Saturday, December 08, 2012

Church of England responds to Cameron's gay marriage statement

Responding to the Prime Minister’s statement on same-sex marriage (ie that the Government intends to repeal the prohibition on wedding ceremonies for homosexuals and lesbians in religious buildings because he does not want gay people to be 'excluded from a great institution'), the Church of England has issued the following statement:

It is important to be clear that insistence on the traditional understanding of marriage is not knee-jerk resistance to change but is based on a conviction that the consequences of change will not be beneficial for society as a whole. Our concern is for the way the meaning of marriage will change for everyone, gay or straight, if the proposals are enacted. Because we believe that the inherited understanding of marriage contributes a vast amount to the common good, our defence of that understanding is motivated by a concern for the good of all in society.

The proposition that same-sex relationships can embody crucial social virtues is not in dispute. To that extent, the Prime Minister’s claim that he supports same-sex marriage from conservative principles is readily understandable. However, the uniqueness of marriage is that it embodies the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women. This distinctiveness and complementarity are seen most explicitly in the biological union of man and woman which potentially brings to the relationship the fruitfulness of procreation.

To remove from the definition of marriage this essential complementarity is to lose any social institution in which sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged. To argue that this is of no social value is to assert that men and women are simply interchangeable individuals. To change the nature of marriage for everyone will be divisive and deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships.

We believe that redefining marriage to include same-sex relationships will entail a dilution in the meaning of marriage for everyone by excluding the fundamental complementarity of men and women from the social and legal definition of marriage.

Given the absence of any manifesto commitment for these proposals - and the absence of any commitment in the most recent Queen’s speech – there will need to be an overwhelming mandate from the consultation to move forward with these proposals and make them a legislative priority. In our view the Government will require an overwhelming mandate from the consultation to move forward with on these proposals and to make them a legislative priority.

We welcome the fact that in his statement the Prime Minister has signalled he is abandoning the Government’s earlier intention to distinguish between civil and religious marriage. We look forward to studying the Government’s detailed response to the consultation next week and to examining the safeguards it is proposing to give to Churches.


Blogger DanJ0 said...

Deliberately god-less?

8 December 2012 at 10:33  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Has there in the whole recorded history of Mankind, the World over been any evidence for homosexual marraige

Why does Cameron seek to run contrary to a universally acknowledged status quo

If the Libor scandal can be exposed by someone who sued for peace, then I would suggest the best exchange rate to be found today, would be to exchange the word liberal for criminal and sue for peace

8 December 2012 at 10:59  
Blogger Brian West said...

The CofE statement is all very well as far as it goes, but it pays too much tribute to same-sex relationships, as though they should be commended by Bible-loving people, rather than being condemned for being sin.

(Yes, we all sin in a myriad of ways, and I would not dare suggest that someone else's homosexual acts are greater sins than my own sins in thought, word and deed.)

Society will be changed in damaging ways if marriage is redefined. Sure, there are pressing things the government should be spending its time and energy on. But let's not use the argument that rescuing the economy is more important than tinkering with marriage, because there is nothing more important on the political horizon at the moment than this marriage issue.

8 December 2012 at 11:03  
Blogger bluedog said...

An excellent rebuttal of Cameron's volte face by the CofE, Your Grace. Here is one issue on which our Church stands united, and rightly so. Shrewd, too, to resist the temptation to invoke religious terminology, which only brings shrieks of derision from the homosexual lobby and their fellow secularists.

Your communicant particularly enjoys the final sentence, 'We look forward to studying the Government’s detailed response to the consultation next week and to examining the safeguards it is proposing to give to Churches.'

In other words, 'Mr Cameron, we cannot trust you and we know that you have not the slightest intention of respecting our position, but we undertake to fight you every inch of the way.'


8 December 2012 at 11:03  
Blogger Brian West said...


Let's hope you are right, and that they will fight; it may have been a clever tactic to avoid biblical references in their argument, but they will have to invoke them at some time, you know, to retain credibility as a Christian outfit.

Saving the churches from legal challenge is one issue, and an important one. But, if I may quote extracts from my letter to my MP, there are others whom it will not be possible to protect:

" ... there are the possible consequences for some friends of mine. For example, what will happen to Ann, a teacher, when she refuses to teach that a man may marry man?

"Or to Barry, a policemen who is also a church deacon who occasionally preaches, if he expresses views like mine in the pulpit. Can we hope that he will be protected by the judgement for Adrian Smith against Trafford Housing Trust? I doubt it.

"Then there are Caroline and Donald, whose eight-year-old son Edward comes home from school and says that they have been reading the book King and King (De Haan and Nijland) in class, and that they have acted a classroom playlet based on it. The parents know that they cannot withdraw Edward from the lessons, because these are neither religious nor sex-education lessons, so they reluctantly conclude that will have to teach him at home that what his teacher says is wrong. They are intelligent people who hate to undermine the teacher’s authority in that way and thus confuse their son.

"My friend Frank is a prison visitor, who leads Bible studies and services for prisoners. He also preaches in local churches. When he is heard to speak against same-sex marriage, does he put at risk his permission to go into prisons?

"Gordon is a school governor, and he suggests to the Head Teacher that King and King be put in the back of a cupboard and left there. Another teacher hears of this and complains, through the Union, to the Chair of the Governors and to the County Education Authority.
The names are fictitious, but the people are real.

"The situations are imaginary, as are the reactions of my friends and others, but they are far from improbable...." End of quote.

The Prime Minister does not seem to realise what havoc he is introducing.

8 December 2012 at 11:15  
Blogger Flossie said...

I tell you what, it must be a pretty good statement because it has made the Thinklies on the Thinking Anglicans website very cross! Though I cannot remember Lambeth 1:10 ever being repealed - perhaps they think it was. Somebody really should tell them.

For the uninformed, Lambeth 1:10 is here:

Having said all that, I think the statement is a bit tame, as Brian West has pointed out above.

I think the Tory Party is dead, and I think Cameron has killed it. He is behaving like a tyrant. The more objections that are put forward the more determined he seems to steamroller this through. He must go.

8 December 2012 at 11:16  
Blogger Flossie said...

Chris Sugden of Anglican Mainstream was on Newsnight last night, and made the point that promising exemption to the churches was a complete red herring (besides being totally unworkable) as what Christians want is not protection for themselves but protection for the whole of mankind and the rights of children.

8 December 2012 at 11:20  
Blogger graham wood said...

A great pity this wordy statement failed to centre on biblical truth about marriage. The stated objections could have emanated from almost any secular or humanist group who could equally accept that SSM would not be "beneficial to society".
I wonder what is meant by SSM being able to "embody crucial social virtues"?
Its also significant that the statement failed to contain a single reference to God!
Also conspicuous by its absence is the primary reason for opposition to these proposals, namely because SSM runs directly counter to the whole of the Bible's clear teaching on gender relationships.

Readers could be forgiven for thinking that the Church is not aware of some fundamental Christian truths about marriage and gender or, yet again, reticent to say boldly what it professes to believe.
Missing also is the recognition that SSM and God given marriages are mutually exclusive, given the teaching of Jesus Christ that marriage is an exclusively heterosexual union and the norm.
That, and only that, is what God has "joined together" .
The C of E could well follow Luther's pointed comment:

"If I profess with the loudest voice every Bible doctrine except the one truth which Satan is attacking today, I am no soldier of Jesus Christ.

8 December 2012 at 11:20  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Pragmatically God-less I would have said, Danjo.

In the prevailing secular climate, attempting to argue for or against anything on the basis of what your God wants you to do is generally counterproductive. The Churches have no choice but to argue this one from the point of view of the potential damage to society, because bringing in any sort of divinely-revealed wisdom will get them nowhere, or worse.


There probably has been, but the fact that you have to look very hard to find it suggests that, as an experiment, it was no more successful then than it is liable to be this time around. The closest Christianity gets to it is the Adelphopoiein ceremony, but there is an enormous amount of debate over what that actually represents - though it certainly doesn't represent a marriage in the way that is being suggested today.

8 December 2012 at 11:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

His Grace has not used the argument rescuing the economy is more important than marraige

I have used the argument that exposing criminality is important to riding ourselves of liberals

Or living in Damnation will become the accepted norm and we have had enough of this Damn Nation

8 December 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Darter: "Pragmatically God-less I would have said, Danjo."

Both. I don't blame them at all as they need to sound reasonable and mainstream in order not to be written off. The problem for those against is the most vocal organisations doing the same are either religious or "right-wing" in the old Norman Tebbit sense. Those things have a "fringe" air about them these days. I reckon he has the Commons but I wonder how Cameron thinks he will get this through the Lords? Or is there a longer or more tangential game at play?

8 December 2012 at 11:48  
Blogger John Wrake said...

I watched Newsnight on BBC1 on 7 Dec. to hear the Bishop of Buckingham supporting the case for homosexual marriage.
I do not condemn him for his opinion, which is his own responsibility.
I do condemn him for breaking the oaths he took at his Consecration and I condemn those who gave this man a leadership role in the Church.

8 December 2012 at 12:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Graham Wood said ...

"The stated objections could have emanated from almost any secular or humanist group who could equally accept that SSM would not be "beneficial to society"."

Isn't that a valid tactic? The thing about God's law is that it works - if followed. God's laws about marriage are there for our individual and collect good.

And this statement is pretty 'biblical':

" ... the uniqueness of marriage is that it embodies the underlying, objective, distinctiveness of men and women. This distinctiveness and complementarity are seen most explicitly in the biological union of man and woman which potentially brings to the relationship the fruitfulness of procreation."

But why, oh why, must they (mis)use the words "straight"" and "gay"?

Dodo - the gay, heterosexual Dude and oft times straight

8 December 2012 at 12:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Virtually every religious belief under the Sun is represented in British Society

It is not the place for someone in the office of Prime Minister to propose they adopt false doctrine abnormal to them all

John Wake's comment about the Bishop goes as well for Cameron

Unfit for office

8 December 2012 at 12:38  
Blogger Ian said...

Why is the C of E incapable of calling same sex sexual relationship what it really is. Was Romans 1:27 ever more true? ' . . . the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another: men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet '. But then, large chunks of the C of E have abandoned large chunks of the Bible.

How can those who profess the name of Christ have any fellowship with all this?

8 December 2012 at 12:51  
Blogger Jessica Hoff said...

Is the C of E not just being consistent? It stopped condemning fornication a long time ago, has not much to say on the subject of adultery, so it does look discriminatory when the only sexual sin it condemns is homosexuality. Of course, condemning all sexual sin, as it used to, would not be an option which commended itself to the church - more's the pity.

8 December 2012 at 13:03  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Dodo, you are right. Religious arguments are sometimes dismissed solely for being religious. If the bible is correct about marriage (which it obviously is), then that correctness (Truth) must tally with any rigorous secular logical enquiry. Thus using logic proves god's word. I only ever use logic when it comes to marriage.

8 December 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

Cameron is not up to the job, is he?


8 December 2012 at 14:47  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

To remove from the definition of marriage this essential complementarity is to lose any social institution in which sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged. To argue that this is of no social value is to assert that men and women are simply interchangeable individuals.

To those who would change the definition, this isn't a problem. It's the whole point. The modern West is attempting to re-construct Western Civilization upon the idea of libertine autonomy. The argument presented above is therefore like telling a socialist that socialism will lead to the nationalization of industry. He isn't going to slap his forehead and say "I never considered that before." The argument must develop why this is a destructive development. It must make explicit the necessary connections between structural boundaries that supersede consent and the continuing existence of civilization. In a word, it must take on the whole of the sexual revolution, and not just its derivative legitimization of homosexuality.

Now, it may be true that the vast part of the population is so spiritually hard that it will not receive the Truth in this matter. But the purpose of testimony is not necessarily to succeed. It is to give witness to the Truth. So there is no reason to flee from the Word of God simply because men will not listen to it. The consequences of the sexual revolution are objective. They being realized daily it a myriad of private events that have profound public impact in the aggregate. If men will not listen to the Truth, then they will listen to the pain that will (and does even now) proceed from these consequences.

Too what should we liken this generation? They are like the citizens of a city besieged by a great army. The store houses are still full. The walls may be battered but they still stand. And the people say to themselves "Our wall is impenetrable. Who will conquer us?" But the battering ram of the enemy army is relentless as it continues to strike the wall day and night. Great will be the lamentation when the wall finally falls.


8 December 2012 at 14:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

An excellent riposte by the CoE in circumstances that Dater Noster so well explains at 11:25

With Cameron in charge, any mention of God is futile, and for those who do not believe, so is any mention of the ways nature has devised for the pairing of individuals. We go against nature at our peril, that’s for sure.

Of significant suspicion to the Inspector was Cameron‘s impassioned command that no court will ever force a mainstream church to marry homosexuals against it’s will. By, the look of the man, you would have thought he’d actually convinced himself this is going to stand the test of time. Yet mere weeks ago, the ECHR prevented the UK from extraditing an illegal immigrant of all people to a sovereign state to answer charges against him that was supported by a body of evidence. Is a week in politics such a long time that we have all forgotten this ?

So either Cameron considers his detractors simpletons, or he holds us in contempt. Either way he is not fit for purpose and the only way Inspector is going to get any sleep in the next few days is by contemplating who his successor will be...

8 December 2012 at 15:07  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! All of this has caused quite a curfuffle in the cloisters at Barchester, I can tell you. Archdeacon Grantly has turned a rather unpleasant shade of ecclesiastical purple and covers his ears whilst shouting 'La La La not listening' when the PM comes on tv. Mr. Bunce from Hiram's Hospital has asked if Mr. Slope will marry him to Abel Handy and my Lord's Chaplain is quite enthused by the idea and has knitted himself a rainbow stole for the occasion. My Lord is noncommital, as befitting an Anglican prelate of these times, but to be quite honest I think the time has come to excommunicate the Prime Minister - give him some stick. They don't like it up 'em...oh...hang on...

8 December 2012 at 16:12  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

The state has an interest to protect the family to ensure the next generation is nurtured to maturity and it does this through the institution of civil marriage. The word civil pertains to the population which would not flourish through homosexual and lesbian relationships. One man and one woman for the procreation and rearing of the next generation can and does ensure the population continues and it has been proven a male and a female in a family is the best environment for children.

Because homosexuals and lesbians cannot naturally replace themselves and produce the next generation, there is no need for the state to provide marriage. Most are happy with the current legal protection of civil union which protects their rights.
There is no need to redefine marriage as it does not apply to homosexual and lesbian relationships.

Even Peter Tatchell on the news yesterday evening gave off a vibe that he was not that bothered or somehow didn't quite believe his ears!

Of course this will lead to court cases against those who take up the option not to provide same sex “marriage” ceremonies. There will be same sex couples suing the Catholic Church and taking it as far as they can go to the EcrtHR who will no doubt rule in favour of the couple. It's a global thing you see.

People don't think whether it's good for society or not they just see one one or two countries with “homosexual marriage” and they too want it.

It's a good response from the Church, it speaks to everyone. If they had included biblical references that would have given bias, the argument has gone beyond religion now although the Church Christianity will be the one that is negatively affected if this goes ahead.

Cameron is not a leader he's a follower with this “homosexual marriage” nonsense as well as with everything else he is following others stronger than him. He hasn't the guts to put it aside and get on with doing what the country really needs. How about a tax break for couples who are married or in a union?

WE are not interchangeable and I feel insulted that the sexes are morphing into something sinister. It's was one thing to have unisex hair salons, but it's gone too far now.

8 December 2012 at 16:16  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Indeed Mrs Proudie. At St Oggs, The Reverend Dean, Lionel Pugh-Critchley has refused to speak since the Prime Minister’s broadcast...

8 December 2012 at 16:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One has been over to Pink News, where they have an article on Maria Millers support. One would be thinking they would all be ‘cock a hoop’ over the news but not so. Do read VP and his take. They use red and green comments flags there so you will have have to ‘show’ his remarks as they have been suppressed due to their unpopularity. But the point remains, the militant gay challenge to the church’s refusal to conduct ssm in principle is not so much if than when...

8 December 2012 at 16:28  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Even Peter Tatchell on the news yesterday evening gave off a vibe that he was not that bothered or somehow didn't quite believe his ears!"

Tatchell is now fighting for straight rights to a civil partnership.

8 December 2012 at 16:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Tatchell is now fighting for straight rights to a civil partnership.

He’s doing what now ?

Utterly utterly bizarre - the man is deranged and his self identified brain damage he suffered at hands of Mugabe’s brutes does nothing to add to his credibility...

8 December 2012 at 16:54  
Blogger Owl said...

I have previously tried to point out that the backlash would be severe and I am now seeing it already in action.

I have three sons and, previously, they were very much of the live and let live variety.

I have observed that the more they get sex education, ssm etc. shoved down their throats at school, the more militant they are becoming.
I am having trouble keeping them in line as regards homosexuality.

I have also noticed that this is very widespread among their peers.

If people such as Cameron don't do a complete U-turn soon, we will not stop these (very) energetic youngsters getting out of hand.

We may talk about the problem, they tend to do something about it and do the thinking afterwards.

To sum up, our young are becoming very angry. They DO NOT want the liberal gabage.

This could get very nasty.

8 December 2012 at 16:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

...unless of course he’s saying what is good enough for gays is good enough for hetros. In which case he won’t be wanting to soil marriage then...

8 December 2012 at 16:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

He's saying there will be inequality again because straight people will only have marriage and gay people will have marriage and civil partnerships. He's just making a point I expect that if the justification is equality then Cameron can hardly tip the scales the other way. The obvious thing to do is junk civil partnerships and move them to marriage when same-sex marriage becomes legal. Or simply let them die out.

8 December 2012 at 17:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Owl, Gay Bashing died out in the early 1970s in the UK. It was something the older lads did, one remembers. Of course in those days, gays got on with their lives out of sight, and didn’t try to bend society to their way of thinking...

8 December 2012 at 17:01  
Blogger Owl said...


That is exactly my point, queer bashing died out (we thought) but due to the liberal force feeding, it's on it's way back.

Why are our politicians so out of touch that they haven't even considered these consequences?

I have already twice had to defend a homosexual who was being threatened. Due to my activities as a junior football trainer, I was able to defuse the two situations.

It is getting worse but nobody seems to be seeing it. Perhaps they do not want to as then they would have to admit that something has gone wrong.

This goes a lot deeper than some people would care to admit.

8 December 2012 at 17:18  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Well, that's it UKIP here I come. Cameron is evil.

8 December 2012 at 17:42  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Maria Miller says Gay marriage is a small evolutionary change, not a radical step.

"For me, far from being a radical departure, this is simply one more in a long line of reforms which have strengthened marriage, ensuring it remains a modern and vibrant institution. Over the coming weeks and months I will continue to work closely with faith and other interested groups on how best to implement our plans." - Maria Miller in the Daily Telegraph

The woman is mad what is a "vibrant and modern marriage" No thanks !

She has sold her soul for the ministerial job of course.

8 December 2012 at 17:47  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Heterosexuals don't need civil partnerships and homosexuals don't need marriage.
Peter Tatchell is one of these people I think who need a cause to fight. There are countries that kill homosexuals which is terrible. He would do well to channel his energy into fighting for some rights for those homosexuals who live in these countries. Whether we have “homosexual marriage” in this country or not palls into insignificance compared.

We should not re-engineer society to to suit man's selfish desires, the Church is warning us.
We shouldn't kill off our Christian roots. It will cause chaos and confusion for children and anyone with or without Christian values who is working in the public sector or with people.

Marriage will eventually have to become open to two men and two women as I see it then.
Because homosexuals and lesbians will want to have children through surrogacy? The numbers are and will still be minimal. This would then be a relationship involving three people, or four if two lesbians and two homosexuals are involved. If marriage is then redefined to include up to four people then isn't this polygamy? What if the children in these relationships turn out to be heterosexual surely the environment they will have to endure will upset and disturb them and their natural development?

Divorce has caused many problems already in our society, it is not a good idea to encourage anymore difficult, complex and weird family situations.

8 December 2012 at 17:53  
Blogger William said...

Bravo the CofE


"To remove from the definition of marriage this essential complementarity is to lose any social institution in which sexual difference is explicitly acknowledged. To argue that this is of no social value is to assert that men and women are simply interchangeable individuals. To change the nature of marriage for everyone will be divisive and deliver no obvious legal gains given the rights already conferred by civil partnerships."

Peter Tatchell has a job for life in his quest to equalise homosexuality for he will have to remove the concept of gender first.

Homosexuals are pawns in Dave's draconian attempt to detoxify his brand, but the Conservative Party is toast.

8 December 2012 at 18:05  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Your Grace,

I would just like to wish everyone a Happy Hanukkah!

8 December 2012 at 18:55  
Blogger John Magee said...

Why wasn't civil unions good enough for Gays? Polls show most people could live with this concept which allows Gay couples all the legal benefits of straight couples.

If Gays can "marry" why isn't polygamy legalized too? The Koran allows Muslim men to have up to four wives. Traditional Mormon churches allow their men to marry several wives. Wasn't polygamy practiced in the OT? Pagans allowed polygamy in places like China. Why only Gay marriage in allowed in our societies by law and not other definitions of marriage some of them going back thousands of years?

Stop discrimination against those who want to practice Polygamy and Polyandry!

Pandora's box has been opened and who knows where this redefinition of marriage will end before we all die? It's possible in the year 2030 there will be humans "marrying" their beloved cats, dog, or cow. This scenerio is not as crazy as it seems. Without a doubt PETA will be demanding human and animals "marriages" sooner than we want to imagine. In my country PETA wants a "memorial" built for dead fish:

Oct 29,2012

LA Times

On behalf of the animal rights group PETA, an Irvine, CA woman is asking the city to erect a memorial at the street corner where 1,600 pounds of fish died this month when a container truck crashed into two other vehicles.
She said it's appropriate: "Hundreds of fish perished in this accident, suffocating slowly on the roadway."

The left is using Gay marriage as a way to finally paralize traditional churches and organized religion. They want to use "discrimination" by conservative religions as a key to filing law suits against them for practicing discrimination, even though we are assured by our governments that churches, synagogues, and mosques, etc are exempt from being forced to "marry" Gays in their houses of worship if this goes against their fundamental beliefs or doctrines.

8 December 2012 at 19:06  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Bred in the bone said: "Has there in the whole recorded history of Mankind, the World over been any evidence for homosexual marraige?"

Ancient Greece allowed same sex partnerships and it is recorded that some formed "unions" in accordance with the practice of the time. There is evidence of such "marriages" in pre-Christian Roman society and a few others, including Persia, Carthage and the Etruscans. Marriage as we know it flows from the Judaic practice and teaching and really only became a legal state in fairly recent times. Hence, in fact, Henry VIII's little disagreement with Rome.

Even today there are two parts to it, a legal contract and a set of religious vows. Here in Germany there is a similar row in progress as the government of Angela Merkel attempts to address the imbalance in legal terms between a marriage between a man and a woman in e=terms of property rights, inheritance and settlements in relation to 'separation' and divorce.

I rather think the CofE has made exactly the right response to the draft proposals.

8 December 2012 at 19:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have no doubt that David Cameron believes he is 'doing the right thing' in promoting SSM.
The 'new religion' sweeping through the UK is 'secular humanism and many in the country are in total agreement with humanist principles.

Christianity is seen by many as 'irrelevant'even 'hypocritical' and this is largely the fault of the Church.
A lot of 'Church attenders'would be hard pressed to explain their Christianity and their reasons for doing what they do.Jesus spoke often about the' Kingdom of God'and some Christians have elevated their denomination or their Church above the Kingdom. Christianity is seen by many as merely' repressive' and 'condemnatory' of those wishing to live 'unfettered' lives.The Gospel must be properly explained to the secular World rather than just condemning it!.

Christianity (especially State linked Christianity) has allowed itself to be 'conformed' to the principles of this present[corrupt]'World system' and will remain so until it frees itself.

'Humanism' has asserted itself by increments and will not stop until it has rendered Christianity impotent and marginalised into a Politically Correct 'social gospel'.
Unless the Church becomes 'salt and light' it will be trampled underfoot by the secular World.

8 December 2012 at 19:10  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

We have tried to convince people with reasonable arguments for a long time now but the problem is that people generally start from a particular standpoint and only consider the arguments that suit them. We have been wasting our breath because we have structured our arguments on social terms. Firstly we should state our case that this law offends Almighty God and because He made us we should conform to His rules. We already know that the evidence points very strongly in support of traditional being better for children but the media distort it and quote anecdotal evidence with no scientific basis but they have the ear of the people. Our arguments should first and foremost be spiritual. Jesus said you cannot serve two master and our religious leaders have been duped into arguing the case on secular terms. In addition it makes the point to the populace that we justify laws by reference to what we decide and not to the original wisdom laid down at Creation. Christian leaders have tried to be too clever and have been failed. You'll notice that Muslims don't argue the logical case and the government listens to them much more. If we resorted to violence they would soon take notice but this is not an option for Christians so it looks like we are going to have to oppose the laws and go to prison. Ghandi did it and eventually it bore fruit.

8 December 2012 at 19:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Owl. One has read on the net that Terrence Higgins, who will scale up their corrupting message to youth further if ssm goes through, are looking for young women to visit schools to peddle their filth. Very telling !

Presumably, they are rather concerned about actual bodily violence being occasioned to homosexual men ‘doing the act’ so to speak...

8 December 2012 at 19:34  
Blogger Shacklefree said...

Actually the suggestion that Cameron should be excommunicated is one that should be discussed with urgency and implemented with all haste. I bet he would take notice of that.

8 December 2012 at 19:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Shacklefree. You are a knowledgeable fellow. Does the CoE do excommunication or is that a Synod issue ?

8 December 2012 at 19:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say, the Archbishop has just tweeted ‘Happy Hanukkah’, which is rather a relief as there are quite of few of us here wondering if he stopped doing happy anything from last week.

{AHEM}, will fall back in line Sir...

8 December 2012 at 19:46  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 December 2012 at 19:51  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

I'm pleased that you are posting again. I do find your outrageous polemics, to be an interesting approach. As Integrity said ' a wit of sorts', LOL.

And happy Hanukkah to you, inspector!

8 December 2012 at 19:52  
Blogger happyuk said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 December 2012 at 19:53  
Blogger happyuk said...

If you wish to save your kids from the growing indoctrination that homosexuality is "normal" you'll have to fight back and not just sigh in disappointment. Do not mislead by Leftist rhetoric that homosexual marriages do not harm anyone or similar misdirections.

This is an agenda whose goal is the destruction of familty and spiritual values. They want a society that has no moral compass and no spiritual values whatsoever.

It is an abuse of the English language to soil the meaning of a word intended to convey sanctity among men and women who decide to bind their lives together and produce a family of their own children, to now have that word applied to people who engage in degeneracy and wish to have their degeneracy honored by society.

8 December 2012 at 19:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Carl said ...

"In a word, it must take on the whole of the sexual revolution, and not just its derivative legitimization of homosexuality."

Well, slightly more than one word but we'll forgive you.

The sexual revolution was taken on in 'Humae Vitae' in 1968. Unless there is a coherent moral stance taken towards human sexuality in all its forms, outside marriage and within marriage, then to preach against homosexual 'marriage' alone is hypocrisy.

"Jessica Hofft" said...

"Is the C of E not just being consistent? It stopped condemning fornication a long time ago, has not much to say on the subject of adultery, so it does look discriminatory when the only sexual sin it condemns is homosexuality."

It has nothing to say on contracepion either and less and less on abortion.

Marie said ...

"There will be same sex couples suing the Catholic Church and taking it as far as they can go to the EcrtHR who will no doubt rule in favour of the couple."

Doubtful. According to Catholic Canon Law a couple unable to consumate their union cannot licitly marry. Where are the complainants against this harsh "discrimination"?

8 December 2012 at 19:56  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, Mr Carl Jacobs writes in fine imagery of the threat to Western society, of how our walls are being assailed.

It seems to this communicant that the principle weapon being used by our enemies to defeat our citadel is hypocrisy, which we face on two fronts.

In the first instance, we confront the hypocrisy of Muslim settlers who flood the West seeking the benefits their own hopelessly corrupt and backward societies can never offer. Yet once here and established, they create enclaves in which they increasingly demand their own practices and law, sharia. It seems beyond the Muslims comprehension to realise that this will lead to a replication of the corrupt and backward societies that they seek to escape.

The second great hypocrisy is that of the homosexual lobby and their secularist fellow travellers. Not content with the right to civil partnerships, they want more. They demand the right to be married in our Churches, despite holding Christianity in contempt and lacking any intention of continuing to worship in the Church where they 'marry'.

Two questions arise. Why would any individual(s) wish to be part of a ceremony they despise? Why would any Christian priest or minister officiate at such a plainly bogus ceremony?

Our churches should not be forced to become stages for charades played by the insincere.

Cameron is the instigator of the second hypocrisy and not fit to hold the office of Prime Minister. He must go. Let us pray that the reported 130 dissenting Tory MPs either vote Cameron out or defect to UKIP en masse.

8 December 2012 at 20:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah there you are Hannah. 'A wit of sorts’ he said, eh. The monster !

Happy Chappy. It has to be like that you know. For the ugly truth is that the young gay ‘club scene’ is so depraved, it can only to continue to exist in a society where defined behavioural values do not exist. Thus they cannot be criticised for their conduct, or for the diseases they spread, or for the cost to society that paying for their treatment involves.

Now, if they wanted to pay for their own AIDS medicines, one would be marginally sympathetic to their plight, perhaps...

8 December 2012 at 20:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


After your libertine 'manifesto' last night I am surprised to see you commenting.

"Catholic fellows who disapprove of the Inspectors disdain on the Church’s teaching on sex.
Points to consider…"


"Three. This fellow gave up apologising to God for being human over thirty years ago. You should all try it. It’s damn liberating. You see, there is no more GUILT."

No need or drive to seek forgiveness?

"Four. The highest calling for any Catholic must be to be joined in holy matrimony to another and produce a family. EVERYTHING should be done by the church to encourage that, including keeping it’s damn nose out of the bedroom."

No moral reatraints at all?

"Five. There is nothing ‘holy’ about our genitals. Our bodies are mere carriages for our souls. They are just years away from turning to dust, genitals included. Do not lose sight of that."

An ancient heresy.

"Six. There are only two presences in the bed, not three. To suggest God bunks up in there too is damn macabre. Blasted skin crawling, that’s what it is..."

A bizarre comment, even for you.

"Ninety (sic). What the hell is wrong with limiting the size of your family by artificial means ? Are you people advocating extreme poverty or eternal state benefits as a way of life to fertile couples ?"

Based on the above, it is difficult to see any rational basis for your opposition to homosexual marriage. Afterall, its none of God's business and He should stay away!

8 December 2012 at 20:11  
Blogger Flo Fflach said...

why is a civil ceremony not good enough for gays? because some gay people are people of religion and believe that their union is a covenant between themselves and God - and that it should not be presided over by states, lawyers or priests. I completely accept the right of a church not to offer marriage to those that it feels it cannot - be it to do with gender or divorce. But within my church - the Religious Society of Friends we have members that want a Quaker marriage [rather unique in the UK]. We can license our venues for civil ceremonies and wrap a Meeting for Worship around it, but that still involves bringing in a registrar and having a ceremony with no religious content. Why should other churches stand in the way of this desire for religious freedom. We took a long time to get to the point where we wanted to try and make this possible, although same sex partnerships have been recognised for decades.
Please show some charity to those Christians who experience something different

8 December 2012 at 20:16  
Blogger John Magee said...


Seems to me I read not long ago Muslim males in the UK are now legally allowed up to as many as four wives the Koran allows but only if they marry these wives outside the UK. Each of these new brides can also collect all those nice welfare benefits. So Mohammed can sit around his free house all day watching TV and be waited on hand and foot and serviced by his legal harem paid for by the tax payers.

@ happyuk

It's the appropriation of the word "marriage" which is the cause of resentment for most Christians and traditionalists. Gays can have civil unions which gives them total equality and property rights. These are same rights recognized by law straight couples who are united in a civil ceremony have. Marriage between a man and woman, which the church calls Holy Matrimony, comes from Latin word (pardon me while I quote from Google) Matrimonium:

MATRIMONIUM. Among the pagan Romans this word was employed to signify marriage; and it was so called because this conjunction was made with the design that the wife should become a mother.

8 December 2012 at 20:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Lord above ! The Talabird squawks...

As one has posted before, he is rather looking to shake hands with Christ, not throwing his soul at his feet for mercy as you intend doing. One really has to ask himself thus, what on earth have you DONE in your life past to warrant such desperation. Really old chap, there is no need to apologise to your creator for being human, just live as Christ would have us do despite our obvious inadequacies. He does love us you know. (Though not too convinced about that OT fellow, but we’ll leave him for todays Jews).

8 December 2012 at 20:47  
Blogger Naomi King said...

happyuk @ 19:54 is completely right of course. The Fabians and Karl Marx set out to "dethrone God" 130 years ago and reinvent society in the "progressive" and "modern" social model. This is done by deconstructing what is good through silent incremental revolution. Dave Cameron is now bringing that model to completion.

The progressive and modern model, which is full of equality, human rights and war on God is truly dangerous and evil but the useful idiots who buy the lies are blind.

Watch this film and tell me that this move by Mr Cameron is not the fulfilment of Bernard Shaw's and the communist agenda of successfully targeting morality, family and freedom to achieve cultural subversion. (trailer) (full film)

8 December 2012 at 20:55  
Blogger Berserker said...

'What you can do I can do better' is our Dave not being true to his Euro spots as Francois Hollande's Govrnment has just passed a law in France permitting gay marriage and adoption. There are openly gay Muslims in France (yes they exist!) and they are at odds with The French Council of Muslims (surprise!)

Does the pink vote count as much in France i wonder?

Gays can always go to South Africa to marry or the Low Countries. Holland has had gay marriage for 11 years but it is difficult to find out how this is being accepted.

It seems to me that the modern world accepts everything except Paedophilia. Even war criminals live in luxury in Holland. Getting back to France's President - Hollande, when is he going to do the decent thing. He has never married any of his partners.SSM? For Hollande it is OSM he won't do!

8 December 2012 at 20:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

8 December 2012 at 20:58  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Brian West @ 11:15 succinctly said "a clever tactic to avoid biblical references in their argument".
I too noticed how little religious terminology was included in their argument. The words of God can be so easily dismissed by the secular legislature of the day. The intellectual argument is less easily dismissed when you fight fire with fire.

David Cameron has just signed his own dismissal order. The Spin doctors have got it wrong and his latest pronouncement will back fire on him ferociously.

PS: Where did my comment to the Inspector go from the previous Post?

8 December 2012 at 20:59  
Blogger Naomi King said...

"David Cameron has been warned that plans to let same-sex couples marry in churches will be "massacred" in the House of Lords and alienate grassroots Conservatives." - Daily Telegraph today

8 December 2012 at 21:00  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

It doesn't matter if you call it a 'civil union' or a 'marriage.' The nomenclature means nothing. You aren't defending anything of value if all you do is reserve a relationship called 'marriage' for heterosexuals. Neither will you accomplish anything if you establish a parallel institution called 'civil union' that is 'marriage' in every way but name. What matters is the purpose served by the institution. What matters is that a single social institution holds a monopoly on licit sexual expression, and provides a stable environment for the procreation and civilization of children. This is why legitimized homosexuality must be opposed. As well as fornication, and divorce. Sexual boundaries must be enforced and maintained, or civilization will blow itself to pieces.

A gay relationship is by nature sterile. It therefore has no necessary reason to be either permanent or monogamous. It is simply an agreement of mutual support that may or may not include the concept of sexual exclusivity and may be terminated at any time at the convenience of either party. It is a privatized relationship that may take any form the partners desire. This is the transformation of marriage that must occur if marriage is extended to homosexuals. It ceases to be what it was, and becomes something entirely different. And that is entirely the point of the exercise - to redefine the institution so that it shapes and forms human behavior in a different manner.

People react to the re-definition of marriage in an inchoate manner because they grasp this at some dim level. They understand that no matter how hard we try, we can't really ever separate sex from marriage from procreation. But they have wedded themselves to a view of human autonomy that makes it unjust to impose unchosen sexual boundaries onto consenting adults. Ultimately that view of autonomy must prevail in their minds. In the end, they are reduced to hoping that the new system will produce the same output - even though they know the designers of that new system never had any such intention. It's a foolish hope.


8 December 2012 at 21:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

What will everyone do when this is eventually passed, by this government or the next, and the sky doesn't actually fall in and the worst that happens is, well, same-sex couples get married?

8 December 2012 at 21:12  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Carl you are absolutely right the whole point is to subvert society, family and the nurture and protection of the next generation. The whole homosexual agenda is evil being based on a lie and an abomination.

So Mr Cameron is desperate to pervert all that is good and wholesome while at the same time the UK is on triple-dip recession alert after industrial slowdown. You couldn't make it up could you really.

Taken from the Guardian today - "UK economy: the problem sectors - Manufacturing is down, construction is struggling, exporters are having a torrid time – and then there's the eurozone."

8 December 2012 at 21:16  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This new group sounds interesting:

8 December 2012 at 21:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


Apologise for being human? Not at all! Accept that I am flawed and have and will continue to sin, of course. I pray I will never loose consciousness of this.

You want to reclaim the Tridentine Mass as standard. Do you remember its structure? A central part of it is the public confession of sin, through our own fault, and an expressed desire, with God's help, to sin no more. This precedes the Eicucharist. You might also want to reflect slowly on the Pater Noster which follows.
Shake hands with Christ? As an equal? God forbid I should be so casual! One hopes He offers one His arms and welcomes one home - no more - then the handshake.

8 December 2012 at 21:30  
Blogger Naomi King said...

If Cameron lets churches conduct same-sex marriages, what happens to those that refuse?

Paul Goodman, writing on Conservative Home yesterday, was told months ago that civil servants were finding it difficult to frame homosexual "marriage" proposals that would bar churches - and mosques, temples, synagogues and so on - from being able to conduct them.

So He suspects that yesterday's story in the Evening Standard - which reports that "David Cameron backs gay weddings in church" - has more to do with the legal advice Ministers have been given than with a sudden change of mind or heart in Downing Street.

Which raises a question: namely, that if some churches, say, agree to conduct homosexual 'marriages", but others refuse, what happens to the latter when a legal case if brought against them? The Evening Standard has been briefed on the point.

It reports that "government lawyers told [Maria] Miller they have devised a foolproof legal 'lock' to protect churches that oppose the reform from being dragged in". "Foolproof", eh? One detects anxiety in Whitehall - and Number 10.

After all, it's less than a month since the Times reported behind its paywall that "Ministers have decided to override warnings from lawyers that churches would be vulnerable to pressure from the courts and would end up being forced to marry homosexual couples".

The Government was then proposing, according to the Times story, to give churches "an explicit opt-out from having to perform homosexual weddings". That, of course, was before yesterday's news about David Cameron's decision.

If lawyers advised Ministers that churches would be vulnerable to lawsuits if excluded from legislation, what will those same lawyers have advised Ministers is the case if churches are included in legislation?

Paul Goodman is not a lawyer, but he suggests that it seems at least possible that a church which refused to conduct homosexual "marriages" was vulnerable before the Prime Minister's change of heart - and is even more vulnerable after it.

Mr Cameron and the Government's decision to allow churches to conduct such "marriages", assuming that the Evening Standard is right, could therefore have significant implications for religious freedom (not to overstate the case).

8 December 2012 at 21:34  
Blogger John Magee said...

carl jacobs

Words have power and meaning. The left has always known this which is why they invent terms like "polical correctness" or "social justice". The real purpose of the left to redefine the traditional meaning of the word marriage has nothing to do with their supposed desire for the equality of Gays. The are using Gays who in the past they never used to care about. That is until they realized they were a potential voting block in the 1970's. Gay marriage has everything to do with the left's relentless drive to redefine and rebuild our traditional society, rewrite our history, and erase religion from the scene.

Although I am totally against the concept of using the word marriage applied to homosexual unions the reality is there is nothing in our Constitution that forbids civil same sex civil unions or from individual states holding elections to redefine what marriage and making gay "marriage" legal.

We just saw this hapen in the last election.

Gays under our legal system can petition or sue for discrimination for not being allowed civil unions and they would be right.

They can legally be united in civil unions.

We are in a hopeless sand pit. Christians and those of other faiths are morally right about the definition of marriage being between a man and woman but we are up against a legal system, even though it is legally right about civil unions, it is morally wrong about Gay marriage from our point of view.

I see trouble and persecution of Christians by our governments over all this in the not too distant future.

8 December 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger graham wood said...

Naomi you wrote:
"Which raises a question: namely, that if some churches, say, agree to conduct homosexual 'marriages", but others refuse, what happens to the latter when a legal case if brought against them?"

I'm sure you will be aware that there are a number of precedents for similar scenarios - not least the events recorded in Acts 5:21-32 in which the same principle (although different context) applied, namely "we must obey God and not men"
This is primarily a question of authority in the church - whether that of Christ over his own house, or that of a secular authority - whether a British Parliament or the ECHR.
If the State continues to obdurately refuse the right of conscience by ministers and churches then so be it - they will be open to legal challenge, and some may suffer some form of criminalisation as a result. But that is a necessary consequence of standing upon biblical principle and conviction is it not?
It raises the age old confrontation between Church and State which was once settled (we thought) by Magna Carta, namely:

"Wherefore we will and firmly command that the Church of England shall be free, and that the men in our kingdom shall have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights and consessions..... from us and our heirs in all things and places forever..."
This section of Magna Carta remains as an essential element of our Constitution. Woe betide the government which attempts to ride roughshod over it!
If that battle has to be fought all over again so be it also, but I know, and you know, who will win out!

8 December 2012 at 22:15  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

I'm shocked at Michael Gove signing up to this farce, I thought he had more sense, obviously not.
Boris, well he's mercurial and supports both sides of an argument I can understand. The rest have not thought this through properly.

The Telegraph article states: “This week, Maria Miller, the Culture Secretary, will announce how the government plans to proceed with legislation to give same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexuals following a consultation which attracted more than 225,000 responses.”

I am intrigued to know how the government can legislate to give same-sex couples the same rights as heterosexuals when they already have civil partnerships. Does it mean they do away with civil partnerships and call it marriage but it never will be that and we are back to reducing the meaning of marriage and that is not fair to heterosexuals. How are same sex couples going to have children without a third and or fourth party legally involved??

8 December 2012 at 22:15  
Blogger ukFred said...

The entire problem with this proposal is a failure to think through, in a logical manner, all of the implications that arise from it.

An advanced society cannot exist unless the building blocks of that society are in place. This includes smaller entities such as families who will make the most of their resources and share some with the state in the form of taxation.

Most of us are aware of the fact the the Bolshevik Revolution led by Lenin tried to abolish the family and failed because there was too little at stake in the society for anyone to actually want to do more than the bare minimum. Surprisingly, they gave up trying to abolish the family. But the proponents of homosexual marriage are trying to destroy the family every bit as much as Lenin, but rather more duplicitously.

But more fool the Church of England for not having the guts to say that it is going to disestablish itself if the Government is foolhardy enough to try to do this. Everybody could then have what they want. The government could have a tame church that does not give a stuff about its faith, the supporteres of women's ordination could get over their envy at men being the only ones to wear the fancy garb that goes with being a bishop, the opponents of women bishops to tell the others to go away, or words to that effect, and the Christians could actually concentrate on fullfilling the Great Commission.

8 December 2012 at 22:31  
Blogger Brian West said...

DanJ0 21.12

Perhaps same-sex couples getting married is the worst that will happen, perhaps not; but it's not the only thing that will happen. For a start you could attempt answers to the questions I posed at 11.15.


8 December 2012 at 22:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

John Magee

The US Constitution has been held to establish homosexuality as an inherent right when homosexuality was illegal in every state in the Union when the US Constitution was written. The authors of the document would be horrified to see what has become of their efforts. The US Constitution no longer has original intent. It has become a document enslaved to legal positivism. It has no meaning whatsoever beyond what five nabobs on the US Supreme Court says it should mean.


8 December 2012 at 22:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

There is only one way to accommodate homosexuals in society as they would have it, yet not us. As far as we are concerned, they are already part of society and have been in the UK since 1967. That way is ssm, but it is the first, not the last, step. Ultimately gender WILL have to go. So yes, the sky WILL fall in – it just won’t be immediate....

8 December 2012 at 22:48  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
It seems that we may regrettably have to follow the French procedure of registering a marriage at a registrars followed by the religious blessing for believers only.
We know that the orchestrators of this proposed diabolical legislation seek to destroy the church. The above might be a suitable side step to avoid the conflict from their riposte.

8 December 2012 at 22:57  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Can you all imagine a society where we are all individuals. Not men or women, but individuals. We are being shepherded that way now, just look around you...

Of course, it will be gradual. You will still be able to buy greetings card for “Congratulations on your baby girl”. For the time being anyway. And parents will still be able to say to their sons, “isn’t it time you found a woman and settled down to raise a family”, so long as the authorities don’t get to hear. And babies will still be able to utter ‘mummy’ and ‘daddy’ but don’t let the Rotherham social workers hear them say that.

We are being bounced into some evil secular dream – fight it now, and reject gay marriage. Dissent while it is still legal to do so. Let men be men and women be women as God and nature intended. And let gays get back to being gays, and not troubling anyone else...

8 December 2012 at 23:03  
Blogger Matt A said...

I believe that homosexuality is more than a sin, it is a sinful result of sin, a curse if you like. Read the second half of Romans 1 and you will see what I mean.
Really we, as a nation, are now reaping what we have sown.

8 December 2012 at 23:03  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

The church did not speak out about fornication

The church did not speak out about divorce.

The church does not speak out about adultery.

The church did not speak out about civil partnerships (counterfeit marriage).

Is it any wonder that the institution of marriage is so debased that so many people have absolutely know idea what it most actually is. Most choose not to get married because they have absolutely no idea what distinguishes it from just shacking up with someone.

I get fed up of being asked who my "partner" is when I speak with a government dept or fill out forms - I insist that they refer to my spouse.

9 December 2012 at 00:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Saint, time to cross over the Tiber, son...

9 December 2012 at 00:24  
Blogger Berserker said...

Naomi King says that Marx and the Fabians set out to 'dethrone' God.
Surely the rot started with the Enlightenment? This came about by the scientific revolution preceding the French Revolution and the 'philosophes' which above all posited the belief that the citizens of any State were 'immature' until they made decisions individually and thought for themselves. That the search for meaning was within oneself and not with the institutions of the church or monarchy.

9 December 2012 at 00:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Rebel Saint

True but you have missed two important 'nails' in the coffin:

The Church of England accepted contracepion in 1930.

The Church of England accepted abortion in 1980.

9 December 2012 at 00:42  
Blogger Sean Baggaley said...

"I believe that homosexuality is more than a sin, it is a sinful result of sin, a curse if you like."

You are certainly entitled to an opinion, but people – including secularists, irreligious atheists, etc. – are also just as entitled to disagree with you.

What many of you refer to as "Truth" is, to others, just a bunch of glorified fairy stories worshiped by a collection of bickering weirdos. And hypocritical weirdos at that.

Bluedog says: "In the first instance, we confront the hypocrisy of Muslim settlers who flood the West seeking the benefits their own hopelessly corrupt and backward societies can never offer. Yet once here and established, they create enclaves in which they increasingly demand their own practices and law, sharia."

'Shacklefree' opines: "Firstly we should state our case that this law offends Almighty God and because He made us we should conform to His rules."

How is this not the exact same thing as what Bluedog claims the Muslims are demanding: that their religion-based culture be given control of the nation's laws? Why is Christianity so bloody special that it can claim to be the One True Way, yet Muslims aren't allowed to make the same claim? After all, both religions even worship the same deity! Their primary disagreement is in whether Jesus Horatio Fogharty Christ was the son of Jehovah, or just another prophet among many. (There are also some disagreements over when it's okay to murder and kill, but Christians don't seem to be very good at that whole "Thou Shalt Not Kill" thing either given their religion's 2000-year record.)

You're all a bunch of bloody hypocrites. You're constantly telling us how we secular people lack a 'moral compass', yet for all your talk of loving thy neighbour, turning the other cheek, and so on, you're astonishingly bad at actually doing it. Heaven forfend anyone so much as thinks that your mental crutch is anything other than the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, for that way madness and extremism lies. Don't draw a picture of our prophet! Don't you dare tell us what we can do in our (publicly subsidised*) places of worship! Homosexuality is a SIN! You will burn in HELL! Forever! KILL THE BLASPHEMERS!

* (Oh yes they are. Who do you think has to make up the tax revenues for your religion's tax-exempt status? That's right: we, the taxpayers. Many of us are secular and consider Christianity, Islam and Judaism no more deserving of taxpayer subsidy than Scientology, or, indeed, any other cult of self-righteous, hypocritical weirdos.)

9 December 2012 at 01:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Sean Baggaley

Well, that was a nice little foaming-at-the-mouth rant. I imagine you were knocking keys off the keyboard as you typed that up.

You are certainly entitled to an opinion, but people – including secularists, irreligious atheists, etc. – are also just as entitled to disagree with you.

Who exactly said otherwise? Believe what you like. Although technically we aren't communicating our opinion. We are communicating God's opinion. Which makes it rather more than an opinion. That's the crucial detail in this argument. Truth originates in God, and so it's not dependent upon your reception or rejection. It simply is. Which brings us to ...

What many of you refer to as "Truth" is, to others, just a bunch of glorified fairy stories worshiped by a collection of bickering weirdos.

The "weirdo" crack is a nice touch of ad hominem, there. Of course it is the main support of your entire argument. You implicitly assume (because you don't openly state it) your own version of capital-T Truth in your post and judge all arguments according to it. We do the same. So what is the difference between us? Well, we are "weirdos" who believe in "glorified fairy stories." You however are rational. At least according to your version of capital-T Truth.

And hypocritical weirdos at that.

So then let's throw out a little more ad hominem for good measure. But here is the thing. You may know if I am a hypocrite because I openly state my authority and you may judge me against it. What authority governs you in your rational world devoid of "glorified fairy tales?" Do you have one that rises above the level of your own stomach?


9 December 2012 at 03:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

How is this not the exact same thing as what Bluedog claims the Muslims are demanding: that their religion-based culture be given control of the nation's laws?

It isn't different at all. Neither for you nor for me. How is it not the same thing when secularists demand they be given control of a nation's laws? The only reason you prefer a "non-religion-based" culture is that you want the laws to reflect your worldview. You don't want to be subjected to "religion-based" constraints on your behavior. You prefer "non-religion-based" constraints. For example, you want unborn children to be treated under the law according to a materialist understanding of human nature so that you may kill them. Why? Because this is rational and not based upon "glorified fairy stories?" No. It is because you want the law to reflect your anti-religion and not my religion. It's a matter who of whose metaphysical truth claims get privileged.

Why is Christianity so bloody special that it can claim to be the One True Way...

Because it is objectively true.

... yet Muslims aren't allowed to make the same claim?

This is LOL funny. Who is stopping Muslims from making the same claim? They make it all the time. The question you need to answer is "Why is secularism so bloody special?' It's just another worldview making truth claims in the public square. And a decidedly failed worldview at that.

After all, both religions even worship the same deity!

No, they don't. You might take some time to learn something about the religions you critique before your decide to post about them. This is an astonishingly ignorant statement.

You're all a bunch of bloody hypocrites. You're constantly telling us how we secular people lack a 'moral compass'

We actually say you don't have a moral authority, and we say it because it is true. What authority for example tells you that murder is wrong? I ask this question all the time, but I never get an answer. The best I get is some appeal to empathy - making the interest of the self the basis of moral conduct. Yes, that's a good plan. Or perhaps I get some reference to an abstract entity like 'society' that negotiates these things as a collective for individuals. Which is another way of saying "Might makes right." Another good plan. Or perhaps it is tautological. "That which succeeds is the best morality." A dangerous proposition for you to make as the Secular west hurtles towards its own implosion. Can you give a better explanation?

Your problem is that your world exists only as a collection of atomized transient meaningless individuals who cannot find truth within themselves, and so cannot find it anywhere else. What then remains for you? The blind leads the blind, and both fall in the ditch. Now, of course, you could just admit this, and submit yourself to Nietzsche's will to power. That would be the consistent answer. Do you then have the courage of your convictions?


9 December 2012 at 03:39  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 December 2012 at 03:56  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 December 2012 at 04:18  
Blogger Owl said...


"Naomi King says that Marx and the Fabians set out to 'dethrone' God"

Actually, Naomi has summed it up quite well.

The original idea of the Fabians was communism without revolution, i.e. gradualism.

They also formed the "elite" of their planned NWO.

Nothing has changed their plans over the years, just ask Blair.

9 December 2012 at 05:00  
Blogger John Magee said...


Are you familiar with the 1930's Cambridge University Communist traitors and double agents Philby, Maclean, Burgess, and the Keeper of the Queen's Pictures Anthony Blunt? Sometimes in spite of the collapse of the USSR it seems they won. Today their ilk control the ideology of the universities and colleges on both sides of the Atlantic. These rich establishment brats led privilidged lives and delighted in betraying their country to the USSR. In the USA similar privilidged Ivy League University sons of the establishment during the 1930's like Alger Hiss and many others who worked FDR administratiopn were also Communists working for the USSR and passing secrets to Soviets. They did enormouss damage to the USA including helping Ethel and Julius Rosenberg give the USA's nuclear secrets to the Soviets in late 1945.

If you want to read about this and amazing and true story look up the Venona Papers. The American FBI, laughed at as "fools" by the traitors and their Soviet handlers, patiently recorded every message sent to Moscow from the Soviet Embassy in Washington and their consulate in New York from 1940 until 1991. These 50 years of messages have now been declassified for the world to see. So it turns out the "Commie" fears by the right durinng the 40's and 50's were valid after all.

9 December 2012 at 06:13  
Blogger Flossie said...

Carl Jacobs, will you marry me?

9 December 2012 at 06:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Imagining and asserting moral absolutism with a related deity to provide the moral authority doesn't make it true. Where does the authority and legitimacy of a democratic government come from in any of the forms of democracy we can set up? Yet we seem to prefer that to some bloke setting himself up as an absolute monarch and claiming he has a divine right to rule. Most of us see that claim for what it is: a power grab. It relies on enough people being deluded enough not to rise up, and having big battalions to discourage others from making a competing claim. It's all just rhetoric at the end of the day unless the divine being imagined actually makes itself known to everyone.

9 December 2012 at 07:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's like a king in exile demanding where the divine right to rule is for the democractic government which replaced him. If the concept of the divine right of kings isn't to our liking because it looks rather contrived thse days then we need to find an alternative that allows us to carry on. It doesn't rely on a divine right of democratic governments to be established first. The underlying assumptions about government and our relationships to it are different.

9 December 2012 at 07:34  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Inspector and Owl you have hit it on the head.

We are witnessing the Fabian doctrine of "gradual inevitablism". If you change things so slowly, like over 130 years, no one will notice and each incremental step in the dethroning of God and the destruction of goodness and family based society will be "inevitable".

But no it won't be inevitable unless you accept the lies.

The Holy Spirit is still in charge. There is still warfare in the spiritual realm and God's angels are still working, not to mention his Saints. We need to pray down this abomination and set decrees in the Heavens that will ensure this defeat for the powers, the principalities and the rulers of the darkness of this world.

If you want to know more about the doctrine of gradual inevitablism then here is a set of 3 short videos which together make up a recent 39 minute excellent summary taken from Fox News International, put together by Glenn Beck on the Danger of Fabian Socialism. As you will see the promotion of homosexuality is a huge part of the socialist programme. 14 mins 14 mins 11 mins

This is WHY stopping the homosexual agenda is SO VERY IMPORTANT.

How ever thought of David Cameron as a Fabian ?

And remember the coat of arms of the Fabian movement is a WOLF in SHEEP'S CLOTHING and Fabians dedicate their written works to Lucifer. Could we consider David Cameron as a wolf in sheep's clothing I wonder. He certainly has fooled his party as to his true nature.

9 December 2012 at 07:47  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Remember Maria Miller, the Minister in charge of this, said yesterday, "homosexual 'marriage' is a small evolutionary change, not a radical step."


9 December 2012 at 08:12  
Blogger IanCad said...

Over the years I trust that I have made my contempt for Cameron well known on this forum.

I hold him incompetent, naive and altogether unsuited to his roles as leader of our country and head of the only political party that is capable of restoring our economy our liberties and our social harmony.

However, on this issue I support him.

Freedom of and from religion is an absolute imperative as history will attest.

I see nothing in these proposals that forces any church to perform homosexual marriages.

Congregations are perfectly free to worship elsewhere if any particular Progressive church leader chooses to officiate at a union that would be in conflict with the clear teachings of scripture. Conversely, those who embrace such perversions are welcome to associate with those of a like mind.

I hold my nose and give Cameron my support on this issue.

9 December 2012 at 08:21  
Blogger Naomi King said...

But then of course evolution is a lie. We have become so indoctrinated with the secular world values of the TV, newspapers and politicians that we fail to read the truth as it is given to us in the Holy Scripture. It is time for Prayer in the Closet (Matthew 6) it is time for intercessory prayer (Book of Joel) and it is time for Declarations in the Heavenlies (Proverbs 16). Then things will start to change. Spiritual governance is the answer.

It is a great pity that the church is indeed the lone voice crying out in the wilderness of Great Britain and no one appears to be listening to the warnings she is shouting. Unfortunately for the Church however, she is in a system that has its agenda and she is the chief driver in that system in the UK.

All the devil needs to do is to ensure that she is buried with enough duties that she has little time to breathe. The same thing is happening to the church throughout the world. Pastors are too busy with too many programs to wait on the LORD.

its like building a mansion of marble on a sinking island. It takes grace to see that it just does not make any sense. If the island is gradually being submerged by the devil, the preoccupation should be how to rescue the island not how to finish my mansion. But alas many organisations are geared towards their mansions and they send their people in that direction.

It will take great grace for believers to stop and say: "Wait a moment, what exactly are we doing? If the island goes down so do we and our lovely mansions."

There is a way out though. It is to find 10-30 British people and let them understand the exercise of spiritual authority.

We can meet together once every week and set decrees in the heavens that will address the problem from its roots. When you set such a decree, heaven knows how to make the men and women completely irrelevant who persist in Enthroning Ungodliness in the Land.

Spiritual decreeing is the way to govern our world particularly when we are completely outnumbered. Political activism is good but without the exercise of spiritual authority it profits very little.

Time is really not on our side in the UK and the time to begin to set these decrees is now so the Angels of God can begin to work on them to glorify our God in the UK.

The truth is that God knows what to do to glorify His name on the earth.

We must understand something of the way He governs His universe to benefit from it. He needs us to set decrees that are in line with His plans and purposes, as given to us by the Holy Spirit, so His awesome powers can be unleashed upon our world. He knows how to gain the attention of men and women and compel them to bow the knee and pray.

What more can I say ? My heart is with this Land and may the LORD send us help on the ground here in the UK.

Isaiah 26:7-13

IS 26:7 - 13 The way of the just is uprightness: thou, most upright, dost weigh the path of the just. Yea, in the way of thy judgments, O LORD, have we waited for thee; the desire of our soul is to thy name, and to the remembrance of thee. With my soul have I desired thee in the night; yea, with my spirit within me will I seek thee early: for when thy judgments are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world will learn righteousness. Let favour be shewed to the wicked, yet will he not learn righteousness: in the land of uprightness will he deal unjustly, and will not behold the majesty of the LORD. LORD, when thy hand is lifted up, they will not see: but they shall see, and be ashamed for their envy at the people; yea, the fire of thine enemies shall devour them. LORD, thou wilt ordain peace for us: for thou also hast wrought all our works in us. O LORD our God, other lords beside thee have had dominion over us: but by thee only will we make mention of thy name.

Spiritual governance is the answer.

9 December 2012 at 08:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I expect there are Muslims thinking they're working for Allah, imagining that Christians are helping submerge the island too. They can probably quote bits of the Qur'an in support of it. I bet they don't think the theory of evolution by natural selection is sound either.

9 December 2012 at 09:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One point..... it is not the individual 'sins' that make one a' sinner' in the eyes of God but the fact that one has a' sin nature' that compels, that drives, one towards sin.

'Religion' tries to reform the sinner.

God`s method is far more drastic.... God takes an axe to 'the root of the problem' and crucifies the sinner.

Only then can God give the [former] 'sinner' a new life, a new identity,and this Life comes through His Son Jesus Christ.

Of course it is God[not man]who defines'sin'which in part is' a nature'which is in rebellion against God but part of this rebellion[by default]is an 'alignment' with every spirit which opposes God.

Of course there are 'good' sinners and' bad' sinners'but they are both sides of the 'same coin'.

God has supplied the remedy for the situation of 'fallen man' but there are few who have the courage or the conviction to take the path God has ordained.

9 December 2012 at 09:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

How can 'fallen man' define sin?.

Much like asking a criminal in the dock what sort of punishment he would like?

9 December 2012 at 09:22  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There was a time when the Church knew what diabolical meant

If you want to destroy a nation from within, then to consistently do things which make Anglo Saxon Institutions look ridiculous, incompetant and increasingly irrelevant would be the way

9 December 2012 at 09:25  
Blogger Naomi King said...

And to make believers "look ridiculous, incompetant and increasingly irrelevant would [also] be the way'"

9 December 2012 at 09:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Naomi King

I would not disagree with you there but remember, we are after all a Christianised Heathen folk

The trespass by Government upon our Heathen Traditions is far greater than the that it now proposes upon Christianity

Strip away what you claim to be a wrong belief and our culture would return rightly to it's former culture

Which as I have said before, without the Christian message of turning the other cheek, we resort back to the Barbarian Law of blood feud

To some extent the destroyers of England have relied upon Christs message to achieve what they have so far done

9 December 2012 at 09:39  
Blogger Naomi King said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 December 2012 at 09:40  
Blogger Naomi King said...

We read in Mark 1:35 that the Lord Jesus got up very early in the morning, left the house where he was staying and went to pray in a place which was secluded and seemingly difficult to find. When the disciples eventually found Him, they exclaimed, (probably in a frustrated manner), "All men are looking for You”. His reply was, (I'm paraphrasing) "Forget the crowd, my Father has given orders that we are to go down the road to the next town for me to tell them the Good News also; after all, that's the reason He sent me here in the first place”. Maybe The Canadian preacher Oswald J. Smith was thinking of this incident when he remarked, "No one has the right to hear the gospel twice, while there remains someone who has not heard it once”.

These few verses teach us a lot about getting our priorities right.

We can see that the Lord's schedule was not dictated either by the crowds or by the circumstances, but rather by the Will of His Father. For those who are preachers, to be told that there is a crowd of people gathered, to come and minister to, would be a 'clear sign' that this must be a God given opportunity that should be grabbed it with both hands.

Jesus' priorities were different however, (and I would suggest the right ones); in John 5:19 we read, "Most assuredly, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do: for whatever He does, the Son does likewise."

We need to learn that our lives are no longer our own, that he had been bought with a very great price – the shed blood of Jesus.

How we love to sing that lovely old hymn, "Now I belong to Jesus”, so perhaps it's time that we let Him 'call the shots' over our lives and then according to John 15 - WE WILL BEAR MUCH FRUIT. Hallelujah! Have a blessed and fruitful day in Him.

9 December 2012 at 09:49  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Continued(9 December 2012 09:19)

Of course the 'sinner' does not have to crucify himself(this would be a pointless act.. unacceptable to God!.)

The sinners crucifixion happened 2,000 yrs ago at Calvary.Jesus ended the' Adamic' line at Calvary and Jesus became the 'New Adam' for all who would accept Him.
The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ becomes the death and resurrection of the [former] sinner].
How does this happen?.

A 'grafting' [by God] has taken place.

We are cut from the old vine(the fallen line of Adam) and grafted into the New Vine( the Line of Christ).
The branch(us) grafted into' the New Vine' partakes of all that the new Vine has experienced past and future.Our life is IN Him as long as we remain so.

So it is vital that we accept God`s estimation of our real natures and not allow man to re -define what God has clearly condemned!.

9 December 2012 at 10:25  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I do not think it coincidental that the corruption within our Society is being uncovered.

Institutions which where held in high esteem by many are found to be riddled with corruption greed and self interest.Politics Banking, the Press'Public figures'(even the Church?)the masks of' respectability' are being ripped off and what lies underneath exposed .

Those in our Government rather than trying to restore some semblance of morality and righteousness to our Nation are actually promoting policies which will drive Judeo- Christian principles further away.

God does not have to do anything to Judge this Nation we are doing it ourselves the great pity is our 'leaders' will bring greater suffering on us all through their total ignorance of the direction they are heading.

9 December 2012 at 10:43  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Perhaps with the growing irrelevance of the usupers, who are after all nothing more than Internationaist puppets of Commerce

We can have a fresh begining, only we need to recognise the trespass that has been wrought against us, was a blood feud, that attempted to erase us from history

Otherwise christians will continue to be hoodwinked by fluffy liberals, whose very actions expose their evil intent

9 December 2012 at 10:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

I am afraid Western civilisation is HIV+ (Heathen Inspired Victory)and is already showing signs of full blown AID's. Society thinks it is immune to the word of God.

Some form of outside intervention may proof necessary before too long to remove this plague.

9 December 2012 at 11:33  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well said and thank you, Mr Carl Jacobs @ 03.39, a superb response to Mr Baggaley.

Perhaps this communicant can add some comments. Mr Baggaley, if you think Christianity and Islam are the same, just stop to compare the curriculum vitae of the two founders. One a carpenter, the other a camel thief and brigand. One from a closely settled agrarian community that lay within the Roman Empire, the other a desert dweller with the mindset of a herdsman. You can see the difference in the New Testament and the Koran. Spend a little time learning about what you so despise and you may reach a greater understanding.

9 December 2012 at 11:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

All the reports seem to suggest that this sudden switch to allowing religious institutions to marry same-sex couples is to avoid legal challenges to the law later. Even if legal challenges do happen then there's a solution afterwards: religious organisations marry people religiously but not in the civil sense. The quirky CofE parish function regarding marriage switches to the local register office.

9 December 2012 at 12:12  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 December 2012 at 12:13  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

"Why is secularism so bloody special?

Because is allows all religions the right to an equal share of public incredulity.

9 December 2012 at 12:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...


9 December 2012 at 12:18  
Blogger Peter Simpson said...

"There will need to be an overwhelming mandate from the consultation to move forward with these proposals and make them a legislative priority".

This is false reasoning. Majority mandates cannot establish eternal moral absolutes.

The C of E's government consultation submission stated : "There is a continuing debate within the Church of England about its declared view of sexually active homosexual relationships”.

By these words we observe that the national church is avoiding commitment to any distinct moral position concerning homosexuality, using as their reason for this avoidance the fact that the debate is still ongoing.

What they are really saying is that the Bible is an insufficient guide, and therefore the ongoing debate must compensate for the Bible’s deficiencies. This is tragic compromise.

The Church cannot oppose marriage redefinition on the one hand and avoid addressing the Bible's teaching on sin on the other hand.

Rev. Peter Simpson, Penn Free Methodist Church.

9 December 2012 at 13:08  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Humorous, I admit. But totally non-responsive to the actual question that I asked.


9 December 2012 at 13:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It takes more faith(or gullibility) to believe in 'Humanist theories' then to believe the truth as laid out in God`s Word.

9 December 2012 at 14:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

There's upwards of a billion and half people in the world who believe in god's word as written in the Qur'an too. If you accept the underlying hypothesis there.

9 December 2012 at 14:17  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 December 2012 at 14:38  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

What authority for example tells you that murder is wrong?
Well, I think it all depends on one’s understanding and meaning or context of the word ‘murder’.
You have already stated that you (and your sect, I presume) are custodians of the truth of Truth which really foreshortens on any meaningful debate.
However, if you can look further afield than reliance on what I would call a dubious collection of stories based on stories, myths about myths and hearsay about hearsay, you may be able determine for yourself what is wrong about murder and make the same conclusion as I do.
For the sake of the argument, I mean the wilful causing of the death of a sentient other against their wishes, best interests and not in defence of yourself or others. I do not recognise the man-made falsity you will ultimately refer to as your god and upon which you will no-doubt found your opinions but to know that murder is wrong does not require a relatively recent creation such as Calvanism or Christianity for that matter, to arise in the human mind and senses that imbue of revulsion and impropriety.
It may be enlightening for you (and certainly for me) if you could explain whether Calvin’s actions towards Servetus constitute the acts of a defacto murderer.

9 December 2012 at 14:41  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

You are right. To fathom out a faith in an uncreated world is much harder than a belief in a creative God.
Anyone can criticise Christianity because they just don't understand. Divine light is needed to come into a revelation of Gods plan for his people. Without it, darkness is all that abounds and they can't see the truth.

9 December 2012 at 14:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


Heathen Inspired Victory is not how I would describe England today

The Mead Hall was as important to Anglo Saxon heritage as Churches are to christians

With the amount of pubs being closed down today, I would say the attack on our heathen roots is in full force

Given the churches temporance movements, christians do not easily recognise this aspect of the assault against our cultural inheritance

They drank beer in Egypt also before Christianity or Islam even existed

A Toast!

9 December 2012 at 14:58  
Blogger Anglican said...

In a few year's time Cameron will be an ex-Prime Minister and an ex-leader of the Conservative Party. His promises on not forcing churches to conduct homosexual 'marriages' therefore have no significance whatever.

9 December 2012 at 15:53  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


It may be enlightening for you (and certainly for me) if you could explain whether Calvin’s actions towards Servetus constitute the acts of a defacto murderer.

In 1553, heresy was a crime against the state. That was the universal opinion of all of Europe. Calvin prosecuted Servetus because as Chief Minister he was obligated to prosecute Servetus' offense as proscribed by the law of the time. In that sense, it was not murder. He was justly tried and punished according to law of the time. He was in fact guilty of the charge. There was nothing outrageous or unique about Servetus' punishment in 1553. In fact, Rome would have executed him if he hadn't escaped. Calvin did not arrest Servetus. Calvin did not execute Servetus. Calvin actually asked that Servetus be given a more lenient, less painful punishment, and tried to get Servetus to repent the night before he was burned.

Were the Magisterial Reformers wrong to connect the concept of religion and citizenship such that religious non-conformity represented treason and a threat to the state? Yes, they were. Should Servetus have been put to death because he denied the Trinity? No. Was the law by which Servetus was condemned therefore unjust? Yes, it was. But that is a judgment that is made in a much different world than 1553. There was no concept of religious freedom in 1553. Your complaint then isn't really with Calvin, but with the law whose violation he prosecuted. You accuse Calvin of having lived in 1553.

The Reformers rejected the errors of Rome. But they did not fully reject the errors of Rome - specifically they did not yet reject the centuries-long connection between state and church. The sword of the state placed in the hand of the church is a dangerous thing. It's asking much of people just emerging from Romanism to realize that in 1553.


9 December 2012 at 16:09  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...


And that is your answer to my question ...? OK is only of small matter in the scale religious intolerance and a footnote in a matter of historical record - even Stalin has his supporters and apologists.

The letters written to an fro by Calvin to Servetus and used against him in his (Calvin)role in drawing up the list of accusations. And didn't Calvin write or say at one time of the man

"and if I wished, he would himself come. But I am by no means inclined to be responsible for him; and if he come, I will never allow him, supposing my influence worth anything, to depart alive."

Admittedly, I have nothing more to go on than what I have casually read, but an interesting read non the less.

You have clearly attempted to mitigate Calvin who admittedly requested leniency only wanted to chop his head off instead of a nice slow roasting and credit to him for that. However, you steered away from the point at issue which is no skin off my nose anyway you want to dress it up.

9 December 2012 at 16:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cameron`s promise on not forcing Churches to conduct same sex marriages will be as much use as Cameron`s other 'cast iron ' promises.
Once a church refuses to conduct a same sex marriage the 'happy' couple 'will take the Church to the Human Rights tribunal and declare that they have been damaged by 'homophobic abuse'.

On the matter of the agenda of Secular Humanists it is ironic and potentially disastrous for Society as a whole that the marginalising of Christianity will be[is] the 'door' that swings open for far more radical religious elements.

9 December 2012 at 17:54  
Blogger Preacher said...

Anglican @ 15.53 summed it all up quite well I thought. But Brother I feel that you stopped a little short.
In a comparatively short time Cameron & all the rest of us will have met up with the 'Grim Reaper', then all the cards will be face up on the table & We will all know the truth.
The immoral majority, the true sons & daughters of God, the religious of all flavours, the philosophers, the scoffers etc ad infinitum. The saved will enter the eternal joy of Paradise, the rest will not. Is it God's fault? No! you decide your fate yourselves. I & the rest of us are just the guys who put up the warning signs. You decide whether to heed them or not. Ultimately the Law of God will decide your fate.

I often look at the photographs of past generations, the old sepia prints of the Edwardians & the last of the Victorians & wonder about their lives & hopes, successes & failures, some of the faces are so alive & real, as indeed these folks were when the photos were taken. But now they are all gone. How true the scripture that says we are like a mist, here for a time then gone.
Meditate my friends, look before you leap & think before you write.

9 December 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Do you remember the American soldier who was the source behind Wikileaks? There is no doubt in my mind regarding his guilt. Given the fact that American soldiers were in the field when he did what he did, I see only one appropriate punishment. He should be stood up against a wall and shot. That is the punishment for treason during time of war.

Well, in 1553 that was the attitude of the state towards religious non-conformity. It was treason and a threat to good civil order. So then did Calvin think that Servetus warranted death for his heresy? Yes he did. But then so did Rome. So did every other Canton in Switzerland. So did Melanchthon. The whole of Europe would have passed similar judgment. This is not historically deniable.

You can accuse Calvin of murder if you like. Accuse the whole of Europe for all the good it will do you. But its analogous to accusing the prosecutor of a traitor today because you don't think what the accused did should have been a crime. Your real complaint is that religious non-conformity should not have been considered treason. And you would be right in making that complaint. But what does that say that is unique about John Calvin? Nothing at all. He simply reflected the general attitude of the time regarding the proper relationship of church and state. He was just as much a creature of his times as we are today. We all have our traditions, and our uncorrected biases.

You see, I don't have to turn John Calvin into a plaster saint. I can let him own the evil that he did. I can let him be fallible and sinful without watching my whole world fall apart. I begin with the assumption that we each of us don't realize the extent to which we sin because of the assumptions and biases we hold. Men are by nature evil. Far more corrupt than we give ourselves credit for.


9 December 2012 at 19:38  
Blogger IanCad said...


This subject was addressed back in August.

I think it worth stating that the Presbyterian Church funded and erected in Geneva a monument to Michael Servetus.

"It was an act on the part of the Presbyterians to make amends, so far as possible, for a wrong the Presbyterians committed at a much ealier and darker day"
Quote from "Heralds of the Morning" by L.L. Galtwany.

If memory serves me right J.A. Wylie dwelt at length over the remorse that the Reformed churches still harboured so many years after the act.

As I mentioned previously this act of contrition over the execution of one man contrasts starkly with the record of Rome whose countless murders of those who deigned to oppose her will are nowhere memorialised in stone by the later generations of her adherents.

9 December 2012 at 20:22  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Dodo 19:56 8th Dec 2012
I would think that little fact of not being able to consummate the “marriage” wouldn't put a couple of church going catholic homosexuals or lesbians off if they wanted to have the Church “marry” them and in its premises. They would go through the stages of the procedure in this country then eventually end up in the European court of appeals where they will win.

We increasingly becoming ruled from Europe so Call me Dave's words are meaningless. He knows this really but he thinks it makes him look good to those who oppose the redefinition of marriage. I mean it might protect the Church for a while but mark my words there will be a test case before the year 2014 is out. You just need have a homosexual or lesbian couple similar to the types that took on the B&B.

9 December 2012 at 20:27  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 December 2012 at 20:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


Trust me, the Catholic Church would simply refuse to comply with any such 'ruling'. If a rogue 'priest' disobeyed the 'marriage' would not be

History shows Canon Law does not bend before secular authority.

9 December 2012 at 20:36  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Ian Cad
Did you actually read Carl's post? If you want a 'tit -for-tat' comparison of Catholic v's Protestant inspired killings I think you'll find the numbers pretty even.

9 December 2012 at 20:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Churches will be compelled to ‘marry’ gay people. All you need is ONE gay couple to go to the ECHR. And they will win. Cameron knows this. If he doesn’t then the Attorney General is failing in his job.

Fortunately, with the RCC, there will be a queue of priests willing to go to prison. But of course, the government of the day will do everything but turn over the ECHR judgement to stop any priest being jailed. Expect a few Absolute Discharge’s when the priests are brought before the courts...

9 December 2012 at 20:53  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

So in order to be equal the government will have to redefine the meaning of consummation too, or take it out altogether? They are starting on this with the erasing of the genders on public records and documents being replaced by parent one and two, etc. This is so wrong it goes against every grain of nature and common sense. The Church has to speak louder on the gay “marriage” issue.

Why do we have male and female? Why do we have differing qualities and attributes why are we made complimentary to one and other if not to cover a wider range of abilities and a better chance of survival.

9 December 2012 at 21:04  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 December 2012 at 21:08  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Well, in 1553 that was the attitude of the state towards religious non-conformity. It was treason and a threat to good civil order.

Ok, you want to shoot the messenger Bradley Wassisname - hmmm sounds a bit dubious to me, in fact its so very like the actions of the founder of your sect so I don't know why I was surprised.

I agree to some extent with your argument on societal relativism at least for the majority of the great unwashed, but why I wonder that as a man of God, Calvin did not verbally counter Servetus with the superior argument of Truth alone, of which you hold today to be infallible. Instead he chose to sneakily silence man's premier natural freedom - the freedom to think and express himself. No he chose to rid himself of his critic by delivering him to the Catholics to do the dirty work.

It sounds like he opted for the convenience of the foolish thinking of my enemy's enemy is my friend. No finer example here then of theocratic totalitarianism, not to mention the obvious parallel with the worst excesses of fascism Stalinism Maoism etc; but hey, that was then and this is now: Pah!

Men are by nature evil.

Speak for yourself CJ if it pleases you, but I disagree with your belief totally.

9 December 2012 at 21:24  
Blogger John Magee said...

Let's not forget the Reformed theologian Sebastian Castellio who clashed with John Calvin and his evil theocracy in Geneva and later when he was in exile in Basel. Castellio was a proponent of religious toleration and freedom of conscience and thought. These were not ideals that were close to the hearts of John Calvin and John Knox.

There is little or nothing to admire about Calvin's Geneva or John Knox's Ednburgh. These cities (and Scotland) were turned into places that resemble today's Iran or Saudi Arabia. Calvin's Geneva was policed by his morality police who stuck their noses into every detail in the lives of the citizens of Geneva. Dancing, music, gambling, plays,even wearing colorful cloths and laughing in public could get you reported by Calvin's elders, a group of twelve of ministers chosen from the members of the three councils, "to keep an eye on everybody" and have oversight of the life of everyone. People were whipped and thrown into jail and sometimes killed for the slightest infraction of Calvin's strict moral regulations. Meanwhile a few hundred miles south in Catholic Italy, inspired by the Church, great art and architecture were still be created at the end of the Renaissance. Calvin ordered all art burned.

There is little to admire about Calvin's Geneva in my opinion other than high education standards which weren't much diffrent form the great Catholic universities in Medieval Europe which were already hundred of years old when Calvin attended the University of Orleans and later the Collège de la Marche, in Paris, where he received an excellent education.

It was a great loss to the Reformation and to European Civilization that Servetus and Castellio were not able to lead the Reformed movement. They are moral hero's. Calvin and Knox were evil. Their folowers, the Puritans, were a nasty bunch too. Especially when the left England to set up their bigoted theocracies in New England. We are brainwashed today and told they were believers in freedom. It's all lies. They were religious fanatics of the worst kind.

May Calvin and Knox burn in hell along with all religious zealots.

9 December 2012 at 21:30  
Blogger John Magee said...


Absolutley correct. The intention is not Gay "marriage" itself. The left is using the concept to allow the state to unleash it's legal wrath upon churches for "discrimination". Traditional churches will be charged with "hate crimes" for refusing to "marry" Gays.

The clouds are gathering for a church state clash in Western countries when the first law suit is filed against a church for refusing to "marry" a gay couple in it's church.

History tells us that when the government attacks religion the state always win. At least in the beginning.

Can we atcually trust our governments based on examples from history? No we can not.

9 December 2012 at 21:40  
Blogger John Patrick said...

The Church of England statement includes an argument about potential "fruitfulness of procreation" defining marriage. It's not logical: the CofE allows people to marry who know for sure they will never have kids e.g. elderly people. We have two children, but I think the new Church statement devalues childless marriages.

I have blogged elsewhere about why marriage shouldn't be defined by reproductive potential. If the C of E wants to persuade people they should abandon that weak argument.

John McKeown

9 December 2012 at 21:45  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr John Patrick @ 21.45 says, 'the CofE allows people to marry who know for sure they will never have kids e.g. elderly people.'

So when one widowed grandparent marries another widowed grandparent, that's wrong from a procreational point of view?

Perhaps the CofE retains sufficient understanding of the human condition to recognise that children derive a great deal from active grandparents and that happily married grandparents are an additional bonus.

If the CofE's procreational arguments are 'weak', yours appear unimaginative and limited.

9 December 2012 at 22:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Not at all John Patrick, marriage is for procreation. When two old people get married, it’s not the same as it is for two younger types, and nobody minds one bit. But two young people of the same sex wanting to get married, that is a sick travesty...

9 December 2012 at 22:47  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9 December 2012 at 23:43  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Ok, you want to shoot the messenger Bradley Wassisname - hmmm sounds a bit dubious to me, in fact its so very like the actions of the founder of your sect so I don't know why I was surprised.

In the first place, Calvinism isn't a sect founded by Calvin. It is a theology. There are Calvinists who are Baptists, and Calvinists who are Presbyterians, and Calvinists who are Anglicans. There are even non-denominational Calvinists. It helps to understand the words you are using before you use them. In the second place, I never appeal to John Calvin as an authority. Search my posts to find one where I have done so. I don't need Calvin to establish my claims. I defend my position from the authority of Scripture. I call myself a Calvinist because there isn't a good alternative word for it in the English language. As for the rest, I shall write it off to the fact that you never served. Or perhaps you think there is never any justification for capital punishment. Either way. it's a separate argument. I stand by what I wrote. I take treason seriously - especially when it can get people killed.

I agree to some extent with your argument on societal relativism at least for the majority of the great unwashed, but why I wonder that as a man of God, Calvin did not verbally counter Servetus with the superior argument of Truth alone, of which you hold today to be infallible.

He did. But that isn't the point, is it? The issue here isn't the nature of Servetus' heresies. The issue is the relationship between church and state. About the later you will find nothing in Scripture. At all. Anywhere. Point it out to me if you disagree. So I can't make any infallible statements about the relationship between church and state. That's why I never do so. I can say that the faith should not be propagated with the sword. I can't say how the church should act in relation to the government.

Instead he chose to sneakily silence man's premier natural freedom - the freedom to think and express himself. No he chose to rid himself of his critic by delivering him to the Catholics to do the dirty work.

Calvin knew the identity of Servetus years before he was executed because Servetus kept writing to Calvin. Servetus wrote to Calvin under a pseudonym but Calvin knew who he was by his writings. Yet he didn't dime him out to the Catholics. A friend of Calvin's who was trying to convert a RC mentioned that a notorious heretic was working for a RC bishop. The RC in question reported it to the RCC. The RCC demanded proof. Calvin reluctantly provided documentation for the sake of his friend and because a legal proceeding was involved. He didn't 'sneakily' do anything.

No finer example here then of theocratic totalitarianism, not to mention the obvious parallel with the worst excesses of fascism Stalinism Maoism etc; but hey, that was then and this is now: Pah!

Well, no. Servetus was charged and convicted and punished under law. The worst excesses of Stalin and Mao had nothing to do with law. For the third time I will say it. Your complaint is against the law itself. You want to make some unique point about Calvin in this matter, but he was no different than the 'very much washed' around him. And that completely vitiates the point about today that you are really trying to make. So you just ignore the facts.


9 December 2012 at 23:49  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


You are too kind to me. My wife is less so. She agreed to consider your offer for an opening bid of $20 USD. I think I am worth a little bit more than that.

carl ;)

9 December 2012 at 23:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

John Patrick

Is that really what the Church of England is saying? If so, I agree it is a weak argument.

As I understand it, it's mot reproductive potential so much as the complementary nature of gender and God's design and plan for mankind. However, they can't go too far because the issue of homosexual relationships is still under debate!

For a sound Christiian exposition of these issues have a read of Humae Virtae.

9 December 2012 at 23:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


That post to Flossie is in bad taste. You, a married man, have offered to sell yourself to another woman and are now negotiating the rate.

Where is my pea-shooter and spud-gun?

10 December 2012 at 00:06  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

John Magee said ...

"May Calvin and Knox burn in hell along with all religious zealots."

Steady now; let's not wish Hell on anybody. I agreed with the rest of the post.

10 December 2012 at 00:13  
Blogger John Magee said...


You are right. I was too harsh. Maybe Calvin and Knox should spend 2 million years in purgatory.They'll be mixing with some intersting company there. Maybe you and me some day?

10 December 2012 at 01:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your Grace

The CofE seems to have adopted a morally and intellectually inconsistent position.
‘The proposition that same-sex relationships can embody crucial social virtues is not in dispute.’


‘To argue that this is of no social value is to assert that men and women are simply interchangeable individuals.’

Can the razor-sharp minds of the CofE explain what they mean by ‘crucial social virtues’?

As the CofE has adopted in principle the idea of women bishops and so erased the distinctions between men and women making them interchangeable; can my church now explain why it objects to the proposed erasure of the distinctiveness between men and women by the Conservative party?

Within these debates the CofE’s moral authority and intellectual credibility has collapsed.

And whilst I'm at it: given that the CofE approved of the 1967 Termination of Pregnancy Act, on what grounds does it oppose euthnasia?

10 December 2012 at 08:09  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...


I hapily confess you have enlightened me regarding Calvinism and its position as an adjunctive to wider group of Protestant Sects. However the record stands that Calvin and the other ‘men of God ’ were enthusiastic users of all manner of sadistic torture to secure their status and saw not much wrong in engaging in State sanctioned murder to dispose of dissenters for simply thinking differently and contesting their versions of ‘theocracy’: I use quote marks as they can’t all be right in claiming to be the only truth. Why anyone today would readily associate themselves with anything with such a dark heritage as organised religion, in whatever of its myriad forms or that they spend their lives worrying whether they are one of ‘the elected’ is, totally unrealistic and seems completely absurd to me.
Agreed and accepted that is was common practice under the law of the State, but the fact that it was a crime in law in the first place was due entirely to Religion’s invention of the crime of ‘heresy’ punishable by a hideous death. The same principle was indeed used by proponents of Stalinism, Maoism etc, which were in effect ‘the man-States’ and who also silenced dissent while acting ‘lawfully’ to protect ‘the State’ . The point deliberately missed by todays religionists (on this thread especially) in identifying by association, that atheism predicates a totalitarian forces for bad, whereas religion always requires to be recognised as a force for good. One only has to look at the tenets of Islam (always 500 years behind the curve) to recognise the insidious injustices still being perpetrated against humanity and wrapped up in a totalitarian fascist religious cloak we are expected to respect: Spit!.
Regarding my serving – I did serve, as did my father and grandfathers, albeit they were conscripted. I agree that it looks like your man did betray his obligations. Should he be shot as a traitor? – was the American public and the world being hoodwinked by the US government and military? If he is shot will he in time come to be seen as a martyr for Democracy by exposing uncomfortable truths? We are back at to the issue of what constitutes an act of murder and I don’t believe he is charged with that but would the State? anyway the jury isn't out yet – afaIaa.
For the record, I would say that there is occasionally, a case for which the only justice is capital punishment.

10 December 2012 at 11:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

John Mage

Have you not heard of 'Divine Mercy Sunday'? This, in combination with the Fatima promises, seems to offer a reasonable chance of a 'Get out of Pergatory' card, don't ya think?

10 December 2012 at 12:02  
Blogger Peter Simpson said...

@D.Sing 08:09. "Within these debates the CofE’s moral authority ... has collapsed".

Interesting comment. There can be no moral authority in a church apart from God's word. The CofE's position on ssm is NOT based on the Bible's teaching on the sinfulness of homosexuality.

Passages such as Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6 are most definitely not referred to in official Anglican statements.

10 December 2012 at 13:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


I knew it was there - the real polemic just waiting beneath the surface. It was never really about Servetus. He was just a convenient vehicle used to reach a desired destination. The facts are made to fit the desired narrative.

If you served in the military, then you should have no trouble understanding the logic. When someone decides to compromise large amounts of classified Gov't material, it becomes hard to recruit human intelligence sources. They understandably lose trust in the ability of the US Gov't to protect its secrets and thus their identity. Then a mission gets chopped up for lack of good intel. I don't care a damn what kind of martyr for democracy he thinks he is going to be. If he wants to be a martyr, I would certainly accommodate him. He was given a trust, and swore on oath to fulfill that trust. He betrayed that trust, and he has neither the knowledge nor the authority to weight the consequences of his actions.


10 December 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

10 December 2012 at 14:21  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

The salient facts were already there. It never was about Servetus it was about the behaviour of Calvin of whom I had prior to this, very little knowledge other than the founder of his own form of Protestantism.

Now I believe in addition to the aforementioned detail, he was also a vindictive, immoral egoist with blood on his holy hands.

10 December 2012 at 14:58  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Surely when talking about Christ- ianity the central figure should be the mainstay of the conversation.(Christ Himself and His teachings)

There are so many 'red herrings ' being dragged back and forth that this blog is taking on all the characteristics of a fishmongers shop!.

10 December 2012 at 19:37  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

An mp I forget his name, said today in the HoC gay “marriage” questions that it's all about choice. If so, wont that lead to homosexual and lesbians taking it all the way to the European Courts when the church of their choice chooses under uk law not to “marry” them? They will be quoting equality laws again. No amount of the Miller woman's reassurances of we must all have respect( the new buzz word, I lost count of the amount of times she used it) for the Church will cut it.

11 December 2012 at 00:06  
Blogger John Magee said...


I don't mind the idea of a few thousand years in purgatory. It's sort of like temporarily staying at a cheap motel waiting for a luxury suite at a five star hotel, heaven, to accept me after my credit and debts are paid and cleared from the books. All I ask is that purgatory has cable TV.

Of course it may turn out I have a surprise one way ticket to the other place..

As for Fatima I believe those events really happened from May to October 1917. Too much was involved with Mary's predicting historical events that really came true, such as the upcoming Russian Revolution, just as Mary said it would and the miracle of the sun seen for up to 50 miles was too fantastic to have been staged at a time when planes were still primitive. All this ends exactly when the Russian Revolution was getting started.

Then there are the prophesies that all came true...

Isn't it odd Mary chose a small village in Portugal to appear to three peasant children that got it's name from the only daughter of Mohammed named Fatima? Some Muslims claim he had four daughters. In either case one was named Fatima.

Could it be possible that Islam is part of the real 3rd secret of Fatima and the Church fears telling us? That's always been my suspicion.

11 December 2012 at 01:38  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

@ carl jacobs

>>>>The Reformers rejected the errors of Rome. But they did not fully reject the errors of Rome - specifically they did not yet reject the centuries-long connection between state and church. The sword of the state placed in the hand of the church is a dangerous thing. It's asking much of people just emerging from Romanism to realize that in 1553. <<

brilliant observation. If as seems likely we get gay 'marriage' rammed up our collective jacksie, this might be a good time to put the 'this is a Christian country!' thing to rest and recognise that those of us who name Jesus as Lord are sojourners in a strange land. Persecution, not church/state partnership rule, is the normative Christianity of the New Testament.

Britain is in fact a pagan country and has been since at least 1967. Over 7 million human sacrifices have been offered to Moloch and Priapus since then. Recognising this might be helpful in pulling the false comfort blanket off a lot of people.

If SSM becomes law, I think I may start campaigning for disestablishment. Long live the undergound church!

11 December 2012 at 16:41  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

11 December 2012 at 20:36  
Blogger John Magee said...

Steve Appleseed

The Reformers rejected the central authority of Rome and what did they immediately turn around and do? Most of the them created national churches or even city churches in the case of Calvin's Geneva.

Nothing really changed.

Today I smile and sometimes want to laugh or maybe even cry when I read stuff the pope says or European "Christian" monarch's (Protestant ones) too when they talk about protecting religious freedoms today when I think about the brutality they championed against other Christians in this area only a few centuries ago.

15 December 2012 at 04:23  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

15 December 2012 at 05:04  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

IF Christians could united behind Christ(rather than their denominations ..and yes Catholicism IS a denomination) then the' denomination thing 'would be irrelevant?.

Paul encountered this very same [very human] problem 'For when one says, "I follow Paul," and another, "I follow Apollos," are you not mere men?'(1 Corinthians 3:4)

16 December 2012 at 10:04  
Blogger StevieD said...

To understand this matter, we have to look at FACTS about this disorder and I recommend that you do, they are frightening and shocking:

17 December 2012 at 00:13  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older