Sunday, August 04, 2013

Funeral rites to be made a living right


From Rev'd Dr Peter Mullen:

Following the glorious success of his Homosexual Marriage Act, Prime Minister David Camembert is personally to introduce into the House of Commons a Bill to provide us all with the right to a funeral “– whether we’re dead or not.” Mr Camembert told our reporter, “A Funeral is such a wonderful institution that I want to see its benefits extended to everyone. It’s really very socially-excluding to allow this basic human right to dead people alone. Of course, we in the Conservative party have a great deal of respect for the dead, but we can no longer in all conscience tolerate a system which forces many people to have to wait for seventy, eighty or even ninety years before being afforded the ordinary human privilege of a decent burial.”

It is understood that funerals will not be restricted to burials but may of include, as well as cremations, being ritually shot into space or even mummified and walled up in special thanatos chambers in the basements of one or other of our great national institutions such as Broadcasting House. Unofficially, many have already been interred in there for years. There will be statutory arrangements for lads and ladettes hell-bent on an early funeral to hold the ceremony in their favourite nightclub. More adventurous types have elected to hold their service in hot air balloons and some reactionary, anti-EU Tories – the so called bastards – are known to have applied to the Carlton Club, where a funeral is presently called “dinner.”

There has been a general welcome for the new measure, though Leader of the Opposition, Mr Ned – “dead” – Milipede issued a statement this morning saying that funerals in posh places such as The Ritz or on yachts belonging to Russian gangsters “will not help the promotion of social mobility.” (Insiders see in this comment a sly dig at Mr George Osborne and Lord Mandelson who are known to have many Russian friends) The Mayor of London, Mr Boris Johnson scorned Mr Milipede’s anti-elitism: “Crikey, chaps should be allowed to have their snuff party wherever they fancy. Mine’s to be at Chequers – when I’m PM of course.”

Dr Hieronymus Litjak, Commissar for Modern Services, said, “The new Funerals Measure is very good news and we in the former Church of England give it our blessing. Goodness me – the stuffy old C.of E. has quite a lot of catching up to do with society’s modernising project! Did not the prophet say, “Go ye into all the world and set up focus groups?”

Dr Litjak insisted that people will not be restricted to the “irrelevant archaic language” of The Book of Common Prayer “rubbish such as ashes to ashes, dust to dust… I’ve asked the Synod to produce a Supplement to Common Worship which will include the words, I give you this grave as a sign of your funeral…

Rev'd Dr Peter Mullen is an author and former rector of St Michael's, Cornhill in the City of London.

158 Comments:

Blogger Nick said...

Perhaps they should also extend the right to an abortion to grown-up kids. I can think of one or two parents of PMs and DPMs who might wish for a "late" abortion

4 August 2013 at 11:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The Rev is clearly not the blog owner who can do these sort of articles very well.

4 August 2013 at 11:50  
Blogger David B said...

I agree with DanJO.

David

4 August 2013 at 12:03  
Blogger Bruvver Eccles said...

I was hoping that I my human rights would allow me to declare myself to be dead.

4 August 2013 at 12:05  
Blogger non mouse said...

Well I think it's very funny, Dr. Mullen! Thank you :)

4 August 2013 at 12:49  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Heh. The atheist demographic is not impressed. Now I will grant that this post lacks the Archbishop's subtlety. The satire was obvious from the first sentence. But there is no law that requires literary sleight of hand in satire. Sometimes a ball peen hammer is fit for purpose. It effectively displays three concepts:

1. The narcissistic spirit of the age.

2. The ontological impossibility of homosexuality marriage.

3. The emerging spiritual vacuum at the center of the CoE.

In fact I was convinced this was a real post when I had only read the title. So true to form is the subject to the spirit of the age I was actually disappointed to discover it was satire. Because it very well could have been real.

carl

4 August 2013 at 12:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Rather thought that might be a T shirt found in a gay brothel (...{AHEM}, that should be legitimate gay club, of course...) as worn by some HIV+ victim who is suffering ‘complications regarding anti viral treatment’ and who is touting for what may well be a last compassionate bum. Before his body fails and his dreadful prolonged death follows...

Let’s hope the hospice burns ALL the bedding, what !

4 August 2013 at 13:23  
Blogger Nick said...

Carl said

"In fact I was convinced this was a real post when I had only read the title."

Indeed. I am a little concerned that if the PM is reading this blogg he my ight be looking for his next "big idea".

"Big Dead" might be just what he needs to revive his fortunes. It would ensure he gets the Goth vote for a start. Terms like "living" and "deceased" would of course be replaced with something less discriminatory. The ex-pat voting system could be extended to include those who have retired from this mortal coil altogether. He needs the support of other walking dead besides Labour and LibDem MPs.

4 August 2013 at 13:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


I say Nick, one does think you are onto something there. Why should being dead exclude you from our politicians marvellous society they have planned for us...

4 August 2013 at 13:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

That weren't funny, OIG.

carl

4 August 2013 at 13:47  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

“Equal rights for dead people. We want the dead to have a stake in society too”

4 August 2013 at 13:51  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Breaking news...

“Synod to discuss allowing dead people to marry in church. But it is thought what’s left of the traditional wing will vote against extending to same sex dead. Although this is a spoof report, politicians have not been slow to condemn the CoE for divisive teaching. Either ALL dead can marry there, or we’ll make the ECHR curse you all in the name of cultural Marxism, says party leader”


4 August 2013 at 14:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Synod have not ruled out one of the happy couple being still alive. A spokesperson said, “Since we’ve stopped doing God’s intention, it’s all down to public opinion. We rule nothing out these days, as you have seen.”

4 August 2013 at 14:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If god's name is Allah then I suspect all of us here haven't even started doing his intentions. Luckily for our various chosen lifestyles, public opinion is with us all, at the moment at least. Hurrah for public opinion!

4 August 2013 at 14:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Synod are to consult outside of the church on dead marriage, but only with LBGT militant groups. “It is important that the tiny number of homosexual activists in the UK have their say.” But synod have ruled out holding meetings in gay club ‘play rooms’. Holding back vomit, a spokesperson said he’s fine with making gays into a new priestly caste, as such, but some things go beyond the call of God ignoring secular duty...

4 August 2013 at 14:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

News spreads fast. Hundreds of UK gays have expressed a desire to marry Alan Turing, aka the greatest man who has ever lived. LGBT groups have suggested polygamy should be made legal for both straights and gays, and have warned that any opposition will be labelled homophobic. Politicians are said to have warmly welcomed the initiative, and reasserted their desire to see homophobia completely stamped out.

4 August 2013 at 15:16  
Blogger David said...

Does he believe in equal Death BECAUSE he is a Conservative?

4 August 2013 at 16:05  
Blogger LEN said...

God regards those walking around this planet as being 'dead 'already. Adam was dead as soon as he rejected God`s Spirit although Adam didn`t die physically for many years.

It is the Spirit (God`s Spirit) which gives Life, Jesus proved this by speaking Life into the dead body of Lazarus [and others], curing the diseases of all who sought Him and His subsequent resurrection.
Of course death is not the end as we are spirits inhabiting physical bodies but the eternal destination of our Spirit is determined as to our response to Jesus Christ.

The Scriptures tell us, "The first man, Adam, became a living person." But the last Adam--that is, Christ--is a life-giving Spirit.(1Corinthians 15;45)

4 August 2013 at 16:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Senior Conservatives have gone to pains to issue a statement that although it is rumoured the prime minister himself is known to be a stanch advocate of equal death, it is not now, nor will it be in the future, a manifesto obligation...

4 August 2013 at 16:54  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Meanwhile, the number of gay men interested in ‘marrying’ Alan Turin has now reached a thousand.

Turing, an LGBT god, was hanged for buggery sixty years ago...

4 August 2013 at 17:01  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

I'm with you DanJ0.

It's the sort of thing one would expect a sniggering 13 year old to submit to Private Eye.

Please, YG, if you're going to get a Daily Mail shock hack to write for this august blog, at least let it be Peter Hitchens. And for the love of God don't let him attempt satire.

4 August 2013 at 17:08  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, satire. Never did master that, personally...

4 August 2013 at 17:12  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Neither did Rev. Mullen, obviously.

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

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 August 2013 at 17:14  
Blogger Peter D said...

Darter Noster said...
"I'm with you DanJ0"

Bit of a troubling comment which you might want to qualify.

I though it rather a good piece, myself. And its interesting how our resident liberal-atheist-homosexualists were so quick to disapprove. Good sign, I'd say.

