Thursday, February 21, 2013

George Galloway: "I don't debate with Israelis"

If any further proof were needed that George Galloway is a vile, racist anti-Semite, this video should suffice.

In a debate at Christ Church College, Oxford, the Respect MP had spoken for ten minutes in favour of the motion ‘Israel should withdraw immediately from the West Bank’. You know how debates go - there tends to be speaker for a motion, and then a speaker against. The speaker against the motion was 21-year-old student Eylon Aslan-Levy (which sounds just a tad Jewish to His Grace), who spoke of 'we' in reference to Israel and the desire for peace in the region. Mr Galloway's ears pricked up, and he enquired as to whether Mr Aslan-Levy was an Israeli. After being told that he was, the MP grabbed his coat and stormed out, with the proclamation: “I don’t debate with Israelis.”

There were immediate cries of 'racist' from assembled students, and an appeal to common humanity and to reason: it is a university and a great seat of learning, after all. "He's a human being," cried one student. But George Galloway was having none of it. To him, Israelis are not quite fully human; they are not worthy of his time or his superior intellect.

Imagine this had been a Conservative MP saying 'I don't debate with Pakistanis'. The repudiation of nationality would have carried more than a whiff of racism, and the BBC and The Guardian would have been quick to tell us about such 'right-wing' nastiness.

The Respect MP clearly doesn't respect Israelis (ie Israeli Jews). He is so staunchly pro-Palestinian that he will not share a platform with any Israeli, simply because, in his opinion, Israel has no right to exist at all, despite the Jewish State being a legally-constituted entity under the auspices of the United Nations, and despite Israel being a full member of that body. International law recognises the existence of Israelis, but George Galloway does not.

This would be shocking prejudice - not to say bigotry - from any enlightened human being, but from a British Member of Parliament it is a disgrace. He brings his elected office and the whole institution into disrepute. What if there were Israelis living in Bradford West? Would he refuse to assist them or represent their views in Parliament simply because they were Israeli?

Anti-Israeli rhetoric has become a cloak for anti-Semitism (and by 'anti-Semitism' we mean 'anti-Jew', for we know the Arabs are Semites, but the term has taken a more specific meaning). If Mr Eylon Aslan-Levy had not sounded quite so Jewish, and perhaps if he had been a little more Arab-looking, George Galloway would have happily debated.

But, you see, he holds Israel and Israelis to higher standards. Or are they lower? Whatever, they are different to those of every other nation on the planet, and that makes him racist. His appeal is doubtless to the Qur’an, in which we may read that the Jews were disobedient to God and are now subject to judgment which will eventually be carried out by Allah’s faithful servants. Thankfully, the vast majority of Muslims do not interpret these surahs as a current religious imperative. Unfortunately for Israel, their thuggish neighbours to the north (Hezbollah) and south (Hamas) do. And so does George Galloway. The Hamas Charter looks forward to Israel’s destruction and the murder of Jews on the basis of Quranic teaching. And so does George Galloway.

The Palestinian narrative requires that the history of Arab rejectionism and aggression lying at the heart of the Arab-Israeli conflict be expunged. So George Galloway won't hear a word of it from an Israeli Jew. You won’t often hear anti-Zionists admitting that millions of Jews have lived all over the Middle East continuously for over 3000 years. Instead they join with Israel’s enemies, denouncing Zionism while promoting Palestinian nationalism. They, too, adopt the language of delegitimisation: Israel is a western colonial enterprise formed on stolen land; Ashkenazi Jews are foreign interlopers, displacing the ‘indigenous Palestinians’ depriving them of land and resources. And so on.

Just in case you've already forgotten the opening line of this article, George Galloway is vile, racist anti-Semite. Let it be remembered, and spread far and wide.


Blogger Telfs said...

Galloway has finally crossed the line in public debate. Fine, vehemently disagree with israeli policies and rile against them in the public arena if that's what you believe. But don't ever get personal in these debates. To despise a person simply because of their nationality is abhorrent. End of.

21 February 2013 at 09:48  
Blogger David Gillespie said...

Is anyone genuinely surprised?

21 February 2013 at 09:52  
Blogger Sam Vega said...

Excellent piece of news; thank you for sharing this. Hopefully this vile individual will be reminded of this episode whenever he attempts to make a point in public again.

21 February 2013 at 09:56  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

Where in this, your Grace, is there any evidence that George Galloway is an 'Anti-Semite'? He has embraced - apparently - the tenets of a Semitic religion (Islam). He vociferously - and I would agree, wrong-headedly - promotes the Palestinian (again, Palestinians are Semites) cause. He has been accused in the past of inappropriately close relations with Arab (Semitic) regimes.

George Galloway is Anti-Israel and Anti-Zionist. We should take him at his word that his short temper with Israelis is politically motivated: I am sure there are some people with whom you would forbear to debate on principle. I would not presume to infer racist motivations for such a course per se.

You, being a Zionist, take issue with his stance: very well, I do too - for different reasons. But don't reduce yourself to adopting the Left's name-calling. 'Anti-Semite' is a weasel word: it is used to close down legitimate criticism of Zionism. Some of the most vociferous opponents of Zionism are ethnic Torahdic Jews. Are they 'Anti-Semitic' too?

21 February 2013 at 09:58  
Blogger David Gillespie said...

Thomas - I doubt that the vociferous opponents of Zionism who are Torahdic Jews would refuse to debate with an Israeli.

Of course, were a Tory to 'refuse to debate with a Palestinian', simply because they were palestinian, would that be alright?

21 February 2013 at 10:01  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Thomas Wood said...

You are obviously not a practicing defence lawyer for criminal or civil liability.. *Phew!*


21 February 2013 at 10:12  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace

A Jew in this country may be a cobbler and mend our shoes; he may be a teacher and teach our children; he may be an accountant and set aright our finances; he may be a doctor who heals us; or a philosopher who blesses us with his wisdom; or a poet who expresses our deepest longings; or a singer who soothes through song our troubled hearts – but what he may not do – according to Galloway – is rise on a platform and reason with a member of parliament.

That - is morally repellent.

21 February 2013 at 10:14  
Blogger Nick said...

It's the kind of "act now, think later" behaviour we've seen a lot of in Mr Galloway. If he has strong views on the issue (as many do) he should, as a politician, engage in the debate.

It is a sad reflection on the callibre of many politicians that they lack maturity and clarity of purpose. Instead of being leaders, they follow populist ideas (real or perceived) and prefer drama over debate.

21 February 2013 at 10:16  
Blogger NamronMit said...

Unbelievable. Does Galloway not respect the right to freedom of speech? If he is allowed to speak what he believes to be true, then so should others.

This brings up the broader issue of many "liberals" failing to live up to their own ideals. A true liberal would be willing to talk, and willing to try and persuade someone else. A true liberal understands that people need to be heard.

21 February 2013 at 10:33  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Thomas Wood,

I think his Grace dealt with that when he penned the following (from the article) :

"Anti-Israeli rhetoric has become a cloak for anti-Semitism (and by 'anti-Semitism' we mean 'anti-Jew', for we know the Arabs are Semites, but the term has taken a more specific meaning). If Mr Eylon Aslan-Levy had not sounded quite so Jewish, and perhaps if he had been a little more Arab-looking, George Galloway would have happily debated"

21 February 2013 at 11:01  
Blogger Nick said...

Thomas Wood:
"Where in this, your Grace, is there any evidence that George Galloway is an 'Anti-Semite'?"

I think the evidence of anti-semitism lies in the statement "I don't debate with Israelis". If he had said "Israeli politicians" it would have had a very different meaning.

It is wrong to assume that "Liberal" politicians never show prejudice. They are amongst some of the most prejudiced people around, hiding behind their meaningless use of words like "freedom" and "equality"

21 February 2013 at 11:14  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Thomas Wood:

Think through what you have just written. You have defused "anti-semitic" as a term which is predominantly and historiographically used to describe hatred of the Jews as being incapable of describing such a hatred, instead preferring "anti-Zionist" (opposition to a specific political ideology) and "anti-Israeli" (opposition to a specific nation).

Your pedantic insistence on the use of "Semitic" has the effect of not just linguistically nitpicking: by suggesting that hatred of Jews can adequately be covered by those terms, the implicit meaning is to reduce the ability to express "illegitimate" hatred of Jews, pushing it under the ostensibly legitimate criticism of politics or nation.

In fact the relationship is better expressed in the inverse: many start from the "legitimate" positions and descend into a general hatred of the Jews as we see time and time and time again even here.

Perhaps we need a new word to avoid the kind of specious pedantry you offer: Judaeophobic or somesuch. Except that if we did that, we'd no doubt soon be confronted by the (tiresomely frequent) claims that the real problem is that it's all the fault of the Ashkenazi Jews, and they're not real Jews etc.

I impute none of these positions to you, lacking any evidence to do so, nor make similarly specious claims that all criticism of Israel is driven by a hatred of the Jews, but the fact remains that "anti-Semitic" has a meaning that is clear and is perfectly appropriate for highlighting the essential prejudice at the heart of the matter.

Galloway is anti-Zionist, anti-Israeli, and - it is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore - anti-Semitic.

21 February 2013 at 11:15  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

Mr Gillespie,

I make no comment on the wisdom or propriety of Mr Galloway's actions. For what it's worth, I don't think he has furthered his case by refusing to debate with the Israeli gentleman.

However, I do think that - while it would be generally wrong to actively militate against a person's freedom of speech - it is legitimate to refrain from engaging in dialogue with certain people under certain conditions on one's own account.

So, for instance, if you believe your cause to be just, but know that you personally are not equipped to argue it well, it is legitimate for you personally to refrain from debating with an eloquent exponent of the opposition, because that would damage your cause. Similarly, if you have some notion that your cause will be weakened in some way by the very fact of your condescending to dialogue with x party, it is legitimate to refrain from dialogue; on these grounds, sovereign governments refrain from negotiating with terrorists.

If George Galloway refuses to debate with an Israeli on grounds of his nationality, that sounds to me like a self-defeating over-extension of his political position (but not racism). I admit that he is probably at fault in this - I just don't think the fault is 'Anti-Semitism', which as I have already mentioned is a word often used *actively* to militate against free speech.

Whatever Mr Galloway has done, he has not denied the Israeli gentleman his free speech - that is a silly notion. By giving him an open floor, if anything he enhanced it. By throwing the term 'Anti-Semite' around, I am concerned that His Grace IS effectively shutting down Mr Galloway's freedom of speech.

21 February 2013 at 11:28  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Your Grace,

Today is the Jewish fast of Esther and then on Saturday night Purim. Sometimes I do think people's attitudes haven't changed after a few thousand years, sad really, but even now there are people who hate the idea of a Jewish homeland that covers a tiny fraction of land on this planet, most of which was desert before Israel was created.

On the bright side I have my ratchet ready to use at the Purim service; I might just use it, in the same way when I read GG's named being mentioned on this thread (a sort of swear box, but more fun).

21 February 2013 at 11:30  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Still screaming "racist!" like a Guardianista when it comes to Israel, eh Cranmer? Sounds to me like this guy got a dose of his own medicine and the taste is bitter in his mouth. I mean, how much talking do the Israelis do to Hamas? Oh, that's right: Hamas don't tell them what they want to hear.

If Galloway holds Israel to a higher standard, it's because Israel claims it is of a higher standard. Maybe it should start proving it. Just to lighten the mood, here's an old joke from the Soviet era.

A journalist goes to a Pole and says, "excuse me, what is your opinion of the meat shortage?" The Pole says "what does 'meat' mean?" Then he goes to a Russian and says, "excuse me, what is your opinion of the meat shortage?" The Russian says, "what does 'opinion' mean?" Finally, he goes to an Israeli and says, "excuse me, what is your opinion of the meat shortage?" The Israelis says, "what does 'excuse me' mean?"

21 February 2013 at 11:36  
Blogger Nick said...

I notice the BBC hasn't covered this story, though I'm sure if he'd said the same thing about gays, then Auntie would have interrupted its endless headline coverage of Pistorius to report his "hate crime".

21 February 2013 at 11:41  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Sometimes I do think people's attitudes haven't changed after a few thousand years

Well, no. Are you just working that out? It's all a kind of musical chairs, really. Those who sit are 'good guys' and those who don't get a seat are 'bad guys'. Every so often the music stops and starts and there is a change. In the past, the Jews were 'bad guys'. Then the music stopped again and suddenly Palestinians were 'bad guys'. Or, indeed, 'non-guys', if we listen to Golda Meir.

