Double publicity coup for CV

The GALHA blog has a copy of the letter which Stephen Green of Christian Voice is sending out to supporters. He is appearing on BBC’s Question Time on Thursday 29th Sept – “a sign that we are being taken seriously by the establishment,” he believes.

This is a huge opportunity, and I do not want to let my Saviour down. I want to bring out the word of God, not just my opinions.

As we have pointed out before, there is a suspicious lack of difference between Green’s opinions and his interpretation of the Word of God. They are, in fact, one and the same. That’s the problem. Sane people have their own opinions. Stephen Green thinks he has God’s.

He asks readers to forward the email “to Christian friends only” and, of course, to pray.
fuckwit

It is OK, by the way, to pray when it is being transmitted. God is way ahead of you and knows your prayer and will answer it before you pray it. Is He not mighty?

Don’t laugh. It’s not funny.

Another sign that that CV are being taken seriously by the establishment is a cameo appearance in this month’s Viz comic. Terry Fuckwit ( “the unintelligent cartoon character”) is looking for a partner, so he goes to Club Cretinus, Britain’s No 1 dating agency for unintelligent people (“Let us find the gormless twat of your dreams”).

Here he is in their office, not having much success. But who’s that on the computer screen?

(Thanks to Adam Bowman for the heads up)


36 Responses to “Double publicity coup for CV”

  1. Andrew Nixon says:

    God is way ahead of you and knows your prayer and will answer it before you pray it.

    So whats the point in praying then?

    I love the Viz cartoon!

  2. Andy L says:

    Indeed. Wouldn’t that mean there was no freewill and sin couldn’t exist? (which, of course, is indeed one of the massive logic holes in the bible).

  3. Christopher Shell says:

    ‘Sane people have their own opinions’. Half true. The saner they are, the more willing they are to be guided by those older and/or wiser and/or better-read. Which is presumably the principle behind Green conceding that Jesus will generally know better than he, Stephen Green, does. Quite correct. He probably will.

  4. Andrew Nixon says:

    The saner they are, the more willing they are to be guided by those older and/or wiser and/or better-read. Which is presumably the principle behind Green conceding that Jesus will generally know better than he, Stephen Green, does. Quite correct. He probably will.

    Older…… Jesus died in his 30s, Green must be pushing 50. Green wins on this count.

    Wiser…… Jesus was mentally ill, but did seem to have a nifty line in magic tricks. Green believes in the literal truth of the Bible. But Jesus is dead and therefore has no intelligence. Even Stephen Green is wiser than a dead guy. Green wins again.

    Better read: Considering the amount of information out there at the moment it would be inconceivable to think that Green wasn’t more well-read than Jesus. Green wins again.

    Green wins on all 3 categories. He is older, wiser and better read than Jesus. Who is dead.

    I’d say that sane people are guided by others in their opinions. But that should be just a guiding process. If you don’t formulate your own opinions, then you are barely human. And if you are guided in your opinions solely by a man who has been dead for 2000 years, then you need help.

  5. tom p says:

    Green may have a modicum of intelligence, but I reckon he’s so very far from wise that he’s into negative wisdom, meaning that jeebus who, being dead, is neutral for wisdom might just win this one

  6. Andy L says:

    ‘Sane people have their own opinions’. Half true. The saner they are, the more willing they are to be guided by those older and/or wiser and/or better-read. Which is presumably the principle behind Green conceding that Jesus will generally know better than he, Stephen Green, does. Quite correct. He probably will.

    Karl Marx would be older than you, and unquestionably better read, frankly. Does that mean you’ll be renouncing relgion as the opiate of the masses now?

  7. Andy A says:

    I’m surprised they keep giving this nutter credence. Unless they’re inviting him on as an Aunt Sally so the nation can watch him make an utter idiot of himself (well, continue to make an utter idiot of himself). I mean, there are people who are avoided by the media (in my experience of them, anyway, when I worked for them) because they are at the nuttier end, and they’ve tried to get interviews with people who can at least talk reasonably sensibly, even if what they talk about is pisspotical. Green can articulate, yes, but then he comes out with all the ‘our Lord’ and ‘our saviour’ business, which puts him way down the credibility scale of most people, I’d hazard. Well, may he gush forth and continue to look a twat. He may do a great service for freethinking and the gay cause.

