Yes, floods were caused by homosexuality.Bishop confirms. Met Office no comment yet.

9 views
Skip to first unread message

Giles

unread,
Jul 2, 2007, 6:21:59 AM7/2/07
to
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml

Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 2:01am BST 02/07/2007

The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's
judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, according to
senior Church of England bishops.

Bishop of Carlisle: Floods are judgment on society
The Bishop said pro-gay laws were to blame for the floods

One diocesan bishop has even claimed that laws that have undermined
marriage, including the introduction of pro-gay legislation, have
provoked God to act by sending the storms that have left thousands of
people homeless.

While those who have been affected by the storms are innocent victims,
the bishops argue controversially that the flooding is a result of
Western civilisation's decision to ignore biblical teaching.

The Rt Rev Graham Dow, Bishop of Carlisle, argued that the floods are
not just a result of a lack of respect for the planet, but also a
judgment on society's moral decadence.

"This is a strong and definite judgment because the world has been
arrogant in going its own way," he said. "We are reaping the
consequences of our moral degradation, as well as the environmental
damage that we have caused."

The bishop, who is a leading evangelical, said that people should heed
the stories of the Bible, which described the downfall of the Roman
empire as a result of its immorality.

"We are in serious moral trouble because every type of lifestyle is
now regarded as legitimate," he said.

"In the Bible, institutional power is referred to as 'the beast',
which sets itself up to control people and their morals. Our
government has been playing the role of God in saying that people are
free to act as they want," he said, adding that the introduction of
recent pro-gay laws highlighted its determination to undermine
marriage.

"The sexual orientation regulations [which give greater rights to
gays] are part of a general scene of permissiveness. We are in a
situation where we are liable for God's judgment, which is intended to
call us to repentance."

He expressed his sympathy for those who have been hit by the weather,
but said that the problem with "environmental judgment is that it is
indiscriminate".

Richard Corfield

unread,
Jul 2, 2007, 9:08:58 AM7/2/07
to
On 2007-07-02, Giles <g_ha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml
>
> Floods are judgment on society, say bishops

Given a sufficiently large population of bishops is it possible that
you'll find at least one with this kind of opinion? It's a nice evil
grin on the picture.

- Richard

--
_/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ Richard Corfield <Richard....@gmail.com>
_/ _/ _/ _/
_/_/ _/ _/ Time is a one way street,
_/ _/ _/_/ _/_/_/ except in the Twilight Zone

Marcus Maxwell

unread,
Jul 2, 2007, 12:18:53 PM7/2/07
to
Giles <g_ha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
news:1183371719.1...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:

> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood2
> 01.xml

>
> Floods are judgment on society, say bishops
>
> By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Sunday Telegraph
> Last Updated: 2:01am BST 02/07/2007
>
> The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's
> judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, according to
> senior Church of England bishops.
>
> Bishop of Carlisle: Floods are judgment on society
> The Bishop said pro-gay laws were to blame for the floods

<snip>

Graham Dow is rather odd in some of his views, I think (note
understatement).

What I found interesting in the article was that the comments of the
bishops of Liverpool and London were tacked on at the end, apparently in n
attempt to subsume them under the dafter statement.

--
Marcus Maxwell

celia

unread,
Jul 2, 2007, 3:20:42 PM7/2/07
to
On 2 Jul, 14:08, Richard Corfield <Richard.Corfi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 2007-07-02, Giles <g_har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> ? It's a nice evil
> grin on the picture.

His credentials as a 'shepherd' are rather undermined by the lamb
impaled on his crook.

Celia

Richard Corfield

unread,
Jul 2, 2007, 5:23:46 PM7/2/07
to

:-) Very good. Photographers are warned about those kinds of things.
Is it a lamb though, or a golden retriever retrieving something?

Diana Galletly

unread,
Jul 2, 2007, 6:11:29 PM7/2/07
to
In article <Xns9961B029EE098ma...@140.99.99.130>,

Marcus Maxwell <marcus....@NOSPAMntlworld.com> wrote:
>What I found interesting in the article was that the comments of the
>bishops of Liverpool and London were tacked on at the end, apparently in n
>attempt to subsume them under the dafter statement.