When it's reasonably pointed out that the guy now sitting in the chair removed the rightful occupant by physical force, he sucks his thumb and squeels about past history. Funny old world, eh?

21 February 2013 at 11:49  
Blogger D. Singh said...

'like a Guardianista'

Eh? This is a right-of-centre site.

It's your Anti-semitic racist thought, Corrigan, that spreads like lice from head to head.

21 February 2013 at 12:00  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...


"When it's reasonably pointed out that the guy now sitting in the chair removed the rightful occupant by physical force, he sucks his thumb and squeels about past history. Funny old world, eh?" Indeed. Think you will find they fled at the request of their 'arab' brothers, to ensure a smooth and thorough annihilation of the jews in the state of Israel circa 1948.

"Those who sit are 'good guys' and those who don't get a seat are 'bad guys'." and "In the past, the Jews were 'bad guys'. Then the music stopped again and suddenly Palestinians were 'bad guys'." But not the mother church's eyes, yes.
Ernst does love the analogy of 'Chair'. It's so..RC!


21 February 2013 at 12:04  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Oh come now. Galloway should be congratulated for his honesty. He behaves exactly as you would expect of a slavish dog for Islam who managed to grab the Islamic vote. Hurts does it, well bloody well tough. The Inspector admires an honest man. Can‘t see Galloway spending 10 years denying he was behind the wheel of a speeding car. Neither can he see the man flipping his residences and feeding his pet duck at the tax payers expense.

So he’s a racist. What of it ? Has it occurred to anyone here that to represent Islam you HAVE to be a racist. Has it occurred to anyone here that racism makes the world go round. It’s why Islamic terrorists can cut the heads off innocent kaffir, and feel good about it afterwards.

So Galloway, if you are reading this, then this man salutes you. You do exactly as it says on your tin. And unlike the majority of your compatriots in the commons, you have yet to let your electorate down. And that makes you a breath of fresh air, albeit a damnable one...

21 February 2013 at 12:05  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Come, now, D. Singh, surely by now even an Israeli lickspittle understands that screaming "anti-Semite!" is going to have absolutely no effect on me. I understand that as a stupid person your vocabulary is limited, but you must have something more, something deeper? Anything? Anything at all?

21 February 2013 at 12:09  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Corrigan said...

What's that..can we detect the sweet but sickly smell of desperation in argument. YUMMY!


21 February 2013 at 12:11  
Blogger David B said...

It is a bit odd for people to label people who have sympathy for the Palestinians as anti-Semitic.

A far less justifiable change of long established meanings of words to my mind than to expand the meaning of the word 'marriage'.

Having said that, I do agree that Galloway is vile.


21 February 2013 at 12:14  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

The term anti-semitism has not, until the modern age of pedantry, ever been widely used to mean anything other than hatred of Jewish people.

It's etymology may be shoddy, but it is historically consistent. It would rather be like someone declaiming the word "racist" on the basis that modern genetics have largely torpedoed the classical idea of "race". Indeed the argument is almost exactly the same, given that it is those same ideas of race that initially defined the term.

Its meaning is perfectly clear - unless people deliberately attempt to obfuscate it.

The important thing to do in that situation is to ask why the obfuscation is occurring.

21 February 2013 at 12:21  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


When it's reasonably pointed out that the guy now sitting in the chair removed the rightful occupant by physical force, he sucks his thumb and squeels about past history.

Ah, yes. I remember it well. May 1948. The Vast Jewish Army waited off shore for the signal to begin the Greatest Sea-born Invasion in History. Normandy redux.

Corrigan, your metaphors are as ill-formed as your historical knowledge of the events about which you presume to speak.


21 February 2013 at 12:22  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

I don't think this represents Anti-Semitism so much as "Anti-Israeli-ism." People generally refuse to debate those whom they do not wish to legitimize. To give them the stage is to offer them some form of credibility. If you don't think that Israel has the right to exist, then you might not want to give an Israeli citizen a platform to debate the matter. To do otherwise is to implicitly affirm the case you are denying.

This isn't to say the Galloway isn't an Anti-semite. I just don't think this incident necessarily constitutes evidence of Anti-semitism.


21 February 2013 at 12:28  
Blogger Corrigan said...

There were 30,000 men in the Zionist force in 1948; there were also 30,000 in the combined five Arab armies. By war's end, there were still 30,000 Arabs in the field, but the Zionist force had risen to 90,000.

The Arab armies attacked only after six months of Zionist ethnic cleansing which the British mandate authorities did absolutely nothing to stop, and AFTER the Zionists refused to accept an American ceasefire proposal which the Arabs did accept.

You have been lied to your entire life and are held in far more contempt by Zionists for believing the lies than I am as a supposed "anti-Semite".

Zionists are lying, murderous, racialist thugs and that is all they are. Let it be remembered, and spread it far and wide.

21 February 2013 at 12:30  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


Ipso facto, I would agree with you, but we are talking about George Galloway: the man who has given - and continues to give - a platform to dictators from Saddam through to Ahmadinejad.

His refusal to give one to Israel is rather... exceptional.

21 February 2013 at 12:31  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Corrigan said...

Are you Atlas Shrugged, Are you Atlas Shrugged ..ARE YOU ATLAS SHRUGGED IN DISGUISE...Are you Atlas Shrugged in disguise.

Do love the old footie terrace ditties. ;-P


21 February 2013 at 12:34  
Blogger D. Singh said...


Israel's Magna Charta:

The San Remo Mandate 24 July 1922!

21 February 2013 at 12:47  
Blogger D. Singh said...

The San Remo Mandate:

The mandate entrusted to Britain in 1922 specifically states in Article 5 that the land cannot be divided.

That means the UN Partition Plan of 1947 was an illegal act.

Even the government of Israel cannot divide the land, so the Oslo process was also unlawful.

21 February 2013 at 12:59  
Blogger Caedmon's Cat said...

I had the solemn privilege of visiting Yad Va Shem - the Israeli Holocaust memorial and museum - last week, and was overwhelmed by the moving accounts of Nazi barbarity and cruelty. This memorial - so important for the Israeli nation - is a monument to the viciousness and inhumanity of simplistic political dogmas such as the one that Galloway represents.

21 February 2013 at 13:19  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Been reading through your posts :

“I mean, how much talking do the Israelis do to Hamas? Oh, that's right: Hamas don't tell them what they want to hear”.

Perhaps because the Hamas charter is full of hatred towards anyone who doesn’t take an Islamic fundamentalist stance, calls for death to all Jews and confirms it is not interested in peace- article 13 says, for example, that there can be no peace settlement and that Jihad (Holy War) is the only answer,ergo, there will only be peace when every single Jew is exterminated off the face of Israel. Nice isn't it? And this is the same charter which specifically references the discredited protocols of the elders of zion in its justification of Jihad...

21 February 2013 at 13:23  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Remind me - by what right did Britain, France or the US declare the status of Palestinian land?

21 February 2013 at 13:25  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


I was reflecting on the fact that Purim is celebrated because one person managed to stand up for her people and religion against the might of a maniac who ran a large empire and in so doing prevented a genocide and then thousands of years later another maniac who ran a large empire tried to do the same, but almost succeeded this time.

And in between Jews have been used as scapegoats, pogroms, victimisation, but throughout all of that we have survived. And we will continue to, because we have "Hatikvah".

21 February 2013 at 13:28  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

"Zionists are lying, murderous, racialist thugs and that is all they are. Let it be remembered, and spread it far and wide."

Yes, yes, get it all out of your system, the you can complain when people suggest that you are an anti-semite and feel wounded about that outrageous suggestion.

21 February 2013 at 13:30  
Blogger D. Singh said...


Are you asking about the Turkish Land Registry Law of 1858?

Do be clear.

21 February 2013 at 13:32  
Blogger Corrigan said...

You first, D. Singh

21 February 2013 at 13:43  
Blogger IanCad said...

To those like Galloway who hold that Israel has "No Right to Exist" I would like to know what exactly you propose to do with seven million sturdy Israelis?

Also why is it that there are no conservatives with the off-the-cuff speaking skills of George Galloway?
Deluded he may be but he sure dosen't need a tele-prompter or a crib sheet.

21 February 2013 at 14:00  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Those 7 million Jews would be killed of course. Too many to move, but you can kill alot of people fast when there are many people willing to kill. And 'enlightened' opinion would sniff and say "What a tragic fate those Jews brought on themselves."


21 February 2013 at 14:09  
Blogger Corrigan said...

What to do with the Israelis? How about giving them an American state? Florida, perhaps? No? Oh, that's right - white people may have to give up land.

21 February 2013 at 14:09  
Blogger D. Singh said...


According to the US Census of 2011 16.5% of the population of Florida is black.

Why are you suggesting black people should be evicted from Florida?

21 February 2013 at 14:23  
Blogger Corrigan said...

As opposed to Palestine, presumably.

21 February 2013 at 14:27  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Here's the region's only democracy -

Here they are again -

This is pretty much every day, if you're a Palestinian, and the worst of it is, it's mostly caused by fat, American pigs and scumbag Protestants like Cranmer who scream "hater! hater!" at anyone who thinks badly of it.

21 February 2013 at 14:31  
Blogger IanCad said...

Yes Carl, I fear that you are right, and in another generation or less it would be largely forgotten.

Henia Bryer; prisoner #A26188 was recently interviewed on the BBC.
Her following quote illustrates my point:

"I had an operation once and the anaesthetist comes and looks at [the tattoo on] my arm and he says, 'What is this?' And I said, 'That's from Auschwitz.' And he said, 'Auschwitz, what was that?' And that was a young man, a qualified doctor," she says."

21 February 2013 at 14:36  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

heh ! Galloway, remember him, the subject for today, well he can’t be so bad as everyone is too busy taking chunks out of Corrigan

As for Israel, just let the place be. Let’s imagine, and you need a bloody big imagination to do it, that some kind of Palestinian / Jew arrangement comes about, and everyone gets a part of what they want. A few years down the line, a Palestinian ‘spring’ later, and they’ll be at each others throats again. Fighting house to house. Dead measured in the hundreds of thousands.

You really want to have any part in that ?

Just damn well walk away from it, and keep your sanity and keep your integrity...

21 February 2013 at 14:44  
Blogger D. Singh said...


Re-read your posts. They are increasingly hysterical.

You must be exhausted; rest.

21 February 2013 at 14:45  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

I wondered how long it would take before we had the usual abuse of "Gentile Zionists" as the idiotic dupes of the evil Israelis. Even the "joke" is recycled. You reading from a script or something Corrigan?

It's the exceptionalism which is at the heart of this: its the fact that people can watch a video of a Palestinian being shot with a rubber bullet and respond with righteous outrage, but find only self-righteous justification when an Israeli child is blown up.

When you reach a situation where the first thing children learn is to hate, you have long since crossed into the threshold of Hell.

21 February 2013 at 15:10  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

I think what Corrigan and Galloway don't get or like is the reality that when Israel was founded in 1948, it was an very poor country, mostly desert, with few natural resources- even basic resources like water - and despite all that has been done to the Jewish people, they succeeded with the typical grit and determination that has enabled them to survive ethnic cleansing, pogroms and genocides.

Look at Israel now- the Jewish state has transformed that land into a prosperous first world country, a democracy, in which 20% of the citizenary are not Jewish (a clear sign of the ethnic cleansing Corrigan what an about earlier!), unlike the rest of the region and which has through its own technology been able to transform desert, swamp and uninhabitable land in a thriving agricultural sector and land for their people.

21 February 2013 at 15:15  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Still nothing to say beyond smart alecisms, D. Singh?

21 February 2013 at 15:18  
Blogger D. Singh said...


Take a look at the words you’ve hurled at people:






‘racialist thugs’




21 February 2013 at 15:33  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Clearly, you have a wide ranging vocabulary.

21 February 2013 at 15:46  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

The Other matter which Corrigan needs to be correct on is the fact that after the Israelis created their state, the "Palastinian" (or more correctly Arab parts) were occupied by Jordan and Egypt and no Arab state was formed out this land. So it would seem that it was the Arabs themselves who prevented the creation of an Arab state out of that part of Israel way back then or given that they expelled all of the Jews from their territories, they could have easily absorbed the Arab population (which left, not because of 'ethnic cleansing' but because the Arabs were that confident they would win).

