Kate Bottley 2a
Church of England

Rev'd Kate Bottley: "I hate it when I agree with a Tory"

 

The Rev’d Kate Bottley is the vicar on Gogglebox, and probably one of the most recognisable of all Anglican clergy in the country. It’s usually a good thing to have vicars who are well known: they can become the embodiment of the Church’s core soul-saving mission. Or, of course, they can become meaningless fragments of distraction; insuperable hurdles to truth-telling and revival.

Kate Bottley apparently hates it when she finds herself in agreement with Tories.

The Tory in this instance was Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond, but that really doesn’t matter. The topic under discussion (starts 36:30) was Putin, Russia and the bombing of the more moderate anti-ISIS Islamists in Syria. But that really doesn’t matter either, because the Rev’d Kate Bottley doesn’t like Tories. She appears not to like Tories more than she doesn’t like Vladimir Putin, or Russia (or is it Russians?). Here’s the exchange:

Philip Hammond MP: “Whatever you call it, whatever the justification, whatever the language, over the last weeks, Russia has been bombing the moderate opposition positions in the name of fighting terrorism, whatever, it doesn’t matter.”

Rev’d Kate Bottley: “Has Phil Hammond actually grown a pair?.. I hate it when I agree with a Tory.”

Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you‘ (1Cor 6:17). She didn’t quite put it like that, but she might as well have done. Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth Toryism? Or is it that she is greatly convicted in her spirit by the intrinsic searing truth of conservatism, and it is that which causes her to hate that she finds herself agreeing with the mediator?

She wasn’t wearing her dog collar this week, but she doesn’t need to: the whole country knows (and so do Channel 4 editors and producers) that she is a Church of England vicar and a minister of the Word. And she is very well liked and respected: there is no hint of moral or doctrinal delinquency, but national admiration for her personal spirituality and great teaching capacity. She is a manifestly gifted, active communicator who is dedicated to serving her parish.

But ministry isn’t simply service, for that is the whole of Christian life. Her task as a vicar is distinctively liturgical, catechetical and pastoral, principally for the needs of the whole Christian community, including Tories. As an ordained priest, she is both servant and shepherd among the people to whom she has been sent, and that includes Tories. Her task is to proclaim the Word of the Lord and to watch for signs of God’s new creation, including in Tories. Her vocation is to teach, admonish, feed and provide for her flock, which includes Tories.

The majority of England is instinctively conservative: it appears to be a natural disposition; an affinity with the natural order; part of the psyche of essential Englishness. The Rev’d Kate Bottley is by no means obliged to approve of that: indeed, she is free to repudiate its consoling power and turn her religious fervour to more meaningful transcendent bonds. But you’d think there might be some sensitivity to the political-philosophical implications for mission praxis. Why should those Tories who attend her church bother to listen to her tell the story of God’s love, if all the time she is pinching her nose at their spiritual halitosis? Why should all those Tories who watch Gogglebox even consider walking with her in the way of Christ, hoping to be nurtured and encouraged in their faith? Why should they gather round the Lord’s Table if their vicar deems them to be unworthy or unable to resist the evil philosophies of men?

Speaking to the General Synod last week, the Archbishop of Canterbury committed the Church of England to one of the biggest evangelism projects ever undertaken. “This is our duty, our privilege and our joy. There is nothing like it,” he proclaimed. And he reminded us: “All Christians are witnesses of the love of Jesus Christ. The Spirit comes to us precisely for this task. And as witnesses of Jesus we then become witnesses to Jesus, relaying what we have experienced and what we have known to others.”

Presumably, that includes Tories?

  • CliveM

    Another Lefty, publicity seeking, bigoted Church of England Vicar.

    More concerned with virtue signalling then her job.

    • sarky

      From what I’ve seen, more concerned about not letting her husband get a word in…

      • CliveM

        I can’t understand why any balanced human being would do reality RC, which this is a version of. Must have a massive ego.

        • sarky

          Or trying to bust people’s perceptions?

          • CliveM

            On goggle box! Tbh I’m suspicious of publicity hungry vicars claiming their attention seeking is about changing perceptions!

            It’s like Dad dancing, it’s usually embarrassing.

          • The Explorer

            And what about the Vicar dancing? Have you seen her?

          • CliveM

            Nope not sure my embarrassment threshold could stand it!

          • The Explorer

            She’s got the right equipment for that.

  • Hugh Jeego

    “the whole country knows (and so do Channel 4 editors and producers) that she is a Church of England vicar and a minister of the Word”.
    Gogglebox has an audience of around 3.5 million, apparently.Let’s be generous and say, that over its run, maybe 6 million people watch it. 10% of the UK population. Not exactly “the whole country” is it? I’d never heard of the woman before reading this post.

    • Busy Mum

      Neither had I.
      I suppose I could say I ‘know’ her now, but I have read nothing to make me think I ‘know’ that she is a minister of the Word.

      • James60498 .

        What a relief. I am so pleased that the two of you have said that. I assumed it was just me.

    • Pubcrawler

      Nor I. What is ‘Gogglebox’?

      • Hugh Jeego

        I am reliably informed by one of my offspring that it is a televisual “entertainment” in which one watches several groups of nobodies watching and commenting upon television programmes. I am unsure whether the programmes being watched and commented upon ever include Gogglebox itself, but I’d like to think it does feature, as that would be final proof that television has finally crawled up its own backside and is eating it’s own brain from the inside.

        • Anton

          I wouldn’t mind going on that programme!

        • … television has finally crawled up its own backside and is eating it’s own brain from the inside.

          Pfft! Not nice. Coffee up my nose, coffee spray on my device, coffee the wrong way down my throat.

          • carl jacobs

            You are my other candidate for “Lienus” BTW. You have the ability and wit to pull off the parody. Care to confess?

          • The Explorer

            Avi would certainly be capable. So, as you say, would Eccles. Jack’s suggestion of Mrs Proudie is also plausible. Certainly someone acquainted with the blog, and Linus, over a sustained period.

          • Mrs Proudie? I doubt it. He/she has a wicked sense of humour with a refined taste for the over-the-top ludicrous. The Linus archetype and its manifestations, in contrast, is an egocentric, obsessive, ham-fisted oaf.

          • The Explorer

            “an egocentric, obsessive, ham-fisted oaf. ” That certainly goes for Linus, In Perfect Ignorance, Sponge Bob, Taikan, Tutanekai, Bob and Findarato.
            Lienus seems to me to be of a different calibre altogether, and emanating from a different sort of mind. I think it’s someone with a Proudie-like sense of humour satirising Linus.
            AA I’m less sure about. He’s less funny than Lienus, so he could be Linus striking back. Or it could be that the mind behind Lienus has, in this instance, captured Linus’ character rather too well.

          • Idle capacity is no evidence, Carl. Seriously, with my being swamped with both driving and art…a crazy occupational transition to begin with…I simply haven’t the time for playing sillybuggers. The fellow you’re looking for is certainly a Continental in his way of thinking, a trick I cpuld no longer pull. Plus, judging by the way he gets exercised over stuff, latches onto ideas and chews them to a horrid mush, I’d guess he pens his wisdom utterings near or at the peak of a man-sized pot high. Shee-it! Someone unkind could say that about me as well!

          • carl jacobs

            “Barzel” is a perfect name for an artist. And now you will have an excuse to grow long hair and keep a scraggly beard.

            “Sorry, Dear. It’s like a Uniform.”

            I can see it now …

            Tracy, prepare the standard ‘rich and famous’ contract forAvi Barzel and company.

          • Trucking works just as well for my fine grooming style, a la rocker or pan-handler look, take your pick. And funny that you mention contracts, and by extension invoices, billing and such. After watching me count with my fingers and calculate hours with beans (literally), give away work or get repeated calls from clients to get off my duff and send them that invoice, She Who Must be Obeyed waded into with the accounting biz…the Scots genes, I suppose…hence, no, she’s not a Tracy. But thanks for your confidence; a few musicians and a small Paramount Pics job are my show-pieces so far.

          • Uncle Brian

            It means “iron” and is sometimes said to be the same word as Brazil, originally Phoenician I-Brazil, “iron island”, according to Cyrus Gordon, formerly of Brandeis University, though I don’t remember now in which of his books.

          • carl jacobs

            A Canadian? Named after Iron?? Inconceivable!

          • You just can’t stop yourself, can you?

          • Yes, and it also means a “worker in metals” or “blacksmith”, the source of my Hebrew moniker. Didn”t know about the Phoenician connection, though. Another proto-Indoeuropean word sneaks into an AfroA-sian language…the hutzbah!

  • Malcolm Smith

    The majority of England is instinctively conservative…
    That’s the definition of conservative, isn’t it: following the general attitude which has been built up since time immemorial?

  • Anton

    The root of this problem is that, since the New Testament is clear that church leadership should be male, all women vicars are rebellious types.

    • David

      Agreed. In my experience pushing the boundaries comes easily to them, preaching the Word less easily.

    • Cressida de Nova

      The Vicar of Dibley wasn’t !

  • The Explorer

    “I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it.” J S Mill

    I’m afraid I do not think that this is either obvious or undeniable. Perhaps it’s because I’m conservative, and so prove Mill’s point.

    • Hugh Jeego

      I agree, there have been a lot of stupid radicals, and many stupid people are “radical”, or left-wing, if you prefer.However, I suspect that no one would ever consider their own view to be stupid.

  • David

    All female vicars are, almost by definition, liberals theologically. Theological liberals are rarely conservative politically. In my experience most female vicars, as well as a number of their male counterparts, allow their politics to overshadow their responsibilities to represent to the world Christ-like -ness. In short they are more interested in “progressive” politics than in preaching The Word. They are therefore neither good evangelists or pastors.
    Again drawing on experience, rather than a rigorous survey, I’ve found that most expanding churches are led by men.

    • Anton

      David Murrow, author of “Why Men Hate Going to Church”, makes the pragmatic point that women will follow men but not vice versa.

