Sunday, September 22, 2013

Nick Clegg insults Archbishop of Canterbury


During the debate in June on same-sex marriage in the House of Lords, this was the reasoned and intelligent contribution of the Archbishop of Canterbury:
My Lords, this Bill has arrived in your Lordship's House at great speed. The initial Proposals, when published at the end of the autumn, have needed much work to get them into today's form. Much of that work has been done through detailed legal effort and discussion, and I am deeply grateful to the DCMS (Department for Culture, Media and Sport) teams – and especially to the Secretary of State for the thoughtful way in which she has listened and the degree to which she has been willing to make changes in order to arrive at the stage we’ve reached today.

We all know, and it’s been said, that this is a divisive issue. In general the majority of faith groups remain very strongly against the Bill, and have expressed that view in a large number of public statements. The House of Bishops of the Church of England has also expressed a very clear majority view – although not unanimous, as has been seen by the strong and welcome contribution by the Bishop of Salisbury.

The so-called Quadruple Lock may have some chance of withstanding legal scrutiny in Europe, and we are grateful for it, although other faith groups and Christian denominations who’ve written to me remain very hesitant. There have been useful discussions about the position of schools with a religious character and issues of freedom of conscience. And I’ve noted the undertaking of the Noble Baroness the Minister on those subjects, and I’m grateful for what she has said. The Noble Baroness the Minister has also put forward all her views today with great courtesy and persuasive effect, and I join in the remarks of the Noble Baroness, Baroness Royall, in appreciation of that.

And I have to say that personally I regret the necessity of having to deal with the possibility of a division at this stage, on a bill passed by a free vote in the other place.

I was particularly grateful to hear the speech of the Noble Baroness, Baroness Royall, and agreed with the proud record that was established by the last government during the years in which it held office in this area. I also, if I may, will pass on her comments with gratitude to my colleague the Most Revd Prelate the Archbishop of York.

It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same sex relationships should, where those involved want it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage. Although the majority of Bishops who voted during the whole passage of the Civil Partnerships Act through your Lordships' House were in favour of civil partnerships a few years ago, it is also absolutely true that the church has often not served the LGBT communities in the way it should. I must express my sadness and sorrow for that considerable failure. There have been notable exceptions, such as my predecessor Archbishop Ramsey who vigorously supported decriminalisation in the 1960s.

It is also necessary to express, as has been done already, total rejection of homophobic language, which is wrong – and more than that, sickening.

However, I and many of my colleagues remain with considerable hesitations about this Bill. My predecessor Lord Williams of Oystermouth showed clearly last summer, in evidence during the consultation period, that it has within it a series of category errors. It confuses marriage and weddings. It assumes that the rightful desire for equality – to which I’ve referred supportively – must mean uniformity, failing to understand that two things may be equal but different. And as a result it does not do what it sets out to do, my Lords. Schedule 4 distinguishes clearly between same gender and opposite gender marriage, thus not achieving true equality.

The result is confusion. Marriage is abolished, redefined and recreated, being different and unequal for different categories. The new marriage of the Bill is an awkward shape with same gender and different gender categories scrunched into it, neither fitting well. The concept of marriage as a normative place for procreation is lost. The idea of marriage as covenant is diminished. The family in its normal sense, predating the state and as our base community of society – as we’ve already heard – is weakened. These points will be expanded on by others in the debate, I’m sure, including those from these benches.

For these and many other reasons, those of us in the churches and faith groups who are extremely hesitant about the Bill in many cases hold that view because we think that traditional marriage is a corner stone of society, and rather than adding a new and valued institution alongside it for same gender relationships, which I would personally strongly support to strengthen us all, this Bill weakens what exists and replaces it with a less good option that is neither equal nor effective. This is not a faith issue, although we are grateful for the attention that government and the other place have paid to issues of religious freedom – deeply grateful. But it is not, at heart, a faith issue; it is about the general social good. And so with much regret but entire conviction, I cannot support the Bill as it stands.
This is Nick Clegg's response:



Here's the key phrase:
Meanwhile, inside the House of Lords, dinosaur opponents of the Bill were having a final go at killing it – declaring that gay marriage would be the end of civilisation as we know it.
So, according to the Deputy Prime Minister, the Archbishop of Canterbury is a dinosaur. In the context of theological objections to same-sex marriage, words like 'medieval' and 'dinosaur' are simply euphemisms for 'bigot'. Mr Clegg has form on the latter term, when a speech was circulated in advance in which he referred to opponents of same-sex marriage as 'bigots', so we know his heart on the matter. It is, as Lord Carey said, 'immature' to hurl such insults.

While Mr Clegg was referring to the 'dinosaurs' in the House of Lords, these peers were undoubtedly speaking on behalf of many millions of ordinary people. If, as appears, Nick Clegg believes all orthodox Christians, Jews and Muslims to be 'dinosaurs' in their desire to preserve the procreative potential in the sanctity of marriage, it is difficult to see how any of these groups can vote Liberal Democrat in the future. Recognising that there are genuine divisions of opinion within these faith groups (and, indeed, amongst Hindus, Sikhs and people of no faith) on the issue of same-sex marriage, one might expect senior politicians to engage with the serious issues, as the Archbishop of Canterbury manifestly did.

Isn't responding to reasoned matters of culture, history, theology and natural law with 'dinosaur' just a little, well.. bigoted?

164 Comments:

Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
I wondered if you would pick this one up. I saw it on Coalition for Marriage and have allready emailed Mr Clegg regarding his insult, not only to their Lordships but to more than 50% of the population.
Why do liberals believe that 'new' has to be better than 'traditional'?
Some things are traditional because that is the best way for them to be. If Mr Clegg believes, as he said, that reform was important, he will end up going round in a circle, coming back to where he started. He can't escape gravity so moving on just brings you back around.
Is this the language of a Deputy Prime Minister? Senior Ministers are expected to have respect for the views of others. Clearly someone forgot to tell him.

22 September 2013 at 11:22  
Blogger Flossie said...

I too was hoping YG would pick this up. It is a shame that the mainstream media has not, in any meaningful way, as it did with Gordon Brown and Gillian Duffy.

This could lose him a number of votes, which can only be a good thing.

22 September 2013 at 11:37  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Clegg is an impenitent serial fornicator by his own admission. Before the 2010 general election he admitted to having 'slept with' 30 women, presumably to stop the stories coming out one by one.

A lot of people are sorry they were taken in by his glossy but vacuous performance in the TV debates and his party is going to get a kicking at the next election.

I thought that Welby bent over backwards to avoid offending the homo lobby. Much good it did him in the eyes of the anti Christian revolutionaries who are really behind SSM.

22 September 2013 at 11:50  
Blogger bluedog said...

What was it that Cameron said about UKIP, Your Grace, something about 'fruit-loops and closet racists'?

Your communicant is thinking that Mr Clegg could be described as a 'fruit-loop and overt w****r'. Or at least one imagines that Mr Jeremy Clarkson will use language of that type, if he stands against Mr Clegg in Sheffield, as instructed by Boris Johnson.

Perhaps ++Welby will publicly bless Mr Clarkson's campaign.

22 September 2013 at 12:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Welby writes/speaks very well there and some of what he says I agree with. Yet Clegg is making a conference speech and it needs soundbites and punchy images. Outside of those venues, there are clearly still the sort of people who Welby refers to, and dinosaurs that Clegg is trying to associate the Lords with.

22 September 2013 at 12:12  
Blogger IanCad said...

Even though I have heard him speak on several occasions this is the first time that I have seen Nick Clegg on video.

Although not yet ready to abandon my belief that wearing a Niqab is irrelevant to the application of justice, I am thinking that the wearing of it should be compulsory for those seeking office; at least if they're going after my vote.

Physiognomy, like it or not tells, a tale.

Going by their appearances, there is no way that I could ever vote for the slippery looking Glegg or that jowly, sleazy dude sitting next to the pretty lady in red.

What an immature lightweight the Deputy Prime Minister is.
No depth, gravitas or decorum. Immature, condescending and arrogant.

And we call this Representative Democracy??

Are there no men (or women) of substance in the land?
I wish that I could afford to buy a boat and sail away.

22 September 2013 at 12:20  
Blogger Nick said...

I would kto remind Mr Clegg that certain dinosaurs have survived for millions of years and become very successful (crocodiles, sharks for example), and would regard Mr Clegg as nothing more than an insignificant snack.

Seriously, Mr Clegg behaves like a teenager who has just discovered politics and is gripped with partisan enthusiasm but has less tact in public than Godfrey Bloom (and I say that as UKIP supporter).

He has indeed insulted around 50% of the British population. Since his pary only gets 12% of the vote, that's probably nothing for him to worry about. The LibDem heyday is over; it's all downhill for them now.

So we shouldn't take Cleggs puerile behaviour too serously anymore than we should get too upset if a teenage chav shouts abuse at us in the street because he doesn't like the way we are dressed.

If supporting traditional marriage makes me a dinosaur, then I'm very happy to be one.

22 September 2013 at 12:24  
Blogger Nick said...

As an aside, there are some interesting articles on Anglican Mainstream right now, including a campaign to Boycott Starbucks for their corporate support for SSM.

There is also a rather worrying article about the EU's proposed measures for dealing with "intolerance". More grist for the UKIP mill methinks.

22 September 2013 at 12:30  
Blogger Peter D said...

Welby's speech was a tacit acceptance of homosexual relationships.

"It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same sex relationships should, where those involved want it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage."

This from an Archbishop of Canterbury - the voice of Christianity in Britain.

" ... it is also absolutely true that the church has often not served the LGBT communities in the way it should. I must express my sadness and sorrow for that considerable failure."

In what ways hasn't the Church supported them? By standing firm and stating their conduct is sinful?

" ... rather than adding a new and valued institution alongside it for same gender relationships, which I would personally strongly support to strengthen us all ..."

He'd personally support the normalisation of homosexuality!

"It is also necessary to express, as has been done already, total rejection of homophobic language, which is wrong – and more than that, sickening."

What is homophobic language? Words like homosexual instead of 'gay'?

Personally, I'd rather be called a "dinosaur opponent" of this perversion than stand and lend any support to the idea that homosexuality is anything other than an evil perversion of God's relationships between people.

Just call me a Dodo.

22 September 2013 at 12:31  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

I think it's going to be difficult for Nick Clegg to lose any more votes in the next General election. Judging from the local council elections he's down to pretty well nil already. Mock the Week had a good joke about him - "We should all promise to vote Libdem when they come round canvassing - then not do so. When they complain, say, How does it feel?"

22 September 2013 at 12:32  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Dodo,

Your consistent anti-Anglican swipes are tedious and tiresome. Who said this:

"We would want to emphasise that civil partnerships actually provide a structure in which people of the same sex who want a lifelong relationship [and] a lifelong partnership can find their place and protection and legal provision… As a Church we are very committed to the notion of equality so that people are treated the same across all the activities of life. The Church holds great store by the value of commitment in relationships and undertakings that people give…"

Answer:

The words of the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Westminster, one Vincent Nichols.

So put your own house in order before you jerk off here.

22 September 2013 at 12:37  
Blogger LEN said...

Who tells the Archbishop of Canterbury that he is wrong to support SSM?.
It is tragic to see the Church that has invested so much in the Truth of God`s Word to bow its knee to the dictates of Government policies engineered by a vocal minority.
The Church which once burned so bright is now just a flickering candle and surely cannot last much longer?.

22 September 2013 at 12:44  
Blogger An_enquiring_mind said...

Nick Clegg makes juvenile insulting comments.

In other news, the Bishop of Rome is reported to be Roman Catholic.


It is a well know political touchstone that one can tell whether the Lib Dems are serious about an election by whether they use underhand, offensive and smearing tactics. If they want to win that is how they behave. They truly are a nasty party and Clegg, who has covered up numerous scandals (Rennard, Hancock, etc) is an appropriate leader.

@DanJ0

"Clegg is making a conference speech and it needs soundbites and punchy images" is true but does not require that all opponents of that bill are tarred with the same brush.

One grown-up comment would have been to just say how wonderful the LDs were in getting this bill through.

22 September 2013 at 12:51  
Blogger LEN said...

So who can claim 'the moral high Ground' on matters of morality?.It would seem that only Christ Himself can claim that position and that is why we should follow Him not ANY religion that claims to be 'the way',' a way',or any other extraordinary claims.

Clegg is running out of credibility ...you cannot fool all of the people all of the time (as someone once said)

22 September 2013 at 13:05  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Nick Clegg is, as others here have observed, an immature man. He gives me the impression that he knows next to nothing outside the rarified atmosphere of the Westminster bubble. Certainly he is not the calibre needed to be a Deputy-Prime Minister.

However speaking as an Anglican I was disappointed by the tame speech from Archbishop Welby. It should have started with a straight, firm and unapologetic defense of man/woman marriage as representing the only form of marriage recognized by the Christian tradition for the founding of a family. He would have been more than capable of doing that whilst also being courteous to those who disagree. Apologizing for the Christian position wins nobody over. The traditional Christian position is well supported by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, other leading world religions, and not at all undermined by science or the social sciences. The world continues to be sold a lie and eventually society will realize this, but only after immense damage has been done. Frankfurt School cultural Marxism is succeeding nicely in the western so called democracies.

22 September 2013 at 13:05  
Blogger Peter D said...

Archbishop

Fair point and I'd say Vincent Nichols is no better than Justin Welby on this issue. Anglican Bishops do have greater civic responsibilities as they have seats in the House of Lords and are therefore not charged with representing Christ in Parliament.

When Nichols said "we" he wasn't speaking on my behalf. He made this statement in 2011 after the Bishops’ Conference. The same Conference in 2003 opposed civil partnerships. Then the Bishops stated their unequivocal view that “the government’s proposals to create civil partnerships for same-sex couples would not promote the common good” and that they opposed them. They reasoned these proposals would undermine marriage and the family, and that they were “not needed to defend fundamental human rights or remedy significant injustices for same-sex couples, as these have either already been substantially addressed or can largely be addressed by the couple entering into contractual arrangements privately.”

The Bishop's Conference went on:

"The signal the law would send to rising generations is that marriage as husband and wife, and a same-sex relationship, are equally valid options, and an equally valid context for the upbringing of children. By publicly elevating same-sex relationships to a legal status virtually equivalent to civil marriage, the signal given to society would be that these two states of life are equally deserving of public protection and respect, when in fact they are not."

As I said, call me a Dodo on this issue - whether the words come Anglicans of from Roman Catholics.

22 September 2013 at 13:12  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

From the perspective of the other side, the word 'dinosaur' isn't so much an insult as a statement of fact. They consider the essence of man to be his autonomy, and the progress of man to be the ongoing liberation of that autonomy. If this progress is inevitable (as progressives hold, that being why they are called 'progressive') then we are dinosaurs trapped in old ways of thinking who are doomed to extinction by this very progress.

To believe in God is to accept boundaries on human autonomy that originate in divine authority. That is precisely what the modern Secularist world has rejected. It sniffs and says "Where is this god you say rules over us? I see no god. I will do as I please. I will be god over my own life." That is 'progress.' To deny that is to reveal oneself a dinosaur.

Don't take it personally. At this point it's too late anyways. They have filled the cup to brim. And they will drink it. Every drop.

carl

22 September 2013 at 13:19  
Blogger Nick said...

David Hussell

"I was disappointed by the tame speech from Archbishop Welby. It should have started with a straight, firm and unapologetic defense of man/woman marriage as representing the only form of marriage recognized by the Christian tradition "

That's a salient point David. The worst thing to do in a hostile situation is to start by apologising to your enemies. It betrays a senese of doubt and guilt and reveals a persons weakness. That weakness will only encourage their attacks.

Christ never made an apology because he never needed to. We only need to apologise when we have committed a sin. Supporting Christian marriage is most definitely not a sin.

22 September 2013 at 13:21  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Peter D

I agree with you and your Catholic Bishop's Conference. As I say I am a traditionalist, Protestant.

Carl Jacobs.

You summarize the stark contrast between the Secularist and the orthodox Christian - succinctly put, I say ! The draught is deadly and will make society sick.

22 September 2013 at 13:27  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Archbishop Cranmer

Peter D's point about Justin Welby's speech was both accurate and well-reasoned. 'Tu quoque' argumentation does not make it any less so. That speech was a craven surrender, and perfectly illustrates why the CoE is disintegrating. Not too long now, and it will catch up with TEC - except it doesn't have bucketloads of dead men's money to sustain it.

carl

22 September 2013 at 13:28  
Blogger Nick said...

" then we are dinosaurs trapped in old ways of thinking who are doomed to extinction by this very progress."

Carl

Yes, that is what they believe. But what they don't see or believe is that to be on a never-ending quest personal "liberation" is itself a ball and chain and leads to frustration and exhaustion. As believers, we are spared the effort of continually trying to save or justify ourselves. It means we have more time and energy to do better things than chasing rainbows.

22 September 2013 at 13:31  
Blogger gentlemind said...

Clegg will at some point have to come down on the side of either religious freedom or "equality". All bets are off.

The comments by Vincent Nicholls were entirely correct. He did no more than recognise the existence of a legal institution (Civil Partnerships), and recognise that its existence rendered unnecessary the redefinition of the legal institution of marriage. At no point did he approve of Civil Partnerships, or same-sex sexual relationships.

In contrast, Justin Welby: "It is clearly essential that stable and faithful same sex relationships should, where those involved want it, be recognised and supported with as much dignity and the same legal effect as marriage."

That is what is usually known as a ringing endorsement. There is a house that needs to put itself in order, but it is not the Catholic Church.

22 September 2013 at 15:11  
Blogger LEN said...

The Catholic Church has 'enough issues' of its own to put in order ...no moral high ground to be taken in that respect.

22 September 2013 at 16:16  
Blogger LEN said...

To illustrate my post.


source 'Sky news'

'NEW POPE NEEDS TO PUT HIS HOUSE IN ORDER' 'Sister Livesey' believes the last pope failed to grasp just how ordinary people were feeling in the wake of the unravelling sexual abuse scandals.

"The pope's people, his civil service, were out of touch. They didn't get it and that meant he didn't get it."

By "they" Sister Livesey means the Roman Curia - the powerful, intensely secretive, predominantly Italian, bureaucratic body in the Vatican whose members are now facing intense scrutiny after leaked documents alleged high-level corruption and gay networks at the top.

22 September 2013 at 16:30  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

Peter D:

“Welby’s speech was a tacit acceptance of homosexual relationships.”

Yes, it was, wasn’t it? Well done, Welby. More power to his elbow.

“This from an Archbishop of Canterbury – the voice of Christianity in Britain.”

When it comes to enlightenment, the secular world not infrequently gets there first, but this show that Christianity is capable of gradually catching up on this matter, as it has done on others.

22 September 2013 at 16:35  
Blogger Peter D said...

Well, my observation that Welby's speech was "a tacit acceptance" of homosexuality was, it seems, mild in comparison to "a craven surrender" and "a ringing endorsement".

And Len, God knows the Catholic Church has its faults, has had since its beginning and always will, but we've yet to have our Shepherd publically promote the perversity of homosexuality or say they are personally "deeply challenged" by it.

22 September 2013 at 16:52  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Gugli
"The secular world not infrequently gets there first."
Seriously???
Who got there first with women's education?
Who got there first with children's working conditions, with stopping kids going down the mines, with Sunday schools, children's education?
Who got there first with slavery?

Have you heard of Wilberforce, Shaftesbury and the Clapham sect for a start? Or is this one big giant hole in your education?

Of course not everyone cares about women children or slaves, but only, obsessively, about gays.

Gay men already have the "pink pound" and are time rich and have over-representation in Parliament. So why exactly do they feel so underprivileged?

Take a mother looking after a disabled child who doesn't sleep much because of their particular disability, whose husband or partner has left because they cannot cope, and who has 16/17 hour shifts coping: now that is a person who needs a voice, needs time, and needs further financial help. I have known such people, so you will understand if I feel sorry for these time poor, £ poor people struggling to cope and don't have much left to weep over people, already rich, who wish to raid the pots originally set up for struggling widows who had spent time bringing up offspring and doing a lot of the dirty work, and if I don't have oodles of sympathy for people who have nothing worse to worry about than being given some odd looks, and not being recognised as the same as male-female married couples ( which they are not and will never be).

But then you seem to overlook women and children and slaves yourself.



22 September 2013 at 16:54  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Nick Clegg - a man for all treasons.

22 September 2013 at 16:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Gay men already have the "pink pound" and are time rich and have over-representation in Parliament. So why exactly do they feel so underprivileged?"

I'm not sure most of us do feel underprivileged about it now. However, some of us realise that a mere 45 years ago we were imprisoned, and a couple of decades ago, we had to wait until we were 21 before we could legally consent to sex. Finally, it was just over as decade ago that it was equalised at 16. It sound absurd now, doesn't it? While the sun shines, we're making hay.

22 September 2013 at 17:06  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Well, I think in a civilised society it should be 18 for women and 21 for men.

Then we could all spend more time concentrating on the other important things in life, of which there are many.

22 September 2013 at 17:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Did you know that a politician was generally only as good as the advice given to him ?

It’s true, or at least it was until around the mid 1970s. That’s when newspapers and television instead of reporting the news, and making a good job of it, decided to interpret it instead and then feed it to us, and, well, make not a good job of it at all.

Now, that enabled mediocre upstarts like Clegg to dispense with professional advice, and be his own counsel. And here we have a laughable example of his folly. He sets out to take a chunk out of the premier churchman in the country. But why ? It can’t be to gather LGBT votes, as anyone who has any idea about voting habits would tell him the majority of LGBT are likely to vote Lib-Dem anyway. And to attempt to woo the marginal gay vote at the expense of upsetting thousands more Anglican supporters is thus madness. But there you have it, madness indeed...



22 September 2013 at 17:29  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy: "Well, I think in a civilised society it should be 18 for women and 21 for men. Then we could all spend more time concentrating on the other important things in life, of which there are many."

Things like having cold baths, I expect, for the average late-teenage male. I'm not sure many lads will suddenly find a burning interest in Keats, or volunteering at the Church bring and buy sale.

22 September 2013 at 17:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0. While the sun shines, we're making hay.

Well, starkly honest, we’ll give you that. And there is plenty more hay to be had, before the sun goes in. Is there not ?

Lets see, calling Russia a country of NAZIs. Educating our young on buggery. The new offence of hate crime. Or should that be thought crime. For when the people work out it really is thought crime, then just watch the sun go in...


22 September 2013 at 17:37  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Lucy

We don't agree on everything. But today I agree totally

Especially.

"don't have much left to weep over people, already rich, who wish to raid the pots originally set up for struggling widows who had spent time bringing up offspring and doing a lot of the dirty work"

The "pots" now have to provide for these new relationships....

Perhaps it is time for Christians to opt out of the state altogether and for a start be married in Church but not bother to register this with the state. (Figures I read today indicate that for a family on average incomes with two children would be AT LEAST £10,000 pa better off not "married" in the eyes of the state. It would work she changes her name to his surname, he still has the rights as Dad without the state taxing him to death for being legally married. She is "unmarried" mother and so the state helps her to bring up her children and she can spend time with them rather than being recognised by the state as "married and not working" and so treated as the least desirable member of society and so financially penalised and hated by the state for the crime of wanting to be married to one man and to spend time bring up her own children as the lowest of the low in our society, A MUM

Phil





22 September 2013 at 18:26  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

Here's the simple response:

"Better to be a tolerant dinosaur than an intolerant Liberal"

22 September 2013 at 18:27  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Lucy Mullen 16:54

I agree with you entirely and thank you for mentioning the serious problems that are being ignored in society. Disabled people and their carers in particular.

What a terrible indictment of our world that all this time and money is wasted on the introduction of ssm legislation when sexually disordered citizens already have a civil union bill in place that covers all their legal entitlements.

22 September 2013 at 18:34  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Grumps

Better to be a dinosaur anyway
(Tolerant or not!)

22 September 2013 at 18:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Inspector: "The new offence of hate crime. Or should that be thought crime. For when the people work out it really is thought crime, then just watch the sun go in..."

Like believing in Allah and following Islam in the UK?

22 September 2013 at 18:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


DanJ0. Good boy. A capital example of those who never will feel the sun on their backs in the UK.

Not quite what you meant, one realises, but your reward for being a clever dick...


22 September 2013 at 19:26  
Blogger Nick said...

Just back from changing into my "Dinosaur Pride" T-shirt...


Inspector, I congratulate you on your restraint when discussing the g-word these days. The PN-free diet has truly revived you.

On the subject of hate/thought crime I refer to my previous comment where I mentioned an article on Anglican Mainstream which talks about how the EU plans to deal with "intolerance". The EU wants "direct surveillance of supposedly intolerant behavior of individual citizens and groups by Governmental bodies".

I suspect that a blog such as this could fall under the auspices of such a draconian and anti-democratic measure. His Grace should expect a knock on the door from the Euro-Stasi at some point.

Who would decide what is to be tolerated and what is to be treated as hate crime? Presumably those pate-bloated automatons in Brussels.

22 September 2013 at 19:41  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

When the Islam boys do take over Dan is hoping for an Ottoman type regime

Anything else could be rather nasty.....!

Stick up for them now gay guys think and maybe they will remember and treat them nicely

Yea right!

Phil

22 September 2013 at 19:53  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

@ Guglio

“When it comes to enlightenment, the secular world not infrequently gets there first, but this show that Christianity is capable of gradually catching up on this matter, as it has done on others.”

Your wrong there on the secular world, Christianity WAS enlightenment, without it you wouldn't have got secularism developing. Christianity is what it is and it cannot change otherwise it would not be Christianity would it?

22 September 2013 at 20:04  
Blogger Nick said...

"Christianity is what it is and it cannot change otherwise it would not be Christianity would it? "

The corollary to that is that secularism changes continually therefore it has no definition or real meaning. Does it therefore even exist? Does it only exist because it has a benchmark (Christianity) against which to define itself?

22 September 2013 at 20:21  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

A timely warning not lost upon this man, Nick. The top crime will be denying the justification of the EU. One can expect demonstrations of the future to be met with demands from the continent to water cannon the guilty off the streets. One understands the foetal existence of this legislation is already a fact, and as it will not be aborted, we’d best refer to it as a child in the womb.

Of course, the empire will need politico characters at a local level to enforce this EU patrimony. Step forward those who feel they are now and have been in the past marginalised by society for their, well, way of doing things. Types, it may be said, who have been well supported by the EU of late and continuing, and when the time comes, will be expected to repay...

As for coming for us, not necessary at the moment if at all, old friend. We have much to witness before that day. And after all, the subtle movement towards this terrible future is slowly and constructively happening in the backrooms. It’s only when it’s complete and ready, will the room’s walls be pulled down quickly for it’s immediate commission. We’ve a few years left before the BBC report us as ‘slightly odd’, but having said that, they are getting plenty of practice in on UKIP, as the bizarrely prioritised lead headline on Friday attests to...



22 September 2013 at 20:27  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Phil Roberts. One remembers a public demonstration by LGBT mentioned on PN comments where a gay fellow said sourly that “all the usual faces were there but none of the rainbow badges”. The reason – it just so happened that this demo attracted muslim protesters too.

Finding yourself in common purpose can be dreadfully awkward at times, what !


22 September 2013 at 20:36  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

@ Lucy Mullen:
Seriously? Yes. What brought to end to religious persecution in this country? Not the Reformation, but the Enlightenment.

Slavery? Yes, some individual Christians certainly campaigned for its abolition, but others equally fought to retain it. In the House of Lords the bishops of the Church of England voted overwhelmingly against abolishing the trans-Atlantic slave trade. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel kept around 300 slaves on its plantations on the Codrington estate in Barbados; these slaves had the word “SOCIETY” branded on their backs with a red-hot iron.

22 September 2013 at 20:51  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

@ Marie1797

Yes, Christianity can change. It always has done and it always will.

22 September 2013 at 20:54  
Blogger Flossie said...

DanJo @17.06 - 'While the sun shines, we're making hay.'

Yes, you are, aren't you - and just look where it has got you.

http://www.peter-ould.net/2013/09/16/some-staggering-statistics/

22 September 2013 at 21:31  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Greetings Guglielmo Marinaro

Been a time since you were last here...

Gug, for those not in the know, whiffs of lavender and chisels away at Christ’s truth. He has no interest in slavery...


22 September 2013 at 21:35  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

How nice to have it agreed that "some Christians certainly campaigned" for the abolition of slavery. You could hardly deny that. What I think you omitted to put is that the driving forces behind the campaign were Christian reformers.

Let me mention a few Christian reformers: Wilberforce, Shaftesbury, Henry Thornton, Henry and John Venn, Florence Nightingale, Dame Cicely Saunders, Elizabeth Fry, the Rev'd Arthur Broome,C.T, Studd, Elizabeth Fry, Mother Theresa of Calcutta... And I could go on and on and on. It would become like the "What did the Romans ever do for us?" sketch, only much longer. I have barely touched on the large field of education there, for instance, and these are just off the top of my head.

Christians have time and time again been at the forefront of social reform, and motivated by their faith to be so. And still are.

But just as some of those issues were not the most popular of their day so now Christians are in some pretty dangerous areas fighting for justice for some of the world's most oppressed.

22 September 2013 at 21:38  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Nick “The corollary to that is that secularism changes continually therefore it has no definition or real meaning. Does it therefore even exist? Does it only exist because it has a benchmark (Christianity) against which to define itself?”


At the moment secularism is based roughly on our ingrained Christian values but, as time passes and we push Christianity away in favour of ever more weird and wonderful secular values which will also change over time based on materialism, goodness knows what they will have mutated to by this time next century. We seem to be heading backwards...........
We need to value and hold onto Christianity which is sanity.

22 September 2013 at 21:44  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil: "Stick up for them now gay guys think and maybe they will remember and treat them nicely"

No. I was simply drawing attention to the conflicted and in coherent thinking here at times where 'thought crime' is a Bad Thing and freedom of religion is a Good Thing ... unless it's belief in Allah and the religion is Islam.

22 September 2013 at 22:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

22 September 2013 at 22:44  
Blogger Peter D said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

22 September 2013 at 22:50  
Blogger Peter D said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

22 September 2013 at 22:53  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

22 September 2013 at 23:06  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

22 September 2013 at 23:09  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ah, confusion abounds !

Thought crime is indeed a bad thing. But only because the thoughts of man cannot be a crime. So if you are not happy with the gay lifestyle – let your thoughts be known. One is sure that whatever your objection, it will not be held against you in a court of law, or by some third rate Lib-Dem politician. Even if you own a B&B :->

Belief in Islam is not a crime. But thoughts of imposing Islam on others is, or at least it bloody well should be.

Doesn’t seem fair perhaps. But then, we are the majority men, are we not ?


22 September 2013 at 23:21  
Blogger Peter D said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

22 September 2013 at 23:32  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

22 September 2013 at 23:34  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

22 September 2013 at 23:43  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

And consider this: around three quarters of comments on this blog are left by a hard core of about 15 people.

This blog is for the consideration of religio-political issues; if those regular commentators, whose arguments provide the main dynamic of the comment threads, discover that they have other interests in common it will affect that dynamic. Those commentators are unlikely to interact anywhere else, so by suppressing threads which wander briefly off topic you are suppressing the same interactions which enable people to reassess their attitudes to other people in real life, and thereby depriving your comment threads of the organic development which could make them reflectors of real-world interactions.

I would not expect Boot or Mullen to understand that sort of subtelty, but I would hope that His Grace or Brother Ivo would. Keep your threads on topic, by all means, but do not leap on developing interaction between parties which may influence future debate.

23 September 2013 at 00:02  
Blogger Peter D said...

Darter Noster
Good to see you back. Busy few weeks for the Church and I'm sure we'll have a lot to discuss in the future.

Anyways, Dinosaur wonders if you think the Church should take a firmer stance in the public square to this particular issue.

Inspector
What on earth are you prattling on about?

23 September 2013 at 00:14  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One of the biggest and suppressed causes of poverty, and that includes sad diets, in this country is the financial costs involved in following the now ugly national game.

And yes madam, that is why junior is his obese size, which is due to excessive pie eating while he eagerly watches others run around the field exercising. And this when the young blighter should be getting out, and living his life, and running around his own field...

Dodo, just returned from the game, have you ?

23 September 2013 at 00:26  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Hello Peter D.,

I think the Church should take one stance on this issue, publicly or privately, which is that the only place for sexual avtivity is within marriage, and that marriage is between one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

I heartily wish that the Church would stop taking its lead from what is considered acceptable in a secular humanist and pluralist society.

I do not wish to live in a theocracy, but I believe that the determination of some secularists to overturn the Christian standards of family values has blinded them to the fact that human society adopted such values for the raising of children in secure monogamous families for an equally valid secular reason.

When I argue against gay marriage law I do so not because I believe on religious grounds that homosexuality is objectively wrong (though religiously I do believe that it is wrong) but on the purely secular grounds that children need a mother and a father, and that over-turning that basic biological principle in society will have negative consequences.

My contempt for Nick Clegg, David Cameron, Ed Miliband or indeed any other of the professional political classes amongst whom I used to work knew no bounds then and does not do so now, so stupid dinosaur remarks are irrlelevant to me.

Hope that helps :o)

23 September 2013 at 00:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hear Hear Darter. You've said it as it is, Sir !

23 September 2013 at 00:46  
Blogger Peter D said...

Inspector
Please do not join the 'collective' who refer to me as Dodo or use scare quotes for 'Peter D'. I am a sinner intent on reform - its just that sometimes it proves difficult. As you know, I am of a more traditional persuasion and concessions to the world are not in my nature - especially fine, political words which omit any reference to God's revelation.

Now, what 'game' are you referring to, Sir? It seems we are not permitted to digress this evening. The 'beautiful game' in England became ugly when money moved in - American, Russian and Arabic. One wonders when the Chinese will make a move. I am reduced to illegal internet viewing of said occasional matches (banned by the High Court too) since I cancelled my Sky subscription in disgust. I see this as an act of protest.

23 September 2013 at 00:53  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Thank you, Inspector :o)

Had not football related comments been erased I might feel so pleased as to sing the Blaydon Races :o)

23 September 2013 at 00:56  
Blogger Peter D said...

Darter Noster
Well said - welcome to the Dodo family!

The Established Church should be clear too when it stands officially in the public square and exercises its privileges as the 'Lords Spiritual' to represent Christ's message. Why else is it there?

23 September 2013 at 00:57  
Blogger LEN said...

Since only Christ can conquered sin you need to get Him on board and get 'born again' Dodo(sorry Peter)

Or you could just keep on in futility with your' religious' thing never worked... never will... just ask the Pharisees or your local Padre or whatever the proper terminology for your 'leader' is?.

23 September 2013 at 01:00  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

LEN said:

"Since only Christ can conquered sin you need to get Him on board and get 'born again' Dodo(sorry Peter)

Or you could just keep on in futility with your' religious' thing never worked... never will... just ask the Pharisees or your local Padre or whatever the proper terminology for your 'leader' is?."

When it comes to the raising of children the monogamous family of one mother and one father has consistently worked best throughput the whole of human society.

In undermining that model just because it is the one which Chriatianity supports the secular movement is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

That model works best on secular or religious grounds.

23 September 2013 at 01:18  
Blogger Peter D said...

Len
To be clear, I was "born again" at my Baptism when I, like many before me, shared in Christ's death and His resurrection and received God's Grace. The power of original sin and Satan's claim on me was broken. Since then, it's been a question of choosing Him, picking up my Cross and accepting His Grace in my life.

Now run along and bother someone else.

23 September 2013 at 01:23  
Blogger Peter D said...

Ps ... you do realise when you join in the condemnation of the Pharisees you are also attacking modern day Rabbinical Judaism? Mind, as you are ignorant of Christ's real objections to this religious system this will not have occurred to you. No, instead, you throw it around uncritically as a simplistic accusation against the Catholic Church.

23 September 2013 at 01:36  
Blogger David Anderson said...

His Grace's contribution is all well and good as far as it goes, but is he really only just waking up to what the social revolutionaries believe? The tone of shock and amazement that the sexual revolutionaries want ... (gasp) sexual revolution ... is a bit overdone. Of course they do; and they've not been hiding it for many a decade.

The time for mild astonishment is long past. Expressing mild astonishment at the rudeness of enemies who are armed to the teeth and plundering your heartlands is not an effective weapon of war.

David

23 September 2013 at 08:09  
Blogger David Hussell said...

It gets grim out there sometimes. So being in need of some simple cheering up, as "things" get to all of us occasionally, I was much relieved to read The Inspector's utterly trivial but hugely amusing remarks about football fields and pies, yes pies, of all things.

Keep it up Inspector. We all get a bit too serious, me included, on this blog.

I wonder what Jesus laughed at ? All of us probably.

23 September 2013 at 08:21  
Blogger Richard Gadsden said...

To be clear on the liberal position (not necessarily the Liberal Democrat position):

Any person who believes that homosexual sex is in any way inferior to heterosexual sex has a bigoted belief.

That doesn't necessarily mean that they are a bigot; it is possible for humans to believe bigoted things without malicious intent.

If God believes then, then He is a bigot and unworthy of worship (since He clearly cannot have the kinds of internal self-contradictions that we humans can have).

It is for that last reason that many Christians cannot accept that God does believe this and thus conclude that the usual Biblical translations must be inaccurate reports of God's views. This is, of course, why you get people trying to reread the language to not be homophobic (for instance, the position that Leviticus 18:22 only prohibits male homosexual sex when performed in a woman's bed).

23 September 2013 at 09:47  
Blogger Torquemada said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 September 2013 at 10:12  
Blogger Flossie said...

Richard Gadsden - 'Any person who believes that homosexual sex is in any way inferior to heterosexual sex has a bigoted belief.'.

Do read the link which I posted earlier addressed to DanJo, which he studiously ignored, which I will post again, from which you will read that it is estimated that if you are a man you ae 1,112 times more likely to acquire HIV if you have sex with someone of the same sex.

If it is bigoted to be upset by this, well, so be it.

http://www.peter-ould.net/2013/09/16/some-staggering-statistics/

23 September 2013 at 10:36  
Blogger Flossie said...

PS I posted the above on the assumption that you are a liberal and not just an explainer of liberal thinking - so don't take it amiss if I am mistaken! I apologise in advance.

23 September 2013 at 10:38  
Blogger LEN said...

R Gadson`s post is a bit ambiguous ?

Must be a politician?. Not sure if he called me the 'b' word or not?.

23 September 2013 at 11:12  
Blogger bluedog said...

Richard Gadsden @ 09.47, as homosexual sex acts are non-procreative it is impossible to regard them as in anyway comparable to the act of heterosexual sex. Remember that every living thing that you see, every blade of grass, every ant or sparrow, even you, descends in an unbroken line from its or your predecessors. None of this line of descent would have been possible if all your forbears were homosexual. It follows that from an evolutionary point of view, homosexual sex is irrelevant. Some would say that in this context, homosexual sex is inferior.

Is biology bigoted? Do tell.

23 September 2013 at 11:43  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Is biology bigoted? Do tell.

Pfft! I love it.

23 September 2013 at 12:00  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

The Inspector has said it before, but here it is again...

“Mother Nature is the biggest anti homosexual out there”

She, in her wisdom, has manufactured a virus that...(well, there’s no easy way to cushion this so a fellow won’t even make an a attempt...)

...KILLS HOMOSEXUALS

Not just make them unwell, or depressed, or weak with illness. No, the aim of this virus is to ERADICATE. But man has answered back. He has provided medicine that will stop the virus activating. That’s all. No cure, and there is unlikely to be one in the immediate future, if at all. So, we can from that deduce there is something wrong with a lifestyle that will eventually kill you if you stop taking the medication. Assuming you can get the medication, and assuming the virus doesn’t mutate just like other viruses do and makes the medication ineffective.

The survival of the human race depends on going along with mother nature. When you start to bargain with her, or find the need to, you are doing something wrong...

23 September 2013 at 12:14  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 September 2013 at 12:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Richard Gadsden

Any person who believes that homosexual sex is in any way inferior to heterosexual sex has a bigoted belief.

According to whom? Or what? There is an assumed authority here. It should really be stated.

If God believes then, then He is a bigot and unworthy of worship (since He clearly cannot have the kinds of internal self-contradictions that we humans can have).

There is so much wrong with this sentence, it is hard to begin. Perhaps we should begin by reading the Book of Job - the whole point of which is that God is worthy of human worship because he is God. That imperative is entirely independent of human circumstance. We don't worship God because we examine Him and find Him worthy. We don't examine our circumstances and say "I am comfortable. Therefore I shall worship God." We worship Him because He is by nature worthy of worship.

Second, we only know good from evil because God has revealed it to man. We don't reason our way to some knowledge of good and evil only to judge God according to our vain reasonings. Does a man think God would be bigoted if He condemns homosexuality? Since when does man get to discredit God in order to justify himself? Who made man to be god over God?

It is for that last reason that many Christians cannot accept that God does believe this and thus conclude that the usual Biblical translations must be inaccurate reports of God's views.

But they have the reasoning exactly reversed. The revelation reveals God to man. Man does not begin with self-revelation so that he might read that understanding back into Scripture. Homosexual desire is a physical picture of man suppressing the truth that God is worthy of worship. Man sees and knows the obvious natural (meaning 'purposed within the created order') relationship of male and female. But he willfully suppresses this truth and chases after an unnatural desire for other men. In the same way, men know from general revelation the power and glory of God and yet suppress that knowledge to chase after idols. Homosexuality is a physical representation of a greater spiritual truth about the nature of man.

This is, of course, why you get people trying to reread the language to not be homophobic (for instance, the position that Leviticus 18:22 only prohibits male homosexual sex when performed in a woman's bed).

And a whole lot of other ridiculous eisegetical gymnastics. Bu that is all these efforts amount to. They don't change the revelation, and they don't alter the standard of judgment. Men don't like God the way He is. They prefer a different god, and so they fashion one. But that doesn't change God. It simply makes man an idolater.

carl

23 September 2013 at 12:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Footnote.

Defying Mother Nature doesn’t come cheap...

From a PN commentator: “It costs £6000 a year for the drugs. If you get it at 25 and live to 75 thats 50 years is £300k per person over one life.”

75 ? That’s ambitious. The oldest known and longest suffering HIV survivor is around 53 years old, has had the virus for 30 years, and lives in Cheltenham, UK. He’s still around, and no doubt every additional day to him must seem like a bonus...

There’s bigotry, and there is heartless bigotry. Shame on you Mother Nature !

{WAVES STICK IN THE AIR}


23 September 2013 at 12:55  
Blogger Guglielmo Marinaro said...

@ Flossie:

Yes, Flossie, the AIDS statistics are indeed a cause for very grave concern, and it would be irresponsible to pretend otherwise. A “remedy” like getting rid of homosexuality has an obvious appeal to a certain kind of mind – the kind that is incompletely connected to the real world that real people actually live in. The eradication of homosexuality is as unpractical a fantasy as the eradication of heterosexuality would be.

23 September 2013 at 13:20  
Blogger Jon said...

Inspector, if even you consider for a moment the reasons why there may be no people with HIV older than 53 (though I don't actually know this to be the case - and suspect you're making it up) you'll stumble upon why. Effective drugs limiting the spread of infection have only been around for a relatively short period of time.

What's un-nerving about your posts though, isn't so much that you're complaining about the cost of HIV treatment (which seems callous, if not entirely unreasonable - except that the NHS also pays for breast enlargements, liver treatments for alcohol abusers, and treats lung cancer in smokers, so I expect you'd look to withdraw treatment from them too). It's the glee with which you relish the deaths of your fellow citizens.

Whatever merit lies in your argument elsewhere, it's wholly washed away by your rabidity, which makes me suspect again you're put here to discredit your own arguments.

23 September 2013 at 13:23  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi,

Whilst I am also taking a 'breather' from this blog, as I have no other way of communicating with you, I just thought you should know I've finally got hold of a couple of the 'Zoo Rabbi's' books(second hand and at a good discount)so am happily reading through them...

PS-from a video on his web, as he poses next to a black bear, holds down a croc and has a big eagle on his hands, it reminded me of a Mancurian speaking, Jewish version of 'Steve Irwin' if he had been a Rabbi and not Australian.

PPS- As a point of info,for others here, I watched a tv show a couple of days back, on the BBC, so it must be true- apparently male circumcision of infants helps stop the transmission of AIDS or at least makes it less likely to spread (research into African tribes who do and don't circumcise infants).

I hear the liberal people here *suddenly* being in favour of male circumcision rather than it being 'child abuse'....

23 September 2013 at 13:40  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

PPPPS- to the throng here, is gay marriage really going to 'stop' hetrosexual couples from making babies? That is the 'rational' reason for opposing SSM? Really? I think the 'urge' of people to make love isn't going to be halted by men/women of the same sex from getting married. (before anyone rams down my throat about putting Jews into ovens and not being able to be 'a dyke' and being Jewish, as I've said a million and one times, I don't agree with ssm either).

But the argument about the end of pro-creation via ssm doesn't seem logical or rational to me.

Right, back to my exile, Torah study and reading of the Zoo Rabbi...

23 September 2013 at 13:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jon, such harsh words from you. ‘Glee’ ! Where is it ? Nowhere, just matter of fact reporting the facts of the matter.

Tell you what, as you’ve been so annoyed as to post, we’ll dress up the figures for you. (You do like dressing up, don’t you ?)

Anyway, here it is. HIV is definitely and most equivocally NOT a gay virus. We know this because of the 38 million victims out there, the overwhelming majority, in our old old friends, the ‘developing’ countries are heterosexual.

There you go, a bit of comfort. Those fellows on PN certainly find comfort in that, as they proudly post to point this out from their western gay clubs...

23 September 2013 at 13:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, you don’t understand. SSM opens so many doors for Big Gay. In fact, they themselves will tell you that continuing Pink assertion would be stopped in it’s tracks if it had been denied them...

23 September 2013 at 14:01  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

I still don't get this 'big' gay? I'm a little gay and quite happy.

I understand what you mean if you are referring to gay couples having children via surrogates or IVF... however, regardless of the moral right or wrongs of that, I was thinking of Darter Noster's comments about his 'rational' opposition to SSM, as I just cannot see how SSM is going to make hetrosexual couples (married or not) from -crudely put- 'shagging'....

23 September 2013 at 14:19  
Blogger Richard Gadsden said...

@LEN Yes, that's because I'm not sure whether you are a bigot.

You believe something that is intrinsically bigoted, but you may well believe it for non-bigoted reasons - in which case you've been misled by bigots rather than being a bigot yourself.

23 September 2013 at 14:28  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Hello Hannah,

I don't believe it will.

What concerns me about redefining marriage is that in the name of equality society is losing sight of the fact that children do best when raised by their biological mother and father in a stable and loving relationship. We're on a course which will change not just the nature of marriage but the nature of the family unit, and that is liable to have profound social consequences which no-one really understands. I fully supported civil patnership legislation, but that did not include breaking the relationship between child-rearing and biology in the way that redefining marriage threatens to.

23 September 2013 at 15:37  
Blogger LEN said...

Thanks for your reply Richard Gadsden. God has ordained certain laws some which can be observed and spiritual laws which may not be [immediately] observable but are just as valid.

If we break these laws there is 'a price to pay'(Imagine someone foolhardy enough to say I cannot see gravity so it doesn`t apply to me?.)

The effects of breaking 'natural laws' are observable so is the result of breaking spiritual laws.
This is the reason why God told us what the results of indulging in breaking spiritual laws would be.
The ultimate effect of sin is death physical and spiritual.
To point out this fact to unbelievers[and to some religious groups] the Christian runs the risk of being called a 'bigot' I am quite willing to run that risk.

23 September 2013 at 15:57  
Blogger Drastic Plastic said...

Listening to people in power sneer at ordinary (unconsulted) people is sickening.

No wonder politicians complain that nobody believes in politics.

No wonder they keep us disarmed, while flooding the country with immigrants.

They've decided to elect a new electorate!

23 September 2013 at 16:11  
Blogger Albert said...

Richard,

Any person who believes that homosexual sex is in any way inferior to heterosexual sex has a bigoted belief.

I was just wondering if you would care to defend that proposition. It's the inferior bit in particular that seems the meat of it. You are expecting, I think, all non-bigoted people to agree to the following:

Homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are equal.

You could start by answering this question: equally what? At the moment I don't even know what I'm being required to sign up to, let alone why it would be rational to do so.

23 September 2013 at 16:22  
Blogger Lord Oscar Marlbury said...

Marriage is between one man and one women. That's the way it is and the way it has been since the garden of eden. If the homosexuals wish to do their business it is up to them (preferably in Soho and Limehouse and other disreputable quarters, just keep it out of bally Kensington and Chelsea).

I do not want such matters thrust upon my face, in the same way that a gentleman keeps mistresses and actresses. It is acknowledged and tolerated, but not spoken about. We are not the French, when it comes to explicit sexual discussions.

There is a place and time for everything, as the book of Ecclesiastes tells us.

23 September 2013 at 16:25  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

That chap Marlbury, you mention ‘tolerated’. Unfortunately, LGBT no longer ask for toleration. Haven’t done since the plague subsided. Not nearly enough for them now, you see. In fact, it’s our turn to ask them for toleration. Toleration of Catholic Adoption Agencies, Public Servants who don’t wish to preside at SSMs. Faith Schools who don’t wish to teach homosexuality (...or praise it...). MPs who didn’t support SSM. The list is bloody endless you know !

23 September 2013 at 16:56  
Blogger Jon said...

Oh poor you, Inspector, you're so put upon!

With the Archbishop's post today about the plight of Christian's in Pakistan in plain sight, you'd dress up equal marriage as some form of persecution your co-religionists (and I use the term loosely, as I'm sure Dodo will testify - your catholicism is a little hard to locate) find unendurable, as if the rights of others to marry impinges on your right to do the same (should you ever find a woman to meet your puzzling odd standards).

If Len's right about the end times, you're not going to last long when temptation comes a knocking, old chap.

And Marlbury, I'll do my business where I like, when I like, thanks. After all, we pay the same taxes and live under the same laws. I don't see why you should be able to walk hand in hand with your wife, if I'm not allowed to do the same with mine!

BTW - your avatar is Lord John Marlbury from the west wing, from the looks of it. If you can't get your own name right, why should your views be sought on anything else?

23 September 2013 at 17:19  
Blogger LEN said...

Jon don`t wind him up anymore.The Inspector is in a[his usual ] foul mood probably been abstaining from something as a penance?.

23 September 2013 at 17:28  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Jon, one does believe you have the vapours...

Len, Jesus want’s you to sell your PC and give the money to the poor. It's in scripture...

23 September 2013 at 17:37  
Blogger Lord Oscar Marlbury said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

23 September 2013 at 18:10  
Blogger Lord Oscar Marlbury said...

Good evening Mr Jon,

I am Lord Marlbury, Viscount of Crayford, Marquess of Needles and Dolbie, Baronet of Bricy, former Govenour General of the Golden Fleece and Hounds, but you can call me Oscar, old man... No need to refer to me by my ridiculous aristocratic title 'Marlbury'.

Now I have a cousin who is a raving homosexual, dash good looking girl she is, fine strong character.Won't have a word said against her myself.

Now as for you doing 'your business',I did not advocate you not doing it where you like; although legally one must be in a place 'where one may not be reasonably be expected to be found' old chap, applies to the hetrosexual and indeed one cannot allow one's dog to foul where it should not.

And you do indeed pay the same taxes and live under the same law (assuming you are not a tax exile via the Cayman's, my old trout).

I have no problem with you walking hand in hand with your wife. I am a widower, so I do not have a wife, but am always looking for the future Lady Marlbury... but good god man, there is a matter of being discrete. Would I flaunt my mistress? No. Would I love her? Yes! Would I look after any offspring of said Liaisons? Indeed!

Now if you are a homosexual, it is no business of mine what you do, hold hands or whatever. Or get married. Just don't try on the bit about getting married in a Church. When that happens, I'll direct you to your local Mosque, so you can have your 'right' to get married there.

I do not suggest that the homosexual should be mustered unto chains in Reading Goal.

My 'avatar is Lord John Marlbury from the west wing'.

Blast that chap! I've told him he is far too good looking to look like me, bloody Marbury's; you know they think they are directly related to William the Conqueror & have been at our families tails ever since the bally civil war! Blasted arrogance if you ask me.

As you were fellow...

23 September 2013 at 18:13  
Blogger LEN said...

Inspector.. LOL.. you do have a sense of humor then?.

23 September 2013 at 18:16  
Blogger Lord Oscar Marlbury said...

Inspector, we shall see about the battle of tolerance. When we have Sharia in this country and an Islamic state,, it'll be Jew, Christians and gay all in the same goal.

23 September 2013 at 18:18  
Blogger Lord Oscar Marlbury said...

Cigarette anyone?

23 September 2013 at 18:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Flossie: "Do read the link which I posted earlier addressed to DanJo, which he studiously ignored, which I will post again, from which you will read that it is estimated that if you are a man you ae 1,112 times more likely to acquire HIV if you have sex with someone of the same sex."

Studiously ignored? You flatter yourself. I took a look at the URL itself and realised it pointed to that Christian's website and simply moved on without another thought. Afterall, you just tried to hijack the context to slide it where you wanted it anyway so I was hardly obliged to follow you. As it happens, I'd be spectacularly unlucky to acquire HIV through sex as you might not realise yourself but one needs to have sex with someone with HIV already for it to be transferred. Also, I'm pretty sure that social institutions like marriage or civil partnerhips which encourage settling down with one's partner are a step forward in combating the spread of HIV. I'm always surprised many Christians don't see that as obvious and embrace it as a social good for non-Christians but hey. I suppose bigotry is standing in the way there for some of them.

23 September 2013 at 18:34  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

The statistic probably applies to anal sex too, which lots of heterosexual couples seem to try too, and as we gays know that isn't mandatory in gay sexual relationships anyway.

23 September 2013 at 18:37  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

DanJ0, Also, I'm pretty sure that social institutions like marriage or civil partnerhips which encourage settling down with one's partner are a step forward in combating the spread of HIV.

Relax son. You don’t have to lie through your teeth anymore. SSM is yours...

...for now

23 September 2013 at 19:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

And yours, Inspector, when you finally become comfortable with yourself.

23 September 2013 at 20:29  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Hi Miss Hanah,

It's not that I'm taking a breather from the blog, it's that with all the High Holidays and the yom tovim this September, there are not that many work days and I have to hustle extra driving hours in between. The blasted bills keep filling my mailbox no matter what. But a happy Sukkot to you and yours and don't forget to tipple a few extra ones on Simkhat Torah! It's my turn to volunteer security, so I'll be as sober as a monk...a Buddhist monk, that is, as the Catholic ones don't have inhibitions in that department. There, that was my tweak of the day at Rome, Peter D.

Btw, Rav Natan's The Challenge of Creation, which I hope is one of the books you picked up is top-notch. It's the one he got in trouble for, what with his detailed arguments for an old Universe and evolution.

I marvel at Richard Gadsden's liberty to fling the word "bigot" left right and centre and rather inanely at that, without His Grace dunking him in the old Cranmer Blog pond. Perhaps it's being serviced after the filtres got clogged with dodo bird feathers. Me, I got the third degree for using it on the astonished Inspector during a heated argument with him, way back when I just started off here, but I suspect it was mostly because I misspelled it as "biggot." His Grace shore don't like that sort-a 'thang. That's f'shore.

23 September 2013 at 20:57  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Huh, what's Danjo going on about, Inspector, you plan on marrying yourself? Can't see why a body couldn't do that at this point. It's all about love and equality apparently, and I'm thinking what a grand idea; if I tie the knot with myself, I can declare duty-free twice as many scotch bottles and Marlborough cartons every time I come back to Canada. Always thinking, I am.

23 September 2013 at 21:04  
Blogger Peter D said...

Avi
HG appears selective in who he chastises. I'm sure there is a theme, I just haven't quite worked out what it might be.

Catholic Monks enjoy the occasional tipple. Good luck to them too after a hard day's labour and prayer. Where's the harm in enjoying one of God's gifts?

Did you know that 'self marriage' is growing in popularity? One gets dressed up and makes vows to love oneself and to be true to oneself until death. I say, why not? It's as authentic as homosexual *marriage*. however, this might be considered a bigoted statement, so best if I say nothing.

(Ps ... Dodo asked me to say he's missing no feathers and also to clarify that he never "jerks off". Perish the thought.)

23 September 2013 at 21:42  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Greetings Avi. Lord knows what the boy is on about. Something about bachelors in their 50s being latent homosexuals. He’s somewhat obsessed with that one, bless him...

23 September 2013 at 21:43  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"HG appears selective in who he chastises."

Here we go again.

His Grace wondered how long it would be before your pathological swipes against the Church of England once again became criticisms of him. You revert to type. You just couldn't help yourself, could you?

Please leave. Go and create your own blog. Do not return.

23 September 2013 at 21:47  
Blogger Peter D said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

23 September 2013 at 22:05  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Peter D, just to be clear, mine was not a complaint. A blog administrator is like God; he metes out judgment as he sees fit for his own inscrutable reasons. Perhaps to chastise, perhaps to temper or improve. Each according to his just measure. Sometimes his lack of correction portends greater travails ahead. We govern ourselves accordingly.

23 September 2013 at 22:18  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ah, so, no wedding with yourself then, Inspector,. Pity. But I seriously ponder this possibility of one being able to marry himself. I mean, it's just as reasonable or ludicrous as a man marrying another man and we already have a precedent for the ludicrous, so why not? Most of us have at least two sides, and some even more, which would be another revolutionary development; self-bigamy. I wonder if Mr Gadsden would concur; I rather think that he'd have to, to avoid the ranks of us bigg...bigots.

23 September 2013 at 22:24  
Blogger Lord Oscar Marlbury said...

AS a previous silent reader here, I noted that Peter D has been nothing but a source of trouble and discord, frequently insulting flesh and blood in the process. So bugger owf!

23 September 2013 at 22:40  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

O, dear, here we go again.

I just read Your Grace's last sentence. I must learn to read posts in their entirety the first time around...I can't always blame my dyslexia. I'm obliged to beg your indulgence regarding Peter D, Your Grace, as it appears that it was I, again, who unwittingly set him up for his latest stumble. Like last time, I seem to be always the last to clue in about the dynamics on this blog. He is a sensitive and passionate chap whose filtres malfunction from time to time and I should have gathered up a posse yesterday when I noticed him getting peculiar again. I promise to better keep an eye on him this time; it's that I've been busy a lot lately.

Please, Your Grace, put him on suspension, say a week, a parole or whatever, just for mine and everyone else's sake. We're all a little longer in the tooth and I don't think we can handle another round of gut-wrenching melodrama.

23 September 2013 at 22:46  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Avi. One does believe we have two sides to us. The Inspector has, certainly if the two sides be that of the brain, and he finds that a drink at the end of the day unites both in common purpose.

It would do well at this point to remind us all that Cranmer is not the Church of England, and that we cannot spit down our host’s throat with no comeback. It is a private site, and we must never forget we are privileged to be here...

23 September 2013 at 22:47  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi,

Erm, I meant to say I am on a sort of 'holiday' from commenting here... the usual suspects managed to upset me and to make things worse were vile to poor Mr Explorer!

Anyways, I found that uncle's library contains all of Rabbi Slifkin's books! So I've got them on loan...[quite how uncle manages to secretly horde so many books and manuscripts is beyond me].

I know some other learned Rabbis wanted to ban them, but to me that's not what being Jewish is about, as I was told from a young age about other people burning 'Jew' books and stuff.

23 September 2013 at 22:58  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi,

leave the 'bring back Dodo' campaign to Cressida,who'd have the world believe a Torah loving gay Jew cannot be a Torah loving Jew, or for that matter love guilty for one cannot be a Jew and a 'dyke', but is instead a 'pervert' and 'skipping like godilocks', who somehow makes me into 'shoving' Jews into 'ovens'. I cannot tell you how ANGRY that made me.

23 September 2013 at 23:08  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Indeed so, Inspector, as an occasional moderator on two blogs, one Jewish and one science-oriented, I have to explain again and again, often to the same individual, that protestations of "right to free speech" notwithstanding, a blog is a private domain and its owner rules as he sees fit. Apart from obeying the house rules, insulting the blog owner is never a good thing. Speaking of a drink, this incident has unnerved me and I just poured a wee shot...of what tastes like tractor diesel lovingly blended with opossum piss, a low-priced Canadian whisky whose name should remain unspoken as one shouldn't trash one's country's products. Yes, that tasty McClelland's I mentioned evaporated by the second eve of our Feast of Weeks. Oops.

Miss Hannah, I caught only tail-end references to events with Mr Integrity and missed the latest scuffle between you and Miss Cressida. I have noticed that folks on British blogs are much warmer and more personable than on Canadian or American ones, but engage in more intense and long-lasting inter-personal conflicts which don't just explode in nasty insults, but long, hurtful campaigns. Nevertheless, I seem to prefer the British blogs.

As for Rabbi Slifkin, as he himself has argued, a specific ban of his books directed at Haredi Kollel and Yeshiva students and the ultra-Orthodox communities of those rabbis is justifiable. He even rewrote a better ban against his book himself and offered it. People with no training in science or even a basic secular education would not understand his books and may draw unfortunate conclusions and even lose faith. What he objected to is the fact that the ban was justified on the grounds of kefira, heresy, a serious charge and one which is directed at all Jewry. All of his arguments, as he argues, find support in majority and minority opinions among the Sages, all of which he painstakingly documents. A heresy decision casts a damning shadow on the classical rabbinic sources by logical extension. Also, he demonstrates that the process was faulty, as he was not given an opportunity to defend himself and that the Yiddish and Hebrew speaking rabbis involved did not and in fact could not have read his book, as it was written in English. He provides a much better explanation and details on his website. Anyway, the broad ban was lifted and retained only for the students and communities of the rabbis involved, which is a far more acceptable solution.

24 September 2013 at 00:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Avi. On the subject of single malt urine, never ever touch the lesser known Irish brands. For bowels sake, if nothing else. This coming from a Taig...

24 September 2013 at 00:11  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi,

Thank you for the comprehensive background to these books. I'd humbly say that, with my academic background and what I've gone through to reach Orthodoxy, I don't worry about loosing faith.

I personally think that, in the tradition of the Talmud and Judaism we should not be afraid of controversy, but look at works critically and with a keen eye.

My faith does not lessen itself because of what a Rabbi may or may not argue or what is and what is heresy. I believe after 4,000 years, we are big enough to be learned without diminishing our faith in G-d. A Rabbi cannot destroy thousands of years of devout faith.

I guess I'd give you a heart attack and singe your Payot, by writing that I've already read 'Kosher sex' and 'Kosher Jesus' by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach...

In love and kindness as always, and Chag Sameach!

Hannah

24 September 2013 at 00:35  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Inspector, the "lowest" economy brand from Ireland we get here is Jameson's, which I get from time to time as I rather like its, er, "honest" taste and the way it kills everything potentially harmful in its path as it burns its way down the old gullet. 'Tis a manly drink, methinks.

Hellooooh there! Calling Mr Richard Gadsden! Our Albert here has a question for you to which I and no doubt many others would love to hear what your response might be.

To wit, you ruled that, "Homosexual sex and heterosexual sex are equal."

And to which Albert justifiably responded with, "You could start by answering this question: equally what? At the moment I don't even know what I'm being required to sign up to, let alone why it would be rational to do so."

Well, all inquiring minds want to know and surely you've remembered to think a few steps ahead before you plopped your pronouncement like a dead catfish on a piano, Mr Gadsden? Or that you've had enough time by now to cobble together something sensible as a reply? Chop, chop, get on with it dear fellow, let's see some honest sweat on those jolly cheeks of yours.

Miss Hannah, I hear you and generally, agree with you. However, the Hareidi community (the "ultra-Orthodox," for those unfamiliar with our jargon) has increasingly been painting itself in a corner by essentially withdrawing from the secular world...except when receiving welfare and housing from the sinful, evil Israeli government and the ignorant, irreligious Israeli taxpayers. This renders them incapable of understanding current issues, especially science and the topics Rav Slifkin covers, no matter how Torah-true and "kosher." I don't know what the solution for that is, but as the insular, extremist Haredi sector is becoming economically unsustainable and socially untenable, and I suspect the changes will happen on their own regardless of Hareidi desires.

As for Rabbi Boteach, I've yet to read anything by him or anyone that would singe my miniscule sidelocks. Or bring on a heart attack, God forbid and spit three times. I'm an omnivorous reader and I will read whatever I please without discomfort, but in matters of religious instruction, I have my own preferences for rabbis and Rabbi Boteach is not one of them. I'm familiar with his controversial tolerant stance on homosexuality and while I don't see eye to eye with him on the theology of the matter, I think he writes appropriately within the bounds of dissenting or minority orthodox thought and I respect his courage and compassion. This issue, which he could have simply avoided, caused him to lose a significant segment of the traditionalists. I also respect individual Habadniks (Chabad-Lubavitch), especially the hard-working, brave sh'likhim ("missionaries") who risk and have lost lives to reach unaffiliated Jews, but I don't hold by their customs and philosophies. I also avoid mystics, charismatics, populists and strongly anti-Zionist rabbis, except those acknowledged by all as experts in narrow technical matters of halakhah (Jewish law). I prefer the rationalists in the Orthodox spectrum. The Rambam (Maimonides), R'Hirsh, Rav Soloweitchik, Lord Rabbi Sacks, R'Slifkin, and others are more my cup of tea...although, oy gevalt, God forbid my narrishkeit should ever reflect on any them!



24 September 2013 at 02:37  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Avi

Now, now. Let's have a little sympathy for Mr Gadsden. Albert asks his question with an apparent lack of guile - nothing but an innocent request for information. But of course Albert could probably give more answers to his own question than Mr Gadsden could provide. And Albert has probably already written responses to each. One can understand why Mr Gadsden would be ... reluctant.

Does he cut the blue wire or the red wire? It doesn't matter. Either way, the bomb goes off.

carl

24 September 2013 at 03:56  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Pfffft!

24 September 2013 at 04:23  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Your Grace, I beg your indulgence for this, my last petition on behalf of our man of many identities, our Dodo, Peter D, Damian or under whatever appellation that insufferable bird has ever made his appearance here.

And as someone who has also felt his bitter stings, his insults and unreasonable accusations I also direct my appeal to my friends here, many of whom have also had their fill, begging the, to allow their innate mercy and inclination for forgiveness to govern their words.

While we saw improvement in Dodo's demeanor, Your Grace, we are all sharp realists here and thus we know that Dodo will fail time and time again. Could it, really, be otherwise? His "learning curve" is so shallow that one would need lasers and distances at galactic scales to gauge it and so there is no reason to believe that whatever promises he makes and whatever hopes we may have, he will ever turn over a new leaf for good. Like the Dodo, a prescient moniker he chose for himself, sooner or later he will stand in your path hissing, squawking and flapping his useless wings, waiting to be clubbed as your patience runs out for the umpteenth time. It has become an accepted, timeless custom, Your Grace, a minhag even.

And, Your Grace, I wager that with him gone due to a permanent ban, you along with the rest of us, will soon enough ask, "what on Earth will the foolish Dodo do next?" With every post you pen, with every comment we scribble, we will forever wonder, "what would Dodo say to this? Truly, Your Grace, will you ever encounter a personage such as Dodo? A pontifex who is more Catholic than all the Popes since Vatican II, a man with more Jesuitries up his puffy sleeves than Torquemada, even a greater Jew and Talmud scholar than all the Sages of Babylon, a grander Prince of the Enlightenment than Machiavelli or Montesquieu? Who among us here can piss off so many in such a brief period of time and with so few words? To answer the question rhetorical, only our Dodo can, Your Grace.

A practical suggestion if one may. Forsooth, the Dodo suffers unimaginable agonies when unable to post his droppings at will. Recall, Your Grace, his hilarious attempts to return each time under different identities, his fibs, his comical efforts to keep his cool and his predictable failure to do so. Again, again and yet again. The labours of Sisyphus. Recall too his dire desperation and pleas to be reunited with his flock here. This blog of yours, Your Grace, 'tis an eerie Siren to many a soul, and undeniably most of all, to old Dodo's. In spite of the pathetic potshots he takes at you, the little scrapes that do not diminish you, this pesky perseverance at getting under your nails can by now be nothing but a mark of what has transformed into a bizarre, twisted, but fiery loyalty to you and your blog. Nay, please do not shake your head thus, Your Grace, for that is the truth if you dwell on it. Hence, the suggestion this supplicant makes is that the Dodo be penalized, at Your discretion, with a suitable penalty period of absence each time he transgresses, and transgress he will, though less frequently one might hope. He would, naturally have to make abject apologies first, something he is exceedingly clever at, but something which will amuse us all, and he would have to desist from his not-so-clever tricks to sneak aboard under new identities. It will surely hurt him, this harsh discipline, Your Grace. But, it won't kill him. And even Old King Harry, with his mercurial humours and a taste for the Tower's chopping block, somehow allowed his Royal Fool and Jester, Will Sommers, to reach ripe old age.

I thank you for your time and patience in hearing my second and final petition, Your Grace.

24 September 2013 at 05:06  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

But wait, wait, Your Grace, there is more! I trust in my solution enough that I will substantiate and underwrite my plea with the ancient custom of submitting myself as hostage, promising to police the scruffy bird as harshly and capably as I can, and upon each failure of mine to curb his irascibility, to join him in Galut, in exile (the "penalty box," in Carl's Americanese parlance) for each of his transgressions.

24 September 2013 at 05:13  
Blogger non mouse said...

Avi, you're extremely intelligent - and also a generous person. Nevertheless, I must say that I never could stand the rantings of the avian non-dinosaur :) As with BO - my default mode has ever been 'switch off.'

So I'm more delighted when the feathery whatever is not clagging up His Grace's blog.

24 September 2013 at 06:17  
Blogger LEN said...

Avi.... others have petitioned for the return of the flightless [and witless ]bird and lived to regret it.

Some Kings actually' dispatched' their Court jesters.

24 September 2013 at 08:50  
Blogger Flossie said...

DanJo: 'I took a look at the URL itself and realised it pointed to that Christian's website and simply moved on without another thought.'

Well more fool you, then. That particular Christian happens to be a statistician. If you think Christians have nothing to say worth hearing, why do you hang around on Christian websites?

Don't try to kid us all that homosexual pairings are generally faithful, because we all know that this is very rare, and 'marriage' is highly unlikely to change that. I should read the link if I were you. The stats were actually produced by the US Government.

24 September 2013 at 09:58  
Blogger bluedog said...

Avi @ 05.06 says, 'Recall too his dire desperation and pleas to be reunited with his flock here.'

Flock? One? Two?

24 September 2013 at 10:02  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Avi, old chap, one howled with laughter at 05:06 and almost stopped breathing come 05:13

And then his ‘friends’ did come to the rescue. Starting with the non mouse...

I tell you man, this from 40 minutes ago – have only just composed myself to type !

24 September 2013 at 10:57  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

You're a real mensch Avi.

Thankfully I have been lucky enough to have only ever known Jews of your persuasion. Those with qualities I consider to be essentially Jewish .. a keen sense of justice and acknowledgement of and respect for a superior intellect.

It is very Christian (in the real sense of the term ) of you to acknowledge Dodo's searing intellect and humour .The bird is certainly an enormous repository of knowledge and all things Catholic .

This no doubt is one of the reasons he is upsetting to a lot here... particularly to the chilling would be intellectuals such as demented dormouse who bores everyone with posts that no one reads, containing chunks of Chaucer and Milton in a futile attempt to appear erudite.

I hope he does not return here
because I do not think anyone( not even the hated Catholic Dodo) should receive the contemptuous treatment he has been subjected to on this blog without any justification.

I should imagine the most disappointing part of his experience would have been his encounter with the other Catholics
who have displayed none of the characteristics usually attributed to Catholics such as having courage of one's conviction,compassion for those who are unjustly set upon .

I am sure you are right in saying that he will be hurt by being banished, but that is the whole idea of it.These Christians ( who bear no remote ressemblence to said) excel at hurt.. death by a thousand cuts followed by a God bless!

Ironically Avi the Jew turns out to be the only person with real Christian attributes on this blog.

Bloody Jews...better at everything than everyone else!

24 September 2013 at 11:00  
Blogger bluedog said...

Yep, two.

24 September 2013 at 11:09  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Forgot to mention
Brilliant piece of writing Avi.
Your literary talent deserves to be
showcased
Chapeau!

24 September 2013 at 11:14  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

11:09

"A pox o' your throat bawling blasphemous incharitable dog"

Only a creative Catholic literary giant could deliver such a superb insult!

24 September 2013 at 11:27  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi

Thanks for the response to me (again!). I totally agree with your summary and like me you like to be well read. I can appreciate that without a grasp of the issues, reading some books isn't ideal and neither should people have to know the ins and outs of evolution etc etc to be a faithful Jew.

24 September 2013 at 12:29  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Avi,

In regards to the pleas for Peter D, I both admire and respect the passion and well written argument.

I am not sure how an appeal to 'Ignorantia juris non excusat' is going to pass muster, when one knows they are pushing the boundaries of discussion here. I think enough is enough. Peter D was thrown off here before, then let back in after many of us asked him to be let back in. Right now, I am unable to think of arguments as to why he should be let back in a second time.

I find that it is not the arguments I have a problem with. It is the personalised nature of them and that this spills over into every thread. I see Cressida is doing that now in the latest post and Peter D has been doing this for a while at my expense as well; but I am not the only one.Look how Explorer was treated as well. It is not necessary to treat people like this and adds nothing to what could pass for reasoned or intelligent debate and doubtless puts others off posting.

So I won't be joining in the chorus for Dodo's return.

24 September 2013 at 12:51  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I think your problem is Hannah that you actually believe that you can hurl bricks without consequence. For some reason you are outraged when they are thrown back at you.Of course you deliberately do it in the hope of enlisting a lot of sympathy and support,in the hope of a calling of the banishment of cruel Cressida.

Goodness things have certainly changed since
the " wish you were mine" days.
LOL Ridiculous girl!


His Grace calls it
" the pyschology of learned neediness"
Tsk I think he's on to you Hannah!

You have been asked to leave on a couple of occasions by HG. Maybe it is you who is dissuading intelligent commentary here with your embarrassing pre adolescent gushing, tips for grooming pubic hair and other such folderol!




24 September 2013 at 13:39  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Hello Hannah,

Goodness, I think that's the first time I've seen the words "Cressida" and "reasoned or intelligent debate" used in anything even close to the same sentence.

I wouldn't pay too much attention if I were you.

I don't.

24 September 2013 at 14:17  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Well, no shocks here. You see in Cressida's mindset, I'm a dyke and pervert who throws Jews in ovens because on my paternal side, I have Christian relatives & decided for myself to explore Christianity, rather than carping at the sidelines.

All this despite my often long and thoughtful posts regarding these issues, here and elsewhere. I'm not a perfect Jew, but I never claim to be nothing more than a humble repentant/returner to Judaism.

As it happens I was on a bit of a blogging break here, but continue to read the posts and threads. I saw Avi was posting and wanted to mention something, but given his defence of Dodo, I felt that I should explain why I won't be leaping up and down this time around- which is the reason why I think HG asked me to leave.

24 September 2013 at 14:45  
Blogger Peter D said...

Archbishop

In the cold light of day I do hope you will reconsider your decision. My comment was lame in comparison with the remark that resulted in my original ban. That was a wholly justified decision. Is this?

You'll recognise my critical comments are not restricted to the Church of England. And there's certainly no intent to direct these at you. Seriously, I had no idea you would see that remark as personally so offensive - to me it was on the level of 'banter' - and for that misjudgement I am sorry.

Remember this:

Archbishop Cranmer said...
"Peter Damian,
Like the Prodigal Son, His Grace welcomes you back home, for as long as this place endures
.
(10 April 2013 10:53)

This welcome back was unconditional. Exclude me if you must but a permanent ban? Maybe exile for a time as Avi has suggested?

24 September 2013 at 14:47  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Darter,

Usually I try and ignore the slights and personal insults that Cressida and others dish out to me (e.g. 'Hysterical Hannah'). However this is what made me mad :

"Good grace is not the currency to deal with a hypocritical manipulative person like yourself Hannah.A steam roller could run over you and you would bounce back instantaneously. So drop the hurt act. As for being a woman well maybe you should consult your Rabbi about the birds and the bees, because women are suppose to marry men and bear children. A truthful one will tell you in no uncertain terms, you are a pervert and all the hugging kissing and skipping around like goldilocks is not going to hide that fact.If you have finally chosen Judaism and you did thank me for instigating that, at least show some respect for your religion and all the Jews who have suffered in the past and stop pretending it is OK in Judaism to be a dyke and to try out Christianity because it is not. It is a slap in the face to every one of them who went to the ovens!

17 September 2013 17:00"

Ask yourself, how you'd feel if that were directed at you and your family?

24 September 2013 at 14:51  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Peter D,


"..for as long as this place endures" was clearly an error: His Grace is not infallible.

He was obviously swept up by your effusive apologies and assurances of transformation. You are a guest in His Grace's space: no one is welcome unconditionally.

You rarely miss an opportunity to laud the Church of Rome (often off topic), berate the Church of England (off topic), criticise His Grace (former or present) or harp on about alleged inconsistencies in your past 'harsh treatment' (with a snide undercurrent of anti-Catholicism).

No, Peter D, Damian, Dodo, or whatever name your is tomorrow. You're obviously unhappy here, so please just go.

24 September 2013 at 14:56  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Hi Hannah,

Dreadful as it is, I'd say it rather depended on who directed it.

If it were directed by, hypothetically speaking, a clearly certifiable internet troll that, thank god, I was never liable to meet in real life, I'd wouldn't give a monkeys what they thought.

As a general rule, the more abusive Cressida is towards you the better you're doing, so you must have been doing something right.

24 September 2013 at 15:15  
Blogger Peter D said...

Archbishop

Error or not, I did take you at your word and whilst I anticipated the occasional rebuke when I stepped out of line, as I am wont to do, I never expected a permanent exclusion without some substantial cause.

I may be wrong, but I've never referred to my past treatment on here as "harsh" or implied there was any anti-Catholicism involved. Truthfully, I'm past all that. And I do stand by the apologies and commitments I made about all this back in April.

Transformation takes time and effort. Okay, I accept I go off topic and can be over critical. As for lauding the Church of Rome, you will have gleaned I am troubled by much that is going on there too.

Yes, I fully accept I am a guest of yours here. This is something I do forget from time to time. I can only ask you to consider a suspension (a month?) as an alternative to a permanent exclusion. During that time, if granted, I will reflect on my conduct and endeavour to develop a less hostile and aggressive approach to all on here.

24 September 2013 at 15:29  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Darter,

I totally agree there, I'll never meet Cressida in real life and I don't think I've ever said she should be banned (if it were ever my place, which it is not), as I appreciate freedom of expression. From contact I've had offline with Catholic friends and online with yourself, Sister Tibs, Albert and Old Jim, that there is a generosity of spirit and grace among your faith.

24 September 2013 at 15:31  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Dodo,

No.

Just go.

24 September 2013 at 15:33  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Catholics always use a capital letter when spelling God.If you are going to masquerade as a Catholic ,Darter Noster you should pay attention to details.

Well done Hannah
It's working!

Strike 1

To Darter Noster the turn coat
Anglican.

Oh that's right you were one too for a while,weren't you Hannah!

Musical chairs and religions is always a bit of fun game!

24 September 2013 at 16:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

You can see why Hindu’s insisted that when the husband was dead, the wife joined him on the pyre...

24 September 2013 at 16:12  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

You can see why unattached misogynistic old bachelors are suspected of being closet poofs!

24 September 2013 at 16:23  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ OIG
Inspector, inspect yourself. What is that stray ' doing in the middle of the word Hindus (a plural, ahem).

Misogynistic ramblings might at least be grammatical. We could make that the first of a twelve step therapeutic course.

Step 2 is to remember not to say or do anything a gentleman would not.

It would get quite fulfilling around step six.

Step 10 onwards would be life- changing and highly fulfilling and you might even get a hitherto unseen spring in the step...

There is hope...

24 September 2013 at 17:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

A fellow is in shock Lucy. You see Cressida really has thrown herself on the pyre...

24 September 2013 at 18:11  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

Hannah,

Did you hear something at about 16:07 or 16:23?

It sounded a bit like a noisy gong or a clanging cymbal.....

24 September 2013 at 18:12  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Flossie: "Well more fool you, then. That particular Christian happens to be a statistician. If you think Christians have nothing to say worth hearing, why do you hang around on Christian websites?"

Flossie, I've looked at the link now. I don't think one needs to be a statistician to come up with figures like that. No, I looked at the familar name in the URL and declined to follow it, especially as you simply used my comment as a launchpad you something unrelated. As for my thinking Christians have nothing to say worth hearing, you infer far too much. The clue is in my saying "that Christian's website" rather than "a Christian's" website.

"Don't try to kid us all that homosexual pairings are generally faithful, because we all know that this is very rare, and 'marriage' is highly unlikely to change that."

I haven't tried to kid you all. In fact, I've been quite open by saying that marriage or civil partnerships are a step forward in combating the spread of HIV by encouraging people to settle down. I suggest that the period when homosexual behaviour was illegal, or later when it was merely frowned upon, actually created a culture of promiscuity which caused the spread of HIV.

"I should read the link if I were you. The stats were actually produced by the US Government."

I should reread my earlier comments again if I were you, and more carefully. You could perhaps read Ould's penultimate sentence in the link too and wonder with an open mind whether stable relationship encouraged by society may be an answer there. I also drawn attention to my earlier comment about the likelihood of my acquiring HIV and what that means. Perhaps you studiously ignored it?

24 September 2013 at 18:54  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 September 2013 at 19:44  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 September 2013 at 19:48  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 September 2013 at 20:39  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older