Instead the Arab states, attempted over the next several decades - time and time again- to crush the Israeli state; one tiny nation, which thank God, survived every onslaught thrown at her.

21 February 2013 at 16:02  
Blogger xsdogskin said...

It is a pity that enemies of the Palestinian people are not described as "vile, racist anti-Semites". Because, they are the real Semitic people.
Good Priest, what would Christ have said about Zionism?

21 February 2013 at 16:15  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

Mr Kavanagh,

I hesitate to accept His Grace's blanket assertion that "Anti-Israeli rhetoric has become a cloak for anti-Semitism" because I think he has the matter backwards: it is not that ideological or political disagreements with Jews have historically been fuelled by a special, inexplicable kind of Anti-Jewish racism, and that what we see re Israel is merely a continuation of that under new circumstances. On the contrary, the racism - Anti-Semitism - has grown up out of and been sustained by ongoing ideological and political grievances with Jews, either because of Jewish beliefs in conflict with Christian beliefs (the Talmud is robustly anti-Christian), or because of strained economic relationships (e.g. the historical role of the Jews as creditors).

I don't condone His Grace thus leaping to conclusions about the interior dispositions of a man's soul: Mr Galloway says that he is Anti-Zionist and Anti-Israel. I am happy to take him at his word - I don't see any evidence on which we can hang a charge of 'Anti-Semitism'. It seems just as likely to me that Mr Galloway's strong reaction to the Israeli gentleman was prompted by his political views: to say "I won't debate Israelis" is not the same as saying "I won't debate a Jew", and I suspect that if you asked Mr Galloway whether he would be happy to share a platform with e.g. a Torahdic Anti-Zionist Jew he would do so *gladly* and receive his fellow Anti-Zionist with unmatched cordiality.

As to whether it was uncivil or over the top of Mr Galloway, I think it probably was. It is very easy to allow our anger to get the better of us, at it seems to have done in his case. I repeat: that doesn't mean he's an Anti-Semite, and I think the term is a dangerous one to throw about willy-nilly.

21 February 2013 at 16:25  
Blogger E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles said...

Good Priest, what would Christ have said about Zionism?

Zionism: The national movement for the return of the Jewish people to their homeland and the resumption of Jewish sovereignty in the Land of Israel.


Saying, Where is he that is born King of the Jews? for we have seen his star in the east, and are come to worship him.

There is only to be one future kingdom of Israel and One King. He awaits His enthronement and putting all things under His feet.

There has been no Jewish King since Zedekiah.

A Sovereign Nation needs a Sovereign Monarch at Zion. Jesus is the future king of the fulfillment of Zion's!

Joel 3:16
The Lord will roar from Zion and thunder from Jerusalem; the earth and the sky will tremble. But the Lord will be a refuge for his people, a stronghold for the people of Israel.


21 February 2013 at 16:49  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 February 2013 at 16:59  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Thomas Wood,

Ah I see that Anti-Semitism is all the fault of the Jewish people, rather than this being a result of irrational hatred and prejudice against Jews [ who could be used as the convenient scapegoat for all of society’s ills].

In fact I understand now that it was, in fact, the Jewish money lenders [an anti-Semitic stereotype btw] and also because Jews (following the religion of Judaism) disagree with Christians about theology, as seen in the fact we have the wickedly "anti-Christian" Talmud*.

Hmmm, I hadn't thought all of of these facts, were a proper justification of anti-Semitism and at its worse events such as:

Blood libel trials

Jews as sub-human ‘Christ killers’

Pogroms and other massacres

Expulsions from countries, such as England and Spain

The persecution of the Inquisition

The Holocaust

Soviet Anti -Jewish policies

Jewish expulsion from Arab lands after 1948

I do apologise for having got things wrong beforehand!

*Presumably taken from such scholarly sources as the Talmud Unmasked.

21 February 2013 at 17:03  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David Kavanagh. Just remember you are not posting for the entertainment of fools.

Jewish money lenders did well. Really well. Some of the banks still extant are run by the descendants of Jewish money lenders.

21 February 2013 at 17:05  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 February 2013 at 17:12  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Well, you like to get into a pique when anyone attacks your own faith...

Now would I ever call you a fool? Never, ever.

Re Judaism and banking - plug into google "Jewish banks or if you are feeling really strong "Rosthchild" and you'll see what I mean; anti-semitism oozes out of these sites (don't worry, with some of them Jews and Catholics are in league to control the world; others say Jews control the world via the Vatican).

And some of the comments on these forums are far worse than anything people throw at you here about Catholicism...

As it happens, anti-semities don't fact the fact that Jews do not actually 'control' the banking industry, given that most of the major banks are listed companies with multiple shareholders, some Jewish, some gentile, pension funds, insurance companies etc - e.g.

RBS- Scottish...
HSBC- Hong Kong Bank...
Barclays- founded by Quakers...
Lloyds- founded in Birmingham by non Jews
Goldman Sacks- of Jewish origin, but is a listed universal bank
Morgan Stanley- Gentile
JP Morgan- Gentile

And of course after than the other large banks are Asian. No Jewish control there.

21 February 2013 at 17:19  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

heh heh ! David Kavanagh on a hair trigger. That was the real point of the previous post, to prove that...

Where’s Avi when you need him. Now, he is the genuine article and he has so much flair about him. For example, he could give us the history of banking from usury right up to toxic debt and wrap it in humour in such a way to have you wanting more. Do make yourself a student of his when he’s back...

21 February 2013 at 17:30  
Blogger Youthpasta said...

I can think of only 2 suitable outcomes of this:

1 - Next time Galloway is on Question Time a question is posed to him in an argumentative form by someone who self-identifies as am Israeli. As a result George Galloway gets up, declares he doesn't debate with Israelis on national television and walks out.

2 - Next time Galloway is on Question Time the entire panel and audience stand up and declare that they do not recognise the existence of George Galloway before all walking out.

Personally I prefer the second option, as it would be far more amusing to see Galloway's face as it happened!

21 February 2013 at 17:32  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi David,

Inspector is winding you up because he is clearly bored and I think because he hasn't got his gay bashing out of his system- have your noticed this is the only thread where he hasn't linked the thread in some way to homosexuality. You know he has an obsession about it. That and race. Which he has managed to bring up in this thread. I kinda feel sorry for him.

21 February 2013 at 17:36  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Yes well, humour is all about timing, as your friend Dodo once said to my sister.

"The genuine article", um, you'll give Avi a big head with all of the praise, but in the meantime, don't worry, I'll change the surname to make it more Jewish for you. David Sassoon or Yaakov Zvi, both have a nice rings to them, no?

21 February 2013 at 17:44  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Hmmm, on the positive side, when he is not fending off the gay hordes and the Jewish bankers, I do find that Inspector has provided me with many useful anecdotes for the Shabbat meal table. He's just given me two in this post alone.

21 February 2013 at 17:49  
Blogger xsdogskin said...

E.xtra S.ensory Blofeld + Tiddles

I'm referring to modern day Zionism:
Zionism as an organized movement is generally considered to have been fathered by Theodor Herzl in 1897.
I don't see any exceptions in
John 14:6
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
See how the sentence says NO ONE?

21 February 2013 at 17:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Where Mr Aslan-Levy went wrong was to stick his head above parapet, expecting to be treated like anyone else. We're in a period of austerity at the moment and some people won't tolerate that sort of thing in the present climate. I mean, look at what happens in Athens if you're a minority going about your business. He and his fellows only have themselves to blame, really. He'd be better keeping a low profile, keeping to the back streets, and not advertising that he's Israeli and/or a Jew. Etc, etc.

21 February 2013 at 17:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hannah: "Inspector is winding you up because he is clearly bored and I think because he hasn't got his gay bashing out of his system- have your noticed this is the only thread where he hasn't linked the thread in some way to homosexuality."

I've just opened that particular door in my comment above. No, no, there's no need to thank me as I always aim to please.

21 February 2013 at 17:58  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Danjo,

Oh don't encourage Inspector. Let him cool off at the Mouse and Wheel. Actually on second thoughts that'll make him even worse....

21 February 2013 at 18:15  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

David Kavanagh. Lesson learned then. ‘Jewish money lender’ is not [an anti-Semitic stereotype btw].

Right then, the only gay man on the blog has arrived demanding HIS attention from us all, so the Inspector is off to do the ironing...

21 February 2013 at 18:17  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


In 1947, there was hardly a soul on God's Green Earth that thought the jews would win a war against the Arab states. That was one of the reasons the US Dept of Defense was so opposed to Truman's policy. It thought that policy would inevitably force the commitment of US soldiers to fight for the introduction of a Jewish state. And there was no doubt that there would be a war if the Israelis got their state. The Arab nations had been promising war for months. And why shouldn't the Arabs have chosen war? No one wanted to fight them on behalf of the jews, and everyone was confident the Arabs would win.

As for Palestine in 1947. One of the best arguments mustered by the Arabist US State Dept against the introduction of Jews into Palestine was that the land was so undeveloped that it could not sustain the additional population. The State Dept feared Jews would move to Israel and find neither work nor sustenance. Chaos, poverty, and starvation would ensue. The Jewish leadership went to great lengths to develop an ecomonomic plan to respond to this argument. Legally, the land was under the control of the British and had been since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire following WWII. The creation of Isreal thus bears the same legitimacy as the creation of Lebanon or Syria or Iraq or Jordan.

Why then don't you drop the pretense and simply say what you really think - that the Palestinians are surrogates for the Irish and the Israelis are surrogates for the British. That to legitimize the Israelis is in your mind to legitimate the British. That your whole argument is just one more way of saying "Ireland for the Irish."

If you weren't so callously indifferent to the horrible fate that would be visited upon those 6 million Israeli Jews, your position might be at least comprehensible.


21 February 2013 at 18:26  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


oy vey!

"lesson learned".

Nope.'Jewish money lender' is indeed an anti-Jewish stereotype, which if you bothered to look a the literature you'd see that. But if that is the view you wish to hold...


21 February 2013 at 18:28  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

Mr Kavanagh,

Nowhere in my comment did I place the blame on anybody - I merely stated what I took to be two uncontroversial facts. To wit: 1) that Judaism is anti-Christian (all non-Christian religions are anti-Christian by definition. Orthodox Judaism is especially critical of Christ, and this quite logically, because - like e.g. Islam - its raison d' etre would go out the window if Jesus really had been the messiah) and 2) that the historical status of Jews as moneylenders made them, however justly or unjustly, a particular object of disapprobation. I personally do not like moneylenders, as a class - but since I am, I like to think, in control of myself, I don't allow this to translate into a blind irrational hatred of Jews, even though e.g. many large banks happen to be in Jewish hands. I make no defence of such irrationality, and I condemn all of its excesses.

My general thesis was simply this: people do not, in general, start off with an irrational racial hatred of someone and then invent detailed reasons for hating them. They usually start with what they *take* to be a reasonable grievance (founded or unfounded) and this, if uncorrected, or if persistent, will tend to foster a degree of prejudice against people of that sort in them. Racial prejudices occur because race is often coextensive with culture, and cultures can rub one another up the wrong way.

Thus, for instance, there is evidence that black college students in Scotland were cordially received by the local population during the 19th century, whilst over in America - where Reconstruction was causing huge and unprecedented competition between whites and blacks for land and jobs - the greater mass of lower-income White Southerners harboured a tremendous degree of racial hatred, the unfortunate consequences of which are still with us.

I maintain that His Grace's framing of the question is backwards, and I remain suspicious of His eagerness to impute 'Anti-Semitism' to someone with, so far as I can see, nothing more than a strictly political grievance (however strong that grievance may be). This is why I mentioned Torahdic Jews, and suggested that George Galloway might very possibly be overjoyed to share a platform with one: do you accept that is a plausible suggestion? I think it's plausible - the president of Iran frequently breaks bread with people of that persuasion. And if it is plausible, I submit that His Grace is committing a sin of calumny against Mr Galloway.

You seem - like His Grace - rather quick to see the worst in your opponents, if I may make the observation.

21 February 2013 at 18:30  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 February 2013 at 18:41  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Thomas Wood,

Well by your argument I can call you an anti-Jew. I am so sorry the faith I hold to- [Orthodox]- Judaism is so critical of Christianity and anti-Christian, that you feel that Christianity couldn't survive by itself or Christians stand on their own two feet without a good pogrom or crusade, for that is what you are in effect saying to justify anti-semitism of the past,is it not?

