Muslim gunman shouts 'Allahu Akbar' before 13 shot dead

Reports coming out of America suggest that soldiers who witnessed Major Nidal Malik Hasan gun down fellow soldiers in his crazed rampage at Fort Hood heard the him shout 'Allahu Akbar!', Arabic for God is great, before opening fire.

This terrible incident will add to the debate on war against other Muslims currently taking place within Islam.

In a report on the Muslim contribution to the Armed Forces published to coincide with Remembrance Day, the Muslim Council of Britain says: 'Recent well-publicised threats to behead one of their number as a protest against their having enlisted have highlighted, for instance, the need for British Muslim soldiers to feel confident that their religion is not being compromised by them being part of the British Army. Conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq raise complex questions of national identity and loyalty; taking part in such campaigns can be quite challenging.'

A number of scholars including historian Jahan Mahmood are researching the brave and generous contributions by Muslims to the British effort in the two World Wars.

Among them is reformed extremist Shiraz Maher, doing a paper on this subject for the right-wing Policy Exchange, and who writes on his Standpoint magazine blog:

'Terrible news from Fort Hood, Texas, about the murder of 13 US Servicemen by one of their own colleagues, Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Some news reports suggest that Hasan shouted ‘Allah Akhab' (God is Great) before embarking on his rampage.

'The incident has been condemned by the American Muslim Armed Forces and Veteran Affairs Council. It aims to ‘serve the spiritual needs and religious welfare of Muslims who serve or have served in the United States Armed Forces, their dependents, as well as veterans'....

'In recent months I've been researching the role played by Muslims in the British Armed Forces during the First and Second World Wars. It is a remarkable fact that hundreds of thousands volunteered - they were not conscripted - to serve when Britain stood against fascism in Europe. Indeed, during the Great War Muslims from British India were an integral part of the forces that confronted Ottoman troops at a time with the Sultan claimed suzerainty over Islam.

'That contribution is not only frequently overlooked but is largely unknown. The incident at Fort Hood last night will only further damage the reputation of Muslims in the Armed Forces and fuel suspicions that they constitute a fifth column within the military. Indeed, after the Armed Forces Muslim Association was launched at RAF Northolt last month, the campaign group Nothing British About the BNP reported how a BNP supporting website... had condemned the idea of British Muslims serving in the Armed Forces. He writes:

No True Brit sailor onboard a warship is going to feel save [sic] when the kick off takes place - and it will - with a bunch of moslems [sic] whose loyalty is not towards Our Country but to a dead pervert

'When it comes to serving with Muslims on the frontline he suggests:

I would be thinking fragging and friendly fire round about then.

'Such views are likely to be bolstered now by Hasan's rampage in Texas last night.'

Maher links to the Armed Forces Muslim Association, launched last month at RAF Northolt. Follow the Islamic Links link there to get to this site and click on Christianity and Other Religions to get here.  Click then on the link to how Christianity 'became mixed with polytheistic beliefs' and at the end of that rather chilling article, read the following:

'Thus the Christians followed the same path of those disbelievers who had come before them, step by step, as their own Book testifies. And Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): 

“And the Jews say: ‘Uzayr (Ezra) is the son of Allaah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allaah. That is their saying with their mouths, resembling the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime. Allaah’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!”

[al-Tawbah 9:30] 

And Allaah is the Source of strength.'

This is what the 500 Muslims in Britain's Armed Forces are being directed to through the official new Armed Forces association: Allah's curse on Christians and Jews. I'm sure it is just a mistake, but given the present climate, it is vital for all our sakes, and especially the sake of the 99.999 per cent of British Muslims who are non-violent and loyal citizens, that such material is scrutinised carefully. I don't believe we will suffer our own 'Fort Hood', unless you count what already happened in Afghanistan. But why arouse suspicion unnecessarily?

Even given the disclaimer on the site, I find it rather objectionable to read via links from the Armed Forces Muslim Association that I am a polytheist cursed by Allah.

Follow Ruth Gledhill on Twitter.

Comments

[Theo Dexter]

Kate

Still no comment on that cover-up,.....

I repeat....

With regard to other denominations I have made my views clear. Abuse is totally unacceptable, all perpetrators should be prosecuted, and there should never be a cover up. Financial compensation should be made without the victims having to go through the ordeal of court proceedings - accepting that financial compensation, in and of itself, will not in any way really compensate for the terrible harm done.

Would care to comment on the role of the Anglican Church of Canada at the time of the abuse and the ordeal of legal proceedings claimants had to go through in order to be compensated?

BTW why do you forget the “etc” in my comment?

[Kate]

Kate writes: That he has continued to do so with frantic efforts to inflate small numbers to a qualitative, even quantitative, correspondence?

This did not concern small numbers. (T.Dexter)

No! Nor did it concern ordained priests of the Anglican church abusing children.

"Those who doubt my credibility need only to check out what happened to the Diocese of Cariboo and what happened in other Canadian Anglican Dioceses." (T dexter)

Did you imagine no-one would actually follow the link Dexy? I repeat: The men accused are NOT ordained Anglicans but: Clarke was a 'carer'; Harding was "residence principal" who "became an Anglican deacon", before he was charged and acquitted. Two men - no priests. This is about:

"... the question of whether the church as the employer should be held liable for the crimes of an employee..."

"In its defence, the church said Mr. Clarke was an employee of the federal government during the years he abused the plaintiff from 1970 to 1973."

"The judge found both the church and the government vicariously liable for the abuse."

I think this is the best possible example you could have chosen to illustrate your mania.

Certainly ANY abuse is abhorrent. Certainly there is mention of up to 200 boys. Certainly the diocese is liable for failure of care. Indeed this confirms Lewis Winders post (on the thread you avoid) re. employer liability.

Whatever your fervid imaginings, this is NOT evidence of equivalence between Roman Catholic priests, nuns, brothers and Anglican clergy.
Just, more erroneous and misleading allegations.

Your 'credibility' is zero Theo.

Hundreds of thousands of children, abused by thousands of priests, nuns and brothers of the Roman Catholic Church and you are hunting Anglicans!!. Still no comment on that cover-up, all the way down from the Pope himself.

Your silence stinks.

But, is in keeping with mechanistic patterns and practice: specific targets, smart-ass single-liners, amoral ostentation, pedantic hostility, illiterate pretension, inconsequential quotations, malice, absurd cribbing, frantic Net trawls, and cowardly avoidance.

The well-documented obverse is: crawly, crawly expedience, 'umble' apologies, shouts of 'foul', feigned 'innocence' and faked piety.

The CONTEXT of this exchange is equivalence and libel which you insist on compounding:

"Kate: You are in no position to throw stones [at RC paedophile priests] especially as you belong to a denomination that has had a SHAMEFUL RECORD of ABUSIVE CLERICS and choirmasters etc…” (Theo Dexter 31 Mar 2009)

Malice prepense?

1) Do your Anglican "friends" know that you are intent on butchering the good name of Anglicanism on a public forum?

2) Why do you persist in advertising your charitable giving?

3) What is the name of that "independent church" of which you so fatuously boast?

No answers - no credibility!

[Theo Dexter]

Kate writes

That he has continued to do so with frantic efforts to inflate small numbers to a qualitative, even quantitative, correspondence?

This did not concern small numbers.

The Anglican Church of Canada issued the following as part of an apology to the many indigenous people mistreated in the Residential Schools.

“I am sorry, more than I can say, that in our schools so many were abused physically, sexually, culturally and emotionally.

On behalf of the Anglican Church of Canada, I present our apology”.

This is a shameful record of abuse. Those who doubt my credibility need only to check out what happened to the Diocese of Cariboo and what happened in other Canadian Anglican Dioceses.

[Kate]

"...sad ... no personal grudge.... allegations untrue... Anglican Vicars who are friends....shared in their services.....prayed with them in public and private .........." (T. Dexter)

And then the 'killer' punch!

"I and others financially supported two Anglicans in their mission to Africa for four years."
Posted by: Theo Dexter | 5 Dec 2009 12:08:49

Had I not (over many years) studied the methodology you employ, I might well accept these words to mean what you propose.

Why do you insist on promoting yourself as a font of charitable works? No other contributor exhibits any urge to advertise altruistic beneficence. Do you regard ostentatious declarations of ‘giving’ as your get-out-of-jail free card for avoiding honest debate?

For you Theo, there is no such thing as clarity - only mind games. The evidence (your words on this site) exhibits stark self-interest; unscrupulous manipulation of meaning to suit your own purpose.

So, I fear a record of sneering antagonism belies this latest, striving for beguiling 'innocence', testimony; you merely confirm perceptions of duplicitous hypocrisy.

