"faces disciplinary procedures"
Ironically enough, he's buggered!
The chaplain to the London Stock Exchange has offered a "full and complete" apology for suggesting on his blog that gay men should carry tattooed health warnings. The Rev Peter Mullen, who's also rector of St Sepulchre without Newgate and St Michael's Cornhill, caused a bit of rumpus by declaring: "It is time that religious …
My point is that bigots like this peice of pond-scum claim to be OK with individual "sinners", but claim that anyone who simply admits in public to being gay is "promoting" the gay "lifestyle".
He makes it sound as if he's against the mythical gay kidnap-and-brainwash-your-kids brigade, when he really just wishes that gays go away entirely because they make him uneasy.
Personally can't see what the problem is. If I'm going to sleep with a man I'd like to know if he was gay or not. Euw, gay men. Not my cup of tea. Now give me a straight one any day of the week. Just don't tell the wife.....
Paris, as even she's got more sense than to make idiotic plank boy comments like that.
Fine, I am A-OK with these kind of warnings, but we must be fair about it.
WARNING - RELIGION KILLS
WARNING - RELGION PROMOTES HATRED FEAR AND MURDER
So much for 'love they neighbour'.
Honestly I wouldn't mind the religious if they just weren't so god-damn annoying. Why don't they either grow a brain (c.f. critical thinking), or grow up (c.f. gods are invisible friends for grown ups).
It's bizarre that here in the 21st century bronze aged woo woo is still with us, arguably the proof that there is Extra Terrestrial Intelligence elsewhere in the cosmos is that they have NOT tried to contact us.
I wonder if some woo woo loving editor at el-Reg censors this?
Time those evil shellfish eaters were cast out aswell. Do you know only last week I saw a child missbehaving in our local supermarket and his mother completely failed to take him outside and stone him to death. No wonder our society is in such a state when we suffer these lapses in morals.
"I was not actually meaning to criticise individual homosexual persons, but the promoters of gay culture."
This is consistent with the above principle. He is explicitly exempting "individual persons" from his criticism and focussing on behaviour he doesn't like.
"Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed with the slogan SODOMY CAN SERIOUSLY DAMAGE YOUR HEALTH and their chins with FELLATIO KILLS."
This isn't. It clearly targets homosexuals whether or not they are actively promoting gay culture.
I don't think this chap's position is tenable. He comes across as someone who knows his views are unacceptable and who has hitherto managed to keep them quiet but who has suffered a momentary loss of control and blurted out everything. Now he wants to wind the clock back.
This post has been deleted by its author
Doesn't matter if you agree with what he says or not, you should defend his right to say it (even if he later retracts it :p ).
"I'm extremely defensive of free speech but I do believe 'hate speech' should not be tolerated."
No you are not...... you are only "extremely defensive" when agreed with or when your choices are not being knocked.
He made a stupid comment that some found offensive, nothing more and nothing less. Get over it...............
What the hell - lighten up. The guy was having a laugh on his blog. He didnt mean it.
Freedom of speech and all that. Its satire - doubly protected.
Oh, and @ Stuart Harrison "How do you promote gay culture" - think Gok Wan or whatever hes called.
Im perfectly happy for gay people to be given equal rights, were all human, but I find it a bit much having that moron being given airtime to do nothing more that promote gay culture. If its truly not a lifestyle choice (and I believe you), then get him off my TV. Seriously, hes undone years of good for the gay rights movement.
This person should be entitled to satirise in exactly the same way as yould all be supporting if the comments were against Islam.
As the old adage says, "Never a truer word spoken in jest.", by that I mean you showed us your true colours. Off the cuff remarks often jump from the subconscious showing our real beliefs, without us realising.
Sorry, but you had time to think it through before you typed it into your blog, the world will be a better place without prats like you! Good riddance!
The original story was that the comments were made with his tongue firmly in his cheek -fnaar fnarr.
Personally, I PMSL when this story first broke as it was completely ridiculous.
I suggest that everyone gets of their high horses and chill.
The guy is probably going to get a ***licking (make you own mind up here).
"These comments are now being looked at internally within the Diocese and he faces disciplinary procedures."
"looked at internally" Isn't this how they deal with the child abusers? I guess he will be shipped out to a sleepy back water to continue his homophobic hate crimes then.
Life of Brian. I don't like plums, can I have a virgin instead?
Well I think we can all agree that the guy is an idiot for thinking he could say something like that publically and not kick up a fuss, however I believe that someones personal views and their jobs should not combine. No one should be forced to resign or face disciplinary at work for something they say or do outside of work. Job and private life are not one.
There is a difference between him being entitled to hold an opinion and him calling for "discouragements of homosexual practices after the style of warnings on cigarette packets. Let us make it obligatory for homosexuals to have their backsides tattooed..."
The right to hold an opinion comes with the attendant *responsibility* not to express that opinion in a way or advocating behaviour that infringes on the right of others to live their lives in a manner that doesn't harm others.
They are kinda of permanent aren't they.
He may have meant T.A.T.U the Russian lesbian band and 3rd place Eurovision contestant (cheated they were), could have been quite kinky.
One could imagine their tight t-shirts emblazoned with the logos whilst draped on the buttocks or the lower jaw or a happy chap giving deep throat or a good seeing to at the baker's entrance.
I'm glad to hear things like this. It means that we are hearing the truth. Far too many people these days keep quiet for fear of offending, when it is not the words, but rather the attitude, that is offensive.
Best of all, this might show one or two more people that ALL religious observers are fruit-cakes, by definition.
"No one should be forced to resign or face disciplinary at work for something they say or do outside of work. Job and private life are not one."
Ordinarily a fair point, and in previous cases where people have been sacked for making unfavourable comments about their employers in a blog, I think the majority opinion has been that the employer should keep their nose out of their employees lives. (If you want to control my actions for all 168 hours of the week, you will have to quadruple my pay just for starters, chum!)
I would, however, offer two complications in this case. Firstly, I believe the official line of the CofE is that the ministry is not a job. (Either that, or it's a job but the employer is God, not any human agency.) Therefore, you might argue that those under holy orders are "at work" 24/7.
Secondly, if you do or say something outside work that indicates you aren't qualified for the job, then you should expect your employer to consider your position. In fact, if your job places you in a position of trust and you don't deserve that trust, perhaps your employer has an obligation to do so. (Duty of care to the rest of society and all that.)
To strike off on a completely different tack, consider a person who believes that children of a difference sex, race or religion are inherently inferior and don't deserve the full attention of the school system. You might defend their right to speak their views, but you probably wouldn't want to employ them as a teacher.
"Doesn't matter if you agree with what he says or not, you should defend his right to say it (even if he later retracts it :p )."
"He made a stupid comment that some found offensive, nothing more and nothing less. Get over it"
No, he felt his position of power and privelege allows him to encourage others of the same mindset to abuse and denigrate a section of society he has issues with. He has put his hand up and declared himself to be a disgusting bigot of the first order and deserving of all the ridicule and reprobation he has since received.
As others have said, whether serious or not, his purpose was to promote the subjugation of homosexuals just as the Nazis did the Jews (and others) and as white Americans did to black Americans. The difference between the Nazis and this bigot is that where the Nazis picked on people who had made a lifestyle choice, he wants to attack people for something that is inherent. Which makes him even more despicable. The only reason he didn't include blacks or women, who have also borne the brunt of religious bigotry, is that, by and large, you can easily tell whether a person is black or female without additional tagging!
Being gay doesn't make you any more of a threat to society than does the fact that you might be black, a redhead, male, or female. It's just that some people who make a choice to follow a particular religion or creed often need to find some group of people they are against just to make themselves feel good.
Of course, he is free to say these things, so that we can then properly judge him for the idiot that he is and ensure that he is removed from any position where he might be able to convince other similar idiots that he knows what he is talking about!
It's undoubtedly necessary to be at least self-delusional to promote religion, since anyone who doesn't think so is kidding themselves.
Is this man any more badly affected than his peers for having strayed a bit off-campus? Who knows, he might be a little black kettle himself?
Bill, 'cos he's just beatific.
"I believe that someones personal views and their jobs should not combine. No one should be forced to resign or face disciplinary at work for something they say or do outside of work."
I usually agree with that, but it might be different when your job is to tell people what to think -- e.g. a clergyman. In such cases, what you personally believe can have quite some impact on your "job"...
By the same reasoning, I don't think I'd like to have surgery done on me or any of my loved ones by a physician who personally does not believe in the germ theory of disease (and acts accordingly), let's say. :-)
Sure, the guy has the right to say what he thinks like anyone else and arguably it's better he were honest than just a closet homophobe.
However, if the organisation he works for is to be believed, he's also supposed to be some kind of representative of a system that's alleged to make people better humans.
Even if he doesn't have any legal obligation not to act like a tool in public, his employers may well have their own opinion.
>>"The difference between the Nazis and this bigot is that where the Nazis picked on people who had made a lifestyle choice, he wants to attack people for something that is inherent."
I suppose you could argue that way regarding the case of going after people seen as a threat to the regime (communists, trade unionists, etc), but I don't think they actually considered being Jewish, Roma, Slav, etc as a lifestyle choice made by an individual.
Who people's parents and grandparents are isn't something they have much choice about.
It's really pretty simple; does he have a right to free speech - damn right he does. Does he have a right to keep his place as a moral leader? we'll that's up to the CoE, but if they say yes, then the I for one, wouldn't accept the word of the CoE.
Humour has never been an excuse - if it is, I've got some amazing joke about religion.
This says it all really...
By all means let people gather together and associate with others who have the same beliefs. However, it is time we stopped protecting all practices held in the name of "religion", especially when such practices would be otherwise condemned as hate crimes, child abuse, rape, or assault causing bodily harm if they did not hide behind the shield of "religion".
He might have the "right" to say what he said. He definitely should have the "right" to be prosecuted for inciting hatred and bodily harm (and if you don't think a forced tatoo is bodily harm, let me use this needle on you...).
When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind him that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate.
I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws and how to best follow them.
When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. How should I deal with this?
I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as it suggests in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?
I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness (Lev. 15:19-24). The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.
Lev. 25:44 states that I may buy slaves from the nations that are around us. A friend of mine claims that this applies to the Irish but not Welsh. Can you clarify?
I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?
A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 10:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?
Lev. 20:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear prescription glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
It's good to see the good old C of E (aka Catholic lite) flex its muscles and demonstrate that it is every bit as hypocritical, ignorant and deserving of contempt as its siblings in the Abrahamic stable of religious stupidity.
Teaching scepticism from birth would be a smart move. Hobbling all mullahs and priests also. Stupid fsckers.
The Criminal Justice Bill falls short of covering homophobic bigoted comments like this and should be amended again.
After this 'man' should be given to golden boot.
Remind me again how many figures within the church have abused children and people within their flock and they try and cover this up, and how many have gone unreported ?
I am all for free speech and expression of an opinion but this way steps over the mark of human decency from a person in such position
Richard - Glasgow
FOOTPRINTS - would he of carried a gay person ?
One night a man had a dream. He dreamed He was walking along the beach with the LORD. Across the sky flashed scenes from His life. For each scene He noticed two sets of footprints in the sand. One belonging to Him and the other to the LORD.
When the last scene of His life flashed before Him, he looked back at the footprints in the sand. He noticed that many times along the path of His life there was only one set of footprints. He also noticed that it happened at the very lowest and saddest times of His life.
This really bothered Him and He questioned the LORD about it. LORD you said that once I decided to follow you, you'd walk with me all the way. But I have noticed that during the most troublesome times in my life there is only one set of footprints. I don't understand why when I needed you most you would leave me.
The LORD replied, my precious, precious child, I Love you and I would never leave you! During your times of trial and suffering when you see only one set of footprints, it was then that I carried you.
To my mind, this clergyman has nothing for which to apologise and his comments were such as I would have made personally but if anything he toned down what I would have said about sexual perversion. Whatever the "exponents of the art" submit as normal it was never natural to attempt to service a same sex person into parenthood and this is the reason for male and female, they complement one another. This is the Normal and natural state of being. I am well aware of the belief that "if you've never tried it don't knock it" brigade bring forth but whatever they say I refer them to think as to why there are complementary sexes. If you follow their beliefs then you would have only one sex and, logically, it would be capable of feretilising itself in the manner of a hermodaphrodite. Possible more efficient but it would do away with the heed for such rituals as marriage. Whilst we are on this subject, can the exponents of "the art" explain to me the need for same sex marriages which they undertake to the potential detriment of those who, like my wife and myself, have been together for almost 50 years. If they find marriage to another person so repulsive WHY DO THEY DO IT? We have seen what happens with natural selection when species evolve by becoming more diverse. With their beliefs there would be no developement of species and we would be left with the brutish original, not a happy prospect. It is the beauty of infinite variation which marks the human race and the real beauty is that you cannot, other than very basically, plan your offspring and that is what attracts the male/female together. Viva la difference.
Hi Francis, you mistakenly clicked the black helicopter icon instead of the joking one.
Unless of course what you spouted was not satire, In which case you exemplify that which makes me despair of mankind. Even so I do wish you well and hopefully enlightenment.
Please tell me what a Poove is I can find no reference in any of my several dictionaries. Perhaps you might also tell me why the GAY community picked on a perfectly good word and corrupted it into being the opposite of it's original meaning. I have never yet met a truly gay "GAY", they have always been miserable and inward looking. I could understand the use of Gay if it were to be the fifth meaning, "Dissolute".
FO: Whatever the "exponents of the art" submit as normal it was never natural to attempt to service a same sex person into parenthood
Me: In case you haven't noticed, gay men can't reproduce with other gay men. Likewise for gay women. I'd never thought of gay sex as being an art either.
FO: If you follow their beliefs then you would have only one sex and, logically, it would be capable of feretilising itself in the manner of a hermodaphrodite.
Me: The similarity of beliefs between two gays are generally no more similar than two straights, other than the attraction to people of the same sex.
FO: can the exponents of "the art" explain to me the need for same sex marriages which they undertake to the potential detriment of those who, like my wife and myself, have been together for almost 50 years. If they find marriage to another person so repulsive WHY DO THEY DO IT?
Me: How does it potentially detriment you? And it's not that they find marriage to another person repulsive, they just don't want to do it with one of the opposite sex.
FO: We have seen what happens with natural selection when species evolve by becoming more diverse. With their beliefs there would be no developement of species and we would be left with the brutish original, not a happy prospect.
Me: Gays falling in love does not mean they have any control over their reproductive systems in order to produce both egg and sperm. Unless you envisage something even weirder when it comes to gays reproducing...
FO: It is the beauty of infinite variation which marks the human race and the real beauty is that you cannot, other than very basically, plan your offspring and that is what attracts the male/female together. Viva la difference.
Me: Except for differences between gays and straights, you mean? You are so misinformed about gays that it is hilarious. If I didn't have a chunk of free time to write this then I wouldn't have even given it a second glance.
N.B. I think Ms Bee accidentally misspelled "poof"
Can someone define the term, please?
After all, there were pink feather boas around before they were adopted by gay culture vultures, ditto leather jockstraps (ever heard of codpieces?), and most everything else you might think of as being part of gay culture has other uses.
I won't argue that there isn't gay culture: there's a certain mincing walk and a sort of lisping accent that, while not universal, are oddly common among gay men and must have been learned post-coming out.
Cut to the chase: "gay culture" is just a code phrase. What the eminent rector meant by the promotion of gay culture was "positive references to assfucking and cocksucking between two men."
Why he was so down on fellatio, I dunno, as straight men seem to hunger for it even more than gay men. And there are men for whom the pinnacle of erotic delight is their wife or g.f. approaching with a hefty strap-on ready for action.
Tux because...well, because why the hell not? He's probably a known promoter of gay culture.
"...his purpose was to promote the subjugation of homosexuals just as the Nazis did the Jews (and others) and as white Americans did to black Americans..."
What a load of hysterical drivel.
And if you think homosexuality is *not* harmful to your health.....you're just not facing reality - studies in the UK and USA have shown the following to be associated with this particular lifestyle choice:
- risk-taking, self-harm and mental illness
- substance abuse
- Gay Bowel Syndrome (name changed in the 1990s for reasons of political correctness)
- much-reduced life expectancy.
As this religionist points out - he knows homosexuals himself, so he clearly isn't a "homophobe", merely a rational person trying to get a point across about political correctness, which is costing lives when it suppresses warnings about known health risks such as these.
Fellatio kills? I never realised! My missus is obviously in for a long life but my bit-on-the-side is staring into the grave.
The anti-vicar lot should lighten up. The reverend was attempting humour - tactless humour, I grant you.
Many of the anti-gay comments are just ill-disguised prejudice. But funny.
Francis Offord - if he exists - is particularly hilarious. That or he's a complete nutter.
If this Francis Offord character actually exists, I guess he's one of those bitter little people who can't really enjoy something if they think that everyone else might also be enjoying it, or thinks that something isn't worth having unless he can convince himself that other people are plotting to take it away from him.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020