      • Uncle Brian

        Henry VIII noticed that as well. It seems to have been the reason why he attached so much importance to having a son.

        • Anton

          Surely that was because he wanted the Tudor line of kings to continue?

          • Uncle Brian

            Yes. He thought it was what was needed to avert the danger of the Wars of the Roses starting all over again, a task that — in Henry’s view — called for more clout than any mere queen could ever hope to possess.

          • Anton

            How can we know whether it was simply a visceral desire for a son who could hopefully keep the name Tudor on the throne for generations more, or fear of civil war or of his elder daughter undoing his ecclesiastical reforms?

          • Pubcrawler

            It was both of the first two, they’re not exclusive. The greatest swathe of ecclesiastical reforms happened after the male heir had been born — indeed much of it during Edward’s reign.

          • Anton

            I’m sure His Grace remembers it well.

          • Pubcrawler

            Correct. So long as there were still Plantagenet claimants, the Tudor hold on the throne was uncertain; so a male heir, who succeeded to the crown as an adult, was vital. It would also help legitimise the Tudor usurpation by providing evidence of God’s favour towards Henry, as the birth of the future Henry VI did for the Lancastrian one.

          • Anton

            Henry VIII’s father usurped the House of York, but *his* mother was from the House of Lancaster at a time when no male Lancastrian heirs remained. And Henry VIII’s mother was of York, so the birth of Henry VIII seemed to put a lid on it. When the Tudor royal line died with Elizabeth’s death the throne went to the Stuarts via Henry VIII’s sister’s marriage into that Scottish royal line. I expect you know all that; but what Plantagenets might have put a spanner in the works in the mid-16th century, please?

      • David

        Yes and there is research, from Switzerland, that indicates that if a father takes his children to church, then a far higher proportion of them remain Christians than if the mother, only, takes them. Therefore if female led churches have a lower % of men, and therefore Dad’s, present in the congregation, you are reducing the chances for passing the faith onto the next generation. However this is the sort of unPC research that isn’t likely to be followed up by any Church dominated by predominately liberal Bishops.

        • Anton

          Murrow is on to that too, although I can’t recall his sources. Time to reread him, perhaps (or his blog).

        • sarky

          Probably because it’s toot. Myself and my brother were taken to church predominantly by my Dad and both of us are atheists, come to think of it so are the majority of kids I went with who also went with their dads. I think it’s probably a bit more complicated than who actually takes you.

          • David

            Oh yes, it is more complicated than just that. We are human beings, and always complicated.
            But the point is that mass studies show statistical variations controlled for certain defined variables, thus revealing trends, not individual predictions. Each “case” is uniquely influenced by multi-variate causes.

          • sarky

            But that’s not what you were getting at. You were saying that the failure of the church is down to women. …like I said, toot.

          • David

            Ridiculous point. I wasn’t writing a comprehensive, multi-variate Phd thesis that examines all variables and factors, just commenting on one factor ! Not that you ever comment without listing carefully all possible influences. Get real !

          • sarky

            Ooh touchy!!

          • David

            Warning shots are necessary occasionally !

          • sarky

            It was barely a raised fist!

          • Anton

            I saw what looked like “toot” on a hotel menu (printed in the Roman alphabet) in Greece one morning. Closer inspection revealed that the second ‘o’ was a lower-case sigma, and I guessed – rightly, thankfully – that it was toast.

          • The Explorer

            Toot?

    • Coniston

      See:
      Men and Church http://www.antiochian.org/node

      Why Orthodox Men Love Church http://journeytoorthodoxy.com/

      In 2002 the independent body Christian Research conducted a survey of Anglican clergy, ‘Minds of Anglicans’.
      The survey found that women clergy (and male clergy who supported women’s ordination) were less orthodox in their beliefs than male clergy opposed to women’s ordination. These included belief in God the Father, the death of Jesus, the Resurrection, the Trinity, the Holy Spirit. Women clergy were also more supportive than even liberal male clergy of divorced ordination candidates, euthanasia, abortion and ordination for practising homosexuals.

      • alternative_perspective

        If this is the survey I remember reading the figures were terrible. Deep, deep apostasy from core doctrine in large swathes of the clergy.

      • David

        Thanks for that Coniston. I was aware of that.
        Orthodox services have a very male feel to them, especially in Eastern Europe.
        Introducing female clergy is skewing the Church towards on-going “reform”, taking it away from traditional teaching. The drivers are feminism and “liberal progress”, of course, not the Great Commission. That will, in my opinion, accelerate the decay of the liberal wing, probably to a small fragment within two generations at most, and increase the contrast with the conservative and traditionalist wings, especially the evangelical one, which is steadily growing.

        • Anton

          I find the men in Eastern Europe more masculine than here generally.

          Orthodox liturgy was designed to educate a largely illiterate people at the same time as worshipping God. It is also tied to late-4th century Byzantium of Chrysostom’s time every bit as much as the Book of Common Prayer is tied to post-Reformation England. These liturgies have their beauties and their strong points but they are not scripture.

          • David

            I totally agree with every word of that.
            Too many “pathetics”, with no grit, here now.

      • Findaráto

        Practicing homosexuals? What about homosexuals who’ve got it down pat and don’t need any more practice? Can they be priests?

        I suspect liberals would probably say yes. But then they’d say yes to the gays who need more practice too, so there’s no need to distinguish between the two categories.

        Conservatives might differentiate however. L-plate gays might just be lightly rebuked and exhorted to mend their ways, whereas confirmed homosexuals would be shunned with no further explanation.

        I wonder, when does a practicing homosexual turn into a confirmed one? Is there a specific number of instances of sexual contact? Or is it all about the level of enjoyment? How many times with how many partners count as practice? And what turns that into confirmation? Sexual prowess? Judged by what standard? Do you have an orgasmometer that you can hook up to gays to measure the strength of their climaxes so they know if they’re still practicing or not? And what are they practicing for? Is there an exam? If so, there must be a government department or professional body that administers it.

        Oh no! Christian civil servants working for the Education Department will be quaking in their goody two-shoes. Imagine the prospect of being appointed as a Homosexual Examiner! Imagine invigilating and marking the exam!

        Ah well, on the bright side, more opportunities to whine about persecution are always welcome in Christian communities, aren’t they?

        • The Explorer

          I go to a dental practice. Now that you’ve drawn my attention to the problem, I’ll go one where the staff are more experienced.

          As for the orgasmometer, Kinsey was onto it. There’s that film he made of men ejaculating, while he measured the respective distances they achieved.

          • Anton

            I was alarmed once to see a vet’s in which a cat wandering round was described as “the practice cat”!

        • Allosexuels admirateur

          Leaf Lapin aloon yoo orrible pisson. .

        • chiefofsinners

          Eh? Has Coniston edited his spelling of practising, are you trying to be amusing based on the most feeble of puns, or are you just ignorant?

      • Anton

        You have inspired me to hunt my copy down on my shelves. 4000 parish vicars were sent questionnaires and nearly 1800 replied, which is more than 20% of all in the country. Just 51% of respondents “believed without question” that Jesus Christ was born of a virgin, just 56% his uniqueness, just 66% his resurrection (what did St Paul said about our faith without that?), just 77% the Trinity and just 77% the death of Jesus Christ.

        This shows to me the folly of having clergy paid other than by their local congregation, for who would pay to be ministered doubt?

        Now let’s break some of those figures down by sex:

        Christ born of virgin: Male clergy, 58%; female clergy, 33%.

        Christ rose physically from the dead: Male, 68%; female, 53%

        Trinity: Male, 78%, female, 70%.

        So, a decade ago, fully 2/3 of women vicars in the CoE who responded did not believe that Christ was born of a virgin.

        This survey came out at the time I jumped ship to the nonconformists.

  • The Explorer

    I can envisage circumstances in which being conservative might not be a good thing. In a society that had, from time immemorial, believed in the necessity of child sacrifice to ensure a good harvest, I would be on the side of the experimental radical who suggested that better results might arise from crop rotation, or fertilisation of the soil.

    • carl jacobs

      Conservatism has nothing to do with clinging to the old. It has to do with one’s view of man’s nature. The Conservative asserts that man’s nature is fundamentally constrained and therefore denies the core tenet of Leftism – that man morally progresses and is theoretically capable of achieving moral perfection. Why do Liberals assume such an arrogant pretence? Because they judge their Liberalism to be both the evidence and the result of their own progress. It is essentially an evolutionary perspective. The Liberal looks at the Conservative as a moral Neanderthal doomed by nature to disappear. That’s why Liberals 1) take no notice of Conservative arguments and 2) bask in their own presumed moral superiority.

      • alternative_perspective

        That’s a nice summing up but is that an accepted definition of the two perspectives.

        • carl jacobs

          Why do you think Liberals call themselves “Progressives”? What do you think it is that progresses? Why do you think they make arguments like “This is the 21st Century”? Their logic is replete with the assumption that people today are morally superior to people yesterday. I don’t know who would be capanble of formally accepting what I said. But it holds in my experience.

          • alternative_perspective

            The question is: to what are we progressing? I think there’s an unspoken assumption of global homogeneity and perfect “equality”.
            I think maybe my assessment would be that liberals have an unrealistic apprehension of the human condition. Assuming it is basically good with bits of bad – an optimistic perspective of human wickedness.
            I think maybe the conservative flips the assessment on its head and assumes people are basically corrupt but occasionally display slithers of original goodness – a realistic perspective of human wickedness.
            The world is decaying around us because we are making the wrong (liberal) assumptions.

          • carl jacobs

            Homogeneity (within diversity of course) and equality are expected outcomes of liberalism’s moral certainty about itself. Otherwise, I think you have restated my argument with different words.

      • alternative_perspective

        I read that recent studies indicate the difference lies in the breadth of perspectives considered.
        The liberal reduces opinions to economics, sexual liberty and a couple of other aspects. In short everything falls into these categories, whereas the conservative considered a more diverse breadth of topics for deliberation, including faith, public morality, patriotism etc.
        On a cost benefit analysis the answers are simple for liberals. But for the conservative its more complicated. The liberal looks at the conservative’s appraisal, notes the gaping incongruities between their own and the conservative’s analysis and concludes the latter’s is lacking.
        Its a matter of perspectives and categories of thought.

      • The Explorer

        “Conservatism has nothing to do with clinging to the old.” Its opponents would not agree. Jam is sometimes called a ‘conserve’ because it lasts a long time without change. My Oxford dictionary defines conservative as “tending to keep intact or unchanged”. Conservatism, I agree, goes further than this. It is a way of understanding human nature and its place in the cosmos: that humanity is not infinitely malleable, and that morality is objective.

        It would be interesting to get a definition of ‘Tory’ from the vicar. My guess would be, “Somebody selfish who is opposed to change”.

        • carl jacobs

          No, you are right. You will never get a Liberal to admit he is his own self-selected authority. I know this from experience because I have tried so many times. In truth they never answer the question about authority. They respond to the question with condescension and that in itself is a tacit admission. When Liberals refer to conservatives “clinging to the old” they are referring to conservates defending an Hegelian antithesis that (in their judgment) is long since past its sell-by date. Don’t accept their framing of the conflict.

          You have to be careful of labels over time. Usage changes. When I say “Conservative” I am referring to an ideology referenced in the present. I don’t know what the proper label would have been 200 years ago.

        • James60498 .

          I will never forget my University Law lecturer, who definitely wasn’t a conservative.

          He referred to jams etc as being “conservatives” instead of “conserves”. I think it was a genuine error.

          • The Explorer

            Love it! Enough to make one believe in the truth of the Freudian slip.

          • James60498 .

            I’ve just looked him up.
            It appears he is now a judge.

    • alternative_perspective

      Quite, what does left and right; conservativism or liberalism or any other ism truly mean in a world of linguistic disintegration and ideological reductionism.

  • Uncle Brian

    Is it right for a vicar to be so easily moved to hate? She’s going to have a whole lot of hating to do over the next four months, since if she’s a Leaver she’ll be in agreement with one half of the Tory party and if she’s a Remainder she’ll be in agreement with the other half.

    • James Bolivar DiGriz

      Well we all are sinners (though some are sinners-saved-by-grace) and so I think that it is easy for any one of us to be moved dislike, strong dislike or even hate, and that includes ordained ministers.

      However I would hope that the selection process for ministers, their training & their experience would lead them to better control of what they say.

  • The Explorer

    Leftists claim the intellectual and moral high ground as of right: all too often, in my view, without demonstrating why they are entitled to it.

    • ZX10

      Absolutely they claim all the moral high grounds yet non of the moral responsibility those elevations comes with !

  • Findaráto

    Here we go again. The conservative Christian’s persecution lament takes many forms, but it almost always includes a complaint about leftist feminazis and how they’re ruining the world.

    If I were to translate your post into words that describe its real meaning, it would go something like this:

    “Woe! Woe! Woe! Look how the evil commie feminazi wrongs me! Does she not know that I am her lord and master? Why won’t she accord me the deference I know I deserve? It’s just not fair!!!”

    Ask a stupid question…

    • CliveM

      Which just goes to show you didn’t read the post.

    • The Explorer

      Here we go again. Linus overstating the case, and refuting things that weren’t said.

      Where does the article mention that she is a communist? Where does it lament about being persecuted?

      • Findaráto

        The whole post is an aggrieved lament for lost power. The vicar in question shouldn’t be allowed to hate Tories. But Tories should be allowed to hate her. And boy oh boy, don’t they just?

        • The Explorer

          Are you an admirer of Foucault by any chance: power as the thing that determines all relationships?

          PS: Neat evasion of the first question. As for the second, is loss of power the same thing as being persecuted?

          • Findaráto

            Conservative Christians believe that loss of power is the same thing as being persecuted. They believe they should be ruling the world, and if they’re not, they’re being persecuted.

            A martyrdom complex is the glue holding the right wing of the Christian church together. Anything but total compliance with their demands constitutes persecution for these people. It’s an attitude that even your own archbishop of Canterbury has singled out for criticism. Opposition and a failure to comply with imperious commands does not constitute persecution.

          • The Explorer

            Pilot: “There’s a loss of power in the starboard engine.”

            Co-pilot: “It’s being persecuted!”

          • Findaráto

            I can’t think of a better reason never to fly with Vatican Airlines…

          • Here’s one for you: The young flight attendant nuns.

          • Findaráto

            Which young nuns? I didn’t know there were any, vocations having pretty much dried up in the past few decades.

            Thinking about it though, given the Catholic propensity for endogamous marriage, there’ll always be a steady supply of cross-eyed and buck-toothed young ladies destined for a religious life in default of any other option. Could these be the young nuns you’re referring to?

            So what’s the issue with them? Are they claiming persecution because somebody who had an abortion walked past their nunnery gate? Or because the government is forcing them to provide health insurance to their devout 80 year old Portuguese char and they absolutely refuse to fund contraceptive pills for the poor woman because if they do, she’ll be led astray…?

          • Never mind the nuns, wanted to see the tangent you’ll rocket off on. Hi Linus/Lienus/Sponge Bob/Findarato and whatever. I go away, come back and try to spot you. It’s getting easier; try changing writing styles with your moniker…and make those more mundane.

          • Allosexuels admirateur

            Oo is yoo?

          • Well, we know who yoo ees.

          • Allosexuels admirateur

            Je am a pore sole cauht beetwin Lienus and Findy. I ate Findy and niver agree wit im. Bot oo is yoo?

          • The Explorer

            And Findy ate Lapin.

          • carl jacobs

            Beware the clone!

          • The Explorer

            I thought Lienus and AA were from the same source, but now I’m not so sure. It could be Lienus making fun of Linus, and AA making fun of Lienus. It’s all getting very complicated.

          • Allosexuels admirateur

            Je am in loouve wit Lienus.

          • The Explorer

            Yes, but that’s not the issue. Diverting attention by answering a question that has not been asked is a Linus tactic. I am currently inclined to think that you are from the same source as Linus, but Lienus is not.
            I appreciate that accusing anyone of being a Linus source is an awful thing to do. If I have got it wrong, then I sincerely apologise.

          • Allosexuels admirateur

            Yor apoology is aceeptid

          • The Explorer

            Do you know, I’d completely forgotten about Sponge Bob. There was that Japanese chap as well -Taikan, or something – but even Linus considered him a dud and he vanished very quickly.

          • Ah, yes, a fleeting character quickly put out of comission. I wonder if Linus is a solipsist and makes up characters just to add to the charade he thinks he’s being subjected to.

          • Ivan M

            If you want pretty young women serving, you would be better off flying one of the Third World airlines. Being an air hostess, is still a glamour profession there.

          • Hmm. I didn’say I, personally, want young women serving. But if I did, yes, unionized Air Canada flight attendands past retirement age waddling among the isles on stiff kankles would not be my choice. Then again, I’d have to balance my taste preferences against mundane things like engines falling off the wing, jihadi pilots planning a date with their Allah, or planes mysteriously veering off-track into the wide blue yonder.

          • Ivan M

            That’s true.

          • The Explorer

            You were talking about conservative Christians. Does that apply to the chap currently occupying the Papal seat?

          • Findaráto

            There are many shades and subdivisions of conservative, who all berate and lambast each other for not believing in the “right” subset of conservative ideas.

            The current Pope certainly has some conservative ideas. Others seem to be more liberal. Where exactly in the myriad shades and subgroups of conservatism that places him, I don’t know. Do you?

          • The Explorer

            The French revolutionaries and Bolsheviks had the same problem. They solved their disputes by killing one another.

          • Findaráto

            French revolutionaries and Bolsheviks were clearly inspired by their Christian forebears. When Christians had the power to mete out death sentences, they did so without compunction and eliminated their enemies as efficiently as any atheist revolutionary.

            Now they’re no longer allowed to resort to murder and torture, Christians piously claim to be non-violent and loving. But hand them a parliamentary majority and a box of matches and we’ll soon see heresy reestablished as a capital crime and the fires of Smithfield reignited.

            Luckily that won’t be happening any time soon. So Christians will be able to go on pretending to be angelic and peace loving. But their bloody history tells us all we need to know about their true character.

          • The Explorer

            Interesting. Atheists have realised there’s an image problem with the French Revolution (especially if the Vendee massacres are considered as well as the Terror) and with the various Marxist death tolls. The resultant strategy is to blame it all on Christianity.

            Thus Stalin, was an atheist, true, but Stalin was brought up religious. So in murdering all those people Stalin was indulging not his atheism, but his Christian memories. Stalinist public ceremonies echoed Christian ceremonies, and so all the bad things that happened happened because of those echoes. Etc.

            It was a solution pioneered, I think, by Christopher Hitchens that has gathered momentum since, and you have given a variant of his argument.

          • Findaráto

            Stalin certainly learned from the Orthodox Tsarist regime that violence, oppression and murder are effective weapons to use against an uncooperative populace. Did he go further than the Tsars though? I don’t know.

            Do you know how many thousands or even millions were purged during 300 years of Romanov rule in Russia? Or even during the reign of any one Tsar, like Peter the Great, for example? For all we know, Stalin’s efforts may pale in comparison. Or perhaps he did kill more, but only because the technology of his period enabled him to. If Peter the Great or one of the pre-Romanov rulers like Ivan the Terrible had had access to motorised transport, machine guns and barbed wire, might not they have become Russia’s greatest mass murderers?

            One thing is sure however. Stalin learned from the Orthodox Tsarist regime that might is right, and that ceremony and ritual are the opium of the masses. The same is true of Hitler in Germany, although his models were the Catholic Habsburgs and Lutheran Hohenzollerns. And then there’s Mao Zedong in China and the inspiration he drew from imperial Qing rule.