Do any of these Anglican "friends" know that the pseudonym 'Theo Dexter' has maliciously and publicly libelled, in a public forum, Anglicanism per se as riddled with the vice of paedophilia?
That he has continued to do so with frantic efforts to inflate small numbers to a qualitative, even quantitative, correspondence?

Contentions that your 'secret' society, of 'proper' Christians, harbours no sexual perverts; has scrupulous 'child protection' policies et al, cannot be verified. It is just more of the same, pompous, unsubstantiated assertion.

That child abuse often occurs in secretive break-away sects has been reported world-wide.

Why have you ignored all requests to ‘name’ this "independent church" of which you boast so grandiloquently?

Until you do so, your opinions on, and allegations against, other Christian denominations have no credibility.

[Theo Dexter]

Kate

I do think it sad and I have no personal grudge against Anglicanism. These allegations are untrue

I have Anglican Vicars who are friends.

I have shared in their services

I have prayed with them in public and private and spoken from their platforms.

I and others financially supported two Anglicans in their mission to Africa for four years.

[Kate]

"Tens of cases - hundreds of victims!" (T.Dex)

Where is your evidence for this assertion "hundreds"?

You are welcome to keep trawling the Net but all you are proving is an irrational obsession and personal animus against Anglicanism.

Two relevant points:

1) You stand accused of hypocrisy and equivalence.

2) You have consistently refused to identify the break-away sect to which you belong.

The 'hypocrisy' is magnified by your refusal to specifically condemn the actions (world-wide) of Roman Catholic Church in colluding with and facilitating the abuse of hundreds of thousands of children.

Instead, you repeat the offence of 'equivalence' by focussing obsessively on Anglicanism.

And by continuing your insane trawl of the Net to excuse a clearly identifiable anti-Anglican mania.

Concerning (2), you confirm the perceptions recorded on this blog that you are a self-aggrandising, carping sniper; a supercilious egoist, choked with malicious begrudgery but incapable of rational debate.

Until readers are in a position to check the record of the so-called "independent" church(es)? to which you claim allegiance, you will continue to be viewed as a bitter, narrow-minded little man harbouring a personal grudge.

[Theo Dexter]

Kate

http://www.anglicanjournal.com/issues/1999/125/oct/08/article/church-on-hook-for-abuse/?cHash=8e296feafb

http://www.anglicanjournal.com/issues/1999/125/oct/08/article/church-school-officials-must-have-known-of-rampant-evil-judge-says/?cHash=ea97b4ca7a

Tens of cases - hundreds of victims!

Not a shameful record of abuse?

[Kate]

"Kate: Are you denying that there are similar shameful cases in the denomination in the UK and around the world?" (theo dexter)

I have denied nothing Dexy. While I know (from your writing) that you find it very difficult to acknowledge, there just MIGHT BE people out there with sufficient training, expertise and experience to recognise and confront your dishonest linguistic contortions, this just more of the same.

Shameless, self-interested obfuscation and contortion of context; we are dealing here with YOUR false witness. There are cases of child abuse in EVERY denomination that exists world-wide, including "independent church"(s) – you make no mention of that in your allegations against Anglican clergy.

That you display antagonism to all those not shaped in your own image; that YOU regard yourself as infallible in every opinion you hold, leads to these endless contortions of reality.

As stated below: you exhibit classic ‘control strategies’. The methods are well-documented as employed across a wide spectrum but, most frequently identified in, religious, political and corporate (business) organisations.

You are actually not very good at it because you have no facility with words on the page. Your writing conveys stark self-adulation and delusions of 'cleverness'. It may well work when you are giving your verbal 'testimony', but it reads as base, half-witted, cunning.

I repeat again: these strategies are only effective with damaged, hurt, needy or undereducated people in desperate need of guidance and acceptance. Your mistake is in assuming the same tactics will work with erudite readers of a Times forum.

Ergo, what I "think" is irrelevant; I have no case to answer. We are quite clear on what YOU “think”, what YOU have duplicitously stated as immutable ‘truth’:

"Kate: You are in no position to throw stones [at RC paedophile priests] especially as you belong to a denomination that has had a SHAMEFUL RECORD of ABUSIVE CLERICS and choirmasters etc…” (Theo Dexter 31 Mar 2009)

Finally: "What do you say to the victims of proven abuse by Anglican paedophiles?" (TDex)

Nothing! None have materialised yet in Ireland. All my work has been with "victims of proven abuse by" Roman Catholic "paedophiles".

'Every move you make'! Every 'move', pathetic in its transparency, risible in its self-delusion, were it not so destructively malignant.

[Theo Dexter]

Kate

Firstly, the quote was changed by putting words in capitals that were not originally in capitals.

Second what I said is true

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-452515/Church-did-act-priests-30-years-child-abuse.html

Are you saying that this is not a shameful record of abuse by a cleric and a choirmaster?

Are you denying that there are similar shameful cases in the denomination in the UK and around the world?

Are you not ashamed of such a record?

What do you say to the victims of proven abuse by Anglican paedophiles?

[Kate]

"How would any reader know in the first instance that a quote from a post had been changed?"
(Theo Dexter)

The quote was NOT changed - this is a non sequitur designed, yet again, to deflect, avoid, and imply defects in the other. Meaningless apart from keeping the focus on Dexter-as-God and stroking your over-inflated ego.

Have you no manners as well as no facility for the English language?

You are now insulting the majority of intelligent readers, in the same way as you cast mendacious insults on dissenters, litter the site with unsubstantiated opinion and reveal yourself as possessed of excessive, repugnant, pride.

I suspect few here - apart from yourself and PererB - suffer from the need to read with one finger, one word at a time, and consult the dictionary before sallying forth to attack.

One tip: Some lines should never be crossed.

Malicious defamation of my Church and clergy, crosses that line. None of your dishonest tactics will deflect me from pursuing that mendacity.

Juvenile mind games only impress those too hurt, damaged, or under-educated to understand the manipulations. Not me babe! You are a classic. The sort of personality profile I hand out regularly in testing students' knowledge.

"Kate: you are in no position to throw stones.... you belong to a denomination that has had A SHAMEFUL RECORD of ABUSIVE CLERICS ......" (Theo Dexter 31 Mar 2009)

Error?? Apologies??

[Theo Dexter]

Kate.

Readers may follow arguments across threads yes.

But.

How would any reader know in the first instance that a quote from a post had been changed?

How would they then realise that he/she had to seek out an old post on another thread - one out of the many threads - to find original acknowledgement of that change being made by another?

[Kate]

"Are you saying that this is not a shameful record of abuse by a cleric and a choirmaster?" Theo Dexter

It is clearly endless - your facility for deflection, self-exculpation, transference, holier-than-thou mendacity; an intellectual and moral void masquerading as superior discernment.

Ergo the above and more dribbling on the old jumper re. capitals.

Unlike YOU Dexy, readers to this site do not merely focus on the infallible deductions and proclamations of Theo Dexter. They are quite capable (intellectually) of tracing an argument down and across threads.

On that "other thread", I have posted in the context of identical and repetitive sneering; dissembling dishonesty directed at Coel.

Of course you will never admit error; never be man enough to offer Anglicans readers an apology for a malicious and vile canard on their clergy.

Thank you for repetitively confirming what I have sought to clarify i.e. the empty assertions of a bloated windbag blinded by conceit and PRIDE. Consistently illustrated on these threads by your tones of self-reverence and narrow certitude; the perpetual antagonist, consistently dripping malice and vilification of all dissenters.

[Theo Dexter]

Kate writes

Capital letters? How low does your obfuscation go? Won’t work. These are already attributed (by me) to me (below).

But a new reader would not know that they had been attributed, would they? So please attribute your changes each time so as not to mislead.

And you posted the changed comment on another thread without any attribution to yourself. How would readers of that thread know it was not the original but changed by you?

Telepathy?

[Theo Dexter]

Kate

Let us keep it simple.

Please answer the following:-

Are you saying this is not true?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-452515/Church-did-act-priests-30-years-child-abuse.html

Are you saying that this is not a shameful record of abuse by a cleric and a choirmaster?

Are you denying that there are similar shameful cases in the denomination in the UK and around the world?

[Kate]

"Kate chose the following definition.... There are of course other more common definitions ...closer to that which many people first think of as the meaning of “equivalence”......For example: the state of being equal or equivalent, on a par etc." (Theo Dexter)

Are you totally STUPID? Is your latest delusion that all must be required to use the language proscribed by Theo-as-God-and-moderator.

This 'example' means precisely the same as: "mutual relation of two or more things or the relation between two propositions".

Let’s keep it simple; all you are doing is confirming your shocking deficiencies in both the English language and common decency. You just keep on, proving my every point on hypocrisy and/or a challenged intellect.

