Friday, May 02, 2014

Canada bars Christian lawyers



His Grace thought this was a spoof: the Muppetesque presentation style of this Sun News reporter takes a little getting used to you, but if you can get around the Kermit-the-Frog intonation and manage to ignore the Fozzie-Bear gesticulations, the content of the report is alarming and sinister.

Ontario and Nova Scotia have banned lawyers educated at a Christian university from practising law in their provinces. The reason? It's really quite straightforward: the Trinity (= Christian) Western University School of Law, while fully approved by the British Columbian Ministry of Advanced Education and accredited by the Federation of Law Societies of Canada, discourages same-sex intimacy and disagrees with same-sex marriage.

The fact that the University is otherwise excellent and, they tell us, has been "consistently ranked among the top universities in Canada for Educational Experience by the National Survey of Student Engagement", is of no consequence. The fact that it holds four Canada Research Chairs is irrelevant. TWU has at the heart of its ethos a Community Covenant which requires all staff and students to abstain from “sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman.”

This, of course, is unacceptably narrow-minded and discriminatory, not to say homophobic and bigoted. It is entirely legal and constitutional - indeed the Supreme Court, no less, has ruled it to be so. But such religiously-induced apartheid is a manifest evil to an elite body of barristers and must be eradicated from society. And so TWU's law degrees are not fit to be recognised by the law societies of Ontario and Nova Scotia, meaning its future law graduates are not fit to be admitted to the bar. Cardus Daily observes: "In short, students who are taught at TWU are presumed - before the school has even produced a single graduate - to be so bigoted as to not be worthy of practicing the same law which upholds the right of their school to teach them and to require them to sign a commitment to a particular conception of sexual conduct."

No one forces students to enrol at TWU, and the moral pledge is entirely voluntarily: it is, in effect, no different from the oath required by Roman Catholic seminaries for ordinands to abstain from sex and abjure marriage altogether. It is a matter of free choice; of vocation. By enforcing a secular conformity and uniform moral compliance on a Christian university, the law societies of Ontario and Nova Scotia are effectively asserting an equality fascism which overrides religious beliefs. It must be remembered that TWU has not yet produced any graduands in law: it is simply assumed that, on qualifying, their conjectured private beliefs render them so utterly illiberal as to disqualify them utterly from practising law in these provinces.

Quite where this leaves lawyerly supporters of traditional marriage in other provinces is unclear. What do freedom and democracy mean when an elite enlightened body can set aside the Constitution and ignore judgments of the Supreme Court to impose by stealth a secular moral liberalism which is no liberalism at all? What happens to freedom of speech? Where is Freedom of religion? What about the freedom to believe as the conscience leads?

This is Canada, but we are seeing the same here in the UK. Christian registrars who believe that marriage is an exclusive covenant between one man and one woman are losing their jobs; Christian teachers who believe the same are rebuked and reviled; Christian business owners are being persecuted, sued and bankrupted. And there's not a hope in hell of hetero-normative marriage-believers being employed in the public sector or of being selected by the main political parties as a candidate: the ideology is infallible; the orthodoxy immutable; its uniform imposition inviolable. As Jonathan Chaplin notes:
Liberalism [does not] bring about a universal realisation of “tolerance”... Every political system, not only authoritarian ones but liberal ones as well, is a “regime” which facilitates a particular zone of toleration, and simultaneously demarcates clear boundaries to such toleration. These will often be legal boundaries imposed, if necessary, with coercion. Such boundaries are acts of intolerance.
Do not be deluded or deceived about what is happening here: Canada shares our Queen, who is constitutionally sworn to uphold the Protestant Reformed religion established by law and to govern her peoples in accordance with their customs and traditions. But it seems that our Reformation freedoms are being undone: a man's personal beliefs must now be interrogated by the inquisitorial high priests of equality to ensure that they conform to the totalitarian precepts of secularism before he may enter public service, practise law or even donate to a political party. 'Right belief' must precede public interests, personal vocation and acts of altruism.

Our freedoms are disappearing. Our liberty is dying. And the concerning this is that so few people are noticing or even care.

212 Comments:

Blogger dav phi said...

Are there any Muslim Lawyers in that part of the world?

2 May 2014 at 10:08  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Your Grace

That’s Ezra Levant. I would call him a “campaigner” rather than a “reporter”. He has a petition up which communicants can link to.

2 May 2014 at 10:32  
Blogger Gnostic said...

I'd like to know the answer to dav phi's question too.

2 May 2014 at 10:50  
Blogger JimS said...

dav phi/Gnostic:

The existence of the Canadian Muslim Lawyers Association would suggest there are.

2 May 2014 at 10:59  
Blogger Gnostic said...

JimS - Which begs a second question - are they going to be similarly ostracised for believing the same things?

2 May 2014 at 11:01  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

"Our freedoms are disappearing. Our liberty is dying. And the concerning thing is that so few people are noticing or even care."

I could not agree more. Most of your communicants it seems also could not agree more. It is an uphill struggle to keep people's attention on this fight. Most would rather be off playing.

Personally I like the image that G.Edward Griffin uses on Freedom Force International, which is to imagine you are on a cruise liner, and everyone is enjoying themselves, the band is playing, the people are dancing, and then you go past the front of the ship where the wheel is and realise that the ship has been taken over by pirates and being steered in the wrong direction. What do you do? You try telling the other passengers but they just laugh and go back to enjoying themselves. You can try hiding out, but you are on a ship in mid ocean, and there is nowhere to go. The only thing to do is for a small band to try to retake the ship. Thus one of their slogans is not to complain about city hall but to be city hall.

"God speed!" as they used to say.

2 May 2014 at 11:15  
Blogger Albert said...

I mentioned to someone this week, that the changes over homosexuality have happened so quickly, that they are unlikely to have deep roots and could be over-turned just as quickly by an unforeseen cultural change. He, although being in favour of the changes, said he had the same worry.

Then he mentioned the Weimar Republic and suggested the precedent for very fast liberal cultural changes was not a good one.

2 May 2014 at 12:05  
Blogger Shadrach said...

A very valid post on an issue that is becoming ever more prevalent. Orwell's 1984 has so many parallels.

2 May 2014 at 12:05  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Is there no one in the Canadian Parliament who cares about this ?

2 May 2014 at 12:07  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Albert

You assume that they were not planned long ago. Go to Anglican Mainstream, look up one of the later essays on this topic, and click on the link and you will see there was a strategy that has been followed. The strategy outlines further plans; this illustrates part of them.

How do we stop this? The answer is incrementally, the same way that they got there. Bit by bit. We too can do strategy, and God is with us. We have the sword of the spirit on our side and Angels helping alongside. How we have managed to be so defeated with all our resources, and God himself with us is a matter of shame for our churches, and shows that most of the heirarchy were busy in big rooms holding meetings about "important" internal rules while the city burned beneath their feet by and large, without them so much as noticing, mostly.

And the church has been infiltrated, sadly, by a small minority who are inimical to it. Anyone who has seen university politics will know this was common; between Marxist, SWP, and Labour mostly, but also between Labour & Conservative, and Liberal. Spies in the camp were common, but the Church for some weird reason prefers to be wooly and disbelieving on this matter while some of its best clergy have been known to be set up and taken out. And if someone does great harm to the church through what might be incompetence it is assumed to be that, even though it might equally be planned disruption. No names but I have seen it.

2 May 2014 at 12:30  
Blogger 45minutewarning said...

The West is sleep-walking into a state of brainwashed torpor over the LGBT activists are dictating to everybody else. It reminds me of how German people dozed their way unthinkingly into a system so totalitarian and evil it resulted in one of the worst conflicts ever seen.

The homo-Nazis have been particularly active in Canada, where gays can now do pretty well anything they like with impunity. One day ordinary pepole will wake up and start thinking again. Meanwhile, we shall have to endure this plague of bigotry and injustice from the PC Gestapo.

2 May 2014 at 12:31  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Canada bars Christian lawyers says the headline, with all the misleading lurid spin in the best traditions of the The Sun or Sunday Sport - but they (Canada) don't: they have a problem with one particular educational establishment who hasn't even run a course yet.

Ending by saying that because of this, 'Our freedoms are disappearing. Our liberty is dying'. This is definitely true her in the UK - but in this case? I thought it was about Canada or is Cranmer now applying the Islamic Ummah interpretation to the meaning of 'Us' and 'Our'?

This is no attack on world wide Christianity or on Liberty and freedom, as we know Cranmer has previously exhorted disillusioned communicants and sundry homophobes to accept the finality of new laws, and to move on.

What about the freedom and liberty of those being marginalised by the conditions expected of the students or even more so, those still committed to the belief in democratic representation and application of the Rule of Law from truly impartial or unbiased Advocates?

OK, so the University requires students themselves, as a condition of acceptance of teaching, not only to eschew but further report miscreants, who engage in …'sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman'... no problem in principle, but to snitch on others? I can't see how it can describe itself as being liberally Christian or imbued with an ethos and ability to produce unbiased lawyers – this is a strange liberality.

What if the same University required students to sign up to a covenant that declared so called mixed-race marriages as ‘sinful’, as under the Jim Crow laws? – no different than this issue, I’d say. We know from history that those southern States and more besides, found their justification for racial discrimination in scriptural interpretation too.

People, are what they are. Born in God's image as Christians maintain, yet no two people are exactly the same. Jesus is not recorded (AFAIAA) as directly saying homosexuality is a sin. But Christianity’s core message, is supposed to be one of indiscriminate inclusivity and open, unconditionally, to everyone who so desires to be part of it.

Furthermore, we would not want the State in our bedrooms so why should we accept it from any other organisation.

What amazes me is what is a private University doing in expecting to offer accredited courses in law, while endorsing discrimination by embedding it in its conditions of study? It’s a university, not a theological college, monastery or convent; the clue is in the root word ‘Universal’. Equality under Civil Law especially and of necessity, requires it to be applied ‘universally’.

It’s the Canadian Bar Society that affords accreditation to teachers of law; I agree with their decision. How can they possibly accept a teaching faculty that places a non-universally accepted religious doctrine above the legitimacy of the current legislation.

2 May 2014 at 12:56  
Blogger Guy Jones said...

@ Dreadnaught

But Christianity’s core message, is supposed to be one of indiscriminate inclusivity and open, unconditionally, to everyone who so desires to be part of it.

We are all sinners before Christ. We cannot bring our various 'pecados' into our new life in him. We have to abandon our old life in order to grasp the new. This is the strait and narrow way.

Or perhaps you are confusing the church of 'Men's Opinions' with the true church?

2 May 2014 at 13:09  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Leviticus 20.13, Lev.18.22, Rom 1.21-27,1 Cor.6.9-10, 1 Tim 1.9-10, Rev 21.8, also passages about Sodom and Gomorrah, when the men of the city, both young and old demanded to commit homosexual acts in public with the angels who came to stay with Lot, presumably because they had some physical attraction.

Oh, and of course Jesus quoted the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of particular heinous sin.

Of course there has been an attempt at gay revisionism on the story of Sodom and Gomorrah but it is pretty plain and obvious. Of course Jesus was perfectly free to dissociate himself from any disgust at homosexual activity. Not one tiny bit did he, although in other parts of the NT he expands or contracts on other parts of the OT law. It did not occur to him to go against contemporary mores on this one.

Indeed one of his Grace's Jewish communicants was very instructive on how he knew the shroud was a fake, insofar as no nice Jewish man would be buried with his hands over his genitalia as it was unclean. From those kinds of emphases on purity and cleanliness it would be a quite inordinate step to suggest anal intercourse between men was considered ok by Jesus. It was not.

Homosexuals need rescuing from the infertile dead end they are heading down, and of course God can do that. Many do not know that they need that, until they are released. I would recommend "The Transformation of the Inner Man" by John and Paula Sandford as to some of the causes and healings, and compassionate care.

However here we are dealing not even with free speech but with free thought, and I am truly shocked at the smug ignorant fascism on show.

2 May 2014 at 13:29  
Blogger Albert said...

Lucy,

You assume that they were not planned long ago.

No. My point remains valid whether or not it was.

Go to Anglican Mainstream, look up one of the later essays on this topic, and click on the link and you will see there was a strategy that has been followed

Can you give a link, please?

2 May 2014 at 13:34  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

Dreadnought

You are totally wrong.

The "oath" students take at the University is a personal one.
The right to practice your faith is a human right under the UNDofHR.

You have, without any evidence whatsoever, assumed that in practicing law that they would push their personal beliefs on their clients. They haven't even been allowed to practice law yet.

You have presumed guilt without evidence. The law requires you are innocent until proven guilty.

To discriminate against someone because of their personal religious faith is contrary to their human rights.

There is no evidence of discrimination against others.

You're out of order.

2 May 2014 at 13:46  
Blogger Hugh Beaumont said...

Maybe some day Canada will pronounce the world to be flat. If one continues to believe it to be round, he will be arrested.