Yes, I noticed that as well. Popular media in sensationalist shocker!
--
+ Diana Galletly <gall...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> +
+ http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~galletly +
+ http://diana-galletly.fotopic.net +

Mark Goodge

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 4:05:19 AM7/3/07
to
Giles wrote:
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml
>
> Floods are judgment on society, say bishops
>
> By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Sunday Telegraph
> Last Updated: 2:01am BST 02/07/2007
>
> The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's
> judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, according to
> senior Church of England bishops.

According to a knowledgeable source on a mailing list that I read, this
is merely another example of the press quoting something out of context.
The bishop was interviewed on more than one topic, but quotes from
different topics (in this case, the floods and the bishop's opinions on
moral behaviour) were conflated in such a way as to give an entirely
false impression that comments made about the latter related to the
former. And then another set of comments from other senior clerics were
added in a way which suggested that they were supporting the invented
quote from the first bishop.

So, it isn't really much of a story after all. Except to demonstrate how
eager some people are to disparage the church that they will fall for
media misrepresentation in this way.

Mark
--
http://mark.goodge.co.uk

Peter Ashby

unread,
Jul 2, 2007, 7:31:47 AM7/2/07
to
Giles <g_ha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Well as someone pointed out in the original thread the judgement is
getting less and less effective as fewer people die in floods these
days. Especially when compared to the time before homosexuality was
decriminalised. So the data say otherwise. Perhaps god is telling us
that being tolerant and using empirical knowledge to help safeguard us
from forseeable events is ok by him. Perhaps those poor innocent victims
were a comment on the ignorance and intolerance of bishops?

Peter
--
Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a country
www.the-brights.net

Giles

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 6:25:54 AM7/3/07
to
On Jul 3, 9:05 am, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
wrote:

>
> According to a knowledgeable source on a mailing list that I read, this
> is merely another example of the press quoting something out of context.
> The bishop was interviewed on more than one topic, but quotes from
> different topics (in this case, the floods and the bishop's opinions on
> moral behaviour) were conflated in such a way as to give an entirely
> false impression that comments made about the latter related to the
> former. And then another set of comments from other senior clerics were
> added in a way which suggested that they were supporting the invented
> quote from the first bishop.
>
> So, it isn't really much of a story after all. Except to demonstrate how
> eager some people are to disparage the church that they will fall for
> media misrepresentation in this way.
>
> Mark
> --http://mark.goodge.co.uk

"The sexual orientation regulations [which give greater rights to


gays] are part of a general scene of permissiveness. We are in a
situation where we are liable for God's judgment, which is intended to
call us to repentance."

Everything there is within one pair of quotation marks. Conflating and
misquoting doesn't come into it there.

It's clear where the bishop is coming from.

The Middle Ages. :-)

Paul Wright

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 6:24:32 AM7/3/07
to
In article <468a00eb$1...@server1.good-stuff.co.uk>, Mark Goodge wrote:
> Giles wrote:
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml
>>
>> Floods are judgment on society, say bishops
...

> According to a knowledgeable source on a mailing list that I read,
> this is merely another example of the press quoting something out of
> context. The bishop was interviewed on more than one topic, but quotes
> from different topics (in this case, the floods and the bishop's
> opinions on moral behaviour) were conflated in such a way as to give
> an entirely false impression that comments made about the latter
> related to the former.

Interesting. Has the Bishop himself issued a clarification? I can't find
anything of that sort on his web-site[1], which means I've only got you
reporting your anonymous source, vs a respectable news organ like the
Torygraph. I'm not sure what motivation the Telegraph has for distorting
his words. I'd've thought, as a conservative paper, they'd be in favour
of the C of E.

[1] http://www.carlislediocese.org.uk/people/bishops/

> And then another set of comments from other senior clerics were added
> in a way which suggested that they were supporting the invented quote
> from the first bishop.

I noticed that.


> So, it isn't really much of a story after all. Except to demonstrate
> how eager some people are to disparage the church that they will fall
> for media misrepresentation in this way.

Do you think the Bishop sounds very much better if he didn't link the
flooding to moral degeneracy, but merely compared the Government to the
Beast of Revelation for allowing its gay citizens equality under the
law?

--
Paul Wright | http://www.noctua.org.uk/
Reply address is valid but discards anything which isn't plain text

marca...@hotmail.co.uk

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 6:57:29 AM7/3/07
to
On 2 Jul, 12:31, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> Giles <g_har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nfloo...

>
> > Floods are judgment on society, say bishops
>
> Well as someone pointed out in the original thread the judgement is
> getting less and less effective as fewer people die in floods these
> days. Especially when compared to the time before homosexuality was
> decriminalised. So the data say otherwise. Perhaps god is telling us
> that being tolerant and using empirical knowledge to help safeguard us
> from forseeable events is ok by him. Perhaps those poor innocent victims
> were a comment on the ignorance and intolerance of bishops?
>
> Peter
> --
> Add my middle initial to email me. It has become attached to a countrywww.the-brights.net

Perhaps its a bit early to say, if global warming continues and the
floods get worse things may change. This may be just the start.

God Bless

Marc

Mark Goodge

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 7:11:09 AM7/3/07
to
Giles wrote:
> On Jul 3, 9:05 am, Mark Goodge <use...@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> According to a knowledgeable source on a mailing list that I read, this
>> is merely another example of the press quoting something out of context.
>> The bishop was interviewed on more than one topic, but quotes from
>> different topics (in this case, the floods and the bishop's opinions on
>> moral behaviour) were conflated in such a way as to give an entirely
>> false impression that comments made about the latter related to the
>> former. And then another set of comments from other senior clerics were
>> added in a way which suggested that they were supporting the invented
>> quote from the first bishop.
>>
>> So, it isn't really much of a story after all. Except to demonstrate how
>> eager some people are to disparage the church that they will fall for
>> media misrepresentation in this way.
>
> "The sexual orientation regulations [which give greater rights to
> gays] are part of a general scene of permissiveness. We are in a
> situation where we are liable for God's judgment, which is intended to
> call us to repentance."
>
> Everything there is within one pair of quotation marks. Conflating and
> misquoting doesn't come into it there.

Indeed. But that's normal evangelical theology. There's nothing there to
suggest that the floods are part of God's judgement, and the bishop
never implied that they are.

Mark
--
http://mark.goodge.co.uk

Mark Goodge

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 7:14:56 AM7/3/07
to

I think it's entirely legitimate to point out that recent changes in the
law have encouraged moral degeneracy. I think that it does, however,
make someone sound rather foolish if they assert that the recent weather
has been God's response to that. I think that the author of the report
is aware of that, and that's why he deliberately made the bishop appear
to say something that he didn't.

Mark
--
http://mark.goodge.co.uk

Marcus Maxwell

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 10:08:07 AM7/3/07
to
Paul Wright <-$P-W$-@noctua.org.uk> wrote in
news:slrnf8k8uv.o2u.-$P-W$-@noctua.org.uk:

> In article <468a00eb$1...@server1.good-stuff.co.uk>, Mark Goodge wrote:

<snip>

>> the
>> bishop's opinions on moral behaviour) were conflated in such a way as
>> to give an entirely false impression that comments made about the
>> latter related to the former.
>
> Interesting. Has the Bishop himself issued a clarification? I can't
> find anything of that sort on his web-site[1], which means I've only
> got you reporting your anonymous source, vs a respectable news organ
> like the Torygraph. I'm not sure what motivation the Telegraph has for
> distorting his words. I'd've thought, as a conservative paper, they'd
> be in favour of the C of E.
>
> [1] http://www.carlislediocese.org.uk/people/bishops/

Since the latest Bishop's letter there is from March, it could be due
for an update.


>
>> And then another set of comments from other senior clerics were added
>> in a way which suggested that they were supporting the invented quote
>> from the first bishop.
>
> I noticed that.

Which may suggest that the respectable news organ has less regard for
accuracy in this report than might be hoped for.


