Thursday, July 26, 2012

Cameron slams Mosques for ‘locking out’ gays


On Tuesday, the Prime Minister David Cameron affirmed his commitment to same-sex civil marriage while addressing a Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) reception at Downing Street.

In his speech, he thanked lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people for the contribution they make in the arts, in media, in sport, in business, and in finance.

For some reason, he didn’t mention politics.

He lauded the 40th anniversary of the foundation of the (manifestly enlightened) Jewish Gay Equality Group, and pledged himself to follow in the steps of Tony Blair by legislating for gay marriage in this parliament. He said: “I make that point not only as someone who believes in equality but as someone who believes passionately in marriage. I think marriage is a great institution – I think it helps people to commit, it helps people to say that they’re going to care and love for another person. It helps people to put aside their selfish interests and think of the union that they’re forming. It’s something I feel passionately about and I think if it’s good enough for straight people like me, it’s good enough for everybody and that’s why we should have gay marriage and we will legislate for it.”

That’s nice: it's good to feel passion for things.  

He added: “And I know there’s going to be some big arguments, there will be arguments obviously within political parties including my own, there will be arguments with many of the public that take a different view, although it is worth noting that opinion polls consistently show that the public support the case for equality and obviously there’ll be arguments within the Mosques as well and I can say how great it is to see some Muslim men and women here tonight supporting this cause."

And then this: “I run an institution – the Conservative Party (which you're slowly destroying [ed.]) – which for many, many years got itself on the wrong side of this argument, it locked people out who were naturally Conservative from supporting it and so I think I can make that point to the Mosques, gently (‘gently’ is very considerate, bless you [ed.]). Of course this is a very complicated and difficult issue for all the different Mosques (you don’t say [ed.]), but I passionately believe that all institutions need to wake up to the case for equality, and the Mosque shouldn’t be locking out people who are gay, or are bisexual or are transgender from being full members of that Mosque, because many people with deeply-held Islamic views are also gay. And just as the Conservative Party, as an institution, made a mistake in locking people out so I think the Mosques can be in danger of doing the same thing.”

O, hang on. His Grace apologises, for he has slightly misconstrued (again).

85 Comments:

Blogger Preacher said...

Well Mr C, you've lit the Blue touchpaper, now what comes next? Oh yes. Run like Hell!.

Is this guy for real or has he been living in a cave for a few centuries?
"I think I can make that point to the Mosques gently". ROFL.

26 July 2012 at 09:46  
Blogger Wallenstein said...

You can't have it both ways... if you want the Church of England to be recognised as a formal part of the British state, with unelected Bishops in the Lords and the legal right to solomnise marriage etc, then the Church must accept it will be held to a higher standard and must reflect the values of the society it is part of.

The alternative is for the Church to withdraw from the State and operate as any other private organisation, at which point they can do as they see fit.

Once Imams sit in the Lords as of right they should expect to be held to the same standards as the established Church, but until then the CofE should cease their bleating and accept that their power brings with it extra responsibility.

26 July 2012 at 09:52  
Blogger Albert said...

I run an institution – the Conservative Party – which for many many years got itself on the wrong side of this argument, it locked people out who were naturally Conservative from supporting it and so I think I can make that point to the Church, gently.

So Cameron thinks the Churches are equivalent to the Conservative Party. Is the man mad?

it is worth noting that opinion polls consistently show that the public support the case for equality

Of course they are. The indoctrinated in schools and alternative views are legislated against. Debate, such as it is is shut down before it starts with words banded about like "homophobia" and (as here) "equality". Surely Cameron can see the category mistake he commits when he uses that word.

26 July 2012 at 09:58  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Mr Wallenstein,

Before shooting off, you really ought to read the speech properly. Mr Cameron referred numerous times to 'Churches' (plural) and then talked about 'all institutions'. He was not addressing his remarks solely to the State Church: he chose to single out the Christians (all of them).

26 July 2012 at 10:01  
Blogger Albert said...

Wallenstein,

the Church must accept it will be held to a higher standard and must reflect the values of the society it is part of.

I'm a Catholic. Cameron's words were directed at me as much as at Anglicans, but there are no Catholic Bishops in the House of Lords. Moreover, I'm amused by your rhetorical (ab)use of the word "higher" here, and the assumption that "the values of society" are something you can speak for. Are you not aware that society is not one homogeneous body speaking with one voice? I'm part of society too you know. How dare you presume to speak for me. Aren't just intolerantly hijacking words to save yourself having to provide an argument?

But even if we let all that pass, surely in a democracy we are allowed to challenge "society's" opinions. How else would views have changed on homosexuality if we weren't?

26 July 2012 at 10:03  
Blogger Roy said...

Wallenstein said...

You can't have it both ways... if you want the Church of England to be recognised as a formal part of the British state, with unelected Bishops in the Lords and the legal right to solomnise marriage etc, then the Church must accept it will be held to a higher standard and must reflect the values of the society it is part of.

What an arrogant statement! Are the standards of Cameron or any part of society higher than those of God?

26 July 2012 at 10:03  
Blogger bluedog said...

One of the longer suicide notes, Your Grace.

26 July 2012 at 10:04  
Blogger Albert said...

BTW,

Is it me, or is Cameron's grammar surprisingly poor for a Public School boy? It's almost as bad as his logic.

26 July 2012 at 10:04  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

It's hardly likely to encourage the armies of traditional Conservative volunteers to pound the streets at election time. And although it might resound with the metropolitan elite, will it increase the overall vote?

Either Dave is more cynical than I thought, or he is dafter - I can't decide which it is.

26 July 2012 at 10:04  
Blogger Pétrus said...

@Albert

"Is the man mad?"

I assume that question was rhetorical?

26 July 2012 at 10:17  
Blogger Lady Anne said...

Have you heard of the Tytler cycle?

"Two centuries ago, a somewhat obscure Scotsman named Tytler made this profound observation: "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship"

We appear to be in the final stages of this. A dictatorship, where we cannot say what we think without the Thought Police jumping on us, will be around the corner if gay marriage is legislated for.

Oh, and I do loads of surveys / opinion polls, and I have only seen one where the subject of gay marriage arose. This also asked what religion I was. And the survey broke when I said I was an evangelical Christian, so that I couldn't finish it!

26 July 2012 at 10:20  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

Lady Anne,

Dictatorship? What happens when the money runs out?
I'm not working for a state that dictates to me - they can get their taxes somewhere else.

26 July 2012 at 10:23  
Blogger Albert said...

Bugle,

Either Dave is more cynical than I thought, or he is dafter - I can't decide which it is.

What makes you think he has to choose? He thought this move would win him support. In fact, such people have just judged him cynical, and he has in the meantime lost his grass-roots support, because, even while being leader of the party, he is out of touch with the Consevative Party. And he has therefore demonstrated that he is totally out of touch with the country as a whole. Daft and cynical.

26 July 2012 at 10:28  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

And on opinion polls, if there was a referendum on this homosexual nonsense, even without proper debate, it would be lost, just as if there was one about EU membership, hanging, foreign aid and a host of other things.

26 July 2012 at 10:29  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

Albert,

Good point.

If he really believes in 'equality' that's one thing, but it is not conservative. So he is either not a conservative and honestly saying what he thinks, in which case he's in the wrong party, or he is the shamlessly cynical heir to Blair that he is accused of being.
Either way, he is daft to think this will increase the conservative vote.
And all at a time when the western world is facing economic extinction.

26 July 2012 at 10:37  
Blogger Albert said...

Bugle,

And all this talk about popular support needs to be put in the context of

(i) No adequate debate
(ii) Polls show people don't think gay marriage should be done in this Parliament.
(iii) In the US polls are consistently more pro-gay marriage than are secret votes. The impression given is that people say what they feel they have be told to say, but then they vote on what they think is right (against). This would indicate that the real position is nearer to the outcome of the poll that asked about the nature of marriage, rather than gay marriage, and came out with 70% in favour of keeping things as they are.

26 July 2012 at 10:44  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

Albert,

It is quite clearly going against much of the history of humanity - particularly Jewish and Christian teaching (and Islam) and, on an instinctive basis, what people feel to be right.

So why now? What is to be gained?
Cameron talks utter tosh about wanting everyone to enjoy the benefits of marriage. Why is he making a fool of himself like this?

I come back to either giving him the credit for being clever enough to know what he's doing and is simply cynical, or having no understanding of anything much, but honestly saying what he 'believes'.

In either case I do not want to vote for him.

26 July 2012 at 10:55  
Blogger Theo said...

For an intelligent man Cameron really does show almost unbelievable stupidity. It is our faith, belief system, religion, attitude towards and relationship with our Creator that informs our politics, not the other way round. He might as well tell God that He shouldn't "lock out" homosexuals. (Please excuse me for not using the word "gay", it is one that was hi-jacked to make the lifestyle not sound so sordid as it is.)

26 July 2012 at 11:04  
Blogger bluedog said...

Lady Anne @ 10.20, Tytler's views sound like a derivative of the theory of anacyclosis devised by the Greco-roman philosopher Polybius. Easy enough to google or wiki.

26 July 2012 at 11:15  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

The arrogance of Blaimeron is outstanding. The affrontary to tell the Church what the standards of Godliness should be.

This self-aggrandising arrogance towards God is not without precedent of course. I have just read these words of scripture, from Genesis 11: "Come, let us build ourselves a city, with a tower that reaches to the heavens, so that we may make a name for ourselves"

I predict the same outcome for the Conservatives (well all the political class actually) as for the citizens of Babel: confusion & scattering. God will not be mocked.

And since this assault on the family will have the most detrimental affect on our children, I would warn Mr Cameron, Mr Salmond et al to stay away from mill stones and large bodies of water.

[Incidentally, the juxtaposition of Islam for Christianity is wearing a little thin as a construct now Cranmer. We all know they do not confront Islam because they are under a spirit of dhimmitude, and that the Immans & mosques will simply carry on regardless.]

26 July 2012 at 11:15  
Blogger John Knox's lovechild said...

What locus does this man have for giving condescending lectures to Muslims or anyone else?

He should busy himself with the office to which he has been indirectly elected and try to be of some use.

26 July 2012 at 11:25  
Blogger Preacher said...

Isn't it about time for a challenge to Camerons leadership, or is the thought of having to lead this shambles of a 'coalition' putting of the likely canditates?.
Under Captain Cameron the tories are shipping water like a submarine with a cat flap, one can only bail for so long then it's gone without trace.

26 July 2012 at 11:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Interestingly, yesterday the Scottish Government committed to legalising homosexual marriage despite over two-thirds of the 80,000 of those responding to the consultation process being opposed.

This speech is revealing - it's all about culture change.

"But what is equally important – arguably now what is more important – is actually going to be changing culture; whether it’s on the football field, or in the rugby dressing room. Changing the culture ... everywhere so that people can genuinely feel we live in an equal, fair and tolerant country ... But the promise I can make you is that this coalition government is committed to both changing the law and also working to help change the culture and the Conservative party absolutely backs that."

So, it seems, we can infer that homosexuals feel Christian culture is unequal, unfair and intolerant and that Mr Cameron agrees with them.

26 July 2012 at 12:00  
Blogger john in cheshire said...

I think that Mr Cameron has a plan and that is to destroy the Conservative Party. I resigned from it and joined UKIP and I think a lot of people are doing the same. However, I suspect that Mr Cameron's (and his puppet-masters') intentions are based on more complex reasons, which include delivering the UK to the EU in a completely subservient and vulnerable condition. I just wonder how such a pro-EU socialist was ever allowed to ascend to the top of the Conservative Party without much resistance.

26 July 2012 at 12:05  
Blogger bananabrain said...

reading the comments here, it can hardly appear as if "christian culture" (whatever that means) is not unequal, unfair and intolerant towards them. i'm with cameron on this. and if you want "homosexual lifestyles" to be less "sordid", then it is hard to see why support for gay marriage should not be enthusiastically endorsed!

b'shalom

bananabrain

26 July 2012 at 12:09  
Blogger jimbo78 said...

DC is going bonkers.. but he's absolutely wrong about opinion polls showing support for gay marriage, they manifestly do not! If we exclude the ones done for organisations with an axe to grind then we find a small majority AGAINST them!. See the UK POlling Report findings on this very issue.

http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/4984

Other than that, the disconnect between our ruling elite and the people is getting wider and wider and this won't end happily i fear. We've already had riots by disaffected youths.. will the M&S riot collection be on our shelves soon?.. prob not, but something has to give, this can't go on.. the view of the people is utterly ignored as it is on immigration, Europe, justice and so on. I'm not saying we should have referenda for everything or follow the Sun editorial but democracy is supposed to be about the rule of the people, not Noblesse Oblige, rule on behalf of the people, because we know best. I think that's not democracy at all.

26 July 2012 at 12:11  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

Mr bananabrain,

Do you think "homosexual lifestyles" are sordid because they can't have a marriage, religious or civil?

Is there not something else that makes them different from heterosexual "lifestyles"?

And if Christianity is "unequal, unfair and intolerant" towards them why should they be bothered about it?

26 July 2012 at 12:22  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Dodo @ 12.00, it can hardly be a coincidence that Cameron has rushed out a statement on homosexual marriage within hours of Salmond. Dave's reactive approach has all the maturity of 'my dad's bigger than yours' in the school-yard.

Both men are in for a very rude surprise. It is to be hoped that UKIP takes the opportunity Salmond is providing to build a constituency in Scotland.

26 July 2012 at 12:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

bluedog

Indeed! My hope is that Nichola Sturgeon, who appears to be fronting this, will make a dent in SNP's popularity. Salmond, the arch politician, appears less vocal and, I suspect, senses this could back-fire. The Catholic Church and Church of Scotland remain influential north of the border and are firmly opposed to this.

26 July 2012 at 12:44  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Cameron & Clegg know they are doomed electorally in the UK, so they are simply doing all they can to line themselves up for a nice cushy number as an EU commissioner ... no pesky elections, no media scrutiny, no party politics, no accountability & a remuneration package many times what they are on now.

I still hold people, like yourself Cranmer, who advocate voting tribally for the conservatives at the election (and probably will do again in 2015) and who also were dead set against AV, partly culpable.

26 July 2012 at 12:51  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr bananabrain @ 12.09, this communicant prefers to argue in favour of the current definition of marriage from a secular position because the institution pre-dates both Judaism (possibly) and Christianity (definitely). The Old and New Testament certainly have injunctions for men and women to cleave heathily to one another, but there are problems.

How does one explain David and Jonathan and Ruth and Naomi?

26 July 2012 at 12:57  
Blogger Owl said...

Dave's aim in life is to redefine marriage. He is obeying his orders.

Dave is not stupid (although it would seem so), he has his agenda to follow.

The public have to be manipulated to beleive something evil is good.

Dave really needs a good thrashing. I suspect he is going to get it, one way or another.

26 July 2012 at 13:28  
Blogger John Chater said...

Good man Dave knows how to pick a fight. Being a liberal at heart he can whinge about the 'church' endlessly and never more successfully than when cornered by a posse of lesb/gay/bi/trans/leavespaceforanyothers lovely darlings at a champagne reception. A splendid idea that he might have directed his remarks at Muslims, Your Grace, or religious folk in general, rather than mere Christians.
A Muslim friend of mine recently asked me about 'a marriage of the gays' as he put it. He is Pakistani British and his English isn't too good so he really had no idea what marrying the gays might entail. When I explained the proposed changes to marriage and suggested that, eventually, they might also apply to Muslim weddings he almost died laughing. No matter how hard I tried to explain it he just could not take the idea seriously. He never even got round to the possibility of being offended. After much near hysterical laughter he did say "But don't you have some gay clergy types in the church?" My turn to laugh…

26 July 2012 at 13:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

bananabrain

if you want "homosexual lifestyles" to be less "sordid", then it is hard to see why support for gay marriage should not be enthusiastically endorsed!

Because homosexuals won't conform their behavior to marriage. They will conform marriage to their behavior. The concept of homosexual marriage will demolish the public aspects of marriage that regulate behavior. It becomes a private institution of mutual help and companionship that may or may not include concepts of sexual fidelity, and is completely divorced from parenting and children.

In a word, it isn't going to produce less sordid behavior. It's will instead adapt marriage to sordid behavior - with all the predictable social consequences that flow from sexual chaos.

carl

26 July 2012 at 14:05  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I think that it is almost certain that ssm will be legislated.Like everyone else I find this very depressing because of the disastrous aftermath. When it happens it will change the very foundation and nature of western culture forever.It will have that feeling of living in an occupied country except the occupier is here to stay


As someone who spends more than half a year in an Islamic country I think I would rather live there full time than live in any country that supports ssm. I believe that it really will affect a significant percentage of the population who oppose it and their families adversely,on a psychological level,apart from the other obvious areas of education and media indoctrination. It attacks the very core of all the four faith belief systems. I stand open mouthed in consequence when I see and hear politicians with suport from the clergy arguing vigorously for ssm and think how could this have ever happened particularly when they have had religious upbringing. They must know what they are doing is wrong.

26 July 2012 at 14:13  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

His Grace is wrong.

David Cameron is not 'slowly destroying' the Conservative party.

The Blairite liberal and his worthless associates HAVE destroyed it.

26 July 2012 at 14:40  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

John in Cheshire asks

'I just wonder how such a pro-EU socialist was ever allowed to ascend to the top of the Conservative Party without much resistance.'

Peter Hitchens has addressed this question in some detail in his book 'The Cameron Delusion' previously issued as 'The Broken Compass' I find his analysis persuasive.

I remember where I was when I heard the catastrophic news that the party then known as the Conservative party had inexplicably chosen the liberal Cameron as leader rather than moderate one nation conservative David Davies. Peter Hitchens remembers where he was also, he was at the wretched Blackpool conference where the deal was done.

Lib/Lab/Con-they are all sixties liberals together. Just like the bankcs and big supermarkets-its a cartel with no real choice.

Deals over lunch, the BBC/Guardian axis, lazy journalists, peer pressure, all sort of things, but above all the liberal left elite deciding that the socially liberal legacy of the 1960s would be safe with Cameron. That's how the smooth operator got to the top of the greasy pole.

I wrote to David Davis recently begging him to lead an anti-Cameron coup to try to save Britain, or at least England. He wrote back politely. Perhaps if LOTS of people wrote to him it might make a difference, I can't think of anyone else who might succeed. He obviously can't strike until he is certain to succed at the first attempt. Not that I have a shred of evidence he even wants to.

Nigel Farage, may God preserve you and deliver you a massive protest vote in 2015.

However, I think we're stuffed. And frankly it serves us right.

26 July 2012 at 14:54  
Blogger Belsay Bugle said...

Dear Miss de Nova,

Might it be that SSM is part of the creeping islamification of the Christian west?

Where do the 'moral' go to find some public expression of 'morality'? Islam.

Where do they find an unbending code enforced strictly? Islam.

Why would they embrace such an alien faith?
Because it gives them 'moral' certainty in a world that is shifting because they no longer have the will to be responsible for themselves.

Slaves need to be told.

26 July 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I can hardly bring myself to respond to this BB post. To condemn an entire race of being unthinking and not wanting choice and liberty is breathtakingly bigoted and ignorant...in fact I wont.

26 July 2012 at 16:01  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Bugle

I doubt people will trot off to join Islam.

However homosexual 'marriage' by weakening further the Christian foundations of the West will strengthen Islam and Islam extremism. This heresy will point to the corruption of the 'Christian West' as evidence for the truth of their own religion.

Institutions in any society, such as marriage, family, schools and religion, all define and reinforce physical and spiritual realities. They bind a nation together. Christianity works. Secularists are destroying this and replacing it with a godless humanitarianism based on individualism and hedonism and no other shared values.

26 July 2012 at 16:17  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Bugle,

Your post re Islam is a red herring. Those of a socially conservative Christian world view always have Rome, who knows quite clearly where it stands with sexuality, abortion, marriage and other social issues.

If Rome is not to your liking there is always the other extreme of Arch Protestant Churches, I am sure Carl Jacobs can give you a list if you want one.

26 July 2012 at 16:31  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I agree it will strengthen Islam's position .SSM is politically a very bad move.

26 July 2012 at 16:33  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

The Other thing which gets me mad about Cameron is that he seems to think confronting the Churches over this issue is his equivalent of a clause 4 moment a la Blair, which is the real crux of the matter, rather than Cameron been remotely interested in marriage or gay rights (he hasn't changed the Conservative party, just put henchmen and women in key places and seats). I am surprised others can't see this either.

26 July 2012 at 16:38  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Paul Twigg

If Rome is not to your liking there is always the other extreme of Arch Protestant Churches, I am sure Carl Jacobs can give you a list if you want one.

Eh? I am actually a pretty reasonable moderate Protestant.

carl

26 July 2012 at 16:42  
Blogger Albert said...

Fascinating report on how Dave is destroying the Conservative Party, here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2179040/How-Mr-Camerons-obsession-gay-marriage-killing-Tory-party.html?ito=feeds-newsxml

26 July 2012 at 16:43  
Blogger Albert said...

Carl,

I am actually a pretty reasonable moderate Protestant.

Yes, I think historically, believing God predestined people to hell, prior even to his foreknowledge of their sins, is the mainstream Protestant position.

26 July 2012 at 16:45  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Carl Jacobs,

Didn't say you were not a moderate protestant, but the difference is polar between say a traditional Catholic Mass and a Charismatic Evangelical services with guitar and drum kit.

Anyhow, well off topic.

26 July 2012 at 16:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

carl said ...

"Eh? I am actually a pretty reasonable moderate Protestant."

Eh? You are a Calvinist and follow dogma and a world view based on this and coloured by your military background.

Now I, on the other hand, am a pretty moderate Christian who happens to be a Catholic.

26 July 2012 at 16:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Paul Twigg

You never did say which protestant group you were a member of. Are you really a Muslim?

26 July 2012 at 16:57  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Dodo,

With a first name of Paul and a surname of Twigg, do I really sound like I am a follower of the Prophet?

26 July 2012 at 17:01  
Blogger Galant said...

Perhaps I'm too young to remember but I can't think of a single 'issue' that has been as emotive and has seen so much aggressive peer pressure used as the gay marriage issue.

Discussing this issue is usually impossible - at least in my experience. The general feel seems to be that either you're pro-gay marriage or your an anti-equality, disgusting human being. That's how a lot of the discussions have continued, it's an incredibly powerful phenomenon.

I wonder if it isn't the understanding of this media/cultural branding that leads Cameron and others to speak, and even believe, in this way.

It's extremely frustrating, and as I experienced recently, saddening, when even those whom you count as friends are happy to dismiss and insult you because you want to ask questions and offer ideas. It really does 'feel' like the beginning of the end of free speech.

26 July 2012 at 17:11  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Paul

No, but you could be in deep cover!

26 July 2012 at 17:16  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Ps - you didn't say Christian name, either!

26 July 2012 at 17:16  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Dodo,

Also Paul spells prophet, with a capital "P" and he didn't deny it the other day or today.

26 July 2012 at 17:22  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Belfast is one as well. He spells with a capital B and mentions moslem friends in one of his posts.
Besides he has that moslem feel about him.Sorry Belfast champ status revoked back to nong.

26 July 2012 at 17:53  
Blogger Bred in the bone said...

There may be a few finer points left to iron out, but all in all, damn good progress, so far

26 July 2012 at 18:03  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Dodo,

You said "deep cover"? Perhaps Paul really is a secret Roman Catholic?

26 July 2012 at 18:03  
Blogger marionettesyndrome said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 July 2012 at 18:06  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I am confused. One RC says I am an extremist, and another RC says I am mainstream. Perhaps I should ask for a Papal Bull to resolve the matter. One with "declare, pronounce, and define" in it. And some anathemas as well. As for me, I was just referring to my willingness to tolerate disagreement within the (capital 'C') Church. Should people disagree with me, I am quite willing to let them be wrong. ;)

carl

26 July 2012 at 18:11  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

No I am not a Muslim or a Catholic. I am in fact a member of the Church of First Day English Saints.

26 July 2012 at 18:22  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Your Grace. Changing the culture is he ? That’s it you know, the very reason. That’s why the Inspector isn’t going to vote Conservative at a national level while he’s in charge !

You see, because he and his gay friends want to change the culture, he has managed, as he himself puts it, to have locked people out who were naturally Conservative from supporting it !

It’s all rather awkward you know. Didn’t think the conservative party would ever sink so low as to actively trawl for tiny percentage votes, at the risk of alienating it’s solid core vote ! Everyone realizes that gays are not going to eternally vote conservative for ever more if they are given SSM. They are simply going to put it in their pocket, and on with the next campaign. Most likely that will be gay propaganda in the school.

One is beginning to see a connection between Cameron and George III.

26 July 2012 at 18:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One is coming to the opinion that the Christian way to view LGBT is that of a disability. It would be the way Jesus would want it, if you will. The church has embraced disability from the earliest times. It could be argued that Christ’s suffering on the cross was responsible in part for this humane response.

Now, the Inspector along with all other decent types, is greatly sympathetic to the disabled. The same would be true of Cameron, one would think. But no matter how strong our good intentions towards the disabled, there are limits as to how far you can go to accommodate them. For example, new construct public buildings must be wheelchair ‘happy’ now, but there is no compulsion to amend existing buildings to this standard. With the LGBT, we have had CP for some years, but there should be no compulsion to amend the existing state of marriage. In other words, people who want to use the steps, leave the steps as they are for them. People who can’t or won’t, same destination via the ramp.

So, don’t destroy the impressive steps and turn them into some ugly multilevel ramp, for example at, St Pauls, just to spare the disabled discomfort when they see others climbing them in a way the disabled could never do. That would be incredibly selfish, and small minded of the LGBT, now wouldn’t it ?

26 July 2012 at 18:24  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Paul,

So your a Mormon then? I never thought of you as being one of that faith!

26 July 2012 at 18:27  
Blogger Paul Twigg said...

Hannah,

No, no, no! Your thinking of the Church of the Latter Day Saints, my denomination is utterly different to that outfit.

26 July 2012 at 18:43  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Inspector said ...

"One is coming to the opinion that the Christian way to view LGBT is that of a disability."

Certainly such sexual proclivities are, in the opinion of some, "objective disorders".

Interestingly, the World Health Organisation, in its categorisation of disorders associated with sexual development and orientation, states "Sexual orientation alone is not to be regarded as a disorder".

But what is "orientation"? There are other "orientations" Cameron's tolerant and inclusive society may have to consider. "Polys", those with two or more concurrent partners, is one. It is claimed as an "orientation". Another is "MAPs", minor-attracted people, i.e. paedophiles, who claim to be a minority "orientation". And, of course, we've considered "zoophilia" before.

From "disorder", to "orientation" to endorsement through "marriage". Heterosexuality becomes another "orientation" amongst others of equal worth.

Where the hell will it all end?

26 July 2012 at 19:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. One can’t but help looking back wistfully to not so recent decades when any evidence of that kind of rot you speak of would have resulted in the appearance of a police officer.

So much has crawled out of the woodwork since then to bask in the glory of the sun, much like the silverfish living underneath the Inspector's cooker of late. What floors this man is that they actually believe society should accept them as paragons of....Bah ! Just can’t be bothered finishing this...

Anyone know whether cats eat silverfish ? Might be able to borrow one if yes...

26 July 2012 at 19:16  
Blogger len said...

Mine certainly would not... they prefer gourmet cat food.

26 July 2012 at 19:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

They certainly play you for a mug then....

26 July 2012 at 19:54  
Blogger non mouse said...

Your Grace: the picture attached to this blog is proof positive that this cammer creature spends hours practicing his every pose in front of a mirror. He must be really proud of this one, as he looks down from his great height.

Personally, though, I think his mirror's a bit imperfect: it's inverted the images. Both figures are really heading south.

27 July 2012 at 03:02  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

For len

" I love cats because I enjoy my home and little by little they become part of its visible soul."
Jean Cocteau

27 July 2012 at 05:51  
Blogger len said...

Cressida ,

They certainly do ,wouldn`t be without them, they all have their own unique personalities.

27 July 2012 at 08:05  
Blogger John Magee said...

Ha ha ha ha. British mullahs and imams got a big laugh after hearing what this clown had to say. In Iran and any other hell holes where Islamic Law of Sharia is the insane law of the land the they do more to gays then "lock them out of mosques". They kill them. Usually by hanging in front of a cheering mob but sometimes to really amuse a crowd of bored followers of the pagan cult of moon god of Medina they slit the throats of gays. Public executions are still a spectator "sport" in the Islamic world. Like they used to be in Europe until modern times.

27 July 2012 at 21:26  
Blogger John Magee said...

Lady Anne. Here is a common sense quote from the 1860's that defines why the modern welfare state, in spite of it's noble intentions to help the poor, is a doomed to failure and destroys the desire for human self improvement and self respect:

“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

You cannot further brotherhoold of man by encouraging class hatred.

You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away men's initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”

Abraham Lincoln
16th Presidnet of the USA

28 July 2012 at 00:37  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Magee

Indeed, a very solid exposition of the protestant ethic.

It creates false dichotomies and overlooks the need to search out ways to reconcile and manage their tensions.

The 'welfare state' can be managed differently or ended. What other ways are there of protecting the sick, poor, widowed and orphaned? And how do we define these groups?

28 July 2012 at 03:06  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo the Dude... What decent person isn't for the government helping the old and helpless, the mentally ill, the truly poor and hungry, and people out of work who are seriously looking for a job? The institutional welfare state creates a class of parasites who live off the hard work and sweat of others. In my book that is a sin. I call it theft. It's theft from the producers wallets and bank accounts to provide free benefits and lots of free time for the users on the public dole who pretend they can't work or refuse to work and would rather waste away their lives doing nothing, drinking all day, using drugs, pumping out babies they can't properly take care of, and participate in occasional riot. The last part of the quote from Lincoln is perfect: "you can not help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves". Another common sense adage our grandparents knew and the welfare state affecionados will hate is this: "Give a hungry man a fish and he'll eat for a day. Give him a fishing rod and teach him to fish and he will never be hungry again". Our grandparents and previous generations knew all about common sense because their daily lives were a struggle. Today you need a search warrant to find it and if you are lucky to discover facts that are not politically correct but are true and happen to make common sense you will face all kinds of nasty insults or worse.

28 July 2012 at 04:51  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo.. I forgot to mention that if you reread my quote by USA President Lincoln he wrote in the 1860's you have the precise reasons the EU is collapsing today in 2012.

28 July 2012 at 04:55  
Blogger len said...

Cameron should really try to understand what Islam is all about.
The' Politically Correct agenda' just won`t work with Islam.

28 July 2012 at 09:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Magee

Duly reread and I stand by my observation on the quote. I fail to see how all the ills of modern Europe can be attributed to the modern welfare state. There are one or two other forces at play too.

However, I do agree the welfare state has crated a culture of dependency and needs a radical overhaul.

28 July 2012 at 11:39  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

John Magee is spot on. The only addition the Inspector would make is that the benefit underserving have been abandoned by society to get on with their lives with OUR money.

Now, to rectify this, every 3 months, the recipient has to a appear before a panel to be assessed. No show, no benefit. To be allocated the work we currently rely on hardworking immigrants do for us.

The stock is weak. It cannot improve itself. it must be improved by leaders like US.

28 July 2012 at 12:00  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Dodo @ 11.39 says, 'I fail to see how all the ills of modern Europe can be attributed to the modern welfare state.'

There are many articles demonstrating that this is indeed the case. If you follow everything written by Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in the DT or the free blog of John Mauldin and almost certainly in the blog of John Redwood MP you will find the evidence you need. Welfare is a wealth transfer from those who pay taxes to those who do not. Taken to extremes by feckless politicians who bribe the electorate with the electorate's own money, you rapidly reach a position where tax receipts are fully committed, and then over committed, to outlays. At this point, realising that the tax base has reached its limit, governments increase taxes which deflates demand in the economy so that tax receipts fall. What to do? Well, try borrowing money. So they do. And pretty soon the national credit card is maxed out too with government debt at something close to 100% of GDP, not forgetting unfunded pension liabilities and household debt at several hundred percent of GDP. Which takes you to the position of the UK where aggregate debt from all sources is just over 500% of GDP. And George Osborne wonders why the economy is contracting. Of course it is, it's crippled by debt after sixty years of social democracy.

It's the same across the EU, but worse because of the euro.

There are two options, reduce living standards or monetise the debt (inflation). The British government is doing both.

So what 'are one or two other forces at play too.'?

28 July 2012 at 13:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

bluedog

I am familiar with the theories - just don't buy the inevitability you suggest.

The key sentence in your comment:

"Taken to extremes by feckless politicians who bribe the electorate with the electorate's own money ..."

I think you are referencing the problems of representative democracy, dishonest politicians and social values based on a secular ethnic and a self-centred electorate.

This is not a necessary outcome for a welfare state. It might have more to do with the internal logic of liberal-democratic-capitalism.

28 July 2012 at 13:16  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Dodo, it doesn't matter what the motive is, the result is always the same, unless the electorate rejects the mirage of a standard of living based on increasing debt. The very high approval rating of Labour suggests that 38% of the British electorate still believes Brown's debt fuelled prosperity was a viable option. Cameron should be very worried by this and by his own failure to refute the nostagia for Brown's policies.

28 July 2012 at 13:33  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

But the motive and the drivers of the motive are what matters in the final analysis.

Without this shifting, and it requires strong and truthful church leaders, politicians and economists, the electorate will always demand more.

28 July 2012 at 13:59  
Blogger John Magee said...

Dodo

The modern European welfare state destroys self reliance and personal responsibilty. Look around you. There are more people in the UK & EU welfare wagon than those working hard and pushing it. Greece is exhibit A in the coming EU catastrophe. How can a country survive when it's workers spend almost as much time on holiday each year as they do at work and then retire at 50 or 55? These same people riot when their government is suddenly broke and unable to pay for the massive benefits it's welfare addicted population have come to believe and then demand as some sort of "civil rights" issue.

28 July 2012 at 20:22  
Blogger The Way of Dodo the Dude said...

Mr Magee

Have I disagreed with your description of the situation? It's an analysis of cause that's needed. Do please read my comments.

28 July 2012 at 20:34  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older