2 May 2014 at 14:30  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Albert

Thanks for asking for the link. I discovered two very interesting other ones in the process which are worth sharing as the people are saying fascinating, insightful and instructive things. I am just a small messenger cog!!

this is the original link about the strategy:

www.canonandculture.com/the-most-influential-essay-you've-never-heard-of/

but I also came across this interesting video detailing ways that the persecution of dissenters is taking place:
www.anglican-mainstream.net/page/8/

and this on the difficulties these 3 people encountered due to growing up in non-normative single sex parent households, as described by them:
englishmanif.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/la-joie-de-vivre-29-kids-of-gay-parents.html

AtB

2 May 2014 at 15:00  
Blogger Integrity said...

Good Post YG,
Lucy, I saw that link to kids of gay parents and forwarded it to HG.
It confirms all our greatest fears.
It was OK when they were small but as they grew up, they missed out on the support they needed from a mother or a father.
Did you see the program last night on adoption where they featured a male gay couple adopting more babies. I just don't understand the way the minds of these social workers think.

2 May 2014 at 15:34  
Blogger Busy Mum said...

And don't forget what happened to our own Sir Paul Coleridge - forced to take early retirement because of his support for traditional marriage - Christians are in effect barred from practising law over here too.

Also, the Royal College of Obs and Gynae is refusing to give diplomas to people who are a bit too pro-life for their liking; so my daughter was right when she decided not to pursue a career in medicine.

2 May 2014 at 16:01  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ integrity

The bit that I found so sad was the girl who grew up with her father and another man- and, of course a succession of men in and out, who said she grew up feeling unattractive and inferior, and that it would have been better to be a male, and that that feeling persisted. But that was the message she was absorbing day by day.

Having had a loving and appropriate father, and seeing my husband relating, again appropriately, to his daughters I know how straight fathers pass on the knowledge that females are special, attractive and interesting to men, and that men and women need each other, and it is so sad that she should have not got that.

That kind of mild subtlety- only mild, as in many ways pretty obvious- is totally lost on these tunnel-visioned reformists who would destroy all these delicate inter-familial balances.

2 May 2014 at 16:04  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Guy Jones/Grumpyoldsod

As far as I can see, no one anywhere is seeking to deny any person from holding beliefs based on a faith that has always adapted and reformed contentious tenets and texts throughout its known history. Some supremely abhorrent acts, supported by contemporary interpretations of flaky biblical texts, were once considered the immutable Christian truth or provision: they have long since been abandoned as societies have emerged and evolved, and the religion has survived.

The sky hasn't fallen in because Christians and Jews no longer stone adulterers to death and the fact that 6 billion plus human on this planet who are not Christians, has not caused God to send down Armageddon upon them.

Why can’t you live and let live?

Of course there are Christian homosexuals, and good intentioned people too; there probably always have been and most likely ever will be. That’s the deal between them and their God for what it’s worth. What business of an employer other than a religious order, is it to decide to admit into its employ based on a person’s private life, as this University demands? It can’t expect to be producing lawyers, of all the professions, when it does not recognise equality before the law itself.

Some drama queen Christians are totally obsessed with sex, sexuality and homosexuality and happy to discriminate, based on what they think their God wants and seek to impose their will on others of their faith or not, as though they have been appointed by divine right: we do not live by some Christian equivalent of Sharia – we have lived under the iniquities of such and moved on: it’s against the law to discriminate and so is stoning adulterers!

2 May 2014 at 16:26  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Lucy

Glad you are back and I cannot believe your posts!

I have to be careful here but an Anglican friend was recently forced to move dioceses after objecting to the Bishop's stance on Homosexuality.

His wife confided to us that he got a lot of hate mail the ones from Anglicans especially got to him

He is tough macho type of guy, but he said after seen a another job (He is still a vicar thankfully) after both him and his wife were in tears in the garden one day, he decided enough was enough. He applied, got it and moved.

They won

Phil



2 May 2014 at 16:31  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Dreadnaught

"Some drama queen Christians are totally obsessed with sex, sexuality and homosexuality and happy to discriminate, based on what they think their God wants and seek to impose their will on others of their faith or not"

We are not condemning them.

However, we would not love them if we did not point out the issues with their lifestyles and the impact that their choices have on our lives.

Phil

2 May 2014 at 16:37  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ dreadnaught

Actually the Jewish and Christian posters on here post on a range of topics whereas the gays and atheists only come on at very limited times, I have noticed.

Christians stoning adulterers? My history is a little poor having stopped at S level, so I cannot recall if that has ever happened in the UK, but it must be 5, 6 centuries ago if it ever happened at the very least!! Crazy, far out.....!!!

OH, WHOOPS, maybe project vilification.....

To whom is the drama queen tag applying. I thought it was a gay culture thing of describing each other. And why incidentally do they imagine themselves not as ordinary women but as coming in at the very top rank? What about drama scrubber? As it sure looks as if gay men think women are inferior so they can only be compared to the top rank. Now I find that unacceptably misogynist in this day and age, but female rights don't interest you, right?

2 May 2014 at 16:52  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

That linked Jonathan Chaplin article is very good.

2 May 2014 at 18:04  
Blogger Guy Jones said...

@ Dreadnaught

To write that we Christians are obsessed with sex is a bit rich. We have lived through decades of sexual revolution and now we have decided to make a stand.

Ultimately, this means one man and one woman before God; just as scripture ordains. Yes, we will discriminate against fornication, adultery, incest, bestiality and sodomy, because these are incompatible with the new life we have in Jesus Christ.

2 May 2014 at 18:04  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Lucy M

There are some topics here or threads, that have drifted off into deep theological areas that lend themselves to specialist knowledge or trivial chat beyond my remit, so I simply move on.

But since you ask re stoning:

For adultery (including urban rape victims)
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city. Deuteronomy 22:23-24

For animals (like an ox that gores a human)
If an ox gore a man or a woman, that they die: then the ox shall be surely stoned. Exodus 21:28

For a woman who is not a virgin on her wedding night
If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her ... and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate: And the damsel's father shall say ... these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city. ... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die. Deuteronomy 22:13-21

For worshipping other gods
If there be found among you ... that ... hath gone and served other gods, and worshipped them ... Then shalt thou ... tone them with stones, till they die. Deuteronomy 17:2-5

If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:5-10


Now if these passages are invalid, then why cling to Leviticus 20.13.
20:13


If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

Yours is a Global religion and I refer you to new legislation against gays in Nigeria - straight out of the OT. You love to pick and choose which OT rules to apply and which to ignore. Nothing to do with history at all this is in your Bible today.

2 May 2014 at 18:13  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy: "As it sure looks as if gay men think women are inferior so they can only be compared to the top rank. Now I find that unacceptably misogynist in this day and age, but female rights don't interest you, right?"

I expect you're more likely to be an expert on this than I am but I'd have thought the female bit was because some gay men are quite effeminate and the rank bit was related to being flamboyant, ostentatious, and the centre of attention. I've never consider your interpretation of it before.

2 May 2014 at 18:16  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ dreadnaught

But stoning of adulterers to my limited historical knowledge has never happened in the UK!!

There was a reason, not least the fact that our forebears were not theologically illiterate!!



2 May 2014 at 18:48  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

And this topic is happening in Canada!!
Take your calpol and have a lie down dear.

2 May 2014 at 18:59  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

What is particularly troubling about this ‘policy’ is that it may well be the work of a single vociferous militant homosexual within the Canadian legal profession. He, and it’s always males, would have put together some discourse about how life in the homophobic west is a daily challenge, or some such rot, and is hoping that his easy going secularist / atheist colleagues would agree that Christianity is to blame. Looks like they’ve acquiesced.

With the policy now reported and widely, your man is no doubt extremely pleased with himself and his efforts to correct the daily injustices done to him by Christians. It is of course only believers in Christ who have wrecked his life, no one else. Certainly not atheist homophobic thugs who beat gays or muslims who would kill them. Anyway, in the publicity generated by this policy, therein lies its destruction.

One is in no doubt that his supporters are honourable men. Or at least would like to consider themselves such. One expects that after giving their support, they may not have thought much more about it. Only now will they come to the irrevocable conclusion that by barring a section of society from participating in the legal process, they have been made fools of. There is no other conclusion to reach. Not when you are honourable men.

2 May 2014 at 19:20  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

Ah yes, one is reminded that our erstwhile fellow correspondent Julia Gasper is standing as a candidate for the English Democrats in the European elections. She, a Christian and scourge of the unduly corrupting influence the homosexual minority have, or would like to have, on the British way of life can be found now on Pink News, running the gauntlet of the brutes who congregate there.

A feisty gal, and no mistake. She doesn’t miss a step as they pelt her, and the things she comes out with !!!


2 May 2014 at 19:34  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

One of Julia’s points is that the homosexual community should better appreciate heterosexuality, as it’s rather obvious they themselves would not be here without it.

Any budding novelists here ? The Inspector has an idea, probably unique, and for good reason. It’s the twenty second century. After constant demands by gays, medical science has made it possible, via an operation and implant, to conceive by anus sex. The result, XX chromosome male children out to take over and gay the world. A PC world that stands powerless before them.

Any takers ?

2 May 2014 at 19:45  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ dreadnaught.

So where are your historical incidents of people being stoned for adultery in Canada, dearie?

If your last remark was for me why calpol, which is for children? I am probably a tad older than you!!

I can do you aztec atoning for adultery, or saudi arabian. Any help?

2 May 2014 at 19:56  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

Dreadnought - Lucy is right and, frankly, you're just being obnoxious.
The difference between Christianity and Judaism is the NT and you managed to come up with no quotes. C-, and that's just for effort! (showing that Christians are generous after all)

2 May 2014 at 20:02  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Oh well: frankly my dear grumpy I don't give a... now what was it? - oh never mind - coz as the main man said:

They'll stone ya when you're at the breakfast table
They'll stone ya when you are young and able
They'll stone ya when you're tryin' to make a buck
They'll stone ya and then they'll say, "Good luck"

Tell ya what, I would not feel so all alone
Everybody must get stoned


Lighten up people!

2 May 2014 at 20:48  
Blogger Marie1797 said...

Lucy Mullen

Lucy I agree that it's incorrect to call effeminate male homosexuals Queens, even as slang when they have nothing to do with a female Sovereign, or the only fertile female in a colony of insects, or the most beautiful female in a contest, or the most powerful piece on a Chess board. They obviously have an inferiority complex to so want to emulate the best of female beauty and power.

Old slapper or slag would be a more realistic negative slang for an affected, effeminate, camp homosexual.

2 May 2014 at 21:14  
Blogger William Lewis said...

grumpyoldcl

Enjoying your well-directed grumpiness!

As far as I can see the university is effectively asking the students to sign a code of conduct pledge. The fact that Dreadnaught does not agree with the required conduct is neither here nor there. My son had to sign something similar - barring the sexual content - before starting his secondary school.

What is it with legal organisations boycotting Christians and/or their initiatives? We had something similar with the Law Society banning a conference discussing the family. Is it perhaps that they see themselves as the self-appointed guardians of "human rights"?

2 May 2014 at 21:34  
Blogger Ivan said...


This is pretty much an object lesson why homosexuals in the main are not to be trusted with defending the common liberties. They'll sell you down the river in the end.

2 May 2014 at 22:27  
Blogger bluedog said...

Your Grace, your communicant awaits a resounding declaration from John Kerry, US Secretary of State, that by discriminating against Christian lawyers, Canada has become an apartheid state. Your communicant will not hold his breath.

More seriously, this development in Canada does seem to reduce one defined group of citizens to a lower status, thus marking the end of their equal rights as citizens. Once equal rights are denied, the deniers in effect deem those on whom they inflict their judgement to be subjects, not citizens.

Canada seems to be fighting and occasionally losing some very important battles in this area, as the persecution of the journalist Mark Steyn by Islamists attests.

2 May 2014 at 23:07  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Happy Jack says okay, so all societies have rules and norms and this inevitably means some groups will be accepted and some not. The 'out' group will be silenced in some way and the state will oversee this where necessary.

That's life and social control.

Now Christians, for generations the 'in' group, are the 'out' group and labelled and marginalised as "loons" by the liberals. That's the way it works. We get on with it, pick up our crosses and continue to fight the good fight whatever the personal cost, knowing this world is a temporary place and we are pilgrims here.

We lost ground. The sexual revoltation and the accompanying obsession with self-actualisation (Eastern imports), was one reason. Then there's the liberal mantra of individualism and freedom. Now the protection of the 'human rights' of 'minorities', including the ill, odd and disordered. Face it Christians are we're pretty well hemmed in.

So far as Jack knows no other society - ever - has had anarchy in sexual relationships or in procreation and raising the next generation. A fundamental for the survival of any society is the positive control of the sexual impulse, the ordering of procreation and protecting family life in ways suiting the common good. Taboos and norms around this and, where needed, laws have supported these social frameworks.

We are where we are. Christian morality is 'old hat' - even within the Church. Where we are is unsustainable - demographically, economically and socially. Why? Because it contradicts the will of our Creator about how we are made to live.

There will be a change. A situation that cannot go on, will not go on.

2 May 2014 at 23:58  
Blogger Ditari said...

Wednesday, May 02, 1934

Germany bars Jewish lawyers

3 May 2014 at 00:04  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

bluedog, surely there will always be groups of citizens with lower status and without equal rights?

The question is what particular groups, how do they achieve higher status and how do they uphold and enforce it?

