Sunday, April 25, 2010

Foreign Office: Susan Boyle a more influential Roman Catholic than Archbishop Vincent Nichols

There is an amusing article in The Sunday Telegraph about Foreign Office 'secret papers' drawn up earlier this month by civil servants following a 'brainstorm’ for the Pope's visit to the UK in September.

The ideas, included in a memo headed 'The ideal visit would see ...’, ridiculed the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church in its opposition to abortion, homosexual behaviour and contraception.

Ideas for the 'ideal visit' iitinerary include:

Launching a helpline for sexually abused children;

An announcement reversing Rome's 'policy on women bishops/ordain woman';

Sponsoring a network of Aids clinics;

Blessing a gay marriage;

Launch a papal brand of condoms;

And opening an abortion clininc.

Apparently, politicians were so 'furious' at these suggestions that an investigation was launched. One senior official was found responsible and 'has been transferred to other duties'.

Transferred to other duties?

Cranmer would like to ask what would have happened to an FCO 'official' who had dared to suggest the 'ill-judged, naive and disrespectful' itinerary below for a visiting Muslim head of state?

Breakfast of bacon sandwiches with the Queen;

Attending a memorial service for a 16-year-old girl whi had been buried alive by her brothers and father in an 'honour killing';

A meeting with the Danish artist responsible for the Mohammed bomb-turban cartoons;

Attending a private screening of South Park featuring Mohammed;

A lecture on stone-age paedophile worshippers;

Watcing an episode of Room 101 in which the Qur'an is disrespectfully dispatched.

Operating the levers of the crane to hang two 14-year-old boys accused of being homosexual.

Cranmer is sure his Communicants might come up with a few more.

Would a civil servant who proposed such an itinerary simply be 'transferred to other duties'?

Another document, entitled 'Papal Visit Stakeholders', lists figures and groups that the FCO considers significant to the tour, and ranks them in order of how 'influential' and 'positive' each one is perceived to be.

The Queen, David Cameron, and Tony Blair are all ranked as 'highly influential' and 'positive'. It rates Susan Boyle as being more influential than Vincent Nichols, the Archbishop of Westminster.

Wayne Rooney, is considered to be a negative influence, as are Madonna and Professor Richard Dawkins, 'Pro-choice' groups, homosexual pressure groups and the National Secular Society.

For what other religious leaders or heads of state are such 'brainstorming' exercises held?


Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Says more about the impoverished standards of 'intelligence' amongst the the civil servants at the Foreign Office than anything else.
Is the Telegraph turning in to the Mail in an effort to reach out to dozy closet Tories I wonder?

25 April 2010 at 13:19  
Anonymous not a machine said...

A brainstorming meeting ? on the tax payer ? for this ! Ill get my coat .

25 April 2010 at 13:29  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

The rot is so pervasive and embedded, one wonders where the strength will come from to cleanse this country and its institutions. Margaret did a valiant job in the early '80s, but where today is our champion to take up the challenge and finish the job? Until socialism is crushed we can only expect more of the same.

25 April 2010 at 14:23  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

The Pope is a brave man to come here on this scurvy Isle and visit the faithful. The Catholic Church is in a bad place at the moment, and lessons are being learnt the hard way. The press (and a certain amount of deplorable bloggers) have it in them to do what they can to spoil the event but time will burn its way through the dead leaves, and there will be a Spring time of new growth.

I have a feeling that there will not be much glass left in certain houses after all the stone throwing has taken place. It really is a great shame that the entire Christian community cannot rise above the morose tendency to play dick sizes in the media. We are encouraged to see the commonalities with a totally alien faith and ignore the gross banalities that take place in its name, yet we cannot for the life of us rise above the differences we have within our own narrow field of faith in the Christian God. It is people who are making the mistakes not the actual religion its self.

Cranmer has had a little fun with His comparisons, and encourages His communicants to think of others, but this only does a disservice to the greater good of Christian faith - but some things are to be expected are they not? At the end of the day I have more hope for the Catholic church than I could have for the excuse that passes for the Church of England - I see a deplorable outcome given present trends, but I rise above any urge that may exist to insult the very church that I was baptised into as an infant. Rather than snatch away the soiled security blanket and toss it onto the garbage heap, I would much rather see it washed clean and replaced, and given back to those who hold on to it in comfort and security.

No doubt Len will be spewing forth his anti-Catholic hatred soon - such is the Christian forgiveness that consumes him, he cannot see how there are millions of believers who rely on the church for their daily hope. What is evil if if is not to take away a soiled blanket and toss it away without any replacement?

25 April 2010 at 15:16  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A booze-up at the Pig and Whistle pub with free pork scratchings thrown in.

25 April 2010 at 15:24  
Blogger 1662 BCP said...

Article XXXVII,...The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England.

25 April 2010 at 15:24  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr 1662 BCP,

Neither does the President of the United States, but he is still afforded the common courtesies associated with a state visit.

25 April 2010 at 15:44  
Anonymous Voyager said...

You forgot to mention that The Pope should spend a night in a council flat in Bradford. I do hope those Labour MPs who have done so little for Bradford over the past 13 years can visit a lot of their constituents and clarify matters.

It does reflect the arrogant disdain and contempt for the people of this country in Miliband's Foreign Office.

It is yet another insight into the body politic, syphilitic as it is.

25 April 2010 at 15:51  
Anonymous pedant said...

There is a feverish and semi-hysterical madness in the air. We have hit the rocks; the ship is sinking; but in the gilded ballroom the band plays ragtime and the infatuated couples spin and kick, ignorant and uncaring of their dreadful fate.

Time for the end of the Dunciad, I think:

"She comes! She comes! The sable throne behold
Of night primeval, and of chaos old.
Before her, Fancy's gilded clouds decay
And all its various Rain-bows die away.
Religion blushing veils her sacred fires
And unawares Morality expires.
Lo! Thy dread empire, CHAOS! is restor'd;
Light dies before thy uncreating word:
Thy hand, great Anarch! lets the curtain fall
And universal darkness covers all!"

25 April 2010 at 16:03  
Blogger Gnostic said...

Sounds more like a major brainfart to me. And we pay this bloke's salary? How many more of these morons are going to come creeping out of the woodpile? And can we stamp on them very hard when they do?

25 April 2010 at 16:07  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just in case you’d forgotten

It’s ANZAC Day.

Lest we forget

25 April 2010 at 17:18  
Anonymous unsurprised said...

Of course this demonstrates establishment prejudice and bias against Christianity. But it has to be agreed, that the civil service can waste taxpayers' money on such a time-wasting "brainstorming" session illustrates where deep cuts can be made to reduce the deficit without affecting delivery of front-line public services at all.

25 April 2010 at 17:27  
Anonymous Oswin said...

Jared Gaites - Amen to most of that!

25 April 2010 at 17:46  
Anonymous Atlas shrugged said...

Of course this demonstrates establishment prejudice and bias against Christianity. But it has to be agreed, that the civil service can waste taxpayers' money on such a time-wasting "brainstorming" session illustrates where deep cuts can be made to reduce the deficit without affecting delivery of front-line public services at all.

25 April 2010 17:27

Yes, and yes.

The problem is to an infinitely large extent, that the establishment will do all in its considerable power to make perfectly sure that it does not happen without doing precisely that. Which of course will mean that it either will not happen, not happen enough, or will happen causing much suffering and needlessly premature deaths.

This working on the assumption that any particular democratically elected government committed every waking hour of every day to enacting notable cuts, and efficiency savings, without affecting front line services.

There is a very important reason for this.

The Corporate and banking powers have two ways of owning and therefore utterly controlling a countries health services, along with everything else you can think of and a few things you have not so far.

They either lend money to national or pan-national government that they also own, at interest that can never be paid back. Or they own the hospitals and all that goes with them, in slightly more direct ways.

The ultimate result is of course the same.

The health service, just like any other public services in close witting or unwitting conspiracy with Trades Unions make the whole system either completely inefficient or all but completely ineffective. The educational, police and judicial so called services, also being a fine examples.

This is then shown to be the case using The BBC and the rest of the establishments controlled media.

The country itself then is shown to have gone mysteriously bankrupt, and then the central banks come in (IMF,IB and BIS)and insist that their puppet government sell the whole now Monopolised lot off for pennies in the pound, to their own dependant corporations.

A system long since know as THE SYSTEM, run entirely by our own establishment.

They end up owning everything including most if not all of our future earnings. We end up dead, sick, ever more ignorantly stupid, politically forever more politically divided, homeless and/or forever paying rent.

The truly horrendous nature of this crime against the ordinary people, is that all wings of political opinion to a greater or lesser extent conspire to cause this to happen. What is worse it has happened several times before in living memory, and is now about to happening again. While there seems to be nothing whatsoever we can do about it.

25 April 2010 at 18:15  
Anonymous Simon said...

Common Courtesies, Your Grace?

This man and many of his coterie should be standing trial for protecting paedophiles. In a secular organisation, they would be.

I hope you'll feel able to proclaim my right to free speech when I meet The Pope from his flight, with placard.

25 April 2010 at 19:17  
Anonymous Simon said...

Of course this demonstrates establishment prejudice and bias against Christianity

In this Country, Christianity IS the establishment!

Church of England

25 April 2010 at 19:23  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I totally agree with Cranny's comparison between what is said about Christianity and what cannot be said about Islam.

The Pope and his hand in maintaining the cover-up of pederastic priests has been thoroughly exposed. He wasn't known as the Popes Rottweiller for nothing - he was the enforcer-in- chief.

If the man had truly meant his 'apology' to the victims, he should have at least had the honesty to step down on the grounds of mental health issues.

I hope that people do indeed protest against his visit, but on these grounds and not as a protest against Christians and Christianity.

I wonder if Anjem Choudry and his band of despicable cohorts will put in an appearance, as they do for our home-coming troops.

25 April 2010 at 20:11  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

Definition of secular brainstorming

"I think therefore I am" a system of thought devoid explicitly of divine principle. Less still any eternal Ideas.

Ask not what the spirit of truth and inquiry can do for you, ask what you can do to become economical with truth and control the findings of any inquiry.

Signed: Hank McShane

25 April 2010 at 21:17  
Blogger British Shorthair said...

I'm not sure what point "Bred in the Bone" is making with the reference to Descartes' Cogito, but if he were to read on, he would find the line of argument anything but secular. This whole issue sounds like an office joke that has been leaked, but if it gives people on this site a chance to express moral outrage in archaic terms, then at least someone has been gratified.

25 April 2010 at 22:00  
Anonymous Glory of the olive said...

Blogger Dreadnaught said...
The Pope and his hand in maintaining the cover-up of pederastic priests has been thoroughly exposed. He wasn't known as the Popes Rottweiller for nothing - he was the enforcer-in- chief.

The Pope has actually been at the forefront of exposing abuse.

It was then-Cardinal Ratzinger who recognized that individual bishops (and other Vatican officials) were not taking the abuse problem seriously enough, and called for a new policy putting the Vatican in charge of discipline for priests accused of abuse.

It was Cardinal Ratzinger who pressed for tough investigations of a powerful Austrian cardinal accused of abuse, and for dismissal of an abuser who had founded one of the most influential religious orders in the Church.
It was Cardinal Ratzinger who spoke passionately about the urgent need to purge the Church, to remove the “filth” from the priestly ranks.

25 April 2010 at 23:14  
Anonymous len said...

Jared Gates,
Regarding people relying on the church.

What is Churchianity? Of course you will not find the word Churchianity in the dictionary, so why use the word and what does it mean? I use the word churchianity because it is a good, descriptive word for the sometimes subtle, yet altogether dangerous shift of focus that frequently occurs in the Christian religion. It is not a word of my own making, but one that I have heard used many times to describe misguided professors of Christianity. Churchianity is a perversion of Christianity; it means that the focus of the religion [what is supposed to be Christianity] has shifted from Christ to the church. Instead of total reliance upon Christ for salvation, sanctification, Christian growth, and spiritual nourishment, adherents of Churchianity rely on the church to an equal or even greater extent for these things. The central difference between Churchianity and Christianity is that Christ is at the center of Christianity, while the church is at the center or Churchianity. Of course those who practice “Churchianity” still consider themselves Christians and probably would deny that the word Churchianity describes their religion; yet, when all of the facts are considered, their religion bears greater resemblance to “Churchianity” than Christianity because of the undue focus given to the church in their religious devotion. So, in theory these professed Christians claim loyalty to Christ, but in practice they are actually loyal to their church. For, when it comes to loyalty in actual practice, “churchians” would rather depart from Christ, Himself, [they would rather depart from the truth of His Word, His teachings, and His doctrine] than forsake their church. Sadly, their church is at the center of their religious devotion; it has stolen their hearts; to it they have pledged their undying allegiance. In Churchianity, we find the church elevated to a position far above even that of their professed Savior.

25 April 2010 at 23:45  
Blogger Lakester91 said...


I think that your description of churchianity is true for some members of the Church (most certainly the various Bishops who have made the news), but isn't an inherent weakness of the Church itself. Both the Anglican and Catholic Churches should be seen to be the means to an end by true adherents, in that we could practise our faith without them, but it would be a lot harder for most people.

Corruption within each Church by some members does not imply that the Church is corrupt. Just because the Pharisees were unduly focussed on synagogueianity, doesn't mean that Jewish religion needed to be done away with. In fact Yeshua said himself that he didn't come to do away with the law, but to fulfil it.

I find your post a little cynical in the way you assume Churchgoing Christians practise their faith. Going to Church is the simplest way of worshipping and keeping in touch with God. To assume that those who go to Church each Sunday therefore must hold their allegiance to religion rather than Christ is presumptuous and a little harsh.

I know that your post doesn't imply that the route cause of churchianity is inherent in the orthodox Churches, nor does it imply that all Churchgoing Christians are followers of churchianity; but it is not difficult to infer that that is your intention, especially having read a lot of your posts.

26 April 2010 at 00:18  
Blogger Lakester91 said...

Glory of the olive,

You are absolutely right, of course, that our Benny is not one of the bad guys here. It is strange that his reforms in the system for dealing with sexual abuses aren't reported more widely in the media. It seems far more popular to print that he is almost solely culpable.

Even though this information is widely available, most people are willingly blind to it; not to say that secular humanists might have an axe to grind of course. It is funny that those who claim to base their entire lives around scientific, rational and empirical truth are so willing to ignore evidence when it suits them.

Don't expect Dreadnaught to listen to you. She has been given this information several times and it is clear that she will not back down when she has such an easy way to attack the faith.

26 April 2010 at 00:28  
Anonymous len said...

Revelation 3 Verses 19-22 say:

“I reprove and discipline those whom I love. Be earnest, therefore, and repent. Listen! I am standing at the door knocking; if you hear my voice and open the door, I will come in to you and eat with you, and you with me. To the one who conquers I will give a place with me on my throne, just as I myself conquered and sat down with my Father on his throne. Let anyone who has an ear listen to what the Spirit is saying to the churches.”
.......Jesus is not knocking on the individual human heart but at the door of a congregation!

( Laodicean Church,believed to be the end time church)

26 April 2010 at 00:41  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

This is another instance of anti-Christian bigotry by this government. Wear a cross to work and you, as a Christian, are hounded out. Dare to mention Jesus in the school playground and your mother is interrogated. Dare to suggest to a patient that you can pray for her recovery and you are suspended.

This is a national socialist government in power that rejects Christians.

Well at the ballot box; this people will reject socialism.

26 April 2010 at 08:20  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Stupid, childish and most of all not funny.

However it goes to the very heart of the matter. Religious belief should be given no more respect than belief in Santa, fairies, Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster. Many here cling to the forlorn hope that their faith will somehow be vindicated, it won’t.
Eventually your God will go the way of all other Gods. When you die you will not meet your maker, you will rot away like the rest of us.

Some of your Shamans are doubtless good and honest men but others like the Pope are devoid of any moral responsibility and deserve not ridicule but contempt and punishment. And believe me if he does reach these shores that is just what he will get.

26 April 2010 at 08:25  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Once you get emotionally joined to an idea it becomes increasingly difficult to be rational, and before you know it you are engaged in hysteria.

Any reply will only sound like a personal insult so I will refrain.

This visit by the Pope is promising to be a controversial one to say the least. The Church is in difficult times and there has to be a certain amount of responsibility taken. I think it has been over protective of its self, but maybe in some misplaced loyalty towards the faithful, but I think the faithful are more grown up than it gives credit for and they now wait for the right action.

What bemuses me is how Christians will argue free will when they counter the claims of atheists that there can be no God because of things like the Holocaust, yet when it suits there own ends, suddenly the free will of individuals is not to be considered in their arguments. Everyone with an ounce of intelligence will know that there have been paedophile priests, and it has been a real problem in the Catholic Church. The time is now for some honesty and action, but I feel the church can grow out of this dilemma. It is not God's doing, it is not Jesus on trial, and neither is it the church that needs to be crucified. There are many, many good priests, and dare I say it, just like we are told there are many good MP's.

I hope we can transcend the hysteria, but my breath will not be holding out to see.

26 April 2010 at 09:32  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...
Are, now its all clear, this was a put up job. The government “allows” a junior official to make remarks that result in the Pope cancelling his visit. The government apologises (but not enough). Given the likelihood of civil action against the Pope if he sets foot on these shores and the consequent embarrassment to the government that invited him everyone is happy, even me as there will be no need to “man the barricades”.

26 April 2010 at 09:39  
Anonymous Voyager said...

When you die you will not meet your maker, you will rot away like the rest of us.

Your Certainty leaves no room for Doubt. Your Faith is certainly steadfast. Congratulations !

26 April 2010 at 09:45  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Voyager said...
Your Certainty leaves no room for Doubt. Your Faith is certainly steadfast. Congratulations !
Do you have any doubts over the existence of Santa?

The few remaining Gods and their respective religions have become so interwoven with the fabric of their host societies that believers just cannot see the blindingly obvious and some like Islam forbid you even to consider the it, and if you do and act upon that thought, as an apostate that “great” faith says that you deserve to be killed! Christianity in its various guises may not as brutal but it is more insidious. It seduces with awe inspiring buildings, with fabulous music and art, with ceremony and tradition, with smell, with serious looking Shamans speaking in venerable tones but it is not TRUE!

Seduction relies on the very thing that religion rails against, temptation. You are lured into its arms with false promises and once you have succumbed to its embrace the likelihood of escape is remote. Your only defence is reason, but most know deep down, that to subject their faith to reason would see it wither like an un-watered plant. So you keep it locked away in a place where reason cannot penetrate.

26 April 2010 at 10:44  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...


Like most here opinions are formed from reading whatever literature appeals to our understanding of truth.
Since I don't recall either the BBC or London Evening Standard being sued for defamation by the Vatican, I tend to think that there may be some truth in the following:-

In 2001, while he was a cardinal, he issued a secret Vatican edict to Catholic bishops all over the world, instructing them to put the Church's interests ahead of child safety...

...And Father Tom Doyle, a Vatican lawyer until he was sacked for criticising the church's handling of child abuse claims, says: "What you have here is an explicit written policy to cover up cases of child sexual abuse by the clergy and to punish those who would call attention to these crimes by the churchmen.

26 April 2010 at 11:02  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Graham, you should not ridicule peoples faith in their God as I'm sure you wouldn't expect them to ridicule your lack of such faith.

Think what you like about Christianity, but don't deny the moral guidance it has given this Nation. Just because there are sinners amongst the Clergy does not mean we should write off the Church.
All men are sinners and as such should try to atone for their sins and seek forgiveness.

26 April 2010 at 12:01  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Maturecheese said...
Graham, you should not ridicule peoples faith in their God as I'm sure you wouldn't expect them to ridicule your lack of such faith.

Why not?

don't deny the moral guidance it has given this Nation

Moral guidance!!!!

Do you really believe that people would not know how to behave morally without religion? The Christian religion has usurped what we already know and sold it back to us as its own creation. It is the ultimate con. If you are taken in by men in frocks and pious words then I suggest that you have never bothered to question it!

26 April 2010 at 12:13  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I did watch the most recent south park and can say that the whole thing was just ridiculous. Comedy Central should be ashamed for their lack of balls to put it out uncensored as the makers wanted.

I also went onto a "design your own T-Shirt" website immediately after watching the show and created a T Shirt with a Stick Man sporting a turban and a long beard with the word "Mohammed" underneath it in big bold letters.

It should be arriving sometime next week.

26 April 2010 at 12:31  
Anonymous no nonny said...

It really is a complex business, isn't it?

As a Christian, I'm not anti-RC, and I wish RCs no ill.
I even have a soft spot- because they treated me well at their schools.
As a Christian I think we should all unite in the face of the Moslem threat.
As a Christian I wish we could all unite against this vicious, vile, Anti-Christ of humanistic-commiedom.

On the other hand,
As a British Protestant, I don't want RCs to take over our religion and start expecting dues from us.
And I resent the creeping RCism in my Church. I prefer our own customs and language.

As a Brit, I'm less than sanguine about all those nasty bits of parchment locked in some vault in Rome - I think if the Romans were true Christians and friends they'd help us get the things back so we could tear them to shreds!!

So while I'd like the Pope to come in the face of all the horrible snapping, growling,
rude, barbarian Anti-Christians; I can't accept him as the head of Christainity: only as an ally. If he could prove he comes in that spirit, then I could admire his courage in braving this degraded and decadent hell-hole of a country.

26 April 2010 at 13:33  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Graham Davis, what are you a first year at Cambridge ? You know so little and pontificate so much. Your Certainty is not upheld by any Philosophy nor any Science. It is a Theology of Assertion.

Your Assertion is simply that and since I have no respect for your intellectual pretensions, I find your arrogance typical of undergraduate self-awareness but limited knowledge and experience.

I frankly could not care what you assert from your Secular Society in The Fens, you have such limited knowledge but think you can tell others what is and what is not. Your reading of Kritik der Reinen Vernunft may give you spectacular insights, but I doubt it.

So you go to your grave believing what you choose, just remember that you cannot halt your daily decay, but you could try to add knowledge in place of your pronounced ignorance masquerading as Certainty.

26 April 2010 at 14:25  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...


Your supposition is way off the mark. I speak as a 63 year old without the benefit of a university education.

Your faith does not gain validity because it is old, quite the opposite as it was conceived amid ignorance and superstition. That you prefer to continue believing the fairy tale does you no credit. That you claim it gives you some moral authority is repugnant.

I have no problem with anyone believing anything. In fact many people believe all sorts of new age nonsense or conspiracy theories. My problem is with religion, yours and all the others. Your arrogance is every bit as great as mine, believing as you do in 2000 year old desert myths and expecting the rest of us to respect you for your gullibility and self delusion.

26 April 2010 at 14:42  
Anonymous Voyager said...

Your faith does not gain validity because it is old, quite the opposite as it was conceived amid ignorance and superstition. That you prefer to continue believing the fairy tale does you no credit. That you claim it gives you some moral authority is repugnant.

What is my Faith ? You know that seemingly...."what fairy tale" ?

You have such an outpouring of vitriol, but cannot tell me why your Faith is so Certain. I ask for scientific PROOF of your assertions

26 April 2010 at 15:09  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...


Apologies in advance for my forthright manner.

Like all children who receive Xmas presents I believed the story of Santa and chimneys and a sleigh pulled by reindeer flying across the night sky. But for all children there comes a time when the story begins to appear so improbable that we begin to ask questions, pretty soon the myth is exploded.

I began to ask the same questions about God a few years later and once I had broken free of any remaining pressure to believe the truth was blindingly simple.

And before you ask me how I know it is the truth, ask yourself the same question of the existence of Santa, its really that easy, no theology or philosophy required, all they do is stop you from seeing clearly. Science has explained nearly all of what religion sought to explain and for those explanations that still elude us lets just say wait and see. God is certainly not an explanation as it contradicts nearly all of what is provable by science.

Mankind has invented thousands of Gods and all but a few have been discarded as our knowledge increased. It is only a question of time before yours disappears as well. Bit don’t dismay life as an atheist is really rather good. We share all the same concerns and may even agree on many of the solutions, except one!

26 April 2010 at 15:43  
Blogger Jared Gaites said...

Graham D

You seem to have been traumatised over the Santa Claus thing. Keep up the rage, eventually it should burn out, but I would have expected the trauma of realizing that Santa is a myth to have usually worn out well before 63. I think you are stuck in some kind of anallly retentive mode.

Santa is for little kids and adults who wish to keep the spirit alive. Loosen up you old bastard!

26 April 2010 at 17:27  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...


Yes Santa was a big shock to me and one that I still haven’t got over. Every Christmas Eve I gaze out of the window hoping to see his sleigh floating above the roof tops. Maybe one day, if I believe hard enough?

26 April 2010 at 17:38  
Anonymous len said...

Graham Davis,
God gives according to your faith,
if your faith is in rotting in the grave, guess what?

26 April 2010 at 17:52  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

No Len God doesn’t give anything because he is just your invisible friend.

26 April 2010 at 18:02  
Anonymous len said...

Still in denial then?

26 April 2010 at 18:04  
Anonymous Voyager said...

God is certainly not an explanation as it contradicts nearly all of what is provable by science.

This is what I want you to explain. BTW I do not believe in the term "Science" and prefer Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics as "hard Sciences". I should prefer you to produce your PROOF from Physics.....please do so.

I should like to know how Physics contradicts the existence of 'God' can use words

26 April 2010 at 18:05  
Anonymous len said...

What would it take to convince you of Gods existence?

26 April 2010 at 18:06  
Anonymous len said...

last question for Mr Davis(len 18;05)

26 April 2010 at 18:07  
Anonymous len said...

I find it interesting that someone should say that because he couldn`t perceive something with the five senses that it categorically couldn`t exist?
And call this reasoning scientific?

26 April 2010 at 18:18  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...


It is not possible to prove a negative. I cannot prove that Santa doesn’t exist; do you think it reasonable that I should spend time trying? In addition I have a verifiable explanation for the provenance of my xmas presents.


If I only have 5 senses why should I imagine that I have more?

My grandmother, a spiritualist, on hearing that her only grandson was an atheist was so horrified that as proof of an afterlife she threatened to roll me out of bed when she “passed on”. More than 50 years after I am still waiting. I heard a quote recently from a Christian doctor stationed at Lourdes in order to verify miracles. He was so disappointed that after 16 years he was unable to verify a single one. It may have surprised him but it didn’t me.

What is demanded of you by your religion could have been written by Joseph Heller. Your religion requires faith so if God was proven to exist you would not need faith! So your faith becomes the most important thing not truth. You are afraid of truth because you know it could destroy your faith. So you ask me to disprove that God exists which you know cannot be done and thus you convince yourself of God’s existence. I can think of so finer example of self delusion

26 April 2010 at 21:43  
Blogger Lakester91 said...


Your use of flawed logic and attempts to use 'Science' as a theory rather than a method are starting to bore me. I wouldn't be surprised if they were boring the rest of us to. It is very easy to prove a specific negative. Just find a counter-example. I can prove that Santa (I assume you mean Father Christmas) doesn't exist because he is physically impossible. To travel around to world in one night delivering presents would require travelling rather too close to the speed of light. His mass (especially considering all the presents) would be astronomical and at the speed he was going he would most likely burn up like a meteor.

You think that the truth would destroy our faith; I think that the truth would shake you to your very core.

I would like to hear that quote by the way. I'm sure you didn't fabricate it, so you'll probably be able to provide the source easily.

26 April 2010 at 23:15  
Anonymous no nonny said...

Yes, Lakester the frustration of any dynamic in the discussion is boring. I call it the 'Look at a Horsa There' syndrome, because it reminds me of the little boy I knew who was too clever to learn.

In the view of his peers, this poor infant was so stupid he couldn't even identify a cow. Whenever he saw one, he would say: "Look at a horsa, dair," no matter how many times the differences were explained. Eventually, one of his elders realized the little b*** was doing it on purpose, and told the other kids to save their energy and stop rising to the bait. In the view of the lad, though - he'd won whichever way he looked at it.

He was not, of course, one who went on to learn anything about horses - or even cows, for that matter. Research, learning, and the associated work, were way beneath someone who was that smart.

Now I don't have time to trouble about Santa Claus, specifically. I have, however, a small interest in mythology as a form of narrative. So if some story, folklore, legend, or myth strikes me as contradictory or questionable, I don't see the point of sitting and sneering at others who analyze examples of the genre: their history, development, purposes, applications, structure, etc. After all, the research, can lead to exploration of possibilities like euhemerism and allegory. Setting such aspects in perspective and context is likely to be very hard work - one needs to care about the topic.

btw - your parallel of Old Man Xmas with Light does bring a flash of interest to the thread! Thank you.

wv: right!! I kid you not.

27 April 2010 at 02:43  
Anonymous Voyager said...

You are afraid of truth because you know it could destroy your faith.

You make such assumptions about someone you have never met and do not know. Therein lies your problem.

You are so convinced of your assertions that you have no idea what the other party believes or KNOWS.

It is perfectly possible for your assertions to be 100% correct when applied to yourself and 100% false when applied to another.

If you develop cancer it says nothing about why other people do not; it is specific to yourself. You are quite separate from anyone else and it is perfectly possible that God does not exist for you and does not wish to be associated with you. That says nothing about whether he is evident to others.

You really should learn more Physics and more Theology. It is your limited conceptual grasp that inhibits you.

27 April 2010 at 07:04  
Anonymous len said...

Graham Davis,
Truth is very important to me!
Prove to me that God doesn`t exist and I will join the ranks of atheists and campaign wholeheartedly against believers.

27 April 2010 at 07:46  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Lakester91 said...
I can prove that Santa (I assume you mean Father Christmas) doesn't exist because he is physically impossible
You must see the absurdity of that statement. All the supernatural claims that you make for your God are possible, I don’t think so?

As for quotes I am not sure what you mean, I haven’t quoted anybody in these posts.

Voyager said...
You really should learn more Physics and more Theology. It is your limited conceptual grasp that inhibits you

Physics yes but theology is less useful than a shovel.

Len said...
Prove to me that God doesn`t exist

Not again. Prove to me that Santa doesn’t exist, please

27 April 2010 at 08:20  
Anonymous len said...

In His trial, Yeshua, Jesus of Nazareth was asked by the Roman Procurator prior to having Him crucified, "What is truth?" The Roman Pilate did not get an answer, for by the time that question was asked, Jesus had already said enough that if He were believed, there would already be understanding, not only for the Roman, but also the Chief Rulers of the people desiring the condemnation of Jesus to death.

27 April 2010 at 18:46  
Blogger Lakester91 said...


'You must see the absurdity of that statement. All the supernatural claims that you make for your God are possible, I don’t think so?'

Yes they are. He is independent of space-time and of the Universe: Father Christmas is not. God was not invented, especially not to entertain children; the character of Father Christmas was (though he was based on the very real St. Nicholas).

'Prove to me that Santa doesn’t exist, please'

I just did.

It is very simple to disprove something as specific as the Christian God. Find something that is predicts and prove that it doesn't or didn't happen. For example, if you could prove that Jesus didn't rise from the dead, then the Christian God would be disproved. Stop hiding behind bad science!

No nonny,

Thank you for your comment; it perfectly sums up the attitude of some people on this blog.

27 April 2010 at 19:15  
Anonymous Geoff M said...

It wasn't just any email from any "junior" civil servant.

He was on the team for the Popes visit. How can Rome now have any confidence in the F.O. to oversee the Popes visit?

The itinerary, content, his safety, the organisation is too important to leave to a bunch of "Student Grants".

He should be sacked - as should the rest of that team.

Incidentally, we read that the team contained not a single Catholic and is headed by a Pakistani, Anjoum Noorani.

How typical.

I wonder if a visit by a world leader of the largest Muslim sect would be organised by a team with no muslims in it and headed by a Jew?

What would have happened if it were suggested he be force fed a bacon sandwich, have his foreskin surgically restored or attend a Gay Mohammed lookalike and painting competition or Honour violence safe house?

There are 4 million British Catholics in the UK. Many serve in the armed services. We are overwhelmingly of British stock.

We deserve better.

28 April 2010 at 07:43  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Lakestar91 said...

Yes they are. He (God) is independent of space-time and of the Universe

What an absurd cop-out.

Your magic true, other magic false!

And of course not a shred of evidence, how could there be, after all he is your imaginary friend, just like Santa.

28 April 2010 at 08:27  
Blogger Lakester91 said...


Your understanding of the natural sciences astounds me! I would suggest you could probably get at least a C at GCSE.

28 April 2010 at 18:27  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older