Thursday, January 30, 2014

Censoring 'Jesus and Mo' establishes UK sharia blasphemy code

Back to that cartoon:

This is how it appeared on Channel 4 News:

They didn't just black-out Mohammed's face: they went to the extraordinary lengths of photoshopping out the shoulders. 

This is how it appeared on BBC Newsnight:

The fact that both BBC Newsnight and Channel 4 News are censoring images of Mohammed establishes a narrow Sunni-sharia compliance: it is, effectively, a blasphemy code adopted by the state broadcasters. His Grace observed this development as far back as 2007. The UK now has a de facto blasphemy law which protects Allah, Mohammed and mosques more than it does the names of Jesus, YHWH or the Church of England. It is ironic that while Parliament has abolished the crimes of blasphemy and blasphemous libel as they relate to Christianity, the vacuum has been filled by politicians, police, the judiciary and media increasingly taking the view that Islam has to be treated with kid gloves, and blind eyes have to be turned to those professing Muslims who threaten murder or call for ‘Jihad’ against the apostate and the infidel.

His Grace is not a Muslim, and neither is he a Jew. In case there be any doubt, he is not Roman Catholic, Sikh or Hindu. And neither is he a Jehovah’s Witness, Seventh Day Adventist, a Mormon or a Jedi (though the latter has many attractions).

Through spiritual discernment, historical reason, theological analysis and by exercising overt discrimination, he has decided that he is a Christian in communion with the Church of England. This does not make him ‘phobic’ or 'racist' about other options; it is simply that he has discerned the way of salvation and it sits well with him. It is truth; an ontological reality with which others are welcome to disagree or criticise, but such an onslaught will not shake his faith in his Lord.

And he shall certainly take no offence at historical parody, character satire or a cartoon strip. Indeed, they can be entertaining, enlightening and educational:


Blogger Dreadnaught said...

It's game over: Freedom from Fear 0 - Islamofascists 1

30 January 2014 at 10:25  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

An absolute utter disgrace...and we pay a compulsory tax to the BBC which now goes towards this sort of propaganda...

30 January 2014 at 10:51  
Blogger bluedog said...

Well, Your Grace, emboldened by this support from the BBC, how long before the noble Baroness Warsi puts a formal proposal before Cabinet for a Mosque of Britain?

What a pity Jacob Rees-Mogg isn't a Cabinet minister. He seems to be just the sort of politician who could see through the ruse. On the other hand, Ken Clarke, Angus Maude and Chief Wet Cameron would probably support the Baroness.

30 January 2014 at 11:36  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

Back in 2008, the BBC’s director general claimed that the corporation had shown more of the Jyllands-Posten Mohammed cartoons than other media outlets had. What a difference a few short years and the arrival of Islam on the streets of Woolwich can make.

30 January 2014 at 11:53  
Blogger Julia Gasper said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

30 January 2014 at 12:21  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Islam is impervious to reason, because you have to be irrational in the first place to believe all that tripe. But Islam is extremely vulnerable to ridicule, probably because its inherent pomposity makes it ridiculous.

If the media put half as much effort into ridiculing Islam as they have into ridiculing Christianity, they could destroy this malignant cult within a few decades.

Satire is to Islam as gamma-rays are to cancer.

30 January 2014 at 12:42  
Blogger The Judicious Hooker said...

How interesting our Lord and Saviour is a smooth man in the upper chest area as depicted in the cartoon and the 'Mo' character is an hairy man...

Given the Mohammedan fixation with hair removal, perhaps that was the ultimate insult?

30 January 2014 at 12:58  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

The BBC – now not so much the nation's favourite aunty as its most nauseating creepy uncle.

I do feel a degree of sympathy though – if they had published the wretched cartoon both liberal groups and the shrouded nutters would have lined up to stone them.

I'm not sure, though, why anyone should give a monkey's about the fate of Liberal Democrat wannabe Maajid Nawaz. It might be worth stopping to ask why the idiot published the cartoon, knowing full well the firestorm of crap that would descend upon him. Did he do it to enjoy the attention, or the spectacle of so many enlightened people rushing to his aid?

Perhaps the reason so few people have rallied to his defence is because they are not mugs, and wisely question the very idea of a liberal democrat Muslim.

30 January 2014 at 13:04  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Dear Ars Hendrik

"The BBC – now not so much the nation's favourite aunty as its most nauseating creepy uncle."

priceless! You have an open invitation to The Palace at Barchester for tea and hobnobs!

30 January 2014 at 13:12  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 January 2014 at 13:23  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Strange that in the Channel 4 version only Mo is blotted out, as if it didn't matter that Christians may be offended by the Jesus figure? The Newsnight one, seems to be taking no chances there. On the other hand, both studios could have published the picture as it was and let their viewers be fully informed about this 'offensive' picture (although I guess viewers would come to the conclusion it simply isn't offensive by British standards and would make those who've got so offended look like the right 'nana's that they are). I can't see the offense here and it is a usual overreaction from a certain religion, as Christians don't seem to have had the same reaction. For some reason, whilst I agree with the idea of not censoring material because of religious sensitivities, I find it difficult to sign petitions supporting this lib dem candidate, possibly because I'm feeling the same way as Ars Hendrik over this, but I'm not sure why that is, just something screaming 'je ne sais quoi'.

30 January 2014 at 13:24  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

My dear Mrs Proudie,

You have very much made my day.

30 January 2014 at 13:34  
Blogger Corrigan said...

When I'm not dressing in red, jumping out of cupboards to the menacing sound of sinister music and chanting "always expect the Spanish Inquisition", I find I'm often in communion with Cranmer (a fact I'm sure he finds as distressing as I do). This is one such occasion. Well, except for the salvation through Anglicanism bit, obviously.

30 January 2014 at 13:49  
Blogger David Hussell said...

I am waiting for all those "clear thinking" exponents of the secular liberal State, atheists, Humanists and fellow travelers, to spring forth, brandishing their latest best selling, fashionable" Book of Reason", in noble defense of truth, knowledge, free speech and humanity's liberation.

But it's much easier to attack just one side isn't it ?

Somehow I doubt their commitment, if not their conviction. They are just fair weather reformers aren't they ?

30 January 2014 at 14:09  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Corrigan – nothing wrong with the Spanish Inquisition – set up as it was to ward off Muslim attempts at thwarting the Reconquista.

Torquemada as the new Director General at the BBC – the very thought warms the heart.

30 January 2014 at 14:15  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Corrigan said...

"When I'm not dressing in red, jumping out of cupboards to the menacing sound of sinister music and chanting "always expect the Spanish Inquisition" The term 'Darth Bannalis' always springs to mind whence seeing your insidious commenting on this blog!"

"I find I'm often in communion with Cranmer (a fact I'm sure he finds as distressing as I do)" Much to HG's alarm and annoyance and his hopes that you frequent the blog of your lesser Sith co-religionist, Damian Thompson aka Darth Irratus."

"Well, except for the salvation through Anglicanism bit, obviously." May the dark side of the force be with you and stay with you ALWAYS..MORIAE ENCOMIUM .


30 January 2014 at 14:19  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Ars Hendrik

Somehow I don't think the threat of the Comfy Chair will have too much impact.

Carl :)

30 January 2014 at 14:24  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

I guess most Muslims are considered by Channel Four to be unfamiliar with the concept of "being a bad egg" or they might take offence at their Prophet being depicted as a black egg.

Or were Channel Four being unknowingly racist and showing religious intolerance? Or was it a reference to the black rock that Muslims worship in the Haj?

At any rate it seems thin ice is in all directions, but then that is what you get if dealing with an oversensitive and touchy group.

The Muslims that I know would find this all incredibly trivial so I wonder why they pander most to the least intelligent Muslims.

30 January 2014 at 15:07  
Blogger Ars Hendrik said...

Lucy, I don't think that they worship the rock, they just turn up to throw stones at it.

30 January 2014 at 15:19  
Blogger David B said...

I lost a comment earlier, posted on my tablet.

I am really tired of the deference shown to religious privilege, of all sorts.

I find now that I can scroll down the comments on my laptop again - must be another update I spose.


30 January 2014 at 15:22  
Blogger David B said...

Looking at the NSS media feed since posting my last, I see that Clegg tries to be all things to all men, and fails as is inevitable, but at least does stand up for Nawaz to a degree.

I would have been more outspoken, but then I wouldn't have been electable as leader of any political party.

Too outspoken!


30 January 2014 at 15:27  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Your Grace,

I thoroughly enjoyed watching the two-minute cartoon released by the All Souls Anglican Foundation. Two comments occur to me:

The end credits give the names of the people who actually made the cartoon as Sonny Varela and Archie Viloria. Varela and Viloria are surnames that would raise no eyebrows if they appeared as the makers of a Catholic cartoon. Does that mean that congratulations are in order to the good old C of E for winning them over to the Anglican side?

Where is this cartoon shown, and to what audiences? If it’s only to captive C of E audiences, was it worth the trouble? Can it legally be shown on television in the UK? Being explicitly Christian, isn’t it implicitly offensive to other religions? Not that I’d expect any complaints from Buddhists, Parsees, Jews, Hindus, Taoists, Sikhs, Mormons, Bahais, Scientologists, Jehovah’s Witnesses, or Jedis. Which takes care of just about everybody.

30 January 2014 at 15:36  
Blogger Preacher said...

As an evangelical Christian, I offer the gospel to many people. I am sure of the God I believe in & my faith is not shaken by opposition, criticism or humour. Bad language or cynicism is fine, although blasphemy I find hurts deeply.
The problem with the BBC & certain elements of Islam is: Fear, one is fearful of causing offence because of recriminations.
The other is fearful that it's teaching does not stand on its own merits in the cold light of truth.

If any religion has to resort to threats of violence to survive, it casts doubt on it's authenticity & the truths it proclaims.

30 January 2014 at 16:04  
Blogger Peter Ford said...

David Hussell, you are wrong. The National Secular Society has been all over this. It wouldn't suprise me if Cranmer only came across this story due to all the noise being made by secularists. All decent people, including decent religious people (because secularism is not atheism), should join the NSS.

30 January 2014 at 16:14  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Ars

I think maybe you are confusing the pillars (or nowadays replacement walls) at Mina with the earlier ritual at the Kaaba, where the black stone is kissed- or at least hailed.

My earlier post was a bit tongue in cheek, anyway. I see in wikipedia it is written that "centralised butchers sacrifice a single sheep for each pilgrim, or a camel can represent the sacrifice of seven people". We forget how far we have come from these rather uncivilised habits of animal sacrifice insofar as Holy Communion celebrates that Atonement which superceded such things.

Though some of the politically correct "protect" such things more than Christianity. Bizarre, is it not, as they would have us believe that they are civilised modern people.

30 January 2014 at 16:34  
Blogger Jack Harrison said...

To this atheist, the concept of blasphemy is incomprehensible. I am though thoroughly annoyed by restrictions on my free speech by people with views that are impossible for me to accept. But I am not offended if someone challenges my lack of belief. My philosophy is strong enough to shrug it off. So why are the godly so incapable of taking criticism?


30 January 2014 at 16:36  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Peter Ford,

What is the argument for "all decent people, including religious people" to join the NSS. Feels a bit like a call join the Communist parties of the Soviet block. Why are people who don't join the NSS 'not decent'? I consider myself to be a decent person, but David B, considers Kosher and circumcision to be 'barbaric' and 'child abuse' respectively.

Look forward to your response.

30 January 2014 at 16:37  
Blogger Peter Ford said...

"What is the argument for all decent people, including decent religious people, to join the NSS?"

Fairness. No specific religion(s) should get special treatment, nor should religiousness in general get special treatment. (In addition to the link I already gave, see also the Secular Charter.)

I don't know anything about David B. Assuming he is an NSS member, that doesn't mean you can't join the NSS just because you don't agree on everything. But certainly kosher & halal food is a great example; do you really think there should be laws that have specific exemptions for specific named religions (as is the case with British animal rights laws)?

Anyway, sorry for diverting this discussion away from the cowardice of our state broadcasters.

30 January 2014 at 17:09  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

30 January 2014 at 17:45  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Peter Ford,

There are many a time on Cranmer where the comments deviate from the original discussion, so I wouldn't worry about making a diversion. Let me respond, as you raised the issues in question.

Firstly, David B can speak for himself, but from what I gather, he is an out and out secularist and atheist who runs a website 'Secular Cafe' or something to that effect.

We've had some discussion on Kosher and Circumcision and as noted above Mr B dislikes both... so I would understand that you and he are singing from the same song, so to speak?

As for myself I am an Orthodox Jew. I do feel that secularism- at least in European trends- is de facto atheism and is by definition anti-religious, for its own sake. As noted above, I would be against blasphemy laws, because I believe that any religion that isn't up to scrutiny or ridicule isn't worth following -Judaism has been subject to far worse in it's history- and one does need a sense of humour about these matters.

The difference between the theme on this thread and, say, Kosher law is of an attack upon religious action, rather than offense caused by a cartoon. Granted Jews could become vegetarians, but why should this be made so, just because you, atheists and secularists say so, due to your own determination of what is and does not constitute animal welfare ?

Secondly, I would say that in Judaism there is a clear theme running throughout our texts and by our Rabbis regarding animal welfare- something which is often overlooked in this debate- because it is all about a desire to kick religion in the balls generally and Judaism in particular, rather than any genuine concern for animal welfare or bothering to look at what Judaism has to say about animals and their welfare.

I'll look into the links you've provided, but I probably won't hold my breath.

30 January 2014 at 18:08  
Blogger Len said...

'Thinking themselves wise they became fools.'
Never was this so true as the Bend over Backwards Corporation who scape and bow to any religion as long as it is not Christian.

30 January 2014 at 18:14  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Peter Ford

Has anyone ever, in all honesty, raised an objection to kosher slaughter motivated solely by concern for animal welfare? I don’t think so.

Has anyone ever, in all honesty, raised an objection to infant circumcision motivated solely by concern for the health of baby boys? I don’t think so.

30 January 2014 at 18:17  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ David Kavanagh (13:24)—a usual overreaction from a certain religion

Muslims would see it as a measured response to the making of a picture, which Islam holds to be an enormity. Section w50.1 of Reliance of the Traveller, the book of Islamic law, quotes the Prophet:

On the Day of Judgement, part of the hellfire will come forth with two eyes with which to see, two ears with which to hear, and a tongue with which to speak, saying, ‘I have been ordered to deal with three: he who holds there is another god besides Allah, with every arrogant tyrant, and with makers of pictures.’

Section w.50.2 explains that:

The reason for the unlawfulness of pictorial representation is that it imitates the creative act of Allah Most High, as is indicated by the hadith related by Bukhari and Muslim that Aisha (Allah be well pleased with her) said, ‘The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) returned from a trip, and I had draped a cloth with pictures on it over a small closet. When he saw it, he ripped it down, his face coloured, and he said, “Aisha, the people most severely tortured by Allah on the Day of Judgement will be those who try to imitate what Allah has created.”’

Ah, the riches of multiculturalism.

30 January 2014 at 18:30  
Blogger Peter Ford said...

" ... Kosher and Circumcision and as noted above Mr B dislikes both so I would understand that you and he are singing from the same song, so to speak?"

No, from a purely secularist perspective, you can either be against kosher & halal & everything morally equivalent, OR you can accept the lot of it. There just must be no special exemptions. I can't claim to have a well-considered view on which of these 2 secularist positions to take, but I'd tend towards the 2nd. After all, like most non-vegetarian Brits I eat Halal food all the time (albeit without knowing precisely when).

As for male circumcision, although it is somewhat harmful and occasionally results in the boy's death, similar effects can result from over-feeding him, passive smoking, and driving him around to lots of places. So it's much more of a grey area. This is what I was saying about how you don't have to agree with every NSS member on every possible issue in order to join the NSS.

As a side note, I'd like repeat my condemnation of the BBC and Channel 4 for their cowardice with regards to @JandMo.

30 January 2014 at 18:34  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

I say chaps, this is just a part of the marvellous enrichment of our society that mass alien immigration brings, apparently. So move aside everyone, our new lads are coming to the front. Well, what did you expect them to do – mind their place at the back ?

What is particularly chilling about this development is its finality. There was no public discussion about it. Nothing said in the House. No canvassing of opinion. Just an editorial meeting in the two respective organisations. Tea and buns and censorship, in just an hour of an afternoon. But in our disgrace, let us not lose sight of one truth – not one car bomb detonated, or one journalist hacked to death as he crossed the street, to spur dragging feet over the insulting portrayal of the prophet . Justification of the outcome if it were needed.

Which is what it’s all about of course. Neither BBC Newsnight or Channel 4 news wants to MAKE the news, not in this instant. And it’s so damn easy to make the news when it comes to muslim sensibilities. So are we in defeat on this one ? Let’s see it another way. No one has been KILLED over it. And that counts for an awful lot, a great deal indeed. So no, let us not consider it a defeat, but a near miss.

Feel better ?

30 January 2014 at 18:34  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

More thought on the matter. We are fortunate in the UK to have some fine journalists at the sharp end. Yes, some do come across as weepy, oversensitive liberal bleeding hearts, but one has always seen that kind of behaviour as the journalists stock in trade of appearing ‘involved’ in their story. Borrowing from the acting profession, if you will.

Anyway, the point is this. If they are concerned in the portrayal of the prophet as an image, in all his wicked ugliness, they do run a real risk of being assassinated. Or their families terrorised. Or both. If obscure cartoonists can be harassed abroad, what chance do those who appear nightly on our television screens have.

We can’t even protect them with the Death Penalty for terrorist acts, which one has always felt is a bigger deterrent to all but the deadly committed than is given credit for by those weak types who don’t have the stomach to see REAL law and order operating in their name.

We certainly don’t want to lose any of our people for the sake of irritating the Mohameds. A minor ‘freedom’ to lose, if the truth be known.

It’s time to admit the damnable situation we find ourselves in - the hoards of intolerance are no longer outside the gates…

30 January 2014 at 18:35  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

By the way, the NSS can go to hell.

As we struggle to maintain Christian hegemony in the UK as the indigenous population want and expect, and which has contributed so much to our superb culture that we all enjoy, atheist, Christian, muslim and other alike, we can do without these ‘fair-minded and enlightened’ troublemakers from undermining it all. One wonders how long it will take these swine to understand that dismantling Christian influence in society will only lead to greater Islamification and sooner at that.

Though one has always suspected that if they ever do manage to do the dirty on Christian involvement in public life, that’s at the point they will stop, the mission having been accomplished. After all, an NSS member no sooner wants to be slaughtered by the Saracen for opposing the religion of peace than the rest of us…

Decent people ? Hah ! Hapless unthinking fools are what they are, but not that foolish as to risk their necks when their commitment is put to the ultimate test.

30 January 2014 at 18:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

For all the soothing words, the purpose of organizations like the NSS is to push religion out of the public square. The conflict originates in the formulation of law. What constitutes "the Good, the Right, the True" that becomes the basis for law? No religious believer need apply to answer those questions. Because that would involve an unacceptable establishment of religion. How fortunate that we have organizations like the NSS to provide alternative (ahem) non-theistic definitions for "the Good, the Right, the True." It's all just part of the framework you understand. So that we can all live together.


30 January 2014 at 18:41  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

What I find really worrying is the restriction here on freedom of speech. If our media and broadcasting companies are too scared to publish the full cartoon that means the mad muslims have got a hold on what is and isn't appropriate to say in the UK. Where are the police when you need them? Anyone threatening another person/persons or company with violence and death should be arrested and charged, no messing. This threatening in retaliation of being offended has to be dealt with and eradicated so that people can live without fear of saying the wrong thing or being beholden to these extreme muslims we have living in our midst.

In our country we have free speech to make fun of anything and anyone and as HG states it can be entertaining, educational and enlightening. Enlightenment is what these offended muslims badly need. To start this process they have to learn that we do not tolerate violence and death threats under any circumstances. The they need to learn that there is no harm in drawing the prophet Mohammad, people like Mr Nawaz are a great help in dispelling fears. It would be interesting to hear a debate between Mr Nawaz and Mr Sadiq.

30 January 2014 at 18:56  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Carl Jacobs

All the NSS does is talk. Do they notably visit the sick? NO. Do they notably go and visit the dying and bring comfort and solace? NO. Do they notably go out of their way to comfort the bereaved? NO. Do they notably minister to the guilty? NO. Do they notably heal the sick? NO.

But they try to get in the way of many of the people who do, notably.
I regard them as attention seekers with opinions who should let the people prepared to do all the necessary practical work that the Christian church does, get on with it without let or hindrance.

They try to alter society and have to a large extent succeeded. To the extent amongst others that often relations of those dying in hospital will grab any priest of any denomination they see and be jubilant to have actually got one, of any sort. Some idiot secularist has probably made a grandstanding speech insisting that local clergy should pay exorbitant car parking charges (which are met out of the pockets of the congregation) so that no favour is shown to anyone, be they Jedi, JW, secularist, oh, or any of the mainstream clergy with large nos. of people in their flock.

30 January 2014 at 19:08  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Johnny Rottenborough,

As usual, your study is greater than mine when it comes to Islam, so I can only doff my hat to you. I can 'do' Arabic, kinda, sorta, learned it from Mum, well I wasn't really paying attention, but I do have smatterings of it.

As for Jews in Britain, you should note than Jews have been here for a long time; up to 1290, before being chucked out and then from 1658 to now. And as this 'docu-drama' shows, it wasn't Friar Tuck, but a Rabbi, who was the spiritual support for Robin Hood & his merry men (well us Jews have a sense of humour) :

30 January 2014 at 19:28  
Blogger Jack Harrison said...

A few years ago when in hospital, a Christian do-gooder (?!) called on me and arrogantly placed a Bible in my bedside locker. I said I didn’t want it. He replied that the next person in my bed might. I was immobile at the time so had to let him have his way.

The religious of all persuasions have to understand that many of us simply don't want their offerings and it's a damn cheek to try to force these things on us.

Back to the J & M cartoons. I don't even find them funny. But I never got Charlie Brown either.


30 January 2014 at 19:36  
Blogger Jack Harrison said...

A few years ago when in hospital, a Christian do-gooder (?!) called on me and arrogantly plonked a Bible in my bedside locker. I said I didn’t want it. He replied that the next person in my bed might want it. I was immobile at the time so had to let him have his way. What a damn cheek he had!

And those J&M cartoons: in my opinion they’re not even funny. But I never got Charlie Brown either.


30 January 2014 at 19:52  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

Peter Ford,

I'd suggest that Jews DO NOT ask for special status, just an opportunity to eat foods as per our customs, you know like Fish N' Chips, that sort of thing (*shock horror* to the atheist or nationalist Brit, but fried fish is of Sephardi Jewish origin and fried chips are of Azkenazi Jewish origin).

I'd suggest that a consumer needs to be fully informed as to what they are eating. In respect of Kosher food it HAS to be on the label, because Orthodox Jews, need to know what they are eating is in accordance with Jewish law, which is different from the consumer not being informed as to whether or not something is 'Halal'. Personally, I use a local Kosher butcher and restrict my purchases in the supermarkets to things like coffee, tobacco and beer.

As for your comparison with male circumcision and passive smoking or children being obese this is laughable. I can tell you I haven't suffered from being circumcised and neither have my 2 brothers. Or my sons. Or my nephews.

30 January 2014 at 19:53  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Jack.
a) What exactly is wrong with "doing good". Would you prefer a "do bad-er? A logical question, and I am sure you will appreciate logic. Otherwise it betrays an illogical emotiveness, logically, does it not?

b) Was he not right? For many, myself included would be devastated to be left without a Bible, or Christian ministry? Why should the next putative person suffer greatly so you could have....well, what? A few spare inches of space that you probably never used anyway?

c) What is so objectionable to the notion of altruism? In this case it was giving up a few square inches of space so that the next person could potentially be greatly strengthened and encouraged?

d) If it had been a small box of chocolates, and you had said you didn't like then and he had said "Well, the next person might.." and left them in your locker would you have reacted the same. If so, then you are a very touchy person. If not you are illogical and acting from anger and hatred of an unreasoning nature towards Christianity, and you need to sort out the root of that.

Nurses and doctors and all sorts of people actually put stuff in and around beds and lockers, and you would not call that a "damned cheek". Hospitals and nursing are based historically not on some mythical neutrality but from Christian roots, and for many Christians the Bible is itself an integral and essential part of the healing process.

30 January 2014 at 19:55  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Harrison, you came across an old Christian tradition. Persecution of the helpless sick :->

If that’s all you have to whine about, a life debased by contact with Christians, you’re doing a damn sight better than this man is, I can tell you...

30 January 2014 at 20:09  
Blogger David B said...

Just seeing if I can speak for myself using tablet since my laptop got sat on


30 January 2014 at 20:10  
Blogger David B said...

Dammit just lost a long post

30 January 2014 at 20:19  
Blogger David B said...

Which i won't try to recreate but will point out that David hussell owes us secularists yet another apo, ogy

30 January 2014 at 20:21  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! My Lord the Bishop has had a cracking idea (and I agree with him) - we should host a gathering of His Grace's communicants here in The Palace to 'sort things out' - we could call it The Barchester Conference - purge the liturgy of 'Happy Clappiness', whip up 95 Theses to nail on the door of the House of Commons (or Nick Clegg who is equally wooden) and plan the takeover of the BBC. No hobnob will remain uneaten until we have saved Blighty! I shall iron my Union Flag bloomers immediately.

30 January 2014 at 20:31  
Blogger The Explorer said...

We say "for fear of giving offence" and mean nothing more than common human decency.

But when it comes to Islam, fear of giving offence becomes quite literal.

The media imply they mean the first when they really mean the second.

30 January 2014 at 21:08  
Blogger Integrity said...

Dear Mrs Proudie,
A conference, what a good idea. A real chance for some genuine protesters. I am very sad however that your congregation are not happy, neither are they permitted to clap. What a sad situation. As General Booth said, 'Why should the devil have all the good music?'

30 January 2014 at 21:16  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Mrs Proudie,

Book me in for a conference seat, with Hobnobs strategically placed, mark you !

30 January 2014 at 21:20  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

...and why is Mohammed depicted wearing a Tam o'Shanter instead of the traditional Islamic exploding turban? Has he joined the SNP?

30 January 2014 at 21:21  
Blogger David Hussell said...

David B @ 20.21

Apology. For what ?

For objecting to the clear asymmetry of the secularist attacks on selected religions only, especially the one rooted in these islands for almost 2000 years ?

But I'm a generous man, so I'll do a deal with you.

I'm an Anglican, but denomination is irrelevant, so I'll apologize when I see the secularists arguing effectively for the reopening of the Catholic adoption agencies, which did so much good for the most weak and vulnerable, and which were closed down under EU derived, secularist dictat to please a tiny section of our country. Did that add to the Common Good of society ? There that should be easy for you to arrange with all your friends.

30 January 2014 at 21:36  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ David Kavanagh (19:28)—Doff not to me but to the compiler of the superb index in my print copy of Reliance of the Traveller. It seems Jews are now chucking themselves out of France and setting up shop here.

30 January 2014 at 22:27  
Blogger David Kavanagh said...

JR -
'It seems Jews are now chucking themselves out of France and setting up shop here.'

Yes and of course that is a positive benefit to the UK, but also I really hope that Hungarian Jews get out of that country before that odious Fascist party -Jobbik - gets into power. I think the UK could do with an influx of well educated, enterprising Jews.

Don't you?

30 January 2014 at 22:51  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack asks would anyone risk displaying a picture of 'Mo' in their front windows? Would people be prepared to march in protest with banners of 'Mo'? Would anyone doing so be arrested for disturbing the peace or causing offence to a religion? And how would Islamists react?

Jack believes the public authorities are afraid of Islam in Britain and we know where appeasement leads.

30 January 2014 at 23:08  
Blogger Peter Ford said...

@David Kavanagh - Yes (as part of a balanced migration policy)

@David B - You might as well delete your 20:10 and 20:19 posts.

@David Hussell - I'm not an expert in this area, but you may need to apologize for misleading people. These don't look very shut down to me: &
Maybe they just decided to change their policies instead of following through on their threats to shut themselves down? If so I think they made the right decision, because with a shortage of adopters, surely it's better not to exclude gay couples?

Also, will you at least accept that your "asymmetry" claim is not supported by the @JandMo issue that we are supposed to be discussing here. (As per my first post above.)

30 January 2014 at 23:10  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Happy Jack
We all need to put a Jesus and Mo car sticker on the boot. When we get threatened with violence report it to police. We have to stand up for free speech.

30 January 2014 at 23:25  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ David Kavanagh (22:51)—that is a positive benefit to the UK

One of our more volatile communities would disagree.

30 January 2014 at 23:49  
Blogger Peter Ford said...

Marie1797, here is the shop, although you may have to settle for a t-shirt because I don't see any stickers.

And BTW, I just noticed that the latest edition is a response to Channel 4's behaviour. (While you're there can I also recommend this popular one?)

31 January 2014 at 00:06  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Peter Ford

You should have gone a little deeper on the Catholic Care website. All of the pages relayed to adoption are blank. Everything except for 'Latest News' and 'Post adoption services.'


31 January 2014 at 00:20  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Peter Ford
Thank you, there's something for everyone in that shop.

They should be promoted more to become the in thing to have.

31 January 2014 at 00:27  
Blogger non mouse said...

Marie @ 23:25 -- I certainly agree with the sentiment! However, they won't grace us with the threat of violence: they'll just trash the cars, wherever they're parked. They probably would even regress to trashing us a la Rigby: so we'd need to be fore-armed.

BTW: does everyone know what's happening with those Rigby murderers? Or are we all being distracted into being sensitive about offending them? We whose courts have not right to challenge the soldier of mo.....

31 January 2014 at 01:10  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack asks Peter Ford are any sincere and practicing Muslims, not the Islamist nutters, ever approved as adopters or foster parents? You know, the one's who take the teachings seriously on proper sexual morals between men and women.

They most certainly would not meet the "secularist", (godless?), requirements for EU approved, 'non-discriminatory', public services. And Jack is not referring to Mo's alleged 'interest' in young girls but to Muslim laws on homosexuality. One never hears about this. Why?

31 January 2014 at 01:31  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Non Mouse
I have read that the Rigby murderers are now going to appeal against the guilty verdict!!!
I don't think they have been sentenced yet. They should get life at least as they are guilty of murder so I don't see why they are being allowed to even think about an appeal when we all know the truth that they are guilty.

31 January 2014 at 01:48  
Blogger Peter Ford said...

Happy Jack, I don't know. As I said above, I'm not an expert in the area of British adoption practices (although I do hope that I might be in a position to consider adopting by about 2030). What I found above was just from 2 minutes of Web research. I certainly agree that if surveys of British Muslim attitudes to equality are anything to go by, it wouldn't be surprising to find out that there were zero Muslim adoption agencies that had been granted 'public interest' charitable status or public funding.

31 January 2014 at 08:43  
Blogger The Explorer said...

I have read that Cameron wants to make London the Islamic finance capital of the world.

If so, expect to see more along the lines of HG's present post.

31 January 2014 at 09:21  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Four factors determining official UK attitude towards Islam. The order of priority in which these apply, I leave to other readers to decide.

1. Physical fear.

2. Oil dependence.

3. Debt dependence.

4. The need to attract Islamic oil money, since London finance is what's keeping us going.

31 January 2014 at 09:50  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Do we have Islamic adoption agencies in the UK ?

If there are – why are they allowed to exist ?

Surely Big Gay would have something to say about that – or, more likely, perhaps not...

31 January 2014 at 10:25  
Blogger Len said...

Hows this for a theory?.
The secularists want to abolish all religion (except theirs) 'evolution' IS a faith based religion however much they deny this)
So to get on with my 'theory'. Let loose on the public the most aggressive form of religion known to mankind let it run for a while then when everyone is suitably traumatized ban ALL religion because it is too divisive and causes all the problems known to mankind.This works on the old principle :cause the problem then supply the solution.

Are the secularists that devious?.
Well they have taken already over our education system, attacked our Judeo/ Christian foundations and are well down the road of building their godless utopia in Euroland and beyond.

The Jesuit connection is interesting as 'busy mum' has already mentioned mentioned as are the plans and aspirations of Adam Weishaupt.
Of course this opens the possibility of being accused of being a 'conspiracy nut 'but in the words of common parlance 'whatever'.

31 January 2014 at 10:25  
Blogger Len said...

I was watching a telly ad where astronauts are floating in space and suddenly a car floats by.

It occurred to me that an evolutionist would' reason' that the car must have evolved by some sort of explosion and all the atoms formed themselves into a car.

Now that would take faith!.

But I digress.

31 January 2014 at 10:30  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Jack, you ask about ‘sincere and practicing muslims, not the Islamic nutters’

One’s own investigations, spurred on by the appraisal of the faith by the quite excellent Mr Rottenburgh, has found that in the UK there exists muslims in various lapsed states. A good example is the clean shaven muslim (yes, they DO exist) who allows some beard growth before and during Islamic holy days.
Unfortunately, those who do clean up their act to become observant muslims... Well, let’s just say that nuttery is built in.

31 January 2014 at 10:33  
Blogger IanCad said...

I despair, YG,

We've had it!

It would be great, as the majority seem to have, no concern with these assaults on the liberties of free expression.

"See the happy moron
he dosen't give a damn!
I wish I were a moron,
My God! perhaps I am!"

It's much, much simpler that way.

31 January 2014 at 10:34  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Len @ 10:25

Another possibility.

Let it run for a while: and then find you can't ban it because it's become more powerful than you are.

I've said on an earlier thread about the EU as a Frankenstein monster that has broken loose of its creator, but there might be a second monster waiting to be unleashed as a result of rash social experiments.

31 January 2014 at 10:37  
Blogger Len said...

That is the frightening reality of the situation releasing something which cannot be controlled or contained.
History teaches us this can and does happen and not that long ago .

31 January 2014 at 10:42  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Ian C @ 10:34

Quite so.

There are those who see the abyss - as Nietzsche did - stare into it, and go mad.

There are those who see the abyss, and who look away because the sight is too frightening.

There are those too stupid to see there is an abyss until they fall right into it.

(There are other possibilities I have not added here.)

31 January 2014 at 10:46  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Slightly off topic but this will be the last as a chap has to go out.

One holds a dear place in his heart for the Catholic adoption agencies. One’s mother was involved with them many years ago. (And no, she didn’t get this man through them...). The agencies are not dead and gone, but are like seeds in the ground, ready to flourish once again when conditions are right.

The present law on adoption needs to be shaken from it’s very foundations. And what better way than to go for the throat. We need to journal the experiences of adoptive children of homosexual couples. We already know that school friends tend not to visit them at home, but what would really piss on the law are examples of children being brought up as gender questioning bi-sexuals.

With that unpleasant thought gentlemen, good day to you.

31 January 2014 at 11:12  
Blogger Peter Ford said...

But Len, it is Christian politicians that have brought in all the religious immigrants, most notably the pious Tony Blair. How about this conspiracy theory: either 1 - they genuinely believed that religion is good axiomatically, and that any religion is better than none. 2 - they saw Britain becoming disinterested in Christianity and hoped that the addition of all these other religions would add an element of danger that would 'wake up' all the 'lapsed Christians'. I fear what fate awaits any atheist grandchildren I might have in 22nd Century Britain.

As for evolution, perhaps a bit of research would help reduce your confusion about Evolution. (If the Catholic Church can manage it, surely you can.)

31 January 2014 at 11:14  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

.....and surely 'loving one's neighbour as oneself' is all about warning everyone else about the abyss that one can see....not walking quietly around it or away from it, or standing by and watching everyone else fall in.....this is what Christianity must be about - warning others of the dangers, not tolerating anything and everything in a mistaken definition of 'love'. If I love my child, I grab it from the oncoming car, not just watch the unfolding catastrophe with a dewy-eyed sentiment!

31 January 2014 at 11:15  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Busy Mum @ 11.15

Quite ! Well said.

The Christian way is to work now in this present world for "The Common Good", a phrase that neatly encapsulates the drive and rationale behind so many Christian initiatives like hospitals, charity for the poor, education, emancipating slaves, adoption agencies etc etc . The Christian approach is both thoroughly practical and unselfish, which is why it has achieved so much over its 2000 years.

It also anticipates, points towards, the eventual, radical transformation of everything in a future , promised coming "Kingdom of God".

But we are not to predict when the Kingdom, which will be a gift from God, will come, but to work away now, doing what we can for the Common Good.

So it is always both hopeful and practical.

31 January 2014 at 11:34  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ explorer

About that abyss. I find one has to ration the amount of time spent looking into the abyss or it does begin to get to you. For the secretary of the US Reece (Reiss) Report, Katherine something, a previously organised and well balanced person lost her mind she was so appalled. I only remember the pronunciation) did precisely that. It was such an incendiary report that some claim it never existed, or if they have to admit it claim the people involved were right wing nutters, (although there was a Democrat there too) or varieties of the same "biased/zealot/melodramatic" argument.

However you can, as I have, access the full report, if you persist in trying, an odd 1000 or so pages online, and all assertions seem fully backed up by evidence to me, and it proceeds in pretty measured and methodical fashion to its startling conclusions about the tax exempt foundations of the United States. Well worth a bit of due diligence to know where much of the rot emanates. Immensely immensely rich some of these are, and just look at the people sitting at the top of these opinion influencers, now as then, (though often not from their inception) and what their opinions are.

31 January 2014 at 11:38  
Blogger Theo said...

I have just returned from a tour of Sri Lanka, a country which has a large Buddhist majority in its population. I stayed in five different hotels and it soon became apparent from the number of people in fancy dress as fruit bats in dining rooms that a number of the guests at these hotels were from the Middle East. These seemed to graze happily in the dining room. At each hotel I asked if the food was halal and was told at each, with varying degrees of surprise, that of course it was. Not being willing to eat food offered to idols I survived my holiday by eating only pork and shellfish. But why should I be offered tainted food when I had paid good money to dine at these hotels. My travel company didn't warn me and the hotel left me guessing. Not being the rioting type and not knowing where my nearest rent-a-mob office was I had to quietly submit to being abused and offended by hotels who pander to the tastes of a minority of guests without concerning themselves whether other guest might be offended. Do I protest? Do I threaten to take my custom elsewhere? I can well imagine the reaction of the Islamists if their sensibilities were treated in such a cavalier way.

It begs the question as to whether all hotel food even in England is polluted in this way.

31 January 2014 at 11:40  
Blogger Peter Ford said...

Inspector General in Ordinary:

I just don't understand your attitude, especially with a shortage of adopters. It almost sounds like you are hoping it will turn out that "school friends tend not to visit them at home" so that you can 'journal' it and support your point of view. You'd rather the kids grew up in foster care? Or a Christian children's home?

31 January 2014 at 11:51  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Peter Ford @ 11:14

Very interesting theory.

My understanding is that the roots of multiculturalism go back to post-war secular theorising about conflict avoidance.

ie. What causes war? Nationalism. Destroy nationalism by destroying the nation. Make it a community of communities within a geographical area. (Biku Parekh's description. Not that he was one of the original theorists: his presence was the result of their theorising.)

When Andrew Neather said Labour's plan was to rub the faces of the Right in diversity, that doesn't sound like religion either; that sounds like pure (or impure) politics.

31 January 2014 at 12:05  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Lucy @ 11:38

As Nietzsche puts it in 'Zrarathustra' somewhere, "If you stare too long into the abyss, the abyss will stare into you."

He just didn't stop staring in time. (Apart from his syphilis, which was another factor in his insanity.)

31 January 2014 at 12:11  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Peter Ford

Best of all for most children, as a social worker recently told me he felt, is that children are brought up by their won parents with more support; this would also work out cheaper for the State. Most of the parents of children in care do love their children, he said, but just don't have much clue how to bring them up. Many have not seen a pattern to copy from their own childhood.

Leaving that aside there have been some particularly gruesome things happening. Some people want children for completely the wrong reasons, and children have at the worst been pimped out to homosexual paedophiles, and the press have kept strangely muted about this. Islington had a particularly awful record. Cases that have gone through the court are too numerous to mention. Peter Righton is a particularly grim example of one of these spiders in the middle of a foul network. Child care "expert"; poor children.

What has happened is that some who had very fine motives have been squeezed out of the space whilst some with an abusing agenda have been welcomed in and allowed far too much rope. That they then went and hanged themselves has been reported, but not with the due noise, clanging cymbals and "something must be changed, and speedily" that was appropriate. No doubt the Cameron clause whereby we mustn't expose paedophiles because we don't want a gay witch hunt" is popular in some circles.

One way of cleaning the system would be for it to be run only by church ladies. You would get a far far better outcome, but then who would go for such commonsense?

31 January 2014 at 12:13  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

Thankyou David H - I truly am a busy mum so forgive me if I only post intermittently and do not appear to engage in conversation so to speak!
I used this argument re defining Christian love at our primary school (C of E, very rural) when the older pupils had an introduction to Islam with a guest speaker....a woman, who had no qualms about removing her niqab to talk to the class.
I said this gave the children a false impression. 1. That Muslim women play an equal and valued role in Islamic society. 2. That Muslim women are free to don or remove their head coverings as they wish.
I said that a better introduction to Islam for these rural and relatively naive children would be a day trip to a certain area of London or another big city; one woman in a part-time niqab in the depths of rural England doesn't quite do the job!
I also said that by teaching the children that Islam was equal to Christianity, the school was acting contrary to its Christian ethos which surely is founded on Jesus being the only can a true Christian honestly tell children there are other, equally valid 'ways', so we don't actually need Jesus after all?
Needless to say, I now have a few enemies at school, who like to think of themselves as 'loving' Christians.....and of course this pesky mother who is challenging the school's RS/equality policies cannot possibly be a Christian but is an Islamophobe, so is somehow undeserving of their 'love'!

31 January 2014 at 12:17  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Busy Mum
If you live in a rural area suggest that they do some research about the Prophet Muhammed's attitudes towards, and strictures upon dogs, with particular focus upon black dogs. Bound to be some black labradors who would be for the chop if Islam had much sway. See them change in an instant when defending the family pet!

People are selective and hypocritical about these things too often I fear. We can live happily alongside very moderate Muslims, or certain slightly unusual denominations, but the full blown fundamentalist is imcompatible with British life and British assumptions, and the family dog not least amongst that!

Hope things improve with the other parents and good for you for thinking and not just floating with the flow :-)

31 January 2014 at 12:32  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Explorer @ 10.37 says, ' but there might be a second monster waiting to be unleashed as a result of rash social experiments.'

Correct. Any Judeo-Christian and European society that agrees to admit third world and/or Islamic settlers implicitly accepts that it will become in part, third world and/or Islamic. The degree of the demographic and cultural shift naturally depends on the size of the settler population. Just as the British electorate has been misled about the loss of sovereignty to the EU by politicians of all parties, so has the electorate been misled about the consequences of third world and in particular, Islamic settlement. We all know that as third world immigration built up in the sixties and seventies, any protest was dismissed as racist. In fact, with the exception of Enoch Powell who had lived through Partition in India, no British politician was competent to assess the risks of an Islamic population.

Permit this communicant to expand now on the position of the Baroness Warsi, who is rapidly emerging as something of an It Girl, for all the wrong reasons.

If Warsi is truly Muslim she must follow the command of her prophet and work towards the introduction of sharia in Britain and the supremacy of Islam within Britain. Her Muslim constituency will expect nothing else from her and she probably needs to be able to offer clear signs of progress to avoid the fate of Benazir Bhutto.

On the other hand the British cabinet has suddenly shown an unexpected concern about the extinction of Christianity at the hands of Islamic radicals in the Middle East. Better politicians than the Coalition would immediately sheet this home to Labour and waste no time in discrediting Tony Blair in view of his subservience to Bush before the invasion of Iraq. But Cameron has foolishly positioned himself so as to be unable to wield that particular knife. However it is possible that within the Cabinet there are voices of intelligence and integrity (Phillip Hammond? IDS?) who can cut through the multi-culti drivel and make life extremely embarrassing for the Baroness.

If so, Warsi now finds herself in an unenviable position, but she is clever enough to think of a solution that buys her time with a reasonable chance of success to boot. The solution is clearly a state-sponsored Mosque of Britain, which Warsi can present as meeting the demands of both her constituencies, the British Ummah and the British cabinet. The Ummah would see such a development as evidence of the work of the prophet, through Warsi, and the Cabinet Wets would be thrilled by the prospect of an institution that would enable control of the Immans while offering their congregations a sense of inclusiveness in the British state. Or at least, that’s how Warsi would sell the MoB to the Cabinet.

His Grace’s communicants, secularists excepted, would have no trouble in recognizing the risks of such a development.

31 January 2014 at 12:38  
Blogger John Wrake said...

Since our Government is committed to increasing our cultural understanding, might I suggest that all female Members of Parliament should be given expenses-paid cultural visits to Saudi Arabia. Or South Yemen. Or Indonesia. or Pakistan.

john Wrake.

31 January 2014 at 12:56  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Busy Mum @ 12.17

Interesting. But good for you, I say.

Clearly as Christians dialogue and respect for "the other" is appropriate. But children need to be guided and protected most carefully in these matters. The young are not mature enough to understand what is going on, in such exchanges, I believe.
Moreover we cannot be truly Christian if we believe that all faiths are equal, since we are told, very clearly, "I am the way, the truth and the life, and nobody comes to the Father except through me". Teaching that all faiths are equal seems to be leading many youngsters into rejecting the lot, or if you wish, valuing everything but valuing nothing in particular. That's my view, highly unpopular though it may be with all liberals of course.

31 January 2014 at 13:42  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ IGiO (10:25)—We learned recently that some minority communities (we were not told which but we can guess at one in particular) dispense their own justice, even in cases of murder. A community that has distanced itself to the extent of having its own judicial system could well have its own adoption agencies operating outside state control.

31 January 2014 at 14:05  
Blogger non mouse said...

Let me get this straight - you know how it is, we English are too stupid even to speak our own language properly.

