Real Easter Egg - Bishops
Market and Economics

Sainsbury’s refuses to sell the Real Easter Egg – what’s their problem with Jesus?

The Real Easter Egg, which explains the real meaning of Easter (yes, it mentions Jesus), is on sale in Tesco, Waitrose, Morrisons and dozens of independent retail outlets. But Sainsbury’s refuses to stock it, for some reason. Bishop Anthony Priddis was welcomed at Tesco, Bishop Andrew Watson at Morrisons, and Bishop Nigel McColloch at Waitrose. These stores have no problem with selling an Easter Egg which tells the Easter story (yes, it mentions Jesus). But when a bishop went to Sainsbury’s HQ in London, the doors remained firmly shut.

“After six years of trying to get products which cater for the Christian community into Sainsbury’s, we wonder if they have a problem with faith,” said David Marshall, Director of The Meaningful Chocolate Company Ltd.

And wonder he might.

Because it’s not just Easter when Sainsbury’s seem to have a problem with Jesus: on the run-up to Christmas they stock Advent calendars for dogs (yes, for dogs), but every year they reject The Real Advent Calendar, a Fairtrade charity calendar which includes a copy of the Christmas story in the box (yes, it mentions Jesus). So at Christmas, Sainsbury’s provide dog owners with canine calendars of meaty treats, but they won’t provide Christians with a Christian calendar for their kids which tells the story of Christmas – presumably because it mentions Jesus.

According to a 2016 YouGov survey, 80 per cent of the population say they want to see products which mention Easter on the shelves of supermarkets at Easter. Yet every year Sainsbury’s reject The Real Easter Egg, which not only mentions Jesus, it is the UK’s only Fairtrade egg, which means that farmers and growers in developing countries receive a fair price, plus an additional Fairtrade Premium to invest in community projects – giving them more control over their lives. And the Meaningful Chocolate Company gives money to charity – lots of it. But that’s of no consequence to Sainsbury’s, which maintains its Jesus boycott: Easter for them is about Heroes and bunnies and pretty pink bows. Jesus might cause a bit of a stink. And the cross.. well, that’s just offensive.

But even in Tesco, Waitrose and Morrisons there are reports of The Real Easter Egg being hidden from view. “Some customers have had to wait while supermarket staff have gone to find it.” Really, what’s the point of stocking a product and then hiding it from customers? Millions of Real Easter Eggs have been sold over the past six years, so the demand is clearly there. So, come on, Sainsbury’s, please explain. If the Sainsbury family can have a charitable trust, the objective of which is “to advance the Christian religion and promote Christian organisations and the charitable purposes and institutions they support”, and “to advance Christian education and learning”, what on earth is wrong with an Easter Egg which tells the real meaning of Easter? Unless, of course, you really do have a problem with the resurrection of Jesus and the good news of salvation.

  • Sybaseguru

    We don’t have a Sainsburys near us, but I’ll pass this on to my friends in Wilmslow – I’m sure they can manage going to Waitrose rather than Sainsburys for all their shopping.

  • David

    Hhmm interesting !
    As a barely reformed chocoholic, this is especially interesting to me.
    Like many of us I too wonder why they are refusing to do this.
    I would also like to know what proportion of the the stores in the Tesco, Waitrose and Tesco chains fail to market the eggs in prominent positions. If the percentages are low, then that suggests that the in-store local management are culpable, rather than company policy.

    • Mike Stallard

      A subtext could well be guilt at slavery and Empire. Also, of course, the desire to be welcoming to immigrants. Also the love of minorities at the expense of majorities. I think the last of these three is one of the worst things about modern society.

      • David

        Yes I agree. Marxism set out to destroy the west. Hence the invention of PC to control thoughts and corrupt us. Liberal guilt is a cancer, deliberately refusing to acknowledge that long list of things that our Judeao-Christian culture did far better than others, whilst pointing only to its weakness. But of course their refusal to sell the eggs may have an entirely different motive, as we don’t know.

        • Busy Mum

          Maybe they are worried about a boycott or a trashing by other-religioned customers?

          • David

            Well we’d like to know.

          • Busy Mum

            If they never tell us, we can be sure it was something bad.

          • Sarky

            Wouldn’t they then have to stop stocking all eggs?
            (Never gonna happen)

          • Busy Mum

            Why? Surely there is nothing offensive to other religions about Easter Eggs. If chocolate and eggs and the money-making that go with them distract people from Christianity, all the better as far as they are concerned.

          • Sarky

            Nothing offensive about easter eggs??
            You mean apart from the fact they are used as a symbol of the christian practice of easter.
            Sometimes you really make no sense.

          • Busy Mum

            Easter eggs are not necessary for the commemoration of the resurrection.

            Do you have Easter eggs yourself?

          • Sarky

            Nope, but the kids do.

          • Busy Mum

            Same here, unless my husband is feeling generous 🙂

          • Anton

            Do they offend you, and if so, why?

          • Sarky

            I was trying to make the point that it wouldn’t just be the ‘real’ easter eggs that offend other religions, but all eggs because of the association.

          • Busy Mum

            So why are they making halal Easter eggs?

          • 1649again

            Given that US owned Cadburys have this year deleted all mention of Easter from their eggs and as the chocolate is halal anyway, one wonders if next year they will introduce Islamic eggs in the form of hand sized rocks for stoning erring women.

          • Busy Mum

            Would be interested to know where you learned of that.
            Will inspect all eggs carefully before buying – if my children have to have a symbol- free Easter this year, I will of course tell them why….

          • 1649again

            It was all over the papers this year.

          • Busy Mum

            Gave up taking a regular paper years ago. Somehow I think this doesn’t fall entirely into the category of fake news.

          • CliveM

            Also Nestle.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Cadburys, like most firms founded by Quakers, had a proud heritage. That heritage has been trashed by the American owners who are probably the sort of business people that the Quakers wanted to distinguish themselves from.

  • worrywort

    I bet they sell Halal meat all year round. I thought They were a Jewish Company?

    • Royinsouthwest

      You are probably thinking of Tesco’s. I have no idea if they sell kosher or halal meat but if a supermarket sells the former you would probably expect it to sell the latter too.

      • Busy Mum

        Don’t they all sell halal meat by default? Whereas kosher, gluten-free and other special dietary items have separate shelving. My nearest Tesco has a separate unit for halal products other than meat.

    • Hi

      They also sell pork products ! Gasp!

    • 1649again

      All lamb or chicken in the main supermarkets including that in processed foods is halal with the exception of Waitrose’s premium range (their Essentials range is halal).

    • Merchantman

      M & S.

    • Hi

      The Sainsbury company is public and therefore shares can be bought and sold by investors, therefore not a family business in the sense of being owned entirely by family members . I think Qatari investors own about quality quarter of the company.

      The Sainsbury family has Jewish heritage by marriage of John Sainsbury to Mabel Van den Bergh ( from a wealthy Dutch Jewish family) , whose margarine biz became one of the first parts of the unilever giant.

  • Andrew Holt

    The Sainsbury family were Quakers. Now, sadly, being merely associated with the real meaning of Easter, appears to have bought on fear-based quaking.

    • Bernard from Bucks

      I knew the Cadbury family were Quakers, as I was born in Bournville and went to the Meeting House there. I didn’t know that the Sainsburys family were also Quakers. Cadburys would not allow any pubs in Bournville or alcohol to be sold.
      Not the case now under the new owners. Sainsburys seem quite as ease selling alcohol though.

  • Mike Stallard

    Be fair. Politicians and salespeople both know that you never specify. If, for example, you start slagging off people with ginger hair, then everyone who has got ginger haired people in their circle will not support your cause. It works both ways: if you support ginger haired people exclusively, then everyone else will feel excluded. If you specify Muslim things (as on Peterborough roundabouts or in front of Bradford town hall) then you upset your Christian customers. And so on. Our local shop is run (very courageously) by a set of Sikhs. Because I happen to be a religion anorak, I know this. But nobody else does. Tescos is just being safe. So are the others – with a dash of hypocrisy thrown in.

  • First cinemas now supermarkets. Why do our companies have such a problem with religion, and more specifically with Christianity? Yet another example of how identity politics harms historic majorities – it’s increasingly acceptable to give a good kicking in public to Christians, whites, heterosexuals, men, anything which isn’t one of the favoured minority client groups of the progressive state.

    • 1649again

      Isn’t that the point of identity politics, until of course the majority are radicalised and adopt identity politics themselves, and then listen to the whining from the minority groups?

    • Dominic Stockford

      Why are we so surprised when an unbelieving world rejects Christianity? Its a much better question, and far more Biblical one to ask ourselves.

  • Busy Mum

    The irony is that chocolate and eggs are absolutely nothing to do with the message in the first place.

    • David

      True !

    • Anton

      They’re not in the accounts of the Last Supper in my Bible!

      • Busy Mum

        A job for the revisionists then…..!

      • Royinsouthwest

        Neither are Christmas trees but that does not mean it is wrong to have them. Whatever the angels sang it wasn’t “Hark the Herald Angels Sing” or “Silent Night” but they are marvellous carols for us to sing.

        • Busy Mum

          Though the proliferation of Christmas trees and chocolate eggs has gone hand-in-hand with the decline of Christianity in the UK.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Hardly a case of cause and effect!

          • Busy Mum

            Never claimed it was…..but if it was a direct correlation, which came first?

          • Royinsouthwest

            Even if they are correlated that does not matter since it is hardly likely that Easter eggs could cause the decline of Christianity. However, I would guess that the decline came first. Atheism, agnosticism have been growing since Victorian times and so, until recently, had wishy-washy religion. although the latter is also in decline now. Chocolate consumption will have increased since the abolition of rationing in the early 1950s and the rise in the standard of living since then.

          • Busy Mum

            Would agree that the decline came first, though an absence of Easter eggs would have kept the mind focused.
            Maybe wishy-washy religion wouldn’t have made an appearance if it wasn’t for Easter eggs and such things – there would have been no reason to pretend to believe.

        • Anton

          Busy Mum in her reply to you makes the point that I had hoped was clear, and I am pleased to assure you that I do not believe we should sing only the Psalms in worship!

      • Hi

        Isn’t Easter another thing Christianity adopted from paganism to convert the natives? Eostre or something. I found this article interesting :

        https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2010/apr/03/easter-pagan-symbolism

        • Sarky

          Absolutely, the whole of christmas and easter are chocked full of pagan symbolism.

          • Merchantman

            Chocked or Choc full?

        • Busy Mum

          I think it was more a case of it being the safest thing to do, as with Christmas.
          Christians could only safely hold celebrations when everyone else was celebrating something.

        • Anton

          It’s called Pascha in Orthodox Christianity, a name I much prefer and which derives from Passover, which is when Jesus was crucified.

