Monday, May 12, 2008

[blasphemy] disestablishment and oppression


Tiberius Gracchus has replied to this first post of mine which quoted Ginro who quoted Cranmer and he replied thusly:

Two questions James:

* what is blasphemy and when would you prosecute it?


** how can you be in favour of a law that makes it illegal to say various things- and still say you support free speech and freedom?

The short answers are:

* It would be prosecuted only if it was a state level case of another religion attempting to supplant the first - including Marxism. Co-existing, yes but not supplanting the country's traditional faith. In a country like Libya, for example, the same rule would apply to the other religion.

** This can't be given a short answer because it is the crux of the matter.

When it was pointed out, by commenters, what this bill really meant, your reply, Tiberius, was:

Apparently I was wrong - I apologise for not realising that we should all be living in a truly Christian state where blasphemy was punished by boring a hole through someone's tongue (as in seventeenth Century Protestant England) or burning them at the stake (sixteenth century Catholic England).

Is that a measured and reasoned answer, Tiberius, taking into account the historical context of those things?

As was pointed out by all from Ann Widdecombe to Cherie [in "Above and Beyond the Call of Duty"] - two ends of the political spectrum - this is not a religious but a political question and a lot rides on it.

Do you know of or have you heard of anyone prosecuted under the blasphemy act in the last 50 years? So it sits in there dormant. It was dormant legislation and would only ever be invoked under the circumstances in * above.

Ann Widdecombe MP

Brown's government does not do things on spec - it does them as part of a cynical agenda and the agenda, somewhere down the line, is going to involve coming up against the charge of blasphemy and treason - a double whammy. He knows this is an obstacle so the way must be cleared, with no comeback from conservatives.

The first stage of the draconian agenda is already in place - a Big Brother state which few now have any illusions is becoming a reality - and the next stage is to disestablish the Church.

Now in principle and in a perfect world, I agree that Christianity is a matter between the individual and his Maker in the true protestant manner.

However, the full implications of this bill, who is introducing it and for what long term purpose, must be opposed with vigour, even if one doesn't exactly hold with blasphemy laws as a concept, which one doesn't.

The entry point of this bill is Christianity because that's the sole area today where no one is going to raise a fuss, as almost no one has - it's now a safe move for Brown to disestablish a Church which successive archbishops have already termited, to the point where the message is largely irrelevant in most people's eyes.

But as Cherie says, it is the thin edge of the wedge and even with her political bent, it's as plain as day where this is going. Cherie says:

Gracchi, freedom of speech is one of those values with which I whole heartedly agree! But this bill means that I and my UK countrymen can't express our opinion about what we value, it is the thin end of the wedge!

Ignore the religion aspect and see what this really means for our country!
If you check out my blog you will see I don't go along with anything in your last paragraph ;-)

The CofE [of which I'm a non-practising member, being over in Russia] and Catholicism before it, has been Britain's bulwark against the encroachment of far more aggressive, far more coercive ideologies and you, Tiberius, as a historian, are either wilfully ignoring this or else you really don't see it, through some idealized notion of how free the new society is going to be.

It is a delusion, a blind. Historical precedent and current history show an entirely different scenario. As Gerald Howarth said:

[A] Jewish headmistress, whom I was sitting next to at a lunch ... said, “It is very important to our school that there continues to be an established Church, because it provides some protection to us in the practising of our religion.”

There are three choices in the move towards the New Feudalism:

1. Leave a largely anachronistic Church [in most people's eyes] in place as the established faith, with the effect that all other faiths are free to practise, as well as protecting the freedoms of speech and association - was this not so up to the Nu-Lab era?

This also leaves the country's "oneness" intact, its traditional base in place and its history therefore a continuum.


What this also does is prevent 2 and 3 below, by the simple expedient of leaving them technically treasonable.


2. Remove the blasphemy law which, as Ann Widdecombe, Gerald Howarth, Ginro, Cherie and many others have noted, now gives the government carte blanche to disestablish the church, thereby removing the last obstacle to the Big Brother state which the EU has already enacted and is waiting patiently in the wings to implement.


Make no mistake - the vacuum left by the removal of a largely shell like church would be filled very quickly by a different ideology - there would be no freedom of worship at all but the criminalization of the ordinary citizen [see Cherie's post] - that's where this thing is headed.


The EU monolith is socialist in conception and its modus operandi is compliance. It foresees collapse and war [read Miliband's comments on the EU army].


3. The only other force with the power to fill the vacuum is Islam and it is making huge inroads in the country. Rowan Williams' comments about Sharia Law are instructive.

Given that you only really have these three choices - the ideal of a happy, tolerant society not being one which the current state is going to allow to occur - which of the three variants would you choose?

Because if you sit back under the mistaken impression that saying good riddance to an established church you despise is going to lead you to an illumined nirvana, it's going to lead you to the exact opposite.

A state very, very un-British in nature.


David Miliband, Minister for the EU



Let the last words be your own, Tiberius - do you really want to groan under the yoke of a state such as in 2 or 3 above?

I appeal from Tiberius the Lion Feeder of Christians to Tiberius the Rational, who states:

Put simply in a totalitarian state like North Korea, you can't live a life based on Wensleydale and tea - you can't just decide to build a rocket to go to the moon (theoretically you could in the West) and you can't be madly, loveably, endeeringly and frustratingly often eccentric.

That's the reason its important to be free - its so Wallaces and Gromits continue to flourish in our society.

10 comments:

  1. Fabulous post! Loved this line:
    'madly, loveably, endeeringly and frustratingly often eccentric'.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Very nicely put indeed. I'd like to add a few thoughts of my own if I may.

    What atheists/agnostics fail to appreciate is the enormous contribution that the Church has made to education in the first place, even through the dark periods, and our University system is still based upon these: the graduation robes, the titles, etc. etc., all remnants of the Church.

    What other belief system has contributed so much that is positive and beneficial within our western societies? Charities? All begun by people with deeply held Christian beliefs (this incidentally was one of the things that astonished the Romans about these 'Christians', their respect for others less fortunate than themselves).

    How about the abolition of slavery? Again, Christians with deeply held beliefs that put a stop to it.

    In contrast, even today non-Christian countries still practice and endorse slavery. Examples? China, there's an obvious one. Muslim countries are another, where the kidnapping and enslavement of non-Muslims is freely practiced and endorsed.

    In the early days of Islam, when its followers were being hounded, they fled to Christian countries because they knew that they would be treated with tolerance and freedom to practice their religion. They then proceeded to take those countries over. Remember...I think it was...Tunis? The inhabitants received a very short ultimatum - convert to Islam or die.

    Again, for those that would rather shake off our countries Christian heritage let me quote from an anonymous commentor I recently read on Amazon (it was a discussion about the pros and cons of Dawkins books, and the Christians were as usual being mocked and accused of being fools for their beliefs):

    The accusation:
    "It's the kind of lie that a Resurrection cult would invent."

    The response:
    Yes, a lie that would make men more loving, more patient, kinder, gentler, more humble, thoughtful, and peaceful. A lie that would lead to greater self-control, self-discipline, charity, and humanity. A lie that would bring upon the liar severe persecution and death. A lie that, the more they told it, the more odious and disgusting they would become to those people, people who didn't believe it. Yes, people tell and believe those kinds of lies all the time, don't they?

    Adolf Hitler told lies, Mr. Widen, for very obvious reasons, and for the very reasons that people DO lie--selfish, self-aggrandizement. Nobody, NOBODY, invents the kind of lie that will make them hated by all of mankind, tortured, and killed, the very antithesis of the self-interest that is the true motive behind every real lie. Your reasoning is not only ahistorical, it's the most pathetic attempt at disproving the resurrection I've ever read in my life.


    I'm reminded of an exhibition that was doing the rounds a couple of years ago, an exhibition funded and endorsed by the Government. This exhibition extolled the virtues of Islam and detailed how much the world had benefited from Islam. Trouble was, it was all a crock. Lies from start to finish, with the absurd claim that Islam was responsible for almost every discovery and invention known to man. But the Government supported it and even encouraged schools to take children on school trips to visit it. Attempts to 're-educate' our children? You tell me. But what sort of people try to re-write history? What would their agenda be?

    As a historian Tiberius Gracchus should be more than aware that history has a way of jumping up and biting peoples arses the minute they forget it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. James I don't object to a world in which Wallaces can live- I just don't see that they should be locked up for blasphemy.

    Ginro we are talking about putting Christianity on the same basis legally as any other idea about the world- I'm always amazed by how Christians interpret any attempt to insist that others like atheists should have legal equality and the freedom to live their lives as they choose as a threat to Christianity. But lets be honest, I don't care how you live and what you say: you seem to care about how I live and how I talk about religion and you want me to be banned from doing something-

    To come back to your earlier point James that's the nub. You want to ban blasphemy- you want to put people in jail for blaspheming- I think you'd end up with Wallaces and Gromits in bars.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Gracchi I'm sorry but you still don't get it. It's not about us and Christianity. Atheists can slag off me and what I believe all they want and I'll just laugh.
    But an attempt to give other beliefs, namely Islam, equal status has very severe connotations. As Anne Widdecombe pointed out, you say the wrong thing about that mob and you're in serious trouble. This is one reason why Christianity should not be accorded equal status with other beliefs because we all know that equal status is not how it would pan out.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Honestly Ginro! I'm not trying to give anyone's beliefs any legal status- that's precisely it a law against blasphemy is a law against insulting Christianity, that's what it is! I'm not arguing that there should be a law against insulting Islam, or anything else for that matter- I'm arguing that there should not be laws which say that people cannot on pain of prison insult Christianity- that's the point of a deabte about the law on blasphemy.

    I am as much as you opposed to clerical Muslim domination of the world- I'm opposed to clerical Christian domination of the world- some of us have long memories of fires in Smithfield and the murder of Galileo not to mention others. I am just opposed to clerical domination of anything. I will fight as I said somewhere else till my last breath for your right to be as stupid as you want in support of your religion, I just wish you would accord me the same courtesy instead of telling me that there should be a law against blasphemy.

    Oh and by the way, if you are refferring to the Muslim mob, is that Avicenna, Averoes or the guy who brought us algebra!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'll have to go as I just remembered that I have to take my medication, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  7. An excellent post, it explains the situation perfectly.

    I see Gracchi still hasn't understood the implications though!

    Well sadly the day is coming when he will do, because the worst case scenarios will come into play and then there will be a backlash!

    ReplyDelete
  8. Ginro says, quite rightly:

    "Gracchi I'm sorry but you still don't get it. It's not about us and Christianity."

    Well, I apologize for provoking Tiberius here because I knew the reaction before I started. Tiberius, this is not reasoned opposition because you know full well the arguments put here - it is, I'm afraid old chap, purely and simply prejudice.

    You're not prejudiced against gays or other oppressed minorities but you are against Christians because they are Christian.

    This also has historical precedent - Nero, countless other emperors and people like the Copts, for example, have endured this stuff for two millennia. They endure it all over the holy land and as far as Indonesia.

    The Mosque on the Rock even specifically instructs visitors that Jesus is not divine. Now why would it do that?

    This is the cross they've chosen to bear against unreasoned prejudice and hatred and good luck to them.

    As for this bill in parliament - it actually has zero to do with religion itself, as people have said but it is integrally interwoven with both our heritage and our freedom - all of us.

    All British people will suffer for this in the near future.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "that's precisely it a law against blasphemy is a law against insulting Christianity, that's what it is!"

    Any law passed in England or Europe (I repeat myself) that has to with blasphemy or 'speech toward religion' will be specifically targeting Islam and not Christianity.

    Christians don't seem to seethe and burn things down when you upset us.

    ReplyDelete

Comments need a moniker of your choosing before or after ... no moniker, not posted, sorry.