ComSymp
Oh, you want me to express myself decently.  Fine, you are persons who have committed numerous serious crimes in furtherance of the destruction of democracy, or in short traitors.

My complex and fascinating views on ComSymps of course you know, but just to remind you. First let me introduce you to Marxophobia.  Undoubtedly a Royal Commission should be set up.
 
Marxophobia is commonplace.  Based on the shit behaviour of all governments that have called themselves Marxist they conclude that Marxism is shit.  Added to which the shit behaviour of  those who call themselves Marxists at home. 
 
Like Islamophobia, it is a rational conclusion.  It says it’s a duck, so it is reasonable to assume it is a duck.
 
Marxophobia and Islamophobia alike are only going to dissipate when those shit-hole countries, contemptuous of individual liberty, murderous, torturing, come under new management.  That is for their inhabitants to resolve but it’s for certain that the process is not hastened by the fawning of western governments on the current rulers.   
 
And completely corrupt.  Saudi has the genuine merit of being a mere No. 55 on Transparency International’s index of corruption, or to be exact Joint 55th with Namibia, Jordan, Bahrain, Rwanda  Iran is  136 along with Russia and Nigeria and Pakistan is 126.  China is 100th.  And the most corrupt country in the world is…North Korea, joint 174th and bottom with Somalia.     
 
Saudi Arabia has handed down its harshest ever sentence to a women’s rights activist, sentencing her to 45 years in prison for opposing the regime on social media.
Nourah bint Saeed al-Qahtani was convicted in the Specialised Criminal Court for “using the internet to tear the social fabric” and “violating the public order by using social media”, according to a court document received by rights group Democracy for the Arab World Now (Dawn).
Little is known about Qahtani or the accusations but it comes a fortnight after Salma al-Shehab, a University of Leeds doctoral student, was sent to prison for 34 years in what was believed to be the harshest such sentence in the kingdom.
Reports of the sentence also emerged on the same day a video was released on social media showing security forces beating women, shocking them with tasers and dragging them by their hair during a reported hunger strike over poor conditions at an orphanage in Khamis Mushai, in the southwest of the country.
It is unclear when the beatings took place. Saudi Arabian authorities said they were investigating.
Saudi feminist jailed for 45 years over social media posts | World | The Times
What might have been expected of Muslims in the west?  That at least some of them use their liberty to campaign vocally against the evils of countries that call themselves Islamic.  We fail to hear of the groups opposing sportswashing or trade deals.  They are, however, excellent at campaigning vocally against citizens of the free world for daring to be citizens of the free world.  
 
ComSymp, SovSymp, there were members of my family who would not have fared well under McCarthy, but this is England. When I hurl the word ‘traitor’ around with apparent wild abandon, it should be seen in the context of total acceptance of an Englishman’s right to gush over a hostile foreign power. 
  
To not like someone's point of view is distinct from demanding he or she be silenced and only your point of view be heard. 
  
To campaign against views one believes erroneous or pernicious is distinct from demanding they be forbidden. One accepts the right of others to hold their own views and seeks to instruct them in the error of their ways. The other doesn't. 
  
Without liberty, no-one would be permitted either to practise a religion other than that of the Church of England or to have no religion. Muslims need freedom of conscience to be upheld. They do not gain fans by seeking to deny it to others. 
  
To seek to change the foundation of society from one where everyone has a right to his or her own views and so you a have a right to your minority view to one where only you have a right to your views would not seem very bright for there may surely be an awkward hiatus when those in power under the original system may shrug and say OK, you don't think anyone else has a right to his or her views so why should you have that right, and pull the rug out from under you. 
  
Some Islamists think to impose the new order by force. The Party I am sure would have loved to have a revolution but you do need at least five people for that. 
  
Like classical Marxism, Islamism entails a change to the foundation of society. Both of course point enthusiastically at what everyone else calls a shit-hole and demands that here be more like that. If you are taking your cue from Saudi, Iran or Pakistan, it is no different to taking your cue from the Kremlin. The fog of garbage concerning the supposedly sacred nature of faith conceals this simple fact. Hey man, it's cool. No-one has to take any notice of people taking their cues from hostile foreign powers. The problem comes from insistence that we do. 
  
Pause to imagine some 30s Party member lecturing the British government of the day on Marxophobia. Well, you know, I am a devout Marxist-Leninist and surely there can be no right to abuse the sincere beliefs of millions of people. Marxists consider Comrade Lenin a towering figure, a giant among men leading the proletariat from darkness into light. 
  
The rhetoric is appropriately similar: we want real democracy not sad corrupt old bourgeois democracy. We want proper Islamic human rights not sad corrupt old Western human rights. 
  
There are minor comments to be made, such as that in a world with vastly diminished communications, early generations of British Sovsymps had no great grasp of ‘there’ but Shariasymps are clear what ‘there’ is like. Whether either really wanted or want to surrender what they have here is moot. 
  
Do you have a problem with inviting those who thought things were vastly better ordered in the Soviet Union to fuck off and live there? I don’t, or only a personal one: chunks of my family might have been born in the USSR and family get-togethers would have been a bit difficult. 
  
To suggest people fuck off is distinct from insisting they fuck off and deporting them. Really, it would have been frightfully unBritish to deport Uncle Richard or Cousin Rodney. 
  
You didn't get hanged/sent down for 30 years/deported to Mother Russia for being an open SovSymp but for being paid by the KGB to pretend you weren't. 
  
The element of concealment is I think critical. If demanding the overthrow of the State were the key issue, 95% of 60s students now fully paid-up members of the human race would have gone down (the other 5%, hmm). I think the exact criterion would be working towards the overthrow of the State and its replacement with a system of government with different foundations and pretending you want something compatible with the existing order. 
  
Not surprisingly, the following in The Morning Star a couple of years ago caught my attention. I think Mr Howarth should have spoken to a few Marxists before opening his mouth. 
  
Leading Tory Gerald Howarth unleashed a poisonous torrent of hatred against millions of British people yesterday. He declared that Muslims opposed to ‘the British way of life’ must leave the country, even if they are British citizens. 
  
The Tory shadow defence minister said that people who saw the Iraq war as a conflict against Islam should be considered as treacherous as Soviet sympathizers during the cold war. 
  
“If they don’t like our way of life, there is a simple remedy – go to another country, get out,” said Mr Howarth, echoing the fascist-type rallying cry of extreme right-wing leaders from the 1920s onwards. 
 
Asked about people who were born in Britain, he replied: “Tough. If you don’t give allegiance to this country, then leave.” 
  
