Friday, May 31, 2013

Bishop of Salisbury accuses Archbishop of York of supporting slavery and apartheid


This is what the Archbishop of York said about same-sex marriage last year:
We must not torture the English language. Marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman and that's marriage. We supported Civil Partnerships [the bishops in the House of Lords], because we believe that friendships are good for everybody. But then to turn Civil Partnerships into marriage, that's not the role of government to create institutions that are not of its gifting. I don't think it is the role of the state to define what marriage is. It is set in tradition and history and you can't just [change it] overnight, no matter how powerful you are. We've seen dictators do it, by the way, in different contexts and I don't want to redefine what I call very clear social structures that have been in existence for a long time and then overnight the state believes it could go in a particular way.
This is what the Bishop of Salisbury responds to all who hold such views:
Whilst marriage is robust and enduring, what is meant by marriage has developed and changed significantly. For example, the widespread availability of contraception from the mid-twentieth century onwards took several decades to gain acceptance for married couples by the Lambeth Conference in 1958. The newer forms of the Church of England’s marriage service have since recognised that the couple may have children. Over the last fifty years the Church of England has come to accept that marriages intended to be lifelong can break down and that on occasion marriage after divorce can be celebrated in the context of Church. It is also the case that most couples now live together before they marry. This happens without censure from the Church which continues to conduct these marriages joyfully even though the Church’s teaching is that sexual relationships are properly confined to marriage.

The desire for the public acknowledgement and support of stable, faithful, adult, loving same sex sexual relationships is not addressed by the six Biblical passages about homosexuality which are concerned with sexual immorality, promiscuity, idolatry, exploitation and abuse. The theological debate is properly located in the Biblical accounts of marriage, which is why so many Christians see marriage as essentially heterosexual. However, Christian morality comes from the mix of Bible, Christian tradition and our reasoned experience. Sometimes Christians have had to rethink the priorities of the Gospel in the light of experience. For example, before Wilberforce, Christians saw slavery as Biblical and part of the God-given ordering of creation. Similarly in South Africa the Dutch Reformed Church supported Apartheid because it was Biblical and part of the God-given order of creation. No one now supports either slavery or Apartheid. The Biblical texts have not changed; our interpretation has.

The pace of change with regard to same sex relations has been considerable. The Wolfenden report (1957) and Sexual Offences Act (1967) decriminalised homosexual acts in private between men aged over 21 years in England and Wales. This received cautious support from the Church of England at the time. The changes they introduced are now unchallenged and wholly welcomed.

At the co-educational North London Grammar School I attended from 1965-72, there were 2 effeminate gay lads in my year who were no threat to the rest of us but who were regularly beaten up just for being different. At times school for them must have been a brutal experience. What they went through was unkind and unjust but I don’t remember a teacher intervening on their behalf. I am thankful things have changed and we now have a greater sense of equality and fairness. In the current debates it is striking that within the Anglican Communion one of the strongest supporters of same sex marriage is Archbishop Desmond Tutu. From his experience of the racism of Apartheid he sees same sex marriage as primarily a matter of justice.

When the proposal for civil partnerships was debated in 2004 the Church of England was largely hostile. I am grateful that in the Archbishops’ opposition to equal marriage they have expressed their support for civil partnerships and I hope this will help the Church of England towards affirming these relationships liturgically. Like the Archbishops now, I used to think that it was helpful to distinguish between same sex civil partnerships and heterosexual marriage. Many in the churches think the commonly used description of civil partnerships as ‘gay marriage’ is a category error. However, the relationships I know in civil partnerships seem to be either of the same nature as some marriages or so similar as to be indistinguishable. Indeed, the legal protection and public proclamation which civil partnership has afforded gay relationships appears to have strengthened their likeness to marriage in terms of increasing commitment to working on the relationship itself, to contributing to the wellbeing of both families of origin, and to acting as responsible and open members of society. Open recognition and public support have increased in civil partnerships those very qualities of life for which marriage itself is so highly celebrated. It is not surprising this now needs recognition in law.

The possibility of ‘gay marriage’ does not detract from heterosexual marriage unless we think that homosexuality is a choice rather than the given identity of a minority of people. Indeed the development of marriage for same sex couples is a very strong endorsement of the institution of marriage. The ‘quadruple locks’ contained in the Bill provide extraordinarily robust protection for those religious bodies, including the Church of England, unwilling or unable to conduct same sex marriage without accusation of being homophobic.
His Grace cannot be bothered to compile yet another rebuttal to this sort of sloppy eisegesis. Suffice to say that for a bishop to accuse his fellow bishops of being blinded by the same ethical worldview as that which historically persuaded Christians to support slavery and apartheid is a disgraceful and disreputable slur. There is a biblical argument and thoughtful theological perspective that could be adduced for same-sex relationships, but this is not it.

Indeed, if the Bishop of Salisbury is of the view that marriage is simply a matter of 'stable, faithful, adult, loving' relationships, could he please explain what he has against those amongst us who agitate for polyamory?

177 Comments:

Blogger Gary said...

The Bishop of Salisbury should be severely rebuked by the church for his vile and evil comments(as Titus 1 makes perfectly clear). His views on homosexuality are anti-Christ (as Romans 1 makes perfectly clear).

31 May 2013 at 10:18  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

I personally believe that the idea of marriage long predates christianity and that what we take as the meaning of the word today is a restriction that has been imposed upon it by the adherents of that religion.

31 May 2013 at 10:19  
Blogger Third Umpire said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 May 2013 at 10:24  
Blogger Third Umpire said...

The Bishop isn't "accusing Sentamu of supporting slavery and apartheid". That's ridiculous.

What he's saying is that Christians' interpretation of Bible passages has changed over time. Examples include how some Christians interpreted the passages on slavery and apartheid.

31 May 2013 at 10:25  
Blogger Simon said...

Your Grace is being very unfair. The Bishop of Salisbury says in so many words that "No one now supports either slavery or Apartheid." Presumably that includes the Archbishop of York.

+Salisbury is using slavery as a historical example of how readings of scripture change, not as a theological argument to accuse anyone.

+Salisbury's substantive argument is from justice, and whilst I agree there is more biblical and theological substance to be added, wilful misunderstanding does not help anyone.

31 May 2013 at 10:26  
Blogger Gary said...

To Mark in Mayenne.

The very word of God trumps what you "personally believe".

31 May 2013 at 10:28  
Blogger Paul Huxley said...

'However, Christian morality comes from the mix of Bible, Christian tradition and our reasoned experience'

He could have just left it there. His 'reasoned experience' will always trump what the Bible actually says (in his own mind).

31 May 2013 at 10:33  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Let's nip this 'wilful misunderstanding' in the bud.

The headline has taken a latitudinal historical perspective. It is plainly absurd, and designed to be, for the Archbishop of York is a well-known critic of racial evil.

The Bishop of Salisbury is most definitely saying that in past ages John Sentamu and Christians like him who oppose same-sex marriage on biblical grounds would have supported slavery and apartheid; that they are somehow blinded by a prejudicial adherence to anti-Christian dogma. Ergo the Bishop of Salisbury is attacking the Archbishop's understanding of theology and his spirituality.

31 May 2013 at 10:37  
Blogger Albert said...

Thank you Dr C for this excellent post (and for rebutting the sillier responses). Sarum's comments are not just wrong, they are offensive and unintelligent. He should be made to apologise - after all, if a conservative made a similarly stupid and offensive comment in reverse, he would be expected to apologise.

I am sure that Sarum will not be made to apologise. This is the level of debate these days. Rhetorical attacks of an abusive nature are allowed in only one direction - it's a move you have to make when you have the power, but not the arguments.

31 May 2013 at 10:41  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

I believe that the HoL vote on same sex marriage is now set for Tuesday 4.6.13. I pray that it is defeated.

31 May 2013 at 10:46  
Blogger Gary said...

To Albert.

If the powers that be in the church do not rebuke the bishop for his vile remarks then the very word of God condemns them.

31 May 2013 at 10:49  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

To Gary: Your reply encapsulates the problem in a nutshell.

31 May 2013 at 10:51  
Blogger Gary said...

To Mark.

Actually, the problem stems from godless men pretending to be something they are not.

31 May 2013 at 11:09  
Blogger Albert said...

Gary,

Quite!

Mark in Mayenne,

I personally believe that the idea of marriage long predates christianity and that what we take as the meaning of the word today is a restriction that has been imposed upon it by the adherents of that religion.

Indeed, Christianity has ensured marriage be between one man and one woman. Is that something you object to? How does that shed light on the gay 'marriage' debate?

31 May 2013 at 11:21  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Why is it if you oppose anything nowadays that used to be orthodox, you are a bigot? And now it seems a slave driver and an aparteid racist to boot? I really which people could not invoke such emotive language on these issues.

31 May 2013 at 11:28  
Blogger Preacher said...

How do weak Liberals ascend to the position of Bishop?.
Eradicate all the excuses & reasoning & the errors are clear. The Bishop of Salisbury is attempting to appear modern & liberal but the reasoning he uses is not supported by the words of the Bible that he is paid to preach.
Simply put, if you don't agree with the law, don't join the police force.

Homosexual activity is no longer an offence under British law as it once was, & homosexuals have the legal right of Civil Partnerships. Fair enough. But in the eyes of the Almighty it remains a sin & those that commit sin are accountable to Him.
It's irrelevant what politicians or individuals think. All Sin of any type will be judged by God, the only one who is totally just & the result of His judgement is permanent.

No man who is entrusted to hold a position of authority in the Church of Jesus Christ, has the right to overrule the word of God.Because in doing so he is ultimately questioning & repudiating the laws of the one he purports to serve.
Not only that, he is himself guilty of setting himself above God & in failing to fulfil his duty to tell men to repent of their sins, & even condoning them in those sins, he is partly responsible for their fate.