Inspector
Len's rather good at satire, don't you think?

DanJ0 said ...
"Luckily for our various chosen lifestyles ..."

So you're conceding that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle? Excellent news.

4 August 2013 at 18:04  
Blogger Anne Thrope said...

.

4 August 2013 at 18:14  
Blogger Anne Thrope said...

Funerals for the living are no more nonsensical than "marriages" for two people of the same sex.
Here's a little insight into Barry and Tony.

"Gay dads Barrie and Tony Drewitt-Barlow from Essex, England, already have five kids via egg donors and surrogates — 4 boys and a girl. But the millionaire dads want more! They have now spent over $100,000 to ensure their next child is a girl.
As reported in Britain’s Daily Mail, the couple flew to California to use IVF treatment to ensure the baby’s sex. (The treatment is not legal in Britain.) The couple used their sperm to fertilize three eggs, all of which are being carried by a surrogate mother. With the expensive and uncommon IVF treatment, the probability is high that one if not all of the triplets will be female.
Barrie and Tony already have two sets of twins, Aspen and Saffron, and Jasper and Dallas, plus a middle son, Orlando. In naming the new triplets, we suggest Liesl, Brigitta and Gretl.
These poppas love their wee ones, don’t you forget it. As Barrie told Britain’s Closer magazine:
“We can’t wait to spoil our new daughters. I want to buy them pink Prada dresses and babygros.
“We will recycle too. We are going to use Saffron’s old wicker crib from Harrods, which cost £5,000, and divide one of the £100,000 diamond necklaces she does not wear any more into individual pieces for the babies.
“And we want to decorate the nursery as a rainforest!”
“Saffron’s clothes come from every designer from Gucci and Karen Millen and she has 500 pairs of shoes.
“We spent £50,000 having her room designed like a swanky London flat with a 39-inch plasma TV and furniture from Harrods. The boys are not as bothered about clothes, but we get them the latest iPads and laptops.”
The couple first hit their beloved media spotlight in 1999, when they became Britain’s first legally recognized same-sex couple. When they had their first set of twins, Aspen and Saffron, both dad’s names we placed on their children’s birth certificates.
Article: 12th June 2012 www.queerty.com

4 August 2013 at 18:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

What !!!

‘chosen lifestyle’ !

The blighter, he told us all he couldn’t help the whatever. One will never believe a gay man again...

4 August 2013 at 18:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len. God regards those walking around this planet as being 'dead 'already.

You idiot !

4 August 2013 at 18:18  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Drewitt Barlow articles. If you are reading this and plan to bring the children up as queers, one will be VERY disappointed in you...

4 August 2013 at 18:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Drewitt Barlows. would the children like their own animated wooden puppet to play with. This fellow comes available at £ 200 a day plus travel expenses...

They can drop pound coins or maybe diamonds into his mouth – wouldn’t mind at all, you know...


4 August 2013 at 18:46  
Blogger Peter D said...

You're way too cheap Inspector, pardon the expression. You omitted at least a couple of 0's methinks.

4 August 2013 at 18:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "So you're conceding that homosexuality is a chosen lifestyle? Excellent news."

Is there no end to your brainless fecktardery?

4 August 2013 at 18:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well, Peter D, one wouldn’t want to price himself too high. Rather looking forward to it, if the truth be known. The children can practice serving him single malt with a plastic tea service, and in return, he could show the mites how to roll a cigarette...

4 August 2013 at 19:00  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ DanJ0 (14:45)—If god’s name is Allah then I suspect all of us here haven’t even started doing his intentions

According to the Egyptian cleric Abu Islam, Christianity would be more up your street: ‘Church worship originated in the worship of the penis. Take a look at a picture of Jesus, and you’ll see a penis, right here. Or is it on this side? Oh, it’s on the right side. A penis, right here. There are many pictures like this. They worship it.’

Abu Islam then treats his audience to lurid tales about Christian women and their pets. Unpleasant, but it’s always instructive to know the enemy’s mind. See the man himself here.

4 August 2013 at 19:06  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "Abu Islam then treats his audience to lurid tales about Christian women and their pets."

Surely it's about unmarried women over 40 and substitutes for children?

http://cdn.themetapicture.com/media/funny-cats-unmarried-woman.jpg

At least that guy's audience must realise that he's talking rubbish? Mustn't they? They can't be that stupid and uneducated.

4 August 2013 at 19:14  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Peter D.,

"Darter Noster said...
"I'm with you DanJ0"

Bit of a troubling comment which you might want to qualify."

Not really. In this case, I am with DanJ0.

Nor do I find any problem with that. In the real world I have both Christian and non-Christian friends, some of whom are gay. We understand each other's viewpoints, even if we disagree. DanJ0 is not a Christian, and neither, since thank God we do not live in a theocracy, is he obliged to be. He knows the arguments, is free to make his own choice, and I wish him no ill in whatever lifestyle he chooses to pursue.

4 August 2013 at 19:21  
Blogger David Hussell said...

One is reminded that the great proto- Conservative Edmund Burke regarded society as a contract between the dead, the living and those yet to be born. So at the level of political philosophy we may well be onto something here.

4 August 2013 at 19:23  
Blogger David B said...

LEN

"God regards those walking around this planet as being 'dead 'already."

Since you are such an expert in the mind of the God whose existence you have yet to establish, do you think you could please tell us how he regards the 50%+ of fertilised human eggs that are spontaneously aborted before the potential mother even becomes aware that she is pregnant, and the considereably lesser number who are aborted through human design.

David

4 August 2013 at 19:25  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

David Hussell,

"One is reminded that the great proto- Conservative Edmund Burke..."

Burke's opponent, Thomas Paine, makes much better reading IMHO :o)

4 August 2013 at 19:25  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Dan (19:14)—Muslims are brought up to believe that Christianity is a perversion and that they’re doing good when they kill Christians. In that frame of mind, they’ll believe anything that confirms their opinion of Christians.

4 August 2013 at 19:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny: "Muslims are brought up to believe that Christianity is a perversion and that they’re doing good when they kill Christians."

It's curious that one of my colleagues at work seems like a normal, very pleasant guy from Somerset who happens to be a devout Muslim. I suppose I still shouldn't let down my guard in case he suddenly lunges and tries to cut my head off when I'm at the company vending machine. The gap in actual and expected behaviour is presumably down to some sort of taqiyya thingy as far as you're concerned?

4 August 2013 at 19:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Coming soon, how YOU can sponsor a Buddhist monk in Burma...

Buddhist monks are well known pest controllers in the jungle...

4 August 2013 at 19:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, best reserve judgment on your pal until you’ve taken him to his first gay club...

heh heh !

4 August 2013 at 19:42  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Burke and Paine. Unfortunate names both, really.

In life, Paine did much more to live up to his than Burke did: countries seemed to prefer him when he was somewhwere else: a bit like Plato's view of the poet.

4 August 2013 at 19:42  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Inspector @ 19:40

Have you told Bob?

4 August 2013 at 19:43  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Dan (19:37)—I think you’re safe, which is more than I can say for Egypt’s Christians. Or Pakistan’s. Or Nigeria’s.

4 August 2013 at 19:46  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Johnny, do you think he's like a member of a terrorist sleeper cell, just waiting for the call before he screams "Allahu Akbar!" and reveals himself?

4 August 2013 at 19:53  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

In a Somerset accent.

4 August 2013 at 19:53  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Ah yes, Explorer our dear friend Bob. Right, let’s forget about him...

The casual observer to this site might be astonished that a full on gay man can be great friends with a devout muslim colleague. This can be explained by our full on gay man still being in the closet at work last time he was asked. And in view of him having a devout muslim colleague as a friend today, we can assume that he still is...


4 August 2013 at 20:06  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0:

Might it be an example of the actuarial principle: the behaviour of one individual component does not negate the behaviour of the whole?

4 August 2013 at 20:15  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

As part of our birthday celebrations, me and my sister went to Birmingham a couple of days ago...

I managed to check out the sights -St Philip's (Anglican), St Chad's (Roman Catholic) and Singer's Hill (Jewish)... the art gallery with the pre-raphalites and Jacob Epstein sculptures,the Chinese quarter; a jolly black brummie policeman helped us find these places and yes the 'gay village' too (:

Thought of you.

4 August 2013 at 20:17  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Explorer, I probably ought to whisper this but I have a sneaking suspicion that most Muslims in this country are not inclined to terrorism or religious murder.