3 May 2014 at 00:05  
Blogger Stephen Milroy said...

Nice to see it is not just Britain's 'secular' legal system which is utterly rancid...

3 May 2014 at 01:33  
Blogger William Lewis said...

I think that Dreadnaught and the professional, gay lawyer in the video seem to be projecting one of the new taboos that have been conjured up by the new framework of secular rights. Namely that it is heresy to actually choose to only ever have sex with your spouse and to commit to your spouse for life. Therefore any organisation that promotes such behaviour should be banned. Indeed the professional, gay lawyer actually said that his identity depended upon having sex!

Western society is obsessed with sex. Is it not become the opiate of the Godless masses?

3 May 2014 at 07:14  
Blogger David Hussell said...

His Grace says in the last line,

"Our freedoms are disappearing. Our liberty is dying"

Most Christians, of almost any persuasion, seem to give not a seconds thought to the need for liberty, defined and defended in the political arena, for them to continue not just to worship but live according to their conscience. We have enjoyed freedom for so long we have forgotten how vital it's maintenance is, always. Awareness of the close linkages between politics and freedom of religion seems to be restricted either to those traditionalist Christians, many being right of centre, or on the other hand, the ultra-liberal revising types, rewriting the rules, making a new god in the image of their own desires, who seem almost keen for liberties to be removed to enforce a so called liberal hegemony on us all.

So politics is the key to religious freedom. Now the only political party that consciously defends the Judaeo-Christian heritage and way of life is of course Ukip. Therefore it is heartening to see it expanding and gaining ground at such a speed. At a packed to overflowing sub-regional rally last evening it was announced that membership is rising steadily now at 1000 per month, standing at 26,000, up from 16,000 in about a year. Funds are flowing in at a better rate. At this rate it will soon overtake the LibDems. It was also heartening to see an ever broader based demographic including racial minorities, females and younger people. I do believe that Liberty is stirring again in the hearts of many of our fellow country men and women. There is a growing push back against the bossy illiberal liberals, and it is the politically aware who are doing it, whilst the majority of the "religious" are content to sleepwalk on into a soft tyranny. The Church of England is full of the politically naive and softly asleep, unaware that the EU that many of them so warmly embrace, is in fact, a boa constrictor, steadily encircling them ever more tightly - what foolishness !
It is an interesting muse that the Ukip heartland is also the heartland of the Parliamentarians of the Civil War period. Let us hope that this time, and in the future, we can settle differences without resorting to violence. But let us also resolve to never settle for less than those levels of true freedom, including freedom of conscience, that have for many centuries been our true political wealth.
The Conservative Party, much loved by our host, must reinvent itself, rapidly, or split, but otherwise die, as the leading "conservative" political force in this country. It is in present mode a vehicle for destroying freedom of religion, and conscience, and political self-determination for the people. it has long ceased to be fit for purpose and is in fact, now, a contradiction in terms.

3 May 2014 at 08:59  
Blogger Len said...

We all are entrenched in our opinions and we all fire away from our positions but the deciding factor must be is there one Truth or many truths?. "What is truth?" as Pilate asked when Truth stood in front of him.
All claim to know 'the truth' Atheists , Christians , Muslims, Hindu`s, New Agers, etc...
It would seem that only events will change us in conjunction with the Holy Spirit who is the Spirit of Truth ...that some might see the Light?.
These' events' will have to be pretty catastrophic IMO to effect any change.....
The Word of God cannot be imprisoned (much as some might like)although Christians have been persecuted for speaking it, tortured beheaded and burned at the stake."And because I preach this Good News, I am suffering and have been chained like a criminal. But the word of God cannot be chained."
(2 Timothy 2:9)
The Living Word(Jesus |Christ was tortured and crucified on a Cross but rose again .He cannot be killed and the Word of Truth will Triumph over all who oppose Him.
The final battle will be over truth and Truth is not a concept an idea but a Person....

3 May 2014 at 09:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I've long thought that something has gone wrong with the concept or application of equality in the hands of the State, and I think that linked Jonathan Chaplin article captures some of how and where the wrong turns have happened.

As far as this case is concerned, there seems to be some layer pollution between accrediting a degree based on quality of teaching and course content, and acknowledging the wider policies of an educational establishment which provides accredited degree courses.

It seems to me that the accreditation body (the Law Society) should stick to maintaining the educational standards, and the professional ethics body (the Law Society again?) should stick to regulating the professional behaviour of its members.

3 May 2014 at 10:33  
Blogger bluedog said...

Dodo @ 00.05 asks, 'The question is what particular groups, how do they achieve higher status and how do they uphold and enforce it?'

The correct answer to that sort of question remains, 'Your guess is as good as mine'.

3 May 2014 at 10:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Of course, if someone set up a private Muslim university here in the UK, perhaps with Saudi money, which had codes of conduct based in Islamic principles then that's all fine I suppose. As long as the subsequent degrees are of sufficient quality, based on educational content and teaching, it wouldn't matter about the ethos of the university itself.

So, the university could expect students to sign up to behavioural standards and discriminate on the basis of stated beliefs. Obviously, homosexuality would be unlikely to be tolerated. Similarly, alcohol consumption, fornication, and eating certain foodstuffs. Presumably, segregating men and women in lectures and accommodation, and requiring a modesty dress code for women, would be fine. Perhaps even requiring women to sign up to a male/female social and role inequality would pass muster.

Afterall, like married homosexual couples looking for a hotel room, students could simply chose another establishment if the establishment refused them a service. It ought not to make any difference to the practice of law that a private university has such an ethos and ethics because graduates need not be tied to them afterwards. If a woman becomes a barrister specialising in (say) family law then they're held to the professional ethics of the various bodies: the Law Society, Bar Council, etc, whatever their personal religious beliefs.

3 May 2014 at 10:45  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ivan: "This is pretty much an object lesson why homosexuals in the main are not to be trusted with defending the common liberties. They'll sell you down the river in the end."

Indeed. We'll grope you before we do so too, and probably bugger your kids.

3 May 2014 at 10:56  
Blogger Darter Noster said...

DanJ0 @ 10:56,

Lol :-D

3 May 2014 at 12:00  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

bluedog, Happy Jack says its not about guessing at all.

In the absence of physical force to impose social order, cultural mechanisms will be used. It used to be Christianity. The state, the education system and the mass media are now peddling a 'new truth'. Martyrs in need of protection have been 'created' and history rewritten. 'Equality', 'diversity'
and 'tolerance' is enshrined in law and old values are being silenced. A new social order is being constructed.

Danjo, the difference is the (still) Christian West has no requirement to accommodate an alien culture, such as Islam, in its entirety. We have customs and traditions based on Christianity and they clash with the Gaygaspo and its minions. This is simple repression - as are the other examples given in the article.

3 May 2014 at 13:07  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Danjo, the difference is the (still) Christian West has no requirement to accommodate an alien culture, such as Islam, in its entirety."

I'm taking it from your comment that you are happy for a private Christian university to exist but not a private Muslim version, Dodo? That is, you're not actually in favour of religious freedom in the public sector [1] and you're happy to use State power to clamp down on private, non-Christian organisations to limit their operation?

[1] In the sense of Jonathan Chaplin's article, meaning a private organisation contributing public services.

"We have customs and traditions based on Christianity and they clash with the Gaygaspo and its minions."

Isn't it the Law Society in those areas that have caused the issue? Or perhaps you think they've been overrun by your "Gaygaspo" [2]. The video clip makes a particular point about Jews in those organisations, too.

[2] Are you reaching for the word Gaystapo there?

3 May 2014 at 13:30  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 May 2014 at 13:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "In the absence of physical force to impose social order, cultural mechanisms will be used. It used to be Christianity."

It did. The Roman Catholic Church used to operate the hegemony for much of the time, using secular power to murder people on its behalf and to change intra-Western geo-politics to sustain itself.

3 May 2014 at 13:49  
Blogger Shadrach said...

David Hussell said @ 8:59
So politics is the key to religious freedom
Great post especially about the Conservative.
Is Politics the key? Certainly they have the power to control but who gave them that power? I know that UKIP seems like our only alternative but I just don't see them as a party of Government.

I believe the reason that we have over 550 or so MP's without integrity (those who voted for SSM) is because the voters of this country don't look at the candidates and say, "Is he/she a good person with moral fibre" and the reason they don't is because they don't care.
My viewpoint has changed slightly from looking for a party with integrity to evangelising the country (which is primary command) in order that the voters will elect a Government that will protect the Judaeo/Christian heritage.

3 May 2014 at 14:29  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

That was over 1500 years ago Danjo, do get real.

As Jack remembers his history lessons, social order was brought first by the Romans and then, after the Dark Ages, increasingly by the state out of the pagan disorder and tribal anarchy that previously existed. It was based on Christian values too.

Jack doesn't believe all religions are equal in terms of truth or promoting the common good. He doesn't believe the oppression of Islam should be encouraged or permitted. Let's face it, its primarily women and homosexuals who have most to fear from Islamists. Any behaviour considered 'sinful' and its off with a limb or two, hanged or stoned to death. Don't try to compare them for the sake of an argument.

Thank you, the word Jack was looking for is Gaystapo.

3 May 2014 at 14:34  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

.... oh, and not forgetting those who want to convert from Islam or those openly practicing or evangelising Christianity. They'll all come to a brutal end too.

3 May 2014 at 14:39  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

10:56
Danjo makes sense.Poofs have been persecuted for generations. What better way of getting back at their oppressors of the past than groping and buggering their kids.

Society now gives permission to them to corrupt the values of a whole generation of the young for now and maybe years to come( in the West at least).Why wouldn't they take advantage of the situation.

I must say it is a brilliant manoeuvre...sheer genius on their part to revenge themselves

All those who support them and there are a lot of easily fooled unthinking types, indoctrinated by pc ,popular culture and the media, will turn on them at some stage when the shit hits the fan for some reason or another.

The smart poofs ( not Stephen Fry)know this and cannot believe the constant demands being made when they have already gained so much to lead peaceful lives without discrimination.They know what the outcome will be and I feel for this sub minority group.
And I will support them( the sub minority group ie when it happens) The backlash is going to be very nasty.

People have been transformed into vacuous automatons which is the aim of our social system because it is much easier for the thought police to control everyone. We are living under an authoritarian system.It is just cleverly disguised with veneers of liberalism.

I don't see how the Danjovics can fail at the moment. Christian believers will never fight.. They hide behind scriptural petticoats and moan which is a waste of time.If God made people this stupid ...eh ( banging her head with a skillet frying pan..old French custom)what can you do!

3 May 2014 at 14:47  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Shadrach @ 14.29

I think that your approach is a good one. If we increased the proportion of committed Christians markedly then there would, I have no doubt, follow an improvement in the moral quality of our MPs. The state of life in Westminster tells us a lot about the moral life of the nation.
Ukip may not be a party of Government, at the moment, but that is not the main issue, at present; the main focus for the immediate future is keeping the spotlight on the true nature, motives and harmful effects of the EU with its ever increasing power, and keeping alive the hope and intention to regain our stolen sovereignty, taken from us by stealth and deception, against the wishes of the people of the UK. The party is evolving and maturing rapidly and it may, at some future point, become a party suitable for government, or not. But if it fulfils its historic task of securing our independence and freedom again, then even if is then wound down, it will have amply earned its place in history and the annals of patriotic achievement,

3 May 2014 at 14:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Don't try to compare them for the sake of an argument."

Oh I'm not at all. I simply created a juxtaposition to test some of the stuff in the article and the video here. I thought it was enough on its own to quietly make some people uncomfortable but your response just hammers home the point I wanted to make. Thanks. :)

3 May 2014 at 15:03  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Danjo, it was a useful juxtaposition.

Comparing the quest of homosexuals for "freedom" - i.e. totally dismantling Western sexual and family ethics and imposing their structures - with Muslims - i.e. establishing a totalitarian Caliphate - wont get you far. True, both want to fundamentally reorder Western culture to suit themselves and their own interests.

Dangerous game the Gaystapo are playing though, especially for an easily identifiable and vociferous minority like homosexuals. You do know Gay Pride Marches are not permitted in Muslim countries - nor in Russia these days?

3 May 2014 at 15:18  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I see poor Cressida has taken a downturn again. I expect the poor dear has been at the absinthe, hoping to buy into that French bohemian intellectual vibe of the nineteenth century.

3 May 2014 at 15:20  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 May 2014 at 15:25  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I think the Canadian lawyers decided that by endorsing accreditation to a body that demands opposition to equality, would be an equality compromise too far.

3 May 2014 at 15:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Comparing the quest of homosexuals for "freedom" - i.e. totally dismantling Western sexual and family ethics and imposing their structures - with Muslims - i.e. establishing a totalitarian Caliphate - wont get you far."

But I wasn't, Dodo. My comments were about State limitations on religious freedom. You're bringing your own bigotry to the party there.

3 May 2014 at 15:29  
Blogger Martin said...

Dreadnaught

This is no attack on world wide Christianity or on Liberty and freedom, as we know Cranmer has previously exhorted disillusioned communicants and sundry homophobes to accept the finality of new laws, and to move on.

Actually it is an attack on Christianity worldwide, or pasrt of that attack. Satan always seeks to belittle Christians & suppress their views wherever he can.

