Preposterously Reverend Lord Professor Bishop Baron Lord Richard Harries, Baron Pentregarth, Gresham Professor of Divinity, Baron, Bishop, Professor, Lord…

The murder of David Amess is an attack on democracy.

Democracy is a fragile thing that took time to develop and must be carefully nurtured. We can see this from the New Tasty mint which spends an inordinate amount of time emphasising the importance of representative government and democratic accountability.

I’d also just like to add the word “spiritually”.

5 thoughts on “Preposterously Reverend Lord Professor Bishop Baron Lord Richard Harries, Baron Pentregarth, Gresham Professor of Divinity, Baron, Bishop, Professor, Lord…

  1. “The criminal violence of the Roman empire ran up against Christ and in him it became pure suffering. The false god changes suffering into violence, the true god changes violence into suffering.”
    This was the centre piece of Harries’ piece today. On hearing it I immediately thought, what the heck does that mean. I always thought that philosophers were meant to help you make sense of the world. That sound bite sounds like incomprehensible b******ks.
    Heathen that I am, I’d never heard of Weil as a philosopher, but anyone whose Wikipedia and Britannica profile calls a “mystic” is always going to be on dodgy ground when they start spouting “truths” about knowledge. The few quotes on Wikipedia bear this out – “He (Christ) is really present in the universal beauty” and “One can love God by praying to God, and attention is the very “substance of prayer”: when one prays, one empties oneself, fixes one’s whole gaze towards God, and becomes ready to receive God.” Really? I am definitely no better off in understanding my secular life after reading those two bits of gobbledygook.
    However I agree with Harries’ daughter that the attack on Amess is an attack on the State. The question then is how does the state protect itself from such acts? As he says, it has taken millennia to achieve representative democracy, probably because his religion opposed it by telling people to accept the government of the day no matter how brutal it was.


    1. Is clarity ever the aim of such offerings? If so, it’s rarely achieved.
      A problem inherent in Christianity is that violence is bad yet suffering is good for the soul. Doesn’t this mean violence is an acceptable way to create victims who can then be ‘spiritually’ tested?

      Off topic, it’s the last day of crowdfunding to build the Eternal Wall of Unanswered Prayer (may contain a typo). They’ve been keen to tell us that their cause is popular and that their IMF always answers prayers – the current total of £504,716 is disastrously short of their £1m target (originally £2.5m). Maybe they forgot to pray for money.


      1. Simone Veil tells us that “when one prays, one empties oneself”. Maybe that’s their problem.


      2. They proudly say, “We have hit £500,000!!!!!!!!”
        Just imagine how many exclamation marks Jesus would have sent if they had got more than 20% of the way to their original target.
        Hopefully they will now give up and put the money towards something more useful. Here’s one that looks like it provides an answer to many people’s prayers –


  2. PaulT has nailed the main problem with today’s ‘Thought’, which is the truly vacuous nature of Simone Veil’s so-called philosophy. The trouble with stuff like this is that it’s always the outcome of sitting in an armchair and letting the author’s imagination roam. It doesn’t seem to matter that the product bears no relation to anything that happens in the real world; if it seems sufficiently deep, and has the right number of theological buzz-words, that’ll do.

    I must add that I rather object to the phrase ‘the criminal violence of the Roman Empire’. All empires, throughout history, have depended on a good deal of coercive force, but the Romans were not much better or worse than the average. And the one thing that Christians seem to overlook is that the Romans were very tolerant of the religious beliefs of their subject peoples. So long as they didn’t riot in the streets or disrespect the Emperor, they could believe what they wanted. The Christians did both, of course, and were duly persecuted as a result – but for public order offences, not for believing in a dying-and-rising godman (rather like the Romans’ own Mithras, as it happens).


Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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