Translate

Showing posts with label disestablishmentarianism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label disestablishmentarianism. Show all posts

Saturday, 29 September 2018

Is an executed revolutionary the co-equal of the eternal and supreme Abrahamic God?

executed revolutionary < God

God > executed revolutionary

Before the Doctrine of the Trinity Act 1813, it was blasphemy to say this.

In 1600 at the behest of John Calvin, Michael Servetus was burned at the stake for denying the Trinity.

Jews and Muslims regarded the doctrine of the Trinity as idolatrous and the Inquisition was conducted to keep them in line.

If God exists He must wish to punish Christians for what is undeniably idolatry. Some might suppose that the wheels of this particular engine have been set in motion.

Jews believe that Satan is God's Prosecuting Counsel. This rather suggests His modus operandi is to lay down the law and then give us the rope we need to hang ourselves after giving us freewill and the capacity to reason. He even helpfully sends the occasional prophet or prophetess to show us the way even if the result sometimes ends in the persecution and execution of these prophets, after which God sent the Romans to punish the Jews by depriving them of their homeland for 2000 years.

The Jews now have their homeland, but it is not a theocracy, but rather a liberal democracy and a colonial outpost of a corrupt and declining empire up to its ears in usurious debt spreading its abomination of gay marriage around the world and turning our global village into Sodom and Gomorrah, doubtless attracting the same punishment.

If the West is now Post Christian, it must be because most people cannot bring themselves to believe in such an absurdity after being given the legal option not to do so.

This meant however meant that the baby of Biblical morality has been thrown out with the bathwater of the Trinity.

We must remember that Christianity was not enough to save Rome and bear in mind that the world's most powerful church, the Catholic Church, is unlikely to ever regain its moral authority after it is swept away by a tsunami of sex scandals.

Islam has never relied on a parasitic priesthood to maintain morality. The closest thing to a priesthood in an Islamic State would be the judiciary interpreting sharia. Any advanced civilisation would already have a judiciary.

An Islamic theocracy would be lean and efficient guaranteeing a small state with the taxpayer protected by a constitutional right not to pay more than a flat rate income tax of 20% (8:38-41) while discouraging the existence of two parasitic classes:

1) a corruptible priesthood and

2) immoral women who are unmarried mothers and bad parents producing the next generation of criminals senior men in politics no longer dare criticise for fear of being accused of a historic sexual offence, when an accusation is as good as a conviction, ignoring or forgetting the rule in Deuteronomy 19:15 because Westerners both Jew and gentile who are about to acquire an Islamic heritage have lost their Judeo-Christian heritage.

Theocracy is to Islam what the Trinity is to Christianity.

The Koran guarantees freedom of belief with 2:256 and it is believed that Thomas Jefferson who owned a copy based the First Amendment on this verse.

Were Britain to become an Islamic State, the Church of England would be disestablished and the monarch could become its head, rather than the Archbishop of Canterbury. It would be interesting to see if Charles takes up this role, or converts to Islam. If he becomes the head of the Anglican Church and then converts to Islam, then it would mean the extinction of the Church of England. The French Revolutionaries used the assignat to acquire church property for their own purposes.

Friday, 10 March 2017

My support for the British monarchy is waning

I have always supported the monarchy but am wondering if it is time to abolish it because it is a relic of the past. To abolish it would be a symbolic gesture to declare monarchies obsolete in a modern world. Monarchies imply that the extended family of a single person is a big enough pool of political talent to choose a nation's leader, when it clearly is not.

The Queen should have made way for Charles before. No one wants an old king in our cult of youth. It is as if she wants to spoil things for him.

Compare and contrast the British monarch with the Dutch. The old monarch would stand aside for the son with an attractive wife and family, to give his sails a good wind.

If you wanted to preserve the monarchy, this is what you would do, since you are nothing more than a ornament, after all, or at the most a living exhibit of the most recent iteration of your royal ancestors.

Once the monarchy is abolished the Anglican Church will logically and necessarily be disestablished.

Christianity, already a walking corpse, will then finally die and be finally replaced by a religion fit for the purpose of maintaining morality, requiring that a nation's laws be in harmony with its morality.


Postscript
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19876372  seems an infinitely better way of choosing our leaders than the system we have now, which only allows us access to a succession of fools and knaves. If there were a grammar school in every borough, the quality and range of possible leaders of the future would be even wider and better. This proposal will predictably be blocked by MPs who pay school fees not wanting the children of the hoi polloi competing with their children, but since when did our MPs ever consider the national interest in anything they do? While the Chinese Communist Party at least requires its members to promote the national interest, the British remain clueless as to what that might be.

Friday, 15 January 2016

How gay is Christianity? It is very very very gay indeed.


Yeah but no, but yeah, but no ... 


http://www.churchmilitant.com/video/episode/half-of-priests-and-bishops-are-gay

Thursday, 21 June 2012

How to solve the problem of the 6M mentally ill British

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01jxryl#synopsis


Stigmatise, stigmatise, stigmatise.

The whole thing is a fucking racket anyway to con money out of the mentally insecure and their government.

The more you tolerate them the more there will be of the mentally-ill to tolerate.

Our Culture of Excuses has its origins in tolerance of crap like this.  They used to be locked up in institutions and now, after tolerating them, MPs are now coming out as mentally ill.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2159431/Series-MPs-admit-suffering-mental-illness-time-including-OCD-postnatal-depression.html

Before too long it will be COMPULSORY to be mentally ill to become an MP as well as being a fool and a knave.

Feeling the blues is not a mental illness.  There are often perfectly good reasons for you to be blue if you feel the future is bleak, a loved one has died and you have been dumped.

The pain means you should do something about it rather than medicate.

Also, calling forms of bad behaviour mental illness, especially in children, just allows the shit mothers of Britain excuse themselves for their shit parenting and medicate them at the expense of the taxpayer if they are slut single mums who are a burden on the state, or their unfortunate husbands who do not know that their wife is a shit mum who cannot bring up his children properly. Are they even his, he should wonder.   Most British women are sluts after all, in this country of compulsory fornication.  Time to get a DNA test?

As far as I am concerned, the only form of mental illness we should take account of is actual insanity, when people hear the voice of God telling them to go and kill people, or are permanently and fundamentally mistaken about the some important fact.   (This would include our political establishment, interestingly.)

Everything else is just bad behaviour, bad parenting, stupidity, fecklessness, lack of character and a bad nature.

To remoralilse the British and give them better mental health, bring back religion and scare the hell into of them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1358421/The-tantalising-proof-belief-God-makes-happier-healthier.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2161985/A-divine-deterrent-Populations-strong-belief-Hell-lower-crime-rates-according-study.html

I would be the person to consult about a new religion for the British, as I have been directing my mind to this question for a long time now.

First, disestablish the Church of England (which is full of dangerous Commie Pinko Liberal Homosexualists and Feminists).

Secondly, establish the Mosque of Britain which will have Anglican forms of worship (including hymns and carols and pews and dog collars), but without all the trinitarian crap and the clergymen who shamelessly promote gay marriage, like the Archbishop of Cunt and Reverend Richard Coles who has the dullest and most pointless show on Radio 4 but is paid to do so by the matriarchal BBC because he is gay and shamelessly promotes gay marriage, which is the sort of crap white middle class liberals and the women who run the BBC approve of.

Everything in the Book of Common Prayer that does not contradict the Koran should be used again, especially the scarier and more condemnatory bits.  

Friday, 4 November 2011

The mystery of the Trinity cannot be solved without ceasing to be a Christian and the time has come to disestablish the Church of England


According to Christians, Christ was more than a prophet of God, he was God Himself.

So, God seduced Mary (in the way that Zeus had a habit of doing to mortal women listed at http://devdutt.com/the-infidelities-of-zeus/), gave birth to Himself, and then sacrificed Himself to save us from our sins.

The Holy Spirit is just the agency of God (and Christ) through which miracles are accomplished, and therefore all three are one.   How can this be, you ask?  The cleverer Christian clergy would invite you to imagine a pyramid with three facets ...

The Inquisition was all about forcing people to say they believe in this SHIT.

These days, ignorant Christians don't even know they are supposed to believe in this SHIT.

The truth is that the Pope and the Archibishop of Cant doesn't either, nor does your vicar or "vicaress", who will be instantly uncomfortable the moment you ask him or her about the Trinity.

The Church will be happy if it manages to get an ignorant congregation to uncomprehendingly recite the Nicene creed.

Muslims and Jews of course deny the Trinity because they see through the SHIT that it all is, and that is why Christians hate and fear them with such visceral virulence.  Occasionally, the hatred and fear of Christians of those who do not share their Trinitarian beliefs is manifested in great events of bloodletting and persecution, eg the Crusades and the Inquisition, with a few pogroms here and there over the centuries, the most recent of which was Hitler's Madagascar Plan.

Christianity as a religion should be dumped precisely because it is both TOTALITARIAN and DIVISIVE. Once it got over being totalitarian and divisive and started being ECUMENICAL and INCLUSIVE it proved to be UTTERLY INEFFECTUAL

Charles the future king would go along with this from the sound of things.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Follow-Islamic-way-save-world-Charles-urges-environmentalists.html

If Charles had been Muslim he wouldn't have had such a hard time over Diana and Camilla, nor would Edward have suffered the loss of his throne for his love for Mrs Simpson, who might have been an OK Queen, who knows.

Actually, if Henry Tudor had been Muslim, there would have been none of the problems he had over defying Rome about finding a wife to bear him a son, the fallout of which has  resulted in centuries of religious persecution by Christians of other Christians.

And that is why I say it is time to disestablish the Church of England (which is these days full of Socialists, Commies, Liberals, Feminists and subversives like the Archbishop of Cant who have made it unfit for the purpose of instilling in the British respect for the institutions of Family and Marriage).  British Muslims in particular should not be afraid to say this.

Wednesday, 27 April 2011

Orwell Prize debate on the monarchy: ‘is it time to make monarchy history?’ OR Joan Smith is a fat arrogant old trollop and she is NOT better than the Queen

described as "babyish" by Peter Hitchens
http://theorwellprize.co.uk/events/orwell-prize-shortlist-2011-announcement-and-debate/

This was a debate of particular interest to me as I had been in a few spats with a number of Facebook friends recently.  It seemed outrageous that so many of the Liberal Left such as Martin Amis actually think they are better than the Queen.  Amis gratuitously insults her and the Royal Family for not having read any of his books and no one really thinks much about this curious phenomenon of Liberal Left writers who think themselves as several degrees above the monarch even as their own family morals are mired in filth and degradation.  In Martin Amis's case I am of course referring to the tragic life of Sally Amis described at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sally_Amis


Before it started I chatted briefly to David Cohen of the Evening Standard, who was on the longlist for the journalism prize.  He has very dark intense eyes which I found rather alarming, and his wife I found perfectly charming.  It was the first time he had entered for the journalism prize he told me.  He is not related to Nick Cohen, who was once my Facebook friend.

The debate was kick-started by the audience being asked to raise their hands by Jodie Ginsberg the Chair if they agreed with the proposition.  She observed that roughly a third put their hand up.  No attempt was made to ask the views of those who disagreed, or even the don't knows, or whether anyone had changed their minds after the debate.

Typical left-wing bias, I thought to myself.

The first speaker was Gerry Stoker who appeared to be neutral about the monarchy, drawing our attention to the third verse of God Save the Queen, and making the point that she reigns rather than rules.

The second speaker was Ian McLean pointed out that that in our tri-cameral system (Monarch, Lords and Commons) only one was elected and that was undemocratic and an injustice crying to the heavens to be avenged, apparently.

Joan Smith was wearing a very short dress and reminded me of a character in the the Kenny Everett Television Show.

"the pneumatic American starlet Cupid Stunt, for whom Everett coined the catchphrase "all in the best pahssible taste!", as "she" crossed her legs with an extravagant lack of discretion"

Nothing wrong with her legs, but any woman over a certain age who flaunts them in this distastefully distracting way must be single and looking, I imagine.  She even remarked perhaps with an attempt at flirtatiousness that Peter Hitchens would have been her ideal man were it not for the fact that he is wrong about everything.  Peter Hitchens is married, and has better sense than to be aroused by an arrogant fat trollop like her, I like to think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_Smith suggests that no sensible man would touch her with a bargepole, not even the stupidest warmongering cunt of a  Labour politician who supports the war in Afraqbya, not even if he is called Dennis McShane ...

Smith attended the Queen's Garden Party, smiled and said hello to the Queen without observing the protocols curtsying first, so the Queen cut her dead.  That must have punctured her ego - about the size of a football stadium, probably - and from that moment on she thought the monarchy must be abolished.  One of her sillier comments was that our monarch should be elected and then, after seven years, another elected.  It doesn't have to be me necessarily, I think she also said, with a mockery of modesty.  If we did have a Queen Joan, I think the monarchy would be abolished pronto, so perhaps this is something the Republicans ought to consider.  It is possible that a Queen Joan would arouse the populace into such a fury that they will behead her, but perhaps the Republicans will consider it a sacrifice well worth making for such a noble cause.

Peter Hitchens said that he was making a point of smiling back at Joan Smith every time she smiles at him, to avoid the possibility of Joan Smith calling for the abolition of Peter Hitchens.

Said Peter Hitchens:

"You wouldn't know anyone who would approve of the monarchy, would you? And even if they did they wouldn't dare tell you."

This particular FemiNazi protocol.of Tory men making obeisance to Joan Smith by men was rather interesting and helps me warm to my theme that this country is having its face sat on and can no longer breathe, let alone complain intelligibly.   The men can only weakly gesticulate underneath her skirts and I can just make out their pathetically muffled cries.

Fear not O Men of Britain, Auntie Claire is coming to your rescue! Only Auntie Claire dares to say the things that need to be said about feminism that even the BNP are afraid to say!  

Sunder Katwala made the most surprising and heart-warming speech of all.  Being a Lefty he is a Republican but, being a democrat, sees that the abolition of the monarchy must be done only by majority consent which the Republican movement has signally failed to harness.  (I really do think if we want to abolish the monarchy all we have to do is substitute for just one month Elizabeth Windsor with Joan Smith and then sit back to see Britain arouse itself into a foaming ocean of Regicidal Republican Wrath ...

Non-whites Britons are more pro-monarchy than the white British citizens, he pointed out.  If we want to have a Republic, we would have to persuade the public.

Even with the help of four Republican newspapers: The Observer, The Guardian, The Independent and The Times, the Republicans still cannot win the argument, it was pointed out.

What is so wonderful about elections, Peter Hitchens asked, and a very good question it was too.  Someone else other than the Prime Minister should be able to recall Parliament, but he did not say whom.

I forget whom it was who said that "The monarchy is like the king on a chessboard - it doesn't do much but it means the difference between losing and winning."

Peter Hitchens said he is a monarchist and not a royalist, and therefore couldn't care less about the royal wedding.  Apparently, Charles was advised not to meet Peter Hitchens by one of his advisers.  I wonder why and by whom.  I do hope Charles will meet me one day and perhaps think of making me a dame, because I have so many lovely ideas for the monarchy, chief of which is to disestablish the unfit for purpose Church of England and to establish a new state religion called Anglican Islam which is based on Secular Koranism. They should hear me out, they really really should.

Once this is done I could step into be the High Priestess of Anglican Islam and basically just sort everything out for the benighted British and make them see light again.

Martin Bright http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Bright said Charles should not be made King because he is too political.

Someone rather spitefully suggested that the Royal Family's exemption from the Freedom of Information Act be revoked.

Ian McLean (in answer to Peter Hitchens' question "What has the monarchy ever stopped us from doing that we should wish to abolish it?") said that monarchy was an obstacle to freedom of religion and equality. Although I had a word with Ian McLean later, I never got to the bottom of it.  McLean (who is a Quaker) said it was an outrage that bishops in the House of Lords could forbid liberal Jews and Quakers from blessing civil partnerships in their liberal synagogues and their liberal friends' houses. Since it does say that in the Bible that homosexuality is an abomination, I cannot quite see why even liberal Jews and Christians should wish to bless people who are committing abominations in the eyes of those who are Jews and Christians.

In any case, how is this the fault of the Queen?

Liberal feminist atheists have really gone mad with arrogance, I fear.   The awful frightening thing is that people like them are now in charge of the ship of state and would wish to destroy everything that normal sensible people hold dear just because they can and it amuses them to do so.  It is really really time they are stopped.  

Thursday, 17 June 2010

Join the BNP and meet the Queen?

Floyd Codlin has rather naughtily suggested to me on Facebook yesterday:

"given that Mr Griffin has invited himself to the Queens Garden party, can we take it that you'll be "this is proof we're not racist" arm candy on the great day.."

I must confess that this has played rather on my imagination.  I am persuaded that it would be rather good PR for the Party and I think I could sacrifice just one Thursday to visit Buckingham Palace, for the good of the Party.  If truth be told, I now find myself practising very low curtsies and rehearsing what to say when I am asked: "And what do you do?"

Will Prince Charles be there?  We could have a good old discussion about Islam and its environmental friendliness and sustainability.  If Henry VIII had been Muslim, he would not have had any problem divorcing Catherine of Aragon when she failed to give him a son.  Indeed, he could have just kept her and married Jane Seymour too.  In fact, if Charles had been Muslim, he would not have had to wait that long to marry Camilla.

I may even suggest to the Chairman that it may be an idea to now promise to disestablish the Church of England in our next manifesto.  It is high time the Church of England - so hostile to the BNP - to be subjected to a spot of disestablishmentarianism and a religion more fit for purpose established in its place.  I propose calling it The Mosque of Racially-Inclusive British Nationalism (or perhaps just The Mosque of Britain), but with the clergy wearing the same kind of vestments as before and the same hymns sung, so as not to alarm the populace unduly.  Excised will be any reference to the Trinity and banned forever the barbaric practice of pretending to drink Christ's blood and eat Christ's flesh.

Finally, instead of the Archbishop of Canterbury we can have an Ayatollah of Cambridge - I have in mind that thrillingly bearded Islamic scholar with his deep mellifluous tones and his sensationally sensible views.

What do people think?

Thursday, 10 June 2010

Another reason to convert to Islam?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285332/Follow-Islamic-way-save-world-Charles-urges-environmentalists.html

Another reason to be Muslim, according to Prince Charles.

Maybe the BNP should promise to disestablish the Church of England so he can convert to Islam?

Henry VIII would have been a happier husband and the English a happier reign if their king had been Muslim.

Islam allows divorce. Orthodox Judaism and Catholicism, hypocritically, does not.

Wednesday, 9 December 2009

Depression, dementia, atheism and A NEW NATIONAL RELIGION!

Hark at the journos and politicians prating about dementia, depression and the parlous state of mental health the British are in.

My solution would be to disestablish the Church of England and invite tenders from various religious organisations so that a new religion that is better for the long-term national interest of the British Nation can be established.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I am under the impression that people's mental health tend to improve when they think someone who is Omniscient, Eternal and Omnipotent is their Best Friend.

Perhaps even I could help by developing further the idea of Secular Koranism? It is a synthesis of philosophy and religion combined into a distinct and cohesive ideology. It asserts that the Koran is a good enough guide, even for those who do not believe in God.

The Cult of Reason and Supreme Being ("CORASB")

The practice of submitting to Truth, Reason and Reality (if that is what God is, if God exists) is capable of both being a philosophy and a religion.

To start a Cult of Reason and The Supreme Being that is mutually indivisible is therefore logically possible and politically desirable.

Imagine: a religion and philosophy capable of appealing to both atheists and monotheists ....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_the_Supreme_Being

Thursday, 3 April 2008

Replacing the Archbishop of Canterbury with an Arch-Philosopher?

To disestablish the Church would mean that this country no longer has a state religion. At the moment the state religion is the Church of England which, as we all know, was established by Henry VIII to remove England from Papal control and influence.

By doing so, he intended that no monarch who is a Catholic would ever legitimately reign over England.

What of the reign of Bloody Mary? The only explanation is that Henry's last will and testament, which was made on the basis of blood relationship, gender and seniority of his various children by his various wives, omitted to take into account the fact that his eldest daughter, born of Catherine of Aragon, Catholic through and through, would become Queen when his sickly son Edward died young.

No doubt the one who drafted Henry's will would have lost his head had Henry been alive to accuse and find him guilty of professional negligence. After Mary died the succession passed to Elizabeth. If she had any inclination towards Catholicism, she in her wisdom knew it would no longer be politic to be open about them after her sister's Catholic reign had so traumatised the country.

If you disestablish the Church, then it means that those who become monarchs can be free to embrace any religion they please WITHOUT making it the state religion. In my opinion it would be a good thing, precisely because you never know which religion a monarch might embrace and give the British periodic opportunities to discuss the relative merits of different religions. Catholicism? Islam? Mormonism? Buddhism? Who knows? But it would be a private matter and vary from monarch to monarch.

If Prime Ministers who wield real power are allowed to have freedom of faith, then I see no reason why a constitutional monarch with no political power should not be allowed to do so.

Because of this, the objections raised against a Catholic succession no longer apply.

Since it is Prime Ministers who hold power, I would be more in favour of an Arch-Philosopher (who should be preferably an atheist in order that they have the requisite intellectual flexibility and can be more easily seen as non-partisan) to serve as the Conscience of the Prime Minister. As a species, it is in fact Prime Ministers who are most in need of an Official Conscience of flesh and blood that is rooted in philosophy rather than a child-like belief in an invisible magic friend.

It has been pointed out by the Buddha that belief in God is but another form of attachment, which, as all Buddhists know, is the root of all suffering. The goal of being a Buddhist is to achieve enlightenment. Enlightenment, as we all know, equips those who have it with an indifference to suffering and death without the need to believe in the existence of God.

As a nod to Plato's recommendation that society should be ruled by Philosopher Kings, an Arch-Philosopher would be just the thing to replace the ineffectual and redundant position that is currently the Archbishop's. After all, it is not the constitutional monarch that is in need of a spiritual adviser, but the Prime Minister who is in need of a moral guide and a philosophical adviser!

Mark Parker entertains doubts

26:00  Psyop is just another word for state propaganda. 35:39 @DigitalGnosis ​​I dont believe Homer was a person Homer was a pagan. There wi...