The Ex-Big Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, Baron Aldgate

John Humphrys is nearly as good as a prophet from the Big Book of Magic Stuff.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “The Ex-Big Chief Rabbi, Lord Jonathan Sacks, Baron Aldgate

  1. Its a crying shame that Mr Humphrys was not allowed to interview some of the TFTD thinkers just after they had delivered their 3 minutes worth of … of … er … um … faith based muddled up ‘thoughts’.

    And its a shame that he was not allowed to be a TFTD thinker on his very last Today. He did write a book entitled In God We Doubt so he has the credentials. I wonder what he would have said had he been given the chance? I bet it would have been insightful and pithy. But the TFTD would not have dared to allow him on.

    Like

    1. If we can stop calling it circumcision and call it for what it is – male genital mutilation – then the proponents will find it far more difficult to argue against.

      Like

  2. Agree with Terry. This panegyric of Humphrys and his rapier-like ability to dismantle and skewer bull sh*t wherever he encountered it begged exactly that question. What fun it would be to have Wilkinson, Baines, Marshall et al squaring up to Humphrys. The ensuing demolition job would be extremely entertaining.

    I suspect that Sacks – and all the others – were secretly breathing a massive sigh of relief that that particular danger has passed. However, I look forward to the Humphrys memoirs…..

    Like

  3. Should have been put out to grass a long time ago. He’s lost the plot , and gets away with the most tendentious, ridiculous comments . Such is his position on the show, no one seems able to challenge him or make justify them. It’s long seemed like he’s answerable to no one.And Humphrys isn’t much better.

    Like

  4. From the linked article:

    Rabbi Mirvis:
    “Those Humanists who campaign against the existence of faith schools are in effect campaigning against my freedom to raise my children in accordance with the tenets of my faith.”

    No they are not. They are only saying that you shouldn’t expect it to be done at taxpayer’s expense while discriminating against non religious people.

    “Do I not have the right to educate my children in accordance with the values that I hold dear?”

    Yes you do and that right is not under threat, not even a little bit.

    Like

    1. Mirvis, like all apologists, is really good at being persecuted and really good at distorting facts to almost unsustainable limits. He bends the truth back on itself to near breaking point but never quite so far as to expose himself as the liar he really is.

      Like

  5. … my freedom to raise my children in accordance with the tenets of my faith.

    Mirvis should know, and applaud, that BY NECESSITY this is a limited right. The caveat is, “…as long as those tenets do not go against basic human rights.” Nobody has a right to raise their children as racists, as anti-Semites, as misogynists and homophobes. Neither does anyone have a right to raise their children in isolation from society in general, away from the general norms, with no understanding of rights and responsibilities, and in ignorance of what is known from science. In fact, the state has a duty to step in if that is happening.

    Once you’ve removed all these things from education, it shouldn’t matter what the sign on the door says. As long as a school is fully inclusive and in line with human rights, it can be provided with any flavour or colour of paint. But that isn’t what Mirvis means. By defending the rights of fair and open Jewish schools, he is failing to address those schools that are not these things. He cannot have this both ways. No school should teach homophobic attitudes or outdated ideas of a woman’s place. No school should prevent its pupils from understanding the full range of society and opportunity, both inside and outside of a particular faith. Some Jewish schools are great. Some Jewish schools are cesspits of bigotry, division and hatred. Until he separates the two, and actually does something about the worse type, he is in no position to complain.

    As for circumcision, it is clearly a form of religious mutilation, done for no good reason. Female genital mutilation is obscene, and is outlawed irrespective of any cultural or religious tenets. Just saying it’s religious is no excuse for FGM – it must not be allowed as an excuse for the male version.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s