>> So, it isn't really much of a story after all. Except to demonstrate
>> how eager some people are to disparage the church that they will fall
>> for media misrepresentation in this way.
>
> Do you think the Bishop sounds very much better if he didn't link the
> flooding to moral degeneracy, but merely compared the Government to
> the Beast of Revelation for allowing its gay citizens equality under
> the law?

As I said elsewhere in the thread, I think Graham has some odd views, so
the one imputed to him here was disappointing, but not desperately
unbelievable. However, on further reflection, I suspect that Mark may
be right. +G's interest in the Book of Revelation was always in the
context of political and social theology. I can easily see a comment
about the state as the beast (surely the original meaning) could easily
be tacked onto others about state morality to give a quick snigger-fix.
And since that has been done with +'s L'pool and London, I will reserve
further judgement.

--
Marcus Maxwell

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 2:30:53 PM7/3/07
to
Mark Goodge wrote:

> Giles wrote:
>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nflood201.xml
>> Floods are judgment on society, say bishops
>> By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Sunday Telegraph
>> Last Updated: 2:01am BST 02/07/2007
>> The floods that have devastated swathes of the country are God's
>> judgment on the immorality and greed of modern society, according to
>> senior Church of England bishops.
>
> According to a knowledgeable source on a mailing list that I read,
> this is merely another example of the press quoting something out of
> context. The bishop was interviewed on more than one topic, but quotes
> from different topics (in this case, the floods and the bishop's
> opinions on moral behaviour) were conflated in such a way as to give
> an entirely false impression that comments made about the latter
> related to the former.

If Graham Dow didn't say some really quite outrageous things
then the level of dishonesty in the article has to be quite
spectacular -- not just a matter of artful juxtaposition of
quotations. Thus, e.g.,

| "This is a strong and definite judgment because the world has
| been arrogant in going its own way," he said. "We are reaping
| the consequences of our moral degradation, as well as the
| environmental damage that we have caused."

and

| "In the Bible, institutional power is referred to as 'the beast',
| which sets itself up to control people and their morals. Our
| government has been playing the role of God in saying that people
| are free to act as they want," he said, adding that the
| introduction of recent pro-gay laws highlighted its determination
| to undermine marriage.

(As Paul Wright pointed out in Another Place, the disconnect
between the first and second sentences there is remarkable.)
And the caption on the photo:

| The Bishop said pro-gay laws were to blame for the floods

But if I had my way, it would be illegal[1] to publish a story
of this sort without at least indicating where and when the
bishop supposedly said these things. My guess is that he did
say them and they were at least roughly as outrageous as the
article suggests, but by just saying "the bishop said X" with
absolutely no context (other than the fact of the recent
flooding) they make it impossible to check anything.

[1] Well ... probably not actually illegal.

> And then another set of comments from other
> senior clerics were added in a way which suggested that they were
> supporting the invented quote from the first bishop.

Yup, that's a bit sleazy -- though, just as I'd like something
more than "the bishop said ..." from them, I'd like something
more than "someone told me on a mailing list" to support your
description of the quotation from Graham Dow as "invented".

> So, it isn't really much of a story after all. Except to demonstrate
> how eager some people are to disparage the church that they will fall
> for media misrepresentation in this way.

Well, hang on; we don't *know* whether it's much of a story
yet. We have the word of a (named, but of unknown honesty)
Telegraph reporter against the word of an unnamed source on
an unspecified mailing list.

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 2:45:36 PM7/3/07
to
<marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message

> Perhaps its a bit early to say, if global warming continues and the
> floods get worse things may change. This may be just the start.

Luke 21:25 "And there shall be signs in the sun, and in the moon, and in
the stars; and upon the earth distress of nations, with perplexity; the sea
and the waves roaring; ~[caused by Earthquakes: Tsunamis :Typhoons etc]~

26 Men's hearts failing them for fear, and for looking after those things
which are coming on the earth: for the powers of heaven shall be shaken.

27 And then shall they see the Son of man coming in a cloud with power and
great glory.
28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up
your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh."

Jeff...