Mr Howarth, who is the Conservative MP for Aldershot, even compared those who despised the British way of life with traitors who spied for the USSR…. 
  
Labour Representation Committee chair John McDonnell MP called upon Tory leader Michael Howard to condemn Mr Howarth’s ‘outrageous xenophobic statement’. 
  
Mr McDonnell added: “There is no room within a democratic political party in this country for people with this kind of view.” 
  
Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn, who represents the ethnically diverse London constituency of Islington North, said that Mr Howarth is completely out of touch with varied multi-ethnic nature of modern British society. 
  
His dangerous ‘Colonel Blimp’ outburst would ‘foment discord between communities at a time when we need the maximum solidarity of all ethnic and religious groups,” Mr Corbyn added. 
  
Muslim Association of Britain spokesman Anas Altikriti branded Mr Howarth’s remarks as ‘absurd’ and contrary to the principles of free speech. 
  
Mr Altikriti said: “We have laws to deal with criminals and those who incite violence or hate. 
  
“To suggest that those people who hold opposing views to ours should leave the country, that this would be some kind of a solution, is absurd.” 
  
Front page of the Morning Star, Thursday 4th August 
Alas, I didn’t note the year
  
If we consider, for instance, 'if you don't like our way of life, fuck off to the USSR', addressed to a British working-man during the Thirties, we see, I think, the matter rests chiefly on what is not liked, whether most other people don't like it, either and whether it is a failure to comply with the foundations of the existing order. Neglect of the poor and hungry was not compatible with the teachings of Jesus and a lot of people said so. The name Keir Hardie springs to mind. 
  
Or indeed in 2022.
 
'Our way of life' in the context of the 30s must surely be a capitalist economy subject to market forces as a consequence of which the workers may have a very hard time . Intellectually the matter rests on that quotation from Lenin I am exploring, a somewhat succinct statement of the question: 
  
The workers may secure a greater or lesser degree of political liberty to fight for their economic emancipation, but no amount of liberty will rid them of poverty, unemployment, and oppression until the power of capital is overthrown 
  
VI Lenin, Socialism and Religion 
  
What is required? Should it be obtained? Can it be obtained without some fundamental change taking place first? Or: can enough of it be obtained? 
  
'Our way of life' in the context of belief-systems may be summed up neatly as the freedom to be a member of the Kremlin-backed Communist Party and get on with one's little life. I have said I do not know if Richard and Rodney had cosy little chats with the security services, but I do know that they were not otherwise harassed for their beliefs. I also know from this obituary http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2002/jun/10/guardianobituaries.humanities that Rodney was an officer in the British Army in WWII. For four years, such as between the autumn of 1941 and the end of the war; the Nazi-Soviet Pact collapsed in June 1941 and I'm wondering if they allowed Rodney into the Army while it was still intact but certainly I have found nothing about his being interned between 1939 and 1941. 
  
The decision to move to a different country rests on the belief it will be better for you and you family than where you are right now. If you don't like it when you get here, no-one is forcing you to stay. The great principle of the free movement of peoples, which I uphold, is distinct from any specious requirement the country you have chosen to honour with your presence roll out the red carpet, bow you in and hasten to change itself fundamentally in accordance with your views. However, where you come from may be Leeds. Your parents and your grand-parents have bedded down nicely and got on with their lives but you have decided Islam is insufficiently triumphant and you're going to change all that. Fine, you're British. Why then should the rest of Britain treat you any differently to any other holder of a minority view, or in short ignore you. 
  
'A refusal to accept people may mock and criticize Mohammed is not compatible with the existing order in which the indigenous religion was mocked and criticized, in which the frame of reference it gave to the whole of humanity was demolished by Darwin. in which the entire system of government is founded on rejection of those who claim to know God's will as overlords who impose it on a docile populace. 
  
What is required is a society in which there is no criticism or derision of Islam. Should it be obtained? No. Can it be obtained without fundamental change taking place first? No. 
 
But that's OK because the politicians and clergy fall over themselves to create the fundamental change. 
 
These creatures do not make people babble things are good and true that have been accepted as evil and false. Is some part  of that unclear?  Clearly to McDonnell and most of the rest of the Left it is opaque.  Psychosis and totalitarianism do not become The Good because some fuck-up thinks they’re the Will of God.  Of course he was brought up as a Catholic.  He probably has serious difficulty with that. 
 
People own their own bodies.  They choose what they do with them.  People have a variety of sexual orientations.  People make love to whomsoever they choose.  People wear what they choose.  People marry whom they choose.  And of course people think and say what they choose.
 
Women and gays are not flogged or hanged.
 
This is because the West has been through all this garbage once.  The authority of religion has been overthrown.  Between the Boston Tea Party in 1773 and the Battle of Waterloo, the entire structure of the western world was shaken to its foundations and remade.  There is  now of course a very large number of infinitely evil people on both Right and Left who want to unmake it.
 
What else is not unclear?  Both religion and politics are using Islam to destroy the free world, the rational basis of society.  Muslims are to be the arbiters of what may be said about Islam.
 
Duckies, that is the entire problem of the Muslim world.   
 
Thus the evil animal they call the Pope and the gross falsification of history enshrined of course in all the slimy mouthings of priests and rabbis but summed up the creep after the murder of the cartoonists.  ‘Religion is not mocked.’  Of course religion is bloody mocked.  The drivel of the Catholic Church was mocked mercilessly.    
 
It is of course all part of the perfection kick.  Islam is perfect, therefore any criticism of Islam, contempt for Islam, revulsion for Islam ‘must be’ race.   Try aversion to some pompous little sick-boy like Sacranie with his thumbs in his braces assuming the rest of the country is subject to his desires and may henceforth only read or say what he permits.  The creature is a complete nutter.   Or ask the Saudi lady how bloody perfect and beyond criticism Islam as widely practised is.  As widely practised throughout the world, Islam is a sexually sick and obscene fascist regime, absolutely criminal.  And clearly a proportion of our fellow-citizens see nothing wrong with it.  Why on earth should people not say, well, piss off and live there, then.  You clearly have no rapport with this country.
 
Marxist, certainly, atheist, certainly, but it should not be thought McDonnell is opposed to religion.
 
'The values of Catholicism are the inherent values of the Labour Party.'
 John McDonnell acknowledges debt to Catholicism (thetablet.co.uk)
 
Oh, fascism, you mean, intellectual corruption and so on.  I think not.
 
"The Magisterium of the Church 
85 "The task of giving an authentic interpretation of the Word of God, whether in its written form or in the form of Tradition, has been entrusted to the living teaching office of the Church alone. Its authority in this matter is exercised in the name of Jesus Christ."47 This means that the task of interpretation has been entrusted to the bishops in communion with the successor of Peter, the Bishop of Rome. 
86 "Yet this Magisterium is not superior to the Word of God, but is its servant. It teaches only what has been handed on to it. At the divine command and with the help of the Holy Spirit, it listens to this devotedly, guards it with dedication and expounds it faithfully. All that it proposes for belief as being divinely revealed is drawn from this single deposit of faith."48 
87 Mindful of Christ's words to his apostles: "He who hears you, hears me",49 the faithful receive with docility the teachings and directives that their pastors give them in different forms. 
100 The task of interpreting the Word of God authentically has been entrusted solely to the Magisterium of the Church, that is, to the Pope and to the bishops in communion with him 
Catechism of the Catholic Church 
 
Obedience (Lat. obêdire, "to hearken to", hence "to obey") is the complying with a command or precept. It is here regarded not as a transitory and isolated act but rather as a virtue or principle of righteous conduct. It is then said to be the moral habit by which one carries out the order of his superior with the precise intent of fulfilling the injunction. St. Thomas Aquinas considers the obligation of obedience as an obvious consequence of the subordination established in the world by natural and positive law. The idea that subjection of any sort of one man to another is incompatible with human freedom -- a notion that had vogue in the religious and political teachings of the post-Reformation period -- he refutes by showing that it is at variance with the constituted nature of things, and the positive prescriptions of the Almighty God. It is worthy of note that whilst it is possible to discern a general aspect of obedience in some acts of all the virtues, in so far as obedience stands for the execution of anything that is of precept, it is contemplated in this article as a definitely special virtue. The element that differentiates it adequately from other good habits is found in the last part of the definition already given. Stress is put upon the fact that one not only does what is actually enjoined, but does it with a mind to formally fall in with the will of the commander. It is in other words the homage rendered to authority which ranks it as a distinct virtue. Among the virtues obedience holds an exalted place but not the highest. The distinction belongs to the virtues of faith, hope and charity which unite us immediately with Almighty God. Amongst the moral virtues obedience enjoys a primacy of honour. The reason is that the greater or lesser excellence of a moral virtue is determined by the greater or lesser value of the object which it qualifies one to put aside in order to give oneself to God. Now amongst our various possessions, whether goods of the body or goods of the soul, it is clear that the human will is the most intimately personal and most cherished of all. So it happens that obedience, which makes a man yield up the most dearly prized stronghold of the individual soul in order to do the good pleasure of his Creator, is accounted the greatest of the moral virtues. As to whom we are to obey, there can be no doubt that first we are bound to offer an unreserved service to Almighty God in all His commands. No real difficulty against this truth can be gathered from putting in juxtaposition the unchangeableness of the natural law and an order, such as that given to Abraham to slay his son Isaac. The conclusive answer is that the absolute sovereignty of God over life and death made it right in that particular instance to undertake the killing of an innocent human being at His direction. On the other hand the obligation to obedience to superiors under God admits of limitations. We are not bound to obey a superior in a matter which does not fall within the limits of his preceptive power. Thus for instance parents although entitled beyond question of the submission of their children until they become of age, have no right to command them to marry. Neither can a superior claim our obedience in contravention to the dispositions of higher authority. Hence, notably, we cannot heed the behests of any human power no matter how venerable or undisputed as against the ordinances of God. All authority to which we bow has its source in Him and cannot be validly used against Him. It is the recognition of the authority of God vicariously exercised through a human agent that confers upon the act of obedience its special merit. No hard and fast rule can be set down for determining the degree of guilt of the sin of disobedience. Regarded formally as a deliberate scorning of the authority itself, it would involve a divorce between the soul and the supernatural principle of charity which is tantamount to a grievous sin. As a matter of fact many other things have to be taken account of, as the greater or lesser advertence in the act, the relatively important or trifling character of the thing imposed, the manner of enjoining, the right of the person who commands. For such reasons the sin will frequently be esteemed venial. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11181c.htm
 
One of the hallmarks of orthodox religion is the affirmation of the gulf between Man and God. This is of course why Ratzinger when Grand Inquisitor came down so heavily on De Mello and Dupuis and what one might call the hierarchical flaw in Christianity. 
The notification lauds Dupuis for raising new questions and for his "attempt to remain within the limit of orthodoxy." Nevertheless, it cites "notable ambiguities or difficulties" in the book, and lists several points that theologians must uphold. Those points are:  
Jesus Christ is the "sole and universal mediator of salvation for all humanity";  
The revelation offered in Jesus offers everything necessary for salvation and has no need of completion by other religions;  
Elements of truth in other religions derive from Jesus;  
The Word of God and the Holy Spirit are not agents of salvation apart from Jesus Christ;  
Different religions are not ways of salvation complementary to the Catholic church;  
Followers of other religions are called to be part of the Catholic church;  
In themselves, other religions are not means of salvation because they "contain omissions, insufficiencies and errors."  
PANTHER: Revelation and religious supremacism 
[That there are supremacist Muslims completely full of it is not open to question but it should not be forgotten that religious supremacism is not confined to Islam.] 
If you want the bloody thing in full, go to the Vatican bloody Website – I did -  full of cheerful little notifications to priests with the misfortune to have open and enquiring minds.   
The Vatican is bewildered by de Mello's emphasis on "awareness" and "interior enlightenment" over against Scripture, doctrine, and belief - and puts the worst possible construction on de Mello's awkward formulations.  
Dr. Seuss condemned: grinches go after de Mello. (Congregation for the Doctrine of Faith's rejection of Father Anthony de Mello's writings), Commonweal, Oct 23, 1998, by David Toolan)  
PANTHER -> The Church of Rome -> Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 24 June 1998 
by Ysabel Howard - Sunday, 31 May 2009, 12:36 AM 
 