So ... as an entity subservient to the euSSR, the British accept and obey all laws forced on us by brussells (?sp).

Soldiers of mahmud, (that mighty and victorious lord) however - wield their avenging swords at will and with impunity. They are subject to no law other than Sharia Worldwide.


31 January 2014 at 15:01  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

David Hussell and Lucy Mullen,
I absolutely agree that the children need protecting and of course they don't understand how their lovely schools are being used very subtly by the state to indoctrinate them. We actually withdraw ours from any non-Christian RS lessons.
My 'enemies' are not other parents - when I asked a few, nobody had been informed by their children of 'the visit'...nobody really bothers to find out what goes on, they still naively trust the state to educate their children. No, my 'enemies' are a few 'liberal' governors who I suspect find it easier to tick boxes for OFSTED than to 'bear the cross'.

31 January 2014 at 15:01  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Rod Liddle writes a good article in The Spectator this week about why he's on the homophobic bus.

“As you might guess, I am hugely in favour of homophobic buses. Not because I hold any animus against gay people — far from it. There isn’t an economically more successful section of the country, nor one less disposed towards criminality. But I think it is vital that everyone, regardless of who they are, or what they do to one another under the cover of darkness on Hampstead Heath, should be afforded the chance to be offended on a daily basis, in the hope that it will enable them, eventually, to ‘get over it’. And to get over it without recourse to lawyers and legislation; just to abide by someone else’s view and accept that they are hideously misguided, or plain wrong, or possibly right but you don’t really care — and not to worry about it any further. The right to be offended. I think it might catch on, you know.”

This chance to be offended on a daily basis can also be applied to Muslims of the extreme persuasion living here too. There's nothing to fear about drawing Mohammad, get over it.

31 January 2014 at 15:28  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Busy Mum

"No, my 'enemies' are a few 'liberal' governors who I suspect find it easier to tick boxes for OFSTED"

Make no mistake, failing to tick boxes for OFSTED is not an option now for any school. Stalinist is not the word for it.

We have one type of lesson, testing every 5 min. Great if you are top of the class but if you are middle and bottom. We know you are stupid so we will regularly test you to make sure that you know that fact. There is the one approved curriculum which for primary schools is effectively only maths and English as these are the only two subjects that are "measured".

None of my kids go to State schools (Thank God) for the moment at least I can afford the alternative. All of the older ones did some till quite recently. So from the state system taking every little moan seriously in case I wrote a letter to OFSTED. I now pay a lot of money to be told in effect "shut up and leave the education of your children to us" which is actually quite reassuring.


PS I don't really value Christian RE. My kids rather enjoyed winding up a succession of militant atheist RE teachers. It strengthened their faith.

31 January 2014 at 15:55  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Busy Mum
Phil Roberts

You both sound like the sort of parents that your respective children are very fortunate to have.

31 January 2014 at 16:03  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

@John Wrake: Since our Government is committed to increasing our cultural understanding, might I suggest that all female Members of Parliament should be given expenses-paid cultural visits to Saudi Arabia. Or South Yemen. Or Indonesia. or Pakistan.

Ha ha ha ha! And to be advised to go ahead wander about at will...being independent spirits and all that...and sure, yes; n-o-o-o-o problem, go ahead and wear whatever! Comfort and, uh, meaningfully expressing oneself with clothing, tramp stamps and pins through various body parts. A true gift for every political stripe: A genuine, in-the-field cultural enrichment for our liberal betters and a smaller government for us conservative types. Where does one donate for this laudable cause>

31 January 2014 at 18:10  
Blogger Darter Noster said...


"Where does one donate for this laudable cause>"

British governments have been shelling out a fortune for politicians to visit Islamic extremist countries like Saudi Arabia for decades, usually to flog them weapons or to encourage them to buy hugely expensive houses in Central London.

Mind you, if the politicians promised to stay there I'd mind a lot less....

31 January 2014 at 18:22  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Peter Ford. Your link read and digested. As this is not the topic His Grace has for us in the immediate, may this man leave you with this from that article

“Gay men are less likely to have depression, anxiety, stress and relationship problems while coping with parenthood.”

If you believe that, you have no understanding of gay men. Neither did this man until he did research into their doings. Suggest you do the same. You could start with viewing Pink News, where these types record their La Jolie Vie in the comments section {AHEM}

However what is more relevant to the current topic of is this – your disdain for religion obviously does not extend to the fashionable political correctness dogma that being gay is the subliminal peak of human achievement...

31 January 2014 at 18:22  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

Watching this fin de civilisation tragedy unfold, increasingly I find that Fred Phelps makes more sense than the mutually appointed liberal ruling elite.

I mean, what part of 'To hell with free speech!' don't they get?

31 January 2014 at 21:03  
Blogger Teslagirl said...

"On the Day of Judgement, part of the hellfire will come forth with two eyes with which to see, two ears with which to hear, and a tongue with which to speak, saying, ‘I have been ordered to deal with three: he who holds there is another god besides Allah, with every arrogant tyrant, and with makers of pictures.’
So I assume that every representative artist, from cave painters, through Van Gogh to say, David Hockney, can expect "hellfire"? Should we just junk Western art to avoid causing 'offense'?

31 January 2014 at 21:13  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Teslagirl @ 21.13

Enter any mosque, anywhere and you may see beautiful patterns, sometimes in mosaics, but never, ever a single picture, photograph or image. The theological aim is to avoid idolatry.

Perhaps because of the proximity of Islam, Orthodox Christianity went through great convulsions of theological debate between the iconoclasts and anti-iconoclasts, those for or against icons. The iconoclasts won and icons are a central feature of Orthodoxy.

We in the west, especially in these isles, had our own "anti-iconoclasts", the Puritans. A parish church in our benefice suffered the deliberate indignity of having Cromwell's horses stabled in it as a snub, maybe as a response to its then, relatively well preserved medieval wall paintings. In terms of punishment of course, that was small beer to that old cavalryman.

Just some background information for you. Experts can advise to greater depth and detail than I can.

31 January 2014 at 21:34  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

Phil Roberts
Agree re Christian RE lessons - ours don't do RE at our state secular secondary because it is taught from an atheist starting point. Have come across plenty of the sort of teachers you describe! However,at our mostly very good C of E primary, which is held in trust (I have seen the trust deed) the govs are duty bound to ensure teaching conforms to the C of E; I would argue that this ought to be the C of E of a century or so ago! So we, as parents, can hold the govs to account over that. It's incredible how little understanding some of these govs actually have of Christianity - by challenging them we make them think in terms beyond the Stalinist OFSTED and some of them don't like that.....

31 January 2014 at 21:50  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

David H. Cromwell's troops used Gloucester cathedral as a stables too. And the troopers passed the time by smashing the noses of effigies therein with their musket butts. But of course, when it comes to denigration of art, if its got two eyes and mouth and is somehow linked to religion, the God botherer Len will be there to destroy it if only he could...

So there you have it. Aforementioned blighter and Islam in bed together...

31 January 2014 at 21:55  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Busy Mum

It is amazing and rather sad how many teachers have decided to "believe" in the OFSTED mantra

It is usually younger teachers. I suppose they know nothing else.

Tick the box, provide the policy, nothing else matters.

For an heartbeat the words "Bring back Grammar Schools" might just upset OFSTED. Although they will soon be controlled and regulated also and lose most of what used to make them special. Thereby the main rationale for bringing them back.

It is remarkable that Grammar schools are the one type of school that is still banned. You can open any other sort of school with Grove's blessing. But a Grammar school? No chance.

Why are they such a threat?


31 January 2014 at 22:12  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Phil R @ 22:12

They are such a threat because they are the difference between being taught what to think and how to think.

If you have the 'how', you might question the 'what'.

31 January 2014 at 22:21  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Ars Hendrika: nothing wrong with the Spanish Inquisition – set up as it was to ward off Muslim attempts at thwarting the Reconquista.

Actually it was set up to deal with conversos, and originally had no jurisdiction over Muslims or Jews. Jews and Muslims were expelled subsequently.

Also, it doesn't seem that unreasonable for Muslims to want to thwart the "Reconquista", having lived in Andalusia for 700 years.

31 January 2014 at 22:23  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Of course later it was to play a key role in squashing incipient Lutheranism and native Spanish alumbrados by force.

31 January 2014 at 22:23  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Remember Alan Bloom in 'The Closing of the American Mind'?

By inculcating politically-correct attitudes rather than knowledge the American education system was producing the World's most sensitive illiterates?

They're probably still winning in that respect, but we must be running them a pretty close second.

31 January 2014 at 22:29  
Blogger Thomas Keningley said...

Note also that no such courtesy is extended to Christians who may be offended by the depiction of Christ (many Presbyterians, for example).

31 January 2014 at 22:31  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

The musket was an astonishingly bloody weapon considering its early entry in the history of firearms...

From an account of one battle during the English Civil War...

“The unfortunate was hit mid arm. The forearm and hand were taken completely off and the remaining upper arm looked for all intents and purposes as resembling an empty banana skin”

Lead balls the size of children's large marbles you see, devastating...

But one digresses...

31 January 2014 at 22:52  
Blogger skeetstar said...

We're bananas known at the time of the commonwealth, then?

31 January 2014 at 23:11  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

skeetstar. Questions like that make the Inspector imagine you are a somewhat silly thing...

Surely not the case ?

31 January 2014 at 23:16  
Blogger David Hussell said...


Gloucester Cathedral for stabling ? That's interesting. Maybe it was his lowest level punishment or snub to a whole area. But better than lining up the local worthies to face a line of muskets methinks !

In my latest history/ political book, for light reading, entitled "How we invented freedom and why it maters" by Daniel Hannan, he argues that the reason that relatively few were killed in the Civil War in England was because, generally, the opposing armies were both led by officers who were in the middle of the road C of E. This maintained an effective check on the far stronger animosities between the Catholics and ultra-protestants. So prisoners were merely disarmed and had to give their word to become non-combatants before being sent home. It's probably a valid point.

I muse that there's a touch of that at play here on this very blog ! But I too digress.

1 February 2014 at 08:36  
Blogger Len said...

Inspector extraordinaire;

I find it amazing that Catholics (at least some Catholics)know it is wrong to worship(lets call that 'venerate' to be generous) idols but they have 'get out clauses' in their theology to allow them to do the very thing God forbids(how very Pharisaical!)
Smashing idols seem to have originated with Abraham(known to some as the father of the faith)here`s an account to illustrate the futility of idol worship(sorry veneration)

'When Abraham was still a young child, he realized that idol worship was nothing but foolishness. To make his point, one day, when Abraham was asked to watch the store, he took a hammer and smashed all the idols - except for the largest. His father came home aghast. "What happened?!" he shouted. "It was amazing, Dad," replied Abraham. "The idols all got into a fight and the biggest idol won!"

1 February 2014 at 09:05  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

So prisoners were merely disarmed and had to give their word to become non-combatants before being sent home.

Would that arrangement work in a present-day civil war? I wonder.

1 February 2014 at 09:08  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Phil Roberts @ 22.12

"What are Grammar Schools such a threat"

Maybe the Conservatives see them as a political threat, in the sense that it, in their minds, it makes their party vulnerable to accusations from Labour/LibDems of being "elitist", that old bogey based on jealousy, which has plagued British politics for far too long, and impeding many improvements in our national condition.

Ukip supports Grammar Schools for the simple reasons that they work, provide the most effective ladder for social mobility yet invented and are popular amongst the "strivers". We have to back that which succeeds, is my opinion.

The thing is to identify what youngsters are best at, the academic or the technical, and then try to ensure that they are provided with the skills and opportunity to excel and to fulfill their potential in life.

1 February 2014 at 09:17  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Uncle Brian @ 09:08

I believe the same applied in the Boer War. Boer prisoners could be released after signing a non-combatants pledge. If they were then caught fighting again, they could be shot.

It works only when both sides believe in a God who will judge the breaking of promises, even if you escape the consequences in this life.

It wouldn't be possible today. No God, and death as the end of everything. Break a promise, so what? Provided you don't get caught by earthly authorities: that's all you need to worry about.

1 February 2014 at 10:13  
Blogger The Explorer said...

David H and Phil R:

Grammar schools work in Germany; so do the technical schools.

When Crosland vowed to destroy "every ******* grammar school" he was presumably thinking in social terms; since he wanted to retain academic rigour.

Can't quite put my finger on it, but since him there seems to have been a philosophical objection among educational theorists to the knowledge-based approach represented by the grammar schools. Process-based is preferred instead.

Caricatured, if no one needs to know anything it's harder to say one person is cleverer than another. Everyone's a winner: in keeping with notions of equality.

There's definitely something of the sort in the current educational equation.

1 February 2014 at 10:29  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Explorer and David

Grammar schools USED to work

They may still do, but if they are to be inspected by OFSTED you will not have a Grammar school that is free and successful rather a Comprehensive or Academy (They are both the same)that has mostly bright pupils. OFSTED will decide the rules, so it will probably be one step forward and two back unless they are made free of OFSTED.

But OFSTED means control and power. So will any Government give up this sort of thought control over future generations?


1 February 2014 at 11:47  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Teslagirl (21:13)—A 15th century fresco in the Basilica of San Petronio in Bologna shows the Prophet Mohammed in Hell, and there are ongoing attempts by Muslims to destroy either the fresco or the entire church. There’s a photograph here of Muslims praying in front of the basilica.

1 February 2014 at 11:49  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Johnny R @ 11:49

Dante's 'Inferno' also has Mohammed and Ali in Hell.

Wonder how Muslims will deal with that one. (Or the Italians themselves.)

1 February 2014 at 12:10  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Len. It is to testament to His Grace’s amazing patience that he allows the rot you publish in the name of naked fundamentalism.

When you read your bible, you really have no understanding of what you are reading about, have you ? Take Abraham, for some reason which is lost to the Inspector, his people could at any time forsake the Almighty and start worshipping the golden calf god. Hardly surprising then that he was rather paranoid about images and forms, the poor sod. That didn’t occur to you until now, did it ? It didn’t occur to you because you read and you don’t understand.

Still, one is somewhat intrigued as to what sparse free thought does go on in that little mind of yours, so here’s a question for you.

A commanding officer in the army has a portrait of HM Queen hanging in his office. You find out he is a Christian so you go to see him and warn him not to worship the image as he will break the second commandment. You tell him he’s already on dodgy ground by merely having the thing in his office. He calls you an idiot. What do you say to justify yourself ?

One chooses the army commander scenario, as just for jolly, the Inspector can imagine you being told that unless you are off the camp in 15 minutes, you will be shot on sight...

1 February 2014 at 12:28  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

The Explorer and
Johnny Rottenborough

Google Images has this (link below) but I couldn't find the Doré engraving.

By the way, if any knowledgeable (and kind-hearted) communicant would care to explain how to do that bluing-in thing that I believe is called hyperlink, he or she will have my eternal gratitude.


1 February 2014 at 12:37  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Sorry, that tinyurl link doesn't seem to be working. It was supposed to show a mural or fresco illustrating the Inferno, Canto 28, lines 22-31.

1 February 2014 at 12:43  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Uncle Brian:

Is the Bologna fresco Johnny R mentioned an illustration of Dante?

1 February 2014 at 12:57  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Chaps – A genuine heart-warming development in the protection of our vulnerable little ones...

From Pink News

“Scotland: Catholic adoption agency which does not consider gay people wins back charitable status”

Don’t forget to view the readers comments as well. (Heh Heh)

The Inspector will have an additional spring in his step as he embarks upon his imminent constitutional...

Good day to you all.

1 February 2014 at 13:01  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Uncle Brian:

I've answered my own question: yes it is.

I envisage future editions of Dante with the offending cantos blanked out.

But what about the EXISTING editions (including mine) in libraries, museums etc?

Interesting times.

1 February 2014 at 13:05  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

The Explorer

I don't know whether the fresco I found on Google Images is the Bologna one or not. Sorry. What I was really looking for was the Doré engraving, which I didn't find.

I simply googled for dante inferno xxviii


1 February 2014 at 13:07  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

The Explorer at 13:05

Good point. And what about future editions of the Doré engravings?

See you if you find this engraving on Google Images. If it's really not there, could that mean it has been deliberately removed?

1 February 2014 at 13:11  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

See if you can find, I mean

1 February 2014 at 13:12  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Uncle Brian:

I found it in Bing Images (Dore engravings of Dante) third or fourth row towards the right.

The creepiest image of the lot, I think, is Arachne turning into a spider. (First brought to my attention in the film 'Se7en'.)

1 February 2014 at 13:24  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Doré's version, by the way, is much less gory than the fresco which you have kindly identified for me as the Bologna one. In Doré, the slit starts at a point midway beween the collar bones and runs down only as far as the navel. And no Hammer Films-style dripping gore, either.

Of course, even the fresco is a sanitised depiction of the very long surgical incision that Dante took care to specify meticulously.

1 February 2014 at 13:29  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

The Explorer

I see what you mean about the spider, though I have to say I find something slightly comic about it. The one that used to give me the shivers as a child was the Geri del Bello with the amputated stumps.

1 February 2014 at 13:35  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Uncle Brian:

Not comic in the context of 'Se7en'!

Some quick on-line research revealed that the Bologna fresco has been an ongoing issue since 2002.

Nothing less than a clash of two civilisations and two belief systems.

It will be interesting to see if the Italians will hold their nerve; or what will happen if the church is blown up.

1 February 2014 at 13:43  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Uncle Brian (12:37)—The HTML for a hyperlink is:

<a href="">link description</a>

Paste the address you are linking to between the quotation marks. The link description is the word or words that will appear in blue; in my last post I used ‘shows’ and ‘here’.

1 February 2014 at 13:51  
Blogger Len said...

Inspector, you really should read the bible (presumably you have one?) because you have your 'facts' regarding Abraham totally wrong.

Another thing ,

You constant reports on whats going on in the 'gay scene' is getting somewhat tiresome and perhaps a little worrying if not to you then perhaps to others?. I think you have tried HG`s patience on this on numerous occasions.

(Ever heard the 'lumberjack song' it comes to mind whenever I can be bothered to read read you posts )

1 February 2014 at 14:25  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Inspector, Happy Jack agrees that decision in Scotland is very heartening for religious freedom and children. Does it mean this agency will still be able to place children with heterosexual and married people? Being a charity is one thing but being an adoption agency another.

Explorer and , Happy Jack has been reading your exchanges with interest.

It seems perfectly acceptable in a free society to express one's religious views openly even if this causes offence. In the old days art and communication was different to today. Cartoons and the internet are more available to a mass market than printed books and paintings ever were.

Here's the question. If a piece of art, a written comment or spoken word is deliberately intended to ridicule or to demean another's faith and, as a result, is likely to cause a great deal of bother, should it be illegal?

Jack thinks not. It's been happening with Christianity for years now and we 'turn the other cheek' to such badness. And yet it seems to Jack is only a well ordered and civilised society that can handle this. And what happens if there are minorities that cannot accept this? These are not just religious ones. Or minorities who then use this freedom of expression to deliberately cause internal strife?

At the moment the law protects the 'offended' and the 'minority' at the cost of freedom. And it seems to Jack the 'offended' are all those who are not everyday, ordinary, folk.

1 February 2014 at 15:45  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Explorer and Uncle Brian - that should have been.

1 February 2014 at 15:46  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Len. Does notification of the doings of the sworn enemies of Christ who live in Sodom bother you ?

Their doings certainly bothered God (if you read your bible) in the past.

Anyway, your mind is a quiet street, so we won’t ask it to respond. Now, isn’t it about time you fed those 7 cats you idolise....

1 February 2014 at 16:03  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Jack. One will endeavour to investigate; and of course, we are dealing with Scottish law here...

1 February 2014 at 16:08  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Jack. Those bastards in the NSS were responsible for the persecution of the adoption agency.

To think they have been described as a ‘decent’ lot on this noble blog by one of them...

1 February 2014 at 16:33  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Johnny Rottenborough

Thank you for answering my appeal. I'm still trying to get it to work properly. As soon as I do, you'll find the result here on this thread.


Happy Jack

The medieval theologians considered Mohammed to be a schismatic, it says here, which is why his symbolic punishment in Dante's hell was to be (almost) split down the middle. Pix coming up as soon as I've mastered Johnny Rottenborough's state-of-the-art technology.


1 February 2014 at 16:48  
Blogger Integrity said...

Dear Len & Inspector,
In the eyes of God one sin is the same as another except for blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. It could be said to be inappropriate to focus too much on one sin as apposed to all the others. However, whilst all sins are the same in God's eye, some sins have a greater effect on society than others.
Those that are propagating the sin of homosexuality are extending their sphere of influence far beyond that which is necessary for their fulfilment of their own lifestyles.
The fact they are having undue influence on minors, who would have normally had protection from such influences at a tender age, are now more likely to wish to experiment with such 'deviances'.
I also happened to know a Pastor who became obsessed with knocking the 'Gays' and their agenda from his pulpit. Quite rightly I believe but he was found to be having an affair. Maybe his obsession was a covering in his mind against his own indiscretions.
So, I would say that it is unhealthy to be obsessed with one group of sinners but we should not be unaware of their longer term intentions and it's potential effect. We should work to make the vulnerable aware of the dangers that they are facing.

1 February 2014 at 17:06  
Blogger Mike Stallard said...

Muslims are in very great danger, through the insecurity of their religion in the 21st century, of taking the place of the Jews as everyone's Aunt Sally. Or, of course, the Catholics up to 1829. I can well see more and more anti Muslim riots in the summer (EDL). If only they would shut up and behave like Christians!
PS I am a sympathetic observer, not an Islamophobe.

1 February 2014 at 17:27  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Uncle Brian/Happy Jack

The schismatic issue.

Canto XVIII is about the sowers of discord: religious, civil and familial.

Mahomet (as Dante has it) was not so much the founder of another religion as a Christian heretic: hence the symbolism of the dividing sword. I imagine Dante would have had the same opinion of Arius.

Muslims, of course, do not agree: theirs is the original religion of which Judaism and Christianity are corruptions.

But the schism view explains the Bologna fresco: and the protests about it once Muslims became aware of its existence.

1 February 2014 at 17:29  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Sage thought there Integrity. You have managed to encapsulate everything this particular man has been roused to anger over...

“Those that are propagating the sin of homosexuality are extending their sphere of influence far beyond that which is necessary for their fulfilment of their own lifestyles.”

Perhaps, one day, they will understand the meaning of discretion and self control and our anger can be replaced with the pity these types hitherto enjoyed from Christians...

1 February 2014 at 17:30  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Johnny Rottenborough

I think I've got it!

This illumination from a medieval manuscript now held at Holkham Hall, Norfolk, features, on the left, John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson as Dante and Virgil, and Quentin Tarantino, centre, in the starring role.

And this is the Gustave Doré engraving, suitably bowdlerised for a mid-Victorian readership. James Mason and Trevor Howard have been cast as Dante and Virgil (top right) with Basil Rathbone (centre stage, below) as the infernal prophet.

Johnny Rottenborough, if this works, you may be assured, as promised, of my eternal gratitude.

Thank you!

1 February 2014 at 17:35  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Unfair, Mike Stallard. The Jews in Europe were never considered an aggressive threat. The only stain that could be considered were atheistic Jews part in Bolshevism, and the real possibility that Communism would have collapsed by itself before or during the Great Depression had it not been for their able abilities. This, sadly, was a point not lost to Himmler.

1 February 2014 at 17:39  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Uncle Brian:

By George, he's got it!

Good on you! (And Johnny R.)

1 February 2014 at 17:47  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Inspector, Happy Jack says it is a well known strategy for radical groups to infiltrate organisations trusted by the public and then convert them into proxies for their own agenda.

In Jack's opinion, the NSS serves as a Trojan Horse for the anti-religious and anti-theists. It is so "reasonable" to try remove faith from "influence" in the public square so that they have no "advantages" or "privileges".

1 February 2014 at 17:52  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Uncle Brian (17:35)—Ten out of ten and a gold star.

1 February 2014 at 17:53  
Blogger Roy said...

Blogger Mike Stallard said...

Muslims are in very great danger, through the insecurity of their religion in the 21st century, of taking the place of the Jews as everyone's Aunt Sally. Or, of course, the Catholics up to 1829.

You didn't that non-Conformists were also discriminated against in various ways. Roman Catholics like to pretend that they are the only sizeable Christian group that suffered discrimination until well into the 19th century.

1 February 2014 at 18:25  
Blogger Len said...

Inspector;(1 February 2014 12:28) The definition of idolatry, according to Webster, is “the worship of idols or excessive devotion to, or reverence for some person or thing.” An idol is anything that replaces the one, true God. The most prevalent form of idolatry in Bible times was the worship of images that were thought to embody the various pagan deities.

(I don`t think anyone actually worships the Queen as their God) unlike the statues of Mary and Zeus(renamed Peter ) in the Vatican.

1 February 2014 at 18:27  
Blogger IanCad said...

Thanks for the clear instructions Johnny R.

Uncle Brian is off to the races already!

Others will follow.
Thanks again.

1 February 2014 at 18:44  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Len, your woeful knowledge of history lets you down again. Rather common for a head of state to be worshipped as a god. The Japanese for example, and that’s in living memory.

Now, lets have look at the 2nd commandment...

“You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.”

Talk about laying it on thick ! But it does explain you God botherers’ obsession with idolatry...

You are no better than the muslims are, in their condemnation of portrayals of the slimy one as an image...

1 February 2014 at 18:59  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

By the way. The second commandment.

The words of God, or that of a betrayed, bitter and vengeful man, Moses. Your choice...

1 February 2014 at 19:12  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Inspector, Happy Jack says
Moses was the greatest prophet and leader of God's people before Jesus was born. It was Moses and another very special prophet, Elijah, who appeared with Jesus during His Transfiguration.

1 February 2014 at 20:00  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

That’s good. There is a place in heaven for betrayed, bitter and vengeful men then...

1 February 2014 at 21:11  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Mr Integrity

"I also happened to know a Pastor who became obsessed with knocking the 'Gays' and their agenda from his pulpit. Quite rightly I believe but he was found to be having an affair"

The second point does not invalidate the first. The fact that he was arguing against sin whilst committing sin itself should not be unexpected. That he was sinning himself is taken by society to mean that the credibility of his whole message is at stake. It isn't. Nobody would object to a fat preacher arguing against the homosexual and liberal agenda, but he is equally as guilty of sin as the adulterous one.

He could equally well be arguing about the sin of gluttony but be fat himself. You don't have to be free from sin to warn of the dangers of sin. That road just gives Christians an impossible standard to achieve and runs counter to the Gospel of salvation by grace. Often the most compelling and effective people who preach against the dangers of homosexuality were once homosexual or still describe themselves as homosexual.


1 February 2014 at 21:25  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Inspector General, Happy Jack does not know if: "There is a place in heaven for betrayed, bitter and vengeful men then..." Jack is pretty sure Moses was bitter or vengeful. Maybe you should have a read of Paul's Letter to the Galatians.

" ... the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control."

1 February 2014 at 22:07  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


"Inspector, you really should read the bible (presumably you have one?) because you have your 'facts' regarding Abraham totally wrong."


"An idol is anything that replaces the one, true God."

Like pride perhaps in my "correct" relationship with God?

Sometimes in the summer I like to climb a mountain before dawn (BTW if you decide to do this it is always cold). I love seeing the sun come up and shine over God's creation. I love it, but I am not making an idol out of the sunrise or even God's creation. I am using something beautiful, that God called into existence, to help bring me closer to God.

I don't share the Catholics love of imagery. But God called these images into existence and many people say that these images help them find God.

They are not worshiping the image as a God any more than I am worshiping the sunrise as God. But they help to find God. This I can understand.

Len please don't make the assumption that because you find God one way everyone should do the same. Images have brought many people to God especially before people had access to the Bible or could read.

I was reading that Peter Hichens was a an Atheist and a communist. He once saw a picture of people going to hell. It changed him from an atheist to a christian

The interview is here

1 February 2014 at 22:20  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


"Nobody would object to a fat preacher arguing against the homosexual and liberal agenda, but he is equally as guilty of sin as the adulterous one.

He could equally well be arguing about the sin of gluttony, but be fat himself. You don't have to be free from sin to warn of the dangers of sin." Seriously fella?

Gluttony is a selfish lifestyle, not a state of body weight.... Most fat people are fat due to poor diet and lack of exercise!!!

One indiscretion either by a married or single person is always sin in itself, whereas we need to know how many excess LBs is the sin defined as gluttony in the person?
It is an invective easily cast, without the knowledge that gluttony in the OT related to pagans toasting their false gods, as all earthly desires to excess were to be praised and laziness leading to crimes by keeping bad company, to pay for this luxurious lifestyle.

Luke 7:34

The Son of Man has come eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Look at him! A glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners!’ See Deuteronomy 21:18-21 regarding "If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice.." . Note that Jesus himself hints that his opponents, who call him a glutton for spending so much time eating with the “wrong people” are actually trying to get him executed as a rebellious son (Matthew 11:19; Luke 7:34).

Nothing in the Bible specifically addresses obesity and weight loss.

False, poor analogy, Phil, my boy?


1 February 2014 at 22:36  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Phil R, Happy Jack is thinking over your comments to Mr Integrity.

Paul wrote in Galatians - before that bit Jack shared with the Inspector:

"Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God."

These are all pardonable sins but imply lifestyle choices and personality and character traits,
that do need to be overcome.

1 February 2014 at 22:38  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...


Nothing in the Bible specifically addresses obesity and weight loss.

Not even Ehud and Eglon in Judges?

1 February 2014 at 22:40  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


There are good reasons for not using images in worship.

First of all, the use of physical images to “aid” worship violates the command to worship God “in spirit and in truth” (John 4:23-24). Also, no one knows what God looks like, and John 1:18 is clear concerning this truth: “No one has seen God at any time; the only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father, He has explained Him.” And, because God is Spirit (John 4:24a), it is irreverent to delineate Him as an iconic representation.

No one alive knows what Jesus Christ looked like in the flesh, and, since there were no cameras or any artist that depicted a portrait of Christ when He walked the earth, the only description of His appearance is found in Isaiah 53:2-3, which says that He had “no stately form or majesty.”

The lack of a physical description of Christ has not stopped the Roman Catholic or Orthodox Church from depicting Him ad nausem.

Throughout these Catholic churches, institutions, convents, monasteries, and every other Catholic-affiliated building and shrine, there are paintings of God the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Mary, Joseph, and a myriad of canonized saints.

There are statues in abundance; there are relics, such as bone fragments, said to have belonged to certain saints. Some shrines even contain pieces of wood purported to be part of Jesus’ cross.

All of these things are held to be sacred objects worthy of high regard. The idolatry is rampant and fairly obvious to non-Catholics, yet Catholics do not believe they are committing idolatry.

They have been cleverly taught to believe that they do not worship these idols; they simply “venerate” them.

The problem is that “veneration” still gives honor and reverence to something and/or someone other than God; therefore, veneration is idolatry as Ernst detailed on a recent previous thread from RC sources.


1 February 2014 at 22:51  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

We are all in need of marking: "please be patient: work in progress" I imagine.

I would recommend particularly shying away from fulminating against those shortcomings one particularly shares. Let us keep our fulminating for protecting those most in need of it. If we fall into the sin of pride, well we will have to deal with that along the way, as and when. But I think, Phil, that spending too much time avoiding pride can be peculiarly an idol in its own right and prevent us from helping people as much as we would otherwise, and I have done that myself.

Sin, including many types of pride are inevitable, and it doesn't help to spend too much time peering at the sin. I remember someone once saying, "I looked at God, and the dove of peace settled on my heart, I looked at the dove of peace and it flew away"..It usually helps to have other people around who will nudge one into being more self-forgetful and less self-conscious.

Even that giant of the faith Moses could have done with that. He was somewhat solitary in his faith and stumbled. Hence he never saw the promised land, for he did not obey, but struck the rock again. When loggers found an enormously tall tree, out of respect they left it, but with no other trees around to provide shelter against the prevailing winds. It didn't survive long, and the same, I think, often goes for us.

1 February 2014 at 22:58  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Phil, Blofeld has you condemned, as has his chum Len who dwells in Blofeld’s spittoon. There is only one way to appease the mighty puritans – you must be struck blind with a hot poker...

Now look, there’s this marvellous fellow in Harley street. He can probably fit you in next week for double eye removal. Just say the word...

1 February 2014 at 23:15  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Blowers, Happy Jack notes you said: "The problem is that “veneration” still gives honor and reverence to something and/or someone other than God."

Did Jack read somewhere:

"Honour your father and your mother .... "


1 February 2014 at 23:29  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 February 2014 at 23:29  
Blogger Integrity said...

Phil is right to say that you don't have to be free from sin to criticise sin as we are all sinners and fall short of the glory of God. There is a saying though about removing the beam from ones own eye so that you can see to remove the mote from ones brother's eye.

1 February 2014 at 23:45  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Integrity, Happy Jack agrees completely. None of us are free from sin. Such behaviour does expose the Christian churches to ridicule and undermines believers.

Jack was pointing out that when Paul wrote to the Galatians he warned them about particular lifestyle sins that place their very salvation in danger. Jack would not like to be preached to by a man in the grip of these serious sins.

Jack also shared with the Inspector the gifts we receive from the Holy Spirit when we are fully in Christ. Now a preacher with those qualities would have the full power of God with him.

In Jack's mind, and he is being harsh here, ministers of God should have the decency to take sabbaticals to get over their serious sins by repenting and finding pardon - or leave ministry. This is for their own good too. And when their sins are found out they inflict great damage on Christ's Church and weaken its evangelising mission.

2 February 2014 at 00:06  
Blogger Integrity said...

Well said.

2 February 2014 at 00:22  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Uncle Brian said...

" Blofeld

Nothing in the Bible specifically addresses obesity and weight loss.

Not even Ehud and Eglon in Judges?"

There is so much more going on here than extreme colonic irrigation. *Coughing*

2 February 2014 at 01:26  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


"The head crusher was a popular torture method used by the SPANISH INQUISITION, among other users. The chin was placed over a bottom bar and the head under an upper cap. The torturer slowly turned the screw, pressing the bar against the cap. The head was then slowly compressed, first shattering the teeth into the jaw, then a slow death with agonizing pain. Some variants of this device included small containers that received the eyeballs as they were squeezed out of the victims’ eye sockets.

This instrument was an effective way to extract confessions, as the period of pain could be prolonged for many hours if the torturer chose to. If the torture was stopped midway, the victim often had irreparable damage done to the brain, jaw or eyes. "

Or get the papal speciality that was the knee splitter. It was a vice-like instrument with sharp spikes outfitted on both sides of the grip. As the torturer turned the handle, the claws slowly squeezed against each other mutilating and penetrating the skin and bones of the knee. Although its use rarely resulted in death, the effect was to render the knees completely useless. It was also used on other body parts including elbows, arms and even the lower legs.

The number of spikes the knee splitter contained varied from three to more than twenty. Some claws were heated beforehand to maximize pain - others had dozens of small claws that penetrated the flesh slowly and painfully.
The Katholic kebabed heretic!!

Harley street...Bah. Ooh, for the good ole days, eh, when a heretic knew their place or else.

RCC... cooking heretics, since AD 380.


2 February 2014 at 01:46  
Blogger Happy Jack said...


AD 380

*Emperor Theodosius I is baptised.

*The Edict of Thessalonica is issued, ordering all subjects of the Roman Empire to profess the Trinitarian faith of the bishops of Rome and Alexandria. The edict ended Arianism, a Christology denying the Trinity, centred in Constantinople, and ended years of strife within the Church and in the Empire.

*The edict re-affirmed a single expression of the Apostolic Faith as legitimate in the Roman Empire, "Catholic" - universal - and "Orthodox" - correct in teaching.

*The edict was followed in 381 by the First Council of Constantinople, which reaffirmed the Nicene Creed.

*In 383, the Emperor ordered various non-Nicene sects not to meet, ordain priests, or spread their beliefs. Heretics were not allowed to reside within Constantinople and their places of worship were confiscated.

2 February 2014 at 02:46  
Blogger Ivan said...

Truth be told, "London bankers" in their various incarnations have stolen more from the Muslims than they ever got from the West.

The examples of BCCI and the missing fortune of the Brunei Sultan comes to mind. The pious Muslim is an easy touch when it comes to bilking his money in the name of religion. All the bankers have to do to explain any losses is that they were shariah-compliant. Versions of this scam has been going on for a long time. Much as I dislike the spread of shariah, it is not humane to wish the vultures on the Muslims who are generally poor and stupid.

2 February 2014 at 04:48  
Blogger The Explorer said...

Ivan @ )4:48

Let us then hope that Cameron's financial plans for London are not fulfilled: for the sake of London and Muslims alike.

2 February 2014 at 08:40  
Blogger skeetstar said...

Ito, yes you are right.. Bananas arrived in England in 1633, few years before the start of the conflict..

2 February 2014 at 08:44  
Blogger skeetstar said...

Sorry Ito should be I g o

2 February 2014 at 08:46  
Blogger David Hussell said...

skeetstar @ 8.44,

Bananas 1633, amazing !

So global trade involving the UK is a very old thing, even with soft fruit.

2 February 2014 at 11:20  
Blogger The Explorer said...

There's painting of Charles II being presented with (I think) a British-grown pineapple by the Royal Gardener.

2 February 2014 at 11:31  
Blogger David Hussell said...

The idolatry debate.

Whilst my personal preference is for a fairly plain space for worship, I can accept that some people need say, an icon, a representation of a holy person, a role model really, as an aid to thinking about , relating to God. Providing that these are merely entry points, portals in modern speak, to the Father or the Son, in the power of The Spirit, and not objects of worship in themselves, I doubt whether there is any idolatry.

It is a well known fact that different types of people learn, and similarly, access God in different ways. So for some the plain Word is all that they need, and that includes me, but other people respond more to music, singing, or visual triggers.

Contemporary Evangelical churches often have laptop driven visuals of whatever topics are included as the themes of the service or sermon, say a picture of the Temple in Jerusalem. So for today, when we celebrate Candlemass, The Presentation of Christ in the Temple, according to the common lectionary that we all follow, a representation of The Temple would convey the idea, allowing us to visualize Simeon and Anna in the Temple blessing the baby Jesus, giving us the Nunc Dimittis of Luke 2. But they are not worshiping the visual image of the Temple. All these things including music and singing were at some point innovations, introduced as aids to worship and learning. But they must not become idols of themselves.

We are all different, but as long as we are all ultimately, looking towards the one Triune God, I think that some appreciation and tolerance of the glorious differences between us, as human beings made in the image of God, is a good thing.

Personally I see God most powerfully in ever changing landscapes, of many different types. I always have and probably always will. But I'm not worshipping the landscape, merely admiring it as the dynamic handwork of a slowly unfolding and changing physical world.

2 February 2014 at 11:46  
Blogger The Explorer said...

To return to the very important issue raised by Johnny R @ 1st Feb 11:49, should media censorship be retrospective?

Dante makes a controversial assertion about Mohammed. Dante's assertion is then visualised on the wall of a church, and by such illustrators as Dore.

If the Media agree to banning the 'Mo' cartoon, what should their attitude be to Dante and his illustrators?

Can we anticipate comparable censorship of Canto XVIII in whatever way it is manifested? 'The Satanic Verses' episode, after all, shows that offence can be given by a text, as well as by visual representation.

2 February 2014 at 12:39  
Blogger Len said...

The worship of idols relates to the worship of demons posing' as gods'

.If you are Ok with that well I suppose that is entirely your affair.

'And the rest of mankind, who were not killed with these plagues, repented not of the works of their hands, that they should not worship demons, and the idols of gold, and of silver, and of brass, and of stone, and of wood; which can neither see, nor hear, nor walk' [Revelation 9:20]

2 February 2014 at 14:05  
Blogger Len said...

It is in the nature of sinful man to rebel against the Word of God or to think that he can change the Word of God to suit his own purposes.
I suppose the bottom line is do we obey God or our own 'reason'.
This is of course what led to the fall of man and for every problem mankind has encountered since.
So we create an 'idol' but call its something else then 'venerate' it.

I wonder if we have fooled God?.

2 February 2014 at 14:13  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

skeetstar. It is difficult to comprehend now the clamour in England at the time when the previously unknown arrived at the port of Bristol from Africa and the New World, to change hands quickly at remarkable prices at the inns therein. And thus to find their way to the interior of England to be displayed to an ever curious population of all ages.

The recent and on going excitement at the latest X box release gives a rather subdued idea, as these contraptions are generally only appreciated by those feckless wasters of time, our undereducated youth...

2 February 2014 at 14:41  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Blofeld. One is sure you’ll be able to find in Harley street, a psychiatric practitioner of sufficient ability to be able to cure you and your pal of limited intellect the frothing at the mouth caused by second commandment misunderstanding fever, and your somewhat vandal attitude to works of art displayed in churches.

2 February 2014 at 14:51  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


"Throughout these Catholic churches, institutions, convents, monasteries, and every other Catholic-affiliated building and shrine, there are paintings of God the Father, Jesus, the Holy Spirit, Mary, Joseph, and a myriad of canonized saints"

So God does not use these images? Never has?

Even when people could not read?

Therefore Peter Hichens' conversion because of a religious painting (referred to in my last post) was a sham?

If you take trip to North Cyprus you can visit churches abandoned or turned into sheds. Sit and pray for a while and you will find they are special places still.

Some things we Evangelicals have lost. To our detriment


2 February 2014 at 15:18  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

RE idols.

Might I interpose some of the sweet and reasonable words of George Herbert:

"A man that looks on glass
On it may stay his eye,
Or if he pleaseth through it pass
And then the heavens espy"

If inducement is offered to the more limited vision then idolatory is often there. If "ad maiorem gloriam deum" is encouraged then it is usually not there. How does that do?

2 February 2014 at 15:26  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack says this is Islam Arab Emirate style.

An Austrian woman who was raped was arrested for having extra martial sex and told she could only avoid jail if she married her attacker. It was only after the Austrian Foreign Ministry intervened, that she was freed and allowed home.

Last year a 24-year-old Norwegian woman was given a prison sentence of one year and four months by a Dubai court after she reported being raped. She was pardoned and allowed home to Norway only after an outcry about her treatment.

Instead of being treated as victims of heinous crimes these young women were accused of extramarital sex.

Holiday in the United Arab Emirates ..... anybody?

2 February 2014 at 15:48  
Blogger The Explorer said...


Does the legal latitude apply if you're any sort of male, or only if you're an Islamic male?

If it's the first, then it sounds like a dream holiday destination for Western serial rapists.

2 February 2014 at 15:57  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

It is terrifying to think that any educated intelligent person could
be associated or identify with a barbaric culture that requires 4 adult males as witnesses to a rape of a woman, if a woman is to be believed innocent.How is it possible to live alongside people who think like this?

2 February 2014 at 16:24  
Blogger The Explorer said...


Exactly so.

What makes it even worse is the dhimmi principle.

You are not expected to exist alongside them. You are expected to exist below them. In servitude. (Where they have the power to enforce it.)

2 February 2014 at 16:40  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Explorer, Happy Jack is pretty certain it applies to male Muslims raping Muslim women, but is not sure. He supposes it would have to as a non-Muslim could not "marry" a Muslim; though sexual slavery is okay if they are taken in battle.

Why do people go there on holiday? Why do we go to work there and invest money there? Why fly Arab Emirates?

Trade and oil?

Cressida de Nova, Happy Jack says hello to you. All this makes Jack sick to his very stomach too.

2 February 2014 at 16:45  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Phil Roberts @ 15.18

I agree with you.

Many now abandoned churches and similar places still have a special air about them, sometimes centuries after abandonment. I have found this in many countries and places.

As a small boy growing up in our then, very small Welsh village, I can remember sensing this special spiritual presence in the ruins of a tiny church, wrecked by fire a century before, and which had been replaced by a far grander and more beautiful structure. But still the old one provided a silent witness to the Glory of God, who is never defeated, and always ready to burst forth again in life affirming fulness and holiness.

Let us not live in the past, still fighting the denominational battles of the Reformation, but instead face together the far greater contemporary threat, from the confusions of secularism, a "faith" which fails to grasp and understand the very nature, purpose and destiny of humanity.

2 February 2014 at 18:00  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


"It is terrifying to think that any educated intelligent person could
be associated or identify with a barbaric culture that requires 4 adult males as witnesses to a rape of a woman, if a woman is to be believed innocent.How is it possible to live alongside people who think like this?"

They are a different culture and we cannot expect other cultures to always live by or accept our cultural norms. On this blog there is a lot of talk about the EU imposing its values on UK society. To me it seems ridiculous case of double standards.

Clearly the case you mention from our perspective is terrible. However, my experience is that when working in other cultures I was given status and protection not because of the law, but because of the protection afforded by association with those who had power and/or influence. It was a new experience for me and it certainly turns our value system on its head. I felt this system had probably been the more prevalent system that had been in place for most of history and I found it fascinating to experience it if only for a short time.

Throughout history the poor lived world where power and influence were everything. This remains the main state of affairs for the poor in 90% of the world today. A sad fact that in most poor countries around 80% of the people in prison have not been convinced of any crime. (Source International Justice Ministry). If you are poor the Police are who you fear most and if you want justice you need money. No money? you need powerful friends.

You see I don't think that Democracy gave us the values that we enjoy today, the Christian Church did. Even so, I don't think that the rule of law applied much to the poor, until the advent of universal suffrage and the efforts of mainly Christian politicians to ensure that the law was applied also to the poor.

You see in most countries there are laws in place to punish rape. They are just not enforced for the poor. In most of the countries I worked when I was younger if things went wrong I got justice. So if a powerful guy's daughter was raped she would not need 4 witnesses or even 1 to get justice. It would happen and quickly, everyone knew that, so she was generally far safer than in the UK.

Different culture.

So back to the cartoon. We either force our culture predominance or we give in. There is really no middle ground. Middle ground means we lose eventually.


2 February 2014 at 20:56  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older