Ray Bradbury
When I read Fahrenheit 451 about ten years ago I sensed instantly that it was one of the great works of anti-censorship. My wife, as alienated by censorship as I was, gave it to me. It is a classic, if by that we mean a timeless piece of work that has meaning for all generations. That is because book burners are dangerous, always have been and always will be. They burn books and then they turn their flames on people.
Ray Bradbury, author of this great novel has died at the ripe old age of 91. He had a passion for books, having been in his own words library educated, not having attended college. ‘And it’s far more fun than going to school, simply because you make up your own list and you don’t have to listen to anyone.’
That’s really what the burning is all about. They can’t abide by you not listening to them.
Bleeding Nonsense
Sanal Edamaruku is not a name we are familiar with. He is President of both the Indian Rationalist Association and the Rationalist International. That is not why we have come to learn of him. He has entered our consciousness courtesy of finding himself in the firing line of the Catholic Church in India, which has accused him of blasphemy. Yes, even in this day and age, given half a chance, the bigots and censors will be out waving some prohibition order in your face.
Sanal Edamaruku has annoyed the holy ones for quite a while because of his sceptical disposition which refuses to allow him to share their belief in miracles. When con men in Mumbia claimed that there was a ‘bleeding statue’ in front of the Church of Our Lady of Velankanni, the Indian Catholic Church spoke of miracles. Poor fools rushed in to drink the stuff. Imagine their horror upon listening to Sanal Edamaruku on television in March explain that the blood they had been drinking was nothing other than seeping sewage from a drain in close proximity to the church.
Infuriated, the Indian men of god, invoking Section 295A of India’s Penal Code, filed for blasphemy alleging that Sanal Edamaruku was guilty of ‘deliberately hurting religious feelings’. If convicted the persistent sceptic could face three years in jail.
All because he exposed holy water as hole water.
Stoned in Sudan but not from Pot
Intisar Sharif Abdallah is a young mother of three children. Not yet 18, she is little more than a child herself. She has been sentenced to death by stoning in North Sudan because she was judged to have committed adultery. Here adultery is something that people do; there it is something they commit. The country is lead by Omar al-Bashir. He is:
wanted by the International Criminal Court on charges of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity in Darfur. The president remains a fugitive of international law and continues to use "genocidal language" against his country's new neighbors - citizens of South Sudan.
No mention of him being stoned. But then genocide is something that holy books encourage whereas adultery is a taboo.
Intisar Sharif Abdallah claimed that her confession was extracted under torture. At her trial she was denied the services of either a lawyer or interpreter.The man that she was accused of liaising with, well he was set free.
The International Committee Against Stoning is outraged by all of this this and has called for people to campaign to stop this misogynistic lunacy. Amnesty International has also echoed the Committee’s stance.
In the words of a prominent member of the International Committee Against Executions, Mina Ahadi:
the people of the world must arise and declare that they will not allow these Islamic criminals to wrap a young woman in a burial shroud while she is still alive and then torture to death by throwing stones at her.
Never could understand the mind-set that could burn books-makes me sick just thinking about it-
ReplyDeleteBurn books = burn peoples thoughts
Still have not come around to the idea of kindle either-is it a friend or foe to the book-
Near finished Stephen Kings The wind through the Keyhole- i swore that i would never read another of his dark tower books because of that ending- but i could not resist the new one- read not burn-
Michael Henry,
ReplyDeleteit is the mindset of the censor.
Kindle is fine. Easy to use. It is just another form of book not a foe to it. It is a friend of reading and a foe to those who would rather we read only what they wanted
MH,
ReplyDelete'Never could understand the mind-set that could burn books-'
Surely you wouldn't condone extreme pornography with children involved?
Assuming you agree that it is okay to burn those books, then we are only arguing over which ones should be burned.
I have a long list of books I would like to see burned. Your list probably just has less on it.
But I assume all right-minded people would not allow just anything to be published, would they?
Sanal Edamaruku was charged with “deliberately hurting the religious sentiments” of people on the basis of his wild accusations that a money-making scam had been set up by priests.
ReplyDeleteIf there is a natural explanation of the phenomenon, give it. He would never have been charged with stating the truth. But a man with his agenda is seldom able to find the truth. Reminds me of Willie Fraser finding bombs all over South Armagh.
But surely no democrat would oppose another nation wishing to punish someone whose only aim was to hurt people with unsubstantiated allegations?
He had done the crime, now let him do the time. Or why not just apologise for the deliberate lies he told, and have the case dropped as has been offered to him by those he slandered?
John,
ReplyDeletethat could lead to me being charged for believing that Lourdes is a money making racket. What else are these things but rackets? Seems a legitimiate critique to make. Imagine being jailed for believing golf is a money making racket.
All democrats I imagine would oppose any nation allowing anybody to be punished under a blasphemy law. That law is criminal not those who supposedly blaspheme.
John,
ReplyDeleteinteresting line of argument on book burning. By that logic we could justify burning the bible for advocating child murder, a crime much more heinous than child pornography. It would never occur to me to burn the bible unless it was a necessity for keeping warm. But that would apply to any book.
I guess it reinforces the argument for abandoning belief in your god. All atheists have done is to disbelieve in one more god than you believe in.
AM,
ReplyDelete‘that could lead to me being charged for believing that Lourdes is a money making racket.’
I tend to think that Medjugorje is a money making racket. Lourdes, on the other hand, has passed all the scientific tests they could think of.
‘What else are these things but rackets? Seems a legitimiate critique to make. Imagine being jailed for believing golf is a money making racket.’
But in this case all donations were refused. Hence it could be shown NOT to be a ‘money-making racket’, hence the charges.
‘All democrats I imagine would oppose any nation allowing anybody to be punished under a blasphemy law. That law is criminal not those who supposedly blaspheme.’
Now they have different ‘isms’ revered like ‘gods’ now that they won’t allow to be blasphemed, eg; anti-racism, anti-fascism, and atheism.
AM,
ReplyDelete‘It would never occur to me to burn the bible unless it was a necessity for keeping warm.’
I always liked Brendan Behan’s tale about smoking the bible. And why not, if it is an old protestant one?
‘I guess it reinforces the argument for abandoning belief in your god. All atheists have done is to disbelieve in one more god than you believe in.’
You can fool yourself, Anthony, but no sane person can believe ALL came from NOTHING. Call it what you will, but what was there before what is now is what we call God. True atheism is probably never attained, but by the man who fools himself.
John McGirr-
ReplyDelete" Surly you wouldn't condone extreme pornography with children involved "
I dont want books to be burnt because ones are afraid or cant under-stand its contend or its author- and i am on about books not seedy little magazines who cant get anyone to put their names to those photos-
michaelhenry,
ReplyDelete'I dont want books to be burnt because ones are afraid or cant under-stand its contend or its author-'
Sometimes they should be burnt precisely because we do understand their content or author.