NOTIFICATION  
CONCERNING THE WRITINGS OF 
FATHER ANTHONY DE MELLO, SJ  
 
The Indian Jesuit priest, Father Anthony de Mello (1931-1987) is well known due to his numerous publications which, translated into various languages, have been widely circulated in many countries of the world, though not all of these texts were authorized by him for publication.  His works, which almost always take the form of brief stories, contain some valid elements of oriental wisdom.  These can be helpful in achieving self-mastery, in breaking the bonds and feelings that keep us from being free, and in approaching with serenity the various vicissitudes of life.  Especially in his early writings, Father de Mello, while revealing the influence of Buddhist and Taoist spiritual currents, remained within the lines of Christian spirituality.  In these books, he treats the different kinds of prayer: petition, intercession and praise, as well as contemplation of the mysteries of the life of Christ, etc.  
But already in certain passages in these early works and to a greater degree in his later publications, one notices a progressive distancing from the essential contents of the Christian faith.  In place of the revelation which has come in the person of Jesus Christ, he substitutes an intuition of God without form or image, to the point of speaking of God as a pure void.  To see God it is enough to look directly at the world.  Nothing can be said about God; the only knowing is unknowing.  To pose the question of his existence is already nonsense.  This radical apophaticism leads even to a denial that the Bible contains valid statements about God.  The words of Scripture are indications which serve only to lead a person to silence.  In other passages, the judgment on sacred religious texts, not excluding the Bible, becomes even more severe: they are said to prevent people from following their own common sense and cause them to become obtuse and cruel.  Religions, including Christianity, are one of the major obstacles to the discovery of truth.  This truth, however, is never defined by the author in its precise contents.  For him, to think that the God of one's own religion is the only one is simply fanaticism.  "God" is considered as a cosmic reality, vague and omnipresent; the personal nature of God is ignored and in practice denied.  
Father de Mello demonstrates an appreciation for Jesus, of whom he declares himself to be a "disciple."  But he considers Jesus as a master alongside others.  The only difference from other men is that Jesus is "awake" and fully free, while others are not.  Jesus is not recognized as the Son of God, but simply as the one who teaches us that all people are children of God.  In addition, the author's statements on the final destiny of man give rise to perplexity.  At one point, he speaks of a "dissolving" into the impersonal God, as salt dissolves in water.  On various occasions, the question of destiny after death is declared to be irrelevant; only the present life should be of interest.  With respect to this life, since evil is simply ignorance, there are no objective rules of morality.  Good and evil are simply mental evaluations imposed upon reality.  
Consistent with what has been presented, one can understand how, according to the author, any belief or profession of faith whether in God or in Christ cannot but impede one's personal access to truth.  The Church, making the word of God in Holy Scripture into an idol, has ended up banishing God from the temple.  She has consequently lost the authority to teach in the name of Christ.  
With the present Notification, in order to protect the good of the Christian faithful, this Congregation declares that the above-mentioned positions are incompatible with the Catholic faith and can cause grave harm.  
The Sovereign Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved the present Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered its publication.  
Rome, from the offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, June 24, 1998, the Solemnity of the Birth of John the Baptist.  
 
+ Joseph Card. Ratzinger  
Prefect  
+ Tarcisio Bertone, S.D.B.  
Archbishop Emeritus of Vercelli 
Secretary  
 
 

  
 

PANTHER -> The Church of Rome -> Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 13 December 2004 
by Ysabel Howard - Sunday, 31 May 2009, 12:33 AM 
 
 

  
Notification on the book 
"Jesus Symbol of God" 
by Father Roger Haight S.J. 
Introduction 
The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, after careful study, has judged that the book Jesus Symbol of God (Maryknoll: Orbis Books, 1999), by Father Roger Haight S.J., contains serious doctrinal errors regarding certain fundamental truths of faith. It was therefore decided to publish this Notification in its regard, which concludes the relevant procedure for doctrinal examination. 
After an initial evaluation by experts, it was decided to entrust the matter directly to the Author’s Ordinary. On February 14, 2000, a series of Observations was sent to Father Peter-Hans Kolvenbach, General Superior of the Society of Jesus, with the request that he bring the errors in the book to the Author’s attention, asking him to submit the necessary clarifications and corrections to the judgment of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (cf. Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, Ch. II). 
The response of Father Roger Haight S.J., submitted on June 28, 2000, failed to either clarify or correct the errors brought to his attention. For this reason, and in light of the book’s considerable circulation, it was decided to proceed with a doctrinal examination (cf. Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, Ch. III), with particular attention given to the Author’s theological method. 
After an examination by the theological Consultors of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the Ordinary Session of February 13, 2002, confirmed that Jesus Symbol of God contains erroneous assertions, the dissemination of which is of grave harm to the faithful. It was decided therefore to follow the procedure for an “examination in cases of urgency”( cf. Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, Ch. IV). 
In this regard, in accordance with Art. 26 of the Regulations for Doctrinal Examination, on July 22, 2002, the General Superior of the Society of Jesus was sent a list of the book’s erroneous positions and a general evaluation of its hermeneutical approach, asking him to request that Father Roger Haight S.J. submit, within two canonical months, a clarification of his methodological approach and a correction, faithful to the teachings of the Church, of the errors contained in his book. 
The Author’s reply, submitted on March 31, 2003, was examined by the Ordinary Session of the Congregation, on October 8, 2003. The literary form of this reply was such as to raise doubts about its authenticity, that is, if it was truly the personal response of Father Roger Haight S.J.; he was therefore asked to submit a signed response. 
A signed response was submitted on January 7, 2004. The Ordinary Session of the Congregation, on May 5, 2004, examined this response and reaffirmed the fact that the book Jesus Symbol of God contains statements contrary to truths of divine and catholic faith that pertain to the first paragraph of the Professio fidei, concerning the pre-existence of the Word, the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, the salvific value of the death of Jesus, the unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus and of the Church, and the resurrection of Jesus. The negative critique included also the use of an inappropriate theological method. It was therefore deemed necessary to publish a Notification on the matter. 
I. Theological method 
In the Preface of his book Jesus Symbol of God, the Author explains that today theology must be done in dialogue with the postmodern world, but it also “must remain faithful to its originating revelation and consistent tradition” (p. xii), in the sense that the data of the faith constitute the norm and criteria for a theological hermeneutic. He also asserts that it is necessary to establish a “critical correlation” (cf. pp. 40-47) between these data and the modes and qualities of postmodern thought, characterized in part by a radical historical and pluralistic consciousness (cf. pp. 24, 330-334): “The tradition must be critically received into the present situation” (p. 46). 
This “critical correlation”, however, results, in fact, in a subordination of the content of faith to its plausibility and intelligibility in postmodern culture (cf. pp. 49-50, 127, 195, 241, 273-274, 278-282, 330-334). It is stated, for example, that because of the contemporary pluralistic consciousness, “one can no longer claim [...] Christianity as the superior religion, or Christ as the absolute center to which all other historical mediations are relative. [...] It is impossible in postmodern culture to think [...] that one religion can claim to inhabit the center into which all others are to be drawn” (p. 333). 
With particular regard to the validity of dogmatic, especially christological formulations in a postmodern cultural and linguistic context, which is different from the one in which they were composed, the Author states that these formulations should not be ignored, but neither should they be uncritically repeated, “because they do not have the same meaning in our culture as they did when they were formulated [...]. Therefore, one has no choice but to engage the classical councils and to explicitly interpret them for our own period” (p. 16). This interpretation, however, does not in fact result in doctrinal proposals that convey the immutable meaning of the dogmas as understood by the faith of the Church, nor does it clarify their meaning, enhancing understanding. The Author’s interpretation results instead in a reading that is not only different from but also contrary to the true meaning of the dogmas. 
With specific reference to christology, the Author states that, in order to transcend a “naive revelational positivism” (p. 173, n. 65), it should be set within the context of a “general theory of religion in terms of religious epistemology” (p. 188). A fundamental element of this theory is the symbol as a concrete historical medium: a created reality (for example, a person, an object, or an event) that makes known and present another reality, such as the transcendent reality of God, which is at the same time part of and distinct from the medium itself, and to which the medium points (cf. pp. 196-198). Symbolic language, which is structurally poetic, imaginative and figurative (cf. pp. 177, 256), expresses and produces a certain experience of God (cf. p. 11), but does not provide objective information about God himself (cf. pp. 9, 210, 282, 471). 
These methodological positions lead to a seriously reductive and misleading interpretation of the doctrines of the faith, resulting in erroneous propositions. In particular, the epistemological choice of the theory of symbol, as it is understood by the Author, undermines the basis of christological dogma, which from the New Testament onwards proclaims that Jesus of Nazareth is the Person of the divine Son/Word who became man.[1] 
II. The pre-existence of the Word 
In accord with his hermeneutical approach, the Author does not accept that there is a basis for the doctrine of the pre-existence of the Word in the New Testament, not even in the prologue of the Gospel of St. John (cf. pp. 155-178), where, he asserts, the Logos is to be understood in a purely metaphorical sense (cf. p. 177). Moreover, he regards the pronouncements of the Council of Nicaea as intending only to assert that “no less than God was and is present and at work in Jesus” (p. 284; cf. p. 438), maintaining that recourse to the symbol “Logos” is to be understood simply as taken for granted,[2] and therefore not the object of the definition, nor plausible in a postmodern culture (cf. pp. 281, 485). The Council of Nicaea, states the Author, “employs scripture in a way that is not acceptable today”, that is, as providing “a source of directly representative information, like facts or objective data, about transcendent reality” (p. 279). The dogma of Nicaea does not teach, therefore, that the eternally pre-existent Son or Logos is consubstantial with and eternally begotten of the Father. The Author proposes “an incarnational christology in which the created human being or person Jesus of Nazareth is the concrete symbol expressing the presence in history of God as Logos” (p. 439). 
This interpretation is not in accord with the dogma of Nicaea, which intentionally affirms, even contrary to the cultural vision of the time, the true pre-existence of the Son/Logos of the Father, who became man, in time, for the salvation of humanity.[3] 
III. The divinity of Jesus 
The Author’s erroneous position on the pre-existence of the Son/Logos of God is consistent with his likewise erroneous understanding of the doctrine on the divinity of Jesus. It is true that he uses expressions such as “Jesus must be considered divine” (p. 283) and “Jesus Christ [...] must be true God” (p. 284). These statements must be understood however in light of his assertions regarding Jesus as a symbolic medium: Jesus is “a finite person” (p. 205), “a human person” (p. 296), “a human being like us” (p. 205; cf. p. 428). The formula “true man and true God” is therefore reinterpreted by the Author in the sense that “true man” means that Jesus is “a human being like all others” (p. 295), “a finite human being and creature” (p. 262); whereas “true God” means that the man Jesus, as a concrete symbol, is or mediates the saving presence of God in history (cf. pp. 262, 295): only in this sense is Jesus to be considered as “truly divine or consubstantial with the God” (p. 295). The “postmodern situation in christology”, says the Author, “entails a change of viewpoint that leaves the Chalcedonian problematic behind” (p. 290), precisely in the sense that the hypostatic union, or “enhypostatic” union, would be understood as “the union of no less than God as Word with the human person Jesus” (p. 442). 
This interpretation of the divinity of Jesus is contrary to the faith of the Church that believes in Jesus Christ, eternal Son of God, who became man, as has been proclaimed repeatedly in various ecumenical councils and in the constant preaching of the Church.[4] 
IV. The Holy Trinity 
Coherent with his interpretation of the identity of Jesus Christ, the Author develops an erroneous Trinitarian doctrine. In his judgment the “later doctrines of an immanent Trinity [should] not be allowed to be read into New Testament teaching” (p. 474). These are to be considered as the outcome of a subsequent inculturation, which led to the hypostatization of the symbols “Logos” and “Spirit”, that is to say, to considering them as “real entities” in God (cf. p. 481). As “religious symbols”, “Logos” and “Spirit” represent two different historical, salvific mediations of the one God: one external, historical, in and through the symbol Jesus; the other internal, dynamic, accomplished by God’s communication of self as Spirit (cf. p. 484). Such a view, which corresponds to the general theory of religious experience, leads the Author to abandon a correct understanding of the Trinity itself “that construes it as a description of a differentiated inner life of God” (p. 484). Consequently, he asserts that “notions of God as a community, ideas of hypostatizing the differentiations within God and calling them persons in such a way that they are in dialogical intercommunication with each other, militate against the first point of the doctrine itself” (p. 483), that is, “that God is single and one” (p. 482). 
This interpretation of Trinitarian doctrine is erroneous and contrary to the faith regarding the oneness of God in the Trinity of Persons that the Church has proclaimed and confirmed in numerous and authoritative documents.[5] 
V. The salvific value of the death of Jesus 
In the book Jesus Symbol of God the Author asserts that “the prophetic interpretation” explains best the death of Jesus (cf. p. 86, n. 105). He also states that it is not necessary “that Jesus thought of himself as universal savior” (p. 211), and that the idea of the death of Jesus as “a sacrificial death, an atoning death, a redeeming death” is merely the result of a gradual interpretation by his followers in light of the Old Testament (cf. p. 85). It is also asserted that the traditional ecclesiastical language “of Jesus suffering for us, of being a sacrifice to God, of absorbing punishment for sin in our place, of being required to die to render satisfaction to God, hardly communicates meaningfully to our age” (p. 241). Such language is to be abandoned because “the images associated with this talk offend and even repulse postmodern sensibility and thereby form a barrier to a salutary appreciation of Jesus Christ” (p. 241). 
The Author’s position is in reality contrary to the doctrine of the Church, which has always held that Jesus intended his death to be for the sake of universal redemption. The Church sees in the New Testament references to salvation, in particular the words of the institution of the Eucharist, a norm of faith regarding the universal salvific value of the sacrifice of the Cross.[6] 
VI. The unicity and universality of the salvific mediation of Jesus and of the Church 
With regard to the universality of the salvific mission of Jesus, the Author states that Jesus is “normative” for Christians, but “non-constitutive” for other religious mediations (cf. p. 403). Moreover, he asserts that “God alone effects salvation and Jesus’ universal mediation is not necessary” (p. 405); indeed, “God acts in the lives of human beings in a plurality of ways outside of Jesus and the Christian sphere” (p. 412). The Author insists on the necessity of moving beyond christocentrism to theocentrism, which “cuts the necessity of binding God’s salvation to Jesus of Nazareth alone” (p. 417). With regard to the universal mission of the Church, he maintains that is necessary to have “the ability to recognize other religions as mediators of God’s salvation on a par with Christianity” (p. 415). Moreover, for the Author it “is impossible in postmodern culture to think that [...] one religion can claim to inhabit the center into which all others are to be drawn. These myths or metanarratives are simply gone” (p. 333). 
This theological position fundamentally denies the universal salvific mission of Jesus Christ (cf. Acts 4:12; 1 Tim 2:4-6; Jn 14:6) and, as a consequence, the mission of the Church to announce and communicate the gift of Christ the Saviour to all humanity (cf. Mt 28:19; Mk 16:15; Eph 3:8-11), both of which are given clear witness in the New Testament and have always been proclaimed as the faith of the Church, even in recent documents.[7] 
VII. The resurrection of Jesus 
The Author’s presentation of the resurrection of Jesus is guided by his understanding of theological and biblical language as “symbolic of experience that is historically mediated” (p.131), as well as by the principle that “one should ordinarily not expect to have happened in the past what is presumed or proven impossible today” (p.127). Understood in this way, the resurrection is described as the affirmation that “Jesus is ontologically alive as an individual within the sphere of God [...], God’s declaration that Jesus’ life is a true revelation of God and an authentic human existence” (p. 151; cf. p. 124); it is a “transcendent reality that can only be appreciated by faith-hope” (p. 126). The disciples, after the death of Jesus, remembered and reflected upon his life and message, in particular his revelation of God as good, loving, concerned about human existence, and saving. This remembering – that “what God begins in love, because of the complete boundlessness of that love, continues to exist in that love, thus overcoming the power and finality of death” (p. 147) – coupled with an initiative of God as Spirit, gradually gave birth to this new belief in the resurrection, that is, that Jesus was alive and exalted within God’s saving power (cf. 146). Moreover, according to the Author’s interpretation, “the historicity of the empty tomb and appearance narratives is not essential to resurrection faith-hope” (p. 147, n. 54; cf. pp. 124, 134). Rather, these stories “are ways of expressing and teaching the content of a faith already formed” (p. 145). 
The Author’s interpretation leads to a position which is incompatible with the Church’s doctrine. It is advanced on the basis of erroneous assumptions, and not on the witness of the New Testament, according to which the appearances of the Risen Lord and the empty tomb are the foundation of the faith of the disciples in the resurrection of Christ, and not vice versa. 
Conclusion 
In publishing this Notification, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith is obliged to declare that the above-mentioned assertions contained in the book Jesus Symbol of God by Father Roger Haight S.J. are judged to be serious doctrinal errors contrary to the divine and catholic faith of the Church. As a consequence, until such time as his positions are corrected to be in complete conformity with the doctrine of the Church, the Author may not teach Catholic theology. 
The Supreme Pontiff John Paul II, at the Audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, approved this Notification, adopted in the Ordinary Session of this Congregation, and ordered it to be published. 
Rome, from the Offices of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, December 13, 2004, the Memorial of Saint Lucy, Virgin and Martyr. 
Joseph Card. Ratzinger 
Prefect 
Angelo Amato, S.D.B. 
Titular Archbishop of Sila 
Secretary 
 
