Mark Davies: Foolish Catholic Bishop
Blogged by James Preece on 12th April 2012
Oh me, oh my, how embarassing.
The foolish Bishop of Shrewsbury has been called a nitwit by the free thinking voice of atheism since 1881.
Christianity is the antidote to nasty things like Nazism, claims foolish Catholic bishop
IF A contest had been staged in the UK to find the most offensive Easter sermon of 2012, Mark Davies, the Roman Catholic Bishop of Shrewbury would surely have shashayed off with the top prize.
Davies, according to this report, used the PAGAN festival to warn Britons that if they persisted in undermining Christianity, the country would fall victims to “the most sinister of ideologies” – such as Nazism.
This posturing nitwit – who surely must be aware of the fact that it was German Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church who put total power within the Nazis’ reach – said:
It has, indeed, been the experience of this past century, as both Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have observed, how the most poisonous ideologies have arisen within the Christian nations of Europe.
Thus Nazism or Communism attempted to discard the Christian inheritance of faith and morality as if it had never existed. They sought either to return to the pagan past or to ‘re-create’ and ‘redeem’ humanity by political will and ideology with terrible consequences.
[link]
Oh yes, how foolish. That Bishop Davies... what a moron.
Meanwhile we live in a country where kids with downs syndrome can be murdered right up to birth simply because they have a disability. A country where your child can be pressured in to ending the life of your grandchild and you don't even get to find out about it. A country where little orphan girls don't have the right to be adopted by a mummy. Oh yes, abandoning Christianity is obviously doing a lot of good...
However - there is no need to worry. Not all of our Bishops are nitwits. Most of them were smart enough to keep their mouths shut on Easter Sunday. They were clever enough to avoid saying anything that might upset atheists. Well done them.
Give me the foolish ones anyday..
Reader Comments
+54
Tom said...
Well done to Bishop Davies.
Pity that the voice of atheism didn't check the geographic voting patterns of those voting for Hitler. If they had, they would have seen that they were very predominantly confined to the non-catholic areas of Germany. But heck, why let facts gets in the way of good old prejudice...
+
+1
New Friend said...
Anyone who suggests that undermining Christianity is likely to lead to Nazism is, indeed, speaking as a nitwit. There is not a grain of truth in it. It is just seeking to raise a bogeyman in an attempt to scare the vulnerable. Our democracies are much more secure than they were 75 years ago and the information revolution changes everything. It could NEVER happen again and those who proclaim it must have an agenda for so doing, or really be a nitwit, because it is so clearly nonsense.
To suggest that "murdering downs syndrome kids" exists, is a huge distortion in the first place, but then to ascribe it to the demise of Christianity is just ridiculous, as is the concept that children's rights should play second fiddle to those of their grandparents and that this too can be placed at the door of the decline of Christianity. These have nothing whatsoever to do with it. They are separate and complex issues which need to be examined in the round, in full, and not tossed about as a justification for anything. There is a balance to be made, it has been made, and in my view it has been well made.
+
+34
mike cliffson said...
Calling something a distortion and ridiculous doesn't make it so: I could CALL your ideas consistent and healthy.......
"the concept that children's rights should play second fiddle to those of their grandparents"
So babies have a RIGHT to be murdered in their teenage parents' wombs!
I'm not going to CALL this idea of yours anything.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
I am going to call you last post a distortion and ridiculous, because it is.
"So babies have a RIGHT to be murdered in their teenage parents' wombs!
I'm not going to CALL this idea of yours anything."
Thats not my idea. Never was, never will be. That is just your distorted representation of it. What I said, and what I mean, is that the rights of children, on balance, come before those of their grandparents. I did not specify what rights and did not speak about how we need to handle their interests should they seek pregnancy counselling. This is a complex issue, which needs very careful handling and is not as simple as just always telling the parents or grandparents. I can think of many scenarios when that would not be a good idea. You seem to imagine every kid lives in a chocolate box world surrounded by a loving family unit. It just aint so.
+
+12
Jonathan Marshall said...
Don't feed the troll!
+
New Friend said...
Jonathan
We established a long time ago that I am not a "troll". You might agree with my reasoning, or my reasons for being here, but that doesn't mean that I fit that category. That is not to say you are compelled to answer my posts, but please don't denigrate those who do by suggesting I am something I am not.
+
+4
Callum said...
New Friend said...
"Anyone who suggests that undermining Christianity is likely to lead to Nazism is, indeed, speaking as a nitwit. There is not a grain of truth in it."
I believe that the point that was being made was that every society lives by a moral code, some good, some bad. In Britain our moral code was based on Judeo-Christian ethics, it is now being replaced by moral relativism. The Nazis too replaced Judeo-Christian ethics with their own ethics, making it right to conduct mass murder etc.
New Friend said: "Our democracies are much more secure than they were 75 years ago and the information revolution changes everything. It could NEVER happen again and those who proclaim it must have an agenda for so doing, or really be a nitwit, because it is so clearly nonsense." Clearly I am a nitwit. I have served in 4 warzones where the middle classes said "It could NEVER happen again" and it did. I look around Britain and I see people intrinsically no different here from elsewhere, and if it can happen elsewhere then it can happen here. Human history also tells us that the assumption that it can never happen here is flawed, it never happens because good people actively seek to stop it happening.
New Friend said: "To suggest that "murdering downs syndrome kids" exists, is a huge distortion in the first place, but then to ascribe it to the demise of Christianity is just ridiculous,". How is this ridiculous? Downs Syndrome children can be killed prior to birth. The difference (not a distortion) is that some of the population believe that life begins at birth (and so what happens is that a Downs Syndrom foetus is aborted) while Christians believe that live begins at conception (and so an unborn Downs Syndrom person is killed). That is not a distortion, that is a difference in perspective which is what the whole argument is about.
+
New Friend said...
Callum
The debate has moved on and most of the points you raise have already been answered. Rather than answer them again can I respectfully ask that you read through the subsequent posts. I truly believe that the world has moved on and is continuing to do so very quickly. Whilst I would agree that 50 years ago what you say would have been true, I don't think it is any more. That is not to say we don't face dangers, for we face many. They are though new dangers that we have not faced before. It would be foolish in the extreme to prepare for the old ones and ignore the new.
I can happily accept that, from your position, that it is a difference in perspective that separates us. That means that you are acknowledging that the alternative perspective exists. That is a vast improvement on what I mostly find on here which is a blanket refusal to acknowledge any such thing. It is this which I regard as a distortion. So long as it is acknowledged that another perspective exists, and that if a majority hold to that perspective it will be the way society deals with the issues, everything will be fine. What is unacceptable is the way some of those who oppose the current laws seek to interfere. Campaigning for a change, through force of argument is fine. Direct action is not.
+
+8
epsilon said...
"Christians believe that life begins at conception..."
Even at my thoroughly non-Christian school the science books used to teach reproduction to 11 year olds categorically state that life begins at conception! This is not about belief but scientifically proven FACT!
