Monday, December 17, 2012

“When you speak a word against Westboro Baptist Church, you have spoken a word against the Lord Jesus Christ”

His Grace is accustomed to speaking out against those who presume to appropriate the infallible authority of God to their personal religio-political or institutional ecclesio-theological causes. But on pain of blaspheming against the Holy Spirit, a number of words must be spoken against the Westboro Baptist Church (aka the ‘God Hates Fags Church’) and their vile video (removed by YouTube) which propagates the message that ‘God Sent the Shooter’ to murder 20 young children and six teachers in cold blood because of Connecticut’s acceptance of same-sex marriage.

Apparently God has judged the sin of the United States of America, and chose to send retribution in the form of child-killing. Westboro Baptist Church is particularly concerned with sexual licentiousness and the growing acceptance of gay rights. They therefore intend to picket the funerals of these dead children, knowing that the pulpit will reach tens of millions.

This is abhorrent. Jesus promulgated a double-love commandment (Mk12:28-34) which served to demonstrate that the Jewish religious authorities stood condemned by the norms that they themselves professed. Love is the greatest commandment in the Torah, both of God (Deut 6:4f) and of neighbour (Lev 19:18). But the Torah was eclipsed by the coming of Jesus, and Christian discipleship is articulated in terms not only of love, but of taking up the cross and following the Son of God.

For sure, the Lord disciplines those he loves (Prov 3:12), but the confession of hope provokes a love which leads to a life of good deeds (Heb 10:23-25). The Christian life is to be one of patient endurance and suffering obedience: the church in Ephesus is scolded for lack of love (Rev 2:4f), and the exhortation is to repent and return to good works.

Jesus didn’t picket Lazarus’s funeral and shout abuse at the mourners about the idolatry of Israel or the sins of Adam: he wept. Westboro Baptist Church is not recognisably Christian, for there is no love, compassion, grace or forgiveness in their arid faith. The focus is perpetually on judgment, justice, punishment and revenge. It is the gospel of hate. They do not feed the poor, heal the sick or bind the broken hearted: they pour scorn over their plight, informing them, like Job's comforters, that they've brought it all on themselves.

In Connecticut Jesus is still weeping, suffering the little children who have come to him rather sooner than any might have wished. Here below are the remarks of President Obama at the Sandy Hook interfaith prayer vigil. Read it, and compare it with Westboro’s approach, and ask yourself where on the preaching spectrum and mode of communication Jesus might stand:
Thank you. Thank you, Governor. To all the families, first responders, to the community of Newtown, clergy, guests – Scripture tells us: “…do not lose heart. Though outwardly we are wasting away…inwardly we are being renewed day by day. For our light and momentary troubles are achieving for us an eternal glory that far outweighs them all. So we fix our eyes not on what is seen, but on what is unseen, since what is seen is temporary, but what is unseen is eternal. For we know that if the earthly tent we live in is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands.”

We gather here in memory of twenty beautiful children and six remarkable adults. They lost their lives in a school that could have been any school; in a quiet town full of good and decent people that could be any town in America.

Here in Newtown, I come to offer the love and prayers of a nation. I am very mindful that mere words cannot match the depths of your sorrow, nor can they heal your wounded hearts. I can only hope it helps for you to know that you’re not alone in your grief; that our world too has been torn apart; that all across this land of ours, we have wept with you, we’ve pulled our children tight. And you must know that whatever measure of comfort we can provide, we will provide; whatever portion of sadness that we can share with you to ease this heavy load, we will gladly bear it. Newtown – you are not alone.

As these difficult days have unfolded, you’ve also inspired us with stories of strength and resolve and sacrifice. We know that when danger arrived in the halls of Sandy Hook Elementary, the school’s staff did not flinch, they did not hesitate. Dawn Hochsprung and Mary Sherlach, Vicki Soto, Lauren Rousseau, Rachel Davino and Anne Marie Murphy – they responded as we all hope we might respond in such terrifying circumstances – with courage and with love, giving their lives to protect the children in their care.

We know that there were other teachers who barricaded themselves inside classrooms, and kept steady through it all, and reassured their students by saying “wait for the good guys, they’re coming”; “show me your smile.”

And we know that good guys came. The first responders who raced to the scene, helping to guide those in harm’s way to safety, and comfort those in need, holding at bay their own shock and trauma because they had a job to do, and others needed them more.

And then there were the scenes of the schoolchildren, helping one another, holding each other, dutifully following instructions in the way that young children sometimes do; one child even trying to encourage a grown-up by saying, “I know karate. So it’s okay. I’ll lead the way out.”

As a community, you’ve inspired us, Newtown. In the face of indescribable violence, in the face of unconscionable evil, you’ve looked out for each other, and you’ve cared for one another, and you’ve loved one another.This is how Newtown will be remembered. And with time, and God’s grace, that love will see you through.

But we, as a nation, we are left with some hard questions. Someone once described the joy and anxiety of parenthood as the equivalent of having your heart outside of your body all the time, walking around. With their very first cry, this most precious, vital part of ourselves – our child – is suddenly exposed to the world, to possible mishap or malice. And every parent knows there is nothing we will not do to shield our children from harm. And yet, we also know that with that child’s very first step, and each step after that, they are separating from us; that we won’t – that we can’t always be there for them. They’ll suffer sickness and setbacks and broken hearts and disappointments. And we learn that our most important job is to give them what they need to become self-reliant and capable and resilient, ready to face the world without fear.

And we know we can’t do this by ourselves. It comes as a shock at a certain point where you realize, no matter how much you love these kids, you can’t do it by yourself. That this job of keeping our children safe, and teaching them well, is something we can only do together, with the help of friends and neighbors, the help of a community, and the help of a nation. And in that way, we come to realize that we bear a responsibility for every child because we’re counting on everybody else to help look after ours; that we’re all parents; that they’re all our children.

This is our first task – caring for our children. It’s our first job. If we don’t get that right, we don’t get anything right. That’s how, as a society, we will be judged.

And by that measure, can we truly say, as a nation, that we are meeting our obligations? Can we honestly say that we’re doing enough to keep our children – all of them – safe from harm? Can we claim, as a nation, that we’re all together there, letting them know that they are loved, and teaching them to love in return? Can we say that we’re truly doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose?

I’ve been reflecting on this the last few days, and if we’re honest with ourselves, the answer is no. We’re not doing enough. And we will have to change.

Since I’ve been President, this is the fourth time we have come together to comfort a grieving community torn apart by a mass shooting. The fourth time we’ve hugged survivors. The fourth time we’ve consoled the families of victims. And in between, there have been an endless series of deadly shootings across the country, almost daily reports of victims, many of them children, in small towns and big cities all across America – victims whose – much of the time, their only fault was being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

We can’t tolerate this anymore. These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and that is true. No single law – no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world, or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society.

But that can’t be an excuse for inaction. Surely, we can do better than this. If there is even one step we can take to save another child, or another parent, or another town, from the grief that has visited Tucson, and Aurora, and Oak Creek, and Newtown, and communities from Columbine to Blacksburg before that – then surely we have an obligation to try.

In the coming weeks, I will use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens – from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators – in an effort aimed at preventing more tragedies like this. Because what choice do we have? We can’t accept events like this as routine. Are we really prepared to say that we’re powerless in the face of such carnage, that the politics are too hard? Are we prepared to say that such violence visited on our children year after year after year is somehow the price of our freedom?

All the world’s religions – so many of them represented here today – start with a simple question: Why are we here? What gives our life meaning? What gives our acts purpose? We know our time on this Earth is fleeting. We know that we will each have our share of pleasure and pain; that even after we chase after some earthly goal, whether it’s wealth or power or fame, or just simple comfort, we will, in some fashion, fall short of what we had hoped. We know that no matter how good our intentions, we will all stumble sometimes, in some way. We will make mistakes, we will experience hardships. And even when we’re trying to do the right thing, we know that much of our time will be spent groping through the darkness, so often unable to discern God’s heavenly plans.

There’s only one thing we can be sure of, and that is the love that we have – for our children, for our families, for each other. The warmth of a small child’s embrace – that is true. The memories we have of them, the joy that they bring, the wonder we see through their eyes, that fierce and boundless love we feel for them, a love that takes us out of ourselves, and binds us to something larger – we know that’s what matters. We know we’re always doing right when we’re taking care of them, when we’re teaching them well, when we’re showing acts of kindness. We don’t go wrong when we do that.

That’s what we can be sure of. And that’s what you, the people of Newtown, have reminded us. That’s how you’ve inspired us. You remind us what matters. And that’s what should drive us forward in everything we do, for as long as God sees fit to keep us on this Earth.

“Let the little children come to me,” Jesus said, “and do not hinder them – for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven.”

Charlotte. Daniel. Olivia. Josephine. Ana. Dylan. Madeleine. Catherine. Chase. Jesse. James. Grace. Emilie. Jack. Noah. Caroline. Jessica. Benjamin. Avielle. Allison.

God has called them all home. For those of us who remain, let us find the strength to carry on, and make our country worthy of their memory.

May God bless and keep those we’ve lost in His heavenly place. May He grace those we still have with His holy comfort. And may He bless and watch over this community, and the United States of America.


Blogger Emlyn Uwch Cych said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 December 2012 at 11:02  
Blogger IanCad said...

Thank you YG for the transcript of the President's address.

America at its best.
God bless them.

17 December 2012 at 11:08  
Blogger Emlyn Uwch Cych said...

Wow! Where are the Jedi Knights when you need them? "God sent the shooter". Whose god is that? Certainly not the God who sent his Son to die; yes, even for the hate-filled sinners at Westboro Baptist.

17 December 2012 at 11:09  
Blogger bluedog said...

A quietly impressive speech by Obama, Your Grace. He even managed to get away with cracking a joke, ('dutifully following instructions in the way that young children sometimes do').

It is difficult for non-Americans to talk about gun-control, and Obama doesn't mention the word either, in his speech. However these constant massacres diminish the United States and it is to be hoped that in their grief the Americans will now do something to take assault weapons out of their homes.

Owning an assault rifle is not exactly a vote of confidence in the United States and its democracy.

17 December 2012 at 11:11  
Blogger Kinderling said...

'Are we prepared to say the shooting is part of our freedom?'


Or are we to say being cattle, is a part of our freedom.

Why the teachers did not have guns, in a country where it is a right to bear arms, like a country where Sikhs can bear swords, is the problem.

17 December 2012 at 11:16  
Blogger Simon said...

Kinderling, really? You want the teachers to carry guns? You think that is a solution?

Speechless. Utterly speechless.

17 December 2012 at 11:21  
Blogger David B said...

On my discussion board I was appalled by the reaction of a couple of the Americans, faced with these terrible events.

The first reaction being about how the people who want to steal their guns will seize upon this as an opportunity.

I will leave it at that.


17 December 2012 at 11:30  
Blogger Galant said...

I think a summary of the gun-issue is this:

No guns in the world = no gun crime
Guns in the world = Gun crime
Since guns exist in the world and since the chance of removing all guns from the world is basically zero then gun crime is inevitable (ie. some people are always going to have guns and misuse them).

The question then is how does America minimize gun crime?

Usually suggested option A - Remove as many guns as possible because less guns = less gun crime

Usually suggested option B - Advocate the responsible ownership of guns by the vast majority of the population because most gun criminals use guns because they believe it gives them an advantage - a weapon of power. Balance that out and the incentive to use guns is removed. Or - widespread, responsible gun ownership is a deterrent.

The objections to (A) are usually:
i) The right to own and carry a fireman is part of the legal and cultural fabric of the USA. It is written into the Constitution.
ii) In as large and modern a country as the USA where guns will always be available some crime will always happen.
iii) The passing of laws is a far cry from the enforcement of laws. Additionally, crime is committed by criminals - ie. law breakers. Gun-removing laws only serve to remove guns from the law-abiding.
iv) Since (i) (ii) and (iii) are true, and some people will always have guns, I want (and have) the right to use a gun to defend myself and those around me.

Objections to (B) are usually:

i) Well, actually, they're usually not made. The argument is generally taken to be self-evident.

Objections to the 'self-evident' defense are varied but usually based on historical examples, some of which may be:

i) Norway - A country with extremely strict gun laws. Recently though Anders Breivik managed to obtain and carry into a 'gun-free' zone a shotgun, a handgun and an automatic weapon.
ii) UK - Knife crime 'epidemic' - in number and type knives have been pretty much constant in the UK, so there must have been another reason behind the problem. Since the problem arose at a time after which numerous knife-laws had been put in place the idea that less weapons = less crime isn't self-evident.
iii) UK - gun crime. Another country with very strict laws and yet in the past year two horrific incidents. This would be an example of where an individual could argue that gun laws don't stop gun crime and since that's the case, in such circumstances, an individual would want the right, in the USA, to defend themselves.

17 December 2012 at 11:55  
Blogger Galant said...


A different objection given to (B) (more guns) - though not often heard for some reason - is that it is an 'ideal' solution just like 'no guns at all' is an 'ideal'. The reality, it may be argued, is that less and less people want the responsibility of owning a firearm. As sad as that thought might be to some people, the argument is that widespread, responsible gun ownership with the mindset to defend oneself and others using deadly force, is a dream that cannot be reality. Instead, the prevailing ideal is to give that power and responsibility to those trained individuals who are desirous to bear that responsibility - ie. the police. Additionally, the police should be working hard to remove firearms from all other individuals. Thus to reach the ideal of as few firearms as possible (reducing the chance of events like this recent one where easy access to firearm was likely a significant factor) whilst also have a trained and responsible body prepared to deal with any other situations that might arise.

This though does not come without objection from the other side:

i) Advocating individual responsibility is important for any society and is, arguably, a founding principle for the USA carried in much of the mindset of life there. It is a bad thing to advocate the shirking of responsibility and a good/healthy thing to advocate the growth and taking of individual responsibility.
ii) None of this removes the right of an individual to defend themselves. Especially when..
iii) A trained and responsible armed force who is infallible is also just an 'ideal'. It would be impossible for any such force to respond to every single in time to prevent deaths. Also, government organisations generally don't have the best record in terms of efficiency and adequacy. Instead...
iv) It's likely that the centralization of power would give rise to abuses. This is the basic argument in defense of public gun ownership. Permitting the government to remove all firearms from the public and retain them themselves would in itself give them an improper sense of superiority. It would also give them all the power to do as they please without fear of repercussion. Often objected to as being alarmist in nature, the response is that history is full of examples where this has occurred and is precisely why, after all those examples, the founders of the USA wrote into law the 2nd amendment. It's one of those situations where the truth of something won't be seen unless and until it's already needed - too late.

What's left then, is risk.

Ban guns, remove them from the streets and everyone has to face the risk that they have no option for defending themselves or their family from criminals, face the tyranny of a government which has accrued too much power, and, the argument goes, tip the balance towards more crime, not less.

Advocate responsible gun ownership and give people the capacity to defend themselves and their community, to remind the government that they do not hold total power, but risk the use of those weapons by irresponsible individuals and the reality that few people will take on that responsibility.

17 December 2012 at 11:55  
Blogger Galant said...

Last one:

In the end it all comes down to risk and responsibility.

For me that is a choice the people should make, not the government. Referendum?

The last word in all of this for me, is that no matter the gun laws passed or not, the issue here in this horrific event and others like it, is that a young man, for whatever reasons or by whatever cause, had it in his heart and mind to murder both his parents and then slaughter children. Clearly there are issues there that have nothing to do with firearms. The tragedy isn't that firearms were used. The tragedy is that a family was broken part, self-destructing and especially that many lives, many young lives were taken. As was seen in China on the same day, this sort of action can still occur even if firearms aren't around. If the President and America is truly upset about what went on, if it's important to do something about firearms, it's even more important - most important - that something is done to deal with the root causes of these incidents.

I think that's the thing that gets lost in all this. Even in the President's speech, his anger seemed to be more leveled at the gun issue rather than the societal one. Maybe nothing could have been done about this young man. Maybe in this situation the absence of firearms might have been the only way the situation could have been 'better'. Nevertheless, the most important thing is to figure that out.

That, for me, is the tragedy of this event and one that America needs to look at urgently. The UK too, following the rampage of just a little while ago.

Peace be with those families, and may healing come swiftly.

17 December 2012 at 11:56  
Blogger Chantry Priest said...

Of your Charity pray for the soul of ADAM LANZA who, through the wiles of the Devil and the corruptions of this naughty world, hath committed great evil.
Almighty and most merciful God, Who hatest nothing that Thou hast made, have mercy we beseech Thee upon this, Thy servant ADAM. By the power of the Cross and Passion of Thy Son, the merits and intercession of the Saints and our supplication, may his Covenant with Death be broken and his Pact with Hell be revoked. May his soul be delivered from the Pit of Corruption and, after due purgation and his sin being washed away in Thy Blood, may Thy holy Angels greet him and give him entrance through the Gates into the Glory of Thy Presence. Through the same Jesus Christ our Lord...

17 December 2012 at 12:01  
Blogger Galant said...

In case anyone found my last posts TLDR, here's a general summary of the 'more guns' argument:

17 December 2012 at 12:07  
Blogger Berserker said...

Kinderling posts--

Why the teachers did not have guns, in a country where it is a right to bear arms, like a country where Sikhs can bear swords, is the problem.

But the mother of Adam Lanza did carry guns (3 to be exact) and had taken up the hobby of target shooting because from what I've read the stress of being responsible for her difficult son. Possibly, without the ownership of these guns, herself, the children and adults would be alive today.

17 December 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger Berserker said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 December 2012 at 12:10  
Blogger Mr Integrity said...

Your Grace,
That video makes you want to throw up........
Taking the Lords name in vain offends us all as much as this terrible tragedy.

17 December 2012 at 12:22  
Blogger Galant said...

The gun issue though, isn't the central one here. Sadly, I haven't heard too many people addressing that fact.

The central issue is that guns or no guns, a young man had it in his heart and mind to kill his parents and then slaughter children (either intentionally or incidentally). Perhaps if there were no guns easily available he wouldn't have done it. Then again, he could have gone the route of the man in China who, on the very same day, attacked children at a school gate with a knife. Obviously there is a huge difference in the damage caused between knives and guns. Yet, if we are truly moved to see that such events as this do not happen again, we must concern ourselves with the root issue here. The question of why this young man did this.

That is the mystery that needs to be solved, both in the case of Adam and the man in China, and other such attacks.

I do wonder if the focus is placed upon the gun issue because without Christ/Christianity the world lacks the language/reality to address the wider issues - because these are all 'basically good' people.

Whatever the case, we need to ask ourselves, are we content to have knife or rock or bare-handed attacks instead of gun attacks, or do we desire instead to deal with the bigger issue of creating and having murderous-hearted individuals in our society?

17 December 2012 at 12:26  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Gun ownership is obviously a contributing factor to the numerous massacres that happen in America .

However the American pysche is based on repressive puritanism which taints the nation. Repression leads to violence and the violence becomes the norm. Calvinism is the perfect incubator for repression... giving rise to hate organisations such as the Klu Klux Klan who persecuted Catholics Jews and blacks in that order.

These Puritanical religions are originally based on hatred, violence and cruelty where life is not meant to be pleasurable and have no direct relationship to Christianity.

The Baptist Church mentioned in HG's post illustrates my point.

17 December 2012 at 13:00  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

ChantryPriest - it bollocks like that which you have posted that preserves the inertia.

I cringed and watched President Obama search to find the right words to express a nation leader’s recognition of the obscenity of the Sandy Hook killings. However,there is no greater crime for a politician than to miss an opportunity to be seen kissing (or burying) babies; but that’s all he did. There was no mention of what he would do in changing the environment in which these atrocities took place – that may impinge on someone’s freedom and that will cost votes.
Events like this have happened too many times for people to emotionally accept ‘God called them home’ as if that’s supposed to means anything constructive – they were innocents (Sinners if you are Carl) and murdered. Their blood is on the collective hands of all Americans, especially the gun toters, no-voters and Westbro WhackJobs.

To my way of thinking, the President in making statements that infer that this loving Christian god was in some way ‘calling them home’, does imply he(god) was complicit in some perverse sort of way and gives Obama and the gun lobby, the get out clause do nothing but pass the buck on to God/Jaweh/ Allah. Trying to pass off murder as a divine act or that these poor people including their murderer have 'gone to a better place' or live on in heaven however consoling, is just plain stupidity.

Those people were murdered by a mentally ill man. I doubt that a court would have even prosecuted him because of his mental state, more likely simply put him into a secure hospital.

The American Constitution facilitated the action; the American people sustain it – why don’t they recognise their own intransigence and demand change of their Constitution and their culture? You don’t need an AK47 or a rocket launcher to hunt squirrel or deter a mugger. You don’t need to show extreme violence as a source of regular entertainment: or to buy a hundred rounds of ammunition along with the rest of the groceries.
These were innocents murdered by a deranged man with easy access to guns and ammunition in a nation that has been conditioned by an unrestrained interpretation of the ‘right, to bear arms’; which may have been appropriate in the 18th Century… but no. now?

17 December 2012 at 13:02  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

In no way do I wish to be associated with the comments of the man who calls himself 'Cressida'.

17 December 2012 at 13:09  
Blogger Concerned said...

Your Grace. On your twitter account you asked, "Who is truly Christian - Barack Obama or Westboro Baptist Church?" I submit that neither of them are. Westboro is not for rather obvious reasons and neither is President Obama. There is that rather annoying youtube video of him criticizing the Bible. What "Christian" would dare do that? Only someone who is Christian in name only.

17 December 2012 at 13:11  
Blogger Enemyof the State said...

Westboro's theology is Satanic - an inversion of the Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ as any Bible student should quickly identify.

But there is an amount of hubris from Mr Obama who condones the murder of the unborn - now into the many millions - without a shred of compassion.

America is a country with much to commend it but it suffers from a culture of violence which is unsustainable. Banning guns is not the answer as those with dark passions will always be able to obtain them. The answer is to put God back into the schools and arm the teachers. Schools are a soft target for evil people because they are known to possess no means of self defense.

Yet this evil vile world in which we live is the same one Jesus came to, complete, in His time, with the massacre of the Innocents.

Nothing changes - neither man's capacity for evil, nor God's unlimited Grace, for which we must all give thanks.

17 December 2012 at 13:27  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

I guess you have not had a heterosexual woman for many years
Barges are not known to be chick magnets!

17 December 2012 at 13:32  
Blogger Kinderling said...

I have no problem with that. I have no problem with a Sikh carrying a sword, like I have no problem with a Spanish police officer carrying a gun, because we all do. One person goes loopy, and their in-the-hood days are over. No warlord to impose their religion on me.

However, I can see a person like you would not have survived in the Wild West, because guns go along with self-discipline, and sexual incontinence and 'demons' in the head go hand in hand.

No wonder you are scared speechless. Without character, who wouldn't be. For you see the other person like yourself.

17 December 2012 at 13:42  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 December 2012 at 13:46  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


If you are going to make reference to me, at least take the time to express the theology correctly. I realize that doing so may not fit the purpose of a polemic rant, but it does have the benefit of intellectual honesty.


17 December 2012 at 13:46  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

The Westboro Baptist church serves a really vital function. Makes all the homophobes on this site feel positively virtuous and gay friendly. The BNP performs a similar role in the world of politics. Everyone can feel holier than them because they almost certainly are.

The main problem with the WBC is of course that they are right. God does hate fags. It's right there in the Bible. Couldn't be clearer. You might feel holier than them, but they get the honesty prize every single time.

17 December 2012 at 13:52  
Blogger Owl said...

I have read that this young man who did this unbelievable deed was on medication. Apparently he was a "difficult" child.

Having witnessed in our own small comunity two suicides of young people who had been taking Retalin, it starts to make me think.

I begin to wonder if this act of violence against oneself could also be chanelled to the outside world, i.e a potential act of violence in another direction.

It has been said that this sort of thing didn't happen decades ago although the people had access to guns.

The main difference that I can see is that decades ago, children were not drugged to keep them quiet (an unnatural state for a child anyway).

There may be more reforms required than previously perceived.

Are we perhap just looking in the wrong place?

17 December 2012 at 13:54  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Do not mention carl's name Dreadall. He only likes it if your lips are firmly affixed to his buttocks. You don't want to be turned into a lamp shade do you?

17 December 2012 at 14:06  
Blogger Kinderling said...

If the teachers carried guns they might be alive.

Tell you what, take a psychological test and a genetic swab to determine if you can drive a car, better still, outlaw cars as they kill thousands more than guns do in peacetime. In fact, get rid of guns in wartime, being a pascifist, is the only solution.

The walk of the Socialist is ingrained so that when offered freedom, they prefer captivity.

17 December 2012 at 14:09  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

If a man drives under the influence, and kills someone, we don't say "Let's ban cars." Why? Because we don't associate the moral nature of the act with the car. We say that the car in and of itself has legitimate usage. Neither do we say "Let's ban alcohol" and not just because we tried it once and failed. In this case, we say that men may responsibly use alcohol. The irresponsibility of one man does not impeach the responsibility of another. But if a man commits a crime with a gun, we say "Ban guns." The argument would seem to be "Bob killed someone so Bill should be deprived." How is this consistent?

The logic to ban gun ownership begins with the assumption that there is no longer any legitimate usage for a gun in the hands of a private citizen. This is clearly stated as ...

These were innocents murdered by a deranged man with easy access to guns and ammunition in a nation that has been conditioned by an unrestrained interpretation of the ‘right, to bear arms’; which may have been appropriate in the 18th Century… but [not] now.

This argument has nothing to do with the shooting. Instead it sees the shooting as evidence for its prior conclusion. "Men no longer need to possess guns." Why? Because we live in a safe civilized society where the police will protect us? Obviously not, and I would appeal to all those who are alive today because they own weapons. The police typically arrive after the fact and say something useless to the survivors like "I am so sorry for your loss." Police do not protect. They apprehend after the fact so the criminal may be punished.

No, the real basis for the logic is a trade between accepting the status of victim and and accepting the consequence of gun ownership. Guns are the great equalizer. A man with a gun can defend himself against someone who is younger and stronger. But a criminal with a gun is more lethal. People who would ban guns consider the second statement more important. They implicitly say "You will be more safe if you accept the risk of victimhood than if you demand the responsibility of effective self-defense."

It is not surprising to me that this argument should be so prevalent in a statist continent like Europe. A disarmed population is a supplicant population. A disarmed people must look to the state for protection, and this makes them more pliable. More easily controlled. It naturally teaches the population to look up to the state as a serf looks up to his master. It provides. It protects. The US has no such history and that is why I think attitudes are so different.


17 December 2012 at 14:24  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

...take the time to express the theology correctly

Oh that I had nothing better to do. If you don't believe we are born 'sinners' feel free to correct me. Its just something of yours that I read a while ago which seemed to convey this message and stayed obviously erroneously in my mind.

17 December 2012 at 14:27  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 December 2012 at 14:35  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


There is a difference between "Innocent before God" and "Innocent before men" - a difference you smeared in your post above. If you wish to say that I think these children were killed as judgment for being sinners, then say it directly. Don't just throw a cheap implication on the floor for the cats to eat. Just remember that you don't have the first clue about Providence or its place in the affairs of men. You don't know what you are talking about when you say things like that.


17 December 2012 at 14:36  
Blogger The Gray Monk said...

Your Grace, permit me to be categoric. The Westboro Baptist Church are not Christian. Their's is a message totally alien to the love, forgiveness and inclusivity of the message of Jesus Christ. I see one or two others are once again misquoting the Bible and saying they are right to preach their message of hate. May I draw their attention to Hebrews 13: 8.

I for one repudiate the Westboro Baptist "Church." It is not Christian, it will never be as long as they preach hatred of anyone or anything. They are a disgrace to Christianity and their only purpose is to bring discredit on all those who follow Christ.

As a Christian I reject them and their message utterly and completely. They are anathema.

17 December 2012 at 14:39  
Blogger John Magee said...

Surely HG knows the Westboro Baptist has absolutely no connection with any official Baptist Church in the USA. This "church" is a fringe group of the fringe of the most obscure fringe groups. To give these freaks any attention, which they crave from the media, is obscene and and a blasphemy to the memory of all those who died at Sandy Hook on Friday. Especially after posting the heart-rending video of Mr Parker talking about his daughter and forgiving the killer.

This "church" is headed by an evil man named Fred Phelps and the membership is almost entirely his family. They are well known protesting military funerals and of course their hatred of gays. The main objective of the clever "Reverend" Phelps (who happens to be a barrister) is to go to get a permit to "protest" at a military funeral of a soldier picked at random from the internet, make an outrageous protest chanting vile insults then insulting the American flag, which of course angers mourners and the police. Sometimes there are confrontations. Phelps and his sleazy crew get arrested, then he sues the town for millions claiming their First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and right to assemble have been "violated". Phelps has made millions using this clever legal tactic. His "church" is a money making scheme and deserves no attention whatsoever.

It has to be mentioned that Phelp's law firm's first notable cases were related to civil rights. "I systematically brought down the Jim Crow laws of this town," he claims. Phelps' daughter was quoted as saying, "We took on the Jim Crow establishment, and Kansas did not take that sitting down. They used to shoot our car windows out, screaming we were nigger lovers," and that the Phelps law firm made up one-third of the state's federal docket of civil rights cases

In the 1980s, Phelps received awards from the Greater Kansas City Chapter of Blacks in Government and the Bonner Springs branch of the NAACP, for his work on behalf of black clients.

His freaks hate Gays but they can't be called racists...

Phelps also sued President Ronald Reagan over Reagan's appointment of a U.S. ambassador to the Vatican, alleging this violated separation of church and state. The case was dismissed by the U.S. district court

I see no reason to post this video and story about the Westboro freaks unless it's meant to be some sort of sneer.

This is tabloid religion.

Too bad President doesn't go to the memorial services after the shootings in his home town of Chicago each weekend. At least twenty to forty blacks and Hispanics are killed there in gang related shootings on an average weekend. Some of them are children.

No tears for those victims.

President Obama should have given a neutral memorial speech at Newtown, CT instead the memorial service was headlined in the news this morning "We must change". This is clearly a message to those of us who want to preserve our First Amendments rights to beware he is coming after us and has absoultely no place at a service of this kind. He had the bad taste to use this memorial service to make a political point.

His pal, the present Mayor of Chicago (murder capital USA) Rahm Emanuel, invented the slogan "Never let a crisus go to waste".

As usual Obama didn't.

17 December 2012 at 14:48  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

If you wish to say that I think these children were killed as judgment for being sinners, then say it directly.

Now you wouldn't expect such a view from an atheist person now would you?

17 December 2012 at 14:56  
Blogger Philip said...

Good post YG. Whatever his deficiencies, and however much he departs from Christian truth on some things, President Obama's reaction is far more like Christ's would be than that so-called "church"

17 December 2012 at 14:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


No, I would expect an atheist to consistently face the implications of his worldview and say "Their lives were without meaning anyways. What then was truly lost? What is the difference between sorrow and joy?"

Each to his grave where there is no memory of good, and no recompense for evil.


17 December 2012 at 15:02  
Blogger IanCad said...

Carl @ 14:24 wrote:

"A disarmed population is a supplicant population. A disarmed people must look to the state for protection, and this makes them more pliable.--"

Spot on!

The very purpose of the Second Amendment.

17 December 2012 at 15:35  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 December 2012 at 16:57  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

I've already put much on the discussion table and therefore hold no desire to take this extremely emotive thread even more off topic.

You live in a country with an estimated 90 guns per 100 people (highest in the world) and of course this obviously takes no account of these illegally held. If you think mass gun ownership hasn't been a contributing factor in this instance, that's you decision but where is your constructive alternative to mitigate any more?

I set out my wider suggested causal argument earlier and your response seems to be... no not my gun/s, and imply that the solution is for yet more guns.

Unlike the drunks in cars (who also may be carrying guns for good measure) argument, who may accidentally kill, guns hold the primary functional ability when loaded and pointed at someone/something, to kill or at least maim.

You say-
Guns are the great equalizer. A man with a gun can defend himself against someone who is younger and stronger or equally, I would say - also a great unequaliser. One man with a .22 handgun against one with an Uzi is not equal. Two men with pump action shotguns or ten men against ten men Browning automatics or Gatling guns - where does it end? - a State endorsed Mexican Stand-off between the law abiding and the criminals or another Waco?

The fact that this situation which has seemingly spiralled out of control and never(TMK)in that time been deemed important enough to addressed should not make it unresolvable. It could be seen by some, that American society hasn't advanced in this aspect since the writing of the Constitution.

17 December 2012 at 17:18  
Blogger Kinderling said...

The one country in the world has freedom of speech, the one country in the world that has a gun to defend it.

When America's light goes out the world will be run by the morlocks in our own government. But by then you'll be in your own group of Preference, fighting over your proffered rights above that of another group.

At least this debate separates those who trust themselves and those who don't. We now know each other: the one where your neighbor is friend, the other to put them in all in a burka as a danger to society.

17 December 2012 at 17:42  
Blogger Kinderling said...

When in 1942 the American citizens voluntary sent over their individual weapons the UK Subjects did not cry "ooh, they've' got guns, should not be allowed" and when they came to defend them they were not mocked "you've got gun control and accuracy just because you trained in civillian rifle ranges". They were grateful real men of character arrived and left when the job was done.

17 December 2012 at 17:56  
Blogger Kinderling said...

You Liberals argue to sodimize in God's House and be Blessed by Him, argue to smoke marujana, argue to legalize prostitution, all the stupid things to do with your body, and then let your fundamental rights be taken from you.

17 December 2012 at 18:05  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Laurence Boyce said...
"The Westboro Baptist church serves a really vital function. Makes all the homophobes on this site feel positively virtuous and gay friendly ...
The main problem with the WBC is of course that they are right. God does hate fags. It's right there in the Bible."

Perhaps biblical literalists and sol-scriptura adherents might want to address this charge. It certainly isn't the position of the Catholic Church.

Here's the statement from WBC:

Compendium of Bible Truth on Fags
(first published in 1991)

"Sodomites are wicked & sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen.13:13), are violent & doom nations (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19), are abominable to God (Lev. 18:22), are worthy of death for their vile sex practices (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32), are called dogs as filthy, impudent & libidinous (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6;Phil. 3:2), produce in society mass intoxication from their wine made from grapes of gall from the vine of Sodom & fields of Gomorrah, poisoning society's mores with the poison of dragons & the cruel venom of asps (Deut. 32:32,33), show their sin & shame on their countenance (Isa. 3:9), are shameless & unable to blush (Jer. 6:15), workers of iniquity (Psa. 5:5), liars & murderers (Jn. 8:44), filthy & lawless (2 Pet. 2:7,8), natural brute beasts (2 Pet. 2:12), are likened unto dogs eating their own vomit, sows wallowing in their own feces (2 Pet. 2:22), will proliferate at the end of the world bringing final judgment on mankind (Lk. 17:28-30), have been finally given up by God to uncleanness to dishonor their own bodies, to vile affections, & to a reprobate mind such that they cannot think straight about anything (Rom. 1:23-28); and, unable to blush, be ashamed, or repent (Jer. 6:15), they have no hope of Heaven (Rev. 22:15). "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Heb. 10:31.

Is this biblical Truth?

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

Fine words from the President, but he will be putting his life in danger if he pursues gun control. Sniper weapons are deadly accurate to well over a mile and neither he nor his guards will see it coming…

Not so fine words from Chantry Priest at 12:01

A churchman free and easy with forgiveness. Even when forgiveness isn’t yours to administer, Sir. One can imagine the scene. Gunman and victims all meeting up in paradise. Maybe he could act as a substitute parent to them, having deprived them of theirs as well as their own earthly existence…

There is no room in heaven for the man. He saw to that. Unless of course, you give him YOUR place.

(and then all we heard was the sound of a priest hurriedly rising from his knees and walking off down the aisle, pretty damn sharpish…)

17 December 2012 at 18:23  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

One notes mentally ill has been mentioned. Thought it would be…

Mentally Ill describes a cerebral palsy victim writhing in a wheel chair. It describes spoon feeding someone porridge, and watching as it dribbles from the mouth.

Mass Murdering Gunman describes someone who through rage, anger, revenge and cunning, targets a school and kills as many as he can. Ironically, those four attributes are not available to the truly mentally ill. It’s a socialist fallacy you see, not conforming to society and incurring that label. In the USSR, if you didn’t think communism was a good idea, and you had contacts or standing to avoid a labour camp, they locked you up in a madhouse for it.

So throw away your 1970s new psychiatry manual for amateurs, and get back to calling the deed for what it is – evil.

17 December 2012 at 18:26  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

But Dodo, atheists know better than anyone what God really thinks, and what the Bible really says. The rest of us lack their clear vision and unhindered intellect to see hate.

We are left with nought but our delusions of love.

17 December 2012 at 18:30  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

The answer is not less guns (or less gays) but less drugs.

THe boy had been fed prescription drugs for years

It is a common thread in other shootings

Reducing the number of guns will have no impact.

Reducing the number of prescription drugs and making illegal drugs really illegal



17 December 2012 at 18:41  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Chantry Priest said...
"Of your Charity pray for the soul of ADAM LANZA ..."


Apparently, before being shot in the head by her own son, Mrs Lanza was a "survivalist" who owned at least five firearms, including the powerful rifle used by Adam in his assault on the school and several handguns. She taught him how to shoot and would speak freely of the gun collection that he used to devastating effect.

A troubled recluse, socially awkward and possibly autistic, being taught such things and having access to an arsenal?

The right to bear arms?

17 December 2012 at 18:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


The statement is from an allegedly 'Christian' website and is a literalist account of God's views on homosexuality and its individual and collective consequences.


Evil is choice; mental illness is the absence of such choice.

That said, I do agree there is a desire from some to replace what was once seen as sin with "mental illness". We cannot assume a crime like this could only be committed by someone who was ill. Personal responsibility may have existed in this tragic event - who knows but God.

And the Chantry Priest was inviting God's forgiveness - not ours.

17 December 2012 at 18:58  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. One recalls when that Norwegian fascist did his bit. The opinion over there initially was that he would never stand trial because he was ‘mentally ill’. Has to be otherwise he would never have done it. So, lets have a guess at how many of the NAZIs were mentally ill when they were on the loose...

Chantry Priest, if you have a bit of time on your hands, do pray for the Inspectors soul. Of course he is less deserving than the gunman, having merely kept to God’s law all his life. Number of dead attributed to this man, nil.

17 December 2012 at 19:22  
Blogger len said...

It would seem that the Westboro Baptist Church (aka the ‘God Hates Fags Church’)neither recognises Jesus or his teachings.They seem to be practising a form of Christ- less Christianity which is not Christ- ianity at all but some sort of hate filled cult.
God`s view of sin has been expressed throughout the Old Testament and harsh punishments were handed out to those who transgressed the Law as a means of restraint until the Saviour could be revealed.

'For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.'(John 3:17)
Jesus healed the sick raised the dead and the only people he condemned [ironically enough] were the religious Pharisees.
Jesus Christ would certainly not be welcome in' Westboro Baptist Church' as He was often chastised by the religious as being' a friend of sinners'.

17 December 2012 at 19:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Inspector, as I said:

Evil is choice; mental illness is the absence of such choice.

17 December 2012 at 19:30  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Carl and Mr Kinderling, this communicant doesn't dispute that private individuals may possess firearms for a range of legitimate reasons. However what does appear frankly incredible is the ease with which untrained private individuals can apparently acquire high-powered automatic or semi-automatic weapons in the US. That the late Mrs Lanza had an AR15 illustrates the point. Could she use the weapon safely? Could she carry out proper checks that the weapon was made safe or completely unloaded? This sort of weapon requires skill and confidence to use. In addition it would not, particularly in a military environment, be left lying around in a loaded state. Militaries disarm troops once they return to barracks; the right to bear arms is severely proscribed.

Why should civilians be exposed to a higher degree of firearms risk than is tolerated by the military?

So to claim as Mr Kinderling does that the solution is more guns is to impose on the civilian population a greater degree of firearms risk than the US Army accepts for its highly trained soldiers. This does not seem to be a logical solution to the problem of dealing with random nutters.

In addition, there are some basic problems in the process of dealing with a rapidly evolving mortal threat. Unless you are anticipating trouble it is impossible to be on full alert all day and in civilian life it is simply not feasible or desirable to do so. In any event a long arm like an AR15 is never going to be the solution, particularly within buildings. Think ricochet effect. The only remotely possible scenario would be for all kindergarten teachers to be equipped with a hand gun of light calibre, say .22 magnum or above. By implication the teachers would then be trained to kill! The children would recognise this and draw their own conclusions, including starting their own arms race.

There are clearly a very large number of structural issues for the US to consider and these comments will hopefully be seen as something other than a sanctimonious lecture.

17 December 2012 at 19:32  
Blogger Kinderling said...

Yes. It says it in the bible.

17 December 2012 at 19:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


You live in a country with an estimated 90 guns per 100 people (highest in the world) and of course this obviously takes no account of these illegally held.

And how many of those guns were used in an illegal act? How many were used in an act of legal self-defense? For all those guns being available, you would think crime should be enormous - bodies on every street corner. But it's not. In truth, you would be confiscating legal guns from responsible gun owners who will never commit a crime with the guns they own. You aren't really interested in crime. You are interested in eliminating gun ownership because you don't think people should own guns. You would say the same thing if the crime ate was zero. In the real world, that has real costs in human lives. Those costs to you are an acceptable consequence. Understand that you aren't trading gun ownership for victims. You are trading one set of victims for another.

If you think mass gun ownership hasn't been a contributing factor in this instance, that's you decision but where is your constructive alternative to mitigate any more?

Mitigate what? I don't understand this sentence.

I set out my wider suggested causal argument earlier and your response seems to be... no not my gun/s, and imply that the solution is for yet more guns.

The solution is found in character formation. You don't have to worry about gun owners who are properly civilized. But that is hard - especially in a culture that has abandoned the responsibility of raising children for the privilege of induling their self-interests.

Unlike the drunks in cars (who also may be carrying guns for good measure) argument, who may accidentally kill, guns hold the primary functional ability when loaded and pointed at someone/something, to kill or at least maim.

When someone with hostile intent is trying to come through your front door, you might consider the ability of a gun to kill to be a legitimate primary function. As an alternative you suggest "Accept victimhood." The you become part of the acceptable consequence of being disarmed.

I would say - also a great unequaliser.

As opposed to what? Facing a man with a knife or a club when he is similarly armed? Fighting with a knife or a club gives a big advantage to the stronger younger adversary. Which would you rather do? Any gun against any gun is better than any knife against any knife. Again, your only alternative is "Accept victimhood." When the criminal has arrived, it's too late to call the police.

I will spare you my reaction to European judgments about how much the US has "advanced."


17 December 2012 at 19:56  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. You have the Inspector’s definition of mental illness and evil. We’ll be generous and say the man had a personality problem. Met of few of those types in the past, you too no doubt. The people who would benefit from a slap round the head. But mentally ill ? nah...

17 December 2012 at 20:00  
Blogger Kinderling said...

A solution is, resposible adults have the right to bear arms. Not that they are excluded by their political allegence such as UKIP, but they are holding a professional job and are firearms trained.
To protect and serve would sober up the stazi who would not dare to be frivolous with the law, for justice would be served. They suddenly remember who they work for.

17 December 2012 at 20:06  
Blogger non mouse said...

Thanks again, Your Grace! Earlier today, I heard Obama speak on the radio --- and immediately switched it off as I cannot abide the falseness that informs his voice. So now I've read what he said and, in written characters, it at first seems harmless.

Once again, the difference between the seen and unseen is highlighted for us--but by Obama who, I say, is "darkness visible" and audible. I agree with posters here who suggest that he will turn both this tragedy and the cover of Christian doctrine* -- to the evils of Marxist authoritarianism. He does it "spiritually," which is to say by using words (breath).

In contrast, the benighted boy who provided Obama this opportunity--- manifested his spiritual darkness more physically. The problem is indeed timely diagnosis of the causes of such impotent rage, and of its subsequent eruption. Guns and gunpowder have no will of their own.

As ever, Obama is right on several introductory counts: the people of Newtown provide inspiration; and no, not everyone is "doing enough to give all the children of this country the chance they deserve to live out their lives in happiness and with purpose." Nevertheless, that immigrant Chicago boy should know: many of the huddled masses, invited into the US by Lady Liberty, lose their worldly goods to the 'economy.' At the same time, they are kicked, beaten, and drugged into joining the criminal masses. Those very masses are already ably depicted in American short stories; exemplified in films &c; and their deadly arts are practiced in interactive video games that little children love.

So BO is right again: "change" is apposite. However, our world needs the kind of change that inspires the citizens of Newtown. We already know there is no benefit in alteration imposed when authoritarian, marxist, "Brave New Worlders," take control of the guns --and the children.


* Note the bone he throws to "All the world’s religions – so many of them represented here today."

PS: I own no gun, and want none. However, come the revolution ------

17 December 2012 at 20:13  
Blogger John Henson said...

YG, thank you for publishing the full text of President Obama's address. It had dignity and gravitas appropriate for the situation.

What on earth can you say to a bereaved parent? I think the answer is, absolutely nothing.

"I tell you naught for your comfort,
Yea, naught for your desire,
Save that the sky grows darker yet
And the sea rises higher.
Night shall be thrice night over you,
And heaven an iron cope.
Do you have joy without a cause,
Yea, faith without a hope?

17 December 2012 at 20:34  
Blogger Damian said...

Bluedog said;
Militaries disarm troops once they return to barracks; the right to bear arms is severely proscribed.

Why should civilians be exposed to a higher degree of firearms risk than is tolerated by the military?

Are they really?
Not heard of Blue on Blue killings then? or the killings at Fort Hood?
perhaps if those soldiers were allowed to keep their weapons not so many would have been killed eh?

Listen Yanks, you keep your guns, from what I have read of the laws being introduced into your country you are going to need them.

and remember it is better to be tried by twelve than carried by six.

17 December 2012 at 20:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


What are you saying.

1. That parents should not teach their children how to shoot?

2. That teaching a child how to shoot is a direct causation of murder?

3. That a child committing murder is necessarily a foreseeable consequence of teaching a child how to shoot?

These are all invalid assertions. Are you instead saying that this particular mother shouldn't have taught this particular child? In truth, you don't have the information to say that. But assuming it is true, what has that specific instance to say about the general case? Unless what you are really saying is "There is no such thing as responsible gun ownership."

I think at root there is an attitude that guns are just too dangerous for people to possess. That citizens can not and should not be trusted to make decisions about their use. That they should willingly submit to victimhood. (And make no mistake, that is the necessary implication.) That attitude comes with costs. People talk about a 'psychology of gun ownership.' There is also such a thing as a 'psychology of dependency.' You look at the state differently when you have no ability to protect yourself. A dependent is far more willing to consign responsibility to the state; far more likely to see it as a benevolent force.

After all. You are defenseless without its intervention. It had better be benevolent.


17 December 2012 at 21:25  
Blogger Owl said...

non mouse,

I have to agree with you.

Our police station closes down at six o'clock in the evening and the next manned station is a +twenty minute drive.

I have never owned a gun and if anything was to happen, I have no way to protect my wife and children.

It is a sobering thought and helps me to also understand Carl's point of view very well.

17 December 2012 at 22:00  
Blogger Galant said...

As I mentioned above, I am rather concerned that no-one seems to be talking about/attempting to work out what the root cause of this was. Instead it's all about the guns.

It's possible that no easy access to guns would have reduced the number of casualties in this case, but it's not guaranteed. In the UK knife crime saw a surge and as far as I recall there was no mass influx of knives. The UK has also seen a number of gun incidents recently and that despite strict gun laws. A man was even shot in London yesterday - And then there's barely a need to mention Breivik in Norway.

All this to say that guns are not necessarily the central issue and all of this hysteria over the availability of guns may potentially lead to us ignoring the more important issues and causes.

With tragedies like these we often want to 'do something, do anything', but one has to ask - what law (if you could write any law whatsoever and have it passed) could have prevented this tragedy?

17 December 2012 at 22:01  
Blogger Galant said...

One thing I think gun advocates need to consider is that sadly we are facing a more and more irresponsible and immature populace. People don't want to think of the responsibility of carrying a weapon and defending themselves, let alone anyone else.

The answer to the question asked earlier is that people do prefer to give up freedom if it means less responsibility.

It might be anti-American. It might be a cultural battle worth fighting. It's still, though, a reality, and one which might mean the notion of widespread, responsible gun-ownership may only be a dream.

Some kids can learn to handle guns. Some kids have been brought up irresponsible and can't be entrusted with a weapon. If a populace becomes more immature - is it right to entrust them with weapons they neither want nor can handle (even if it would be to their, and others', benefit)?

Of course, the individual may still want his rights, but in a democracy of the irresponsible, those may too have to be forfeit.

17 December 2012 at 22:08  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Mitigate what? I don't understand this sentence
I do beg your pardon. I omitted the intended word ‘atrocities’ perhaps you would allow my question to stand.
And how many of those guns were used in an illegal act?
Who knows? The fact remains that the US holds the most guns per capita in the world and has (according to news reports) to date, uniquely in the world, suffered over sixty irrational mass shooting events of its own people by its own people in the last fifty years. If so, the potential for a correlation surely can’t be ignored.
You don't have to worry about gun owners who are properly civilized
Indeed one would hope so, and nowhere have I suggested the immediate answer is a gun ban, that would certainly be putting the cart before the horse: but why would a ‘civillized’ person, in this case, I presume his stay-at-home mother, to be the licensed owner. In a civilised (using the British standard attitude towards gun ownership) country however, I would ask who or why anyone would want a Bushmaster Assault rifle and an assortment of handguns and further, allow access to them by her known to be, unstable son? Maybe he bought guns legally, or legally I don’t know, the fact remains he had them and he used them and she (apparently) showed him how.
I would say - also a great unequaliser.
Have I not sufficiently qualified this?
Again, your only alternative is "Accept victimhood."
Certainly not, but no amount of firepower is a guarantee against victimhood if you don’t have the guns strapped on or in your hand at the precise time. Neither is every gun owner is in possession of military training in response and restraint. We do have, however late of the event, recourse to the rule of law and the perceived protection of a police force - not every gun carrying crim shoots the victim as his original intention. But are you not being a little obtuse here – do you really think the principal or maybe any of the teachers perhaps, could have saved the day by strutting round like latter day gunslingers and dropping the bad guy before blowing away the smoke from the barrels of their six shooters?
I will spare you my reaction to European judgments about how much the US has "advanced
Hey, don’t hold back – shoot! We’ve had worse than harsh words thrown at us in the past and not always from our own people. Of course ‘advanced’ is purely in the context of the argument of what constitutes towards being described as a ‘civilised’ society, not one where gun ownership is a necessity for survival such as in lawless states like Afgahn or El Salvadore for example. Your argument seem to suggest that America is just as bad, but Mayor Bloomberg of NYC for one would disagree with you, and is prepared to put his head above the parapet so to speak, if his latest recorded comments are anything to go by.
So then – what would you do if you were President Carl Jacobs?

17 December 2012 at 22:12  
Blogger John Magee said...

non mouse

Well said!

My sentiments exactly.

Robbie Parker's words were perfection and truly from his heart and soul. His demeanor and loving words about his daughter and asking us to pray for everyone including the family of the killer is the essence of Christ's message of love and forgiveness in the Gospels. His words are what I will always remember about this terrible tragedy.

President Obama had every right and it was appropriate as President he was at that memorial service In Newtown, CT. However,like you and for the same reasons you said above, I had to turn it off after the fist minute.

You are unique here in understanding who Obama really is and what he is all about and understand his "change" mantra used as the central theme in his campaign and at every opportunity he can get since November 6.

There was no need for Obama to interject politics into his memorial speech. Conservatives understood his "We need to change" remark in his speech and it wasn't only about the First Amendment and guns. Although that is very important to a Marxist like him.

The word "change" is one of those buzz words like "progressive" which Marxists use that sound so nice and full of promise and fools buy into them and are surprised when they get "change" and it's mot what they had imagined.

There was "change" in Russia in 1917 and "change" in Eastern Europe after 1945 when the USA and the UK betrayed Eastern Europe at Yalta and kowtowed to Stalin. The Chinese got "change in 1949, Cuba got "change" too in 1959 and on and on and on.

“Change does not necessarily assure progress, but progress implacably requires change"

Barack Obama is a Marxist Revolutionary and the USA is facing a man who wants to bring down our Republic. It's that simple.

I am not qualified to quote the classics as you appear to have the credentials to do so here. But here is a quote I read years ago and it fits Obama like a pair of tight fitting red leather gloves. The following quote is meaningful for anyone who understands Obama's Communist background and a few of his Marxist mentors like Sol Alinsky and his mother's Communist Party USA friend in Hawaii Franklin Marshall Davis who Obama claims in his autobiography was an inspiration:

"A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself.

For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear." Cicero (106-43 BC

17 December 2012 at 22:24  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


Personally, I think there is no place for private and unrestricted gun ownership in a modern state. It is a hang-over from times past.

However, that was not my point. From what one can glean this mother was a "survivalist" who placed her faith in guns against some anticipated future breakdown in law and order. She owned 5 rifles and a variety of hand-guns.

She taught her child more than how to use a weapon. She also misjudged his character and state of mind.

She paid the price with a bullet to the head. So did 20 innocent children, 6 adults and so too her own son.

You may know this 'right' originates in the customs of Germanic tribes, under which arms bearing was a right and a duty of free men; in fact, the ceremony for giving freedom to a slave required that the former slave be presented with the armament of a free man.

Are you a "survivalist"?

17 December 2012 at 22:28  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

John Magee

Better start storing food, preparing shelters, gathering weapons and start organising a people's militia if you believe a Marxist (or is it Islamist?) Obama is about to enslave you!

What rampant paranoia and nonsense. He may be insincere; he does not exhibit Christian values regarding abortion and homosexuality. But a Marxist intent on the collapse of the USA!

And, you do know the Bible is filled with verses and accounts of change. It is not a subversive word at all.

17 December 2012 at 22:41  
Blogger bluedog said...

Damian @ 20.59, there are always exceptions. Fort Hood? Clearly some special factors at work that sadly confirmed the unease of many regarding Islam. In general, no military allows its personnel to carry armed weapons in barracks. Military personnel are always competent in the use of their allocated firearm and have a high sense of its potential together with an approach to safety through training.

Yes, I've heard of Blue on Blue killings. In combat its just as easy for a soldier to kill an officer he doesn't like as it is to kill the enemy, and it happens.

For the late Mrs Lanza, a weapon that was intended to protect her from Armaggedon turned into her own nemesis at the hands of her own son. The law of unintended consequences?

17 December 2012 at 22:44  
Blogger bluedog said...

Dodo @ 22.28 and 22.41, what nauseating and patronising put-downs. Feeling oh so superior now, are we?

What do you gain from those condescending remarks?

17 December 2012 at 22:51  
Blogger Galant said...

Has there been some report about what motivated Adam to kill his parents?

People talk about her being a bad judge of his character. We have no idea if she did something awful to him. Or perhaps she was an excellent parent and he was good child until something happened later.

All this compassion for the children who were killed and their families, but as far as the mother is concerned it's "Serves you right!" for owning guns?

17 December 2012 at 23:09  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...


"It certainly isn't the position of the Catholic Church."

Yeah right. The Pope loves gays, at least when he isn't telling them that they suffer from an intrinsic moral disorder.

17 December 2012 at 23:20  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

17 December 2012 at 23:36  
Blogger John Magee said...

A "hang over from past times" is that criminals will always exist and they will always find a way to obtain guns and we have a right to protect ourselves from them...

17 December 2012 at 23:38  
Blogger John Magee said...


Interesting opinion and Cute too.

I suggest you buy property in the Outer Hebrides as a safehaven when Muslims become the majority in the UK within 40 years or so and start making life hell under Islamic Law of Sharia for devout Catholics like yourself.

It appears you have never read a biography of Obama have you?

I'll try to briefly enlighten you. His mother was pals with American Communist's like Franklin Marshall Davis (also a convicted paedophile and Obama's "mentor" as a teen), his father was a Communist in Kenya, his best friend in Chicago was a Marxist writer and professor named Sol Alinsky... Oh. I forgot, Obama started his Presidential campaign in 2008 in the living room of a 70's radical named Bill Ayres. Ayres along with his wife Bernadine Dohrn a fellow bomb maker from that era killed people. Here's a paragraph discribing her youthful activities:

During this the late 60's the "Weatherman" (leftist radicals) group organized the October 1969 Days of Rage riot in Chicago, which Dohrn led During the 1970s, the Weathermen bombed federal buildings and police stations. Prior to the March 6, 1970 Greenwich Village townhouse explosion, in which three members of the group were killed as a bomb was being constructed, all members of Weatherman went underground. The group then changed its name to Weather Underground.

Dohrn went underground in early 1970, engaging in bombing activities.

This sweet bomb making lady and her killer hubby are today still best of friends with the Obama's and both are still a self proclaimed Marxist radicals.

No grounds for suspicion there of course!

They must have wonderful conversations at the White House over tea don't you think? You know, "redistribution of wealth", "Karl Marx", and maybe a few laughs about Stalin's Gulag and how Alaska and Montana might be excellent places to set up similar labor camps here "come the revolution".

Ayres was a man who helped built bombs that killed policemen and civilians. He even set a bomb off at the Pentagon. A rigged jury got this killer Ayres aquited after which he bragged, "what a country, guilty as hell free as a bird!". Nice?

When I was a boy my mother told me you know a person and can judge their character by the friends they keep.

I think this still applies in 2012.

Facinating crowd Obama's pals Sol Alinsky, Franklin Marshall Davis, Bill Ayres, and Bernadine Dohrn... among others.

17 December 2012 at 23:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Laurence Boyce

I do wish you would take the time to appreciate the Catholic Church's position before commenting upon it. Ignorance is not next to Godliness.

Homosexual acts are "contrary to natural law and sinful", while "homosexual desires" are considered "disordered" (i.e. not in keeping with God's intention)but not 'sinful'.

The Church considers human sexual behaviour to be sacred, "when properly expressed". It considers homosexual behaviour to be 'sinful' because "sexual acts, by their nature, are divinely intended to be both unitive and procreative". The Church also believes the "complementarity of the sexes to be part of God's plan". The Church holds same-gender sexual activities to be incompatible with this framework:

Homosexual acts close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity.

These teachings are not limited to the issue of homosexuality, but form the moral underpinning for the Catholic teachings against fornication, all other forms of sodomy, as well as contraception, pornography, and masturbation.

And the Church does not teach that homosexuals are necessarily destined for Hell.

17 December 2012 at 23:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

John Magee

As I said get your militia ready. If that nonsense constitutes "evidence" well, Dodo's aren't extinct.


Oh, I don't know. I thought your pontificating @ 2012 19:32 pretty lame.

The Yanks just love their guns. It symbolises individual freedom in the face of an oppressive and untrustworthy government. It's a primitive belief and can be traced through Germany, Britain and then Puritanical protestantism.

It's out of date.

18 December 2012 at 00:12  
Blogger Peter Melia said...

Cain killed Abel, he first murder & murderer. We do not know what weapon Cain used, it is not stated.
So from the very first times, mankind has committed murder.
This debate about guns seems is quite irrelevant, weapons as such are not necessary for the act.
A more likely reason for the murders, for almost all murders, is the violence routinely portrayed in our “entertainments”, films, plays, books, they all quite casually accept and portray horrible violence. Advertising pays. Consider the unceasing torrent of advertising we are assailed with. If repeated affirmations of the superiority of a certain brand of soap will result in more people buying it, surely the same applies to our basic morality?
So, the continual displays of various forms of murders, self-defence killings, the glorification of all aspects of war, all must surely in the long run result in murders being carried out in our society. Jesus continually criticised the sins of the society of his time, politicians, priests, yet only once in his life is he portrayed as displaying physical anger, and that when he drove the money-changers out of the temple.
We need a make huge change in our collective sense of the worth and value of human beings and perhaps it is time overdue for our latter day opinion formers, the politicians, universities, newspapers, television, cinema and so on, to assist this change from bad to good, by moving away from the advocacy or portrayal of violence as a solution to everything, and towards peaceful solutions of problems.

18 December 2012 at 00:14  
Blogger Laurence Boyce said...

Wow, that's really helpful Dodo. Could you please now set out the Church's position on sex with children, both in terms of the act itself and then the subsequent cover-up?

18 December 2012 at 01:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

I don't waste my time on Trolls, Boyce. Better things to do, you see; run along now.

18 December 2012 at 02:09  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Mr Boyce is not a troll


18 December 2012 at 03:08  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

As if you would have the mental capacity to determine that anyway Carl. Do you know what a troll is?
No? the term is not being used in the Norewegian mythological sense.
Do you know who Grotsbag, is? Well yes, you do actually.Best let you go ..time to lock the women folk in the barn while you and your buddies go hollerin' and firin' off some guns. Whohoo!
Don't forget to pad up the codpiece. That way you might fool someone you're a man.

18 December 2012 at 03:31  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


You really don't understand, do you. When you make a post like this, you prove everything I said about you. Cressida, you are my best witness.


18 December 2012 at 03:44  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Wrong again . Apart from the backswood folk no one could possibly take you seriously carl You're a whacko with notions

I have had a request to write humour by one of your dim witted acolytes and as you are the biggest joke here I have decided to oblige. So you keep on saluting yourself in the mirror honey just like a real soldier.

18 December 2012 at 04:50  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Only have my phone tonight. Visiting my mother. This will be short. Restrictions on types of weapons are perfectly reasonable. Need good quality handguns and shotguns. Assault rifles are a grey area. Often they aren't different from good hunting rifles but just 'look military.'. Issue to me is caliber, rate of fire, and clip size. Also would require better safety instruction. Long and short, I don't have a problem with reasonable conditions.

My mother was a recent victim of a home invasion. The guy was six feet from her. She probably lived because she didn't get out of bed.

18 December 2012 at 06:08  
Blogger ENGLISHMAN said...

America,never surrender your guns,they are the difference between freedom and slavery,and this marxist ploy has been tried before in England,and all of the saps gleefully turned thier guns in,but there were still afew too many for our fascist overlords,so they devised dunblane,and to avoid embarrassing questions a hundred year secercy order was slapped upon the circumstances.Wether guns are desirable or not,it is clear that we can not trust our administrations,for what administration would deliberately flood its own nation with millions of unassimilable violent criminal parasites,make laws for thier protection,and disenfranchise thier own citizens in any way that it can,if it were working for the prosperity of its own people and thier future progress?

18 December 2012 at 08:08  
Blogger Dreadnaught said...

Hope your Ma comes thro this awful experience without lasting distress.
Best wishes for you and her.

18 December 2012 at 08:27  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Dodo @ 00.12

Cressida @ 10.10 16/12 said: 'I see you have the moronic geriatric mad dog woofing away as support making lame jokes...'

Dodo @ 00.12 18/12 said, ' I thought your pontificating @ 2012 19:32 pretty lame.'

Okay, so it took you two days to wake up to the existence of a new adjective.

But do you know what it means?

And yes, geriatric is the word. The hound was 98 this year.

18 December 2012 at 09:46  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Must be a day for awful experiences. I woke up this morning only to find my little gold fish Cauvin dead. I tried giving it mouth to mouth but swallowed it by accident. I was so shocked I slipped flat on my arse on some water on the floor and broke both of my legs which is a nuisance for an astrophysicist because I need all of the above to think with.

This is a plea for cheap sympathy ..a well know psychological ploy the disingenuous and bullies use,
who may find themselves without support for a minute or two and start getting nervous at the prospect of dealing with an opponent alone without backup.

Although to give Carl his due he at least did not pronounce his mother to be dead (probably saving that for next time)whereas we do have a couple of other communicants who are rather good at producing dead parents and other relatives, breaking limbs,having nervous breakdowns, changing belief systems, sexual orientation,change of allegiance, threatening to leave, whenever it is expedient and sometimes all in the one day.

All makes for insane reading and a
study in subjective manipulation at
Crackerbox Farm.Oh,pardon me, I should have said Christian Crackerbox Farm.
A Merry Cristmas to you all!

18 December 2012 at 10:00  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

If you are 98 Mad Dog..I will take you out to dinner. In view of my reputation, you may bring your own food taster:)

18 December 2012 at 10:05  
Blogger bluedog said...

Thank you for the offer, Cressida @ 10.05. I will confer with my bitch, she with the smile that lights up a room.

I'll bring Carl as my food taster.

18 December 2012 at 10:23  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

I have to say I'm very glad I live in the UK. As far as I know, burglars don't usually carry weapons here. Certainly not guns anyway. I've caught a burglar myself doing an opportunistic crime at one of my neighbours. I was wary of knives but that was it.

Years ago when I was a raw grad, I worked with a South African former-policeman. He once told me that if he saw a "blick" climbing over his garden wall then He'd shoot him dead ... and had actually done so. Of course I was outraged, thinking this was an apartheid mindset.

Having worked in South Africa for a while, albeit post-apartheid, I understand it now. Middle class homes have high walls and razorwire, and burglar alarms have an armed-response option. Burglars come armed and will almost certainly kill if challenged. There are plenty of cases where the armed-response turns up and kills the householder instead.

Obviously there are places where the population is generally armed and it hasn't turned out like South Africa but it seems to me that a systematic combination of wealthy and poverty in one place where guns are fairly freely available is not a good thing at all.

18 December 2012 at 10:51  
Blogger Chantry Priest said...

Mr Inspector General
Tho' you comments are pithy as always-and a joy to read, I fear that you do need to brush up a bit on papistical practices. I fear I am being compared to one of those lefty pinko's infested with Modernism who thinks sin is outmoded. No so. Therefore...
I was not 'forgiving him' I couldn't-he's dead and beyond any earthly tribunal. Of course, if he were alive and had made his Confession, shewing the three "R"s-recognition, repentance and a desire for reparation, THEN he could be absolved as the Lord has given this authority to His Priests.
We are duty bound to pray for the dead and our criteria must be for those who have most need of it-in this case the offender not the victims [who being mainly innocent children will have no need of God's mercy and will fly straight to Paradise].
By contrast, Adam, for whom Christ also died, will be looking at serious time in Purgatory if there was even the tiniest spark of repentance in him. Forgiveness ain't free or easy. It must be earned.
re your comment as to him and the victims, as a matter of fact, I was pondering what he was going to say to his mother when he found out that souls really are immortal.
Only the Lord can decide his spiritual state now. 'Judge not, lest ye be judged' for 'There is none upon the Earth that only doeth good and sinneth not'
As for offering him 'my place in heaven' I can't for a] I don't know yet that I've got one and b] it's not mine to bestow. We only have the hope of heaven, not a cast iron assured place, so I have no need to move anywhere pretty damn sharpish [in any case, I am more of the Friar Tuck/Don Camillo design, built for comfort not speed, and I don't really do 'sharpish', sluggish, yes
- would be acceptable?
Of course I will pray for you 'tho my professional interest is more for those who have died and who have no advocate to pray for them to the Most High. So do feel free, when you are ready to pop your clogs, to post it on this blog and I will do my best for you.

18 December 2012 at 11:15  
Blogger Rambling Steve Appleseed said...

A repulsive video.

One effect of the Phelps sect's activities is that it makes it more difficult for Christian pastors to take a New Testament line on sexual sin for fear of toxic association.

18 December 2012 at 12:55  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Chantry Priest

Stations of the Cross on behalf of the dead are recommended as prayers for the dead. A 'dying' practice (forgive the pun) but efficacious.

18 December 2012 at 13:36  
Blogger St. Nikao said...

So says President Obama, promoter of abortion (third term and post birth) and abortion-causing contractpeion, promoter of homosexuality propaganda in schools, promoter of Islam...all statistically correlated with deaths of children and adults.

With the increased loss of military personnel under this administration, it would seem that the deaths of Americans and children are a high priority for the Obama administration.

That makes him a hypocrite and his words mere rhetoric and be assured, they are the opposite of his true intent and actions.

18 December 2012 at 13:41  
Blogger St. Nikao said...

Correction: "So says President Obama, promoter of abortion (third term and post birth) and abortion-causing *contraception*

18 December 2012 at 13:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Carl said ...

"Mr Boyce is not a troll,"

No? Maybe not but what sort of comments were these then on a thread of this nature?

Yeah right. The Pope loves gays, at least when he isn't telling them that they suffer from an intrinsic moral disorder.

"Wow, that's really helpful Dodo. Could you please now set out the Church's position on sex with children, both in terms of the act itself and then the subsequent cover-up?"

Maybe he was just being immature - or sectarian - or merely wanting to avoid the question.

My earlier post which brought prompted these comments was serious.

Here it is. Perhaps you'd care to answer.

Perhaps biblical literalists and sola-scriptura adherents might want to address this charge. It certainly isn't the position of the Catholic Church.

Here's the statement from WBC:

Compendium of Bible Truth on Fags
(first published in 1991)

"Sodomites are wicked & sinners before the Lord exceedingly (Gen.13:13), are violent & doom nations (Gen. 19:1-25; Jgs. 19), are abominable to God (Lev. 18:22), are worthy of death for their vile sex practices (Lev. 20:13; Rom. 1:32), are called dogs as filthy, impudent & libidinous (Deut. 23:17,18; Mat. 7:6;Phil. 3:2), produce in society mass intoxication from their wine made from grapes of gall from the vine of Sodom & fields of Gomorrah, poisoning society's mores with the poison of dragons & the cruel venom of asps (Deut. 32:32,33), show their sin & shame on their countenance (Isa. 3:9), are shameless & unable to blush (Jer. 6:15), workers of iniquity (Psa. 5:5), liars & murderers (Jn. 8:44), filthy & lawless (2 Pet. 2:7,8), natural brute beasts (2 Pet. 2:12), are likened unto dogs eating their own vomit, sows wallowing in their own feces (2 Pet. 2:22), will proliferate at the end of the world bringing final judgment on mankind (Lk. 17:28-30), have been finally given up by God to uncleanness to dishonor their own bodies, to vile affections, & to a reprobate mind such that they cannot think straight about anything (Rom. 1:23-28); and, unable to blush, be ashamed, or repent (Jer. 6:15), they have no hope of Heaven (Rev. 22:15). "It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God." Heb. 10:31.

Is this biblical Truth?

18 December 2012 at 13:47  
Blogger John Magee said...


"Better start storing food, preparing shelters, gathering weapons and start organising a people's militia if you believe a Marxist (or is it Islamist?) Obama is about to enslave you!"

I never mentioned he was a Muslim. You did.

But you may be onto something. He did spend his childhood in Indonesia with his Muslim step father and his religion was listed as "Muslim" in at the grammar school he attended.

You are amusing. It's fun to see you post odd facts about some obscure saints named "Dodo" who lived 1,000 years ago and completely igore the truth about President Obama's associations with and admiration for extreme left wing radicals. Some, like Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, made bombs which killed people.

Oh, I forgot, his "pastor" the Reverend Jeremiah Wright who for almost 20 years who ranted and raged against Jews, capitalism, the USA, while the Obama's sat in the pews of his church and is now retired living in luxury in a suburb of Chicago. This "minister" was given ten million $ by his inner city balck congregation to enjoy the "good life" in retirement.

Yes. I do worry about a President of the United States who has friends like the these You should too.

The facts about the life of Obama sounds like fiction but I can assure the man is everything I posted and more.

And you bought his line hook line and sinker. LOL

18 December 2012 at 13:52  
Blogger Jon said...

We've meandered off topic again.

Let's get back to it. What this cult is seeking to do is to use very real suffering of a town to propagate their message of division and hatred and to inspire more hatred where it has already done so much damage.

Whatever your position on gun control, Barack Obama, gay rights - anything - this group ought not to be allowed to hijack the suffering of a small town for their own publicity.

Have a look at "Angels turn their backs on hate" on youtube. It's about the Laramie Project (and some people here will have a problem with that) but I hope that the townspeople of Newtown will come together in some way to shield those who grieve with love, and protect them from those who only seem to understand hate.

In answer to His Grace's question, from what I've read I understand that Jesus was far more closely aligned to the President than he is to Fred Phelps. Should he be who you claim him to be, I hope that this turns out to be true!

18 December 2012 at 15:38  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Cressida,

I am so sorry to hear of your goldfish.

Turning to your latest attempts at humour. I noted before that you cannot help yourself with your attacks. I also note that it was you who decided to start attacking me again on Saturday night, for whatever reason, I think it was to win an argument with Carl Jacobs, but who knows. And this has continued day in day out ever since.

I really don't have the time to respond to all of your silly stuff as I have a life outside of the blogsphere, but I do actually feel for you as this is all you seem to have to your life. If you get your highs and kicks out of plastering rubbish over the internet then that is your affair.

Now sticks and stones may break my bones and as hurtful as I find you I forgive you of all the horrible things you have said about me and my family since March.

May you have a wonderful Christmas with the peace and joy that you deserve.

18 December 2012 at 15:41  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Oh and a Happy New Year too!

With love and Kindness,

Hannah K.

18 December 2012 at 15:45  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

John Magee

There are so many 'theories' about Obama. He's a Marxist; a Muslim, the Son of Perdition. Who knows, he may even be a Jesuit! Oh, and of course, he's black too from an inferior race. Mustn't forget that.

And the Orthodox Saint Dodo is interesting. More so because of the on-going territorial dispute over the David Gareja monastery complex between Orthodox Georgia and Muslim Azerbaijan .

18 December 2012 at 16:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Our goldfish is 10 years old this year. He is turning white with age. He is called 'Fish'.

Not a lot of people know this.

18 December 2012 at 17:39  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Dodo

My goldfish were called George and Bernard. You are not very original with names are you!

18 December 2012 at 17:48  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Well done, Chantry Priest, an elegant response from you…

What particularly galls this man are people, victims often, playing free and easy with the notion of ‘forgiveness’, the type dished out by old ladies beaten to within an inch of their life, or whose life savings have now been re-invested by addicts into a heroin stash. Of course, your post was there at the time and obviously not knowing your inner thoughts, the Inspector foamed at the mouth…

Delighted to see you are one for the three Rs, although this man thinks of them as reparation, realisation and regret, in that order. And for people who have wronged the Inspector personally he would add a fourth R – ‘crawling over broken glass to grasp his leg and beg for forgiveness’.

Anyway, back to the old ladies. They don’t do Christianity any favours by portraying this door mat attitude, though to be fair to the dears, one feels they are doing what is EXPECTED of them, and probably have private doubts about what they are saying. Perhaps they spit on the ground afterwards on reflection…

As an old lag once said to a young inmate…
“Whenever you can, always rob a Christian”
”Why’s that then”
“Well, they forgive you. And if you rob them a second time, they forgive you again”

18 December 2012 at 18:07  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Hannah, one presumes ‘Shaw’ is no longer around...

18 December 2012 at 18:08  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

The biblical view is to punish the whole family for crimes perpetrated by one member.

The rationale is that he is a product of the family and to some extend the society that raised him.

In our individualistic western world this sort of approach is unthinkable.

To reduce the chance of this happening in the future maybe we need to consider a biblical response.

Where was his dad? Did his brother not notice anything? What was society doing allowing the mother to have all those weapons in a house with a son who was unstable?


18 December 2012 at 18:40  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 December 2012 at 19:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Phil, in Jericho's case everyone [1], including children, apparently paid with their lives for living in the wrong place and with the wrong beliefs. I think even the animals copped for it too. The righteous then trashed the place and, if I recall correctly, salted everything so no-one could come back. It has a certain elegance and tidiness about it, I suppose. Perhaps the righteous ought to do that with parts of (say) Bradford or with 'sink estates' containing multiple troublesome families.

[1] bar the spies

18 December 2012 at 19:24  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

18 December 2012 at 20:21  
Blogger John Magee said...


Not theories. Facts. The President's background and his friends are exactly as I listed. I gave you the names. Do yoiur homework. When a President of the USA starts his Presidential Campaign in the living room of a friend, Bill Ayres,who happens to be a 70's left wing radical who was once charged as an accomplice in he bombing of police stations where innocent policemen died it says a lot about Obama's ideology to me.

I had hoped the Newtown, CT memorial would be a place where a refuge from politics would be found. I was deeply mistaken. Obama got in his "dig" with the remark "We must change". Conservatives here got that message or a Hannah calls them "buzz words".

The left is using this tragedy to launch demonstrations and even make threats (how ironic) against those who use their Constitutional rights and support a USA citizens's Second Amendment right to own guns.

HG giving attention to the despicable "Rev" Phelps and his 40 member family church and their disgusting antics to make money from law suits hurting people (they are obsessed with hating Gays yet oddly support black civil rights causes) at military funerals and at funerals after a national tragegy which is their lurid trademark, was religious tabloidism and a slur against Baptist's. No explanation was given that Phelps Westboro Baptist "church" has absolutely no connection with any Baptist Church in the USA or the over 25 million Baptist's in the USA who are fine people.

The Newtown, CT shooting and all similar shooting like the one last year in Norway where 77 young people were shot are not about guns or mental illness. They are about evil. If politics and religion are the inspiration for these kind of crimes. They are evil forces too.

If Jews hadn't handed their guns into the Nazi's after the Nazi's took over Germany in 1933 and other Jews in Nazi occupied Europe hadn't done the same after the War started in 1939 perhaps the Holocaust would have turned out dramatically different. Imagine armed Jews jumping out of those box cars after the sliding doors were opened on arrival at Auschwitz, Treblika,Sobibor and the other extermination camps in Poland blasting away with their guns they had hidden in their few small bags they were allowed to take on their "trip" at the relatively few SS guards who "welcomed" them. The Nazi's would have had to divert thousands of troops from the battlefronts to the concentration camps.

18 December 2012 at 20:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

John Magee

Well, I hope I never have to face you and account for my past friends! What you've produced is idle speculation. Presumably that great democracy of yours was aware of these 'facts' before electing Obama twice.

As I said, start building your arsenal and collecting food. Do you really think an armed militia of individuals is capable of bringing down the Government of the USA? Get real! Remember Waco?

The Nazi's were welcomed by the average German in the 1930's. Maybe the Jews could have resisted the armed might of Germany - for a time. But guns on trains? What fantasy!

Yes, evil exists where choice exists or an awareness of right from wrong; so too does mental illness where there is an absence of choice. Do you know the difference?


The Old Testament rests on the premise that the pagan world and man was sinful and merited the wrath of God. People have no 'rights' before their Maker. The Jews were chosen to be a separate and holy nation to prepare for the coming Messiah and the release of the world from the grip of sin. Access to God through ritual and sacrifice for atonement was granted to them.

You may not agree with this; you may not like it; that's how it is. However, the Old Testament can only be understood in this way.

18 December 2012 at 21:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


Fish is perfectly content with his name. He has told me so.

18 December 2012 at 21:31  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "People have no 'rights' before their Maker."

I'm well aware that the technical answer for the religious is that we are not owners of our lives. Hence, why Abraham was prepared to murder Isaac because a voice in his head [1] told him so.

[1] As an atheist would see it.

18 December 2012 at 21:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

DanJ0 - Yes, and I'm answering according to the Christian understanding. The elimination of the population of Jericho can only be understood as acceptable according to the paradigm I've presented. As an atheist, you'll see it differently.

The theistic religions do not believe Abraham was suffering from schizophrenia - having hallucinations and hearing voices "in his head". We believe God revealed himself to him, appeared to him and spoke with him on numerous occasions.

18 December 2012 at 22:23  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

'Course, he also stayed his hand by that same Voice.

18 December 2012 at 23:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Nasty blighter, the God of the OT. Leave him for the Jews...

18 December 2012 at 23:15  
Blogger Peter Denshaw said...

It amazes me that ‘Julian Mann is vicar Parish Church of the Ascension, Oughtibridge, South Yorkshire, UK’ and yet has time for ministry given the wealth of posts and articles he splatters around the internet.

I do feel very sorry for the Revd Mann, as he seems beset by fears – we read: ‘If the Church of England gives in to politically correct pressure to celebrate gay marriage, then evangelical congregations and their ministers must expect this sort of treatment.’ But this can’t happen can it in England and Wales? The present government has listened to the fears of the likes Mann and has rightly (in my view) decided on a blanket ban on gay-marriage in Anglican churches. And indeed throughout much of the ‘discussion’ (a euphemistic use of the word...) on SSM the government has again and again reiterated its commitment to not allowing political will to redefine religious marriage. However again and again the likes of Mann have wallowed in a self-magnifying victimhood that can only be expressed via the subjunctive.

Oh how refreshing it would be to read the words of a clergyman who talked of the need for Christians to do some foot-washing, turning the other cheek, helping the widow, alien and orphan (and/or their modern equivalents). But perhaps this would be unpopular because it is challenging and hard work and perhaps Mann is wise enough to know his own flavour of Christian don’t want to hear about personally costly Christian fundamentals and so chooses to breed fear and discord with the use of ‘ifs’ and ‘maybes’ and hopes through this journey into the subjunctive to initiate the braying and bleating of like-minded souls eager to claim to be the righteous and upright just because they revel in a wrong (in the CofE at least) that hasn’t been committed....

All rather sad that someone wastes so much time and effort on derying something that is a remote and unlikely possibility... You’d think an Anglican vicar would have better things to do with his time...

18 December 2012 at 23:23  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...


19 December 2012 at 00:29  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

One God Inspector; one message. Stop being mischievous. Some people might misunderstand.

19 December 2012 at 00:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Hello Cressida.

I too was sorry to hear the sad news about your Goldfish; so tragic. I hope you have recovered.

19 December 2012 at 00:34  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


Fish also sends his sympathies. He has asked me to reassure that Goldfish go to Heaven. All animals do (except cats, of course).

I recall my daughter, aged 7 years, stamping her foot as we buried yet another family pet and us telling her it had gone to Heaven. She demanded to know: "Hasn't God got enough pets?"

19 December 2012 at 00:54  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Haiiiiii DODO

Love the Xmas outfit. You've turned blue blood. Oh that's right your uncle is the Count of Monte Christo...I forgot.

Cauvin, mon p'tit poisson was named after the French looney Calvin. That was Jean Calvin's real name.I'm not sure if
Cauvin goldfish was in the 'elect' group so he might not make it into Heaven but he made it into my stomach.

About Isaac and Abraham. A very sadistic morally wrong tale. The OT is riddled with allegory and ferocity. Why do you think the OT
is the word of God? I thought Jesus with his message of peace and love rejected at least some of the OT.I am not clear on the Catholic teaching. I was taught that our belief was based on the NT which was a rejection in part of the OT and its ferocious cruelty.

I know it contains beautiful psalms and allegorical and historical tales which are essential to literary study and as a background to Christianity but
are we as Catholics required to believe all of it. Might not the OT be riddled with flaws and incorrect interpretations of God?

Please explain in your own bright blue duck way. This is in your element or as the frogs say
'comme un poisson dans l'eau.'

Mad Dog is 98. Senilely demented.Now finally I understand why he thinks he is clairvoyant, imagining the origins of communicants and with such conviction too!

19 December 2012 at 01:57  
Blogger Mr. Mcgranor said...

They are a Monty Python act, right?

19 December 2012 at 04:44  
Blogger David Skinner said...

What hypocrisy from Obama. Whilst he seemily wipes a tear from one eye he is overseeing the mass destruction of the unborn, and possibly soon those born with disabilities, on an industrial scale. Not content with this he is pushing through so called gay marriage legislation that is designed to destroy marriage, the family, children and the American nation. Just in case no body notices but these young shooters who go on the rampage suffer from personality disorders that can be traced back to single parent families and exposure to internet porn and violence- all of which Obama supports.

Obama is the real weapon of destruction not a semi - automatic rifle.

19 December 2012 at 08:25  
Blogger Chantry Priest said...

Mr INSPECTOR-Good day to you.
I am honoured by your words
The thing about forgiveness is, I find, often misunderstood. Your beloved little old ladies are being right and proper when they offer forgiveness BUT [and it's a big 'un] forgiveness has to be accepted by the naughty person and THAT is subject to conditions. The Lord when He forgave expected change, e.g. 'go and sin NO MORE.'
[btw sorry about use of caps, but If this bloggy thing has an underliner, I've yet to find it!]
So this is where [in order for forgiveness to 'stick' as it were and the sin washed away, the three R's come into play.
Meself I'd thought you and the LORD of the OT would have got on rather well-after all, neither of you have any problem with doing some serious smiting!! However, I'll leave you to get on with your daily ceremonial of 'burning the Guardian' or what ever you do in the mornings while I address another serious question raised by Mr DENSHAW.
Whilst the Lord was undoubtedly concerned with the plight of the poor, He, like His Father, saw the solution in eradicating the 'causes of poverty' by calling the sinful buggers responsible for it to account.
Latterly the Church has become 'nice' and tries to show solidarity with victims to the extent that it has forgotten its primary mission i.e. to SAVE SINNERS.
Being 'nice' to victims is a easy and soft option compared to pointing out the error of their ways to evildoers.
Jesus was no 'softy' He spent much of His preaching pointing out that there would be a reckoning and that it would involve a great deal of wrath [cf. e.g. Matt. 25].
Only by eliminating sin can the widow and orphan be safe in the New Jerusalem.
A second point, a trendy Christian buzz phrase goes on about 'raising up' without any apparent thought to its meaning. My own interpretation is this:
The Lord calls us to be physicians to the sick i.e. sinners. Physicians cure BUT after the cure comes the task: the 'patient' is 'raised up' to take his place beside us as a Physician is his own right, equal in status, ready, able and willing to join the battle against the disease of sin.
[btw we all need to remind ourselves that there are SEVEN deadly sins and we are all carriers of at least one].
Thank you for your support and your Christian presence on this blog. Praise the LORD.

19 December 2012 at 08:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


I have dyed my feathers for Christmas. I wanted red highlights too but alas these were unavailable. Next year I might adopt the colours of the Vatican.

Fish has me to explain that Cauvin, along with all other Goldfish, are destined for Heaven. They cannot sin, you see.

There really isn't much to say about the Old Testament than what's already been said to DanJ0.

One has to understand the fallen nature of man as the backdrop to image of God it presents. I don't want to go all "fundamentalist" here, but man, on his own, cannot overcome his fallen nature. He is naturally inclined towards evil. Some men and women in the Old Testament walked with God through His Grace and by their own efforts tried to understand and follow Him. However, the prevailing condition in the region the Old Testament focusses on was worship of false gods and sinfulness in the form of sexual licentiousness and child sacrifice.

Enter Abraham and his relationship with God. Why was he chosen? Who knows. He trusted the promises God made to him - up to the point of being willing to kill his son when commanded by God.

The key thing to accept is that we have no rights before God. He made us and if He chooses He can wipe us out for falling short of His degrees. This is His Justice. However, being Merciful and Compassionate, through the Jews and then Christ, He offers a way to restore our broken relationship with Him.

Judaism, at its heart, teaches love of God and love of neighbour. The prophets repeatedly pointed this out. The Jews in Jesus' time lost sight of this and focussed almost exclusively on the ritual without comprehending their underlying purpose i.e. closeness to Him by following His commands and atonement when they fell short through their great festivals.

The God of the Old Testament is the same God Jesus taught us to call Father (papa) - a loving, compassionate and merciful Creator. However, His Justice demands we live according to His ways - and we cannot do this on our own. We need His Grace through the Holy Spirit who is now freely available to all people through Christ.

19 December 2012 at 10:48  
Blogger Chantry Priest said...

Ps. 36:07
'Thou, O LORD, shalt save both Man and Beast.'

Benedicite omnia opera
O all ye Beasts and Cattle, O ye Fowls of the air; bless ye the LORD: praise Him and magnify Him for ever.

19 December 2012 at 11:20  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 December 2012 at 16:27  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

19 December 2012 at 16:32  
Blogger John Magee said...


It seems your knowledge of history is weaker than my knowledge of the Bible which is almost nil.

You said:

"The Nazi's were welcomed by the average German in the 1930's"

I hope you mean the late 1930's.

In the last free election January 30, 1933 Germany when the Nazi Party finally won and was in a position to make Hitler Chancellor of Germany the Nazi's got less than 34% of all the votes cast. The Nazi's won not on their own but by getting a coalition of many parties, who even though they hated the Nazi's, they hated the possibility of the Communists takin over Germany even more. The Nazi's getting just over 1/3 of the vote of the German people was not a majority in 1933. Hilter and his National Socialists were hardly "being welcomed by the average German in the 1930's". It wasn't until 1939 after 6 years of brainwashing and enjoying the cradle to grave Nazi welfare security that Hitler finally got 90%+ "Ja" in German public opinion polls. That was after his reducing unemployment to almost zero through his public works projects and preparing German industry for a war, and his successes taking over Austria and most of Czechoslovakia without a a fight.

You said:

"Do you really think an armed militia of individuals is capable of bringing down the Government of the USA? Get real! Remember Waco?"

Waco was not an "armed militia" they were a religious sect who stockpiled arms to try and prevent happening to them what finally did happen. They wanted the goverment to leave them alone. They had every right to exist and live as they chose.

I remember Waco well. It was President Clinton's Attorney Genmeral (the head of the USA justice Department) who ordered the FBI to attack a this "weird" Protestant sect called the Branch Davidians on trumped up charges by the government that they ran a meth lab, abused children, and other false charges. People have a right to create religious communities even "weird ones". They exist in peace here including Orthodox Jewish "towns", the Amish, fundamentalist Mormon communities, all the way to Jihadist Muslim compounds which the government knows are well armed yet all have a right to exist under our 1st Amendment.

Ramsey Clark, former U.S. Attorney General under President Jimmy Carter, who represented several Branch Davidian survivors and relatives in a civil lawsuit said the report "failed to address the obvious": "History will clearly record, I believe, that these assaults on the Mt. Carmel church center remain the greatest domestic law enforcement tragedy in the history of the United States."

Did you read the quote from Cicero I posted? As history has shown over and over nothing has changed since he wrote it over 2,000 years ago.

Obama is a Marxist. His intentions are to change the direction of the USA in the opposite direction from it's founding documents slowly and legally just like Hitler took over Germany legally after the 1933 election in that country. His left wing radical pals who were revolutionaries back in the late 60's and early 70's are delighted their man is in the White House today and in a position to slowly "change" the USA government slowly their way. The radical left.

19 December 2012 at 16:38  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Chantry Priest

Fish is very cross with you and has been swimming furiously around since I shared your post with him!

You omitted:

"O ye whales and all that move in the waters, bless ye the Lord: praise and exalt him above all for ever."

Tut ... tut ...

19 December 2012 at 16:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Yes, John.

Now, as the Inspector would say, do carry on.

19 December 2012 at 16:46  
Blogger IanCad said...

You're a fair man John Magee.

Thanks for remembering them.
It's almost twenty years ago now and the second Waco Horror is all but forgotten.

Yet further evidence of the need for the Second Amendment.

19 December 2012 at 17:56  
Blogger John Magee said...


The devil is in the details. Sorry to confuse you with the facts.

19 December 2012 at 18:01  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

I say Chantry Priest you have it exactly. The victims, if they are so minded can only offer forgiveness ! There is a clear cut procedure to follow centred around the 3 Rs the miscreant must adhere to for forgiveness to happen. Excellent, what a load that is off the Inspector’s mind.

If the Inspector was asked to describe himself in just one sentence, he would give “A God fearing man”. But Yawee, or whatever the Jews call their almighty scares the be-jazus out of him. Makes a fellow want to hide under the nearest tarpaulin, I can tell you.

By the way, the old ad-hominem happy, unpleasant Inspector is now in the past. One hopes you will find the new friendlier, unpleasant Inspector a great improvement…

Same goes for you, Talebird ! (….damn, slipped back a bit there…)

19 December 2012 at 18:05  
Blogger Chantry Priest said...

My dear Inspector.
You are too kind, but 'tis all there in the Book of the Show [1611edition of course!!!].
The nearest the Jews come to naming the Most High is Adonai or Elohim, roughly 'The LORD.' The NAME is too sacred. 'Twas the trendy lefties that used an interpretaion of YHWH in an effort to be matey and gnostic at the same time. [same with that dratted early Xtian fish instead of the Cross-your unchurched knows exactly what the latter IS but expects its fish to come in batter,
therefore your Modernist can pretend at playing in some catacomb-modern churches tend to support this view-but I digress..]
The LORD of the OT is the LORD of the NT. He is the Maker of uncounted suns,He is bigger than the Universe. He is not a 'tame lion' [Lewis] In short He is awesome and extremely, extremely scary. BUT at the same instance He is our Father, He loves us. We are His adopted children-and it is a glorious paradox.
So I did. A thousand apologies to you and Fish.
I grovel and add in 'Leviathan' to compensate.
PS It might be better if he did not read the top half of this post-references to batter might upset him.

19 December 2012 at 20:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Chantry Priest, “YHWH “ ! Yes, that’s the fellow. Of course, seeing your post would probably be an anathema to the Jews that follow this site, to wit Avi and Hannah, both of whom refer to G*d. This man thoroughly recommends his own default position of ‘God fearing’ primarily as result of that attitude, you know.

As for the Lord of the OT being the Lord of the NT, one daresays you’re right, padre. A smart PR team and subtle advertising, and anything is possible. After all, the gays have managed to convince the world that buggery is a blessing....

Onwards and upwards, what !

pip pip !

19 December 2012 at 20:44  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...


"Phil, in Jericho's case everyone [1], including children, apparently paid with their lives for living in the wrong place and with the wrong beliefs!

So we are told. I am not sure what this has got to do with my comment as I was not making a comment about belief.

My comment was that this boy was brought up by a family and community. He is a product of his family and the society he was brought up in. The bible says that the family are responsible for who he has become. If the family (and his local community) were made more responsible for these sorts of actions then they might start taking their responsibilities towards children seriously.

Apparently his dad has run away. So it seems that other people have made the connection I made.

We are in a individualistic society, where individual rights are paramount. Society however, does not work without rights AND responsibilities.


19 December 2012 at 21:42  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Chantry Priest

You're new here (ummm ... ?) so I'll forgive you referring to me as a "lady". I am not a transsexual, dear fellow.

I have passed on your apology to Fish.

He is not at all troubled by creatures being eaten or, indeed, being deep fried in batter. He understands his place in God's Universe. All he asks is that man respects the bountifulness of God - and puts his rubbish in bins when he's finished eating fish and chips.

19 December 2012 at 22:15  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

John Magee

I regularly mark under graduate papers as an external assessor for a number of Universities. The 'facts' you presented and the way you joined them, would receive a fail.

19 December 2012 at 22:22  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

Thank you for your reply to my question My Lady Dodo. It is the blue feathers and your heavily musk scented purple prose that has confused Chantry Priest.

I thought you said you looked like Sean Connery.You would not lie about something like that I hope.
Certain communicants might be very disappointed if they discovered that you were a Ronnie Corbett look alike.

Am I being too terribly cruel to you darling? Never mind... your sweet limping lesbian friend will no doubt rush to your defence with her assault rifle, israeli army issue followed by the bedouin brady bunch back up band.

20 December 2012 at 01:54  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 December 2012 at 06:59  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


The name 'Fish' objectifies an otherwise autonomous sentient creature and implies ownership on your part. It is a reflection of your ichthyophobic anthro-normative view of life. It does not convey the sense of uniqueness and independence that each creature possesses. It denies the essential equality between fish and man. Instead (the inappropriately named) Mr. Fish is held up as nothing more than an easily replaceable representative of the group 'fish.' You should give him a proper name to reflect his proper status - like, say, Bob Catchit or Sam N. Pike.

Names have power, Dodo. That power shouldn't be used to oppress.


20 December 2012 at 07:00  
Blogger John Magee said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 December 2012 at 07:23  
Blogger Chantry Priest said...

My LORD Dodo
Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. The presbyteral foot is in it again! "Though my sins be as scarlet are as scarlet [and my face].His Grace's festal chimere pales in comparison. Mea maxima, maxima culpa, the more so as I have left you open to snidey jibes from others on this blog.
[AND I'm afraid that a] I like cats and b] they go to Heaven-have you ever come across Christopher Smart, the 18th Cent. Poet?
"For I will consider my Cat Jeofry.
For he is a servant of the Living God." etc.
In spite of all this, though, I hope we can be friends.
In abject contrition......

20 December 2012 at 07:44  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


'Tis a life-style choice, my dear, a life-style choice.

Having played the part of 'Widow Twankey' recently I have become aware of the fleeting nature of gender identity. It surprised me to discover the effect of wearing tights, brassieres and other items of female lingerie has on ones sense of self. Add the make-up, dress and wig and I was a 'natural'. However, for the avoidance of any doubt, lest my opponents seek an advantage, I must stress there is a difference between sex, sexual orientation and gender.

You are never cruel, my dear little Cherubim, just misunderstood. My greatest hope for the New Year is that the ill-will you appear to periodically display towards those you label the "bedouin brady bunch" will end.

20 December 2012 at 12:05  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Cressida,

I thought you'd say something like that.

Joyeux Noël Cressida.

20 December 2012 at 12:13  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Oh no, Dodo is now marking our posts! Better head for the exist right now. lol.

20 December 2012 at 12:14  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


Names do indeed have power and Fish is quite content for humans to call him by the name Adam gave him. I have discussed this at length with him and he is, well, adamant. Neither does he want the title of Mr or Mr's - again these are human terms reflecting the marital obligations placed on our species by our Maker.

Now, amongst other fish he does have given name. He will not share this with me, saying it is not my business to know.

He is a bright creature and wants me to inform you that one meaning of the name Carl is: a peasant or man of low birth.

Alternatively, it can mean: all-around great guy, knows how to get on anyone's level and make a connection, compassionate, down to earth, intelligent, great lover, sexy, humble.

One can stay with the original German meaning: free man.

I suspect the latter will appeal more to you.

20 December 2012 at 12:23  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Chantry Priest

My dear brother, your humble and gracious apology is accepted. Let us say no more about it.

I do not want to reopen the dispute about the destiny of cats in the after-life. Blessed John Paul has indicated cats have souls. However, this was not an infallible or binding observation and Catholics are therefore not bound to give it internal consent.

Dodo will do, Sir, or Mr Dodo if you wish to be more formal.

20 December 2012 at 12:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Ms Kavanaugh

Please Google 'Drama Triangle' and research the 'Persecutor-'Victim'-Rescuer' dynamic.

Once you have done so, submit an essay, no more than 100 words, on what you have discovered.

(And please use your spell and grammar checker!)

20 December 2012 at 12:39  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Just out of interest what is a chatty priest?

Hi Inspector,

a joke for you :

An Irishman moves into a tiny hamlet in County Kerry, walks into the pub and promptly orders three beers.

The bartender raises his eyebrows, but serves the man three beers, which he drinks quietly at a table, alone.

An hour later, the man has finished the three beers and orders three more.

This happens yet again.

The next evening the man again orders and drinks three beers at a time, several times. Soon the entire town is whispering about the Man Who Orders Three Beers.

Finally, a week later, the bartender broaches the subject on behalf of the town. "I don't mean to pry, but folks around here are wondering why you always order three beers?"

'Tis odd, isn't it?" the man replies, "You see, I have two brothers, and one went to America, and the other to Australia. We promised each other that we would always order an extra two beers whenever we drank as a way of keeping up the family bond."

The bartender and the whole town was pleased with this answer, and soon the Man Who Orders Three Beers became a local celebrity and source of pride to the hamlet, even to the extent that out-of-towners would come to watch him drink.

Then, one day, the man comes in and orders only two beers. The bartender pours them with a heavy heart. This continues for the rest of the evening - he orders only two beers. The word flies around town. Prayers are offered for the soul of one of the brothers.

The next day, the bartender says to the man, "Folks around here, me first of all, want to offer condolences to you for the death of your brother. You know-the two beers and all..."

The man ponders this for a moment, then replies, "You'll be happy to hear that my two brothers are alive and well... It's just that I, myself, have decided to give up drinking for Lent."

20 December 2012 at 12:40  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

HI Professor Dodo,

Sadly I'm up to my neck in writing as it is. 'spell and grammar' check. That's what brothers are for. lol.

20 December 2012 at 12:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Well, if nothing else Ms Kavanaugh, I suggest you read the recommended material and that associated with the 'Parent'-'Child'-'Adult' drama triangle.

I'm being serious!

20 December 2012 at 15:54  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Dodo,

No I don't think I will thanks all the same.

20 December 2012 at 16:03  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


So Dodo is giving you a Psychology tutorial as well as marking other people's posts... and for FREE?

20 December 2012 at 17:59  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Offering one, David.

Perhaps you should think about the themes too. Basically, we all learn standard responses to situations than manifest themselves in times of stress.

The ideal way of relating to one another is Adult-Adult. However, people instinctively adopt, for example, Child-Victim roles and draw Rescuer-Parent responses or Persecutor responses from others.

You can lead a horse to water ....

20 December 2012 at 18:39  
Blogger Chantry Priest said...

Hannah-do you mean 'Chantry?' If so it means a Priest who mainly prays for the souls of the dead. This is what I do with special emphasis for those who have no other to intercede for them.
If, however, you do mean 'chatty' this is a presbyter who likes to talk a lot-I do this to!

20 December 2012 at 18:52  
Blogger Chantry Priest said...

Dodo-many thanks.
We will leave the delicate matter of salvation of Felix to Him that 'created He them'
After all, in this naughty world there are greater difficulties enow.

20 December 2012 at 18:58  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Chantry

Yes. That is what I meant. Thanks.

20 December 2012 at 19:10  
Blogger Chantry Priest said...

Hi Hannah
Pleased to amke your acquaintance

20 December 2012 at 19:47  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Chantry Priest

"Rejoice in the Lamb" by Christopher Smart, seemingly written during a 4 year compulsory confinement for insanity. He was alone during this time, except for his cat Jeoffry.

"For at the first glance of the glory of God in the East he worships in his Way.
For this is done by wreathing his body seven times round with elegant quickness.
For then he leaps up to catch the musk, which is the blessing of God upon his prayer."

Ummm ... I find this method of worship somewhat suspicious. Rather akin to the 'Whirling Dervishes'!

20 December 2012 at 19:53  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

"the bedouin brady bunch"

LOL, Cressida. Where on earth do you get these quips from?


I'm afraid I don't want to pop myself on your couch. I always found Psychology interesting though.

20 December 2012 at 20:26  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Apparently the world is going to end tomorrow at 11 0 clock. At least I can have breakfast beforehand. Not a bad meal to be your last I guess.

20 December 2012 at 20:31  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

TA is a self-help programme David. There's no for therapists or couches!

20 December 2012 at 21:13  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


The "the bedouin brady bunch back up band" is amusing.

Only a poet could come up with such fine alliteration!

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

Ooooops ... forgive the wrong capitalisation.

20 December 2012 at 21:20  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Poor old Dodo- despite his best efforts no one wants to lie on his couch.

20 December 2012 at 21:56  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

20 December 2012 at 21:57  
Blogger Chantry Priest said...

Dodo-are we playing selective quotes? Goody,I love this game!
To counter then:

"For he is the servant of the LIVING GOD duly and daily serving Him."


"For when his day's work is done his business more properly begins. For he keeps the LORD's watch in the night against the adversary. For he counteracts the Devil, who is death."
"For he knows that GOD is his SAVIOUR."

Surely David dancing afore the Ark of the LORD, leaping through the cloud of incense accompanying it, than Whirling Dervishes, don't you think?
Anyhows, our Christopher might have been a couple of shillings short of a guinea in the mental capacity dept., BUT 'twas an English Loon, rooted in the glories of the KJV. I can't see that he would have any truck with "Johnny Heathen" [as the Inspector might say!

20 December 2012 at 22:10  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

I'm not sure David faced the East and spun around 7 times on the rising of the sun!

Still, I concede, my fine Chantry Priest. The opening 3 lines have convinced me:

Rejoice in God, O ye Tongues; give the glory to the Lord, and the Lamb.

Nations, and languages, and every Creature, in which is the breath of Life.

Let man and beast appear before him, and magnify his name together.

However, this does not mean I must like cats. And this section is over romantic:

For when he takes his prey he plays with it to give it chance.
For one mouse in seven escapes by his dallying . . .

What nonsense! I am on the side of the male mouse who faces the cat down.

21 December 2012 at 00:47  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


This is not in any Bible I know of:

For the Lord commanded Moses concerning the cats at the departure of the Children of Israel from Egypt.

21 December 2012 at 00:53  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Hannah said ...

"Poor old Dodo- despite his best efforts no one wants to lie on his couch,

Is that you Rachel? It sounds like you.

It is precisely this sort of comment that gets me into so much trouble!

21 December 2012 at 00:59  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "The ideal way of relating to one another is Adult-Adult."

A fail at Transactional Analysis 101 I'm afraid.

21 December 2012 at 09:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Nobody's perfect. All one can do is try, try, try again!

21 December 2012 at 13:11  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

'Adult' in that context doesn't mean 'mature', it means something more like 'unemotional'.

21 December 2012 at 14:35  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...


The one tends to follow the other in my experience.

Everyone of us has "immature" aspects to our personalities. It's inevitable - we're works in progress. These prevent us "detaching" from the inherent dynamics in relationships, the 'parts' we have 'learned' to play, and from being self and other aware.

It's not about being "unemotional". It's more about being in control of those emotions.


Transactional Analysis requires no couch or therapist. It is a self-help programme. Have a read of the book I've suggested. Another good one is: 'I'm OK; You're OK'.


21 December 2012 at 14:58  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Child-Child interactions between adults can be quite nice, you know. Ideal in certain circumstances where having fun is a good thing.

21 December 2012 at 15:40  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Ummmm ... agreed, but open to misuse though if the relationship is not equal.

21 December 2012 at 18:38  
Blogger len said...

Dodo.................................(21 December 2012 14:58) Read that Dodo ...utter rubbish.

amateur Psychology is a dangerous thing...consult an expert if you have problems.

22 December 2012 at 00:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

To be honest len, I suspect you have had plenty of experience with professionals. It's a real pity you failed to take their advice.

22 December 2012 at 01:41  
Blogger Cressida de Nova said...

len, anyone who states that Catholics are
"walking around in a demonic trance"
is a suitable case for treatment.
You ,my friend!

You forget that Dodo has studied Psychology as part of his professional attainment and deals with and has help disturbed people on a daily basis for many years.

22 December 2012 at 02:57  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Thank you Cressida.

However, I'm not sure len is a suitable candidate for treatment. Too much resistance and defensiveness, you see. Best leave him alone or it could trigger a crisis and I wouldn't want that on my conscience!

22 December 2012 at 03:14  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

"You forget that Dodo has studied Psychology as part of his professional attainment and deals with and has help disturbed people on a daily basis for many years."

*raises eyebrow*

22 December 2012 at 07:46  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

33 years and still counting ...

22 December 2012 at 13:21  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Len

Oh there is nothing wrong with me, so I don't need to see a shrink. As said above, I'm not going to put myself on Dodo's couch.

Hi Dodo- I'm fine. Your fine. Yep that's about it. Although I have dug out your books from uncle's library. Shall be an educational read.

22 December 2012 at 17:59  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Cressida,

I am glad you are still around. I was worrying you weren't well or had come down with that horrid flu virus that is going around. I don't want to fight you anymore, so won't attack you from now on. And in any case you have inspired us to change our blog into a big Kavanagh family weblog. So thanks!

Happy Christmas!

22 December 2012 at 18:01  
Blogger len said...

And a merry Christmas to all my Catholic friends......

This is 'my adult' talking to' your [deluded]child'...(Guffaw)

23 December 2012 at 09:58  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

No len; that was your hate filled child talking to .... himself!

No laughing matter.

23 December 2012 at 19:51  
Blogger len said...

Dodo it is quite plain to all(except yourself and your cohorts)that all the hate comes from yourself.

You have mentioned' hate' so many times that I can only assume that the thinking behind your actions are if you tell a lie often enough people will believe it?.

Get out your book on' amateur psychology' and look up the term 'Transference' it might enlighten you?.

You have littered this blog with hate filled comments aimed to ridicule and belittle people, you profess love and then demonstrate hate and then question the mental health of people when challenged.

You have hinted that you might be a mental health 'professional'I find this truly staggering(if true) and feel truly sorry for any subjects you have counselled.

24 December 2012 at 07:59  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Len.You have littered this blog with hate filled comments aimed to ridicule and belittle people

Taking your statement out of context, the Inspector has this to say about YOU.

YOU have littered this blog with hate filled comments about the RCC. Can’t you see man, you are like a damn child walking around the place hammering away on a drum. You don’t like us, we know that, NOW SHUT UP !

You attack a man’s religion continually with hate in gusto, and you get back the same in kind. Think about it !

24 December 2012 at 11:48  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

The most astonishing post at this time of year and in response to Pope Benedict's wonderful message about evangelising too:

"Away with your Popes, your rosaries,your dead bones , your holy relics,your dead words from a dying man,keep them away from people ...consign them to the tomb.God does not want religion anywhere near HIS Saviour."

Still ... it's Christmas.

24 December 2012 at 14:44  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Dodo. Rather intriguing this bit your dead words from a dying man. What do you make of it ?

Perhaps Len can remember the anti catholic site he copied and pasted this muck from during his last parasitic presence on the site and explain it to us...

24 December 2012 at 16:21  
Blogger len said...

I will leave you two gentlemen pondering over that thought and wish you both a happy Christmas....

"The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."(John 3:8)

24 December 2012 at 18:32  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

'And the eleven disciples went into Galilee, unto the mountain where Jesus had appointed them.

And seeing him they adored: but some doubted. And Jesus coming, spoke to them, saying:

"All power is given to me in heaven and in earth. Going therefore, teach ye all nations; baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and behold I am with you all days, even to the consummation of the world."'

The warrant and commission of the Apostles and their successors, the bishops and pastors of Christ's church.

Jesus received from his Father all power in heaven and in earth: and in virtue of this power, He sends them to teach and disciple all nations; He promises to be with them, not for three or four hundred years, but all days, even to the consummation of the world.

24 December 2012 at 19:09  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

24 December 2012 at 19:14  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older