Thank God for Eric the Great

If this column had papal powers to canonise, we'd be praising St. Eric Pickles this morning.

Here's one politician unafraid to do God, and in one great speech this week the coalition's rotund Communities Secretary revealed that Christianity is to be hauled back to the centre of public life.

St. Eric, born and bred a hill and moor away from our readership area, powerfully accomplished in his speech what this column has been banging on about for a decade.

He officially buried a multiculturalism that required the vast majority of Britons to side-line their Christian heritage and change to the suit the cultures of a tiny minority of around eight per cent of population.

It was unfair, undemocratic, and so wildly irresponsible that it guaranteed the very racial tension it claimed to ease.

Why has it taken so long for a government minister to see what the vast majority of us have known for years?

In Australia, incomers are welcomed as potential Australians and expected to adopt down under ways. The Yanks make you a citizen only when you can speak the lingo and swear on its values.

Muslim countries like Pakistan demand even more. Carry on being a Christian there and somebody might firebomb your church, or beat you to death, as highlighted in previous editions of this column.

Local Pakistanis are as horrified as British Christians but it's still happening and we're still having to go down to their embassy next month to continue protesting.

Eric Pickles accused Labour of leading us up 'the wrong path' by encouraging different communities to live separate lives.

Now, migrants will be expected to speak English, thousands of documents translated into many other languages will be reduced and councils will be allowed to pray before meetings.

Thank God for Eric the Great.

Comments (60)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:08am Sun 26 Feb 12

doleboytrotter says...

He officially buried a multiculturalism that required the vast majority of Britons to side-line their Christian heritage and change to the suit the cultures of a tiny minority of around eight per cent of population.

This is utter bull **** and means nothing. Change to the suit to the? what the f?ck?
He officially buried a multiculturalism that required the vast majority of Britons to side-line their Christian heritage and change to the suit the cultures of a tiny minority of around eight per cent of population. This is utter bull **** and means nothing. Change to the suit to the? what the f?ck? doleboytrotter

6:59am Sun 26 Feb 12

Excluded again says...

So the state i now going to regulate what I am to believe.

Of course, Britain has a Christian heritage - we can see it all around us. We also have, for example, a Viking heritage but i do not fancy jumping into a longboat for a spot of raping and pillaging.

As far back as I can tell, my family is British. But I am not a Christian. I resent politicians telling me that they want to force religion into public life.

People should be free to worship whatever god they wish to. But when I pay my taxes, I want to pay for public services not public sermons.
So the state i now going to regulate what I am to believe. Of course, Britain has a Christian heritage - we can see it all around us. We also have, for example, a Viking heritage but i do not fancy jumping into a longboat for a spot of raping and pillaging. As far back as I can tell, my family is British. But I am not a Christian. I resent politicians telling me that they want to force religion into public life. People should be free to worship whatever god they wish to. But when I pay my taxes, I want to pay for public services not public sermons. Excluded again

9:28am Sun 26 Feb 12

Revkev says...

Excluded again wrote:
So the state i now going to regulate what I am to believe.

Of course, Britain has a Christian heritage - we can see it all around us. We also have, for example, a Viking heritage but i do not fancy jumping into a longboat for a spot of raping and pillaging.

As far back as I can tell, my family is British. But I am not a Christian. I resent politicians telling me that they want to force religion into public life.

People should be free to worship whatever god they wish to. But when I pay my taxes, I want to pay for public services not public sermons.
Hi Excluded again,
We're all still free to make up our own minds. Nobody's being told to do anything.
Politicians are not forcing religion on you, just recognising what's in society already.
.
Those who lead need to reflect the needs of those who are led, for fairness and real democracy.
Some polls reveal that 74% of our population see themselves broadly as Christians.
It is unwise of any government to ignore this and change everything for 8% minority who come from elsewhere.
[quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: So the state i now going to regulate what I am to believe. Of course, Britain has a Christian heritage - we can see it all around us. We also have, for example, a Viking heritage but i do not fancy jumping into a longboat for a spot of raping and pillaging. As far back as I can tell, my family is British. But I am not a Christian. I resent politicians telling me that they want to force religion into public life. People should be free to worship whatever god they wish to. But when I pay my taxes, I want to pay for public services not public sermons.[/p][/quote]Hi Excluded again, We're all still free to make up our own minds. Nobody's being told to do anything. Politicians are not forcing religion on you, just recognising what's in society already. . Those who lead need to reflect the needs of those who are led, for fairness and real democracy. Some polls reveal that 74% of our population see themselves broadly as Christians. It is unwise of any government to ignore this and change everything for 8% minority who come from elsewhere. Revkev

9:33am Sun 26 Feb 12

Revkev says...

doleboytrotter wrote:
He officially buried a multiculturalism that required the vast majority of Britons to side-line their Christian heritage and change to the suit the cultures of a tiny minority of around eight per cent of population.

This is utter bull **** and means nothing. Change to the suit to the? what the f?ck?
Hi doleboytrotter
I catch your drift, thanks to the asterisks.
Not sure I understand precisely what you're getting at.
[quote][p][bold]doleboytrotter[/bold] wrote: He officially buried a multiculturalism that required the vast majority of Britons to side-line their Christian heritage and change to the suit the cultures of a tiny minority of around eight per cent of population. This is utter bull **** and means nothing. Change to the suit to the? what the f?ck?[/p][/quote]Hi doleboytrotter I catch your drift, thanks to the asterisks. Not sure I understand precisely what you're getting at. Revkev

2:02pm Sun 26 Feb 12

alfiebarnes says...

If Christianity were as persuasive as the Rev appears to think surely it wouldn't need propping up with the artificial (and usually totally perfunctory)help of the state. Didn't Jesus actually say that state and religion were better kept apart? incidentally as someone with Australian grandchildren and who visits Australia frequently I think your remarks about Australia are complete tosh. It's very much a "be yourself" country and doesn't see the need to ram religion down the throats of its citizens.
If Christianity were as persuasive as the Rev appears to think surely it wouldn't need propping up with the artificial (and usually totally perfunctory)help of the state. Didn't Jesus actually say that state and religion were better kept apart? incidentally as someone with Australian grandchildren and who visits Australia frequently I think your remarks about Australia are complete tosh. It's very much a "be yourself" country and doesn't see the need to ram religion down the throats of its citizens. alfiebarnes

3:22pm Sun 26 Feb 12

l m h jones says...

As reported by the Religion News Service, town councils in the UK cannot legally conduct prayers "as part of a formal local government meeting," according to a February 10 ruling by British High Court Justice Duncan Ouseley. The ruling added that prayers could be offered before a town hall meeting officially begins or delivered when council members are "not formally summoned to attend." The decision came in a suit filed by the National Secular Society and Clive Bone, a Bideford, England town councilor who objected to his council’s practice of opening meetings with a prayer. The ruling was narrowly framed, concluding that the Local Government Act of 1972 does not authorize the prayer practice. However, the opinion rejected claims that the practice, if proper under the Local Government Act, would represent an act of discrimination or impose a disadvantage on Bone, a person with no religious belief. Thus, Justice Ouseley no violation of the UK’s Equality Act or of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Citing an article in the Telegraph, the Religion Clause Blog notes:
Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles says that Britain's new Localism Act 2011 which will become effective in the next few weeks gives Councils a new “power of competence” to determine their own procedures. According to Pickles, this new power should be broad enough to allow Councils to include prayers to open their meetings. There was no ban there was a ruling that prayers were not timetabled into the council chamber business. i am a brit i have no intention of being forced to accept your religion why therefore should i be forced as a councillor to sit through your prayers as part of a meeting the point was to give secularists the right not to attend outside of council business hours..oh and sainted pickles? he of the govt that is currently taking money away from disabled kids (tax credits) and imposing a bedroom tax on the vulnerable and those who currently foster? sure prayers in councils will fill those gaps?
As reported by the Religion News Service, town councils in the UK cannot legally conduct prayers "as part of a formal local government meeting," according to a February 10 ruling by British High Court Justice Duncan Ouseley. The ruling added that prayers could be offered before a town hall meeting officially begins or delivered when council members are "not formally summoned to attend." The decision came in a suit filed by the National Secular Society and Clive Bone, a Bideford, England town councilor who objected to his council’s practice of opening meetings with a prayer. The ruling was narrowly framed, concluding that the Local Government Act of 1972 does not authorize the prayer practice. However, the opinion rejected claims that the practice, if proper under the Local Government Act, would represent an act of discrimination or impose a disadvantage on Bone, a person with no religious belief. Thus, Justice Ouseley no violation of the UK’s Equality Act or of the European Convention on Human Rights. Citing an article in the Telegraph, the Religion Clause Blog notes: Communities and Local Government Secretary Eric Pickles says that Britain's new Localism Act 2011 which will become effective in the next few weeks gives Councils a new “power of competence” to determine their own procedures. According to Pickles, this new power should be broad enough to allow Councils to include prayers to open their meetings. There was no ban there was a ruling that prayers were not timetabled into the council chamber business. i am a brit i have no intention of being forced to accept your religion why therefore should i be forced as a councillor to sit through your prayers as part of a meeting the point was to give secularists the right not to attend outside of council business hours..oh and sainted pickles? he of the govt that is currently taking money away from disabled kids (tax credits) and imposing a bedroom tax on the vulnerable and those who currently foster? sure prayers in councils will fill those gaps? l m h jones