+
+1
New Friend said...
epsilon
Life exists in many places, but it is not all treated the same way. You kill life pretty much every second of every day. Your body kills bacteria and viruses. You swat fies and tread on ants. Everyone one if them is "life". No-one argues that a fertilised egg is not "life". The argument is that it is not a human person.
+
+37
Catherine said...
this so called "nitwit" bishop graduated from Durham University with one of the highest if not THE highest ever distinction awarded by the University in his degree
he went on to be a private secretary to the Bishop of Salford for over 5 years until being appointed Vicar General of the same diocese and of course he was eventually appointed a diocesan bishop by that other "nitwit" Pope Benedict XVI .... nitwit??? I think not
+
+4
New Friend said...
Catherine
When has being highly educated ever stopped anyone making stupid remarks? If your concepts are wrong all it does is enable you to put them in a more elequent way. You might not be a nitwit, but that doesn't stop someone speaking as one.
+
+1
Paul Cannon said...
Interesting that he was not considered good enough to study at the English College in Rome!
His peers did not think much of him and many still do not. Thus the nickname "Dark Mavis"
+
+13
Mike said...
“This posturing nitwit – who surely must be aware of the fact that it was German Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church who put total power within the Nazis’ reach – said:”
Trust the atheists to distort history. The facts of the matter are as follows:
In November 1932 Hitler’s Nazi Party won the largest number but not a majority of seats in the Reichstag. Hitler was eventually appointed Chancellor in January 1933. In the election of March 1933 the Nazi Party again won the largest number of seats but not a majority. Hitler put forward an Enabling Act which in effect gave him dictatorial powers. To get this passed by the Reichstag he needed a two-thirds vote in favour. The Centre Party voted in favour of the Enabling Act. The Centre Party had 73 Members in the Reichstag at the time. Many in the Centre Party were opposed to voting for the Act but agreed to do so because of party loyalty.
So it was not “the Roman Catholic Church” which put total power within the Nazis’ reach. It was a political party which was led by Catholics and was mainly supported by Catholics.
And only in the sense of a few people (73) can it be claimed that “it was German Catholics …who put total power within the Nazis’ reach.”
I suppose that it could just as equally be claimed that it was atheists who gave total power to the Bolsheviks in Russia, the Communist Party in China and the supporters of Pol Pot in Cambodia.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
I won't argue with your historical account of the way Hitler actually secured power via the Reichstag. However your own account confirms, and does not deny, what the guy actually wrote. You said the Centre Party's 73 members were Catholic and it was they who were the tipping point. So it's true. Who voted for Catholic members? Atheists or Catholics?
What the guy wrote was "who surely must be aware of the fact that it was German Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church who put total power within the Nazis’ reach" There is no distortion there. The only distortion is you trying to claim there is.
+
+4
Mike said...
New Friend,
Could you please explain to me how “the Roman Catholic Church” put total power within the Nazis reach?
There is also the claim that “German Catholics” put total power within the Nazis reach.
Now this reminds me of a little controversy which occurred it the electoral ward where I live. In my ward there are three Councillors: a Tory, an SNP Councillor and an Independent Councillor. The Liberal Democrats put out a leaflet in the ward saying that “Independent Councillors” had called for the sale of a Council-owned building. The Independent Councillor in the ward had strongly opposed the sale. Do you see the point? It is a little matter of a missing word: “some”. By omitting the word “some” the Liberal Democrats had tried to create the suspicion that “all” of the Independent Councillors had called for the sale of the building and therefore, by implication, so did the Independent Councillor in the ward. Similarly, by saying “German Catholics” the implication is that it was “all” German Catholics rather than “some” German Catholics.
In a UK context would it be correct to say that all the people who voted Lib Dem in the last General Election put the Tories into power? In a sense, I suppose you could argue that they did, but did they do it deliberately? Did they mean to do it? Was it what they intended?
You could also claim that all the people who voted Labour in the previous General Election are to blame for the ward on Iraq.
You could also argue that because Julius Streicher, the editor of the anti-Semitic newspaper Die Stürmer, was a notorious homosexual and Rheinard Heydrich, the Butcher of Prague, was thrown out of the German Navy for being a homosexual, that homosexuals caused persecution of Jews. It’s all a matter of those little words “all” and “some” again, isn’t it.
Incidentally, I notice that you didn’t refute the claim that atheists put onto power the notorious tyrants Stalin, Moa-Tse Tung and Pol Pot. To have refuted that claim would have undermined the claim that “German Catholics” put total power within the reach of the Nazis.
+
+5
Mike said...
This is the corrected version of my comment which, owing to my inexperience in editing comments, was not sent instead of the uncorrected version:
New Friend,
Could you please explain to me how “the Roman Catholic Church” put total power within the Nazis reach?
There is also the claim that “German Catholics” put total power within the Nazis' reach.
Now this reminds me of a little controversy which occurred in the electoral ward where I live. In my ward there are three Councillors: a Tory, an SNP Councillor and an Independent Councillor. The Liberal Democrats put out a leaflet in the ward saying that “Independent Councillors” had called for the sale of a Council-owned building. The Independent Councillor in the ward had strongly opposed the sale. Do you see the point? It is a little matter of a missing word: “some”. By omitting the word “some” the Liberal Democrats had tried to create the suspicion that “all” of the Independent Councillors had called for the sale of the building and therefore, by implication, so did the Independent Councillor in the ward. Similarly, by saying “German Catholics” the implication is that it was “all” German Catholics rather than “some” German Catholics.
In a UK context would it be correct to say that all the people who voted Lib Dem in the last General Election put the Tories into power? In a sense, I suppose you could argue that they did, but did they do it deliberately? Did they mean to do it? Was it what they intended?
You could also claim that all the people who voted Labour in the previous General Election are to blame for the war on Iraq.
You could also argue that because Julius Streicher, the editor of the anti-Semitic newspaper Die Stürmer, was a notorious homosexual and Rheinard Heydrich, the Butcher of Prague, was thrown out of the German Navy for being a homosexual, that homosexuals caused persecution of Jews. It’s all a matter of those little words “all” and “some” again, isn’t it.
Incidentally, I notice that you didn’t refute the claim that atheists put into power the notorious tyrants Stalin, Mao-Tse Tung and Pol Pot. To have refuted that claim would have undermined the claim that “German Catholics” put total power within the reach of the Nazis.
+
New Friend said...
Mike
I rather thing you are getting into a lather over nothing. What the guy said was:-
"who surely must be aware of the fact that it was German Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church who put total power within the Nazis’ reach"
He didn't say "some", but he also didn't say "all". The general point remains doesn't it. The tipping point came because a particular party, which comprised almost exclusively of Catholics, was voted in almost exclusively by Catholics and supported by the RC Church, decided to cast their votes in favour of Hitler's resolution. I don't make, and I don't think he was making, the suggestion that the RC Church or it's members knew what was coming next or that they approved of it. The statement was made as a balance to the suggestion that we might see the rise of Nazism again and that this is why Christian values need to be maintained.
Your other points all have equal merit. The consequences of some actions cannot be forseen and if they were then those who took the decisions they did might well have reversed them. I don't think that Stalin, Mao-Tse Tung or Pol Pot came to power by way of a popular vote conducted with the sort of free and fair elections we recognise in our country. They were all communists who took power rather than were given it by popular vote. That they were atheists as well means almost nothing in the context of their actions.
+
+2
Mike said...
Dear New Friend,
“A lather over nothing”, eh? Now let me see, who was it that made the comment that the atheist who made the original comments was correct? So, it would seem that for the atheist to make his comment is OK but for somebody to question his comment is to get into a lather over ‘nothing’. Hmmmn. Perhaps you are getting into a lather over ‘nothing’ by your very participation in commenting on Bishop Davies? I rather think that the ‘lather over nothing’ sort of comment is used by people who are a bit ‘intoxicated by the exuberance of their own verbosity’, if I may borrow that excellent phrase from Mr Disraeli. Or to give it in full: “A sophistical rhetorician, inebriated with the exuberance of his own verbosity, and gifted with an egotistical imagination that can at all times command an interminable and inconsistent series of arguments to malign an opponent and to glorify himself.” A tad suspicious of a condescending mind which is associated with arrogance.
By the way, the Centre Party was supported by the German Bishops. That is not the same as “the Roman Catholic Church”. Nor is there any evidence that the German Bishops supported the Centre Party’s decision to vote for the Enabling Law. Just for your information, as you seem to be unaware of the fact, the Roman Catholic Church consists of all baptised Catholics, not just a few Bishops. In 1933 the majority of Catholics did not even live in Germany. So to claim that “the Roman Catholic Church” helped the Nazis to gain full power is just nonsense. It is like claiming that the United Nations is responsible for something because a few member countries did something.
Also, I nowhere claimed that Stalin, etc had come to power by means of popular elections. Of course they did not. But who supported them? What kind of people joined the Communist Party of the Soviet Union? I don’t think that the Communists who gave Stalin one promotion after another until he eventually became the Secretary General of the Party were noted for their church-going habits. So your reply is just irrelevant.
+
New Friend said...
Mike
OK, so it would have been better expressed if he had said "some members of the Roman Catholic Church". Point taken, but the substantive one remains true. It was via the Church, or it's representatives, that these things came to pass.
I have no idea whether it was only atheists who formed the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Do you have any evidence of what the membership was, or are you just making assumptions? I realise that they moved steadily away from recognising religious belief but at the beginning? I am not so sure.
+
+29
Policraticus said...
Thanks Mike
as far as the comment
"This posturing nitwit – who surely must be aware of the fact that it was German Catholics and the Roman Catholic Church who put total power within the Nazis reach.." is concerned I would like to say: (apologies for the length)
The Nazi Party persecuted the church placed unfriendly Catholic and Protestant priests and ministers in concentration camps, and called Adolf Hitler both the political and God-like spiritual head of the German nation. The Gestapo were active even to the extent of intruding into confessionals to trap priests into making unguarded statements. Priests were kept under active surveillance. Hundreds of clergy were arraigned before Nazi courts of summary jurisdiction and condemned to death or internment in concentration camps. In Dachau alone, no fewer than 2,771 priests were imprisoned, with at least 1,000 dying from hunger, disease or ill-treatment. The British saw an opportunity to work on the religious sentiments of the German people. (and here is the really interesting FACT)
The RAF dropped millions of Leaflet E.H. 526 entitled “The Sermon of Bishop Clemens, Count of Graf, spoken on 13 July 1941.” The British Government disseminated other leaflets from 20 October to 27 November 1941. Leaflet E.H. 528 is “A Sermon of the Bishop of Münster and Correspondence with a Reich Minister accusing the Gestapo.” The RAF dropped these leaflets from 27 November to 12 December 1941. Leaflet E.H.529 is a booklet entitled “The Enemy in our Midst.” It is the sermon of the Bishop of Münster, Count Clemens von Galen, spoken on 20 July 1941. Münster was the ecclesiastical capital of the strongly Catholic region of Westphalia. The Bishop had attacked the Nazis since the very early days of the Party’s rise to power in the 1930s. Von Galen took a consistently courageous stand against the racial and eugenic policies of Hitler and the Gestapo, and was unrelenting in his criticism of them. In the sermon, he criticizes the Nazis and encourages Catholics to stand against them. He attacked the Gestapo mercilessly. Some of his comments are:
"No German citizen had any defense against their power; they have replaced the courts and are above the law. Not one of us is certain, though he be the most loyal, the most conscientious citizen, though he knows himself innocent; I say that not one of us is certain that he will not any day be dragged from his house and carried off to the cells of some concentration camp. I know full well that this may happen to me, perhaps now or on some future day. And it is because I shall then no longer be able to speak out publicly that I do so today. I openly warn them not to pursue these actions which I am firmly convinced will call down God's punishment and bring our people to misery and ruin." and elsewhere;
"Last Sunday I publicly indicted, and branded as wrong, shrieking to heaven, the action of the Gestapo in closing the religious housing in Wilkinghege and those of the Jesuits in Münster, confiscating buildings and contents, hunting the inmates on the street and driving them from their homeland. The Gau administration confiscated the Convent of Lourdes of the Frauenstrasse."
He goes on to mention dozens of monasteries and religious institutions that the Nazis closed and looted.
He discusses the lack of a religious education for the children, forced to join the Hitler youth. He attacks the loss of religious schools in Germany.
"We clearly see and learn what is behind the new doctrines that for some years have been forced upon us. Religion is banned from the classroom, our societies are suppressed, and the Catholic kindergarten is in danger of destruction. An abysmal hate of Catholicism, which they wish to exterminate."
Copies of the 1941 sermons spread all over Germany; hundreds of thousands were printed in response to requests from many cities. These and other sermons were so important to the Allies that they were printed by the millions and dropped by the RAF as anti-Nazi propaganda all over Germany and the occupied territories. One of the directors of propaganda in the British War Office was Brig. General R. L. Sedgwick. He recalls that the bishop's sermons provided the War Office with the most powerful anti-Hitler propaganda. (Sedgwick later became a Catholic and wrote a ppost war biography of Von Galen) The BBC sent out transmissions specifically targeting the forty million German-speaking Catholics. Day after day. The radio broadcasts from London drove home the point of Hitler's hatred for Catholicism. The bishop's sermons were like "manna from heaven" (according to the Foreign Office) in the propaganda war against the Nazis.
So too ought Bishop Davies's sermons and homilies be rgarded as "manna from heaven" during these dark and troubled times for truly English Catholic Christian values
+
+1
New Friend said...
Policraticus
All of which is like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted. The remark was about how Hitler came to power and not what happened subsequently.
Making comparisions with those days and now is an extremely stupid and irresponsible tactic for it pays no heed to the totally different environment in which politics now operates. You know full well that governments today cannot suppress information. Even the Chinese are failing to do it. No totalarian regime could now emerge and the few that remain are under threat from freedom. This is especially true of the UK, where our unique constitutional monarchy provides an additional layer of protection.
To raise the specter of Nazis coming to power here, or suggesting that current political trends replicate theirs is really a very stupid thing to suggest. Rather than encourage any engagement with the debate it is likely to put him, and those who think the same way, outside of it, as people whose views cannot be taken seriously.
+
+26
epsilon said...
Many thanks for your very knowledgable contributions Policraticus!
Meanwhile to get back to the present the real unadulterated nitwits are the 77% so-called Catholics in Ireland who think loyalty to The Pope is less than an optional extra. There seems to be hardly a priest in Ireland now who has not been contaminated with the neothink - may God help us all. Coming to Ireland for Holy Easter has been shocking. To give an example out of three churches I attended for Easter services, two had priests who implied we should have women priests - the third was Tridentine. The website of the diocese of Cork and Ross gives prominence to Mary t Malone but scant reference to the heroic activities of the parish priest of St Peter and Paul's.
The majority of the Irish population are now happy to sacrifice their children to every form of sexual disease in their embracing of freedom from Catholic "oppression" - where are the nitwits??
+
+25
Mike Carroll said...
Well lets look at the evidence to see if Bishop Mark might be on to something here.
1) 24 hour a day surveilance cameras prevalent throughout UK society.
2) Brand new UK DNA databank with over 6 million samples and counting.
3. UK Government want to change the law to have access to all your emails and on-line data.
4. No anonymity in UK voting (despite the fact that it is a common held belief you are anonymous when you vote).
All this sound familiar? Ever heard of the Stasi?
The trouble with people who put their total faith in the state often find out that when they thought they where good law abiding citizens that the law is suddenly changed so that even the most innocent are categorised as guilty.
Throughout history this has been a primary tool used to control populations when a presumably decent country suddenly became a totalitarian state.
I choose to but my faith in God and not the state. He is far more reliable.
+
+25
Phil Atkinson said...
and a few more:
5) State-sponsored child abuse in the name of "sex education".
6) Creation of "protected groups" (as defined by Guardianistas) with their own privileges under law.
7) Harassment of non-protected groups (most notably Christians) in the workplace
+
+1
New Friend said...
Phil
Not giving a child effective sex education would much more properly be described as child abuse, than in providing it.
The "guardianistas" is simply an insulting term dreamed up by right wing commentators to describe those who wish to see social progress. It is no more real than the tooth fairy.
To complain about "protected groups" when the most protected of all are the religious is a little ironic.
No-one is harressing Christians. This frequently made claim is just the persecution complex which seems to have grown as other groups have sought to build a more level playing field. You are reacting to others getting their rights established. No-one I know has any interest in making your life difficult. What the interest is in is making the lives of others better, fairer and more equal.
+
+18
Phil Atkinson said...
Reslly, is that the best you can do?
Effective sex education is of course desirable, but the state has no business providing it.
If you can take offence at the term "Guardianista" you really are a delicate little flower. And, incidetally, can you define "social progress"? Does that include the collapse of the family among the welfare classes? Mass slaughter of unborn children?
The most protected of all are indeed religious. Just not Christian.
All rights should apply equally, otherwise they're not rights, they're privileges (in the original meaning of the word). It's nowadays a far more serious crime, and punished far more severely, if one assaults a member of a protected group than if one assaults a non-protected person. In what sense does that represent "a level playing field"? Should not the crime of assault be punished equally?
+
+1
New Friend said...
Phil
Of course it is the state's business. It is essential that all our children receive such education and organising it through the schools is the only way we can ensure that. Leaving it to parents alone is a recipe for a disaster. Not all parents are the caring ideal that you seem to think exists for every kid.
I don't get offended at the term, "Guardianista". I just want you to know that it is commonly perceived as a ridiculous and inaccurate insult used by those on the far right. If you want to be associated with them, that's your choice.
Social progress can be measured many ways, and much remains to be done. The breakdown of the family is of real concern and does need a lot of work. The solution though is not, and never ever will be again, a return to a mass belief in God. Those days are gone for ever. I of course reject your emotionally charged inaccuracy "mass slaughter of unborn children".
Of course rights must apply equally to all, and without favour to any. I fail to see where any "protected group" is receiving special treatment. Assault is assault and will be treated the same way who-ever is affected. Maybe you can specify where you consider such inequalities are happening.
+
+18
Phil Atkinson said...
You only have to look at the relevant numbers to see that it's the state's involvement in sex education that has proved disastrous, not that of loving parents whose first concern is the wellbeing of their children. Just look at the numbers.
In the circles I move in, the word "Guardianista" is used by people of all political opinions. You should get out more.
If you reject the term "mass slaughter of unborn children" as emotionally charged, can you suggest an alternative which isn't euphemistic to the point of mendacity? And in what sense is it inaccurate? Are you saying that the mass slaughter of unborn children over the past forty years never happened? If it didn't, that's the best news I've heard in my lifetime. If it did, doesn't that make you something of a denier?
"Assault is assault and will be treated the same way" is just plain untrue. Read this fact sheet from the Crown Prosecution Service:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/fact_sheets/racially_aggravated_offences/
+
+1
New Friend said...
Phil
Fine. You tell me what % of children now live with "loving parents"? Define a "loving parent" for me. I suspect mine would be different to yours. I don't consider any parent who teaches only Catholic values at home to be "loving", because they deny kids essential information and provide a distorted view of life. We need to improve school sex and relationship education and not abandon it. To do so would be a complete and total disaster. I think you must move in some odd circles. "Guardianista" is definitely a term used by those on the far right, to pour scorn on those on the left.
I am not going to re-open the over rehearsed abortion debate. I will just say that if you don't believe that abortion is killing a child, but "the deliberate termination of a human pregnancy, most often performed during the first 28 weeks" (OED) then to describe it as "mass slaughter" or of "unborn children" is inaccurate. Glad to bring you some good news.
As to the crime of "racially aggravated assault" the key is the word "aggravated". The basic assault remains exactly the same but if a Court determines there was a racial motivation that can be separately assessed. It is an additional charge, and does not replace the basic one. Quite right too. I trust you agree with the need to stamp out racialism in our society.
+
+13
Phil Atkinson said...
So Christian values represent "a distorted view of life"? Which other values should children be taught? Liberalism, obviously, but what about Muslim, or Buddhist, or Nazi?
Loving parents bring up their children to respect themselves and other, to have an awareness that their actions have consequences, and to treat others as they themselves would wish to be treated. You'll find it in the Gospel of St Luke, Chapter 10, verses 25-28. Or do you disagree with that? Lots of liberals do, you know. It wasn't the priest-ridden Catholics who rioted last year, after all, but the products of an educational system informed by impeccably liberal and relativist values, and of the nationalised family in which fathers aren't even optional, just unnecessary.
I must mention your comment about Guardianistas to a couple of my Labour MP friends, both of whom use it freely.
Ah, the eternal "termination" euphemism, right up there with "final solution". You know that "termination" is the preferred euphemism for "killing" at the CIA? And since when has killing an unborn child been a matter of belief rather than of fact? Are you implying that they're somehow not killed?
You can only commit an aggravated crime against a member of a protected group. No crime against a non-protected person can be aggravated. Not equal.
I don't think racialism can be "stamped out". That's the language of a failing liberalism. If we follow the precept in Luke 10: 25-28 racism will just die of itself. One wonders whether all liberals - particularly those who make their living out of it one way or another - would be entirely happy to see it disappear.
+
New Friend said...
Phil
I did not say Christian values. I said, and meant, Catholic ones, because I think they have strayed far from the path of true Christian ones, especially those to be found on the far right, traditional, conservative wing. I think true Christian values have a lot to teach us and much of our society's ethical foundations are built on them. However we are now taking them further and using our knowledge and developing intelligence to introduce additional concepts. I suspect we can learn things from both Islam and Buddhism. We certainly need to respect both. Nazism has no place in anyone's thinking, which is why when it surfaces in some of the things I read from Catholics I am always shocked. I also believe in the "golden rule" and just wish it was applied by everyone. I find it to be markedly absent from many comments here.
Genuinely loving parents will do a good job, but they are not to be found everywhere these days and I see no comment from you on that. The idea that a Catholic child will only receive the information that their parents wish to give them is an anathema to me. The schools have to provide a counter point, to ensure every child receives an alternative viewpoint. It ought to be compulsory in my view.
I don't know how many of the rioters last year came from Catholic families. Do you or are you just making assumptions? That there is a huge societal problem is undeniable, but to suggest that it is all because of a "liberal" agenda is transparent nonsense. It is much deeper than that and requires radical solutions involving us all.
Your Labour MP friends must come from the old traditional wing of the party. Maybe I will mention to my Conservative MP, who I know but not as a friend. He comes from the progressive wing of the Tory party but sits in a deeply conservative area and remains hugely popular.
I am not, of course suggesting that killing a child would be anything less than "killing". I don't play with words to make points. The argument on abortion is not that, and never has been. You see a foetus as an "unborn child". I don't. I see it as a foetus. Aborting it is therefore not killing a child. It is the termination of a pregnancy, to be decided by the woman who is pregnant, but within specific restrictions which have been determined by us.
An aggravated crime is a different offence. The original offence remains true for all. You should note that there are but two categories of aggravated crime. The first is racial. the second are acts against people because of their religion. You are therefore in the category of a "protected group".
Racism, like all forms of bigotry, will likely never die out completely. Whilst there are imperfect people, there will be intolerant views. Which is why we must take steps to limit it's impact on others.
+
+12
Phil Atkinson said...
Mike -
I very much like your line about putting your faith in God and not the state. You're not the first to have done so:
Esperance en Dieu,
Trust in hym, he is most true.
En Dieu Esperance,
In hym put thyne affiaunce.
Esperance in the worlde ? Nay,
The worlde variethe every day.
Esperance in riches? Nay, not so;
Riches slidethe, and soone will go.
Esperance in ezaltacion of honour?
Nay, it widderethe away, lyke a flower,
Esperance en Dieu, in hym is all,
Which is above Fortune's fall.
This verse was inscribed on the frieze in the great hall of the Percys’ palace at Leconfield, just north of Beverley (now an RAF station). Given the fortunes of the Percys at the time, it was no more than a statement of the obvious.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
There is nothing remotely nazi like in the things you cite. Surveliance cameras are there to protect citizens, not threaten them. Abide by the law and there is no problem. Break it and the camera will help us catch the criminal. They also enable swifter responses to emergencies and a record of events to be available. A DNA databank is also a sensible development, which is simply a method of positive identification. Only those who have something to hide need fear it. I am unaware of any serious proposal for a general right to monitor emails and other online communications. It can only be done in special circumstances and there are many checks and balances to ensure it is only done when really necessary. Once again, in all our interests. If an act of terrorism is so prevented I am sure you would agree too. There are no cameras in voting stations, nor any record kept of who votes for whom, so I don't understand your slur on the system.
These are just modern developments, new tools which benefit us all. Previous societies would have readily accepted them, but they weren't available. Only those with feet of clay and a conspiracy mindset wish to stand in the way of progress and throw up ridiculous objections about a totalitarian state being established. It just isn't true.
Of course we need to ensure that the laws remain fair and that we all participate in making them. It seems to me we are getting much better at that, and not worse. The trend is towards equality and inclusion and not away from them. Once done we should not complain about using modern tools to ensure that everyone follows the laws we have determined.
You put your faith in God as much as you like, but I am certain that our modern democratic state looks after you very well and provides no threat whatsoever. It is all just in your mind. It isn't real.
+
+24
Nicolas Bellord said...
NF: You may not agree with the views here but do stop calling those views and by implication and those who hold them stupid.
As to the list of worrying proposals I would add the proposal to hear certain criminal cases in secret. Further I believe that anti-terrorist legislation has been used when there is no hint of terrorism e.g. in dealing with people protesting against new runways at Heathrow.
Early on Hitler passed a law requiring all members of the armed forces to obey every command of their officers. Nobody batted an eyelid at the time as naive people believed that no German officer would command murder of innocent civilians.
My sense is that that there is a present view that traditional Christian morality can be ignored and the only guide to conduct is what the legislature allows or disallows. Thus we have ever-increasing limitation of our freedoms as Parliament decides what is good and not good for us on the flimsiest of grounds.
+
+7
Phil Atkinson said...
It's always puzzled me that it's precisely the same people who set such great store by being rational and able to think for themselves (as opposed to benighted, priest-ridden Catholics) who tend to be the most eager to outsource their morality to elected politicians. Such confidence in politicians has on occasion turned out to be misplaced, as Oliver Cromwell observed on 20th April 1653:
It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonored by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice; ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary wretches, and would like Esau sell your country for a mess of pottage, and like Judas betray your God for a few pieces of money.
Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you?
Is there one vice you do not possess? Ye have no more religion than my horse; gold is your God; which of you have not barter’d your conscience for bribes?
Is there a man amongst you that has the least care for the good of the Commonwealth?
Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defil’d this sacred place, and turn’d the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices? Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people to get grievances redress’d, are yourselves gone!
So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors. In the name of God, go!
+
+1
New Friend said...
Nicolas
I have reviewed my use of the term stupid. One was applied in very general terms to people of high education. The other was a reaction to the concept of trying to equate the dark days in the 1930s in Germany with today. I am sorry, but I do regard that as pretty stupid. In fact, given all the very strange attitudes which are being expressed, my use of the term has been quite restrained.
There would have to be an over-riding reason for any case to be heard in private. The security we now have is that for this to be done there are lots of inbuilt checks and balances to make sure that the power is not abused. Whether the Police make wrong use of anti-terror legislation I cannot comment. All I would say is that in today's open and fast moving world any such abuse could not long be kept secret. Someone would expose it and that is our greatest barrier to any possible return to totalitarianism. What Hitler did could never be repeated in the UK in 2012. Things have moved on and you need to realise that. Do you seriously, honestly, believe that such a thing is even remotely possible?
No-one is ignoring traditional Christian morality! That is a common complaint of the religious lobby, but it's wrong. You have every much as big an opportunity to influence policy as everyone else. What we are doing is building on it and introducing new concepts from other areas of thought. The last thing we want is a return to a theocracy.
+
+8
Nicolas Bellord said...
NF: What checks and balances? A certificate from a Minister - a politician? It is not just the police who have misused anti-terrorist legislation but the courts if I remember correctly. You obviously have a greater faith in our legal system than I do! It requires constant vigilance and that is why many are concerned.
+
New Friend said...
Nicolas
That is the whole point I am making. There are so many watching things now that it is almost impossible for anything to be kept concealed. With the internet and the freedom of information Act we need have little fear of abuse going undetected, which is why there will be little or no abuse. Times have changed and are now very much better than they were, not worse.
+
+7
Nicolas Bellord said...
I wonder how long the internet will go unregulated. Further I wonder what your experience of the Freedom of Information Act is. Yes you can get some information but when matters get awkward "redaction" is copiously used by Government departments to redline out the embarassing bits - that is if you get anything at all and have to appeal to an Information Commissioner overburdened with requests, starved of funds and partially castrated.
I spend ten years working on the Equitable Life scandal. The Parliamentary Ombudsman has the power to obtain documents in the same way as a High Court judge much to the Treasury's disgust but it is clear there is a level of government where disclosure never happens. You see the preparation for a meeting with a minister, you see the aftermath but no minutes are actually kept of what happened at the meeting - or so we are told. There was criminal fraud at the highest level in the regulatory apparatus but it will never be prosecuted.
But to go back to Bishop Mark Davies and his homily which I believe you thought was stupid. "The Freethinker" wrote "Davies, according to this report, used the PAGAN festival to warn Britons that if they persisted in undermining Christianity, the country would fall victims to “the most sinister of ideologies” – such as Nazism." and then called him a "posturing nitwit".
You then wrote:
Anyone who suggests that undermining Christianity is likely to lead to Nazism is, indeed, speaking as a nitwit. There is not a grain of truth in it.
Well may I suggest you read what the Bishop actually said at:
http://www.dioceseofshrewsbury.org/news/latest-news/easter-homily-of-bishop-davies-the-full-text
where he says:
It has, indeed, been the experience of this past century, as both Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI have observed how the most poisonous ideologies have arisen within the Christian nations of Europe. Thus Nazism or Communism attempted to discard the Christian inheritance of faith and morality as if it had never existed. They sought either to return to the pagan past or to “re-create” and “redeem” humanity by political will and ideology with terrible consequences. If Christianity is no longer to form the basis and the bedrock of our society then we are, indeed, left at the mercy of passing political projects and perhaps even the most sinister of ideologies.
Please note the word "perhaps" in the last sentence. There is no "would" or "likely". It is also worth reading the Pope's address to the Bundestag.
Surely the point he was making is that Christianity has moulded our ideas of morality. If you then chuck out those ideas what do you put in their place? There is the danger that what you put in its place may be nasty. What is stupid about saying that? Has not what he said been distorted?
You speak of "introducing new concepts from other areas of thought". I would be interested to know which areas you are thinking of.
+
New Friend said...
Nicolas
I acknowledge the inperfections of the system and the way some government departments resist releasing things. I don't though think this is a deliberate policy produced by the politicians but rather a rear guard action of the civil servants. It will gradually be brought under control. Sir Humphrey will not triumph. I myself am embroiled in a battle with HMRC over the release of certain data to me. They are resisting but I am quite sure that in time I will obtain it.
I am also happy to acknowledge the contribution that our Christian heritage has made to the development of our national ethics and morality. I don't though believe this is about to be abandoned but rather I think it is being built upon and extended. We are not chucking out anything. We are introducing new ideas alongside the old, comparing them and running with what suits today's needs. The other areas of thought are of course diverse. There has been a strong trend towards inclusivity and away from discrimination which affects many areas of public life. I fail to see how any fair minded person could possibly object to such a development.
It seems to me that those with a religious viewpoint believe that those without are automatically bereft of morality, and are concerned that, as a consequence, society will be rudderless, given that the latter group are now in the majority. Its just not true. I regard myself as a Humanist, but I am not a member of any society which tells me what I must think. I do that for myself. My morality, and that of many others, comes from being a human being and from eons of evolution shaping my instincts and attitudes.
+
+7
Nicolas Bellord said...
NF: You write "My morality, and that of many others, comes from being a human being and from eons of evolution shaping my instincts and attitudes."
Sounds a bit like natural law to me!
However the legalising of abortion and the easing of the law against euthanasia are in direct contradiction to Christian ethics at the most fundamental level as they involve the deliberate killing of human beings. It is not just that Christian ethics are being added to but that Christian ethics are being discarded in favour of utilitarianism, consequentialism, eugenics and other theories which Christians regard as very dangerous.
+
New Friend said...
Nicolas
You can call it whatever you like. I would not equate it with what Catholics sometimes regard as "natural law" because their's is often shaped to suit their own prejudices. Too often something is justified as being being permitted because of a claim it falls under "natural law" when it is no such thing at all. It is simply a Catholic worldview and "natural law" the smokescreen.
No doubt you would regard your view on abortion as being founded on "natural law" and we part company immediately. There is nothing un-Christian about accepting abortion, contraception, women priests or gay marriage. They are un-Catholic which is quite different. Christian ethics can vary and like it or not you don't have a veto over them, so should not elect yourselves as spokesmen for the other denominations. We are building on Christian ethics as our knowledge and understanding improves. You might not see it, but I can. I don't see us giving up any of the good solid principals which Christianity, and many other religions, espouse. I see us getting rid of the baggage, taking the core and building upon it.
I leave aside eugenics and euthanasia because I don't believe either are permitted, will be permitted, or should be permitted. On that we are lined up but unlike you I am not worried because I think most of the population are with us and always will be.
+
+1
Nicolas Bellord said...
NF: Well we seem to be agreeing that there is something called natural law and that surely is progress! It is just that we are going to have to disagree as to what that law says.
+
+21
shieldsheafson said...
Slightly off the point (ever so slightly ...) but St. Augustine (nitwit??) wrote this 16-centuries ago:-
It is incredible that Jesus Christ should have risen in the flesh and ascended with flesh into heaven;
it is incredible that the world should have believed so incredible a thing;
it is incredible that a very few men, of mean birth and the lowest rank, and no education, should have been able so effectually to persuade the world, and even its learned men, of so incredible a thing.
Of these three incredibles, the parties with whom we are debating refuse to believe the first;
they cannot refuse to see the second,
which they are unable to account for if they do not believe the third.
City of God XXII. 5
... and these people have adopted the rhetoric of 'enlightenment' and 'rational' to themselves! ???
+
+1
New Friend said...
shieldsheafson
I know nothing of St Augustine but let's examine his reported words:-
"It is incredible that Jesus Christ should have risen in the flesh and ascended with flesh into heaven"
No it isn't because in all probability He didn't. If will keep my reasoning on this private for the moment.
"it is incredible that the world should have believed so incredible a thing"
No it isn't. This was 16 centuries ago when an explanation like this would have seemed logical. What would be incredible would be if it happened today, and people believed it. With modern knowledge and sceptism I don't think it would happen again.
"it is incredible that a very few men, of mean birth and the lowest rank, and no education, should have been able so effectually to persuade the world, and even its learned men, of so incredible a thing."
Of the three, that is the most incredible which can only mean there were some special circumstances affecting it. My own opinion is that the those with power saw this as a wonderful opportunity to control the people. A promise of a better life after death, provided they behaved as they were instructed to, is a good motivation. I think it was exploited.
The enlightenment has simply been the questioning of all the previous assumptions and the re-examination of them in the light of modern knowledge. What is to be feared from that? Shining a light into corners is hardly a bad thing is it? We have found some pretty dark secrets lurking there. Yes, it's rational and I afraid that to just refuse to acknowledge modern knowledge is not.
+
+20
Phil Atkinson said...
Just wondering -
When you say "The enlightenment has simply been the questioning of all the previous assumptions and the re-examination of them in the light of modern knowledge" you claim superiority by virtue of being modern. Yet many things which we now condemn utterly were once, in their day, regarded as being "modern".
I'm just wondering which piece of modern liberal received wisdom (as opposed to the outdated and old-fashioned wisdom of the Church that you seem to despise) do you think will be regarded by future, even more modern, generations as being utterly wrong-headed and despicable? Or is the liberalism espoused by Guardianistas (oops!) perfect in every respect, for all time?
As I say, just wondering.
+
+25
shieldsheafson said...
New Friend
Once again, a masterclass of studied ignorance. This is a Catholic blog: You really need to get to grips with the views of serious religious thinkers. May I politely suggest C.S. Lewis's 'Mere Christianity'.
The basic philosophical case for the existence of God, the immortality of the soul, the natural law conception of morality, the Resurrection, etc., is fairly straightforward.
The problem that surrounds the average person's thinking about religion is due in no small part to the self-styled 'Enlightenment' thinkers' obscurantism; an impenetrable philosophical smokescreen of unexamined assumptions, falsehoods, clichés, caricatures, prejudices, propaganda and general muddle-headedness.
+
+1
New Friend said...
shieldsheafson
You are having a laugh aren't you?
"an impenetrable philosophical smokescreen of unexamined assumptions, falsehoods, clichés, caricatures, prejudices, propaganda and general muddle-headedness."
This would be a pretty well put description of how non believers perceive religion. Which only goes to show how people can look at something and come to completely opposing opinions.
Being a "serious thinker" about anything does not prove a thing if the place you are starting from is wrong. There are plenty of "serious thinkers" who take the opposite line. You may believe I am ignorant, that's your right. I may believe you are very rude. That's mine. I am content to rely upon my own judgement on matters and not defer to others. No religion has yet provided me with any evidence which comes close to even making me question my disbelief. You think all you like, and so will I.
The enlightenment was a questioning, a re-appraisal of long held assumptions. What on earth is wrong with that? If everything was true it would be capable of withstanding any critical examination. That some found it wanting raises serious questions and to dismiss it so lightly with insults is not going to achieve very much. The questions need to be answered and not avoided.
+
+2
New Friend said...
Phil
We doubtless will go on learning and refining. Nothing is cast in stone. We can always do better. There is no special merit in anything being modern. It has to stand up to examination just as everything else does. What is wrong is just to reject it and assume that what was once acceptable must always be and can never be improved. We need to shine that light and if it reveals a better way, to take it, until an even better one is found. If the old fashioned wisdom remains true then by all means stay with it, but only after a critical examination of the alternatives. I don't reject old things just because they are old. I reject them if they are wrong. Some Catholics reject the modern without any thought.
+
+18
Phil Atkinson said...
"Nothing is cast in stone", eh? So that's the Ten Commandments out of the window then. Which ones do you recommend we get rid of? Adultery of course, but what about theft, or murder? Do tell.
You posit some equivalent of the scientific method, by which society learns what's good by a process of experimentation. Given the rise in crime, violence, murder, family breakdown and its consequent ills, not to mention the sheer solipsism which is the result of liberal relativism, would you say the current liberal experiment in morality is proving to be an unqualified success? And, if not, what liberal solutions (ie those not based on Christian principles) do you recommend to address these problems?
Just asking.
Oh, and precisely how does one cast something in stone?
+
+1
New Friend said...
Phil
From 5 onwards the "Ten Commandments" represent good common sense. You don't need to have any religious belief to understand them, or abide by them. The first ones are for those with belief alone. However, although I have never attempted to do it, I am sure that with today's knowledge we could improve those 6 and add a few more. No need to get rid, but to build. Your criticism of the current state of affairs is, partly at least, a criticism of yourselves for the decline started when religious belief was still very much entrenched in political thinking. I would argue that what you call "liberalism" (and I would simply call democracy) is the answer but it has not yet had enough time to establish itself, and is being resisted by those who believe the old ways were best. Time alone will prove whether I am right, but I see the current political trends as the cure and not the illness.
+
+1
Michael said...
Having read the sermon, I'm not convinced Bishop Davies actually meant quite what he is reported as meaning. He doesn't say that without Christianity, our society will subside into barbarism. What he does seem to be doing is arguing that our values have been to a large extent shaped by Christian tradition. He seems to be challenging non-Christians to really think about what it is they believe, and reflect seriously on how much their ideals owe to a Christian intellectual/moral heritage.
There is no automatic link between atheism and ghastly ideological phenomena like Nazism. It would be foolish to claim that there is. Aside from lacking in evidence, such a claim under-estimates the capacity of God to work through atheists. It simply is not the case that once a person becomes atheist, they automatically become a Nazi or a mass murderer or whatever. God continues to work through them, and continues to provide them with a voice of conscience. Just as he provides a conscience for theists (who can, of course, be just as rotten as atheists).
+
+1
New Friend said...
Michael
Thank you for your very sensible observations. I have no problem with you believing that "God" works through people like me. If that is your opinion I can respect it. I don't agree, but it doesn't really matter so long as we can work together towards making a better world and the mindset which suggests that anyone without a belief automatically is evil, is abandoned. As you say there are good and bad people from both sides and what is important is that the good work together and not fight one another. We face enough problems without creating those we can avoid.
+
+14
Mike Carroll said...
COME ON PEOPLE!!!!!!!
Get with the program! Are you all stupid!! (Yes, I did call you all stupid - and I do not care).
After seven months of this New Friend nonsense can none of you see that he is just goading you! For goodness sake get a grip and do not rise to it. Do not reply. It is a waste of time.
He is only interested in telling you that white is actually black.
You can not help him, you can not save him, and you can not make him see it our way by reasoning with him.
Do you not get it -
This is his latest attempt to goad you gullible, gullible people!
NF Said -
"I did not say Christian values. I said, and meant, Catholic ones, because I think they have strayed far from the path of true Christian ones, especially those to be found on the far right, traditional, conservative wing. I think true Christian values have a lot to teach us and much of our society's ethical foundations are built on them.
St James says
'DO NOT ENGAGE IN POINTLESS PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT'
For goodness sake.
If one of you turned round and all of a sudden said that you 100% agreed with everything NF had ever said he would still turn round and say you were wrong.
He is only interested in pathologically arguing with you.
+
+11
Catherine said...
Mike....I agree wholeheartedly....NF;s previous comment quoted below is enough reason for ALL faithful-decent-minded Catholic parents NOT to engage with him on this blog....it is pointless. He regards Catholic parents who instil Catholic values in their children as equivalent to 'parallel societies' just as Hitler did....
"I don't consider any parent who teaches only Catholic values at home to be "loving", because they deny kids essential information and provide a distorted view of life.
+
New Friend said...
Catherine
Whether you, or anyone else "engages" with me or not is entirely up to you. However I think it ought to be important to you to realise how your stance towards your children looks from outside your faith. If you don't care about that, then I cannot help you. It has nothing to do with Hitler, or any attitude like that. It is about how your behaviour looks.
My view does not just apply to Catholic parents. It applies to any parent who seeks to provide only THEIR view of the world to their kids, because it says to me that they regard their kids as possessions and it is for them to determine their worldview and not the kids themselves. Any group which proposes such a purpose is not really acting in a loving way towards their children. They are acting in a controlling way.
I personally believe every child should have the right to receive, at school, a wider view than just their parents about things like religion and sex education. It will then be for them to make their own evaluations as they mature. I believe that to be particularly important in today's society and especially with the Muslim world. We need to ensure British values are understood and appreciated by every child.
I realise you disagree, but you ought to be aware of how your behaviour appears to others.
+
+11
Phil Atkinson said...
I don't know how you can have the sheer brass neck to start laying down the law about children's rights when you gleefully deny them the most basic right of all - to be born.
+
New Friend said...
Phil
If you bothered to read what I have had to say on this matter you would understand very easily. That is because, in my opinion, an abortion is not killing a child. It is terminating a pregnacy, which is very different. I respect the fact that you have another opinion, but would like that you return the favour.
So when I express my opinions about children's rights they come from a different starting point. I could just as freely accuse many Catholics of having a "brass neck" over many of their entrenched positions. I don't because I know how deeply you hold your convictions and want to try to find the common ground so that the differences can be minimised to the benefit of everyone. It's difficult, because the one word which seems to be missing from the Catholic dictionary is compromise, at least in the one held by those sitting on the fringes and throwing stones at those in the middle who are actually trying to run the show.
+
+8
Phil Atkinson said...
The right to kill an unborn child renders all other "rights" a child may have conditional, ie no "right" at all. Compromise on this is neither possible nor desirable.
+
New Friend said...
Phil
It is that sort of reply which is so unhelpful. If you don't equate an abortion with killing a child then what you say is senseless. The way you write means that no-one is entitled to hold another opinion to yours. Has it ever occurred to you that other people have a right to another view, or that you might be wrong?
There is no right to kill a child. There is a right to terminate a pregnancy. There is a difference in law in those two things, even if there is not in your mind. To make progress you really have to learn to be able to deal with that fact.
+
+6
Catholic Mother said...
I agree. I have disciplined myself into quickly scrolling past his comments as I can't see that engaging benefits anyone.
PS Happy Easter. We had a good Easter and were heartened to see more people there than I can remember for some years. On Good Friday the church was full.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
Sorry Mike to have to disagree again. There have been some recent posts which I completely agree with, and have said so. Even the quote you have selected above to show how I disagree with everything, actually agrees that Christian values have much to teach us. Where is the controversy in that?
You are just looking for the points of disagreement and magnifying them. I can only guess because I have, until now, been the only counter point poster on here. I am glad to welcome some others, who I can assure you have no connection with me in any way at all.
+
+11
Mike Carroll said...
Phil
We have all tried with NF and it has gone on too long. He is digging his heals in more and more when we discuss/argue with him now.
All we are now doing is pushing him in the direction of hell. This is because if you argue with him he will never accept Christ has his savior. You are entrenching him in his views more.
We have all tried, and with the help of God he now has to work out his own salvation.
Any body now engaging with NF is now doing it with extremely bad theology and those individuals will be made accountable for his demise on judgement day.
+
+1
New Friend said...
Mike
I give you due credit. Your posts are always good for a smile. All I said to Phil was that whilst I respected and accepted his deeply felt opinions that others don't share them and as a consequence it would be helpful if that respect was reciprocated. I see nothing in that which suggests I am "digging my heels in". Indeed with your oft repeated requests that I need to be sent to Coventry, and am destined for hell, I would suggest that your heels are pretty much buried up to your armpits.
Just so that everyone is aware. I don't want anyone trying to "save" me. Please keep that for others. I am content with my position and have no fear at all, or desire to be "saved". Please use any energy that you have for such activities for doing something useful, like helping the poor, elderly or needy, or improving the opportunites for the oppressed amongst us.
+
+9
Phil Atkinson said...
Point taken, Mike.
Reviewing the troll's contribution to this thread, I can only conclude that it serves to confirm the wisdom of Bishop Davies' original remarks.
+
+14
shieldsheafson said...
The Troll
There comes a point in time when we must ask ourselves to what end we must bring our discussions or what boundary to set on our discourse if we proceed on the principle that we must always reply to those who reply to us.
Some are genuinely unable to understand our arguments. Others are so hardened by the habit of contradiction that although they understand they cannot yield.
If we continue to confute their objections as often as they choose to disregard our arguments or contradict our statements, one may readily see how endless and fruitless and tedious this task is.
If he refuses to seek learning or be instructed and does so from malice, we should refuse to argue any further with him. If he cannot be instructed, he should be warned not to waste his time on what is superfluous.
If he still does not comply, there is no point in paying more attention to him.
+
+1
New Friend said...
shieldsheafson
"Some are genuinely unable to understand our arguments. Others are so hardened by the habit of contradiction that although they understand they cannot yield."
Maybe someone has forgotten Matthew 7:3.
Whilst no-one is right all the time, neither are they wrong all the time. The man who has nothing to learn from others has not yet been born. I try, but the soil I cast my seed upon is truly one which has, over the centuries, been adapted to a mono culture. Evolution works, even within the Catholic Church.
You forget. I am your new friend. I am here to help you and not to seek help from you.
+