          This quote from Bede is the only surviving written historic reference to Eostre anywhere:

          http://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/bede_on_eostre.htm

          Don’t you call one of your months Tammuz, by the way?

          • Busy Mum

            Acts12 v 4.
            I wonder if the pagan Eastertide had come about as a consequence of the first Passover? Many pagan rituals etc seem to have been borrowed from the instructions given to the Hebrews.

          • Royinsouthwest

            As a guess I would say that it is more likely that the pagan customs had something to do with spring just as Saturnalia was associated with the winter solstice. However I am just guessing so no doubt there are more knowledgeable people on this blog who can give a more authoritative answer.

          • Hi

            Yes we do have a month of Tammuz! What’s the point of that question?

          • Anton

            Like Eostre, the name of a pagan deity.

          • Hi

            I ‘m also aware , btw, that the names of the Hebrew calender months are Babylonian.

            The explanation for Tammuz ? Well according to the Sages, this name was deliberately chosen as a reminder to the Jewish people of the judgment and punishment of idolatry. During that month which is a period of reflection, mourning and a fast day. The golden calf and the breaching of the walls of God’s Temple are remembered.

          • Anton

            Contrary to Exodus 23:13, nevertheless.

          • Hi

            Errr, well, that’s soooooo silly. When we say today is Thursday, we are not worshipping the Norse god Thor. We are using a term that is common and understood by society to point to a specific day.

            What’s interesting is in the Hebrew Bible both God and his Prophets actually mention pagan deities by name , such as Baal and Moloch, many times and Tammuz is actually mentioned by the Prophet Ezekiel . Did therefore God and his Prophets break Exodus 23:13?

            Maybe you have by writing this?

            Or maybe “mention” or “zakar” as translated in Exodus 23:13, means much more than just to say a word or a name. It is about context and intent e.g. it is wrong to mention the names of other gods if we lift them up in worship or proclaim their goodness. That is what we are commanded not to do and we don’t worship idols or lift them up as deities..

          • He’s a far better Jew than you are, Hannah, and knows more about Mosaic Law than you. So there. Just accept this and you’ll avoid all arguments.

          • Hi

            Yes , I see this from his latest response to me.. .

          • Cressida de Nova

            Poor Anton spends his time on here trying to dazzle us with all his nonsensical fact hoarding . We should all chip in and send him ” I Am Not A Genius” t shirt for Easter.

          • Anton

            If you’ll wear a “sola scriptura” T-shirt.

          • Cressida de Nova

            LOL….never !

          • Anton

            Exodus 23:13 states that the names of pagan gods should not be on the lips of Israelites. That is part of Mosaic Law.

            God is above Mosaic Law and may do as he pleases; and Israel’s prophets spoke his words, not theirs. Unless an Israelite was claiming prophetic utterance then he should not speak those names. What really is crazy is ancient Israelites who named their months after pagan gods yet out of the same excess of piety refused to pronounce YAHUWEH – a truly grotesque inversion of what He intended.

            After long usage Tammuz just became name of a month, but I complain about the Israelites who deliberately chose it. They broke Exodus 23, did they not?

          • Hi

            No. They did not and Jews do not , as I’ve already explained. It is not my fault you don’t read or want to comprehend what is not yours. It’s Monday. You’ve broken exodus 23:13 , invoking a moon god!! You say Jewish interpretations of our OWN BIBLE are grotesque according to God etc etc. What arrogant presumption!

            Regarding Jewish months of the year, Sephardi Rabbi Nachmanides noted that this is consistent with Jeremiah’s prophecy: “Therefore, behold days are coming, says God, and it shall no longer be said [by one who wishes to pronounce an oath], ‘As God lives, who brought up the children of Israel from the land of Egypt,’ rather, ‘As God lives, who brought up the children of Israel from the northland [Babylon]…'”

            The original system was to count months in numeric order starting from the first month. Thus, any time a person mentioned a month he was in effect recalling the Exodus from Egypt—for now we are in, say, the sixth month—six months since the month of the Exodus. Thus the numeric naming served as a constant reminder of our deliverance from Egypt.

            After we were delivered from Babylonian captivity, however, we started using the names that we came used to using in Babylon. And now, these names served to remind us that God has redeemed us from this second exile..

            Regarding God’s personal name, at least us Jews are showing the reverence and respect due to the one and only God of Israel and the universe, our Father and our King .Isaiah 6:3 :” And one called unto another, and said: Holy, holy, holy, is the L- RD of hosts; The whole earth is full of His glory”.

            Rambam said :

            “It is not only a false oath that is forbidden. Instead, it is forbidden to mention even one of the name designated for G‑d in vain, although one does not take an oath. For the verse commands us, saying: “To fear the glorious and awesome name.” [Deuteronomy 28:58] Included in fearing it is not to mention it in vain.

            Therefore if because of a slip of the tongue, one mentions [G‑d’s] name in vain, he should immediately hurry to praise, glorify and venerate him , so that it will not have been mentioned in vain. What is implied? If he mentions G‑d’s name, he should say: “Blessed be He for all eternity,” “He is great and exceedingly praiseworthy,” or the like, so that it will not have been [mentioned entirely] in vain.”

          • Anton

            Do you consider that the ancient Israelites who named one of their months Tammuz were violating Exodus 23:13, which commands “make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth” (King James translation)? If you answer, please include a clear Yes or No.

            As for me, I consider that, as a gentile Christian, I am not under the Law of Moses, although I believe it to be the wisest legal code ever written for a nation, and some parts of it remain appropriate precedent today.

            Jack, by the way, does not support the existence of the modern State of Israel on scriptural grounds. I do.

          • Hi

            No I do not believe and I don’t think that orthodox Judaism suggests , that the naming of the month Tammuz is violating Exodus 23:13. I have given my reasons and for reasons unknown they have gone in one ear and out the other. Never mind.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            Not going to get into this argument, but weren’t the Neo-Babylonians a reboot of the original Babylonians (Hammurabi & Co.)?

            If so, astronomy and calendars all over the Middle East (but not North Africa) might have followed the BSM (Babylonian Standard Model.)

          • Anton

            I found only one reason, that it was the mentioning of their names specifically in order to worship them that was forbidden. I found it hard to credit that you really believe that, given that the passage is not about idolatry which is dealt with very specifically elsewhere in the Pentateuch and is the worst sin of all as it breaks the very first law given at Sinai.

            Later writers like Maimonides either have to agree with the text or with the weight of tradition, and they opted for the latter. We have exactly the same problem in the church!

            Perhaps we should simply refer readers to Exodus 23 and let them decide for themselves.


            7 Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for I will not justify the wicked.
            8 And thou shalt take no gift: for the gift blindeth the wise, and perverteth the words of the righteous.
            9 Also thou shalt not oppress a stranger: for ye know the heart of a stranger, seeing ye were strangers in the land of Egypt.
            10 And six years thou shalt sow thy land, and shalt gather in the fruits thereof:
            11 But the seventh year thou shalt let it rest and lie still; that the poor of thy people may eat: and what they leave the beasts of the field shall eat. In like manner thou shalt deal with thy vineyard, and with thy oliveyard.
            12 Six days thou shalt do thy work, and on the seventh day thou shalt rest: that thine ox and thine ass may rest, and the son of thy handmaid, and the stranger, may be refreshed.
            13 And in all things that I have said unto you be circumspect: and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth.
            14 Three times thou shalt keep a feast unto me in the year.
            15 Thou shalt keep the feast of unleavened bread: (thou shalt eat unleavened bread seven days, as I commanded thee, in the time appointed of the month Abib; for in it thou camest out from Egypt: and none shall appear before me empty:)
            16 And the feast of harvest, the firstfruits of thy labours, which thou hast sown in the field: and the feast of ingathering, which is in the end of the year, when thou hast gathered in thy labours out of the field.
            17 Three times in the year all thy males shall appear before the Lord God.
            18 Thou shalt not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leavened bread; neither shall the fat of my sacrifice remain until the morning.

          • Hi

            ” I found it hard to credit that you really believe that,”

            WHAT?! WHO APPOINTED YOU AS A GRAND INQUISITION INTO MY BELIEF?!

          • Anton

            I actually made a statement about my belief. I am incredulous that an intelligent woman should believe Exodus 23:13 is about, and restricted to the case of, idolatry. In no way do I wish to deny you any freedom of any sort.

          • Look –

            1)”I found only one reason, that it was the mentioning of their names specifically in order to worship them that was forbidden”

            Because you don’t read the reasonably put explanation that’s in front of you.

            2) “I found it hard to credit that you really believe that”

            How dare you think you know what I really belief.

            3) “given that the passage is not about idolatry ”

            Assertions and opinions about what I had written . The word mention in verse 13, in Hebrew “zakar” means to remember, to invoke or to proclaim e.g.

            Isaiah 48:1,” Hear this, O house of Jacob, who are named Israel And who came forth from the loins of Judah, Who swear by the name of Hashem And [ zakar ] invoke the God of Israel, But not in truth nor in righteousness.”

            Therefore your idea that Jews in naming a month after a pagan deity is in contradiction to exodus 23:13 is incorrect. The prohibition in this passage is not saying do not right down i.e. say all false gods names. It is saying do not remember, invoke or proclaim them. The reference to idolatry in my post was an explanation of why we name a specific month Tammuz.

            4).”Later writers like Maimonides either have to agree with the text or with the weight of tradition, and they opted for the latter. We have exactly the same problem in the church!”

            This isn’t a problem for us, in any case Protestants clearly have their traditional way of understanding scripture . In any case I didn’t mention rambam , I mentioned him in another context, i.e. because you went off and not taking God’s name in vain or why orthodox jews sometimes opt to spell even God with a – in between the g and the d.

          • Anton

            We seem to agree about this: that Exodus 23:13 is saying forget those false gods utterly, let them be gone from your mind, let all recollection and thought of them be completely absent from you. That includes the context of idolatry but is far, far more comprehensive.

            As other scriptures confirm, the mouth is a sure indicator of the mind and heart. And if all thought of pagan gods and their names is gone from you, you simply cannot speak those names.

            There is a danger in the names of false gods. This is the flipside of “Blessed be the name of the Lord” and of the righteous power in the name of God. (That is why I think it is a shame Jews didn’t use the sacred name in the years after the Babylonian exile ended.) Whether for evil, in the names of pagan gods, or for good in the name of the Creator, such power works supernaturally and mystically in the mind. I do acknowledge the good motive of the Jews who named the month Tammuz, but I also assert their arrogance in thinking they knew better than God what was good for them. They broke the law. That is never good.

          • ” I am incredulous that an intelligent woman should believe Exodus 23:13 is about, and restricted to the case of, idolatry.”

            Again you are deliberately choosing to ignore my explanation.

        • CliveM

          Don’t confuse some of the adopted symbols with the historical event celebrated by the festival.

          Wouldn’t happen today of course, you would be accused of cultural appropriation!

          • David

            And, because human reproduction doesn’t involve laying eggs, you’d be guilty of appropriating from other species !

          • Hi

            I’m not doing so.

          • CliveM

            You know the early (ish) Church made no effort to hide its appropriation of various ‘pagan’ traditions. It was actively encouraged. Of course the traditions were given a Christian slant.

            It amuses me when atheists grab onto this as if it’s a new discovery.

        • Anna

          I see nothing wrong in a worldly event being transformed into a holy one, rather than the other way round – although I must add that the way these festivals are now celebrated leave much to be desired. The fact that pagans once celebrated a festival in winter, or spring, and Christians subsequently replaced those festivities with a celebration of the first coming of Christ the Saviour, or His resurrection, seems to me a triumph of the true faith.

          An interesting article on this topic –
          http://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/should-christians-celebrate-christmas

        • IanCad

          Mustn’t forget Sunday worship either, another celebration taken from the pagans.

          • Dominic Stockford

            The early Christians met ‘on the first day of the week’. I don’t remember them being pagans.

          • IanCad

            Not for Sabbath worship.

          • We’re First Day Adventists, Ian.

          • IanCad

            And Jack, as a RC you do not invite the charge of inconsistency for so doing.
            Had to have a swipe at you over “Beg the Question,” you see I’m still smarting over that Richard 3rd quote you stole from my trove of potential future impressive comments!

          • You must get over this resentment, Ian. It is unhealthy. Witness the fruit of Linus’ bottled up anger. It turns inwards.

            Jack is thinking of forming a new Church – The Catholic Church of First Day Adventists. It might catch on with those abandoning the Church of England.

        • Dominic Stockford

          The Church of Rome attached it to a festival in which that particular goddess was celebrated, just as they attached the birth of Jesus to the winter solstice (though they missed with that date!). We are stuck with it as it is, rather than being where it ought to be, if we want to celebrate it once a year instead of every Lord’s Day.

          • Nothing to do with the Jewish Passover, then?

        • IrishNeanderthal

          Hannah,

          I suggest that all interested read this article: The Christian History of “Pagan” Easter

          Most European languages take their version from “Pesach”: in Welsh it is “Pasg”, or as Scots Gaelic Wikipedia tells us (translated):

          It is the same in the other British. Pasg known in Welsh and Pask in Breton and Cornish. The word British iosaid from Latin, and the Ancient Gaelic, and the sound / p / has changed Q / KW / (Age Ogham). Changed the sound / KW / a / k / Seanghaeilge before, so this is Càisg in Scots Gaelic, Cáisc in Irish, Caisht in Manx Gaelic.
          Things are a little different with the name “Ostern” in German or “Easter” in English.

          (Pask or similar in Dutch and other Germanic languages)

          As for any article in the Guardian, would you trust any article relating to Christianity in that خرقة ملعونة?

      • However, they’re not forbidden by the Mosiac Law.

        • Busy Mum

          All forms of idolatry are, though.

          • If Easter eggs aren’t specifically prohibited, then their kosher. Jack is sure Anton agrees.

          • Busy Mum

            I cannot see any reason at all why Jews would wish to celebrate a resurrection which they don’t believe in.

          • But some (well, Anton anyway) believe that individual Christians should follow the Mosaic Law.

          • Busy Mum

            Anton doesn’t appear to be a Judaising teacher; have I missed something?

          • Perhaps its Jack.

          • Anton

            No, you should not trust Jack to summarise my views. He misrepresents.

          • Hi

            Yet you have just misrepresented Judaism twice.

          • *Ouch*

          • Anton

            That dialogue continues below, for anybody who wishes to see what was said.

          • Why not? You summarise Jack’s views all the time.

          • Anton

            Feel free to complain if you wish.

          • Anton

            Show me where I have ever written that!

            I believe that Christians should advocate, in a democracy, for those Mosaic Laws that govern interpersonal relations. That is exactly what I have always said, neither more nor less.

          • It toto, Anton? Every society has laws covering murder, theft, adultery etc. What about the application of Mosaic penalties?

          • Anton

            Mosaic Law has no death penalty for theft. Much better than Roman or even 18th century English law.

          • No, but it has for murder, kidnapping, idolatry, breaking the Sabbath, blasphemy, dishonour to parents and false witness in a capital case.

            You support these?

          • Anton

            I’m perfectly content to let God do my thinking, thank you. You will find the same in the Westminster Confession.

          • Translation:
            God’s Mosaic penalties should be inflicted today.

          • Anton

            You think you know better than God?

          • Bet they buy up Easter eggs when they drop in price. Jack does.

          • Hi

            Cost and numbers. Three hundred thousands Jews and five million Muslims in the UK.

          • Niche market Hannah?

          • Hi

            Good idea. Like faberge eggs and stuff?

          • With a line in chocolate fish too. This will allow you to broaden the market.
            Now … a name for the brand.

          • David

            Business is business !

          • Hannah has informed Jack the Easter egg was a Jewish invention, marketed to French Christians.

          • Anton

            I’ve no idea whether they’re kosher. Those that are of high quality milk chocolate I often buy cheap after Easter. As I’ve said below, I don’t believe one must sing only the Psalms in worship, and the same principle applies here provided that idolatry is not going on.

          • Wonder if there’s kosher chocolate.

          • Hi Happy Jack

            This is an interesting article, note point one that apparently Easter eggs were a 17 th century French Jewish invention for French Catholics.. ..

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-deborah-r-prinz/easter-chocolate-five-bel_b_9515770.html

          • We Catholics, like Jews, know how to celebrate life, Hannah. And French chocolate is … well … it’s French chocolate.

            And why wouldn’t entrepreneurial Jews spot a business opportunity?

          • Brian Kelly

            Yes, it’s called Kadoshbury’s.

          • Koshbury Chocolate?

    • Merchantman

      From the chicken and egg dilemma comes an interesting question for Christians if one relates to John 1:1. We believe Jesus as the Word was present at the creation so was he the chicken or the egg or both?

      • Busy Mum

        Both, without doubt. ‘He is all, and in all’

      • He was neither ….

        • Merchantman

          I am the Alpha and the Omega.
          On the Omega subject don’t eggs also contain Omega Oil.

  • Hi

    Well they could try Pounland and Home Bargains , which are much more competitive for toiletries etc . And for food, local grocers , butchers etc .

    • That’s where Sarky shops – Poundland. He’s lucky as there’s two close by.

      • Sarky

        Grrrrrrr.

        Do use the local, baker, greengrocer and butcher though.

  • Holger

    Maybe it’s based on a decision to deal with gibbering religious fundamentalists.

    • Anton

      It’s based on a decision NOT to deal with believers.

      • Holger

        Yes, I forgot my negative. You however forgot the adjectives “fundamentalist” and “gibbering”.

        My omission was accidental as I posted my comment from a mobile phone. Yours was clearly deliberate. And illogical too.

        If Sainsbury objected to dealing with believers, they wouldn’t stock any religious products. But they do, so the assumption must be that they specifically object to dealing with gibbering fundamentalist God-botherers, perhaps because they don’t like being used by whack jobs to promote a whack job religion.

        They sell hot cross buns, don’t they? And they sell other Easter eggs. Perhaps the issue may also have been that the product concerned was substandard, not well targeted at their core customer, or merely superfluous in a crowded market.

        If other retailers stock the egg in question however, can we assume that Sainsbury’s problem was not with the product, but rather the wittering loons who were trying to sell it?

        A statement from them would clarify the situation. Until then it remains a matter for conjecture.

        • Anton

          Anybody would think you didn’t like us, you know.

          • Royinsouthwest

            “Gibbering fundamentalists” is probably Holger’s way of showing us affection, just like when the Aussies call us Brits “Pommie bastards!”

          • Holger

            It isn’t possible to hate gibbering fundamentalists any more than one can hate other sufferers of mental affliction.

            One can pity them and even find their antics mildly amusing from time to time. Until that is they start harming others.

            Toleration with a firm hand is the best policy. And never forget what their delusions make them capable of.

          • Bit like the sexually perverted then?

          • carl jacobs

            The blog is a much more peaceful place if you block him.

  • Anton

    Wednesday March 29th, next week, is to be Brexit-triggering day, glad tidings of great joy!

  • Dreadnaught

    If the Egg is made by Cadbury then according to the latest news its Halal. Something to do with the gelatine used in the making of the chocolate (which is truly crappy )

    • Busy Mum

      Which begs the question, why would a devout Muslim be buying Easter eggs in the first place?

      • Anton

        Surely it raises the question? Please don’t acquiesce in the recent U-turn over the meaning of the idiom.

        • Busy Mum

          I learn something new every day; was totally unaware of this having been an ‘issue’ for people. Maybe you could persuade whoever is in charge of linguistic U-turns to do something about the current use of the word ‘issue’ instead of ‘problem’.

          • Anton

            I would be very happy to sit by an issue of chocolate.

          • Busy Mum

            After which you could get your dental problems sorted out by your dentist (£35 minimum) or go to a counsellor or health trainer (currently provided free of charge by my local authority, thanks to the increased council tax) for help with your weight ‘issues’.

          • Dominic Stockford

            A ishoo, a ishoo, we’ve all got ishoos.

          • Anton

            Bless you!

          • That rather begs the question, when is an issue not a problem?

          • carl jacobs

            A problem becomes an issue when you don’t want to admit to management that you have a problem.

          • No, that’s a “challenge”, Carl.

          • IanCad

            Raises, or invites the question Jack.

          • carl jacobs

            Btw. I learned yesterday that Brits pronounce the letter “z” as “zed” because of French influence on the English language. It now becomes clear what Noah Webster was doing. He was excising extraneous French influence from the language. I think that pretty much settles the argument.

          • You don’t say “zee”, do you? Tell me it’s not so.

            On notes Webster was a convert to Calvinistic orthodoxy and a devout Congregationalist. He was right, language is a tool to control thought and shape culture, and also that education without the bible is worthless. Unfortunately, as he grew older, like most confirmed Calvinists, he became increasingly pessimistic about man and society.

          • Royinsouthwest

            Perhaps Webster would have been more optimistic if he had more chocolate! Would his America have had better access to chocolate if it had not broken away from Great Britain?

          • Good question.

          • Cressida de Nova

            The Puritan cult sanctioned slavery and still regarded themselves as Christian.

          • Brian Kelly

            Yes – but they had to choose between chocolate and slavery and chose the latter.

