shuggy's blog
Oh dear. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Although I do think that (unless he's been misquoted) the good Bishop needs to open a few history books before he flaps off about homosexuals hijacking the Shoah. He doesn't seem to be very well informed about who actually got killed. If you're a Christian it's better to be attacked for defending Biblical doctrine than lousy history.
(And if he looked it up he'd be able to draw some interesting parallels between the treatment of the mentally ill, disabled and 'incurable' now and then - if this site is kosher they seem to have been the testbed on which all the other horrors were founded
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary..../disabled.html)
I must defend "buttoned-up appetites" though. I don't know about you, but if I indulged all my appetites, I would by now either be Supreme Dictator Of The Universe, dead, or (more likely) serving a lengthy prison term for crimes ranging from mass murder to serious sexual assault. Some things are best buttoned up.
Festeringly,
Laban
Ach, come off it. Since when was it 'Biblical doctrine' to fulminate against some non-existent conspiracy? I can also say with a reasonable amount of evidence at my disposal that the Bible doesn't go on about homosexuality anything like as much as the Bishop wished it did. And is it really Christian to oppose Catholic and Protestant children even sharing the same campus?
I've always thought that faith schools are deleterious to the public spirit - divisive and stupid, and deliberately maintained by people who have an interested in keeping the people segregated. Surely the best option for the nation is to let us all intermingle so that we can make our own minds up about our respective beliefs, however daft they may be.
On the other hand, I've always believed that feeding Christians to lions is barbaric. Having read Bishop Devine's comments, I'm prepared to make an exception.
Even if we could be generous enough to assume the comment left here was a joke, it was in very poor taste.
Edited By Siteowner
Another good reason to get rid of faith schools.
'Last year Bishop Devine said he would close the Roman Catholic adoption agencies rather than help same-sex couples to adopt children.'
To be consistent he must surely also be prepared to close down schools rather than accept gay teachers.
It seems to me the bishop has handed us the means to rid ourselves of faith schools.
How very odd. The decriminalising of homosexual acts was (in my view) the only one of the 1960s "liberal reforms" that was both unambiguously liberal and a Good Thing. Once the acts are decriminalised, you'd expect a period of adjustment in society. I suspect that the bishop may be uncomfortable not only with the adjustment but also with the liberalisation. But also very odd is the allusion to Powell. In general direction, did Powell's prophecies prove all that inaccurate? It seems to me to be a peculiarly ill-chosen way to criticise this malevolent churchman.
But also very odd is the allusion to Powell. In general direction, did Powell's prophecies prove all that inaccurate?
There was a good post up at mediocracy a while back about how if you put something up for discussion, you inevitably concede something of your case. That torture, for example, is even being discussed shows how the ground has shifted. In this way, I'm not prepared to explain what was wrong with Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech; I feel this should be obvious. But in any event, the comparison was limited. Powell was at least a serious intellect, driven mad - as someone once said - by the consistency of his own logic. You can't even say that about Devine. I make the comparison - or agreed with it - because they were both hate speeches made by two embittered reactionary political figures. That's all.
I don't think that Powell's was a hate speech - it was a fear speech. The only major hate speech that I've heard bits of (in British politics, in my lifetime) was Blair's speech about the Forces of Conservatism.
Powell was an odd piece of work -I heard him at the Union at Edinburgh. He was riveting - he had a magnetic command of the room, and was highly intelligent at seeing the point of questions and answering them. He coped brilliantly with a room full of bright, articulate, cocky young jossers. I thought also that he had a whole dimension of humanity missing. To compare some dreadful central-belt, central-casting RC Bishop with Powell is a very strange piece of rhetoric.
Commenting by HaloScan
