Christianity doesn’t compromise with other religions

115 comments on “Christianity doesn’t compromise with other religions ”

• Comments are now closed

1. tracey 1

   29 September 2015 at 8:00 am

   For those rugby officianados out there, the good Mr Jenkins may look alot like Alex Wylie but that is not the subject of the post
   • weston 1.1

     29 September 2015 at 11:42 pm

     oh gowwd …here we go !!! and i agree with u tracy the bishop priest or whateva is being meanspirited uncool and is obviously insecure
2. Sabine 2

   29 September 2015 at 8:05 am

   and that is why I stay away from all religions. they give little men the right to be right arseholes and they get to excuse they shotty behaviour with “the church does not compromise’ or the “Jesus never said that’ or thats “not or in the bible’.

   loosers.
3. ropata 3

   29 September 2015 at 8:12 am

   so it has been played at cathedrals all over the UK already, but because one church says ‘no thanks’ some posturing muso throws a big tanty?
   what an idiotic media beat-up.
   • tracey 3.1

     29 September 2015 at 8:15 am

     The only Church in NZ where it was going to be performed says no. When you read the article you can see it is very much about framing the Reverend of the Nelson church as idiotic, not the entire church.

     What do you think of his decision and the basis for it ropata?
     • ropata 3.1.1

       29 September 2015 at 5:34 pm

       I think the vicar’s decision is perfectly reasonable and in accordance with the teaching of Jesus Chrst, to “love the lord thy god and love you neighbour as yourself”.

       but i may be biased because i also hold the bigoted belief that Jesus was indeed the Son of God
4. Puckish Rogue 4

   29 September 2015 at 8:34 am

   I’m not religious in any way shape or form but as long as the church isn’t breaking any laws they can do or say what they like
5. Amy 5

   29 September 2015 at 8:40 am

   Yet Tracy, the ‘entire church’ IS idiotic. Christianity, Islam, Buddhist. In the 21st century how can anyone intelligent person still believe in these things? What do they achieve each in the modern urban world?

   Certainly not social assistance, as they are no different than private profit making businesses in this area, receiving huge taxpayer money and laying Zero income tax on their profits.
   • Rosie 5.1

     29 September 2015 at 9:58 am

     Hi Amy, I’m atheist and have a deep suspicion of the motivations of the church, however we can’t lump all religious organisation together and say they are bad.

     You ask “What do they achieve each in the modern urban world? and suggest it’s certainly isn’t social assistance.
     The feeding of the homeless in Wellington simply wouldn’t get done if it weren’t for the down town community Ministry and the Suzanne Aubert Home of Compassion soup kitchen. Having known one of the women who worked in the kitchens I can tell you they struggle to get by and aren’t making any profits.

     I think you might be thinking of Destiny Church and Sanitarium, who pay no tax.

     There’s Christians and theres’s Christians.
     • tinfoilhat 5.1.1

       29 September 2015 at 9:59 am

       +1
     • Amy 5.1.2

       29 September 2015 at 10:51 am

       Hi Rosie. I probably was not clear. I know there are many many good and sincere Christians (and of course Muslims etc), but I was more referring to the institution of the church.

       Churches do NOT pay tax on their often considerable profits. They have a tax exempt status. That means, for example, the Anglican aged care organisations do not have to pay income tax on their very large profits, unlike the private providers. And the amount they charge for their aged care services are the same as comparable providers.

       And most of the social services they provide are funded by a mix of government funding and volunteers. Very very few churches contribute from their own funds. If they had a social conscious, then maybe they would make restitution to Maori for the land they misappropriated and in many cases just plain stole (historical fact in the case of mainstream churches in NZ).

       It surprises me that many contributors on here are so supportive of organisations that have such a poor social record.
       • Rosie 5.1.2.1

         29 September 2015 at 12:29 pm

         Hi Amy. I see what you are saying regarding religious organisations and their business arm, making a profit whilst paying no tax and sometimes relying on volunteers. Enliven Presbyterian Support Services, is another that would fir into that group.

         At least they, like the Anglican aged care services are providing support to vulnerbale members in the community, it’s hardly a purely profit driven scheme like Sanitarium, or the kind of weird shenanigans that Destiny church get up too.

         I think the problem doesn’t lie with the organisation itself – any group has the capacity to take advantage when legislation falls in their favour. (Look at what developers get away because of weak rules)
         The problem lies with successive governments who have done nothing to address this amazingly unfair tax rule.
       • greywarshark 5.1.2.2

         29 September 2015 at 3:08 pm

         Thanks Amy for providing us with that useful information. It certainly pays to keep an eye on all organisations and judge if they make a fair go of all they do. But don’t be too hard on churches not keeping to the high expectations endorsed by Christ or their founding leader. We all have faults, even the religious, and unfortunately the bigger they are the harder they can fall.

         If there were more thinking people like yourself watching them and themselves we might all keep on track. And the churches tend to be run by business professionals who have generally adopted neo liberal economics in their handling of the church’s finances and affairs.
6. music4menz 6

   29 September 2015 at 8:49 am

   To put the boot on the other foot maybe we should examine whether an Islamic Mosque would be prepared to allow a Christian prayer to be recited or sung within its walls. Or whether an Islamic country such as Saudi Arabia or Iran might allow a Christian to wear a cross or bring a Bible into their country.

   Nick Kirk is the administrator of Christ Church Cathedral and can make any decision he wishes about what he believes to be acceptable within the church building for which he is responsible.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 6.1

     29 September 2015 at 8:52 am

     Nice to know you want us to be just like how you imagine Iraq.
   • joe90 6.2

     29 September 2015 at 10:35 am

     To put the boot on the other foot maybe we should examine whether an Islamic Mosque would be prepared to allow a Christian prayer to be recited or sung within its walls.

     //

     http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/09/easter-at-the-mosque-sacramento-muslims-help-christian_n_1412663.html
     • J Ryan 6.2.1

       29 September 2015 at 9:30 pm

       Nice offer from Islam. But what they do and what they think long term are two different things. Islam is not a religion of peace. it is a religion of domination, of suppression of women/gays, free speech, intolerant and the biggest threat to western values and lifestyle. Some of the recent violence committed in the name of Islam is nothing less that barbaric. Even in a state such as Saudi Arabia. And we trade with them and allow them to fund Mosque, hence the driving of the wedge, slowly but effective. Like heating a frog in a jar of water, the gullible west.
   • left for deadshark 6.3

     29 September 2015 at 10:43 am

     “Build you church, on the strength of your fear”
     Slint
   • Liam 6.4

     29 September 2015 at 11:53 am

     “That’s different!”
   • Tracey 6.5

     29 September 2015 at 1:32 pm

     As long as he and his church have never ever taken a cent of public money no matter bow small or big. Otherwise he is subject to buman rights laws
7. Psycho Milt 7

   29 September 2015 at 9:05 am

   I guess Nick Kirk is one of those people who actually believes in their religion, rather than having it as an identity without actually thinking about it. This makes him a good person to be a bishop, not a bad one.

   Someone who not only believes in Christianity, but is also in a position of authority over one of its places of worship, is fully entitled not to run ads for what he considers to be a false religion. The fact that both religions are (from our perspective) equally false obviously isn’t something he should give a rat’s ass about if he wants to call himself a Christian.
   • One Anonymous Bloke 7.1

     29 September 2015 at 9:19 am

     “Thou shalt have no other tunes than mine”?

     No cloth of mixed threads for Nicky.
     • Psycho Milt 7.1.1

       29 September 2015 at 10:04 am

       The adhan is a declaration of the truth of Islam and a call to come and pray to its god. To you it might just be an annoyingly nasal droning piece of music, but it should be reasonably obvious why it’s not just that to an Anglican bishop. It should also be reasonably obvious why he wouldn’t want it played in his church.
       • Tracey 7.1.1.1

         29 September 2015 at 1:34 pm

         is it his church?
         • Psycho Milt 7.1.1.1.1

           29 September 2015 at 1:37 pm

           Is it the captain’s ship?
           • Tracey 7.1.1.1.1.1

             29 September 2015 at 5:08 pm

             nope. Captain’s don’t usually own the ship and bishops don’t own or have a church.
             • Foreign waka …

               29 September 2015 at 6:52 pm

               Tracey, I feel you are building your argument on a personal belief that endorses to be of greater value than any other.
               A church is a building for the congregation of worshipers (whatever god it may be) and as such entitled to choose what they want to have displayed, intoned or read. It is after all part of a truly free country to be allowed to associate with any group of people one wishes. I think everybody understands what it means to be part of a church (meaning congregation).
               Fraud is a separate issue I will not dive into as it runs across many organizations.
             • Psycho Milt …

               29 September 2015 at 7:13 pm

               Captain’s don’t usually own the ship and bishops don’t own or have a church.

               Sure. And yet, when you’re on a ship, try telling the captain it’s not their ship so they’ve no right to call the shots, and see how far that gets you. Same deal with a bishop – doesn’t own the cathedral, but he’s in charge of it and yes he does call the shots.
       • Naturesong 7.1.1.2

         29 September 2015 at 2:28 pm

         You do know that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all worship the same god, right?
         And that Islam recognises Christ as a prophet?

         Call To Prayer (pre dawn in brackets)

         God is Great, God is Great, God is Great, God is Great
         I bear witness that there is no god except the One God.
         I bear witness that there is no god except the One God.
         I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God.
         I bear witness that Muhammad is the messenger of God.
         Hurry to the prayer (Rise up for prayer), Hurry to the prayer (Rise up for prayer)
         Hurry to success (Rise up for Salvation), Hurry to success (Rise up for Salvation)
         (Prayer is better than sleep, Prayer is better than sleep)
         God is Great, God is Great
         There is no god except the One God
         • Grindlebottom 7.1.1.2.1

           29 September 2015 at 3:29 pm

           No, I don’t accept that. There are some pretty important differences in their respective gods. There are some common factors between Jaweh the Jewish god and Allah the Muslim god, but muslims believe the Jews and Christians started off worshipping the same god, then their beliefs got corrupted by men and they got right off track until Mohammed came along and set things straight for the final time.

           Christianity though, with it’s three persons in the one god, neither Judaism nor Islam accept. In my opinion that makes it a completely different god from the other two Abrahamic faiths. They also differ in exactly what their god requires re worship, how to behave, heaven and hell entry requirements, and a few other things.

           Googling a query throws up plenty of comparative analyses. Here’s one I was just reading:
           http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/09/01/do-christians-muslims-and-jews-worship-the-same-god/

           I quite like the saying attributed to Stephen F. Roberts:
           I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
           • Naturesong 7.1.1.2.1.1

             29 September 2015 at 3:58 pm

             Doesn’t alter the fact that they all worship the same god.
             The conflict in practice and beliefs between the respective followers of Christianity and Judaism is more akin to a schism than anything else. And Islam recognises both religions as worshiping the same god.
             • Grindlebottom …

               29 September 2015 at 4:09 pm

               No it’s not. It’s a fundamental problem, and the difference in religious beliefs and practices is the reason there is so much killing done in the name of Islam and Mohammed in the Middle East and Africa.

               Things like the spreading the faith by conquest, forced conversions, the killing of anyone declared to be apostates, beheading of captives, taking of sex slaves – all are advocated openly in the quran and/or hadiths, and exampled by Mohammed who is considered to be “the perfect man”.
               • Naturesong …

                 29 September 2015 at 4:26 pm

                 The Inquisition

                 I don’t judge all Christians or Catholics by the 400 years of genocide perpetrated during the Medieval through to Spanish inquisitions.

                 I would also suggest that the current extremism in some communities in the Middle East has more to do with the last 120 years of European and American foreign policy in the Middle East than it has to do with the religion of those that live in the area.
                 • Grindlebottom …

                   29 September 2015 at 6:36 pm

                   You might suggest that, but it isn’t really so. Invading Islamic hordes were brought to a standstill and then thrown out of Christian Europe centuries ago. Their societies were then largely held back developmentally by their religion, really until early last century.

                   All the scientific and technological progress was made in the West as Christianity became less powerful and Western forms of government became more secular, allowing scientific and social development to proceed without religion decreeing it against the Bible. Galileo was famously forced to recant his support for heliocentricism by the Inquisition and sentenced to house arrest for the rest of his life. But the fact that the earth and planets revolved around the sun was so obviously and demonstrably correct to the educated that it was widely accepted, even in his lifetime. Western Christian churches abandoned their old faith-based extremism as science and their societies evolved.

                   That didn’t happen with Islam. The quran is believed by muslims to be perfect, to have no mistakes or discrepancies, and no conflicting verses like Bible. It is not permitted to believe otherwise.

                   But it’s riddled with inconsistencies. The peaceful parts of it were penned in its infancy when Mohammed moved to Medina, had few followers and was powerless. Its peaceful parts are abrogated by succeeding verses from when his following had grown, he had moved back to Mecca, and he had begun to conquer his neighbours and enemies, who the quran defines as anyone opposed to Islam.

                   Mohammed’s death left his succession open to argument and the Shia/Sunni split happened at that point. The different sects & sub-sects have been killing each other on and off for centuries. They’re still at it.

                   The quran forbids suicide according to apologists, but elsewhere it sanctions and praises matyrdom in defence of Islam. Hence so many suicide bombings by Sunnis. (The Shia for some reason in Iraq seem to favour death squads which I’d guess is a matter of quranic interpretation.)

                   I agree the last 120 years of European and American domination and interference in the Middle East has understandably led to resentment and even hatred of the West. But that’s something different from the religious and secular incompatibilities of fundamentalist believers with Western societies. They exploit the “crusader” history though.

                   I have no doubt there are thousands of muslims who just want to live a quiet life and practice a very tolerant form of Islam. But, by any reading of the quran it’s really not a peaceful and tolerant religion in any place where it’s become dominant or where extremists have got a toehold.
                   • J Ryan …

                     29 September 2015 at 10:39 pm

                     Sums up Islam perfectly.
         • Psycho Milt 7.1.1.2.2

           29 September 2015 at 4:05 pm

           You do know that Judaism, Islam and Christianity all worship the same god, right?

           They do, in the sense that if you’re all worshipping something that doesn’t exist, you’re effectively all worshipping the same thing. However, they also don’t, in the sense that each one sees itself as worshipping an accurate version of God, while the other two offer distorted and misleading portrayals of God.

           And that Islam recognises Christ as a prophet?

           Islam recognises Jesus as a prophet whose message was changed and corrupted by duplicitous Greek pagans, such that Christianity ended up falsely worshipping a prophet as a god. For a believing Christian there is a total 0 square meters of common ground in there.

           This “all worship the same god” stuff is fine for people whose religion is merely a matter of lifestyle or identity, but simply untrue for people who actually believe in their religion. Bishops tend to fall into the latter category (or should, at least).
8. DLANZ Disabled Liberation Aotearoa 8

   29 September 2015 at 9:07 am

   Ta Tracey…seems hard and not inclusive to Modern Day Society where a lead in tolerance can help remove bigotry…
   Disabled Liberation Aotearoa NZ DLANZ​ support the World View that everyone be allowed to practice their religions in peace and harmony…DLANZ see this on TV in places like Palestine, Myanmar and Europe..east and west…don’t need it here…my view

   keep smiling
   Doug Hay
   Cordinator DLANZ
   • Psycho Milt 8.1

     29 September 2015 at 10:12 am

     The bishop is practicing his religion, he just doesn’t seem to be getting to do it in peace.
     • greywarshark 8.1.1

       29 September 2015 at 3:15 pm

       The thinking churches of good will are trying to work and meet together often to bring peace and respect between the different communities. When a high churchman gets too much above himself immersed in narrow rituals then he is not working in with the trend for supporting church congregations trying to break down destructive and stupid bigotry. As it says on Friday’s post here, when it’s put up, ‘Why can’t we all get on together’.
   • Foreign waka 8.2

     29 September 2015 at 6:58 pm

     Your argument may be true in a political arena but certainly not in terms of religious belief. What you are advocating is that the person having a certain belief should make room for some other belief because it is otherwise deemed bigoted. Your premise does not hold water.
     • greywarshark 8.2.1

       29 September 2015 at 7:03 pm

       Well yours does. like a sponge. The main churches regularly hold meetings within countries and international. Just spending time respectfully together and finding things that they can agree on.
       • Foreign waka 8.2.1.1

         29 September 2015 at 7:48 pm

         greywarshark, the response was directed to DLANZ.
         Yes, the churches do hold meetings but not to vote to adopt other beliefs.
         • Tracey 8.2.1.1.1

           30 September 2015 at 9:20 am

           how is having a concert with a call to prayer within it it voting to adopt other beliefs? In any event he (the bishop) is free to say what he likes, just as I am free to say what I like about what he said.
         • greywarshark 8.2.1.1.2

           30 September 2015 at 5:51 pm

           I wonder what church you hang out in. The Exclusive Brethren or Scientology would not be attending these cross-religious meetings. There they don’t adopt some of each other’s beliefs but would look at things they agree on. Which is what I said originally. I don’t have much time for your ideas if you can’t see the difference.
9. savenz 9

   29 September 2015 at 9:30 am

   Christianity should be inclusive of other cultures’s and their beliefs. They should play the piece to ‘send a message’ against this propaganda wars partly based on religion. What do Christianity want to stand for, tolerance or intolerance?
   • tinfoilhat 9.1

     29 September 2015 at 9:58 am

     Religions should be inclusive of other cultures’s and their beliefs. They should play the piece to ‘send a message’ against this propaganda wars partly based on religion. What do religions want to stand for, tolerance or intolerance?

     FIFY
   • Foreign waka 9.2

     29 September 2015 at 6:59 pm

     OMG the ignorance almost hurts.
10. Rosie 10

    29 September 2015 at 9:39 am

    I must be pretty naive because I thought we’d moved on from this level of religious intolerance.

    New Zealand HAS moved on in recent decades, we have women priests, (or the equivalent of what the leadership role is depending on the denomination) The church has a growing acceptance of non traditional families, and will stand with them, and churches are becoming more visible in the the social work they normally go quietly about.

    By resisting progressive changes within the church in general Rev Kirk makes himself look small and petty. Quite a shame really as he and his flock (flock? parishioners?) will miss out on what could be a beautiful, uplifting piece of music. Why be so self limiting? It’s self defeating to be closed to the idea of learning about others.

    Guess he won’t be going to any interfaith conferences any day son to promote unity, tolerance, understanding and an appreciation of the faith of others.
    • Puckish Rogue 10.1

      29 September 2015 at 9:44 am

      I’m assuming that he probably thinks he answers to a higher power and is responsible for the spiritual well-being of his flock and that doesn’t include allowing references to the religion of Islam in his church
      • Tracey 10.1.1

        29 September 2015 at 1:37 pm

        and he is permitted to believe in things for which there is no proof… and to believe that God doesnt “believe” a peace invoking performance is against his beliefs. I hope his church/flock have neved taken a cent of public money for anything church related. Otherwise I argue he is subject to our human rights legislation.
        • PI 10.1.1.1

          29 September 2015 at 9:01 pm

          Which legislation in particular?
          • Tracey 10.1.1.1.1

            30 September 2015 at 9:22 am

            to decline use of a building partly paid for by public money on the grounds of discrimination. * IF he has received public money for any part of his church.
    • Rosie 10.2

      29 September 2015 at 9:49 am

      PS: I think this is the call to prayer in the Armed Man: A Mass for Peace.

      I find it absolutely beautiful, meditative almost. Rev Kirk really needs to get out and embrace the sounds that others cherish.
      • tinfoilhat 10.2.1

        29 September 2015 at 9:57 am

        The day the various religions allow each other to sing their different songs of praise in each others church might still be some way off.
        • Rosie 10.2.1.1

          29 September 2015 at 11:58 am

          I don’t know tin. Have a look at the link provided by joe90 at 6.20. It’s an interfaith Easter at a Mosque. There’s a lesson for Rev Kirk in there.
          • tinfoilhat 10.2.1.1.1

            29 September 2015 at 6:34 pm

            Good on them, but let’s face facts if you were to enter a mosque in most parts of the world and attempt to hold a non islamic meeting of faith it would likely not go well.
      • Puckish Rogue 10.2.2

        29 September 2015 at 9:59 am

        Whether its right or wrong he probably thinks hes providing a bulwark against the growing moslem influence in NZ
        • Tracey 10.2.2.1

          29 September 2015 at 1:40 pm

          he is wrong if he does cos there is only the merest of an argument about such a growing influence. I am pretty sure our govt and therefore we, are engaged in killing more moslems than christians
          • Puckish Rogue 10.2.2.1.1

            29 September 2015 at 2:03 pm

            I’ve gotten into arguements before with religious types and even with the copious amount of links on the web you cannot win against someone with faith so I don’t even bother now

            It always boils down to the bible says so and thats that
            • Tracey 10.2.2.1.1.1

              29 September 2015 at 5:07 pm

              fair point.
      • Psycho Milt 10.2.3

        29 September 2015 at 10:09 am

        It’s not a “sound that others cherish.” It’s a declaration that Islam is the true religion, and a call for you to put your face to the ground and your arse in the air, and declare your obeisance before its god. The fact that you personally don’t know what something in a foreign language actually means doesn’t make it harmless.
        • Rosie 10.2.3.1

          29 September 2015 at 12:08 pm

          Geez psycho. How do you know that devotees’ don’t cherish the sounds of their religion. Some have a very deep connection to the sounds and protocols of their religions. That is meaningful to them.

          No I don’t know the words but so fucking what. I can be moved by the music of other cultures and religions without having to have a sing along. I don’t what you find so harmful or threatening about it:

          Is there anything you find harmful here in this video, in this appropriation of the call to prayer? At least I think it is, not being an Islamic scholar an a’ll, I can’t really be sure.
          • Psycho Milt 10.2.3.1.1

            29 September 2015 at 1:36 pm

            For all I know, religious devotees deeply cherish whatever music their religion comes up with. It’s irrelevant. The bish is opposed to having this in his church because of its meaning, not because he’s hopping mad that Muslims like it and he doesn’t. You can be moved by this particular religious dirge all you like, the fact remains it isn’t about you or me and what we like or don’t like.
            • Tracey 10.2.3.1.1.1

              29 September 2015 at 1:42 pm

              can you link to his statement about objecting so I can update my post?
              • Psycho Milt …

                29 September 2015 at 4:09 pm

                Not sure what you mean – his reason for not wanting it in his church is covered in the article linked from your post.
                • Tracey …

                  29 September 2015 at 5:11 pm

                  you said ” The bish is opposed to having this in his church because of its meaning, not because he’s hopping mad that Muslims like it and he doesn’t”

                  he says he doesnt want the islamic call to prayer, not why he doesn’t. You may be giving him much more credit for knowledge than he deserves.
                  • Psycho Milt …

                    29 September 2015 at 7:01 pm

                    I’m relying on this bit:

                    Kirk has said he had refused the choir’s request to perform The Armed Man because it did not fit with the cathedral’s “religious beliefs”.

                    Given that the adhan is a declaration of Muslim faith, Occam’s razor suggests that is the reason he believes it doesn’t fit with the cathedral’s religious belief (by which I presume the journo means the congregation’s religious belief). If it was just some generic “Come and do your praying here” kind of thing, it would be easier to accommodate.
                    • Tracey …

                      30 September 2015 at 9:23 am

                      Thanks. Would be cool if the journos gave more space to what he thought though, but that would be too much like having a discussion I guess
        • Tracey 10.2.3.2

          29 September 2015 at 1:41 pm

          your use of harmless/harmful in that context is bizarre.
          • Psycho Milt 10.2.3.2.1

            29 September 2015 at 3:53 pm

            I was speaking in general terms – if you don’t what something means, that doesn’t mean it’s harmless. In the case of adhan though, the atheist in me definitely sees harm in having some religion enthusiast shouting about god over a loudspeaker and demanding that I come and abase myself before that god.
            • Tracey 10.2.3.2.1.1

              30 September 2015 at 9:23 am

              But then I don’t know the context within the performance, and the performance is much long than just the call to prayer.
11. The lost sheep 11

    29 September 2015 at 9:55 am

    The stance of one Priest justifies a generalized statement about ‘Christianity’?

    On that basis the stance of any one Mullah would be a valid basis for making statements about ‘Islam’?

    That’s one sloppy headline. Indicative of the drastic lowering of journalistic standards that has been much commented on here lately no doubt.

    [lprent: It was reported as being a direct quote from the christian cleric. See my note ]
    • Sabine 11.1

      29 September 2015 at 10:06 am

      is that not what has been done since 2001? All muslims are murderous bastits that fly planes in to buildings n shit?

      Is that not why its ok to say no to refugees from the middle east?
      is that not why its ok for israel to bomb the shit out of the ghetto that is Gaza?
      is that not why its ok for us to go and defend someone / somethings against the beheadings from Isis, while conveniently forgetting the fucked up interpretation of Islam that is Wahabism practised in Saudi Arabia?
      is that not why its ok for the western world to bomb the shit ouf of Afghanistan and parts of Pakistan via Drones, cause their interpretation of Islam goes against our western feefees and freeance and peeance for wimminz?
      So yes, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.

      And frankly the roman catholic church is full of bigotted fuckwits that would in a heartbeat get us back into the middle ages.
      But I guess some small minded man would like that, as they need ‘Authority’ and ‘guidance’ in their life, lest they have to make their mind up all on their own.

      oh, and also, the christains (orthodox ones often) in middle eastern countries also refer to God as Allah, as Allah literally means God, and a call to prayer is to the Muslim what are the Churchbells to a Christians. A reminder that it is time to pray.
      • timbo 11.1.1

        29 September 2015 at 10:43 am

        @Sabine – apropos the use by Christians of the word “Allah” to refer to God. In Malaysia, the highest court in the land has upheld a ban on Christians doing so. They want to refer to God as Allah, but aren’t allowed to.

        See http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-01-21/malaysia-s-top-court-bans-catholic-use-of-allah-in-newspaper

        I am a Christian, and can understand the accusations of bigotry. As many have pointed out, the challenge for the religious mindset is that of co-existing – accepting gladly that there are views out there that are not one’s own, and learning to live freely with those. In the Nelson cathedral example, the proposed concert was not an act of worship; it was a concert. As such, I suggest the Dean was being overly puritanical in not allowing it. If it was proposed to sing it during a formal act of Christian worship, his position would be more defensible.

        Still, there is a challenge for the secular mindset in this also; allowing the distinctives and particularities of the different religious faiths to remain distinctive and particular, without trying to squeeze them all into the bland sausage machine of modernity. You will never win co-operation from people within religious communities if you are asking them, effectively, to ditch their religion in order to accept some quasi-spirituality whose terms are dictated by the outlook of secularism.
        • RedLogix 11.1.1.1

          29 September 2015 at 11:40 am

          +100

          And of the secularists tend to overlook the lack of symmetry here. As the more historically recent religion Islam has every reason to be accepting and tolerant of Christianity. Indeed the Koran refers to them as the “People of the Book” and requires the should be treated with respect. And in the early periods of the Islamic civilisation this was generally the rule.

          Of course the Crusades rather diminished this tolerance, and the more modern, deluded fundamentalist incarnations of Islam have forgotten it altogether.

          Christianity however has only survived by obdurately ignoring and refusing to compromise with Islam; pretty much as the Jews have treated Christianity.

          Or we might ponder the presence of the three Magi, central to the nativity play of every Sunday School – three Zoroastrian priests representing a religion no-one wants to talk about anymore.

          For the most part these barriers are erected and maintained by the clerical institutions who fear the loss of their power and prestige; a shortcoming common to ALL human endeavour.
          • joe90 11.1.1.1.1

            29 September 2015 at 1:20 pm

            Neil deGrasse Tyson on how a fundamentalist took Islam to the dark ages.
            • Tiro 11.1.1.1.1.1

              29 September 2015 at 2:28 pm

              This is so interesting!
              What if islam had not collapsed in its intellectual standing in the year 1100….
        • Sabine 11.1.1.2

          29 September 2015 at 1:05 pm

          Well I refer to god as a sadistic prick, but then someone might disagree with me.

          People kill people in the name of the bearded sky fairy, the flying sphagetti monster, the fuckwit that watched while his son got nailed to a cross, the fuckwit that raped a girl via a third party(knowing full well that she could get stoned for it), so that fuckwits can go and claim that homosexuality is an abomination, that homosexuals should be stoned, that women should only have sex after being given to the husband by their fathers – and of course only to have babies…..without access to any contraception cause babies are a blessing by the sadistic prick that watched his son being nailed to a cross.
          In whose name some several tens of thousands of women and men and children and cats have been burned at the stake, have been tortured under the inquisition, have been killed, maimed and otherwise tortured in the name of god and saving the heathans in OZ, in the US, South America, Africa, etc etc, in the name of god we have had girls lanquish in the Convents in Ireland for many many years, to be deprived of home, money, and personal agenda, cause they were sluts that needed re-educating, in the name of god the roman catholic church and other denominations have and are still hiding men and women that have abused children in the most heinous ways.

          Frankly, i despise our organised religion. But Under no circumstanced do i believe that one is better then the other, They are all fucked up, They are all cruel, They are all nothing else but grifters and tax exempt grifters at that, and they provide absolutly no service to human kind.

          As for the seculars? They are usually the one that get burned on the stake, locked up as homosexuals, called sluts that have bastards out of wedlock, or like Galileo……oh well, the church finally thought about that did they not?

          As for what I said above, You have only to say that in Malaysia Christians can not call god Allah? You do realise that in Saudi Arabia, our most important ally on something sheep related you can’t even have a bible? Does that mean we should do the same?
        • Sabine 11.1.1.3

          29 September 2015 at 1:05 pm

          Well I refer to god as a sadistic prick, but then someone might disagree with me.

          People kill people in the name of the bearded sky fairy, the flying sphagetti monster, the fuckwit that watched while his son got nailed to a cross, the fuckwit that raped a girl via a third party(knowing full well that she could get stoned for it), so that fuckwits can go and claim that homosexuality is an abomination, that homosexuals should be stoned, that women should only have sex after being given to the husband by their fathers – and of course only to have babies…..without access to any contraception cause babies are a blessing by the sadistic prick that watched his son being nailed to a cross.
          In whose name some several tens of thousands of women and men and children and cats have been burned at the stake, have been tortured under the inquisition, have been killed, maimed and otherwise tortured in the name of god and saving the heathans in OZ, in the US, South America, Africa, etc etc, in the name of god we have had girls lanquish in the Convents in Ireland for many many years, to be deprived of home, money, and personal agenda, cause they were sluts that needed re-educating, in the name of god the roman catholic church and other denominations have and are still hiding men and women that have abused children in the most heinous ways.

          Frankly, i despise our organised religion. But Under no circumstanced do i believe that one is better then the other, They are all fucked up, They are all cruel, They are all nothing else but grifters and tax exempt grifters at that, and they provide absolutly no service to human kind.

          As for the seculars? They are usually the one that get burned on the stake, locked up as homosexuals, called sluts that have bastards out of wedlock, or like Galileo……oh well, the church finally thought about that did they not?

          As for what I said above, You have only to say that in Malaysia Christians can not call god Allah? You do realise that in Saudi Arabia, our most important ally on something sheep related you can’t even have a bible? Does that mean we should do the same?
          • RedLogix 11.1.1.3.1

            29 September 2015 at 1:13 pm

            For what it’s worth Sabine, I prefer the realism of your perspective, than the deluded zealotry of the fundamentalist.
          • Gabby 11.1.1.3.2

            29 September 2015 at 1:16 pm

            That would be an ecumenical matter.
            • McFlock 11.1.1.3.2.1

              29 September 2015 at 1:25 pm

              Very perceptive, Father Hackett.
            • Rosie 11.1.1.3.2.2

              29 September 2015 at 1:37 pm

              That was very funny.

              Now you be leaving that window cleaner alone now won’t cha Father.
          • Thinking Right 11.1.1.3.3

            29 September 2015 at 10:15 pm

            When I read your impassioned prose Sabine it is easy enough to see you describing the major problem being the belief in God and excesses which follow from such belief.

            It is a compelling argument which has been voiced many times over the years.

            There is one little problem.

            Following on from your logic it would seem to be the obvious solution to remove organised religion and belief in God from human society and thus major abuses and excesses would diminish and the peace loving of atheistic peoples would shine through.

            Sadly however this idea has been tried before. The many decades of the existence of the Soviet Union and its associated Communist bloc was an exercise in organised atheism. This was following the edict by Marx that Religion was the opiate of the people.

            How did it work out? Was Soviet Russia a haven of secular nirvana?
            Sadly no. The human rights abuses, pogroms, prison camps, and regular purges and slaughter by the leaders of secular Russia equalled the excesses of Nazi Germany, not to mention the oppression and lack of Human Rights for all of the Eastern Bloc Countries.

            This being the case to get back to the initial premise: The common factor in genocide, criminal, and warlike excess is not a belief in some form of religion, the common factor is the presence of human nature and its universal bent to tend towards evil to further its selfish ambitions.
      • Bill 11.1.2

        29 September 2015 at 11:21 am

        Hmm, gatekeepers to ‘our’ God reckoning ‘thems’ over there in’t ‘whatever enough’ to be approaching ‘our’ God, as though the one God that both ‘thems and ‘us’ worship is different?

        Mr Kirk needs to be beamed up.

        edit: On second thoughts, maybe Auld Nick Kirk needs to be beamed on down? 😉
        • Tracey 11.1.2.1

          29 September 2015 at 1:53 pm

          saw this on a tshirt once

          definition of war =

          my invisible friend is better than your invisible friend
          • weka 11.1.2.1.1

            29 September 2015 at 2:50 pm

            or,

            you’re stupid/invalid because you think you have an invisible friend and I’m fantastic because I don’t

            😉
            • Tracey 11.1.2.1.1.1

              29 September 2015 at 4:50 pm

              Nope, have no problem with what people believe in until they use it to get privileges based on, well, that they believe something.
              • weka …

                29 September 2015 at 5:19 pm

                sorry, didn’t mean you personally, but a definition of war (atheists going to war over their beliefs too).
                • Tracey …

                  30 September 2015 at 9:26 am

                  I am always intrigued about the US having separation between state and God but every President uses God in speeches…

                  Have you ever read Ernest Becker – Denial of Death?
                  • weka …

                    30 September 2015 at 2:17 pm

                    No, haven’t heard of that, what’s it about?
      • joe90 11.1.3

        29 September 2015 at 11:28 am

        middle eastern countries also refer to God as Allah, as Allah

        الله = god.
    • Tracey 11.2

      29 September 2015 at 1:44 pm

      journalist? get a grip and a referral to a moderator for criticising an author.

      You know the words of the headline are of the banning bishop not me, right?
      • The lost sheep 11.2.1

        29 September 2015 at 1:52 pm

        “You know the words of the headline are of the banning bishop not me, right?”

        No, with the lack of quotation marks I missed that, although that is not an excuse for not making the connection with the quote in the body of report.

        So I withdraw the comment regarding the headline, and apologise for it.

        [lprent: Idiot. You didn’t read the bloody post! Do you realize how dangerous that is.

        Consider this to be your warning (see the policy). ALWAYS read the whole of the post before criticizing the author. Your prompt apology gets you off what would have otherwise been a harsh ban. ]
        • Tracey 11.2.1.1

          29 September 2015 at 1:55 pm

          that also means you criticised me without bothering to read the article… which is the real reason you didnt make the connection

          knee. jerk.
          • The lost sheep 11.2.1.1.1

            29 September 2015 at 3:10 pm

            I did read it, but didn’t make the connection between the headline and the last line in the article before firing off the comment.

            Stupid, and I regret it, and apologise again for that… But hopefully not quite as imbecilic as not even reading the article in the first place.
            • Tracey 11.2.1.1.1.1

              29 September 2015 at 4:51 pm

              Accepted Lost Sheep
12. The lost sheep 12

    29 September 2015 at 10:30 am

    “So yes, sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander.”,

    Well, no, Sabine.
    If you act like that you are no better than the ‘bigotted fuckwits’ you use to justify your stance.
13. infused 13

    29 September 2015 at 10:34 am

    All religion can fuck off.
14. weka 14

    29 September 2015 at 11:51 am

    Christianity doesn’t compromise with other religions

    That’s kind of like saying that Leftwingers don’t compromise because Shane Jones.

    Or left wing blogs are crazy because Pete George.

    If Nick Kirk is Anglican, I suspect he will find that he is at odds with many others in his church.
    • Tracey 14.1

      29 September 2015 at 1:51 pm

      it is odd. it is odder that lost sheep thinks I wrote it
15. Al66 15

    29 September 2015 at 12:51 pm

    Yet it is Ok for Christains to be murdered in various parts of the world where the Christain World View is in competition with the local religion of choice – goes both ways – which is to be expected with any fundamentalist religion
16. Smilin 16

    29 September 2015 at 1:35 pm

    Yeah the article speaks volumes about people who dont listen and think past their bigotry and ignorance and self righteousness
    Anyone remember the Crusades and all the Christian wars throughout history Starting whenever you like to think of
    They all need a kick up their pious backsides these up themselves clergy
    I actually find islamic music religious or otherwise very inspirational
    Although the camel tone can be little much some times
    But so is High Anglican bib and tucker and the agro in protestantism especially the Paisley variety can be a bit hard goin hence the need for Van Morrison Cheers everyone and a translator for the Churches of Scotland and Wales and Irish Catholicism and all the other Christian orthodoxies
    And what better way to try and unite people in prayer by being inclusive of all religious tones
    • Tracey 16.1

      29 September 2015 at 1:56 pm

      I wonder if he always gets a full church and what else he claims christianity wont compromise?
17. yabby 17

    29 September 2015 at 3:16 pm

    It’s ridiculous Tracey. On the same theme. I see Warwick University is banning Iranian-born secularist Maryam Namazie from speaking due to her anti-religious views.

    Lest it offend. What have we come to?

    http://www.coventrytelegraph.net/news/coventry-news/speaker-banned-warwick-university-over-10136555
18. Vaughan Little 18

    29 September 2015 at 3:23 pm

    perhaps we could open labour party conferences with quotes from thatcher, or perhaps passages from ayn rand. this would have the double merit of helping us to empathize with our tory opponents, and of elevating our minds with their masterful prose style. anyone against the idea is dangerously sectarian and should be kicked out of the party.
    • ropata 18.1

      29 September 2015 at 10:27 pm

      +1
19. emergency mike 19

    29 September 2015 at 3:33 pm

    Yep, narrow-minded priest makes dumb unchristian dog-whistle comment. Those on the higher rungs of organised religion have been thus trying to keep themselves relevant to the spirituality of other human beings for a rather long time. I’m not sure what there is to discuss here, maybe, would Jesus have said it?

    It’s always saddened me that these kind of people don’t want to embrace and explore the fact that Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are three parts of one trilogy. And would rather build walls to protect their own niche position. Most Muslims, being ‘part 3’, understand that they are all worshiping the same God – ‘my god’ vs ‘your god’ is nonsense. And indeed The Koran instructs the faithful to ‘respect the people of the book’ i.e. Jews and Christians, and even speaks of Jesus as one of the prophets to be heeded. I’ve personally met many Muslims and Christians who are very interested indeed in extending the hand of friendship across religious and cultural divides. I don’t think Jesus would have said it.

    It gladdens me to see the normally staunchly atheistic authors here at The Standard become interested in improving the state of interfaith dialogue. At the same time I note that generally venting on the familiar ‘religion is stoopid’ line seems to be within the domain of the topic here at hand. Who’d have thunk it.
    • Tracey 19.1

      29 September 2015 at 4:52 pm

      I guess what struck me was that he lost an opportunity to bring a broader audience into his church.
      • Gabby 19.1.1

        29 September 2015 at 7:23 pm

        Who would the broader audience be? I assume it would be people to whom a muslim theme would appeal, while a christian theme wouldn’t.
        • Tracey 19.1.1.1

          30 September 2015 at 9:27 am

          Anyone who might not usually go to Church. Read about the actual performance and not just the small section which is a Call to Prayer by Muslims. Then you might understand the context of my comment.

          The performance does not have a “muslim theme”, it contains a single piece which is a call to prayer.
20. Henry Filth 20

    29 September 2015 at 6:25 pm

    “. . . to refuse a performance because of the inclusion of the call to prayer is part of the bigotry that has led to such conflicts and wars.”

    Religion is generally about “the Received Word of God”, revealing “Absolute Truth”.

    Once you’ve got those on your side, why would you feel any need to compromise?
21. Observer (Tokoroa) 21

    29 September 2015 at 7:56 pm

    To Emergency Mike

    I doubt that our betters who write on here day after day, would even begin to understand what you are saying.

    They have the the mystery of Life and Universe all wrapped up. Ever simplifying things with neck breaking shallowness.

    So lofty are they in their knowledge, they express their many hatreds through the gutter “fuck” word.

    Everyone beneath them is a fuckwit or a christian or stupid. They glow in their self congratulation and see themselves as glorious individuals.
    • Tracey 21.1

      30 September 2015 at 9:29 am

      and equally it can be said of some that everyone beneath them is a fuckwit or a muslim terrorist or stupid.
22. John G 22

    29 September 2015 at 9:43 pm

    This is interesting reading from the “Horses Mouth”

    http://www.islamreligion.com/articles/207/viewall/tolerance-of-prophet-towards-other-religions/

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS