Monday, October 28, 2013

"Servants of the Lord Jesus Christ should expect to be called bigots"


From the Rev'd Julian Mann:

A letter published by the editor of Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg's local paper, the Sheffield Telegraph, is alarmingly illustrative of the triumph of political correctness over Judaeo-Christian values.

In the edition of October 24th, the editor published a letter by Ms Laura Woodhouse objecting to Mr Greg Fletcher's view, expressed in his letter of October 17th, that 'for relationships to have a strong foundation and to last sex should be seen as something special and only for that one life-long partnership within a marriage between a man and a woman'.

Responding to a report about the number of teenage pregnancies, Mr Fletcher had also said: 'Outside of marriage, sex gets cheapened and reduces people, particularly women, to objects and not human beings.'

Here is Ms Woodhouse's letter in full:
I must say I was rather amused to learn that my highly enjoyable marriage-free sex life has, according to Mr Fletcher, reduced me to an object.

What I found less amusing was his assertion that sex should only take place between "a man and a woman". Far from supporting youngsters, such homophobic beliefs contribute to the discrimination and abuse suffered by lesbian, gay, and bisexual young people, and I was disappointed to see Mr Fletcher's bigotry printed uncritically in the Telegraph.
Sheffield Hallam MP Nick Clegg clearly shares Ms Woodhouse's negative opinion of evangelical Christian readers like me who agree with Mr Fletcher. Even if he does not regard us as bigots, he does see us as 'dinosaurs' as he made clear when addressing his recent party conference.

But more pressing than the view of a prominent reader like Mr Clegg, who is quite likely to lose his seat anyway in 2015, is why the editor of the Sheffield Telegraph was apparently so willing without comment to publish a criticism against his newspaper for printing Mr Fletcher's letter 'uncritically'.

Such editorial prostration before a politically-correct rant like Ms Woodhouse's is astonishing. The letters page in the Sheffield Telegraph is called 'Opinion'. The editor at the very least should have had the self-respect to point that out under Ms Woodhouse's letter whilst making clear that she was entitled to her opinion.

Surely such obeisance to PC by a local newspaper cannot be blamed on Leveson. Even under the proposed Royal Charter, which British newspaper groups are rightly opposing, there would be no requirement to include editorial comments against readers' letters that assert that sex should only take place within heterosexual marriage.

As a regular reader of the Sheffield Telegraph, I have no quibble with the editor's decision to publish Ms Woodhouse's letter. In fact, I would deplore an editorial comment criticising an opinion in a reader's letter even and perhaps especially one in which I am accused of bigotry.

Servants of the Lord Jesus Christ should expect to be called bigots by the likes of Ms Woodhouse. The editorial practice she is advocating would reduce us Christian readers to cry babies.

It is not clear what comment under Mr Fletcher's letter she would have liked the editor to have published. Would it be something along the lines of: 'It is the view of this newspaper that, far from supporting youngsters, such homophobic beliefs as Mr Fletcher's contribute to the discrimination and abuse suffered by lesbian, gay, and bisexual young people'?

Sounds like the kind of editorial philosophy of which Joseph Stalin would be proud.

Julian Mann is vicar Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, South Yorkshire, UK.

112 Comments:

Blogger BeeLZeeBub said...

The perceived "right" to discriminate is NOT a Christian value.

28 October 2013 at 08:31  
Blogger Martin said...

Not sure what the complaint against the newspaper is. Generally they publish the letters of their readers without comment in my experience.

As to discrimination. We all discriminate every day. Fact is that discriminating against immoral behaviour depends on whether you have morals or opinions.

Morals come from God alone but opinions are our own and change with the wind. The natural man changes his opinions according to the weather & doubtless we will continue to see some pushing for 'marriage' to minors and animals. They may even get their desire, such is the depraved opinion of our society.

28 October 2013 at 08:47  
Blogger David B said...

Newspaper publishes a reader's letter expressing a view, and then publishes another criticising this view, and also criticises the paper for piblishing first letter uncritically.

Is that it? It's what I understand by it.

Doesn't seem a problem to me!

In these august pages the good Archbishop publishes comments often clearly at odds with the views of other commenters, and indeed often clearly at odds with his own views.

Further, he has passed without comment the occasional pieces that criticise him for allowing my minority (here!) views that there is no God, and that religion generally does more harm than good.

Both HG and the Sheffield Telegraph publish diverse views that, independently of the rights and wrongs of the individual views, contribute to debate, and allow readers to assess the rights and wrongs of the views for themselves.

How is this a problem?

David

28 October 2013 at 09:14  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

It's no problem at all to His Grace: the Rev'd Julian Mann is clearly focusing on the assertion: "and I was disappointed to see Mr Fletcher's bigotry printed uncritically in the Telegraph", as though such letters ought to carry some sort of health warning.

28 October 2013 at 09:23  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

I find the evangelical obsession with gay marriage (and indeed all things gay) rather strange. Only the Muslims approach the same level of homoerotic fascination. Even the Pope has said that this issue is unnecessarlity polarising.

28 October 2013 at 09:35  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Seanrobsville,

His Grace finds your assertion of 'obsession' rather strange. How precisely are you defining that?

You'll find around 20, maybe 25 articles on the topic upon His Grace's blog. Out of more than 3000 posts over seven years, it's hardly 'obsession'. Indeed, your fatuous assertion of 'obsession' is the one which is rather strange, for it tends toward censorship. The topic is widely reported in the media much more than, say, the evangelical obsessions with feeding the poor, housing the homeless or serving in charity shops. But you doubtless wouldn't be bothered by such bias.

28 October 2013 at 09:43  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Good one, Sean baby: if you're critical of gay marriage, it means you must be gay. Mature, sophisticated and not a bit secondary modern.

28 October 2013 at 10:17  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Your Grace's blog may not obsess about gays, but large sections of the Anglican Church do: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/25/traditionalist-anglicans-gays_n_4164365.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

28 October 2013 at 10:34  
Blogger Hannah said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 October 2013 at 10:42  
Blogger Hannah said...

In respect of the specifics of this article, I think that it is a case of someone not liking someone else's viewpoint. That's tough as people are allowed to articulate different viewpoints in our society, without them being called bigots.

To Sean, I'd say that this blog doesn't 'obsess' about gays or gay marriage at all. Commentators in the comments section are a different matter, as one or two have in the past tried to bring this issue out in unrelated arguments and discussions. Not just Evangelicals, but Roman Catholics here also have equally strong views on the subject matter and that inevitably invites debate from gay people.

When there is a specific article on gay marriage, this is a 'dog whistle' subject which brings to it people on both sides, generating a lot of comment discussion (you can see that, I'd be confident that the usual 30 to 70 comments become 100 to 200). We'll probably get the usual angst about 'queers','dykes' and 'gaystapos' from several bloggers. It's up to them if that want go down that route, to me it makes them look like an inability to put forward an argument.

Which leads me to a final thought, the ironic thing with this angst is that on the issue of 'equal marriage' or 'same sex marriage' is that marriage in itself is fast becoming or has become a minority position...

We can debate who is to blame for this and whether or not or why not religions have not been more outspoken on this, but it is a fact that hetrosexuals are abandoning the rational and 'function' of marriage in droves and have children & sex & long term relationships outside of marriage.

If marriage is undertaken,which due to commercialisation ,often becomes the most expensive party couples will pay for, it is done after years of cohabitation and children, possibly followed by divorce a couple of years later. Yet it is asserted that gay marriage will bring civilisation as we know it to an end and destroy marriage, which is OK in the religious bubble, but like it or not, this isn't the reality of modern Britain. Looking back at the SSM debate, I can see why the campaign against gay marriage failed to convince the public or MP's, especially when the legislation prevented the established Church from doing gay marriage and that this was a purely civil and not religious law.

28 October 2013 at 10:46  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

”Sounds like the kind of editorial philosophy of which Joseph Stalin would be proud.”

We are asked to imagine that the Sheffield Telegraph has published a reader’s letter on a controversial subject and added a disclaimer pointing out that the reader’s view is not shared by the editors. Just the kind of cut-and-thrust debate that, according to the Rev. Mr. Mann, the good people of the Soviet Union would expect to find any day of the week, back in the 1930s and 1940s, when they turned to the readers’ letters page of Pravda or Izvestia over their breakfast kippers.

28 October 2013 at 10:52  
Blogger graham wood said...

BeeLZeeBub said...
"The perceived "right" to discriminate is NOT a Christian value."

You muddle and confuse discrimination and prejudice or bigotry as the "gay" lobby habitually does.

To discriminate = "To note the difference of, or between: to distinguish. to select from others"

That seems clear enough and we all do it every day in any number of ways. Christians are not excepted.

28 October 2013 at 10:53  
Blogger John Thomas said...

Remember that to most politicians (and this Ms Woodhouse, probably) "bigot" means "someone who doesn't agree with ME". The real meaning (which most politicians probably don't know) is "one whose beliefs/ideas are totally impervious and unresponsive to reasoned argument and evidence". In fact, there are several reasoned arguments why promotion of homosexuality, Government-style, is a very bad thing - but such argument and evidence would not make Clegg change his mind. In truth, Clegg is the REAL bigot (and many who follow his line).

28 October 2013 at 11:02  
Blogger graham wood said...

Seanrobsville said: "I find the evangelical obsession with gay marriage (and indeed all things gay) rather strange."

You appear to have an obsession about obsession.
Actually the issue is not about the very tiny minority of self-styled "gays" which draws the attention of Christians world-wide, and rightly including Anglicans.

It is about the arbitrary and unnecessary policy of governments to redefine the unique and God given institution of marriage for ALL - and (in the UK) without a shred of a democratic mandate for doing so.
And before you obsess about a perceived inequality between the homosexual community and all others, do understand that it has nothing to do with that either.
Homosexuals have always had access to marriage as anybody else - except of course not to each other.

The "equal marriage" slogan is therefore a complete deception that fools only the naive, bigoted and uninformed.

28 October 2013 at 11:08  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

It seems to me that it's about to become fashionable to labelled a bigot. So, embrace the epithet and be proud. Bigots of the world unite, you (we) have nothing to lose but the socialist web that entangles you.

28 October 2013 at 11:09  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Dear Julian,
I saw this extract from the Catholic World Report included in the National Organization for Marriage blog email. Their campaign is much more bogged down in legal challenges in various States over illegal actions by the administrators. http://www.nationformarriage.org/
Liberal thought is entrenched as the basis for public discussion, and it doesn't like the idea of a network of expectations and obligations to which people are subject other than those generated by state and market. What's just, liberals believe, is for individuals to be free from all social pressure in their private lives as long as they perform their duties as employees, taxpayers, and citizens of a diverse, tolerant, and multicultural society. If people are pressured to act one way or another for some reason other than the needs of liberal institutions, that's bigotry and discrimination, and eradicating it is one of the central duties of government. However strong and entrenched that way of thinking is, it needs to be disputed and overthrown.

The zeitgeist of today is that it is unacceptable to express an opinion that reflects a view that comes from a ‘spiritual’ source and not a humanistic considered view.

28 October 2013 at 11:10  
Blogger gentlemind said...

graham wood said: To discriminate = "To note the difference of, or between: to distinguish. to select from others"

Unfortunately, Graham, it is this (correct) definition of discrimination that itself is now regraded as being discriminatory. Difference exists. If it didn't we would not be aware of what anything was. Discrimination involves an awareness of difference, and acting/thinking in relation to that difference.

You are contending that it is now regarded as being "discriminatory" to act/think in relation to an awareness of difference. In fact it is worse than that: it is now regarded as "discriminatory" to even be aware of difference.

28 October 2013 at 11:26  
Blogger CSPB said...

The Harms of Homosexual Adoption

aprodefa.org/documents/adoption.pdf

28 October 2013 at 11:31  
Blogger David Hussell said...

This article is most useful Julian, and is stimulating some very useful and thoughtful comments from a number of people, including Graham Wood, John Thomas, Mr Integrity and gentlemind. So thank you Julian.

As gentlemind brings out, the self styled "liberals" demand obedience to their new "ethical" order. It is now forbidden to even "see" , to even recognize difference. It is to quote or misquote one Conservative MP, I recall perhaps inaccurately, "the pitiless lens of equality" that now drives ethics and law. Morality received from God, as inspired Scripture, or the Traditions that reflected that, are taboo. They are desperate to oust traditionalists from the public square and daily resort to ridicule, sarcasm and even reworked snobbery to achieve this. We must react accordingly. How to react needs careful and clever thinking about.
But we must respond to this recent subversion of language by pointing to an obviously continuing reality, and which will continue. Any ideas anyone ?
The word "gay" and "queer" was twisted around and used to political advantage and traditionalists, may need some useful slogan or way forward that wrong foots the pro-anything goes lobby, but without being untruthful, deceptive or capable of being misconstrued as demeaning. Commercially minded wordsmiths please step forward !

28 October 2013 at 11:58  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 October 2013 at 12:31  
Blogger Len said...

The way our Society is being manipulated is to be able to give free expression to' the fallen nature' of man.
There can be little doubt that Christianity (Bible based Christianity that is) throws light onto the fallen nature of man and condemns this 'fallen nature' and Jesus Christ points the Way towards what God`s original intention for man was.These two opposing forces have been in conflict since[ almost] the beginning of time.
God`s Word exposes the darkness which lays in the heart of man and man either accepts this darkness within or calls out to God to redeem him to free him from this darkness.
Fallen man wants to 'normalise himself he calls this inner darkness 'just a part of himself' and wants his acceptance of his inner state to be accepted by everyone.

Man will do almost anything to hide from the Light of God`s Word because it exposes the shame and the nakednesss of fallen man when exposed to true Righteousness.
Man`s true condition must be exposed before he stands any chance of redemption through God``s love and Mercy.
The tragedy now is that through 'Political Correctness' a generation is growing up that will not know the truth about God, about God`s original intention for man, and their fallen state will eventually be accepted as 'normal'.This will (if it works out as intended by those who devised this Politically Correct aganda)nullify the Gospel because man will not be aware of his predicament and the only means of redemption through the Lord Jesus Christ.

Christians must remain True to the Word of God even if this puts them into opposition to what society calls 'normal and acceptable'.

28 October 2013 at 12:47  
Blogger Dr.D said...

The UK seems to have become an open sewer these days. What has happened to the rights of people to have their own thoughts and not be criticized for them? Is Christianity outlawed in the UK now? Is the UK all lesbians and queers today?

Fr. D+
Anglican Priest

28 October 2013 at 12:57  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

David Hussell

I'm afraid you're facing an uphill struggle. An American Catholic group has published a 70-page book intended as an instruction manual precisely along those lines (link below). Somehow, though, I can't see much of a future for it.

http://www.emmausroad.org/Books-C483.aspx

28 October 2013 at 13:01  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

David

Sorry, the link doesn't seem to be working the way I thought it would. Type in "may" in the search box (that's the author's surname) and it'll show you the book.

Brian

28 October 2013 at 13:06  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack agrees people should be able to say what they think without being called horrible names. Talking about bad names, when Happy Jack was a boy any woman who boasted about an enjoyable unmarried sex life would be called a very rude word.

28 October 2013 at 13:46  
Blogger Anglican said...

Sheffield Hallam used to be the Conservative Party's only seat in Sheffield. Now that it returns an MP like Clegg, what does that say about the state of th nation?

28 October 2013 at 15:17  
Blogger Jon said...

Your Grace,

With the greatest respect, a site search of your blog by Google suggests that the word "gay" is mentioned in at least 147 different articles.

"Gay marriage" is reference in 66 articles.

"Homosexual" is mentioned in 93 posts.

This leaves aside references made amongst the wilder reaches of the fevered imaginings of some of your less- hinged communicants.

As to this post, I'm not sure quite how the editor of the Sheffield Telegraph has prostrated himself before either letter writer. Haven't they simply printed some correspondence without comment, as they would be expected to? Surely, Rev Mann has his cassock in a twist over very little other than the views of one correspondent to a local newspaper? How does this merit a whole blog post?

What's next? A blog post condemning something said in the queue at Asda?

28 October 2013 at 15:23  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Len ,

Yes agreed. But let us not as Protestants be narrow or dismissive of the deep insights within the Catholic and Orthodox denominations on these very topics. The Catholic concept of Natural Law for example is intellectually and spiritually very coherent and based on revealed truth after all.

My main point being that the traditionalists in all denominations need one another as never before.

28 October 2013 at 15:42  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Jon,

If "gay marriage" is referenced in 66 articles, it doesn't necessarily mean that this is the primary subject matter of the post.

If "Homosexual" is mentioned in 93 posts, ditto.

Now work out both figures as a percentage of 3000, which is the approximate number of posts His Grace has written..

28 October 2013 at 15:44  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Uncle Brian,

OK point taken but as ever I'm testing for a strategy, for tactics and a line of attack on this. We need to move up a gear methinks.

On a slightly different tack, do have a look people at the most heartening articles on Anglican Mainstream regarding the success of the Global South gathering in Nairobi, their polite rejection of the Welby wobbles, attempting to contextualize the reaction of individual national Churches to the sexual revolution's latest wheezes rather than asserting the normative nature of orthodox Christian Biblical morality. The conservative elements of the C of E were well represented.

28 October 2013 at 15:48  
Blogger David B said...

@Dr.D 12.57

"The UK seems to have become an open sewer these days."

Worse than it was in Dickensian times, worse than when kiddies were sent to the Magdelene Laundories? No doubt some people in Britain now do or say things that some or all of us here would look askance at, but, hey, that is freedom.

"What has happened to the rights of people to have their own thoughts and not be criticized for them?"

Absolutely nothing! If one puts one's thoughts into to public arena, though, then the ideas are there to be shot at. My published thoughts expressed here are often criticised, but then people are allowed to criticise them, rightly or wrongly, for good or ill.

"Is Christianity outlawed in the UK now?"

No, nor should it be, unless certain Christian practices fall foul of the law. The law does, after all, proscribe the killing of witches. It also proscribes racial and sexual discrimination in the course of business, and conducting burnt offerings in smoke free zones might raise some eyebrows.

Some might say - as I would - that religious liberty goes to far at times, insofar as there are exceptions to animal welfare laws regarding slaughter on religious grounds. One law for all, I say - and don't get me started on circumcision, female or male.

"Is the UK all lesbians and queers today?"

No. What on earth would give you that impression? Too much time in a seminary?

David



28 October 2013 at 16:00  
Blogger graham wood said...

Len @1247. Good post and I think you have identified the main reason why the homosexual community hate the Christian Gospel with such venom.

Some posters on here believe that Cranmer and other Christian commentators are obsessed with the subject. I suggest that once the "gay" agenda is fully revealed then deep concern on the part of Christians is not only understandable, but a positive Christian duty.

For those not familiar with something of the background, strategy and objectives of the "gay" movement (and I do not refer to individual homosexuals for a moment, ) then they should read David Kupelian's review of the current movement. It is devastating.

His book is:
'The Marketing of Evil' - How Radicals and Pseudo -Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguised as Freedom'

With the USA mainly in view, but relevant to the UK and elsewhere, he states the objective in answer to the question when will this "gay rights" public steamroller stop?

"The end game is not only to bring about the complete acceptance of homosexuality, including SSM, but also to prohibit and even criminalise public criticism of homosexuality, including the quotation of biblical passages disapproving of homosexuality.
In other words, the total jamming of criticism with the force of law."
"The campaign will not end until Christians and other traditionalists opposing homosexuality are shut up, discredited, and utterly silenced".

They are near to reaching this objective.

For a frequent critique from an outspoken and courageous Christian blogger I would also recommend the website of Wm Muehlenberg called Culture Watch. See in particular todays' posting. This man is regularly villified by fanatical "gays" unceasingly for his stand on Christian morality.

28 October 2013 at 16:18  
Blogger Jon said...

Your Grace,

Your point is absolutely correct, or course. 66 articles out of 3,000 odd posts is a small percentage.

Nevertheless, some additional digging suggests that the term "Jesus" is mentioned in 233 posts. "Conservative" is in 353 out of your 3000 missives.

Leaving aside that the number of references to Jesus seems low (which makes me doubt both my googling ability, and google's botting ability), on the assumption that these figures are correct, I don't think it's unfair to suggest, therefore, if your concern for gays is representative of your use of the term, and your blog is proportionate to the Church's interest in a subject, that the Church is, perhaps, disproportionately interested in gay people, as against, say, adulterers, who merit a mere 25 mentions.

28 October 2013 at 16:25  
Blogger Jon said...

David B - very funny post!

28 October 2013 at 16:36  
Blogger Jon said...

Graham Wood - I can't quite work out why some Christian's think that one book neatly ensconces the views of an entire group of people. You lot can't even agree what the Bible means, and you've had years to try!

One bloke write a book, and all of a sudden there's an "agenda". Given your neat sidestep that "individual homosexuals" aren't up to date on the agenda, or aren't wholly signed up, how do you suppose they're going to achieve it?

28 October 2013 at 16:39  
Blogger John Thomas said...

"No, nor should it [Christianity] be [legally proscribed], unless certain Christian practices fall foul of the law." (David B) - but remember that the law is made by increasingly secularist anti-Christians who make much use of such as homosexuality. Soon, Christians will have a clear dyuty to disobey the law - and face being outlawed as a result.

28 October 2013 at 16:44  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

On perusing the Rev Mann's parish website, I couldn't help but notice that I am accursed: 'people who teach that people can be saved by observing their non-Christian religion are accursed – that is anathema. They are abhorrent to God because they are teaching a lie that God hates.'

This is almost as bad as the accusation of being a compulsive w**nker by Pope Benedict. Yet Christians wonder why they're sometimes suspected of bigotry.

Whatever happened to Anglican Latitudinarianism?

28 October 2013 at 16:55  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Re: Anglican Latitudinarianism

I assume that means 'Participate in these colorful rituals and otherwise believe whatever you like.' Would that be a fair description? Because that attitude has not the faintest connection to legitimate Christianity - what with its exclusive truth claims about the nature and work of Christ, and the necessity of faith in the same. To credit salvation through other religions is to suggest salvation by works. That of course is what Paul calls anathema. The author is correct. There is no salvation in other religions.

If you want to know why Anglicanism is a post modern train wreck of doubt and uncertainty and decline, latitudinarianism is a good place to start.

carl

28 October 2013 at 17:24  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

David B,

As Ronnie used to say, "here you go again."

Some might say - as I would - that religious liberty goes to (sic.) far at times, insofar as there are exceptions to animal welfare laws regarding slaughter on religious grounds. One law for all, I say - and don't get me started on circumcision, female or male.

Odd, you begin every post by catastrophically discrediting yourself, usually with your first comment. Really, there is a pattern there.

There is no "male or female" circumcision. There is circumcision, which is "male" by definition and anatomy, and there is clitoridectomy, which is "female" and is an entirely different operation with entirely different results. A vagina or a clitoris is not a foreskin...not clinically, not anatomically, not allegorically, not metaphysically, nor poetically. But you know that. You are rhetorically conflating clitoridectomy with circumcision to confuse and obscure and to score a point. All you score is a negative for lying. Not misspeaking or misleading, but lying. Lying like cheap rug.

There are no "exceptions" in animal welfare laws. None. Legally sanctioned slaughter practices, and there are a number of them, and not all are religion-based, are not "exceptions," they are provisions. In the case of halal and sh'hita, these are legislatively and routinely supervised practices, under the supervision of veterinarians and are closely controlled to comply with permitted humane slaughter practices and animal welfare laws. In the UK this is all covered and explained in the Welfare of Animals (Slaughter or Killing) (WASK) Regulations 1995. You know that too, since the issue is another obsession of yours. Strike two for attempting to mislead by playing silly-buggers.

As I pointed out in a previous post, you consistently illustrate that you cannot be trusted to explain anything with honesty, knowledge, accuracy or integrity.

28 October 2013 at 18:00  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Sean,

'Whatever happened to Anglican Latitudinarianism?' Well, it is alive and well here in Barchester, where common sense and sound principles still apply. What really confuses me, however, is the current love affair the modern-day Chartists have with Islam: if they think Christianity is intolerant then really they have chosen the wrong bedfellows (I suspect that the Oscar Wildeians are happy with any bedfellows, as long as they are muscular and swarthy, but I fear I digress). As ever, I am braced for enlightenment, which My Lord Archbishop's online journal provides in abundance. One obscure fact, today is the Feast of St. Jude: we are holding an all-night vigil at The Palace to pray for those affected by storms - the real one that is, not those in a teacup.

28 October 2013 at 18:08  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Avi, do lie down with the candles and the dolphin tape, your last post worried me and I fear for your state of mind. Have a hobnob. Ever your friend, Mrs. P.

28 October 2013 at 18:12  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Way to go, Avi! Happy Jack is impressed with the way you told David B off!

Happy Jack thinks all this free and easy sex is a very, very bad thing. Jack thinks that whenever you have sex you give a little part of yourself away to another person and they give a little part of themselves to you. Jack has been thinking too that it is silly to talk about sex between men and men and between women and women. And how can they be married? That's silly too because they can't have babies.

Happy Jack is probably too old fashioned in his opinions.

28 October 2013 at 18:20  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
The number of communicants on any particular Post varies but is usually quite small. However I suspect that the number of readers is actually quite high. Would you be so gracious as to advise of the typical number of individual hits that you get on a typical post?

28 October 2013 at 18:23  
Blogger Nick said...

Well said Happy Jack. A post that is both correct and intelligible. You are not old-fashioned: just in tune with the true meaning of marriage

28 October 2013 at 18:32  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Integrity

Usually around 3000 during the week of posting, but if the subject matter flares up later, Google hits for a single post can increase significantly.

This compares with about 10 commenting communicants..

28 October 2013 at 18:32  
Blogger David B said...

Avi, I have never come across your explanation for the difference between the mutilation of boys and girls before, but I have many times seen the words female circumcision used as I used them ,and that I maintain is the way that the word is generally used and understood.

So your accusations of lying etc are more than somewhat disingenuous, or so it seems to me.

David

28 October 2013 at 18:33  
Blogger David B said...

Regarding hits, I'd imagine, though don't know for sure, that the regular commenters check back for replies more than once generally, and I suppose that each visit would count as a hit.

David

28 October 2013 at 18:34  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

David B,

No, they don't. Some blogs boast of 'hits', but they are misleading. His Grace's chosen stat counter records 'Absolute Unique' visitors. See stats in right-hand column, or Google the term for a methodological explanation.

28 October 2013 at 18:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

hmmm. Sexually active unattached ‘Ms’ with something to publically moan about. That will be a feminist then. One has kept tabs on feminist involvement in the great gay uprising and has found that true to his initial expectations, he has not been disappointed to find their default position is most definitely on side.

Anyway, ‘feminist’ is a wonderful word, don’t you think ? Encapsulating in its singularness all that we need to know about the subject. And it saves typing out “militantly unhappy plain looking female with a general grudge against the nasty male world out there”

So, now the homosexual lobby has come of age, and abandoned whimpering for tolerance for shouting to be allowed to sit in society’s driving seat, we could benefit from a similar word for their militants and supporters. One that grasps the essentials of a ‘demanding, unhappy, bigot calling, freedom of speech denying, thought controlling, purveyor of a degenerate lifestyle which is as sad as it is repellent’. It needs to be short, if not sweet, and leave no one in any doubt as to what it alludes to…

Gentlemen, the Inspector offers you ‘anist’.









28 October 2013 at 18:45  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness, Happy Jack!
'Happy Jack thinks all this free and easy sex is a very, very bad thing.'
One hopes, young man, that you are not advocating paying for hard sex instead then? O tempora...

28 October 2013 at 18:45  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Thank you, Mrs Proudie, you're ever so kind to think of me and my state of mind and regret for ever worrying you, for whatever reason. I suspect it's for mentioning "Ronnie," whom it has been said you knew well, very well, socially. My mistake, very juvenile of me; I'll not mention him again. I'm a jealous man, Mrs P, the thought of you with another...well, 'nuff said already.

Thank you, Happy Jack, although when David B goes off on some issues, it's like shooting fish in a barrel. David often makes valid points in one area, but then ruins everything by discrediting himself with unrelated zingers.

No, you are not old fashioned at all in your views, but I would say that same sex activity, romantic relationships and formalized unions, including "marriage," are wrong, not silly. They are complex, difficult issues for those involved, issues with a history of suffering and grave injustice. The issues are, I think, best treated with care, respect and honesty by all sides. I don't mean to preach at you, just trying to explain my take things.

28 October 2013 at 18:59  
Blogger graham wood said...

Jon. You are mistaken about "one book neatly ensconced the views of one group of people"
Perhaps you are not aware of a very substantial number of books, articles, Internet blogs and organisations which have been generated by the meteoric rise of the "gay" ideology.
Many of these are not even specifically Christian, as many people have been compelled,not by choice, to oppose the aggressive militancy of homosexuals. Some oppose on Christian grounds, others on libertarian, and in order to defend freedom of speech and of association and freedom of religion. All of these are threatened by the world-wide movement of militant homosexuals.
These are aided and abetted by an ignorant political class who confuse and misunderstand the concepts of
"Rights", and "equality".
Such issues are far more important than the preoccupations of a tiny minority group in the UK.

28 October 2013 at 19:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Greetings Avi, a slight correction of your last post if one may. David B does not go off topic. He’s still intent on ripping the roof off every church and synagogue in the land. He merely explains in variance WHY he’s going to do it...

28 October 2013 at 19:11  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

@ David B: I have many times seen the words female circumcision used as I used them ,and that I maintain is the way that the word is generally used and understood.

Lies, inaccuracies and slander are appear "many times," David. In this case by extremists, the unhinged, the ignorant or the antisemites. This does not make it a "general" use of the word. It's factually incorrect, anatomically absurd and its sole purpose is to conflate clitoridectomy, which is abhorrent to most and illegal, with circumcision, which is very common and benign. You know all this as well.

28 October 2013 at 19:13  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ah, ideed so, Inspector, you're correct. It's the trees from the wood...or was it the damned wood from the cursed trees...o, blast it all to Hades, I can't even get that one right!

28 October 2013 at 19:16  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Circumcision is not just benign. African men are lining up to get circumcised for fear of AIDS. It has real tangible health benefits. In fact the only coherent argument delivered against it during previous threads was "Well ... It may be good for you but that doesn't count if it was done for religious reasons."

OK. I guess I should have put "coherent" in scare quotes.

carl

28 October 2013 at 19:19  
Blogger David B said...

Avi according to Wiki FGM is also known as female circumcision.

If you google 'female circumcision' you will find lots of dictionary definitions that are consistent with my usage of the word.

Male circumcision is all too common, but there is lots to suggest that, even apart from the accidents and cases of herpes from priests sucking blood of kid's dicks - it is far from benign.

It seems to me odd that sucking kids dicks, which would be illegal in any other context, should be allowed because of religious privilege. Let alone the mutilation itself without good medical reasons.

And that is the end of my discussion of this derail in this thread. No doubt it will be more pertinent in future threads.

Your accusations against me are false and without any foundation.

David

28 October 2013 at 19:23  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Mrs Proudie, you are funny and a little bit naughty too. Happy Jack will exercise great caution should he ever find himself in the vicinity of your cloisters.

Avi, before Happy Jack went on the road he was in the merchant navy for a time. There was a rule on board never to talk about politics, religion or football. So Jack uses the word "silly" in different ways. What he meant was the idea of sex between men and men and marriage for them was strange. Just like someone thinking they can jump off a cliff and fly would be silly. If they jumped this would be wrong. Their reasons for wanting to do such a bad thing needs to be understood.

Happy Jack has met people like David B who use fancy words whilst wanting a fight. Blowers would say he was a member of the Shi*ite tribe.

28 October 2013 at 19:29  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

David Wiki's listing of a misnomer or a misleading neologism as term tat is used by some is not the same thing as approving it as accurate. You should know that too. You are playing with words and definitions in a dishonest manner and trying to wiggle out of it. I will not get into a discussion over merits or demerits of circumcision on this post; there is sufficient mainstream medical information out there to support my position as reasonable.

28 October 2013 at 19:30  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Happy Jack, I understand now how you used the term. In a similar way one would use it around the dinner table with guests when needing to express disagreement, but preferring to do in a light manner.

28 October 2013 at 19:35  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Excellent word is ‘silly’. Beloved of little girls when told that men might be allowed to marry each other...

28 October 2013 at 19:45  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack agrees with Avi understanding. Another word Jack uses when need arises is "daft". Inspector, Jack finds little children lack big words but have great wisdom.

28 October 2013 at 19:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


As they say Jack, “out of the mouths of babes...”, what !

28 October 2013 at 19:56  
Blogger Roy said...

seanrobsville said...

I find the evangelical obsession with gay marriage (and indeed all things gay) rather strange.

That is very strange. If someone were to ask me to name people obsessed with gay marriage the name "Peter Tatchell" would spring to mind as would the organisation Stonewall. Does anyone believe that Tatchell and Stonewall are not obsessed with such issues?

28 October 2013 at 19:57  
Blogger Roy said...

I must apologise for omitting the name of David Cameron when mentioning people who are obsessed with gay marriage and similar issues. How could I possibly have overlooked him?

28 October 2013 at 20:05  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Good point about "silly." Although Avi's youngest got a note in first grade for laughing and saying silly when the teacher lectured her little charges that some children have two mommies, some two daddies. That was the failed, one year experiment to introduce our youngest to what we thought would be well-rounded, general education in the public system.

28 October 2013 at 20:06  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


Avi, we’ll have our own battle to keep the anists out of education in due course...

28 October 2013 at 20:18  
Blogger Hannah said...

Hello Avi,

As usual we see how liberal and tolerant David B really is, which isn't very much, quite frankly. From bemoaning how intolerant Christians are toward gays, he then makes himself perfectly intolerant when it comes to the Jewish religion, which makes his tolerance a pick n' choose affair.

I'd point out that male circumcision and Kosher slaughter are NOT illegal in this country and are therefore well within the law.

As Carl Jacobs notes male circumcision is encouraged to stop the spread of AIDS. If David B wants to implement legislation to ban male circumcision and force a community of 250,000 plus people to leave the UK, then that is up to him and his staunch 'liberalism', which isn't liberal or tolerant at all and is a reflection of his real beliefs, which are as pick and choose as anyone else here.

As for Kosher slaughter, it has at its heart animal welfare and always has, for 3,000 years plus. If people don't like animals being slaughtered, however it is done, it ain't exactly a pretty sight,so don't ever eat meat, in fact if you want to go down that route, watch as cows, sheep and pigs all disappear from our green fields as they are all specifically bread for the purpose of eating, not for townies to think 'ooh what lovely, cuddly animals in that field'. Well they'd be gone if humans didn't want to eat them. I'd rather have an animal killed in a quick way, rather than being stunned and confused, then killed...

28 October 2013 at 20:20  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Then you should be proud of your youngest Avi and also of yourself and your wife for showing this child the right way to live. It is sad so many children have their young lives blighted by their parents search for the things they call "freedom" and "self fulfilment".

28 October 2013 at 20:23  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Happy Jack

Blowers would say he was a member of the Shi*ite tribe.

On this point, as on most points, Blowers is not alone. But I think he spells it "Sillis*ite".

28 October 2013 at 20:58  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

It is plainly fallacious to argue from "female circumcision is wrong" to "therefore male circumcision is wrong." The procedure is so different and the "benefits" so unequal that FGM is only circumcision in an analogical sense. Thus there is equivocation in the argument, which renders it logically void. This being so, it is hard to see what real benefit is gained by using the term "female circumcision" in a moral discussion.

28 October 2013 at 21:00  
Blogger Nick said...

On the topic of sexual immorality, there is a copy of a letter from group of Georgian intellectuals (that's the ex-Soviet Republic Georgia ) comllaining to the EU about trying to introduce moral depravity into gheir nation under the banner of "diversity".

It is both hsartening to hear prominent people saying these things (there is more freedom of speech on this issue than there is here. At the same time it reminds of the fact we are sinking ever deeper into this sexual cesspool we call equality. Many Westerners seem unaware they are swallowing the SU excrement they are floating in.

Countries like Georgia should pull out before it is too late and avoid the death-by-diversity we are experiencing.

28 October 2013 at 21:14  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Hello Brian and thank you. Yes, you are right. The tribes are: Israelites, Erudites and Sillis*its. Jack sees you have a hat like Avi and Jack and so does Albert.

Blowers is having an MRI scan today and Happy Jack is hoping he is well.

28 October 2013 at 21:18  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Oh dear ... that should be Sillis*ites.

28 October 2013 at 21:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

In recent years, feminists have come forward to offer an apology of sorts for the damage their crusade has done to society. Not many of them, but one or two.

Not one prominent gay has ever come forward to apologise to society for the havoc they have inflicted / are inflicting on the natural order. Not one, this man tells you. Will we have to wait for a similar number of decades to pass before the guilty beg our forgiveness...


28 October 2013 at 21:23  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Glad you like the lid, Jack. I'm thinking of getting a bowler next time.

28 October 2013 at 21:24  
Blogger Humble African said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

28 October 2013 at 21:57  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Nick ,
It seems to me that both the UN and the EU have become the playground in which some on the left, who wish to totally reengineer society according to their own vision of cultural Marxism, are allowed to run riot and threaten the health, welfare and happiness of vast swathes of humanity. Pretending to be promoting human health and flourishing they slyly peddle their strange ideas around sexual liberty. The other politicians in those places are often too busy focussing on matters relevant to trade and business to notice just what exactly is going on ; but fortunately these radicals are being revealed more and more for what they truly are.

But good for Georgia for showing them the door.

28 October 2013 at 22:17  
Blogger Humble African said...

Industrialisation aside, by comparison ants build ant hills thousands of times bigger than their size and can act as rafts in stormy times just to tell humans a thing or two. Proverbs 6:6 is indeed loaded.

When those who have eyes to see, say that civilization will come to an abrupt end, fools with eyes on skyscrapers and tarred roads mock this profound observation. The ignorance of mainstream media and the corruption from popular culture built on the seemingly indestructible “civilization” of today’s society makes people behave like those who missed Noah’s Ark.

Where in the annals of civilization has any product of social engineering been exempted from rational scrutiny? Nothing infuriates me more than the nonsensical homophobic tag given to every opinion on homosexuality whether rational or otherwise.

Does dictatorship not criticise democracy? Do atheists not criticise faith? Do men not have rational opinions about women? Do races not have opinions about each other some healthy some not? In reverse order the results are the same. This is the mark of civilization, not sophisticated voting systems. So why exempt homosexuality from rational scrutiny? By natural law and order any system that stifles rational debate comes back to apologise or does not live long enough for pardon.

Social engineering does not prohibit lifestyles and ideologies but civilization demands that ANY social institution or system must pass the test of rational scrutiny and reason. HOMOSEXUALITY NOT EXEMPTED!!! Not from where I stand.

Yours, The bigoted.

28 October 2013 at 22:23  
Blogger David B said...

Albert, generally, except when things go wrong, what is done to some little girls is far worse than what is done to some little boys, but both procedures have things in common as well as differences.

Excising healthy tissue with lots of nerve endings in for one.

David

28 October 2013 at 22:29  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear dear Happy Jack, let me assure you my cloisters are always open...

28 October 2013 at 22:31  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear dear Avi, yes, if we are talking about the same Ronnie (married to that charming ex-gaity girl Nancy) then indeed he was a frequent guest at The Palace when in England. He often gave me a piece of his mind...a sort of 'Lend Lease' arrangement: would that I saved them all up and gave them back when dementia came knocking.

28 October 2013 at 22:42  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
Not being familiar with the statistics of other Blogs, 3000 unique visits seems quite healthy.
By contrast, the number of communicants seems somewhat low. Whilst enjoying the banter between your regulars, it would be good to hear a broader range of opinions. The sharp eyed critique of the Post has to bring a balance and check to the site. (Never presuming that Your Grace would ever write anything other than the whole truth and nothing but the truth).

28 October 2013 at 22:50  
Blogger Albert said...

David B,

I don't think that's an adequate answer. Linguistically conflating female circumcision with male circumcision seems to me to be s rhetorical device to taint the latter with elements of the former that do not otherwise belong to it.

29 October 2013 at 10:32  
Blogger IanCad said...

Now that I understand what a "Unique Visitor" is, the number of commenters does seem remarkably low.

Is there a parallel with posting and speaking in public?

Certainly, in most meetings the attendees who venture to speak are usually just a small minority.

In other words; are the posters on this site bold, intrepid types who stand out above the mass of men?

29 October 2013 at 11:04  
Blogger IanCad said...

Sorry,

I meant to add:

Or are they bashful,
repressed or anti-social types hiding behind a shield of anonymity?

29 October 2013 at 11:13  
Blogger Julian Mann said...

The point I was trying to make here is that a local newspaper allowed itself to be criticised for publishing a reader's opinion. It was under no legal or external pressure to do so - it published the criticism of its own free will.

Why?

The counter-opinion certainly should have been published. But either the newspaper should have made a chairman's intervention underneath Ms Woodhouse's letter to point out that readers' letters that it considers worthy of publication do not require, as the author of the blog put it, health warnings attached. Or it should have edited the letter to omit the criticism against it for allowing free speech on an opinion page.

When I worked for a trade paper, gratuitous criticisms of its coverage/editorial policy etc would be rightly edited out of the letters page whilst allowing the reader to make his essential point.

Re Stalin, I believe his newspapers were not above the practice of publishing mildly dissident opinions that they would then proceed to abuse and pillory.

29 October 2013 at 11:18  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Albert, it is an adequate answer. For David B. Adequate in the sense that any silly bullshit which provides even a poor cover will do.

His passion to prohibit circumcision and ritual slaughter is not rational in the sense that he is offended by objective problems. This is the pinnacle of his mendacity: The awareness by an educated and informed man that there are no objective issues with the two practices, one for which there is sufficient medical evidence to establish its harmlessness, if not benefits, and the other which has been empirically measured and compared to all other slaughter techniques and in its modern form and under current conditions operates well within acceptable guidelines for humane slaughter.

I have said this before, and will say it again and again, as much as it may upset David and maybe a few others: The attacks on circumcision and kashruth have never in the past, nor do they now stem from genuine concerns for Jewish babies or farm animals. It is now, as in the past, about attacking Jews and Judaism at the core. The Abrahamic sign of the Covenant, the dietary laws and with it Sabbath observance and study of the Torah...the attack on which typically follows once the first two are banned... have rightfully been seen as central to Jewish identity and to Jewish existence. This is why all tyrants in history who have attempted to erase Jews and Judaism by attacking brit milah and kashruth, the last two being Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, recently followed by a handful of European states with radical secularist and New Age agendas.

Christians may feel that this is not an issue that concerns them and in an immediate and direct sense, perhaps it doesn't. Christianity rejected both circumcision and dietary laws on a theological level. Or that such "physical" manifestations of our religion are superficial, inferior to cultural and spiritual values and aren't or shouldn't be so important to Jews. Yet, history shows again and again that once the objectives of eviscerating these "physical" manifestations of Judaism have been achieved, all other ways of thinking and living not in line with the tyrannical forces which brought the prohibitions come under intense and sustained attacks as well.

For some this is a human rights, animal rights or a general religious liberties issue. For me this an existential one and I treat it accordingly; by considering all who attempt to repeat this ancient attack as persecutors of Jews, by not believing their same old rationalizations, by opposing everything they stand for and by doing all I can to slow or stop them in their tracks.

29 October 2013 at 11:57  
Blogger Albert said...

Avi,

It is now, as in the past, about attacking Jews and Judaism at the core

I would certainly say that if someone continues to conflate female circumcision and male circumcision without being able to show that the morally comparable, then it is hard to see how they can answer the accusation you make.

Christians may feel that this is not an issue that concerns them and in an immediate and direct sense

It concerns me because it is unjust - at least as far as I can see at the moment. However, the rest of what you say is likely to be true, as well.

29 October 2013 at 16:43  
Blogger Albert said...

should have said "they are morally comparable"

29 October 2013 at 16:44  
Blogger Hannah said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

29 October 2013 at 17:24  
Blogger Hannah said...

Hello Avi and Albert,

I must admit that one thing which takes me aback is how so-called liberals can be so demeaning and attacking of a faith which doesn't, as a general rule, bother anyone but itself, that being what and how secularists and atheists *want* religion to be like.

It seems they pick and choose which topics to be liberal on and therefore the notion of equality and human rights is a smokescreen for something else, because even when a faith such as Judaism , which is on the whole not busy telling non-Jews how they should live, this clearly isn't enough for atheists or secularists. The agenda is not putting religion in its place e.g. 'not in the public square', but it having no place and no future.

David B's arguments are really a rehash of the Guardian-type readership, of the liberal left ,which contains the same old arguments. One of which is the fact that a newly born male child cannot give consent to the circumcision and in today's Zietgiest is therefore abuse,especially as it is religion - which by the same logic is also abuse -behind this wickedness.

But then a child doesn't give consent to being named, among other things, but let's put this logical inconsistencies to one side, whilst we are getting rid of Kosher and male circumcision, let's also propose that children should be categorized in future as 1st human being, 2nd human being etc, but not be given a name (clearly a breach of human rights and abuse). So we need a law change so that they can then name themselves when they are old enough to choose a name for themselves. Perhaps also anyone who is religious should have their children taken away and looked after by the state, lest they get 'brainwashed' and therefore abused.

29 October 2013 at 17:27  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Hannah,
Albert,
and
Avi Barzel

Has anyone ever called for banning kosher slaughtering practices, motivated solely by an honest and genuine concern for animal welfare?

I don’t think so.

Has anyone ever called for banning circumcision, motivated solely by an honest and genuine concern for the health of baby boys?

I don’t think so.

29 October 2013 at 18:29  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack has a suggestion for David B. Let him explain his worries about these practices to the folk who attend his local Mosque. Even better, he could visit Iran and let them know his concerns. Happy Jack looks forward to learning the results of this noble missionary work for children and animals.

29 October 2013 at 18:56  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

@Albert: " However, the rest of what you say is likely to be true, as well."

Coming from a seasoned blog-brawler and rhetoretician who rarely gives ground, that's like getting an approval with green semaphores, trumpets, fanfares, cakes with ladies popping out....

Perhaps also anyone who is religious should have their children taken away and looked after by the state, lest they get 'brainwashed' and therefore abused.

Well, yes of course, that's the prize in the end, Miss Hannah. Once we establish an assortment of absurd "abuses" and "injustices" and ban them, we must follow-up with a proper "education," otherwise the old horrible superstitions and practices will creep out again.

"I don't think so." Hmmm. An argument I should avail myself of and save a lot of time and headaches, Uncle Brian. Seems with some a sentence can have as little or as much impact as a four-volume treatise with chart and full-colour printing anyhow.

29 October 2013 at 19:05  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Happy Jack is giving bad ideas to David B...let's hope he has more sense than to attempt such an idea.

29 October 2013 at 19:11  
Blogger OldJim said...

I hate to flog a dead horse, after so many august contributors have weighed in so eloquently and so precisely, and usually I would resist, because "piling on" seems too close to "bullying", but I can't be silent, because I'm surprised nobody has yet commented on this:

"It seems to me odd that sucking kids dicks, which would be illegal in any other context, should be allowed because of religious privilege"

If you had told me that soldiers were murderers, or surgeons butchers, or male gynecologists perverts, I could more readily have understood you.

What you were saying would have been wrong; but there would at least have been some level of analogy between the acts in which they engage and the crimes of which you accuse them. Your reader might have been justified in wondering what ulterior motive or prejudice animated your attack; but finding no pressing one in the text or in your biography, they might ultimately conclude that you really could not see a difference between the acts. It would be bizarre, but it would not be unprecedented.

But where you find yourself drawing a parallel so repulsive and so grave, and yet where, after but a moments' reflection, there is so little likeness in the intention or nature of the act... if you find no reason to reflect for sufficiently long to think better of it, or you really cannot see anything to reflect on, or you do but choose to proceed in any case, you ought not to be surprised that your reader will find themselves ready to dismiss all that you say on the subject as quite sinister in intent.

29 October 2013 at 20:48  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Old Jim

Just saw that David B's post.

An utter cad and duplicitous too.

"It seems to me odd that sucking kids d*&%s, which would be illegal in any other context, should be allowed because of religious privilege (Privilege has nowt to do with it, it's an abuse of trust...Atheism must be a paedo free zone then unless you believe your arch high prophet who declared "'Mild paedophilia never did me any harm'?" Your lot are two faced chancers). Let alone the mutilation itself without good medical reasons(Take it your lobotomy was on the grounds of sound medical advise. You should have sought a 2nd or 3rd opinion, young man!!!).

And that is the end of my discussion of this derail in this thread (How delightful but we took some time to get there...You always manage to tirelessly bring a big bucket of mud to clear blue waters here, do you not?) No doubt it will be more pertinent in future threads (Oh dear me...not an idle threat then)

Your accusations against me are false and without any foundation.(Then we'll take all your prattling silly nonsense on your say so, yes?)"

Blowers with hackles risen

29 October 2013 at 21:23  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Mr Blowers, Happy Jack thinks David B must be a very unhappy man to say such horrid and daft thing suggesting circumcision is sexual as well as physical abuse of Jewish boys. Jack doesn't think he has had a brain operation. He uses fancy words and puts sentences together better than Jack.

Still, for all that, he is a Sillys*ite.

29 October 2013 at 21:54  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Old Jim, I had actually missed that one. As aggressive and repulsive as the term he uses, David B is referring to metzitzah b'peh, where the mohel quickly sucks the blood from the circumcision wound and spits it out, a common and once highly effective traditional medicine practice with any bleeding wound. The intent was to prevent dangerous blood clotting and infection, most likely from instruments before the problem of sepsis was properly understood. The problem with it is that especially in the 20th century the risk of herpes is now greater than protection from infection, with neonatal herpes a dangerous and at times deadly possibility. The original objective, to prevent infection and clotting, can be met by different means. The technique was challenged in the 18th century and suction through a tube or surgical sponges began to be widely used. Some in the Orthodox sphere maintain that this metzitzah b/peg is a religious duty, others insist that it is unnecessary and dangerous and that the Talmudic requirement for this step was based on then-current medical knowledge and technologies which no longer hold.

I follow the latter approach and prefer to see the oral suction stage stopped everywhere, as several cases of neonatal herpes linked to the practice have appeared in Israel and the New York area. It's fairly rare, though, and having been to dozens of circumcisions over the years, I have yet to see it used.

Nevertheless, metzitzah b'peh, as controversial and problematic as it is, is of course not what Tony B crudely called it..."sucking a boy's dick"... again for rhetorical effect and again with the intent to misinform and slander. You are totally right in your assessment of his character.

29 October 2013 at 21:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David B has once again introduced the subject of child abuse.

A couple of weeks ago, this man viewed an online video which had gone viral, whatever that means. It was purportedly a Russian video in support of traditional relationships. Now, one of the claims was that gay men were responsible for 50% of all child abuse cases. Well, the Inspector is not one to swallow unsubstantiated claims so he did his own research. Apparently, the percentage of male abusers of male children is unknown. Would you believe that !

This in a world where the exact number of cornflakes in an average bowl of cornflakes is there for you at the touch of a few buttons. Rat smelling time, what !

So, David B if you REALLY want to be concerned with child abuse, you may well have to ask your allies some awkward questions.

Well, rather you than this man, but then, the latter is rather more careful of the company he keeps...


29 October 2013 at 21:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

"Still, for all that, he is a Sillys*ite. " He is indeed!!
PENETRATING PERCEPTION PERSONIFIED, Jack my lad.!

Blowers

Avi

As a Jewish Bruce Forsythe might say..."Na’im me’od!" "Me’od. NA’IM!’"

29 October 2013 at 22:09  
Blogger Albert said...

Avi,

Coming from a seasoned blog-brawler and rhetoretician who rarely gives ground, that's like getting an approval with green semaphores, trumpets, fanfares, cakes with ladies popping out....

Alright, I'll go out on a limb here and say that actually, I think the rest of the paragraph was not just likely to be true, but absolutely spot on!

29 October 2013 at 23:00  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Ouch! That must've hurt, Albert.

30 October 2013 at 00:02  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Good night, Mr Blofeld, your excursions into Hebrew are commendable, as they are puzzling. At this rate you'll be teaching me by Spring time.

We trust and pray all went well today with your scan? Moreover,that didn't pull a "gurn" on the pretty nurses? That sign of manliness and affection should be reserved for your poor, suffering wife.

30 October 2013 at 00:09  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Dear Avi

Enjoyed your slapping down regarding conflating Male and Female circumcision.
Always laugh as Male is removal of tip of skin whereas Female is largely removing clitoris and partial sewing up of female entrance. Big Difference!

Especially as no Jewish literature demands females be circumcised or mutilated whereas muslim tradition seems based on sketchy haddiths as Mohammed cut and pasted very poorly from oral accounts by passing Jews and monk regarding circumcision and muddled the inference. He couldn't get anything right could he. Some prophet of god?? *chortling with vigour*

No mummies in ancient Egypt, prior to Abraham, have been discovered circumcised (Herodotus (484 - 420 BC is the earliest verifiable record elsewhere outside Jewish tradition) and it seems circumcision can be confused with supercision..Quite different.

Circumcision now seems rife in African countries where both men and women are circumcised ethnically but never the female only..to juxtapose with Jewish circumcision.

Carry on my fine fellow.

Blofeld

30 October 2013 at 01:36  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

I find it quite extraordinarily bigoted of these people who compare the birth passage of a woman with the excretory passage of the male and find no qualitative and functional difference- apparently. Or perhaps they are really having us on, as it seems so eye-poppingly dim and unbelievable and deeply insulting.

30 October 2013 at 02:00  
Blogger Jon said...

Rev Mann - I think it's rather nice that the Letters Editor felt sufficiently secure in his or her position to publish criticism of their original position, and then their publication of a letter. And this really is what your post boils down to. Someone published something. Someone else didn't like it and wrote a letter. Someone wrote a letter in response to the letter. And the monarch still reigned!

This is surely the definition of a storm in a teacup. Given His Grace's non- obsession with homosexuality (as opposed to some of his communicants, who can't talk about much else - how are you Inspector and Marie?), I don't suppose we'll see many more of these posts on gays. Unless of course the objective of posts is comments. The ones on gays regularly attract >100 comments. Only gays, catholics and muslims seem to rile the inmates enough to get over that number. I therefore look forward to more posts referencing corruption in the Holy See!

30 October 2013 at 10:14  
Blogger Humble African said...

Wow! Poetic. I have been enlightened!

30 October 2013 at 11:15  
Blogger Humble African said...

@ Lucy Mullen. Thanks for the wisdom.

30 October 2013 at 11:24  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

You couldn’t be more wrong Jon to suggest this man is not concerned with anything but your life style choice. However, you can be forgiven for holding your misconception as we all know you only pop up to squeak your disapproval on topics that are, well, of interest to gay people. Having said that, we mustn’t from that assume that you yourself are obsessed with your condition, should one.

You might like to know further that one respects your choice. It’s your life, your decision. But to be frank, giving homosexuality an honoured and privileged place in the fabric of this society is no less abhorrent than expecting the Queen to pray to Allah five times a day. And there are many more muslims around than gay people…


30 October 2013 at 17:41  
Blogger Hannah said...

Hello All,

I think you've all done a good job in countering David B's assertions.

30 October 2013 at 23:14  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older