Christian Voice begs for cash

Charity-blackmailing Christian Stephen Green has discovered that his promised private prosecution against the BBC could cost him serious money. As a result, there’s a new banner ad up on the CV website: “CLICK HERE to help us fight the blasphemy of Jerry Springer the Opera!”.

Clicking there gets you a .pdf begging letter, reproduced here in HTML for your reading pleasure.

Here’s the rub:

Clearly, if Jerry Springer the Opera is not found in court to be blasphemous, then nothing in Britain is sacred. We have to take a stand. A line must be drawn. However, the costs of the action could exceed £75,000. Would you pray for the Lord to provide at least that sum, and prayerfully consider a donation yourself?

Legal experts for the National Secular Society have already described Green’s chance of a successful prosecution as “virtually nil“. Not that it matters to him, of course, as a result either way would only confirm that the will of Almighty God has been done:

As it is, if we fail to convince a jury that Jerry Springer the Opera is blasphemous, it will be a sign of His judgment on our land. If they convict, it will be a sign of His mercy.


15 Responses to “Christian Voice begs for cash”

  1. Bloggerheads says:

    Eclectic link dump #9

    Watch this. Pause. *Then* read this. This is funny. This isn’t. (This is mildly amusing, though.) Christian Voice begs for cash. Here are some lip-syncing tips for Flash animation. The voices! The voices! I had a play with Copyscape yesterday…

  2. […] its supporters for money to help pay for a private prosecution of the show for blasphemy. More here

    read/post comments [0 comments | 0 views] […]

  3. darren says:

    I like the way he used george bush’s evil doers
    phrase fucking crackpot!
    Also he reckons christian people are peaceful people,then who the hell invaded IRAQ peaceful my arse!

  4. Gav says:

    if Jerry Springer the Opera is not found in court to be blasphemous, then nothing in Britain is sacred

    Does this mean when this prosection fails, that he will just give up? I sort of hope so, but sort of don’t. Nothing is sacred, no, he’s right for once. Idiot.

  5. Adam Bowman says:

    “Would you pray for the Lord to provide at least that sum?” As if God makes a habit of raining bags of cash on his followers. This is running perilously close to the whole Oral Roberts thing, if you ask me.

  6. Dr Christopher Shell says:

    So, Gav, the lives of your family members are not sacred?

  7. Sacred \Sa”cred\, a. [Originally p. p. of OE. sacren to
    consecrate, F. sacrer, fr. L. sacrare, fr. sacer sacred,
    holy, cursed. Cf. {Consecrate}, {Execrate}, {Saint},
    1. Set apart by solemn religious ceremony; especially, in a good sense, made holy; set apart to religious use;
    consecrated; not profane or common; as, a sacred place; a
    sacred day; sacred service.
    [1913 Webster]

    Nope. Precious, yes; sacred, no.

  8. Dr Christopher Shell says:

    Exactly! Stephen Green’s point is that precious things are being treated as though they were not precious.

  9. tom p says:

    No, his point is that his imaginary friend (the one he shares with you and a few others, although Green does seem to think that they’re particularly special friends) should be treated with reverence by everyone, whether they happen to have this imaginary frined or not.

    Sacred, as pointed out above, does not mean precious

  10. Christopher Shell says:

    Yes: ‘sacred’ does not mean precisely the same as ‘precious’. However, their meanings overlap. For example, in the phrase ‘Is nothing sacred?’ (the phrase which Stephen Green had in mind), ‘sacred’ is used less in the sense ‘holy’ than in the sense ‘worthy of respect’, ‘valuable’ – which comes close to the meaning of ‘precious’.

    How can people like Jesus and Mary be ‘imaginary’? By that logic, in 2000 years you and I would be imaginary.

    Dont you think your use of ‘a few’ is disingenuous? Most stats put the world Christian population at 1-2 thousand million. What is is that motivates you to minimise statistics? Whatever it is, it is certainly no concern for accuracy, & it’s that which troubles me in a truth-seeking debate. :o(

  11. tom p says:

    How can jeebus be imaginary? Well, it’s claimed that he was conceived by a virgin impregnated (some would say raped, since she was clearly unaware of it until informed by an angel) by a holy spirit. I’d say that that’s a pretty good reason why your so-called jesus could be considered imaginary. Of course, it’s pretty obvious that I was talking about your so-called god, who is clearly imaginary.

    And as for the word few, it merely denotes an unspecified number. I’m not surprised that there’s said to be 1-2 x10^9 gullibles around. After all, as every good conman knows, there’s one born every minute.

  12. Christopher Shell says:

    Yes – I believe that the best conmen keep a ‘gullibles’ database!!

    If someone told unusual stories about your birth, would that make your entire life imaginary?

    ‘God is clearly imaginary’? It’s not so simple to explain the origin of our enormous universe that has more stars than grains of sand. ‘It just happened’? How? Youre surely not saying that everything (but everything) has no explanation. There is nothing within the observable universe that has the capacity to create nonexistent matter or energy. It’s therefore reasonable to suppose the existence of Someone or Something that has that ability.

  13. tom p says:

    It is certainly unreasonable to claim that some all-seeing all-knowing all-doing being created the universe in the last 6 thousand years or that any kind of “god” has had any role in any of our lives.

    However, it certainly is reasonable to wonder where the energy for the big bang came from.

    However, the fact that nobody knows does not make your claim that it’s “god” true. One thoery being worng or unproven does not mean that another is necessarily correct.

    You assert that the universe was created by god and ask ‘if not god, then how?’ (I paraphrase). This is a fair question, but the exactly equal counter-question is “how did “god” come into being?”). If you’re saying that the scientific theories of the universe are necessarily invalid because we have as yet no answer for what occurred prior to a particular point, then you must also accept that your beliefs are necessarily invalid because you have no answer to what came before “god”.

    You’re also creating another straw man by claiming that the answer given by non-gullibles to how the universe came into being is “‘It just happened’”. That’s not our position and you know it. Grow up and try to argue like the doctor you claim to be. By the way, what are you a doctor in?

    Oh, and vicars keeping parish records seems to me to be a perfect example of conmen keeping a database.

  14. Christopher Shell says:

    See my comments under the 1.4.05 ‘news item’.

  15. tom p says:

    seen it, refuted it. shall we move over there then?