Fireman Sam Quran 2
Extremism

Fireman Sam slips on the Qur'an, and all Sharia breaks loose

 

Firstly, it wasn’t Fireman Sam who apparently slipped on a page of the Qur’an; it was Elvis. But the headline ‘Elvis slips on the Qur’an’ would probably cause problems for Graceland or incite hatred against Priscilla and Lisa Marie, so best to go with the brand name, though one understands that this may cause Sam, who is manifestly innocent, some minor inconvenience.

You’d think this would be a complete non-issue. It is a children’s programme, after all, and neither Fireman Sam nor his mate Elvis is recognisably Muslim (at least not practising), so a page from the Qur’an is, to them, just another piece of paper; the Qur’an just another book. If they (accidentally) tread on it, well, that’s unfortunate, but you’d hardly think it would merit a major media brouhaha, with the BBC, Telegraph and the whole Islamic world up in arms (not literally – yet).

And on day when a French priest had his throat slit by Islamists while he was celebrating Mass, you might think the ‘biggest story on Muslim twitter‘ would at least be a wave of assertions that such atrocities are “nothing to do with Islam”; and that the Assistant General Secretary of the Muslim Council of Britain might have something more socially-cohesive to tweet about. But no, Miqdaad Versi is incensed not by the murderous actions of his co-religionists and their onslaught against Christendom (about which he utters not a word), but by the depiction of a Surah Mulk (67), verses 13-26.

Fireman Sam

Mattel, who make the programme, profusely apologised for the “error” and for any distress or offence caused. (But given that Fireman Sam’s creator, David Jones, was once held by Gatwick Airport security for asking why a veiled Muslim woman was not properly checked, it may not have been an error at all). HIT Entertainment, who produce the programme (along with ‘Thomas the Tank Engine’ and ‘Bob the Builder’), also apologised unreservedly, and announced they were cancelling their contract with the animation studio responsible for making the scenes.

The episode (‘Troubled Waters‘) has been pulled from circulation: it is apparently no longer available to view anywhere (though Elvis slipping on the offending page is all over YouTube [for the time being]). Perhaps self-censorship in this instance is fair enough: the last thing Mattel or HIT want is the Charlie Hebdo treatment. Nor do they particularly want to be tarnished with ‘Islamophobia’ and lose a lucrative audience: Thomas the Tank Engine doesn’t transport kegs of beer, and Bob the Builder is never portrayed eating a bacon sandwich. Why cause gratuitous offence?

So Sharia Sam (as he will henceforth be known) must also comply with Qur’anic injunctions to treat the word of Allah with reverence, and Mattel are reviewing their content production procedures to ensure the Qur’an is never disrespected again. They are also considering proposals for ‘Tahmid the Tank Engine’ and ‘Babar the Builder’.

But here’s the victim of the real offence:

Jacques Hamel

Abbé Jacques Hamel, a humble, dedicated, faithful priest since 1958, martyred at the grand old age of 85 for his faith in Jesus Christ. He is the 236th victim of 11 jihadist attacks in France since January 2015. But his murder wasn’t random: when Islamists target a priest celebrating Mass, they are attacking the divine communion at the heart Christendom. Christians throughout the Middle East have lived with such threats for decades and centuries: Christians in Europe will now reap what our political leaders have sown.

By all means, fulminate about ‘Fireman Sam’ and a page of the Qur’an if you wish. But being a priest in Europe just became a life-threatening vocation. Perhaps it has always been hazardous, and we have simply immunised ourselves to the deadly reality: Islamists loathe Christians, despise the Church, and hate the Jesus of the Bible. Their mission is world domination: “Islam wants to govern the world,” says Cardinal Raymond Burke, in full ‘clash of civilisations’ mode. “When (Muslims) become a majority in any country then they have the religious obligation to govern that country,” he observes. “If that’s what the citizens of a nation want, well, then, they should just allow this to go on. But if that’s not what they want, then they have to find a way to deal with it.”

And his solution for dealing with it? “I think the appropriate response,” he said, “is to be firm about the Christian origin of our own nation, and certainly in Europe, and the Christian foundations of the government, and to fortify those.” Okay, that sounds like a plan. But if that fortification doesn’t begin with an unequivocal assertion that Fireman Sam and his mate Elvis are perfectly free to do whatever they want to a page of the Qur’an – while fully respecting Mattel’s freedom to make a commercial decision to apologise and withdraw the episode from circulation – then the foundations are already dangerously sandy.

  • Broadwood

    Cardinal Raymond Burke puts his finger on it.
    Until the powers that be can see, and say, the simple truth, we will get nowhere.

  • IanCad

    Well, with Paddy Power offering 13/8 on Donald Trump’s chance it might be good to get it while you can.
    Sharia Sam is helping the Republicans.

  • Anton

    Worse was the jailing in 2011 of Andrew Ryan for publicly burning a quran in Carlisle, an act that caused harm to nobody. When under Henry VIII Tyndale’s English translation of the Bible was bought en masse by the authorities in order to be burnt, Tyndale was happy because the profits enabled him to print many more copies that did not get burnt.

    • IanCad

      When negotiating with the Americans over our new Brexit trade deal, it would be mighty nice of of them to sweeten the pot by giving us their First and Second Amendments. The First to put a stop to the case you cited; the Second to make sure Brexit happens in a timely manner.

      • bluedog

        Brexit will happen in a timely manner. If it doesn’t George Osborne can be relied upon to foment revolt on the backbench and restore himself and Cameron to power.

  • Inspector General

    It’s too late. The deed is done. He’s dead plastic…

    This years top toy for Islamic parents to buy their little Mohameds is going to be the infidel Fireman Sam with a removable head…

    • The Explorer

      Fireman’s axe as an accessory.

    • Redrose82

      I wonder what Bob the Bridge Builder (Bishop of Europe) has to say about this?

      • Inspector General

        He’s weeping as this man types…

  • The Explorer

    It’s an odd thing to be treading on. I must confess I’d have felt uncomfortable had it been a page from, say, the Bible, Shakespeare, the Bhagavad Gita or The Origin of Species. I’d have felt some disrespect to the text in question was intended.

    With ‘Charlie H’, the perpetrators were killed. That was straightforward. You insult Islam, you run the risk of being killed. But with the Danish cartons innocent people all round the world were killed who’d had nothing to do with it. That’s the difficulty with an incident like this: the unpredictability of the consequences.