          • bluedog

            Ouch!

          • carl jacobs

            The proper pronunciation of “Zee” is spreading by means of the “Alphabet Song” Jack. It can’t be stopped.

          • There’s an awful lot of error spreading, Carl. Popularity does not sanction it. Jack will not permit his granddaughter to watch American television “educational” programmes . He tolerates Cinderella, Jumbo, Sleeping Beauty, Snow White and Jungle Book but is always careful to correct all pronunciation errors.

          • carl jacobs

            Sesame Street, Jack. She’ll be watching Big Bird sing the Alphabet Song. There is no “zed” in the Alphabet Song. It doesn’t fit. She will say “Sing Grampa!” And you will sing “ex, why, zee”.

            Make sure you post a video.

          • Anton

            The Anglo-Saxons pronounced it as “zee” before 1066?

          • carl jacobs

            No, it was evidently a 15th century (16th?) adaptation of the French pronunciation of the Greek letter zeta.

          • So, does this mean “zed” is the correct and unadulterated pronunciation?

          • carl jacobs

            It certainly is the common pronunciation for speakers of Frenchified English.

          • betteroffoutofit

            So you and the franco-germans have decided that Theodore of Tarsus didn’t use Greek influence in the development of literacy and rhetoric at Anglo-Saxon Canterbury, and in Northern England?
            Theodore was Greek, was His Grace’s predecessor AD668-690, and was highly educated in both Greek and Latin. He, Hadrian (d. 710), and Benedict Bishop (c. 628-90) set up schools and trained monks in England, which led to the foundation of a brilliant and glorious English literary tradition that your post-mods can’t begin to appreciate. Certainly, these bishops educated Anglo-Saxon monks.
            So while there is no “Zeta” i.e: Ζ ζ , in the Anglo-Saxon runic alphabet, I would suggest a perusal of something like the “Lindisfarne Gospels” to verify the interlacing of scripts applied by these manuscript-makers. On the British Museum’s website, you could begin with the “Generationis” page of St. Matthew (f. 27), which is in Latin.
            Row 4 contains the following letters, artistically arranged: —— XRIHUDAVIdΦLIIAbRahAM; which we read as the Greek “Chi Rho” (noting that the X replicates the A-S rune for “gyfu”=gift); IHU abbreviates the Latin “Iesu”; David is in Latin script until the final round-backed “d” of insular minuscule–which had developed in Ireland; and the artistic “filii” = son, appears as ΦLII [Greek phi + LII = filii; it is also noteworthy that Greek Φ is similar to the A-S “ger” rune = harvest ]. Thus, “Christ Jesus, [son of ] David, son of Abraham.”

          • Pubcrawler

            The Anglo-Saxons did not have the letter in their alphabet.

          • Cressida de Nova

            Thank goodness for the Norman invasion.

          • Brian Kelly

            Maybe you can explain why Americans pronounce ‘tune’ as ‘toon’, ‘new’ as ‘noo’ and – worst of all – ‘Tudor’ as ‘toodor’. This inability to palatalise these English words looks like extraneous French influence on pronunciation.

          • carl jacobs

            Objection, Your Honor. Assumes facts not in evidence. American pronunciation does not imply an “inability”. Also, phonetic similarity is not evidence of influence.

            Objection sustained.

            But to answer your question. I suspect it has something to do with the lack of a “y” immediately after the “t”.

          • David

            When you wish to appear sophisticated, nuanced and oh so “aware” of all sorts of “sensitivities”. This is so much more fashionable than just stating clearly in a few words what the problem is.

          • Busy Mum

            When you refuse to take any responsibility for it.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Yes, I hate it too — and I blame that one on yanks, as well.

            In this case, though, they seem also to insult the speakers of ‘mucked up’ Latin: (Froggish, Spick, and Eyetie)!! “Issue” is from “ex” + “ire” = to go or flow out (“Chambers”).

        • Surely it invites the question?

        • ecclesiaman

          Hi Anton, Not for the first time I have not understood, “U-turn over the meaning of the idiom”. Pardon my genuine ignorance. Please enlighten me? Regards.

          • Anton

            “Begs the question” meant until recent years “avoids the question”. Today it has become “raises the question” (or more accurately, courtesy of Jack, “invites the question”).

          • ecclesiaman

            Appreciated. Shows my lack of grammar. I thought idioms were phrases like “raining cats and dogs!” I also thought said phrase is capable of both interpretations. I must be more careful.

          • betteroffoutofit

            That understanding of “idiom” is put about by Americans – they teach it to schoolchildren as “figurative language”. Although my “Chambers Dictionary” does list such use as: “a distinctive expression whose meaning is not determinable from the meanings of the individual words” – I side entirely with Anton.
            It’s a secondary application, and it completely ignores our own traditional and primary, application of the word as “a mode of expression peculiar to a language (an art, a school, an individual, etc); a dialect”. I suggest that this also seems more consistent with the etymology, wherein Greek “idioma/idos” = own (“Chambers”).
            —————————–
            As to ‘begging the question’ – Yanks teach it as a ‘logical fallacy’ (by which a speaker evades a question)!! Circular reasoning, is perhaps their simplest definition – that’s where, as a Texas State University website has it: “an argument’s premises assume the truth of the conclusion, instead of supporting it.” A couple of their examples are:
            “Thoughts are not part of the physical world, since thoughts are in their nature non-physical.”
            “Happiness is the highest good for a human being, since all other values are inferior to it.” (http://www.txstate.edu/philosophy/resources/fallacy-definitions/Begging-the-Question.html)
            Again – “Chambers” includes both definitions. As far as I can gather, Oxford and Cambridge websites closely approximate Anton’s explanation – though Oxford links to the ‘related’ notion/fallacy of “a vicious circle.”

          • ecclesiaman

            I went to a sub standard grammar school. We did not study grammar! It was only 10% of the marks for an “O” level exam!
            I appreciate the explanations. It’s amazing what emerges from the egg. Not wishing to pun, but there is a dark side to Sainsbury’s behaviour. Conclusions are there to be drawn for those with eyes to see.

          • betteroffoutofit

            Glad it works for you. I went to a very good grammar school – but exposure to the yankee system came later. I;ve been an avid reader of dictionaries from beginning to end, though 🙂

            Thanks to all of you for the info on the eggs and Sainsbury’s, though. It’s always a good idea to know the truth of the mess we’re in …

      • Sarky

        They wouldn’t. The same chocolate is probably used to make other products.

      • Dreadnaught

        Why suffernon muslims to eat Halal? Answer _ because we dont complain!

        • Busy Mum

          I do.

  • Hi

    Wasn’t Christmas and Easter banned by the devout Christian Puritans, when they ran things according to the bible?

    Not the wicked cultural Marxists, not the multiculturalism, not the left liberal Anglicans, Roman Catholics, the gays and lesbians , nor the godless atheists, the pagans , the women vicars, Muslims, Jews , Hindus or Sikhs?

    But Protestant bible believing born again Christians….

    • Busy Mum

      They didn’t ban the birth, death and resurrection of Jesus.
      Considering the increasingly vocal concerns raised at Christmas about materialism and ‘stuff’, I find it illogical that the Puritans still come in for so much criticism for having tried to keep these commemorations focused on the spiritual reasons behind the celebrations.

      • Hi

        That’s not what I said. I mentioned Christmas and Easter : religious festivals. Which the purtians did ban .

        • Busy Mum

          Yes, they banned the revelry but I think they had at least three services for worship on the relevant day. Some Dutch Protestants of my acquaintance still do have three services as part of their Christmas celebrations. Some non-conformists I know make a point of giving gifts etc on either 24th or 26th, keeping 25th as a ‘holy day’.

          • Royinsouthwest

            On the Continent presents are normally exchanged on Christmas Eve. I think I read somewhere that here in Britain the Royal Family do that too.

          • Busy Mum

            Yes – I just edited my post – it’s not only the Royal Family that do that in Britain!

          • bluedog

            They do. Apparently it was a practice introduced by Prince Albert, one which caused Princess Diana to famously observe that she had married into a German family. One suspects the Duchess of Cambridge will give her children an English Christmas.

        • Busy Mum

          p.s. Reading through the book of Esther recently with my children, we discussed the similarity between the Purim celebrations, with the command to distribute gifts, and the Christmas tradition of giving. We thought that in the same way that Purim was a deliverance for the Jews, the birth of Jesus was – is – a deliverance for Christians.

      • David

        Please see my contribution just above.

      • Terry Mushroom

        Because they were so joyless about it, in my book.

        • Anton

          Stop reading Macaulay and start reading them in their own words.

        • It’s a dark faith system.

        • bluedog

          Precisely. The Puritans were the antithesis of the spirit of Merrie England. No wonder the people partied on the Restoration.

    • David

      Without claiming expertise on the Puritans, I understood that it was the celebrations associated with Christmas and Easter they banned. I believe it was a very extreme reaction against celebrations associated with many feast days, sometimes in riotous style.

      • Brian Kelly

        That is correct. The drunkenness and other excesses – things like bear-baiting etc – drew their ire.

        • David

          Whilst the Puritans were no bundle of laughs it has become fashionable to criticise them I think.

          • Anton

            Become? It was fashionable from 1660 onwards and wasn’t helped by otherwise eloquent historians like Macaulay in the 19th century descending to ranting about them, a sure sign of having no real argument.

          • Jack thinks he captured the Puritan mind-set very well.

            “Thus the Puritan was made up of two different men, the one all self-abasement, penitence, gratitude, passion; the other proud, calm, inflexible, sagacious. He prostrated himself in the dusk before his Maker; but he set his foot on the neck of his king. In his devotional retirement, he prayed with convulsions, and groans, and tears. He was half maddened by glorious or terrible illusions. He heard the lyres of angles, or the tempting whispers of fiends. He caught a gleam of the Beatific Vision, or woke screaming from the dreams of everlasting fire.

            Like Vane, he thought himself intrusted with the sceptre of the millennial year. Like Fleetwood, he cried in the bitterness of his soul that God had hid his face from him. But when he took his seat in the council or girt on his sword for war, these tempestuous workings of the soul had left no perceptible trace behind them. People, who saw nothing of the godly but their uncouth visages, and heard nothing from them but their groans and their whining hymns, might laugh at them. But those had little reason to laugh who encountered them in the hall of debate, or in the field of battle. These fanatics brought to civil and military affairs a coolness of judgment and an immutability of purpose which some writers have thought inconsistent with their religious zeal, but which were in fact the necessary effects of it.”

            He was quite complimentary about their military and political achievements too, concluding his essay with:

            “Yet when all circumstances are taken into consideration, we do not hesitate to pronounce them a brave, a wise, an honest, and a useful body.”

            http://www.blupete.com/Literature/Essays/Best/MacaulayPuritan.htm

            Mind you, this wasn’t too positive:

            “They mistook their own vindictive feelings for emotions of piety; encouraged in themselves by reading and meditation, a disposition to brood over their wrongs; and when they had worked themselves into hating their enemies, imagined they were only hating the enemies of Heaven. In the New Testament there was little, indeed, which, even perverted by the most disingenuous exposition, could seem to countenance the indulgence of malevolent passions. But the Old Testament contained the history of a race selected by God to be witnesses of his unity and ministers of his vengeance, and specially commanded by him to do many things which, if done without his special command, would have been atrocious crimes. In such a history it was not difficult for fierce and gloomy spirits to find much that might be distorted to suit their wishes.”

            http://www.nytimes.com/1865/06/04/news/macaulay-s-description-of-the-puritans.html

          • Anton

            I suggest that you read the several books I have commended to Hannah above on the subject.

          • You read the Catechism and the collected Papal Encyclicals and Jack will consider your suggestion.

          • Anton

            If you prefer not to know what you talk about, it’s no skin off my nose.

          • True. Jack has noticed you’re not too troubled by ignorance on a topic.

          • Anton

            Tell me, before I made a post on this thread about Macaulay’s negative views of Puritans, were you aware of his expressions on the subject or did you just google, prompted by my comments?

          • Jack is not prepared to disclose his sources.

          • Anton

            Thank you.

          • David

            Yes, ranting and rational argument usually have an inverse relationship.

        • “The puritan hated bear baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but because it gave pleasure to the spectators.”
          (Thomas Macaulay)

          • Anton

            Prove it.

          • Merely quoting that notable and scholarly historian, Macaulay, dear boy.

          • Anton

            But you have a reason for posting that quote…?

          • On the shoulders of giants … Anton … the shoulders of giants.

          • Anton

            But sitting on them facing the wrong direction, Jack.

            By mid-1645 the army, with Scottish help, had won the war, but Parliament astonishingly refused it a sum of back pay that it had been promised. The army also contained many ‘independents’ who preferred self-governing congregations, but Parliament intended mandatory presbyterianism. The Army’s leaders proposed their own outline for a settlement, the “Head[ing]s of Proposals”, with broad religious tolerance among Reformed traditions and a balance of power between Crown and Parliament; what else had they fought for? But with no sign of its acceptance the Army independents, facing underpayment and persecution from people for whom they had put their lives on the line, grew restless. The Army marched on London and occupied it in August 1647. That this occupation was peaceable, and that the army was willing to enter into genuine debate about the future in such circumstances (in the ‘Putney debates’), shows its qualities.

            From custody Charles then wrongfooted his opponents by negotiating with his other kingdom, Scotland, an agreement that the church in England would become presbyterian – at least temporarily – if the Scots would intervene again, this time on his side. In this pact Charles swallowed his preference for bishops in order to further his own power, showing spectacular lack of principle. The Army defeated the Scottish invaders and put an end to this scheme at the Battle of Preston in summer 1648. Charles, remarkably, was still permitted to negotiate with Parliament and its presbyterians. After weeks of constitutional haggling the Army and its Independents began to lose patience, and the Army’s leaders set out their own proposals (the ‘Army’s Remonstrance’). Lifetimes later these would be regarded as regular privileges of the English: freedom of Reformed religion, regular elections, Parliament above king. Parliament declined to consider the Army’s Remonstrance while it remained in negotiation with the king, however, and after still more delay the leaders of the Army took action. Parliament was purged of MPs who would seek agreement with the king, and in January 1649 Charles was put on trial and executed. Certainly he was in flagrant violation of his Coronation Oath, which made him accountable to the people as well as to God; who else but their representatives in Parliament – and if necessary its Army – might hold him to it? Charles died for one principle only: monarchical absolutism. Good riddance to that.

            And Macaulay ignores all of that!

          • Proves my point. Impatience, driven by fanaticism, and a sense of righteous as God’s chosen instrument of vengeance.

          • Anton

            They were centuries ahead of their time, politically. Read the Heads of Proposals and the Army’s Remonstrance, now you know what to google.

          • So were the French Revolutionaries.

          • Anton

            Who were secular. The Puritans got their advanced ideas from the Old Testament, in fact. Try reading the Putney debates.

  • What do we expect when Qatar Holdings own 25.2% of the voting shares in Sainsbury’s.

    • Royinsouthwest

      I would not be surprised if the rulers of Qatar and other Gulf States were less offended by the idea of British Christians celebrating Easter than our own wonderfully tolerant and inclusive, home-grown PC types.

      • What’s the betting you’re right. Shocking bunch of snivelling apologists.

  • Dominic Stockford

    When most of the Bishops in the CofE don’t seem to want to promulgate Christ and His truth, why should anyone expect Sainsbury’s to do it?

  • carl jacobs

    It’s hard for me to get worked up over this. A business might not carry a product for any number of reasons. There isn’t any reason to infer a conscious decision to suppress Christian ideas.

    But assume there was such a decision. The store is within its rights. It hasn’t done anything wrong. It simply doesn’t value one customer stream as highly as others it might offend. We’ll have to get used to that as Christianity becomes more and more labeled as a social disease.

    • Sarky

      Have to agree.

      A christian bakery doesn’t do gay cakes and you all line up to support them.

      A secular business doesnt do christian eggs and its an outrage!!

      Bit hypocritical if you ask me.

      • Royinsouthwest

        Most businesses are secular. Even those founded by Quaker philanthropists were secular from the beginning even though their ethos was Christian. A publisher that publishes mainly Bibles, hymn books etc., or a butcher that specialises almost exclusively in kosher or halal food is not secular.

        Easter eggs are, as the name implies, associated with a Christian festival and therefore Sainsbury’s are perfectly happy to make money out of that connection.

        Does anyone really think that the bakery was chosen entirely by coincidence and was not targeted?

        Has the “Equality and Human Rights” Commission got around to explaining yet why it managed to find time to assist in the case against the Northern Ireland bakery but still has not been able to find any time to comment on the sexual abuse of mainly white English girls by men from a certain minority in Rotherham and many other towns?

        • Sarky

          Totally different point.

          I notice you haven’t really disagreed with me.

      • IrishNeanderthal

        Ceilliau!

        The (insert language here) brought a prosecution against the bakers.

        No-one here is suggesting we prosecute Sainsburys.

        • Sarky

          I know, but the principle is the same.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            This could turn into a pantomime.

            Talking of which, the other day I saw two men collecting for WaterAid dressed as the two humps of one pantomime camel.

          • Some camels only have one hump.

          • Inspector General

            Silly, stupid boy…

          • Jack learned this in school ….

      • carl jacobs

        you all line up to support them

        Actually I didn’t. Except I do think they were deliberately targeted to make a legal precedent.

    • Royinsouthwest

      What about the Christian bakers in Northern Ireland who refused to bake a cake with a slogan supporting gay marriage? The people requesting the cake could have gone to another baker. I agree that case is not an exact parallel because there is a limit to the number of products even the largest supermarket can carry and in this case Sainsbury’s is the customer, not the supplier. But even so, why should the directors of a large business like Sainsbury’s have more freedom of conscience than the owner/managers of a small business?

      • carl jacobs

        A business must choose a subset of all possible products. It is literally impossible to sell everything. It’s not a matter of conscience. It’s a matter of limited shelfspace.

        And I never understood how the bakery case amounted to a coercion of conscience.

  • Terry Mushroom

    David Sedaris was joking on the radio last week about Christ’s appearance. In particular, would the crucifixion show off His body to its best effect? (Meet David Sedaris, BBC R4)

    I was wondering if he or another comedian on R4 would make pick on a central event in Mohammed’s life and make similar jokes.

    • IanCad

      Don’t get me started on David Sedaris. Our very worst American import.

      • Inspector General

        That blighter can be found on BBC Radio 4 Extra. Is there no way we can repatriate him?
        Think he needs a few shots of testosterone. Has a woman’s mind, you know…

      • Terry Mushroom

        I brush off Sedaris. I was more wondering about whether the Beeb had the guts to allow jokes about Islam and its Prophet in the name of “balance”. Or whether it thinks all religions are all the same, anyway.

    • Royinsouthwest

      I had never heard of him until now. He seems to be just what the BBC would want in a comedian – ever so “brave” and “edgy” with fashionable views.

  • Rome worked with the grain of a culture – not against it.

    • Anton

      The gospel is countercultural and will be so until the Lord of this World is bound.

      • Doesn’t mean one cannot work with and adapt a culture rather than being a cultural vandal.

        • Anton

          Adapt a culture? You are thinking top-down. One uses references to the local culture when preaching the gospel, so as to bring it home to people. That’s all.

  • Inspector General

    It’s time Sainsburys got with the new agenda, what!

    You know, Trump, Brexit, Mrs May, the deprecation of alien immigration and the cultural awfulness they bring into the country, and instead promote the celebration of all things British and all things Christian, which is near as dammit the same thing. They might get their former crowds of shoppers back that way if they flew the Union Jack once in a while in their car parks…

    Anyway, an immediate improvement they could make is ridding their Promotions and Buying departments of all the young boys and girls freshly turned out from our Marxist universities. Replace them with people who’ve been around and have done a proper job in their lives. Can’t go wrong there, can you?

    Sainsburys is, as it happens, the Inspector’s favourite place to go for provisions. He is prepared to boycott the place now that Aldi have moved in a little closer to the centre of Gloucester, but in the meantime the Inspector’s strategy will probably be to continue visiting the place and stocking up, but evading payment thereof. One will call in to his tailor today and commission from them the finest of thieving coats. Perhaps something in rabbit.

    {SNORT!}

    • 1649again

      LOL. Excellent IG.

    • Sarky

      Would the theiving coat be like your others…long pockets, short arms??

    • You taking snuff these days?

    • Sarah’s thinking

      Inspector

      We’ve been to Gloucester . Berkeley (Barclay?) Hall is very imposing and the pit very scary, plus apparently some king was killed with a hot poker where the sun doesn’t shine , although some Lord became an Irish archbishop and founded some American university in California . The cathedral is magnificent and gay friendly , no one objected to us holding hands and the cloistered gardens were very peaceful. I understand they filmed Harry Potter there . The slaughter villages are chocolate box and the model village / birdland / bourbon on that water is just typically British. The Cheltenham synagogue was wonderful.

      I would opine that a man’s man, red bloodied and Whisky / Guinness drinking guy such as yourself should hunt rabbit with a shot gun surely? Us girls wouldn’t last five minutes foraging and being hunter gathering types. O.k. rabbits aren’t kosher to eat and are very loyal pets, we’ve got one.

      Maybe you could hunt a sheep for us ?

      • Inspector General

        Good Evening Sarah

        Well, what a time you’ve had. Edward II was indeed murdered in Berkeley castle and his remains taken to Gloucester Cathedral. It was a massive economic boost for Gloucester. For some reason, the bugger was considered worthy of pilgrimage, and the dirty unwashed flocked to the town from all over. The magnificent castle that is Berkeley was only saved from civil war destruction by the demolition of a curtain wall which even today was never rebuilt.

        How’s that for bad luck. One had typed a long reply to you, but on sending it, it just 500 errored. Never mind, these things happen.

        Do pass on the Inspector’s compliments to Hannah. Last time we communicated, she was somewhat hormonal. Hope that business is now out the way…

        IG

        • Sarah’s thinking

          Good evening inspector. They were happy times and there’s more to come in life I hope.

        • Sarah’s thinking

          I have passed on your compliments to Hannah. She is resting at present. She doesn’t have anything bad to say about you. Unfortunately despite being wealthy and intelligent , she suffers sometimes from trials of the mind , rather than hormonal .

      • IrishNeanderthal

        I read, in one of David Attenborough’s early books, how he visited South America and came across a Seventh Day Adventist mission.

        There were no rabbits there, but there was a creature known locally as a “labba” which they banned instead.

        One day, the missioner came across a local cooking a labba which he had just hunted. The hunter denied this, and said he was cooking fish.

        In rely to the missioner’s expostulation, the local referred to his own baptism, whereby the missioner had thrown water over him and said that his native name was a bad one, and “you be John”.

        So after he had shot the labba, before it died, he threw water over it and said “Labba be bad name, you be fish.”

        “So now I eat fish!”

  • Andrew Holt

    I was wrong I don’t think the sainsburys were Quakers.

    • Victorian Christian and Jewish traditions of philanthropy, with a left-liberal social conscience, according to Jack’s research.

    • Sarky

      No, but they sell ’em!

      • Oh dear. One has to get one’s oats somewhere.

        • Anton

          Careful or you’ll be doing porridge.

          • Jack had a further lapse and was thinking of other pleasures of the flesh.

          • Anton

            You mean salt in your porridge, like a good Scots Calvinist?

            The double meaning did not escape my notice!

  • Sarky

    Ha ha i do actually!!!!
    Had my garden landscaped last year and spent a fortune at wyvale!!
    My kids love going as they have a marine fish place on site!!!

  • Google “Macaulay on the Puritans”.

    • Anton

      No need to google. Macaulay wrote that the “extreme Puritan was at once known from other men by his gait, his garb, his lank hair, the sour solemnity of his face, the upturned white of his eyes, the nasal twang with which he spoke…” (History of England vol. 1, ch. 1: Before the Restoration). It is obvious that this passage says more about Macaulay than about the Puritans.

      • Jack thought it a good introduction to a fine description of Puritans.

        They preferred the Old to the New Testament.

        “In the New Testament there was little, indeed, which, even perverted by the most disingenuous exposition, could seem to countenance the indulgence of malevolent passions. But the Old Testament contained the history of a race selected by God to be witnesses of his unity and ministers of his vengeance, and specially commanded by him to do many things which, if done without his special command, would have been atrocious crimes. In such a history it was not difficult for fierce and gloomy spirits to find much that might be distorted to suit their wishes.”

  • Anton

    The Puritans were the first modern Christians to understand that the Jews would return to the Holy Land and that zionism was biblical. They appear to have been unique in that realisation among the protestant Reformed movements that followed Luther, and they also appear to have loved the Tanakh/Old Testament more than other protestants, which is clearly not coincidental.

    At their eclipse following the restoration of the monarchy in 1660 their view flowed into the wider British evangelical movement. John Wesley went far to put it into the evangelical wing of the Church of England. without these things, the Balfour Declaration would have been inconceivable, even it it was motivated at least partly by political factors.

    Check this out for yourself in the following references:

    Douglas Culver, Albion and Ariel (Peter Lang publishers, New York, 1995). A scholarly study of the early Puritan Zionists.

    Barbara Tuchman, Bible and Sword (New York University Press, 1956). A secular American Jewess, Tuchman was a versatile historian who was outside the academic profession but equally rigorous, and wrote better than most. This book is a history of the intertangled destinies of Britain and Israel. There is a full chapter on the Puritans.

    Iain Murray, The Puritan Hope (Banner of Truth Trust, London, 1971). About Puritan eschatology and the role of Israel in it.

    David S. Katz, Philo-Semitism and the Readmission of the Jews to England, 1603-55 (Oxford, 1982).

  • IrishNeanderthal

    These days, we are being taken over by the imPuritans.

  • bluedog

    Here’s a little template for you. Until at least the 1970’s there was a clear political echo of the English Civil War in the voting pattern of many constituencies. Areas of the country that voted Conservative had previously found for the King, and Labour constituencies tended to have been Parliamentarian. Increasing urbanisation with the development of new towns, together with mass immigration and the realignment of constituencies will have erased much of this pattern.

    • Anton

      The whole of rural East Anglia was contrary to this asserted pattern! It was solidly parliamentarian yet solidly Tory in the 20th century when Labour was the main other party.

      • bluedog

        Fair enough. Was afraid you would come up with this example. The point made is received wisdom from a relative who was a Conservative MP during the period and seems to have been a general working assumption of the trade at the time. Perhaps East Anglia is the exception that proves the rule.

    • Murdering a King … a dark stain indeed on this nation’s history.

      • Anton

        Who but Parliament is to hold a king to his coronation oath and to his own frequently broken word? Charles was from a dynasty which considered itself absolute, and he died for one cause only: monarchical absolutism. The English are not up for tyranny.

        • Yeah, life can be damned difficult at times. Still. Can’t resolve the problem, then eliminate the problem. Draw the sword. We’re God’s Holy People, charged with bringing in His Kingdom. Fight.

          • Anton

            From Charles I’s Coronation Oath:

            Will you grant and keep, and by your oath confirm to the people of England, the laws and customs to them granted by the kings of England, your lawful and religious predecessors…? Will you keep peace…both to God… and the People? Will you…cause law, justice and discretion in mercy and truth to be executed to your judgement? Will you grant to hold and keep the laws and rightful customs which the commonalty of this your kingdom have, and will you defend and uphold them…?

            I repeat the question you are ducking: Who but Parliament is to hold a king to his coronation oath, and to his own frequently broken word to Parliament about taxation policy?

            And here’s another question: Do you believe that the king is above the law? If not, who should enforce it upon him; if so, what is to stop him murdering whoever he wishes?

          • Jack will simply repeat his earlier words.

            Yeah, life can be damned difficult at times. Still. Can’t resolve the problem, then eliminate the problem. Draw the sword. We’re God’s Holy People, charged with bringing in His Kingdom. Fight.

            He wasn’t there at the time and hesitates to judge the actors at play. He will say, that if he lived at the time, and knowing what he knows, he would have sided with the King if it came to war.

          • Anton

            In other words, you continue to show that you have no answer to my question. In a public forum, that satisfies me.

          • Jack has answered, but clearly not to the satisfaction of our dour and pedantic Puritan.

          • Anton

            Jack has made no answer whatsoever to the question: Who but Parliament should hold the king to his coronation oath and his own word? Jack has also not answered whether he believes the king is above the law. Jack says he has, but perusal of the thread shows that he has not; he has addressed only other peripherally related questions and ducked these ones.

          • “Who but Parliament should hold the king to his coronation oath and his own word?”

            God. Jack believes both Jesus and Saint Paul had something to say on this.

          • Anton

            God ultimately judges everybody. Meanwhile, there was England to run and a king who would not stop trying to repeat the Scots incursion of 1648 so long as he had breath in his body. When God dealt with bad kings of Israel he often used other men as his vehicle.

          • Anton

            Divine right and all that. Obey your sovereign no matter what. Do you extend that principle to Henry VIII, Edward VI and Elizabeth I?

          • Didn’t Henry VIII breach Magna Carta? The very first clause declared that the Church in England would be free from interference by the Crown. This is to say nothing about the state sanctioned murder of his concubines.

          • Anton

            I couldn’t agree more, Jack. That’s my point. Your attitude is that the people must put up with anything that a bad king does. I’m asking if you extend that same principle to that old monster, Henry VIII. Consistency, please!

          • He was crowned by the Church and excommunicated by the Church. Therefore, to a Catholic, he was no longer their legitimate Monarch and they owed him no obedience – and neither was Elizabeth. As for open rebellion and civil war and executing him, as opposed to civil disobedience, Jack wouldn’t regard this as a proper course of action, no. The civil disorder would cause would bring even greater evil. If he’d gone about slaughtering the Catholic population, then this would be different.

          • Anton

            Your position that Charles I was legitimate king no matter what he did but Henry VIII wasn’t is one that I am happy to have exposed to His Grace’s readers for their own reflection. Thank you.

            I will add that Saul lost his Divine Right to David after behaving too badly.

          • Didn’t God and His prophet have something to do with that.

      • Hi

        But what would happen if the royalists had won thanks to cardinal richelieu who lived beyond 1642 ? [Charles I’s wife was French and Catholic] . Incidentally my nephew wants me to include a Velociraptor and a dragon, my bro a female Angel and my partner an alien .

        • What might have happened? Who knows but God? Was there another path towards a governing

      • Anton

        Not murder.

        • Who carried legitimate authority to execute him?

          • Anton

            What do you regard as legitimate?

          • Oh, you know, a constitutionally legal reason. Failing that, a clear moral imperative, as an act of self defence, should a ruler be waging war against his subjects. The latter would require the resulting evil to be less than the prevailing evil. Aggrieved tax payers amongst land owners and/or religious structures, just don’t hack it.

          • Anton

            Read the Coronation Oath, which I’ve posted on this thread.

          • How does that justify taking up arms against a King and executing him?

          • Anton

            He broke it and it is sworn to, among others, the people. The people’s representatives therefore took him up on it. That is perfectly legitimate.

          • It was an oath to God – not man.

          • Anton

            So you haven’t read it even though I’ve posted it on this thread?

            Will you grant and keep, and by your oath confirm to the people of England, the laws and customs to them granted by the kings of England, your lawful and religious predecessors…? Will you keep peace…both to God… and the People?…

          • The oath was to God. Do you deny this? The “laws and customs” of England did not include the right to wage war against and then murder their King.

          • Anton

            Stop deliberately misunderstanding. I trust you’re not that daft.

          • He was crowned by the Church – not Parliament. He swore his oath to God – not the people.

            There was no law dealing with the trial of a monarch so the order setting up the court was based was on an ancient Roman law which stated that a military body (in this case the government) could legally overthrow a tyrant.

            He was to be tried by 135 judges but only 68 turned up for the trial and many of the 59 who signed his death warrant complained of undue influence by Cromwell. There were plenty of MPs in Parliament who did not want to see the King put on trial. These MPs had been stopped from going into Parliament by Colonel Pride and his soldiers. The only people allowed into Parliament were those who Cromwell thought supported the trial of the king. Of the 46 men allowed in, supporters of Cromwell, only 26 voted to try the king. Therefore even among those MPs considered loyal to Cromwell, there was no clear support to try Charles.

            The law and democracy in action.

          • Anton

            I’m glad that your reading now extends to Pride’s Purge. You show no awareness, however, that King Charles was not tried by Parliament, even in its reduced form after Pride’s Purge. He was tried by a Tribunal which it appointed. Now that you know this, will you read up on it and then expand here on what I have said as if you are informing me, as usual?

          • The order subjecting him to this show trail was forced through by Crowell and secured the support of just 26 MP’s. You must agree. Plus, half of the 135 judges showed up because of the pressure being placed on them.

          • Anton

            29, not 26. More than half. But I agree that it would have been less than half of MPs but for Pride’s Purge, and it didn’t have Royal Assent for some odd reason. This is, like the Nuremberg Trials, an occasion when precedent provides no guide. That is because no king had treasonously declared war on his own people and their representatives before.

          • The King did not treasonously declare war on his own people. How could a Monarch in those times commit treason against the Crown? The fanatical Puritans and Calvinists, motivated by hostility towards his marriage, his Arminianism and his commitment to the episcopacy, described him as a “tyrant” and whipped up hostility amongst the population. We not talking here about a parliamentary democracy, constitutional monarchy and universal suffrage. A charge was concocted, fraudulently “approved” by Parliament and given the gloss of legitimacy.

          • Anton

            They described him as a tyrant because when they wrote pamphlets protesting entirely peaceably about Charles and Laud’s way of running the church these two had their ears chopped off or publicly flogged. As for whipping up hostility among the population, they WERE a good proportion of the population. He declared war on his own people, as you have conceded elsewhere on this thread, and you have not made any case that treason is against the crown exclusively.

          • So that justifies a call to civil war and the execution of a King? A couple of Puritans have their ears chopped off and are flogged after bad mothing the King and his appointed Archbishop?! In times past they would have been suffered far worse. Besides, the prosecutions of Prynne, Bastwick, Burton and Lilburne were all for breaches of the law at the time. They were tried and convicted by the Star Chamber.

            Be honest. The Puritan’s objected to Charles marrying Henrietta Maria of France, the Catholic daughter of Henry IV of France, and to Laud’s appointment, his Arminianism and emphasis on ritual and ceremony.

            The opposition to Charles and Laud was fear of Catholicism and objections to episcopalianism, love of ceremony and harmonious liturgy. Many of the churches in England had fallen into disrepair in the wake of the English Reformation. Laud called for making churches beautiful. Churches were ordered to make repairs and to enforce greater respect for the church building. A policy particularly odious to the Puritans was the installation of altar rails in churches which they associated with the Catholic position on transubstantiation. They also argued that the practice of receiving communion while kneeling at the rail resembled Catholic Eucharistic adoration. Puritans also objected to Laud’s insistence on calling members of the clergy “priests”. For them, the word “priest” meant “someone who offers a sacrifice” and was related to Catholic teaching on the Eucharist. After the Reformation, the term “minister” (meaning “one who serves”) was adopted by Protestants to describe their clergy. Puritans argued in favour of this or use of the word presbyter. The Puritans were also objected to Laud’s insisted on the importance of keeping Lent. They wanted fast days specifically called in response to the problems of the day rather than dictated by an ecclesiastical calendar.

            If he’d been a Puritan “tyrant” he would have been supported. You know, one like Oliver Cromwell.

          • Anton

            Oliver Cromwell believed in religious tolerance among Reformed traditions, and probably declined to tolerate Catholicism on political rather than religious grounds.

            You accurately describe what Puritans disliked about Laud’s religious policies. You grotesquely underplay the persecution they suffered for their entirely peaceable protests against these. You have clearly done some reading in the last 24 hours. Do some more.

          • Anton

            The oath contained no “I swear/declare before God and/or the people” phrase; nor did the Archbishop administering it preface what he was asking of Charles by saying “Before God, will you…”. It was simply spoken in public, BEFORE God and the representatives of the people.

        • Aran’Gar

          You are right, rather they martyred the Lord’s anointed.
          And he went from a corruptible crown to an incorruptible crown

          • Anton

            Neither you nor I know about his ultimate fate. He died for one principle only: monarchical absolutism.

          • Aran’Gar

            Against the rapacious greed of the unconstitutional parliamentarians.

          • Anton

            What part of what constitution were they violating?

        • bluedog

          The lawyer who ran the regicide case, John Cooke, was subsequently tried and executed for murder. So, murder.

          • Anton

            The English State can declare it murder, but it can also declare two men married.

          • bluedog

            That comment makes as much sense as suggesting that Cooke had the option of appealing against his sentence but failed to do so following his execution.
            Apples? Oranges?

          • Anton

            I’m sure you understand my point, actually. The State is able to enforce its view of what it true but it cannot define truth. Caesar is a god?

          • bluedog

            The state acts and creates facts which become history. Your argument is that history is bunk ‘cos you don’t like it and it doesn’t fit your opinion. Fair enough. But you can’t change what was done 400 years ago.

          • Anton

            I don’t want to!

            My argument is actually that the only honest thing to do when writing history is to declare your standpoint. This I have done.

    • Hi

      According to my historical political atlas of Britain , the south, east Anglican and London were parliamentarians , the south west was divided , the north and Wales were royal and the Midlands were a toss up. I haven’t looked at Scotland , but it say look up earl of Montrose?

      • bluedog

        Scotland was divided, as ever. Read up about the Covenanters who were particularly virulent Puritans.

        • Anton

          The generally agreed meaning of ‘Puritan’ is a radical English protestant in the era running from Elizabeth to 1660. The Covenanters were hardline presbyterians.

          • As God’s chosen, they wanted to Purify the church and the world, by all means necessary, to usher in Christ’s Kingdom.

          • Busy Mum

            So were Jesus and His disciples Puritans?
            ‘ Our Father………Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done….’

          • bluedog

            Hardly a cigarette paper between them then.

          • Anton

            It gets complex. The Scots armies that came south were all presbyterian. The Puritans – all English, by definition – separated into the English presbyterians, and the English ‘independents’ who wanted congregational self-government and no church hierarchy above that. Separation took place because parliament was mainly presbyterian and its army comprised mainly independents, and as soon as the war had been won parliament tried to deny the army back pay it had been promised and sought to impose mandatory presbyterianism.

          • bluedog

            You should get a job splitting hairs.

          • Anton

            What I have outlined is actually a crucial determinant of English history, because King Charles exploited that split between the mainly presbyterian parliament and its mainly congregationalist army. It is this action of his which led to Charles’ execution, for before that, at the end of the first phase of the civil war in 1645, parliament simply sought to clip his wings and hold him to his word over taxation policy.

            So, what happened? The defeated Charles, who preferred an episcopal church, expediently did a U-turn while parliament and its army were bickering over back pay and religious freedom, and invited the Scottish presbyterians to invade England and restore him to power, in return for which the English church would try out presbyterianism. The Scots duly invaded, but lost to the army. And Charles, who had proved he would do any U-turn and sacrifice any principle to regain power, could not be negotiated with and so was done away with.

            This is surely more than splitting hairs?

          • 1649again

            Not done away with but tried, found guilty and executed. Quite right too.

          • By what constitution right did parliament try and execute a King?

          • 1649again

            By what constitutional right did Charles declare war on his own people and try to erect a tyranny? He was subject to the law which he had sworn to obey and was guilty of treason.

          • He didn’t “declare war” on his subjects. What nonsense.

          • 1649again

            Raising the Standard at Nottingham is regarded by all serious historians as a declaration of war.

          • Puritans were both Presbyterian and Congregationalists – anything but Episcopalian. Same spirit, just a different manifestation.

          • bluedog

            Indeed. But the point you make is something completely separate to the conversation between Hannah and myself. If you wish to impose your own agenda you are free to do so. But this writer does not feel inclined to respond.

          • Anton

            It seemed to me that Hannah was assuming England and Scotland were one country in the mid-17th century, and so I explained the situation in a bit more detail. Then you said that the covenanters were puritans, which was factually incorrect, for the covenanters were Scottish and the Puritans were English. I offered a correction and was told I was splitting hairs although the difference led to the beheading of a king.

          • 1649again

            He’s correct bd.

      • Anton

        Scotland was a different country, with its own parliament and church system. In 1603 Queen Elizabeth of England died childless and England’s power brokers invited King James of Scotland to be king of England also. This situation continued under his son, Charles I. In fact the wars began with an uprising in Scotland when Charles attempted to foist a ‘high’ prayer book on the Scots. That was several years before the English civil war broke out. The Scots were natural allies of the Parliamentarians and helped them win the English Civil War, but Charles bribed them – against his own ecclesiastical principles – with a promise that England would try out presbyterianism, and in 1648 the Scots came south again against their former allies – and, this time, lost.

        The two countries were united only in the early 18th century.

  • Hi

    My feelings on this thread and the previous one, emphasis on verse 12:

    “And He said, Go forth, and stand upon the mount before the L-rd. And, behold, the L-rd passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the L-rd; but the L-rd was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the L-rd was not in the earthquake:
    And after the earthquake a fire; but the L-rd was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.

    And it was so, when Elijah heard it, that he wrapped his face in his mantle, and went out, and stood in the entering in of the cave. And, behold, there came a voice unto him, and said, What doest thou here, Elijah?

    1 Kings 19:11-13King James Version (KJV)

    • What are you trying to say, Hannah?

      Are you suggesting this blog is occupied by those who are full of a great and strong wind capable of renting mountain?

      By the way, that is one of Jack’s most treasured biblical passages. It’s profound and simple. And, my God, how it’s written. Amazing. We all meet God, in our consciences in this life or standing before Him in the next. But what a God. We tremble before this small still voice of God. How do we hear His words?

  • Politically__Incorrect

    Meanwhile, Sainsburys fill their shelves with halal meat, something which infuriates me to the point I stopped buying their lamb, all of which is halal, and other meats too. Pork and bacon are the only meats you can be sure were ‘t dedicated to Allah. I wonder how long before they stop sell hot cross buns too. I guess it’s only thanks to modern religious illiteracy they don’t actually realise their significance.

  • Bit of a storm in an eggcup, this. As Carl “eloquently” (an American cannot be eloquent) posted below this is a decision driven by the market. One noticed in HG’s tweets that a Sainsbury manager explained the decision in these terms. They tested the product last year, and lack of demand resulted in the decision not to stock them this year.

    So, it seems, Christians prefer to buy products that represent “value for money”. This takes priority over all other considerations. Ethics doesn’t enter the equation when we buy clothing and electrical goods. Why should it when we buy a chocolate Easter egg? The cost of product is more important than the message it is intended to convey. And who really needs to witness the Resurrection in giving an egg? No need to support fair trade or assist poorer peoples. We pay taxes for such things. And what is the message and meaning of Easter, anyway? What came first? Was it the egg? Or the life it gives?

    Why not buy the Real Easter Egg online, direct from the supplier? Why increase the profit of companies like Sainsbury and Tesco at Easter? This Easter there can be a correlation between the egg and the life it signifies. As we enjoy eating it we can think on the glorious event it signifies and how, this year, the purchase demonstrated our solidarity with the full message of Easter.

    Here’s the link:

    http://www.realeasteregg.co.uk/shop/

    You know it makes sense.

    [Please remember to mention Jack when you make your purchase. He is negotiating a 10% commission on all sales arising as a result of this little mention here]

    • Politically__Incorrect

      They say it is driven by the market, yet my local branch stocks predominantly halal meat in an area with hardly a muslim in sight. Have all the white Christian folk demanded their meat be sacrificed to Allah?

      • If it’s the same price and of comparable quality to similar meats, what’s the issue, challenge, problem? Who wants to pay more for meat depending on how the animal died?

        • Politically__Incorrect

          I suspect halal meat costs more since they also have to pay the inam or whatever to say his prayers during the slaughter. If it’s a muslims right to eat halal then it should be a Christian’s right to buy non-halal. I have no wish to be a party to the insipid Islamisation of this country, of which the proliferation of halal products is a part.

          • Then buy your meat elsewhere. That’s the market place.

          • Politically__Incorrect

            I do, but that still doesn’t explain the commercial logic of selling halal meat in an almost exclusively white, non-muslim area. My guess is it has more to do with politics than commerce.

          • It can only be because it sells …. i.e. people buy it.

          • Politically__Incorrect

            And because there ism’t much choice for them.

          • Then convenience is a factor too.

          • 1649again

            Most people aren’t aware of it. That’s why the supermarkets don’t like talking it – I remember this very conversation with the CEO of a major supermarket.

          • magnolia

            But they don’t know what they are buying. Stick the word “hallal” on it and sales would plummet. So they don’t. Instead they lie to the customer by not telling “the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.” Don’t know where the Trades Descriptions Act comes into all that, or whether anyone has tested it out.

          • CliveM

            It’s to do with ease of logistics and cost.

          • bluedog

            It’s very wrong and another piece of creeping Islamification as you say.

            The Islamic Councils charge for granting halal certification, so where does the money go? Al-Qaeda? ISIL, Hamas?

            Decisions, decisions.

          • 1649again

            It’s fundamentally about cost and simplifying supply chains.

          • IrishNeanderthal

            A Jewish butcher, if there’s one within reach.

          • Dominic Stockford

            They have to *say* that he has said his prayers.

      • 1649again

        It’s called yield management. Muslims buy the bits whites won’t but only if halal, eg chickens whites buy the breast, muslims the rest, ergo to use the whole bird and reduce the price of the breast it has to be halal. The fact that halal is inhumane doesn’t get a look in.

    • carl jacobs

      Hey! I can be eloquent. And stuff.

      • You have fluent, forceful, and appropriate language but it’s not sufficiently moving or expressive. There’s no irony, poetry or humour. Then, your American, and, worst still, a Calvinist – Grasshopper.

        • carl jacobs

          Oh and btw.

          Did you really not comprehend the eloquently compact irony and humor of…

          Hey! I can be eloquent. And stuff.

          The post to which you responded (with rather challenged grammar, I might add) refutes your central contention.

      • Inspector General

        Ignore him, Carl. Exposure to this site has been the making of you.

        • Blessed are the trouble makers ….

        • carl jacobs

          Ignore him? But I am the paddle and Jack is the ball. Think of all the fun I would miss.

    • The Real Easter Eggs for £4 are quality products, very tasty and the box as pretty and eye catching as the rest in that size. They are not being promoted enough.
      It’s all about sharing the Faith so they deserve a place in all supermarkets, but they need an innovative advertising campaign to get more people interested in buying them. A TV ad. perhaps. The Bishops with some children make an advertisement about the story of Jesus? That’s a strong unique selling point. The trade is there the suppliers just need capture it back off Cadbury and Nestle.

      • Paul Greenwood

        Still it is confusing to watch Passion of The Christ and try to relate it to rabbits and chocolate eggs

        • Rabbits, the miracle of new life hatching out of eggs, hope, Jesus arisen from the dead, alive and hope giving, a fresh start. We eat our chocolate eggs on the Easter Sunday when Jesus had miraculously turned back into life again.

          • Paul Greenwood

            chocolate ?

          • Heavenly. The Cocoa bean a creation from God.

  • Inspector General

    The government is always looking at extra ways to raise revenue. A subject a tobacco appreciating Inspector knows only too well. So, halal meat it is then. We’ll start at 20%. That should make humanely killed meat more attractive. Any more suggestions…

  • A child in infant school knows this.

    Perhaps Jack should have said: yoor’re.

    • Manfarang

      How Y’all doin’?

  • T’was all predestined … nought to do with Jack.

    • carl jacobs

      Are you going to fix the other error as well?

      • Royinsouthwest

        That presumably also depends on whether or not Jack is predestined to do so. The Almighty moves in mysterious ways – and so do some commentators!

      • Nauht or nāwiht?

        • carl jacobs

          Nice try at misdirection. I see you did fix the other error – in a stealthy and quiet manner.

  • Manfarang

    Painted eggs symbolising fertility and are displayed on the Nowruz table.

  • 1649again

    Sickening media eulogies over McGuinness. They are truly inverted in their values.

    • Royinsouthwest

      Better a terrorist who stops being a terrorist than one who remains a terrorist until death.

      • 1649again

        Pity we didn’t shot him decades before so he stopped being a terrorist even earlier.

        • Pubcrawler

          Now, now: Ezekiel 18:23.

          But yes.

          Pity stayed his hand. “It’s a pity I’ve run out of bullets,” he thought

        • Paul Greenwood

          He had a deal with politicians otherwise Forces Research Unit would have iced him

    • Anton

      I am glad that Norman Tebbit has outlived him to tell some inconvenient truths on this day.

    • Anton

      Clinton and Blair to attend the funeral: says it all.

  • betteroffoutofit

    They’re fattening; they rot teeth; they’re made by foreigners; the wholesalers/retailers involved are deeply influenced by mozzies, and how can we trust that the chocolate is non-halal?

    So why would I ever buy chocolate eggs again? [[See how marxist/mozzie methodology infiltrates, demoralizes, creates a crisis, and destroys Christian tradition by making themselves seem normal?]]

    • Dominic Stockford

      Chocolate frequently sets my mouth ulcers off too, so not if I can help it!

  • Paul Greenwood

    Qatar owns 25% Sainsbury. Qatar funds Al-Nusra

  • IrishNeanderthal

    This battle (below) over the execution of Charles 1 is getting out of hand. Perhaps there is no striaghtforward solution on one side or the other. I am reminded of Judges 14:4 —

    וְאָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ לֹא יָדְעוּ, כִּי מֵיְהוָה הִיא–כִּי-תֹאֲנָה הוּא-מְבַקֵּשׁ, מִפְּלִשְׁתִּים

    But his father and his mother knew not that it was of the LORD; for he sought an occasion against the Philistines.

    The people I feel sorry for are the Welsh: in spite of their Protestant religion they remained Royalists out of loyalty to their king.

    The English Parliamentarian soldiers heard their women who supplied the camp speaking Welsh: thinking they were speaking Irish, the English soldiers butchered some of them.

  • Heather Hayes

    Perhaps Sainsbury’s does not know the real meaning of Easter and needs a few lessons on real life…

    • Dominic Stockford

      Some street preaching outside their stores, loudly, and in concert, seems like a good idea.

  • Jean Stephenson

    I contacted Sainsburys’ who claim that they have previously stocked this egg but due to lack of demand, refused to stock it this year. Presumably Tesco’s et al did not have the same ‘problem’. Thoughts?

  • Inspector General

    It is somewhat surprising that the availability of a chocolate replica (part 2) of an item from a pagan fertility festival, although long commandeered by Christianity, should supplant the passing of one of the most important figures in UK history of the last 50 years. But then, part of the joy of following Cranmer is his unpredictability.

    During the last century, this man here was often asked “what’s going on up there? You’re Irish”. “There’s a low level civil war happening” said I. “But it’s not presented as that, is it?” “No, it wouldn’t be. You see, if it was, insurance companies would evade paying out, even though they’d still be happily taking your premiums. Civil war, if declared, changes everything. Not just insurance claims.”

    Martin McGuiness didn’t set out to be an IRA gunman. As a young lad, he’d set his hopes on becoming a garage mechanic apprentice. With a longer term ambition of having his own garage. However, all the garages were in Protestant hands and they weren’t taking on Catholic apprentices that year. Or any other year. Even if he had managed to find a sympathetic proprietor, you can bet your hat that said proprietor would have been ostracised by his own community, not so much if it got out, but when. (Everybody knows everybody else’s business in Ireland. Or did do. To give you an idea of the nature of the people concerned, these are the same Protestant fellows it is said who would padlock swings together in parks on a Sunday. Rather than suffer children playing on them during the Lord’s day). McGuinness became a butcher’s assistant.
    ————————————————-
    Northern Ireland civil rights movement. Read here what was happening in the North as McGuinness attained the age of majority.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_Ireland_civil_rights_movement
    ————————————————-
    Neither did he as an IRA man expect to be part of the peace process. But he was. As far as one knows, he never apologised for anything he personally did, neither did he express regret for what he was involved in. Further, he is definitely known to have lied about the extent of his involvement. So, how do you forgive someone their terrible crimes when they themselves have not requested it?

    How will the Almighty deal with that man’s soul…

  • Heather Hayes

    God is just so McGuinness will get a fair judgement, just like the rest of us. The easter egg is just a representation of yet another Christian stand that is trying to be phased out. First morning service in schools, then religion being watered down. Then the fact that you have a difference of opinion on gay people or sex before marriage is shouted down. We are as entitled to have an opinion as much as the next person but if we stay quiet about what ungodly people are doing, we are failing as Christians to keep out beliefs…which I might add, is part of our country’s heritage.