  8. Marc says:

    Oh christ! The Faux Dr. Shell has really excelled himself this time with (3.) I laughed so hard at that I thought for a moment he wasn’t actually being serious. Sanity demands no guidance: it just means we operate within a set of boundaries laid down by mental health professionals! In fact, the insane throughout history have often taken a lead from visions and voices in their heads; at least these days we can treat them. Oh boy, I could have a field day with that.

    I’ve spoken to Question Time’s assistant producer at Mentorn and things are not quite as rosey as Green might imagine. I guess we’ll have to wait and see but I’d just about give my eye-teeth to be a fly on the wall at the recording.

  9. Andrew Nixon says:

    I am quite looking forward to Question Time with Stephen Green. I don’t watch it too often, but I’m really going to make an exception for this one. Is it too much to hope they’ve invited Stewart Lee on too?

  10. Marc says:

    They wouldn’t say – which is a shame. Someone should call him up and see if he’ll join the audience.

  11. G. Tingey says:

    Erm ….
    Shell refers to “Jesus”.

    I assume he means Yeshua ben Joseph, the result of the unmarried mother Mary’s fuck / sexual activity ???

  12. DaveB says:

    Greens fellow panelists (According to the BBC website): Patricia Hewitt MP, Ken Clarke MP, Simon Hughes MP, Janet Street-Porter.

  13. Monitor says:

    Interesting that there are at least two other Christians on the panel (Hughs and Street-Porter) – but they are definitely of the liberal, progressive variety. Clarke is, as far as I know, a conservative atheist. Don’t know about Hewitt, but she was heavily involved in Liberty at one point, so she’s definitely on the free-speech side of the fence. Green has a rough ride coming. Street-Porter will tear him to shreds. I might video this one.

  14. Andrew Nixon says:

    Ken Clarke may be an atheist, but he’ll be sure to avoid anything too contraversial due to his upcoming leadership campaign.

    Simon Hughes will definitely disagree with Green on one thing. He has in the past introduced bills in parliament calling for the disestablishment of the Church of England. Green won’t like that!

  15. Simon Barrow says:

    Can’t quite top Viz, but this from the President of the United Reformed Church in a press release today: “Christian Voice has the right to express its extreme views but it is as representative of Christian opinion in Britain as the Monster Raving Loony Party would be of mainstream political parties – and far less entertaining.”

  16. Monitor says:

    That’s a nice quote, Simon. Have you got a link to the full press release?

  17. Andrew Nixon says:

    Blimey, first time he opens his mouth and he’s quoting the Bible!

    Dimbleby isn’t impressed with him, and he looks like he’s shitting himself.

  18. Andrew Nixon says:

    I wish I was recording this, Green really is coming across as an idiot.

  19. Andrew Nixon says:

    Bit unprofessional from Dimbleby, even he’s taken to laughing at Green a bit.

  20. Tim Ireland says:

    Well, so far, Stephen Green – the almighty National Director of his backyard shed – has established that:

    As a Christian, one is naturally respectful of authority. (This is a tradition that goes right back to Jesus Christ.)

    Freedom of Speech only applies when you’re criticising the government. Apparently.

  21. Andrew Nixon says:

    I didn’t think it was possible, but Green’s come out of that with even less credibility!

  22. Christopher Shell says:

    I think SG was somewhat nervous (and at other times ill-prepared) – granted that he’s less familiar with such a setting than the others. The mix of personnel (Janet Street Porter??!!) certainly made for a lively show.

    He did well to begin by making his authority-source (presuppositions) clear – would that more speakers would do that – though the presuppositions themselves would still need to be defended in their own right – alas, no chance of that on ‘Question Time’.

    QT is right to use speakers from outside the ‘political box’. The number of citizens who identify with what goes on in the political box is (as JSP said) steadily decreasing.

    Being outside the political box, SG was able to make some pertinent points, the sort of things one is not ‘supposed’ (by whom?) to say in political debate. E.g. the obvious point about how hospitals (houses of healing) could become also houses of slaughter.

    SG was for my money too unremittingly negative. Most speakers on QT are, alas.

  23. johnnyh says:

    Sorry if this has been covered before but has you seen this press release from CV http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press010.html

  24. Simon Barrow says:

    MWW quoted as the denoument of this on Green and CV: http://www.ekklesia.co.uk/content/news_syndication/article_050929green.shtml (The URC press release you asked about is cited in more detail, but AFAICT it isn’t on the web in its own right). I note that Dimbleby wrongly ‘credited’ Green with propriety to the JS-TO protests yet again. This seems to be the reason the BBC is pandering to him. I guess the alternative would be for them to do their research, which might be asking a little too much ;-)

  25. Andrew Nixon says:

    Sorry if this has been covered before but has you seen this press release from CV http://www.christianvoice.org.uk/Press/press010.html

    That really is sick.