In my view, most books should be burned, in your view few books should be.
It is like George Bernard Shaw, when he asked a woman if she would sleep with him for a million pounds, she said 'yes'. Then he asked if whe would sleep with him for £1. She said, 'What do you think I am?' He replied, 'We have established what you are, we are just haggling over the price!'
Bad books can kill; eg; the Koran. They would be better giving us heat.
Re bleeding nonsense All power to Sanal Edamaruku. If it was not for him being prosecuted the whole thing would be a great laugh. That blasphemy law comes in handy when chinks of reality are shown to the deceived...
ReplyDeleteRe Stoned in Sudan but not from Pot
I have the deepest admiration for sisters who risk their lives standing up against honor killings/genital mutilation - fighting for an end to barbarism. They are truly 21st century warriors & heroines. There are honor killings that have been going in the West disguised/dumbed down tho... what do you think Catholicism did to us? Look what it did to our people yet still the naive bow down to misogyny dressed up as God... What was Magdalene Laundries but a sanitised version of mass honor killings where the physical body was kept alive but the mind/soul destroyed. Also violence against kids by parents was sanctioned as aok/acceptable. Letterfrack – all those poor wee boys...
In the 50’s 60’s and 70s parents thought nothing of bashing their kids to a pulp and of course the Catholic church was violent in treatment of kids including sexual abuse (another form of murder where the soul/spirit/mind is destroyed) In fact religion sanctioned the violence.
Society didn’t give a toss and i should know because i lived it.
Before the West points the finger at the East they need to check their own history past & present & current domestic violence stats and GET REAL.
Some stuff for anyone interested:
1 A doco called Maria’s Grotto filmed in Palestine gives excruciating insights into the trappings that underpin honor killings and it aint all about religion but rather traditions/money/standing in community/pressure from clan. The full doco is up on liveleak.
2 An excellent book i read recently is called Honor Killings in the 21st Century by Nicole Pope published 2012. It really helped me u/stand how patriarchy combined with twisting religious scriptures spells death literally for women and girls. It is hard going in parts and may be deeply distressing to those who have been raped/brutalised so warning to those in advance... it is trigger material (flashbacks etc)
3 There is a powerful/famous song – called Kali Nu Mil Mitra by Ravinder Grewal The visuals (acted) tell the story clearly Is sung in Punjabi (translation is on the net somewhere cos i remember reading it) I love the ending of video but atheists wont! Brilliant that MALE artists are speaking out in their songs. It is the men who have to cop on and resist the pressure to kill in the name of honor although sometimes men are killed as well as part of an honor killing it be more than likely it will be the girl or woman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcTI8fQgEZE
Men need to challenge the men to put an end to honor killings Why the hell is it always the women who have to educate the men primarily Even in the West little girls grew up knowing fear and all women know they can be raped or denigrated anytime anywhere. It is a sick world we live in and if not for brave activists who are risking their lives- it would be sicker. It is a liability to be born a baby girl even in the 21st century.
Inquisition Says it all.
ReplyDeleteIt shows how corrupt , Greedy , and Power Hungry those sick Popes were.
Burning women at the stake as a witch just because they could not have sex with them.
Ordering Muslims and Jews to convert or leave.
They all should have been burned at the stake.
itsjustmacker,
ReplyDeleteI would never burn them at the stake but there is no chance that I would ever take my moral guidance from them. What could a cover up cardinal teach me or you about morality?
http://www.piousfabrications.com/2012/03/defense-of-holy-inquisition.html
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteit conked out about 7 minutes in. He remided me of David Irving on the Holocaust.
AM,
ReplyDeleteIt was a bit of a weak defence really. Catholics have nothing to be ashamed of in regard to the Inquisitions.
A much better defence is found here:
http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=133239
AM,
ReplyDeleteThe forum carrying that article was only link I could get to work.
I make no claims for that Forum, had never seen it until just now, and the article stands on its own merits.
AM,
ReplyDelete‘…there is no chance that I would ever take my moral guidance from them.’
I never could understand those who think morality can continue, when it has nothing in which to ground it. As we are rushing back in to paganism, is it any wonder that atheists are promoting infanticide?
Here is Peter Singer, a prominent atheist and Professor of Bioethics at Princeton University.
"… the fact that a being is a human being, in the sense of a member of the species Homo sapiens, is not relevant to the wrongness of killing it; it is, rather, characteristics like rationality, autonomy, and self-consciousness that make a difference. Infants lack these characteristics. Killing them, therefore, cannot be equated with killing normal human beings, or any other self-conscious beings. …. No infant - disabled or not - has as strong a claim to life as beings capable of seeing themselves as distinct entities, existing over time." (Practical Ethics, 2nd edition)
Well, at least he is honest and logical. It was the morality of the Catholic Church that stopped infanticide, and it is that of the atheists which will bring it back,
John,
ReplyDeletethere is a morality. Clerics are not the people to teach it. We don't need them to live ethical lives.
Singer's views would not be my own. I can see how easily that would lead to euthanasia. But his views are closer to your own. You advocate infanticide. You justified it here as a legitimate move against gays.
John,
ReplyDeletemurder and torture - and there is no need to be ashamed of it. I beg to differ
AM,
ReplyDelete‘there is a morality. Clerics are not the people to teach it. We don't need them to live ethical lives'.
So where does it come from? The FSM? No God, in the end, must mean no morality. Certainly not one that can be shared by all.
‘Singer's views would not be my own. I can see how easily that would lead to euthanasia.’
Or, indeed, leads logically on from abortion.
‘But his views are closer to your own.’
I oppose abortion, infanticide and euthanasia, so I don’t think so.
‘You advocate infanticide. You justified it here as a legitimate move against gays.’
That wins my special award for the INSANIST comment ever posted on the PQ.!
AM,
ReplyDelete'murder and torture - and there is no need to be ashamed of it. I beg to differ'
Is this one of the Inquisitions we are talking about, or the recent armed campaign of the Provos?
There was certainly no murder in the Inquisitions, and the torture was negligible and necessary.
John,
ReplyDeleteTorture was widespread, there were murders aplenty. Pope John Paul 2 apologised for the Inquisition. Torture is never necessary. It is like slavery and rape in that sense. I dread to think of the type of cruel society that people like you would prescribe for us.
John,
ReplyDeleteare you seriously disputing that you posted on this blog justifying the deaths of children as a punishment or retribution against gays?
AM,
ReplyDeleteWe are already in a society where children can be murdered by the millions, and atheists like Peter Singer are trying to extend this to its logical twin, infanticide. There is absolutely no justification for abortion that cannot be given for infanticide. The people who facilitate and promote this are given Nobel Peace Prizes and elected as presidents. I do not dread to see the cruel society that you would prescribe, because I am living in it, and it is getting daily worse.
As for John Paul II apologising for the Inquisition, all I can say is ‘Thank God he was not infallible! Oh, for my part, I would like to apologise for John Paul II.