What about the freedom and liberty of those being marginalised by the conditions expected of the students or even more so, those still committed to the belief in democratic representation and application of the Rule of Law from truly impartial or unbiased Advocates?

In what way are the students being marginalised? Is it marginalising to be expected to behave in a morally upright way? And is the rule of law being aided by excluding portions of society from the practice of it? Indeed what is democratic about the behaviour of these law societies, or even our own govenrment in pushing fake marriage through?

OK, so the University requires students themselves, as a condition of acceptance of teaching, not only to eschew but further report miscreants, who engage in …'sexual intimacy that violates the sacredness of marriage between a man and a woman'... no problem in principle, but to snitch on others? I can't see how it can describe itself as being liberally Christian or imbued with an ethos and ability to produce unbiased lawyers – this is a strange liberality.

I wonder if you would object to a covenant that required students to report fellow students who stole, bullied or even murdered? I think there is a touch of hypocrisy here.

What if the same University required students to sign up to a covenant that declared so called mixed-race marriages as ‘sinful’, as under the Jim Crow laws? – no different than this issue, I’d say. We know from history that those southern States and more besides, found their justification for racial discrimination in scriptural interpretation too.

I'd call this point racist in tone. How is a sexual behaviour, freely entered into, anything like the genetic material one inherited from ones parents? You've moved from the hypocritical to the evil.

People, are what they are. Born in God's image as Christians maintain, yet no two people are exactly the same. Jesus is not recorded (AFAIAA) as directly saying homosexuality is a sin. But Christianity’s core message, is supposed to be one of indiscriminate inclusivity and open, unconditionally, to everyone who so desires to be part of it.

Christianity core message is most certainly not one of "indiscriminate inclusivity" and it is not open to all, but only to those who follow the Lord Jesus Christ. Paul clearly commanded the church at Corinth to excommunicate the man who was living with his father's wife. And remember, the whole of the Bible is Jesus' direct words:

"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. (I Corinthians 6:9-11 [ESV])

Furthermore, we would not want the State in our bedrooms so why should we accept it from any other organisation.

You'd rather have the state in our minds, decreeing what we are permitted to think? And lets face it, the homofascists aren't limiting it to their bedrooms, they dance around our streets half naked.

Part 1

3 May 2014 at 15:41  
Blogger Martin said...

What amazes me is what is a private University doing in expecting to offer accredited courses in law, while endorsing discrimination by embedding it in its conditions of study? It’s a university, not a theological college, monastery or convent; the clue is in the root word ‘Universal’. Equality under Civil Law especially and of necessity, requires it to be applied ‘universally’.

Funny how I don't see a call for adultery, bestiality & paedophilia to be made a human right. (not yet anyway)

It’s the Canadian Bar Society that affords accreditation to teachers of law; I agree with their decision. How can they possibly accept a teaching faculty that places a non-universally accepted religious doctrine above the legitimacy of the current legislation.

The left have been swift enough to place their opinions above the legitamacy of the legislation.

As far as I can see, no one anywhere is seeking to deny any person from holding beliefs based on a faith that has always adapted and reformed contentious tenets and texts throughout its known history. Some supremely abhorrent acts, supported by contemporary interpretations of flaky biblical texts, were once considered the immutable Christian truth or provision: they have long since been abandoned as societies have emerged and evolved, and the religion has survived.

Of course it could be that they are saying you cannot get employment & hence cannot have access to money to buy food because of the view you take.

As to contentious tenets, Christianity has always had them. It is only the weak that abandon what the Bible teaches to keep in with what the World accepts. Sorry, but God has made it clear that women have no place in the ministry, even if the World thinks otherwise. That isn't discrimination, it's division of labour. And actually, in many places, Christianity has not survived, see the state of Methodism & Baptist Union for example.

The sky hasn't fallen in because Christians and Jews no longer stone adulterers to death and the fact that 6 billion plus human on this planet who are not Christians, has not caused God to send down Armageddon upon them.

i was n't aware that Christians did stone people to death, and quoting the law given to the nation of Israel doesn't change that.

Why can’t you live and let live?

I don't know if you have noticed that it isn't the Christians who are oppressing people but the gay mafia.

Part 2

3 May 2014 at 15:42  
Blogger Martin said...

Of course there are Christian homosexuals, and good intentioned people too; there probably always have been and most likely ever will be. That’s the deal between them and their God for what it’s worth. What business of an employer other than a religious order, is it to decide to admit into its employ based on a person’s private life, as this University demands? It can’t expect to be producing lawyers, of all the professions, when it does not recognise equality before the law itself.

I don't know if you noticed but Paul says to the Corinthians "And such were some of you." There had been some among them who had been homosexuals but they were no longer, they were washed & sanctified. And you will note, again, that it is the Law Societies that are discriminating, refusing jobs.

Some drama queen Christians are totally obsessed with sex, sexuality and homosexuality and happy to discriminate, based on what they think their God wants and seek to impose their will on others of their faith or not, as though they have been appointed by divine right: we do not live by some Christian equivalent of Sharia – we have lived under the iniquities of such and moved on: it’s against the law to discriminate and so is stoning adulterers!

Seems to me that you are the drama queen while Christians are having imposed on them a ethos that is totally opposed to what the Bible teaches.

Yours is a Global religion and I refer you to new legislation against gays in Nigeria - straight out of the OT. You love to pick and choose which OT rules to apply and which to ignore. Nothing to do with history at all this is in your Bible today.

Isn't it the right of Nigeria to make its own laws?

Lighten up people!

So when they come for you & you reflect that you didn't protest when they came for us?

Martin
part 3

3 May 2014 at 15:42  
Blogger Anonymous Lawyer said...

In granting TWU accreditation, the B.C. Law Society is giving public endorsement to TWU’s practice of discriminating against members of the LGTBQ community and, further, granting legitimacy, in the public sphere, to TWU’s Christian view that homosexuality is wrong. This public endorsement is not in the public interest. Worse yet, this is a detriment to our society’s gruelling, long-fought battle to recognize the human rights of all members of the LGTBQ community and their right to be treated equally. The decision to accredit TWU was wrong: http://wp.me/p4A1wz-4

3 May 2014 at 15:45  
Blogger Martin said...

Anonymous Lawyer

So why should "the LGTBQ community" have rights which we deny to those who indulge in adultery, bestiality & paedophilia?

3 May 2014 at 15:57  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Martin said:

Isn't it the right of Nigeria to make its own laws?

You are prepared to endorse homophobic violence or excuse the Nazi 'Final Solution' so long as they are waving you Bible? - nice chap. Who do you think your'e kidding Mr. Hitler?

So when they come for you & you reflect that you didn't protest when they came for us?

You are no Pastor Neimoller, that's for certain

3 May 2014 at 15:57  
Blogger Martin said...

Dreadnought

Since when did a deviant sexual behaviour acquire human rights?

Frankly you are closer to Hitler than I.

Martin

3 May 2014 at 15:59  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Martin

F... O..

3 May 2014 at 16:11  
Blogger 45minutewarning said...

Anonymous Lawyer

So are you saying that the B.C. Law Society endorses the views held either privately or publicly by members of any body it accredits? So presumably if you have a law faculty with Muslim students then the Law Society endorses the Muslem view that homosexuality is a gross offence to Allah and merits the death penalty?

Are you also saying (as it sounds) that LGBT rights now trump all other human rights in Canada? In other words, there is only one acceptable view of LGBT issues?

3 May 2014 at 16:12  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Fall Out.

3 May 2014 at 16:14  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Danjo,
"But I wasn't, Dodo. My comments were about State limitations on religious freedom. You're bringing your own bigotry to the party there."

Oh but you were - by the back door, so to speak.

Just why is it "bigotry" to oppose the imposition of the *normalisation* of homosexuality by a small deviant minority through the state or, for that matter, fundamental Islam?

Do explain.

3 May 2014 at 16:14  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 May 2014 at 16:33  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

Why should the rights of a minority to live a promiscuous life in which sexual physical feeling is exalted unto the highest place and therefore is their god trump those who wish to worship-ie. place first in their life the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ and put Him and his demands and His Love first in their lives?

It is not equality anyone is seeking but rubbing your nose in it dominance.

Which includes turning women into vassals because the work, hard though it is, back breaking at times, of raising children, is neither understood, esteemed nor valued by the rich powerful urban pink pound, that is distanced from nature and reality, and focused on urban living, parties, promiscuity, an almost exclusively male world, show, and fashion. Gay women I understand are on average much poorer with less disposable income and have been largely abandoned to their lesser lifestyle by gay men.

Now in a tribal society unless you have children to work and support you in your old age you starve. The society next on foresees this and esteems the work of those who bring up the next generation well. Our society has almost completely distorted this reality, but from what I understand young mothers are beginning to wake up and feel outraged at the way they are being marginalised and patronised today.

3 May 2014 at 16:43  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Oh but you were - by the back door, so to speak."

Welcome 'back', Dodo.

I'll leave my words in black and white up there to speak for themselves.

"Just why is it "bigotry" to oppose the imposition of the *normalisation* of homosexuality by a small deviant minority through the state or, for that matter, fundamental Islam?"

I don't think I need to say any more about it after that. Cheers.

3 May 2014 at 16:49  
Blogger 45minutewarning said...

Dreadnaught

Most Western law faculties are likely to have Muslem students. I never said that students themselves were seeking accreditation, but the faculties within which they studied

Read the comment

3 May 2014 at 16:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Meh. This is just a further manifestation of the decline of Christianity in the West. The new gods displace the old God. There is a touch of fear in this action for you only ban what you fear. And the Secularist is constantly haunted by the fear of resurgent religion. Well he knows the weakness of his own position. Well he knows his own inability to answer the questions to which men demand answers. "Who am I? Why am I here? What does it mean?" He can offer nothing but the narcotic of the moment. Ultimately that reduces to money, for narcotics must be purchased. But what of those with no money?

Jack is right. What must end will end. The problem is not secularism bur what comes after - when unbelief dissolves into despair?

carl

3 May 2014 at 16:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "I don't know if you have noticed that it isn't the Christians who are oppressing people but the gay mafia."

Isn't it the two Law Societies in question? That's what the article is essentially about as I read it: the apparent lack of pluralistic toleration at State level in a so-called liberal society. It's interesting to see the segue to the fourm's favourite bête noire each time. There's quite an irony there.

3 May 2014 at 17:00  
Blogger Martin said...

DanJo

So who are behind the two law societies?

Martin

3 May 2014 at 17:17  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...



God is real and God is angry and will not tolerate this situation. The Canadian business will undoubtedly be revoked because there will surely be some very strong intercessors on their knees before the Almighty about this, and it is amazing and astonishing how the answers come when that happens.

How they will come and in what manner they will come I cannot say, but undoubtedly they will. We will observe how they came afterwards and it may well be in a manner that we had not foreseen as possible, as such answers frequently do come that way.

I have been heartened and strengthened by the amazing testimony of a guy who had an NDE after being stung by 5 jellyfishes which can be seen on Youtube. He went really rather far in and his testimony is amazing, and I know it is true because he is overcome by it, and radiant at the remembrance of the Love he knew, that is real Love, of the type that those running the Canadian Law Society do not yet know. Let us hope that one day they do.

Incidentally after he had been laid out in the morgue for 20 minutes (if I remember correctly) he gave the people there one heck of a fright when he opened one eye, then closed it, turned his head and opened the other, and they ran screaming out of the room!!

3 May 2014 at 17:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "So who are behind the two law societies?"

Behind them? I don't understand. Do you think they're held in thrall or something?

Apparently there were Jews voting, according to the video clip. Perhaps they're part of that global conspiracy some people talk about.

There's all sort of information available here:

http://www.lsuc.on.ca/newsarchives.aspx?id=2147485737&cid=2147498273

I may work through it to see if I can work out who the gay mafia and the gaystapo (or the minions) are.

3 May 2014 at 17:33  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Carl Jacobs @ 16.54

Well said !

When the money runs out, if not before, unbelief will dissolve into despair, and then they will turn back to face God, who they presently try to mock. Yes it's fear that motivates controls.

3 May 2014 at 17:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy: "God is real and God is angry and will not tolerate this situation."

No doubt there will be thunder and lightning shortly as a result, or maybe another earthquake in Rutland, but hopefully it will happen after the bank holiday so that we can all enjoy our various peccadillos in the meantime.

3 May 2014 at 18:04  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Danjo.

Watch the space. It will be overturned; that I know for certain. I don't know how, but I know that.

As I said there are some strong intercessors involved, and "the prayers of the righteous person are mighty in their effects".

Mock all you like. I am cool with it.

3 May 2014 at 18:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy: "As I said there are some strong intercessors involved, and "the prayers of the righteous person are mighty in their effects"."

I suspect it will be overturned through rather more mundane and earthy means, and probably should be.

"Mock all you like. I am cool with it."

You have to admit, it sounded a little, well, petulant. Also, there was something of a sky-god priest thing in it.

3 May 2014 at 18:34  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

A question that no one on either side of the debate seems to have addressed so far is this: Why only law students? If there are sound arguments for disqualifying law students, why not disqualify WTU graduates with a degree in, say, engineering, or economics, or medicine, or any other subject? What is the rationale for exempting these graduates from the same rule governing lawyers?

3 May 2014 at 18:49  
Blogger Martin said...

DanJO

Like the question of who was behind Cameron's determination to push the fake marriage bill through?

Without the doubt it is those who stand to gain aka the gay lobby.

3 May 2014 at 19:08  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Why only law students?

I would have thought that was obvious.

The society of lawyers say they can't endorse a faculty for law graduates, that holds an ethos that they feel, runs contrary to the spirit of the law on equality.

3 May 2014 at 19:08  
Blogger William Lewis said...

Dreadnaught

If so then the society of lawyers should keep their feelings to themselves, ditch their prejudices and show some professionalism.

3 May 2014 at 19:38  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

45MW

Most Western law faculties are likely to have Muslem students...

So they are... but! Most* Western law faculties do not require staff and students to state their religious beliefs and sign a 'morality' charter that identifies LBGTs as outcasts, 'sinners' or whatever, which is operationally a de facto policy of discrimination contrary to the equality legislation .

They* are not this issue are not the issue, neither are Muslim students.

3 May 2014 at 19:47  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Dreadnaught

The Canadian Treasury Department, for instance, is presumably required to follow government rules on what criteria it applies in personnel selection. So when the Treasury is holding a competitive examination to recruit new economists, would it be justified in refusing to "endorse" a WTU degree in economics?

3 May 2014 at 19:49  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Does the WTU have to be accredited by the CTD?

3 May 2014 at 20:12  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

45MW

Most Western law faculties are likely to have Muslem students...

So they are... but! Most* Western law faculties do not require staff and students to state their religious beliefs and sign a 'morality' charter that identifies LBGTs as outcasts, 'sinners' or whatever, which is operationally a de facto policy of discrimination contrary to the equality legislation .

They* are not this issue, neither are Muslim students

3 May 2014 at 20:16  
Blogger 45minutewarning said...

Dreadnaught 19:47

"Most* Western law faculties do not require staff and students to state their religious beliefs and sign a 'morality' charter "

Please read carefully what Cranmer wrote in the opening piece...

"...the moral pledge is entirely voluntarily: .... It is a matter of free choice; of vocation.""

So it is not "required" but is a matter for the individuals personal beliefs and choice. I believe that used to be the origianl idea behind Liberalism.

3 May 2014 at 20:18  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

In a case where the terms of employment include the requirement that the candidate holds a university degree in a stated subject, then yes, of course the employer will have drawn up a list of universities whose degree certificates it will accept as valid.

3 May 2014 at 20:22  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

My comment at 20:22 was addressed to Dreadnaught.

3 May 2014 at 20:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Martin: "Like the question of who was behind Cameron's determination to push the fake marriage bill through? Without the doubt it is those who stand to gain aka the gay lobby."

Do you really think that? How did your "gay lobby" gain some much power in the Conservative party of all places? I'd have thought it was the LibDems who put it on the agenda for political reasons, and Cameron bought into it after the coalition was formed to detoxify his party's image. Stonewall was against the idea at the time, I recall reading.

3 May 2014 at 20:36  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

45MW

"...the moral pledge is entirely voluntarily: .... It is a matter of free choice; of vocation.""

HaHaHa. Compulsory-voluntary more likely. Sounds like a latter-day equivalent of the Test Act. Refusniks would mark themselves out for discrimination as well as the 'sinners'.

It stinks!

UncleB

I think you have just plucked that one out of thin air - A source would be helpful; I'm not holding my breath 'til you post the evidence to support you assertion; though it would still be nice to see.

3 May 2014 at 21:36  
Blogger grumpyoldcl said...

Dear Dreadnought,

your quote:
"... but! Most* Western law faculties do not require staff and students to state their religious beliefs and sign a 'morality' charter that identifies LBGTs as outcasts, 'sinners' or whatever, which is operationally a de facto policy of discrimination contrary to the equality legislation."

Time for a reality check ...
They DIDN'T.
There is NO policy.

It is a PERSONAL, VOLUNTARY oath.

Personal religious beliefs are a human right under the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights.

It's time for you to simply get over it.

3 May 2014 at 21:36  
Blogger IanCad said...

HG ended with:

"Our freedoms are disappearing. Our liberty is dying. And the concerning this is that so few people are noticing or even care."

Far too gentle.
Far too polite.
Sometimes, YG, I get the impression that you get weary and think all is in vain.
It isn't.
We need you.
Keep buggering on!

3 May 2014 at 21:41  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

It's time for you to simply get over it.

Thank you. I'll forward you pronouncement to the Law Society in Canada (not).

3 May 2014 at 21:52  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

What am I supposed to be “plucking out of thin air,” Dreadnaught? That the restriction on the exercise of WTU graduates’ chosen profession applies to law degrees alone? Are you asserting that the restriction applies across the board to all WTU graduates in all subjects? That isn’t what it says in His Grace’s post nor, as far as can see, in Ezra Levant’s piece I linked to (2 May 2014 at 10:32). If you have information to the contrary, don’t keep it to yourself, Dreadnaught. Share it with us!

3 May 2014 at 22:13  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Danjo, Happy Jack doesn't go in for conspiracies. The answer is more straight forward. Really, it is.

"I may work through it to see if I can work out who the gay mafia and the gaystapo (or the minions) are."

Why waste your time? Its Satanic and you're caught up in it mocking the faith of others, taunting them and labelling people as bigots and homophobes.

David Hussell
"When the money runs out, if not before, unbelief will dissolve into despair, and then they will turn back to face God, who they presently try to mock. Yes it's fear that motivates controls."

One hopes you are correct but history suggests repression and then suppression follow when society crumbles as a result of ignoring God's ways.

3 May 2014 at 22:20  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3 May 2014 at 22:25  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

It's humorous. And hypocritical. Most all of the progressive agenda has been driven by lawyers who graduated from law school rejecting the law as then constituted. This involves nothing more than creating stasis in the ideology of lawyers so that none exist to challenge the law as currently constituted.

carl

3 May 2014 at 22:37  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

That the restriction on the exercise of WTU graduates’ chosen profession applies to law degrees alone?

I asked you to back up with evidence your assertion @ 20.22

3 May 2014 at 22:43  
Blogger Len said...

Iancad said,

'Sometimes, YG, I get the impression that you get weary and think all is in vain.'

I feel somewhat like that myself today and wonder if we in the UK have passed 'a point of no return'... yet?.

C.S. Lewis was writing in his book, The Problem of Pain and he wrote this, "The lost enjoy forever the horrible freedom they have demanded and are therefore self-enslaved."

God will eventually abandon sinners to their own choices and the consequences of those choices.

When God Abandons a Nation - Grace to You
ww.gty.org/resources/sermons/80-314

3 May 2014 at 22:54  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ danjo

I am too old to do petulant. It is genuine faith, strong, cool and clear.

Many times I lose hold of faith and grow a bit panicky, but I believe that strong prayer will overturn this absurd and irrational ruling against communities who wish to follow a communal purity ethic.

The Almighty is a force to be reckoned with, not your weird notion of a sky fairy big old man priesty type. People who cross over and come back get absolutely blown away by the power, love and light of the next world. Not some insubstantial shadowy perception, but something stronger, purer, more radiant and vastly more real than this transitory often rather inadequate thing we call life.

Until you grasp hold of the eternal life that begins in this life but finds much greater fulfilment in the next by knocking down your wall- for the other wall has been taken down by God, and until you experience answered prayer and have your imagination stretched and widened and sometimes blown away by it, you understandably misallocate the feelings and the faith and experiences of Christians. It is always "that he who runs may read".

3 May 2014 at 22:58  
Blogger Martin said...

DanJO

The gay lobby hasn't gained so much power over the Conservatives, just some of them.

3 May 2014 at 23:30  
Blogger Anonymous Lawyer said...

This TWU controversy has brought out many issues and many perspectives. With respect, it seems like many have failed to consider the key problem that I see. No one is prohibiting Christian lawyers from practicing law. No one is requiring TWU to cease being a Christian university. TWU is a private entity that requires its students to sign a covenant that prohibited homosexual conduct, even if they were in a legally recognized same-sex marriage. If you do not, you are not allowed entrance.

But that is not all. TWU has stepped into the public sphere by requesting a law school and requesting a public entity to recognize it. The law society is a public regulating body that makes decision in ways as to protect the public good. Our society, as a collective has renounced discrimination based on sexual orientation, in the same way we have prohibited discrimination based on sex and race.

When the BC Law Society accredited TWU, it was in essence an endorsement of the discriminatory practices this private entity engages in and sent a message to the public that discrimination against gay people was ok, even though they are protected under the Charter and even though same-sex marriages are legally recognized. This is not in the public interest and does not protect the public interest, which includes acceptance of gay people.

TWU can go ahead with its anti-gay admission policies. But, it is not entitled to have a public regulatory body, that is supposed to act in the public interest, publicly endorse their privately held beliefs and discriminatory practices. If it does, we are taking a step backwards from so many years of hard work to recognize the human rights of gay people.

You cannot say that these gay people can simply go to another school. The reality is, law school admissions are limited. Inevitably, there will be situation where a gay student may wish to attend law school at TWU, but only because it is a law school (and a gateway to the legal profession) and not because they want to attend TWU, since it has been publicly accredited. But they can only attend if they sign a covenant that is anti-gay and would be under threat of discipline and expulsion. If they don't sign to say that homosexuality is wrong, even allowed under the law, they don't get in. By having the law society accredit TWU, it is allowing and endorsing this discriminatory admission practice.

I've set out my position here: http://wp.me/p4A1wz-4

I read many submissions, but none have been as eloquent as the submissions of BC bender Joe Arvey: http://t.co/InLx6T7L9b

Please don't conflate the various issues. I strongly encourage everyone to read the above articles and consider the various issues one by one, rather than make broad stroke statement.

4 May 2014 at 00:03  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Anon Lawyer

Your entire argument hangs upon the assumption that the normalization of homosexuality is in the public good. By what authority did you establish that assumption?

carl

4 May 2014 at 00:20  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Anon Lawyer, you'll need to explain why holding a well considered and rational opposition to active homosexuality, based on one's faith, constitutes "discrimination". Just where are the "rights and freedoms" of those who disagree?
As pointed out in your blog, a distinction is being drawn between the "status of being gay, lesbian or transgendered" and "the conduct of such a person." The same rules apply to heterosexuals - with the exception such marriages are acceptable.

4 May 2014 at 00:27  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodi:"Why waste your time? Its Satanic and you're caught up in it mocking the faith of others, taunting them and labelling people as bigots and homophobes."

Satanic? Lol. Blimey Dodo, who knew you were so gloriously camp?

4 May 2014 at 04:26  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Anonymous Lawyer

Your argument is extremely poor and involves discriminating against those who wish to live in a community of purity. Those who wish to live in communities that disobey holiness and purity do have all the rest of the world to choose from; that is incontrovertible.

It is highly illogical, deeply discriminatory, and offensive to a deep degree to victimise this deeply beleaguered and misunderstood minority. Which cavil and chop logic though you attempt, yet you still are , and this article is, no matter how many paragraphs you take. What an abandonment of decent English has occurred there in favour of the worst kind of lawyerspeak and casuistical argument! I hope there are some better arguers who do not twist logic and with a capacity for concise thought in Canada.

And don't we all know that there are some law schools in which you do not fit in unless you are highly liberal, PC, anti this type of Christian & so on? Is pqr where Christians are scorned and made unwelcome and uncomfortable told that they cannot award law degrees? I bet not. And yet effectively such establishments are NOT open to them. Like appoints like, as you well know. What bigotry and hypocrisy!! What high-minded insistence on permissiveness and lust you have. What dismissiveness and disallowance of the marginalised Christians attempting to live their lives of purity, a concept which disgusts you.

Attempting to indulge in a kind of morally indignant insistence that anal sex, dismissal of the opposite gender (usually women incidentally, but then they are poorer so a community it is ok to diss?!) and promiscuity must happen here there and everywhere- or people are immoral in your eyes- is the ultimate unholy irony to which you seem utterly impervious.

Isn't, incidentally, the utter contempt and revulsion for the biology of the opposite gender, and the use of that biology, and the beauty of it, one of the most objectionably discriminations around? In my book it is incredibly discrimatory to tell women that penetrative generative sex with them equates to anal sex between men, but for some reason I cannot fathom you seem to think this is completely gentlemanly and polite. I think not.

4 May 2014 at 07:14  
Blogger Len said...

I think the path that society in Europe is taking (led by a small group of pseudo' intellectuals') is to have a culture somewhat similar to the ancient Greeks with elements of paganism thrown into the mix.
Greeks were known to worship the human form, also homosexuality was I believe rampant.In the games(of a sporting nature ) runners apparently ran naked(we haven`t quite got there yet... thankfully)
Greeks were evolutionists and wouldn`t accept anything which opposed their humanistic philosophy..
They became prisoners of their own philosophies and entrapped by their own limitations.
Thinking themselves wise they became fools...

4 May 2014 at 08:25  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy: "Isn't, incidentally, the utter contempt and revulsion for the biology of the opposite gender, and the use of that biology, and the beauty of it, one of the most objectionably discriminations around? In my book it is incredibly discrimatory to tell women that penetrative generative sex with them equates to anal sex between men, but for some reason I cannot fathom you seem to think this is completely gentlemanly and polite. I think not."

Blimey. Where on earth did all that come from? :O

4 May 2014 at 08:46  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Len @ 8.25

I think that you are right. The sort of path you suggest is the one that has long been aimed for, by your "small group", and we are now seeing some strong steps being taken in that approximate direction. Most of the public, and that includes many of the politicians, have not a clue as to towards what and where they are being led.

4 May 2014 at 08:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy: "Isn't, incidentally, the utter contempt and revulsion for the biology of the opposite gender, and the use of that biology, and the beauty of it, one of the most objectionably discriminations around? In my book it is incredibly discrimatory to tell women that penetrative generative sex with them equates to anal sex between men, but for some reason I cannot fathom you seem to think this is completely gentlemanly and polite. I think not."

Surely when we talk about discrimination in these sort of discussions it is about undue discrimination? That is, it is a claim that people are treat unjustly based on a category to which they belong, and often because of some sort of prejudice.

Firstly, anal sex is not required in a homosexual relationship. Secondly, why must it equate to vaginal sex? It's just a way of having sex and giving pleasure, rather like a blow job. Thirdly, it is also a heterosexual practice. Fourthly, how is it discriminatory in the sense above? Finally, why is there a requirement to be polite and "gentlemanly" about it? We're all grownups for Christ'sake.

4 May 2014 at 09:03  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 May 2014 at 09:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lawyer: "But that is not all. TWU has stepped into the public sphere by requesting a law school and requesting a public entity to recognize it. The law society is a public regulating body that makes decision in ways as to protect the public good. Our society, as a collective has renounced discrimination based on sexual orientation, in the same way we have prohibited discrimination based on sex and race."

That seems to be the nub of it. I argued earlier that recognising the quality of the teaching and course content for degree accreditation ought to be a different thing to recognising and accepting the ethos of the wider establishment. You seem to think the two aspects can be and ought to be bundled together. Looking at the transcripts, the decision seems to have turned on this too.

As for the common good, I wouldn't worry too much about being questioned about that. I asked in a previous thread what that was and who decides it, and no-one was inclined to answer, or perhaps was able to answer. It's one of those vague philosophy things that people think they understand, and that everyone shares the same understanding, but most people can't adequately put into words. Rather like what constitutes Britishness, as it goes.

4 May 2014 at 09:16  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ Danjo

It IS undue discrimination against women to suggest that a man can biologically equate to them, just as it is undue discrimination towards a man to suggest that a woman is equal to a man in the male part of sexual union.

Sperm are for finding and fertilising eggs, or they are redundant and have no useful purpose, do they? Without that they are superfluous to design needs. This is so plonkingly obvious that I am amazed that it needs stating. The highest form of male sexual encounter is one which results in new life. The next highest is that which attempts to create new life, the next that which practices, or helps the male bond to the co-parent of his child, and releases hormones which help him bond with his children, and makes him want to cuddle parentally bond with and nurture them, and the next that which echoes or provides remembrance or helps him bond with grandchildren. Right at the bottom is any form of self pleasuring, whether it uses another person or not. Society can no more take away these truths than Canute could stop the waves coming in or out.

You can legislate all you want but at the very most basic females have 3 openings where men have two, and you can never make 2=3 or 3=2. So the concept of equality is a mathematical absurdity whilst also being essentially a mathematical concept. Silly, isn't it? Oh whoops the Creator did not make us biologically the same, what a mistake to make!! Oh whoops two men or two women cannot naturally create children. How unfair!! How unequal!! Perhaps people need to grow up and deal with the world and biology as it is.

You provide no argument whatsoever against these truths, except to argue that petting is equal to penetration, which is just another absurdity.

As for "for Christ's sake?" Christ was a Jew and an advocate of enormous purity.

It is mathematically extremely obvious that for things to be equal there must be NOTHING, a big fat zero, on one side of the equation that is not on the other side. Hardly so, is it, and glaringly plonkingly obviously so.

4 May 2014 at 09:29  
Blogger Lucy Mullen said...

@ danjo

I have just shown how equating

p+q+r+s= r=+s

of its nature discriminates against p plus q and suggests that they have no value whatever.

This discriminates against p and q, which is particularly discriminatory if p and q happen to be very high in value.

4 May 2014 at 09:48  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Lucy: "It IS undue discrimination against women to suggest that a man can biologically equate to them, just as it is undue discrimination towards a man to suggest that a woman is equal to a man in the male part of sexual union."

But where is that argument actually made?

"Sperm are for finding and fertilising eggs, or they are redundant and have no useful purpose, do they? Without that they are superfluous to design needs. This is so plonkingly obvious that I am amazed that it needs stating."

Ignoring the implications of "design" there, where's the disagreement? It doesn't need stating so there's no need for you to be amazed.

"The highest form of male sexual encounter is one which results in new life. [...]"

You're asserting a hierarchy there. Where's that come from that people like me ought to be bound by it?

"So the concept of equality is a mathematical absurdity whilst also being essentially a mathematical concept. Silly, isn't it?"

Suddenly your foundational mistake becomes clear. When we talk about equality in discussions like this, it's about equality of opportunity, or equality of access, or equality before the law, or similar. It doesn't mean sameness, like that men are the same as women. I'm amazed that is needs stating. How you been living under a rock or something?

"Oh whoops two men or two women cannot naturally create children. How unfair!! How unequal!! Perhaps people need to grow up and deal with the world and biology as it is."

You think the sort of thing is about envy over being able to naturally create children? Really? Was that rock you were living under a rock in a really remote place too?

"You provide no argument whatsoever against these truths, except to argue that petting is equal to penetration, which is just another absurdity."

Where have I argued that? You're bringing your own bigotry to the party; a common thing around here at times.

4 May 2014 at 09:50  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Also, how is it undue discrimination? Where's the unfair treatment of women in all this? That they tend to miss out on well-dressed, well-groomed men with fabulous taste in home furnishings?

4 May 2014 at 09:58  
Blogger graham wood said...

Lucy. I've not had time to pursue all the postings in detail, but sat bolt upright on reading your valuable contributions.
A truly Christian world-view and including gender roles is worth all the worldly and often superficial arguments.
Your following point is spot on, and bear repeating:

"The Almighty is a force to be reckoned with, not your weird notion of a sky fairy big old man priestly type. People who cross over and come back get absolutely blown away by the power, love and light of the next world. Not some insubstantial shadowy perception, but something stronger, purer, more radiant and vastly more real than this transitory often rather inadequate thing we call life."

Well said Keep posting in this vein!

4 May 2014 at 10:10  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

After reading the posts from someone with direct connection to the topic, I started thinking what would be the reaction in the UK if a private University with a literal Biblical or Koranic foundation was to include creationism as a legitimate element of a degree course in Biology.

I think the principle at issue is similar and a little closer to home.

From this September, children in England will be explicitly taught evolution in state primary schools onward as part of the redrafted science curriculum, yet schools in the guise of academies and such are still permitted to teach creationism in science lessons.

How can a science qualification that is so far removed from the principles that underpin all scientific evidence on matters of evolution, possibly be worth the equivalent of a Cambridge International Examinations A level in biology?

Could a PhD in Biology also be a creationist in belief and on that basis, ever be capable of undertaking research under the assumption the ultimate conclusion has already been filled by the god of the gaps conclusion?

4 May 2014 at 10:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

It's a pity the first line of the quote doesn't actually describe what I said, but hey ho.

4 May 2014 at 10:16  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Has anyone mentioned the importance of Natural Law in all these arguments, but perhaps its existence is implied in what has been said ? Catholics tend to rely on it significantly, and although it has to be approached with great caution I think, it does I find point us to great truths, the truths embedded in the natural world reflecting the work of the Creator, now embedded in the "grain" of the universe. Natural Law has had an impact on the Church of England, mainly in former times, through the work of Richard Hooker - it's a bit deep for many today !

So we can pass whatever man made laws we wish, or create whatever legal institutions we wish, to our little hearts content, but if we write and enforce laws that are contrary to Natural Law, the grain of nature if you wish, and thereby also ignore the advice God gives in his Word, which should be defended and taught by the Church of Christ, to which all true believers belong, regardless of denomination I maintain, then injustices and dysfunctions will occur and multiply. We are seeing those processes roll out before our eyes nowadays.

4 May 2014 at 11:21  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Has anyone mentioned the importance of Natural Law in all these arguments, but perhaps its existence is implied in what has been said ? Catholics tend to rely on it significantly, and although it has to be approached with great caution I think, it does I find point us to great truths, the truths embedded in the natural world reflecting the work of the Creator, now embedded in the "grain" of the universe. Natural Law has had an impact on the Church of England, mainly in former times, through the work of Richard Hooker - it's a bit deep for many today !

So we can pass whatever man made laws we wish, or create whatever legal institutions we wish, to our little hearts content, but if we write and enforce laws that are contrary to Natural Law, the grain of nature if you wish, and thereby also ignore the advice God gives in his Word, which should be defended and taught by the Church of Christ, to which all true believers belong, regardless of denomination I maintain, then injustices and dysfunctions will occur and multiply. We are seeing those processes roll out before our eyes nowadays.

4 May 2014 at 11:21  
Blogger Albert said...

David,

You're right, Anglican moral theology was vitally rooted in Natural Law for several centuries. Indeed, English law was also rooted in Natural Law (and to some extent it still is). Personally, I find it very difficult to see how things can be truly right or wrong if there is no Natural Law.

Quite why Anglicanism dropped its use of Natural Law, I don't know. Perhaps it was the rise of so-called Evangelicalism. But whatever the explanation, the effects of dropping Natural Law are everywhere to be found in Church and society. When I was an Anglican, I used to be utterly bewildered by the ways in which people would make moral decisions, without reference to pretty well anything. In such a context, you can do what you like - there is no matter of truth to speak of - so it's easy to see why liberals are liberals because they are nice people, and conservatives are conservatives because they are nasty and ungenerous. The trouble is doing what you like in every situation, violates something fundamental in us, and the results in a society run on these lines are very unpleasant.

4 May 2014 at 11:34  
Blogger IanCad said...

Entirely off-topic; but, as I am a great champion of the BBC, it would only be fair of me to jump on it when it demotes The Archbishop of Canterbury to plain "mister" as it has just done this AM.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-27273053

Apologies YG.

4 May 2014 at 11:54  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Natural Law? – of course it is.

Homosexuality is quite common in the animal kingdom, especially among herding animals. Many animals solve conflicts by practicing same gender sex. (Norwegian Natural History Museum)

"One fundamental premise in social debates has been that homosexuality is unnatural. This premise is wrong. Homosexuality is both common and highly essential in the lives of a number of species," explains Petter Boeckman, who is the academic advisor for the "Against Nature's Order?" exhibition.

The most well-known homosexual animal is the dwarf chimpanzee, one of humanity's closes relatives. The entire species is bisexual. Sex plays an conspicuous role in all their activities and takes the focus away from violence, which is the most typical method of solving conflicts among primates and many other animals
.

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

But that's me out of this thread.

4 May 2014 at 12:18  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

Dreadnaught

There have been changes here on the thread, I see, since I switched off last night. We have now been sidetracked onto the gay rights issue, notwithstanding the TWU’s controversial requirement of sexual abstinence outside marriage is all-inclusive, outlawing homosexual and heterosexual acts alike.

I’m not quite sure, Dreadnaught, what it is you want me to provide a source for. Here, again, is my earlier comment that you are querying:

Uncle Brian said...

In a case where the terms of employment include the requirement that the candidate holds a university degree in a stated subject, then yes, of course the employer will have drawn up a list of universities whose degree certificates it will accept as valid.

3 May 2014 20:22


Is it news to you that degrees from some universities carry more weight in the employment marketplace than degrees from other universities? And that some employers may reject applicants on the grounds that the university they attended is not on their approved list?

Believe me, Dreadnaught, this is common knowledge, and has been for many years. Undergraduates in my day were fully aware of the fact, and that is going back a very long time indeed. However, if you still need convincing, here is a memorandum issued by the British Council,.
listing the British universities whose degrees are recognised in Singapore. Whether under accountancy, dentistry, or anything else, you will search in vain for names such the universities of Aberystwyth, Bangor, Bournemouth, Brighton, Buckingham, Coventry, and Cranford, and that takes us only as far as the letter C.

4 May 2014 at 12:31  
Blogger Albert said...

Dreadnaught,

Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.

I'm afraid that has nothing whatsoever to do with Natural Law and establishes nothing. If it did, you would also have established the rightness of parents killing their disabled young. It's fortunate therefore, that you have not understood the issue.

4 May 2014 at 12:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Brian: "Is it news to you that degrees from some universities carry more weight in the employment marketplace than degrees from other universities? And that some employers may reject applicants on the grounds that the university they attended is not on their approved list?"

In my field, it's common to see job adverts requiring "a degree from a good red-brick university" or "a degree from a member of the Russell Group".

4 May 2014 at 12:44  
Blogger Ditari said...

Well said Albert - just about what I was going to say myself. An absurd argument that proves too much.

Meanwhile DN, although you're apparently no longer on this thread, you can teach and learn a huge amount of biology without any reference to evolution or creation at all.

And you should realise that the tired old argument from so-called vestigial organs, for example, is a case of "evolution of the gaps". As is any argument from absence from a part of the fossil record, which is always liable to be overturned by a single future discovery (as has happened many times, Coelacanth-wise).

4 May 2014 at 12:52  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

Natural law presumes a law giver. If you inhabit a universe that results from randomness - one possible system randomly chosen (somehow ..don't ask. Just go with it) from an infinite set of coherent systems - then there is no law giver and no natural law. Or rather, to be precise, man is the law giver and is free to shape the boundaries of his behavior as he sees fit. He is subject only to the reach of his hand.

It is, as always, a question of authority. And that is the one question from which our opponents flee. For they have no answer. And they know it.

carl

4 May 2014 at 12:56  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 May 2014 at 13:19  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Carl: "It is, as always, a question of authority. And that is the one question from which our opponents flee. For they have no answer. And they know it."

Except we don't, of course. You're simply asserting an external authority outside of our reality without any solid basis for it because you need one for your worldview. It's merely aspirational. People like me happily look at our reality and accept that as a gregarious, self-aware species, we construct our social environment ourselves. It's no biggy, really. It's people like you who struggle to get by without your mental blankie, wishing meaning and order and intelligent design onto the universe because you find it too terrible to contemplate otherwise. It's horses for courses, at the end of the day.

4 May 2014 at 13:20  
Blogger Martin said...

Dreadnought

So what advantage does teaching unobserved & unscientific Evolutionary theory give to the teaching of biology?

It was Evolution that gave us the now discredited 'Monera', biogenetic law, vestigial organs & junk DNA. In fact Evolution has been a happy hunting ground for the makers of fraudulent evidence, from the various apemen to Chinese fabricators of lizard/bird amalgams. I suggest you learn some real science.

Martin

4 May 2014 at 13:30  
Blogger Uncle Brian said...

DanJo

Thank you, DanJo.


Dreadnaught

For further references, in case you still require them, please see DanJo's comment addressed to me, about six comments up from this one (today at 12:44).

4 May 2014 at 13:30  
Blogger David Hussell said...

Albert @ 11.34 + 12.40

Thank you. Excellent responses.

Natural Law is a subtle thing, hence my caution in handling it, but it is also a very powerful one I believe.
Addicts of soundbites will find it, not to their tastes.

4 May 2014 at 13:49  
Blogger David Hussell said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 May 2014 at 13:49  
Blogger IanCad said...

I must confess that I only watched part of the video yesterday.

Being somewhat influenced by HG's introduction to it I endured it for five minutes or so.

Big mistake! This guy is good. He said more in his fourteen minute presentation than most reporters would get out in an hour.

He hears better than he watches.

For those who haven't watched it all, do yourself a favour and take the time.

That Adam Goldenburg is a piece of work.

Militant Big Homo is a danger to us all.

4 May 2014 at 15:27  
Blogger Len said...

Anyway when all the Christians have gone you atheists can sort it all out with the Muslims.

Good luck with that one!.

4 May 2014 at 16:18  
Blogger Albert said...

Good one Len ^ :-)

4 May 2014 at 21:02  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

somehow ..don't ask. Just go with it

Quite - only an atheist, one who is trying to escape the demands of reason, would be silly enough to believe that.

from an infinite set of coherent systems - then there is no law giver and no natural law

Except that, in order to have randomness, you first need some kind of order. The chance involved in throwing a 6 is only possible because so many things in the action are absolutely constant (even if you allow that the number thrown is genuinely random, which I don't). Thus in order to escape the order the atheist has to assume the very order he is trying to escape, because order implies an orderer. Thus even a random universe, implies an intelligent creator.

Natural law presumes a law giver.

Yes, but the law is not extrinsic to nature, rather it is true because each natural thing reflects, in some sense, the rationality of the Creator. This is perhaps where you and I part company (at least it seemed so last week when we were discussing evolution, although as you didn't reply, I don't know where you got to). I reject absolutely any kind of voluntarist theory of God's commands. Natural Law depends on God, but only because nature itself depends on God. Laws, even God's laws, if they are to be valid must bear witness to the reality he has created. How much more so, then, man-made law?

4 May 2014 at 21:12  
Blogger Albert said...

David,

Addicts of soundbites will find it, not to their tastes.

Exactly. That's why most issues of any depth are ignored or misunderstood in our age of philosophical superficiality.

4 May 2014 at 21:13  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

4 May 2014 at 21:18  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Albert
"Quite why Anglicanism dropped its use of Natural Law, I don't know."

Lambeth Conference 1930?

Here's an interesting article on the consequences of Christian acceptance of birth control

4 May 2014 at 21:24  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Here's the nub of the article:

"The Anglican Lambeth Conference of 1930 was the first time any Christian denomination ever said that contraception could be a morally good choice. The Lambeth Conference in 1908 had condemned contraception in words that could have been written by John Paul II or Benedict XVI. Since Lambeth 1930, Pius XI and the succeeding Popes have continued to teach that contraception is wrong, first, because it deliberately separates the unitive and procreative aspects of the conjugal act; second, by so changing the nature of the act, the man and woman make themselves, rather than God, the arbiters of whether and when life shall begin; and third, contraception frustrates the total mutual self-donation that is essential to the conjugal act. Contraception also implies that there is such a thing as a human life not worth living—the life of the child whose existence the contraceptors choose to prevent."

"“If a person can violate [by contraception] the natural integrity of the moral act with moral impunity,” said Dean William J. Kenealy, S.J., of Boston College Law School two decades before HV, “then I challenge anyone to show me the essential immorality of any sexual aberration.”"

"If you make yourself the arbiter of whether and when life shall begin, you will predictably put yourself in charge of when life shall end, as in abortion, euthanasia and suicide. The contraceptive society cannot deny legitimacy to homosexual activity without denying itself. If it is man’s decision as to whether sex will have any relation to procreation, then the only objections to same-sex “marriage,” polygamy, bestiality, etc., are reduced to the aesthetic and arbitrary. The separation of sex from procreation undercuts any reservation of sex for marriage and any reason for permanence of marriage. It also encourages the objectification of women by pornography."

4 May 2014 at 21:38  
Blogger Martin said...

Albert

Thus in order to escape the order the atheist has to assume the very order he is trying to escape, because order implies an orderer.

Very nice.

Martin

4 May 2014 at 21:52  
Blogger Albert said...

Happy Jack,

What a superb set of quotations. I don't know whether the Lambeth decision of 1930 is the cause or the effect of the abandonment of God's natural law, but as I said before, the fruits of that choice are everywhere to see. Of course, in undermining the birth-rate, this kind of liberalism is undermining itself, since liberals don't reproduce themselves enough.

Not worth worrying about too much. Unlike the poor, the liberal won't always be with us.

4 May 2014 at 22:06  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Albert, man's nature rebels against God's law. The Church and the cultural and social order was a restraining influence on our baser nature until the last century.

Sometimes Jack thinks the 1920's was culturally more influential than the 1960's. Certainly this decade laid the foundation for the shift in sexual morality and a reordering of society.

The contraceptive pill allowed free expression to sex for pleasure's sake.

Then the liberals and modernists acquired a voice and got to work in the Church and gave a 'theological' justification for abandoning traditional Christian morality. We'd been reading the bible 'wrong' for 2000 years and 'misunderstanding' it and its cultural context. This is growing stronger within the Roman Catholic Church.

The reported Vision Of Pope Leo XIII, on October 13, 1884, comes to mind.

4 May 2014 at 23:36  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Jack chuckled at that line about the liberals.

Never give up hope or faith. We have the promise of Christ that His Church will not go under. Let us pray that not too many souls are lost during these times.

4 May 2014 at 23:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Except that, in order to have randomness, you first need some kind of order.

That, Albert, is a fascinating insight that has never occurred to me before. I shall remember that - and shamelessly plagiarize it.

carl

5 May 2014 at 00:19  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Jack
"Free expression for pleasure's sake"
Not just for pleasure for mental health's sake. Most couples cannot afford to have more than three children in our society i.e. to even provide the basics like shelter and food and to allow the mother to stay at home for a few years with her brood while they are still very young.

Sex is a solace for couples and strengthens their relationships.
Curbing reasonable natural desires such as sex in marriage leads to ill health. I don't mean to be disloyal but take a look at some of those old priests who have been deprived of an embrace or any physical connection...it shows..No, not a good thing at all and I think it is terribly cruel.
Humans are not meant by nature to live without human affection..It is wrong to impose it upon them.

Jesus died at 32 not 72.So if celibacy is based on the example of Jesus' life it is unreasonable.

Porn may have increased with the introduction of the pill but the answer is not to ban the pill.All systems are abused. Knee jerk reactions are over reactions.

Originally the pill was only prescribed for married women. It was never meant to be prescribed for schoolgirls.However as the pill is so freely available there should be no need for abortions. I can only think that abortion is being used as a form of birth control which is unthinkable and monstrous.

I know the Church forbids contraception but does so on very flimsy scriptural grounds.Millions of married Catholics use contraception at some time during their lives.
Hopefully they are not receiving the sacraments while they are doing so. Of course if a woman has become infertile she need not worry herself with these matters
and could take the sacraments unless she knew absolutely that without the prevailing circumstance she would be definitely using contraception.

To be a Catholic means to be authentic.Catholic Shakespeare
understood this concept " To thine own self be true...etc

PS
Gloriously camp!..with those knees and football boots.. I don't think so! Don't mind Danjo. He has just discovered 19th French literature and fancies himself as Proust, the poor old dear!

5 May 2014 at 03:10  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Bloody hell Cressida, you've written multiple paragraphs of sensible, bileless argument there and I even agree with it too! :O

5 May 2014 at 06:48  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

The pope was very ill, and nobody could cure him. The cardinals called
in an old physician recommended to them. After an hour long examination,
he comes up with a solution.
"I've got some good news and some bad news". 'The bad news'? asks a cardinal.
"The pope has a testicular disorder - an obstruction in the epididymis" replied the physician.
'And The good news'?
This can easily be cured by ejaculation."
The cardinals, not happy with the suggested treatment and explain the situation to the pope.
" Well OK if that the only option - I'll have to agree to it," says the pope.
" But only under four specific conditions."
The cardinals were shocked.
" What are the four conditions?" asks one.
"First, the girl must be blind, so she cannot see with whom she is having sex.
Second, she must be deaf, so she cannot hear with whom she is having sex.
And third, she must be dumb, so if she somehow figures out with whom
she is having sex, she can tell no one.
After a long pause, a cardinal asks, "And the fourth condition your Holiness?"- "Big tits!"

5 May 2014 at 08:47  
Blogger Albert said...

Happy Jack,

Sometimes Jack thinks the 1920's was culturally more influential than the 1960's.

Personally, if I had to pick a decade, I'd pick the first decade of the 14th Century.

5 May 2014 at 09:33  
Blogger Albert said...

Cressida,

Most couples cannot afford to have more than three children in our society i.e. to even provide the basics like shelter and food and to allow the mother to stay at home for a few years with her brood while they are still very young.

What has that got to do with anything? Natural family planning is more effective than condoms, if used properly. It costs nothing, deepens the relationship, places responsibility on both husband and wife and does not coarsen the sex.

5 May 2014 at 09:36  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I shall remember that - and shamelessly plagiarize it.

Plagiarize away. What does it matter? The important thing is that in every way, atheists are given a good kicking. (With apologies to St Paul!)

5 May 2014 at 09:40  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If only a-theists would accept the assumptions on which theists build their artifice then we'd be kicked black and blue. But of course we don't, and the violence falls short. If only a-theists wouldn't simply step past those flying boots and point at the core assumption that many theists don't even seem to recognise they make, bless them. Yet, it's like an elephant in the room at times.

5 May 2014 at 10:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Brian: "Thank you, DanJo."

You're welcome. As it happens, I don't much rate employers who do that sort of stuff as it smells a little of elitism. I've been around for long enough that I know degrees are mostly just passports to a job in the real world, and that companies need both thinkers and doers.

Those sort of job adverts are typical in Cambridge because there are lots of startup companies created by Cambridge graduates, or as university spinoffs. They put great store on academic achievement for obvious reasons. Yet one of the worst hardware engineers I have ever employed was a PhD from Cambridge. His prototype circuit board is legendary.

5 May 2014 at 10:57  
Blogger Albert said...

DanJo,

If only a-theists would accept the assumptions on which theists build their artifice then we'd be kicked black and blue...point at the core assumption that many theists don't even seem to recognise they make

Which assumptions don't you accept? Which assumptions do you think we don't seem to recognize?

5 May 2014 at 11:02  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Albert, may Jack ask what happened in the 1310's?

Cressida, Jack accepts your points that sex is a good and healthy activity.

However, sex is not the be all and end all of a relationship or of life. As Albert said, natural family planning is very effective. All it means is a week or so absence during a wife's fertile time. And because it is natural it is permitted by the Church. The Church - all Christian denominations - regarded contraception as inherently sinful until 1930.

The consequences of a contraceptive society are outlined in the quotes above and it is worth reading the full article.

