BS: Christian Persecution

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 02:10 PM

I thought this thread had expired. Perhaps it should...

Better that it hadn't been started in the first instance since its premise is largely bullshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 01:52 PM

Musket how clear a rebuttal do you need than that I just dredged up?
You DID "dream" that I said any such thing.
I have never said "we" in reference to ANY party.

I do eventually give up denying the same old false accusations.
That does not make them true!

I get so sick of you and others making up your mind about me with no justification for your prejudices, and claiming I have some agenda or other.
I have none.
Respond to what I say instead of endlessly making up dark motives for my saying it.
Of course, that would be a bit harder.
Right?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 01:29 PM

"We" there would appear pretty clearly to mean "we on the Mudcat " rather than "we in UKIP".   

Personal pronouns can indeed trap people into misunderstandings. "He said he was angry" - is that the same he the second time or someone else, and if so, whom?

I thought this thread had expired. Perhaps it should...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket curious
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 12:45 PM

I take it you're back then.

If I did make a mistake with the possessive use of "we" I am wrong. At this point, I don't believe that to be the case. It was in the UKIP thread I'm sure but could have been another. Im not dreaming, I was shocked that someone who on many subjects can come over as rational, clear headed and informative could subscribe to such shallow nonsense.

I'll save the idea of apologies for now, in case your obsessive trawling brings it up. I of course trust you to be objective and say if it is there. Funny that I have used it in debate often yet your rebuttals are few and cleverly worded.

I admitted I had an old Bay City Rollers album but because it is there in the history of posts, I'd look an idiot denying it now. Despite wishing I'd kept it "up there. "

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 11:10 AM

You have made that mistake before Musket.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 13 - 08:54 AM

"we have to my knowledge at least one regular mudcatter who claims to be a member, has been posting on other thread yet misses the opportunity to put us all right."
Who Musket?
You made a comment on another thread as if you thought I was one.
I do not know why.



Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket sans reality check
Date: 05 May 13 - 09:08 AM

Use of the word "we". Dead giveaway.





Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 05 May 13 - 03:05 PM

Musket, one of us has made a mistake.
I do not think it was me.
Not a big issue, but you should be more careful about jumping to conclusions.

Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: GUEST,Musket sans Ian
Date: 06 May 13 - 08:52 AM

In which case Keith I would humbly apologise. Your posts on the subject previously have been of the possessive use of words though, hence my attitude to some of your posts. My opinion of UKIP is not a positive one.


Subject: RE: BS: What about the UKIP then?
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 06 May 13 - 02:00 PM

Musket, I do not believe I have used the possessive with ref to any party.
You are mistaken.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,keith
Date: 03 Nov 13 - 10:33 AM

Thanks for the kind wishes McGrath.

My faith has not been an issue here.
We are all against persecution unless greg meant what he said.
If one group is bearing the brunt of oppression in recent years, it can not be wrong to point that out.

His declared support for UKIP

Made up.
I have never expressed such support, and don't.

Look up the thread if you can be arsed, see his comparison of Christians leaving their homelands versus Muslims "coming over here. "

Also made up.
I have never made any such comparison.
In reply to Don claiming Muslims are persecuted in Britain I pointed out that Christians are being forced to leave their homelands while Muslims choose to migrate into UK.
That is evidence against their persecution here.
That is all.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 06:17 AM

Fine. Ok. Right you are.

Pointing out Christians suffering from persecution is abhorrent as it is divisive and elitist, saying, not inferring but actually bloody saying... That the life of a Christian is more important than the life of anyone without that particular imaginary friend.

It is also in line with a concerted effort by the Anglican movement to highlight reasons for society in general to take them more seriously, as they complain of losing influence. Losing influence, described as persecution by one ex Archbishop of Canterbury.

Keith seems to be doing his bit. Pillocks like us are then expected to fall for it.

Your next point?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 05:24 AM

If Keith were running for office, it would make sense to try to unravel 'his true colours". But in a discussion it makes a lot more sense to focus on the actual topic.

The significance being his wish to highlight what happens to Christians, not what happens to minorities anyway.

Clearly so, that's pretty clearly signposted in the thread title. If I started a thread about Romanian Folk Music it'd be because I wished to "highlight" Romanian Folk Music, not because I wanted to pour derision on the folk music of other countries, or other types of Romanian music.

Of course a thread can quite properly range into wider issues, but that wasn't what happened here. It wasn't about comparing the situation of other persecuted minorities, but rather about marginalising the scale and significance of the persecution of Christians in many countries.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 05:20 AM

Stop getting touchy. If the cap fits and all that, but I hadn't really considered you when trying to prick the bubble of pomposity. You do tend to take sides rather than be objective, but that's just an observation. I have faults too.

Me? I can't belittle faiths other than my own, on account of being bottom of the table. Only managed a draw against bloody Barnsley yesterday for Clapton's sake.... Mind you, when any sanctimonious sod, of which there are a few here, say that "As a Christian" etc it just reinforces my point. As a wanker, my right arm is stronger than my left. Just as valid and just as pertinent to the point being made.

Anyway, nice to be in a thread and not take the exact opposite view of Jim Carroll. I did say he could start an argument in an empty room, but to be fair to him, Keith misrepresents his points more than he takes Keith's out of context. A plague on both their houses. With the proviso that the abortion context of Eire is one of the best reasons I can think of for civilised countries pushing religions to the fringes and not letting them interfere with reality. If you don't, you end up with the poor buggers in USA seeing how Dumbfuckistan is crippling their government.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 04:29 AM

Bograt, it would be helpful if you made it clear who your diatribes are directed at.

If me, I'll repeat - I am not an 'apologist'. At no time have I expressed support for KoH or what you and a couple of others perceive as his 'agenda', in fact I have expressed condemnation of it if it does, indeed, exist.

But I cannot and will not accept the practice, by those who claim to be champions of the persecuted and oppressed, of themselves using the tactics of the persecutor and oppressor.

When you stop belittling and denigrating those whose beliefs and faiths differ from yours, and when Jim stops calling for punishment of an entire group, by dissolution of their established church, for the sins of a small minority of that group, I'll butt out and leave you to get your fun by kicking KoH's perceived agenda-driven arguments to death.

'He who comes to equity must do so with clean hands'. And not just in the courts.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket getting his tuppence worth
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 03:55 AM

Two words. Christian and persecution.

If this thread is to note how the age old practice of scapegoating large minorities in order to find blame for your society's failings, then the thread has merit.

If people note that history and demographics leads to communities with large Christian identity being the largest group being persecuted, then again, interesting topic, although cold consideration of any pogrom activity isn't as much fun as discussing England's chances in Rio.

However, the op, or Keith as he is known, has in many posts let his true colours fly. There is a word for it. Agenda. He makes it clear he speaks as a Christian. The significance being his wish to highlight what happens to Christians, not what happens to minorities anyway. His declared support for UKIP puts him in a good position to blame minorities for the ills of society. Look up the thread if you can be arsed, see his comparison of Christians leaving their homelands versus Muslims "coming over here. "

If otherwise objective people wish to support that and find ways of ridiculing those who point it out, shame on them.

Taking the piss appears to be getting rather sophisticated. ......

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 27 Oct 13 - 02:39 AM

Persecution in Iran

A court in Iran has sentenced four Christians to 80 lashes each for drinking wine during Communion. Mervyn Thomas, of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, said that the sentences "effectively criminalise the Christian sacrament of sharing in the Lord's Supper" in Iran.

The Times, 26 October 2013

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 09:06 PM

The word agenda is almost always used in this kind of context as a way of blurring precisely what the person it's aimed at is being accused of. That's why I dislike it. Very rarely do people use it about themselves. That's why I said "aimed at", because tyat is generally how it is used.

And it always seems to "you have an agenda" rather than "this is what your agenda is". It's such an amorphous word, because in a sense in anything anybody ever does they have something that could be called "an agenda".   When you boil an egg you have an agenda, to have an egg you can eat.

Much better to say "this is what I think you (or they) are trying to do, and I am against it". Or for it maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 03:51 PM

"Whether, in their words, or the way they present their arguments, they are guilty of allowing themselves to slip into group J?"

group G!

Bloody iPad!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 03:26 PM

Gro-o-o-a-nnnnnnn!

OK, I'm obviously not getting the point over (although I'm persuaded that Bograt, as a self-confessed piss-taker and winder-up of "those twats on Mudcat", knows full well what the point is, and is simply indulging his delight in perverse, insulting role-playing), let's pose a hypothetical question.........

Q. How does persecution of one group by another, on the basis of nothing more than their religious beliefs, begin?

A. Purely hypothetically, let's suppose that one or two people who hold different beliefs, or perhaps no beliefs at all (let's call them group G) start to sneer at and take the piss out of those who have different beliefs (let's call the, for want of a better name, Group J). No problem, just a wind-up, a bit of innocent, harmless fun, eh? After a while, quite a few more people have joined G and got into the fun of all the sneering and piss-taking, and the suggestion is mooted that the people in J are somehow deficient mentally - not 'normal' or 'rational' like the 'clever', 'superior' people in G. With me so far? Recognise the scenario, in it's historical manifestations and, more recently on a certain Internet forum?

After a while, and group G has grown even further, an idea forms amongst a few of the more ambitious and outspoken G-ites that the fact that the country's economic fortunes are at a low ebb, lots of people out of work, businesses going bust etc, is all down to those fucking abnormal, irrational J-ites, whose mental deficiencies already established are so severe as to render them 'sub-human'. So, what shall us 'normal', 'rational' G-ites do about those sub-human bastards.............??

No need to go further, it couldn't happen here...........could it?

Perhaps The Usual Suspects need to read back through the stuff they've posted and think about some of the subliminal messages they give out? Whether, in their words, or the way they present their arguments, they are guilty of allowing themselves to slip into group J?

Telling people who believe in a Deity that they are somehow part of a class whose members are judged deficient by virtue of being abnormal or irrational, or holding grudges against, and calling for the forced dissolution of a whole church because of the criminal acts of a small minority of its members, sounds like the first steps down the road to persecution.

Anyone for tennis?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 12:47 PM

Ireland?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket sans knackers
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 12:41 PM

Wow..

Disagree and you have an agenda.

Begin a thread with a not very well disguised agenda and you are a saint.

Smell a twat in the ether and you are boorish.

No matter Musket. Just think.. There may be one in every village but this thread appears to have a commune of the buggers.

So once more. Why is the concern about the word Christian rather than the word persecution?

There's a word to describe it, although you get shouted down by shallow apologists for using it...









Agenda

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 12:06 PM

Does six posts since this thread was revived count as refusing to join in, Backwoodsman?

I distrust it when people about "agendas". All too often it's what I was referring to "Whatever you say now, I know what you really think and denounce you." Witchfinder General stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Elmore
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 11:23 AM

I wonder where Keith went on his honeymoon.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 10:27 AM

The Usual Suspects scream like banshees about one person's perceived 'agenda', whilst their own agenda(s) are perfectly plain for anyone who's 'normal' and 'rational' to see. And then the daft buggers wonder why those of us who are normal and rational won't join in their silly, hysterical, childish game. Not fuckin' likely - I've actually got a life.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 08:38 AM

Keith, the OP, in his thread title, was addressing the situation of a specified demographic. That was what he intended the thread to deal with. Hardly his fault that it was hijacked by a mob of usual·suspect "Well·wot·about"-niks, who should be ashamed of self-righteously screaming their own agendas on someone else's thread because of some inaccurately perceived history on the part of the originator, instead of making their points in their own threads.

But will they be? In a pig's bumhole they will!

Oh, sod off Carroll, Don, the whole stinking holier-than-thou boiling of you. You make me absolutely sick.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 08:07 AM

But in fact nobody actually claimed that to be the case. It was a case of "Whatever you say now, I know what you really think and denounce you."

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 05:49 AM

""Whenever somebody is persecuted for whatever minority he/she belongs to, it's injustice. Is there anything more to say?""

Nothing whatever Joe!

But some will still be putting their own agenda first for another 1000 posts.

It's a shame that the human race is prevented from achieving tolerance and compassion for all by those who see one religion, culture, nationality, or skin colour as more worthy than others.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 26 Oct 13 - 03:16 AM

I think you will find we dispensed with the sinister attributes of Morris dancing in this very thread.

Don't you know. .......

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 10:19 PM

Precisely, Joe - the Millennium Man. And the daft thing is, everybody who has been arguing so ferociously about it clearly agrees with that ( leaving aside one who later said he didn't mean to be taken seriously).

But that's the Mudcat for you. We could have an impassioned debate about whether   Humpty Dumpty was free range or not, and what the implications of that might be the the global economy and the future of Morris dancing.

And I half expect to find I've ignited such a debate by saying that...

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Elmore
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 08:54 PM

Thanks, Joe.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 08:20 PM

Can't say I have any desire to participate in this thread. It got nasty long ago. But still, I got a certain satisfaction out of claiming the 1000th post...

Whenever somebody is persecuted for whatever minority he/she belongs to, it's injustice. Is there anything more to say?

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 05:47 PM

Congratulations, Keith, anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:41 PM

"The other side"!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Greg F.
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:21 PM

I am going on my honeymoon in the morning. Away for a week or so.

THANK YOU JESUS, THANK YOU LORD!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Elmore
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:11 PM

I'll fill in for Keith while he's away, just to keep this swill ....er swell thread going. By the way, How many angels dance on the head of a pin?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 03:32 PM

"Pearls before swine" is a allusion, not name calling.

I am going on my honeymoon in the morning.
Away for a week or so.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 02:28 PM

""somehow the words pearls and swine come to mind.""

I thought it was supposed to be the other side doing the name calling>

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: bobad
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 07:32 AM

Well said McGofH but somehow the words pearls and swine come to mind.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 05:54 AM

Fake quote, true claim Jim.
Produce the quote or simisar if true.
You can not because you are just lying again.

Would you like the true quotes again?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 05:07 AM

Because my observations are based on your agenda not your honest mistakes. It would have been churlish to do so.

Just remember, whilst onlookers speak of entrenched positions and other tosh, some of the usual suspects start the ball rolling and others merely respond.

To not respond is seen by the more shallow posters as acceptance of sometimes preposterous positions. Negativity thrives when reason can no longer be arsed to argue.

I may be busy but can always find the 5 mins distraction to challenge.

Pip Pip

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:47 AM

"Fake quote. I actually stated repeatedly that it was nothing to do with religion."
Fake claim
Your persistent attempts to denigrate the entire Pakistani Muslim population of Britain by equating their behaviour with the worst aspects of Islamic fundamentalism, coupled with your recent 'born again Christian' status indicates otherwise - that yours is a truely 'Holy War'.
Forgot to thank you for "praying for me" by the way - will be of great comfort in the darkest hours!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:15 AM

Musket, was I wrong yesterday to report an example of a Muslim minority possibly persecuted (Aung San Suu Kyi disputed it and I am an admirer)?

Should I have just said minority and not Muslim?
Why did you not pick me up on it as you do everything else?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:09 AM

"In a discussion like this the only loyalty we have should be to what we believe to be the truth. Getting all adversarial about it, identifying enemies and friends, staying silent when someone "on our side" says something wrong, and always seeking to interpret what the enemy says in the worst possible light... That's not about loyalty to the truth, it's about trying to win a war."

There speaks the voice of truth and reason. One of the few in this thread (Joe qualifies also, of course).

The Usual Suspects - you need to READ AND LEARN.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 04:07 AM

1000 posts eh?

Just think. Half way to having as many posts as there have been years that minority persecution has been branded Christian persecution.

Has anybody thought about why Christians have to be a special case yet?

The idea of there being more than any other group is not an answer. That would be acknowledging that burgers give you heart disease but McDonald's must be worse for you than others on the basis they sell more globally.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Joe Offer
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 03:16 AM

OK, I claim it - 1000!!

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 03:08 AM

The criminals you brand as having been "implanted by their religion"

Fake quote.
I actually stated repeatedly that it was nothing to do with religion.

1000 anyone?

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 03:03 AM

Sorry Mike - forgot to say hello.
Where were you when he needed you?
He must have forgotten to rub the bottle to request another wish - or maybe you were afraid someone was going to occupy your empty armchair!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 02:59 AM

"Culture IS implanted in everyone Jim."
Thankyou for your confirmation of your obnoxious and inhuman views views,
After your debacle here I really was going to drop this, but as you appear to have declared your intention to continue your hate campaign against other religions i will continue to raise it as a perfect example of this subject - religious intolerance, in your case Christian intolerance of unbelievers and those who stray from the declared path.
I have to confess that I have trouble in squaring the example of being a Christian that you present with those in my experience - I've never met a Christian Jihadist before.
If you knew the slightest thing about culture you would know that it is in a constant state of flux, changing as the surrounding circumstances change; it is not an implant (that is the stuff of science fiction and the invention of novelists like Orwell and Huxley).
The criminals you brand as having been "implanted by their religion" are in fact British Muslims who, if anything, are displaying some of the worst aspects of the behaviour of the misfits of British society.
One of the known facts of paedophilia in Britain, in all its forms, is that it is overwhelmingly an indigenous crime perpetrated by British criminals.
The greatest change within the Irish Travelling communities we worked with in Britain took place when they moved from their cultural rural home territories into cities like Dublin, London, Liverpool and Birmingham and took up all new urban pastimes - drugs, car theft, mugging, burglary - even sex outside marriage.....
You really need to get out more - try your local lending library - so much more informative than relying on Googling your knowledge from Islamophobic sites for your information.
Read a book sometime - it can be fun!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: GUEST,Musket between courses
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 01:06 AM

You cut and pasted an excellent example of climb down there Keith.

I'd take notes from it on how to do so if I were you. Might come in handy one day.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 25 Oct 13 - 12:57 AM

Great post, McG. But it'll be water off duck's back to dear old fatuous hidebound doctrinaire mind-made-up-please-don't-confuse-me-with-facts Carroll. Don't know why you all waste so much emotion & energy even arguing with one so self-evidently incapable of rational objective thought. As they say, "Just leave him alone. He's not worth it".

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Elmore
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 11:21 PM

Felt persecuted today, when the Christian cashier in the Waffle House told me to have a blessed day. Didn't want to have a blessed day.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 10:54 PM

Nothing in the quotes from Keith you give, Jim, amount to advocating or defending persecution of Muslims, which is what you accused him.

It seems pretty self evident that how we act is to some extent culturally conditioned. That does not mean it is the only factor, or necessarily the most important factor, and it applies to highly desirable ways of behaving as well as to undesirable ways.

So when Alibhai-Brown refers to "some Asian cultural assumptions that make the paedophiles feel no guilt or shame about what they do" she is making a reasonable comment about the relation between Pakistani culture and some tragic events.

Well, you could say that words such as that could be used to argue in favour of persecuting Pakistani Muslims, as potential perverts, or even as advocating such persecution. But I note you do not, but reserve that accusation for Keith, who in reality goes no further than Alibhai-Brown.

Very possibly she might be mistaken about the relevance of Pakistani culture on what those men did, after all there are many other factors involved. But it is clearly important for people in that culture to think about such things, just as it is important for Catholics to think about analogous things touched on in this thread.
...............
In a discussion like this the only loyalty we have should be to what we believe to be the truth. Getting all adversarial about it, identifying enemies and friends, staying silent when someone "on our side" says something wrong, and always seeking to interpret what the enemy says in the worst possible light... That's not about loyalty to the truth, it's about trying to win a war.

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 02:51 PM

Musket.
Just a misunderstanding.
JTA yesterday.
(JTA) — An anti-Semitism claim against an Anglican vicar by the Board of Deputies of British Jews was resolved through mediation.
The board brought the complaint against the Rev. Stephen Sizer to the Church of England a year ago, saying Sizer made anti-Semitic statements and published links to anti-Semitic websites, including links posted on his blog that promote Holocaust denial and Zionist conspiracy theories.
The complaint was made to the Bishop of Guildford by Jonathan Arkush on behalf of the Board of Deputies of British Jews.
According to the conciliation report to the Bishop of Guildford, Sizer did not accept "the substance of the complaint" but "regrets that on occasions his use of language has caused offense to some and agrees that he should have reflected on his choice of words more carefully. The content of certain websites having been drawn to his attention, Dr. Sizer also accepts that he should have taken more care before linking to them."
Mediation sessions between Arkush and Sizer led by Christian and Jewish counselors were held for three months prior to the final conciliation report.
Arkush told the Jewish Chronicle that the Jewish Board "welcomes Rev. Sizer's acknowledgments and undertakings, which clearly demonstrate that conduct on his part which led to the complaint was unbecoming or inappropriate to a minister of the Church of England."
Sizer said in his 25-page response to the complaint that he has "done nothing more than express legitimate political opinions, based on reasoned argument."
"I repudiate all forms of illegal violence, whether directed toward Jews or Palestinians. I have repeatedly advocated for the resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by peaceful means based on the implementation of international law," Sizer said in his response.
On his blog Wednesday, Sizer wrote, "I care passionately about the safety of the Jewish people and the right of Israel to exist within internationally agreed borders."


Read more: http://www.jta.org/2013/10/23/news-opinion/israel-middle-east/complaint-against-anglican-vicar-over-anti-semitic-links-resolved#ixzz2ifOrsYN6

Subject: RE: BS: Christian Persecution
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 24 Oct 13 - 02:40 PM

Culture IS implanted in everyone Jim.
All those people did blame the culture.
I would not know myself, but why would I not believe them?
Why don't you believe them?