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
[1] Cf. Concilium Nicaenum, Professio fidei: DH 125; Concilium Chalcedonense, Professio fidei: DH 301, 302; Concilium Costantinopolitanum II, Canones: DH 424, 426. 
[2] The Author speaks of the “hypostatization” and of the “hypostasis” of the Logos and of the Spirit, which he understands as referring to how, in the language of the hellenistic Church, these two biblical metaphors had subsequently become real entities (cf. p. 475). 
[3] Cf. Concilium Nicaenum, Professio fidei: DH 125. The Nicene confession, confirmed at other ecumenical councils (cf. Concilium Constantinopolitanum I, Professio fidei: DH 150; Concilium Chalcedonense, Professio fidei: DH 301, 302), constitutes the foundation of the professions of faith of all the different Christian denominations. 
[4] Cf. Concilium Nicaenum, Professio fidei: DH 125; Concilium Constantinopolitanum I, Professio fidei: DH 150; Concilium Chalcedonense, Professio fidei: DH 301, 302. 
[5] Cf. Concilium Constantinopolitanum I, Professio fidei: DH 150; Quicumque: DH 75; Synodus Toletana XI, Professio fidei: DH 525-532; Synodus Toletana XVI, Professio fidei: DH 568-573; Concilium Lateranense IV, Professio fidei: DH 803-805; Concilium Florentinum, Decretum pro Iacobitis: DH 1330-1331; Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. Dogm. Lumen gentium, nn. 2-4. 
[6] Cf. Concilium Nicaenum, Professio fidei: DH 125; Concilium Tridentinum, Decretum de iustificatione: DH 1522, 1523; De poenitentia: DH 1690; De Sacrificio Missae: DH 1740; Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. Dogm. Lumen gentium, nn. 3, 5, 9; Const. Pastor. Gaudium et spes, n. 22; Ioannes Paulus II, Litt. Encycl. Ecclesia de Eucharistia, n. 12. 
[7] Cf. Innocentius XI, Const. Cum occasione, n. 5: DH 2005; Sanctum Officium, Decr. Errores Iansenistarum, n. 4: DH 2304; Concilium Vaticanum II, Const. Dogm. Lumen gentium, n. 8; Const. Pastor. Gaudium et spes, n. 22 ; Decr. Ad gentes, n. 3 ; Ioannes Paulus II, Litt. Encycl. Redemptoris missio, nn. 4-6; Congregatio pro Doctrina Fidei, Decl. Dominus Iesus, nn. 13-15. With regard to the universality of the mission of the Church, cf. Lumen gentium, nn. 13, 17; Ad gentes, n. 7; Redemptoris missio, nn. 9-11; Dominus Iesus, nn. 20-22. 
http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20041213_notification-fr-haight_en.html 
 

 
 
Perhaps McDonnell should read the Vatican Website more.  It’s really very informative.
 
But the oldest whore, Rome, who sold out love to power, the same today as yesterday with the truly repulsive betrayal of Jesus inherent in saying it’s fine to punch someone who offends you.

Mad sexually obsessed drivel telling people who have sex outside marriage their souls are at stake.
.
I don’t think most of the zombies at UCH even know which country they’re in.  Zombies.  Walking-corpses.  Think my first analogy was the golems in Discworld who run off the words on a piece of paper in their heads. The realities of the external world do not and cannot penetrate.  Live in a mental world that exists solely in their heads.   
 
In that world of course you can’t be a writer.  You can’t create things of truth and beauty.  You can’t be educated.  You can’t cite the simplest most basic facts of history, intellectual history, political history, unknown to the animals. You cannot create.  You cannot have original ideas.  You cannot think.  You cannot have an independent mind.  You cannot be a graduate of the University of London.  It is forbidden!   
 
You certainly can’t be more intelligent than a bloody nurse. 
 
And of course you are intellectually and emotionally helpless, having been kept in that state, the state of a two year old, by your foul anti-educators.  You are incapable of self-control, containing what you think and feel and of self-command, changing what you think and feel.  You must be kept in your bubble at all cost, divorced from reality. 
 
Like anyone else insane, some guy who thinks he’s Napoleon, living in a world that simply doesn’t exist. 
 
The facts are, tedious and boring though it is, the facts. I am who I say I am, related and otherwise connected to those to whom I say I am, with a medical history that is as I say it is and a CV that contains what I say it contains.There was a era in history called the Enlightenment. There is a body of thought called Marxism. There was an English Civil War. There was a revolution in France which began in 1789 and an American Declaration of Independence.There was even a revolution in Russia. That there are many many bodies of thought in the world, the contents of some of which are directly opposite to the contents of others, is also fact. That people disseminate ideas in books is fact, as are the invention of printing and the institution of compulsory education, enabling people in the free world to imbibe a variety of ideas.I have discoursed largely upon reality, about those things which can't be changed, among which of course is me. There is absolutely nothing anyone can do to stop me being the daughter of Barrington Stockwell Howard and Kathleen Constance Palmer. They cannot make it that I did not graduate from Bedford College, University of London. They cannot make Bedford other than it was. There is a street-lamp outside my window. Certainly it can be removed but it cannot cease to exist because someone insists it isn't there. What has happened has happened. You can wish it hadn't happened. You can seek its causes. You can work towards its not being repeated. You cannot alter the fact of its having happened You can of course also feel bloody pissed-off with those who insist a bad thing is good.I am of course an inner and eso kind of gal, in fact most precisely, like Dill, I combine my father's rationalism with a profound esotericism; equally of course I am human and living in the world, in consequence of which I have - explored my outer and exo aspects, aka my politics, my heritage. I was content to express my exoteric through long walks in touch with nature and through creative writing. Naturally everyone has views but mine are rather unexceptionable among normal civilized educated people. I ceased to be among such people and indeed the country ceased to be governed by such people. The lunatics have taken over the asylum. Surrounded by Newspeak, oh indeed telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act. It happens that I am the product of four revolutions,, Marxism, the Enlightenment,feminism and the discovery of Eastern religion and spirituality in the Sixties, and of course I am a product of Anglican England. Unfortunately I'm not gay; if I were I should embody everything the Vatican hates. Four out of five is pretty good. 
http://www.dillsplace.com/exo-eso-balance-balrogs-et-le-parti-communiste-francais-1939-1945.html 
 
So: you can infuriate and indeed distress me beyond belief; you can create an infrastructure composed of gross lies; you have of course, being the beyond pathetic filthy animals you are, wrought physical changes to my body – indeed your method of fighting shows beyond doubt what trash you are, mindless vermin who think they convince me of anything by assaulting me.  But you cannot change a single external verifiable fact. 
Yea, the Moving Finger writes and having writ…Nor all your  Piety not your wit because you have none can cancel out a word of it. 
 
You cannot counter me with argument because your logic is flawed and your so-called facts are lies.  Therefore you conduct yourselves as the mad ape has conducted itself throughout history.  But you have not changed and cannot change a single external verifiable fact. 
 
History has overthrown you and it is of course grotesque, evil, treason, beyond obscene, etc, etc, etc, that you should have been given free rein to break my body and derail my life.  And you caper in triumph but you have not changed and cannot change a single external verifiable fact.  You alter nothing, neither the solstice gatherings at Stonehenge, nor the success of Led Zep, nor the numerous pagan, secularist and humanist gatherings held in Brighton.  You do not for that matter alter that when my mum was 7, which was 1927, she was given a book called Gods and Heroes full of Greek and  Roman myths (cleaned up) as a prize for something or other; you do not alter that anyone not wholly at ease with the gods and goddesses of the classical world, part of the mental furniture, is a total loon.  You could start with the C17th French playwrights Racine and Corneille, who made their living rendering classical stories in alexandrins.  You do not for that matter  eliminate Cream’s Tales of Brave Ulysses or The Herd’s From the Underworld.You do not make cease to exist the Brighton Buddhist Centre or the weekly Tai Chi in the Park session or the Brighton Naturist Beach.  You do not eradicate millions of people who happily have sexual relations without the need of marriage and do not possess your grotesque primitive neuroses about virginity and millions more who do not possess your  grotesque primitive neuroses concerning the human body.  Yup, it’s where ‘I’ lives.  I used to be quite proud of it, but it’s a bit ravaged now.  The stuff on the outside is called skin.  Everyone has it.  There are three reasons for covering it up: skin cancer in summer, frostbite in winter and it’s reached the stage where it’s not pretty.  Think I’ll give that naturist beach a miss.  . 
 
Brighton Buddhist Centre has had a presence in the city for over 40 years 
We believe that Buddhism and Meditation has a great deal to offer. 
For people who want to change themselves, and the world. 
That's why we are still here. 
We offer Meditation classes, Meditation and Buddhism courses, Yoga Classes, Yoga + Meditation,Tai Chi 
Mindfulness Courses (MBCT) and Mindfulness for living well with pain and illness, 
and a lot more, see below 
 
I’ve actually seriously only just found this.  Think I might drop in. 
 
You do not of course eradicate millions of books and Webpages and libraries containing matter offensive to or hostile to your ridiculous beliefs, by no means least acres of science. 
 
When all the people who note you are a wordless mindless butcher are prone and bloodied at your feet, you alone left standing, you are still a wordless mindless butcher, stupid, ignorant, irrational, illiterate. 
 
You do not change a single thing about me.  You do not stop me being the daughter of Barrington Stockwell Howard and all the rest of it.  You do not change my having graduated from the University of London and qualified for membership of British Mensa.  You do not erase from my mind all knowledge and experience.  You do not eliminate communities of pagans, secularists, atheists, naturists, Buddhists, humanists here in Brighton as throughout England. 
 
You do not change the millions of books on goddesses and alternative belief-systems as on quantum physics and mathematics, on geology, on natural history indeed available to the entire world on Amazon. 
 
Shall we talk for a minute about Kindle Unlimited.  Kindle Unlimited is Kindle’s lending library.  You have heard of Kindle, I take it, Blair.  It’s the ebook part of Amazon and indeed many ebooks are cheaper than their dead tree copies.  For £7.99 a month you can subscribe to Kindle Unlimited, which means you can borrow up to ten  books at a time, return them, borrow ten more.  You will see that a fast reader can get through 20 books a month for 7.99 or call it 40p each, which is pretty good, and these books are on many subjects, some fact, some fiction, so whatever piques your interest can be freely explored.  (Am I explaining the world the mostly normal live in to the political classes?  Probably.)   
 
So you can read books on a variety of subjects for very little, which of course you can equally do if you have the time and the legs to haunt charity shops, of which there are a huge number.   
 
Similarly, there is something called YouTube.  In common with the rest of the Internet there is a huge lot of crap on it, but there is equally a huge amount of non-crap.  There you will find music of all kinds from all over the world.  You will also find physics, maths, cosmology, chemistry, natural history, enthusiasts of all kinds sharing their knowledge. 
 
Millions of people view these vids.  That is of course millions of people worldwide. 
 
You do not eliminate the thousands, millions of explanations of the world from the most to the least scientific that are not your own. 
 
You remain a ludicrous futile, ridiculous, absurd, sick, vicious, snarling and pathetic animal.  The longer you continue this, the more you prove you are a ludicrous futile ridiculous, absurd sick vicious snarling and  pathetic animal: a joke. 
 
And so it is evident that across the political spectrum to be a ludicrous futile ridiculous absurd sick and pathetic animal is to the way to go, what is prized, whatever layers of puke they attempt to conceal it with.  The futile vicious animal is to remain unperturbed, no demands to be made of it.  The futile vicious animal is to rule.  Their chief weapon of course is absolute psychosis and ignorance, the animal is to assume it is complete and perfect.  On no account is it to become possessed of curiosity and want to learn about the diverse and buzzing world around it.   
 
Shall we talk about Kindle and YouTube.  That's apart from the millions of specialist sites on everything from British butterflies to Niels Bohr and Max Born, Byron and Buddha.  OK, you type 'quantum physics' into YouTube search.  You get a huge number of results.  It doesn't stop there.  You type 'quantum physics in Arabic' or 'quantum physics in German' and you get a huge number of expositions in Arabic or German.  Or you can type 'quantenphysik' or whatever the Arabic is for quantum physics.  YouTube is not monolingual.   Or you can just type 'string theory' into Kindle search and get 932 books to read.   Provided people 1) can read, 2) have internet access and 3) are not hampered by their fucktard governments limiting their internet access, the whole world has access to limitless information on anything anyone wishes to instruct himself or herself about, a great deal of it for free.  Project Gutenberg offers 57000 free ebooks: 'You will find the world's great literature here, with focus on older works for which copyright has expired. ' 
Then there are the free courses offered by serious institutions.  At Coursera you can do Data Science from John Hopkins or if you prefer the University of Edinburgh will introduce you to philosophy or the Shanghai Jiao Tong University will teach you Mandarin, Duke will teach you neuroscience and that's not all in English either: .Генетика (Genetics).  Harvard offers its own range of free online courses. 
 
“The idea is simple: to publish all of our course materials online and make them widely available to everyone.” 
Dick K.P. Yue, Professor, MIT School of Engineering   Unlocking Knowledge MIT OpenCourseWare (OCW) is a web-based publication of virtually all MIT course content. OCW is open and available to the world and is a permanent MIT activity. View a list of our most visited courses    
 
People with no more chance of attending MIT in person than they have of flying to the moon are effectively studying there. 
 
All over the world people are learning things that 30 years ago money or geography meant they hadn't a hope in hell of reaching. 
 
And Her Majesty's Government thinks people shouldn't think in case they upset nutters who live in some sort of time-space bubble cut off from the world.  What sort of message do you think you send to kids in Pakistan or Dubai who would actually quite like to wave the religion of the mad bye-bye?   But then of course it is remarkably unclear to me in what bubble HMG resides; it certainly doesn't reside in modern England.'I look for truth and find that I get damned.'  I could say that, yes, except it's insane.  What is this fucking crap?  This is not C1st Gallilee, a Jewish colony of the Roman Empire.  It is England in the C21st.  Of course I look for truth, it's a very commonplace preoccupation of sentient life.  People do not normally rise from the dead.  Perhaps you have noticed this simple fact?  Of course I think the Creation is crap.  It's only 158 years since On the Origin of Species, and barely less since the birth of genetics, Mendel ironically an Augustinian monk.  On the Origin of Species proved unexpectedly popular, with the entire stock of 1,250 copies oversubscribed when it went on sale to booksellers on 22 November 1859. 
 
The link with human origins was not initially explicit but rapidly became so, and no, May, Javid, Hammond and all the rest of you freaks, Darwin was not surrounded by mobs with firebrands, Huxley was not prosecuted for disparaging religious doctrine.  Bishops were once capable of communicating with educated life in terms more elevated than 'you don't believe what we say so you're evil'. 
 
So you rip, tear, rend, so you unleash you bottomless malice on my body and wreck my life, but you do not change a single fucking thing about the real world around us. 
 
Beyond appalling, beyond horrifying, beyond obscene.  The capital offence of living in the real world. 
 
Meanwhile the zombies of the Left have got into their heads that anyone who voted Tory in 2019 supported the far right.  Try did not support the far left.  Try anything apparently better than Corbyn, McDonnell and Abbot.  Not me, no.  Be serious.  My constituency is Brighton Pavilion.  God save Queen Caroline!  Long may she reign!