Now Jack knows a man who's daughter recently became pregnant within a few months by using this method. Prior to this it had been used to avoid pregnancy. Sex and family planning are not mutually exclusive.

5 May 2014 at 11:30  
Blogger Albert said...

Happy Jack,

It's the era in which Duns Scotus and particularly William of Ockham are undermining the idea of nature. In the latter case particularly, this was because he felt the idea of nature undermined God's freedom - the defending of which was his primary concern. As a result of this, God's commands, rather than expressing the very nature of things, became somewhat arbitrary. As such, people found them oppressive. The end result was that people said "If there's no moral truth apart from will, why shouldn't my will take priority over God's?"

The arbitrariness was deepened by the Reformation (which, viewed historically is a kind of extreme voluntarism), and gave way to modern secularism.

5 May 2014 at 11:35  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

What has that got to do with anything?

Dear God..what are you on about? Most of the population is not as wealthy as you must be Albert.Food and shelter should be considerations for responsible parenting.

Who wants to use condoms ?No one is talking about condoms. Condoms are not the preferred contraception for those who are sexually faithful to each other The rhythm method is notoriously unreliable.And it is disgusting to be thinking of contraception in penny pinching terms because it is free when it is known to be unreliable.

Coarsen the sex? LOL. What are you talking about? How can the use of contraception coarsen the sex between a committed couple.
Coarse sex is drunken sex, drug induced sex or porn sex.What a strange concept to think one has sex differently without contraception to when one has sex with contraception. Must be an English thing?

The reality of life is that people have to work hard for an income and the demands of work, maintaining a home, children, pets and elderly relatives leave a person too exhausted to be swinging from chandeliers in leather with porn manuals in hand. This exists in the minds of dirty old men with too much time on their hands.Try to remember you are a Catholic now Albert.In view of your most recent conversion this behaviour is no longer appropriate.


5 May 2014 at 11:39  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Cressida: "Most of the population is not as wealthy as you must be Albert.Food and shelter should be considerations for responsible parenting."

I once made a similar point to Carl when he went through his birth rate phase. Houses in the UK are small and expensive, the cost of living is high, and there are lifestyle aspirations. It is what will probably bring the birth rate of our Muslim citizens down to indigenous levels if we stop allowing the sub-culture to be refreshed all the time.

5 May 2014 at 11:47  
Blogger Ditari said...

"You're asserting a hierarchy there. Where's that come from that people like me ought to be bound by it?"

Yes DJ, Lucy is indeed asserting that some sex acts are more socially valuable than others. The understatement of the century actually.

But more than anything else you've said on this thread, that question really gets to the heart of what you're about. Since we're apparently reduced to a colouring-by-numbers level of reasoning, here is my answer.

First, you might like to reflect on how come you exist in the first place.

All the sodomy in the world never produced a single new life.

You owe your very life to something which you're implicitly claiming is worth no more than your favourite private indulgence (otherwise there'd be a "hierarchy", and that would never do, would it?).

And just what do you mean by "people like me". Homosexuals? Are homosexuals made in a factory somewhere, without the need for that thing which, you know, you've shown you think is worth so little?

Has it occurred to you that we are all debtors to our parents and earlier ancestors who 'did the right thing', resisting temptations to deviations like adultery, promiscuity, sodomy and anything else that would have disrupted the civilisation-transmitting process? (At least I hope they resisted - and where they didn't, civilisation did indeed suffer more or less.)

If you wilfully fail to do the same for the next generation, aren't you in effect breaking a sort of inter-generational contract?

Frankly, your question comes across as totally selfish, contemptuous and reprehensible, as though "people like you" have some sort of self-issued licence to declare UDI from the human race and the obligations that rightly bind the rest of us. Cf. that loathsome Housman rant.

5 May 2014 at 11:47  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Albert: "Which assumptions don't you accept? Which assumptions do you think we don't seem to recognize?"

No thanks. I'm merely acknowledging your goads and brushing them off, not falling for them so you can get your kicks. Btw, I applaud you for your honesty back there, it's a welcome change from your pomposity.

Anyway, if they're not obvious to you then you might want to take stock of your position. They really ought to be for goodness'sake. That's what philosophy is often about: spotting the unstated assumptions in an argument.

5 May 2014 at 11:54  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ditari: "But more than anything else you've said on this thread, that question really gets to the heart of what you're about. Since we're apparently reduced to a colouring-by-numbers level of reasoning, here is my answer."

Ditari, Lucy created a strawman of her own and asked me to work its arms so she could win her own argument. I may be a Friend of Dorothy but this isn't the Wizard of Oz, you know. When I asked Lucy to actually justify what she had written, she did a runner instead because, I expect, she realised she had no grounds when she went to look for quotes.

5 May 2014 at 12:03  
Blogger Albert said...

Cressida,

To be honest, most of your post makes no sense to me as a response to mine. Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I thought you were objecting to Catholic teaching on birth control because it results in families which are too large for parents to cope with. I was merely pointing out that Natural Family Planning is more effective than a very obvious than other forms of obvious and effective family planning - namely condoms. I could have picked less effective forms and that would have given me a rhetorical advantage, but I didn't, I picked an effective form.

The rhythm method is notoriously unreliable.

Yes it is. But the rhythm method is only one form of Natural Family Planning. NFP can be far more effective than that. If you wish to argue about family size, you need to answer that case.

And it is disgusting to be thinking of contraception in penny pinching terms because it is free when it is known to be unreliable.

But it isn't known to be unreliable - it's just that the only form of NFP that you are discussing is known to be unreliable. But I am not discussing that form. I have in mind a very poor couple who struggle to feed their children, and don't want any more. Doubtless, merciless Western companies will try to get them using condoms or something else, which will cost them. This is plainly wrong, when, for no cost at all, they can use a method that is just as effective. Are you seriously doubting the morality of that?

Coarsen the sex? LOL. What are you talking about? How can the use of contraception coarsen the sex between a committed couple.

Yes, but then, it seems that, so far, you don't really know what the options genuinely are and therefore are not in a position to assess the fruits of each.

This exists in the minds of dirty old men with too much time on their hands.Try to remember you are a Catholic now Albert.In view of your most recent conversion this behaviour is no longer appropriate.

And you were wondering about my comment about sex being coarsened...

5 May 2014 at 12:32  
Blogger Albert said...

DanJo,

I'm merely acknowledging your goads and brushing them off, not falling for them so you can get your kicks.

You join in the discussion, complain when you then get included, and then conclude by accusing me of pomposity.

5 May 2014 at 12:36  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

On your way Albert, I'm done with you.

5 May 2014 at 12:41  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Ditari: "Yes DJ, Lucy is indeed asserting that some sex acts are more socially valuable than others."

It's a curious thing, that. It's like you think our individual sex lives ought to be regulated against that criterion. Why would I allow you to do that?

"First, you might like to reflect on how come you exist in the first place."

My father had sex with my mother. Duh. Whilst most people don't like to dwell on the image, it's hardly a surprise to me. I didn't go to a Roman Catholic School, you know.

"All the sodomy in the world never produced a single new life."

I hope you're not about to launch into a birds and bees discussion. Really, there's no need to explain the act itself. I once went to a club in Amsterdam for my heterosexual mate's stag do, and was naïve enough to sit under a downlight in the audience. Having someone with an enormous nob having sex with a woman on my lap left nothing to the imagination, I can tell you. I also have an irrational fear of ping pong balls after that trip.

"You owe your very life to something which you're implicitly claiming is worth no more than your favourite private indulgence (otherwise there'd be a "hierarchy", and that would never do, would it?)."

Ah now, am I really implicitly claiming that or are you simply inferring it from your own misunderstanding? I think the latter myself as I'm very pleased people have children. Heck, I support the social institution of marriage because one of its functions is to support that.

Also, it's curious you refer to my private indulgence, as though it's entirely selfish. I see comments like that quite often from religionists who have a pretty distorted view on homosexuality. You're pandering to your prejudices there, I think.

"And just what do you mean by "people like me". Homosexuals? Are homosexuals made in a factory somewhere, without the need for that thing which, you know, you've shown you think is worth so little?"

No. Look, I realise that you're probably just indulging yourself with you self-righteous anger here but you can't infer that from what I've said. You need to work through your anger and ground yourself in reality I think.

"Has it occurred to you that we are all debtors to our parents and earlier ancestors who 'did the right thing', resisting temptations to deviations like adultery, promiscuity, sodomy and anything else that would have disrupted the civilisation-transmitting process?"

Actually, I very much doubt the common ancestor we share with other apes resisted sexual temptations. But anyway, I think I ought to encourage you back to reality here. That I have a homosexual sexual orientation and expect to have a sex life really doesn't mean that I want to deny a sex life to heterosexuals. Far from it. Shag away! Please, get married if it suits you. Please, have children too. Preferably within a stable relationship, such as marriage, if you can though. There, is that enough to crumble whatever prejudices you're operating under?

"If you wilfully fail to do the same for the next generation, aren't you in effect breaking a sort of inter-generational contract?"

No. That's a bit weird actually. Are you really that, well, constrained in your life? Blimey. You need to get out more, or something. We're individuals at the end of the day, though we live in families like our fellow primates. And usually social groups after that. But hey.

"Frankly, your question comes across as totally selfish, contemptuous and reprehensible, as though "people like you" have some sort of self-issued licence to declare UDI from the human race and the obligations that rightly bind the rest of us. Cf. that loathsome Housman rant."

All that from a simple question mostly intended to draw Lucy's attention to all the assumptions she was making. Well done!

5 May 2014 at 12:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Albert

NFP takes discipline and work. It depends upon consistent application over time. Condoms are easy but get in the way. That's the cost/benefit analysis. As a rule our culture likes 'easy.' It isn't willing to put in the work to make NFP effective.

Anyways, the idea that the richest continent in the world is too poor to have children - and has been for the last forty years - is too ridiculous to credit.

carl

5 May 2014 at 13:00  
Blogger Albert said...

Isn't that just the truth, Carl?

5 May 2014 at 13:10  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

“Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.”

To borrow from the Amazon site. ‘People who bought into that also bought...’

“Flying is the safest form of travel” (Editor’s note. Obviously not lately, but give it a year or two)

AND

“A watched kettle never boils”



5 May 2014 at 13:35  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Your response to my post is the usual slippery gibberish Albert. It is not possible to have an intelligent discussion with you.
I'm not bothering.

5 May 2014 at 13:39  
Blogger Albert said...

Funny you should say all that, Cressida.

5 May 2014 at 13:47  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Lordy Danjo, you poor soul. That image of you in Amsterdam; way too much information! It made Jack drop his toast. It must have traumatised you witnessing such a perverted display. Jack never understands why some men see such trips as a fitting way to prepare for marriage.

5 May 2014 at 13:50  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

“Homosexual behaviour has been observed in 1,500 animal species.”

Well yes, lust is a powerful motivator if not channelled and controlled.

And the Black Widow spider eats her mate after sex. Doesn't make it right or proper either.

5 May 2014 at 13:53  
Blogger Inspector General in Ordinary said...

On the subject of ‘a love that parents are opposed to’, the Inspector will give an update on the latest militant gay thinking.

They want to change ‘Sex Education’ into ‘Relationship Education’. In other words, expand beyond the biological act into the emotional. One is actually not in disagreement here, prima facie, but of course, they want to slip through their agenda. Help build confident future gay lawyers amongst other things. And combat bullying, as if that conduct which is no doubt as old as humanity itself will ever disappear.

The gay organisations are particularly interested in 19 year old females to do this business. Presumably, they think they’ll stand a better chance of getting out of the classroom alive. One is fearful for any that venture into the East London schools, with their masses of black youth and the black culture of carrying knives. Are we eventually to see the assassination of Julius Caesar re-enacted before the blackboard one wonders. Oddly enough, that would not be too unfitting for an educational establishment...

{AHEM}


5 May 2014 at 14:04  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "Lordy Danjo, you poor soul. That image of you in Amsterdam; way too much information! It made Jack drop his toast."

I shan't tell you the details of a similar sort of trip to Prague then, other than that I think I'll always struggle to watch The Hobbit now.

5 May 2014 at 15:29  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Heavens, please, please, say no more Danjo!! Pornography serves to degrade participants and observers alike and Jack is an innocent soul.

(Have you ever considered changing your group of friends or avoiding stag parties?)

5 May 2014 at 15:47  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

And the Black Widow spider eats her mate after sex. Doesn't make it right or proper either.

'all creatures great and small'etc...?

5 May 2014 at 16:49  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

True Dreadnaught but only one part of the created order is made in the image of God.

5 May 2014 at 23:35  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Well then, he must have a gay streak too.

6 May 2014 at 07:17  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

God isn't a sexual being, Dreadnaught!

6 May 2014 at 07:59  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

But you say man is made in Gods image - and man is a sexual being; as in their own entities, all life forms.

Far too early for all this dancing on pin-heads anyway.

6 May 2014 at 08:35  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

Dreadnaught, the attributes that reflect God's image are the ability to love selflessly, to reason and to behave morally and be in control not our physical instincts and passions.

6 May 2014 at 10:58  
Blogger Happy Jack said...

^ "be in control of our physical instincts and passions"

6 May 2014 at 10:59  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older