3:52pm Sun 26 Feb 12

ToffeeGuy says...

Councils are there to represent the whole of the community, believers and non-believers. What place do prayers have on a secular organisation like a council? If they want to pray they should go to church.

And as for defending Pickles, whose government is implementing cuts which will hit the poor and most needy in society, I think you've finally lost the plot.
Councils are there to represent the whole of the community, believers and non-believers. What place do prayers have on a secular organisation like a council? If they want to pray they should go to church. And as for defending Pickles, whose government is implementing cuts which will hit the poor and most needy in society, I think you've finally lost the plot. ToffeeGuy

7:43pm Sun 26 Feb 12

Graham Hartley says...

Well, perhaps the Pope will see enough in this man's case to begin the process which ends in sainthood. Anyone with the serious intent to help Eric on his way to sainthood will know what to do, because God will direct the matter, I suppose.
Well, perhaps the Pope will see enough in this man's case to begin the process which ends in sainthood. Anyone with the serious intent to help Eric on his way to sainthood will know what to do, because God will direct the matter, I suppose. Graham Hartley

7:53pm Sun 26 Feb 12

Graham Hartley says...

Anagrams of 'Eric the Great' include 'Great Heretic' and 'The Career Git'. For 'Eric Pickles MP' I have worse; to follow, perhaps.
Anagrams of 'Eric the Great' include 'Great Heretic' and 'The Career Git'. For 'Eric Pickles MP' I have worse; to follow, perhaps. Graham Hartley

7:55pm Sun 26 Feb 12

Graham Hartley says...

Anagrams of 'Eric the Great' include 'Great Heretic' and 'The Career Git'. For 'Eric Pickles MP' I have worse; to follow, perhaps.
Anagrams of 'Eric the Great' include 'Great Heretic' and 'The Career Git'. For 'Eric Pickles MP' I have worse; to follow, perhaps. Graham Hartley

10:57pm Sun 26 Feb 12

Darwen Malc says...

Methinks by everyone on here concentrating on the issue of prayers before council meetings is missing one very fundamental point. No one is trying to force religion on anybody (surely if a council deems it fit and proper to have prayers at the beginning of a meeting, anyone who objects should either stand just outside the meeting room, or observe silence whilst the prayers take place, like Jehovas Witnesses did when I was at school). I think that the main point of the argument is that the vast majority of people in this country carry on with their lives based, in varying degrees, around Chrisitian values and are becoming increasingly alarmed at the way that everything now seems to have to pass a test of neutrality just in case it might offend someone from what is perceived 'a minority'. Thats when you get the extremes of renaming 'blackboards' as 'chalkboards', and the banning of wearing crucifixes, whilst allowing others to wear symbols of other religions. It has to stop and this issue of prayers at council meetings is but one example and Eric Pickles deserves credit for stepping into the fray and saying enough is enough!
Methinks by everyone on here concentrating on the issue of prayers before council meetings is missing one very fundamental point. No one is trying to force religion on anybody (surely if a council deems it fit and proper to have prayers at the beginning of a meeting, anyone who objects should either stand just outside the meeting room, or observe silence whilst the prayers take place, like Jehovas Witnesses did when I was at school). I think that the main point of the argument is that the vast majority of people in this country carry on with their lives based, in varying degrees, around Chrisitian values and are becoming increasingly alarmed at the way that everything now seems to have to pass a test of neutrality just in case it might offend someone from what is perceived 'a minority'. Thats when you get the extremes of renaming 'blackboards' as 'chalkboards', and the banning of wearing crucifixes, whilst allowing others to wear symbols of other religions. It has to stop and this issue of prayers at council meetings is but one example and Eric Pickles deserves credit for stepping into the fray and saying enough is enough! Darwen Malc

6:44am Mon 27 Feb 12

Excluded again says...

Darwen Malc - blackboards being renamed as chalkboards is an urban myth. Try to find any actual documented examples.

Again, there are no examples (in the UK at least) of crcifixes being banned whilst symbols of other religions are allowed. The cases are where the wearing all religious (or political) symbols have been banned by an employer and someone has worn a crucifix claiming exemption fo their own individual beliefs.

People should be free to live according to Christian principles if they want. Or Buddhist, humanist, Hindu, Jedi, Jewish or Mulsim principles. Whatever floats you boat. The state should be resolutely neutral in these matters. It is not the role of the state to promote and support any one religion.

'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's' as someone once sad. Wise advice.
Darwen Malc - blackboards being renamed as chalkboards is an urban myth. Try to find any actual documented examples. Again, there are no examples (in the UK at least) of crcifixes being banned whilst symbols of other religions are allowed. The cases are where the wearing all religious (or political) symbols have been banned by an employer and someone has worn a crucifix claiming exemption fo their own individual beliefs. People should be free to live according to Christian principles if they want. Or Buddhist, humanist, Hindu, Jedi, Jewish or Mulsim principles. Whatever floats you boat. The state should be resolutely neutral in these matters. It is not the role of the state to promote and support any one religion. 'Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's' as someone once sad. Wise advice. Excluded again

6:57am Mon 27 Feb 12

Graham Hartley says...

from Darwen Malc - "...the vast majority of people in this country carry on with their lives based, in varying degrees, around Chrisitian values..."

Here, our correspondent does not define the measure well enough; in particular, those with degree zero Chrisitian (sic) values do not feature in his majority yet even those of no Chrisitian faith can be puzzled by the anatomy of his argument.
from Darwen Malc - "...the vast majority of people in this country carry on with their lives based, in varying degrees, around Chrisitian values..." Here, our correspondent does not define the measure well enough; in particular, those with degree zero Chrisitian (sic) values do not feature in his majority yet even those of no Chrisitian faith can be puzzled by the anatomy of his argument. Graham Hartley

11:29am Mon 27 Feb 12

Ken Shuffles says...

Revkev wrote:
Excluded again wrote: So the state i now going to regulate what I am to believe. Of course, Britain has a Christian heritage - we can see it all around us. We also have, for example, a Viking heritage but i do not fancy jumping into a longboat for a spot of raping and pillaging. As far back as I can tell, my family is British. But I am not a Christian. I resent politicians telling me that they want to force religion into public life. People should be free to worship whatever god they wish to. But when I pay my taxes, I want to pay for public services not public sermons.
Hi Excluded again, We're all still free to make up our own minds. Nobody's being told to do anything. Politicians are not forcing religion on you, just recognising what's in society already. . Those who lead need to reflect the needs of those who are led, for fairness and real democracy. Some polls reveal that 74% of our population see themselves broadly as Christians. It is unwise of any government to ignore this and change everything for 8% minority who come from elsewhere.
If peace, heaven, the ultimate experience, is inside of us then where are we all needing to be led to ?


