Wednesday, December 19, 2012

Muslim homophobia (but none dare call it so)

On 10th December in the House of Commons Rehman Chishti MP, the son of an imam, asked the Equalities Minister , Maria Miller, how Muslims had responded to the Government’s proposal to redefine marriage. Mrs Miller stumbled to her feet and swallowed hard. "They have voiced some concern,’ she spluttered.

The Muslim Council of Britain has now articulated a little more of that concern, appropriating the status of the Established Church to their cause (for in New Labour’s New Britain, all religions were rendered equal, and in David Cameron’s Broken Britain, morality and truth have become a little more relative). The problem is that the prohibition on the Church of England (and Church in Wales) from hosting same-sex weddings is manifestly discriminatory in an age of equal rights for all.

Farooq Murad, the Secretary General of the MCB said, “We find it incredible that while introducing the Bill in the House, Culture Secretary Maria Miller could keep a straight face when offering exemption for the Established Church while in the same breath claiming, ‘fairness' to be at the heart of her proposals.”

Mr Murad added, “It is not just the Church of England and Church in Wales who explicitly stated 'strong opposition' as Mrs Miller says. The Muslim Council of Britain along with most other faith groups also made equally strong representation.” He continued: “No one in their right mind should accept such a discriminatory law. It should be amended to give exactly the same exemption to all the religions."

And so the MCB is now seeking an urgent meeting with the Culture Secretary to express the ‘concern’ of the Muslim community, along with tjeir 500 affiliated mosques, charities and schools.

Muslim leaders are understandably aggrieved, but (pace Rehman Chisti) you haven’t heard a word about it in Parliament. In this age of relativism and ubiquitous equality, it’s hard for the Equalities Minister to defend the proposition that Anglican Christianity is more equal than Islam, and that Muslims simply don’t merit the same legal exemptions as the Church of England.

Of course, it isn’t only Canon Law of the Church of England that defines marriage as being a union of man and a woman: it has been so defined in all cultures throughout all ages, and is seen to exist in nature. Muslims are as mindful as Christians of the unique procreative potential intrinsic to marriage.

Mrs Miller’s ‘quadruple lock’ guarantees that religious organisations would not have to marry same-sex couples against their wishes. But what of two (brave) gay Muslims who find a (very brave) gay friendly imam? Such cases are most likely to end up in the courts, and so we arrive at the ultimate clash in the hierarchy of competing rights, long foretold by His Grace. And the courts are likely to nudge us all along the chosen path of the Quakers, Unitarians and Liberal Judaism, for after Blair and the Heir-to-Blair, sexuality will eventually trump religious liberty at every turn.

Of course, homophobia within the Muslim communities is taboo: everyone knows that Islam isn’t particularly gay-friendly, but our predominantly white, PC, liberal political class won’t even talk about it. Peter Tatchell and his disciples are more than happy to storm the pulpit of Canterbury Cathedral or picket outside Westminster Cathedral, but you tend not to see him knocking on the doors of Finsbury Park Mosque or railing against Muslim homophobia in Leicester, Bradford or Tower Hamlets.

To do so, of course, might be deemed ‘racist’, and white liberals don’t want to be tarnished with that particular brush. So only Rehman Chisti and others of his melanin hue are permitted to raise the subject, and only he and his co-religionists may challenge the Government without the risk of being called homophobic. For surely, in any civilised society, one minority will respect the views of another.

Issues of race, identity and sexuality tend to rouse the passions. When liberalism confronts cultural tradition and religious conformity, political conflict is inevitable. The Church of England will eventually be crushed, and dissenting Christians will be vilified for their bigotry and intolerance (as His Grace endures frequently). But militant gayers and rabid homosexualists ignore the immutable orthodoxy of the Mosque of England at their peril. The MCB is not as benign as the CofE. There is no tolerance of gays or lesbians in any mainstream Muslim community: persecution and torture are rife.

If theological opposition to same-sex marriage renders some churches virulently homophobic, then the mosques are even more so. But their ‘concerns’, of course, are entirely rational, and their morality a divine duty for the common good. The hypocrisy and inequality are sickening.


Blogger Joe Daniels said...

Surely the point of pushing through legislation for gam marriage is that people who aren't gay friendly have to marry gay people? Or otherwise why was Lilian Ladele forced from her job?

I hope that gays people will come to enjoy every right that straight people have, but will not agitate for same until gay advocates call off the war on Christians. However, I might be moved to expedite my embrace of gay rights to married life when Anjem Chowdhury acts as a witness to a gay marriage in the East London mosque.

19 December 2012 at 11:11  
Blogger graham wood said...

'Oh, what tangled webs we weave when first we set out to deceive'

The tangled web is of course the guv'mnts determination to attack Christians and churches as the last bastions of orthodoxy against the "gaystapo". That was a very serious tangled web to be in, for the hapless and incompetent Mrs Miller forgot entirely the scruples of moslems!

Setting out to deceive.
Here the gov'mnt and its 'gay' MP friends and supporters sought to hide redefining marriage as their policy under the cloak of "equality".
In fact they have cleverly turned the debate AWAY from one of redefining marriage as a whole, to that of " marriage equality".

(there is of course a widely recognised equality of status of people as people in the sight of God, but not equality of actions or their consequences.)

Mrs Miller has only just dicovered that moslems do not consider themselves as 'equal'as those in the Anglican and Welsh churches as a result of her ill thought out, rushed through legislation proposals !

19 December 2012 at 11:14  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This is a fuss about wanting to be banned from doing something - right? - totally surreal.

19 December 2012 at 11:24  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

"Peter Tatchell and his disciples are more than happy to storm the pulpit of Canterbury Cathedral or picket outside Westminster Cathedral, but you tend not to see him knocking on the doors of Finsbury Park Mosque or railing against Muslim homophobia in Leicester, Bradford or Tower Hamlets."

To be fair to Peter, he is generally pretty consistent on these matters. See here for instance. But it goes without saying that the established church merits particular consideration. The MCB is nothing more than an unofficial umbrella organisation.

". . . militant gayers and rabid homosexualists . . ."

You really damn yourself with language like this Cranmer.

19 December 2012 at 11:24  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

His Grace states

"Peter Tatchell and his disciples are more than happy to storm the pulpit of Canterbury Cathedral or picket outside Westminster Cathedral, but you tend not to see him knocking on the doors of Finsbury Park Mosque or railing against Muslim homophobia in Leicester, Bradford or Tower Hamlets.

To do so, of course, might be deemed ‘racist’, and white liberals don’t want to be tarnished with that particular brush. So only Rehman Chisti and others of his melanin hue are permitted to raise the subject, and only he and his co-religionists may challenge the Government without the risk of being called homophobic. For surely, in any civilised society, one minority will respect the views of another."

This inequality goes deeper still.

With Blair's rush to change the face of britain to a melting pot of disjointed cultures we have the laughable offer of britain benefiting from immigrants coming to take and create jobs yet all Ernst sees is shops opened by immigrants that employ their own.

Must we take it that white people haven't got a clue how to cook a chicken tikka masala, nan bread or prawn kung po dish, prawn crackers or sell a packet of fags or bottle of booze in the restaurants and off licenses opened daily, unlike in our own restaurants, it appears easy to train immigrants to cook our menu. They look after their 'own' whereas we cannot as it would be classed racist. That would be grossly unfair, would it not, Mr Blair and Mr Cameron?


19 December 2012 at 11:32  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

"'...militant gayers and rabid homosexualists...'

You really damn yourself with language like this Cranmer."

Really? What terms would you propose to distinguish the reasonable and tolerant gay majority from their more militant and less tolerant co-sexualists?

His Grace doesn't care for 'gaystapo' at all. But even a Labour politician uses the term 'gayer'; 'homosexualist' is simply of the same derivation as 'Islamist', the use of which doubtless doesn't damn you..

19 December 2012 at 11:41  
Blogger Dave said...

Brave Mr Tatchell. He tried being brave in Russia once.I don't think he'll go back.

19 December 2012 at 11:49  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Benedict ‏@Pontifex

"Mary is filled with joy on learning that she is to be the mother of Jesus, God’s Son made man. True joy comes from union with God " Yes but 'WHICH' God, your Popiness, as stated in your gibberish 'Nosta Aetate'(

Then your book 'Jesus of Nazareth: The Infancy Narratives,' THE MYTH OF NATIVITY, ACCORDING TO THE POPE...
How about the myths of the supremacy of Roman Catholicism..Now wouldn't that be nice for Christmas but it appears only God and His word can have your undivided' infallible attention', unlike the fables and falsehoods generated by your.. err, 'Church'.


19 December 2012 at 11:52  
Blogger David Skinner said...

May I offer a fantastical and outrageous idea? And that is that of course Mr Cameron will make a great public show of giving exemptions to the Muslims, thereby garnering votes to offset the ones he is losing from disaffected Conservatives. And as we know Islam, not being just a religion and ideology but also a political force of its own, changes according to which party will further its agenda . Cameron has been waiting, looking out the window of the House of Commons, for the day when a Muslim delegation would be knocking on his door. “What kept you?” he must have been thinking.
Cameron has a deep hatred of the Bible and the true church of Christ which he wants to be brought under control of the state (and if he doesn’t, the Soviet European Union certainly does). What better weapon than to allow Islam to do this?
He will merely be follow what the Equality and Human Rights Commission (set up by the anarchist, Marxist and lesbian, Angela Mason) has been doing for the last six years, under the directorship of its Leninist chair, Sir Trevor Phillips
It was reported in the Times, 26th February 2006 :
‘Sir Trevor said that non-Muslims must also accept the right of imams to denounce homosexuality in a way that many would find offensive.
“One point of Britishness is that people can say what they like about the way we should live, however absurd, however unpopular it is…………”
“That’s why freedom of expression — including Muslim leaders’ right to say they think homosexuality is harmful — is absolutely precious.” [1]
Yet the following year, In the Pink News October 18 2007, Sir Trevor said:
"Let me put it as crudely as I can do it as a public official. If somebody is guilty of discrimination of any kind, and with sexual orientation we usually know what it's about with sneering and contempt and all the rest of it, we want them not to be just be punished by the court but frankly to feel the contempt and hatred that they have visited on other people.
"They can argue what they like, but there's a law now and frankly if these people want generally to pose as they often do as the decent and moral people in the community, perhaps they should remember that the first elements of decency in a liberal democracy is the rule of law.
"As far as I'm concerned there isn't a conflict here.
"There is a law. Your faith does not protect you. I understand what you are asking me but to be perfectly honest I haven't
got time for it. If people want to use in my view, the mantle of faith to be bigots, I'm not buying it." [2]
Cameron will certainly have no objection to the Muslim community arranging marriages for their little children who from an early age have been identified as being gay.
For those who think Muslims abhor homosexuality, folks need to listen to Obama and watch this video:
[2] (note the small silver bust of Lenin on his desk).

19 December 2012 at 11:59  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

We know who the Islamists are Cranmer. They are dangerous individuals we'd like to deport. Who are the "homosexualists"? Are you sure they are not just gay-rights campaigners? Name them Cranmer, and tell us how exactly they compare with Abu Hamza and Abu Qatada.

19 December 2012 at 12:03  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Laurence Boyce, that's a facile attempt at casting a slur. Do go to a dictionary (should you have one), and assess the reasonable derivation and meaning of most categorical words ending '-ist'. You will see that they are not all dangerous: they do not all plant bombs or blow themselves to kingdom come. The homosexualist has nothing in common with the Islamist save dedication to a singular cause.

But one notes your continuing criticism - do, please, provide a better word or succinct expression to help distinguish the gayer from the gay, and the homosexualist from the homosexual. His Grace is keen to learn a better way.

19 December 2012 at 12:14  
Blogger Mrs Proudie of Barchester said...

Goodness! Well here in Barchester the cloisters are all agog with news that Hiram's Hospital has been sold and will be converted into a mosque. My Lord is meeting with the imam-to-be, Mustafa Fatwa, this very afternoon to map out their ecumenical opposition to the Prime Minister and all his works. Mr. Slope is nowhere to be seen...most odd, though he's heavily involved with the congregation at St. Peter's, Tatchell, these days, sorting out their misconceptions regarding the eastward position.

19 December 2012 at 12:27  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

"That's a facile attempt at casting a slur."

Sorry Cranmer, but you made the comparison. Just tell us who they are. Who is it that merits the tag of "militant gayer" or "rabid homosexualist"?

19 December 2012 at 12:33  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Islam is exempt from criticism in many respects in addition to its rabid homophobia and Judeophobia.

Why are the scientific and academic establishment so quiet about the Boko Haramist activities at Imperial College?

Is free debate about Islam and science seen as racist because science is the product of dead white males?

19 December 2012 at 12:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"Islamist" usually has a particular meaning, associated with the politics of Sayyid Qtub.

19 December 2012 at 13:51  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Had it just been the Church of England, I'd have thought the exemption was about the parish marriage thingy. That is, a means of getting around the anachronistic right to be married in the parish church whether one is a member or not.

As time goes on, I'm more and more coming around to notion of a complete separation of legal marriage from religion. Let all the religious do what they wish, only to get the civil benefits one must have a civil marriage.

19 December 2012 at 13:57  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Having spent time in Morocco (trekking in the Atlas and Anti-Atlas mountains), I have some experience of the culture there. It's curious that public culture is Muslim and there's public opprobrium over violations yet in private lots of people are happy to drink alcohol, eat during Ramadan, and so on. Undoubtedly, homophobia is rife too.

19 December 2012 at 14:02  
Blogger michael north said...

If Lawrence Boyce wants the names of some "rabid homosexualists", let him ask Stonewall for the guest list for their bash at the V&A last month.

19 December 2012 at 15:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Well written!

"Of course, it isn’t only Canon Law of the Church of England that defines marriage as being a union of man and a woman: it has been so defined in all cultures throughout all ages, and is seen to exist in nature. Muslims are as mindful as Christians of the unique procreative potential intrinsic to marriage."

Islam may or may not be 'homophobic'. However, its perception of how to remain right with 'Allah', as individuals and as a nation, is because they make no distinction between the sin and the sinner. Both must be eradicated for the collective good. It is rooted in the Old Testament and separated from both Christian morality and liberal ethics.


"There is no tolerance of gays or lesbians in any mainstream Muslim community: persecution and torture are rife."

Ignoring the Muslim 'law' on homosexuality is sickening. It is nothing short of cowardice and the homosexual community (especially the gayers and homosexualists for want of better terms) and its lackeys are as guilty as the Government.

19 December 2012 at 15:33  
Blogger scottspeig said...

@ DanJo,

Indeed! Although had they done that and kept the name "civil partnership", and then had an inclusion that recognised religious "marriage" ceremonies as conveying the view in law that they have a civil partnership, then this would have been dealt with long ago with much less fuss!

One wonders if our politicians/lawyers are actually stupid or deceitful and planning something...

I think the editor on question time (forgotten his name) got it right when he said Cameron hates his own party!!

19 December 2012 at 15:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Happy Christmas Ernsty.

I do hope someone buys you Pope Benedict's 3 volume treatise on Jesus OF Nazareth as you have expressed such an interest in it.

Nostra Aetate, written by Pope Paul in 1965 was directed primarily at improving Catholic-Jewish relationships.

Surely you'd agree its principles are sound:

- the unity of the origin of all people, and the fact that they all return to God; hence their final goal is also one. It describes the eternal questions which have dogged men since the beginning, and how the various religious traditions have tried to answer them.
- Some of the answers that some faiths have suggested for such philosophical questions. It notes the willingness of the Catholic Church to accept some truths present in other religions in so much as they reflect Catholic teaching and may lead souls to Christ.
- The Catholic Church regards the Muslims with esteem, and describes some of the things Islam has in common with Christianity and Catholicism: worship of One God, the Creator of Heaven and Earth, Merciful and Omnipotent, Who has spoken to men; the Muslims' respect for Abraham and Mary, and the great respect they have for Jesus, whom they consider to be a Prophet and not God. Catholics and Muslims should forget the hostilities and differences of the past and to work together for mutual understanding and benefit.
- The bond that ties the people of the 'New Covenant' (Christians) to Abraham's stock (Jews). It states that even though some Jewish authorities and those who followed them called for Jesus' death, the blame for this cannot be laid at the door of all those Jews present at that time, nor can the Jews in our time be held as guilty, thus repudiating an indiscriminate charge of deicide; and it condemns all displays of anti-Semitism made at any time by anyone.

And finally:

- All men are created in God's image, and that it is contrary to the teaching of the Church to discriminate against, show hatred towards or harass any person or people on the basis of colour, race, religion, condition of life and so.

It's ecumenical, dear man. All peoples are searching for God. Faiths other than Christianity have some truth. Treat other religions with respect and teach them about Christ rather than spit at them. What can possibly be offensive about that?

Have a Happy Christmas.

19 December 2012 at 15:56  
Blogger Timjam68 said...

I like "gayer" as a word. I think it's rather funny - my friend at work calls me a "gayer" sometimes!

A "homosexualist" is obviously a campaigner who only looks at everything through "gay eyes".

I'm not one of those!

I don't like mooslims or Islam though!

19 December 2012 at 16:07  
Blogger William said...


"had they ... kept the name "civil partnership", and then had an inclusion that recognised religious "marriage" ceremonies as conveying the view in law that they have a civil partnership, then this would have been dealt with long ago with much less fuss!"

It's a nice idea, but I fear it underestimates the equalising agenda of the "militant gayer/rabid homosexualist" (© Cranmer associates), who see anything emphasising heterosexuality as a form of discrimination.

Politicians also love equality legislation because it is legislating for something that can never be achieved and thus provides for a lifetime riding the gravy train.

19 December 2012 at 16:10  
Blogger David B said...

There seems to be some misapprehension that people of a liberal disposition are unwilling to point out that many Islamists (it is a moot point what one might call those brought up within an Islamic tradition who have basically seen through the whole faith thing, but keep their heads down much like Christian clergymen who have seen through the whole faith thing) do not only display the worse aspects of homophobia, but also the worse aspects of mysogeny (even worse than the CoE!), to say nothing of demands for privileged positions regarding criticism of their positions from historical and evolutionary points of view, despite those being totally outside of any semblance of reality.

I don't really think that is the case.

Dammit, I'm pretty much as liberal as anyone who comments here, and I hope people will recall me rattling on about support being due to organisations like the Council of Ex-Muslims of Britain, and my horror at the pandering to the threats that have prevented meetings critical of Islam.

No doubt you will find some panderers to Islam among the left, even the liberal left, but then again you get some liberals who haven't thought things through, and pander to such abominations as state funding for faith schools, rate relief for churches etc


19 December 2012 at 16:18  
Blogger Flossie said...

Scottspeig, it was Peter Hitchens who said that Cameron (Mr Slippery) hates his own party. You can watch the episode here.

I think he was quite right. I am sure Cameron thinks tht we plebs and lower orders of society need to be taught morality by people like him. What a depressing episode of QT that was, with the appropriately named self-publicist Will Self (who's he?) banging on about homophobia and racism. Hitchens did a good job of nailing that one. And where do they get their audiences? Apart from the lady in yellow, who I thought should be one of the panel.

19 December 2012 at 16:21  
Blogger Flossie said...

Why is it that Muslims and Roman Catholics are not afraid to tell it like it is? Who do we Anglicans get? Rowan Williams and Bishop Alan Wilson!

No wonder hardly anybody goes to church any more.

19 December 2012 at 16:24  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Flossie, because Roman Catholics are bigots and homophobes, of course.

Do pay attention to our esteemed Prime Minister - He of the modern Hood and his band of gay men.

19 December 2012 at 16:59  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

The Way of Dodo said...

Happy Christmas Dodo.

"I do hope someone buys you Pope Benedict's 3 volume treatise on Jesus OF Nazareth as you have expressed such an interest in it.!" I do hope someone buys me a nice 15 year old single malt instead as I could put it to much better use.

"Nostra Aetate, written by Pope Paul in 1965 was directed primarily at improving Catholic-Jewish relationships. Surely you'd agree its principles are sound" Indeed but it's all the other inter dialogue nonsense that each pope spouts, Ad nauseam , about Islam (Christ did not even die, let alone was/is He the Son of God!!!), Hindu's and Buddhists under the section, Dialogue with other religions, etc all that irks!!! Looks like the 'Rock' of Peter and all he supposedly established in Rome is nothing but a crumbling edifice to all things worldly. Some commission!

See Pure papal nonsense!!!!

If Christ is not The Way, The Truth and The Light and no-one comes to God the Father but through Him, why bother even to dialogue with others..Religious beliefs becomes a opening gambit to muffins and afternoon tea with a non committal chat rather than proclaiming of the straight and narrow way from the wide and open path and gate that all Muslims, Hindu's ,Buddhists etc are heading for.

Peace and Goodwill is not what we are providing but what the Father did by sending His Son 2000 years ago...pointing us Godwards not manwards.


19 December 2012 at 17:03  
Blogger Flossie said...

Sorry, Dodo, Im not 'with the programme', I'm afraid. The programme left me behind some years ago.

19 December 2012 at 17:09  
Blogger Roy said...

The PC crowd, including the BBC and Guardian make a great show of interest in Muslems especially when they think that their views conflict with those of Christians, which is actually less often than the PC types think. The people who oppose public, official recognition of the religious significance of Christmas tend to be opportunistic atheists and agnostics, not Moslems.

However, all the PC types are keen on ostentatious and patronising displays of concern for Muslims they are much less interested in what Muslims think. The reaction of the "equalities" minister and alleged expenses cheat Maria Miller to the question about Muslim views on gay marriage demonstrated that.

The broadcasting media and most of the press have, like our politicians, had very little to say about Muslims and gay marriage. They have been even more silent about the views of orthodox Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Jains and Bahai's.

Didn't Harriet Harman's (phoney) Equality Act make it obligatory for public bodies to demonstrate their commitment to equality or have I misunderstood it? If their is such an obligation how come parliament and the Equalities Commission have taken so little account of the views of all the various religious groups in the UK?

19 December 2012 at 17:43  
Blogger John Magee said...

Interesting slogan on the wall behind the picture in this artcle:

MCB logo says (the "C" as a Crescent Moon the symbol of Islam) "The Muslim Council of Britain"... "Working for the common good"

They don't have the temerity to use use the "c" in "common good" as a Crescent Moon...yet

Even after the almost daily examples of brutality and persecution by Islam of non Muslims in the world today this may come as a surprise to liberals but tolerance and poliical correctness are not a concepts Muslims will "tolerate". They will leave it to fools in the West to trip over and destroy themselves with their "foolish" concepts (from an Islamic point of view) as the rights of the individual, religious freedom, and the our endless obsession about Gay rights.

Aren't Muslims supposed to assimilate and become model citizens and become "just like us"?

I just read an article about the small Jewish Community and as well as Gays in Copenhagen now being asked by the Mayor of Copenhagen, Denmark to not wear a yarmulka's or Stars of David in public, especially in near "dangerous areas" (the new immigrant Muslim neighborhoods), in order to not upset Muslim youths. Gays are asked to "be careful". No holding hands or kissing in public, we assume.

South west of Denmark in once tolerant Amsterdam, The Netherlands which is now about 30-40 percent Muslim the city's Mayor announced a few years ago his city no longer the "Gay friendly" city it once was and Jews there should be wary of their large population of wonderful new Muslim neighbors who once supposedly were tolerant of them in the Islamic Caliphate in Spain over 1,000 years ago.


Is this really this be happening in tolerant Europe in 2012? We already saw this attitide in 1942 and fought WW II to end it. Why is it back and why is it not condemned?

19 December 2012 at 17:50  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say chaps, it’s come to something when you have to rely on the potential might of Johnny ‘Mad Dog’ Muslim to stop our society unravelling. Dashed unnerving, what !

Meanwhile, over on Pink News, the benders are furious (…again…)…

Gay partners in England and Wales who have an affair with someone of the same sex will not be able to use adultery laws as grounds for divorce, lawyers have warned. According to the Telegraph, under the government’s current proposals for equal marriage, gay spouses will also be unable to annul their marriages on the basis of non-consummation.

More weeping about being treated differently. And yes, this is extremely significant. The LGBTQ people will continue to be miserable until given the right to say what they themselves want, and for parliament just to rubber stamp it into law, although it is easy to argue our degenerative politicians are doing that very thing for them…

Now, think of this. Stiff opposition as it is already plus Islam jumping up and down and the legal nightmare those militant gays are going to cause by refusing to compromise on ANYTHING and the whole juggernaut is going to come to a standstill. There will be nothing in place to make law, nothing at all…

19 December 2012 at 17:58  
Blogger Roy said...

John Magee said:

s this really this be happening in tolerant Europe in 2012? We already saw this attitide in 1942 and fought WW II to end it.

By the beginning of 1942 we had already been fighting it for about two and a half years. By "we" I mean not just the British but also the Canadians, Australians, New Zealanders, South Africans and people from many other parts of the British Empire and Commonwealth.

19 December 2012 at 17:58  
Blogger David Skinner said...

For those who think Muslims abhor homosexuality, folks need to listen to Obama and watch this video:

19 December 2012 at 18:13  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Ireland. Lovely country but suffered from ‘excessive’ immigration in centuries past. So much so that part of it split and was run by the new Johnnies until quite lately when the indigenous Irish were forced into a civil war in all but name, to make their masters see sense, you understand.

England. Lovely country but suffers from ‘excessive’ immigration in times present. So much so that the restless new Johnnies were given Sharia Law in their areas in a futile attempt to pacify them. Then, one day... Well, let’s just say you don’t find Islam and Sense in the same sentence...

19 December 2012 at 18:17  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Eire. Lovely country but ruined by people believing excessive religious superstition as fact until it doesn't suit them.

So much so, that they were furious when Mother Church via Adrian IV, under infallible influence, gave Ireland to Henry II the English king. Adrian, bless him, based his authority on the Donation of Constantine, much to the chagrin of the Oirish. After the northern tip was being pleasantly run by the new Johnnies (with RC Blessings from the successor of St Peter himself, mind you) until quite lately when the naughty Oirish were forced into a sending all the tinkers and gypsies they could muster, covert civil sabotage in all but name, to make their masters see what real hell is like.. An Oirish 'tradesman' Michael *Allegedly*, whose business name on his van must have the words 'Five Star' (Ernst thinks its an Oirish/Celtic surname for the family of blighters) in it and terribly proud he has been on BBC's rogue traders and has the episode on tape. He usually has 7 disruptive children in tow (blessed be the pope's contraception ban) and a wife dressed as a cheap painted slut and a skirt so short that it leaves nothing to the imagination and wears shoes with 6 inch heels in which she does scary impersonation of a human 'leaning tower of Pisa' and who would 'grace' any darkened doorway in Soho after 8pm (Allegedly), you understand.


19 December 2012 at 19:14  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I was reading some of the legal commentary regarding the quibbles over equality, adultery etc. in the Torygraph yesterday, and noted without much surprise the view of Jonathon West as to where case law would probably lead:

The end point should be that we allow everybody to choose the manner in which they get married,

Indeed. I can't see how the legal definition of marriage is going to avoid becoming just that. Having now defined the exclusion on the basis of gender as being insufficient to maintain one definition of marriage, it will take only the persistence of lawyers and human rights courts before the principles of fidelity, and, in due time, number are similarly eroded. Who knows - maybe like the Germans we will comes to consider incest in a more favourable light.

The fact that religious outfits of various shapes and sizes will no doubt be granted certain exemptions will not change the fact that the legal entity of marriage will end up almost without definition as the government and courts ensure it can be all things to all people.

For many, I'm sure that won't be a bad thing - and the philosophy that marriage is solely about the satisfaction of individual desire is hardly exclusive to homosexual couples (nor strictly congruent). But it will mean that the old argument that this isn't "really" a redefinition is overtaken by legal practice, and it will mean that religious and traditional views of marriage will be increasingly separated by a gulf of difference that is not reducible to pedantry.

19 December 2012 at 19:15  
Blogger Roy said...

@ John Magee

I agree with most of what you wrote about Muslims on this thread, and most of your comments about them on other threads but even so your comment makes me sympathise with the Muslim Council of Great Britain.

Do you really think that Muslims should be criticised at every opportunity, even when they are expressing opposition to something that you also oppose?

Suppose somebody was asked to write a short play based on the story of the Good Samaritan. Furthermore, suppose that the dramatist decided to keep the location the same as in the original while making it more obvious that the location was in the West Bank of Israel/Palestine. In addition suppose that the man left for dead by the robbers was a homosexual Jew from a recently built settlement in the disputed area, the men who passed by on the other side were an ultra-orthodox rabbi and a self-professed "born again" Christian and that the man who came to the aid of the injured Jew was a Palestinian who voted for Hamas.

Don't you think that such a tale would be faithful to the original and would make its point forcibly to those who are so familiar with the original that they fail to appreciate the effect it would have had on the original hearers of the parable?

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

Blofeld, that is you, isn’t it - it’s just that you appear remarkably lucid tonight. Saw your other effort recently where you attempt to irritate the pope. Can’t help yourself, can you !

If Adrian had the slightest inkling that Protestantism would one day invade our fair British Isles, he would have surely given England to the Irish...

19 December 2012 at 19:30  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

There can be no true ‘equality’ unless siblings who live together are protected in the same way cohabitating homosexuals are with CP.

Siblings are of course less vociferous than militant gays because as a whole, they tend to be happier. No MP should support SSM unless something is done for siblings...

Rights for siblings, what !

19 December 2012 at 19:38  
Blogger Tony B said...

Flossie, Hitchens came across as an odious man, as did Self. However, Self at least had the advantage of being right.

According to the Bible, by the way, marriage can be between a man and four women. God didn't seem to mind back then.

19 December 2012 at 20:19  
Blogger Tony B said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 December 2012 at 20:20  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


"Saw your other effort recently where you attempt to irritate the pope. Can’t help yourself, can you !" Its like having an inflamed hemorrhoid that refuses to stop itching..Must get hold of some Preparation RC..

Soothes religious irritation.
Reduces painful swelling of the cerebrum due to overly repeated use of Hail Mary's, etc.
Quickly absorbed for fast relief from heretical infection.

Just what that Doctor Cranmer ordered!!

Hear they now have a full Preparation RC range including Soothing sWipes - designed to be used in place of regular toilet tissue to soothe and cleanse the affected area after contact with papali bullicus bacterialarseis or Catechismus Hilaricous.

Hear some Reformed types swear by it!!

Tally ho ho ho, old sport.


19 December 2012 at 20:25  
Blogger len said...

David Cameron driving his'coach and horses' through long established Christian Biblical moral codes will seemingly come to a full stop(and perhaps a 'u turn') when he comes across the first Mosque?.
I have long thought that the alternative to Christianity will be Islam.This will not be by want or desire by many but by the inescapable fact that the 'spiritual vacuum' left by receding Christianity will be filled.

19 December 2012 at 20:51  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


Preparation RC is a trade mark and made by Spiritu Sancto Laboris.


Directions for use: Apply freely to affected area whenever you feel discomfort or irritation. Keep using for a few days after any discomfort has been relieved to obtain the best results. If religious irritation is persistent or returns regularly, speak to a Blog professional for further advice or use Soothing Swipes to cleanse the area repeatedly.

Suitable for: All Superstitious Adults, Any Confirmed children in the household aged 12 years and over, especially efficacious for older women who find through excessive use of confessional boxitis they have put on a lot of weight, starting wearing black dresses and have developed a slight mustache.





19 December 2012 at 20:52  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofeld, it’s always a joy to communicate with you, as the Inspector thoroughly enjoys your somewhat pitiful reminders to us all that your aged body is falling apart. Chin up, you old heretic. You’ll be on your knees apologising to Jesus before you know it !

Regards to your cat. Try dipping his paw in your jar of Anusol and winking at him...

19 December 2012 at 20:54  
Blogger bluedog said...

David B @ 16.18, please accept an award for drafting the most impenetrably tortuous sentence yet published on His Grace's blog.

Commences, 'There seems to be some misapprehension...' and ends '...any semblance of reality.'


19 December 2012 at 21:07  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


"Regards to your cat.(Tiddles says Hi) Try dipping his paw in your jar of Anusol and winking at him..." No need to, old fruit..Got me Preparation get into those painful Nooks and Crannies. It infallibly cleanses and soothes the parts Romish dopes cannot reach.


It's a religious hemorrhoid that inflicts, not one due to excessive madras curries and reading studiously through the catechism whilst straining on me commode.

"You’ll be on your knees apologising to Jesus before you know it !" Well it won't be to some fella wearing a nice dress and a phallic shaped headdress being carried around in a chair, pretending he is a successor to St Peter, that's for sure!!


After watching the documentary Westminster Abbey, Ernst doesn't think Rome will have long to wait for the 'separated brethren' to come back across the Tiber, tail between their legs..never heard so much pathetic grovelling from a group who believe the reformation was just a sad parting of like minds..a likkle theological misunderstanding of sorts?
You never hear such grovelling from Rome, do you, nor them employing a Protestant to train the Latrine..oops.. Sistine Chapel Choir either, unlike W A!!

A bunch of civil service turncoat chancers in fancy dress outfits who cannot wait to kiss the popes ring *Ding Dong*.


19 December 2012 at 21:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Blofeld. you are a wicked old sod, but we all love you for it...

19 December 2012 at 21:54  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


Lord above man, its Advent! Stop all this silliness and as Christians let's all focus on celebrating the birth of our Saviour.

19 December 2012 at 22:01  
Blogger Roy said...

Tony B said:

According to the Bible, by the way, marriage can be between a man and four women. God didn't seem to mind back then.

You don't seem to know the difference between the Bible and the Quran! It is the Quran that says the limit should be 4 (except for Muhammed who apparently had a special dispensation that allowed him to have even more).

Some men mentioned in the Old Testament had far more than 4 wives. King Solomon had 700 wives and 300 concubines. (Where did he get the energy???!!!). However Genesis implies that before the Fall of Man God's intention was that one man should have one woman (and vice versa, of course).

The New Testament makes it clear that marriage ought to be monogamous, not polygamous.

19 December 2012 at 23:38  
Blogger Josh Wooderson said...

The idea of a 'legal exemption' from gay marriage is absurd, because the gay marriage bill - at least nominally - simply allows churches to perform gay marriage ceremonies if they wish to. (It also alters the official definition of marriage, which is an unfortunate consequence of having a state-enshrined definition). So in effect the exemption is a restriction on the Church's freedom. Why anyone would consider that a good thing I don't know.

19 December 2012 at 23:55  
Blogger John Magee said...

It is Advent.

It's also Advent and will soon be Christmas for the Coptic Christians and other Christians in Egypt. They are living through persecution and face even more brutality because they ARE Christians this Advent Season from Islam.

The Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, along with their leader President Morsi as well as Egyptian Mullahs, are promising the 9 million Coptic Christians in Egypt they will face the wrath of Islamic Law of Sharia soon.

I hope this reminder makes all the Western Christians feel uncomfortable during Advent by asking them to think of the persecution of fellow Christians in Egypt and elsewhere in the Islamic world this Christmas Season.

20 December 2012 at 07:32  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 December 2012 at 07:41  
Blogger Nowhere man said...

"Liberals" can go through contortions that Houdini would shy away from. Head up arse mainly.

20 December 2012 at 07:57  
Blogger John Magee said...


Can you think of any other religion or cult in Britain or the USA, Canada, Australia, and in Western Europe which spews forth the hatred and violence which mullahs and imams in those same countries get away advocating on a regular basis in their mosques against their host nation's governments, majority religion and culture, and people?

Does Scotland Yard have to monitor Mormon temples, JW halls, or druid solstice festivals for preaching violence or terrorism? Of course not.

SY does have to monitor mosques and known Jihadists and their friends who emigrate to your country and for valid reasons.

In my country Islamic organzations, including one of the largest of them all "The Holyland Foundation" (doesn't that name sound "nice"?), was discovered by the FBI funneling hudge sums of money from donations here to Hammas and al Quaeda. People trust these Muslim organizations because they foolishly think we have to tolerate people who are different than us. We should unless they promise to kill us based on their religious teachings. We constantly end up getting "burned" by these Muslim front organizations.

Muslims organizations which are organized to help their people in our countries have every right to exist in our free societies but sane people and our government security agencies have a responsibilty to protect the majority and should never totally trust Muslim organizations.

Sounds harsh but so do the events of 9/11 and 7/7.

When a "holy book" (the Koran) says it wants to kill Jews, Christians, and all "infidels" I take it and the people who believe in it seriously.

Too bad more people didn't read Hitler's "Mein Kampf" (my Struggle) in the late 1920's and early 1930's like Sir Winston Churchill did. He tried to warn the British establishment back then but was laughed at by the left and even some conservatives at the time.

As usual it took a common sense patriot and conservative like Churchill to save his country because of the negligence of his predecessors. Mainly Neville Chamberlain.

20 December 2012 at 08:43  
Blogger Naomi King said...

The Daily Express says it all yesterday

"TRADITIONAL TORIES ARE DEFECTING TO UKIP IN DROVES, three separate opinion polls on Sunday put it on a 14 per cent vote share. If this trend continues David Cameron can forget about winning the next general election.

After Nigel Farage, the man who has helped Ukip move from a three per cent party to a 12 or 14 per cent party is David Cameron himself. From the moment he leapt into coalition with the pro-immigration, pro-EU Nick Clegg, Mr Cameron began to alienate traditional Conservative supporters. For a long time many Conservatives who were deeply disappointed by Mr Cameron gave him the benefit of the doubt, understanding that he had been given a difficult political hand to play.

But a few weeks ago he managed even to alienate a substantial portion of these sympathisers by picking an entirely unnecessary fight about gay marriage. Not only did this remind long-suffering Conservatives about the last entirely unnecessary row he picked with them (about grammar schools), but it also transmitted a more damaging signal: that David Cameron holds their views in contempt. The most recent boost Ukip has received – around four points in the polls during the last month – is surely a direct result.

All of these actions by Mr Cameron were underpinned by an assumption, he may finally be understanding is incorrect: that traditional Tories have nowhere else to go. They do. And a lot of them have already gone. And the centre-ground “progressives” his advisers such as Lord Ashcroft, told him would be won over by more foreign aid and gay rights have failed to show up to replace them.

Can Cameron win back the traditionalists by 2015? Some, perhaps. But some won’t be good enough."

20 December 2012 at 08:45  
Blogger John Magee said...

Nowhere man

Don't forget the hoops and somersaults liberals have to jump through and perform in defense of every form of idiocy that comes down the pike.

20 December 2012 at 08:47  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Its civil war in the conservative party ...

Tory Diary - Conservative Home By Tim Montgomerie

"Apparently Tory backbenchers rather than the Tory leadership are responsible for the party's difficulties

The biggest errors of recent years were the pursuit of the wrong kind of modernisation, emphasing liberalism rather than social justice; the backbenchers were not responsible for any of these errors. A final confession from me. I support equal marriage. But I badly underestimated the clear upset that the proposal has caused throughout the parliamentary party and the party in the country. When David Burrowes MP predicted a rebellion of 100 backbenchers at the start of the year he was right. Number 10 would benefit from having a few more people like David at the 8.30am and 4pm daily meetings.

David Burrowes is hugely popular with his colleagues and an advocate of the strong and compassionate conservatism that represents the best future for our party. He is currently PPS to Owen Paterson. If Owen will forgive me I'd argue that David would be better working for the PM, inside Number 10, helping him repair relations with his backbenchers rather than escalating already serious tensions."

20 December 2012 at 09:03  
Blogger Naomi King said...

Why is the Conservative Party is this mutinous state ?

Peter Osborne - Daily Telegraph yesterday

"David Cameron deserves better than this ghastly backbench B-team. The Tory leader David Cameron can do nothing to satisfy his selfish MPs.

To sum up, the Conservative Party has forgotten the qualities of loyalty, pragmatism, duty, patriotism, humility and service that served it so well over the past two centuries. It has lost its sense of history, and lives in a perpetual present characterised by frantic manoeuvring for immediate political gain.

Many of its MPs, though of high intellect, unfortunately are of low character. This is a state of affairs which does not merely threaten its chances of winning the next election, but throws its long-term survival into serious doubt.

This year [since the homosexual "marriage" proposa], everything has changed – starting with the Budget in March. The Coalition has started to disintegrate. Mr Miliband now looks likely to become the next prime minister, while authority is draining away from Mr Cameron.

Mr Cameron has suffered two massive Commons defeats, thanks to mutiny by his own party. There is even some talk of a Tory leadership contest.

The conventional response is to blame the Prime Minister. Talk privately with almost any group of Conservative MPs and they roll their eyes and tell you how dreadful he is, that the Downing Street “operation” is no good, that the Lib Dems are a nightmare, and that the Government has lost all sense of direction.

In recent weeks, I have started to wonder whether we are not all looking down the wrong end of the telescope. Could it be that the problems lie rather less with Mr Cameron, and more with his MPs? Very few prime ministers, if any, could survive for long with the Conservative Party in its present mutinous and unruly state.

The truth is that the character of Tory MPs has mutated in the course of little more than a generation. For almost all of the 20th century, Conservatives were guided by the essential Christian insight that their personal needs, ambitions and egos were the things which mattered least of all. Their lives only had meaning and purpose within the context of the great institutions of church and state.

Out of control Tory MPs, by heaping criticism on their leader, are legitimising Ukip claims of national betrayal. More important than that, they are handing Ed Miliband the next general election on a plate – according to the latest ComRes poll, the Labour leader can look forward to an outright majority of above 100.

The Conservative Party needs to regain its poise very soon, or the next election will be lost, and one dreads to think what kind of breakdown will come after that.

Is there anything at all that could shut them up? Yes, [drop the idea of homosexual so called "marriage"]. David Cameron, as party leader, must take some of the responsibility for this. He threw his personal weight behind some of the liberals who have inflicted the worst damage."

20 December 2012 at 09:17  
Blogger David B said...

Thank you Bluedog, for setting me the challenge of surpassing myself in future:)


20 December 2012 at 09:26  
Blogger bluedog said...

I have every confidence in you, Mr David B.

Why, if you can effortlessly manage a sentence that is one paragraph long, with application you will no doubt achieve a sentence equivalent to two paragraphs in length.

A lucky door prize awaits you.

20 December 2012 at 10:25  
Blogger Tony B said...


Presumably then, you'd agree that this-
«Of course, it isn’t only Canon Law of the Church of England that defines marriage as being a union of man and a woman: it has been so defined in all cultures throughout all ages, and is seen to exist in nature.»

Flies in the face of the facts?

20 December 2012 at 10:54  
Blogger Roy said...

@ Tony B

Tony B said...

Presumably then, you'd agree that this-
«Of course, it isn’t only Canon Law of the Church of England that defines marriage as being a union of man and a woman: it has been so defined in all cultures throughout all ages, and is seen to exist in nature.»

Flies in the face of the facts?

No, it does not at all fly in the face of facts.
It states clearly that marriage is a union of male and female. You can quibble about the use of the word "a" which could be interpreted as "one" woman but, although monogamy is what the church teaches, it does not actually say "only one" here because the statement is explicitly referring to what is true throughout the ages and what exists in nature.

20 December 2012 at 13:13  
Blogger Richard Gadsden said...

"...see anything emphasising heterosexuality as a form of discrimination."

Not emphasising, but giving preference to.

And yes, that's because it is.

As for the problems with the Tory party that several people mention: guys, you didn't win the election; learn to accept that sometimes you have to do things you don't like to keep the LDs on side; for Christ's sake, they've done plenty of things they don't like to keep you on side!

Many of these weren't in the coalition deal (e.g. every budget since the first one - every cut in benefits has been bitterly opposed by LDs, but the MPs have loyally trooped through the lobbies). Live up to your side of the deal, and vote through Lords reform and gay marriage in return!

20 December 2012 at 15:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chaps, from Pink News

“A gay teacher in Vancouver Island, Canada, has been suspended with pay after showing a class aged between nine and ten a video of draq queens lip-synching to Bette Middler’s ‘Mali Kalikimaka’, a Hawaiian Christmas song.

When I found the video, I thought it would be an excellent way of introducing the children to transgender issues,” CTV News reports Mr Winkler as saying to parents in an email.

The video ends with a bare-chested man eating a banana.

While some parents believe the video is fine for children to view, Al Smith said: “At the end, the guy’s peeling the banana, acting very sexually with the banana”.”

NINE and TEN for Christ’s sake !

Another ‘liberated’ gay who is a damned pervert looking to recruit…

20 December 2012 at 17:54  
Blogger William said...


It is discriminatory in the neutral sense of the word, but not the pejorative sense of the word. e.g. to say that marriage is for heterosexuals because they are able to form a unique, complementary, sexual, procreative union that is vital for the health of society is different from saying that marriage is for heterosexuals because homosexuals should be treated as lesser human beings.

Perhaps I should have said the dread word 'homophobia' instead of 'discrimination'.

20 December 2012 at 18:59  
Blogger Jon said...

I have a suggestion for you, Mr Cranmer for a term to replace your inelegant (and too easily read as broad-brush pejorative - heaven forfend!) "militant gayers and homosexualists". Maybe "Political gays"?

You're quite right that some gay people are agitating harder for this change than others, but that's the way with everything, isn't it?

I mean, you Churchists (I hesitate to say Jesusists because I think a lot of people on here prefer the dogma to the message) bang on about your religion all the time as if it actually matters to anyone who doesn't share it. You're just political christians who only see things through the prism of a copy of a collection of writings by some old, long dead dudes whose concept of society was perfectly comfortable with a number of things which we nowadays find abhorrent.

In life, there are those people who are content to sit back and let others fight there battles, and there are those who are eager for battle. So far perhaps it is only the latter who have really engaged with this issue on both sides, but I think a significant number of gay people share Danj0 and my experience of becoming much more engaged once we realised that the Churchists (and Mosquists - quelle surprise!) wanted to stop us having the same rights as them.

21 December 2012 at 15:58  
Blogger William said...


"I think a significant number of gay people share Danj0 and my experience of becoming much more engaged once we realised that the Churchists (and Mosquists - quelle surprise!) wanted to stop us having the same rights as them."

I am pleased to reassure you that this particular 'churchist' wants you to have exactly the same rights to marriage as he does and hopes that you and your future wife will have a very happy Christmas.

21 December 2012 at 17:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


The phrase was: "militant gayers and rabid homosexualists".

And you have justified the expression. Now, run along, grow up and live your life quietly.

21 December 2012 at 18:17  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

25 December 2012 at 23:08  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

26 December 2012 at 04:17  
Blogger John Magee said...


26 December 2012 at 04:35  
Blogger happyuk said...

What about the EU, or job creation, or the welfare time-bomb, or a sensible energy policy, or the dying NHS, or the much-needed new London airport?

Ah! They’re busy with the far more pressing issue of gay marriage, which of course is the talk of every pub, building site and WI coffee morning in the land...

This is the reason why voters are turning in droves to UKIP.

26 December 2012 at 23:30  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older