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 7:03:04 PM7/3/07
to
I wrote:

> If Graham Dow didn't say some really quite outrageous things
> then the level of dishonesty in the article has to be quite
> spectacular -- not just a matter of artful juxtaposition of
> quotations.

[etc.]

I should perhaps add: yes, it is certainly possible that the
level of dishonesty in the article *is* spectacular. Newspapers
do sometimes publish spectacularly dishonest articles. So I
wasn't offering the above as a refutation of what Mark said.

Peter Ashby

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 7:29:07 AM7/3/07
to
<marca...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

> On 2 Jul, 12:31, pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk (Peter Ashby) wrote:
> > Giles <g_har...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > >http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/01/nfloo...
> >
> > > Floods are judgment on society, say bishops
> >
> > Well as someone pointed out in the original thread the judgement is
> > getting less and less effective as fewer people die in floods these
> > days. Especially when compared to the time before homosexuality was
> > decriminalised. So the data say otherwise. Perhaps god is telling us
> > that being tolerant and using empirical knowledge to help safeguard us
> > from forseeable events is ok by him. Perhaps those poor innocent victims
> > were a comment on the ignorance and intolerance of bishops?
> >
>

> Perhaps its a bit early to say, if global warming continues and the
> floods get worse things may change. This may be just the start.
>

But if fewer and fewer people are hurt where is the judgement?

Mark Goodge

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 2:26:55 AM7/4/07
to
On 03 Jul 2007 19:30:53 +0100, Gareth McCaughan put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>> And then another set of comments from other
>> senior clerics were added in a way which suggested that they were
>> supporting the invented quote from the first bishop.
>
>Yup, that's a bit sleazy -- though, just as I'd like something
>more than "the bishop said ..." from them, I'd like something
>more than "someone told me on a mailing list" to support your
>description of the quotation from Graham Dow as "invented".

I'll provide more if/when I get more. But I suspect that it may well
have to wait until the bishop himself issues some kind of public
clarification.

Mark
--
http://www.BritishSurnames.co.uk - What does your surname say about you?
"A singing bird in an open cage who will only fly, only fly for freedom"

Mark Goodge

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 2:41:00 AM7/4/07
to
On 04 Jul 2007 00:03:04 +0100, Gareth McCaughan put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>I wrote:

I don't think it's necessarily deliberate dishonesty, at least to that
level. Fundamentally, it's more a case of a possibly rather naive
interviewee who uses too much jargon and fails to explicitly qualify
statements that need qualifying for an external audience, combined
with an interviewer who misunderstands a lot of what has been said
but, when reviewing his tapes and notes, finds some nicely quotable
statements which he uses as the basis for a story that he thinks will
be of interest to his readers. The picture caption ("The Bishop said
pro-gay laws were to blame for the floods") will then have been added
by a sub-editor who only has the text of the article to go by, thus
completing an almost entirely inaccurate portrayal even though at no
point did anyone set out to deliberately be dishonest.

Mark
--
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"We dream our dreams alone with no resistance"

Giles

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 5:07:02 AM7/4/07
to
Is the Bishop of Carlisle qualified to comment on the causes of bad
weather outside the UK, or is his area of expertise limited to
meteorological happenings in this country. It's just that there have
been a lot of other deaths due to the weather around the world
recently. Perhaps he could supply some sort of daily update.
http://news.yahoo.com/i/1112

After all, there's always some bad weather going on somewhere.

If floods are due to pro-gay laws, are droughts due to too harsh
government repression of gays?

Peter Ashby

unread,
Jul 3, 2007, 5:25:36 PM7/3/07
to
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:

> > And then another set of comments from other
> > senior clerics were added in a way which suggested that they were
> > supporting the invented quote from the first bishop.
>
> Yup, that's a bit sleazy -- though, just as I'd like something
> more than "the bishop said ..." from them, I'd like something
> more than "someone told me on a mailing list" to support your
> description of the quotation from Graham Dow as "invented".

I had a strange sense of deja vu here. Then I realised, you are
channeling what you said in response to the case of the bish of
Westminster and the taxi that wasn't when he wasn't tired and
emotional...

What is it with bishops of the CofE?

