Wednesday, July 03, 2013

Street preacher interrogated by police: "If a homosexual was hungry, would you give them something to eat?"



Tony Miano is a street evangelist. He is also a retired veteran of the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. During his career, he has served as a gang and juvenile crime investigator, field training officer, drug recognition expert, and a DUI enforcement specialist. According to his biography, he has 'received more than 60 commendations and citations for meritorious service, arrests, criminal investigations, and community service'.

He knows a thing or two about the law.

Mr Miano has recently been out preaching in Wimbledon. He very much enjoys biblical evangelism, speaking about spiritual growth, personal holiness and the person and work of Jesus Christ. On Monday, his theme was sexual immorality - all forms (1Thess 4:1-12). He talked about sin - heterosexual and homosexual - without discrimination. As he was preaching, a lady heard him say that homosexuality was a sin, and promptly summoned the police, who duly arrived.

Mr Miano was then arrested for violating Section 5 of the Public Order Act: he was accused of using homophobic speech likely to cause anxiety, distress, alarm or insult.

He was escorted to Wimbledon police station, where he was photographed, finger-printed and had a DNA sample taken. He was then incarcerated in a cell for seven hours.

And he was interrogated about his faith in Jesus Christ.

He was asked if he believed homosexuality was a sin. He was asked from which portion of the Bible he was preaching. Incredibly, he was asked whether, if a homosexual was hungry and walked up to him, he would give them something to eat.

He was then informed that there was sufficient evidence from his responses to forward his case to the CPS, and that the judge could order him to remain in the country for 4-5 months while his case came to trial.

Even before Parliament has legislated for same-sex marriage, we see the threat to religious liberty. Not since 1559 has there been an Act of Uniformity requiring everyone to assent to a particular worldview, and it took more than 300 years to eradicate that. But now we have a new Act of Uniformity which elevates equality and sexual orientation to a quasi-religious status which trumps any religious worldview which opposes it. It is secular pluralism by statute law.

Christians are harassed, intimidated, persecuted and interrogated. What manner of inquisition is it that asks: "If a homosexual was hungry and walked up to you, would you give them something to eat?"

And what manner of theological ignorance is it which has no grasp of the Christian divine command to love your neighbour by giving them food (Mt 25:35); or any understanding of the fundamental liberty to preach liberty to the captives?

171 Comments:

Blogger carl jacobs said...

But don't you understand? The evangelist has spoken blasphemy against the new secular state religion. There is a new god over the state, and all men are required to worship him.

carl

3 July 2013 15:32  
Blogger BeeLZeeBub said...

The man was being an obnoxious bigot.

People should be free to go about their daily business without this sort of crap being spewed at them.

Hiding behind your bibles is no excuse for being objectionable anti-social idiots.

3 July 2013 15:36  
Blogger Jonathan Hunt said...

Freedom of speech, anyone? No, only if you agree with what someone says, obviously.

3 July 2013 15:41  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

He's certainly got it right on the complete spinelessness of the established church.

Is it even Christian now or just socialists in drag?

3 July 2013 15:43  
Blogger Zedrp Kawa said...

"I went drifting through the capitals of tin, where men can't walk or freely talk and sons turn their fathers in, I stopped outside a church house where the citizens like to sit, they say they want the kingdom, but the don't want God in it" The Wanderer,
U2&Johnny cash

3 July 2013 15:45  
Blogger Harry-ca-Nab said...

BeeLZeeBub

I guess I would find much of what you spew is crap, but should I be able to get you arrested for it?

Only a fascist would stifle freedom of speech, belief, thought and association.

THAT is what has happened in the UK.

Recent legal opinion of what can be said in social media is rolling that back. People have to GO BEYOND statements that are:.....


Offensive, shocking or disturbing; or
Satirical, iconoclastic or rude comment;
or
The expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it.

...BEFORE they can be arrested.

3 July 2013 15:51  
Blogger Edward Spalton said...

This sounds like the police using their usual tactic of "the process is the punishment".

Any one in trouble for this sort of thing should contact the Christian Institute who have a fighting fund and some very well informed lawyers on call. They have been successful in getting damages for some people -although all cases are individual.

In a non Church-related matter, a highly respectable friend of mine was given similar treatment after being involved in a meeting of the Countryside Alliance. For no reason which he could discern, he was arrested and banged up for nine hours in a urine-stinking cell with only the Daily Mirror for company. Then he was released without charge. It was not pleasant - and "the process was the punishment".

3 July 2013 16:09  
Blogger Owl said...


All socialism eventually leads to fascism.

Fabian socialism just gets there faster.

3 July 2013 16:14  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

It's true, one dare not publicly criticise or question the homosexual lifestyle these days, and this is so very wrong. We must protect freedom of speech.

I can't help but wonder if it had been muslim street preachers there instead would they have been arrested under Section 5 public order act for preaching the sins of homosexuality? We know they don't get arrested for preaching and inciting hatred so I doubt it very much.

Mr Miano has a great preaching voice which would go to waste if he isn't allowed to evangelise in public.

3 July 2013 16:19  
Blogger MrTinkles said...

BeeLZeeBub

Ah... the use of the word "bigot" - the first resort of those who don't have a coherent argument.

As you have never met this guy, let alone spoken to him, you have no idea whether he acts and speaks out of prejudice and bigotry...

You are making a judgment on him without proper knowledge of him. And as you make a comment about "you" (plural) you seem to be lumping all those who would make a similar argument on whether homosexuality is a sin. Again with no knowledge of how they might have arrived at that understanding...


Hmmm let's think - what do we call someone who makes judgements on people in that way?...oh that's right!

3 July 2013 16:23  
Blogger Getting Heard said...

BeeLZeeBub

Your hatred makes you a blind fool.

So much so you probably don't even realise that your comments promptly did exactly what you accused this "abnoxious bigot" of doing.

That is - not letting people "be free to go about their daily business (like perusing the web) without this sort of crap being spewed at them"?

Exactly my friend so I am going to call the Police to come and feel your collar for your commenst are clearly a 'hate' crime aimed at those who love their liberty, God, truth and justice.

...and it's no good hiding behind your vain philophies and babblings as it is "no excuse for being objectionable anti-social idiots".

Couldn't have put it better myself.

3 July 2013 16:26  
Blogger Henry Wood said...

To BeeLZeeBub: Just what is "an obnoxious bigot"?

I am a gay man. I was gay when it was a criminal offence to commit a gay act in this country (UK). I was once told by a Met Police officer to "get back where I came from 'cos we've got enough of you poofs down here already." He slapped my face with his leather gloves as he told me this.

I have attended some gay "pride" marches both here, in the US and other countries.

What I have found over a long life is that the most obnoxious people I have ever encountered have been on those same "pride" marches. I witnessed open masturbation, anal intercourse and other obnoxious acts during some of these "pride" marches. I found very little to be proud of on any of them. People who wished to be "free to go about their daily business" were forced to take a detour to avoid the most blatant obscenities. And it was not verbal "crap being spewed at them", no. It was physical, in-your-face, like-it-or-lump-it crap that was being paraded before them. Even the presence of children did not stop the show going on. In fact, some children there seemed to have been brought to some of these exhibitions by some of the exhibitors and were even dressed in mini gay Barbie and Ken outfits.

The police (in all countries) stood by and never did a thing. They did not jump in and question gay exhibitors "if they would feed straight people who might be starving". And do you know why? Because no straight person observing this perverted exhibition dared approach an officer of the law to complain for fear of being arrested themselves.

Yes, changes needed to be made, but as in other walks of life the pendulum has swung too far. One day it will reach its return point. One day the worm will turn. I am glad I shall be well out of it when it happens.

To get back to my question to you, BeeLZeeBub, it seems to me you are the obnoxious bigot here.

3 July 2013 16:27  
Blogger Unknown said...

One wonders if they would have arrested a Muslim making the same comments in public.

3 July 2013 16:29  
Blogger Henry Wood said...

p.s. The use of the lower case "p" when I wrote of gay "pride" was deliberate. I found little to be proud of on any of those events. I was not alone.

3 July 2013 16:43  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3 July 2013 16:45  
Blogger Henry Wood said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 July 2013 16:56  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

This post is a bout a very specific issue of religious liberty and freedom of speech - nothing at all to do with the euro..

3 July 2013 16:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article: "Mr Miano was then arrested for violating Section 5 of the Public Order Act: he was accused of using homophobic speech likely to cause anxiety, distress, alarm or insult."

Didn't the Crime and Courts Act 2013 remove the word "insulting" from Section 5 of the Public Order Act last April?

3 July 2013 16:58  
Blogger Flossie said...

Well said, Henry Wood@16.27. I laughed out loud when I read BeelZeeBub's comment - hilarious!! When we are subjected to daily doses of gayification from every quarter whether we like it or not, when Lady Gaga is allowed to gayify the US National Anthem with barely a squeak of protest raised, when bishops and archbishops are afraid to call sin sin and our great and glorious leaders are rubbing our noses in their promotion of that abomination they are pleased to call gay marriage.

If you want to read hateful bigoted commentary, just go onto Pink News (as the Inspector will no doubt tell you).

Way to go, Mr Miano. Good to have someone with cojones visiting our country.

3 July 2013 17:00  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

By the way, if the guy was merely preaching then his arrest is outrageous. Has he actually been charged?

3 July 2013 17:00  
Blogger Berserker said...

Where is the individual victim? Is it the woman who reported this so called crime?

Surely, you cannot call a group of people (gays) a victim because they are not a homogeneous grouping.

I thought Section 5 had been changed. Read (especially the last sentence)

Keith Porteous Wood, executive director of the National Secular Society, said: "We congratulate the home secretary for removing a much-abused catch all provision where the police could charge anyone for using trivial words that irritated them.

"The police did not even need to identify the victim that allegedly had been insulted. The change is likely to prevent street evangelists preaching against homosexuality being charged."

Surely the police should be charged for interrogating him about his faith?

3 July 2013 17:05  
Blogger Woman on a Raft said...

One wonders if they would have arrested a Muslim making the same comments in public.

Three Muslims who produced a fundamentalist leaflet were convicted by a jury at Derby Crown Court in January 2012. They were convicted on the charge of distributing threatening written material intending to stir up hatred on the grounds of sexual orientation.

A pamphlet, called "The Death Penalty?", quoted Islamic texts that said capital punishment was the only way to rid society of homosexuality alongside an image of a mannequin hanging from a noose. The defendants argued they were making a statement on the basis of their religion and that it was therefore within the scope of freedom of religious expression. They did not intend to threaten anyone.

The jury convicted three of the five people charged. It may have made a difference that the material was given out rather than just speaking, but since the jury room is sealed we don't know what they took in to account.

3 July 2013 17:11  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Unknown,

"One wonders if they would have arrested a Muslim making the same comments in public."

Oh, I will not have that! People like Anjem Choudry, Abu Izzadeen and Abu Hamza do not discriminate!

They hate the lot of us.

3 July 2013 17:18  
Blogger Ian G said...

I recommend watching the video. He has some pertinent things to say.

3 July 2013 17:32  
Blogger William Lewis said...

"I was interrogated because I was a Christian"

We are truly up gay creek without a paddle. Or at the very least we are to be intimidated and/or arrested if we attempt to use the paddle. And SSM hasn't even hit the statutes yet.

3 July 2013 17:47  
Blogger IanCad said...

Enjoy your July 4th celebration tomorrow Bro Tony Milano.
You are a stout fellow indeed!

When, over two hundred and forty years ago, you fought for your independence we should welcome you over here to help restore ours.

Our liberties are no more.
We are an emasculated race.
Our sensitivities have vanquished our principles.

We have a form of Godliness but deny the power thereof.
Ephraim is joined to his idols, let him be.

When we as a nation conspire to hamper the word of God, ruin must surely follow.

But, over here, we still maintain that the dignity of any suspect has to be upheld.

@ 3:20 you stated:

"--It was a most unusual arrest in that I walked side by side with two officers to the police station unhandcuffed -- very strange."

So, we can both learn from each other.

3 July 2013 17:47  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi,

I think making someone a criminal because of calling homosexuality a 'sin' is so silly and laughable.

I'd rather the police focus on other things like terrorism, assault, rape, theft, drug gangs and the kind of crimes 99% of the population want them to stop.

Sure I've had worse thrown at me, but I either fight back in kind or ignore it.

I can just stick fingers in my ears and hum real loud or chat with the guy. As a few Christians here have said I'm hell bound or whatever, as a Jew and a gay, but, I'm not going to the police or whatever, as I see it you've got your POV and I've got mine and we can discuss like adults.

So for him to be arrested for explaining his faith, is quite silly. That is why we have fought intolerant regimes throughout the centuries and even now we officially condemn for being 'intolerant'. Not much good when the example is set at home though.It is horrid when one sees a gestapo or stazi state coming into being.

3 July 2013 17:56  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Another example is the feminist backlash against the Bank of England for proposing the British hero and Prime Minister Winston Churchill to be on the fiver... because there will be no women on the currency notes. Except that there is a woman -Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II- on EVERY SINGLE bank of England currency note.

Funny old world.

3 July 2013 18:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Saints preserve us ! BeeLZeeBub is back. Do pass on the Inspector’s regards to his many friends and admirers on Pink News and his regret that he is at present unable to pass the time of day with them. Due to not being ‘equal’ with them, apparently…

A question for you, old queer fellow. Why is it that today’s male homosexual is hypersensitive to criticism. For example, let’s see what YOU think…

The man was being an obnoxious bigot. People should be free to go about their daily business without this sort of crap being spewed at them. Hiding behind your bibles is no excuse for being objectionable anti-social idiots.

Fair enough. Everyone has the right to an opinion, and you certainly expressed yours. But there is something missing from what you wrote. And here it is “But he does NOT deserve to be hounded by the state and arrested for HIS opinions”.

Same also applies to the anti religious hatred found on Pink News. It is NOT the state’s business to condemn it, if you don’t like what you are hearing or seeing, don’t hear or see it. In fact the Inspector doesn’t want to see any homosexuals in prison apart from the deserving, to wit kiddie fiddlers and HIV jockeys. Which reminds one, what do you think about the potential bone marrow cure for HIV ? The 15 to 20% mortality rate is a bit much to swallow, even for a gay man used to that kind of thing {AHEM}, but that’s God for you…



3 July 2013 18:03  
Blogger Peter D said...

Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986:

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

Well, being told the Bible regards homosexuality as a perversion that set's one on the road to perdition, would be alarming - if one accepted the Bible as God's word.

This offence has the following statutory defences:

(a) The defendant had no reason to believe that there was any person within hearing or sight who was likely to be alarmed or distressed by his action.
(b) The defendant was in a dwelling and had no reason to believe that his behaviour would be seen or heard by any person outside any dwelling.
(c) The conduct was reasonable.

It is surely reasonable for a Christian to speak the Truth as he understands it - isn't it? And part of evangelising is to disturb and cause people to reflect on their conduct - isn't it?

3 July 2013 18:14  
Blogger David B said...

I think the treatment of him was outrageous too.

He should have the freedom of expression to say that he believes homosexuality is a sin, just as I should have the freedom to describe his beliefs as obnoxious garbage.

Pragmatically, I think that both from the points of view of increasing acceptance of homosexuals in society and of people noticing that many religious people are on, or cross over, the borders of lunacy, him and his ilk spouting that sort of nonsense would be a good thing.

It would be the god-botherers, not the homosexuals, who would be marginalised and held in general contempt, in my view.

David

3 July 2013 18:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

many religious people are on, or cross over, the borders of lunacy

Been studying Soviet mental health concepts again, I see.

carl

3 July 2013 18:33  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Thank Christ we now have Police Commissioners, who are subject to election. This man would surely use his fabled ‘one phone call’ to telephone that individual and arrange for himself to be instantly ‘sprung’, so to speak...


3 July 2013 18:47  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

It's a pity the police don't react in the same way when we have the radical Islamic clerics spouting their bigotry towards Jews,Christians or 'the infidels' (said preachers are somehow protected via 'human rights').

But it seems that a Christian preacher is *fair game* and doesn't have 'human rights' to belief.

PS- Isn't BeeLZeeBub another name for Christian devil? Not sure why anyone would want to be associated with being personified with that figure?

3 July 2013 18:51  
Blogger Peter D said...

David B

" ... many religious people are on, or cross over, the borders of lunacy"

Now that might be considered a breach of the Equality Act 2010 - unless you can provide evidence. You're always big on empirical data. Can you?

DanJ0
"By the way, if the guy was merely preaching then his arrest is outrageous."

I'll drink to that comment!

3 July 2013 18:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

^ *

3 July 2013 19:04  
Blogger LEN said...

The question asked to a Christian;: "If a homosexual was hungry and walked up to you, would you give them something to eat?" shows a total lack of understanding of 'anything' Christian.

Is true Christianity so alien to this secular culture that even basic Christian principles are not understood?. Much damage has been done to true Christianity by using 'condemnation' rather than 'conviction' of sin.Jesus came into the World not to condemn but to convict sinners of their need to get saved.Jesus loved sinners but didn`t want them to remain in their sins but to be saved from their sins.

Two major tenets of Christianity are Christianity are 1, love God
2, love your neighbour as yourself,

So 'feeding' a homosexual falls short of this requirement loving him is required but....this doesn`t mean condoning his lifestyle but' loving him 'would mean giving him the chance to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ and the pathway to redemption.



3 July 2013 19:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

As an aside, I'm not sure Tony Miano's street evangelism in the UK will be much helped by looking like a stereotype Gay Scene man with his shaved head and a 70s porn star's moustache. Or that part of the patter to get people to do a double-take as he's talking about sexual sins?

3 July 2013 19:13  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

There are many other examples of this. A bloke called Jonathan Hall was speaking against same-sex marriage in Cambridge a couple of months ago when a pair of aggressive lesbians who had been filming him called the police. They told him they had enough evidence to put him in gaol. He was taken for questioning at a police station and only narrowly escaped criminal charges. the lesbians went on pursuing the matter for weeks.
It would be great if more people like Henry Wood would speak out against the gay-extremist bullshit in this country, but they are taking grave risks if they do. Fine for him if he has no job to lose, no political position to be flung out of, and does not mind facing charges of hate-speech just for telling the truth.
I don't know why the owner of this blog tolerates so many disgusting trolls, beelzebub, Dan-Jo, and all the rest of them

3 July 2013 19:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

^ *

3 July 2013 19:30  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Unknown (16:29)—One wonders if they would have arrested a Muslim making the same comments in public

In a 2008 variation on the theme, a Muslim police community support officer told two Christian preachers they were committing a hate crime by handing out Bible tracts in a Muslim area of Birmingham. The Daily Mail reports one of the preachers saying: ‘This is a free country and to suggest we were guilty of a hate crime for spreading God’s word is outrageous.’

I think he’ll find this was a free country.

3 July 2013 19:32  
Blogger David B said...

Carl and Peter D - you might try looking at Jerusalem Syndrome on Wiki or google for a start.

David

3 July 2013 19:32  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I hope Miano gets to publish the audio from his interview and the CPS issues some guidance in this area because it doesn't seem right at all.

3 July 2013 19:37  
Blogger Christian Contender said...

This arrest is outrageous. I and fellow ministers were preaching for 3 hours on Saturday at the London Gay Pride parade, doing so in the presence of many police officers, including two liaison officers assigned specifically to us.

We spoke about the need to repent of all sin, but obviously we specifically referred to homosexuality. The Police had no problem with this at all. They knew that we were there to proclaim Christian teaching, and they could see the many Bible texts on display speaking directly of homosexual practice.

It is in fact far more compassionate to call one's neighbour to repentance and set forth salvation in Christ, than it is is, because of political correctness, to say, Carry on in your sin.

3 July 2013 19:42  
Blogger Jack Sprat said...

As for Christians crossing the borders of lunacy, just take a look at some of the pictures from this weeks disgusting London "gay" pride parade. Bare bums waved in the air, Nazi uniforms, bondage gear including bizarre animal masks and dog/people on leashes to their "masters", aggressive posters demanding that people who disagree with them are arrested...
Yet we are not allowed to complain that any of this will cause distress, alarm or harassment?
This is not a free country.

3 July 2013 19:42  
Blogger richardhj said...

Hannah Kavanagh, (17:56)

I am not sure that the gentleman who has been arrested thinks its "silly and laughable." Nor do those of us whose children are being taught the gay agenda and are afraid to fight back in case we are arrested, or our children are bullied by teachers.

The rest of your post is great.

3 July 2013 19:47  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Jack Sprat

It is pretty disgusting and degrading and I pity homosexuals like Henry Wood who have to be associated with this kind of thing. All credit to him for speaking out.

3 July 2013 19:53  
Blogger Peter D said...

David B
"Carl and Peter D - you might try looking at Jerusalem Syndrome on Wiki or google for a start."

That's your 'evidence'? A disputed syndrome - of short-term duration - with unknown causes!

You might try researching the data concerning general mental wellbeing and faith in a Deity. Then contrast and compare it with mental health problems among homosexuals and atheists.

3 July 2013 19:53  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

many religious people are on, or cross over, the borders of lunacy

I hardly think religious people have the monopoly on lunacy. In any case, in this story, the only direct evidence of lunacy is that of the police. This coupled with the bigotry (I trust Cranmer will accept this use of the word) of the woman who phoned them has resulted in undermining free-speech.

I cannot see that anyone - least of all homosexuals - benefits from this kind of anti free-speech, anti-discussion, anti-intellectual progress activity of the police. It is so outrageous that I wonder if there is more to the story (but in the same thought, it seems so commonplace that I almost withdraw the thought as soon as I make it). Religion in Europe is regarded with suspicion because it is associated with censorship. At this rate, how long before the police put homosexuals in the same place?

3 July 2013 19:53  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Peter D

Well put sir.

3 July 2013 19:57  
Blogger Drastic Plastic said...

You seem to have a scoop here, Cranmer; at least, I can't find much about it online beyond the video. When did this happen?

If the bullying approach taken is true, it is shameful. Any society that feels the urgent, desperate, pressing need to interfere with sandwichboardmen and the like -- and which of us has not seen these harmless souls preaching in the street? -- is deeply ill, and infected with bigotry.

Perhaps we need a "I am Spartacus" moment; all post the same anti-homosexual statement. After all, why should any group in our society have the power to demand that nobody express any dislike or opposition to them?

3 July 2013 20:01  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

Religion in Europe is regarded with suspicion because it is associated with censorship.

Religion is suspect because it is associated with immovable boundaries on human behavior. It declares that man is not the master of his own moral universe. Censorship is certainly allowed - so long as it serves the dominant secular worldview.

carl

3 July 2013 20:03  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I was really making a historical point - how did we get to be where we are, and why is Europe so much more anti-religious than your own country? The association of religion with intolerance in Europe is a factor. Whereas (I think), in the US religion is (or at least was) allied to freedom.

3 July 2013 20:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Some years ago, back in the last century, there was talk of routinely arming the police. One remembers the various organisations representing the police said this – half the force would resign. This man’s attitude at time was thus: Let them, and perhaps the local council can employ them as social workers. In the meantime, we’ll get a man’s police force to do the job instead. A real man’s police force, who don’t do anal or any other liberal socialist crap the failing people come out with....

Think about it...


3 July 2013 20:09  
Blogger Henry Wood said...

To Jack Sprat - you said, "It would be great if more people like Henry Wood would speak out against the gay-extremist bullshit in this country, but they are taking grave risks if they do. Fine for him if he has no job to lose, no political position to be flung out of, and does not mind facing charges of hate-speech just for telling the truth."

Yes, indeed, nail-on-head: "gay-extremist" is so correct - and now as in other walks of life the extremists are rapidly taking over. For people like me it is relatively easy to criticise them: as you correctly surmise, I no longer have a job to lose, though I must still post using a pseudonym. This is for my personal safety because from certain emails I have received even "Henry Wood" is no longer secure, or so they would have me believe.

Jack Sprat, you also said in a later post: "As for Christians crossing the borders of lunacy, just take a look at some of the pictures from this weeks disgusting London "gay" pride parade. Bare bums waved in the air, Nazi uniforms, bondage gear including bizarre animal masks and dog/people on leashes to their "masters", aggressive posters demanding that people who disagree with them are arrested..."

I commented on all of this this type of thing some two years ago on a different blog. A blog of an author (gay/show biz type) who I had always supported because of his own renowned and unwavering support of Israel. My disparaging remarks of the disgusting conduct I had personally witnessed abroad at "pride" parades, and which I suspected would soon be appearing at a "pride" parade near you, was met with most combative responses: "Get with it! Get up to date! Grow up! Old Man ... blah, blah, blah" from the blogger and his supporters. Not a single one addressed my questions regarding the law of the land concerning obscenity. From what you now say it has come to pass.

As I said earlier to the BeeLZ guy, thank G-d I shall soon be out of it.

3 July 2013 20:09  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

Carl and Peter D - you might try looking at Jerusalem Syndrome on Wiki or google for a start

I don't think you're on form today, David! I've looked it up and it turns out to have strong similarities with Stendhal syndrome, by which art lovers have the same psychotic problems visiting Florence. I'd be cautious about drawing the conclusion from this evidence that therefore many art lovers "are on, or cross over, the borders of lunacy." Consequently, I think you need to give us something else if you are to defend your original proposition.

3 July 2013 20:12  
Blogger Preacher said...

Well done Tony Miano. I believe many more of us will have to stand up & be counted before we establish the right to preach the word of God without hindrance.
I expect you will find that your release was hastened by the realisation on the inspectors part that an over zealous young officer had just kicked over a hornets nest. As well as by prayer.
What a stupid question to ask. A hungry person is simply that, to feed them does not mean one is condoning or condemning any activities that they are involved in that the Bible says are sinful. If we love our neighbour as ourself we will not turn him away.
Thank you Henry Wood for your contribution, which took courage, integrity & honesty. Blessings.

3 July 2013 20:13  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert
"This coupled with the bigotry (I trust Cranmer will accept this use of the word) of the woman who phoned them has resulted in undermining free-speech."

But Albert, the poor woman may have had cause to feel harassed, alarmed or distressed. She may have had a sensitive nature. To her the words may have been experienced as threatening, abusive or insulting. Let us not assume bigotry. These are subjective states. Of course, the woman's complaint to the authorities may well have been a wilful and bigoted political act to silence a critic with a different world view. Who knows?

However, the issue for the Police is whether the preacher's conduct, as an evangelist, was 'reasonable' in law. And of course it was.

Personally, I find Homosexual 'pride' Parades offensive and am alarmed by them. What are the chances the Police would take my report seriously and investigate it?

3 July 2013 20:15  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

A little more digging reveals a similar syndrome, known as Paris syndrome. Tourists visiting Paris end up with similar symptoms. Interestingly, it seems tourists from Japan are particularly susceptible. Therefore, we can now remove "many religious people" and "many art lovers" and insert "many Japanese", into your original sentence:

Many Japanese "are on, or cross over, the borders of lunacy."

If you're beginning to worry that the logic of your position, used with different, if analogous data would result in a racist statement, you can understand why a few of us think you have some explaining to do, when you make such statements with such evidence about religious people.

3 July 2013 20:19  
Blogger Albert said...

Peter D,

I would have felt alarmed and distressed had Verdasco beaten Murray. But that does not entitle me to complain to the police about Verdasco's victory (had it happened). Neither does it entitle the police the arrest him.

Without state power being rooted in natural law, it is just an arbitrary power. That's not a place the police should be in.

3 July 2013 20:22  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert

But this is about public order, not personal distress.

Verdasco used no threatening, abusive or insulting words, nor did he behave in a disorderly manner. So how could you have been legally alarmed, harassed or distressed by the result? Perhaps if John McEnroe had been playing, you would have a case.

3 July 2013 21:12  
Blogger Jonathan Hunt said...

Thank you Henry Wood for your honest and courageous contribution.

Drastic Plastic: This happened on Monday of this week. His Grace has his sources ;-)

3 July 2013 21:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Let this man say to Henry Wood: Well done sir, for your contribution.

There was a time when homosexual men just wanted tolerance by society, not to define society. The Inspector still has plenty of time for those who still keep to this...

3 July 2013 21:20  
Blogger Albert said...

Jonathan,

This happened on Monday of this week.

Oh dear - I wonder what you mean by "This" - what happened?

3 July 2013 21:35  
Blogger Tony Miano said...

With the help of Bobby McCreery, we captured the entire open-air and my subsequent arrest on video and audio. I will share both as soon as my legal representation here in the UK give me the okay.

Thank you, everyone, for your patience.

Keep praying. The fight is about to get kicked up several notches as a major British newspaper may want to run an exclusive about the incident.

3 July 2013 21:49  
Blogger Tony Miano said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 July 2013 21:51  
Blogger Tony Miano said...

To all of my Christian friends living in the UK (and around the world), please consider supporting Christian Concern (http://www.christianconcern.com/). They have provided me with WONDERFUL legal aid, and they are genuine followers of Christ who love the Lord and the Gospel. They also have a genuine fondness for street preachers.

And PLEASE take a moment to go to the website and thank them for helping me.

3 July 2013 21:59  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Miano,

Pulling that video was a foolish move. Christian Concern have not advised you well at all.

Please reinstate it.

3 July 2013 22:09  
Blogger David B said...

Interesting posts, as is so often the case, Albert.

I suppose, now you push me into thinking about it, that there are some similarities between Beatlemania and Diana mania with some manifestations of religious experience, as well as the artistic examples you mention.

Mania, I will concede, is not confined to those who get somewhat over carried away by their various, but often mutually incompatible, religions.

However, I don't think that you can reasonably claim that some religious sects are not a little on the barmy side.

Remember Camping and his mob? And have you ever looked at the 'Rapture Ready' discussion board?

David

3 July 2013 22:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Tony Miano,

I salute you for standing up to this opposition to freedom of speech.

3 July 2013 22:16  
Blogger Flossie said...

It should be remembered that the police service (which used to be called the police force) have undergone 'diversity and equality' indoctrination to within an inch of their lives. This has caused so much confusion that they themselves feel obliged to bend the knee to the Great God Gay for fear of reprisals from their superiors.

What would the Man on the Clapham Omnibus think was the most offensive - a harmless street preacher quoting scripture, who it is perfectly possible to ignore if you don't want to listen, or scenes like those at San Francisco's Folsom Street Fair (I couldn't possibly post links here, but there is plenty of coverage on on You Tube, even the unabridged version). We will be powerless to ignore that kind of spectacle, let alone stop it. But you can bet your boots that no arrests were made there, or that any of the sado-masochists displaying their wares along with their bodies and performing lewd and obscene acts in public spent seven hours in a police cell.



3 July 2013 22:16  
Blogger richardhj said...

Peter D. I have no doubt that they would take your complaints seriously and arrest you on the spot.

Henry Wood. You are honourable and brave. If only your voice could be better heard then the world would be improved.

3 July 2013 22:17  
Blogger Nick said...

This is an appalling suppression of free speech. If this man were to preach on the streets of Moscow he would suffer less intimidation than here. Also, unlike the gay bigots who are motivated only hatred, this man was preaching a gospel that strives for the salvation of all people.

What a vile and corrupt country this is becoming. God bless all who preach the the Christian gospel in love and truth.

3 July 2013 22:18  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

Thank you.

No, as a religious person myself, I can say that I am more than versed in the barminess manifested by many religious people. But my questions would be:

1. Are religious people more barmy than non-religious people?
2. When they are barmy, is this condition caused by religion or is it an existing condition which assumes religious dress?

I'm no psychologist, but reading this book by a former President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists convinced me that, in answer to question 1., religious people have better mental health than non-religious people (in fact the health benefits are so great that it seems only prejudice prevents this from being better known). In answer to question 2. yes, it is not religion that causes mental illness - in fact, it is religion which lessens the consequences of mental illness.

Anyway, I stand by my earlier assertion that the only people being barmy here are the police.

Incidentally when you say:

He should have the freedom of expression to say that he believes homosexuality is a sin, just as I should have the freedom to describe his beliefs as obnoxious garbage.

Is it what he says about homosexuality or about sin that you are objecting to? It's just that this case reminds me a bit of the case of Rocco Buttiglione, who, you will remember, was withdrawn from an EU post, because of his Catholic opinion that homosexual acts were sinful (thereby falsifying in one go the idea that the EU is a Catholic plot, and the idea that EU believes in freedom of speech equality etc.). This struck me as being odd, given that sin is not a legal category, and all his legal credentials were impeccable. This is the difficulty with the Tony Miano case: if you don't believe in sin, it's hard to see that Mr Miano is saying anything at all. What's to object to then?

3 July 2013 22:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Peter,

Verdasco used no threatening, abusive or insulting words, nor did he behave in a disorderly manner.

Well, analogously, the police need to show that Tony Miano used threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaved in a disorderly manner.

I bet they can't.

For my part, I think it right that people can be arrested for disorderly behaviour, and for using threatening words. But not for abusive or insulting words. Such words are (normally) just bad manners. Only in the liberal fundamentalist world of chronic illiberalism, would such things be illegal.

3 July 2013 22:36  
Blogger Peter D said...

I believe homosexuality is a sin"
A statement that be discussed.

"obnoxious garbage"
Ummm, well, just where do we begin with that one?

Which of the above comments, according to the law, demonstrates "reasonable conduct"?

And who gets to decide to arrest, detain and refer people to the CPS?

3 July 2013 22:47  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Richardj,

I think you know I meant by calling this arrest silly and laughable.... this is the UK, not a banana republic. The police seem to know how to spend their cash wisely, don't they? especially when old ladies are afraid to go out for fear of being mugged etc.

3 July 2013 22:48  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Peter D/Albert,

I wouldn't really get too het up about David B.... anyone who is *religious* is automatically suspect in David B's atheist narrative. I think the only acceptable religious figure to him would be an atheist of at least the Dawkins quality?

3 July 2013 22:54  
Blogger val said...

A gift for you from the wilderness.
The true Gospel is now delivered to you Rev 12:6 as a witness Matt 24:14.
Our heavenly Father will NOT put any child of his into a hell fire no matter what their sins. Sin doesn't scare God! He created it Isa 45:7 to teach us all the knowledge of good and evil Gen 3:22 for our eternal placement in his coming kingdom. Throwing a child of his into a hell fire has never entered the heart or mind of God to ever do such a thing Jer7:31, Jer 19:5. Anyone preaching a hell fire for any child of God has been deceived into teaching lies. The whole world has been believing in a god of hate murder and revenge (The devil Rev 12:9). The true word of God John 1:1 is now delivered Rev 12:5 here http://thegoodtale.wordpress.com/

God chose a woman Rev 12 to be the prophet like unto Moses Num 12:3 and Elijah Matt 17:3, Acts 3:21-23, Luke 1:17. Those professing themselves to be Christians would be wise to hear all Acts 3:23 BEFORE making any judgment. The proof of what I tell you is in the hearing.

Prove ALL things 1 Thes 5:21. Satan has deceived the whole world Rev 12:9 until now.

3 July 2013 23:20  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert

i agree.

We're on the same wave length. It's the definition of "reasonable conduct" when world views clash, and who gets to decide and on what basis.

Abusive or insulting words, deliberately intended to incite or provoke disorder is what the law should cover. (Calling a person a "black bast*rd", for example, in the middle of Peckham.)

The problem, as I see it, is that some groups are only too ready to take *offence* when it suits and the police are driven by an agenda of 'political correctness'.

3 July 2013 23:28  
Blogger ukFred said...

The police in Wimbledon are being a bit more offensive than the police in Glasgow and Edinburgh. For details of the police action in Edinburgh, see either mindrenewers.com, ukrepent.com or ukfred.wordpress.com.

It is clear that Christianity in the UK is under threat, but are enough of us prepared to do anything about it so that we overwhelm the police custody procedures? It will not be long before we are back in the same situation that the early church was in, when Stephen was martyred.

3 July 2013 23:42  
Blogger Henry Wood said...

To: The Office of Inspector General
From: Henry Wood
Subject: Yours of the 03 July 2013 @ 21:20

Sir,
Though I have often disagreed with some of your words on this blog I thank you for your supportive and kind words.

To remove any doubt as to where I am coming from, may I please take your words and correct them:

"There was a time when homosexual men just wanted tolerance by society, not to define society."

The correction would read: "There was a time when *all* homosexual men just wanted tolerance by society, not to define society."

Unfortunately, this was not to be. Many, many bigots decided that homosexuality would not be tolerated.

When Parliament had decided *it* could no longer be "outlawed" then at least these bigots - and they were legion in every single sector of the land - then they would ensure that the poofs would be cast beyond the Pale and have absolutely no place in "society". This went on for years and years and years after 1967. I experienced it myself right up until the late 1990s when I eventually threw in the towel and retired, partially defeated by people who would never ever stand and meet me face to face. I worked in a job where if your "masculinity" was "suspect", then you had better watch out. I not only had to watch out for myself, but also for other poor sods who had been dealt a similar hand. By this I mean that many bigots claimed homosexuality was a "chosen" lifestyle.

As I tried to explain to any of those bigots who would listen, "Who on earth would *choose* such a lifestyle that would bring down so much suffering and distress upon the "chooser"? No one listened. No one tried to answer. Even the majority of my own very large family decided I had taken a "chosen" path.

I can very well understand why so many have taken the path of confrontation instead of my own desire for only tolerance. It seems to me it is part of the biblical sowing and reaping/winds and whirlwinds/etc. etc.

"The Inspector still has plenty of time for those who still keep to this..."

There are not many of us left and we are dying out ...
If only there had been very many more with the Inspector's point of view in the 60s/70s, but perhaps the Inspector was not around then?

3 July 2013 23:52  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

A couple of years back there was a protest march planned by the EDL in Bradford. The anti-fascist fascists planned a counter protest.

I dressed as Santa and went and walked amongst both groups, distributing sweets & tracts and a banner that said "Love your enemies".

Someone complained that the banner was offensive and police confiscated it from me (they also made me remove my Santa beard)

There's footage of me and my sign somewhere on the internet, but sadly not of it getting taken from me.

The police have a difficult job, made all the harder by being idiots a lot of the time.

4 July 2013 00:24  
Blogger Rex Ahdar said...

This is a most disturbing news item, even from 12,000 miles away. Sadly, it is not without precedent:

In 2004 Mr Harry Hammond, an elderly, autistic evangelical street preacher, was convicted (and fined £300 plus required to pay costs of £395 and have his sign confiscated) for the public order offence of using insulting words, signs or behaviour. His conduct involved preaching in the centre of Bournemouth on a Saturday afternoon while holding a large sign with the words: ‘Stop Immorality’, ‘Stop Homosexuality’, ‘Stop Lesbianism’ and ‘Jesus is Lord’. A hostile crowd of some 30 to 40 people had formed, some of whom reacted violently to Hammond and his sign. After his refusal to desist from preaching, the police decided to arrest Hammond and not his opponents. The Magistrates Court convicted him of displaying an ‘insulting’ sign causing ‘alarm or distress’ and rejected Hammond’s Convention-based arguments that his Articles 9 and 10 rights of religious freedom and free expression, respectively, had been violated. The High Court dismissed the appeal: [2004] EWHC 69 (Admin).
From:
Rex Ahdar and Ian Leigh, Religious Freedom in the Liberal State, 2nd ed (Oxford UP, 2013) at 446

Professor Rex Ahdar
Faculty of Law
Otago University
Dunedin
New Zealand

4 July 2013 00:33  
Blogger Henry Wood said...

Hmmm...
Censorship seems also rife on this site. I'd never have believed it until I experienced it for myself.

Was it because of my posts content?

Or was it because of who I addressed it to?

Either way, it does not really matter.

The dogs bark ...

4 July 2013 01:02  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Rebel Saint:

That's really terribly sad.

Frankly I've got to the point where I'm just inclined to say stuff it (or something a little stronger): we know what the penalties will be, whether it's arrest, the contempt of society, or even the classification of lunacy. Too bad. Our marching orders remain the same.

Christ is Lord. There is no authority on this earth which is not under His, no crown which is not destined to be cast before Him. It's not perhaps the the ideal way to visit Him in prison, but if that's where He leads...

I just hope HMP service has adequate earthquake proofing.

4 July 2013 02:42  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Henry Wood 16:27
Well said Henry,and there are others who object to homosexuality becoming a word synonymous with depravity and obscenity.As you pointed out fear is the operative word.It is very brave of you to speak out.

Muslims suffer a backlash as well when they speak out. Strange isn't it, the similarities between Islam and the Gay Rights Group in their repression of freedom( different tactics , same concept) People are scared to complain or speak out. Political correctness has been designed to stifle free expression of thought We already live in a stazi style society as the arrest of Miano proves.The indoctrination process that we are " free and equal" is wearing thin especially if one holds views that differs from the status quo.

4 July 2013 03:27  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Henry Wood

Comments do sometimes go missing on Blogger. Unless your post was "removed by a Blog Administrator" then that is probably what happened.

4 July 2013 07:20  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Well done Your Grace as ever for being ahead of the game.

The current scandals and battles being waged within our government and establishment have brought us to the realization that the rules of engagement have changed; political strategies which in times past were quite effective in preserving our civil rights are becoming less and less effective. This is a different kind of battle - a battle that must be waged with different kinds of weapons. Note particularly what Tony Maino says in the last quarter of his video about the state of this Nation.

4 July 2013 07:27  
Blogger Naomi King said...


You might like to look at these Video Diaries of Tony Miano's Outreach in the days prior to his arrest with descriptions of his Wimbledon 2013 street evangelism outreach, hosted by St Lukes, Wimbledon including outreach trips at Marble Arch and Woolwich as well. The arrest was on day 10, here are days 3, 7 and 9 video diaries. Very interesting

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wY_8f7gohfI
Mission Wimbledon 2013: Video Journal - Day 3 - Published on Jun 23, 2013 Tony Miano gives a recap of Day 3 activities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaiKsl7L7J8
Mission Wimbledon 2013: Video Journal - Days 6 & 7 - Published on Jun 27, 2013 Tony recaps Day 7 of the Wimbledon Outreach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_9JZkcfg7IU -
Mission Wimbledon 2013: Video Journal - Day 9 Published on Jun 30, 2013 - A recap of the ninth day of the mission trip, with a word of thanks to those who prayerfully and financially support the ministry.

4 July 2013 08:25  
Blogger David B said...

Albert 22.30

Before moving on, I think it worth emphasising that we are not without areas of agreement on these matters, insofar as we both seem to take the view that the police handled the matter very badly, and prevented legitimate freedom of expression. This being a bad thing.

Regarding the book - I haven't read it, and perhaps should do, though I read very few paper books these days. Can one get electronic books from libraries, I wonder, as an aside?

I have, however, read many books on the alleged benefits of meditation written by apparently well qualified meditators, which have left me suspicious of such books, just as, as an Amazon review puts it 'A Christian psychiatrist shows conclusively that religious belief is not necessarily a delusion in either the strictly medical or in the wider and more popular sense.' leaves me suspicious of this book. The capacity of human beings to think that they are right and everyone else is wrong is pretty obvious, don't you think, especially when faced with, as the poet put it, 'Two-and-Seventy jarring Sects' - most of which believe things incompatible with some or all of the others.

Now, back to your questions

"1. Are religious people more barmy than non-religious people?"

Not necessarily. Though I do tend to the view that when doctrine is plain wrong when one looks at evidence (like the age of the earth, and the fact of evolution), believing wrong stuff is not conducive to sanity.


"2. When they are barmy, is this condition caused by religion or is it an existing condition which assumes religious dress? "

I think this a false dichotomy, since feedback exists. As I say above, believing things which are clearly false does not seem to me to be conducive to sanity.

Perhaps on this occasion I may be mistaken, but from reading the account I confess that I did rather jump to the conclusion that the preacher in question would be someone who believes in a young earth and denies evolution, but perhaps he could confirm or deny this.

Such beliefs might not be technically lunacy, but to me they fit the bill, metaphorically at least.

To move on, I should clarify "He should have the freedom of expression to say that he believes homosexuality is a sin, just as I should have the freedom to describe his beliefs as obnoxious garbage."

While I don't believe that homosexuality is a sin, and do think that claims that it is are dangerous and nasty (see what is happening in some Christian African countries, often spurred on by American evangelists) I rather meant what I said there to be taken more generally than specifically, being as it is in support of the freedom of the religious to preach as they see fit, as long as the freedom of those who disagree with their particular religions, or indeed disagree with religion in general, to criticise their views is similarly maintained.

David



4 July 2013 08:29  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Tony Maino,

Well done and thank you for your courageous acts of telling the truth in love.
Only those who have been trained to hate free speech and truth could see this as "threatening, abusive or insulting". They do this because they have had common sense and tolerance squeezed out of them by PC indoctrination, flowing from the political classes now misruling, and therefore the formerly sensible police now "read" such outcomes into the words. And why should we be protected from being insulted? Are we that fragile now? I would gladly take the risk of being insulted in order to ensure free speech.
I conjecture, what would happen if a street preacher merely read out the key passages, from say Romans, dealing with sexual immorality from the nations "foundation" Biblical translation, the King James Bible, ending with the words, something like, " and I leave you friends to decide whether your conduct is what God seeks in us?" Food for thought.

4 July 2013 08:31  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

I've been working in Wimbledon/Southfields this week & have encountered, if not this particular brain-screwed loonie, several of his equally criminally-insane fellows.
Making themselves totally obnoxious to passers-by trying to get to/from the tennis, locals minding their own business, & people like me, hired in to help.

Not only are they "christian street evangelists" (EUWWW), they are (As far as I can tell )YEC's
In other words, deliberate public liars.
He should be declared Persona non grata & deported IMMEDIATELY.

There is no "love" in these creeps, they are interested in POWER & CONTROL.

They are no different from the muslim loonie-preachers we are beginning to encounter & they can all eff off ...

4 July 2013 08:39  
Blogger LEN said...

Mr Tingey,
Whilst I do not agree with your assumptions about all Christians(based on ignorance prejudice and fear presumably?)I respect your right to air your opinion(pity that our 'liberal' society cannot respect the right of Christians to do the same.)

4 July 2013 09:00  
Blogger Martin said...

His Grace wasn't the first to raise this, as I saw it yesterday on Twitter from James White.

However it is notable that we live in such a 'free society' where news is disseminated by powerful groups that we have to learn of such an event not through our media but from an American. Poor show BBC et al.

4 July 2013 09:18  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Here are some more of Tony Miano's video diaries from days 1,2,4 and 5. The first one is particularly telling of his evangelism at Marble Arch on the day of his arrival. He compares what he saw when evangelising at the Olympics, at the same venue, last year to what he saw ten days ago. Very powerful.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiadsfBruGc
Mission Wimbledon 2013: Video Journal - Day 2 - Published on Jun 22, 2013 The mission got off to a wild start with 3-4 hours of preaching at the Marble Arch.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYfQini4J28
Mission Wimbledon 2013: Video Journal - Day 4 - Published on Jun 24, 2013 Tony shares highlights from Day 4 of the mission trip.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8TZcGTAhLw
Mission Wimbledon 2013: Video Journal - Day 5 - Published on Jun 26, 2013 Tony shares details from a very productive day of evangelism, in Wimbledon


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s9nALTpAYmA
Mission Wimbledon 2013: Video Journal - Day 1 - Published on Jun 21, 2013 Tony shares an overview of his mission trip to London. Today he flies from Los Angeles to London.

4 July 2013 09:25  
Blogger David B said...

I see that there has been a thoughtful piece written on Religion Dispatches about the damage done by the Christian response to homosexuality.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/atheologies/7174/christians_v__gays__the_damage_done/

The writer seems to be making similar points to the point I made further up the thread, though with the difference that he seems to see it as a bad thing.

David

4 July 2013 09:39  
Blogger Nick said...

On my commute to work today, a homosexual man was in the carriage shouting out what he'd like some of the male commuters to do to him (i.e. anal sex), and shouting abuse at the women. Presumably he was revelling in his new-found "pride" and freedom

One wonders whether any police officer would have the courage to arrest him, even though this person truly was behaving offensively

4 July 2013 09:42  
Blogger richardhj said...

Hannah Kavanagh, of course I realised that by "silly and laughable" you were not suggesting that anyone should find it funny. I try so hard to ensure that I get my meaning precise (sometimes I still fail) and will often try to pick others up too when the meaning could be misconstrued. Absolutely no offence intended.

Jack Spratt (19:26). I wonder whether the reason that the Archbishop continues to allow a few very undesirables to speak on his blog is that he believes that we (and he) need to know better what kind of people we are dealing with. Not all, in fact very few, of those opposed to what most of us would see as right are as reasonable as some of those on here.
If we are going to fight a battle, we need not only to know our opponents, but also our enemies.

4 July 2013 09:56  
Blogger Albert said...

Hannah,

I wouldn't really get too het up about David B.... anyone who is *religious* is automatically suspect in David B's atheist narrative.

Thank you - but I'm actually not at all het up with David. For the record, I find David quite reasonable. Certainly he says things that I disagree with, but he listens to argument and reason, and often softens what he says in the light of that.

4 July 2013 10:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nick: "On my commute to work today, a homosexual man was in the carriage shouting out what he'd like some of the male commuters to do to him (i.e. anal sex), and shouting abuse at the women."

Sounds like a public order offence to me.

4 July 2013 10:29  
Blogger Albert said...

David,

A Christian psychiatrist shows conclusively that religious belief is not necessarily a delusion in either the strictly medical or in the wider and more popular sense.

Well, I have the advantage of having the book! If you were to read it, you would see that, it is not just Professor Sims, but a great range of data that supports his position. But if you are unhappy about reading the data from a Christian Professor, try this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/mar/31/oliver-james-religion-addictive-behaviour

The capacity of human beings to think that they are right and everyone else is wrong is pretty obvious, don't you think

Yes, I agree - but that applies to everyone - atheists included (interesting isn't it, that a few years ago people seriously thought Dawkins was a serious thinker - he still gets awards, apparently - but most people now see that he is far too angry, unskilled and illiterate about the things he writes about to be that).

Though I do tend to the view that when doctrine is plain wrong when one looks at evidence (like the age of the earth, and the fact of evolution), believing wrong stuff is not conducive to sanity.

I agree, and I agree about the science too. However, it is not necessarily wrong to take authority as being more reliable than the evidence before us. I am sure we can both think of people that we both trust so much that, even if convicted by a court of violent crime, on good evidence, we would still believe them innocent. We might be wrong on that, but sometimes a higher authority can (and in our own case) should trump conclusions drawn by strong evidence. If I am accused of stealing and all the evidence shows I did it, then I should still believe in my innocence if I know that I did not - even if I cannot explain how the evidence accuses me. So if someone takes there to be a higher authority than the inferences of science (and inductive reasoning is weak - as Hume showed), then I don't think that makes then necessarily even close to lunacy.

I think this a false dichotomy, since feedback exists.

Yes, but the feedback occurs in all situations. A mentally ill, non-religious person who believes (with good reason on atheism) that his life is meaningless and purposeless and who cannot find forgiveness for the things he has done suffers from "feedback" - his non-religious world-view makes his condition worse. So it cuts both ways. This is why I would prefer to examine the data and see which is draws people closer to lunacy, rather than rely on my instincts being applied only against the position I disagree with (as I think you are doing).

4 July 2013 10:47  
Blogger Albert said...

David (continued),

that homosexuality is a sin, and do think that claims that it is are dangerous and nasty

Well it depends on the claim. If the claim is that having a homosexual orientation is a sin, then yes, I agree (I also think such a position is logically absurd). But if the claim is that homosexual behaviour is a sin, then I cannot see that that is dangerous or nasty. Like it or not, homosexual behaviour is very unhealthy physically and emotionally. In every other field, we would warn people of the dangers of such behaviour. In this country, on the contrary, it seems we lock people up for such warnings.

(see what is happening in some Christian African countries, often spurred on by American evangelists)

And you think that suggesting many religious people are on, or cross over, the borders of lunacy does not have a harmful effect in secular fundamentalist countries? Ever since the French Revolution secularists have been murdering my brethren in their millions because of such beliefs. Muslim fundamentalists aren't in the same league as atheists, as when it comes to violence against Christians (or anyone else).

I rather meant what I said there to be taken more generally than specifically, being as it is in support of the freedom of the religious to preach as they see fit, as long as the freedom of those who disagree with their particular religions, or indeed disagree with religion in general, to criticise their views is similarly maintained.

Agreed. But I don't think anyone would claim Christians are afforded anything like the immunity from criticism that those who engage in homosexual acts enjoy in this country.

4 July 2013 10:48  
Blogger Albert said...

Tingay,

He should be declared Persona non grata & deported IMMEDIATELY.

There is no "love" in these creeps, they are interested in POWER & CONTROL.


O the irony!

4 July 2013 10:52  
Blogger Piers said...

Personal freedom is about inner freedom, and the freedom to practise religion is also about inner freedom.

So whether you are religious or not, be intelligent enough to understand that when religious freedom is ignored, it is a sign that inner freedom is being attacked.

The power and control that someone attached to the preacher is used well when it promotes inner freedom and is used badly, by these supposed "servants" of the law, when they deny people inner freedom.

That personal, inner freedom will be lost by all of us when we are too bigoted to understand that it is freedom itself that is being attacked here by people who are not really servants of the law, but promoters of their own law.

Whereas the preacher is preaching about a law higher than his own. Even if I'm not religious, I'm not too stupid to know that I ought to be on the side of the preacher.

4 July 2013 11:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Well said Piers. The purpose of opposing freedom of speech is to shut down freedom of thought.

4 July 2013 11:48  
Blogger Lady Anne said...

And now we have the government openly proposing to find new gay policy ideas. I found this this morning:
http://www.christian.org.uk/news/government-seeks-next-gay-policy-ideas/

Not content with the Looking-Glass world of gay "marriage", they are openly seeking to go yet further down the path.

Gaol, anyone?

4 July 2013 12:13  
Blogger Broadwood said...

Encouraging to hear that this case will be brought to the attention of all MP's and members of the Lord's ahead of next week's debates on SSM in the Upper House.

Claims that these kind of cases are 'unintended consequences' of recent legislation are getting more and more incredible.

And meanwhile, the cultural battle continues in France, 3 months after Hollande rammed their SSM law through.

http://www.turtlebayandbeyond.org/2013/homosexuality/france-the-ugly-face-of-gay-fascism/

4 July 2013 12:48  
Blogger James Cary said...

I'm always surprised at how many intelligent people who think they're liberal go along with this sort of thing - or turn a blind eye to it. It's really very worrying.

Despite being an evangelical Christian, I seem to be less willing to impose my views on others than secular liberals who seem happy that police can arrest and interrogate a man of good standing who is publicly preaching for a passage from the Bible. And yet it's rather tiresome that Christians are always seen as the hateful bad guys who want to live in a theocracy.

And to zero in on presumed bigotry either way misses the issue. It's not about whether homosexuality is a sin or not. It's about whether you're allowed to say that the Bible says it's a sin. Or the Koran for that matter.

Now, some say that Bible doesn't actually say that - which is also quite surprising (and let's not get into prawns, please). But that doesn't actually affect whether anyone should be allowed to say that it does.

Inciting a crowd to go to someone's house and lynch them for evil is clearly incitement to murder. And anyone who does that should be arrested. And tried. And witnesses should swear to tell the truth. On the, er, Bible...

4 July 2013 12:48  
Blogger Martin said...

So is homosexuality an orientation or is it merely a chosen behaviour?

The Equalities Act seems to go in circles, defining orientation as orientation.

On what basis are 'rights' given to a behaviour?

4 July 2013 12:52  
Blogger James Cary said...

And - let me get this straight - if someone calls a Christian something like, let's say, 'a typically Christian intolerant hateful bigot who should do the world a favour and take themselves out of the gene pool with a kitchen knife', and that hurts the Christian feelings, they just have to take it? The police don't show up even and arrest this person, even though the Christian has received offensive hate-speech based on their religion? Okay. I get it.

4 July 2013 12:53  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Albert,

Correct, and well said. The purpose of curbing free speech is to discourage free thinking.
The thing that made this country great in all senses, and the others that were like it, is that it permitted free speech, which in turn encouraged free thinking in all areas of life. So science, technology, trade, politics and culture and faith all flourished. The countries that restricted free speech under Islam and later, Communism, stagnated or worse. Free speech must be non-negotiable, sacred if you wish, or we all slowly fail together, whilst bickering over a diminishing pot containing all that is good.
That is why the Ukip MEPs , alone amongst the British MEPs, just voted against the exclusion proposed for Marie Le Pen. One can disagree with what someone says, but defend their right to say it. Socialists will never understand this, not it seems will the Gaystapo, and their servants in the LibLabCon Parties, who are predominantly anti-democratic, leftists now.

4 July 2013 13:12  
Blogger Enemyof the State said...

http://henrymakow.com/2013/07/Gay-Activist-Silenced-by-Heterophobes%20%20%20.html

Homosexual activists show their true colors.

4 July 2013 13:41  
Blogger David B said...

@Albert

"But if the claim is that homosexual behaviour is a sin, then I cannot see that that is dangerous or nasty."

In itself, no, but when it leads to persecution, prosecution, and sometimes the killing of gay people then that, to my mind, is dangerous and nasty.

Fortunately such things seem to be getting much less prevalent in the West, but, often egged on by evangelists, particularly Americans, this sort of thing is, I'm led to understand, becoming more prevalent in Africa.

David

4 July 2013 13:45  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

In itself, no, but when it leads to persecution, prosecution, and sometimes the killing of gay people then that, to my mind, is dangerous and nasty.

But that could be said of telling any truth or opinion - again, this is not an area that a secularist can feel he is on high ground, is it?

4 July 2013 14:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

James Cary: "Despite being an evangelical Christian, I seem to be less willing to impose my views on others than secular liberals who seem happy that police can arrest and interrogate a man of good standing who is publicly preaching for a passage from the Bible."

I'm a secular liberal and I've already commented on this thread. I'm also gay and I don't give a hoot if the bloke wants to preach in the street about homosexuality as long as he's not harassing people. You may also like to note the range of people who campaigned to have the word "insulting" removed from Section 5 of the Public Order Act, including Peter Tatchell and Keith Porteus Wood. In fact, Porteus Wood would go further and ditch Section 5 completely.

4 July 2013 15:05  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

James Cary: "And - let me get this straight - if someone calls a Christian something like, let's say, 'a typically Christian intolerant hateful bigot who should do the world a favour and take themselves out of the gene pool with a kitchen knife', and that hurts the Christian feelings, they just have to take it?"

Actually, you have specific protection under the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 which added Section 3A to the Public Offences Act.

4 July 2013 15:09  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

David B:

"As I say above, believing things which are clearly false does not seem to me to be conducive to sanity.
"

There's a pretty easy elision of "falsehood" with "things I disagree with" here.

Let's take a real-life and familiar example: Isaac Newton. He was wrong on gravity according to present knowledge; many will believe he was wrong about his various esoteric views (regarding which, he was as passionately committed - there is no easy division of his "scientific" and "non-scientific" "beliefs" that does not misrepresent him).

Does being wrong have a different impact depending on the means by which one has arrived at the falsehood? One could look at the present debate regarding climate modelling, for instance, and see that it is is very probable that the predictions made by climate scientists mere decades ago are likely to be shown to be false within the near future (a different subject from man's impact on the climate - a tangent I have no intention of following to derail the comments).

The bulk of professional opinion was, for a long time, substantially committed to such models - as committed as many of Camping's followers were to his false predictions. It may well turn out that vast amounts of public money have been wasted on a falsehood.

The difficulty with such analogies is that they permit little extension of our knowledge except to demonstrate the limits of a person's prejudices in the consistent application of their assertions. In effect, it does little but show us which a priori assumptions inform the parables.

This is especially true with regards to mental health - a subject which professionals in the field are, to say the least, substantially divided over, on which empirical evidence is not only limited, but possibly useless, depending on how much credence one gives to its subjective elements.

In short: the accusation that even a particular and much-maligned brand of American evangelism is somehow lacking in sanity has virtually no diagnostic power; it is simply a political assertion - a claim on popular opinion that depends solely on the persuasiveness of the argument, which, in this instance, derives principally from innuendo and peer-pressure as a means of avoiding serious engagement with the subject (or indeed the people) being derided.

4 July 2013 15:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Belfast,

The bulk of professional opinion was, for a long time, substantially committed to such models - as committed as many of Camping's followers were to his false predictions. It may well turn out that vast amounts of public money have been wasted on a falsehood.

That's interesting, as it reminds me of John Earman's comments on Hume's argument against miracles. Earman is a philosopher of science, and he shows in his book that Hume's argument results in the "stultification of scientific inquiry" because it makes it irrational to accept new results.

What's particularly disturbing is that Christian philosophers already showed that in Hume's life-time. Hume even came within an inch of conceding the point. Yet, the allegedly pro-reason and pro-science people have pushed Hume, even though it is demonstrably irrational and anti-science. It's worth it though to undermine religious belief, apparently.

4 July 2013 15:30  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Albert:

This debate is one of the reasons I strongly support the teaching of philosophy in schools, and making a basic grasp of formal logic a prerequisite part of undergraduate degrees (it still boggles my mind when I hear, not only from graduates, but post-graduates and post-doctoral graduates, arguments that fall into basic logical fallacies).

If nothing else, philosophy would at least trouble the waters of those who are convicted of the unassailability of a single method of knowledge-production, not least because there is strong doubt (backed up by similar proofs regarding mathematical hypotheses) that any such system can be self-justifying. At the same time, it is the deathknell to the kind of fundamentalism posited as excluding all knowledge without from a particular repository of belief. To be fair to Hume, he does acknowledge the unreliability of evidence, he just doesn't pursue it to its end:

" A man in a fever would not insist on his palate as able to decide concerning flavours; nor would one, affected with the jaundice, pretend to give a verdict with regard to colours. In each creature, there is a sound and a defective state; and the former alone can be supposed to afford us a true standard of taste and sentiment." ("Of the Standard of Taste", para. 13)

The question which his naturalism via Darwin cannot answer is where one would find an eye unclouded; a standard of sanity untainted by madness, or a standard of morality untouched by sin.

Hume ultimately decides to just press on, on the basis that a man might make of himself a perfected objectivity, naturally detaching himself of prejudice (all rather Buddhist now that I think about it - has anyone pursued a comparison?). All depressingly familiar: man is not good enough? We must make a new kind of man.

4 July 2013 15:59  
Blogger Peter D said...

"James Cary said ...
"And - let me get this straight - if someone calls a Christian something like, let's say, 'a typically Christian intolerant hateful bigot who should do the world a favour and take themselves out of the gene pool with a kitchen knife', and that hurts the Christian feelings, they just have to take it?"

Probably.

The Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 amended the Public Order Act 1986 by adding Part 3A.

"A person who uses threatening words or behaviour, or displays any written material which is threatening, is guilty of an offence if he intends thereby to stir up religious hatred."

So proof of intent has to be established.

Freedom of expression is protected by 29J:

"Nothing in this Part shall be read or given effect in a way which prohibits or restricts discussion, criticism or expressions of antipathy, dislike, ridicule, insult or abuse of particular religions or the beliefs or practices of their adherents, or of any other belief system or the beliefs or practices of its adherents, or proselytising or urging adherents of a different religion or belief system to cease practising their religion or belief system."

So we are free to ridicule, insult abd abuse those of faith, or no faith, provided there is no intention to stir up hatred. Hurt feelings do not count.

Try telling a Muslim, calmly and without malice, with the intention of converting him to Christianity, his prophet was a madman who completely misundersood the Old and New Testaments. Indeed, go further and ridicule his faith and his prophet.

I think you'll find Section 5(1)(a) of the Public Order Act 1986 will come into play pretty rapidly.

"(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he:

(a) uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour, or disorderly behaviour, or
(b) displays any writing, sign or other visible representation which is threatening, abusive or insulting,

within the hearing or sight of a person likely to be caused harassment, alarm or distress thereby."

Insulting Mo will most certainly "harass", "alarm" and "distress" a Muslim resulting in civil disorder. Insulting Christ, on the other hand, will distress a Christian but we don't resort to rioting, murder or mayhem as a result.

4 July 2013 16:01  
Blogger Drastic Plastic said...

There's a police statement here:

http://www.roger-pearse.com/weblog/2013/07/04/police-statement-on-arrest-of-street-preacher-in-wimbledon/

If Tony Miano was arrested before 5pm, as seems to be the case, then he could be held until midnight and it still be "the same day".

4 July 2013 16:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Henry Wood. This man was a pre-pubescent schoolboy in 1967, so decriminalisation passed him by. From a Christian’s point of view, the big outrage of that and subsequent years was the de facto abortion on demand. One remembers coach parties laid on for the faithful to go and demonstrate.

Although critical of homosexual influence in society (…and we have to accept influence is from those that shout loudest in this case…) one has nothing against homosexuals per se. In fact, homosexuality is a God given attribute to some. Why is unknown. It seems particularly harsh to saddle an individual with it. But then, it seems particularly harsh to be born poor in Calcutta. Anyway, the point is for those that do take a hateful stance towards the condition, they are hating or despising part of God’s human creation – and that can’t be good. Not good for the soul.

Anyway, this man’s gripes are aimed at LGBT excesses. Because these too are not good for the soul, or for the body, come to that. What drives one to do this is simple – he doesn’t want to see society crumble around him, in an everlasting gay pride orgy style. He doesn’t want society to take on a pink hue. That’s just the way it is. And it’s non negotiable…





4 July 2013 16:38  
Blogger Albert said...

Belfast,

I strongly support the teaching of philosophy in schools

So do I. I would also encourage the teaching of atheism. Atheism escapes scrutiny that religions have because it is never really studied. I would begin with the argument for atheism, it's attempts to undermine the arguments for the existence of God, epistemology and metaphysics - and the catastrophic failures in these areas, and of course, its attempts to come up with anything approaching a foundation for morality - together with its complicity in unprecedented violence.

If atheism were taught in schools, unless it was taught confessionally (as under Communism), it would return to being the belief of the village idiot, within a generation.

4 July 2013 17:08  
Blogger Albert said...

Plastic,

If Tony Miano was arrested before 5pm, as seems to be the case, then he could be held until midnight and it still be "the same day".

Well that makes it alright then!

What power we have given to people when all they need to do is "allege ...homophobic comments" and a man gets locked up for seven hours.

4 July 2013 17:10  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Lady Anne

So the government will be guided by contributors to Pink News to determine future LGBT policy! A rather chilling development. Shame they didn't take that approach for SSM when there was zero interest. On the plus side, at least our man from the Office of Inspector General saw the danger and has already established a bridgehead.

4 July 2013 17:10  
Blogger Albert said...

I don't know if this has been posted already, but the Telegraph has this story now:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10159420/Christian-arrested-for-calling-homosexuality-a-sin-warns-of-real-life-thought-police.html

4 July 2013 18:45  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
"In fact, homosexuality is a God given attribute to some. Why is unknown. It seems particularly harsh to saddle an individual with it."

Please! There's no evidence at all it is God given or more so than the inclination towards any other sin. The causes are unknown.

" ... the point is for those that do take a hateful stance towards the condition, they are hating or despising part of God’s human creation – and that can’t be good. Not good for the soul."

Spot on. We're all sinners in one way or another. However, one can legitimately hate active homosexual acts as an offence against God and we should be able to speak out publically against this without it being regarded as a public order offence.

4 July 2013 19:15  
Blogger Albert said...

Film of the arrest can be found here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2vu9CI5Ij4

The police arrive at 25.39.

It's pretty clear that they are quicker to arrest Tony than the authorities were to arrest Jesus. Not exactly making progress are we?

4 July 2013 19:37  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Albert,

Do keep up. All this was posted on His Grace's blog hours ago.

Bless you.

4 July 2013 19:39  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

LEN
No, based on knowledge & experience, actually, & a study of history.
It is also my right to walk down the street without being harassed by loudmouthed offensive cranks.

Nick
The (apparently) homosexual man in the carriage was equally unpleasant & offensive.
He was probably off his head – I’ve come across these “shouters” of various sorts … “Care in the community” is the phrase I think?
They, also, are a public nuisance.
So “DanJD” is probably correct.

Albert
But it IS a delusion, nonetheless.
….. That an invisible, undetectable & undetected BigSkyFairy is watching you & everyone else & in some unspecified manner “controlling” everything ..
Is patently absurd, simply because such a being’s observation(s) itself should be detectable.
Oh & either liar or deluded – probably deluded. … Prof Dawkins is a very keen thinker – you just don’t like his conclusions.
Come on if BigSkyFairy (even only the Christian version exists, why is it that he [ Oh & why “he” anyway? ] remains totally undetectable?
Oh & fundamental mistake – a common one among the religiously deluded …
QUOTE: who believes (with good reason on atheism) that his life is meaningless and purposeless UNQUOTE
Just because there isn’t a Design” or a “god” does not mena that lives cannot have meaning or purpose.
It is a complete non sequiteur in fact.
Where is the connect between those ideas? There isn’t any, at all.

Ever since the French Revolution secularists have been murdering my brethren in their millions
THAT IS A LIE.
If, you mean the communists, then of course it is a religious war, since communism is a classic religion, down to the holy books & the warring sects. And all religions try their best to kill off the competition.

…& no, my previous comment was not ironic, it was & is the straight truth.

“Freedom of speech” does not include the right to harass people on the street, trying to mind their own business without interference.

Albert & Belfast
Science does not & can not accept miracles, professionally speaking, that is.
If miracles exist, then all of science is false.
And this computer will stop working, probably.
Now, please stop talking utter twaddle.

“Formal Logic” & “Philosophy”
Please, don’t make me laugh!
Science rests on EVIDENCE & two assumptions
– as yesterday, so tomorrow
– events have physical causes
That’s it.

Your beliefs have no supporting physical evidence, nor does any other religion.
And no BigSkyFairy has ever been detected.
It is my proposition (trat this as a formal, philosophical proposition, if you will) that: “no god is detectable” … & since undetectable, totally irrelevant, even if supposedly existing.
Like the “Luminiferous AEther” in fact.

Albert
How wrong you are!
Please demonstrate that a “god” can be detected, or shut up.
Produce proof in the laboratory or in a court, that a/any BigSkyFairy can be detected.




4 July 2013 19:45  
Blogger Albert said...

Sorry Dr C. Bless you too.

4 July 2013 19:46  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Tingey:

Pray tell, how do you think the scientific method was arrived at?

4 July 2013 20:00  
Blogger Albert said...

Tingay,

That an invisible, undetectable & undetected...itself should be detectable.

Ooops!

Prof Dawkins is a very keen thinker – you just don’t like his conclusions.

No, he's sloppy and ignorant. To take a simple example of him not being able to think coherently, consider this. On page 215 of the God Delusion, in dealing with a morality objection to evolution he says misunderstanding was "with hindsight foreseeable." (Again ooops!).

His response to Thomas Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God, simply shows he has never read Aquinas. For example, on p.101 of the God Delusion he said, Aquinas' arguments give us "absolutely no reason to endow [God] with any of the properties normally ascribed to God: omnipotence, omniscience, goodness, creativity of design.”

Except that of course, all Dawkins needed to do was to turn the page to see that Aquinas then devotes about 140 pages to this question (quite apart from a whole book of the Summa Contra Gentiles and also in other writings and also other philosophers' writings).

As Aquinas scholar Ed Feser comments:

Perhaps what [Dawkins] meant to say was ‘absolutely no reason, apart from the many thousands of pages of detailed philosophical argumentation for this conclusion that have been produced over the centuries by thinkers of genius, and which I am not going to bother trying to answer.’ So, a slip of the pen then perhaps. Or maybe Dawkins simply doesn’t know what the hell he’s talking about.

THAT IS A LIE

You need to read the books by Michael Burleigh on this - it starts long before Communism. But in any case, Communism is a species of atheism.

If miracles exist, then all of science is false.
And this computer will stop working, probably.
Now, please stop talking utter twaddle.


Again, the irony! I think you need to do some more reading Tingay.

Science rests on EVIDENCE & two assumptions
– as yesterday, so tomorrow


So therefore, science can never tell us anything new.

Your beliefs have no supporting physical evidence

If you mean can God be physically detected, then of course not. God is not physical. If you mean there are no philosophical arguments in defence of God's existence, then you are quite wrong.

4 July 2013 20:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Gregory, Prof Dawkins is a very keen thinker

Good lord, you’ve finally done it. Conclusive proof that God does not exist...

We are now in awe of you.

PS. We still need to worship a divine creator – what are you doing next week ?



4 July 2013 20:08  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

If you mean can God be physically detected, then of course not. God is not physical. If you mean there are no philosophical arguments in defence of God's existence, then you are quite wrong.

I'm not sure I'd entirely agree with this - God can be physically detected, and indeed in Scripture (as well as countless testimonies) there are instances where God's presence is not only indicated physically but experienced physically.

The point is: God is not a force laboring under other "laws". We can "detect" certain forces (well, actually, Tingey there are plenty we can't detect directly, but can strongly infer through other evidence), because they are predictable in a naturalistic sense: they are consistent to the point that with sufficient ability/technology we can produce a situation or control the monitoring of a predictable situation in which they can be observed.

God is a Person, His Will is sovereign, He cannot be contained or controlled by the scientist. There is no test which might detect Him which would not first require His assent to succeed. Who will find Him if He chooses to hide His face? Nobody and nothing.

The problem with Tingey's idea of a SkyFairy is that he's looking for something analogous to a sound wave. By definition, if God were reducible in presence to something like a sound wave, He would not be God.

To use an idea that has had some semi-serious contemplation by scientists: it's rather like a program within a computer simulation seeking to determine the existence of the programmer. The program may find indications of design - but if they only accept the parameters accessible to them within the simulation, they will be unable to detect the original cause - the programmer, who is, by definition outside of the simulation. The programmer's influence can be felt - individual programs may even directly interact with the programmer - but the programmer is not a part of the program, the program belongs to and is the creation of the programmer.

4 July 2013 20:19  
Blogger Martin said...

Office of Inspector General, On what basis do you state that "homosexuality is a God given attribute to some" since, as far as I can discern, there is no scientific evidence to support such a view.

Romans 1 clearly describes it as one of the stages of depravity, along with disobedience to parents, a society goes through as it degenerates.

4 July 2013 20:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Martin, observation, that chap. As a keen follower of Pink News, and the writhing agony of the sufferers who contribute, there can only be one conclusion. Not one of them has ever said, that’s it, I’ve had enough, it’s a wife and kids for me.

By the way, this man is left handed. Not his choice, and had he’d been able to choose in his younger days, would have gone to right handed. You see, you can write much better with an ink pen that way...

4 July 2013 21:17  
Blogger G. Tingey said...


Oh, I give in … here’s an info-dump:

BEGIN QUOTE]
No “god” is detectable.{ - even if that god is supposed to exist. }
Not detectable directly or indirectly. No events or causations exist that are not explicable in the normal course of natural causes and random occurrences. This includes, most importantly, the information-flow that must pass to and from any "god", so that he, she, it, or they can themselves observe, or intervene in "their" universe. If there is any god around, then that information-flow will also be detectable. Where is it?
Furthermore, one can start from mass-less, charge-less particles (photons), go up through neutrinos to greater aggregations of matter, then to living things and further up the scale of size to planets & out into deep space & time, to supergalaxy clusters many millions (or even billions) oflight-years distant. Nowhere, at any place or time in these constructs is any “god” visible or detectable in any way.
Nor, most importantly is there any “emergent phenomenon” resulting from interactions of subsidiary systems displaying any detectable properties of anything that might be described under the heading of “god”.
Please note, even if only for the point of argument : - this statement is emphatically NOT "God does not exist". That is the viewpoint of the committed atheist, who believes an unprovable(?) negative, with as much evidence, or lack of it, as any deist believes in any sort of god. On the other hand, given the total, continued and increasing lack of evidence, the conclusion that no “god” exists is the logical one to follow, unless and until any real, actual evidence to the contrary shows up.
This applies equally to any god at all: Marxist, Muslim, Christian, Jewish, etc….
Religions fulfill certain criteria. One of the most obvious is that of unalterable belief in the holy words of the prophet(s), whose word may not be questioned, and whose sayings must be learnt. People who do question these teachings will be persecuted, and possibly killed.
Monotheistic religions, in particular, are mutually exclusive. A maximum of one of them can be "true". This is because the central core beliefs of each religion in the divinity or the divine revelation of their own leader(s), and the secondary nature of "other" prophets make them incompatible. See also “blasphemy” . For example: "There is no changing the Quran. The Quran is a perfect guide for humanity. (Neither) Human law nor science is above Allah". What the relatively enlightened, but deluded people of “faith” are looking at are the common ethical rules that should govern any civilised society. It is not a good idea to kill, lie, steal, or otherwise make one's self obnoxious. But, one does not need any god, or religion, to have these rules.

Believers appear to derive comfort from the statement that science cannot prove the nonexistence of god. They describe any attempt at such proof as an arrogant mistake. We are supposed to infer that an equal weight is assigned to the alternatives of existence and nonexistence, and that a believer is no less reasonable than a non-believer. It is amusing to extend this line of argument as follows by example. Can a scientist, in his laboratory, perform an experiment demonstrating that there is no such creature as the mystical invisible pink unicorn? No. Can he deduce that conclusion from quantum mechanics, relativity, or the theory of evolution? No. Thus, is a belief in the mystical invisible pink unicorn intellectually respectable? No. Advocates of the science-cannot-disprove gambit are opening the door to an unnumbered host of unwelcome guests. The mystical invisible pink unicorn is only one example; don't forget the tooth fairy, or the Ming-period vase orbiting the Sun in an oppositional orbit, or …
ENDQUOTE]

4 July 2013 21:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Gregory, a bloody info dump. The damn nerve of you...

The say dark matter is not detectable, yet it’s there. If you say it can’t possibly be, this man will personally kick your arse when he finds you...

4 July 2013 22:03  
Blogger Albert said...

Belfast,

God can be physically detected, and indeed in Scripture (as well as countless testimonies) there are instances where God's presence is not only indicated physically but experienced physically.

God is not a body or a physical force. God is not a part of the universe, or an object of our experience. Therefore, when people experience him, they are not experiencing him directly, but are experiencing his effects. That's all I'm saying.

4 July 2013 22:15  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector

You mustn't base your views - biological or theological - on the contributors to PN! Hardly a representative sample.

And left-handedness is not quite the same thing. Did you know its associated with ill-temper?

4 July 2013 22:24  
Blogger Albert said...

Tingey,

Not detectable directly or indirectly. No events or causations exist that are not explicable in the normal course of natural causes and random occurrences.

In that case, God does not exist by definition. But then the author says (albeit later and in a different context):

Please note, even if only for the point of argument : - this statement is emphatically NOT "God does not exist".

Of course it entails God does not exist - of logical necessity God does not exist if the first statement is true. But no evidence or reason has been brought forth to establish the first statement. It is a philosophical claim, not a scientific statement. I deny it.

It is not a good idea to kill, lie, steal, or otherwise make one's self obnoxious. But, one does not need any god, or religion, to have these rules.

I would never say otherwise. However, I think there is likely to be a standard secular confusion between epistemology and metaphysics around the corner.

Believers appear to derive comfort from the statement that science cannot prove the nonexistence of god. They describe any attempt at such proof as an arrogant mistake. We are supposed to infer that an equal weight is assigned to the alternatives of existence and nonexistence, and that a believer is no less reasonable than a non-believer. It is amusing to extend this line of argument as follows by example. Can a scientist, in his laboratory, perform an experiment demonstrating that there is no such creature as the mystical invisible pink unicorn? No. Can he deduce that conclusion from quantum mechanics, relativity, or the theory of evolution? No. Thus, is a belief in the mystical invisible pink unicorn intellectually respectable? No. Advocates of the science-cannot-disprove gambit are opening the door to an unnumbered host of unwelcome guests. The mystical invisible pink unicorn is only one example; don't forget the tooth fairy, or the Ming-period vase orbiting the Sun in an oppositional orbit, or …

This is just a category mistake. An invisible pink unicorn is contradiction in terms, since, being invisible it isn't pink. But if we say a pink unicorn, we would be talking about a physical being - and this science can search for. But God, if he exists is no part of the universe, but is instead the cause of the universe. Thus a negative result of a scientific search is inevitable, even if God exists.

4 July 2013 22:26  
Blogger Martin said...

Inspector

Sorry, but that is laughable. The fact is that every single person on this Earth knows that God exists but none of them, of their own free will, chooses the mercy God offers, despite the promise of eternal torment in Hell is they do not. Mankind is perverse, and, as the Bible says, returns to its own vomit rather than serve God.

4 July 2013 23:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Martin. The best way to view humanity is thus. Humanity is limited in its understanding, he has to learn. Plenty of them only believe what they can see. Deep thought is out of the question for the majority, some live from hand to mouth.

Don’t be too hard on homosexuals, this man has yet to hear of a happy homo. It’s just part of the human condition, but God IS there, and he’s now on ‘free to view’ for those that wish to know...

4 July 2013 23:21  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Albert:

I think my view would be that it is a mistake to seek to be overly confident in approaching God via any system of categorization that might reasonably be employed with His creation.

A more specific instance of someone who encountered God physically: the woman who was bleeding internally and touched Jesus' coat. Indeed, it is the Incarnation I have in mind when I talk about God having a physical presence. The property I would emphasise in this discussion is His Will: God cannot be limited except where He has deigned to be so limited. He is not a physical body or a physical force in the sense that either of those ideas can perfectly express His nature - but at the same time (to get apophatic), He is not NOT a physical body or a physical force.

But I grant that to non-students of via negativa theology that could easily be misconstrued (hence my clearer post on the program/programmer).

5 July 2013 02:18  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Tingey

Most of your "info dump" hinges on the point I asked you about earlier: where do you imagine "Science" (I think it needs a capital letter for what you want it to do) came from?

You dismiss philosophy and formal logic, but only because you know these both provide means of organising and producing knowledge apart from those principally (though not exclusively) employed by the scientific community.

Which is strange, because philosophy is hardly a hotbed of theism. I'm sure you're happy to quote A.C. Grayling or Daniel Dennett on other occasions - what do you imagine their day jobs are? Those are two fairly Dawkins-friendly philosophers - equally there are atheists who are pretty critical of his vein of thought. I'm quite partial to Thomas Nagel myself. And yes, you also have Christian philosophers, Taoist philosophers, and no doubt one or two Spaghetti-Monster philosophers (I think Alain de Botton? ;) ), but as academia has been happy to take advances in knowledge indiscriminately (more or less) from believer and non-believer, it's not been too much of an issue until you came along.

The serious point which your info dump made was about judging the relative merits of different claims on knowledge. The scientific-method only approach suffers the same as any other exclusive knowledge system: it ultimately cannot justify its own axioms. It requires that everything in the universe is fundamentally predictable, obeying a consistent system of rationality - it cannot demonstrate by its own mechanism that the entirety of existence does in fact fit into such a description. There are very sound reasons for not worrying too much about that: events and phenomena that did not fit that taxonomy would, by definition, be largely unexploitable and could not be preempted. But this is not the same as demonstrating that the only knowledge worth having is that which is derived from empirical observation. Indeed, if you possessed a cursory knowledge of a number of the fields you haphazardly cite, not least quantum physics, you would know how silly such an assertion sounds.

If you want to weigh up how valuable a particular form of knowledge is, you are pretty much looking to do philosophy. Pooh-pooh it all you like, Tingey, but your info dump is doing philosophy. Largely crass philosophy, but philosophy nonetheless.

5 July 2013 02:39  
Blogger William Lewis said...

AiB @02:39

Well done dumping the "info dump". A most elegant rebuttal.

5 July 2013 08:58  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

OiG
Dark Matter is indirectly detectable, by its’ gravitational effects. SOMETHING is there, causing the observed motions of objects

Albert
If BigSkyFairy is NOT part of this universe, as you claim, then he/she/it/they can have no effect at all on this universe, unless “physically” present.
You have just screwed your own argument, which does not surprise me in the least ….

The apparent contradiction about exist/not exist is to do with the contrary claims made by christians & muslims (& others)… “Can’t prove BigSkyFairy DOES NOT exist … nyaaah!”
Normally, a claim of existence demands proof.
BUT
Religious believers always try to reverse this … if only because they know (deep down) that the undetection of BSF is a real problem.
If undetectable, then irrelevant, whether existing or not, is the aim of the argument. It is a serious attempt to cut off the reverse & perverse claim of being unable to prove a negative …..
Oh, and that part of the essay shown, itself had to be edited down to fit inside the character-limit for this blog. The full original has (it says here) over 21 000 characters.

Your claim of a category-mistake is false … I think you’ve just imitated the Ouzlem-Bird & vanished up your own orifice, actually. Please note the explanation that is directed ( as said above) against the “Can’t prove a negative” demands of believers.
Why should they & you get a special pass, when everyone else has to submit proof-of-existence?
Please do tell.

Martin
The fact is that every single person on this Earth knows that God exists
NO
WRONG
& probably liar …. Though more likely very badly self-deluded.
What is the basis for this “knowledge of god” – where does that information (the “knowledge”) come from & where is the proof?

AiB
I don’t dismiss philosophy, nor formal logic [ I do dismiss theology, as a subject with no content ] but the ultimate test is practical. Observation / experiment / argument / interpretation all feeding back into each other.

Science can justify its axioms better than any other system.
It has always worked, every time, so far.
Unlike any of the other systems.
It is the best we have.
Let us use it.

Wiliam Lewis
Didn't work, though.
Try harder ....

FYI
My first degree is in Physics, that subject that has always had philosophical problems … which have usually been solved by Mathematics &/or new observations.
My M.Sc is in Engineering – specifically, measurement.
So you can see how I have the extremely practically-grounded views that I do.

Also, a reminder to everyone …

I’m an escaped Christian.

I reject its lies & murder utterly, along with those of all the other religions, especially including communism.

People will react to “lies & murder” badly. So, well, lets’ put a stop to that before it starts, shall we?

The main branches of xtaianty are: RC / Lutheran / Calvinist.
The RC church still carries numerous murderers, including mass-murderers & torturers on its books as “saints” [ Dominic being the prize example] – right?
Calvin was personally a murderer & torturer.
Luther, well … I suggest you read Luther on “Reason” or “The Jews & their Lies”
Euw.

5 July 2013 09:09  
Blogger Albert said...

Tingey,

If BigSkyFairy is NOT part of this universe, as you claim, then he/she/it/they can have no effect at all on this universe, unless “physically” present.

You've provided no evidence for that and I can see no reason for it to be true.

The apparent contradiction about exist/not exist

It wasn't a apparent contradiction, and it had nothing to do with different conceptions of God. The piece you quoted, flatly contradicted itself, twice.

Normally, a claim of existence demands proof.

It depends on the discussion. Perhaps in most cases we will be agnostic about something, but certainly not "atheist" without proof. Take the "God particle" for example, people could claim it existed without proof because they could see its effects. A person who denied the particle needed to explain the effects without it. Similarly, life in outer-space. Given the size of the universe, it is highly unlikely that we would have detected life even if there is lots of it. So you cannot be "atheistic" on it without proof, you are best off being agnostic.

So the atheist does need to provide evidence for his denial, and simply observing that God is not in the universe is not evidence at all, not least because we wouldn't expect him to be. What the atheist needs to do is to provide evidence or reason for the believing the existence claims that atheism entails. But few atheists grasp theism well enough to even know what that might be.

Besides, I've studied the arguments for the existence of God and I think they are far more convincing than anything on the other side. For the most part, atheists respond by failing to understand them - as Dawkins does.

The RC church still carries numerous murderers,

Can you please provide evidence for that. And by the way, Communism is a form of atheism, not religion.

5 July 2013 10:53  
Blogger Albert said...

Belfast,

I think my view would be that it is a mistake to seek to be overly confident in approaching God via any system of categorization that might reasonably be employed with His creation.

I thought that was my point!

A more specific instance of someone who encountered God physically: the woman who was bleeding internally and touched Jesus' coat. Indeed, it is the Incarnation I have in mind when I talk about God having a physical presence.

Yes, but I think the discussion with Tingey is about God as creator - i.e. God in his own divine nature, not in our human nature. Moreover, the humanity that the woman touched, though hypostatically united to the Word of God, was nevertheless, a creature.

He is not a physical body or a physical force in the sense that either of those ideas can perfectly express His nature - but at the same time (to get apophatic), He is not NOT a physical body or a physical force.

Mmmmm....certainly he is not whatever we think something is which is not a physical body or a physical force. But wouldn't apophatic theology express that by saying "He is not a physical body or a physical force, and he is beyond 'not a physical body or a physical force'"

Which is strange, because philosophy is hardly a hotbed of theism.

I'm not so sure. Didn't Quintin Smith (an atheist philosopher) say in 2000:

If each naturalist who does not specialize in the philosophy of religion (i.e., over ninety-nine percent of naturalists) were locked in a room with theists who do specialize in the philosophy of religion, and if the ensuing debates were refereed by a naturalist who had a specialization in the philosophy of religion, the naturalist referee could at most hope the outcome would be that “no definite conclusion can be drawn regarding the rationality of faith,” although I expect the most probable outcome is that the naturalist, wanting to be a fair and objective referee, would have to conclude that the theists definitely had the upper hand in every single argument or debate.

5 July 2013 11:07  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Martin,

I guess it depends on whether or not you believe we are all created in the image of our creator?

5 July 2013 11:19  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 July 2013 11:19  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Peter D,

In actual fact left handed people are also creative and passionate. I've got that, plus Jewish genes.I was born during Leo and the Chinese year of the Tiger, so I'm a passionate creative Jewish Tigeress or Lioness!

5 July 2013 11:19  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Poor old you, being lambasted for not being tough enough, from a Christian viewpoint, on the issue of gays. To cheer you up, you should note that it is national bikini day today. Ps- I am a a 'happy homo' (lol!).

5 July 2013 11:20  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Albert
Proof …”If it (whatever it is) is outside this universe it will have no effect here, same as our universe will have no effect there.
if you think different, again the burden of proof is on you.
You appear to be making a falsifiable claim.
Justify it, or shut up.

Agree re “Higgs Boson” – indirect effects were observed.
However, it is still possible that there is/are alternative explanations for what has been observed/detected so far. “It”, in this case is likely, but not certain (yet)
I quoted the vile Dominic as example – I suggest you review “Albigensian Crusade” or “Battle of Beziers”. And, of course, the body he founded, the OSD is notorious for the many murders it has committed, often by burning people alive.

No communism is a religion … from elsewhere in the same essay I quoted earlier …:


Fear of exclusion from the community, in one form or another, is a standard part of the power-structure of any religion or cult. Excommunication, anathema, banishment, exile, fatwah, etc, … Fear of entry being refused in "the next world", or "the community of saints", or "the party". Fear of real physical punishment by the "secular arm", the NKVD, the Saudi religious police, or whomsoever the current set of spiritual thought police happen to be.
Hence: we have our first corollary:
2a ] Marxism is a religion.
I believe that Bertrand Russell was the first to note this, but the behaviour of both individual Marxists, and marxist organisations, and the construction of their internal power organisation and hierarchies conforms to classical religious behaviour. For example: people read a set number of Trotsky’s saying each day, just as if he were Jesus, or Mahmud. Or appeal to “the historical inevitability of the revolution” etc …
I may add that it ( marxism/communism ) passes ALL the tests, if one cares to list them:
1] It has a “holy” book or books.
2] The words in those books may not be questioned, even when demonstrated proven wrong.
3] It has sub-divisions and sects and “heresy”, and heretics, in Trevor-Ropers phrase are “even wronger” than unbelievers.
4] Those sects fight each other, either by open warfare and/or in internal pogroms.
5] It is structurally based on the RC church, complete with its own “holy office”
6] Which leads to the gulag – the communist equivalent of the churches years of penitence and autos-de-fé
7] Thousands if not millions are killed in the name of the “holy cause” to bring about a supposed millennium
8] It persecutes all the competing religions
9] In some sects it even denies Evolution by Natural Selection (look up Trofim Lysenko)

Communism is a religion, OK?

Hannah Kavanagh
Even when I was a supposed Christian I didn’t believe that lying rubbish.
WE EVOLVED, by diverging from other apes, during the past 3 million years or so

5 July 2013 11:46  
Blogger Albert said...

Tingey,

If it (whatever it is) is outside this universe it will have no effect here, same as our universe will have no effect there.
if you think different, again the burden of proof is on you.


No, if the "whatever it is that is outside the universe" is the cause of the entire universe, without which nothing in that universe will exist, then it will be necessarily universally effective in the universe (insofar as the universe is its effect) and yet entirely undetectable, because its effect is everywhere, not in some places but not in others.

In contrast, that universe will have no effect on that cause, since, that universe is entirely dependent on the cause and has no power, except what it has received.

the burden of proof is on you

No, we are making equal philosophical claims, so the burden of proof is shared. I have answered your position with a counter argument. The burden now rests on you.

However, it is still possible that there is/are alternative explanations for what has been observed/detected so far.

Indeed so, but if you understand the arguments for the existence of God, you will see that there is no alternative explanation. Of course, you might wish to give the cause of the universe a different name, but that would not change the conceptual content.

I asked you provide evidence for your charge that the Catholic Church still commits murders. You've answered by referring to the Albigensian Crusade in the 13th Century. There is no contemporary evidence that St Dominic was involved in the execution of heretics.

I think you have to stretch the word "religion" to include Communism. The OED defines religion as:

the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods:
ideas about the relationship between science and religion
[count noun] a particular system of faith and worship:
the world’s great religions
[count noun] a pursuit or interest followed with great devotion:
consumerism is the new religion


Only in the last definition can Communism be included under the title of religion - but it's clear that the word "religion" is being used analogously to even ironically to the initial (most usual) meaning. Thus to call Communism a religion is to equivocate about the word "religion". Moreover, if Communism is a religion in the latter sense, so are many things. Including shopping. So you either misuse the word in applying it to communism, or you make it so broad that it loses its meaning.

In any case, the undenial claim is that this most murderous of ideologies, was profoundly atheistic.

5 July 2013 12:03  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 July 2013 12:06  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi G (reg?) Tingey,

My comment had nothing to do with addressing the issues you raise.

[You've raised them all in the past and I doubt anything will change your mind on that score, so I don't 'engage' with you on these discussions....]

but as an FYI-

My post was not directed at you,but at Martin re his post at 20.27.

Thanks!

5 July 2013 12:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Gregory. One thinks you’ll find dark matter is whatever scientist presently in the fore says it is. When he puts down his script and leaves the room, the next man in will tell you something different. Detection by gravitational effect is hardly proof. It could be something else doing that. Something which is definitely NOT dark matter.

The truth is that dark matter MUST exist, otherwise someone is going to have to go through the book of the laws of physics and stamp quite a few pages ‘not proven’ or even tear a few pages out altogether.

So we need dark matter because without it, it all unravels. It’s rather like God then. No God, no point about anything, and neither would there be any order about anything.

By the way. A human can do and understand so much, almost limitless really. The next thing down the intelligence chain has worked out if he pokes a stick in a hole in a tree, he’ll have grubs running along his stick, which he can lick off. Makes you think, doesn’t it ? (Well, you’re somewhat past thinking now you are set in your atheist ways, but you get the general idea…)





5 July 2013 17:48  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

Albert
A N other universe
Disagree.
Get A N other physicist to adjudicate, OK?

Re: Dominic
You are, at the very least, misinformed. The utter bastard “saint” was egging the persecutors & murderers on … so stop trying to delude yourself ….
Re: communism … nice try, no banana, it’s a religion … like he/I said, it ticks all the boxes, especially in the irrationality area, never mind the body-count.

OiG
Not so.
SOMETHING exists, which is causing matter-flows & orbits to behave as they do.
“Dark Matter” is a convenient label.
Something (or several somethings ) exist to cause the observed effects.
What that thing ( or several things ) are, we don’t know yet.
But
1] It is being worked on
&
2] We’ll find out, eventually.

Unlike religious theorising about BigSkyFairies …
That is the profound & fundamental difference, isn’t it?

6 July 2013 21:17  
Blogger Albert said...

Tingey,

Get A N other physicist to adjudicate, OK?

No, not okay. Why would I possibly ask a physicist to adjudicate on a question of metaphysics. He's less likely to know what he's talking about than he would if I ask him to adjudicate on a question of sonata form.

You are, at the very least, misinformed. The utter bastard “saint” was egging the persecutors & murderers on … so stop trying to delude yourself ….

So let's have the evidence Tingey - you're alway on about evidence (though rather thin on it).

Re: communism … nice try, no banana, it’s a religion … like he/I said, it ticks all the boxes, especially in the irrationality area, never mind the body-count.

Since when has that list been a definition of religion? Besides, I think that by that list, football would probably count as a religion. But you keep missing my major point: however we categorise communism, it is, undeniably, atheist - like you I think. And as for the body count, that makes it definitely belong to atheism. With a history as long as ours, and given human nature, it is not at all surprising to find atrocities. But nothing in religious history - certainly not in my own - in anyway rises to heights of murder that you atheists have managed - despite you being johnny come latelies and that there are hardly any of you. Mass murder on a colossal scale, is a uniquely atheistic activity.

Unlike religious theorising about BigSkyFairies …

It doesn't make you look clever to steal someone else's term and keep repeating it. Especially when this whole discussion is about God not existing in the universe (and therefore not being big or in the sky or being a fairy).

2] We’ll find out, eventually.

Sounds like a faith statement to me. Why do you believe it?

6 July 2013 21:50  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Tingey , dear fellow, no surprise it is your ilk who are throwing out many a religious scientist I know of (YOUR LOSS). But, why the devil do you want to know about "sky faires"? Typical atheist nonsense, everyone who is religious is a "LIAR".

Have you no shame man? There are those who see science and God as being perfectly at ease with each other, dark matter and all. Alas it is you (degrees in physics/engineering aside) who are being ridiculous for not even thinking that God creates the wonder around us.

Now I have a degree in common sense, from the university of life.

Trumps your atheist rot anyday!

6 July 2013 22:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

What ho Gregory !

Glad you left it until after the nine o’clock watershed before replying. Don’t want to frighten the little ones who follow Cranmer, now do we !

You must read about the Chinese cultural revolution of the mid 60s. They were raving atheists like you on a mission and got so wound up they even resorted to cannibalism. Chianti, old chap ?

6 July 2013 23:05  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

ALbert
Evidence: - the murderer Dominic.
I suggest any good history of the period & especially an account of the "Albigensian" crusade.
Plenty of on-line references, too.

So you don't want to believe communism is a religion.
Tough.
You are wrong.
Oh & football doesn't have "hloy books".

"we'll find out, eventually".
No tquite - a staement based on practical experience, in that, so far, every time, eventually, solutions & explanations have been found that fit all the available facts.
The scientists are working on it.
YOU are sneering at it & contributing nothing.
Such a positive step.

LL
Well, my local evangelical vicar, back in 1958-62, who started me on the journey away from a sincere anglicanism to my current full atheism, was certainly one.
His cristainity was, on reflection, utterly repulsive.

OiG
Communism is a religion.
The Chi-Coms were having their own internal crusade - just like the previously-referred-to Albigenses.

7 July 2013 09:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Now see here Gregory. you may have deluded yourself into believing Communism is a religion, but you haven’t convinced anyone else on this site.

Hardly surprising, how can something be of a nature when it is so virulently against it.

If you are going to continue to be the anti Christian version of Julius Streicher here, you really are going to have to do better than that.

In brief – put up or SHUT UP !!!

7 July 2013 12:55  
Blogger Albert said...

Tingey,

Evidence: - the murderer Dominic.
I suggest any good history of the period & especially an account of the "Albigensian" crusade.
Plenty of on-line references, too.


I have plenty of such books. Where are the references to Dominic burning heretics. May be he did, I don't know. You who love to appeal to evidence, why don't you produce some? Simply observing there are references on-line is useless. I can observe there are websites literally defending flat-earth theory. That's not evidence. Give us the evidence so we can assess it. You like to speak of the burden of proof. Well it's on you. Why don't you meet it?

So you don't want to believe communism is a religion.
Tough.
You are wrong.


Well, I gave you a definition from the OED. Under no element of that definition could communism be called a religion - except for the definition which is so wide the OED applied it to shopping. You keep missing the salient point though, Communism is a form of atheism. Lenin, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao - they're all your confreres.

Oh & football doesn't have "hloy books".

Well nor does communism - since communism absolutely repudiates the holy. However, like football, it does have rule books.

YOU are sneering at it & contributing nothing.

I wasn't sneering at science. I was rejoicing in the fact that you are a man of faith. You believe that because science has sometimes answered puzzles in the past, so therefore it will solve your particular puzzle in the future. If I were a betting man, I would be inclined to agree with you. But notice it is a leap of faith - that's why it is possible to speak of bets.

a staement based on practical experience, in that, so far, every time, eventually, solutions & explanations have been found that fit all the available facts.

I think the occasions when science has been able to find solution to explain all the available facts are few and far between. Indeed, if it did, it would hardly be able to progress. And when it does, it later turns out some of the facts were inaccurate.

7 July 2013 21:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Albert, you need to be more understanding of Gregory. This is how it is. Your man is a fully fledged atheist. Atheists kill people, a lot of people, millions in fact. Your man therefore finds this rather uncomfortable, as he too shares their disgust of religion.

How to reconcile himself – easy, make religion the seat of all evil, even though, as human experience testifies, it is the LACK of religion, at least Christianity, that allows lads like Gregory to kill his fellow man, and curiously, feel justified in doing so. Gregory is an aggrieved man, capable of anything. Don’t forget that now...

7 July 2013 22:20  
Blogger G. Tingey said...

OiG & Albert
Remember I started out christian - I know ALL of your lies.
Communism does have holy books - the works of Marx & Engels & then, according to sect, the writings/speeches of Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky/Mao....
And, as I found out afterwards, Bertrand Russel also stated that communism was a classic religion.

You ara also, as usual, using "faith" in two different meanings & your claims that science has not found anything much out are so pataenly false as to be dangerously close to insanity.
For an example of what science HAS found out (& what is presently under enquiry) try here: ...
http://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2012/04/19/the-whole-story-on-dark-matter/

For another discussion on exactly this subject try .. starting at entry #103 - THIS discussion:
http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/07/crib-sheet-the-fuller-memorand.html

OiG
LIAR, deliberate, slanderous, libellous LIAR.
I have never killed anyone, nor desire to, unless I was pushed into it in self-defence.
The RC church & the protestants & the Sunni & the Shia & the communist sects have all killed millions.

Now start addressing the questions & leave the personal insults out - you will note that you have provoked me to reply in kind - which was doubtless what you wanted.


8 July 2013 08:41  
Blogger Albert said...

Tingey,

Remember I started out christian

As far as I can see, you started as a fundamentalist Christian and have now moved onto some kind of equally fundamentalist atheism. You're like a keyboard instrument in the 18th Century. As the beginning of the 18th Century, all the black notes were white and the white notes were black. Then by the end it had switched around. But the notes were the same. So tell us, what kind of Christian were you?

Communism does have holy books - the works of Marx & Engels & then, according to sect, the writings/speeches of Lenin/Stalin/Trotsky/Mao....

If you mean they have authoritative writings then that is true. But then so does football. All ideas have such things. Therefore, on your reasoning, all ideas are religious, which rather evacuates the word "religious" of all meaning. It just comes to mean "idea".

Take science. It has holy books (on this definition). The Origin of Species would be one. Does that make science a religion?

And, as I found out afterwards, Bertrand Russel also stated that communism was a classic religion.

Well let's remember that Russell was very enthusiastic about Communism, at first! But of course atheists say this sort of thing, it helps to distract from the fact that all the murderous ideologies were forms of atheism. But when we measure Communism against the OED definition of religion, it turns out not to be - unless the definition is so wide as to include shopping (in which case it ceases to be useful from your point of view). But either way, these guys were atheists. In fact, has there ever been an atheistic regime which has not murdered on a colossal scale? What company you keep!

You ara also, as usual, using "faith" in two different meanings

I am using faith to mean a belief beyond what the evidence demonstrates. That's consistent with the dictionary definition. According to Oxford again the first definition is:

1complete trust or confidence in someone or something:
this restores one’s faith in politicians


It can be more specific, as in religion, but the major definition is the one I attribute to you.

your claims that science has not found anything much out are so pataenly false as to be dangerously close to insanity.

I never said any such thing.

I looked at the blog comment - the writer is using the word "proof" without defining it. If he means a mathematical proof then any science based on observation will fail as much as theology. If he means a lesser form of proof then he will be allowing assumptions to guide his conclusion. But I appeal to the dictionary for the definition, not some obscure comment on a three year old obscure blog.

8 July 2013 09:20  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

Discrimination must return to social ethics.

12 July 2013 03:48  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older