That said, rather like Roman Catholicism only more so, I expect that if they got proper political power then it would be the worse for the rest of us.

4 August 2013 at 20:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, sorry to disappoint you but the ‘gay village’ is the local homosexual pox clinic. The worst cases live in...

4 August 2013 at 20:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0, a sneaking suspicion that most Muslims in this country are not inclined to terrorism or religious murder.

That’s good. You can let Mo know you’re queer then, and he won’t call you an abomination in the sight of Allah...



4 August 2013 at 20:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector, you're trying so hard at the moment that I'm inclined to think you've been having those unwanted 'feelings' again today.

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

...in fact DanJ0, you might as well make a clean sheet of it, and inform the entire office you’re gay. People are so much more understanding these days, really. One would even go so far as to say the only difference you’ll find is when young mum colleagues bring their newborns in, they just won’t bring them to your desk...

4 August 2013 at 20:34  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Dan (19:53)—and reveals himself

Lucky you.

4 August 2013 at 20:40  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

David B

Re: Spontaneous abortions

This is a good example of an argument that misses the mark because it is founded on such a serious misunderstanding of Christian Theology Proper. God is not a man. He cannot be judged as if He was a man. Whether you know it or not, that is what you are doing. The answer to your question is found in the Book of Job. You should begin your quest for an answer in that location. I doubt however that you will either appreciate or accept the answer. It doesn't begin with God's obligation to man for God is not so obligated. It begins with man's obligation to God.

carl

4 August 2013 at 20:42  
Blogger Peter D said...

Darter
@ 4 August 2013 19:21 - were you so serious as a child too?

4 August 2013 at 20:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

“Oh, hello DanJ0, it’s you. This in my arms is Tyler Mason George Alexander Louis. DON’T YOU DARE TOUCH HIM !!!”

4 August 2013 at 20:48  
Blogger Berserker said...

Please Your Majesty may I have your telegram when I reach fifty! You see, Ma'am, it's such a long wait otherwise and what with the old eyesight going, I want to frame it and put it up on my wall.

Dear Stinky Cameronbert

Can you pass a law letting everyone attend their own Memorial Service. When my turn comes, I promise to hang about in the darkest corner of the church unseen. I don't give a damn about what people say about me but I do so admire the ladies in their sexy funeral chic.

It is my inviolable human right to be alive at my own funeral.

4 August 2013 at 20:56  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0
If he is a devout Muslim, he's probably unaware of your 'chosen lifestyle'. Isn't it time you were honest about this 'chosen lifestyle' with your work colleagues?

Darter
"He knows the arguments, is free to make his own choice, and I wish him no ill in whatever lifestyle he chooses to pursue."

You're so non-judgemental. However, would you agree wishing him no ill might entail going further than "understanding" his point of view and pointing out the possible eternal consequences?

Even Pope Francis slipped in a reference to the Catechism of the Catholic Church when he used the term "gay" - the first Pope ever to do so.

Here's what the Catechism teaches:

"Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
(CCC 2357).

Peter Tatchell remains unimpressed by Pope - or is it Bishop - Francis too. He laments:

"The Catechism condemns homosexual love using strident, inflammatory and homophobic language" adding “Although he preaches forgiveness, he still regards homosexuality as a sin for which people must repent. This is only marginal theological progress.”

4 August 2013 at 21:15  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Peter D.,

"Darter
@ 4 August 2013 19:21 - were you so serious as a child too?"

One teacher called me facetious little git :oD

4 August 2013 at 21:22  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Peter D.,

"You're so non-judgemental. However, would you agree wishing him no ill might entail going further than "understanding" his point of view and pointing out the possible eternal consequences?"

He knows what the possible eternal consequences are from a Christian perspective, and I have never sought to water them down, but since he doesn't accept the Christian, or indeed theist, perspective, there's fairly little point in me threatening him with the wrath of a God he doesn't believe exists is there? That's putting the cart before the horse somewhat.

I have a lot more time for people like DanJ0, who aren't Christian to start with, than I do for people like Giles Fraser, who use Christian ministry to promote their own ideology.

4 August 2013 at 21:36  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Well the 'gay village' in Birmingham, I went to wasn't like that at all. Perhaps you should go there to see for yourself; perhaps you might even enjoy the experience (:

4 August 2013 at 21:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "You're so non-judgemental. However, would you agree wishing him no ill might entail going further than "understanding" his point of view and pointing out the possible eternal consequences?"

Dodo, I've had well over two years of your homophobia and internet aggression masquerading as religious belief. You've tried to stuff the Roman Catholic position down my throat pretty much daily here in that time. No-one with a real belief in the Christian god would do that given that it only serves to alienate. You're simply using it as a weapon to get yourself off in the style of those hitting the news about Twitter at the moment. You're contemptible. You'd better hope there isn't a Christian god because I doubt it would be at all impressed with someone using it as you do for your own ends.

4 August 2013 at 21:39  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Danjo,

'In a Somerset accent'... lol!

My sister,Esther, has picked up something of a Cornish accent (from viewing the 'staffordshire horde' the other day, apparently the Cornish & Welsh were called 'british' by the anglo-saxons; not sure how that fits into Johnny R's worldview...) .

Imagine that a middle eastern Jew who say "oor-arrh", but the Macaw, they've got, does sounds distinctly Trinidadian, but can speak some Yiddish....

(:

4 August 2013 at 21:45  
Blogger bluedog said...

Take it as a complement, Darter Noster @ 21.22.

When this communicant left school he was asked, 'Would you come back one day and tell us what we can do to make this place more interesting for people who think like you?'

They're still waiting.

4 August 2013 at 21:50  
Blogger David said...

"We are a Christian family," he says. I say, "One's derriere...."

4 August 2013 at 21:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, one is rather impressed that anti Christs like you get a hearing on this religeo-political site. Well done Cranmer for that. But if you do post your rot here, it is somewhat disingenuous of you to complain of the severe flak from believers coming your way. It is YOU who are playing away, not us.

Now, what have you got to say about that !!

4 August 2013 at 21:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's ironic that Sister Tiberia and Darter Noster get jumped on by the militant Catholics yet they present their Church in a good light, without appearing to compromise, such that I'm not only comfortable but happy to coexist with it. In contrast, Dodo delights in using the words "disorder" and "perversion" for their other meaning outside of the theology because he thinks it upsets me, and in doing so encourages me to despise the Church he claims to advocate. If one was 'casting a net' for Jesus then which is likely to be the best technique and who is behaving as Jesus would probably wish?

4 August 2013 at 21:58  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Bluedog,

From reading previous threads ,I'm sorry to read your own blue hound has passed away... I also suffered the loss of my two wonderful labradors a couple of months ago... ):

4 August 2013 at 21:59  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Hannah Kavanagh (21:45)—As a Jew, it isn’t my worldview you should be worrying about, it’s these people’s.

4 August 2013 at 22:01  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Johnny,

Well, I like to understand everyone's viewpoint you see.

And thanks for the link, which was a depressing tirade against Jews...

I got half way through and abandoned watching it, in part disgusted that they said they supported Brazil in football and Germany in politics... oh and the anti-semitic ranting as well.

4 August 2013 at 22:24  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 August 2013 at 22:24  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Poor old Darter and Sister Tibs,

I quite like them both and they have enhanced my appreciation of Roman Catholics no end. And they are like the people I meet in real life who are Catholics.... just like the current Pope Francis.

4 August 2013 at 22:27  
Blogger Peter D said...

Darter
"One teacher called me facetious little git :oD

Lol ... one can imagine you were. Disrespect for those in authority is not a good thing.

I got sent to the Head Teacher at primary school for saying God was "stupid" for kicking Adam out of Eden for eating an apple and then killing Jesus because of it!

Btw, I accept your position regarding atheists and Giles - "love me, love my god" - Fraser too.

DanJ0
"Dodo, I've had well over two years of your homophobia and internet aggression masquerading as religious belief."

Here we go, again.

You think?

So you agree with Bro Tatcher then that the Bible and Catechism use strident, inflammatory and homophobic language? Should these be banned from being quoted in the public square as "hate speech"?

"You've tried to stuff the Roman Catholic position down my throat pretty much daily here in that time. No-one with a real belief in the Christian god would do that given that it only serves to alienate."

Such exaggeration!

No, I've not tried to stuff anything down your throat - and its the Christian position. What I do is challenge your homosexualist views and opinions. Unfortunately, others seem less inclined to do so for fear of being perceived as "judgemental". I think they do you and others a disservice.