Advice: Bishop, get another job, you are unsuitable for the current one.

31 May 2013 at 11:28  
Blogger Masrek Rollin said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 May 2013 at 11:35  
Blogger Nick said...

The comparisons with slavery and apartheid are ridiculous. Both were imposed through force on unwilling victims. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Nobody forces them into it

The Bishop seems to say that homosexuality is only a sin in the context of "sexual immorality" such as unfaithfulness. My understanding of the Scriptures is that homosexuality is a sin per se, regardless of context.

I would also suggest that the comparison is an insult to the many who have been and still are victims of slavery and apsrtheid. To compare their suffering to the whinging of the gay activists suggests the bishop has lost touch with what suffering really is.

31 May 2013 at 11:39  
Blogger The Explorer said...

I'm not clear if the Bishop Salisbury is saying that the perception of truth changes over time, or that actual truth changes over time.

(I'm not sure that makes sense, even to me: hopefully someone else can tease it out and define it better.)

I'll try an example to clarify. The Voortrekkers saw themselves as a covenant people. Were they right then, and wrong now?

My view is that they were wrong then and now, and any justification was based on a wilful misreading. There was only ever one covenant nation, and the reason for that covenant has now been fulfilled.

I have no particular gripe with the Vootrekekrs, by the way, who seem to have been a brave and intrepid people. I do not agree with Americans who see themselves as blessed in a special covenant with God.

Aplologies, again, for such a confused post.

31 May 2013 at 11:42  
Blogger Nick said...

Indeed, just as slavery and aprtheid were a degenerate interpretations of Scripture, so are the bishops attempts to find Biblical jstification for SSM

31 May 2013 at 11:46  
Blogger Flossie said...

You know what? Even atheists are laughing at this bloke. Reading through some of the comments attached to the DT and the DM's items on this story, what they are saying, in a nutshell, is 'if you don't believe what your Bible tells you, why should anyone else?'

He is drawing his stipend under false pretences. How did anyone with such a poor grasp of theology get to be a bishop?

31 May 2013 at 11:53  
Blogger Flossie said...

PS to above - I refer, of course, to the Bishop of Salisbury, not to our gracious host on this site!!

31 May 2013 at 11:54  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 May 2013 at 11:56  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 May 2013 at 11:58  
Blogger Albert said...

Nick,

The comparisons with slavery and apartheid are ridiculous. Both were imposed through force on unwilling victims. Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Nobody forces them into it

Yes. Homosexual acts are always condemned in scripture, when mentioned, while the only kind of sexual behaviour that it commended to us is heterosexual marriage. Homosexual acts have always been consistently condemned by the Church. In contrast, you cannot seriously defend Apartheid from scripture, and attempts to do so, are immediately recognised as special pleading. With few exceptions Christians have always stood against such things, not least because the whole of the NT makes it unChristian. Slavery was a generally accepted institution in the ancient world (like homosexuality), and biblical references to it overwhelmingly are aimed at limiting its harmful effects as no one at the time would have known how to abolish it. There is nothing in scripture that could possibly defend the kind of slave-trade we think of as slavery. Contrary to public perception, Christians have worked long and hard to fight the injustices arising from slavery. It virtually disappeared from Christian Europe, and as it began to reappear it was condemned by the popes. Even though this teaching was sometimes weaker than one would like, and not clearly adhered to, it is absurd to imagine that the Church had a consistent pro-slavery stance to match it's consistent anti-homosexual acts stance.

In both cases therefore, Christians twisted scripture to make it support what their culture and desire wanted. So who is closer to the slave trade and Apartheid?

31 May 2013 at 12:03  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 May 2013 at 12:10  
Blogger Irene's Daughter said...

The Bishop of Salisbury uses the word 'think' quite a lot. Thinking is about walking by sight and not by faith. This is not a matter of theological debate - it is a battle for the eternal destination of men and women for whom Jesus died. (Homosexuals are included - but repentance is required!)

Consider these words from the apostle Paul. 'Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were (including Homosexuals!). But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God ' (NIV) (Clearly the Holy Spirit can bring homosexuals to repentance!)

Why is the Church in Britain denying these men and women the opportunity to be 'washed, sanctified and justified' so that they may enter into an eternity in the presence of Almighty God Himself?

When the house of Bishops and clergy as a whole start thinking about the eternal and not just the temporal, perhaps they will see things differently. Pray that they will.

31 May 2013 at 12:15  
Blogger Flossie said...

Very flattering, Julia, but count me out - I am opposed!! Bigtime!!

I wonder if people realise that only TWO of our bishops are detailed to speak in the upcoming debate in the Lords. Many are not even planning to be there. This is the most important issue they will ever get the chance to vote on.

Can somebody remind me what bishops are for, exactly?

Christian Concern are encouraging people to ring or email the bishops to give them a bit of a prod. The contact details can be found here:

http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/05/30/action-alert-please-call-the-bishops-3/

31 May 2013 at 12:20  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Irene's daughter, i think mr inspector general is already the unofficial apostle to the gay community. Not sure if his evangelical activities are reaping any reward, but i am sure mr inspector is the right guy and that he will keep up his missionary position...

31 May 2013 at 12:36  
Blogger bradypus said...

ogf course the Bishop of Salisbury doesn't really exist any more than John Robinson (+Woolwich) and David jenkins (+Durham) existed they are just ideas in the mind of God!

31 May 2013 at 12:37  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
It is important that we are kept informed as to the ill advised views of the likes of Salisbury. The issue he needs to consider is that he is supporting slavery himself. The slaves to sin that he wishes to see married.

31 May 2013 at 12:49  
Blogger David Hussell said...

As a Anglican who puts considerable emphasis on the Bible as well as Traditions, I would like to distance myself from the errant nonsense flowing from the Bishop of Salisbury. Even applying the Liberals faourite tool, Reason, which undoubtedly does have its uses, he scores badly.
I support the main thrust of the traditional view of marriage and human sexuality.

31 May 2013 at 13:19  
Blogger The Explorer said...

I am trying to pin down the mindset behind the Bishop's thinking. (Mind you, to wrestle with Postmodernism is like trying to get hold of a jellyfish.)

The ancient Norse noticed the dew. They thought it was the world weeping for the death of Baldur. Beautiful thought, 'true' even, by the knowledge of the time. But now we have moved on. On that basis, the Bishop is right.

Or is he, rather, like someone who says, "In the past, they thought the Battle of Trafalgar was in 1805. But now we have moved on." Pick a date, anyone?

It's the difference bedtween human invention and divine revelation. I know which side I'm on. I'm not sure about the Bishop.

31 May 2013 at 13:38  
Blogger Albert said...

Is there any value in people writing to the Archbishop of Canterbury about this? It seems to me that liberals advance their cause, not be reasoned argument but by being offensive. Surely, the AoC should get the message that this is unacceptable to members of the CofE and her ecumenical partners?

31 May 2013 at 13:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

A couple of points.

1. The Good bishop's apologetic is not meant to persuade but to bludgeon into silence. He is attempting to delegitimize his opposition in the public square; to make it impossible for them to speak. The argument over homosexuality is in fact a conflict of competing delegitimizations. Each side begins with presuppositions that render the opposing side immoral. So the conflict must reduce to a war of annihilation. There is no possibility of principled disagreement.

2. The conflict over race is not a good model for the conflict over homosexuality. Racist attitudes ultimately cut across the grain of Scripture, and that is why they were unsustainable. On the other hand, the sinfulness of homosexuality cuts with the grain of Scripture. The bishop's problem is that people can read. They aren't going to be fooled by this kind of argument. The best he can hope for is that some will seize it in order to avoid the consequences of standing against the flow of culture. The rest will not be convicted but will instead become more firmly set in their position. This is only going to polarize and marginalize. It won't lesson the conflict. It will magnify the conflict.

3. At some point, believers in the CoE must ask themselves "Why are we giving money to pay his salary?" This bishop doesn't care about the opinion of anyone on this site. You can write him letters. He will have his staff respond with a form reply. You can ask him questions in a public setting. He will answer you with patronizing condescension. But if the bishop wakes up one morning and discovers a significant drop in his cash flow, then he will take notice. He needs that money.

Stop feeding the beast. Stop giving money to support bishops and priests that believe and teach and advocate such things. Let them live off the 35 people who post at Thinking Anglicans. Let them beg of the Liberal coffers for sustenance. A long line of unemployed liberal bishops and liberal priests would do more good than a thousand resolutions in General Synod.

carl

31 May 2013 at 13:51  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

To Albert. Yes, the redefinition of marriage by the christian religion from being two people living together, to being one man and one woman living together is what I object to.

The christians have redefined marriage to be how they like it and now claim that no-one can call anything else a marriage.

Ive got no problem with people belonging to homophobic religions if they want to, and I recognise that there is a constitional issue regarding a state religion that clashes with a more liberal populace, but I do wish that christians would stop trying to impose their definition of marriage on everyone else.

31 May 2013 at 14:10  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Polygamy is still very common in many societies.In Thailand a lot of men have more than one wife.By law a man can have only wife but some continue to have minor wives or mianoys as they are called.
I was wished a Happy New Mia one January 1st by one of my wife's friends.

31 May 2013 at 14:16  
Blogger Jane McQueen said...

The whole "the bible say's it is wrong" argument is a very lazy and inherently flawed one at best. Because the bible also says wearing mixed fiver clothing is wrong, yet everyone still does it. It says eating selfish is wrong, but people still do. It demands you kill your child if they disobey you or disrespect you, yet no one with any sense would do this as you would end up in prison for it.


So considering that Christians ignore 99% of what is said in the likes of Leviticus why do you still grasp on to the whole homosexuality is wrong bit? You have done away with the rest of it, why not do away with this bit?


Though i suspect you don't want to do away with it because a lot of you find the idea of two men having sex a tad repulsive.


Now either start practising what you preach and fully follow the bible to the letter or stop being hypocritical fools and picking and choosing what you want to follow to support your world views.

31 May 2013 at 14:20  
Blogger Martin said...

Your Grace

Surely Sarum is advocating eisegesis, at least for himself.

31 May 2013 at 14:21  
Blogger Manfarang said...

one wife- ah this macular degeneration!

31 May 2013 at 14:25  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Jane
Eating shellfish is wrong. Its very bad for the liver.

31 May 2013 at 14:28  
Blogger Nick said...

Mark in Mayenne

"I do wish that christians would stop trying to impose their definition of marriage on everyone else"

We are not trying to impose anything. It is the gay minority who want to redefine OUR marriages. Gays have had civil partnerships. Nobody complained about that. What gays want isn't marriage (why would they want something they consider homophobic?), they want the majority to change to please a minority. That is the opposite of democracy.

31 May 2013 at 14:47  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Dredging my memory, I recall the case of one Gonville Aubie Ffrench-Beytagh (I remember it because of the name) something to do with the C of E and arrested somewher in South Africa for outspoken comments about Apartheid.

One of his prison guards tried to make him see the error of his views by making the case against mixed-race marriage: Leviticus 18:23.

There may have been a demographic survival case for Apartheid, as I have argued elsewhere. But if that's an example of the biblical argument, please!

31 May 2013 at 14:48  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

the relationships I know in civil partnerships seem to be either of the same nature as some marriages or so similar as to be indistinguishable

For the life of me, I can’t fathom what the bishop means. By ‘some marriages’ that are of the same nature as civil partnerships, is he talking about marriages that have not been, or cannot be, consummated? To argue in favour of same sex marriage because some traditional marriages are unconsummated is a leap of logic that passeth all understanding.

And I’ve tried to follow the bishop’s reasoning in presenting ‘of the same nature’ and ‘so similar as to be indistinguishable’ as distinct alternatives but have to admit defeat. I just don’t know what he’s on about.

31 May 2013 at 14:49  
Blogger Albert said...

Jane McQueen,

The kind of argument you are advancing only looks plausible because we live in an age of religious illiteracy.

The OT is provisional, the NT is clear about that. We Christians do not have to be circumcised, for example, despite the plain commandment in the OT to do so. On the other hand, we are still expected to keep commandments like "Thou shalt not commit adultery" or "Thous shalt do no murder."

I can explain which OT laws remain in force and which do not, if you like, but for the sake of argument, let us agree that Christians do not have to keep any OT laws (this isn't the case, but it will serve to answer your argument). Well there's still plenty in the NT which makes it clear that same-sex acts are wrong. So your argument fails.

31 May 2013 at 14:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Mark,

Yes, the redefinition of marriage by the christian religion from being two people living together, to being one man and one woman living together is what I object to.

Well, I'm slightly surprised that you object to the reduction of marriage to one man and one woman. But I cannot see how you get from that objection to gay 'marriage'. Take out the Christian influence, and still just have marriage between men and women.

31 May 2013 at 14:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

It was said that before battle, one or two men would lose their nerve. Their comrades would grab them as they ran, hold them, and give them a good right hand to bring them to their senses.

Stand firm CoE bishops. +Salisbury has cracked under the strain and justified himself by searching along the edges of reason. But the rest of you - keep the line. We who value standards in our lives all depend on you for that. SSM will only lead to a gaying of society. Even as you read this, militant homosexuals are planning their next move, having assumed SSM is in the bag. Their campaign will go on. It will never end. They want to be in the vanguard, they think they belong there. They don’t and won’t do second best. Not any more, of that you can be assured…



31 May 2013 at 15:13  
Blogger Peter D said...

I agree with Carl. Leave the liberal 'clerics', withdraw support from them and go elsewhere. Attending their services and giving them money is endorsing their views.

This statement by the 'bishop' is an abbreviated account of the Church of England's steady departure from long held Christian truths about the proper relationship between men and women.

Contraception - accepted; divorce and remarriage - accepted; living together outside of marriage - accepted; homosexual civil partnerships - accepted; homosexual 'marriage' - accepted.

The only 'development' in 'interpretation' he's ommitted is the acceptance of abortion. I suspect he supports that too.

He says: "Christian morality comes from the mix of Bible, Christian tradition and our reasoned experience."

Indeed!

And the Bible and tradition, as well as the use of reason and experience, all points away from accepting this the sexual immorality he's peddling.

31 May 2013 at 15:37  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Explorer
There are quite a few Coloureds so someone wasn't being so strict.

31 May 2013 at 15:37  
Blogger Albert said...

Yes, Peter. I thought the reference to contraception, how this changed the meaning of marriage and leads to his justification of this change was interesting.

Those who have ears to hear...

31 May 2013 at 15:52  
Blogger Albert said...

Peter,

Of course, when he appeals to reason, it isn't reason as the Christian tradition has understood it.

31 May 2013 at 15:52  
Blogger John Wrake said...

We can trace this problem, like so many others, to the philosophy of so-called sexual freedom which gained ascendancy in the 1960s, to the rise of relativism, which claimed that all opinions are of equal value and which has been assiduously supported by socialists and so-called liberals and the resulting denigration of discipline and self-discipline in both society and the Christian Church in this country.

Because Christian clergy have been found guilty of sexual crimes, the fact is trumpeted in the media, which reflects the obsession with sex which marks our society at present. The Church hierarchy are quick to confess their sadness at such behaviour and claim, like others in positions of power that
'lessons have been learned'.

Would that the same hierarchy would be as assiduous in rooting out the false teaching and heresy which some members of that same hierarchy and lesser clergy continue to propagate.

Currently, it is fashionable to apologise for the faults of others, for that entails no moral imperative on the apologist. A call to repentance has no force if it does not proceed from the repentant.

John Wrake

31 May 2013 at 16:04  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 May 2013 at 16:20  
Blogger Mark In Mayenne said...

Hi Albert, perhaps the problem here is that we use the same word "marriage" for a state - approved standard contract between people who want to live together, and a religious celebration of this same situation.

There is no reason why gay couples should be denied the same contractual rights as heterosexual ones. If your religion prescribes this, then I guess it's your right to excommunicate them. That would be one of the reasons I don't do religion.

31 May 2013 at 16:20  
Blogger Gary said...

To Jane McQueen.

Instead of dubbing Christians "lazy", might I suggest that you do some reading up yourself on basic Biblical Theology. Vaughan Roberts' slim volume called The Big Picture is a good place to start, then progress to the Graham Goldsworthy trilogy, before getting stuck into the masterful Geerhardus Vos.

31 May 2013 at 16:20  
Blogger Preacher said...

The Bishop of Salisbury is entitled to his own opinions & views. The problem is that when those views & opinions conflict with his calling, he must examine himself & decide if it is right to continue in his job, bear in mind that he is responsible for the eternal destiny of many.
The responsibility of holding the office of Bishop is enormous & not to be taken lightly, rather like being asked to captain a modern Super Liner.
Let us be clear, no one has to be a Christian, or embrace any other form of belief, but they Are entitled to hear what the basic requirements of any faith demand & what results from their choice.
This is what is required of any Bishop or religious leader to all serious enquirers.
If a man is not able for any reason to perform this task with truth, honesty & compassion then he is in the wrong job.
To criticise another who is being faithful in fulfilling the task is not only wrong but also divisive.
In light of this, I only hope & pray that the Bishop of Salisbury either recants, resigns or has many sleepless nights over those he has deceived.

31 May 2013 at 16:21  
Blogger Gary said...

Correction to my post to Jane McQueen:

Vaughan Roberts' book is actually called God's Big Picture. My apologies.

31 May 2013 at 16:24  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Jane mcqueen, im not sure what is weak about coming to an issue from a set of views based on a religion? Nor am i quite sure why you say religious believers should all become cranks and loons because u say so.

31 May 2013 at 16:26  
Blogger Nick said...

OIG

As you say, the bishop is one of those losing their nerve. Political correctness is a strange thing. It has bewildering power over many of us. It not only stops us saying what we know to be true, but decieves us and deludes us into believing what is blatantly untrue. It is a typical idol in that sense.

just as the gays in the orgy you observed are ever-increasingly consumed by their own unsatisfiable desire, so will Political Correctness dig its heels in as it begins it downward slide to obscurity. All this loss of nerve is to be expected and will seperate the chaff from the wheat

31 May 2013 at 16:32  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Mark in Mayenne

A marriage is not "a state - approved standard contract between people who want to live together." It is a social institution designed to create a stable environment for procreating and raising children. It ties fathers to their children and captures their labor for the benefit of their family. In fact the very word "Matrimony" means to "make mothers out of virgins."

Now, I realize that the Intellectual Left has been trying to destroy marriage for 300 years because it is such an inherently conservative institution. But there is a reason that every civilization in the history of man has been founded upon it. It is the only institution that successfully performs the function for which it is intended - raising the next generation.

carl

31 May 2013 at 16:35  
Blogger John Thomas said...

"Christian morality comes from the mix of Bible, Christian tradition and our reasoned experience" - for "liberals" "Christian morality" really comes, more often than not, from the currently-powerful secular materialist culture - and involves the idea that the God lied to us from the beginning and the Holy Spirit has been deceiving us all along.

31 May 2013 at 16:37  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Manfarang

Good one!

Mind you, they tend to be Malay, and the Cape Coloureds were around long before the Apartheid era.

But I take your point aboutt the hypocrisy.

regards

31 May 2013 at 16:46  
Blogger richardhj said...


I have read two articles that very clearly refer to significant bullying by the "gay marriage" lobby. One on a Catholic website, the other on a secular site.
Indeed my boss at work has been subject to bullying in his (Anglican) church over the subject. Amongst other things his wife was told that he was "racist" for not agreeing with it.
Is the Bishop of Salisbury a bully, or has he been bullied?

http://www.spiked-online.com/site/article/13518/
http://www.humanumreview.com/articles/view/editorial-same-sex-unions-and-marriagehttp://www.humanumreview.com/articles/view/editorial-same-sex-unions-and-marriage

31 May 2013 at 17:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Nick. One has in the past tried to work out the actual mix of ingredients that concludes in needing to be PC. Guilt plays a big part in it, and so does personal achievement in as much as there are others who will never, can never, reach your level. So does sympathy for the lesser type. Those that haven’t got it together and need a helping hand. Altruism, to a degree. Pity as well. Accommodation of your neighbours. Embarrassment even.

Anyway, just this mans ramblings, but there is formula involved, that’s for sure...


31 May 2013 at 18:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nick: "We are not trying to impose anything. It is the gay minority who want to redefine OUR marriages."

As a member of society and a taxpayer, the institution of marriage belongs to me too so I have a say in who it includes.

31 May 2013 at 18:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nick: "Homosexuality is a lifestyle choice. Nobody forces them into it"

As is heterosexuality, of course. Well, in as much as one may have a heterosexual lifestyle of abstinence anyway. For me, being heterosexual implies a sex life in the normal way of things. As does homosexuality.

31 May 2013 at 18:09  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Inspector.
You may be on to something with your pondering, regarding a formula for understanding what leads a person towards a PC approach to every question under the sun. If we knew the "formula" it would be enormously useful. You are on the right track I think with your suggestions so far, but ideally it would be well, a true formula, a quantified one. My instinct, for what it's worth, is that there is undoubtedly an element of follow the herd, or fashion about it, which can morph into bullying of course, as noted by richardj. Guilt, feelings of pity or compassion for those who are different, play an enormous part. It's about the heart ignoring the head, ignoring the clear evidence, reasoning based approach, as well as the total belief in this "trajectory of destiny, ever upwards for humanity", socialist doctrine, as I regard it. There's also a bit of the consumerism modernity thing thrown in too. That's probably a bit disconnected, but then we are thinking out aloud.

31 May 2013 at 18:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. As a member of society and a taxpayer, the institution of marriage belongs to me too so I have a say in who it includes

Not so that man. There are some things not for sale. Whatever made you think this was not the case...

31 May 2013 at 18:37  
Blogger Albert said...

Mark in Mayenne,

Thank you for your reply. Personally, I think if homosexual couples wish to live together, then I have no right to stop them, neither do I have a right unjustly to discriminate against them. If they wish to have some kind of wedding ceremony I have no right to stop that. If other people wish to regard them as such and call them husband and husband and give to them the rights and benefits of marriage, I freely defend that right.

But what cannot reasonably happen is that I should be required to recognise that and act in such ways. This is not simply a matter of religious freedom, but, as Carl as said, it is because of the nature of marriage as being the bond which unites heterosexual couples to provide stability in the event of their producing children. It is unjust to require me to treat homosexual couples as equal to this, because their relationship isn't. This does not take away from their personal human dignity, it is just a matter of biological fact. With all the generosity in the world, homosexual couples cannot meet the criteria for which marriage exists.

This actually comes across pretty clearly in the Bill for gay 'marriage' What is the difference between marriage and Civil Partnership? Apart from the word "marriage" it is that marriage requires consummation and a concept of sexual infidelity. So the Bill says "these homosexual relationships are now marriages...but they can't have sex in a legal sense, so we'll exempt them from that." Well what is a marriage without consummation and a concept of adultery? As we've seen it is a Civil Partnership? So the Bill is intellectually dishonest and patronising to homosexuals in offering them counterfeit marriages pretending it is the real thing.

So of course homosexuals can hire halls and have wedding celebrations if they wish and others can choose to celebrate their weddings. But it is irrational and no less irrational because an incoherent law allows it because thinks it makes him look less nasty.

Notice I have not said anything about religion in this. Marriage relates to natural law, and only after that does it become a sacrament (religious) if the couple are Christian.

31 May 2013 at 18:39  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 May 2013 at 18:40  
Blogger Albert said...

Penultimate para should read "because Dave thinks it makes him look less nasty."

31 May 2013 at 18:40  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

Mark also doesn't seem to know the difference between prescribe and proscribe.

31 May 2013 at 18:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well done David Hussell, the herd mentality is certainly in there. Now, that rings true as this man has always loathed PC and used to watch the herd but was never part of it. He was clever enough to do his own thinking...

31 May 2013 at 18:40  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 May 2013 at 18:41  
Blogger Flossie said...

Too right, Julia - tarred with the same brush. But I believe that the darkest places in hell are reserved for those who deliberately lead the sheep astray.

31 May 2013 at 18:56  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 May 2013 at 19:38  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

In a country fragmented along racial and religious lines, political correctness and its legal counterpart the hate crime may be necessary to keep the peace.

Free speech was able to flourish in years past because there was only one people—one tribe, as it were—living here, the British, and it was to the common good for all opinions to be expressed. Now that Britain is a land of competing tribes, each one instinctively looking to its own good and alert to any offence from its rivals, free speech has become an unaffordable luxury.

The people who once thrived on free speech are now afraid to speak their mind lest they stand accused of racism, Islamophobia or homophobia. The liberal Left has built the diverse country of its dreams but the self-censorship and official censorship needed to hold it together make it less and less a free country.

31 May 2013 at 20:07  
Blogger Roy said...

Mark In Mayenne said...

I personally believe that the idea of marriage long predates christianity ...

Of course it does! Marriage is older than any existing religion or any existing civilisation or any existing culture. Historians can identify approximate dates for the invention of agriculture - something that transformed the world. However they cannot identify a date for the invention of marriage because it has existed "from the beginning."

There have been variations in forms of marriage at different times and in different places, e.g polygamy and, much more rarely, polyandry. However all variations are heterosexual in nature since marriage is the glue that connects one generation with another and one family to another.

People who advocate same sex marriage are claiming, with almost unbelievable arrogance, that they know better than almost everyone who has ever lived on this planet.

31 May 2013 at 20:27  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Flossie @ 31 May 2013 12:20 Thanks for that link,
http://www.anglican-mainstream.net/2013/05/30/action-alert-please-call-the-bishops-3/
I've sent a little email to all the Bishops on the list except Bishop Sentamu and had one reply from the Bishop of Birmingham's office to confirm he will be attending.

I can't believe that they are not taking this opportunity to defend Biblical marriage and represent Christians and our culture. They should turn up to represent us the Christians in the community who don't support the folly of the Same Sex Marriage Bill. Have they been bullied or gagged? Then that should be exposed? All the more reason to turn up I'd say. Or don't they care anymore because they've been liberalised and not bothered, then why are they in the job?

31 May 2013 at 20:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Julia: "According to the last Census homosexuals are only 1.1% of the British population yet they think they can tell us what marriage is."

It wasn't even a question on the last census and there isn't actually a British census anyway.

31 May 2013 at 20:37  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Johnny R.
Good summary of the causes for the death of free speech.
And perhaps this will be followed by the death of free thinking itself, since once the generations that spoke their mind freely are gone, with more passive, inward focussed ones following, the habit of thinking freely, will surely be lost. Indeed if free thinking and free speech stops, certain types of creativity may also wither, feeding through to a loss of national energy, drive, innovation and perhaps even wealth ?
Decadence and division leads to decline perhaps ? What do the historians say ?
Following this conjectural thought pattern, I have surprised myself with this hypothesized destination.

31 May 2013 at 21:28  
Blogger Roy said...

I suppose almost everyone who has posted comments on this topic today will have head the news that the Archbishop of York has just had an operation for prostate cancer, and I hope many of us will remember him in our prayers.

31 May 2013 at 22:23  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0 said ...

"As a member of society and a taxpayer, the institution of marriage belongs to me too so I have a say in who it includes."

Except marriage pre-dates "society" and is not a matter for the State to define its essence. Even polygamy is based around the raising of children. No culture or society, to my knowledge, has ever given homosexual relationships equal status to heterosexual relationships.

And, let's be clear, homosexual 'marriage' is not the same as heterosexual marriage at all.

31 May 2013 at 22:40  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

'Indeed, if the Bishop of Salisbury is of the view that marriage is simply a matter of 'stable, faithful, adult, loving' relationships, could he please explain what he has against those amongst us who agitate for polyamory?'

Give him time, YG. The Bishop of Salisbury is clearly of that part of the C of E which sees its job as 'reflecting' society in its beliefs.

Once 'society', or rather a loud enough minority part thereof, starts agitating for polyamory on the grounds of "justice" and "equality", the liberal part of the Church of England will be right beside them.

Whenever enough of "society" decides that something is right, the liberal part of the Church of England will be there to explain why God agrees with them.

31 May 2013 at 22:47  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 May 2013 at 23:00  
Blogger Peter D said...

Dartner Noster

You're not as liberal as I remember you when last we exchanged views (Dodo).

Since Vatican II a similar process has is evident within certain circles of the Catholic Church. Evil becomes 'confused insanity', so the person is not morally culpable. Non Christians of all kinds seek God as best thy can, so their fine. Atheists follow their consciences and are okay too.

"Those who do good are saved because they do good; those who do evil are saved because they don't know what they do; in the middle there's no one (Hitler perhaps; or George W Bush) because hey, everyone loves his dog."
(Mundabor)

31 May 2013 at 23:19  
Blogger David E said...

Peter D, your earlier comment hit the nail on the head.

We in the CofE have been hoist on a petard of our own making - we were the first mainstream Christian group to allow contraception, in the 1930s(?), and now we are living with the consequences of separating the act of sex from procreation. If sex is no longer about procreation but pleasure, any sort of sexual activity, with whoever or whatever, can be justified. As the Church of Rome hath erred in faith and morals, so has the Church of Canterbury and we need to repent.

Fittingly this Sunday's readings are about Elijah standing up for God despite everyone else following false gods, and Paul berating the Galatians for being led astray by false teachers!

31 May 2013 at 23:53  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Peter D,

As I've done my best to point out on previous occasions, Christianity sets the bar of sexual conduct extremely high, such that most of us fall short of what is required at some stage or another.

I have never suggested that homosexual acts should be regarded as not sinful; I have simply observed that calling gay people sinful is, to quote from Apocaplypse Now, "like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500".

31 May 2013 at 23:53  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ David Hussell (21:28)—You only have to compare Europe west of the Iron Curtain to Europe east of it to appreciate the vitality that is born of free speech and the decline that accompanies its curtailment. China is an exception, combining great wealth production with authoritarianism but China’s present-day emperors have the advantage of a subservient people who have never known freedom.

It seems unlikely that we will ever regain the unfettered free speech we once enjoyed; the social cohesion that made that level of free speech possible has taken a great battering from more than half a century of immigration, much of it from cultures with no tradition of freedom. Cicero has a good line about a nation being able to survive its fools but ‘it cannot survive treason from within’.

31 May 2013 at 23:58  
Blogger William said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 June 2013 at 00:00  
Blogger Peter D said...

Agreed Darter Noster, and as you say homosexual acts are sinful. We must resist this modern desire to please everyone by being "non-judgemnental".

I think we can agree that an active homosexual is a sinner who needs to repent and changeamend his/her ways.

1 June 2013 at 00:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Grasper:"So you can't possibly question its findings.http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/sep/23/gay-bisexual-population-uk"

Of course I can. I have a number of times here in the past. Also, aren't you going to thank me for helping you out by identifying your error, both in number and source? Again.

1 June 2013 at 02:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Except marriage pre-dates "society" and is not a matter for the State to define its essence."

Well, that's fine. People like you can have a pre-society marriage with whatever bells and smells and painted idols you like and the rest of us can have a normal, modern marriage with legal rights, tax benefits etc to recognise the nature of the relationship and the social benefits it brings in terms of social building blocks, stability, etc whether homosexual or heterosexual. Everybody is happy.

1 June 2013 at 02:46  
Blogger Ivan said...


What the homosexual activists had wanted over past thirty or forty years was not mere tolerance but endorsement of their filthy lifestyles - I exclude the homosexuals who desired no such thing - as the summit of human existence. The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval as it were. AIDS put a crimp on them for a while, but they are back at again. The outright distortions of truth and common sense, that accompanies the nonsense of homosexual 'marriage' are so far out that I have no doubt that they realise what a colossal fraud they are perpetuating. As the famous observer of the contemporary scene, Theodore Dalrymple observed of similar methods among the Communists:

Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

It does seem another of the devices, of the cunning of history to bring about the dystopia foreseen so clearly by the prophets Orwell and Huxley.

I recall this everytime Cameron - I support 'gay' marriage because I am a Conservative - opens his gob.

1 June 2013 at 03:49  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Except homosexuals don't get married. They don't form stable relationships. They have redefined faithfulness to exclude the concept of sexual exclusivity. They tend to form 'open' relationships. They cannot produce children and therefore shift the necessity of replacing themselves to others. They commonly engage in sexual practices that are disease-ridden, and dangerous to the participants. The justification of their desire on the basis of consent undermines the entire concept of structural sexual boundaries. Recognizing their relationship as equivalent to heterosexuality forces a redefinition of 'mother' and 'father' to 'caregiver.' All of this manifestly undermines social stability. The only real benefit accrues to the homosexual who receives official validation of his desires.

carl

1 June 2013 at 06:30  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Of the four criteria, only 'adult' will survive. The 'loving' and 'stable' and 'faithful' criteria are all eyewash to give the relationship a veneer of moral content. It makes the argument more palatable to the listener who is used to seeing sex in moral terms more complicated than consent. But really who is listening? Modern sexual morality is driven by consent, and consent doesn't require 'loving' and 'stable' and 'faithful.' It simply requires 'adult' - or someone close in age for a teenager.

The bishop is the very definition of 'useful idiot.' He offers an argument to de-fang the opposition of his own team. And when the goal has been achieved, his erstwhile victorious allies will consign both he and his nuanced argument to the nearest dustbin. They have no use for his moralizing. They will not listen to it. The western world gave up on 'loving' and 'stable' and 'faithful' a long time ago.

carl

1 June 2013 at 06:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Anyone would think people like me are not human in the way other people are human, enjoying closeness and companionship, loving others in away that transcends mere sex, being friends as well as partners, and so on. It's ironic that some people are reduced to dehumanising those of us with a homsexual sexual orientation to make an argument, given the context and some of the other things thrown around. Hey ho.

1 June 2013 at 08:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 June 2013 at 08:46  
Blogger William said...

Danj0

"... and the rest of us can have a normal, modern marriage with legal rights, tax benefits etc to recognise the nature of the relationship and the social benefits it brings in terms of social building blocks, stability, etc whether homosexual or heterosexual."

But you are not asking for these things because you can already have them!

You are asking for society to equalise heterosexual and homosexual relationships by removing the concepts of sexual intercourse, mothers, fathers and ultimately children from marriage.

Many people are extremely unhappy about this mendacious and wanton act of vandalism.

1 June 2013 at 10:04  
Blogger Peter D said...

"Anyone would think people like me are not human in the way other people are human, enjoying closeness and companionship, loving others in away that transcends mere sex, being friends as well as partners, and so on."

Oh poor you; get over yourself! You might be an honorable and decent man, monogamous and faithful to one person; that's not the point.

This a debate about the implications for wider society of the State giving equivalence between homosexual 'marraige' and heterosexual marriage. Something no society has ever done. This undermines the stability of family life and impacts on wider society.

You want all this for a few legal rights and tax breaks? And why should you have these? They were designed to promote and protect mothers and fathers in the raising of their children. None of these things apply to homosexuals.

1 June 2013 at 10:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Oh poor you; get over yourself!"

Go and boil your head.

1 June 2013 at 10:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "But you are not asking for these things because you can already have them!"

I don't see why there should be a second class institution when there is an existing one that suits just fine. But perhaps you'll say that it isn't a second class institution? Well, the B&B case which plenty of people here tried to defend showed the reality there.

"You are asking for society to equalise heterosexual and homosexual relationships by removing the concepts of sexual intercourse, mothers, fathers and ultimately children from marriage."

But it's not really that at all, is it? Having children or even being able to have children is not necessary in order to get married, as has been argued here enough times in the past. Your sexual intercourse thing seems to be a bit of a red kipper too as demonstrated when I raised the detail of that not so long ago. All it resulted in was one or two people clutching their pearls at my jokey language for certain acts. Also, in reality, heterosexual couples can get married and not even ever have sex because in essence it's a contract between two people arbitrated by the State and one of those people would have to complain about a breach of contract first.

What is actually going on is a bunch of religious people don't like that society is not only no longer towing their line but it is openly not doing so too and you lot can't handle that. Hence, why we get all this ludicrous end times or destruction of society pronouncements when what will actually happen is almost certainly nothing much whatsoever other than a similar number of same-sex couples will marry as Roman Catholic couples do in a religious wedding.

1 June 2013 at 11:09  
Blogger John Wrake said...

Let us return to the meat of this post. It is not about homosexuality.
It is about Bishops.

I have no objection to a man expressing his opinions on any matter, provided he does not break the law.

I take the greatest possible exception to a Bishop in the Church of England publicly expressing opinions which are clearly contrary to Holy Scripture and in direct conflict with the promises he made at his Consecration.

Let us stop mincing words. The Bishop of Salisbury has openly propagated views which are contrary to his own oath and is not fit to hold office in the Church.

We should forgive him for that sin, just as we ask God to forgive us for our sins, as in the prayer that Jesus taught us, but such forgiveness does not require us to allow him to continue his folly.

If he is not prepared to resign, he should be required to step down.

John Wrake.

1 June 2013 at 11:25  
Blogger William said...

"But it's not really that at all, is it? Having children or even being able to have children is not necessary in order to get married, as has been argued here enough times in the past."

That argument tends to be ignored because it is so obviously a straw man. No one is saying you have to have children if you get married. They are saying that the link between marriage and producing and raising children is a vital one.

"Your sexual intercourse thing seems to be a bit of a red kipper too as demonstrated when I raised the detail of that not so long ago."

Really? You managed to demonstrate that there is no link between sexual intercourse and having children? I would have though that would be a stretch even for you.

1 June 2013 at 11:34  
Blogger bwims said...

If there were no "choice", then how does the bishop explain the existence of bisexuals? How does he feel about bisexuals exercising their undoubted "choice" for a homosexual relationship? Homosexuality is undoubtedly a sexual paraphilia which has been legalised, and Orwellian methods were used to remove its description as a paraphilia. It is but a small step from the Church blessing one form of paraphilia to that of another. In the Sudan, the age of consent is puberty, which is not far away from paedophilia.

Homosexuality was legalised for consenting adults in recognition that their drive would not harm anyone else. Civil partnerships give them the legal benfits equivalent to marriage.

Why should we have to pretend that it is normal? What exactly are homosexuals deprived of if this Bill fails?

My feeling is that it deprives them of the ability to "rub the noses of the Right in diversity"

1 June 2013 at 11:41  
Blogger bwims said...

The only hope for this country is UKIP.

1 June 2013 at 11:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

William: "They are saying that the link between marriage and producing and raising children is a vital one."

Which still exists for people who wish it, whether or not same-sex marriage is accepted. Afterall, people can have children without being married, and in a committed faithful relationship too. You jump through hoops trying to enforce your definition which isn't even matched in reality today.

"Really?"

Grow up. Etc.

1 June 2013 at 11:52  
Blogger Peter D said...

"Also, in reality, heterosexual couples can get married and not even ever have sex because in essence it's a contract between two people arbitrated by the State and one of those people would have to complain about a breach of contract first."

In your dark and narrow world maybe that's all marriage is - a contract arbitrated by the State. In reality, it predates the State and is fundamentally about sexual union between a man and a woman.

In both canon and civil law, as I understand it, marriage isn't actually a marriage until it has been consumated through sexual union. So homosexuals can never actually marry.

As you said earlier, the sham of homosexual 'marriage' is, at best, about 'rights' and tax benefits; at its worse, it's a sad and desperate attempt to gain social acceptance on the part of a sexually deviant minority.

1 June 2013 at 11:54  
Blogger Nick said...

Johnny Rottenborough

"Now that Britain is a land of competing tribes, each one instinctively looking to its own good and alert to any offence from its rivals, free speech has become an unaffordable luxury."

And for this reason, Britain is likely to become an ineffectual state. Disparate groups will be unable to reach consensus and find it difficult to work together. As you say, we are likely to become tribal. The physical ghettoisation of various cultures and ethnic groups is already evidence of this.

We are likely to become so concerned over cultural rivalry that economic recovery may not happen (a useful distraction for a government that can't handle the economy?)

If we ever get attacked or invaded, then the chances of us pulling together as a nation to defend ourselves are slim. We are more likely to stand and watch our rivals being destroyed.

Multiculturalism has become multi-schism

1 June 2013 at 12:08  
Blogger William said...

DanJ0

Go boil your head.

Marriage isn't just about expressing reality it's about expressing an ideal. Polygamy is a reality for some people, why shouldnt they get married too?

"what is actually happening is a bunch of religious people..."

More twaddle. There are secularists, atheists, conservatives and homosexuals (among others) who oppose the redefinition of marriage. The are also religious people who support the redefinition of marriage and they argue for it from their religious principles.

1 June 2013 at 12:10  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Ivan (03:49)—Thank you for that superb exposition by Theodore Dalrymple.

@ Nick (12:08)—These are the good times, the times when the native British are still the majority. On current projections, the British will fall below 50 per cent of the population by around 2070 though they will remain the largest group. Thereafter, the likelihood is that Britain will become majority Muslim but I have seen no estimate of when that will happen.

The good news is that we are not alone. Most countries of western Europe have similar immigration problems and some are further ahead in responding to them, the electoral success of the Front National being a particular source of hope. It may be politically incorrect to say it but native Europeans will have to discriminate by race and religion if they are to save themselves.

1 June 2013 at 13:56  
Blogger Albert said...

An interesting article on the Bishop is in the Telegraph:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100219687/bishop-compares-opponents-of-gay-marriage-to-slave-owners-its-not-just-insulting-but-historically-wrong/

It's a good example of how Anglicans confuse their own history with that of Christianity.

I'm really disturbed that he hasn't had to apologise. The comparisons he has made are not just offensive but unintelligent (as the Telegraph shows). Either the bishop is so ignorant that he should give up his office or he knows what he said was not true, in which case he said it for rhetorical force, to shut down the debate. But then, when you are defending the indefensible, you have to resort to untruthful arguments in hope that people won't notice.

1 June 2013 at 13:56  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"It's a good example of how Anglicans confuse their own history with that of Christianity."

Not that any other Christian denominations ever do that, oh no.

1 June 2013 at 14:04  
Blogger Peter D said...

I think the point being made is that the Bishop of Salisbury, to suit his own purposes, overlooked other Christian traditions regarding slavery.

Catholic teaching has long been against slavery e.g. Pope Pius II condemned it in the 15th century; Popes Paul III, Urban VIII, and Benedict XIV, also condemned it. There is a long Catholic tradition opposed to slavery. Aquinas viewed it as a perversion of natural law.

There were Christians who used Biblical literalism to justify racism and slavery - mainly protestants. Calvin, for example, saw no need for abolition. However, many non-Anglicans campaigned for an end to slavery long before Wilberforce. Emancipation was promoted as early as 1718 by one William Southeby, a Quaker.

1 June 2013 at 14:39  
Blogger Albert said...

Come off it, Cranmer! You know full well that the bishop is wrong on both biblical and historical grounds (not to mentioned philosophical grounds).

Actually, I don't think Catholicism does confuse its own history with that of Christianity. By the very fact that the Church speaks of other groups as heretics or schismatics, and that some of their sacraments are valid, she admits that Christianity is not restricted to Catholicism.

However, there is a problem here in that Anglicans do have a forgetfulness about the thousand years between (shall we say) Chalcedon and the Reformation. Perhaps it's true that Anglicanism only got around to saying slavery was wrong in the days of Wilberforce, but Christianity had been saying so long before.

1 June 2013 at 14:44  
Blogger Albert said...

Of course, one of the reasons why Anglicanism was so late to condemn slavery is because it has always sat too close to the state/culture - as the bishop does now. Ironic eh?

1 June 2013 at 14:46  
Blogger RetiredPaul said...

The bishop is encouraging Christians to reassess their interpretation of the Bible in the light of modern thinking. How does he propose to review what the Apostle Paul said to the Roman Church?
Romans 12:2

New International Version - UK

Do not conform to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will.

1 June 2013 at 18:18  
Blogger Peter D said...

The Bishop sees history as a progress driven by human reason. Once freed from Roman oppression Anglicanism has led to the liberation of women and homosexuals through the institution of liberal democracy.

The Bible does not have a fixed meaning; it is a text we reinterprets as we improve. What did Jesus or Saint Paul really know being rooted in 1st century norms and culture? As society improves so must Church teaching. We are moving from bigotry, sexism, racism and homophobia, towards 'equality' and 'justice'.

Everyone in the past was bigoted, don't you know? And any traditionalist holding such out-dated views today is too. People who reject homosexual 'marriage' are the same as those who once owned slaves. Its the same with women priests and contraception, divorce and abortion.

What next? Well, come on now, did Jesus really rise from the dead and physically Ascend into Heaven? Was He really God incarnate? Born of a virgin? And this notion of God - is He really a Personal Deity with an interest in us all? These views are so "old fashioned" in this modern age of science and reason.

1 June 2013 at 19:34  
Blogger Albert said...

RetiredPaul,

Well said.

1 June 2013 at 19:51  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 June 2013 at 20:46  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 June 2013 at 20:50  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

The real issue at stake here is the Establishment of the C of E as our national church. His Grace articulated the issues a while back. It is clear that the revolutionaries behind the push for SSM want to force disestablishment which will lead inevitably to a Republic. Tatchell is a rabid anti monarchist as well as ringleader of the SSM stormtroopers. At least Peter Tatchell does not pretend to be what he is not unlike some bishops.

The SSM bill will go through for sure, top down must do from Brussels and the embedded cryptocommies at home. The only question is will the church hear what the spirit is saying? This may be a gift to the remnant true church. I believe the expression is 'wake up call'. It's getting late.

1 June 2013 at 20:53  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 June 2013 at 20:59  
Blogger Nick said...

Rambling Steve Appleseed

I share your fears too that this vile SSM legislation will go through. But I also feel that, unlike God's law which never changes, man's laws will come and go....

" Rest in the Lord and wait patiently for Him; fret not thyself because of him who prospereth in his way, because of the man who bringeth wicked devices to pass." Psalm 37:7

1 June 2013 at 21:34  
Blogger Peter D said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 June 2013 at 21:54  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0

Are you and the Inspector out on a blind date? I ask as either of you appear to be around tonight. Most peculiar.

Anyway, that's your business. I've been mulling over this comment of yours:

"Anyone would think people like me are not human in the way other people are human, enjoying closeness and companionship, loving others in away that transcends mere sex, being friends as well as partners, and so on."

Well, if the relationship transcended sexual activity, then there's no issue. It's called 'agape' - a selfless love excluding 'eros'. Indeed, a freely chosen celibate marriage, once consumated, is the Christian ideal.

Now, you need to read 'The Song of Songs' to appreciate heterosexual union. When a man and woman express their selfless love for one another through sexual union it is not about "mere sex". The sexual act is a means of expressing both agape and eros, transcending both, and open to the possibility of new life, and not self gratification or an end in itself.

Moral objections to homosexuality are not about "dehumanising those ... with a homsexual sexual orientation" at all. They are all about a different perspective on the purposes and results of the sexual act.

2 June 2013 at 01:27  
Blogger JamesB said...

It’s worth noting that the Greek word root for marriage, gamos, derived from the ancient Indo-European root meaning the same thing, is the same root as the word gamete. This is our term for the male and female germ cells, egg and sperm, ‘halves’ which come from biological parents to form a whole fertilised cell, and thence a child.
Every human has a replica set of both these ‘halves’ in every cell of their bodies, derived from their mother and father. If you like biological terms, a gamete is haploid, meaning it has one set of chromosomes, half of its parent’s genetic material. A fertilised cell, and every other (non-gamete) cell in our bodies is diploid, meaning they have two sets of chromosomes, one derived from the (female) mother gamete (ovum), one from the (male) father gamete (spermatozoon).
There’s nothing discriminatory about this, it’s just the way biology works, but it does depend on difference and complementarity.
Marriage has thus at root always referred to this coming together of different and complimentary genders with the hope of producing a biological union of the two and therefore offspring to continue the species. Bishops should know this, as should here today gone tomorrow politicians.

2 June 2013 at 05:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Well, if the relationship transcended sexual activity, then there's no issue. It's called 'agape' - a selfless love excluding 'eros'. Indeed, a freely chosen celibate marriage, once consumated, is the Christian ideal."

It's small wonder Christians have a reputation for being conflicted about sex when one reads stuff like that. It's almost Aquinas in its weirdness. It's like saying that sex is somehow base and dirty; something to be endured as it is functionally necessary.

