Cameron Charles I ii
Conservative Party

Owen Paterson: Cameron has "lost touch" with the counties, and will most likely lose his head

 

“The further you go from London, the stronger the feeling is,” said former Environment Secretary Owen Paterson, speaking of England’s deep strains of Euroscepticism. “I do get the slight sense it’s a bit like the Civil War when Charles I sadly completely lost touch with what was happening in the counties,” he added, casting David Cameron as the out-of-touch Prime Minister whose inescapable fate is to lose his head, if he hasn’t already done so. There is a battle going on for the soul of Europe, and the British government has turned its back on all true patriots and democrats, just like the English government of the 17th century didn’t lift a finger to help the Protestant cause. You can gag the pulpits from preaching predestination, but you can’t stop the people searching the scriptures.

Owen Paterson’s speech was intelligent and thoughtful. As Dr Eamonn Butler summarised for the Adam Smith Institute: “His basic point is that the EU is not the ‘status quo’ but something that is rapidly moving to destinations that are uncertain and dangerous, particularly for the UK; and that being outside is the safer, more stable option.” And in response to a question, we heard a summary exposition of the transcendent Euro-reality:

But this is not a Tory Party issue. This really is not a Tory Party issue. This is our one chance the first time since 1975 – and it divides people of all political parties. What we should be grateful to David Cameron for is that he’s given us the opportunity, and we must not blow it. That’s the point I’m making here. If we blow it, we will have this very unsatisfactory, very unclear, new ‘associate status’. We’ll be outvoted in the Parliament, we’ll be outvoted in the Council, and we’ll be under the cosh of the European Court. That is a highly unsatisfactory destination.

Highly unsatisfactory, indeed.

Whatever the murky theo-politics of the English Civil War, Charles I was a devout Arminian Catholic with a zeal for divine right; David Cameron is a Magic-FM-in-the-Chilterns Anglican. When you dissolve Parliament and declare yourself unaccountable to any representative institutions; when you embark upon revenue raising to swell your coffers without consideration of English custom or demotic despair; when you ignore Scottish public rage and presume you can simply bring indignant Scots into line with the essential English disposition, you are shortening your own political life, if not the life of your parliament.

Where the disdain of King Charles I convinced Protestant mobs of their puritan righteousness in averting another popish plot, causing them to wreck the houses and seize the property of Roman Catholic gentry, so the disdain of Prime Minister Cameron is causing Whig-inclined conservatives and democratic socialists to rebel against the Tory jure divino. The country is split down the middle, and the feeling in the counties is that Cameron, like the King, can no longer be trusted to lead. A majority in Parliament believed Charles was secretly plotting with Irish Roman Catholics, and so a great body of his subjects fought against him in the name of liberty and true religion. Civil war was inevitable. A majority of the British people believe that David Cameron is lying about his ‘reformed’ EU and ‘special status’ for the UK; that he is plotting with Jean-Claude Juncker and President Obama to keep the UK in the EU come what may. Civil war is not inevitable, but social division and political unrest certainly are.

If you want the people to rally to your divine-right royalist cause, the best strategy is to subvert the opposition by sowing discord and division. Cameron is unifying defender of the Remain faith: the Leavers are split between GO Presbyterians, Vote Leave Episcopalians and Ukip Independents. They may cohere around the authority of Brexit scripture, but there are quarrels about the role of tradition, and schisms within and between about the extent of reasoned Calvinistic Flexcit.

And who will replace the King? If David Cameron is about to lose is head over an assertion of divine right, could the high-principled Protestant instincts of Owen Paterson possibly make him the nation’s Oliver Cromwell?

  • len

    One can only hope that Cameron will have a ‘Damascus road experience’ and to ask himself ” What have I done? “

    • preacher

      Too late for that I’m afraid Len ‘.
      The die is cast, the Rubicon is crossed ‘.- ” Cry havoc & let slip the dogs of war ! ” .
      ” You know how busy I must be this day Lord. If I forget thee, do not thou forget me ! “.
      Rousing stuff ! & plenty more to come from the good yeoman of this Nation. Let us all remember our history & our heritage to steer the future for our children & grand children on the 23rd of June.

      • Graham Wood

        Well said Preacher – could not agree more! The battle for freedom and liberty from the EU yoke is far greater than the surface “politics”.
        The liberty and right of exercise of Christian conscience and witness is also at stake here – if not the right to publicly proclaim the Christian gospel itself free from insidious interference from EU ” equality” laws, and being “offended” by distortions of ECHR rulings etc.

      • len

        IF we come out of the EU we will not suddenly revert back to our Judeo/Christian Foundation. This is a false hope.
        I also believe we are set on a course from which there is probably no turning back. ‘ Pandora’s box’ has been opened and the lid is not going back on any time soon.
        Coming out of the EU will have some benefits but will not be the answer to all the problems that have been unleashed in the UK and beyond.

        • dannybhoy

          Do you not think that by regaining our national sovereignty we might also use the opportunity to proclaim the supremacy and final authority of our British system of law and customs? To my mind this is where multiculturalism has gone wrong. The host nation has sought to accommodate the religious and cultural practices of minority groups instead of insisting minority groups give up practices and values alien to our own.
          The door should always be open for those who neither wish to assimilate assimilate nor become productive members of society to leave.

          • len

            I believe we should adopt’ the Australian model’.

            Prime Minister Julia Gillard(Australia)’s speech on immigrants…

            ‘This is OUR COUNTRY, OUR LAND, and OUR LIFESTYLE, and we will allow you every opportunity to enjoy all this. But once you are done complaining, whining, and griping about Our Flag, Our Pledge, Our Christian beliefs, or Our Way of Life, I highly encourage you take advantage of one other great Australian freedom, ‘THE RIGHT TO LEAVE‘.’

            ‘If you aren’t happy here then LEAVE. We didn’t force you to come here. You asked to be here. So accept the country YOU accepted.

          • dannybhoy

            Yes, good one. I admit to not liking multiculturalism, but it’s here and as long as the host nation asserts the authority of its laws and culture, and as you indicated becomes more selective about who is allowed to enter the nation, it can work..
            http://www.theguardian.com/education/2016/apr/27/staff-often-segregated-gender-faith-schools-chief-inspector-ofsted

          • Anton

            Have you a place and time stamp for that quote, please? I’ve seen many variants of it, which makes me suspicious.

    • Graham Wood

      Len. No chance! DC has been set on the course to absorb this nation into the EU empire, and clearly in collusion with the leaders of other member states including Juncker and the EU Commission – all of set purpose.
      Can the leopard change it’s spots?

      • len

        Probably the same was said of Saul(later to become Paul)?.
        It’s not over till its over…here’s hoping?

        • Graham Wood

          Well we live in hope Len. But the two cases are very different. Saul pursued and persecuted Christians out of mistaken and misplaced zeal for God, and repented.
          Cameron is an unbeliever, and has never shown the slightest sign of “repentance towards God and faith in Jesus Christ”, but contrarywise has lied and lied again in his ongoing attempts to con the British people.

          • len

            Agreed .But where there’s life there is hope.
            I firmly believe in ‘coming out’ of the EU and hope Cameron sees the error of remaining in the EU?.
            I believe we should pray for our leaders(however they present themselves?)
            William Tyndales last prayer was His last prayer was “Lord, open the King of England’s eyes”.

      • sarky

        Cameron is a rudderless ship. Reactive not proactive.

        • Anton

          He knows exactly what he wants. But it’s not the same as us.

    • big

      …len I’d like to parachute Cameron into Damascus!

  • steroflex

    Someone has actually heard of Flexcit? I do not believe it!
    Well done that man.
    And reporting Owen Paterson too. Wow!
    I loved the parallel with Charles I. In a bubble right to the end!

    • Jeremy Poynton

      Sadly, if Richard North didn’t spend so much time abusing everybody else in the game, Flexcit might have a far wider audience. He needs to get over himself, but I fear it’s far too late for that now, sadly.

      • Graham Wood

        JP. Fully agree. This man had much to offer the ‘leave’ campaign with his ability and research knowledge gained over some years. Unfortunately his daily excoriation of all who venture an opinion which may differ from his on jot or tittle rules him out as a serious player in this battle.
        Also, his obsession with his 400 page ‘Flexcit’ theory means that in terms of actually campaigning on the ground for most people, and especially ‘leave’ activists, he is somewhere on Planet Zog.
        Thank goodness for the sane and reasoned case made so convincingly by the likes of John Redwood, Dan Hannan, and not least by the best potential leader the Tories possess perhaps, Owen Paterson.

      • big

        ….he’s actually got worse,even if we leave it wont be good enough for North. it’s flexcit or nothing as far as he is concerned.

      • Little Black Censored

        Yes, he is Mr Grumpy.

    • big

      ….Flexcit is like somekind of intellectual fetishism.

  • IrishNeanderthal

    May I take this opportunity to relate what an African friend said to me about the Obama visit:

    Precisely, an old African adage says: “a good divorce better than a messy marriage”.

    It is a people’s choice to remain or leave as well as a local issue. Neither Obama nor Clinton have a word in it.

    Sadly, Boris is always Boris. Why did he forget to mention that Obama is not only a half Kenyan but cinquante pourcent Irish

    With the last point, Ann Dunham was only part Irish, but if you read the linked biography would you agree that she comes across as the “wrong sort of English”? Regarding her son, “Half-white man speak with forked tongue”.

    Also, I heard Adam Afriyie, MP for Windsor, saying that it’s a bit rich for Obama to talk about international agreement when America has not signed up to the Kyoto Protocol and things like that.

  • preacher

    Daniel Hannan. ‘ Dreams will triumph ‘ on you tube is well worth a watch for anyone who is undecided or wobbly about leaving. Just hard facts, no fear mongering, mud slinging or waffle about leaps into the dark.

  • Anton

    A very sharp comparison. I hope Paterson is right.

  • Dreadnaught

    A very compelling assessment by Owen Patterson ‘ to remain is a leap in the dark… as we witness the birth of a new country United States of Europe…’
    However, to detach ourselves from this shapeless apparition demands that as a truly independent country we would have to drastically reconstruct ourselves as a nation prepared to stand on its own merit in the world and at home.

