians know that the most difficult of Christ's teaching to live up to is the one that Jimmy Carter confessed to: "I have often committed adultery in my heart."

Muslims on the other hand have no one to look up to seeing that their founder was himself the vilest of rapists.

Ivan

15 October 2012 at 02:23  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Archbishop Cranmer

Perhaps it is just me. Perhaps others find the picture at the front of this post disturbing. If I am not mistaken, it is an image of a woman being sold as a slave. To see it once is to get the point. But to see it every time the weblog is opened just gets burdensome. It's like having a grisly crime repeatedly shoved in your face. I guess this amounts to a polite request to consider removing it.

Thank you for your time
carl jacobs

15 October 2012 at 02:24  
Blogger John Magee said...

carl jacobs

Everyone is thinking this but no one dares mention it in the USA media. The subject was finally published in an article on the Drudge Report. Police departments all over the USA are preparing for possible riots on a vast scale if Obama loses the election.

Any guesses as to what race the police are concerned about?

Are they also making plans in case Romney loses and whites riot?

Of course not.

They know this would never happen.

15 October 2012 at 02:40  
Blogger John Magee said...

Ivan

Well said.

Let's not forget that Jesus saved an adulterous woman from being stoned to death and admonished her to leave and "sin no more". Had the false "prophet" Mohammed been in a similar situtation he would have encouraged the mob to stone her even more savagely and with great gusto!

15 October 2012 at 02:50  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Better close down the Anglican Church. It had one Rev.Charles Lutwidge Dodgson as one of its vicars.Clearly all little girls are in peril because of the actions and writings of this man of this man!

15 October 2012 at 04:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

John

This is why I said I have trouble categorizing you. I am not quite sure what to make of a post like that. Did you just predict mass riots if President Obama loses? If so, do you believe that there is a causal link from black skin to rioting? And what then am I to make of the two black men with whom I work on a daily basis? Should I worry that they will riot? After all, they have black skin. Or the two black men with whom I stood many nights of nuclear alert. Should I worry about mayhem at their hands? After all, they have black skin.

This is all just nonsense. A man's race has nothing - nothing - to do with his propensity to riot. Race is not even a definable quality. It's an arbitrary continuum on which we exist at unknown locations. All we can do is observe external characteristics as if they mean something. You insult every black man by suggesting he is predisposed to crime - 'less humane' to use OIG's words. That is simply a nice way of saying 'less human.' The problems in the black community are common to every man of every race. They have to do with sin and the sin nature. A "white" man does nothing but flatter himself when he suggests he is less prone to sin's influence because his skin is white. No, he isn't.

A Roman Catholic should know these things.

carl

15 October 2012 at 05:23  
Blogger len said...

Agree with your comments Carl.

God has supplied a remedy for the sin nature of Man(which all races inherited)which is not to try and redeem that' sin nature' but to crucify it and to give man a new nature.(Ezekiel 36:26 I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit in you) Everyone who calls themselves' Christian' should know this fact!

Religion of course cannot change a man only God can do that through the Power of His Spirit.

Islam has no remedy for the fallen nature of man only harsh punishments for those who offend Islam.

Those who are' outside' Islam are treated in an entirely different way to those who are' inside' Islam.

In Islam there is a House of Peace(all those who submit to Islam)

And a House of War (all those who oppose Islam) and this is the group who can[apparently] be treated with little or no respect at all)






15 October 2012 at 08:09  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

Now had Savile been a protestant no doubt Cranmer would have referred to that in his piece above.

Aye, right.

15 October 2012 at 09:12  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

John Knox's lovechild said..

Dear boy

As per..You miss Cranmer's point continually regarding these matters and I am convinced he would nail them immediately in his posts as hypocrites, criminals and against Christ's commands for His own.

It is not that Protestants or others Christians are incapable of committing these heinous crimes and they no undoubtedly do as we are all sinners but that the RCC provides a plethora of opportunities by it policy of celibacy in it's priesthood and by it's historic desire (surely it is impossible for you to deny this?) to cover up for, 'He's a good catholic', offenders whether at the altar or in the pews. It appears a given that these vile offenders will therefore find sanctuary and a forgiving smile from those whose job it is to defend the good name of holy mother church from the media by whatever means necessary.

Blofeld

15 October 2012 at 09:41  
Blogger Roy said...

I remember thinking when I first read about the gang rapes in France that it sounded a bit like the cases in Rochdale and some other large English cities but then thought I must be wrong because if the French crimes had been perpetrated by people of a particular religious or ethnic background then even politically correct newspapers would have mentioned that in passing.

It seems our newspapers and tbe BBC have learnt almost nothing from Rochdale. A few years ago a Labour MP did raise the subject of rape of white girls by men of Pakistani origins and was vilified for doing so.

Some of the police and social workers who turned a blind eye to such crimes might have thought that they were acting for the greater good of society (but it shows what a warped moral sense politically correct attitudes lead to) while others might have been careerists who believed, perhaps correctly, that their promotion prospects depended on towing the PC line.

Whatever the explanation heads should roll in those police forces and social service departments that deliberately ignored evidence of crime.

When this subject came up on the BBC's Question Time a couple of weeks ago one of the panelists was Harriet Harman, the architect of much of our "equality" legislation and the high priestess of the religion of Political Correctness. When the panel was asked about the events in Rochdale Harriet Harman avoided any mention of the background of the rapists even though it is thanks to her that councils and other public bodies routinely ask ordinary people about their ethnic background and sexuality etc.

As long as such double standards exist we can expect more crimes like those in Rochdale and the ones in France.

15 October 2012 at 10:44  
Blogger Marcus Foxall said...

I am surprised that quite a few of HG's congregation have failed to understand his point on this matter.

15 October 2012 at 11:49  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Marcus Foxall:

I'm quite happy to admit to my own ignorance, so perhaps you could more plainly outline what it is for me.

15 October 2012 at 11:50  
Blogger Marcus Foxall said...

Hello AB.

I love reading this blog.
HG deserves his accolades.
But he has gone a bit "ivory tower" lately - tells you once , offers no further explanation , seems less interactive with his "faithful".
A bit like ...well , You-Know-Who.

So , ok , I will attempt to clarify on behalf of HG . Who knows,if I'm wrong , he may come amongst us - hallelujah - and bring "truth in place of error".

Cranmer is saying that a rapist is a rapist and religio-cultural factors are not relevant , so commentators should not make any issue of these (non-)factors , that there should be impartial consistency in media reporting.

PLEASE NOTE that I offer NO personal opinion on whether or not HG's point is right or not , only my interpretation thereof - nothing more .





15 October 2012 at 12:32  
Blogger John Chater said...

You don't have to go to France to finds examples of the state turning a blind eye to such appalling crimes – nor to pretend that they are uniquely the proclivities of Muslim men.

For years it's been known that similar gang rapes, often carried out on schoolgirls by other school-aged children, have occurred in the 'black community' in south London. Attempts have been made to bring these crimes to life, but all too often these are thwarted by a climate of fear and embarrassment.

I remember, a few years ago, watching Newsnight as a black 'community leader' remonstrated with a white film crew that had tried to expose what was happening. A black film crew, he argued, would be better placed to do the job! It was a version of that old chestnut of an excuse that to drag the truth into the light of day would 'enflame' attitudes and buy into stereotypical beliefs about black men, etc.

Unfortunately, calls to deal with such crimes in the 'community' generally result in them not being dealt with at all. Meanwhile, girls as young as thirteen have their lives destroyed in the vilest way and are shamed and intimidated into silence.

So, is it a Muslim and black problem - almost certainly not, but more likely to be a consequence of the relative powerlessness of the victims. Never mind race or religion, the one thing they all seem to have in common is that they are almost always poor, voiceless and, frankly, not considered important enough to worry about.

I could be wrong, but I suspect that if a gang of south London youths took a day trip 15 miles down the road and gang raped a Sevenoaks School sixth former whilst she was out rambling in leafy Knole Park it would not be considered a matter best decided within the 'local community'.

Makes you proud doesn't it.

15 October 2012 at 12:56  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Rabid Zionist Saville For Israel!

15 October 2012 at 16:48  
Blogger John Magee said...

carl jacobs

My post said articles are appearing in the news that police are preparing for the possibility of riots if Obama loses the election. This kind of precaution is nothing more than common sense by the police in our cities with large black populations. It is the duty of the police to protect the majority population from any possibility of violence by individuals or groups be they white, black, Hispanic, or drunken college students.

As an educated and rational person you make decisions in your life and work based on past events and patterns is this correct? Rioting is an overwhelmingly black phenomenon in our country. When they feel "offended", if there is any real or immiginary injustice, or simply for the hell of it to pass the time as with black teenage "flash mobs" looting malls and convenience stores or at the Wisconson State Fair beating up innocent whites. Most large scale riots in the USA are by blacks.

Why is Chicago, Obama's adopted hometown, known as the murder capital of the USA? Black and Hispanic gangs in that city are killing each other at an alarming rate with 49 killed over one weekend last March. Who's to blame for this self destructive behavior? Sixty years ago the vast city of Chicago was peaceful, had a low crime rate, and it was a majority European immigrant white city mainly Roman Catholic.

Most of the blacks you worked with in the the military joined to escape the situations mentioned above if they came from an inner city where black gangs ruled. When I was in the Navy over 45 years ago there were very few blacks but the few I did serve with no one took notice of their race. No one can blame blacks for wanting to get a chance at a new life and they have a tough row to hoe trying to get that chance. But the negative reality of black culture today can't be ignored if we want to help them and the fact over 80% of black babies are born into a single parent family with the father absent and on the prowl to mate with another woman can't be ignored either. Black teenage boys who never saw a father figure in the home turn to gangs to find a male role model and that is the crux of their self destructive behavior today. Where are the churches? All many of them care about is some form of "social justice" and other left wing causes and not the family unit they should be trying to reinforce.

I'm not sure what you meant by me being a Roman Catholic (convert) insinuating that my new faith somehow has any relationship with race issues. True religion teaches personal responsibility. My paternal Episcopalian (Anglican)ancestors helped blacks before the Civil War in the Abolotionist Movement and after by helping to raise money to fund black colleges in the South and later several served as Episcopal missionaries in China and Japan from the late 1880s until the late 1940s. I do not come from a background of racists.

PAX VOBISCUM




15 October 2012 at 18:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Carl.The problems in the black community are common to every man of every race.

You won’t find this man has ever disagreed with you on that, or ever will. It’s the intensity which is what counts. In England, the black man is over represented in prison by seven times. Your US Prisons are packed with blacks. Too dangerous to be released.

Now, you can either completely ignore the statistics or you can appreciate them. If you do the latter, you begin to be in a situation to do something about it for the good of the just - whatever race they be.

The problems in Scandinavian cities caused from immigration the same. What can you do about it. That’s an easy one, stop Islamic immigration completely. That way, you can assimilate those already there, and at the same time hunt down white rapists.

Islam and Christianity just do not mix. It’s like mixing sulphur and nitrate; you are well on your way to an explosive mixture.

15 October 2012 at 18:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Carl, very well said in response to John Magee.

Blofeld said ...
" ... the RCC provides a plethora of opportunities by it policy of celibacy in it's priesthood ... "

Was Jimmy Saville a priest? It teaches chastity outside of marrige, certainly. Don't all Christian churches?

... and by it's historic desire (surely it is impossible for you to deny this?) to cover up for, 'He's a good catholic', offenders whether at the altar or in the pews."

And your proof for this assertion is ... ?

"It appears a given that these vile offenders will therefore find sanctuary and a forgiving smile from those whose job it is to defend the good name of holy mother church from the media by whatever means necessary."

You, sir, clearly do not not understand the Catholic Church! In short, and there's no polite way of saying this, you are showing yourself to be a bigot.

15 October 2012 at 23:36  
Blogger len said...

Dodo see you have used the 'b' word again.

Is everyone who shines the light into' dark places' a 'b' person?.

Could it be that those who live in 'dark places' are afraid of the light?.

16 October 2012 at 07:52  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Catholics aren't cave fish len.

16 October 2012 at 10:48  
Blogger len said...

AIB,

Might as well be..'.fishy' certainly.

16 October 2012 at 13:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Damned loon !

16 October 2012 at 16:32  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Inspector:

You missed the potential there for a reference to "fishers of men"...

Unless of course you are referring to the aquatic diving bird known in America as a loon, in which case I take my hat off to you sir, for your exquisite sense of irony.

16 October 2012 at 17:14  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

I could be corrected here, but the Loon is also the nickname for the Canadian Dollar- the Loonie.

16 October 2012 at 17:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Why Belfast !

One indeed was referring to that little known aquatic diving whatever.

How topper of you know !

16 October 2012 at 17:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Or even ‘to know’

Made a right mess of that knock about routine, didn’t I....


16 October 2012 at 17:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

AIB
I'm happy to be called a "fish"!

Ichthys, as you'll know, is the Greek word for fish, was used by early Christians as a secret Christian symbol.

len
Anyone who leaps on the alleged depravity of one man as unsupported evidence of the depravity of the church he attends, for no other reason than to attack that faith, is a bigot.

Does it apply to you too?

16 October 2012 at 17:52  
Blogger len said...

Dodo,the' duckfish thingy'

'the alleged depravity of one man'

not quite sure I follow your argument here...are you referring to yourself?.

16 October 2012 at 19:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

According to your (current) *beliefs* we're all utterly depraved, aren't we?

And this just goes to prove your inability to retain the content of a thread's discussion.

16 October 2012 at 21:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

To call God’s creation depraved is, well, a bit of an insult to Him....

16 October 2012 at 22:05  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dear Bird

Didn't realise you had read Ernest's comment as only trundled here because other threads are static.

"Blofeld said ...
" ... the RCC provides a plethora of opportunities by it policy of celibacy in it's priesthood ... "

Was Jimmy Saville a priest? (Obviously he was not) It teaches chastity outside of marrige, certainly. Don't all Christian churches? (Indeed they do but yours goes further still..)

... and by it's historic desire (surely it is impossible for you to deny this?) to cover up for, 'He's a good catholic', offenders whether at the altar or in the pews."

And your proof for this assertion is ... ? Good Lord, fellow. Half of Ireland has recently deserted the RCC because of sordid cover ups by its hierarchy regarding abuse of their children and orphans put into its trusted care 7 days a week and you dare say this to me.

"It appears a given that these vile offenders will therefore find sanctuary and a forgiving smile from those whose job it is to defend the good name of holy mother church from the media by whatever means necessary."

You, sir, clearly do not not understand the Catholic Church! In short, and there's no polite way of saying this, you are showing yourself to be a bigot." Bigot..The last resort of defense of those unable to reason with the truth laid bare before them.

Blofeld

Read the context 'You miss Cranmer's point continually regarding these matters and I am convinced he would nail them immediately in his posts as hypocrites, criminals and against Christ's commands for His own.

It is not that Protestants or others Christians are incapable of committing these heinous crimes and they no undoubtedly do as we are all sinners..'

17 October 2012 at 23:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Blofeld

I stand by my comment - simple bigotry.

Show examples where the Church has protected prominant individuals who have abused children. Not the failings of the institution to recognise the addictive nature of abuse amongst its priests and its inability to know what to do.

You extended it to the laity. You accused the Church not of organisational failure to deal with sex offenders in its midst but of protecting any member with a public profile.

By your assertions you reveal both ignorance and a hostile prejudice against the Church.

Evidence, if you will.

18 October 2012 at 01:48  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 October 2012 at 03:31  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Oh, that's a neat trick there, Dodo. You conveniently exclude all the conspiratorial acts associated with shielding a priest from the definition of shielding a priest. It's all "failing to recognize" and "inability to know what to do." Because a reasonable man wouldn't know to call the police upon discovering a man in taking sexual pictures of kids.

The justice system disagrees. Catholic Bishop Convicted for Shielding Priest

carl

18 October 2012 at 03:41  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

You aren't going to say this priest, doesn't have a public profile, are you?

carl

18 October 2012 at 03:49  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

The protestant cults that support this theory of' total depravity' are giving creedence and approval to depraved behaviour.It is a perverted twisted and evil concept conjured up by disfunctional men.
Decent people have a horror of depravity . It is not innate.It is a very dangerous concept to inform people that have totally depraved natures and there is certainly nothing Christian about it whatsoever.

18 October 2012 at 04:30  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

correction:
it is a dangerous concept to inform people that they have depraved natures

PS
It comes as a shock to me that Anglicans believe this. I hope I am wrong..it cannot possibly be true!

18 October 2012 at 04:34  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Cressida.

You should really learn what 'total depravity' means before you try to talk about it. It is self-evident from the previous two posts that you do not understand the concept.

carl

18 October 2012 at 05:03  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Total depravity means that man is intrinsically evil with a depraved nature. Worm your way out of this one.

18 October 2012 at 06:27  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"You should really learn what 'total depravity' means before you try to talk about it. It is self-evident from the previous two posts that you do not understand the concept." Even stranger that Paul believed it and quotes inspired scripture (Greek; God Breathed) to show depravity as regards Justification.

Romans 3:10

10 As it is written:
“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands,
no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Now, The quotation quoted above in Romans 3:10-12, is from Psalm 14:1-3 and from Psalm 53:1-3. Psalm 53:1-6 is the same as Psalm 14:1-7, with some slight variations.
In these the Lord is viewed as looking down from heaven upon the "children of men" in total, "to see if there were any that did understand and seek God);" and declaring, as the result of his unerring scrutiny of mankind, "there is "none" that doeth good, no, not one."

A verse earlier Paul has declared;

9 What then? are we better than they? No, in no way: for we have before proved both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin;

Paul has proved that ALL are sinners and unable to be justified by any works especially salvation as their sin nature makes them slaves without power over their sin nature. Verse 10 just singles out the Jews as these are who Paul had in view to show they needed grace every bit as much as the Gentiles.

The Jews have no preference or advantage over the Gentiles in regard to the subject of justification before God. They have failed to keep the Law; they are sinners; and if they are justified, it must be in the same way as the rest of the world.

Read Romans 1:21

28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.
29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips,
30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents;
31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless.
32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

We do not chose Him rather He choses us;

14 Ye are my friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you.
15 Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you. 16 Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you, and ordained you, that ye should go and bring forth fruit, and that your fruit should remain: that whatsoever ye shall ask of the Father in my name, he may give it you.
17 These things I command you, that ye love one another.
18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.

Blofeld

18 October 2012 at 08:25  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Meh - in a sense I suppose I do believe in something resembling Total Depravity, but more in an Augustinian than an Arminian sense.

I'd outline it like this: although we were created perfect (or, created to be perfect), we are fallen from that perfection, not only individually but as a race, dragging the whole world with us.

When presented with God's Law, we may desire to follow it, and even achieve some of it, but we still fall short. Our sinful natures prevent us from picking ourselves up out of our own sin (Romans 7:7-25).

We require, without exception, the Grace of God to be saved. Nobody comes to the Father except through the Son. Where I differ from Calvinists and others is over the nature of that Grace: I don't see it as being "irresistable" in the sense that once given it cannot be denied or refused. Rather, I understand Grace as enabling a sinner to choose to follow God perfectly, where such a choice would be, in effect, always a failure in the absence of Grace.

It thus sustains true freedom of will: we are, under Grace, truly free to choose to follow God, unbound by the consequences of sin. Whenever we do so, we do so because of Grace, but not without a choice. I guess I see it as God bringing our will into harmony with His own, but without a shred of coercion. When He comes again, every knee will have no choice but to bow - so there is no question in my mind that He can command our fealty, but it seems to me that God delights even more in the heart that chooses Him. For that to happen, He had to die on the Cross.

18 October 2012 at 10:05  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Blofeld..
Romans 1:21
32
"those who do such things deserve
death" inferring that there are others who are not partaking in these activities.The entire human race is not being depicted as totally depraved and wicked.

Psalm 14 is referring to atheists.
"there is no one does good not even one"

Paul is simply pointing out that Jews are not superior to gentiles.
They are both sinful but not beyond salvation.

Belfast if grace is necessary for salvation how do you get it if you do not believe in the sacraments.
What human does not commit sin?
What is irresistible grace.The idea that it cannot be refused suggests a creature that is a robot rather than a human being.

18 October 2012 at 13:05  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Cressida

Here. Try this.

Total Depravity

carl

18 October 2012 at 18:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Carl

If you must intrude then please follow the direction of the debate. I cannot possibly defend the Church as an organisation sheilding or protecting its priests or bishops from the the abuse of children. Provided the disclosures were made outside the confessional, the responsibility is to involve the civil authorities and remove the abuser from access to the vulnerable. If made in the confessional, a range of other options exist.

Blofeld went beyond this asserting the Catholic Church protects lay, high profile, people from discovery to protect its image. A gross lie and it says more about him than the Church.

Cressida

Good to see you back.

Go for it!

As Catholics we believe we have wounded natures and an inclination towards sin that, with free will assisted by God's grace, we can resist. Most protestants believe human nature is depraved to the point where we cannot resist evil and this nature is merely cloaked by Christ rather than changed.

Of course, many protestants don't accept this and movements such as Methodism and, indeed, many Anglicans are instinctively drawn the more Catholic Arminian opinion -without knowing it.

18 October 2012 at 18:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Always had trouble with the concept of total depravity. We are as God made us, intended us. How can we be otherwise. We have total freedom to choose the good way or the bad. That’s how it is. Being alive is not a sin, and another concept, that of original sin is also disgusting. A load of pre-historic Jewish bollocks like an angry god turning someone’s old woman to stone. Or a vicious god making sure the genocide continued in the Jews favour while some ancient one with a beard held his staff aloft…

One day in the far future, the RCC will have a clear out and consign much of this stone aged self loathing muck to the bin. Can’t you see, it reeks of Jewish angst !

Anybody remember when St Christopher was struck off the list of saints ? This man does…

Ah, one does feel so better after that. Need to let off steam once in a while !

Finally, a sentiment in the time honoured tradition of Private Fraser, “Aye, but I still remain a good Catholic, you know…”

pip pip !

18 October 2012 at 18:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

If you must intrude then please follow the direction of the debate.

In point of fact, I read both Mr Blofeld's posts and your posts quite carefully before I said anything. I thought I had accurately determined what you were arguing about. Although I was struggling a bit to understand the connection you were trying to make. Because it didn't seem to me that Mr Blofeld has said what you asserted.

Blofeld went beyond this asserting the Catholic Church protects lay, high profile, people from discovery to protect its image.

Was this statement a reference to this?

Blofeld: ... and by it's historic desire (surely it is impossible for you to deny this?) to cover up for, 'He's a good catholic', offenders whether at the altar or in the pews."

So it's that reference to "in the pews" that is the point of contention. So what you are saying is "The RCC may have covered up for priests but it would never cover up for laity." I take it the 'prominent' part was thrown in for effect, or is that a reference to Saville? Because Mr Blofeld didn't seem to make that distinction.

Well, OK. I guess I would wonder why the RCC would be willing to commit the greater evil of covering up for those under its direct authority but not the lesser evil of covering up for those not under its direct authority. But if you want me to name a high profile RC member of the laity whom the RCC shielded from prosecution for child abuse, I don't think I could name one. But then .. I'm not sure how the RCC would know about such a circumstance such that it could shield the man.

Well, as for 'prominent persons' there was Cardinal Law who skedaddled off to Rome just ahead of the arrest warrant. But he was a bishop.

carl

18 October 2012 at 18:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Carl

Why not just admit you were wrong - its good for the strengthening of the soul.

Here's the offensive comment:

" ... the RCC provides a plethora of opportunities by it policy of celibacy in it's priesthood and by it's historic desire (surely it is impossible for you to deny this?) to cover up for, 'He's a good catholic', offenders whether at the altar or in the pews.

It appears a given that these vile offenders will therefore find sanctuary and a forgiving smile from those whose job it is to defend the good name of holy mother church from the media by whatever means necessary.
"

18 October 2012 at 20:02  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector said ...

" ... and another concept, that of original sin is also disgusting. A load of pre-historic Jewish bollocks like an angry god turning someone’s old woman to stone. Or a vicious god making sure the genocide continued in the Jews favour while some ancient one with a beard held his staff aloft…

One day in the far future, the RCC will have a clear out and consign much of this stone aged self loathing muck to the bin. Can’t you see, it reeks of Jewish angst !"


You're no Catholic if you believe this. Indeed, even worse, it casts some doubt on whether you're actually a Christian.

Think again - and put a hold on that application to join the Abbey. Maybe another retreat is needed.

18 October 2012 at 20:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Christ came to offer the Jews salvation. We know what happened. Well this gentile, as did legions before him grasped that message. Why did the early Christians retain the Jewish old testament. No need. Christ by his crucifiction negated all that.

Christ is EVERYTHING. Not a book of tales, including a prophet who climbed a hill and was mocked by the local youth. So he cursed them and forty she wolves appeared and devoured them. This is 2012 for Christ’s sake !

And finally, remember this. You do not attain the kingdom of heaven by anything other than your own actions, and certainly not exclusively by being a member of the RCC. This man remains a GOD FEARING MAN, and looks forward to defending his thoughts at the final judgement...



18 October 2012 at 21:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

That's perfectly fine and you're entitled to your views. It is just that they are not based on Catholic teaching and I feel a responsibility to point this out to you.

The Catholic Church teaches we overcome the consequences of original sin, which we share with Adam, through Baptism. The Holy Spirit draws us to a relationship with Christ which then requires a positive response from us and a continuing commitment to live as God desires. The sacraments of the Church, especially the Mass, offer channels of Grace and sources of help. We are saved through Baptism and this relationship as members of Christ's Body, the Church, not entirely through our own efforts.

I say this to be helpful.

18 October 2012 at 22:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector

2 Kings 2:23-24 recounts Elisha being jeered and pronouncing a curse that kills 42 young people near Bethel.

In verses 22-24 Elisha had just completed a miracle - healing of the waters of Jericho, which had been poisoned. Right after this miracle had been performed by God at the hands of Elisha some local youths started taunting and ridiculing him!

This was an open and public insult against Elisha aimed at the Lord whom Elisha represented. So the taunt was dealt with decisively.

The sudden arrival of the two bears (not 40 wolves) who mauled forty-two youths to death would serve as an eternal reminder and warning that blasphemy against God and his divine plan upon this earth can be met with swift and serious consequences.

18 October 2012 at 22:29  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Inspector,

Ironically, despite you lashing out at Judaism you are close to the Jewish view than the Christian one.

Judaism does have a belief in sin and repentance, it does reject the theology of original sin though and as you say Jews also believe (by and large) in the concept of free will and the ability to be either good or bad.

So it is not Jewish "bol*ks" is it?

18 October 2012 at 22:43  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I was under the impression that Catholics are not required to follow everything in the OT. The NT is our guide.The OT contains fallacy. You cannot have it both ways.. be Jewish and Christian at the same time.

18 October 2012 at 23:49  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Cressida

Christians are not required to follow the laws of the Old Testament/Covenant.

However, the Old Testament foreshadowED the New Convenant in Christ. There is a continuation between the two. The New Covenant is rooted and grounded in the Old Covenant.

We, as Catholics, are taught the entire Bible is the Word of God, written by men under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. How both are interpreted and understood is the divide between Judaism and Christianity (and amongst Christians) - and the contorted version that is Islam.

The Old Testament is brutal as God demonstrated His Power and Majesty to the pagans and tested a nation chosen by Him and gave them, through conquest, possession of a land. The Torah demands compliance to explicit rules. The more one follows these laws the closer one comes to God. The closer the nation of Israel is to God the greater its power will be.

The New Covenant demonstrates the Love and Mercy of God and, instead of 'rules' and 'regulations', one can actually unite with God through Christ - become One with Him - simply through accepting Him. The 'earthly kingdom' previously hoped for now becomes a promise of eternal life as part of the Triune Godhead.

The Old Testament is a window into the New Testament. It's really key to understanding it.

19 October 2012 at 00:10  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Dodo

Why not just admit you were wrong

Because I don't think I was wrong. The statements you cited above did not justify the conclusions you made about them. You haven't proven he said "the Catholic Church protects lay, high profile, people from discovery to protect its image." But let's assume he did say that. It is incontrovertible that the RCC did exactly that for its clergy, and did so to protect its image. Why should I not believe it would do likewise for certain members of the laity?

carl

19 October 2012 at 04:53  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Dodo

I know that the OT is the lead up to the NT but if it is the word of God... that means the Jews who follow it have no need to follow Christ for salvation,because they are already following the word of God.
What you are saying is the OT or Torah is the word of God.

How do you explain the antithetical Christian concepts like genocide, unjust wars and sadism in the OT?I thought that is why Jesus came to save us...to move us away from barbarism.

19 October 2012 at 05:16  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

What you are trying to say I think is that the OT has to be reinterpreted according to the NT In this case what came after takes precedence over what happened before.I am not a theologian but then again neither are you.

19 October 2012 at 05:42  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Outstanding commenting by resident RC's!!

We are as God made us, intended us. How can we be otherwise.

Romans 5:12 Douay Rheims

12 Wherefore as by one man sin entered into this world, and by sin death; and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned. (One particular man sinned and death, as a foreign concept, entered in! It was action driven not nature asssigned..well according to God anyway but what does He know??)

14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.(From Adam to Moses and an act that nobody else could reaccomplish as it was all encompassing by the first man and would take the last man Jesus to re-address for all. No more death, which He will abolish and cast into the lake of fire)

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ. (Sin was the means of death entering into our lives physically and spiritually. If its natural as you claim why need a redeemer, what exactly is He buying back..It must be lost or owed to someone or something to be redeemed.
1.to free from captivity by payment of ransom. 2. to extricate from or help to overcome something detrimental )

A load of pre-historic Jewish bollocks like an angry god turning someone’s old woman to stone. Or a vicious god making sure the genocide continued in the Jews favour while some ancient one with a beard held his staff aloft…(Strange then that Jesus continually refers to a specific mMoses as in..

John 5
45 "But do not think I will accuse you before the Father. Your accuser is Moses, on whom your hopes are set.
46 If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me.
47 But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?"

Why did the early Christians retain the Jewish old testament.(Are you for real..What exactly do you think that the Apostles were quoting to PROVE that Jesus was the Christ..Gospel of John, 1st Peter, Hebrews?? What was Paul asking and referring to with Agrippa who was a man with much experience and knowledge pertaining to Judaism. Paul believed him to be a Jew who, himself, believed in the Law and the Prophets "Acts 26:27 King Agrippa, do you believe the prophets? I know you do.” Why not quote any letter or gospel from NT? THEY HAD NOT BEEN WRITTEN YET! but they preached and converted believers totally based on OT!!!. Get real!) No need. Christ by his crucifiction negated all that. (You are ignorant in the view that the OT is only relevant to the crucifixion)

Ironically, despite you lashing out at Judaism you are close to the Jewish view than the Christian one.(It depends which branch of Judaism you follow, does it not?

Judaism does have a belief in sin and repentance, it does reject the theology of original sin though and as you say Jews also believe (by and large) in the concept of free will and the ability to be either good or bad.(It depends which branch of Judaism you follow, does it not?)

Blofeld

19 October 2012 at 10:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

and even further

I was under the impression that Catholics are not required to follow everything in the OT. The NT is our guide.The OT contains fallacy. You cannot have it both ways.. be Jewish and Christian at the same time. (Is Christ therefore a Christian or is He a Jew whose lineage goes back to Adam and Abraham and is the anointed Messiah promised by Gabriel to Mary...or is He just a citizen of Vatican city when it suits them)

I know that the OT is the lead up to the NT but if it is the word of God... that means the Jews who follow it have no need to follow Christ for salvation,because they are already following the word of God.( Is that just like the OT and NT are a lead up to the Catechism and they (RC's) have no need to follow Christ for salvation as the are already following the words of Holy Mother Church?)

What you are trying to say I think is that the OT has to be reinterpreted according to the NT In this case what came after takes precedence over what happened before.I am not a theologian but then again neither are you.(Blinding apparent!!)

Blofeld

19 October 2012 at 10:27  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 October 2012 at 16:14  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Blofeld

Which branch of Judaism agrees with original sin then? (PS-I'm not a RC).

19 October 2012 at 16:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo / David

Thank you for your responses. One really ought to clarify his position. Christ came as messiah to the Jews. He was rejected. But of course, he was not just God to the Jews but also of mankind. His sacrifice was / is of such great import to mankind that a line should have been drawn and all that went before, the preparation, taken in it’s due context. (Obviously David, one respects your Judaism so that part was for Dodo)

It’s a great conflict of the mind you know. The God of the OT. What a fearsome being he was. Stern, vicious, permanently displeased. Even today, Jews fear to write ‘God’ in full, and as for his personal name, not a chance of uttering that. The God of the NT. The very opposite. Loving, concerned, empathic. To a mere humble creature as this man, it seems there are two twins up there. Easy going twin and dynamic twin.

There cannot be a thinking man in the history of Christendom who has not battled with this internally. We cannot worship both OT and NT God simultaneously. It just doesn’t work. There can only be one interpretation of why the contrast. Either the Jews had the nature of God wrong then or the Christians do today. It’s a straight choice. This man chooses the NT God. If he thought the true nature of our creator was OT, he would be better off converting to Judaism.

Now, if you accept the Jews had the nature of God wrong, what does that do to the OT. It invalidates much of it, of course. Not valid is worthless. It has to be the squeaky clean truth. It’s that important.

So there you have it. It’s time for a break of ties. Let the NT God rule supreme, as the loving God of Mankind. Do what should have been done in the early days of Christianity. Lose the Jewish connection. To be honest it would be a relief. How many of us wouldn’t hide behind a sofa if spiteful OT God showed up ?





19 October 2012 at 17:32  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Cressida. The Inspector is with you on this. Really, the message that Christ gives us and the nature of God should be so simple that a man working in a field can grasp it. Instead, you need to get to Doctor of Divinity level to understand the ins and outs of it all. Something not quite right…





19 October 2012 at 17:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofeld, very old fellow. This original sin. What caused it ? Having the temerity to merely exist perhaps, or is that blasted make believe apple, the first strumpet and Sid the Snake behind it all...

Drop the biblical quotes will you, in your own words, if you will...

19 October 2012 at 17:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofeld, somewhere along the time line, the early Christians abandoned the idea that Jesus was just for the Jews and allowed the gentiles in. So as a gentile, is this man expected to embrace which it is clearly Jewish thought and self loathing. Then again, maybe that’s way He chose them as His people. A finer bunch of self loathers you will not find upon this earth. And all this talk about sin and grief and the disgrace of being alive, it’s the Moses gang alright. No doubt about it !

Miraculous, the Inspector is beginning to see it now !

19 October 2012 at 17:55  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Inspector,

Time is short. Just to say to I don't feel that I'm a self-loather or any other Jewish people I know for that matter, not sure where you are getting that from....

In Orthodox Judaism we see people as neither good or evil, but capable of choosing to do either ('yetzer hatov' or 'yetzer hara').

Hope that helps.

Shabbat Shalom

19 October 2012 at 18:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David, one’s favourite style of comedy wins by a long way. It’s New York Jewish humour. literally, has this man rolling around on the floor laughing his behind off. All based on self loathing. Of course, the best, some of whom who would have been young boys when their parents arrived in the USA are no longer with us. Always keep an eye out in the listings for these fellows. A real treat. Woody Allen is an exponent. Brilliant man, when he isn’t marrying adopted daughters, that is {AHEM}...


19 October 2012 at 18:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David, ‘perceived’ self loathing of course. It made them rich men, but they didn’t need to look too far for their inspiration. It’s in the blood, you see.

19 October 2012 at 18:59  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector

The Torah is sacred writings while the Talmud is collected writings of rabbi's over many centuries. The Talmud has unbelievably disrespect of Jesus and hatred of "Xians".

Anyone who wants to call me names for bringing reminding people of this inconvenient fact is welcome to do so. Fact is fact and name calling and accusations of anti Semitism won't change what people say in their own words in the Talmud. It is full of hatred of Jesus and Christians.

I freely admit that Catholics and Protestants have our share of hypocrisy and that these Churches in the past persecuted Jews. Jews also have to face up to the fact the Talmud are a collection of writings filled with hatred of Christians..

19 October 2012 at 19:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John. One does not hold Jews guilty over what is in the Talmud. That was how they saw Jesus and his followers and one is grateful for the honesty they presented. We live in an age now where our enemies present themselves as our friends, mentors, guardians. Oh for a return to honesty and the real agendas they are advocating...

19 October 2012 at 21:18  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Carl asked ...

"Why should I not believe it would do likewise for certain members of the laity?"

Er, because there is no evidence! If you believe it then you are displaying an ignorance of Catholicism.

As a Catholic I know that before absolution is given in the sacrament of Confession that priests require an expression of sorrow for sin, a firm purpose of amendment, avoidance of occassions where such sin might arise and action to undo any harm done.

The type of behaviour apparently manifested by Savile could not simply be repeated week on week to a priest without an obligation being placed on him to amend his behaviour or, in extreme situations, report himself to the authorities.

The sins of individuals confessed to a priest are distinctly different to allegations of abuse from third parties and the response of an organisational hierarchy. And, of course, the priest is bound by the sacramental obligation of confidentiality as Catholics believe we are speaking directly to Christ via the priest. Priests have been martyred over this.

The assertion that the Church would protect high profile individuals to guard its name and image is an offensive untruth.

19 October 2012 at 23:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Cressida asked ...

" ... that means the Jews who follow it have no need to follow Christ for salvation,because they are already following the word of God.
What you are saying is the OT or Torah is the word of God."


Nope, what I'm saying is that the Old Covenant, which remains the word of God, was superceeded by Christ's Covenant to all mankind. The external observation of 'rules' was replaced with a living and dynamic relationship with God through Christ.

If you ever read the Old Testament you'll spot a sub-text that the Jews were incapable of following the Torah and God continually forgave them. Also, that underneath it too was a requirement to love God and to love one's neighbour. That's what Jesus taught as had all the prophets before Him.

"How do you explain the antithetical Christian concepts like genocide, unjust wars and sadism in the OT?I thought that is why Jesus came to save us...to move us away from barbarism."

That's a tough one and I can't explain it other than God can do as He will with any of us and we'd deserve it! This is where original sin comes in. Through our collective guilt with Adam none of us deserve or are entitled to anything. The flood, the destruction of cities and people who gave themselves over to sin and worshipped false gods were all Just - not sadistic. God demonstrated His Power through the Jews, set them apart and prepared them for the coming of the Messiah.

"What you are trying to say I think is that the OT has to be reinterpreted according to the NT In this case what came after takes precedence over what happened before.I am not a theologian but then again neither are you."

Sort of. I'm not a theologian but I think we can only understand Christ fully through an understanding of the Old Testament - not a reinterpretation as such but an illumination. Certainly I believe we are in a new era and can have a new relationship with God through Christ.

And it doesn't have to be "complicated" at all! One doesn't have to be a theologian. Have faith in Christ; accept Him into your life and follow His basic commandments:

"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."

As a Catholic, I believe this means being in communion or fellowship with the Church who will enable one to know God, what He wants from us and His plan for salvation through His Son. You cannot truely love God if you do not know Him.

"And the second is like to this: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Through a relationship with Christ and through a compassionate disposition towards others, one loves oneself and loves others.

"On these two commandments dependeth the whole law and the prophets."

And there's the link, the connection, with the Old Testament.

(Sorry to have been so long winded!)

20 October 2012 at 00:15  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector

The problem is modern Orthodox Jews read and heed the Talmud and treat Christia clergy in Israel with disrespect even spitting on them.

As an at od how fanataic orhtodox Jews can be the church desecrations in Israel by fanatic Orthodox Jews called the "Price tag" descrations of Christian churches. "Price Tag" means Orthodox Jews attack Christian churches as "payback" for land they have to give to the Palestinians. I see no connection between the two. Here is latest example, A RC Trappist Monastery
in Israel:

Israeli Settlers 'Desecrate Christian Monastery'
Sky News – Tue, Sep 4, 2012

Israeli Settlers 'Desecrate Christian Monastery'

Israeli police are investigating after vandals attacked a famous Christian monastery - setting fire to its door and spray-painting "Jesus is a monkey" on the wall.

The Latrun (Trappist) RC Monastery, on occupied land in the Ayalon Valley, 15 miles west of Jerusalem, was daubed with pro-settler graffiti.

Officers believe it was in possible retaliation for the eviction of 50 families from the nearby unauthorised Migron settlement on Sunday.

Migron, near the West Bank city of Ramallah, was cleared after an Israeli court ruled it had been illegally built on Palestinian land.

The settlers left the area quietly and moved to temporary housing at another settlement, but eight youths who protested were arrested.

Police were warning of possible reprisal attacks from a vigilante settler group known as Price Tag. The group says its name refers to the price to be paid for stopping settlement in the occupied West Bank.

They have targeted mosques and, less commonly, Christian churches in the past.

Father Paul Saouma, the monastery's abbot, looked dazed as he inspected the damage. "Not nice. What can I say? What can I say?" he said.

This is just one example.

20 October 2012 at 00:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John

The Semitic peoples of whatever religion do have nasty form in listening to their elders cross legged, as they spout the most appalling outrage, and then going out and destroying or looting or killing or a combination of all three. As you the know, the Inspector places great store in racial traits, and believes this can explain the actions. He finds great comfort in this explanation while the liberals just shrug their shoulders when they themselves are asked for why it happens. A very general rule of thumb is the darker the skin, the bigger the potential problem.

20 October 2012 at 11:16  
Blogger John Magee said...

Inspector

I've seen this story my entire life first hand.
Whole sections of my hometown only 50 years were ago beautiful places to live and be happy in. They had virtually no violent crime and were safe places to walk in 24 hours a day. Today those same neighborhoods wastelands of burned out buildings, filth, hard drug users in the streets, gangs, violence, and are a virtual war zones.

Why?

Liberals don't want that question answered honestly.

Blacks migrating from the South to the industrial North to find work since the 1920's with no education, work ethic, or concept or hygiene and absolutely no respect for the education process turned these once fine ethnic European neighborhoods into cess pools which look like East Africa where their black ancestors came from in Africa before slave traders brought them to the American South 300 years ago.

Liberals will call me a racist or worse but these things I posted above are fact and they know it. Liberals want to live as far away from the crime, violence, gangs, and the filth these ghettos represent.
Any honest criticism of this situation and they will self-righteously lecture the rest of us about having the courage to tell the truth and then label us "haters".

21 October 2012 at 19:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hear Hear John. The liberals don’t have an explanation, but they do have a answer. Throwing money at it. That eases their conscience. You comments about where liberals live reminds one of successful people who come from Liverpool. They are very proud of their scouse origins to a man or women , and will often say, “I do miss the place”. Perhaps once a decade, they return for a visit !

21 October 2012 at 20:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

You two need to get hold of white hoods and capes and there'd be no stopping you!

I'm no liberal John Magee but it is clear to me you have missed out on a solid Catholic upbringing. You might want to familiarise yourself with some of the Church's teachings on social justice.

As for you, Inspector. well ... I understand you are trying to make sense of some challenging social issues but try to stay true to your upbringing. I'm sure the Fathers did not give you these ideas!