2 June 2013 at 05:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo:"Moral objections to homosexuality are not about "dehumanising those ... with a homsexual sexual orientation" at all. They are all about a different perspective on the purposes and results of the sexual act."

You have the context completely wrong. I wasn't complaining about moral objections to homosexuality - the religious versions can simply be ignored anyway - I was pointing out that we're human like everyone else and we have emotional lives as well as physical ones, including agape relationships. For sure, many people recognise that there are gender differences presumably created in our ancestral environment which might incline men to be more promiscuous but if men are faithful in good marriages when the marriage is heterosexual then why not when it's homosexual. Some of the stuff written here makes us sound like we're a different species at times.

2 June 2013 at 05:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, have you noticed that most people here ignored same-sex relationships between women? The sex is presumably not so icky in the minds of those who are inclined to immediately focus on the physical detail of male sex. Also the promiscuity side sounds like it ought to be less likely, and all those attention-grabbing things about toilets and special clubs and other throwbacks to the 'ships in the night' culture encouraged by past attitudes to homosexuality don't really hold for women. Curious, isn't? Almost intellectually dishonest to ignore it. Or perhaps it's a function of some people's homophobia to see homosexuality primarily as a male thing.

2 June 2013 at 05:55  
Blogger Albert said...

Interesting to hear Bishop Richard Harries on R4 this morning. He will be voting for the Bill of course, and he reminded listeners of how good the CofE has been (up to now) at reflecting the country. He reminded us of how the CofE was at the cutting edge of the rebellion against Christianity in the last century by picking up a variety of evils supported by the CofE: contraception and divorce. He ought to have mentioned abortion but that would have compromised his argument in many people's ears. Only on the decriminalisation of homosexuality did he have a point. There was of course, no reference to any of the evils that have arisen as a result of these moves.

Anyway, that seems to be his view on what the CofE is for: reflecting the view of the world, regardless of the merits of the view of the world. If that's what CofE bishops are for, it is hard to see what the point is of them being the House of Lord (or indeed, why any secularist would object to them being there).

He made no reference to Christian teaching of course!

For clarity: Harries is one liberal I rather respect. I disagree with him on most things, but unusually for a liberal, he genuinely does not seem to be intolerant and authoritarian. I suspect that this Bill with its attendant absurdities and risks of assaults on freedom required some careful thinking.

2 June 2013 at 10:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Going back to that stuff about free speech and that woman abusing those Muslims outside the mosque, I heard this the other day and thought it was pretty informative:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01sn9cf/Unreliable_Evidence_How_Free_Is_Our_Speech/

It has our very own Neil Addison (he of the "aggressively Anglican Blogger" fame) as a guest I believe.

2 June 2013 at 11:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

17:00 picks up the free speech about Christianity thing. i.e. it is explicitly written in to the hate speech law to protect it.

2 June 2013 at 11:45  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (11:41)—I understand she told them to go back to their own countries. I dare say she was arrested not so much for what she said but out of fear that her sentiments would trigger a violent response from the perennially hypersensitive Muslim community. Diversity 1-0 Free Speech.

2 June 2013 at 11:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny, it was an arrest on suspicion of a Public Order offence. It doesn't have to be to avoid a fight.

2 June 2013 at 12:16  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Danjo said,

"It's small wonder Christians have a reputation for being conflicted about sex when one reads stuff like that. It's almost Aquinas in its weirdness. It's like saying that sex is somehow base and dirty; something to be endured as it is functionally necessary."

The problem is that many Christians have, over the centuries, propagated a simplified version of the teachings of people like Aquinas about sex, and in doing so have managed to lose both the plot and the point.

Aquinas is adamant, in contrast to some other Christian teachers, that had Adam and Eve lasted longer in the Garden they would have had sex in order to multiply, and that precisely because of their state of purity pre-Fall sex would have been more blissfully enjoyable by an order of magnitude than its post-Fall counterpart.

Aquinas does not see sex as something impure and dirty; he sees it as a pure and wonderful gift from God of creative power. However, like any other aspect of God's creation sex becomes corrupted in Man's eyes as a consequence of the Fall. What should have been a spiritual and blissful expression of love and fecundity becomes a matter of lust and desire.

Man's innate inability to see Creation for what it truly is, and to be misled and turned away from God by the immediate material, carnal and sensual world, is at the root of all sin; sex is just one area in which this happens.

The chances of any of us being able to recreate that blissful, lust-free, perfect sexual union that Adam and Eve should have enjoyed are, let's face it, pretty remote, which is why celibacy plays so great a role in Christianity, a highly ascetic religion which demands a level of spiritual awareness and self-denial from its followers of which few of us are realistically capable in life, and so for most of us will only be fully accomplished after death (Purgatory).

The particular vitriol and sense of superiority directed at gay people by some (and I'm not singling out anyone here, let me add) has no place in Christian teaching; at the heart of Christian life is an awareness of your own sin, not other people's.

2 June 2013 at 12:38  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Dan (12:16)—Quite. A mild remark that was once wholly unexceptional now constitutes a public order offence. If we cannot bring ourselves to recite the state’s article of faith that diversity brings strength, we must remain silent or suffer the consequences.

2 June 2013 at 13:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny, the police were outside the mosque already providing a 'police presence' because it had been attacked earlier. There were reported incidents around the country against innocent Muslims and mosques as a result of the Woolwich murder. If she was arrested under Section 5 then she probably didn't stop and move on when told to by the police. It's not just some old biddy saying "go back to your own country" directly to a bunch of probably British people minding their own business. Context is everything here. Besides, I doubt it'll go any further, she's probably just been cautioned.

2 June 2013 at 14:49  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, you clearly don't have any worries about your freedom of speech or expression here given some of what you write. It's not the opinions or the airing of them that is the problem, it's the time and place i.e. the context. For sure, the public order offences are potentially far reaching and the police and CPS have needed some guidance recently on what they're there for but we have a huge amount of freedom here and I'm all for protecting that. That said, I think we're a better place for discouraging people from shouting abuse at other individuals in the street simply for being black, or Muslim, or Christian, or Jewish, or gay. That's not a free speech issue, that's aggression and disruption.

2 June 2013 at 14:54  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Dan (14:54)—Danes used to be able to draw cartoons without fearing for their lives. Then diversity came along. For all that you talk about us having a huge amount of freedom, it is unarguable that multiculturalism has diminished our freedoms of speech and expression.

Sure, I don’t have any worries about dissing Islam. After all, I’m not using my real name. Hang on a sec… I am using my real name. Oh shit!

2 June 2013 at 15:38  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Johnny,

Actually, you are a bit of a mystery man. On the face of it you are bog standard stereotype of the BNP/EDL view, but then it does seem like you have read the Q'uran in Arabic? Which isn't what a nationalistic white guy normally does...

2 June 2013 at 16:00  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

I have to admit if the EDL waved a placard that said 'Jew go home', I'd ask if they'd pay for that first. If they said yes, great, 'cause that means I'd get my commuting costs from home to place of work, paid by someone else! But, they would protest, we meant your REAL home in foreigner land. And I'd say, when my HOME is Britain. So there you go.

2 June 2013 at 16:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, are you able to post ANYTHING without referring to your Jewishness ?

2 June 2013 at 16:12  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Are you able to post anything that doesn't relate to gay marriage?

2 June 2013 at 16:18  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

During that Radio Program hosted by Clive Anderson featuring Neil Addison, that Danj0 linked to,


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b01sn9cf/Unreliable_Evidence_How_Free_Is_Our_Speech/

from 19:17 they are saying that Mr Hammond the Street preacher who said lesbians and homosexuals should refrain from their practice because it was sinful and immoral are twisting what he said and accusing him of saying lesbians and homosexuals are immoral and therefore incitement to hatred on grounds of sexual orientation. So that means anyone who wants to give Bible readings and preach what it says in public is committing an offence. Well, how ridiculous!

2 June 2013 at 16:20  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Anyway, Inspector if you actually took your own faith seriously, as other Catholics seem to here, you'd understand that following a faith as a whole is important to a religious believer. Not just the bits that appeal to your own demons and prejudice.

PS- There was a time in Britain, England especially, where people didn't like Irish Catholics or 'paddies' coming to British cities. Would you have approved of an EDL that wanted to ship the Irish back to Ireland (that would have included your parents)?

2 June 2013 at 16:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Hannah, the EDL are firmly anti muslin influence in their outlook. They fill a void, because no one else is. Hardly the British Union of Fascists we have here...

2 June 2013 at 16:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "Danes used to be able to draw cartoons without fearing for their lives. Then diversity came along. For all that you talk about us having a huge amount of freedom, it is unarguable that multiculturalism has diminished our freedoms of speech and expression."

Ah, you're quietly segueing from a qualified right to freedom of speech to someone's perception of their freedom to exercise it. The right exists and its rightful boundaries are the subject of debate. Having a right to freedom of speech but not feeling able to exercise it because of a perceived threat if they do so is a failure elsewhere. Clearly the threats and any resulting action are already illegal, what is needed is the resolve to clamp down on the freedom of people making threats, overtly or covertly, and the resolve to collectively stand up and exercise the right to say certain things. Of course, people may die as a result ...

2 June 2013 at 16:55  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Fed up of the inanities of the p.c. brigade. Some of us have to see what is really happening on the ground, and which Venn diagrams appear to be intersecting with each other and to what extent. Something called "observation" which appears to have gone out of fashion amongst the trendy fashionistas who prefer to use dodgy statistics, preferably those which have a ridiculously skewed sample, like....um... let's say sex workers, as in one vastly quoted set, to prove points which are often pre-decided.

Oh for more astuteness and intelligence and observant people who can be "wise as serpents and gentle as doves". Both genders were made to love and appreciate each other. To do less is to fall short- of love in its widest sense.

2 June 2013 at 17:55  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Lucy Mullen,

You've lost me...

