Christian Voice

[mrph]

[with many thanks to taoist_goth for posting about the boycott...]

Yes, them. You know. The bunch who campaigned so loudly against the BBC screening Jerry Springer: The Opera.

They've since threatened to lead a boycott of cancer charity Maggie's Centres if it accepts any money from the Springer opera's charity fundraising performance. Presumably because they see that money as tainted. They explained this away on their site as "Cancer Charity Escapes PR Disaster".

As taoist_goth also pointed out, they're fucktards.

So. I went to their website and read a bit of their blurb. Just out of interest, as you do.

They have a section called "Britain in Sin", revisiting the Ten Commandments and detailing just what they think's wrong with the country. It's a long list, but some of the things they're against include:

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the European Convention on Human Rights, the abolition of the Witchcraft Act (1735), the United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child, the Equal Pay Act 1970, the Sex Discrimination Acts 1975 & 1986, the Education Act 1987 [because it abolished the use of the cane in schools], the Firearms (Amendment) Acts 1988 and 1997 [they're pro-gun ownership], The Sexual Offences Act 1967 [for legalising homosexual acts between consenting adults], Suspension of the Gold Standard and, er, the introduction of VAT.

They also have a "No King But Jesus" section, based around a speech by one John Ashcroft (yes, that John Ashcroft). Combine that with their view on guns and you might start to wonder just where their support is coming from...

Comments

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

Not from any of the Christians I know!

[mrph.livejournal.com]

They say that falls under "Thou shalt not steal", it seems...

[mimmimmim.livejournal.com]

Riiiiight - so they're effectively claiming that when Jesus said, on being questioned about taxation, 'render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's', he got it wrong.

On the other hand, why am I expecting these fools to behave in anything approaching a logical fashion?

[markeris.livejournal.com]

"those crimes offend Almighty God"

I don`t think that sentence can be parsed in any way to make it sensible. Whichever way you look at it theres a word that can do nothing buy contradict another word. At best, this makes the wesbite, and one assumes everyone somehow behind it, (whether organisationaly, or merely through informal support), complete and utter fucktards. At worst, which is I`m afraid the reading one is inclined to, it speaks of a complete and unacceptable arrogance, an arrogance so utter that it must surely be sectionable under the laws of this land, though I doubt they would ever be used in this case, mores the pity.

I don`t think one needs look at any of their other utterances or beliefs. Simple deconstruction of this one sentence is enough to render the rest superfluos.

[markeris.livejournal.com]

Actually, this belief that "almighty" god can be offended seems to have been the main tenet of proactive Christianity for centuries now. Not only is it an utterly ridiculous tenet, because lets face it, it doesn`t take much thought to realise that theres nothing almighty whatsoever about getting a cob on because someones spilt your pint, the more I think about it the more I can barely breathe because the arrogance just so unbelievable.

"Gods going to get his arse out because you said XX or YY. He`s totally fine with me making assumptions on his part though.". As I say. Sectionable. What else do you do to someone who is essentially claiming to be the mouth of god, and flaunts the right to bear arms? I`d like to see the lot of them in jail frankly.

[juudes.livejournal.com]

From speaking to a self-described fundamentalist christian whom I work with, I think the whole idea is that god wants the world to be a better place, and by actively campaigning against homosexuality and other evils a christian is trying to bring this about, and is therefore actually doing god's work. Obviously this all depends on one's interpretation of the bible, but according to my colleague he is sure he has it right. He hates relativism - there is truth, and there is non-truth, and either you're right or wrong. He, of course, is right, but as he pointed out, I think *I'm* right in my athiesm, so it would be false of me to pretend that I think he could be right (relatively) when I obviously think he's wrong. Or something.

Oh, and apparently 'Thou Shall Not Kill' doesn't apply in wars (but we didn't get on to a discussion about what is a war and who labels it as such).

[juudes.livejournal.com]

I did it. I went to their website and scared myself.

So: they are against the abolition of the death penalty -

"The death penalty reflects in the eyes of God the only possible way of making restitution for the offence of murder... The Biblical principles of restitution and capital punishment are written in the hearts of ordinary decent people."

They are also against The Suicide Act 1961 -

"God is the author of life. By removing the penalties from attempting suicide, the UK said that a man could be sovereign over his own life. It is a short step from there to the proposition that another might assist in the ending of that life."

I do know that if I talked to one of these people they would somehow be able to argue both of these points at once. I, on the other hand, working from the point of view of mere logical reasoning, wouldn't stand a chance.

Sheesh.

[mrbear.livejournal.com]

Oh, and apparently 'Thou Shall Not Kill' doesn't apply in wars (but we didn't get on to a discussion about what is a war and who labels it as such).


OK, I'm probably going to get my head bitten off for this, but it pisses me off so...

That commandment reads: You shall not murder and I'm afraid that many people, myself included, consider there to be a difference between 'murder' and 'killing in war'. The discussion you want should not be 'What is war?' but 'Does a soldier killing an enemy soldier count as murder'. In the eyes of the law, the answer is 'no'.

Sorry. It just annoys me when people misquote that one for the purposes of accusing Christians of hypocrisy with regard to war.

[juudes.livejournal.com]

That commandment reads: You shall not murder and I'm afraid that many people, myself included, consider there to be a difference between 'murder' and 'killing in war'.

OK, point taken.

The discussion you want should not be 'What is war?' but 'Does a soldier killing an enemy soldier count as murder'.
Which depends on your definition of soldier, which in turn depends on your definition of a 'legal war'. When you define an enemy soldier as an 'insurgent' or a 'rebel', does this make it less or more legitimate to kill them?

And where do you stand on 'collateral damage'?

[mrph.livejournal.com]

As I've replied to mrbear, the exact wording depends on the translation. The American Standard and the King James have 'Thou Shalt Not Kill', most of the others say 'murder'.

[markeris.livejournal.com]

I personally, whether Christianity is brought into it or not, cannot consider defining the delibarate act of one human killing another human, where that other humans death is against their wishes, as anything other than murder, in any cirumstance I can possibly imagine to be the height of hypocrisy.

Sure, I can conceive that you can justify murder in certain situations. It`s still murder. Yes it`s legal. Forgive me if I can`t quite see why this matters. Indeed, I find the justification that the law of a land can overide what is considered to be the written law of god laughable on top of the hypocrisy.

[markeris.livejournal.com]

Although obviously, I`d much rather as it goes (in as much as the laws of a given land are, on balance, on the side of reason) that people respected the laws of a land in preference to their interpretations of the bible. mumble mumble.

(sorry Morph. I`ll stop being cantankerous and contentious in your LJ now)

[juudes.livejournal.com]

I find the justification that the law of a land can overide what is considered to be the written law of god laughable on top of the hypocrisy.
If you read the website, that's precisely the point that they are making, with regard to the legistlation around human rights, which supposedly goes against the word of god. So they're trying to have their cake and eat it, as far as I'm concerned!

[markeris.livejournal.com]

Yes. I kind of argued back against myself just above there for this reason. I`d rather this not happen really.

[mrph.livejournal.com]

...but the King James says "Thou Shalt Not Kill", of course. Which brings us back to the "which translation is most accurate" point, which seems to come up quite often.

Given the number of other complaints I've heard about it, I'd suspect it's not the King James.

[juudes.livejournal.com]

Well, it would be nice to be able to read ancient Greek, or Aramaic, or whatever the original was written in. Sounds suspiciously like a modern-day fudge: "oh look, the last translation said 'kill' and that got us into a lot of trouble, so let's change it to 'murder'. That has a more flexible interpretation."

Which leads, of course, to the killing of doctors that perform abortions: that's not really 'murder' because They Started It.

[karohemd.livejournal.com]

I'm lost for words...

[giggly-teapot.livejournal.com]

What I think is a laugh Nick prat features who does the morning show on LBC was raving on about how bad The Jerry Springer was, and why it should not be shown on T.V.
Only to be blow out of the water by a listerner who remembered that his radio station advertised the show non-stop, infact Nick prat, even run a competition to give away tickets to the dam thing.
Smacks of

1 double standards
2 an extremely shorr memory

Don't you just love it when the media shoot themselves in the foot

[dakiara.livejournal.com]

It's probably best for some people that I am not a deity and thus incapable of smiting by a thought alone... hopefully there are not that many of them and the charity will not suffer from their twisted logic.