    The mix of personnel (Janet Street Porter??!!)

    Why the surprise at Janet Street-Porter? She is the former editor of a national newspaper.

    I think SG was somewhat nervous (and at other times ill-prepared) – granted that he’s less familiar with such a setting than the others.

    I don’t think Green was nervous because of an lack of familiarity with the setting, but more because he realised just how much of a minority he is. When the two Christians on the panel both condemned him, he looked petrified, especially when Street-Porter tore into him.

    Being outside the political box, SG was able to make some pertinent points, the sort of things one is not ’supposed’ (by whom?) to say in political debate. E.g. the obvious point about how hospitals (houses of healing) could become also houses of slaughter.

    This was the only point he actually made the whole night that was actually in some way sensible. As for being outside the political box, he isn’t even in the humanity box, as the press release posted above shows.

  26. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi G. Tingey:
    In CS Lewis’s ‘Surprised by Joy’ he admits on one occasion: ‘I was at that stage where I thought it extremely telling to refer to ”Yeshua” rather than ”Jesus”.’.

    Hi Andrew-
    What’s incorrect about the press release? If people are dedicated only to their own hedonism, then sure that won’t be much of a basis for their society to survive, and a lot of people will be damaged and (as a result of an unhealthy lifestyle and an unhealthy society) will die. Again, if the homosexuals merely partied on without helping, then attention should be drawn to that.

  27. Andrew Nixon says:

    If you can’t see whats wrong with the press release then you are an incredibly sick man Christopher.

    Green says that the gay community didn’t help. This is not true. Indeed they provided much more help than the religious comminity. Just because a few people decide to try and raise peoples spirits, does not been that they should be condemned.

    You, of course, will not accept this as you have already shown yourself to be nothing but a bigot as far as homosexuality is concerned.

  28. Darren says:

    That press release is a load of crap.
    What good is a day of prayer going to do, should these people be helping instead of praying?
    Also “Most would say a Hurricane is an ‘Act of God’
    That’s just a fucking insurance scam so they don’t have to pay for natures wrath not gods.

  29. Marc says:

    Indeed Andrew. Much the same thing happened in the bunkers in WWII with people singing, “We’ll Meet Again” and such like. It’s called *raising moral* you fucking homophobe!

  30. Christopher Shell says:

    Of course, but read what I said:
    ‘*If* the homosexuals merely partied on….’ I have no idea whether they did or didnt. Presumably there is some truth in the reports; and presumably some did and some didn’t. Those who did were being less helpful than those who didn’t (though those who were intending to raise morale were also being more helpful than those who were not). That stands to reason.

    Isn’t the main reason for your objection an unwillingness to face the fact that actions and lifestyles have consequences?

  31. Marc says:

    1. Being gay isn’t a lifestyle choice: as Dr Shell should well know. None of my friends woke up one moring and thought, “today, I’m going to start sucking dick/munching rug.”

    2. Some truth in the reports that (1) Homosexuals partied amond the dead and dying like some bunch of gouls, -OR- (2) Homosexuals joined hetrosexuals (as fellow humans) in raising morale?

    3. Christianity *is* a lifestyle choice and the consequence of that is being ridiculed by people who don’t need to defer to superstitious ideas to receive moral guidance.

  32. tom p says:

    christopher – if the reports you refer to are those quote in the cv press release, then i’d say that your underlying presumption (one of their veracity) needs some serious examination.

  33. Christopher Shell says:

    Hi Tom
    Hence (as I emphasised in #30) my use of the word ‘if’.

  34. tom p says:

    You’re absoltely right, you did.
    But you did say that “Presumably there is some truth in the reports” too.

  35. Christopher Shell says:

    Well, it would take great ingenuity to write a wholly untrue report. When I read any report, I assume (not always correctly, but none the less justifiably) that it bears some general relation to the facts, and that the author is not deliberately trying to ,islead me.

  36. tom p says:

    That’s a perfectly natural position to take, except when the author is known cancer-charity blackmailing hypocritical thug stephen green, a man who will stop at nothing to besmirch the reputatioons of those he considers unholy.
    that’s really me point