2 June 2013 at 18:28  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Darter,

That is because you are a convert than therefore not a proper Catholic and an Anglican -esque type heretic to boot.

Now try and be more like Inspector who is a born into the religion Catholic and is therefore more qualified to pontificate on Catholic matters than you, a mere, Anglican halfway to be a Catholic Rabbi (ahhh!) convert can.

You see in his view, to be a Catholic you have to be rabidly homophobic, endorse condoms, be racist and, oh, agree to automatic sterilization of the mentally ill. Finally the "Old Testament" is nothing more than 'how to be a Jew book'.

So, as you can see here, who the REAL Catholic is...

2 June 2013 at 18:40  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Forward the PC Brigade, was there a man/woman/transgender dismayed? :oD

2 June 2013 at 18:51  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Hannah Kavanagh (16:00)—I have enough Arabic to be able to read the Qur’an but not enough to understand it, which puts me in the same boat as most Muslims. I would like to have more Arabic so I could appreciate the Qur’an’s solecisms and mistranslations but it’s a very difficult language. The BNP is the only party that tells the truth about Islam so I’m delighted my vote helped elect Nick Griffin to the European Parliament. The EDL fly the Israeli flag at their rallies—no problem for you there.

@ Dan (16:55)—The ‘qualified right to freedom of speech’ is becoming ever more qualified, witness the CPS Guidance on racist and religious crime. The threat to free speech isn’t in our minds, it’s there on the statute book: ‘Thou shalt say anything thou likest as long as thou dost not offend anybody.’ A country can be free or it can be diverse. I think being free is of more benefit.

2 June 2013 at 18:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, one is rather disappointed with your post at 18:40

It’s so difficult to communicate with women who verge on the hysterical, so in future, this man won’t.

Goodbye

Careful Mr R. This man fears you will be called Hitler before the night is out. Depending on the prevailing mood swings...



2 June 2013 at 19:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Which bit am I supposed to be looking at (again)? The aggravating factors seem fine, as do the specific limitations on the Hatred Act.

2 June 2013 at 19:21  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi darter, lol! I am sure you will be a wonderful rabbi or whatever its called in the church- vicar or rector and parson, i think. Not sure where a curate fits in:)

2 June 2013 at 19:31  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Johnny,

Well I guess if you are fond of Jews and Israel, then I shall have to promise not to be so beastly to you (:.

Incidentally, my mum's first language was Arabic, as that was the language of Iraq and I agree that in order to understand a religious text properly one needs to try and grapple with the original language.

And as for the Israeli flag, I know that there are flown in Unionist marches in Northern Ireland (alongside the Unionist flag, with the big red hand in in and the Union Jack); strangely enough one of bro's married an Ulster girl and the family were relieved she had decided to convert to Judaism, rather than Rome...

2 June 2013 at 19:49  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Anyway as it is almost time for England verses Brazil footie, I know there won't be much responses here tonight.

Go England!

2 June 2013 at 19:51  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

And the commentator on ITV is our second fav brummy, Adrian Charles, who sounds just like our flatmate, lol!

2 June 2013 at 19:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hannah: "Well I guess if you are fond of Jews and Israel, then I shall have to promise not to be so beastly to you (:."

Call me cynical but I suspect the EDL fly the Israeli flag to piss off Muslims and rub their noses in the Palestinian issue. If there were no Muslims in the UK then I'd bet Jews would be the bête noire de jour.

2 June 2013 at 20:13  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Dan (19:21)—The ruling classes decided to go against the grain of human nature and create a multi-ethnic, multi-faith society. You think Britain is better for being diverse and think the price—less freedom, more surveillance and the occasional act of terrorism—is worth paying. I think otherwise.

@ Dan (20:13)—du jour.

2 June 2013 at 20:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"@ Dan (20:13)—du jour."

Yeah. I tried both but I settled on the other one. I was never that good at French.

2 June 2013 at 20:43  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Danjo,

That thought has crossed my mind as well. So, I think Johnny Rotty can explain himself there- Johnny do you want to repatriate Jews to their 'home country of origin'.

Yes or no?

2 June 2013 at 20:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "You think Britain is better for being diverse and think the price—less freedom, more surveillance and the occasional act of terrorism—is worth paying. I think otherwise."

I note Britain rather than UK there but I'll make the point anyway that those things also occurred on the mainland because of the paramilitaries in North Ireland at various times in the last century.

We've had political upheavals too, such as the threat from communism at the start of the last century and during the cold war, and the 'right-wing' surges at various points including in the leadup to the last world war.

I also think we have much more real freedom than we've had in the past because of what one might call social tyranny, whether it be over gender, class, social mobility, or whatever. We can travel more, and we do, too. Including emigration.

We'd have demands for surveillance anyway. That arises from technology as much as anything else and it'd be demanded, as it is now, to counter general crime as well as terrorism. We're also subject to forces of globalisation whether or not we were mostly a mono-ethnic, mono-faith society.

2 June 2013 at 20:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

That said, I'd rather there was less Islam here in the UK despite the Muslims I know personally being nice and decent people. It's a both a religion and a political system, even more so than Roman Catholicism, and both sit uneasily with our liberal values. But what can we do now other than throw a few spanners in the general works and hope they disproportionately impact their direction.

2 June 2013 at 20:58  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Danjo ,

Anyways,I promised not to be "so beastly" to Johnny... he is still much further to the right than I would ever be... so I will have to be somewhat 'beastly' rather than 'really beastly'. But I'd still be interested in his overall ideological/racial stance, so I haven't misunderstood him.

2 June 2013 at 20:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I think Johnny's an asset to the site [1] as it goes as he does 'far right' politely and intelligently. Diversity, you see. :)

2 June 2013 at 21:06  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi danjo, lol!

2 June 2013 at 21:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Sorry, I deleted the [1] which was about EDL video clips.

2 June 2013 at 21:15  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Hannah,

Far be it for me to agree with a liberal- atheist -gay- chap, but I DO see what Danjo is getting at and whilst Johnny can speak for himself, I strongly believe he'd like to expel anyone who isn't white 'anglo-saxon' from the UK and that Islam is a convenient excuse.

Try reading Johnny's entertaining blog- 'where Islam spreads, freedom dies' to get the 'ideological' position.

2 June 2013 at 21:16  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Rebuked by my oldest bro, hk, lowers her head in shame:(

2 June 2013 at 21:40  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Hannah Kavanagh (20:51 on 2 June)—No.

@ Dan (20:53 and 20:58 on 2 June)—These are early days in the history of diverse Britain. We’ll get a better idea of whether it was sensible to order multicultural smorgasbord when the British fall to less than half the population and we’ll have the definitive answer when one of our Third World communities gains the upper hand.

Islam comes with the bundle. Although the 2004 ONS survey Focus on Religion reports that Muslims are the least likely to be in work, the least likely to be looking for work, the most likely to be sick and the most likely to be disabled, we’re told that Britain is enriched by their presence so it must be true.

@ david kavanagh (21:16 on 2 June)—If Britain’s BME population increases as forecast, the Anglo-Saxons will no longer be in a position to expel anyone and could face expulsion themselves. Perhaps you find that a pleasing prospect.

I am a mere occasional contributor to Islam versus Europe. By far the bulk of the effort is borne by its founder, Cheradenine Zakalwe. One of my occasional contributions is here.

3 June 2013 at 00:17  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Johnny,

No, I am not filled with glee about any of the matters we discuss here...

My apologizes that you are not the author, but just a humble contributor, for that esteemed blog I mentioned...I got confused when on your profile it said "my blogs", so being the typical thick Joo that I am...I put two and three together and got nothing....

3 June 2013 at 00:41  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Well, if the Anglo Saxons are the true natives, I guess that rules me out - my relatives pitched up with the Vikings.

I shall go and search for flats in Copenhagen immediately :oD

3 June 2013 at 10:16  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

And speaking of immigrant minorities who use aggression to take over and dominate the local population, imposing their own culture and values - that sounds an awful lot like the Anglo-Saxons.

3 June 2013 at 10:23  
Blogger Peter D said...

This land rightfully belongs to the Celts - begone all you foreign intruders!

3 June 2013 at 12:45  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Your Grace, I've been away for a few days but I thought you would like to see the excellent reply from our very own Tory MP John Glen to our very own Bishop of Salisbury, +Nicholas, at least one of them knows what the Holy Bible teaches (and it is not the bishop).

Published in the Telegraph last Saturday (1st June) this is what John Glen MP wrote :-

" Sir, I am deeply saddened to learn of Bishop Holdam's letter (May 30th). Bishop Holdam is a well intentioned churchman who has done much for the deprived communities in London during his career.
However, his apparent attempt to place those Christians who seek to uphold traditional marriage in the same category as those who defend Apartheid and slavery is deeply unhelpful. It will be particularly offensive to those in black majority churches who do not share his view.
If the Bishop reflects on his visit to the thriving St Paul's congregation in Salisbury, or the recent Prayer Market event involving 8 churches at which I spoke, he would understand that these growing congregations object to gay marriage not because they object to homosexuals, but because they believe marriage should follow the biblical pattern affirmed by Jesus in Matthew 19.
To redefine the institution of marriage will not remove prejudice, but instead risk legal ambiguities and unnecessarily provoke a sense of resentment and isolation among very many Christians.
If today's church leaders follow Bishop Nicholas, and allow public opinion to define what they preach, I fear the decline in some parts of the Church of England will be terminal."

Well said Mr Glen ! Bishop Holdam's statement that "the Bible hasn't changed but our interpretation of it has" is truly breathtaking in it's wickedness. Either +Nicholas hasn't read Genesis, Leviticus, Matthew, Romans, Timothy, Jude etc, etc or he is lying to us and relying on the congregation of believers not knowing their Biblical Texts. Such would be the work of the devil. I fear that this must be the case.

8 June 2013 at 21:57  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older