21 October 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Blacks migrating from the South to the industrial North to find work since the 1920's with no education, work ethic, or concept or hygiene and absolutely no respect for the education process turned these once fine ethnic European neighborhoods into cess pools

Quick! Hide the white women!

carl
reminding everyone that in 1850 it was those wretched Germans and Irish who were turning fine Anglo-Saxon neighborhoods into cesspools.

21 October 2012 at 23:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Fellows, long after the Inspector and John have departed this world, an eminent sociologist will come to the fore. He will explain the differences in the races and racial traits. He will become world known, and his wisdom will be followed in such diverse area as urban planning, education, employment, policing, and foreign aid. He will also be as black as the ace of spades. He will need to be, otherwise he will be shouted down by the successors of you two monkeys who whoop and screech and generally try to close down rational debate on the subject whenever it is aired…



22 October 2012 at 18:10  
Blogger John Magee said...

carl

What a rotten and wrong thing to say.

The Irish along with the German Catholic and Protestant immigrants in the 19th century were known for their hard work, love of their homes and neighborhoods, and strong family values and cleanliness. The church was the center of their lives. Which their beautiful churches (the ones that are not in ruins today from black rioting) still testify.

The Catholic immigrants back then faced terrible prejudice and discrimination from what are todays liberal Protestant Churches who pride themsleves today as being "tolerant".

I grew up in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania which as you must know was "multi cultural" in the early 1800's long before that term was coined and copied from Communists by todays left. The Irish, Germans, Poles, Russians, Italians, Jews, Greeks and others had modest homes in their safe clean and beautiful neighborhoods which I remember from my childhood.

I never heard of or saw an ethnic European neighborhood that was a ever cess pool or "dirty".

The "native" English and Scots worked hard and became wealthy and they built their own beautiful homes and estates which still exist.

I also saw those same neighborhgoods turned into cess pools when blacks from the South arrived in the 1950's and turned them into stinking garbage heaps, and later after their riots turned into ruins within a few short years.

Those ethnic neighborhoods are now war zones.

Care to walk in one for an hour after dark?

Sorry but that is fact.

23 October 2012 at 01:17  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo

Please don't lecture me about whether I am a "Catholic" or not until your life is Christian perfection. Who are the hell are you to judge my Catholicism anyhow?

What next? You will "excommunicate me" for what I dare say here?

Sometimes you irritate my Irish Protestant nerves.

I am a practicing sinner and hypocrite like the rest of the human race only I have the honesty to admit it.

23 October 2012 at 01:23  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

John Magee

What a rotten and wrong thing to say.

No, it's an historically accurate thing to say. It was intended to provide perspective. The 'problem races' in the US have changed over time. And, quite frankly, I suspect there are loads of more black people within six blocks of my house than there is within six blocks of yours.

carl

23 October 2012 at 02:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Just so we are clear. The Irish and the Germans didn't ruin anything. But you dare not tell that to their Anglo-Saxon "betters" in 1850.

carl
who is of primarily German heritage

23 October 2012 at 02:48  
Blogger John Magee said...

carl jacobs

At this point in my life you are correct. I chose to retire and live in a small town that is 99% white, safe, clean, and where I can walk the streets at night and sit on a bench on a cool autumn night in the village green under an oak tree at 2 AM and not fear for my life. Living here is my personal choice.

However, I lived next door to black neighborhoods for a good 30 years of my life in Pittsburgh, so I savvy about life in our cities.

No lectures, excuses, or calling me a racist please. I lived in a big city and I know the facts of life there.

I am eyewitness to entire middle class neighborhoods becoming slums almost overnight and I know why.

We've had two generations of a large majority of blacks living off of the welfare state, getting jobs they are not qualified for because of affirmative action, excuses for bad behavior, gang violence, hard drug use of epidemic proportions ,the self distruction of the black family, a total lack of respect for education and teachers, fathers not being responsible for their babies, etc, etc ,etc. When will it end and when will people start facing the facts and telling the truth and stop pointing fingers?

If you love people and want to help them you start by tellimg them the truth. Correct?

What's fair and just about not allowing white men who make near perfect scores on the police and firemen academy written exams as well as pass the physicals being denied entrance based on their race while blacks who make failing or average scores are admitted?

As a Christian how can do you justify this kind of reverse discrimination in the name of "affirmative action" programs that suposedly correct wrongs from the past against white men who's ancestors never owned slaves?

Please remember that you asked me a question about race not long ago and asked how I could justify my attitude and bias because I am a Roman Catholic.

I'd love to read a "Christian" defense about how or why government sponsored discrimination is moral and if they would like to see their son denied a admittance to a school or not hired for a job because he is a white male.

23 October 2012 at 05:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Magee

Say what you like but stop banging on about being a Catholic when you take off on one of your racist and hostile flights of fancy - towards black people, the Jews and the Old Testament (not Israel, especially).

By your own admission, you are not well read, know little of Catholic social teaching or, indeed, its other teachings. Why not find out more instead of living in the middle 20th century and reliving the pain of your ancestors? Little snippets from Wiki do not compensate for thoughtful reflection.

There are times you make me embarrassed to be associated with you as a Roman Catholic!

23 October 2012 at 13:41  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Dodo, one feels you are being rather harsh on John. As a hard line right wing Catholic, the Inspector wishes to object in the strongest possible terms !

Anyway it’s games time. The following comes from a Wiki article…

which revealed that 41% of those brought before the courts identified themselves as being from the White group, 39% from the Black ethnic group, 12% from the Mixed ethnic group, 6% the Asian ethnic group, and 2% the Other ethnic group.[224] These figures were disproportionate to the average UK population;[225][226] however the figures revealed varying demographics in different areas when compared to local populations. For example in Haringey, the figures revealed that 55% of defendants in court over riot-related charges were black, compared to a 17% black population; in Salford, 94% of rioters in court were white, compared to an 88% white population, and 6% of rioters were black, compared to a 2% black population.[227] Additionally, looters from 44 foreign countries were jailed, with Jamaicans representing the largest group.[228]

Interesting the author(s)managed to slip Salford in, for ‘balance’ as they would say in the PC Propaganda unit. That aside, if you want to know where large numbers of black people live in England, the cities and towns are mentioned in the article, as areas of ‘unrest’ of course. Now, what’s the article called ?







23 October 2012 at 18:03  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older