John McGirr 9:43 AM, May 09, 2012
ReplyDeleteAM,
‘Do you think it is right that children should be burned to death in cities, a death inflicted on them by divine condemnation because the divine did not like gays?’
As St Thomas tells us, He only permits evil where a greater good can come out of it, in this case, eternal happiness for the innocent trumps a brief period of misery on earth.
AM,
ReplyDelete'are you seriously disputing that you posted on this blog justifying the deaths of children as a punishment or retribution against gays?'
Yes! (Enjoy your trawl through the old posts). BTW, I don't have the statistics for Sodom and Gomorrah, so I don't know if there were any children in them.
AM,
ReplyDelete“‘Do you think it is right that children should be burned to death in cities, a death inflicted on them by divine condemnation because the divine did not like gays?’”
‘As St Thomas tells us, He only permits evil where a greater good can come out of it, in this case, eternal happiness for the innocent trumps a brief period of misery on earth.’
WOW, you had done your home-work first, ha ha.
Now, please tell me, WHERE have I 'advocated infanticide?'
Certainly not in the passage you have quoted.
John,
ReplyDeletethese days my memory barely takes me beyond yesterday. In jail I could remember every wing shift and every event. Now ... When you made that statement it seemed so lacking in basic humanity that it stayed in my mind, whereas most of what you or anybody else says passes on into the haze.
It seems clear to me that you advocate infanticide given your affirmative response to the question if you agreed that children should be burned to death. Children would include infants but you are hardly unaware of that. Your response to my question included the words 'in this case, eternal happiness for the innocent trumps a brief period of misery (infanticide) on earth.' What other meaning can I put on it?
I will leave it to others to decide the meaning of what you said. If they think my view is wrong I will certainly reconsider it.
John,
ReplyDeletewhat cities do not have children in them?
I suppose you don't know the statistics for the murderous Passover either?
AM
ReplyDeleteAnthony, he is quoting Saint Thomas, but then again, how can someone be made a Saint who advocates Evil doing ,to get Good some out of it???.
But with his Post, He is also Advocating it, that is if he Believes Saint Thomas to be correct!
AM,
ReplyDelete‘When you made that statement it seemed so lacking in basic humanity that it stayed in my mind, whereas most of what you or anybody else says passes on into the haze.’
I said: “As St Thomas tells us, He only permits evil where a greater good can come out of it, in this case, eternal happiness for the innocent trumps a brief period of misery on earth.”
In what way is that lacking in basic humanity? It is the only thing that makes life bearable, to know that every illness, every tragedy, every thing has a purpose and is always permitted in order for a greater good to occur.
My reply could be extended to say IF children were burned, THEN God would have permitted it for their eternal happiness. Were they burned? I have no clue. Maybe God took all the innocent children before he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, who knows?
The ‘brief period of misery’ refers to human life on earth, not to children being burned. We all have a brief period of misery in this ‘vale of tears’ and then, depending on our lives, we chose Heaven or Hell. If children are whisked away, and bypass 70 years of misery, why is that bad?
In any case I did not say, ‘Hey, God why don’t you burn some kids?’ That would be ADVOCATING it, i.e. calling for it. To attempt an explanation of a possible interpretation of an event is not to ADVOCATE it. At least it is not in my dictionary.
You justify homosexuality, but I don’t believe you advocate it. Do you? Homosexuality causes death and destruction in every society it ever inflicts. Where homosexuality abounds, so does the destruction of anything decent. This was true in Sodom, in Gomorrah, in Greece, Rome and the Catholic Church. If you justify homosexuality, then you are partially responsible for all the havoc it wreaks, whether you call it Nature or I call it God, sodomy leads to death.
‘I suppose you don't know the statistics for the murderous Passover either?’
Are you going to blame that one on me too?
“Anthony, he is quoting Saint Thomas, but then again, how can someone be made a Saint who advocates Evil doing ,to get Good some out of it???.”
Not quite sure what that means, seems kind of scrambled!
“But with his Post, He is also Advocating it, that is if he Believes Saint Thomas to be correct!”
To ADVOCATE is to ‘call for’, ‘to plead for’. I have not called for or pleaded for infanticide. That is done by atheists of the 21st century, as they aren’t sated with killing the unborn, they are now talking about post-birth abortions. But what would you expect when Richard Dawkins thinks aardvarks, monkeys and people are all of the same value.
Itsjustmacker,
ReplyDeleteI know that. But he painted himself into a corner and is now trying to gloss it up as best he can. Simply reinforces the view that religion and ethics laugh at each other
AM
ReplyDeleteI know that. But he painted himself into a corner and is now trying to gloss it up as best he can. Simply reinforces the view that religion and ethics laugh at each other.
I know Anthony, I honestly believe he sits with a Bible in one hand and a dictionary in the other other hand, or, he depends on Google search. lol. If i googled every word i was typing then i would never complete a post.
I presume he will come back at this one as well.
Little things please little minds, not bad that , is it?, from a 68 year old lout. lol
Itsjustmacker,
ReplyDeleteI guess it is why so many of us think religion pollutes and poisons the mind. The ideas I see John expressing seem so far removed from any concept of what is good. What type of mind advocates the slaughter of children out of a hatred of gays?
AM,
ReplyDelete‘I will leave it to others to decide the meaning of what you said.’
Why ask others, I am perfectly capable of telling you what I meant? By the way, have you noticed that I answer all your points, and that you answer none of mine? And then I am criticised for knowing what words mean, and for accuracy!
'What type of mind advocates the slaughter of children out of a hatred of gays?'
What type of mind continues to falsely accuse another and repeats an accusation when they have been shown that is not the case?
You justify homosexuality, but you do not advocate it, do you??? As I said before, I do not believe that you do advocate homosexuality. Maybe I am wrong, but I guess I am not likely to get an answer.
Of course you could ask me if I advocate it, rather than you telling me that I do. That way it could clear a lot up.
So let me ask myself, ‘Do you, John, advocate the slaughter of children out of a hatred of gays?’ ‘No, John, I don’t.’
There I have answered. So again I ask you, Anthony, ‘Do you advocate homosexuality?’
'Burning women at the stake as a witch just because they could not have sex with them'
ReplyDeleteLOL, not worth 'googling'! I giggled a bit though!
John,
ReplyDelete'Why ask others, I am perfectly capable of telling you what I meant?'
The evidence simply does not bear out what you now tell me. And as I feel perfectly capable of interpreting what you meant we will not agree and therefore the call will be made by others than ourselves. We have made our case. Let the others decide on the merits.
'By the way, have you noticed that I answer all your points, and that you answer none of mine?'
Strange that I should be thinking the same thing! I believe I get to everything eventually.
'So again I ask you, Anthony, ‘Do you advocate homosexuality?’'
When did you ask previously? I certainly don't recall. The answer is so simple. Of course I advocate it every bit as much as I advocate heterosexuality or gay marriage.
I think most people will rightly see the implied distinction between you advocating child murder and you justifying child murder as paper thin.
"Homosexuality causes death and destruction in every society it ever inflicts. Where homosexuality abounds, so does the destruction of anything decent. If you justify homosexuality, then you are partially responsible for all the havoc it wreaks, whether you call it Nature or I call it God, sodomy leads to death"
ReplyDeleteI am actually in god damned shock ! Are you fucking kidding me ??? You homophobic neanderthal.
I don't even know where to begin.
sexuality is not destructive - whichever gender you wish to identify as and whichever gender you wish to engage intimately with has no bearing on our societal progression or moral standing.
You, I assume advocate heterosexuality?(most likely heteronormative)
If that is the case I ask you this .... Do you have/are you aware of statistics and historical analysis as to how many hetero's started and maintained wars,famines and destruction of our planet and its resources? funnily enough if you look into it, it's perpetrated by mostly white rich straight men.
To state firmly in the nature that you have done, your beliefs on homosexuality and its part as a destructive force illustrates such a high level of ignorance that I honestly don't know how a baseline of communication between us could be productive as your manner and words alienate me and make me want to ridicule the mindset instead of trying to understand it ....
Sodomy leads to death? Firstly let me start here by stating clearly that I am not an advocate for sexual relations between human beings and other animal species. I personally find that abusive as an animal cannot consent and therefore this is in my opinion animal abuse.
HOWEVER if we are simply referring to the other definition of sodomy (as anal/oral copulation) as a way to destruction and death then by good holy spaghetti monster you are truly deluded.
Maybe you need to engage in some oral and/or anal sex ? You are truly one of the most repressed human beings I believe I've ever communicated with. Who or what one consensually does with ones vagina/penis is really a personal choice/decision. I hope for the benefit of further generations you never reproduced and spread your vitriolic ignorance further than yourself.
and as a final point
"There is absolutely no justification for abortion that cannot be given for infanticide"
Firstly whenever you can ovulate, be impregnated and carry a fetus inside your own body then come back to me with your opinion on what a woman can or cannot do with her body.
If I choose to terminate a 'pregnancy' justification is not needed. If take the life of an infant child justification is needed .... can you see the difference there - the alive human being viably living and breathing as a separate entity from it's mothers body. Big difference between a fetus and an infant. Not all fetus' grow to be infants.
Regardless of your anti abortion stance and homophobic irrationalities - It is your overall dedication to your fictional/mythological characters that amuses me the most.
Justification for mass killing - even that of children.......
"IF children were burned, THEN God would have permitted it for their eternal happiness"
..... but destruction ensues if adam and eve with a wee bit of steve have some anal/oral fun .........where is your logic ?
AM,
ReplyDelete‘The evidence simply does not bear out what you now tell me. And as I feel perfectly capable of interpreting what you meant we will not agree and therefore the call will be made by others than ourselves. We have made our case. Let the others decide on the merits’.
You can accuse me of all sorts, Anthony, but one thing I am not is a liar. I will give you an honest answer to anything you ever ask me. So, no, I am quite able of saying what I mean without you, or anyone else telling me what I mean and then demolishing your ‘straw man.’
‘Strange that I should be thinking the same thing! I believe I get to everything eventually’.
The only points I don’t answer of yours is when they are on threads that get missed because they have gone down the pages.
'So again I ask you, Anthony, ‘Do you advocate homosexuality?’'
‘When did you ask previously?’
8.33 pm. “You justify homosexuality, but I don’t believe you advocate it. Do you?
‘I certainly don't recall. The answer is so simple. Of course I advocate it every bit as much as I advocate heterosexuality or gay marriage.’
So you plead for people to become homosexual? Interesting. But should I believe you. How do I know that you know what you mean? Should I ask someone else, or should I let you speak for yourself? Decisions, decisions!
‘I think most people will rightly see the implied distinction between you advocating child murder and you justifying child murder as paper thin.’
I would make a greater distinction. I neither justified nor advocated child murder. In fact, if I were to critique myself, I would say that I avoided your question and answered a different point. In any case as we are God’s creatures, it would not be possible for God to murder. But why not let a lot of hair-splitting about this, enable you to avoid the issues?
What I do see however is that it is difficult for people to communicate if all you can do is call your opponent a liar. I advocate honesty, and cannot justify a stance that means that you decide what I think as a smokescreen to avoid the fact that atheists kill babies. Save the aardvark now!
Aine,
ReplyDelete‘You homophobic neanderthal.’
Been called a lot worse. I prefer to stick to arguments though, as name-calling is futile.
‘I don't even know where to begin.’
This sounds like a ‘birds and the bees lecture!’
‘sexuality is not destructive - whichever gender you wish to identify as and whichever gender you wish to engage intimately with has no bearing on our societal progression or moral standing.’
Roberto de Mattei would have another take on that one:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/italy/
8438210/Fall-of-Roman-Empire-caused-by-contagion-of-homosexuality.html
‘You, I assume advocate heterosexuality?(most likely heteronormative)’
Plain old ‘normal’ will do. I do so hate sociological babble.
‘ that is the case I ask you this .... Do you have/are you aware of statistics and historical analysis as to how many hetero's started and maintained wars,famines and destruction of our planet and its resources? funnily enough if you look into it, it's perpetrated by mostly white rich straight men.’
Yawn.
‘that I honestly don't know how a baseline of communication between us could be productive as your manner and words alienate me and make me want to ridicule the mindset instead of trying to understand it ....’
It is quite easy to see where I am coming from, just look at the entire Judaeo-Christian, (Moslem too) and Natural Law understanding of our civilisation. But they probably don’t teach that in the dumbed-down remnants of our universities today.
'Firstly let me start here by stating clearly that I am not an advocate for sexual relations between human beings and other animal species.’
Why not? That will be next on the agenda.
‘HOWEVER if we are simply referring to the other definition of sodomy (as anal/oral copulation) as a way to destruction and death then by good holy spaghetti monster you are truly deluded.’
Not another Spaghetti devotee!
‘Maybe you need to engage in some oral and/or anal sex ?’
Are you propositioning me?
‘You are truly one of the most repressed human beings I believe I've ever communicated with.’
Your verbal abuse has not yet reached the level of communication.
‘I hope for the benefit of further generations you never reproduced and spread your vitriolic ignorance further than yourself. ‘
Part of me wants so much to write ‘ditto’, but I shall rise above it, in the secure knowledge that we will outbreed you.
All decaying societies confuse gender, engage in sodomy and die. Before that they have a rage against life. In the end it is a blessing that this society is dying, or if it survives it will be because your murderous views are defeated.
‘Regardless of your anti abortion stance and homophobic irrationalities - It is your overall dedication to your fictional/mythological characters that amuses me the most’.
All is not lost then.
@ Aine i would place John McGirr in the 60 or 70 y.o. age bracket as many of his statements are full of the way Catholics were taught decades ago. But also i perceive him as a man who has pored over trillions of Catholic books in search for fulfilment spirituality. Hence the flux between accepting reality and irrational thought processes is heightened in his written dialogue. It is easy to get enraged with some of his statements (i have!) But i think what is evident here in written dialogues is John’s inability to grapple with 21st century realities as it dents his inward world significantly. I would sight him as a victim (albeit a willing one) of indoctrination of Catholic theology of various strains.
ReplyDeleteAt one stage i thought he was an OO windup taking the piss with some of what he wrote but it seems he is a bona fide republican identifying as Catholic & wrestling with enormous issues re Catholicism & his beliefs. Nary a mention of Jesus and what Jesus stated is quoted by John and this is due i believe , to the fact it would significantly shatter his stances. (ie) Jesus speaking on religiosity – “you brood of vipers – you white washed tombs with the appearance of Godliness but underneath full of filth” “you who break the backs of the people with demands and religious rules but do not follow them yourselves”... Vatican antics spring to mind clearly along with rules, regulations and so on!!!
It is good however that Anthony’s blog allows all voices to be heard without censoring. Yes there are many John McGirrs in this world – and they are in other religions worldwide too. He is at times like a radicalised mullah, an indignant Pope caught on the hop etc and other times one can see the vulnerability... I doubt John has met or mixes with diverse sectors of community and it that that is the tragedy. NB He wants/demands life/the world to submit to his views and when it obviously never will he lashes out.
Myself i am a believer in God and the only shame that comes with that is the horror of religiosity & how God is used a wedge to divide the people or decimate them with subjugation. I call it spiritual warfare on a grand scale – good versus evil disguised as spirituality.
I just had to walk away from it all the end because every religion has its tools to control and process you the way they want you to be. I just stick to a personal conviction and leave it at that. The McGirrs of this life are slightly fascinating in their dogma but also repellent. I see no dif between Johns dogma and the OO Masonic fucks in their vigour of madness.
A Scotsman told me that the Vatican and the OO's are the two faces on the one head of the dragon - the Beast/666 etc. Maybe he is right.
@justmackers hehe Religious instruction classes we missed or ignored? JohnMcGirr is in the house stirring the pot of religious madness and hatred for the non compliant to his views/beliefs. McGirrism is the new sectarianism lolol. Go over his place & take the man out for a drink and some craic.
John,
ReplyDeleteI have refrained from calling you a liar. I simply do not accept your explanation. Simple as. There is too much there to suggest you think the murder of children justifiable as a measure to deter or punish gays. Your straw strong defence strikes me as an attempt to claw back the ground you foolishly ceded by committing yourself to writing. But as I said, others can have the last word. You and I won't agree.
'The only points I don't answer of yours is when they are on threads that get missed because they have gone down the pages.'
It happens with us all. Just that we are more tolerant of you not answering than you are of us. No surprise that we would be tolerant and you would not be,is there?
'8.33 pm.'
So I am now expected to answer within minutes or face charges of not answering your questions!
'So you plead for people to become homosexual?'
No more than I plead for them to become heterosexual. I plead for them to be able to live freely within their sexual orientation based on consensual relations and not to be subject to persecution or discrimination. And if my children opt for a gay lifestyle I will love them to the last and will not be spitting nails at them or threatening them with the violence of hell.
'Interesting. But should I believe you. How do I know that you know what you mean? Should I ask someone else, or should I let you speak for yourself? Decisions, decisions!'
Babble.
'I neither justified nor advocated child murder.'
But you did and I am hardly alone in arriving at that conclusion based solely on what you, not anybody else, said. Carve out the wriggle room where you find it but what you said is there to confront you on every occasion you protest abortion. Perhaps that is what upsets you.
'In fact, if I were to critique myself, I would say that I avoided your question and answered a different point.'
Yet you accuse you of not answering your questions within minutes of them being asked. Why avoid the question? If you opposed murdering children why not say so?
'it would not be possible for God to murder.'
Religious cover up for murder. Just as there was no murder either during the Inquisition.
'What I do see however is that it is difficult for people to communicate if all you can do is call your opponent a liar.'
Difficult as it might be for religious people to accept it we have the right not to accept their opinion or stated interpretation. Just as they have
the right not to accept ours. But feel free not to communicate. You will hardly hear me complain about that. I may persist but I do not suffer intolerance and religious hatred gladly.
I am sure atheists do kill babies. Just as sure as I am that you justify killing them.
The difficulty for you is that you are just the same. Your opposition to abortion is just that, opposition to birth control because of religion, and not aopposition to killing children which you like to portray it as. You justify the murder of children. Your moral stand against abortion is fraudulent. And the witness for the prosecution was none other than yourself who has since tried to claw back the damning evidence.
UUP peer Ken Maginnis said on todays nolan show that young gays should seek help from a doctor/psychiatrist-
ReplyDeleteThe last unionist to make such rubbish comments was iris robinson and a few weeks later it was found out that she was having sex with all the young men that she could get her hands on-
makes me wonder if a story about ken and the boys is going to come out-nobody hates that much unless they are trying to hide something about their own sexuality-
SMH?
ReplyDelete‘@ Aine i would place John McGirr in the 60 or 70 y.o. age bracket as many of his statements are full of the way Catholics were taught decades ago.’
I feel that old sometimes.
‘But i think what is evident here in written dialogues is John’s inability to grapple with 21st century realities as it dents his inward world significantly.’
I am a firm realist. What you call ‘21st century realities’ I see as the poisoned effects of a decaying civilisation.
‘At one stage i thought he was an OO windup taking the piss with some of what he wrote ‘
Ha ha, that made me laugh. Why would an Orangeman defend the Catholic Church?
‘Nary a mention of Jesus and what Jesus stated is quoted by John ‘
Because this is not a religious blog. I much prefer to argue with the use of reason rather than faith, My opposition to abortion, divorce, contraception and homosexuality are due to reason not faith. My Church confirms my conclusions even though the whole world hates them and me, as our Lord said; “you shall be hated by all men for my name's sake”. They crucified my God, so if I were not hated I would be worrying.
‘and this is due i believe , to the fact it would significantly shatter his stances. (ie) Jesus speaking on religiosity – ‘
I don’t understand your attempt to be spiritual while being anti-religious. Religion is just a relationship. Take for example, The Imitation of Christ. That is a spiritual classic that maps out what our relationship, (ie our religion) should be with Christ. The same could be said of any book in the Bible or of any writing of any Saint for 2,000 years, whether it be St Augustine or St Theresa of Avila etc.
‘It is good however that Anthony’s blog allows all voices to be heard without censoring.’
I grant that if I had a Blog I would not allow the same latitude.
AM,
ReplyDelete'But feel free not to communicate.'
What was it the last time you wanted rid of me? Oh yes, 'if you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen' followed by two weeks of ignoring me!
The trouble with you liberals is that you will not allow any one to dissent from your liberalism, all while pretending to be oh so tolerant.
You claim to allow my voice, but you have to tell me what I mean. Well I have news for you. I can think and speak for myself, and all your ‘you think this’ and ‘you think that’ is just so much of a smoke screen to cover the fact that you adhere to a bankrupt ideology that slaughtered millions in the 20th century and is continuing apace now. No wonder it has all but killed the cause of freedom in Ireland.
No matter that you can’t see it, aardvarks do not have the same value as people.
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDeleteyou could be right. Is it religious hatred with him also? He never struck me as the religious type
Good man, Ken.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.u.tv/News/Gay-marriage-bestiality-remark-slammed/02a42048-03d5-4a26-94e8-a967d0cd8495
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDeleteI used to love King but haven't read him in years. Was still on the blanket when I read him for the first time. What is your favourite?
AM-
ReplyDeleteStephen King- " what is my favourite "
I cant answer with just one book-
Salems lot
The stand
Cell
Under the Dome
The Dark tower series-all six
of them despite that fcuk of a end
i am about to read the shining again because part 2-Doctor Sleep is comming out soon-its like waiting for christmas when i was a wee one-
John McGirr-
now you are calling that U.D.R junkie major ken maginnis a good man- and you think that i am blind about politics-
michaelhenry,
ReplyDelete'now you are calling that U.D.R junkie major ken maginnis a good man- and you think that i am blind about politics-'
My father stopped believing in hell because he said Paisley does. I prefer to give credit where it is due, but it is just an expression.
I used to do a 'door to door' job and some years ago I knocked on his door, not knowing where he lived until then. When he opened the door I knew him at once, by his horns. The thoughts that went through my mind, lol!
Almost enough to make me support euthanasia.
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDeleteThe Stand was brilliant. It was the second one I read. Ploughed through it at the start of 1982. Salem's Lot was great as well. Think I would opt for Pet Sematery. A black book.
John McGirr-
ReplyDelete" When he opened the door i knew him at once,by his horns"
Your bound to know there was no way that i was going to let that gem go- well did Ken Major buy what you were selling or did the git close the door on your face-
tell the truth-God hates fibbers you know, lol-
AM-
I liked Pet Sematary but its film did not do the book much justice
The stand was a massive book and its t.v series was ok-But i thought that the Salems Lot t.v series was just as great as the book-we dont see that to often-
Michaelhenry,
ReplyDeletefunny enough I thought the film of Pet Sametary was good. Never saw The Stand but did watch Salem's Lot. It was very well put together. Most of his work on screen doesn't match up to the books
michaelhenry,
ReplyDelete'well did Ken Major buy what you were selling or did the git close the door on your face-'
He asked his mrs and she said no, lol! So he came back sheepishly and said he had to defer to her, lol, wimp!
I got a better response from 'archbishop' Eames. He seemed a nice fella.
John
ReplyDelete‘in this case, eternal happiness for the innocent trumps a brief period of misery on earth.’
And ‘this case’ was the murder of children nothing else.
‘every thing has a purpose and is always permitted in order for a greater good to occur.’
Ever were this true – it is bunkum to me – we are not talking about what is permitted but what is inflicted.
‘My reply could be extended to say IF children were burned, THEN God would have permitted it for their eternal happiness.’
You stated unambiguously your support for their deaths.
‘Maybe God took all the innocent children before he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah, who knows?’
Sounds so weak and implausible. Arguably he could have allowed the priests to rape them all first.
‘The 'brief period of misery' refers to human life on earth, not to children being burned.’
This is irrelevant. You were asked a question in which the context was clear and the response to ‘this case’ was to justify the murder of children as a means of dealing with gays.
‘If children are whisked away, and bypass 70 years of misery, why is that bad?’
Try losing your own. I wonder if I am really reading this. And you claim to be opposed to abortion. Every abortion could be justified on those vicious grounds.
‘In any case I did not say, 'Hey, God why don't you burn some kids?' That would be ADVOCATING it, ie calling for it. To attempt an explanation of a possible interpretation of an event is not to ADVOCATE it. At least it is not in my dictionary.’
You keep digging into that hole John. You are doing just fine.
‘sodomy leads to death.’
Even between men and women?
Religion leads to death it could be argued more convincingly.
‘Richard Dawkins thinks aardvarks, monkeys and people are all of the same value.’
He might but I have never heard him argue that.
Itsjustmacker,
‘he is quoting Saint Thomas, but then again, how can someone be made a Saint who advocates Evil doing , to get Good some out of it???.
It is a very malign religious perspective whereby people with a bent for evil (not referring to John here) derive pleasure from sadism and power over others and try to mask it on wholesome grounds.
‘But with his Post, He is also Advocating it, that is if he Believes Saint Thomas to be correct!’
Which he has since been tying himself in knots trying to undo.
“‘Richard Dawkins thinks aardvarks, monkeys and people are all of the same value.’”
ReplyDelete‘He might but I have never heard him argue that.’
Note especially the last paragraph of this twisted author.
"Sir,
You appeal for money to save the gorillas. Very laudable, no doubt. But it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that there are thousands of human children suffering on the very same continent of Africa. There'll be time enough to worry about gorillas when we've taken care of every last one of the kiddies. Let's get our priorities right, please!
This hypothetical letter could have been written by almost any well-meaning person today. In lampooning it, I don't mean to imply that a good case could not be made for giving human children priority. I expect it could, and also that a good case could be made the other way. I'm only trying to point the finger at the automatic, unthinking nature of the speciesist double standard. To many people it is simply self-evident,without any discussion, that humans are entitled to special treatment. To see this, consider the following variant on the same letter:
Sir,
You appeal for money to save the gorillas. Very laudable, no doubt. But it doesn't seem to have occurred to you that there are thousands of aardvarks suffering on the very same continent of Africa. There'll be time enough to worry about gorillas when we've saved every last one of the aardvarks. Let's get our priorities right,please!
This second letter could not fail to provoke the question: What's so special about aardvarks? A good question, and one to which we should require a satisfactory answer before we took the letter seriously. Yet the first letter, I suggest, would not for most people provoke the equivalent question: What's so special about humans? As I said, I don't deny that this question, unlike the aardvark question, very probably has a powerful answer. All that I am criticising is an unthinking failure to realise in the case of humans that the question even arises.
The speciesist assumption that lurks here is very simple. Humans are humans and gorillas are animals. There is an unquestioned yawning gulf between them such that the life of a single human child is worth more than the lives of all the gorillas in the world. The 'worth' of an animal's life is just its replacement cost to its owner — or, in the case of a rare species, to humanity. But tie the label Homo sapiens even to a tiny piece of insensible, embryonic tissue, and its life suddenly leaps to infinite, uncomputable value." ("Gaps in the Mind," in The Great Ape Project)
I am beginning to see why those who deny God are considered insane in the Good Book.
ReplyDeleteYou should see the number of Sites calling God, (who they say doesn’t exist), a murderer. I am just after reading one where they take the Good Lord to court over it!
www.thegodmurders.com
Atheism is truly a twisted religion.
John,
ReplyDeleteWe never wanted rid of you. We just got to a point where the same old same old no longer had the pulling power. You were free to stay or go. When you went you were sort of missed. We actually put an alert out: McGirr missing feared alive!
‘The trouble with you liberals is that you will not allow anyone to dissent from your liberalism, all while pretending to be oh so tolerant.’
You dissent as much as you like here. And by your own admission if you ran the blog you wouldn’t allow the same latitude.
‘You claim to allow my voice, but you have to tell me what I mean.’
We should just allow you to go unchallenged? Your belief in magic left to its own devices. Because it is a blog shaped by a free speech outlook does not mean we get a free run.
AM
ReplyDelete" McGirr missing feared Alive "
LOL-
On another note i could never understand those who say that we have to fear God- why shoud people have to live in fear of a God that loves them-
Michael,
ReplyDeleteit happens only with a religion of hate
SMH,
ReplyDelete‘An excellent book i read recently is called Honor Killings in the 21st Century by Nicole Pope’
I am sure it would be fascinating and insightful. I just don’t have the time to read all that I would like to. I suppose I am no different from most others in that respect. On occasion I have bought the same book twice forgetting that I bought it before because it was a ‘must read.’!
‘It really helped me u/stand how patriarchy combined with twisting religious scriptures spells death
literally for women and girls.’
The men of god like to lord it over women for sure.
Aine
‘You homophobic neanderthal.’
Laughed at that but not coz it was thrown John’s way. Just that you said it. I could actually hear you scream!
‘sexuality is not destructive.’
Of course not. Religion is destructive of sexuality. Crusty old mullahs and prisest hate the notion that people enjoy themselves and pay little heed to the preaching mob.
‘Who or what one consensually does with ones vagina/penis is really a personal choice/decision.’
Totally. The bishop can stir his tea with it if he wants as long as he keeps it away from my cup.
‘I hope for the benefit of further generations you never reproduced and spread your vitriolic ignorance further than yourself.’
I don’t think there is much chance of that being spread too far. I imagine anybody reading what John says on these matters will be disinclined towards that perspective. Who really wants to support murder of children as revenge against gays?
michaelhenry,
ReplyDelete'i could never understand those who say that we have to fear God- why shoud people have to live in fear of a God that loves them-'
Here are a few quotes. Excuse the Proddy Bible, but we Catholics don't read it enough to make such lists.
http://www.feargod.net/verses.php
Saint?MaryHedgehog
ReplyDelete‘Jesus speaking on religiosity – “you brood of vipers – you white
washed tombs with the appearance of Godliness but underneath full of filth”
“you who break the backs of the people with demands and religious rules but do not follow them yourselves”... Vatican antics spring to mind clearly along with rules, regulations and so on!!!’
So true.
‘He wants/demands life/the world to submit to his views and when it obviously never will he lashes out.
I think this is a feature common to the authoritarian personality in general, not just the religious types.
‘I just had to walk away from it all the end because every religion has its tools to control and process you the way they want you to be. I just stick to a personal conviction and leave it at that.’
Which seems the best approach to take. It would be hard to quarrel with the ethics of it.
John,
ReplyDelete‘I always liked Brendan Behan's tale about smoking the bible. And why not, if it is an old protestant one?’
Indeed. Apparently smoking the Catholic one led to an erection!
I think there was a bog standard bible that they put in each cell. It was a red cover. Don’t know if it was Protestant or Catholic. Is the ‘word of god’ not the same in them all? I don’t know the difference. It made good cigarette paper or writing paper. At the end of chapters there was a blank white bit. Very thin paper - great for writing and easily concealed during searches. It also kept the feet off the floor during the winter days and nights when we were talking at the window.
'no sane person can believe ALL came from NOTHING.’
Does that make you insane from believing god came from nothing?
Our whole experience of life John is that things evolve from small to big, from simple to complex. We are expected by religion to believe that it all started out as complex/big or always was complex/big. Just does not correspond to what our experience is. Outside of religion I like many others have thought about the possibility of a designer. I just put the mumbo jumbo and higgledy-piggledy to the side and thought about it. It just does not add up. It explains nothing whereas science explains an awful lot.
‘Call it what you will, but what was there before what is now is what we call God.’
But this is a case of god being pushed back further and further back into the depths of time and the universe. Hans Kung is very good on this aspect. But you would imagine that if there was a word of god it would have told people about how the human species evolved and wasn’t suddenly stuck in the garden of Eden 6000 years ago (1000 years after the Sumerians invented glue) as a brand new creation with no previous organic or biological history. How did it take Darwin and others to discover that?
John,
ReplyDeleteLourdes, ‘has passed all the scientific tests they could think of.’
Was the 'Zambelli Affair' of a few years back not about money?
The only thing cured by Lourdes water is thirst. Paris alone has more hotels in the whole of France. Tells you it is good for business. What is it – 60 odd miracles since the 1860s? That is supposed to amount to a cure rate of 1 out of every 3 million. And in some cases the illness returned in later years. That will be found in any society with or without religion and so called miracles. It is estimated that more people died on the journey to and from Lourdes in traffic accidents. I would reconsider my view on it when they produce just one person, only one, that went out with one leg and came back with two. That would be a miracle.
DAWKINS: It may seem tough to question these poor, desperate people’s faith. But isn’t bracing truth better than false hope? What is the evidence for any miracles?
FR. GRIFFIN: There are actually sixty-six declared miracles. There are about two thousand unexplained cures here. But then we would say there are millions of people who have been healed in different ways.
DAWKINS: Healed in some sort of mental way?
FR. GRIFFIN: Healed in spiritual ways, or people who have come to terms with their own particular situation, people who have rediscovered God in their lives again, people who have received a new grace here in Lourdes.
DAWKINS: So you tend to get about 80,000 per year?
FR. GRIFFIN: There’s about 80,000 sick pilgrims who come here every year.
DAWKINS: That’s been going on for more than a century now—for a century and a half?
FR. GRIFFIN: Yes
DAWKINS: So, 80,000 per year, and, of those, sixty-six have been cured. I’m just. . . you see the way I’m thinking?
FR. GRIFFIN: Yup
Sort of sums it up.
As always there will be things that science cannot currently explain or cure. But the alternative is hardly to look at the supernatural. The notion of miracles and an interventionist god makes no intellectual sense. The people who believe in a creative intelligent energy but not in divine intervention would seem to have a stronger case.
‘Hence it could be shown NOT to be a 'money-making racket', hence the charges.’
Not so. The charges are made under a blasphemy law which would not have been applied had the allegations been levelled against a politician. When I hear blasphemy I think of witchcraft and that age.
You are right on this point. There is too much protection afforded to opinions. All the isms that we are not allowed to offend in a bid to make us politically correct. John Waters in the Irish Times done a great piece a while on the politically correct climate that is suffocating discourse and strangling ideas. An atheist should merit no respect solely for his atheistic ideas. Nor should a Christian for theirs. There are situations where protection is needed – a person cannot do much about their skin colour or sexuality or disability. They are not opinions. Religion and atheism are opinions, what people think. They should be open to ridicule and caricature if need be.
You reinforce this suffocating culture by your desire to have so much banned. I take the opposite view. If you ran a blog I am in no doubt that I would be censored. You are never censored here.
John,
ReplyDelete‘Sometimes they should be burnt precisely because we do understand their content or author.’
That is to prefer more ignorance and less knowledge. I think it better that we understand things than don’t.
How should society decide on what books to burn? Who should be able to read them in order to decide that others should not read them?
‘Bad books can kill; eg; the Koran.’
You could have mentioned the bible.
‘Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and tortuous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize humankind; and, for my part, I sincerely detest it, as I detest everything that is cruel’ - Thomas Paine
‘Catholics have nothing to be ashamed of in regard to the Inquisitions.’
Torture, murder, burnings – if those are not matters to be ashamed of the term conscience has no meaning.
Morality: ‘So where does it come from? The FSM? No God, in the end, must mean no morality. Certainly not one that can be shared by all.’
It comes from our own reason. And that is the same for those who believe in god. They still have to think up the morality they wish others to share. And there is no morality that can be shared by all. That much must be evident today even to you who believes in god but can see no shared moral interpretative framework. And what are we to base this morality of god on? Hardly the bible which justifies rape, plunder and child killing. At the end of it all we come back to humans devising moral frameworks. Some claim they are god given and others claim otherwise.
‘I oppose abortion, infanticide and euthanasia.’
I think that has been shown to be incorrect in respect of the murder of children as a punishment against homosexuality.
John,
ReplyDelete‘There is absolutely no justification for abortion that cannot be given for infanticide.’
Whether people agree with abortion or not, they can see that different arguments can be made in respect of both. They may not agree with the arguments but they are not blind to them.
I suppose people ask themselves what they would do if faced with a hypothetical situation. Imagine a scenario where a priest rapes a woman. The Church traffics him on to another dioceses, the bishop then gets up and demands that the raped woman give birth to the rapist’s child. I don’t imagine any but the deranged backing that. This is an extreme scenario but it is the type of hypotheses that allows us to reflect on what we might do.
‘I do not dread to see the cruel society that you would prescribe, because I am living in it, and it is getting daily worse.’
There is no agreement on abortion being a cruelty in the manner you describe it. Society simply cannot agree. Most probably suspect that if men could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament. But there is agreement that child rape is wrong. The very people who would long to lecture society on abortion have failed morally in respect of child rape. As for all the Presidents and Nobel prize winners you refer to – the Church does not snub them.
Aine said: 'Firstly let me start here by stating clearly that I am not an advocate for
sexual relations between human beings and other animal species.'
And you said: ‘Why not? That will be next on the agenda.’
That seems nonsense. The whole thrust of Aine’s point is about liberating human sexuality from the constraints of religion and bias and basing it on the consensual principle. Much of the discussion on this site has focussed on the clergy wanting to extend sex outside the consensual. If anything it is from the clergy that we are likely to find the case for bestiality. Denied access to boys they might seek out some other being unable to give consent. I just don’t believe it enters the discussion at all but rather is thrown out to distract.
‘Not another Spaghetti devotee!’
Spaghetti versus wafer: any real difference?
‘In the end it is a blessing that this society is dying’.
Very much the way the religious mind thinks, unfortunately
‘I am a firm realist.’
ReplyDeleteWho believes it is idolatry to worship statues but bits of wafer?
‘I much prefer to argue with the use of reason rather than faith.’
But rarely do.
‘My Church confirms my conclusions.’
All the more reason to doubt them.
‘The same could be said of any book in the Bible or of any writing of any Saint for 2,000 years, whether it be St
Augustine or St Theresa of Avila etc.’
Yet you think it is right to burn books.
‘I grant that if I had a Blog I would not allow the same latitude.’
I wonder why that doesn’t surprise me.
John,
ReplyDelete‘Note especially the last paragraph of this twisted author.’
Seems such a common sense thing to say. I myself wonder how ‘a tiny piece of insensible, embryonic tissue, and its life suddenly leaps to infinite, uncomputable value’ despite feeling that the human person is the highest form of life we have and human beings should seek to protect the life of human beings. In areas where we cannot get consensus, such as abortion, we rely on individual conscience. Given that even chicken choking would be banned by clerics, they will hardly be listened to in the discussion.
God is not a murdered because he does not exist. The fictional god of the bible is a murderer beyond dispute. Just as a character in a novel can be a murderer so too can a character in a bible. It hardly follows that because we believe a fictional character to be a murderer that the character assumes real life attributes.
AM,
ReplyDelete‘God is not a murdered because he does not exist. The fictional god of the bible is a murderer beyond dispute. Just as a character in a novel can be a murderer so too can a character in a bible. It hardly follows that because we believe a fictional character to be a murderer that the character assumes real life attributes.’
I don’t believe in vampires. Imagine if I called myself an ‘avamparist’ and devoted a blog to calling vampires murderers.
BTW if God is the Lord and Creator of all things, it is not possible for Him to commit murder. He allows all his mortal creatures to die, so if we followed your line of ‘thought’ then He would be a murderer of every single creature He ever created and let die. This would include men, (which I regard as the summit of material creation), and aardvarks and flies which seem just as important to you.
Anyway, I must get back to slaying those darned vampires, Buffy here I come!
PS, God does exist. That can be demonstrated with absolute certainty, which makes it scientific. Certainly more scientific than the hypothetical experimental sciences that you subscribe to which, given their inability to demonstrate their findings are only ‘scientific’ in a broad sense of that word.
John,
ReplyDelete‘I don't believe in vampires. Imagine if I called myself an 'avamparist' and devoted a blog to calling vampires murderers.’
I don’t know what blog that is so i can’t comment. But you do believe in zombies. Even my child at 7 knows they are make believe.
‘it is not possible for Him to commit murder.’
Was the Passover not murder? I thought you told us it was possible for him to do everything.
‘He allows all his mortal creatures to die, so if we followed your line of 'thought' then He would be a murderer of every single creature He ever created and let die.’
I am fine with that.
‘Buffy here I come!’
Wear a condom when you do.
‘God does exist. That can be demonstrated with absolute certainty, which makes it scientific.’
So said the religion called Intelligent Design. Only the Bunkum Brigade believed it.
‘Certainly more scientific than the hypothetical experimental sciences that you subscribe’
Would you recommend the bible as a work of science?
The whole discussion with you has become so unreal. Possession would be the wrong word but I am sure there is one that describes your condition.