Have we been misled by politicians and preachers ?
[quote][p][bold]Revkev[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: So the state i now going to regulate what I am to believe. Of course, Britain has a Christian heritage - we can see it all around us. We also have, for example, a Viking heritage but i do not fancy jumping into a longboat for a spot of raping and pillaging. As far back as I can tell, my family is British. But I am not a Christian. I resent politicians telling me that they want to force religion into public life. People should be free to worship whatever god they wish to. But when I pay my taxes, I want to pay for public services not public sermons.[/p][/quote]Hi Excluded again, We're all still free to make up our own minds. Nobody's being told to do anything. Politicians are not forcing religion on you, just recognising what's in society already. . Those who lead need to reflect the needs of those who are led, for fairness and real democracy. Some polls reveal that 74% of our population see themselves broadly as Christians. It is unwise of any government to ignore this and change everything for 8% minority who come from elsewhere.[/p][/quote]If peace, heaven, the ultimate experience, is inside of us then where are we all needing to be led to ? Have we been misled by politicians and preachers ? Ken Shuffles

11:30am Mon 27 Feb 12

Ken Shuffles says...

If the ultimate is within us - what is it we need to pray for ?
If the ultimate is within us - what is it we need to pray for ? Ken Shuffles

2:19pm Mon 27 Feb 12

midas says...

74% "broadly" Christian - what % go to Church on a regular basis?
74% "broadly" Christian - what % go to Church on a regular basis? midas

2:52pm Mon 27 Feb 12

Ken Shuffles says...

Jesus, Adam and Eve were all Asexual and look what state and religion and prayers denied all of them.


.


More people have humane common sense kindness and values than religiously broadcast ones. Why the prayer show ?
Jesus, Adam and Eve were all Asexual and look what state and religion and prayers denied all of them. . More people have humane common sense kindness and values than religiously broadcast ones. Why the prayer show ? Ken Shuffles

3:27pm Mon 27 Feb 12

Ken Shuffles says...

People should make a commitment to their own personal need for peace and happiness. They should NOT be deluded, seduced, misled into conveniently thinking some god, some religion, or some state, will bother about their own need for peace and happiness.


.


The state and the religion and god will still be there when they acknowledge that need.
People should make a commitment to their own personal need for peace and happiness. They should NOT be deluded, seduced, misled into conveniently thinking some god, some religion, or some state, will bother about their own need for peace and happiness. . The state and the religion and god will still be there when they acknowledge that need. Ken Shuffles

4:51pm Mon 27 Feb 12

Joseph Yossarian says...

midas wrote:
74% "broadly" Christian - what % go to Church on a regular basis?
Depends whose surveys you read.
Here's one:
In a poll conducted by YouGov in March 2011 on behalf of the BHA, when asked the census question ‘What is your religion?’, 61% of people in England and Wales ticked a religious box (53.48% Christian and 7.22% other) while 39% ticked ‘No religion’.

When the same sample was asked the follow-up question ‘Are you religious?’, only 29% of the same people said ‘Yes’ while 65% said ‘No’, meaning over half of those whom the census would count as having a religion said they were not religious.

Less than half (48%) of those who ticked ‘Christian’ said they believed that Jesus Christ was a real person who died and came back to life and was the son of God.

Asked when they had last attended a place of worship for religious reasons, most people in England and Wales (63%) had not attended in the past year, 43% of people last attended over a year ago and 20% of people had never attended.


Only 9% of people had attended a place of worship within the last week.
[quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: 74% "broadly" Christian - what % go to Church on a regular basis?[/p][/quote]Depends whose surveys you read. Here's one: In a poll conducted by YouGov in March 2011 on behalf of the BHA, when asked the census question ‘What is your religion?’, 61% of people in England and Wales ticked a religious box (53.48% Christian and 7.22% other) while 39% ticked ‘No religion’. When the same sample was asked the follow-up question ‘Are you religious?’, only 29% of the same people said ‘Yes’ while 65% said ‘No’, meaning over half of those whom the census would count as having a religion said they were not religious. Less than half (48%) of those who ticked ‘Christian’ said they believed that Jesus Christ was a real person who died and came back to life and was the son of God. Asked when they had last attended a place of worship for religious reasons, most people in England and Wales (63%) had not attended in the past year, 43% of people last attended over a year ago and 20% of people had never attended. Only 9% of people had attended a place of worship within the last week. Joseph Yossarian

4:53pm Mon 27 Feb 12

Joseph Yossarian says...

The Rev says:
change to the suit the cultures of a tiny minority of around eight per cent of population.
----------
Which is one % less than the tiny majority of people who appear to go to church on a regular basis.
irony......
The Rev says: change to the suit the cultures of a tiny minority of around eight per cent of population. ---------- Which is one % less than the tiny majority of people who appear to go to church on a regular basis. irony...... Joseph Yossarian

4:56pm Mon 27 Feb 12

Joseph Yossarian says...

I've never been to a council meeting but I imagine that its purpose is to discuss council matters.
I have on occasion been to a church and it's purpose was religion and prayer.

I would imagine that council matters are not discussed in church services so I fail to see why time at council meetings should be spent on non-council matters.
Looks like another case of the 9% trying to impose their will on others.
I've never been to a council meeting but I imagine that its purpose is to discuss council matters. I have on occasion been to a church and it's purpose was religion and prayer. I would imagine that council matters are not discussed in church services so I fail to see why time at council meetings should be spent on non-council matters. Looks like another case of the 9% trying to impose their will on others. Joseph Yossarian

5:01pm Mon 27 Feb 12

Joseph Yossarian says...

midas wrote:
74% "broadly" Christian - what % go to Church on a regular basis?
Here's another one, equally highlighting the increasing irrelevance of fairy tales (sorry, meant to say religion)


According to the 27th report (2010) of the British Social Attitudes Survey, 20% of the population are affiliated with the Church of England (compared to 40% in 1983). The 26th report found that 49% of this group never attend services; only 8% of people who identify with the Church of England attend church weekly.

Overall 62% of the population never attend any form of service.

According to ‘Religious Trends No 7 (2007-2008)’ published by Christian Research, overall church attendance in the United Kingdom has diminished rapidly in terms of percentages and in real terms.

In 1990 5,595,600 people, representing 10% of the UK population, regularly attended Church, by 2005 this number had reduced to 3,926,300, equating to 6.7% of the UK population

By 2015, the level of church attendance in the UK is predicted to fall to 3,081,500 people, or 5% of the population.

____
Comment: Increasing manifestations of fundamentalist religious views on womens rights, homosexuality, science (etc) would appear to be helping to turn people away from religion.

Keep up the good work RK.
[quote][p][bold]midas[/bold] wrote: 74% "broadly" Christian - what % go to Church on a regular basis?[/p][/quote]Here's another one, equally highlighting the increasing irrelevance of fairy tales (sorry, meant to say religion) According to the 27th report (2010) of the British Social Attitudes Survey, 20% of the population are affiliated with the Church of England (compared to 40% in 1983). The 26th report found that 49% of this group never attend services; only 8% of people who identify with the Church of England attend church weekly. Overall 62% of the population never attend any form of service. According to ‘Religious Trends No 7 (2007-2008)’ published by Christian Research, overall church attendance in the United Kingdom has diminished rapidly in terms of percentages and in real terms. In 1990 5,595,600 people, representing 10% of the UK population, regularly attended Church, by 2005 this number had reduced to 3,926,300, equating to 6.7% of the UK population By 2015, the level of church attendance in the UK is predicted to fall to 3,081,500 people, or 5% of the population. ____ Comment: Increasing manifestations of fundamentalist religious views on womens rights, homosexuality, science (etc) would appear to be helping to turn people away from religion. Keep up the good work RK. Joseph Yossarian

9:10pm Mon 27 Feb 12

Revkev says...

