Just a reminder of the fickle world of politics……
David Cameron has declared that “Britain is a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so”, in a speech to mark the 400th anniversary of the King James Bible.
“The King James Bible is a book that has not just shaped our own country, but shaped the world,”
When did he declare that? In 2011.
Cameron told Church of England clergy gathered in Oxford that a return to Christian values could counter the country’s “moral collapse” and blamed a “passive tolerance” of immoral behaviour for this summer’s riots, Islamic extremism, City excess and Westminster scandals.
Where were the 50 Humanists then?
The BBC doesn’t quote his previous statement but merely refers obliquely to it here:
Downing Street spokeswoman referred to a speech made three years ago by the prime minister where he said the UK was a Christian country and should not be afraid to say so.
“He has said on many occasions that he is incredibly proud that Britain is home to many different faith communities, who do so much to make the UK a stronger country.”
The BBC then slips in the suggestion that it might all just be a political ploy……
BBC political correspondent Chris Mason said Mr Cameron’s comments could be politically “useful”, coming as the UK Independence Party (UKIP) has been “emphasising traditional values”
Wonder if Chris Mason has been nobbled in the BBC canteen by the BBC’s nemesis turned best mate, Alastair Campbell….
David Cameron faking Christian convictions, suggests Alastair Campbell
Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair’s spin doctor, doubts sincerity of the Prime Minister’s Christian faith
Dieu et mon droit is the motto of the British Monarch in England. It appears on a scroll beneath the shield of the English version of the coat of arms of the United Kingdom. The motto refers to the divine right of the Monarch to govern and is said to have first been used by King Richard the Lionheart as a battle cry and official motto of battle, then adopted as the royal motto of England by King Henry V in the 15th century.
Coronation Oath
Archbishop. Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
Queen. All this I promise to do.
Oath of Office [PM, Secretaries of State etc.]
The Official Oath is in the following form:
I, (name), do swear that I will well and truly serve Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth in the office of (office). So help me God.
Either the UK is a Christian country or we are ruled by liars!
Christianity is the basis and foundation of Western civilization. Islam, Hinduism and others are not.
In a round about way, attacking the Christian faith, is actually a recognition of that fact.
It does not matter if “genuine” Christians are a small minority. It does even matter if these “genuine” Christians are hypocrites.
sheesh! that picture … of Camerimam
… would you buy loaves and fishes from this man
Wikipedia sites four sets of surveys that have Christianity at 59.5%. What constitutes a majority to the petition signers?
I don’t know but 51-49 was described by the BBC as a massive vote of confidence in Hollande.
David Cameron says he’s a Christian, blah blah blah. So why does he want a mosque built in his constituency ?
Either he’s a Christian and he sticks up for Christianity or he’s an appeasing coward dhimmi and an apostate ?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10390423/PM-criticises-appalling-campaign-against-mosque-opening.html
Something you feel so strongly about, you felt the need to post much the same text on two threads in quick succession.
Thankfully, the link you provide is rather less unhinged than your own comments, which seem in line with the kneejerk bigotry of the leaflets he was condemning.
Your post illustrates well the blind fascism of todays left Scott.
Obviously you must approve of the slaughter of the Jews, and the murder of Homosexuals – all with the proviso that it’s carried out by the correct religion. And obviously you must share their belief that they are ‘the best of people’.
Can you tell me how you know that a leaflet you have never seen let alone read is ‘kneejerk bigotry’, and yet the teaching of the Qur’an and Hadith are not bigotry?
You obviously find the execution of rape victims acceptable, the suppression of women, and the wholesale murder of anyone the Muslims don’t like (which could be anyone).
I would suggest that if anyone is a ‘racist’ (meaningless word) then it’s you, with your rank hatred for white people and anyone else who doesn’t share your twisted views.
“Obviously you must approve of the slaughter of the Jews, and the murder of Homosexuals”
I know Biased BBC commenters are somewhat divorced from reality at the best of times, but even for this site that’s a new low.
You really are an offensive little twerp, aren’t you? No wonder Biased BBC is seen as a joke by the few people outside this site who know of its existence.
Your refusal to deny the accusation is duly noted.
It’s called not choosing to dignify your absurd & offensive comments with a response. If you fool yourself into thinking that’s a denial, feel free. Any move you make to demonstrate your idiocy is fine by me.
Scott wrote:
It’s called not choosing to dignify your absurd & offensive comments with a response. “
But Scott you did respond, and not only that you threw abuse into the reply as well, abuse which wasn’t warrented.
If you wish to be seen as whiter than white, then you really have to be a saint.
But that’s just it for members of the left isn’t it Scott. You feel so smug casting aspersions on those you look down on and when somebody does bite back, you don a hanky to your sweaty brow and act as if you are going to faint becasue of the shock of getting abused.
Err Scott, the only person throwing abuse is you, why don’t you act like a man for once and admit the fact that you are a utter,utter hypocrite.
Scott also states this site has “few people” who know of its existence. Scott’s own website has so much tumbleweed blowing across it he has to come to Biased BBC for some company.
Scottie really has no self awareness.
Scotty wrote:
“You really are an offensive little twerp, aren’t you? “
What’s with the name calling against Thoughtful Scott? In his post he is very civil towards you, and yet not only do you get your knickers in a twist, you feel obliged to throw abuse. But the thing is Scott, the first person to bitch about name calling and demand an apology for hurt feelings is……you.
In other words if you wish for people to treat you nice, be nice yourself.
Read back your own posts to me and others, pounce, you hypocrite.
Scott wrote:
“Read back your own posts to me”
I take it, you can’t answer the question posed and as always you deflect. Why am I not surprised.
Scott, if that picture is actually you, i must say you bear a resemblance to the mascot of MAD magazine, Alfred E Newman.
” somewhat divorced from reality ”
Here are the verses which prove that it is not me divorced from reality, but you Scott.
The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharkad tree, (a certain kind of tree) would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews. (related by al-Bukhari and Muslim).
They are debased, cursed, anathematized forever by God and so can never repent and be forgiven; they are cheats and traitors; defiant and stubborn; they killed the prophets; they are liars who falsify scripture and take bribes; as infidels they are ritually unclean, a foul odor emanating from them – such is the image of the Jew in classical Islam, degraded and malevolent.
(Schweitzer and Perry)
if a man comes upon a man, then they are both adulterers,” “If a woman comes upon a woman, they are both Adulteresses,” “When a man mounts another man, the throne of God shakes,” and “Kill the one that is doing it and also kill the one that it is being done to.”
I think that the Hatred of Islam towards Jews & Gays is such common knowledge that no one except a ‘denier’ could suggest it isn’t extant.
Suggesting that someone is “divorced from reality” when they are simply speaking the truth and common knowledge speaks to me of a desperation to protect a favoured group at all costs.
Are you aware of Hitlers links to Islam Scott? They shared very many commonalities, hence todays accusation of Fascism.
Take a look at Haj Amin al-Husseini who met Hitler on at least 6 occasions and sent him a set of declarations he wanted Germany & Italy to endorse.
To this day, the Arab people surrounding Israel still make the Socialist salute, although you would call it a Nazi salute.
Scott,
D Camerimam is a turncoat of the first order, his weasel words without real consolidated direct action, to affect them, are simply that.
Where is his action on continuous Islamic/useful idiot bullying of not only Christianity but Hinduism, in this country? eh!
… how about Jewish people ….. how about LGTG people.
Don t get your bloody tu tu in a twist
over some hangover from your misguided posturing over issues like gay marriage.
The worse thing is this traitors Gov can get things done “yesterday”,
if it comes to sticking it to the most vulnerable in our society …
beneath contempt
I know Biased BBC commenters are somewhat divorced from reality at the best of times, but even for this site that’s a new low.
So Scott, just where have you posted anything about the physical attacks against Homosexuals around the Islamic world.
I for one haven’t seen such a post. However the vast majority of posters on this blog have.
Tell me, who speaks out more for the gay community: Those straight people on this blog who speak out agaisnt those (Muslims) who attack homosexuals in the Uk or the self appointed gay censor (you) who remains silent on those relgious bigots , but instead attacks those who defend his cause.
In otherwords Scott you are a cock.
And, David, what about his craven support for gay marriage?….Some christian eh?……..We need warrior type priests to rail against Islam, they might start filling the pews again……
State religions are not uncommon. That doesn’t mean religious minorities are necessarily persecuted. Cameron’s factual statement about Christianity and Britain in no way precludes supporting the building of a mosque in his electorate or criticism of a pamphlet opposing it.
How is it ‘factual’? The question of how to judge whether any country is christian/muslim/ hindu country needs to be defined.
As the objections states ‘Apart from in the narrow constitutional sense that we continue to have an established Church, Britain is not a ‘Christian country’.
Britian is clearly a secular country, apart from in this narrow sense.
What religion the population is or isn’t is not a factor on which to descibe a country as christian. If it is, then you get into a squabble over different results from different polls, and how the question in the poll is asked. Do those who identify themselves as christian all beleive in the resurrection? what about the virgin birth? If not then in what sense are the christian? I suspect a lot of them are ‘cultural christians’.
At what point to we become a christian country – 51% of the population? If its 49% can we then say its officially no longer a christian country?
The US has a very christian, and a very religious population, but its not a christian country its a secular country where there is seperation between church and state.
Farooq Murad said nobody could deny the UK remained a largely Christian country with “deep historical and structural links” to Christianity. So we have churches, does that make the country christian? we have deep historical roots in feudalism, we’re not a feaudal country.
The whole thing makes no sense, unless its based on the governence of the country. And as I said, ‘Apart from in the narrow constitutional sense ‘, Britian is effectively secular. If I lived in Saudi, I’d happily say that I lived in a Muslim country.
“‘Apart from in the narrow constitutional sense that we continue to have an established Church, Britain is not a ‘Christian country’.
England may have an “established” church but Britain does not.
As I understand it the Church of Scotland is recognized as the national church of Scotland.
Yes, but in Scotland, there is a division of powers by which Church and State are each supreme in their own sphere. The Church is self-governing in all that concerns its own activities. Unlike England its supreme authority is the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, presided over by a Moderator chosen each year by the Assembly itself with no political or royal involvement.
Yes, but a key difference is that HM The Queen is not Supreme Head, the status Henry VIII grabbed in the English Reformation.
The Church of Scotland is the national church – but has complete independence in spiritual matters and in appointments.
Guido has an interesting piece today:
http://order-order.com/2014/04/22/ed-miliband-britain-is-a-christian-country/
Scott wrote:
“No wonder Biased BBC is seen as a joke by the few people outside this site who know of its existence.”
Good point Scott,care to explain why out of all the more worthy blogs out there, you who obviously has much better things to do with this time spends an inordinate amount of time on this one?
Funny that?
Pounce
You are on fire today. Brilliant.
As evidence of these christian values one needs to look no further than here:
If the “regulars” here claim to be christian then they have a strange way of showing it.
To paraphrase this blog “By their comments you will know them”.
Oh we have a winner Allbutmen, Scottys comedy side lick has just ref a thread about a bunch of left-wing Christians working with the left-wing -media to damage a Tory government who has actually said we are ‘christian Country ‘ which the same left -wing has got upset about ?
I never find these slight names changes to be in any way amusing, just really, really childish.
But this one is pathetic: ‘Allbutmen,’
I know.
And they wonder why there are so few “righty” or “rightard” comedians!!
http://www.chortle.co.uk/correspondents/2013/08/07/18444/confessions_of_a_right-wing_comic
Do you mean so few or so few on the BBC?
Perhaps you should have looked at his credits – not only has he appeared on the BBC he has also written for them.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoff_Norcott
Still with Albaman shuffle,perhaps you should read the article
“There’s probably some truth in that. Plenty of comics have had green room discussions where opinions shared are somewhere right of Norman Tebbit circa 1982. But it’s a big leap to take those views on stage.”
My question still stands did you mean so few or so few on the BBC?
“My question still stands did you mean so few or so few on the BBC? ”
Logic would say that the dearth of “right wing” comedians will lead to the latter.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/comedy/9925435/Are-there-enough-Right-wing-comedians-on-the-BBC.html
“Are there too few right-wing comedians out there? Yes. Does that matter? Yes. Is there anything we can do about it? Probably not.”
“Logic would say that the dearth of “right wing” comedians will lead to the latter.”
Only by abductive reasoning
What if the the BBC had an inbuilt left-wing bias that made them consciously or unconsciously less likely to hire heretics and what if their bloated dominance of broadcast media meant that their preferences distorted the evolution of stand up comedy
just a thought old man just a thought.
Just a thought – but if they do not exist how can you hire them?
A very small percentage of stand up comedians who ply their trade across the UK on a nightly basis will ever appear on the BBC (or any other station). Suggesting that a perceived “bloated dominance of broadcast media” has any impact on the evolution of “right wing ” comedians is grasping at straws.
So your sticking to
‘there are no right wing comics on the BBC because there are no right wing comics
and the BBC has no influence on popular culture’ are you?
In essence yes, unless you can provide evidence that suggests otherwise.
I thought I allready had still I admire your dogmatism
‘I never find these slight names changes to be in any way amusing, just really, really childish.’
And yet, and yet…
Hitler had many Nazis enter the Catholic Church in Germany to push his ideology. It’s a Trotstkyist concept known as “entryism”, something Labour used in abundance during its thirteen year rule, not only in the Church but in all areas of the establishment, charities, etc.
Scott my simple child , what’s upset you today ?
What Cameron said,
“Britain is a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so”
What Cameron meant,
“Britain is a Christian country and we should not be afraid to say so, for we can only overcome this ancient obstacle to destroying our heritage if we admit that it exists. I am proud to be the Prime Minister which will do more in 4 years to destroy our Christian heritage than any other Prime Minister before me.”
There fixed it for him.
This is all just really stupid. Of course the “country” is christian. We have an established church that is christian. What the atheists are saying is that the people are not overwhelmingly christian. True as well. However that is not what Cameron said.
The basic tenets of atheism (I am one) is to deal in rational facts, not supernatural supposition. The UK is a christian country is a rational fact. The people may not be or atheists may not like the fact, however atheists actually not sticking to the facts is just really stupid.
Atheists are entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts. What a great way to undermine the atheist world view.
You are wrong on two counts.
1. My post above
2. There are no ‘basic tenets of atheism’ or ‘atheist world view’, there is only one basic tenent of atheism = there is no god.
That doesn’t necessarily mean a disbelief in the supernatural, or even a wish to deal in rational facts.
I’m an atheist, Rubin ( or whatever your current name is), but I still consider Britain to have Christian foundations. In addition I still respect Christian values. The militant atheists who signed the letter to the Times I consider to be as bad as the worst of religious fundamentalists. They don’t speak for me . I wouldn’t dream of questioning someone’s faith, unless they wanted to engage in civilised debate. I wouldn’t impose my views on others the way the Militants do. The likes of Dawkins, Fry, Toynbee etc., are fascists who like to impose their self-righteous views on others.
As an addendum to my post above –
I WOULD question a religion whose dogma threatened my way of life, indeed my life itself, and considered me to be some sort of non-person or sub-human. I’ve never felt threatened by any of the Christian sects, Mormon, Jehovah’s Witness, Methodists,Catholics, Baptists, etc., and even those of the Jewish faith. All their representatives have engaged in good natured debate and I like to think we have all learned something by those conversations.
It just seems to be those whose religion is Marxist/Socialism who want to be a divisive influence in society.
Quite right ( on all counts) Andy S.
In conversations (here and elsewhere) about religion I always describe myself as reasoned atheist ,in order to differentiate myself from the fundamentalist bishop bashers of the type you have illustrated.
Special agent Rubin also highlights another problem with current form of militant secularism
“That doesn’t necessarily mean a disbelief in the supernatural, or even a wish to deal in rational facts.”
Was it Chesterton that said “When people stop believing in God, they don’t believe in nothing— they believe in anything.”?
Cameron seems to have touched a nerve yet again, just like he did when he chose not to extend the QUANGO appointment of left winger Sally Morgan. The left, and their BBC mouthpiece, remember had an attack of the vapours – quangos being the property of the socialists and their vehicle, in exile, for frustrating democratically elected government.
Over the weekend, the BBC turned their megaphone up to full volume to denounce Cameron as a divisive figure. The BBC news bulletin last night was a disgraceful one sided piece; a perfunctory defensive of him by a Tory Christian nobody, enveloped by criticism at the start and the end of the item, reporting the attack on him by leading thinkers (such as Toynbee and Minchin, FFS). Even the church leader damned Cameron with feint praise – ‘he used the wrong words’.
Leading the attack was Jim Al Khalili, introduced to viewers as a professor of something or other, but most people, here, will know him as a BBC staffer. In their online version at the week-end (now disappeared) the BBC used their old trick of interviewing one of their own journalists to offer an opinion on why Cameron was in trouble on this.
Cameron has indeed touched a nerve, evidenced by the howls from the sneering, shallow, carping left, the ‘intelligentsia’, the BBC and their anti-British multicultural Marxist friends, no doubt threatened by Cameron’s call for us to have confidence in our own identity. Something that is a complete anathema to Toynbee and her privileged clique.
‘their old trick of interviewing one of their own journalists to offer an opinion on why Cameron was in trouble on this’
The tricks have abounded.
SKY couldn’t bring itself to ignore the fact that a bunch of other minority faiths have chirped up with a ‘fine by us’, so bizarrely at one stage (at least the online version I saw) alluded to this being ‘according to the Daily Mail’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2609942/Yes-Britain-IS-Christian-country-respect-Hindu-Muslim-Sikh-leaders-PM-militant-atheists-tell-quiet-religion.html
Checking the online link, it appears to be factual, so the paper-waving job succeeded only in seeing a key point emphasised and a silly hatchet job to skirt it exposed.
I don’t trust the DM any further than any of them, but playing silly buggers with such clearly relevant news (on top of the Miliband revelations) that blows the idiocy and tribal bias of the signatories’ stance apart, along with their PR media mouthpieces has again, had more than the opposite effect such as the chatterati were hoping for.
I will be ever grateful to David Cameron, that under his leadership, the mass rapes of young White girls by Muslims was exposed. If Labour had been re-elected, this horrendous crime against humanity would never have come to light.
Er, DPIII, I believe it was first flagged up by the BNP years ago, and the police ignored it……………
The police actively covered it up ,what is required is a Hilsborough type investigation of the Police ,they are as complicit in this appalling crime against humanity as the actual perpetrators ,even more so, as it is the sworn duty of the police to protect children.