In fact, you have revealed more covert and overt aggression towards Christianity than I have towards your 'life style choice'.

"You're simply using it as a weapon to get yourself off in the style of those hitting the news about Twitter at the moment."

Mere assertion.

"You're contemptible."

Ooooo, that hurt!

You'd better hope there isn't a Christian god because I doubt it would be at all impressed with someone using it as you do for your own ends."

So erudite; so manly. Did you stamp your foot as you wrote this?

Of course, its simple argumentum ad hominem; so unlike you too. I know there's a God and I'm comfortable with what I'm doing on here.

This is a Christian, Anglican blog. Active homosexuality or attachment to it as an acceptable lifestyle, is still considered a grave sin. What do you expect? People to pat you on the head and say: "There, there, God understands and so do we. He made you that way so off you go and have sex with as many men as you want and *marry* one too if you want."?

In my view, by not challenging homosexuality as depraved one allows it to advance and to corrupt society.

4 August 2013 at 22:43  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

You communicants could find conversation about a farthing lost down a gully.
Well I'm not dead yet (at least I think so).
I did have a birthday today, Clikity click, but it's just not the same since the dear old Queen Mum died. No longer do I get the twenty one gun salute and the Guards playing happy birthday outside my town pad.
I think it would be a great hoot for MP's, or PM's, who haven’t done enough to be volunteered for full ceremonial burial. This would be in substitution for being elevated to the other graveyard at Westminster.

4 August 2013 at 22:47  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0 said...
"It's ironic that Sister Tiberia and Darter Noster get jumped on by the militant Catholics yet they present their Church in a good light, without appearing to compromise, such that I'm not only comfortable but happy to coexist with it."

Its not about making you feel comfortable and if they are doing that then they're failing. I doubt either accepts homosexuality as anything other than gravely sinful whatever language they might use.
Coexistance? I don't think so. What you want is to silence any criticism of your chosen life style.

"In contrast, Dodo delights in using the words "disorder" and "perversion" for their other meaning outside of the theology because he thinks it upsets me, and in doing so encourages me to despise the Church he claims to advocate.

I do no such thing! I use the terms in their correct sense - always.

"If one was 'casting a net' for Jesus then which is likely to be the best technique and who is behaving as Jesus would probably wish?"

Bit of divide and rule, eh?

So have Darter and Sister Tiberia actually persuaded you - or just made you feel more at ease - comfortable - in your "grave depravity" and engagement in "intrinsically disordered” acts? We all agree, as Catholics, that under no circumstances can your behaviour be approved as acceptable.

Jesus eat and drank with sinners - He never made them feel okay about sin or sought to co-exist with them.

4 August 2013 at 23:01  
Blogger Anne Thrope said...

Am I the only one who finds this comment obscene?
"Dodo, I've had well over two years of your homophobia and internet aggression masquerading as religious belief. You've tried to stuff the Roman Catholic position down my throat pretty much daily here in that time. No-one with a real belief in the Christian god would do that given that it only serves to alienate. You're simply using it as a weapon to get yourself off..."
He's not stuffing anything down anyone's throat because unbelievers don't have to come here and read it, do they? Whose the interent aggressor I'd like to know, given that this is plainly a Christian website and has a name that alerts you to that.
If he doesn't like it why doesn't he go away.

4 August 2013 at 23:55  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Peter D.,

"We all agree, as Catholics, that under no circumstances can your behaviour be approved as acceptable."

But neither can ours. We are not living saints, we are not free from sin, we all need the grace of God in our lives, and we all need to seek forgiveness for the transgressions we make day to day. Christian life is not a tick box exercise in things that we can congratulate ourselves for not doing.

That gay people sin I do not deny, but so do I, every day, in ways of which I am not always aware. We are all children of God, equally beloved of our creator, equally prone to fail, and equally in need of God's love and grace. The problem is not the message of the need for repentance of sin, change of life and embracing of God, which is the same for all of us, but a way of preaching that message which singles out gay people as uniquely sinful and therefore targets for the self-righteousness of others.

5 August 2013 at 00:03  
Blogger Peter D said...

Darter

I'm just going by the Bible. If Scripture is to be believed, God appears to take a particular exception to the sin of homosexuality, wouldn't you agree? I mean he wiped out 5 cities because of it!

Unless you are a revisionist and think the sin of Sodom was one of inhospitality. Or Saint Paul really didn't quite understand some people are homosexual by nature and, anyway, he was just attacking temple prostitutes not loving same sex partners.

Homosexuality is not like other human weaknesses. According to Saint Paul, it's a direct rebellion and affront to God and those engaging in it are without excuse. Then what did he know?

"That gay people sin I do not deny, but so do I, every day, in ways of which I am not always aware. We are all children of God, equally beloved of our creator, equally prone to fail, and equally in need of God's love and grace."

Gay people? Do you mean those with the inclination to homosexual acts, or those who see nothing wrong with those acts? And what makes you call them "Gay"?

And how very non-judgemental of you too. Yes, we are all sinners. Yes, we all need the Grace of God. Some disordered impulses however, are more easily overcome than others. And if you're a Catholic you'll believe some sins kill Grace in our souls.

Homosexuality has a whole lifestyle and self justifying mind set accompanying it. I know of no organisation promoting 'Fornication is Normal - We were Born this Way'. Do you?Let's call them 'Happy Fornicators'.

Those attempting to overcome the sin are to be helped and supported. Those justifying it are to be challenged - robustly. I'm not ashamed of using the language of Scripture, the Catechism or Pope Benedict XVI. Are you?

5 August 2013 at 00:36  
Blogger Peter D said...

Ps

And be under no illusion, DanJ0 and his ilk are not looking to change their behaviour. They want a comfortable co-existence.

I believe, because Scripture tells us, they know in their hearts what they are engaging in is sinful. They just want to silence Christian orthodoxy in the public square.

By being 'non-judgemental' and comparing it with minor sin, sin you say you are unaware of, and accusing those who speak out as self-righteous, you are colluding and cooperating with evil and endangering the souls of others.

5 August 2013 at 00:58  
Blogger David B said...

It seems very odd to me that something viewed as pleasurable by the people concerned, and who are two consenting adults, should be treated as somehow more egregious than doing something the reverse of pleasurable to someone who does not consent to it.

So odd that it further seems to me that any putative god who would take such a stance would be crazy.

David

5 August 2013 at 01:23  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Peter 00:36

I agree heartily with this post Peter.D N is still beating his old Protestant drum...all sin is equal etc.I think these interlopers are more of a threat to the Church than homosexuality. They acquire a theological degree and tear the walls down from within!

Miss A Thrope, Danjo enjoys a special position on this blog and is the only recalcitrant who has never been invited to leave by HG for reasons only known to HG. His obscene attacks on Peter are legendary and the latest one you are objecting to is mild comparatively.
To answer your question Anne the reason Danjo does not go away is that he can lash out insults and obscenity with impunity to Peter,loves blood sports, and enjoys the support and secret lust of a number of faux Christian males on this site.

5 August 2013 at 01:27  
Blogger Peter D said...

David B
What nonsense you write.

No one justifies the rape of women, children or men or considers less heinous a sin than sodomy. Except homosexual paedophiles who believe children can consent to buggery. These acts are regarded as criminal, gravely immoral and an affront to God.

The difference is that no one is attempting to normalise such depravity.

Anne Thrope
I have no real problem with what DanJ0 writes. Let him express his views and be as obscene and abusive as he feels the need to be.

Cressida
Thank you - again.

Darter is a product of liberal 'non-judgementalism'. He should read his Catechism more but then he is a 'theologian' and so knows more than us unlearned 'foot soldiers' who rely on the Magisterium.

I do wonder some times whether there are those on here who object more to Catholics than to homosexualists.

5 August 2013 at 02:40  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

DN should have left his baggage at the door when he converted. A theology degree is not going to solve that problem.

You do not wonder at all Doddles... youknow they would choose Stalin Barrabas Bluebeard Mao Tse Tung Inspector Mad Dog's dead Dog in preference to a true Catholic.

C'est une maladie de la culture Cheri!

5 August 2013 at 03:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo:"I do no such thing! I use the terms in their correct sense - always."

If I recall correctly, you've openly admitted it here in the past. Perhaps I should try to dig it out.

5 August 2013 at 06:10  
Blogger The Explorer said...

DanJ0:

Late response to your comment of 4th August 20:19: been otherwise occupied.

Don't look at the puppy: look at the grown dog.

I should have specified that when I said the 'whole' I meant the global ummah: across space and time.

5 August 2013 at 08:58  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Yet again, Cressida and Peter D. try to make a theological issue where there is none. Calling for gay people to be treated with respect and human dignity, and for Christians to be as aware of their own failings as they are of those others is nothing whatsoever to do with a Protestant conception of sin, as anyone reading this thread with an open mind and a functioning brain cell can see for themselves. It applies equally to bile-flecked Protestants like the Westboro Baptist rabble.

Whilst we're on the subject of Catechism, deep-seated tendencies and intrinsic disorders, why don't you reproduce the relevant section in full so people can see for themselves what it says?

"The number of men and women who have deep-seated homosexual tendencies is not negligible. This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided. These persons are called to fulfill God's will in their lives and, if they are Christians, to unite to the sacrifice of the Lord's Cross the difficulties they may encounter from their condition."

You see, my Catechism doesn't have every bit after the word "trial" mysteriously tippexed out. Does yours?

I get grief for being non-judgemental from the supposedly two most devoted followers of a God who said this:

"Do not judge, so that you may not be judged. For with the judgement you make you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck in your neighbour’s eye, but do not notice the log in your own eye? Or how can you say to your neighbour, “Let me take the speck out of your eye”, while the log is in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your neighbour’s eye."

Be as robust as you like about homosexuality and sin, just make sure you're as robust with your own sins, because Jesus spends a lot more time condemning hypocrites than he does gay people.

5 August 2013 at 11:30  
Blogger bluedog said...

Hi Hannah @ 21.59, thank you for your commiserations. Very sorry to learn that you lost two dogs recently, what a disaster, I do hope they died of old age, not some illness. Labradors are very fine dogs, my daughter has one called Boris Obama. You can guess he is not golden-haired, like the real Boris.

5 August 2013 at 11:53  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I don't suppose it has ever occured to you DN that one can be gay and also a hypocrite.I and sure it occured to Jesus as well even though the simple fact hs obviously eluded you.

That log you are carrying in your own eye has blinded you and I am not seeing any specks here.My argument with you is over the nature and degree of sin. You had best reread the notes on the online course you took on how to become a Catholic in 5 easy lessons with a theology degree thrown in as a bonus.

5 August 2013 at 13:25  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0
"If I recall correctly, you've openly admitted it here in the past. Perhaps I should try to dig it out."

Please do that. No doubt you have kept a copy somewhere.

As I recall, and unfortunately my apology to you was deleted, I acknowledged taunting you in the past as 'Dodo' and that this was unchristian.

At no time have I misused the theological terms. You are, I think, confusing me with one or two others who I have tried correct on this.

I did reiterate Jesus would have told you your way of life was wrong, needed to change and if left unchecked and wilfully continued would have eternal consequences. He would, and does, leave you to make your own decision whether to accept His Grace to change.

However, this is not a 'private' conversion or confessional. When you peddle your secular, atheist and homosexualist agenda publically I have every right, indeed a duty, to challenge this and will continue doing so. And yes, the terms may be strident and uncomfortable - but on my terms, they are not homophobic unless God Himself is homophobic.

Anyway, that was then, this is now. So do drop the drama and racking up the past and try to stick to the issues under discussion.

5 August 2013 at 15:09  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Please do that."

Here's what I was thinking of:

If you want to 'offend' DanJ0 then just remind him he suffers from objectively disordered inclinations and is given over to perverted sexual acts. In short, he's a sexual pervert. It's true and keeps him going for hours.

25 November 2011 20:41

5 August 2013 at 17:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Darter Noster, your defence of the homosexual community needs to evolve with the times. For today we have two entirely different animals out there. The old homosexual type, decent and quietly getting on with it, and worthy of a Christians compassion and understanding of their disability. And the militant, activist, devotee, promoter - call him what you will, who is not.

The latter, who wishes to mould society to his way of thinking is as dangerous to us and all we hold dear as the heterosexual paedophile across the road who desires to rape your eleven year old daughter.

Unfortunately, it can be difficult to tell the newly evolved vicious animal apart from the family pet, so to speak, so we should never give them the benefit of the doubt. Not until trust is won. One is sure you would get the thumbs up from Jesus for this judicious caution.

Don’t forget that now, because the aired intelligent attitude of chaps like you on sites like this carry weight…




5 August 2013 at 17:57  
Blogger Anne Thrope said...

@ Peter. Can't understand how you cano not mind someone saying stuff like that to you.
Darter Noster you have not got it right.
" a way of preaching that message which singles out gay people as uniquely sinful and therefore targets for the self-righteousness of others." NO - the sin of buggery in itself is a small and disgusting sin, venal rather than heinous. The heinous sin is the insistence that it is no sin. That is the worst sin - of pride - and the Church of England is full of soggy weak vicars who won't take a stand against it. People who have a weakness for sloth, gluttony and wrath don't try to make out that it's a virtue.
You should never misuse the word "gay" to mean homosexual as adopting their talk smoothes the way for their rotten values.
NB I was a nurse for ten years and I saw the things that had to be pulled or cut out of their rectums - bits of vibrators, broken bottles, crushed cans, lamp stands, yes lamp stands, and rectal fissures, anal prolapse, colostomy bags ... it goes all the way to cancer.

5 August 2013 at 18:18  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJo

November 2011 - a rather long time ago. Playing 'forum chess' again? I wont defend the comment but you've omitted the context.

Here's the full post:

"Viking
That was a long winded way of saying if someone needs help give it to them out of love!

The comment about Mr Michael was unnecessary and ungracious, Sir! No Christian delights in the suffering of another person.

If you want to 'offend' DanJ0 then just remind him he suffers from objectively disordered inclinations and is given over to perverted sexual acts. In short, he's a sexual pervert. It's true and keeps him going for hours."


Technically a correct use of the terms - although inappropriately used, I agree.

The comment was in the context of a silly scrap going on between you and English Viking where you were insulting one another and accusing him of being a repressed homosexual.

And, of course, it was slightly tongue in cheek but how quickly you jumped on it and gave it the worse possible interpretation:

"Dodo, I'm pleased you're admitting to doing that as it's been apparent to me for weeks ... since about the time you started reading the Catechism online to help you troll the Anglicans I think. It's satisfying for me, as you can probably imagine, to show someone using their alleged religion, and by extension their alleged god, as a weapon to play forum games. It shows the true regard in which you hold it. Thanks matey. Though I doubt it actually surprises anyone."

And then your abuse followed my additional polite and considered comments:

"Be a Catholic as you wish, we're a nominally liberal society, but expect to have your religious pollution shoved back down your throats if you try to impose it on us."

"Wooooo, silly, spooky nonsense about souls and stuff. But Allah help you too, if you've chosen badly. Perhaps he will as you probably know no different really. Or just simply waste your life being a foot soldier for a bunch of self-serving, power-hungry cardinals and their frock-wearing figurehead if you like. That's if you're a practising Christian at all, over which I have my doubts."

"Lol. You have no idea yet you still blather on regardless. I remain in constant wonder how you wake up without instantly blushing with shame at your outlook and behaviour."

I could go on ..... what's noticeable is that in nigh on 2 years your basic 'line of attack' hasn't changed at all.

I'm trying to reform my ways on here. Are you?

5 August 2013 at 18:35  
Blogger Peter D said...

Darter

"Whilst we're on the subject of Catechism, deep-seated tendencies and intrinsic disorders, why don't you reproduce the relevant section in full so people can see for themselves what it says?"

I have done so on many occasions - both parts!

And who's "judging" individuals? This is a public site discussing religious and political issues. Are you aware of the advancing homosexual agenda at all?

Attacking those who openly reject Christ to normalise gravely disordered acts is not the same as supporting those who accept it is a trial and acknowledge they need to change. Similarly, it is right to challenge those who believe one can be actively homosexual, with no desire to change, and Christian.

"Gay Pride" has political connotations that directly challenge the Bible. Using the term "gay" is confusing language. When I sin, as we all do, I am not proud about it. As I said, should we be encouraging a "Fornicator Pride" movements? Or, "Abortion Pride"?

"Anne Thrope
"@ Peter. Can't understand how you cano not mind someone saying stuff like that to you."

What would be the point?

And I agree with much of your response to Darter - though I don't think "the sin of buggery in itself is a small and disgusting sin, venal rather than heinous." It is a grave sin if committed wilfully and with knowledge of its nature. I do fully agree it is a "heinous sin", for homosexuals and others, to insist it is not a sin.

5 August 2013 at 18:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo, did you go to confession about that?

5 August 2013 at 18:56  
Blogger Peter D said...

DanJ0
Same old, same old.

That's the equivalent of my asking you when you last engaged in oral or anal sex. You worship your 'god' and I'll worship my God.

5 August 2013 at 19:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Less it, you two. Don’t think the Inspector can stand yet another excommunication...

5 August 2013 at 20:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If someone constantly follows people around, using a yardstick which is not universally accepted as valid to noisily judge them and claim that they have a duty to do so, then I think it is only reasonable to snatch the yardstick and use it on the person themselves, especially if it shows them wanting in many respects. No-one likes a blatant hypocrite, including Jesus it seems.

5 August 2013 at 21:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Just bloody well grow up DanJ0 and you Peter D. One man posts his views, the other posts his. That's it. Try to have some dignity about you – both...

5 August 2013 at 21:56  
Blogger Peter D said...

The Newer Vainglory
Two men went up to pray;
and one gave thanks,
Not with himself — aloud,
With proclamation,
calling on the ranks
Of an attentive crowd.

“Thank God, I clap not my own humble breast,
But other ruffians’ backs,
Imputing crime — such is my tolerant haste —
To any man that lacks.

“For I am tolerant, generous, keep no rules,
And the age honours me.
Thank God, I am not as these rigid fools,
Even as this Pharisee.”

(Alice Meynell)

5 August 2013 at 22:04  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
You might want to reflect on the tone and quality of your own posts before criticising the contributions of others.

5 August 2013 at 22:06  
Blogger Peter D said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5 August 2013 at 22:06  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Now, now, Peter, no need to swipe at the fellow who's trying to keep you and Danjo from getting turfed from this pub. One grows attached to personalities here and the loss of either or both of you would be sad and disruptive to many of us, so the two of you should really sit back down and mind your pint.

As for the Inspector, I'm sure he does reflect on the tone and quality of his posts...even when cheered by his single malt on the rare occasion. To be sure, the Inspector holds a number of opinions which cause involuntary raising of eyebrows and he surely communicates at times in ways which elicit gasps even from those of us who are familiar with his writing. But I'd say that his tone is rather refined and that the quality of his postings is undeniably top-notch. Few can express such strong opinions in such a superb English and leave one amused...or speechless, rather than feeling lectured or manipulated as the Inspector can. Y9ou see, any Tom, Dick or Harry can put together a decent argument with all the right content and substance, but it's the under-rated property we call style, in which tone and quality are essential components, that makes the difference in the end...which is why the Inspector can say almost anything without upsetting our host and his communicants too much. Reflect on this in a calmer moment, Peter, and I'm sure you'll agree.

6 August 2013 at 00:03  
Blogger Peter D said...

Avi

Points taken and noted with regard to myself and DanJ0 and I thank you for them.

However, so far as the Inspector is concerned you should be able to discern the difference between style and substance. Take the post @ 4th August 13:23 above. By any measure an unqualified disgraceful comment. Still, he no longer pretends to hold Catholic views on the subject matter so that's okay.

6 August 2013 at 01:40  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

No need to thank anyone, Peter, that's what good pub mates are for; to make sure that at the end of the day we all get home safe and sound to the missus and avoid unnecessary dealings with the constabulary.

Regarding the Inspector's post, I note that Carl was also not amused, although I'm near-certain that in spite of himself, he too had a reluctant chuckle at the "last compassionate bum" bit. I confess to confusion over the reference to the t-shirt, but I don't read any malice or schadenfreude in the post....although, out of ignorance, I can't comment on the Inspector's level of Catholicism, of course. The key difference is in the descriptive rather than prescriptive approach in his quip, a point I tried to make to David B just now on a different post and an entirely different topic. The Inspector does, indeed, venture into cringe territory from time to time, a serious "occupational risk" given his style. But alright, you and Carl have a point and so I too must join in the censure: "Bad, Inspector, bad!"

6 August 2013 at 02:31  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

No reluctant chuckle. There are just some things you don't joke about. AIDS is a horrible way to die. His post didn't show any respect for that. It displayed rather a fair amount of contempt. It was sad really.

carl

6 August 2013 at 03:11  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Carl
I am surprised you can see to write with the log in your own eye..hypocrite! Why is the Inspector's comment worse than yours about me.The one where you described me as a French militia woman shaving the heads of the collaborateuses.The inspector is
objectionable and some of his comments are absolutely appalling but you are as your charming compatriot Americans would say are " just one twisted f--k!"

6 August 2013 at 04:01  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Alright, Dad, er....Carl. I stand chastised, 'though not corrected. This here be a point of some importance, though: Nowhere does the Inspector belittle a disease or the suffering of an AIDS patient. Nor is he making a joke. He is making a focused and serious comment about a serious reality in a subculture. He clearly condemns a certain preventable lifestyle leading to harrowing results. If he does it with humour, tastless humour even, all the better. He did and so, I laughed. This is what I mean by style; not always a pleasant or even culturally acceptable messaging vehicle, but an effective one. We’re still talking about this, after all.

6 August 2013 at 04:12  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ah, Miss Cressida, perhaps you misunderstood Carl. The image of a beret and leather jacket-clad young female member of the Mouvement Combat astride a collaborateuse with a pair of sheep shears in her hand is not necessarily an insulting or an unattractive one to the males on the Allied side of that conflict.

6 August 2013 at 04:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Cressida

Technically I called you the mob the shaved the heads of women after the war. You were trying to drive another commenter off the board at the time. You said vicious and cruel things to her. I said what I did to give her proper perspective on the nature of your comments, and the relative weight she should apply to them. I regret nothing of what I said. It was right and necessary to say it for the sake of the target of your wrath. And you have done nothing but confirm my statement by your continued behavior.

Why do you think I ignore you Cressida? You follow me around this blog seeking after some modicum of vindication that you will never receive. All it does is prove that I am not your accuser. You are your own accuser. If it were not so then my words would mean as little to you as your accusation of hypocrisy means to me.

carl

6 August 2013 at 05:06  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

6 August 2013 at 05:09  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

Burning the bed sheets? Come on. That was just crass. To me it seemed he was mocking the misery of the dying. I don't think he intended to be malicious. I think it was an attempt at humor that badly misfired. Badly.

carl

6 August 2013 at 05:14  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

LOL. Following you around this blog?
Don't be ridiculous.
I would prefer it if you continued to ignore me but that type of restraint is obviously beyond you.

If what I say does not matter why respond? There was no justification for your disgusting comment and the person you are referring to did not need your defence as she always moves with an army of spear carriers and support. It was just an opportunity for a coward like you to join in the blood sport against me who had no support at the time.

I will continue to mention this incident to remind those newcomers who may be fooled momentarily when you do your pious prat impersonation of your intrinsic vileness and cowardice. I do not want an apology from you. An apology from you would be like Hitler apologising to the Jews.

6 August 2013 at 10:06  
Blogger bluedog said...

Cressida @ 10.06, you're going soft Old Gel. Must try harder.

6 August 2013 at 12:50  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Tsk...suppose you need to find a new use for your bovver boots now that Rover is dead!

6 August 2013 at 14:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Greetings Avi. Sometimes, this site is all too much for flesh and blood, and one loses it. So, like the father driving along (..on the left hand side of the road…) he found need to slightly turn his body to the left, and with his right hand on the steering wheel, wielded his open handed left arm behind him in a swift curve, and managed to slap the faces of both recalcitrant children in the same movement. With the satisfaction thereof of the use of judicious violence in the search for peace, (…there can be no other way to peace..) and order restored we can now continue down the road towards our ultimate destination. Wherever that is…

Peter D. Ever the RC policeman, aren’t you ? Still, he no longer pretends to hold Catholic views on the subject matter so that's okay.. Damned cheek ! Your problem is that you don’t appreciate honesty. It’s a rather fitting failing of you, don’t you think, as it’s obvious that many policemen in general seem to have a problem there too. (One puts that down to state encouraged lowering of standards in an increasingly degenerate society.) For an example of how YOU react, consider the following - You can lecture this man on, let’s say the ‘evil’ of contraception for an hour, and then ask him if he accepts current church teaching. If this man said yes, you’d know damn well he was lying, but it’s the answer you want. And at the end of it all, it’s what YOU want, isn’t it ? And that’s not all – you seem to turn a blind eye to Catholics married second time around. Apparently, no problem there with what the church says, is there ? Can’t be, otherwise you’d be chastising a certain commentator on a weekly basis…

Carl. There are some things you don’t joke about – is that a fact ? A list is required from you sir, so this man may pin the thing up on his wall above his lap top lest he annoy you in the future. Now, don’t take too long about it, and don’t make it a literary great either. On second thoughts, don’t bother. It’s a damn sight easier just to annoy you and think nothing of it. Been doing that for a couple of years now and one is greatly impressed with the results, he’ll have you know…

Cressida>. Images of you bursting into the room with a rolling pin shrieking and the men making a dash for it out the French windows. “To the Mouse and Wheel fellows. We can regroup there and discuss how to deal with the harridan. There’s madness about this day, what ! It’s the vapours, you know…”

Tally ho !





6 August 2013 at 17:58  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector Haw-Haw
"For an example of how YOU react, consider the following - You can lecture this man on, let’s say the ‘evil’ of contraception for an hour, and then ask him if he accepts current church teaching. If this man said yes, you’d know damn well he was lying, but it’s the answer you want. And at the end of it all, it’s what YOU want, isn’t it ?"

Not at all. I never lecture you - pointless exercise. I simply point out when you make light of Church teaching that if you are a Catholic you'd at least try to understand its position, not engage in sneering and dismissing it. Instead, you misrepresent it. Its just one of a whole range of issues (way too many to cite) where you are either ignorant or deliberately non-Catholic.

To be fair, there are two areas you appear strongly "Catholic" - homosexuality and women priests. Why is that?

"And that’s not all – you seem to turn a blind eye to Catholics married second time around. Apparently, no problem there with what the church says, is there ? Can’t be, otherwise you’d be chastising a certain commentator on a weekly basis…"

You'll find the person you are referring to accepts her living arrangement is against Catholic teaching and respects the Church enough not to participate in the reception of the Eucharist. Neither does she rail against this teaching. I have considerably more respect for her position than your Haw-Hawing or the liberal-modernisers who encourage disobedience and rebellion.

6 August 2013 at 19:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter Dodo. You are under the misinformed opinion that this man somehow answers to you. The very idea !

Anyway, this man felt good to blast it all out, if that can be said, as he is somewhat miffed that you run this Anglican blog likes it’s your damn plaything. You have been booted off it before, remember, before you wormed, yes wormed, your way back in.

If there is to be any criticism of RCC doctrine from yours truly, then there will be. And there is nothing you can do about it. You read that, NOTHING you can do about it ! Now write that down...

{SNORT}

6 August 2013 at 20:03  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector Haw-Haw

"you run this Anglican blog likes it’s your damn plaything"

Pot-kettle-black!

Neither do I answer to you, Sir. Wouldn't you agree? And why on earth would I want to do anything about your views? You believe what you choose - just don't badge them as Roman Catholic. Trust you accept I am entitled to point this out?

Capiche?

6 August 2013 at 20:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter Dodo. This is the end of it.

Comprehende ?

6 August 2013 at 20:57  
Blogger Peter D said...

Haw-Haw

Is that that a judgment that requires my definitive assent - or is a matter for private judgement?

"It ain't over till the Inspector sings."
"He just did,"
"Oh, I guess it's over then."

6 August 2013 at 22:18  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

Fear not. You have never annoyed me. However, from time to time you make comments so far beyond the pale that you compel a response for the sake of differentiation. Like when you suggest that the first consideration after a man's death should be to burn the bed sheets.

carl

7 August 2013 at 00:55  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Goodness. Anyway, perhaps...oh look, there goes a squirrel!

7 August 2013 at 00:58  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ah, there you are, Carl, not ruffled by chairs and dishes flying about, I see. Regarding the burning of bed sheets and clothing after a man's death. A curious custom I actually witnessed in the rural parts of the Balkans which took place after Christian funerals. My late uncle of blessed memory, a physician and an amateur historian, believed it was a remnant of an Indo-European custom of cremation which was banned with the advent of Christianity but retained among the rural mountain people. Perhaps Peter D is right and the Inspector is really a Pagan from the mountains of Moesia?

Anyway, as romantic as my uncle's explanation sounded, I'm more inclined to think that the custom is of a more recent vintage, say three of four centuries old, a preventative measure against the numerous plagues which ran through the region.

7 August 2013 at 01:15  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

But to mention it in that content was intentionally callous. It was done for effect in service of the style you mentioned. It highlights the transition from dying to dead by emphasizing the burden and threat of the deceased.

carl

7 August 2013 at 01:39  
Blogger Peter D said...

Avi

My father, a wise man, advised me to pay attention to what people actually say rather than how they say it.

Remove the 'humour' from the post and what are you left with? A suggestion that a man aware of an impending painful and lingering death will indiscriminately seek out sexual satisfaction. Read the header of the article to understand the T-shirt reference.

There's a certain glee and triumphalism in this impending outcome too. A celebration of this death as a punishment for sin. Also a message that the sexual sin will continue regardless of the consequences and even that there will be a recklessness about transmitting the infection to others.

As much as I'm against homosexuality as a way of life, no one should celebrate or make light of a painful death of another person in this way. Read it through the eyes of someone dying who might just be regretting his life and choices and considering responding to God's offer of Grace in his last hours. Or read it through the eyes of a parent who's child is dying.

It was nasty, cheap and gratuitously offensive - in my opinion.

7 August 2013 at 02:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

That was well said, Peter

carl

7 August 2013 at 03:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Captain, it’s Carl. His humour circuit has burnt out again

Can you fix it Scotty

Not this time captain, it’s gone completely, but his logic circuit is intact

Huh, that’s Carl alright. Well, that stuffs the five year mission then. Can’t carry on with him like that

Afore ye head for home captain, we could fire him out the forward torpedo tube into space

Keep talking Scotty and make ready. He’ll leave the vessel head first…

7 August 2013 at 09:10  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Good Heavens, Carl and Peter, put this way I see your point:

From Carl: "[The Inspector's quip] highlights the transition from dying to dead by emphasizing the burden and threat of the deceased."

And taken to greater heights by Peter: "There's a certain glee and triumphalism in this impending outcome too. A celebration of this death as a punishment for sin. Also a message that the sexual sin will continue regardless of the consequences and even that there will be a recklessness about transmitting the infection to others.

Stirring, powerful words those. I'm speechless. Alright, you two are starting to creep me out. I fold; the Inspector made a tasteless, offensive joke. I must ask, though, preferably in the pedestrian vernacular of our times for effect, if not style: Are you two stoned out of your fucking minds????

7 August 2013 at 11:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

No, Avi. I'm not 'stoned out of my fucking mind.' OIGs post is about a dying man ... until you get to the tagline. Then it becomes a post about a dead man. Bed sheets are burned after the fact, doncha know. From the plethora of available human experiences in the presence of death, that's what he chose to highlight the moment. That dissonance between the dead body and its dismissive treatment is the source of the humor (such as it was.) Except it wasn't funny.

Here. Try this example instead.

When I saw the bodies stacked in the camp, I thought to myself "Hey, at least we don't have to cut wood for the winter."

Same dissonance. Same source of humor. But go ahead. Tell me it's different. Tell me there aren't people who would laugh. You know there are.

Do you get it now?

carl

7 August 2013 at 12:48  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

As black, self-deprecating, or intentionally offensive Holocaust humour goes, Carl, this one's pretty lame on all counts. If I had a memory for jokes, I could and would retell some real howlers I've heard and read from friendly and hostile sources. That's how it's different. I do note though that like the Inspector, you cracked one to make a serious point. Except that his reflected a current reality noticed and commenyed on in a small segment, a sub-culture in the Gay community; fatalistic risk-taking up to a romantic desire to infect one self and disregard for the safety of others. As for your quip, it's unrealistic in that you require more calories to burn a body up then you can get out of it. So your joke fails on that count too.

7 August 2013 at 13:55  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

Of course it was a lame joke. I don't know any Holocaust jokes. I had to invent one at 6:45 am, and that was the best I could do. And it wasn't intended to be funny. That's why I said it wasn't funny. It was intended to illustrate a point. People can create humor out of anything, and there will exist some subset of people who will find said humor to be funny. But they shouldn't. Neither is it to their moral credit if they do.

carl

7 August 2013 at 14:18  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

I think Inspector, often comes out with crass remarks that are NOT funny, be it racial, women or gay people. But that's been his style for years here, hasn't it?

Even when you are being nice to him (bear in mind I've often had to take on the chin observations that I am 'a stupid teenage girl', 'a hairy butch lesbian' and follower of the 'how to be a Jew manual').

My own friendly post on this thread about the sites of Birmingham, to Inspector was responded to with quips about pox clinics. I still haven't worked out who this 'big gay' is supposed to be either...

But then I think for some reason Inspector is obsessed with gay people to the extent of even going onto gay websites.

7 August 2013 at 14:40  
Blogger Peter D said...

Avi

I detest mind alyering drus - so, no I wasn't stoned.

Remember Joan Rivers' remark on Heidi Klum's Academy Awards dress:

“The last time a German looked this hot was when they were pushing Jews into the ovens.”

The Anti-Defamation League went ballistic, calling the remark "vulgar and hideous."

Was it?

How about some of these? Funny contemporary insights? Or tasteless and anti-Semitic?

Why did Hitler kill himself?
The Jews sent him a gas bill!


Have you heard of the Jewish "Catch 22"?
Free Ham!"


What's the difference between a Jew and a pizza?
Pizzas don't scream when they are put in the oven!


What's the difference between a Catholic wife and a Jewish wife?
A Catholic wife has real orgasms and fake jewellery!


What's the difference between a Jew and a canoe?
A canoe tips!
Why do Jews have such big noses?
Because air is free!

7 August 2013 at 18:01  
Blogger Peter D said...

alyering drus - Eh?

.... mind altering drugs

7 August 2013 at 18:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...



Rules Of This Site

After a sitting of the virtual palace’s Standards committee, the two of them have agreed the following new protocols to take immediate effect…

Para 10: “Good Taste”

i There will be no more jokes about terminally ill AIDS sufferers whose last request is wanting unprotected anal sex with a stranger.

ii There will be no more mention of the burning of bed linen in jokes featuring terminally ill AIDS sufferers immediately following their demise.

iii There will be no more jokes about terminally ill AIDS sufferers.

iv There will be no more jokes.

By order



7 August 2013 at 18:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Don't be asinine, OIG. Objecting to content does not imply the authority to censure. I have no authority here. You are free to post as you please subject only to the constraints imposed by the weblog owner. But I also have the freedom to post as I please according to those constraints. So if you write something that is morally objectionable, I will call you on it as I see fit. And you by and large will ignore it.

With that I am content.

carl

7 August 2013 at 18:28  
Blogger Peter D said...

You carry on Inspector, this isn't a matter for an authoritative ruling. No anathemas here.

Now, do you know the one about the 50 year old bachelor who's companion, a nurse, chose her cat over him?

7 August 2013 at 18:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah. Big Gay is…Oh, don’t worry. You enjoy your young years and let the chaps worry about threats, perceived or real, to our way of life. It’s what we do, you know, and what’s more, we do it very well. Off you go now, and find a nice boy you can have a family with. Let’s see, taking into account your ‘condition’, it would be best to aim for a bespectacled studious slightly effeminate type who won’t bother you too often in the bedchamber {AHEM}.

Meanwhile, more news from the Inspector’s undercover work at Pink News. It turns out that irascible loon BeelZeBub is a medical consultant, no less. The highest grade of hospital practitioner. Worryingly, he did not let on his speciality, but did say that as far as he cared, bigots could die alone in a ditch. Good job the Inspector isn’t a bigot, what !





7 August 2013 at 18:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Peter D if today is the full extent of your humour, Cranmer would have been justified in giving you the boot for that alone...

7 August 2013 at 18:45  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

An Englishman, an Irishman, an Arab and a Jew walk into a bar, and Carl says. “Right, I’m not having this. Get out all of you and don’t come back”



7 August 2013 at 19:04  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

OIG

See, now that was genuinely funny.

carl

7 August 2013 at 19:49  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

God bless you, you king of comedy, you...

7 August 2013 at 20:16  
Blogger Peter D said...

Actually, it was funny!

So was this: " ... but did say that as far as he cared, bigots could die alone in a ditch. Good job the Inspector isn’t a bigot, what !"

When you're on form, you're on form and I love you for it. In a manly, Christian way you understand.

Now ....

The Inspector walks into a bar and everyone else leaves!

7 August 2013 at 20:58  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Peter, the gas bill and the free ham got a guffaw from me, the other ones are pretty good but I can't judge because I heard them before.

Out ofcuriosity and with non- judgmental academic detachment , how do you rationalise posting that stuff after having kittens and penning a thesis over inspector's quip? Pedagogical license? Having a Jewish father?

7 August 2013 at 22:10  
Blogger Peter D said...

Making a point Avi, so pedagogical license. I Googled 'anti-Semite jokes'.

I thought the gas bill and the pizza ones obscene - lacking in humour, grossly offensive and down right nasty. Maybe because my father was Jewish, fought Hitler, and his mother could have been a victim but for an accident of time and place.

The others are based on negative stereotypes about Jews and I didn't find them funny.

I confess, I did laugh at the one about Catholic wives, real orgasms and fake jewellery. But being a Catholic husband, perhaps explains this after David K's bragging. And I'm not saying if I've been circumcised or not.

7 August 2013 at 22:43  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Stop the presses...

It turns out Beelzeebub is a consultant cardiologist. Here he is in rant mode tonight...

Beelzeebub 17 minutes ago Report Thumb up 0Thumb downAnd if you come to my hospital, I will discriminate against you.

No surgery for bigots.

All the quicker to rid the planet of hate.

PS. I’m a cardiologist and do not tolerate these people.

F. The Hippocratic oath.

They deserve to be removed from the planet.

Bitterness over.

I would treat him to the best of my ability but its nice to have a grumble.

I simply cannot understand the hate these people have for our very existence.

Inspector here. It is rather re-assuring that the man has added the last three lines. Otherwise we’d have to label him sub human. And that’s a rather nasty business, dealing with those types. Still, rather worrying that such a professional man has such thoughts...


7 August 2013 at 23:08  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

I thought the gas bill and the pizza ones obscene - lacking in humour, grossly offensive and down right nasty. Maybe because my father was Jewish, fought Hitler, and his mother could have been a victim but for an accident of time and place.

Ooh, touché, mon ami Pierre. You post Holocaust jokes you harvested whilst trawling antisemitic sites for a noble purpose: to educate me. Then when I admit to having a chuckle...patoom!.. you profess your disgust and declare your Jewish pedigree. Brilliant. I've been pwned. Another pedagogical moment for me.

Anyway, it was nice of you to kindly pat the Inspector on the head: "When you're on form, you're on form and I love you for it. In a manly, Christian way you understand." I imagine he's too touched to thank you for it...in a manly Christian way, of course. You're a softie, you big lug.

8 August 2013 at 05:19  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

You're a big softie pussy cat too Avi. Nothing wrong with that . Very endearing to the fairer sex.The reason why Doddles and you are the only men on this blog who are popular with the gels !Both of you are good role models for the others.You don't think it has anything to do with being of Jewish extraction , do you?

8 August 2013 at 08:00  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

LOL!

8 August 2013 at 12:10  
Blogger Peter D said...

Cressida
I'm not a "big softie" when it really matters I'll have you know!

Avi
Believe me, I wasn't being intentional in this. I honestly thought you'd be incensed about the 'jokes' about the holocaust. Carl's was so weak I searched for others.

(An invoice is in the post for the lesson. "Gotta make a shilling or two.")

8 August 2013 at 23:54  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Peter, of course I can get incensed about Holocaust or Jew jokes, but it depends on who does them, in what context and for what purpose. Many, if not most of these jokes were created by people in the camps and they sound much better in Yiddish, with its ability to twist a word or put a diphthong on the right vowel so that it sounds silly. They should not be forgotten. Others were created by hate-filled enemies...and those too should not be forgotten. And if you recall your Psych 101, there is neural relationship between laughter, fear and and weeping and of course, Siggy Freud had plenty to say on the subject too.

In any case, we're friends here, with most of us in the conservative camp which is on the ascendant, and Cranmer's Pub is the place to test the limits of speech and decorum, iron out kinks, clarify positions and learn how to get along.

Shabbat shalom to you and all!

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

True Avi.

However, do remember where this debate started. It was not a friendly 'in-house' joke amongst homosexuals making common cause against homophobes.

Shabbat shalom to you and your loved ones.

10 August 2013 at 00:30  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older