Unwelcome party

Yuk. Argh. etc. Riding on the back seat of the international interest in the atheist bus campaign, “christians” are trying to take some advantage. Here was the deeply unpleasant committed “christian” George Hargreaves in the Guardian.

(I put “christians” in quotes because I don’t recognise any of the positive aspects of the traditional christian denominations in these ranting zealots. I still cling to a wishful-thinking belief that christianity isn’t always just about being a twat. )

Hargreaves toned down his message for his audience, of course. So he only exposed Guardian readers to a criticism of the money spent on bus ads. He failed to spot that it was shooting himself in the foot to then say that the “christian party” were about to do the same. Plus, he got in a jibe at the BNP, knowing full well that any Guardian reader will be spitting blood at their very existence, so he tries to trade on the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” effect.

The christian party, huh? Who are these christian politicos? Followers of Martin Luther King, Philip Berryman, Pastor Niemoller, Paolo Freire, maybe?

I think you’ve maybe already guessed it, no.

It turns out that their politics is as subtly nuanced and intelligent as their concept of christianity (*heavy sarcasm alert*) Look at how they greeted Obama’s election for instance:

But the greatest black politician the world may YET see – or the greatest black scientist, greatest black artist or the greatest black sportsperson – could under Obama’s presidency never have the chance to be seen – because Barack Obama would have had them aborted before they ever had the chance to be born (from http://-insertedcrap- www.christianparty.org.uk/cmsparty/ website)

Wtf? There’s plenty more.

…Within days of the election, his welcome statements … are already making way for the vicious anti-life agenda of Washington’s abortionist elite.

I have the sensation of being in a room where everyone else present is living in an alternate reality, where the inconvenient real world never intrudes. But this maniac – who somehow thinks it’s totally reasonable to say that Obama plans to abort all future foetuses, at the behest of some secret elite annihilation cadre – was giving “an English perspective” on Obama’s election for CBS..

I have spent most of the past four weeks in the USA following and filming the historic US presidential election for my TV programme, The Politics Programme on Revelation TV. I was there on election day giving an English perspective on the election to the CBS Channel 7 News.

Wtf, again.

Revelation tv, lol. I bet the combined IQ of its all viewers wouldn’t reach triple figures. But CBS? Isn’t that supposed to be a real channel? Obviously not.

Revelation TV. Blimey it’s a Sky channel, apparently. (Another good reason for sticking with cable only.) They portray Obama as a threat to the unborn and to marriage.
(Doesn’t extending the boundaries of who can marry whom imply the exact opposite of a thretat to marriage. Outlawing marriage would be a “threat to marriage”. Maybe I’m just being too literal here. 😀 )

This is good to read …..

Will the Republican Party decide that conservative Christians are just too troublesome for the party and see the pro-life movement as a liability?

One can but hope.

11 thoughts on “Unwelcome party

  1. Pingback: Matthew 5:22 « Archaeoastronomy

  2. “CBS Channel 7” is code for “Some podunk local news station”. Working for (or being on) a local news station’s program is where you start, and it’s usually pretty good comedy to watch. It’d really have been interesting if he was commenting for, say, MSNBC or CNN, or some NATIONAL cable station. So no worries, about five people probably saw him, and they were probably too preoccupied with is accent to listen to what he was saying. 🙂

  3. Its nice to see that we are abke to get daily posts from you.

    Your blog is really nice and I really like your style the way you put your opinion.

  4. Gordon

    I see that you’ve done some fascinating research on them, even down to their finances. Very good post,

    Sorry I couldn’t comment on your blog, not having a Google identity, but I reallyenjoyed reading it.

  5. Yes. Tax relief on spurious religious “charities” that don’t actually help anyone….. Grr.

    The media-shy (not) George turned up on Sunday morning’s BBC talk show and was as infuriating as ever.

  6. It seems Gordon Hudson,that you do not seem able to grasp reality,the goverment does not fund these brilliant channels,through gift aid it is money that is recieved back from tax that the viewers generously donate,and long may they do so.God Bless.

  7. Ian, the government choose who is eligible for tax relief schemes such as gift aid. Not everyone is entitled to this largesse. As a result it is certainly a form of government funding.

    Yes it is money back from taxation on viewer donations, but the money is given “back” by the government making it government funding.

    How else would you describe it?

  8. There are two issues:

    1. Do these organisations meet the public benefit test that is now required for all organisations looking for charitable status?

    2. If they do, then should they be allowed charitable status if they are broadcasting from outside the UK or not adhering to the code of practice of the Fundraising Standards Council?

Comments are closed.