Let us again try to keep it SIMPLE: In saying as you have done:

"Kate: you are in no position to throw stones.... you belong to a denomination that has had A SHAMEFUL RECORD of ABUSIVE CLERICS ......" (Theo Dexter 31 Mar 2009)

in response to a post on child abuse, you allege equivalence i.e. my "denomination" holds in common with, “is equal to”, or “on a par with” a denomination with hundreds of priests, brothers and nuns (world-wide) charged; many convicted, of heinous torture of children.

No rational human being would fabricate such a premise. The operative word is 'rational'. You are not rational.

Either you fail to understand the concept of proportionate (balanced) comparison OR you are so consumed with warped, vengeful wrath against Anglicanism you don’t know what you are writing; perhaps BOTH.

"Those who read the whole sentence will see I was simply commenting on her position and not asserting a proposition." (Theo Dexter)

Well NO Dexy, they will see that you are not really very bright! Even as a smug dissembler.

They "will see" dual purpose; denigrate a woman (as is your wont) and spread malicious libel on Anglican clergy.

Forget basic comprehension - try a class in 'remedial English'.

Capital letters? How low does your obfuscation go? Won’t work. These are already attributed (by me) to me (below). A self-serving accusation of distortion is false witness, in keeping with all the other obsessive self-exculpations.

PS: "Doubtless you will soon be demanding I read the New Testament. Kate 27 Nov 16:14:10"

That was ‘ironic’ Dexy – maybe even ‘sardonic’! Busy, busy, look it up; compare and contrast; pick a meaning; insist on telepathic comprehension of Theo-as-God. Opportunity for self-glorification irresistible - John 8 verse 7 - shameless, self-reverential duplicity.

[PererB]

Coel
"I don't know what you mean by "unconditional morality", or by acting in an "unconditional way"; and I'm not aware that either humans or animals do that. So how can I answer your question?
.

Ok, I'll ask the question again.

How can animals act morally, albeit less apparently so, to
men and other animals in the same unconditional way that men can act towards animals?

By unconditional I mean men loving animals unconditionally, such as whales and pandas, as opposed to loving them conditionally such as pets and working animals, in which case that affection may be reciprocated.

[Theo Dexter]

Kate chose the following definition.

Equivalence: mutual relation of two or more things or the relation between two propositions.

There are of course other more common definitions of the word “equivalence” that are closer to that which many people first think of as the meaning of “equivalence”.

For example: the state of being equal or equivalent, on a par etc.

Kate the uses her particular definition as a pretext to introduce what she describes as her "proposition" -- “horror at evidence of large numbers of RC paedophile priests.”

She then puts forward my proposition by quoting me half way through a sentence and ignoring the first part completely. Those who read the whole sentence will see I was simply commenting on her position and not asserting a proposition.

Who is really dodging and twisting here? Will she ever answer these questions?

Are you denying the following evidence?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-452515/Church-did-act-priests-30-years-child-abuse.html

Are you saying that this is not a shameful record of abuse by a cleric and a choirmaster?

Are you denying that there are similar shameful cases in the denomination in the UK and around the world?

[D. Bunker]

As an atheist, I've stopped believing in this thread as well.

[Theo Dexter]

Kate writes

I repeat your words

Firstly, why do you repeatedly distort them by writing them in capitals (unlike the original post) and so create a different impression of the original?

Secondly, John 8 verse 7

“But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."”

My statement “You are in no position to throw stones.....” is consonant with that. It in no way implies a “factual equivalent” of harm but that there must be no failure with regard to the protection of children before “stones” may be thrown at others.

That is why, in my opinion, your denomination is in no position to throw “stones”.

[PererB]

Coel
"I don't know what you mean by "unconditional morality", or by acting in an "unconditional way"; and I'm not aware that either humans or animals do that. So how can I answer your question?
.

Ok, I'll ask the question again.

How animals act morally, albeit less apparently so, to
men and other animals in the same unconditional way that men can act towards animals.

By unconditional I mean men loving animals unconditionally, such as whales and pandas, as opposed to loving them conditionally such as pets and working animals, in which case that affection may be reciprocated.

.

[Kate]

Judge Hate-good aka Kate
BTW When did I say there was “equivalence”?
(Theo Dexter)

I repeat your words: "Kate: You are in no position to throw stones [at RC paedophile priests] especially as you belong to a denomination that has had A SHAMEFUL RECORD of ABUSIVE CLERICS and choirmasters etc…" (Theo Dexter 31 Mar 2009)

Now Dexy, we know you have comprehension difficulties BUT let's keep it simple:

Equivalence: mutual relation of two or more things or the relation between two propositions.

Initial proposition (mine): horror at evidence of large numbers of RC paedophile priests.

Dexter's proposition: "you belong to a denomination that has had A SHAMEFUL RECORD of ABUSIVE CLERICS ....etc"

The statement (made by you) correlates two institutions (Roman Catholic and Anglican) and judges them factually equivalent.

This is known as 'qualitative correspondence' between two comparable entities: e.g. a correlation (or equivalence) between drug abuse and crime.

Do stop dodging and twisting Dexy. Some examples of the wonderful vicissitudes of the English language.

1) The bandage was wound around the wound.
2) The farm was used to produce produce .
3) When shot at, the dove dove into the bushes.
4) The insurance was invalid for that invalid.
5) They were too close to the door to close it.
6) The buck does funny things when the does are present.
7) The wind was too strong to wind the sail.
8) Upon seeing the tear in the painting I shed a tear.

Really no need to make up your own.

PS: Try a few lessons in Lit Crit as well.

If you really imagine yourself to be that allegorical perfection 'Christian' you might also need to seek the assistance of a good shrink.

[Coel]

Perer writes: "Please stop waffling, and expalin how animals act morally, albeit less apparently, to men and other animals in the same unconditional way that men can act towards animals."

I don't know what you mean by "unconditional morality", or by acting in an "unconditional way"; and I'm not aware that either humans or animals do that. So how can I answer your question?

[PererB]

Coel
"I didn't use the word "unconditional" nor did I make any claim about "unconditional morality" (whatever that is)"
.

Please stop waffling, and expalin how animals act morally, albeit less apparently, to men and other animals in the same unconditional way that men can act towards animals.
.

[Kate]

"Kate this exposes your agenda and fixed mindset completely. You rush to judgement ignoring all the facts. Please stop your malicious stereotyping and apologise." (Theo Dexter)

Is that so Theo? What the Hell do you presume to know of my 'mindset'? Ah yes.... it is not restricted to narrow, self-congratulatory assertions of superiority. In other words, I am wrong, because I oppose your arrogant duplicity. I am wrong because I have a trained mind. Wrong because I am not like you Dexy!! Keep running.

And what is all this about "malicious stereotyping"? In keeping with your habitual presumption, I have merely claimed the 'right', as you consistently do, to analyse the words you put on the page. Why do you DEMAND apology for direct reference to your own words?

Extraordinary how those of the 'transforming' or "independent" certitude are quick to rush to allegations of ... now, what WAS that word... ah yes.... "libel"! Doubtless you will soon be demanding I read the New Testament.

Why, has one of such delicate sensibilities libelled Anglicanism?

"Kate: You are in no position to throw stones [at RC paedophile priests] especially as you belong to a denomination that has had a SHAMEFUL RECORD of ABUSIVE CLERICS and choirmasters etc…” (Theo Dexter 31 Mar 2009)

As Coel has noted elsewhere, you will do literally anything to avoid admitting error. What an example of "independent" Christian humility!

[Theo Dexter]

Judge Hate-good aka Kate alleges

NOT this time boyo! What you said is NOT "true", i.e.
"Kate: You are in no position to throw stones [at RC paedophile priests] especially as you belong to a denomination that has had a SHAMEFUL RECORD of ABUSIVE CLERICS and choirmasters etc…” (Theo Dexter 31 Mar 2009)

What I said is true.

Are you denying that the following evidence is not true?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-452515/Church-did-act-priests-30-years-child-abuse.html

Are you saying that this is not a shameful record of abuse by a cleric and a choirmaster?

Are you denying that there are similar shameful cases in the denomination in the UK and around the world?

BTW When did I say there was “equivalence”?

[Coel]

Perer asks: "Give examples of unconditional morality of other animals ..."

I didn't use the word "unconditional" nor did I make any claim about "unconditional morality" (whatever that is).

[Theo Dexter]

Kate writes

PS. Quite extraordinary Theo, so "my diocese" (as you put it) is located in Bristol.
Bristol does keep popping up now and then on these threads. Especially in the 'Transformer' or 'independent church' contexts - you know the sort - those at odds with Anglicanism - those with a personal 'mission' and hotline to the Lord.

Kate this exposes your agenda and fixed mindset completely. You rush to judgement ignoring all the facts. Please stop your malicious stereotyping and apologise.

Kate the court case was held in Bristol because that is where such cases are judged. The diocese concerned was Bath & Wells and this was quite clearly stated. In this Diocese leaders from Independent Churches get on well with Anglican leaders regularly cooperating, working, and praying together in fellowship and friendship.

[PererB]

Coel
"the reason that man's compassion for other animals is far more apparent than that of other animals, is because man's moral senses are far more developed and pronounced that those of other animals"
.

Give examples of unconditional morality of other animals towards man and towards other animal species.
.

[Coel]

PererB writes: "... why is man alone in exercising inter species morality, when all the beasts exercise morality only within their species?"

Your second clause is incorrect. However the reason that man's compassion for other animals is far more apparent than that of other animals, is because man's moral senses are far more developed and pronounced that those of other animals.

[Kate]

What I said is true.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-452515/Church-did-act-priests-30-years-child-abuse.html
Posted by: Theo Dexter | 26 Nov 2009 18:03:12

PS. Quite extraordinary Theo, so "my diocese" (as you put it) is located in Bristol.

Bristol does keep popping up now and then on these threads. Especially in the 'Transformer' or 'independent church' contexts - you know the sort - those at odds with Anglicanism - those with a personal 'mission' and hotline to the Lord.

[Kate]

"What I said is true." Theo dexter.

NO! You are deluded by conceit into believing you can twist and turn your slippery way out of responsibility for your own words on the page.

NOT this time boyo! What you said is NOT "true", i.e.

"Kate: You are in no position to throw stones [at RC paedophile priests] especially as you belong to a denomination that has had a SHAMEFUL RECORD of ABUSIVE CLERICS and choirmasters etc…” (Theo Dexter 31 Mar 2009)

As evidence for this vicious canard, you have produced TWO Anglican clerics. What sick, facile dissimulation.

You who boast of charity and Christian 'agape' are in reality, a coward.

Bloated, albeit vacuous, self-regard will never allow you to admit error. There is no equivalence between Anglicanism and the epidemic of child abuse in Roman Catholicism.

Next laboured evasion?

[PererB]

Coel
"Wrong, it is"

I didn't make a statement,I asked a question.

If so, why is man alone in exercising inter species morality, when all the beasts exercise morality only within their species?
.

[Theo Dexter]

Judge Hate-good aka Kate writes

one of those, 'word of mouth' (yours) - no verifiable evidence offered - in what you term "my diocese".

What I said is true.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-452515/Church-did-act-priests-30-years-child-abuse.html

[Coel]

Perer asks: "So man's kindness towards all kinds of suffering animals is nothing to do with his morality?"

Wrong, it is.

[PererB]

Coel
"Human treatment of animals is, on the whole, radically different from human treatment of other humans"
.

So man's kindness towards all kinds of suffering animals is nothing to do with his morality?
.

[Coel]

PererB writes: "You said earlier that morality evolved "within" species, so why does human morality extend unconditionally "between" species ..."

It doesn't. Human treatment of animals is, on the whole, radically different from human treatment of other humans.

[PererB]

J.Pearce
"(and why would God have an eye?!)"
.

I never said it was God's eye.
.

[Kate]

Theo Dexter | 26 Nov 2009 11:27:03

Theo as God AGAIN!

Deal with the issues please. Bloated ego, obfuscation, avoidance, and crass inability to comprehend plain English cannot be masked by parroting the words of others.

From your record on these boards it would appear that the ONLY 'original thought' you are capable of is malice towards others.

CONTEXT:
"Kate: You are in no position to throw stones [at RC paedophile priests] especially as you belong to a denomination that has had a SHAMEFUL RECORD of ABUSIVE CLERICS and choirmasters etc…” (Theo Dexter 31 Mar 2009)

Burble on Uriah. Delusion rules OK!

[PererB]

Coel
"You previously suggested that God had controlled and directed mutations towards a desired end......Are you now saying that is not your position?"
.

Controlled no, directed yes.

"Controlled" implies that God had accompanied temporal evolution, making necessary modifications (i.e. mutations) as the process progressed. That is not the case.

"Directed" yes, in the sense that all the necessary mutations, which worked themselves out in time, were predetermined by God within the initial act of creation.
.

[PererB]

Coel
"You are just clueless and ignorant when it comes to anything touching on science".
.

Or could it be that your science is simply clueless and ignorant?

You said earlier that morality evolved "within" species, so why does human morality extend unconditionally "between" species while the morality of animals does not?
.

[J Pearce]

"If you remember, the Creator exists outside of time, thus a billion years to Him is the blink of an eye. His creation of man would have taken place in a instant, but to our temporal world it appears as millions of years of physical evolution."

This statement is a crock of horse manure.

If God exists "outside" of time, then time has no meaning to God. Thus, "the blink of an eye" is a meaningless concept, as is "an instant" - because both events require temporality.

(and why would God have an eye?!)

If God is omnipresent, then everything that has ever happened and everything that is to come would all be the same. Which rather renders the Biblical Creation myth redundant.

In trying to sound profound, Perer talk utter bollocks. In trying to explain something he thinks he understands, he demonstrates absolute ignorance.

Business as usual, then.

[Theo Dexter]

Kate

More truth actually eg the fact of the existence of the organisation known as the “Inclusive Church”.

It appears that it is Lord Hate-good who rides again with his closed-minded, heartless, merciless treatment of Faithful. (See Pilgrim’s progress - Vanity Fair, John Bunyan).

Yet even he was prepared to listen to the true witness that Faithful gave. The verdict of course was still a foregone conclusion.

“Do not waste the court’s time by protesting your innocence” - an updated version of a sign in a West Country town on the trail of the “Bloody Assizes” by Judge Jeffries et al.

[Coel]

PererB writes: "1. So we don't want to stuff corn down ducks' throats because they are pets and surrogate humans?"

Different people have a range of attitudes. Some care deeply for pets as surrogate humans, others don't mind treating animals cruelly. Individuals can also have attitudes that are not necessarily consistent.

"You really do talk the most abominable nonsense!"

You are just clueless and ignorant when it comes to anything touching on science. The fact that you interpret my post as "abominable nonsense" is merely your own limitation.

[Coel]

Pererb writes: "thus a billion years to Him is the blink of an eye."

The timescale is not relevant here.

"since I posit that the Creator does not directly intervene within time to control the process of creation ..."

You previously suggested that God had controlled and directed mutations towards a desired end. (You implied that in your opinion random mutations would not be adequate to explain lifeforms.) Are you now saying that is not your position?

"However, when man had reached the point of evolutionary perfection, and the creative process had been completed, God did involve Himself with Adam and Eve, ..."

So, again, you're now suggesting that God had no role (no involvement with directing mutations) in the process leading to modern man.

OK, if you're really saying that, then I'm happy to withdraw my statement that you're a creationist. However, this is a departure from your previous position (which led to my statement) that God had continually directed mutations along the process leading to man.

[Kate]

" four posts ..of individual Anglican paedophiles... I did not cast suspicion on any innocent fellow Christians." (Theo Dexter)

Point of information: Not "FOUR" but THREE! Only TWO were clerics; one of those, 'word of mouth' (yours) - no verifiable evidence offered - in what you term "my diocese".

"Independent Church" operates a "diocese"?

The affectation of amnesia is better described perhaps as deluded egotistical cunning!

CONTEXT:
"Kate: You are in no position to throw stones [at RC paedophile priests] especially as you belong to a denomination that has had a SHAMEFUL RECORD of ABUSIVE CLERICS and choirmasters etc…” (Theo Dexter 31 Mar 2009)

This vile canard does not cast "suspicion on innocent Christians" you say? Mendacity posted as fact is not “vitriolic bile”?

In that "Theo-centric" (with thanks to James) universe, where only Theo-compliant 'opinion' is permitted, that would be your version of Christian "agape" then?

Interesting too: there is not one word from you specifically condemning a "denomination" with, (latest tally) 5% of "abusive clerics" - around 12,000 individuals!

"What poor witness to true Christianity this self" reverential and dishonest sophistry "gives ….”.

Keep digging Uriah.

[PererB]

Coel
"why does inter species morality exist, as evidenced by men exercising morality towards animals..?" (my question))

"1) People coming to regard animal pets as surrogate humans...
2) A moral sense that is tuned by evolution to react to cute babies...3) Some species interact in a mutual symbiosis.."
(your reply)
.

1. So we don't want to stuff corn down ducks' throats because they are pets and surrogate humans?

2. We don't like the Chinese eating live carp because they are cute?

3. We want to save the Pandas because we are in a mutual symbiosis with them?

You really do talk the most abominable nonsense!

Men have the capacity to selectively display unconditional morality towards beasts, and beasts do not have the same capacity towards men, because men are men with souls, and beasts are beasts with evolved behaviour.
.

[PererB]

Coel
"You postulate a God being intimately involved in the process leading to man, controlling the process by direct intervention."
.

You are making the age-old layman's mistake of confusing temporality with infinity.

If you remember, the Creator exists outside of time, thus a billion years to Him is the blink of an eye. His creation of man would have taken place in a instant, but to our temporal world it appears as millions of years of physical evolution.

Therefore, since I posit that the Creator does not directly intervene within time to control the process of creation - contrary to your claim - I am not a creationist, old-earth, new-earth or middle-earth.

However, when man had reached the point of evolutionary perfection, and the creative process had been completed, God did involve Himself with Adam and Eve, and has involved Himself with humanity ever since.
.

.

[Coel]

PererB writes: "So why does inter species morality exist, as evidenced by men exercising morality towards animals, such as donkey sanctuaries and outrage at eating dogs?"

Probably a mixture of:

1) People coming to regard animal pets as surrogate humans. (This is very widespread, especially among humans who are lonely.)

2) A moral sense that is tuned by evolution to react to cute babies, children, etc, might also by triggered by other cute furry mammals that have many characteristics in common with human children.

3) Some species interact in a mutual symbiosis (e.g. cleaner fish stations), which obviously requires codes of conduct, such as it is to mutual advantage not to eat the cleaner fish.

[D. Bunker]

PererB - Why do you reply to my comments with silly little gibes? Why not respond to my arguments?

(I think I know why.)

[PererB]

Coel
"morals are about WITHIN-SPECIES conduct (as I have stated many times on various threads)"
.

So why does inter species morality exist, as evidenced by men exercising morality towards animals, such as donkey sanctuaries and outrage at eating dogs?
.

.

[J Pearce]

"Can you explain how man can expect treatment any better than an animal, when, according to Darwin, he is no different form one..."

Christianity treats humans as animals, does it not?

According to your anti-human belief system, all humans are de facto "sinners", i.e. they are intrinsically "wrong".

This blog is testament to the many, many Christians who viscerally deny the humanity of homosexuals, for example.

Your fellow "noble Christian brothers" in Africa call them dogs and actively condone violence against them - all in your name.

In order to "progress" to a higher state of being, Christians must spend a lifetime adhering to a set of arbitrary and often dehumanising moral codes, many of which are completely against the natural order - and then they have to die!

You have made it clear how much you venerate Christian martyrs, have you not? Many good Christians have been martyred by other Christians. What does this tell you about how animalistic zealoutous Christians - like you - can become, when infused with a sense of untouchable self-righteousness?

According to your Sainted Teresa, it is entirely justified that humans should suffer like animals - even when that suffering can be alleviated.

So please, don't lecture us on your entirely warped and twisted take on Darwin, when the belief system you worship has encouraged and manifested a hierarchy where those at the bottom are left to rot and suffer in the most inhumane manner imaginable.

[Coel]

PererB writes: "Can you explain how man can expect treatment any better than an animal, when, according to Darwin, he is no different form one, ..."

Easy. Because humans are moral animals who have evolved moral senses for dealing with other human beings.

If you do not understand that concept, if you do not *feel* moral attitudes towards other humans, then you are amoral. If you do feel such things, then why do you need the explanation?

Please also note that an intellectual appreciation of whether we are "animals" is irrelevant, since morals are not about intellectual rationalisation, they're about human moral *feelings*.

"... from your own admission, animals are in possession of morals just as men are?"

Yep, and morals are about WITHIN-SPECIES conduct (as I have stated many times on various threads). Thus that point is irrelevant. Monkeys do indeed have moral codes governing how monkeys interact with each other.

[Coel]

Perer whines: "The dishonesty is on your part for persisting in calling me a creationist when I have explained many times that I am not."

You have stated that you believe in a process whereby God continually directs mutations, leading to the evolution of man. That can entirely fairly be called a version of "old Earth creationism" or "evolutionary creationism".

You postulate a God being intimately involved in the process leading to man, controlling the process by direct intervention.

That is not in line with scientific accounts of evolution. Nor is it in line with the deistic idea of a god starting the whole thing off, but then just letting natural evolution get one with it. It is thus entirely fair and appropriate to describe your position as a variant of creationism.

The fact that you're so rampantly anti-Darwin just reinforces this.

[PererB]

J.Pearce
"Just accept that PererB is wholly fixated by one, simple thought"
.

Such as, why do you keep posting?
.

[PererB]

Coel
"Please don't sully Darwin's name with your nasty, dribbling religious idiocy"
.

Can you explain how man can expect treatment any better than an animal, when, according to Darwin, he is no different form one, bearing in mind that, from your own admission, animals are in possession of morals just as men are?
.

[PererB]

Coel
"I guess I should no longer be surprised that religious creationist idiocy can only be sustained by utter dishonesty"
.

The dishonesty is on your part for persisting in calling me a creationist when I have explained many times that I am not.

And the idiocy is on your part for failing to understand the difference between one who is not a creationist and one who is!
.

[PererB]

D.Bunker
"Twisting a person's words is not nice. It is very naughty of you, PererB, to resort to such skulduggery"
.

There's no danger of twisting your words.

You make a pretty good job of it yourself.
.

[J Pearce]

Coel, noooo! Can't you see whats happening? He's doing it again!

Just accept that PererB is wholly fixated by one, simple thought, that being:

Satan = Darwinism / (Secularism + Atheism) * Abortion.

Anything outside of this Devils equation simply doesn't register.

So - is it really worth it?

[Kate]

"More later." Posted by: Theo Dexter | 24 Nov 2009 14:10:57

Of course! "More" contextual distortion and contortion, "more" obfuscation, "more" pathetic self-interested, duplicitous, self-exculpation.

"There are people enough to tread upon me in my lowly state, without my doing outrage to their feelings by possessing learning. Learning ain't for me. A person like myself ... If he is to get on in life, he must get on 'umbly ...!" - Uriah Heep

"Uriah Heep, wonderfully hideous, is one of Dickens' greatest triumphs. His description of Heep's writhing and scheming, and his cold, clammy nature, makes one's skin crawl."
http://charlesdickenspage.com/char_h-k.html#heep

[Coel]

Perer snivels: "It's all there in the Descent of Man."

What Darwin actual said in that book (only a couple of paragraphs, by the way, out of 18 books that he wrote).

"The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is [a] result of the instinct of sympathy, [...] Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. [...] if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind ..."

Doesn't really bear much resmemblence, does it, to Perer's utterly dishonest distortion, in which he defines Darwinism as: "a godless creed involving ... the notion that humans are nothing but animals and thus can be killed or tortured or experimented on without it mattering because nothing is wrong".

I guess I should no longer be surprised that religious creationist idiocy can only be sustained by utter dishonesty.

[D. Bunker]

PererB - you are putting words into Darwin's mouth, interpreting them to suit your own ends.

You say "He describes men as no more than animals ..."

OK, but then you continue:

"... which means they can be treated as well or as badly as animals ..."

No, PererB, that is not what it means. And that is where you go seriously wrong.

Darwin is merely describing a biological fact - that humans are indeed animals (albeit with highly developed brains allowing the development of moral values). No one can seriously dispute that.

Similarly, if he "describes" the possiblity of selective breeding and future genocides, this is not the same as "advocating" or "justifying" them.

It could equally be interpreted as warning against them.

Twisting a person's words is not nice. It is very naughty of you, PererB, to resort to such skulduggery.

[Coel]

Perer writes: "He describes men as no more than animals, which means they can be treated, as well or as badly as animals are treated."

You are completely morally defective, aren't you Perer? If you think the above follows logically, then you have no moral sense, no moral compass, you are amoral. That, of course, is in addition to being stupid. If you weren't stupid you would realise that that "which means they can" doesn't follow in any sense whatsoever. Or rather, only follows in the rabid imaginings of a religious bigot, desperate to smear Darwin. Please don't sully Darwin's name with your nasty, dribbling religious idiocy.

[PererB]

Coel
"nowhere in Descent of Man does Darwin define "Darwinism"."
.

He describes selective breeding (i.e. experimentation and sterlisiation, which you in your verbal clumsiness called "torture").

He describes extermination of inferior races by superior races.

He describes men as no more than animals, which means they can be treated, as well or as badly as animals are treated.

It all sounds pretty hands-on man-made artificial to me.

It is nothing at all to do with the modern theory of evolution which describes the physical development of man and the beasts by means of natural selection.
.

[Theo Dexter]

Kate alleges

Dexter casts "suspicion on all innocent fellow Christians" e.g.