    • Ivan M

      All the more reason to ensure that the mullah in this case is detained and expelled as a menace to public security along with his confrères. If you recall Krekar, the Danish mullah at the centre of the Mo cartoons, had added on his own initiative drawings that were even more provocative, than that produced by the cartoonists in his efforts to fan the flames. The mullahs in the main cannot be treated as men of God, but rather as inciters and rabble-rousers, and must be put down mercilessly.

  • Inspector General

    “Put Fireman Sam down, son. It’s time you and I had a talk”

    “Oh Lord. It’s not the Birds and Bees is it dad, we did that in school”

    “It’s something they won’t teach you at school son. It’s about Islam”

    {GULP!}

    • Inspector General

      “Right then children. Today’s Islamic word is Fatwah. Does anyone know what a fatwah is? Alright Mohamed, tell the rest of the class…”

      • HedgehogFive

        Don’t forget – “Faswah” is Arabic for “a fart”.

  • bluedog

    Your communicant has devised a solution to the Great Offence, Your Grace. Recall that in the days of the Ottoman empire a railway was planned from Constantinople to Mecca to facilitate the Haj. How about a story of Gordon the suitably Islamic Green Engine running a Haj Express from Bradford to Mecca via the Chunnel! Halal meals in the dining car and a prayer carriage just ahead of the guards van, the BBC would love it. Pickin’ up passengers coast to coast, as Curtis Mayfield used to sing.

  • len

    The Koran is a terrorist manual, read it and learn why they do what they do…

    • bluedog

      If the Koran contains incitement to violence (it does) it’s publication should be declared a criminal offence.

      • len

        If any other organisation published a manual instructing terrorist methods it would surely(and quite rightly) be banned. But the Koran is given a level of protection in the West because secularists don`t understand or know how to respond to radical Islam.The policy by the West of tolerating Islam is just seen as weakness by Muslims.

        Christ’s teaching forbids violence and advocates loving ones enemies etc whereas the Koran advocates dominating intimidating and if necessary killing ones enemies.

    • David

      Correct !

  • The Explorer

    Ten years ago a London theatre, I forget which, put on a production of Marlowe’s ‘Tamburlaine’, the play in which a Koran is burned on stage.
    Following death threats before the play opened, the Director deleted the burning scene. Against the right to offend had to be weighed the likelihood of a suicide bombing of the theatre.
    The enlightened types who abolished our censorship laws in the wake of ‘Lady Chatterley’ were the same enlightened types who oversaw our immigration policies and who have now given us new censorship laws more repressive than those they replaced.

  • Inspector General

    Breaking news…

    MI5 is to move Fireman Sam in with Salman Rushdie and he’s been given a new identity: ‘Noname Neville’. Although we probably weren’t supposed to tell you that last bit at the BBC…You didn’t hear it from us, right?

    • Anton

      He’ll be fine; “doing nothing” is a paid occupation in the UK.

  • Christians in Europe will now reap what our political leaders have sown

    Lest we forget, Europe’s Christians have, for decades, welcomed Third World immigration and preached the blessings of diversity. They invented the sin of racism to silence doubters. Ever anxious to be nice to Islam, their churches became mosques and, in Saint-Etienne-du-Rouvray, they gave land for the building of a mosque.

    Now that one of their own has been murdered, will Christians abandon their crazy multicultural dream and face up to the horror they have helped to inflict on Europe?

    • The Explorer

      There seems to be some doubt about who actually invented the term ‘racism’. Some attribute it to Leon Trotsky. Certainly, it’s been a weapon of the secular Left as much as of the religious Left (who are secular anyway in all but name).

      • @ The Explorer—Whoever invented the concept of racism, Christian denominations ancient and modern made it a sin and proceeded to threaten their flocks with it, basking the while in their own righteousness.

        • Ivan M

          There is no sin called racism. There is hatred, jealously, envy, sloth, gluttony etc, but no specific sin called racism, just as there is no sin called sexism.

          • @ Ivan M—From the link in my reply to The Explorer:

            ‘b. call on all Christians in England to nurture a loathing of the sin of racism’

          • Ivan M

            Well I’ll be damned.

    • David

      “Europe’s Christians haven for decades, welcomed Third World immigration …..”
      Correction. Liberal Christians of many denominations have done what you allege. Us “nasty” conservative types knew the score all along, especially those of us who have read the Koran + its associated papers.

  • Sybaseguru

    One the one hand it seems rather unnecessary to deliberately upset the Muslims as Sam has done – it smacks of being spiteful and not good neighbourly, but on the other the Muslim response to the killing of an innocent priest is quite validly noted by your Grace. Perhaps our politicians might like to comment on this latter point, but I doubt it as their liberal brains are in a “deadly embrace” (aka deadlock).

  • Islamic ethical dilemmas of our age: Would it be more or less offensive if the character had slipped on the blood of a decapitated priest?

  • Inspector General

    Station Officer Basil Steele of Pontypandy Fire and Rescue has telephoned the Inspector and made the following statement…

    “I would like to assure the muslim community of Pontypandy that if we are called out to an incident at the local mosque, firemen Sam and Elvis will not be in attendance. They are currently on suspension pending investigation into accusations of misconduct and bringing the force into disrepute. However, whatever the outcome, the mosque will still be out of bounds to them”.

    Officer Steele was most apologetic over everything and before ringing off said the two were good lads and that he wouldn’t want to see them killed over what happened.

    • Inspector General

      New developments as they happen…

      Following death threats, Pontypandy fire station is now ringed by Armed Policeman Pete and his colleagues.

      Pontypandy residents have organised an impromptu march of solidarity down the main street. Chants of “Let them live! Let them live!” fill the air. An offer from Pontypandy Militant LGBTs to join them with rainbow flags unfurled and free extra strong condoms and samples of body lubricant, whatever that is, being handed out has been politely but firmly declined…

    • IanCad

      You’re in top form today Inspector. Got the day off?

      • Inspector General

        Decided against going anywhere. Opened the curtains today and saw what looks to be a suicide bomber loitering outside Inspector Towers. He’s still there…

  • The Explorer

    Mundabor has a robust response to the killing of the priest.

    • PessimisticPurple

      Yes. He appears to have blamed the priest. Schismatic logic.

      • PessimisticPurple

        Oh, Correction. The priest was only to blame if he was one of the “inclusive” types. Glad we got that cleared up.

        • The Explorer

          “if (and I don’t know anything about it; therefore, it’s a big if) he was one of the “inclusive” crowd, has now reaped exactly what he has sown. If (and let us say once again : if)” That ‘if’ is a pretty big qualifier.

          I suppose he’s going by the fact that the parish had donated land to the Muslims to build a mosque.

          I’m not a regular reader of Mundabor, by the way, but his responses to atrocities (eg the Orlando massacre) do offer a certain insight.

  • preacher

    What the Hell was fireman Sam doing with a copy of the Qu’ran in the fire station anyway ? Either he’s a secret Muslim or he is a good example of a non racist fire fighter who has Muslim colleagues. Either way I cannot see an issue worthy of such a fuss, as the main issue is who was clumsy enough to drop the page in the first place!.

    • Inspector General

      They suspect the page was to be used as kindling in practice fire exercises…

  • Inspector General

    In a shock move, the Chief Constable has after talks with ‘community leaders’, requested a local magistrate to issue warrants for the arrest of Sam and Elvis. Speaking from the local mosque, he said “We don’t know what to charge them with yet, but we’ll find something”, as the mosque representatives nodded in agreement.

    It is understood that the Attorney General is to be approached with a view to suspending habeus corpus for the pair, and other basic rights as may be required…

  • IanCad

    I see where one of the subjects of today’s post, Misdeed Versi, has posted the results of a poll of UK childrens’ attitudes toward Muslims.

    A few highlights.

    Islam is a peaceful religion: 6% disagree. 36% don’t know.

    Muslim women are opressed: 7% disagree. 57% don’t know.

    Islam encourages extremism: 22% disagree. 42% don’t know.

    Muslims contribute Positively to society: 9% disagree. 47% don’t know.

    An awful lot of kids out there who don’t know; or are they too intimidated to answer?

    • David

      Perhaps this reflects the fact that with many of them the schools pump them with propaganda, “religion of peace” and all that bullshit, but then their parents enlighten them. So, speaking conjecturally now, many end up parking in the “don’t know” area until they are free of the state education (propaganda) system.

  • The Explorer

    In discussion with L***s (although he has disappeared for a while, mentioning the full name seems to draw him) last year he accused me of alarmism in relation to Islamist immigrants. In fact there was no cause for concern because there had been no attacks on European churches by Islamist immigrants.

    L***s, I rest my case.

    • CliveM

      Sigh………..

      • Missing him, Clive?

        • CliveM

          Not for a second! Just thought Explorer was taking an unnecessary risk.

          • The Explorer

            Not mentioning his full name seems to have fooled his internet sensors.

          • CliveM

            Time will tell.

          • Who? Linus?

          • CliveM

            “Gasp”!

          • The Explorer

            He must have an internet sensor somewhere that picks up use of his name on Cranmer. However, if your citing of his name doesn’t draw him this time we may hope that we are finally rid of him.

          • Then a *gasp* might have been better.

  • jsampson45

    Cardinal Burke’s contribution does not sound like a plan to me. The UK has a Christian heritage, not a Christian origin. As for any Christian foundation of the government, where is it? The Queen accepts the advice of her ministers, whether they are of any religion or none. There is nothing here to be firm about.

  • Dreadnaught

    Whoever ‘slipped’ in the frame that contained the Arabic script knew what they were doing and probably thought it a wizard wheeze to impress their friends. An in-joke after the fashion of Seaman Stains, Master Bates and Rodger the Cabin-boy from Pugwash.
    Sadly this frame will circulate far and wide and be used for Islamic propaganda like Danish Cartoons.
    It was stupid in the extreme to think that this would not be picked up on and may even rebound on western children who will be totally unaware until they are targeted in some manner or other.
    Whatever the reason for it’s inclusion there will be repercussions somewhere at sometime.
    It was right that the Company made an apology assuming that is, it was done without their knowledge and approval; but who amongst the world’s Muslims has the authority to speak for or let alone ,seek to mollify the deep, grievous pain felt by the legions of people who have convinced themselves that the whole planet has it in for them. They need little enough sense of ‘offence’, to murder, maim and destroy other infidel people’s lives – and this latest gross insult has really put the Welly Boot in and therefore fully justifies an extreme over-reaction.
    Muslims aren’t wired to give offence; only to take it.

  • Anton

    Pope Francis on the murder of Fr Hamel:

    yes, it’s war. This holy priest died at the very moment he was offering a prayer for all the church. I only want to clarify, when I speak of war, I am really speaking of war … a war of interests, for money, resources. … I am not speaking of a war of religions, religions don’t want war. The others want war.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3710986/The-world-war-s-not-religious-war-says-Pope-Francis-army-39-000-security-officers-brought-Poland-visit-ISIS-priest-murder.html

    • Dreadnaught

      A very dangerous Dickhead.

      • IanCad

        If you’re referring to the Pope’s statement that Anton quoted above, then yes! Couldn’t agree more.

      • The Holy Father is not “dangerous”.

        • How do you know he’s not when he comes out with religions want peace. Islam doesn’t.

          • It was a joke, Marie. Jack omitted saying he was not a “dick”.

          • Merchantman

            PC is as in this case often bearing false witness. Pope Francis should think about this.

    • Dreadnaught

      deleted

  • carl jacobs

    If a war becomes an existential war for existence, then the only rule becomes “Win. At whatever cost. By whatever means.” That’s where this conflict is heading if it is left unchecked. That’s why the war must be fought now when some civilized rules of conduct are still possible. But it must be admitted that this is a war – that Islam as an ideology is an enemy that must be opposed and defeated. No more wishful thinking about “extremism”. Islam is the problem in that its governing presuppositions are incompatible with Western civilization. That’s going to require active discrimination against Muslims in terms of immigration and asylum. It’s going to involve an active public campaign to discredit and delegitimize Islam. It’s going to involve excluding Muslims from the police and armed forces. It will involve lots of other unpleasant features that judges wouldn’t like.

    The alternative is race war in the streets, and that’s when the conflict will become existential. Simply killing the perps won’t work. These are suicide missions. Europe must respond in strength, but it must respond effectively in strength. Appeasement will only be seen as weakness. It’s very late in the day. The more these attacks are tolerated, the more they will increase. And that path has only one destination.

    • Dreadnaught

      How would the black element and the Left-liberals in the US react if it was decided to outlaw The Nation of Islam and/or mainstream Islam: a second Civil War?

      • It would be regarded as unconstitutional.

    • IanCad

      I take it you’ll be supporting Donald Trump then Carl.

    • David

      Agreed.

    • bluedog

      This post represents a marked shift in your position, Carl. Starting to think the unthinkable, it seems. You are of course, quite right. The frequency and intensity of Muslim atrocities is driving the whole debate onto a different plane of response. One reads frequent calls for citizen vigilante groups to make good the lack of a coherent action by the civil authorities to what is unambiguously seen as the Muslim threat. In this event, the garden shed becomes an arms factory and the possibility of mini and even maxi Srebrenica re-enactments is not out of the question. One can certainly envisage a situation where the various communities undergo a form of Partition so that each has its own safe zones within the nation-state. Such a development would severely weaken the European nation states in that they would be effectively ceding control of territory to an alien and non-compliant power. As a result, the ability of these nation states to resist an external threat, such a resurgent Islamist Turkey, would be severely degraded.

  • CliveM

    I suppose it doesn’t change anything, but I am interested in what that page of the Koran says. I wonder if it’s one of the more colourful sections. You know, death to the infidel!

    • Anton

      Verses 13-26 of this (several English translations in parallel):

      http://prophetofdoom.net/pdf/Quran_Surah_067.pdf

      • CliveM

        Thanks.
        Interesting, I have an adult content filter on my phone, just in case the first born gets it. It blocked access to this site.
        If only we could do the same as society to all things Islamic.

  • chiefofsinners

    The offending images originated in a Chinese animation studio. I await with interest the attacks by IS on China. The response of the Chinese government may be a little less restrained than those in the West.

  • David

    When eighteen months ago the journalists of Charlie Hebdo were massacred some people explained that as due to that secularist’s journal ultra-irreverence towards Islam, although it was very rude about all religions of course. But the magazine represented the ultra-atheist secularist portion of France.
    Now recently they attacked France’s historic, deep underlying faith – Catholicism. The attack was a deeply symbolic attack on all western Christians.
    In between those two terrible attacks the recently radicalised truck driver mowed down almost a hundred innocent, ordinary people who were not making any deep political or religious point, but were just out to enjoy the sunshine on a national holiday.
    So between these three atrocities we can conclude that, both very symbolically and as a matter of stark fact, Islam is out to attack the whole spectrum of French and western society.
    Will this bring together the very different strands of French life, and very different types of French people, from the traditional, through the ordinary to the most liberal “progressive” types ? I hope so as our society needs to act in concert and in very determined ways against this ideology.

    • Inspector General

      Plenty of fear in the air, David. That’s a good thing, because now we can stand up to Islam in the UK and stop its gains by small increments.

      • David

        Hopefully Inspector, hopefully. But will our cowardly, appeasing politicians have the courage to confront its advances, that’s the question ? But if they don’t, western politics will shift distinctly. rightwards.

        • Inspector General

          Western politics are already sliding to the right. Time for our politicians to catch up, and they will, for you won’t find a more adaptable bunch of survivors than a crowd of politicians, what!

        • bluedog

          No, David, they won’t. The most likely path of events will be a repeat of that leading up to the Brexit referendum.

          A political movement taking a hard-line anti-Islamic stance will offer solutions that are abhorrent to polite society but electorally overwhelming. Could this be the next task for UKIP?

          In any event, just before events slip out of control the political elite will switch tactics and become the leaders of the new popularly driven agenda.

          • David

            Yes, that is a realistic scenario. Folk will not sit around waiting to be killed, that’s for sure. This one certainly won’t.

        • Anton

          If Islam represents impending divine judgement for the sins behind utterly unprecedented levels of family breakdown then the government would have to reverse its policies of trashing the family, which it does by indoctrination in schools and by financial disincentive. Otherwise any action against Islam would be to stand in the way of divine judgement – a good way to get flattened. By ‘God’ I mean the Holy Trinity.

          • The Christian Churches have undermined family life since the 1930’s – contraception, abortion, divorce and remarriage, homosexual unions. Ultimately, politicians do what the electorate want and what secures them votes and power.

          • Anton

            Yes, the government is elected by the people. Secularism has been going on for several centuries – it is an abuse of religious freedom – and by the 1930s it had spilled over into some of the major denominations. Not all Christians agree with all of your list.

          • Perhaps not but the attack on family really started with artificial contraception and the break between sex and procreation.

          • Anton

            The first generation to restrict their number of offspring by those means did not experience rocketing divorce rates or adultery rates. If they can conform to biblical sexual morality while using contraceptives, so can any generation.

          • But no generation has since the 1930’s. Once sex is defined as pleasure and conception is artificially prevented, sexual fulfilment and personal pleasure becomes its purpose. The rest follows. And, even though it’s not explicitly written in scripture, like many other things, Christians understood this to be true and had always been against artificial contraception until the Lambeth Conference in 1930.

          • Anton

            As the NRA points out, it’s not guns that kill people, it’s people that kill people. Likewise it’s not contraceptives that are sexually immoral, it’s people. That unmarried persons abuse the invention is their own disgrace; nobody else’s. God specified that sex was to be within marriage, and the purpose of marriage was deep companionship (“It is not good for the man to be alone”). Children are the usual and happy consequence of that relationship, but not its purpose. This is why God is happy to see the remarriage of women widowed beyond childbearing age, for instance. (Every now and again you hear of some nutty priest objecting to such marriages, because of faulty exegesis and faulty tradition.)

            “even though it’s not explicitly written in scripture… Christians understood this to be true and had always been against artificial contraception until… 1930.”

            The Law of Moses given in Exodus to Deuteronomy comprises a full legal system given by God. It is therefore legitimate to make inference according to what is not banned therein; St Paul said that where there was no law, there was no sin. The primitive forms of contraception available at that time are not mentioned in Mosaic Law. They had a bad name for many centuries because they were associated with prostitution, but when respectable married couples started using the new generation of rubbers early in the 20th century the church needed a rethink; hence the 1930 decision. (Prostitutes’ clients had refused all previous generations of contraceptives, for obvious reasons.)

            Sin is to do with what goes on in the hearts of mean and women. If a married couple wish no more children, why is it supposedly sinful for them to have barrier sex when the wife is fertile, yet not sinful when she isn’t? If your answer is that the act is reduced thereby to merely an expression of mutual lust, that would surely the norm when children are conceived too – married couples do not normally retire into each other’s arms with the words “let’s conceive a child tonight.”

            Is it sinful for a married couple to have sex when they know the woman is infertile (a) not using a condom; (b) using a condom? The favour of a yes/no answer and explanation is humbly requested.

          • You’ve described the purpose of marriage – not sex. God told Adam and Eve to populate the earth. In Catholicism it is a requirement for marriage that the marriage can be consummated. So impotence would be an impediment.
            No, it is not sinful to practice natural family planning as the act itself has full integrity and remains open to life. It is both an act of selfless, giving love and has the potential for life. That’s why infertile couples can marry. The sex itself retains integrity. If washing after sex is undertaken with the intention of avoiding conception, then yes would be sinful. It would be like making oneself sick after eating to enable gorging and gluttony.

          • Anton

            “You’ve described the purpose of marriage – not sex.”

            They’re not so easily separated, as you yourself have stated in your second sentence. God says that husband and wife “become one flesh” and the phrase obviously has both a sexual and a deeper meaning.

            As I’m not a Catholic, would you explain why Pope Gregory ‘the Great’s Pastoral Rule,
            stating that sex is for reproduction only and even then it should not be enjoyed (bk. 3 ch. 27, in case you doubt me), is supposedly not ex cathedra?

            If the *intention* is to avoid children, why must a husband and wife wait for the infertile part of the cycle rather than use barrier contraception? To say that the act must be “open” to conception is a nonsensical reply if it is done when the woman is known to be infertile.

          • Popes often express personal opinions.

            1 ) NFP does not separate sex from responsibility. The act of intercourse has a twofold meaning: sharing of love and giving of life. Married persons who perform this act must accept both sides of the coin. While not every marital act will result in a child, it must nevertheless be open to the possibility of life. The act will be “open” to life as long as the spouses do nothing to “close” it. Here’s the difference between artificial birth control and NFP. In the first case, one does something (takes a pill, uses a condom, etc.) to deliberately “close” the life-giving power of sexual intercourse. In NFP, however, no such step is taken. The spouses do not act against their fertility. They do not reject the link between the two meanings of sex (love and life). They simply follow the natural patterns of the body’s fertility and infertility — patterns placed there by God Himself. In the fertile days of a woman’s cycle, if there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, the couple respectfully steps back from the act of intercourse. In using birth control devices, however, they attack the meaning of the act — they do the action of intercourse and then undo part of it. In NFP, instead, they simply choose at times not to do the action in the first place.

            2) NFP is not just a “method” based on physiology. Rather, NFP is based on VIRTUE. It is based on sexual self-control, which is necessary for a healthy marriage. There are times in any marriage when spouses have to put aside their desire for sex because of sickness, fatigue, travel, or other reasons. In a healthy marriage, love is shown in many ways, and not all these ways of showing love are physical. In fact, to refrain from sex when necessary is itself an act of love. Why? Because in effect the spouses then say to each other, “I did not marry you just for sexual pleasure. I married you because I love you. You are a person, not an object. When I have sex with you, it is because I freely choose to show you my love, not because I need to satisfy an urge.” Using NFP requires abstinence from intercourse during the fertile days if a pregnancy has to be avoided. This actually can strengthen the couple’s sexual life. When the spouses know that they can abstain for good reasons, they also come to trust each other more, and avoid the risk of treating each other primarily as objects of sexual pleasure rather than persons. Artificial birth control, on the other hand, gives free reign to the temptation to make pleasure the dominant element, rather than virtue. It encourages couples to think that sexual self-control is not necessary. It can encourage them to become slaves to pleasure.

            3) NFP puts the responsibility for family planning squarely on the shoulders of both partners, because it requires communication and cooperation. Both spouses need to know when the fertile days of the woman’s cycle have arrived, and then decide together what to do (depending on whether they are trying to avoid or achieve pregnancy). To think that such communication and cooperation make the sexual act less pleasurable (because less spontaneous) is simply not true. To know with certainty what stage of the cycle one is in can increase the pleasure and spontaneity of the act, since the spouses can ignore worries about contraceptive failure or side-effects of the pill. Artificial birth control, besides introducing these worries, also puts the “contraceptive burden” on the shoulders of ONE, not both, spouses. It makes it possible for a spouse to cut off the fertility of the act, even without the consent of the other spouse. It can introduce division into the marriage.

            4) NFP is not just a means of avoiding pregnancy, as artificial contraception is. Rather, it can also be used to ACHIEVE pregnancy since it pinpoints ovulation. It is a wholly positive approach to the sexual life of the spouses. It is clean, inexpensive, morally acceptable, and reliable.

            As with anything good, NFP can be misused, if a couple has the wrong motives. Married couples are called by God to cooperate generously in bringing forth and educating new life. For a couple to decide that “we don’t want children at this time”, there need to be serious, objective reasons (health, finances, etc.). If the reasons are not objective but selfish, then the couple cannot justify the avoidance of pregnancy just because they are using NFP to do it. In this case they are not practicing “family planning”, but “family avoidance”!

            There are differences between NFP and artificial birth control, but let these suffice for now. As Pope John Paul II has explained, the difference really rests on a person’s answers to some very basic questions like, “What is marriage?” What is sex? What is the human body? What is love?” Artificial contraception distorts the meaning of all these things. It sees the body and its sexual faculties as something to be “used”, and it fails to acknowledge God’s place in love and marriage. NFP, instead, is a practice of virtue, resting upon self-control, inner freedom, respect, trust, communication, and reverence to God’s plan for love and marriage. It enriches both love and marriage. Every couple owes it to themselves to learn more about it!

            (Fr. Frank Pavone)

            http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/sexuality-contraception/birth-control-and-nfp-whats-the-difference/

          • Anton

            To say that the act must be “open” to conception is nonsensical if the husband and wife wait to do it when they have determined the woman is temporarily infertile.

          • Did you read the post?

            The spouses do not act against their fertility. They do not reject the link between the two meanings of sex (love and life). They simply follow the natural patterns of the body’s fertility and infertility — patterns placed there by God Himself. In the fertile days of a woman’s cycle, if there are serious reasons to avoid pregnancy, the couple respectfully steps back from the act of intercourse. In using birth control devices, however, they attack the meaning of the act — they do the action of intercourse and then undo part of it. In NFP, instead, they simply choose at times not to do the action in the first is place.

            This the essential argument. NFP works with nature and God; artificial contraception works against God.

            As Pope John Paul II has explained, the difference really rests on a person’s answers to some very basic questions like, “What is marriage?” What is sex? What is the human body? What is love?” Artificial contraception distorts the meaning of all these things. It sees the body and its sexual faculties as something to be “used”, and it fails to acknowledge God’s place in love and marriage. NFP, instead, is a practice of virtue, resting upon self-control, inner freedom, respect, trust, communication, and reverence to God’s plan for love and marriage. It enriches both love and marriage.

          • Anton

            I read my post (ie, stuff sent to me peronally) but not all my junk mail (ie, part of a mass mailing copied to me).

            My question is this: You have said it is OK if the act is “open to conception”. But the couple are choosing to wait until the woman’s physiology is NOT open to conception. That makes nonsense of the phrase. What do you – ie you, Jack, not somebody else – take the phrase “open to conception” to mean, please?

          • So Jack may have got the terms wrong. He’s not the Pope speaking ex-cathedra. The point was answered in my previous post. NFP works with nature/God.

          • Anton

            I suggest that the duration of abstinence needed to be sure of avoiding conception each month via NFP negates Paul’s exhortation that marriage is partly to prevent fornication.

            If it is not sinful for a married couple to have a sex life that deliberately avoids conception via NFP, why is it sinful via barrier methods? When I have asked Catholics this before the conversation moves immediately from sinful attitudes to sinful acts, but the latter stem from the former and there is no difference in intention between the two situations.

            When we both quoted above from Gregory I’s Pastoral Rule, above, you cut two passages which suggest Gregory regarded any sexual pleasure within marriage as wrong, Please look again in the translation I provided above at the passages which you replaced by dots.

          • What? A few days every month? What s man – an animal?

          • Anton

            According to Dr Trevor Stammers, an evangelical Christian and author of a book called “The Family guide to Sex and Intimacy” (which includes a chapter commending virginity), because of natural variations in the woman’s cycle only 12 consecutive days in each 28-day cycle are infertile with certainty, as determined by NFP (p174).

          • That’s not the science though. The old “rhythm method” has been replaced with a more precise approach.

          • Anton

            Stammers knows what he is talking about and his numbers are not based on body temperature (the so-called rhythm method) but on vaginal mucus viscosity as taught in NFP). The latter is more accurate but there is still variation in the interval between menstruation and next ovulation, much more variation than in the interval between ovulation and next menstruation. Because of the combination of (a) what the viscosity does and doesn’t tell, (b) when the woman is fertile, and (c) natural variations in the former interval, there are only 12 (consecutive) days per cycle in which sexual intercourse is certain not to lead to conception when using NFP alone.

          • The choice then is loving self control or risk the possibility of pregnancy because one cannot exercise self restraint. A solid marriage will be able to loving negotiate this without the threat of infidelity. Saint Paul appears to have had a rather narrow perception of marital sex, wouldn’t you say?

          • Anton

            He was most probably a widower who had more knowledge of it than Pope Gregory “the Great”, the first monk to be Pope. I suggest that the duration of abstinence needed to be sure of avoiding conception each month via NFP negates Paul’s exhortation that marriage is partly to prevent fornication.

            If it is not sinful for a married couple to have a sex life that deliberately avoids conception via NFP, why is it sinful via barrier methods? When I have asked Catholics this before the conversation moves immediately from sinful attitudes to sinful acts, but the latter stem from the former and there is no difference in intention between the two situations.

          • Pope Gregory the Great wrote:
            “The married should be advised to remember that they come together for the purpose of producing children, but when they become immoderately enslaved by intercourse, they transfer the occasion for procreation to the service of pleasure …
            Thus St. Paul, skilled in heavenly medicine writes “Concerning the things you wrote to me, it is a good thing for a man not to touch a woman, but on account of fornication, let everyone have his own wife and every woman her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:1). And thus, by beginning with the fear of fornication, Paul did not extend this precept to those who were strong, but rather showed the couch to those who are weak, so they would not fall to the ground. He then adds, “Let the husband give what he ought to his wife, and similarly the wife to her husband” (1 Corinthians 7:3). … [He says this] because there are many who [though] clearly forsaking the sins of the flesh [i.e., fornication], nevertheless, in the practice of marital intercourse have not limited themselves solely to the confines of righteousness (i.e., intercourse without procreative intent).”

            What he’s saying is that marital intercourse is licit but like any pleasure it can take on an importance too large or out of connection with its purpose.

            In the modern age, the contraceptive mentality insists that there is no necessary connection between sex and procreation. Sex is reduced to the thing itself. Sex merely for pleasure too easily descends into the reduction of others to sexual playthings rather than eventual parents.

            Pope John Paul controversially stated that it was possible for spouses to lust after one another in violation of the Lord’s teaching in Matthew 5:28. And what is lust? Essentially, it is reducing the human person to his or her body and the pleasure that body can provide. It is forgetting that this is a person to be loved for his or her own sake, even if his/her body is not available for pleasure, or becomes less “desirable” through age or sickness.

            St. Gregory therefore interprets that St. Paul also teaches that a man ought to give his wife what she is due: not merely his body, but himself, wholly. He also should give her what is due by loving not merely her sexual charms, but her very self, her whole self. Likewise for the wife in return are all the same duties.

          • Anton

            This is the translation I have (from New Advent, a Catholic source):

            Husbands and wives are to be admonished to remember that they are joined together for the sake of producing offspring; and, when, giving themselves to immoderate intercourse, they transfer the occasion of procreation to the service of pleasure, to consider that, though they go not outside wedlock yet in wedlock itself they exceed the just dues of wedlock. Whence it is needful that by frequent supplications they do away their having fouled with the admixture of pleasure the fair form of conjugal union. For hence it is that the Apostle, skilled in heavenly medicine, did not so much lay down a course of life for the whole as point out remedies to the weak when he said, It is good for a man not to touch a woman: but on account of fornication let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband 1 Corinthians 7:1-2. For in that he premised the fear of fornication, he surely did not give a precept to such as were standing, but pointed out the bed to such as were falling, lest haply they should tumble to the ground. Whence to such as were still weak he added, Let the husband render unto the wife her due; and likewise also the wife unto the husband 1 Corinthians 7:3. And, while in the most honourable estate of matrimony allowing to them something of pleasure, he added, But this I say by way of indulgence, not by way of command 1 Corinthians 7:6. Now where indulgence is spoken of, a fault is implied; but one that is the more readily remitted in that it consists, not in doing what is unlawful, but in not keeping what is lawful under control. Which thing Lot expresses well in his own person, when he flies from burning Sodom…

            What is completely absent from this passage is any acknowledgement of the joy of marital sex. The tone is entirely what might be tolerated, so as to prevent fornication and to propagate the race. This is all that Gregory has to say on the subject. Such a jaundiced view says much about him (the first monk to be Pope) but little about marital life.

          • He was referring to couples giving in to “immoderate intercourse”. He based his views on Saint Paul who seems to be saying that sex within marriage is to overcome lust. The key commentary being: i>”Now where indulgence is spoken of, a fault is implied; but one that is the more readily remitted in that it consists, not in doing what is unlawful, but in not keeping what is lawful under control.”

            The Catholic Church has moved on – doctrines develops under the guidance of the Holy Spirit – but she still teaches that sex within marriage can be sinful if we misuse the gift or loose sight of its purposes. Humanae vitae acknowledged sex also played a role in bounding a couple and enabling the expression of love in marriage.

          • Anton

            Nowadays when I buy I DVD it is liable to say the the film contains scenes of “moderate sex”. I have no idea what “moderate sex” is, but I presume it is the opposite of “immoderate intercourse”.

            The joy of (marital) sex is right there in the Bible – in the Song of Songs, and you might be surprised at how explicit the Hebrew is.

          • James M

            Try the legalisation of divorce – 1857, in the UK.

          • davylongshanks

            Precisely. Maybe not ‘Christian Churches’ as a whole but certainly Anglican. It holds several positions which to me are quite irreconcilable with scripture. Result – emptying pews.

  • David

    The Pope is now saying “the world is at war” but also that “all religions want peace”. See the article on http://www.breitbarlondon. com
    The” religion of peace” is clearly not peaceful. It seeks war.
    Leftists and Liberals will nerve confront ugly reality, will they ?
    I do believe that Liberals, with their dangerous denial of reality, are now endangering western civilisation and all of us.

    • len

      The world is in a spiritual war between the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob and Satan. Satan’s armies come to steal kill and to destroy. Christians Christ given mission is to bring the light of the Gospel of Jesus Christ to a dying world. It is not too difficult to identify these armies but the reality we are witnessing on the Earth is but a reflection of the battle going on in the spiritual realm.

      ‘For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities,
      against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world,
      against spiritual wickedness in high places’.( Ephesians 6:12)

      Those killing in the name of their religion , in the name of their god, are under such deception that they think they are doing God’ a service’ such is the power of false religion..

      • Inspector General

        Our fate really is ‘in the lap of the gods’, so to speak. We so entertain the Almighty in this way as per the terms of our very existence…

        • Fate? Lap of the Gods? Entertain?

          • Inspector General

            It’s a test for us. If we can defeat the evil of Islam, then we can head for the stars. If we can’t, then a new dark age…

          • Think Providence of a loving God, Inspector. The outcome is already written.

      • David

        Totally agree Len. Recently re-read The Book of the Revelations of the Apostle John. It was instructive. Five years ago, doing my theology degree, I wrote an essay on it. I don’t pretend to understand it, but I have ideas, suggestions regarding it – no more than that, as it is too complicated and symbolic to be sure.
        I am not one to indulge in prophecies or interpretations of current events to accord Scripture and firstly we are told not to worry about times and dates, and so I will obey that, but also because I am just to practical by nature to conjecture very far. But having said that, even I, now feel that it is very likely that with evil stretching out across the globe, we may well be approaching the first act of the final play. Pray God that I understand and achieve my minuscule part in the drama. But will win Len, fear not, God will triumph. Satan will be vanquished.

    • Uncle Brian

      This is the Vatican Press Office’s official text of what Pope Francis said about war, peace, and the religions, barely 24 hours after Father Jacques Hamel was savagely murdered at his own altar in the middle of Mass by a pair of thugs acting in the name of Allah and his prophet Mohammed:

      I would like to say just one word to be clear. When I speak of war, I speak of real war, not of a war of religion, no. There is war for interests, there is war for money, there is war for the resources of nature, there is war for the domination of peoples: this is war. Someone may think: “He is talking about a war of religion”. No. All the religions, we want peace. Others want war. Do you understand?

      We no longer have David Cameron in No. 10 to reassure us that the killers were “not true Muslims.” Regrettably, Pope Francis seems to have taken it upon himself to carry on where Dave left off. Although he chose to speak in the fuzzy, allusive, Jesuitical (in both senses) manner which seems to be his habitual mode when addressing the faithful ex aeroplano, and although we haven’t been told what language he was speaking in at the time, it nevertheless seems to be his clear meaning that “we”, “all the religions”, want peace and consequently that the “others” who want war are not part of any religion. Unless his words have been misreported or mistranslated, it looks suspiciously as though Francis — like Cameron before him — has chosen to put diplomacy first and truth second.

      http://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/speeches/2016/july/documents/papa-francesco_20160727_polonia-volo-andata.html

      • Francis is a materialist who sees the world as a struggle between the “haves” and the “have nots”. Between the rich and the poor. All the world’s ills come from a lack of social justice and exploitation.

        • James M

          The HF is a Christian pastor who does a remarkably good job of modelling Christ the Good Shepherd. Since social justice is central to the Good News of the Kingdom of God preached by Jesus, the HF takes it seriously. Psalm 72, which depicts the everlasting universal reign of the Son of David, is drawn upon by St Matthew and St Luke; and righteousness (AKA justice) between God and man, and between men, is a major feature of this everlasting reign.

      • Ivan M

        Material struggle? Then why kill an old man at Communion. The Pope is the biggest arse there is.

      • David

        That was my conclusion as well.
        I hadn’t realised that Jesuits, whose degree of learning I had respected, tended to speak in deliberately fuzzy, allusive terms. Thank you for that pointer.

        • Uncle Brian

          A very old joke. Centuries old, quite likely:

          “Why do you Jesuits always answer a question with another question?”
          “Well, what’s wrong with that?”

          • David

            Very good – and illustrates a point.
            It may be a very old joke but it was new to this (innocent) protestant !
            Best wishes to you !

        • James M

          They are as capable of clarity as anyone else. Some topics do not lend themselves to being spoken of as clearly as one might like. As for answering a question with a question, that has Dominical warrant. Pope Francis often speaks very clearly – as many of his sermons show. Much of the criticism of him comes from people who do not approve of his clearly expressed preferential option for the poor – even though this option is a fact of both Testaments.

      • James M

        A more charitable possibility is that the Pope/his advisers are relying on the ideas about Islam spread by Louis Massignon. Massignon’s ideas are known to have influenced the Fathers of Vatican 2 in what they said about Islam. Most regrettably, Massignon presented Sufi Islam as typical of Islam, with the resullt that Sunni Islam – which far and away is the majority type of Islam – was characterised as more spiritual and inward than it really is.

        The Islam the Vatican talks of is far removed from the violent and brutish totalitarian cult that is now waging jihad against the world of the kuffar and mushrikun.

        • Uncle Brian

          I don’t see why you consider that a “more charitable” explanation. I had never heard of Massignon until this moment, as far as I remember, but if his misinformation about Sufi and Sunni Islam was as “regrettable” as you say, surely Francisco and his advisers ought to have had time by now to realize that they made a mistake in taking Massignon at his word.

          • James M

            More charitable, because if the HF and advisors are going by Massignon’s exceedingly irenic interpretation of Islam, as mediated by Lumen Gentium, and by Nostra Aetate 3, then they are getting Massignon’s ideas through the filter or prism or grid of the documents of an Ecumenical Council, and of the Catechism of the CC paragraph 841 – which, as Catholics, they are not free to reject. They are not being thick – they are following V2 and the CCC.

          • Uncle Brian

            Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m assuming that what you found uncharitable in my comment was the conclusion, that he was putting diplomacy first and truth second. But putting them the other way round won’t necessarily spread sweetness and light. Remember Regensburg.

            Speaking of Regensburg, did Benedict, on that occasion, reject anything that, as a Catholic, he was not free to reject?

  • chiefofsinners

    Great article. Thank you.
    Christians don’t take offence at this sort of thing, they sing about it. Anybody remember the old hymn ‘standing in the promises of God’?

    • Inspector General

      One remembers “Standing in the Road” by Blackfoot Sue. An excellent 70s hit…google it…

      • Q: What’s the difference between the House of Islam and yogurt?

        • Uncle Brian

          Yogurt won’t kill you?

          • Very good, Brian.

            A: Yogurt has a living culture.

          • Uncle Brian

            Right, Jack. A much better answer than mine.

          • Q: What are the three greatest lies?

            A:
            1. I’m a politician, I tell the truth.
            2. The cheque is in the post.
            3. Islam is the religion of peace.

          • James M

            That is so clever.

        • chefofsinners

          one is a Muller corner, the other’s a Mullah conformer.

          • dannybhoy

            In this mocumetary clip we see three things:
            1) where cos got the inspiration for his joke
            2) where he got the idea for his bouffanty look
            3) How much he’s aged…

          • chefofsinners

            The resemblance is uncannybhoy.

          • Uncle Brian

            Kiddie food commercials, Danny? Here, try a beer commercial:

          • dannybhoy

            Seen it before somewhere. Beautiful girl ain’t she. Thankfully Danny is too old to dwell on her charms….
            What does her boss say to her at the end of the commercial?

          • Uncle Brian

            Sorry, I can’t quite make it out, but I don’t think it’s anything important.

            Btw, there are plenty more. They release a new batch of commercials every summer (December-January), all in the same joky style. The same girl has been starring in them for two or three years now. Just type in Y&R Brasil Itaipava (Y&R is the ad agency, Itaipava is the brand name).

          • dannybhoy

            I daren’t…
            Not good for me.

        • James M

          Yogurt, unlike Muslims. is *meant* to be eaten.

          Q. Why is the fifth Harry Potter book like a Muslim ?

          Because they both take a lot of Umbridge.

          Why is a carpet less truthful than a Muslim ?

          Because it’s taqiyya.

          What Hitchcock film do Muslims watch ?

          Dajjal M for Murder.

          When do Muslims eat pancakes ?

          Mahdi Gras

          Which Carry On film was Mohammed watching when he died ?

          Carry On Up The Khaybar

      • dannybhoy

        Groovy Baby!
        Musta missed them somehow….

    • CliveM

      Yes, a good hymn.

      Ps liked your ‘alternative ‘ avatar, don’t bin it!

      • dannybhoy

        Me too.

    • Welcome back Chief. Where have you been?

      • chiefofsinners

        This article demonstrated an admirable commitment to freedom of speech. It seemed unfair to leave Cranmer languishing in Coventry, since he had clearly repented. What greater blessing could one bestow than to manifest oneself once more?

        • Now, now, good Sir. No rebellion or protestations here. Behave!

    • dannybhoy

      What have you done?!
      I thought your improvisation was a masterpiece!
      Anyway, it’s “Standing on the promises of God my Saviour,” and we sang it often years ago. Another jaunty one I still like (although no longer politically correct. They’ve even changed Onward Christian soldiers…)

      “Sound the battle cry! See, the foe is nigh;
      Raise the standard high for the Lord;
      Gird your armor on, stand firm every one;
      Rest your cause upon His holy Word.
      Refrain:
      Rouse, then, soldiers, rally round the banner,
      Ready, steady, pass the word along;
      Onward, forward, shout aloud, “Hosanna!”
      Christ is Captain of the mighty throng
      .

      Strong to meet the foe, marching on we go,
      While our cause we know must prevail;
      Shield and banner bright, gleaming in the light,
      Battling for the right we ne’er can fail.

      O Thou God of all, hear us when we call,
      Help us one and all by Thy grace;
      When the battle’s done, and the vict’ry’s won,
      May we wear the crown before Thy face.
      William F. Sherwin, pub.1869

      (a lot of good hymns were written around this time)

  • There was a Christian, a Jew and a Muslim on death row. The warden gave them a choice of three ways to die:

    – to be shot
    – be hung
    – injected with the AIDS virus for a slow death.

    The Christian said, “Shoot me right in the head.” (Boom, dead instantly).
    The Jew said, “Just hang me.” (Snap, he was dead.)
    The Muslim said, “Give me some of that AIDS stuff.” They gave him the injection, and the Muslim fell down laughing.

    The guards looked at each other and wondered what was wrong with this guy. Then the Muslim said, “Give me another one of those shots,” so the guards did. Now he was laughing so hard, tears rolled from his eyes and he doubled over. Finally the warden said, “What is wrong with you?” The Muslim replied, “You infidels are so stupid…I’m wearing a condom!”

  • Vszukm

    Thanks to those who shared the ‘offending’ clip on YouTube. Closer inspection shows the page slipped on was completely blank. It appears that a pile of papers on the floor is knocked in the air as part of Sura 67 rises briefly into the frame. It seems to me to be an opportunity for dawah to explain the beauty of these verses to the unbeliever.

    • bluedog

      You write as being knowledgeable about Islamic matters. Regarding the killing of the Catholic priest, a kuffar, would dhabihah be appropriate in these circumstances? Are there any beautiful verses that you could recommend by way of accompaniment?

      • Vszukm

        Sorry, as an ignorant kuffar myself, I was merely focused on the Fireman Sam incident. It seems our friends from the RoP are rather swift to take offence whereas it could have been seen as a positive opportunity from their point of view.

        • bluedog

          Thank you for your reassurance. One feared that the enemy was within.

  • Cressida de Nova

    We pray that Father Hamel rests in peace
    May the perpetual light shine upon him
    Butchering frail old French priests
    at Mass will not defeat us
    Catholics all over the world
    grieve for him
    Evil never lasts forever

  • Albert

    “I think the appropriate response,” he said, “is to be firm about the Christian origin of our own nation, and certainly in Europe, and the Christian foundations of the government, and to fortify those.”

    Spot on, and it’s a historical truth. But we can’t do that because the secularists (bless them) will be offended.