            There seems to be a transition period when religious regimes break down, when the secular powers that replace them display many of the features of religion. When they in turn break down, something approaching true secular government can emerge.

          • The Explorer

            Trotsky killed fewer people than Stalin. Hence the appeal of Trotskyism. Its adherents console themselves that there was nothing wrong with Marxism per se, only with Stalin. If Trotsky had been running things, all would have been different. Sceptics say Trotsky’s death tally was low only because Stalin killed him before he could get into his stride. The inherent inhumanity within Marxism generated the butcher’s bill, regardless of who was in charge. Hitchens, aware of this, sought to shift the blame to Christianity. The aim of Christianity, of course, from the perspective of someone like Hitchens, being to kill as many people as possible.

          • Findaráto

            Theories are wonderful things, aren’t they? They let you massage reality to fit whatever idea you want to promote, generally for your own benefit, while hiding behind a smokescreen of more or less well-defined impartiality and logic.

            The problem is that unless you have convincing evidence to back your theory up with, it remains unproven and therefore merely a possibility rather than an established fact.

            Theories about power being the basis for all human relationships are interesting, and anecdotal evidence certainly lends credence to them (witness the posturings and jostlings for position and dominance among the largely male and, one suspects, elderly and self-important readership of this blog), but as far as I’m aware, no convincing long range studies have proven that we’re all driven by lust for power. Until they do, it’s just one more theory among a host of weird and wonderful explanations of why we behave as we do.

            I personally tend to think that a desire for power and control drives a part of human consciousness, but only a part, which varies from individual to individual. I have no scientific basis for thinking this beyond my own experience, which I realise is not universally applicable. So I could be wrong. But until someone can show me proof that some other theory is right, I’ll continue to think as I do.

          • The Explorer

            “Witness the posturings and jostlings for position and dominance among the largely male and, one suspects, elderly and self-important readership of this blog.”

            That’s an interesting theory. The problem is that unless you have convincing evidence to back your theory up with, it remains unproven and therefore merely a possibility rather than an established fact.

          • Findaráto

            That would only be a problem if I were maintaining that my theory is the objective truth, which I am not. It’s a theory based on personal observation and anecdotal evidence. Nothing more.

          • The Explorer

            I suspect we’re at cross purposes once again. I get the feeling you think I agree with Foucault. I don’t. I’m not the one who raised the topic of power: you did. Since you mention it often, I thought you might agree with Foucault. That’s why I asked if you did. I take it you don’t agree with him either, or you think he overstates his case?

          • Anton

            I think he knows Foucault about it.

          • Bwahahahaha!

          • Findaráto

            Foucault’s theories concentrate on the relationship between power and knowledge within wider society, whereas my area of interest is the broader means by which individuals express the desire for power and control. Knowledge plays a part. But so do ego, convention, ritual and faith.

            All of these combine in religion to let even the least knowledgeable of men impose his will on others. God can be instrumentalized by anyone who wants to justify his desire for control and domination.

            Again, the only proof I have for this is anecdotal, however my personal experience of Christians, Muslims and other people of faith is consistent with the theory that the more religious you are, the more oriented you are towards power, control and the imposition of your will on others. This may not be the whole story, but it’s certainly part of it.

          • Foucault, the pendulum guy was cool, but I agree with Camille Paglia that the pinko word-salad fellow you have in mind didn’t write a single interesting sentence. Maybe he has mote gravitas in French?

          • Findaráto

            Camille Paglia?

            ROFL!

      • CliveM

        Never knowingly under exaggerated.

  • Intonsus

    Bottley? Who?
    Isn’t ‘Gogglebox’ the thought-suppressor int he corner?
    Never seen nor heard of her

  • john in cheshire

    She’s just demonstrating she’s not a Christian.

    • sarky

      What, by having an opinion?

  • ZX10

    And I dislike [hate is your preferred emotion Kate not mine, so please seek help ] it when a Tory says anything you agree with !

  • Ecclesiaint

    Proof that idiocy in the CofE is not confined to Giles Fraser.

  • Dreadnaught

    Having seen this programme once, was enough to convince me what dumbing down actually looked like. A programme about non-entity, no-account couch potatoes watching television with one eye on the camera recording them says I think, more about the people (yes dear reader, the same people who will have a vote on the forthcoming referendum) who actually get some actual entertainment from this crap.
    The Lady Vicar? – never heard of her: God help the CoE if this is an example of the intellectual level of their officiates and how they spend their leisure time.

  • RevN

    Too many of these comments make sweeping judgements about all women vicars based on the comments of just one. We women vicars are not all the same you know. There will be very many vicars, male and female, who voted Tory last year.

    • Comments in the chat thread are unmoderated (ie freedom of expression) and are obviously unrepresentative of any whole. You are quite right to point out that some people are prone to making absurd and ungracious (if not downright rude) generalisations.

    • And why not comment and judge? What else is left? No one is compelled to attend worship in the West, so the customer-is-always-right rule applies, as in all free enterprise. Men have been leaving (edit} women-led conservative congregations in droves for reasons and with justifications we may argue about, but that is the bottom line…unless you want to suggest forced attendance or equity state funding to half-empty establishments.

      Yes, women can do the job just as well, but that’s not always the point. I can do the Priestly Blessing just as as well (and probably better) as any Cohen, Vulcan hand-gestures included, but no one in my crowd will let me. Well, there’s always the human rights commission approach, I guess.

      • PS: But the rudeness His Grace mentioned, is of course inexcusable.

        • carl jacobs

          Oh btw. Have you purchased your fancy beret yet? Can we start calling you an “artiste”?

          • What an idea! We all wear casual headwear when we drive over for the evening weekday prayers at shul and a beret on my noggins would certainly stand out among the sea of Yankees and Vancouver Canucks caps. As long as I don’t get confused with the elderly War of Independence kibbutz defense ladies who favored the beret.

          • carl jacobs

            Just remember. No more Coors Light for you. And no Whiskey either. You are only allowed to drink wine priced at more than $30 a bottle. And you must start referring to yourself in the third person. As in …

            “Barzel is going to create something magnificent!”

    • carl jacobs

      You can’t reliably make statements about any individual in a group based upon group characteristics. But you can make statements about the group. Women clergy are as a group considerably more heterodox than their male counterparts.

      • Anton

        You can if membership of the group implies disobedience to the scriptures.

        • carl jacobs

          Fair enough. But I was avoiding that argument. I was referring to the idea that it may be inferred from the group that all woman priests (say) deny the Resurrection. That would be an invalid assertion.

    • Inspector General

      But it’s not just ONE lady priestess, is it, dear heart? It strikes a fellow they ALL have some aberration about them. Some inbuilt resistance to towing the line it seems. Take Rachel Treweek for example. Can’t even bring herself to utter the phrase ‘God the Father’. Words our Christ used. They made her Bishop of Gloucester for that! You can understand why Jesus couldn’t use women to spread the word – more trouble than they’re worth, what!

      Besides, woman don’t so much preach as whine in a high pitch voice, which suffering man over millennia has learnt to ignore in the main. Or slip quietly out to the pub. One or the other.

      The ladies should be at home, raising the family and being a supportive wife to her husband. Not too much to ask of them, surely?

      • Uncle Brian

        What does she say instead, “God the Parent”?

        • Inspector General

          She just avoids ‘God the Father’. Stupid woman…

        • God, the Prime Conceptual Construct?

      • chiefofsinners

        Toeing the line.

        • magnolia

          Or towing the Inspector? Ashore ? I read “line” as the typo and his image as a yearning for salvation via a lady to mop up his deep spiritual malaise.

          Nice very strong, courageous and persistent beyond the call of duty lady vicar wanted for incorrigible (RC) scoundrel.

          There; that was all he needed to put…..

      • Sputum Flange

        Is that satire?

    • Martin

      RevN

      Well actually women vicars have one thing in common, disobedience of the simple rules laid down for who may be a minister in God’s Church. Therefore we can expect other questionable activities.

  • Andrew Price

    Er, never heard of her anyway…

  • James Holford White

    She hates what again? Oh that’s right, ‘it’, the circumstance of agreeing with a tory. She never said she hates tories, or damned them to hell, or questioned their faith. I hate all sorts of circumstances but I still love the people involved. What’s the problem with her hating this circumstance?

    • The Explorer

      Substitute ‘gay’ or ‘black’ for ‘Tory’, and think how it sounds.

      • carl jacobs

        Not really fair. “Tory” is an ideology whereas “black” is an incidental ontology and “gay” is a chosen behavior. You are mixing categories. It is acceptable to hate agreement with an ideology. The comment by James Holford White is well put.

        The problem comes when you can’t separate the person from the ideology.

        • Martin

          Carl

          Not really any difference between ‘gay’ and ‘Tory’ then, they are both chosen positions.

          • James Holford White

            You are right actually, Tory’s are born Tories and can’t do anything about it. Poor souls.

          • Martin

            James

            Neither are born, both make choices.

          • Since we’re being pedantic, if they weren’t born then they wouldn’t be able to make choices.

          • Martin

            HJ

            I’m not being pedantic. Neither were born to what they do, they chose to do it.

          • carl jacobs

            I have no more respect for a Socialist’s opinion then he had for mine. I could very easily say “I hate it when I agree with a Socialist.” It means nothing.

            Not all choices are of the same type.

          • Martin

            Carl

            Indeed, a Tory makes a value judgement, a homosexual just goes after their lust.

        • The Explorer

          Think about the range of opinion wthin Toryism. Or, for that matter, the range of opinion among gays and blacks. Its the blanket assumption of what an opinion will be through belonging to a particular group that I was condemning.

          • carl jacobs

            The Tory with whom she hates to agree is a Platonic ideal of her own creation.

          • The Explorer

            How does that refute the point?

          • carl jacobs

            The range of opinion doesn’t matter.

          • The Explorer

            Of course it does.

          • carl jacobs

            Not regarding the comment she made.

          • The Explorer

            “I hate it when I agree with a Tory.” I take it to mean that she thinks Tories (because of their world view) make hateful remarks. If she finds herself agreeing that is not because the Tory has spoken the truth, but because of a hateful moral fault within herself.
            If that is not what she meant, then she should have phrased it in such a way as not to open herself to that interpretation.

          • carl jacobs

            She is collapsing every Tory to an imagined common essence. She hates to agree with any Tory because she fears agreement will extend legitimacy to Tories. She is saying Conservatism is hateful as an ideology and she would prefer if all circumstances reinforced that view. Fair enough. I say exactly the same thing about Socialism.

          • The Explorer

            Well put.

          • carl jacobs

            Now, if she had made some Conservative statement, then she would be blasted for mixing religion and politics. At least in the US. In the UK you deliberately involve the church in politics. Just one more reason to disestablish the CoE.

            Her statement was problematic for pastoral reasons and not ideological reasons. That was the point of the original post.

          • Dreadnaught

            …she would be blasted for mixing religion and politics. At least in the US.
            That’s rubbish! They all invoke their personal relationship with the Lord when it suits to bolster their image; ending speeches with ‘God Bless America’ seems essential for any candidate. Your statement on behalf of the US would be more appropriate if directed toward a declared atheist running for President.

          • Ivan M

            Yes it is tiresome to see serial liars, warmongers and adulterers invoke God’s Name. They should be reminded of the Second Commandment. If they say “God Forgive America”, it would not be rankling, though “God damn America”, as Rev Wright, Obama’s Jesus preacher, was wont to invoke is taking things too far.

          • CliveM

            Actually this isn’t really about what she said. It’s about whether someone who purports to be a Priest, should make such public statements and whether it’s compatible with her ministry (not at this stage getting into s discussion as to the legitimacy of female Priests).

          • carl jacobs

            I agree. I made that point below. 🙂

          • CliveM

            Oh dear!

      • James Holford White

        This also reinforces Findarato’s argument below that you believe you are in a persecuted people group which you argued against. Conservatives are not a persecuted people group. Gays and blacks certainly are.

        • The Explorer

          Think about the range of opinion wthin Toryism. Or, for that matter, the range of opinion among gays and blacks. Its the blanket assumption of what an opinion will be through belonging to a particular group that I was condemning.

        • Martin

          James

          Since what you call ‘gays’ are merely persons indulging in sexual immorality, how can they be a persecuted group?

        • Uncle Brian

          Are there places, anywhere in the world, where Christians are a persecuted people group?

          • Dreadnaught

            The Middle East, Pakistan, China, North Korea, Nigeria, Sudan Egypt for starters I would have thought.

          • Uncle Brian

            Dreadnaught, please see my reply to Anton, just two comments up from this one (at the moment, anyway).

          • Anton

            Do see the websites of the persecuted church charities Open Doors, Release International and Barnabas.

          • Uncle Brian

            Anton, I ought to have made it clear that my question was addressed to James Holford White. I was curious to know whether he would place Christians in the same category as blacks and gays, i.e. people who are persecuted for being what they are from birth, with no choice in the matter, or whether he would place them in the same category as Tories, i.e. people who have freely chosen to adopt a certain set of beliefs. He could argue, if he wanted to, that the Christians in ISIS-ruled Syria and Iraq have brought their fate upon themselves since they have always been free to avoid it by the simple expedient of converting to Islam, as the Persians did when they were first conquered by the Arabs twenty or thirty years after Mohammed’s death and as the Albanians and Bosnians did centuries later, under the Ottoman Empire.

          • Anton

            Fine; but I’m happy to have given publicity to those charities.

        • Anton

          What country do you live in?

          • James Holford White

            The U.K., and I know all about the very real persecution of our Christian brothers and sisters over the world. Persecution of Conservatives in the UK? Pull the other one.

          • Anton

            Blessings to you; I lead the prayer group of the congregation I am in (in England) for the persecuted church worldwide. I don’t believe that Conservatives, gays or blacks are persecuted in the UK. Christians receive very minor persecution here (unless they have converted from Islam), but unhappily not zero.

          • DanJ0

            If homosexuals and black people (as classes of people) aren’t persecuted in the UK then Christians most certainly aren’t. There’s probably an order of magnitude of difference in degrees of persecution between the first two groups and second. Moreover, if an individual Christian wants to avoid being persecuted then all he or she needs to do is ditch their religious opinions and beliefs. It’s not as though any alleged persecution of a Christian is inherently about that person.

          • Anton

            Regarding persecution by the authorities, homosexuals, blacks and Conservatives are not; Christians may be. People have been arrested for quoting parts of the Bible in public without making any physical threat to any person, for instance.

          • DanJ0

            That’s a subset of persecution and the incidents to which you refer are isolated. There’s a concern there about wider freedom of speech and expression. However, Christians themselves as a group are hardly being persecuted in the wider scheme of things. There’s just a bit of a social readjustment going on.

          • Anton

            Persecution of a group by the authorities, or the authorities’ failure to enforce the law against illegal forms of persecution of that group by others, is by far the most significant category because it shows what the State is up to. Much of the rest is just private grumbling and mild paranoia by pressure groups. I agree that persecution of Christians in Britain is very mild compared to some countries, but it is rising.

          • DanJ0

            Homosexual behaviour was illegal in the UK in 1967, and inequalities in the law so I’m well aware of the power and reach of the State regarding persecution. It wasn’t until 2006 that the law was changed to protect against undue discrimination through the supply of goods and services, which amounts to a form of persecution. That’s an important thing about wider persecution in a liberal democracy like the UK: the law both leads and follows changes in social attitudes.

          • Anton

            Any provider of goods and services for profit should be able to decline anybody’s custom, as a matter of basic freedom. Loss of profit is the appropriate penalty for refusal of business.

          • Dreadnaught

            So it would be ok for a hotel to refuse a black man a room because the owner hates black people?

          • DanJ0

            We’d be intruding on their freedom to persecute if we stopped them doing that (overtly).

          • Anton

            You are broadening the definition of persecution unduly.

          • DanJ0

            To some extent, I agree. However, I don’t doubt that lots of black people in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s here felt persecuted as a result of stuff like that.

          • Anton

            And they presumably responded by setting up their own network of guest houses in their own community which, because it was poorer, charged less – thereby saving travelling blacks money *and* keeping hotel expenses within their own community rather than giving the money to whites. Way to go!

            The alternative is “I’ll get my Big Brother on to you”, which I abhor whether said by black, white, gay, Christian, Muslim or whatever.

          • DanJ0

            Well, I expect it probably fed into the race riots of the time.

          • Anton

            The integration of non-white people in Britain has proceeded with very few of those indeed.

          • DanJ0

            Some of that may be down to laws such as the Race Relations Act 1965 which I expect influenced social attitudes.

          • Anton

            I doubt it. You can’t legislate attitude. How many race riots by whites were there before that and after?

          • DanJ0

            We’re socially constructed beings for the most part. That is, we’re products of society. That Act will have influenced people going forward, I’m sure.

          • Anton

            It certainly won’t have influenced them going backward. Ghastly phrase!

          • DanJ0

            What I meant was that older people would probably be set in their ways and attitudes but not newer generations, being products of a changing society, as a result of social commentary, debates, and so on.

          • Findaráto

            In other words, you approve of apartheid. Hotels for whites and hotels for blacks.

            I’m glad I don’t live in a society where your opinions are written into the law. It’s like you’re speaking through a rift in time and space directly from the South Africa of 40 years ago.

            Personally I will never support a system that allows bigots to punish those they hate and labels it as “freedom”. It isn’t freedom. It’s the gratification of irrational fears and selfish personal desires at great and unfair cost to others. There have to be some limits on personal autonomy otherwise it becomes impossible to live in society.

          • The Explorer

            Let’s standardise hotel rates across London while we’re at it. Then price won’t be a barrier in choosing where we want to stay.

          • Findaráto

            In a free market, price does not constitute persecution. As long as anyone who can pay is allowed to purchase your product or service, you can sell it at whatever price you like.

            Apart from a few exceptions where some level discrimination may be accepted because of a specific and legally recognised need to favour a certain category of customer, this is how free markets work.

            Most Christians understand this and don’t, rather ridiculously in my opinion, try to equate price differentials with racial, gender-based or homophobic discrimination.

          • The Explorer

            Quite true. I was merely observing that while equality of sex act has been declared, and equality of cultures, equality of income remains elusive.

          • Anton

            “In other words, you approve of apartheid. Hotels for whites and hotels for blacks.”

            I responded to Dreadnought’s question, “So it would be ok for a hotel to refuse a black man a room because the owner hates black people?” by replying as follows: “I would not approve, but… not everything should be compulsory or illegal”.

            Would you care to explain how I supposedly approve of something given that I stated I disapprove of it?

            I’m glad I don’t live where your opinions are law either.

          • Findaráto

            You disapprove of apartheid, but not enough to wish to outlaw it so that your supposed “brothers in Christ” don’t have to suffer under its yoke, eh?

            You’re more concerned about the “freedom” of persecutors to persecute than you are about the situation of the persecuted.

            In which case, how can you justify bellyaching about the lot of persecuted Christians in China and Africa? If we follow the logic of your reasoning, persecutors should be allowed the freedom to persecute because it’s immoral to deprive them of the right to do exactly as they wish. So why complain when they use their freedom to persecute Christians?

            Sounds to me as though you’re in a bit of a moral muddle. You have one rule for those who want to persecute people you don’t care about (although you’re careful to say you don’t approve, for fear of looking like a racist), and quite another rule for anyone who interferes with the freedom of people you actually care about.

            What do you call such a confused and contradictory moral stance? I call it rank hypocrisy.

          • Anton

            You claimed in so many words that I approved of apartheid despite my saying that I would not approve of a hotelkeeper of one race denying accommodation to someone of another race on those grounds ( simply thought it should not be a matter for the law). I invited you to derive approval of apartheid from my statement, and because you can’t you are now shifting the ground. Readers may see for themselves how you are shifting ground. Here’s another of your tricks:

            You disapprove of apartheid, but not enough to wish to outlaw it…

            Apartheid is discrimination in law between races. It is not petty racism between individuals. Check your definitions and stop sliding. The law most certainly should not discriminate between races.

          • Anton

            I would not approve, but it should not be illegal. Or the other way round. Not everything should be compulsory or illegal, you know.

          • DanJ0

            How about declining to employ someone simply because they’re black, or female, or a bit Dale Winton?

          • Anton

            Why choose those examples? Or white, or male, or promiscuously heterosexual…

            I stand by my principle; as I’ve said below, the alternative is “I’ll get my Big Brother on to you”, which I abhor whether said by black, white, gay, Christian, Muslim or whatever.

          • DanJ0

            In theory, I agree with the principle. In practice, there are structural effects in society which create disadvantaged classes of people. That begins to drift into the concepts of negative and positive freedom.

          • Anton

            You can’t agree with the principle and disagree that it should be in operation. The reasons why some people are disadvantaged and others not are highly multivariate and you can find counterexamples in any subgroup of society.

          • DanJ0

            Why were women disadvantaged in terms of employment, salary, and so on, in the UK until fairly recently for the most part?

          • Anton

            They should be paid the same as men for the same job but the mass entry of women into the job market is an unfolding social disaster, in the main for the next generation. Why that is can wait until I get up tomorrow morning.

          • DanJ0

            Some of it was probably down to stuff like this:

            Note for our colonial cousins: this is a comedy.

          • carl jacobs

            Moreover, if a Christian wants to avoid being persecuted then all he or she needs to do is ditch their religious opinions and beliefs.

            I am truly shocked that you wrote that sentence. It is the most illiberal thing I have ever seen you write. Especially given the broad applicability of the stated principle.

          • DanJ0

            I applaud your dramatic flourish there, it’s almost worthy of Scarlett O’Hara. That sentence and one following it are simply about the nature of it.

          • Anton

            Frankly, my dear…

          • DanJ0

            Damn. I was saving that line up a response here.

          • carl jacobs

            I have never seen the attraction of that movie. It’s a glorified Harlequin romance.

          • Anton

            I got dragged to it by an American girlfriend long ago. It was boring.

          • carl jacobs

            It is a quintessential chick flick except the rake leaves in the end. I have heard some American movie theaters ran GWTW for a solid year after it came out. And I thought Titanic was bad.

            Well … It was bad. But at least you could ignore it.

          • carl jacobs

            That was no dramatic flourish. That was honesty. I don’t play games with you. And I understand exactly the distinction you are trying to make. I just think its beneath you to try and make it. You are trying to make a distinction between something that is intrinsic and something that is volitional. As if killing a Jewish convert with no Jewish blood is somehow “better” than killing a Jew by birth.

            You haven’t even framed the argument correctly. A Christian does not have to ditch his Christianity to avoid persecution. He simply has to discard every public expression of it. And if you didn’t want to be thrown off a building in Iran, all you would have to do is ditch every single public expression of your homosexuality. The two cases are exactly analogous. But you will say “No. My desire is intrinsic.” Your desire isn’t visible. Only your actions are visible and your actions are entirely volitional. There is no “test” for homosexuality. It is entirely self-reported. If you wanted to avoid persecution, all you would have to do is suppress your actions and refuse to self-report.

            But you would never have made that statement about homosexuals. Perhaps because you value the ability to act upon homosexual desire.

          • DanJ0

            “And if you didn’t want to be thrown off a building in Iran, all you would have to do is ditch every single public expression of your homosexuality.”

            No. I would need to do more than that. I would need to adopt a public expression of heterosexuality, such as getting married, for fear of being suspected of being a homosexual. That’s all they need, it seems. This captures some of what my teenage years were like in the UK, though we were merely stigmatised, ostracised, and probably beaten up, rather than thrown off tall buildings. Of course, someone rational might wonder why any teenager would have chosen to be a homosexual in that environment. But hey.

          • DanJ0

            Ah, but no. I didn’t chose to be a homosexual throughout puberty and beyond because I wasn’t having homosexual sex (or heterosexual sex). I merely had homosexual desires rather than heterosexual desires, which is not the same thing even if they were exclusively so. My nob and bollocks means I’m a heterosexual in reality because heterosexuality is all about the physical and nothing about the mental.

          • Your genitals, a penis and testicles, and your chromosomes, indicate you are male. Whether you choose to be sexually active with yourself, a woman, a child, an animal or an inanimate object, or all the aforementioned, is where you exercise choice. Man is not a prisoner of his desires.

          • DanJ0

            Sadly there’s no forum award for stating the bleeding obvious otherwise you’d certainly be nominated with that. The contentious issue is whether being a homosexual is a choice. That is, whether there is a sexual orientation other than a heterosexual one.

          • Jack would not call homosexual desire a “natural sex drive.” There will be Roman Catholic priests, like other men, who will be tempted with natural and unnatural desires. It’s all about control and choice.

          • DanJ0

            You have a religious interpretation of reality which people can simply ignore if they wish as its premises are merely asserted. As for it all being about control and choice, I think you’re being deliberately ambiguous. One can control one’s sexual impulses, and one has a choice to act or not. I certainly don’t have a choice between being heterosexual and homosexual. I never have for as long as I can remember. I helieve the Roman Catholic Church accepts that possibility, so no doubt you agree too. Correct?

          • carl jacobs

            I suppose that by analogy one would have to adopt a public display of Islam as well. Not that any of this responds to the point I made.

          • DanJ0

            My sarcasm below at least addresses some of it. What I address there flows from your religious beliefs which are merely an assertion of our reality. What can I say there other that that I disagree with its core premises.

          • carl jacobs

            Your sarcasm responds to none of it because my point focuses on the volitional behavior that is the proximate cause of homosexual persecution.

          • DanJ0

            Perhaps it’s a cultural thing that you misunderstand what I’m actually saying.

          • carl jacobs

            Ah, yes. The enigmatic quip. Not unlike the flash bomb of a Ninja.

          • DanJ0

            I’ve pulled back your incorrect casting of my words as illiberal. I’ve pointed out that in the UK and elsewhere one doesn’t need to engage in homosexual acts to be treated as a homosexual. I have direct experience of that. I’ve appealed to rationality regarding people like me choosing to be homosexual. Finally, I’ve indicated where your argument about mere desire is weak, yet again. A good day’s work as far as I am concerned.

          • Ivan M

            It is ISIS that throws homosexuals from buildings. In Iran they hang them from cranes.

          • The Explorer

            A lot of genuine soul searching seems to go on in Islam about the best way to deal with gays. I believe originally it was simply flogging and exile.
            I’ve previously mentioned the Sheikh (he’s on You Tube somewhere, but I can’t track him down) who recommends beheading gays and burning the corpses, but who accepts the alternative of throwing gays off cliffs and rolling rocks on them to ensure death. That method has, for him, the impersonality of a firing squad (he doesn’t say so, but that’s the idea) compared with the individual responsibility for a beheading. He can accept that, because he concedes it’s distressing to have to kill a fellow Arab: as painful as having to concede that there are Arab gays in the first place. Non-Arabs, of course, no problem.

          • Ivan M

            In my estimation, about 30% of the Muslims who take the externalities of their religion seriously, ie those who are fanatical about Islam being insulted and so on, have homosexual and pederastic inclinations. (This may be how Foucault got interested in the Iranian Revolution in the first place. I don’t see any other attraction for the authour of Punishment and Discipline for the mullahcracy.) The lot of an effeminate homosexual is a terrible one in their hands.

          • Anton

            It’s also incoherent, for if a Christian ditches his beliefs then he’s not a Christian.

          • …. and what choice is there?

          • DanJ0

            Well, quite. That’s the essence of it.

          • Hmmm … Let’s try this:
            “Moreover, if an individual homosexual wants to avoid being persecuted then all he or she needs to do is ditch their chosen activities and lifestyle. It’s not as though any alleged persecution of a homosexual is inherently about that person.”

          • DanJ0

            Blimey, I never thought of doing exactly that with my argument! That’s come as quite a shock. But anyway, what you’re saying is almost same. I can try to hide my homosexuality by not behaving according to my sexual orientation but it’s rather difficult to hide my not being in a heterosexual relationship unless I marry solely for appearances, as still happens in the UK within cultures from the Indian sub-continent, or ‘shack up’ with someone. I’m lucky that I don’t fall into the effeminate subset of homosexuals whose mannerism seem to have an innate quality about them in my experience of such people. They’d find it hard to hide.

          • Heterosexuals can be camp too you know and nothing wrong with being single. You don’t have to marry for appearances.

          • DanJ0

            I thought Les Dennis was gay and that Amanda Holden was his beard. Apparently not. Luckily, he worked in the entertainment industry so it didn’t really matter either way. I work for an engineering firm where someone who regularly wore a black corduroy jacket was quietly ridiculed and dismissed behind his back, not for his sartorial eccentricity but because it was suspected to be indicative of his sexual orientation. This was 5 years ago. My last manager was openly homophobic [1] and I suspect he would have held my career back if he knew for sure of my orientation. That I don’t ever bring a wife or girlfriend to social events is occasionally commented on even so.

            [1] Note that I have never formally complained even though I know the company i.e. HR would take it seriously and sack him.

          • How do you know his dismissal was due to him being suspected of being homosexual and not the quality of his work or a clash of personalities that was detrimental? Work place bullying comes in all sorts of guises, it’s up to the individual to fight back.

            If you’re good at your job Danj0 you will find a way to shine through or you could just change companies.

          • DanJ0

            He wasn’t dismissed. He changed companies, probably for other reasons. It’s probably not an issue anymore as corduroy is not very durable.

          • Surely you’re not the only person employed by your company who identifies as homosexual? In public service nowadays it’s a positive attribute and bodes well for career advancement. Not so being Christian.

          • DanJ0

            No-one in my company is openly homosexual. Nevertheless, I know of two others who are homosexual. This is what engineering is like. In the oil and gas industry it’s even worse. We have about five Muslims and a similar number of Christians, none of whom are in the closet. We had four JWs for a while but two have since left. They’re rather quieter about it for fairly obvious reasons.

          • Ivan M

            Especially so if one is looking for a job in the nanny state or Big Brother outfits. It puts them at the head. No wonder the social conservatives are tripped up everytime. They have the inside track.

          • Hi Jack. Just wanna say that’s it’s a real pleasure to see your ludicrous avatar back. It even made me laugh when I popped in this morning. Hope you’re being a good boy, eating all your porridge, gulping down the cod liver oil, doing everything possible to keep that grin up. God bless, my man.

          • God Bless you, Avi.

          • The Explorer

            Hmmm … Let’s try this:
            “Moreover, if an individual black wants to avoid being persecuted then all he or she needs to do is ditch their chosen activities and lifestyle. It’s not as though any alleged persecution of a black is inherently about that person.”

            After all, in our brave new world, aren’t we free to choose our ethnicity?

            You can see how this has come about. Suppose you’re a black gay. It might be said that you have a choice about acting on your orientation, but not about your ethnicity. The way to get round that is to say that ethnicity and orientation are either equally fluid or equally innate: in which case, you can no more be blamed for being homosexual than you can for being black. (Or white).

          • Old Nick

            Foxhunters are persecuted

        • big

          Conservatives are persecuted by Tories.

        • IanCad

          “—Gays and blacks certainly are.”

          I have the distinct impression they are highly favoured and blessed among Leftists

          • James Holford White

            They, and you, are highly favoured by God.

        • Aran’Gar

          Ask your average student whether he would feel more comfortable to come out as GLBTI or come out as Tory.

          Actually you won’t have to ask, because the former will let you know.

  • Martin

    So a woman, who deliberately disobeys God’s word by claiming to be a leader in God’s Church thinks that her political opinion is so important that agreeing with someone of a different persuasion is a bad thing?

  • len

    Supposing the remark were rephrased’ I hate myself when I agree with a Tory?’.
    Is this twice as bad or half as good.?

  • Inspector General

    Do you know, the Roman Catholic clergy are so much better when it comes to respecting parishioners legitimately held political leanings.

    The Inspector does not bother with Twitter, but offers to Cranmer’s congregation the hash tag #sillylittlescrubber for the over opinionated off message women out there who think they are priests.

    By the way, if the Inspector appears ‘not to have a pair’, then he would welcome suggestions from ill-mannered strumpets to remedy the situation, and will empty his drink over their heads to indicate message received…

    • James Holford White

      And the use of ‘scrubber’ and ‘scrumpet’ show that your dislike of her is nothing to do with your theology but entirely your mysogony.

      • big

        Hey that’s the Inspector you’re talking about! don’t “diss” him

      • He is, conyrary to all appearances in fact a meek and sensitive chap and the outrageous charge of mysogyny will wound him deeply. Hope you can sleep tonight.

        • James Holford White

          If he can sleep well after calling a fellow Christian a silly little scrubber and other such demeaning and sexist phrases then I’m sure I’ll sleep fine for naming that beast. If you believe he is not a mysogonist then how would you describe his language?

          • len

            ‘The Inspector’ is not a real person but an automated response computer which has been wrongly programmed.

          • I would describe his language as rich, colorful, sharp, Edwardian, amusing, sincere, intentionally provocative, if not outright scandalous, and far more in tune with what, admittedly from afar, I identify with a British character that is being suffocated and silenced by politically trendy scolds such as yourself.

            As for the mysogonist propaganfa meme, until similarly loaded terms that cover such politically and intellectually vacuous nitwits like the vicar in question are instituted and adopted, I deem it to be entirely worthless in any serious discussion.

          • CliveM

            Snort!

          • James Holford White

            Politically trendy? Why thank you. If my scolding silences and suffocates the venomous voice which holds the ethics and social politics of the 50’s as the pinnacle of God’s good creation, then jolly good 🙂 Anyway, I’m sure the Inspector can stick up for himself, even if the pair he has grown have not yet dropped.

          • I’ll let you work on a rationale for your ethics-by-decades hypothesis …perhaps you can even supply timeline and location graphs peppered with frowny and smiley faces for our giggles here. As for the Inspector, yes, he can stick up for himself quite well. Too well, actually. You’re safer with me.

          • James Holford White

            That would be fun, but it would be no better than the Reeves and Mortimer sketch already shared elsewhere here.

          • Anton

            The sexual ethics and respect for the institution of the family were far stronger in the 1950s, the NHS was already in being, and taxes were not at penal levels. No era is perfect but it was a damn sight better than today.

          • Aran’Gar

            I can’t imagine anyone is advocating a return to the 20s, that’s where this whole mess started after all.
            Now the 1890s, that was a fine time in many ways.

      • Darter Noster

        Without wishing to endorse the Inspector’s language, there is a valid point to be made that very few women clergy uphold a conservative and traditional position on Scripture. They owe their positions to the struggle against traditional interpretations of Scripture and for a much more “inclusive” (to whit, in tune with contemporary sensibilities) Gospel, in which everything is viewed through the lens of modern culture and must be made to conform to it.

        • James Holford White

          We all interpret Scripture through a lens of culture, to believe we don’t would be to believe we have the vantage point of God. But that should never mean we conform scripture to our culture but prolaim it afresh in each generation. That ‘freshness’ is surely the interplay of scripture and culture coming together? Traditional interpretations of scripture also upheld slavery and white supremacy, thankfully we re-examined scripture and moved on from that.

          • Anton

            Scripture is not so ambiguous as to need interpretation of every verse, for differences, while deep in some cases, are the exception not the norm. Slavery could never stand against the application of the Golden Rule, as proclaimed by Christ on the Mount (“Do unto others…”). Those who advocated slavery simply ignored this argument.

      • Inspector General

        My dear fellow, one does not harbour misogyny. However, one is obliged to point out the weaknesses involved in the idea of lady priests.

        • James Holford White

          Thankfully those whom God calls to his priesthood is not up to you or I.
          However while you name call and pour pints over people’s heads those who He has called will carry on and share the good news and preside at the sacraments declaring God’s good grace at work in wonderful and amazing ways. Grumble all you like.

          • Inspector General

            And yet Christ did not assign his continued mission to any woman. Do you think he appreciated something you don’t. To wit, that women do not make priests…

          • James Holford White

            Yet he gave the authority to two women to take the most important news in all of human history, that he has conquered death, to speak with authority to the men and Pricilla and those others and all that, yeah if you ignore that. Maybe as these women seem to have spoken with authority to those left to continue the mission maybe they should only be Bishops?

          • Inspector General

            If you want news to travel, tell a woman. Better still, two. Hardly an endorsement for woman priests, now is it?

          • James Holford White

            And again we return to your dislike and disrespect of women, this time calling the Holy Mother a gossip. So I return to my original assertion, that this is your misogyny at play not your theology…although it seems you have merged the two so I don’t have much hope for our discourse. I hope one day you can stop hiding behind an alias and find some healing, until then ta ta.

          • Inspector General

            You are confusing misogyny with a hard line approach. Jesus took a hard line approach, did he not? One considers women wonderful, they bring forth life. Not all, mind, some are complete rubbish…

          • Andre´Kristian

            Debonair, witty and portly revered Inspector,
            allow an affectionate adorer to expose a brief example of the liberal ecclesiastical situation in my tormented Sweden.
            Our so called archbishop, a woman (bah!) by the incredible name of Antje Jackelen, had the impudence to let her bodily self be inaugurated to board the bishop´s throne in 2013. Her most spectacular deed so far, is to forward and promote “the peaceful” qualities of the prophet Muhammed. Blasphemous balderdash performed by an undignified usurper!
            Apparently the modern form of episcopal dignity is strikingly impregnated by the plague of political correctness. The archdiocese might still be suffering from the fit of shivering, followed by cascades of vomits. These omnipresent feminazists, these fervent adherents of “same-sex marriage”, never fail to provoke a decent fellow who prefers the traditional, Christian High Church order for divine service.
            The latest knavish trick is to make every white, upright man feel GUILT due to our race and gender, and most probably on account of our indisputable superiority.
            Envious sluts!

          • Inspector General

            Greetings Andre. One has learned today that the woman who thinks she’s bishop of Gloucester is going to spend the greater part of Easter week at a prison. A woman’s prison, that is. The faithful can go hang at this most important part of the Christian calendar, it seems. Hope they provide her with a pot to piss in, as well as a nice clean uniform…

            Indeed, it can be tough being a white man in Europe these days. The faults of the world are laid at our feet. But chin up, there are plenty of fellows our way inclined. Seek them out for fellowship, that man!

    • Allosexuels admirateur

      C’est pas vrai !

      Yoo ave not got a pair? Wot appened?

  • big

    I hate Googlebox,hate it! absolutely HATE IT!

    • Darter Noster

      I know what you mean. I’d have loved to have been a fly on the wall at the meeting where someone said “I know – let’s film a load of vacuous pricks watching another load of vacuous pricks.”

      • big

        ……HATE IT!

        • carl jacobs

          Wait. So should we infer from this statement that you have some reservations about this show? Perhaps if you let go of your phobias and chose to become more diverse…

          • big

            HATE IT!

          • saintmark

            Can we suggest you stop watching it then?

          • The Explorer

            I think big’s point is what the existence of a programme like Gogglebox says about the state of our culture. It won’t disappear if he doesn’t watch it: not unless enough other viewers feel the same way and destroy the ratings. But a culture in which it can exist in the first place males that unlikely.

          • big

            exactly, and yes let’s destroy, not the ratings,but the perverse, and pervasive culture

          • big

            i stopped after the first time

    • sarky

      I can tell you are obviously more of a big brother fan.

  • Darter Noster

    “…she is a Church of England vicar and a minister of the Word”

    Sadly, these have not necessarily been the same thing for many years. Too many clerics interpret “Ministry of the Word” as “The Gospel according to Caroline Lucas and Polly Toynbee, with a bit of God thrown in”

    • big

      The first and only time i watched this programme,i couldn’t believe this woman was a vicar,she sat mouthing off ,her brain dead husband sat there looking like he had taken to many happy pills.Britian has become a Hogarthian cesspit.

      • Anton

        Could you post a YouTube clip?

        • big

          take a look at hogarth ,its better than youtube.

          • Anton

            I know Hogarth. I don’t know Kate Bottomley.

        • IanCad

          Here Anton:

          The House of God turned into a den of Pagans.

          • Anton

            Absurd!

          • Good Heavens.

          • carl jacobs

            OK so … That may have been ridiculous. And I will admit that nothing good comes out of disco. But how do you get from bad music and bad dancing to paganism?

            Methinks I detect a faint presence of legalism here.

          • IanCad

            Paganism was not the ideal word – a little poetic license and heed for euphony made it the choice for a quick post.
            For the life of me though, I can’t see where “Legalism” comes into my disapproval of high jinks polluting what should be a reverent and respectful ceremony.

          • carl jacobs

            If I was to ask you “Where stands it written?” you wouldn’t be able to condemn them. The service was very. All that remained was a recessional. I think the real issue here is decorum. People just aren’t supposed to do that in a church. They are supposed to play some music by Handel and recess in a dignified manner fitting with the occasion. Well, OK, but the Bride wanted it (and you know this was her idea.) Was it immoral? No. Was it sin? No. How then does it show disrespect to God? What it actually disrespects is our sense of propriety. And that’s how legalism gets inserted into the discussion.

            Dancing and I are mortal enemies. I would never have done that or participated. But I can’t condemn them because they committed no sin.

          • IanCad

            Must draw the line somewhere.
            What’s next? Naked ceremonies? Communal copulation?

          • All that’been done. Just a question of application in houses of worship focussed on becoming relevant to the younguns. Might need a Cray computer to sort out and organize the multiple sexual and gender preferences of the participants, though.

          • The Explorer

            In my atheist days I was an intermittent viewer (even, sometimes, a reader) of ‘Playboy’. I remember two editions from the 70’s. One of them featured a nude wedding (I think the groom wore a bow tie, and the bride had flowers and a veil) and another had a trio of students performing naked in a church to recapture the Garden of Eden or something. Quite why there was a trio I can’t remember. Maybe Adam had two wives, and one of them was Lilith. But, anyway, a show like that wasn’t going to tie itself down with the minutiae of biblical accuracy, and two naked women to look at was more fun for the audience/congregation/what? than just one.

          • Andre´Kristian

            The abomination You so vividly described, is nothing but one of the most grave examples of blasphemy I have ever heard of. I find it utterly remarkable that this kind of activities have been possible to commit within the sacred walls of a church. It should be quite impossible for any decent person to tolerate the worship of Satan, because, my unknown friend, to perform such a spectacle is to praise the Evil one himself. I recall the ridiculous and very repulsive pictures in the newspapers a long time ago, exhibiting John Lennon and his Japanese thing, all in their forbidding nudity, quite comparable to a couple of bedlamites. There cannot be any sense or logic in such a disgraceful behaviour. Fie for bloody hell! However, I comfort myself with the delightful thought and conviction that the time has now come for a sound and devilishly necessary counter-offensive to the despicable degradation which is prevalent. A moral rearmament to restore our national dignity and pride and to secure the civic order! Regarding female priests, I must avow to the fact I consider them quite unsuitable to hold this office. Female intruders! Vale!

          • carl jacobs

            There is no necessary path from the events in that video to the events you listed.

          • IanCad

            True; but things generally deteriorate until disaster sets all at rights again.

          • The Explorer

            2 Samuel 6:14. “And David danced before the Lord with all his might.” My main query is what’s in the bottle the bride is drinking from at the end?

          • Anton

            It might disrespect our sense of propriety and no law, but that sense is not arbitrary. What if the vicar had done a dance routine at a funeral or a memorial service for war dead?

          • carl jacobs

            If she did as you say, then you would have a case. But she didn’t do that, did she. And there is no necessary path from the first circumstance and the second. Your argument parallels this: “He wore blue jeans to church? They’ll be fornicating on the altar next.”

            You are elevating a human tradition (recessing in a certain manner or wearing “nice” clothes to church) to the status of de facto law, and then condemning people for violating that de facto law by suggesting such violation will lead to violations of de jure law. It doesn’t matter of people wear blue jeans to church. It doesn’t matter if the wedding party does a dumb dance at the end of a wedding service. Spirit and truth. Not form and ritual.

            But if you think I am wrong, you have only to make the case that either action is sin.

          • Anton

            No Carl, I am saying that there is more to life than law. And I am using the fact that there is no law against dancing a jig at a funeral or war memorial service to make the point.

          • carl jacobs

            Dancing at the end of a funeral would be inconsistent with the moment. What is inconsistent about dancing at the end of a wedding ceremony?

            You have to make a case against it, Anton. No case has been made against the actions of the wedding party. At all. Anywhere. What did they do wrong? Note. Offending someone else’s arbitrary notion of propriety is not be definition wrong.

          • Anton

            “Dancing at the end of a funeral would be inconsistent with the moment.”

            Yes indeed. But your argument above re the wedding is that if there is no legislation against it then it’s not wrong; it merely offends some people’s idea of propriety. Well there is no legislation against dancing at the end of a funeral either, is there? So, using your own argument, you cannot object.

            The fact that you think it’s wrong (as do I) shows simply that there is more to life than law: just as I said.

          • CliveM
          • Aran’Gar

            Although I haven’t watched the video I would say dancing during the wedding service in the church strikes me as equally problematic, though there are cultures where that is done (and also where funeral dances or even games occur) that doesn’t make it appropriate in England.
            The marriage ceremony is supposed to be a sacred and solemn event – perhaps even sacramental and therefore far more deserving of solemnity in the presence of the sacred than a funeral.

          • Ivan M

            Nothing good? Come on . The Hustle? Saturday Night Fever? Most people would be ashamed to admit to enjoying it now, but it was high art

          • carl jacobs

            Ummm … No. I remember watching “Airplane” in the theater when it first came out. When the airliner smashed through the transmitting tower of the disco station – I kid you not – the entire audience spontaneously cheered.

          • DanJ0

            But the two old ladies! Lol

          • IanCad

            Good for them.
            And besides, they were young ladies once upon a time and I’m sure have seen it all before. Give them credit for some wisdom.

          • DanJ0

            Sissy and Ida. Heh

  • I’ve never watched Gogglebox, so I wasn’t aware that Kate the Shrew was a national celebrity. I know of her as the dancing vicar who blocked me on Twitter for mocking her. Thus it is no surprise to discover that she is also a leftie.

    I’m afraid I don’t recognise women as being priests, but then I’m not an Anglican. Since she doesn’t wear a dog-collar (or whatever the female equivalent is), many others wouldn’t recognise her as being a rev, either.

    • The Explorer

      Until you drew my attention to it, didn’t know about the dancing vicar sequence on You Tube. Just watched it. There’s our Kate, leading the way. Most hilarious wedding I’ve ever seen.

      • Anton

        Yes, but is a wedding meant to be hilarious? What’s her funeral routine?

        • The Explorer

          Do you know, I was wondering about that. I was citing it more as an example of hilarity than as an example of a wedding.

    • Dreary Steeple

      And we wonder why the Church of England pews are empty.

    • Aran’Gar

      Well no Anglicans really recognized priestesses until the past few generations either.

      It is almost as if the modern church repudiated two millennia of doctrine and then faced a sharp decline.
      Wonder why?

  • saintmark

    I was trying to think of why, out of all the goggleboxers, the Rev. Kate is the one I dislike the most(by far), I think it must be because she never smiles or has anything pleasant to say

    • The Explorer

      She does a fair bit of smiling on Ian Cad’s youtube link given below.

  • Johnnydub

    Another socialist masquerading as an Anglican is Bishop Stephen Lowe who goes on Radio 5 on a Sunday night.

    He truly sees Christianity and socialism as being interchangeable.

    Yet I don’t recall Jesus ever advocating confiscation; charity yes, taxation no…

    I find his “Christian” certainty loathsome and nauseating.

    • Pubcrawler

      I can’t say I’ve ever heard (of) him. But if the Beeb are prepared to give him a regular platform, that’s warning enough.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Jesus did talk about taxation. Have you forgotten his reply “render unto Caesar …” when he was asked if Jews should pay the Roman tax?

      • Anton

        That’s not advocating taxation, it’s saying pay it. God’s system of poor relief in Mosaic Law is worth looking at closely: mandatory taxes (in grain) but no specification of who gets poor relief. That meant it was left to community leaders, having personal knowledge of circumstances, to decide who were the deserving poor and who the undeserving poor. On the one hand, resources did exist; it wasn’t all up to private charity. On the other hand, nobody could just say “these are my rights, Gimme”. Very wise, of course.

  • chrisH

    I found myself trying to convince Christians that there is no condemnation whatsoever for them if they voted UKIP last year.
    Just used Acts 13 as my text, where prissy Peter thought that he would have to stick to Jewish dietary requirements and show his Judaic credentials, as if nothing had changed and “The Law” hitherto remained in place.
    Not so-and being a Christian would now involve ditching presumptions, and declaring the old rules to be dead to the new creation that Jesus now entaiis(Gal 6.15).
    Not popular with the Guardian-reading Church do-gooders who get their theology from the BBC…but routine Tory/UKIP vogueing to please the public sector and its soft army of quangos is NOT Christian-how dare they judge Gods people for their politics, our kingdom will have Tories in as much as anybody else(1 Pet 4.17)

  • Mike Stallard

    ….and Mr Bottley?

    • Pubcrawler

      Appears to be her footstool, from that picture.