Following the ”eg” she quotes from four posts giving details of individual Anglican paedophiles. All the people in my posts had pleaded guilty or had been found to be guilty. I did not cast suspicion on any innocent fellow Christians.

Quote

"It is the failure to do so [protect children] in the past by a number of denominations that has caused suspicion to fall on all innocent fellow Christians. (Posted by: Theo Dexter | 19 Nov 2009 19:44:35

I think that the above statement is true and I do not see why Kate includes it in a list of examples purported to demonstrate a personal grudge against Anglicanism as it simply mentions denominations.

More later.

[Coel]

Perer snivels: "It's all there in the Descent of Man."

Stupid, idiot Perer. Not every paragraph that Darwin ever wrote in his eighteen books counts as "Darwinism"!

Darwin did indeed remark on artifical selection in Descent of Man, but only very briefly, in a handful of sentences. And that was only because others had previously raised such topics (they were not original to Darwin and they were not "Darwinism"). And in any case those sentences advocate an *absence* of artificial selection as regards humans.

So, as usual, your utterly biased and self-serving claim derives solely from your prejudiced bigotry.

Any *scientist* today (something alien, of course, to your crackpot, creationist mindset) would define "Darwinism" as three essentials: (1) slow change of species over time; (2) common descent from a common ancestor; (3) natural selection as the main mechanism responsible for the form of living beings.

The main factor distinguishing "Darwinism" from other forms of evolution (e.g. Lamarkian evolution) is the third of those.

[Theo Dexter]

Kate

[Square brackets and caps - all mine].

And so is the perception.

I am in a bit of a rush so will answer Kate’s points in a series of posts starting with this one.

Quote

“inclusive” [Anglican] church is revealed as not being inclusive at all. Rather it is heartless and has no willingness to compromise with the Anglo-Catholics. It is a church within a church acting as a cuckoo in the nest removing the natural chicks. (Theo Dexter 25 Jul 2008)

Kate puts the word “Anglican” in square brackets following the word “inclusive” However I was talking not about the Anglican church as a whole but at an organisation called “inclusive” church headed by the then Vicar of Putney. This “inclusive” church does not agree with the Anglo-Catholics. The Anglo Catholics, I have read, think that this “inclusive” group wants them to leave the Anglican Church.

The introduction of the word Anglican in square brackets distorts my intended meaning. I was not talking about the Anglican Church but about a group within it.

TD to Malcolm: “The joke is on you old boy. I am not even an Anglican let alone a conservative schismatic. Just someone who has noticed that what you accuse others of – is what your [sic] guilty of.” (Theo Dexter 1 Aug 2008)

Malcolm (from Canada I think) had wrongly assumed that I was “conservative schismatic” within the Anglican Denomination. I told him I wasn’t. There was no personal grudge against Anglicanism involved at all.

More later.

[PererB]

D.Bunker
"Are you now trying to sneak your way out of having made this comment?"
.

It's all there in the Descent of Man.
.

[Coel]

PererB dribbles: "Darwinism, according to the Descent of Man, ..."

Stupid, nowhere in Descent of Man does Darwin define "Darwinism".

"... means a theory of evolution driven not only by natural selection, as in modern evolutionary theory, but also by artificial man-made selection."

No it doesn't. You are just utterly ignorant, clueless and driven by your prejudices.

[D. Bunker]

PererB - I refer back to your comment of 23 Nov, 10.03.

In it you quoted Coel - true. You said:

"Darwinism ... is a godless creed involving, as you say, the notion that 'humans ... can be killed or tortured or experimented on without it mattering ...'".

You agree, then, that this is your definition of Darwinism.

Are you now trying to sneak your way out of having made this comment?

[PererB]

Coel
" That's because modern evolutionary theory is Darwinian. And "Darwinism" essentially means a theory of evolution driven largely by natural selection"
.

Modern evolutionary theory is evolutionary theory which incorporates natural selection.

Darwinism, according to the Descent of Man, means a theory of evolution driven not only by natural selection, as in modern evolutionary theory, but also by artificial man-made selection.
.

[Coel]

PererB writes: Coel's quote, not mine."

It was a thought that I attributed to you, and you then adopted by agreeing that that was your opinion.

"The theory of evolution incorporates natural selection."

That's because modern evolutionary theory is Darwinian. And "Darwinism" essentially means a theory of evolution driven largely by natural selection.

There have been alternative theories of evolution (now largely discarded), such as Lamarkian evolution (which does not proceed by natural selection).

"Darwinism adds artificial selection to the theory of evolution."

No it doesn't; you are just mind-bogglingly ignorant, wrong and clueless.

[PererB]

D.Bunker
"By Darwinism you mean, and I quote you:- "a godless creed" that "humans ... can be killed or tortured ... without it mattering ...""
.

Coel's quote, not mine.
.

[PererB]

Coel
"Darwinism equals evolution plus natural selection as the main mechanism for evolution"
.

The theory of evolution incorporates natural selection.

Darwinism adds artificial selection to the theory of evolution.
.

[Kate]

"I have no personal grudge against Anglicanism but call for all Churches to make children’s safety and welfare their top priority."

What cringing, duplicitous hypocrisy. A few examples:

TD to an Anglican contributor: “Christine … the “inclusive” [Anglican] church is revealed as not being inclusive at all. Rather it is heartless and has no willingness to compromise with the Anglo-Catholics. It is a church within a church acting as a cuckoo in the nest removing the natural chicks. (Theo Dexter 25 Jul 2008)

TD to Malcolm: “The joke is on you old boy. I am not even an Anglican let alone a conservative schismatic. Just someone who has noticed that what you accuse others of – is what your [sic] guilty of.” (Theo Dexter 1 Aug 2008)

TD to Kate: “One of the problems that Anglicanism has is a smug arrogance…. What “original thought” has Anglicanism had in last five years? The accommodation of Sharia law perhaps? I am not sure what you mean by “ordered quietude” … unless you mean the continued emptying of churches as you face schism and ill-mannered disintegration following loss of discipline.” (Theo Dexter 13 Nov 2008)

“Perhaps if they [Anglicans] listened to outsiders they may learn that it is their divided leadership that does not always know best and that they could learn from others.” (Theo Dexter 18 Nov 2008)

“Kate.... It may come as a surprise to you but the Church of England supports and promotes evangelisation [sic]…. all races including Jews? …I belong to an independent church.” (Theo Dexter 27 Nov 2008)

TD to Andrew Holden: “Rather undermines your claim to the “benign” and “tolerant” nature of the C of E does it not? What poor witness to true Christianity this self destructing institution [Anglicanism] gives ….”. (Theo Dexter 23 Dec 2008)

“Anglican Bishops live in palaces and wear robes that cost a fortune… gold and silver, art worth a fortune, palaces in prime locations…. Bishops living in palaces surrounded by treasure. They wear expensive robes and mitres and carry bejewelled crosiers. Preening and strutting …” (Theo Dexter 23 Mar 2009)

"It is the failure to do so [protect children] in the past by a number of denominations that has caused suspicion to fall on all innocent fellow Christians. (Posted by: Theo Dexter | 19 Nov 2009 19:44:35

Uriah Heep rides again! Premeditated malice Mr Dexter casts "suspicion on all innocent fellow Christians" e.g.

“Kate: You are in no position to throw stones [at RC paedophile priests] especially as you belong to a denomination that has had A SHAMEFUL RECORD of ABUSIVE CLERICS and choirmasters etc….Last year in this diocese a priest [ONE!] was jailed following the uncovering of years of abuse.”
(Theo Dexter 31 Mar 2009)

Response: “The Church of Ireland has had NO reports of sexual abuse of children.” (Kate)

“Canon Joseph Condell of the Church of Ireland pleaded guilty to possessing images of child pornography on 2nd October 2007. He [ONE cleric!] was charged following a raid on the rectory……“He has been off duty since January 2002, pending the outcome of proceedings initiated by the statutory authorities.”
(Theo Dexter 3 Apr 2009)

“Your defence of the indefensible is shocking, sickening and disgusting. Don’t deny that there is in fact a record of a [ONE] paedophile cleric belonging to the Church of Ireland. You are in no position to throw stones.”
(Theo Dexter 7 Apr 2009)

“Fact - A Choirmaster from the Anglican Denomination.” [i.e. ONE] (jailed for child abuse).
A complaint was made against Peter Halliday, 61, from Farnborough, Hampshire, in 1990. Rather than go to the police, church authorities told him to stay away from children and sacked him from the choir. [The Times: April 27, 2007] (Posted by Theo Dexter 11 Apr 2009).

Point of information: In Dickens, Uriah Heep is the perpetual antagonist, the hypocrite. Cringing humility masking a mammoth ego, bad faith and deep-seated meanness of spirit.

[Square brackets and caps - all mine].

[D. Bunker]

I thought so PererB. "Darwinism" and Evolution are two separate things in your estimation.

By Darwinism you mean, and I quote you:- "a godless creed" that "humans ... can be killed or tortured ... without it mattering ..."

Repeat:

A godless creed that humans can be killed or tortured without it mattering.

By Jove, I bet old Darwin is revolving in his grave.

If you could confront him with that quote, I doubt he would recognize it as his personal view. And he'd certainly be offended if you termed that "Darwinism".

If you disagree, as I'm certain you will, please tell us where Darwin said humans could be "killed or tortured or experimented on - without it mattering" (in those words, please.)

Or is this simply your interpretation of a few Darwinian quotes - taken out of the historical context of the Victorian era in which he lived?

PS - quite honestly I couldn't care less about Darwin's personal views and private life. But I'm grateful that he exposed Genesis for what it is - bunkum.

And I suspect that is the real reason why you dislike him so much.

[Coel]

Perer quotes me: "Of course what sensible people mean by "Darwinism" is instead: That life has undergone a long process of evolution, with today's species arising from a common ancestor, and with natural selection being the main mechanism responsible for the characteristics of lifeforms"

Perer: "That's called the theory of evolution, not Darwinism."

Utterly wrong. Darwinism equals evolution plus natural selection as the main mechanism for evolution. (As oppose to, say, Lamarkian evolution.)

"Just like the general and special theories of relativity are not called Einsteinism."

Shrug, they could have been called that. Only crackpot creationists try to make arguments out of semantics.

"Darwinism, on the other hand, is a godless creed involving, as you say, the notion that "humans are nothing but animals and thus can be killed or tortured or experimented on without it mattering because nothing is wrong".

See!, I told you that Perer would adopt an utterly clueless and crackpot notion of "Darwinism" based purely on his religious prejudice.

[PererB]

Coel (to D.Bunker)
"Of course what sensible people mean by "Darwinism" is instead: That life has undergone a long process of evolution, with today's species arising from a common ancestor, and with natural selection being the main mechanism responsible for the characteristics of lifeforms"
.

That's called the theory of evolution, not Darwinism. Just like the general and special theories of relativity are not called Einsteinism.

Darwinism, on the other hand, is a godless creed involving, as you say, the notion that "humans are nothing but animals and thus can be killed or tortured or experimented on without it mattering because nothing is wrong".

It is being exercised in today's secular society in its "politically-correct" form through he treatment of the unborn as animals.

If they're lame or unwanted, cull them or cut them up in laboratories.
.

[Drew_Mac]

J Pearce: "You and Drew Mac both miss the point entirely..."

You've clearly missed my point on this several times. Churches are not excempt from the law - particularly those on fair treatment for people regardless of gender, race and sexuality. Yes they have dodged, dived and dissembled over these requirements but, rightly, they are being brought to book - not only by the law but by the many enlightened clergy and laity and, in particular, by that group that are so ignored by the religiophobic, homosexual christians themselves, who choose to stay within the churches and work for change.

[Coel]

D. Bunker asks: "PererB - please explain to me ... what you mean by "Darwinism"."

I can help. What Perer means by "Darwinism" is the notion that: "humans are nothing but animals and thus can be killed or tortured or experimented on without it mattering because nothing is wrong".

Of course that bears no actual relation to Darwinism or to anything Darwin said. But then that's par for the
course for creationists!

Of course what sensible people mean by "Darwinism" is instead: That life has undergone a long process of evolution, with today's species arising from a common ancestor, and with natural selection being the main mechanism responsible for the characteristics of lifeforms.

[D. Bunker]

PererB - please explain to me exactly (and as briefly as possible) what you mean by "Darwinism".

[J Pearce]

PererB : living proof of the Pavlovian response.

Theo, I don't know if you are trying to be funny or just obtuse, but please re-read my previous post, especially the paragraph beginning "You and Drew Mac both miss the point entirely...".

Regarding the general ignorance of congregations - well, you'd hope that in this country at least, Church attendees would exercise some form of intelligence.

But judging by the reaction to the SOR's, I'm not sure thats entirely true.

And if we are going to judge them on the public utterances of their leaders...well, its not looking good, is it?! But hey, I'll give Anglicans the benefit of the doubt. But Roman Catholics? Pfft!

[Coel]

Perer writes: "Hitler certainly admired Darwinism."

That, as you well know, is a falsehood derived purely from your own prejudice, for which you cannot provide a shred of evidence.

The whole of Mein Kampf, and Hitler's philosophy, was creationist and explicitly rejecting of Darwinism.

[PererB]

J.Pearce
"The Hitler Youth Pope openly demonises......etc"
.

Why are you demonising the Hitler Youth?

As a Darwinist you should be admiring them.

Hitler certainly admired Darwinism.
.

[Theo Dexter]

J P

Do not be defeated before you start.

Go to the Police if you have evidence to support your allegations.

If they refuse to take action - take it higher and also alert the media.

BTW “wholly pig ignorant congregations.” Do you really think this is true of Anglicans and Catholics? I don’t.

[Theo Dexter]

Kate writes

The comment I reference is directly addressed to you on a thread on which you are currently engaged. What arrogant duplicity to suggest you are unaware of such posts. I quote:

Kate I am sorry but somehow the sentence with regard to “telepathy” had not stuck. I don’t know why except that it was a fairly long post and I did not remember it or connect it with a “requirement” of mine. “Arrogant duplicity” - sorry you see it that way.

I have no personal grudge against Anglicanism but call for all Churches to make children’s safety and welfare their top priority. It is the failure to do so in the past by a number of denominations that has caused suspicion to fall on all innocent fellow Christians.

[J Pearce]

"If any such appalling utterances are made by an atheist, agnostic, or religious person and are illegal go to the police."

Oh come on, Theo, now you are being crassly and deliberately disingenuous. You know full well that the religious get special dispensation when it comes to their crackpot public utterances.

You know as well as I do, that by cloaking naked prejudice in the religious language, they get away with bloody murder. Sentamu waffles on about homosexuals having to "repent" to the BBC, but does he do the same for heterosexuals? No. The Bishop of Carlisle blames some bad weather on God's anger at civil partnerships. Is he admonished by his own authorities for it? Of course not. The Hitler Youth Pope openly demonises gays, as have various African Anglican primates. Who calls them to account?

All this barely diguised prejudice is constantly drip-fed into the public conscience and their own, often wholly pig ignorant congregations. You think it isn't going to have an effect? Are you totally stupid?

You and Drew Mac both miss the point entirely - the religious skirt carefully around "the laws of the land" by exploiting the fact that the "right" to hold a religious belief is enshrined in law. Thus, it is cleverly extrapolated to mean that by defintion, the religious have a "right" to go around espousing the vilest aspects of their belief system. Any resistance to this prejudice, any demands that they try and show their fellow human beings some basic respect, is usually howled down as "discrimination" or "persecution".

At least, in this country, we do have the media to highlight these abuses. But don't try and fob me off with crap about "going to the Police", because the State is still too scared to take on vested religious interests - especially our current Government, who won't go near Muslims with a barge pole.

[Kate]

Theo Dexter writes: "It would appear in fact that you “require” me to be “telepathic” because you provide me with no details of this “another thread”. How am I to find it otherwise?

The comment I reference is directly addressed to you on a thread on which you are currently engaged. What arrogant duplicity to suggest you are unaware of such posts. I quote:

"There is no logic in a circular argument which reiterates bald assertions. Why not offer an explanation of your opinions? What are your sources for these opinions? Readers are not telepathic." Bystander - November 17, 2009 at 12:13.
(Thread: Archbishop of York: Prostitution 'morally reprehensible')

PS. Literally thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, of RC clerics and members of RC religious orders world-wide, stand indicted of paedophilia.

Your 'FACTs' on an equivalent phenomenon in Anglicanism are the product of an obsessive personal grudge; a vicious and despicable attempt to cast suspicion (of the worst kind) on innocent fellow Christians.

[Theo Dexter]

Kate

As ever, you ignore all that does not conform to your agenda.

No. I was simply responding to your point implying that I was hiding the name of the “Broad Church” by giving you its name. You said inter alia “....."Broad Church" (conspicuously never named)(my emphasis), whose sole purpose is smug, self-congratulatory, censure of others.” I simply thought that people knew that the “Church of England considered itself a “Broad Church”. There was no agenda and no obfuscation intended.

That the agenda is somewhat incoherent does not alter facts. Fact: lengthy efforts on your part to indict Anglican clergy of paedophilia failed. .

Fact: The clergy (and others) referred to in our previous discussions had already pleaded guilty and had been sentenced. Their indictment was handled by the proper authorities.

It is instructive (as noted on another thread) that you appear to 'require' readers of AofF to be telepathic.

It would appear in fact that you “require” me to be “telepathic” because you provide me with no details of this “another thread”. How am I to find it otherwise?

[Kate]

"The major “Broad Church” I had in mind is the one that prides itself in being known as a “Broad Church” -don’t you know - and that is the Church of England." (Theo Dexter)

Thank you for confirming your proclivity for sneering obfuscation Mr Dexter. As ever, you ignore all that does not conform to your agenda. That the agenda is somewhat incoherent does not alter facts. Fact: lengthy efforts on your part to indict Anglican clergy of paedophilia failed.

It is instructive (as noted on another thread) that you appear to 'require' readers of AofF to be telepathic.

[Theo Dexter]

Ooops

"... indeed?"

[Drew_Mac]

J Pearce said... "Yet Church leaders are apparently unfettered either by formal restraints or, indeed, their own dubious consciences, when it comes to making defamatory and wholly offensive public comments about an innocent minority."

Thankfully that's complete nonsense. Church leaders are subject to the law of the land, and indeed to public and media criticism, as is everyone else.

[Theo Dexter]

Kate

Extraordinary the capacities of this (secret society) "Broad Church" composed (he asserts) of "pluralist, Unitarian, Universalists, atheist, agnostic etc"!
What fantastical self-justification this man resorts to. One must wonder: WHY would any of the above subject themselves to sneering, supercilious, albeit vacuous, nastiness. Surely a better description of such people should be 'masochists'!

The major “Broad Church” I had in mind is the one that prides itself in being known as a “Broad Church” -don’t you know - and that is the Church of England.

“WHY would any of the above subject themselves to sneering, supercilious...........”

Why in deed?

[Theo Dexter]

JP

But to make you feel better, I would say I am using "the Church" as an umbrella term to cover the many twinkling, ideologically divided facets of Christianity today.

Thank you.

"BTW The Press Complaints Commission has recently received 22,000 complaints about “The Daily Mail” JP."
OK, but about what exactly?! The number is meaningless, Theo!

It was in relation to the article about “Steven Gately” and I do not think that the number is meaningless as you assert JP.

And are you claiming that the Mail is an opinion former on a par with the Church? What about the multitude of other mass media outlets?

It is possible that that is so in the UK JP but I do not know. I was giving you an example of another agency that is all.

By the way, if I want to formally complain about the public homophobic outbursts of various Church leaders, where do I go?

If any such appalling utterances are made by an atheist, agnostic, or religious person and are illegal go to the police.

[Kate]

"But it's perfectly acceptable for the service of ecumenism and inter-faith harmony for Christian and other warring sects to set aside their usual hatred for each other to concentrate it on atheists, agnostics, humanists, secularists, gays, women etc etc, I guess." (John to T. Dexter)

Well said John! 'Perfectly acceptable' for those of a "Broad Church" (conspicuously never named), whose sole purpose is smug, self-congratulatory, censure of others.

What self-deluded hypocrisy! Dexter entered this forum denigrating Anglicanism; he is on record (to me) wasting lines of bile in a futile attempt to prove equivalence between Anglican and Roman Catholic clerics in the arena of paedophilia.

Now, THAT is “vitriolic bile”!

Extraordinary the capacities of this (secret society) "Broad Church" composed (he asserts) of "pluralist, Unitarian, Universalists, atheist, agnostic etc"!

What fantastical self-justification this man resorts to. One must wonder: WHY would any of the above subject themselves to sneering, supercilious, albeit vacuous, nastiness. Surely a better description of such people should be 'masochists'!

[J Pearce]

Theo, you seem to be daintily skipping around the main thrust of my argument without actually engaging with it. I wonder why? However, just for you:

"Would you mind clarifying what you mean when you use the term “The Church”."

Well, exactly Theo! How many Christian Churches are there these days?!

But to make you feel better, I would say I am using "the Church" as an umbrella term to cover the many twinkling, ideologically divided facets of Christianity today.

OK, I will grant you that the CofE is marginally more "liberal" in its outlook than - say - the RCC, so I will concede there are probaly less homphobes per head of senior clergy in the CofE than there are equivalent Catholics. But that isn't the point, Theo (and neither is the sarcastic reference to drag queens).

The point I have been making is that as public institution(s), the Christian churches have been almost entirely negative in their public pronouncements on - most notably - homosexuality, as well as other issues.

This will inevitably have some sort of wider effect in general society - a pernocious and divisive effect, not a positive one.

Thus the overall point is that the Churhc(es) are largely responsible for exploiting public ignorance and fanning the flames of prejudice. Just as they did for centuries with their inherent anti-semitism.

"BTW The Press Complaints Commission has recently received 22,000 complaints about “The Daily Mail” JP."

OK, but about what exactly?! The number is meaningless, Theo! And are you claiming that the Mail is an opinion former on a par with the Church? What about the multitude of other mass media outlets?

Its not as if I have a wide variety of choice amongst Christian leaders, is it? I go to Anglicans, I see the African contingent regarding gays as less than dogs, with little or no argument emanating from the ABC. I go to the RCC, I see its leader demonising them. I go to, say, John Sentamu and he's doing much the same.

By the way, if I want to formally complain about the public homophobic outbursts of various Church leaders, where do I go?

Do the Churches run some sort of equivalent to the PCC? Is there currently a mechanism where senior clerics can be forced to apologise for their benighted public statements?

I think not. And herein lies the inequity of the situation - in most other walks of life, we have checks and balances against excessive public outbursts (just ask Nick Griffin).

Yet Church leaders are apparently unfettered either by formal restraints or, indeed, their own dubious consciences, when it comes to making defamatory and wholly offensive public comments about an innocent minority.

[Drew_Mac]

Theo: "Some comments .... appear to possibly fall into the category of “vitriolic bile”, would you agree?"

I certainly would. However, and thankfully, there are still those on both sides of the divide prepared to engage in polite, respectful debate.

[Drew_Mac]

JP: "..they tend to ameliorate their language and do not blanket condemn all homosexuals for justy being "homosexual", per se. The Church does, on a regular basis."

A few minor denominations may do that, and not a few individual Christians. However, most of the traditional denominations clearly distinguish in their teachings about homosexuality between 'being homosexual' which is not a sin and in no way considered to be culpable, and homosexual acts, which are considered sinful in any and all circumstances by non-liberal Christians.

Many of us would like to liberalise this even further. It is a slow process (and indeed it was so in wider society which only changed in the last 30 years and has still not fully eliminated homophobia) but I believe we will get there in the end.

[Theo Dexter]

John

Hatred of any group is unacceptable. Hatred of Anglicans and Catholics is unacceptable.

There are many, many, women, gay and secularist Christians. Some “Broad Churches” have members who have a range of views - pluralist, Unitarian, Universalists, atheist, agnostic etc.

The Anglicans and Catholic friends I know do not hate each other - far from it. They would be horrified and sickened by any such suggestion.

Some comments from anti-theists who post about the leaders of the Anglican and Roman Catholic Churches appear to possibly fall into the category of “vitriolic bile”, would you agree?

BTW "Don't Panic! Captain Mainwaring. Don't Panic!"
From British Sitcom - Dad’s Army.

[Theo Dexter]

JP

Would you mind clarifying what you mean when you use the term “The Church”.

I said in my post that I assumed you were talking about the Church of England. Not a Church of “red shoes” wearers by and large.

Your remark did not indicate that you were talking about heterosexuals of certain opinions but solely homosexuals and it would be odious if people used your remark in a prejudiced manner against some Anglican Bishops, Canons, and Priests.

That - I would not find funny John.

BTW The Press Complaints Commission has recently received 22,000 complaints about “The Daily Mail” JP.

Not a responsible agent?

I disagree.

[John]

"The Anglicans I know are neither homophobic nor misogynistic. I think that they would be horrified and sickened by the offensive odious content of one of your recent posts on another thread."

Lost you sense of humour, Theo?

I think your squeaky clean Angilican chums are much more likely to be horrified and sickened by the vitriolic bile of any number of posts from that arch-catholic Geoffrey Smith, who considers Anglicans to be damned to hell along with the JPearces of this world - unless of course they swear allegiance to that old cross-dressing, funny hat-wearing, incense-reeking paedophile-shielder in Rome.

But it's perfectly acceptable for the service of ecumenism and inter-faith harmony for Christian and other warring sects to set aside their usual hatred for each other to concentrate it on atheists, agnostics, humanists, secularists, gays, women etc etc, I guess.

Keep up the good work, JPearce - they don't like it up'em, Captain Mannering!