Monday, August 12, 2013

Christians are being slaughtered by Wahhabi Islamists all over the world: who is their Stephen Fry?


In April 1996, Pope John Paul II attacked the intransigence of ‘followers of other religions’ who were persecuting Christians. He didn’t specify Islam, but everyone know who he meant.

In his Easter message Urbi et Orbi, he said Christians in Africa, Latin America, Asia and Europe had "legitimate aspirations" to jobs, housing, social justice and religious freedom which were "hindered" by other faiths. The Times continued: 'The Pope recently condemned Islamic persecution of Christians in Sudan and will travel to Tunisia next weekend to plead for Islamic tolerance and Islamic-Christian dialogue.'

Nothing has really changed in almost 20 years. Indeed, the situation for Christians in these regions has actually become an awful lot worse.

The head of the Coptic Orthodox Church, for example, Pope Tawadros II, has had to cancel many public events at St Mark's Cathedral in Cairo, fearing attacks from Brotherhood supporters who blame the Copts for the fall of Morsi. Indeed, the Copts in Egypt, who make up around 10 per cent of the population, have it an awful lot worse than gays in Russia. But there is no rolling coverage of their plight by the BBC: their persecution and murder is only mentioned in passing. No marches are staged in London; there is no damning comment by David Cameron or President Obama, and the world is largely silent as their churches are torched and congregations slaughtered.

Pope Tawadros was not the only religious leader who demanded change in Egypt, but his church is bearing the brunt. The Copts are increasingly fearful of meeting to worship: one of their number was recently kidnapped and beheaded in the Sinai.

And in Syria, Christians are being executed in their homes or subject to the judgments of sharia courts established to pass sentences upon those who violate precepts of Wahhabi Islam. As the Sunni 'rebels' struggle for 'freedom', the country's 2.5 million Christians pray for the restoration of Alawite President Assad, their guardian and protector. Under him they had freedom to assemble, worship and speak. Indeed, Syria was for many the country of choice for Assyrian Christians fleeing the post-Saddam persecution. Their community is 2000 years old: today, they are verging on extinction.

But it is in Nigeria where the Islamist jihad rages most fiercely: according to a report on the Middle East Forum, 70 per cent of Christians killed around the world in 2012 were killed in the African nation. They list the most recent church Attacks:
Egypt: According to El Watan News, three Christian brothers were shot dead at their home by automatic weapons a few weeks before two were set to have their weddings. The victims' family was earlier accused of trying to build a church on land they owned because they purchased building material to build a house on that land. The rumors about the building of a church spread during the Friday sermon at the mosque, following which 2,000 Muslims stormed the land and tried to destroy the house, car and tractor, resulting in the murder of the three Christian brothers.

Indonesia: Authorities demolished a church building with a bulldozer in West Java, even as Muslim bystanders cheered and denounced Christians as "infidels." According to Pastor Leonard Nababan, the government is "criminalising our religion." The congregation had gathered around the church in an effort to save it; so did Muslims, shouting, "They're infidels and they've built their church without permission," "Knock the church down now" and "Allahu Akbar."

Iraq: According to Fox News, before the U.S. invasion of Iraq, there were more than 300 Christian churches. Today, a decade after the jihad was unleashed on Christians and their churches, only 57 Christian churches remain in the nation. And "The churches that remain are frequent targets of Islamic extremists, who have driven nearly a million Christians out of the land…" An Iraqi-based human rights organization said that "The last 10 years have been the worst for Iraqi Christians because they bore witness to the biggest exodus and migration in the history of Iraq…. More than two-thirds [of Christians] have emigrated." One of the most dramatic cases of Christian persecution came in late October of 2010, when Al Qaeda members laid siege to Our Lady of Deliverance Church in Baghdad, killing 58 and wounding 78. According to an AP report "Iraq's Catholic Christians flocked to churches to celebrate Easter Sunday [in March], praying, singing and rejoicing in the resurrection of Christ behind high blast walls and tight security cordons… [emphasis added]."

Libya: A Coptic Christian church located in Benghazi was attacked by armed Muslims. The jihadis severely beat and shaved the beard and mustache of Father Paul, the priest of the church, as a sign of humiliation. They also beat the deacon and nine attendees. Meanwhile, because Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood-led government had done little regarding the systematic abuse of Egyptian citizens in Libya, including the murder of one under torture, Copts demonstrated in front of the Libyan embassy in Cairo—prompting yet another attack on the Benghazi church, which was set on fire.

Pakistan: In response to one Christian man accused of blaspheming Islam's prophet thousands of Muslims attacked the Christian Joseph Colony of Lahore, burning two churches, one Catholic, the other a Seventh Day Adventist, as often happens in Pakistan in the context of collectively punishing Christians.

Sudan: According to Morning Star News, Khartoum's jihad continues to "rid the area of non-Arabs and Christianity": the Evangelical Church in the Nuba was "reduced … to ashes" after an aerial bombardment. Days later, another bombing campaign left two dead and twelve injured, in the Christian-majority region. "These bombardments are major sources of fear among the people in South Kordofan," said a church leader.

Turkey: The 5th century Studios Monastery, dedicated to St. John the Baptist, is set to go from being a branch of the Hagia Sophia—Christianity's grandest cathedral, which was transformed into a mosque, after the Islamic conquest and is currently a museum—to being an active mosque. Many Turkish Muslims continue calling for the return of the Hagia Sophia itself to a mosque.
Where is their Stephen Fry? Who will be their celebrity champion with millions of Twitter followers, to whom the mainstream media will fawn and David Cameron and Barack Obama instantly respond?

185 Comments:

Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

Excellent article!

They have begun to attack Christians in our European cities already, and before long they will be burning our cathedrals.

And what beliefs will sustain us in our fight?

Human Rights?

12 August 2013 09:11  
Blogger spicksandspecks said...

You might be surprised, but Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both been reporting cases of anti-Christian attacks in Egypt frequently and with impressive factual detail. Some of these reports are getting picked up in papers like the Guardian.

12 August 2013 09:34  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Let us hope that the observations of spicksandspecks above are accurate, and will in due course render mine superfluous.

To date, however, it seems to me that there are two two possible explanations for the PC attitude to Islam.

1. Desmond Morris observed that a little dog will sometimes see off a big dog. The little dog sees an encroaching fellow adult. The big dog sees a puppy behaving strangely, and becomes confused.

PC works on the princple of oppressors and victims. Muslims are victims (today's Jews). When Muslims don't behave like victims, PC (like the big dog) becomes confused.

2. PC sees the reality, and is too terrified to do anything about it.

12 August 2013 09:48  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...


This article could have been titled Coming soon to a town near you.

A brilliant piece that amply illustrates how Western society has become conditioned by selective 'news' reporting that has fallen under the thrall of the deceit that Islam is a 'Religion of Peace'.

One can imagine the intensity of the squeals of the Islamic apologists if this article were to appear (as it rightly should) on the front page of any, if not every newspaper.

Congratulation Cranmer.

12 August 2013 10:08  
Blogger John Thomas said...

No, when Islamists attack an English cathedral - which will happen soon - David Cameron and his ilk will wring their hands and call this an isolated act of criminality - and nothing (obviously) to do with I ...., of course ...

12 August 2013 10:09  
Blogger Albert said...

Excellent post which exposes very clearly that these equality positions are not really about equality.

They are about favourites getting their privileges.

12 August 2013 10:35  
Blogger David B said...

While not wishing in the least to minimise the crimes of people of the Islamic faith who kill Christians, it is important, I think, that people of Islamic faith are also killing other people of Islamic faith, but from a a different sex, and also, though to a lesser extent, as there are less targets, killing atheists as well.

It is widely thought that faith is a good thing, though it is not a view I share, and particularly not when the doctrine of the faithful is so damaging to people who do not subscribe to it.

It looks as if the faith of some Islamists, including some in positions of power, is in much the position now as that of some powerful Christian people of faith some hundreds of years ago, and of powerful people of the Jewish faith some thousands if years ago.

If faiths can be considered as analogous to strains of virus, as I think they can, then most sects of Judaism and Christianity might be considered as strains of the common cold - not life threatening in these days, but unpleasant for those around people with the virus getting coughed at and sneezed on.

Islam, at the moment, though, can be perhaps better likened to the flu virus - much more serious than a cold, and some strains of flu are particularly lethal.

It has not always been the case that Islam has been the most serious threat to people of different faiths or none, though.

Perhaps we can hope that, as Islam is a comparatively young faith, it will mature into something less virulent, though that will be small comfort to those who suffer under militant Islam, be they Christian, Islamic, of other faiths or none.

David



12 August 2013 10:44  
Blogger Jay Bee said...

Islam is growing in virulence. The Wahhabi's are yeast in the dough.

In their insane desire to reconstruct society and bring on their idea of Utopia the PC brigade have imported the most aggressive religious ideology on the planet to fracture established societal structures. It has its own agenda, definitely Antichristian but also neither LGBT nor PC friendly. It is growing in strength not only through continuing immigration but also conversion among the indigenous and other ethnic groups. They can ignore persecution of Christians and others they find inconvenient but the Fabians may well have sown the seeds of their ultimate destruction and paved the way for a new Dark Age.

12 August 2013 10:53  
Blogger John Wrake said...

David B,
Your comment might appear eminently reasonable to those who share your views, but I'm afraid it is unmitigated tosh.

You speak as though atheism is a view altogether above the oddities
of religious faith, when, in fact, atheism is as much a faith as any other. Moreover, those who have espoused it have been a greater threat to ordinary people that any other faith e.g. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, to name a few.

Let us, by all means, have mature comment, but yours is not it.

John Wrake.

12 August 2013 11:02  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
An unwelcome reminder of how fortunate we generally are in our cosy churches. Persecution is however a hallmark of the faith and as night follows day we can be sure that persecution will come to these lands in one form or another.
We are seeing increasing attacks on our family life traditions and the increasing inability to get fair representation in law and in the media.
Complacency of Christians will be their downfall.

12 August 2013 11:03  
Blogger David B said...

John Wrake, atheism is a faith like not collecting stamps is a hobby, like baldness is a hair colour, like 'off' is a television programme.

What is your rationale for claiming it is a faith? My guess is that it cannot be proved that there is no God, which is true enough in the sense that it also cannot be disproved that the world was created last Thursday, all memories, fossils, light travelling from apparently distant stars and all other similar things in place. And true in the sense that one cannot disprove solipsism.

But, in the absence of evidence for last Thursdaism or God, atheism is simply the default position, requiring no proof.

David

12 August 2013 11:08  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

David B

it is important, I think, that people of Islamic faith are also killing other people of Islamic faith, but from a a different sex...

You of course mean sect.

Islam, at the moment, though, can be perhaps better likened to the flu virus - much more serious than a cold...

Of course you mean CANCER; which once established in the host organ - consumes it.

12 August 2013 11:08  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

John Wrake

Tha's soft int'ed lad.

12 August 2013 11:14  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David B @ 10:44

Faith is probably a good thing in the sense of 'keeping faith': ie, not breaking promises.

Otherwise, faith can be a deadly thing. Albert Speer had faith in Hitler. Faith in the truth of Communism resulted in over sixty million deaths.

Unbelievers often seem to expect me (because I am a Christian) to support religions in general. Quite the contrary. They may have truth in them (some more than others), but when they directly contradict Christianity, I reject them. After all, two contradictory statements can both be wrong; but they can't both be right.

12 August 2013 11:18  
Blogger Ivan said...

The answer to your question YG is that there will be no one from the West. The quotidian of moral outrage in the West is already taken up on behalf of whales, homosexuals, and others that I leave unspecified. There is none left for Christians. Flawed vessel though he is, V Putin spares a thought for his fellow Christians and their plight, hence the manufactured outrage against him by the usual suspects.

12 August 2013 11:23  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David B:

Incidentally, don't tell a Muslim that Islam is a young religion!

Islam is the original religion, subsequently corrupted by Jews and Christians. Mohammed restored the message to its original purity.

12 August 2013 11:32  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

What is your rationale for claiming it is a faith? My guess is that it cannot be proved that there is no God

Atheism is analogous to faith insofar as what is positively entailed by it is beyond what evidence or reason can establish. It is unlike Christian faith however, insofar as there is no foundation or reason for these things which it implicitly believes.

It has not always been the case that Islam has been the most serious threat to people of different faiths or none, though.

Indeed not. Atheism has been far more prolific in killing people of faith, than Islam.

12 August 2013 11:35  
Blogger Ivan said...


David B, if religion is just a joke to you why do you waste your time arguing about faith and the non-existence of hypothetical Sky Fairies. I certainly do not care one way or another, if outer-space aliens had planted the genetic seeds of the human race and therefore do not spend any time arguing about it. The philosopher William James long ago characterised agnosticism, ie the pose that one is maintaining a suspension of belief in God till satisfactory evidence turns up as untenable. For there are in the end only two positions to take in matters concerning faith: belief or unbelief. The situation in matters of faith can be compared to choosing a wife. All women have qualities, but until one makes the leap (of faith) and settles down with a particular woman, one is only hugging the shore.

12 August 2013 11:52  
Blogger Irene's Daughter said...

John 15:18 If the world hate (detest)you, ye know that it hated (detested) me before it hated you. (words spoken by Jesus)

The British media will not report these terrible things because it, the media, is peopled by those who detest Jesus. It will not report it because the source of the darkness that is enveloping the Islamic world is the same source that is behind the darkness that envelops their own thinking. (And that source is the father of ALL lies - John 8:44)

2Timothy 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus SHALL suffer persecution.

And perhaps the reason that there is relatively little persecution of Christians in the UK is because many British Christians do not 'live godly in Christ Jesus' but rather they have become indistinguishable from the 'world' around them. The world that detests Jesus

John 1:5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not(the Greek word translated as 'comprehend' means to take eagerly, i.e. seize, possess)

Sadly very few want to see Jesus as He really is. Instead of grasping the wonderful light that is Christ and the eternal life that He has made available to us they would rather live in the mind numbing darkness that leads to eternal death.


12 August 2013 11:55  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ David B (10:44)—It has not always been the case that Islam has been the most serious threat to people of different faiths or none

Indeed not. As Ernest Renan wrote: ‘In the early Middle Ages, Islam tolerated philosophy because it could not stop it. It could not stop it because it was as yet disorganized, and poorly armed for terror. But as soon as Islam had a mass of ardent believers at its disposal, it destroyed everything in its path.’

After its defeat at Vienna, Islam was quiescent for several hundred years and presented little threat to Europe. Since the middle of the twentieth century, however, oil wealth and population growth have given Islam renewed confidence and, thanks to the insane immigration policies of post-war European governments, we now have a mass of ardent believers living among us.

as Islam is a comparatively young faith, it will mature into something less virulent

Islam derives from the Qur’an, held to be the very word of Allah. Alter the word and the foundation of Islam collapses. In any case, virulence has served Islam extremely well; why change a winning formula?

12 August 2013 12:18  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

All politics is local. News organizations produce a product and seek a market willing to consume it. The Long March for Homosexual Liberation is front and center in the mind of the market right now. And it is looking victorious. People like to read about their side winning. Even more they like to read about the other side losing. So it gets covered. Islamic persecution of Christians just doesn't move the needle. In short, we don't matter to the news industry.

Now combine that with the fact that most people in the news industry think we shouldn't matter, don't like us much, and would resonate with David B's "virus" analogy. Then it becomes a story of primitives killing primitives - people without whom the world would be better off.

Now if they were killing journalists then there would angst and fear and endless commentary and heroic speeches about the Fourth Estate. Gov't action would be demanded. Perhaps an armed military intervention. But a bunch of religionists killing each other? Isn't that just what they do?

carl
Resident virus

12 August 2013 12:43  
Blogger mikez said...

Irene's Daughter @ 11.55

and don't forget our Lord's reason in John 7:7 -
"The world cannot hate you, but it hates me because I testify about it that its works are evil."

12 August 2013 12:59  
Blogger David Hussell said...

I have just returned from two weeks in Russia. The place has many fine reopened , restored Orthodox churches. It is good that Putin is encouraging Orthodoxy which has been restored to its previous favoured position, almost as an Established Church. It is seen as part of the identity of the nation. However examination of websites reveals that other Christian faiths, mainline, orthodox Protestant ones, are not so favoured, even though they are attracting followers. So it is a mixed picture.

12 August 2013 13:16  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Two things come to mind:

The first is that as of this year, Christians are, globally, the most persecuted group of people (displacing the Jews for whom persecution has - praise God - been reducing, and for which the existence of Israel must surely be a significant factor). By and large, such persecution is not met with corresponding violence, nor calls to arms, nor the justification of hatred.

This being the case, it strikes me that we have to think very seriously about what Stephen Fry says, or for that matter Mehdi Hassan. I'll put it as simply as I can: when I stand before Jesus to be judged, how am I going to answer when He asks me what I did when I saw others being harrassed, bullied, injured, and in the worst of cases, murdered?

Before some of you get your knickers in a knot - I don't say that there is any inherent logic that you must hold to this concern, particularly if you don't believe in God. No doubt you'll see it as nothing more than a quisling selling out to the enemy, weakness, inspidity, etc. That's just how it is: you may well feel that it is necessary to "muddy your hands" to face up to an enemy, that idealism is all good and well except. I can understand that: I just believe that it is sometimes necessary to "muddy your hands" in order to love an enemy.

12 August 2013 13:21  
Blogger David Hussell said...

The almost total news blackout regarding the slaughter of Christian across much of the Middle East and parts of Africa is a national disgrace.

Committed religious people have been aware of the incredible bias of the BBC and most of the media for some time now. However what strikes me , as I go about perfectly mundane everyday life things, is how many of the normal , not particularly religious, or not religious at all people, are now aware of just how biased the BBC and other leading news outlets have become. This awareness is no longer a niche thing. That's my experience anyway.

12 August 2013 13:25  
Blogger Good Seed said...

@David B...very interesting and valid reflections, David.

12 August 2013 13:43  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Good Seed:

Could you expand a bit, to back up your praise?

12 August 2013 13:54  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 August 2013 14:24  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 August 2013 14:27  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Your Grace,

I don't know about Stephen Fry, but I do know that Rabbi Sacks has and does speak up about these issues:

"As a Jew in Christian Britain, I know how much I, my late parents and, indeed, the whole British Jewish community owe to this great Christian nation, which gave us the right and the freedom to live our faith without fear.

Shall we not therefore as Jews stand up for the right of Christians in other parts of the world to live their faith without fear?

And fear is what many Christians in the Middle East feel today. We have already heard today about the plight of Coptic Christians in Egypt, of Maronite Christians in Hezbollah-controlled areas in Lebanon, of the vast exodus of Christians from Iraq and of the concern of Christians in Syria as to what might happen there should there be further destabilisation.

In the past year, we have heard of churches set on fire, of a suicide bombing that cost the lives of 21 Christians as they were leaving a church in Cairo, of violence and intimidation and of the mass flight of Christians, especially from Egypt. I believe that we must all protest this series of assaults-some physical, others psychological -on Christian communities in the Middle East, many of which, as the most reverend Primate has reminded us, have long, long histories. I, and I hope all other Jews in Britain, stand in solidarity with our Christian brothers and sisters, as we do with all those who suffer because of their faith.

I have followed the fate of Christians in the Middle East for years, appalled at what is happening and surprised and distressed by the fact that it is not more widely known. We know how complex are the history and politics of the Middle East and how fraught with conflicting passions, but there are two points that I wish to make that deserve reflection.

First, on the Arab spring, which has heightened the fear of Christians in many of the countries affected, we make a great intellectual mistake in the West when we assume that democracy is, in and of itself, a step towards freedom. Usually, that is the case, but sometimes it is not. As Alexis de Tocqueville and John Stuart Mill pointed out in the 19th century, it may merely mean the "tyranny of the majority". That is why the most salient words in the current situation are those of Lord Acton, in his great essay on the history of freedom, who said:

"The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities".

That is why the fate of Christians in the Middle East today is the litmus test of the Arab spring. Freedom is indivisible, and those who deny it to others will never gain it for themselves.

Secondly, religions that begin by killing their opponents end by killing their fellow believers. In the age of the Crusades, Christians fought Muslims. Between the Reformation and the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648, Christians fought Christians-Catholic against Protestant.

Today, in the Middle East and elsewhere, radical Islamists fight those whom they regard as the greater and lesser Satan, but earlier this week we mourned the death of 55 Shia worshippers at a mosque in Kabul and another 28 Shia who were killed in a terror attack in Iraq. Today, the majority of victims of Islamist violence are Muslim, and shall we not shed tears for them, too?

The tragedy of religion is that it can lead people to wage war in the name of the G-d of peace, to hate in the name of the G-d of love, to practise cruelty in the name of the G-d of compassion and to kill in the name of the G-d of life. None of these things brings honour to faith; they are a desecration of the name of G-d.

May G-d protect Christians of the Middle East and people of faith who suffer for their faith, whoever and wherever they are."

[Amen].

12 August 2013 14:27  
Blogger David B said...

@Dreadnaught 11.08

"Of course you mean CANCER; which once established in the host organ - consumes it."

I have no reason to like cancer, but flu is more contagious, and, especially around 1918, is capable of causing mass deaths rather than individual ones.

@Ivan -

" if religion is just a joke to you why do you waste your time arguing about faith and the non-existence of hypothetical Sky Fairies"

Would that it were just a joke, for elements of it are surely risible. But some are not, and it are reports like those in the OP concerning atrocities made in the name of Islam that prevent it being just a joke.

As are less serious things, like the relatively minor interference with personal freedoms widespread in Britain until well into my lifetime regarding sport and drinking on Sunday and the like.

And then again, the frequent reports of religious people allowing their children to die in agony because they prefer prayer to medicine.

The beatings of kids by parents taking some Biblical injunctions too seriously.

The discrimination over women being allowed to ride in the front of busses, drive cars, allow their faces to be seen, the persecution of homosexuals based on scripture.....

No joke.



@Albert, two things

"Atheism is analogous to faith insofar as what is positively entailed by it ..."

I don't know what you think is positively entailed by it, nor if you are right in so thinking. What do you think is positively entailed by atheism?

And

"Indeed not. Atheism has been far more prolific in killing people of faith, than Islam."

While ideological movements with an atheistic or largely atheistic leadership have indeed been involved with terrible atrocities, it has generally been wholly and entirely in the pursuit of the ideologies and/or the personality cult that the atrocities have been committed, not in the name of atheism. I seem to recall that one quote saying that the pursuit of atheism was a major aim in one case, but that would be the exception rather than the rule, even if the person responsible for the quote was accurate.

Ideologies, like religions, are dangerous, and I suggest can also fit the analogy with epidemics. But they do not follow from atheism.

David


12 August 2013 15:09  
Blogger LEN said...

Whatever is happening on Earth between Christians and 'other religions'(I include 'secular Humanism as a form of religion' because it is faith based) is a reflection of the battle which is being played out in the Heavenlies.

The forces of God are drawn up against the forces of darkness.The Gospel of Jesus Christ is being attacked by secular and Islamic powers.Satan attempts to either discredit the Word of God or failing that to kill those who follow the teachings of Christ.

We see both aspects of this attack in Secular Humanism and Islam.

Satan comes to kill deceive or to destroy those who oppose him and the only valid opposition to Satan is Jesus Christ Himself who warned that His followers would face satanic influenced persecution.

If any other group were being persecuted as Christians are there would be a public outcry but our Government ministers are strangely silent?.

12 August 2013 15:17  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 August 2013 15:28  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 August 2013 15:28  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

David B,

*Cough cough* Sorry did I cough on you with my virus like religion?

I used to understand that atheism was simply a statement on non-belief in a single deity.

Nowadays there are all sorts of extensions to that, so that atheism seems to follow that 'not only is there no deity, but also religions are bad because religions are based upon false premise', hence I guess the 'virus' analogy.

Then as a further result of this logic, it becomes that we *must* have a secular society. The question for me is, though, what exactly is wrong with the current set up in our country?

True there is an official religion, but as people point out, the C of E is hardly a hot bed of fundamentalist Christian insurgents, wanting to take everyone back into a theocratic dark age type state and willingly going to kill you if you do not agree.

In fact, to my mind, The C of E is much more like 'Mrs Hubbard' from 'Postman Pat' than a crazed fanatic *unless one thinks of the WI, cakes, belling ringing etc as a sign of a fanatic or virus like religion *.....

12 August 2013 15:34  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David B:

Did you ever see the debate (you tube) between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox?

"Atheism is NOT a faith!"

"Yes it is, Richard. You believe in it don't you?"

What Lennox was getting at is that atheism entails a world view; just as Chrsitianity does. Both determine how we view everything: the Universe, our own species, other species, Planet Earth, morality, aesthetics, suffering, the meaning of life, the meaning of death.

12 August 2013 15:41  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David K @ 15:34

In the old BBC series of 'I Claudius', republicans decide that the whole imperial family has to go. Dear old Uncle Claudius himself may be a decent enough sort of duffer, but his relatives are poisonous. Purge the lot.

That, if I remember, is the sort of line taken in 'The God Delusion'. The C of E may be harmless enough: you can even have an interesting discussion with a bishop who believes as little as Dawkins does.

But the C of E is a sort of umbrella for other aspects of religion more malign. That's why the whole lot have to go: C of E, and whatever else it's providing shelter for.

12 August 2013 16:08  
Blogger Nick said...

One thing the persecuted Christian does NOT need is a Stephen Fry. These people need the help of someone honourable and courageous, not a self-serving narcissist.

I despair of the BBC, or the other television channels ever giving a balanced view of the situation with Christianity and Islam. Their naivity is breath-taking.

12 August 2013 16:30  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Explorer,

Sorry a bit a jet lagged, so am lucid in the extremist (even though I've been on British soil for 2 weeks- figure that one out; clue a place with an item of clothing named after them).

Now there is nothing like a good 'lde purge of the party faithful.

Yes,I will confess to reading 'the god delusion'. My was that supposed to be a serious work of an academic? I couldn't, really couldn't stop laughing. My sides are still painful for the experience. It was a page turner and a good work of fiction, though.

But this is where I am perplexed - why would any atheist- who sees religion as McCarthy saw 'reds in the bed'- want to purge an organisation as wonderfully dopey, liberal,begin and tranquil as the C of E? It is surely David B's dream come true to have that Church as the official religion of this country? Does the C of E represent such a virus that David B is going to *cough, cough* catch something dangerous? I think not.

Of course, I am quite happy to have 'I love the C of E' bumper sticker because it is at the moment not too extreme either way, moderate, tolerant, but still has things to say-to me it is typically English in that way- it can proclaim a Christian country, but appreciate ecumenical dialogue, without having to resort to terror tactics or blood libels against,well, me for example... if the choice is between 'Welby's mild', 'Francis hops' or 'Jihad snakebite', I know which one I'd plump for !

12 August 2013 16:50  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Len

The Gospel of Jesus Christ is being attacked by secular and Islamic powers.

Come off it Len, who are the secularists who are murdering and maiming Christians? - you are detracting in the most crass manner by diverting attention from the sole perpetrators Muslims in the name of Islam.

12 August 2013 16:54  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Kavannagh the phoney Jew TROLL is back I see.

12 August 2013 16:58  
Blogger David B said...

Explorer, faith is belief without evidence.

David

12 August 2013 16:59  
Blogger David B said...

I agree with 16.54 Dreadnought, but let us not forget that militant Islam is killing more than Christians, and probably more of those born into Islamic families and societies than it is Christians and atheists together.

David

12 August 2013 17:01  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David B:

Faith is belief without proof.

12 August 2013 17:02  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David K:

'The Four Horsemen' (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens) emerged in the wake of 9/11.

The REAL target was Islam: to be tackled by demolishing the religious view of life. In the process, you would have to take Christianity down as well. (Which didn't matter, since it was untrue anyway.)

12 August 2013 17:10  
Blogger David B said...

Explorer, and from there we go to a discussion of the nature of proof.

To take a strong view of 'proof' though would require the view that one needs faith to not believe in Last Thursdayism, which to my mind would render the concept of faith as too broad to be meaningful.

Taking a loose definition of proof, there is much to show that, for instance, the God of literal Genesis and Adam is a chimera.

David

12 August 2013 17:10  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David B:

I've used this example (courtesy of Alister McGrath) before, but it's worth repeating.

Scientists had faith in the existence of the atom, but believed they would never see it. Then came the electron microscope.

Christians believen that one day, faith will become proof: at which point, of course, faith will be superseded.

12 August 2013 17:17  
Blogger David B said...

Explorer, a lot of Christians have been wrong about the second coming in their lifetimes, going back to Biblical times.

There was a lot of evidence pointing towards atoms, but not much for any God, leave alone the Christian God.

David

12 August 2013 17:47  
Blogger David B said...

Or the Islamic one either, of course.

David

12 August 2013 17:47  
Blogger David B said...

I have a lot of time for three of the Four Horsemen, so called, but they are not leaders to whom I have or will pledge allegiance.

Islam is a concern, of course, as is charlaton clairvoyants rooking the impressionable, and quack 'doctors' dong even worse.

I think the world would be better off without supernatural belief, as then we would have a better chance of addressing real problems. Hence I argue against it, on my own message board, sometimes in the comment columns of the media, and sometimes here.

David

12 August 2013 17:52  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Explorer,

Come again? Er, atheists were put around because of 9/11 to discredit Islam? Is that REALLY what you are saying?

12 August 2013 17:52  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Dreadnaught,

Well, the 'fake Jew troll' thinks accusing someone of 'trolling' is a bit like he who dealt it, smelt it, given that comment was off-topic and bugger all to do with any of the discussions going on here on this thread, let alone the content of our host's post. But of course if this is a kind of communication that you don't want to engage with me, then I'm happy not to engage with you.

12 August 2013 17:54  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David K:

No. At least I hope not; since I have no idea what you mean.

I'll try again.

Pre 9/11, religion was harmless nonsense. After 9/11 it became dangerous nonsense that had to be dicredited. Pre-existing atheist writers turned militant.

Does THAT make sense? If not, I'll try a third time.

12 August 2013 18:03  
Blogger NamronMit said...

I was recently at an Open Doors seminar at a Soul Survivor conference, and was completely taken aback at the injustice that people face in these countries. We get snippets of it on the news, or through organisations such as Amnesty International, but it wasn't until I attended this seminar that I truly realised the reality of what it means to be a light of Christianity in these communities.

We need to pray for this people who do the oppression, that they might be changed, and pray for the oppressed, that they might be encouraged. If we pray, God will listen.

Frankly, that is better than Stephen Fry, even if I do like watching QI.

12 August 2013 18:13  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ David B (17:52)—the world would be better off without supernatural belief

Perhaps, but there’s little likelihood of it happening. Under Islamic law, denying the existence of Allah is punishable by death, so, unless atheists are prepared to meet force with force, atheism will literally die out as Islam flourishes. Your priority should be the removal of Islam from the West. Once that has been achieved, you can dust off your message board and argue away to your heart’s content.

12 August 2013 18:28  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

I've said it before. I'll say it again.

Read. The. Expleting. Koran.

Its a death warrant for Jews, Christians, polytheists, etheists and western civilisation.

12 August 2013 18:28  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

I don't know what you think is positively entailed by it, nor if you are right in so thinking. What do you think is positively entailed by atheism?

Viewed philosophically, theism is the view that the physical universe (or physical multiverse) is lacking in something. That is, it is lacking in what the Medievals call aseity: the power to exist by itself and therefore requires a transcendent cause with all the attributes capable of making it exist. Atheism denies that transcendent cause and thus necessitates that the physical universe (or physical multiverse) has the property of aseity. Now there are good reasons to doubt the universe has aseity, but there is no evidence or reason to suppose it has this property. In that sense, what atheism entails is analogous to faith - it believes something it cannot prove. It is disanalogous to faith insofar as (contrary to your post at 1659) it has no reason or ground for the claim. Thus when you say there is not much evidence for God (a) I will disagree (b) I will say there is infinitely more evidence for God than for what atheism entails (because there is at least some evidence, over zero evidence for the entailments of atheism).

While ideological movements with an atheistic or largely atheistic leadership have indeed been involved with terrible atrocities, it has generally been wholly and entirely in the pursuit of the ideologies and/or the personality cult that the atrocities have been committed, not in the name of atheism.

So atheism tends to create ideologies that are particularly murderous when compared with religion. I don't really see how that gets you off the hook. In the end, people may fight for their beliefs, the beliefs atheists choose have been terribly violent at times. Moreover, unlike Christianity, such violence has often been part of the atheistic ideology. Thus Communism and Nazism both teach violent revolution.

I seem to recall that one quote saying that the pursuit of atheism was a major aim in one case, but that would be the exception rather than the rule, even if the person responsible for the quote was accurate.

I think it is clear that in Communism the pursuit of atheism was a major aim. In the French Terror it seems also to be the case. That's not exceptional, that is most of political atheism in power.

12 August 2013 18:29  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

The Four 'New Atheist' horsemen's post 9.11 attacks on all religion have only harmed Christianity. Islam has flourished and is moving into the vacuum.

Its as if God was saying to the apostate west 'Don't like My Son Jesus? OK, try his rival Muhammad'.

12 August 2013 18:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



There is help on it’s way. We don’t know when it will arrive, but it will. Of that there is no doubt.

There is only one organisation that not only has the power and influence to intervene, but WILL eventually take on Johnny Rabid Muslim overseas, and do so with venom. Step forward, Big Gay…

Assistance from a most unexpected quarter, but as we speak, the world wide gay uprising is cutting through the west rather like an Islamic sword. And what it wants, it gets. If it’s given part of it’s demands, it puts them in it’s pocket, and continues until it gets everything. Governments retreat before it. They cower their enemies into near silence, and the vanquished step aside. Big Gay marches on without missing a step. Rather like the Imperial Roman army in that regard…

To get an idea of how powerful they are, let’s have a look at Russia, which this man saw unfurl before his very eyes on Pink News. It’s the truth about Russia now, not what you think is going on. And here it is. There are probably as many gay bars in Moscow as there are in London. And just like London, the authorities leave them alone. What the authorities there don’t like is the promotion of the gay lifestyle. And rightly or wrongly, promotion covers gay pride marches. THAT is what it’s all about, the right to march. Nothing else, apart from a ban on gay adoption, and a few other issues. But it’s nothing that other countries don’t have in place. It’s not Russia out there by itself, you know !

In case any of the above is familiar, then you are right. Section 28 of the UK Local Government Act did similar. To wit, ban the promotion of homosexuality. Introduced by a Tory government, that legislation has taken on the attributes of original sin as far as gay activists are concerned, even today. They will never forgive the Tories for that, never. Cameron handing them SSM has made no difference.

Anyway, the bottom line is every LGBT life is precious to Big Gay. Even Christian ones, it will choke the most militant of them to reluctantly admit. So, when they do stir themselves to come to the rescue, they will be doing it for their own, but hopefully, all will be saved.





12 August 2013 18:48  
Blogger David B said...

Albert, I had never heard of the medieval idea before, but the question arises on reading your post concerns whether a God would have this hypothetical aseity.

From what I glean from your post, though, and from what I further glean by on-line lectures from people like Laurence Krauss and Sean Carroll, modern cosmology is not inimical to the idea that the universe can in fact exist by inself without a transcendent cause.

I still consider atheism incidental to the fact that ideologies and personality cults tend to be poisonous, and further note that the lack of doctrinal support for Christian atrocities has not in fact prevented such atrocities.

Look at the Crusades!

David

David

12 August 2013 18:54  
Blogger Albert said...

Rambling Steve,

The Four 'New Atheist' horsemen's post 9.11 attacks on all religion have only harmed Christianity.

It is also profoundly anti-evidential. Islam is not the cause of suicide bombings. This has been shown by Richard A Pape who studied every case of suicide bombing in his excellent, and disturbing book Dying to Win - Why Suicide Bombers do it. What he shows is that blaming Islam results in the policies toward Muslim countries that actually provoke suicide bombing. So while the Four Horsemen are happily peddling anti-nonsense for their own ideological reasons, they are actually pushing governments towards policies which result in the deaths of thousands innocent people.

12 August 2013 18:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David K: "Yes,I will confess to reading 'the god delusion'. My was that supposed to be a serious work of an academic?"

I'm pretty sure it was meant to be a polemic, written for mass consumption. And to make money, I expect.

12 August 2013 19:04  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

I had never heard of the medieval idea before, but the question arises on reading your post concerns whether a God would have this hypothetical aseity.

If the being providing the cause did not have this property it would not be God and would itself need to be caused by a higher being. Once you get to the being with aseity, that just is God. I'm not saying it's the Holy Trinity, I'm just saying that, philosophically, that's what the word "God" names. So there's no way out of the problem by this road.

From what I glean from your post, though, and from what I further glean by on-line lectures from people like Laurence Krauss and Sean Carroll, modern cosmology is not inimical to the idea that the universe can in fact exist by inself without a transcendent cause.

These guys are physicists. It's a category mistake to think that physics can answer this question of transcendent cause, since whether we need that cause, being a metaphysical question, cannot be answered by physics.

I still consider atheism incidental to the fact that ideologies and personality cults tend to be poisonous

That may be true but it doesn't get you off the hook. Why are atheists so attracted to murderous ideologies and personalities? It's either something in humanity that atheism doesn't deal with, or it is something in atheism, it seems to me.

and further note that the lack of doctrinal support for Christian atrocities has not in fact prevented such atrocities. Look at the Crusades!

No one is pretending that Christians have always been as peaceful as their founder (although I think the cause of the crusades is more justifiable than people realise). The issue is the comparison. Why is it that a very small number of atheists, coming so late to power have nevertheless been so violent that they make members of Al Qaeda look about as harmful as a bunch of pacifists in strait-jackets in a high security wing.

I think the fault is in man, but that atheism is particularly at dealing with that fault, and particularly good at giving him reasons to think he must solve everything here and now, by force if necessary.

Now since I think there is no possible evidence for what atheism entails, and since atheists have been so violent, I think I am entitled to say atheism has a position of intellectual and moral respect in the modern world which it does not deserve.

12 August 2013 19:05  
Blogger Albert said...

I'm pretty sure it was meant to be a polemic, written for mass consumption. And to make money, I expect.

I agree 100% DanJo. It certainly wasn't written to enlighten people (at least, not unless Dawkins is particularly dim!).

12 August 2013 19:06  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

Sorry, should have read:

I think the fault is in man, but that atheism is particularly bad at dealing with that fault

12 August 2013 19:09  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Danjo,

I apologise. I was 'begging the question' I guess. (Internet Jew troll alert! Ahem). Yes I see it as a work of polemics. It was very good in that sense. Still, it tickled me pink (so to speak) (:

I enjoyed the cut and thrust of the book, I just wish there was an equal to Dawkins on the religious side-Jew,Christian etc (equally outrageous, polemical, without being nutsoid).

12 August 2013 19:14  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Explorer,

I'll try. I am jet lagged, but can't sleep. So I am feeling in a particularly outrageous mood....

I thought you meant that the four horses atheists had been 'recruited' by the 'men in black' to discredit religion because of the attack on the US of A.

In fact, I think what you are saying is that because of 9/11 atheist polemics went from religion as joke to religion is a thread. Is that what you are trying to say?

'Internet Jew Troll alert'

12 August 2013 19:15  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David B:

Sorry, been otherwise occupied; and I see the debate has moved on apace.

The point about the Second Coming: there's a difference about whether it will happen and when it will happen. (Christ himself professed ignorance about the timing.)

You defined faith as belief without evidence. The atom example is belief (faith) with evidence.

I agree 'proof' is tricky. Prove 'Hamlet' is a good play. Prove you love someone. Prove that Julius Caesar existed.

My own faith. Three reasons I beleive:

1. The Resurrection. (To be assessed by historical criteria since you can't reproduce it in a lab).

2. The world as a good thing spoiled. (More convincing to me than something that emerged by chance).

3. The evidence of changed lives, including my own.

Faith, based on what seems to me to be tenable evidence.

What I think we are really arguing about is a question of language. I find your definition of faith too arbitrary and reductive.


We have several hit-and-run visitors to this Blog who speed off after making a contentious point. You and DanJ0 both return to defend your position. All credit to both of you.

12 August 2013 19:16  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

PS- the last film on the plane was 'Mega Shark Versus Crocosaurus'... already got me DVD copy of 'Sharknado' (giant man eating sharks in California, my kinda film).

12 August 2013 19:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 August 2013 19:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

David K: "I enjoyed the cut and thrust of the book, I just wish there was an equal to Dawkins on the religious side-Jew,Christian etc (equally outrageous, polemical, without being nutsoid)."

I thought the book was great and it did make me laugh a bit, albeit probably not for the same reasons as some. It's sold 2 million copies or more too. I liked the fact that it was a huge broadside against religion, even if the arguments were just tasters. I actually think it's made it okay for people to be a bit rude about something that we're told we should respect for some reason.

12 August 2013 19:25  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David K @ 19:15

If by 'thread' you mean 'threat' then that's it exactly.

Scorched-earth policy against all religion: which is the point I was making way back about why attack the harmless C of E.

12 August 2013 19:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I find it mildly amusing that both Dawkins and that book bring out the ire in lots of people who treat him and it as a threat. People ought to just laugh if he and it are as risible as some people say they are. But they don't.

12 August 2013 19:28  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0 @ 19:25.

I thought it was very funny.

Do you think it was meant to be?

12 August 2013 19:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer, I don't believe you. At best you probably found it exasperating.

12 August 2013 19:33  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Exploratorator,

The Joo troll, would say as follows -

Yes, you'll have to forgot the spulling mistukes, as said I am somewhat lucid and jet lagged ...

'Scotched earth', yes that sounds about the right medicine I need right now.... off to the offie ..

Scotch anyone?

12 August 2013 19:38  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Danjo,

Quite. I think that Dawkins and the Hitch did everyone a bit of good, on both sides of the divide. I just wish there was something equally as witty and polemic on the religious side. Fight fire with fire and whatever, but to me, I think a bit of fire would be good here. Let's have a polemic as to why Jews WON'T have a bacon buttie (which is a reverse of one of the chapters of one of 'the hitch's book', as I recall).

Regardless, bottoms up, me ole cock!

12 August 2013 19:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Kavanagh old man. Help a fellow out will you..

You seem to accused of being ‘a fake Jew troll’. Where did that come from ?

As far as can be discerned, you are neither fake Jew nor a troll

What IS going on !

12 August 2013 19:44  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Re, the Hitch, Wikipedia says :

'The Sunday Times described Hitchens as "Usually armed with a glass of Scotch and an untipped Rothmans cigarette.'

My kind of bloke.

12 August 2013 19:47  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0 @ 19:33

I think he probably was quite serious: he hoped the book would cure faith heads. That's part of the reason it's so funny.

Where he IS unequivocally funny is in his attack on Postmodernism. I'm with him all the way there! Do you know his review of Alan Sokal's 'Fashionable Nonsense' in 'A Devil's Chaplain'? Worth a read, anyone who hasn't come across it. It's a hoot!

12 August 2013 19:55  
Blogger Albert said...

David K,

I just wish there was something equally as witty and polemic on the religious side.

Try he Last Superstition: A Refutation of the New Atheism by Edward Feser. Like Dawkins it is at times very funny in a very cutting way (especially when Dawkins is the target). But unlike Dawkins, Feser actually knows what he's talking about.

12 August 2013 19:57  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Inspector,

To answer your query, Dreadnaught, is convinced that I, Hannah, Cressida and Dodo-Peter D are one and the same- he said so about this time last year. That is his beef and problem. It is not true.

Although I would note wiki says a troll is :

'In Internet slang, a troll (/ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people,[1] by posting inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally[3][4] or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[5] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[6]'

If I have done that, then it was not intentional. I don't think I have.

I would rather engage in 'issues' and 'debates' here, rather than someone claiming to be a battleship
trying to sow discord on a forum.

The defence rests.

PS- Scotch? Cigarette? I could do with one about now...

12 August 2013 20:09  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Albert,

On the money as always. I will look those refs up!

12 August 2013 20:13  
Blogger graham wood said...

David Kavanagh. "I just wish there was an equal to Dawkins on the religious side-Jew,Christian etc (equally outrageous, polemical, without being nutsoid).


David. I suggest you have a look at
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/.

William Lane-Craig is a brilliant apologist for the Christian Faith and is more than a match for Dawkins, and other atheists with whom he regularly debates.
He speaks mainly to Uni students and thousands the world over attend his meetings. No crank this one!
Graham

12 August 2013 20:34  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Good Lord, Kavanagh, It’s rather obvious you are a family gang. Rather like the Richardsons, contemporaries of the Krays (...ask old Kavanagh himself on that one - they specialised in torture, don’t you know. Hope the old duffer is doing well, do extend one’s best wishes to him...)

Don’t worry about Dreadnaught. One has been of the opinion for some time now the blighter is being slipped ‘skunk’ instead of Moroccan Gold. Makes him bad tempered, not chilled out...

In the face of adversity remember to sound the horn – you’re coming through...

Pip Pip !

12 August 2013 20:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Forgot to mention, Hannah is your ‘enforcer’

God help us

12 August 2013 20:57  
Blogger Albert said...

Graham,

It's strange isn't it that, when Craig was in the UK a couple of years back, and being presented as the most impressive Christian apologist in the world, that Dawkins refused to debate him. You'd have thought that he would take the opportunity to destroy the best of the opposition when it arose.

For anyone who doesn't know Craig, the Common Sense Atheism blog, said of him:

He is the best debater – on any topic – that I’ve ever heard. As far as I can tell, he has won nearly all his debates with atheists. When debating him, atheists have consistently failed to put forward solid arguments, and consistently failed to point out the flaws in Craig’s arguments...This is especially embarrassing for atheists because Craig’s arguments and debates are easily available, and he uses the same arguments all the time. So it should be easy for atheists to prepare for a debate with Craig.
http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=392#sthash.5kpFlvwM.dpuf

The same atheist website, perhaps explains why Dawkins refused to debate Craig. Speaking of Craig's debate with Hitchens:

The debate went exactly as I expected. Craig was flawless and unstoppable. Hitchens was rambling and incoherent, with the occasional rhetorical jab. Frankly, Craig spanked Hitchens like a foolish child. Perhaps Hitchens realized how bad things were for him after Craig’s opening speech, as even Hitchens’ rhetorical flourishes were not as confident as usual. Hitchens wasted his cross-examination time with questions like, “If a baby was born in Palestine, would you rather it be a Muslim baby or an atheist baby?” He did not even bother to give his concluding remarks, ceding the time instead to Q&A.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=1230#sthash.0qU79kul.dpuf

Atheism is in a state intellectually. As Atheist philosopher Quentin Smith wrote:

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.

Where atheists score heavily is in presentation and rhetoric and the unwary are taken in by it. That's why Dawkins wouldn't debate Craig. Intellectually, atheism looks like a spent force at the moment. Perhaps it has better days ahead. They could hardly be worse.

12 August 2013 20:58  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Now now, Inspector, I won't hear a word against Hannah!

Not even from you.

12 August 2013 21:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Explorer, you do mean ’Mad’ Hannah Fraser ?

12 August 2013 21:31  
Blogger graham wood said...

Albert. Thanks for your comments. I was not aware that Dawkins actually refused to debate WLC - but not surprised!

It is WLC's approach to debate which I find very attractive. He is always without exception extremely courteous even when provoked.
He is invariably cool and collected in his presentations, and my impression is that he is always has a very well prepared brief.

I recall one of these debates (I think the subject was 'Does God exist?, or similar)
His apologetic was excellent and I made a note of his 5 leading points:
1. Origin of the universe.
2 The fine 'tuning|' of the universe for intelligent life.
3. The existence of objective moral values and duties in the world.
4. The historical facts concerning Jesus Christ (including his resurrection).. . . and
5. A personal experience of God.

I suspect that most thinking atheists would find points 1 & 2 difficult enough to absorb and answer in any depth, and the historical Jesus too, can hardly be denied given the abundance of manuscript evidence of the historical record.
Graham

12 August 2013 21:32  
Blogger Luther said...

"Islam, at the moment, though, can be perhaps better likened to the flu virus - much more serious than a cold...

Of course you mean CANCER; which once established in the host organ - consumes it."

Correct - cancer, which ultimately destroys both the infected, and the infection.

12 August 2013 21:34  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well now we have it, Your Grace. Wahabi Islam = Jihad = Genocide for all non-Muslims, Christians in particular. And the root of this evil? The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia that bank-rolls the Wahabists all around the world. Take 'em down, boys.

Your communicant reads with interest that Cameron is now urging fracking in southern England for the good of the country, and for once he is right. The US has been hugely successful in eliminating its dependency on foreign oil by exploitation of shale gas. So much so that US carbon emissions are down 25%, not bad considering the US never achieved salvation as a signatory to the Kyoto protocols. Another fantasy of the Left is proved to be a mirage. Of course, if enough oil importers become self-sufficient through shale gas the power of Al-Saud is diminished, the sooner the better.

France and Germany reject shale gas production but have some of the most threatening Muslim populations in Europe.

When will the pfennig drop?

12 August 2013 21:46  
Blogger David B said...

WLC has a habit of quoting cosmologists out of context in ways that appear to support his case, though in fact they do not.

His arguments have all, as far as I know, been more than adequately refuted.

David

12 August 2013 21:47  
Blogger Peter D said...

"He is always without exception extremely courteous even when provoked.
He is invariably cool and collected in his presentations, and my impression is that he is always has a very well prepared brief."


I say, this Craig chap sounds rather like an extinct avian creature who used to post here.

12 August 2013 21:52  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector @ 21:31

No. We must be at cross purposes. It must be another instance in which a particular word - in this case, 'Hannah' - means different things to different people.

Since you mentioned it first, to you falls the honour of the first definition.

12 August 2013 21:53  
Blogger Peter D said...

David B said ...
"His" Craig's "arguments have all, as far as I know, been more than adequately refuted."


References, please - or do you intend doing?

12 August 2013 21:56  
Blogger Corrigan said...

For the benefit of those who may be confused, atheism is a faith, when it suits. Eg, when Richard Dawkins is leading us all into the sunlit uplands of sweet reason and manifesting the next evolutionary devolopment of the human meme complex (whatever that is). However, it is emphatically not a faith when atheists are killing the religious, such as in the old communist states. In this latter case it is, we need hardly say, merely the absence of belief. When it doubt, just remember this rule of thumb: when it makes atheists look good, it's a faith; when it makes them look bad, it isn't. All clear now?

12 August 2013 22:10  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Albert (18:54)—Islam has been pursuing ‘policies which result in the deaths of thousands innocent people’ throughout its existence. The suicide bomb is but the scimitar updated.

Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220. Narrated Abu Huraira: Allah’s Apostle said, ‘I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror [cast in the hearts of the enemy]’.

12 August 2013 22:14  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

"Hannah 'mad' Fraser'.

Is that the same mad Hannah from this article? :

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2141792/Real-life-mermaid-swims-whales-making-fish-tail.html

Alas, whilst that Hannah is totally, like fit, sorta like the kind girl I'd go for, I have wavy curly black hair!

Anyways, you are correct re 'judge Dredd -naught' and his world view to regards us :

"In 2012,the Kav family was sent to blog exile by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. This family promptly escaped from a maximum security e- stockade to the London underground.

Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire... 'The K-Team' " :

General"Feck- U" Henry Lord Kav, of Lav

Colonel David "Hannibal" Kav

Captain H.M. "Howlin' Mad" Inspector

Lieutenant Templeton "Faceman" Dodo

Sergeant Carl "Humour" Jacobs

Hannah Kav, aka "Triple A"

LOL!

12 August 2013 22:18  
Blogger William Lewis said...

I like WLC but he takes the same philosophical approach each time which tends to just leave materialist heads like Dawkins blinking in the headlights. John Lennox is rather good at taking on the more outrageous claims of atheist scientists trying to get science to do things way beyond its remit.

12 August 2013 22:21  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Explorer ,

That's very kind of you (:

Inspector, me 'the enforcer'? LOL! That's more like my sister's department.

12 August 2013 22:24  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

OK, a song to the Cranmer blog, courtesy of Toby Keith :

"We got winners, we got losers,
Chain smokers and boozers.
An' we got yuppies, we got bikers, Evangelicals, Catholics, atheists and Jews,
An' we got , thirsty hitchhikers.
And the girls next door dress up like movie stars.

Mm, mm, mm, mm, mm, I love this blog.

We got cowboys, we got truckers,
Broken hearted fools and suckers.
An' we got hustlers, we got fighters,
Early birds and all nighters.
And the veterans talk about their battle scars:
Mm, mm, mm, mm, mm, I love this blog.

I love this blog,
It's my kind of place.
Just reading the posts,
Puts a big smile on my face.
It ain't too far, come as you are.
Mm, mm, mm, mm, mm, I love this blog.

I've seen short skirts, we've got high-techs,
Blue collar boys and rednecks.
An' we got lovers, lots of lookers,
but thankfully no hookers,
And we like to drink our beer from a pint glass:
Mm, mm, mm, mm, mm, I love this blog, yes I do!

Avi Barzel likes his truck, (he likes his truck),
An' I like Mrs K, ( I like my Mrs K),
I like to take her out to dinner,
I like a movie now and then

But I love this blog,
It's my kind of place.
Just readin' the comments,
Puts a big smile on my face.
No cover charge, come as you are.
Mm, mm, mm, mm, mm, I love this blog.
Mm, mm, mm, mm, mm, I just love this ol' blog".

12 August 2013 22:42  
Blogger Albert said...

Graham,

I'm a big fan of WLC. He manages to combine being a serious philosopher with real debating skill which is clear and easy to grasp. I like the way in which he presents those five arguments. You get a clear view of God and then it moves to a defence of Christianity. That ought to be every apologist's strategy.

There was one debate organised in Oxford, in which Dawkins was invited to participate. Given that Dawkins was hiding away somewhere else, Christians in Oxford starting putting slogans on buses giving the date of the debate and then saying "There's probably no Dawkins". I think they even gave him an empty chair!

12 August 2013 23:12  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

WLC has a habit of quoting cosmologists out of context in ways that appear to support his case, though in fact they do not.

You have to be careful there. On his UK tour, one of his opponents accused him of that by quoting something else the physicist had written. Had you or I simply read the piece, we would have thought Craig was wrong. But Craig, being ultra-prepared, was able to produce the whole paragraph from which his opponent had quoted a sentence. When placed back in its context it was clear that it actually meant the opposite of what Craig's opponent said and supported Craig's case. I don't think the debate ended well for the atheist.

Beyond that, there are always problems when philosophers quote physicists because the latter are so imprecise.

Would you care to give an example of this failing of Craig's?

12 August 2013 23:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Johnny,

Islam has been pursuing ‘policies which result in the deaths of thousands innocent people’ throughout its existence. The suicide bomb is but the scimitar updated.

I don't doubt it, but it doesn't alter the point. Suicide bombing has very complex causes which can be explained in terms of secular political and military goals. At the time of 9/11 Islam was not one of the causes. Consequently, prior to the invasion of Iraq, the majority of suicide attacks in the world were secular in character.

People like Hitchens tried to make it seem as if only religious people would carry out suicide bombings - presumably on the grounds of belief in the after-life. In fact, the opposite is the case. Given that most religions are opposed to suicide (and murder), religions (including Islam) make for rather rocky ground in terms of recruitment. The religious taboo against suicide needs to be got rid of first and that isn't going to be easy.

In contrast, secular minded people tend not to have such worries about suicide. Then understand that suicide bombers see themselves as altruistic (I know, it's counter-intuitive) and you are either left saying unbelievers can't be altruistic and therefore won't be suicide bombers, or they make for better candidates as suicide bombers than religious people because they can be altruistic and don't have the worry about suicide.

Hitchens is a classic example of someone who did not have an evidence based approach to reality.

12 August 2013 23:27  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

12 August 2013 23:40  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Inspector,

Pip, Pip to you as well old son! 'Richardson'. Well that is the surname of my sister Ruth's family. Must look it up.

Graham,

OK, I'll also look up William lane Craig as well....

12 August 2013 23:41  
Blogger Peter D said...

The Archbishop asks:
"Christians are being slaughtered by Wahhabi Islamists all over the world: who is their Stephen Fry?"

The answer has to be the world's religious leaders of the various Christian communities being persecuted and murdered. It is time to speak up.

Stephen Fry wants Olympians to stand with their arms across their breasts on the podium - in a pose of meek and 'umble submission. A mimicry of Christian 'turn the other cheek'. The homosexual activists are anything but meek and mild! All power to Russian for banning 'Gay Pride' marches. How terribly illiberal of me for thinking this.

The Christian leaders must draw the world's attention to this situation - and go into the 'heart of darkness' and front up the leaders of these nations. They are constrained by the fact that such an open criticism on Islamism will up the ante, feed the hatred and be used to justify it and will probably result in an escalation of violence.

Hobson's choice .... ?

Look where appeasement leads us.

13 August 2013 00:19  
Blogger Ivan said...


David B, when were you born? Only religious parents beat their children? Really? And when was the last time you heard a man beating his son black and blue based on the Bible? Have you seen the statistics for murder and abuse of kids by live-in boyfriends and girlfriends? Its any day orders of magnitude greater than anything happening in religious families. And please do not bring in the rates for certain Muslim communities, if you have a problem with that, take it out with them.

13 August 2013 00:38  
Blogger Ivan said...


Saudi Arabia is the main sponsor of the virulent strain of Islam, Wahabbism, that is responsible for much of the abuse suffered by Christians. But it is an American ally and thus enjoyed many years of protection. Now they have even more demonic forms in the various Al-Queda franchises. Christians do not matter in a geopolitical sense and thus have no champion. The last was the blundering George Bush, whose stupidity led to the exodus of the Iraqi Christians.

13 August 2013 00:54  
Blogger Yvonne said...

We're grateful Jesus Himself warned us these days would come...as they've come to Christians down the centuries, starting terribly in Rome. So as He said, 'Don't be surprised...'
But yes we should make these things known, but most nonChristians don't understand do they?
In Christ, our example and King,
Roger Malstead

13 August 2013 02:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Article 11 of the ECHR protects freedom to assemble and to associate. That's pretty important in a democratic society, not least for people to protest as a group. Of course, Gay Pride marches were a form of protest in the UK and still are in places like Russia. It isn't really a surprised that an authoritarian and illiberal State like that is suppressing human rights and human freedom.

13 August 2013 07:01  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

In terms of geo-politics, it seems to me that the West really ought to be putting more time, energy, and money into trying to hold Wahhabi Islam back. It's Islamism and ir's dangerous.

13 August 2013 07:15  
Blogger Ros V said...

What a load of rubbish Dan joe talks. Freedom to assemble and associate? So why did the Law Society ban a meeting of Christian lawyers in London to discuss the implications of same-sex marriage in 2012? Why did several other venues ban the meeting? Why did more than twenty professional organizations and unions ban using their premises for any such meetings? Why are teachers here in Britain being sacked because they won't go along with the crazy, queer agenda (even though it is killing people)? ~If Stephen Fry gave a damn about human rights, why wouldn't he protest about that?
Buggers care about nothing apart from buggery. Democratic society? No when everybody is vetted to make sure they agree with gay bullshit before they are allowed to have a job, this is not democracy. You can't even become a school governor nowadays unless you condone children being taught scandalous lies by the LGBT brigade.
More than forty British MPs and peers received death threats for opposing same-sex marriage - and you have the cheek to use the word "democracy".
Nobody voted to give the massive subsidies we do to obscene homosexual displays in London and other cities. It is shameful and disgusting.
Buggers care about nothing apart from buggery. They are obsessed with that one topic to the total exclusion of any other. The Russian laws are right and Stephen Fry is being impertinent and undemocratic is trying to interfere with their government.

13 August 2013 07:39  
Blogger Ros V said...

And look way the way the queers used violence and death-threats to derail the pro-marriage poster campaigns earlier this year. Look at the way that Boris Johnson banned Christian posters from buses while permitting gay extremist ones.
Democracy? Freedom of speech? Human rights? ECHR? Queers dont give a toss about any of those things.
I hope Mr Putin uses their protest letters for a private purpose in his bathroom.

13 August 2013 07:44  
Blogger David B said...

Ivan I was going to respond to a post of yours but it seems to have disappeared.

It concerned kids being beaten for religious reasons.

Google deadly-discipline-in-the-name-of-god

Incidentally, the post I can no longer find was interesting in terms of what it left out - no comment on kids being left to die in agony because of faith.

David

13 August 2013 07:53  
Blogger Ros V said...

So Islam is dangerous is it? They've never been dangerous to me but when they take over they will sort out the likes of Dan joe and Stephen Fry. I wouldn't like to be there when it happens. It won't be a pretty sight - but thank the liberals who have set it up by encouraging both of them.

13 August 2013 07:54  
Blogger Nick said...

Ros V

It is not just Putin who dislikes this hijacking of society by the gay movement.It seems that 80 to 90 % of Russian people don't want either gay marriage or even gay pride marches. They have no concept of PC and are puzzled by the way British people indulge these kinds of minority. Neither Fry nor anyone else is going to have any influence on Russian attitude

13 August 2013 08:11  
Blogger David B said...

Ivan, I see your post is back. Some sort of internet glitch, I suppose.

Anyway, it needs a thorough fisking, which I shall proceed to do even if I must postpone discussing WLC with Albert - something that will no doubt arise again.

Anyway, my comments interpolated.

"David B, when were you born?"

1949

" Only religious parents beat their children?"

Did I say that? I did not! To so suggest is intellectually dishonest.

" Really?"

Yes, really dishonest.

" And when was the last time you heard a man beating his son black and blue based on the Bible?"

Such cases come up quite frequently online. Google deadly-discipline-in-the-name-of-god.

It is interesting though that you respond to a post containing much more than mentions of beatings. It also contained claims that faith could lead people to prefer prayer to medicine and leave their kids to die in agony without proper treatment. Which you conveniently ignored, probably knowing that it is true. Hardly a good defence of faith!

A good, if rather old, example of the damage faith can do in this regard can be found by googling When Faith Fails Children.

[quote]Have you seen the statistics for murder and abuse of kids by live-in boyfriends and girlfriends?[/quote]

No, have you? What are they? But no matter what, arguing that evils occur outside a religious regime is not addressing the evils that occur within such a regimne.

" Its any day orders of magnitude greater than anything happening in religious families."

If so, it is beside the point because that does not address the problems of child abuse which occur as a result of faith.

I see that in some Christian circles it is a matter of some debate whether Christians should obey laws of land forbidding beatings, or beat anyway on religious grounds, to add a little aside.

"And please do not bring in the rates for certain Muslim communities,"

I hadn't done so, but in an argument aimed at showing that faith is not in itaelf a good thing I would be perfectly entitled to.

" if you have a problem with that, take it out with them. "

I would be happy to do so, were some here. Otherwise, that will have to wait for different occasions.

Bottom line - faith in and of itself is not a good thing, even though sometimes faith might have good results. If, for instance, someone were likely to go on a murderous rampage without faith, but not with it, then it would be better that he had a faith that stopped him.

Sadly, however, the opposite often proves to be the case.

David

13 August 2013 08:24  
Blogger David B said...

Albert, time shirt and a brief search does not immediately reveal what I was looking for, but feeding tE80p6i8Sug into Youtube will reveal someone reasonably competent having a go at him.

BTW, Craig is not above using copyright legislation to get fair use of his words pulled when people attempt to refute him.

David

13 August 2013 08:27  
Blogger David B said...

I will rephrase some of the above to "BTW, allegedly Craig is not above using copyright legislation to get fair use of his words pulled when people attempt to refute him."

David

13 August 2013 08:29  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Agreed. Thanks for making this point, I don't understand why so many secularists deny the evidence of their eyes by insisting that there is a simple equivalence between Islam and Christianity.

The BBC actually reported on thr jihadist attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt at 06.45 this morning on Radio 4.

7 dead in last week including a 10 year old girl targetted on the way home from Bible class. Her name was Jessie: wonder if she'll become as famous as Mallalah Yusefdey?

13 August 2013 08:32  
Blogger Ros V said...

I have checked the law about the right to assemble and associate. It does not include any right to parade naked or in obscene sado-masochistic gear, or with indecent gestures and behaviour in public. All that is actually illegal in most countries and I applaud the Russian Parliament for banning it.
In the recent London Gay shame march, homos appeared dressed in Nazi uniforms, others as dogs in muzzles and on leashes led by "masters"...these people are mentally ill. So are cross-dressers who were there in plenty.
I suggest that we all write to our MPs and demand a law banning this in Britain too. Then make the homos pay back all the money we, the tax-payers, have handed over in subsidy for this kind of claptrap.

13 August 2013 08:36  
Blogger Ros V said...

@Rambling Sid.
If you want Jessie to be famous, write an article about her. Write to newspapers, Spread the word yourself.

13 August 2013 08:38  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Robert Spencer of jihadwatch has an interesting take on the Crusades. Without denying the brutality he describes them essentially as a belated and proportionate response to invasive jihadi Islam without which the west would have been Islamised. We therefore owe the Crusaders a lot, including the Reformation, Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution, and the whole modern era.

I fear that a new Jihad fircthe West is bring fought in the maternity wards and the airports. This time there will be no Richard the Lionheart or Roland to withstand it.

I confess to not knowing enough history to validate Spencer but the fact of jihadism preceding Crusade csn hardly be questioned. The seeds of the Crusades were sown when Muslim armies conquered Jerusalem in the 7th centuty.

13 August 2013 08:46  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Albert @ 23:27

Do you know these by Michael Burleigh (Oxford historian: Catholic):

'Blood and Rage' (secular and religious terrorism)

'Sacred Causes': (political ideologies as religion).

Both excellent: 'S C' has one of the best demolitions of "Hitler's Pope" that I've come across.


PS: Feser great so far; thanks for the tip! Will get back to you when I've read the whole.

13 August 2013 08:48  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Friends, I have been away evangelising for the last two weeks hence my absence from your debates; evangelising wives and mothers on Godly wifehood and motherhood. It was a revelation how many hurting Christian wives and mothers there are who have accepted the world's lies on family life because of their Godless secular education of thirty or forty years ago. How much worse it will be for the girls growing up today in atheistic schools taught by atheistic teachers.

An interesting comment was made by a professional lady doctor living near Brighton who said the residents are very concerned about sexual behaviour in public, which is criminal and would be prohibited during all other times of the year but is condoned by the police during the Homosexual so called Pride events, even encouraged by homosexual police groups by parading in the march.

13 August 2013 08:58  
Blogger Naomi King said...


The average birth rate in muslim families is 6.8 even here in the West. The average birth rate for non muslim families in Britain is 1.1. Muslims still delight in fecundity sadly Christians, on the whole do not.

13 August 2013 09:06  
Blogger graham wood said...

Ross V. "In the recent London Gay shame march, homos appeared dressed in Nazi uniforms, . . . .leashes led by "masters"...these people are mentally ill. . . . "

Ross. Good vigorous condemnation of what is obviously and totally evil.
I agree with your three posts and feel equally strongly.

What is so incredible is that the NOT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY, led by the brazen liar Cameron, has written its own political suicide letter to the electorate, and is on notice for virtual extinction as a political party - the "gay" marriage issue being a significant factor in that process.

And the few remaining Tory activists (the mentally retired) who still remain wonder why the "grass roots" are dying.

13 August 2013 09:18  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

Thank you for the link to WLC debunked. You will not be surprised that at 50 seconds in I'm wondering about the burden of proof. If the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim, then the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim that the universe has aseity. It is in the light of the complete absence of evidence or reason for that claim that the arguments for the existence of God need to be assessed.

The immediate accusation of straw man is itself a straw man. Historically, atheists did argue that the universe was eternal. But then the evidence indicated they were wrong. They screamed for a while, they did all they could to force the evidence to go against itself but had to give in. It's a good example of a metaphysic commitment dictating wrongly to the physical evidence.

The second straw man attack at 3 minutes is really embarrassingly bad. Craig isn't trying to say that atheists think saturn has been orbit for eternity. He is simply observing that infinities in the real world result in absurdities. He also uses the Tristram Shandy paradox or Hilbert's hotel to demonstrate the same point, but he isn't trying to say atheists actually believe Tristram Shandy or the hotel are real.

It's pretty obvious that Craig at 5 minutes in is just right. Physicists do try to find alternative solutions to the idea of absolute beginning of the universe.

Okay, so then we move into Quantum physics. Did your man bother to read the book Craig co-authored with atheist Quentin Smith on this subject? Evidently not. Quantum particles do not refute the causal principle because they still require a prior condition for them to occur. But if there is an absolute beginning to the universe (and our man has been trying to say that all physicists think this) then there is no prior condition for the particles to spring from. Maybe the guy needs to read Anscombe on Hume and causes.

Then we get to great atheist fallacy. When Craig moves in to describe the kind of cause that would be necessary, our man says "Slow down, didn't he just establish that everything that exists has a cause?" Errr. No. He established that everything that begins to exist has a cause. I mean, this is the kind of stuff an A Level philosophy student ought to understand.

If you don't mind, I'm going to stop there. I've heard enough to see that this chap really does not know what he's talking about.

13 August 2013 09:27  
Blogger Naomi King said...


Here is a very good one on Cameron - the Snake that Slithers and Hisses

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23618181

13 August 2013 09:28  
Blogger Albert said...

Just to clarify, the point about causes, if the cause of the universe is timeless and therefore beginningless, it is irrational to ask "What caused it to begin?" It's like asking "What caused Dawkins to become a Muslim last week?" It didn't happen, so it didn't need a cause. No theist philosopher has ever come up with such stupid fallacy as to say whatever exists have cause, but God does not need a cause.

13 August 2013 09:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Explorer,

Yes, I have read those - superb books. The best complete demolition of Hitler's Pope (apart from the withdrawing of the author!) is Rabbi David Dalin's book The Myth of Hitler's Pope. He is helpful not just as a Jewish historian of the holocaust, but because he says the defamation of Pius XII, because it goes against so much testimony of the Jews of the time, is a form of holocaust denial. He also points out that this kind of holocaust denial is used for entirely unconnected reasons: the knock to the Church, to knock Christianity, to knock Pope John Paul II (in Cornwall's case). To engage in holocaust denial in order to prove an unconnected political point is pretty despicable.

Glad you're enjoying Feser.

13 August 2013 09:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ros V: "What a load of rubbish Dan joe talks. Freedom to assemble and associate? So why did the Law Society ban a meeting of Christian lawyers in London to discuss the implications of same-sex marriage in 2012?"

You think the freedom to assemble in Article 11 extends to private property as well as our public spaces? Sometimes I despair at the sheer ignorance of how things work in some of our population. Or is it just a lack of intelligence in this case given that it is surely obvious that it doesn't and shouldn't?

13 August 2013 11:33  
Blogger Ros V said...

The members of the Law society are all entitled to meet there and use it. It is THEIR private property you idiot.
Free assembly does not include obscene display, nudity, insulting behaviour, violence, soliciting, defecation or indecency which have all been recorded at Gay Shame marches.
The Russian law is right and I applaud it.

13 August 2013 13:11  
Blogger Ros V said...

The Bulls guesthouse in Cornwall was their "private property" but the court still bullied them to allow homosexual men to share a bed there. Private when it suits who?

13 August 2013 13:13  
Blogger Ros V said...

Something terrible has happened to a man in Scotland. We must all write to our MPs and protest. Write to Alex Salmond, write to the newspapers as well. Do not sit back and take this as normal because it is not.
EDINBURGH, Scotland, August 9, 2013 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Court of
Session in Edinburgh has fined a Scottish man £40,000 ($62,020 U.S.) in damages after he sent a message on Twitter calling a lesbian same-sex "marriage" advocate "a danger to children."
Lesbian Jaye Richards-Hill sued David Shuttleton, an antiques dealer from Barrhead, near Glasgow, for defamation because of his remarks about her homosexual activism.

Shuttleton reportedly also sent messages to First Minister Alex Salmond and Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon relating his concerns about Richards-Hill, a teacher and adviser to Education Secretary Mike Russell,
Calling people who disagree with his anti-gay campaign [is it an ani=ti-gay campaign or an anti-gay-extremism campaign?]"normalphobes,"
Shuttleton told the Daily Record, "It’s an absolute scandal that homosexuals have got such power in our community. It’s an absolutely scandalous abuse of our laws."
>
> While the huge award may set a precedent in cases involving alleged "homophobia" in Scotland, Shuttleton stated that he will challenge the ruling, claiming that the judgment came "by default," because he failed to file his defense properly.
"It's just a technicality,” Shuttleton said. “I put my defense in the wrong format so I’ve been working on it and it’s finished, but it’s just the case went through in the meantime.”

> The Scottish media are labeling Shuttleton a "delusional fool," "bigot," "lunatic," and "Christian fanatic racist homophobe." But news sources portray Richards-Hill as a "respected parent and teacher" who is a "leading campaigner for marriage rights for gay couples."
>[NB An irrational demand is described as a "right"]
> Richards-Hill reportedly "married" her lesbian sex partner Ruth in South Africa after staging a mock wedding during a same-sex "marriage"
> demonstration at the Scottish Parliament last year.
>
> She had no comment on the court decision.
>
> Contact:
>
> First Minister Alex Salmond
> Leader of the Scottish National Party
> Constituency Office
> 84 North Street Inverurie Aberdeenshire AB51 4QX
> Phone: 01467 670070
> Fax: 01779 474460
> Email: http://www.snp.org/email/236/field_person_email
>
> Education Secretary Mike Russell
> Constituency Office
> 81 Argyll Street, Dunoon, Argyll PA23 7DH
> Phone: 01369 702011
> Email: Michael.Russell.msp@scottish.parliament.uk
>

13 August 2013 13:14  
Blogger Ros V said...

Stephen Fry was jailed for stealing a credit card and boasts about it. He seems to have to respect for any laws except those he makes up himself.

13 August 2013 13:15  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

I didn't ssy I wanted her to be famous, just l wondered if her story would be taken up by the media the way Mallalah's was..

People like me don't get to decide which sad cases become international causes celebres. I have just set up a direct debit to support Christian anti persecution charity Open Doors, maybe they can do something.

Anyway credit when due-the beeb reported on anti-Christian violence in Egypt.

13 August 2013 13:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ros V: "The members of the Law society are all entitled to meet there and use it. It is THEIR private property you idiot."

*facepalm*

13 August 2013 14:17  
Blogger Nick said...

Ros V

Don't be too surprised at these outrages. They come from a group of people who have wilfully thrown their moral compass overboard to pursue the siren voices of atheism. God has them on notice and I suspect some of them even know it.

If they did not feel intimidated they would not bother to react the way they do. It reminds me of how the demons of the New Testament were afraid of Jesus.

They will have to give an account of themselves one day. That day will be terrible for them indeed.

13 August 2013 14:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Nick, doesn't that look like libel to you?

13 August 2013 15:04  
Blogger Albert said...

Ros V,

The Court of Session in Edinburgh has fined a Scottish man £40,000 ($62,020 U.S.) in damages after he sent a message on Twitter calling a lesbian same-sex "marriage" advocate "a danger to children."

What's the evidence that she's a danger to children? It seems to me that he's been sued for posting profoundly, abusive, damaging and unsubstantiated remarks about someone else simply because of their sexuality.

Why shouldn't he be sued? Wouldn't you want the power to sue someone who did that to you?

13 August 2013 15:10  
Blogger Nick said...

DanJ0

It looks like someone exploiting a popular trend, supported by the state, for financial gain

If criticism like that is really worth £40,000, then most of us would be multi-millionaires by now

13 August 2013 15:10  
Blogger Albert said...

Nick,

It looks like someone exploiting a popular trend, supported by the state, for financial gain

No, it looks like an innocent person clearing their vindicating their good name which has been viciously and falsely trashed in the public sphere.

If criticism like that is really worth £40,000, then most of us would be multi-millionaires by now

In present culture, falsely accusing someone of child abuse is profoundly damaging. I don't know whether £40 000 is too steep in the light of my previous paragraph. How does it compare with similar damages?

13 August 2013 15:18  
Blogger Nick said...

Albert

I don't think anything was said in Ros's comment about child abuse.

He was more likely talking of the corrupting influence of her views on marriage and homosexuality.

13 August 2013 15:41  
Blogger Albert said...

Nick,

From Ros' comment:

The Court of Session in Edinburgh has fined a Scottish man £40,000 ($62,020 U.S.) in damages after he sent a message on Twitter calling a lesbian same-sex "marriage" advocate "a danger to children."

You cannot infer from the view that someone's views on marriage and hmomosexuality are corrupting that therefore that person is a danger to children. If you follow the link to the original story (the Record), you find this:

Shuttleton attacked her reputation by sending her hate-filled tweets with the hashtags “child abuse” and “danger to children”, and has since posted many other abusive messages about her on Twitter.

Now surely the issue is, should he be able to do that, if it isn't true? I think the answer is obvious.

13 August 2013 16:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Back to the original article, if there are 33 million Christians in the UK as the Inspector claimed on the thread below then why aren't they mobilising? Are letters being read out across Scotland in churches calling people to action? Are there funded campaigns like the Coalition For Marriage drawing up petitions and dumping them at Downing Street? Surely all this should be happening about persecuted Christians in Egypt and Nigeria if people can muster up the time, energy, and money to campaign about what is essentially a non-issue for the majority: same-sex marriage? It's a bizarre situation, really.

13 August 2013 17:13  
Blogger Naomi King said...


David Kavanagh @ 22:42, 12 August 2013.

I am thrilled to be mentioned in your Tribute, in Song, to His Grace's Blog.

13 August 2013 17:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



The Inspector suspects the Archbishop may be wondering if the new flame on this site Ros V is really yours truly under a nom de guerre. Well it isn’t, but the lady has in just a few posts already endeared herself to this man. 13:11 was delectable !!

We have of course, the roguish legal profession to blame for introducing the Devil’s laws to us, and for the state sponsorship of buggery, and associated unhealthy moral and hygienic outrages. For the illumination of Cranmer’s followers, the Inspector has come across an old word for these types. “Pettifogger” rather apt, sure you’ll all agree…





13 August 2013 18:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The style is not yours, Inspector. It is, however, someone else's who posts here periodically.

13 August 2013 18:20  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert

A word of caution - we are not in possession of all the facts. However, I would say that the propagation of a homosexual life style and the removal of Christian values concerning human sexuality, does have a profoundly corrupting influence on children.

Does it amount to "child abuse"? I say it is significantly harmful to a child's moral development and therefore qualifies as "child abuse". Not a personal, direct and criminal assault - something more pervasive and more harmful to all children.

That said, the man had no defensible 'right', under our laws, to personally harass and berate the person concerned in the manner reported. Indeed, he could have faced criminal charges.

13 August 2013 18:30  
Blogger Naomi King said...


More Christian's are being martyred nowadays (mostly by muslims) than at anytime in history. Over 100,000 men, women and children die for their belief in Jesus Christ and their confession of their faith every year, usually in the most horrible circumstances. I was speaking to a Pakistani Christian last week, these Christians know a lot about persecution in Pakistan, he reminded me that it is a privilege to be called by God to be a martyr. I pray that if I should be called to be a martyr in this life, I will view it as such a privilege as this brave, honourable and holy man clearly does.

13 August 2013 18:48  
Blogger Albert said...

I agree Peter that we are not in possession of all the facts. However, "child abuse" has a pretty specific meaning and it is clear that there is no evidence to pin that meaning on the poor woman. In any case, your point about personally harassing and berating someone is well taken.

I think the caution goes the other way. We must avoid jumping to the conclusion that because a Christian has been prosecuted (or similar) for speaking against homosexuality that therefore his basic human rights have been trampled upon. He does not seem to have been sued for his beliefs about homosexuality, but for his quite unjustified remarks about another person.

What in the teaching of Jesus supports this kind of behaviour?

13 August 2013 18:52  
Blogger Albert said...

Naomi,

Over 100,000 men, women and children die for their belief in Jesus Christ and their confession of their faith every year, usually in the most horrible circumstances

That's terrifying. Are you able to give a source, please?

13 August 2013 18:53  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Rambling Steve,

Open Doors.
God move. I have had a monthly DD myself supporting them for some time because of the excellent work that they do helping persecuted Christians, globally. A few weeks ago they advertised for an area team leader, a very part time activity, which I volunteered for, if they will have me. Few Christians in the west are aware of the desperate plight of their brother and sisters in Christ.

13 August 2013 18:57  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Albert my source is second hand from Nancy Campbell from Above Rubies Ministry but I am sure that Barnabas Fund and Open Doors would be able to confirm this information.

Also every year 200 million are subject to persecution, torture, imprisonment and having their families torn apart for their faith in the salvation of our LORD Jesus Christ.

13 August 2013 19:00  
Blogger Naomi King said...


We had better buck up and get in a little practice now for standing up and being steadfast in our convictions, don't you think ?

13 August 2013 19:04  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert

Would you have an issue with him if his comments has been:

"The message you are preaching about the normal nature of homosexuality morally corrupts children and is tantamount to child abuse"?

"I think the caution goes the other way. We must avoid jumping to the conclusion that because a Christian has been prosecuted (or similar) for speaking against homosexuality that therefore his basic human rights have been trampled upon."

Agreed. He went overboard. And yet atheists appear quite entitled to call Christians "deluded" and accuse us of "polluting" children's minds and say religion is "child abuse".

"He does not seem to have been sued for his beliefs about homosexuality, but for his quite unjustified remarks about another person."

I guess that's the point at issue. Was he accusing her of an unsubstantiated act of individual child abuse?

"What in the teaching of Jesus supports this kind of behaviour?"

Jesus wasn't polite towards the cultural leaders in His own time, was He? I seem to recall Him saying some pretty insulting words to others when needed. And He showed His anger and directed it personally at individuals on more than one occasion.

Indeed, nowadays Jesus might even find Himself in front of a court for slander or hate speech. Come to think of it, He did in His own time.

13 August 2013 19:44  
Blogger Albert said...

Peter,

He went overboard. And yet atheists appear quite entitled to call Christians "deluded" and accuse us of "polluting" children's minds and say religion is "child abuse".

Dawkins got away with that because he was not directing his comment at an individual. Had he said (as his assertion suggestions) "You Mr and Mrs O'Catholic are guilty of child abuse", then I suspect that couple would have sued him and won.

"The message you are preaching about the normal nature of homosexuality morally corrupts children and is tantamount to child abuse"?

No, I wouldn't be happy with that. It is too emotive and imprecise. How do you feel when you read Dawkins making that kind of statement? It doesn't make you think he might have a point! That sort of comment seems designed to upset people without actually advancing anything any further. Someone who wants to make that kind of claim should avoid emotive language and provide evidence in support of their claim. And if they can't do that, it would be better not to say anything.

Was he accusing her of an unsubstantiated act of individual child abuse?

I think that that is what it looked like, and that is enough to damage someone's reputation and justify the court's decision.

Jesus wasn't polite towards the cultural leaders in His own time, was He? I seem to recall Him saying some pretty insulting words to others when needed.

Yes, but the key thing there is "when needed". When is falsely accusing someone of a despicable crime even "needed"? When did Jesus do that?

Indeed, nowadays Jesus might even find Himself in front of a court for slander or hate speech. Come to think of it, He did in His own time.

No, I'm not sure that is true. But he had offended people that's for sure, and might end up in a British court for that, I suppose.

13 August 2013 20:59  
Blogger bluedog said...

DanJO @ 17.13 asks with regard to the persecution of Christians, 'Are there funded campaigns like the Coalition For Marriage drawing up petitions and dumping them at Downing Street?'

As we know the C4M petition was dumped straight into the waste paper basket at Downing Street. 650,000 respondents opposed to SSM were treated as one vote. No point in wasting time petitioning Cameron again until the General Election in 2015. Then 650,000 people will vote against him.

13 August 2013 21:27  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Nick,

I don't think that just because a person is 'gay' means they shouldn't/can't look after children. I have a gay sister and she is better than 'super nanny' with them. The same goes from the feedback with the rest of my family.

The only cross word I had was when Hannah used my bottle of fine Scotch and set fire to it, as a demonstration of 'the sun',quickly gone by the swift intervention of Mrs K and one of my sons.

I think my brother Samuel wasn't happy when Hannah opened up a 1980's (in box) version of the 'transformer's constructions'... but again one of my brother's sons noted that the 'cost' was 'great playtime with Aunt Hannah'.

I rest my case.

13 August 2013 21:41  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Albert,

You asked earlier about he costs of libel; google Lord McAlpine vs Bercow....

13 August 2013 21:41  
Blogger Albert said...

David K,

Thank you. £150 000 from Sally Bercow. BBC had to pay £185 000. I think at that rate the £40 000 seems reasonable, and given that it had gone with direct harassment perhaps even understated by comparison.

13 August 2013 21:51  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert

Proof that teaching sexual immorality corrupts and is therefore abusive - in the sense of causing significant harm? Come now. Looks what's happened since contraception became acceptable. Look at the fragmentation of family life and the instability of married life.

Homosexuality is from the same root stock - only worse. Legitimising it represents a fundamental attack on the basic building block intended by God for our wellbeing.

(Anyway, we have digressed from the theme of the thread and our host will disapprove.)

13 August 2013 22:10  
Blogger Peter D said...

David K
Of course being homosexual is not necessarily an indicator of paedophilia. The two are different phenomena.

However, there does appears to be some evidence, albeit disputed and controversial, of some sort of correlation between male homosexuality and the sexual assault of teenage boys. As I say its a controversial subject.

13 August 2013 22:25  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi David,

Me? Super nanny ? *BLUSH* ....

Anyways re the apparent collectable ; well I had to do something,after we'd already got the Dinobots to kick Shockwave's ass...

13 August 2013 23:28  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

I think Albert has summed up things quite well here, actually.

13 August 2013 23:47  
Blogger Albert said...

Peter,

Proof that teaching sexual immorality corrupts and is therefore abusive - in the sense of causing significant harm? Come now. Looks what's happened since contraception became acceptable. Look at the fragmentation of family life and the instability of married life.

I wasn't asking for proof. I was simply setting out the conditions for making the claim. The comparison with contraception shows that, whatever the truth of the matter, it is going to be hard to persuade anyone of it.

The purpose of such a discussion would be simply to try to make children safe. In that context you use arguments that stand a chance of winning, not arguments that will result in you and your whole position being branded bigoted and therefore dismissed. And that I think brings us back to the court case. Nothing in the man's strategy seemed designed to make children safe. It seemed designed to offend and harm unjustly.

14 August 2013 08:48  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Hi there, Supper nanny!

14 August 2013 10:00  
Blogger Peter D said...

Albert,

Well its a good job John the Baptist isn't around today with his direct, in your face, preaching.

Lord knows what would happen to him. Then again he did loose his head - and so do other Christians under sever trial witnessing modern developments.

On balance, the chap and not the 'victim' has my greater sympathy and understanding - right motive; wrong method.

14 August 2013 11:23  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Explorer,

Oh, I just want to be a good auntie. My faith is about family, community and friends, with G-d at the centre...

14 August 2013 18:53  
Blogger Ros V said...

Albert asks me whether I would want to sue somebody who made damaging remarks about me. That's an amazing question. Every day of the week. foul-minded homo-fanatics make damaging, abusive and insulting remarks about all sorts of people and even cost them their jobs - there is nothing under the law that any of them can do about it. Anyone who disagrees with their bizarre agenda is labelled a "hater" a "gay-basher", a "bigot" and "ignorant" - a term used about me by Danejo above.
By the way, when it comes to the freedom of assembly in a public place, I notice another double standard. At the Tragfalgar Square rally for marriage in March, the pro-family demonstrators were mobbed by homo-extremist thugs who used violence to try to stop the proceedings. They rushed the crowd,attacking old people, women and children indiscriminately and when retrained by the police, still did their best to shout down the speeches. Then they tried to pull out the cable to the public address system. Human rights? Freedom of expression? Like hell.
I saw people pushed over and injured, and when I told a journalist, nothing was reported in the papers.
In France, pro-family demonstrators have been attacked and beaten by murderous homo-fanatics on several occasions this year. On 13th April 2013 Samuel Lafont was stabbed five times by homo-thugs and sent to intensive care in the Pompidou hospital, a friend with him was also stabbed and a third was beaten up. Hundreds of other LMPT demonstrators have been assaulted by homo-extremists or by the armed police. Many hundreds have been arrested, imprisoned or roughed up. One young man was sent to gaol and only released after a massive protest. Right to demonstrate? Ha Ha ha...
One of the nastiest ways that homo-fascists use to undermine the freedom of expression of others is to slander them. In Pink News and other homo websites, La Manif Pour Tous was portrayed as a Nazi movement and blamed for the death of a stupid thug called Clement Meric. CCTV footage proves that Meric died after being pushed over by the armed police. He was not killed by pro-family demonstrators but homosexual websites have already spread this lie across the world. Meric who went to the demo armed, had been in hospital a month earlier because of injuries he got in another fight.
Another filthy lie spread by Pink News and co blames the pro-marriage demonstrators for the attack on Wilfried Brujin a homosexual man attacked as he and a friend walked home from a club. Police investigated it and found that the attack was a routine mugging. It had absolutely nothing to do with the rallies of LMPT going on in Paris around the same time. Paris is a big place and people are mugged every day. But will the queer press withdraw their slanders? No. They keep these lies and the misleading pictures on their sites as a way of attacking normal people all over again - attacking our right to demonstrate or participate in the democratic process and silencing us.
So don't talk to me about Human rights. Queers who do that are hypocrites.

15 August 2013 19:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ros V: "Every day of the week. foul-minded homo-fanatics make damaging, abusive and insulting remarks about all sorts of people and even cost them their jobs - there is nothing under the law that any of them can do about it."

Like a local 'branch chair' of a political party, by any chance? ;)

15 August 2013 20:13  
Blogger Peter D said...

Ros V
"One of the nastiest ways that homo-fascists use to undermine the freedom of expression of others is to slander them."

So very true ....

15 August 2013 20:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I don't 'alf attract some nutters around here.

15 August 2013 21:11  
Blogger Peter D said...

Ros V
"Anyone who disagrees with their bizarre agenda is labelled a "hater" a "gay-basher", a "bigot" and "ignorant"."

Again, so true .... or even "an idiot or "nutter"

15 August 2013 22:10  
Blogger Ros V said...

@ DanjO: You are the nutter. People come here to read Cranmer, not you.
More examples of homosexual intolerance towards pro-family demonstrations:
On 12th June Madame Dallila A, aged 47, was taking part in a peaceful sit-in for La Manif Pour Tous in Lille, northern France. She and her companions were attacked by homo-extremists who abused them insulted them then stabbed them multiple times. There were several of them, who came to the sit-in armed with knives. Yet despite two people being injured and taken to hospital the attackers were released by the French police without charge.
http://www.lamanifpourtous.fr/fr/toutes-les-actualites/635-deux-poids-deux-mesures-le-scandale-continue-agression-a-lille-de-pacifiques-meres-veilleuses

https://www.facebook.com/LesVeilleursLille

16 August 2013 10:26  
Blogger Ros V said...

@spicksandspecks said...
"You might be surprised, but Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International have both been reporting cases of anti-Christian attacks in Egypt frequently and with impressive factual detail. Some of these reports are getting picked up in papers like the Guardian."
I would be very surprised! I expect it's in tiny print at the bottom of page 23, while outrage about Russia banning obscene parades dominates the TV news and headlines day after day.

16 August 2013 10:28  
Blogger Invictus Sum said...

The reason why no one care is because everyone knows Christians are pussies, they grumble and complain but then break in to a cold sweat and shiver and the thought of actually doing something to stop this stuff. No one respects that, I'm a Christian and I do not respect that. CHRISTIANS ORGANISE YOURSELVES AND START CONFRONTING THE WORLD ABOUT THIS! WHEN YOU MAKE THEM FEEL UNCONFORTABLE THEY WILL HEAR YOU!!

17 August 2013 12:33  
Blogger Invictus Sum said...

Christianity I believe does not teach pacafism in the face f such injustice. Do you really think Love demands the pathy that is prevailant in the church. No one can take seriously a group of people who live and believe they should be the worlds door mats! Christians look at how our Christian forfathers dealt with the problem and you will see what real Christianity expects - not platitudes but actions!

17 August 2013 12:36  
Blogger Ros V said...

Agreed. And here is another example of Human Rights (coincidentally those of a christian) being violated, which will be ignored by the Guardian and Stephen Fry.
The Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 18 says that everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Article 19 adds the right to express your opinions. Article 23 says that everyone has the right to work.
Yes in defiance of all that, Dr Frank Turek has been sacked by the Bank of America just for writing a book in defence of traditional marriage. Dr Turek never mentioned his opinions in any work context and there was no suggestion that his work was anything other than excellent.
http://victimsofgaybullying.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/marriage-supporters-sacked-for-their-beliefs-dr-frank-turek/

18 August 2013 21:42  
Blogger Ros V said...

Of course anyone who wants to write to the Russian ambassador and express support for their government's policies can do so!

Embassy of the Russian Federation
6-7 Kensington Palace Gardens London W8 4QP
020 7229 6412

18 August 2013 21:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Julia, you make me laugh. You really do at times.

19 August 2013 06:26  
Blogger Naomi King said...


The new children's entertainment and comedy according to the BBC, in their children's series "Marrying Mum and Dad", is described as

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b038lcxc/Marrying_Mum_and_Dad_Series_2_Spy/

This is a Children's television programme (CBBC) where the children's two "dads" marry each other, 28 minutes on iplayer. Broadcast twice this Monday gone at 10 am and 4.30 pm, 12th August ie during the day during school holidays.

And this is not called corrupting ?

Homosexuals have not even got "marriage" yet they are calling civil partnership marriage in this programme. So it is OK to actively convert children to homosexuality now and tell them it is normal but it is not OK to release them from it.

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-chris-christie-gay-conversion-20130819,0,6276501.story

It is all mad, depressingly, mad, but there must be a swing back of the pendulum one day. Putin referred in a speech to the "suicides" of Western countries,
including the USA and Britain, meaning our policies on homosexuality and abortion. He has no intention of letting Russia commit suicide in the same way. There is much not attractive about the man but on this one he is right.

20 August 2013 09:09  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older