    I doubt if we have any politicians with sufficient foresight and commitment to act for the preservation of a British Society that is so appealing to migrants and a thousand years of continuity bar the obvious 17th Century hiccup. We have gown flabby and spineless despite the post war period when we knew what austerity meant or when ‘punishment’ for the wrongdoer meant what it said and when the lazy and feckless we shunned and not feted.

    The indigenous British were indeed white skinned, hard nosed and warlike in defending our way of life and exerting our influence on other nations through trade and social standing and we should not be ashamed of that fact.

    That does not mean we need to behave like violent racists or that late incomers should become targets of street thuggery, quite the opposite in fact, but as a nation we have been duped by politicians, academia and media in to believing that anything must be allowed to pass if it is deemed the ‘culture’ of any random group of immigrants except for what the great majority rightly regard as British Culture.
    If the vote is to leave, then it will be up to us as individuals to each play a more active role in making our democracy work and bite the bullet of reality that says we get the politicians we deserve.

    By present standards however, who would bet on the one-legged man in an arse-kicking contest?

  • IanCad

    The analogy with Charles 1 may or may not be apt. Let us hope that if the CP does find its soul, leadership will arise from the backbenches.
    Still can’t see though, how Mr. Paterson can praise the PM for going along with the referendum, which, as I have stated – tediously by now – should have no part in our system of representative government.

  • pobjoy

    Charles I was a devout Arminian Catholic with a zeal for divine right

    That’s a curious combination to be devout about. Charles was king because his father was Protestant, supposedly. He was therefore chosen by the people (or some of them), unlike any Plantagenet, or even Tudor. The divine right theory was a curious interpretation of Paul’s exhortation to Christians to obey the civil power; had Jesus lived when Rome was a republic, he would have likewise exhorted the Jews to pay their taxes. The choice, and nature of that power was not the concern of Jesus or any of his apostles. If there was biblical precedent, it was to have no monarch, which was the original condition of Israel, before they disobediently chose to have a monarch. But Israel was pre-figurement of the church, not of civil society, so it cannot be said that civil monarchy is disobedience. So Charles’ divine right was actually the right of Charles, who was first in his own eyes, that were blinded to the fact that he was king by invitation. So Charles lost his head because, unlike Elizabeth, he failed to read the signs of the times.

    But, because Israel was pre-figurement of the church, the church must be free of human spiritual direction; the very purpose of Jesus’ atonement, on earth, was to make each believer a holder of the keys to the kingdom; to have the power to lose and to bind; to be a temple of the Holy Spirit, to have the mind of Christ. So monarchical papacy is egregious disobedience, and that is where Charles was wrong, also. But in this case, he knew he was wrong, and if the dead are raised to judgment, his true demise lies in the future.

    Catholicism had taken firm action against predestination long before the Reformation; it was one of the very few doctrines on which it was orthodox. Charles was ‘sort of’ right about predestination; right, but for the wrong reason. If his subjects believed themselves divinely elect, he could not control them via priests, for whom they could have neither need nor desire. The word ‘Arminian’ was a label invented to protect Calvinists against the dangerous accusation that they were heretics; dangerous, because it was manifestly true, despite all their strenuous efforts to seem in agreement with Protestantism.

  • len

    The very spirit that would save our Country is that self same spirit that those behind the EU have sought to eliminate.
    This is not confined to your religion alone but to your individuality, & your freedom of expression.
    The EU seeks to create a grey colourless world of people all conformed to the same ‘state ordained ‘model .Orwell had it right .Frighteningly right.

  • David

    I just adore the comparison of Cameron with Charles the First – excellent !

    As a hybrid of his “Ukip independent” and a “Presbyterian GO” (though within the conservative end of the C of E) I span all “three thirds” of the author’s anti-EU group – in fact, a fully committed, leaflet dispensing, patriotic activist who brooks no doubts about the rightness of our cause. Indeed so right is our cause that even if the elites usurp power for the time being, ultimately democracy and the people will not be held down.

    But we are asked “who will replace the King”. Well forgive me if this is naive, but wouldn’t it be good to have someone who eschews spin and deception, and speaks the blunt truth, to start to rebuild a tiny fragment of the peoples’ much abused trust in the political leadership ? They would also need to be good achievers. Of course I also want a thorough going conservative patriot who will rebuild our sense of national unity and purpose – so I’m not asking for much then ! Which candidate has such qualities ? Does Mr Orban of Hungary have any close relatives looking for a job ?

  • Anton

    I am surprised to see Charles I described as a Catholic (meaning in context Roman) of any sort. His sons are a different matter, but Charles seems to have been entirely at home with Archbishop Laud’s high-church protestantism. In particular, Charles could easily have told his governor Thomas Wentworth to go easy on Catholic Ireland in the 1630s, yet he did not; Wentworth (the future Earl of Strafford) became known bitterly in that land as “Thorough”.

    • pobjoy

      Wentworth did go easy on Catholics. He realised that there was no incentive for the Irish to modernise, because the country was still entirely agricultural and medieval. The best that could be hoped for was a pliant population that would not act as a springboard for Spanish invasion. In that sense, Charles was in the hands of Parliament.

      It was Cromwell who was known bitterly in Ireland.

      • Anton

        Both of them were. But my main point is that Charles I was genuine high-church protestant, not clandestine Catholic.

        • pobjoy

          Both of them were.

          We agree then, that comparison is odious.

          But my main point is that Charles I was genuine high-church protestant, not clandestine Catholic.

          The only reason given for supporting that view is now admitted to be false. We also have the invented word ‘protestant’, used as mendacious pejorative by Catholics, repeated.

          So it does seem as though Charles was a clandestine Catholic, along with Laud, and both were executed by responsible people who believed them to be traitorous, working for foreign interests.

          It would appear that clandestine Catholicism is still around; rather lightly disguised, in some cases

          • Anton

            I believe that protestants were so-named because they were people who “protested their faith”, not because they were protesting *against* Rome. I am open to correction but I would request sources.

            Speaking of which, what is your evidence that Charles I, and in particular Archbishop Laud, were clandestine Roman Catholics?

          • pobjoy

            I believe that protestants were so-named because they were people who “protested their faith”, not because they were protesting *against* Rome.

            Yet you use the lower case ‘p’, as is very often used by Catholics attempting to evade the conviction that their cult is a rebellious, even illegal one.

            what is your evidence that Charles I, and in particular Archbishop Laud, were clandestine Roman Catholics?

            As already stated; and this question adds to it, like an axe through a neck.

          • Anton

            On the matter of history, I cannot find any evidence in what you have written that Laud was a clandestine Catholic. (Nor do I believe Charles was, but let us start with Laud.) Please provide some evidence to back up your statement that “it does seem as though Charles was a clandestine Catholic, along with Laud”. If I have missed evidence about Laud that you have already provided, my apologies and I trust you will not mind repeating it.

            For Laud’s responsibility in the persecution of peaceful Puritan pamphleteers in the 1630s – for having their ears chopped off or being publicly flogged – I have no problem with Laud facing an equal punishment. In view of the number of floggings he was behind, that would presumably be fatal.

            On the personal matter, I am rather unused to suggestions that I am a clandestine Catholic. You may refer to numerous statements of mine on this blog attacking papal infallibility and Catholic doctrines about Mary, in dialogue with Happy Jack or Albert. I am, nevertheless, happy to state my position for you. I am an adult convert from atheism to Christianity who worshipped for a decade in the Church of England and then left it for an independent congregation, which holds (as I do) that all men are priests and that ordination is superfluous; and which is governed by a council of Elders, just as we take the Bible to describe. I think of myself as a “Bible Christian” but do not object to the description “protestant” with either lower or upper case first letter.

          • pobjoy

            Please provide some evidence to back up your statement that “it does seem as though Charles was a clandestine Catholic, along with Laud”.

            For the third time.

            It seems so because of the evidence provided by ‘Anton’.

          • Anton

            O, let readers decide for themselves about Laud and what has been said about him on this thread.

            Would you do me the favour of telling me your own beliefs and ecclesiastical background?

          • carl jacobs

            Pobjoy is among other things a Modalist.

          • Albert

            You mean he’s like Sabellius?

          • carl jacobs

            Yes. He denies the Trinity. I have seen him argue against in on Spectator.

          • Albert

            But that means he must believe in God. We should be thankful for small mercies.

          • carl jacobs

            The demons believe and tremble.

          • Uncle Brian

            That was what Servetus got into trouble for, wasn’t it?

          • carl jacobs

            I believe so. Anyways they are in the same county.

          • He’s a devoted member of the Church of Trollism.

          • CliveM

            Anton you’ve been exposed as. Papist!!

            I have to admit to surprise, you’ve kept it very well disguised!

          • Anton

            So well disguised that I don’t know it myself!

          • CliveM

            It’ll be confession tonight then.

          • Anton

            Homegroup, actually.

          • Albert

            TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

            I have argued with Anton for many years. I can vouch for the fact that he is not a Catholic, clandestine or otherwise.

            BTW, there is no such thing as a clandestine Catholic. Those members of the Church of England who might be called clandestine Catholics are simply Protestants with a bad conscience.

          • Anton

            Thank you for your comment about me.

            Without heat, were there not plenty of clandestine Catholics in England during Elizabeth’s reign?

          • Albert

            Possibly. I must admit I was talking about now, rather than then. The situation is different. In those days, you could be a clandestine Catholic by just not admitting it – perhaps you went to the CofE of service with cotton wool in your years etc. You went to Mass but didn’t tell anyone. By baptism you had been received into the Catholic Church, but to avoid being persecuted, you didn’t say much about it. You didn’t make any choice to be an Anglican, it happened automatically, because the monarch said so.

            But that’s not really the same as the situation now, in which someone (say) grows up, as I did, in the CofE, but then comes to hold Catholic beliefs. I don’t believe I became a Catholic until I was received. Until that time, I was a Protestant (note, I use the capital “P”, I’ve never come across the suggestion that I shouldn’t).

            What simply cannot be admitted is that Laud was a clandestine Catholic. You can’t administer the sacraments of the CofE and be a Catholic. By the very fact of administering those sacraments, one ceases to be a Catholic.

          • Anton

            Thank you for the clarification. I entirely agree with what you say here.

      • Jeremy Poynton

        And still is…

        • pobjoy

          Indeed.

        • …the bastard.

          • Pubcrawler

            Warty bastard

          • Uncle Brian

            Jack, see if you remember reading this somewhere:

            Instead of timid commemoration of the founder of the modern Parliament, we ought to laud and celebrate the name of Oliver Cromwell as a great Defender of the Faith. Certainly, we need something of his spirit injected into the Foreign Office today if we are ever again to advocate for and defend our Christian brothers and sisters abroad who die daily for their faith in Christ.

            http://tinyurl.com/cromwellday

          • The Archbishop is the last person who would claim his words are infallible, Brian.

            As one commenter noted:

            ardenjm said… Oh absolutely let’s commemorate this man – warts and all – as he said himself.
            Cranmer euphemistically admits:
            “Oliver Cromwell was more tolerant than most – though not of Papists and Episcopalians”
            600,000 dead in Ireland over 10 years.
            Ethnic and religious cleansing.
            Far worse than Syria…
            Cranmer puts up pictures about that – but doesn’t deign to mention the Irish Catholics Cromwell had slaughtered. And slaughter is the only word for it.

            But at least Cromwell protected the Protestants in France…

            But, yes, let’s acknowledge him and the way his regicide substituted monarchial absolutism with theocratic absolutism…

            And whilst we’re acknowledging his decade in power – it would be good to acknowledge the 1000 years when England was a Catholic country.

            “Just saying…”

          • IrishNeanderthal

            The survival of our British monarchy proabably owes more to Oliver Cromwell than any other person.

    • Little Black Censored

      Why should it mean “in the context Roman”? Charles was a catholic Anglican, the only person to be canonized by the Church of England.

      • Anton

        I took Catholic to mean “Roman Catholic” in His Grace’s phrase, but you’d better ask him if you want to be sure.

      • Pubcrawler

        The Church of England has no mechanism for canonising saints, so Charles’ saintly credentials are unofficial and not widely held.

        • pobjoy

          Quite so. In the CoE, every Christian is a saint, because that is the New Testament usage of this word. People who think that they can ‘canonise’ are insane, or worse.

          People are still much too easily led into farcical error because of the farcical cult that represented medieval religion in Europe. ‘Tradition’ and majorities are at least as likely to be signs of heresy than orthodoxy.

        • Little Black Censored

          “Charles’ saintly credentials are unofficial…”
          In that, he resembles a vast number of early Christians given the title of “saint”.

          • pobjoy

            Early?

      • pobjoy

        Why should it mean “in the context Roman”?

        There was no such thing as an Anglo-Catholic or ‘high church’ party in those days. To be Catholic was to be Roman Catholic; and to be Roman Catholic was to be potentially treasonous, especially if in a position of influence.

        There had been perfect agreement among all the Reformers, in England, Scotland and on the continent, that papalism was of the devil. The only unsettled issue was what was polity to replace it; and every acceptable option was democratic, in some degree. So when Elizabeth died, the only possible successor had to be Protestant. After the appalling shock of ‘Bloody Mary’, that was the condition upon which monarchy was permitted. James was Protestant, but, it turned out, only in name, and attempted to take England back to Catholicism; had this attempt had possessed any chance of success, James would certainly have been replaced. He really was both a fool and a traitor.

        So when his son married a Catholic, and appointed Laud, suspected of Roman leanings, as archbishop, the general reaction was, “Here we go again.”

        One might in any case question the loyalty to the Crown of the Anglo-Catholic or ‘high church’ party in these days. The Thirty-Nine Articles are said to permit this following, but it takes a very twisted approach of the meaning of words, that were written to be understood in ‘their plain meaning’, to get to that position; yet clerics sign assent to them. But then so do clerics who may have the most zany liberal views, so this is not noticed. Perhaps it should be, though.

        • Little Black Censored

          Whilst remembering that the terms we use are often anachronistic, it is perverse to argue that there was no “high church” or “catholic” movement in the C of E in Charles’s time. Non-papal catholicism, together with an interest in eastern Christianity, was a strong spiritual current for much of the 16th century, and it was renewed in the later Tractarian movement. There was/ should still be an overriding loyalty, not to whatever Cranmer happened to believe, except where – as he often was – right, but to the continuous tradition of the Church, and that tradition belongs not only to Roman Catholics.

          • pobjoy

            Whilst remembering that the terms we use are often anachronistic, it is perverse to argue that there was no “high church” or “catholic” movement in the C of E in Charles’s time.

            It would be to misapprehend, or perverse, to suppose that this has been argued. What was argued was that, unless an English person favoured Presbyterian polity, or a polity even less authoritarian, they were regarded as traitors. That’s why there were Civil Wars. Remember that it was Rome that, by brute force, made a private spirituality into a political phenomenon, and it was politics, rather than religion, that was the issue at that time. It is the quintessentially criminal nature of Catholicism that lies at the root of all major socio-religious problems that remain, in most of the world, including sharia countries. That needs to be widely recognised.

            Few people think of Anglo-Catholics as traitors, but that does not mean that they are not. Maybe Anglo-Catholics need to consider their position, especially as they have signed the Thirty-Nine Articles, but teaching against their ‘plain meaning’. They cannot be considered Christians at all, and it is absurd that any consider them so.

  • Uncle Brian

    There’s an overlap here with the previous thread. Recep Erdogan evidently believes in the divine right of presidents, and Angela Merkel is inclined to agree with him.

  • Anton

    On a point of information, I believe Owen Paterson was the only Cabinet Minister to vote against gay marriage.

    • Jeremy Poynton

      Great job at DEFRA as well. A real Conservative, unlike Cameron & Osborne, who are sickly pale blue Social Democrats who love the big state, tax and spend.

      • Anton

        Yes, he faced the music at the flooding of the Somerset levels like a man, saw what had gone wrong under previous governments and began to sort it out. And he doesn’t want to fill the landscape with windmills that don’t produce enough electricity and unreliably.

        • big

          ….i don’t think he got any money for those people from the EU solidarity fund he refused to! no he wouldn’t cover the countryside in wind mills …..no just pump it full of toxic crap.

          • Anton

            Which toxic crap? Could you be a little more explicit please?

            PS I take it you are referring to fracking. Great process, the chemicals involved remain far underground and get us shot of our dependence on MidEast oil.

          • big

            grow up,ok you go and buy a house next to a fracking site,just watch the value fall as all those lovely safe chemicals start oozing out. do some research i would start in North Yorkshire.

          • Anton

            Nobody enjoys being next to any chemical works. But the anti-fracking movement is essentially an arm of the Greens who want us all to go back to a rural idyllic lifestyle that never actually existed.

          • big

            ….and the pro fracking movement is essentially an arm of corporate satanism hell bent on destroying the world, Paterson supports this his only god is greed, money and power.

          • Anton

            The modern world and much that you take for granted in the Western way of life (even if you merely blog) is due to transmittable and transportable energy at reasonable cost. Global warming is greatly overdone. We are presently dependent on Islamic regimes for oil. For these reasons I say Frack On, even if you say Frack Off. All that is new about modern fracking is higher pressure and bendy pipes. Such technology isn’t going to be developed by a couple of blokes out of their garage and if you don’t like big oil companies, don’t buy their product. Live 18th century style and see how you enjoy it.

          • Uncle Brian

            Anton, is fracking still economic with the current low crude oil prices?

          • Anton

            Borderline at present, and certainly nobody will open new fracking wells just now. But meanwhile isn’t it grand playing Saudi Arabia and Iran against each other, while we still have all our shale oil in the ground ready to be fracked whenever the price rises again…

          • Uncle Brian

            In principle. yes, I agree, though I can see a certain degree of risk in the unstable triangular standoff between Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the West. What has puzzled me in the last few days is the announcement that Saudi Arabia hopes to end its “addiction to oil”, which provides more than 90 per cent of its budget revenues. Whatever can they be planning to produce instead?

          • Anton

            They can spend their reserves to kick-start many industries, although the expertise needed would tie them into the West more closely.

          • Uncle Brian

            They’ve got plenty of dollars to spend on kick-starting whatever they want to, but what medium-term prospects are there for industrial production of any kind in the desert?

          • Anton

            “The reform blueprint is inspired by a McKinsey study – Beyond Oil – that laid out how the country can double GDP over the next fifteen years and reinvent itself with a $4 trillion of investment across eight industries, from electrical manufacturing, to cars, healthcare, metals, steel, aluminium smelting, solar power, and most surprisingly tourism.”

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/25/saudi-prince-vows-thatcherite-revolution-and-escape-from-oil/

          • Uncle Brian

            Thank you, Anton, I hadn’t seen that. I wonder to what extent McKinsey aren’t simply ripping the boy prince off by telling him what he wants to hear. Thi is an interesting bit, though: McKinsey warned that half-hearted reform risks disaster, and bankruptcy.

          • big

            its work of the devil

          • big

            I hate the modern world,its destroying us, come on get with the program, denounce all this stuff, you don’t need it.As good Christians we should seek out a simple life.

          • Anton

            Yes and No. Have you ever been to hospital?

          • big

            consumerism sends many to an early grave

          • big

            ….and yes I’ve been to hospital…..nearly died …blood poisoning….why? because i worked for one of those great big nasty ,greedy corporations……just so people could eat cheap crap…..wages were terrible…..the same place is today full of migrant workers……but hey its just another example of the kind of free market BS that St Owen Of Paterson supports

        • Old Nick

          I thought the difficulties in the Somerset Levels were caused less by previous governments than by slavish adherence to diktats from Our Masters in Brussels, who cared more for the Willow Warbler than they did for the farmers who have actually been working this land ever since the Sweet Track was built to Glastonbury (and therefore also knew quite a bit about WIllow Warblers).

          • Anton

            As I understand it, mainly from an in-depth article by Christopher Booker who got to the bottom of it, it was a combination of Government insisting on taking over the maintenance from local farmers and then not doing it properly, for two reasons: (1) Environmentalist prioritising of wetland birds over people; (2) a tripling of the cost of the offshore disposal of dredged mud due to a new Brussels regulation. I also know a farming family down there who were not affected but know the score. But do check up for yourself.

      • big

        …what a joke! he’s not a Conservative….he would have Britains green and pleasant land covered in GMO crops,and under the soil he would pump,and pump toxic crap for the sake of fracking.

      • What great job at DEFRA?

  • Albert

    Cameron thought that by calling a referendum he would put an end to the infighting in the Tory Party. Instead, he has created wounds in the Tory Party and the country, that will not quickly heal – this is clearly not going to bode well for Mr Cameron’s future. Large numbers of people on both sides now feel more strongly about the EU than before, and they are unlikely to go quiet just because the country votes contrary to their own position.

    If IN wins: Cameron will have lost the support of most of Tories, who are voting out, and who will then resent him, for creating an electoral mandate for what will be seen as EU aggression.
    If OUT wins: he will not be able to carry on having been rebuffed in his own policy by the country, and probably not trusted by the country to follow through on a policy he has so clearly set his face (and his reputation) against.

    • preacher

      Yesterday’s posting about Cameron’s support & intention to ‘ fight ‘ for Turkey to join the E.U seems to imply that he feels he will still be in a position within said group to be able to do so after the result of the referendum.
      Secure in the knowledge & conceit that his lies & obfuscation will confuse the electorate into voting ‘ IN ‘. Let us hope & pray that his intentions are fruitless & he is toppled from power.

      • Albert

        Most importantly, let us pray that God’s will be done, for he works for good in everything with those who love him. So even if Cameron doesn’t fall, it will still be good in the end.

  • Findaráto

    Why is it that the fundamentalists who make up such a small percentage of the voting public always believe their candidates are poised to sweep to power?

    I seem to remember some deluded Christian candidate bragging on this site during the last General Election about how God was going to make a miracle happen and cause him to be elected to Parliament. He wasn’t. I wonder, was anyone shocked?

    And now we have the fake archbishop prophesying the ascendancy of a man about whom we know little except that he thinks badgers are master strategists capable of outmaneuvering our brightest minds. Oh, and he wants us all to eat Frankenfood too. If we won’t, we’re just wicked…

    *Sigh* There’s more of a connection to reality in Dame Proudie’s twee little missives than in anything posted here by the nobody who calls himself Cranmer. It’s like watching a five year-old play a game where he’s king of the castle and everyone else a dirty rascal. I suppose one should indulge the poor little chap and play along with the charade. But does encouraging a fantasist to fantasize really help him?

    • Anton

      Who thought, 12 months before David Cameron became head of the Tory party, that he would?

      As for fundamentalists, Paterson is not, I believe, a practising Christian.

      • Findaráto

        I have no idea what Paterson’s faith is or if he even has one. I was referring to the fundamentalist who’s proposing him as an alternative prime minister. You know who I mean: the crazed Christian who calls himself Cranmer.

        • Albert

          Why do you think he’s a fundamentalist?

          • big

            …he’s a free market findamentalist…..sell us all,everyone one of us! definitely not to be trusted.

          • Findaráto

            The real Cranmer condemned John Frith as a heretic for denying the real presence. Frith was burned at the stake as a result.

            If you name yourself after someone who was willing to see murder done for his faith, what are you if not a fundamentalist?

          • Albert

            If you name yourself after someone who was willing to see murder done for his faith, what are you if not a fundamentalist?

            If you are that lacking in understanding of how imagery and symbolism works, then I think you are a literalist yourself – i.e. a fundamentalist of sorts.

          • Findaráto

            Has the fake archbishop ever disavowed the actions of the man whose identity he usurps? The last post written by him that I read on the subject was full of glowing praise and admiration for a man who happily turned heretics over to the secular arm to be burned alive for the crime of disagreeing with him.

            I wonder if in the future someone will create a blog called “Führer Hitler” praising the achievements of the Nazi leader (like trains running on time, autobahns, etc…) while failing to address the things he’d rather not remember (like genocide, armed aggression, etc…) Anyone can be sanctified by the simple expedient of omitting any fact that doesn’t support the story we’ve decided is the truth.

          • The Explorer

            St Paul persecuted Christians, but what he did later cancelled out what he did earlier. Nobody would deny that Cranmer made mistakes. But any assessment of him must take into account that he died as a martyr himself.

          • Anton

            And came back to life, right here.

          • big

            they already exist,in ukraine and the baltic states,but they are our friends! next time you watch Cameron think about that! we have a ‘conservative’ prime minister who supports neo nazis! not to mention his head chop chop friends in Riyadh….. conservatives= a sick, perverse mindset that facilitates murder and corporate Fascism. …rant over.

          • Dreadnaught

            Anyone can be sanctified by the simple expedient of omitting any fact that doesn’t support the story we’ve decided is the truth.
            You often hear the phrase ‘Hitler made the trains run on time’ but in fact it was first attributed to his Italian role model. “Mussolini made the trains run on time” was uttered by both people trying to make the point that even dictatorial governments had some good points, and people annoyed at the latest delay on their rail journey. Unfortunately, they and you have fallen for the pro-Fascist propaganda that Mussolini used to bolster his power in 1920s and 30s Italy. As well as styling high profile campaigns as ‘Battles’, such as the marsh reclamation project dubbed the “Battle for Land” – Mussolini picked on the rail industry as something to show how his supposedly dynamic rule had improved Italian life.

          • Findaráto

            Yes, I’ve heard the claim that Italian trains weren’t really more punctual under Mussolini (or Hitler) and that it was all fascist propaganda. It may well be true. But it may also be a lie. I haven’t seen any credible evidence to confirm or deny this, just claims and counterclaims from various biased sources who have their own axes to grind, like the Telegraph and the Independent among others.

            At the end of the day, for the purposes of my argument, it doesn’t really matter. The point I was making was that any historical figure can be rehabilitated by praising what you want to praise about him and omitting the rest. What you praise about him may be true or it may be an historical fiction. What matters is that it’s accepted as truth, a bit like the romanticized story of Cranmer’s martyrdom.

          • Albert

            I’m sure he can answer for himself.

          • big

            yes he voted for war.

          • The Explorer

            Historically, the term ‘Fundamentalist’ describes an adherent of the contents of the twelve-volume ‘Fundamentals’ of Princeton Theological Seminary. Fundamentalism was a Protestant reaction to theological Modernism, but included a rejection of the Real Presence.

            Marxists, Maoists and Nazis were willing to see murder done for their respective faiths. Does that make them fundamentalists too?

          • Findaráto

            Marxism, Maoism and Nazism were not faiths. They were philosophies. But being born as they were from the ashes of religious decay, they bore many of the characteristics of the faiths they superseded. It may therefore be appropriate to call at least some of their adherents “fundamentalists”.

          • Anton

            Marxism certainly is a faith, just a nontheistic one.

          • Findaráto

            Marxism can be experienced as a faith. But not necessarily. It can merely be a political conviction, and that’s not the same thing.

          • Anton

            You mean that there are nominal and committed members of the Marxist faith. Just like theistic faiths…

          • Findaráto

            It isn’t quite that black and white. Yes, there are nominal and committed Marxists. But there are also many shades in between.

            In my experience religion tends to attract black and white, all or nothing thinkers who find it difficult to understand that not everyone shares their need for absolute values.

          • Anton

            It’s a poor man who doesn’t believe something passionately.

          • Findaráto

            On the contrary, paupers are ruled by their passions.

          • The Explorer

            Yes, defining a faith is tricky. Buddhism is called a faith, but belief in gods is hardly central. Bertrand Russell argued that Marxism was a faith because although Marx was an atheist he retained a cosmic optimism that only theism could justify.

            But to return to this term ‘fundamentalist’, if I’ve understood you right a fundamentalist thinks it justified to murder someone for holding incorrect convictions; even though the original fundamentalists said that killing people for having different beliefs was wrong.

            On the original definition, Martin would be a fundamentalist, but by your definition, he would not be.

          • Dreadnaught

            What’s a cosmic optimism?

          • The Explorer

            The belief that history would move in the direction that Marx decreed it should.

            In evolutionary terms, the belief that any change will automatically be an improvement rather than a deterioration. Eg the presence of Islam in Europe is a Change; therefi

          • The Explorer

            The belief that history will move by the process that Marx decreed it would.

            Evolutionary optimism is much the same: change is always upward. The presence of Islam in Europe is a change; therefore, the presence of Islam is an improvement in the evolution of society. And so on.

          • Findaráto

            I wouldn’t be so sure. You only have his word to go by.

            It’s easy to make claims of virtue from a position of total impotence. Think about former Communist regimes before the revolutions that brought them to power. Lenin and Mao were both champions of a workers’ paradise where the ordinary man would live in freedom and comfort. Didn’t work out that way, did it? Look at Bloody Mary and her desire to unite her subjects under benign Catholic rule. We all know how that ended.

            It’s not that absolute power corrupts absolutely, but rather that the lies we tell ourselves about our good intentions never survive the acquisition of power.

            Give Martin control over us and the heresy trials will begin only a short time later. While he can do nobody any harm he tells himself he doesn’t want to. But put the power to act in his hands and we’ll soon see the pretence of virtue crumble. He’s a true fundamentalist in the sense that he’s motivated by fundamental hatred, which he dresses up as Christian love. One only has to read between the lines of his posts to see what would happen if he ruled the world. We can all be thankful he does not and never will.

          • The Explorer

            I don’t believe Martin would undertake heresy trials. His conduct is guided by the New Testament, which does not advocate theocracy. The procedure laid down by Paul for dealing with heretics involves expelling them from the Church if they ignore warnings, but does not call for burning them or killing them by other means.

          • IanCad

            Believe me Findars, they most certainly are faiths. Have you ever had a conversation with a rabid Communist, Green Party member, Global Warming fantasist, or even a true democrat – one who believes wisdom lies in the will of the majority?

          • Findaráto

            There are “rabid” believers in all kinds of faiths and philosophies. And then there are more reasonable and reflective people who give some credence to certain ideas, but not in a dogmatic or absolute way. It’s got nothing to do with the faith or philosophy and everything to do with personality type. Dogmatists believe whatever they happen to believe in a dogmatic manner.

          • Anton

            But they are attracted to some belief systems more than others. I’d be surprised if you disagree with that, even if you have little idea of what New Testament Christianity actually is, from the politicised versions that have done the rounds for 1700 years.

          • Findaráto

            Dogmatists are attracted to dogmatic creeds. Pragmatists not so much.

          • Anton

            No, they believe dogmatically in pragmatism.

          • Findaráto

            Says the dogmatist who can envisage no other way of seeing the world.

            Very telling.

          • Anton

            You have your core beliefs too. It’s unavoidable. You won’t acknowledge them here, and it might be that you only find out what they are when you are put to the test.

          • Findaráto

            I agree that core beliefs are unavoidable for rigid and dogmatic personality types such as yours. And as part of that rigidity and dogmatism, you’re incapable of conceiving any other way of being.

            This is the reality of the religious narcissist. What you believe is truth and anyone who disagrees is just plain wrong and doesn’t really believe what he’s saying, but is just being bloodyminded because he’s jealous of the fact that god is made in your image and not his.

          • Anton

            Anybody might think you were trying to wind me up. It’s actually a matter of basic logic. People can change their core beliefs, of course.

          • Findaráto

            Not basic logic, basic dogma. You have decided that we must all have core beliefs, therefore we all have core beliefs. Your logic is the logic of the ego triumphant. You believe, therefore it is.

          • Anton

            No, it’s just that most people haven’t thought it through, and the core belief of most, sadly, is saving their own skins. If only they really knew how…

          • The Explorer

            Are you suggesting that core beliefs are avoidable for some people? Surely to think that there are no core beliefs is itself a core belief?

          • IanCad

            Well put!

          • big

            ….or a free market fundamentalist who manipulate the many……truly evil.

          • Anton

            TWELVE VOLUMES are just the fundamentals? Give me one pious peasant over a seminar of theologians anyday, be they mediaeval scholastic Catholics or Princeton protestants.

          • Findaráto

            That makes sense. Pious peasants are easier to lead by the nose, aren’t they? Trying to get a seminar of theologians to follow you is like trying to herd cats.

            It’s all about compliance to your will, isn’t it? That’s the root of your faith. Three in one and one in three, as long as everyone follows me…

            Welcome to the inaugural service at the First ChristiAnton Church!

          • Anton

            Pious peasants know the New Testament and are therefore not prone to being “blown about by winds of doctrine”.

          • Wasn’t it Thomas More who issued the warrant for the arrest of John Frith for heresy?

          • Findaráto

            He was tried by Stokesley, Gardiner, and Longland after Cranmer ordered his trial. Of course Cranmer (the real one, you understand, not the imposter who runs this blog) was acting on orders from the king, which he obeyed without demur. So much for Christian conscience and the sanctity of life.

        • big

          ..money! …

        • Anton

          You mean the man who is tolerant and fine enough to let you insult him on his own blog?

          • Findaráto

            Tolerant, schmolerant. The fake archbishop makes a big song and dance about freedom of speech, so he can hardly be seen to be censoring comments he doesn’t like. But don’t be fooled, this isn’t tolerance. It’s pure Thatcherism. Just like the Iron Lady, the fake archbishop is not for turning and once he’s said something, he has to stand by it no matter how much he regrets it. Otherwise nobody will ever take him at his word again.

            Comments like mine are not tolerated here. They’re suffered.

          • Don’t flatter yourself; they are simply ignored.

          • big

            dont reply then !

          • Anton

            What one does counts more than what one says. And, re Cranmer, you are still here.

          • Findaráto

            My point exactly. My presence here is suffered because to ban me would show the fake archbishop’s commitment to freedom of speech to be nothing more than empty rhetoric.

          • Anton

            You say that that’s his motivation, but can you prove it?

          • Findaráto

            Based on observation of the way he operates this site, I believe it to be the most likely explanation.

            Like most dogmatic Christians, the fake archbishop’s reputation means everything to him. If he were caught red-handed in an act of hypocrisy, like supporting free speech on the one hand and banning unwelcome contributors to his site on the other, how could he continue to worship himself as upstanding and true?

          • Anton

            And what evidence have you that he does that?

          • Findaráto

            Observation of Christians in action. They all worship themselves by proxy. God is made in their image, with all the bits they don’t like plastered over with heavy stage makeup.

            Peer review confirms my findings. So my theory is a solid one, although like all theories it is subject to change as and when new evidence becomes available. If I ever meet that mythical creature, the truly humble Christian, I may be forced to revise my hypothesis. But it hasn’t happened yet.

          • Anton

            You haven’t *met* anybody on this blog. You see only words, not deeds, and even then only a certain sample of words because you choose to act as an Agent Provocateur.

          • Findaráto

            My interactions with Christians are not, unfortunately, limited to this blog. I’ve met hundreds, if not thousands, of Christians. And to a man and a woman not a single one of them has displayed any signs of true humility.

            From the most modest peasant whose belief in the Church proceeds from an absolute belief in the rectitude of his own conscience, to the most sophisticated cardinal whose confidence in his ability to manipulate others and turn everything to his own advantage is boundless, they all have one thing in common: self-belief. They don’t worship God, they worship a divine projection of themselves. Which just isn’t humble, now is it?

          • Anton

            If you’ve had enough of Christians why do you stick around here?

          • Findaráto

            Let lurkers examine every side of each argument and make up their own minds about what’s probable and improbable.

          • The Explorer

            What would true humility be like? How do you know that you would recognise it if you were confronted with it?

          • Findaráto

            Humble people are not proud, or arrogant, or overbearing.

            They don’t project their own egos onto the world around them, give them a makeover, make them divine and call them God.

            In effect it’s difficult to see how a Christian could be humble. The belief precludes the characteristic by the very nature of how it works.

          • The Explorer

            Thank you. Yes, if you think there’s a God who has made us in a certain way and has thus commanded certain things and forbidden others then you will see some forms of conduct as right and others as wrong. You cannot do otherwise. By that definition of humility, no Christian can ever be humble.
            Two thoughts on this.
            1. If you believe that your convictions are God-inspired, then that can mean a) they are binding only on believers or b) they ought to be binding on everybody. There is disagreement about this among Christians.
            2. Anyone who thinks at all will think that some things are right and others are wrong; so no thinking persons can ever be humble (by your definition) because they will consider those who disagree with them to be in error. A liberal like Rawls, for instance, believes in abortion and thinks that those who oppose it are misguided. He would seek to exclude such people from his theoretical ideal community. I suppose the difference is that Christians regard this impossible thing of yours humility as a virtue, whereas non-Christians do not. Nietzsche thought those capable of doing so should elevate the magnificence of pride.

          • The Explorer

            Christians who think Christian ethics are binding only on believers will think that things like theft, murder and adultery are forbidden to them. They need not be forbidden to non-believers: that will depend on the ethical system used by the secular State in framing its laws.

            In practice, the ethical consensus reached by the secular State through trial and error is likely to be fairly similar to Christian ethics. (Bertrand Russell said somewhere that what the world needed was Christian love.) Christians would say there is a reason for this.

          • That’pretty good ROI there, Anton; invest a single sentence, get back to your work and wait for Findy to return with an oversupply of verbiage. Ping me if ypu provide financial advice services.

          • Anton

            Buy gold!

          • Brilliant!

          • How wrong you are – again. He has very publically rebuked and banned Happy Jack’s author on no less than three occasions.

          • Findaráto

            One supposes you must have infringed the rules of the blog by posting under multiple aliases or committing some other dishonourable trick in order to be banned, Front Room.

            To my knowledge I have infringed no rules here. You might not like what I say, and the fake archbishop probably doesn’t like it either, but unless I break a rule, ejecting me on the basis that my comments offend or upset would be hypocritical.

            I suspect that your problems here stem not so much from your general oikishness and all-too-evident bargain basement social status, but rather from a basic lack of honesty.

          • No, Happy Jack’s author was rude and insulting to our host and somewhat boring in that he

          • Findaráto

            Still here…

          • A better hypothesis: Your presence is suffered here because HG skips over your incteadingly predictable comments. Now and then, though, he desires to please his bored communicants by blowing you away and forcing you to crawl back under a ludicrous new persona.

          • Findaráto

            You clearly don’t understand Disqus rules and regulations. The fake archbishop could ban me from posting on his blog. But he can’t delete my Disqus account and, of course, never has.

            Like all religionists you jump to unwarranted conclusions because you’re not in possession of all the facts, so you fill in the gaps with supposition and fantasy.

    • Dreadnaught

      No one is compelling you to stay/return, but you do seem to enjoy your self indulgences. Oh I see, you want to engage with the man one to one by whatever provocative means: which is sad if true as I usually read your missives with an open mind as regards you motives.

      • Findaráto

        You think I want to provoke the fake archbishop into reacting?

        Well that would be a waste of time and effort, wouldn’t it? The man (if indeed he is a man) has usurped the identity of a sixteenth century archbishop, and clerics of that period would never have engaged with skeptics and non-believers. They’d have sent us straight to the stake. There would have been no discussion. Just a scornful denunciation and a blowtorch up the doublet.

        • How rude you are. When visiting a person’s blog it is akin to joining them in their front room for a discussion. Show some respect or piss off elsewhere.

          • big

            it’s a funny front room when the whole world can come’in’ more like moving your front room into the street!

          • Findaráto

            ROFL!

            Jack living up to the full and fell associations of his name. A little yapping terrier who thinks he’s a German shepherd.

            Yap away, boy. You’s sooooo scawy when you’s angwy!

          • You are just a rude, attention seeking dick head, Linus.

          • Findaráto

            Who’s rude? The one using abusive language, perhaps?

            And I’ve found a new name for you. Front Room. It sums you up nicely. Demotic origins you can’t leave behind even after a lifetime of pretension and self-declared superiority.

            So what do you do in your front room, Front Room? Watch the telly? Betcha got one o’ them dead kewl 110 inch curvy ones, eh? Wi’ Sky and s’round sound. And a leather recliner from DFS. Or maybe Eye-keea.

            Got you pegged now, innit?

          • Well, we could all just call you “The Back Door Findamentalist”.

            There once was a Fronchie findamentalist
            A most unsavoury and eccentric mentalist
            Hysterically spitting and shouting
            His weird ideas a flouting
            Ever becoming increasingly extremist

            *****************

            There once was a Frenchie named Linus
            Poor sod, he couldn’t tell vaginas from arses
            One day in his haste
            He got covered in waste
            And now suffers acute urethritis

          • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

            How about just calling him ‘Fundament’?

    • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

      +Yawn+

      • len

        ‘Findy’ must be coming to the end of his rope a short snapping sound and he will be gone…Not because His Grace does not want free speech but because free speech carries a certain responsibility and that is not to try and remain at ‘centre stage’ at whatever cost by whatever means. There have been those who sole intention was to destroy every thread not through’ controversy'(been there myself)but through sheer ‘bloody mindedness’.

        • Mrs Proudie of Barchester

          We hope and pray, len, we hope and pray!

        • Uncle Brian

          His envy of our dear, dear Mrs P is eating away at his entrails. How long can his physical health hold out, I wonder.

    • chiefofsinners

      There are fundamentalists and there are Findamentalists and the two are remarkably similar.

      • Most excellent.

        There once was a Fronchie findamentalist
        A most unsavoury and eccentric mentalist
        Hysterically spitting and shouting
        His weird ideas a flouting
        Ever becoming increasingly extremist

  • bluedog

    Comfortably off-topic, Your Grace, but nonetheless topical, the current anti-semitic eruption in the Labour Party has given your communicant an idea. Instead of removing Israel and transplanting 7 million Israelis to Minnesota or wherever, how about a scheme of Pallies to the Palatinate? Currently the EU pays billions of Euros a year to the Palestinian Authority, Hamas and any other terrorist groups claiming democratic authority and bordering Israel. This would appear to be grossly inefficient, open to corruption, and almost certainly not achieving the required delivery of essential services to the target demographic. Given the German government’s generous policy on the resettlement of ‘Syrians’, it would appear to make complete sense to extend this largesse to the Palestinian people. Think of the benefits. No more would we agonise over whether a two state solution was viable, there would be a one state solution, the EU. Your communicant humbly suggests that in the interests of world peace, the British government should adopt this policy and persuade our good friends in Brussels to do so too.

    • Dreadnaught

      For the amount of hard cash that has been and still is, pouring into Gaza, they could have established for themselves a State the equal of the glitter of Monaco or wherever.
      But no, they would rather play the perennial victim and concentrate on maintaining the illusion of a golden afterlife in an Islamic heaven. Brainwashing works better when backed with the threat of koranic violence.

  • David

    The C of E has released a prayer seeking guidance for wise decision making regarding the referendum. It can be viewed on http://www.anglicanmainstream.

    It is basically neutral politically, so I do not object to it. However the line about the UK set alongside the nations of Europe is a little too parochial for me. The UK is an international trading nation, of some centuries, and so must be seen against its true context, which is of course global. Let’s not be “little Europeans” shall we !

  • One good speech doth not a Prime Minister make. Owen Patterson has only just said in his own way what Farage has been saying all along, and also the various speakers at GO events have been preaching from their different perspectives. Of course it will be safer to leave the club EU.

    • Anton

      True, but he was the only Cabinet Minister to vote against gay marriage, he had an integrated energy policy that was anti-wind-turbine and not driven by hysteria over carbon, and quickly understood the problems when the Somerset levels flooded. He is also tired of country subsidising town via the relatively uniform council tax levels although townsfolk get far more services.

      • Findaráto

        “It wasn’t my fault I was outsmarted by badgers” is hardly the utterance of a potential leader and statesman. It’s political incompetence of “wrong kind of snow” proportions.

        • Anton

          It isn’t smart to put in inverted commas words that the man never said.

          If the worst you can say about Paterson is that his civil servants couldn’t count badgers properly then he’s far ahead of Dave.

          • Findaráto

            It’s perfectly legitimate to paraphrase. What he actually said was that “the badgers are moving the goalposts”, which in many ways is worse.

            It shows that he’s gaffe-prone and doesn’t consider the implications of what he says before he says it.

            Add to that his factually erroneous comments about Golden Rice and other Frankenfoods and you’re left with the inescapable conclusion that the man is not prime minister material.

            But by all means, I encourage you to support him. I heartily approve of Christians throwing their “weight” (such as it is) behind joke candidates. The bigger the womble they support, the more womblish they look themselves.

          • Anton

            Paraphrasing is indeed legitimate, but inverted commas strongly suggest a verbatim quote which was not the case.

            If I prefer him to Dave, and you want me to, then we are both happy.

          • Findaráto

            Am I happy that your preferred candidate is unelectable? Of course I am!

            You probably are too. If you know you’ve lost all credibility in advance, you have more time to moan about your grievances and polish your martyr’s halo. In fact one wonders if your choice of candidate wasn’t made with that very strategy in mind.

            What you don’t realize is that I have you completely pegged. You’re bound by biblical prophecy, so you can’t support anyone who might actually win or you’d be undermining the accuracy of your own holy book, which states that the world will despise you. Your candidate must therefore be beaten heavily or you’ll have proven God to be a liar. Hence your support for Paterson.

            It all makes perfect sense. But you could probably do even better. There are more ridiculous Conservatives than Paterson. How about Rees-Mogg? Or La Widdecombe? You could wheel her out of retirement and stick her on a gold and white hustings (Vatican colours, you understand..) and she could campaign for the re-Catholicisation of Britain, the return of Calais and the burning of all gays.

            If the objective is ridicule, I’d plump for Widdy. Dress her up in that Strictly Big Bird number and point her in the direction of a few immigrants or some feckless parents. All the ridicule you could ever hope for will be yours for the asking and your dreams of the Second Coming will move one step closer to becoming reality…

          • Anton

            I support Paterson because I approve of his policies and his voting record. Nothing religious in those issues and to my knowledge he is not a Christian.

            You wouldn’t be trying to wind me up, by any chance?

          • big

            …. he’s certainly no Christian as he supports free market fundamental fascists and satanic financiers.

          • Findaráto

            And don’t forget the multinationals who want to foist Frankenfood on us. It’s all part of the global elite lizard plot. We eat their food and fall under their mind control. And then the lizard king arrives from planet Zog in a big spaceship and establishes his thousand year kingdom here on earth.

            Apparently his favourite snack is dry roasted newborn human, which is why he’s so dead set against abortion. It’s the last couple of months of maturation that gives them their special crunch.

          • big

            ….absolutely now you’re talking.

          • Anton

            Paterson’s anti-abortion? I didn’t know that, thank you!

          • Findaráto

            No, no, no … do try to follow!

            Paterson’s not the lizard king. He’s just a minor player in the global elite lizard Christian plot. Christians support him, he loses, you end up looking like even bigger wombles than you already do.

            The Bible prophecies of Christians being ridiculed having come true, waves of highly charged derisional energy start to float about the planet and somehow open a rift in time and space to planet Zog, through which the lizards start beaming tons of Frankenfood directly into our supermarkets.

            Following me so far?

            We eat the food and become subject to the lizards’ mind control and then the lizard king nips through the rift in his big flash spaceship, descends in glory from the heavens and establishes his 1000 year kingdom.

            Meanwhile we’re all blissed up on lizard Frankenfood and start pumping out newborn babies, which the lizard king collects and dry roasts to serve as finger food at his lizard parties.

            And thus the Christian vision is fulfilled and we’re turned into drugged up baby machines who live happily ever after while the lizard king nibbles on our cheese and onion flavoured offspring and thanks whatever deity he worships for the stupidity of human beings.

            Capisce?

          • big

            ….Frankenfood…..its called salt and suger…. highly adictive

          • Anton

            I understand what you are saying but I’ve better things to do than draft any other reply.

          • Findaráto

            Unbeliever! Heretic! To the dry roaster with you!

            The Gospel of St. Findaráto is God’s Word on earth, and if you won’t accept his son the lizard king as your rightful lord and start producing the raw material for his salty snacks, you’ll be hurled into the dry roaster, there to go round and round for a thousand years being covered in layer after layer of cheese and onion flavour until eventually you’re emptied into the salt and vinegar vat and left to pickle for the rest of time.

            Repent, for the end is nigh! Ye know not what ye do!!! I mean, it’s not even a nice balsamic, but a crappy old Sarson’s malt that reeeeeally makes your eyes sting…

          • Anton

            Findaráto was never canonised in Tolkien.

          • bluedog

            Nurse!

          • Many a true word said in jest. You don’t know just how far off the truth you really are!

          • Findaráto

            How far off the truth or how near to it?

            Does David Icke have disciples on this blog?

            It wouldn’t surprise me if he does. If you can believe in virgin births and resurrections, why not also in reptilian aliens controlling our elites?

            My own position is clear however. Give me proof that Jesus was born of a virgin and was crucified, died and rose on the third day and then I’ll believe it. Until then it’s just an amusing legend.

            In a similar vein, give me proof that our elites are really alien lizards in disguise. Until you do, expect me to scoff. It’s really all I can do.

            I’ve met several important people who, according to Icke, are implicated in the lizard plot. While it’s true that a few of them have something vaguely reptilian about the eyes, I can assure you that what can be seen of their skin is scale-free, their tongues are profoundly unforked and on no occasion when rising from a seated position do they ever leave leathery eggs rolling about on their chairs.

            I can therefore only assume that Icke is mistaken or, as seems more likely to me, completely away with the fairies. A bit like most Christians.

            When fantasy becomes reality, concerns for the fantasist’s mental health must be uppermost in the minds of all sensible people.

          • I’m no conspiracy theorist or follower of David Icke, but I think he’s tapping into something and trying to make sense of the world, the ruling elites and how they operate. He has been proved right on a few occasions.
            It’s not a lizard plot as such, but he says that humans have evolved from fish and reptiles and that the Amygdala part of our brain that is the small brain left over from our days of having to survive the jungle

          • big

            Hey, have you ever seen They Live by John Carpenter? ….great film

          • Anton

            Regarding financiers, fiat money is certainly a tool of Satan. But free markets simply mean that two people can trade with each other without Big Brother looking over their shoulder. Good thing too.

          • big

            …..and what do you use for money? oh that’s right all that funny money created out of thin air…..free market give it a rest….more like a massive con trick to get people into debt,plus interest….can’t forget interest,or usury,can we.We are not free! more like debt slaves.

          • Anton

            Glad you agree that fiat money – enforced by legal tender laws to be equivalent to what arose spontaneously as the people’s choice of exchange medium – is an evil.

            Free markets mean simply that two people can trade with each other without Big Brother looking over their shoulder. If you want a Big Brother, be careful what you wish for.

            Interest is another issue and I’ve not time for a full debate on money just now. Please don’t suppose I’m necessarily disagreeing with you.

          • big

            Soon there will be no money,only digital currency,and then big brother will see absolutely everything you do,off course all of this is done to support the so called free market.

          • Anton

            There has to be some kind of exchange medium in markets, doesn’t there? I share your worry about government oversight of it.

          • big

            ….debt implosion the end of civilisation,its the only way out

          • Not something to cheer for exactly, though. Social collapses bring violence from below and tyranny from above.

          • big

            Aton you’ll find it’s incredibly difficult in this day and age to simply rock up somewhere and sell something to your fellow man. Regulations,Regulations,everywhere……often created by corporate lobbyists and their friends.Big Brother is everywhere

          • Anton

            I agree! But you seem to be supporting free trade in what you say now, so I’m confused.

          • big

            no you miss the point its not free if someone else frames the rules.

          • Anton

            You are saying it is a good thing to be able, in your own words, to “simply rock up somewhere and sell something to your fellow man”. That’s what I call a free market. Yet you are against free markets. Could it be that you are against rigged pseudo-free markets (commonly known as “crony capitalism” should you wish to google)? I’m seeking clarification, not arguing.

          • big

            no i am saying you cant rock up.

          • big

            Anton go and check up on..Rules & Regulations for Leicester Market go on Anton go and have close look at how free this market is…oh and this in no way looks like any form of crony capitalism…just normal folk trying to make living.

          • big

            ..or perhaps you could check Cornwall street trading licence…..£800 quid before you even get started no guarantee you will get a licence…tough…bad idea…its only the free market though.

          • If one were paranoid, one could say that Western governments are incrementally introducing a hybrid of socialism and fascism by introducing “social justice” to our legal systems and eroding free enyerprise in pra tice by making it costly for small operators and favouring crony capitalism.

            But, naah, it can’t happen…because we have freedom of expression. Bwahahaha!

          • Anton

            No it isn’t!

          • big

            you checked!

          • Anton

            I meant it isn’t the free market! I didn’t check anything.

          • big

            …sorry Anton you’ve lost me…anyway its bed for me …getting dark and running out of candles….only joking!

          • Anton

            Yes, bad thing – and back to the mediaeval era when you had to be a member of the Worshipful Guild of X-makers in order to sell X legally.

          • big

            i wish you’d make your mind up ….18th century …now middle ages….

          • There are no free markets I’m afraid they’re all fixed and manipulated now by computer algorithms and fraudulent bankers.

          • big

            his policies are awful,i mean this is an MP who actually has his own think tank ,just so he can pedal more neocon,neoliberal propaganda.

          • bluedog

            Genetic modification of crops has been going on since the dawn of agriculture. Is it wrong to improve crop yields so that we can try to feed the ever increasing billions of humanity? Some of the improvements such as Monsanto’s Bollgard cotton can be successfully grown without drenching the environment in herbicides and insecticides. What’s wrong with that? Would you prefer a Malthusian apocalypse which you alone survive? Your ignorance suggests that would be an unsatisfactory outcome.

          • You mean modification of crops has been going on. What they are doing now is altering the DNA of the plant which is totally different to grafting on or cross propagating. The altered DNA structure of the plant can possibly through the human digestive system do unalterable damage to human systems and our own DNA. Wheatgerm crosses the blood brain barrier in to the brain. Don’t eat American wheat or wheatgerm.

          • bluedog

            Doesn’t cross propagating change the DNA too? Scientific techniques acceralate the process.

          • No bluedog, cross-breeding is done via pollination of two same or similar type species.of plants. It’s because of this cross breeding out the toxic metabolites and antinutrients that plants became more attractive to pests. Biotechnology is now trying to reverse the process and put back some of the antinutients using genetic engineering.

            Genetically Modified means the introduction of foreign DNA from totally different types of organisms. The introduction of DNA from viruses,bacteria, animals. This is totally going against what occurs in nature. It’s not just the single gene that they transfer either as for it to work it needs a whole host of other genes, triggers, and markers etc..
            Did you know that the Cauliflower mosaic virus promoter is 70-90% identical to HIV and Hepatitis B virus. What will happen to HIV or hep B positive people if they eat transgenic food?

            When crop plants are stressed by this insertion of foreign DNA they react by producing secondary protective metabolites to counteract the effects. These can be compounds never before consumed by humans we don’t know what damage we are doing to our gut and immune system.

          • bluedog

            ‘Did you know that the Cauliflower mosaic virus promoter is 70-90% identical to HIV and Hepatitis B virus. What will happen to HIV or hep B positive people if they eat transgenic food?’

            One imagines that there will be an outbreak of Cauliflower Ears among individuals so affected. You clearly know much more about this than me, but it all boils down to a simple question: is the glass half full or half empty? Pessimists will assume the later. Optimists will recognise the potential risks and try to mitigate them. Taking no risk at all is not an option.

          • Findaráto

            As Marie1797 said below, the problem with GMO is the direct modification of DNA. There’s just too much scope for catastrophic error, i.e. a genetic modification that has unintended consequences.

            The thalidomide scandal of the 60s should teach us that new technologies can be fraught with unforeseen danger.

          • bluedog

            Indeed, and the Hadron Collider is threatening to turn itself into a Black Hole, consuming the entire planet and every living soul therein. One has to consider the cost-benefit, and while the costs are sometimes shocking, on balance we progress.

      • Council tax levels should rightly be the same for country and city. . But if you are going down this route single childless people pay C/tax even though they only use a quarter of the services they pay for. I don’t think he’s that good an environment minister. He can’t even put his foot down and get the badgers culled properly to reasonable numbers again.

        • Anton

          I’ll stick to the discussion about town, country and council tax. The problem is that council tax accounts for only about 1/4 of local government money spent. The rest comes from Whitehall, ie national taxation. A fair system would be to cut income tax and raise council tax such that, over the entire country, the change is revenue-neutral and all council money comes from council tax. Then the townsfolk would be paying far more and country folk far less. Living where I do, I want that. Representing a rural constituency, so does Owen Paterson. And who could say it is unfair? As I say, country is subsiding town.

          • Why should country folk pay far less, they still use the services – police, refuse, schools, roads, like the towns people?

          • Anton

            Far fewer miles of road per household, far less public transport, fewer policeman per head etc.

            Please tell me what you think is unfair about the removal of Whitehall subsidies to local government and an exactly corresponding reduction in national taxes, and all council spending to be paid for by council tax. It is my belief that country folk would pay less overall and townsfolk pay more, but whether I am right or wrong why is that unfair?

          • It wont work out as fairly as you imagine. The extra C/Tax will be more than that gained in lower taxes. And the countryside has other expenses to consider like dredging, sand bags and equipment for flooding. Countryside needs roadside hedgerows trimming etc.. it evens out. I think you just want to have a lower C/Tax bill and shove your costs onto townsfolk. Granted Whitehall need to be fairer in distribution and prioritising, but I think it’s always been the case of he who shouts the loudest gets the funds.

          • Anton

            No, it’s a case of town = Labour, country = Tory and the Tories have not reversed Labour’s dirty tricks. The outcome has been bad for the whole country.

            I am not asking for town to subside country. As I said, I am simply asking that each pay their own local taxes in their entirety in a scheme that is, taken over the whole country, revenue-neutral. I trust you think that is fair? And if it works out for country folk worse than I think, what is that to you?

          • No I don’t think it’s fair at all.
            I live in a town that has a Labour council who can’t be trusted to spend the money on what it supposed to be spent on. They are very wasteful and deceitful.

          • Anton

            Then move. The more people who aren’t willing to put up with it, the sooner something will be done instead of pinching other people’s money

  • Merchantman

    Time methinks to hold a Referendum on the question of EU interference into this site.
    For starters I move the motion that a limit be placed on the lines per day that Finarato can post per day. ‘Enough away with this bauble’ or words to (limit its) that effect.

  • Martin

    I take it you hadn’t noticed that Cameron had enraged ~600,000 who objected to the imposition of fake marriage.

    • sarky

      Or to put it in context, 0.9% of the population.

      • bluedog

        Elections can be decided by less.

      • Anton

        Largest petition for a long time.

        • Findaráto

          Petitions don’t tie a government’s hands. 0.9% of the population cannot block the passage of any bill. They could decide the result of an election if they formed part of an overall majority. But on their own they count for nothing.

          Christians don’t seem to understand this. The seem to believe that 600,000 people can dictate what happens to the entire country merely by signing a petition.

          This is not how democracy works.

          • Anton

            Did I say it was? It is a demonstrable fact that the proportion of the population that can be bothered to sign ANY petition is tiny. But a larger petition is a decent barometer of stronger feeling.

          • Findaráto

            Yes, there was strong feeling against the equal marriage bill from a minority composed largely of Christians, Muslims and people of other faiths. There was even some opposition to it in secular circles, although that was mainly limited to the elderly and/or lowest and least educated socioeconomic groups.

            The point of a representative democracy however is that minorities do not get to impose their will, no matter how strongly felt it may be, on the majority. They’re free to try to persuade others to support their cause, but when they fail to do so, wailing that the government didn’t listen to them merely reveals them for what they are: bad losers who want to impose their minority view on society.

            The impression that I was left with after the equal marriage act was passed and those opposed to it threw a collective and deeply unedifying tantrum and started to sling mud at the government, at Parliament and even at the queen, was that here we were seeing a very dangerous undercurrent in modern politics strongly reminiscent of the fascist movements of the first half of the twentieth century. There was no respect for the democratic process. There was a determination to undermine our representative institutions. And perhaps worst of all, there was deeply ingrained prejudice against a particular minority. All this has been seen before and many millions perished as a result.

            The reality of the anti-equal marriage faction should give us all pause for thought. Especially those who publish this weblog and others like it, which are the chief means by which the creed of exclusion, discrimination and contempt for democracy are communicated to society at large. How anyone who claims to respect the democratic process can stand by and wink at the rantings and ravings of the kind of extremist who claims that an opinion expressed by less than 1% of the population should override legislation passed by a large majority of the House is completely beyond me.

          • Anton

            “The point of a representative democracy however is that minorities do not get to impose their will, no matter how strongly felt it may be, on the majority.”

            In this case two minorities did exactly that: the elite in the House of Commons, who do not represent their constituents faithfully; and the militant gay lobby. I would remind you that Cameron’s manifesto contained nothing about gay marriage.

          • Findaráto

            MPs most certainly did represent their constituencies faithfully. They did this by not allowing themselves to be browbeaten by a handful of vocal homophobes, but rather by listening to the full spectrum of views and realising that a majority was in favour of equal marriage.

            I don’t set much store by opinion polls, but when it comes to specific issues (rather than popularity contests) they can provide an insight into overall public feeling. In the case of equal marriage, polls showed a consistent majority in favour of the measure. Public opinion supported and still supports it.

            The Irish referendum also showed that when the issue is put to a direct vote, a majority of voters in a mature Western democracy will either vote for it or abstain and let others make the decision for them.

            The idea the a gay minority somehow imposed equal marriage on an unwilling straight majority is quite simply ludicrous. Gays imposed nothing. They persuaded straights to support their cause and straights gave that support freely and willingly. Had they not, equal marriage would not exist today.

            Of course this horrifies opponents of equal marriage. They seem to believe in some sort of divine right to impose their will on society without recourse to the democratic process. And when they fail, all we hear from them is bitter complaint and recrimination.

            “Equal marriage wasn’t in the Conservative manifesto!” they cry. “So what?” say the rest of us. Manifestos are not exhaustive documents. They are also not binding. No government has to implement every manifesto promise, nor must it refrain from introducing new measures not mentioned in a manifesto. To make this obligatory would be to tie the hands of a government and render it incapable of reacting to events and adapting policy accordingly. No government could govern under such circumstances.

            Voters might be justifiably outraged if a government were to actively renege on a manifesto promise. But the 2010 Conservative manifesto made no promise not to support equal marriage. So no promises were broken.

            What we have here is a monumental case of sour grapes. Anti-equal marriage campaigners were sloppy, lazy, abusive and deeply unconvincing. They failed to persuade the government to withdraw the measure because they failed to win sufficient public support for their cause. They should be criticising themselves rather than the government. The issue is now settled and they only have themselves to blame for their defeat.

          • Anton

            You are certainly the leading expert on sour grapes here!

          • Martin

            Fin

            The MPs were dishonest, there was no support for the bill from the general public. You’re simply a liar.

          • Findaráto

            And you’re a deluded fool. Public support for equal marriage was and is strong. Opposition was confined to Christians, Muslims and other bigots.

            Equal marriage is now the law of the land. We won. You lost. Get over it.

          • Martin

            Fin

            Ah, the bigot calls those who don’t agree with him bigots.

            Let’s face it, even simple biology tells us that ‘gay’ marriage, which is by no means equal, is a nonsense. They can’t breed, they can’t consummate and it’s apparent from recent events that they aren’t even ‘faithful’. Marriage is only between a man and a woman, that’s all there is to it.

            Only those whose god is their own self imagine that marriage is something that two persons of the same sex can indulge in. Your religion is one of self indulgence, thus matching to the motives of homosexuality.

          • Findaráto

            And your religion is hatred of all who are not like you.

            The true face of Christianity reveals itself. See, even nutcases like Martin have their uses.

          • Martin

            Fin

            Seems to me that the hatred comes from you.

          • Findaráto

            No hatred. Just pity. As a textbook example of the irreperable damage religion can do to an unstable psyche, you merit compassion rather than hatred.

            On the positive side however, when I think of all those who must, after talking to you, have been turned off religion for life, I’m forced to admit even the sickos have their uses. Keep on doing exactly what you’re doing. You couldn’t be helping the secular cause any more effectively.

          • Martin

            Fin

            Of course it’s hatred, you hate God and you hate His people.

            And it is your religion to hate God, for you would remove God from His throne and place yourself there. In your life you are the authority that must be obeyed, you sit on the throne of your heart.

          • Findaráto

            And you sit on a throne of crazy.

            Everyone who understands what a loon you are hates God, don’t they? At least in your head they do. Because you are God, aren’t you? So to criticize you is to criticize the Almighty.

            I would tell you to get over yourself if I thought the slightest chance existed that you might. But you’re far too far gone in narcissistic self-worship to do anything except gaze adoringly at your own image in the looking glass.

            Do I pity Martin. Yes, I do. But the pity is strongly flavoured with contempt because at the end of the day he is what he chooses to be.

          • Martin

            Fin

            As has already been said, you are clearly the leading expert on sour grapes.

        • sarky

          But it shows that 99.1% of the population agreed or were indifferent.

          • Anton

            And a petition FOR gay marriage would have produced how many signatures, do you think?

          • sarky

            Well support was roughly 62% for and 26% against, so you do the maths.

          • Anton

            Not round here it wasn’t. What question, asked where when, elicited those figures?

          • sarky

            A poll run just after it went through.

          • Anton

            That doesn’t answer my questions.

          • sarky

            I didn’t organise the poll!

          • Martin

            Anton

            There was one, if I recall correctly it produced about 1/10th of the signatures.

      • Martin

        Sarky

        And those who the bill enabled were 0.001%

  • YG, sentence in the last paragraph should read, “…David Cameron is about to lose *his* is head…” if you so please.

    • chiefofsinners

      Or ‘is ead’ if trying to connect with the masses in the manner of privately educated labour politicians.

      • One puzzles how they’d distinguish betwixt read and ate (‘et).

  • carl jacobs

    Happy NFL New Year!

    • Pubcrawler

      Is that something to do with the Julian calendar?

      • carl jacobs

        It’s the NFL Draft. The Rams are on the clock.

        • Pubcrawler

          Oh, I see…. How quaint.

          (What?!)

          • It’s something akin to indentured labour for American football from college football players. The Americans don’t believe the market should determine where players go and so clubs select them and the players have no choice.

          • Pubcrawler

            Ah, a sort of hiring fair. Nice.

          • More a slave market …

          • carl jacobs

            It’s all negotiated with the NFLPA, and is intended to distribute talent throughout the league.

          • For all that it’s not a free market though, is it Carl?

          • carl jacobs

            Free Agency starts at four years.

          • After four years of indentured servitude buys one’s freedom. Old habits ….

        • Uncle Brian

          So it coincides, more or less, with the beginning of the real football season. The first round of the Brazilian Championship kicks off in two weeks from now, on Saturday 14 May. It’s a league championship in four divisions, 20 teams in each division, 80 altogether.

          http://www.cbf.com.br/competicoes/brasileiro-serie-a#.VyKrbNQrLIU

          • carl jacobs

            This sounds suspiciously like soccer and not football.

          • Note he said pre-Premier League …

          • carl jacobs

            He was just being lazy by dropping the word “English.”

          • Anton

            To give them their names, there is Association Football (‘soccer’), Rugby Football (‘rugby’) and American Football (‘gridiron’). Only one of those is actually football, though, because you are not allowed to handle the ball. Which is it, Carl?

          • carl jacobs

            See, your error involves the application of the wrong definition.

        • William Lewis

          That’s gobbledygook, Carl.

          Now this is a proper sport.

          • carl jacobs

            I have seen that video before, and found it quite illustrative of the essential nature of Cricket. However it does overstate the speed of the event. Where are the long hours of catatonic immobility?

          • William Lewis

            That was probably edited highlights.

  • pobjoy

    Charles I was a devout Arminian Catholic with a zeal for divine right

    That was a curious, and indeed dangerous combination to be devout about. Charles was king because his father was Protestant, supposedly. He was therefore chosen by the people (or some of them), unlike any Plantagenet, or even Tudor. There was no apparently harmless Anglo-Catholicism, in those days (and it is surely an indulged fantasy, today). Unless an English person favoured Presbyterian polity, or a polity even less authoritarian, they were regarded as traitors; ,even more so, if they attempted to arrogate authority to themselves on the basis of Scripture. The divine right theory was a heterodox interpretation of Paul’s exhortation to Christians to obey the civil power; had Jesus lived when Rome was a republic, he would have likewise exhorted the Jews to pay their taxes. The choice and nature of that power was not the concern of Jesus or any of his apostles. If there was biblical precedent, it was to have no monarch, which was the original condition of Israel, before they disobediently chose to have a monarch. But Israel was pre-figurement of the church, not of civil society, so it cannot be said that civil monarchy is disobedience. So Charles’ divine right was actually the right of Charles, who was first in his own eyes, that were blinded to the fact that he was king by invitation. So Charles lost his head because, unlike Elizabeth, he failed to read the signs of the times.

    But, because Israel was pre-figurement of the church, the church must be free of human spiritual direction; the very purpose of Jesus’ atonement, on earth, was to make each believer a holder of the keys to the kingdom; to have the power to loose and to bind; to be a temple of the Holy Spirit, to have the mind of Christ. So monarchical papacy is egregious disobedience, and that is where Charles was wrong, also. But in this case, he knew he was wrong, and if the dead are raised to judgment, his true demise lies in the future.

    Catholicism had taken firm action against predestination long before the Reformation; it was one of the very few doctrines on which it was orthodox. Charles was ‘sort of’ right about predestination; right, but for the wrong reason. If his subjects believed themselves divinely elect, he could not control them via priests, for whom they could have neither need nor desire. The word ‘Arminian’ was a label invented to protect Calvinists against the dangerous accusation that they were heretics; dangerous, because it was manifestly true, despite all their strenuous efforts to seem in agreement with Protestantism.