Ken Shuffles wrote:
Jesus, Adam and Eve were all Asexual and look what state and religion and prayers denied all of them.


.


More people have humane common sense kindness and values than religiously broadcast ones. Why the prayer show ?
Hi Ken,
Didn't Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel as well as Seth?
.
God told them not to be asexual but to "go forth and multiply" (Genesis 1:28)
[quote][p][bold]Ken Shuffles[/bold] wrote: Jesus, Adam and Eve were all Asexual and look what state and religion and prayers denied all of them. . More people have humane common sense kindness and values than religiously broadcast ones. Why the prayer show ?[/p][/quote]Hi Ken, Didn't Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel as well as Seth? . God told them not to be asexual but to "go forth and multiply" (Genesis 1:28) Revkev

9:45pm Mon 27 Feb 12

Revkev says...

Graham Hartley wrote:
Anagrams of 'Eric the Great' include 'Great Heretic' and 'The Career Git'. For 'Eric Pickles MP' I have worse; to follow, perhaps.
Hi Graham Hartley,
I suppose you're fed up of the anagram order - "Ram earthly hag".
.
"G! Hearty alarm" was probably one of your school desk carvings.
.
Harm great haly.
.
No, it's going from bad to worse and I've still got last night's 'Upstairs Downstairs' to catch up on.
Yours
'G-lover'
[quote][p][bold]Graham Hartley[/bold] wrote: Anagrams of 'Eric the Great' include 'Great Heretic' and 'The Career Git'. For 'Eric Pickles MP' I have worse; to follow, perhaps.[/p][/quote]Hi Graham Hartley, I suppose you're fed up of the anagram order - "Ram earthly hag". . "G! Hearty alarm" was probably one of your school desk carvings. . Harm great haly. . No, it's going from bad to worse and I've still got last night's 'Upstairs Downstairs' to catch up on. Yours 'G-lover' Revkev

9:49pm Mon 27 Feb 12

Revkev says...

G-lover!?
Forgetting who I am.
I have Revlog as pseudonym elsewhere.
I think I'd better go and have an early night.
G-lover!? Forgetting who I am. I have Revlog as pseudonym elsewhere. I think I'd better go and have an early night. Revkev

9:58pm Mon 27 Feb 12

Revkev says...

alfiebarnes wrote:
If Christianity were as persuasive as the Rev appears to think surely it wouldn't need propping up with the artificial (and usually totally perfunctory)help of the state. Didn't Jesus actually say that state and religion were better kept apart? incidentally as someone with Australian grandchildren and who visits Australia frequently I think your remarks about Australia are complete tosh. It's very much a "be yourself" country and doesn't see the need to ram religion down the throats of its citizens.
Hi Alfiebarnes
You say my Australian remarks are wrong when I suggest that newcomers are expected to adapt to Down Under values.
.
Have a look at the first two entries in Google (below) on Australian immigration...
.
Minister Howard - Muslims Out Of Australia
www.hoax-slayer.com/
howard-muslim-speech
.shtml15 Jul 2008 – Email forward claims that former Australian Prime Minister John Howard told the media that immigrants should adapt Australian culture, ...
.
Australian Prime Minister to Muslim Immigrants: 'Adapt or Leave'
urbanlegends.about.c
om/.../Australian-Pr
ime-Minister-Muslim-
Immi...15 Dec 2011 – Statements attributed to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard warn Muslim immigrants to learn English and adapt to Australian culture or leave ...
[quote][p][bold]alfiebarnes[/bold] wrote: If Christianity were as persuasive as the Rev appears to think surely it wouldn't need propping up with the artificial (and usually totally perfunctory)help of the state. Didn't Jesus actually say that state and religion were better kept apart? incidentally as someone with Australian grandchildren and who visits Australia frequently I think your remarks about Australia are complete tosh. It's very much a "be yourself" country and doesn't see the need to ram religion down the throats of its citizens.[/p][/quote]Hi Alfiebarnes You say my Australian remarks are wrong when I suggest that newcomers are expected to adapt to Down Under values. . Have a look at the first two entries in Google (below) on Australian immigration... . Minister Howard - Muslims Out Of Australia www.hoax-slayer.com/ howard-muslim-speech .shtml15 Jul 2008 – Email forward claims that former Australian Prime Minister John Howard told the media that immigrants should adapt Australian culture, ... . Australian Prime Minister to Muslim Immigrants: 'Adapt or Leave' urbanlegends.about.c om/.../Australian-Pr ime-Minister-Muslim- Immi...15 Dec 2011 – Statements attributed to Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard warn Muslim immigrants to learn English and adapt to Australian culture or leave ... Revkev

11:01pm Mon 27 Feb 12

Graham Hartley says...

Revkev wrote:
Graham Hartley wrote:
Anagrams of 'Eric the Great' include 'Great Heretic' and 'The Career Git'. For 'Eric Pickles MP' I have worse; to follow, perhaps.
Hi Graham Hartley,
I suppose you're fed up of the anagram order - "Ram earthly hag".
.
"G! Hearty alarm" was probably one of your school desk carvings.
.
Harm great haly.
.
No, it's going from bad to worse and I've still got last night's 'Upstairs Downstairs' to catch up on.
Yours
'G-lover'
My favorite anagram of 'Hartley' is 'Earthly'.

Your favorite anagram of 'Kevin Logan' might be 'Loving Ken'. For 'The Reverend Kevin Logan' try 'God In Heaven! Relent, Rev K!'

More fun of this sort after I've slept.
[quote][p][bold]Revkev[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Graham Hartley[/bold] wrote: Anagrams of 'Eric the Great' include 'Great Heretic' and 'The Career Git'. For 'Eric Pickles MP' I have worse; to follow, perhaps.[/p][/quote]Hi Graham Hartley, I suppose you're fed up of the anagram order - "Ram earthly hag". . "G! Hearty alarm" was probably one of your school desk carvings. . Harm great haly. . No, it's going from bad to worse and I've still got last night's 'Upstairs Downstairs' to catch up on. Yours 'G-lover'[/p][/quote]My favorite anagram of 'Hartley' is 'Earthly'. Your favorite anagram of 'Kevin Logan' might be 'Loving Ken'. For 'The Reverend Kevin Logan' try 'God In Heaven! Relent, Rev K!' More fun of this sort after I've slept. Graham Hartley

8:28am Tue 28 Feb 12

Joseph Yossarian says...

Revkev wrote:
Excluded again wrote: So the state i now going to regulate what I am to believe. Of course, Britain has a Christian heritage - we can see it all around us. We also have, for example, a Viking heritage but i do not fancy jumping into a longboat for a spot of raping and pillaging. As far back as I can tell, my family is British. But I am not a Christian. I resent politicians telling me that they want to force religion into public life. People should be free to worship whatever god they wish to. But when I pay my taxes, I want to pay for public services not public sermons.
Hi Excluded again, We're all still free to make up our own minds. Nobody's being told to do anything. Politicians are not forcing religion on you, just recognising what's in society already. . Those who lead need to reflect the needs of those who are led, for fairness and real democracy. Some polls reveal that 74% of our population see themselves broadly as Christians. It is unwise of any government to ignore this and change everything for 8% minority who come from elsewhere.
In which case it is equally unwise to change everything for the 9% who go to church.
[quote][p][bold]Revkev[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Excluded again[/bold] wrote: So the state i now going to regulate what I am to believe. Of course, Britain has a Christian heritage - we can see it all around us. We also have, for example, a Viking heritage but i do not fancy jumping into a longboat for a spot of raping and pillaging. As far back as I can tell, my family is British. But I am not a Christian. I resent politicians telling me that they want to force religion into public life. People should be free to worship whatever god they wish to. But when I pay my taxes, I want to pay for public services not public sermons.[/p][/quote]Hi Excluded again, We're all still free to make up our own minds. Nobody's being told to do anything. Politicians are not forcing religion on you, just recognising what's in society already. . Those who lead need to reflect the needs of those who are led, for fairness and real democracy. Some polls reveal that 74% of our population see themselves broadly as Christians. It is unwise of any government to ignore this and change everything for 8% minority who come from elsewhere.[/p][/quote]In which case it is equally unwise to change everything for the 9% who go to church. Joseph Yossarian

10:13am Tue 28 Feb 12

Ken Shuffles says...

Revkev wrote:
Ken Shuffles wrote: Jesus, Adam and Eve were all Asexual and look what state and religion and prayers denied all of them. . More people have humane common sense kindness and values than religiously broadcast ones. Why the prayer show ?
Hi Ken, Didn't Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel as well as Seth? . God told them not to be asexual but to "go forth and multiply" (Genesis 1:28)
If God told The Asexual to go forth and multiply he must be a very confused and demented God.
[quote][p][bold]Revkev[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Ken Shuffles[/bold] wrote: Jesus, Adam and Eve were all Asexual and look what state and religion and prayers denied all of them. . More people have humane common sense kindness and values than religiously broadcast ones. Why the prayer show ?[/p][/quote]Hi Ken, Didn't Adam and Eve have Cain and Abel as well as Seth? . God told them not to be asexual but to "go forth and multiply" (Genesis 1:28)[/p][/quote]If God told The Asexual to go forth and multiply he must be a very confused and demented God. Ken Shuffles

10:50am Tue 28 Feb 12

Ken Shuffles says...

Obviously, mortals are either confused by religion about their legitimate right as sexual creatures or they just forgot what it is they are actually here for and supposed to be multiplying.


.


ALL Children, like Jesus are born ASEXUAL with the genderless feeling. they don't lose the genderless feeling and they don't replace it with mortal desire.


.


It's the grown ups who divide themselves into mortal genders based on sex. They even have a law based on sex in an attempt to keep each gender apart.


.


God is genderless. We may like to call him Father. We may like to think he has his favourites like we have our favourite gender, but even our favourite God is still a genderless one without a specific desire for reproducing either specific gender.


.


Asexuals have the genderless feeling which is perfect for them.


.


If anything needs to be multiplied it is that perfect feeling and bliss that has never been divided, will never be divided and cannot be divided. It cannot be added to, or subtracted from, by any man or any god, or anything.
Obviously, mortals are either confused by religion about their legitimate right as sexual creatures or they just forgot what it is they are actually here for and supposed to be multiplying. . ALL Children, like Jesus are born ASEXUAL with the genderless feeling. they don't lose the genderless feeling and they don't replace it with mortal desire. . It's the grown ups who divide themselves into mortal genders based on sex. They even have a law based on sex in an attempt to keep each gender apart. . God is genderless. We may like to call him Father. We may like to think he has his favourites like we have our favourite gender, but even our favourite God is still a genderless one without a specific desire for reproducing either specific gender. . Asexuals have the genderless feeling which is perfect for them. . If anything needs to be multiplied it is that perfect feeling and bliss that has never been divided, will never be divided and cannot be divided. It cannot be added to, or subtracted from, by any man or any god, or anything. Ken Shuffles

10:55am Tue 28 Feb 12

Ken Shuffles says...

Selective numerology and hearsay will not save the christian.
Selective numerology and hearsay will not save the christian. Ken Shuffles

11:00am Tue 28 Feb 12

Ken Shuffles says...

Praying for someone to come back who never left will not save the christian. If praying does not save the christian how can praying save anyone from anything.?
Praying for someone to come back who never left will not save the christian. If praying does not save the christian how can praying save anyone from anything.? Ken Shuffles

11:04am Tue 28 Feb 12

Ken Shuffles says...

Gender is a concept that cannot exist in the realm of God.
Gender is a concept that cannot exist in the realm of God. Ken Shuffles

11:06am Tue 28 Feb 12

Ken Shuffles says...

Religion has made sexual desire more important than God.
Religion has made sexual desire more important than God. Ken Shuffles

11:11am Tue 28 Feb 12

Ken Shuffles says...

Have our favourite, private council prayers, become more important to us than the common praise. ?
Have our favourite, private council prayers, become more important to us than the common praise. ? Ken Shuffles

12:53pm Tue 28 Feb 12

Joseph Yossarian says...

""In Australia, incomers are welcomed as potential Australians and expected to adopt down under ways""

Australia says:
Australia’s multicultural policy, The People of Australia, was launched in Sydney on 16 February 2011. It is a landmark policy that demonstrates the government’s unwavering commitment to a multicultural Australia. As the policy states, our multicultural composition is at the heart of Australia’s national identity and intrinsic to our history and character.

The policy embraces our shared values and cultural traditions. It recognises our rights and responsibilities as enshrined in our citizenship pledge and supports the rights of all Australians to celebrate, practise and maintain their cultural heritage, traditions and language within the law and free from discrimination.
""In Australia, incomers are welcomed as potential Australians and expected to adopt down under ways"" Australia says: Australia’s multicultural policy, The People of Australia, was launched in Sydney on 16 February 2011. It is a landmark policy that demonstrates the government’s unwavering commitment to a multicultural Australia. As the policy states, our multicultural composition is at the heart of Australia’s national identity and intrinsic to our history and character. The policy embraces our shared values and cultural traditions. It recognises our rights and responsibilities as enshrined in our citizenship pledge and supports the rights of all Australians to celebrate, practise and maintain their cultural heritage, traditions and language within the law and free from discrimination. Joseph Yossarian

12:54pm Tue 28 Feb 12

Joseph Yossarian says...

Rev,

Try taking an on-line Life in the UK test. You might learn something.
Rev, Try taking an on-line Life in the UK test. You might learn something. Joseph Yossarian

12:54pm Tue 28 Feb 12

Ken Shuffles says...

......And why is it, as the law stands, that every single woman in the country is banned from legaly being married to this man..... ?


.


Surely, that can't be right kev.
......And why is it, as the law stands, that every single woman in the country is banned from legaly being married to this man..... ? . Surely, that can't be right kev. Ken Shuffles

1:04pm Tue 28 Feb 12

Ken Shuffles says...

Joseph Yossarian wrote:
""In Australia, incomers are welcomed as potential Australians and expected to adopt down under ways"" Australia says: Australia’s multicultural policy, The People of Australia, was launched in Sydney on 16 February 2011. It is a landmark policy that demonstrates the government’s unwavering commitment to a multicultural Australia. As the policy states, our multicultural composition is at the heart of Australia’s national identity and intrinsic to our history and character. The policy embraces our shared values and cultural traditions. It recognises our rights and responsibilities as enshrined in our citizenship pledge and supports the rights of all Australians to celebrate, practise and maintain their cultural heritage, traditions and language within the law and free from discrimination.
As an Asexual man, The law of man has judged that I do not have the right to celebrate, practise and maintain my cultural heritage and traditions within the law and live free of discrimination YET.
[quote][p][bold]Joseph Yossarian[/bold] wrote: ""In Australia, incomers are welcomed as potential Australians and expected to adopt down under ways"" Australia says: Australia’s multicultural policy, The People of Australia, was launched in Sydney on 16 February 2011. It is a landmark policy that demonstrates the government’s unwavering commitment to a multicultural Australia. As the policy states, our multicultural composition is at the heart of Australia’s national identity and intrinsic to our history and character. The policy embraces our shared values and cultural traditions. It recognises our rights and responsibilities as enshrined in our citizenship pledge and supports the rights of all Australians to celebrate, practise and maintain their cultural heritage, traditions and language within the law and free from discrimination.[/p][/quote]As an Asexual man, The law of man has judged that I do not have the right to celebrate, practise and maintain my cultural heritage and traditions within the law and live free of discrimination YET. Ken Shuffles

1:11pm Tue 28 Feb 12

Ken Shuffles says...

The Asexual Man.
The Asexual Man. Ken Shuffles

6:10pm Tue 28 Feb 12

Graham Hartley says...

REV KEVIN LOGAN COLUMN
(LT capitalisation) has an anagram

UNLOVING, VENAL MOCKER
REV KEVIN LOGAN COLUMN (LT capitalisation) has an anagram UNLOVING, VENAL MOCKER Graham Hartley

11:23pm Tue 28 Feb 12

Revkev says...

Th’ anagram lyre.
.
Thought I had it for a mo.
But 'n' is the second 'h' decapitated.
Ah well...
Th’ anagram lyre. . Thought I had it for a mo. But 'n' is the second 'h' decapitated. Ah well... Revkev

12:27pm Wed 29 Feb 12

Graham Hartley says...

Ken Shuffles wrote:
The Asexual Man.
The Asexual Man = hate manual sex
[quote][p][bold]Ken Shuffles[/bold] wrote: The Asexual Man.[/p][/quote]The Asexual Man = hate manual sex Graham Hartley

10:19pm Wed 29 Feb 12

Graham Hartley says...

Thanks, Revkev for your tolerance of my anagram attacks. I've been busy of late and need change and rest. So, enough for a while.
Thanks, Revkev for your tolerance of my anagram attacks. I've been busy of late and need change and rest. So, enough for a while. Graham Hartley

12:24am Thu 1 Mar 12

Revkev says...

Graham Hartley wrote:
Thanks, Revkev for your tolerance of my anagram attacks. I've been busy of late and need change and rest. So, enough for a while.
May you rest in peace, my son!
[quote][p][bold]Graham Hartley[/bold] wrote: Thanks, Revkev for your tolerance of my anagram attacks. I've been busy of late and need change and rest. So, enough for a while.[/p][/quote]May you rest in peace, my son! Revkev

4:58pm Thu 1 Mar 12

Carlost says...

If the Revkev thinks that St. Eric can lend his hefty weight to the Christian cause then who are wee mortals to argue with that. As the revkev knows I am an atheist but have no problem with people saying prayers or performing whatever ancient rituals they choose ( providing they are not hurting anyone else ). What I find most alarming about this story is that we have elected officials who want to engage in such supersticious nonsense in the first place. Revkev has an excuse for praying, I would expect better from my elected officials who should not succumb to irrational beliefs of any kind.
If the Revkev thinks that St. Eric can lend his hefty weight to the Christian cause then who are wee mortals to argue with that. As the revkev knows I am an atheist but have no problem with people saying prayers or performing whatever ancient rituals they choose ( providing they are not hurting anyone else ). What I find most alarming about this story is that we have elected officials who want to engage in such supersticious nonsense in the first place. Revkev has an excuse for praying, I would expect better from my elected officials who should not succumb to irrational beliefs of any kind. Carlost

11:02pm Thu 1 Mar 12

Revkev says...

Hi Carlost,
You write above...
xxxxxxxxx
"What I find most alarming about this story is that we have elected officials who want to engage in such superstitious nonsense in the first place."
xxxxxxxxxx
It must feel odd writing off some of the best minds of the last 2,000 years as engaged in 'superstitious nonsense'.
.
Does it not bother you that you also disregard the world's present multi-millions who believe, many of them scientists, professors, teachers, doctors etc.?
.
Even one of your side, the famous Richard Dawkins, last week accepted that there was something to debate, and even had the grace, during his debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury, to acknowledge that he could not prove there was no God.
.
You strike me as rational, reasoning man.
How do you explain this odd blinkered attitude of yours?
.
I could perhaps understand if you said that, on balance, the evidence showed that you were right and those who believed in God were wrong.
That would at least acknowledge the huge amount of evidence in the argument on both sides.
Now, that would seem rational and reasonable.
Hi Carlost, You write above... xxxxxxxxx "What I find most alarming about this story is that we have elected officials who want to engage in such superstitious nonsense in the first place." xxxxxxxxxx It must feel odd writing off some of the best minds of the last 2,000 years as engaged in 'superstitious nonsense'. . Does it not bother you that you also disregard the world's present multi-millions who believe, many of them scientists, professors, teachers, doctors etc.? . Even one of your side, the famous Richard Dawkins, last week accepted that there was something to debate, and even had the grace, during his debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury, to acknowledge that he could not prove there was no God. . You strike me as rational, reasoning man. How do you explain this odd blinkered attitude of yours? . I could perhaps understand if you said that, on balance, the evidence showed that you were right and those who believed in God were wrong. That would at least acknowledge the huge amount of evidence in the argument on both sides. Now, that would seem rational and reasonable. Revkev

10:17am Fri 2 Mar 12

Joseph Yossarian says...

""""Even one of your side, the famous Richard Dawkins, last week accepted that there was something to debate, and even had the grace, during his debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury, to acknowledge that he could not prove there was no God."""

Of course RD can't prove there is no god.

Equally the archbishop cannot prove that there is a god. He (And you) have devoted yourselves to accepting mythology as fact and disseminating anti-progressive doctrines based upon a hand-me-down book of stone-age farmers campfire tales.

At yet you have the hypocricial gall and arrogance to accuse others of being blinkered.

Your attitude is the blinkered one. You demonstrate it here week in week out with your homophobic, creationist, vengence minded bile.

Carlos's is the opposite. It is open mindedness.

It is to choose to not accept what has zero evidence as fact.

It is to say "well, hang on a minute, talking snakes, walking on water, being dead in a cave for 3 days and not decomposing.....soun
ds just an eensy wit like nonsense, so I choose to question it, and no matter how many times I question it, nobody who actually believes it can provide any rational explanatation that stands up to scrutiny and examination as to why they believe it.

Even those brain box scientists who split the atom can't explain why they believe in the unexplainable.

There is zero evidence for the existance of any deity.

Your brand of religion has exactly the same amount of credibility as any other religion or banch thereof.

I can't prove that there is a giant cat at the centre of the earth, just as you can't prove there is a god. And yet I don't believe that there is a giant cat at the cente of the earth. Ot that eating shellfish is a sin, even if it does bring me out in a rash.
""""Even one of your side, the famous Richard Dawkins, last week accepted that there was something to debate, and even had the grace, during his debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury, to acknowledge that he could not prove there was no God.""" Of course RD can't prove there is no god. Equally the archbishop cannot prove that there is a god. He (And you) have devoted yourselves to accepting mythology as fact and disseminating anti-progressive doctrines based upon a hand-me-down book of stone-age farmers campfire tales. At yet you have the hypocricial gall and arrogance to accuse others of being blinkered. Your attitude is the blinkered one. You demonstrate it here week in week out with your homophobic, creationist, vengence minded bile. Carlos's is the opposite. It is open mindedness. It is to choose to not accept what has zero evidence as fact. It is to say "well, hang on a minute, talking snakes, walking on water, being dead in a cave for 3 days and not decomposing.....soun ds just an eensy wit like nonsense, so I choose to question it, and no matter how many times I question it, nobody who actually believes it can provide any rational explanatation that stands up to scrutiny and examination as to why they believe it. Even those brain box scientists who split the atom can't explain why they believe in the unexplainable. There is zero evidence for the existance of any deity. Your brand of religion has exactly the same amount of credibility as any other religion or banch thereof. I can't prove that there is a giant cat at the centre of the earth, just as you can't prove there is a god. And yet I don't believe that there is a giant cat at the cente of the earth. Ot that eating shellfish is a sin, even if it does bring me out in a rash. Joseph Yossarian

12:30pm Fri 2 Mar 12

Ken Shuffles says...

On the subject of God, there seems to me, to be a huge amount of argument on both sides,, with no real evidence to back up either position on both sides.
On the subject of God, there seems to me, to be a huge amount of argument on both sides,, with no real evidence to back up either position on both sides. Ken Shuffles

5:05pm Fri 2 Mar 12

Revkev says...

Joseph Yossarian wrote:
""""Even one of your side, the famous Richard Dawkins, last week accepted that there was something to debate, and even had the grace, during his debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury, to acknowledge that he could not prove there was no God."""

Of course RD can't prove there is no god.

Equally the archbishop cannot prove that there is a god. He (And you) have devoted yourselves to accepting mythology as fact and disseminating anti-progressive doctrines based upon a hand-me-down book of stone-age farmers campfire tales.

At yet you have the hypocricial gall and arrogance to accuse others of being blinkered.

Your attitude is the blinkered one. You demonstrate it here week in week out with your homophobic, creationist, vengence minded bile.

Carlos's is the opposite. It is open mindedness.

It is to choose to not accept what has zero evidence as fact.

It is to say "well, hang on a minute, talking snakes, walking on water, being dead in a cave for 3 days and not decomposing.....soun

ds just an eensy wit like nonsense, so I choose to question it, and no matter how many times I question it, nobody who actually believes it can provide any rational explanatation that stands up to scrutiny and examination as to why they believe it.

Even those brain box scientists who split the atom can't explain why they believe in the unexplainable.

There is zero evidence for the existance of any deity.

Your brand of religion has exactly the same amount of credibility as any other religion or banch thereof.

I can't prove that there is a giant cat at the centre of the earth, just as you can't prove there is a god. And yet I don't believe that there is a giant cat at the cente of the earth. Ot that eating shellfish is a sin, even if it does bring me out in a rash.
Hi Joe,
Each time you contribute to this column, I'm afraid it is you who exhibits a closure of the mind.
You and Carlost are not rational.
If you were, you'd see there is evidence for God's existence.
You would acknowledge that there is a debate.
[quote][p][bold]Joseph Yossarian[/bold] wrote: """"Even one of your side, the famous Richard Dawkins, last week accepted that there was something to debate, and even had the grace, during his debate with the Archbishop of Canterbury, to acknowledge that he could not prove there was no God.""" Of course RD can't prove there is no god. Equally the archbishop cannot prove that there is a god. He (And you) have devoted yourselves to accepting mythology as fact and disseminating anti-progressive doctrines based upon a hand-me-down book of stone-age farmers campfire tales. At yet you have the hypocricial gall and arrogance to accuse others of being blinkered. Your attitude is the blinkered one. You demonstrate it here week in week out with your homophobic, creationist, vengence minded bile. Carlos's is the opposite. It is open mindedness. It is to choose to not accept what has zero evidence as fact. It is to say "well, hang on a minute, talking snakes, walking on water, being dead in a cave for 3 days and not decomposing.....soun ds just an eensy wit like nonsense, so I choose to question it, and no matter how many times I question it, nobody who actually believes it can provide any rational explanatation that stands up to scrutiny and examination as to why they believe it. Even those brain box scientists who split the atom can't explain why they believe in the unexplainable. There is zero evidence for the existance of any deity. Your brand of religion has exactly the same amount of credibility as any other religion or banch thereof. I can't prove that there is a giant cat at the centre of the earth, just as you can't prove there is a god. And yet I don't believe that there is a giant cat at the cente of the earth. Ot that eating shellfish is a sin, even if it does bring me out in a rash.[/p][/quote]Hi Joe, Each time you contribute to this column, I'm afraid it is you who exhibits a closure of the mind. You and Carlost are not rational. If you were, you'd see there is evidence for God's existence. You would acknowledge that there is a debate. Revkev

5:06pm Fri 2 Mar 12

Revkev says...

Ken Shuffles wrote:
On the subject of God, there seems to me, to be a huge amount of argument on both sides,, with no real evidence to back up either position on both sides.
Hi Ken, you sound more rational than both Joe and Carlost.
[quote][p][bold]Ken Shuffles[/bold] wrote: On the subject of God, there seems to me, to be a huge amount of argument on both sides,, with no real evidence to back up either position on both sides.[/p][/quote]Hi Ken, you sound more rational than both Joe and Carlost. Revkev

6:04pm Fri 2 Mar 12

Joseph Yossarian says...

RK says::
Each time you contribute to this column, I'm afraid it is you who exhibits a closure of the mind.You and Carlost are not rational.If you were, you'd see there is evidence for God's existence.You would acknowledge that there is a debate."""

OK I have two issues with this comment from RK.
1. Show me one piece of evidence that would stand up to any sort of independent examination and verification for the existance of any of the countless deities that have been worshipped and sacrified to over the centuries.

2. You have the arrogance to accouse me of a closed mind each time I contribute.
That is beyond grossly insulting. It is the refusal to actually answer the points raised against you by resorting to insult. It is an attempt to close an unanswered question through diversion. It is the playground behaviour of the lost argument.

My replies to you blog have been that I think

(for example)
-State sanctioned murder is wrong
-Women should be free to choose what to do with their bodies without male interference
-Science advances society
-Homosexuals should have the same rights in society as everybody else
-No religion is above the law.
-If I want to shop on Sunday that's up to me.
-Geology and palientology can tell us more about the history of earth that a hand me down book.
-Immigrants (such as my wife) enrich our society can keep their own culture and pass it on.
-Council meetings are for council business. Prayer meetings are for prayers.

And you think that opinions such as these are the fruit of a closed mind.

The look pretty rational to me.

Some of them (abortion and capital punishment) polarise society generally, irrespective of religious rhetoric.

Some of them such as equal rights for all before the law and sunday trading are esconced in law and agreed and accepted by the vast majority of the population.

Rev, you need to take a long hard look at what you say and accept that others realise that your bigoted, self interested, antiquated, homophobic, intolerant, misogenistic, vengeful, divisive, fundamentalist extreme views that you spout in the name of religion (but which are far from the christian values of tolerance that I was brought up with) are far more blinkered than what is often written in reply to you by people such as Carlos and I.
RK says:: Each time you contribute to this column, I'm afraid it is you who exhibits a closure of the mind.You and Carlost are not rational.If you were, you'd see there is evidence for God's existence.You would acknowledge that there is a debate.""" OK I have two issues with this comment from RK. 1. Show me one piece of evidence that would stand up to any sort of independent examination and verification for the existance of any of the countless deities that have been worshipped and sacrified to over the centuries. 2. You have the arrogance to accouse me of a closed mind each time I contribute. That is beyond grossly insulting. It is the refusal to actually answer the points raised against you by resorting to insult. It is an attempt to close an unanswered question through diversion. It is the playground behaviour of the lost argument. My replies to you blog have been that I think (for example) -State sanctioned murder is wrong -Women should be free to choose what to do with their bodies without male interference -Science advances society -Homosexuals should have the same rights in society as everybody else -No religion is above the law. -If I want to shop on Sunday that's up to me. -Geology and palientology can tell us more about the history of earth that a hand me down book. -Immigrants (such as my wife) enrich our society can keep their own culture and pass it on. -Council meetings are for council business. Prayer meetings are for prayers. And you think that opinions such as these are the fruit of a closed mind. The look pretty rational to me. Some of them (abortion and capital punishment) polarise society generally, irrespective of religious rhetoric. Some of them such as equal rights for all before the law and sunday trading are esconced in law and agreed and accepted by the vast majority of the population. Rev, you need to take a long hard look at what you say and accept that others realise that your bigoted, self interested, antiquated, homophobic, intolerant, misogenistic, vengeful, divisive, fundamentalist extreme views that you spout in the name of religion (but which are far from the christian values of tolerance that I was brought up with) are far more blinkered than what is often written in reply to you by people such as Carlos and I. Joseph Yossarian

6:07pm Fri 2 Mar 12

Joseph Yossarian says...

ps Rev I don't remember you answering the question I put to you a while back.

Have you ever "smacked" any children in your care (for example at Sunday school), other than your own?


And have a go at the home office life in the UK test on-line. You might find yourself retracting some of your earlier comments about what you think immigrants actually have to know about living here.
ps Rev I don't remember you answering the question I put to you a while back. Have you ever "smacked" any children in your care (for example at Sunday school), other than your own? And have a go at the home office life in the UK test on-line. You might find yourself retracting some of your earlier comments about what you think immigrants actually have to know about living here. Joseph Yossarian

6:21pm Fri 2 Mar 12

Joseph Yossarian says...

in summary

The unwavering acceptance of dogma is a demonstration of a closed mind.

The questioning of that which cannot be proven is a demonstration of an open mind.

The Rev is in the former category.
Carlos is in the latter.
in summary The unwavering acceptance of dogma is a demonstration of a closed mind. The questioning of that which cannot be proven is a demonstration of an open mind. The Rev is in the former category. Carlos is in the latter. Joseph Yossarian

11:08am Sat 3 Mar 12

Ken Shuffles says...

Beauty, peace and love are not just for christmas.


.


The religious seem to think peace, beauty and love is just for them. they seem to think they and they alone have some monopoly on emotional intelligence, understanding and knowledge which others can possibly have any clarity, affinity with or comprehension of.


.


Atheists can be moved to tears when they are touched by beauty, peace and love just as any christian, muslim or jew can be suddenly moved to tears.


.


Chrstians and Atheists are not any different.
Beauty, peace and love are not just for christmas. . The religious seem to think peace, beauty and love is just for them. they seem to think they and they alone have some monopoly on emotional intelligence, understanding and knowledge which others can possibly have any clarity, affinity with or comprehension of. . Atheists can be moved to tears when they are touched by beauty, peace and love just as any christian, muslim or jew can be suddenly moved to tears. . Chrstians and Atheists are not any different. Ken Shuffles

11:16am Sat 3 Mar 12

Ken Shuffles says...

There is a beauty, a peace and a love which nobody can possibly be prepared for. It can well up from inside a person at any moment, for no reason, in any situation, under any circumstances, for anyone whether they are educated or uneducated, organised or not whether in preston, pakistan or sainsbury's.
There is a beauty, a peace and a love which nobody can possibly be prepared for. It can well up from inside a person at any moment, for no reason, in any situation, under any circumstances, for anyone whether they are educated or uneducated, organised or not whether in preston, pakistan or sainsbury's. Ken Shuffles

11:33pm Sat 3 Mar 12

Revkev says...

Joseph Yossarian wrote:
in summary

The unwavering acceptance of dogma is a demonstration of a closed mind.

The questioning of that which cannot be proven is a demonstration of an open mind.

The Rev is in the former category.
Carlos is in the latter.
Hi Joseph Yossarian,
I've got six points for you to consider regarding the existence of God.
.
The Telegraph usually closes comments on a column after the new column is logged.
In this case, I'm going to post the six points when my new column comes on line.
We can then carry on our debate without fear of being cut off in our prime.
[quote][p][bold]Joseph Yossarian[/bold] wrote: in summary The unwavering acceptance of dogma is a demonstration of a closed mind. The questioning of that which cannot be proven is a demonstration of an open mind. The Rev is in the former category. Carlos is in the latter.[/p][/quote]Hi Joseph Yossarian, I've got six points for you to consider regarding the existence of God. . The Telegraph usually closes comments on a column after the new column is logged. In this case, I'm going to post the six points when my new column comes on line. We can then carry on our debate without fear of being cut off in our prime. Revkev

9:12pm Thu 15 Mar 12

VioletVision says...

I am always amazed when biggotted, racist, homophobic christians have the gaul to start telling other people that they are closed minded. I am also amazed when a reputable newspaper gives a voice to such appalling attitudes.
The fact that a secular organisation brought about this landmark ruling has been completely ignored, instead the Rev seems to link muslims (the tiny 8%)

Rev Kev says "We're all still free to make up our own minds. Nobody's being told to do anything.
Politicians are not forcing religion on you, just recognising what's in society already." WRONG!!!
The fact that prayers are being included as part of a Council meeting is exactly politicians forcing religion onto people. Sure others can leave the room. But really! Why should they? It is included as part of the agenda. It is forcing a religious component into a non-religious meeting. Only by a separation of state and religion can you have a truly fair society. Otherwise you will have a society where people who don't fit into what a religion says is okay being discriminated against and treated like second class citizens. Afterall, if you really believed everything in the bible, we'd still have slaves and men would not cut the sides of their hair.
I am always amazed when biggotted, racist, homophobic christians have the gaul to start telling other people that they are closed minded. I am also amazed when a reputable newspaper gives a voice to such appalling attitudes. The fact that a secular organisation brought about this landmark ruling has been completely ignored, instead the Rev seems to link muslims (the tiny 8%) Rev Kev says "We're all still free to make up our own minds. Nobody's being told to do anything. Politicians are not forcing religion on you, just recognising what's in society already." WRONG!!! The fact that prayers are being included as part of a Council meeting is exactly politicians forcing religion onto people. Sure others can leave the room. But really! Why should they? It is included as part of the agenda. It is forcing a religious component into a non-religious meeting. Only by a separation of state and religion can you have a truly fair society. Otherwise you will have a society where people who don't fit into what a religion says is okay being discriminated against and treated like second class citizens. Afterall, if you really believed everything in the bible, we'd still have slaves and men would not cut the sides of their hair. VioletVision

9:24pm Thu 15 Mar 12

bigjohn998 says...

VioletVision wrote:
I am always amazed when biggotted, racist, homophobic christians have the gaul to start telling other people that they are closed minded. I am also amazed when a reputable newspaper gives a voice to such appalling attitudes.
The fact that a secular organisation brought about this landmark ruling has been completely ignored, instead the Rev seems to link muslims (the tiny 8%)

Rev Kev says "We're all still free to make up our own minds. Nobody's being told to do anything.
Politicians are not forcing religion on you, just recognising what's in society already." WRONG!!!
The fact that prayers are being included as part of a Council meeting is exactly politicians forcing religion onto people. Sure others can leave the room. But really! Why should they? It is included as part of the agenda. It is forcing a religious component into a non-religious meeting. Only by a separation of state and religion can you have a truly fair society. Otherwise you will have a society where people who don't fit into what a religion says is okay being discriminated against and treated like second class citizens. Afterall, if you really believed everything in the bible, we'd still have slaves and men would not cut the sides of their hair.
I really could not agree more. I am personally sick and fed up of the LT giving voice to this ridiculous theist homophobic diatribe...IF you don't believe in gay marraige, it is simple...DON'T MARRY A GAY
[quote][p][bold]VioletVision[/bold] wrote: I am always amazed when biggotted, racist, homophobic christians have the gaul to start telling other people that they are closed minded. I am also amazed when a reputable newspaper gives a voice to such appalling attitudes. The fact that a secular organisation brought about this landmark ruling has been completely ignored, instead the Rev seems to link muslims (the tiny 8%) Rev Kev says "We're all still free to make up our own minds. Nobody's being told to do anything. Politicians are not forcing religion on you, just recognising what's in society already." WRONG!!! The fact that prayers are being included as part of a Council meeting is exactly politicians forcing religion onto people. Sure others can leave the room. But really! Why should they? It is included as part of the agenda. It is forcing a religious component into a non-religious meeting. Only by a separation of state and religion can you have a truly fair society. Otherwise you will have a society where people who don't fit into what a religion says is okay being discriminated against and treated like second class citizens. Afterall, if you really believed everything in the bible, we'd still have slaves and men would not cut the sides of their hair.[/p][/quote]I really could not agree more. I am personally sick and fed up of the LT giving voice to this ridiculous theist homophobic diatribe...IF you don't believe in gay marraige, it is simple...DON'T MARRY A GAY bigjohn998

12:19pm Sat 17 Mar 12

Ken Shuffles says...

What has sexual intercourse between a man and a woman got to do with the state and the priest.?
What has sexual intercourse between a man and a woman got to do with the state and the priest.? Ken Shuffles

Comments are closed on this article.

click2find

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree