Sunday, May 05, 2013

William Roache and Nigel Evans - a tale of two presumptions



The presumption of innocence is a fundamental right under the English system of Common law. It is by no means peculiar to England: the Romans ensured as early as the second century that Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat (Proof lies on him who asserts, not on him who denies). It is consonant with our Judaeo-Christian understanding of justice that the prosecution is under the obligation to prove each allegation beyond reasonable doubt (or whatever burden of proof the crime demands). We are innocent until proven guilty.

Unless you happen to be an actor in Coronation Street.

William Roache - the longest serving soap actor in the world - has been swiftly excised from all Corrie plots on the strength of an allegation that he raped a 15-year-old girl in 1967. Quite why it has taken almost half a century for the girl to come forward is unknown. Certainly, rape is serious. And of a minor, it is appalling. But the allegation does not constitute guilt. Notwithstanding this ancient legal precept, Coronation Street producers decided to banish him from their programme. His distinguished career has been summarily trashed.

Just as it was for Michael Le Vell.

Not to mention poor Rolf Harris and Jim Davidson.

The judgments of their employers and the media have been swift in these cases. Nowadays, if you're in showbiz, you are presumed guilty of sexual assault, rape or paedophilia because Jimmy Savile has been found guilty - in the absence of any fair trial and with no robust test in any court of law.

We are left with the distinct impression that showbiz attracts sexual perverts. There is no need for an objective observer in the position of a juror: the Savile legacy and 'Operation Yewtree' seemingly lead us all to conclude - quite reasonably - that the accused committed the crime.

But Nigel Evans is not an actor - he is an MP and Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. He is in politics, not showbiz, though the lines of demarcation are increasingly blurred: it is certainly no longer degrees of beauty or ugliness that determine which stage one struts.

Nigel Evans is accused of rape and sexual assault against two young men now said to be in their early 20s. Since the rape allegation reportedly dates back to 2009, it is not clear if we are talking about the rape of a young teenager.

Whatever the veracity or falsehood of this story, Nigel Evans has a right to the presumption of innocence. Mr Evans strongly denies the charges.

But so, of course, do William Roache, Rolf Harris and Jim Davidson.

Yet Jimmy Savile has made us all triers of facts: we have all become media jurors and armchair judges. If we cannot begin with the presumption that Coronation Street is unable to assert innocence of its actors, why should the House of Commons not similarly presume guilt? If the allegation of rape or sexual assault is deemed sufficient to effect arrest, and if that arrest is sufficient to trash the reputations and effectively end the careers of showbiz personalities, how much more should it for those who sit in the state legislature as representatives of the people? Should Mr Evans not be deprived of the Speaker's Chair while the investigation is ongoing? Should he not have the Conservative Party whip suspended while he fights to clear his name? Or is our political discourse of greater levity even than the soap opera of light entertainment?

Or is it that allegations of heterosexual rape meet with a lower burden of proof than allegations of male rape? Is it that we are permitted to draw negative inferences from the fact that heterosexuals are accused of crimes committed 40 or 50 years ago against young girls, but we may not from the fact that middle-aged homosexuals are accused of crimes five years ago against teenage boys? Has the golden thread of the English criminal law been so frayed by homophobia-phobia?

128 Comments:

Blogger William said...

"Has the golden thread of the English criminal law been so frayed by homophobia-phobia?"

You bet. If the Law Society bans a conference debating family break-up on the grounds that it would oppose SSM and so breach their diversity policy then we are well and truly up gay creek without a paddle.

5 May 2013 10:41  
Blogger Nick said...

Last night I was trying to google statistics on male homosexual rape in the UK (not my favourite pastime I should add). I was suprised by the lack of availability of such stats, though there are plenty for heterosexual rape. Is this because gays are never involved in rape? I think many prison inmates would beg to differ. YG has hit on an assertion I share: that discusiion about homosexual rape is politically tabboo in the UK, and this is reflected in our legal processes.

5 May 2013 10:50  
Blogger len said...

The fact that Savile was never 'brought to book' has brought the whole legal system into question.
'The pendulum' has now swung the other way and there seem to be a plethora of cases coming to light.

Rape is a serious crime and victims must come forward for their allegations to be thoroughly investigated.

'Political Correctness' has an inhibiting effect on the legal process whether this be towards the 'race' or the 'sexual orientation' of the perpetrators of such crimes.

5 May 2013 11:28  
Blogger IanCad said...

YG,

With most most of your posts, having nothing to do with the topic, still attracting the droolings of those who love to engage in a childish repartee about all things homosexual, I fear that this latest subject, which actually addresses the issue of BB'ry, will open the floodgates.
What's the betting that there will be over three hundred comments?

But, germane to the thread; how, in the name of justice, can we fairly prosecute a man after forty years have gone by?
Is there no Statute of Limitations?

That was a nice holiday for those Scotland Yard boys.
They absolutely HAD to travel to Australia to investigate poor old Rolf Harris didn't they?
Quite the little jolly.

5 May 2013 11:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The presumption of innocence is primarily a thing in law, surely? That is, an allegation is made and if it is worth investigating then it is investigated. If there is a case to answer then it ends up in court, and in court it is up to the prosecution is prove the case beyond reasonable doubt otherwise the accused is considered innocent and acquitted, at least in England anyway. Obviously what actually happened as far as the allegation is concerned is unaffected by the process, so that the case against a guilty person may not be proven, or the case against an innocent person may be proven in court despite the reality. If we're to publish the names of accused people before a charge has even been made then speculation is inevitable. Yet reasonable and decent people make it clear when they speculate that they recognise the case has not been proved and the accused may well be innocent when the facts and interpretations are tested in court. We're surely not obliged to ignore the suspicion the police are acting on at the point of arrest and the subsequent pre-charge investigation.

5 May 2013 12:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I don't see the point in writing Bill Roache out of the scripts at this point, especially given the allegation refers to something so long ago. It's a soap, afterall, and Roache's character is exactly that: a character in a storyline. I think suspending a law maker may be appropriate over some allegations, in particular dishonesty, fraud, deception, etc. If the allegation brings the company or the organisation into disrepute and significantly detracts from its purpose then I can see an argument for removing the person from duty provided he is reinstated if the allegations come to nothing. As for the comments about his homosexuality and some special privileges that allegedly brings, I noticed yesterday that every news story set out the context of his homosexuality, especially his coming out in public life. Yet rape is rape, and sexual assault is sexual assault. His homosexuality ought to be irrelevant in this case ... but clearly isn't either here or in the media.

5 May 2013 12:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nick: "I was suprised by the lack of availability of such stats, though there are plenty for heterosexual rape. Is this because gays are never involved in rape?"

As I recall, the offence of rape was for a male perpetrator and a female victim before 1994. Hence, there will be some classification issues I expect. Now, rape is essentially sexual penetration by a man's penis without consent so the rape statistics include both male and female victims. As with any crime statistics, there are issues and this is particularly true regading sexual offences. The police were seen as institutionally homophobic, and perhaps still are despite their attempts to shed the image, and so that may well put, or have put, the victims off from reporting male on male rape, especially if the victim is homosexual himself.

5 May 2013 12:33  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 May 2013 12:44  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

…’is it that allegations of heterosexual rape meet with a lower burden of proof than allegations of male rape? … homophobia phobia’

Given that the estimated figure that 10 – 15% of the UK male population is homosexual, it is hardly revelatory that the figures for reported male rape, should feature far less prominently in societal awareness than those for heterosexual rape; nor does it imply an imbalance in the burden of proof required for action to be taken. If this would be so, the recent allegations of grooming, by gangs of Pakistani Muslims would have been dealt with by the police a lot earlier, had the girls been likely to have been believed. Even leaving aside the psychological repressions that a man may have in reporting such an offence and therefore that influence on the data collected, I don’t think, as HG seems to suggest, that there is any taboo or undue bias being exerted, in not ‘reporting’ these incidences.
It was widely reported, left unchallenged (on the contrary) and indeed may have been seen by him as a manifestation of his self-assumed alpha-male heterosexuality on screen and off, that Willam Roache claims he has bedded up to ONE THOUSAND women.
According to one of the tabloids:
As strait-laced Ken Barlow, he has managed to chalk up 28 girlfriends in more than half a century on the box.
But in real-life Casanova Corrie star Bill Roache has been a bed-hopping babe magnet with an amazing string of conquests.
In a remarkably frank interview he claims to have slept with up to 1,000 women – including a one-night stand with Weatherfield legend Pat Phoenix.

