The Christian Discussion Thread X: Originally there were 15

[Salus Maior]

Hey Dio, did you hear that the current head of the UK's House of Commons is a Trad Catholic?

He's also a charlatan.

How so?

[Salus Maior]

He's also a charlatan.

So he’s a politician.

Incompetent in everything except tricking people.

So he’s a bad politician.

Based.

[Skyviolia]

So he’s a politician.



So he’s a bad politician.

Based.

>Making a defensible argument that proves your point
>"based"

[Tarsonis]

Based.

>Making a defensible argument that proves your point
>"based"

I didn’t really have a point, was just being snarky. “Based” is accurate

[Salus Maior]

Based.

>Making a defensible argument that proves your point
>"based"

I'm actually just agreeing with his point about politicians in a joking way.

[Lower Nubia]

He's also a charlatan.

How so?

Where to begin? His most recent example of perfect charalatanism. Words he's banned amongst his staff: "very, equal, 'Invest in <school, hospital, etc.>', unacceptable, 'too many I's', hopefully, due to, got, lot, yourself."

Many of these words he's used in speeches.

He also said in his list of requirements for his staff that they must use: "imperial measures". Well mr. Mogg, how about you; "Ell yourself a goad of gill to skein your polex you shaftment - what a barleycorn."

[The Xenopolis Confederation]

How so?

Where to begin? His most recent example of perfect charalatanism. Words he's banned amongst his staff: "very, equal, 'Invest in <school, hospital, etc.>', unacceptable, 'too many I's', hopefully, due to, got, lot, yourself."

Many of these words he's used in speeches.

He also said in his list of requirements for his staff that they must use: "imperial measures". Well mr. Mogg, how about you; "Ell yourself a goad of gill to skein your polex you shaftment - what a barleycorn."

Wait, he banned the words "very" and "equal" and "unacceptable" and "due to" and "got" and "lot" and "yourself?" Why would someone ban any words among their staff, let alone those words?

[Lower Nubia]

Where to begin? His most recent example of perfect charalatanism. Words he's banned amongst his staff: "very, equal, 'Invest in <school, hospital, etc.>', unacceptable, 'too many I's', hopefully, due to, got, lot, yourself."

Many of these words he's used in speeches.

He also said in his list of requirements for his staff that they must use: "imperial measures". Well mr. Mogg, how about you; "Ell yourself a goad of gill to skein your polex you shaftment - what a barleycorn."

Wait, he banned the words "very" and "equal" and "unacceptable" and "due to" and "got" and "lot" and "yourself?" Why would someone ban any words among their staff, let alone those words?

Yes.

He's a charlatan. The only people who think he's classy, or a gentleman, are the same people who believe gullible isn't in the dictionary.

[Tarsonis]

Wait, he banned the words "very" and "equal" and "unacceptable" and "due to" and "got" and "lot" and "yourself?" Why would someone ban any words among their staff, let alone those words?

Yes.

He's a charlatan. The only people who think he's classy, or a gentleman, are the same people who believe gullible isn't in the dictionary.

It’s not. It’s written on the ceiling

[Kowani]

How so?

Where to begin? His most recent example of perfect charalatanism. Words he's banned amongst his staff: "very, equal, 'Invest in <school, hospital, etc.>', unacceptable, 'too many I's', hopefully, due to, got, lot, yourself."

Many of these words he's used in speeches.

He also said in his list of requirements for his staff that they must use: "imperial measures". Well mr. Mogg, how about you; "Ell yourself a goad of gill to skein your polex you shaftment - what a barleycorn."

And, he’s banned the usage of commas behind the word and, which is just plain ridiculous.

[Salus Maior]

How so?

Where to begin? His most recent example of perfect charalatanism. Words he's banned amongst his staff: "very, equal, 'Invest in <school, hospital, etc.>', unacceptable, 'too many I's', hopefully, due to, got, lot, yourself."

Many of these words he's used in speeches.

He also said in his list of requirements for his staff that they must use: "imperial measures". Well mr. Mogg, how about you; "Ell yourself a goad of gill to skein your polex you shaftment - what a barleycorn."

Well, that's just..."What?" Although I'm not sure how that makes him a charlatan. Just kind of stuck up (and considering he's what I'd call a "highborn Brit" I'd kind of expect a bit of a stuck up personality).

[Lower Nubia]

Where to begin? His most recent example of perfect charalatanism. Words he's banned amongst his staff: "very, equal, 'Invest in <school, hospital, etc.>', unacceptable, 'too many I's', hopefully, due to, got, lot, yourself."

Many of these words he's used in speeches.

He also said in his list of requirements for his staff that they must use: "imperial measures". Well mr. Mogg, how about you; "Ell yourself a goad of gill to skein your polex you shaftment - what a barleycorn."

Well, that's just..."What?" Although I'm not sure how that makes him a charlatan. Just kind of stuck up (and considering he's what I'd call a "highborn Brit" I'd kind of expect a bit of a stuck up personality).

That's his most recent example of nonsense - as if peddling to imperial measure makes the administrative process effective - otherwise it should be redundant.

His Catholic motives in parliament must also be called into question, not least seeing as he continues to be part of a party that goes counter to Catholic dogma. In that, his party both allowed homosexual marriage and abortion, which were then recently forced onto Northern Ireland.

[Salus Maior]

That's his most recent example of nonsense - as if peddling to imperial measure makes the administrative process effective - otherwise it should be redundant.

His Catholic motives in parliament must also be called into question, not least seeing as he continues to be part of a party that goes counter to Catholic dogma. In that, his party both allowed homosexual marriage and abortion, which were then recently forced onto Northern Ireland.

Ok, but I don't see how that makes him a charlatan.

And is there a significant party in Britain that is pro-life and does not run counter to Catholic doctrine in one way or another?

[Bienenhalde]

Well, that's just..."What?" Although I'm not sure how that makes him a charlatan. Just kind of stuck up (and considering he's what I'd call a "highborn Brit" I'd kind of expect a bit of a stuck up personality).

That's his most recent example of nonsense - as if peddling to imperial measure makes the administrative process effective - otherwise it should be redundant.

His Catholic motives in parliament must also be called into question, not least seeing as he continues to be part of a party that goes counter to Catholic dogma. In that, his party both allowed homosexual marriage and abortion, which were then recently forced onto Northern Ireland.

I do not think that the Conservative Party takes any official position on abortion and same-sex marriage. I mean, I think Conservative MPs are permitted to vote on those matters according to personal conscience without facing any party discipline. At least that is how I understand it.

[Hakons]

Well, that's just..."What?" Although I'm not sure how that makes him a charlatan. Just kind of stuck up (and considering he's what I'd call a "highborn Brit" I'd kind of expect a bit of a stuck up personality).

That's his most recent example of nonsense - as if peddling to imperial measure makes the administrative process effective - otherwise it should be redundant.

His Catholic motives in parliament must also be called into question, not least seeing as he continues to be part of a party that goes counter to Catholic dogma. In that, his party both allowed homosexual marriage and abortion, which were then recently forced onto Northern Ireland.

All British parties go against Catholic dogma in some way. What matters is that Mogg votes and defends the Church's position on marriage and life. Northern Ireland has parliament dictating their laws (hopefully temporarily) because they can't get their own government together. In terms of protecting Christian marriage and the unborn, the British Isles aren't exactly fertile ground for this. If Ireland has secularized enough to take away these policies, how is Northern Ireland going to keep them? Sinn Fein, what's supposed to be the Catholic party in NI, supports liberalizing abortion and marriage, which is certainly gravely contrary to Catholic dogma. The largely protestant DUP is about the only political force remaining when it comes to protecting Catholic dogma in the British Isles, and that's a sad assessment of the situation.

[Lower Nubia]

That's his most recent example of nonsense - as if peddling to imperial measure makes the administrative process effective - otherwise it should be redundant.

His Catholic motives in parliament must also be called into question, not least seeing as he continues to be part of a party that goes counter to Catholic dogma. In that, his party both allowed homosexual marriage and abortion, which were then recently forced onto Northern Ireland.

Ok, but I don't see how that makes him a charlatan.

And is there a significant party in Britain that is pro-life and does not run counter to Catholic doctrine in one way or another?

“A person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.“ Two examples where he has claimed special knowledge, and these are false both in his caricature of traditionalism and his lack of understanding in political matters.

To answer your question: no. Yet Mogg is supposed to be an ambassador for Catholic dogma, while low and behold he continues in his appointment, without complaint. He has said he believes: “the Conservatives are the best party for the UK.” If he is a Catholic, and no party champions morals, then I assume that statement is purely fiscally minded, but seeing as the conservatives havn’t even got that to their name, then I conclude he’s either a fool, a liar, or a Labour agent: he is a charlatan, both in Catholic quality and political understanding.

[Lower Nubia]

That's his most recent example of nonsense - as if peddling to imperial measure makes the administrative process effective - otherwise it should be redundant.

His Catholic motives in parliament must also be called into question, not least seeing as he continues to be part of a party that goes counter to Catholic dogma. In that, his party both allowed homosexual marriage and abortion, which were then recently forced onto Northern Ireland.