I got to the bit about the President of Iran being nice to Joos, or more properly what you call 'Torahdic Jews'- who knows who thy are(I presume at the same time you refer to the current genocidal nut who is power in that country) ... so I have decided to do an Inspector and go and do some ironing...well actually to pour myself a generous helping of Scotch...

21 February 2013 at 18:46  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Thomas Wood,

Irrational prejudice against Jews as manifest in many un-Christian acts to Jews by Christians is wrong without any further need to argument and the statement that 'they (whatever group you want to here) are anti-christian because they are not christian' is a Non sequitur.

Take that logic to its extreme and we would end back at the death camps of Nazi Germany.

A more modern example. I may disagree with Same Sex Marriage, but as Danjo has alluded to it does NOT mean that the beating up or persecution of gay people, for being gay, is justifiable and certainly not by the logic you have deployed towards anti-semitism.

21 February 2013 at 18:59  
Blogger David Lindsay said...

It is inconceivable that George Galloway does not know that, for example, Archbishop Elias Chacour is an Israeli citizen.

21 February 2013 at 19:05  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

Mr Kavanagh,

This is all very emotive nonsense. Where have I justified anti-Semitism? I have only explained it. As to what I 'feel', you have no idea, strange fellow: I suggest you constrain yourself to what I have written, and not to what you vainly imagine.

I am quite happy to be called an Anti-Judaic and an Anti-Hinduic and an Anti-Islamic and an Anti- anything else if it proceeds from the world, the flesh or the Devil. But however you want to slice it, you can't argue that being any one of those things automatically makes me some kind of racist.

Personally, I want your religion to cease to exist: I want you, personally, to convert to Christianity, and save your soul alive, since outside the Church there is no salvation. This is because I believe in my God, and because I love you and don't want you to burn forever in Hell.

Because I also love George Galloway, despite our considerable differences (e.g. in the matter of the whole Islam thing, for which he is likewise liable to burn), I do not want him calumniated.

As to the 'Joos' - so you are pleased to call them -, I think there is still a broadcast available on 4OD by a Torahdic Jew who articulates an Anti-Zionist position.

Their number, in any case, is irrelevant to my case: if George Galloway would be happy to share a platform with one and receive him as a brother, that would blow your 'Anti-Semite' allegation out of the water, and you know it.

21 February 2013 at 19:20  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Definite correlation you know. As a homophobe is now anyone who resists the next gay initiative, so an anti-Semite is anyone who doesn’t think the Jews are great fellows, or their middle eastern country the model state.

As someone who is grateful to money lenders for furnishing him with a mortgage, the Inspector is somewhat astonished to realise that if he had been offered a mortgage by a Jewish money lending outfit, and turned them down, he would be worse than Hitler. And yet if he had called them a Jewish money lending outfit, he would be guilty of anti-Semitism anyway.

It’s certainly a queer old world, what !

21 February 2013 at 19:30  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

Lord Lavendon,

The logic is not mine, but that of 1 John 22, "Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son."

The last I heard, the Jews deny that Jesus is the Christ. So do many people. This makes all of the same antichrist. You can quibble at the logic if you like, but my assumption of it in giving an explanation for *Christian* Europe's Anti-Semitism seems reasonable enough.

I explicitly condemned Anti-Semitism as an irrational excess, but argued that it stems from a rational basis, and doesn't just spring up from nowhere. Rationality doesn't equate to virtue: you can reasonably deduce a wrong conclusion from false premises, something which Protestants generally fail to grasp.

I maintain that there are historical reasons as to why Christians and Jews have not gotten along terribly well, and unless you forcibly want to change the nature of Judaism or Christianity they aren't going to go away, because these two mighty faiths are inherently opposed to each other, and as Cardinal Manning remarked, "All human conflict is ultimately theological."

What is more, if you ignore the causes, you will be ill-placed to mitigate the effects. Why do you want to believe that historical Anti-Semitism has no basis?

21 February 2013 at 19:34  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Inspector,

Thankfully your think that Jews are great people, as you have said yourself and their middle eastern country is a democratic model for others in the region, isn't that right Mr Inspector?

21 February 2013 at 19:50  
Blogger Hauptmann Dodo said...

Thomas Wood said ...

"since outside the Church there is no salvation

The expression is generally associiated with Roman Catholics. If you are a Catholic please reflect on the following:

"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience — those too may achieve eternal salvation"
(Second Vatican Council: Lumen Gentium, 16).

"Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him.
(Hebrews 11:6)

"There are, of course, those who are struggling with invincible ignorance about our most holy religion. Sincerely observing the natural law and its precepts inscribed by God on all hearts and ready to obey God, they live honest lives and are able to attain eternal life by the efficacious virtue of divine light and grace since God who clearly beholds, searches, and knows the minds, souls, thoughts, and habits of all men, because of His great goodness and mercy, will by no means suffer anyone to be punished with eternal torment who has not the guilt of deliberate sin.)
(Council of Trent: Quanto Conficiamur Moerore, 7)

21 February 2013 at 19:53  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Indeed something queer going on, when I didn't sniff out the opportunity to sell you a good deal on your mortgage earlier on. and then cross sell home insurance, car insurance and pet insurance (for that cat you have). I'm loosing my skills. Perhaps. Or perhaps it is because I have been fasting all day?

21 February 2013 at 19:57  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

What you say does not contradict my formulation of the Apostolic doctrine. Salvation, we hold, subsists only in the the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Generally speaking, if someone is outside the visible Church, it is appropriate to presume them on the path to damnation, for the good of *their souls*.

However, of course I accept that there are some few, generally unknown to us, who attain salvation without attaining *visible* unity with the Church - like, for instance, those martyrs who receive a baptism of blood before they have the chance to receive water baptism.

21 February 2013 at 19:59  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Thomas Wood,

So we are of the devil, are the antichrist, need to have our religion destroyed; We've all got to convert to Roman Catholicism or burn in hell...


21 February 2013 at 20:21  
Blogger Hauptmann Dodo said...

Thomas Wood

That's not quite the spirit of the Church's teaching, now is it?

21 February 2013 at 20:25  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

I didn't say you were of the Devil: the Devil made nobody, and is the father or nothing but falsehood and fantasy. Your *religion* is of the devil, and since I must assume that, as an adult you have made a conscious choice to follow your religion, I must assume that you are a formal heretic and so in a state of mortal sin.

Anyone in a state of mortal sin is - however unwittingly - an agent of the Devil. I spent the greater part of my life in this condition, and relapse into it far too often.

"We've all got to convert to Roman Catholicism or burn in hell..." Yes. That is the Apostolic teaching.

21 February 2013 at 20:25  
Blogger Hauptmann Dodo said...

David K

Are you permitted whiskey during a fast? I may convert if this so.

21 February 2013 at 20:26  
Blogger bluedog said...

Thomas Wood @ 19.20 said, 'Their number, in any case, is irrelevant to my case: if George Galloway would be happy to share a platform with one and receive him as a brother, that would blow your 'Anti-Semite' allegation out of the water, and you know it.'

So it all gets down to a hypothetical. In which event your position is based on a guess: that George Galloway would oblige you by debating a Jew.

We already know that where the Jew happens to be an Israeli, George Galloway will cut and run.

Here's another hypothetical. It seems likely that GG would only debate a Jew reluctantly and up to the point at which the Jew expressed a pro-Israeli sentiment. Would GG then declare that the Jew was an Israeli and thus terminate the debate?

One cannot easily predict, but experience and judgement gives a useful guide.

GG is like a whore obliging her clients, who in this instance are Islamists whose position is anti-Jewish and anti-Israel. It follows that GG will continue to maintain both those positions because to refute them would render him unemployed. By rejecting debate with an Israeli Jew, GG validates his clients' expectations of him.

Under this warped logic, for GG, the evening was an unqualified success.

21 February 2013 at 20:26  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

@Hauptmann Dodo

You can pontificate to your heart's content over the 'Spirit' of the thing. I prefer to go by the letter, since this way the Church's teaching corrects me and humbles me, and validates (or admonishes) my spirit, and not the other way around.

21 February 2013 at 20:27  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Ah Dodo,

On the ball as ever. We do things sunset to sunset, so the fast officially ended a couple of hours ago...

21 February 2013 at 20:29  
Blogger Hauptmann Dodo said...

Thomas Wood

You are over simplifying the Catholic position.

The Church expressly teaches that "it is necessary to hold for certain that they who labour in ignorance of the true religion, if this ignorance is invincible, will not be held guilty of this in the eyes of God"
(Singulari Quadam),

That "outside of the Church, nobody can hope for life or salvation unless he is excused through ignorance beyond his control"
(Singulari Quidem)

Inculpable ignorance is not a means of salvation. But if by no fault of the individual ignorance cannot be overcome (if, that is, it is inculpable and invincible), it does not prevent the grace that comes from Christ, a grace that has a relationship with the Church, saving that person.

21 February 2013 at 20:32  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


I merely observe that, in the absence of any evidence to lead us to suppose that in this case Mr Galloway - evidently a very passionate man - was not motivated purely by his political convictions, it is rash to accuse him of Anti-Semitism. Where's your evidence that he is an Anti-Semite? Rash, certainly. Rude, definitely. Idiotic, yes. But an Anti-Semite? On what grounds?

You rush, it seems to me, headlong into judgement, where you should hold your tongue.

21 February 2013 at 20:32  
Blogger Hauptmann Dodo said...

Thomas Wood said ...

"You can pontificate to your heart's content over the 'Spirit' of the thing. I prefer to go by the letter, since this way the Church's teaching corrects me and humbles me, and validates (or admonishes) my spirit, and not the other way around."

Well fine if that approach suits you. The statements I've made are all extracts from the Church's teachings. As a Catholic it falls on you not to pontificate against Magisterium teachings and misrepresent them, wouldn't you say?

21 February 2013 at 20:37  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


What you say is, so far as I can see, quite orthodox. I don't think I over-simplified the teaching , though. Invincible ignorance leaves the possibility of salvation open, yes, but a positive disposition towards what is Holy - according to the light afforded us - is still required. Committed adherents to false religions manifestly lack this.

21 February 2013 at 20:38  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...

Kavanaghs you lucky and most fortunate pair. You have both learned lessons today. We shall NOT cry wolf when there is no wolf around. And we shall NOT play fast and loose with the English language. To whit, the phrase ‘Jewish money lender’ is NOT an anti Semitic statement.

Now run along and play. As for you Hannah, anymore nonsense and it’s the Magdalene, and no mistake...

21 February 2013 at 20:40  
Blogger Office of Inspector General said...


21 February 2013 at 20:41  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


Lumen Gentium contains no previously unformulated dogma , and as part of the avowedly Pastoral Second Vatican Council is to be interpreted according to previous magisterial pronouncements, as the Holy Father has made clear. Pope Boniface's Unam Sanctam, I submit, is strong tobacco compared to whatever it is you're smoking.

Why do you want to give people the impression that they're just dandy as they are? I pray that they are, but I often have to assume that they are not. If I didn't, I wouldn't bother trying to spread the Gospel.

21 February 2013 at 20:43  
Blogger Hauptmann Dodo said...

Thomas Wood

Well now that all depends on whether their ignorance is incupable and invincible, does it not? That's the point.

21 February 2013 at 20:44  
Blogger Hauptmann Dodo said...

Thomas Wood

Spread the Gospel, its our duty, but don't start by telling people they are heretics on the road to Hell and that their views are from the Devil. Try to engage with them. That's the way of ecumenicalism.

Vatican II does not contradict any former infallible Church doctrine.

21 February 2013 at 20:50  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Thomas Wood @ 20.32 says, 'You rush, it seems to me, headlong into judgement, where you should hold your tongue.'

Disagree. By putting Galloway's actions into the context of his circumstances, which you have not done, it becomes possible to divine his self-interest. GG's future actions are just as likely to be driven by the imperative of satisfying his client base as his past actions have been.

There is no risk in making that statement.

By contrast, the risk is yours in presuming that Galloway may depart from this precedent.

21 February 2013 at 20:51  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Well I'd love to run along and play, but us older children have responsibility to make sure people who are younger, like yourself, don't run a cropper.

21 February 2013 at 20:52  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

Distinguo, "And some indeed reprove, being judged: but others save with fear, snatching them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh." (Jude 1:23)

I welcome criticism of my approach: but I reject any approach which would minimise or occlude the truth of the matter, viz. that they are heretics, that their religion is of the Devil, and that they are on the road to eternal Damnation.

I fear this is what you mean by 'engagement'. "Bear not the yoke with unbelievers. For what participation hath justice with injustice? Or what fellowship hath light with darkness?" (2 Cor. 6:14)

21 February 2013 at 21:01  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Thomas Wood

"Your *religion* is of the devil, and since I must assume that, as an adult you have made a conscious choice to follow your religion, I must assume that you are a formal heretic and so in a state of mortal sin."

Put the red hot pokers down...

Your posts make me want to say.

I will never debate with a Catholic!


21 February 2013 at 21:06  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Oh don't worry. The reality is that I am used to this sort of stuff, which is why I don't really engage with other people about faith, although the initial discussion, wasn't about that but anti-semitism and Jew-phobia.

It is hardly to anyone's benefit having some-one describe you as roasting in hell (I take it that my parents are already there?), being a mortal sinner, a heretic and the religion I follow to be of the devil... an excellent advert for your religion.

Now if that is a person's belief, no problem. The trouble is that take any or a combination of the above viewpoints and turn them into an action. Then you have the anti-semitism of the past.

I personally thought that the Church had moved on from this, especially following Pope John Paul II. Why would the Pope say we are 'fellow brothers and sisters' if we are all heretics, that my religion is of the Devil, and that they I/We on the road to eternal Damnation?

21 February 2013 at 21:06  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


I am quite open to the suggestion that, like most politicians, George Galloway is meretricious. He probably is.

I just object to people bandying around terms carelessly. After all, if he's motivated by whorishness, then he's not formally an Anti-Semite - he's a whore (though he may, for all I know, be playing to an Anti-Semitic client base, of course).

I'm afraid I still don't think you've offered any evidence to substantiate the claim that we can label his action re the Israeli gentleman 'Anti-Semitic' - it still looks to me like a rash political stunt, and GG claims a foundation for this in an earnest conviction.

I imagine he must have *some* kind of conviction, otherwise he wouldn't go around courting the hatred of ...everybody.

21 February 2013 at 21:07  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

Mr Kavanagh,

Your religion teaches that *I* will burn in Hell, does it not? If it doesn't, I don't think much of it, quite frankly, and suggest that you improve it. Naff sort of god, to my mind, who doesn't give a damn (ho ho) over who is worshipping what. If all this time I have in following Christ been pouring scorn on the Divine Majesty, I think I deserve a bit of gentle scorching, at the very least. In fact - I insist on it. I entreat you, I implore you, I beg you - amend your doctrine in this regard, and I will love you more than ever!

Mr Roberts,

I'm sorry you feel that way. I am afraid I can't help you terribly much. I can only say that I have known what it is to hate God as much as you seem to, and I hold you no ill will for it.

21 February 2013 at 21:17  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

Mr Kavanagh (P.S.)

John Paul II said what he said because he was not a very competent pontiff, and his incompetence has caused the damnation of a great many souls. Our Lady of Good Success prophesied it, saying, “…. I make it known to you that from the end of the 19th century and shortly after the middle of the 20th century…. the passions will erupt and there will be a total corruption of customs (morals)….

“They will focus principally on the children in order to sustain this general corruption. Woe to the children of these times! It will be difficult to receive the Sacrament of Baptism, and also that of Confirmation…

“As for the Sacrament of Matrimony… it will be attacked and deeply profaned… The Catholic spirit will rapidly decay; the precious light of the Faith will gradually be extinguished… Added to this will be the effects of secular education, which will be one reason for the dearth of priestly and religious vocations.

“The Sacrament of Holy Orders will be ridiculed, oppressed, and despised… The Devil will try to persecute the ministers of the Lord in every possible way; he will labor with cruel and subtle astuteness to deviate them from the spirit of their vocation and will corrupt many of them. These depraved priests, who will scandalize the Christian people, will make the hatred of bad Catholics and the enemies of the Roman Catholic and Apostolic Church fall upon all priests…

“Further, in these unhappy times, there will be unbridled luxury, which will ensnare the rest into sin and conquer innumerable frivolous souls, who will be lost. Innocence will almost no longer be found in children, nor modesty in women. In this supreme moment of need of the Church, the one who should speak will fall silent.

21 February 2013 at 21:21  
Blogger Corrigan said...

Hardly a soul on God's Green Earth that thought the jews would win a war against the Arab states?

Really? So, when, on May 18th, four days after the fighting started, the US Army Intelligence Division got it wrong when they sent a memo to the Chief of Staff stating that the combined army of all Arab forces totalled about 30,000 ill-equipped, poorly trained men who were outnumbered three to one by the Zionists? And the US consuls in Jerusalem and Haifa were mistaken when they reported massive amounts of new arms and thousands of trained soldiers (not skeletal holocaust victims) being flown in from Europe? Or that Arab POWs were being used as slave labour and Arab civilian populations being ethnically cleansed in violation of the Geneva Conventions?

I told you already, Carl, everything you think you know about this tinpot state is a lie, and the fact that you swallow it anew every day only makes its citizens even more contemptuous of you. But hey, you're the guy who cheers for them sinking the USS Liberty.

Finally, perhaps you could tell me why you think it's some kind of "aha, gotcha!!!" revelation to say that I identify with the Palestinians because I see them in the same light as the Irish under British rule? Of course I do, you muppet; what the hell's so strange about that?

21 February 2013 at 21:22  
Blogger bluedog said...

Mr Thomas Wood @ 21.07 said, ''m afraid I still don't think you've offered any evidence to substantiate the claim that we can label his action re the Israeli gentleman 'Anti-Semitic''.

Read my posts carefully and you will see that I never said or inferred anything of the kind.

I restricted my commentary to an assessment of your hypothetical statement @ 17.20 'if George Galloway would be happy to share a platform with one (being a Jew) and receive him as a brother, that would blow your 'Anti-Semite' allegation out of the water,' The parenthesis is mine.

For what it's worth I see GG as an accurate reflection of any opinion his Muslims constituents may have about Israel and the Jews.

Are they pro-Jew and pro-Israel?

No. Emphatically the reverse.

Does GG share his constituents' opinion?

Of course!

21 February 2013 at 21:23  
Blogger Hauptmann Dodo said...

Thomas Wood

You presume too much. I am simply reflecting the approaches of our two most recent Popes. Engage people in a rational discussion about faith and an examination of their Holy texts - without conceeding the Truth.

David K

As you know, I believe your religion is false. Yet you hold it to be true due to many factors outside your personal control. The same can be said of all of us. In your heart Judaism is truth and you follow its precepts.

I believe salvation is through Christ and His Church. However, following Church teaching, I do not accept you are automatically damned to Hades for eternity or that your morality and understanding of God is all from Satan. Ironically, the same holds for Muslims and to a lesser extent other faiths.

Given time, I'm sure you could made to see the error of your way. Oh for the Inquisition!

21 February 2013 at 21:28  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Well in posting to me and Hannah and when is around,Avi, it looks like you are yoking yourself with the unbeliever and light with darkness or whatever quote we've just been subject to...

.. so are you sure you should be posting to me at all given that I am going to hell, am in a state of mortal sin, a heretic, an unbeliever and have a religion of the devil (the last one is the one that perplexes me)? I wouldn't want you to be trouble for communicating with the Jew...

In fact, I need to purged, such a wicked perfidious Jews as I am, deserves nothing less.

Perhaps Phil Roberts has those pitchforks to hand?!

21 February 2013 at 21:31  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

@Bluedog. Forgive me if I have misunderstood.

I accept that GG may be meretricious, and I agree with you that his Muslim constituents are not generally pro-Jew. I also agree that he will act - whether out of conviction or sheer pragmatism - in sympathy with that feeling.

However, as I have tried to clarify at length in several places, I am not convinced that characterising GG's professed grievance (that is, I agree, in sympathy with his constituents' *real* grievance) as racist is helpful, nor do I agree that it can be concluded from the fact that his constituents' are not pro-Jew.

No doubt, some of his constituents are racists. But I like to hope that not all Muslims are racists. As I have said, there are sound political reasons for not liking the Israelis if you are an Arab. His Grace may opine that they are baseless - that is his prerogative - but to dismiss this particular body of political grievance against the Jews originating with a nineteenth century movement (Zionism) as racist seems a leap.

21 February 2013 at 21:32  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Yes I also do appreciate the position you outline as far as you truth and faith is concerned. We agree to disagree and hold our respective beliefs. I couldn't care less if you think I'm in original sin or whatever, but I would object, if you started foisting that belief into an action/or by force, which is what happened in the past.

Hope that clarifies matters (100 posts later),

21 February 2013 at 21:35  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

@Mr Kavanagh, (how's that doctrinal redrafting coming along, btw?) the proximate peril of your eternal damnation does not motivate me to withdraw from you and leave you to your fate, but rather to redouble my efforts to save you.

Unlike these cuddly liberal types, I am - believe it or not - rather concerned for the fate of your immortal soul.

21 February 2013 at 21:37  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

Mr Dodo,

All the gods of the heathen are devils, and all those who will not believe that Christ is God incarnate are certainly damned. An act of Faith in a false religion is an objective mortal sin against faith, and incurs eternal damnation (except if the person is invincibly ignorant, which we should never presume, but rather the contrary, valuing his soul over our own peace of mind).

As we read in the creed of St Athanasius the Great, "Whosoever will be saved, before all things it is necessary that he hold the catholic faith. Which faith except every one do keep whole and undefiled; without doubt he shall perish everlastingly."

21 February 2013 at 21:42  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

21 February 2013 at 21:44  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Thomas Wood,

With all due respect this thread is not about Christianity vs Judaism, it is about Israel and Anti-Semitism. You have tried to shuffle that one under the carpet, but haven't really dealt with it.

But even if the thread were on another topic, after your posts above and how you see my religion, do you honestly think I am going to engage with you?

I did look up the Christian version of the devil and it is pretty sick to call my religion being (if you didn't have my religion ever, there would be no Christianity or Church) of that devil of yours.

21 February 2013 at 21:46  
Blogger Hauptmann Dodo said...

Enough Thomas Wood, I have encountered your 'Traditional Catholicism' before and it is as unacceptable to me. Indeed, it is as alien to me as Calvinism - and that's going some.

You probably believe the Seat of Peter is vacant and there is a Masonic conspiricasy within the Vatican too.

21 February 2013 at 21:59  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


Certainly the See of Peter is not vacant (not until Feb 28th, anyway). As to whether there is a Masonic conspiracy, only time will tell.

My 'Traditional Catholicism' is just Catholicism, the which time will also tell. You, Dodo, are well named, my fine fellow.

21 February 2013 at 22:12  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

You are quite right, my dear Mr Kavanagh, to attempt a salvage of this severely listing discussion. I confess quite to having lost the thread.

21 February 2013 at 22:16  
Blogger Hauptmann Dodo said...

Thomas Wood

Well, that being so, welcome and I look forward to future discussions with you. I thought for one moment you might be one of those followers of Father Leonard Feeney or a 'Sedevacantist'.

21 February 2013 at 22:18  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

@Mr Kavanagh, I don't see why my saying that your religion is of the Devil offends you and causes you to scurry off in high-minded disgust at me. Many people will say my religion is of the Devil: many have and many will, and I don't account them lesser beings for that - just honest men, since they say what they believe in their heart.

If you loved me, and cared for my soul, you would seek to correct this huge and evil error of mine. I invite it. I welcome it. I rejoice in the thrill of the contest - I will not despise you, if you will not despise me.

21 February 2013 at 22:20  
Blogger bluedog said...

Corrigan @ 21.22 says, 'Of course I do, you muppet; what the hell's so strange about that?'

It's strange because its a completely inaccurate analogy.

The Jews have lived in Israel since Adam was a boy. The Arabs may have been there too but in Antiquity never formed a state such as the Kingdom of Israel, whose historical existence cannot be doubted. We know from the early history of Islam and the bloody record of Mahommed's conquests that there were also Jewish and Christian communities in what is now Saudi Arabia. We don't hear you empathise with them.

The history of the British Isles is completely different, as you well know. There has been a flow of people back and forth across the Irish Sea since neolithic times.

What seems to irk you, and not without reason, is that after the Reformation the settlement in Ireland of former Scots and former English assumed a religious dimension. Many, but not all, Irish failed to see the benefits of the Break with Rome and the Dissolution of the Monasteries, which had come close to dominating the economy. Recall the earlier Norman invasion of both England and Ireland was done under a Catholic banner with the blessing of the Pope. Thus when England and Ireland were both Norman dominions, arguably until 1485, there was no difference between the status of either nation. Both had Catholic populations under the suzerainty of a Catholic monarchy. After 1536 this situation gradually changed. Elizabeth I didn't help by confiscating large chunks of Ireland and giving them to her favourites.

But quite how you can conflate this history with the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is not clear. What is clear is that your Hiberno-Romantic view of Irish nationality draws you into very dangerous waters when you start to adopt your extreme anti-Semitic positions.

How can a Catholic be so much in favour of Islamists such as Hezbollah and Hamas?

21 February 2013 at 22:27  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

@H Dodo

I am glad to have disabused you of that impression! Likewise.

21 February 2013 at 22:30  
Blogger The Way of Dodo said...

Inspector said ...

"Right then, the only gay man on the blog has arrived demanding HIS attention from us all, so the Inspector is off to do the ironing..."

An excellent tactic, Sir. In one sntence you silenced 'He who's name must not be mentioned' (praises be heaped upon him). Well done!

21 February 2013 at 23:03  
Blogger non mouse said...

What if there were Israelis living in Bradford West? Goodness, Your Grace! You mean there aren't any? Has the place been ethnically cleansed then? Of which races, and by whom?

Ah. Now I see. Well said, Mr. bluedog, especially at 20:26 and 21:23.

21 February 2013 at 23:07  
Blogger non mouse said...

I wonder what names the aliens will give to ex-British places, once they've got rid of the indigenes?

21 February 2013 at 23:09  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Dodo,

Well Inspector seems to be taking a long time to do his ironing. Surely for a single man in his 50s, he hasn't got that much to do.

21 February 2013 at 23:26  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


everything you think you know about this tinpot state is a lie

What then? Are you going to instruct me? I am far too confident in my position to surrender it to someone who cannot see beyond the Bridge at Toome.

perhaps you could tell me why you think it's some kind of "aha, gotcha!!!" revelation to say thatI identify with the Palestinians because I see them in the same light as the Irish under British rule?

Because it shows that you lack objectivity. And it explains why you show no empathy for the fate of the Israelis once delivered into the hands of the Arabs. They are for all intent and purpose the 'British.' That's all you see.

You have never once offered any kind of solution beyond 'the Israelis should just get the hell out because they shouldn't have been there in the first place." How do you 'move' six million people? Well, you aren't much concerned about that. If they can't move, then they will have to stay and suffer the consequences. In the end, you would blame the Israelis for whatever happened to them. You would say "They brought it on themselves." No amount of savagery could possibly change your mind.

Of course I do, you muppet

The tongue reveals what the heart would hope to hide.


21 February 2013 at 23:30  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Thomas Wood,

Why shouldn't David say that? Having written what you have written, only then to say you care about our 'souls' is the biggest LOL I have ever read on this blog to date (and that takes a lot).

What's the point in discussing faith or anything with some-one who takes the view that your religion is of the devil- i.e. created by a force or creature of evil? I think that sorta shoots down the desire to have a debate, doesn't it?

21 February 2013 at 23:31  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Corrigan

I recall that Carl Jacobs has a ten page argument with someone else a while back on the USS Liberty. I don't think he was 'cheering the Israelis on' actually. But don't let facts get in the way of your argument. Oh, they always do.

21 February 2013 at 23:37  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Also Bluedog and Carl have responded very well to your silly post.

Bravo boys!

21 February 2013 at 23:39  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Re: Father Feeney

You mean a consistent Roman Catholic. One of the guys who knew what the RCC had taught for centuries and refused to airbrush out the inconvenient parts for the sake of the new Magisterial teaching. One of the guys with enough integrity to say "You are changing the infallible teaching of the RCC." That Fr Feeney?


22 February 2013 at 00:20  
Blogger Michael O'Leary said...

Has George Galloway - ever - in his political career, said anything worthwhile? He belongs to a party with the ridiculously pretentious name of "Respect", yet he has no respect for anyone but himself. Time and again he has shown himself to be nothing but a fool. Why anyone, let alone a university, would give this blustering windbag the time of day is beyond me.

22 February 2013 at 00:32  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


Never did I think to see the day when you were out-Catholic'd.

When will you be sending Brother Thomas Wood the Cyber Swiss Guard membership package? And more pertinently, will it arrive in time for the Papal Crusader Action Figure (with Interchangeable Chausable and Stole)™ to still be in date?

22 February 2013 at 02:22  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Well, I don't really have a problem with discussing my faith, nor do I care about it being of the devil or whatever.

I think the point I was making is that at least from the Christian world view, if not the Jewish one,if our religion has its origins via the creation of a devil and not G-d, then that doesn't say a lot of good about the Christian religion either (as the claim of Christians is that they "finalise" and extend our religion and I can appreciate that we share a part of parts of our textural scripts).

Also the link between calling the faith satanic and the discussion of historical or indeed current anti-semitism didn't seem to be appreciated.

As for Olam Ha-Ba, well clearly a big gulf there too, but C'est la vie.

22 February 2013 at 06:26  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "Never did I think to see the day when you were out-Catholic'd."

It happens every day, in spirit.

22 February 2013 at 07:55  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Dodo: "An excellent tactic, Sir. In one sntence you silenced 'He who's name must not be mentioned' (praises be heaped upon him). Well done!"

It looked to me like he silenced himself very effectively as it goes. It curious that I'm supposed to be drawing attention to myself yet every single thread shows you bringing my name up, whether I've commented or not, trying to goad me into responding. It seems to me that it's *you* who wants my attention all the time.

22 February 2013 at 08:05  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

@Mr Kavanagh,

Christ has indeed fulfilled the Jewish religion of the old testament, and heaven forbid that I should have anything to say against your Torah, which we hold in common to be sacred.

The problem lies in the fact that you do not recognise the sacrificial purpose of Christ's mission, in atonement for the sins of the whole world. Because of this, you deny yourself - at the instigation of the evil spirit, because God does not desire the death of a sinner (Ez. 18:32) - God's forgiveness.

Since the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem, you have no way of making atonement for your sins. For as the Holy Torah says, "For the life of a creature is in the blood, and I have given it to you to make atonement for yourselves on the altar; it is the blood that makes atonement for one's life." (Lev. 17:11)

Where once God commanded our participation in the bloody sacrifice of unblemished animals, he now commands our participation in the perfect sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ. Anything that keeps you from that (including Orthodox Judaism) is of the Devil, because it is - literally - damnable, i.e. it can damn you.

22 February 2013 at 10:21  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi David,

Wow, re reading the thread it looks like we were visited by a reincarnation of the Grand Inquisitor himself, the one and only Torquemada.... of which his message is quite simple :

"I am the god of hell fire, and I bring you
Fire, I'll take you to burn
Fire, I'll take you to learn
I'll see you burn

You fought hard and you saved and earned
But all of it's going to burn
And your mind, your tiny mind
You know you've really been so blind
Now 's your time, burn your mind
You're falling far too far behind
Oh no, oh no, oh no, you're gonna burn!"


22 February 2013 at 10:21  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

@Hannah Kavanagh,

If you don't believe that I care for your soul, that's no skin off my nose: why would it be? I can only say I'm sorry you don't believe me.

If you want to engage in a respectful debate, sans sneering, I am at your service. Otherwise, good day to you.

22 February 2013 at 10:25  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Thomas "Torquemada" Wood,

If you wanted to a respectful debate, then why engage in your sneering against Judaism as you did yesterday? That was your choice to frame things as you did. In any case me and my family are addressing these issues in a series of posts on my own blog. Which isn't as 'laddish' as this place. Although there is another fellow Christian who holds to the same view as you. But as a fundamentalist protestant he sees the Catholics as 'hell bound' sinners as well. Even Dodo has given up on him.

22 February 2013 at 10:34  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

@Hannah Kavanagh

I did not 'sneer' at Judaism: I condemned it, as of the Devil, which it is.

I don't ask that you 'respect' my religion, in the sense of honouring it or saying how jolly marvellous it is. Please don't: please condemn it. Please be honest, and speak from your heart.

I only ask that you refrain from personal jibes: as I have said before, I know what it is to be apart from God, and I personally bear you no ill will whatsoever. Nor have I showed any ill will: where have I sneered at you, or where have I have calumniated you? Nowhere.

I have only put to you the truth, in the hope that you might save your soul. That smacks to me of good will - and I am disappointed if you don't think enough of your own god to respond in kind, in the hope of saving me from my errors.

22 February 2013 at 10:52  
Blogger Phil Roberts said...

Thomas Wood

You missed my point.

I was saying that you were born 500 years too late for the Inquisition.

Which you probably would embrace wholeheartedly.

It is people like you that make me wary about having a Catholic as Head of State.

I thought that your opinions had died out but it seems I was wrong


22 February 2013 at 11:10  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


If by the Inquisition you mean that noble institution designed originally to prevent Spanish monarchs from using religious laws to kill political rivals, then yes, I wholeheartedly support the Inquisition.

The Church has never, and will never, issue any man's death warrant, and nor would I wish Her to.

22 February 2013 at 11:19  
Blogger david kavanagh said...

Did someone mention the inquisition?

Well, as the Jewish philosopher Mel Brookes once noted:

"The Inquistion, let's begin
The Inquistion, look out sin
We have a mission to convert the Jews (Jew ja Jew ja Jew ja Jews)
We're gonna teach them wrong from right
We're gonna help them see
the light
And make an offer that they can't refuse (that the Jews just can't

Confess (confess, confess)
Don't be boring
Say yes (say yes, say yes)
Don't be dull

A fact
you're ignoring:
it's better to lose your skullcap than your skull

The Inquistion, what a show
The Inquistion, here we go
We know you're wishing
That we'd go away
But the Inquistion's here and it's here to stay

The Inquistion, oh boy
The Inquistion, what a joy
The Inquistion, oy oy"

22 February 2013 at 11:34  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Thomas Wood:

"The Church has never, and will never, issue any man's death warrant, and nor would I wish Her to."

That's not quite true. It is true that throughout the Middle Ages, the Church had little temporal authority to issue such warrants - but this was because there were lawful civic authorities whose task it was. As I've said many times on this site, the question of whether or not Church requests to honour excommunications or declarations of heresy were very much down to the whims of the secular rulers, and whether or not the target was protected by secular influence.

However, in its own backyard, where the Roman Church was the temporal power, it did indeed issue and sign men's death warrants for both religious and civic crimes.

This is an important historical point: both in terms of resisting the common narrative that religious authorities were behind every purge and crusade with secular powers looking on in horror (they weren't), but also the rather sanitised notion that the Church, where it was not checked by secular power, did not destroy men's bodies to save their souls.

22 February 2013 at 11:43  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


The Church is not a temporal power. However, some of its ministers, e.g. the Pope, exercise both a temporal and spiritual power. The Pope - *as Monarch of the Papal States* - certainly has handed down the death penalty to certain malefactors.

I didn't say I was against the death penalty - I merely said I was *for* the Inquisition as a means of checking the abuses of the Temporal power. It is very easy to whip up popular hatred on a charge of 'Heresy', and the Inquisition was designed to prevent innocent people from being condemned on a theological charge.

22 February 2013 at 11:55  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi David,

ROFL! And who says you have no sense of humour ?(ok we call you 'the vulcan', because by our standards you don't have one, but that's besides the point).

22 February 2013 at 11:59  
Blogger Pinguin Vunix said...


22 February 2013 at 11:59  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


The reason my opinions have not died out is that they are true opinions. Also, if you take the trouble to study the doctrines of the Catholic Church, you will see that they remain - at least professedly - the opinions of a very great many.

In the last fifty years, the Faith has been almost totally obscured, in favour of 'Catholicism Lite' (no thanks to John Paul the Not So Great and the ambiguities of Vatican II). But liberals and heretics are, at least in this day and age, as barren as their philosophy, whereas the orthodox breed like nobody's business.

22 February 2013 at 12:11  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


"The Church is not a temporal power."

Not anymore. It has been one for the majority of the previous millenium.

It's a nicely medieval distinction to insist that the Pope is two people.

I'm not actually against the Death Penalty in principle (though I have concerns about its practice which usually render me opposed to it in specific circumstances); but we live in an age in which capital punishment is an index of barbarity in popular culture. Hence the need for you to make fine distinctions about the work of the Inquisitions.

The problem is, that what you want is for us to recognise the distinction between the philosophical and theological work carried out by the Inquisitions and the material consequences of that work. As it happens, I agree generally with the philosophical and theological underpinnings of ensuring doctrinal accuracy, but I agree with it only insofar as it is not associated with the exercise of temporal power. For me, the ultimate sanction is excommunication, not excommunication followed by the expectation that someone - either a friendly secular power or the papal guards - will then physically punish them.

That's the real issue with the defence of the Inquisitions: its impossible to divorce the two. There was no way in which the intellectual interrogation of men was not done with the knowledge (by either interrogator or interrogee) of the possible consequences once they'd been handed over. It would rather be like suggesting that Pilate's decision can be understood entirely separately from the Crucifixion that loomed as one of two possible outcomes.

22 February 2013 at 12:21  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Well I did come into this world feet first, so perhaps that has something to do with it? (sob). Anyway if we need cutting humour we could always ask brother Samuel to come onto the blog, but last time I checked he looked it up and said he would rather dress in drag and pretend to chat up Inspector at the Mouse N' Wheel than discussion religion and politics with the various commentators here.

Ahem! As Inspector is want to say.

22 February 2013 at 12:31  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Why what a lovely little rant you gave us. I don't have the heart to say this but it is 'Talmud' and not 'Thalmud'.


Eh-o, I thought we were secretly running the world through our banking clans, via 'rothschild zionism' but we are nothing now. Ow, sometimes we can't win.

Were you Hitler's Nuremberg rally script writer perchance?

22 February 2013 at 12:35  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


The Apostle Paul enjoins us "to deliver such a one [the immoral brother] unto Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus." (1 Cor 5:5)

Also Proverbs 23:14, "Punish him with the rod and save his soul from death."

I don't think you should have any qualms about the unhappy fate of 'such an one' on his conviction. The severer the penalty (within the bounds of strict justice) the better, surely?

22 February 2013 at 12:37  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


The Church - qua Church - is not and has never been a temporal power. And no, the Pope is not two people, but in the one person is combined *two offices*. This is not a 'fine distinction' but rather obvious and plain common sense: the spiritual and Apostolic office of Bishop of Rome and Supreme Pontiff, and the temporal office of Monarch of the Papal States (now Vatican City).

In this life, the greater majority of us have, unhappily, to exercise some kind of temporal authority over others (be that children, as parents, or employees as employers, or whatever). The Church's proper work is the work of mercy and forgiveness, not the work of justice - but in this life it is unavoidable that these offices be discharged as well.

22 February 2013 at 12:41  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Thomas Wood:

Thus my use of the phrase: "destroy men's bodies to save their souls"

It's not for lack of understanding of your position. However, here is mine:

If ever any amount of punishment by the rod was sufficient to save a man's soul from death, that punishment has been inflicted on Jesus Christ. It is by His blood we are saved, by Grace through Faith. There is no penalty severer than that which He paid. If you wish to trust in the compulsion of punishment for the Salvation of men, trust in Christ's punishment, not any we can dream up.

22 February 2013 at 12:51  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

Thomas Wood:

The Roman Catholic Church has been a temporal power. Its Cardinals and its Pope have wielded temporal power on account of their standing in the hierarchy of the Church. The Church has claimed, held and defended lands; it has exercised its governance with men sworn to its service both in orders military and ecclesial.

You assert a position on paper which cannot be observed in any substance of history. Indeed, in ages past, the Church was perfectly open about its putative rights to imperial patrimony and full temporal authority in its own realms. That it could not realisitically claim universal temporal authority (settling instead for universal spiritual authority) is largely a testimony to the fact that secular kings, long before the Reformation, told Rome to hop it.

A man who discharges two offices still possesses the power of them both; if he receives one office on account of the other, how shall we say the first has no bearing to the second?

22 February 2013 at 13:00  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Belfast,

I don't know if it is your period in history, but I would have thought the Crusades would be an example of the Church undertaking temporal power. I don't know it is a legitimate site or not, but the Catholic encyclopedia says :

"The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching. After pronouncing a solemn vow, each warrior received a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a soldier of the Church. Crusaders were also granted indulgences and temporal privileges, such as exemption from civil jurisdiction, inviolability of persons or lands, etc. Of all these wars undertaken in the name of Christendom, the most important were the Eastern Crusades"

22 February 2013 at 13:13  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


The thing about the Crusades is that they owe as much to the political aspiriations of Europe's secular powers (i.e. its aristocracy) as they do to the religious nature of the Holy Land and the claims to protect various sites and rights to pilgrimage etc.

The essential problem with discussing the power of the Church in history is that it has, at virtually no time, ever been consistent across the board. The Church's actual power has always varied enormously from place-to-place. The picture is complicated by the existence of the papal states, where (post long-standing conflict with both Byzantium and Aachen) the papacy enjoyed considerable territorial autonomy and temporal power in its own right. I find the best way to think of this is in terms of it possessing a geographically-limited form of strong temporal power, a strong rhetorical claim to temporal influence throughout Catholic Europe, a far weaker claim to actual temporal influence, and a claim to universal spiritual authority that is very much a matter of faith (though in practice, we can observe that its spiritual claims were on occasion as hampered as its temporal ones).

22 February 2013 at 13:21  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

AIB: "As I've said many times on this site, the question of whether or not Church requests to honour excommunications or declarations of heresy were very much down to the whims of the secular rulers, and whether or not the target was protected by secular influence."

I usually let it go each time too, but it's quite disingenuous. The Roman Catholic Church had enormous power through its hegemony. Threats of excommunication had significant impact on both rulers and ruled, potentially undermining perceived legitimacy for one, which was an existential threat, and creating social disgrace for the other. For rulers, it could potentially release people from oaths and oblige people to act against them. Waving an airy hand at the whimns and caprice of rulers and non-religious authorities does not wipe up the bloody footprints the Roman Catholic Church has left all over history.

22 February 2013 at 13:28  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Belfast,

Thanks for that intelligent response as usual, as you usually do on these threads. Have a cyber Hamantaschen from me!

22 February 2013 at 13:34  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

I was thinking about this hell bond not being part of the one true church stuff. Well on the one hand if I am destined for hell, that means I'll be with the following:

My brothers and sisters and other Jewish relatives
My Anglican friends and relatives, such as uncle and cousin Lubo
My gay friends
Avi Barzel
Phil Roberts
Carl Jacobs
Belfast etc etc

If I go to the Catholic Christian heaven I'd be with :

Dodo (assuming he's not been a naughty boy)
John Magee
Thomas Wood etc etc

Oh, the agony of choice!

22 February 2013 at 13:42  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


The documentation tells a very different story. At the local level, as well as at the national level, Church authorities often had to persistently badger secular authorities before they were even recognised. The times when the secular authorities respond to crimes swiftly - whether its thefts from Church property or claims of heresy - are invariably when they either:

a) have political incumbents in the Church hierarchy (either aristocratic dynasties with brethren in the Church, or political allies - a good example here is Thomas Arundel's purge of lollardy alongside Henry IV's purge of political opponents)

b) have a specific and direct interest in the results of the outcome.

This applies to excommunication as well - social disgrace is certainly a powerful disincentive, but where the financial and criminal penalties were not enforced by authorities (a surprisingly common occurrence) its practical power was considerably limited.

Secular rulers had, used, and protected a considerable degree of actual autonomy from the Church. What they didn't generally do, was exercise it in a manner that looked rhetorically discordant with Church authority.

Where the Church was itself a temporal power - the papal states, but also pockets of episcopal lordships - it exercised an equitable level of autonomy. Though it must be said, that in many of the episcopal lordships and princedoms, the complaint by neighbouring secular authorities tended to be that they were softer on criminal law.

The problem with the idea of "hegemonic power" is that it presumes a united form of power used to specific ends. The Church in the Middle Ages was not monolithic either in practical power or philosophy. If you mean that Catholicism had an ubiquitous presence that ordered how power was understood - then I agree with you. There is no doubt that Catholicism is intimately tied into all aspects of medieval culture, including its bloodiest components. But the Church simply did not exert the kind of presence it is popularly imagined to, because it did not possess the nature of unity that would have enabled it to. Its history is not one of a hegemony, but rather of specific instances of limited hegemonic power, within which the role of secular rulers is almost always a vital component.

22 February 2013 at 13:45  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


"A man who discharges two offices still possesses the power of them both; if he receives one office on account of the other, how shall we say the first has no bearing to the second?"

I did not say that the one had no bearing on the other: clearly the temporal offices of a clergy depend on his spiritual office, and their exercise is informed by spiritual considerations. What I said was that the Church has never signed a death warrant.

That is literally true: ministers of the Church have, in exercising temporal power according to the inspiration of the Holy Ghost - or not, as the case may be - in this vale of tears, handed down sentences of death.

These are not acts of the Church: they are acts of representatives of the Church in virtue of their (accidental) temporal power. Unlike Ancient Israel, it is not part of the Church's mission - qua Church - to administer temporal justice.

22 February 2013 at 13:46  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


Re your own private opinion, beginning "If ever any amount of punishment by the rod was sufficient to save a man's soul from death, that punishment has been inflicted on Jesus Christ.", I make no remark other than to say that you are at odds with the plain words of scripture and the Holy Tradition.

22 February 2013 at 13:49  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


" (accidental) temporal power."

My point is, it wasn't actually accidental, and more importantly, that it wasn't exercised accidentally from the Church's spiritual authority where it possessed both.

22 February 2013 at 13:50  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Romans 5:20)

22 February 2013 at 13:52  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 February 2013 at 13:55  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

@Hannah Kavanagh

In Hell, you will have no fellowship with anyone: your wretched, tormented soul will heap curses on even your own dear mother and father for their having failed to rebuke you in your folly (if indeed they have so failed).

Your soul will hate even your own body, co-labourer in its damnation, and your body will hate your soul, on account of the horrors to which you have brought it.

As for myself, nolo salvus esse sine te, and I would be overjoyed to sing the praises of the Almighty with you in Heaven.

22 February 2013 at 13:56  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...


I have to say having read the diatribes from other posters here you are remarkably calm.

I take satisfaction from the following (thanking God, to echo Phil Robert's observations earlier on) :

"The Queen's majesty hath the chief power in this Realm of England, and other of her Dominions, unto whom the chief Government of all Estates of this Realm, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Civil, in all causes doth appertain, and is not, nor ought to be, subject to any foreign jurisdiction ... We give not to our Princes the ministering either of God's Word, or of the Sacraments ... but that only prerogative, which we see to have been given always to all Godly Princes in holy Scriptures by God himself; that is, that they should rule all estates and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal, and restrain with the civil sword the stubborn and evildoer ... The Bishop of Rome hath no jurisdiction in this Realm of England."

22 February 2013 at 13:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


I have no use for the RCC. I ascribe to it no authority to bind or loose, to declare or define or pronounce or proclaim. But you should understand however that the concept of hell and damnation are common across all of the Christian world.

This is the Gospel - that Christ died for sinners and rose again from the dead for their justification. You can't get to God on your own. You can't please Him through your behavior. You can only find God through Christ. You can only find forgiveness through Christ. A Christian will tell you that He is the Only Way to the Father. He who believes in Him will be saved. He who does not believe in Him will be condemned on the Last Day. The Lord Jesus Himself said it: "If you do not believe that I Am, you will die in your sins." The man who would deny this is by definition not a Christian, for he has denied the Gospel, and the Lord who saves Him.

We can behave towards each other with respect and honor in this world, but we cannot bridge this essential religious difference. Christianity makes claims of exclusive Truth. It says that because this is True, other things are necessarily false. It is the responsibility of every Christian to tell you this. If you die without knowledge of the Living God - and you can only have knowledge of the Living God through Christ - then you will die in your sins. That means you will die under the judgment of God.

Christianity isn't one of many true religions seeking after God. It is the Only True religion, and that means all others are false. That is a cardinal essential point of the Christian faith. I can't change that. I can't change the responsibilities that flow from it. To do so, I would have to cease to be Christian.


22 February 2013 at 14:09  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


I didn't say that temporal power was not intentionally exercised, nor that it was not exercised in accordance with the highest religious principles.

Distinguo between an institution of power, The State - which beareth not the Sword in vain - and an institution of mercy - the Church - which does not, by any intrinsic right, bear the sword at all. In Her wisdom, the Church may elect to give an individual over to the temporal power for their spiritual benefit, since compassion and mercy have no purchase on the hard-heated.

First, the ground must be broken, as it were, according to the ministrations of our schoolmaster - the Law - before it is able to receive the good seed of the Gospel.

22 February 2013 at 14:19  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


"Where sin abounded, grace did much more abound" (Romans 5:20)

I prithee, do not teach me to suck eggs.

Of course grace, sufficient and potentially efficacious for all, abounds, and proceeds from none other than God, incarnate in Jesus Christ, being of the Most High, and not of man. But consider that even the temporal power - exercised by men - is a grace unto us, and even the temporal order exists, not to our detriment, but for our benefit, according to God's good pleasure.

"For he [the temporal ruler] is God's minister to thee, for good. But if thou do that which is evil, fear: for he beareth not the sword in vain. For he is God's minister: an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil.
" (Romans 13:3)

22 February 2013 at 15:20  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


Praise be to God for your robust confession.

When you understand the meaning of the creed, wherein we profess belief in UNAM SANCTAM CATHOLICAM ET APOSTOLICAM ECCLESIAM, I pray that you will then have a use for the Roman Catholic Church.

Are you an Anglican?

22 February 2013 at 15:23  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

@Lord Lavendon,

My Lord, you are in the grip of a perverse delusion indeed. The infidelity of the English Monarchy has given your homeland over into the power of Antichrist - the which is plain to every thinking person with their head above ground level.

Mark my words: our sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth II, will pass Sodomarriage into law, as she has passed all manner of other abominations into law. How long will you pretend that your false Church is from Heaven, and not from Hell?

22 February 2013 at 15:30  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...

"For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Is it not those inside the church whom you are to judge?"

(1 Corinthians 5:12)

Those who are outside of Christ's Body, God judges.

22 February 2013 at 15:41  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


I am gratified to hear you rehearsing the truths of the gospel. Praise be to Christ, who has spared us from our just deserts.

But if you think to instruct me, as if I were ignorant of these first things, then I repeat: do not teach me to suck eggs. Holy Church knew these things before you did, and I am pleased rather to learn from her.

22 February 2013 at 16:36  
Blogger Hannah Kavanagh said...

Hi Carl,

(&Belfast and Thomas)

I think that there is a misunderstanding between us- as you have said to me on other occasions.

So allow me to briefly correct some of these and to clarify in a serious manner my thought processes:

1. I have not asked you or anyone else here to not be a Christian or water own you belief into a mushy (as you see it) compromise.

2. Having said that I believe that the use of language to describe my own faith on this blog as 'satanic' .i.e. a work of evil to be offensive. I would appreciate the argument if you and others had argued that my faith was not divine as in a work of man, which is how I see your faith. But I do not, personally, see it as 'evil', for in your religion there are some good points and points of common interest we share (morality, ethics for example).

3. I appreciate the claims of the Christian faith and its universal claims (and I am also aware of the universal claims of Rome within that faith). However as you have said so yourself there is a difference between asserting that claim and that claim being true. Therefore it is a matter of holy writ or faith for you to claim it. I do like wise with my own faith. Quoting the New Testament at me will have the same effect as you quoting the Qu'ran to me. I do not see the New Testament as divine, therefore it is not my holy book, it is not what guides my faith. It is of interest to me, in so much as it helps me to understand your faith and the interaction with mine.

4.I have a deep respect for the Christian faith, but that does not mean I am bound by its doctrines and dogmas.

5.I do not come here (I hope) with all guns blazing because it is not the way of our faith. However I am not a Christian and in the same way that you say you cannot alter your religious beliefs because it would mean you were not a Christian likewise I see that to alter my own to fit in with Christianity would make me a non Jew.

6. In respect of heaven and hell, the concepts are very different in my own faith. I do not adhere to this thought of a deity who puts people into this place of eternal punishment. I consider the idea of my parents being in a hell of everlasting torture, to be a morally repugnant idea and one of the reasons why I cannot follow your faith. Now you can believe that, but I would ask as a courtesy for you not to raise that personally with me.

6. As you should know by now, I have studied your faith in depth and it is not for me. I have many problems, intellectual and practical with the Christian religion (an example is above). However because this is a Christian blog, I do not wish to use this as an opportunity to snipe or offend your faith. If it were a different forum, you would get the kind of robust debate that Thomas Wood is looking for. Although I would add, to my mind this would achieve very little, save ill will and feeling. I would rather concentrate on those matters which are of common interest to us all- how one grapples with the issues of the modern era, rather than the 'same old, same old' brick bat fights we have here, in a genial and construction fashion.

I trust that these small comments, clarify my position.

22 February 2013 at 17:10  
Blogger david kavanagh said...


Time is short, but a good summary and clarification to the various posts here. I was trying to write something along similar lines, but the elder brother humbled by the conciseness of his youngest sister.

Shabbat Shalom and a happy Chag Purim to His Grace, the fellow Jews who read this blog, Christians, Anglicans, Catholics, Calvinists, Protestants,heretics, unbelievers, hell bound sinners, Office of Inspector General,Methodists and the rest.

22 February 2013 at 17:24  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

Hannah: " In respect of heaven and hell, the concepts are very different in my own faith. I do not adhere to this thought of a deity who puts people into this place of eternal punishment. I consider the idea of my parents being in a hell of everlasting torture, to be a morally repugnant idea and one of the reasons why I cannot follow your faith."

Well, quite. A god who is bound by its own nature to do that is a god which is not worthy of worship in my opinion. As it happens, I have similar opinions about a god which intentionally created a system where sentient beings kill and eat each other for food, and kill each other in competition for food or sexual partners.

22 February 2013 at 17:40  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...

@Hannah Kavanagh

I won't gratify you on this point: I will not call your religion - which is a work of the Devil - a work of man, simply (though it is also a work of men, in bondage to the same), because that is just not an adequate description of it. Moreover, it says very little about it. Would you prefer the expression, "The work of evil men"? I doubt it: you are too ticklish by far, madam.

For my part I would consider a god who did not punish the wicked for their wickedness - including my own mother and father, who are not Christians - morally repugnant.

As it is, God is both just and merciful - and while we draw breath there is hope for us. Glory be to God.

22 February 2013 at 17:57  
Blogger carl jacobs said...


Then we understand each other, and there is no difficulty. As a general rule, I don't think weblogs are proper forums for Evangelism. It is an activity that must be done face-to-face. I would not have mentioned this at all (and have in fact left it unstated for months) but I felt that your post of 22 February 2013 13:42 forced my hand. I couldn't in good conscience let it pass. Hell is too serious a concept for me to let be taken lightly when my name is somehow attached to it.


22 February 2013 at 18:04  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


Once again - though, alas, you be a Calvinist - I applaud your conviction.

22 February 2013 at 18:08  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Dash it all, the numerous items about hell and damnation, anti-Christs and the Queen, is a tad too depressing for a Friday night. I feel a recky to the old Lavendonian arms is in order. And I might even consider buying Carl Jacobs a glass of large Chianti. Don't touch the stuff myself. Good God no, my wife drinks that bally stuff.

22 February 2013 at 18:15  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

PS- Carl Jacobs,

I did ask Hannah about that post. As I understand this, it was an attempted reference to that chap Thomas gadding on about the one true church and salvation only via it. As a Calvinist and not a Roman, she guessed you'd be in the frying pan too via that logic? Anyway appreciate your a sensitive type, but don't fret, I've often been upset by your frequent attacks upon my own Anglican Church, but one allows these matters to rest.No point in having ill feelings at my time of life.

Tally Ho my dear Yankee friend!

22 February 2013 at 18:18  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Lord Lavendon

I might even consider buying Carl Jacobs a glass of large Chianti.

Were I in the UK, I would gladly accept.

Don't touch the stuff myself.

Well, there is always room for moral improvement. :)


22 February 2013 at 18:20  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Carl Jacobs,

I would drink a bottle of 1990 Château d’Armailhac, from the Rothschild's vineyards... otherwise brandy or whiskey for me, my dear sir.

22 February 2013 at 18:25  
Blogger AnonymousInBelfast said...


Was I teaching you to suck eggs? I thought I was just quoting the plain words of Scripture, which, after all, confirm your own position and deny mine, as you say.

22 February 2013 at 18:29  
Blogger carl jacobs said...

Lord Lavendon

As a Calvinist and not a Roman, she guessed you'd be in the frying pan too via that logic?

Depends on who you talk to. If you asked a Roman Catholic prior to Vatican II, you would get a high probability of hearing "Yes, that is correct." If you ask a generic RC now, you will generally get "No." If he is a knowlegable RC he will add to himself "... with some unstated qualifications that I would prefer not to mention." I can walk in opposite directions from my office at work and find two traditional RCs who will answer that question in completely opposite ways.

The traditional doctrine of Rome condemns me because I am not in submission to the Pope. Well, that's been fudged a little over the past 60 years. Were I to become RC and not change any of my beliefs, I would be condemned by the Canons of Trent. That's also been fudged a little over the last 60 years. People focus on Rome in terms of its unwillingness to bend on morality but people don't realize just how Universalist Rome has become since Vatican II. Thomas Wood should be respected for holding the line against that modernizing trend. Not many RCs have. I should much rather deal with someone who will tell me to my face that I am wrong than I would with someone who mutters idiocies like "Your truth is true for you."


22 February 2013 at 18:31  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Dash it all Belfast,

A young lad such as yourself should be either making merry with his friends or should you be lucky enough to have a wife, to be engaging in your Christian matrimonial duties, not wishing away your life on this blog, on Friday night. Said the same sort of thing to my young charges earlier. This blog is good, but life, dear boy, life.

22 February 2013 at 18:34  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


If you were not trying to teach me to suck eggs, thank you.

22 February 2013 at 18:38  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...


Thank you for the summary. I am sure that 'brother' Dodo will be along to correct you shortly as he likes to poke his beak around in matters Roman and Calvinist. Surprised myself that as an American you'd adhere to the theology of a Frenchie, 'freedom fries' and all, but I like Poiriot, so shouldn't say too much.

And of course, it is better to have the honesty of one's opinions, than to shovel things under the carpet... providing one always shows respect for the opponents view. That's the ticket.

Anyway can't stand around here gadding all night. Must be on to other duties.

22 February 2013 at 18:41  
Blogger Avi Barzel said...

Greetings, Your Grace, Brother Ivo and fellow communicants. This humble Zionist regrets the desertion of his post in this august blog but then again, thou and many of thy communicants do a far better job in standing up for Jews and Israel than I do. Truly, ‘tis no flattery. And this state redundancy pleases me, as it provides me with opportunities to serve as the occasional Blog Fool and to dig into issues not related to Yidden and the Medinat.
My excuse is the need to patch up my strained and drained household treasury by lugging trailers of victuals, fuel and building materials to Ontario and Manitoba mining camps and First Nations communities along our temporary Snow and Roads. A brief window of opportunity only, for with the spring which will soon come, the lakes, rivers, bogs and the tundra will once again reclaim the landscape. This means that your communicant has only had time to eat, sleep and spend quiet Sabbaths with a couple of candles, little bottles of Kedem grape juice and barely-edible tinned dinners in rented rooms or in his tractor’s sleeper. This, with the uncomfortable knowledge that to the savage and hungry Ursus maritimus, my shelter is barely distinguishable from a paper bag secured with masking tape. Still, one should never underestimate the power of faith, the efficacy of the placebo effect and the lure of the mighty doubloon. But after this interlude with the family and treasured friends at a groaning Sabbath table, followed by the jollities of the Feast of Purim, I might just make one more run to our North and call it quits…one doesn’t get any younger, Your Grace.


22 February 2013 at 18:42  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Tricky thing sucking eggs. Not into that thing myself.

22 February 2013 at 18:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

If there are some people here who are appalled in one way or another at the moment then spare a thought for someone like me who is often appalled by other statements of religion and claims of religious authority.

22 February 2013 at 18:42  
Blogger DanJ0 said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

22 February 2013 at 18:42  
Blogger Thomas Wood said...


Certainly in the Fire, I'm afraid, if you remain a Calvinist, unless you are invincibly ignorant. Which you almost certainly aren't.

22 February 2013 at 18:43  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older