Ken Barlow's conquests
Compared to actor Bill, Ken has been well behaved with only 28 flings

1960-1961: Susan Cunningham, student
1961: Marion Lund, librarian
1961-1971: Valerie Tatlock (first wife)
1964: Pip Mistral, exotic dancer
1966: Jackie Marsh, reporter
1971: Yvonne Chappell, receptionist
1972-1973: Norma Ford, shop assistant
1973: Elaine Perkins, graduate
1973: Rita Littlewood
1973-1974: Janet Reid, (second wife)
1974: Gaynor Burton
1974: Peggy Barton, unionist
1976: Wendy Nightingale, graduate
1978: Sally Robinson, chiropodist
1979-1980: Deirdre Langton
1981: Sonia Price, yoga instructor
1981-1990 Deirdre Langton, third wife
1984: Sally Waterman, secretary
1989-1990: Wendy Crozier, secretary
1991: Alma Sedgewick, café owner
1992-1993: Maggie Redman, florist
1994-1996: Denise Osbourne, stylist
1996-1997: Deirdre Rachid
1997: Sue Jeffers, headmistress
1999-2010: Deirdre Rachid, fourth wife
2002: Anita Scott, Historical Society chair
2009: Martha Fraser, actress

In the minds of many British ‘soaps’ fans, the issues involved in the story-lines have always had the potential blur the edges of reality and fantasy and it is right that Roache’s and Le Vell’s on screen characters have been side-lined, should such confusion make any jury trial invalid: nothing at all sinister in that. Nigel Evans’ unsullied performance so far in the role of Deputy Speaker and the track record of a randy old philandering actor and his on screen persona are poles apart and no, the CP should not assume the position of the commercial stations programme planners; the matter is for Mr Evans to decide on whether to stand aside until the issue is concluded.

I give way to the slavering 'usual suspects

5 May 2013 12:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"1981: Sonia Price, yoga instructor"

Blimey.

5 May 2013 12:53  
Blogger English Pensioner said...

With presumably no forensic evidence it will be interesting to see how the prosecution proceeds. Certainly, if I was on the jury, I would want to be very sure that it is not individuals seeking revenge or jumping on the bandwagon. I certainly would be unhappy if it was just one person's word against another, or even two peoples words if they could have collaborated.

Clearly, everybody is going to need to start keeping a diary as I, for one, would certainly have no idea what I was doing on this day last year, let alone four or forty years ago, so it would be impossible to produce an alibi.

5 May 2013 13:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well said Archbishop.

The Inspector is greatly concerned about malicious accusation. There have been several high profile criminal cases recently were the defence is / has been an obvious pack of lies. Now, consider this. A malicious accusation failing in the court, the prosecution based on a strategy based on a pack of lies, in the judges opinion. What of the plaintiffs. Do they get to walk out the door with a ‘better luck next time’ shout from the judiciary, or are they arrested on the spot, and charged with malicious accusation. The bearing of false witness – one of the Big Ten.

Legal types here, your comments would be appreciated....

5 May 2013 13:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector,

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/21016808

They're hugely damaging in two ways, one for the victim of the false allegation, and one for the perception of rape allegations generally.

Again, who knows what the truth is in this case at this point?

5 May 2013 14:02  
Blogger Naomi King said...


YG "But Nigel Evans is not an actor - he is an MP and Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons. He is in politics, not showbiz, though the lines of demarcation are increasingly blurred: it is certainly no longer degrees of beauty or ugliness that determine which stage one struts."

Oh really ...
"He has since been an active gay rights campaigner. He addressed last year’s Gay Pride rally in London wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with the slogan: “I am Deputy Speaker of the Commons.”


Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4915396/nigel-evans-mp-arrested-suspicion-of-rape-and-sexual-assault.html#ixzz2SQNS2WLL

5 May 2013 14:28  
Blogger Manfarang said...

The Junior Anti-Sex League strikes again.

5 May 2013 15:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

The presumption of innocence only applies in a court of law. It does not apply in non-legal contexts. At 'at will' employee may therefore be discharged for any reason in the interest of the employer. In this case, the producers do not want to risk the potential fallout to the show from one of their actors being caught up in such a scandal. So they cut him loose as an act of risk mitigation.

It may not be fair, but no one ever said life was fair.

carl

5 May 2013 15:10  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Nigel Evans MP has made the following statement:

"Yesterday I was interviewed by the police concerning two complaints, one of which dates back four years, made by two people who are well-known to each other, and who, until yesterday, I regarded as friends.

The complaints are completely false and I cannot understand why they have made, especially as I have continued to socialise with one as recently as last week."

These young men are 30 years or so Nigel Evan's juniors.

5 May 2013 15:30  
Blogger Peter D said...

Surely, and without prejudice, he must stand down as Deputy Speaker until such time as this sordid affair is resolved one way or the other. Anything less simply brings Parliament into (further) disrepute. How on earth can he continue in the role and retain the authority of the position?

It will be "homophobia-phobia", a wonderfully inventive phrase, that will stop his friends and the House mandarins suggesting this.

5 May 2013 15:56  
Blogger Naomi King said...


In a ComRes poll published last week, one in four Tories cited the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill as the main reason for abandoning their support for the party and voting UKIP.

Grassroots Conservatives with decades of experience, talent and dedication have for too long been sidelined, patronised, even despised by the trendy metropolitan elite surrounding the party leader David Cameron. These modernisers, in thrall to Tony Blair's third way strategy, have built a synthetic Tory party of political correctness: the Big Society, green taxes, ring-fenced overseas aid and gay marriage. Mr Cameron failed to convince a confused electorate in 2010 to give him a mandate but has been devastatingly effective in driving core supporters into the arms of the canny and charismatic Nigel Farage since then. There is still time, the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill can still be killed off.

Can David Cameron really listen and kill off the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill on which he has banked his own credibility? Can he afford not to?

David Cameron needs to review the destructive policies he has created. Tory high command should tear up the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill now. It's time for the electorate to be heard: decent, hard-working and loyal men and women too often dismissed as "nimbies" and the "turnip Taliban" by Mr Cameron and his Etonian political elite who always believe they know best.

Cameron can no longer afford to pull down the blinds and lock the doors or he is going to be out of a job sooner than he thinks.

5 May 2013 16:26  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 May 2013 16:36  
Blogger Naomi King said...


The new energy spokesman for the UK Independence Party (UKIP) in Scotland, has said that “selfish” gay people are “deeply hostile” to straight people, and that they are trying to “destroy our society”. He says that politicians in favour of homosexual so called 'marriage' are attempting to “redefine marriage in their own perverse concept of society”. He wrote: “Why would these politicians seek to destroy the family unit and assert their illegitimate power to redefine marriage in their own perverse concept of society?”

“Why are gay people so selfish that they cannot see the benefit of long-term couples for the many people who are not gay? Why are they so hostile to hetero-sexual couples – that they feel they have to destroy marriage and replace it with McDonald’s plastic-relationships one-size fits everyone ‘marriage’,” he continued.

Homosexual people were “hostile” to straight people. He said: “I didn’t realise that gay people are actually deeply hostile to heterosexuals. Personally, I’ve become less sympathetic to gays, the more they try to destroy our society .”

“My belief is that this is just another group of zealots who are doing no real good for most of the people they claim to represent who have yet again got the ear of the idiots in parliament and are yet again railroading their idiotic ideas through parliament,” he concluded.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/05/05/ukip-scotland-spokesman-under-fire-for-saying-selfish-gays-want-to-destroy-our-society/

5 May 2013 16:52  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 May 2013 16:55  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Mrs King. The Inspector is contributing to that very PN thread now...

5 May 2013 17:02  
Blogger non mouse said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 May 2013 17:03  
Blogger non mouse said...

Yes, Your Grace: the British system requires Presumption of Innocence.

But we don't live under the British system, do we? This 'ere's the froggy-euro-commie system, which dominates us on Presumption of Guilt and through the Pleasure Principle. --- And that works so well for europhiliacs and lovers of -isms. Even as they re-inscribe Law, Nature, Truth, and Logos, they can ever set themselves up as Justice.

Admiring their predecessors, Shakespeare's naive Miranda breathed:
Oh wonder!
How many goodly creatures are there here!
How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world,
That has such people in't!
(Tmp V.i.180-84).

The descendants of those "people" now run our World State. Oh how conveniently they do ignore the earlier comments of Miranda's father --- on a 'virtual' setup like theirs. After the actors leave the stage, Prospero turns to face the reality of men who presume to dominate his life and his daughter's. He says:
And like the baseless fabric of this vision,
The cloud-capp'd tow'rs, the gorgeous palaces,
The solemn temples, the great globe itself,
Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve,
And like this insubstantial pageant faded
Leave not a rock behind. We are such stuff
As dreams are made on; and our little life
Is rounded with a sleep
(IV.1.151-58).

So what now? Will the mass-produced young dream on - never knowing that they sustain a nightmare?


************
Shakespeare, William. The Tempest. The Riverside Shakespeare. 2nd Ed. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1997. 1661-1686. Print.

5 May 2013 17:06  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Well done Inspector, keep up the good work.

5 May 2013 17:18  
Blogger Naomi King said...


A senior source close to the Deputy PM said last night (Saturday): "We are quite clear that the Lib Dems are not going to allow the Government to suddenly go off to the right. The Conservatives aren't in a coalition government with Ukip, they are in a coalition government with the Lib Dems." "Government Bills have to be agreed by both sides of the coalition before they go to the House. It is in the Coalition Agreement."

Nick Clegg will this week warn David Cameron that he will not allow the coalition to be "dragged" to the right in response to the surge of support for the UK Independence Party in the local elections. The Tories and Liberal Democrats have been left stunned by the huge backing for Nigel Farage's party in the local elections last week, UKIP gaining 139 council seats and second place in the South Shields by-election. Should David Cameron have wanted to harden up this week's Queen's Speech in response to the UKIP surge, it is too late: the statement was sealed on to parchment made out of vellum – or goats' skin – more than a week ago. It takes several days for the ink to dry, so revisions to help counter last Thursday's electoral hammering are not an option.

5 May 2013 17:19  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Inspector, I loved your contributions over on Pink News. It made me laugh out load !

5 May 2013 17:26  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well really, Mrs King !

The Inspector only posts on Pink News to foster greater straight-queer understanding, and certainly not to mock the blighters who live there :->

5 May 2013 18:08  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Ooooh, Inspector is being 'ecumenical' in his own particular way.

5 May 2013 18:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Greetings Hannah

This missionary work is hard going, you know, and not at all appreciated. For example, your man was called a ‘rat bastard’ by one of the less impressed, but the Inspector sees himself more as a fearless mongoose. Grabbing the gay snake dragon by the back of the head and shaking the life out of it....

5 May 2013 18:34  
Blogger Albert said...

Dr C,

Another good post.

Nowadays, if you're in showbiz, you are presumed guilty of sexual assault, rape or paedophilia because Jimmy Savile has been found guilty

I think the evidence is that from the 60s onwards, the liberalisation of sexual morality led to much more child-abuse. Probably most of us instinctively guessed that. If you live in a drug-ridden, hedonistic, over-sexualised culture, in which perversity becomes the norm, it's not really that surprising if you end up doing such things. Consequently, we can expect that, where there are lose morals (such as in show-biz, it seems) the public assume guilt until proven innocent. Though whether one associates good moral with the House of Commons is another matter.

Actually, I suspect that there is a difference between the way in which we think about rape. I don't think it's to do with homophobia phobia, I think it is probably to do with the fact that a woman is normally physically weaker. We think less of a man who hits a woman than who hits another man. Consequently, in this confused world, people probably do think that gay rape is less of a crime. Besides, as it presumably features in a culture most of us don't inhabit, and probably think is pretty murky anyway, it perhaps leads us to draw a different judgement. Moreover, as we know from the gay 'marriage' legislation, sex isn't legally possible in homosexual relationships, so again, many people probably struggle subconsciously with the whole concept of gay rape. Though none of that makes the judgement that gay rape is somehow different, right.

5 May 2013 20:22  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

‘rat bastard’

Poor old Mr Inspector!

I am sure that you will ease into the missionary position over at PN....

5 May 2013 20:39  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

A friend, who has been canvassing for UKIP in a "true blue" area told me that the proposal for same sex "marriage" was the single most prevalent reason for voters switching to UKIP.

Given the small percentage of homosexuals in the general population it is fairly obvious that professions providing a ready outlet for self dramatisation, like the stage and politics attract a rather high proportion.

I even heard one "gay" white Lib Dem politician in a highly emotional state , addressing a Muslim audience and saying how much he looked forward to a Muslim prime minister.
Given the penalties under Sharia, I thought that was masochistic in the extreme.

5 May 2013 22:38  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

Dreadnaught comes up with the spurious statistic that 10-15% of the male population is homosexual. The Census tells us otherwise. In the whole population they are only 1.5% making 3% of the males. Lesbians are 0.5%, i.e. 1% of women and in both categories people do wobble in and out. Exaggerating their numbers is just one of the many tactics employed by the LGBT movement to manipulate and deceive the public.
There are documents available on the internet about the widespread use of date-rape drugs such as GHB among homosexuals, and sometimes they cause death. Not very "gay".

5 May 2013 22:52  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Hannah,

Inspector clearly carries a big burden, and weight on his shoulders, if it is his intention to debate the chaps over at the Pink News. Blast it all, even I had a peak at comments there...

Well 'pon my soul, it is the religious/philosophical equivalent of going over the trenches Great War type and being blasted at by jerry shrapnel...

5 May 2013 22:55  
Blogger James Franklin said...

Free Social Media Marketing where Every thing will be Free, Facebook Likes, Twitter Followers, Twitter Tweets, Twitter Re-Tweets, Twitter Favorites, Google Plus Followers, StumbleUpon Followers, Youtube Views, Youtube Likes, Youtube Subsribes, Pinterest Followers, Pinterest Likes, Pinterest PinIt, Free Website Visitors.
Just Join now and Free Increase your Social Media Networks.
GetLikeFast.com

5 May 2013 23:19  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inpector

Surely the chaps 'over there' agree with the policy of having a fag with a pint?

5 May 2013 23:59  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert

Good points.

However the reference to homophobia phobia is the manner in which employees treat those who are to alleged to have committed serious crime.

Surely, until this matter is resolved, Nigel Evans should stand aside as Deputy Speaker. But who dares say it in these times of political correctness and treating homosexuals as a protected species?

6 May 2013 00:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Salutations Lavendon. Glad to see you are taking interest as this man fights the good fight.

Did you know that gay men mainly post as a herd. One or two original thoughts there, but an awful lot of back slapping. One can see now how they’ve been easily drawn into this ‘equality’ essential of queer marriage. All that’s needed is one or two herdsmen, and off they go in a bloody big mindless crowd.

Do advise your contacts in Parliament, old fellow. Time to lift the wool from the eyes, what !


6 May 2013 00:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Jack: "The Census tells us otherwise. In the whole population they are only 1.5% making 3% of the males"

That was the Integrated Household Survey, Julia. Face to face interviews with the family, using hidden option cards for that question. It's bound to under-estimate and I think the refusals to answer in certain bands, and the distribution across age show that. Even at 1.5%, that's still about 750,000 people. How many people attend a CofE service every week? How many Jews live in the UK? These are the comparisons if we're to talk about social rights?

6 May 2013 07:06  
Blogger Naomi King said...


I have heard a link confirming the 10% queer figure of the early homosexual "liberation movement" was a complete and total lie made up to shock and discourage the rest of us. Does that surprise you, given the nature of the beast ? They readily agree they lie see below. Why wouldn't they when they are so far removed from God ?

"We Lie That The Institution of Marriage Isn't Going to Change..."

An audio of Masha Gessen, a lesbian (appointed by Obama to run Radio Liberty in Russia) speech surfaced recently here it is

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n9M0xcs2Vw4&feature=player_embedded

"It's a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it's a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … (F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there — because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie."

6 May 2013 07:42  
Blogger Naomi King said...



Nigel Evans, the Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, was interviewed by senior Conservatives with the chief whip 4 (four) years ago about an allegation of “inappropriate sexual behaviour”.

William Hague said yesterday there is no need for the Deputy Speaker to resign over an accusation when he has not been charged. He has been released on police bail as further investigations continue. A Conservative Party spokesman said: “It would inappropriate to comment while there is a police investigation going on.” Lancashire Police said last night: “We take all allegations of a sexual nature extremely seriously and understand how difficult it can be for victims to have the confidence to come forward. Mr Hammond, the Defence Secretary and Cabinet minister, said he thought it would be “difficult” for the MP to carry on in his role as Deputy Speaker under such public scrutiny.

Mr Evans is expected to return to the House of Commons as usual but has asked to be excused from his ceremonial duties during the Queen’s Speech in the House of Commons on Wednesday.

6 May 2013 07:52  
Blogger Naomi King said...

From The Sun this Morning ...

Tories blasted over UKIP contempt as George Osborne tweets clowns pic

Top Tories were yesterday accused of being “contemptuous” towards UKIP voters — as Chancellor George Osborne tweeted a snap of CLOWNS in an apparent dig. A senior Downing Street aide is also said to have called UKIP “life’s losers”.

The attacks lay bare the contempt the Tory high command still has for Nigel Farage’s party, despite public claims that they would “learn lessons” from last week’s council election humiliation. As we know Veteran Tory minister Ken Clarke was widely criticised last week for calling UKIP “a collection of clowns”. Mr Osborne’s tweet showed children dressed as clowns during a May Day parade in his constituency.

He quipped: “No double meaning I promise.” Former shadow home secretary David Davis yesterday said Conservative chiefs must recognise the genuine concerns of UKIP voters. He added: “It’s got to start off by not being contemptuous of the people who voted for UKIP." I mean, they weren’t extremists — they were ordinary people.

A warning from David Davis, “We’ve got to treat them seriously. And we certainly didn’t do that before.

“We’ve also, Davis said, got to make them feel that we care about their issues — that we care about the taxes they have to pay and about their job prospects and so on. “I’m afraid one of the things that came back on the doorstep was the extent to which a large number of those who voted UKIP didn’t think the Conservative party really cares much about them.”

How true Mr Osborne !

Read more: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4916750/george-osborne-clown-tweet.html#ixzz2SUdwBzOO

6 May 2013 08:05  
Blogger Naomi King said...


There is also a very good article in this morning's Guardian about why the Tories are in the mess they are in, well worth a look.

6 May 2013 08:16  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Sorry I meant to give the reference -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/05/boris-johnson-answer-ukip-tories-leader

"Cameron and his A-list have alienated swaths of voters. Until they understand how, Ukip will be the beneficiary."

6 May 2013 08:21  
Blogger William said...

Of course it's a no-brainier that homosexuals have the right to marry and of course they do have this right as we speak. It's also a no-brainier that what they are actually asking for is the right to abolish marriage for everyone.

In the quest for equality marriage, husbands and wives must be abolished. It is the only way. It's also important that children be bought and sold by gays and surrogates so that mothers and fathers can eventually be abolished too.

There is so much that can be done in the name of equality when two things are not equal!

6 May 2013 08:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Peter,

Surely, until this matter is resolved, Nigel Evans should stand aside as Deputy Speaker. But who dares say it in these times of political correctness and treating homosexuals as a protected species?

Anyone credibly accused of such a crime (of whatever combination of sexes) should stand aside until the truth be known. I note that he is doing.

He remains innocent until proven otherwise.

6 May 2013 09:05  
Blogger Naomi King said...


It is of course a personal tragedy for Nigel Evans and one feels compassion for him. The tragedy is the destruction of peoples lives that the spirit of homosexuality brings.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, God who will render to every man according to his deeds:

To them who by patient continuance in well doing seek for glory and honour and immortality, eternal life: But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of man that doeth evil.

And this is true of each one of us.

6 May 2013 09:15  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Jack Sprat

I'm happy to accept that my figures are indeed out of line with the latest records. An innocent mistake I assure you, drawn I'm afraid from a now rather faded memory.
It does strike me as rather odd however, that such a relatively small and disparate component of society can generate (if this site's visitors are in any way representative of course)so much fear, anger and resentment amongst the 'god-fearing'.

6 May 2013 09:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If I started referring to the Westboro Baptist Church as being representative of Christians in general then there would be an outcry here. Just sayin'.

6 May 2013 10:12  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

True!

6 May 2013 10:15  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJo (07: O6)

Happiness as the greatest good of the greatest number. What then happens to the rights of minorities: Christians, gays etc?

Mill saw the problem very clearly. It's why he had to take quality as well as quantity into account.

Not a question really, just an observation: and applicable in all sorts of contexts. Is 'Coronation Street' better than 'Hamlet' because more people watch it?

6 May 2013 10:26  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJo

A related problem is the idea of conscience s a social construct: truth is what the majority within a society says it is.

Follow that through, and if a majority of Nazis say it's right to gas Jews and gays, then it's right for that particular society. (And even if they coerced the rest of the nation, what would happen if the rest of the nation actually agreed?)

I'd be interested in your take on this. A bit away from the actual thread, but since there's anew thread started, I don't suppose it matters.

6 May 2013 10:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

JS Mill famously talked about the tyranny of the majority, with a special focus on what he thought of as social tyranny. Hence, the focus on the individual and his sovereignty over his own life. Compare and contrast with a religious society, such as the Muslim one in Morocco, where there is significant pressure to conform despite it being a relatively liberal place as Muslim countries go.

6 May 2013 10:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If the rest is headed where I think it is i.e. you personally prefer moral absolutism to some sort of moral relativism then I can see why moral absolutism may be attractive to people. However, it's usually presented to me as though moral absolutism comes in only one flavour, their own religious one, to be compared with some sort of nihilism which is usually presented as the only alternative. This is why I remind people regularly that there are multiple flavours of moral absolutism, each with with their committed and sincere advocates numbering many, many millions. The less cerebral here interpret what I do there as equating Islam and Christianity in some way other than that they each contain a different version of moral absolutism.

6 May 2013 10:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Of course, just because moral absolutism usually anchors its justifications in something one might describe as objective does not actually make it true. The Christian and Islamic versions still require their respective gods to exist in order for them to be sound as well as internally valid. That's the other point I make: Some sort of moral relativism may be less attractive, because it is not so definite, than some sort of moral absolutism but, well, it may actually be the best we have in reality. That might not appeal to everyone but, hey, reality is what it is. It's not created from preference.

6 May 2013 11:02  
Blogger William said...

Of course most gays were indifferent to SSM before it was mooted. Some are still fairly indifferent and some oppose it. The real villains and liars are the cultural Marxists (gay and straight homosexualists) who seek to undermine society from within. And the politicians on the make trying to use it for their own advantage.

With the rise of UKIP one hopes that the country is finally waking up to this. I am encouraged that some people who have not voted for a long time (or ever) are deciding that it may be worth doing so.

6 May 2013 11:38  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJo (And anyone else interested)

That's all vey clear. Thank you.

My one quibble would be with my personal preference. If reality exits, then it's independent of our preferences about it. Alan Sokal again: if you think gravity is a social construct, try jumping out of a window forty floors up.

The problem for Xianity, as I see it, is this. If I belong to, say, a chess club, then its rules are binding only on its members. But as a citizen I am subject, like everybody else, to the rules of the road.

If Christians simply invented their God, they should keep their delusion to themselves (the chess club analogy). But if God does exist, and became incarnate in Christ, then that has implications for everybody (Highway Code analogy).

How can we know, when faith involves trust, not proof? (Russell: "You didn't give us enough evidence). We believe, of course, that there will be proof one day: at the end of the individual life, or at the end of present time. If we're wrong, and death is the end, we won't even know that we were wrong.

My own view is that Christians should not seek to impose their values on others; although they should be allowed a stall in the marketplace of ideas to present their case.

Another problem I have is that 'Live and let live' tends not to work in practice. When Christians don't impose their views on others, but do try to keep to their faith, then they can have the ideas of others forced on them. The long history of Roman martyrdom, and Christians in modern Britain who have lost their jobs are cases in point.

You expressed your viewpoint with great clarity. I have tried to reciprocate. I thin we both share a suspicion of fanaticism.

6 May 2013 13:56  
Blogger The Explorer said...

correction:think

6 May 2013 15:58  
Blogger Peter D said...

Under the liberal ideology of universal human rationality each of us is entitled to decide how we live, and have these rights protected, or promoted.

The 'religion' of the illiberal-left holds that we are all rational and individually competent to decide how to live, and, left to our devices, we'll all be happy ever after. We have the right "to be left alone", to "be treated the same", and not to be "harmed" or "disadvantaged" by State interference or the actions of others. Somehow, there will be an 'invisible hand' that will make this all work for our collective good - failing that the State will impose order and protect "minorities".

The world and experience demonstrates the fallacy of this optimism in human rationality.

Christianity, on the other hand, holds we all have implanted in us by our Creator a moral code and a conscience prompting us to follow this. When our conscience and behaviour is in harmony with this moral code both individually and collectively happiness follows. Because of our fallen nature our consciences have been damaged and our ability to live as our Creator intended is obstructed; access to the original moral code is further impededed by individual and collective sin.

The illiberal-left attack religious faith because they want to remove all moral restraint that cannot be empirically "proven" to cause "harm". Faith attempts to restore the proper relationship between God, His moral order and our consciences.

6 May 2013 17:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's a pity you can't managed the conscience and moral behaviour thing yourself, Dodo. You look a bit daft advocating stuff you manifestly can't hold yourself to here. That said, I'm all for moral self-restraint myself being a moral person and a rational member of society. I don't mind if Christians refrain from stuff we all think of as unethical behaviour because they think their god wants them to, as long as they refrain from it. I don't mind if they refrain from behaviour they think is unethical even when the rest of us don't, too. That's up to them. However, I'm damned if I'll accept them, or Muslims, imposing restraint on the rest of us for their own religious reasons when we don't accept those morals ourselves.

6 May 2013 18:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

We had quite enough of that in the past here when the Roman Catholic Church was holding people back with its hegemony.

6 May 2013 18:53  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

I think Danjo and Dodo should come to our BBQ. Relax a little. Debate over some beer, wine or scotch. The sun is out. The alcohol is flowing. Enjoy...

6 May 2013 19:22  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo doesn't actually debate with me, you know, he uses a couple of topics in order to try to exchange messages with me. There's a subtle difference.

6 May 2013 19:58  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJo 18:51

The basis of morality.

There was a case last year of a Swedish woman accused of masturbating with a skeleton.

By the Peter Singer sex-is-for-pleasure principle, it is hard to see what she did wrong if it gave her a buzz. Nonetheless, secular Sweden found her guilty.

From a Christian viewpoint (leaving aside the vexed question of the purpose of sex) one could say she was wrong because the body is the temple of the spirit and ought to be respected as the creation of God.

How would you regard her behaviour, and what criteria would you use?

6 May 2013 21:22  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0
Leaving aside the argumentum ad hominem, something you appear obsessed with, you haven't answered the points I've made.

Do you consider every person to be as equally rational and competent as yourself?

Explorer
An interesting example and question.

What could possibly be wrong with necrophilia if the person before they died, being legally competent and rational, agreed to it? I mean, the poor woman in question just wanted to 'cuddle up' to skulls.

6 May 2013 21:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer, a few years ago a man in Scotland was convicted of having sex with a bicycle and put on the Sexual Offender Register. It happened in the privacy of his own room but a cleaner walked in. I thought the case was outrageous, he did no wrong to my mind though it was a bizarre act. I would feel the same about the woman with the skeleton except that the dead have rights of sorts. If the skeleton was one of those medical ones then I wouldn't have any particular problem with it. If the sex was with someone recently deceased then we have legal procedures, rituals around death, and disease prevention issues to consider even if pre-death consent wss given. No doubt people can come up with all sorts of exceptional cases like these to try to challenge sex between consenting adults in private being outside the business of the State but it seems to me that there is a right there. It may be that in some cases, we end up balancing that right with others as I did with the Jewish circumcision thing.

7 May 2013 06:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, not everyone needs to be as rational and competent as me in order for the system to be set up on the basis that in general individuals are best placed to decide what is in their best interest even if others ultimately disagree with their decisions. You know, as time goes on and I find out more about your thoughts, I realise just how profoundly illiberal and inclined to totalitarianism you are. Despite the fact that I believe you are no more Christian than I am, I can readily believe that you would use an ideology like Roman Catholicism to control people for you own ends just like I'm sure some of the Church did in the past. You and they are a great argument for a liberal democracy.

7 May 2013 06:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Incidentally, you can call my derogatory comments to you argumentum ad hominem to be grandiloquent and link it with an informal logical fallacy. However you misunderstand what it actually is, I think. I insult you because I have nothing but contempt for you and your immoral behaviour here but it is clearly not in lieu of argument, or a logical fallacy, given I regularly shoot your stuff down when I can be bothered. People may note that you scarpered rather than admit you were wrong on the other thread over the laws and over my published arguments about incest.

7 May 2013 07:01  
Blogger The Explorer said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 May 2013 07:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Alternatively, he could stop being a pest and leave the discussion to proceed. I'm a little intrigued over where this is going but it is polite at the moment so I'm running with it.

7 May 2013 11:14  
Blogger Jon said...

I don't think you can discount the fact that Coronation Street is on a commercial television channel. Coronation Street is amongst the most lucrative advertising platforms in British entertainment (after all - they're called Soap Operas for a reason). It isn't a wild leap to suggest that, had the two accused actors kept their roles, the advertisers would abandon the program under pressure from the public on social media.

People can't very well boycott the House of Commons, so the Speaker's office would seem to be under less immediate pressure.

Of course, you could believe that accusations are lessened when they are homosexual. Sadly, we now have accusations against Jimmy Tarbuck to test your thesis, Your Grace.

7 May 2013 12:58  
Blogger TrevorsDen said...

Someone says....
'In a ComRes poll published last week, one in four Tories cited the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill as the main reason for abandoning their support for the party and voting UKIP.'

The legislation was on a free vote in the conservative party (maybe the others as well)

The commitment to bring the oi
opportunity to parliament was in the tory manifesto

7 May 2013 16:05  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0

Please stop this childish vendetta. Really, you are making yourself look very, very silly.

Take this, for example:

"Dodo doesn't actually debate with me, you know, he uses a couple of topics in order to try to exchange messages with me."

Quite honestly since my warm welcome back here you've done nothing but carp and throw abuse at me or made provocative and spiteful comments about my faith. No doubt in some attempt to engage me in a personal dispute to prove some point or other; or is it to try to have me removed again?

And to think it would appear it was you wrote privately to the web owner expressing fear of future vitriol from me!

Now, make you reply - list all my faults, hurl further abuse about, whatever, do your thing - but do note I will ignore it.

Peter D.

7 May 2013 16:08  
Blogger Albert said...

Trevorsden,

The commitment to bring the oi
opportunity to parliament was in the tory manifesto


I don't think it was (I've just looked) and if it was, it's hard to understand why Dave was, the day before the election, saying he wouldn't bring forward such legislation. There was however some vague reference to considering it, in some policy document - a document which is sufficiently obscure that Dave either did not know about it.

It's clear from endless evidence that had people known he would bring in gay 'marriage' he would not have become PM. It's evident from last week's elections that his modernising programme does not have democratic support.

It seems therefore that gay 'marriage' in this Parliament, can pass no electoral test.

In contrast Dave promised to recognise marriage in the tax system. Instead of this married couples - especially those where one of the parents stay at home to look after children - have been punished by Dave's Government. In other words, Dave has done the opposite of what he said he would do.

If he couldn't win even against Gordon Brown at the dog end of a Labour Government, it's pretty obvious that, excepting an event like the Falklands, Dave will join the ranks of those PMs who have never won an election.

7 May 2013 17:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "No doubt in some attempt to engage me in a personal dispute to prove some point or other; or is it to try to have me removed again?"

I would prefer never having to bother with you again, as I've said many times. You're just a pest as far as I am concerned.

"And to think it would appear it was you wrote privately to the web owner expressing fear of future vitriol from me!"

That's simply not true. I have never emailed the blog owner about anything. Why would I? I've said it openly here enough times. You are what you are, which is how you've been for over two years, and I don't think you have enough self-control ever to change. I must simply deal with it.

7 May 2013 17:38  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer: "By the Peter Singer sex-is-for-pleasure principle, it is hard to see what she did wrong if it gave her a buzz. Nonetheless, secular Sweden found her guilty."

I've just googled the case now I'm not my computer rather than a smart phone. Secular Sweden found her guilty of "violating the peace of the dead".

7 May 2013 18:21  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 May 2013 18:31  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 May 2013 18:31  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

urm, sounding very naive here, but it is actually physically POSSIBLE to have sex with bikes and stuff?? lordy, to misuse a phrase of Danjo

7 May 2013 18:33  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It talks of his simulating sex, naked from the waist down:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1569272/Man-who-had-sex-with-bicycle-sentenced.html

I think he ended up on the Sex Offender's Register as a matter of course, because of the charge, rather than because he's a danger to anyone else, or their cherished bikes.

Really, when you think about it, it's a curious case and not because of the nature of the act. He was doing it in private and the cleaners used a master key to get in. What harm was he actually doing and how did it serve the public interest to charge and convict him?

7 May 2013 18:56  
Blogger Peter D said...

Hannah

This chap was convicted of a breach of the peace after the two cleaners repeatedly knocked on his hostel door and he continued when they entered the room. In America, a couple of years back, a man was arrested for performing a sex act with a car wash vacuum! Then there's the above example of the woman with skeletons.

Paraphilia is a form of sexual arousal to objects, situations, or individuals that are not part of normative sexual stimulation. There's over 500 of them too.

Nowadays in these "enlightened and liberal times" professionals are unsure about how to classify or respond to such patently obvious perversions.

One now awaits 'Paraphilia Pride' marches and demands for 'equality'!

7 May 2013 19:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

7 May 2013 19:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Perhaps the scope of the Inquisition could be expanded so that a bunch of celibate religious men decide what their particular god considers appropriate and hands over malefactors for punishment pour encourager les autres, as the saying goes. That'd be nice.

7 May 2013 19:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

They'd be the Taleban in Afghanistan, I suppose.

7 May 2013 19:50  
Blogger Peter D said...

Don't be so silly DanJ0. The Catholic Church teaches morality within a framework of God's laws, it doesn't go around arresting people. How ignorant of you.

Alternatively, I suppose children could be assured that whatever deviant and peverse desire they have it is quite "normal" and they shouldn't feel any sense of shame. They could even be taught how to engage safely with bikes, vacuum cleaners and the dead.

7 May 2013 20:37  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Hi DanJo (7th May 11:14)

It was to do with people of different beliefs sharing common morality, and why. Too big a topic, and I shouldn't have started it.

Very busy for next fortnight. Probably not even reading the blog, never mind contributing.

I'm sure we'll find other topics to discuss in future.

Cordially.

Over and out.

7 May 2013 20:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ah yes, it must have been the Inquisition from another Roman Caholic Church which did that sort of stuff against those having unorthodox beliefs as determined by that church.

The disengagement of the State from matters of the bedroom between consenting adults in private does not necessarily constitute approval, as I'm sure is obvious to most people.

7 May 2013 20:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer: "It was to do with people of different beliefs sharing common morality, and why. Too big a topic, and I shouldn't have started it."

It's been done here before involving me, though the format doesn't lend itself to much of a formal discussion. Better in more discrete chunks, I'd say.

7 May 2013 20:56  
Blogger Albert said...

Dan,

so that a bunch of celibate religious men decide what their particular god considers appropriate

Assuming this is directed at Catholicism, how many times do you need to be reminded that Catholic moral teaching is not dependent upon voluntarism? Islam is, much Protestantism is, secular liberalism is, but Catholicism is not.

7 May 2013 21:37  
Blogger Peter D said...

"The disengagement of the State from matters of the bedroom between consenting adults in private does not necessarily constitute approval, as I'm sure is obvious to most people."

Then keep it private and stop it entering mainstream society. Why should the State endorse sexual deviancy and perversion, give it protection and promote it as 'normal'?

7 May 2013 23:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0 / Peter, this man has long argued that the church should keep it’s nose out of the bedroom, as indeed it it did for centuries. Whether it be for normal or homosexual practices. You really can’t warrant this kind of intrusion. It really is not on...

7 May 2013 23:57  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

Then on what basis are you so opposed to homosexuality?

Assumning you believe in God and that He has revealed a way for man to live, if the Church is not to teach sexual morality, then who?

8 May 2013 00:37  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo:"Then keep it private and stop it entering mainstream society. Why should the State endorse sexual deviancy and perversion, give it protection and promote it as 'normal'?"

It doesn't. Perhaps it is different in Scotland but sex with bicycles or skeletons is certainly not promoted as normal down here.

8 May 2013 06:14  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Hannah, DanJo, Peter D

Didn't mean to get involved again, but can't keep away at the moment. Great this blog exists: such interesting people to talk to.

Hannah: never mind bicycles, what about trees? Tree worship can have a whole new meaning.


I suppose if you believe in Original Sin, then nothing that humanity gets up to comes as a surprise. It's if you're in the Enlightenment tradition, and hoping that human rationality can solve things, that such behaviour is particularly dispiriting. Same goes for Deism, expecting civilised behaviour from the Universe and than getting plagues and tsunamis.

Sorry if this is incoherent. In a rush.

Regards to all.

8 May 2013 10:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The State has also disengaged from regulating religious belief as it goes, though it wasn't always so. Clearly, Islam and Roman Catholicism have contradictory moral beliefs and our State, mostly based on liberal political philosophy, is disinclined to stop (say) Roman Catholics manifesting their beliefs, subject to the usual constraints, even though it nominally does not accept the moral system of Roman Catholicism. Similarly with Islam. It protects the freedom of both groups while promoting neither.

8 May 2013 10:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Except that the dubious concept of tax-funded faith school bugger that up, of course. But hey.

8 May 2013 11:57  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0

As you know I was referring to sexual perversity and deviancy in a generic sense, not specifically with inanimate objects. Obce seperated from its purpose of unitive love, procreation and the raising of children, all things become permissible.

Surely our children should be taught about the endless ways of achieving sexual gratification and not have their possibilities limited by some sort of imposed morality?

8 May 2013 11:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Of course I knew but we were talking about paraphilia and you tried to segue to homosexuality in order to carry your value judgements with it. Did you think I wouldn't notice? That's what philosophy is all about; spotting unstated assumption, or in your case, deliberate sleights of hand. Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Homophobes like you like to focus on the sex but in reality it's about relationships, love, companionship and so on, just like hetereosexuality. You need to justify why homosexuality should be treated as an exceptional moral case by the rest of us. It seems to me that you expect to do that by referring to the design you claim your borrowed god hypothesis has for us. However, as I have said, why should the rest of us take any notice of that when we don't accept your borrowed god hypothesis? Afterall, neither of us cares much about the god hypothesis put forward by Muslims.

8 May 2013 12:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D 00:37 There are so many justifiable reasons to keep homosexuality out of the public sphere. But are we not free agents on this earth to do as we please in our privacy ? This man’s objecting to the practice stems purely from the corrupting nature of the thing on other people.

Consider this. In that short paragraph above, replace homosexuality with smoking. The health righteous will argue the same about that. Or alcohol. Do you see the point now ?



8 May 2013 13:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The upper classes in this country had it right – “Do as you please, but don’t do it in front of the children, and don't frighten the animals”

8 May 2013 13:15  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJo

Just a quick general comment, not a question.

Rejecting something as untrue does not render us immune from its consequences.

The Jews rejected 'Mein Kampf'.

I reject Marxism, but cannot escape the consequences of PC.

We may both reject the Muslim God hypothesis, but that doesn't mean the militants among them won't do for the rest of us one day.

8 May 2013 14:18  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0 said ...
"Homosexuality is a sexual orientation. Homophobes like you like to focus on the sex but in reality it's about relationships, love, companionship and so on, just like hetereosexuality."

No, homosexuality is a disorder; it is unnatural, just like the other sexual deviancies noted above. Relationships based on love and companionship do not have to lead to what is in effect, lustful mutual masterbationl, or claims to being normal or a right to marry. Heterosexuality, on the other hand, is natural; male and female bodies are designed to complement one another and to generate new life.

Its not being a 'homophobe' stating the truth as I see it. In America today peodphiles are claiming their desires are a "sexual orientation" and should be regarded as such. Just because one has a certain tendency does not mean it should not be resisted, controlled and managed.

Fine, exercise free will and choose to act out on whatever proclivity you are drawn to but do it in private and don't expect others to applaud you or give you 'protected' status.

Inspector
"But are we not free agents on this earth to do as we please in our privacy ?"

No, we are made in the image and likeness of God and He has implanted in us a conscience intended to be in harmony with His purposes. Should we depart from that individual and community harm results.

Smoking and drinking are of a different order to a misuse of the gift of human sexuality.

8 May 2013 14:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. Christ’s analogy of us as a flock is probably one of the most profound ideas in Christianity. So a few homosexual sheep leave the main and wander off on their own. You, the sheep dog go after them, but for all your cajoling, they refuse to budge an inch. What do you do ? Rip their throats out on the grounds that if they won’t go with the flock, they won’t go any where else. Or do you get back to the main and hope the dawdlers come back on their own accord. Remember, you are needed at the main as there are some druggy sheep needing a close watch.

Now, you KNOW the Christian answer. The question is, what is yours ?


8 May 2013 15:09  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Well, having thought a bit more, these are just a jumbled up, random set of conclusions or questions, rather than a debating position here :

Putting aside my own ethical stance on these things, which would view them in a highly negative way, I'm guessing to a liberal that sex with bikes, trees, animals and skeletons (which I think is Necrophilia), is different to sex between gay adults or hetrosexual adults because a bike, a tree, a dead body or an animal cannot consent to the actions of the other involved.

I appreciate that the retort is often that in respect of incest, that this could be argued about consent (siblings, although I'm guessing in the case of the Austria bloke a couple of years ago,this was more a case of kidnap and rape?).

Now to me, it is quite clear my religion forbids incest, even if there were consent to it. I guess the liberal has to change take and talk about genetic problems of inter breeding, rather than consent (and I guess an atheist can't refer to holy writ either) in those cases?

Another side, is about consent when Sadomasochism is involved (having looked this up there was the 'spanner' case or R vs Brown, 1994).In that case the issue of consent and agreeing to harm each other was ignored by the House of Lords...

8 May 2013 16:08  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

I would "cajole" no homosexual! However, I will continue to challenge phrases such as "sexual preference" or "sexual orientation as terms used to legitimise deviancy and its practice. Its the same with the term "gay", a misnomer if ever there was one for sodomites.

If Christ finds them He will rescue His lost sheep but they will hear and respond to His voice.

Meantime, its important the message from the 'liberal and compassionate' christians, who rewritE the Truth, are reminded of God's moral order and the consequences of ignoring it. In my opinion, they are actively obstructing the Grace of God and placing souls in danger. As a Catholic, you will know the importance of a properly formed conscience.

And Inspector, it is not just homosexuals who are wandering off the narrow path. Abortion, contraception, divorce and remarriage, sex as an irresponsible pleasureable pastime, serial monogamy outside marriage, children raised without fathers .....

What goes on in the bedroom is and has always been very much a part of Christian teaching. The relationship between husband and wife and their dual and lifelong responsibilities towards one another and their children, is the bedrock of our society.

8 May 2013 16:30  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

Here is a brief summary giving the Roman Catholic perspective on homosexulaity.

" ... the Catholic moral viewpoint is founded on human reason illumined by faith and is consciously motivated by the desire to do the will of God our Father.

The Church's doctrine regarding this issue is thus based, not on isolated phrases for facile theological argument, but on the solid foundation of a constant Biblical testimony. The community of faith today, in unbroken continuity with the Jewish and Christian communities within which the ancient Scriptures were written, continues to be nourished by those same Scriptures and by the Spirit of Truth whose Word they are. It is likewise essential to recognize that the Scriptures are not properly understood when they are interpreted in a way which contradicts the Church's living Tradition. To be correct, the interpretation of Scripture must be in substantial accord with that Tradition.

To chose someone of the same sex for one's sexual activity is to annul the rich symbolism and meaning, not to mention the goals, of the Creator's sexual design. Homosexual activity is not a complementary union, able to transmit life; and so it thwarts the call to a life of that form of self-giving which the Gospel says is the essence of Christian living. This does not mean that homosexual persons are not often generous and giving of themselves; but when they engage in homosexual activity they confirm within themselves a disordered sexual inclination which is essentially self-indulgent.

As in every moral disorder, homosexual activity prevents one's own fulfillment and happiness by acting contrary to the creative wisdom of God. The Church, in rejecting erroneous opinions regarding homosexuality, does not limit but rather defends personal freedom and dignity realistically and authentically understood."

8 May 2013 16:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D. There are ways of getting the message across, and as we know, it’s so much easier doing that as a Roman Catholic than an Anglican. But you are really going to have to drop the Ian Paisley approach. It didn’t even work for him in the end, so he dropped it.

Anyway, why not cut the lad some slack. He hates you at the moment for the way you come across. Give him a bit of respect. He is not a ‘scene gay’ hedonist. He doesn’t deserve the derision at the level you deliver it, now does he ?

By the way, off to the Free State tomorrow. Will be gone for about a week...

8 May 2013 17:08  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Looking at the child abuse statistics I understand that those who go after boys have an average of 50 victims, and those that victimise girls 19, so it is very undesirable to draw a veil over the abuse of boys. The suicide statistics for the Welsh care home are just so sad; so many killed themselves before the age of 30; others self-medicate on banned drugs to try to forget. And apparently the worse the abuse the less likely they are to be believed, so if the perp. puts on a cloak and a mask....

Apparently Saville was thought to be more into boys than girls, though oddly this is not what has come out..... Why?

Nevertheless 50 boys or 19 girls is mildly irrelevant as it is a scarring &/or numbing tragedy for each individual.

We must all get a grip on the problem. Operation Greenlight is one good way forward.

8 May 2013 17:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "No, homosexuality is a disorder; it is unnatural, just like the other sexual deviancies noted above."

You're merely asserting like an asserting, asserty thing. Obviously, it's natural in any normal sense of the word. Is it a disorder? Yes if one is inclined to follow the words of a Roman Catholic pope. No if one accepts the professional consensus according to the DSM.

"Relationships based on love and companionship do not have to lead to what is in effect, lustful mutual masterbationl, or claims to being normal or a right to marry."

Well, that's true. Heterosexual couples don't need to have sex, or marry. It's not really normal in the scheme of things but, hey, that's their business.

"Heterosexuality, on the other hand, is natural; male and female bodies are designed to complement one another and to generate new life."

Homosexuality is natural, of course. It happens across species, across time, across cultures, and across geography. The design thing is another one of those contested religious principles so I can just discard that, and the complementary thing is the obviously how our species propagates but it's hardly mandatory at the level of individuals.

"In America today peodphiles are claiming their desires are a "sexual orientation" and should be regarded as such. Just because one has a certain tendency does not mean it should not be resisted, controlled and managed."

Paedophilia is a psychological disorder. Even if it isn't, children are unable to consent and it clearly causes harm. Hence, you're comparing apples and oranges. There's no need to resist, control, or manage homosexual orientation outside of the normal social rules we have about interaction. That's just a hangup of some religionists, and frankly that's their problem to resolve inside themselves.

"Fine, exercise free will and choose to act out on whatever proclivity you are drawn to but do it in private and don't expect others to applaud you or give you 'protected' status."

You define it as a proclivity but I'm quite comfortable with it. Hard luck to you. Of course, I could say that Roman Catholics ought to manifest their weird beliefs in private too and not expect protected status for their religion either. Obviously most of us don't applaud it anyway these days after all the scandals that have come to the fore regarding the Church. Luckily, I'm a liberal and we live in a liberal democracy so you don't need to do your stuff in private and you have protection as a matter of rights. It's a pity you lot can't repicrocate, but hey. Some Muslims are the same.

8 May 2013 17:32  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Sexual sin is so wrong in so many ways listen to this and tell me that you don't agree

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xyLA4PqywlU

8 May 2013 20:32  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Lucy Mullen.

Eh? I googled Operation Green Light, and Wiki gave me the following :

"Operation Green Light was the third of four small operations led by Darth Vader against the Rebel Alliance in 1.5 ABY. Its goal was to eliminate agents of the Alliance Special Forces. Vader recruited an agent of the Imperial Special Forces who subsequently hunted down and killed five high-ranking rebel agents."

8 May 2013 21:34  
Blogger Peter D said...

"Obviously, it's natural" (homosexuality) "in any normal sense of the word. Is it a disorder? Yes if one is inclined to follow the words of a Roman Catholic pope. No if one accepts the professional consensus according to the DSM."

Er, natural? Now that all depends on its causes, doesn't it? And its not just the Roman Catholic Church that defines it as a moral disorder.

"Heterosexual couples don't need to have sex, or marry. It's not really normal in the scheme of things but, hey, that's their business."

Well, it is actually quite normal for heterosexual people to feel love and affection for one another without the need for sex. Even if they did have sexual desire for one another they could choose not to engage in sexual activities. Its called self control.

"Homosexuality is natural, of course. It happens across species, across time, across cultures, and across geography."

Well, yes, but we are not animals! Murder, rape, theft etc occur across time, cultures and geography. As for natural, well it all depends on the causes of homosexuality. Lust and self gratification appears to be a consistent human flaw. Explicable from a religious point of view but not a liberal one.

"The design thing is another one of those contested religious principles so I can just discard that, and the complementary thing is the obviously how our species propagates but it's hardly mandatory at the level of individuals."

Really?! You think men's bodies were designed for sodomy? And you think procreation unimportant? No culture or civilisation in human history has ever accepted homosexuality as being on a par with heterosexuality. It is a practice that has been tolerated.

"Paedophilia is a psychological disorder."

Well it is a disorder, granted. A few years ago homosexuality was classified as one too.

"Even if it isn't, children are unable to consent and it clearly causes harm. Hence, you're comparing apples and oranges."

There we go. Maybe peodophilia isn't a disorder. From your point of view, maybe it's apples and oranges; not from mine.

"There's no need to resist, control, or manage homosexual orientation outside of the normal social rules we have about interaction. That's just a hangup of some religionists, and frankly that's their problem to resolve inside themselves."

Not a "hang-up". A position based on a view that we are created in the image of God and called to live according to our Creator's purposes. Your position is based on what?

"You define it as a proclivity but I'm quite comfortable with it."

Well of course you are.

"Hard luck to you. Of course, I could say that Roman Catholics ought to manifest their weird beliefs in private too and not expect protected status for their religion either."

No hard luck to me at all. And you're free to say what you want about the orthodox Christian view of any sexual act outside marriage.

9 May 2013 01:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Even if they did have sexual desire for one another they could choose not to engage in sexual activities. Its called self control."

Because, like, homosexuals don't have self-control. Right? This is why I call you a homophobe. It's like being a racist where one holds a negative stereotype and uses it irrespective of the individual.

We're just like heterosexuals in terms of having self-control, the desire for sex, the desire for companionship, the capacity for falling in love, only we're attracted to people of the same sex.

Listen, heterosexual couples can decide not to engage in sex if they like, just like homosexual couples. But there's no obligation to in either case, except in the minds of some religionists.

"Well, yes, but we are not animals! Murder, rape, theft etc occur across time, cultures and geography."

You see, there's your homophobia again. Homosexuals are no more or less animals than heterosexuals. Murder, rape, theft etc violate rights and cause harm, that's primarily why they're wrong. You need to explain why homosexuality is wrong in terms that we both accept, like I can with murder, rape, theft, etc.

"As for natural, well it all depends on the causes of homosexuality."

You mean natural as in means "god-designed" I suppose. Well, I'm an atheist myself and, as I say over and over, most people don't accept your god hypothesis so why should we use your definition?

"Lust and self gratification appears to be a consistent human flaw. Explicable from a religious point of view but not a liberal one."

We're undeniably a self-aware, rational, and gregarious species. Lust is a biological drive and self-gratification is a normal, natural thing. How we balance those things as individuals with our social interactions and our understanding of consequences is where ethics comes in. There's nothing particularly inexplicable in all that for someone who has not bought into a religion.

"Really?! You think men's bodies were designed for sodomy? And you think procreation unimportant?"

A non sequitur there, of course. Besides, I don't think any of our bodies were designed, other than by circumstances over time. Even accepting evolution by natural selection, it doesn't mean we're bound by our biology. That's the wonder of rational self-awareness. We make tools, adapt to circumstances, rationalise, and so on. We're not just "animals" etc.

"Well it is a disorder, granted. A few years ago homosexuality was classified as one too."

And it isn't now but you haven't yet caught up. Look, the DSM is not like an anatomy book and there are different ways to classify a disorder. Homosexuality doesn't present psychological problems, outside of socially constructed ones, and homosexual behaviour between consenting adults does not necessarily cause harm. Is there much more to add than that, short of imagining a particular religious paradigm?

"Not a "hang-up". A position based on a view that we are created in the image of God and called to live according to our Creator's purposes. Your position is based on what?"

My position? Reality, as far as I can tell.

"Well of course you are."

That's because it's not a disorder. :)

"No hard luck to me at all."

It seems to exercise you greatly, for some reason. Also, your illiberal views are very much at odds with our culture. One might even go as far as saying you are a bit of an oddball for being so bothered about the sex lives of other people, and in particular the details of that sex. It's your problem, you know, and it's fixable.

9 May 2013 05:37  
Blogger Peter D said...

"Because, like, homosexuals don't have self-control. Right? This is why I call you a homophobe. It's like being a racist where one holds a negative stereotype and uses it irrespective of the individual."

Why is this "homophobic? Where did I say or imply homosexuals had any less control than any other person motivated by self-indulgent lust?

"We're just like heterosexuals in terms of having self-control, the desire for sex, the desire for companionship, the capacity for falling in love, only we're attracted to people of the same sex."

And that's where you have to resist and exercise self control because, according to my worldview, your attraction and desire is morally and naturally disordered.

"Well, I'm an atheist myself and, as I say over and over, most people don't accept your god hypothesis so why should we use your definition?"

So what if you don't believe in God? I'm entitled o put forward my view.

"We're undeniably a self-aware, rational, and gregarious species. Lust is a biological drive and self-gratification is a normal, natural thing. How we balance those things as individuals with our social interactions and our understanding of consequences is where ethics comes in."

Yes but what's the basis for your ethics? "Harm"? A subjective concept and open to changes in social trends and influences that are not always rational.

"I don't think any of our bodies were designed, other than by circumstances over time. Even accepting evolution by natural selection, it doesn't mean we're bound by our biology. That's the wonder of rational self-awareness. We make tools, adapt to circumstances, rationalise, and so on. We're not just "animals" etc."

Yes people certainly show a great capacity to rationalise and justify! Without evolution providing heterosexual attraction we as a species we wouldn't be here.

"Look, the DSM is not like an anatomy book and there are different ways to classify a disorder. Homosexuality doesn't present psychological problems, outside of socially constructed ones, and homosexual behaviour between consenting adults does not necessarily cause harm."

Well there's one of our central differences. I see psychological and societal problems arising from disturbances in the soul when our consciences are out of sync with the morality imprinted in us by God.

"It seems to exercise you greatly, for some reason."

Yes because I see it as one of the greatest evils facing our society.

"Also, your illiberal views are very much at odds with our culture."

Well yes, that's because our culture is illliberal too and a minority are taking advantage of the political processes to impose their illiberal views on others.

"One might even go as far as saying you are a bit of an oddball for being so bothered about the sex lives of other people, and in particular the details of that sex. It's your problem, you know, and it's fixable."

I wondered when the personal abuse would come. I'm not interested in the detail of people's sex lives just the moral framework of sexual intimacy.

Anyone who disagrees with you is an "oddball", it seems.

9 May 2013 22:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "And that's where you have to resist and exercise self control because, according to my worldview, your attraction and desire is morally and naturally disordered."

Weird. You're getting like the Taleban wanting women to wear head to toe clothing.

"So what if you don't believe in God? I'm entitled o put forward my view."

Yes you are because we live in a liberal democracy where freedom, including freedom of speech, is highly valued and diversity is not discouraged. Compare and contrast with our country when the Roman Catholic Church had huge influence and people were killed merely for having 'unorthodox' views.

"Yes but what's the basis for your ethics? "Harm"? A subjective concept and open to changes in social trends and influences that are not always rational."

That's for ethics i.e. rules of behaviour in a political philosophy. It's one of the ways a liberal democratic society arbitrates between competing interests so that people like you and people like Muslims can share the same space. And it works, for the most part. Afterall, you self-identify as a member of a minority religion here yet you have considerable freedom to manifest that religion's beliefs if you choose to.

"Well there's one of our central differences. I see psychological and societal problems arising from disturbances in the soul when our consciences are out of sync with the morality imprinted in us by God."

That's just mumbo-jumbo. You need to convince people to accept your god hypothesis, in competition to (say) the Muslim one, before you can proceed. Good luck with that. ;)

"Yes because I see it as one of the greatest evils facing our society."

Drama queen, much?

"Well yes, that's because our culture is illliberal too and a minority are taking advantage of the political processes to impose their illiberal views on others."

Or, special interest groups arguing for the recognition and realisation of their interests, subject to constraints of our rights structure, and the State arbitrating accordingly.

"I wondered when the personal abuse would come. I'm not interested in the detail of people's sex lives just the moral framework of sexual intimacy.

"Anyone who disagrees with you is an "oddball", it seems."

Not at all. People who disagree with me about abortion, or a right to die, aren't oddballs for doing that. It's the disproportionate interest in the sex lives of consenting adults, especially of those with a homosexual orientation, that make people oddballs. It's is really odd when you think about it, isn't it? One of the basic premises of Christianity is that we're supposed to be out of sync with god, drawing the inspiration and drive for our lives from ourselves rather than its god, yet it's not that broadsweep that bothers some religionists, it's a particular manifestation as they see it in a minority group which they think they can bully. The Roman Catholic Church has been particularly keen and particularly ruthless in trying to crush opposing views and persecute minorities.

10 May 2013 06:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Yes people certainly show a great capacity to rationalise and justify! Without evolution providing heterosexual attraction we as a species we wouldn't be here."

Oops, I forgot this bit. You realise that I'm quite happy with heterosexual attraction and I'm not suggesting we do anything about it just because I think homosexual attraction should be no biggy to people, right? This may come as a shock but my parents were heterosexuals and my brother is a heterosexual and many of my friends are heterosexuals. I'm fine with it. I don't want to stop consenting heterosexuals adults having rumpy pumpy and I don't need to know about the details. People getting married is a good thing. People not getting married is no problem. People shagging around is fine too if they're careful. People having children is great. Really, it's fine. I just expect to be able to do much the same thing myself, whichever I choose even though I'm attracted to people of the same sex.

10 May 2013 17:52  
Blogger Peter D said...

"Compare and contrast with our country when the Roman Catholic Church had huge influence and people were killed merely for having 'unorthodox' views."

Examples? Think you'll find it was the State, not the Church, who killed people. And do set the examples in the social, political and economic circumstances of the time.

"The Roman Catholic Church has been particularly keen and particularly ruthless in trying to crush opposing views and persecute minorities."

See above.

"I don't want to stop consenting heterosexuals adults having rumpy pumpy and I don't need to know about the details. People getting married is a good thing. People not getting married is no problem. People shagging around is fine too if they're careful. People having children is great. Really, it's fine. I just expect to be able to do much the same thing myself, whichever I choose even though I'm attracted to people of the same sex."

Well of course you do. However, my view is that this perpsective is self indulgent, hedonistic and, by breaking the link betweeen sex, marriage (heterosexual) and child rearing, damages individuals and society.

That's where we differ.

10 May 2013 19:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Examples? Think you'll find it was the State, not the Church, who killed people."

That's shameless.

10 May 2013 21:27  
Blogger Peter D said...

Then provide the evidence.

10 May 2013 21:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

No, it's shameless that you're trying to use that as a defence. The Church was wholly complicit in the act. Moreover, society was constructed around the Church and State together in a symbiotic relationship. That is, a hegemony operated.

10 May 2013 22:16  
Blogger Peter D said...

"Compare and contrast with our country when the Roman Catholic Church had huge influence and people were killed merely for having 'unorthodox' views."

"The Roman Catholic Church has been particularly keen and particularly ruthless in trying to crush opposing views and persecute minorities."

Evidence - setting the examples in the social, political and economic circumstances of the time? I'm defending nothing just asking you to back your assertion with reasonable arguments.

The greatest mass murders in history (abortion aside) have taken taken place during the 20th century in atheist States - not Christian ones.

10 May 2013 22:35  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "I'm defending nothing just asking you to back your assertion with reasonable arguments."

Bollocks. You tried to push the killings for heresy onto the State yet the Church was wholly complicit in it even though the State carried them out.

So, the burnings during our religious wars and specifically during Mary Tudor's time for the first quote. For the second quote, the perscutions in Languedoc will do as an example I think.

10 May 2013 23:05  
Blogger Peter D said...

"So, the burnings during our religious wars and specifically during Mary Tudor's time for the first quote. For the second quote, the perscutions in Languedoc will do as an example I think."

Context, DanJo? These were social, economic and political in nature as much as religious.

Mary Tudor was about political control and many Catholics died during this period too.

The Crusades against the Cathars has to be understood in terms of the times in which it took place.

What you're suggesting is that Catholicism, if it becomes dominant again, will massacre the 'unorthodox'. That's why your trotting out these examples.

Now that's shameless.

11 May 2013 00:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, on the one hand you and others claim that the Church is not influenced by cultural and political context over doctrine etc, being guided by this Holy Spirit thing you assert, and on the other its abuses and evil behaviour over its long history are down to cultural and political context. Which is it?

I don't know for sure how the Roman Catholic Church would behave if it ever got the level of temporal power it had during the religious wars across Western Europe. Given the way it has conducted itself regarding the scandals in recent decades, I'm not sure the outlook is that great to be honest.

But anyway, I raised the point to compare and contrast the various approaches. On the one hand, we have moral absolutists i.e. ideologues who 'know' they are right and who 'know' they have their god on their side and are acting as its agents, and on the other we have liberals like me who acknowledge that we can't know we have everything right and operate on the basis that as long as we can safely coexist, we ought to let people live and believe as they think best and see whether people can come up with better ways of living.

11 May 2013 10:30  
Blogger Naomi King said...



Gay marriage will haunt David Cameron, writes Charles Moore in the Daily Telegraph today.

"With gay marriage, the Coalition proposes to alter fundamentally the most important social structure ever known to mankind. If it hopes to slip this quietly past the country over the summer, without any serious consequences, it is being not only dishonest, but stupid." - Charles Moore, Daily Telegraph

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10049451/David-Cameron-would-like-to-forget-gay-marriage-but-it-will-haunt-him.html

11 May 2013 10:49  
Blogger David B said...

Is Dodo back here, then?

David

15 May 2013 17:57  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older