All British parties go against Catholic dogma in some way. What matters is that Mogg votes and defends the Church's position on marriage and life. Northern Ireland has parliament dictating their laws (hopefully temporarily) because they can't get their own government together. In terms of protecting Christian marriage and the unborn, the British Isles aren't exactly fertile ground for this. If Ireland has secularized enough to take away these policies, how is Northern Ireland going to keep them? Sinn Fein, what's supposed to be the Catholic party in NI, supports liberalizing abortion and marriage, which is certainly gravely contrary to Catholic dogma. The largely protestant DUP is about the only political force remaining when it comes to protecting Catholic dogma in the British Isles, and that's a sad assessment of the situation.

Is he? News to me, seeing as he remains a member of a party which allows these things to vote. Spare me the bullshit about how a lone Catholic in the upper eschelons of British government can turn the tide of secularism. He continue to allow a party, that has, recently I might add, revoked moral laws concerning NI. He stands by them in confidence no doubt seeing as he has not crossed over the house.

[Hakons]

Ok, but I don't see how that makes him a charlatan.

And is there a significant party in Britain that is pro-life and does not run counter to Catholic doctrine in one way or another?

“A person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.“ Two examples where he has claimed special knowledge, and these are false both in his caricature of traditionalism and his lack of understanding in political matters.

To answer your question: no. Yet Mogg is supposed to be an ambassador for Catholic dogma, while low and behold he continues in his appointment, without complaint. He has said he believes: “the Conservatives are the best party for the UK.” If he is a Catholic, and no party champions morals, then I assume that statement is purely fiscally minded, but seeing as the conservatives havn’t even got that to their name, then I conclude he’s either a fool, a liar, or a Labour agent. Thus I conclude he is a charlatan, both in Catholic quality and political understanding.

If I were British, I'd probably be voting Conservative. What party do you think at least remotely follows Church teaching? Labour? Lib Dems? I don't see anything wrong with a Catholic saying the Conservative party is best for the UK, since they largely are the closest to Catholic teaching. If Catholics took your political stance, that unless we have a full on endorsed Catholic party (which is against Catholic dogma actually, to endorse parties), then no Catholic could be in government and the secularists or other religions would dominate and create all sorts of anti-Catholic abuses.

[Hakons]

All British parties go against Catholic dogma in some way. What matters is that Mogg votes and defends the Church's position on marriage and life. Northern Ireland has parliament dictating their laws (hopefully temporarily) because they can't get their own government together. In terms of protecting Christian marriage and the unborn, the British Isles aren't exactly fertile ground for this. If Ireland has secularized enough to take away these policies, how is Northern Ireland going to keep them? Sinn Fein, what's supposed to be the Catholic party in NI, supports liberalizing abortion and marriage, which is certainly gravely contrary to Catholic dogma. The largely protestant DUP is about the only political force remaining when it comes to protecting Catholic dogma in the British Isles, and that's a sad assessment of the situation.

Is he? News to me, seeing as he remains a member of a party which allows these things to vote. Spare me the bullshit about how a lone Catholic in the upper eschelons of British government can turn the tide of secularism. He continue to allow a party, that has, recently I might add, revoked moral laws concerning NI. He stands by them in confidence no doubt seeing as he has not crossed over the house.

He voted against those NI changes. What else do you want a Catholic political to do? Resign parliament in a huff, and let a non-Catholic take over? Do you think that's better for advocating Catholic social teaching, to replace Catholics that support it with non-Catholics that don't?

Edit: This isn't much about Mogg. I think it's a good discussion for how Christians should be involved in politics and public life.

[Lower Nubia]

“A person falsely claiming to have a special knowledge or skill.“ Two examples where he has claimed special knowledge, and these are false both in his caricature of traditionalism and his lack of understanding in political matters.

To answer your question: no. Yet Mogg is supposed to be an ambassador for Catholic dogma, while low and behold he continues in his appointment, without complaint. He has said he believes: “the Conservatives are the best party for the UK.” If he is a Catholic, and no party champions morals, then I assume that statement is purely fiscally minded, but seeing as the conservatives havn’t even got that to their name, then I conclude he’s either a fool, a liar, or a Labour agent. Thus I conclude he is a charlatan, both in Catholic quality and political understanding.

If I were British, I'd probably be voting Conservative. What party do you think at least remotely follows Church teaching? Labour? Lib Dems? I don't see anything wrong with a Catholic saying the Conservative party is best for the UK, since they largely are the closest to Catholic teaching. If Catholics took your political stance, that unless we have a full on endorsed Catholic party (which is against Catholic dogma actually, to endorse parties), then no Catholic could be in government and the secularists or other religions would dominate and create all sorts of anti-Catholic abuses.

None of them. They’re all rubbish concerning morals. But it says a lot to me about a party who stands, allegedly, for British values who then allows these morals which were recently, to this party, not part of these “values”, to become accepted. The inconsistency is the the thing that damns here. If you’d vote for the Conservatives because “they’re closest to Catholic teaching”, and yet they have equally disregarded Catholic doctrine,!as other parties have, then either you’re duped by their southing words of “traditionalism” or you fail to understand the “abstain” function of the ballot. I believe the Conservatives are superficially traditional, they do not whip for moral issues and allow, under the guise of pragmatism, for their mp’s to vote freely, as if that isn’t anything but apathy to these universal moral issues.

I think you mistake my position. Mogg is one Catholic - in a party which has failed on Catholic dogma and supports, to Catholics, abhorrent moral procedures. He should vote against the party, he should align himself away from the party, he should demand something of the party, he should do something. He doesn’t do anything.

[Minachia]

That's his most recent example of nonsense - as if peddling to imperial measure makes the administrative process effective - otherwise it should be redundant.

His Catholic motives in parliament must also be called into question, not least seeing as he continues to be part of a party that goes counter to Catholic dogma. In that, his party both allowed homosexual marriage and abortion, which were then recently forced onto Northern Ireland.

I do not think that the Conservative Party takes any official position on abortion and same-sex marriage. I mean, I think Conservative MPs are permitted to vote on those matters according to personal conscience without facing any party discipline. At least that is how I understand it.

Have you ever heard of a party whip?

[Lower Nubia]

:D

Is he? News to me, seeing as he remains a member of a party which allows these things to vote. Spare me the bullshit about how a lone Catholic in the upper eschelons of British government can turn the tide of secularism. He continue to allow a party, that has, recently I might add, revoked moral laws concerning NI. He stands by them in confidence no doubt seeing as he has not crossed over the house.

He voted against those NI changes. What else do you want a Catholic political to do? Resign parliament in a huff, and let a non-Catholic take over? Do you think that's better for advocating Catholic social teaching, to replace Catholics that support it with non-Catholics that don't?

Edit: This isn't much about Mogg. I think it's a good discussion for how Christians should be involved in politics and public life.

Please it’s the 21st century equivalent of washing your hands of it. When the VONC comes he’ll prop the party that allowed this to come forward, duping people who believe that simply “voting against it” while bequeathing power to those that allowed the vote victory in the first place is absolving yourself of the issue. It’s very 1 dimensional.

[Hakons]

:D

He voted against those NI changes. What else do you want a Catholic political to do? Resign parliament in a huff, and let a non-Catholic take over? Do you think that's better for advocating Catholic social teaching, to replace Catholics that support it with non-Catholics that don't?

Edit: This isn't much about Mogg. I think it's a good discussion for how Christians should be involved in politics and public life.

Please it’s the 21st century equivalent of washing your hands of it. When the VONC comes he’ll prop the party that allowed this to come forward, duping people who believe that simply “voting against it” while bequeathing power to those that allowed the vote victory in the first place is absolving yourself of the issue. It’s very 1 dimensional.

Lol, not sure why the smiley face was there.

So, once again, you're advocating that Catholics should have no place in a hostile public sphere? It is impermissible for Catholics to vote on Catholic issues but remain in a major party? If they don't remain in a major party, they wont be in the office by the next election. You're asking for a full surrender of the public sphere to people that would be even worse for the Church than a Catholic that votes Catholic sometimes but tows the party line on votes of confidence.

[Hakons]

I do not think that the Conservative Party takes any official position on abortion and same-sex marriage. I mean, I think Conservative MPs are permitted to vote on those matters according to personal conscience without facing any party discipline. At least that is how I understand it.

Have you ever heard of a party whip?

The Conservative Party does a free vote on those issues. They don't use a whip (unlike the other major parties, who whip for these things)

[Lower Nubia]

Please it’s the 21st century equivalent of washing your hands of it. When the VONC comes he’ll prop the party that allowed this to come forward, duping people who believe that simply “voting against it” while bequeathing power to those that allowed the vote victory in the first place is absolving yourself of the issue. It’s very 1 dimensional.

Lol, not sure why the smiley face was there.

So, once again, you're advocating that Catholics should have no place in a hostile public sphere? It is impermissible for Catholics to vote on Catholic issues but remain in a major party? If they don't remain in a major party, they wont be in the office by the next election. You're asking for a full surrender of the public sphere to people that would be even worse for the Church than a Catholic that votes Catholic sometimes but tows the party line on votes of confidence.

I’ve highlighted the key assumption. Since when have moral issues taken a back seat for political considerations? The ends do not justify the means.