Keith,

"The Bishop might well be wrong, but his opinions can not be said to be based on ignorance, and it is arrogant to just dismiss them because of who he is."

Well done Keith.

You've mastered the principle at the centre of my point.


Now lets see if you are able to apply it in every circumstance - i.e. whether you are able to apply it to leveller, whose opinions you have disregarded because of who is is, and indeed who he isn't.


The Bishop has one view, leveller has another.


You stated that the Bishops is more reliable because of who he is, not because you had evidence to support his view, nor even an argument of your own to defend it.

You are guilty of dismissing someones view because of who they are, not me.

I dismissed his view because I disagree with it wholeheartedly.

The idea that the Bible is the root of all civil and moral behaviour in Britain does not need me to do any research to be dismissed as palpable bollocks.

It has informed our moral code and played an important cultural role, but it is not the source.

In addition, these comments presuppose the notion that England is somehow more moral and civilized than countries that are non christian which is a horrendous caricature of the British colonial mindset that I grew up amongst in Hong Kong - a mindset which I might add was not exclusive to the British, but to some of their 'properly educated' colonial subjects.


And your double standards "don't dismiss people because of who they are" rhetoric, after having dismissed Leveller specifically on the grounds of who he is do not serve to bolster the argument you have "objectively" "reported" for us.

Because after all, not being the kind of person who ever advances an argument of your own, the views you post are chosen purely out of impartial interest.

Nothing left for you to hide behind I'm afraid.