1st Century Apostolic Traditionalist UK.RC

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 5:08:14 PM7/4/07
to
"Giles" <g_ha...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1183540022....@q69g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...

<Chuckle mode on>
No! God gave His just condemnation of the vile activities of a massive gay
community and showed us the perfect example of His idea of a ~too harsh~
~repression of gays~ before we were even thought of.......

Genesis 19:. 24 "Then the Lord rained down fire and flaming tar from heaven
upon Sodom and Gomorrah,
25 and utterly destroyed them, along with the other cities and villages of
the plain, eliminating all life--people, plants, and animals alike.
26 But Lot's wife looked back as she was following along behind him and
became a pillar of salt." (TLB)

Pity about the animals [perhaps they were 'gay' to?] still it's a good job
for them, there were no pushy animal right activists in the area....{;o;}

Jeff...

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Jul 4, 2007, 6:34:31 PM7/4/07
to
Peter Ashby wrote:

> Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>> And then another set of comments from other
>>> senior clerics were added in a way which suggested that they were
>>> supporting the invented quote from the first bishop.
>>
>> Yup, that's a bit sleazy -- though, just as I'd like something
>> more than "the bishop said ..." from them, I'd like something
>> more than "someone told me on a mailing list" to support your
>> description of the quotation from Graham Dow as "invented".
>
> I had a strange sense of deja vu here. Then I realised, you are
> channeling what you said in response to the case of the bish of
> Westminster and the taxi that wasn't when he wasn't tired and
> emotional...

Do you mean Southwark?

I don't recall saying anything exactly like the above about that
story, but I wouldn't be surprised if I did. I have always had
a strong preference for evidence over unattributed anecdote. :-)

> What is it with bishops of the CofE?

They're rather like other people, except that newspapers are
more likely to report the things they say. Especially when they're
silly.

Paul Wright

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 4:00:12 PM7/5/07
to
In article <Xns996299FE8EF1Fma...@140.99.99.130>, Marcus

Maxwell wrote:
> Paul Wright <-$P-W$-@noctua.org.uk> wrote in
> news:slrnf8k8uv.o2u.-$P-W$-@noctua.org.uk:
>> Do you think the Bishop sounds very much better if he didn't link the
>> flooding to moral degeneracy, but merely compared the Government to
>> the Beast of Revelation for allowing its gay citizens equality under
>> the law?
>
> As I said elsewhere in the thread, I think Graham has some odd views,
> so the one imputed to him here was disappointing, but not desperately
> unbelievable. However, on further reflection, I suspect that Mark may
> be right.

As Gareth points out, the apparently unbroken quote which they lead off
on mentions both environmental damage and moral degradation.

> +G's interest in the Book of Revelation was always in the context of
> political and social theology. I can easily see a comment about the
> state as the beast (surely the original meaning) could easily be
> tacked onto others about state morality to give a quick snigger-fix.
> And since that has been done with +'s L'pool and London, I will
> reserve further judgement.

Well, the Bishop's letter from March 07[1] talks in those terms without
using the beast of Revelation. Are you arguing that the Bishop probably
didn't mention the beast? It seems unlikely that a journalist would make
that up.

That said, the story is poor journalism because it doesn't mention when
any of the subjects said the things which the Telegraph mentions.

I heard that the Bishop's spokesperson had been on the radio
back-pedalling from the statements in the Telegraph article. Did anyone
hear what the spokesperson said?

[1]
<http://www.carlislediocese.org.uk/notices/viewnews/?subaction=showfull&id=1172948362&archive=&start_from=&ucat=4&>

Diana Galletly

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 4:18:58 AM7/6/07
to
In article <1i0p4w9.1ybnbfk197qn5xN%pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk>,
Peter Ashby <pas...@blueyonder.co.ruk> wrote:

>What is it with bishops of the CofE?

If you think they're bad, you ought to see what some of the ones in the
Orthodox Church of America get up to. And on public mailing-lists, in
some cases, at that.

Frederick Williams

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 10:21:10 AM7/6/07
to
Gareth McCaughan wrote:

>
> Peter Ashby wrote:

> > What is it with bishops of the CofE?
>
> They're rather like other people, except that newspapers are
> more likely to report the things they say. Especially when they're
> silly.

By and large bishops are sensible people. I've often thought that the
reason Christianity flourishes is because the silliness of the laity is
too much for the common sense of the bishops to overcome. There are
exceptions such as Sentamu but they are few and far between.

--
Remove "antispam" and ".invalid" for e-mail address.
"He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord, and shall be repaid,"
said Mrs Fairchild, hastily slipping a shilling into the poor woman's
hand.

Quasin

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 10:26:49 AM7/6/07
to
Paul Wright wrote:
>
> Well, the Bishop's letter from March 07[1] talks in those terms without
> using the beast of Revelation. Are you arguing that the Bishop probably
> didn't mention the beast? It seems unlikely that a journalist would make
> that up.
>

I have no idea what this bishop said or what this journalist did, but I
have been interviewed by news reporters several times over the years; no
article got it right, although usually the error was harmless other than
unnecessarily embarrassing.

But yes one reporter made stuff up. Fortunately based on prior
experiences I had demanded I get to see the article ahead of time and
correct any factual errors. (Most reporters won't agree to those terms.)

The reporter had completely reversed a statement I made. I was being
interviewed because I was an expert; if people relied on what she
incorrectly quoted me as saying, they would get in big trouble!

When I called her to correct it (within ten minutes of receiving her
fax, as agreed), she said yes she knew what she wrote was the opposite
of what I had said. She had done that intentionally because she thought
she knew better than I did. She reluctantly agreed to change it, since
the right to make factual corrections had been my terms for being
interviewed.

This was for a professional journal, where factual accuracy matters, and
yet she knowingly reverse a factual, objectively researchable, statement
I had made.

Based on my experiences, when people protest that a journalist got
something wrong, even something important, I kinda assume there may be
something to the complaint. Not necessarily, but a definite maybe.

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 4:51:50 PM7/6/07
to
Frederick Williams wrote:

> Gareth McCaughan wrote:
>>
>> Peter Ashby wrote:
>
>>> What is it with bishops of the CofE?
>>
>> They're rather like other people, except that newspapers are
>> more likely to report the things they say. Especially when they're
>> silly.
>
> By and large bishops are sensible people. I've often thought that the
> reason Christianity flourishes is because the silliness of the laity is
> too much for the common sense of the bishops to overcome. There are
> exceptions such as Sentamu but they are few and far between.

Are you offering him as an example of a bishop with enough common sense
to overcome the silliness of the laity, or a bishop who isn't sensible?

Marcus Maxwell

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 9:33:42 PM7/6/07
to
Paul Wright <-$P-W$-@noctua.org.uk> wrote in
news:slrnf8qjeb.s52.-$P-W$-@noctua.org.uk:

> In article <Xns996299FE8EF1Fma...@140.99.99.130>,
> Marcus Maxwell wrote:
>> Paul Wright <-$P-W$-@noctua.org.uk> wrote in
>> news:slrnf8k8uv.o2u.-$P-W$-@noctua.org.uk:
>>> Do you think the Bishop sounds very much better if he didn't link
>>> the flooding to moral degeneracy, but merely compared the Government
>>> to the Beast of Revelation for allowing its gay citizens equality
>>> under the law?
>>
>> As I said elsewhere in the thread, I think Graham has some odd views,
>> so the one imputed to him here was disappointing, but not desperately
>> unbelievable. However, on further reflection, I suspect that Mark
>> may be right.
>
> As Gareth points out, the apparently unbroken quote which they lead
> off on mentions both environmental damage and moral degradation.

And it was that which made me ready to accept the report at face value.
On reflection, though, I wonder. Another bishop recently told me that
he had seen a +Graham's comments, and that they bore little relationship
to the story as published, so it's possible the seamless quote wasn't.
Without any source to check, I still withhold judgement.

>> +G's interest in the Book of Revelation was always in the context of
>> political and social theology. I can easily see a comment about the
>> state as the beast (surely the original meaning) could easily be
>> tacked onto others about state morality to give a quick snigger-fix.
>> And since that has been done with +'s L'pool and London, I will
>> reserve further judgement.
>
> Well, the Bishop's letter from March 07[1] talks in those terms
> without using the beast of Revelation. Are you arguing that the Bishop
> probably didn't mention the beast? It seems unlikely that a journalist
> would make that up.

He may well have done. But the context isn't the one I think he would
have favoured some years ago, when I knew him a little better. So
again, I wonder whether a comment on Revelation has been conflated with
other stuff.


> That said, the story is poor journalism because it doesn't mention
> when any of the subjects said the things which the Telegraph mentions.

On that, I agree.

there's something at

http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=41625

Kendall K. Down

unread,
Jul 6, 2007, 12:53:22 PM7/6/07
to
In message <468E5128...@nosuchisp.com>
Quasin <qua...@nosuchisp.com> wrote:

> When I called her to correct it (within ten minutes of receiving her
> fax, as agreed), she said yes she knew what she wrote was the opposite
> of what I had said. She had done that intentionally because she thought
> she knew better than I did. She reluctantly agreed to change it, since
> the right to make factual corrections had been my terms for being
> interviewed.

People do make slips of the tongue, you know. Mind you, she should have
sought clarification at the time or at least phoned you up when she came to
write up the interview.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

--
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
| Australia's premier archaeological magazine |
| http://www.diggingsonline.com |
========================================================

Frederick Williams

unread,
Jul 7, 2007, 9:43:51 AM7/7/07
to

The latter. (Oh crumbs, I hope Gareth isn't going to take me too
seriously again.)

Peter Ashby

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 4:36:55 AM7/5/07
to
Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:

> Peter Ashby wrote:
>
> > Gareth McCaughan <Gareth.M...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> >>> And then another set of comments from other
> >>> senior clerics were added in a way which suggested that they were
> >>> supporting the invented quote from the first bishop.
> >>
> >> Yup, that's a bit sleazy -- though, just as I'd like something
> >> more than "the bishop said ..." from them, I'd like something
> >> more than "someone told me on a mailing list" to support your
> >> description of the quotation from Graham Dow as "invented".
> >
> > I had a strange sense of deja vu here. Then I realised, you are
> > channeling what you said in response to the case of the bish of
> > Westminster and the taxi that wasn't when he wasn't tired and
> > emotional...
>
> Do you mean Southwark?
>

Indeed, thanks for the correction.



> I don't recall saying anything exactly like the above about that
> story, but I wouldn't be surprised if I did. I have always had
> a strong preference for evidence over unattributed anecdote. :-)
>
> > What is it with bishops of the CofE?
>
> They're rather like other people, except that newspapers are
> more likely to report the things they say. Especially when they're
> silly.

I suspect you are right. For eg I have seen much sillier things in here
and elsewhere and nobody writes those up.

Peter Ashby

unread,
Jul 5, 2007, 4:43:02 PM7/5/07
to
Paul Wright <-$P-W$-@noctua.org.uk> wrote:

>
> I heard that the Bishop's spokesperson had been on the radio
> back-pedalling from the statements in the Telegraph article. Did anyone
> hear what the spokesperson said?

He was on R4 in the evening I don't remember if it was PM or the 6
o'clock news. He was on with AC Grayling who was well informed and made
much the same points you did, ie that the orginal statement did link the
environment and moral degradation. The spokesman (A Rev Doctor, don't
remember his name) was rather flustered and I have to say Prof Grayling
did rather get the better of him.

Gareth McCaughan

unread,
Jul 7, 2007, 8:53:17 PM7/7/07
to
Frederick Williams wrote:

>>> By and large bishops are sensible people. I've often thought that the
>>> reason Christianity flourishes is because the silliness of the laity is
>>> too much for the common sense of the bishops to overcome. There are
>>> exceptions such as Sentamu but they are few and far between.
>>
>> Are you offering him as an example of a bishop with enough common sense
>> to overcome the silliness of the laity, or a bishop who isn't sensible?
>
> The latter. (Oh crumbs, I hope Gareth isn't going to take me too
> seriously again.)

No, I just wanted to understand what sort of joke you were making :-).

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages